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

[WatcherZero]

To throw my hat in the ring - how about Hazel Grove - Blackpool South (OK a loop would be needed for a half hourly Blackpool South service)

2tph was considered the minimum service level for electification to be cost effective, but that was before they all went overbudget.

 

[northwichcat]

2tph was considered the minimum service level for electification to be cost effective, but that was before they all went overbudget.

With exceptions for very short branches e.g. Windermere or lines where there's quite a lot of freight which is why Selby to Hull scores lower than other routes.

 

[edwin_m]

With exceptions for very short branches e.g. Windermere or lines where there's quite a lot of freight which is why Selby to Hull scores lower than other routes.

2TPH was a rule of thumb but I think the calculations were done in 2009 based on the number of coach-miles that could be converted from diesel to electric versus the number of track miles to electrify. Selby-Hull is a relatively short section but if it allowed replacement of DMUs with cheaper EMUs over the whole distance to Manchester it would have a correspondingly better financial case. The advent of bi-modes changes the logic here.

 

[childwallblues]

Liverpool to Blackpool has been mentioned by Northern staff while Wigan to Stalybridge via Bolton could be another route which isn't fully wired by March 2018.

Liverpool to Blackpool will probably be 319/3 if electrification goes to plan by the time FLEX arrives.

 

[anthony263]

Well I wonder if the D train project is now dead if the Flex units might appear in South Wales particulary with ATW/WG looking to provide much needed extra capacity as have a few other operators.

Plus the 319's would still be able to operate on electric so when the wires are up they wouldn't become unessesary

 

[najaB]

Well I wonder if the D train project is now dead...

Rumors of its death are, as far as I know, greatly exaggerated.

 

[59CosG95]

Well I wonder if the D train project is now dead if the Flex units might appear in South Wales particulary with ATW/WG looking to provide much needed extra capacity as have a few other operators.

Plus the 319's would still be able to operate on electric so when the wires are up they wouldn't become unessesary

The only thing I'm unsure of is platform lengths-are all the platforms on each line capable of accepting 2x 150s coupled together? If that's the case, introducing diesel-engined 319s may not be so much of a problem.
The surge in passenger traffic may even give cause for extending some platforms to carry 8-car formations.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well I wonder if the D train project is now dead if the Flex units might appear in South Wales particulary with ATW/WG looking to provide much needed extra capacity as have a few other operators.

Plus the 319's would still be able to operate on electric so when the wires are up they wouldn't become unessesary

The issue there would be that many routes would have very little electric running, at least initially. Ebbw Vale, Maesteg and Swanline would work as they have a fair bit of running on the mainline:- essentially the services that wouldn't be suitable for 230 operations for the same reason.

 

[anthony263]

Thats what I was thinking The Maesteg and Ebbw Vale branches in particular especially as one facebook group for the Beddau area some of the local councilers have said that they've been told the line to Beddau will be given the green light for reopening.

On the plus side as well it should free up a few class 150's and pacers for use elsewhere

 

[childwallblues]

Thats what I was thinking The Maesteg and Ebbw Vale branches in particular especially as one facebook group for the Beddau area some of the local councilers have said that they've been told the line to Beddau will be given the green light for reopening.

On the plus side as well it should free up a few class 150's and pacers for use elsewhere

ATW will need at least two extra 150s to work the Halton Chord services in 2018.

 

[a_c_skinner]

D train vs Flex must depend now on cost, speed of delivery and performance and range off the wires. If these fora are correct the D train's USP - quick availability and cheap - is less prominent than one might have hoped. We've no idea about Flex off the wires though the Rail article hinted that this might be capable of being good if needed; "extra batteries" mentioned.

 

[lejog]

Liverpool to Blackpool has been mentioned by Northern staff while Wigan to Stalybridge via Bolton could be another route which isn't fully wired by March 2018.

The lines that Northern can get extra funding for rolling stock via a contract change if electrification is delayed past an unpublished date are indeed Windermere, Blackpool to Preston, Preston to Manchester, Bolton to Wigan and Victoria to Stalybridge.

I really doubt these units will be used elsewhere, at least until electrification is complete (maybe not even then unless Northern get extra EMUs allowing these to be released from their original planned routes).

 

[northwichcat]

The lines that Northern can get extra funding for rolling stock via a contract change if electrification is delayed past an unpublished date are indeed Windermere, Blackpool to Preston, Preston to Manchester, Bolton to Wigan and Victoria to Stalybridge.

I really doubt these units will be used elsewhere, at least until electrification is complete (maybe not even then unless Northern get extra EMUs allowing these to be released from their original planned routes).

5 x 319s are due to be returned in 2020 anyway so if there's 8 x 319 'Flex' sets but only a need for 3 by 2020 it could well be 5 'Flex' sets that are returned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ATW will need at least two extra 150s to work the Halton Chord services in 2018.

The business case was based on 4 car 150s being used so for 2 diagrams there should be 8 sets. Only way I can think of getting 8 is for the GWR 143s to go to ATW and then 150s operating around the Cardiff area could transfer North.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

2TPH was a rule of thumb but I think the calculations were done in 2009 based on the number of coach-miles that could be converted from diesel to electric versus the number of track miles to electrify. Selby-Hull is a relatively short section but if it allowed replacement of DMUs with cheaper EMUs over the whole distance to Manchester it would have a correspondingly better financial case. The advent of bi-modes changes the logic here.

I thought Network Rail decided Manchester-Selby and York would be viable and Selby-Hull only came in to the equation when First Group proposed providing funding to have electric services between Hull and London.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

2TPH was a rule of thumb but I think the calculations were done in 2009 based on the number of coach-miles that could be converted from diesel to electric versus the number of track miles to electrify. Selby-Hull is a relatively short section but if it allowed replacement of DMUs with cheaper EMUs over the whole distance to Manchester it would have a correspondingly better financial case. The advent of bi-modes changes the logic here.

The 40 miles between Cambridge and King's Lynn only carries 1tph electric off-peak.
For a number of years, the WCML north of Preston/Lancaster only carried 1tp2h Euston-Glasgow.
The Manchester and Birmingham trains (and most of the freight) had reverted to diesel.
Much the same applied to Weaver Jn-Liverpool before the 350s arrived.
Stafford-Wolverhampton and Carstairs-Edinburgh had virtually no regular electrics at all.

Cardiff-Swansea may only carry 1tph electric off peak (the reason its business case is poor).

 

[edwin_m]

The 40 miles between Cambridge and King's Lynn only carries 1tph electric off-peak.

But, disregarding bi-modes, electrifying Cambridge to Kings Lynn avoids having to run a diesel all the way into London. Most of these are also lengthened by splitting and joining at Cambridge so either the strengthening trains would have to be diesels too, or diesels and electrics would have to run in multiple. Hence, as per my previous point, Cambridge to Kings Lynn had a good case for electrification despite a low service frequency.

For a number of years, the WCML north of Preston/Lancaster only carried 1tp2h Euston-Glasgow.
The Manchester and Birmingham trains (and most of the freight) had reverted to diesel.
Much the same applied to Weaver Jn-Liverpool before the 350s arrived.
Stafford-Wolverhampton and Carstairs-Edinburgh had virtually no regular electrics at all.

When the electrification was inaugurated in 1974, nearly all trains north of Preston were electric. Economics changed subsequently due to factors such as multiple units replacing locomotives, and the reduction in total freight and split between operators making it uneconomic to have spare locos and crews to allow electric/diesel loco swaps on freight trains. If electrification north of Preston had not been done in 1974 and was being contemplated around 1990, it might have been difficult to make a case for it. However with two to three electric passenger trains per hour and a proportion of the freight being electric, it would probably be worthwhile to electrify the WCML on today's criteria.

Cardiff-Swansea may only carry 1tph electric off peak (the reason its business case is poor).

Much more tricky to justify especially as the 1TPH is a bi-mode, there's very little freight of any sort and what runs would be difficult to convert to electric due to running west of Swansea. It would help if the other 1.5TPH were electric too, but that would involve severing the through service via the Marches.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue there would be that many routes would have very little electric running, at least initially. Ebbw Vale, Maesteg and Swanline would work as they have a fair bit of running on the mainline:- essentially the services that wouldn't be suitable for 230 operations for the same reason.

They'd probably be of more benefit to Northern for that reason - but if Northern took some on (as they have a lot of part-electrified routes), they could send 150s to South Wales? I see no issues around quality there - a 319 is basically the same inside as a 150.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ATW will need at least two extra 150s to work the Halton Chord services in 2018.

If that only goes as far as Chester I don't see why it shouldn't fit better into Northern. But either way that would be a good D319 route - 100mph on the wires down the WCML to Runcorn, then a slower diesel bit to Chester.

 

[Roast Veg]

Less than 100mph, because of the added weight.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Less than 100mph, because of the added weight.

Nothing faster than 95mph at the moment, between Speke and Ditton.
Only 80mph on the Down.
Might change in the upcoming resignalling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Less than 100mph, because of the added weight.

Not necessarily. What does the proposed genset weigh - couple of tonnes, maybe? That's only 27 passengers (using the 75kg lift manufacturers use).

 

[Whistler40145]

If Porterbrook and Brush have got their heads screwed on, the engines used for this project will be far superior to those used on the Class 230 project.

 

[43096]

If Porterbrook and Brush have got their heads screwed on, the engines used for this project will be far superior to those used on the Class 230 project.

Well, they're not using Ford Transit engines, if that's what you mean.

 

[Whistler40145]

Well, they're not using Ford Transit engines, if that's what you mean.

Well put it this way, I have more trust in the Class 319 project, than the ridiculous thought of ex-London Underground tube stock, which now looks like it's already hit the buffers.

 

[43096]

ex-London Underground tube stock, which now looks like it's already hit the buffers.

Or gone up in flames.....

 

[Whistler40145]

Indeed

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well put it this way, I have more trust in the Class 319 project, than the ridiculous thought of ex-London Underground tube stock, which now looks like it's already hit the buffers.

Neither is any more ridiculous than the other - both involve adding gensets to third rail EMUs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whistler40145]

Only difference being that Class 319s have spent the whole of their time working on the Network Rail system, whereas the Class 230s are ex-London Underground tube trains, which are aliens outside the LU system and probably aren't built to the same body frame specifications.

 

[Starmill]

Neither is any more ridiculous than the other - both involve adding gensets to third rail EMUs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Starting with one that already has a mainline safety certification seems much less crazy to me.

 

[bramling]

Only difference being that Class 319s have spent the whole of their time working on the Network Rail system, whereas the Class 230s are ex-London Underground tube trains, which are aliens outside the LU system and probably aren't built to the same body frame specifications.

Yet have actually worked on the self-same Network Rail system virtually every day of their life.

A train is a train, after all.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Starting with one that already has a mainline safety certification seems much less crazy to me.

Surely D-stock is already a known quantity to NR due to shared running to Richmond and Wimbledon?

 

[Whistler40145]

I was meaning that the 319s have had a larger operating area on the Network Rail system than the D78s, which would only have been the rather short distance from Richmond on the joint District/North London line.