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

[northwichcat]

Chester1 - At present at peak times there appears to be 4 car 150s on most Buxton services, even the peak time extras, so apart from possibly the extras going towards New Mills in the morning and the ones going towards Manchester there probably won't be any peak time 2 car working.

If the conversion cost is anything like the D-Train cost it may be cheaper in the long run to order new DMUs even if they aren't expected to be in service for more than 20 years

Neil Williams - there may be something called emergency couplers but when a 170 failed at Leeds it was a Northern 150 which helped get it shifted not a TPE 185

 

[Bletchleyite]

Neil Williams - there may be something called emergency couplers but when a 170 failed at Leeds it was a Northern 150 which helped get it shifted not a TPE 185

If that's what's nearest/easiest, why not?

On the WCML or lines towards Manchester you could have a Pendolino/Voyager (they are compatible in emergencies, the Voyager has an Alstom TMS to allow them to work together), a Desiro (DMU or EMU) or a 15x. Adding one more type is going to make no difference.

 

[northwichcat]

If that's what's nearest/easiest, why not?

On the WCML or lines towards Manchester you could have a Pendolino/Voyager (they are compatible in emergencies, the Voyager has an Alstom TMS to allow them to work together), a Desiro (DMU or EMU) or a 15x. Adding one more type is going to make no difference.

Maybe consider the December 2019 fleet plan and what will happen in the event of a Northern failure.

Will Virgin send up a Pendolino from Longsight or terminate a Euston-Glasgow service at Wigan so that their train and crew can rescue a failed Northern unit? Not likely!

TPE Desiros on Airport-Scotland services will also be replaced by Civities and the Northern loan of 185s will end, also replaced by Civities unless Northern shock everyone by implementing your proposal and using FLIRTs instead. There's also the issue of crew training costs for the additional class and it's also presuming there's no issues getting them cleared for the routes you've suggested.

Anyway lets concentrate on the possible 319 conversion rather than what would happen if Northern get a class of train no-one is realistically expecting them to get.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The effect would be exactly the same. Nothing presently operates on the north WCML that is compatible with 319s other than more 319s.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Couplers can be changed to suit a new environment. The 334s are being refitted with Dellner couplers now that they're spending a lot of time between Waverley and Newbridge Junction alongside the 385s.

 

[northwichcat]

The effect would be exactly the same. Nothing presently operates on the north WCML that is compatible with 319s other than more 319s.

But it may be they would use bi-mode on more local services.

 

[driver_m]

The effect would be exactly the same. Nothing presently operates on the north WCML that is compatible with 319s other than more 319s.

What about a 325? Aren't they virtually the same bar the cab, buffers and internals.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about a 325? Aren't they virtually the same bar the cab, buffers and internals.

Don't they use drawhook, buffers and jumpers rather than Tightlock?

 

[northwichcat]

Apparently if successful Northern will use 4 units initially on Liverpool to Blackpool services. As Blackpool should be wired by Spring 2018 and the line will be closed for 3 months from December 2017 it must be envisaged that Porterbrook get can get some converted quickly!

 

[Camden]

Apparently if successful Northern will use 4 units initially on Liverpool to Blackpool services. As Blackpool should be wired by Spring 2018 and the line will be closed for 3 months from December 2017 it must be envisaged that Porterbrook get can get some converted quickly!

Or might it also mean that Preston to Blackpool electrification is not going ahead? Unless it's just to trial it.

Looking at the timescales involved in the D stock conversion, which I'd have thought would have been simpler, I can't see how they could become available pre 2018 anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd expect the 319 to be simpler. Unlike the D78 it's already mainline-certified as a heavy rail train. All you're doing is adding some diesel power packs to it. The D78 on the other hand is effectively a new train but using a small number of the old components.

 

[Camden]

True. Hopefully it's just considered a convenient place to try it out, rather than meaning anything else (given the recent issues over electrification elsewhere).

 

[northwichcat]

Or to allow DMUs to be freed up in December 2017 without the risk of them still be needed for Blackpool if Network Rail reopen the line in March 2018 and the wires aren't ready to be used.

 

[1179_Clee2]

I'd expect the 319 to be simpler. Unlike the D78 it's already mainline-certified as a heavy rail train. All you're doing is adding some diesel power packs to it. The D78 on the other hand is effectively a new train but using a small number of the old components.

I Agree

What we are all looking at is something that is much bigger than anybody thinks.
DfT let the Northern franchise to Arriva on the assumption that certain things were going to happen, trains would be cascaded on certain dates and electrification would be completed by certain dates, both the above could be delayed. What happens now? Arriva asks the DfT for more subsidy as it cannot run trains. This would not go down too well politically. The EDMU proposal is a way of giving Northern trains to run without the need to increase the subsidy. It would also mean GWR could keep its trains longer or they could stay at GWR without affecting Northern. If it works more EDMU's could be converted making more DMU's available to other TOC's.

 

[Mordac]

I Agree

What we are all looking at is something that is much bigger than anybody thinks.
DfT let the Northern franchise to Arriva on the assumption that certain things were going to happen, trains would be cascaded on certain dates and electrification would be completed by certain dates, both the above could be delayed. What happens now? Arriva asks the DfT for more subsidy as it cannot run trains. This would not go down too well politically. The EDMU proposal is a way of giving Northern trains to run without the need to increase the subsidy. It would also mean GWR could keep its trains longer or they could stay at GWR without affecting Northern. If it works more EDMU's could be converted making more DMU's available to other TOC's.

That's not really true, is it? Northern would be getting something else than what they thought they'd be getting. Whether it's better or worse is to be debated, but it's not the same. I imagine a 319 will cost a lot more to lease and run than a 150.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I Agree

What we are all looking at is something that is much bigger than anybody thinks.
DfT let the Northern franchise to Arriva on the assumption that certain things were going to happen, trains would be cascaded on certain dates and electrification would be completed by certain dates, both the above could be delayed. What happens now? Arriva asks the DfT for more subsidy as it cannot run trains. This would not go down too well politically. The EDMU proposal is a way of giving Northern trains to run without the need to increase the subsidy. It would also mean GWR could keep its trains longer or they could stay at GWR without affecting Northern. If it works more EDMU's could be converted making more DMU's available to other TOC's.

It's all very much like WCML PUG2 (140mph) - the franchise was let on the basis of a particular significant infrastructure change, and that change will not be delivered (either in a timely manner, or in some cases even at all). This being the case, a change to the franchise specification is highly likely, just as there was with VTWC the first time round when PUG2 failed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's not really true, is it? Northern would be getting something else than what they thought they'd be getting. Whether it's better or worse is to be debated, but it's not the same. I imagine a 319 will cost a lot more to lease and run than a 150.

I wouldn't expect a 319 to cost more to lease nor run than a pair of 150s, though, which is basically to all intents and purposes, the pantograph aside, what it would be.

 

[1179_Clee2]

That's not really true, is it? Northern would be getting something else than what they thought they'd be getting. Whether it's better or worse is to be debated, but it's not the same. I imagine a 319 will cost a lot more to lease and run than a 150.

Any train that Northern could use is better than no train even if it does cost more to lease, you would have more seats as well, a 4 car EDMU has only 2 cabs and would only need 1 accessible toilet, over 2x 2 car 150's.
Northern have to hit its targets to reduce the subsidy it needs to justify the use of all its brand new trains.
It cannot wait several months or years for it to be givern trains to run.

 

[northwichcat]

Arriva's rolling stock plans involves getting 20 x 2 car 150s from GWR and LM and reforming 24 of the 150s to get 16 x 3 car sets, plus getting 2 x 3 car sets from GWR. Using 4 car bi-mode 319s instead of 3 car 150s will increase leasing and refurbishment costs and they wouldn't fit on Penistone or Knottingley Line platforms - which are both set to get the 3 car 150s so would require Network Rail to go more platform lengthening.

I can see bi-mode 319s being used instead of lines which will eventually fully electrified but not just in lieu of 150s on any old route.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Arriva's rolling stock plans involves getting 20 x 2 car 150s from GWR and LM and reforming 24 of the 150s to get 16 x 3 car sets, plus getting 2 x 3 car sets from GWR. Using 4 car bi-mode 319s instead of 3 car 150s will increase leasing and refurbishment costs and they wouldn't fit on Penistone or Knottingley Line platforms - which are both set to get the 3 car 150s so would require Network Rail to go more platform lengthening.

I can see bi-mode 319s being used instead of lines which will eventually fully electrified but not just in lieu of 150s on any old route.

I'd agree that they're unlikely to be used on routes with no wires at all, outside of the occasional peak run, positioning move or filling in in the event of breakdowns. In terms of running and leasing costs, I'd expect a D319 running on diesel to be more fuel-efficient than a pair of 150s as the engines will presumably be more modern. In terms of track access charges they'll be heavier than a standard 319 but lighter than 2x150 due to only 2 cars having engines and fuel tanks. Leasing costs are an unknown but with a surfeit of mk3 emus available in the coming years, rates are likely to be competitive even allowing for extra costs to cover the conversion. The 150s will continue to be in demand due to the ongoing shortage of DMUs.

 

[northwichcat]

I'd agree that they're unlikely to be used on routes with no wires at all, outside of the occasional peak run, positioning move or filling in in the event of breakdowns. In terms of running and leasing costs, I'd expect a D319 running on diesel to be more fuel-efficient than a pair of 150s as the engines will presumably be more modern. In terms of track access charges they'll be heavier than a standard 319 but lighter than 2x150 due to only 2 cars having engines and fuel tanks. Leasing costs are an unknown but with a surfeit of mk3 emus available in the coming years, rates are likely to be competitive even allowing for extra costs to cover the conversion. The 150s will continue to be in demand due to the ongoing shortage of DMUs.

We don't know how many services Arriva plan to run as 4 car 150s long term. The only mention of 4 x 20m formations on unelectrified routes in the franchise agreement is on the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester route and even then we don't know what proportion of services will be 4 car.

A 4 car 319 is less flexible than 2 x 2 car 150s so using 319s instead of 150s will likely require more carriages in total for the franchise and a higher number of carriages in service at any time. While that could be good new for passengers it's likely to be bad news for the accountants!

 

[The Ham]

We don't know how many services Arriva plan to run as 4 car 150s long term. The only mention of 4 x 20m formations on unelectrified routes in the franchise agreement is on the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester route and even then we don't know what proportion of services will be 4 car.

A 4 car 319 is less flexible than 2 x 2 car 150s so using 319s instead of 150s will likely require more carriages in total for the franchise and a higher number of carriages in service at any time. While that could be good new for passengers it's likely to be bad news for the accountants!

The accountants may not be so concerned, as although a 4 coach EMU would cost more to lease than a 3 coach EMU the cost difference isn't the same as a whole extra coach.

The general rule used to be that a DMU costs £110,000 per coach vs £100,000, as such the cost difference on the lease between the above is £70,000. Then there are other cost savings (electricity cheaper than diesel, EMU have less maintenance requirements, EMU's don't need to be refuled, etc.). That could all mean that the cost difference isn't so great that it's not worth doing.

However it likely that a 319d would have a lease cost closer to that of a DMU (why spend money if you can't get that money back, unless it means less of your units say idle), so the savings would be less. However even working on an assumption of £70,000 (some of the higher than EMU least costs are offset by generally lower running costs) then each unit would only cost about £210 a day extra.

Although over a fleet of (say) 20 that's £4,200 a day extra, it's only about £3 to £4 per seat per day (although it would be unlikely that the whole extra coach of seating would be used all at once, over each leg of each service over several services a day it would be that difficult for there to be enough extra passengers to justify).

------------------------------------

One other TOC that could be quite interested (other than it wouldn't be this time around) could be SWT's for their Salisbury 6 services (Salisbury, Southampton, Eastleigh, Romsey) with a few extra to then also run the Lymington Branch services.

It would mean that the Salisbury 6 services could make use of the third rail on the mainline section through Southampton and when any OHLE gets built between Southampton and Salisbury and/or between Southampton and Basingstoke, then the units could become more reliant on electricity than diesel or wouldn't require any further modifications.

 

[northwichcat]

The accountants may not be so concerned, as although a 4 coach EMU would cost more to lease than a 3 coach EMU the cost difference isn't the same as a whole extra coach.

The general rule used to be that a DMU costs £110,000 per coach vs £100,000, as such the cost difference on the lease between the above is £70,000. Then there are other cost savings (electricity cheaper than diesel, EMU have less maintenance requirements, EMU's don't need to be refuled, etc.). That could all mean that the cost difference isn't so great that it's not worth doing.

However it likely that a 319d would have a lease cost closer to that of a DMU (why spend money if you can't get that money back, unless it means less of your units say idle), so the savings would be less. However even working on an assumption of £70,000 (some of the higher than EMU least costs are offset by generally lower running costs) then each unit would only cost about £210 a day extra.

Although over a fleet of (say) 20 that's £4,200 a day extra, it's only about £3 to £4 per seat per day (although it would be unlikely that the whole extra coach of seating would be used all at once, over each leg of each service over several services a day it would be that difficult for there to be enough extra passengers to justify).

I'm not sure how the 3 and 4 car EMU comparisons is relevant in the context of bi-mode 319s being used instead of 2 car DMUs - some of which will run some services doubled up and some of which will be reformed in to 3 car sets. It's also worth remembering Porterbrook will need to recoup the cost of conversion through leasing costs so a bi-mode 319 will cost more than a standard one.

Northern have to provide a minimum number of seats in and out of the main cities at peak times, so using a 4 car 319 in lieu of a 3 car 150 in and out of Leeds while using a 2 car 150 in lieu of a 3 car 150 in and out of Sheffield will mess up those numbers even if the number of carriages used is the same.

They also have to identify services with "spare passenger carrying capacity" and identify ways of filling those seats, so more seats on some routes will mean more office work needs doing.

 

[Bevan Price]

I'd expect the 319 to be simpler. Unlike the D78 it's already mainline-certified as a heavy rail train. All you're doing is adding some diesel power packs to it. The D78 on the other hand is effectively a new train but using a small number of the old components.

Add a diesel engine to a 319 and it would require to be re-certificated.

Add too much weight to some coaches, and it may have to obey a lower speed limit at some locations.

 

[deltic08]

All this speculation and cost for what? £12-£15m for electrification of 10 track miles?
NYCC is paying £11m for improvements to Harrogate-York line. Can't CCC come up with similar to stop all this nonsense of dieselising old EMUs?

 

[superkev]

Add a diesel engine to a 319 and it would require to be re-certificated.

Add too much weight to some coaches, and it may have to obey a lower speed limit at some locations.

'recertification could take years with a whole mountain of red tape to climb. Think of the the parry people mover and the further delayed class 230. No room for flair or inovatikn these days.
K

 

[43096]

'recertification could take years with a whole mountain of red tape to climb. Think of the the parry people mover and the further delayed class 230. No room for flair or inovatikn these days.
K

What a sweeping statement, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, either.

Both those examples you quote involve small builders who don't/didn't have experience of acceptance on the national network. In the case of the 319s, we've got Porterbrook, one of the big 3 ROSCOs, who have plenty of engineering expertise and lots of past experience of acceptance of new and modified trains. Brush also appear to be involved, who likewise have experience of acceptance processes, especially with re-engineering projects - think HST power cars and GBRf Class 73s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Add a diesel engine to a 319 and it would require to be re-certificated.

Not as a new unit, though; I see no reason the existing components would not be able to be certificated using grandfather rights.

Add too much weight to some coaches, and it may have to obey a lower speed limit at some locations.

Possibly so, but it is worth noting that the trailer coaches are relatively light.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would the non-motor coaches only need a single gen pack to provide power for hotel services and any other non traction power requirements?

 

[swt_passenger]

Would the non-motor coaches only need a single gen pack to provide power for hotel services and any other non traction power requirements?

The 319 only has one motor coach, so is it not more likely that a number of diesel generators, (each providing a suitable proportion of the combined traction & hotel services demand), would be distributed around the other coaches?

An additional power pack for non traction requirements would add unnecessary complexity.

 

[Class 170101]

That's not really true, is it? Northern would be getting something else than what they thought they'd be getting. Whether it's better or worse is to be debated, but it's not the same. I imagine a 319 will cost a lot more to lease and run than a 150.

I wouldn't expect a 319 to cost more to lease nor run than a pair of 150s, though, which is basically to all intents and purposes, the pantograph aside, what it would be.

Adding the diesel engine will make it heavier particularly with the fuel added. I would suggest the 319 will be more expensive on Track Access Charges than an un-modified one.