On Aug 11, 6:06*pm, Bruce wrote:
Yes, but in the long term I think it would be better to have a few common
types of trains rather than saving a few quid with some other manufacturer
who'll cut everything to the bone to win the contract.

Other metro systems use this approach , I don't see why LUL can't. Its not
as if LULs approach has brought us particularly good trains so far anyway.

Indeed. *The rot set in when BREL/ABB/Adtranz or whatever they were
called at the time got the contract for the 1992 stock for the Central
Line, which helped spell the end of Metro-Cammell's operations at
Washwood Heath.

It didn't open up the market to competition, it jusr eliminated one
train builder.

You're mad.

The next two Tube builds, totalling almost 200 trains, went to Alstom
at Washwood Heath. Then it was kept open by the small, pilot post-
privatisation builds (Junipers and Coradias) plus screwing together
the Italian-built Pendolini.

The plant closed partly because Alstom weren't able to win any large
post-privatisation commuter train orders (because the Junipers and
Coradias were crap), partly because Alstom were French and hence
wanted to centralise everything value-added in France and shift
everything else to cheap places, partly because the plant wasn't very
good at high-quality assembly anyway, and partly because LU didn't
procure any new trains from *anyone* for 13 years.

Adtranz winning the 1992 stock contract had about as much to do with
Washwood Heath's demise as [insert example of highly irrelevant thing
here].

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