> The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied
> to build the Thameslink EMUs.
>
> This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the
> DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future
> UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there
> are other train builders around who might be interested?

> On Jul 14, 2:09 pm, "Paul Scott" btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>

>> The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied
>> to build the Thameslink EMUs.

>

>> This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the
>> DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future
>> UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there
>> are other train builders around who might be interested?

>
> The DfT would save even more taxpayers money if they just built
> another batch of the dual voltage 376/377 series with any appropriate
> traction system upgrades. But that would require a bit of common sense
> in government - a rare commodity.

> However, it would have been much more sensible (ie cheap) to make the
> TL2k+n specification equivalent to "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit
> faster and a bit lighter; if you're not Siemens or Bombardier you're
> welcome to bid but bear in mind that we're not going to pay the
> development costs of a whole new train platform", rather than going
> for a step change in capabilities and weights.

> The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied
> to build the Thameslink EMUs.
>
> This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the
> DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future
> UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there
> are other train builders around who might be interested?

> On 14 Jul, 17:38, John B johnband.org> wrote:
>

>> However, it would have been much more sensible (ie cheap) to make the
>> TL2k+n specification equivalent to "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit
>> faster and a bit lighter; if you're not Siemens or Bombardier you're
>> welcome to bid but bear in mind that we're not going to pay the
>> development costs of a whole new train platform", rather than going
>> for a step change in capabilities and weights.

>
> But how have they not done that? I'm sure Bombardier and Siemens' bids
> won't be far off a "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit faster and a bit
> lighter", and the other companies' bids likewise.

>I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the
>DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least
>the self-propulsion).

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B johnband.org>
> wrote:
>

>> I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the
>> DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least
>> the self-propulsion).

>
> The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs.

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B johnband.org>
> wrote:
>

>> I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the
>> DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least
>> the self-propulsion).

>
> The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs.

> "Neil Williams" pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:487bb4b0.2768955@news.individual.net

>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B johnband.org>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the
>>> DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least
>>> the self-propulsion).

>>
>> The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs.

>
> Yes, but a similarly greedy feature set is demanded (ie, much lighter,
> faster, extremely reliable, able to run at up to 30mph when the juice is
> off). Most of the demanded features would raise the weight, but DfT is
> asking for something as light as a simple 319.