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

[CosherB]

im not a fan of "large windscreens" overall, so do find the 321s worse.

So you're definitely not a driver!

 

[Bletchleyite]

To me, they have a "dated" look to them.

They do seem to be a product of their time, as does anything with a fancy nose end, unlike the "slab front with a gangway" look which is fairly timeless.

 

[Mordac]

I think both the 321s and the 319s look terrible, though in their own ways! The PEP units generally had better fronts, especially the 50x ones.

 

[physics34]

I think both the 321s and the 319s look terrible, though in their own ways! The PEP units generally had better fronts, especially the 50x ones.

lol...its amazing how tastes are different. Without the black paint on half of the 50x / 313/315/314 fronts, the look awful in my opinion lol

 

[Mikey C]

lol...its amazing how tastes are different. Without the black paint on half of the 50x / 313/315/314 fronts, the look awful in my opinion lol

Yes, to me the 319s look pretty smart, and a massive improvement on the early Mk 3 EMUs

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, to me the 319s look pretty smart, and a massive improvement on the early Mk 3 EMUs

Yes, the early 317 and 455 deserve some kind of award for the most hideous units ever to make it to series production. 319 and 321 do at least give the impression that someone made an effort to tidy up the end, even if they're still pretty basic by comparison with what came later.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, the early 317 and 455 deserve some kind of award for the most hideous units ever to make it to series production. 319 and 321 do at least give the impression that someone made an effort to tidy up the end, even if they're still pretty basic by comparison with what came later.

I dunno...the only thing that looked odd about the original 317 was the bizarre window opening setup (and the very dated-looking standard Mk3 interior not used on any of the later Mk3-derived EMUs). The nose end looks fairly timeless being (as I mentioned above) just a slab front with a gangway, not dissimilar to lots of other units, some more modern, with slab fronts with gangways. Nothing special, but not really dated in any way because of the basic approach.

 

[childwallblues]

There is a 319 movement from Wolverton to Allerton this afternoon. As this is being dragged by a ROG locomotive I assume that this will be a 319/4.

 

[keith1879]

I dunno...the only thing that looked odd about the original 317 was the bizarre window opening setup (and the very dated-looking standard Mk3 interior not used on any of the later Mk3-derived EMUs). The nose end looks fairly timeless being (as I mentioned above) just a slab front with a gangway, not dissimilar to lots of other units, some more modern, with slab fronts with gangways. Nothing special, but not really dated in any way because of the basic approach.

They follow in the great tradition of tne 4-COR and the 4-CEP in my opinion. Functional and timeless.

 

[physics34]

I dunno...the only thing that looked odd about the original 317 was the bizarre window opening setup (and the very dated-looking standard Mk3 interior not used on any of the later Mk3-derived EMUs). The nose end looks fairly timeless being (as I mentioned above) just a slab front with a gangway, not dissimilar to lots of other units, some more modern, with slab fronts with gangways. Nothing special, but not really dated in any way because of the basic approach.

yeh i think those fronts are fine!!!!

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Apologies if this has already been asked, not followed this tread for a while, but if the 769 works could the next Southern GTR franchise use them on Uckfield, Marshlink and North Downs routes freeing up diesel stock for elsewhere?

 

[bramling]

I dunno...the only thing that looked odd about the original 317 was the bizarre window opening setup (and the very dated-looking standard Mk3 interior not used on any of the later Mk3-derived EMUs). The nose end looks fairly timeless being (as I mentioned above) just a slab front with a gangway, not dissimilar to lots of other units, some more modern, with slab fronts with gangways. Nothing special, but not really dated in any way because of the basic approach.

In general I agree with this.

The 317s front is fine - it's just purely a functional design.

The 319 I find pretty ugly, I never really liked it at the time, and still don't. In fact, I always thought it someone made the trains look old, even when they were new. 321s are okay, but still wouldn't say they're wonderful, just fit for purpose and okay.

As for interiors, the 317/1 interior may look dated, but personally I prefer it to 319s and 321s. The quality of internal fixtures is higher, and I find the seating a little more comfortable. The original 317/1 windows may look strange, but they do have a benefit that it's possible to choose one of two settings - the half-open position providing ventilation but with less draughts than fully open (of course subject to the usual problem of the position changing when passing through tunnels or when passing other trains).

As for ugliest front end of all, I can't help but find the class 700 utterly ugly. To me it resembles a smug frown, that when it arrives in a platform might as well be saying "here I am to give you an uncomfortable journey" - and this first impression is of course completely valid once one has the misfortune to step inside.

 

[physics34]

Apologies if this has already been asked, not followed this tread for a while, but if the 769 works could the next Southern GTR franchise use them on Uckfield, Marshlink and North Downs routes freeing up diesel stock for elsewhere?

Mk3 based stock cannot fit through Oxted tunnel, the other two I'm not aware of any issues

 

[bramling]

Mk3 based stock cannot fit through Oxted tunnel, the other two I'm not aware of any issues

An open question to anyone in the know:

Is this a case of cannot fit, cannot be made to fit without extensive work, cannot be made for fit without some degree of affordable work that's never been required, or simply because no one has ever sought to operate such a train down there?

Just curious that's all.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

An open question to anyone in the know:

Is this a case of cannot fit, cannot be made to fit without extensive work, cannot be made for fit without some degree of affordable work that's never been required, or simply because no one has ever sought to operate such a train down there?

Just curious that's all.

I believe the former Class 207 DEMUs were built to a narrower loading gauge to fit through Oxted tunnel and Mk1 4Veps went through there with bars on the windows. Class 171s and 377s also get through there - is there much difference in loading gauge between these and Mk3 stock?

Money wasn't spent widening the narrow tunnels on the Hastings line during electrification in the 1980s; the track was just singled so that Mk1 electric stock could fit through

 

[physics34]

An open question to anyone in the know:

Is this a case of cannot fit, cannot be made to fit without extensive work, cannot be made for fit without some degree of affordable work that's never been required, or simply because no one has ever sought to operate such a train down there?

Just curious that's all.

i do believe some kind of testing was done way and the coach body caught the tunnel sides on the curves. Im not 100% its just what i was told a while ago.

 

[physics34]

I believe the former Class 207 DEMUs were built to a narrower loading gauge to fit through Oxted tunnel and Mk1 4Veps went through there with bars on the windows. Class 171s and 377s also get through there - is there much difference in loading gauge between these and Mk3 stock?

Money wasn't spent widening the narrow tunnels on the Hastings line during electrification in the 1980s; the track was just singled so that Mk1 electric stock could fit through

the square body of the mk3 stock is the problem apparently. The top of the coach body where it meets the roof scraps the sides of the tunnel.

If you look at the profile of a 377/171 it tapers slightly to the top, and also Mk1 stock curves in at the top.

 

[317 forever]

I wonder whether there will be many spare 319s after Northern have had all theirs and these 769 conversions are complete?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I wonder whether there will be many spare 319s after Northern have had all theirs and these 769 conversions are complete?

But 319's are Mk 3-based and do not taper at the top (as previously suggested) so guessing these are a no-no...

 

[randyrippley]

If the 319's won't fit through Oxted tunnel. they're also going to have problems with those between Carlisle and Maryport. Like the Hastings line tunnels, they also when built were done on the cheap and needed an extra brick liner fitted later for strength.
Could complicate allocations and rostering

 

[northwichcat]

I wonder whether there will be many spare 319s after Northern have had all theirs and these 769 conversions are complete?

There's 86 x 319s and only 27 are leased until 2025 (including units to be converted to 769s), the ones destined for ATW will only be leased until 2021 while 5 of the Northern ones are only leased until the final batch of 331s arrive.

 

[physics34]

If the 319's won't fit through Oxted tunnel. they're also going to have problems with those between Carlisle and Maryport. Like the Hastings line tunnels, they also when built were done on the cheap and needed an extra brick liner fitted later for strength.
Could complicate allocations and rostering

I'd like to know if they would be fine for the North Downs line and 769s on there would be ideal... and could offer different service opportunities. Brighton to Oxford via Reading for example!

 

[coppercapped]

the square body of the mk3 stock is the problem apparently. The top of the coach body where it meets the roof scraps the sides of the tunnel.

If you look at the profile of a 377/171 it tapers slightly to the top, and also Mk1 stock curves in at the top.

Mark 3 stock does taper towards the top. There is a diagram which was published on the WWW - but for which I no longer have the URL - which is made from a copy of a BR drawing dated 7 May 1971 showing the external dimensions of the 75ft long coaching stock. Mk.3. The widest part of the waist is 8ft 11 7/8 in and that across the cantrail is 8ft 7in.

So the coach is nearly 5in narrower at the top than the waist.

I am not going to convert these measurements to metric - I leave that up to the reader!

 

[47802]

Porterbrook are suggesting demand will outstrip supply but then that could be Vivarail style sales talk. If that was really the case would they try and do a deal with Northern and offer alternate EMU's for Northern for the Non Flex 319's?

 

[Mikey C]

Porterbrook are suggesting demand will outstrip supply but then that could be Vivarail style sales talk. If that was really the case would they try and do a deal with Northern and offer alternate EMU's for Northern for the Non Flex 319's?

A bit of sales exaggeration perhaps, but with the shortage of DMUs they could be an attractive alternative to new DMUs, especially with battery technology potentially being an alternative within the next 20 years

 

[edwin_m]

Mark 3 stock does taper towards the top. There is a diagram which was published on the WWW - but for which I no longer have the URL - which is made from a copy of a BR drawing dated 7 May 1971 showing the external dimensions of the 75ft long coaching stock. Mk.3. The widest part of the waist is 8ft 11 7/8 in and that across the cantrail is 8ft 7in.

So the coach is nearly 5in narrower at the top than the waist.

I am not going to convert these measurements to metric - I leave that up to the reader!

The cross-section for the multiple units derived from the Mk3 (leaving aside the 442s) is different from that of the Mk3 itself - it's significantly wider for a start. I don't know if the MU version also tapers but it's quite possible the taper is less than on Electrotars and/or the amount of sway in the suspension is more (they certainly seem to sway around a bit). Either would result in a wider kinematic envelope at cantrail level.

 

[47802]

A bit of sales exaggeration perhaps, but with the shortage of DMUs they could be an attractive alternative to new DMUs, especially with battery technology potentially being an alternative within the next 20 years

I think it depends leasing costs as supposedly high possibly more in its favour is getting them quicker than any likely new order for rolling stock now and particularly if Porterbrook can get them out before the 2020 deadline.

I guess the other thing to bear mind is they are OK for short to medium distance runs, but if you start then looking at Air Con and 2+2 seating its likely to get expensive.

 

[northwichcat]

A bit of sales exaggeration perhaps, but with the shortage of DMUs they could be an attractive alternative to new DMUs, especially with battery technology potentially being an alternative within the next 20 years

If we look at what's available DMU wise and what's needed to replace Pacers and 153s.

EMT taking on the 14 x off-lease 156s will probably be able to replace most/all of their 153s.

LM taking on the 8 x off-lease 172s will probably be able to replace most/all of their 15xs.

Northern have a fleet plan in place for December 2019 but will need additional units post-2020 (as might a number of other franchises.)

GWR will likely need to acquire something equivalent to 150s to replace the Angel 150/0 and 150/2s which they won't have access to from mid-2019.

W&B will need something to replace 30 x Pacers plus 8 x 153s and have already secured 5 x 769s.

So around 40 x 2 car equivalents are still needed by the end of 2019 - maybe 25 x 4 car 769s given 4 cars don't provide as much flexibility as 2 x 2 cars?

At present 44 x 319s are leased by non-Thameslink companies (I'm not sure if all the Thameslink ones have been returned.) There's 86 available but with 5 x Northern ones being returned in 2020 and I imagine it's unlikely LM will keep 7 x 319s for Euston services when other options become available, I don't think they'll run short of 319s, unless 319s start getting written off.

 

[DimTim]

Has any indication been given when a unit will emerge from Loughborough for testing?

 

[RPI]

If we look at what's available DMU wise and what's needed to replace Pacers and 153s.

EMT taking on the 14 x off-lease 156s will probably be able to replace most/all of their 153s.

LM taking on the 8 x off-lease 172s will probably be able to replace most/all of their 15xs.

Northern have a fleet plan in place for December 2019 but will need additional units post-2020 (as might a number of other franchises.)

GWR will likely need to acquire something equivalent to 150s to replace the Angel 150/0 and 150/2s which they won't have access to from mid-2019.

W&B will need something to replace 30 x Pacers plus 8 x 153s and have already secured 5 x 769s.

So around 40 x 2 car equivalents are still needed by the end of 2019 - maybe 25 x 4 car 769s given 4 cars don't provide as much flexibility as 2 x 2 cars?

At present 44 x 319s are leased by non-Thameslink companies (I'm not sure if all the Thameslink ones have been returned.) There's 86 available but with 5 x Northern ones being returned in 2020 and I imagine it's unlikely LM will keep 7 x 319s for Euston services when other options become available, I don't think they'll run short of 319s, unless 319s start getting written off.

The GWR 150/0's and /2's are staying with the franchise.... assuming you mean the /1's?