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

[Rail Blues]

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 botched 458/460 merger should have also given TOC food for thought before buying into another one of Porterbrook's garden shed style pet project. I for one wouldn't trust them to lube my bike chain properly let alone undertake a project of the complexity of the 769 conversions

 

[43096]

What a load of utter garbage being spoken on here about the capabilities (or otherwise) of various companies.

Anyone connected with the project is not going to comment except through official channels. What has been written on here is just rumour, conjecture and uninformed drivel.

 

[Rail Blues]

What a load of utter garbage being spoken on here about the capabilities (or otherwise) of various companies.

Anyone connected with the project is not going to comment except through official channels. What has been written on here is just rumour, conjecture and uninformed drivel.

Wind your neck in a bit there sunshine.

It isn't conjecture that the units are already heavily delayed, it isn't conjecture that proper testing hasn't already begun, it isn't conjecture that Porterbrook don't have a great record when it comes to re engineering projects, it isn't conjecture that all they had to show at a trade fair was a 319 with some stickers on it. The fact that multiple deadlines have been and gone without anything approaching a working example being seen isn't conjecture. These all point to a project that has utterly failed in its prime objective, which was to get self powered rolling stock into service as soon as possible.

 

[js1000]

I wish people would stop mentioning the Class 230s as some sort of panacea. We have to be realistic that a 60mph battery powered train is not an ideal replacement for a 100mph 4 carriage train. The 230s would only be any use on branch lines. For instance, the class 230s could never work as stoppers on the congested lines through Manchester Airport and Stockport as the 319s currently do/769s would do if in service.

If anything it would make more sense for the ROSCOs to modernise some of the existing Pacers to Pacer-e concept. It would buy them and Northern a few years with a view to a new rolling stock by 2024 - which I hate saying as the Pacers have had their day if it is the aspiration to have a 21st century modern rail network across the North which is needed badly.

It's just annoying the TOCs do not put a penalty clause in any contract signed with ROSCOs which necessitates alternative rolling stock or a new order if they fail to get the train in service in time.

 

[The Ham]

I wish people would stop mentioning the Class 230s as some sort of panacea. We have to be realistic that a 60mph battery powered train is not an ideal replacement for a 100mph 4 carriage train. The 230s would only be any use on branch lines. For instance, the class 230s could never work as stoppers on the congested lines through Manchester Airport and Stockport as the 319s currently do/769s would do if in service.

If anything it would make more sense for the ROSCOs to modernise some of the existing Pacers to Pacer-e concept. It would buy them and Northern a few years with a view to a new rolling stock by 2024 - which I hate saying as the Pacers have had their day if it is the aspiration to have a 21st century modern rail network across the North which is needed badly.

It's just annoying the TOCs do not put a penalty clause in any contract signed with ROSCOs which necessitates alternative rolling stock or a new order if they fail to get the train in service in time.

I would suggest that the 230's could be useful, however probably not as a straight replacement for the 769's.

Rather the 230's could be used on slower lines allowing the faster DMU's to replace the missing 769's.

In the same way that 230's could cover for the missing 769's from GWR by allowing the 16x's to head back to Reading (or at least not move from there in the first place).

 

[47802]

I would suggest that the 230's could be useful, however probably not as a straight replacement for the 769's.

Rather the 230's could be used on slower lines allowing the faster DMU's to replace the missing 769's.

In the same way that 230's could cover for the missing 769's from GWR by allowing the 16x's to head back to Reading (or at least not move from there in the first place).

They could be useful but that doesn't mean they will be used, I don't believe the project will fail in any case, yes its clearly delayed, but I doubt GWR would have opted for them if they were not reasonably convinced that they will work in a reasonable timeframe

 

[LOL The Irony]

The botched 458/460 merger should have also given TOC food for thought before buying into another one of Porterbrook's garden shed style pet project. I for one wouldn't trust them to lube my bike chain properly let alone undertake a project of the complexity of the 769 conversions

That window band tho..

 

[D365]

Vivarail aren’t selling the D-Train as a mainlinr train, that’s more than clear.

 

[387star]

Uckfield next for this new class?

 

[tbtc]

I wish people would stop mentioning the Class 230s as some sort of panacea. We have to be realistic that a 60mph battery powered train is not an ideal replacement for a 100mph 4 carriage train. The 230s would only be any use on branch lines. For instance, the class 230s could never work as stoppers on the congested lines through Manchester Airport and Stockport as the 319s currently do/769s would do if in service

I don't think anyone is suggesting that 230s be used on 100mph services?

There are plenty of lines where they could be useful though, lines that currently only see a 75mph DMU (or are only timed for 75mph DMUs).

For example, in and around Sheffield there's...

• an hourly service to Leeds (via Castleford) that takes seventy five/eighty minutes to do under forty five miles
• an hourly service to Huddersfield (via Penistone) that takes seventy five/eighty minutes to do under forty miles
• an hourly service to Adwick (via Doncaster) that takes fifty minutes to do under twenty five miles
• an hourly service to Hull (via Rotherham Central) that takes over a hundred minutes to do under sixty miles

We don't *need* 100mph trains for services like these, however nice it might be. It may be handy to have a high top speed (to get out of the way of the service behind if things are running late), but that's a Nice To Have rather than essential. There's certainly enough routes to give some kind of critical mass.

And plenty of other routes in northern England (and elsewhere) with such slow stoppers - I'm only highlighting the Sheffield ones as they are the ones I know best and to avoid anyone accusing me of being a NIMBY.

I know that someone will likely say that there's no point in having 60mph DMUs because "what if they are accidentally diagrammed onto faster longer distance services", but that seems a flimsy excuse against them.

60mph DMUs with good acceleration could cope fine on these kind of routes. Sure, I'd rather have one of those modern EMUs that are without a long term future (e.g. 350/2s), if you can make them self-propelled, but the first company to prove that they can turn base metal (redundant EMUs) into gold (trains capable of running the kind of routes currently operated by Pacers) should make a lot of money.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that 230s be used on 100mph services? There are plenty of lines where they could be useful though, lines that currently only see a 75mph DMU (or are only timed for 75mph DMUs).

60mph DMUs with good acceleration could cope fine on these kind of routes. Sure, I'd rather have one of those modern EMUs that are without a long term future (e.g. 350/2s), if you can make them self-propelled, but the first company to prove that they can turn base metal (redundant EMUs) into gold (trains capable of running the kind of routes currently operated by Pacers) should make a lot of money.

Remember that those new trains which would be used on the type of routes you described in your posting would not be dedicated to those particular routes and would be used all over the network, something that the Class 230 could not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember that those new trains which would be used on the type of routes you described in your posting would not be dedicated to those particular routes and would be used all over the network, something that the Class 230 could not.

I’m sure they could, but that just requires proper diagramming and adequate slack.

 

[D365]

Remember that those new trains which would be used on the type of routes you described in your posting would not be dedicated to those particular routes and would be used all over the network, something that the Class 230 could not.

He has mentioned that, and isn’t that the kind of occurence that we want to avoid going forward? (e.g. Pacers being diagrammed on long distance services)

 

[mushroomchow]

If anything it would make more sense for the ROSCOs to modernise some of the existing Pacers to Pacer-e concept. It would buy them and Northern a few years with a view to a new rolling stock by 2024 - which I hate saying as the Pacers have had their day if it is the aspiration to have a 21st century modern rail network across the North which is needed badly.

There's a major flaw in that plan though... it would be Porterbrook carrying the work out!

Besides - even having ridden on the 144e and been impressed with it, I see it being even less politically acceptable to soup up Pacers(which the government promised would be gone by 2020) than to persist with either of the major conversion projects quoted here.

 

[Whattraintoday]

When all's said and done, it's only 12 units, 48 carriages in total.
Even if the whole project is written off as unworkable, Northern should be able to source enough DMUs to cover the shortfall. A bit like a division 2 football manager, they've plenty of experience at getting loaners, short-term leases, one last fling of life-expired units etc.
They can do that until the 769s are completed, or Porterbrook finally throw in the towel and give Northern a cheap deal on newer DMUs that other TOCs have traded up from.

 

[433N]

Why don't Porterbrook loan Vivarail a unit to tinker with ?

I'm sure they have one or two undesignated and it might focus minds/resources a little - whether it gets tinkered with or not.

 

[js1000]

I

There's a major flaw in that plan though... it would be Porterbrook carrying the work out!

Besides - even having ridden on the 144e and been impressed with it, I see it being even less politically acceptable to soup up Pacers(which the government promised would be gone by 2020) than to persist with either of the major conversion projects quoted here.

The Pacer-e concept is fine as a stop gap for 5 years.

It's just annoying Arriva are so stingy when it comes to train refurbishments.

Simply painting the exterior white and putting some new seat covers on doesn't make the train "as new".

 

[Mikey C]

For all the stick Porterbrook are getting here on this thread, surely it's Wabtec/Brush who are the main reason for the delays, as they're the ones doing the actual conversion? They're presumably the technical experts in this project...

 

[MatthewRead]

Uckfield next for this new class?

Not cleared to run through the tunnel between Woldingham and Oxted!

 

[D365]

Why don't Porterbrook loan Vivarail a unit to tinker with ?

Nice thought, though Viva are pretty booked up as is.

 

[Fincra5]

Uckfield next for this new class?

Depends if it can be fitted with SDO.. Same with the Marshlink. A DEMU would perform miles better than the Turbostars - especially as the Ashfords are now stoppers from EBN-AFK. I saw one pulling away from Cooden Beach.. my god they;re slow!

 

[LOL The Irony]

The Pacer-e concept is fine as a stop gap for 5 years.

This is what plagued the pacer originally. "stop gap".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Simply painting the exterior white and putting some new seat covers on doesn't make the train "as new".

It doesn’t necessarily take much more than that if done well. The GWR refurb is original seats with new foams and covers and it looks great.

 

[Rail Blues]

It doesn’t necessarily take much more than that if done well. The GWR refurb is original seats with new foams and covers and it looks great.

The phrase 'as new' is rather vague, it could mean a similar quality and ambience to a brand new train and that would include a/c at seat USB and plug sockets, new seats etc. Or back to the same condition as when new necessitating no actual upgrades whatsoever, just a repaint and new seat covering. It has never actually been clear what Arriva mean by 'as new' or what they are aiming for, either way they've utterly failed to deliver either. What they've given.customers so far has been utter garbage. They must be pretty high up on the list of worst franchise operators of the last decade.

 

[gallafent]

It has never actually been clear what Arriva mean by 'as new' or what they are aiming for, either way they've utterly failed to deliver either. What they've given.customers so far has been utter garbage. They must be pretty high up on the list of worst franchise operators of the last decade.

Interesting that Chiltern (also operated by Arriva / DB) are exellent. I wonder why the disparity. Could it be something that isn't Arriva-specific, but something else about the Northern franchise arrangements? ROSCOs? The quality of the individuals in upper and top management positions? Someone should be doing the analysis.

 

[Mikey C]

Interesting that Chiltern (also operated by Arriva / DB) are exellent. I wonder why the disparity. Could it be something that isn't Arriva-specific, but something else about the Northern franchise arrangements? ROSCOs? The quality of the individuals in upper and top management positions? Someone should be doing the analysis.

Chiltern were good before DB took them over though, and then rolled them into Arriva. It's a MUCH simpler network as well, with mainly self contained services

 

[xotGD]

There's a major flaw in that plan though... it would be Porterbrook carrying the work out!

Besides - even having ridden on the 144e and been impressed with it, I see it being even less politically acceptable to soup up Pacers(which the government promised would be gone by 2020) than to persist with either of the major conversion projects quoted here.

The e-144 looks the part, but it has been fitted with seats that are much less comfortable than those in the rest of the fleet.

 

[EE Andy b1]

The e-144 looks the part, but it has been fitted with seats that are much less comfortable than those in the rest of the fleet.

Is that not the case now to fit uncomfortable seats.

Rail travel in general used to be the most pleasant way to travel, not much so now!!

 

[a_c_skinner]

Not cleared to run through the tunnel between Woldingham and Oxted!

Not cleared or won't fit and not capable of being cleared? The reply "not cleared" is often given with an air of finality.

 

[Chester1]

Pacers will not stay past the end of, it is political suicide and it no longer makes financial sense. Northern is short of DMUs but its more short of drivers. Pacers where meant to start going off lease from September but covering for the lateness of Preston-Manchester electrification and 769s. I would bet electrification will be done first which will instantly allow a large number of pacers to off lease (25-30?). The 769s will allow about 16 pacers to go off lease. The removal of the rest is covered by an internal cascades once new and cascaded stock arrives. Its possible the whole pacer fleet will go off lease in a short space of time next year but even if the 769 project is cancelled Northern can make do without them from 2020 until new or second hand stock arrives.