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

[Peter Sarf]

The 319s were old and prone to failure. The only EMU I’ve had fail on me in service as a passenger. Others who drove and operated them will be more reliable than I am.
We now get 30-year old 323s from Birmingham, again who knows how much good life they have left in them.
The 769s are unreliability piled on unreliability. The concept is not matched by the reality.

Your point is a typical London one - they worked fine from new until we got rid of them!

Well why not cough up and rent some new EMUs then.

I ought to add (to cover the Bi-Mode 769s) probably safer to finish the electrification properly and dispense with the need for Bi-Modes.

 

[Bob Price]

Procurement of stock can only happen if the DfT allows it. If you ask Northern if they are happy with their stock then would guess the answer would be no. The 196's and 331's seem to be OK, but we all know the 150's, 155's and 156's are coming to the end of their lives. I would guess bi-modes will replace them.

 

[jfollows]

Procurement of stock can only happen if the DfT allows it. If you ask Northern if they are happy with their stock then would guess the answer would be no. The 196's and 331's seem to be OK, but we all know the 150's, 155's and 156's are coming to the end of their lives. I would guess bi-modes will replace them.

And, back to the question, the 150s are either more numerous or more reliable (probably both) than the 769s, at least in my experience when they frequently replaced them on the Alderley Edge services. I don’t think much has changed since then other than that I don’t have to suffer either these days.

 

[flyer]

At Northern we seem to get all the old stock. Admittedly the 195/331’s are new but only 2 & 3 coaches. We desperately need 4 coaches on many routes due to overcrowding.
The 150’s are absolute wrecks these days. Probably more reliable the 769’s but an awful thing to travel on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2025 ==

4 coaches minimum that should read.
This mornings rush hour 170 was standing room only and the afternoon 14:27 out of Leeds 3 car 158 I caught home almost all seats taken.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2025 ==

Not even rush hour

 

[AM9]

It would have been better if there had been more electrification. Then unmodified 319s or the 321s would have been better/simpler. I know they are second hand BUT if it meant electrification happened I would be happy.

The 319s seemed to perform OK on Thameslink. But then I do not know how much they were run down when those maintaining them knew they were going, how long did they fester out of use and goodness knows how they have fared after gaining diesel engines etc etc. I suppose comparison needs to made with the unmodified straight electric 319s that Northern had.

I agree that the 319s were OK on Thameslink having used them exclusively between 1993 and the mid -teens. Right up to then the only failure that affected me was when the changeover from DC to OLE failed at Farringdon, (which might bear some relationship to their issues as 769s. During their cascading to Allerton for the newly electrified Chat Moss services I travelled to the NW to experience them there and although were running at a lower speed than on the MML, they were coping just as well. At that time there were many posts here reporting their unreliability on Northern services, (often with such reported failures as 'lack of available drivers' ) by some who seemed disenchanted that they weren't brand new, but there were many posts indicating that Allerton were on a steep learning curve in caring for their maintenance. I could still travel from St Pancras to St Albans in 18 minutes on the remaining 319s, so maybe the essential ingredient was the spcific skills and experience that it took Allerton some time to acquire.
When the 769s were announced for bimode operation, the conmments here switched to their (on paper) lack of power vs additional weight. That might ba an argument for those in south Wales, but the gradient on the routes they were taking in the NW were pretty tame compared with the Thamesllink core and as far as I know, the MAN engines and their gensets haven't been subject of the frequent breakdowns, howeverI Now the 769s are the only ex-Thameslink trains running in the northwest the breakdowns are reported here but without much detail of the actual causes. I have travelled on 769424 which not only performed as required, but also was quite happy at 70+mph, - quiet and comfortable. Comments in other 769 threads here seem to put too many failure down to a lack of motor overhaul. That is an abject failure of maintenance, - overhauling DC traction motors was practiced by the Southern Railway and BR Southern Region on EE 507s and derivatives that were over 50 years old, and they still gave solid service.

 

[diligentdave]

I agree that the 319s were OK on Thameslink having used them exclusively between 1993 and the mid -teens. Right up to then the only failure that affected me was when the changeover from DC to OLE failed at Farringdon, (which might bear some relationship to their issues as 769s. During their cascading to Allerton for the newly electrified Chat Moss services I travelled to the NW to experience them there and although were running at a lower speed than on the MML, they were coping just as well. At that time there were many posts here reporting their unreliability on Northern services, (often with such reported failures as 'lack of available drivers' ) by some who seemed disenchanted that they weren't brand new, but there were many posts indicating that Allerton were on a steep learning curve in caring for their maintenance. I could still travel from St Pancras to St Albans in 18 minutes on the remaining 319s, so maybe the essential ingredient was the spcific skills and experience that it took Allerton some time to acquire.
When the 769s were announced for bimode operation, the conmments here switched to their (on paper) lack of power vs additional weight. That might ba an argument for those in south Wales, but the gradient on the routes they were taking in the NW were pretty tame compared with the Thamesllink core and as far as I know, the MAN engines and their gensets haven't been subject of the frequent breakdowns, howeverI Now the 769s are the only ex-Thameslink trains running in the northwest the breakdowns are reported here but without much detail of the actual causes. I have travelled on 769424 which not only performed as required, but also was quite happy at 70+mph, - quiet and comfortable. Comments in other 769 threads here seem to put too many failure down to a lack of motor overhaul. That is an abject failure of maintenance, - overhauling DC traction motors was practiced by the Southern Railway and BR Southern Region on EE 507s and derivatives that were over 50 years old, and they still gave solid service.

Having worked on 319's since their introduction to Selhurst in 1988 and throughout my career "down south" the traction motors (GEC G315BZ's) have always been a source of failure and I've always found not as good as the EE507's, which were definitely easier to maintain.

Imagine my delight (sic) years later when working "up North" when I was asked to get involved in a "new" fleet of trains being introduced, the 319's! (and subsequently the 769's).

The driving techniques up north initially were defined as gently, gently (although the braking techniques were mainly classed as "slam it into 3") when the 319/3's were introduce to service which really had a detrimental effect on the T/M's when pulling away from a brake intervention. A lot of the GEC T/M's now have "ovality" on their commutators which have to be carefully managed.

The effect of having engines slung underneath what is in effect a Mk3 bodyshell (all York built trains are the same, 150's, 317's, 319's etc.) doesn't help the characteristics of a 319 (now 769) but it does work to an extent, it's just the electrickery that gets a bit confused and has to be helped out. Plus, not having the right sort of support levels for the MAN engines doesn't help on failures.

The depot do their best with the parts/tools/systems available to them but trying to maintain rolling stock (3 different types of varying age in one allocation) is tricky and requires careful planning and manning, something sometimes they never get the luxury of.

 

[Bikeman78]

Yes, Porterbrook are paying for it all. Now that they own 49% of Brodies they effectively have in-house engineering facilities available. They are very determined to make the 769 project work. Whether they can remains to be seen.

I can't see them ever getting much above 2000 miles per failure. Meanwhile, the class 150s going for scrap are still managing 6000 miles per failure.

 

[AM9]

Having worked on 319's since their introduction to Selhurst in 1988 and throughout my career "down south" the traction motors (GEC G315BZ's) have always been a source of failure and I've always found not as good as the EE507's, which were definitely easier to maintain.

Imagine my delight (sic) years later when working "up North" when I was asked to get involved in a "new" fleet of trains being introduced, the 319's! (and subsequently the 769's).

The driving techniques up north initially were defined as gently, gently (although the braking techniques were mainly classed as "slam it into 3") when the 319/3's were introduce to service which really had a detrimental effect on the T/M's when pulling away from a brake intervention. A lot of the GEC T/M's now have "ovality" on their commutators which have to be carefully managed.

The effect of having engines slung underneath what is in effect a Mk3 bodyshell (all York built trains are the same, 150's, 317's, 319's etc.) doesn't help the characteristics of a 319 (now 769) but it does work to an extent, it's just the electrickery that gets a bit confused and has to be helped out. Plus, not having the right sort of support levels for the MAN engines doesn't help on failures.

The depot do their best with the parts/tools/systems available to them but trying to maintain rolling stock (3 different types of varying age in one allocation) is tricky and requires careful planning and manning, something sometimes they never get the luxury of.

Thanks for the inside story, particularly about the 319s in their TL role. My comments weren't meant to read as a criticism of the maintenamce provided at Allerton, - if any direct criticism is due it should fall on the shoulders of those who managed the re-deployment of the trains in the northwest without any serious preparation for their use. I also remember posts here mentioning the support provided for ther Northern maintainers.
From a passenger point of view, given the twenty plus years of thrashing up and down the BML and especially the MML, their issues that you mention did not seen to be a major problem. I assume the running with one or more motors switched out was often down to the motors ovality state, but other than a slightly sluggish performance, and the frequent wheelspin owing to poor railhead conditions, they were quite acceptable for the majority of journeys.

 

[Soft Hands]

769431 being hauled by 37884 (currently).

Realtime Trains | 5Q08 1129 Allerton Depot to Kilmarnock Bonnyton Depot | 14/01/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q08 1129 departure from Allerton Depot to Kilmarnock Bonnyton Depot on 14/01/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Not going well then...

 

[Peter Sarf]

I agree that the 319s were OK on Thameslink having used them exclusively between 1993 and the mid -teens. Right up to then the only failure that affected me was when the changeover from DC to OLE failed at Farringdon, (which might bear some relationship to their issues as 769s. During their cascading to Allerton for the newly electrified Chat Moss services I travelled to the NW to experience them there and although were running at a lower speed than on the MML, they were coping just as well. At that time there were many posts here reporting their unreliability on Northern services, (often with such reported failures as 'lack of available drivers' ) by some who seemed disenchanted that they weren't brand new, but there were many posts indicating that Allerton were on a steep learning curve in caring for their maintenance. I could still travel from St Pancras to St Albans in 18 minutes on the remaining 319s, so maybe the essential ingredient was the spcific skills and experience that it took Allerton some time to acquire.
When the 769s were announced for bimode operation, the conmments here switched to their (on paper) lack of power vs additional weight. That might ba an argument for those in south Wales, but the gradient on the routes they were taking in the NW were pretty tame compared with the Thamesllink core and as far as I know, the MAN engines and their gensets haven't been subject of the frequent breakdowns, howeverI Now the 769s are the only ex-Thameslink trains running in the northwest the breakdowns are reported here but without much detail of the actual causes. I have travelled on 769424 which not only performed as required, but also was quite happy at 70+mph, - quiet and comfortable. Comments in other 769 threads here seem to put too many failure down to a lack of motor overhaul. That is an abject failure of maintenance, - overhauling DC traction motors was practiced by the Southern Railway and BR Southern Region on EE 507s and derivatives that were over 50 years old, and they still gave solid service.

Thank you. A very interesting and detailed reply.

Having worked on 319's since their introduction to Selhurst in 1988 and throughout my career "down south" the traction motors (GEC G315BZ's) have always been a source of failure and I've always found not as good as the EE507's, which were definitely easier to maintain.

Imagine my delight (sic) years later when working "up North" when I was asked to get involved in a "new" fleet of trains being introduced, the 319's! (and subsequently the 769's).

The driving techniques up north initially were defined as gently, gently (although the braking techniques were mainly classed as "slam it into 3") when the 319/3's were introduce to service which really had a detrimental effect on the T/M's when pulling away from a brake intervention. A lot of the GEC T/M's now have "ovality" on their commutators which have to be carefully managed.

The effect of having engines slung underneath what is in effect a Mk3 bodyshell (all York built trains are the same, 150's, 317's, 319's etc.) doesn't help the characteristics of a 319 (now 769) but it does work to an extent, it's just the electrickery that gets a bit confused and has to be helped out. Plus, not having the right sort of support levels for the MAN engines doesn't help on failures.

The depot do their best with the parts/tools/systems available to them but trying to maintain rolling stock (3 different types of varying age in one allocation) is tricky and requires careful planning and manning, something sometimes they never get the luxury of.

Logically there would be teething problems as a new depot gets to grips with a new to them fleet.
So driving technique might have something to do with reliability.
The 319s and 769s do of course present as microfleets as compered to being a fleet of 100 units at Selhurst. Microfleets do absorb more effort per unit to support than a larger fleet.
The 769s, regardless of age, will be more of a challenge than a 319 do to extra complexity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2025 ==

I guess the ROSCO is paying for all of this? It seems strange that they keep on chucking money at a fleet that often manages 25% availability. Imagine if the 150s or 156s were that bad. It would be chaos.

I just remembered your post.

My guess is Porterbrook will withstand the R&D costs and also teething trouble costs as they might be viewing the potential for use of about 100 319s. Maybe more if other Mark3 based EMUs (321s) are candidates but I seem to recall they do not have a DC bus.

Being obsessed with electrification I would like to see more electrification being possible in the UK. That is possible if the trains required can be got on the cheap. So secondhand EMUs with life left in them would be ideal provided they out perform the DMUs they are replacing (which wear out earlier then EMUs and cost more to keep going).

I expect that if Northern had more money they would have had more four car 331s in preference to the 319s. The 769s do not really have an alternative - yet.

 

[Gricer99]

769431 has just been dragged through Preston by 37884. Off to Kilmarnock apparently.

 

[skyhigh]

My guess is Porterbrook will withstand the R&D costs and also teething trouble costs as they might be viewing the potential for use of about 100 319s

Bit late for that now. According to Wiki, 86 units built, 36 scrapped and already a fair proportion of the remainder converted to something else.

 

[Bertie the bus]

My guess is Porterbrook will withstand the R&D costs and also teething trouble costs as they might be viewing the potential for use of about 100 319s. Maybe more if other Mark3 based EMUs (321s) are candidates but I seem to recall they do not have a DC bus.

This makes little sense. The 769s aren't suffering teething troubles. They were converted about 8 years ago. They just don't work.

Porterbrook won't be viewing the potential use of about 100 319s because I think there are only about 2 of them and those are owned by ROG and converted for parcel traffic.

Porterbrook also won't be considering converting 321s as they don't own them. Eversholt do.

 

[Gricer99]

This entry from Wikipedia sums up what a poor experience this has been for the public:
Originally scheduled to begin entering service with previous Northern franchise operator (Arriva Rail North) in May 2018, they were later expected to start operating in the first half of 2019.[24] Northern planned to deploy its Class 769s on services between Wigan North Western, Alderley Edge and Stalybridge. Northern had stated their intention to extend these services from Wigan to Southport from December 2019. Previously, there were plans to operate Class 769 units on the Lakes line.[25]

The Class 769s entered service with government-owned operator Northern Trains in May 2021.

 

[david l]

769431 being towed by 37884 to Brodies got as far as Oxenholme loop where 769431 was left behind.........brake problems apparently. 37884 carried on solo.
Seemed to be ok in a fairly sharp departure from Preston!!

 

[thealexweb]

769431 being towed by 37884 to Brodies got as far as Oxenholme loop where 769431 was left behind.........brake problems apparently. 37884 carried on solo.
Seemed to be ok in a fairly sharp departure from Preston!!

Northern crew have driven 319s up to Oxenholme before on training runs. Could another 769 head up and retrieve it?

 

[Soft Hands]

769431 being towed by 37884 to Brodies got as far as Oxenholme loop where 769431 was left behind.........brake problems apparently. 37884 carried on solo.
Seemed to be ok in a fairly sharp departure from Preston!!

I know I'm a bit "old school" but why couldn't they drive the thing. There must be ROG men these days who sign 769's, they seem to sign all other forms of Northern DMU/EMU for unit moves. 769's were out "on test" from Kilmarnock not that long ago in Scotland IIRC? Besides the ROG driver on the 37 would need to know the brake system, isolating cocks etc. on one anyway if he or she was towing it.

 

[Nym]

I know I'm a bit "old school" but why couldn't they drive the thing. There must be ROG men these days who sign 769's, they seem to sign all other forms of Northern DMU/EMU for unit moves. 769's were out "on test" from Kilmarnock not that long ago in Scotland IIRC? Besides the ROG driver on the 37 would need to know the brake system, isolating cocks etc. on one anyway if he or she was towing it.

Knowing how to configure a unit for a braked drag with an adaptor box and knowing how to drive it are two completely different things…!

 

[diligentdave]

I know I'm a bit "old school" but why couldn't they drive the thing. There must be ROG men these days who sign 769's, they seem to sign all other forms of Northern DMU/EMU for unit moves. 769's were out "on test" from Kilmarnock not that long ago in Scotland IIRC? Besides the ROG driver on the 37 would need to know the brake system, isolating cocks etc. on one anyway if he or she was towing it.

769's cannot operate on overhead lines outside of their current operating area without further modification. The upgrade works in the Liverpool area has meant that the software that controls the traction package is a modified software for just these units. To travel further North would mean having to demodify the units at some point in their journey.

 

[david l]

769's cannot operate on overhead lines outside of their current operating area without further modification. The upgrade works in the Liverpool area has meant that the software that controls the traction package is a modified software for just these units. To travel further North would mean having to demodify the units at some point in their journey.

Will that include Lostock Junc-Wigan Station Junc, when that starts? TIA.

 

[Bikeman78]

My guess is Porterbrook will withstand the R&D costs and also teething trouble costs as they might be viewing the potential for use of about 100 319s. Maybe more if other Mark3 based EMUs (321s) are candidates but I seem to recall they do not have a DC bus.

I think the class 769 project was a worthwhile experiment but it hasn't really worked out. They are still very close to the bottom of the reliability tables. The C6 overhaul would have been an ideal opportunity to drop them quietly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2025 ==

769's cannot operate on overhead lines outside of their current operating area without further modification. The upgrade works in the Liverpool area has meant that the software that controls the traction package is a modified software for just these units. To travel further North would mean having to demodify the units at some point in their journey.

Can you elaborate on this? So long as they have a 25kV supply, how does the unit know, or care, where it is?

 

[Soft Hands]

769's cannot operate on overhead lines outside of their current operating area without further modification. The upgrade works in the Liverpool area has meant that the software that controls the traction package is a modified software for just these units. To travel further North would mean having to demodify the units at some point in their journey.

Thank you as always Dave for your valued insights into the life history of the "troubled" Northern 769's!

 

[diligentdave]

I think the class 769 project was a worthwhile experiment but it hasn't really worked out. They are still very close to the bottom of the reliability tables. The C6 overhaul would have been an ideal opportunity to drop them quietly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2025 ==


Can you elaborate on this? So long as they have a 25kV supply, how does the unit know, or care, where it is?

So, 25kV supplies is a long used railway term for the overhead wires.

The overheads don't actually run "at" 25kV, they fluctuate. Recent standards when renewing AC overhead equipment (EN50163 is the standard - this is for trackside equipment) allow for higher transient voltages than previously found when the equipment was first installed. When a unit leaves a Neutral section and the AC overheads are picked back up by the train, the AC equipment on a 319/769 (and 350's as well) monitors the voltage present and if it is above that which is set in the electronics it causes the unit to "sit down" until the voltage drops (usually when another unit enters the same section).

This voltage measurement on 319/769's is set at a maximum of 28.89kV, anything above that and the unit loses power. The 319's & 769's have been modified to anything above the 28.89kV to a maximum of 30kV.

These type of voltages are found in the Liverpool area (and some Midlands) but the WCML hasn't been upgraded to the new standard, therefore if a Northern 769 (not any others) operates outside of the limits of the overhead that it currently works, the traction electronics has difficulty registering the lower voltages.

 

[gmaguire]

So, 25kV supplies is a long used railway term for the overhead wires.

The overheads don't actually run "at" 25kV, they fluctuate. Recent standards when renewing AC overhead equipment (EN50163 is the standard - this is for trackside equipment) allow for higher transient voltages than previously found when the equipment was first installed. When a unit leaves a Neutral section and the AC overheads are picked back up by the train, the AC equipment on a 319/769 (and 350's as well) monitors the voltage present and if it is above that which is set in the electronics it causes the unit to "sit down" until the voltage drops (usually when another unit enters the same section).

This voltage measurement on 319/769's is set at a maximum of 28.89kV, anything above that and the unit loses power. The 319's & 769's have been modified to anything above the 28.89kV to a maximum of 30kV.

These type of voltages are found in the Liverpool area (and some Midlands) but the WCML hasn't been upgraded to the new standard, therefore if a Northern 769 (not any others) operates outside of the limits of the overhead that it currently works, the traction electronics has difficulty registering the lower voltages.

If they can tolerate voltage up to 30kV why is a lower voltage a problem?

 

[Peter Sarf]

So, 25kV supplies is a long used railway term for the overhead wires.

The overheads don't actually run "at" 25kV, they fluctuate. Recent standards when renewing AC overhead equipment (EN50163 is the standard - this is for trackside equipment) allow for higher transient voltages than previously found when the equipment was first installed. When a unit leaves a Neutral section and the AC overheads are picked back up by the train, the AC equipment on a 319/769 (and 350's as well) monitors the voltage present and if it is above that which is set in the electronics it causes the unit to "sit down" until the voltage drops (usually when another unit enters the same section).

This voltage measurement on 319/769's is set at a maximum of 28.89kV, anything above that and the unit loses power. The 319's & 769's have been modified to anything above the 28.89kV to a maximum of 30kV.

These type of voltages are found in the Liverpool area (and some Midlands) but the WCML hasn't been upgraded to the new standard, therefore if a Northern 769 (not any others) operates outside of the limits of the overhead that it currently works, the traction electronics has difficulty registering the lower voltages.

I thought the difference was that the Northern 319s/769s can tolerate a bigger voltage RANGE. So running on a less variable route tan they are adapted for should not upset the unit. Or are you saying these modified units can no longer tolerate the normal lower voltages found elsewhere ?.

 

[thealexweb]

I walked Lostock to Bolton and back this morning and all the Wigan bound traffic seems to be sprinters. I have not looked at RTT but there cannot be many 769s out if any.

 

[Killingworth]

I walked Lostock to Bolton and back this morning and all the Wigan bound traffic seems to be sprinters. I have not looked at RTT but there cannot be many 769s out if any.

I see 769450 and 769456 as running on RTT

 

[warwickshire]

Monday 20th January 2025.

1. 5Q08, 1308 Oxenholme isu Sidings to Kilmarnock Bonnytown cancelled again, ongoing brake issue according to Old Rail Record Website, obviously 769431 doesn't want to leave the North West.

37884 went to collect 769431, but could not move 769431, and 37884 returned to Derby.

769431 remains at Oxenholme Sidings for another spell of time.

However next time around, will 769431 ie need the barrier vehicles to finally move it.

 

[M60lad]

769448 was also running as I saw it on my way to work passing through Miles Platting on 11:55 Stalybridge service to Southport

I am surprised though that it was allowed to be out in service as it had been tagged somewhere recently and I thought Northern didn't like trains to be out in service when tagged and usually took them out of service at the earliest opportunity and sent to depot for the tag to be cleaned off in fact unless it was cleaned off overnight the said same unit is actually out today.

 

[david l]

5 out today which is higher than for many weeks, especially as 769431 is out of the equation still at Oxenholme.