Porterbrook Cl.769 'Flex' trains from 319s, initially for Northern

[northwichcat]

The GWR 150/0's and /2's are staying with the franchise.... assuming you mean the /1's?

No I mean the Angel /0s and /2s which are due to transfer to Northern in 2019 after the current GWR franchise ends as per the Northern franchise agreement. The Porterbrook /2s are staying put unless the next franchise chooses to off load them.

 

[IanXC]

LM taking on the 8 x off-lease 172s will probably be able to replace most/all of their 15xs.

Do we know these are off lease? The last I heard was that ScotRail had tried to secure them and found they were not available.

No I mean the Angel /0s and /2s which are due to transfer to Northern in 2019 after the current GWR franchise ends as per the Northern franchise agreement. The Porterbrook /2s are staying put unless the next franchise chooses to off load them.

Isn't this already accounted for in the Turbo cascade/HST GTi plan?

 

[Clarence Yard]

No I mean the Angel /0s and /2s which are due to transfer to Northern in 2019 after the current GWR franchise ends as per the Northern franchise agreement. The Porterbrook /2s are staying put unless the next franchise chooses to off load them.

Except that if the DfT call the extra year on the GWR franchise, the "Angel 12" (cars) get their lease on GWR automatically extended until 2020 under the terms of the existing GWR lease with Angel.

Angel are said to be a bit embarrassed about all this and the DfT are now looking for a solution to sort out the potential shortfall for either franchise.

 

[cactustwirly]

Do we know these are off lease? The last I heard was that ScotRail had tried to secure them and found they were not available.



Isn't this already accounted for in the Turbo cascade/HST GTi plan?

No, the HST GTI covers for the reduced amount turbos because of electrification delays

 

[northwichcat]

Except that if the DfT call the extra year on the GWR franchise, the "Angel 12" (cars) get their lease on GWR automatically extended until 2020 under the terms of the existing GWR lease with Angel.

Surely the leasing agreement can't be as simple as that, otherwise all the Angel 150s would have automatically had their leases extended to 2019 when the direct award was made and yet some of them are off-lease this year and some are off-lease next year.

If you said the franchise has the option of extending the lease if they want to, then that would sound more plausible.

Angel are said to be a bit embarrassed about all this and the DfT are now looking for a solution to sort out the potential shortfall for either franchise.

I would imagine Angel or any other ROSCO would have thought the GWR direct award had a generous enough extension to prevent the need for any further extension.

Having a quick look at the franchise agreement it's 3 x 2 car 150s and 2 x 3 car 150s due to transfer in 2019 (12 carriages.) Also worth noting an additional 36 carriages equivalent in quality and performance to 170s have to be secured by 2022 and all but 1 of the Anglia 170s come off-lease in 2019. Perhaps a solution is for Northern to get some of their additional '170s or equivalents' early and some of their 150s late? It might cause a few issues in diagramming with some services which which were due to get 3 car 150s retaining 2 car DMUs for a bit longer but it would be better than Northern being 5 units short.

There does seem to be a trend of GWR units due to transfer to Northern being delayed - it happened in 2007, it's happened again this year and maybe will happen again in 2019. Doesn't happen when TPE units are due to transfer to Chiltern though. :mad:

 

[northwichcat]

Do we know these are off lease? The last I heard was that ScotRail had tried to secure them and found they were not available.

I think an OJEU for LO maintenance indicated they had an option of retaining the 172s until 2019. When did Scotrail hope to have additional units in service?

 

[Train man]

Which units were ScotRail trying to get.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Surely the leasing agreement can't be as simple as that, otherwise all the Angel 150s would have automatically had their leases extended to 2019 when the direct award was made and yet some of them are off-lease this year and some are off-lease next year.

If you said the franchise has the option of extending the lease if they want to, then that would sound more plausible.

No, it's exactly as I said. The lease supplement divides the Angel cl.150 sets into various tranches and only the "Angel 12" tranche have the reference back to the automatic extension clause in the MOLA lease.

Once the DfT enact the GWR extension, the lease gets automatically extended. It's not something that the franchisee "calls".

 

[1179_Clee2]

No, it's exactly as I said. The lease supplement divides the Angel cl.150 sets into various tranches and only the "Angel 12" tranche have the reference back to the automatic extension clause in the MOLA lease.

Once the DfT enact the GWR extension, the lease gets automatically extended. It's not something that the franchisee "calls".

Surely this would invalidate the Northern franchise agreement if the trains Northern have agreed to lease with the DfT are now unavailable.
It would cost less money to find a solution at GWR (for a franchise extension) than rewrite the Northern franchise agreement (for the longer term franchise)

 

[IanXC]

No, the HST GTI covers for the reduced amount turbos because of electrification delays

Well that is one and the same thing surely. There are a reduced number of Turbos to go West due to electrification delays, the Turbos were required to cover for 150s leaving the franchise, this gap will now be covered by HST GTis.

I think an OJEU for LO maintenance indicated they had an option of retaining the 172s until 2019. When did Scotrail hope to have additional units in service?

Ah thats true.

Which units were ScotRail trying to get.

If I'm not mistaken a Scottish Parliament committee was told that they had been attempting to secure the London Overground 172s.

 

[47802]

I would have thought the likely solution will be a few more flex for Northern and DFT having to take up any extra cost to Northern.

 

[lejog]

Surely this would invalidate the Northern franchise agreement if the trains Northern have agreed to lease with the DfT are now unavailable.
It would cost less money to find a solution at GWR (for a franchise extension) than rewrite the Northern franchise agreement (for the longer term franchise)

It wouldn't invalidate the Northern franchise agreement, if unchanged it would leave Northern theoretically in breach. However all major contracts change and the section on the train fleet specfically says:

The Franchisee shall maintain the composition of the Train Fleet during the Franchise Term, unless the Secretary of State otherwise agrees

Some people on this forum have a very strange idea that contracts are set in stone, they are not, change is the only constant. The franchise agreement will have seen a number of changes with first delayed cascade leading to the of the first timetable change be delayed to 2018 and delays to/cancellations of electrification.

If the 150s don't arrive, the Secretary of State doesn't have much option to agree a change, athough the onus seems to be on Northern to try to come up with a solution.

 

[lejog]

I would have thought the likely solution will be a few more flex for Northern and DFT having to take up any extra cost to Northern.

There's certainly nothing in the Franchise Agreement to suggest that the DfT would pick up the bill for this, although there's nothing to stop Northern trying to negotiate this.

It would be standard commercial practice for Northern to mitigate some/all of the risk by passing it on in their lease agreement with the ROC.

 

[northwichcat]

I would have thought the likely solution will be a few more flex for Northern and DFT having to take up any extra cost to Northern.

The issue with a 'few more Flex' is the additional 150s might be available 1 year late and Northern may still want those 150s so that they have a suitable number of 3 car 150s. There's also going to be 5 x 319s returned in 2020 regardless (I wonder if they'll be Flex versions if Wigan-Bolton and Stalybridge-Manchester get wired by then)? Is there going to be some other operator who will want to take on a number of Flex trains after the accessibility deadline?

 

[ainsworth74]

We have plenty of threads to discuss the various Northern/GWR/Scotrail/etc cascades so might I ask that we keep the focus of this thread on the Class 769s instead? If there is a post you wish to respond to then either start a new thread with a quote to the post in question or reply in an existing thread quoting the post you wish to reply to.

Many thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[1179_Clee2]

We have plenty of threads to discuss the various Northern/GWR/Scotrail/etc cascades so might I ask that we keep the focus of this thread on the Class 769s instead? If there is a post you wish to respond to then either start a new thread with a quote to the post in question or reply in an existing thread quoting the post you wish to reply to.

Many thanks,
ainsworth74

Lets look at this from a different angle'to conform with the above.

IF the "Angel 12" are no longer available to Northern and by changing trains on other Northern routes, could the Class 769 FLEX be a replacement ?? without looking at lease costs.

What routes could Northern operate 4 car Bi mode trains where, a 4 car train is not over provision and could use electric (in part) for some of the route operated, without listing every route Northern operate DMU's under the wires

Example ONLY
Stalybridge to Southport Via Manchester Victoria 4 Class 769 needed ??

 

[td97]

Manchester - Clitheroe via Bolton?
Huddersfield - Victoria once Stalybridge electrification is complete?

 

[50032]

Manchester - Clitheroe via Bolton?
Huddersfield - Victoria once Stalybridge electrification is complete?

It's already been stated that Flex's will be used Wigan - Alderley Edge and Wigan - Stalybridge from May 2018.

 

[northwichcat]

Manchester - Clitheroe via Bolton?
Huddersfield - Victoria once Stalybridge electrification is complete?

Northern won't run any regular Huddersfield services from Manchester from next year.

 

[xotGD]

Leeds to Carlisle would be fine for a flex, but you would need something more comfortable than a 769 with 2 + 3 seating and no AC to replace the current 158s.

 

[Greybeard33]

Northern won't run any regular Huddersfield services from Manchester from next year.

The franchise agreement requires 5 services per day per direction between Manchester and Huddersfield (peaks only). But I think Northern would want to see a demonstration of the 769's hill climbing ability on diesel before contemplating their use on the Diggle line!

 

[Class 170101]

The franchise agreement requires 5 services per day per direction between Manchester and Huddersfield (peaks only). But I think Northern would want to see a demonstration of the 769's hill climbing ability on diesel before contemplating their use on the Diggle line!

I thought there was talk of them being used on Blackpool to Buxton services?

 

[northwichcat]

I thought there was talk of them being used on Blackpool to Buxton services?

No. Buxton line is supposed to be used for testing but from May 2018 Blackpool services will go to Macclesfield or the Airport so they'll be 100% under the wires.

 

[TheWalrus]

Don't the 319s have a pantograph and third rail shoe? So therefore could they be converted for bi-mode use with diesel engines, overhead wires and third rail?

 

[hwl]

Don't the 319s have a pantograph and third rail shoe? So therefore could they be converted for bi-mode use with diesel engines, overhead wires and third rail?

Which is why Porterbrook are marketing them as Tri-mode...

 

[physics34]

Don't the 319s have a pantograph and third rail shoe? So therefore could they be converted for bi-mode use with diesel engines, overhead wires and third rail?

have you been stuck in a cave

There is a promotional video from Porterbrook showing exactly that...... its on the thread somewhere or on youtube....

Im not sure whether they will run with ALL the equipment installed for all 3 modes of power, as they wont run on routes that require all 3. WHy maintain equipment that isnt used.

 

[edwin_m]

Also the third rail shoes are out of gauge so will probably hit lineside obstacles on routes that aren't used to seeing third rail units. So I'd guess any Flex units will have them removed (with the potential to re-fit them if needed) unless there is a definite need for third rail operation.

 

[jopsuk]

.

Im not sure whether they will run with ALL the equipment installed for all 3 modes of power, as they wont run on routes that require all 3. WHy maintain equipment that isnt used.

Clearance issues aside, you could conceivably have (new) routes in the north west that make use of OHLE, unelectrified lines and parts of the Merseyrail network.

 

[TheWalrus]

have you been stuck in a cave

There is a promotional video from Porterbrook showing exactly that...... its on the thread somewhere or on youtube....

Im not sure whether they will run with ALL the equipment installed for all 3 modes of power, as they wont run on routes that require all 3. WHy maintain equipment that isnt used.

I don't look at this forum much now and no I haven't seen anything about it.

 

[DimTim]

Has any indication been seen as to when the first unit will emerge from Brush Loughborough?