<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68615500>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 20/03/2024 12:07, Graeme Wall wrote:
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68615500>

That's been predicted for many months, the Factory Management even had a
meeting with the Government Minister about it a few months back. The
Government won't commit funding for new trains, which can be started
immediately once the present orders are fulfilled. After that, they have
a part fot he HS2 order to make, and possibly new underground trains, so
if they get over the next 2 years, they shoud be ok for at least another
10 years.

Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 12:07, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68615500>
>
> That's been predicted for many months, the Factory Management even had a
> meeting with the Government Minister about it a few months back. The
> Government won't commit funding for new trains, which can be started
> immediately once the present orders are fulfilled. After that, they have
> a part fot he HS2 order to make, and possibly new underground trains, so
> if they get over the next 2 years, they shoud be ok for at least another
> 10 years.
>
>
>

Shame they cannot get some more export orders, supplying the stock for the
Cairo Monorail network was a reasonably large one ,though the Government
had to put a lot of money in to subsidise it.

GH

In message <utenri$1gi3l$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:20:50 on Wed, 20 Mar
2024, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
>On 20/03/2024 12:07, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68615500>
>
>That's been predicted for many months, the Factory Management even had
>a meeting with the Government Minister about it a few months back. The
>Government won't commit funding for new trains, which can be started
>immediately once the present orders are fulfilled. After that, they
>have a part fot he HS2 order to make, and possibly new underground
>trains, so if they get over the next 2 years, they shoud be ok for at
>least another 10 years.

The USA-ian solution would be to furlough the staff for two years, so
they could come back to work, while getting temporary jobs in other
sectors to tide them over.
--
Roland Perry

On 20 Mar 2024 13:58:12 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 20/03/2024 12:07, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68615500>
>>
>> That's been predicted for many months, the Factory Management even had a
>> meeting with the Government Minister about it a few months back. The
>> Government won't commit funding for new trains, which can be started
>> immediately once the present orders are fulfilled. After that, they have
>> a part fot he HS2 order to make, and possibly new underground trains, so
>> if they get over the next 2 years, they shoud be ok for at least another
>> 10 years.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Shame they cannot get some more export orders, supplying the stock for the
>Cairo Monorail network was a reasonably large one ,though the Government
>had to put a lot of money in to subsidise it.

It might have helped it a large number of orders hadn't gone abroad to
Stadler and CAF. Concern for UK works only seems to extend so far with the
powers that be.

On 20/03/2024 16:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> It might have helped it a large number of orders hadn't gone abroad to
> Stadler and CAF. Concern for UK works only seems to extend so far with the
> powers that be.

And, considering it is now the Government who , ultimately, secure and
pay for the Contract for new trains, we are out of the EU, which was a
reason given many times why competitive tendering was required, why on
earth arent we buying British for every train we need.
Hitachi are saying their plants may not be open for many more years due
to the lack of orders. CAF have supplied many faulty trains, so saying
the competition is a better train doesnt hold true.

Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 12:07, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68615500>
>
> That's been predicted for many months, the Factory Management even had a
> meeting with the Government Minister about it a few months back. The
> Government won't commit funding for new trains, which can be started
> immediately once the present orders are fulfilled. After that, they have
> a part fot he HS2 order to make, and possibly new underground trains, so
> if they get over the next 2 years, they shoud be ok for at least another
> 10 years.

There's no prospect of Derby getting any LU orders in the next decade or
two. Siemens will get any Tube stock orders, and the SSL won't need new
stock for decades. Similarly, LO has pretty new stock, all built in Derby.
The Liz will need a few more 345s, which need to be ordered very soon,
while the Aventra line is still open.

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 20/03/2024 12:07, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68615500>
>>
>> That's been predicted for many months, the Factory Management even had a
>> meeting with the Government Minister about it a few months back. The
>> Government won't commit funding for new trains, which can be started
>> immediately once the present orders are fulfilled. After that, they have
>> a part fot he HS2 order to make, and possibly new underground trains, so
>> if they get over the next 2 years, they shoud be ok for at least another
>> 10 years.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Shame they cannot get some more export orders, supplying the stock for the
> Cairo Monorail network was a reasonably large one ,though the Government
> had to put a lot of money in to subsidise it.
>

Any new export orders will also need substantial subsidy.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:51:37 +0000
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>On 20/03/2024 16:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> It might have helped it a large number of orders hadn't gone abroad to
>> Stadler and CAF. Concern for UK works only seems to extend so far with the
>> powers that be.
>
>And, considering it is now the Government who , ultimately, secure and
>pay for the Contract for new trains, we are out of the EU, which was a
>reason given many times why competitive tendering was required, why on
>earth arent we buying British for every train we need.
>Hitachi are saying their plants may not be open for many more years due
>to the lack of orders. CAF have supplied many faulty trains, so saying
>the competition is a better train doesnt hold true.

Unfortunately it seems competative tendering seems to be a deep rooted
mantra in all the parties now and seems to simply revolve around money. As
ever they only care about the initial upfront costs, not the good or bad
knock on effects years or decades down the line - excuse the pun.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:51:37 +0000
> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 20/03/2024 16:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> It might have helped it a large number of orders hadn't gone abroad to
>>> Stadler and CAF. Concern for UK works only seems to extend so far with the
>>> powers that be.
>>
>> And, considering it is now the Government who , ultimately, secure and
>> pay for the Contract for new trains, we are out of the EU, which was a
>> reason given many times why competitive tendering was required, why on
>> earth arent we buying British for every train we need.
>> Hitachi are saying their plants may not be open for many more years due
>> to the lack of orders. CAF have supplied many faulty trains, so saying
>> the competition is a better train doesnt hold true.
>
> Unfortunately it seems competative tendering seems to be a deep rooted
> mantra in all the parties now and seems to simply revolve around money. As
> ever they only care about the initial upfront costs, not the good or bad
> knock on effects years or decades down the line - excuse the pun.
>
>

Trouble is, a buy British requirement ends up with the likes of British
Leyland, or Ferguson Marine. On the other hand HMG has bailed out the likes
of Rolls Royce aero engines.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 20/03/2024 12:07, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68615500>
>>
>> That's been predicted for many months, the Factory Management even had a
>> meeting with the Government Minister about it a few months back. The
>> Government won't commit funding for new trains, which can be started
>> immediately once the present orders are fulfilled. After that, they have
>> a part fot he HS2 order to make, and possibly new underground trains, so
>> if they get over the next 2 years, they shoud be ok for at least another
>> 10 years.
>
> There's no prospect of Derby getting any LU orders in the next decade or
> two. Siemens will get any Tube stock orders, and the SSL won't need new
> stock for decades. Similarly, LO has pretty new stock, all built in Derby.
> The Liz will need a few more 345s, which need to be ordered very soon,
> while the Aventra line is still open.

Of course they won’t be ordered soon - the Gov will delay until the
production line is closed and the jigs disposed of and then decide to order
new trains from a different manufacturer which won’t be compatible and will
require deeply inefficient servicing arrangements.

You heard it here first.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:45:42 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately it seems competative tendering seems to be a deep rooted
>> mantra in all the parties now and seems to simply revolve around money. As
>> ever they only care about the initial upfront costs, not the good or bad
>> knock on effects years or decades down the line - excuse the pun.
>>
>>
>
>Trouble is, a buy British requirement ends up with the likes of British
>Leyland, or Ferguson Marine. On the other hand HMG has bailed out the likes
>of Rolls Royce aero engines.

It doesn't have to be Buy British at all costs, but if some tenders are very
close then the preference should be for the british built kit even if its
slightly more expensive because that extra money will be more than made up for
with the positive effects on the economy short and long term.

As for bailing out RR - thank god they did. They're now one of the worlds
biggest jet engine manufacturers. Shame however that RR either didn't have
the vision or initiative to sort out their car business but just flogged it
off instead to BMW.

On 21/03/2024 10:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:45:42 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately it seems competative tendering seems to be a deep rooted
>>> mantra in all the parties now and seems to simply revolve around money. As
>>> ever they only care about the initial upfront costs, not the good or bad
>>> knock on effects years or decades down the line - excuse the pun.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Trouble is, a buy British requirement ends up with the likes of British
>> Leyland, or Ferguson Marine. On the other hand HMG has bailed out the likes
>> of Rolls Royce aero engines.
>
> It doesn't have to be Buy British at all costs, but if some tenders are very
> close then the preference should be for the british built kit even if its
> slightly more expensive because that extra money will be more than made up for
> with the positive effects on the economy short and long term.
>
> As for bailing out RR - thank god they did. They're now one of the worlds
> biggest jet engine manufacturers. Shame however that RR either didn't have
> the vision or initiative to sort out their car business but just flogged it
> off instead to BMW.
>

Actually made sense to dump the car division, it was competing in an
overcrowded market, whereas the aero engine division was a market leader.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 10:20:57 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 21/03/2024 10:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:45:42 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately it seems competative tendering seems to be a deep rooted
>>>> mantra in all the parties now and seems to simply revolve around money. As
>>>> ever they only care about the initial upfront costs, not the good or bad
>>>> knock on effects years or decades down the line - excuse the pun.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trouble is, a buy British requirement ends up with the likes of British
>>> Leyland, or Ferguson Marine. On the other hand HMG has bailed out the likes
>>> of Rolls Royce aero engines.
>>
>> It doesn't have to be Buy British at all costs, but if some tenders are very
>> close then the preference should be for the british built kit even if its
>> slightly more expensive because that extra money will be more than made up
>for
>> with the positive effects on the economy short and long term.
>>
>> As for bailing out RR - thank god they did. They're now one of the worlds
>> biggest jet engine manufacturers. Shame however that RR either didn't have
>> the vision or initiative to sort out their car business but just flogged it
>> off instead to BMW.
>>
>
>Actually made sense to dump the car division, it was competing in an
>overcrowded market, whereas the aero engine division was a market leader.

Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the kudos
levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
is history.

On 21/03/2024 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 10:20:57 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 10:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:45:42 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Unfortunately it seems competative tendering seems to be a deep rooted
>>>>> mantra in all the parties now and seems to simply revolve around money. As
>>>>> ever they only care about the initial upfront costs, not the good or bad
>>>>> knock on effects years or decades down the line - excuse the pun.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trouble is, a buy British requirement ends up with the likes of British
>>>> Leyland, or Ferguson Marine. On the other hand HMG has bailed out the likes
>>>> of Rolls Royce aero engines.
>>>
>>> It doesn't have to be Buy British at all costs, but if some tenders are very
>>> close then the preference should be for the british built kit even if its
>>> slightly more expensive because that extra money will be more than made up
>> for
>>> with the positive effects on the economy short and long term.
>>>
>>> As for bailing out RR - thank god they did. They're now one of the worlds
>>> biggest jet engine manufacturers. Shame however that RR either didn't have
>>> the vision or initiative to sort out their car business but just flogged it
>>> off instead to BMW.
>>>
>>
>> Actually made sense to dump the car division, it was competing in an
>> overcrowded market, whereas the aero engine division was a market leader.
>
> Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the kudos
> levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
> the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
> is history.
>

Yup, because a dedicate volume car manufacturer took them over.
Economies of scale not available to a niche manufacturer could be
applied. The days when RR built superb individual chassis for dedicated
coachworks companies to supply bodies for are long gone. Once you went
down the road of providing standardised vehicles, which happened a long
tine ago now, the writing was on the wall.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 21/03/2024 10:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> It doesn't have to be Buy British at all costs, but if some tenders are very
> close then the preference should be for the british built kit even if its
> slightly more expensive because that extra money will be more than made up for
> with the positive effects on the economy short and long term.

I disagree with some of your posts but that one hits the nail on the
head. What we should be comparing is the net cost to the UK of buying
British vs buying foreign. Much of the money paid to a local firm will
come straight back to the economy as tax at some level, whether it's
corporation tax on profits, income tax on salaries or VAT on whatever
the employees buy with their net pay. There's also the saving on
benefits for staff who are no longer out of work, and an iterative
effect on the industries where the staff spend their wages. Brexit has
damaged many areas, but we should take advantage of no longer being
obliged to offer equal terms to European firms who may not always play
by the same rules as us.

Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 10:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> It doesn't have to be Buy British at all costs, but if some tenders are very
>> close then the preference should be for the british built kit even if its
>> slightly more expensive because that extra money will be more than made up for
>> with the positive effects on the economy short and long term.
>
> I disagree with some of your posts but that one hits the nail on the
> head. What we should be comparing is the net cost to the UK of buying
> British vs buying foreign. Much of the money paid to a local firm will
> come straight back to the economy as tax at some level, whether it's
> corporation tax on profits, income tax on salaries or VAT on whatever
> the employees buy with their net pay. There's also the saving on
> benefits for staff who are no longer out of work, and an iterative
> effect on the industries where the staff spend their wages. Brexit has
> damaged many areas, but we should take advantage of no longer being
> obliged to offer equal terms to European firms who may not always play
> by the same rules as us.
>

There’s still the Siemens plant at Google and the Hitachi assembly line.
Maybe we’ve now got too many uk based train factories.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 10:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> It doesn't have to be Buy British at all costs, but if some tenders are very
>>> close then the preference should be for the british built kit even if its
>>> slightly more expensive because that extra money will be more than made up for
>>> with the positive effects on the economy short and long term.
>>
>> I disagree with some of your posts but that one hits the nail on the
>> head. What we should be comparing is the net cost to the UK of buying
>> British vs buying foreign. Much of the money paid to a local firm will
>> come straight back to the economy as tax at some level, whether it's
>> corporation tax on profits, income tax on salaries or VAT on whatever
>> the employees buy with their net pay. There's also the saving on
>> benefits for staff who are no longer out of work, and an iterative
>> effect on the industries where the staff spend their wages. Brexit has
>> damaged many areas, but we should take advantage of no longer being
>> obliged to offer equal terms to European firms who may not always play
>> by the same rules as us.
>>
>
> There’s still the Siemens plant at Google and the Hitachi assembly line.
> Maybe we’ve now got too many uk based train factories.

Where?!?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 21/03/2024 14:41, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> There’s still the Siemens plant at Google and the Hitachi assembly line.
>> Maybe we’ve now got too many uk based train factories.
> Where?!?
>

Autocorrect strikes again?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 21/03/2024 14:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 14:41, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> There’s still the Siemens plant at Google and the Hitachi assembly line.
>>> Maybe we’ve now got too many uk based train factories.
>> Where?!?
>
> Autocorrect strikes again?

This one according to a Goole search:
<https://www.mobility.siemens.com/uk/en/portfolio/rolling-stock/goole.html>

Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 14:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 14:41, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> There’s still the Siemens plant at Google and the Hitachi assembly line.
>>>> Maybe we’ve now got too many uk based train factories.
>>> Where?!?
>>
>> Autocorrect strikes again?
>
> This one according to a Goole search:
> <https://www.mobility.siemens.com/uk/en/portfolio/rolling-stock/goole.html>
>

Yes I meant Goole

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:15:31 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 21/03/2024 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the kudos
>
>> levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
>> the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
>> is history.
>>
>
>Yup, because a dedicate volume car manufacturer took them over.
>Economies of scale not available to a niche manufacturer could be
>applied. The days when RR built superb individual chassis for dedicated
>coachworks companies to supply bodies for are long gone. Once you went
>down the road of providing standardised vehicles, which happened a long
>tine ago now, the writing was on the wall.

I don't buy that argument. For the price RR charge you don't need economies
of scale equivalent to a mass market manufacturer as plenty of niche car
manufacturers past and present demonstrate - eg Ineos.

On 21/03/2024 16:05, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:15:31 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the kudos
>>
>>> levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
>>> the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
>>> is history.
>>>
>>
>> Yup, because a dedicate volume car manufacturer took them over.
>> Economies of scale not available to a niche manufacturer could be
>> applied. The days when RR built superb individual chassis for dedicated
>> coachworks companies to supply bodies for are long gone. Once you went
>> down the road of providing standardised vehicles, which happened a long
>> tine ago now, the writing was on the wall.
>
> I don't buy that argument. For the price RR charge you don't need economies
> of scale equivalent to a mass market manufacturer as plenty of niche car
> manufacturers past and present demonstrate - eg Ineos.
>

AFAIK Ineos go for the top-end 4x4 pretend Landrover market. Not where
RR were ever likely to be positioned.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 14:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 14:41, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>> There’s still the Siemens plant at Google and the Hitachi assembly line.
>>>>> Maybe we’ve now got too many uk based train factories.
>>>> Where?!?
>>>
>>> Autocorrect strikes again?
>>
>> This one according to a Goole search:
>> <https://www.mobility.siemens.com/uk/en/portfolio/rolling-stock/goole.html>
>>
>
> Yes I meant Goole

But the computer knew better. The town will have to rename itself now, or
maybe be taken over and rebranded by the search behemoth - Google can
probably afford to buy a town without much bother.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:46:34 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 21/03/2024 16:05, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:15:31 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 10:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Only crowded because RR cars (and bentleys) had slowly slumped down the
>kudos
>>>
>>>> levels to become more or less posh jags with similar reliability. BMW had
>>>> the right idea - improve quality immensely and charge a fortune. The rest
>>>> is history.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yup, because a dedicate volume car manufacturer took them over.
>>> Economies of scale not available to a niche manufacturer could be
>>> applied. The days when RR built superb individual chassis for dedicated
>>> coachworks companies to supply bodies for are long gone. Once you went
>>> down the road of providing standardised vehicles, which happened a long
>>> tine ago now, the writing was on the wall.
>>
>> I don't buy that argument. For the price RR charge you don't need economies
>> of scale equivalent to a mass market manufacturer as plenty of niche car
>> manufacturers past and present demonstrate - eg Ineos.
>>
>
>AFAIK Ineos go for the top-end 4x4 pretend Landrover market. Not where
>RR were ever likely to be positioned.

Doesn't matter - they're both prestige marks (or Ineos hopes it is) and charge
accordingly. There's no shortage of punters willing to part with a lot of
cash for stuff thats probably not worth it - eg 50K for a tea tray with a
spiced up ford 2.0L 4 banger known colloquially as Caterhams.