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

[js1000]

This thread is typical of so many other internet social media dialogues. The rail industry is there for the sole satisfaction of posters here.
There is a not unnatural (for rail enthusiasts) interest in what is certainly an unusual train development, - and I include myself in that interest. However, nobody should forget that the project is a commercial endeavour with business interests (a TOC, a RoSCo and a rail engineering company) so in the real, i.e. non-enthusiasts' world, information is controlled for the benefit of those commercially involved and possible other official stakeholders such as the DfT and Network Rail. This is not a case of a 'sort of attitude that has got the railway an appallingly bad public reputation', it's just how commercial entities work in a capitalist economy. Try asking a car manufacturer for details on how the testing of their latest models is going.
As LowLevel and others have said above, customers and passengers only have contractual relationships with the TOCs and are not entitled to information about specific trains in development unless the TOC has volunteered updates which that directly affect their travel arrangements in the future, have not materialised. Even then they can only expect official information that the TOC offers, not unauthorised speculation and gossip. Of course it is the nature of rail enthusiasts that they observe railway movements and other activities and draw their own conclusions from them, but to criticise commercial organisations for not reporting every step of development programmes to satify their curiosity, and then accuse them of concealing failure as some sort of conspiracy is peurile and helps nobody.
I would not be surprised if there are some members of this forum who have an inside knowledge of the programme who rightly so are not putting their careers in jeopardy by leaking information. If they aren't feeling pressured into giving out information, they must be amused at the naïveity of some of the posts here, and maybe feel that some of the more extreme comments that no doubt just arise from frustration, can be quite insulting.

This isn't life or death. Anything posted on here is conjecture and speculation. I feel your post is slightly over the top. As with any industry, there will be enough people in the rail industry to know projects inside out. I would consider the 769 project to be no exception. It is naive to suggest Northern don't know what's going on because it's in their business too, they'll be in close contact with Porterbrook and Brush.

 

[jonesy3001]

Absolutely top post - spot on.

Oh and if you talk to people working on such projects, they find forums like this, Faceache etc absolutely hilarious for the reasons you have posted.

i get the same about the 323s, i ask what's happening to them some say they staying with the WMT ones joining and others say it's not set in stone whats happening to them, unless i see one in the new northern colours then i'll know they staying.

 

[AM9]

This isn't life or death. Anything posted on here is conjecture and speculation. I feel your post is slightly over the top. As with any industry, there will be enough people in the rail industry to know projects inside out. I would consider the 769 project to be no exception. It is naive to suggest Northern don't know what's going on because it's in their business too, they'll be in close contact with Porterbrook and Brush.

Please point out where I suggested that 'Northern don't know what's going on' . Maybe you should re-read it and then confirm that you understood what I actually posted.

 

[big all]

I believe most heritage railways operate to similar standards to LRO's but that legislation has been replaced.
At least the East Lancashire and the Great Central can run non passenger trains at higher speeds with certain conditions which makes them useful for testing.

ok thanks for that

 

[Mathew S]

This is not a case of a 'sort of attitude that has got the railway an appallingly bad public reputation', it's just how commercial entities work in a capitalist economy. Try asking a car manufacturer for details on how the testing of their latest models is going.

I would, most respectfully, partly disagree with that assertion. Keeping things behind closed doors is part of what gives the railway a bad reputation. That's not to say that the organisations involved are not doing exactly what any company would do in their situation. But many people - and I would suggest most passengers - see the railway as a public service and think there should be a greater standard of openness required. If nothing else, given the levels of public spending involved, I'm not sure I would disagree. For those reasons, I don't think that the comparison with a car manufacturer is particularly valid.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Agree, AM9's post is absolutely spot on, and very clear in its explanation too.

 

[squizzler]

AM9: Try asking a car manufacturer for details on how the testing of their latest models is going.

I would, most respectfully, partly disagree with that assertion. Keeping things behind closed doors is part of what gives the railway a bad reputation. That's not to say that the organisations involved are not doing exactly what any company would do in their situation. But many people - and I would suggest most passengers - see the railway as a public service and think there should be a greater standard of openness required. If nothing else, given the levels of public spending involved, I'm not sure I would disagree. For those reasons, I don't think that the comparison with a car manufacturer is particularly valid.

The much more prolonged production difficulties of the Tesla Model 3 and the (catastrophic to public trust) Volkswagen emissions scandal don't show the motor trade as any more proficient than Porterbrook.

 

[JN114]

I would, most respectfully, partly disagree with that assertion. Keeping things behind closed doors is part of what gives the railway a bad reputation. That's not to say that the organisations involved are not doing exactly what any company would do in their situation. But many people - and I would suggest most passengers - see the railway as a public service and think there should be a greater standard of openness required. If nothing else, given the levels of public spending involved, I'm not sure I would disagree. For those reasons, I don't think that the comparison with a car manufacturer is particularly valid.

But to throw it back to you; what is there actually to say? I agree the railway can be more open with some matters, but what are you suggesting they need to be more open about in this instance? As far as I can see Northern haven’t said a word about the 769 introduction publically whatsoever.

 

[Mathew S]

But to throw it back to you; what is there actually to say? I agree the railway can be more open with some matters, but what are you suggesting they need to be more open about in this instance? As far as I can see Northern haven’t said a word about the 769 introduction publically whatsoever.

I don't have an answer to that (mostly because I don't know enough about the project to give one). To be clear, I wasn't saying that they should be any more open; just that the fact that things in the rail industry generally seem to passengers to always happen behind closed doors with little public engagement is one of the things that makes the railway look bad in many people's eyes. I'm not saying they're right, just that that's how it appears to a great many of the public.

 

[AM9]

I would, most respectfully, partly disagree with that assertion. Keeping things behind closed doors is part of what gives the railway a bad reputation. That's not to say that the organisations involved are not doing exactly what any company would do in their situation. But many people - and I would suggest most passengers - see the railway as a public service and think there should be a greater standard of openness required. If nothing else, given the levels of public spending involved, I'm not sure I would disagree. For those reasons, I don't think that the comparison with a car manufacturer is particularly valid.

As I said, I find the conversions interesting and yes it is a bit disappointing (to me) that they aren't deployed already. However to the general rail travelling public (from whom the railway collects virtually all of the fares revenue), most of them couldn't tell the difference between a 769 and 2x2 car 150s or even 2x2 car 156s. As long as it's got a roof, windows and doors, and it gets them to work, its a train. Rail enthusiasts have among them like any other type of enthusiasts, obsessives who think that the world has the same interest as they themselves do.
The TOC's responsibility is to provide a train service as advertised. If they fail to do that because of a late delivery, they will usually take the easy path and blame their suppliers. That's the end of it as far as the passengers go unless there is a case for specific compensation. Enthusiasts can rant as much as they like that the interesting train/working/infrastructure change that they've been getting excited about for the past year hasn't happened, but in the real world, as long as the passengers who are paying most of the fares can make their presumably necessary journeys, that's all that matters. Why not take a look outside of your bubble?

 

[Mathew S]

As I said, I find the conversions interesting and yes it is a bit disappointing (to me) that they aren't deployed already. However to the general rail travelling public (from whom the railway collects virtually all of the fares revenue), most of them couldn't tell the difference between a 769 and 2x2 car 150s or even 2x2 car 156s. As long as it's got a roof, windows and doors, and it gets them to work, its a train. Rail enthusiasts have among them like any other type of enthusiasts, obsessives who think that the world has the same interest as they themselves do.
The TOC's responsibility is to provide a train service as advertised. If they fail to do that because of a late delivery, they will usually take the easy path and blame their suppliers. That's the end of it as far as the passengers go unless there is a case for specific compensation. Enthusiasts can rant as much as they like that the interesting train/working/infrastructure change that they've been getting excited about for the past year hasn't happened, but in the real world, as long as the passengers who are paying most of the fares can make their presumably necessary journeys, that's all that matters. Why not take a look outside of your bubble?

I agree with all of that. I think perhaps I wasn't clear. The part I was disagreeing with was very specifically the bit about not being seen to be more open making the railway look bad (which I think it does). I completely agree with everything else you said.

 

[AM9]

I don't have an answer to that (mostly because I don't know enough about the project to give one). To be clear, I wasn't saying that they should be any more open; just that the fact that things in the rail industry generally seem to passengers to always happen behind closed doors with little public engagement is one of the things that makes the railway look bad in many people's eyes. I'm not saying they're right, just that that's how it appears to a great many of the public.

There is nothing wrong with this forum at all from a rail information point of view, but anybody who uses the conversations to judge the mood of the travelling public at large is making a serious error. St Albans is in the top 5

I agree with all of that. I think perhaps I wasn't clear. The part I was disagreeing with was very specifically the bit about not being seen to be more open making the railway look bad (which I think it does). I completely agree with everything else you said.

Who do you think needs to be more open?

 

[Mathew S]

There is nothing wrong with this forum at all from a rail information point of view, but anybody who uses the conversations to judge the mood of the travelling public at large is making a serious error. St Albans is in the top 5

Who do you think needs to be more open?

I don't think anyone needs to be more open - personally I'm very happy with the information I get.

However, whenever we do a rail story in work (and let's be honest, it's been rather more often of late) listeners comments are invariably about lack of communication. They want to know why things are happening, why changes are being made, what's happening to improve things, and how long they have to wait for improvements; amongst other things. It's clear that the efforts that the railway (as a whole) make to communicate these things just aren't getting through to many if not most people and/or providing the information they are looking for.

It would not, for example, hurt Northern to post a monthly blog on their website saying "this is where were up to with making the improvements we promised".

People don't like change, and they especially don't like uncertainty. The only way to counter that is through timely, detailed, high quality communication.

 

[AM9]

I don't think anyone needs to be more open - personally I'm very happy with the information I get.

However, whenever we do a rail story in work (and let's be honest, it's been rather more often of late) listeners comments are invariably about lack of communication. They want to know why things are happening, why changes are being made, what's happening to improve things, and how long they have to wait for improvements; amongst other things. It's clear that the efforts that the railway (as a whole) make to communicate these things just aren't getting through to many if not most people and/or providing the information they are looking for.

It would not, for example, hurt Northern to post a monthly blog on their website saying "this is where were up to with making the improvements we promised".

People don't like change, and they especially don't like uncertainty. The only way to counter that is through timely, detailed, high quality communication.

Ooops, bit of an overspill in what got posted last time.
OK, it is right for a TOC, like any other service provider to make its customers aware of how it is tackling current shortfalls amongst other issues. I don't see Northern's missives so I can't say just what they have said, however I am led to believe by other posters here that they haven't mentioned the 769s in public at all, (see JN114 in #2918) but your response to that post was to turn the comment into a general complaint about the rail industry. Well this part of the thread has been about the lack of information from Brush, Porterbrook and Northern on the internal workings of the 769 programme so my comments stand. If Northern posted 'our supplier has failed again' they would be criticised for blaming somebody else, and as nobody posting about the issue here seems to know why there is no obvious progress, it would degenerate into slanging match about the shortfalls of the TOC, the RoSCo, the manufacturer and inevitably the class 319 (i.e. the cast-off EMUs that the DfT had foisted off on poor north-western passengers). So what has been a fairly interesting thread about an innovation that may or may not work in service would follow a too-often trodden path downwards.

 

[AndrewE]

it would degenerate into slanging match about the shortfalls of the TOC, the RoSCo, the manufacturer and inevitably the class 319 (i.e. the cast-off EMUs that the DfT had foisted off on poor north-western passengers). So what has been a fairly interesting thread about an innovation that may or may not work in service would follow a too-often trodden path downwards.

...Except that I haven't seen any complaints, in fact as far as I can see we are all very pleased with them. The only gripe might be that as 4-cars they can't be run as double units as very few platforms can take trains longer than 6 cars - that's if they can cope with more than 3! 769s - if and when they come - will be welcomed with open arms at Barrow and Windermere too.
Rail travel (especially commuting) is essential to the functioning of the country and (if electrified) ought to be a powerful weapon against city and wider pollution.
Given the amount of public money and current fare take going into rail, plus the desperate overcrowding and generally short trains here across "the North" I think people are entitled to be kept in the loop about how their extra capacity is coming along. More has been promised for years now (which is why tempers are running short,) but it's always / still "jam tomorrow."

 

[Chester1]

I have seen some absurd posts about my line of work in the General Discussion forum by both enthusiasts and railway staff. Its quite funny, I never say what my job is and I certainly do not post anything confidential. I am happy to read insider information about the rail network though!

 

[a_c_skinner]

What has got the railway "appallingly bad public reputation" is, at least in part its inability to deliver most projects on time. Even remotely close to the original time frame. Oh and what the Northern passengers want is a seat on a train that runs roughly to time table. New, old, refurbished matters little.

 

[Greybeard33]

...Except that I haven't seen any complaints, in fact as far as I can see we are all very pleased with them. The only gripe might be that as 4-cars they can't be run as double units as very few platforms can take trains longer than 6 cars - that's if they can cope with more than 3! 769s - if and when they come - will be welcomed with open arms at Barrow and Windermere too.

From previous discussion, 769s will most likely be used on Stalybridge and Alderley Edge services, not Barrow or Windermere.

 

[AM9]

...Except that I haven't seen any complaints, in fact as far as I can see we are all very pleased with them. The only gripe might be that as 4-cars they can't be run as double units as very few platforms can take trains longer than 6 cars - that's if they can cope with more than 3! 769s - if and when they come - will be welcomed with open arms at Barrow and Windermere too.
Rail travel (especially commuting) is essential to the functioning of the country and (if electrified) ought to be a powerful weapon against city and wider pollution.

That's my point, I believe that like most passengers, provided their train turns up and they can make their journey as planned, the type, age and origin of the rolling stock is largely irrelevant. Commuter pressure groups sometimes view at what other areas have with green eyes but generally it's a few enthusiasts, some of whom comment on these forums, that use their knowledge of other lines to insist that anything other than brand new vehicles aren't good enough for their travel needs. Apart from my technical interest in the 769 project, I think that they should be a useful re-deployment of serviceable units. I have travelled on the 319s in Lancashire and they seem quite suited to the needs of the Chat Moss and St Helens routes. Their performance as 769s under the wires should be essentially the same as the 319s so don't see WCML running as an issue.

Given the amount of public money and current fare take going into rail, plus the desperate overcrowding and generally short trains here across "the North" I think people are entitled to be kept in the loop about how their extra capacity is coming along. More has been promised for years now (which is why tempers are running short,) but it's always / still "jam tomorrow."

That's true that delays in upgrades can be frustrating but that is not confined to Northern services. Delays in transport provision are endemic in the UK, which includes the south-east where many are captive customers even if they have cars as commuting into London just isn't viable as the road system wasn't developed to the same level as in regional conurbations. There is a presumption that the trains will provide the capacity, - not always the case!

 

[childwallblues]

That's my point, I believe that like most passengers, provided their train turns up and they can make their journey as planned, the type, age and origin of the rolling stock is largely irrelevant. Commuter pressure groups sometimes view at what other areas have with green eyes but generally it's a few enthusiasts, some of whom comment on these forums, that use their knowledge of other lines to insist that anything other than brand new vehicles aren't good enough for their travel needs. Apart from my technical interest in the 769 project, I think that they should be a useful re-deployment of serviceable units. I have travelled on the 319s in Lancashire and they seem quite suited to the needs of the Chat Moss and St Helens routes. Their performance as 769s under the wires should be essentially the same as the 319s so don't see WCML running as an issue.

319s are well suited to the local routes. Passengers are in the main getting a seat on a four car train instead of 2 car 142 150 or 156.

 

[Kite159]

319s are well suited to the local routes. Passengers are in the main getting a seat on a four car train instead of 2 car 142 150 or 156.

Other than the poor acceleration compared to other EMUs, especially in the rain.

 

[childwallblues]

Other than the poor acceleration compared to other EMUs, especially in the rain.

Yes there are problems with stopping trains in the Bryn/Garswood/Thatto Heath areas but the drivers can normally cope with this.

 

[AM9]

319s are well suited to the local routes. Passengers are in the main getting a seat on a four car train instead of 2 car 142 150 or 156.

They are also quieter and more comfortable than 150s even if the DMUs were running in pairs.

 

[AM9]

Other than the poor acceleration compared to other EMUs, especially in the rain.

But better in practice than the DMUs that they are replacing.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Other than the poor acceleration compared to other EMUs, especially in the rain.

What was different about Thameslink that meant this wasn't a problem there? If they were new I can see why people would be intrigued but they've been pottering about on Thameslink for decades. The steepest incline (City to Blackfriars) is dry, but done on DC.

 

[samuelmorris]

At 2MW for an 8-car train, which is as long as 319s got, I don't think the DC vs AC difference on 319s was anything like what it is on much more powerful modern units. Acceleration really isn't that bad on 319s in dry conditions, it's just the 25% powered axles ratio, and them all being confined to one vehicle that renders traction in poor conditions a bit weak. The powered axles in a 4-car pair of 150s are spread throughout the train so much less vulnerable to one small patch of slippery rail. The power to weight ratio of a 319 is still 20% greater than that of a 150 (let alone a 153/155), before you consider efficiency losses in hydraulic transmission.

 

[AM9]

At 2MW for an 8-car train, which is as long as 319s got, I don't think the DC vs AC difference on 319s was anything like what it is on much more powerful modern units. Acceleration really isn't that bad on 319s in dry conditions, it's just the 25% powered axles ratio, and them all being confined to one vehicle that renders traction in poor conditions a bit weak. The powered axles in a 4-car pair of 150s are spread throughout the train so much less vulnerable to one small patch of slippery rail. The power to weight ratio of a 319 is still 20% greater than that of a 150 (let alone a 153/155), before you consider efficiency losses in hydraulic transmission.

The class 319s have 990kW at the wheels of the four driven axles in a four-car unit. In an equivalent four car consist of two two-car class 150 DMUs, there is a combined power of 852kW from the output shafts the four engines* that drives half of the axles. Simplistically, that's 86% of the 319's power. However as you mention, there are several factors that need to be considered when assessing the power at the wheels.
For the class 150s:

The maximum power is only available from the engines at around 2000rpm and is an absolute peak determined by the engines design.
The maximum power figure of the engines is for those in perfect operating condition, probably just released from overhaul.
The power at the wheels is subject to considerable loss in the torque converters especially at lower input shaft speeds.
For the class 319s:
The rated power is a continuous rating determined by the motor and transformer design including thermal regulation.
Electric traction motors and transformers have short term peak ratings (higher than the continuous figures) that can be called upon to deliver short periods of higher performance. This is especially true for the motors, some of which may have to compensate for faulty motors that have been temporarily disconnected.
On ac, the 319s probably nearly always had full power available to them. On DC, they would be susceptible to a lower peak output when the nominal 750V 3rd rail fell to lower voltages, (not uncommon on a busy DC route or at the end of a long section fed from one end only). Either way, the difference is unlikely to make much difference when poor railhead conditions are present.​

As far as adhesion is concerned, the class 150s had an axle load of 9.375t on the driven wheels whereas the class 319s had a load of 12.65t so the difference in adhesion is not as much as the 50% vs 25% proportion of driven axles might suggest. I believe that the 319s have automatic sander and wheelslip detection but I can't comment on whether the 150s do. All of that probably accounts for the drivers having gained plenty of experience with the trains through three(?) winters can now mitigate any shortfalls in adhesion in the same way that the Thameslink drivers did. Even ignoring the switchback gradients in the core, I don't think that the NW lines are significantly worse than the MML and BML routes on which they have been running for years.

 

[Greybeard33]

They are also quieter and more comfortable than 150s even if the DMUs were running in pairs.

I doubt that the average passenger will notice any difference between a 769 and a 4-car formation of refurbished 150s. Except maybe the seating configuration, which is nothing to do with the powertrain.

 

[Greybeard33]

The class 319s have 990kW at the wheels of the four driven axles in a four-car unit. In an equivalent four car consist of two two-car class 150 DMUs, there is a combined power of 852kW from the output shafts the four engines* that drives half of the axles. Simplistically, that's 86% of the 319's power. However as you mention, there are several factors that need to be considered when assessing the power at the wheels.
For the class 150s:

The maximum power is only available from the engines at around 2000rpm and is an absolute peak determined by the engines design.
The maximum power figure of the engines is for those in perfect operating condition, probably just released from overhaul.
The power at the wheels is subject to considerable loss in the torque converters especially at lower input shaft speeds.
For the class 319s:
The rated power is a continuous rating determined by the motor and transformer design including thermal regulation.
Electric traction motors and transformers have short term peak ratings (higher than the continuous figures) that can be called upon to deliver short periods of higher performance. This is especially true for the motors, some of which may have to compensate for faulty motors that have been temporarily disconnected.
On ac, the 319s probably nearly always had full power available to them. On DC, they would be susceptible to a lower peak output when the nominal 750V 3rd rail fell to lower voltages, (not uncommon on a busy DC route or at the end of a long section fed from one end only). Either way, the difference is unlikely to make much difference when poor railhead conditions are present.​

As far as adhesion is concerned, the class 150s had an axle load of 9.375t on the driven wheels whereas the class 319s had a load of 12.65t so the difference in adhesion is not as much as the 50% vs 25% proportion of driven axles might suggest. I believe that the 319s have automatic sander and wheelslip detection but I can't comment on whether the 150s do. All of that probably accounts for the drivers having gained plenty of experience with the trains through three(?) winters can now mitigate any shortfalls in adhesion in the same way that the Thameslink drivers did. Even ignoring the switchback gradients in the core, I don't think that the NW lines are significantly worse than the MML and BML routes on which they have been running for years.

The benchmark EMUs in the North West are the 323 and the 350, which have much better acceleration than a 319.

 

[dewsnapsliding]

From previous discussion, 769s will most likely be used on Stalybridge and Alderley Edge services, not Barrow or Windermere.

Can anyone give platform lengths for Stalybridge? Almost certainly the 3 long platforms could take 8 car 319s? I appreciate that Ashton couldn’t!