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

[JonathanH]

An all-stations trip appears to take 19 minutes, which seems to me to give plenty of scope to even slow it down slightly (not that that would be great, but I mean it wouldn't be a problem). Ten minutes layover in the hour should be quite adequate - most bus services don't even allow that, and when it's running shuttles it's a completely self contained branch line with absolutely nothing to get in its way.

I really don't understand why they operate the cack-handed timetable they do and not a simple hourly clockface all-stations one based around the times of the through services, TBH. Same with Barrow.

(Reference: https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/mediafile/100077746/h_minitt_wdmguide_14dec2014-16may2015.pdf)

The main line services have uneven calling patterns at Oxenholme and Penrith so clockface departures for Windermere wouldn't always connect.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The last time I went to Windermere the journey time was considerably increased by the need to crawl past level crossings. Is this still the case or has something been done/going to be done to sort them out.

Isn't there one with a 5mph restriction?

 

[TBSchenker]

Yes, Burneside Lower AOCL 5mph. Just after the station, so even trains not booked to call at Burneside have to slow to a crawl.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've not seen it mentioned, but apologies if it has, but the 319 would have to be 3-cars due to the short platform at Staveley. What this would do to the technical performance of the 319 I don't know. An unpowered trailer would be lost, but some equipment might be needed under that coach that has been removed from the Driving vehicles.

I don't think the wires currently cover all the branch platform.

The wires do, they end about 2 OLE structures off the platform. We were always told we can take a 350 in there if the worst happens and the job is stopped on the main.

 

[superkev]

It's going to need a large engine(s) for a 4 car 319 depending on what performance is required and what weight can be hung underneath the coaches. Perhaps a pair of Cummins QSK's like the 220's feeding a dc bus of something like the class 230 with multiple Ford pumas.
K

 

[HSTEd]

Similar but not really. Your 4 car 150 has 850kW propelling 140 tonnes (including engines), whilst this bi-modal with 4 Vivarail gensets has 600kW propelling 140 tonnes (not including engines). Not to mention that the 150 has the advantage of a gearbox whilst the 319 wouldn't.

The 319 has the advantage of the most flexible gearbox ever concieved by man - the electric transmission. It has an infinite number of gears.

 

[The Ham]

The main line services have uneven calling patterns at Oxenholme and Penrith so clockface departures for Windermere wouldn't always connect.

Unless the brand line service can always get there before a service and leave after it then there will always be some level of waiting involved for passenger changing.

The time that having a 10-15 minutes change, rather than a 5-10 minutes change is when the long distance train is running late and the extra time in the connection allows people to still get the branch line train.

 

[kevjs]

The 319 has the advantage of the most flexible gearbox ever concieved by man - the electric transmission. It has an infinite number of gears.

In which case, why on earth do Formula E cars have Gearboxes on top of the electric transmission (anywhere from 1 to 5 gears) - or is that simply to extend the range even more (i.e. infinite gears between the equivalent of 2nd and 5th replaced with two sets of infinite gears between 1st and 3rd and 4th and 6th for instance)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In which case, why on earth do Formula E cars have Gearboxes on top of the electric transmission (anywhere from 1 to 5 gears) - or is that simply to extend the range even more (i.e. infinite gears between the equivalent of 2nd and 5th replaced with two sets of infinite gears between 1st and 3rd and 4th and 6th for instance)?

The answer is somewhere in the middle. An electric motor has a very wide power band, unlike a petrol or diesel engine, so doesn't need a clutch or gears to start off and progress as it has very high torque at 0rpm. However you can gear electric motors to give different performance profiles, i.e. to trade torque off against rotational speed. If you've got access to a child's Technical Lego set you can try this out quite effectively.

But there generally isn't any need to change that as you go along on a train, so it's just permanently geared for the performance profile you need - perhaps you need high acceleration to 50mph, or lower acceleration to 125mph, and you can have either of those as required by having different permanent gearing. (In practice our theoretical underpowered Class 319 would have slower acceleration to about 50mph with half the power - that is probably still useful but just to give an idea of what you'd get - to get fast acceleration to 50mph you would need two gearings).

With regard to Formula E, racing cars need to eke out the last bit of performance possible for a given situation, and there is also the benefit of complicating the competition with more manual input. So there is a benefit in that case that doesn't really apply to an EMU - though I can see that it might gain something to have two gears if you were going to use lower-powered diesel engines than a 319 could get off the juice.

https://www.reddit.com/r/FormulaE/comments/2gbika/why_do_formula_e_cars_have_a_five_speed_gearbox/

 

[bastien]

How much do all the resistors and control gear under a class 442 motor coach weigh then? Just asking, you know

 

[mwmbwls]

Yes, Burneside Lower AOCL 5mph. Just after the station, so even trains not booked to call at Burneside have to slow to a crawl.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've not seen it mentioned, but apologies if it has, but the 319 would have to be 3-cars due to the short platform at Staveley. What this would do to the technical performance of the 319 I don't know. An unpowered trailer would be lost, but some equipment might be needed under that coach that has been removed from the Driving vehicles.



The wires do, they end about 2 OLE structures off the platform. We were always told we can take a 350 in there if the worst happens and the job is stopped on the main.

I believe that the shortening of all of the 319's coming north to 3 car sets has been considered but was rejected because of the complexity of repositioning the underfloor electric equipment. Porterbrook put out a pdf brochure about refurbishment opportunities for the 319 but the link appears to have rotted . Did anybody keep a copy?

Failing that is SDO practicable at Staveley?

 

[pemma]

I believe that the shortening of all of the 319's coming north to 3 car sets has been considered but was rejected because of the complexity of repositioning the underfloor electric equipment. Porterbrook put out a pdf brochure about refurbishment opportunities for the 319 but the link appears to have rotted . Did anybody keep a copy?

The 319 brochure was produced around 6 or 7 years ago. You probably recall North West electrification was announced prior to the 2010 General Election by Lord Adonis and replaced a proposed order for brand new DMUs. Lord Adonis specifically mentioned the Chat Moss route would get cascaded trains from Thameslink in 2012 which would be given complete new interiors including new seats and fitted with air-conditioning. (The fact that he mentioned fitting air conditioning is what confirmed he was referring to 319s and not 377s.) Porterbrook drew up plans for those plans and came up with further options to make 319s look like an attractive option to use on the Bolton corridor and to be considered to use in lieu of 323s. However, the change of government resulted in the full 319 refurbishment plans being dropped and I imagine they are now less economically viable given the 319s are getting older by the day.

 

[Greybeard33]

When we know it works. This solution has been touted by Porterbrook for some time and it is known that one TOC has been wanting the DfT to give permission for up to (rumoured) four prototype sets to be financed, for use by that TOC.

Other TOCs/owning groups are obviously aware of what has been proposed and have been seeing where else they could be used. I have a list of such lines for one particular TOC sitting on my desk at work.

There is a difference between technical feasibility and commercial viability.

What is the minimum number of units Porterbrook would need to convert, in order to recover the design and development costs at a lease rate the TOCs would consider affordable?

What would be the minimum lease duration Porterbrook would then need to recoup its investment?

Would it be economic to keep the original DC motors in service that long, or would the motor car be re-tractioned as part of the conversion package (I recall Porterbrook previously offered a re-tractioning mod for the 319)?

And overall, how would the economics compare with new bi-modes, such as the East Anglia FLIRTs, which will have a much longer service life and, no doubt, lower maintenance costs?

 

[pemma]

So one person on wnxx is claiming someone at Porterbrook has said Northern are the intended client, while another person has said someone else at Porterbrook has said the intended client is GWR for the Thames Valley branches.

 

[Clarence Yard]

So one person on wnxx is claiming someone at Porterbrook has said Northern are the intended client, while another person has said someone else at Porterbrook has said the intended client is GWR for the Thames Valley branches.

They are both right, in a way. The first units were mean't to be going to Northern but if that deal fell through they and subsequent units could be very welcome on GWR, if the deal was right for both GWR and the DfT.

Both TOCs are in the market for this product. There are potentially others as well.

 

[HSTEd]

In which case, why on earth do Formula E cars have Gearboxes on top of the electric transmission (anywhere from 1 to 5 gears) - or is that simply to extend the range even more (i.e. infinite gears between the equivalent of 2nd and 5th replaced with two sets of infinite gears between 1st and 3rd and 4th and 6th for instance)?

Because whilst it has an infinite number of gears inside its power band, its power band is not in itself infinite.
Eventually if an electric motor spins faster and faster the rotor will decide it hates being in one piece and would much prefer to scatter itself in all directions.

Building a stronger rotor is heavier than the gearbox in that case.

 

[QueensCurve]

You are not going to need to power it at "full chaff" - take a look at the use-case. 100mph, or even 75mph, is completely unnecessy.

60mph on the Windermere Branch

 

[pemma]

They are both right, in a way. The first units were mean't to be going to Northern but if that deal fell through they and subsequent units could be very welcome on GWR, if the deal was right for both GWR and the DfT.

Both TOCs are in the market for this product. There are potentially others as well.

4 units have been mentioned for Northern. I'm thinking a Wigan-Bolton-Stalybridge service is one that might not be able to use electric straight away but will likely be operated by 319s once wires are available. That would require 3 units but a 4th may be required for maintenance purposes. It would also require little change to the Northern rolling stock plan - 4 x bi-mode 319s instead of 4 x electric only 319s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

4 units is a bit of an odd number - not enough for Barrow *and* Windermere. Would that be 3 for a 2-hourly Windermere-Manchester Airport through service plus one spare, perhaps?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If you wanted a 3-car EDMU you wouldn't use a 319 as your starting point- a 317 or 321 wouldn't need stuff removing from the trailer. But if this rumour is more than just wibble it will show whether such a proposal is viable. There will be plenty of 317s and 321s available shortly if 3-car units are needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you wanted a 3-car EDMU you wouldn't use a 319 as your starting point- a 317 or 321 wouldn't need stuff removing from the trailer. But if this rumour is more than just wibble it will show whether such a proposal is viable. There will be plenty of 317s and 321s available shortly if 3-car units are needed.

A 319 may be an easier/cheaper starting point, as because it is third-rail capable, all you need is to remove the shoes and provide gensets outputting 750VDC compliant with whatever specification it gets from third rail into the existing third rail circuitry, plus related fuel, fire suppression and exhaust systems. There would be few modifications required to existing systems.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

A 319 may be an easier/cheaper starting point, as because it is third-rail capable, all you need is to remove the shoes and provide gensets outputting 750VDC compliant with whatever specification it gets from third rail into the existing third rail circuitry, plus related fuel, fire suppression and exhaust systems. There would be few modifications required to existing systems.

Why would the shoes need to be removed? Couldn't it run in 3rd rail mode where the 3rd rail is available?

 

[D365]

Why would the shoes need to be removed? Couldn't it run in 3rd rail mode where the 3rd rail is available?

The shoes are being removed from the Northern/LM Class 319s anyway...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A 319 may be an easier/cheaper starting point, as because it is third-rail capable, all you need is to remove the shoes and provide gensets outputting 750VDC compliant with whatever specification it gets from third rail into the existing third rail circuitry, plus related fuel, fire suppression and exhaust systems. There would be few modifications required to existing systems.

When it comes to making a 3-car version, it essentially comes down to which is easier (read cheaper): adding the wiring required to the units which never had 3rd rail capability, or moving the compressor from the removed car and installing it elsewhere. At this point you also need to consider other factors- 317s are older but have unit end gangways, 321s being newer will be in better condition but have no gangways. If you're adding gangways, a 319 may be easier than a 321.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would the shoes need to be removed? Couldn't it run in 3rd rail mode where the 3rd rail is available?

There isn't anywhere theyd be running for Northern where the 3rd rail will be there long enough to be of use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would the shoes need to be removed? Couldn't it run in 3rd rail mode where the 3rd rail is available?

Because if you want to build a cheap bi-mode unit (and there's no point doing it if it won't be cheap, because if it isn't you might as well give Stadler your money for brand new units), it's easier to do what I said and repurpose the third-rail circuitry - in that case it's almost a bolt-on-and-plug-in modification. And Northern has no third rail, so what would they need it for? (Merseyrail Electrics has, but I just can't see any non-electrified extensions to that occurring).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When it comes to making a 3-car version, it essentially comes down to which is easier (read cheaper): adding the wiring required to the units which never had 3rd rail capability, or moving the compressor from the removed car and installing it elsewhere. At this point you also need to consider other factors- 317s are older but have unit end gangways, 321s being newer will be in better condition but have no gangways. If you're adding gangways, a 319 may be easier than a 321.

Or don't make a 3-car version, but instead install SDO (or indeed local staff controls for single-door operation at the odd station where it will be needed, if cheaper) and let passengers enjoy additional capacity.

It isn't likely that they will be doubled up in the kind of services proposed, so 6 vs 8 is fairly moot. If more capacity is needed, you could insert the trailer car from any other Mk3-derived EMU (and there are loads of them) as they become available and make them 5-car.

I doubt there would be a financial case for adding gangways.

 

[Greybeard33]

A 319 may be an easier/cheaper starting point, as because it is third-rail capable, all you need is to remove the shoes and provide gensets outputting 750VDC compliant with whatever specification it gets from third rail into the existing third rail circuitry, plus related fuel, fire suppression and exhaust systems. There would be few modifications required to existing systems.

Would it not need a new traction control system? The existing system was not designed to work with a limited capacity power source, so would overload the gensets.

 

[childwallblues]

Interesting concept, lets hope that it comes off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it not need a new traction control system? The existing system was not designed to work with a limited capacity power source, so would overload the gensets.

That might be a cheaper option, but I would expect that if you really want a modular plug-in solution you could control that with electronics in the gensets themselves. If you know what "interface" is needed - to produce a power feed that is electrically equivalent to third rail to the extent that'll work with a fairly voltage-tolerant set of old-fashioned DC motors - you can design a genset that will do precisely that.

After all, if you go to Machine Mart and grab yourself a 13A generator, you don't have to manually calibrate it for what you're going to plug into it. It provides a 13A socket, you plug any 13A equipment into it, it ensures it provides the relevant amount of electricity (up to its maximum capability) by controlling its engine accordingly. It's just a bigger version of that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting concept, lets hope that it comes off.

I agree. In my view Northern's new fleet should have been part-bi-mode. As it wasn't, I think this is the next best thing, particularly as I said for the North West Express service group.

 

[superkev]

Would it not need a new traction control system? The existing system was not designed to work with a limited capacity power source, so would overload the gensets.

Emu's like the 319 use GTO thyristors which are old technology and in short supply. Not something you could restart a production line for so the electronics must have limited life.
E.g. I read somewhere there where only a few Class 91 thyristors left in the world.
K

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Emu's like the 319 use GTO thyristors which are old technology and in short supply. Not something you could restart a production line for so the electronics must have limited life.
E.g. I read somewhere there where only a few Class 91 thyristors left in the world.
K

Where the thyristors made specifically for the rail industry or at the time were they ones that could be bought off the shelf?

 

[Domh245]

Emu's like the 319 use GTO thyristors which are old technology and in short supply. Not something you could restart a production line for so the electronics must have limited life.
E.g. I read somewhere there where only a few Class 91 thyristors left in the world.
K

The D-Train project used GTOs produced by HOLEC in the Netherlands (to replace the camshaft equipment) - so if the will is there, they can be produced still.