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

[js1000]

There seems to be a culture of inventing false jeopardy here by those whose frustration with the lack of information is getting the better of them.

In fairness it has been over 2 years since the project commenced.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Rail 873 is reporting ROG is contracted to do testing, Allerton to Lime St, Warrington, Crewe and "several trips to Carnforth". No dates. Two more sets to GCR for testing and four more at Brush being converted. Perhaps I was being too pessimistic.

 

[Bertie the bus]

You weren't being too pessimistic. ROG were supposed to start testing them 4 months ago. It is blatantly obvious they are having continuing problems. Some people won't accept that but that is the nature of rail enthusiasm.

 

[43096]

You weren't being too pessimistic. ROG were supposed to start testing them 4 months ago. It is blatantly obvious they are having continuing problems. Some people won't accept that but that is the nature of rail enthusiasm.

And some expect to get regular project updates in the public domain and then make stuff up or jump to conclusions when it doesn’t happen. That is the nature of rail enthusiasm.

 

[Killingworth]

You weren't being too pessimistic. ROG were supposed to start testing them 4 months ago. It is blatantly obvious they are having continuing problems. Some people won't accept that but that is the nature of rail enthusiasm.

Northern are certainly having problems, but the number of 769s so far available must make them a low priority for crew training when so many other units need to be introduced into service. Until more 769s have been delivered it makes sense to complete as much training as possible for units they can safely introduce from May.

None of the above rules out potential performance issues with 769s. Until proved otherwise there will be suspicions that they may breakdown in unexpected ways, and service performance won't be good enough to maintain the current timetables. Time will tell.

 

[Bertie the bus]

ROG performing mainline testing has nothing to do with Northern. Northern shouldn't be accepting or training on them until they have been tested so whether Northern are having problems or have bigger fish to fry is of little importance.

 

[AM9]

JN114 referenced part of the reason earlier - legacy infrastructure assets fitted on the ECML for which there is no Network Rail standard that specifies the EMC requirements. Although I think a similar issue occurred 20 years ago on the WCML when Pendolinos were introduced that was resolved with mods to the infrastructure only, not to both the infrastructure and the rolling stock (note that the WCML mods were not then pre-emptively applied to other similar installations, such as those on the ECML). Either way, 25kV EMUs with fancy modern traction systems that are completely different to those on legacy trains are generally the main culprits for causing new and exciting EMC issues. Adding a gen set to a legacy EMU is nowhere near the same level of complexity, and definitely does not need to be route proved to demonstrate EM compatibility.

Nevertheless, new EMU (and loco) designs are specified to meet current EMC specifications (mainly emissions) and it is encumbent on manufacturers to demonstrate their compliance, usually by a combination of physical testing and risk assessments on the design. The infrastructure is also required to meet EMC immunity specification which together with the rolling stock's specification are tied to operate with worst case performance of the two parts. The problem is that existing infrastructure is often failing to meet it's specifications (some of which either didn't exist 30 years ago), or it has not been maintained to full EMC operational standards. It is because realtively low-tech legacy rolling stock (e.g. transformer/rectifier/contactors/resistors/DC induction motors) runs without problems, the modern trains are blamed for failures, particularly of track circuits and signalling. Ideally, the infrastructure should be re-specified and made compliant ready for new stock.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The thing about this for me is the dissonance between a project which is plainly not going completely to plan and the fact that a number of companies which have fairly urgent needs for rolling stock are still (well recently) ordering these vehicles. I cannot weigh that up. We don't know what is going on. I've lost my crayons, broken my Thermos, the string on my duffle bag is worn out but us enthusiasts accept we don't know what is happening BUT surely the possible purchasers know? Are told?

 

[JN114]

The train operators are kept well appraised of the project progress.

All substantive updates I’ve received in my line of work have been marked as confidential; and treated as thus.

I appreciate the frustration at the apparent lack of news of progress. I will reiterate again that no news doesn’t mean there are technical issues with the project. I cannot offer further comment than that but I urge you to take my word on the matter and drop this continuous false jeapordy.

As with the rest of the project; the various partners involved will make announcements when they want to.

 

[hwl]

Northern are certainly having problems, but the number of 769s so far available must make them a low priority for crew training when so many other units need to be introduced into service. Until more 769s have been delivered it makes sense to complete as much training as possible for units they can safely introduce from May.

None of the above rules out potential performance issues with 769s. Until proved otherwise there will be suspicions that they may breakdown in unexpected ways, and service performance won't be good enough to maintain the current timetables. Time will tell.

Exactly there is more productive crew training gaps for Northern to worry about currently. It doesn't really make sense to try introduce units before 6-8 are available to enable a limited introduction and training to take place a sensible rate.
Hence Northern would be better focusing on 195/331/170 training for "new" stock as well as internal cascades.
More 319 trained drivers should be good starting point for quicker 769 introduction when the time comes.

 

[Sleeperwaking]

Nevertheless, new EMU (and loco) designs are specified to meet current EMC specifications (mainly emissions) and it is encumbent on manufacturers to demonstrate their compliance, usually by a combination of physical testing and risk assessments on the design. The infrastructure is also required to meet EMC immunity specification which together with the rolling stock's specification are tied to operate with worst case performance of the two parts. The problem is that existing infrastructure is often failing to meet it's specifications (some of which either didn't exist 30 years ago), or it has not been maintained to full EMC operational standards. It is because realtively low-tech legacy rolling stock (e.g. transformer/rectifier/contactors/resistors/DC induction motors) runs without problems, the modern trains are blamed for failures, particularly of track circuits and signalling. Ideally, the infrastructure should be re-specified and made compliant ready for new stock.

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world - the compatibility process places the onus on the proposer of change to demonstrate compatibility, not the existing system. So Network Rail has no reason / motivation to undertake a wholesale upgrade of its assets to comply with the latest EMC requirements. Instead, new (or in this case modified) rolling stock has to ensure that it will not interfere with the assets in their current state. The requirement for infrastructure to meet EMC immunity specifications only applies to new / upgraded assets, I assume starting from mid-2007 when the EMC Directive came into force.

 

[AM9]

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world - the compatibility process places the onus on the proposer of change to demonstrate compatibility, not the existing system. So Network Rail has no reason / motivation to undertake a wholesale upgrade of its assets to comply with the latest EMC requirements. Instead, new (or in this case modified) rolling stock has to ensure that it will not interfere with the assets in their current state. The requirement for infrastructure to meet EMC immunity specifications only applies to new / upgraded assets, I assume starting from mid-2007 when the EMC Directive came into force.

But the proposer is whoever is proposing to run a new service. Accordingly, they specify the environment in which the (train in this case) is required to run. Therefore the provider designs/manufactures and tests the product against that requirement. If the requirement is proven to be inadequate, that's the specifier's problem and they must either pay the new equipment supplier to modify their product or ensure that the envirnment conforms to that which the new product specification was written to be compatible with. If the infrastructure owner doesn't know the specification of the lines that they are responsible, then they aren't in a position to demand that the supplier makes the equipment operate over and above the contracted specification at its own expense. It's no wonder that most procurement of rolling stock in the UK is time consuming and chaotic when the customer doesn't know what they want, even after it is delivered to contract.

 

[modernrail]

Whilst the isn't it, is it conjecture is all very lovely and all that, I think the travelling public might deserve a little update across the board. Franchise commitments have been made and have slipped. Fine, that happens. Let's have a clear statement of intent as to the new plan. This ridiculous pretence that everybody needs to keep their information private is utterly tiring. It is essentially a publicly funded railway. Get out of your silos and describe in an easy to understand way what is going in with this and other rolling stock introductions.

 

[37201xoIM]

Whilst the isn't it, is it conjecture is all very lovely and all that, I think the travelling public might deserve a little update across the board. Franchise commitments have been made and have slipped. Fine, that happens. Let's have a clear statement of intent as to the new plan. This ridiculous pretence that everybody needs to keep their information private is utterly tiring. It is essentially a publicly funded railway. Get out of your silos and describe in an easy to understand way what is going in with this and other rolling stock introductions.

Well said: specifiers and funders are not necessarily any better informed than cranks on this forum. In fact that is undoubtedly the reason why some of us, ahem, I mean them, are on this forum: to try to get some sort of idea what's going on...

While some things do need to be kept out of the public domain sometimes for a variety of reasons, the all-pervading culture of secrecy in our industry, which is essentially a contracted-out public service, is toxic and not even particularly helpful in trying to deal with the issues we face, let alone dealing with our stakeholders and political decision-makers.

 

[anamyd]

information on 319s being sent for conversion to 769s in the Thameslink 319s into Storage thread.

 

[Jonny]

information on 319s being sent for conversion to 769s in the Thameslink 319s into Storage thread.

Such as here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/thameslink-class-319s-into-storage.141248/page-33

 

[anamyd]

Such as here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/thameslink-class-319s-into-storage.141248/page-33

That is the thread I was referring to, yes. Thanks for linking it here.

 

[palmersears]

769424 seen outside the shed at Allerton for the first time since its arrival today. Couple of orange jackets pointing at things again, but nobody on it.

769431 has disappeared, has it moved elsewhere?

 

[Liverpool 507]

769431 is in the shed.

 

[LeylandLen]

Well said: specifiers and funders are not necessarily any better informed than cranks on this forum. In fact that is undoubtedly the reason why some of us, ahem, I mean them, are on this forum: to try to get some sort of idea what's going on...

While some things do need to be kept out of the public domain sometimes for a variety of reasons, the all-pervading culture of secrecy in our industry, which is essentially a contracted-out public service, is toxic and not even particularly helpful in trying to deal with the issues we face, let alone dealing with our stakeholders and political decision-makers.

In my opinion ( retired male 65+) the industry must be more open, lest secretive, and honest with the public especially in these days of social media if its going to attract young people/school leavers to work 'on the railway ' . You cant blame any young people not wanting to work for TOCs when they see and hear about the abuse the loyal workers get when dealing with Joe Public after the well documented mess regarding timetables over the last year or so .

 

[Bantamzen]

Well said: specifiers and funders are not necessarily any better informed than cranks on this forum. In fact that is undoubtedly the reason why some of us, ahem, I mean them, are on this forum: to try to get some sort of idea what's going on...

While some things do need to be kept out of the public domain sometimes for a variety of reasons, the all-pervading culture of secrecy in our industry, which is essentially a contracted-out public service, is toxic and not even particularly helpful in trying to deal with the issues we face, let alone dealing with our stakeholders and political decision-makers.

If its transparency you're after, anything to do with the public sector is the last place to look, believe me!

However when it comes to the 769s, how much transparency does the public actually need? News of 30 year electric hand-me-downs with diesel engines slung underneath them is not going to go down well in the current climate. Realistically the only people needing the information apart from the operators are enthusiasts, and the latter doesn't really need to know.

In my opinion ( retired male 65+) the industry must be more open, lest secretive, and honest with the public especially in these days of social media if its going to attract young people/school leavers to work 'on the railway ' . You cant blame any young people not wanting to work for TOCs when they see and hear about the abuse the loyal workers get when dealing with Joe Public after the well documented mess regarding timetables over the last year or so .

Social media negativity is not confined to just the rail industry, it is rife across the internet regardless as to how much or how little information people get on a subject. If young people were restricting themselves to careers only seen in a positive light, they would soon be pricing themselves out of the jobs market altogether.

Social media, and indeed the internet as a whole has broadened our information expectations. However that doesn't necessarily mean that we actually need what we'd like. Sure, we all would like to know when new or cascaded stock might come into service, but if and when these are delayed we don't necessarily need to know why.

 

[Bertie the bus]

However when it comes to the 769s, how much transparency does the public actually need? News of 30 year electric hand-me-downs with diesel engines slung underneath them is not going to go down well in the current climate. Realistically the only people needing the information apart from the operators are enthusiasts, and the latter doesn't really need to know.

This gets incredibly tedious but I’ll go over it again. It has nothing to do with enthusiasts. Northern promised a load of stuff when the franchise started. They have so far delivered very little of it. The 769s are part of the plan to increase capacity and introduce additional services. If these are going to be delayed again then the railway’s customers deserve an explanation and a realistic estimate of when they might see improvements.

 

[reddragon]

RAIL mag states

GWR = 319.422-23,25,27-28,30,32,35-40,42,45,47,49,52,59
TfW = 319.002-3,6-8 + 426

 

[modernrail]

If its transparency you're after, anything to do with the public sector is the last place to look, believe me!

However when it comes to the 769s, how much transparency does the public actually need? News of 30 year electric hand-me-downs with diesel engines slung underneath them is not going to go down well in the current climate. Realistically the only people needing the information apart from the operators are enthusiasts, and the latter doesn't really need to know.



Social media negativity is not confined to just the rail industry, it is rife across the internet regardless as to how much or how little information people get on a subject. If young people were restricting themselves to careers only seen in a positive light, they would soon be pricing themselves out of the jobs market altogether.

Social media, and indeed the internet as a whole has broadened our information expectations. However that doesn't necessarily mean that we actually need what we'd like. Sure, we all would like to know when new or cascaded stock might come into service, but if and when these are delayed we don't necessarily need to know why.

I pay thousands of pounds a year in fares and thousands more in tax that funds Network Rail. When I suffer from repeated short formed trains, cancelled trains, timetable screw ups and general incompetence a little explanation as to what is going on and why is the absolute minimum required. If anybody seriously thinks that is not the case they need to see a doctor.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I pay thousands of pounds a year in fares and thousands more in tax that funds Network Rail.

That sounds you are a major financial contributor specific to Network Rail with your personal wealth....

 

[modernrail]

That sounds you are a major financial contributor specific to Network Rail with your personal wealth....

Where exactly do you think the money comes from? (Rolls eyes more). As it happens I did my quarterly expenses yesterday....£4200 on train tickets for me and my 2 colleagues in the last 2 months. That is net of any contribution we have made to NR expenses through the payment of income tax, VAT and corporation tax.

Everybody who steps on a train with a ticket or pays tax contributes to the cost if the railways and the salaries of every single person who works on or for the railways and that results in an obligation to keep all passengers and all tax payers properly informed when contractual commitments are missed. Those contractual commitments include the service for which you have a ticket, which is a contract, and the franchise commitments, which are contracts. There is also the notion, now pretty much dead on the railways, of a general public service ethos. This means keeping passengers properly informed because that it what you do if operate with the ethos that you are running a public service and you believe in treating the public with respect and transparency in yiur dealings with them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where exactly do you think the money comes from? (Rolls eyes more). As it happens I did my quarterly expenses yesterday....£4200 on train tickets for me and my 2 colleagues in the last few months.

You can roll your eyes as much as you want, but the £4200 figure that you state would be paid to your TOC, not to Network Rail. So again to inform us mere mortals on this thread, exactly how much is your own annual personal financial contribution made to Network Rail expressed as a percentage figure of the total Network Rail annual funding?

 

[modernrail]

You can roll your eyes as much as you want, but the £4200 figure that you state would be paid to your TOC, not to Network Rail. So again
, how much is your own annual personal financial contribution made to Network Rail expressed as a percentage figure of the total National Rail annual funding?

...and the TOC pays track access charges.

The premise of your question is that passengers do not deserve to be kept informed because their individual contributions do not constitute a sufficiently high percentage of overall NR costs. It is an interesting position, but clearly nonsense.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

...and the TOC pays track access charges.

The premise of your question is that passengers do not deserve to be kept informed because their individual contribution do not constitute a sufficiently high percentage of overall NR costs. It is an interesting position, but clearly nonsense.

Looking at it from another financial angle, of the £4200 paid to your TOC by you and your colleagues, how much of that was then paid by the TOC to Network Rail in track access charges?

Perhaps an on-topic return to the matter shown as the title of this thread is needed

 

[modernrail]

Looking at it from another financial angle, of the £4200 paid to your TOC by you and your colleagues, how much of that was then paid by the TOC to Network Rail in track access charges?

Trying to stay within the Queen's tramlines for courtesy in disagreements...what on earth is your point? To be absolutely clear in case you totally misjudged my initial point, train travel is expensive. It takes up quite a lot of your monthly disposable income as an individual if you use trains a lot (which I do) and it is the same for a company.

The question is quite simple, do you believe fare paying passengers and taxpayers have a right to be informed as to why there is late delivery of advertised promises or not?