What will happen to Northern, ATW & GWR if the Class 769 "FLEX" fails?

[D365]

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.

Remind me when the WMT franchise was awarded, in comparison to Arriva North?

 

[DanNCL]

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.

In Vivarail's early days they had no firm orders, so theoretically they had more time to dedicate to research and development. In hindsight, Porterbrook should probably have given the 769 project the same amount of R&D time before accepting firm orders.

 

[northwichcat]

Remind me when the WMT franchise was awarded, in comparison to Arriva North?

A 3 car D-Train should have been in passenger service before Abellio were even awarded the West Midlands franchise. The awards of the Northern and TPE franchises saw orders for the first ever CAF trains for the UK network.

 

[DanNCL]

A 3 car D-Train should have been in passenger service before Abellio were even awarded the West Midlands franchise.

1 prototype on short term trial. Not really comparable to a fleet of 769s in regular service.

The awards of the Northern and TPE franchises saw orders for the first ever CAF trains for the UK network.

Not the first, as the 332s and 333s were built by CAF, but the first in more than a decade.

 

[northwichcat]

1 prototype on short term trial. Not really comparable to a fleet of 769s in regular service.

That was in response to D365's post who was effectively saying Vivarail will produce the D-Trains in a much shorter timescale than CAF will produce the first set of Civities for Northern.

Not the first, as the 332s and 333s were built by CAF, but the first in more than a decade.

I should have said the first solely CAF trains as the 332s and 333s were a joint project between CAF and Siemens. However, the 195s will be the first diesel powered trains for the UK that CAF have ever been involved in and allegedly diesel trains for the UK network are difficult to design due to emission standards and the UK not having wide gauge network.

 

[Non Multi]

That was in response to D365's post who was effectively saying Vivarail will produce the D-Trains in a much shorter timescale than CAF will produce the first set of Civities for Northern.



I should have said the first solely CAF trains as the 332s and 333s were a joint project between CAF and Siemens. However, the 195s will be the first diesel powered trains for the UK that CAF have ever been involved in and allegedly diesel trains for the UK network are difficult to design due to emission standards and the UK not having wide gauge network.

Northern Ireland's DMUs?

 

[northwichcat]

Northern Ireland's DMUs?

OK first diesel trains for Britain (Northern Ireland runs on Irish gauge not British gauge.

 

[DanNCL]

That was in response to D365's post who was effectively saying Vivarail will produce the D-Trains in a much shorter timescale than CAF will produce the first set of Civities for Northern.

I know that, I was simply pointing out that the two aren't really comparable.

OK first diesel trains for Britain (Northern Ireland runs on Irish gauge not British gauge.

They still use British loading guage, it's only the track gauge that's different there.

 

[DarloRich]

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?

I agree they should not have said anything. However the obviously wanted orders to fund the cost of the scheme so went for an ambitious announcement. I have no knowledge of this project but suspect the issue is within the certification process. There really is no firm time line on such work.

 

[DanNCL]

I agree they should not have said anything. However the obviously wanted orders to fund the cost of the scheme so went for an ambitious announcement. I have no knowledge of this project but suspect the issue is within the certification process. There really is no firm time line on such work.

By doing that they've made it worse for themselves, as it now means people are (rightly) unlikely to trust Porterbrook to deliver projects on time.

 

[Non Multi]

It's an industry trend. Plenty of projects in recent years would have benefited from being given more time for completion: electrification, Thameslink programme, Crossrail, IETs, Mk3 sliding doors, accessibility modifications, bi-mode rebuilds...

 

[twpsaesneg]

I agree they should not have said anything. However the obviously wanted orders to fund the cost of the scheme so went for an ambitious announcement. I have no knowledge of this project but suspect the issue is within the certification process. There really is no firm time line on such work.

About 6 weeks ago Porterbrook and Brush were invited to give a talk to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers midlands branch in the Roundhouse at Derby.

They were asked many questions about the expected dates for testing / entry into service, but would not be drawn other than the "imminent" line. However they did not say anything at all about certification delays, which, if this were the case I suspect would have been very much headline news for them - "The conversions are all complete, we have a running unit, but NR / ORR won't sign off the paperwork".

Dynamic testing at a non-publicly accessible test site doesn't need certification unless movement to the site is by rail - that's kind of the point of the testing.

Inevitably there WILL no doubt be all sorts of paperwork issues going forward, but I'm not convinced that that would prevent dynamic testing getting underway - it suggests to me an engineering problem that needs to be overcome.

 

[The_Engineer]

About 6 weeks ago Porterbrook and Brush were invited to give a talk to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers midlands branch in the Roundhouse at Derby.

They were asked many questions about the expected dates for testing / entry into service, but would not be drawn other than the "imminent" line. However they did not say anything at all about certification delays, which, if this were the case I suspect would have been very much headline news for them - "The conversions are all complete, we have a running unit, but NR / ORR won't sign off the paperwork".

Dynamic testing at a non-publicly accessible test site doesn't need certification unless movement to the site is by rail - that's kind of the point of the testing.

Inevitably there WILL no doubt be all sorts of paperwork issues going forward, but I'm not convinced that that would prevent dynamic testing getting underway - it suggests to me an engineering problem that needs to be overcome.

I agree with all the above - there must have been (or still are) fundamental engineering issues in the implementation of this project. Structural, fitment, noise & vibration are the big risk areas so I would suggest it's been one or more of these. But as I pointed out earlier there are remaining technical risks to be checked by the dynamic tests, which would include system stability under load, EMC and signalling compatibility, and software integrity & robustness.

Dynamic testing at the GCR should resolve the remaining issues before the required certification for Network Rail operation is issued, however there are still clearly known technical issues and unchecked risk areas on the project that could extend the delays still further. I still stick by my estimate that we won't see passenger service running before May 2019; I would be happy to be proved wrong, though!

 

[43096]

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.

What a load of nonsense. You seriously think VivaRail could all of a sudden make it work where Porterbrook and Wabtec can’t, using the same units? Go on, you tell us - what are the issues with them, and why would VivaRail be any better at solving them?

 

[D365]

What a load of nonsense. You seriously think VivaRail could all of a sudden make it work where Porterbrook and Wabtec can’t, using the same units? Go on, you tell us - what are the issues with them, and why would VivaRail be any better at solving them?

Perhaps Vivarail has experience in this field? Not like any of the lessons learned from the Class 230 are transferable, right.

 

[randyrippley]

If it fails, WCRC get a contract to run Windermere and Barrow services with mk2/3 a/c stock and class 56 haulage.


edit

that was supposed to say class 57...

 

[EE Andy b1]

If it fails, WCRC get a contract to run Windermere and Barrow services with mk2/3 a/c stock and class 56 haulage.

Class 56s don't have ETS (Electric train supply) unless GBRf try and get it squeezed into them in there supposedly upcoming re-engineering.
But an on board generator would do it.
Would get my vote over Sprinters or Flex.

But highly unlikely.

 

[jayiscupid]

CAF may not be willing to offer a bi mode version of the 331. If that happens then if they want bi modes they'll have no choice but to go to Stadler.

195s working long distances under the wires would most likely be politically unacceptable.

CAF offered a battery version of their EMUs to New Zealand so they clearly have the capability. The only issue would be the amount of running the battery could handle off the wires.

http://m.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/auckland-battery-train-proposal-loses-charge.html

 

[edwin_m]

I should have said the first solely CAF trains as the 332s and 333s were a joint project between CAF and Siemens. However, the 195s will be the first diesel powered trains for the UK that CAF have ever been involved in and allegedly diesel trains for the UK network are difficult to design due to emission standards and the UK not having wide gauge network.

This is mainly a problem for electric trains, because the traction return current flows through rails and therefore track circuits, and may contain electrical "noise" from the motors and traction package. DMUs, especially with mechanical transmission, are much easier because there are no big electrical currents that might get into the rails and nor is there any path for them to do so.

 

[AndrewE]

This is mainly a problem for [OLE and third-rail] electric trains, because the traction return current flows through rails and therefore track circuits, and may contain electrical "noise" from the motors and traction package. DMUs, especially with mechanical transmission,[also battery-electrics, fuels cells and bionic duckweed -powered vehicles etc] are much easier because there are no big electrical currents that might get into the rails and nor is there any path for them to do so.

My tweaks to emphasise that it is the power-supply and return, not the transmission that is the problem...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Class 56s don't have ETS (Electric train supply) unless GBRf try and get it squeezed into them in there supposedly upcoming re-engineering.
But an on board generator would do it.
Would get my vote over Sprinters or Flex.

But highly unlikely.

I don't think that was a serious suggestion...

 

[43096]

Perhaps Vivarail has experience in this field? Not like any of the lessons learned from the Class 230 are transferable, right.

And what do they know about 319s?

 

[Journeyman]

Perhaps Vivarail has experience in this field? Not like any of the lessons learned from the Class 230 are transferable, right.

It's been suggested by many that the main product Vivarail can sell is not D-Trains as a whole, but the expertise of re-engineering them. They've done loads of research and are therefore now experts in the field of alternative traction systems.

 

[northwichcat]

This is mainly a problem for electric trains, because the traction return current flows through rails and therefore track circuits, and may contain electrical "noise" from the motors and traction package. DMUs, especially with mechanical transmission, are much easier because there are no big electrical currents that might get into the rails and nor is there any path for them to do so.

Before the CAF Civity order many were saying a new DMU order for Britain wouldn't be possible unless they put the diesel engines above floor level due to new emission standards. That obviously proved to be false.

 

[EE Andy b1]

I don't think that was a serious suggestion...

I don't think it was a serious reply...

Or maybe it was!

 

[D365]

My tweaks to emphasise that it is the power-supply and return, not the transmission that is the problem...

Nope, battery powered trains will still have to go through standard EMC proving procedures.

And what do they know about 319s?

See below:

It's been suggested by many that the main product Vivarail can sell is not D-Trains as a whole, but the expertise of re-engineering them. They've done loads of research and are therefore now experts in the field of alternative traction systems.

If Porterbrook has been trying to recreate what Vivarail has done in four years, in the space of six months, that evidence is as good as any.

And if the 319s are so special that the experience gained from the D-Train can’t be transferred, that further goes to prove my point.

 

[mushroomchow]

What a load of nonsense. You seriously think VivaRail could all of a sudden make it work where Porterbrook and Wabtec can’t, using the same units? Go on, you tell us - what are the issues with them, and why would VivaRail be any better at solving them?

Cool your jets, youth - it was mostly a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that there are a bunch of 319s sat rotting in the same yard as Vivarail's units.

That being said, Vivarail have noted on multiple occasions that they expect the D78s to be the first of many conversion / refurb projects, so they're going to eventually be looking for other stock to apply the techniques they're honing with the 230s. At the same time, if the project collapses Porterbrook are almost surely going to be dumping the 319s at scrap value, in parallel to how Shooter and co. acquired the D78s.

Not saying they could make it work overnight - just noting that there are a good few reasons why they may be interested in picking the stock up on the cheap if (or when) the 769 project fails:

• Scrap value stock
• Stock specifications already meet a wider market than the 230s as shown by the number of trigger-finger orders from TOCs
• Pantographs available for testing a number of their additional BEMU charging concepts
• If they can get the information, a track record of what NOT to do in developing the project

As for Porterbrook and Wabtec themselves, their issues stem not from a failure of concept, but an institutional habit of taking on too much work, too quickly, without allocating resources effectively. The Mk. 3 stock upgrade is another good example. I'm not convinced the 769 doesn't work, but rather that they don't really know what they're doing.

If, as I suspect, the issues with this project stem not from the concept but from Porterbrook itself, there's no reason why another company without the same level of corporate wastage couldn't take the stock and make it work.

 

[tbtc]

Vivarail have noted on multiple occasions that they expect the D78s to be the first of many conversion / refurb projects, so they're going to eventually be looking for other stock to apply the techniques they're honing with the 230s. At the same time, if the project collapses Porterbrook are almost surely going to be dumping the 319s at scrap value, in parallel to how Shooter and co. acquired the D78s.

Not saying they could make it work overnight - just noting that there are a good few reasons why they may be interested in picking the stock up on the cheap if (or when) the 769 project fails

Interesting.

Given that there are going to be lots of diesel services where a four coach 75mph unit (e.g. broadly equivalent to a doubled up 150) is about right...

...there are going to be lots of "spare" EMUs that are broadly equivalent to a four coach 150 (321s and what not)...

...the first TOC (or Vivarail or whoever) who can find a viable solution to making these redundant trains self-powered (whether diesel, battery, whatever) is going to make a few quid.

You'd hope that the competitive nature of the rolling stock market would spur on competition, but... not yet.

 

[HSTEd]

You could probably build a Stadler esque power car for the 319s by using the 750V bus built into the vehicles, as well as any other units with third rail capability

 

[edwin_m]

Nope, battery powered trains will still have to go through standard EMC proving procedures.

All trains have to demonstrate EMC compliance, but it's much easier for a train that doesn't draw current from a supply. Simplifying somewhat, it becomes a question of demonstrating no credible means to feed current into the rails rather than knowing it does feed current into the rails and having to demonstrate that current doesn't interfere with anything.

My original point was in response to a comparison of the CAF EMUs versus DMUs so wasn't really considering battery or other power sources, but broadly speaking those would indeed have the same issues as DMUs not EMUs.

The 332 and 333 were indeed CAF-Siemens partnership, but Siemens did all the electrical side and the electrical parts of the safety case. So CAF has no corporate experience of getting an electric train through the Network Rail safety process or its predecessors - hope they've hired some people with that experience.