Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied
to build the Thameslink EMUs.

This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the
DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future
UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there
are other train builders around who might be interested?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...meslinkbidders

Paul S

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On Jul 14, 2:09 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied
to build the Thameslink EMUs.

This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the
DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future
UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there
are other train builders around who might be interested?

The DfT would save even more taxpayers money if they just built
another batch of the dual voltage 376/377 series with any appropriate
traction system upgrades. But that would require a bit of common sense
in government - a rare commodity.

B2003

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On Jul 14, 2:59 pm, wrote:
On Jul 14, 2:09 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied
to build the Thameslink EMUs.

This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the
DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future
UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there
are other train builders around who might be interested?

The DfT would save even more taxpayers money if they just built
another batch of the dual voltage 376/377 series with any appropriate
traction system upgrades. But that would require a bit of common sense
in government - a rare commodity.

Yes in the short term. In the long term, it's likely to be more cost
effective to not give a single manufacturer a monopoly in the supply
of UK suburban rolling stock (and Siemens would've been justifiably
****ed off, given that a batch of dual-voltage 350s would be pretty
much equivalent to a batch of 37xes).

However, it would have been much more sensible (ie cheap) to make the
TL2k+n specification equivalent to "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit
faster and a bit lighter; if you're not Siemens or Bombardier you're
welcome to bid but bear in mind that we're not going to pay the
development costs of a whole new train platform", rather than going
for a step change in capabilities and weights.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On 14 Jul, 17:38, John B wrote:
However, it would have been much more sensible (ie cheap) to make the
TL2k+n specification equivalent to "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit
faster and a bit lighter; if you're not Siemens or Bombardier you're
welcome to bid but bear in mind that we're not going to pay the
development costs of a whole new train platform", rather than going
for a step change in capabilities and weights.

But how have they not done that? I'm sure Bombardier and Siemens' bids
won't be far off a "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit faster and a bit
lighter", and the other companies' bids likewise.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

Paul Scott wrote:
The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied
to build the Thameslink EMUs.

This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the
DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future
UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there
are other train builders around who might be interested?

Alstom decided not to bid for IEP, so it's probably good that they
weren't automatically pre-qualified!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On 14 Jul, 18:47, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 14 Jul, 17:38, John B wrote:

However, it would have been much more sensible (ie cheap) to make the
TL2k+n specification equivalent to "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit
faster and a bit lighter; if you're not Siemens or Bombardier you're
welcome to bid but bear in mind that we're not going to pay the
development costs of a whole new train platform", rather than going
for a step change in capabilities and weights.

But how have they not done that? I'm sure Bombardier and Siemens' bids
won't be far off a "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit faster and a bit
lighter", and the other companies' bids likewise.

I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the
DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least
the self-propulsion).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the
DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least
the self-propulsion).

The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the
DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least
the self-propulsion).

The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs.

That doesn't stop the spec being "ambitious" as well.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the
DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least
the self-propulsion).

The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs.

Yes, but a similarly greedy feature set is demanded (ie, much lighter,
faster, extremely reliable, able to run at up to 30mph when the juice is
off). Most of the demanded features would raise the weight, but DfT is
asking for something as light as a simple 319.

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Neil Williams" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the
DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least
the self-propulsion).

The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs.

Yes, but a similarly greedy feature set is demanded (ie, much lighter,
faster, extremely reliable, able to run at up to 30mph when the juice is
off). Most of the demanded features would raise the weight, but DfT is
asking for something as light as a simple 319.
Including the requirement to get 1000 people on or off during a 45 sec stop.
Oh and much less complex than existing stock, but must include ATO, and
every other signalling option you can think of...

Roger Ford's other main point is that the procurement calendar is far too
compressed.

Paul