Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well it appears, much to everyone's surprise, that Class 230 has beaten it onto the mainline (if you'd call the Marston Vale that)...
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Porterbrook Cl.769 'Flex' trains from 319s, initially for Northern
- Thread starter pemma
- Start date
Well it appears, much to everyone's surprise, that Class 230 has beaten it onto the mainline (if you'd call the Marston Vale that)...
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bantamzen
Established Member
To be fair, the 230 design project has been running about 2 years longer.
Greybeard33
Established Member
Last year the poor reliability of the Northern 319s was somewhat masked, because the delay to Preston - Manchester electrification meant that the fleet was underutilised. Now, however, there are three additional 319 diagrams on the Bolton line and the cracks are showing. A survey of relevant threads on this forum will show plenty of complaints, e.g. last Saturday:
The issue can be seen by random checks of "Train Formation Updates" on the Northern JourneyCheck webpage. Where a service normally 319-operated is "formed of 2 coaches instead of 4", a DMU has been substituted. That DMU will have been robbed from another diagram, causing a bunch of (normally 4-car) DMU services to be short formed as well. Today, for example, 2-car DMUs were working two 319 diagrams on the Chat Moss stopper - Manchester Airport - Wilmslow/Crewe circuit, causing multiple short formed services throughout the day.
My query in #3354, about reliability improvement mods, was intended to suggest that, for the 769 to be a success, something needs to be done to address the poor reliability of the baseline 319 unit, over and above the changes that are a direct consequence of installing the diesel generators.
Its about keeping costs to the minimum. Northern's fleet is currently smaller than planned therefore its saving on leasing costs. They should lease extra 319s from Porterbrook who have dozens off lease. They have leased 3 extra until 769s enter service but that is still a saving of 5 units. Its more profitable to short form services though.
Greybeard33
Established Member
I believe Northern currently has 27*319s (26*/3s and 1*/4), which should be more than enough to cover the current booked diagrams after allowing for scheduled maintenance. That total includes 319372, 373 and 446, which are on short term loan due to the delays to the 769s.
When the 8*769s eventually enter service in place of the 3 loaned 319s, 5 will be needed on part electrified routes (Wigan NW - Alderley Edge and Stalybridge) that are currently worked by DMUs. So they will not increase the stock available to work the fully electrified routes.
The franchise agreement originally specified a 319 fleet of 32 units, assuming that Lostock - Wigan and Victoria - Stalybridge would be electrified, with 5 of those units going off lease in 2020, when all 331s were to be in service. The 24*319s + 8*769s will meet that requirement. It should not be necessary to lease additional units just to cover for chronic unreliability.
I know 769s won't run on all electric routes but my point was that Northern are pocketing a saving on the lease of 5 fewer units than expected. Extra 319s for a short period shouldn't make a difference but would because of the chronic unreliability. It shouldn't be acceptable for them to run DMUs on all electric routes due to poor reliability while the same Rosco that owns the 769s has loads of 319s in storage. It makes the delay in delivery of 195s and 769s even worse.
Cardiff123
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 1,318
This news story (behind a paywall) https://www.transportxtra.com/publi...o-give-date-for-flex-train-entry-into-service has a spokesperson from Porterbrook confirming that the 769s need modifications to their exhaust stacks due to gauging issues before they can enter service and start mainline testing. According to the article there's still no confirmed date when the 769s will enter service with Northern, TfW or GWR.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,710
How many 319s are currently spare?
Am I right in thinking that the 769 project could easily end up consuming the entire fleet of 86 units?
Am I right in thinking that the 769 project could easily end up consuming the entire fleet of 86 units?
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
At last, a reason for the delivered 769s staying idle.
I don't think there's a business case for converting all 86 units when the 769 project is essentially a stop-gap to get around aborted electrification schemes in the North and the fact ROSCOs are unwilling to make a large order for new diesel units given they could be banned/require extensive hybrid conversion by 2040. I expect that most if not all the 769s will be gone by 2030 and replaced by purpose built bi-mode stock as part of the new Northern franchise, likewise GWR and TFW.
Cardiff123
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 1,318
The TfW 769s will be gone by 2022!
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,790
In order to be gone by 2022 they have to have arrived by then.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,710
I very much doubt any electrodiesel units will be retired by 2040!
There is a lot of stock that would have to go before then, the 769s would have modern diesel engines and from an emissions perspective would be just as good as new units.
As they are unlikely to be as expensive as newbuild electrodiesels I would expect them to be used in preference to them.
Especially as they would be dual voltage electrodiesels, apparently, and are thus go-anywhere units.
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
ahh, so the "pipe sticking out" was exhaust pipes sticking out!
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
yes, that was implied
adrock1976
Established Member
Apart from 319446 operating in its original form with Northern, are there any more of the 319/4 operating in their original form, or are they presently being converted to 769s?
I know that 434 and 456 are converted and sitting on Allerton, and 431 did run in its original form as I had that for haulage within the last couple of years.
I know that 434 and 456 are converted and sitting on Allerton, and 431 did run in its original form as I had that for haulage within the last couple of years.
Depends whether it's height or width? If it's sideways sticky-outness that's a problem, rather that upwards sticky-outness, then it's a lot more complicated.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The silencer may be bigger than on a 150 due to the bigger engine and/or having to meet more stringent noise limits.
Has anyone said it’s difficult? Has anyone even said it hasn’t been done already?
When I reported the same a few weeks ago (and was told that I was wrong and not a trustworthy source but hey ho) I also said it was a simple 2-3 man hour fix; that only the 3 so-far delivered units need tweaking “in the field”, the rest will be done on production line before delivery. That hasn’t changed.
The mods need to be done before they come out to play on the mainline yes, but there’s a whole host of other things that the operator(s) need to sort out before they can play with them; which are entirely within the operators control.
When I reported the same a few weeks ago (and was told that I was wrong and not a trustworthy source but hey ho) I also said it was a simple 2-3 man hour fix; that only the 3 so-far delivered units need tweaking “in the field”, the rest will be done on production line before delivery. That hasn’t changed.
The mods need to be done before they come out to play on the mainline yes, but there’s a whole host of other things that the operator(s) need to sort out before they can play with them; which are entirely within the operators control.
johnnychips
Established Member
That sounds ominous.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,585
This is from Railway Magazine's www site. If it is out of gauge it isn't the top or the sides. IIRC the acceptable envelope narrows below the solebar so is that where the problem is? That would take a bit of re-design. Or is it the brakes? Or the staff/paths/inclination to get on with testing? Or is there a more fundamental problem?
This is from Railway Magazine's www site. If it is out of gauge it isn't the top or the sides. IIRC the acceptable envelope narrows below the solebar so is that where the problem is? That would take a bit of re-design. Or is it the brakes? Or the staff/paths/inclination to get on with testing? Or is there a more fundamental problem?
This photo shows that the bend at the bottom might be out of gauge:
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2018/09/27/bi-mode-good-tri-mode-better/#gallery-5
Below the solebar. The necessary modification required is known and is being done at the build stage for units not yet delivered. The modification required is very slight; well within the capabilities of Canton and Allerton to exchange the parts necessary.
A hold up, perhaps. But not the main bottleneck.
A hold up, perhaps. But not the main bottleneck.
reddragon
Established Member
To me, it looks cost effective to replace class 15x series trains with converted Mk3 EMU's as adding a diesel engine to a 319 is easier long term than re-engineering class 150s AND the class 769 or class 321 conversions will still be able to run on OLE / 3rd rail and could later have diesel engines swapped for batteries which a class 150 cannot.
Cardiff123
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 1,318
What is the main bottleneck then?
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
Has the second TfW 769 been delivered to Canton yet...?
anthony263
Established Member
Nothing yet no sign of 769003