tbtc
Veteran Member
Seems a sensible approach - given the way that all public procurement has to be above board/ scrutinised etc, we need to go through exercises like this even when it's "obvious" what the answer you want is (e.g. wasn't there an "open" tender to build additional coaches for the 390s when they were extended, even though there was only ever going to be one winner of a contract like that).
All of the wasteful PPE procurement over the past few years has surely shown that we are better to have contracts/ tenders done in full public view, rather than stitching up behind closed doors.
I'm no a fanboy of any particular manufacturer, so I'm not too bothered about one modern four coach EMU versus another - they're all fairly much of a muchness to me - maybe if you have a favourite seat then these things matter more - given how expensive everything is on the railway these days, someone drafting a fairly standard "invitation" template and then repainting thirty EMUs/ training staff is probably fairly insignificant compared to all of the other things that our ticket prices/taxes have to pay for - so even if it means shaving a tiny percentage off the costs of leasing dozens of units for a number of years then it's probably good value for money
Didn't BR order too many trains at times to create competition between the various manufacturers?
Or was that okay because it "stimulated competition" (and created various oddities and enthusiasts like a variety of tiny classes)?
All of the wasteful PPE procurement over the past few years has surely shown that we are better to have contracts/ tenders done in full public view, rather than stitching up behind closed doors.
I'm no a fanboy of any particular manufacturer, so I'm not too bothered about one modern four coach EMU versus another - they're all fairly much of a muchness to me - maybe if you have a favourite seat then these things matter more - given how expensive everything is on the railway these days, someone drafting a fairly standard "invitation" template and then repainting thirty EMUs/ training staff is probably fairly insignificant compared to all of the other things that our ticket prices/taxes have to pay for - so even if it means shaving a tiny percentage off the costs of leasing dozens of units for a number of years then it's probably good value for money
I cannot see the logic in building to many trains to create competition. Whilst it might save the taxpayer some money in the short term it's still a crazy way to run a railway. It would be much better to agree a lease price for the duration of the trains life thus ensuring value for money. Or better yet why not just buy them using taxpayers money? Purchased by the people, used by the people, seems more sensible to me
Didn't BR order too many trains at times to create competition between the various manufacturers?
Or was that okay because it "stimulated competition" (and created various oddities and enthusiasts like a variety of tiny classes)?