• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Nope: GTR only have 171s.

OK correct.

You really need to go and look at the history of the Southern units. 20 years ago (1999), the slam door fleet was not as old as you might think: the oldest VEPs were built in 1967 (32 years old) and the oldest CIG was 1964 build (35 years old). Only the 205/207 DEMU fleet (1958 on) and the CEPs (1956 on) met the criteria, and the CEPs had a rebuild in the 1980s that arguably made them superior to the CIGs. Other than that, services were in the hands of the 1980s and 90s built 159s, 442s, 455s, 456s and the Networkers. Clearly your statement does not stand up to scrutiny.

Give or take 4 years, there were 4 EPBS in use up to 1995, many of the CEPS were from 1956 and all of them were MKI designs. That's a big difference compared to the 150s (14_15 yrs old), 153s 155s (11-12 yrs old), 153s (10-12yrs old) and the 150s (just 7-10 yrs old). So not even in the same era of train design. The reason that so much of the EMUS were replaced around the turn of the century was for safety issues such as slam doors and asbestos content. Most of those issues outside the south-east were dealt with by the '80s.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
18 Aug 2018
Messages
704
I don't think so, there aren't any motors in the driving cars where the gensets will be mounted.

No never mind, I meant to say don't. They don't add to adhesion. So the 7.5 tonne per driving trailer does not add to adhesion. So the 769 flex has 15 tonne more dead weight than a 319.
 
Joined
18 Aug 2018
Messages
704
A Class 769 Flex will have a mass of around 156 tonnes and have an engine output (not at the rail) of 1050hp. This gives a hp/t of 6.7.
A 4 car Class 150 has a mass of 153 tonnes and has a engine output (not at the rail) of 1140hp.
This gives a hp/t of 7.67.

According to this article https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/09/27/bi-mode-good-tri-mode-better/ the 769 will put 550 kw to the rail which is around 740hp. I don't know the horse power at the rail figure for a Class 150 so i can't compare.

This means that 70% of the 769's engine output is available at the rail with the rest being auxiliaries and efficiency losses.
 

big all

On Moderation
Joined
23 Sep 2018
Messages
876
Location
redhill
as we know throught history you can take the same power unit used by several manufacturers and they will get quite different levels off performance
as there are so many variables best to wait as time will tell although a newer engine design and transmission will tend to be nearer to 100% spec than an old all be it recently re-engineered engine and transmission unless modified to improve output and efficiency
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
A Class 769 Flex will have a mass of around 156 tonnes and have an engine output (not at the rail) of 1050hp. This gives a hp/t of 6.7.
A 4 car Class 150 has a mass of 153 tonnes and has a engine output (not at the rail) of 1140hp.
This gives a hp/t of 7.67.

It's not just the amount of power available from the prime mover that ultimately matters. As has been discussed further up this thread in various posts, the main issues are:
a) the power at the wheel at key points in the intended service duty
b) the level of adhesion available with which to apply that power
c) the impact of the load (passenger) on the adhesion and acceleration
d) the durability of the traction in service​
There are probably other issues but those are the main items for a passenger train, so:
a) in the case of DMUs, and this discussion, it is manily determined by the design of the transmission. In the case of a conventional DMU, the transmission is usually a hydraulic torque converter which acts as a transformer between high input speed low torque, and low (including zero) output speed with maximum torque. In a diesel-electric transmission, all of the shaft power on the generator is fed to the generator as the engine can be run continuously at the speed in which peak output is available.This is then applied to the wheels to provide maximum torque from standstill. The engine can be operated at its optimum speed almost throughout the full speed range of the train.
In practice, thetorque converter is extrememly inefficient when the input to output shaft speeds are furthest apart, i.e. on starting. For the diesel electric transmission, the full power available at the shaft can be used at the wheels
b) for the adhesion calculations for the classes 319 and 769, see my post #2700. Here the difference between a 319 empty/loaded/crush loaded and a 769 similarly loaded are quite small. The performance ofa 319 when fully loaded is adequate for the most demanding service so it's use on even quite busy secondary lines in the North (or elsewhere) are not likely to provide too many surprises.
c) unless a new maximum loading of crush load on a 769 (and then adding in say 15t for the gensets etc.) is required, there shouldn't be any issues when fully loaded.
d) diesel-electric transmission has been in use since the beginning of diesel trains. It's deployment and maintenance is a known quantity and provided none of the new components have durability issues, (mainly the genset), the 769s should provide reasonable service and running costs, especially compared to a torque converter transmission.

According to this article https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/09/27/bi-mode-good-tri-mode-better/ the 769 will put 550 kw to the rail which is around 740hp. I don't know the horse power at the rail figure for a Class 150 so i can't compare.

This means that 70% of the 769's engine output is available at the rail with the rest being auxiliaries and efficiency losses.

A Class 769 Flex will have a mass of around 156 tonnes and have an engine output (not at the rail) of 1050hp. This gives a hp/t of 6.7.
A 4 car Class 150 has a mass of 153 tonnes and has a engine output (not at the rail) of 1140hp.
This gives a hp/t of 7.67.

According to this article https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/09/27/bi-mode-good-tri-mode-better/ the 769 will put 550 kw to the rail which is around 740hp. I don't know the horse power at the rail figure for a Class 150 so i can't compare.

This means that 70% of the 769's engine output is available at the rail with the rest being auxiliaries and efficiency losses.

But as above, the key is to at what speeds the power is available and at what stress levels to the engine and transmission.
 

big all

On Moderation
Joined
23 Sep 2018
Messages
876
Location
redhill
as an aside
thumpers had 2 x250hp traction motors on the motor coach
you now think 56tons means a good load on the motors for grip so 14tonnes on the driving axles ??
well quite wrong the motor bogie are at the light end to spread the weight so perhaps a 20 tonne 10 ton axle load so a bit less an extra grip but aided by an extra bogie clearing contamination off the rails
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
as an aside
thumpers had 2 x250hp traction motors on the motor coach
you now think 56tons means a good load on the motors for grip so 14tonnes on the driving axles ??
well quite wrong the motor bogie are at the light end to spread the weight so perhaps a 20 tonne 10 ton axle load so a bit less an extra grip but aided by an extra bogie clearing contamination off the rails
If I understand your post, I think that the motor bogies are at the opposite end to (partially) equalise the weight across the length of the vehicle, - especially as the thumpers were designed for branch lines where axle load and bridge limitations would be a consideration. Given that they were deployed as replacements for steam on line where traffic wasn't considered heavy enough to justify electrification, they were designed to be as gentle to the track as diesel technology of the day would allow. In addition, leaf railhead contamination wasn't as big an issue in steam days as lines were generally kept clear of vegetation to prevent fires, in drier periods.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Would be difficult. Looking at the 769s don't they have a GenSet under each DTSO? 377's have 3 motor cars (DMOS A/B and MOSL) Leaving only the PTOSL to mount a GenSet... Unless you removed the Traction Equipment from a MOSL but then the 377Flex would be horrendously slow and sluggish. Its bad enough moving a 377 with one motor coach out, let alone with the weight on GenSets.
In diesel guise however, you wouldn't have the third-rail current limit to deal with. On AC power, Electrostars are considerably more powerful and even with a set of motors out would still have a similar amount of power to a 319.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
In diesel guise however, you wouldn't have the third-rail current limit to deal with. On AC power, Electrostars are considerably more powerful and even with a set of motors out would still have a similar amount of power to a 319.
But Electrostars are both 24% heavier and have the additional load on the generator of air conditioning, - maybe another 80kW at times.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Indeed they are, performance will depend greatly on how powerful the engines are. Given the relatively restricted 20m length given all the extra equipment I can see them struggling to fit enough power unless they either turn them into battery units, or remove the pantograph and transformer and fit a thumper-esque upper level engine with a higher power output in its place. A diesel / third rail bi-mode could still be useful in certain areas, just nowhere near as many as diesel/overhead.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Indeed they are, performance will depend greatly on how powerful the engines are. Given the relatively restricted 20m length given all the extra equipment I can see them struggling to fit enough power unless they either turn them into battery units, or remove the pantograph and transformer and fit a thumper-esque upper level engine with a higher power output in its place. A diesel / third rail bi-mode could still be useful in certain areas, just nowhere near as many as diesel/overhead.
One of the reasons the 319s are better for this conversion is because the majority of the power equipment is on one vehicle, which leaves space under the two driving trailers for the engines. An Electrostar is a rather different beast, as three vehicles out of four have traction equipment including the converters etc., so I'd struggle to see how you would fit engines under them without some major surgery.
 

Grannyjoans

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2017
Messages
403
According to posts on the facebook groups, the 323s are staying with the WMT ones joining and the 319s leaving.

I thought this "plan" is out of date; the latest plan now are that the 323's are being returned to Porterbrook in favour of keeping the 319's!

Or at least, that's what everything I've heard and read more recently is favouring, with the added clue that Northern are constantly repainting & refurbing 319's but not 323's.
 

adsteamfan

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2014
Messages
59
I thought this "plan" is out of date; the latest plan now are that the 323's are being returned to Porterbrook in favour of keeping the 319's!

AIUI the new trainee drivers are not being trained on 319 traction so read into that what you will.
Could it be that more 319s are to be converted to 769?
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
AIUI the new trainee drivers are not being trained on 319 traction so read into that what you will.
Could it be that more 319s are to be converted to 769?

GWR are not getting all of theirs until 2020. Maybe some of 19 of the Northern 319s will be used to make their units? They would need extra internal modifications because GWR have ordered aircooling and usb ports but being PRM compliant would be a big headstart on the units currently allocated for their order.

If Northern are ordering more then I would like to see them used on CLC stoppers and Buxton-Piccadilly. For the latter I would make them self contained diagrams and not stop at Woodsmoor, Davenport, Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme to have a ~50 min journey time and to compensate for slightly fewer seats compared with double 150s.
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
No one is getting 319 training. It's ended as it's expected that they will go and 323's will replace them.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
No one is getting 319 training. It's ended as it's expected that they will go and 323's will replace them.
Well that's a massive step backwards, imo. I find the 319s far superior to 323s. I can only hope that the, presumably, forthcoming refurb of the 323s will be enough to change my mind.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Is there a reason why 769s have not been seen on test on Northern routes (or any NR infrastructure)?
I thought the industry/DfT was desperate to get them into bi-mode service as soon as possible.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
Well that's a massive step backwards, imo. I find the 319s far superior to 323s. I can only hope that the, presumably, forthcoming refurb of the 323s will be enough to change my mind.

You are in the minority with that view! The 319s have 10% more seats and a 10mph higher top speed but they have much slower acceleration and they cannot be doubled up on any of Northern's services, which might be needed in the near future for Bolton etc. They are both 2+3 seating.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
they cannot be doubled up on any of Northern's services
They can and have been - I've travelled on one from Manchester to Wigan (a Blackpool train).
As for the broader point, they're so much nicer to travel on I'd rather see them kept to be honest; flaws not withstanding.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
A doubled up 319 would be 8 cars long, no? They are 4 cars long and due to the design can only be run in that configuration.

I don’t really see how a 319 is a great improvement over a 150, similar seating, same short cramped carriages. Their only advantage is that they can’t be run as a 2 car set...

I’ve never seen a 323 West of Manchester but aren’t they 3 car sets? That would mean a boule set would be 6 cars so easier to accommodate than an 8 car double 319 but providing 2 cars extra capacity?
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
A doubled up 319 would be 8 cars long, no? They are 4 cars long and due to the design can only be run in that configuration.

I don’t really see how a 319 is a great improvement over a 150, similar seating, same short cramped carriages. Their only advantage is that they can’t be run as a 2 car set...

I’ve never seen a 323 West of Manchester but aren’t they 3 car sets? That would mean a boule set would be 6 cars so easier to accommodate than an 8 car double 319 but providing 2 cars extra capacity?

As stated elsewhere ....the Northern 150s with Airline seating are appallingly uncomfortable for a tall person. I attempted to sit in such a seat yesterday and was physically unable to fit myself in to the "space". The majority of seats are thus unusable for me ...and sadly the airline seating in a 323 is little better. You could scrap the lot of them tomorrow for my money if 319s are thereplacements.
 

Top