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

[AndrewE]

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.

Maybe, but it doesn't alter the facts that we need capacity now, the 319s are available and are a step-change improvement where they have replaced DMUs under the wires (not so long ago an early Crewe to Manchester commuter train was regularly 2 x cl142!)

 

[Purple Orange]

Maybe, but it doesn't alter the facts that we need capacity now, the 319s are available and are a step-change improvement where they have replaced DMUs under the wires (not so long ago an early Crewe to Manchester commuter train was regularly 2 x cl142!)

If there are to be more EMUs ordered, I'd sooner it would be a combination of units to ensure that all northern EMU services can run as 6 cars and an order for bi modes. A two year lead time means nothing given the delays we have seen for infrastructure and the 769 units. Perhaps there is greater reliability in a new order than a 'make do and mend' approach to repurposing 30 year old trains.

 

[ed1971]

There is more a shortage of DMUs than EMUs. A bi mode unit would probably be the best option, but may take longer to be delivered. Extra 195s could be delivered a lot quicker. The CAF factory in Wales can have 195s completed around 70 days after receiving the bare body shell.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

It's the usual Rail wibble.
Yes, they'd like some more trains.
But the new management has to produce an improvement plan first, which includes all sorts of things like agreeing infrastructure changes, depot improvements, timetable changes (eg like which services to retain through Castlefield).
Then they have to get DfT and Treasury approval for the business case for new trains, which can take ages if the DfT feels like it.

If you read the comments attributed to Robin Gisby, they are also looking at cutting some airport services and maybe turning what's left into a frequent shuttle from Piccadilly.
Then there's the Northern Panel of Experts which includes 9 politicos, each with a local axe to grind about any changes.
They have 100 days (ie into June) to produce an initial plan.

 

[D365]

Why would there be any point in acquiring more Class 319s (or 769s) if they can't get a reasonable level of reliability out of them?

 

[PHILIPE]

Why would there be any point in acquiring more Class 319s (or 769s) if they can't get a reasonable level of reliability out of them?

I don't think the DFT would sanction any more 769s after the well known problems. I have seen it somewhere on a Forum they are fed up to the teeth with Porterbrook and this whole project.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I'm not surprised. Although it looks as though there may be a market for them in the parcels type market, judging by the recent announcement by ROG. Which is probably a better use for units which are over 30 years old given there is a surfeit of newer ac emus looking for future use.

 

[a_c_skinner]

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.

That does seem the only way ahead UNLESS the 769s suddenly become a runaway success and we can get away from a micro fleet. I assume CAF don't have a bi-mode offering.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

In the old days of course, this type of research would have been done by BR at Derby. Reminders come of the APT: fleet service promised before the prototype was fully tested.

 

[D365]

In the old days of course, this type of research would have been done by BR at Derby.

There is a former BR division, still based in Derby, that has been involved in the development of the "Class 319 Flex" programme. So it's not as far afield from the old days as you might think.

 

[Energy]

I assume CAF don't have a bi-mode offering.

They offer bimode civitys (and possibly battery ones but I will have to check) on their website. They definitely offer them.

 

[AM9]

They offer bimode civitys (and possibly battery ones but I will have to check) on their website. They definitely offer them.

Yes I've noticed that a few weeks ago. If this government intends fulfilling its promises on removing CO2 from transport and NOXs from the environment, they should not sanction the purchase of another diesel-only multiple unit. Unless trains had at least some viable 'convertability' to electric primary power, straight DMU purchases should be banned. The Civity is also available as a diesel-electric MU, which has a direct route to bimode or battery operation.

 

[Jozhua]

Appreciate this is off-topic, but I have to travel daily on 195s (when they aren't broken, anyway!) on the Calder Valley, and they are atrocious units: I am not aware of a new unit that has worse ride quality anywhere in Europe in the last 20 years, and many have christened them "New Pacers" as the ride is arguably inferior to a class 14X. Add to that the cheap and nasty seats with generally damaged and stained fabric covers, jerky brakes, the absent window-seat alignment, the rattles and bangs that abound from seemingly every component, and the obtrusive and often wrong PIS and PA systems, and you end up with an experience that does not come close to that of a decent 158 (let alone a 170, which is a good unit). I'm amazed they were accepted in this state - but then, the TOC were under obvious pressure to do so.

I would happily travel on a 319/769 over one of these!

The new civcities are really not that bad. I think your senses are fooling you if you genuinely think they ride worse than a 14X. Interior wise I can speak for the 331's being very quiet, sure they rattle a tad, but it's not anything that horrific.

The seats have actual headrests and 240V outlets which is super nice.

I’m surprised anybody feels quite that strongly about the 195s. I’m not a rail commuter but have made many journeys on 195s and 331s and they certainly aren’t perfect; I’ve made many comments on here about the PIS which is either a joke or a disgrace depending on your viewpoint, and the ride if sat over the bogies is poor but when I travel on the Bolton route my heart sinks when a 319 comes into view. Despite their faults I really don’t think the Civity is a bad train at all.

Totally agree, although I like 319's been as they're at least an upgrade on the 150's!

They're only slow at getting to 15-20mph because of the daft policy on notching up Northern introduced after they assumed notching up too quickly was blowing motors (it wasn't)

If they are driven properly, like they were driven at Thameslink for nearly 30 years, they'll get up to speed reasonably quickly (although granted, they are still slower than 323s and 331s)

Nothing on the Mainline is faster accelerating than a 331, I'm pretty sure! 1.3m/s squared!

442 and 450 came out to play today, driver training on Wigan - Southport.

View attachment 75074 View attachment 75075

Nice! Look forward to seeing them in service.

 

[Wtloild]

I assume CAF don't have a bi-mode offering

The CAF trams in Birmingham are capable of battery running, in order to cope with proposed non-electrified extensions.

 

[Wtloild]

If you wanted to still make use of 769s as a distinct mini-fleet, how about re-adding 3rd rail pickup & running Liverpool-Ormskirk-Preston and/or Liverpool-Kirkby-Wigan-Bolton through-trains?
Poor acceleration wouldn't be an issue in those routes & they would actually add some tangible vote-winning improvements in connectivity.
Is a Liverpool-Preston-Bolton loop service beyond the realms of possibility? A 769 could just about reverse into-out of the southern bay platforms at Preston.

 

[Roger B]

Yes I've noticed that a few weeks ago. If this government intends fulfilling its promises on removing CO2 from transport and NOXs from the environment, they should not sanction the purchase of another diesel-only multiple unit. Unless trains had at least some viable 'convertability' to electric primary power, straight DMU purchases should be banned. The Civity is also available as a diesel-electric MU, which has a direct route to bimode or battery operation.

I would love someone from DfT to explain the rationale behind ordering the 195s with mechanical transmission, with no obvious route for conversion to bi-mode or battery operation. I just can't get my head around it - why would you do such a thing? About the only reason I can think of is cost - but even then, it's not a cheap option viewed over expected lifespan of the trains, as retro-fitting the capability for bi-mode or battery operation will cost a pretty penny. The other option would be to replace the 195s with a less environmentally harmful product mid-way through their expected lives - also not cheap.

However, I suspect that whoever made this short-sighted decision will not be held to account.

Meanwhile, residents of Northern towns and cities will continue to suffer emissions for years to come. There's already a significant difference in life expectancy and health profiles of the north and the south, and the 195s are set to play their part in perpetuating - or even increasing it.

 

[NewSt]

The CAF trams in Birmingham are capable of battery running, in order to cope with proposed non-electrified extensions.

They use it every day too now that the Library extension is open.

 

[modernrail]

I would love someone from DfT to explain the rationale behind ordering the 195s with mechanical transmission, with no obvious route for conversion to bi-mode or battery operation. I just can't get my head around it - why would you do such a thing? About the only reason I can think of is cost - but even then, it's not a cheap option viewed over expected lifespan of the trains, as retro-fitting the capability for bi-mode or battery operation will cost a pretty penny. The other option would be to replace the 195s with a less environmentally harmful product mid-way through their expected lives - also not cheap.

However, I suspect that whoever made this short-sighted decision will not be held to account.

Meanwhile, residents of Northern towns and cities will continue to suffer emissions for years to come. There's already a significant difference in life expectancy and health profiles of the north and the south, and the 195s are set to play their part in perpetuating - or even increasing it.

So are we saying that the same manufacturer offers the same train but with a diesel electric option that would have easily allowed conversion to batteries/hydrogen fuel cell etc? Is the diesel electric also true
bi-mode itself already in that is can run on diesel or the overhead wires?

If so, that really does seem an astonishing blunder. Fair enough order diesel, but if there was a diesel electric option, unless the extra cost was insane, it is criminal they didn't take that option surely?

Looks like Northern need to work with CAF to approve some biodiesel!

 

[OTRail]

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/spring-debut-targeted-for-welsh-flex-bi-modes
Per this article the TfW units are targeted to enter service just before the May timetable change

 

[AM9]

So are we saying that the same manufacturer offers the same train but with a diesel electric option that would have easily allowed conversion to batteries/hydrogen fuel cell etc? Is the diesel electric also true
bi-mode itself already in that is can run on diesel or the overhead wires?

If so, that really does seem an astonishing blunder. Fair enough order diesel, but if there was a diesel electric option, unless the extra cost was insane, it is criminal they didn't take that option surely?

Looks like Northern need to work with CAF to approve some biodiesel!

Here is the CAF webpage extolling the flexibility of their design and the options that it can offer customers:
https://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/familia/civity/modularidad.php
on this page is a list of types currently available*:

Civity platform includes trains with different types of traction based on a single concept of a modular, low-floor vehicle. Civity trains are available with the following types of traction:

• Electric (EMU)
• Diesel-mechanical or diesel-hydraulic (DMU)
• Diesel-electric (DEMU)
• Bi-mode (BMU)

EMUs WITH BATTERIES
Civity trains with all types of traction can be equipped with batteries. These can be used to move the train without external power supply or to provide extra power to the train when there is a limitation in the catenary power. Batteries can also enable energy storage during braking reducing energy consumption.

CAF energy storage systems are modular and configurable, making them easily adaptable to requirements of each customer.

It is clear that they already have the ability to supply a DEMU, and a BI-Mode (EDMU), and can fit batteries to EMUs. Given the current rate of development of a multi-mode market for multiple unit trains, I can't believe that CAF wouldn't accept orders for EDMUs now with an option for upgrading by fitting batteries in the not too distant future. In addition, once a MU is supplied with electric motor bogies (as with EDMU and DEMU configurations) there is minimal redundancy of hardware when fitting out to EDMU + batteries or even BEMU, (by removing the diesel gensets). Thus I can only guess that the rush to buy straight DMUs that would be in polluting service beyond even the least ambitious cut-off date for hydrocarbon road vehicle sales is an ill-considered myopic response to the poor performance of the Northern franchise.

* Although those types of MUs are advertised, there would of course be some development to fit a DEMU in a UK loading gauge configuration, but the modularity of the series has been amply demonstrated by deliveries elsewhere, with both low and normal (for us) floor heights. Such a design would only need to accomodate the transformer/converter and some additional cabling/switchgear.

 

[samuelmorris]

I would love someone from DfT to explain the rationale behind ordering the 195s with mechanical transmission, with no obvious route for conversion to bi-mode or battery operation. I just can't get my head around it - why would you do such a thing? About the only reason I can think of is cost - but even then, it's not a cheap option viewed over expected lifespan of the trains, as retro-fitting the capability for bi-mode or battery operation will cost a pretty penny. The other option would be to replace the 195s with a less environmentally harmful product mid-way through their expected lives - also not cheap.

However, I suspect that whoever made this short-sighted decision will not be held to account.

Meanwhile, residents of Northern towns and cities will continue to suffer emissions for years to come. There's already a significant difference in life expectancy and health profiles of the north and the south, and the 195s are set to play their part in perpetuating - or even increasing it.

Cost, because there was no intention of ever retrofitting them with a pollution-free power source over their lifetime. Diesel trains will still be smoking around on the network long after the sale of new petrol & diesel cars is banned.

As far as I'm aware CAF had a few different options on the table, but the 195/331s were the lowest possible cost solution as that's the only way they could deliver on withdrawing the Pacers. The uplift in capacity they represent in some areas is a convenient side effect of that and saves having to bring in too many extra cascaded units from elsewhere that they may have struggled to source, but a methodology change is needed if the North is to see anything as dramatic as, for example, sprinter replacement.

Hopefully by the time the budget allows for 150s and the likes to be replaced, some more sensible decisions will be made about future provision.

The 769s were supposed to be such a solution but after their very drawn out introduction, it's entirely reasonable for the DfT to be very wary of proposing any future conversions of pre-existing stock. The 769 debacle is perhaps the best thing that could have happened in terms of getting future new stock orders done correctly. Even then, don't hold your breath!

 

[AM9]

... As far as I'm aware CAF had a few different options on the table, but the 195/331s were the lowest possible cost solution as that's the only way they could deliver on withdrawing the Pacers. ...

Which given the poor introduction that the 195s (a pretty basic train design) has had into service, has failed to meet the oft-repeated 2020 deadline.

Ooops! Apologies for (amongst others) dragging this thread so far off topic, however it is a subject that maybe should be a thread in its own right.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I would love someone from DfT to explain the rationale behind ordering the 195s with mechanical transmission, with no obvious route for conversion to bi-mode or battery operation.

As I understand it, the choice of train and manufacturer was down to Arriva and the Rosco (Eversholt), not DfT.
Price and delivery time would have been critical.
The bi-mode requirement was not as obvious at the time of franchise award (2015) as it is now, hence the 769s.

 

[AM9]

As I understand it, the choice of train and manufacturer was down to Arriva and the Rosco (Eversholt), not DfT.
Price and delivery time would have been critical.
The bi-mode requirement was not as obvious at the time of franchise award (2015) as it is now, hence the 769s.

Yes you are correct, it's only in the last couple of years that those in power (the DfT) have moved from an agnostic view on the environment to being a (politically) driven supporter of removing CO2 from transport. The DfT have the power to prevent any new DMUs being procured for UK main line rail use, just as they specified that all new EMUs should be 25kV ready or convertible, even if they were destined for 3rd rail use.
However, the IET programme was started in 2005 when there was already unease about running HSTs all the way to Edinburgh under wires before they start a relatively short journey to Aberdeen. So the trend (both here and in Europe) was building up well before the 195s were negotiated.

 

[Chester1]

Why would there be any point in acquiring more Class 319s (or 769s) if they can't get a reasonable level of reliability out of them?

I don't think the DFT would sanction any more 769s after the well known problems. I have seen it somewhere on a Forum they are fed up to the teeth with Porterbrook and this whole project.

TfW is only intending to keep their 769s until the new fleet is in service. Northern could take their 9 units. I very much doubt any additional units will be ordered for passenger services. After a 2 year delay they will have lost the confidence if ToCs and Roscos.

 

[Grannyjoans]

Nothing on the Mainline is faster accelerating than a 331, I'm pretty sure!

An electric loco such as a class 90 running light engine

 

[D365]

An electric loco such as a class 90 running light engine

Would be nice to see a video of a British electric locomotive, light engine, at full acceleration. But obviously this is completely off-topic.

 

[Bob Price]

Slightly off topic but it seems the TfW units will start testing next week on the Rhymney line.

 

[ed1971]

Back on topic, I have heard that driver training on the two Northern 769s was suspended earlier in the week as both units failed and returned to Allerton on electric power. Can someone confirm this?

 

[samuelmorris]

Back on topic, I have heard that driver training on the two Northern 769s was suspended earlier in the week as both units failed and returned to Allerton on electric power. Can someone confirm this?

Perhaps this is what was being alluded to earlier in the week? The post was not specific on what the issue was, other than that it pertained to the units themselves.