In fairness to Bombardier they were doing well with the Class 379/377/387 orders at that point.
First Great Eastern specified the 360s with corridors. ASLEF were involved in the cab design, but late in the process a sighting issue was highlighted somewhere on the GEML. Siemens redesigned the cab and carried out crash testing in a very short timescale which most impressed the First Group engineering team procuring the new trains. The same team specified the 185s as four car units, but the DfT only permitted three cars.
The 333’s were ordered whilst the Northern Spirit franchise was operated by MTL prior to the Arriva takeover. They entered service on 10th January 2001 under Arriva (Arriva bought out MTL in early 2000) although Arriva didn’t put there name to the franchise until April 2001.
iirc they were also strong-armed by the government to go for Bombardier because Derby weren't making much at the time. But as the OP suggested, I would've strongly preferred 717 derived trains for London Overground.
Stagecoach didn’t order the 222s. They were ordered and introduced under Midland Mainline (National Express owned).
Completely forgot!
The legroom/table space is not true in First Class with the single seats. Cramped at best. Poorly designed. Only one table for 2 in first class on the 9 cars.
Considerable improvement in legroom - it is about 2-3" better than in the HSTs in both types of Standard seat (priority/none).
Nothing wrong with the actual train imo, you need to change the interior style which can correctly be attributed to the DfT. Having a loco hauled train with the same shoddy interior will not be an upgrade, only a downgrade in general performance. As for "British Resources and Skills", I wouldn't trust whatever is left of the British industry and instead go to the country that actually invented High Speed Rail.
The process for replacing the HST began in 2000 and by 2002 a design had been chosen with Siemens about to cut metal for the prototype batch. FGW was the lead TOC then GNER and Midland Mainline came on board. It was designated HST2, employed power cars at each end which could be diesel or electric, and the diesel version could be converted to electric as the wires spread. For production Siemens planned a UK factory. The first passenger services were intended for 2006/07. (IET came into service October 2017). I was in the office when news came through that the SRA had ordered all development of HST2 stopped. As a result many millions had to be spent life extending HST.
Do we know why the SRA stopped it? Its not particularly strategic...
You can add Bowker’s mate Jim “Bum” Steer to the roll of shame.
Extremely interesting to know the facts. Considering the back and forths, I’m surprised a thorough impact assessment to commit to such investment from all ends wasn’t done and finalised, without constant change. That said, you hit the nail on the head with the analysis.
I'm sure FTPE/TPE's commuters would agree that it is 'properly delivered', its not like his decision to cut the 185 order has led to terrible overcrowding on TPE services until the Nova stock was introduced...Just read up on what Mr Steer is doing now on LinkedIn, mostly consulting it seems along with a few other directorships and a bit of transport related writing, guessing he may well be semi-retired by now.
Anyway, what caught my eye was this description of his time at the SRA
The reasons were given. It was something along the lines of it being too important to be left to the industry alone to decide, and that the SRA/DfT saw it as 'their job'. FGW were already setting about MTU installations as a way of extending HST life by about 7 years. MTU engines and the Voith cooler groups were seen as the cheapest way of achieving this. The original installation designed by Bombardier saw a Siemens alternator and MTU engine drop in procedure, but the owner of the largest number of power cars in the FGW fleet, Angel, accepted a proposal from Brush re-using the original alternators and the cost went lower again. Of course by introducing more overhauls than were originally envisaged, MTUs have carried on being used well beyond the 7 years. The TBO is extended with speeds now limited to 100mph, and a a gentler existence.
On the various fleet issues with TPE, I am not 100% sure on this, but a person with connections at the top of TPE told me that the decision was buried in the franchise agreement and was a requirement of the DfT that more than one train supplier was used. It seems basically daft that three designs were chosen when just one would have sufficed in my view. Class 802.
Seems a bit weird to me. They trusted Virgin with ordering Pendolinos and Voyagers yet cannot trust the others to order some themselves. But the SRA is odd in its decisions...
The Class 180s may have been less reliable but the passenger accomodation was far better, without the cramped interiors caused by the tilting body. And the engine noise and vibration is are usually less obvious. Happily commuted TO work in them for some years.
