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

Greybeard33 · 9 Mar 2020

prod_pep said:
Indeed. Surely this can't be the plan? It just doesn't make sense.

The point of the 769s ought to be to release DMUs for use elsewhere, something which is desperately needed to increase capacity on diesel-worked services. Using them on EMU services is nonsensical and the only thing it would potentially allow is the rest of the 319 fleet to be withdrawn earlier, before the additional 323s arrive.

Of course, another issue is that 319s struggle to keep to time on the Chat Moss stoppers and are regularly late. The 769s will be even worse in the acceleration department whereas the swifter 323s and 331s keep to time with ease.

This is getting OT for this thread, so I have replied in the Manchester-Southport: No 769s after all? thread.

RailUK Forums

edwin_m · 10 Mar 2020

Greybeard33 said:
Indeed, if correct it does seem somewhat perverse, on the face of it, to switch the 769s on to a route where they will make less use of their diesel capability.

Not sure I follow your logic here.

Let's say there are two routes each of which requires seven four-car units in traffic, so the fleet of eight 769s could be dedicated to one of those routes with a maintenance spare. One route is 90% electric, the other is 50% electric, and we'll assume no difference in running time between the two types. Whichever way round they are allocated, there will be seven 769s and seven four-car DMUs in service. And the costs and emissions associated with diesel running are minimized by allocating the 769s to the route that is 90% electric, because they will spend less time running on diesel and the fleet of DMUs will be running on diesel whichever route they are on. This argument seems to me to hold for any proportions of electric running, until you get to a 100% electric route where it's pointless to use the 769s as EMUs can be used instead.

So what's the reason to put the 769s on a route with less electric mileage?

Roger B · 10 Mar 2020

edwin_m said:
Not sure I follow your logic here.

Let's say there are two routes each of which requires seven four-car units in traffic, so the fleet of eight 769s could be dedicated to one of those routes with a maintenance spare. One route is 90% electric, the other is 50% electric, and we'll assume no difference in running time between the two types. Whichever way round they are allocated, there will be seven 769s and seven four-car DMUs in service. And the costs and emissions associated with diesel running are minimized by allocating the 769s to the route that is 90% electric, because they will spend less time running on diesel and the fleet of DMUs will be running on diesel whichever route they are on. This argument seems to me to hold for any proportions of electric running, until you get to a 100% electric route where it's pointless to use the 769s as EMUs can be used instead.

So what's the reason to put the 769s on a route with less electric mileage?

About the only reason I could see would be to minimise the risk of a 769 running out of fuel. The flip-side though, isn't to look at the proportion of time the 769s spend under the wires, but rather to look at the total time spent by diesels under the wires, because that's where most of the environmental benefits will accrue (until battery operation away from the wires becomes practicable).

There's also the issue that Northern appears to have insufficient diesel trains, and therefore every diesel diagram that can be replaced by a 769 frees up that diesel train to be allocated elsewhere - either reducing cancellations or short-formed services.

Greybeard33 · 10 Mar 2020

edwin_m said:
Not sure I follow your logic here.

Let's say there are two routes each of which requires seven four-car units in traffic, so the fleet of eight 769s could be dedicated to one of those routes with a maintenance spare. One route is 90% electric, the other is 50% electric, and we'll assume no difference in running time between the two types. Whichever way round they are allocated, there will be seven 769s and seven four-car DMUs in service. And the costs and emissions associated with diesel running are minimized by allocating the 769s to the route that is 90% electric, because they will spend less time running on diesel and the fleet of DMUs will be running on diesel whichever route they are on. This argument seems to me to hold for any proportions of electric running, until you get to a 100% electric route where it's pointless to use the 769s as EMUs can be used instead.

So what's the reason to put the 769s on a route with less electric mileage?

Your reasoning is correct if the routes are immutable. But here we are discussing a possible timetable recast, in December 2020 or May 2021, to reduce congestion in central Manchester. The proposal would join together an existing long EMU worked route (Chat Moss) to a short DMU worked route (Stalybridge) to create a new long 769 worked route.

As Northern has a fixed fleet of 769s, which would be fully employed both before and after the timetable change, the net effect on the network would be to reduce total EMU mileage and increase DMU mileage under the wires (assuming that the previous 769 route, Southport - Alderley Edge, would be worked by DMUs throughout - as I pointed out in the other thread, we do not yet know that that would be the case).

TheGarner · 10 Mar 2020

prod_pep said:
I sincerely hope this isn't correct. I use the Chat Moss stoppers regularly, and going back to the dismal 319 performance and lousy interiors on all services doesn't appeal in the slightest. What a waste as well keeping DMUs under the wires between Manchester and Alderley Edge, unless Southport too is split from this service.

What on Earth was the point in training all crews at Lime Street to work 323s if they are going to cease running into Liverpool? The 323s and 331s are like chalk and cheese compared with the 319 units (and undoubtedly the 769 conversions): they are vastly superior in every conceivable way.

Also use the chat moss trains on a daily basis and it's been fantastic using the new Northern 331s getting home. It's going to suck pretty badly if they are going to shove these flex trains on there.

a_c_skinner · 10 Mar 2020

Staylbridge on the end of a long route under the wires seems to be ideal for battery, isn't it? IIRC there is a grid feeder if you want to charge up at Staylbridge.

AndrewE · 10 Mar 2020

a_c_skinner said:
Staylbridge on the end of a long route under the wires seems to be ideal for battery, isn't it? IIRC there is a grid feeder if you want to charge up at Staylbridge.

except that there isn't one (a battery EMU) available yet is there? (and presumably therefore can't be for another 2 years.) The 769s look as though they might start working soon...

a_c_skinner · 10 Mar 2020

Of course, but it seems a better bet than Windermere.

AndrewE · 10 Mar 2020

a_c_skinner said:
Of course, but it seems a better bet than Windermere.

I bet the wires could be at Windermere in 6 months or even less if the will was there. Anyway, Windermere to Manchester Airport wouldn't be a bad call for a 769 if it could manage a high-enough speed to be allowed on the WCML from Oxenholme to Preston!
Someone has said in the media that to achieve the decarbonisation that is really necessary (maybe it was to do anything worthwhile in a sensible timescale) the economy will need to be on a war footing. I can't see any sign of that yet, but hopefully the voters of Bewdley and Fishlake will bend the ears of their MPs to try to drive it home.

a_c_skinner · 10 Mar 2020

I think you are right. Decarbonisation isn't being put into the cost benefit analysis of a lot of schemes. I count (on OS maps) 14 overbridges, three are "proper" roads one of which is new (Stavely bypass) so should be clear for wires. Perhaps a Paisley Canal type scheme would work but six months is probably optimistic.

769s are ruled out for Windermere and Barrow as they don't meet the higher spec for Northern Connect services and doubtless to avoid my MP going on and on about second hand trains. Personally I would be happy with a properly refurbished 769 from Barrow to Manchester.

Baxenden Bank · 10 Mar 2020

a_c_skinner said:
I think you are right. Decarbonisation isn't being put into the cost benefit analysis of a lot of schemes. I count (on OS maps) 14 overbridges, three are "proper" roads one of which is new (Stavely bypass) so should be clear for wires. Perhaps a Paisley Canal type scheme would work but six months is probably optimistic.

769s are ruled out for Windermere and Barrow as they don't meet the higher spec for Northern Connect services and doubtless to avoid my MP going on and on about second hand trains. Personally I would be happy with a properly refurbished 769 from Barrow to Manchester.

Are the bridges on former double-track sections, so no need to raise them, just sling the track to centre.

a_c_skinner · 10 Mar 2020

Goodness, the OS map isn't that detailed! Good point though. Wiki says it is W6 gauge.

Elecman · 10 Mar 2020

Staveley Level Crossing isnt too far away from a road overbridge

Red Devil · 11 Mar 2020

All training on Flex's suspended I've been told on good authority.

Llama · 11 Mar 2020

Only because they're poorly?

Red Devil · 11 Mar 2020

Llama said:
Only because they're poorly?

They're more than poorly. Train Coronavirus

AndrewE · 11 Mar 2020

Llama said:
Only because they're poorly?

The traincrew or the units? We had seen some promising signs recently, not many I grant you, but enough to let us hope that some might creep into service. Maybe this is a strategic reduction in staff requirements ahead of an expected increase in sick-leave? If it (mass sickness) hasn't happened yet why abandon this, unless it's to get the other trains into service more quickly?

Red Devil · 11 Mar 2020

AndrewE said:
The traincrew or the units? We had seen some promising signs recently, not many I grant you, but enough to let us hope that some might creep into service. Maybe this is a strategic reduction in staff requirements ahead of an expected increase in sick-leave? If it (mass sickness) hasn't happened yet why abandon this, unless it's to get the other trains into service more quickly?

It's units not traincrew

krus_aragon · 11 Mar 2020

Red Devil said:
It's units not traincrew

And presumably it'll also affect the introduction of units for TfW and GWR?

Red Devil · 11 Mar 2020

krus_aragon said:
And presumably it'll also affect the introduction of units for TfW and GWR?

I can only speak from the Northern perspective. Apologies for not making that clear

krus_aragon · 11 Mar 2020

Red Devil said:
I can only speak from the Northern perspective. Apologies for not making that clear

I suppose I was fishing for an indication whether it was an issue for all 769s or not. Nevertheless, thanks for the clarification.

Peter Sarf · 11 Mar 2020

My first guess is that it is to simplify staff rostering with the impending staff sickness levels and also the consequent ability to run fewer trains . My second guess is, as has been alluded to upthread, that Northern don't want a microfleet now that they seem to be dispensing with the similar 319s.

D365 · 11 Mar 2020

I was going to ask whether Northern Trains would actually be willing to continue with the Class 769s in the medium term, instead of looking at additional Class 195s or battery-equipped EMUs. But that would be a grounds for a Speculative Ideas discussion...

Llama · 12 Mar 2020

Peter Sarf said:
My first guess is that it is to simplify staff rostering with the impending staff sickness levels and also the consequent ability to run fewer trains . My second guess is, as has been alluded to upthread, that Northern don't want a microfleet now that they seem to be dispensing with the similar 319s.

That's not the case, training on everything else is proceeding as normal.

a_c_skinner · 12 Mar 2020

Gloom. Lets hope it is a trivial fault. Lost the keys or such like.

ed1971 · 12 Mar 2020

a_c_skinner said:
Gloom. Lets hope it is a trivial fault. Lost the keys or such like.

The current RAIL magazine has an headline on the front cover that Northern may be on the point of ordering more new trains. This puts even more uncertainty on the 769s future with Northern.

Purple Orange · 12 Mar 2020

ed1971 said:
The current RAIL magazine has an headline on the front cover that Northern may be on the point of ordering more new trains. This puts even more uncertainty on the 769s future with Northern.

I wonder if this is part of a govt plan to spend our way out of or avoidance of a recession, if say UK manufacturers are deployed.

AndrewE · 12 Mar 2020

ed1971 said:
The current RAIL magazine has an headline on the front cover that Northern may be on the point of ordering more new trains. This puts even more uncertainty on the 769s future with Northern.

So that is still at least 2 years away, more likely 4 or 5! We have a desperate shortage of capacity now, we have loads of 319s available, crews trained up on them and a bi-mode variant that ought to be in service by now too.
Why change horses in mid-stream?

Purple Orange · 12 Mar 2020

AndrewE said:
So that is still at least 2 years away, more likely 4 or 5! We have a desperate shortage of capacity now, we have loads of 319s available, crews trained up on them and a bi-mode variant that ought to be in service by now too.
Why change horses in mid-stream?

Possibly because it was a rubbish idea to begin with. And with the new 'TOC' and all the change that appears to be taking place, who is to say a Southport-Alderley Edge service will survive? It needs to be split in two.

Mollman · 12 Mar 2020

AndrewE said:
So that is still at least 2 years away, more likely 4 or 5! We have a desperate shortage of capacity now, we have loads of 319s available, crews trained up on them and a bi-mode variant that ought to be in service by now too.
Why change horses in mid-stream?

If they just place a follow on order from CAF then it shouldn't be too long to introduction, might be quicker than any add on order for 769s. Perhaps longer if they want a 331 with batteries. My preference would be more DMU centre coaches with a standard toilet - extend the 3 car sets to 4 and most of the 2 car sets to 3 and gives two toilets per train.

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

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member