Northern Rail to get new trains.

[6990WitherslackHall]

Northern Rail is beginning the procurement process for up to 450 new trains for their network.

 

The Tender states that the objective of the tender is to enter into a framework agreement for the manufacture and supply of the new trains, supporting them and the supply of spares.

 

This will allow Northern to withdraw and replace a significant quantity of its aging fleet. This is very likely to include the withdrawal of their Class 150, Class 155, Class 156, and Class 158 fleets.

 

 

Full page here:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.railadvent.co.uk/2023/08/northern-to-begin-procurement-process-for-up-to-450-new-trains.html

[Kris]

I wonder if this tender will spread and we will see mass withdrawals of 150's etc across the network. 

[Mike_Walker]

It is not an invitation to tender but a request for expressions of interest in supplying trains.  Chiltern have issued something similar recently and GWR are preparing to do likewise.

 

The object in each case is to determine what options are likely to be available and use that information to prepare a business case which can be submitted to the government.  Only when (if) that is accepted will formal ITTs be issued.

 

The aim in each case is to replace the remaining BR era multiple units and some newer ones as the industry aims to decarbonise by 2040.

[Guest]

I had presumed it was 450 vehicles/coaches rather than trains. Northern only have about 350 trains, of which a fair proportion have been recently procured. Reading the tender notice though does say 450 units comprising of multiple vehicles.

 

Given that Northern are a government managed company, it’s possible that this framework is intended to cover all BR diesel unit replacement across the network, to follow on from the point made by @Kris

 

I’m old enough to remember the 150s being introduced and 150/2s replacing loco hauled trains on Trans Pennine

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Guest
Spelling

[Mike_Walker]

It would obviously make a lot of sense to procure a common fleet for the whole country but that creates problems.  Do you obtain all your trains from a single supplier in which case it's a classic case of eggs in one basket and you lay yourself open if that supplier subsequently fails and what about the other suppliers in the field?  If you source identical units from multiple suppliers you run the risk of wanting to share IP and patents which manufacturers, understandably, might be reluctant to do.

 

In the case of GWR, it's probably well-known by now that they are developing what is called "Operation Churchward" within the company.  Alone among the TOCs, GWR have retained an active project development team who are involved in bout rolling stock and infrastructure development - the main reason why the DfT has placed the Vivarail battery trial in GWR's hands.  Operation Churchward envisages a family of multiple units to cover all the company's requirements.  It would have a common platform and bodyshell with a common cab.  The power would be modular and could be diesel, battery, hybrid or straight electric (even "Bionic Duckweed"! 😂) and be suitable to be changed easily say from diesel to battery.  The body will have two or possibly three different interior configurations depending on the intended use; for example those on the Bristol-Southampton corridor would have a more "inter-city" style compared with those used on say the Bristol Metro or Cornish branch lines.

 

The use of a common, standard design would give considerable cost savings in maintenance and training.  A driver passed on the new design could drive any of them something not currently always the case; if you sign a Class 150/1 for example you can't drive a 150/2 unless you done both the training courses due to the differences between the two - and not just those the spotters can identify.

 

Despite the government's green agenda there is still a reluctance to spend on new trains for secondary services.  As usual, the Treasury appears to know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.  Take an example.  GWR 150202 has in the past week returned from a 7 month spell in Wolverton works during which time much of the body work was completely replaced to address corrosion issues.  Not only were stretched GWR without it for that time but the job ended up costing nearly as much as a brand-new unit would have cost yet at best they'll get another 10 years out of it not the 30-40 from a new unit.  Why?  Well the Treasury's accounting rules insist that work done on existing trains, even as drastic as that done to 150202, is classed as "maintenance" whilst new trains come under "capital investment" and they are too myopic to see that they are actually spending the same amount for a considerably inferior return!

[Guest]

Ooh Treasury bashing. I could go on Mastermind with that topic!

 

Have Just finally been reading Roger Ford’s Informed Sources in this month’s Modern Railways. What a depressing read that makes. Followed by an article about GWR and Hopwood rightly bemoaning the fact that the electrification masts are up across much of the GW mainline, yet with no prospect of wires being strung. At this rate, we’ll see the masts being taken down, at great cost, to save on maintenance….

[DY444]

I wouldn't get too carried away.  There have been a number of expression of interest requests issued in the last 2 or 3 years that have gone nowhere. 

[Wheatley]

3 hours ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

Given that Northern are a government managed company, it’s possible that this framework is intended to cover all BR diesel unit replacement across the network,

 

No, the Operator of Last Resort can only operate as an interim service  provider, it has no strategic role. If your premise was correct the document would have been issued by DfT proper. 

 

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

 Alone among the TOCs, GWR have retained an active project development team

Not true. Northern's was responsible for the subject of this thread. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Wheatley said:

No, the Operator of Last Resort can only operate as an interim service  provider, it has no strategic role. If your premise was correct the document would have been issued by DfT proper. 

Interesting then that the contract would allow them to procure over 100 units more than they currently operate in the fleet. 

[black and decker boy]

7 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

It is not an invitation to tender but a request for expressions of interest in supplying trains.  Chiltern have issued something similar recently and GWR are preparing to do likewise.

 

The object in each case is to determine what options are likely to be available and use that information to prepare a business case which can be submitted to the government.  Only when (if) that is accepted will formal ITTs be issued.

 

The aim in each case is to replace the remaining BR era multiple units and some newer ones as the industry aims to decarbonise by 2040.

Not quite, this is an EOI which is a normal 1st step in public procurement and says the formal ITT will be issued 26 October 2023. The EOI can include an initial selection questionnaire (ie to create a long list who are then invited to bid)

 

It is normal for a decent chunk of the draft ITT to be available to bidders (on the procurement portal) at EOI stage but with final full suite of docs issued as the ITT.

 

the previous exercises were market engagement which is not the same as EOI and is used to hold open discussion with the market and potential suppliers on a range of technical, commercial and planning points including appetite, capacity etc

[Wheatley]

2 hours ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

Interesting then that the contract would allow them to procure over 100 units more than they currently operate in the fleet. 

Northern (Northern Trains Ltd) can ask for EOIs for whatever is in its Rolliing Stock Strategy, which it has agreed with the DfT. Other operators (not currently owned by DOHL/DfT but effectively under DfT control via their management contracts) can do the same for their fleets. 

 

But NTL cannot act on behalf of another TOC or on behalf of the whole industry to do the same. GBR could if it was legally constituted to do so, but it isn't. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Wheatley

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

Northern (Northern Trains Ltd) can ask for EOIs for whatever is in its Rolliing Stock Strategy, which it has agreed with the DfT. Other operators (not currently owned by DOHL/DfT but effectively under DfT control via their management contracts) can do the same for their fleets. 

 

But NTL cannot act on behalf of another TOC or on behalf of the whole industry to do the same. GBR could if it was legally constituted to do so, but it isn't. 

 
All understood, but was just remarking that the call off framework allows for a significant expansion of Northern’s fleet. 

[dale159]

9 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

GWR 150202 has in the past week returned from a 7 month spell in Wolverton works

 

18 months, it went in Feb 2022!

 

And went back the next day due faults/unsatisfactory finish of the work that had been done to it.

 

Dale

[Wheatley]

Deleted

Edited August 25, 2023 by Wheatley

[Ben B]

Oooh... as a resident of Yorkshire, I can't wait!

 

30 new trains, to do the job of 70, with one less carriage than specified to save treasury funds, no baggage space, seats that have all the comfort and plushness associated with the phrase "DfT Specification", built in a foreign factory with welds of '5pm Friday' quality and frames which hairline-crack if anybody does so much as dare to drive them over points. All delivered 10 years later than hoped, to much glorious fanfare, until they start randomly bursting into flames. But by goodness, they'll look pretty in a shiny, expensively-designed vinyl wrap livery promoting the Settle-Carlisle :)

 

Sorry, woke up feeling fairly bitter and cynical this morning...