LOL The Irony
Established Member
The Civity's and Flirts are running to time.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
What will happen to Northern, ATW & GWR if the Class 769 "FLEX" fails?
- Thread starter LOL The Irony
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yes there probably a clue there, in that they are not being built in the UK
and don't have to suffer the general incompetence of this country.The reading rebuild was on time, Crossrail appears to be broadly on time (although there's a risk that it could slip a bit), there's probably lots of other examples it's just that they don't make big headlines. In fact even with electrification there's been some projects that did succeed.
Just out of curiosity, other than the 769's and 230's which other units have been delivered later than expected due to problems with the units themselves (so this excludes 80x's due to delays with the electrification, but doesn't rule then it if there's another train related issue)?
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
385s late due to windscreen issues.
175s and 180s late due to many, many different issues (good old Washwood Heath!)
334s and 458/0s likewise.
345s and 710s are running pretty late as well
Based on classes that's about 1:4 classes delivered since 2000. Which although isn't great doesn't mean that all trains are late.
I would also suggest that some of those fleets are fairly small and so are probably more prone to project over runs due to the shorter delivery windows (i.e. if you have 6 months to make and deliver a small fleet is less time than if you have 18 months to make and deliver a larger fleet and so late start of use in service is more noticeable as you have less chance to catch up. This could mean the difference between a whole fleet being late to service or only the first 1/3).
Given that I was asking the question in relation to "does any project" based on the answers so far, yes lots do.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,157
Class 230s aren’t running late on production unit deliveries...
That's true, we are just more aware of the R&D process than other trains.
LOL The Irony
Established Member
And the 230 prototype actually worked straight off and wasn't just a 319 painted in Northern colours with 769 000 shoddily slapped to the front.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
why do you think this will fail? what do you base that assumption on? I notice above you say it has taken a long time to issue a design. As anyone involved in projects will know that could be for any number of reasons unrelated to the technical solution.
Very soon a similar conversion job will be running on my line. Why should the northern works fail when these ones ( on a very different base platform) seem to be almost ready to enter service?
Last edited:
Whattraintoday
Member
Deleted
mushroomchow
Member
I can see an ironic situation arising in which Vivarail hoover up the 319s sat dormant at Long Marston, have a go themselves and do the job far faster and more effectively than Porterbrook (who are developing something of a track record of overrunning projects, spiralling budgets and failed concepts).
It's frankly embarrassing that such a big and (supposedly) reputable company continues to struggle to develop what should be a simple project, while a bunch of upstarts in a field in Warwickshire have a product ready for market on a comparable shoestring. It should also serve as a huge red flag for any TOCs toying with doing similar business with them in the future.
It's frankly embarrassing that such a big and (supposedly) reputable company continues to struggle to develop what should be a simple project, while a bunch of upstarts in a field in Warwickshire have a product ready for market on a comparable shoestring. It should also serve as a huge red flag for any TOCs toying with doing similar business with them in the future.
DanNCL
Established Member
As I've already mentioned, it's already failed in regards to being the quick fix that it was supposed to be; in the time it's taken Porterbrook to put some advertising on an unmodified 319 at Long Marston Stadler have produced a new bi mode from scratch. If it doesn't hurry up (based on how many 319s are at Long Marston it doesn't look like the project is making much progress) it'll fail altogether as it won't have provided the self powered PRM compliant unit in time for the PRM deadline.
Vivarail have produced the 230s on time, and they work. No evidence to suggest the same for the 769s...
DarloRich
Veteran Member
With respect I am not sure you quite understand the process and approvals involved here. You seem to think it is simply as case of bolting a diesel engine onto the frame and cracking on. Design is not the only factor.
DanNCL
Established Member
I do understand the process, I also understand that the 769 has been due to be tested "imminently" for almost a year now. They obviously are having issues otherwise it wouldn't be taking them so long (and the project wouldn't be running anywhere near as late as it is)
northwichcat
Veteran Member
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the Anglia 156s and the other Scotrail 156s, while EMT would be the logical place for them to go it's not impossible that they could go to Northern.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
You assume they are having technical issues. You overlook the fact there are other reasons why the project could be delayed. I suspect the technical solution is fairly easy.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
No they haven't. They were supposed to produce a working unit for the previous LM franchise to use but LM were able to pull out of the agreement when the fire incident caused the D-Train release to be delayed.
DanNCL
Established Member
There are other reasons that could have delayed it by a few months, but I fail to see how such a long delay can be attributed solely to other issues.
The unit did work, granted it needed a few modifications after the fire which delayed it by a couple of months, but otherwise it's done everything it should. The production 230s are on time, and the first one has been completed.
sprinterguy
Veteran Member
That seems unduly optimistic. I would assume that trains would continue to be shortformed or cancelled for the foreseeable future until a cheap fix like spare 156s from Scotrail or Greater Anglia, as noted above, could be procured.
I don't think that list is particularly exhaustive
Indeed, prior to the fire it had been running relatively to time. Flex hasn't entered the same stage of dynamic testing yet, heaven forbid that once it's moving they don't find a major fault with it otherwise God only knows how far behind they'll fall!
northwichcat
Veteran Member
The unit wasn't delivered to the previous LM franchise to the timescale agreed though.
DanNCL
Established Member
That was one unit that wasn't delivered for a short term trial run, and that was only because LM pulled out as they didn't want to wait a couple of months for the modifications needed after the fire.
On the other hand the production fleet of 769s for Northern haven't been delivered on time, the chances of the Welsh 769s being delivered on time are virtually nil, and there's a good chance that the GWR ones won't be delivered on time either.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I can, particularly in a rolling stock project: Customer requirements changing on a regular basis, subsequent change management and approval, regulatory sign off for all manner of things, gauging problems, NOBO, DEBO, , technical standards, NTR's, technical file issues, questions and evidence to satisfy the same etc. etc. This is a complicated and long process. it is hard enough on a new build. God knows what a cut and shut job is like!
How have you decided that the project is late? Is it simply an advert on a website that drives your conclusion?
DanNCL
Established Member
The first 769s were supposed to have entered service two months ago, but they didn't. If that's not an indicator that the project is running late then I don't know what is...
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
It seems to me that Porterbrook made a colossal blunder by playing their hand far too early, long before it was proven that the concept would work. Now, having attracted a lot of interest, they've left several TOCs in the lurch, with very real rolling stock crises looming.
GWR have ordered 19 of these things!
GWR have ordered 19 of these things!
DarloRich
Veteran Member
but do you accept there could be very good reasons why that is not the case? I might suggest looking into the verification and approval process.
Working in railway projects ( in fact any "new" build project) there is often a disconnect between what the PR people want to say and what the experts delivering the project want to say date wise!
DanNCL
Established Member
Agreed, Northern and ATW will both have a rolling stock crisis's if the 769s don't appear. GWR at least theoretically have the option of keeping the 332s if the 769s don't appear, so they won't have as much of a rolling stock crisis as Northern or ATW would.
If they knew that they couldn't deliver operational units in time for the May 2018 timetable change then they should never have claimed that they could. If what you're saying about the 769 project is correct, why haven't Porterbrook announced any revised timescale at all?
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Porterbrook have always seemed more interested in getting name recognition than actually innovating effectively. IIRC they're the only ROSCO who painted stock in their own livery, including a Deltic of all things!
By their very nature, ROSCOs don't need to be known to the public at large.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
LM originally signed up to a 12 month trial starting in October 2016*. It had already been agreed that due to delays in production the trial would become an 8 month one starting in February 2017, before the testing fire happened in December 2016. LM gave Vivarail a few weeks to give a revised time frame after the fire but all they could say was it was 'months off' being ready so LM pulled out.
* October 2017 was the franchise end date until DfT gave a 2 month extension in July 2017.
Don't forget Mr Shooter was telling us how quickly and cheaply D-Trains could be produced, yet the first D-Train is now expected to enter service on the same date as the first 195, despite the 195s not even being planned when Vivarail started working on the D78 stock.
- Status