Class 319 future

[westcoaster]

Anyone know what northern's policy is for failed motors on 319's as that can affect performance, on TL if motors fail in an 8 car you can carry on in service with 75%power, if you are a 4 car and motors fail 50% power the unit is removed from service. Iirc most of northern services are 4 car.

 

[northwichcat]

Snapshots of short periods don't give any indication of actual reliability. I don't have such figures and am reluctant to draw a conclusion on any gut feeling, however it makes 319s or their maintenance regimes look, (they are after all just trains that are there to run a service).

You earlier said they were good trains as you've only ever been on a 319 which has broken down once. The number of journeys you've made on 319s must be extremely small compared to the total number of journeys which 86 different units have made. I'm reluctant to say classes which I've used a lot which have never failed while I've been on them as last year I said I've never been on a 150 which has broken down and then a few weeks later I was on one which failed!

While TPE experienced teething problems with their 350s, they seem to have sorted them out now. While the 350/4s were brand new TPE had up to 90% of them in service at any time, while Northern never have more than 80% of their 319s in service at any time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The question is, if the reported 12 additional units are cascaded by 2017, the NW will likely have the largest fleet of 319s in the country. Clearly, less than 20 units satisfy the LIV-MAN/MIA, the LIV-MCV, the LIV-WBQ and the LIV-WGN current service requirements. If the reported 12 additional 319s are sent next year, where will they be deployed? The only route likely to be added next year will be the MCV-PRE.

RAIL reported they will start to arrive in the autumn this year which suggests the only thing which will happen initially is they will go off for refurbishment and be used to train more crews.

Arriva did mention the option of using 319s on the Glossop line from December 2017 until the new CAF EMUs despite Porterbrook saying the 323s will remain with Northern until 2018/2019, so the only viable reasons for that are 6 car 323 working on other routes or/and putting 323s on newly electrified Northern routes.

319s will have to cover the Airport-Blackpool services initially and hopefully by the time the new CAF EMUs are ready to enter service the Manchester-Stalybridge and Bolton-Wigan wires will be ready. Also note Hazel Grove to Bolton is to become 2tph and a couple of extra units will be required for Liverpool South Parkway to Blackpool. Although, the number of 319s required for Chat Moss will be reduced when TPE start their second service on the route.

32 x 319s will be 37% of them so it's possible another operator will take on a similar or higher number of 319s.

 

[AM9]

You earlier said they were good trains as you've only ever been on a 319 which has broken down once. The number of journeys you've made on 319s must be extremely small compared to the total number of journeys which 86 different units have made.

Not sure where or when you think I said that the 319s were 'good' trains. I refer to them as functional and suitable (as a design) for the service that they are being asked to deliver. That of course depends on their availability which nobody here seems to have any verified figures for one way or the other. In my experience, I've been on more failed Electrostars (not brand new ones) in the last 10 years than 319s (or GE 317s and 321s) in the last 23 years. That is not an absolute expression of their reliability, but I maintain that if 319 reliability was as bad on Thameslink (prior to 2009 when electrostars arrived) as you intimated they are currently on NT, the critical nature of the Thameslink core would have caused a complete meltdown of services.

RAIL reported they will start to arrive in the autumn this year which suggests the only thing which will happen initially is they will go off for refurbishment and be used to train more crews.

Arriva did mention the option of using 319s on the Glossop line from December 2017 until the new CAF EMUs despite Porterbrook saying the 323s will remain with Northern until 2018/2019, so the only viable reasons for that are 6 car 323 working on other routes or/and putting 323s on newly electrified Northern routes.

319s will have to cover the Airport-Blackpool services initially and hopefully by the time the new CAF EMUs are ready to enter service the Manchester-Stalybridge and Bolton-Wigan wires will be ready. Also note Hazel Grove to Bolton is to become 2tph and a couple of extra units will be required for Liverpool South Parkway to Blackpool. Although, the number of 319s required for Chat Moss will be reduced when TPE start their second service on the route.

32 x 319s will be 37% of them so it's possible another operator will take on a similar or higher number of 319s.

That was the point I was making earlier. The additional 12 units will have some designated role for Arriva to be committing to their lease. Despite the promise of new (unproven) trains - see my boldening above of your comment, their obligation is to ensure continuity of service with the added political imperative of using newly electrified infrastructure. The 331s are new trains potentially bringing with them all manner of teething troubles. Just like with the 700s that we are about to experience down here, no responsible operator would want to sully their marketing efforts with repeated press reports of expensive new trains letting 'poor hard-pressed' passengers down.
When the remaining NW wires' power is switched-on, passengers will expect the much heralded benefits of electric trains to be brought to them as soon as possible. I believe that the majority of ordinary travellers just accept trains as a means of travel and other than the rather extreme case of Pacers vs. bogied stock don't notice much difference. The NT 'refresh' of the 319s was in my view a fair expenditure on cosmetics to give their use on services a new look. That is, not so expensive as to seem wasteful if they are replaced in a few years (like the ex-GE slam-door EMUs variously cascaded to West Yorkshire and Edinburgh services). The passenger experience on a refreshed 319 I feel is better than on a 150 pair in similar condition. The sluggish performance of a DMU added to their vibration and smells do not compare well with an EMU direct equivalent.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I would expect 319s to potentially be more reliable as they'd have little or no electronics to go wrong. I wonder how many times with modern units everything looks fine but the TMS says "no chance mate"

 

[jon0844]

With all the problems LM had with the 319 on the Abbey Line (is this generally working now btw?) I do think it seems as if the less reliable ones were the units given to others.

I guess it's like the 180s. They were notoriously unreliable for some TOCs but eventually things got under control, presumably as engineers got to understand the little foibles and quirks (that engineers elsewhere had got to learn over time before the trains were cascaded).

 

[Mikey C]

Not sure where or when you think I said that the 319s were 'good' trains. I refer to them as functional and suitable (as a design) for the service that they are being asked to deliver. That of course depends on their availability which nobody here seems to have any verified figures for one way or the other. In my experience, I've been on more failed Electrostars (not brand new ones) in the last 10 years than 319s (or GE 317s and 321s) in the last 23 years. That is not an absolute expression of their reliability, but I maintain that if 319 reliability was as bad on Thameslink (prior to 2009 when electrostars arrived) as you intimated they are currently on NT, the critical nature of the Thameslink core would have caused a complete meltdown of services.

Yes, I never liked the 319s in terms of their comfort, but they operated very reliably on some really intense London routes quite happily for 25 years, as have the related 321s, so they're unreliability with Northern is to me surprising

 

[D365]

I would expect 319s to potentially be more reliable as they'd have little or no electronics to go wrong. I wonder how many times with modern units everything looks fine but the TMS says "no chance mate"

But on the other hand, modern computer systems are a great aid in the diagnostic/fault-finding process. There's no need to imply that electronics engineers are useless.

 

[AM9]

But on the other hand, modern computer systems are a great aid in the diagnostic/fault-finding process. There's no need to imply that electronics engineers are useless.

No, but just like with cars where everything relies on the EMS, if the TMS decides that the train is a no go, it takes at least a man with a laptop or a rescue 'towing vehicle' to get move it out of the way.
There is a half-way solution on the 700s that die in the Thameslink Core, - they get pushed out of the core to the nearest refuge. That however is a special feature needed for the very special issues that failure on Thameslink can lead to.

 

[childwallblues]

Perhaps I am just lucky with my 319 travels as I have only had one failure since they went into service, and that was a door not closing properly. could the door problem be associated with Northerns decision to move the door controls from the cabs to the carriages?

 

[AM9]

With all the problems LM had with the 319 on the Abbey Line (is this generally working now btw?) I do think it seems as if the less reliable ones were the units given to others.

It's been reported here that NT actually chose the initial units that they leased, based on them not needing C6 maintenance imminently.

I guess it's like the 180s. They were notoriously unreliable for some TOCs but eventually things got under control, presumably as engineers got to understand the little foibles and quirks (that engineers elsewhere had got to learn over time before the trains were cascaded).

That's the way that I see it. NT have had the first batch for abot 18 months now and still don't seem to be on top of their idiosyncrasies. LM's learning curve seems to have been much shorter, - maybe one part of Govia does talk to another after all!

 

[notlob.divad]

I had another thought about these.

Up thread I questioned if they could be reformed into 3 and 5 car units. Someone said there had been an outline plan for the 3 car, but the 5 car would be under powered if it only had 1 power car.

Instead could you turn 2 x 4 car units into 1 x 6 car unit with two 'spare' driving cabs.

So DTSO - MSO - TSO - TSO - MSO -DTSO.

Would that work?
Would both Pantographs have to be up? and
Would the Pantographs be able to run that close together?

The reason I ask is I'm sure there are places where 4 cars don't really provide enough capacity but 8 cars are not necessary, too long for the platforms and/or leave issues with not having through passages between the two sets.

 

[childwallblues]

Very few (if any) services would require 8 cars. Even services like the 1640 MIA-LIV were passengers are standing between between MCO and NLW there are seats in the middle of a three.

 

[edwin_m]

I had another thought about these.

Up thread I questioned if they could be reformed into 3 and 5 car units. Someone said there had been an outline plan for the 3 car, but the 5 car would be under powered if it only had 1 power car.

Instead could you turn 2 x 4 car units into 1 x 6 car unit with two 'spare' driving cabs.

So DTSO - MSO - TSO - TSO - MSO -DTSO.

Would that work?
Would both Pantographs have to be up? and
Would the Pantographs be able to run that close together?

The reason I ask is I'm sure there are places where 4 cars don't really provide enough capacity but 8 cars are not necessary, too long for the platforms and/or leave issues with not having through passages between the two sets.

I think this could work but there might be some hidden complications.

Both pantographs would have to be raised unless a 25kV link was added between the MSOs (which I think would be very difficult). If the pantographs were on the outer ends of the MSOs then they would be the same distance apart as they are in the worst case on two 4-car units in multiple. Two 6-cars in multiple would have the pans closer together, but this probably wouldn't happen except in emergency and could be dealt with by special operating rules.

I'm not sure whether there would be enough air provided by one compressor for a 6-car, and if both TSOs were the type with the compressor then would some other important equipment fitted to the other type of TSO be missing?

 

[AM9]

Surely, with 86 sets potentially up for grabs a couple of years ago, Porterbrook would have seriously considered making a 3-car demonstrator if it was viable. Instead they dangled the idea of extensive mods. to make three car sets as just a possibility. I doubt that would be worth the expense.
A re-gearing would be more cost-effective, maybe to 90mph or even 75mph if the cascaded stock was to be resident on a stopper service elsewhere. Were it not for the mixing of the Thameslink BML and Sutton loop stock in times of need, the ex 'Thameslink Metro' EMUs could have been well suited to such a regearing.

 

[Fincra5]

Dare I say... bring some to the Sussex Coastways to free up more 377's for other services... Like stick them on Southamptons or Pompeys (at least they have toilets!)

 

[fusionblue]

Can anyone tell me why in Thameslink Land the PIS was suddenly covered up with a sticker saying "better information coming soon"?

 

[notlob.divad]

I think this could work but there might be some hidden complications.

Both pantographs would have to be raised unless a 25kV link was added between the MSOs (which I think would be very difficult). If the pantographs were on the outer ends of the MSOs then they would be the same distance apart as they are in the worst case on two 4-car units in multiple. Two 6-cars in multiple would have the pans closer together, but this probably wouldn't happen except in emergency and could be dealt with by special operating rules.

Thank you, that is interesting.
Agreed, that is why I suggested the two TSOs in the middle

I'm not sure whether there would be enough air provided by one compressor for a 6-car, and if both TSOs were the type with the compressor then would some other important equipment fitted to the other type of TSO be missing?

I am not sure what the other type of TSO you are referring to is. Currently I understand the 4 car sets each run with one TSO with the compressor on. So this theoretical 6 car set would have 2 compressor TSOs. What is the other important equipment. Unless there is something unique on the 'spare' Driving cabs I am unaware of.

Surely, with 86 sets potentially up for grabs a couple of years ago, Porterbrook would have seriously considered making a 3-car demonstrator if it was viable. Instead they dangled the idea of extensive mods. to make three car sets as just a possibility. I doubt that would be worth the expense..

Agreed, I have a feeling (no inside knowledge) that someone in the Dft had a specific franchise they where trying to encourage to take them on where only 3 car units would have been feasible. Neither Porterbrook or the franchise where particularly keen, but they had to go through the process of working out the changes required. To keep people happy.

A re-gearing would be more cost-effective, maybe to 90mph or even 75mph if the cascaded stock was to be resident on a stopper service elsewhere. Were it not for the mixing of the Thameslink BML and Sutton loop stock in times of need, the ex 'Thameslink Metro' EMUs could have been well suited to such a regearing.

I am surprised this hasn't been looked at for the Northern Units. Most of the services that are using them (and will be going forward) are all stops services where better acceleration would be beneficial. They do feel more sluggish getting going, than I had anticipated, although they might not be being pushed as the timetable has not yet been tightened up from the one pathed for pacers.

 

[jon0844]

Can anyone tell me why in Thameslink Land the PIS was suddenly covered up with a sticker saying "better information coming soon"?

People didn't want to be told the time was 00:00? (if they were the same as the screens on the GN 317s still doing this)?

How many 319s got screens anyway? And how many drivers activated them?

 

[tomuk]

I think this could work but there might be some hidden complications.

Both pantographs would have to be raised unless a 25kV link was added between the MSOs (which I think would be very difficult). If the pantographs were on the outer ends of the MSOs then they would be the same distance apart as they are in the worst case on two 4-car units in multiple. Two 6-cars in multiple would have the pans closer together, but this probably wouldn't happen except in emergency and could be dealt with by special operating rules.

I'm not sure whether there would be enough air provided by one compressor for a 6-car, and if both TSOs were the type with the compressor then would some other important equipment fitted to the other type of TSO be missing?

319s can't run as three car units as the TSO underframe contains some of the traction/auxiliary equipment.

This extra equipment is due to their AC/DC capability. This isn't an issue with the other Mk3 EMUs 317-8,320-1 as all the simpler AC only equipment is contained in the MSO only.

 

[158722]

319s can't run as three car units as the TSO underframe contains some of the traction/auxiliary equipment.

This extra equipment is due to their AC/DC capability. This isn't an issue with the other Mk3 EMUs 317-8,320-1 as all the simpler AC only equipment is contained in the MSO only.

This has been mentioned in previous debates, but the original poster in this case is suggesting removing a DTSO and pairing up to form a 6-car set.

How do the DTSOs fare in terms of equipment?

I'd wondered about this idea myself - as it also a way of creating more 10-car sets, for routes where 12-car won't fit. A 6-car 'double power' 319 paired with a standard 319...

 

[notlob.divad]

319s can't run as three car units as the TSO underframe contains some of the traction/auxiliary equipment.

This extra equipment is due to their AC/DC capability. This isn't an issue with the other Mk3 EMUs 317-8,320-1 as all the simpler AC only equipment is contained in the MSO only.

Do you know if the DTSOs contain auxiliary equipment? As the proposal edwin_m was responding to was mine of creating dedicated 6 car units not 3 car units, which have already been ruled out due to the complications.

 

[physics34]

Do you know if the DTSOs contain auxiliary equipment? As the proposal edwin_m was responding to was mine of creating dedicated 6 car units not 3 car units, which have already been ruled out due to the complications.

if my memory serves me correct the unit could run without a DTSO at the other end. Underneath there is just equipment for the coach itself, not traction or compressor/auxiliry equipment.

 

[edwin_m]

I am not sure what the other type of TSO you are referring to is. Currently I understand the 4 car sets each run with one TSO with the compressor on. So this theoretical 6 car set would have 2 compressor TSOs. What is the other important equipment. Unless there is something unique on the 'spare' Driving cabs I am unaware of.

Apologies, after writing a heavy report all morning I confused "TSO" with "centre car". So I don't see any reason why this shouldn't work (though I'm not an expert in 319s, as you can probably tell...).

 

[swt_passenger]

Dare I say... bring some to the Sussex Coastways to free up more 377's for other services... Like stick them on Southamptons or Pompeys (at least they have toilets!)

DO they need to free up 377s for other services? Once the full 700 fleet is in service they'll be giving 377s away. (if not before e.g. the planned 25 to Southeastern)
Southampton are 99.9% 3777s anyway. Despite regular comments about 313s getting to Southampton they are incredibly unusual.

 

[AM9]

Southampton are 99.9% 3777s anyway.

Is this a new EU designation for the class?

 

[swt_passenger]

Is this a new EU designation for the class?

You got me...

 

[tomuk]

Do you know if the DTSOs contain auxiliary equipment? As the proposal edwin_m was responding to was mine of creating dedicated 6 car units not 3 car units, which have already been ruled out due to the complications.

The DTSOs only contain equipment relating to the trailers themselves. So in theory you could run a 319 with the rear DTSO missing*. You could create a six car config as follows:

DTSO - TSO - PMSO - TSO - PMSO - DTSO but you would end up with two spare DTSO for each six car created.

In summary the Mk3 EMUs are arranged as follows:

Classes 317, 321, 322
DTSO - TSO - PMSO [Transformer - Traction pack - Motor alternator - compressor - battery] - DTSO

Classes 318, 320,
DTSO - PMSO [Transformer - Traction pack - Motor alternator - compressor - battery] - DTSO

Classes 319, 325
DTSO - TSO [Motor alternator - compressor - battery] + PMSO [Transformer - Traction pack (AC/DC ) ]- DTSO

* You would need to operate the Emergency Bypass Switch (EBS) as you wouldn't have brake continuity. Oh and lock the interconnecting door so nobody would fall out :roll:

 

[childwallblues]

Dare I say... bring some to the Sussex Coastways to free up more 377's for other services... Like stick them on Southamptons or Pompeys (at least they have toilets!)

Excellent idea to replace the 313s.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Did the 319s that went to Northern have absolutly all their 3rd rail equipment removed in the end or just the external stuff?

 

[AM9]

Did the 319s that went to Northern have absolutly all their 3rd rail equipment removed in the end or just the external stuff?

Surrely they just removed the shoes and mounting hardware. Isn't the DC chopper unit used in both modes? Maybe the AC/DC switching would be hard-wired into OLE/AC collection only.
Removal of any heavy hardware would either require the suspension to be modified or the fitting of weight dummies to preserve the ride characteristics of modified cars.