Neither Alstom nor CAF have the background, experience nor range of models
to offer good tailored solutions. They both offer a base swivelling bogie
model as a market token and look what a mess Alstom got into with that in
Istanbul and Ottawa. They are not experts in that technology, Skoda and
Stadler are. The discerning German tram market is a good indicator of where
the technically desirable trams originate. About 60% of German trams have
originated from German manufacturers (mostly the former Bombardier, Siemens
and Heiterblick), the relatively new entrants Stadler (Swiss) and Skoda
(Czech) already account for about 15% each and growing. Alstom (without
Bombardier) accounts for about 10% and CAF for less than 1%.
Alstom has an advantage over CAF in that it has inherited Bombardier and
that will depend on whether they make use of or discard that inheritance.
When these takeovers have occurred in the past, there is typically a major
winnowing of models as part of an economic rationalisation. Bombardier did
this itself in the 90s. The fact remains that Alstom and CAF have failed to
gain any significant traction in the traditional market of trams with
swivelling bogies. It's not their base market for economic reasons. Their
focus is on minimising production costs.
Tony P
On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 08:01:49 UTC+11 Matthew Geier wrote:
> Alstom does have rotating bogie LRVs in their portfolio under the
> generic name of 'RegioCitadis' intended for 'tram train' applications.
> And they inherited the Bombardier Flexity Swift. So Alstom could offer
> rotating bogie variants if they wished.
> CAF also has rotating bogie variants, the Urbos 70 has leading
> rotating bogies ( with a raised floor in that area, hence the '70' ,
> 70% low floor), and the Urbos AXL and TT variants.
> So it's not true that only Stadler and Škoda are the only
> manufacturers offering a full range of car types.
> It may be that as Alstom and CAF (in particular) are targeting the
> cheaper end of the market, they don't offer these more track friendly
> designs as they cost more and they know the buyer is weighting heavily
> on price. So they offer the cheapest to build variant as they know
> that's what will get them the sale. But if the customer specifies
> rotating bogies they have the designs to offer.
>
> Stadler and Škoda are going for the 'more discerning' customer who
> knows they may have to pay a little more upfront for a track friendly
> car that will save them on maintenance costs later.
>
> Škoda also hasn't exactly been a stellar performer in the German
> market, the push-pull locomotive+DD coach sets for DB Regio Bayern
> have not had a smooth introduction to service. And Škoda had a lot
> riding on these, hoping to crack into the German regional market.
> Given the problems with these sets it's probable they have blown that
> opportunity.
>
> If Melbourne stands fast on its requirement to have rotating bogies,
> both Alstom and CAF do have something to put forward. It's going to
> come down to if fleet engineering calls the shots or treasury.
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 23:00, TP histor...@...> wrote:
> >
> > This is going to be a rerun of Breda and Combino. There are other less
> well-known examples. The Citadis fleet for Istanbul spent the first year
> after delivery in the depot while some unspecified problem with the bogies
> was sorted out. Alstom locked the operator in a confidentiality agreement,
> so that news of the details didn't leak out.
> >
> > I'm sure there's nothing wrong with any of the Sydney tracks. I think
> scores of European legacy operators would give their right arm and a leg
> for perway of the quality and alignment that the Sydney lines have. The
> issue is the trams. They're not the right trams for the operating
> environment.
> >
> > CAF could readily turn the tables on its customers over that, depending
> on how the tenders and contracts were written. If the specifications were
> vague and general (looking at you TfNSW), along the lines of "give us a
> tram", without any specific technical parameters, the less than scrupulous
> single-model manufacturer will know that their tram is unsuitable for the
> system it's being purchased for, but won't tell the gormless client that,
> in order to clinch the sale. When things go wrong, the client will say
> "your tram is faulty", to which the manufacturer will reply, "sorry, but
> our tram is fine for certain systems, but you bought the wrong tram for
> your system, but your vague specifications didn't preclude us from bidding.
> Bad luck. We're not taking them back".
> >
> > That's why it's best to go with experienced manufacturers of mutiple
> tram designs, each suitable for different types of system - fixed bogie
> trams, trams with a combination of fixed and swivelling bogies and trams
> with swivelling bogies. They are the most capable of advising the best tram
> for the system. There are nowadays two - and only two - major manufacturers
> with such a comprehensive range, Skoda and Stadler.
> >
> > Tony P
> > On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 17:52:23 UTC+11a...@... wrote:
> >>
> >> That was the message from the minister. He’ll do whatever it takes to
> pin this on CAF, so that’s the song he’ll be singing.
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >> On 16 Nov 2021, at 4:29 pm, Greg Sutherland gregsut...@...>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> "independent track assessments"
> >>
> >> Hmmm!
> >>
> >> By whom? TfNSW's tame consultants?
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16/11/2021 12:53 pm, Tony Galloway wrote:
> >>
> >> If Belgrade, Birmingham and Besançon have had similar failures, and
> it’s happened without a supposedly hostile party doing the maintenance, it
> seems to be inherent. Both the three and five section versions, metre and
> standard gauge, had this problem, the Besançon case four years ago :
> >>
> >>
> https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/caf-agrees-to-remedial-work-on-besancon-lrvs/
> >>
> >> I was on a Zoom town hall style meeting with Balmain MLA Jamie Parker
> last night who said that independent track assessments done since the
> suspension have found nothing wrong with the track, and transport minister
> Stokes has told local MPs and the Inner West Council the 18 month time is
> for any repairs and modifications to be proven durable - the repair done in
> Birmingham failed after six weeks operation - and to get all cars done.
> That’s what the man said, so that must be the word from his “experts”, for
> what that’s worth.
> >>
> >> Stokes also insists liability rests entirely on CAF, as was found in
> the litigation brought by Besançon against CAF.
> >>
> >> So that’s how it stands. When I develop the stomach for it I’ll report
> on how the replacement buses are running. It looks like they’ve got rid of
> the tourist coaches so that’s something, but from what was said last night
> the bus operation is still being “adjusted” in response to public feedback.
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >> On 16 Nov 2021, at 12:16 pm, Robert Taaffe rtaa...@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> There are still many unanswered questions here and do they come down to
> the trams coming from one supplier and the maintenance is being done by
> another? Vested interest?
> >> Why on earth does it take 18 months to fix these, there is more to this
> story than meets the eye? If the expertise was in house then it would be
> all stops out for trams to be back on the tracks. It would also means
> common standards.
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 12:06:56 PM UTC+11 Mal Rowe wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 16/11/2021 12:00, TP wrote:
> >>> > The irony in the current issue of TAUT. In one section of the issue,
> >>> > news of the suspension of IWLR due to cracks in CAF trams. In another
> >>> > section, CAF wins a commendation in best manufacturer category for,
> >>> > among other things, its "high-quality trams".
> >>> >
> >>> ISO quality standards specify repeatability of outcomes - so if ALL CAF
> >>> trams are crap they may be compliant!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email totramsdownunde...@....
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/17a6041f-9d38-43a6-93b1-ec35fb98d466n%40googlegroups.com
> .
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email totramsdownunde...@....
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/3C82D0E0-B078-4746-AAB4-7821664B360D%40aapt.net.au
> .
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email totramsdownunde...@....
> >>
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/b23a442e-cca0-9b18-f8bc-9a7910443cfe%40ozemail.com.au
> .
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email totramsdownunde...@....
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/6ce972ed-3841-4c59-b546-5887042b9f8dn%40googlegroups.com
> .
>