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

[Mathew S]

it could be anything really and not be a problem at all
as an example the engine and radiator are fully matched
but in the actual location fitted the airflow is reduced so requires say a radiator adaption and maybe a couple off baffles to redirect the airflow
a simple problem that once the answer is found the problem has been solved
this is not the case but just an example to demonstrate a possible reason
its just a crude example but these things happen all the time

Indeed. I find it difficult to believe that, if there was some major problem that was preventing them entering service, we wouldn't know by now.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Why would you find it difficult to believe? The fact Porterbrook and Brush have kept all problems up until now quiet, hilariously took some 319s with bits of card in their windows to that industry shindig last year because they hadn’t completed any real units and refused to make public the revised timetable for introduction certainly doesn’t fill me with confidence. Northern have form as well, such as people on this forum knowing weeks/months before they announced it that the 331s and 195s wouldn’t enter service on schedule.

 

[big all]

Indeed. I find it difficult to believe that, if there was some major problem that was preventing them entering service, we wouldn't know by now.

the reason i mentioned cooling is its not the sort off thing you would find in production checks or slow speed trials on a say 25mph[40 at a push]private railway line where the engines are unlikely to be on full power for more than say 15-20% off the time unless dragging an extra couple off dead units

 

[LowLevel]

the reason i mentioned cooling is its not the sort off thing you would find in production checks or slow speed trials on a say 25mph[40 at a push]private railway line where the engines are unlikely to be on full power for more than say 15-20% off the time unless dragging an extra couple off dead units

75mph trials on the GCR.

 

[AndrewE]

the reason i mentioned cooling is its not the sort off thing you would find in production checks or slow speed trials on a say 25mph[40 at a push]private railway line where the engines are unlikely to be on full power for more than say 15-20% off the time unless dragging an extra couple off dead units

Actually the GCR provides a 75mph facility, 60 for steam.
(ps beaten to it!)

 

[Mathew S]

such as people on this forum knowing weeks/months before they announced it that the 331s and 195s wouldn’t enter service on schedule.

That is precisely why I find it hard to believe. Porterbrook etc. may not be talking but there seem to be more than enough people who are that if there was a major issue it would be pretty inconceivable that something wouldn't have leaked by now.
As others have said, seems much more likely it's an, "ah, we should probably get that sorted before it goes on the mainline," kind of an issue.

 

[big all]

75mph trials on the GCR.

ok a fair but not hard test unless there a fair bit off uphill or frequent stops as in full power brake to a stand full power brake to a stand etc
so is it not under a light railway act and restricted to 25mph or have things changes in the last 25 years ??

 

[Bertie the bus]

That is precisely why I find it hard to believe. Porterbrook etc. may not be talking but there seem to be more than enough people who are that if there was a major issue it would be pretty inconceivable that something wouldn't have leaked by now.

Nothing about this project has ever been leaked anywhere, hence the endless speculation. All the "information" has been either from official press releases, those talks they gave last year and the railway media. Most of it has been proved to be false, optimistic or completely lacking in transparency.

We are fortunate that many of the ongoing railway projects have people who do provide information on forums like this but that is most definitely not the case with the Flex project.

 

[big all]

Nothing about this project has ever been leaked anywhere, hence the endless speculation. All the "information" has been either from official press releases, those talks they gave last year and the railway media. Most of it has been proved to be false, optimistic or completely lacking in transparency.

We are fortunate that many of the ongoing railway projects have people who do provide information on forums like this but that is most definitely not the case with the Flex project.

is it possible they are worried about others copying the finer detail they have worked hard to perfect
as in the exact way it works may be different to what we think and being a bit vague may stop it being copied

 

[The Lad]

I believe most heritage railways operate to similar standards to LRO's but that legislation has been replaced.
At least the East Lancashire and the Great Central can run non passenger trains at higher speeds with certain conditions which makes them useful for testing.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Why would you find it difficult to believe? The fact Porterbrook and Brush have kept all problems up until now quiet, hilariously took some 319s with bits of card in their windows to that industry shindig last year because they hadn’t completed any real units and refused to make public the revised timetable for introduction certainly doesn’t fill me with confidence. Northern have form as well, such as people on this forum knowing weeks/months before they announced it that the 331s and 195s wouldn’t enter service on schedule.

Most well run businesses will control carefully the release of information into the public domain, especially anything which could be commercially sensitive (as any delays will undoubtedly be). So I think it's to Porterbrook's credit that they can do that, rather than have information leak out via internet fora, the press, or elsewhere. After all, you wouldn't want your key stakeholders, (shareholders or customers) to be the last to hear, would you? I know that approach won't find favour with many on this forum, but that's commercial reality I'm afraid.

 

[big all]

I believe most heritage railways operate to similar standards to LRO's but that legislation has been replaced.
At least the East Lancashire and the Great Central can run non passenger trains at higher speeds with certain conditions which makes them useful for testing.

ok thanks i had wondered if under a say one train in steam scenario no public present it could be privately hired for speed trials within the "safety at work " situation if everything is maintained to 60mph standard

 

[Brissle Girl]

Deleted as duplicate reply.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Most well run businesses will control carefully the release of information into the public domain, especially anything which could be commercially sensitive (as any delays will undoubtedly be). So I think it's to Porterbrook's credit that they can do that, rather than have information leak out via internet fora, the press, or elsewhere. After all, you wouldn't want your key stakeholders, (shareholders or customers) to be the last to hear, would you? I know that approach won't find favour with many on this forum, but that's commercial reality I'm afraid.

I'm well aware of the benefits to companies in controlling the release of information. That's why the have media/PR departments and employ advertising agencies.

As for customers, we are the end customer. If we are promised improved services and those services are not going to materialise when stated we should be informed. No company is going to inform the public anything it doesn't want them to know but informing customers they won't be getting the enhancements promised at the time promised is just good manners. I would also suggest it is good business as it helps instill trust. Keeping quiet until the last possible moment does the exact opposite.

 

[big all]

I'm well aware of the benefits to companies in controlling the release of information. That's why the have media/PR departments and employ advertising agencies.

As for customers, we are the end customer. If we are promised improved services and those services are not going to materialise when stated we should be informed. No company is going to inform the public anything it doesn't want them to know but informing customers they won't be getting the enhancements promised at the time promised is just good manners. I would also suggest it is good business as it hepls instill trust. Keeping quiet until the last possible moment does the exact opposite.

to be fair we are not there customers that's the train operating companies as we have no contract with the manufacturers/re manufacturers

 

[Bertie the bus]

We are, however, customers of Northern and I find it difficult to believe that Porterbrook haven't informed Northern what is going on or if they haven't someone at Northern hasn't thought - hang on a minute, the May timetable change is just over 3 months away and none of these units have run on the main line yet, I'd best give Porterbrook a bell.

 

[big all]

We are, however, customers of Northern and I find it difficult to believe that Porterbrook haven't informed Northern what is going on or if they haven't someone at Northern hasn't thought - hang on a minute, the May timetable change is just over 3 months away and none of these units have run on the main line yet, I'd best give Porterbrook a bell.

i am sure there will be a measured response in time

 

[JN114]

We are, however, customers of Northern and I find it difficult to believe that Porterbrook haven't informed Northern what is going on or if they haven't someone at Northern hasn't thought - hang on a minute, the May timetable change is just over 3 months away and none of these units have run on the main line yet, I'd best give Porterbrook a bell.

Perhaps they have. They could be having daily update calls with all their stakeholders for all we know. Neither Porterbrook nor Northern are obliged to give any updates whatsoever. Northern and Porterbrook could well have contingency plans that mean the May TT change won’t be affected. No-one here knows; that’s really the end of it.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Neither Porterbrook nor Northern are obliged to give any updates whatsoever.

That is the sort of attitude that has got the railway an appallingly bad public reputation and why in a recent Which? survey it only beat second hand car dealers for trustworthiness.

Northern and Porterbrook could well have contingency plans that mean the May TT change won’t be affected.

Contingency plans like those in effect last May when Preston - Manchester electrification wasn't completed?

 

[Mathew S]

That is the sort of attitude that has got the railway an appallingly bad public reputation and why in a recent Which? survey it only beat second hand car dealers for trustworthiness.

Contingency plans like those in effect last May when Preston - Manchester electrification wasn't completed?

When I spoke to Northern yesterday the line was that they were confident all the trains they'd ordered will be in service 18 months from now, two years at the absolute latest, with service improvements and refurbishments of existing stock staggered to happen as new trains are introduced.
No exception to that comment was made for the 769s.

Obviously only time will tell but, from talking to them, I do feel like they've taken last May's farce on board and are genuinely trying to be better.

 

[a_c_skinner]

A modest but time consuming issue that would make some sense of the contradiction I noted. I'm amazed nothing has leaked out into the public domain. GWR ordered theirs (the Welsh order too) long after the project seemed to be accumulating delay, they must have been given convincing explanations...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

We are, however, customers of Northern and I find it difficult to believe that Porterbrook haven't informed Northern what is going on or if they haven't someone at Northern hasn't thought - hang on a minute, the May timetable change is just over 3 months away and none of these units have run on the main line yet, I'd best give Porterbrook a bell.

It's just possible this whole 769 thing is being funded by the DfT, as it was not part of any franchise bid or commitment, and is because of changed electrification plans.
Unlike the CAF introduction, it's probably not a straightforward contractual situation between manufacturer and TOC.
There are probably a lot of "best endeavours" involved rather than delivery penalties, on all sides.

Northern's only contract with its customers/passengers is the published timetable and fares list (plus delay repay and NCoT etc).
Whether you get a new train to ride on or not is immaterial.

 

[Brissle Girl]

That is the sort of attitude that has got the railway an appallingly bad public reputation and why in a recent Which? survey it only beat second hand car dealers for trustworthiness.

There's a difference between making an update when there is some concrete news to impart that will be useful to customers (ie passengers) and the thirst for information which some on this forum want. It's certainly not Porterbrook's role to tell passengers, and Northern will only update passengers once a) it has a very clear picture from Porterbrook on delivery timescales b) it has worked out any contingency arrangements necessary, c) it has engaged with stakeholders such as Transport for North, local councils etc and d) agreed with them and Porterbook a consistent message to give to passengers. Let's suppose at the moment it still hasn't got a clear view from Porterbrook, or one that it has total confidence in, then what do you expect it to say? A weekly update that it still doesn't know when they will be delivered? And to come back to the original point, it's not for staff to leak things to the internet fora in the absence of management issuing updates, and in many organisations that would be a serious disciplinary offence and rightly so.

 

[gordonjahn]

There are probably a lot of "best endeavours" involved rather than delivery penalties, on all sides.

I hope there are no "best endeavours" involved - that's project risk hell right there. It was drummed into me at commercial training that the customer can always say "but you could have employed more people", "subcontracted the work", "spent more money", "enacted contingency plans sooner", etc. A supplier will never manage to meet "best endeavour" so should never sign up to that wording.

 

[LowLevel]

That is the sort of attitude that has got the railway an appallingly bad public reputation and why in a recent Which? survey it only beat second hand car dealers for trustworthiness.

Contingency plans like those in effect last May when Preston - Manchester electrification wasn't completed?

The deal is to provide passengers with trains, which they are certainly entitled to in high level terms. That doesn't go as far as providing technical details regarding one specific fleet of trains though, particularly one in development. If you pop to the GCR in the week you will still see them buzzing about.

 

[superkev]

Presumably ASLEF will have to agree the driver training. Bearing in mind they have just effectively blacked both Northerns new trains and the Class 230s on training issues this may not be a good for the 769s.
K

 

[AndrewE]

The deal is to provide passengers with trains, which they are certainly entitled to in high level terms. That doesn't go as far as providing technical details regarding one specific fleet of trains though, particularly one in development. If you pop to the GCR in the week you will still see them buzzing about.

So we have...
Good news: an assertion that they are busy accumulating mileage on the GCR (but no other report of this that I have seen)
Bad news: Adsteamfan and Eccles1983 claiming that Northern aren't going to bother with 319s (or 769s?) after all

Made worse by a company (Northern) which operates the mushroom-growing system in their customer-relations department, and doesn't make any attempt to keep the public on-side. Maybe they are punch-drunk and hiding in their bunker as a result of the DOO conflict.

 

[adsteamfan]

Bad news: Adsteamfan and Eccles1983 claiming that Northern aren't going to bother with 319s (or 769s?) after all

What I meant was that if the TOCs / DaFT are happy with the 769s cost / performance then the 319s could be earmarked for mass conversion to Bi/Tri-mode 769s which gets over the problem created by the cancellation / postponement of electrification and Northern will need 769s to run where there are no wires.

 

[AM9]

So we have...
Good news: an assertion that they are busy accumulating mileage on the GCR (but no other report of this that I have seen)
Bad news: Adsteamfan and Eccles1983 claiming that Northern aren't going to bother with 319s (or 769s?) after all

Made worse by a company (Northern) which operates the mushroom-growing system in their customer-relations department, and doesn't make any attempt to keep the public on-side. Maybe they are punch-drunk and hiding in their bunker as a result of the DOO conflict.

This thread is typical of so many other internet social media dialogues. The rail industry is there for the sole satisfaction of posters here.
There is a not unnatural (for rail enthusiasts) interest in what is certainly an unusual train development, - and I include myself in that interest. However, nobody should forget that the project is a commercial endeavour with business interests (a TOC, a RoSCo and a rail engineering company) so in the real, i.e. non-enthusiasts' world, information is controlled for the benefit of those commercially involved and possible other official stakeholders such as the DfT and Network Rail. This is not a case of a 'sort of attitude that has got the railway an appallingly bad public reputation', it's just how commercial entities work in a capitalist economy. Try asking a car manufacturer for details on how the testing of their latest models is going.
As LowLevel and others have said above, customers and passengers only have contractual relationships with the TOCs and are not entitled to information about specific trains in development unless the TOC has volunteered updates which that directly affect their travel arrangements in the future, have not materialised. Even then they can only expect official information that the TOC offers, not unauthorised speculation and gossip. Of course it is the nature of rail enthusiasts that they observe railway movements and other activities and draw their own conclusions from them, but to criticise commercial organisations for not reporting every step of development programmes to satify their curiosity, and then accuse them of concealing failure as some sort of conspiracy is peurile and helps nobody.
I would not be surprised if there are some members of this forum who have an inside knowledge of the programme who rightly so are not putting their careers in jeopardy by leaking information. If they aren't feeling pressured into giving out information, they must be amused at the naïveity of some of the posts here, and maybe feel that some of the more extreme comments that no doubt just arise from frustration, can be quite insulting.

 

[43096]

This thread is typical of so many other internet social media dialogues. The rail industry is there for the sole satisfaction of posters here.
There is a not unnatural (for rail enthusiasts) interest in what is certainly an unusual train development, - and I include myself in that interest. However, nobody should forget that the project is a commercial endeavour with business interests (a TOC, a RoSCo and a rail engineering company) so in the real, i.e. non-enthusiasts' world, information is controlled for the benefit of those commercially involved and possible other official stakeholders such as the DfT and Network Rail. This is not a case of a 'sort of attitude that has got the railway an appallingly bad public reputation', it's just how commercial entities work in a capitalist economy. Try asking a car manufacturer for details on how the testing of their latest models is going.
As LowLevel and others have said above, customers and passengers only have contractual relationships with the TOCs and are not entitled to information about specific trains in development unless the TOC has volunteered updates which that directly affect their travel arrangements in the future, have not materialised. Even then they can only expect official information that the TOC offers, not unauthorised speculation and gossip. Of course it is the nature of rail enthusiasts that they observe railway movements and other activities and draw their own conclusions from them, but to criticise commercial organisations for not reporting every step of development programmes to satify their curiosity, and then accuse them of concealing failure as some sort of conspiracy is peurile and helps nobody.
I would not be surprised if there are some members of this forum who have an inside knowledge of the programme who rightly so are not putting their careers in jeopardy by leaking information. If they aren't feeling pressured into giving out information, they must be amused at the naïveity of some of the posts here, and maybe feel that some of the more extreme comments that no doubt just arise from frustration, can be quite insulting.

Absolutely top post - spot on.

Oh and if you talk to people working on such projects, they find forums like this, Faceache etc absolutely hilarious for the reasons you have posted.