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

[edwin_m]

"additing diesel engines to an electric unit" would not be patentable. There's a possibility specific parts of the conversion may be, but then there may be more than one possible approach. Especially as the Eversholt and Angel fleets would need the addition of the power connection.

There is clearly Prior Art- the Class 230 for a start.

It would only be patentable if there is some novel design feature, and I suspect if there is anything other than totall proven kit in a micro-fleet conversion any potential operator would run a mile. The drawings etc for the conversion would be copyright of someone, probably Porterbrook, which would prevent anyone else copying them for their own use. However this has little benefit in practice as only Porterbrook owns 319s and other classes are different so anyone proposing to convert one would need new drawings anyway. There's nothing IPR-wise to stop someone else using the same concept in, say, a 321.

 

[Iskra]

This could easily kill off the planned electrification to Windermere.

 

[edwin_m]

Interestingly, the Mk3-based AC EMUs are split over all three principal Roscos.
Porterbrook has the lead as the 319 fleet is coming free, but Angel has the 317s (72 units) and Eversholt the 318/320/321/322s (much the largest owner at 165 units, 43 of which are 3-car).
So we might end up with 3 designs of Mk3 bi-mode if the idea catches on.

This was entirely intentional. At the time of their creation the stock split was specifically devised to divide broadly similar fleets across two or all three ROSCOs. This was supposed to give TOCs a choice of supplier for their fleet requirements, thereby encouraging competition and lower leasing costs.

It didn't work at the time for the obvious reason that practically all the available rolling stock was in use before privatisation and continued in use afterwards, and the pricing mechanisms at the time didn't make new build competitive. With recent changes to franchise terms and in the market now favouring new build, premature withdrawal of some of the Mk3 EMU fleets is a real possibility and we are perhaps starting to see some of the competition and innovation that was supposed to happen 20 years ago.

 

[Elecman]

This could easily kill off the planned electrification to Windermere.

Yes and also Bolton to Wigan

 

[Bletchleyite]

This could easily kill off the planned electrification to Windermere.

Would in a way be a shame, but as the foresight to order new bi-modes was not there, I actually think better work could be done with a uniform set of bi-modes for Barrow and Windermere even if used than with one being DMU and one EMU. The routes are textbook ideal for bi-mode.

 

[Jonny]

Yes and also Bolton to Wigan

Maybe, but it would have potential as an electrified diversion to avoid Chorley (in the longer run, anyway).

 

[Elecman]

Maybe, but it would have potential as an electrified diversion to avoid Chorley (in the longer run, anyway).

That already exists via the Chat Moss route.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes and also Bolton to Wigan

It justifies itself purely for diversionary purposes before services even considered.

 

[TrainfanBen]

Would in a way be a shame, but as the foresight to order new bi-modes was not there, I actually think better work could be done with a uniform set of bi-modes for Barrow and Windermere even if used than with one being DMU and one EMU. The routes are textbook ideal for bi-mode.

This would be interesting to see but I feel maintaining two seperate unit types together would be a logistical struggle?

Also, which units both, together A) Fit the requirements for the route. and B)Offer the multiple working that would result in a reliable enough service?

 

[childwallblues]

This could easily kill off the planned electrification to Windermere.

I thought that it already had.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would be interesting to see but I feel maintaining two seperate unit types together would be a logistical struggle?

Also, which units both, together A) Fit the requirements for the route. and B)Offer the multiple working that would result in a reliable enough service?

1. Class 319 bi-mode
2. Stadler FLIRT bi-mode

In my view (not that I have anything against CAF) Northern selected the wrong design of new rolling stock.

That said, I can't see why a DMU and EMU shouldn't be compatible. Pendolinos and Voyagers actually are, though they don't run that way in service. (That's the reason the Voyager has an Alstom rather than Bombardier TMS).

 

[najaB]

That said, I can't see why a DMU and EMU shouldn't be compatible. Pendolinos and Voyagers actually are, though they don't run that way in service.

I thought it was mechanical compatibility only?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought it was mechanical compatibility only?

Nope, TMS too, AIUI - as I said the choice of TMS for the Voyager was for exactly that reason.

 

[northwichcat]

1. Class 319 bi-mode
2. Stadler FLIRT bi-mode

In my view (not that I have anything against CAF) Northern selected the wrong design of new rolling stock.

While the actual leasing prices are commercially sensitive data some insiders have dropped hints about them. It seems (allowing for differences in train lengths) Northern's leasing costs for the CAF Civity DMUs will be only be slightly more than the leasing costs for D-Trains. On the other hand the bi-mode 319s will cost as much as brand new Intercity 125mph EMUs to lease, while the bi-mode Stadler FLIRTs will cost more. If that's true bi-modes weren't an option for Northern franchise bidders while new CAF trains were a no-brainer.

 

[47802]

While the actual leasing prices are commercially sensitive data some insiders have dropped hints about them. It seems (allowing for differences in train lengths) Northern's leasing costs for the CAF Civity DMUs will be only be slightly more than the leasing costs for D-Trains. On the other hand the bi-mode 319s will cost as much as brand new Intercity 125mph EMUs to lease, while the bi-mode Stadler FLIRTs will cost more. If that's true bi-modes weren't an option for Northern franchise bidders while new CAF trains were a no-brainer.

That doesn't surprise me, I don't think we should get hung up about Barrow either as there were clearly plenty of other Northern Connect routes where a Bi-mode would have been some benefit but presumably the numbers didn't add up and the CAF EMU/DMU choice was the best option, maybe if it had been a longer franchise Bi-modes might have looked better.

By contrast the Anglia franchise is far less subsidised than Northern and has a much smaller diesel fleet, and clearly there will be some benefit gain to help offset the extra costs of Bi-modes by replacing all its diesels with a single type of train, something which would have likely been too expensive for Northern.

 

[najaB]

On the other hand the bi-mode 319s will cost as much as brand new Intercity 125mph EMUs to lease, while the bi-mode Stadler FLIRTs will cost more.

That makes me wonder if the CAF fleet is being offered at true commercial rates, or if they are a 'loss leader' to get a foothold in the UK market.

 

[northwichcat]

That makes me wonder if the CAF fleet is being offered at true commercial rates, or if they are a 'loss leader' to get a foothold in the UK market.

It's rumoured CAF had a facility with no work and they needed the Northern contract to keep it open and prevent a load of redundancies.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

While the actual leasing prices are commercially sensitive data some insiders have dropped hints about them. It seems (allowing for differences in train lengths) Northern's leasing costs for the CAF Civity DMUs will be only be slightly more than the leasing costs for D-Trains. On the other hand the bi-mode 319s will cost as much as brand new Intercity 125mph EMUs to lease, while the bi-mode Stadler FLIRTs will cost more. If that's true bi-modes weren't an option for Northern franchise bidders while new CAF trains were a no-brainer.

I'd have thought the 319 fleet was now pretty much un-leasable for the medium/long term without something unique to sell them.
They might have attracted class 391 prices at Thameslink, but with Northern only needing half the fleet (if that), Porterbrook would have been staring at scrappage.
Their unique selling point (AC/DC operation) is pretty much irrelevant now.
We don't really know what deal Northern (old or new) was offered to keep them on.

 

[northwichcat]

I'd have thought the 319 fleet was now pretty much un-leasable for the medium/long term without something unique to sell them.
They might have attracted class 391 prices at Thameslink, but with Northern only needing half the fleet (if that), Porterbrook would have been staring at scrappage.
Their unique selling point (AC/DC operation) is pretty much irrelevant now.
We don't really know what deal Northern (old or new) was offered to keep them on.

If you want additional bi-modes available for service before the December 2019 deadline converting existing EMU carriages probably is the only option. Hitachi only managed to promise 2019 for new build for TPE so any further sets would likely have to be 2020 or later while I don't think Stadler have promised delivery of all the bi-modes for Anglia before 2020 and they've also now got the Merseyrail contract to deliver.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes and also Bolton to Wigan

It justifies itself purely for diversionary purposes before services even considered.

Especiaslly as I cannot see a feeder station as being needed for this short stretch of infill electrification. The same can be said for Windermere too.

 

[Elecman]

Agreed the existing feeders should be more than capable of feeding these 2 Infills however it will now depend on wether the DfT will ask for these Infills as part of the CP6 settlement under the new ground rules. Both would be ideal as small independent schemes to keep a NWest electrification team running post the Mcr- Preston and Preston -Blackpool schemes.

 

[QueensCurve]

There is a classic DMU just in sight under the bridge.

I am guessing that the 319 Flex will use underfloor diesels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Especiaslly as I cannot see a feeder station as being needed for this short stretch of infill electrification. The same can be said for Windermere too.

Windermere indeed does not require a feeder station - that it could be done on the cheap was why it was even proposed in the first place.

 

[QueensCurve]

This could easily kill off the planned electrification to Windermere.

That is my concern: that a simple electrification described as a "no brainer" will be lost.

 

[Elecman]

I think it will depend on the prices NR receive from its main contractors wether it can be squeezed into CP6 or CP7 given that the modified 319s will take the urgency out of the scheme, ( along with Bolton to Wigan)

 

[mwmbwls]

Will today's fire at Kenilworth under Adrian Shooter's 230 delay the 319 conversion process at Loughborough with a requirement for instance for more endurance running on an uninstalled engine test bed?

 

[edwin_m]

Don't see why it should.

We don't know the cause of the 230 fire but both the 230 and the 319 Flex are similar to any other underfloor diesel from the point of view of fire risk. From the first-generation DMUs onwards this was mitigated by having automatic fire suppression systems on each powered car. All DMU types have suffered fires from time to time, rarely with any major casualties, so unless they plan to do something radical like doing without the fire suppression system I can't see why there should be a problem here.

 

[507021]

Northern have published an article on their website about the 319 Flex units, although the article doesn't really say anything that we don't already know about the bi-mode 319s. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to seeing the progress and travelling on one when they enter service.

Here's a link to the article for anyone interested.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Just looking at a picture of a normal 319 that's had it's shoes removed, there doesn't appear to be too much stuff underneath, is all the the equipment underneath required? if it's true that the newer Turbostar engines meet the emissions regs could the underframe support one and would it fit?

 

[swt_passenger]

Just looking at a picture of a normal 319 that's had it's shoes removed, there doesn't appear to be too much stuff underneath, is all the the equipment underneath required? if it's true that the newer Turbostar engines meet the emissions regs could the underframe support one and would it fit?

Everything underneath except the few shoe fuses is required even when the shoes are removed. I've mentioned to you before that removal of DC capability does not magically produce any significant space, why keep asking?