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

[keith1879]

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?

I don't see how there can be any sensible argument with this statement or a sensible negative answer to this question.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

Of all the improvements specified on Northern's franchise, the 769s were quite a way down the list. Most of the improvements were centered around the new stock, which is currently being built and tested. These units were a possible solution because of project delays way beyond the control of Northern. And until the concept can be shown as operationally viable Northern, quite rightly are not creating too much publicity around them.

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.

Ah, the "I pay my taxes" argument. In that case I expect you want explaining for every delay or overspend for every project fully or partially funded by the public? And of course you'll expect every single taxpayer to be kept constantly up to date? If course you wouldn't! Personally I would be much happier if the parties concerned focused on getting all these units out, rather than appeasing a few angry taxpayers with explainations for every project that doesn't go exactly to plan.

 

[a_c_skinner]

you want explaining for every delay or overspend for every project fully or partially funded by the public?

Yes. Public money means politicians spending it and we, the electorate, should be able to hold them to account at the ballot box. We should know.

 

[Killingworth]

Yes. Public money means politicians spending it and we, the electorate, should be able to hold them to account at the ballot box. We should know.

All of which adds another layer of unproductive expense and delays to any project as scrutiny committees meet and circulate minutes and resolutions. I know we all think we know better than those doing the jobs - we probably do. Unfortunately we all differ on the bits we think should be done better. At some point decisions have to be made. Who decides where, when, what, and when it all needs reviewing again?

There's a lot to be said for a one man business.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I assumed it was a one man business judging by the progress!

I'm afraid there is need for the disposal of public money to be scrutinised. Were it scrutinised properly we may find projects being run better. For the 769 this might not have delivered it more quickly, but it might have produced more realistic time estimates.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Ah, the "I pay my taxes" argument. In that case I expect you want explaining for every delay or overspend for every project fully or partially funded by the public? And of course you'll expect every single taxpayer to be kept constantly up to date? If course you wouldn't! Personally I would be much happier if the parties concerned focused on getting all these units out, rather than appeasing a few angry taxpayers with explainations for every project that doesn't go exactly to plan.

It is truly unbelievable there are people who think it is acceptable for companies to promise a certain level of service, not provide it and then not give any explanation whatsoever to their customers.

But then we are talking about trains and the railway and nothing is more important than them.

As for the people concerned focusing on getting the units out - how many people do you think it takes to produce a 2 paragraph release on a website?

 

[Bantamzen]

I assumed it was a one man business judging by the progress!

I'm afraid there is need for the disposal of public money to be scrutinised. Were it scrutinised properly we may find projects being run better. For the 769 this might not have delivered it more quickly, but it might have produced more realistic time estimates.

Two questions, one how do you know the scrutiny doesn't take place, and two what makes you any better positioned to do so?

It is truly unbelievable there are people who think it is acceptable for companies to promise a certain level of service, not provide it and then not give any explanation whatsoever to their customers.

But then we are talking about trains and the railway and nothing is more important than them.

As for the people concerned focusing on getting the units out - how many people do you think it takes to produce a 2 paragraph release on a website?

OK, so what would this two paragraph release say?

 

[driver_m]

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?

What??????


Are you trying to play Paul at his own game of fruity English? He will beat you hands down!!!

I get your point and I also get Paul's... But the leasing company and the TOCs are certainly not going to open up massively over what's going on with whatever difficulties they're having, based on their previous record.
Yes it's frustrating to see what's going on, especially with Vivarail being far more open in comparison, but there's a lot of competition out there for alternate propulsion traction tech. It'll all come out eventually, just have patience.

 

[Elecman]

And to state the obvious both the Leasing Company that own the units and the company doing the modifications to said units are Private companies and not supported by the taxpayer for any units that haven’t been delivered.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The class 769 bi-mode project is a complicated one, and it probably isn't the usual procurement contract between TOC and manufacturer.
The DfT were heavily involved in sponsoring the development with Porterbrook, and are quite possibly funding it as part of the electrification cancellation fallout.
Re-engineering a 30-year-old design can't be easy, and there will be many defensive clauses in the contract.
Northern are only under pressure if they are short of rolling stock to meet franchise commitments.
If (say) they keep some of TPE's 185s to substitute for the 769s then that's all they need do for the moment.
I'd expect the DfT/TfN to be monitoring the situation closely on behalf of passengers.
Northern may say a bit more when they confirm their May timetable.

 

[Clarence Yard]

And to state the obvious both the Leasing Company that own the units and the company doing the modifications to said units are Private companies and not supported by the taxpayer for any units that haven’t been delivered.

Unless, of course, the DfT are funding the capex for the modifications.

The DfT are at Loughborough tomorrow to view progress.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Two questions, one how do you know the scrutiny doesn't take place, and two what makes you any better positioned to do so?

1. It may have but it needs to be available to the electorate, who are paying. If it is entirely private only shareholders need know of course.
2. I wouldn't be but I have a vote and I am entitled to the information prior to casting my ballot.

That is how democracy works, if it is working properly.

 

[Bantamzen]

1. It may have but it needs to be available to the electorate, who are paying. If it is entirely private only shareholders need know of course.
2. I wouldn't be but I have a vote and I am entitled to the information prior to casting my ballot.

That is how democracy works, if it is working properly.

Public sector middle managers would love the idea I'm sure, but what you expect is totally impractical I'm afraid. Democracy is not about having every fine detail, if it were it would break down completely.

 

[Geoff DC]

Any chance of a discussion about the trains?

Maybe a separate thread for conspiracy theorists?

 

[Mathew S]

Public sector middle managers would love the idea I'm sure, but what you expect is totally impractical I'm afraid. Democracy is not about having every fine detail, if it were it would break down completely.

Not to mention that this isn't a public sector project. All the organisations involved (Northern, Porterbrook, engineering contractors, engine manufacturers, etc.) are private companies. That the project has received government funding does not give the public a right to know, as far as UK law is concerned, anything about it at all. Whether that is the right way to run things or not is irrelevant, but it is the way it is and it isn't going to change anytime soon. There are some things where openness and free availability of information is demonstrably in the public interest; this really isn't one of them.
From what the better informed people on here, and that I know in real life, are saying, there is no reasons to suppose that there are any major problems with the 769s. I'm sure there will be have been the foreseeable unforseen problems that come with complex projects like this, but that's not unexpected. It's in nobody's interest for a) the project to be unsuccessful, or b) there to be unnecessary delays.

 

[hwl]

Not to mention that this isn't a public sector project. All the organisations involved (Northern, Porterbrook, engineering contractors, engine manufacturers, etc.) are private companies. That the project has received government funding does not give the public a right to know, as far as UK law is concerned, anything about it at all. Whether that is the right way to run things or not is irrelevant, but it is the way it is and it isn't going to change anytime soon. There are some things where openness and free availability of information is demonstrably in the public interest; this really isn't one of them.
From what the better informed people on here, and that I know in real life, are saying, there is no reasons to suppose that there are any major problems with the 769s. I'm sure there will be have been the foreseeable unforseen problems that come with complex projects like this, but that's not unexpected. It's in nobody's interest for a) the project to be unsuccessful, or b) there to be unnecessary delays.

Indeed.

Given they seem to have gone into production mode it suggests things are going relatively well and remaining issues are minor.

For introduction with any of the operators a reasonable number of units* in the initial batch for driver training, and maintenance familiarisation to make the logistics of introduction sensible.

*5 or 6 for Northern / GWR and probably TfW too.

 

[FGW_DID]

For introduction with any of the operators a reasonable number of units* in the initial batch for driver training, and maintenance familiarisation to make the logistics of introduction sensible.

*5 or 6 for Northern / GWR and probably TfW too.

That’s why there are a couple of 319s already at Reading TCD - for staff training / familiarisation.

 

[AM9]

Any chance of a discussion about the trains? ...

If you have anything to discuss about the trains then of course you can post it.

 

[Killingworth]

Indeed.

Given they seem to have gone into production mode it suggests things are going relatively well and remaining issues are minor.

For introduction with any of the operators a reasonable number of units* in the initial batch for driver training, and maintenance familiarisation to make the logistics of introduction sensible.

*5 or 6 for Northern / GWR and probably TfW too.

I'd agree. Production for other TOCs seems to be gathering pace. I doubt that would be happening if the project was in jeopardy. I'd expect some material news to emerge very soon, but can fully understand the commercial sensitivity of much of the detail at this delicate stage.

If any of the development work may help in converting some of those surplus EMUs into viable units under other forms of propulsion to tide us over stock shortages for the next 10-20 years that would be a huge bonus - and one well worth waiting for.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Given they seem to have gone into production mode it suggests things are going relatively well and remaining issues are minor.

That's really brightened up my day. A load of Mk 5a's for TPE were delivered in the middle of last year. They're going well aren't they? Because they haven't given up and gone home doesn't mean things are going well. Had they begun testing on the main line you could point to at least some level of success but they haven't even managed that.

 

[anthony263]

Heard there’s something coming from loughborough to canton today so possibly 769002 perhaps if its ready

 

[JN114]

Heard there’s something coming from loughborough to canton today so possibly 769002 perhaps if its ready

It can’t be, I heard the whole project was a disaster; nothing was being done and Porterbrook were burying their heads in the sand. You’re inferring that progress is possible without everybody’s mother knowing about it beforehand... It’ll never catch on...

 

[modernrail]

I am actually a massive supporter of the 769 concept. Mostly because I see conversion of old EMU stock as the only viable way to bring about transformational change in capacity and quality in the north in the short term. It is also a moment in time.. loads of spare EMUs and a desire not to buy new diesels and give alternative traction a chance to really prove itself. We still need to see the final cost of conversion and these trains and any other EMU conversions will still need to be offered for significantly less than new units, none of which seems to be assured but let's hope they can get there.

This forum seems to split into two groups, those who have proper respect and regard for the public and their daily battle with current rail performace and those that don't. I can absolutely assure you that there is nothing in a well drafted supply contract that could stop Northern or the DfT providing updates on any of the current late running introductions. I know that because I draft these clauses all the time. Yes it is different to lots if other types of public spending in needing more communication. If somebody is building a swimmimg pool in my garden and they are late I want to know the delay is not negligent and is being managed properly. However, not having a swim for a bit isn't going to kill me. If the car on my drive that I need to use every day for essential journeys keeps disappearing when I need to get into it or has the back chopped off my frustration levels are clearly going to be much higher, especially if I was actually due to get a bigger car during the same period.

Not providing updates is also head in the sand territory and therefore an early warning of mismanagement and the potential failure of an entity or project.

I do agree we should move on though. The cranks have outed themselves, something of a national sport at the moment. I don't want to see into that sad contemptuous world any further.

 

[Ken H]

So Northern get a shedload of 769's (Why not 319/9?)
would that unlock further electrification where there are a lot of 769 workings but they diverge later onto branches with less trains or where the service thins out by reversing trains.
Harrogate-York is never going to justify wires, but leeds to harrogate or knaresborough just might. Ideal for 769's

 

[hwl]

It can’t be, I heard the whole project was a disaster; nothing was being done and Porterbrook were burying their heads in the sand. You’re inferring that progress is possible without everybody’s mother knowing about it beforehand... It’ll never catch on...

Unlike the other "new" rolling stock there isn't a manufacturer looking to sell loads more and generate continual media presence.
They have 4 customers and a shrinking number of 319s available left to convert.
For Porterbrook, Wabtec and partners good press coverage is now seeing them in service. Which will prove they are more capable than other ROSCOs / Refurbishers.

Given a big delay in any franchise (or replacements what ever thy may be) awards after SE and EM leading to lots of direct awards. This is the kind of cheap* extra capacity needed especially for part electrified routes urban air quality issues in the next few years to help change the economics (more bums on seats).

*DfT covers over 60% of the total cost of running Northern services (inc NR grant cost), the sensible way to bring this down is higher usage.

 

[hwl]

So Northern get a shedload of 769's (Why not 319/9?)
would that unlock further electrification where there are a lot of 769 workings but they diverge later onto branches with less trains or where the service thins out by reversing trains.
Harrogate-York is never going to justify wires, but leeds to harrogate or knaresborough just might. Ideal for 769's

Given the mods they will need route clearance separate from unconverted 319s so sensible to use a new number, which also helps with branding the concept.

 

[AndrewE]

For Porterbrook, Wabtec and partners good press coverage is now seeing them in service. Which will prove they are more capable than other ROSCOs / Refurbishers.

which is just what a lot of us are eagerly awaiting... but how long can people be expected to hold their breath?
The information vacuum doesn't inspire confidence, and the supplier keeping stumm on the basis that whatever is or isn't happening is none of our business is wrong. As modernrail says we are talking about UK infrastructure which, when it does not work properly, has a drastic effect on the lives and the health of the population who depend upon it.

 

[hwl]

which is just what a lot of us are eagerly awaiting... but how long can people be expected to hold their breath?
The information vacuum doesn't inspire confidence, and the supplier keeping stumm on the basis that whatever is or isn't happening is none of our business is wrong. As modernrail says we are talking about UK infrastructure which, when it does not work properly, has a drastic effect on the lives and the health of the population who depend upon it.

Part of the problem is that too many people have grown used to the constant flow of information in the internet age. The 769s are bit more old school in this regard as is the 442 refurb /retractioning.

 

[Rail Blues]

This forum seems to split into two groups, those who have proper respect and regard for the public and their daily battle with current rail performace and those that don't.

That is a complete strawman argument and verges on the histrionic.

 

[superkev]

I beginning to wonder if the 769s will ever run in service. Perhaps with hindsight bolting an engine, alternator fuel tanks etc under a 30 year old steel, presumably corroded, coach was not such a good idea.
K