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

[northwichcat]

I think I read somewhere that Ian Walmsley has made a bet that the 769's will never turn a wheel in anger!

Walmsley was the one who wrote an article about the D-Train being a late April Fool's joke. At the time Porterbrook (his former employer) were undertaking the ePacer project with one of the 144s so I don't think his article could have been considered impartial.

 

[47802]

Time for the Dft to bite the bullet and allow Northern to order a few more 195's, maybe allow GWR to have a few more HST short sets so that Northern can have all the GWR 150's it was supposed to get although of course that seems to be running late as well or look at the potential cascades from Anglia/West Midlands although they wont likely get any of these before 2020.

It seems to me that major re-engineering old trains always turns out to be more difficult, more costly and takes far longer than originally planned so why bother. While apparently on the SWR franchise agreement there is somewhat mind boggling proposal to look at turning 159's in Diesel Electric Bi-modes.

Didn't Tony Miles on WNXX also say that the biggest proponent of the 769 in Porterbrook no longer works for them. maybe the dreaded D train will yet crawl out of the woodwork.

 

[D365]

Ironic that Vivarail appear to be doing a far better job of their "hybridisation" at this time and yet the slurs against them suffer no expense...

I'll be sure to bear it in mind when I get the chance to pay them a visit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think I read somewhere that Ian Walmsley has made a bet that the 769's will never turn a wheel in anger!

I hope that's not true, but if it is I bet Vivarail are happy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Time for the Dft to bite the bullet and allow Northern to order a few more 195's

A follow on of FLIRT bi-modes to Northern Connect spec would be a better choice, to be dedicated to the Lakes and Furness lines.

 

[507021]

If a post by Tony Miles on wnxx is to be believed (based on his discussion with Ian Walmsley) the Flex plans presumed the 319s were in perfect condition but they aren't - there's steel components (which Porterbrook proposed fitting diesel engines to) which have worn so thin that they can't support the extra weight of a diesel engine.

Disappointing if that's the case, I wonder what the back up plan is if the 769s aren't ready in time?

I think I read somewhere that Ian Walmsley has made a bet that the 769's will never turn a wheel in anger!

He sounds optimistic!

 

[47802]

A follow on of FLIRT bi-modes to Northern Connect spec would be a better choice, to be dedicated to the Lakes and Furness lines.

Except that's adding yet another train type that staff will have to be trained on, and while there may some saving on Fuel and Maintenance costs I would imagine the Stadler units are significantly more expensive.

But we will await and see death of the 769 may be premature

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except that's adding yet another train type that staff will have to be trained on, and while there may some saving on Fuel Costs I would imagine the Stadler units are significantly more expensive.

It's not just about costs. We really need to pack in the operation of filthy DMUs under the wires over significant distances. For Windermere specifically that involves a run of over 60 miles under the wires and just over 10 miles not. Barrow is barely any better.

The railway is in significant danger of losing its environmental advantage if it persists with this kind of thing, and that can only logically lead to closures. DMUs should only be being procured and used for runs that are wholly or substantially on non-electrified lines with no reasonable prospect of such electrification in the next 20-30 years. The Lakes and Furness lines are not such lines.

Give it 20 years and burning of dead dinosaurs will be heavily deprecated if not banned outright. If the railway stays behind as it looks like it will, it will be under serious and significant threat once again.

I know I'm a Stadler fan and so would like FLIRTs, but if CAF were to offer a bi-mode based on the Northern Connect EMU order that would of course be totally acceptable. Perhaps it would make sense to convert some of the EMU order to such bi-modes if CAF can do it.

 

[northwichcat]

I wonder what the back up plan is if the 769s aren't ready in time?

The use of 769s was already a back up plan!

 

[northwichcat]

A follow on of FLIRT bi-modes to Northern Connect spec would be a better choice, to be dedicated to the Lakes and Furness lines.

Surely the first point of call is to ask CAF if they can produce an IPEMU version of the 331 and if they can to find out what the maximum range is. I understand it's believed the 379 with a battery could have done Manchester Airport to Barrow and back but once it got back to the Airport it would have needed a significant layover to fully recharge, which wouldn't be good at making up late running, but should have been able to run Manchester Airport to Windermere and back. If CAF can produce a better IPEMU version maybe it could cover Manchester Airport to Barrow and also Manchester Airport to Liverpool via Warrington?

As others have said the FLIRT would be an additional class of train which isn't compatible with other type of trains in the fleet so I don't think it would be a viable option unless it was a large order.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stadler's bread and butter is small orders. They do them all the time, and a follow on from the Abellio order would just mean a few more the same.

But I do agree CAF would be better if they'll do it, in particular they may offer conversion of some of the existing EMUs to some form of bi-mode or IPEMU.

Not filthy DMUs for the next 30-50 years, though.

 

[Mollman]

Given the fact many of the 150s and 155s already refurbished resemble Trigger's broom then I doubt the Flex will be killed off by a bit of steel needing replacing.

 

[northwichcat]

Stadler's bread and butter is small orders. They do them all the time, and a follow on from the Abellio order would just mean a few more the same.

I mean viable to operate from Northern's prospective of crew training, maintenance and how they can be rescued when a failure happens. Obviously you don't want any type of failed train blocking the WCML for too long!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given the fact many of the 150s and 155s already refurbished resemble Trigger's broom then I doubt the Flex will be killed off by a bit of steel needing replacing.

I hope not, the concept is a really good one.

 

[northwichcat]

Given the fact many of the 150s and 155s already refurbished resemble Trigger's broom then I doubt the Flex will be killed off by a bit of steel needing replacing.

Haven't some spent 12 months or more having work done to their bottoms?

 

[507021]

The use of 769s was already a back up plan!

Yes, I am aware of that.

The point I was trying to make however is there surely has to be a contingency option in case the 769s aren't ready on time?

 

[D365]

Without a rapid charging solution (probably involving some kind of supercapacitor) there's no way right now that an IPEMU will be suitable for anything other than low frequency operation involving the previously mentioned extended layovers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I am aware of that.

The point I was trying to make however is there surely has to be a contingency option in case the 769s aren't ready on time?

Class 158s I believe, which I guess will mean more 2 car working.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Without a rapid charging solution (probably involving some kind of supercapacitor) there's no way right now that an IPEMU will be suitable for anything other than low frequency operation involving the previously mentioned extended layovers.

But the Manchester Airport to Barrow/Windermere trains will spend well over an hour on 25kV before they go onto their "branch line". Why can it not charge during that time as well as during normal length layovers and a full charge overnight?

 

[northwichcat]

Class 158s I believe, which I guess will mean more 2 car working.

Are you talking about all proposed 769 routes or use the couple of Windermere diagrams? It would seem strange to use 158s on Alderley Edge to Wigan or Wigan to Stalybridge.

 

[D365]

But the Manchester Airport to Barrow/Windermere trains will spend well over an hour on 25kV before they go onto their "branch line". Why can it not charge during that time as well as during normal length layovers and a full charge overnight?

Depends entirely on how capable the power supply on those routes is, especially during peak hours. Worst case scenario has to be taken into account, and supply redundancy is always required.

 

[507021]

Class 158s I believe, which I guess will mean more 2 car working.

Thanks, Neil.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you talking about all proposed 769 routes or use the couple of Windermere diagrams? It would seem strange to use 158s on Alderley Edge to Wigan or Wigan to Stalybridge.

Sorry, I'm talking the Windermeres. Don't know about the others.

 

[twpsaesneg]

Yes, I am aware of that.

The point I was trying to make however is there surely has to be a contingency option in case the 769s aren't ready on time?

Rescoping Victoria to Stalyvegas wiring?

 

[otomous]

It's not just about costs. We really need to pack in the operation of filthy DMUs under the wires over significant distances. For Windermere specifically that involves a run of over 60 miles under the wires and just over 10 miles not. Barrow is barely any better.

The railway is in significant danger of losing its environmental advantage if it persists with this kind of thing, and that can only logically lead to closures. DMUs should only be being procured and used for runs that are wholly or substantially on non-electrified lines with no reasonable prospect of such electrification in the next 20-30 years. The Lakes and Furness lines are not such lines.

Give it 20 years and burning of dead dinosaurs will be heavily deprecated if not banned outright. If the railway stays behind as it looks like it will, it will be under serious and significant threat once again.

I know I'm a Stadler fan and so would like FLIRTs, but if CAF were to offer a bi-mode based on the Northern Connect EMU order that would of course be totally acceptable. Perhaps it would make sense to convert some of the EMU order to such bi-modes if CAF can do it.

What you argue is correct, but you must remember that the shape of the railway since privatisation is entirely due to the government in one form or another (except perhaps when the SRA were briefly in charge, and they heralded the age of the micro manage culture, frankly). As there is no longer a central directing authority, it has fallen to the DFT, which IS the government. Yes, there's a political government and an administrative government, but most decisions seem to be ideologically led anyway - increasing the proportion of fare paid by the passenger, reducing and deskilling staff and thus reducing their influence, cutting back on electrification programmes AGAIN etc etc. So it is not "the railway" as such that chooses to rely on DMUs despite the environmental damage and the diminishing resources for fuel. Wasn't it on the same day that the ban on diesel cars and the wider use of bi-mode trains was announced? Same week certainly. If the railway loses its environmental advantage and closures result, it won't be its fault - if it will the DFT/Tory government/Blair government etc. Imagine the difference if diesel trains were banned - they didn't announce that because they know they will carry the bill. Or we will, though I of course, would be in favour of paying for that instead of more subsidies to private motoring.

 

[Class 170101]

Time for the Dft to bite the bullet and allow Northern to order a few more 195's, maybe allow GWR to have a few more HST short sets so that Northern can have all the GWR 150's it was supposed to get although of course that seems to be running late as well or look at the potential cascades from Anglia/West Midlands although they wont likely get any of these before 2020.

It's not just about costs. We really need to pack in the operation of filthy DMUs under the wires over significant distances. For Windermere specifically that involves a run of over 60 miles under the wires and just over 10 miles not. Barrow is barely any better.

Or for the DfT to accept that they need to agree to the wiring of the Lake route to Windermere. Paisley Canal style wiring scheme anyone?
Barrow is further and for the time being should be left in the hands of DMUs or bi modes.

 

[northwichcat]

Or for the DfT to accept that they need to agree to the wiring of the Lake route to Windermere. Paisley Canal style wiring scheme anyone?
Barrow is further and for the time being should be left in the hands of DMUs or bi modes.

Given how long it's taking to electrify lines questions should be asked about whether it's more beneficial to wire Windermere to free up a very small number of self-powered units, when wiring other short routes could free up significantly more DMUs.

 

[MG11]

Does anyone know if the testing on the Great Central of the Flex units has taken place yet please? I know it kept getting pushed back.

 

[Domh245]

Does anyone know if the testing on the Great Central of the Flex units has taken place yet please? I know it kept getting pushed back.

Nope, the units are still in Loughborough AFAIK. If they'd made it to the Great Central you can guarantee that there would have been plenty of coverage

 

[tbtc]

Or for the DfT to accept that they need to agree to the wiring of the Lake route to Windermere. Paisley Canal style wiring scheme anyone?
Barrow is further and for the time being should be left in the hands of DMUs or bi modes.

Given how long it's taking to electrify lines questions should be asked about whether it's more beneficial to wire Windermere to free up a very small number of self-powered units, when wiring other short routes could free up significantly more DMUs.

Barrow isn't a priority, for me, but Windermere is a shortish single track branch line, low speed, no freight to worry about, no intermediate junctions - the kind of scheme that 1980s nostalgists would claim that BR managed to electrify over a weekend and be finished in time for Songs Of Praise - if we can't wire to Windermere then there really is no hope.

Which other short routes would be better to do? One that springs to mind is the section from Guide Bridge to Marple (Rose Hill) - that'd free up a half hourly DMU service - three units for the sake of maybe ten miles of electrification. If there are any other short lines to electrify then great but Windermere should be in the "easy, short" pile on the electrification "To Do" list.