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

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

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.

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

On 14 Jul, 21:50, Arthur Figgis 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.

Indeed - I got the self-propelled bit confused with the onboard-
storage-of-regenerated-energy bit. Still, the combination of weight
and performance requirements appears to be tough enough that it'd be
hard to achieve based on minor changes to the Desiro or Electrostar
base design.

32 tonnes per car is required - that compares to 33 tonnes average for
a 313, 35.5 for a 319, and 43 for a 350 or a 377. The 315s are the
only postwar British AC EMUs to have achieved 32 tonnes; they only go
at 75mph and aren't built to current crash standards.

Meanwhile, the performance requirement is for 'best in class'
performance (presumably = at least as good as a 350 or 377).

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

"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.

"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

On Jul 14, 7:29 pm, 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).

Self propelled? Wtf is that all about? And how would you achieve it
without dragging around a barn full of batteries slung under one of
the cards?

B2003

wrote:
On Jul 14, 7:29 pm, 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).

Self propelled? Wtf is that all about? And how would you achieve it
without dragging around a barn full of batteries slung under one of
the cards?


You've summed up the flawed thinking of the DfT quite well there. Please
refer to the Thameslink Rolling Stock spec for other conflicting
requirements:

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

Section 9.3 includes inter alia "The capability to move a short distance
without the traction supply being present"

LOROL

Paul

On 15 Jul, 13:05, "Paul Scott" wrote:
You've summed up the flawed thinking of the DfT quite well there. *Please
refer to the Thameslink Rolling Stock spec for other conflicting
requirements:

Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be included
under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a terrible idea but
I can't imagine a cost benefit analysis on it is positive - how often
is the track navigable but the traction supply unavailable?

U

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