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....
Ten trainsets is hardly going to delay the inevitable by very long is it?
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.
This country has a track record (no pun intended) of doing just that of course.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.
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.When are the class 730 orders expected to be finished then? Are they built at derby?
No. They have already been built.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.That is still some work and highlights that the loading gauge isn’t a massive issue for UK train export work.
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.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.
Belgium has train building capability- Alstom in Brugge.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.
And there is the clue. Is the UK a big enough market such that the UK should care ?.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
The market is large enough that you could reasonably sustain a single production line for trains producing a few hundred carriages per year.And there is the clue. Is the UK a big enough market such that the UK should care ?.
Yup. Whether international agreements and basic economics permit a monopoly is another interesting question.....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.
With a single manufacturer, I'd fear stagnation, when Bombardier lost the Thameslink order they made changes and improved the Aventra platform.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/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.
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.
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.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 continuewww.thebusinessdesk.com
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!With a single manufacturer, I'd fear stagnation, when Bombardier lost the Thameslink order they made changes and improved the Aventra platform.
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.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.
Or they will just move manufacturing of bogies somewhere with lower manufacturing costs, or somewhere their political position compels them to keep open regardless.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.
The problem is the equilibrium level, even making a relatively generous allowance for traffic growth, is probably only about 500 vehicles per year.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 54 HS2 train order was allegedly just for Phase 1, so there probably won't be a cut-back.So, at what point will the 54 train order for HS2 reduce to what is actually now needed ??
Not even BR had a monopoly on train production - in fact they latterly had a dual-source policy.So which factory gets to stay open and which three get to close?
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.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.
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.Trade agreements would require external competitive bids for new trains, and components of trains.
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 thatWhich 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)?
After ten years - six Aventra projects - 2,561 cars built, we completed manufacturing the Aventra projects at Derby yesterday.
I am confused. What are the "SIX Aventra projects" ?.Marco MICHEL on LinkedIn: WE MADE IT ! After 10 years - 6 AVENTRA projects - 2651 cars built - we… | 96 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… | 96 comments on LinkedInwww.linkedin.com
Unless they split out the C2C and GA 720 orders?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.
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.Unless they split out the C2C and GA 720 orders?
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.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.
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.Unless they split out the C2C and GA 720 orders?