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

[Bantamzen]

Hmm spending a lot of time and money on a clapped out old train.

<s>
There are currently two projects to spend a lot of time and money on existing train conversion. One is on a clapped out old train which as a project is sure to fail, the other is on the D-Stock conversion which will see modern looking, super-duper shiny trains that can be rolled out to Northern, ATW et al and never, ever cause a problem, fall over, set itself on fire.... Apparently.....
</s>

 

[Rail Blues]

<s>
There are currently two projects to spend a lot of time and money on existing train conversion. One is on a clapped out old train which as a project is sure to fail, the other is on the D-Stock conversion which will see modern looking, super-duper shiny trains that can be rolled out to Northern, ATW et al and never, ever cause a problem, fall over, set itself on fire.... Apparently.....
</s>

Said nobody ever.

No one with a functioning brain thinks a class 230 is the answer to every rolling stock shortage, it does however exist and actually work, which is more than you can say for the 769s.

 

[Bantamzen]

Said nobody ever.

No one with a functioning brain thinks a class 230 is the answer to every rolling stock shortage, it does however exist and actually work, which is more than you can say for the 769s.

Well it was said in jest, at least in part. But let's be blunt here, the 230 project has been running considerably longer, and still hasn't delivered an actual proven concept (i.e. in revenue service), despite being overdue for quite some time. The handful that have so far been ordered (less than order book for 769s I believe) have been done on basis that the TOCs are hoping they will work as opposed to buying a product that will. 230001s opening appearances in testing quickly put paid to the original order, so if you don't mind I will wait to see if they do actually work in the real world stuffed to the gills with punters, not trundling about on test tracks or running branch lines empty.

And just for the record, I'm not keen on the 769 project either. Both the 230s & 769s are sticking plaster solutions that need to find problems to make themselves really viable. The 230s seem to have found a few vacancies on lines that could quite easy be left with the same or similar traction, and the 769s have come about only thanks to the failures of DfT, Network Rail & Grayling. Had things been managed properly they would be no more needed than the 230s.

Frankly with so many new orders on the books of multiple manufactures its simply daft to be mucking about the half-arsed solutions of either VivaRail or Porterbrook.

 

[mushroomchow]

Well it was said in jest, at least in part. But let's be blunt here, the 230 project has been running considerably longer, and still hasn't delivered an actual proven concept (i.e. in revenue service), despite being overdue for quite some time. The handful that have so far been ordered (less than order book for 769s I believe) have been done on basis that the TOCs are hoping they will work as opposed to buying a product that will. 230001s opening appearances in testing quickly put paid to the original order, so if you don't mind I will wait to see if they do actually work in the real world stuffed to the gills with punters, not trundling about on test tracks or running branch lines empty.

And just for the record, I'm not keen on the 769 project either. Both the 230s & 769s are sticking plaster solutions that need to find problems to make themselves really viable. The 230s seem to have found a few vacancies on lines that could quite easy be left with the same or similar traction, and the 769s have come about only thanks to the failures of DfT, Network Rail & Grayling. Had things been managed properly they would be no more needed than the 230s.

Frankly with so many new orders on the books of multiple manufactures its simply daft to be mucking about the half-arsed solutions of either VivaRail or Porterbrook.

I agree with most of what you've said, except the highlighted bit - because exactly the same can be said about the 769s, but with far more riding on it given the scale of the orders and, paradoxically considering the insanity of making a solid order for an unproven concept, the shorter timescale for delivery.

Simply put, there's way more riding on a 769 project failure than a 230 project failure, both for the company involved (an already flailing Porterbrook) and the TOCs (TfW, GWR, Northern, who all have very little wriggle room stockwise). And at the present moment in time, there's nothing that suggests that VivaRail won't have their stock orders out and ready to operate by the due date.

I still think they're mutually exclusive and shouldn't be compared vis-a-vis, but it's hard to when you've got two companies, one a massive ROSCO and one essentially a cottage industry start-up, trying to deliver a concept that it currently looks like the cottage industry is having more success with.

 

[D365]

... so if you don't mind I will wait to see if they do actually work in the real world stuffed to the gills with punters, not trundling about on test tracks or running branch lines empty.

You should see the endurance testing that 001 has been going through then...

The 230s seem to have found a few vacancies on lines that could quite easy be left with the same or similar traction...

So they're not an improvement on a Class 150 then?

Frankly with so many new orders on the books of multiple manufactures its simply daft to be mucking about the half-arsed solutions of either VivaRail or Porterbrook.

So WMT and Wales have got it wrong then, clearly.

 

[Bantamzen]

You should see the endurance testing that 001 has been going through then...

So they're not an improvement on a Class 150 then?

So WMT and Wales have got it wrong then, clearly.

I'm response:

1. Good for them, have they carried any fair paying passengers.
2. No, they are almost 40 year old trains tarted up. Mutton dressed as lamb as it were.
3. We will see, but if they have there will be plenty of other options.

 

[D365]

1. Good for them, have they carried any fair paying passengers.

2. No, they are almost 40 year old trains tarted up. Mutton dressed as lamb as it were.

3. We will see, but if they have there will be plenty of other options.

Planned entry to service for WMT is December 2018, approximately a year after the order was confirmed. Wales entry to service is eight to ten months or so from the order taking place. What other rolling stock suppliers are offering that kind of turnaround at present?

WMT and Wales presumably had the choice of additional CAF diesels, at what would be a reasonable price. Clearly there must be reason to why they settled on giving Vivarail a go.

 

[superkev]

I've lost track. Has a 769 actually turned a wheel on test yet?
Thanks
K

 

[Prestige15]

https://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/northern-flex-bi-mode-debut-getting-closer/
Here is the article, just says they are getting close.

Looks awfully like a turbostar exhaust

 

[47802]

Planned entry to service for WMT is December 2018, approximately a year after the order was confirmed. Wales entry to service is eight to ten months or so from the order taking place. What other rolling stock suppliers are offering that kind of turnaround at present?

WMT and Wales presumably had the choice of additional CAF diesels, at what would be a reasonable price. Clearly there must be reason to why they settled on giving Vivarail a go.

Well clearly the possibility of getting them in service before the PRM deadline had some influence for Wales, similarly for Northern with the 769's. However since then we have had the fully expanded timetable only partially implemented in May 18, and then the timetable shambles which now looks as though the fully expanded timetable will not be implemented until at least May 19 possibly even Dec 19, so they can probably do without the 769's until then, and given the damage the timetable shambles and continuing strikes must be doing to passenger numbers one wonders if they will actually need them at all.

 

[Bantamzen]

Planned entry to service for WMT is December 2018, approximately a year after the order was confirmed. Wales entry to service is eight to ten months or so from the order taking place. What other rolling stock suppliers are offering that kind of turnaround at present?

WMT and Wales presumably had the choice of additional CAF diesels, at what would be a reasonable price. Clearly there must be reason to why they settled on giving Vivarail a go.

It was announced in July 2016 that it was announced that 230001 was to go into a 12 month trial with LM on the Coventry-Nuneaton line. It's now July 2018 and still not a single unit has arrived at any operator for testing and driver training, let alone entered into revenue earning service. And remember the D-stock project started in late 2014, with the units being with Vivarail at the beginning of 2015. So it will be nearly 4 years from the start of engineering to possible revenue service, whereas Northern and TPE for example will have brand new, built from scratch stock very possibly available within 2.5 years or less from the start of engineering. So I'd say that is a far better turnaround for a far better product.

I don't care what spin is put on the 230 or 769s, they are old trains tarted up and retractioned when what should have been ordered were new trains from reliable manufacturers.

 

[D365]

It was announced in July 2016 that it was announced that 230001 was to go into a 12 month trial with LM on the Coventry-Nuneaton line. It's now July 2018 and still not a single unit has arrived at any operator for testing and driver training, let alone entered into revenue earning service.

001 isn’t going to WMT. Units haven’t arrived because they’re not due to be delivered yet.

... whereas Northern and TPE for example will have brand new, built from scratch stock very possibly available within 2.5 years or less from the start of engineering. So I'd say that is a far better turnaround for a far better product.

Implying that Northern and TPE ordered rolling stock from CAF that hadn’t yet been designed?

I don't care what spin is put on the 230 or 769s, they are old trains tarted up and retractioned when what should have been ordered were new trains from reliable manufacturers.

Take that up with the TOCs then.

 

[Bantamzen]

001 isn’t going to WMT. Units haven’t arrived because they’re not due to be delivered yet.

WMT didn't sign up for the 12 month trial, LM did & promptly cancelled it when 230001 tried to set fire to itself.

Implying that Northern and TPE ordered rolling stock from CAF that hadn’t yet been designed?

No, saying that in nearly half the time it has taken VR to sling some alternative traction underneath the D-Stock, CAF have been able to build a new design from scratch, and get them in full testing with deliveries starting.

Take that up with the TOCs then.

I have a feeling I won't need too, the local travelling public scheduled to be lumbered, erm sorry to be using the 230s will have plenty of opportunity themselves as well as the media, local politicians etc.

The only reason that the operators are even taking a punt with 230s & 769s, and it is still a punt with plenty of associated risk, is due to a rapidly worsening situation with cancelled & late running engineering projects, cascades & a minister determined to find the absolute cheapest option, even if that actually might end up costing more (a Civil Service wide issue recently heighted in the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report on public sector outsourcing).

I'm pretty certain that had these factors not been an issue, both projects would never have got the little traction (pun intended) that they have. Remember the 230s were originally talked about as being a Pacer replacement, which they are now not, and the 769s only came about because Grayling fell in love with bi-modes instead of sorting out the electrification issues.

 

[D365]

WMT didn't sign up for the 12 month trial, LM did & promptly cancelled it when 230001 tried to set fire to itself.

Fires didn’t stop SWR taking back the Class 442s.

No, saying that in nearly half the time it has taken VR to sling some alternative traction underneath the D-Stock, CAF have been able to build a new design from scratch, and get them in full testing with deliveries starting.

Vivarail has access to rolling stock that it purchased at a good price and can store cheaply. Why shouldn’t it be doing very thorough testing?

The only reason we hear more about their design process is because they are starting with the existing D Stock bodyshells.

Also, CAF really needed the work, so they offered fast and cheap. Vivarail are preparing to hand over the first units. If you ignore the WMT contract being done later, roughly the same entry to service.

I have a feeling I won't need too, the local travelling public scheduled to be lumbered, erm sorry to be using the 230s will have plenty of opportunity themselves as well as the media, local politicians etc.

I’ve talked to individuals associated with the local users’ groups, it doesn’t appear that all share the same opinion.

There’s been plenty opportunity already, why hasn’t it happened?

 

[Bantamzen]

Fires didn’t stop SWR taking back the Class 442s.

It did stop the LM trial though....

Vivarail has access to rolling stock that it purchased at a good price and can store cheaply. Why shouldn’t it be doing very thorough testing?

The only reason we hear more about their design process is because they are starting with the existing D Stock bodyshells.

Also, CAF really needed the work, so they offered fast and cheap. Vivarail are preparing to hand over the first units. If you ignore the WMT contract being done later, roughly the same entry to service.

Were the 195/331s body shells sitting around waiting for a traction solution? Yes, Arriva got a good deal because CAF needed the work. That's good business, get a better product for a reduced price. Reading through the 230 thread, the 230s seemed to start out being mooted as being a third of the cost of a new unit & has been climbing up ever since, even for the basic LU interior layout. VR at some point have to recoup the cost of the engineering, testing etc. The same will be the same at Porterbrook, and as neither is a particularly remarkable product, delays, spiralling costs will make these become less attractive. A handful of orders for both products happened as I say only because of the circumstances that prevailed. Had some electrification projects not stalled, and cascades worked out better I'm pretty certain none of these orders would have been placed.

I’ve talked to individuals associated with the local users’ groups, it doesn’t appear that all share the same opinion.

There’s been plenty opportunity already, why hasn’t it happened?

just waiting until they are out there, especially when Northern, TPE et al start to roll out shiny new stock whilst they are staring at a rather obviously old ex-LU subsurface unit trundling towards them. Never underestimate the "Why have they got..." factor.....

 

[a_c_skinner]

when what should have been ordered were new trains from reliable manufacturers.

As it turns out yes, but it is easy to see that in hindsight. These two projects seemed to offer cheaper trains than we could source otherwise (so presumably more trains than we would afford otherwise) and quicker. Perhaps cheaper trains with a short shelf life leading on to a longer term solution as makers have capacity. They certainly haven't been quick; I'm not sure of the costs and capacity planning is patently beyond us. As it is all we can do is see what happens now.

Bimodes seem to be a good solution to exploit electrification where part of the route is a long time/never electrification project. Where they are a bad idea it is when they are being used as reasons to delay or cancel - like they are on the GWML and MML.

 

[Bantamzen]

As it turns out yes, but it is easy to see that in hindsight. These two projects seemed to offer cheaper trains than we could source otherwise (so presumably more trains than we would afford otherwise) and quicker. Perhaps cheaper trains with a short shelf life leading on to a longer term solution as makers have capacity. They certainly haven't been quick; I'm not sure of the costs and capacity planning is patently beyond us. As it is all we can do is see what happens now.

Bimodes seem to be a good solution to exploit electrification where part of the route is a long time/never electrification project. Where they are a bad idea it is when they are being used as reasons to delay or cancel - like they are on the GWML and MML.

I'm not totally sure hindsight was needed in this case. As soon as it was clear that Northern & TPE were going for large orders of new vehicles, there should have been consultation with other TOCs about any future requirements to see if bolt-on orders might be a better option than opting for what are at best niche projects. This might have actually helped further reduce overall cost to the ROSCOs, DfT, TOCs etc further and would have left the network with an increased stock of new and compatible vehicles with a full shelf life rather than dribs & drabs of short term, concept units.

Sadly there is not this level of joined-up thinking at least on the public sector side of things.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only reason that the operators are even taking a punt with 230s & 769s, and it is still a punt with plenty of associated risk, is due to a rapidly worsening situation with cancelled & late running engineering projects, cascades & a minister determined to find the absolute cheapest option, even if that actually might end up costing more (a Civil Service wide issue recently heighted in the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report on public sector outsourcing).

Not in LNR/WMT's case. The reason they were taking a punt with 230s was that they needed 3 x 2-car sub-20m-vehicle DMUs. There isn't one on the new-build market at all, and they need them for about 10 years, after which work for EWR is likely to change the market (and if EWR fails, a new order, platform lengthening[1] etc could be considered then).

So far as I can see their sensible options were:-
- Class 230
- e-Pacer
- Class 150

There is a big shortage of the latter (they could I suppose have paid Northern to order 3 extra 195s and release 3 150s, but why pay new-build prices for old junk?), and out of the former two I think they chose the preferable option from a passenger's perspective - bogied is always going to be better, and the publicity from using Pacers would have been awful.

They I suppose *could* have instigated a Class 150 re-engining project, but that would have been even more "from scratch" than the other two options and would still have the issue of where to get the Class 150s from.

The only other outlier which might have been viable would be a 2-car Stadler FLIRT, but with platform length wasted on the engine module that would have been barely better than a Class 153, which would be inadequate at the present hourly frequency for a few peak trains e.g. the school train.

[1] This is not a simple project, hence why the option of "2 or 3 more 195s and a platform extension project" wasn't chosen. The platforms might need to be *moved* in some cases (as Lidlington was) because the position of the level crossings in some cases would leave the crossing closed while a train called at the station which would be seen as unacceptable.

 

[Bantamzen]

Not in LNR/WMT's case. The reason they were taking a punt with 230s was that they needed 3 x 2-car sub-20m-vehicle DMUs. There isn't one on the new-build market at all, and they need them for about 10 years, after which work for EWR is likely to change the market (and if EWR fails, a new order, platform lengthening[1] etc could be considered then).

So far as I can see their sensible options were:-
- Class 230
- e-Pacer
- Class 150

There is a big shortage of the latter (they could I suppose have paid Northern to order 3 extra 195s and release 3 150s, but why pay new-build prices for old junk?), and out of the former two I think they chose the preferable option from a passenger's perspective - bogied is always going to be better, and the publicity from using Pacers would have been awful.

They I suppose *could* have instigated a Class 150 re-engining project, but that would have been even more "from scratch" than the other two options and would still have the issue of where to get the Class 150s from.

The only other outlier which might have been viable would be a 2-car Stadler FLIRT, but with platform length wasted on the engine module that would have been barely better than a Class 153, which would be inadequate at the present hourly frequency for a few peak trains e.g. the school train.

[1] This is not a simple project, hence why the option of "2 or 3 more 195s and a platform extension project" wasn't chosen. The platforms might need to be *moved* in some cases (as Lidlington was) because the position of the level crossings in some cases would leave the crossing closed while a train called at the station which would be seen as unacceptable.

OK, so in this case the infrastructure limited the options to some existing rolling stock. I agree that Pacers would have gone down like a lead balloon, & from a ride perspective I imagine the 230s would be better than them. But had DfT allowed Northern to procure extra 195s to allow further 150 release (and it doesn't necessarily have to be them, any TOC with 150s planned after new builds could have been asked) meaning that WMT would get the extra capacity needed, and should one or more develop issues they could easily look to short term leases of other units from other TOCs of the same class without the need for driver training, grade clearance etc.

The risk that I mentioned with the 230s (and indeed the 769s) is if they don't perform to expectations, or if they prove to be unreliable WMT may be left with little option than to cancel services, potentially until issues are resolved which in some cases could be some time.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. I don't want to stray too much further off topic and annoy the mods, but I'm just not keen on the idea of routes being dependant on concept vehicles that are relatively unproven, be they 230s or 769s. At least with established manufacturers you have a fair chance of getting units that will work out of the box, and other areas not receiving new vehicles can get tried & tested vehicles.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Isn't the top and bottom of it that the whole of the rolling stock fleet is a mess? Franchising commits us to boom and bust purchasing, that means shopping around for people who can deliver (broadly) on time, that means lots of modestly sized fleets that are incompatible and only cleared for specific routes. So (back on topic very skilfully) it isn't surprising that Flex will at best be one course of a dog's dinner.

 

[mushroomchow]

I've lost track. Has a 769 actually turned a wheel on test yet?
Thanks
K

Seems this one got missed in the mire. I'll field that one if you like, Kev.

Nope.

 

[IanXC]

Much as there are related topics, can we try a little harder to stay on topic everyone!

 

[mde]

As linked elsewhere, there's a story running on Walesonline today regarding Arriva Trains Wales short formations, which contains a quote from Porterbrook re the 769s… given the vague response is it perhaps fair to say they are feeling a little burnt over giving indicative dates in the past which have been missed?

A year ago, the Welsh Government announced that five four-coach “Flex” trains – converted from electric trains no longer needed in London – would be added to ATW’s fleet in 2018, to increase capacity and to cover for trains taken out of service for the modifications.

The trains were expected in Wales by June, but there is still no sign of them. A spokesman for Porterbrook, the trains’ owner, said yesterday: “The first completed Flex train is shortly to be tested in self-powered mode at a UK test facility.

“Porterbrook has invested £8m in the Flex programme and whilst there have been some disappointing delays to the delivery programme, we are working hard with our supplier to keep these to an absolute minimum.

“We are discussing revised delivery dates with our customers but we are not in a position to make these public yet, due to reasons of commercial confidentiality.”

 

[The_Engineer]

As linked elsewhere, there's a story running on Walesonline today regarding Arriva Trains Wales short formations, which contains a quote from Porterbrook re the 769s… given the vague response is it perhaps fair to say they are feeling a little burnt over giving indicative dates in the past which have been missed?

And so they should be embarrassed!! I doubt there's any commercial agreement to keep the delivery dates confidential. It's a case of too embarrassed to make them public in case they miss again......

 

[mushroomchow]

“We are discussing revised delivery dates with our customers but we are not in a position to make these public yet, due to reasons of commercial confidentiality.”

That's the strongest proof yet that these things aren't going to be in service on time.

When they say they won't disclose those dates for "commercial confidentiality", that means that if they were honest it would hit the share prices of the TOCs who have been stung by their lack of ability to deliver on time.

 

[DimTim]

You would have thought with all the news this week - World Cup, Thailand, Brexit, Trump there would have been the chance to sneak one out of Loughborough without anyone noticing!

 

[PHILIPE]

As linked elsewhere, there's a story running on Walesonline today regarding Arriva Trains Wales short formations, which contains a quote from Porterbrook re the 769s… given the vague response is it perhaps fair to say they are feeling a little burnt over giving indicative dates in the past which have been missed?

Already posted here in a wider context:-

/www.railforums.co.uk/threads/atw-keolis-amey-wales-prm-fleet-updates.166304

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You would have thought with all the news this week - World Cup, Thailand, Brexit, Trump there would have been the chance to sneak one out of Loughborough without anyone noticing!

Given that it was the birthplace of the phrase "burying bad news", one can understand if the railway industry is reluctant to use that tactic!

 

[mde]

Already posted here in a wider context:-

/www.railforums.co.uk/threads/atw-keolis-amey-wales-prm-fleet-updates.166304

That's where it was sourced from, but, it did seem pertinent to the 769 thread as quotes from Porterbrook are almost as rare as wheel turns on these units.

 

[AndrewE]

Isn't the top and bottom of it that the whole of the rolling stock fleet is a mess? Franchising commits us to boom and bust purchasing...

No! You don't understand, franchising is wonderful and (more importantly) a way of fragmenting the industry so that we ensure there is never a single body for whose performance the the govt. can be held to account. It also ensures the maximum rake-off for hundreds of parasitic "private sector" companies.