Southern and Bombardier

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by starrymarkb, 27 Oct 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. starrymarkb

    starrymarkb Established Member

    Messages:
    5,985
    Joined:
    4 Aug 2009
    Location:
    Exeter
    Looks like Bombardier may be trying to get out of Derby

    Via Zelo Street.
    So Southern want 377s, Bombardier are offering 379s and aren't willing to give the customer what they want - isn't that why IE went to Hyundai?

     
  2. Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!

    Rail Forums

     
  3. fgwrich

    fgwrich Established Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Joined:
    15 Apr 2009
    Location:
    Between Edinburgh and Exeter
    Already partly coverd in here, but with Bombardier, it's no supprise really, and if Southern echo Cheif Keith Ludermans comments, i wonder if this could lead to Southern looking elsewhere - Desiro / Desiro City anyone?

    http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=48258&page=18
     
  4. imagination

    imagination Member

    Messages:
    443
    Joined:
    3 Aug 2010
    You mean Hitachi, not Hyundai.
     
  5. anthony263

    anthony263 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,166
    Joined:
    19 Aug 2008
    Location:
    South Wales
    Certainly isnt helping Bombardiers case is it?

    A lot of people have suspected that Bombardier want to close derby, but were using the thameslink loss as a bit of a scapegoat. I can personally see the pantograph car's for the class 220/221/222's being bult at Bombardiers european factories.

    I suppose if they do close derby it may help Hitachi if/when they build their factory
     
  6. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    29,162
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Solution = order 379s for Northern and let Southern have their 377s back before the 319s are released from Thameslink.

    Southern said they needed new units in service ASAP and the 377 cascade wasn't happening ASAP so they shouldn't be allowed to order a new design which may take longer to deliver and will require crew training before they can be put in to service.
     
  7. fgwrich

    fgwrich Established Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Joined:
    15 Apr 2009
    Location:
    Between Edinburgh and Exeter
    Nope - Bombardier entered the bidding race to build the new DMU Fleet for Irish Rail...Bombardier wanted something with an Intercity Design, Bombardier only offerd the 170, So naturally IE's reaction was give us what we want, or b*gger off - Irish Rail now has a fleet of 22000 Railcar / DMUs, built in a joint effort by Mitsui & Hyundai Rotem of South Korea...

    (Which are excellent DMUs, designed around the interiors of the Mk3s they have replaced, designed by a british company, and really do put the 170s out to shame!)
    The 22000

    Interior:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0cq5RlT4BU&feature=related

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IE_22000_Class

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHrrLoinrFg&feature=related
     
  8. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,593
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    I thought that SN wanting additional 377s was to tide them over whilst they wait for the (disrupted) Thameslink delivery to cascade? So how would ordering 379s for Northern help that?
     
  9. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    29,162
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    The 377/5 can be released first and put straight in to service at Southern instead of the 319s being release first, then being sent for refurbishment, then being sent to Northern.
     
  10. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    17,114
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    Neither the 377/5s or the 319s can be released until the first Thameslink units arrive in 2015 - that is two years later then the date the 377/5s were required back by SN under their franchise agreement.

    The extra 377s cover that 2 year gap at SN, but will do nothing to help provide units to use with the NW electrification.
     
  11. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    29,162
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Northern were due extra units to meet growth by 2012, which got put back to 2013 when the previous DfT decided to scrap the new order and send up 319s instead. It's now looking like 2015 before the 319s will be released. It's one rule for the South and another for the North.
     
  12. imagination

    imagination Member

    Messages:
    443
    Joined:
    3 Aug 2010
    Oh sorry thought you said IEP.
     
  13. HSTEd

    HSTEd Established Member

    Messages:
    9,342
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2011
    Well we could always buy out the Derby works for the taxpayer and then start trying to get offers for trains to build under licence.
     
  14. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    17,114
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    I don't disagree - but there should be a parallel order for enough additional units for the Northern services in that case. Diverting SN's contracted capacity increase shouldn't really be the solution.
     
  15. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    29,162
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    I was meaning if Southern can't get Bombardier to deliver 377s and on time that something should be ordered for Northern then Southern could have their 377/5s back as soon as the first Thameslink units are delivered (which is earlier than at present.)
     
  16. LouJ

    LouJ Member

    Messages:
    303
    Joined:
    3 Dec 2008
    One major problem for Bombardier at Deby is the inability to keep the production lines full. The DoT take a boom or bust approach rather than keeping a steady flow of new orders. A further issue is Derby's inability to deliver new stock to Europe by rail due to loading gauge problems. This means they cannot pick up orders in Europe and manufacture them at Derby. However their European plants can manufacture UK loading gauge trains and deliver them by rail
     
  17. WatcherZero

    WatcherZero Established Member

    Messages:
    8,888
    Joined:
    25 Feb 2010
    Is it really that big a problem though? Whenever we recieve rolling stock in this country it comes by road or is unloaded at a port. Germany builds large rail components then ships them to Austria for assembly.
     
  18. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,593
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Are Southern just wanting these EMUs to satisfy franchise "minimums" (within a set timescale), or is it genuinely because it would be profitable?

    As far as I see it, if some TOCs want to invest in new/additional stock (like Pendolini extension) then they should be encouraged to. Its just frustrating when my local franchises will only invest if coerced into it with state support...
     
  19. Pumbaa

    Pumbaa Established Member

    Messages:
    4,862
    Joined:
    19 Feb 2008
    Well they are 'free' to now, DfT has returned to TOC led procurement rather than DfT led procurement. Of course DfT has to agree to it, but hey... Elephant a bite at a time and all that...
     
  20. HH

    HH Established Member

    Messages:
    3,344
    Joined:
    31 Jul 2009
    Location:
    Essex
    2015 may even be optimistic. The Siemens contract signing was just put back by 4 months and the Siemens units will be delivered 1 per week. That means at least October 2015 before all the 377/5s can be released (and the 377/2 about to be sent to TL on spot hire).

    Does anyone think that it won't slip any further?
     
  21. NSE

    NSE Established Member

    Messages:
    1,232
    Joined:
    3 Mar 2010
    I don't like FCC having the 377's. I have a bit of a soft spot for them and Southern and although I know they are helping in the Thameslink route, I want them back :D
     
  22. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    22,553
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    Wasn't the story that they wanted out and to sell the land for housing, meaning Bombardier could make a whopping profit by selling it to developers?

    So, I doubt they'd seek to sell it to anyone wanting to keep the factory going.

    Given they were going to lay off nearly everyone even if they won the TL contract, I think it's been pretty obvious for some time that they probably wanted out - and losing the contract just gave them a scapegoat, instead of winning and then closing the factory to build in mainland Europe.
     
  23. HSTEd

    HSTEd Established Member

    Messages:
    9,342
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2011
    At the risk of sounding like some sort of left-wing loon..... we could always just slap a compulsory purchase order on the plant.... or just buy Bombardier (its publically traded right?) and pack the board, divest everything that isnt Derby Works and its IP and cackle insanely.....
     
  24. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    22,553
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    Does the land have planning consent for housing if it is currently industrial?

    If not, don't grant such permission (I know it isn't quite that simple).
     
  25. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    29,162
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Maybe I'm not being clear.

    Currently the order of release from Thameslink is the 319s first and then the 377/5s. Despite that Northern are due to get 319s at around the same time as Southern get the 377/5s because of the proposed refurbishment/life extension programme for the 319s and crew training/official clearance being required for the 319s before they are in passenger service. Even if some 319s are put in to service before refurbishment it will mean less capacity than expected while the refurbishment programme is being carried out.

    However, if Southern can't agree something I suggested something should be ordered for the North West now and the 377/5s should be released first allowing both Northern and Southern to get stock earlier than would otherwise be the case.

    The current expectation is for the first 319s to be released in 2015, opposed to 2012 as the previous government originally proposed. Yes 2015 can slip back further but at the moment 2015 is the expectation for the first of the current Thameslink units to be released.
     
  26. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    17,114
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    FCC's current 377/5s have never been in service with SN yet, your request makes no sense until December, when FCC do start borrowing existing SN units...
     
  27. HH

    HH Established Member

    Messages:
    3,344
    Joined:
    31 Jul 2009
    Location:
    Essex
    I was speaking to members of the TLP team today, and their plan is to return the 377s first.
     
  28. paul1609

    paul1609 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,194
    Joined:
    28 Jan 2006
    Location:
    Wittersham Kent
    I do have some sympathy with Bombardier over this. I wonder how bigger fleet Ford would require to produce a year 1998 specification Fiesta?
    Isnt the electrostar control system based on windows 95 running on 125 mb memory? To be honest I'd be surprised if the late nineties spec 377 even meets current safety requirements.



     
  29. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,593
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Fair comment, but we are still talking an order roughly twice the size of the 180 "fleet" (26x5, compared to 14x5)
     
  30. Nym

    Nym Established Member

    Messages:
    8,033
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2007
    Location:
    Somewhere, not in London
    The question begs itself, would the units be more reliable if they wern't based on Windows?
     
  31. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    22,553
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    Surely the software could be written for a newer version of the OS, and still be fully compatible?

    Is it Win 95 or Windows CE, as used more in embedded systems? That is actually pretty stable and used in loads of things.

    What do the 379s use? Mac OS?!

    Bombardier might need to recompile some code but I am sure they could factor this into the cost.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page