New Alstom TER units are too wide (top story on France 2 News tonight)

[eisenach]

The new Alstom TER units are too wide to fit the platforms of hundreds of older stations. The bill for "planing" the platforms so that they can fit runs to millions of €.
SNCF and RFF are busy blaming each other, but, although SNCF placed the order, the specifications were supplied by RFF.
Yet another example of the mess coming from non-integrated rail operations.

 

[CC 72100]

"But all railways are so good on the continent...."

For anybody interested, there is an article on it here, from the France 2 Website. http://www.francetvinfo.fr/france/l...on-le-canard-enchaine_605073.html#xtatc=INT-5

Translation below:

The SNCF has order some 2000 trains which are too wide
It's an error which could prove very costly. The SNCF has ordered more than 2000 trains for TER services. Just one problem: 1300 platforms do not leave enough clearance, as revealed by "Le Canard" in their edition to be published on the 21st May

Contacted by France 2, Christophe Piednoel, spokesperson for RFF (The French equivalent of Network Rail), confirmed that building work has already taken place on some 300 platforms. Therefore, some 1000 platforms require their edges 'shaved off' as these new trains are in some cases one or two centimetres too wide. Christophe explained that the work will cost 50 million euros from the 4 billion yearly budget.

One station in six affected

Leading this major renovation project of TER services, the SNCF had given dimension information to Bombardier and Alstom engineers. These dimensions were based on information supplied by RFF, "Le Canard" explains. Christophe Pednoel ensures that "all of the trains conform to and respect the current legislation which factors in higher passenger numbers". He does however add that "certain platforms were built tens of years ago, before this legislation was introduced". The SNCF have played down the problem by claiming that only 1 station in 6 will require work.

The Rhone-Alpes and Midi-Pyrenees are the regions the hardest hit by the problem. Alain Rousset, President of the French Regions Associations has stated that "asking the regions to contribute a single penny (to the work) is out of the question"

Interestingly, Le Parisien reports that the problems are with Bombardier built trains, so there seems to be some confusion with regards to whether it affects both new orders or just the one.

 

[daikilo]

"But all railways are so good on the continent...."

For anybody interested, there is an article on it here, from the France 2 Website. http://www.francetvinfo.fr/france/l...on-le-canard-enchaine_605073.html#xtatc=INT-5

Translation below:


Interestingly, Le Parisien reports that the problems are with Bombardier built trains, so there seems to be some confusion with regards to whether it affects both new orders or just the one.

The very fact that RFF appear to have fixed the issue with 300 platforms suggests that it is not too much of a surprise. I would hazard a guess that when the external profile specs for the new trains were issued, someone, maybe from RFF, ticked a box. Someone (else) may then have realised that what was actually out there may not be quite what the computer said (tollerances, settlement, track alignment ....).

Won't be the first time, and this is why it is always good to do clearance trials with a mock-up before the real train is built.

Must be a slow news day in France, or maybe "anything to knock Alstom"

 

[CalderRail]

€50m for 1300 stations is €38,451 per station. Which frankly isn't bad for getting the whole lot into a single, less restrictive loading gauge. If we could do that on the British Rail network we would do it like a shot (we can't, of course - too many tunnels of restricted gauge).

 

[Gordon]

"But all railways are so good on the continent...."

Interestingly, Le Parisien reports that the problems are with Bombardier built trains,.

Parisien says both types in the piece I found.
http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/l...larges-pour-1200-quais-20-05-2014-3856765.php




.

 

[Katketty]

SNCF and the RFF have made a bit of a woopsie in spending 15 billion euros on trains that are too wide for many of France's platforms. It has cost them 50m euros so far with work having already begun to reconfigure the platforms.

French red faces over trains that are 'too wide'

The French train operator SNCF has discovered that 2,000 new trains it ordered at a cost of 15bn euros ($20.5bn; £12.1bn) are too wide for many regional platforms.

The BBC's Christian Fraser in Paris says that it is an embarrassing blunder that has so far cost the rail operator over 50m euros ($68.4m; £40.6m).

Our correspondent says that the cost is likely to rise even further.

Construction work has already started to reconfigure station platforms.

The work will allow new trains room to pass through. But officials say that there are still 1,000 platforms to be adjusted.

The blunder has cost the rail operator a substantial sum of money
The error seems to have happened because the national rail operator RFF gave the wrong dimensions to train company SNCF.

Our correspondent says that they measured platforms built less than 30 years ago, overlooking the fact that many of France's regional platforms were built more than 50 years ago when trains were a little slimmer.

The platform edges are too close to the tracks in some stations which means the trains cannot get in, officials say.

A spokesman for the RFF confirmed they had "discovered the problem a bit late".

Transport Minister Frederic Cuvillier blamed an "absurd rail system" for the problems.

"When you separate the rail operator from the train company," he said, "this is what happens."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27497727

 

[gazthomas]

Made me laugh just what we Brits would do!

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Funny, if this happened in Britain the unions would be rushing to condemn this as evidence of the folly of privatisation...

 

[anme]

If the price for adapting stations is 50 million euros, and the cost of the trains is 15 billion euros, the extra spending amounts to a third of one percent of the cost of the order (0.3333%). Doesn't seem like such a big deal.

 

[Ironside]

if the facts are as presented then this is the funniest rail cock up I have ever heard about. And if the station remodeling can be done for such a low cost it's also quite a bargain solution.

 

[Darandio]

If the price for adapting stations is 50 million euros, and the cost of the trains is 15 billion euros, the extra spending amounts to a third of one percent of the cost of the order (0.3333%). Doesn't seem like such a big deal.

Should have been completely unnecessary though.

I imagine that if it had happened in this country, it would be front page news, would be under discussion for weeks and there would be an inquiry complete with scapegoat of which their head would roll. And as already suggested, widespread condemnation from the unions.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is this any different to us buying a fleet of 26m IEPs and needing clearance work done on the stations they will operate through?
I don't see "red faces at NR" in our newspapers for buying trains that are "too big".
Almost every new class of train needs clearance work.
Our Networkers were particularly awkward, I seem to remember (because of step-plates).

 

[pemma]

The Alstom built 175s originally had come platform clearance issues when they were first introduced but I think they overcame those issues by making alterations to the steps next to the passenger doors.

 

[anme]

Should have been completely unnecessary though.

I imagine that if it had happened in this country, it would be front page news, would be under discussion for weeks and there would be an inquiry complete with scapegoat of which their head would roll. And as already suggested, widespread condemnation from the unions.

Of course it shouldn't have happened. I'd expect this to lead to an thorough investigation of the cause of the alleged mistake. However, as someone who is regularly involved in large engineering projects, I can tell you that if this is the worst thing that goes wrong with such a large order (i.e. costing 0.3333% of the budget), SNCF will have done very well indeed.

To be honest, I wonder if this is really as presented in the press. Getting something as basic as this wrong doesn't really ring true. I'd guess it's more likely this issue was known about at and accepted at the time of the order, but somehow not communicated to all the relevant people. Or that this is part of some internal budget dispute between SNCF, RFF, etc. Or even that someone missed the 50 million euros off an Excel sheet and it got lost (believe me - that's a disturbingly common occurrence).

This is in no way comparable to other railway cock ups of recent years, such as the UK's west coast main line upgrade overspend or the Fyra fiasco.

 

[gordonthemoron]

or the ICE-T bogie fiasco

 

[talltim]

Even if SNCF was still one entity, the platform gauging requirements would have come from a separate department from the train procurement team

 

[A-driver]

To be fair, this has happened in the UK before. I believe the electrostars had problems as they were too power hungry for the network but the most obvious is the 465 introduction. London bridge station and others had to be partially rebuilt for them and even now the southern lines around Vic and London bridge have 'no networker' signs up as they are too wide for some platforms. I believe the networkers were cleared without step boards on. Then they were added and no longer met clearances.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I imagine that if it had happened in this country, it would be front page news, would be under discussion for weeks and there would be an inquiry complete with scapegoat of which their head would roll. And as already suggested, widespread condemnation from the unions.

Would there, though? Would there really?

Most new types of train have presented gauging issues somewhere. Even now, many types of unit are barred from certain lines because of gauging.

There are issues with Eurostar sets on the King Edward Bridge, the 158s couldn't stop at Blackburn for months because the doors hit the platform edge, and I believe that 153 and 155 trains are still barred from Wigan Wallgate because of gauging. The Networkers had issues, the 175s had issues, it happens all the time.

 

[Emyr]

This is the kind of event where you need someone to step in and block a bodge... Rather than tweaking the platforms for this particular class of vehicle, look at all the related issues that could be addressed at the same time at the affected stations, so the chance of these stations needing more gauge work could be avoided.

Probably won't happen though.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Is this any different to us buying a fleet of 26m IEPs and needing clearance work done on the stations they will operate through?
I don't see "red faces at NR" in our newspapers for buying trains that are "too big".
Almost every new class of train needs clearance work.
Our Networkers were particularly awkward, I seem to remember (because of step-plates).

I think the big deal is that, as presented to the media, it was an issue that occurred because of a mistake made in the ordering, or at best something that was not realised until too late.

Knowingly ordering a wider train and factoring in the adjustments required is not a big deal.

 

[Yew]

Its entirely possible, that the price of these wider trains, and the platform changes, is less than the price of trains that fit the platforms.

 

[jon0844]

The way the BBC presented the story, and no doubt other media, it sounded like a monumental cock up.

In some respects it is, but it seems quite cheap to fix. And if Bombardier is building the trains, surely they've got loads of time anyway? (Oh wait, this isn't Bombardier in Derby!).

Anyway, if the trains are wider and more comfortable for the passenger then it seems that it's still better to upgrade all the platforms if we're talking about a relatively small sum (in the grand scheme of things), rather than have narrower trains to fit in with ancient platforms.

I got the impression at first that these trains would be unusable or something, or would cost trillions to fix with every station having to be rebuilt! Turns out to be not that much of a story, although the BBC did mention the French are already using this as a way of attacking the necessary split of the train/infrastructure businesses. I guess that's the real story/agenda.

 

[GodAtum]

Quote of the year lol

Transport Minister Frederic Cuvillier blamed an "absurd rail system" for the problems.

"When you separate the rail operator from the train company," he said, "this is what happens."

 

[eisenach]

Well, it's an even bigger story today on the lunchtime news (France 2).
The pictures shown were of new Alstom units.

RFF has held its hands up to admit fault, but blames the fact that because these stations are over 50 - 100 years old (I think they meant they'd not had any work done to them since then !), they didn't have reliable technical details.
A law is to be voted early next year to re-unite FFR and SNCF.

It'll be interesting to see what the EU will have to say to that; Ithought the whole reason for the separation was so that there could be operating competition.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is this any different to us buying a fleet of 26m IEPs and needing clearance work done on the stations they will operate through?
I don't see "red faces at NR" in our newspapers for buying trains that are "too big".
Almost every new class of train needs clearance work.
Our Networkers were particularly awkward, I seem to remember (because of step-plates).

I think the difference is that it was always expected that gauging work would be required for IEP whereas with this order I get the impression they were supposed to work out of the box without fixing 300 platforms. Hence the 'red faces' at this unexpected issue.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Slightly less sensationalist report in the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e2cc2782-e0c2-11e3-a934-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32LpvQaSg

341 trains, 2000+ vehicles, builds from both Alstom and Bombardier.
Alstom has an order for 182 Regiolis trains. http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/alstom-rgiolis-regional-trains/
Bombardier has an order for 159 Regio2N trains. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...dier-awarded-french-regional-train-order.html

Organisationally, RFF is much closer to SNCF than Network Rail is to our TOCs.
The proposed "reunification" will still have "Chinese walls" to satisfy EU rules.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

if the facts are as presented then this is the funniest rail cock up I have ever heard about.

The same thing happened 30 years ago with the first batch of 1983 stock for the Underground; in that instance I understand that the solution was to tighten up the bodyshells to make them slightly narrower.

 

[Deepgreen]

Interestingly, too, the 1983 stock on LU was probably the shortest-lived of any of their stocks, lasting fewer than twenty years.

 

[WatcherZero]

It affects around 1200 platforms or 15% of the french network mostly in mountainous areas where platforms are older and not been rebuilt/converted to modern standards of the last 30 years.

The required spend is indeed tiny and beneficial as it would open the platforms up to use by other newer French rolling stock.

 

[jopsuk]

surely closer integration of RFF and SNCF wouldn't stop the civil engineers supplying the rolling stock procurement department with duff data?