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

[175001]

I was going out to get a video of this rare combination too, but as said by someone earlier the couplings are different

Trust me, it'll never happen.

769s can only be coupled or rescued by another 769, or 319 + 323 in electrified areas.

 

[Gricer99]

Or rescued by a loco?

What’s this , never known 6 carriages on Southport line

There have been recent ECS movements on Sunday evenings with 4 x 150s coupled together

 

[bristollh]

Had my first rides on some of Northern's 769s yesterday. Quite impressed, with performance reasonably good (certainly better than I had expected) and a pleasantly "meaty" sound from the diesel engines. I note that the end carriages have had the seating capacity reduced in the centre section, presumably owing to the additional weight of the engines.

Looking forward to when I have the opportunity for a ride right through to Southport on one.

Jeff

 

[edwin_m]

Had my first rides on some of Northern's 769s yesterday. Quite impressed, with performance reasonably good (certainly better than I had expected) and a pleasantly "meaty" sound from the diesel engines. I note that the end carriages have had the seating capacity reduced in the centre section, presumably owing to the additional weight of the engines.

I'd guess that's unlikely to be the reason. Removing seats allows more people in total if the train is ever crush-loaded, and even if that rarely happens the design has to be able to cope with it because there's no way of stopping it happening occasionally. I wonder if it's similar to some of Southern's 375s, where they have 2+2 in the end cars presumably to encourage people to spread out along the train.

 

[AM9]

I'd guess that's unlikely to be the reason. Removing seats allows more people in total if the train is ever crush-loaded, and even if that rarely happens the design has to be able to cope with it because there's no way of stopping it happening occasionally. I wonder if it's similar to some of Southern's 375s, where they have 2+2 in the end cars presumably to encourage people to spread out along the train.

The class 319/4 units had modifications in the late nineties in preparation for the Thameslink 'City Flyer' role. This included the reducing the 3+2 seats between the doors to 2+2. This had the effect of increasing the standing room and reducing dwell times in the peaks as some passengers would move away form the doors.
RTT shows that apart from two class 150 runs (13:15 & 18:15), the rest of the Southport to Alderley Edge services were using class 769/4s (which were previously 319/4s) - specifically:

769424​

769431​

769442​

769450​

& 769458.​

A pretty good show for a newly introduced bimode multiple unit, - condemned by so many who haven't travelled on them (yet).

 

[peters]

The class 319/4 units had modifications in the late nineties in preparation for the Thameslink 'City Flyer' role. This included the reducing the 3+2 seats between the doors to 2+2. This had the effect of increasing the standing room and reducing dwell times in the peaks as some passengers would move away form the doors.
RTT shows that apart from two class 150 runs (13:15 & 18:15), the rest of the Southport to Alderley Edge services were using class 769/4s (which were previously 319/4s) - specifically:

769424​

769431​

769442​

769450​

& 769458.​

A pretty good show for a newly introduced bimode multiple unit, - condemned by so many who haven't travelled on them (yet).

769448 not performing so well:

• Failed at Wigan on Saturday and couldn't continue: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G82068/2021-05-22/detailed#allox_id=0, which is how a 150 finished up on the 13:15 and 18:15.
• Failed at Wigan on Friday but got moving again 35 minutes late: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G82066/2021-05-21/detailed#allox_id=1 a
• It was also late out for it's first service on Friday, was that a train problem? https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L07927/2021-05-21/detailed#allox_id=0
• Failed at Oxford Road on Thursday: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L10122/2021-05-20/detailed#allox_id=0

While 769431:

• Failed at Stockport on Wednesday: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L08735/2021-05-19/detailed
• Managed to get back to Southport on Tuesday but very late: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L10122/2021-05-18/detailed#allox_id=0

While something went wrong with 769434 at Stockport on Monday: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L08710/2021-05-17/detailed#allox_id=0

And that's just what I've noticed by checking the very late or cancelled departures from Alderley Edge.

No 769s out today, as Northern don't plan to use them on Sundays.

 

[507020]

769448 not performing so well

This is my first post. I made an account just to report that I had my first long 769 journey yesterday as far as Bolton on the first departure at 06:17, the one that was booked to be made up of 769442 and 150130 despite them having incompatible couplings and I can confirm that it was just the 769 working that service. It was 3 minutes late leaving Southport, which was lucky as I only got to the station at 06:18! I then got off at Bolton to see them raise the pantograph (and then got to go on 150006 to Salford Crescent before changing again for my onward journey to Stalybridge and then Stockport via the Stockport-Stalybridge Shuttle!)

On my return journey last night, 2W22, 769431 arrived into the dreaded Platform 14 at Piccadilly a minute early and managed the run to Bolton under the wires without a hitch and the engines started similarly without problems, but the beyond Wigan Wallgate was a total disaster. The unit failed 3 separate times between Wigan and Southport, at Gathurst, Hoscar and Bescar Lane. After the first incident, the guard made an announcement to explain that the train was stranded due to some sort of fault and then the driver joined in to say that he was going to attempt a hard reset which would take approximately 4 TO 5 minutes, so immediately some clueless passengers start making phone calls saying that they’ll be stuck “wherever Gathurst is” for 45 minutes. Then the engines restarted and the train successfully departed Appley Bridge and Parbold after picking up some freezing passengers who were of course unaware what had caused the delay or that they were in for a repeat performance.

Each successive time this happened, the driver was slightly faster resolving it, arriving at Parbold 16 minutes late, Parbold 27 minutes late and Meols Cop 34 minutes late. They both deserve a medal for the way they handled the situation, managing to get everyone home. I can’t imagine what would have happened if they tried to evacuate everyone at Bescar Lane, with half the train beyond the end of the platform (or any form of lighting, as during the restart all electrical systems, including emergency lighting were unavailable, so it really was pitch black, for about 10 seconds)

I should add the 769s are much quieter during Diesel operation than a 150/156 and every time it stops the speed of the engines reduces dramatically. I expect this behaviour is programmed in software to reduce exhaust fumes at stations and it could be this software causing these problems, with it refusing to allow the motor to draw power again and leaving the engines idling. I’ve seen the posts about “slushy” hydraulic torque converters on 150s and my observation is that during the first few seconds of acceleration, an old DMU transmission is actually 0% efficient, with 0 hp reaching the wheels until after a short pause. The DEMU mode demonstrated by the 769 is a vastly superior system, despite the extra weight. Rather than having 8.5% less power than a paid of 150s, it actually has 1046 hp more albeit only when stationary. There may some delay in the time it takes the engines to respond to the electrical load of the motor (but this is only a fraction of a second compared to a 150 stirring it’s oil for several seconds) and 21% less power ultimately available on Diesel than electric, but what the result of the conversion still produces greater performance and efficiency.

It’s the reliability issues that are completely unacceptable on the part of Porterbrook, however my biggest problem with them rather than that is there are no bike spaces or USB on them, which all 156s and some 150s that they replaced both had. How hard is it to remove a few seats? The former first class ones spring to mind as they serve no purpose on Northern, whereas dedicated bike spaces very much do. Hopefully both these issues will be resolved under Great British Railways. I noticed that the Williams-Shapps plan hinted at improving train interiors that are not fit for purpose including ironing boards, but I can’t see 1980s box shaped Ashbourne seats that aren’t ergonomic at all lasting much longer even though they aren’t the worst.

 

[Bikeman78]

I should add the 769s are much quieter during Diesel operation than a 150/156 and every time it stops the speed of the engines reduces dramatically. I expect this behaviour is programmed in software to reduce exhaust fumes at stations and it could be this software causing these problems, with it refusing to allow the motor to draw power again and leaving the engines idling. I’ve seen the posts about “slushy” hydraulic torque converters on 150s and my observation is that during the first few seconds of acceleration, an old DMU transmission is actually 0% efficient, with 0 hp reaching the wheels until after a short pause. The DEMU mode demonstrated by the 769 is a vastly superior system, despite the extra weight. Rather than having 8.5% less power than a paid of 150s, it actually has 1046 hp more albeit only when stationary. There may some delay in the time it takes the engines to respond to the electrical load of the motor (but this is only a fraction of a second compared to a 150 stirring it’s oil for several seconds) and 21% less power ultimately available on Diesel than electric, but what the result of the conversion still produces greater performance and efficiency.

Perhaps someone could take some point to point timings and note maximum speeds reached for 150, 156 and 769 on the Southport line. I've done a few on the Welsh 769s and they have yet to beat a 150 let alone a Pacer at any point.

 

[Sean Emmett]

Perhaps someone could take some point to point timings and note maximum speeds reached for 150, 156 and 769 on the Southport line. I've done a few on the Welsh 769s and they have yet to beat a 150 let alone a Pacer at any point.

I'm hoping to time some 769s on the Southport line in the first week of June.

My limited experience on the Rhymney line (two trips) is that they are a bit shy of class 150 petformance.

 

[507020]

Perhaps someone could take some point to point timings and note maximum speeds reached for 150, 156 and 769 on the Southport line. I've done a few on the Welsh 769s and they have yet to beat a 150 let alone a Pacer at any point.

150s and 156s will be the same speed and they always run coupled together but a 158 could probably do it a bit faster if the line speed of the completely straight track was increased to 90 or 100. 195s are banned from operating through Meols Cop.

769s can make up time on the electric section past Bolton.

I'm hoping to time some 769s on the Southport line in the first week of June.

My limited experience on the Rhymney line (two trips) is that they are a bit shy of class 150 performance.

There will be 769s at Southport every day except Sundays in June as now unless something catastrophic causes the whole fleet to be withdrawn.

How busy to the TfW 769s get?

 

[peters]

Today RTT shows the 11:15 Southport to Alderley Edge was terminated at Wigan on time, it's not clear why: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G82071/2021-05-24/detailed
However, the service was restarted at Oxford Road and terminated at Stockport 56 minutes late with a reason quoted as "due to a problem with the traction equipment" https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:28973/2021-05-24/detailed

Also something went wrong the 15:51 Alderley Edge to Southport, as while it was late throughout it spent 12 minutes stopped at Bolton, 769434 was operating the service: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L10134/2021-05-24/detailed#allox_id=0 Journey Check is also reporting that the service did not call at any stations between Wigan and Southport.

 

[Gricer99]

Looks like 769 434 had a pig of a day today with massive delays, especially at Bolton.
The 10:50 left ALD on time and arrived at Bolton only a minute late but left Bolton 17 mins late.
The 15:51 left ALD 6 mins late and steadily lost more time, arriving at Bolton 14 mins late but left 26 mins late.
At least it’s final run of the day was relatively uneventful, as it was only a couple of minutes late passing Through Wigan.
the 12:51 and 17:50 ALD to SPT ended up being run by 150102, which looks like a late substitution For a failed 769.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Looks like 769 434 had a pig of a day today with massive delays, especially at Bolton.
The 10:50 left ALD on time and arrived at Bolton only a minute late but left Bolton 17 mins late.
The 15:51 left ALD 6 mins late and steadily lost more time, arriving at Bolton 14 mins late but left 26 mins late.
At least it’s final run of the day was relatively uneventful, as it was only a couple of minutes late passing Through Wigan.
the 12:51 and 17:50 ALD to SPT ended up being run by 150102, which looks like a late substitution For a failed 769.

150102 looks to have run all day today

 

[Grannyjoans]

Might as well get them regeared for 75mph then

Can't help thinking these should have been fitted with 750hp engines.

 

[AM9]

Might as well get them regeared for 75mph then

Can't help thinking these should have been fitted with 750hp engines.

Not enough room on 20m undercarriages.

 

[Gricer99]

Another day of 4 workings with approx. 15 minute power changes to diesel at Bolton. Looks like this is becoming a major problem. Are they winding the pantograph down by hand?

 

[adrock1976]

Would it have been better to have left the 319s as built, and also have left them for what they were designed for i.e. 25kV AC overhead/750 DC third rail?

 

[AM9]

Would it have been better to have left the 319s as built, and also have left them for what they were designed for i.e. 25kV AC overhead/750 DC third rail?

Then Northern passengers would have to manage with two car 150s for even longer, and everybody would suffer the unnecesary pollution and CO2 that they made when running under wires.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Would it have been better to have left the 319s as built, and also have left them for what they were designed for i.e. 25kV AC overhead/750 DC third rail?

And order more 195s & 331s? Yes, but at the time, Porterbrook were offering a 2 year turn around, just 2 turned into 5 thanks to production issues and covid. You could say it could've been foreseen but the power of hindsight and that.

 

[adrock1976]

Then Northern passengers would have to manage with two car 150s for even longer, and everybody would suffer the unnecesary pollution and CO2 that they made when running under wires.

A better solution would have been for the DfT to have dusted down the report that British Rail published in 1980 regarding electrification of the network and let the experts get on with it. No requirement for endless rounds of consultants or purchasing equipment that is not designed for a particular purpose (GWR HOPS train), as that was/is an extremely high cost of capital outlay.

This is one of the various reasons of how the country has ended up in the terrible state it is in nowadays.

 

[Jonny]

Are there any other classes that could be used for such conversions?

 

[Irascible]

I’ve seen the posts about “slushy” hydraulic torque converters on 150s and my observation is that during the first few seconds of acceleration, an old DMU transmission is actually 0% efficient, with 0 hp reaching the wheels until after a short pause.

From what I remember about those transmissions, the transmission doesn't actually fill with oil until the engines start revving - so yes, you won't get any tractive effort immediately you hear revs rise. This is by design though.

 

[craigybagel]

From what I remember about those transmissions, the transmission doesn't actually fill with oil until the engines start revving - so yes, you won't get any tractive effort immediately you hear revs rise. This is by design though.

Worth pointing out as well that at my TOC, and I believe most others with Sprinters, drivers are taught not to release the brakes until after they hear the engine revving up, so the train won't be able to move anyway.

 

[Grumpy Git]

A better solution would have been for the DfT to have dusted down the report that British Rail published in 1980 regarding electrification of the network and let the experts get on with it. No requirement for endless rounds of consultants or purchasing equipment that is not designed for a particular purpose (GWR HOPS train), as that was/is an extremely high cost of capital outlay.

This is one of the various reasons of how the country has ended up in the terrible state it is in nowadays.

100% this.

 

[plugwash]

Had my first rides on some of Northern's 769s yesterday. Quite impressed, with performance reasonably good (certainly better than I had expected) and a pleasantly "meaty" sound from the diesel engines. I note that the end carriages have had the seating capacity reduced in the centre section, presumably owing to the additional weight of the engines.

I remember hearing the opposite, that they added extra seats (increasing some parts of the train from 4-across to 5-across) to reduce the (crush-laden) weight.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A better solution would have been for the DfT to have dusted down the report that British Rail published in 1980 regarding electrification of the network and let the experts get on with it. No requirement for endless rounds of consultants or purchasing equipment that is not designed for a particular purpose (GWR HOPS train), as that was/is an extremely high cost of capital outlay.

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."

The BR "experts" had also retired or gone to be consultants abroad.
We used the acknowledged Swiss electrification experts on the recent projects, and some of the same contractors as BR used for the WCML/ECML.
And there was the NR bloke who said of GW electrification: "This will not be another WCRM project" (ie late, badly managed, and stupidly over budget).

 

[AM9]

A better solution would have been for the DfT to have dusted down the report that British Rail published in 1980 regarding electrification of the network and let the experts get on with it. No requirement for endless rounds of consultants or purchasing equipment that is not designed for a particular purpose (GWR HOPS train), as that was/is an extremely high cost of capital outlay.

This is one of the various reasons of how the country has ended up in the terrible state it is in nowadays.

As @LNW-GW Joint says, that's history, and totally irrelevant to your comment in post #5390 about using unmodified class 319s. There are plenty of 319s still available if there are electrified routes for them. Just how far would one get leaving Bolton taking the Hindley line to Wigan Wallgate?, - answer, about 500m! Then there's the bridge under Wallgate, followed by quite a few miles to Southport. Nope, it would condemn the route to 2-car class 150s for years.

 

[adrock1976]

As @LNW-GW Joint says, that's history, and totally irrelevant to your comment in post #5390 about using unmodified class 319s. There are plenty of 319s still available if there are electrified routes for them. Just how far would one get leaving Bolton taking the Hindley line to Wigan Wallgate?, - answer, about 500m! Then there's the bridge under Wallgate, followed by quite a few miles to Southport. Nope, it would condemn the route to 2-car class 150s for years.

Are you saying that BR never published a report in 1981 detailing a rolling electrification project, which would have had around 85% of the GB network electrified by the year 2000?

Here is the link to the report https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoTBRB_Electrification1981.pdf

It is a large file, hence how I could not upload it.

 

[Killingworth]

Are you saying that BR never published a report in 1981 detailing a rolling electrification project, which would have had around 85% of the GB network electrified by the year 2000?

Here is the link to the report https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoTBRB_Electrification1981.pdf

It is a large file, hence how I could not upload it.

Very interesting to note what has been, and has not been done. Basically, and inevitably, around London and the easier bits, and not in the order envisaged. When the work required on routes through the Pennines is examined that's no surprise, but 2000 was a rather optimistic target.

 

[Grannyjoans]

It's a shame that the plan to run Class 170's Manchester to Southport never happened, they would have been better than the Flex project