Transport for Wales 769's

[Class360/1]

The Angel ones were 153918, 153968, 153972 and 153982. I don't know whether TFW have actually bought any yet or whether they stiill on lease. It has been announced that TFW will be buying 8 x 153s for the future

What happened to the ex WMR 153’s?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Yes, heading north towards Rhymney every morning instead of to Newport.

By Newport, do you mean a one-way trip to the scrap yard? If so, do you propose TfW run replacement road transport to Rhymney instead? If not, is there a Cardiff-Newport service that the 769s could work to free up some other units and would they be any more reliable on that?

 

[CaergwrleKen]

007 & 452 have made it out today, so far.. Looks like there are only four 769 diagrams at the moment, 150s are covering the other two today and the remaining two Penarth diagrams now appear to be booked 150.

 

[Kyle2]

Might be off topic and probably a stupid idea, but are there any spare 170's from the Maesteg-Gloucester/Ebbw Vale services that could potentially cover the Rhymney Valley diagrams instead of using the 769s? At least they actually work. I know it'll take a bit of time to train the staff up but they could provide reliable cover until the 756's are ready. Every time my train has passed Canton there's been a few of them just sat around.

 

[PHILIPE]

007 & 452 have made it out today, so far.. Looks like there are only four 769 diagrams at the moment, 150s are covering the other two today and the remaining two Penarth diagrams now appear to be booked 150.

Pairs of dogboxes are also covering but can't see any out today.

 

[Roger B]

The Angel ones were 153918, 153968, 153972 and 153982. I don't know whether TFW have actually bought any yet or whether they stiill on lease. It has been announced that TFW will be buying 8 x 153s for the future

I travelled on 153972 (coupled with 153312) CMN - PMD, and PMD - SWA on Sunday (15th),

 

[Cardiff123]

By Newport, do you mean a one-way trip to the scrap yard?

That would be my preference, 9 one-way paths from Canton to SIMS at Newport.
With paths from wherever the surplus 153s retired by WMR/EMR/Scotrail/Northern are being stored, direct to Canton to replace them.

 

[PHILIPE]

Might be off topic and probably a stupid idea, but are there any spare 170's from the Maesteg-Gloucester/Ebbw Vale services that could potentially cover the Rhymney Valley diagrams instead of using the 769s? At least they actually work. I know it'll take a bit of time to train the staff up but they could provide reliable cover until the 756's are ready. Every time my train has passed Canton there's been a few of them just sat around.

The 170s are destined for EMR when they can be released. It's a struggle to train people on units they actually require to work and a backlog due to the impact of COVID. They would also need to be route cleared and stop/start work does them no good as they were not built for it.

 

[AM9]

Less demand on the motors maybe, but still a hefty demand on the diesel engines.

Demand may be higher, but they are all new engines apparently with proven reliability elsewhere across Europe and of course they have sufficient protection built in to prevent them working outside their designed limits.

And yet you previously suggested that it must be TfW doing something wrong with how they maintained or drove the trains?

OK, maybe that was slightly the wrong words, - change that to 'something different' or in the light of your comments about the terrain, maybe not enough to address the specific failures encountered. I wasn't intending to infer any malpractice or lack of commitment, but clearly something is awry. Ultimately, the reponsibilty for remedies lies with Wabtec and/or Porterbrook, particularly as they can correlate data from all three (soon to be four) operators of converted 319s in their various configurations.

These units might not have to deal with hauling crush loads up the steep bit from City Thameslink to Blackfriars any more that so often is quoted, but they're doing much longer periods of sustained climbing, day in day out (at least when they're working anyway). This is by no means an easy semi retirement.

My point about the motors is that even if they are being driven flat out in diesel mode, because of the limited power available from the gensets, they will still only be running at about 70% of their continuous rating. It's worth adding that the torque load on the motors in their TL days was highest when climbing out of the core (both ends) - but in thermal terms, the climb from Silkstream River up to Elstree Tunnel was climbed at full speed (in the low '90s ) sustained for over 7km.

 

[PHILIPE]

Move to haul 769445 back to Canton which I presume is another 769 actually en route now

www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:53707/2021-08-19/detailed

 

[Caaardiff]

The Angel ones were 153918, 153968, 153972 and 153982. I don't know whether TFW have actually bought any yet or whether they stiill on lease. It has been announced that TFW will be buying 8 x 153s for the future

These are also not being refurbished.

 

[craigybagel]

Might be off topic and probably a stupid idea, but are there any spare 170's from the Maesteg-Gloucester/Ebbw Vale services that could potentially cover the Rhymney Valley diagrams instead of using the 769s? At least they actually work. I know it'll take a bit of time to train the staff up but they could provide reliable cover until the 756's are ready. Every time my train has passed Canton there's been a few of them just sat around.

If we are to ever get back to a full timetable, then I believe all the 170s would be required. As well as Ebbw Vale services running through to Bridgend, the 170s were supposed to be going on Swanline at some point - a service that's basically ceased to exist since Covid.

Demand may be higher, but they are all new engines apparently with proven reliability elsewhere across Europe and of course they have sufficient protection built in to prevent them working outside their designed limits.

Indeed, which is why questions need to be asked as to why previously proven engines are struggling when bolted on to the bottom of a 319.

OK, maybe that was slightly the wrong words, - change that to 'something different' or in the light of your comments about the terrain, maybe not enough to address the specific failures encountered. I wasn't intending to infer any malpractice or lack of commitment, but clearly something is awry. Ultimately, the reponsibilty for remedies lies with Wabtec and/or Porterbrook, particularly as they can correlate data from all three (soon to be four) operators of converted 319s in their various configurations.

Fair enough. With the words you originally used it was hard to see how it could be taken as anything other than a deflection of blame away from Wabtec and on to TfW. Given their introduction has been similarly disastrous at Northern (several years late, numerous in service failures, rare to see all booked units in service) and GWR (several years late, still not actually in passenger service but having already experienced messy failures during testing) it would suggest there's a bigger fundamental flaw with the units themselves.

Bear in mind as well that at least some of the drivers on the 769s are also pretty experienced at driving 37s. If they have the skills to nurse 60 year old locomotives up the Rhymney Valley without issues, they should be more than capable with supposedly more modern units.

My point about the motors is that even if they are being driven flat out in diesel mode, because of the limited power available from the gensets, they will still only be running at about 70% of their continuous rating. It's worth adding that the torque load on the motors in their TL days was highest when climbing out of the core (both ends) - but in thermal terms, the climb from Silkstream River up to Elstree Tunnel was climbed at full speed (in the low '90s ) sustained for over 7km.

Fair point, it should be easier on the motors at least. They won't be reaching anything like those speeds at TfW, and whilst they will have similarly long climbs they will at least be punctuated with station stops. So the fact they're still struggling since conversion is even more worrying.

 

[Caaardiff]

By Newport, do you mean a one-way trip to the scrap yard? If so, do you propose TfW run replacement road transport to Rhymney instead? If not, is there a Cardiff-Newport service that the 769s could work to free up some other units and would they be any more reliable on that?

As has already been said, the only back up is to use single 150's to cover 769 diagrams, which will result in short forms on the Taf side as well. Road transport would likely be needed to supplement the short forms but wouldn't replace the rail service. There's ways of covering the 769s, but only via short forming.
Running Cardiff - Newport wouldn't free up any units. All services running Cardiff - Newport are carrying on to elsewhere (Marches & Gloucester or West)

Demand may be higher, but they are all new engines apparently with proven reliability elsewhere across Europe and of course they have sufficient protection built in to prevent them working outside their designed limits.

Proven in a 4 car train with only 2 engines fitted and on similar terrain?

The failures that i've heard about have been around Dingle Rd which has a gradient and generally working up to Rhymney rather than back, so usually uphill.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2021 ==

If we are to ever get back to a full timetable, then I believe all the 170s would be required. As well as Ebbw Vale services running through to Bridgend, the 170s were supposed to be going on Swanline at some point - a service that's basically ceased to exist since Covid.

The Cardiff - Ebbw Vale services are still the same frequency, although i think the last service has been cut under Covid. The run to Bridgend was simply to avoid a shunt out West before coming back in to start the next Cardiff - Ebbw. It's likely to save on train crew rather than units.
I think there's only a max of 7 or 8 170's in use even under the original timetable, hence one 2 car going as it was surplus.

There's little chance of 170's ending up on other routes due to the training requirements and route clearance. They aren't cleared in to Swansea station, meaning money would need to be spent and by the time any mods are done and train crew trained, the 230's won't be far off!

 

[craigybagel]

The Cardiff - Ebbw Vale services are still the same frequency, although i think the last service has been cut under Covid. The run to Bridgend was simply to avoid a shunt out West before coming back in to start the next Cardiff - Ebbw. It's likely to save on train crew rather than units.
I think there's only a max of 7 or 8 170's in use even under the original timetable, hence one 2 car going as it was surplus.

There's little chance of 170's ending up on other routes due to the training requirements and route clearance. They aren't cleared in to Swansea station, meaning money would need to be spent and by the time any mods are done and train crew trained, the 230's won't be far off!

170s on Swanline was part of the original plan shown to staff before the TfW takeover - whether it's been changed or not I can't say (not much of that plan did survive untouched). It might have been that they instead intended to use the otherwise surplus 170s to increase capacity on Ebbw Vale (where pre Covid Full and Standing trains were a common issue).

I'm open to correction but given the other stock that makes it into Swansea I assume clearance is more of a paperwork exercise than anything else, and AIUI the crews who work the existing 170 routes also used to work most Swanline services. If they were to be used anywhere I reckon it's the most likely shout, but I agree it's more likely that it just won't happen at all.

 

[Caaardiff]

170s on Swanline was part of the original plan shown to staff before the TfW takeover - whether it's been changed or not I can't say (not much of that plan did survive untouched). It might have been that they instead intended to use the otherwise surplus 170s to increase capacity on Ebbw Vale (where pre Covid Full and Standing trains were a common issue).

I'm open to correction but given the other stock that makes it into Swansea I assume clearance is more of a paperwork exercise than anything else, and AIUI the crews who work the existing 170 routes also used to work most Swanline services. If they were to be used anywhere I reckon it's the most likely shout, but I agree it's more likely that it just won't happen at all.

Apparently the 170's have gauging issues due to their design being different to many other units of similar build. Not sure exactly but i heard something sticks out somewhere along it. That's why they aren't cleared on the Vale line or past Landore. Cogan is apparently an issue and Swansea station is, so i guess it's something to do with curved platforms.
The original plan was for them to work HOWL, West Wales and likely as you say Swanline services due to volume of units in the fleet.

Someone, somewhere must have recently realised that the work required to get them cleared on all those routes isn't feasible.

Only Cardiff train crew sign them which could be worked around, but there's a fairly even split between Cardiff and Carmarthen train crew working towards Swansea.

 

[Mag_seven]

A reminder that this thread is for the discussion of Transport for Wales Class 769s.

For discussion of TfW Class 153s please use the general class 153 thread.

Class 153 updates.

Following today's announcement that West Midlands Railway have withdrawn their fleet of 153s, I thought it might be an idea to have an updates thread for the class. East Midlands Railway: 153308, 311, 319, 355, 357, 376, 379, 381, 383-385. Northern: 153301, 304, 307, 315-317, 324, 328, 330-332...

www.railforums.co.uk

Thanks

 

[Greybeard33]

Demand may be higher, but they are all new engines apparently with proven reliability elsewhere across Europe and of course they have sufficient protection built in to prevent them working outside their designed limits.

Do you have statistics to validate the claim that the same version of the MAN D2876 engine is achieving good reliability in comparable rail applications elsewhere?

From the MAN website, the engine is available in a range of power outputs from 294 - 390kW, from which Porterbrook/Wabtec have selected the highest. It might be expected that this is the most highly stressed.

The reliability of an engine in service does, of course, depend on many factors other than the design and build quality of the engine itself. Such as the cooling system, the exhaust system, the control system, the duty cycle and the maintenance regime. Some or all of these factors are likely to differ between the 769 installation and those on other vehicles.

 

[AM9]

Indeed, which is why questions need to be asked as to why previously proven engines are struggling when bolted on to the bottom of a 319.

I've not seen any report on failures of 769s in service that indicate an engine failure, (as in the actual breakdown of the diesel engine). @Caaardiff , in post #1887, says: "Mainly loss of power or one of the 2 engines cutting out and going into limp mode" is reported which sounds more like an integration issue in the control system, i.e. maybe the sensors and protection processes in the software as over sensitive. If there were engine (i.e.hardware) failures, I would expect there to major repairs or even a return programme involving MAN. Returning a broken diesel engine usually takes more than an overnight fix in a workshop and certainly a lot more than a fitter with a toolbox in a stabling siding for a couple of hours. The engine was chosen from known good designs with a known task.

Fair enough. With the words you originally used it was hard to see how it could be taken as anything other than a deflection of blame away from Wabtec and on to TfW. Given their introduction has been similarly disastrous at Northern (several years late, numerous in service failures, rare to see all booked units in service) and GWR (several years late, still not actually in passenger service but having already experienced messy failures during testing) it would suggest there's a bigger fundamental flaw with the units themselves.

I think that you may be correct in the last sentence that there is a fundamental problem with the units, but it looks to me more like a system design problem than a total failure of concept. There haven't been any major engine failures, nor any traction system failures, which isn't surprising as the engines have seen service in other rolling stock and the traction system is well known within the UK rail maintenance community. Given that the integration of the gensets and the traction subsystem is where most of the Wabtec engineering task was, that would seem to align with the type of issues that have been openly reported.

Fair point, it should be easier on the motors at least. They won't be reaching anything like those speeds at TfW, and whilst they will have similarly long climbs they will at least be punctuated with station stops. So the fact they're still struggling since conversion is even more worrying.

Have any motors failed in service on a 769? If so, are any failures outside the general modes experienced on DC series wound traction types in the last 80+ years when the father of all UK rail traction motors, the EE507, was first introduced.

 

[XAM2175]

The reliability of an engine in service does, of course, depend on many factors other than the design and build quality of the engine itself. Such as the cooling system, the exhaust system, the control system, the duty cycle and the maintenance regime. Some or all of these factors are likely to differ between the 769 installation and those on other vehicles.

I do note that most purpose-built DMUs - especially those used in countries with larger loading gauges - have air intakes and radiators and the like installed in the body sides and on the roof whereas the 769s have everything underfloor. Is there any indication that the cooling capability is insufficient?

 

[AM9]

Do you have statistics to validate the claim that the same version of the MAN D2876 engine is achieving good reliability in comparable rail applications elsewhere?

No I don't, but then I wasn't involved in the engine selection process. For such a programme, it would be normal for Wabtec (was it Brush in those days?) to have had a considerable amount of discussion with engine suppliers (e.g.MAN, MTU, Cummins etc..) determining which of their offerings were suited to the task, before making a final choice. Do you have any evidence that they didn't?

From the MAN website, the engine is available in a range of power outputs from 294 - 390kW, from which Porterbrook/Wabtec have selected the highest. It might be expected that this is the most highly stressed.

But still sold against a reliability figure in a particular role.

The reliability of an engine in service does, of course, depend on many factors other than the design and build quality of the engine itself. Such as the cooling system, the exhaust system, the control system, the duty cycle and the maintenance regime. Some or all of these factors are likely to differ between the 769 installation and those on other vehicles.

I would imagine that there are quirks with any installation, but as above, I doubt that a programme to repurpose a number of existing rolling stock items with such a major change to its hardware would take place without some in depth discussion with suppliers on how their items would be fitted into the train.

I do note that most purpose-built DMUs - especially those used in countries with larger loading gauges - have air intakes and radiators and the like installed in the body sides and on the roof whereas the 769s have everything underfloor. Is there any indication that the cooling capability is insufficient?

See above re suitability for purpose, (which would include a specification for cooling). If there have been actual failure reports citing inadequate cooling, then a) there would be discussion taking place as we speak, and b) maybe these issues will disappear in the winter.

 

[PHILIPE]

Another disaster on the Rhymney Valley line this afternoon with 2D14 1407 Penarth to Bargoed following the failure of 769445 at Ystrad Mynach South necessitating another rescue mission by Thunderbird 37418. Hauled to Ystrad Mynach where it terminated 147 minutes late.
Everything else on stop during this time. Following the previous 769 failures on the route one wonders how long the situation continues.

76445 left in Ystrad Mynach Loop until lunch time today when 769452 went to recover it having had to be swapped out of 1002 Rhymney to Penarth at Cardiff Central which as such seems to point to an inability to find an independent fit and able 769. (769007 being the only other one out today). Perhaps 452 couldn't be trusted as 37418 followed the movement down to Canton.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2021 ==

What happened to the ex WMR 153’s?

See Post #1905

 

[Class360/1]

76445 left in Ystrad Mynach Loop until lunch time today when 769452 went to recover it having had to be swapped out of 1002 Rhymney to Penarth at Cardiff Central which as such seems to point to an inability to find an independent fit and able 769. (769007 being the only other one out today). Perhaps 452 couldn't be trusted as 37418 followed the movement down to Canton.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2021 ==



See Post #1905

Thanks

 

[Greybeard33]

I do note that most purpose-built DMUs - especially those used in countries with larger loading gauges - have air intakes and radiators and the like installed in the body sides and on the roof whereas the 769s have everything underfloor. Is there any indication that the cooling capability is insufficient?

I do not have any information on failure modes, other than what has been publicly reported on this forum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2021 ==

No I don't, but then I wasn't involved in the engine selection process. For such a programme, it would be normal for Wabtec (was it Brush in those days?) to have had a considerable amount of discussion with engine suppliers (e.g.MAN, MTU, Cummins etc..) determining which of their offerings were suited to the task, before making a final choice. Do you have any evidence that they didn't?

No. But articles in the technical press about the 769 development programme stressed the challenge of squeezing the genset and ancillary equipment into the limited space under the floor of the 319 driving trailer. And MAN promotional material for this engine emphasises its compact size. It could be that there was less choice of engines available to the designers than you suggest. Or even Hobson's choice!

I would imagine that there are quirks with any installation, but as above, I doubt that a programme to repurpose a number of existing rolling stock items with such a major change to its hardware would take place without some in depth discussion with suppliers on how their items would be fitted into the train

Indeed, but equally I imagine there had to be some difficult compromises in the design to get it all to fit. A case of "if I were you, I wouldn't start from here!"

 

[craigybagel]

I've not seen any report on failures of 769s in service that indicate an engine failure, (as in the actual breakdown of the diesel engine). @Caaardiff , in post #1887, says: "Mainly loss of power or one of the 2 engines cutting out and going into limp mode" is reported which sounds more like an integration issue in the control system, i.e. maybe the sensors and protection processes in the software as over sensitive. If there were engine (i.e.hardware) failures, I would expect there to major repairs or even a return programme involving MAN. Returning a broken diesel engine usually takes more than an overnight fix in a workshop and certainly a lot more than a fitter with a toolbox in a stabling siding for a couple of hours. The engine was chosen from known good designs with a known task.


I think that you may be correct in the last sentence that there is a fundamental problem with the units, but it looks to me more like a system design problem than a total failure of concept. There haven't been any major engine failures, nor any traction system failures, which isn't surprising as the engines have seen service in other rolling stock and the traction system is well known within the UK rail maintenance community. Given that the integration of the gensets and the traction subsystem is where most of the Wabtec engineering task was, that would seem to align with the type of issues that have been openly reported.


Have any motors failed in service on a 769? If so, are any failures outside the general modes experienced on DC series wound traction types in the last 80+ years when the father of all UK rail traction motors, the EE507, was first introduced.

All I know it's what is patently obvious to all of us. The individual parts of the train might be reliable in their own right - but clearly when combined together to form a train something is going badly wrong.

 

[AM9]

All I know it's what is patently obvious to all of us. The individual parts of the train might be reliable in their own right - but clearly when combined together to form a train something is going badly wrong.

I wouldn't say badly wrong, but obviously it's inconvenient trying to resolve system problems whilst they are in passenger service which has clearly influenced some here to condemn them. Unfortunately, they will be around until their replacement stock arrives, which would be after such trivial faults as cracked yaw damper brackets are fixed on other CAF Civity units.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2021 ==

I do not have any information on failure modes, other than what has been publicly reported on this forum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2021 ==


No. But articles in the technical press about the 769 development programme stressed the challenge of squeezing the genset and ancillary equipment into the limited space under the floor of the 319 driving trailer. And MAN promotional material for this engine emphasises its compact size. It could be that there was less choice of engines available to the designers than you suggest. Or even Hobson's choice!

Indeed, but equally I imagine there had to be some difficult compromises in the design to get it all to fit. A case of "if I were you, I wouldn't start from here!"

Neither you nor seem to have any inside information about engine selection and given the experimental nature of the whole Flex programme, it will no doubt take some time for that to emerge, but meanwhile, they will press on with an advancing knowledge of their behaviour under actual service conditions.

 

[craigybagel]

I wouldn't say badly wrong, but obviously it's inconvenient trying to resolve system problems whilst they are in passenger service which has clearly influenced some here to condemn them. Unfortunately, they will be around until their replacement stock arrives, which would be after such trivial faults as cracked yaw damper brackets are fixed on other CAF Civity units.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2021 ==

3 years late into service at Northern. Availability of units is still poor with substitutions on a pretty much daily basis.
Thread here.

I can't find the exact date they were supposed to be in service at ATW other than some time in 2018. They finally entered service, under a different franchisee in November 2020 so most likely 2 years late if not more. Availability of units is still low and the reliability of those few units that are in service, as can be seen on this thread, is pretty dire.

The GWR sets are currently running 2½ years late and still haven't entered service.
Thread here

I feel comfortable standing behind my "badly wrong" assessment, and I'm not going to judge too harshly the other people on this thread who have condemned them.

I should add I get no pleasure in stating all of this. I've traveled on 769s at both franchises that have them in service; when they work they're an improvement over the DMUs they replaced, and they're providing much needed capacity. It's also an impressively ingenious idea - turning old unwanted EMUs into DEMUs and BEMUs. I don't want to take away from the achievements that have been made getting these into service in the first place.

But you also can't gloss over how big a disappointment it's been over what was promised. If this doesn't count as "badly wrong" then you've set yourself some very low bars!

 

[Grumpy Git]

3 years late into service at Northern. Availability of units is still poor with substitutions on a pretty much daily basis.
Thread here.

I can't find the exact date they were supposed to be in service at ATW other than some time in 2018. They finally entered service, under a different franchisee in November 2020 so most likely 2 years late if not more. Availability of units is still low and the reliability of those few units that are in service, as can be seen on this thread, is pretty dire.

The GWR sets are currently running 2½ years late and still haven't entered service.
Thread here

I feel comfortable standing behind my "badly wrong" assessment, and I'm not going to judge too harshly the other people on this thread who have condemned them.

I should add I get no pleasure in stating all of this. I've traveled on 769s at both franchises that have them in service; when they work they're an improvement over the DMUs they replaced, and they're providing much needed capacity. It's also an impressively ingenious idea - turning old unwanted EMUs into DEMUs and BEMUs. I don't want to take away from the achievements that have been made getting these into service in the first place.

But you also can't gloss over how big a disappointment it's been over what was promised. If this doesn't count as "badly wrong" then you've set yourself some very low bars!

Exactly.

I'm taking an educated guess that they're late because they couldn't get them working as promised. It would appear that this is still the case?

Best solution would be to stick a 37 on the front of every unit, (sarcasm alert).

Whoever thought that something could be less welcome than a Pacer?

 

[Wyrleybart]

3 years late into service at Northern. Availability of units is still poor with substitutions on a pretty much daily basis.
Thread here.

I can't find the exact date they were supposed to be in service at ATW other than some time in 2018. They finally entered service, under a different franchisee in November 2020 so most likely 2 years late if not more. Availability of units is still low and the reliability of those few units that are in service, as can be seen on this thread, is pretty dire.

The GWR sets are currently running 2½ years late and still haven't entered service.
Thread here

I feel comfortable standing behind my "badly wrong" assessment, and I'm not going to judge too harshly the other people on this thread who have condemned them.

I should add I get no pleasure in stating all of this. I've traveled on 769s at both franchises that have them in service; when they work they're an improvement over the DMUs they replaced, and they're providing much needed capacity. It's also an impressively ingenious idea - turning old unwanted EMUs into DEMUs and BEMUs. I don't want to take away from the achievements that have been made getting these into service in the first place.

But you also can't gloss over how big a disappointment it's been over what was promised. If this doesn't count as "badly wrong" then you've set yourself some very low bars!

I think your summary is perfect "Craigybagel". The concept was great and the Flex was to fulfil a particular role for two of the TOC operators. Sadly the TfW examples have failed to deliver their intended purpose - to provide a stopgap for PRM work on the existing TfW fleet. The extension of the pacers pretty much did that instead.

More importantly though, where was the test running apart from a brief period on the Great Central ? Such a radical new traction rebuild was inevitably going to run into problems and I would have thought some test running at Asfordby as a minimum would be required. It seems ROG were involved with the Northern fleet, and have or are delivering all three TOC's units to their depots. But strangely, Colas provide the tests running at Reading, and the T Bird at Rhymney.

Bizarrely, there doesn't appear to have been any test running of the Flex over the third rail, until actually on the railway they are to be used on in a live situation. Given the Flex performance history over the last three years I would say that is very optimistic

 

[a_c_skinner]

I'm taking an educated guess that they're late because they couldn't get them working as promised. It would appear that this is still the case?

Yes, that is the top and bottom of it, sums up all the 769 threads. They don't work properly and only very limited progress if any is being made. If we were seeing gradual but sustained improvements one might be optimistic but this doesn't appear to be the case in South Wales or NW England.

 

[Cardiff123]

Only 2 out again today, of course it's only midday so it remains to be seen if they will last all day in service. TfW's September TT uplift is due 3 weeks on Monday (if it happens). Can TfW Rail's engineers work actual miracles in 3 weeks?