Great Western Coffee Shop

Announced in the Pre Budget statement today, though no indication of which they are. Given that it is taking for ever to sign off the TP Express 4th coach, it will be interesting to see what the detail is. Of course if they are built abroad (ie anyone but Bombardier) then they will hardly stimulate the economy. And if built at Derby there is quite a full order book, so quite how practical that is remains to be seen.

Only infrastructure projects accelerated appears to be hard shoulder running projects on Motorways. Whereas ^200m spent on a few well placed NR projects which fail to make the ORR Review cut would be most welcome. Kemble - Swindon for one.     

I think the best suggestion for which carriages should be brought forward is the London Midland, Chiltern, and LO 172s. I can't recall exactly how many, but the aim is to allow all the older LM & LO DMUs to be cascaded eleswhere, eg to FGW and Northern. They seem the key to a lot of plans, but seem to be behind the 378s in the build queue.

There was a bit about Derby works in one of the mags a few months back, suggested they have space to increase the number of assembly lines if orders increase, bearing in mind their biggest current order is the LU sub surface stock.

EDIT:  the DfT's own news release now includes...

"The delivery of 200 new carriages earlier than originally expected for rail
passengers in the Thames Valley, around Bristol and on longer distance
inter-urban services in Northern England"

http://nds.coi.gov.uk:80/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=385408&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False (http://nds.coi.gov.uk:80/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=385408&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False)

Which sounds like it includes TPEx after all...
Paul

It has been recommended in that TP Express won't get extra carriages to go on to 185s.

Instead TP Express should be getting extra 3 car trains to run an additional hourly Manchester Piccadilly to York service.  But I have no idea what trains they'll get and when the extra service will start.

For Manchester Piccadilly to Preston, Northern Rail will run an additional hourly Manchester to Preston service from December 15th.

This, however, won't cure all overcrowding, nor deal with projected growth of passengers.

Sorry to sound cynical but the whole new rolling progtamme seems to be a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.

We now only have Derby which seems to busy with 378s for Overground East london Line. Being electric they don't displace any DMUs because the lines are already electrified.

Most of the continental manufactures are busy building things for themselves.

China? But has been said before it doesn't stimulate our economy.

Why not Networkrail 5% 15+ year bonds for electrification. The institutions would snap them up.

Now I had naiveley assumed that the reason for the delay in the build of the 172s was that was the time needed to gear up for manufacture etc. If we're now told that they will be delivered earlier then does it mean that the contract specified those delivery dates, notwithstanding the builder could deliver them earlier? (In which case shame on the DFT for specifying a delay in delivery). Or that Bombardier quoted a very conservative delivery date, and is now able to bring it forward (in which case the government is taking credit for something that isn't really anything to do with their actions.)

Wonder what the new delivery dates are? Anyone know?

52 new carriages for FGW according to:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bristol-s-Great-Western-set-52-extra-carriages/article-501447-detail/article.html (http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bristol-s-Great-Western-set-52-extra-carriages/article-501447-detail/article.html)

I suggest 13 x 4 car 172s with a longer distance interior, for the Portsmouth - Cardiff route (which FGW DO consider a 'Bristol area' service after all)...

Paul

They do which is a little insulting to the other major towns and cities served by the Cardiff-Portsmouth line. Call me old fashioned but I liked it when it was referred to as the Severn Solent line.

Great Great news about new rolling stock for the line though.

OK - 'Timmer, you are old-fashioned' ;D
One of the comments on the news site reckons it is units for Cardiff - Portsmouth - I wonder if he has insider info...

Paul

BUT the Bristol Evening Post really ought to have read the DafT press release more carefully. It says quite clearly:

"The delivery of 200 new carriages earlier than originally expected for rail passengers in the Thames Valley, around Bristol and on longer distance inter-urban services in Northern England;"

The 52 has always been spoken of as a global total for new FGW rolling stock, including Paddington commuter services, and the above suggests that has not changed. Nor has anyone ever been able to pin down if new really means newly-built when it comes to the stock coming to FGW, so don't get your hopes up just yet.

Slight update:

While putting out the recycling, November Modern Railways resurfaced. The split of FGW stock was 12 class 150 vehicles for Bristol area services and 40 for the Thames Valley, type unknown, with Chiltern hinting they would quite like some FGW 165s, rather than them taking any extra build of 172s, so how about a 172 able to couple to 165/166s? Trans-Pennine Express is slated to get 42 extra coaches, and Northern is as desperate as FGW for extra stock and will take any 'new' 150s from London Midland it can get.

I would love to think FGW would get 52 new-build coaches for Bristol area and Cardiff-Portsmouth, plus 40 more for the Thames Valley, but until I see it in full detail, in black and white, I won't believe it.

Yeah, in the DFT article shown above, it doesn't seem to mention any new stock for FGW, just cascaded, earlier than anticipated as the newer bulds will be ready sooner.

Though how about North of England.... what ws this ever planned to get? 

I base my expectation that the new rolling stock will go to the Cardiff-Portsmouth line on the minutes from the recent West customer panel meeting which mentions on page 2:


http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/Customer%20panel/West%20CP%20meeting%2015.10.08%20minutes%20-%20WEBSITE.pdf

I've checked all the DfT references, and they consistently say ""The delivery of 200 new carriages earlier than originally expected for rail passengers in the Thames Valley, around Bristol and on longer distance inter-urban services in Northern England".

I.e. FGW and TPEx, and no mention of a cascade at all?

Northern were down to get the LM 150s, ie 26 or 27, [less the 6 units Modern Rail consistently refer to that were to go to FGW], so say 20, and an undecided number of new DMUs bringing them up to 158 DMU carrriages. 

Not sure where the LO 150s end up though, they're also in the mix somewhere.

Paul

A deal somewhere to lose 158's from the West with a dedicated 'New fleet' for Portsmouth/Cardiff with the remainder being 150's?

It's a moot point, as we know 158s are not optimal stock for closely spaced commuter services, due their end doors, this is apparent on SWT locals at Southampton as well, the 170s with 1/3 2/3 doors were much better for that.  Numbers wise could 158s specialise in longer routes with 150s retained for more local services?

Paul

172/4 for FGW now on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_172)

Well  it must be true.  :P

I'm beginning to think, in the absence of any confirmation from DfT or FGW, it's just a misinterpretation of previous announcements. In other words it is still the figure for Bristol and L&TV combined, even if it does turn out to be new units rather than cascaded 150s.

If the newspaper story had any legs, isn't it the sort of thing FGW and DfT would be shouting from the rooftops, to take the heat off the problem for the time being?

Paul

I think these two quotes help.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "Because of the competitive tendering process we are limited in what we can say.
"But this is good news for Bristol travellers. These are brand new trains.

I agree 52 extra coaches just for the ex Wessex services would appear to be over the top. But if 13 x 4 coach sets are delivered what could it mean?

10 sets are probably needed for the Cardiff-Portsmouth run (including maintenance) with 3 left to form a couple of half decent Bristol - Penzance type workings.

The 3 car 158s cascade could cascade down, and in doing so cover for the 20 coaches which are already allocated elsewhere (5xCl 142 and 5 x 150 ATW).

Someone else then picks up the hand me down Class 150s. There's enough demand for them.

Now what would be really good is if this released a unit for Melksham and one for Portishead. But that's probably asking too much!

Does this make sense?

Only if your interpretation is correct.

It seems to me that DafT have got themselves in such a muddle over new DMUs orders and cascades that they are probably as confused as we are.

When the Coffee shop reports 13 four car 172s as running on FGW services then I might just believe it.

Until then don't hold your breath you'll only go blue.

I have had a look at Wiki, and the 172/4 statement is totally unsourced. I would take it with a pinch of salt.

If you read at the bottom, the editor who added 172/4 has done so on the speculation that they "might" be Turbostars (therefore, most likely 172s).

I expect an Wikipedia admin will removed the speculation, as they won't want their untarnished record for reliability being affected. ;)

Great news  :)

although unconfirmed from FGW or the DAFT i spoke to a manager today who says we are to receive 13 4 car 172's for 11 diagrams allowing 1 spare and 1 maintenance.the 150's are still coming to fgw land to replace the 142's at some point.hopefully fgw will keep all the other stock we already have so services like malvern-weymouth and cardiff-taunton can have more carriages to improve capacity.

as i say still unconfirmed but lets hope this is how it pans out,only time will tell i suppose.

Try this for size, with a little help from a piece about the DMU fleet by Roger Ford in Modern Railways.

Northern has been asking for 125 new DMU coaches, TransPennine 24 (Ford is sure the 42 was a DafT typing error and the TPE depots can only handle another 24 coaches anyway apparently). Add on the 52 for FGW and you get 201.

Having made inquiries wearing my journalist's hat, the official line from FGW is that they don't know the detail of DafT's intentions at this stage as regards either numbers coming their way, nor where new stock might be used, but want talks as soon as possible to get the ball rolling.

My rumours are always true.... ;)

It hasn't gone unnoticed.

Let's hope you don't get raided by the police (and Graham too, as host of the Forum), to find the source of the information.  ;D

I now believe that it's in the public domain propperly, it appears that the fast tracked new stock is for FGW, FTPE and Northern although still not confirmed as in official announcement from DFT or FG, the order will be put to competetive tender for units of a similar spec to 170's but no mention of 172's, obviously FTPE's order will be for the fourth coach for the 185's, orders are planned to be put to tender within the next three months.

Wonder what we will be posting in three months time. That's still a long time to hold ones breath!

Is that competitive like the order for the extra Pendolinos was? A complete waste of time and money, coming up with the obvious answer anyway.

In this case, the obvious answer is more 172s. Other than the extra TPE coaches, no-one is going to order more 185s, not at ^2m per coach, so the 172 is the only game in town.

just out of interest what would people prefer more frequent services and a seat even if it was on a pacer or standing up on an in frequent brandnew train

The answer would depend entirely on the length of the journey involved and the difference in frequency.

Personally I have a few concerns about losing the 158's and being replaced with a super 150. 1/3 2/3 openings on a planned 'intercity' service would be a retrograde step, why would SWT etc be trying to get hold of any spare 158 going.

Are there any new builds with end doors?

The problem is that many of FGW's services these days have to cover a mix of commuter and long-distance needs in the same journey and for the bits with heavy commuter flows, 1/3 and 2/3 doors keep station dwell times to a minimum.

The station times of HSTs, Adelantes and Voyagers at the likes of Reading and Oxford in the peaks can be horrendous - and the same applies to 158s when I've used them elsewhere - whereas Turbos load and unload fast, so any extra stock coming to Thames Valley routes really does need 1/3, 2/3 doors. And I'm guessing that on Cardiff-Portsmouth, they would come in very handy for the big city calls in the peaks. The 185s have 1/3, 2/3 doors due to the heavy commuter traffic in TransPennine's area.

If you fit the right quality of interior, you can still give a DMU the right feel for longer-distance work. I don't think anyone's envisaging 3+2 seating on Cardiff-Portsmouth.

Agree, the Class 170s are the same, and the Scotrail versions would certainly be an acceptable ambience for the Portsmouth line.   

lol, I would agree if the 20 min lay over at BTM was removed.

It seems to me that what this post is beginning to show is that the same DMU cannot be both a suburban/branch  and a cross country unit.

Agree choice is now only a 185 a ^2 million a coach and grossley overpowered and a 172 at around a ^1 million a coach.

Which is why loco and coaches is begging to look viable both for IC and Cross Country. Especialy if there is further electrification which enabl Cardiff Portsmaouth to be eletric may be dual voltage but that doesn't seem to be problem these days.

The great advantage seems to me that coaches are relatively cheap, give a better journey experience, no diesel engine under the floor, and last a lot longer, consider the remaining Mark 1s on charters. They can be hauled by diesel or electric and thus aren't redundant when the wires go up. Performance under the wires should be better than a high powered DMU with considerably less carbon emissions.  It should also encourage sensible infill electrification to eliminate loco changes on through routes.  Anglia had different length sets which they carefully rostered throughout the day to meet demand.

Oh how I would love to see a return of loco and coaches to everyday service on long distance services currently provided by DMUs. As willc says they provide so much more flexability and last a lot longer too.

Well, there's a flip side in respect to flexibility too in so much as you either need to top-and-tail the locos or have turn-round facilities which take up space and huge amounts of time. Also, the loss of one engine on a DMU isn't curtains like it is when a loco fails. I can certainly see certain areas benefiting from that type of traction though.

One of teh comments made by the DafT in their anti electrification phase was that electric traction was too compicated. Hopefully they've begun to get message that once you've got infrastructure EMUs are a far simplier beast than DMU. Hence the best EMUs getting 50K between failures whilst most DMUs are luky to get 10K.

To make locos haulage viable auto couplers with a power connection for coach domestics would be required. Although you could use a generator van (old Mark2) when under diesel and a pan on the DVT. As for layouts  a couple of crossovers at right places would solve the problem although hope fully with clever infill electrification a loco change on many routes  may not be needed e.g Euston Blackpool.

You could have a dual voltage electric loco hauled service from Bournmouth or anywhere else on the Southern) to Norwich with a few yards of conductor rail between the juctions at Kew and Bollo Lane.  What about wires between Acton main line and Acton Wells and and Dudding Hill and Acton Canal Wharf junction to Willesden. Loco hauled electrics from Heathrow to Birmingham and Manchester. EMU shuttles  Luton (Airport) Heathrow.

I don't believe SWT had any real issues with the 170's layout or door location, after all they have plenty of 450s on long runs with 1/3 2/3 doors. The primary reason was that they wanted a common fleet type with better casualty figures.  A fleet with gangways for revenue protection, ease of passenger movement for SDO, and catering trolley access were additional benefits.

The above was mentioned by SWT management when the first overhauled 159/1 was introduced to the press at Salisbury. What wasn't publicly mentioned was the possibility that leasing costs were better for an older fleet owned by one Rosco, if you recall they also released two 158s from whatever the otrher Rosco was...

Although it would be nice to see loco hauled ie a 47 with DBSO as Anglia and ScotRail had, I appreciate it is highly unlikely now.

I can also see where 1/3 2/3 arrangement allows rapid detrain, but at this time of year that also goes for all the warm air.  :( Not very pleasant at BTM on some services which hang around for 10 mins or more, any new build would clearly have to have timed auto shut doors. Without having experience of the ScotRail 170's the Portsmouth Cardiff's will have to have adequate luggage capacity. And after travelling to Gatwick recently it had better be better than that stock. >:(

Currently the 158's are dual role and clearly unsuited, unfortunately I can't find the reference, but if a recent quote from FGW is to be believed then one interpretation is that there are plans for the route over and above the new stock, which I take as a possible timetable revamp.

turbostars have auto shut doors so that will help keep in the heat,also if they had auto shutting interior doors like LM and XC 170's that would be better still.
luggage space is down to the TOC ordering them basically they choose space or extra seats,i agree though pompey-cardiff do need decent luggage space. if 172's are destined for FGW land then the lets hope the management have experienced a pompey run on friday afternoon to see how busy they are.

The beauty of them is that they will be 4 coaches, so a massive compromise on luggage space wont be required in order to provide seating.

First class as well?

Except no-one has actually come up with any hard facts about formations yet, nor explained how any extra stock for the Thames Valley fits in, which as I pointed out earlier, was where DafT projected most extra FGW stock was going - a need which hasn't suddenly disappeared, unless Crossrail does actually make it to Reading, which might change things.

I think there should be as there would be a market for it.

i would say with the extra car it would allow for some first class space there would certainly be a call for it and it would be a money earner for first.

No thanks, lets maximise seats, BIKE SPACE and luggage space.

(if we presume that customers would travel regardless)

Bikes contribute to the railway ^0
Luggage contributes to the railway ^0
First Class customers and the prestige of having a First Class railway bring many ^

A no brainer.

Yes, from FGW point of view - First class is good.

But from the point of view of most commuters- they want as many 2nd seats as possible.

A commuter with a bike wants space.

A family with luggage want space.

I suppose it would only be in the peak, that seats need to be maxed.

There are those who travel on this line that would like to be able to travel first class but this is currently limited to the few SWT services that run between Bristol-Salisbury. (Waterloo services)

I believe that in a four car set everyone can be catered for, those with bikes, luggage and those who want to travel first class.

But is not prepared to pay for it....
 
Commuters without bikes are non too keen when those with muddy bikes get on, take space for 3 commuters and then soil the clothes of those having the misfortune to have to stand next to them.

It's particularly galling when you can't even get on the train and there are several cyclists occupying spaces which you could be using.

I was very disappointed when Wessex caved in to the vocal minority of cyclists a few years ago following their publicity campaign. If anyone with influence in FGW is reading this, please take note, I doubt I am a lone voice in this. 

I very much doubt you are a lone voice on this as well which leads me nicely onto another thing that makes loco and coaches an ideal alternative to DMUs - a guards van with plenty of space for bikes...and luggage!  :)

personally i would prefer first class to bike space,but as said a four car could cater for all in terms of bike,luggage and first class space. in my opinion not having first class on the core west route that would most certainly get used would be a waste as it would generate some serious revenue.

I think that bringing first class back to the Cardiff-Portsmouth line would possibly attract business passengers travelling say between Cardiff-Bristol/Bath, Bristol-Southampton/Bournemouth etc.

First Class, possibly if they sorted out the schedule, plus enforcing a strict bike booking procedure and then it might work.

SWT prove it can work running a full 3 car 159 to BTM fast from Salisbury in the morning peak, just waiting for FGW to catch up.

Bikes should just be banned from trains! you got a bike? then ride the F*ckin thing! all they do is cause a safety hazard when they can't be bothered to walk down to the TGS to put them where they're supposed to go and then moan when you ask them to move!

I can understand your problem with bikes, but it's not the bikes that's the problem but the design of the train where brake van space has been sacrificed for seats and shorter untis.

Bike train bike is probaly one of the most environmentaly friendly ways of travelling any distance and as such ought to be encouraged. Bike provison can be made on both buses and trains. Go to Rugen and you have buses some with bike racks on the back and some with towed trailers. Plus the narrow gauge railway (steam) has a bike van on every train.

DB IC DVTs have 30  bike spaces which can be reserved plus seating for the riders and a smashing view of the railway out of the cab.

Bikes (plus wheelchairs, prams and pushchairs) and trains should be complementary and form part of the public transport mix.


(if we presume that customers would travel regardless) which is quite a big assumption the problem is with he "bean counters" who can only see the direct costs of adequate luggage bike etc, provision but not the enviromental benefits, and the "health and happiness" factors of travel by train. 

I sure even you vacman would be happy with a proper space for bikes on trains. But first class luggage and bike space requires longer trains. Back to loco hauled.

There is a very interesting BTF film from the 50s of a rail/bike excursion from Euston to Rugby. Something like 200 riders and their bikes had a day out in the Waarwickshire countryside from Rugby station. Trouble is theren't many BGs lefts.

Bikes and peak commuter traffic dont mix.  If you do put more bike spaces then you will lose seats so less people can travel.  At peak time the best thing is to have one bike at your starting station and one at the end.  Many people do this just look at the bike racks at Paddington by platform 8. 

Off peaks trains and holiday times when you are taking your bike to different places, where you can book ahead are OK.

And if a TOC has decided to ban bikes then it has a responsibility (including a responsibility to its shareholders not to turn away fare paying passengers who happen to have bikes) to enourage this sort of thing with better secure storage and perhaps bike hire.

I too get annoyed when bikes are not put in the right place - but it takes pressure of car parks, is good for the nations health and for congestion.

what about a bike rack on the back of the train hehehehehe, that could be fun?

But brake van space was provided for lucrative parcels and mail traffic, most of which has gone from the railway, so there's no need to provide that space any more and while most German IC and regional trains have cycle spaces (inidicated by a bike symbol on timetables), the ICE sets which operate the key express routes do not carry cycles at all.

But those routes are also covered by good frequent and not that much slower bike-carrying RE or IC trains are they not?

Yes they are you usually get on the lesser routes a two hourly ICE/IC and a two hourly RE in the the other  hour. So you usually have a choice of an fast comfatable ICE at higher price and no bikes unless it's an IC and a bike carrying RE whch are equally comfortable ( so long as they are locohauled, I'm afraid DB is subcumming to DMU itis) and on which 5 of you can travel on a Lander ticket for around 30 Euros or 6 Euros each.

i wonder if the network was electrified would pushing more frieght to rail ie parcels if this would work out cheeper for the companys

Not thinking 185's here but would an underfloor powered 444 be feasible as a long distance choice, same format as a 5 car with a centre buffet etc etc. Would make a great inter regional.

DafT issued the formal invitation to tender for the 200 DMU coaches today.

Lengthening the 185s is definitely off the agenda, the ^2m per coach price tag probably had something to do with that.

The pre-qualified bidders are Bombardier; CAF of Spain, who built the Class 332 Heathrow Express sets and their sister 333s for Yorkshire plus new DMUs for Northern Ireland - picture of these here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belfast_Central2.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belfast_Central2.jpg); CSRE Ltd on behalf of CSR Nanjing Puzhen of China, who were mentioned when Northern talked about buying new Chinese DMUS a while back; and Hyundai Rotem of South Korea.

As the government announcement to bring forward these 200 vehciles was all about stimulating the UK economy, let's hope Bombardier get the contract so it keeps their Derby production line going after they've delivered the class 378 EMUs/class 172 DMUs to London Overground and class 172's to London Midland and Chiltern Railways, and it will keep people in their jobs in the UK.

It does seem bizarre that at the same time as they announce the bringing forward, to help stimulate the UK economy, there is encouragement to foreign builders (including some who have never built for the UK market) to try and enter the market.

Likewise, the announcement at the same time that the recently pared back quadrification of the North London would go ahead after all has been clarified that it won't happen until after the 2012 Olympics,  if it happens at all. Hardly a boost to the economy if it won't happen for 4 years. 

It's all about the fine traditions of British railway procurement - and EU rules which say you have to have open bidding (unless you're French...) - of using rivals to try to screw down the price from the people whose kit you really want. Problem is you can end up with things like FGW's batch of HST power cars with GEC traction motors, rather than the usual Brush ones, which are all allocated to Landore in Swansea to get the extra tlc they need.

Was reminded by the new Modern Railways that Hyundai Rotem actually have experience of building for the British Isles, in the shape of new inter-city and commuter configured 22000 Class DMUs for the Irish Republic, while CAF also supplied IE with DMUs, pictures and details here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Units_of_Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Units_of_Ireland)

Modern Railways also says a couple of DafT officials recently visited Ireland - wonder what they were looking at? Price-wise the Chinese and Koreans are said to be able to supply at just under ^1m per coach, and CAF just over ^1m, while Class 172 cars are about ^1.4m each at the moment. See what I mean about applying price pressure on Bombardier?

The bidders have been asked to tender for 200 to 250 coaches, with options for another 100, though the magazine says that Siemens will still be asked to build 24 more 185 coaches... suppose things might be clearer come March, when the order for the 200, or whatever it ends up as, is due be made.

The republic railways have little to do with the UK, and the funding for their infrastructure shortly to be curtailed once Euro money comes to an end. Hardly serious railway country.

Is this the same country? Quadruple-tracking the main line west out of Dublin for a good few miles, reopening lines in the Dublin area and in the west of the country, a rolling stock fleet which has been almost completely renewed in the past decade, resignalling of the whole network, a new cross-city tunnel under Dublin - this isn't a serious railway? Sounds like the kind of thing we could do with in England.

Little to do with the UK? The British created the network and its operating practices, until recently DMUs and coaches came from Britain (hence the fleet of Mk3s up for sale) and the boss of Iarnrod Eireann, Dick Fearn, was a senior BR manager - he ran the Thames & Chiltern Network South East services before privatisation - then worked for Connex and Railtrack before going to Ireland.

The kit under the floor of the Hyundai sets would look awfully familiar to any fitter used to working on Class 170s - an MTU engine and Voith transmission - a serious industry-standard piece of kit. At current prices you're looking at almost three CAF/Rotem/Chinese cars to two Class 172s and whatever has been said about supporting British industry, Bombardier has got some serious thinking to do about its costs.

Don't forget also about all the London Underground SSL trains they are already building, the FCC/SN 377/5 Electrostars  and then the Thameslink EMUs is an order they'll want, oh and then there's IEP joint with Siemens.  They (by sheer numbers) are probably far more important orders for Bombardier. 

Obviously great for them if they get every order, but do they have enough capacity? There already seem to be delays to the current 377 and 378 builds, there aren't as many about under test (for LO and FCC) as suggested in recent months...

Paul

I personnaly say give all remaining 170s to XC from TPE, and give TPE more new trains to replace those, wich are of a required length/. 

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2009/01/alstom_boss_says_world_should.html#more

Interesting slant from Alstom on buying Chinese. Which I would have a lot of sympathy for, were it not for the fact that the French don't exactly have an open market when prestigious contracts are being let.   

The French...Protectionist?  Well just a bit perhaps. ;D

Sadly, our domestic rolling stock industry is moribund.  However, there is already considerable European investment in our railways. For example, Mersy Rail has considerable input form NS and the EWS brand is set to vanish in favour of DB Schenke.  (Sadly, they have no plans to introduce new diesel hydraulics). 

Sterling is performing like an over laden class 143 up the bank to Exeter Central. As we slide ever closer to parity with the Euro, even newspapers like the 'Times' are beginning to question the wisdom of remaining aloof.  Without wishing to stir the European pot, would this be a good time for the UK to decide just where it stands?  Should first stop on the shopping trip should be at a European manufacturer?  Especially if we paid up in Euros?

No Euros please.

I'll pay in Sterling! ;)