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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Platform 5 pocket books state that a Class 230 has a weight of the train at 76 t
A unmodified Class 319/4 has a weight of 152.8 t double the weight of a 230 without adding diesel engines.

Is that the weight of a 2-car or a 3-car Class 230 unit you allude to above?

 

[Domh245]

Seasons Greetings

Could you direct me to where what's been posted elsewhere has been posted?

I also note that the ever reliable Wikipedia suggests that the power pack design developed for Adrian Shooter's class 230 dmu's will be used to power the Flex variant - Is the information reliable?
Will the Flex feature 2 power packs/fuel tanks per unit?
What is the wheel diameter of the class 319?

No, nobody knows what engine will be used. When this was first rumoured, certain posters mused that using the same arrangement as the 230 (ie 2x Duratorq units per car for a total of 4 on the train) would be sufficient for the expected market - but since the press release, the consensus seems to be on 1 MAN D2876 per driving trailer for a total of about 1000hp.

 

[superkev]

I fear it would need a.lot of class 230 Ford transit engines power packs to drag around a 319 plus firewals, fuel and extinguishing systems.
The class 230 seems to be stalled in red tape too.
Perhaps more chance if they reduced it to 3 cars.
I suppose there's always the power house concept first envisaged for the IEP.
K

 

[1179_Clee2]

Is that the weight of a 2-car or a 3-car Class 230 unit you allude to above?

28 t DMSO (A)
20 t TSO
28 t DMSO (B)

Total weight 76 t

 

[superkev]

No, nobody knows what engine will be used. When this was first rumoured, certain posters mused that using the same arrangement as the 230 (ie 2x Duratorq units per car for a total of 4 on the train) would be sufficient for the expected market - but since the press release, the consensus seems to be on 1 MAN D2876 per driving trailer for a total of about 1000hp.

.
That's a lot of engine to hang underneath.
Don't we make engines in the UK anymore.
K

 

[najaB]

Don't we make engines in the UK anymore.

We do - I believe that the Duratorq mentioned above is made in Dagenham.

 

[Mordac]

They could always follow Stadler and put it in a cupboard on one of the trailers.

 

[1179_Clee2]

We do - I believe that the Duratorq mentioned above is made in Dagenham.

Think again! they are made in South Affrica

 

[Bletchleyite]

They could always follow Stadler and put it in a cupboard on one of the trailers.

Underneath is probably as easy - there is almost no equipment at all under a 319 driving trailer. The reason Stadler have the "mini locomotives" is because the FLIRT is primarily a low-floor design.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That's a lot of engine to hang underneath.
Don't we make engines in the UK anymore.

MAN bought Alstom Engines in 2000 from GEC-Alsthom.
So it has all the pedigree of English Electric etc (though there is no production in the UK).

MTU, which seems to power all the UK's high-speed diesels and bi-modes, is of course now owned by Rolls Royce (though production is in Germany).

 

[najaB]

Think again! they are made in South Affrica

Oh, okay. I knew that Ford makes some engines in Dagenham, thought that was one of them.

 

[fgwrich]

MAN bought Alstom Engines in 2000 from GEC-Alsthom.
So it has all the pedigree of English Electric etc (though there is no production in the UK).

MTU, which seems to power all the UK's high-speed diesels and bi-modes, is of course now owned by Rolls Royce (though production is in Germany).

And servicing is in the UK. MTU has a facility in East Grinsted.

Cummins also has a large engine overhaul facility in the Midlands, as does LH Group.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

And servicing is in the UK. MTU has a facility in East Grinsted.

Cummins also has a large engine overhaul facility in the Midlands, as does LH Group.

Cummins also has a turbocharger plant (formerly Holsets) on St. Andrews Road in Huddersfield.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Joy!
319s have pretty much the same internal layout as 150s.
One of the most goddawful interior layouts 1980s BR produced. Far too many seats crammed into too small a space; doors and associated blank panels (into which they retract) occupying way too much of the body side; and no seat at all, anywhere on the train, aligned to have an unobstructed window view.
And we are to have more of them.
Joy!

 

[AM9]

Joy!
319s have pretty much the same internal layout as 150s.
One of the most goddawful interior layouts 1980s BR produced. Far too many seats crammed into too small a space; doors and associated blank panels (into which they retract) occupying way too much of the body side; and no seat at all, anywhere on the train, aligned to have an unobstructed window view.
And we are to have more of them.
Joy!

The Class 150s that I have travelled in (both Northern and LM) seem to be far more cramped than the 319s that I know well. There are more important things than unobstructed views from windows. If that is so important then you can't get better than Pacers.
No, they aren't making any new trains, just 'modifying' some of them that have working life left in them to provide capacity that otherwise may not be funded.

 

[northwichcat]

Joy!
And we are to have more of them.

No, they aren't making any new trains, just 'modifying' some of them that have working life left in them to provide capacity that otherwise may not be funded.

I would have interpreted that as meaning Northern are to have more 319s i.e. they'll have more than 32, not that Porterbrook will finish up with 90+ 319s in total. However, it seems at present all Northern have agreed to is a few of 12 extra 319s they will get will have diesel engines fitted.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Joy!
319s have pretty much the same internal layout as 150s.
One of the most goddawful interior layouts 1980s BR produced. Far too many seats crammed into too small a space; doors and associated blank panels (into which they retract) occupying way too much of the body side; and no seat at all, anywhere on the train, aligned to have an unobstructed window view.
And we are to have more of them.
Joy!

319s have a better layout than 150s.
There is one(!) bay in an end car which has seats fully aligned with its windows.
While apart from these there are no "perfect" seats, none of them is truly awful.
Face to face seating works better than squashed airline mode.
The ambience of Northern's 319s is much better than their tatty 150s.
And, unlike the 150s, they don't (so far) turn up as anything less than 4-car, though some people on here keep trying to reduce them to 3-car for spurious reasons.

 

[northwichcat]

And, unlike the 150s, they don't (so far) turn up as anything less than 4-car,

If a service is booked as 2 x 150s but Northern are a 150 short it may finish up being a 2 car 150 or it may finish up being a 150+142 or 150+156 instead.

If a service is booked as a 319 and Northern are a 319 short it usually finishes up as a 2 car 142 instead.

though some people on here keep trying to reduce them to 3-car for spurious reasons.

Northern will need 3 car EMUs which can be doubled up to form 6 car EMUs and EMUs which accelerate faster than 319s for Manchester area services but they are getting 331s for those purposes. The idea of 3 car 319s was where people were trying to fit square 319s in to Northern's round holes.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Joy!
319s have..... ....no seat at all, anywhere on the train, aligned to have an unobstructed window view.

I disagree; there are several seats on 319s that offer a perfect view from the windows. Some sub-classes have more matches than others; the 319/2 have a good number of full view seats. On the /3s and /4s the endmost seats under the pantograph end offer a perfect view, as do a few other seats in the same vehicle.

 

[Camden]

I don't think it matters either way. The majority of people on these types of trains (or perhaps even any train these days) will be looking down at their phone or tablet for the most part, and will have little interest in what's outside the window.

 

[47802]

I would have interpreted that as meaning Northern are to have more 319s i.e. they'll have more than 32, not that Porterbrook will finish up with 90+ 319s in total. However, it seems at present all Northern have agreed to is a few of 12 extra 319s they will get will have diesel engines fitted.

It doesn't automatically follow that they will get more 319's for instance Wigan - Manchester via Bolton would have been a likely route for 319's, but with the 319 flex it could still be, and will save having to find extra DMU's for this route until if/when Network Rail do decide to electrify this route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think it matters either way. The majority of people on these types of trains (or perhaps even any train these days) will be looking down at their phone or tablet for the most part, and will have little interest in what's outside the window.

I'd probably suggest that a layout a bit like [ [] [] ] would probably make sense on 319s etc - two rows of airline seats for those who don't care, then two fully-aligned bays.

 

[The Ham]

I'd probably suggest that a layout a bit like [ [] [] ] would probably make sense on 319s etc - two rows of airline seats for those who don't care, then two fully-aligned bays.

Why bother, the 444's which are generally well liked don't have seats that align, but nearly every seat has some sort of view, and mostly not that interupted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why bother, the 444's which are generally well liked don't have seats that align, but nearly every seat has some sort of view, and mostly not that interupted.

Using 319s is cheaper than ordering new stock (if it isn't, they should be scrapped and new stock ordered), though. So it's about making them acceptable.

 

[northwichcat]

Using 319s is cheaper than ordering new stock (if it isn't, they should be scrapped and new stock ordered), though. So it's about making them acceptable.

At present there is a surplus of EMUs and they aren't automatically suitable for any line which has electrics so Porterbrook seem to be looking at every possible option for keeping 319s in service. Porterbrook can benefit from an operator leasing their trains but if new EMUs are ordered instead they may not be acquired through Porterbrook. Porterbrook did seem to shoot themselves in the foot with the 323s - it didn't result in the winning Northern bidder wanting more 319s and the new EMUs they are getting won't be leased from Porterbrook.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interestingly, the Mk3-based AC EMUs are split over all three principal Roscos.
Porterbrook has the lead as the 319 fleet is coming free, but Angel has the 317s (72 units) and Eversholt the 318/320/321/322s (much the largest owner at 165 units, 43 of which are 3-car).
So we might end up with 3 designs of Mk3 bi-mode if the idea catches on.

 

[43096]

Interestingly, the Mk3-based AC EMUs are split over all three principal Roscos.
Porterbrook has the lead as the 319 fleet is coming free, but Angel has the 317s (72 units) and Eversholt the 318/320/321/322s (much the largest owner at 165 units, 43 of which are 3-car).
So we might end up with 3 designs of Mk3 bi-mode if the idea catches on.

Class 319 is by far the easiest to do though, as there is already a DC power bus from the outer end of each driving car (for the third rail shoes) to the motor car, which obviously isn't there on the other types.

If Porterbrook have any sense, they will also have ensured they own the IPR on the conversion so that anyone else wanting to do the same will have to have the OK (and pay a fee) from Porterbrook to do so.

 

[jopsuk]

"additing diesel engines to an electric unit" would not be patentable. There's a possibility specific parts of the conversion may be, but then there may be more than one possible approach. Especially as the Eversholt and Angel fleets would need the addition of the power connection.

There is clearly Prior Art- the Class 230 for a start.

 

[47802]

Interestingly, the Mk3-based AC EMUs are split over all three principal Roscos.
Porterbrook has the lead as the 319 fleet is coming free, but Angel has the 317s (72 units) and Eversholt the 318/320/321/322s (much the largest owner at 165 units, 43 of which are 3-car).
So we might end up with 3 designs of Mk3 bi-mode if the idea catches on.

Personally I doubt there will be that many conversions according to what I Have read elsewhere the leasing costs for these flex units are going to be high, in the case of Northern I expect it will be largely limited to covering a shortfall as result of indefinite postponement of some electrification, allegedly GWR may be looking at them for the North Downs line, but I think overall demand is likely to be satisfied from within the 319 fleet, plus if you want a decent bi-mode that's really good off the wires, I expect you need to buy a Stadler unit.

 

[northwichcat]

Personally I doubt there will be that many conversions according to what I Have read elsewhere the leasing costs for these flex units are going to be high, in the case of Northern I expect it will be largely limited to covering a shortfall as result of indefinite postponement of some electrification, allegedly GWR may be looking at them for the North Downs line, but I think overall demand is likely to be satisfied from within the 319 fleet, plus if you want a decent bi-mode that's really good off the wires, I expect you need to buy a Stadler unit.

While new trains like the CAF Civities will have low leasing costs for brand new trains helped by CAF being desperate for work to prevent a facility closure and low interest rates.

It sounds like bi-mode 319s and new Northern is like a repeat of the 180s and old Northern, in that Northern can't afford the solution but DfT will allow it as an interim measure to prevent bigger problems. Even the Porterbrook press release makes it sound like the product is actually intended for operators other than Northern long-term.