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

[big all]

I beginning to wonder if the 769s will ever run in service. Perhaps with hindsight bolting an engine, alternator fuel tanks etc under a 30 year old steel, presumably corroded, coach was not such a good idea.
K

corrosion found would off course be repaired
adding about 8 tonnes to a 32tonne coach [40t]still loads it 16.5% less than a 48tonne motor coach

 

[Ken H]

corrosion found would off course be repaired
adding about 8 tonnes to a 32tonne coach [40t]still loads it 16.5% less than a 48tonne motor coach

dont the motor coaches have heavier duty bogies. are the trailer bogies up to the increased weight

 

[big all]

yes its fully possible the extra 8-tonnes will be fully taken up by the traction motors
in general components and structures will be over designed by say 10-25% so wouldnt expect many problems unlike some off the thumpers where there was noticeable sag

 

[AM9]

dont the motor coaches have heavier duty bogies. are the trailer bogies up to the increased weight

yes its fully possible the extra 8-tonnes will be fully taken up by the traction motors
in general components and structures will be over designed by say 10-25% so wouldnt expect many problems unlike some off the thumpers where there was noticeable sag

On EMUs it's usually the case that the suspension is stiffened up to cope with the additional weigjht and maintain a similar ride quality. The 319s are stated to have BREL P7-4 bogies on the MSO and BREL T3-7 types on all of the trailer cars. The weight of the gensets/fuel tanks/fuel is unlikely to present a problem for the trailer suspension though as the additional weight of a passenger in every seat is about 6T per car and a full crush load per car is about 13T.* These trains spent much of their life so far with passenger loads well into that range so I doubt that running occasionally in the Northern backwaters of diesel infill lines with such loads are seen as a problem.
* See my post #2700 in this thread regarding tare and loaded weights of 319s vs 769s and the effective change in adhesive weight percentages when the diesel modifications have been completed.

 

[Ken H]

On EMUs it's usually the case that the suspension is stiffened up to cope with the additional weigjht and maintain a similar ride quality. The 319s are stated to have BREL P7-4 bogies on the MSO and BREL T3-7 types on all of the trailer cars. The weight of the gensets/fuel tanks/fuel is unlikely to present a problem for the trailer suspension though as the additional weight of a passenger in every seat is about 6T per car and a full crush load per car is about 13T.* These trains spent much of their life so far with passenger loads well into that range so I doubt that running occasionally in the Northern backwaters of diesel infill lines with such loads are seen as a problem.
* See my post #2700 in this thread regarding tare and loaded weights of 319s vs 769s and the effective change in adhesive weight percentages when the diesel modifications have been completed.

Thanks
I was worrying about the bogies taking the extra weight without failure in some way
but your point about the weight of a crush load of passengers (and their stuff) means my worry wasnt justified, I suppose.

 

[Greybeard33]

On EMUs it's usually the case that the suspension is stiffened up to cope with the additional weigjht and maintain a similar ride quality. The 319s are stated to have BREL P7-4 bogies on the MSO and BREL T3-7 types on all of the trailer cars. The weight of the gensets/fuel tanks/fuel is unlikely to present a problem for the trailer suspension though as the additional weight of a passenger in every seat is about 6T per car and a full crush load per car is about 13T.* These trains spent much of their life so far with passenger loads well into that range so I doubt that running occasionally in the Northern backwaters of diesel infill lines with such loads are seen as a problem.
* See my post #2700 in this thread regarding tare and loaded weights of 319s vs 769s and the effective change in adhesive weight percentages when the diesel modifications have been completed.

If you are suggesting that the 769s will not regularly experience crush loading on "the Northern backwaters of diesel infill lines", I suggest you come and ride on some of the Manchester commuter services that these units are planned to work!

Under such conditions the gross weight of a 769 driving trailer will be about 56T, versus 48T for a 319. But no doubt Wabtec will have ensured that the underframes, bogies and suspension can cope with this 17% increase.

 

[a_c_skinner]

If you are suggesting that the 769s will not regularly experience crush loading on "the Northern backwaters of diesel infill lines", I suggest you come and ride on some of the Manchester commuter services that these units are planned to work!

Yes, that is whole Northern story. There are lots of times and places when the services are full and crush loaded. The Furness line is at times. Ridership must be limited by capacity at times all over the network. That is why I was so pleased at the idea of the 769s and so glum as their progress seemed to stutter. We just need more seats. People on here talk about passengers wanting upgraded stock, about air con, about what meets the Northern Connect specification but the big issue is the seats. Which is why it is so disappointing that so many stations have very limited permissible train lengths.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Yes, that is whole Northern story. There are lots of times and places when the services are full and crush loaded. The Furness line is at times. Ridership must be limited by capacity at times all over the network. That is why I was so pleased at the idea of the 769s and so glum as their progress seemed to stutter. We just need more seats. People on here talk about passengers wanting upgraded stock, about air con, about what meets the Northern Connect specification but the big issue is the seats. Which is why it is so disappointing that so many stations have very limited permissible train lengths.

Is full when every seat is taken, and crush loaded is when every seat, isle, toilet and vestibule is rammed full and know one can breath? Or does it mean something else?

 

[anamyd]

The DfT are at Loughborough tomorrow to view progress.

that's now today, so I assume they've done that now...?

 

[edwin_m]

All the bogies of classes 313-315 and 507-508 are similar to the trailer bogie of the 319s, even the powered ones, and classes 150-156 also use the same basic design on a vehicle with an underfloor engine. So in principle the 319 trailer bogie is capable of carrying more weight than a 319 trailer. There might be adjustments such as fitting different springs.

 

[Mathew S]

Yes, that is whole Northern story. There are lots of times and places when the services are full and crush loaded. The Furness line is at times. Ridership must be limited by capacity at times all over the network. That is why I was so pleased at the idea of the 769s and so glum as their progress seemed to stutter. We just need more seats. People on here talk about passengers wanting upgraded stock, about air con, about what meets the Northern Connect specification but the big issue is the seats. Which is why it is so disappointing that so many stations have very limited permissible train lengths.

We need more capacity, that's not the same as seats. For the size of the trains, the London Overground has remarkably few seats but a huge standing capacity. Nothing wrong with that as a model for many, many journeys in the north of England.

 

[a_c_skinner]

We need more capacity, that's not the same as seats. For the size of the trains, the London Overground has remarkably few seats but a huge standing capacity. Nothing wrong with that as a model for many, many journeys in the north of England.

Only up to a point.

 

[AM9]

If you are suggesting that the 769s will not regularly experience crush loading on "the Northern backwaters of diesel infill lines", I suggest you come and ride on some of the Manchester commuter services that these units are planned to work!...

Compared to their service on Thameslink and some Southern services, yes they will get an easier time. How many of these Northern routes involve 20-30 miles at either full speed (90-100mph) or frequent stops (every 2-3 miles with 80mph linespeed in between) with a crush load in?

 

[Greybeard33]

Compared to their service on Thameslink and some Southern services, yes they will get an easier time. How many of these Northern routes involve 20-30 miles at either full speed (90-100mph) or frequent stops (every 2-3 miles with 80mph linespeed in between) with a crush load in?

The 769s are intended to operate Wigan - Manchester via Bolton, which is a similar type of route. Alternate services are all stations and non-stop under the wires between Bolton and Salford Crescent. The difference is that they will be running as single 4-car units, not in 8-car formations in the peaks.

How often did Thameslink services leave passengers on the platform because they were physically unable to board?

 

[Robert Carroll]

How often did Thameslink services leave passengers on the platform because they were physically unable to board?

Every day in the rush hour. The Wimbledon loop trains were usually rammed by Tulse Hill.

 

[Bald Rick]

How often did Thameslink services leave passengers on the platform because they were physically unable to board?

Every weekday morning and evening. If you ever tried to get on the 0755 from St Albans, and got on, it was your lucky day. It regularly left 300 people behind.

 

[AM9]

The 769s are intended to operate Wigan - Manchester via Bolton, which is a similar type of route. Alternate services are all stations and non-stop under the wires between Bolton and Salford Crescent. The difference is that they will be running as single 4-car units, not in 8-car formations in the peaks.

How often did Thameslink services leave passengers on the platform because they were physically unable to board?

Until the class 377s were parachuted in to allow most of the 4-car diagrams to be removed, most work days. At St Albans, it sometimes took three trains before passengers got near enough to the doors to get on. There are posts on this board from Bald Rick and Chief Planner describing just how busy the TL services can be. Of course it isn't just the MML either, many of the commuter routes into London have similar problems with capacity. That is why now most lines into London run trains at the maximum length that the infrastructure can support. I've seen the peak hour traffic on Northern and whilst there are some trains that are overloaded, it's usually because they are just a single class 150 or 156. The 319s seem to cope with the demand though both at Lime Street and Victoria/Piccadilly. Anyway, this is off topic.
Edit: Just managed to post this and noticed that Bald Rick has said much the same.

 

[Bald Rick]

At St Albans, it sometimes took three trains before passengers got near enough to the doors to get on.

That was normal during any disruption (1 cancellation or short form, or 1 fast train out of sequence by being more than 10 mins late). I think my record under a normal full service in 319 days was one day when I just missed (the then) 0744 Fast, unable to board the 0755 Fast (usual occurrence), but then also unable to board the 0800 Fast, wait for the 0812 and couldn’t get on that either. Eventually boarded the 0816, half an hour after getting to the station (and having let 2 stoppers and a semi fast go as well!)

 

[a_c_skinner]

it's usually because they are just a single class 150 or 156

Exactly, the thing on Northern trains I use (and I avoid peak times as far as possible) is we are running short trains to short platforms which is why 769s should be great, as they promised affordable extra capacity. They did promise quickly too, but that hasn't panned (sorry) out.

 

[AM9]

Exactly, the thing on Northern trains I use (and I avoid peak times as far as possible) is we are running short trains to short platforms which is why 769s should be great, as they promised affordable extra capacity. They did promise quickly too, but that hasn't panned (sorry) out.

I think that we are in agreement here, there aren't anywhere near as many passengers on these lines, - hence my comment about them being 'backwaters' by comparison, (which was in response to their having a hard time with the load of additional equipment fitted). It's just that their duties in terms of gross weight will rarely be more than they have had down south; and on the unelectrified sections of their diagrams, which I believe are that way because they are at the outer ends of their runs, will most likely be operating with no more than a full seated passenger load. Interestingly, even if they were occasionally crush loaded running on diesel, the electric traction equipment will be constrained to the available power from the genset, so the motors can only receive about 60% of their continuous rated power and their age would not be an issue. The gensets are of course new, and as such will have sufficient contemporary protection measures built-in to prevent maximum power demands causing reliability issues.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I believe are that way because they are at the outer ends of their runs, will most likely be operating ...

That is a very good point, though in the early phases of this project, under Queen Victoria IIRC, the modeled performance was said to be similar to a 150 or thereabouts. The real learning point here is that 769s or not Northern should have favoured bi-modes when it bought new rolling stock. In a rational world we'd chose a reliable, suitable bi-mode train and gradually build them to replace all the older units with a single class. Even if it took longer the pay off would be worth it.

 

[AM9]

That is a very good point, though in the early phases of this project, under Queen Victoria IIRC, the modeled performance was said to be similar to a 150 or thereabouts. The real learning point here is that 769s or not Northern should have favoured bi-modes when it bought new rolling stock. In a rational world we'd chose a reliable, suitable bi-mode train and gradually build them to replace all the older units with a single class. Even if it took longer the pay off would be worth it.

I suspect that there are influences working in the background here in terms of not creating a large population of diesel engined rolling stock that might be kept in service into the second half of the century. One advantage of repurposing existing equipment is that the point at which they can be written off comes sooner than with new purchases. It's all too easy to say that what we need now is lots of new bimode rolling stock but:

a) they are more expensive to procure than EMUs or DMUs
b) their running costs are similar to DMUs
c) any changes such as removing the genset and fuel tanks to make them simple EMUs is likely to be as expensive as the production cost of the current 319 conversion​

The slated life of the 769s is about 10 years, after which time it wouldn't be too politically sensitive to scrap them (apart from with a few posters here ).

 

[a_c_skinner]

That is all sense assuming that within 30 or so years the bulk of the moderately busy routes that lead in to electrified hubs will be electric. The routes the 769s are likely to work will not be electrified in their 10-15 (-??) year life so when that happens we will be in the same position. I suppose one might hope for a different technology that is self contained, so bi-mode with a different mode and that probably does make a difference. I think that would lend some strength to my argument, provided the current bi-modes were demonstrably short life; the current buy of 193s isn't, they will be around for 30 years, one hopes.

 

[Chester1]

That is all sense assuming that within 30 or so years the bulk of the moderately busy routes that lead in to electrified hubs will be electric. The routes the 769s are likely to work will not be electrified in their 10-15 (-??) year life so when that happens we will be in the same position. I suppose one might hope for a different technology that is self contained, so bi-mode with a different mode and that probably does make a difference. I think that would lend some strength to my argument, provided the current bi-modes were demonstrably short life; the current buy of 193s isn't, they will be around for 30 years, one hopes.

There are not as many suitable routes for 769s as you might think. If you assume that Wigan-Lostock and Victoria-Stalybridge are wired in the next 10 years then they could run on CLC or Piccadilly-Buxton. Anything else in the North West would be little more than using them as DMUs. Across the other side of the Pennines there are not many suitable routes either. Battery powered EMUs would be more suitable for short off wire extensions. There is also the potential for Hydrogen trains too. Its an uncertain market and a stop gap solution for 10 years or so is helpful.

 

[The Lad]

Has anyone any idea how much each conversion is costing, excluding the initial set up costs?

 

[edwin_m]

There are not as many suitable routes for 769s as you might think. If you assume that Wigan-Lostock and Victoria-Stalybridge are wired in the next 10 years then they could run on CLC or Piccadilly-Buxton. Anything else in the North West would be little more than using them as DMUs.

This is a consequence of the NW electrification following a strategy that prioritised schemes based on the amount of diesel running that each would eliminate, and hence got rid of much of the diesel operation "under the wires". Bi-modes weren't a thing ten years ago when that strategy was developed.

Manchester to Blackburn/Clitheroe could be another possibility with electric running south of Bolton. But both this route and Buxton have some severe gradients and I think if I were Northern I would wait to see how the 769 performs in autumn with only 25% of axles motored, as this affects hill-climbing as well as low-speed acceleration. There's also the Barrow service but that probably justifies something with an interior better suited to longer journeys.

 

[superalbs]

There are not as many suitable routes for 769s as you might think. If you assume that Wigan-Lostock and Victoria-Stalybridge are wired in the next 10 years then they could run on CLC or Piccadilly-Buxton. Anything else in the North West would be little more than using them as DMUs. Across the other side of the Pennines there are not many suitable routes either. Battery powered EMUs would be more suitable for short off wire extensions. There is also the potential for Hydrogen trains too. Its an uncertain market and a stop gap solution for 10 years or so is helpful.

Castle Cary?

 

[hwl]

Castle Cary?

CLC = Cheshire Lines Committee

 

[edwin_m]

CLC = Cheshire Lines Committee

Via Warrington Central. The local service is only between Oxford Road and Lime Street so only under the wires for a short distance at Manchester and west of Liverpool South Parkway. The Oxford Road and Piccadilly P15/16 works were supposed to abolish the bay at Oxford Road but also create capacity to through-route these with a service east of Manchester - which one would probably depend on timetabling issues but would extend 25kV operation to at least the Airport or Stockport. There is also an Airport-Liverpool semi-fast on this route, which probably needs to be to Northern Connect standard, plus the Liverpool-Norwich which will remain diesel for the foreseeable future.

 

[Robertj21a]

The 769s are intended to operate Wigan - Manchester via Bolton, which is a similar type of route. Alternate services are all stations and non-stop under the wires between Bolton and Salford Crescent. The difference is that they will be running as single 4-car units, not in 8-car formations in the peaks.

How often did Thameslink services leave passengers on the platform because they were physically unable to board?

Very often indeed. I'm not sure that there's very much in the north to truly compare.