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

[js1000]

It's a very simple point that aslef raise.

The 769 is a new type of train. All new trains must be fitted with a sufficient means of cab cooling, and sufficient ergonomic features. The onlder trains that don't meet this standard (150/319) have grandfather rights and therefore require no acceptance.

Strapping an engine on changes it and therefore it must meet the cab standards required.

Same for 230's

If I was a train driver or conductor I'd be careful at kicking up a fuss at the moment as conditions in the short to medium term are not favourable. This is something that seems quite minor to me based on a technicality (i.e. the train class number has changed therefore it needs more changes).

People are going to stay away from public transport unless it's absolutely necessary and unions would be wise to choose the battles they can win.

 

[konstant]

Just to clarify - 319s do have air conditioning but it is seldom used because it's crap.

Unfortunately this isn't quite correct - and herein lies the issue. Class 319 and Class 769 use a system called Cabcool developed by Creactive. This works on a peltier type principle, which is an interesting scientific phenomenon which has the potential to create air cooler than ambient potentially upto 12 degrees lower. It is unfortunately not quite as effective as the manufacturer would have hoped, partly owing to issues in modifications made to the system by FCC immediately after installation and partly down to just the sheer heat in the saloon roof space.

The unit doesn't have air conditioning, and accordingly ASLEF today issued written notice to all operators instructing them that their drivers will no longer handle 769s without air conditioning fitted. There are a number of firms in the medium to advanced stages of providing a design for in-cab AC and it'll be installed in due course.

 

[John R]

So (and I'll appreciate that this is somewhat provocative) the union's stance is that they won't allow trains to be introduced that will increase capacity and thus permit better social distancing, because their drivers want air conditioning, despite the fact that identical trains (other than a diesel engine, and a change to the number on the front) have been running around the north of England and elsewhere for the last few years without it.

It's just as well ASLEF don't have NHS staff on their books. "Sorry, we refuse to staff these hastily prepared new COVID wards as the working conditions aren't quite ideal for us in a perfect world, even though they are just the same as we were working in yesterday."

 

[43096]

So (and I'll appreciate that this is somewhat provocative) the union's stance is that they won't allow trains to be introduced that will increase capacity and thus permit better social distancing, because their drivers want air conditioning, despite the fact that identical trains (other than a diesel engine, and a change to the number on the front) have been running around the north of England and elsewhere for the last few years without it.

It's just as well ASLEF don't have NHS staff on their books. "Sorry, we refuse to staff these hastily prepared new COVID wards as the working conditions aren't quite ideal for us in a perfect world, even though they are just the same as we were working in yesterday."

You might well ask the question "Why now?" and why has it not been an issue for the last 30 years.

 

[Ribbleman]

Northern are now saying that they are hoping to resume driver training shortly with the aim of the 769s seeing service out of Southport during September. Until then, 142s may return to augment the 150s and 156s.

 

[a_c_skinner]

It seems a little unsatisfactory to wait until now to raise cab aircon as an issue or to sort it out as a problem. This isn't aimed at either side but at both reflecting how unsatisfactory adversarial IR is.

 

[Eccles1983]

It seems a little unsatisfactory to wait until now to raise cab aircon as an issue or to sort it out as a problem. This isn't aimed at either side but at both reflecting how unsatisfactory adversarial IR is.

It's not been raised just now.

It's been highlighted since these units were identified for conversion. The ToC's have just ignored the requests, demands and finally threats. Now they are taking action. It's been years in the making.

 

[Red Devil]

Northern are now saying that they are hoping to resume driver training shortly with the aim of the 769s seeing service out of Southport during September. Until then, 142s may return to augment the 150s and 156s.

Really? First I've heard,and I work for them. I know they're looking at other training to be resumed but 769's are not part of it as yet.
I hope to be proved wrong as Southport-Manchester gets a dreadful service

 

[RichardTBC]

Wasn't there a 769 out yesterday? A 319 looking unit ran Allerton to Crewe and then Crewe to Carnforth. Passed the railcam at Crewe 2257 and 2305 last night

 

[Ribbleman]

Really? First I've heard,and I work for them. I know they're looking at other training to be resumed but 769's are not part of it as yet.
I hope to be proved wrong as Southport-Manchester gets a dreadful service

The resumption of training is an aspiration and depends upon agreement being reached as to how this can be managed safely. There are 3 sets accepted, available for training from Wigan, the others still require test running and/or modifications from Allerton. It would appear from RTT that a set did a double run from Crewe to Carnforth and back last night, as observed by Richard TBC.

 

[Red Devil]

The resumption of training is an aspiration and depends upon agreement being reached as to how this can be managed safely. There are 3 sets accepted, available for training from Wigan, the others still require test running and/or modifications from Allerton. It would appear from RTT that a set did a double run from Crewe to Carnforth and back last night, as observed by Richard TBC.

ASLEF have refused to sanction these units so they may be running around ECS but they won't be used for training until an agreement is reached.

 

[Roger B]

However, as a union they are not willing to accept shoddy cab cooling anymore. So considering its role to protect and represent Drivers then they are fully entitled to refuse substandard cabs that do not have grandfather rights.

It's grim sitting in a boiling cab for up to 5 hours with no way of getting some relief. It's also very dangerous for the train as it's proven that heat is a contributory factor in fatigue - more fatigue means more incidents. I recorded a temperature in a cab of close to 40c last summer. Freight drivers reported temps even higher.
Issues also have been the seat pitch and positioning of certain controls.

Most new traction involve the union very early in the process with regards cab design. That eliminates many of the problems.

Frankly and bluntly it's irrelevant what you agree with. For far too long heating/comfort issues have been ignored. Whilst you may not care about this the union has finally stopped ignoring the amount of skeltomuscular injuries drivers have been suffering for decades.

For the purposes of cab ergonomics it's a new train.

Thank-you Eccles1981 - I found this really helpful and informative. I admit my first reaction was that ASLEF were being unreasonable, for some of the reasons expressed above.

BUT we're talking about providing a reasonable working environment for people who a safety critical role (putting it mildly). How many of us would tolerate - never mind perform well - in such an environment? When looked at that way, kicking the can down the road because the cabs have been like it for 30 years isn't an acceptable answer - it wasn't for SPADs, slam doors, level crossing accidents, or anything else safety related. It would be a tragedy if a serious incident were to happen for which the RAIB report concludes that the driver's performance was impaired by adverse cab conditions.

It seems to me that more joined-up thinking is needed between train manufacturers/developers, TOCS, unions, and passenger groups - to get get things right first time. Way cheaper than doing it for the cheapest price, and then having to re-work it because what was produced wasn't fit for purpose (and yes, I do mean including seats and seating design, for drivers and passengers).

 

[TheWalrus]

142s now coming back on to cover the continued none availability of 769s, They should really just call it quits!

Looks like the project has gone too far to just scrap it all now.

 

[Bikeman78]

No. Not game over at all.

The safety case for the shell and vehicle are already in place. And that would be a matter for the ORR/RSSB.

However, as a union they are not willing to accept shoddy cab cooling anymore. So considering its role to protect and represent Drivers then they are fully entitled to refuse substandard cabs that do not have grandfather rights.

It's grim sitting in a boiling cab for up to 5 hours with no way of getting some relief. It's also very dangerous for the train as it's proven that heat is a contributory factor in fatigue - more fatigue means more incidents. I recorded a temperature in a cab of close to 40c last summer. Freight drivers reported temps even higher.
Issues also have been the seat pitch and positioning of certain controls.

Most new traction involve the union very early in the process with regards cab design. That eliminates many of the problems.




Frankly and bluntly it's irrelevant what you agree with. For far too long heating/comfort issues have been ignored. Whilst you may not care about this the union has finally stopped ignoring the amount of skeltomuscular injuries drivers have been suffering for decades.

For the purposes of cab ergonomics it's a new train.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how the bodyshell can have grandfather rights but the cab doesn't. How much does a 769 cab differ from a 319?

It seems odd to refuse work 769s when the alternative 142/150/156 don't have air con either.

 

[DarloRich]

Have the 230's on the Marston Vale got cab aircon? Was this a retro fit after entry into service?

if so similar problems in similar circumstances have been addressed satisfactorily down here. Why cant the same approach be taken up in northern land?

BTW - I get the issue with cab aircon. It wants sorting.

 

[Jonny]

142s now coming back on to cover the continued none availability of 769s, They should really just call it quits!

I think the more likely reason is that, as in a previous post, training has been stopped. Presumably the drivers still have the traction knowledge on the 142s.
As per post:

Driver training has been suspended at the moment.
Can't help you with the other points

 

[Eccles1983]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how the bodyshell can have grandfather rights but the cab doesn't. How much does a 769 cab differ from a 319?

It seems odd to refuse work 769s when the alternative 142/150/156 don't have air con either.

142/150/156 have not been drastically altered in the cab area since they have been in service.

To retrospectively try to apply the cab standards now would or could be seen as unachievable. Cab standards are set by ASLEF as it's been complained about by members for decades.

But since the 769/230 has had work done on them it's reasonable to expect that the work could be done when rewiring the cab.

A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. The ROSCO's and TOCs have been made fully aware of this in advance. They have chosen to do nothing. Therein lies the issue.

To address a point made earlier - none of these units would assist in social distancing. As it stands all training is suspended.

So even if accepted then no one would be able to train on them.

 

[43096]

Have the 230's on the Marston Vale got cab aircon? Was this a retro fit after entry into service?

if so similar problems in similar circumstances have been addressed satisfactorily down here. Why cant the same approach be taken up in northern land?

BTW - I get the issue with cab aircon. It wants sorting.

I think most people understand the issue of cab aircon. But why is it being raised now? These trains have been in prospect for months/years and the 319s were new to Northern not that long ago.

To be blunt, it looks like stereotypical union awkwardness.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think most people understand the issue of cab aircon. But why is it being raised now? These trains have been in prospect for months/years and the 319s were new to Northern not that long ago.

To be blunt, it looks like stereotypical union awkwardness.

Damn human beings !.

Seriously though it is typical of projects that some things are left out of the loop. Projects would get too complicated if everything was covered.

But air conditioning is becoming the norm so perhaps should have been seen coming up on the horizon. But in the grand scheme of things I would worry more about things like this on brand new units rather than units that have limited life left. That is my view on something that has not changed much (engine under the floor and a new number) - they are not going to be around for that long.

 

[warwickshire]

I think the more likely reason is that, as in a previous post, training has been stopped. Presumably the drivers still have the traction knowledge on the 142s.
As per post:

agree see post 3794 on northern rail pacer withdrawal thread. Also see statement made in the may northern rail committee meeting with andy Burnham and available somewhere on YouTube ie due to covid 19, and staff tng adversely affected ie 195 and 769. about not using Pacers but retaining a small number off 142 and 144 Pacers if needed though we hope not to use them. Already made public knowledge. However same issue other side on pennines ie behind 195 tng wise so hence why 144 dispensation list also extended to December as well.

 

[DarloRich]

I think most people understand the issue of cab aircon. But why is it being raised now? These trains have been in prospect for months/years and the 319s were new to Northern not that long ago.

To be blunt, it looks like stereotypical union awkwardness.

I am not disagreeing. Same thing happened down here. It was sorted out quite quickly and didn't make our service any worse. I suspect ( but don't know) it was a "final straw" type thing.

 

[Wyrleybart]

ASLEF have refused to sanction these units so they may be running around ECS but they won't be used for training until an agreement is reached.

Erm. Pardon me for asking but if the 769s are moving around ECS, who might be driving them ? Presumably not cardholding ASLEF members, or are ROG drivers not ASLEF members ?
Or does the ASLEF sanction only apply to Northern, TFW and GWR crews, and not to the FOC contracted to test them ?
Bearing in mind the first test runs of 769s were undertaken in September 2018, which admittedly ASLEF might not have been officially involved in, it does seems a little late to be kiboshing passenger comfort.

 

[CW2]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, why shouldn't the drivers cab be air-conditioned? Isn't it a reasonable expectation to have a comfortable working environment? If the current system doesn't work well enough, isn't it quite right for the union to get involved to apply pressure to get it sorted? Better still if the management / train designers had foreseen the problem and solved it before attempting to run the units in traffic?

 

[JN114]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, why shouldn't the drivers cab be air-conditioned? Isn't it a reasonable expectation to have a comfortable working environment? If the current system doesn't work well enough, isn't it quite right for the union to get involved to apply pressure to get it sorted? Better still if the management / train designers had foreseen the problem and solved it before attempting to run the units in traffic?

The unions have been involved/consulted throughout the project - there have been issues previously raised and resolved since throughout its protracted development. While I agree with the sentiment of your post; I’d ask the cynical counter-question of “Why is this an issue now, not X years ago when opinions and comments were first solicited”.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The unions have been involved/consulted throughout the project - there have been issues previously raised and resolved since throughout its protracted development. While I agree with the sentiment of your post; I’d ask the cynical counter-question of “Why is this an issue now, not X years ago when opinions and comments were first solicited”.

That is a good point. What is going on ?.

 

[Senna1210]

The 319/769 cabs have a cab cool system fitted already correct they dont work 100% because they have never been maintained they should have a overhaul at 6 years which was never done
Retro fitting ac to the 319/769 is just a joke
We all know which way the unions will go they will want some kind of reimbursment for driving one lets face it that is all its about

 

[craigybagel]

Erm. Pardon me for asking but if the 769s are moving around ECS, who might be driving them ? Presumably not cardholding ASLEF members, or are ROG drivers not ASLEF members ?
Or does the ASLEF sanction only apply to Northern, TFW and GWR crews, and not to the FOC contracted to test them ?
Bearing in mind the first test runs of 769s were undertaken in September 2018, which admittedly ASLEF might not have been officially involved in, it does seems a little late to be kiboshing passenger comfort.

I suspect they were driven by Driver managers, or full time trainers, who may well be members of TSSA rather then ASLEF

The unions have been involved/consulted throughout the project - there have been issues previously raised and resolved since throughout its protracted development. While I agree with the sentiment of your post; I’d ask the cynical counter-question of “Why is this an issue now, not X years ago when opinions and comments were first solicited”.

What makes you assume the issue has only popped up now? AIUI, ASLEF have been complaining about the cabs in 769s for several years.

We all know which way the unions will go they will want some kind of reimbursment for driving one lets face it that is all its about

Yawn

 

[FordFocus]

ASLEF have had a recent push to sort out cab standards. It's known within the industry that long driving hours without a break and high temperatures contribute to incidents. It's a unions job to help protect it's members and mitigate or eliminate the contributing factors that cause incidents.

The old union 'SQUASH' campaign has been renamed to something that escapes me with a renewed driving force behind it. The fact that 30 year old trains are been given millions of pounds of new engines and electrical equipment underneath with no consideration for improving driving cabs (apart from slapping in a couple of diesel engine start and stop) needs addressing.

These things along with other trains of similar designs are absolute sweat boxes in the summer. (I've not driven 319s but worked similar). TOCs (and FOCs) may now start paying attention to cab design, which should be done at an earlier stage before the design freezes. SWR 701s is a case example.

 

[Clarence Yard]

In the case of the GWR ones, the original conversion spec. did not include air con because the design work hadn't been done to get a cost approved (by DfT, because of the way they are funded). That approval was done as part of the subsequent DA3 award which took in all the other items that were asked for but couldn't get included into that original spec.

Whether the supply chain is now robust enough to get these all fitted on the first few GWR ones is debatable. If I was the Union, I wouldn't be blacking them and giving away all the TOC type testing, timetable testing and fault free running work to the FOCs. I would give all the cl.769 TOCs a clear target to get them all fitted by - March/April next year would seem to be a reasonable one for GWR, given that they won't now be in passenger service until December 2020, at the earliest.

The other two TOCs need to confirm that they are going to retrofit the kit and give the Unions a date by which the work is going to be completed.

 

[JN114]

What makes you assume the issue has only popped up now? AIUI, ASLEF have been complaining about the cabs in 769s for several years.

No, I acknowledge it has likely been an issue for a while - more making the point that the unions have had the “power” to black the units at any point - indeed it was a dispute between one of the unions and GWR over a different cab issue that largely prevented the 4x 319s GWR acquired for driver training from being used for that purpose - so why have they waited until after Northern, TfW have begun driver training to wield the big stick? As I’ve said they’ve been involved in the process for a couple of years now, and if the union was so unhappy about it, it wouldn’t have gotten this far.

It’s the timing that is off in all of this, and smacks more of the union playing politics than genuinely wanting better conditions for its members.