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

[deltic08]

The idea of 769s for Windermere was dropped when Porterbrook missed the Spring 2018 deadline for the introduction of 769s in to revenue earning service. It is now expected to be one the first routes to get 195s and they will remain there until the 'alternative fueled trains' trial takes place.

Windermere could nearly be finished by now if the Blackpool team had gone straight on to
that project unless there are bridges to raise or track to slew under arched bridges.
Electrification of this small add-on project should have been a no brainer even back in 1974.
The whole idea of diesel/25kv bimodes is a bodge. Not helping eventual electric hauled freight.
Diesel is dirty. Full stop.

 

[twpsaesneg]

yes. Can an old diesel like a class 25 "talk" to a "modern" unit?

To dead haul with a translator coach no "talking" is required, anything with a screw coupling and air brakes can haul - hence things like Class 37's and pairs of Class 20's being able to do new stock delivery runs on the mainline.

 

[Bornin1980s]

I take it that the 769 will have to travel across Loughborough by road...

No big deal, but only once you have a contractor to do the work.

Why can't it be hauled there by rail?

 

[EE Andy b1]

Why can't it be hauled there by rail?

No connection to Network Rail metals as of yet!

 

[ac6000cw]

Why can't it be hauled there by rail?

The main GCR line (Loughborough-Leicester North) has no connection to the national rail network...

 

[northwichcat]

Windermere could nearly be finished by now if the Blackpool team had gone straight on to
that project unless there are bridges to raise or track to slew under arched bridges.
Electrification of this small add-on project should have been a no brainer even back in 1974.
The whole idea of diesel/25kv bimodes is a bodge. Not helping eventual electric hauled freight.
Diesel is dirty. Full stop.

So is no-one who was involved with electrifying Blackpool-Preston also involved with the Preston-Bolton-Manchester work? The plan for a long time was for Blackpool-Preston to be finished first and it only briefly looked like the completion date would be the same as Network Rail were misleading us as to how far behind they were with electrifying Preston-Bolton-Manchester.

 

[Elecman]

So is no-one who was involved with electrifying Blackpool-Preston also involved with the Preston-Bolton-Manchester work? The plan for a long time was for Blackpool-Preston to be finished first and it only briefly looked like the completion date would be the same as Network Rail were misleading us as to how far behind they were with electrifying Preston-Bolton-Manchester.

No they were separate main contractors

 

[snowball]

The plan for a long time was for Blackpool-Preston to be finished first and it only briefly looked like the completion date would be the same as Network Rail were misleading us as to how far behind they were with electrifying Preston-Bolton-Manchester.

The original plan was for Blackpool-Preston to be finished first, which is how it came to be called Phase 3 and Preston-Bolton-Manchester came to be called Phase 4. But then for several years, the expectation (at least in public) was that Phase 4 would be finished before Phase 3. But then Phase 4 was delayed much more than 3, so the original numbering turned out right.

 

[snowball]

No they were separate main contractors

Though Manchester=Preston had 3 different ones as BB dropped out then Carillion collapsed.

 

[IanXC]

I have moved discussion of possible new routes east of the Pennines into a new thread here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...9s-possible-uses-east-of-the-pennines.169579/

 

[Elecman]

Though Manchester=Preston had 3 different ones as BB dropped out then Carillion collapsed.

It has it was BB, then Carillion and finally Amey.

Blackpool was Volkers

 

[Roose]

Electrification is the most sensible option for Furness and Windermere.

Sadly the Furness line was in Tier Three of the electrification priorities determined by the 'electrification task force' for the north, set up 2013 and which reported in 2016. Even though it appeared to be at number one in that tier, twenty of the thirty-two routes in the north were ahead of it in tiers one and two.

Don't hold your breath...

 

[deltic08]

Sadly the Furness line was in Tier Three of the electrification priorities determined by the 'electrification task force' for the north, set up 2013 and which reported in 2016. Even though it appeared to be at number one in that tier, twenty of the thirty-two routes in the north were ahead of it in tiers one and two.

Don't hold your breath...

but it would virtually eliminate diesel under the wires and that is what the DafT should consider, route electrification.
Windermere is only a dozen miles of single track and would not have needed all this nonsense of bimodes. What are we talking of? Less than a measly £10m and problem solved. Instead we are spending it converting old electric stock that should be going to the scrapyard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

but it would virtually eliminate diesel under the wires and that is what the DafT should consider, route electrification.
Windermere is only a dozen miles of single track and would not have needed all this nonsense of bimodes. What are we talking of? Less than a measly £10m and problem solved. Instead we are spending it converting old electric stock that should be going to the scrapyard.

As I've mentioned there is much more call for through service beyond Lancaster for the Windermere than the Barrow line. So why not terminate the Barrows at Lancaster, electrify Windermere, and run hourly Windermere to Manchester Airport i.e. all trains as through trains? Time the Barrows to connect properly. To compensate for the loss of a through service used by relatively few people in my experience, make it a proper hourly clockface service from 0600 to 2300 (like the Ormskirk line) and give it enough capacity. A dedicated branded fleet of Class 156s would be a good option; 3 or 4-car 230s in the "lots of tables" rural layout could also work.

 

[deltic08]

As I've mentioned there is much more call for through service beyond Lancaster for the Windermere than the Barrow line. So why not terminate the Barrows at Lancaster, electrify Windermere, and run hourly Windermere to Manchester Airport i.e. all trains as through trains? Time the Barrows to connect properly. To compensate for the loss of a through service used by relatively few people in my experience, make it a proper hourly clockface service from 0600 to 2300 (like the Ormskirk line) and give it enough capacity. A dedicated branded fleet of Class 156s would be a good option; 3 or 4-car 230s in the "lots of tables" rural layout could also work.

This is where dismantling the West Coast platforms at Carnforth was a wrong option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is where dismantling the West Coast platforms at Carnforth was a wrong option.

While I agree that it was for other reasons, the majority demand from the Barrow line is for Lancaster itself (it's much more of a "local service for local people" than the Windermeres are), and secondarily for London and other VTWC destinations, and so stopping it a few miles short (and stopping the London services twice in that same distance) for pure avoidance of DMUs under the wires would be about as sensible as terminating the Marston Vale at Fenny Stratford just because Bletchley station and a short section of the approach has wires.

 

[Roose]

As I've mentioned there is much more call for through service beyond Lancaster for the Windermere than the Barrow line. So why not terminate the Barrows at Lancaster, electrify Windermere, and run hourly Windermere to Manchester Airport i.e. all trains as through trains?

As I and others have mentioned before in replies, with examples of why reducing the Furness services to Barrow-Lancaster only is not a good idea, your observations do not stand up to close scrutiny.

Bear in mind that the Northern franchise agreement is for eight Northern Connect airport trains to/from Barrow and four to/from Windermere on Mondays to Saturdays and five/eight to/from Barrow with three/four to from Windermere. This reflects current and projected usage south of Lancaster.

Both lines (like the Cumbrian Coast Line) are important commuter routes for workers and both college and school students in both directions, with some quiet daytime and evening periods. The Lakes Line has a significant seasonal boost of travellers from beyond the branch which add to daytime and early evening numbers in the extended summer season while the Furness Line has an early morning/late afternoon/early evening boost from business travel. (At least this was the case before services deteriorated further. I understand that at least two firms now use 'executive minivans' to meet staff heading for Barrow at the airport, thus avoiding needless waiting at Lancaster for trains that don't run.)

The Northern Connect Services on both lines need to be reliable from the outset to stand a chance of regaining trust from the public and rebuilding passenger numbers.

 

[PHILIPE]

ATW are telling people via Twitter that the 769s are still undergoing testing and will be available to them in April 2019

 

[The_Engineer]

ATW are telling people via Twitter that the 769s are still undergoing testing and will be available to them in April 2019

Two units have been assembled and are out of the shops at Brush, no reports yet about moving under diesel engines. And they have missed several promised dates for dynamic testing on the GCR. So, static testing maybe!

 

[krus_aragon]

Two units have been assembled and are out of the shops at Brush, no reports yet about moving under diesel engines. And they have missed several promised dates for dynamic testing on the GCR. So, static testing maybe!

Just so long as they don't intend to introduce them into static service...

 

[Rail Blues]

Just so long as they don't intend to introduce them into static service...

Maybe the plan is to couple all the 319s together and use them as a vast covered walkway between stations, they'll be ideal. People can sit down when they get tired or use the onboard loos.

 

[SansHache]

Two units have been assembled and are out of the shops at Brush, no reports yet about moving under diesel engines. And they have missed several promised dates for dynamic testing on the GCR. So, static testing maybe!

The Class 769 lecture presented by senior engineers from Porterbrook and Wabtec in Manchester last night included a short video of the first unit moving around the site at Loughborough under its own power. The unit is due to move to the GCR in the next few days. There has been extensive static testing of the power packs performed on the new load bank facility that has been constructed specifically for this purpose. This has included simulations of operation in diesel mode on various Northern routes.

The presentation provided an insight on the complexities of the project and the engineering challenges that Wabtec have had to overcome. It was encouraging to see that the UK industry can still take on projects such as this now that much of the specialist technical expertise has been lost to overseas' suppliers. Hopefully the extensive static test regime will allow the dynamic testing to progress smoothly.

No dates for operation on Network Rail infrastructure or service operation were mentioned. My personal opinion would be passenger service in May 2019 if the dynamic testing goes well.

 

[DelW]

The presentation provided an insight on the complexities of the project and the engineering challenges that Wabtec have had to overcome.

Were the presenters able to give any information about what particular aspects of the conversion had been the main cause(s) of the delay? (Though I imagine this might be commercially sensitive.)

It would also be interesting to know how much of the work undertaken is specific to the 319 conversions, and how much might be reasonably transferrable to other classes. Bearing in mind that a number of newer classes of EMUs will probably be short of work in the near future....

 

[SansHache]

Were the presenters able to give any information about what particular aspects of the conversion had been the main cause(s) of the delay? (Though I imagine this might be commercially sensitive.)

It would also be interesting to know how much of the work undertaken is specific to the 319 conversions, and how much might be reasonably transferrable to other classes. Bearing in mind that a number of newer classes of EMUs will probably be short of work in the near future....

One of the major considerations was to avoid any modifications to the existing Alstom (GEC Traction!) control and power electronics that would require a new electromagnetic compatibility assessment (electrical safety cases are expensive and can require older rolling stock to be assessed against standards they were introduced long after they were introduced). To get around this the new power packs are configured to act as the 750V DC supply of the original dual voltage units. With two power packs feeding a single Traction Converter it is important to achieve a good load balance between the two engines to avoid excessive loading or hunting, both in steady state and transient conditions (such as wheelslip correction). This has been simulated on the static load bank in the factory.

It was also suggested that much of this technology could be transferable to other types of unit. However this all depends on the application as more modern EMUs that feature regenerative braking may be more appropriate for conversion to bi-mode using batteries rather than diesel power packs. Many partially electrified routes in the north west could be operated by battery EMUs given a battery range of 30 - 40 miles (the CLC route from Liverpool to Manchester is one such example).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was also suggested that much of this technology could be transferable to other types of unit. However this all depends on the application as more modern EMUs that feature regenerative braking may be more appropriate for conversion to bi-mode using batteries rather than diesel power packs. Many partially electrified routes in the north west could be operated by battery EMUs given a battery range of 30 - 40 miles (the CLC route from Liverpool to Manchester is one such example).

To bring Barrow back in again, it would also be good for that - charge under the wires, batteries to Barrow itself, maybe a short section of charging OHLE at Barrow station if sensible. Windermere even more so.

 

[DelW]

One of the major considerations was to avoid any modifications to the existing Alstom (GEC Traction!) control and power electronics that would require a new electromagnetic compatibility assessment (electrical safety cases are expensive and can require older rolling stock to be assessed against standards they were introduced long after they were introduced). To get around this the new power packs are configured to act as the 750V DC supply of the original dual voltage units. With two power packs feeding a single Traction Converter it is important to achieve a good load balance between the two engines to avoid excessive loading or hunting, both in steady state and transient conditions (such as wheelslip correction). This has been simulated on the static load bank in the factory.

It was also suggested that much of this technology could be transferable to other types of unit. However this all depends on the application as more modern EMUs that feature regenerative braking may be more appropriate for conversion to bi-mode using batteries rather than diesel power packs. Many partially electrified routes in the north west could be operated by battery EMUs given a battery range of 30 - 40 miles (the CLC route from Liverpool to Manchester is one such example).

Thank you, very interesting

I would assume the battery option would only be viable on routes with a reasonable length under wires (or on 3rd rail), as otherwise the recharging time might become an issue at termini.

 

[Cardiff123]

No dates for operation on Network Rail infrastructure or service operation were mentioned. My personal opinion would be passenger service in May 2019 if the dynamic testing goes well.

With respect to Porterbrook, do they seriously think that Keolis Amey & TfW can wait until next summer for their 769s? ATW are in crisis now at peak times with passengers being left behind at stations because the 769 project is running so desperately late. Porterbrook massively over-promised and have utterly failed to deliver. They should have been upfront and honest with TOCs and government about the experimental nature and risks of the project to begin with.
At the very least, Porterbrook should be offering replacement trains from somewhere to TfW as compensation.
769s are needed in Wales now. The trains that 769s are supposed to be covering for are being sent away for PRM modifications now, not next summer, or whenever a 769 finally makes it to Wales, if ever.

It would seriously be a much better idea for Porterbrook to hire locos and drag the 319s up and down the Valleys than bother with the 769 conversion. They will be running as pure DMUs in Wales anyway.

Despite this thread being focussed on Northern, the hardship that the failiure of the 769 experiment is now causing for Welsh passengers is being forgotten.

 

[northwichcat]

With respect to Porterbrook, do they seriously think that Keolis Amey & TfW can wait until next summer for their 769s? ATW are in crisis now at peak times with passengers being left behind at stations because the 769 project is running so desperately late. Porterbrook massively over-promised and have utterly failed to deliver. They should have been upfront and honest with TOCs and government about the experimental nature and risks of the project to begin with.
At the very least, Porterbrook should be offering replacement trains from somewhere to TfW as compensation.
769s are needed in Wales now. The trains that 769s are supposed to be covering for are being sent away for PRM modifications now, not next summer, or whenever a 769 finally makes it to Wales, if ever.

It would seriously be a much better idea for Porterbrook to hire locos and drag the 319s up and down the Valleys than bother with the 769 conversion. They will be running as pure DMUs in Wales anyway.

Despite this thread being focussed on Northern, the hardship that the failiure of the 769 experiment is now causing for Welsh passengers is being forgotten.

It's been mentioned elsewhere the new Wales & Borders franchise has secured some of the 2 car 144s on a short term lease so they'll transfer from Northern in the new year.

 

[Deepgreen]

It's been mentioned elsewhere the new Wales & Borders franchise has secured some of the 2 car 144s on a short term lease so they'll transfer from Northern in the new year.

Wow - I bet the passengers of Wales will be delighted with their 'new' four-axle trains!

 

[DelW]

At the very least, Porterbrook should be offering replacement trains from somewhere to TfW as compensation.

It would seriously be a much better idea for Porterbrook to hire locos and drag the 319s up and down the Valleys than bother with the 769 conversion. They will be running as pure DMUs in Wales anyway.

Time to mobilise the Str*t*g*c R*s*rv*? Just think what 9Fs + mk1s would be like on the valleys!

Slightly more seriously, it did occur to me to wonder how many (if any) 73s are still available with main line accreditation. Though on the original 600hp engine they'd probably have to be top and tailed anyway.