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

[bramling]

It does make sense. Keeping the pick up shoes on offers more flexibility for their deployment, particularly in the South East.

I think out of all the solutions to providing extra diesel stock, this is the best one so far.

Keeping the ability to fit shoegear when required is one thing, but it's bordering on crazy to have trains running around with it if there's no prospect of it being used in the area the trains are deployed at the time.

Even in DC areas it is hardly uncommon for trains to lose shoes, so running around with needless gear is just introducing another thing to cause problems.

 

[northwichcat]

It does make sense. Keeping the pick up shoes on offers more flexibility for their deployment, particularly in the South East.

I think out of all the solutions to providing extra diesel stock, this is the best one so far.

Porterbrook are the ones who own the trains and they've decided the shoes come off if there's no immediate plans to use them on third rail routes as it's not worth keeping them on the off chance of them being used on third rail routes in the future.

 

[edwin_m]

It's easy enough to put them back on, especially if you kept them in a storeroom somwhere instead of leaving them on the trains to be knocked off scattered all over the network.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is it 23m Mk3's that don't fit, then? Wiki says a 66 is 21m, so that would make sense.

I'm not sure if a 66 has ever been through, just that it was mentioned in a NR or Merseytravel document that when track is relaid and clearances are checked, a 66 is the dimensions that the checks work to. A 23m vehicle would probably not fit, as I believe the issue is not the size of the tunnels but the curvature of them.

 

[Chris125]

Interestingly in this promo vid Porterbrook specifically refer to it as 'tri-mode'

[youtube]JRXCtjINCHI[/youtube]

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's easy enough to put them back on, especially if you kept them in a storeroom somwhere instead of leaving them on the trains to be knocked off scattered all over the network.

That's what they did with the 350/1s - they were put back onto a subfleet when they were used for a period of time to run the Southern service via Kenny O.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Windermere to Oxenholme has just been announced by the SoS as not being wired in this parliament but having bimodal stock.

Edit: Sorry, dealt with elsewhere I see.

 

[Spekejunction]

Interestingly in this promo vid Porterbrook specifically refer to it as 'tri-mode'

[youtube]JRXCtjINCHI[/youtube]

Nice music...

 

[swt_passenger]

That's what they did with the 350/1s - they were put back onto a subfleet when they were used for a period of time to run the Southern service via Kenny O.

Quite a few 350/1s that I have seen over the last couple of years have the shoes fitted. As I've pointed out a few times now, they are not visible when in the raised condition, you need to look down from a view point above the bogie.

 

[northwichcat]

Windermere to Oxenholme has just been announced by the SoS as not being wired in this parliament but having bimodal stock.

Edit: Sorry, dealt with elsewhere I see.

Not necessarily bi-mode as he just said 'alternative technology.' Thread for Windermere: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=150746

 

[Fudgefrog]

Interestingly in this promo vid Porterbrook specifically refer to it as 'tri-mode'

[youtube]JRXCtjINCHI[/youtube]

Interesting that the 319/769 model in that video appears to have amended headlights that might, given the livery, imply it can run without a yellow front - yet no other cosmetic changes seem planned for the outside. Wasn't there originally a proposal to significantly rework the front end when the trains left Thameslink (well before any 379 idea was mooted).

Somehow can't imagine the interior will be refurbished that heavily - you've got to wonder if refurbishing to that level would significantly reduce the cost savings over procuring brand new trains instead. Didn't the class 230 scheme have a similar issue, where the first train available for service had a strikingly similar interior to the LU days rather than the heavier refurbishment originally considered?

 

[Domh245]

Interesting that the 319/769 model in that video appears to have amended headlights that might, given the livery, imply it can run without a yellow front

Doesn't have a high-level marker light (aka cyclops light) so it would not meet latest headlight standard

 

[Feathers44]

Doesn't have a high-level marker light (aka cyclops light) so it would not meet latest headlight standard

The video clip implies that it might. Something's appeared up there although it's not complete clear what it is.

 

[jayiscupid]

Interesting that the 319/769 model in that video appears to have amended headlights that might, given the livery, imply it can run without a yellow front - yet no other cosmetic changes seem planned for the outside. Wasn't there originally a proposal to significantly rework the front end when the trains left Thameslink (well before any 379 idea was mooted).

Somehow can't imagine the interior will be refurbished that heavily - you've got to wonder if refurbishing to that level would significantly reduce the cost savings over procuring brand new trains instead. Didn't the class 230 scheme have a similar issue, where the first train available for service had a strikingly similar interior to the LU days rather than the heavier refurbishment originally considered?

This was the artist's impression from the Porterbrook brochure on the refurbished 319's. It's not what you'd call "pretty"!

 

[northwichcat]

This was the artist's impression from the Porterbrook brochure on the refurbished 319's. It's not what you'd call "pretty"!

319s have ugly fronts anyway.

 

[childwallblues]

319s have ugly fronts anyway.

So do their replacements the 700s in my opinion.

 

[physics34]

319s have ugly fronts anyway.

Think im in the minority but i dont think they do.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Think im in the minority but i dont think they do.

You're not in the minority; I like the original 319 front as well. Less keen on the later version that the 319/1s ( now 319/3s ) came out with.

700s look OK to me as well, by the way.

 

[D365]

Am I in the minority by not being very fussed?

I didn't even notice a difference between the two 319 batches.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I didn't even notice a difference between the two 319 batches.

The second batch was fitted with ugly "rodent tooth" fairings similar to those on the class 321 type stock.

Anyway... returning to the subject of the class 769s, it would certainly make sense to try to use as many 319s as possible for the conversions rather than have a dozen each off several different classes. Standardisation keeps the unit* costs down.



*No pun intended.

 

[physics34]

You're not in the minority; I like the original 319 front as well. Less keen on the later version that the 319/1s ( now 319/3s ) came out with.

700s look OK to me as well, by the way.

same. The lighter NSE grey on the later 319 batch looked a bit odd IMO (with the plastic lower front thingy)
.

 

[XCTurbostar]

700s look OK to me as well, by the way.

I like the 700s but I think it only works well with the yellow front.. I'd imagine it would be ugly without it..

*Runs away and hides*

Thanks,
Ross

 

[zn1]

the fairings made 319/1 look alot better than their 319/0 sisters. for me it finished the job off, the 319/0 001-060 always look unfinished to me

bear in mind 319/1 161-186 came out of York after the last 321's were finished (or was it 456 ?)

it was 21 odd years ago when 319/1 started their work

I like the idea of Flex and giving the 319 a new lease of life..

 

[Starmill]

You're not in the minority; I like the original 319 front as well. Less keen on the later version that the 319/1s ( now 319/3s ) came out with.

Is the difference really visible!? I have never noticed a difference, except in the cab door having a slightly different shape (and maybe the 'plough' shape).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Is the difference really visible!? I have never noticed a difference, except in the cab door having a slightly different shape (and maybe the 'plough' shape).

It was very noticeable with the original NSE livery; less so with subsequent liveries when the front end fairings were generally made darker.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I never knew that there was two different versions, are there any good photos online that anyone knows of, with the two versions side-by-side?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

319s have ugly fronts anyway.

To me, they have a "dated" look to them.

 

[samuelmorris]

I think it's fairly obviously a matter of personal taste - I much prefer the front end of 321s to 319s but have seen plenty of people that think the former look terrible.
The issue came about when the units were going to see fairly extensive refurbishment, you couldn't really get away with pretending a refurbished 319 was a new train with a front end looking like that. Presumably now that cost has become more important with what has happened to the pricing of the class 230, plus the fact that the proposed refurbishment omits air conditioning and possibly some other contemporary features as well, I don't think it's considered necessary any longer.

 

[physics34]

I never knew that there was two different versions, are there any good photos online that anyone knows of, with the two versions side-by-side?

you could tell by the shades of NSE grey used, the fairings, the fact the /1s had 1st class and the interior panelling.

 

[physics34]

I think it's fairly obviously a matter of personal taste - I much prefer the front end of 321s to 319s but have seen plenty of people that think the former look terrible.
The issue came about when the units were going to see fairly extensive refurbishment, you couldn't really get away with pretending a refurbished 319 was a new train with a front end looking like that. Presumably now that cost has become more important with what has happened to the pricing of the class 230, plus the fact that the proposed refurbishment omits air conditioning and possibly some other contemporary features as well, I don't think it's considered necessary any longer.

im not a fan of "large windscreens" overall, so do find the 321s worse.