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

[a_c_skinner]

Don't know if this is relevant, but Real Time Trains is showing the services from Alderley Edge to Southport as "Starts as Class 319 EMU, changes en route" when these are most certainly being operated by DMUs.

In the other direction, from Southport it says "Starts as Class 150/153/155/156 DMU, changes en route"

The change seems to take place at Bolton.

Is this a precursor of things to come?

Seems a sensible way of describing it. Wouldn't we all chortle if a 769 just showed up unannounced?

 

[Greybeard33]

Don't know if this is relevant, but Real Time Trains is showing the services from Alderley Edge to Southport as "Starts as Class 319 EMU, changes en route" when these are most certainly being operated by DMUs.

In the other direction, from Southport it says "Starts as Class 150/153/155/156 DMU, changes en route"

The change seems to take place at Bolton.

Is this a precursor of things to come?

Previously discussed upthread:

Liverail, http://www.charlwoodhouse.co.uk/rail/liverail/, shows en route changes in power type, timing load and speed. In the December 2019 timetable, most Alderley Edge to Southport services have a 319 timing load to Bolton then a 15x timing load to Southport. Southport to Alderley services have a 15x timing load from Southport to Bolton and from Piccadilly to Alderley, with a 319 timing load from Bolton to Piccadilly.

I imagine the 319 timings are there because the 769s were originally planned to be in service for the May 2018 timetable, and the paths would become non-compliant with the Timetable Planning Rules if 15x timings were substituted.

 

[Mogster]

As a daily Southport - Alderley Edge user I’m still concerned about how slow these are going to be between Southport and Bolton. Especially on the gradient between Wigan and Bolton.

I really wish we could have 195s instead of these things.

 

[AM9]

As a daily Southport - Alderley Edge user I’m still concerned about how slow these are going to be between Southport and Bolton. Especially on the gradient between Wigan and Bolton.

I really wish we could have 195s instead of these things.

A class 195 would produce local pollution over the whole length of the journey including through the centre urban of Manchester, - a bi-mode will at least have the opportunity of using sustainable electricity from Bolton to Alderley Edge.

 

[a_c_skinner]

No one doubts the benefit of bi-modes on diesel burn in urban areas, it is a pity Northern didn't see this coming when they were ordering new vehicles. As I've said before they've either got far too many 769s on order or far too few.

 

[Greybeard33]

As a daily Southport - Alderley Edge user I’m still concerned about how slow these are going to be between Southport and Bolton. Especially on the gradient between Wigan and Bolton.

I really wish we could have 195s instead of these things.

Do you have any particular grounds for your concern that the 769s will be slow? The performance on diesel is supposed to be comparable to a 150.

 

[anthony263]

After 769442 completes its millage accumulation runs the next 769 to do it will be 769008 before its then returned to tfw.

 

[Mathew S]

Do you have any particular grounds for your concern that the 769s will be slow? The performance on diesel is supposed to be comparable to a 150.

And will surely be a huge improvement over the 142s, which is what they're mostly replacing.

 

[AM9]

No one doubts the benefit of bi-modes on diesel burn in urban areas, it is a pity Northern didn't see this coming when they were ordering new vehicles. As I've said before they've either got far too many 769s on order or far too few.

The CO2 penalty is present wherever pure diesels are used, - I was referring in that post to the proportion of the Southport-Alderley Edge journay that bi-modes can avoid local pollution.
As far as the new vehicles ordered by Northern are concerned, I have discussed with others in two other threads, the folly of ordering diesel mechanical trains in 2016 will look positively stupid in 2030 when de-dieseling of all trains fleets must be well underway. The 195s will still have 30+ years service life in which to worsen the local and global situation with their emissions. At the time of ordering, CAF would have accepted orders for EMUs (class 331), BEMUs and DEMUs. DEMUs would have been a better investment, bringing the opportunity of easy conversion to bi-modes.
Given the delays and technical risks that 769s may have been envisioned when the Flex programme started back in December 2016, Porterbrook had to commmit to a commercially acceptable quantity in their development and initial production programme. Despite the setbacks which must have threatened the abandonment of the programme, it seems that thye are still to be put into service. If they are and are without significant issues, there is no reason why a few more cannot be converted.

 

[samuelmorris]

the folly of ordering diesel mechanical trains in 2016 will look positively stupid in 2030 when de-dieseling of all trains fleets must be well underway. The 195s will still have 30+ years service life in which to worsen the local and global situation with their emissions.

The problem is, that assumes that will actually be happening - I fully anticipate regular DMUs to be in use until at least 2050, long after internal combustion engines in cars have been banned.

 

[AM9]

The problem is, that assumes that will actually be happening - I fully anticipate regular DMUs to be in use until at least 2050, long after internal combustion engines in cars have been banned.

Without gettting too far off-topic, I think that once climate change really is addressed with some commitment, (as in the population at large really do understand that climate is changing for the worse), the continued presence of any diesel emitters that can be replaced will be used by climate change denyers to dilute the efforts to change in the main pollution arena of private and commercial road vehicles. NOx and particulate emissions might be better controlled or even removed in areas of dense population, (e.g. inner city stations) but the CO2 problem is the same wherever hydrocarbon fuels are burnt.
I would suggest that no more pure diesel trains will be procured in the UK, instead taking the option of diesel-electric traction with at least passivde electric power collection provision as a minimum.

 

[a_c_skinner]

If they are and are without significant issues, there is no reason why a few more cannot be converted.

Of course, but the 319s will have gone and it will be a tiny fleet. One can hope for more on the back of satisfactory performance of course.

 

[AM9]

Of course, but the 319s will have gone and it will be a tiny fleet. One can hope for more on the back of satisfactory performance of course.

Unless there is a member here who is actually part of the programme, we have no information about the relative cost of a limited life 769 conversion vs. a new bi-mode train of similar service utility. If it is a success, IMO, it would be better to procure more straight EMUs and send the working 319s for conversion to 769s. There are 86 319s in total which represents a sizeable fleet.
The 319 hardware would effectively be wasted keeping them in an EMU role, so there are other straight MKIII EMUs that could replace them, e.g. 320/321/322. Then there is the in-betweenies, (323,365) that could certainly be fed it.
If the 769 system works, it would seem that the critical new items are of current manufacture, (mainly the genset), so an extension to the programme would be scalable to meet demand.

 

[Chris125]

The performance on diesel is supposed to be comparable to a 150.

Didn't someone report that performance on the recent test runs was better than expected?

 

[Mogster]

Watching services depart and travelling on them occasionally the acceleration advantage of the 195s and 331s is very obvious. Saying a 769 may have performance comparable to a 150 is hardly impressive in 2020. Northern seem to be dumping it’s 319s as soon as possible that hardly inspires confidence. How long are these things supposed to operate for exactly?

At least we will have a minimum of 4 carriages...

 

[a_c_skinner]

At least we will have a minimum of 4 carriages...

Which is why I'd hoped for them on the Furness Line (yes, I know, I remember all the debate).

 

[Greybeard33]

At least we will have a minimum of 4 carriages...

No, the minimum will remain 0 carriages....

 

[Mogster]

No, the minimum will remain 0 carriages....

Yeah

Like Thursday and today for my evening service.

 

[Greybeard33]

Unless there is a member here who is actually part of the programme, we have no information about the relative cost of a limited life 769 conversion vs. a new bi-mode train of similar service utility. If it is a success, IMO, it would be better to procure more straight EMUs and send the working 319s for conversion to 769s. There are 86 319s in total which represents a sizeable fleet.
The 319 hardware would effectively be wasted keeping them in an EMU role, so there are other straight MKIII EMUs that could replace them, e.g. 320/321/322. Then there is the in-betweenies, (323,365) that could certainly be fed it.
If the 769 system works, it would seem that the critical new items are of current manufacture, (mainly the genset), so an extension to the programme would be scalable to meet demand.

According to the Thameslink Class 319's into storage thread, there are already 19 319s in storage, over and above those earmarked for 769 conversion. Northern and WMT are intending to withdraw all the remaining units over the next couple of years.

319s have no future in an EMU role. I expect they will start heading to the scrapyards unless there are more 769 orders soon.

 

[Energy]

According to the Thameslink Class 319's into storage thread, there are already 19 319s in storage, over and above those earmarked for 769 conversion. Northern and WMT are intending to withdraw all the remaining units over the next couple of years.

319s have no future in an EMU role. I expect they will start heading to the scrapyards unless there are more 769 orders soon.

Why would anyone take 769s? They are already very delayed and bimode Flirts are available, as well as possible bimode civitys

 

[js1000]

Watching services depart and travelling on them occasionally the acceleration advantage of the 195s and 331s is very obvious. Saying a 769 may have performance comparable to a 150 is hardly impressive in 2020. Northern seem to be dumping it’s 319s as soon as possible that hardly inspires confidence. How long are these things supposed to operate for exactly?

At least we will have a minimum of 4 carriages...

Northern are getting rid of the 319s (to be replaced by a combination 331s and 323s by 2022) due to their dreadful reliability record which is getting worse with every passing month.

Said on here many times, the acid test will be if the 769s can operate 18 hours a day every day due the many original and retro-fitted components - theoretically there is a lot that could go wrong and a few tests here and there isn't going to prove much. As others have said on here, taking the bullet and investing in some new bi-modes may not have been a bad idea.

 

[_toommm_]

taking the bullet and investing in some new bi-modes may not have been a bad idea

That would be all well and good in a profitable franchise; but Northern is far from that business model. Ultimately the 195/331 fleet is a small percentage of the whole fleet, and we will be stuck with old trains for the foreseeable future.

 

[AM9]

That would be all well and good in a profitable franchise; but Northern is far from that business model. Ultimately the 195/331 fleet is a small percentage of the whole fleet, and we will be stuck with old trains for the foreseeable future.

Precisely. According to others here, Northern gets a significant subsidy, depending on which way you look at it; either from the TOCs that make a net contribution to the DfT or even just from public funds. 'Old trains' can be used to generate revenue almost as easily as shiny new ones.

 

[AM9]

Why would anyone take 769s? They are already very delayed and bimode Flirts are available, as well as possible bimode civitys

Maybe the rush to buy new trains is nearing its end. Only those TOCs that can justify the expenditure can be sure. If not, they will have to manage with what they have.

 

[Energy]

Maybe the rush to buy new trains is nearing its end. Only those TOCs that can justify the expenditure can be sure. If not, they will have to manage with what they have.

My point is other operators, most others can justify the expense, GWR use them on services which can afford new stock and TfW don't plan on using them long term. Northern has a very small fleet of only 8 and probably won't get more as although there is some electrification, it isn't enough and as others said, Northern doesn't have much budget for trains.

 

[The Ham]

My point is other operators, most others can justify the expense, GWR use them on services which can afford new stock and TfW don't plan on using them long term. Northern has a very small fleet of only 8 and probably won't get more as although there is some electrification, it isn't enough and as others said, Northern doesn't have much budget for trains.

The thing is though that the cost of trains is typically broadly split into quarters and so if you double the number of coaches on a service you doubt double the costs, as 28% of the costs are staff costs which remain the same whether it's 1 coach or 12 coaches.

Whilst in comparison 20% of costs are rolling stock costs, which will change significantly as you change the length of your trains.

The other 52% is made up of track access, delay payments, and other costs (including HQ and website costs). Again a lot of this is unlikely to change much if you are running more services, especially if the trains are more reliable.

As such if you were to double the total number of coaches you have you'd only need to generate something like 1/3 more income (maybe up to around 50%) to cover those extra costs.

Given that typically 45% of tickets are season tickets and how busy peak hour services are then there's a good chance that you could not need much more subsidy if you were to significantly increase the number of trains running and in time (as passenger numbers grow) it would likely reduce the subsidy required.

Especially if you can make use of more EMU's which historically used to be 9% cheaper to lease, although I would guess that with a lot of EMU's off lease the cost difference is likely to be more.

 

[AM9]

My point is other operators, most others can justify the expense, GWR use them on services which can afford new stock and TfW don't plan on using them long term. Northern has a very small fleet of only 8 and probably won't get more as although there is some electrification, it isn't enough and as others said, Northern doesn't have much budget for trains.

Northern has a commitment to replace the Pacers, mainly by cascading down when the 331s and 195s are deployed. That doesn't seem to provide enough capacity, especially on medium density routes where the continued operation of single and pairs of 2-car DMUS is practiced. With the latest electrification in the north-west, much of the running of these short diesel trains is under wires so (if they are successful), the 769s offer a greener, 4-car alternative. Their performance should be comparable to the 150s with slightly more comfort, and their modern and compliant gensets should surpass the long-term reliability of the 30-plus years age of the existing DMUs.

 

[transmanche]

Northern has a commitment to replace the Pacers, mainly by cascading down when the 331s and 195s are deployed. That doesn't seem to provide enough capacity, especially on medium density routes where the continued operation of single and pairs of 2-car DMUS is practiced.

However, replacing Pacers with 156s (as has effectively happened in the north east) does offer a significant capacity boost - from approx. 100 seats to approx. 140 seats per unit.

(Sorry, can't remember the exact numbers of seats for each type.)

 

[Energy]

The thing is though that the cost of trains is typically broadly split into quarters and so if you double the number of coaches on a service you doubt double the costs, as 28% of the costs are staff costs which remain the same whether it's 1 coach or 12 coaches.

Whilst in comparison 20% of costs are rolling stock costs, which will change significantly as you change the length of your trains.

The other 52% is made up of track access, delay payments, and other costs (including HQ and website costs). Again a lot of this is unlikely to change much if you are running more services, especially if the trains are more reliable.

As such if you were to double the total number of coaches you have you'd only need to generate something like 1/3 more income (maybe up to around 50%) to cover those extra costs.

Given that typically 45% of tickets are season tickets and how busy peak hour services are then there's a good chance that you could not need much more subsidy if you were to significantly increase the number of trains running and in time (as passenger numbers grow) it would likely reduce the subsidy required.

Especially if you can make use of more EMU's which historically used to be 9% cheaper to lease, although I would guess that with a lot of EMU's off lease the cost difference is likely to be more.

On lots of services Northern could be financially able to put more coaches on with certain services. I think that 3 car turbostars (maybe 2 car for some very quiet services) should be put on routes which are currently fine with a little overcrowding. 170s could have been aquired by Northern fairly easily if they were quick to get them, like the WMR ones.

The 769s could be good if they weren't 319s, say they got the 379s from GA then I think it would be much better. The 319s were built for the more metro style operation of Thameslink, not what they currently are doing....

 

[hooverboy]

On lots of services Northern could be financially able to put more coaches on with certain services. I think that 3 car turbostars (maybe 2 car for some very quiet services) should be put on routes which are currently fine with a little overcrowding. 170s could have been aquired by Northern fairly easily if they were quick to get them, like the WMR ones.

The 769s could be good if they weren't 319s, say they got the 379s from GA then I think it would be much better. The 319s were built for the more metro style operation of Thameslink, not what they currently are doing....

the 769's were to fill a shortfall in DMU capacity first and foremost.
1) they were going spare
2)they would have as much capacity as 2* 2 car pacer/sprinter.
3)bi-mode is a bonus.

turbostars for real middle-of nowhere services is a bit overkill.
a 150 with DDA fitting is about 1.5* 153 capacity, so not a huge jump.
plus said services usually run stop-start at less than 60mph with good acceleration, whereas tubostars are better suited to longer distance route with a bit of "fast" stretch in between, being 100mph capable. Can be better deployed on more "regional" routes.

if they can get them running, I still think there is a place for 769's.
certainly on northern/tfw route where standard fare is 2* 14x/15x or 3 car of something or other.

even as EMR nottingham-skeg service this would be a vast improvement in summer.