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

[adrock1976]

That one was the unit that had the 769000 stickers applied when wheeled out at Rail Live last year. Since then I believe it's stayed at Long Marston. Certainly isn't out with Northern.

Not in service with Northern. The only /4 up here is 319446 which is in Thameslink colours and on loan from Porterbrook with 319372/73.

Bizarelly given the fact it was repainted to Northern livery 319426 isn't even in the current list to be converted to a 769 at all.

According to the latest issue of RAIL magazine, 319426 will be converted to 769 for TfW, as it will be the first of the extra 4 x 769s that TfW have ordered.

Many thanks for the clarification of the situation regarding 319426.

I had 446 for haulage a long time ago when it was on Thameslink duties, and I have recently had 372 and 373 for haulage in Northern land.

Having realised it was the Northern livery that 426 was in that threw me a bit regarding its situation, it looks like a trip to Wales in the future for me to get 426 for haulage when it gets converted.

 

[a_c_skinner]

get 426 for haulage when it gets converted.

Is that fully in the spirit of the game?

 

[Defiance149]

319426 was moved by road to Wolverton first week of Jan.

 

[158722]

According to the latest issue of RAIL magazine, 319426 will be converted to 769 for TfW, as it will be the first of the extra 4 x 769s that TfW have ordered.

Any indication of what the other three are? I think 426 was one of the four remaining PRM compliant ones at Long Marston, with 217, 421, 444 being the others. 319004, 009-011, 451, 453, 455 not having been done.

 

[mic505]

You forgot 319373 is not PRM compliant, 372 is.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Is there any reason why we should not assume that these units simply cannot be made to work properly? Running on a private line, others finished but not out on the big railway.

 

[big all]

Is there any reason why we should not assume that these units simply cannot be made to work properly? Running on a private line, others finished but not out on the big railway.

not sure what point you are making ??
you cannot form a final likely outcome until you know they have finished all rengineering and shakedown work
its normal to get problems big and small when a new package is put together
some work pretty well out the box others have problems that need to be engineered or modified out

 

[a_c_skinner]

I was (sort of) asking the question that was my first sentence. To reply to you there has been such a period of time (five months or more) between mechanically complete units and testing on the main line that the logical conclusion to draw is that they simply cannot be made to work as envisaged and that there is a serious flaw. I hope that is not the case. I suppose I was using the fora to voice frustration as this plays into the stock shortage of my local operator so apologies.

Are these units still running on the GCR? Are they at the point where they can plug to and from in Leicestershire reliably?

 

[JN114]

Is there any reason why we should not assume that these units simply cannot be made to work properly? Running on a private line, others finished but not out on the big railway.

No. For whatever reason Porterbrook have largely kept the whole project hush hush; but there’s nothing to suggest that there are any issues.

 

[Killingworth]

We can't know for certain what issues there are until Porterbrook or Northern issue formal updates. However, the lack of sightings of units on regular tracks, or reports of crew training on 769s implies further delay. The late release of May timetables suggests details of early plans need reworking.

Late delivery of 769s doesn't necessarily mean they don't work, but training priorities in the short term will need to be prioritised to other classes that are tried and available in larger numbers.

Nevertheless it would be reassuring if a 769 or two were observed out on the tracks if only to prove to us all that they exist. It would have been good if one could have proved itself yesterday afternoon on the Hope Valley route when a return hourly working was cancelled!

 

[Llama]

There will be more news on 769s in the spring when a training course has been put together for drivers. That should hopefully be finalised and agreed by late April.

 

[a_c_skinner]

That would be good news, but don't they need to accumulate fault free miles before then? Not just one unit on GCR. I take the point about training needed on other new classes but (I think) they are test running on the main line. I suppose the same logic applies to resources and paths for testing.

Apologies for what I hope has just been me losing my nerve!

 

[JN114]

There’s no point them coming up to Northern if Northern haven’t put together the training plan.

There’s nothing stopping them doing their fault-free miles on the GCR; they don’t have to be done where the train will eventually operate - see Crossrail units doing fault-free running between Crewe and Bletchley.

 

[big all]

also your fault free mileage can be included in driver training mileage so having none up to mileage is not a problem as long as the training and units come together when needed

 

[a_c_skinner]

A general question:
Do all units have to do the same fault free mileage? Or is it a stringent test for a first unit with the others less so? If the latter the GCR miles would be more use.

 

[LOL The Irony]

A general question:
Do all units have to do the same fault free mileage? Or is it a stringent test for a first unit with the others less so? If the latter the GCR miles would be more use.

IIRC the first 2 units need 2000 miles fault free running but the rest only need 500.

 

[Llama]

They will still need testing on the main line, the GCR wouldn't necessarily be able to test for things like interaction with TPWS, track circuits / signalling equipment etc. One batch of 350s and the 68s had issues with interference causing spurious TPWS activations IIRC.

 

[a_c_skinner]

All those should be the same as the 319s. Probably.

 

[samuelmorris]

All those should be the same as the 319s. Probably.

I doubt that very much, there's all sorts of potential for interference from the engine/generator sets. Also the fact that 319s haven't traversed many of the areas where 769s are going to be used (i.e. the unelectrified areas) - so the only way to test compatibility with even the legacy 319 components will be to send a 769 down there anyway.

 

[507021]

A general question:
Do all units have to do the same fault free mileage? Or is it a stringent test for a first unit with the others less so? If the latter the GCR miles would be more use.

IIRC the first 2 units need 2000 miles fault free running but the rest only need 500.

I think it depends. The first few Northern sets (of each class) have to do 1,500 miles, then the rest 500, with TPE's Mk5A sets 4,500 and 2,000 respectively.

 

[JN114]

For new traction I’d agree; but the electro interference output of the 319s is already very well known. The Diesel engine just replicates the 3rd Rail input; there aren’t any changes to the output.

I doubt that very much, there's all sorts of potential for interference from the engine/generator sets. Also the fact that 319s haven't traversed many of the areas where 769s are going to be used (i.e. the unelectrified areas) - so the only way to test compatibility with even the legacy 319 components will be to send a 769 down there anyway.

 

[twpsaesneg]

For new traction I’d agree; but the electro interference output of the 319s is already very well known. The Diesel engine just replicates the 3rd Rail input; there aren’t any changes to the output.

But what is making the electricity, a gert big pair of alternators, is new and will produce a new electromagnetic field which would need to be confirmed as not producing interference to signalling systems too.

Edited to add - unless Brush can demonstrate compliance in another way somehow.

 

[JN114]

Measuring the electro interference of new components is easy - much easier with modern technology vs 1980s; and doesn’t need to even be installed on the train, it can largely be done in the factory; with a small amount of validation of those results once installed, which can likely be done at the GCR, if not Brush before they were delivered to GCR.

They know the train output is X.
They know or can calculate what effect X has on the various designs of lineside equipment installed.

The acceptance paperwork for GWR to run 319s and 769s on the GWML has just been produced and submitted. None of it whatsoever has required either type of train to run on GW metals.

Perhaps there’s nothing wrong with them; and the train operator that’s due to be receiving them hasn’t got anywhere or anything to do with them due to their own delays and Mis-management?

I’ll say again, quite firmly, no news isn’t necessarily bad news.

 

[samuelmorris]

Measuring the electro interference of new components is easy - much easier with modern technology vs 1980s; and doesn’t need to even be installed on the train, it can largely be done in the factory; with a small amount of validation of those results once installed, which can likely be done at the GCR, if not Brush before they were delivered to GCR.

They know the train output is X.
They know or can calculate what effect X has on the various designs of lineside equipment installed.

The acceptance paperwork for GWR to run 319s and 769s on the GWML has just been produced and submitted. None of it whatsoever has required either type of train to run on GW metals.

Perhaps there’s nothing wrong with them; and the train operator that’s due to be receiving them hasn’t got anywhere or anything to do with them due to their own delays and Mis-management?

I’ll say again, quite firmly, no news isn’t necessarily bad news.

The last line of that post is definitely accurate, but I disagree regarding interference. Although the DC traction system may well be the same, the generator unit providing the DC power will still have modern solid-state electronics in it that will have interference implications. There have been numerous occasions where trains have unexpectedly conflicted with trackside equipment in certain places. Regardless of the outcome of 'lab' tests, testing would need to be carried out in all proposed areas before entering service for several reasons, that one included.

 

[JN114]

The last line of that post is definitely accurate, but I disagree regarding interference. Although the DC traction system may well be the same, the generator unit providing the DC power will still have modern solid-state electronics in it that will have interference implications. There have been numerous occasions where trains have unexpectedly conflicted with trackside equipment in certain places. Regardless of the outcome of 'lab' tests, testing would need to be carried out in all proposed areas before entering service for several reasons, that one included.

And that interference output will be a known quantity. Any occasions where trains have had unexpected interference implications have been where the trackside equipment installed does not match its own installation specification - see for example IET interference issues on the GWML due to poor, not spec cable laying. Or the electrical output of signalling equipment on the ECML not being known by NR 25 years after it was installed.

I’m not suggesting, I’m telling, they do not need to run around everywhere for interference testing; at least it’s not required of the acceptance process these days.

The electro interference output of the trains is known quantity X.
NR either know, or can calculate what effect X will have on its signalling equipment.

This is how several new fleet introductions have been conducted in recent years; and the only issues uncovered have either been lineside equipment not complying with its own specifications, or NR not having the faintest clue what is even installed on their network. No interference issues have been encountered in new fleets requiring modifications to trains since the very early 2000s.

TOCs, including my employer, have submitted their acceptance paperwork for these to run on NR metals. In the case of our network this has involved exactly zero miles run by either a 319 or 769.

 

[edwin_m]

Predicting or measuring the electromagnetic interference from correctly-working equipment is fairly straightforward. A lot of the safety case issues are actually about establishing what failure modes can credibly happen, and if they do what interference would be generated.

 

[AM9]

EMC verification is a mature science and much of the testing has been replaced with simulation and design examination. The genset would have been procured against a deployment scenario using good practice on interconnects and grounding. Yes, it contains high-power electronics but that is hardly rocket science. Cooling and other enclosures will have been designed to control radiated emissions and cabling would limit conducted emissions. Immunity I expect would be less of an issue.
In a railway context, EMC is much more an issue of signalling and comms immunity. Long lengths of cabling running in parallel with high power lines with critical grounding arrangements for safety reasons alone create the biggest problems, and they are just those under the railway's control. Proximity to other large sources of interference are ever present, particularly in industrial areas, but all of that is an infrastructure issue and not related to a specific class of rolling stock.
There seems to be a culture of inventing false jeopardy here by those whose frustration with the lack of information is getting the better of them.

 

[JN114]

There seems to be a culture of inventing false jeopardy here by those whose frustration with the lack of information is getting the better of them.

Hear hear.

 

[ac6000cw]

No interference issues have been encountered in new fleets requiring modifications to trains since the very early 2000s.

...although apparently (from what has been said in Modern Railways) suppression/filter/smoothing chokes are being retro-fitted to at least some IETs - but this may be because it's the overall easiest/cheapest/quickest way of solving what may be basically an infrastructure issue (I can't remember the details of the whys and wherefores).

 

[Sleeperwaking]

...although apparently (from what has been said in Modern Railways) suppression/filter/smoothing chokes are being retro-fitted to at least some IETs - but this may be because it's the overall easiest/cheapest/quickest way of solving what may be basically an infrastructure issue (I can't remember the details of the whys and wherefores).

JN114 referenced part of the reason earlier - legacy infrastructure assets fitted on the ECML for which there is no Network Rail standard that specifies the EMC requirements. Although I think a similar issue occurred 20 years ago on the WCML when Pendolinos were introduced that was resolved with mods to the infrastructure only, not to both the infrastructure and the rolling stock (note that the WCML mods were not then pre-emptively applied to other similar installations, such as those on the ECML). Either way, 25kV EMUs with fancy modern traction systems that are completely different to those on legacy trains are generally the main culprits for causing new and exciting EMC issues. Adding a gen set to a legacy EMU is nowhere near the same level of complexity, and definitely does not need to be route proved to demonstrate EM compatibility.