Potential up to 2,000 job losses at Alstom Derby

[jon0844]

Ten trainsets is hardly going to delay the inevitable by very long is it?

If you include the time to get the software working on them, that should be a good few years of work right there....

 

[Chester1]

Ironic that Hitachi expanded the facility at Newton Aycliffe to weld car bodies, in order to get more UK content into the HS2 build.
Now they find there is no more work for the plant, when the Avanti and EMR orders are complete.
I don't think there was ever a chance of an increased Avanti order for the WCML.

Hitachi assembled Milan metro units at Newton Aycliffe and likely have a plan for the site between completion of current work and start of HS2 trains. One of the informed members of this site said they had priced themselves out of future 80X orders and by quite a large margin too. They will either change this approach or find a year or two of export work. If Alstom close Derby then presumably the whole HS2 rolling stock contract will be done at Newton Aycliffe.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I agree with your last para. It's just sad that taxpayer money was used to open the rival facilities that could kill Derby. That is no more appropriate.

This country has a track record (no pun intended) of doing just that of course.

Personally the Aventra platform is reasonable model that has been let down by being overly complex which given Bombardier built complex aeroplanes always struck me as odd.

 

[RUK]

When are the class 730 orders expected to be finished then? Are they built at derby?

On the Class 730s, apparently the order was changed from 36 x 3-car units and 45 x 5-car units to 48 3-car units and 36 5-car units, which is a reduction of 9 vehicles. Could this be reversed, as that would provide the equivalent number of carriages to a Class 345, taking the order from 5 trains to the equivalent of 6 trains instead - at least a little bit closer to the 10 train order that Alstom want. Also, what happened to the 10 hydrogen 3-car Aventras, which were supposedly destined for Scotland? That’s the equivalent of over another 3 Class 345s, which would bring it to the equivalent of 9 Class 345s plus 1 carriage, close to the 10 trains (presumably 90 vehicles) that Alstom want.

 

[JonathanH]

On the Class 730s, apparently the order was changed from 36 x 3-car units and 45 x 5-car units to 48 3-car units and 36 5-car units, which is a reduction of 9 vehicles. Could this be reversed

No. They have already been built.

 

[Peter Sarf]

On the Class 730s, apparently the order was changed from 36 x 3-car units and 45 x 5-car units to 48 3-car units and 36 5-car units, which is a reduction of 9 vehicles. Could this be reversed, as that would provide the equivalent number of carriages to a Class 345, taking the order from 5 trains to the equivalent of 6 trains instead - at least a little bit closer to the 10 train order that Alstom want. Also, what happened to the 10 hydrogen 3-car Aventras, which were supposedly destined for Scotland? That’s the equivalent of over another 3 Class 345s, which would bring it to the equivalent of 9 Class 345s plus 1 carriage, close to the 10 trains (presumably 90 vehicles) that Alstom want.

Not really sensible screwing up what WMT and LNWR want just for the benefit of TfL. Note the value of the altered class 730 order would have been similar. The loss of 9 vehicles would have been roughly balanced by the cost of six extra cabs. The order for 730s is apparently more or less complete (although I am not sure regarding the 730/2s) so a change now is too late.

I can see that if ten extra 345s were not ordered soon then the lead times for the parts would probably mean Derby would close in the meantime.

 

[800001]

There is plenty of flexibility within that. We have social benefit clauses within post brexit procurement and we are not counted as part of equivalent clauses in EU state government procurement since brexit. It would be hard to prove that British companies are being unfairly advantaged when the primary beneficiaries would be European and Japanese. The bare minimum our government should be doing is speaking to the EU and asking how do they think its best to handle the inevitable protectionism that will be necessary to protect train manufacture over the next decade. I find it hard to believe that if or when the EU moves to protect its industrial base from China and India that they would want the UK to be included as a defacto part of theirs or vice versa. Alstom is the issue now but within 5 years it will be CRRC.

There is an ongoing managed seperation of the UK and EU economies. The TCA is not designed to be a subsitute for the single market and its provisions (apart from on tarrifs) are deliberately very thin. The EU is not trying to use the TCA to prevent divergence, contary to Daily Express readers fears and The New European readers desires.

Going back to topic, if UK government aren't going to consider any protectionist measures and Alstom won't move any work then why spend several hundred million of taxpayers money delaying the envitable? If its going to close as soon as there is any gap in UK domestic orders then let it close now.



Hitachi assembled some of the Milan Metro units at Newton Aycliffe during a less busy period in 80X production. If a few extra 345 coaches are not sufficient and Alstom cannot meet the government half way then its a shame for Derby workers. Alstom cannot expect a foreign government to give a constant stream of work to a French company.

The Milan metro units were built in Italy, roaded to the Uk, had some final work done to them and then roaded back to Milan.

 

[Snow1964]

A number of financial and market info sites are carrying versions of news stories about lack of work and possible closures of both Alstom Derby and Hitachi Newton Aycliffe.

Also saying how it could affect hundreds of jobs directly and thousands more in the supply chain.

Examples of sites

MIND THE PRODUCTION GAP Lack of orders puts HS2 train factories in doubt, Hitachi and Alstom say

UK factories run by Hitachi and Alstom, the firms contracted to build 54 trains for the HS2 rail line, face an uncertain future amid a lack of orders. Alstom said that it had all but run out of time...

www.marketscreener.com

Fears for future of Hitachi Newton Aycliffe plant as firm fails to find solution

Serious concerns have been raised over the future of Hitachi’s vast Newton Aycliffe plant after bosses failed to reach an agreement with the…

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk

 

[Chester1]

The Milan metro units were built in Italy, roaded to the Uk, had some final work done to them and then roaded back to Milan.

That is still some work and highlights that the loading gauge isn’t a massive issue for UK train export work.

 

[HSTEd]

That is still some work and highlights that the loading gauge isn’t a massive issue for UK train export work.

No, the massive issue is the desire by governments abroad to maintain a train manufacturing capacity (analogously to the UK government), the small scale of orders for the UK market, and comparatively large labour costs relative to alternatives in Eastern Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

None of these things is really soluble as far as I can see.

 

[Trainbike46]

No, the massive issue is the desire by governments abroad to maintain a train manufacturing capacity (analogously to the UK government), the small scale of orders for the UK market, and comparatively large labour costs relative to alternatives in Eastern Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

None of these things is really soluble as far as I can see.

Some governments care, others do not. Though most governments that don't care don't have any train manufacturing capability at all, e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, etc.

For the UK unfortunately, the ones that don't care tend to be smaller markets, and of course, in those cases the UK factories still have to compete with other factories across europe

 

[43096]

Some governments care, others do not. Though most governments that don't care don't have any train manufacturing capability at all, e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, etc.

Belgium has train building capability- Alstom in Brugge.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Some governments care, others do not. Though most governments that don't care don't have any train manufacturing capability at all, e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, etc.

For the UK unfortunately, the ones that don't care tend to be smaller markets, and of course, in those cases the UK factories still have to compete with other factories across europe

And there is the clue. Is the UK a big enough market such that the UK should care ?.

 

[HSTEd]

And there is the clue. Is the UK a big enough market such that the UK should care ?.

The market is large enough that you could reasonably sustain a single production line for trains producing a few hundred carriages per year.

It is certainly not enough to maintain the government's desired "free market" in rolling stock manufacture.
So the option is to de-facto recreate BREL or let the factories close or stay open as the market desires - which will inevitably lead to them all closing.

 

[Wolfie]

The market is large enough that you could reasonably sustain a single production line for trains producing a few hundred carriages per year.

It is certainly not enough to maintain the government's desired "free market" in rolling stock manufacture.
So the option is to de-facto recreate BREL or let the factories close or stay open as the market desires - which will inevitably lead to them all closing.

Yup. Whether international agreements and basic economics permit a monopoly is another interesting question.....

 

[meld3]

So, at what point will the 54 train order for HS2 reduce to what is actually now needed ??

 

[Energy]

It is certainly not enough to maintain the government's desired "free market" in rolling stock manufacture.
So the option is to de-facto recreate BREL or let the factories close or stay open as the market desires - which will inevitably lead to them all closing.

With a single manufacturer, I'd fear stagnation, when Bombardier lost the Thameslink order they made changes and improved the Aventra platform.

I don't see why we need to do final assembly in this country, manufacturing components in the UK and assembling abroad seems far more stable and would allow UK manufacturing to supply parts for trains going to other regions. The Stadler bid for the Tyne and Wear metro had more UK content than the Hitachi bid despite the final assembly in Switzerland. Hitachi's UK assembly plant (though it now also handles body shells) seems to hide that few of the components come from the UK.

Going by Newton Aycliffe and Derby's build quality, we're fairly average at final assembly anyway...

Alstom's webpage for their new Adessia platform includes a photo of the Flexx Eco bogie, suggesting that they'd keep the Flexx Eco and likely expand it to other trains in other countries. Even if most assembly is done abroad, I'd expect Alstom to keep Derby's bogie and design staff.

 

[Invincible]

The market is large enough that you could reasonably sustain a single production line for trains producing a few hundred carriages per year.

It is certainly not enough to maintain the government's desired "free market" in rolling stock manufacture.
So the option is to de-facto recreate BREL or let the factories close or stay open as the market desires - which will inevitably lead to them all closing.

Should be regular orders, so expected train replacements should be planned towards factory capacity rather than have highs and lows of tendering and ordering. The article in rail engineer sums it up well https://www.railengineer.co.uk/unplanned-rolling-stock-procurement/

In July, the Railway Industry Association (RIA) published its report ‘The UK Rolling Stock Industry – making 2023 the year of opportunity not crisis’. This showed how ‘boom and bust’ train procurement resulted in factory closures and downsized the UK’s train upgrade capability. Furthermore, as in any industry, such large variations in demand leads to inefficiency, and higher cost.

In 2011, the UK had one new-build factory. Following a glut of 7,300 vehicles ordered between 2012 and 2017, there are now four. These factories, and thousands of jobs, are now at risk as the only train orders placed since 2019 are those for HS2 and 10 x 10-car tri-mode trains for LNER. The latter ended the four-year hiatus in rolling stock orders (excluding HS2).

By 2030, around 2,600 vehicles will be over 35 years old. New trains are needed, not only to reduce costs, but to improve passenger services and meet decarbonisation commitments. From, say, 2027-2028 onwards, the UK market for rolling stock is predicted to be the second largest in Europe. The question is whether UK rolling stock plants can survive their current shortfall of work until then.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Taken from the "Companies that you expect to disappear soon" thread.

It seems another railway supplier, Solo Rail Solutions, that had Derby as a customer has issued notice of intention to appoint Administrators

Rail firm heading for the sidings as administrators alerted | TheBusinessDesk.com

The company has posted a notice of intention to appoint administrators as rail supply chain's struggles continue

www.thebusinessdesk.com

This is an example of how lead times need to be factored in. An order now will not mean much activity at Derby until suppliers have started making and delivering their components. Furthermore - even if more orders are placed for Derby very soon the problem is the suppliers are already disappearing.

 

[HSTEd]

With a single manufacturer, I'd fear stagnation, when Bombardier lost the Thameslink order they made changes and improved the Aventra platform.

The current model of trying to maintain a zoo of trains has its own problems, given that we now have a pile of incompatible trains. The UK rolling stock assignments more resemble a jigsaw puzzle than a railway!
Personally I would prefer that we take our chances with one efficient manufacturing line and just try to instill an innovative culture there.

I don't see why we need to do final assembly in this country, manufacturing components in the UK and assembling abroad seems far more stable and would allow UK manufacturing to supply parts for trains going to other regions. The Stadler bid for the Tyne and Wear metro had more UK content than the Hitachi bid despite the final assembly in Switzerland. Hitachi's UK assembly plant (though it now also handles body shells) seems to hide that few of the components come from the UK.

It's unlikely that such a model is any more sustainable long term than attempting to maintain the capability to build fully assembled trains in the UK, for the same reasons.
Either there is a desire to maintain a train manufacturing capability in the UK or there is not, there seems little point in surrendering final assembly and then trying to pressure manufactures to keep random component manufacturing in company.

Alstom's webpage for their new Adessia platform includes a photo of the Flexx Eco bogie, suggesting that they'd keep the Flexx Eco and likely expand it to other trains in other countries. Even if most assembly is done abroad, I'd expect Alstom to keep Derby's bogie and design staff.

Or they will just move manufacturing of bogies somewhere with lower manufacturing costs, or somewhere their political position compels them to keep open regardless.

Should be regular orders, so expected train replacements should be planned towards factory capacity rather than have highs and lows of tendering and ordering. The article in rail engineer sums it up well https://www.railengineer.co.uk/unplanned-rolling-stock-procurement/

The problem is the equilibrium level, even making a relatively generous allowance for traffic growth, is probably only about 500 vehicles per year.
Which means that a sensible production line would be able to churn out the entire demand all by itself.

So which factory gets to stay open and which three get to close?
And how does the railway avoid getting rinsed by the lucky owner of the factory that stays open?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So, at what point will the 54 train order for HS2 reduce to what is actually now needed ??

The 54 HS2 train order was allegedly just for Phase 1, so there probably won't be a cut-back.
While there is chat about reconfiguring some of the sets to be more suited to the current Pendolino operation, they are still pressing on with the 200/400m design.
On a like-for-like capacity basis, the HS2 trains would replace something like 2/3 of the Pendolino fleet.

In the parallel debate about work for Newton Aycliffe, the unions say that the Avanti and EMR 8xx orders included options for more trains.
They are demanding that those options be applied before Hitachi runs out of work.

So which factory gets to stay open and which three get to close?

Not even BR had a monopoly on train production - in fact they latterly had a dual-source policy.
A "new BREL" could not keep up with technology over the whole range of vehicles from tram/metro to high speed, for the low volume involved.
Trade agreements would require external competitive bids for new trains, and components of trains.

 

[HSTEd]

Not even BR had a monopoly on train production - in fact they latterly had a dual-source policy.
A "new BREL" could not keep up with technology over the whole range of vehicles from tram/metro to high speed, for the low volume involved.

BR was operating in a fundamentally different manufacturing and technological environment, and in any case still exercised enormous control over trains built by private manufacturing facilities.

Modern technology has ensured there will probably need only be three classes of passenger UK railway train in future

1. <110mph multiple units, with electric power and modular battery or diesel engines
2. High speed electric multiple units, capable of speeds up to ~220mph
3. Tram trains

The vast majority of the fleet will likely be in the first two categories, with a substantial majority in the first category.
The number of tram train vehicles will be absolutely tiny in any case, if any are procured at all. Otherwise tram vehicles are not really the mainline railway industry's problem.

Trade agreements would require external competitive bids for new trains, and components of trains.

No trade agreements to which the UK is party currently require that, and it is highly unlikely any that are agreed in future will do so.
The WTO only requires competitive tendering if tendering occurs. If the government operates an in house train manufacturer then the WTO does not require tendering.

EDIT #2:
Edit removed because concerned am wandering too far from the topic.

 

[Meerkat]

Which closures would be most damaging economically and politicially. Derby has presumably lost some of its advantage since the Alstom takeover - long term isn't it inevitable that Alstom will move it to being an assembly plant like the other UK plants?
I'm guessing that there is more alternative work in the Derby area so the Goole and Newton Aycliffe plants are more important, and the CAF plant relies on whether the UK government sees UK reasons for not upsetting the Welsh or thinks that the Welsh government created the plant so its their problem.
Rather than having a BREL is there a model in which the government owns a factory and leases it out to manufacturers contract by contract (or more likely product by product)?

 

[Trainbike46]

Which closures would be most damaging economically and politicially. Derby has presumably lost some of its advantage since the Alstom takeover - long term isn't it inevitable that Alstom will move it to being an assembly plant like the other UK plants?
I'm guessing that there is more alternative work in the Derby area so the Goole and Newton Aycliffe plants are more important, and the CAF plant relies on whether the UK government sees UK reasons for not upsetting the Welsh or thinks that the Welsh government created the plant so its their problem.
Rather than having a BREL is there a model in which the government owns a factory and leases it out to manufacturers contract by contract (or more likely product by product)?

Apparently CAF set up their plant with export orders in mind - whether these materialise remains to be seen, but it gives it a better chance to survive without UK orders than the other UK plants. Maybe they will be getting work from some of the non-spain based CAF orders (including new NS IC trains for the Netherlands), though I don't have anything confirming that

Of course, Goole has work for a few years yet with LU orders, especially if replacement trains for the Bakerloo (and subsequently other lines) are ordered at a sensible speed.

 

[Dan G]

After ten years - six Aventra projects - 2,561 cars built, we completed manufacturing the Aventra projects at Derby yesterday.

Marco MICHEL on LinkedIn: WE MADE IT ! After 10 years - 6 AVENTRA projects - 2651 cars built - we… | 63 comments

WE MADE IT ! After 10 years - 6 AVENTRA projects - 2651 cars built - we completed manufacturing the Aventra projects in Derby. A big thank you to the whole… | 63 comments on LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com

 

[Peter Sarf]

Marco MICHEL on LinkedIn: WE MADE IT ! After 10 years - 6 AVENTRA projects - 2651 cars built - we… | 63 comments

WE MADE IT ! After 10 years - 6 AVENTRA projects - 2651 cars built - we completed manufacturing the Aventra projects in Derby. A big thank you to the whole… | 63 comments on LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com

I am confused. What are the "SIX Aventra projects" ?.

I can only think of classes 345, 701, 710, 720 and 730. Wikepedia could not help me except to say Aventras replaced 172s !. Does "project" mean something else.

I am trying not to be negative here.

 

[Wolfie]

I am confused. What are the "SIX Aventra projects" ?.

I can only think of classes 345, 701, 710, 720 and 730. Wikepedia could not help me except to say Aventras replaced 172s !. Does "project" mean something else.

I am trying not to be negative here.

Unless they split out the C2C and GA 720 orders?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Unless they split out the C2C and GA 720 orders?

Actually you've just triggered a (the) brain cell, perhaps more significantly, the 7-car and 9-car 345s. I seem to recall the software was very different. Possibly call them the 345 7-car project and the 345 lengthening project.

 

[JonathanH]

Actually you've just triggered a (the) brain cell, perhaps more significantly, the 7-car and 9-car 345s. I seem to recall the software was very different. Possibly call them the 345 7-car project and the 345 lengthening project.

They were still all part of one build. Bear in mind that only the first 17 units were built as 7-car units, with their extra coaches being at the end of the bulld.

 

[fgwrich]

Unless they split out the C2C and GA 720 orders?

Yep, it’ll be that. Even though the C2C order was a tag on to the GA one it still seems to have counted as an extra order.