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

[skyhigh]

A 769 failed to call at Clifton on Friday, causing many delays propagating towards Chorley onto the WCML, with a TPE service arriving at Bolton at the same time as a Blackpool North which had stops at Blackrod and Adlington, but being signalled behind it all the way to Leyland…

These trains have their issues, but do we really need to list every single incident that occurs with one? It wouldn't be particularly noteworthy if a 158 or any other unit had a fail to call...

 

[507020]

These trains have their issues, but do we really need to list every single incident that occurs with one? It wouldn't be particularly noteworthy if a 158 or any other unit had a fail to call...

I do agree with you, but the 769s are so unreliable that amidst a 158 failure to call at a station as insignificant as the former Clifton Junction it would be a non-issue, but given that it was a 769, it was likely a factor that the driver was distracted by other issues with the reliability of the DEMU, which would not have been a problem with a 158.

 

[Neptune]

I do agree with you, but the 769s are so unreliable that amidst a 158 failure to call at a station as insignificant as the former Clifton Junction it would be a non-issue, but given that it was a 769, it was likely a factor that the driver was distracted by other issues with the reliability of the DEMU, which would not have been a problem with a 158.

What utter twaddle. Please stop making out that any incident involving a 769 is due to their unreliability. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary of course.

 

[Agent_Squash]

I do agree with you, but the 769s are so unreliable that amidst a 158 failure to call at a station as insignificant as the former Clifton Junction it would be a non-issue, but given that it was a 769, it was likely a factor that the driver was distracted by other issues with the reliability of the DEMU, which would not have been a problem with a 158.

What on earth are you on about?

 

[AM9]

What on earth are you on about?

The extent that some here go towards fabricating any criticism of the the 769s shows that in fact for an experimental project, they are proving that (at last) they do seem to be delivering most of what was needed.

 

[Techniquest]

What utter twaddle. Please stop making out that any incident involving a 769 is due to their unreliability. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary of course.

First, kudos for using the word twaddle, I want to keep that in memory for use later today and tomorrow

Secondly, I agree with your main point. It's almost as if the world is going to end when a 769 fails to turn up for whatever reason. I'm sure the majority of us, myself included, are bored of people reporting every single incident, however minor, on the 769s. I always hope there's going to be some interesting news on them when I see this thread, then get majorly disappointed!

 

[Mollman]

The 769 looks to have been sat there over 2 hours, but I can’t see any disruption caused by the line being blocked though. A 769 failed to call at Clifton on Friday, causing many delays propagating towards Chorley onto the WCML, with a TPE service arriving at Bolton at the same time as a Blackpool North which had stops at Blackrod and Adlington, but being signalled behind it all the way to Leyland…

These trains have their issues, but do we really need to list every single incident that occurs with one? It wouldn't be particularly noteworthy if a 158 or any other unit had a fail to call...

I am wondering if it was a failure to call or it failed whilst calling at Clifton. Surely a train failing to call would not create the disruption described, unless they mean the Blackpool North train had to call as Clifton instead?

 

[skyhigh]

I am wondering if it was a failure to call or it failed whilst calling at Clifton. Surely a train failing to call would not create the disruption described, unless they mean the Blackpool North train had to call as Clifton instead?

There wasn't anything wrong with the unit. The service was delayed by 25 mins, which meant the following Blackpool was delayed into Bolton when then delayed a following TPE.

 

[AM9]

There wasn't anything wrong with the unit. The service was delayed by 25 mins, which meant the following Blackpool was delayed into Bolton when then delayed a following TPE.

According to @507020, it was a 769 failure because the class's alleged poor reliability caused the driver to make a mistake.

 

[plugwash]

I have to say it's been a while now since i've seen sprinters on an alderly edge to southport train, so presumably the 769s reliability/availability has been improving. I did see a 769 running deisel under the wires a couple of days ago though.

 

[AM9]

I have to say it's been a while now since i've seen sprinters on an alderly edge to southport train, so presumably the 769s reliability/availability has been improving. I did see a 769 running deisel under the wires a couple of days ago though.

It's disappointing that 769s are running dieselunder wires but in reality,, they aren't environmentally any worse than 150s when doing so, - probably less in practice.

 

[Anonymous10]

It's disappointing that 769s are running dieselunder wires but in reality,, they aren't environmentally any worse than 150s when doing so, - probably less in practice.

possibly driver error or a fault with the pantograph on that unit?

 

[175001]

Miles per casualty is improving week by week. Mostly to do with a big upgrade on the changeover software.

Still, like any traction, they suffer from faults but the majority have bededd down finally.

 

[anthony263]

Tfw have extended the lease of their 769s to May 2023 according to the latest minutes

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

TfW have extended the lease of their 769s to May 2023 according to the latest minutes

Probably wise. I know TfW don't like them but at the end of the day they work (far more reliably than they used to) and therefore the 231s can be used to cover for things like 150s (hugely stretched) and 170s (needed by EMR) rather than going to Rhymney, and they can be removed when the 731s come.

 

[anthony263]

Probably wise. I know TfW don't like them but at the end of the day they work (far more reliably than they used to) and therefore the 231s can be used to cover for things like 150s (hugely stretched) and 170s (needed by EMR) rather than going to Rhymney, and they can be removed when the 731s come.

They blacked out something about uses for the 769s in the latest minutes

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They blacked out something about uses for the 769s in the latest minutes

Perhaps there are plans to put them on Maestegs or something when 170s begin to bow out. They're not that different to a pair of 150s after all.

 

[craigybagel]

Perhaps there are plans to put them on Maestegs or something when 170s begin to bow out. They're not that different to a pair of 150s after all.

Different enough that it would be a hefty load of training involved - and nobody who signs 769s at the moment signs Maesteg, or indeed anywhere not part of the Valleys network. Not going to happen.

 

[D365]

Different enough that it would be a hefty load of training involved - and nobody who signs 769s at the moment signs Maesteg, or indeed anywhere not part of the Valleys network. Not going to happen.

My [basic] understanding is that, from an operator's perspective, a 769 is still fundamentally a 319.

 

[craigybagel]

My [basic] understanding is that, from an operator's perspective, a 769 is still fundamentally a 319.

Indeed, but AFAIK 769s and 319s show up separately on traincrew traction cards.

Also, I was replying to a comment about Maesteg services - and TfW have never operated 319s.

 

[D365]

Indeed, but AFAIK 769s and 319s show up separately on traincrew traction cards.

Also, I was replying to a comment about Maesteg services - and TfW have never operated 319s.

Yep, I was just responding to @TT-ONR-NRN's comment that a 769 and 150 are not that different. The only similarity is that they are 20m Mk3-derived units.

 

[507020]

Yep, I was just responding to @TT-ONR-NRN's comment that a 769 and 150 are not that different. The only similarity is that they are 20m Mk3-derived units.

That is quite a big similarity. The other is their similar power output on Diesel. For the purposes of capacity and also suitability to run a particular service, a 769 is effectively equivalent to a pair of 150s, as was Porterbrook’s intention. Whether drivers are trained on them, or there is sufficient running under the wires for bi-mode operation to be viable is another matter.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Yep, I was just responding to @TT-ONR-NRN's comment that a 769 and 150 are not that different. The only similarity is that they are 20m Mk3-derived units.

Yes of course, but what I mean is I am not aware of restrictions stopping them doing similar work to what 150s may do in the local area, such as Maestegs, Ebbws, Gloucesters and Pontypridds (assuming the 153 issue doesn’t prevent the latter) although I know crew knowledge is important.

 

[craigybagel]

Yep, I was just responding to @TT-ONR-NRN's comment that a 769 and 150 are not that different. The only similarity is that they are 20m Mk3-derived units.

Yes of course, but what I mean is I am not aware of restrictions stopping them doing similar work to what 150s may do in the local area, such as Maestegs, Ebbws, Gloucesters and Pontypridds (assuming the 153 issue doesn’t prevent the latter) although I know crew knowledge is important.

Ok, I understand where you're coming from now. But yes, the crew knowledge issue is crucial, enough to make the idea unrealistic from the start

 

[py_megapixel]

I have to say it's been a while now since i've seen sprinters on an alderly edge to southport train, so presumably the 769s reliability/availability has been improving. I did see a 769 running deisel under the wires a couple of days ago though.

There's a few Sprinters out today - a 156 on Alderley Edge and a couple of 150s on Stalybridge - but it does seem to be much better than it was.

 

[D9006]

There's a few Sprinters out today - a 156 on Alderley Edge and a couple of 150s on Stalybridge - but it does seem to be much better than it was.

Only 1 diagram on Stalybridge is scheduled for 769

 

[507020]

There's a few Sprinters out today - a 156 on Alderley Edge and a couple of 150s on Stalybridge - but it does seem to be much better than it was.

I have seen a 156 on an Alderley Edge recently and more alarmingly a 769 running pan down beyond Bolton, but it’s nothing like it was with all the random failures and Sprinter substitutions, which is actually disadvantageous for passengers with bikes or mobile devices who no longer have access to bike spaces or USB chargers.

Most of the disruption is now caused by the general staff shortage and infrastructure being unavailable e.g. a fatality at Farnworth a few weeks ago forcing ad hoc Atherton diversions.

Only 1 diagram on Stalybridge is scheduled for 769

What I want to know is if all diagrams will be 769s from December. It would be simple if only the Alderley Edge was being cut back to Oxford Road reducing the number of diagrams, but there is also an increase from the addition of Diesel Victoria - Stalybridge shuttles to give 2tph, interworking with the 769 services.

 

[jonnyfan]

What I want to know is if all diagrams will be 769s from December. It would be simple if only the Alderley Edge was being cut back to Oxford Road reducing the number of diagrams, but there is also an increase from the addition of Diesel Victoria - Stalybridge shuttles to give 2tph, interworking with the 769 services.

The Victoria to Stalybridge shuttle isn't returning in December. The Stalybridge to Southport and Oxford Road to Southport diagrams will interwork, requiring 8 diagrams to cover all the services, 6 will be booked as 769s and the remaining 2 will be 150/156 combinations, so all services will be booked as 4 carriages.

 

[Geeves]

What was the reason for the shuttle appearing and then disappearing I wonder?

 

[507020]

The Victoria to Stalybridge shuttle isn't returning in December. The Stalybridge to Southport and Oxford Road to Southport diagrams will interwork, requiring 8 diagrams to cover all the services, 6 will be booked as 769s and the remaining 2 will be 150/156 combinations, so all services will be booked as 4 carriages.

I thought it was, but you are correct. In that case, how does Oxford Road - Alderley Edge and back with 43 minutes layover not free up more than 1 diagram? Also the 769s need to be prioritised for the Stalybridge route, not the Oxford Road route as at present, since this will soon have more running under the wires.

What was the reason for the shuttle appearing and then disappearing I wonder?

It seems the 2nd train per hour between Victoria and Stalybridge will be the Liverpool - Hull service, which doesn’t help Ashton-under-Lyne.