Siemens wins contract to build 94 trains for the Piccadilly line

[The_Engineer]

22 UK based manufacturers to supply components.

Brilliant news!

 

[Domh245]

Whatever the issues with electrification at the moment, I can't see Chiltern not progressing without some sort of electrification to at least remove DMUs from Marylebone and Birmingham.

Regrettably, I very much doubt it, the next chiltern franchise will probably be more in line with other franchise awards so far (ie a relatively short 7 year contract, rather than the 20 year one it currently has), with no real private investment in infrastructure, so any electrification will be Network Rail's responsibility, and given that we haven't seen anything formal regarding chiltern electrification recently I doubt it'll come back on the agenda. If we're lucky, any 165 replacement will be required to be bi-modal with LU's 4th rail supply but I don't think we'll see any knitting going up. I hope to be proven wrong of course!

The 1992 Tube Stock is pretty awful and always has been. They have so far needed all the car ends rebuilt/replaced and the bogies replaced and next the traction equipment is being replaced.

Indeed, although the quality of Litchurch Lane's output has increased markedly in their latest products (or so seems to be the consensus)

 

[transmanche]

If we're lucky, any 165 replacement will be required to be bi-modal with LU's 4th rail supply but I don't think we'll see any knitting going up.

The amount of shared Met/Chiltern track is fairly limited: just between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham. So it's probably not worth the effort of getting diesel/DC bi-modes just for that.

 

[rebmcr]

the next chiltern franchise will probably [have] no real private investment in infrastructure, so any electrification will be Network Rail's responsibility

That seems to be the opposite of DfT policy announcements as of late, with more emphasis being placed on dedicated infrastructure teams tying into each franchise, alongside more privately-run infrastructure projects.

 

[F Great Eastern]

The 1992 stock is awful to be honest, I hate the central line and a large part of it is due to the dark, dingy, hot noisy. rough riding, overcrowded trains.

 

[Domh245]

That seems to be the opposite of DfT policy announcements as of late, with more emphasis being placed on dedicated infrastructure teams tying into each franchise, alongside more privately-run infrastructure projects.

From memory, the public private partnership that Grayling will be introducing in 2 years on the ECML (!), was about combining train and infrastructure operations, and setting strategy for future improvements, I don't think that they are expecting PPP bidders to actually fund any improvements themselves. And as far as I can tell, the privately run infrastructure projects still require them to fund it, which for electrification means £billions, and for a TOC means a very short period in which they would benefit from it, unless given a super long franchise (which is against current DfT trends)

 

[Mikey C]

With London's problems with air quality, the clean air zone coming in, and diesels road vehicles being restricted, there will be real political pressure to remove DMUs from London terminii though.

I'd be really surprised if the 165s were replaced by new straight DMUs, rather than by some form of of EMU or bimode in the late 2020s.

 

[rebmcr]

And as far as I can tell, the privately run infrastructure projects still require them to fund it

That's not what's happening with East-West Rail.

 

[Andy25]

Yes they'll be Yorkshire built trains.

https://www.globalrailnews.com/2018...contract-to-build-new-generation-tube-trains/

If the Alstom merger goes ahead could see them built in Widnes instead.

Why invest from scratch when Alstom have already invested £20M + and can extend for much less.

Siemens only have the land in Goole leased, no commitment to build and merger will be done and dusted before any investment in Goole is decided

 

[AventraFlex]

As a regular traveller on the Tube, I must say I'm quite surprised the Piccadilly Line trains will be the first to be replaced, when personally I think the Bakerloo should've been first. The Bakerloo and Piccadilly trains are pretty much the same age, yet the Bakerloo feels so much older in comparison. Even the Central Line despite being years younger is pretty bad in my opinion.

 

[Mikey C]

As a regular traveller on the Tube, I must say I'm quite surprised the Piccadilly Line trains will be the first to be replaced, when personally I think the Bakerloo should've been first. The Bakerloo and Piccadilly trains are pretty much the same age, yet the Bakerloo feels so much older in comparison. Even the Central Line despite being years younger is pretty bad in my opinion.

The Bakerloo Line 72 stock is only a year or two older than the Piccadilly Line 73 stock (albeit to an older design). And operates on a far less important line.

 

[AventraFlex]

I'll admit that is true, as the Piccadilly is essentially the airport and tourist line, and there are many alternative lines at the stations the Bakerloo line serves, but I do wonder how much longer we'll have to put up with the 72 stock.

 

[whhistle]

About 3/4 years?

Interesting that the Railway Technology Magazine displays this photo of another design of train:

I guess this was Hitachi's design.

 

[LeeLivery]

I'm happy. Not travelled on a Siemens Metro but I'd expect very good quality. Great for Yorkshire.

Question for the Bakerloo though. I know there is grandfather rights and all, but will health and safety or disability law have an issue with the Watford DC line step down once a new fleet comes in? I can't see it being acceptable much longer.

I'll admit that is true, as the Piccadilly is essentially the airport and tourist line, and there are many alternative lines at the stations the Bakerloo line serves, but I do wonder how much longer we'll have to put up with the 72 stock.

They want them until the late 20s (gosh, it's weird saying that), I believe. Probably until the Lewisham extension is confirmed and U/C. Then they'll also know exactly how many to order. Metro trains somehow can last a flipping long time. The A stock for example and in New York there's a fleet from the early 60s.

 

[Domh245]

Question for the Bakerloo though. I know there is grandfather rights and all, but will health and safety or disability law have an issue with the Watford DC line step down once a new fleet comes in? I can't see it being acceptable much longer.

The 1972 stock fleet is currently going through a program to modify the trains for compliance post 2020, with an expectation that they'll last until 2030

 

[AM9]

... Question for the Bakerloo though. I know there is grandfather rights and all, but will health and safety or disability law have an issue with the Watford DC line step down once a new fleet comes in? I can't see it being acceptable much longer. ...

The need to have trains of two different floor heights serving separate destinations on tube and mainline routes dictates that on one or both of the train-platform interfaces, there will be accessability issues. Providing suitable signage is given along all affected routes, the arrangements probably qualify for exemption from absolute PRM compliance. Given that duplicating platforms along the route from Kensal Green north-westwards would be prohibitively expensive, the only way to be compliant would be to terminate all Bakerloo trains at Queens Park, - politically in the 'very difficult' basket!

 

[greyman42]

Yes they'll be Yorkshire built trains.



https://www.globalrailnews.com/2018...contract-to-build-new-generation-tube-trains/

Yorkshire built bodyshells?

 

[swt_passenger]

As a regular traveller on the Tube, I must say I'm quite surprised the Piccadilly Line trains will be the first to be replaced, when personally I think the Bakerloo should've been first. The Bakerloo and Piccadilly trains are pretty much the same age, yet the Bakerloo feels so much older in comparison. Even the Central Line despite being years younger is pretty bad in my opinion.

They decided after a review a couple of years back to life extend the Bakerloo trains (a smaller fleet so lower cost to steelwork repairs) to allow the Piccadilly replacement to sort of jump the queue...

 

[Domh245]

They decided after a review a couple of years back to life extend the Bakerloo trains (a smaller fleet so lower cost to steelwork repairs) to allow the Piccadilly replacement to sort of jump the queue...

The Railengineer article on it has it a different way around - the 72TS needed urgent body repairs to remain in service in the short term (there was no chance of getting the new fleet delivered before they became unsafe), and as TfL were investing in restoring the body to a "as-new" condition and giving them a prolonged life, it made sense to go a little bit further and make them RVAR compliant and replace them after the 73TS (and 92TS). Fleet size didn't really come into it.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Railengineer article on it has it a different way around - the 72TS needed urgent body repairs to remain in service in the short term (there was no chance of getting the new fleet delivered before they became unsafe), and as TfL were investing in restoring the body to a "as-new" condition and giving them a prolonged life, it made sense to go a little bit further and make them RVAR compliant and replace them after the 73TS (and 92TS). Fleet size didn't really come into it.

Oh right, that makes sense. Response to a bit of an emergency that had to be dealt with ‘now’ effectively allowed change of the priorities as a side effect?

 

[Julia]

The Railengineer article on it has it a different way around - the 72TS needed urgent body repairs to remain in service in the short term (there was no chance of getting the new fleet delivered before they became unsafe)...

Also https://www.londonreconnections.com...-the-increasing-cost-of-the-bakerloos-trains/ from three years ago - the 72TS were always due some sort of life extension to last until the replacements came along, but when one was opened up it was found to be in a far worse state than expected - and so heavy work (and £££) required to keep them going rather than patch-and-mend. Once done, though, they will be in better shape than the 92TS.

 

[Adsy125]

Will the Bakerloo line sets keep the bays of seating? I know they're the only deep tube stock that has it but as the Bakerloo always seems relatively quiet surely it would encourage people to travel, as it's much more comfortable and better for groups. An S-8 style layout could make sense.

 

[Domh245]

Will the Bakerloo line sets keep the bays of seating? I know they're the only deep tube stock that has it but as the Bakerloo always seems relatively quiet surely it would encourage people to travel, as it's much more comfortable and better for groups. An S-8 style layout could make sense.

It's a bare minimum refurbishment, all of the bays remain apart from the designated trailer cars where the bay on one side will be removed to create a wheelchair space.

 

[philthetube]

I'm happy. Not travelled on a Siemens Metro but I'd expect very good quality. Great for Yorkshire.

Question for the Bakerloo though. I know there is grandfather rights and all, but will health and safety or disability law have an issue with the Watford DC line step down once a new fleet comes in? I can't see it being acceptable much longer.

Same issues with the picc ond met out to uxbridge, the law says that what is reasonable must be done, spending tens of millions or more would not be considered reasonable

 

[Adsy125]

It's a bare minimum refurbishment, all of the bays remain apart from the designated trailer cars where the bay on one side will be removed to create a wheelchair space.

Will the new trains have bays as well?

 

[Domh245]

Will the new trains have bays as well?

Doubt it, TfL have moved to all longitudinal seating, and all of the promotional material we've seen has had longitudinal seating as well.

 

[AventraFlex]

About 3/4 years?

Interesting that the Railway Technology Magazine displays this photo of another design of train:

I guess this was Hitachi's design.

This is wishful thinking on my part as I highly doubt it'd happen, but wouldn't it be interesting if Hitachi were chosen to supply the new Bakerloo line trains? It'd certainly mean there's at least some variety left on the Tube, at least on its deep-level lines

 

[LeeLivery]

The 1972 stock fleet is currently going through a program to modify the trains for compliance post 2020, with an expectation that they'll last until 2030

Isn't that compliance is meaningless and a total waste of money if the only stations on the Bakerloo which are step free, aren't step free for the Bakerloo?

The need to have trains of two different floor heights serving separate destinations on tube and mainline routes dictates that on one or both of the train-platform interfaces, there will be accessability issues. Providing suitable signage is given along all affected routes, the arranghements probably qualify for exemption from absolute PRM compliance. Given that duplicating platforms along the route from Kensal Green north-westwards would be prohibitively expensive, the only way to be compliant would be to terminate all Bakerloo trains at Queens Park, - politically in the 'very difficult' basket!

Ah! That's what I've been wondering.

Same issues with the picc ond met out to uxbridge, the law says that what is reasonable must be done, spending tens of millions or more would not be considered reasonable

I totally forgot the Piccadilly has similar issues in NW London. As above, I was thinking more on the lines of curtailing the Bakerloo and LO being the sole operator at a high-frequency rather than a whole rebuild. But that would indeed be politically problematic...

 

[Domh245]

Isn't that compliance is meaningless and a total waste of money if the only stations on the Bakerloo which are step free, aren't step free for the Bakerloo?

There is more to compliance than just wheelchair access (which I now realise you weren't really asking about, but ho hum), although step free access is addressed in the railengineer article linked to above:

The main elements that will be installed are the wheelchair spaces (which will be in the trailer car of the three car unit), and an audio/visual passenger information system. The biggest challenge of all is the gap between the train and the platform. LU’s practice on other lines is to use a mixture of platform humps and manual boarding ramps depending on the curvature and other factors. For the Bakerloo, LU has agreed with the DfT that no boarding aids will be provided where there is no interchange and no foreseeable prospect of providing street to platform step free access.

make of that what you will.

 

[edwin_m]

There's a more recent London Reconnections article than the one linked above:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/upgrading-the-piccadilly/

Note this bit, which could mean run-on orders for the Bakerloo and other lines:

Competition for the contract will no doubt have been fierce, not least because the potential value of it beyond the Piccadilly line stock is huge. The total Deep Tube requirement is closer to 250 trains, making the run-on orders for the other lines a very attractive prospect indeed. It’s not just the manufacture either – this contract covers fleet maintenance too.

Another reason to delay the Bakerloo order behind the Piccadilly order might be so the new fleet arrives at the same time as the Lewisham extension.