GWR to lease ‘tri-mode’ class 769 multiple units from Porterbrook

[John M Upton]

I do wonder how many of the converted, still being converted and stored awaiting conversion 319's will actually see passenger service.  If the 442's can be written off at a stroke despite millions having been spent on them and having not carried a single passenger in their re-engineered form, the same could happen again.

 

[surfsup]

I've just checked - the first unit delivered to Northern was in December 2018, 6 months after their first planned entry to service date for Northern.  So only 3 years behind for Northern at the moment, and potentially the last fleet to enter passenger service at this rate! 

[St. Simon]

2 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

Does anyone know what the traction “rules” will be for the North Downs line? Presumably the 769s will work off the juice between Reading and Wokingham and Reigate and Gatwick, but what about between Aldershot South Jct and Shalford Jct? Can the trains change power system on the move?

Hi,

 

I know that this is still being developed by GWR, the Power Change Over design team in Reading (me and another) have been approached to possibly look at developing the line side stuff for it.

 

Simon

[phil-b259]

8 hours ago, John M Upton said:

I do wonder how many of the converted, still being converted and stored awaiting conversion 319's will actually see passenger service.  If the 442's can be written off at a stroke despite millions having been spent on them and having not carried a single passenger in their re-engineered form, the same could happen again.

 

 

Rather different situation

 

SWR were about to dump a vast quantity of newish units (the 485s) with wide doorways and modern traction packages so keeping some of them probably makes more financial sense than the 442s, most of which have yet to have the new traction packages fitted and which will still suffer from some undesirable elements even after all the money spent on them, e.g. narrow doorways etc.

 

The 319 conversions on the other hand will displace DMUs - which not only have a sensible door arrangement for local / commuter work but are far more flexible in terms of use not needing an external power supply so are easily reusable elsewhere in the country (unlike a DC or AC EMU). The 319 tri-modes also allow for more through services to Oxford rather than the need to change at Didcot which has to happen now due to electrification of the GWML being scaled back.

Edited April 8, 2021 by phil-b259

[DY444]

8 hours ago, surfsup said:

From the video's I've seen of the Welsh fleet, they do seem rather lethargic travelling up the Valleys.

 

Maybe but the reports from TfW are that the performance is much better than expected and has surprised them.

 

8 hours ago, surfsup said:

Has it ever? How many years late are we now with the Northern units and still none of theirs are in service. For something that was billed as a quicker and cheaper alternative to buying new Hybrid units, Stadler seem to have been able to knock Porterbrook out of the park with this one. 

 

They may not have turned out to be quicker (and some of that is Covid related - particularly at Northern) but it is reported that they are still a lot cheaper than new builds with one quote that "the cost is a drop in the ocean compared with a new fleet".  Whilst the Stadler fleets may come good eventually they have not exactly been an unqualified success so far. 

 

8 hours ago, John M Upton said:

I do wonder how many of the converted, still being converted and stored awaiting conversion 319's will actually see passenger service.  If the 442's can be written off at a stroke despite millions having been spent on them and having not carried a single passenger in their re-engineered form, the same could happen again.

 

If I were a betting man then my money would be on all of them seeing service.  As I mentioned above TfW have been pleasantly surprised by the performance which suggests the basic concept is sound so once the nagging issues are ironed out it seems probable that they will prove to be useful units.  If anything I can see more of them being done if that initial TfW impression is confirmed by wider operational experience.  

Edited April 8, 2021 by DY444

[phil-b259]

31 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

 

They may not have turned out to be quicker (and some of that is Covid related - particularly at Northern) but it is reported that they are still a lot cheaper than new builds with one quote that "the cost is a drop in the ocean compared with a new fleet".  Whilst the Stadler fleets may come good eventually they have not exactly been an unqualified success so far. 

 

 

Which is a key point.

 

Put it this way were the Government in the business of re-letting the grater Anglia franchise / management contract now, then I bet the only new stock which would have been included would have been something to replace the class 90 & Mk3s! Everything else (the 321s, 360s, sprinters, turbostars) would have been kept on.

 

The same would have been true over on SWR, with the previous suburban fleets retained rather than ordering new stock.

[Northmoor]

11 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Which is a key point.

 

Put it this way were the Government in the business of re-letting the grater Anglia franchise / management contract now, then I bet the only new stock which would have been included would have been something to replace the class 90 & Mk3s! Everything else (the 321s, 360s, sprinters, turbostars) would have been kept on.

 

The same would have been true over on SWR, with the previous suburban fleets retained rather than ordering new stock.

This is my concern, that enormous amounts of money are spent on new trains to replace mid-life (or even nearly new) trains, then later anti-railway politicians can use this to claim that railways are very expensive and poor value for taxpayers' money.  When the decision was the government's own (via the DfT's own policy).

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

This is my concern, that enormous amounts of money are spent on new trains to replace mid-life (or even nearly new) trains, then later anti-railway politicians can use this to claim that railways are very expensive and poor value for taxpayers' money.  When the decision was the government's own (via the DfT's own policy).

 

Yup, but as usual we got told how it was all wonderful for the tax payers rather ignoring the fact that trains are not the same as baked beans or shares on the London stock exchange...

 

Again it rather undermines the case for nationalisation which seeks even more ministerial / civil service medaling.

 

While it admittedly had its own issues, there was much to be said for the way privatisation initially sidelined the influence of Whitehall via a powerful independent regulator etc...

[surfsup]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Rather different situation

 

SWR were about to dump a vast quantity of newish units (the 485s) with wide doorways and modern traction packages so keeping some of them probably makes more financial sense than the 442s, most of which have yet to have the new traction packages fitted and which will still suffer from some undesirable elements even after all the money spent on them, e.g. narrow doorways etc.

 

The 319 conversions on the other hand will displace DMUs - which not only have a sensible door arrangement for local / commuter work but are far more flexible in terms of use not needing an external power supply so are easily reusable elsewhere in the country (unlike a DC or AC EMU). The 319 tri-modes also allow for more through services to Oxford rather than the need to change at Didcot which has to happen now due to electrification of the GWML being scaled back.

 

Regarding the 442s, 11 of the units have received the new traction packages, with 4 nearly complete at Wolverton at the moment, leaving 3 to go. At least 2 units had received the new cab desk fitment as well, with a 3rd undergoing replacement at the moment. From the tests conducted so far, They were exceeding what was required of them with the new traction equipment and braking systems, enough that it had to be reigned back to bring it to how SWR had wanted. 

 

The Stadler's may be far more expensive than the 769 conversion may be turning out to be, but I do wonder when the railways will reach the point of, Is it worth spending all this money on expired equipment, as the situation with the 442's are  now turning out to prove. The Stadlers will certainly outlive the 769s, and as 319s from Thameslink, they were pretty tired units in their final years of that. The 458s, in my opinion, were never the best of the post millennium new 3rd rail EMU fleet - they leak (both from the window's are the ceilings), the PA is rubbish, the toilets are rubbish, they are sluggish, they are very tetchy in damp weather, and this further conversion is only expected to give them another 5-6 years in (leased until 2027). I also understand that Porterbrook were more than happy to offer them a far substantially lower lease than Angel was offering with the 442s, as with no other interest from any other TOCs, they were facing a future involving a visit to Newport. 

 

Oxford might be a nice idea, but they wont be heading up there. Their planned routes are the North Downs, Basingstoke, Henley and to Bourne End in the peaks, so the Didcot for Oxford change will still continue to happen for the foreseeable.  

[caradoc]

25 minutes ago, surfsup said:

Oxford might be a nice idea, but they wont be heading up there. Their planned routes are the North Downs, Basingstoke, Henley and to Bourne End in the peaks, so the Didcot for Oxford change will still continue to happen for the foreseeable.  

 

That's a pity, but was not the plan at one time to run through Oxford/Reading/Gatwick services ?

 

[brushman47544]

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

That's a pity, but was not the plan at one time to run through Oxford/Reading/Gatwick services ?

 

 

I thought so too. Indeed, I seem to recall there were a few through services when the 165/166s were first deployed to the North Downs line. Presumably they didn't last very long.

[TravisM]

I believe that as part of the tendering documents, especially with Greater Anglia that fleet renewal was one of the conditions.  I believe that the Class 707’s weren’t widely welcomed at SWT and like Greater Anglia’s Class 379’s, expensive to lease.

 

I think the pandemic has caused all sorts of problems for TOC’s with passenger numbers falling and revenue in free fall, so a reassessment of fleet requirements are hardly surprising.  You have to remember that the Class 442’s are a small class and even though serious money has been poured into the refurbishment, their long term future may have already been shaky. 

[caradoc]

On 08/04/2021 at 12:05, surfsup said:

 Their planned routes are the North Downs, Basingstoke, Henley and to Bourne End in the peaks, so the Didcot for Oxford change will still continue to happen for the foreseeable.  

 

It occurs to me that there will be precious little need for the units' 25kV capability ! Just for ECS moves between Reading Depot/station/branch junctions, and through trains between the branches and Paddington (if indeed there still are any ?). 

 

 

[Zomboid]

The DC will be more useful if those are the only routes they're regularly seen on. Oxford would make sense, but I suppose that would make the 387s essentially redundant (you don't need many for Newbury - Reading). Not that cutting the Oxford branch from the scope was a big if a false economy or anything...

[Not Captain Kernow]

5 hours ago, 313201 said:

As it went passed the camera I noticed it is fitted with 3rd rail shoes on the 2 driving coaches but unlike on the original class 319 set up where the shoes were on the outer and inner bogies, in the video they are only fitted on the inner bogies of the driving coaches

 

319s have only ever had shoes on the leading bogie

 

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Thought that I’d update the thread a little.

 

I, along with a couple of my colleagues, were very lucky to be invited on this mornings test train from Reading to Gatwick and return, as part of our work on the Dynamic Power Change-Over for the units.

 

From a passenger point of view, the interior was a vast improvement on the Turbos that ply the line. They seemed more spacious, and better lit, in part thanks to the light grey colour scheme. The seats (new seat cushions on the refurbished frames) were quite comfy, so quite happy for the whole journey (although I did spend a fair proportion of the journey in the rear cab or filming from the front), no ironing board seats! Seemed to be more luggage racks, that looked almost identical to 387 ones. The only downside was the slam doors between cars, but nothing could have been done about that other than rebuilding the whole end of the coach. There was USB sockets, but no three pin plugs, the PIS display seemed better (slightly more clearer) than the Turbos, Air Cooling, and a Disabled Toilet.
 

I was very impressed with how quiet the engines were, far quieter than the Turbos, even with all the windows open in the driving cars. 

 

In terms of operation, it was quite happy purring along at 70mph, so I don’t think there will be any timing concerns, we kept time through the whole run. We seemed to be following a unit both there and back, so we didn’t get them full chat for too long.
 

The Power Change-Over is completely manual, and was just as seemless as the 800s.

 

Testing and some driver training continues, although the units are being modified with Cab Air Cooling and GPS-based ASDO before full driver training commences.

 

I apologies and say I forgot to the take any pictures of the interior , but here is one from the cab on the Reading Low Level waiting for a platform at the end of the run:

 

 

Simon

[SamThomas]

On 21/04/2018 at 19:03, Coryton said:

I am a bit curious as to how we ended up with so much of it in the first place. I appreciate that views on acceptable safety have changed dramatically over the years, but have the operational issues also become more of a problem?

My understanding is that 3rd rail was chosen in the Southern areas for a couple of reasons ;

1) OHL  was impractical to install because of the tight height clearances & the sheer amount of bridges ect on the Southeren.

2) DC motor technology at the time was more suitable for quick acceleration.

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, SamThomas said:

My understanding is that 3rd rail was chosen in the Southern areas for a couple of reasons ;

1) OHL  was impractical to install because of the tight height clearances & the sheer amount of bridges ect on the Southeren.

2) DC motor technology at the time was more suitable for quick acceleration.

 

Were any significant issues discovered with the existing LBSCR AC overhead that led to it being converted? I’ve seen elsewhere the suggestion that part of the reason for third rail being chosen was because of the post-Grouping LSWR influence on the Southern, and more practically because more of the LSWR-style electrification had been done.

 

I was also under the impression (from reading about the long-term proposals to convert the outer-suburban and main line parts of the Southern region to AC overhead) that there was also an economic reason to choose third rail. I might have remembered it wrong or missed the point slightly, as it’s a while since I read about it, but some of the articles seemed to suggest that the initial costs for third rail could be lower, but as the system is extended 25kV AC could become cheaper because of the number of substations needed to account for the voltage drop on third rail. If correct, this would presumably make it a pretty good option for something like London Underground or the Euston to Watford local lines but less suited to high-speed, long distance lines as on parts of the Southern; those advocating eventual conversion generally seem to be less concerned about inner-suburban Southern lines, the ex-LNWR London Overground lines, Merseyrail etc. (some of these would have obvious loading gauge issues of course). I’m not sure if improvements in AC overhead technology, and changes to the way mains electricity is supplied since the original third rail electrification projects were done, were also a factor in the cost differences/changes. Can anyone shed more light on this?

[phil-b259]

8 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Were any significant issues discovered with the existing LBSCR AC overhead that led to it being converted?

 

Nothing fundamental - it was mainly the cost of expanding it further as well as all the inefficiencies that come with looking after two different systems which led to its downfall. 

 

8 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

 I’ve seen elsewhere the suggestion that part of the reason for third rail being chosen was because of the post-Grouping LSWR influence on the Southern, and more practically because more of the LSWR-style electrification had been done.

 

 

While its true that most of the top brass of the Southern were ex LSWR men (the engineering side had a healthy exSECR contingent at the top table not just the CME) it ultimately came down to money. Conductor rail electrification was quick and cheap to install (no need to start rebuilding bridges or moving signals) and with suburban traffic on the steam dominated ex SECR* network declining alarmingly quick action was imperative.

 

The other thing to remember is that the LSWR electrification was generally an 'in house' project and lots of those folk ended up being employed by the new SR as a consequences of grouping. The LBSCR on the other hand relied heavily on external expertise - which quite naturally departed the scene once grouping took place.

 

* Interestingly the SECR had drawn up plans for a 4 rail conductor rail system but were too broke to actually install it before WW2 got in the way and grouping erased them from existence.

 

8 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

 

I was also under the impression (from reading about the long-term proposals to convert the outer-suburban and main line parts of the Southern region to AC overhead) that there was also an economic reason to choose third rail.

 

There was no definitive plan to do so - any aspirations which might have been had in 1955 would have quickly been dispensed with as the railways rapidly started losing money hand over fist.

 

8 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I might have remembered it wrong or missed the point slightly, as it’s a while since I read about it, but some of the articles seemed to suggest that the initial costs for third rail could be lower, but as the system is extended 25kV AC could become cheaper because of the number of substations needed to account for the voltage drop on third rail. If correct, this would presumably make it a pretty good option for something like London Underground or the Euston to Watford local lines but less suited to high-speed, long distance lines as on parts of the Southern; those advocating eventual conversion generally seem to be less concerned about inner-suburban Southern lines, the ex-LNWR London Overground lines, Merseyrail etc. (some of these would have obvious loading gauge issues of course).

 

You have summarised the differences correctly  - but please remember that by the time 25KV electrification became technically possible (hint, it wasn't till 1955 at the earliest) conductor rail already ran from London to....

 

In Kent:- Gillingham, Maidstone and Sevenoaks

In Sussex (via the BML):-  Ore , Eastbourne, Brighton and  Littlehampton

In Sussex / Hampshire:- Bognor (via Dorking / Crawly & Horsham) and Portsmouth (via Chichester and Petersfield)

In Hampshire / Berkshire:- Alton (from Guidford via Ash +from Woking via Brookwood + Ascot via Frimley), and Reading

 

As noted above 3rd rail is VERY cheap to install. So if you are British Railways do you go expensive and complicated by finish wiring Kent at 25KV and building complex (for the time) expensive dual voltage motive power or do you simply stick with what you already have and extend it.

 

You also need to remember that under the original 1955 modernisation plan 3rd rail was planned to head across the marsh from Ore to Ashford and the East Grinstead, Uckfield / Tonbridge Wells west lines were to follow as part of a plan to electrify everything east of Basingstoke / Weymouth. Those grand plans didn't survive and by the time conductor rail reached Ramesgate in 1959 cuts and closures were the order of the day.

 

8 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

 I’m not sure if improvements in AC overhead technology, and changes to the way mains electricity is supplied since the original third rail electrification projects were done, were also a factor in the cost differences/changes. Can anyone shed more light on this?

 

When the first railway electrification projects were done, electricity itself was new technology and many of the electricity companies which did spring up had their own ideas about voltage, frequency etc. The whole AC or DC wars in the states are particularly interesting reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents

 

You also need to appreciate there was no such thing as the national grid - that did not come into existence until the creation of the CEGB in 1926 and the standardisation of electricity supplies across the UK - from which railway companies could source their supplies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Electricity_Board

 

As such different railways adopted different strategies as regards power - the LSWR built their own generating stations at Dunsfold Road (Wimbledon) while the LBSCR chose to purchase their power from the London Electric Supply Corporation for example.

 

By the time the UK electricity supply had been organised the die was cast and the SR was firmly in 3rd rail mode using the new national  grid (and the equally new Mercury Arc rectifier technology) to expand the DC network down to the south coast.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by phil-b259

[Zomboid]

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

As noted above 3rd rail is VERY cheap to install.

The rail itself is relatively cheap compared to OLE, but that saving is offset by the need to provide rectifier substations every couple of miles and the 3 phase lineside distribution to support it.

 

Pre GW electrification it was reckoned that per single track km, 3rd rail was about the same price as 25kV. No idea how that's changed since then.

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The rail itself is relatively cheap compared to OLE, but that saving is offset by the need to provide rectifier substations every couple of miles and the 3 phase lineside distribution to support it.

 

Pre GW electrification it was reckoned that per single track km, 3rd rail was about the same price as 25kV. No idea how that's changed since then.

 

But 3rd rail doesn't require bridge reconstruction or the rearranging of signals* do to sighting problems both of which push costs up.

 

*Note how before WW2 a lot of the Southern electric network still relied on semaphores and block bells - in essence the con rail was just simply added on top of what was there. 

 

 

[Zomboid]

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

But 3rd rail doesn't require bridge reconstruction or the rearranging of signals* do to sighting problems both of which push costs up.

And 25kV doesn't need so many substations (which often need land purchase) or 3 phase distribution.

 

Substations can cause sighting issues, though obviously not as many as overhead line masts.

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

And 25kV doesn't need so many substations (which often need land purchase) or 3 phase distribution.

 

But the land purchase issue, or more accurately the high cost of land purchase, is more of a modern era issue than the past when BR or predecessors made the decision to expand with the cheaper 3rd rail option.

[caradoc]

I've always thought it a great pity that the Bournemouth electrification was 3rd rail rather than 25kV OLE from, say, Woking, but no doubt the greater cost of installation and stock provision made that a non-starter, given that BR could not afford to electrify through to Weymouth or even just Poole.

[DY444]

14 hours ago, Zomboid said:

And 25kV doesn't need so many substations (which often need land purchase) or 3 phase distribution.

 

Substations can cause sighting issues, though obviously not as many as overhead line masts.

 

No it doesn't but at the time when there was all the talk of converting Basingstoke to Millbrook to AC much was made of the financial benefits of not having to renew the substations on that section.  Coincidentally at the same time there was a project to renew a number of substations and add some new ones in the London suburban area.  The contract value of that project gave a good indication of the per unit substation cost at the time.  Using that value the total cost of replacing all of the DC substations between Basingstoke and Millbrook would have got you ole about as far as Worting Jn assuming NR was in one of its less extravagant moods.

 

Yes you have to provide HT distribution, yes you have to find and prepare substation sites, yes you have to ensure the fencing is up to snuff.  However you don't have to alter structures (which is very expensive now given the more stringent clearance standards), and given we are talking about infills, you don't have the additional complexities and cost of interfacing with the existing DC network.  Also with routes like Uckfield where the majority of the operator's indigenous fleet is DC only, you don't benefit from the operational and diagramming efficiencies of being able to interwork the entire fleet unless you convert all of the 377/1, /3, /4, /6 fleet to DV, which, at a 6 figure sum per unit is tens of millions more on the bill to give the same operational flexibility.  Saving that sum and having to use specific rolling stock may not matter but it is nevertheless an operational constraint which is not there with DC and negates one of the (admittedly contradictory*) recommendations of the Gibb report that all mainline/outer suburban stock be inter-workable on all Southern routes radiating from London.   

 

*Contradictory as Gibb recommended AC and failed to include the cost of making the entire Southern electrostar fleet AC compatible but hey.

 

For Uckfield, whilst there might be entirely sensible reasons for doing it as AC, I simply don't buy the idea that AC and DC would be the same cost.  It just doesn't pass the sniff test in an age where people are saying that not straightforward but eminently do-able structures like the Leicester bridge and Standedge tunnel are too difficult and too expensive.

Edited August 6, 2021 by DY444