The DfT will purchase the bare minimum of stock needed, 323s and 333s can easily be replaced with newer cascaded EMUs so for the foreseeable it will be the new fleet, 195s, 323s, 331s and 333s most likely. 5 train types isn't unmanageable.
Perhaps my memory serves me false, as in years gone by the word "Northern" always seem to attract the word "cascaded" in discussions, as it was seen to be the very franchise to send older stock that were being replaced by newer rolling stock from other TOC. (Speaking as the person who first coined the phrase "Newton Heath's Finest" in discussions concerning the Class 142 Pacers).
Sensibly it has been proposed as a framework agreement with duration of nearer 10 years. This means they can order a base quantity, and add to it later if and when funds are forthcoming.
Would this "nearer 10 years" requirement ensure all requisite tooling would be kept for that time period by the manufactuing body?
That sort of flexibilty adds to the manufacturer's costs
Including locking up their capital for a decade
Yes, though it's unlikely a manufacturer would destroy their ability to produce units within 8 years if they knew future orders were likely anyway. They don't need to keep the production line rolling and the requirements will aim for manufacturers to offer their existing product lines rather than creation of something new. The framework agreement could contain incentives for additional phases being timed to give a consistent stream of work.
Don't forget that there is the 756 trimodes (and 231 DMUs) from Wales as well, as part of the FLIRT family in the UK
If I'm correct, they wanted BEMUs, bi-modes and I think the tri-mode option that the 756 does have. If the tender did become an order then the FLIRT platform would be the best option to have them in service the soonest, and hopefully the 756 should be well in service by the time they arrive.
Newer cascaded EMUs may not be cheaper than using new builds, as the mess with the 707s can attest.
And if you ordered the 323 replacement alongside the 158 replacement that'd likely mean they'd be ready when they reach 40 or so years old.
You can't expect a running commentary, and equally can't expect there to be news on a constant basis. It doesn't work like that.
As above it is a commercial exercise. When there is news, it will be shared. Just because nothing has been announced doesn't mean there's nothing happening, it just means there's nothing new that is for public consumption.
Everyone seems these days to see 24-hour news as being the norm.
For context for the Intercity Express Programe the ITT was published 16th November 2007 and Agility Trains announced as the preferred bidder on 12th February 2009. 1-2 years is consistent with the crossrail and thameslink rolling stock orders.
There may well be competition for these from that other bastion of the cascade - GWR West.
I wouldn't disagree.
I work nights and like to know what's happening since I spend most days in bed and like to catch up what's happening on the railways either it's the trains or the infrastructure.
The August document at the start of this thread was for expressions of interest only, as per section IV.2.3 selected candidates will be issued with an ITT which was estimated for 26th Oct;
Coming back to this, CAF have won the LNER tri-mode tender for their 225 replacement. They have this design based on the 397 so a 331/195-based design surely can’t be too much work? If they do order from CAF (and a potential additional 331/1 order) it’ll be the same fleet throughout and far less of an inconvenience for training and driver shortages
There is a discussion on just that point here. The synopsis seems to be 'not necessarily'.
What do they mean by dynamic charging, please?
