LNER announce CAF fleet

[Goldfish62]

Do people ask how much of the car/ship/aircraft they are using is British-sourced? Why are trains any different?
BR always bought in diesel and electric packages, usually made in the UK under licence (eg Sulzer and Maybach) .
Remember the "German" diesel power packs on 80x come from a Roll-Royce factory, so what's British any more?
The 80x production had a high number of UK components, but they were mostly of the minor or UK-specific type - windscreen wipers, AWS/TPWS packages etc.
All manufacturers use components from all over the place, using competitive supply chains.
The purchasers are in any case private sector companies (Roscos, banks), who take the long-term risk, and not public sector bodies like some TOCs are.
The increasing software content of trains (TMS, ETCS etc) will also be internationally-sourced, regardless of where the train is assembled.

I wonder if people who demand that UK trains are 100% made in the UK using 100% sourced components realise that this would be very much exception in the developed world.

DB for example takes trains at least built in part in Spain, Poland and France, and variously including components manufactured in the UK.

People also hark back to the days of BR building its own trains. In what developed country does the main rail operator build its own trains?

 

[BayPaul]

Well, in my opinion, there should be a requirement for a proportion of value to be added in the UK supply chain. This has been missing, not just in rail for too long

Personally I'd much prefer them to order products that are fit for purpose, and good value for taxpayers money, even if they don't come from the UK.
I suspect that most of us would have preferred TfL to order an all Stadler fleet for example, rather than having to use CAF to have a 51% made in Wales message...

 

[43096]

Well, in my opinion, there should be a requirement for a proportion of value to be added in the UK supply chain. This has been missing, not just in rail for too long

A case of "closing the stable door after the horse has bolted" if ever there was one!

 

[yorksrob]

Personally I'd much prefer them to order products that are fit for purpose, and good value for taxpayers money, even if they don't come from the UK.
I suspect that most of us would have preferred TfL to order an all Stadler fleet for example, rather than having to use CAF to have a 51% made in Wales message...

If they never order from the UK supply chain, there will never be the chance for UK manufacturers to develop products that are fit for purpose.

I'd rather the UK manufacturing base were developed to produce Stadler level quality whilst returning wealth to the UK economy.

 

[Chester1]

You're kidding right?

The MoD procures all three of those on a regular basis and often buys the first two off the shelf, with zero UK content.

The best comparison is the Military Flight Training Scheme contract and the previous Defence Helicopter Flying School contract. Both of which contain zero UK products, are off the shelf aircraft with no UK content, and yet give a good service to the taxpayer. Leonardo helicopters off rivals to the procured platforms in DHFS but there are no UK products comparible to anything to the MFTS platforms. Both of these contracts are leasing contracts much like IEP, with the only similar program with UK components and leasing off the top of my head being the AirTanker contract, which beat a contract from a British Airways led consortium arguably spending more cash in the UK!

I was thinking in terms of "normal" vehicles that individuals or companies buy. Procuring a fighter jet is quite clearly different to ordering new trains for LNER.

Biggest single purchaser of motor vehicles in the country is the UK Government agencies.

NHS, Police, Fire, Civil Service.

As a percentage of all cars bought and sold in UK that will still be pretty small.

Personally I'd much prefer them to order products that are fit for purpose, and good value for taxpayers money, even if they don't come from the UK.
I suspect that most of us would have preferred TfL to order an all Stadler fleet for example, rather than having to use CAF to have a 51% made in Wales message...

We have four manufacturers with UK sites. Stadler is the only significant manufacturer with trains in service in UK that would struggle to meet a basic minimum value made in UK %. Alstom, Hitachi, CAF and Siemens all could and that is plenty of competition. Talgo keeps talking about entering the UK market.

Getting back to topic, for me what matters is how much of the new fleet is made in UK, not how much work is done in Newport. This information won't get published but it should be if we switch to public ownership of rolling stock.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I was thinking in terms of "normal" vehicles that individuals or companies buy. Procuring a fighter jet is quite clearly different to ordering new trains for LNER.



As a percentage of all car bought and sold in UK that will still be pretty small.



We have four manufacturers with UK sites. Stadler is the only significant manufacturer with trains in service in UK that would struggle to meet a basic minimum value made in UK %. Alstom, Hitachi, CAF and Siemens all could and that is plenty of competition. Talgo keeps talking about entering the UK market.

Getting back to topic, for me what whats is how much of the new fleet is made in UK, not how much work is done in Newport. This information won't get published but it should be if we switch to public ownership of rolling stock.

Again, you're kidding right?

Two of us have answered what you've said and you're now changing the goalposts.

You stated "Cars, planes and ships are rarely procured by the government."

So minus me stating cars as to include military vehicles more generally, you do realise that planes and ships in the UK are majority/close to majority procured by the government? I don't have the numbers to hand but I'd take an educated guess that most UK flagged ships (excluding boats) are procured by the government. There are only four or five airlines that are UK registered, so again the aircraft procurement is going to be close.

You stated government procured, don't then change the car part to "As a percentage of all car bought and sold in UK that will still be pretty small.", when the largest purchaser of cars in the UK that is a company or enterprise is the government.

The question is are they good value for the taxpayer, or would you rather that HMG design something new everytime and rip the taxpayer off even more?

 

[Energy]

We have four manufacturers with UK sites. Stadler is the only significant manufacturer with trains in service in UK that would struggle to meet a basic minimum value made in UK %

No it wouldn't. What @yorksrob is proposing is the percentage throughout the supply chain rather than just the final assembly.

Stadler won the Tyne and Metro Order by having a high UK parts content while Hitachi, despite assembling in the UK, had very little in the supply chain.

Mandating a percentage throughout the supply chain would greatly help UK businesses rather than just having bits from overseas shipped in and assembled.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Biggest single purchaser of motor vehicles in the country is the UK Government agencies.

NHS, Police, Fire, Civil Service.

Don't waste your logic, they're gonna change the goalposts again

 

[Chester1]

I wonder if people who demand that UK trains are 100% made in the UK using 100% sourced components realise that this would be very much exception in the developed world.

DB for example takes trains at least built in part in Spain, Poland and France, and variously including components manufactured in the UK.

People also hark back to the days of BR building its own trains. In what developed country does the main rail operator build its own trains?

The US approach is 60% of value made in US for Amtrak orders. Private operators e.g. freight can order what they like. That provides a lot of flexibility to fit into modern world of manufacturing. I am not advocating for a return to the "good old days". If Labour decide to procure rolling stock directly and order more of these units then Id like CAF to have met some sort of minimum value made in UK.

Again, you're kidding right?

Two of us have answered what you've said and you're now changing the goalposts.

You stated "Cars, planes and ships are rarely procured by the government."

So minus me stating cars as to include military vehicles more generally, you do realise that planes and ships in the UK are majority/close to majority procured by the government? I don't have the numbers to hand but I'd take an educated guess that most UK flagged ships (excluding boats) are procured by the government. There are only four or five airlines that are UK registered, so again the aircraft procurement is going to be close.

You stated government procured, don't then change the car part to "As a percentage of all car bought and sold in UK that will still be pretty small.", when the largest purchaser of cars in the UK that is a company or enterprise is the government.

The question is are they good value for the taxpayer, or would you rather that HMG design something new everytime and rip the taxpayer off even more?

HMG is not going to get ripped off if specifies a minimum value made in UK for taxpayer funded procurement when there is reasonable competition. There is sufficient competition for the government to use its spending power to channel money for new trains into the UK economy. There would be reasonable competition if Civil Service was limited to buying cars with a specific percentage of UK value because multiple companies make cars in UK. Maybe the 60% threshold would be too high for cars. I admit this might get very problematic with specialist vehicles.

I am posting on a forum and not writing a policy paper. I don't see a problem with the UK copying the US approach and saying if taxpayer money is being spent on new trains then the majority of its value needs to be spent in UK.

No it wouldn't. What @yorksrob is proposing is the percentage throughout the supply chain rather than just the final assembly.

Stadler won the Tyne and Metro Order by having a high UK parts content while Hitachi, despite assembling in the UK, had very little in the supply chain.

I am suggesting copying the US and having the UK value at 60%. If Stadler can assemble trains outside the UK and still meet that threshold then fair enough!

 

[BlueLeanie]

People also hark back to the days of BR building its own trains. In what developed country does the main rail operator build its own trains?

It wasn't even that straightforward back in BR's day.

Going right back to the age of steam, many components to building a locomotive (or carriage) or running a railway were either manufactured under licence or bought in.

Think of the Westinghouse braking systems, the shoddy MAN engines built under license by NL, the Leyland & RR engines under the first generation multiple units, the bus panels for the Pacers.

The supply chain will always be diverse and international.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can we stick to the topic of LNER and their CAF order please.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else then they are as ever welcome to start a new thread in the appropriate forum section.

thanks

 

[RailWonderer]

Because the TOCs are really, really, really hacked off with Hitachi. Would you order more trains from a supplier that delivers utter dross on a daily basis? The surprise is that the order has gone to CAF, who are just as poor as Hitachi.

I was wishing for a UK variant of the Stadler SMILE.

I can’t help but wonder why they didn’t go for some 10-car 810s (albeit tri-mode). Would have kept the fleet all Hitachi* (ie operability with the 80x), R&D has already been done through EMR’s fleet, they’re 24m in length and the production line is active.

But, I do think this order has shaken up the IC market: Hitachi can no longer see itself as the UK’s default IC manufacturer.

* not accounting for the 225s

I'd add to other responses that TOCs wanting an all Hitachi fleet for lower maintenance and interoperability is a convenience that Hitachi will charge a higher price for. That's why you need competition and variation of manufacturers. It's not just for enthusiasts!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'd add to other responses that TOCs wanting an all Hitachi fleet for lower maintenance and interoperability is a convenience that Hitachi will charge a higher price for. That's why you need competition and variation of manufacturers. It's not just for enthusiasts!

LNER doesn't maintain its 80x fleet, that's all wrapped up in the per-diagram IEP usage charge, along with the Hitachi-run depots.
It also looks like CAF will be maintaining the new train fleet for 8 years, so again it's not going to be an LNER activity.

CAF's original Northern and TPE orders (195/331/397) did not include maintenance, but did provide support (spares etc) to the TOCs.
But then CAF upped its maintenance offer for the TfW 197s, by taking over Chester depot from Alstom.
They also now have a maintenance presence at Longsight in Manchester (the ex-Eurostar depot).
Presumably they will take over part of Neville Hill depot for the new fleet.

 

[TreacleMiller]

Theres CAF staff their regularly but yes it appears CAF will be going to NL and likely to take on some Northern staff currently working on 91s.

 

[JonathanH]

Theres CAF staff their regularly but yes it appears CAF will be going to NL and likely to take on some Northern staff currently working on 91s.

Is it clear that CAF are doing the maintenance and not Northern? There is an indication upthread that Northern staff will be involved at Heaton but not confirmation as to whether CAF are taking on part of Neville Hill.

It isn't always best that the manufacturer provides maintenance, particularly for the staff involved who lose travel rights and other benefits of working for the railway.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is it clear that CAF are doing the maintenance and not Northern? There is an indication upthread that Northern staff will be involved at Heaton but not confirmation as to whether CAF are taking on part of Neville Hill.
It isn't always best that the manufacturer provides maintenance, particularly for the staff involved who lose travel rights and other benefits of working for the railway.

From the Railway Gazette piece on the order:

LNER orders CAF tri-mode inter-city trains

UK: London North Eastern Railway has awarded CAF a contract to supply a fleet of 10 tri-mode 200 km/h inter-city trainsets for use on East Coast Main Line passenger services. The trainsets will be financed and owned by leasing company Porterbrook. CAF said the order announced ...

www.railwaygazette.com

The trainsets will be financed and owned by leasing company Porterbrook.
CAF said the order announced on November 9 is worth more than €500m, including a maintenance services agreement running for eight years with an option to extend.

The Neville Hill location for maintenance and the base for the trains was mentioned upthread by someone in the know.
The CAF announcement also confirms the trains will be assembled at Newport.

 

[QSK19]

I was wishing for a UK variant of the Stadler SMILE.

I'd add to other reponses that TOCs wanting an all Hitachi fleet for lower maintenance and interoperability is a convenience that Hitachi will charge a higher price for. That's why you need competition and variation of manufacturers. It's not just for enthusiasts!

First point: I believe that Stadler bid for the EMR IC contract - not sure whether it was the FLIRT or SMILE. Would have been interesting if the 810s had been SMILEs!

Second point: whilst I think I’ve been a bit beaten up by a few members on my point, I didn’t actually condone LNER getting a bunch of “tri-mode 810s” - I was merely asking why they couldn’t have turned to Hitachi given it would have been relatively easy to place a follow-up order seeing as the production lines are open. It was a hypothesis as opposed to a wish. I actually like the idea of opening up competition - I’ve argued for that many times and this CAF order has been very useful for that.

 

[Chester1]

First point: I believe that Stadler bid for the EMR IC contract - not sure whether it was the FLIRT or SMILE. Would have been interesting if the 810s had been SMILEs!

Second point: whilst I think I’ve been a bit beaten up by a few members on my point, I didn’t actually condone LNER getting a bunch of “tri-mode 810s” - I was merely asking why they couldn’t have turned to Hitachi given it would have been relatively easy to place a follow-up order seeing as the production lines are open. It was a hypothesis as opposed to a wish. I actually like the idea of opening up competition - I’ve argued for that many times and this CAF order has been very useful for that.

Its not opened up as much competition as you might think. The fleet is due to be delivered to LNER in 2027. CAF seem to have export work for Newport until they start on this order. If CAF units are ordered for another TOC they probably wouldn't arrive until 2028 unless DfT are happy for them to be made abroad.

 

[Driver068]

One to consider and I accept this for another thread but with this approach by LNER to seek a CAF order...could this potentially open yhe door to other TOCs looking at CAF orders, in particular the likes of GC. there's been a general consensus that TOCs are going down the 80x variant where you'd see IC TOCs uniformed with same rolling stock be it uncompatable company to company. This seems to debunk that theroy.

Also, it was mentioned in a post towards the start of the thread that the CAF order was to replace the 91s on the Leeds to London route, however post 256 with the link states all routes bar Anerdeen to Inverness

 

[norbitonflyer]

Also, it was mentioned in a post towards the start of the thread that the CAF order was to replace the 91s on the Leeds to London route, however post 256 with the link states all routes bar Anerdeen to Inverness

LNER does not operate Aberdeen to Inverness, although it does serve both cities.

The CAF order will replace the 91s in the sense that it will allow the 91s to be withdrawn, but that does not preclude there being a mini-cascade - taking over some existing Azuma-operated services to allow the dispalced Azumas to operate to Leeds.

 

[Killingworth]

One to consider and I accept this for another thread but with this approach by LNER to seek a CAF order...could this potentially open yhe door to other TOCs looking at CAF orders, in particular the likes of GC. there's been a general consensus that TOCs are going down the 80x variant where you'd see IC TOCs uniformed with same rolling stock be it uncompatable company to company. This seems to debunk that theroy.

Also, it was mentioned in a post towards the start of the thread that the CAF order was to replace the 91s on the Leeds to London route, however post 256 with the link states all routes bar Anerdeen to Inverness

"Bar to Aberdeen and Inverness".

 

[AndrewJM70]

Does anyone know why the 225s currently still in service were not replaced with Azumas along with the rest of the fleet?

 

[Yew]

LNER does not operate Aberdeen to Inverness, although it does serve both cities.

The CAF order will replace the 91s in the sense that it will allow the 91s to be withdrawn, but that does not preclude there being a mini-cascade - taking over some existing Azuma-operated services to allow the dispalced Azumas to operate to Leeds.

I must admit that this whole order confuses me, it seems like replacing some trains that work perfectly well on a route they were designed for, with no clear cascade pat; should be lower priority than many other rolling stock situations on the railway.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I must admit that this whole order confuses me, it seems like replacing some trains that work perfectly well on a route they were designed for, with no clear cascade pat; should be lower priority than many other rolling stock situations on the railway.

Class 91s are difficult/expensive to maintain and are due to retire.
The ECML is close to finishing a power supply upgrade which allows more services, particularly on the northern half.
LNER has a service development plan with more off-wire working, which IC225s couldn't operate.
They also probably have a better business case for the new trains than other TOCs.

 

[skyhigh]

it seems like replacing some trains that work perfectly well on a route they were designed for, with no clear cascade pat

ETCS is coming on their route, they don't have it fitted and to do so would cost a lot of money. They are expensive to maintain and reportedly spares are becoming an issue. They are tired and will likely go for scrap - there doesn't need to be a cascade plan for everything.

 

[dk1]

ETCS is coming on their route, they don't have it fitted and to do so would cost a lot of money. They are expensive to maintain and reportedly spares are becoming an issue. They are tired and will likely go for scrap - there doesn't need to be a cascade plan for everything.

Especially when they are that old. As the CAF units arrive in a few years their time will be well and truly up.

 

[D365]

I must admit that this whole order confuses me, it seems like replacing some trains that work perfectly well on a route they were designed for, with no clear cascade pat; should be lower priority than many other rolling stock situations on the railway.

Class 91s are difficult/expensive to maintain and are due to retire.
The ECML is close to finishing a power supply upgrade which allows more services, particularly on the northern half.
LNER has a service development plan with more off-wire working, which IC225s couldn't operate.
They also probably have a better business case for the new trains than other TOCs.

ETCS is coming on their route, they don't have it fitted and to do so would cost a lot of money. They are expensive to maintain and reportedly spares are becoming an issue. They are tired and will likely go for scrap - there doesn't need to be a cascade plan for everything.

the Class 91s have done their time - as demonstrated by the lack of interest from domestic or overseas train operators.

And bearing in mind that the retention of IC225s was not originally planned - that was a very clever move by LNER to demonstrate what must be substantial passenger growth on the East Coast routes.

 

[greyman42]

Especially when they are that old. As the CAF units arrive in a few years their time will be well and truly up.

A few years is actually four and that's providing they are on time which is unlikely.

 

[dk1]

A few years is actually four and that's providing they are on time which is unlikely.

Four, a few, it's all the same. This one might surprise us

 

[hexagon789]

Four, a few, it's all the same. This one might surprise us

Yes, it might take fourteen years