Poll: Class 769 now dead in the water?

[Rail Blues]

With another deadline about to be missed and little in the way of news coming out from those involved, I'm increasingly convinced that we won't ever see a 769 in revenue earning service. Surely the patience of the TOCs involved is finite and before too long they'll start looking elsewhere?

 

[507 001]

The problem they have is where else do they look?

 

[CosherB]

But look elsewhere for what?

 

[js1000]

The wise thing would have been to put a clause in the agreement that if the 769s project failed and weren't delivered in time, Porterbrook would procure new bi-mode rolling stock instead. Sadly, I doubt the TOCs did that given PB would have upped the lease price to cover any potential eventuality of a costly project failure. The TOCs have been ripped off and are in no man's land on the issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem they have is where else do they look?

The answers appear to be CAF (if pure DMU will do), Stadler, Bombardier....or some wires!

That, or Vivarail and a reshuffle of existing DMUs and services.

 

[507 001]

The answers appear to be CAF (if pure DMU will do), Stadler, Bombardier....or some wires!

That, or Vivarail and a reshuffle of existing DMUs and services.

The whole idea of the 769 project was that it was supposed to be cheap and cheerful. The TOCs don’t have the money to be looking at CAF et al.

 

[Whattraintoday]

The whole idea of the 769 project was that it was supposed to be cheap and cheerful. The TOCs don’t have the money to be looking at CAF et al.

As I understood it, it was supposed to be quick, not cheap - posters on here with some knowledge of the lease costs have described them in terms that make it clear there's not much to be saved over buying new. Their selling point was they were supposed to be quick to deliver, instead of joining Stadler or CAF's waiting lists.


And of course, it gives Porterbrook one last smoke of the 319 cigar

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I understood it, it was supposed to be quick, not cheap - posters on here with some knowledge of the lease costs have described them in terms that make it clear there's not much to be saved over buying new. Their selling point was they were supposed to be quick to deliver, instead of joining Stadler or CAF's waiting lists.

Yes, that was my thought too.

Talking of 230s, though, with suitable modifications to the franchise agreement one thing that might work would be to truncate the Barrows to Lancaster and the Windermeres to Oxenholme, operate those with 3 or 4-car 230s, and as a substitute operate a Class 319 EMU (ideally /2 with the ex Brighton Express long distance style interior) service from Manchester Airport to Carlisle hourly timed for connections with them. Indeed, that would also have the added benefit of further relieving the overcrowding on the TPEs.

Other options might be to truncate Kirkby-Wigan to a shuttle using a single 230, or the Ormskirk-Preston-Blackpool S-Preston-Colne circuit would suit provided the short section of (not exceptionally busy bit of the) WCML wasn't a barrier.

The Bentham Line could also work with 230s, though what would that free up, a Pacer or two?

How many 769s were Northern getting again? So how many Sprinters of various types would need freeing up to substitute, if you consider say a 3-car 156/158 or a 4-car 150 formation equivalent?

 

[mushroomchow]

Even as someone who has gone on record as being very critical of the project, it's constant slippages and at a local level leaving the GCR hanging for months in the expectation that a unit could show up at any point, I still think we'll eventually see at least one small batch make it into service.

Why? To save face. I honestly think Porterbrook and the TOCs, Northern in particular, would rather ride out an extended delay and eventually be able to give a fanfare reveal of quote-unquote "new trains" to passengers than lose face, admit that they all cocked up and abandon the project.

If the media get wind of the delays though, it could already prove a PR disaster for all parties as it stands. I think it's remarkable that no paper, even a local one, has yet picked up through the industry that these trains are already half a year late at a time when the network is reeling from the mess made with the last timetable change, and still yet to even turn a wheel in testing.

As an arbitrary guess, I'd expect the first batch to limp into service around Summer 2019, but I'm already at the point that I wouldn't stand by that guess. I just expect the corporate face-saving need to get any sort of tangible outcome and potential good PR to rule over the logical approach, which in this case would be to cut their losses and try something else.

 

[Kite159]

My prediction - A 769 will eventually appear for real world testing on the GCR but it will prove to be unsuitable for actual work due to very slow acceleration, but will enter service only to get redrawn due to causing too many issues with the timetable

(Based on a 319 not being the fastest to accelerate, and adding a lot more weight can only make things worse)

 

[LOL The Irony]

I voted yes because I can't vote maybe.

 

[Rail Blues]

The wise thing would have been to put a clause in the agreement that if the 769s project failed and weren't delivered in time, Porterbrook would procure new bi-mode rolling stock instead. Sadly, I doubt the TOCs did that given PB would have upped the lease price to cover any potential eventuality of a costly project failure. The TOCs have been ripped off and are in no man's land on the issue.

Yep, somehow I don't think PB would have entered a game of double of quits. What surprises me is that PB haven't chucked the garden sink at this, given they'll have a glut of unused EMUs on their hands very soon indeed or perhaps what they have in mind and sold to the TOCs simply isn't workable.

 

[Bayum]

If the media get wind of the delays though, it could already prove a PR disaster for all parties as it stands. I think it's remarkable that no paper, even a local one, has yet picked up through the industry that these trains are already half a year late at a time when the network is reeling from the mess made with the last timetable change, and still yet to even turn a wheel in testing.

Surely that just means someone needs to give the issue a friendly, slight push toward the media in that case?

 

[Rail Blues]

Surely that just means someone needs to give the issue a friendly, slight push toward the media in that case?

Given the ongoing omnishambles that is the Northern franchise, this is mere piss in the swimming pool. There are more than enough Northern in chaos stories to keep media outlets busy day in day out, but this is one step removed from the day to day chaos.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

If this project flops or gets scrapped, then perhaps older soon to be displaced stock, such as the 365s and 379s, could find new homes with GWR, TfW and Northern in place of the 769s?

 

[jonesy3001]

if the 769s are not ready by the time the leases of the 321,322 and 323s are up at the end of the year, porterbrook should let northern keep them and extend the DDA deadline so they can refurbish them or just keep the 323s and let the WMT ones join when their lease is up, it'll probably save hell of a lot of money refurbishing 30yr old diesel trains.

 

[Domh245]

If this project flops or gets scrapped, then perhaps older soon to be displaced stock, such as the 365s and 379s, could find new homes with GWR, TfW and Northern in place of the 769s?

The issue with the 769s is the diesel propulsion. If said TOCs wanted more emus, they'd have taken them on as 319s and had them in service by now. However, 319s, 365s, 379s and other emus are of no use to those who have ordered 769s because they aren't self proppeling

 

[pdeaves]

porterbrook should let northern keep them and extend the DDA deadline

Who would do that for you? DDA deadline is legislation and would need government to back down.

 

[jonesy3001]

Who would do that for you? DDA deadline is legislation and would need government to back down.

I always thought it was the leasing companies that gave the deadline not the brewery that's in government now, you learn something new everyday.

 

[Rail Blues]

I always thought it was the leasing companies that gave the deadline not the brewery that's in government now, you learn something new everyday.

The Disability Discrimination Act came into force in 1995 and the clauses covering Rail Transport were part of the 2005 amendment giving a deadline of 2020 to have rolling stock compliant. So the Roscos have had 15 years to get their act together and the direction of travel has been clear for a quarter of a century. The Roscos only have themselves to blame for this.

 

[Mag_seven]

Will we ever see Class 769 in revenue earning service?

No (with any luck)!

 

[swt_passenger]

... However, 319s, 365s, 379s and other emus are of no use to those who have ordered 769s because they aren't self proppeling

I admire your patience.

It’s almost as though people making alternative suggestions have no idea what 769s are all about...

 

[Domh245]

No (with any luck)!

And damn the poor buggers who've lost their promised capacity increase?

 

[Mag_seven]

And damn the poor buggers who've lost their promised capacity increase?

My preference in this instance would be for new stock instead of this fascination for refurbishing south east of England cast-offs.

 

[samuelmorris]

"Yes but".

I think some will enter service, but they will be so far behind schedule that fewer than intended will actually see use.

 

[Domh245]

My preference in this instance would be for new stock instead of this fascination for refurbishing south east of England cast-offs.

I think that goes without saying, but in the meantime? If you ordered stock today, you'd be lucky to see it this side of 2020, which completely stuffs TfW's plans for them, and will severely affect GWR's and Northern's plans as well. You may not like the project, but for the sake of the rail industry and passengers in general (which has been dragged through the mill a bit of late) I hope that they do get into service

 

[Mag_seven]

I hope that they do get into service

An admirable view - we will see in due course!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I admire your patience.

It’s almost as though people making alternative suggestions have no idea what 769s are all about...

My alternative suggestions relate to either segregating off low speed branch lines so 230s can be used, or splitting services so diesels don't run under the wires so pure EMUs can be used on the electric section, or a combination of both. I think that recognises what a 769 is meant to be.

 

[bnm]

The Disability Discrimination Act came into force in 1995 and the clauses covering Rail Transport were part of the 2005 amendment giving a deadline of 2020 to have rolling stock compliant. So the Roscos have had 15 years to get their act together and the direction of travel has been clear for a quarter of a century. The Roscos only have themselves to blame for this.

Whilst there's a deadline for compliance it's not all or nothing. The Secretary of State has the power to grant derogations. I fully expect there will be some derogations.

Oh, and the Disability Discrimination Act is no longer statute. It's the Equality Act 2010 now. Section 183 of that Act refers to the Secretary of State's powers to grant derogations ("exemption orders").

 

[geoffk]

If this project flops or gets scrapped, then perhaps older soon to be displaced stock, such as the 365s and 379s, could find new homes with GWR, TfW and Northern in place of the 769s?

Provided we have some new wires - Windermere, Manchester Vic - Stalybridge, Reading - Gatwick (gap filling). I didn't think TfW was planning to use 769s in electric mode, unless they are intended for the Maesteg - Cheltenham service.