LNER announce CAF fleet

[williamn]

Well, it’s cost them in the long run- I won’t be venturing to Inverness or Aberdeen on LNER for the foreseeable, which I used to love doing on the HST’s. I only travel on the Azuma’s when essential and I don’t even find first class down to London a particularly enjoyable experience anymore. I appreciate I am but one person, but I’ve heard/seen plenty of others saying it so it must be having some impact in terms of ticket revenue.

It’s clearly not having an impact given that LNER have had some of best passenger growth across the network. I do Aberdeen to London several times a year and have no issues with the seats.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Bit surprising that the Treasury, ie presumably they are shareholder's shareholder, went along with this, surely, given the current financial situation. Or will the new CAF trains be no dearer than the 225s (once allowance is made for the huge refurb that would be needed to keep them)?

 

[Snow1964]

It’s clearly not having an impact given that LNER have had some of best passenger growth across the network. I do Aberdeen to London several times a year and have no issues with the seats.

LNER passenger numbers only grew 4% in a year per ORR figures (table 1.1) and people travelled 1% shorter distance (table 2.2), although that might be bit of extra split ticketing

LNER cut number of trains run by 6% (tables 4.1 and 5.1)

So to say they have had some of the best growth seems wrong as near bottom of the growth in passenger numbers tables

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/ip3ayian/passenger-rail-usage-apr-jun-2023.pdf

But the tables show volumes and kilometers operated, not average ticket price so revenue change might not be consistent with volume

Bit surprising that the Treasury, ie presumably they are shareholder's shareholder, went along with this, surely, given the current financial situation. Or will the new CAF trains be no dearer than the 225s (once allowance is made for the huge refurb that would be needed to keep them)?

The lease costs aren't known, all we know is amount CAF receive for building them and maintaining them for few years.

We know from recent Alstom 8 year cross country maintenance contract that they are about £1000 per day per vehicle, but newer electric trains ought to be less.

The Treasury probably looked at refurbishing but calculated costs weren't good for relatively short timescale (serious life extension work at 32 years on a train with nominal life of nearer 35 years is unlikely to make economic sense).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Treasury probably won't be bothered about the train itself, but they would have had to be persuaded to permit any new trains to be ordered at all.
The austerity solution would be to simply retire the 225s and cut the LNER network accordingly.
So LNER must have had some vote of approval to keep and grow its business.
The performance of the IEP fleet might also have been part of the equation.
It might also unlock other TOC plans for new stock (eg the Northern multi-mode requirement).
And would it have happened without the HS2 cancellation?

 

[Bayum]

Why 10 car, when everything else is 9?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why 10 car, when everything else is 9?

397s are 24m, give or take, so 10-car is 240m.
80x are 26m, so 9-car is 234m
That would be my guess.

 

[RailWonderer]

Why 10 car, when everything else is 9?

Likely because they will be 24m coaches as per the 397s rather than the 26m coaches on the 80x.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Good. Hopefully they'll be built there.

Still only assembled in Newport. I’m sure none of the technical design and component manufacture will come from Britain. Makes you wince to think of all the billions of pounds of traction we’ve spent since privatisation that’s gone offshore. Imagine if we had BREL, it would have had constant work from about 1997 onwards!

 

[Dan G]

The range of batteries and power under diesel will be interesting too. I might be wrong I think the 800s and 802s have 3 generator sets per 5 car unit while the 810s have 4 because of the high proportion of MML without wires. I would guess that the need to find space for batteries will mean a power under diesel similar to an 800. The intended period of use of the batteries will be interesting. They could be planning to replace the batteries every 5 to 7 years to keep extending the range as technology grows. Old batteries could easily find a new home so it would be environmentally friendly.

Yes. Across various statements Hitachi say their 5-car battery IET can cruise on 750 kW provided by the traction battery, though in totality the intended modes of operation seem to be like a plug-in hybrid EV car; battery-only at low speeds and to boost power for acceleration/climbing. Presumably it will be the same here.

Intercity Battery Trains | Hitachi Rail

www.hitachirail.com

Battery Intercity Train Technical Specification | Hitachi Rail

www.hitachirail.com

That used a battery the same size as a GU raft, replacing one of the three.

Still only assembled in Newport. I’m sure none of the technical design and component manufacture will come from Britain. Makes you wince to think of all the billions of pounds of traction we’ve spent since privatisation that’s gone offshore. Imagine if we had BREL, it would have had constant work from about 1997 onwards!

You seem a bit obsessed about this. Few factories for cars, aircraft or trains bend metal on-site anymore and parts/components have always been made elsewhere.

There's no particular reason to assume the parts are made abroad and imported. It may surprise you but British industrial output is higher than ever.

 

[yorksrob]

Still only assembled in Newport. I’m sure none of the technical design and component manufacture will come from Britain. Makes you wince to think of all the billions of pounds of traction we’ve spent since privatisation that’s gone offshore. Imagine if we had BREL, it would have had constant work from about 1997 onwards!

Unfortunately this problem is writ large all over the British economy.

That's laissez-faire economics for you.

 

[Chester1]

Yes. Across various statements Hitachi say their 5-car battery IET can cruise on 750 kW provided by the traction battery, though in totality the intended modes of operation seem to be like a plug-in hybrid EV car; battery-only at low speeds and to boost power for acceleration/climbing. Presumably it will be the same here.

Intercity Battery Trains | Hitachi Rail

www.hitachirail.com

Battery Intercity Train Technical Specification | Hitachi Rail

www.hitachirail.com

That used a battery the same size as a GU raft, replacing one of the three.


You seem a bit obsessed about this. Few factories for cars, aircraft or trains bend metal on-site anymore and parts/components have always been made elsewhere.

There's no particular reason to assume the parts are made abroad and imported. It may surprise you but British industrial output is higher than ever.

The real need for batteries will come in late 2040s and by that point battery technology will have moved on and a battery size today for stations and shunting will probably be able to do a considerable distance.

A lot of people who remember the days of manufacturing on one site can't seem to move on from it. HS2 rolling stock will be made over three different sites, just by Alstom and Hitachi. More parts will be made elsewhere in UK.

Unfortunately this problem is writ large all over the British economy.

That's laissez-faire economics for you.

Assembly only isn't a problem if the value added in UK is high. Amtrak trains have to have 60% of value made in US to recieve government financing. Nothing wrong with assembly facilities if the parts they are assembling are predominantly British.

 

[TreacleMiller]

The use of batteries was intended for arrival, during and departure of stations which are away from the over head lines. So I’ve been told. Would also assist with shunting etc at for example Harrogate.

This is what's being said internally.

The company get noise complaints and emissions issues at the moment when 800s are in the siding. We have specific instructions to go onto 1 GU while there... Still.... Not great.

Also increases flexibility at NL as these will be able to occupy the unwired roads.

 

[AdamWW]

Also increases flexibility at NL as these will be able to occupy the unwired roads.

Can you not do that using the single GU on the non bi-modes?

 

[yorksrob]

Assembly only isn't a problem if the value added in UK is high. Amtrak trains have to have 60% of value made in US to recieve government financing. Nothing wrong with assembly facilities if the parts they are assembling are predominantly British.

Maybe not so much of a problem.

Of course, requiring 60% of value to be made domestically isn't laissez-faire. Does our own establishment make such a requirement ?

 

[800001]

Can you not do that using the single GU on the non bi-modes?

They do already.

 

[TreacleMiller]

Can you not do that using the single GU on the non bi-modes?

Yes...

But you can't with a 91.

 

[Chester1]

Maybe not so much of a problem.

Of course, requiring 60% of value to be made domestically isn't laissez-faire. Does our own establishment make such a requirement ?

Unfortunately they don't. The legislation would be relatively straight forward. It wouldn't breach the UK - EU Trade and Co-operation agreement either. Plenty of enthusiasts would still moan that we should do things like in the good old days... This contract will secure CAF Newport and its supply chain until 2027. The reports of export work in Modern Railways are probably accurate. They have either finished the 197 order or be about to and I doubt there will be much physical work on this order for quite a while.

 

[coppercapped]

Remind me who owns LNER...?

It doesn't matter who owns LNER - the 'owner' is not paying CAF for the construction of the trains, Porterbrook is raising the money. This means that the capital cost of the trains is not being paid by the taxpayer.

Whether LNER is owned by the Government or by another entity will also make little difference[1] to the subsidy required from, or any premiums paid to, the Government after the trains enter service and subsequently as this will largely depend on traffic and fare levels at the time and costs of operation. The costs of management of the TOC will be essentially the same whoever 'owns' it, OLR or a 'franchisee' as these are staff costs.

[1] There may be differences in the amount and timing of subsidies received or premiums paid if there are differences in the contract terms between OLR and any putative franchisee.

 

[Grimsby town]

LNER passenger numbers only grew 4% in a year per ORR figures (table 1.1) and people travelled 1% shorter distance (table 2.2), although that might be bit of extra split ticketing

LNER cut number of trains run by 6% (tables 4.1 and 5.1)

So to say they have had some of the best growth seems wrong as near bottom of the growth in passenger numbers tables

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/ip3ayian/passenger-rail-usage-apr-jun-2023.pdf

But the tables show volumes and kilometers operated, not average ticket price so revenue change might not be consistent with volume


The lease costs aren't known, all we know is amount CAF receive for building them and maintaining them for few years.

We know from recent Alstom 8 year cross country maintenance contract that they are about £1000 per day per vehicle, but newer electric trains ought to be less.

The Treasury probably looked at refurbishing but calculated costs weren't good for relatively short timescale (serious life extension work at 32 years on a train with nominal life of nearer 35 years is unlikely to make economic sense).

But growth back from pandemic lows was already strong before Q1 2022/23. LNER already exceeded pre-covid at this usage by this point which no other operator had. Other operators are seeing high growth but are still below pre-covid levels of usage. LNER on the other hand is at around 111% of 2019 usage. That's the highest level for a non-open access operator.

 

[QSK19]

Likely because they will be 24m coaches as per the 397s rather than the 26m coaches on the 80x.

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

 

[Chester1]

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

Other members have said that Hitachi have basically priced themself out of future orders for 80X due to a new asking price. Hitachi maintenance sites for LNER are already stretched so a seperate fleet makes sense. If the new fleet is a success then CAF would be well placed for future bi mode intercity orders.

 

[800001]

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

Hitachi are severely late delivering the 810s, and key dates for testing keep getting put back and put back.
Only 810001 is undergoing testing in uk, 810003 upwards have not yet left the production/test area at Newton Aycliffe.

Hitachi seem not to be able to meet any key delivery dates with the 805/807/810.

CAF as well as a better price maybe also offered better/realistic service entry.

 

[Speed43125]

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

As mentioned elsewhere, the AT300 platform is set up for odd numbers of carriages in it's formations. There would have been additional R&D costs for a hypothetical 10 car unit that the order would need to cover.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Assembly only isn't a problem if the value added in UK is high. Amtrak trains have to have 60% of value made in US to receive government financing. Nothing wrong with assembly facilities if the parts they are assembling are predominantly British.

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.

 

[43096]

I can’t help but wonder why they didn’t go for some 10-car 810s (albeit tri-mode).

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.

 

[TreacleMiller]

810

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

810s arent interoperable with the 800/801 fleet.

Different length, TMS etc.

Conversion might be quick training wise.. But that would be it.

Doncaster IEP isn't setup for them either as it stands, though that's a minor point.



There has been a fair bit of surprise about this announcement in general. Across the driving grade it's been known for sometime CAF were where the order was going however quite recently the rumour was that we were taking on TPE 802s.

 

[Chester1]

Do people ask how much of their car/ship/aircraft is British-sourced? Why are trains any different?
BR always bought in diesel and electric packages, often 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 wherever the train is assembled.

Cars, planes and ships are rarely procured by the government. Trains and trams are already sometimes procured by local and devolved governments. If Labour win the next general election and procure trains directly then a US style 60% of value quota would be a very reasonable method of making sure that taxes are spent within the UK, with 4 manufacturers to choose from. If Grand Central wanted a new fleet that would be between them, the Rosco and the manufacturer.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Cars, planes and ships are rarely procured by the government. Trains and trams are already sometimes procured by local and devolved governments. If Labour win the next general election and procure trains directly then a US style 60% of value quota would be a very reasonable method of making sure that taxes are spent within the UK, with 4 manufacturers to choose from. If Grand Central wanted a new fleet that would be between them, the Rosco and the manufacturer.

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!

 

[TreacleMiller]

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

NHS, Police, Fire, Civil Service.

 

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately they don't. The legislation would be relatively straight forward. It wouldn't breach the UK - EU Trade and Co-operation agreement either. Plenty of enthusiasts would still moan that we should do things like in the good old days... This contract will secure CAF Newport and its supply chain until 2027. The reports of export work in Modern Railways are probably accurate. They have either finished the 197 order or be about to and I doubt there will be much physical work on this order for quite a while.

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