• 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

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,019
There seems to be an additional charge of 1.9p/mile for AC electric passenger vehicles. So not a huge amount extra.
This gives an interesting insight into the operational costs of an electric train vs for instance a car. The fuel cost is a far higher proportion of the cost of a mile than for the other costs presuming you own the car, it is only really road tax and MOT.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
It should also be pointed out in this discussion of 769 v 142/150 operating costs that the 769s won't be burning diesel on the electrified sections of the routes they will work so a comparison of track access charges isn't a true comparison of what each type of train will cost in service.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
This gives an interesting insight into the operational costs of an electric train vs for instance a car. The fuel cost is a far higher proportion of the cost of a mile than for the other costs presuming you own the car, it is only really road tax and MOT.
But in the case of the rail industry, the cost of the asset is also appropriate. In my case, at an average of 95mpg and 17mpkWh, fuel/electricity account for 7p per mile, but when the cost of finance against expected usage is included it's 44p. Add insurance and tax and it's 52p. The same will be true of the railway, the cost of the asset itself, along with driver & guard labour, stock maintenance etc. will be the bulk of the cost, not the raw per mile costs.

More on-topic, that updated comparison is more like what I'd expect, the 769s are heavier than the 319s but they aren't that much heavier, a slight increase seems proportionate - the much heavier PMS on Mk3 EMUs is always going to up the track access charge compared to short vehicle length DMUs with evenly distributed equipment. Heavier DMUs like 185s, however, I wouldn't expect to fare so well, and likewise I'd expect modern lightweight EMUs to fare better, also in part due to their lower power usage per vehicle km.
 

themiller

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,056
Location
Cumbria, UK
Those figures may be updated ones, compared to those others of us have found, although, if they are, I have to say that track access charges seem to be going up in leaps and bounds.
In respect of 769s, what constitutes a motor coach and what a trailer? Aren't three carriages going to be motored, one with the existing electric motor, and two with diesel? I would have thought that there would be differing access charges between the two types of motor carriage.
The driving trailers will still be trailers but they will carry the additional weight of a diesel engine and alternator and the rest of the gubbins but will supply the motors on the motor car instead of its pantograph. This makes the driving cars heavier than those on a 319. The bogies are not changing on any vehicle.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,757
Location
Wilmslow
Northern have ordered 8 769/4s units and the first were supposed to have been delivered and entered service for May 2018.
Currently only 1 has been delivered to Allerton ready for testing and there is no date for other deliveries or units currently undergoing conversion.

Tony Miles writes in the September 2019 edition of Modern Railways:

Porterbrook has informed the operator (Northern) that the first operational set would be handed over by 'the end of August'.
 
Last edited:

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I have found a document where access charges for a Pacer (specifically, a 142, as 143s & 144s are fractionally cheaper) are given as 5.62p per vehicle mile (which presumably means 11.24p per two-car unit per mile), but I haven't found any figures for 769s. Could someone direct me?


In the same document where 142s are given as 5.62p per vehicle mile it gives 319s as 14.87p per vehicle mile (motored carriages) and 5.11p per vehicle mile (trailers), so I make that 30.20p per four-car unit per mile. That's chickenfeed compared to the total cost of running a train.
I would suggest that the figure for the 769s being bandied about here is an interim one. As none are being run in service yet, it isn't relevant anyway. Assuming that axle load is the major driver, a 319 has loads of 12.65 tonnes from the four MSO axles, and about 7.5 tonnes on the other 12 axles. Adding about 8 tonnes for each of the two MG sets and their fuel tanks makes the complete loads: 4x12.65 (MSO), 8x9.5 (DTxO), 4x7.5 (TSO), so nothing exceptional there. In addition, the slightly lower top speed of the 769s will make them kinder to track than their axle load increases might suggest.
 

390112A

Member
Joined
7 May 2017
Messages
41
Location
Liverpool
Tony Miles writes in the September 2019 edition of Modern Railways:

True there is one unit delivered to Allerton, But I think it is optimistic to call it operational on Porterbrook’s behalf as no testing has been done as far as I am aware, and with only 9 days left of August I do not see them being ‘operational’ before that however I do hope to see it moving some time soon as I am a fan of the principal of this project
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
In addition, the slightly lower top speed of the 769s will make them kinder to track than their axle load increases might suggest.
I believe they are slower on diesel (probably due to lack of power rather than any actual restriction) but aren't they still rated at 100mph and able to achieve this on electric?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Those figures may be updated ones, compared to those others of us have found, although, if they are, I have to say that track access charges seem to be going up in leaps and bounds.
In respect of 769s, what constitutes a motor coach and what a trailer? Aren't three carriages going to be motored, one with the existing electric motor, and two with diesel? I would have thought that there would be differing access charges between the two types of motor carriage.
The 319s have three almost equal weight trailers. The 769s have three trailers, the fact that they have MG sets and fuel tanks on them doesn't make them wheel-spinning motor cars and they do have axle loads 25% less than the MSO.
I've found the 2019/20 track access charges which show:
class 319 4-car unit: 1x£20.36 + 3x£6.86 + £40.94
class 769 4-car unit: 1x£20.91 + 3x£8.52 + £46.47
In each case the charges would be based primarily on the impact on track infrastructure on axle loads which are 12.65 tonnes for the MSO and average 7.475 tonnes for the trailers for a 319.
The additional weight of the gensets and fuel tanks are about 8 tonnes per car so the loads of a 769 are in the region of 12.7 tonnes for the MSO and average 8.8 tonnes for the trailers for a 769. Thus the additional charge for the three 769 trailers weighing 17.7% more than the 319 types is 24.2%. Not that much more and given that track charges do not increase linearly with weight, it seems in line with expectations. When taken over the whole 4-car figures, it is about 13.5%.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
I've found the 2019/20 track access charges which show:
class 319 4-car unit: 1x£20.36 + 3x£6.86 + £40.94
class 769 4-car unit: 1x£20.91 + 3x£8.52 + £46.47
In each case the charges would be based primarily on the impact on track infrastructure on axle loads which are 12.65 tonnes for the MSO and average 7.475 tonnes for the trailers for a 319.
The additional weight of the gensets and fuel tanks are about 8 tonnes per car so the loads of a 769 are in the region of 12.7 tonnes for the MSO and average 8.8 tonnes for the trailers for a 769. Thus the additional charge for the three 769 trailers weighing 17.7% more than the 319 types is 24.2%. Not that much more and given that track charges do not increase linearly with weight, it seems in line with expectations. When taken over the whole 4-car figures, it is about 13.5%.
pence not pounds

"Pence per vehicle mile"
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
The 319s have three almost equal weight trailers. The 769s have three trailers, the fact that they have MG sets and fuel tanks on them doesn't make them wheel-spinning motor cars and they do have axle loads 25% less than the MSO.
I've found the 2019/20 track access charges which show:
class 319 4-car unit: 1x£20.36 + 3x£6.86 + £40.94
class 769 4-car unit: 1x£20.91 + 3x£8.52 + £46.47
In each case the charges would be based primarily on the impact on track infrastructure on axle loads which are 12.65 tonnes for the MSO and average 7.475 tonnes for the trailers for a 319.
The additional weight of the gensets and fuel tanks are about 8 tonnes per car so the loads of a 769 are in the region of 12.7 tonnes for the MSO and average 8.8 tonnes for the trailers for a 769. Thus the additional charge for the three 769 trailers weighing 17.7% more than the 319 types is 24.2%. Not that much more and given that track charges do not increase linearly with weight, it seems in line with expectations. When taken over the whole 4-car figures, it is about 13.5%.
Is that last plus meant to be an equals or is there another separate charge that duplicates the figures already being paid?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Is that last plus meant to be an equals or is there another separate charge that duplicates the figures already being paid?
Ooops, yes of course!
It should be:
class 319 4-car unit: 1x£20.36 + 3x£6.86 = £40.94
class 769 4-car unit: 1x£20.91 + 3x£8.52 = £46.47
Sorry about that, got a bit carried away with the cut and paste.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
A 4-car class 150 would be (Using the correct pence per vehicle mile as noted above):

4 x 7.66p/mile = 30.64p/mile
So after other running costs, probably similar. On routes with part OLE, the 319s would be a better deal and give passengers a quieter journey. It would also be more acceptable in city centre turn round locations.
 

palmersears

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2011
Messages
1,482
769450 has been moved from the shed at Allerton to the sidings down towards Hunts Cross and back again today. They're electrified, before anybody gets too excited...
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
769450 has been moved from the shed at Allerton to the sidings down towards Hunts Cross and back again today. They're electrified, before anybody gets too excited...
Well, it’s almost the end of August so perhaps that is the testing and FFR done and now ready for the handover to Northern.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
Well, it’s almost the end of August so perhaps that is the testing and FFR done and now ready for the handover to Northern.
er, what FFR? Have the movements on the GCR dealt with all that is required? I don't think one has even moved under its own diesel power on the national network yet...
 

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
er, what FFR? Have the movements on the GCR dealt with all that is required? I don't think one has even moved under its own diesel power on the national network yet...

They haven't moved on the mainline yet!
Perhaps with the Class 195 / 331 training there are no spare Northern drivers to be able to do mainline testing.
Perhaps they should have used freight drivers for testing, we might have actually had one moving by now.

For such a low number of units (8 i think) the Flex conversion/training is going to be very expensive, what is it a day or two per driver on the routes the 769 will work.

If Northern get more Class 323s and get rid of the 319s looks even more expensive to use these Flex units.

It's been said before but Northern needs to get Stadler Bi-modes instead. A much better unit but at a price.
 

Llama

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2014
Messages
1,955
You're not a million miles away there. Northern driver instructors are being used to accumulate FFR mileage on new CAF units because until they've amassed the necessary mileages they remain CAF's units, and delays in acceptance are costing CAF money.

Freightliner drivers are meant to be doing some of the FFR on some CAF units soon but that's not happening very quickly.
 

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
Freightliner drivers are meant to be doing some of the FFR on some CAF units soon but that's not happening very quickly.

Maybe because Freightliner drivers are so wrapped up doing the Mk5a and Class 397 mileage accumulation/FFR for TPE as they need them up and running by November, the Class 397s especially as the 350s are moving to West Midlands.
 

Geeves

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2009
Messages
1,912
Location
Rochdale
Freightliner are training up additional drivers on units and the various depots currently so it seems as though they are ramping it up slightly at least.
 

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,011
If Northern get more Class 323s and get rid of the 319s looks even more expensive to use these Flex units. It's been said before but Northern needs to get Stadler Bi-modes instead. A much better unit but at a price.
True. Where's that CAF Civity bi-mode? There are too many extended Northern services in recent years that really ought to be bi-modes. Southport-Alderley Edge, Wigan-Stalybridge, Liverpool Lime Street/Barrow to Manchester Airport, Piccadilly to Buxton/Chapel-en-le-Frith/Rose Hill Marple etc. Hopefully the next Northern franchise will involve the introduction of some bi-modes which will release some 195s to start replacing the 150s.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
All this pence per mile stuff with 769s should be compared with "proper" bi-modes like 5-car Hitachi 800s and (particularly) 4/3-car Stadler 755s.
If the 769 access charges are out of line with those there is a problem somewhere.
 

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
All this pence per mile stuff with 769s should be compared with "proper" bi-modes like 5-car Hitachi 800s and (particularly) 4/3-car Stadler 755s.
If the 769 access charges are out of line with those there is a problem somewhere.

Never mind the access charges, which do matter, but there a drop in the Ocean, like i say the costs of training drivers/fitters or conversion courses, keeping competence and then there's the maintenance of such a small fleet, 769s are going to cost a fortune and the wrong route (no pun) has been taken by Northern and they should have had proper Bi-modes built to cover journeys like @js1000 has listed above, would have made more sense, but the Flex looked like a quick fix. Not no more!
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
All this pence per mile stuff with 769s should be compared with "proper" bi-modes like 5-car Hitachi 800s and (particularly) 4/3-car Stadler 755s.
If the 769 access charges are out of line with those there is a problem somewhere.
Essentially aren't track access charges based primarily on axle loads and operational speeds, so if the new types are of similar weights and expected to run similar services, their charges would also be similar unless some quirk is found that makes them unexpectedly kind or unkind to track.
 

Top