Options For Additional Stock That Weren't Taken Up

[tbtc]

These days it's not uncommon for an order for new trains to be announced as something like "one hundred new Class XYZs with an option for a further twenty five" - given the problems with 185s/ Voyagers etc (which the railway ordered insufficient of, but the production line closed and it would have been disruptively expensive to order a small amount of additional ones)

Generally there's a shortish window to order the additional stock in, which makes sense - can't keep the production line/ jigs on hold long term - also a fixed price (since you don't want to be stung by fluctuations)

Sometimes it's taken for granted that at least some of the "option" will be taken up - e.g. we have threads on here about potential uses for additional 777s (since Merseyrail could have a further sixty over and above the ones committed to)

The thread about LNER seeking tenders for additional stock (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-or-existing-uk-fleet-only-10-trains-possibly-caf.219370/) states the following:

CAF also had an option with TPE to supply more 125mph EMUs (5-7-car class 397s) should they need them

TPE's option on extra 397s has expired

...so are there any other examples of options that were agreed with the manufacturer but not subsequently taken up?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about any old stock where "it'd have been nice to have had a few more"; I'm talking specifically about stock where the contract committed the manufacturer to providing a number of additional trains if the TOC/ ROSCO/ BR demanded them

 

[43096]

These days it's not uncommon for an order for new trains to be announced as something like "one hundred new Class XYZs with an option for a further twenty five" - given the problems with 185s/ Voyagers etc (which the railway ordered insufficient of, but the production line closed and it would have been disruptively expensive to order a small amount of additional ones)

Generally there's a shortish window to order the additional stock in, which makes sense - can't keep the production line/ jigs on hold long term - also a fixed price (since you don't want to be stung by fluctuations)

Sometimes it's taken for granted that at least some of the "option" will be taken up - e.g. we have threads on here about potential uses for additional 777s (since Merseyrail could have a further sixty over and above the ones committed to)

The thread about LNER seeking tenders for additional stock (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-or-existing-uk-fleet-only-10-trains-possibly-caf.219370/) states the following:





...so are there any other examples of options that were agreed with the manufacturer but not subsequently taken up?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about any old stock where "it'd have been nice to have had a few more"; I'm talking specifically about stock where the contract committed the manufacturer to providing a number of additional trains if the TOC/ ROSCO/ BR demanded them

Two examples...

There were originally 20+10 Class 70s ordered by Freightliner, the last 10 not being taken up. Similarly there were options in the Aventra contract for SWR which have not been taken up.

 

[Clansman]

385s spring to mind. An option for an additional 10 x 3 coach units was built into the franchise conditional upon Abellio winning a franchise extension. The rest is history.

 

[DanNCL]

There was an option for 25 extra Class 91s which wasn't taken up.

 

[Class360/1]

There were rumours that if first great eastern had the franchise longer, they would have replaced the 321’s with yet more 360’s. But that never happened as first lost the franchise.

 

[applepie2100]

385s spring to mind. An option for an additional 10 x 3 coach units was built into the franchise conditional upon Abellio winning a franchise extension. The rest is history.

You beat me to it on that although I did wonder if there was ever a chance that it would be taken up anyway.

Is my mind playing tricks on me or was there not some option somewhere in the Class 390 contract that was never taken up?

 

[XAM2175]

There were rumours that if first great eastern had the franchise longer, they would have replaced the 321’s with yet more 360’s. But that never happened as first lost the franchise.

Did they have a contractual option on more 360s, as the premise of the thread would suggest?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Sometimes it's taken for granted that at least some of the "option" will be taken up - e.g. we have threads on here about potential uses for additional 777s (since Merseyrail could have a further sixty over and above the ones committed to)

There’s history there with MerseyRail as not all the 507s or 508s were taken up. Both orders were cut back!

 

[Recessio]

323s, I think? Not all the extra optional batch on top of the original order were ordered in the end, i think cancelled for displaced ex-NSE stock instead?

This probably wasn't helped by the 323s shaky introduction, ultimately a nail in Hunslet's coffin.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Class 185 were planned to be 4 car, hence why you have 511xx 531xx and 541xx but no 521xx car. The option to extend wasn't taken

 

[43096]

Class 185 were planned to be 4 car, hence why you have 511xx 531xx and 541xx but no 521xx car. The option to extend wasn't taken

That may be the case but there is no 521xx car because 52101-150 are used for vehicles in 150101-150.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Virgin negotiated options with Alstom on more Pendolino vehicles at several points in the 2000s, but the DfT turned all the proposals down.
Long after production finished, DfT negotiated a package of 106 new vehicles with Alstom at what is believed to be disadvantageous prices (without Virgin involvement).
After all that it contracted Virgin to manage the rollout.
It doesn't sound like the best way to order rolling stock.

 

[RHolmes]

Class 185 were planned to be 4 car, hence why you have 511xx 531xx and 541xx but no 521xx car. The option to extend wasn't taken

DfT refused and deemed it unnecessary only for the passenger numbers to steadily climb years later leading to mass overcrowding

On the plus side it’s resulted in 6 car operation for many services which never would have happened with a 4 car fleet (due to platform lengths) and 5 car intercity Nova Trains with much greater capacity

 

[greatvoyager]

Class 185 were planned to be 4 car, hence why you have 511xx 531xx and 541xx but no 521xx car. The option to extend wasn't taken

Also 521xx vehicles are taken up by Class 150/1 DMSL vehicles.

 

[507021]

There’s history there with MerseyRail as not all the 507s or 508s were taken up. Both orders were cut back!

Originally, 47 Class 507s were ordered. This was reduced to 38 units, then 30, with 33 eventually built.

In the case of the 508s, I'm not sure if the original plan for 58 units was ordered in its entirety and scaled back or it was just the 43 units built that were ordered.

 

[Taunton]

Options are a standard approach for purchasers of high value assets, aircraft fleets are the same. It is done principally to give some assurance on price, and availability, if it is decided some years in the future to order some more to the same specification. Otherwise the manufacturer, now you have the initial fleet, will "have you by the short & curlies" * if they are asked to quote again.

Because the train/aircraft builder, or whoever, is essentially an assembler of parts, it's inportant for them to "back-to-back" the options with their principal suppliers as well, as otherwise they can be squeezed financially by suppliers putting their prices up. There can still be significant nuisances, like a key supplier going bankrupt in the meantime, which I believe affected some recent train orders.

There are various established ways to cope with cost changes along the way, such as agreed labour rates, which are incorporated in the initial contract, often by reference to some industry standard of current industrial prices, wages, etc.

The whole thing of "we won't have the jigs" has got rolled into the commercial side, manufacturers have no particular need to break them up but may do so, or threaten to do so, to put pressure on to order some more by a certain time.

One of the difficulties nowadays is that defined "standards" get moved on increasingly rapidly, so what was acceptable just a few years ago somehow is no longer when the options might get exercised.

* : Actual quote to me from someone a few years ago who had not included options in their initial order!

 

[Ianno87]

Options are a standard approach for purchasers of high value assets, aircraft fleets are the same. It is done principally to give some assurance on price, and availability, if it is decided some years in the future to order some more to the same specification. Otherwise the manufacturer, now you have the initial fleet, will "have you by the short & curlies" * if they are asked to quote again.

It's presumably also in the manufacturer's interest, if they can squeeze a few extra orders out at relatively low marginal cost to themselves.

The whole thing of "we won't have the jigs" has got rolled into the commercial side, manufacturers have no particular need to break them up but may do so, or threaten to do so, to put pressure on to order some more by a certain time.

Presumably, there's a staff training issue- once they've been stood down, there's then a training cost to get them set up to work on the same order again.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Way back in the mists of time I recall the DfT or whoever it was planning to set up a Government Rosco named Diesel Trains Ltd. This was to procure 202 diesel multiple unit cars due to a perceived shortage in the private sector. Could this be linked to the stillborne class 157? I cannot remember.
The class 157 was also for a Projected Strathclyde PTE DMU which never materialised.

Unfortunately we cannot really include class 151 and class 210 in this

 

[gka472l]

Originally, 47 Class 507s were ordered. This was reduced to 38 units, then 30, with 33 eventually built.

In the case of the 508s, I'm not sure if the original plan for 58 units was ordered in its entirety and scaled back or it was just the 43 units built that were ordered.

Indeed, should all 47 507's have existed, all the unused car numbers up to 64460/71388 would have been used up. As for the 58 intended 508's, they were listed in a RCTS stock book from the late 1970's (1978??) including the intended car numbers (up to 64764/71598). There was another gap between the end of the 314's and the start of the 508's, 64615 to 64648/71466-71482 were unused, which would equal 17 3 car units (more 314's or something else??)

HTH

 

[WillPS]

Way back in the mists of time I recall the DfT or whoever it was planning to set up a Government Rosco named Diesel Trains Ltd. This was to procure 202 diesel multiple unit cars due to a perceived shortage in the private sector. Could this be linked to the stillborne class 157? I cannot remember.
The class 157 was also for a Projected Strathclyde PTE DMU which never materialised.

Unfortunately we cannot really include class 151 and class 210 in this

This was for a large order of Class 172-spec trains wasn't it?

 

[507021]

Indeed, should all 47 507's have existed, all the unused car numbers up to 64460/71388 would have been used up. As for the 58 intended 508's, they were listed in a RCTS stock book from the late 1970's (1978??) including the intended car numbers (up to 64764/71598). There was another gap between the end of the 314's and the start of the 508's, 64615 to 64648/71466-71482 were unused, which would equal 17 3 car units (more 314's or something else??)

HTH

Thanks for confirming the 508s.

Could the second gap have been for the proposed Class 316s for GMPTE?

 

[swt_passenger]

This was for a large order of Class 172-spec trains wasn't it?

I think 172 were assumed as they were current at the time, but the DfT ITT didn’t make it as explicit as that.

 

[Skie]

There’s history there with MerseyRail as not all the 507s or 508s were taken up. Both orders were cut back!

Blown away by the option for extra units having already been taken by the purchase of 1 additional 777 unit for Headbolt Lane diagrams.

 

[Helvellyn]

Indeed, should all 47 507's have existed, all the unused car numbers up to 64460/71388 would have been used up. As for the 58 intended 508's, they were listed in a RCTS stock book from the late 1970's (1978??) including the intended car numbers (up to 64764/71598). There was another gap between the end of the 314's and the start of the 508's, 64615 to 64648/71466-71482 were unused, which would equal 17 3 car units (more 314's or something else??)

HTH

Thanks for confirming the 508s.

Could the second gap have been for the proposed Class 316s for GMPTE?

I believe this gap was indeed for the proposed Class 316 PEP-derived units for the Pic-Vic scheme. Whilst city centre tunneling and modernisation schemes did go-ahead on Merseyside and Tyne & Wear I think the fact that replacing life-expired stock played a part kept those schemes in place, whilst the Pic-Vic scheme would have replaced 1960s stock I believe? Mind you, what a "what if?" thread we could have on service patterns today if the tunnel had been built!

 

[D6975]

Do the extra 20 class 46s that weren't built count? They morphed into the first batch of 47s D1500-19.

 

[Jamesrob637]

DfT refused and deemed it unnecessary only for the passenger numbers to steadily climb years later leading to mass overcrowding

On the plus side it’s resulted in 6 car operation for many services which never would have happened with a 4 car fleet (due to platform lengths) and 5 car intercity Nova Trains with much greater capacity

I was just about to compare the 185 story with the hare and the tortoise myself!

 

[L401CJF]

There’s history there with MerseyRail as not all the 507s or 508s were taken up. Both orders were cut back!

Not to mention back in 2009 (?) When 2 of the ex Silverlink/Overground 508/3s were brought back north to be used as 6 car peak extras on Merseyrail, made it as far as Warrington Arpley where they sat for a few months before being taken back to Eastleigh and scrapped. Apparently as neither Merseyrail nor the leasing company were willing to foot the bill to refurbish them and couldn't come to an agreement.

 

[tbtc]

DfT refused and deemed it unnecessary only for the passenger numbers to steadily climb years later leading to mass overcrowding

On the plus side it’s resulted in 6 car operation for many services which never would have happened with a 4 car fleet (due to platform lengths) and 5 car intercity Nova Trains with much greater capacity

That's an interesting point (re the 185s) - short term negatives that have turned out to have resulted in better things in the longer term - e.g. if four coach 185s would have meant no scope of doubling up (but also less urgency for fleet replacement) then would politicians have been happy to leave TPE as a four coach fleet, with no option to double up services (since eight coaches is too long for most lines, certainly beyond the "core" sections) but also things wouldn't have been bad enough to warrant getting the 802s/ loco hauled?

Obviously the situation with three coach 185s continued for many years, so it wasn't just a "short term" thing, but maybe there's a thread in that - "bad" decisions that turned out to look a lot better in the longer term

Not to mention back in 2009 (?) When 2 of the ex Silverlink/Overground 508/3s were brought back north to be used as 6 car peak extras on Merseyrail, made it as far as Warrington Arpley where they sat for a few months before being taken back to Eastleigh and scrapped. Apparently as neither Merseyrail nor the leasing company were willing to foot the bill to refurbish them and couldn't come to an agreement.

That seems odd that they made it all the way from London to Warrington before the parties agreed on who'd pay for a refurb... but then this is the railway!

I believe this gap was indeed for the proposed Class 316 PEP-derived units for the Pic-Vic scheme

Is this the same as the "210s", or was that a different potential traction for the proposed tunnel under Manchester?

 

[Helvellyn]

Is this the same as the "210s", or was that a different potential traction for the proposed tunnel under Manchester?

The Class 316 would have looked like Classes 313-315/507/508. I guess enough differences envisaged that they didn't warrant just being a further batch of 314s.

The Class 210 was a DEMU, looking like the original 317s albeit a third of the Driving Motor was taken up with the above floor engine room. They were prototypes for replacing first generation DMUs, but ultimately Pacers and Sprinters fulfilled this role.

 

[gg1]

There was an option for 25 extra Class 91s which wasn't taken up.

What was the thinking behind having that option? I can't see a scenario where anywhere close to that number of extra locos could have found use on the ECML at the time and for other electrified routes 90s were a better option.