It could be if they are running 75mph Sprinters on services timed for 90/100mph EMUs and that either causes congestion or results in services being part cancelled.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Porterbrook Cl.769 'Flex' trains from 319s, initially for Northern
- Thread starter pemma
- Start date
It could be if they are running 75mph Sprinters on services timed for 90/100mph EMUs and that either causes congestion or results in services being part cancelled.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
notlob.divad
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,609
My only question is how much funding has the DfT put in up front in order to get this project moving. What pressing need did GWR have that pushed them down the 769 route rather than a brand new Bi-mode, some more 387s or just use the 319s as is? The only logical answer I can see is DfT pressure, which could well be the DfT looking at the money they have already thrown at the Flex project for Northern and looking to extract more value from their investment.
From what I can see the GWR 769s are only being created to allow them to take over heathrow express with an internal cascade. Heathrow epress is already running with 332s which are post January 2020 complient. I know there was the issue with the HEx Depot and HS2 construction, but again that is a DfT problem regarding HS2 construction, hence the DfT created solution.
As taxpayers we are all invested in this project, with very little knowledge of how much risk we are exposed to and how much return on our investment we are likely to get. As to the limit of money put in by the government, how much money is *this* government willing to put in to save face?
No one is making you pay a fiver for the privilege, are they? If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Please tell us who else you expect to be providing your version of the 'truth' to the railway press?
Because unless they have a mole inside Wabtec at Doncaster, I fail to see who is going to be giving them any reliable information on progress, or the lack of it. In the absence of such a source, they have no option but to keep going back to Porterbrook and asking them what's going on.
3141
Established Member
That used to be true. Today, the owners of classes 221, 222, 321, 323, 332, 350/2, 360, 365, 375, 379, 390 (the extra vehicles built in 2009-12), 458, 465, 466 and 707 must be feeling less sure.
coppercapped
Established Member
To add to this, and to add some background to the extent of the work which has to be done to the 319s.
I attended a meeting of the IMechE in Swindon last April when a Porterbrook representative gave some details of the re-engineering necessary in turning an EMU into a DMU:
- a new fire barrier and fire suppression equipment has to be added under the floor of both coaches with the diesel engines
- a new 750v dc return conductor has to be fitted for the case when the train is off electrified territory as the track won't necessarily be bonded for the return current flows
- a track circuit actuator
- stuff like 1000 litre fuel tanks, exhausts and the genset rafts.
- Moving underfloor equipment to allow engine rafts and associated gubbins to be fitted
- design of exhaust system
- weight and balance management
- the limited equipment space envelope available
- system complexity necessary to 'trick' the control circuits into thinking the train is on a 750v dc supply
- power control systems to balance power outputs from the two ABB alternators
- the Approvals process.
One reason given for the lower power than one might expect for the train when under diesel power is that the weight of the intercoolers that would be needed to boost the power output would take the total weight over the limits allowed for an unaltered suspension.
So seems simple on the surface - but the devil is in the detail.
Which just confirms to me that the time, effort and money being spent on a 30 year old train which doesn't compare particularly well with a new train is just crazy.
...who would rightly point out:
- the franchise commitments to restore Barrow to Airport services to their previous level (before stock shortages led to some Class 185 units being redeployed to Pennine routes) with these being operated as faster Northern Connect Services
- the similar commitments to Windermere passengers in respect of a smaller number of airport services
- the problems currently met by Lakes and Furness lines passengers transferring at Oxenholme and, particularly, Lancaster onto already-busy TPE services
- that changing trains for these passengers is generally easier at Preston than Lancaster (shorter struggles with cases; more often same-platform changes)
- the lowest performance figures for current and previous operators of Northern services include the two lines in Westmorland and Furness
- that passengers on these two lines (plus the Cumbria Coast line) really do deserve a break
All this has previously been stated on this forum on several occasions.
As for the Manchester to Carlisle additional service mentioned up thread, this ignores that Penrith (population <20 000 and lowly populated surrounding already has good main line services) while Carlisle (urban population c75 000 plus generally rural hinterland) already has absolutely excellent main line services).
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 3,867
The GWR 769s are also intended to allow the North Downs route to release turbos for use in the south-west, in turn releasing 150/158s (?) that are needed elsewhere. And 387s or 319s as-is, aren't going to work well between Wokingham and Reigate...
coppercapped
Established Member
You might well be right! But I would point out that:
- it's Porterbrook's money - and they obviously see a market over the next few that will cover the costs they have incurred
- the design, development, testing and approvals costs are one-off costs. There are, if I recall correctly, over 80 Class 319 trains in four sub-classes (whereby the main difference is in the seating arrangements) so these costs can be written off over a fair number of trains.
It's difficult to not talk about the merits of the project when so little progress has been made by Porterbrook!
You don't have to post if you don't have anything on-topic to say.
mushroomchow
Member
OK, let's get back on topic...
... they're not going to be ready for fleet service for Northern by December, are they?
It's going to be a pretty dead thread without the background speculation. Without that it boils down to:
"Are they ready yet?"
"No"
Rinse and repeat roughly once each week.
... they're not going to be ready for fleet service for Northern by December, are they?
It's going to be a pretty dead thread without the background speculation. Without that it boils down to:
"Are they ready yet?"
"No"
Rinse and repeat roughly once each week.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Maybe the thread should be locked until they are?
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,585
Porterbrook plainly don't share the pessimism on this thread as they and Wabtec are putting money and effort (and their reputations) into the project. Surely if it were impossible it would have been obvious by now?
samuelmorris
Established Member
Why should it? That way people have to ask permission to post something when an actually newsworthy event occurs. Countless other new stock threads sit around dormant for months until there's news to report, then they become active again. I'm not sure I see the problem...
notlob.divad
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,609
But something being impossible shouldn't be the benchmark. Most things are possible, but that doesn't nessesarily make them worthwhile or even value for money. Porterbrook are putting money and effort into this, yes but we do not know what the terms of agreement with the DfT are. Have they been promised a long term future at a high leasing cost for these converted units, just to get them to do it?
As for staying on topic, it would be great to see some project progress, that we could then talk about. Surely the longer progress is limited to some photographs of static tests and stickers on stationary 319s, the more the fundamental value of the project has to be called into question, and thus continued construction efforts should be under constant review. If next week the trains are running on test, and a ramp up plan to produce the required number of units for the various TOCs in a timely and efficient manner is seen to be implemented, then certainly my growing concerns around the merits of the project will start to die away. Alternatively, without visible progress, they will naturally continue to grow.
I think some people come back onto these threads sporadically, looking for updates on the thread topic, but end up seeing endless posts of unrelated or semi - related things. A coomon issue with forums. Maybe we need a breaking news thread.!
Precisely, - there are threads that go into snooze mode for weeks, months even years when there isn't any progress to report on the topic. They can be read by anyone at any time but there's no need for posters to take the discussion onto a different subject just because they posters haven't got anything on-topic to contribute.
squizzler
Established Member
I get the impression that Porterbrook might have been somewhat unprepared for the commercial interest in the 769. They may well have floated the idea to see if anybody bites, or thinking that they might get a handful of orders. When they found they had a considerable number of orders on their hands, it might have made more sense to go back to the drawing board and put in a whole lot more development than they intended when they started, because a handful of "prototypes" in service they could cope with but not a whole fleet worth!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's quite an attractive package...if it can be made to work!
Bantamzen
Established Member
I suspect that interest is rapidly waning in Northern land with no news, or at least no public news. Maybe Northern have more briefing information on the project, but time has all but run out to see them in revenue service this year so you can't help but wonder if a cancellation of their order might shortly be on the cards?
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,790
I can’t see how you have managed to work that out. The problem isn’t that they are lagging behind on follow on orders but that they haven’t delivered anything and are months behind schedule. The sizeable follow on order for GWR will be an issue if they don’t deliver but the current issue is they haven’t delivered any of the initial order for Northern.
There does definitely seem to have been a lack of preliminary work though.
They obviously can't cope with the 8 units they promised for Northern because they haven't been produced and the deadline for delivery has passed. The fact that GWR require 19 is irrelevant in terms of delivery of the Northern units as production on those isn't due to start until the Northern and ATW ones are in service.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Indeed, a more sensible plan would have been to get a prototype up and running before even accepting any orders. They could've spoken to people on the management of TOC groups (i.e parent companies rather than TOCs) to say, we're working on this idea, would you be interested? That way, they know what sort of demand there's likely to be if it works.
Then again, Porterbrook have shot themselves in the foot a few times lately. If I was a shareholder I'd be asking questions of the management at the next AGM.
mushroomchow
Member
You had me all excited for a second there, @Starmill
I should know better by now.
Nope - nothing. The test unit has 10 days to show its face at the GCR or we can add August to the growing pile of "by the end of the month" timescales for testing to start. With the first fleet supposed to be in service, or at least ready to be phased in, by the end of December (to say nothing of the missed deadline of this year's timetable change).
They've got 137 days to complete multiple units, have them dynamically tested, train drivers and have them approved for operation. As it stands, I would be more than a little surprised if we even see a single unit turn a wheel by the time the pumpkins show up on doorsteps, if not by the end of the year.
I will happily set my stall out at this point and sat that it's not happening by then, and even the most blinkered members of the Porterbrook, GWR and Northern PR teams should be able to see that.
I should know better by now.
Nope - nothing. The test unit has 10 days to show its face at the GCR or we can add August to the growing pile of "by the end of the month" timescales for testing to start. With the first fleet supposed to be in service, or at least ready to be phased in, by the end of December (to say nothing of the missed deadline of this year's timetable change).
They've got 137 days to complete multiple units, have them dynamically tested, train drivers and have them approved for operation. As it stands, I would be more than a little surprised if we even see a single unit turn a wheel by the time the pumpkins show up on doorsteps, if not by the end of the year.
I will happily set my stall out at this point and sat that it's not happening by then, and even the most blinkered members of the Porterbrook, GWR and Northern PR teams should be able to see that.
Last edited:
Well, dynamic implies some form of motion. That would imply at least turning wheels.