Greybeard33
Established Member
See my revised sums on that thread, which indicate that all 8x769 are needed to make up the capacity shortfall once the 153s go as well as the Pacers.
-
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
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Along with Blackpool-Manchester electrification, TPE Mk 5A's, 195's, 331's, etc seems like we're almost incapable of doing anything on a reasonable timescale.
It doesn't have to be this way, Metrolink extensions are generally on time and on budget, sometimes even delivered years early in the case of the airport line! What's going wrong with the national rail network that is taking so long?
It doesn't have to be this way, Metrolink extensions are generally on time and on budget, sometimes even delivered years early in the case of the airport line! What's going wrong with the national rail network that is taking so long?
anthony263
Established Member
Apparently one of the 769s is outside the Pullman rail yard at Canton in tfw livery
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,586
Rail does seem currently blighted by something that stops timely delivery of things that actually work. CAF (off topic) an especially bad time of it too. Cross rail, GWR electrification too.
probably because when it does go right, no one makes an issue of it. Liverpool Lime St rebuilding was done on budget and on time. Platform rebuilding of Merseyrail seems to have gone to plan, and the Halton Curve was done to time.
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
59CosG95
Established Member
I'm sure we'll find out in due course.
which one is it though...? is it 008...?
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
59CosG95
Established Member
Update from a Canton-based source: 769008 is the unit.I hope soThanks for confirming that it hasn't been confirmed
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
Thanks a lot for that!!!
anthony263
Established Member
Suspected as much as 002 was over in the carriage shed
Bornin1980s
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2017
- Messages
- 491
I think it's because contracts tend to go to the bidders who overpromise on cost and time. More realistic offers are easily outbid. Plans are then made without any allowance for delay. This problem has been documented outside the railway.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,586
Yes, that was the way I was thinking. Thinking about it other public projects go the same way: The new Liverpool hospital, The Edinboro Children's Hospital and (fanfare) the Scottish Parliament building. Pretty much all public sector software procurement. The new emergency services hub in Ulverston has been at a standstill for months after a dispute with contractors. Perhaps rail just seems bad if you are watching it closely. Not that I'll be buying anything from Brush from now on!
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Yes! Definitely see how this happens. As much as I'm pro free-market competition at some point you wonder why more isn't just done in house.
Also, surely the past delivery of bids should be taken into account with any new projects? If overpromising and underdelivering is a successful business strategy in the framework that has been set up, clearly something needs to change!
themiller
Member
Could it be that the metrolink extensions are almost ‘new-build’ so work can be planned at the beginning and replanted to cope with unforeseen conditions without affecting the programme whereas electrification involves working on the live railway with all of the hazards that are involved such as existing services and moving equipment like trains and switches. Not only that but infrastructure changes are also frequently required on the live railway - all requiring possessions to be planned with tight working windows.
Absolutely. And when you get chains of contractors and sub-contractors the problem is multiplied. I worked in banking for many years .....projects were endlessly cannned due to inability to scope, plan and deliver properly. Where projects were implemented on time it was often due to the sort of de-scoping and under testing that could cost many lives in a transport industry.
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
Already posted here and a photograph also:-
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/transport-for-wales-livery.172016/page-21
and here:-
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/transport-for-wales-769s.179770/page-4
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The Metrolink extensions were actually very late - mainly due to signalling system upgrades on the original network, which had to be done first.
The contractor, Thales I think, were in the dock for a long time before the TMS system was operational and accepted, so that the extensions could progress.
Once they started in earnest, they were completed relatively quickly.
The early delivery of the airport extension was due to a change in sequencing the upgrade work more than getting the job done quicker, I believe.
Costs are usually linked to delays, so an on-time delivery usually gets close to the original budget.
Metrolink certainly shows that a rolling programme of linked infrastructure upgrades is easier to do than a disjointed stop-start set of discrete projects.
Network Rail electrification please note!
The Ordsall Chord was completed pretty much to time and budget, once it was allowed to start (following the objections hiatus).
It's just that nobody likes the results!
The Halton Chord similarly was finished off quite quickly in the end.
But it had to follow the Liverpool-Weaver Jn signalling upgrade at Halton which was repeatedly delayed and probably very expensive (some of it still in progress).
Interesting snippet from the August 2019 issue of Rail User Express - sorry can't put a link in.
This comes from a discussion at the July Meeting of Support The Oldham Rochdale Manchester lines (STORM). Northern’s Regional Director Chris Jackson attended, supported by acting Community Liaison, Rebecca Styles.
Apologies if this sort of gen is already posted somewhere in this thread.
Maybe another reason why these things have not been rushed into service.
This comes from a discussion at the July Meeting of Support The Oldham Rochdale Manchester lines (STORM). Northern’s Regional Director Chris Jackson attended, supported by acting Community Liaison, Rebecca Styles.
Apologies if this sort of gen is already posted somewhere in this thread.
Maybe another reason why these things have not been rushed into service.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Well Pacers and 150's are 2 carriages, whereas 769 is four so I guess an equivalent 150/Pacer length would be 11/12p a mile?
Has the 769 conversion increased track charges much more than a 319?
samuelmorris
Established Member
Nope, that's per vehicle mile. The 769 is apparently almost three times the price per vehicle, so 5-6 times the price of a 150.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Oh right, okay! Do electrics/bi-modes get charged more because of using OHLE?
Anyone got any ideas of the price for 319's?
59CosG95
Established Member
It's the axle loading. 769s have to lug a pantograph, onboard transformer, traction motors, engine, and fuel tank around. They certainly aren't light!
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Oh dear! Is the weight mostly confined to one car due to all the motors, pantograph and transformer all being on one?
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,791
The figures for Pacers and Sprinters are wrong. They are 7.56p and 7.66p respectively. The figures for 319s are only slightly less than for 769s - motor coach 20.36p v 20.91p, trailer 6.86p v 8.52p.
Those costs are irrelevant to the delays. If something doesn't work then the cost if it did work isn't particularly important.
Those costs are irrelevant to the delays. If something doesn't work then the cost if it did work isn't particularly important.
I have found a document where access charges for a Pacer (specifically, a 142, as 143s & 144s are fractionally cheaper) are given as 5.62p per vehicle mile (which presumably means 11.24p per two-car unit per mile), but I haven't found any figures for 769s. Could someone direct me?
In the same document where 142s are given as 5.62p per vehicle mile it gives 319s as 14.87p per vehicle mile (motored carriages) and 5.11p per vehicle mile (trailers), so I make that 30.20p per four-car unit per mile. That's chickenfeed compared to the total cost of running a train.
Those figures may be updated ones, compared to those others of us have found, although, if they are, I have to say that track access charges seem to be going up in leaps and bounds.
In respect of 769s, what constitutes a motor coach and what a trailer? Aren't three carriages going to be motored, one with the existing electric motor, and two with diesel? I would have thought that there would be differing access charges between the two types of motor carriage.
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,791
There seems to be an additional charge of 1.9p/mile for AC electric passenger vehicles. So not a huge amount extra.
Most EMU's have electricity metering and telemetry onboard to transmit the data, and as such the additional milage charge is only applied in the case of faulty metering equipment.