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

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
This has been brought up in two different threads but probably warrants it's own thread:

319427 has gone for to Brush to see if 319s can have diesel engines put on them and used as bi modes for Northern.

319427 is at Brush for evaluation to see if the concept if possible, with diesel engines fitted to the Driving Trailers. If deemed viable, another 3 units could be done.

Perhaps it does warrant it's own thread, given there is no confirmation of the unit going to Northern - although there is a suggestion that it may well be trialled with them.

I would imagine if this is to happen the most logical thing would be to trial it on a fully electrified route with Northern, in the same way the IPEMU 379 was trialled on a fully electrified route with Anglia. That way if there's a problem with running off the wires the pantograph can be put up or another unit of the same class can be sent to rescue it.

Given a batch of bi-mode 319s won't appear overnight and they won't meet the requirements for 'Northern Connect' Barrow/Windermere services which will be the most obvious route for Northern to use bi-modes, I wonder if the plan is to offer them to bidders of the next Great Western and Wales & Borders franchises?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,918
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
How do you know they won't meet the Northern Connect specification?

I see no reason they could not receive an interior refurbishment to that standard including aircon fitting. The "Renatus" scheme could basically be applied.
 

superkev

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2015
Messages
2,522
Location
west yorkshire
Thinking of the time the other diesel transplant has seemingly been bogged down in red tape I can't see it happening.
As for a bi mode how about the 313 type which is aluminium rather than steel and has 8 motored axles. 750v/ 25kv/ diesel a tru bi mode.
Aluminium lasts forever so age shouldn't be a problem.
K
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
How do you know they won't meet the Northern Connect specification?

I see no reason they could not receive an interior refurbishment to that standard including aircon fitting. The "Renatus" scheme could basically be applied.

I thought the high specification 319 proposal proved to be non-economically viable which is why it was rejected in favour of brand new 331s on Blackpool and Windermere services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thinking of the time the other diesel transplant has seemingly been bogged down in red tape I can't see it happening.

That's why I think the next GW and W&B franchises would be the place they are most likely to go. Northern will probably have all their transferred DMUs and new build trains in service by the time a batch can be produced. On another forum some people are suggesting they can run Manchester to Blackpool services prior to the wiring being complete - I can't see that happening!
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,498
One big question I have is, If it can be done now, why was it not thought about prior to splitting the Liverpool - Blackpool service? I appreciate times change but this service has been split at Preston for a number of years now and this 'solution' could have provided a stopgap measure and released some DMUs for other routes.

Anyway, the past is the past. I think they will be looking at the Windemere branch for testing, because at least if it failed off the wires there it would only impact upon itself and not block lines for other traffic.

I also wonder if once a proven concept, keeping the shoe gear and removing the pantograph would provide a solution for the Wrexham - Bidston line allowing it to switch to 3rd rail pickup at Bidston and run around the Liverpool Loop line.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,918
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
That's why I think the next GW and W&B franchises would be the place they are most likely to go.

But the *whole point* is that Northern need a solution for Windermere, as they have insufficient quality DMUs to run the through service using those.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Could use Bi Mode 319s on the Marshlink line :P saves electrification

There are lots of contexts where bi-mode EDMUs would be useful. I remain flummoxed as to why Northern were allowed to order straight DMU, and why the franchise agreement did not require bi-mode for maximum flexibility.

Yes, DMUs were cheaper now, but buy cheap, buy twice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I also wonder if once a proven concept, keeping the shoe gear and removing the pantograph would provide a solution for the Wrexham - Bidston line allowing it to switch to 3rd rail pickup at Bidston and run around the Liverpool Loop line.

Or Ormskirk-Preston and Kirkby-Wigan through running. But that said, it would rather complicate Merseyrail's presently very simple (and as a result highly punctual and reliable) operation.
 
Last edited:

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
But that was in the context of electrification. The context has changed.

One of the problems both VivaRail and Porterbrook have faced recently is CAF and Stadler have offered competitively priced products which are much better than their offerings. As the market has changed other manufacturers and ROSCOs might up come with more alternatives e.g. DEMU 321s or 379s, Bombardier DEMUs, Siemens DEMUs or CAF DEMUs.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,918
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
One of the problems both VivaRail and Porterbrook have faced recently is CAF and Stadler have offered competitively priced products which are much better than their offerings. As the market has changed other manufacturers and ROSCOs might up come with more alternatives e.g. DEMU 321s or 379s, Bombardier DEMUs, Siemens DEMUs or CAF DEMUs.

Yes, I think DfT/Northern should seriously consider a follow-on order for Stadler FLIRT bi-modes, probably 4-car units, for dedicated use on the Barrow and Windermere circuit. They would be absolutely perfect for the role.

Two good options would exist for the service - either portion-work through from Manchester Airport on a 2-hourly cycle with a shuttle in the other hour, or run an hourly through service to each branch alternating with a connection from Lancaster, a bit like the Swiss do in a few places. The latter would require more traincrew, but both should require a similar number of units.
 

bangor-toad

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2009
Messages
523
158722 said:
319427 is at Brush for evaluation to see if the concept if possible, with diesel engines fitted to the Driving Trailers. If deemed viable, another 3 units could be done.

Perhaps it does warrant it's own thread, given there is no confirmation of the unit going to Northern - although there is a suggestion that it may well be trialled with them.

Ohh, with diesel engines in the driving trailers is it back to the future?


(Not my image - found on Google)

I know it's unlikely that some of each driving trailer seats would be converted to the engine bay but at least this shows how it could look!
Cheers,
Mr Toad
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,498
So on the practicalities of this idea:

How much extra weight will a suitably sized diesel generator plus fuel tank and other ancillaries weigh? There can be no extra power from this, so what will that do to the acceleration performance?

Are people assuming an 'above floor solution'? Thus what would be lost in terms of number of seats/amount of standing space?

Is there room to sling several smaller units underneath each driving trailer? Would that give better weight distribution?

Whilst it seems like a good idea, just like the class 230 units there are some not insignificant engineering challenges to overcome.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
1,436
I take that project is due to Electrification delays and the need for more trains that need to be able to run without wires.

Does show the ingenuity us Brits have.

and whilst I know this is all theories at the moment but I wonder if having 750v equipment (as the traction supply not just the motor voltage) + changeover gubbins makes the project easier than doing it with a 25kV only EMU.
 
Last edited:

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
3,231
Location
Greater Manchester
Yes, I think DfT/Northern should seriously consider a follow-on order for Stadler FLIRT bi-modes, probably 4-car units, for dedicated use on the Barrow and Windermere circuit. They would be absolutely perfect for the role.

Two good options would exist for the service - either portion-work through from Manchester Airport on a 2-hourly cycle with a shuttle in the other hour, or run an hourly through service to each branch alternating with a connection from Lancaster, a bit like the Swiss do in a few places. The latter would require more traincrew, but both should require a similar number of units.

So how could Arriva justify commercially ordering yet more new trains for the Barrow to Manchester Airport services, when the 195s are already on order?
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,498
I take that project is due to Electrification delays and the need for more trains that need to be able to run without wires.

That does seem to be the working assumption. Or it could just be Porterbrook speculating with their unleased units. If it is as you say, I wonder who is going to foot the bill of conversion and higher running costs. Presumably Northern will want a decent rebate on their franchise returns for this.

Does show the ingenuity us Brits have.

Playing Devil's advocate, whilst it does, maybe we are the only country that needs to be so ingenious. ....

and whilst I know this is all theories at the moment but I wonder if having 750v equipment (as the traction supply not just the motor voltage) + changeover gubbins makes the project easier than doing it with a 25kV only EMU.

I suspect this to be the case, and why my suggestion above may not be so easy. Removing the shoe gear and connecting a generator/rectifier to the 750dc busbar in its place, will presumably be a lot more straight-forward. The 'switch' will then be done in the same way as 25kv to 750dc is done currently.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,608
Location
Macclesfield
How much extra weight will a suitably sized diesel generator plus fuel tank and other ancillaries weigh? There can be no extra power from this, so what will that do to the acceleration performance?
A class 150 driving car, which uses the same bodyshell, weighs around 8 tonnes more than a class 319 driving vehicle.

Are people assuming an 'above floor solution'? Thus what would be lost in terms of number of seats/amount of standing space?
I would seriously doubt it. Is there much under the floor of a class 319 driving trailer? I have no idea but I would have thought that an underfloor arrangement as per a class 150 would be the preferred option.
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,173
makes sense to try with the spare and unallocated 319s that will exist.

Any Thumper English Electric 4SRKT engines going spare lol
 

D365

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
8,067
makes sense to try with the spare and unallocated 319s that will exist.

Especially important for Poterbrook with the seemingly endless tranche of Eversholt Class 321s that will be going spare in the next decade.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
12,278
Location
Another planet...
So would the bi-mode results be called class 219?

Logically (yes, I know...:roll:) the 2xx series is for diesel units with electric transmission, hence the 230s. These units would be a first (SETs notwithstanding) so there's no precedent in terms of numbering. They'll be EDMUs, not DEMUs. My guess is that they'll either retain their current numbers or become 3199xx or similar.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,533
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
Could use Bi Mode 319s on the Marshlink line :P saves electrification

There are a number of lines where DMUs spend a good chunk of the journey on electrified lines - the Southern 171s being an example.

Those 171s would be in great demand at various other franchises if a "219" could be introduced to replace them.

In Northernland, we'll have DMUs running routes like Manchester Airport - Liverpool (via Warrington), Manchester - Rose Hill Marple (via Guide Bridge), Metro Centre - Morpeth (via Newcastle) and Leeds - Sheffield (via Moorthorpe) that are under the wires for a reasonable part of the journey.

A "219" would also allow some services to be extended beyond the electrification boundaries - e.g. some Leeds - Skipton services running up to Settle to provide peak hour services further up the valley.

There are lots of contexts where bi-mode EDMUs would be useful. I remain flummoxed as to why Northern were allowed to order straight DMU, and why the franchise agreement did not require bi-mode for maximum flexibility.

Yes, DMUs were cheaper now, but buy cheap, buy twice

Agreed - we got the cheapest shortest stock for the short term, rather than the best long term option. Having a slightly higher number of carriages makes for better short term headlines, I guess.

New DMUs are built with cameras to make DOO possible at a later date (even if it isn't intended for DOO routes in the short term) - we should be looking at "future proof" stock (as Greater Anglia are).

Especially important for Poterbrook with the seemingly endless tranche of Eversholt Class 321s that will be going spare in the next decade.

True - there will be a lot of EMUs going spare in a few years (with the Greater Anglia order replacing almost a hundred 321s, plus the 317/ 321s from Great Northern etc).

Yet we have a shortage of DMUs.

If 319s can be converted then this is potentially excellent news. Two birds, one stone.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
A class 150 driving car, which uses the same bodyshell, weighs around 8 tonnes more than a class 319 driving vehicle.


I would seriously doubt it. Is there much under the floor of a class 319 driving trailer? I have no idea but I would have thought that an underfloor arrangement as per a class 150 would be the preferred option.

I suspect that the weight difference would be higher than 8tonnes as you'd have to take into account exhaust cleaning and an alternator. As for the second point, I'm not sure that there would be an engine on the market today that would fit under the floor with all of the associated exhaust cleaning equipment. The AT300s have had to raise the floor in order to accommodate a stage IIIB compliant engine in an optimised design (and being an intercity train had more room to play with from the start).
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
15,141
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Does show the ingenuity us Brits have.

We haven't got an (affordable) technical solution yet.
First find an emission-compliant engine.
The re-engineering of an obsolescent EMU will be amazing.
Maybe we will have Ford truck engines like the class 230.
And all for a tiny handful of units.

And yet we are already into fatuous class numbers... ;)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,918
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I suspect that the weight difference would be higher than 8tonnes as you'd have to take into account exhaust cleaning and an alternator. As for the second point, I'm not sure that there would be an engine on the market today that would fit under the floor with all of the associated exhaust cleaning equipment. The AT300s have had to raise the floor in order to accommodate a stage IIIB compliant engine in an optimised design (and being an intercity train had more room to play with from the start).

Erm, whatever they've shoved under the D-train, for one? Those rafts are designed for supplying a third-rail EMU to run at low speeds - sounds familiar here?

These units would not need to run at 100mph on diesel, let alone 125mph - the concept is for something that can keep up on the electrified mainline and then run onto low-speed branch lines. 60mph on diesel would probably be quite adequate.

The requirement is not for a 4-car direct Class 150 substitute, even if the result might look like one :)
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,498
A class 150 driving car, which uses the same bodyshell, weighs around 8 tonnes more than a class 319 driving vehicle.

Interesting, so if done on both Driver units that would be 16 tonnes extra approximate 11% extra weight on the total of a 4 car.

I would seriously doubt it. Is there much under the floor of a class 319 driving trailer? I have no idea but I would have thought that an underfloor arrangement as per a class 150 would be the preferred option.

There isn't a great deal under the floor from pictures I have seen. However, we don't know if this arrangement can give enough power, or meet modern emissions standards.

A 150s engine (of which there are 1 per car) would output 213kW. There would then be some losses in the conversion to Electricity. Therefore to power a 319 at full chaff 4x247.5kW motors, you would need 4.6 of the engines in a 150. even if you allow for a lower top end power (if that is even possible) you are still looking at 4 engines which would take up the undercarriage of all 4 units of a 319. Which is not possible because there is stuff there already on the middle two.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,918
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Therefore to power a 319 at full chaff 4x247.5kW motors, you would need 4.6 of the engines in a 150. even if you allow for a lower top end power (if that is even possible) you are still looking at 4 engines which would take up the undercarriage of all 4 units of a 319. Which is not possible because there is stuff there already on the middle two.

You are not going to need to power it at "full chaff" - take a look at the use-case. 100mph, or even 75mph, is completely unnecessary.

The concept is a "last few miles" DMU, not one that can keep up on the mainline on diesel. The diesel engines would only be used on the mainline in the event of a power failure.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,498
These units would not need to run at 100mph on diesel, let alone 125mph - the concept is for something that can keep up on the electrified mainline and then run onto low-speed branch lines. 60mph on diesel would probably be quite adequate.

But with the extra weight, they may not be able to run at 100mph on the OHLE either, and it will certainly put a dent into their acceleration profile.

Erm, whatever they've shoved under the D-train, for one? Those rafts are designed for supplying a third-rail EMU to run at low speeds - sounds familiar here?

The power output of the 230 is 300kW per car produced from 2 150kw underfloor generator sets. 319s have a total of 990kw of motor drive so you are looking at needing 6-7 of those same generator sets. Going for 6, you would have to get 3 generators into a very similar space that Vivarail have managed to fit 2 under each driving car. I am not saying it isn't possible, but there is certainly a technical challenge to overcome.
 
Last edited:

Top