New or existing UK fleet, only 10 trains, possibly CAF?

[Bletchleyite]

It's more than just that. Poor ride quality (which going to CAF won't solve!), excessively bright lighting, lack of luggage storage space (although that's been improved recently)

All of those bar ride are interior design matters which would presumably be specified pretty much the same on the CAF units, and CAF units ride worse than 80x by a considerable margin.

I'm surprised that people criticise 80x for ride when they've had Mk4s before, though. Mk4s are the only stock I've been on where the ride got so bad at one point that I genuinely thought we had derailed, and if the heavy vertical vibration (repeated movement of at least a few centimetres) had carried on much longer I was giving serious consideration to pulling the handle as I was starting to think that a wheelset had come off. I have never had that feeling on an 80x - they are a bit "hard" but essentially the same as Desiros in ride terms - indeed the whole package feels rather like the "Class 344" I've long commented about wanting to see (as does the 397, to be fair).

not to mention the way too frequent short forms which have regularly occured ever since 5 car 80xs entered service with LNER, and have become even more common with the recent cracking issue.

Solving that isn't (cracking aside) an 80x problem, it's a "not enough stock" problem.

 

[DanNCL]

All of those bar ride are interior design matters which would presumably be specified pretty much the same on the CAF units, and CAF units ride worse than 80x by a considerable margin.

I'm surprised that people criticise 80x for ride when they've had Mk4s before, though. Mk4s are the only stock I've been on where the ride got so bad at one point that I genuinely thought we had derailed, and if the heavy vertical vibration (repeated movement of at least a few centimetres) had carried on much longer I was giving serious consideration to pulling the handle as I was starting to think that a wheelset had come off. I have never had that feeling on an 80x - they are a bit "hard" but essentially the same as Desiros in ride terms - indeed the whole package feels rather like the "Class 344" I've long commented about wanting to see (as does the 397, to be fair).

I use both the 80x and Mark 4 fleets regularly and there is a noticeable difference in ride quality, the ride quality on the 80xs being significantly worse most of the time. There is the odd rough riding mark 4 but they’re the exception rather than the norm, on the other hand ride quality is consistently poor across the 80x fleets. I do however agree that 80xs ride better than CAF units, which I did refer to in my previous post.

Solving that isn't (cracking aside) an 80x problem, it's a "not enough stock" problem.

It is an 80x problem, more specifically an 80x reliability problem, as enough of them were ordered to be able to cover the current timetable in full without short forms assuming the same availability rate as the HST and Mark 4 sets had up until 2019, not an unreasonable expectation considering the 80xs are 30 years newer than the Mark 4s and 40 years newer than the HSTs.

 

[py_megapixel]

It is an 80x problem, more specifically an 80x reliability problem, as enough of them were ordered to be able to cover the current timetable in full without short forms assuming the same availability rate as the HST and Mark 4 sets had up until 2019, not an unreasonable expectation considering the 80xs are 30 years newer than the Mark 4s and 40 years newer than the HSTs.

By my count LNER currently have 18 diesel sets and 36 electric-only ones (and that's assuming the 5-cars are always doubled up). With the old stock they managed with only 15 diesel sets and 24 electric ones.

I'm not sure how much more demanding the timetable is now though.

 

[swt_passenger]

By my count LNER currently have 18 diesel sets and 36 electric-only ones (and that's assuming the 5-cars are always doubled up). With the old stock they managed with only 15 diesel sets and 24 electric ones.

I'm not sure how much more demanding the timetable is now though.

There are more diagrams already, but still Middlesbrough 2 hourly extensions and more Leeds services to come. But there’s a separate thread about the next year‘s and future timetables so I won’t go on…

 

[David Goddard]

Does this specify how long the new trains are to be? Nine car? Five car?
Agree with the logic that a follow on of more 800/1s (if nine car) or /2s (if five car) is the most logical solution to this.
If the order was for fifteen sets then you could understand, maybe, a dedicated fleet for the Leeds services, based at Neville Hill, where an alternative supplier (CAF...) could be an option, however for just ten sets then these would naturally need to interwork with the existing fleet so class 800s are likely.

 

[swt_passenger]

Does this specify how long the new trains are to be? Nine car? Five car?
Agree with the logic that a follow on of more 800/1s (if nine car) or /2s (if five car) is the most logical solution to this.
If the order was for fifteen sets then you could understand, maybe, a dedicated fleet for the Leeds services, based at Neville Hill, where an alternative supplier (CAF...) could be an option, however for just ten sets then these would naturally need to interwork with the existing fleet so class 800s are likely.

Neither the PIN last October or this latest notice specify a train length, I just double checked the original sources. They do say they are required to replace retained 91/Mk4 sets, so if they’re still at full length that might be a relevant hint…

 

[YorksLad12]

Does this specify how long the new trains are to be? Nine car? Five car?
Agree with the logic that a follow on of more 800/1s (if nine car) or /2s (if five car) is the most logical solution to this.
If the order was for fifteen sets then you could understand, maybe, a dedicated fleet for the Leeds services, based at Neville Hill, where an alternative supplier (CAF...) could be an option, however for just ten sets then these would naturally need to interwork with the existing fleet so class 800s are likely.

Neither the PIN last October or this latest notice specify a train length, I just double checked the original sources. They do say they are required to replace retained 91/Mk4 sets, so if they’re still at full length that might be a relevant hint…

Ignoring for the moment that the 800/801 IET sets were bought via the IEP procurement process; wouldn't they be a run-on from the 802 bi-modes or 803 electrics? Or even filched from the 805/807 order? If Hitatchi got the contract, of course

 

[tbtc]

It could be that they are leaving the length up to the bidders to permit a degree of flexibility (e.g. CAF built the 345s as 9x23m rather than the 10x20m that was in the specification) - that way they aren't discriminating against a manufacturer who wants to use a different length of carriage?

 

[Speed43125]

It could be that they are leaving the length up to the bidders to permit a degree of flexibility (e.g. CAF built the 345s as 9x23m rather than the 10x20m that was in the specification) - that way they aren't discriminating against a manufacturer who wants to use a different length of carriage?

Bombardier building the 345s?

[My bold]

 

[MotCO]

The tender being discussed here is for financing, by the way, not the building…

The subject of this contract notice is the procurement of financing for the Base Order Units and Option Units, if any, Leased Equipment, depot works and LNER’s project costs by way of an Operating Lease Agreement (OLA) through a qualified provider of rolling stock operating leasing solutions.

I suspect most posters on this thread have missed these quotes - there is no indication of what these trains will actually be, nor is there any absence of a 'must be compatible with Hitachi 80x trains' clause. The tender for the stock has not been issued - the tender is just for the leasing (finance) deal.

Which leads back to the OPs original point - why is CAF seeking details of a 10 train order?

 

[millemille]

Which leads back to the OPs original point - why is CAF seeking details of a 10 train order?

Er, that wasn't really my original point. I wanted to get some validation that the enquiry wasn't a fishing expedition and the quantities being discussed were valid...

I'm happy that it's a genuine enquiry and the quantities being asked for make sense.

 

[squizzler]

I just had a thought that these trains - if they materialise - could be a testbed or showcase for new concepts proposed for Great British Railways. The national body aspires to develop more comfortable trains (With particular reference to eliminating “ironing board seats”) and what better way to seek customer feedback than a stud of different sets interworking with the Azumas (one of the “ironing board” offenders) on an already government operated TOC?