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

[Plethora]

It's nothing to do with the 769s though is it, since by definition they're for different routes. Nor having 769s would place added strain on the diesel fleet, not the electric. More DMUs would be needed, not 323s.

I thought the original plan was to replace 323s with 319 and 769 (and 331 in due course) on various routes? Certainly my understanding was the 323s were due off lease soon. Happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood something. .

 

[JBuchananGB]

The local rag in Southport reports that the 769s will be introduced from December, with an hourly service to/from Alderley Edge.

 

[Aivilo]

Don't know how true it is but 323s are apparently sticking around as the TOC they were being cascaded to no longer want them

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Don't know how true it is but 323s are apparently sticking around as the TOC they were being cascaded to no longer want them

That's not really correct.
No TOC wanted the 323s, Northern decided on a 319/331 mix and WMT has ordered new Aventras.
It was the ROSCO (Porterbrook) that wanted all the 323s to go to WMT, but they didn't bite.
Northern has no scope (money or need) to keep the 323s as well as the 319/331s long term.
In any case the EMU requirement has reduced because of electrification cutbacks.
So "sticking around" is only likely until the 331s are in full service.
319s also have a higher capacity than 323s, and they will also be needed in 769 guise for bi-mode routes.
Both types have about 10 years of life left in them.

 

[jonesy3001]

the 323s are staying with the WMT batch joining as they're quicker then a 319 when it comes to the crewe - manchester - liverpool services when they have a pendolino behind them.
The 319s will be likely become 769s.

 

[Aivilo]

Not correct but more or less what you have stated.

Obviously internal Comms has went a bit wayward but what we were told was that they were no longer wanted/required by WMT and would stay in the fleet. Was also advised that them not going created storage issues for the 331s so just have been something half proposed

 

[js1000]

That's not really correct.
No TOC wanted the 323s, Northern decided on a 319/331 mix and WMT has ordered new Aventras.
It was the ROSCO (Porterbrook) that wanted all the 323s to go to WMT, but they didn't bite.
Northern has no scope (money or need) to keep the 323s as well as the 319/331s long term.
In any case the EMU requirement has reduced because of electrification cutbacks.
So "sticking around" is only likely until the 331s are in full service.
319s also have a higher capacity than 323s, and they will also be needed in 769 guise for bi-mode routes.
Both types have about 10 years of life left in them.

Without going off topic, a refurbished 323 has 15-20 years left in it. A 319 barely has 5. The problem for the 319s is they can't run as doubled-up 8 coach units on Northern lines whereas the 323s could operate as 6 on major routes.

 

[a_c_skinner]

A 319 barely has 5

You may be correct, but could you explain a bit?

 

[js1000]

You may be correct, but could you explain a bit?

Rickety, noisy, dated, cramped layout etc. The 319/769s represent an upgrade on the Pacers and 150s they will mostly replace, but certainly not the 323s.

 

[Mathew S]

Rickety, noisy, dated, cramped layout etc. The 319/769s represent an upgrade on the Pacers and 150s they will mostly replace, but certainly not the 323s.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. 319s, by comparison with 323s, I find positively luxurious. Both are 3+2, so no difference there, but the actual seats on the 319 are so much more comfortable. And as for noise, I'll take anything, anything over that hideous whine that 323s make every stop. It's up there with a crowd of drunk football fans as the most annoying noise on the planet in my opinion. I'd honestly rather use a 150 than a 323, nasty, noisy, uncomfortable things.

 

[AM9]

Rickety, noisy, dated, cramped layout etc. The 319/769s represent an upgrade on the Pacers and 150s they will mostly replace, but certainly not the 323s.

So that's your opinion which you are entitled to, but that doesn't make it a fact.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Rickety, noisy, dated, cramped layout etc.

Yep, that did for the Pacers years ago.

I'm afraid the situation in the North is so dismal it is any port in a storm for more capacity. I suppose the same in South Wales. GWR doubtless wanted a dual voltage dual mode solution and this seemed "off the peg" for that.

I still fear they cannot be made to work properly.

 

[anamyd]

Does anyone know the exact situation with TfW 769-002 is, and what is planned to be done with it...? I heard that Network Rail won't clear the class on what was Valley Lines until some modification is made as something sticks out or something...?

 

[31160]

Somebody said the other day that the 769's can only go up to Rhumney and cant go on any other branch because of coach length, dunno if that's right but they are based on a MK3 body so it has a ring of truth, pity is there is usually some swapping of different branch units during disruption so they won't be able to do that anymore

 

[JN114]

Somebody said the other day that the 769's can only go up to Rhumney and cant go on any other branch because of coach length, dunno if that's right but they are based on a MK3 body so it has a ring of truth, pity is there is usually some swapping of different branch units during disruption so they won't be able to do that anymore

They’re as much based on a Mk3 coach as a 150 is, they’re virtually identical. If they’re to be restricted only to Rhymney - and I’m not sure that is the case - it won’t be coach lengths.

 

[PHILIPE]

Does anyone know the exact situation with TfW 769-002 is, and what is planned to be done with it...? I heard that Network Rail won't clear the class on what was Valley Lines until some modification is made as something sticks out or something...?

There is already discussion covering clearance to Rhymney here:-

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/transport-for-wales-769s.179770/#post-3945990

 

[keith1879]

Rickety, noisy, dated, cramped layout etc. The 319/769s represent an upgrade on the Pacers and 150s they will mostly replace, but certainly not the 323s.

The idea that a 319 is cramped compared to a 323 is laughable. Any airline seat in a 323 (ie most seats) is painful for me to sit in due to insufficient legroom..whether it's the pitch of the seats the angle of the back or the thickness of the padding is irrelevant - they are physically painful. By contrast I can sit anywhjere on a 319 in comfort.

 

[anamyd]

There is already discussion covering clearance to Rhymney here:-

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/transport-for-wales-769s.179770/#post-3945990

Thanks

 

[anamyd]

Somebody said the other day that the 769's can only go up to Rhumney and cant go on any other branch because of coach length, dunno if that's right but they are based on a MK3 body so it has a ring of truth, pity is there is usually some swapping of different branch units during disruption so they won't be able to do that anymore

At less than 20m I'm curious to know what the issue with coach length might be...?

 

[js1000]

So that's your opinion which you are entitled to, but that doesn't make it a fact.

When did I say it was "fact"? It was clearly someone else's opinion on if 319s are a good train to travel on.

No idea why are individuals so needlessly passive aggressive on here sometimes. Makes you think you all live hermit lives and don't understand the concept of a forum where people share opinions and thoughts.

 

[js1000]

The idea that a 319 is cramped compared to a 323 is laughable. Any airline seat in a 323 (ie most seats) is painful for me to sit in due to insufficient legroom..whether it's the pitch of the seats the angle of the back or the thickness of the padding is irrelevant - they are physically painful. By contrast I can sit anywhjere on a 319 in comfort.

The seat height is all wrong on the 319 which bothers me as they've never resolved it and exacerbates the impression of it being a cramped interior. (to me anyway)

 

[Plethora]

My main gripe with the 319s (especially the more recently refurbished ones) has never been comfort, but the unit's lack of agility which makes it unsuitable for stopping services. The age is really starting to show on some of them.

 

[_toommm_]

My main gripe with the 319s (especially the more recently refurbished ones) has never been comfort, but the unit's lack of agility which makes it unsuitable for stopping services. The age is really starting to show on some of them.

The speed - or lack thereof - really shows on the Lime St. to Crewe via Airport stoppers - I get them most mornings from Oxford Rd. to Heald Green and it's just painful.

 

[Greybeard33]

There has been comment in another thread about the ongoing high failure rate of Northern's 319 fleet, causing frequent DMU substitutions. This does not bode well for the 769.

Am I right in thinking that the conversion package does not include any reliability improvement mods?

 

[cheese]

The idea that a 319 is cramped compared to a 323 is laughable. Any airline seat in a 323 (ie most seats) is painful for me to sit in due to insufficient legroom..whether it's the pitch of the seats the angle of the back or the thickness of the padding is irrelevant - they are physically painful. By contrast I can sit anywhjere on a 319 in comfort.

People have such high expectations! I went on a 323 the other day - it was cheaper, faster and far more comfortable than the bus I had to take to the station. And I got a seat!

 

[JN114]

There has been comment in another thread about the ongoing high failure rate of Northern's 319 fleet, causing frequent DMU substitutions. This does not bode well for the 769.

Am I right in thinking that the conversion package does not include any reliability improvement mods?

A reliability enhancement package is one of the options offered upon conversion in the brochure. There is no info that I’m aware of publicly available that shows whether the train operator concerned has opted for that option or not. I presume there is a cost involved for it to be an option.

 

[js1000]

There has been comment in another thread about the ongoing high failure rate of Northern's 319 fleet, causing frequent DMU substitutions. This does not bode well for the 769.

Am I right in thinking that the conversion package does not include any reliability improvement mods?

Wasn't 319 reliability with Thameslink not great before they moved to Northern? I thought it was one of the reasons they were replaced by new units.

In my experience, the doors on the 319s are dodgy. I've come across multiple Northern units where the doors simply have failed to open / jammed.

 

[Ken H]

Wasn't 319 reliability with Thameslink not great before they moved to Northern? I thought it was one of the reasons they were replaced by new units.

In my experience, the doors on the 319s are dodgy. I've come across multiple Northern units where the doors simply have failed to open / jammed.

Are they not the same doors as Cl150?

Some train doors have little wheels that run in the grooves in the treadplate. These wheels get jammed with crud from the treadplate so jam.

Long ago I read in Modern Railways about a tube train built with little nylon wheels. They started to squeak, so someone oiled them. They got jammed with crud and hair and caused door failures.

 

[coppercapped]

Wasn't 319 reliability with Thameslink not great before they moved to Northern? I thought it was one of the reasons they were replaced by new units.
SNIPPED

The trains were replaced by trains of increased capacity - both in terms of accommodation and performance - because fitting ETCS for operation through the 'core' of Thamselink at the planned 24 trains per hour was not feasible or economic and because an enlarged and consistent fleet was required for the extension of Thameslink to the Great Northern lines.

 

[swt_passenger]

The trains were replaced by trains of increased capacity - both in terms of accommodation and performance - because fitting ETCS for operation through the 'core' of Thamselink at the planned 24 trains per hour was not feasible or economic and because an enlarged and consistent fleet was required for the extension of Thameslink to the Great Northern lines.

As you say, and just to add numbers for comparison the Class 319 fleet total was only 344 x 20m vehicles. Class 700 fleet total is 1140 x 20m vehicles, well over 3 times the size. Keeping the 319s as a small minority of a mixed fleet, even if they could have been modified for ETCS/ATO, was never a reasonable option.

Now it might be that their planned maintenance was run down towards the end, especially as the expected move to FGW was abandoned, but that isn’t a factor unique to Thameslink, it seems to affect every offlease fleet to som3 degree.