Edwin_m Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 The plan was for them to be tagged onto a London Midland order for more Desiros, 1/3 and 2/3 door spacing and all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 The plan was for them to be tagged onto a London Midland order for more Desiros, 1/3 and 2/3 door spacing and all. Hi Edwin, yes I'm aware of that plan and sadly I think it's pure cr*p ! What a positive disincentive to rail travel, frequently stopping commuter trains being used on a long inter-city route. Not to mention the pathing issues with 100 mph stock mixing with the Pendolinos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry J Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Absolutely ! Firstly, the Manchester - Scotland services should be incorporated into the new WCML franchise and comprise express services with few and not frequent stops. Secondly, the Class 185 bodyshell uses the urban & regional door layout (1/3 & 2/3 ) that befits trains with frequent stops and not inter-regional or inter-city services. The longer Class 444 Desiro bodyshell style, with end doors and vestibules would be better suited to the Manchester-Scotland route. Hopefully the AC electric trains ordered for this route, will be proper inter-city stock. All-electric Hitachi SET's might fit the bill? . Absolutely agree that the Scottish services should go back to West Coast and I look forward to more Pendolino's being used on the Birmingham/Scotland services, but either way some appropriate Inter City emu's are required. Adding the 6th pantograph car to the Voyagers still seems a sensible idea, but I fear the actual result will be more 350's or 380's, niether of which would be am improvement, I never understood why First didn't move the 180's from FGW to TPE for the Manchester/Scotland services, although this would still have been diesel units running for 200 miles under the wires Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 The political rumblings in Derby carry on. What strikes me is that there no indication here that Siemens might have won because their bid was better than Bombardier's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 ...... Adding the 6th pantograph car to the Voyagers still seems a sensible idea, but I fear the actual result will be more 350's or 380's, niether of which would be am improvement, I never understood why First didn't move the 180's from FGW to TPE for the Manchester/Scotland services, although this would still have been diesel units running for 200 miles under the wires The Desiros are excellent trains, but the configuration of those particular versions isn't best suited to this route. The 444 type body would be better. As for the Bi-Mode Super Voyager; it would be a bit pointless on an all-electric route once the Knitting has been put up, but there are other applications where it could good use. It's all a bit wooly now, but weren't the 180's withdrawn from the GWML just as TPE were about to take over the Manchester - Scotland route? If so it would have made good sense and freed up 185's to bolster other TPE routes, where I understand overcrowding endemic; but since when has common sense been a feature of the DafT's decisions? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 The political rumblings in Derby carry on. What strikes me is that there no indication here that Siemens might have won because their bid was better than Bombardier's. The comments at the bottom that article are pretty similar to those on other news web sites. At least some people are pointing out that Bombardier are not a British firm and that they planned to make 1,200 redundancies even if they'd won the Thameslink contract. It suggests that an even greater content of their proposed train, had it won, was going to come from their other factories (of which there are many). Bombardier are selling trains all over Europe and the rest of the world. Derby, being stuck deep in the heart of the narrow UK loading gauge and nowhere near a deep sea port, doesn't look like an ideal location to be part of a global train making company. p.s. From Wikipedia.... Bombardier Transportation has European production facilities or product development in: Belgium : Passenger vehicles[2] Czech Republic : freight rolling stock[2] Denmark : Continues production of IC3 "flexiliner" passenger multiple units.[2] France : Public transport - mass transit, trolleybuses, metros[2] Germany : Major facilities for production of mass transit, regional, and high speed passenger trains. Control systems.[2] Diesel and electric locomotive manufacture. Italy : Production site for FS Class E464 in Vado Ligure (former Adtranz factory) Norway : servicing of Adtranz products NSB Class 73 and GMB Class 71 built at former Adtranz factory in Strømmen[2] (see Strømmens Værksted), also manufactures NSB Class 93[2] Poland : (Bombardier Transportation Polska), includes manufacturing site in Wroclaw (former Pafawag factory), Katowice, Lodz and Warsaw.[2][9] Sweden : Production, engineering, development[2] Also manufactures Regina EMUs Switzerland : Research and design - propulsion and bogies, also manufacture of high capacity (double decker) passenger vehicles.[2] United Kingdom : Derby Carriage and Wagon Works - Manufacturing TurboStar, ElectroStar passenger multiple units and London Underground Stock. Refurbishment, maintenance and overhaul facilities.[2] Also Hungary, Austria, Spain[2] Finland, Romania.[citation needed] ....and that's only their European operation ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry J Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 The Desiros are excellent trains, but the configuration of those particular versions isn't best suited to this route. The 444 type body would be better. As for the Bi-Mode Super Voyager; it would be a bit pointless on an all-electric route once the Knitting has been put up, but there are other applications where it could good use. It's all a bit wooly now, but weren't the 180's withdrawn from the GWML just as TPE were about to take over the Manchester - Scotland route? If so it would have made good sense and freed up 185's to bolster other TPE routes, where I understand overcrowding endemic; but since when has common sense been a feature of the DafT's decisions? . Quite correct Ron; the 185's along with all otherr Desiro derivatives are good products if they are used on appropriate services. Also right about the 180's; they were cascaded from FGW at the same time as TPE inherited the anglo Scottish services from VWC.Trouble was, nobody really wanted them from what I recall; there were even rumours of some of them coming up here to Scotrail for E&G services but 5/10 coach formations would have caused too many problems with platform lengths. Hull trains took some, Grand Central have a few and NXEC had hopes of using them - I remember one lurking at the back of Bounds Green depot for a long time, which I guess meant they weren't available for TPE at the time. I always though they would be the ideal compromise for TPE to use for the Manchester/Scotland trains, but as mentioned elsewhere, common sence doesn't seem to prevail on our railway One only hopes that some common sence will prevail when the next round of orders are negotiated. If the anglo Scottish routes go back to West Coast, they will need new inter city EMU's.(IEP?) Once the E&G electrification is completed in 3 or 4 years then half of the current Turbostar fleet in Scotland will need replacing with an inter-urban / inter-city EMU but I suspect we will see more 380's and a further downgrading of quality on the E&G main line services. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Whilst I'd agree that the 185s are not suitable fare for the Anglo-Scottish services, they're still the best of a pretty poor bunch on the northern WCML I'm afraid. Proper, long distance EMUs are most definitely required along with proper drawgear for those inevitable occasions when they need to be dragged around the 'Sou'West'. Whatever happened to standardised equipment? Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher125 Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Hi Edwin, yes I'm aware of that plan and sadly I think it's pure cr*p ! What a positive disincentive to rail travel, frequently stopping commuter trains being used on a long inter-city route. Not to mention the pathing issues with 100 mph stock mixing with the Pendolinos. IIRC, these Desiro's are only a temporary solution as part of a LM growth build. As a long term measure its obviously flawed, but it would be daft to have a new class of 100-110mph EMU train just for this service - better to use 350's for now, and get more appropriate stock (perhaps under a different TOC) in the future when demand will need 6-car trains. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I'm surprised that it's taken this long for Comrade Crow to jump on the bandwagon, but he's now calling for a mass protest in Derby. It's rather amusing to see him supporting a private sector company in this way - I'd have thought he'd be demanding the return of BREL. Given what has already been said on this thread about the "British" content of trains built in Derby, I'm doubtful abut this quote (my italics): RMT general secretary Bob Crow said: ... plans that would destroy core manufacturing industry and 13,000 jobs in and around the city. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 However what REALLY is bad is the loss of skills base. Lots of highly specialised production skills loss in Derby announced today.. A Bombardier manager on the BBC news stated that point plainly. Once you loose a skilled work force like this, and they disperse, its near impossible to re-assemble that, or a similar team. Training time is too long, etc. Large knock on effect also for local / national component / material suppliers, etc. That's a key issue and something which seems to be forgotten - it's a sad situation really. A few thoughts of mine here - http://eastmoor.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier.html Don't want to get too involved with this thread as some of the replies have just annoyed me! Some very informed comment too by the looks of it, especially in a thread where it's hard not to be drawn down the political route too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 The financial package may have swung it from Seimens. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...act-terms.html Despite the anger about the job losses and potential impact on Derby's economy, it's saddening and quite frustrating to read the ill-informed comments that follow that article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 The argument still seems to be rumbling on in Derby. Rather hypocritically the city council is threatening the Government with a judicial review over the decision because of the job loses in Derby (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-14837385) whilst simultaneously planning to cut hundreds of their own staff (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-14856423). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted September 10, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 10, 2011 And they are still blaming the contract as the reason for the loss of 1500 jobs in Derby when the majority would have gone anyway, contract or no contract. The problem is the amount of mis-information that is still being bandied about by politicians & the media leading to the lack of knowledge displayed by the numpties at the end of the Telegraph article reported by Ron. Everytime I hear the TV news mention "British Train maker Bombardier" or The last British based trainmaker" I am shouting at the screen "It's Foreign, you dumbos"! Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsforever Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Read it on BBC news site ,add an extra coach and put a pantograph on top seems sensible especialy on Brum to Glasgow they will keep up with the Pendo,s .Perhaps they might build a beefed up version for Trans Pennine with passenger improvements ie new seats,and new catering a must for the Scottish trip .Will the same happen to East Midlands units when they string the knitting on the Sheffield line hope so it will be far more sensible or maybe they will baulk at the cost and bring back the 45,s! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 BBC News Derby reports that DfT are considering upgrading the XC Voyagers with additional carriages and 25kV AC capability to safeguard the future of the Derby site: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-14870787 At the same time, perhaps Derby could sort out the horrid smell that comes from the Voyager toilets too... Regards, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Hamblin Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I thought Voyager and Meridian units were assembled in Belgium? Would Bambardier really move all the production jigs to Derby just for this order? Regards, Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted September 11, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 11, 2011 I thought Voyager and Meridian units were assembled in Belgium? Would Bambardier really move all the production jigs to Derby just for this order? Doubtful in the extreme. I read this story and thought it to be a load of suppositional round spherical reproductive objects. Basically an idea someone came up with over a pint on the back of a beermat and then regurgitated as a potential lifeline news story. Until UK manufacturers learn to produce products that work well and reliably straight out of the factory like overseas manufacturers such as Siemens etc, they simply don't stand a chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 If Bombardier win the order for extra Voyager coaches they'd have little choice politically but to assemble them in Derby. They can hardly close Derby down blaming the lack of Government orders for trains at the same as they've just won another Government order for trains ("Oh sorry, those trains are made somewhere else..."). The interesting thing about the Voyager pantograph cars is how none of the arguments used against the bi-mode IEP seem to apply to them. Somehow a Bi-mode IEP dragging dead diesel engines around on electric power is wrong, but a Voyager doing the same thing isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I bet they don't - they're probably secretly pleased they had an "opportunity" to close one of their "plants". They are Canadian after all. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted September 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 11, 2011 I bet they don't - they're probably secretly pleased they had an "opportunity" to close one of their "plants". They are Canadian after all. Best, Pete. Exactly so. And Siemens employ, in total, in the UK far more people than Bombardier (a Siemens press release in Septr 2009 stated that they employed 18,402 people in the UK including c.1,800 in its Mobility Division which includes their staff involved with railway work with 600 employed in the Rolling Stock Service Division. In other words Siemens would appear to be a far bigger player overall in UK industry than Bombardier, which in total employs about 6,000 people in the UK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger440 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Until UK manufacturers learn to produce products that work well and reliably straight out of the factory like overseas manufacturers such as Siemens etc, they simply don't stand a chance. This!!! As one of the poor unfortunates who had to grapple daily with the junk that they have turned out for half my railway life i struggle to have too much sympathy. The whole attiitude and ethos of the company was,well, i wont put it on here! Even had the privilege of working for them (against my will i hasten to add) for a while. Only re-inforced my views. Got out as soon as i could. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmay2002 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Until UK manufacturers learn to produce products that work well and reliably straight out of the factory like overseas manufacturers such as Siemens etc, they simply don't stand a chance. Except that the Siemens units didn't work stright from the box. The 450s were diabolical at first - continually breaking down. "We are awaiting an engineer" became a stock announcement to frustrated passengers at Waterloo in their first summer. These things are so heavy that they use more power from the 3rd rail than the old 442s and this limits top speed so the services are no faster. The seats are so small and uncofortable that people stand to avoid sitting in them. They are still the only units on the network so bad that they have their own protest group. Simens messed up the resignalling to such an extent at Portsmouth that it all had to be ripped out and redone. I really do pity anyone else having to put up with Siemens junk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 .....They are still the only units on the network so bad that they have their own protest group. ... That's a total misrepresentation of the situation. The protest group are opposed to outer suburban 450 units with 3+2 seating, being used on some of the Portsmouth to Waterloo runs. It's not an anti-Desiro protest, because they want more 444 Desiros on this route to make it an all 444 service. I have to agree with them. The 450's are good for short hops, even though I think 3+2 is next to useless, but not suitable for long express journeys. Unfortunately, when SWT took the 442's out of service, an adequate number of direct replacements (i.e. more 444's) were not ordered, the overall fleet numbers being taken up by returning the 458's into service. However, that's another issue and off topic...... . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted September 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 12, 2011 Except that the Siemens units didn't work stright from the box. .... These things are so heavy that they use more power from the 3rd rail than the old 442s and this limits top speed so the services are no faster. The seats are so small and uncofortable that people stand to avoid sitting in them. They are still the only units on the network so bad that they have their own protest group. Simens messed up the resignalling to such an extent at Portsmouth that it all had to be ripped out and redone. That's not only a bit over the top but far from accurate. It was known long before they were delivered that the Desiros - like many other modern dc units - were going to have a greater current draw and somehow I don't think it had as much to do with their weight as with various uses made of electricity once they got it onboard. And the seats were of course as specified by the customer. As far as Portsmouth resignalling was concerned - and the delay of over a year in getting something commissioned - that was very largely down to the customer (Railtrack) although also a consequence of political pressure to buy signalling kit from overseas in order to put price pressure on the British industry. Nothing at all surprising happened at Portsmouth - there were plenty of signal engineers in Britain who had been involved in Ebilok assessment and safety validation who knew exactly what was likely to happen, and would have been very surprised if it hadn't, but the infrastructure owner pressed ahead 'because that is our plan'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.