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

[PHILIPE]

That's where it was sourced from, but, it did seem pertinent to the 769 thread as quotes from Porterbrook are almost as rare as wheel turns on these units.

Agreed. No harm in mentioning in both threads

 

[36270k]

A simpler design for the 769 may be to add a Stadler flirt type diesel module to a Class 321

 

[47802]

A simpler design for the 769 may be to add a Stadler flirt type diesel module to a Class 321

Oh yes Im sure that would be simple NOT!

 

[HSTEd]

319 would be more amenable to an extra carriage solution than a 321.

You could put an extra vehicle into the formation and tie the generator into the extant third rail bus.

Self contained short vehicle that generates power whenever an appropriate signal is on the MU bus (selected from the extant signals or the spare train lines), but otherwise just adjusts power output to hold the third rail bus voltage at the required value (~800V).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A simpler design for the 769 may be to add a Stadler flirt type diesel module to a Class 321

Without being needlessly facetious like the above-but-one post, one of the problems with using a 321 in such a way is the lack of a DC busline running the full length of the unit, to carry the current generated by the diesel generator. So the module would need to be adjacent to the motor coach which would be a problem if there wasn't room to make it walk-through.

There are many other issues with your casual proposal, but there's no need for the snotty attitude expressed by some members on here. Considering the "roaring success" of the 769 project so far, pretty much any proposal is at the very least worthy of casual discussion, even if it does turn out to be unworkable.

We can't all be engineers, you know.

 

[squizzler]

A simpler design for the 769 may be to add a Stadler flirt type diesel module to a Class 321

I don't know whether you speculated this diesel module would be a donor vehicle or have to be new build. If the latter, you would kiss goodbye to whatever time and cost benefits of not having to build and fully homologate a new type of rail vehicle, you would still be left with a big job of integrating the power car into the 319 electrics and - worse - the diesel engines would get a lovely new coach and the passengers would be in the crappy old 1980s carriages. Kinda worst of all worlds.

Short answer, don't be flirting with a Flirt diesel module, just go all the way and buy the rest of the train at the same time!

 

[The_Engineer]

A simpler design for the 769 may be to add a Stadler flirt type diesel module to a Class 321

The traction system on a Class 321 make this much more difficult than using a Class 319.

 

[superkev]

I wonder what the delay is about. On the face of it strengthening a coach and installing a firewall, fuel tank and generator doesn't seem a huge job.
Perhaps it's the UK's paperwork problem.
K

 

[The_Engineer]

I wonder what the delay is about. On the face of it strengthening a coach and installing a firewall, fuel tank and generator doesn't seem a huge job.
Perhaps it's the UK's paperwork problem.
K

If only it were that simple! There are many more issues to do with noise and vibration, diesel engine control and stability under load, traction system control changes to suit the diesel derived supply, which spring to mind. There will be others.

By UK paperwork I would imagine you mean certification to Network Rail standards. This task is required for all new or modified vehicles. For older vehicles where the structure may be compromised by fatigue and/or corrosion, this is particularly onerous.

 

[humbersidejim]

If only it were that simple! There are many more issues to do with noise and vibration, diesel engine control and stability under load, traction system control changes to suit the diesel derived supply, which spring to mind. There will be others.

By UK paperwork I would imagine you mean certification to Network Rail standards. This task is required for all new or modified vehicles. For older vehicles where the structure may be compromised by fatigue and/or corrosion, this is particularly onerous.

Your final sentence gets to the heart of what I find most incredulous about the entire 769 (and to an extent the 230) programme: The theory is fabulous, but in practice, attaching significant new weight and load to a vehicle which has largely reached the end of its design life and has been worked hard and exposed to the elements over a long career seems..... well..... optimistic.

Is the theory that all this is possible because as built they are structurally similar to class 150 generation vehicles?

 

[edwin_m]

Were the three non-motor cars of the 319 built with a lighter structure than the motored car or the cars of a 150 etc, because they didn't have to carry the weight of the traction equipment?

 

[gingertom]

Were the three non-motor cars of the 319 built with a lighter structure than the motored car or the cars of a 150 etc, because they didn't have to carry the weight of the traction equipment?

they have to carry other essential equipment like compressors and associated air tanks fr the brakes, the HV transformer and electrical control gear. Not lightweight stuff. Plus the driving trailers would need to be of suitable beef to be crash resistant.

 

[AM9]

Were the three non-motor cars of the 319 built with a lighter structure than the motored car or the cars of a 150 etc, because they didn't have to carry the weight of the traction equipment?

If we look at the class442 where the MBRSM seems to be the same construction as the other 4 cars, despite it being 15-19T heavier, (and some of that is on the bogies), so other than the body design stiffness compensating for the pantograph well, I doubt that there is any difference on the 319s apart from the suspension compliance. How much does the engine/genset/fuel tank weigh? Does it weigh much more than a pantograph/transformer/switchgear installation?

 

[Domh245]

they have to carry other essential equipment like compressors and associated air tanks fr the brakes, the HV transformer and electrical control gear. Not lightweight stuff. Plus the driving trailers would need to be of suitable beef to be crash resistant.

On mk3 AC EMUs the transformers are on the motor vehicles as well, the other components that you list weigh very little compared to the stuff hung on the motor vehicles.

 

[gingertom]

On mk3 AC EMUs the transformers are on the motor vehicles as well, the other components that you list weigh very little compared to the stuff hung on the motor vehicles.

point made upthread by another poster was that all the non-traction stuff was spread throughout the remainder of the train to distribute the weight. Perhaps some of it has to be relocated to house the gensets and all their gubbins. It would be handy for us to have a Brush engineer on the forum who could advise. Maybe there is and he/she has a gagging order!

 

[driver_m]

With hindsight. Maybe they should tried creating a 775 first. At least then it wouldn't have had the pressure of TOCs wanting it yesterday, governments basing it as the salvation of Chris Grayling. Plus they'd have more room to play with and give them the ability to refine the work to then to do a 769. The train is then subject only to the technical magazines and the armchair engineers on the forums and social medias. A real shame that 325 was scrapped as it could been a very handy testbed and then also give Royal Mail a go anywhere unit without dragging .

 

[IanXC]

With hindsight. Maybe they should tried creating a 775 first. At least then it wouldn't have had the pressure of TOCs wanting it yesterday, governments basing it as the salvation of Chris Grayling. Plus they'd have more room to play with and give them the ability to refine the work to then to do a 769. The train is then subject only to the technical magazines and the armchair engineers on the forums and social medias. A real shame that 325 was scrapped as it could been a very handy testbed and then also give Royal Mail a go anywhere unit without dragging .

What are you proposing a 775 would be a conversion of?

325s are in service daily...

 

[LOL The Irony]

325s are in service daily..

I think the OP meant 325 010, the scrapped one.

 

[driver_m]

What are you proposing a 775 would be a conversion of?

325s are in service daily...

I did say hindsight. They weren't in use for a long time though. And even now, do DB use all 15 daily? Must have one or two kept back for servicing! Anyway. We're were we are and these units can't be allowed to fail now. As others have said, maybe Wabtec need to learn a bit of humility as they have not handled this situation well at all, whereas Shooter's lot have played a blinder in image terms, even despite their unit combusting.....

 

[Bornin1980s]

I think the OP meant 325 010, the scrapped one.

Why was it scrapped?

 

[507021]

Why was it scrapped?

It was used for spares after being damaged.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On mk3 AC EMUs the transformers are on the motor vehicles as well, the other components that you list weigh very little compared to the stuff hung on the motor vehicles.

In essence that generation of EMU is more like LHCS that happens to have seats and windows in the locomotive and hide the locomotive in the middle of the formation. Or a bit like the Dutch "locos with seats" that were used on the older double deck coaches.

 

[Jonny]

Were the three non-motor cars of the 319 built with a lighter structure than the motored car or the cars of a 150 etc, because they didn't have to carry the weight of the traction equipment?

It is often cheaper to use a standardised design where possible on bulk orders, so it is most likely that they were all essentially the same apart from cab ends and window apertures. They do look near-identical though, as do the class 317s... and the original condition 455s (well apart from the PEP trailer carriages anyway)...

 

[AM9]

In essence that generation of EMU is more like LHCS that happens to have seats and windows in the locomotive and hide the locomotive in the middle of the formation. Or a bit like the Dutch "locos with seats" that were used on the older double deck coaches.

But the body shell of all MKIII coaches/multiple unit cars is substantially the same save for the length (20m or 23m), the provision of a pantograph well, door openings and windows. Those provisions are designed in to maintain the structural integrity of the monocoque body shell for load carrying and crashworthyness. The longer bodies would have a slightly stiffer build buttheres no reason why the class 319 cars currently weighing about 30T would be much different to the class 150 motor cars of about 35T.
I would guess that if heavy equipment load is located under the floor, additional strengthening may be added to maintain the stiffness of the vehicle body when under both dynamic and static loads. Therefore if the engine/gensets require additional body reinforcement, their fitment would include that as part of the modification. It appears that the engine/genset is mounted on a raft so that would distribute the load fairly close to the bogie pivots. The other issue would be the stiffening to the bogie suspension on the modified cars to maintain the dynamic ride characteristics.

 

[gingertom]

But the body shell of all MKIII coaches/multiple unit cars is substantially the same save for the length (20m or 23m), the provision of a pantograph well, door openings and windows. Those provisions are designed in to maintain the structural integrity of the monocoque body shell for load carrying and crashworthyness. The longer bodies would have a slightly stiffer build buttheres no reason why the class 319 cars currently weighing about 30T would be much different to the class 150 motor cars of about 35T.
I would guess that if heavy equipment load is located under the floor, additional strengthening may be added to maintain the stiffness of the vehicle body when under both dynamic and static loads. Therefore if the engine/gensets require additional body reinforcement, their fitment would include that as part of the modification. It appears that the engine/genset is mounted on a raft so that would distribute the load fairly close to the bogie pivots. The other issue would be the stiffening to the bogie suspension on the modified cars to maintain the dynamic ride characteristics.

just looked at the 319 spec on wiki. The motor coach is 20 tonnes heavier than the other 3 coaches so that vehicle will have different suspension settings to maintain the same dynamic ride characteristics of the other 3. Adding the genset rafts, as you say, will require different suspension settings; as this would already have had to be done for the heavier motor vehicle the engineers should know how to compensate for the extra weight. Once this is done would it need further testing and certification- the paperwork referred to in superkev's post #1838?

 

[LOL The Irony]

It probably would have been easier to buy off the shelf bi-modes or ask someone to make some, get them built, tested and homologated for the UK. I'm willing to bet it would have been less hassle.

 

[Non Multi]

It probably would have been easier to buy off the shelf bi-modes or ask someone to make some, get them built, tested and homologated for the UK. I'm willing to bet it would have been less hassle.

Would it? The class 800's testing and introduction was not without problems, set reliability/availability is still not where it should be with GWR.

 

[mushroomchow]

For what it's worth, there was a RTT service from Brush to Doncaster Wabtec due through these parts on Saturday evening, but it was cancelled by the customer (FL - Freightliner?) Not sure if that had anything to do with the 769s, but it was certainly a waste of an evening on my part!

It probably would have been easier to buy off the shelf bi-modes or ask someone to make some, get them built, tested and homologated for the UK. I'm willing to bet it would have been less hassle.

Gotta get that "value for the UK taxpayer" though. It oozes out of every pore of the DfT, which is why for example we're now twiddling our thumbs waiting for sub-par bi-modes on the MML instead of the electrified route we were promised, why similar trains will be slogging over the Transpennine routes for far longer than envisaged and why anybody south of Dawlish has effectively been damned to the elements.

The 769s seem a no-brainer on paper. Cheap "new" trains, green credentials from "upcycling" and valuable extra capacity and flexibility. The problem is, nobody bothered to check if they were A) a workable concept or B) deliverable on time if A was proven true.

As others have said, maybe Wabtec need to learn a bit of humility as they have not handled this situation well at all, whereas Shooter's lot have played a blinder in image terms, even despite their unit combusting.....

There is a certain sense of irony that, at this point in time, it appears to be the 769 project that is going up in flames.

 

[northwichcat]

The 769s seem a no-brainer on paper. Cheap "new" trains, green credentials from "upcycling" and valuable extra capacity and flexibility. The problem is, nobody bothered to check if they were A) a workable concept or B) deliverable on time if A was proven true.

From what I've heard the 769s will be anything but cheap (unless you mean cheap in comparison to a brand new bi-mode Stadler FLIRT) and that timescales provided were the main reason 769s got the go ahead.

 

[northwichcat]

Would it? The class 800's testing and introduction was not without problems, set reliability/availability is still not where it should be with GWR.

How much of that was down to the actual trains? TPE had teething problems with the 350/4s, yet 350s were a tried and tested train but 350s were new to TPE, they were running on a newly electrified section of track plus a section of the WCML that 350s hadn't been used on before.