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

[AM9]

Sat 14/2

For the 3rd time this week, 6 start the day. 431/34/48/50/56/58. 424 at AN, 442 at Brodies.

Not much fun for those that rejoice every time one fails.

 

[thealexweb]

Not much fun for those that rejoice every time one fails.

75% availability only six days a week is the lowest threshold for success in GB rail today no?

 

[Peter Sarf]

75% availability only six days a week is the lowest threshold for success in GB rail today no?

Never let progress get in the way !.

The minimum an operator should have is one unit as a running spare and one unit available for maintenance. So if you only have eight altogether 75% is what it is. It is a microfleet after all.

It is getting better and if this holds up then really what more is there to expect/want ?. It is NOW not bad for a rather unusual/experimental train and a microfleet. But we must wait and see.

 

[thealexweb]

Never let progress get in the way !.
It is getting better and if this holds up then really what more is there to expect/want ?. It is NOW not bad for a rather unusual/experimental train and a microfleet.

7 out of 8 available from start to end of day routinely is a reasonable ask

 

[Peter Sarf]

7 out of 8 available from start to end of day routinely is a reasonable ask

I would expect minimum one unit on maintenance and one unit as a running spare. So 6 out of 8 dictates 75%.

That's the issue with a micro fleet. If it were a fleet of sixteen I would still expect only two not used which takes availability to 87.5%.
You cannot got less than one on maintenance.
You cannot get less than one as a running spare.
Unless you want to do without one or other contingency, But that is never planned for iirc.

 

[david l]

Not much fun for those that rejoice every time one fails.

Your irony made me smile and provokes this response. To have achieved the diagrammed number in service 3 times in a week is a better record (particularly with only 7 available) - having achieved this now 5 times since October. Something from management must have been done, as units now sometimes remain in service on diesel.

I take absolutely as a regular user no joy in reporting the daily shortforms/cancellations and to be honest I'd like to see what would happen if what has been inflicted on the users on the Southport-Manchester Ox Road/Stalybridge services (let alone the staff) were to be inflicted elsewhere anywhere south of Crewe (excepting the 175's............)

To reply to others, there are 6 diagrammed out of 8, with 2 on maintenance at AN. However the current c6 programme (taking around 10-12 weeks per unit) which, once 442 returns in about 10 weeks time having only gone there last week, still has to have 2 others to go (448/50) which means that the programme will not complete for over 6 more months, meaning that the availability has to be 6/7. Of course the 2 ex-TfW units which were supposed to cover have gone back to Long Marston - but 421 was as much use as a chocolate teapot working 3 days -and failing each day, whilst 452 was a little better.

Regretfully though the c6 to most of the units (only 2 have had c4's as well so far) has not brought a consistent uplift in reliability (431 was awful for months after its c6, 456 disappeared for weeks whilst 424 which came back last week has worked 2 days and disappeared off to AN).

The ongoing problem is that the leases on these units now apparently run until 2031 - really, it'll be 2032/33/34....... when allegedly the 'cavalry' should start to come in terms of new units and probability of cascaded units.

Of course I could also mention the fact that we have a 6 day railway in these parts - Sundays don't exist for 769's or the Wigan- Bolton line, the 'new' wires have never yet seen an electric service on a Sunday.......poor return for the £100million that it cost.

Rant over!!

 

[Gricer99]

Very well put. In view of another 6 months of unavailability for at least one unit I would have thought they could at least have persevered with the Welsh unit that occasionally worked.

 

[317 forever]

Your irony made me smile and provokes this response. To have achieved the diagrammed number in service 3 times in a week is a better record (particularly with only 7 available) - having achieved this now 5 times since October. Something from management must have been done, as units now sometimes remain in service on diesel.

I take absolutely as a regular user no joy in reporting the daily shortforms/cancellations and to be honest I'd like to see what would happen if what has been inflicted on the users on the Southport-Manchester Ox Road/Stalybridge services (let alone the staff) were to be inflicted elsewhere anywhere south of Crewe (excepting the 175's............)

To reply to others, there are 6 diagrammed out of 8, with 2 on maintenance at AN. However the current c6 programme (taking around 10-12 weeks per unit) which, once 442 returns in about 10 weeks time having only gone there last week, still has to have 2 others to go (448/50) which means that the programme will not complete for over 6 more months, meaning that the availability has to be 6/7. Of course the 2 ex-TfW units which were supposed to cover have gone back to Long Marston - but 421 was as much use as a chocolate teapot working 3 days -and failing each day, whilst 452 was a little better.

Regretfully though the c6 to most of the units (only 2 have had c4's as well so far) has not brought a consistent uplift in reliability (431 was awful for months after its c6, 456 disappeared for weeks whilst 424 which came back last week has worked 2 days and disappeared off to AN).

The ongoing problem is that the leases on these units now apparently run until 2031 - really, it'll be 2032/33/34....... when allegedly the 'cavalry' should start to come in terms of new units and probability of cascaded units.

Of course I could also mention the fact that we have a 6 day railway in these parts - Sundays don't exist for 769's or the Wigan- Bolton line, the 'new' wires have never yet seen an electric service on a Sunday.......poor return for the £100million that it cost.

Rant over!!

The new wires don't seem to see many Monday-Saturday workings yet either.

 

[david l]

The new wires don't seem to see many Monday-Saturday workings yet either.

Perhaps not between Wigan Station Junc and Ince ( 2 or so per day) but the bit between Ince (changeover point from/to diesel/electric) to Lostock Junc sees up to 4 per hour - depending (mainly but not totally) on the 769 availability.

 

[317 forever]

Perhaps not between Wigan Station Junc and Ince ( 2 or so per day) but the bit between Ince (changeover point from/to diesel/electric) to Lostock Junc sees up to 4 per hour - depending (mainly but not totally) on the 769 availability.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that the electrified section is already used as far as Ince now.

 

[Gricer99]

So where is the half hourly 323 service we were promised from WNW to Stalybridge?

 

[stevieinselby]

I would expect minimum one unit on maintenance and one unit as a running spare. So 6 out of 8 dictates 75%.

That's the issue with a micro fleet. If it were a fleet of sixteen I would still expect only two not used which takes availability to 87.5%.
You cannot got less than one on maintenance.
You cannot get less than one as a running spare.
Unless you want to do without one or other contingency, But that is never planned for iirc.

If you allow for 1 in 8 to be out of service for maintenance each day, it's perfectly reasonable to diagram the other 7 vehicles of a microfleet for service as long as you have sufficient vehicles elsewhere in the fleet to substitute in if needed. If Northern are running the full service on those routes then they clearly do have enough vehicles in total, so there wouldn't be a problem in diagramming 7 Flex units and then subbing in a 15X where required instead of intentionally starting the day with a 15X in service just so that you can leave a Flex in the yard all day as a spare.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If you allow for 1 in 8 to be out of service for maintenance each day, it's perfectly reasonable to diagram the other 7 vehicles of a microfleet for service as long as you have sufficient vehicles elsewhere in the fleet to substitute in if needed. If Northern are running the full service on those routes then they clearly do have enough vehicles in total, so there wouldn't be a problem in diagramming 7 Flex units and then subbing in a 15X where required instead of intentionally starting the day with a 15X in service just so that you can leave a Flex in the yard all day as a spare.

I agree having a more universal spare from a different and bigger fleet is more flexible. Especially, if you can justify only needing to rely in it say 25% of the time, it is then a shared resource with the bigger fleet.

The cautious one in me would want a spare 769.

 

[david l]

Mon 16/2

No delight in reporting this but this is what happens.
6 start the day but 769431 only got as far as Newton-Heath-Man Vic-Stalybridge before failing. 769456 has been also taken from service to go and rescue 769431. No replacements so several services already cancelled. 769456 apparently will resume later having taken 769431 to SP?? Left out currently are 434/48/50/58.
424 still OOS at AN and 442 at Brodies.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Mon 16/2

No delight in reporting this but this is what happens.
6 start the day but 769431 only got as far as Newton-Heath-Man Vic-Stalybridge before failing. 769456 has been also taken from service to go and rescue 769431. No replacements so several services already cancelled. 769456 apparently will resume later having taken 769431 to SP?? Left out currently are 434/48/50/58.
424 still OOS at AN and 442 at Brodies.

Well that undoes any idea of a spare unit being possible from another class.

So maybe back to viewing 6 in use out of 8 as the best achievable - microfleets.
I should have remembered you need a unit of the same class to rescue .

 

[bolt057068]

Sorry, I'm no expert, but what is the problem with these units? Is it the AC to DC conversion, the MAN engines, or just the switch from electric to diesel?

 

[david l]

Mon 16/2

No delight in reporting this but this is what happens.
6 start the day but 769431 only got as far as Newton-Heath-Man Vic-Stalybridge before failing. 769456 has been also taken from service to go and rescue 769431. No replacements so several services already cancelled. 769456 apparently will resume later having taken 769431 to SP?? Left out currently are 434/48/50/58.
424 still OOS at AN and 442 at Brodies.

769456 has not re-appeared in service, but there were no units on SP when passing at 15.35

 

[AM9]

Sorry, I'm no expert, but what is the problem with these units? Is it the AC to DC conversion, the MAN engines, or just the switch from electric to diesel?

i and others have asked this question many times over the years, but no definitive information has been released but some posters seem to know why many of the failures to run occured, including lack of drivers, signal issues and other trains blocking routes.

 

[Gricer99]

There have been many problems with the ageing doors and the raising and lowering of the pantographs to my knowledge.

 

[M60lad]

Not to sure which one but there was a 769 stabled at Newton Heath tonight at 19:25.

 

[Soft Hands]

769456 has not re-appeared in service, but there were no units on SP when passing at 15.35

769456 "worked" the 11.27 Oxford Road to Southport, starting at Manchester Victoria, and then terminating at Wigan Wallgate, when it "retired" to Wallgate sidings! They did try! RTT showed the usual "M8" (train unwell!) code. The following 150/156 combo was then split at Southport to run the next two services back towards Manchester!

 

[david l]

769456 "worked" the 11.27 Oxford Road to Southport, starting at Manchester Victoria, and then terminating at Wigan Wallgate, when it "retired" to Wallgate sidings! They did try! RTT showed the usual "M8" (train unwell!) code. The following 150/156 combo was then split at Southport to run the next two services back towards Manchester!

As well as a 769 going back to NH early this morning (769431?), there was a move booked from Wigan Wallgate CS to AN tonight that has been cancelled- presume 769456.
The 2 ECS from Wigan NW-AN tonight (5Y63/5) that are booked for 2 separate 769's are formed of 150108 and 156421 which were 'purloined' during the day to maintain a service. It also now appears that 769456 did not 'rescue' 769431 but had its own problems before attempting to work as above. Not good!

 

[Bikeman78]

There have been many problems with the ageing doors and the raising and lowering of the pantographs to my knowledge.

The doors look the same as classes 150, 318, 320 and 455, all of which work fine. The pantographs I can understand a bit more. It is rare for most UK EMUs to raise or lower the pantograph in service. For example, during 25 years of riding 317s, I can only recall seeing the pantograph lowered and raised once. That said, the 313s went up and down 10 times a day and it didn't seem to be a problem.

 

[AM9]

The doors look the same as classes 150, 318, 320 and 455, all of which work fine. The pantographs I can understand a bit more. It is rare for most UK EMUs to raise or lower the pantograph in service. For example, during 25 years of riding 317s, I can only recall seeing the pantograph lowered and raised once. That said, the 313s went up and down 10 times a day and it didn't seem to be a problem.

Likewise all 86 of the 319s went up and down for around 30 years with relatively few problems.

 

[Bikeman78]

Likewise all 86 of the 319s went up and down for around 30 years with relatively few problems.

Of course they did. Silly me.

 

[david l]

5 start the day, yesterdays 'casualties' 769431/56 have failed to come under starters orders. 769424/34/48/50/58 out. 1 x 4 car 156 DMU covering off AN.

 

[diligentdave]

Sorry, I'm no expert, but what is the problem with these units? Is it the AC to DC conversion, the MAN engines, or just the switch from electric to diesel?

Most issues with 769's revolve around the electronics that control the engines and associated equipment. Just like they always did when they were normal 319's, traction motor issues are always an issue with 769's. That's normally most of the faults covered in one sentence.

 

[AM9]

Most issues with 769's revolve around the electronics that control the engines and associated equipment. Just like they always did when they were normal 319's, traction motor issues are always an issue with 769's. That's normally most of the faults covered in one sentence.

Any knowledge as to why the 1960s style DC traction motors are believed to be exceptionally problematic. The same type was used on the 317s, did they have a similar history to the 319/769s?

 

[Richard Scott]

Any knowledge as to why the 1960s style DC traction motors are believed to be exceptionally problematic. The same type was used on the 317s, did they have a similar history to the 319/769s?

That is unusual as generally they're very reliable. Don't think EE507s used on Southern gave much, if any, trouble.
Perhaps it's because they weren't EE derived?

 

[Paul AC]

That is unusual as generally they're very reliable. Don't think EE507s used on Southern gave much, if any, trouble.
Perhaps it's because they weren't EE derived?

I shall be having lunch with one of the EE/GEC/Alstom motor designers on Thursday, I'll ask him!