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

[Mogster]

If it comes to pass it will be a good thing to see, of course, but my priority is to see them on the Alderley Edge to Wigan services to replace the dreadful rolling stock we currently have to endure after years of reliable electric trains on (almost) all our local services .....

Having travelled on them I don’t really see the diesel 319s as an improvement over the 150s we usually get from Southport. Both are 30 years old and internally very similar with the same body and seating. I’m not sure why people are eagerly awaiting their arrival. Anything’s better than a 142, but that goes without saying...

As extra capacity of course they’ll be welcome but I would much prefer the 170s that were rumored a while ago. From the reaction to them in Yorkshire the 170s would be a big improvement. 195s would be ideal of course but seeing one of those on the Southport line would be akin to a flying pig I’d imagine

 

[Bletchleyite]

As extra capacity of course they’ll be welcome but I would much prefer the 170s that were rumored a while ago. From the reaction to them in Yorkshire the 170s would be a big improvement. 195s would be ideal of course but seeing one of those on the Southport line would be akin to a flying pig I’d imagine

Ironically the 195s would be very suited to all stations to Southport via the Atherton line due to their fast acceleration due to the mechanical transmission that doesn't waste fuel heating up transmission oil up to 40mph (just as the 172s have given the Snow Hill lines a pretty much EMU-equivalent service without putting the wires up). But Northern insisted on ordering those for Northern Connect and using unsuitable long-distance units like 170s and 158s on local stopping services.

One of the many reasons for them being a poorly-managed franchise.

 

[PomWombat]

But Northern insisted on ordering those for Northern Connect and using unsuitable long-distance units like 170s and 158s on local stopping services.

The question going forward will be whether they can learn from the experience of putting 170s to work, and change those plans. Or are they too committed now?

As I see it, Northern are the last leg of the hand-me-downs, and beggars can't always be choosers.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

These are not suitable for parcel freight. 2 HST powercars and some converted MK3's would be better, but that is for another thread.

 

[jfollows]

Having travelled on them I don’t really see the diesel 319s as an improvement over the 150s we usually get from Southport. Both are 30 years old and internally very similar with the same body and seating. I’m not sure why people are eagerly awaiting their arrival. Anything’s better than a 142, but that goes without saying...

You're absolutely right, of course, but it's your "d" word I object to - 769s on electric power are significantly preferable (to me) to wheezing diesels of any type we currently get. Interiors I'm not too bothered about, I don't expect local stopping trains to offer comfort any more and the 323s aren't especially comfortable either.
In fact, I did use a 319 once prior to May 2018 on all of a Manchester Airport to Liverpool service (when it didn't stop everywhere) and I enjoyed it and didn't find it especially uncomfortable.
But we're into subjective assessments now. No, I dislike DMUs and especially when they run on electrified lines. Plus, as you also say, the 769s are four car trains, which the current diesel service does not always manage.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The question going forward will be whether they can learn from the experience of putting 170s to work, and change those plans. Or are they too committed now?

As I see it, Northern are the last leg of the hand-me-downs, and beggars can't always be choosers.

Well plans seem to have already changed with 170s going onto the Sheffield Bridlington services in May according to latest Modern Railways.

Reckon Northern will do a lot of alterations to their train plan over next 2 years.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The first question about standards of comfort will always be "can I get a seat?". That is why the 769s, any new stock actually, ought to be a step forwards.

 

[edwin_m]

These are not suitable for parcel freight. 2 HST powercars and some converted MK3's would be better, but that is for another thread.

The 325 units are basically 319s with a different cab end, minus the windows and with roller shutters instead of sliding doors. Not sure why you think a 769 would be unsuitable for conversion to a similar configuration.

Mk3s would be useable on non-electrified routes, but the door configuration and possibly the structural strength would be unsuitable for parcels.

 

[LeylandLen]

I see that 2 195s made first trip to Blackpool North today ...https://railcam.uk/rcdata/RCData2_detail.php?r=S&tid=365Z901F02
195107 AND 195109.

 

[43096]

Mk3s would be useable on non-electrified routes, but the door configuration and possibly the structural strength would be unsuitable for parcels.

The design work to convert a Mark 3 for parcels traffic has been done - indeed it was done some time ago.

 

[dazzler]

The 325 units are basically 319s with a different cab end, minus the windows and with roller shutters instead of sliding doors.

If the a 325 is structurally the same as a 319 (which I think it is from talking to people I know who built them at York Carriage Works) would it not be a simple matter to sling a couple of diesel gen-sets under a 325 in the same way as is happening with the class 319 -> 769 FLEX project? A class 775 FLEX as it were?

 

[Mogster]

The first question about standards of comfort will always be "can I get a seat?". That is why the 769s, any new stock actually, ought to be a step forwards.

No, recently the first question has been will I be able to jam myself in to an already full carriage...

But yes, for a 50 minute journey a seat should be a basic requirement.

 

[Roose]

According to today's Times newspaper, two of these modified units are to be used for rail freight, for moving parcels starting in the run-up to Christmas 2019.

An article about this was published in RAIL on December 19th and now features on their website.

 

[AndrewE]

An article about this was published in RAIL on December 19th and now features on their website.

and linked off the page, dated 23/10 https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...ern-to-introduce-converted-bi-modes-next-year

The first FLEX Class 769 bi-mode units will enter traffic with Northern in the first half of 2019.

The four-car trains are being converted from former Thameslink Class 319 electric multiple units, by fitting MAN engines to the driving vehicles.

Testing of the first set (769434) is under way on the Great Central Railway, with the second train (769456) set to join it soon.

Northern Managing Director David Brown told RAIL on October 9 that he understood the programme was going well, and that everything was in place to introduce the former ‘319s’ in the first half of next year.

Conversion work is being carried out by Brush Traction at Loughborough, with the first production sets at the facility. Engines were being fitted to 319431 (set 3) and 319424 (set 4) during RAIL’s visit on October 15.

 

[edwin_m]

If the a 325 is structurally the same as a 319 (which I think it is from talking to people I know who built them at York Carriage Works) would it not be a simple matter to sling a couple of diesel gen-sets under a 325 in the same way as is happening with the class 319 -> 769 FLEX project? A class 775 FLEX as it were?

Probably so, but:

• The 325s are owned by Royal Mail, who probably aren't going to want to sell any to a possible competitor.
• The rights to the Flex design are owned by Porterbrook, who may not want to sell to a possible competitor either - at least while there are still some 319s to convert.

 

[dazzler]

Probably so, but:

• The 325s are owned by Royal Mail, who probably aren't going to want to sell any to a possible competitor.
• The rights to the Flex design are owned by Porterbrook, who may not want to sell to a possible competitor either - at least while there are still some 319s to convert.

Very good points. Thank you for reminding me that RM own the 325s, I should have remembered that!

 

[AM9]

No, recently the first question has been will I be able to jam myself in to an already full carriage...

But yes, for a 50 minute journey a seat should be a basic requirement.

Whilst I would agree that a seat for a 50 minute journey should be a basic requirement, commuter experience on many routes in the south-east falls short of that. So if northern passenger services are expanded to the limits of available paths and shorter platform lengths, there may still be plenty of standee in the peaks, irrespective of how new any trains deployed might be. If the infrastructure does get saturated, you will need to get used to high-capacity rolling stock similar to the class 700s which as the class 707's have demonstrated, can work well as 100m long trains, (suitable for many of the routes with shorter platforms). The 319s/769s could even be modified to high capacity work.

 

[Mogster]

I don’t think any of the Southport-Manchester regulars would reject the idea of modern class 700 type metro units or similar to the maximum available platform lengths. Hard seats are better than no seats... I assume modern units would accelerate faster than the 15x and 142s that feel very pedestrian, so journey times would be reduced potentially.

The standing provision on those units looks good also. Northern’s 150s and 142s are awful to stand up on. Sitting next to the very narrow gangway with someone’s arse shoved in the side of your head isn’t that great either

 

[AM9]

I don’t think any of the Southport-Manchester regulars would reject the idea of modern class 700 type metro units or similar to the maximum available platform lengths. Hard seats are better than no seats... I assume modern units would accelerate faster than the 15x and 142s that feel very pedestrian, so journey times would be reduced potentially.

The standing provision on those units looks good also. Northern’s 150s and 142s are awful to stand up on. Sitting next to the very narrow gangway with someone’s arse shoved in the side of your head isn’t that great either

Maybe you should experience the class 700s sometime. I'm OK with them but many on here just can't stop moaning about them. The 319s/769s would be the first step, but travelling on a real high density railway is a completely different experience to anything I've seen on Northern/TPE services. The days of two-car trains from everywhere to everywhere else are numbered. The flex trains look like the start of the end.

 

[Chris125]

The design work to convert a Mark 3 for parcels traffic has been done - indeed it was done some time ago.

I should think Wabtec's current experience of modifying mk3s has scared off anyone else considering it.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Ironically the 195s would be very suited to all stations to Southport via the Atherton line due to their fast acceleration due to the mechanical transmission that doesn't waste fuel heating up transmission oil up to 40mph (just as the 172s have given the Snow Hill lines a pretty much EMU-equivalent service without putting the wires up). But Northern insisted on ordering those for Northern Connect and using unsuitable long-distance units like 170s and 158s on local stopping services.

One of the many reasons for them being a poorly-managed franchise.

Exactly. We need many more 195s. Is it the no diesels by 2040 plan that's preventing more orders?

 

[scrapy]

So, I've just spent a couple of hours collating data from RTT to recreate most, if not all, of the diagrams which work services from Southport/Wigan/Kirkby - Manchester/Stalybridge/Alderley Edge/Leeds/Blackburn.
There are six diagrams which work the majority of (the above) services via Bolton throughout the day so, to me, it would seem to make sense for Northern to start the 769s on those.

If, as you suggest, the idea is to switch all the Alderley services to Southport, then diagrams will have to change anyway; but by my reckoning the 8 units on order would be the minimum needed to run all the Alderley - Southport services. Not sure I think that's wise as it leaves no slack at all for maintenance, for example. Or has the order gone up to more than 8 while I've not been paying attention?

I reckon 6 diagrams would be needed for Southport to Alderley the journey is just over 2 hours each way with a long layover at Alderley there is nothing to say they will all be 769s. It could be done with 5 although very unlikely as would need major retiming of other services and would probably cause reliability problems even if pathing wasn't a problem.

 

[The Ham]

Exactly. We need many more 195s. Is it the no diesels by 2040 plan that's preventing more orders?

No more diesels by 2040 is more of an idea floated by a government minister than anything else.

The bigger limiting factor is the lack of new franchises being let, the next is EMT which should be announced about Easter which is hopefully going to release a load of DMU's by replacing them with bimodal trains.

 

[Mogster]

Exactly. We need many more 195s.

Yes. I keep hoping we’ll hear that more 195s are being ordered.

I’m still not convinced that the 769s are going to work out. Particularly on the performance front.

 

[modernrail]

Maybe you should experience the class 700s sometime. I'm OK with them but many on here just can't stop moaning about them. The 319s/769s would be the first step, but travelling on a real high density railway is a completely different experience to anything I've seen on Northern/TPE services. The days of two-car trains from everywhere to everywhere else are numbered. The flex trains look like the start of the end.

I have spent many many hours on overcrowded 2 carriage or 4 carriage Northern rush hour trains and on 319s and 700's in London. There is no doubt in my mind that a 700 experience is preferable to the other options. Whilst the seats on the 700s could definitely be better and the seat alignment is universally pathetic, when full to bursting they most definitely work better than the other options. Other niggles lile Wi-Fi and seat back tables could be sorted very easily and seems to be on some of the 700's.

There is absolutely no need to worry though. The chance of a coherent order for metro services in the north is zero. For some reason it is only the South that is allowed to do that sort of thing and benefit from a universal fleet. I sometimes wonder how much of the subsidy to northern goes to keeping mis-matched junk on the rails.

For these reasons I really do hope that we see a serious move to replace most sprinters with bi-mode Renatus units. If Nothern becomes the land of bi-mode 319s and 321's for the next 15 years, well let's face it worse things could happen. That would also give NR an opportunity to learn how to run an infrastructure company and do things properly that the L&Y were doing in 1905, like electrify a railway. Yes I realise electrification is more difficult now, but we have also created a worldwide air transport infrastructure and sent man into space since then.

 

[Mogster]

Supporting many different train types must make training and maintenance a nightmare, surely...

Do more modern units require less maintenance than older stock? In the way that modern cars need less servicing.

 

[AM9]

... There is absolutely no need to worry though. The chance of a coherent order for metro services in the north is zero. For some reason it is only the South that is allowed to do that sort of thing and benefit from a universal fleet. I sometimes wonder how much of the subsidy to northern goes to keeping mis-matched junk on the rails. ...

I think that your last point is valid in that the network operated by Northern is pretty inefficient and it may be a major factor in the inordinate high subsidy received for those services. Probably the worst aspect is the insistence, probably from representatives of every settlement with a station, that there are regular trains to everywhere. At most of these stations, there is rarely sufficient demand to justify more than a 2-3 car trains once or twice an hour so the whole infrastructure has been cut back to serve such a minimal service, an rolling stock comprises mainly sprinters or pacers. When there is an upturn in demand, the low-level service is easily swamped, but because of the infrastructure-limited paths, there's little than can be done about it.
The difference in the south-east is that most routes are radial on London, and the major issue is just one of sheer volume, comrise by the need to serve local stations as well as major railheads. This has been developed over decades by ensuring that the infrastructure can cope with optimum length trains, (160 - 240 metres long), and running optimised headway with uniform or compatible performance trains. That is the main reason for the class 700s being deployed across all non inter city services on the MML, not some special 'privilege' for Londoners. The total MML timetable just wouldn't work without such a measure.
For serious long-term improvements in the north, the first step must be to establish a network of key corridors where passengers can be offered fast medium distance hops preceded/followed by easy changes to local trains. I maintain that the trains used for either of those service types only need to be suited to the traffic they will be used on, there is no specific requirement for trains to be 'new'.

 

[notlob.divad]

There is absolutely no need to worry though. The chance of a coherent order for metro services in the north is zero. For some reason it is only the South that is allowed to do that sort of thing and benefit from a universal fleet. I sometimes wonder how much of the subsidy to northern goes to keeping mis-matched junk on the rails.

Supporting many different train types must make training and maintenance a nightmare, surely...

I very much agree with these sentiments. Some form of consistency in the fleets would make the task of Managing Northern a much easier and more efficient job. Be it traction knoweldge of the Drivers and Guards to Maintainance work. Having your people at a depot trained up on 1 standard piece of equipment rather than having to know the intricacy and quirks of multiple different types of unit, some of which can work together and some which cannot, has to be more efficient.

I am not saying the staff cannot handle all of this information, I am just saying that the extra complexity in getting the right people and equipment in the right place at the right time must add a huge amount of unnessesary complication.

I had wondered if the 769s could be a revolution in that respect. Giving the option of an EMU and Bimode/DMU that have an identical base point with a large amount of shared equipment and potential for interoperability. However I feel for my vision to have worked Northern would have needed to get their hands on all of the 319s and have the approriate number modified. With other operators taking up the option, I feel that boat may have sailed.

 

[Mogster]

I work as a scientist within the NHS, I operate robotic analysers mostly, we operate to pharmaceutical production standards.

My lab has many different pieces of complex equipment and tasks, at the last count more than 15. As with the railway we have to keep records of training and competency. Keeping staff current on so many different machines is very difficult, senior management want us to be able to operate every machine to cover for holidays, sickness etc..., it’s impossible to stay current on everything. I find it hard to see how Northern can manage all these different stock types with success...

The other puzzling thing is why the TOC’s order stuff independently, surely there are economies of scale that should be encouraged. Maybe production capacity is a problem though, rather than waiting 3 years it’s better to order something different.

I had wondered if the 769s could be a revolution in that respect. Giving the option of an EMU and Bimode/DMU that have an identical base point with a large amount of shared equipment and potential for interoperability. However I feel for my vision to have worked Northern would have needed to get their hands on all of the 319s and have the approriate number modified. With other operators taking up the option, I feel that boat may have sailed

My concern with the 319s is that being 30 years old already they are far from ideal. All this effort, and yes, cost, for remodelling and implementing units that are already quite old. If they were 15 years old, then this would make much more sense. It’s 2019 now, surely 30 year old units aren’t a long term solution.

 

[jfollows]

These are not suitable for parcel freight.

The January 2019 edition of The Railway Magazine tells us "Seats would be removed, some window panels blanked out, and the floor is likely to be strengthened to accommodate roll cages containing parcels and similar. Sliding double-doors mean no modification is expected, but a ramp mechanism to get roll cages or pallets from the platform to the train would be needed."