Tyne & Wear Metro Fleet Replacement: Awarded to Stadler

[trebor79]

As for Stadler, given the Metro is a pretty unique systen that has never seen a new train for forty years, it would be quite premature to assume that they're not going to experience the same issues Hitachi has. Having any kind of employee presence just down the
[Snip]
A failure to ensure the secure transit of their first unit on its delivery journey is an established fact that speaks directly to the sort of attention to detail you would hope was there to ensure far worse problems aren't waiting to be discovered at this late stage.

Yawn. A bit of graffiti by some.mindless idiot tells you NOTHING about the trains or the manufacturer.

Having enjoyed Stadlers quality products here in East Anglia for the past 3 years, I have every confident the 555s will be excellent.

 

[ModernRailways]

Taggers aren't superhuman, money can't buy an invisibility cloak, and you can clearly see from the size and detail of the vandalised area, the breach in security was sufficient to be of concern to anyone who has been watching the news recently.

As for Stadler, given the Metro is a pretty unique systen that has never seen a new train for forty years, it would be quite premature to assume that they're not going to experience the same issues Hitachi has. Having any kind of employee presence just down the road, never mind an actual facility, is an advantage in numerous ways, and I speak as someone who used to work for a small but high tech engineering OEM with clients and suppliers all over the world. Try as we might, the customers within a day's drive got better service in the testing and maintenance field than those in continental Europe. Serving America required a step change in associated costs.

A failure to ensure the secure transit of their first unit on its delivery journey is an established fact that speaks directly to the sort of attention to detail you would hope was there to ensure far worse problems aren't waiting to be discovered at this late stage. As has already been alluded to, any evidence that a unit has been tampered with in transit, is legitimate grounds to reject it outright, up to and including a return to the factory. History tells us that finding yourself in a situation where you feel under pressure not to exercise your contractual rights, is a bad situation to be in.

The BBC would have likely caught this incident in all scenarios, and published it in the public interest. Or worse, would have eventually figured out they were lied to by Nexus or Stadler. They have covered this project in detail from day one, and this was an important milestone.

Not the case at all, under the cover of darkness and dressed in all black it is hard to see people, these people do this, in some cases, for a living. They know weak spots and ways of getting around security. They don’t wear some bright pink flashy costume with alarms and big signs saying ‘I’m going to tag this train’. These are professionals at what they do, just as you must be a professional at something

To presume that we aren’t being given the tools and equipment to maintain these trains is insulting to myself and the rest of the depot team. If we require presence from the Stadler team then we would be able to get it extremely quickly if it came to it. There is no difference between a factory down the road, and a factory 2 hours away by flight.

Not sure if Stadler have personally hurt you, or you really just have an obsession for wanting something Japanese, or maybe you just have a personal issue with the Swiss? Either way, we’re getting the best units we could have, and the majority of us are excited for it to begin testing on the network. I’m sure you’d have found some other complaint to use if it hadn’t of been tagged.

 

[the sniper]

Taggers aren't superhuman, money can't buy an invisibility cloak, and you can clearly see from the size and detail of the vandalised area, the breach in security was sufficient to be of concern to anyone who has been watching the news recently.

It's alright, they'll soon be in the safe haven of the T&W!

 

[DanNCL]

The 'perfectly good train factory down the road' didn't provide as good a bid and is Japanese, if they had of won the bid the chances are they wouldn't have made the trains at the 'perfectly good train factory down the road', they may have been assembled there but we require something more bespoke. If it was built here then the chances of delays and issues I can imagine being significant. In an international world is it really an issue that we can choose to get the best product available? As much as I think Nexus are totally incompetent and haven't a clue how to run a transport system, with the procurement of this new rolling stock they have, in my view, made an excellent choice. Stadler is well known for having reliable, and well built stock, that typically ages incredibly well. There's no reason the Metro shouldn't have some of the best rolling stock on the market, it has to last and it has to be ready for the future, whatever that may hold in terms of expansion.

My understanding, although I had no involvement in the bidding phase of the procurement, is that the Hitachi bid, though it would have been assembled in Newton Aycliffe, would have contained very few components from the North East, whereas the Stadler units though built in Switzerland are using a decent number of components sourced from the North East, and was thought able to support more jobs in the North East than the Hitachi bid despite not being assembled here.

The train would've been tagged wherever it ended up, including here at Gosforth, regardless of security levels. It's the first of a new fleet of trains, the vast majority of graffiti artists will try and tag it to get their name out there and boost their reputation.

Professional graffiti artists can fully tag a train (top to bottom, full carriage) in a minute, sometimes even less. They plan what they're doing, and they will have likely practiced, they aren't like your local yobs who've gone to B&Q and nicked a few spray cans and are just writing a tag on things. All it takes is one security guard to turn their head, go to the toilet etc. and the train is tagged, next thing they smell the paint fumes, have a look and the people who were tagging it have already vanished into the night.
The only way it could be better protected would be to have a ring of security around the train at all times, and lets be real, does anybody really care that much? It'll be cleaned off and at the press unveiling it will be all nice and sparkly new. If anything, it's good that it's been tagged already as it should mean there's not as much of a big international interest, and it will be more just a local interest to get it tagged, which can largely be mitigated against with the train remaining in depot and when out and about in testing not announcing it anywhere - much easier to do on Metro, than on NR.

I agree apart from the bit in bold - the international interest should have been a non-issue from the moment 555002 was tagged at Arth-Goldau, UK interest however it was inevitable from the moment it was known there was cash on offer for being the first to tag it that it'd be tagged very quickly.

As for Stadler, given the Metro is a pretty unique systen that has never seen a new train for forty years, it would be quite premature to assume that they're not going to experience the same issues Hitachi has. Having any kind of employee presence just down the road, never mind an actual facility, is an advantage in numerous ways, and I speak as someone who used to work for a small but high tech engineering OEM with clients and suppliers all over the world. Try as we might, the customers within a day's drive got better service in the testing and maintenance field than those in continental Europe. Serving America required a step change in associated costs.

Hitachi's issues are down to them mucking up the design big time by designing a yaw damper bracket and lifting plates that weren't up to the job, they now have to be replaced on every vehicle Hitachi have built at Newton Aycliffe, as well as many built in Italy and a few built in Japan. Stadler haven't to my knowledge had any structural issues with their products (or at least not any of the same severity) although I'm happy to be corrected if that's not the case.

I'm not at all assuming that the Stadler fleet won't experience any issues as they almost certainly will experience some issues like every new train from every supplier does. But I think it is reasonable to assume they likely won't have the same structural issues that Hitachi's output from Newton Aycliffe has had.

Metro is a unique system, but Stadler are very familiar with building for unique systems, having delivered custom trains to many unique railways in Continental Europe, including the Kleinprofil lines of the Berlin U Bahn which are as restrictive if not even more restrictive than Metro when it comes to fleet requirements.

Stadler has an extensive employee presence in the UK who can provide much of the technical support that would be expected of the manufacturer.

A failure to ensure the secure transit of their first unit on its delivery journey is an established fact that speaks directly to the sort of attention to detail you would hope was there to ensure far worse problems aren't waiting to be discovered at this late stage. As has already been alluded to, any evidence that a unit has been tampered with in transit, is legitimate grounds to reject it outright, up to and including a return to the factory. History tells us that finding yourself in a situation where you feel under pressure not to exercise your contractual rights, is a bad situation to be in.

It would have been impossible to prevent the most determined of vandals from accessing it without literally wrapping the unit in plastic as we saw with some of the CAF deliveries. It might protect against graffiti but is it really worth all of that otherwise needless plastic, that'll go straight to landfill after the one delivery trip? I don't think it is, nor would the majority of people.

As far as rejection of delivery and return to factory goes I assume you're referring to what I mentioned about at least one of the refurbished Metrocars being rejected at Hylton Street and sent back to Wabtec with graffiti. The difference between that delivery and this one is that that delivery was from a Wabtec facility direct to Nexus. This delivery was a movement of a currently Stadler owned unit between two Stadler facilities, contracted out to RailAdventure, who in turn sub-contracted the Channel Tunnel and Kent leg of the delivery to DB Cargo, and Nexus effectively acting as a sub-contractor for the Pelaw - Gosforth leg of the delivery. The unit doesn't become Nexus property until they formally accept it, until then it remains Stadler property even whilst on Nexus infrastructure and being tested by Nexus staff. Stadler were hardly going to get the unit to Gosforth, decide they weren't accepting the delivery and send it back to their own site in eastern Switzerland!

The question isn't should the unit have been rejected as the answer to that is no. The question Stadler now have is who is responsible for paying to clean it. In that regard this happened at probably the worst time during the entire delivery possible as it was during the handover between DB Cargo and RailAdventure, so one could realistically expect those two companies to say it's the responsibility of the other to pay if Stadler send them the bill.

The BBC would have likely caught this incident in all scenarios, and published it in the public interest. Or worse, would have eventually figured out they were lied to by Nexus or Stadler. They have covered this project in detail from day one, and this was an important milestone.

They might eventually have found out if they happened to look at every single photo published in the Chronicle article several days later that didn't actually mention the graffiti (or if did, only in passing), but I think they'd have quite easily been able to miss it.

Neither Stadler or Nexus would have lied about the graffiti had they been contacted and asked about it. Although if nobody had asked them about it, what interest is there in them announcing it? None whatsoever.

 

[Meerkat]

Have the railways tried asking the media (and hobby photographers) not to publish graffiti images, or at least blurring them so the culprit gets less exposure?

 

[XAM2175]

As for Stadler, given the Metro is a pretty unique systen that has never seen a new train for forty years, it would be quite premature to assume that they're not going to experience the same issues Hitachi has. Having any kind of employee presence just down the road, never mind an actual facility, is an advantage in numerous ways, and I speak as someone who used to work for a small but high tech engineering OEM with clients and suppliers all over the world.

Those forty-year-old trains were built in Birmingham even though there was a perfectly good rolling stock factory just down the road in York, so I take it that you also consider them to be deeply suspect?

 

[Fleetmaster]

To stress the point to breaking, the issue is not the tagging, it's the security breach. The issue is not how easy it is to clean graffiti off a train, it's the consequences orf something has potentially been put on or in the train, or has otherwise interfered with. Even to bring it back to tagging as the cause of concern, I assume taggers don't really care if they step on an area of the train that is clearly marked "no step" while in pursuit of their vandalism, causing damage that may not be visible to a simple visual inspection or even a start up test, and might not even reasonably be part of a check for damage in transit inspection.

Although historical, there is iirc a train accident where the immediate cause was a single incorrectly set brake valve, externally accessible. Brake systems are safer nowadays, but of course, adding to the risk is that this was a newly delivered unit that is still being commissioned, and it is not unknown in the early phases of commissioning to not have all the train's systems in operation.

That's but one example. You can stretch the what if point in all manner of ways when you play out all the possible scenarios arising from this breach, and believe it or not, doing so is the job of a security analyst (and of course, the Stadler manager doing a risk assessment of the transit arrangements).

Nexus can and probably should reject any unit where they are made aware of an insecure transit of potentially significant impact, for the above reasons. Which is why it will always be cheaper and easier to ensure you are being as rigorous in your transit arrangements as you apparently are in your design process.

The complexity of the delivery arrangements, especially if it apparently leads to simple failures in security like parking the unit in an unlit siding, does unfortunately speak to the quality of the company's planning or execution of its basic business processes.

As for potential design flaws that will only arise in service, like Hitachi, this may be a gross simplification that offends many here, but to merely illustrate the point, people unfamiliar with the system might see the word Metro and see the relatively lightweight units crawling though level crossings and stopping at prefab street stations, and make assumptions about things like chassis stresses and component specifications.

The reality is, when you see these things in action, particular lineside, you see the speeds and the stresses they are subjected to on certain stretches, compounded by their mass transit usage, and realise that in many ways, they can and should be considered main line multiple units. It is essentially a unit that needs to be both a main line unit and a Metro unit, powered from overhead lines. Oh, and it also goes through long tunnels, so needs to be a subway unit too. It can hit cows and horses, cars and pedestrians. It can be eaten by doormice and rats.

It carries bikes, wheelchairs and suitcases. It crawls and it flies, it rattles and rolls. Just as with Hitachi too, these units need to safely interact with other electrical systems belonging to the mainline railway, and indeed, presumably many domestic and industrial installations, squeezing between the ever growing estates with their solar and heat pumps and all that jazz.

For all those reasons, and many many more, and with the basic assumption that Hitachi, the Japanese having invented the sort of design and manufacturing assurance systems needed for such bespoke products, still having failed in a spectacular way, I have my doubts there is any wholly analogous systems in the world, even less so when looking for a system Stadler might have recently supplied. I stand to be corrected if that was considered as part of the bid, but I don't recall that it was.

 

[ExRes]

To stress the point to breaking, the issue is not the tagging, it's the security breach. The issue is not how easy it is to clean graffiti off a train, it's the consequences orf something has potentially been put on or in the train, or has otherwise interfered with. Even to bring it back to tagging as the cause of concern, I assume taggers don't really care if they step on an area of the train that is clearly marked "no step" while in pursuit of their vandalism, causing damage that may not be visible to a simple visual inspection or even a start up test, and might not even reasonably be part of a check for damage in transit inspection.

Although historical, there is iirc a train accident where the immediate cause was a single incorrectly set brake valve, externally accessible. Brake systems are safer nowadays, but of course, adding to the risk is that this was a newly delivered unit that is still being commissioned, and it is not unknown in the early phases of commissioning to not have all the train's systems in operation.

That's but one example. You can stretch the what if point in all manner of ways when you play out all the possible scenarios arising from this breach, and believe it or not, doing so is the job of a security analyst (and of course, the Stadler manager doing a risk assessment of the transit arrangements).

Nexus can and probably should reject any unit where they are made aware of an insecure transit of potentially significant impact, for the above reasons. Which is why it will always be cheaper and easier to ensure you are being as rigorous in your transit arrangements as you apparently are in your design process.

The complexity of the delivery arrangements, especially if it apparently leads to simple failures in security like parking the unit in an unlit siding, does unfortunately speak to the quality of the company's planning or execution of its basic business processes.

I think you're making the entire Alps out of a molehill here, I'll ask one simple question, have you ever been in the Yards at Wembley or, indeed, anywhere else? if so then you should know full well that security is a nightmare, if you haven't then let me tell you that security is a nightmare, I can't begin to count how many different ways there are to gain access for a determined vandal/moron, in fact the only secure part of the entire complex would be to use the platforms within the PRDC and it's been so long since I worked there I've no idea how many platforms remain in use and available or whether Royal Mail would even allow their use

 

[DustyBin]

To stress the point to breaking, the issue is not the tagging, it's the security breach. The issue is not how easy it is to clean graffiti off a train, it's the consequences orf something has potentially been put on or in the train, or has otherwise interfered with. Even to bring it back to tagging as the cause of concern, I assume taggers don't really care if they step on an area of the train that is clearly marked "no step" while in pursuit of their vandalism, causing damage that may not be visible to a simple visual inspection or even a start up test, and might not even reasonably be part of a check for damage in transit inspection.

Although historical, there is iirc a train accident where the immediate cause was a single incorrectly set brake valve, externally accessible. Brake systems are safer nowadays, but of course, adding to the risk is that this was a newly delivered unit that is still being commissioned, and it is not unknown in the early phases of commissioning to not have all the train's systems in operation.

That's but one example. You can stretch the what if point in all manner of ways when you play out all the possible scenarios arising from this breach, and believe it or not, doing so is the job of a security analyst (and of course, the Stadler manager doing a risk assessment of the transit arrangements).

Nexus can and probably should reject any unit where they are made aware of an insecure transit of potentially significant impact, for the above reasons. Which is why it will always be cheaper and easier to ensure you are being as rigorous in your transit arrangements as you apparently are in your design process.

The complexity of the delivery arrangements, especially if it apparently leads to simple failures in security like parking the unit in an unlit siding, does unfortunately speak to the quality of the company's planning or execution of its basic business processes.

As for potential design flaws that will only arise in service, like Hitachi, this may be a gross simplification that offends many here, but to merely illustrate the point, people unfamiliar with the system might see the word Metro and see the relatively lightweight units crawling though level crossings and stopping at prefab street stations, and make assumptions about things like chassis stresses and component specifications.

The reality is, when you see these things in action, particular lineside, you see the speeds and the stresses they are subjected to on certain stretches, compounded by their mass transit usage, and realise that in many ways, they can and should be considered main line multiple units. It is essentially a unit that needs to be both a main line unit and a Metro unit, powered from overhead lines. Oh, and it also goes through long tunnels, so needs to be a subway unit too. It can hit cows and horses, cars and pedestrians. It can be eaten by doormice and rats.

It carries bikes, wheelchairs and suitcases. It crawls and it flies, it rattles and rolls. Just as with Hitachi too, these units need to safely interact with other electrical systems belonging to the mainline railway, and indeed, presumably many domestic and industrial installations, squeezing between the ever growing estates with their solar and heat pumps and all that jazz.

For all those reasons, and many many more, and with the basic assumption that Hitachi, the Japanese having invented the sort of design and manufacturing assurance systems needed for such bespoke products, still having failed in a spectacular way, I have my doubts there is any wholly analogous systems in the world, even less so when looking for a system Stadler might have recently supplied. I stand to be corrected if that was considered as part of the bid, but I don't recall that it was.

With respect, you’re clutching at straws here. If the units aren’t up to the job we’ll soon find out, but there’s absolutely no reason to suspect that this is the case. I’m sure Stadler did their research.

I think you're making the entire Alps out of a molehill here, I'll ask one simple question, have you ever been in the Yards at Wembley or, indeed, anywhere else? if so then you should know full well that security is a nightmare, if you haven't then let me tell you that security is a nightmare, I can't begin to count how many different ways there are to gain access for a determined vandal/moron, in fact the only secure part of the entire complex would be to use the platforms within the PRDC and it's been so long since I worked there I've no idea how many platforms remain in use and available or whether Royal Mail would even allow their use

 

[trebor79]

For all those reasons, and many many more, and with the basic assumption that Hitachi, the Japanese having invented the sort of design and manufacturing assurance systems needed for such bespoke products, still having failed in a spectacular way, I have my doubts there is any wholly analogous systems in the world, even less so when looking for a system Stadler might have recently supplied. I stand to be corrected if that was considered as part of the bid, but I don't recall that it was.

What a load of twaddle.
But I'll pick on your last "point". It wasn't Japan that invented these QA systems. It was Robert Demming and other Americans, who, finding US industry was uninterested in their ideas went to Japan and found a willingness to try them out and embrace them.

You literally don't know what you're talking about, which suggests the rest of your "concerns" are rubbish too. Kind of analogous to the point you're trying to make that a bit of petty vandalism means the units are unsafe.
Where's a clown emoji when you need one?

 

[Fleetmaster]

I think you're making the entire Alps out of a molehill here, I'll ask one simple question, have you ever been in the Yards at Wembley or, indeed, anywhere else? if so then you should know full well that security is a nightmare, if you haven't then let me tell you that security is a nightmare, I can't begin to count how many different ways there are to gain access for a determined vandal/moron, in fact the only secure part of the entire complex would be to use the platforms within the PRDC and it's been so long since I worked there I've no idea how many platforms remain in use and available or whether Royal Mail would even allow their use

It was one unit. They could have parked it outside the main office if they wanted.

These sort of excuses, or a tendency to blame the offenders for being predictable in their offending, really don't fly in an audit, contractual dispute, investigation or heaven forbid, an inquiry/inquest.

You would instead be expected to argue that you had good reasons to think, if this is what happened, that randomly parking it in a yard you knew was difficult to secure, and then choosing not to take any extra security measures in situ, was justifiable.

I can't imagine ever filling out a Risk Assement that would justify it, certainly not when some people here seem to think the risk of being graffitied if absolutely no extra security measures were taken, was 100%. Even on cost grounds alone, one dedicated security guard would have surely cost less than cleaning off the graffiti, much less any other resulting costs (including reputation costs).

What a load of twaddle.
But I'll pick on your last "point". It wasn't Japan that invented these QA systems. It was Robert Demming and other Americans, who, finding US industry was uninterested in their ideas went to Japan and found a willingness to try them out and embrace them.

You literally don't know what you're talking about, which suggests the rest of your "concerns" are rubbish too. Kind of analogous to the point you're trying to make that a bit of petty vandalism means the units are unsafe.
Where's a clown emoji when you need one?

I did actually know that, and if you want I have the certificate to prove it, but for the purposes of this debate, I hope people can see it as an immaterial detail. The systems were first adopted in Japan, and rolled out to the rest of the world because of their eminent usefulness, and yet even a Japanese company failed to deliver a quality product due to issues that could so easily exist in this Stadler order, for the given reasons.

With respect, you’re clutching at straws here. If the units aren’t up to the job we’ll soon find out, but there’s absolutely no reason to suspect that this is the case. I’m sure Stadler did their research.

A pretty good reason is the rather obvious fact that Hitachi probably thought they did their research too.

I'm happy to be corrected if someone here has any good reason to think Stadler has covered every base and still outbid a Japanese company with a domestic base, but other than general assurances, I am not seeing what these reasons supposedly are.

The problems Hitachi has would and should have been seen in modelling. A good way to cut costs, is to make assumptions about previous modelling applying to new systems. Does anyone here know this project to this level of detail? Has there been a root and branch model created for this specific unit in this specific environment?

I seriously doubt it. Happy to be proven wrong. Stadler have rather painted themselves into a corner if they have cut costs this way, since, unlike Hitachi, it's going to be a daily PR disaster if there is any significant slippage in the delivery schedule. The old units are quite literally falling to bits, with no stop gaps available. The region has already had a lifetime of replacement buses when they have paid good money for a Metro ticket.

Granted, much of that delay does come from our side, but in these matters, being the last person to hold the baby as you drop it, is the only thing anyone remembers.

 

[DustyBin]

I did actually know that, and if you want I have the certificate to prove it, but for the purposes of this debate, I hope people can see it as an immaterial detail. The systems were first adopted in Japan, and rolled out to the rest of the world because of their eminent usefulness, and yet even a Japanese company failed to deliver a quality product due to issues that could so easily exist in this Stadler order, for the given reasons.

The word “could” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here……

Hitachi has delivered a fleet/fleets of trains to the UK that came with inherent defects. Stadler has delivered a fleet of trains to the UK that has no inherent defects. They’re the facts. There simply aren’t any grounds for the type of concern you’re expressing.

 

[DanNCL]

To stress the point to breaking, the issue is not the tagging, it's the security breach. The issue is not how easy it is to clean graffiti off a train, it's the consequences orf something has potentially been put on or in the train, or has otherwise interfered with. Even to bring it back to tagging as the cause of concern, I assume taggers don't really care if they step on an area of the train that is clearly marked "no step" while in pursuit of their vandalism, causing damage that may not be visible to a simple visual inspection or even a start up test, and might not even reasonably be part of a check for damage in transit inspection.

There's no doubt that security at Wembley needs to be improved but that's the responsibility of the site owner, not Stadler, nor RailAdventure.

Although historical, there is iirc a train accident where the immediate cause was a single incorrectly set brake valve, externally accessible. Brake systems are safer nowadays, but of course, adding to the risk is that this was a newly delivered unit that is still being commissioned, and it is not unknown in the early phases of commissioning to not have all the train's systems in operation.

The unit is unbraked on delivery, that's why it's delivered with so many barrier wagons and why it took four metrocars to shift it, to provide enough brake force to secure the unit.

Nexus can and probably should reject any unit where they are made aware of an insecure transit of potentially significant impact, for the above reasons. Which is why it will always be cheaper and easier to ensure you are being as rigorous in your transit arrangements as you apparently are in your design process.

As I've explained it isn't up to Nexus here. The delivery was between two Stadler sites (St Margrethen and Gosforth), Stadler's contract with Nexus is to provide to Nexus a unit in the condition set out in the contract, which the unit will be in before handed over to Nexus. Just because it's been 'delivered' to Gosforth doesn't mean it's been delivered to the customer, it remains a Stadler asset until a formal handover which won't happen until the unit has been extensively tested on the Metro network.

As for potential design flaws that will only arise in service, like Hitachi, this may be a gross simplification that offends many here, but to merely illustrate the point, people unfamiliar with the system might see the word Metro and see the relatively lightweight units crawling though level crossings and stopping at prefab street stations, and make assumptions about things like chassis stresses and component specifications.

The reality is, when you see these things in action, particular lineside, you see the speeds and the stresses they are subjected to on certain stretches, compounded by their mass transit usage, and realise that in many ways, they can and should be considered main line multiple units. It is essentially a unit that needs to be both a main line unit and a Metro unit, powered from overhead lines. Oh, and it also goes through long tunnels, so needs to be a subway unit too. It can hit cows and horses, cars and pedestrians. It can be eaten by doormice and rats.

It carries bikes, wheelchairs and suitcases. It crawls and it flies, it rattles and rolls. Just as with Hitachi too, these units need to safely interact with other electrical systems belonging to the mainline railway, and indeed, presumably many domestic and industrial installations, squeezing between the ever growing estates with their solar and heat pumps and all that jazz.

For all those reasons, and many many more, and with the basic assumption that Hitachi, the Japanese having invented the sort of design and manufacturing assurance systems needed for such bespoke products, still having failed in a spectacular way, I have my doubts there is any wholly analogous systems in the world, even less so when looking for a system Stadler might have recently supplied. I stand to be corrected if that was considered as part of the bid, but I don't recall that it was.

The issue with Hitachi is they designed two safety critical components without doing their research properly. Had it not been spotted by chance during a maintenance exam on one unit when cracked paint was investigated it could have gone undetected until a serious and possibly fatal accident occurred. Hitachi have been building trains for a very long time, they had a solution that worked and chose to fix something that wasn't broken.

Hitachi's experience with bespoke products is tailored to the Japanese market, which is a million miles away from the UK market. The various Japanese Metro systems that buy from Hitachi are more comparable to Crossrail than they are to the Tyne & Wear Metro. Hitachi's bid would have been a completely unproven product, whereas Stadler were offering an adapted version of an established and reliable product - the Berlin example I gave had some similarities to the requirements of the Metro fleet, and along with the Merseyrail units influenced the design of the the Metro units.

I'm happy to be corrected if someone here has any good reason to think Stadler has covered every base and still outbid a Japanese company with a domestic base, but other than general assurances, I am not seeing what these reasons supposedly are.

I seriously doubt it. Happy to be proven wrong. Stadler have rather painted themselves into a corner if they have cut costs this way, since, unlike Hitachi, it's going to be a daily PR disaster if there is any significant slippage in the delivery schedule. The old units are quite literally falling to bits, with no stop gaps available. The region has already had a lifetime of replacement buses when they have paid good money for a Metro ticket.

The reasons as I've already explained are because Stadler offered a product more compatible with the specifications requested by Nexus than Hitachi did, and Stadler's bid had a significantly greater use of a local supply chain than Hitachi's bid, for example some of the components that Hitachi would have shipped in from Japan Stadler are obtaining from companies in the North East.

The problems Hitachi has would and should have been seen in modelling. A good way to cut costs, is to make assumptions about previous modelling applying to new systems. Does anyone here know this project to this level of detail? Has there been a root and branch model created for this specific unit in this specific environment?

There has been a root and branch model created for the specific unit in the specific environment, but I haven't seen said root and branch model.

Hitachi has delivered a fleet/fleets of trains to the UK that came with inherent defects. Stadler has delivered a fleet of trains to the UK that has no inherent defects. They’re the facts. There simply aren’t any grounds for the type of concern you’re expressing.

To be fair the 399s for Sheffield from Stadler haven't exactly been a flying success, but in the main the Stadler products have performed well in the UK. Merseyrail's issues were entirely down to industrial relations, the units themselves were ready two years ago.

 

[XAM2175]

As for potential design flaws that will only arise in service, like Hitachi, this may be a gross simplification that offends many here, but to merely illustrate the point, people unfamiliar with the system might see the word Metro and see the relatively lightweight units crawling though level crossings and stopping at prefab street stations, and make assumptions about things like chassis stresses and component specifications.

You cannot be serious.

 

[corsaVXR]

So to summarise the logic here:

• Vandals broke into Wembley Yard and spray painted the trains
• ????
• Stadler's design quality and fitness for purpose is under suspicion, and the bid should have gone to Hitachi, who's quality is also regarded as poor.

 

[Fleetmaster]

There's no doubt that security at Wembley needs to be improved but that's the responsibility of the site owner, not Stadler, nor RailAdventure.


The unit is unbraked on delivery, that's why it's delivered with so many barrier wagons and why it took four metrocars to shift it, to provide enough brake force to secure the unit.


As I've explained it isn't up to Nexus here. The delivery was between two Stadler sites (St Margrethen and Gosforth), Stadler's contract with Nexus is to provide to Nexus a unit in the condition set out in the contract, which the unit will be in before handed over to Nexus. Just because it's been 'delivered' to Gosforth doesn't mean it's been delivered to the customer, it remains a Stadler asset until a formal handover which won't happen until the unit has been extensively tested on the Metro network.


The issue with Hitachi is they designed two safety critical components without doing their research properly. Had it not been spotted by chance during a maintenance exam on one unit when cracked paint was investigated it could have gone undetected until a serious and possibly fatal accident occurred. Hitachi have been building trains for a very long time, they had a solution that worked and chose to fix something that wasn't broken.

Hitachi's experience with bespoke products is tailored to the Japanese market, which is a million miles away from the UK market. The various Japanese Metro systems that buy from Hitachi are more comparable to Crossrail than they are to the Tyne & Wear Metro. Hitachi's bid would have been a completely unproven product, whereas Stadler were offering an adapted version of an established and reliable product - the Berlin example I gave had some similarities to the requirements of the Metro fleet, and along with the Merseyrail units influenced the design of the the Metro units.



The reasons as I've already explained are because Stadler offered a product more compatible with the specifications requested by Nexus than Hitachi did, and Stadler's bid had a significantly greater use of a local supply chain than Hitachi's bid, for example some of the components that Hitachi would have shipped in from Japan Stadler are obtaining from companies in the North East.


There has been a root and branch model created for the specific unit in the specific environment, but I haven't seen said root and branch model.


To be fair the 399s for Sheffield from Stadler haven't exactly been a flying success, but in the main the Stadler products have performed well in the UK. Merseyrail's issues were entirely down to industrial relations, the units themselves were ready two years ago.

For a start, quite obviously, Nexus can hardly take a hands off approach to what they know about units being sent out onto their own tracks in the presence of their own employees and potentially the public. If they know it could have been tampered with, they would have a legal duty as well as an ethical/financial reason to want to know what Stadler had done in response to this security breach, and how it could have possibly occurred in the first place.

You obviously know a lot about the bid, but as a former project and quality engineer in my time, I see a lot of inconsistencies in what you've said about parts and modelling and adaptation, especially if the UK sourced parts are critical or complex (and if not, how could it possibly be a significant cost saving?). It can't really be true that they have both done a root and branch modelling of this specific design and supply chain for this specific environment, and yet are also achieving savings by drawing on existing models for both expertise and engineering quality.

You cannot be serious.

I was hopefully clear in saying that was a grossly simplified example for illustration purposes only.

I could give a more detailed engineering example, or I could simply point people to the compatibility issues with Hitachi units running on UK rails. I'm frankly baffled at people's inability to see the parallels with Stadler's as yet untested ability to produce a TW Metro compatible unit.

 

[XAM2175]

I could give a more detailed engineering example, or I could simply point people to the compatibility issues with Hitachi units running on UK rails. I'm frankly baffled at people's inability to see the parallels with Stadler's as yet untested ability to produce a TW Metro compatible unit.

Their ability to produce a "TW Metro compatible unit" might well be untested, but that's not what you said - you claimed that a long-established and well-regarded rolling stock producer would see "Metro" on the paperwork and then, I quote, "make assumptions about things like chassis stresses and component specifications", and that, frankly, is absurd.

 

[dm1]

Stadler's as yet untested ability to produce a TW Metro compatible unit.

Producing customised rolling stock with unusual specifications is Stadler's bread and butter - and the specifications for Tyne & Wear are nothing like as complex or non-standard as many of the other projects they have successfully delivered.

Unless you have specific reason to believe that there will be problems with the new trains (and no, a unit being tagged during delivery does not even come close to qualifying), then I would suggest you refrain from baseless speculation and wait and see how the testing and approvals process for the new trains develops, prior to their entry into service.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Their ability to produce a "TW Metro compatible unit" might well be untested, but that's not what you said - you claimed that a long-established and well-regarded rolling stock producer would see "Metro" on the paperwork and then, I quote, "make assumptions about things like chassis stresses and component specifications", and that, frankly, is absurd.

It was presented as a "grossly simplified example for illustration purposes only."

Which I (correctly it seems) said at the time might even be so simplistic it could actually offend some people.

Let's have it right though, at one time people thought it would be absurd that a simple assumption about Imperial or Metric units could have dire consequences, until flaiming pieces of Space Shuttle started raining down into the sea.

Producing customised rolling stock with unusual specifications is Stadler's bread and butter - and the specifications for Tyne & Wear are nothing like as complex or non-standard as many of the other projects they have successfully delivered.

Unless you have specific reason to believe that there will be problems with the new trains (and no, a unit being tagged during delivery does not even come close to qualifying), then I would suggest you refrain from baseless speculation and wait and see how the testing and approvals process for the new trains develops, prior to their entry into service.

Are you really that sure?

Stadler has vast experience in designing rolling stock (and supply chains) for a region (five metropolitan boroughs!) sized network that combines single track sections, on street and grade separated running, Network Rail metal sharing, overhead wires, long tunnels, Victorian infrastructure, 80s Metro infrastructure (including flyovers), 90s Metro Infrastructure, cuttings, embankments, level crossings, high speed running for long distances, short urban stop urban running, tight headways, rapid boarding/alighting, unstaffed stations often moonlighting as market places or other community facilities, bike/wheelchair/buggy/luggage/beachball transport, pedestrian crossings, livestock crossings, crumbling facilities, demotivated staff and passengers, and a serious problem with anti social behaviour and metal theft (whose effective prevention is inextricably linked to the risk of project overspending).

A system that at one time was designed to be seamlessly publicly managed and operated alongside buses and ferries, with legacy systems of that era all over the place, a system which is genuinely a fifty fifty split between commuter and high capacity leisure/holiday/event transport, and an airport shuttle too (fast enough that this must be the only UK city airport where the local bus operator doesn't even bother offering a competing service), but which, after a number of public and private and multi layered management changes, now has to compete with buses, but is still on friendly terms with the ferries because they share a management layer, but check back in a few years time because all that might have changed yet again.

A system that hasn't seen a new train in forty years, with some workers who still fondly remember the steam days (in part because the site of one of the major steam depots of Britain's Golden Age of express passenger service is still right next to the tracks of this reinvented urban mass transit system).

It doesn't feature genuine tram-like on street running, about the only common thing it doesn't feature, but it's a sign of its muddled history and unique place in the development and renewal (lol) of rail transport in the UK, that even that has been on the table at many times, as a means of extending the system, and yet nobody has ever really suggested this would be impossible from a vehicle standpoint. It's the Metro. Nothing is impossible. As the original equipment supplier was told.

Systems as bat**** as that are their "bread and butter"?

The only thing the Metro hasn't got that is more abnormal, is rubber wheels. Do Stadler supply them?

 

[XAM2175]

It was presented as a "grossly simplified example for illustration purposes only."

Which I (correctly it seems) said at the time might even be so simplistic it could actually offend some people.

So grossly simplified as to be utterly useless as an example. The only 'offence' was done to your own intelligence.

Let's have it right though, at one time people thought it would be absurd that a simple assumption about Imperial or Metric units could have dire consequences, until flaiming pieces of Space Shuttle started raining down into the sea.

No, that was the Mars Climate Orbiter that burnt up in the atmosphere of Mars. While both the Challenger and Columbia disasters do have lessons to teach about making certain types of assumptions about the performance of complex systems, neither of them were as ridiculously simple as you suggest.

But if we indulge the spirit of your remark - if NASA, Rockwell, Morton-Thiokol, Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing (amongst others) have the capability to stuff up in such catastrophic ways, what then makes Stadler such a special target of your paranoia? One of their trains gets a bit of an unofficial respray while being moved between plants by a contractor and suddenly they're incompetent to the point that their products pose a material danger to life and limb?

 

[trebor79]

Let's have it right though, at one time people thought it would be absurd that a simple assumption about Imperial or Metric units could have dire consequences, until flaiming pieces of Space Shuttle started raining down into the sea.

If ever this place needed a clown emoji, it is now!
Yet again you pontificate on something about which you are *entirely* ignorant!

Neither shuttle disaster was anything to do with metric Vs imperial measurements.

 

[Fleetmaster]

I was struck only by the apparent belief by most people that this delivery is probably going to be fine, and there is something else that explains recent screw ups like Hitachi, things that apparently can't afflict Stadler, even though this is an incredibly unique project with (unless you take the view the business is insignificant) extremely little wiggle room (not necessarily of Stadler's making, but they signed a contract that committed them to it) which would have arguably been more suited to having bespoke vehicles designed and manufactured in Japan and assembled down the road.

I see no reason for this confidence, and obviously appreciate the deal is done now and many may be bored of it all, but to me, not ensuring the security of the long awaited and much publicised arrival of the very first unit on these shores, speaks quite well to how the rest of the project may go.

Others can disagree. But I didn't spend thirty years in a very similar industry (both project and quality engineering for a high tech bespoke OEM with global reach in a highly regulated safety critical sector) without learning a thing or two about what makes a project a success. For the record, we always delivered our products in pristine condition, and could always reassure a customer with high confidence that nothing in their shipment had been tampered with (that being both important to the drawing board to decommissioning regulator required paper trail, as well as just basic good business sense). And while our business could not survive without the help of a vast array of sub-contractors and numerous interactions with customer staff and facilities, vast complex sites, we certainly never once passed the blame onto them for anything bad happening that was reasonably within our control.

If ever this place needed a clown emoji, it is now!
Yet again you pontificate on something about which you are *entirely* ignorant!

Neither shuttle disaster was anything to do with metric Vs imperial measurements.

And yet somehow, the point *as intended*, was understood by someone else, and sensibly pursued.

A lesson for all of us, hopefully.

 

[DanNCL]

For a start, quite obviously, Nexus can hardly take a hands off approach to what they know about units being sent out onto their own tracks in the presence of their own employees and potentially the public. If they know it could have been tampered with, they would have a legal duty as well as an ethical/financial reason to want to know what Stadler had done in response to this security breach, and how it could have possibly occurred in the first place.

Nexus contract all of that out to Stadler anyway. If Stadler says the train is safe, it's considered safe enough to run on the Metro network.

This would be the same if any other manufacturer had won the contract, as they'd have taken over the management of Gosforth instead of Stadler.

You obviously know a lot about the bid, but as a former project and quality engineer in my time, I see a lot of inconsistencies in what you've said about parts and modelling and adaptation, especially if the UK sourced parts are critical or complex (and if not, how could it possibly be a significant cost saving?). It can't really be true that they have both done a root and branch modelling of this specific design and supply chain for this specific environment, and yet are also achieving savings by drawing on existing models for both expertise and engineering quality.

Components that have been sourced from the North East are generally the standardised ones that can be obtained from different suppliers without impacting the product quality itself. One of the items sourced locally are electric converters, which are coming from Turbo Power Systems in Gateshead, and if I recall correctly they'd supplied to Stadler before the Metro contract.

I'm not 100% certain but I don't think the Stadler bid was the cheapest. This contract wasn't just let on a cost basis, it was done on many factors.

I could give a more detailed engineering example, or I could simply point people to the compatibility issues with Hitachi units running on UK rails. I'm frankly baffled at people's inability to see the parallels with Stadler's as yet untested ability to produce a TW Metro compatible unit.

The only manufacturer with a tested ability to build a TW Metro unit in that sense ceased to exist 30 years ago!

Stadler has vast experience in designing rolling stock (and supply chains) for a region (five metropolitan boroughs!) sized network that combines single track sections, on street and grade separated running, Network Rail metal sharing, overhead wires, long tunnels, Victorian infrastructure, 80s Metro infrastructure (including flyovers), 90s Metro Infrastructure, cuttings, embankments, level crossings, high speed running for long distances, short urban stop urban running, tight headways, rapid boarding/alighting, unstaffed stations often moonlighting as market places or other community facilities, bike/wheelchair/buggy/luggage/beachball transport, pedestrian crossings, livestock crossings, crumbling facilities, demotivated staff and passengers, and a serious problem with anti social behaviour and metal theft (whose effective prevention is inextricably linked to the risk of project overspending).

Stadler have experience with all of that including combining it all into one product.

A system that at one time was designed to be seamlessly publicly managed and operated alongside buses and ferries, with legacy systems of that era all over the place, a system which is genuinely a fifty fifty split between commuter and high capacity leisure/holiday/event transport, and an airport shuttle too (fast enough that this must be the only UK city airport where the local bus operator doesn't even bother offering a competing service), but which, after a number of public and private and multi layered management changes, now has to compete with buses, but is still on friendly terms with the ferries because they share a management layer, but check back in a few years time because all that might have changed yet again.

That's how all systems are ran in Europe. If any of the five shortlisted bidders would have struggled with it, it would have been Hitachi and CRRC/Downer, as both have primarily delivered to the Asian/Australian/American markets which are a world away from what we have here.

Systems as bat**** as that are their "bread and butter"?

Systems twice as bat**** as that are their "bread and butter", so Metro is comparatively a walk in the park for them!

While both the Challenger and Columbia disasters do have lessons to teach about making certain types of assumptions about the performance of complex systems, neither of them were as ridiculously simple as you suggest.

The lessons to be learnt from both the Challenger and Columbia disasters are both, in heavily simplified terms, 'don't cut corners'.

I was struck only by the apparent belief by most people that this delivery is probably going to be fine, and there is something else that explains recent screw ups like Hitachi, things that apparently can't afflict Stadler, even though this is an incredibly unique project with (unless you take the view the business is insignificant) extremely little wiggle room (not necessarily of Stadler's making, but they signed a contract that committed them to it) which would have arguably been more suited to having bespoke vehicles designed and manufactured in Japan and assembled down the road.

I see no reason for this confidence, and obviously appreciate the deal is done now and many may be bored of it all, but to me, not ensuring the security of the long awaited and much publicised arrival of the very first unit on these shores, speaks quite well to how the rest of the project may go.

It's entirely possible that some major issue could be found with the Stadler fleet on the same scale as was found nearly two years ago on Hitachi's UK fleets. But the chances of that happening, and then happening of all the possible fleets on the Metro fleet, is something very unlikely to happen.

As I've explained, transit was contracted to RailAdventure, who sub-contracted the Calais - Dollands Moor - Wembley leg of the journey to DB Cargo. Wembley is a DB Cargo facility. So ultimately the responsibility for failing to prevent the incident from taking place at Wembley lies with either RailAdventure or DB Cargo, most likely the latter. Stadler aren't responsible for what happens to the unit whilst it isn't in their care. RailAdventure are a very experienced mover of rolling stock all across Europe and such moves are their niche, they're a company that know what they're doing. DB Cargo on the other hand...

 

[Fleetmaster]

But if we indulge the spirit of your remark - if NASA, Rockwell, Morton-Thiokol, Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing (amongst others) have the capability to stuff up in such catastrophic ways, what then makes Stadler such a special target of your paranoia? One of their trains gets a bit of an unofficial respray while being moved between plants by a contractor and suddenly they're incompetent to the point that their products pose a material danger to life and limb?

Well for a start, it's my Council Tax on the line. And like many up here, I've already made serious life choices, and experienced a lifetime's worth of inconveniences, due to the performance, or lack thereof, of this once pioneering system. So I, like many up here, are highly attuned to anything that might indicate if the promises we have been given of jam in the very near future, might be Grade A horse doodie.

How hard is it to stop a single train being spray painted, seriously? A high profile one time transit.

I have seen lots of excuses being made here on behalf of people for whom doing a Risk Assesment and for that matter delivering trains, should be second nature.

We are tired of excuses.

The only manufacturer with a tested ability to build a TW Metro unit in that sense ceased to exist 30 years ago!

Which was rather my point...

Nexus contract all of that out to Stadler anyway. If Stadler says the train is safe, it's considered safe enough to run on the Metro network.

The law would disagree (Health and Safetiy or basic Contract Law, take your pick). If Nexus knows of a reason Stadler might be wrong, and does nothing, both Nexus and Stadler are liable.

Stadler have experience with all of that including combining it all into one product.

Have you got an actual example? One that is representative of their majority of business...

So ultimately the responsibility for failing to prevent the incident from taking place at Wembley lies with either RailAdventure or DB Cargo, most likely the latter. Stadler aren't responsible for what happens to the unit whilst it isn't in their care.

As above, this just isn't true.

Only if their requirements were clearly stated and their expectations reasonable, can they pass liability down the supply chain.

Under those broad terms, you soon get to a stage where someone (the customer, an investigator, a coronor, etc) is entitled to see the paperwork that reassured Stadler that the proposed means and arrangements would ensure, for example, a contractual requirement of "secure storage" was attainable, and that both parties agreed that the term means what most people would think it means in context (that absent extenuating circumstances, unauthorized persons can't be in close proximity to the unit for an extended period of time).

Do Stadler have that? It disturbs me that most here don't think such a thing is even important.

 

[trebor79]

You remind me of the Viz character "Mr Logic".

 

[the sniper]

So many words to speak so little sense, it's quite something.

I was struck only by the apparent belief by most people that this delivery is probably going to be fine, and there is something else that explains recent screw ups like Hitachi, things that apparently can't afflict Stadler, even though this is an incredibly unique project with (unless you take the view the business is insignificant) extremely little wiggle room (not necessarily of Stadler's making, but they signed a contract that committed them to it) which would have arguably been more suited to having bespoke vehicles designed and manufactured in Japan and assembled down the road.

What are you on about man?!

The thing Stadler specialise in and are famous for are their bespoke products for non-standard systems. Which Hitachi Rail product demonstrates to you that they were better suited to delivering something uniquely suited to the T&W Metro? You seem to display a complete lack of self awareness of your lack of understanding of this industry.

 

[Volvictof]

So your logic is, any company is capable of having a design issue like Hitachi had so you shouldn’t use Stadler, but instead you should used Hitachi…. The company that had the very problems were discussing?

No one is saying that it’s impossible for these new units to have any major problems, but there is no reason to suspect they will.

Even if nexus had any control over stopping the delivery due to concerns, why on earth would they send it back to the factory rather than letting it go to the Stadler maintenance depot that was specifically designed for the trains in question? Any checks that the Factory can do to make sure it’s not compromised from being nearby some taggers for 30 seconds can likewise be done in the Stadler depot in Gosforth by Stadler staff.

And on that subject, if you think that a train being accessible by taggers for a short window means that it is inherently unsafe due to the possibility that said taggers are stepping on things that shouldn’t be stepped on (or perhaps maliciously cutting things that shouldn’t be cut) then that inherently extends to when it is being tested on the T&W metro system over the next few months. It will be driven into every siding possible and at some point it will be tagged again, probably multiple times, does that mean that every time it gets tagged it should be ”sent back” incase it’s been tampered with? Because just to make you aware, the old metros and soon the new ones, are commonly left for extended periods (often overnight due to possessions) in sidings that can easily be accessed by taggers. This is the environment in which these trains operate, and they can’t be sent back to a factory every time they are outsabled. They Are generally designed in such a way that any external damage (accidental or otherwise) won’t cause them to lose breaking capability and hurtle into the buffers at 80k killing everyone onboard.

I’m not sure what industry you practiced QA in, but clearly it wasn’t rail, as you would know how rail delivery’s occur and the inherent unavoidable possibly of trains being left in places overnight without the protection of automated attack helicopters with lasers and machine guns to destroy anything that comes near.

And no we haven’t missed your point about the principle of the delivery being messed up meaning the rest of the project probably being messed up, it’s just that it’s a massive over reaction and completely over the top.

 

[stuu]

Well for a start, it's my Council Tax on the line. And like many up here, I've already made serious life choices, and experienced a lifetime's worth of inconveniences, due to the performance, or lack thereof, of this once pioneering system. So I, like many up here, are highly attuned to anything that might indicate if the promises we have been given of jam in the very near future, might be Grade A horse doodie.

How hard is it to stop a single train being spray painted, seriously? A high profile one time transit.

If you are concerned about your council tax, perhaps the question you should ask is whether cleaning it is more expensive than hiring lots of security just in case someone tags the train?

I'm not sure why you think the T&W Metro is unique. The trains are based on a model first designed for the Berlin U-bahn, which has many of the same characteristics - some modern, some old, elevated sections, very tight corners and steep grades... even the dubious characters in places

 

[Fleetmaster]

If you are concerned about your council tax, perhaps the question you should ask is whether cleaning it is more expensive than hiring lots of security just in case someone tags the train?

Are you seriously suggesting I had not considered such a thing? Even if we rather absurdly accept that literally the only cost arising from this security breach, is the literal cleaning of the train.

 

[DustyBin]

Are you seriously suggesting I had not considered such a thing? Even if we rather absurdly accept that literally the only cost arising from this security breach, is the literal cleaning of the train.

What will the other costs be out of interest?