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

[Bletchleyite]

There are absolutely loads of routes on Northern ideal for bi-modes - this is but one of them - that's why I think it's a real shame the new stock order was classic DMU and EMU rather than a uniform bi-mode fleet (perhaps a few dedicated EMUs for e.g. Hadfield).

 

[mwmbwls]

Assuming that the section from Wigan Wallgate to Southport doesnt get wires, I suppose the easiest way is to stop at Ince for a moment, drop the pan, then carry on using the diesels

Existing AC/DC changes take place whilst stationary on the North and West London lines as well as Farringdon on Thameslink. Ince would be the best place to stop - however some form of bi-directional working might be required to bypass any units failing to make the change - at one time not an uncommon failure on the 319 . In order to avoid confusing passengers if some trains stopped for passengers and voltage change and others just a voltage change - it might be that all trains have to stop at Ince.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Because the bridge is so low!

I seem to remember that the possibility of electrifying to Wigan Wallgate was considered as part of the Lostock Jn - Wigan Nortn Western electrification and decided against for this very reason.

Can't get a clear image of the clearance amount. Would either OLE conductor rail or lowering the track be an option?

 

[childwallblues]

86259 and 47815 with barrier wagons tnt 319450 on 5N36 from Wolverton Works to Allerton MPD yesterday. This is one of the units proposed for FLEX conversion so I assume that it has been moved north for storage?
86259 must be the first electric locomotive to visit the depot for many years. I would have thought possibly twenty when XC locomotives and stock were serviced there at night.

 

[rebmcr]

Can't get a clear image of the clearance amount. Would either OLE conductor rail or lowering the track be an option?

Overhead conductor rail does not provide any clearance benefits over OHLE.

 

[Greybeard33]

So it sounds like, whatever the best wiring solution, the Southport route could be a good option for the flex? Does the speed profile of a flex on diesel fit well with what would be the unwired portion of the route? Am I right in thinking the whole of the rest of the route to Manchester Airport will be/is wired? I do think it is important within the ever present budget constraints to consider how to displace not only the pacers, but also some of the 150x. I don't love the 319s, but I do prefer them to a 150. Their use on a route that is about 60% wired (guess) will also unlock operational and carbon savings by using the wires. I would much prefer a Renatus "flex" to the 319 flex if that is feasible. If it is, I would also like to see every possible diesel unit down south replaced and sent up north to take out further 150x. The Uckfield branch would be my first target.

The Northern franchise spec is for 7tph between Wigan and Manchester, of which 4tph are to run via Atherton (unelectrified), 2tph via Westhoughton/Bolton and 1tph (the Manchester Airport to Cumbria Northern Connect service) via the Chat Moss line. 2tph are to continue through Wallgate to Southport and 1tph to Kirkby, with 3tph terminating at Wigan. 1tph to/from Southport (presumably the semi-fast) is to continue through Victoria to Hebden Bridge (and beyond) via the Calder Valley (unelectrified). Only 1tph is required to call at Ince.

Before the delay to Lostock-Wigan electrification, it was a reasonable assumption that the 2tph via Bolton would be 319s and terminate at Wigan North Western. The Kirkby service and both Southport services would be DMU operated via Atherton, along with 1tph terminating at Wallgate.

If the 319flex is used to cover for the electrification delay, I think it is most likely to be on services to Wigan North Western via Bolton, rather than either of the Southport services. Then normal 319s can take over as soon as the wires are up, without a timetable change.

 

[northwichcat]

If the 319flex is used to cover for the electrification delay, I think it is most likely to be on services to Wigan North Western via Bolton, rather than either of the Southport services. Then normal 319s can take over as soon as the wires are up, without a timetable change.

Northern are supposed to return 5 x 319s once the final batch of 331s are in service in 2020. I wonder if the 5 returned 319s will be Flex ones? The press releases so far on the Flex make it sound like it's an interim solution for Northern and the option of bi-modes for other TOCs is being examined.

 

[najaB]

Overhead conductor rail does not provide any clearance benefits over OHLE.

It does and it doesn't if combined with a neutral section - to quote from NR's Guide to Overhead Electrification:

To run OLE under some low bridges, extended versions of the short neutral section have been employed, using an insulated rod or cable instead of the copper contact wire below the bridge. This can be combined with automatic switches to isolate the train’s pantograph so that it can coast beneath the bridge. The clearance between the insulated wire and the bridge deck or arch can then be reduced, in some cases by up to 200mm. This system only works for slowly moving trains and at locations where there is minimal risk of the train stopping near or under the bridge (see 10.5 above).

This kind of solution means there's no risk of a pantograph strike.

 

[lejog]

So it sounds like, whatever the best wiring solution, the Southport route could be a good option for the flex? Does the speed profile of a flex on diesel fit well with what would be the unwired portion of the route? Am I right in thinking the whole of the rest of the route to Manchester Airport will be/is wired?

The Southport-Airport service is to be discontinued during the current franchise.

It is extremely likely that the DfT are paying for these units as (in contractual terms) they have failed to deliver electrification to the timescales agreed with Northern, who have to change their train plan as a result. The routes that Northern have a right to extra cash if electrification is late are Windermere, Victoria to Stalybridge, Bolton to Wigan and Manchester to Blackpool.

The chances of the DfT supplying extra cash for flexs to run on any other lines are around zero.

 

[Mollman]

Another solution is to close Wallgate and build new platforms next to North Western, then the switch over can take place there. Looking at the TfGM 2040 strategy the Atherton line is a named suggestion for becoming a metro style route (i.e. stopping trains every 15 minutes) - this would make most sense following a total route upgrade including electrification and the rebuilding of some stations to allow fast trains for beyond Wigan to overtake to stoppers (which might be 4ph to Atherton and 2ph to WNW).

 

[northwichcat]

The Southport-Airport service is to be discontinued during the current franchise.

It is extremely likely that the DfT are paying for these units as (in contractual terms) they have failed to deliver electrification to the timescales agreed with Northern, who have to change their train plan as a result. The routes that Northern have a right to extra cash if electrification is late are Windermere, Victoria to Stalybridge, Bolton to Wigan and Manchester to Blackpool.

The chances of the DfT supplying extra cash for flexs to run on any other lines are around zero.

Agreed and reportedly these Flex trains will cost more to lease than new build, so an add-on to the Civity order is probably more likely than a long term lease for 319 Flex trains.

 

[lejog]

Northern are supposed to return 5 x 319s once the final batch of 331s are in service in 2020. I wonder if the 5 returned 319s will be Flex ones? The press releases so far on the Flex make it sound like it's an interim solution for Northern and the option of bi-modes for other TOCs is being examined.

I think that depends on whether Windermere/Stalybridge/Wigan to Bolton are electrified by 2020 or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another solution is to close Wallgate and build new platforms next to North Western

By "next to" you mean "the other side of the car park from"? It's an option, though, and the walk is probably less than that to P13/14 at Manc Picc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed and reportedly these Flex trains will cost more to lease than new build, so an add-on to the Civity order is probably more likely than a long term lease for 319 Flex trains.

If CAF will do bi-modes. If they won't, then the Civity is not a solution any more than Sprinters, Pacers or non-flex 319s are.

Of course there is an option for a new tender for bi-modes. Stadler?

 

[snowball]

Because the bridge is so low!

I seem to remember that the possibility of electrifying to Wigan Wallgate was considered as part of the Lostock Jn - Wigan Nortn Western electrification and decided against for this very reason.

According to the Enhancements Delivery Plan, electification to North Western includes a feasibility study on the practicality of expanding the limits of electrification to include Wallgate. So it hasn't been dismissed yet.

 

[Bantamzen]

If CAF will do bi-modes. If they won't, then the Civity is not a solution any more than Sprinters, Pacers or non-flex 319s are.

Of course there is an option for a new tender for bi-modes. Stadler?

Looking at their pages, it seems that CAF can produce bi-modes:

http://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/familia/civity/

5 traction types to choose from:

Within the wide range of regional and commuter trains currently available on the market, Civity is a unique solution, offering a range of traction options, yet based on the same modular, low-floor vehicle concept.

The Civity trains are available with the following types of traction:

Electric
Mechanical diesel or hydraulic diesel
Diesel-electric
Dual

Civity can adapt to the traction requirements of each and every operator. This family of trains is designed for 4 different power supplies: 1500 VDC, 3000 VDC, 15 kVAC (16,6 Hz), 25 kVAC (50 Hz).

 

[northwichcat]

If CAF will do bi-modes. If they won't, then the Civity is not a solution any more than Sprinters, Pacers or non-flex 319s are.

Of course there is an option for a new tender for bi-modes. Stadler?

Northern do have a requirement to introduce additional diesel vehicles in 2022. They have to be as least as good as 170s, so if enough 170s are available they'll probably be the additional vehicles but if released DMUs are snapped up by other operators it could be more 195s are acquired. While you won't personally like the idea 3 extra DMUs being acquired and 3 x 319s subleased to another operator could be what Arriva and DfT see as a solution to Windermere not being wired if it makes more financial sense than using bi-modes.

 

[northwichcat]

Looking at their pages, it seems that CAF can produce bi-modes:

http://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/familia/civity/

Any manufacturer could produce bi-modes but it's a case of whether they think it's worth while designing a UK spec bi-mode and whether the ROSCOs and TOCs are happy with the price.

 

[a_c_skinner]

"Another solution is to close Wallgate and build new platforms next to North Western"

IIRC this was considered but there are now restrictions on building platforms on the gradient of the line at this point. The idea of a single station is Wigan is attractive, but the slope will prohibit it, I think.

 

[deltic08]

It does and it doesn't if combined with a neutral section - to quote from NR's Guide to Overhead Electrification:This kind of solution means there's no risk of a pantograph strike.

In that case why not electrify to Southport with a dead section at Wallgate for coasting or on diesel engine. The pan will take care of itself if there is sufficient clearance for an almost fully lowered pan. If the restricted bridges are double track arches then the outer ends of the pan could be a problem even if fully down.

 

[Bantamzen]

Any manufacturer could produce bi-modes but it's a case of whether they think it's worth while designing a UK spec bi-mode and whether the ROSCOs and TOCs are happy with the price.

I'm sure CAF could, they do after all say that they can adapt to the traction requirements of each and every operator. So it would just come down to price. But then if the bi-mode 319s are going to cost more than the new single traction CAF units, I'm pretty sure the ROSCOs / TOCs would be able to negotiate a competitive price, remembering of course that a new CAF unit has a much longer shelf life than a converted 319.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

In that case why not electrify to Southport with a dead section at Wallgate for coasting or on diesel engine. The pan will take care of itself if there is sufficient clearance for an almost fully lowered pan. If the restricted bridges are double track arches then the outer ends of the pan could be a problem even if fully down.

How long a section would that be compared to the normal length of a neutral section?

 

[modernrail]

I struggle to see how Porterbrook could manage to charge as much for a fully paid down asset with a bit of additional kit as a ROSCO is charging for a brand new train. How on earth can this be? Is it just a case of a ROSCO spotting an opportunity to ransom a situation and extract some more cash from the overpaying public? If so, might another ROSCO doing the same thing drive down the price of the bi-mode option?

In my view, hats off to the person who realised that this option is viable. A good bit of make do and mend British engineering. However, it should also be an opportunity to unleash a substantial amount of rolling stock upgrade and extra capacity and only the pricing will cause this not to happen. It would be a crying shame if we finally had a solution to the lack of capacity and full electrification now that there will be excess units in the system for the first time since privatisation. It would be even more of a shame if assets originally purchased by the British taxpayer were left to rot due to overcharging by ROSCOs.

Maybe I have missed something in my back of the packet maths?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite. If they're the same price as a new bi-mode, we might as well scrap the lot and buy new. But I fail to see any reason why they should be - unlike, say, the 230, it's not a major re-engineering, it's just bolting a genset underneath and connecting it to the existing 750VDC circuit (and doing the requisite testing so it doesn't decide to self-immolate).

 

[notlob.divad]

In that case why not electrify to Southport with a dead section at Wallgate for coasting or on diesel engine. The pan will take care of itself if there is sufficient clearance for an almost fully lowered pan. If the restricted bridges are double track arches then the outer ends of the pan could be a problem even if fully down.

The Wallgate bridge is the first of several clearence problems on the Southport line but is the only one that would be required to turn Wallgate into a sensible AC / diesel changeover point. The problem with a neutral section solution is that it is so close to the station you cannot just coast through. As has been mentioned, a changeover at Ince would work, but then extra calls would need to be made just for the changeover.

I am certainly interested in how this project goes. There are many places that could find a use for them, andwith the number of 319s becoming available, no shortage of stock to utilise I'd the testing proves a success.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Wallgate bridge is the first of several clearence problems on the Southport line but is the only one that would be required to turn Wallgate into a sensible AC / diesel changeover point. The problem with a neutral section solution is that it is so close to the station you cannot just coast through. As has been mentioned, a changeover at Ince would work, but then extra calls would need to be made just for the changeover.

Would stopping every train at Ince really be a problem? It might even increase usage.

You could I suppose stop and change over on plain line like the WCML-Clapham Jn trains do? But if there's a station there at the right location, as it seems there is, why not serve it while doing so?

 

[northwichcat]

I'm sure CAF could, they do after all say that they can adapt to the traction requirements of each and every operator. So it would just come down to price. But then if the bi-mode 319s are going to cost more than the new single traction CAF units, I'm pretty sure the ROSCOs / TOCs would be able to negotiate a competitive price, remembering of course that a new CAF unit has a much longer shelf life than a converted 319.

The bi-mode 319s probably will have around 1/3rd of the life of a new build set so if the cost is 40% of the cost of new build then the bi-mode 319s will probably be more expensive to lease.

There's some people who think bi-mode 319s would work for Northern Connect services so for comparisons for using them on those services the cost of a whole new interior including the installation of air conditioning needs to be added on to the conversion costs.

It's also worth considering if you are going to convert existing EMUs, is conversion of the 319s the most economically viable option or is it just being considered because Porterbrook have a number of off-lease 319s.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Also worth remembering is that older trains require more maintenance and have fewer opportunities for cost-savings when doing so. It's like how after a certain point an old car or bus simply doesn't make as much economic sense even if its capital value is low.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also worth remembering is that older trains require more maintenance and have fewer opportunities for cost-savings when doing so. It's like how after a certain point an old car or bus simply doesn't make as much economic sense even if its capital value is low.

Because they are smaller and the bodies are cheaper, though, trains are in a way more like houses - if the bodies and bogies are sound, it can and does make economic sense to re-use those but fit new aircon, seats, traction equipment - just as nobody goes around knocking down Victorian terraced houses, but very often do rewire, replumb, refit, repaint, replace the windows and buy new furniture, which gives you a perfectly good like-new house. Or they convert them to flats, which is in some ways a repurposing a bit like the D-train or indeed this.

 

[northwichcat]

Because they are smaller and the bodies are cheaper, though, trains are in a way more like houses - if the bodies and bogies are sound, it can and does make economic sense to re-use those but fit new aircon, seats, traction equipment - just as nobody goes around knocking down Victorian terraced houses, but very often do rewire, replumb, refit, repaint, replace the windows and buy new furniture, which gives you a perfectly good like-new house. Or they convert them to flats, which is in some ways a repurposing a bit like the D-train or indeed this.

Don't forget re-pointing the brick work

New windows or a new boiler are one of those investments that can save in the long term due to directly resulting in lower gas consumption. It'd be a bit like giving the 150s new engines which burn less diesel but power the train just as well.