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

[Bikeman78]

What could they replace them with realistically?

Nothing. But they would save the cost of constantly repairing the 769s, not to mention the leasing cost. And now they are paying even more to hire extra units to cover the overhauls.

 

[Ribbleman]

The situation regarding the two additional 769s is bizarre. Last October, Porterbrook managers advised rail user group OPSTA in the presence of Northern managers that two units from those previously used by TfW would be receiving attention at Long Marston and Crewe IEMD. They would then be available for Northern to use from January at no charge, providing cover for the 8 sets already used by Northern when they were sent away one at a time to Brodies in Kilmarnock for C6 overhauls.

The Government tender document, issued 5 months after the sets were supposed to be in traffic, implies that these units will in fact incur leasing charges. This may be creative accounting for appearance sake with no funds actually changing hands but the appalling lack of urgency in progressing matters reflects very badly on those involved.

 

[507016]

A question ive always had is: if in the event a 331 failed on the wigan diagrams and there was nothing else but a few spare 769s to replace it, would that be something that would happen?

 

[Geeves]

A question ive always had is: if in the event a 331 failed on the wigan diagrams and there was nothing else but a few spare 769s to replace it, would that be something that would happen?

When it's happened in the past it's resulted in a 156 being split off an Oxford Rd - Liverpool LS or or a 150 coming off Springs Branch. If there's nothing else it's going to be a cancellation.

Everyone signs them for a start and powers that be at Northern are happy to keep the chaos that are 768s confined to their own small area!

 

[507016]

769424 wheelslid on its approach to appley bridge and now unfortunately has a very bouncy flat spot on its A Motor bogie