Return to Archive -by date - by topic - 2000 Archive.

INFORMED SOURCES May 2000

SSRA's new trains – procurement wars revisited

Yes, it's train procurement 1980s style as the SSRA goes to market

Financiers and manufacturers responding to the SSRA's OJEC notice got a pre-qualification questionnaire on 10 March, with 10 days to reply.

In the case of manufacturers the questionnaire was 12 pages long, of which the first page was admin' details.

Then it was back to the sort of doctrinaire procurement that gave us so much hilarity and mirth when BR Procurement at Derby was in business.

Simple questions

When buying trains in 21 st Century Britain , the questions you should ask manufacturers seem pretty obvious.

Can you offer an existing design? Is it in the metal? Has it got a passenger acceptance certificate? Has it got any running experience? When can you start delivery. Oh, yes, and you ought to check that the design will be fully compliant with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations.

So what was in the SSRA's 12 pages? Well Section 1 made it clear that the SSRA doesn't trust these cheapskate multinational train builders an inch. ‘Supplier qualification may include site visits to check that the prequalification information is accurate' is the second policy statement.

This referred to the vast amount of detail requested, supported by ‘relevant photographic evidence' and ‘plans of the production areas'. And this was only pre-qualification for heaven's sake,

Vast

How vast is vast? Well, try this for size.

Section 2.1 Design, build and test had sub sections a) to l). Section a) wanted to know about design facilities under nine categories from ‘professional engineers' to ‘others'. But the fun really started with Section 2.1.b) I quote:

(b) Give details, supported by relevant photographic evidence and a plan of the production area, showing the facilities you intend to use for final assembly. If you are proposing to use more than one site, please provide relevant details of all sites.

Relevant details were under three headings: Location, capacity and inspection and testing of equipment. The facilities covered: Welding, lifting, cutting, bending, painting, jigs, pits, handling, storage and fitting out.

Section e) was even better. It wanted to know ‘where main components would be manufactured, are currently used and the type of component proposed'.

This covered 10 main systems each broken down into sub-systems. So, under ‘paint system' the SSRA wanted to know separately how you would paint the body shell, underframe and bogie.

Under ‘cab' you had to say who would make the driver's seat, in which of your current products it was already in use and a type/reference. While ‘toilet' required information on the baby changing table and the soap dispenser. Actually I made the last one up, they only want to know the toilet system.

At last

Anyway, you slogged on through all this vital detail until you came to 2.1(h) which asked for a proposed testing plan for i) component type tests, ii)component endurance tests, iii)on track reliability growth (including train numbers, duration and location) and iv)obtaining the necessary approvals to operate the vehicle in passenger service. Heigh ho, better late than never.

Then 2.1 (k) asked for experience with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations and outline any area in which products may be non compliant. Hell's teeth, if the product ain't going to be fully RVAR compliant no one is going to fund it.

And finally, last and clearly least, manufacturers were asked to give details of experience of obtaining approvals to operate multiple unit trains in the UK since 1994.

It wasn't just the train builders who bashed my ear on this farrago. Alarm bells rang at the ROSCOs, who feared that such technical detail was leading up to an entirely new design. As one informed source put it ‘We're worried that this could be Networker 2'. And if that were the case someone (the taxpayer) would have to underwrite lease rentals and reliability and performance risk before any financier would touch it.

Usual suspects

Anyway, I imagine that all the manufacturers ignored the questionnaire and sent aerial photos of socking great factories with a note saying ‘Dear Mr Grant, we enjoyed the spoof questionnaire, now do you want us to bid or not? PS would you like us to take over Railtrack as part of the deal, we have enough in the petty cash at the present share price?'

Because when the briefing for pre-qualified manufacturers and financiers was held at the end of March all the usual suspects were present.

In fact Abbey National wasn't there, but as they were in the process of buying Porterbrook, for a generous £1.4billion, they didn't need to be.

And, as was often the case when the car park watchers were in action during BR procurement wars of the 1980s, there was a Macavity the mystery bidder, or rather Macavity-San.

For once, informed sources could not agree. Some thought Japanese trading house Hitochu had pre-qualified, others said they hadn't. Certainly the company has appointed consultants to develop a traction package safety case.

However, given that Hitochu represents Toshiba, Kawasaki , Tokyu Car and Nippon Sharyo, the cost of photographing all the production facilities for the pre-qualification questionnaire may have been prohibitive.

Schedule

Train builders and financiers are bidding in parallel, with the train bids submitted first. Manufacturers have been asked to send copies of their tenders to the Rolling Stock Companies and finance houses.

At the briefing, one ROSCO complained that a fortnight to evaluate the manufacturers' detailed bids was a bit tight. Adtranz offered comfort: ‘We could knock a month off the bidding time because we have a standard product'. Oops, that should have been ‘modular' John.

SSRA confirmed that bids will be for dual voltage trains with the base price covering an RVAR compliant powered shell with warranty. Separate prices will be required for a range of fitting out options, such as seating configurations and luggage racks.

Prices can also include maintenance, however manufacturers were told not to talk to the train operators who might lease any trains procured by the SSRA.

So how will those putting forward total train service provision offers be able to work out how many diagrams they will have to meet? Answer, the SSRA will be responsible for determining the number of diagrams to be covered by each TOC's fleet and the depot strategy. Hmmm, more underwriting by the taxpayer.

One SSRA informed source emphasised ‘We are looking for low-risk, high reliability trains that will work out of the box'. But the procurement team will also consider ‘sexy non compliant offers'. Oh dear.

Bit of fun

So here's a challenge, sponsored by Roddy Orr-Watt of Rail Index. Let the Editor know by e-mail, fax or snail mail your forecast of how many EMU vehicles the SSRA will order on 20 December 2000 or, to allow for slippage, by 31 January 2001 . Closing date for entries 12 May.

There's a bottle of champagne for the winner and forecasts of ‘nil' are valid only if the SSRA has formally announced that it will not be placing an order. If an order has not been placed by 31 January the competition is null and void.

Continues.........