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

[jonesy3001]

323s are harder to do a Flex job on because there isn't the 750VDC input to repurpose. Third rail Networkers might be worth a go when they become available, but of course that gives you a DMU rather than a bi-mode.

i mean for service not for flex

 

[northwichcat]

I reckon if you got the 319/2 (Brighton Express) interior people would *really* like them. (That's 2+2 mixed airline and table with 6 rows per 2-windowed section using Chapman seats). Indeed, if a load of Chapman seats are going spare, perhaps they could be retrofitted?

Sadly Northern's units have the worst of the layouts (3+2 all facing) - even the Cityflyer layout (2+2 Ashbourne seating with facing on one side and generously spaced airline on the other) is nicer - but if the *worst* layout is popular imagine how popular one would be with InterCity quality seating?

The thing with 319s is they were designed for Network South East platform lengths and infrastructure. Up here Northern are pretty much stuck to operating them in single formation, so I think while passengers might prefer 2+2 seating, if the 319s were to get 2+2 people would start complaining about having to stand and demanding longer trains or more frequent services. The 331s in 3 and 4 car lengths with 23m carriages is just what the North West needs, provided there's some 6 car 331 workings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely. The 3+2 facing seats are the main thing I don't like personally about any train. 156s are perfect layouts, in my view, as are the TPE 185s and 350s. Facing seats should have tables in between, as far as I'm concerned.

For the record this is the Cityflyer layout:

and this the Brighton Express layout:

The latter looks a bit cramped but it really is not - the spacing is very generous indeed, gained by not wasting the space between the seat backs as on the all-facing layout.

The latter is best but the former is more than acceptable, and has the advantage (like the 700, but without taking your knees off) of making moving round a crowded train really easy due to the very wide aisle.

Interestingly this "narrow 2+2" layout was pioneered on the Merseyrail units in the 1980s, the third seat was removed from the middle coach when it ceased to be a smoking coach. It was actually sold, if I recall correctly, as a good option for letting you put a pram next to you in the aisle without getting in the way - though that was 1980s prams, not modern-day 4x4 type ones.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I reckon if you got the 319/2 (Brighton Express) interior people would *really* like them. (That's 2+2 mixed airline and table with 6 rows per 2-windowed section using Chapman seats). Indeed, if a load of Chapman seats are going spare, perhaps they could be retrofitted?
Sadly Northern's units have the worst of the layouts (3+2 all facing) - even the Cityflyer layout (2+2 Ashbourne seating with facing on one side and generously spaced airline on the other) is nicer - but if the *worst* layout is popular imagine how popular one would be with InterCity quality seating?

I sat in one of Northern's ex-Cityflier 319s last week which still had the old declassified 1st class section.
This had spacious 2+1 seating (brown) but with the same plastic flooring as elsewhere.

 

[northwichcat]

but the former is more than acceptable, and has the advantage (like the 700, but without taking your knees off) of making moving round a crowded train really easy due to the very wide aisle.

That layout could be considered worse than 3+2.

For example, if there's around 180-200 passengers and it's 3+2 then it allows
PASSENGER--EMPTY SEAT--PASSENGER--AISLE--PASSENGER--EMPTY SEAT

If there's around 180-200 passengers and it's that 'CityFlyer' layout then it means
PASSENGER--PASSENGER--AISLE--PASSENGER--EMPTY SEAT

If we consider the red passenger in both cases, in the first case they might have their arm close to the wall of the train but the compensation is an empty seat to the other side of them, so they can sit at an angle if that's more comfortable. In the second case they have their arm wedged against the side of the train and need to be careful with their other arm to avoid elbowing the passenger sat next to them, or in other words there isn't proper provision for a passenger with arms to sit there.

 

[D365]

323s are harder to do a Flex job on because there isn't the 750VDC input to repurpose. Third rail Networkers might be worth a go when they become available, but of course that gives you a DMU rather than a bi-mode.

They use a 1500V DC bus off the top of my head, but I imagine in general that a diesel conversion becomes more difficult for 90s-era units (or anything newer) due to various factors.

 

[Domh245]

They use a 1500V DC bus off the top of my head, but I imagine in general that a diesel conversion becomes more difficult for 90s-era units (or anything newer) due to various factors.

1500V AC bus if this manual I found on the internet a while back is to be believed. That said, I suppose this could have been changed when they were retractioned with IGBTs, but I would be surprised.

 

[laseandre]

i mean for service not for flex

How is a unit that can only run on AC power going to work without overhead wires, since that's the whole point of doing this Flex project in the first place - adding diesel engines so EMUs can operate on un-electrified lines?

 

[td97]

Plenty of 323s going spare in 2020 if the Flex programme doesnt work.

Apparently, the 323's have a home (as do the 707's and 379's). The off-lease semi-modern EMUs will be mainly AC-only, think the 350/2's, 365's. But as these are AC then electro-diesel mods would be even more difficult than the 319->769 program.
https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/964190844721836032

 

[edwin_m]

323s are harder to do a Flex job on because there isn't the 750VDC input to repurpose. Third rail Networkers might be worth a go when they become available, but of course that gives you a DMU rather than a bi-mode.

They use a 1500V DC bus off the top of my head, but I imagine in general that a diesel conversion becomes more difficult for 90s-era units (or anything newer) due to various factors.

The 1500V makes sense given that the traction package has its origins in the Netherlands.

So while there is a DC bus down the train there is the problem that the end cars have the traction packages and the centre car has the transformer, so there's not much space to put a diesel unlike the 319 whose end cars don't carry much underfloor equipment at all. 320s and 321s also have space under their end cars but don't have the DC bus, 455s have both but obviously not the ability to run on 25kV. I agree there are potential problems, particularly the software-driven traction package taking some objection to its new configuration. Although the 319 traction is also processor-based and it would be interesting to know if they've had to modify it for the 769s or had any problems with it.

 

[AM9]

The 1500V makes sense given that the traction package has its origins in the Netherlands.

So while there is a DC bus down the train there is the problem that the end cars have the traction packages and the centre car has the transformer, so there's not much space to put a diesel unlike the 319 whose end cars don't carry much underfloor equipment at all. 320s and 321s also have space under their end cars but don't have the DC bus, 455s have both but obviously not the ability to run on 25kV. I agree there are potential problems, particularly the software-driven traction package taking some objection to its new configuration. Although the 319 traction is also processor-based and it would be interesting to know if they've had to modify it for the 769s or had any problems with it.

The diagram above shows the bus down the train to be 1.5kV ac, i.e. straight off the transformer secondary. Rectification and 3 phase inversion takes place within the 'Traction Converters'.
A composite conversion of class455/6 driving cars and a class 320 motor car could produce a viable unit, with the option (subject to transformer rating) of distributing the DC over the existing four axles and adding some support via the 455's DC motors in the driving cars. That would certainly help in difficult adhesion circumstances giving up to 50% axle drive in a 4-car set.

 

[edwin_m]

A composite conversion of class455/6 driving cars and a class 320 motor car could produce a viable unit, with the option (subject to transformer rating) of distributing the DC over the existing four axles and adding some support via the 455's DC motors in the driving cars. That would certainly help in difficult adhesion circumstances giving up to 50% axle drive in a 4-car set.

Interesting thought. I think the 455's motors are in an intermediate car, though it doesn't affect the concept. However a 320 (or 321) power car would need new traction electronics because they use phase angle control, which only works with an AC supply.

 

[Domh245]

A composite conversion of class455/6 driving cars and a class 320 motor car could produce a viable unit, with the option (subject to transformer rating) of distributing the DC over the existing four axles and adding some support via the 455's DC motors in the driving cars. That would certainly help in difficult adhesion circumstances giving up to 50% axle drive in a 4-car set.

Do remember that 455s have unmotored driving vehicles, and there are only 24 456s, so I don't think the latter option is particularly viable - I would also think that it is an awful lot of work to be done just to achieve a 25kV bi-mode.

It is worth bearing in mind that the current shortage is of DMUs - a Bimode has it's benefits in terms of being able to run as an EMU under the wires, but I'm not convinced that these conversions have to produce bi-modal trains. I can't see the point of the substantial cost of combining fleets, or additionally complicated engineering to try and make a bi-modal unit when a plain D(E)MU would be fine, after all you could use them up to 2040 in that state, by which time you'd hope that they will have been replaced on the age of the donor vehicles anyway, either by purpose built Bimodes, straight EMUs, or even something powered by bionic duckweed.

 

[The Ham]

... even something powered by bionic duckweed.

Do we need a new thread to discuss this power source?!?!?

 

[a_c_skinner]

It is worth bearing in mind that the current shortage is of DMUs

Yes, but in the NW of England there are a good number of routes that will be (eventually!) part 25kV, part diesel, which is the attraction of bimode.

 

[PHILIPE]

Do we need a new thread to discuss this power source?!?!?

Agreed, the thread is supposed to be about 769s

 

[edwin_m]

Agreed, the thread is supposed to be about 769s

But do we need a new thread for "bionic duckweed"? Perhaps we can combine it with "liquid phlogiston"?

 

[Peter Sarf]

DEROGATION. Its bound to be needed and bound to happen. Lets face it the rail industry has tried hard enough to meet the deadline so will inevitably be allowed more time. More safety critical was slam door stock replacement - that did deadline was missed iirc ?.

The bearing on the 769 is that this does weaken the case for it.

Just give me more wires !.

 

[tbtc]

DEROGATION. Its bound to be needed and bound to happen. Lets face it the rail industry has tried hard enough to meet the deadline so will inevitably be allowed more time. More safety critical was slam door stock replacement - that did deadline was missed iirc ?.

The bearing on the 769 is that this does weaken the case for it.

Just give me more wires !.

More wires, ideally, sure - I'd love them.

But, the problem with a derogation is that it'd boil down to keeping Pacers, which would be politically toxic for a lot of politicians.

I've no problem with a Pacer - I prefer a 144 to a 150 (been a while since I was on a 143, due to reasons of geography) - I don't want to go off topic here but after all the hype, keeping Pacers would be political suicide.

Realistically the only options are converting old electric stock (whether that means 230s or 769s) or making some big cuts to services to tie into the electrification map (e.g. no DMUs to Manchester Airport or Blackpool or other electrified branches).

I don't buy into the idea that significant number of voters change the political party that they vote for because of things like electrification decisions (I think that enthusiasts often overstate the importance of railways to the general public) but I do think that the years of stigmatising Pacers (from even the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time) mean that it's gone too far to be able to announce an extra few years for Pacers. Something like 769s has to be made to work - I don't think there's much of a realistic alternative*.

(* - bearing in mind that Northern passengers contribute less than a quarter of the cost of running the franchise, I'm obviously ignoring the simplistic "just order lots more 195s" option as that's going to need even bigger subsidies to justify which don't seem likely in the age of austerity - unless the DUP suggested them of course!)

 

[Non Multi]

There's also the option of taking EMUs and using them as loco hauled stock (maybe as push-pull) as done with the class 325 postal units off the juice. This would also allow DMUs to be cascaded. As ever, more easily said than done but probably easier than the significant work required to convert to bi-mode.

 

[The Ham]

There's also the option of taking EMUs and using them as loco hauled stock (maybe as push-pull) as done with the class 325 postal units off the juice. This would also allow DMUs to be cascaded. As ever, more easily said than done but probably easier than the significant work required to convert to bi-mode.

And probably more costly than getting new DMU's, so unless it's going to be VERY short lived (i.e. there's electrification due to replace it in the next 5 years) it's unlikely to be very cost effective. Especially given that there's already some loco hauled trains (even ignoring Chiltern) which should be run by DMU's which also should be being replaced.

Probably the best option would be a battery EMU to replace the WofE 159's with a loco being used to drag it from Andover outwards. In doing so the loco movements are done away from the busy Basingstoke junction. The EMU would also be able to boost the power of the loco as it starts off (by using some of the captured power from breaking) which would help with keeping to timetable.

Then as electrification spread west the locos could also move west.

 

[47802]

More wires, ideally, sure - I'd love them.

But, the problem with a derogation is that it'd boil down to keeping Pacers, which would be politically toxic for a lot of politicians.

I've no problem with a Pacer - I prefer a 144 to a 150 (been a while since I was on a 143, due to reasons of geography) - I don't want to go off topic here but after all the hype, keeping Pacers would be political suicide.

Realistically the only options are converting old electric stock (whether that means 230s or 769s) or making some big cuts to services to tie into the electrification map (e.g. no DMUs to Manchester Airport or Blackpool or other electrified branches).

I don't buy into the idea that significant number of voters change the political party that they vote for because of things like electrification decisions (I think that enthusiasts often overstate the importance of railways to the general public) but I do think that the years of stigmatising Pacers (from even the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time) mean that it's gone too far to be able to announce an extra few years for Pacers. Something like 769s has to be made to work - I don't think there's much of a realistic alternative*.

(* - bearing in mind that Northern passengers contribute less than a quarter of the cost of running the franchise, I'm obviously ignoring the simplistic "just order lots more 195s" option as that's going to need even bigger subsidies to justify which don't seem likely in the age of austerity - unless the DUP suggested them of course!)

Usual Hysterical over reaction on here as usual then, if Northern were getting 50 of these things then yes it would be a big problem but the fact its what 8 or 11 if they don't get all they should 150 wise, I'm sure there are a number of way around it. including not getting as much increase in capacity as originally envisaged ie 2 car vice 3, 3 vice 4 etc, More maximisation of the Electric fleet at the expense of some through services, slightly less enhanced timetable than originally planned, retaining 153's possibly with derogation, keeping a few 144's possibly with derogation (Agreed may be politically difficult), additional 195's, not all 156's allegedly available from Scotrail were taken by Northern, Cascaded 156 & 170 from Anglia, Spare 185's possibly supplied for a number of Northern Diagrams from TPE as per happens at present or some combination of all the above.

 

[mushroomchow]

...or even something powered by bionic duckweed.

Y'all be scoffing at this, but hell, Bulleid had practically the same idea in the 50s.

 

[PHILIPE]

I've been pestering ATW re the availability of their 769s because the expected date keeps saying Summer, and asked Twitter to actually check if that still stands. This morning on overcrowding tweet they claimed August 2018 and, on questioning, their Fleet say that is correct. I'll hold my breath.

 

[gareth950]

More wires, ideally, sure - I'd love them.

But, the problem with a derogation is that it'd boil down to keeping Pacers, which would be politically toxic for a lot of politicians.

I've no problem with a Pacer - I prefer a 144 to a 150 (been a while since I was on a 143, due to reasons of geography) - I don't want to go off topic here but after all the hype, keeping Pacers would be political suicide.

Realistically the only options are converting old electric stock (whether that means 230s or 769s) or making some big cuts to services to tie into the electrification map (e.g. no DMUs to Manchester Airport or Blackpool or other electrified branches).

I don't buy into the idea that significant number of voters change the political party that they vote for because of things like electrification decisions (I think that enthusiasts often overstate the importance of railways to the general public) but I do think that the years of stigmatising Pacers (from even the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time) mean that it's gone too far to be able to announce an extra few years for Pacers. Something like 769s has to be made to work - I don't think there's much of a realistic alternative*.

(* - bearing in mind that Northern passengers contribute less than a quarter of the cost of running the franchise, I'm obviously ignoring the simplistic "just order lots more 195s" option as that's going to need even bigger subsidies to justify which don't seem likely in the age of austerity - unless the DUP suggested them of course!)

It's looking highly likely that Pacers will live on in South Wales beyond 2020.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do think there is a need to split routes to stop running DMUs under the wires until the 195s are delivered and in full service. The obvious ones on Northern are things like Windermere as a shuttle only and Barrow truncated to Lancaster with a replacement Class 319 Manchester Airport to Oxenholme/Carlisle service timed for connections where viable. If it comes to it, even an Ormskirk style arrangement at Hazel Grove in the short term, though that would be highly unpopular. Similarly, look at lopping some of the Manchester Airport services for now, e.g. if the Picc reversing siding is unused put one into that which would free a DMU.

What others are there?

 

[a_c_skinner]

Lancaster would be a good place to split Barrow services, with a bit of planning a lot of the connections, certainly the time critical ones, could be cross platform.

 

[47802]

I do think there is a need to split routes to stop running DMUs under the wires until the 195s are delivered and in full service. The obvious ones on Northern are things like Windermere as a shuttle only and Barrow truncated to Lancaster with a replacement Class 319 Manchester Airport to Oxenholme/Carlisle service timed for connections where viable. If it comes to it, even an Ormskirk style arrangement at Hazel Grove in the short term, though that would be highly unpopular. Similarly, look at lopping some of the Manchester Airport services for now, e.g. if the Picc reversing siding is unused put one into that which would free a DMU.

What others are there?

You seem to have an obsession about this particularly with Barrow and Windermere, and while there may be some short term alterations to cope with lack of wires between Preston and Manchester in May it may not be in the forms you are suggesting. Barrow/Windermere services will probably be routed via Bolton until Electrification of that route is complete and the way things are going its quite possible by then that 195's might start to be available to take over this service.

 

[CardiffKid]

I've been pestering ATW re the availability of their 769s because the expected date keeps saying Summer, and asked Twitter to actually check if that still stands. This morning on overcrowding tweet they claimed August 2018 and, on questioning, their Fleet say that is correct. I'll hold my breath.

I asked an engineer who works for Arriva last week and he said it's been pushed back to August due to problems converting them at Porterbrook. He also said that the delay in getting the 319s would push back the refurbishment/modification of the 15xs

 

[tbtc]

I do think there is a need to split routes to stop running DMUs under the wires until the 195s are delivered and in full service. The obvious ones on Northern are things like Windermere as a shuttle only and Barrow truncated to Lancaster with a replacement Class 319 Manchester Airport to Oxenholme/Carlisle service timed for connections where viable. If it comes to it, even an Ormskirk style arrangement at Hazel Grove in the short term, though that would be highly unpopular. Similarly, look at lopping some of the Manchester Airport services for now, e.g. if the Picc reversing siding is unused put one into that which would free a DMU.

What others are there?

Doncaster - Bentley - Adwick - Bentley - Doncaster takes from xx:33 to xx:26 in a typical hour to cover the seven miles or so in passenger service - i.e. might be long enough to free up one DMU?

Adwick/ Bentley would lose through services to Meadowhall/ Sheffield, but some sacrifices have to be made I guess. But is the reversing section at Skellow junction wired? I honestly can't remember.

A more controversial one would be EMUs from Leeds to Skipton in the path of some Morcambe/ Lancaster services, maybe even some Carlisle services - I can't see that going down as well in the press though ("rural communities isolated" etc etc).

And, given that the average trainload at Manchester Airport is around thirty two passengers, you could probably thin the frequency out a little by cutting some of the DMUs (e.g. Southport) but that'll get a predictably hostile reaction.

(plus maybe stop planning new diesel services over electrified bits of line - like the Bradford - Manchester Victoria - Liverpool service)