Northern Class 331: Construction/Introduction Updates

[superkev]

For interest.
On the plus side a 3 car 331 tops the 0 to 60mph table in this months Rail Express magazine. 2nd was the 345 and 3rd a 4 car 331.
On the down side CAF dmus and emus seem to take up most of the lower places in this months Modern Railways new train reliability stats with the 331/1 achieving just 2350miles per technical incident.
K

 

[samuelmorris]

Getting bit off topic but I would think that electrification costs are as inflated as ever due to most of the hard won skilled crews are disbanded and expensive plant scrapped or rusting away. I hate politicians!

Incidentally battery costs goes an electric car are about £300 a KWhr plus controllers and installation say 500kwhr total and last around 7 years.
Depending on the size needed and how many trains need fitting I suspect batteries will be more expensive than the life costs of a simple tram style catenary.
Re battery capacity for interest BR in the 1950s had an experimental BEMU based on a 2 car Derby Lightweight dmu for the Balletar branch which had a 500kw/hr battery. I suspect at least that per car would be required for the Windemere branch so at £500 a kwhr that's £500000 per car - hmmm.
See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_BEMU
K

It may be the most extreme example but Tesla's component costs for batteries in 2019 was estimated at $158/kWh so around £123/kWh negating any tax concerns. The Vivarail battery rafts (two per vehicle) on the 230s are around 100kWh each, so if they were as cost-efficient (which they won't be yet, but it should happen before too long if they're mass produced) they'd be about £25,000 worth.

For interest.
On the plus side a 3 car 331 tops the 0 to 60mph table in this months Rail Express magazine. 2nd was the 345 and 3rd a 4 car 331.
On the down side CAF dmus and emus seem to take up most of the lower places in this months Modern Railways new train reliability stats with the 331/1 achieving just 2350miles per technical incident.
K

I was taken aback by the acceleration performance of the 4-car 331 I rode earlier in the month, if the 3-cars have the same traction power then that's no surprise.

 

[superkev]

It may be the most extreme example but Tesla's component costs for batteries in 2019 was estimated at $158/kWh so around £123/kWh negating any tax concerns. The Vivarail battery rafts (two per vehicle) on the 230s are around 100kWh each, so if they were as cost-efficient (which they won't be yet, but it should happen before too long if they're mass produced) they'd be about £25,000 worth.

Tesla make batteries for less than most and you must add the cost of installation and electrics on the train and infrastructure. Also a class 230 weighs much less than a say a 331 so with rail industry inflated costs Ill stick by my figure of £500000 installed cost per car and a 7 year life.
Ian Warmsley of modern railways once pointed out the leasing cost of the batteries exceeded the lease cost of the train.
K

 

[a_c_skinner]

This (OT) is a load of nonsense. A politician cancels wiring of the branch, makes some half baked promises about novel traction to save face and this is the mess it leaves us in. I'd suggest a captive unit with no direct airport trains (most of them are not now anyhow) but that would just bring Tim Farron out again.

 

[Chester1]

This (OT) is a load of nonsense. A politician cancels wiring of the branch, makes some half baked promises about novel traction to save face and this is the mess it leaves us in. I'd suggest a captive unit with no direct airport trains (most of them are not now anyhow) but that would just bring Tim Farron out again.

A trial of battery 331s should be welcomed. There are other routes where a 60 mile battery range would be adequate and allow internal cascade of 195s. If Modern Railways are correct and DfT authorise the plan then it also means 5 x 331s being extended from 3 to 4 coaches.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Fair cop! Like electric cars the problem is that we've not got to the point of enough range on battery for wide use. I'm not au fait enough to come up with lots of routes where 60 miles would hit the spot.

 

[Greybeard33]

A trial of battery 331s should be welcomed. There are other routes where a 60 mile battery range would be adequate and allow internal cascade of 195s. If Modern Railways are correct and DfT authorise the plan then it also means 5 x 331s being extended from 3 to 4 coaches.

According to Modern Railways, the range is only sufficient for one round trip from Oxenholme to Windermere, i.e. 20 miles.

 

[D365]

It's the same brake. The brake force is not changed. I've never heard of any TOC having such weird restrictions like this.

Maybe, but the braking effort curve is likely different when the motors provide a retarding force.

 

[Chester1]

Fair cop! Like electric cars the problem is that we've not got to the point of enough range on battery for wide use. I'm not au fait enough to come up with lots of routes where 60 miles would hit the spot.

According to Modern Railways, the range is only sufficient for one round trip from Oxenholme to Windermere, i.e. 20 miles.

I got it confused with Vivarail's prototype which is 60 miles (and has already been tested further than 40 miles). Hopefully its nearer to 40 miles than 20. Manchester Airport services battery 331s could do CLC services (just about). I think battery 331s would need to be used on Airport - Blackpool services to allow interworking swapping units in event of disruption.

The CLC stoppers spend too little time under wires or at either end to recharge. When Stalybridge - Victoria wiring eventually gets finished it would be a suitable route for batteries but probably couldn't justify the cost of new units. Potentially Blackpool - Hazel Grove could be remapped to extend to Buxton (using current paths and two extra units) with Piccadilly - Hazel Grove / Buxton DMUs timed around it. Its currently operated by double 3 coach 331s but its only temporary until the Aire Valley platform extensions are done. It probably wouldn't justify the cost of new units. There are plenty of EMUs going off lease but the economics of ordering new DMUs are poor. There would certainly be a benefit to replacing CLC 195s with battery 331s.

The charging issue at Windermere could be resolved by Vivarail's battery charging station proposal. This would involve a battery charging from the mains for most of each hour and then supercharging units when they are at a terminal.

The mods might want to consider splitting the thread from #1516. Its a really interesting topic but there is very little detail available so its a very speculative discussion.

 

[Tracked]

A few weeks ago I made a post about someone going to Bentley on one of these and ending up in Adwick because the doors didn't open. I had a reply stating they should've pressed the SOS button. Tonight I had the same issue, ended up in Adwick, pressed the SOS button twice, someone said "Hello" and the train pulled out of Bentley regardless. Conductor on the 22:32 Don-Lds said he'd never heard of this issue before, yeah right.

 

[Grannyjoans]

How much horsepower do these 331's have ?
Is the 3,600 I heard elsewhere correct ? That seems an awful lot - it's only 100 off a class 70!
A class 70 can haul 4000 tonnes!
I can't find anything offical

 

[Nymanic]

How much horsepower do these 331's have ?
Is the 3,600 I heard elsewhere correct ? That seems an awful lot - it's only 100 off a class 70!
A class 70 can haul 4000 tonnes!
I can't find anything offical

Allegedly it's a 220KW traction motor for each axle of each driving car. 1760KW = around 2360hp

Source

I believe that's around 15% more power than a 350, for a train roughly 20t lighter (331/1), or closer to 50t lighter for a 331/0.

 

[Grannyjoans]

The difference in acceleration is very noticable between the 331/0 and the 331/1 from the Drivers point of view

 

[Bovverboy]

Last night's 2231 Manchester Victoria - Liverpool Lime Street, operated by 331111, arrived at Eccles showing 'Not In Service'. I'm happy to say that the two intending passengers both managed to board, all the same.
Would it not be better to switch the destination display off, instead of displaying a false one?

 

[Llama]

It's probably down to the fact many drivers don't realise that once 'not in service' has been put up on the PIS it has to be manually removed before anything else will display - new entries won't override old ones. There are no written instructions about the way to operate the PIS in this way, as opposed to Northern's pre-existing stock where even without instructions the systems are more intuitive.

 

[Grannyjoans]

Sometimes the APIS starts shouting out the wrong stations and thinks it is somewhere else than it really is. In this case it is certainly better to turn it off.

 

[Roose]

I'd suggest a captive unit with no direct airport trains (most of them are not now anyhow) but that would just bring Tim Farron out again.

Rightly so.

People who use the airport trains to/from the Lake District may also disagree with you, particularly those with heavy luggage to take from platform 3 to platform where they need to take their chance on a TPE unit both turning up and not being very full of passengers who may have had the previous train cancelled.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Deleted, getting off topic. Apologies.

 

[Scotrail314209]

I feel like these new trains, albeit very quick have way too many tables. Same with the 195. More airline seats would be good.

 

[Allwinter_Kit]

Its currently operated by double 3 coach 331s but its only temporary until the Aire Valley platform extensions are done. It probably wouldn't justify the cost of new units.

A further five off-topic but has any date been determined for these yet? I fear that by the time they actually get done it will be tricky to shuffle the units over - especially if the 6 car capacity has successfully been used up so that a 4 car would be problematic as a permanent "downgrade".

So Leeds NW will be stuck with the 4 cars which will be really, really over-capacity instead! But at least no one will be getting permanently shorter trains...

 

[Bantamzen]

A further five off-topic but has any date been determined for these yet? I fear that by the time they actually get done it will be tricky to shuffle the units over - especially if the 6 car capacity has successfully been used up so that a 4 car would be problematic as a permanent "downgrade".

So Leeds NW will be stuck with the 4 cars which will be really, really over-capacity instead! But at least no one will be getting permanently shorter trains...

Unless SDO is approved for 2*3 car 331 operation on the Aire & Wharfe, then it will be 4 car 331s for the foreseeable as there are no plans for any platform extensions.

 

[xotGD]

Unless SDO is approved for 2*3 car 331 operation on the Aire & Wharfe, then it will be 4 car 331s for the foreseeable as there are no plans for any platform extensions.

If it isn't going to happen then why was it announced in the first place?

Very poor expectation management.

If northern had just said that the 321s and 322s were being replaced with new trains then that would have been a positive story. Instead they are letting down all of us folk who have been expecting longer trains.

 

[Bantamzen]

If it isn't going to happen then why was it announced in the first place?

Very poor expectation management.

If northern had just said that the 321s and 322s were being replaced with new trains then that would have been a positive story. Instead they are letting down all of us folk who have been expecting longer trains.

I don't know to be honest. Given the nature of the lines I would imagine that Network Rail & Northern would have had to agree a plan for the works, but so far despite Network Rail banging on about 70+ stations getting longer platforms, these ones seem to have gone completely under their radar.

 

[Sleeperwaking]

Unless SDO is approved for 2*3 car 331 operation on the Aire & Wharfe, then it will be 4 car 331s for the foreseeable as there are no plans for any platform extensions.

I thought 6-car operation on Leeds North West was just waiting on the platform extensions at Leeds to allow 6 car formations to squeeze in amongst the other terminating services? Which Network Rail plans to complete in early 2021, around 2 years late. Is that no longer the case?

 

[Bantamzen]

I thought 6-car operation on Leeds North West was just waiting on the platform extensions at Leeds to allow 6 car formations to squeeze in amongst the other terminating services? Which Network Rail plans to complete in early 2021, around 2 years late. Is that no longer the case?

Most platforms on the Aire & Wharfe aren't long enough for 6 car operations, quite a few were built on the cheap by WY Metro to absolute minimum specs (i.e. 4 car 333s, wooden platforms). So unless SDO is implemented for 6 car operation (which would be challenging given that this may effectively mean that one car of the two would only be able to use one carriage, or indeed many stations be limited to one car), then its not going to happen.

 

[Roger B]

Most platforms on the Aire & Wharfe aren't long enough for 6 car operations, quite a few were built on the cheap by WY Metro to absolute minimum specs (i.e. 4 car 333s, wooden platforms). So unless SDO is implemented for 6 car operation (which would be challenging given that this may effectively mean that one car of the two would only be able to use one carriage, or indeed many stations be limited to one car), then its not going to happen.

Sorry Bantamzen. Struggling to understand this. Wouldn't they be 2 X 3-car - so what does 'only one car of the two' mean? And why would stations be limited to only one car when they can accommodate 4 currently? Thanks

 

[Bantamzen]

Sorry Bantamzen. Struggling to understand this. Wouldn't they be 2 X 3-car - so what does 'only one car of the two' mean? And why would stations be limited to only one car when they can accommodate 4 currently? Thanks

Well many of the stations can currently only accommodate a 4 car 333 snugly, this was the maximum anticipated length for quite a few of the stations re-instated during the early years of electrification. So as a 4 car 331 is about the same length, these too only just fit quite a few stations, so 2 3car 331s would overhang these by at least 2 cars leaving just one unit + one car in the other unit available to open using SDO. Throw in the nature of a number of these stations, Saltaire & Shipley for example with their sweeping curves, I can foresee the decision to only allow the opening of the doors on the one car fully accommodated on the platforms.

So whilst using SDO would be technically possible (i.e. all doors on one unit, and the first two doors only on the other), it could lead to some imbalance of loading between the two coupled units. For example on a service from Skipton to Leeds in the peaks, passengers at the larger stations (i.e. Skipton, Keighley) tend to head for the front of the current services, these being closer to the barriers on arrival at Leeds. Now if one a 2 car 331, the front car was used for the majority of shorter platforms (for example Saltaire, Shipley), you could end up with crush loading in the front car, and much lighter loading in the rear.

I hope that better makes my thoughts clear?

 

[Wharfe106]

I thought 6-car operation on Leeds North West was just waiting on the platform extensions at Leeds to allow 6 car formations to squeeze in amongst the other terminating services? Which Network Rail plans to complete in early 2021, around 2 years late. Is that no longer the case?

Ahh, but the "plan" is not complete Platform Zero until December 2021, and the Dec 19 NetR delivery plan shows the project as being on time... I suggest, given no one will want to burn their fingers, that May 2022 is when the changes will take effect.

 

[Roger B]

Well many of the stations can currently only accommodate a 4 car 333 snugly, this was the maximum anticipated length for quite a few of the stations re-instated during the early years of electrification. So as a 4 car 331 is about the same length, these too only just fit quite a few stations, so 2 3car 331s would overhang these by at least 2 cars leaving just one unit + one car in the other unit available to open using SDO. Throw in the nature of a number of these stations, Saltaire & Shipley for example with their sweeping curves, I can foresee the decision to only allow the opening of the doors on the one car fully accommodated on the platforms.

So whilst using SDO would be technically possible (i.e. all doors on one unit, and the first two doors only on the other), it could lead to some imbalance of loading between the two coupled units. For example on a service from Skipton to Leeds in the peaks, passengers at the larger stations (i.e. Skipton, Keighley) tend to head for the front of the current services, these being closer to the barriers on arrival at Leeds. Now if one a 2 car 331, the front car was used for the majority of shorter platforms (for example Saltaire, Shipley), you could end up with crush loading in the front car, and much lighter loading in the rear.

I hope that better makes my thoughts clear?

Thanks. Think I've got it now: on some stations only four of the six cars may be platformed and doors available for use - and even some of these doors may be compromised at specific stations because of distance to platforms arising from platform curvature.

 

[Bantamzen]

Thanks. Think I've got it now: on some stations only four of the six cars may be platformed and doors available for use - and even some of these doors may be compromised at specific stations because of distance to platforms arising from platform curvature.

Yeah that's pretty much the problem as I see it. Currently with the 321/322/333s guards often have to dispatch from the middle of the units at quite a few of these stations to make sure passengers aren't falling down the gaps. With the 2 car 331 formations I imagine making sure was still the case, and also making sure the SDO has worked properly and not deposited passengers off the edges of the stations would be an even more convoluted process (door release at stations like Shipley can take a little time, often with passengers becoming anxious!). Plus add to the complication, when the 2*331 formations were planned, DOO or a variant thereof was also in the offing. Then came the notorious dispute!