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

[jfollows]

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.

Oxford Road - Southport and back.
Alderley Edge trains start from Piccadilly in the new timetable with EMUs (I hope!) like they used to before May 2018

 

[507020]

Oxford Road - Southport and back.
Alderley Edge trains start from Piccadilly in the new timetable with EMUs (I hope!) like they used to before May 2018

Yes so out of the present 9 Southport diagrams, an hourly Oxford Road - Alderley Edge portion with 43 minute layover has been removed from the circuit, to be run from Piccadilly with EMUs. That can’t be run with 1 unit, so how does it only free up 1 diagram? Also I do hope any Piccadilly - Hazel Grove services not running through to Buxton are EMUs and not Sprinters.

 

[jonnyfan]

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.

It is surprising how little it saves in terms of units, but that's how it's all been planned. I would expect further changes come 2024/2025 when the Wigan to Bolton line and route to Stalybridge has the electrification completed. What those changes are I could only speculate.

Oxford Road - Southport and back.
Alderley Edge trains start from Piccadilly in the new timetable with EMUs (I hope!) like they used to before May 2018

Both diagrams on the Alderley Edge service will be booked single Class 331s.

 

[D9006]

Poor day today just 3 units out on Alderley edge diagrams and Stalybridge not covered either

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

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

Erm. I think the answer to your point in your first paragraph is - have you noticed the 769s in Cardiff do not have a pantograph !. In the case of 769s in Wales TfW obviously do not bother with the electric part of "Bi-Mode".

 

[507020]

Erm. I think the answer to your point in your first paragraph is - have you noticed the 769s in Cardiff do not have a pantograph !. In the case of 769s in Wales TfW obviously do not bother with the electric part of "Bi-Mode".

Evidently there is very little electrification in Wales for them to bother with pantographs, but if they were starting a service from Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction or even Bristol Parkway, to somewhere like Penarth or Barry island, it would be worth it.

 

[Anonymous10]

Erm. I think the answer to your point in your first paragraph is - have you noticed the 769s in Cardiff do not have a pantograph !. In the case of 769s in Wales TfW obviously do not bother with the electric part of "Bi-Mode".

its worth noting the rhymney to penarth route currently isnt electrified at all only as it passes through Cardiff central station. the 769s were ordered for capacity more than anything

 

[Wyrleybart]

its worth noting the rhymney to penarth route currently isnt electrified at all only as it passes through Cardiff central station. the 769s were ordered for capacity more than anything

I believe the 769s were ordered as way getting the 150s and 175s through PRM works to then replace the 142s and 143s which were to be withdrawn.
The 769s failed in their objective.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

I see from RTT that 769442 failed "due to a problem with the traction equipment" at Bolton today while working the 1150 Alderley Edge to Southport. It subsequently formed a VSTP ECS working from Bolton to Allerton Depot, routed under the wires with a reversal at Oxford Road. So presumably unable to change over to diesel mode, for whatever reason.

 

[AMD]

I see from RTT that 769442 failed "due to a problem with the traction equipment" at Bolton today

442 appears to becoming a problem child. I'm not yet aware of the detailed reason for today's fault, other than not switching to diesel mode; however it's the same unit that failed on Friday with a fire light on the fault panel - with that light on the diesel engines shut down and can't be started.

 

[AM9]

442 appears to becoming a problem child. I'm not yet aware of the detailed reason for today's fault, other than not switching to diesel mode; however it's the same unit that failed on Friday with a fire light on the fault panel - with that light on the diesel engines shut down and can't be started.

Could be as simple as an intermittent ground or other connnection.

 

[jfollows]

769424 (reportedly, from RTT) appeared to have a problem in Wilmslow this morning and sat in platform 3 for 25 minutes on 2W02 07:49 Alderley Edge-Southport, so 1H14 06:53 Birmingham New Street-Piccadilly went round it through the up platform (made slightly easier by Cross Country excising Wilmslow as an actual stop for this train "because of Covid" and never reinstating it), which however held up 1R27 07:55 Piccadilly-Euston and 2K81 06:17 Southport-Alderley Edge.
769424 on the move again, so the picture below shows the point at which it's alongside 1H14 at Cheadle Hulme and the two up trains are waiting for 1H14 to cross and clear their routes.

EDIT 2W02 23 minutes late leaving Wilmslow, 1H14 14 minutes late passing Wilmslow, 1R27 19 minutes late leaving Wilmslow, 2K81 36 minutes late leaving Wilmslow, so that's a total of 92 minutes of delay, mostly caused by - presumably - a problem with 769424. I'm only guessing at this, the delay to 2W02 could have been for another reason of course.
FURTHER EDIT: https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/service-updates

07:49 Alderley Edge to Southport due 09:28 will no longer call at Gathurst, Appley Bridge, Parbold, Burscough Bridge and Meols Cop. It has been delayed at Wilmslow and is now 22 minutes late. This is due to a fault on this train.

 

[jonnyfan]

769424 (reportedly, from RTT) appeared to have a problem in Wilmslow this morning and sat in platform 3 for 25 minutes on 2W02 07:49 Alderley Edge-Southport

I understand this was down to a door fault whilst at Wilmslow.

 

[jfollows]

I understand this was down to a door fault whilst at Wilmslow.

Thank you, makes sense, so not just a 769-thing then given that I've encountered door faults on 319s before, I think they're just more than a bit knackered to start with and definitely showing their age even without the gee-whizzery of diesel engines added.

 

[jonnyfan]

Thank you, makes sense, so not just a 769-thing then given that I've encountered door faults on 319s before, I think they're just more than a bit knackered to start with and definitely showing their age even without the gee-whizzery of diesel engines added.

Definitely agree with you there, I've had many issues working on 319s, the 769s just have more stuff to go wrong!

 

[AM9]

Definitely agree with you there, I've had many issues working on 319s, the 769s just have more stuff to go wrong!

does anybody know whether other MKIII multiple units of similar age and usage have similar issues with sliding doors?

 

[LOL The Irony]

does anybody know whether other MKIII multiple units of similar age and usage have similar issues with sliding doors?

There was that GA 321(?) that travelled for several miles with a door leaf left open a while back and I see a few 150s with the remnants of door not in use signs on the windows but other than that, I don't really know.

 

[js1000]

Thank you, makes sense, so not just a 769-thing then given that I've encountered door faults on 319s before, I think they're just more than a bit knackered to start with and definitely showing their age even without the gee-whizzery of diesel engines added.

Since being introduced in the North West in 2015 on more than one occasion I have seen door faults on 319s. ~12 seem to have been clinging onto service here for a few years.

 

[Parjon]

Thank you, makes sense, so not just a 769-thing then given that I've encountered door faults on 319s before, I think they're just more than a bit knackered to start with and definitely showing their age even without the gee-whizzery of diesel engines added.

Think Northern should have spent a bit on refurbishing other parts of the trains when they got them, rather than ruining the comfy seats!!

 

[AndrewE]

does anybody know whether other MKIII multiple units of similar age and usage have similar issues with sliding doors?

BR had an absolute ban on using rock salt on frosty platforms because the grit interfered with sliding door mechanisms. Since privatisation I have noticed some areas reverting to the cheap and (not-so) cheerful salt. I wonder whether the migration of older BR-era units back into these areas means the lesson will have to be re-learnt? I get the impression that newer units have doors which are more resilient to the presence of such contamination.

 

[AM9]

Think Northern should have spent a bit on refurbishing other parts of the trains when they got them, rather than ruining the comfy seats!!

I would agree with that. Much of the issues with the 769s (and the 319s for their part) are related that Northern didn't do any preventative maintenance on them before they went into service. The 319s have had traction system failures and door failures, particularly in the early days when (presumably) the depots were still well down the learning curve. Neither of those failure modes are in any way related to the bimode capability of the 769s. But as many posts here heavily criticising the conversion and blaming every failure on the traction system modifications, when the official reasons for failures are revealed, many of them are down to signs of inadequate basic maintenance.
Age (in service) isn't necessarily a cause of poor reliability, indeed, if a compatible maintenance regime is deployed, mature equipment can be more reliable than new. Witness the SR EMUs that ran high intensity services for decades with some motors and other traction equipment over 50 years old.

 

[diligentdave]

I would agree with that. Much of the issues with the 769s (and the 319s for their part) are related that Northern didn't do any preventative maintenance on them before they went into service. The 319s have had traction system failures and door failures, particularly in the early days when (presumably) the depots were still well down the learning curve. Neither of those failure modes are in any way related to the bimode capability of the 769s. But as many posts here heavily criticising the conversion and blaming every failure on the traction system modifications, when the official reasons for failures are revealed, many of them are down to signs of inadequate basic maintenance.
Age (in service) isn't necessarily a cause of poor reliability, indeed, if a compatible maintenance regime is deployed, mature equipment can be more reliable than new. Witness the SR EMUs that ran high intensity services for decades with some motors and other traction equipment over 50 years old.

So your intimate knowledge of the maintenance servicing of 769 (and therefore 319's) is to blame Northern for lack of preventative maintenance?

That's despite the actual known facts that the Class 319 fleet (before some were changed to 769's) didn't undergo door overhauls as part of the ROSCO led (that's the owning companies to the uninitiated, in this case Porterbrook) C6 overhauls and Northern have been trying to "nurse" the door header gear for the best part of 7 years now whilst someone comes up with the equipment to "modernise" the door header gear?

As well as the fact that the ROSCO decided to fit diesel engines to an EMU fleet in a new innovative way to provide a more diverse train but failed to implement any sort of support servicing from the manufacturers for said engines and that Northern have had to fight their own corner to put this in place (and I suspect most of the other TOC's have had to as well). Basically a "take it out the box and use it" scenario was handed over.

319's have always had traction and door failures since they were first introduced down South, from that aspect they will never change, but to blame a TOC in that particular way is incorrect before the full facts are known.

 

[AM9]

So your intimate knowledge of the maintenance servicing of 769 (and therefore 319's) is to blame Northern for lack of preventative maintenance?319's have always had traction and door failures since they were first introduced down South, from that aspect they will never change, but to blame a TOC in that particular way is incorrect before the full facts are known.

As far as the passengers were concerned, it's irrelevant whether Northern or anybody else did any essential work, the fact is that the service suffered badly because nobody did and it was Northern's reputation that took the hit.

That's despite the actual known facts that the Class 319 fleet (before some were changed to 769's) didn't undergo door overhauls as part of the ROSCO led (that's the owning companies to the uninitiated, in this case Porterbrook) C6 overhauls and Northern have been trying to "nurse" the door header gear for the best part of 7 years now whilst someone comes up with the equipment to "modernise" the door header gear?

I am very familiar with the 319s working much harder than they ever do on short slow-ish runs in Lancashire. Northern (and Porterbrook) are quite familiar with BR MKIII door designs - think classes 150 (from 2011), 321 (from 2004) and 322 (from 2011), so the 319 doors weren't like something from another world. If between them a decision was made not to push for an overhaul, that's another 'feather' in Northern's cap. I'm imagine that the maintenance crews felt that their management had given them an impossible task.

As well as the fact that the ROSCO decided to fit diesel engines to an EMU fleet in a new innovative way to provide a more diverse train but failed to implement any sort of support servicing from the manufacturers for said engines and that Northern have had to fight their own corner to put this in place (and I suspect most of the other TOC's have had to as well). Basically a "take it out the box and use it" scenario was handed over.

Once again, Northern accepted the trains on whatever the terms were. If there wasn't any provision in the event of them being unsuitable for service, that is another management failure.

319's have always had traction and door failures since they were first introduced down South, from that aspect they will never change, but to blame a TOC in that particular way is incorrect before the full facts are known.

I refer to the TOC by it's franchise/service area name i.e. 'Northern', whether at any particular instant it was Arriva Trains Northern / Northern Rail / Arriva Rail North / Northern Trains, it seems from so many people here far more intimately involved with Northern in one or more of those guises that despite the changes in the company at the top, TUPE ensured that some aspects of the culture were unchanged.

 

[Bikeman78]

So your intimate knowledge of the maintenance servicing of 769 (and therefore 319's) is to blame Northern for lack of preventative maintenance?

That's despite the actual known facts that the Class 319 fleet (before some were changed to 769's) didn't undergo door overhauls as part of the ROSCO led (that's the owning companies to the uninitiated, in this case Porterbrook) C6 overhauls and Northern have been trying to "nurse" the door header gear for the best part of 7 years now whilst someone comes up with the equipment to "modernise" the door header gear?

As well as the fact that the ROSCO decided to fit diesel engines to an EMU fleet in a new innovative way to provide a more diverse train but failed to implement any sort of support servicing from the manufacturers for said engines and that Northern have had to fight their own corner to put this in place (and I suspect most of the other TOC's have had to as well). Basically a "take it out the box and use it" scenario was handed over.

319's have always had traction and door failures since they were first introduced down South, from that aspect they will never change, but to blame a TOC in that particular way is incorrect before the full facts are known.

I have some memories of the 319s in the Connex era when they were only a few years old. They were grim then. Fairly common breakdowns, including 319004 across the junction at Horsham. Heating seemed to be an optional extra. Slipped like mad in the autumn and near permanent wheel flats. That said, I have had a few runs on the 16:24 to Northampton recently for a bit of DC motor action, including some runs on the former Connex machines.

 

[D365]

The April VCB failure that keeps being alluded to, it certainly wasn’t Brush’s doing…

 

[507020]

The April VCB failure that keeps being alluded to, it certainly wasn’t Brush’s doing…

But with that, why were only 769s banned from operating when it was not an issue specific to 769s?

 

[D365]

But with that, why were only 769s banned from operating when it was not an issue specific to 769s?

The ban was only in place until the specialist engineers determined the failure and pointed out to Network Rail that they would have to ban all 80s-designed EMUs and Class 90s. The same failure mode could equally have been seen on any of the above.

 

[507020]

The ban was only in place until the specialist engineers determined the failure and pointed out to Network Rail that they would have to ban all 80s-designed EMUs and Class 90s. The same failure mode could equally have been seen on any of the above.

So it is a known fact that the failure mode was of 1980s equipment, but Network Rail did not ban all EMUs or locomotives of a certain age, only 769s, despite it not being a 769-specific issue.

The prejudice against 769s and their conversion to Diesel is not confined to rail enthusiasts. Industry professionals on at least one occasion made an incorrect decision based on this prejudice, which was not reversed until they were informed of the facts, which resulted in passengers being stranded when 769s ran out of fuel, their diagrams being geared for a significant amount of electric running.

Why is a more fact-based and professional approach not taken with regards to the operation of the 769 fleet?

For example I hear that there is a great deal of optimism surrounding the application of a new version of the engine management software. If it is a fact that this new software version will reduce failures, then that is very good news.

 

[Geeves]

Couple of things regards to the 769s come the December timetable

769s will no longer go beyond Oxford Rd on planned work
Manchester Piccadilly depot will no longer sign 769s
Two 769s per night will finish at Allerton on the new diagrams, the other diagrams will end at Springs Branch or Newton Heath with no overnight stabling at Vic, Wigan or Southport.

 

[D365]

So it is a known fact that the failure mode was of 1980s equipment, but Network Rail did not ban all EMUs or locomotives of a certain age, only 769s, despite it not being a 769-specific issue.

No - the ban was in place because the cause of the incident was not known. Porterbrook had to bring in specialist engineers to determine that it was a VCB failure and thus not a fault specific to a 769. At which point the electric mode ban was rescinded.