DanNCL
Established Member
There’s plenty wrong with the Aventras.Nonsense, there is nothing wrong with either Electrostar or Aventra.
There’s plenty wrong with the Aventras.Nonsense, there is nothing wrong with either Electrostar or Aventra.
Electrostars took a very long time to be certified electrically.Nonsense, there is nothing wrong with either Electrostar or Aventra.
Electrostars took a very long time to be certified electrically.
All Aventras have suffered from late/inadequate software and with many post-manufacture issues.
I also suspect none of the Aventra fleets are meeting the reliability levels required in their contracts, certainly not the EL fleet.
Stunning success: more than 100 million journeys have now been made on the Elizabeth Line. Reliability is also claimed to be good with an industry performance rating of 93% against an average elsewhere of 78.5%.
Don't know about the tube stock, but 390s were riddled with faults on delivery.Considering Alstom/Metro Cammell in the late 90s, the 95 and 96 tube stock, and the Class 390 Pendolinos were decently reliable, while the Junipers/Coradias were a disaster which killed the factory and Alstom in the UK until they bought Bombardier, so sometimes it isn't just down to the assembly line.
The replacement of Adessia™ commuter train has been launched to address the U.K. and USA markets. This new product range will include EMU, BMU, BEMU and HMU versions to also replace the existing Diesel trains
There's a list of the significant shareholders here (scroll down): https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ALSTOM-4607/company/Are any of the shareholders british?
Before the mid 1990s GEC were doing well in the UK making steady profits from Engineering and other manufacturing including rail stock.There's a list of the significant shareholders here (scroll down): https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ALSTOM-4607/company/
All French except the biggest - CDPQ of Canada.
GEC had a 50% share of the GEC-Alsthom transportation JV in the 1990s, but sold their share to concentrate on non-rail defence and USA business.
New Item May 10:
The Alstom annual results say this about the Adessia platform:
So the Adessia platform does not appear to be aimed at Europe.
If you read other Alstom releases too it seems Adessia is different approach, same electrical and control, but different bodyshells depending on country.So the Adessia platform does not appear to be aimed at Europe.
The results document is mainly about Alstom's financials, revenue and orders position.
While the financial position is improving, they are still going to shareholders* for a €1 billion rights issue to tide them over lean times.
Nothing is said abut the position at Derby or the Aventra product travails.
That was Bombardier approach with Aventra and Talent 3, nothing new as such the execution in two area as you note is severely lacking. The Alstom software approach is very modular.If you read other Alstom releases too it seems Adessia is different approach, same electrical and control, but different bodyshells depending on country.
Already a massive Bombardier bodyshell plant for continental orders for decadesIf you think about it, whatever the bodyshell, going to be a cab at each end, couple of doors each side of each vehicle etc, most will have same bogies and motors etc.
My reading between the lines is Alstom have been stung on the orders inherited from Bombardier in 2 ways : Non standard (and unreliable) software; and shoddy build quality especially during covid staff reductions. So now they want one modular (plug and play) software with no variations even if some countries do not use features (and sounds like it will be a version of what worked on Coradia platform). Secondly they want much tighter build control, not having to do rectification afterwards. Quality control should be finding occasional minor things, not long lists of obviously sloppy build.
It looks like Alstom are developing sites like Poland, (
Alstom have effectively had a monopoly in Morocco for generations, this helps maintain it and possibly help politically with other african orders.and proposing new locations eg Morocco,
so is questionable if it needs Derby longer term. Even UK potential orders are looking thin after about 2031, with no obvious replacements needed by mid 2030s
So, the problem is not so much the manufacturer as the customer?The majority of the workings of 09TS and S Stock are actually Electrostar electrically, with significant mechanical differences and updates to nomenclature to make it LUL compatible. (Words of the engineer who introduced them, not having worked significantly with an Electrostar I cannot substantiate this) The entry into service was relatively smooth, but I would point out that at the time, LUL (Metronet) was a very informed customer with a very strong engineering team, from my experience of ToCs and ROSCOs, this does not carry over to the 'big railway'.
That's Treasury approval in principle, meaning DfT has authority to place an order for TfL (via a Rosco).
There will be Treasury conditions attached (eg perhaps reducing future forcast train orders by the same amount).
No government handout comes without strings, and it looks as though Alstom will have to commit to new investment at Derby as well as a special price for the 345s.
The letter mentions "right sizing" Derby, which is surely code for a reduced capacity compared to the recent full-blown Aventra production.
Placing Adessia design work at Derby could be challenging if it diverts work from other Alstom plants.
Harper is dangling £3.6 billion of train orders over the next couple of years - with no guarantee Derby will win them.
Also as has been pointed out, TfL itself will have increased costs of deploying the extra trains, which will also have to be found from somewhere.
I guess OAOs could go for CAF like LNER have, or for Stadler like when they bid the SMILE for EMR but lost, unless small orders from Stadler are too expensive too.Meanwhile Hitachi seem not to be taking on orders at acceptable prices (even though open access operators need trains).
stadler specialises in small and unusual trains - so especially for things where they already have a design that is suitable I doubt small orders are impossible; the question is whether Stadler will offer it for a price the OAOs are willing to pay - and that will depend on the alternatives as wellI guess OAOs could go for CAF like LNER have, or for Stadler like when they bid the SMILE for EMR but lost, unless small orders from Stadler are too expensive too.
Public procurement is not known for moving quickly, a month isn't that long. The approval in principle letter suggested various commitments need to be undertaken, costs finalised, detailed breakdown of costs to feed into the award assessment and a business case to be completed & approved. Direct awards typically need an assessment that a direct award is justified and have maximised value for money for the taxpayer. I'd be surprised if an outcome either way had been reached.So a month on, what exactly has happened, no announcement of any order, TfL how we are Governed meetings shows no TfL Board or Finance meeting until June (although chair can sign off urgent items). So not clear if Government or TfL or a Rosco is initially funding these. Or if simply didn't get to a price that was acceptabl so hasn't actually happened.
In meantime SouthEastern have gone public saying new train order is being negotiated with 5 companies, (although some might already be uncompetitive, so number has reduced behind the scenes). Being negociated is rather open timeline, could be wrapped up anything from tomorrow to a years time.
Northern have split their tender from 450 units to 3 lots with options, which suggests no one wanted to supply wide mix of types at a competitive price, but gave better deal on a stopgap of one type.
Meanwhile Hitachi seem not to be taking on orders at acceptable prices (even though open access operators need trains).
Dft is largely funding it so the net amounts from TfL might be small.Public procurement is not known for moving quickly, a month isn't that long. The approval in principle letter suggested various commitments need to be undertaken, costs finalised, detailed breakdown of costs to feed into the award assessment and a business case to be completed & approved.
I think the point is Derby may close before any Southeastern order or even orders any further 345s. Harper is taking the Mickey.Public procurement is not known for moving quickly, a month isn't that long. The approval in principle letter suggested various commitments need to be undertaken, costs finalised, detailed breakdown of costs to feed into the award assessment and a business case to be completed & approved. Direct awards typically need an assessment that a direct award is justified and have maximised value for money for the taxpayer. I'd be surprised if an outcome either way had been reached.
Southeastern have only just issued the invitation to negotiate. The potential suppliers likely haven't fully digested the documents yet, let alone costed or provided their prices to Southeastern. Each bidder needs to be given the same timescales and even simple procurements it's usually a month for initial response. It's estimated for an award in Q2 of 2025 and trying to do it quickly will lead to questions/challenges about the integrity of the process. The aim of procurements is to get the best outcome, restarting on Northern is more likely to be procedural or as the new one is expected to improve outcomes (various possibilities here) instead of the original requirement being too costly given Lot 2 is basically the same requirement as before.
For Alstom the challenge is aside from the extra class 345s, they have no guarantee of winning the upcoming large tenders and that a factory would otherwise close is rightly not a factor in scoring criteria.
There's a list of the significant shareholders here (scroll down): https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ALSTOM-4607/company/
All French except the biggest - CDPQ of Canada.
GEC had a 50% share of the GEC-Alsthom transportation JV in the 1990s, but sold their share to concentrate on non-rail defence and USA business.
None of the other three UK-based train-builders has any British ownership, but of course all four employ significant numbers of staff.
Siemens and Hitachi both have major UK assets other than in rail.
Who are the British shareholders?Surprisingly Talgo is 35% British owned. They highlighted it when they were looking to build a factory in Scotland before the pandemic.
Who are the British shareholders?
Spanish rolling stock manufacturer Talgo confirmed it has been approached with a bid from Hungarian holding company Ganz-Mavag Europe to acquire 100% of its shares.
According to Talgo CEO Gonzalo Urquijo Fernández de Araoz the company, and its parent firm Pegaso Transportation International, have “expressed… intention to accept the offer.”
But the Spanish government has stepped in with concerns over Ganz-Mavag Europe’s ownership and suspected links to Russia.
Transport Minister Óscar Puente said he intends to do “everything possible” to stop the acquisition over the concerns. The acquisition requires approval from the Madrid government due to its strategically important position to the Spanish state.
The issues stem from the owners of the Hungarian firm. Although 55% of Ganz-Mavag is owned by investor András Tombor’s Ganz-Mavag Holding, the remaining 45% is owned by Corvinus, a Hungarian state-owned investment vehicle. In Ganz-Mavag’s announcement of the bid it explained the parent company is “fully owned by the Hungarian State, whose ownership rights are exercised by the Ministry for National Economy of Hungary.”
Reports from Spanish media suggested the government is worried this link to Viktor Orbán’s government in Budapest could hint at backing from Russian sources, in violation of European sanctions on Moscow.
The state-owned wealth fund Corvinus was invested in Russia’s International Investment Bank until 2023, when Orbán and Hungary bowed to EU pressure to divest from Russian interests.
Spain’s National Securities Market Commission, CNMV, has approved the merger, but it awaits government clearance, which could take up to three months, this is reported by the railway transport news portal Railway Supply.
A proposal to purchase all Talgo shares for €620 million was submitted in March by a consortium with Corvinus, the Hungarian state fund.
Despite approval from major investors, including Trilantic and Torreal, owning 40% of Talgo shares, the deal faces resistance from the Spanish government.
Spain’s transport minister has stated readiness to halt the deal, and Trilantic is already negotiating with Stadler for a counteroffer.
La Caixa has also expressed readiness for an alternative proposal.