|
|
Post by redsetter on Aug 2, 2011 13:16:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2011 13:37:41 GMT
Bombardier as the company in their own right aren't struggling!
|
|
|
|
Post by jardine01 on Aug 2, 2011 17:40:03 GMT
S stock life 40 Years? What was the A stocks official lifespan?
|
|
|
|
Post by jardine01 on Aug 3, 2011 14:40:02 GMT
I cant see how you think Bombardier are in trouble with the 2009 stock being £10 million per train and the total cost of the S stock £1.5 billion
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Aug 3, 2011 15:09:07 GMT
S stock life 40 Years? What was the A stocks official lifespan? Nowhere near the 50 years it lasted! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2011 23:57:00 GMT
I cant see how you think Bombardier are in trouble with the 2009 stock being £10 million per train and the total cost of the S stock £1.5 billion Thats about nearly 40% out for a 2009 Tube Stock. The S Stock figure is also over. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 20:55:26 GMT
I seem to recall reading somewhere that there would have been 1200 redundancies at Bombardier anyway, even if they'd got the contract. Whilst any loss of work is terrible and to be lamented, the figures would appear to have been distorted. I'd conclude that the (alleged) actual net figure of 200 jobs lost are production based. Support and maintenance are usually different departments and lucrative to the parent company. In any case it is easier to shift support and maintenance to competitor companies if necessary. It happens all the time without major problems in the industry I work in. Sad as this loss of trade to the UK is, I wouldn't be overly pessimestic at this stage with the planned longevity of the stock. Glass half empty or half full? Half fyull is a happier outlook. Either way most of us will be in pipe and slippers or in the depot by 2050 anyway so why worry!  |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Aug 10, 2011 21:34:09 GMT
+1, remember reading about the 1,200 elsewhere aswell. However, I can't remember one mainstream media outlet repeating it. Funny how such balancing information can effectively be purged from reality. Minitrue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 21:45:15 GMT
Its not just Bombardier that is at risk.... its the 90 or so suppliers down the chain that will also suffer through loss of custom! I did see a great big list somewhere as to who supplied what components for the FCC 377's! Yes, the redundancies would have happened even if Bombardier had won the contract, it would have only prolonged the inevitable! A shame... a sad end to a once thriving UK engineering industry.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 23:31:09 GMT
Its not just Bombardier that is at risk.... its the 90 or so suppliers down the chain that will also suffer through loss of custom! I did see a great big list somewhere as to who supplied what components for the FCC 377's! Yes, the redundancies would have happened even if Bombardier had won the contract, it would have only prolonged the inevitable! A shame... a sad end to a once thriving UK engineering industry. BREL the before privatisation produced a lot of good trains a lot of which are still running today such as the HST. There was always healthy competition from the likes of Metro-Cammell, Brush etc. Then the railways were privatised in the worst possible way, in that it resulted in mass fragmentation of the rail industry and then the armies of accountants moved in! Add to that the EU dimension and we had perfect storm to destroy another industry. "Inevitable" only because politicians made it that way. Bad decisions by politicians of all parities is endemic in the UK I used to an electronics engineer until that industry was decimated, moved into IT/telecoms In 2001 Gordon Brown auctions off thin air (3G licenses) at for £B's and lots of us get made redundant - I move into IT/Defence - cuts last year so back on the dole again. Wonder where all the money has gone ?- Lots of new big cruisers and yachts around the coast of the UK- Beware of the man on the boat, next to the Bank! Now that is inevitable! Xerces Fobe |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2011 16:20:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2011 22:04:14 GMT
Was Bombardier the right choice, it was the only choice!
Alstom have closed Metro Cammell down, even though the MetCam product from the 90s was better than Adtranz - Bombardier's product for the Central, which was something of a new venture. The last production tube vehicles built at Derby were trailers for 1962 stock?
But did Derby do one of the short lived prototype trains on the original section of the Jubilee? These were prototypes that I never travelled on, and only saw one in service.
It seems the classic procurement process that had served TfL, LT and earlier structures seemed to fail the network in the 80s and 90s.
A bit of a grey area but there are doubtless more experts than me in our membership.
I appreciate this is moving away from SSL territory, but the demarcation lines are a bit confusing.
RicP
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 6, 2011 22:27:54 GMT
But did Derby do one of the short lived prototype trains on the original section of the Jubilee? These were prototypes that I never travelled on, and only saw one in service. Yes, BREL did the "blue" train. Met-Camm did the red and green ones. (You tube footage of it on the Aldwych branch (despite the voice annoucements!) here Although BREL was chosen to build the production run, it was the green unit which most closely resembles the production series. I only ever saw them on static display, at Woodford. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Oct 7, 2011 8:34:46 GMT
That's a very good video!!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Oct 7, 2011 12:08:22 GMT
That's a very good video!! Agreed. I don't think Bombardier was a good choice, if their trains are quickly dirty... Or LU could at least have spent money on the infrastructure for the stock. I suppose Bombardier is a better airplane manufacturer than a train manufacturer. |
|
|
|
Post by jardine01 on Oct 7, 2011 16:28:48 GMT
There is no attenchion to detail unlike the older stocks. I don't find Bombarier trains that reliable look at the trouble when the 2009 stock was introduced. The S stock has faired slightly better. All trains will get dirty quickly its LU's job to make sure these trains are clean everyday. I prefer metro cammel trains better but they are bust now. I like Alstlom 1996 stock the best!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Oct 7, 2011 18:57:38 GMT
There is no attenchion to detail unlike the older stocks. I don't find Bombarier trains that reliable look at the trouble when the 2009 stock was introduced. The S stock has faired slightly better. All trains will get dirty quickly its LU's job to make sure these trains are clean everyday. I prefer metro cammel trains better but they are bust now. I like Alstlom 1996 stock the best! Their acceleration sound is the reason? (Which is obviously beautiful) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2011 23:35:52 GMT
Bombardier make excellent mainline trains, take a look at the Electrostar series and Turbostar series
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 6:46:03 GMT
There is no attenchion to detail unlike the older stocks. I don't find Bombarier trains that reliable look at the trouble when the 2009 stock was introduced. The S stock has faired slightly better. All trains will get dirty quickly its LU's job to make sure these trains are clean everyday. I prefer metro cammel trains better but they are bust now. I like Alstlom 1996 stock the best! The 1995 stock had many problems when being introduced, I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Oct 8, 2011 10:07:24 GMT
Weren't the problems with the 95TS that it didn't fit in the tunnels/that tunnel widening was needed?
At least the 95TS doesn't have giant problems atm. 83TS probably was more troublesome.
|
|
