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

[LOL The Irony]

Its really astounding that GWR recently chose to order 19 units!

Given that 19 units isn't a micro fleet, why don't they cancel the order and get 19 Stadler dual voltage bi-modes?

 

[D365]

Given that 19 units isn't a micro fleet, why don't they cancel the order and get 19 Stadler dual voltage bi-modes?

I’m guessing the idea was that the 769s would be quicker to get into service.

 

[Cardiff123]

I’m guessing the idea was that the 769s would be quicker to get into service.

 

[Intercity Exec]

Given that 19 units isn't a micro fleet, why don't they cancel the order and get 19 Stadler dual voltage bi-modes?

The units aren't there to just 'get' and there is a cost in procuring a fleet of trains, considering how tight the franchises are run financially it would be difficult to afford swapping out a secondhand reengineered train for a brand new unit x19. Part of the appeal to the train companies of the 769s is the fact they are inexpensive compared to new build. Expected turnaround time would have been another!

This issue is particularly strong in The North where a number of posters suggest Northern procure a fleet of bi-mode 331s (which would have to be designed in the first place) despite the fact the franchise is running on bare bones and can ill afford what it is getting let alone a further new fleet.

The question, as ever, is who pays? The franchises can't afford the extra rental costs that the ROSCOs would pass on, the government? I don't think any of us want that! The fare payer? Would go down like a lead balloon.

These new units people want are a great idea if they can be funded.

 

[LOL The Irony]

GWR knew they were delayed already. But @Intercity Exec has a point. The whole argument now is using hindsight. With hindsight, Northern, ATW and GWR would have told Porterbrook to get stuffed and ordered Stadler's.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Part of the appeal to the train companies of the 769s is the fact they are inexpensive compared to new build.

Is that a fact or an assumption? Because the reason AGA and others are ordering new trains is because new trains are cheaper due to the existing ROSCOs trying to rip TOCs off with extortionate leases on old tat.

 

[AlexNL]

But those are for large fleets of trains. GA are procuring 665 Aventra vehicles and 378 FLIRT vehicles. SWR are buying 750 Aventra vehicles. WMT are buying 333 Aventra vehicles.

While 19 trains (76 vehicles) is not something to sneeze at, the economies of scale don't apply.

 

[Cardiff123]

How easy (or not) would it be for ATW & Welsh Govt, GWR and Northern to get out of the 769 contracts?
In consumer rights law, if you order a product and it's not delivered as promised, you're entitled to a full refund.

Surely the same principles apply here? Porterbrook have failed to deliver and show no evidence of being able to deliver even one 769, so the contracts signed for 769s should be cancelled to allow the TOCs to try and find suitable trains elsewhere.

 

[Bertie the bus]

But those are for large fleets of trains. GA are procuring 665 Aventra vehicles and 378 FLIRT vehicles. SWR are buying 750 Aventra vehicles. WMT are buying 333 Aventra vehicles.

While 19 trains (76 vehicles) is not something to sneeze at, the economies of scale don't apply.

I disagree. It does apply. TOCs don't finance trains, ROSCOs do. Therefore, if the ROSCO which ordered the AGA bi-modes placed an additional order tagged onto its current one I see no reason why the price would increase.

 

[AlexNL]

The economies of scale don't just apply to the procuring of trains alone. Those trains also have to be maintained (requiring spares) and staff have to be trained on them.

Ordering new bimodes instead of 769s might sound appealing, but on a network as varied as GWRs they would do little to reduce the amount of spare trains required and staff would still have to be trained for them. However, their lease would be higher than the 769 lease.

 

[Bertie the bus]

They have to be trained on the 769s. They don't have any 319s so you also have the maintenance issue. New would have no additional implications and what is your statement that they would be more expensive to lease based on?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

GWR knew they were delayed already. But @Intercity Exec has a point. The whole argument now is using hindsight. With hindsight, Northern, ATW and GWR would have told Porterbrook to get stuffed and ordered Stadler's.

But the situation was that Northern made their choice of train in the franchise bid, and then Network Rail/DfT ruined their plans by delaying/cancelling electrification.
The 769 solution is I think sponsored/funded by the DfT (and maybe NR) as a way out of the delivery problems with the Northern contract.
Essentially it's the same with W&B and GWR, the DfT has foisted the 769s on all 3 TOCs as a consequence of the wiring delays (GWR's North Downs trains may be a bit different).
769s were supposed to be cheaper and earlier than new bi-modes, and Porterbrook were very keen to get some of the 319 fleet back on lease.
It's too late now to change plans, but the silence over progress is deafening.
Stadlers and all the other new stuff have yet to show up and get certification on NR, of course.

 

[Gareth Marston]

So another humdinger from the hands of the DfT under Graylings watch then?

You will stick some Diesel engines under these old EMU's to create the magic bi mode train and well all live happily ever after plus it will be cheap and Poterbrook make some £ out of it.

 

[AlexNL]

They have to be trained on the 769s. They don't have any 319s so you also have the maintenance issue. New would have no additional implications

In the case of GWR, this is entirely true. I was just stating some things which are taken into account when defining a rolling stock strategy.

For Greater Anglia, the economics of scale applied. GA are greatly simplifying their fleet by going from 11 distinct types of rolling stock (more if you count subclasses) to just three: Aventra, electric FLIRT and bi-mode FLIRT.

and what is your statement that they would be more expensive to lease based on?

Vehicle value depreciation. New rolling stock is expensive and this is calculated into the lease price. Once a lease comes up for renewal, the vehicle's value has depreciated by quite a significant number, which should be reflected in the lease price of the next period.

If the lease price of a piece of rolling stock would remain consistent throughout the asset's lifetime, operators would always choose new-built rolling stock over leasing existing rolling stock (and giving it a refurb).

 

[northwichcat]

Part of the appeal to the train companies of the 769s is the fact they are inexpensive compared to new build. Expected turnaround time would have been another!

Is that a fact or an assumption? Because the reason AGA and others are ordering new trains is because new trains are cheaper due to the existing ROSCOs trying to rip TOCs off with extortionate leases on old tat.

The 769 cost was said to be 'eye watering' compared to the price of additional 195s. The reason DfT opted for 769s was speed not price - Porterbook offered them 769s in revenue earning service before CAF would have delivered the first unit from an order which had already been placed.

769s should have meant some service improvements were delayed by 6 months, while new stock would have meant at least 12 months delay but it's ended up being at least 12 months regardless. Given Stadler have begun testing a bi-mode Flirt for the Anglia order: http://www.bahnbilder.de/bild/Schwe...il+AG/1091815/ein-flirt-uk-bmu-class-755.html there should be some very red faces at Porterbrook.

It could be that there's an ulterior motive for the GWR 769s, in that the more 769s which are produced the cost per converted unit will be cheaper.

Regarding EMUs while Northern bidders were blocked from taking on the 323s long term, there were existing 365s and 387s available for leasing but Arriva justified brand new 331s over those two options.

 

[northwichcat]

If the lease price of a piece of rolling stock would remain consistent throughout the asset's lifetime, operators would always choose new-built rolling stock over leasing existing rolling stock (and giving it a refurb).

Don't forget there's costs involved in operators putting out tenders for new stock, testing the new stock, obtaining route clearance and training crews on it. If the stock available from day 1 of the franchise is suitable and modern and the operator doesn't need any more trains why would they replace it even if they could get slightly newer trains for the same leasing costs?

 

[Cardiff123]

According to the latest issue of RAIL, out digitally today, testing on a 769 is 'imminent' at Brush traction in Loughborough.
The same article also talks about Porterbrook owned class 455s as possible donors for 'Flex' style conversions when sent off lease by SWR in 2020.

 

[LOL The Irony]

According to the latest issue of RAIL, out digitally today, testing on a 769 is 'imminent' at Brush traction in Loughborough.
The same article also talks about Porterbrook owned class 455s as possible donors for 'Flex' style conversions when sent off lease by SWR in 2020.

Is Porterbrook really counting their chickens before they hatch?

 

[Bornin1980s]

The 769 cost was said to be 'eye watering' compared to the price of additional 195s. The reason DfT opted for 769s was speed not price - Porterbook offered them 769s in revenue earning service before CAF would have delivered the first unit from an order which had already been placed.

769s should have meant some service improvements were delayed by 6 months, while new stock would have meant at least 12 months delay but it's ended up being at least 12 months regardless. Given Stadler have begun testing a bi-mode Flirt for the Anglia order: http://www.bahnbilder.de/bild/Schwe...il+AG/1091815/ein-flirt-uk-bmu-class-755.html there should be some very red faces at Porterbrook.

It could be that there's an ulterior motive for the GWR 769s, in that the more 769s which are produced the cost per converted unit will be cheaper.

Regarding EMUs while Northern bidders were blocked from taking on the 323s long term, there were existing 365s and 387s available for leasing but Arriva justified brand new 331s over those two options.

Is there still to order more 195s?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is there still to order more 195s?

There might well be an option for more units in the Northern CAF order, but there is no approval from the DfT to increase the number of new trains.
Every new unit increases the cost base of the franchise, unless you remove existing high-cost units or whole fleets.
If you need bi-modes, Stadler have a UK design on order (GA, W&B), but CAF doesn't, so that's another complication.

 

[Jonny]

Is Porterbrook really counting their chickens before they hatch?

Maybe, but the solutions for the 769s - i.e. the 319-based Flexes - would also be likely to be applicable to 455-based Flex units.

 

[D365]

Maybe, but the solutions for the 769s...

A solution that we continue to await the outcome of...

 

[Chester1]

There might well be an option for more units in the Northern CAF order, but there is no approval from the DfT to increase the number of new trains.
Every new unit increases the cost base of the franchise, unless you remove existing high-cost units or whole fleets.
If you need bi-modes, Stadler have a UK design on order (GA, W&B), but CAF doesn't, so that's another complication.

Northern is required to obtain 18 x 2 coach units equivalent to 170s for 2022. I don't think either used or new units are specified. If Northern has a clause allowing them to cancel the order if the units don't arrive after a certain date then they could order 18 x 2 coach 195s (or 196s to have Unit End Gangways) which would meet the franchise specification and then obtain cascaded of a lower standard latter. If the 769s won't be in service by end of next year then they need 32 coaches to replace them and another 36 coaches by 2022. It could make sense to swap them around.

I would be very surprised if Northern obtain Stadler units, they already have too many unit types. They choose CAF because they could order DMUs and EMUs that had most of the same components. 196s would be fine because they are just 195s with different ends.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern is required to obtain 18 x 2 coach units equivalent to 170s for 2022. I don't think either used or new units are specified. If Northern has a clause allowing them to cancel the order if the units don't arrive after a certain date then they could order 18 x 2 coach 195s (or 196s to have Unit End Gangways) which would meet the franchise specification and then obtain cascaded of a lower standard latter. If the 769s won't be in service by end of next year then they need 32 coaches to replace them and another 36 coaches by 2022. It could make sense to swap them around.

It's worth remembering the 769s aren't mentioned in the franchise agreement as 769s. They are a work around due to delays in wiring Wigan-Bolton and Manchester-Stalybridge meaning 319s (as specified in the franchise agreement) aren't suitable. Also worth remembering Northern are unlikely to get as many 150s as the franchise agreement states.

 

[js1000]

Regarding EMUs while Northern bidders were blocked from taking on the 323s long term, there were existing 365s and 387s available for leasing but Arriva justified brand new 331s over those two options.

Blocked from the 323s so London Midland could take them all?

Now West Midlands Trains took over the franchise and are looking to replace the 323s with new trains by end of 2020.

Porterbrook end up with 46 perfectly serviceable 3-car units while Northern needlessly wasted money on new EMUs when they would be better spent replacing on DMUs to replace the Pacers and some of the dilapidated Sprinter units. If there was any EMUs to bin it was the 319s - they're awful.

It's hard not to despair at the state of the railways and in particularly the rolling stock situation. It's short termist, there is a lack of planning and little focus on passengers.

 

[northwichcat]

Blocked from the 323s so London Midland could take them all?

Now West Midlands Trains took over the franchise and are looking to replace the 323s with new trains by end of 2020.

Porterbrook end up with 46 perfectly serviceable 3-car units while Northern needlessly wasted money on new EMUs when they would be better spent replacing on DMUs to replace the Pacers and some of the dilapidated Sprinter units. If there was any EMUs to bin it was the 319s - they're awful.

It's hard not to despair at the state of the railways and in particularly the rolling stock situation. It's short termist, there is a lack of planning and little focus on passengers.

Northern did need some 'Northern Connect' standard EMUs so would have needed to heavily refurbish some trains to meet that standard if they weren't going to take on a different type of EMU.

I recall when 319s for the North West was first announced and we had Lord Adonis saying they would be completely gutted, fitted with new 2+2 seating, tables, air conditioning, plug sockets etc. Then the cost cutting Conservatives got in to government and initially they were reluctant to let Northern even repaint the trains and fit new seat covers.

Although, Labour would be to blame for putting the idea of all 323s to LM in Porterbrook's head by proposing a new EMU order for Northern and then dropping it and also giving them the idea that Northern could be a graveyard for 4 x 20m carriage EMUs, despite much of the Northern infrastructure being for 23m carriages.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Northern did need some 'Northern Connect' standard EMUs so would have needed to heavily refurbish some trains to meet that standard if they weren't going to take on a different type of EMU.

I recall when 319s for the North West was first announced and we had Lord Adonis saying they would be completely gutted, fitted with new 2+2 seating, tables, air conditioning, plug sockets etc. Then the cost cutting Conservatives got in to government and initially they were reluctant to let Northern even repaint the trains and fit new seat covers.

Although, Labour would be to blame for putting the idea of all 323s to LM in Porterbrook's head by proposing a new EMU order for Northern and then dropping it and also giving them the idea that Northern could be a graveyard for 4 x 20m carriage EMUs, despite much of the Northern infrastructure being for 23m carriages.

Like so many issues scratch the surface and DfT flip flopping lies underneath....

 

[D365]

Probably a good thing that a “319 Renatus” didn’t happen, in hindsight.

 

[47802]

According to the latest issue of RAIL, out digitally today, testing on a 769 is 'imminent' at Brush traction in Loughborough.
The same article also talks about Porterbrook owned class 455s as possible donors for 'Flex' style conversions when sent off lease by SWR in 2020.

And where do they think the demand is going to come from for these 455's?, they haven't flogged all the 769's potentially available yet, they are late and yet to see how they perform, while we will have a Welsh assembly plant for new DMU's, Bombardier are talking about a 125mph Bi-mode and having not got the Tube Order I suspect their minds will now have to be focused elsewhere and perhaps a regional Bi-mode, plus of course the option of the Stadler Bi-modes and of course Vivarail. Large scale Replacement of DMU's is likely to be mid to late 2020's by which time the 455's ought to be razor blades.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Blocked from the 323s so London Midland could take them all?
Now West Midlands Trains took over the franchise and are looking to replace the 323s with new trains by end of 2020.
Porterbrook end up with 46 perfectly serviceable 3-car units while Northern needlessly wasted money on new EMUs when they would be better spent replacing on DMUs to replace the Pacers and some of the dilapidated Sprinter units. If there was any EMUs to bin it was the 319s - they're awful.
It's hard not to despair at the state of the railways and in particularly the rolling stock situation. It's short termist, there is a lack of planning and little focus on passengers.

But there was no way for the old Northern to equip the new NW electric lines without 319s (or equivalent cascade from the south).
Once you have invested in 319 facilities you might as well maximise the benefit until the time comes to bin them.
Arriva could not anticipate Abellio declining 323s for WM 2 years in advance.
The "loser" (commercially) is Porterbrook who may have the surplus 323s on their hands (but fewer 319s).
They took the risk of leasing them all to WM and it backfired.
323s are in any case not notably superior to 319s and are of a similar age.
There are also probably insufficient 323s to displace all 319s at Northern, so you then have yet another traction type to support.