On Aug 11, 5:26*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
In other words, when LU puts the Bakerloo contract out to tender,
Bombardier will be favourite to win it with something pretty similar
to the S-stock for the reasons you list (ie it'll be cheaper for them
to build and maintain the trains), and if someone else wins that's
because they want to offer us an even better deal that outweighs the
economies of scale.

Hopefully, Bombardier's Bakerloo bid will be based on the 2009, not the
S stock!

Haha, yes, fail.

However, they won't be able to just offer more 2009 stock. For one
thing, I think the 2009 stock is too big for the Bakerloo and Picc
tunnels, so even if Bombardier's bid(s) for these lines look like the
2009 stock, they'll actually be slightly smaller.

True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a
2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the
equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished stock
would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge train and
setting up a production line from scratch, though.

OTOH, Alstom still has the ability to produce 1995/96 stock
bodyshells, as it did so a couple of years ago, the 1995 stock uses
modern IGBT traction and meets RVAR, and Alstom does the maintenance
contract on it - so they ought to be able to put up a reasonably
competitive bid.

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

In message , Recliner
writes

I assume Tube Lines will also put the Piccadilly replacement stock out
to tender, but not just yet -- perhaps the 1972 and 1973 replacements
will be a single new stock, much as the S stock replaces the A, C and D
stocks. Conceivably, Bombardier could win both those contracts as well,
but Alston, for one, is likely to be keen to bid.

The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. Last I heard,
there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name
escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved, 95
stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their stockholdings
for spares and the like over their three lines.

Unfortunately in this brave new world of PPP, TfL or LU have little
choice in supplier, just an overall 'give us some new trains, guv' and
suppliers (Tubelines in this case) get on with it and send the bill
along.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Aug 11, 5:25*pm, wrote:
Do you understand how train procurement works?

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.

Better for whom? If we were buying the trains on the traditional "you
deliver them, then you go away and we maintain them" model, then I'd
see your logic - but as it is, all cost savings are real over the
train's life, not just short-term.

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..

For the bits of LUL which are comparable to other metro systems (ie
the interoperable, interoperated, 'lines are based on services offered
rather than physical track' bits), a single approach is now being
taken for the first time ever, which is the S-stock.

For the bits of LUL that are self-contained and can't sensibly be
operated in any other service pattern than today (it'd be technically
possible to swap branches NW of Baker Street between the Jubilee and
the Bakerloo I guess, and there's obviously the Northern Line split
potential, but that's hair-splitting), the benefits that arise from
doing that don't really exist.

I'd also say that the A, C, 67, 73, 92 and 95 stocks are among the
best metro trains from their respective eras I've been on globally
[the 83 and D stocks lose due to their moronic door arrangements]. The
09 looks pretty impressive too, as do the pics and mock-ups of the S.

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

"John B" wrote in message

On Aug 11, 5:26 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
In other words, when LU puts the Bakerloo contract out to tender,
Bombardier will be favourite to win it with something pretty similar
to the S-stock for the reasons you list (ie it'll be cheaper for
them to build and maintain the trains), and if someone else wins
that's because they want to offer us an even better deal that
outweighs the economies of scale.

Hopefully, Bombardier's Bakerloo bid will be based on the 2009, not
the S stock!

Haha, yes, fail.

However, they won't be able to just offer more 2009 stock. For one
thing, I think the 2009 stock is too big for the Bakerloo and Picc
tunnels, so even if Bombardier's bid(s) for these lines look like the
2009 stock, they'll actually be slightly smaller.

True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a
2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the
equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished stock
would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge train and
setting up a production line from scratch, though.

Indeed, and I bet they had this in mind when designing the 2009 stock.
After all, they must have thought they had the Bakerloo order in the bag
until Metronet collapsed.


OTOH, Alstom still has the ability to produce 1995/96 stock
bodyshells, as it did so a couple of years ago, the 1995 stock uses
modern IGBT traction and meets RVAR, and Alstom does the maintenance
contract on it - so they ought to be able to put up a reasonably
competitive bid.

Yes, it seems very likely that any Alstom bid would indeed be based on
the 1995/6 stock. It produced complete new trains and carriages for the
recent Jubilee lengthening project, which went very smoothly (I hope it
does as well with the similar Pendo project). That's why I mentioned
them, and not Siemens, Hitachi, etc, who may also want to bid for the
next big LUL order.

On Aug 11, 5:38*pm, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. *Last I heard,
there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name
escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved, 95
stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their stockholdings
for spares and the like over their three lines.

Unfortunately in this brave new world of PPP, TfL or LU have little
choice in supplier, just an overall 'give us some new trains, guv' and
suppliers (Tubelines in this case) get on with it and send the bill
along.

Not sure I follow here. Surely, since the costs fall on Tubelines,
having them responsible for the choice of supplier makes sense - and
as you say, makes them likely to pick Almost...?

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

"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message

In message , Recliner
writes

I assume Tube Lines will also put the Piccadilly replacement stock
out to tender, but not just yet -- perhaps the 1972 and 1973
replacements will be a single new stock, much as the S stock
replaces the A, C and D stocks. Conceivably, Bombardier could win
both those contracts as well, but Alston, for one, is likely to be
keen to bid.

The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. Last I heard,
there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name
escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved,
95 stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their
stockholdings for spares and the like over their three lines.

Ah, I was under the impression that this project had been deferred,
thanks to the squeeze on TfL's budget.

"John B" wrote in message

On Aug 11, 5:38 pm, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender. Last I heard,
there are 3 contenders - Alstom, Bombardier and one other (who's name
escapes me). My money is on an updated, and hopefully much improved,
95 stock as that would allow Tubelines to standardise their
stockholdings for spares and the like over their three lines.

Unfortunately in this brave new world of PPP, TfL or LU have little
choice in supplier, just an overall 'give us some new trains, guv'
and suppliers (Tubelines in this case) get on with it and send the
bill along.

Not sure I follow here. Surely, since the costs fall on Tubelines,
having them responsible for the choice of supplier makes sense - and
as you say, makes them likely to pick Almost...?

Yes, indicated that it was Tube Line's decision, not TfL's or LU's, so
Alstom does seem like the obvious choice. But if Bombardier come up with
a very good offer, they'd still have a chance. In any case, whoever gets
the order is presumably then responsible for maintaining the trains.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:25:13 +0000 (UTC),
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.

On 11 Aug, 17:28, "Recliner" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message







On 11 Aug, 16:18, "Recliner" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message



On 11 Aug, 15:38, "Recliner" wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if the 1967 stock was in a better condition
than 1972 stock anyway, not having been subjected to the bends,
bounce and manual driving of the bakerloo.

I wonder if some will cascaded, or maybe it doesn't have the full
manual driving equipment?

Well, aren't many of the Victoria line inner cabs from 1972 stock
anyway? And I think the trailers are the same anyway. So, if they
needed more stock for the Bakerloo line, they could do a sort of
reverse cascase. I'm not sure the trains could be used on the Picc,
though.

Yes, I think some 1972 Mark 1 coaches from the Northern are on the
Victoria.

The 1973 stock is different, with longer coaches (and less of them),
so there probably isn't much scope for a cascade there.

It might be possible to run complete 7-car 1972 stock on the Picc,
though I'm not sure that there's a shortage of 1973 stock.-

Well, I seem to remember that a slightly shorter train was required
when they moved the guard to the back cab, so maybe not a problem any
more. But as you say, probably no shortage of 1973 stock anyway.

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