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

[Greybeard33]

But there's not much point of using bi-modes on the services starting/ending at Preston and I wonder how far they'll be able to travel off the wires between refueling.

A similar range to a 150 according to Porterbrook - see Post #759.

 

[northwichcat]

A similar range to a 150 according to Porterbrook - see Post #759.

"We set ourselves ambitious targets for range akin to a traditional DMU. Our modelling work shows that we can go for two days on a very arduous diagram."

It's a very vague claim. Does a very arduous diagram mean one where there's no overheads to use, there's quite a bit of climbing and one where there's short turnaround times? Or is a very arduous diagram mean an existing Buxton line diagram which could use overheads between Hazel Grove and Manchester and gets a long layover between services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But there's not much point of using bi-modes on the services starting/ending at Preston and I wonder how far they'll be able to travel off the wires between refueling.

IME there's not much point in the services starting/ending at Preston at all, everyone bails at Lancaster to get the VT or TPE.

 

[D6975]

Could someone please clarify for me which 319s are at/going to Northern?
I’ve got down all the 319/3s except 372, plus the eight 319/4s listed as being earmarked for conversion to bi-modes, 421/31/34/42/48/50/56/58.
Is this correct, or are there others?

 

[skyhigh]

From the Class 319 thread:

Today's Railways are reporting that 319 370/381/384/385 are indeed due for Northern, therefore Northern will have all 319/3's apart from 319 372 and 373 which are at Long Marston.
319 004/005/218/219 will no longer be going as previously thought and are remaining in storage.
In addition to the 319/3's, the following 319/4's are moving to Northern and being converted to Class 769's.
319424
319431
319442
319458
The list has been updated to show this.

 

[Greybeard33]

"We set ourselves ambitious targets for range akin to a traditional DMU. Our modelling work shows that we can go for two days on a very arduous diagram."

It's a very vague claim. Does a very arduous diagram mean one where there's no overheads to use, there's quite a bit of climbing and one where there's short turnaround times? Or is a very arduous diagram mean an existing Buxton line diagram which could use overheads between Hazel Grove and Manchester and gets a long layover between services?

Do you have a reason to believe there is a problem with the space for, or weight of, fuel tanks? And, in any case, why would Northern want to put the 769s on diagrams where there's no overheads to use? Surely 150s/156s would be less costly to operate on such routes?

 

[northwichcat]

Do you have a reason to believe there is a problem with the space for, or weight of, fuel tanks? And, in any case, why would Northern want to put the 769s on diagrams where there's no overheads to use? Surely 150s/156s would be less costly to operate on such routes?

I was pointing out the vagueness of the claim. If they are 'as good as a pair of 150s on a very arduous diagram' then they shouldn't have any issues if there's a power supply issue meaning the overheads are unusable. Alternatively, if there is a 150 shortage and there's a spare 769 in the sidings then the 769 should be capable of filling in for a pair of 150s even if there's no overheads to use (subject to crew knowledge and clearance.) However, the article seems to imply that running them from Manchester to Buxton (on overheads as far as Hazel Grove) is arduous.

 

[D6975]

From the Class 319 thread:

The list on the 319 thread is not up to date.

 

[WatcherZero]

I would have thought that 769 is the obvious class number to choose. Add a multiple of 100 to move to the correct series for the type of unit and use that if it’s free. In the case of non-HS bi-modes, the series seems to be 750-799, rather than the full 700-799 range, so any class ending in a number under 50 needs to have another 50 added, so in this case you arrive at 769. Unit side numbers where the obvious choice is already used quite often end in unit no.+50, keeps things tidy.

Shame that 755 has already been allocated if the proposed other bi-mode conversions go ahead

Class 386 allocation maths next?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

But Vivarail's Pure EMU to DEMU conversion is numbered Class 230
Would that mean a 455 EMU to DEMU conversion would be Class 255 if it is not a Bi mode and only runs on diesel engines (no third rail pick up)

255 has already been used by HST - the XC 5 car challenger sets, although this was a mere paper exercise for diagramming purposes. 8 car HST are still 253 on diagrams

 

[47802]

But there's not much point of using bi-modes on the services starting/ending at Preston and I wonder how far they'll be able to travel off the wires between refueling.

Why not Connect DMU's can work the required number of services to Barrow which was always intended anyway plus the limited number of Windermere Trains required. The remaining non connect services to Windermere and maybe Barrow as well could be worked by flex units.

Alternatives do without the connect spec on Windermere connect services or bring the Flex units up to connect spec, which would be substancial extra cost which suspect isn't going to happen, with a franchise that's claiming refurbished units that were recently refurbished on the old Northern franchise and don't even have the new Northern Franchise internal colour scheme.

 

[skyhigh]

The list on the 319 thread is not up to date.

Sorry, I assumed that it was - it says "Last Updated 15/06/17", so is it missing changes? It's hard to keep up with what's going where!

 

[Geeves]

Maybe I had heard it wrong then for Barrow but certainly due to the delay on the wires going up for Windermere the internal messages coming to us inside the company would be that a 319/769 would be the units that would be covering the Windermere work. Maybe that has changed I dont know. I have not heard anything to say they would be being used for the Wigan work.

 

[yorksrob]

Currently enduring a 142 Merseyrail "scrapheap in waiting".

These flexi modes will be an excellent solution which can't come soon enough.

 

[yorksrob]

(Northern must have it in for me today. Just discovered that my connecting service s another Merseyrail crap heap, this time with the heating on).

 

[Greybeard33]

Maybe I had heard it wrong then for Barrow but certainly due to the delay on the wires going up for Windermere the internal messages coming to us inside the company would be that a 319/769 would be the units that would be covering the Windermere work. Maybe that has changed I dont know. I have not heard anything to say they would be being used for the Wigan work.

I have no reason to doubt your internal knowledge, which is likely more up to date than the unsourced rumour that jcollins posted on 14 March (#726 of this thread). It was that post that suggested that Northern will use the 769s on the Wigan/Bolton to Stalybridge and Alderley Edge services.

Manchester Airport to Windermere or Barrow is nearly 3 hours each way, so six 769 diagrams would probably be needed to provide all the hourly Airport to Cumbria services, maybe plus one to cover the Windermere - Oxenholme shuttle in the hours the Airport service goes to Barrow. That would leave one of the eight 769s spare/in maintenance.

The advantage of deploying the 769 fleet on these services is that they could take over 100mph paths currently occupied by 350s or 185s on the WCML between Oxenholme/Carnforth and Golborne. Otherwise 158s would probably have to be transferred to the North West, pending arrival of the 195s.

 

[47802]

I have no reason to doubt your internal knowledge, which is likely more up to date than the unsourced rumour that jcollins posted on 14 March (#726 of this thread). It was that post that suggested that Northern will use the 769s on the Wigan/Bolton to Stalybridge and Alderley Edge services.

Manchester Airport to Windermere or Barrow is nearly 3 hours each way, so six 769 diagrams would probably be needed to provide all the hourly Airport to Cumbria services, maybe plus one to cover the Windermere - Oxenholme shuttle in the hours the Airport service goes to Barrow. That would leave one of the eight 769s spare/in maintenance.

The advantage of deploying the 769 fleet on these services is that they could take over 100mph paths currently occupied by 350s or 185s on the WCML between Oxenholme/Carnforth and Golborne. Otherwise 158s would probably have to be transferred to the North West, pending arrival of the 195s.

I'm somewhat sceptical the flex units will end up on Barrow - Airport services, as has been said before they don't meet the Northern Connect Spec, and as far Barrow is concerned these were always planned to be 195 units anyway so nothing has changed in that respect.

 

[Greybeard33]

I'm somewhat sceptical the flex units will end up on Barrow - Airport services, as has been said before they don't meet the Northern Connect Spec, and as far Barrow is concerned these were always planned to be 195 units anyway so nothing has changed in that respect.

But the 195s will not yet be available in May 2018, while Northern will no longer be able to sub-lease 185s for these services (TPE will need them for its own service enhancements). The 769s might be a stop-gap?

 

[northwichcat]

I have no reason to doubt your internal knowledge, which is likely more up to date than the unsourced rumour that jcollins posted on 14 March (#726 of this thread). It was that post that suggested that Northern will use the 769s on the Wigan/Bolton to Stalybridge and Alderley Edge services.

Manchester Airport to Windermere or Barrow is nearly 3 hours each way, so six 769 diagrams would probably be needed to provide all the hourly Airport to Cumbria services, maybe plus one to cover the Windermere - Oxenholme shuttle in the hours the Airport service goes to Barrow. That would leave one of the eight 769s spare/in maintenance.

The advantage of deploying the 769 fleet on these services is that they could take over 100mph paths currently occupied by 350s or 185s on the WCML between Oxenholme/Carnforth and Golborne. Otherwise 158s would probably have to be transferred to the North West, pending arrival of the 195s.

My 'unsourced rumour' was what another user stated in a different thread. Given it's now confirmed Northern plan to run Alderley Edge to Wigan via Bolton and Wigan to Stalybridge services from May 2018 (when at the time the claim was posted hadn't been mentioned before) I suspect what the other user posted was the working proposal at the time.

The planning application for the Blackburn facility and the platform lengthening plan for the Clitheroe line both suggest both 2 and 3 car 158s will be used on North West routes in the not so distant future.

 

[northwichcat]

But the 195s will not yet be available in May 2018, while Northern will no longer be able to sub-lease 185s for these services (TPE will need them for its own service enhancements). The 769s might be a stop-gap?

While I'm not doubting the 195s won't be in service by the May 2018 timetable change do we know what the delivery schedule is for them? The only thing I've heard is Northern saying new trains between mid-2018 and early-2020.

 

[Roose]

IME there's not much point in the services starting/ending at Preston at all, everyone bails at Lancaster to get the VT or TPE.

Partly true of the Preston Services at school, college work times and those travelling to WCML destinations beyond Preston, but on a Barrow or Windermere to Manchester service why would people get off to take a TPE service which would eventually follow their initial service into Manchester?

Changing at Lancaster, particularly southbound, is deeply unpopular and the restoration of the former service level to the airport on the Furness line with the advent of the Northern Connect Services is eagerly awaited. A increase in passengers will result - also as a result of the withdrawal of Class 153s, occasional Pacers filling-in duties and the horrid Class 37 + LHCS (fortunately few in number on the Furness line).

 

[47802]

Partly true of the Preston Services at school, college work times and those travelling to WCML destinations beyond Preston, but on a Barrow or Windermere to Manchester service why would people get off to take a TPE service which would eventually follow their initial service into Manchester?

Changing at Lancaster, particularly southbound, is deeply unpopular and the restoration of the former service level to the airport on the Furness line with the advent of the Northern Connect Services is eagerly awaited. A increase in passengers will result - also as a result of the withdrawal of Class 153s, occasional Pacers filling-in duties and the horrid Class 37 + LHCS (fortunately few in number on the Furness line).

On a recent trips the Cumbrian coast through trains to at least Lancaster seemed quite popular without the need to change at Barrow. The min requirement for Connect to Barrow is 8 trains per day so that equates to roughly a 2 hourly service, on the alternate hours through trains from Lancaster or Preston would probably be good.

I guess Flex units could be used as temp measure until 195's are available but if 158's are going to be used in the North West anyway I would have thought they would be more likely.

 

[Frothy]

It's worth remembering that the Northern Franchise agreement refers to 'Rolling Stock Quality Requirements' applying on the Manchester Airport to Barrow/Windermere from December 2018 onwards.
These requirements include things such as air conditioning and electronic seat reservations which 769s are unlikely to have.
Up until Dec'18, 769s might still appear on the Windermeres, however unlikely.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[lejog]

My 'unsourced rumour' was what another user stated in a different thread. Given it's now confirmed Northern plan to run Alderley Edge to Wigan via Bolton and Wigan to Stalybridge services from May 2018 (when at the time the claim was posted hadn't been mentioned before) I suspect what the other user posted was the working proposal at the time.

If I was the other user, then I've suggested that 769s would be used on some/all of the Stalybridge, Wigan to Bolton and Windermere services because:

• The DfT/Rail North are paying for them and they most certainly don't throw their money around without good reason.
• However under the franchise agreement they bear the risk of delays to electrification, and have to pay Northern if they have to change their train fleet due to the delays.

The simplest solution would be just to use 769s on these routes, yes it might be possible to negotiate a more complex deal with 769s say working to Barrow and the DMUs cascading elsewhere, but why would you?

While I'm not doubting the 195s won't be in service by the May 2018 timetable change do we know what the delivery schedule is for them? The only thing I've heard is Northern saying new trains between mid-2018 and early-2020.

There's a delivery schedule on p275 for 195s of the Franchise Agreement. Okay the dates have been redacted, but with 18 steps in the table its probably reasonable to make the assumption its 18 months from mid-2018.

Northern should have 2*2 car and 13*3 car 195s in service within 3-4 months of mid 2018.

It's worth remembering that the Northern Franchise agreement refers to 'Rolling Stock Quality Requirements' applying on the Manchester Airport to Barrow/Windermere from December 2018 onwards.
These requirements include things such as air conditioning and electronic seat reservations which 769s are unlikely to have.
Up until Dec'18, 769s might still appear on the Windermeres, however unlikely.

Yes, but any part of the contract may change as part of the negotiations to fix the problems due to delays in electrification. If it saves them money, the DfT may allow the Windermere service to be non Connect, or they could agree to pay to upgrade 1 or 2 769s to Connect requirements. They may have agreed that an extra 195 should replace a 331.

 

[northwichcat]

If I was the other user, then I've suggested that 769s would be used on some/all of the Stalybridge, Wigan to Bolton and Windermere services because:

• The DfT/Rail North are paying for them and they most certainly don't throw their money around without good reason.
• However under the franchise agreement they bear the risk of delays to electrification, and have to pay Northern if they have to change their train fleet due to the delays.

The simplest solution would be just to use 769s on these routes, yes it might be possible to negotiate a more complex deal with 769s say working to Barrow and the DMUs cascading elsewhere, but why would you?

Could it be the DfT plan is for 8 x 769s for the Wigan and Stalybridge delays then once they are wired 5 x 769s returned (the franchise agreement indicated 5 x 319s would be returned once all the 331s are in service) and 3 x 769s cascaded to Windermere (which was originally a CP6 project while Wigan-Bolton and Stalybridge were CP5)?

 

[1179_Clee2]

Could it be the DfT plan is for 8 x 769s for the Wigan and Stalybridge delays then once they are wired 5 x 769s returned (the franchise agreement indicated 5 x 319s would be returned once all the 331s are in service) and 3 x 769s cascaded to Windermere (which was originally a CP6 project while Wigan-Bolton and Stalybridge were CP5)?

Porterbrook are being ruthless at the moment about spending its money on its trains (will not start TSI PRM mods on ATW 150/2 fleet without a guarantee of long term use) Would Porterbrook pay for 5 x 769s that would be be handed back after ONLY 18 months service ??

 

[northwichcat]

Porterbrook are being ruthless at the moment about spending its money on its trains (will not start TSI PRM mods on ATW 150/2 fleet without a guarantee of long term use) Would Porterbrook pay for 5 x 769s that would be be handed back after ONLY 18 months service ??

The various press releases regarding bi-mode 319s all hinted at them being an interim measure for Northern before 'being offered' to other operators. Could 'being offered' be interpreted as DfT forcing them on to another operator?

 

[adrock1976]

The various press releases regarding bi-mode 319s all hinted at them being an interim measure for Northern before 'being offered' to other operators. Could 'being offered' be interpreted as DfT forcing them on to another operator?

Regarding being offered to other operators, the only place in my mind that they could be transferred to is Govia Thameslink Railway for the London Bridge - Uckfield services, or Brighton - Ashford (Kent).

The Uckfield services could run on third rail DC to Hurst Green (or Oxted. Not sure if that is where the East Grinstead route diverges - it is one or the other), then diesel power for the remaining section to Uckfield. Likewise with Brighton - Ashford, third rail DC to Ore, then diesel to Ashford.

 

[LA50041]

Regarding being offered to other operators, the only place in my mind that they could be transferred to is Govia Thameslink Railway for the London Bridge - Uckfield services, or Brighton - Ashford (Kent).

The Uckfield services could run on third rail DC to Hurst Green (or Oxted. Not sure if that is where the East Grinstead route diverges - it is one or the other), then diesel power for the remaining section to Uckfield. Likewise with Brighton - Ashford, third rail DC to Ore, then diesel to Ashford.

Class 319's are not permitted to uckfield due to clearance issues on one of the tunnels on the route.
The marshlink would make sense, although I believe there are some limitations on stabling/fuelling facilities at st Leonard's that only 1 four car unit can be accommodated on the diesel depot

 

[Greybeard33]

Could it be the DfT plan is for 8 x 769s for the Wigan and Stalybridge delays then once they are wired 5 x 769s returned (the franchise agreement indicated 5 x 319s would be returned once all the 331s are in service) and 3 x 769s cascaded to Windermere (which was originally a CP6 project while Wigan-Bolton and Stalybridge were CP5)?

The TSR actually specifies 16 services daily from Manchester Airport to Lancaster, of which 8 extend to Barrow, 4 extend to Windermere and 4 terminate at Lancaster. I imagine the original plan was for 195s to work the Barrow services and 331s the rest.

Airport to Windermere via Wigan is about 1h50, so two 769 diagrams might between them work both the Airport to Windermere turns and the Oxenholme to Windermere shuttle, swapping at Windermere as the 185s used to do.

This would give a minimum of three hours between successive Airport departures, so diagramming might be more efficient if the 769s worked some of the Lancaster terminators too.