Greybeard33
Established Member
What two units at Allerton? From 13 May upthread:
If they have since returned from Doncaster, no-one has reported it on this thread.
-
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
59CosG95
Established Member
They were still very much there this time last week.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The 195 has a mechanical transmission so would need a big re-design to make it an electric transmission to run as a bi-mode. Probably better to start with the 331 design, which already has electric motors on the bogies. But even with the 4-car 331 unit 3 of the cars have electrical equipment under the floor so there is only space available under one car - so probably only half the diesel power of a 769 which has diesels on two cars.
769s have probably killed off future bi mode conversion projects. Porterbrook's 350 battery project should be simpler and they are all round better units. A battery powered 331 would be an interesting project and make more sense than a bi mode. There are 50 x 158s and 27 x 175s going off lease over the next 3-4 years that can provide a medium term capacity boost on predominantly unwired routes until the long term technology situation becomes clear.
How likely is it that Northern will have 8 x 769s in service by the PRM deadline?
Greybeard33
Established Member
I get the impression that Northern, unlike TfW, is in no hurry to get its 769s into service.
Although I have no inside knowledge of the negotiations, I would surmise that the DfT originally foisted the 769 conversion programme on a reluctant Northern as "compensation" for the postponement of the Lostock to Wigan and Victoria to Stalybridge electrification schemes. (Northern would probably have preferred the DfT to fund the acquisition of more 195s instead, as for the Windermere line.)
So Northern's attitude now appears to be that it will not accept the 769s until they work as originally promised. If some DMU services are short formed as a result, too bad - that is the DfT's fault for not delivering the OLE as assumed in the franchise agreement.
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,942
Have any 769s actually been handed over to Northern.? I was at Doncaster yesterday and the Northern liveried 769s are still sitting in Wabtec's yard not appearing to have turned a wheel since i was last up there a month ago?
I didn't realise a TOC could accept a unit until the manufacturer (in this case Porterbrook / Wabtec) had successfully completed its testing and a certain amount of fault free running. And none have been seen running on their own power on the national network yet.
So what is there for Northern to accept?
I didn't realise a TOC could accept a unit until the manufacturer (in this case Porterbrook / Wabtec) had successfully completed its testing and a certain amount of fault free running. And none have been seen running on their own power on the national network yet.
So what is there for Northern to accept?
Essentially, a TOC will only accept a particular vehicle once it has done 2,000/2,500 miles fault free running (FFR). For something like TPE's Class 68/MK5a's and the 397s, that's quite easy as they can run up and down the WCML with ease, racking up about 500miles/day.
I believe once a few sets have done 2,000 FFR, the target reduces for the rest of the sets though.
As far as I understood it, the FFR applies to new build stock, and the 769 project is effectively a unit modification, so they are not required to complete FFR as far as railway standards go, but porterbrook were going to treat them as new build units with regards to FFR nonetheless
Greybeard33
Established Member
Fault free running is, of course, only one of the criteria for acceptance. The train must also comply with the spec in other respects, such as performance, usability and maintainability.
A product as complex as a new/re-engineered train will never be perfect at handover. The question is whether it is "good enough" to satisfy the terms of the contract. It is not normally in the interest of either the customer or the supplier for costly assets to lie idle for months while modifications are developed to correct minor issues, so usually there will be an acceptance agreement that includes reservations. The supplier will commit to delivering fixes within an agreed timescale, and/or provide financial compensation.
When a TOC is desperate to get new stock into service, such as TfW with its 769s and Northern with its 195s and 331s, it may be willing to start technician and crew training in advance of formal acceptance, and then to start passenger operation while there are still significant issues that require workarounds. If, on the other hand, a TOC is more interested in obtaining penalty payments for late delivery, it will always be able to find excuses to delay acceptance.
A product as complex as a new/re-engineered train will never be perfect at handover. The question is whether it is "good enough" to satisfy the terms of the contract. It is not normally in the interest of either the customer or the supplier for costly assets to lie idle for months while modifications are developed to correct minor issues, so usually there will be an acceptance agreement that includes reservations. The supplier will commit to delivering fixes within an agreed timescale, and/or provide financial compensation.
When a TOC is desperate to get new stock into service, such as TfW with its 769s and Northern with its 195s and 331s, it may be willing to start technician and crew training in advance of formal acceptance, and then to start passenger operation while there are still significant issues that require workarounds. If, on the other hand, a TOC is more interested in obtaining penalty payments for late delivery, it will always be able to find excuses to delay acceptance.
If it is written into the contract, then it applies whether it is new build or rebuild. The contract (or service level agreement) and any associated specification documents are what ultimately determines such things. If fault-free running is specified in the contract then that is it.
Similarly if it’s not specified in the contract that is also it.
I think it’s fair to say the conversion ‘industry’ has not covered itself in glory recently. Delays to the 769s, HST trailers late, the Renatus 321 refurb late and in many cases still with faults to air-con and plated over plug sockets and the mythical GA 317 PRM programme that has yet to deliver any units and has a grand total of 174 days to complete the fleet of 27 units (of which 25 have yet to enter works), by 01/01/20.
tbtc
Veteran Member
...and yet, despite all of the criticism on here, the 230s are in daily service (unlike these "proper trains")!
I'm sure that Arriva would rather wait and claim compensation from the Government/ Porterbrook (instead of spend their own money on additional trains on a heavily subsidised franchise) - not Arriva's fault that electrification was postponed/cancelled and not Arriva's fault that the 319s weren't transformed into reliable 769s as previously promised... but Arriva's modus operandi seems to be to sit back and claim subsidy rather than be proactive (which is, I suppose, a reasonable approach on Wales & Borders or Northern).
If additional 195s were to be purchased as part of a deal, I don't know how many coaches would be required? There are no four coach versions planned, but ordering an equivalent number of coaches by getting sufficient two coach 195s built would create yet more short trains (with no corridor connections).
Are there any 150s unaccounted for as part of the various planned transfers/ cascades around the UK?
samuelmorris
Established Member
The 230s reliability appears very poor thus far, but probably not much worse than most newly introduced fleets. 345s, 700s and 800s were all terrible when first of them still are, and all three are still below an acceptable standard 2 years later (3 in the case of the 700). The 230s have only been in service for a couple of months - give them time and I'm sure they'll improve.
Generally though, the idea you can refurbish stock to make it 'like a new train' cheaply and efficiently in the UK has been proven entirely false. Nonetheless, what's really needed is not the refurbishment per se, but the ability to repurpose assets in accordance with the demise of the UK's electrification program, leaving an overstretched fleet of life-expired DMUs working flat out and countless solid EMUs sitting in storage. Even if re-tractioning programs don't work well, that they work at all is still better than nothing.
Bantamzen
Established Member
The 230s would not be an option for 769 replacement, given that the bi-modes were originally looked at to run at relatively high speeds along long wired sections and use the diesel power for the non-wired sections. This is not what the current crop of 230s could be functional for. Arriva's decision to go with the CAF units has effectively killed the 230 option for any Northern operation stone dead, well at least until new fuel types are trialled in 3 years, and even then any unit trialled will not guarantee future orders from whichever manufacturer gets the contract.
Given the general acclaim the 195/331 have received in the past week-the general view seems to be that from a passenger perspective these are vastly superior to anything else in the north, the 319/769 units will seem like stepping back into the dark ages. Better to buy some more 195's and forget the 769
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,585
This is a truly glum thread. Northern has routes well suited to bi-modes with the centre of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle electrified and that is where we should be very keen on reducing diesel burn. There must be other examples too where bi-mode is spot on for a route largely or partly electric or which, with any luck at all, will be in the next decade. 769s would be a good option on a lot of these routes - Windermere and Barrow are the ones I know; these trains are perfectly adequate trains for middle distance travel but this option seems hamstrung by the red herring of Northern Connect specifications for rolling stock, notably the power demands of effective air conditioning. A lot of the Manchester end of these routes is commuting, very similar to the work they were originally made for. Northern could profitably use a good number of AC/Diesel bi-modes, more than the 769 order, if only because of environmental needs to reduce diesel burn where possible. The 195s are in part an opportunity missed. If the 769s were ever an opportunity or will ever fulfil their promise is a moot point. I don't believe the delay is simply operational, there must be significant problems making them work. Meanwhile I remain glum. I suspect if we could re-run the history of train orders we'd have more bi-modes, but we cannot. Electrification has been pruned, diesel has become less acceptable in the brief time intervening. Meanwhile the madness of franchise letting means after a spell where you couldn't get trains built we are about to see Newton Aycliffe short of work - a factory that seems able to produce reliable bi-modes.
EE Andy b1
Established Member
Forget 769 Flex.!
Northern need to find some money and buy a fleet of Stadler Bi-modes like what Greater Anglia have ordered, where the diesel power car can be easily removed when not required for future electric only use.
Would be a couple of years away though before a unit would be available but look the best option not that any have run in passenger service here yet.
Northern need to find some money and buy a fleet of Stadler Bi-modes like what Greater Anglia have ordered, where the diesel power car can be easily removed when not required for future electric only use.
Would be a couple of years away though before a unit would be available but look the best option not that any have run in passenger service here yet.
coppercapped
Established Member
samuelmorris
Established Member
Yeah I'm not sure I'd agree with that statement (yet) either. Doesn't mean the concept isn't sound though.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,585
Off topic, sorry that had passed me by. Are they falling so far short? On topic the attraction of 769 ought to be a lot of commonality with 319s. Although a new order for bimodes is attractive it would mean more fragmentation of the fleet. I'm not sure the Stadler offer is a really good plan in the land of short platforms.
There is also the question of capacity. According to wikipedia, a 4-car Stadler Class 755/4 has 229 seats. A Class 769 should have c.250 seats which matches the capacity of the Turbos currently in use on the North Down Line. I doubt North Downs passengers travelling in the peaks would welcome a near 10% reduction in capacity.
samuelmorris
Established Member
10% reduction in seating, not necessarily in capacity. What are the loadings like? Bear in mind the seating layout will also be configurable - Turbos have 3+2 seating, 755s don't - that's all it would take to change that.
They're not great - still more reliable than the HSTs they replaced, but almost 2 years after their introduction they still go wrong twice as often as other intercity fleets like Pendolinos and Voyagers, and even when they aren't causing delay minutes there are countless units running around with engines out and countless more that can only run on diesel power - some units have both issues. Some even have multiple engines non-functional. They've been in service long enough to iron out the bugs, but not so long that stuff should be falling apart - very underwhelming stuff. If the reason for the 769s being so late is them ironing out problems so they don't experience the same issues, then good for them. I rather suspect that isn't the case though.
samuelmorris
Established Member
Alright, you counted
19 out of 93 is a lot though is it not. More than 20%. That's also only for those two faults, it doesn't count any units that are out of service for critical issues.
Also bear in mind unless they're able to always couple the diesel-only sets together then the fault spreads to working units, so the number of units running diesel only probably ends up higher than that in practice.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Sure, I appreciate that 230s are different tools for a different job (to the one that the 769s were intended to do), I'm just reiterating that the 230 project has worked reasonably well, given all of the complaints about it on here, when compared to the other "refurbishment" projects (319s, 321s, HSTs etc). It seems that every little setback with the 230s has been highlighted and pored over, but they are at least working in regular service (not with 100% availability, sure)...
...yet people who have been very critical of the 230s on here keep suggesting converting/ upgrading old heavy rail stock to keep their favourite DMU/EMU/locos running.
The 769s were a great idea on paper - if they had worked then it could have been transformative - almost a hundred bi-mode trains capable of working like a 150 or like a 100mph EMU - they'd have ticked a lot of boxes - they'd have been brilliant. But they haven't worked, and we really need to be considering what "Plan B" is going to be.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Talking of reduced capacity on Stadlers, they are shorter vehicles - a 5-car Stadler may be a sensible replacement for a 4-car conventional unit.
notlob.divad
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,609
Fully agree with this.
and this.
The 319 -> 769s, could have been absolutly transformative certainly across the North West. A bi mode train that could potentially work in multiple with an EMU. Commonality of knowledge for maintainance, driver / guard between the two. Standardised 4 car 20 metre length with doors at 3rds. It really could have simplyfied the fleet-diagraming etc across the North West. When it was announced I was really hopeful that not only would the original concept work well, but more would eventually see more converted and end up in the North West displacing the mix of Sprinters, and in turn lead on to more electrification. However my hopes are rapidly fading. Not only have these quick fixes now been overtaken by the brand new fleets from CAF, the running on the GCR seems to have been the end rather than the begining of there testing phase. I have seen no evidence of them running under their own power on the mainline. I haven't even seen evidence of them being re-tested using the OHLE to ensure the modifications haven't impacted upon the purely Electirc operation of them.
We had up thread that it was just a small modification to the exhaust system that was out of gauge and could be corrected with a couple of fitters and an angle grinder at the depot. - Then they got dragged back over to Doncaster. The number of false dawns and disapointments for this project is high. I do wonder given the apparent government financing of the project if something significantly bigger isn't a foot. After all it isn't like the current minister doesn't have history of being an absolute calamity.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Firstly can I say that I have been as sceptical of the 769 project as I have been the 230. Secondly, the 769 project has received far more criticism on this forum than the 230 one, despite the former not starting until the best part of two years later than the former.
Personally I think whilst trying to re-purpose old stock may have seemed like a good idea, the practicalities & frankly the cost do not seem to weigh up. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from the work done, but the reality is that no matter how well these old units are spruced up, they are still old units with new traction strapped on, and if the truth be known neither have yet really proved themselves viable for larger orders. Meanwhile train builders have already offered a number of solutions that these two units are still trying to be the answer for.