Bombardier trains for Crossrail
I think it wrong to say it isn’t a political decision. Under EU rules you are allowed to take social and other factors into account, as well as the economics. It is just historically we haven’t, the present government when Bombardier lost their last high profile contract, Thameslink, said that they were hamstrung by the tendering process created by the previous government which restricted comparison to economics, despite EU allowing other factors in. They said this was wrong and said it would not happen again in future tenders. That was a political decision and a very good one.Posted 4 years ago
I’m not a rail engineer, or for that matter ‘an enthusiast’, but I do design the bits that people use to get to and from the trains, and as such (excepting the fact the the government has changed the procurement rules after Thameslink, and Siemens walked away), the main benefit of thePosted 4 years ago
Canadian GermanBritish Bombardier contract ensures that at least some of the design for the trains is carried out in the UK, rather than, say, Hitachi’s which’ll be assembling trains manufactured elsewhere (to my understanding – happy to be proven wrong).
Probably should have added a smiley and yes I know he is a lawyer, hence my use of “legal treatise”, the essential thrust of my post was other factors can be taken into account, which are clearly political in nature.
I think, on thameslink, they just got it wrong. It wasn’t so much the political drivers that got it wrong, they just screwed up putting together the competition so that another company was able to win. At the same time thameslink was going on, we had another reach preferred bidder where the emphasis on social/community benefits was huge. I don’t think these decisions (certainly at that time) are driven from central government – for example one transport authority would always push on price, while another might be heavier on design. There was too much inconsistency across huge numbers of authority clients and how they structured their compeitions for politics to have too much influence.
I agree with you that politics can weigh in and say “wow, we don’t want that to ever happen again…make sure that it doesn’t” and procurements will take more of an advantage of social/community benefits requirements (if that’s what they felt is necessary to appease the voters)…but they were always there to begin with, some just chose not to put as much emphasis on them. With Crossrail, they didn’t screw up the competition. They knew who they wanted to win, knew they couldn’t afford another screw up and made sure the procurement was watertight. IMO that would have happened regardless of the politicians wading in.
At the end of the day, if you’re weighted at 95% price and 5% quality, it doesn’t matter how great you social benefits are if Le Froggies come in and undercut you 🙂Posted 4 years agopiemonsterMember
OK, what springs to mind when you hear “hitachi”?
A 1980s VCR. Why, what does it do for you?
Now, what nationalistic and heartwarming images does the word” Bombardier” conjure up?
Rik Mayall in a silly outfit is the closest I can think of. Not sure it’s relevant.
If you mean Bombardier the train manufacturer. I think of a Canadian owned manufacturer. No real heartwarming nationalism there either.Posted 4 years agoprojectMember
Lots of british train companies went out of buisnees due to lack of investment in new roolling stock we got the great hs, and under developed APTP, We lost BAYER PEACOCK, GEC, ENGLISH ELECTRIC, BTH, BREL, all the state owned rail companies, and many more, we got cheap and nasty Pacers, and Sprinters, Pendolinos courtesy of fiat, later sold to bombardier, and many other hopeless stock.
Now we are buying off the shelf trains, basicly carriges with under floor engines, or electric multiple units, no loco hauled stock as used to be the case.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Bombardier trains for Crossrail’ is closed to new replies.