Class 319 flex - upcycling for the north

[eastwestdivide]

Not forgetting them, just that Windermere is a short, low-speed diesel section combined with a long, fast electric section, which seems to me more suited to a bolt-on conversion to electro-diesel. Blackpool-Hudds is still on the electrification schedule isn't it?

Will be interesting to see what the diesel range, acceleration and top speed is on the 319 conversions.

Also to be factored into the economics equation is the Anglia order for new, purpose-built electro-diesels.

[stewartingram]

I can remember earlier hybrid trains that were very successful.

When on o/h electrified tracks, they had a loco on the front, with a pantograph.

No wires? They changed the loco for a steam or diesel powered one. They even managed 3rd rail, with a different type of electric loco.

And the coaches had better seats, and were quieter too with no engines or traction motors.

 

Stewart 

[TheSignalEngineer]

And during engineering works the steam or diesel could pull the engineers train or pull the passengers throughout on a non-electrified diversion.

[HillsideDepot]

Maybe new Locomotives built as electro diesels like the new DRS Class 88s are what is required to work such services. Ok they are diesel and 25Kv but they are still hybrid locos. The recent Class 73 conversions which work the Caledonian sleeper services could be used or even further conversions of 73s which have not yet been ordered or done could be put into service.

 

And before you all start ranting at me saying its a thread about class 319 conversions I am aware of that however I have already had a rant about this on a thread about the class 442s.

 

On that thread I also mentioned about therecent conversion of ex London underground D Stock which could be used on these services before they start wrecking 319s with diesel engines.

 

Interesting suggestion that fitting diesel engines will be "wrecking the 319s".

 

One assumes that the leasing company are only looking at this as an option as they don't see a market for some/all of their 319s as pure electrics. If they can't all be leased as EMUs then "wrecking" literally is the only other option - in a scrap yard!

[black and decker boy]

It has been mentioned elsewhere that there could be up to 50 diesel 319s needed so not exactly niche.

 

Not sure how more 73/9 or 88s help in a unit based railway?

[Edwin_m]

The 88 has only a small diesel engine which would only haul at slow speed - not sure about fuel capacity but the range on diesel would probably be limited too.  It is intended for the "last mile" into a non-electrified freight terminal, and might be of use for a short diversion or helping to get the train out of trouble if supply is lost, but wouldn't be up to hauling a train on a long non-electrified diversion.  This isn't just a feature of locomotives though - even the nominally electric-only Hitachi AT300 (IEP) units will have a diesel engine under one car for the same purpose. 

 

On the other hand as I understand it the diesel 319 is intended to operate substantial journeys on diesel power, and its power:weight ratio should allow it to reach a reasonable speed on diesel though probably not the 100mph it can do on electric. 

[ColinK]

As there are supposedly going to be lots of Pacers going spare, how about an alternative approach? Fit the pacers with pantographs?

[phil-b259]

As there are supposedly going to be lots of Pacers going spare, how about an alternative approach? Fit the pacers with pantographs?

The DfT have promised to dich the pacers - and the political fall out from going back on that would be immense.

 

In practical terms fitting a pantograph to a two car, four wheeled vehicle is a bit of a big ask as unlike the 319 there is no spare space plus for all the electronics.

 

Please remember that with the 319s ALL the Diesel engines are doing is fooling the unit into thinking it is operating on 3rd rail by providing a 750V input to the relevant electronics.

[frobisher]

In practical terms fitting a pantograph to a two car, four wheeled vehicle is a bit of a big ask as unlike the 319 there is no spare space plus for all the electronics.

Though the biggest issue is the lack of an electronic traction package on said units to start with...

[jjb1970]

I see nothing wrong with the basic idea of re-engineering existing trains to extend their lives and/or to make them suitable for new operational requirements. That was always something the railways were pretty good at and it is something many other railways do. Sometimes it is more appropriate to buy new but it can also be perfectly sensible to refurbish or re-engineer an existing train.

[SwissRailPassion]

But new units are cheap and the D319 will be expensive. It's over to Stadler to fill the gap long term.

[rue_d_etropal]

Amazed they are even considering investing in diesels, given the way diesel road vehicles will be banned from most cities in 10 years. Germany has successfully launched it hydrogen fuel cell powered train. Surely this would make sence for converting old units as planned.

The big advantage of a tri powered supply in North West would be immense. Mersey Rail is 3rd rail, with connecting lines being either overhead power or diesel power. Having Leeds/Bradford to Manchester services continuing onto to Liverpool, it would be easy for them to then run onto Southport or Chester. Trains could also run Liverpool tp Preston via Ormskirk.

[phil-b259]

But new units are cheap and the D319 will be expensive.

 

Why?

 

As is well known the UK will have a glut of new electric units due to the various postponed electrification schemes and the replacement of many of the original BR fleets. The leasing companies are on record as saying that scrapping units is expensive due to the vastly more stringent environmental legislation now in place compared to even the 1980s. Thus they are increasingly looking at ways of NOT scrapping stuff - either by selling vehicles for further use overseas (as with various AC locos), placing them in storage, or rebuilding them to make them more attractive to potential TOCs. As UK multiple units are not that easy to sell on compared to locos (thanks to our high platforms and the employment of 3rd rail electrification over a wide area) then it makes perfect business sense to do the latter.

 

As such both the 319 Flex and there built D stock are expected to be very competitively priced and will certainly be cheaper to lease than any brand new stock.

 

The advantages of new build stock becomes significantly grater if you can standardise the fleet (in terms of everything coming from the same manufacturer and being of the same 'family' of units) - hence why Crossrail, Thameslink and to an extent the Anglia franchise have all gone for total fleet replacement.

[phil-b259]

Amazed they are even considering investing in diesels, given the way diesel road vehicles will be banned from most cities in 10 years. Germany has successfully launched it hydrogen fuel cell powered train. Surely this would make sence for converting old units as planned.

The big advantage of a tri powered supply in North West would be immense. Mersey Rail is 3rd rail, with connecting lines being either overhead power or diesel power. Having Leeds/Bradford to Manchester services continuing onto to Liverpool, it would be easy for them to then run onto Southport or Chester. Trains could also run Liverpool tp Preston via Ormskirk.

 

A correction - Germany have launched a trial Hydrogen fuel cell powered train - and while noises have been made about a large fleet, the unit running around at the moment is very much a prototype to investigate how it performs in service.

 

Also while emissions from fuel cells may be benign, a fuel cell itself uses an incredible amount of resources to make and is, I believe a very toxic thing to dispose of (much like catalytic converters in cars). Also Hydrogen gas is actually very energy intensive to make in the first place as its a very reactive gas with strong chemical bonds to other elements (as in H2O).

 

Long term electrification is indeed the way forward - BUT statements like yours suggesting it can be done 'just like that' show a very deep lack of knowledge relating to the current problems with railway electrification at the most fundamental level. To put it bluntly the UK simply does not have the manpower, finance or skills to undertake the rapid wiring work necessary to avoid either converting or buying more diesel units - regardless of the wider environmental issues - and it will be decades before we achieve the level of wiring seen elsewhere in Europe.Sitting there writing earnestly about how good an idea electrification is doesn't magically make it happen (though it might help in atempting to stop the DfT / Treasuary backsliding over it in decades to come).

 

The 319 Flex initiative is thus a very sensible and practical solution to the issue which, if sucessfull, will provide many years of good service and hopefully allowing the electrified network to expand (assuming the DfT don't go back into the mode present in the late 90s which was characterised by Roger Ford's "Bionic Duckweed" comments (i.e. the DfT said the "we don't need to spend money on electrification because some sort of wonder fuel- which we cannot name - is just round the corner that will answer all environmental concerns but avid the need for spending money on fixed infrastructure).

[DY444]

 

As such both the 319 Flex and there built D stock are expected to be very competitively priced and will certainly be cheaper to lease than any brand new stock.

 

 

You'd have hoped so however the opening leasing cost gambit from Porterbrook for the 319 Flex was reported as "eye watering".  That either means they've misjudged things or they think they have the DfT over a barrel.

[royaloak]

But new units are cheap and the D319 will be expensive. It's over to Stadler to fill the gap long term.

New EMUs are (comparatively) cheap at about £6million per 4 coach set, but still not cheap.

 

New DMUs are not cheap!

[phil-b259]

You'd have hoped so however the opening leasing cost gambit from Porterbrook for the 319 Flex was reported as "eye watering".  That either means they've misjudged things or they think they have the DfT over a barrel.

 

If they are too expensive then there is always the medium term option of ordering some bi-modes from Stadler. Short term yes Porterbrook might be able to charge a premium due to a lack of alternatives, but this will not always be the case.

 

Of course the other issue might be that because of our short term franchises system, Porterbrook might feel the need to pay back the development costs within a very short time scale - thus hiking the lease charges as a result. If Northern did say, a 15 years leasing deal with Porterbrook then the actual lease costs might be lower as the development costs can be recouped over a longer timescale. Its one of the flaws in the franchising system the the DfT constantly chose to ignore despite several competition enquiries positively proving their culpability as regards high train leasing costs.

[Davexoc]

Long term electrification is indeed the way forward - BUT statements like yours suggesting it can be done 'just like that' show a very deep lack of knowledge relating to the current problems with railway electrification at the most fundamental level. To put it bluntly the UK simply does not have the manpower, finance or skills to undertake the rapid wiring work necessary to avoid either converting or buying more diesel units - regardless of the wider environmental issues - and it will be decades before we achieve the level of wiring seen elsewhere in Europe.Sitting there writing earnestly about how good an idea electrification is doesn't magically make it happen (though it might help in atempting to stop the DfT / Treasuary backsliding over it in decades to come).

 

For electrification to happen on the originally proposed scale we need more power, the lights are not far from going out with the closure of various power stations. Not sure when the new French/Chinese Hinkley Point Nuclear station will be ready, but can see one of the mothballed coal fired plants being needed due to the inadequacies of renewables. When the wind doesn't blow and its grey and foggy we are over two Drax size stations down on capacity.

If we had the ability to complete GWML, MML, EWR, Electric Spine, Hull etc. where would we get the juice from?

Is the cancellation really the realisation that we aren't going to have the generating capacity in place in time?

 

Dave

[jjb1970]

I've never been a big fan of the electro-diesel concept, it always struck me that carrying a lot of (flammable) fuel around and the weight of the diesel engine and associated equipment (coolers, starters, water etc) coupled with the complexity of the hybrid power package (by hybrid I mean either electric power or diesel power, not a the sort of parallel/series hybrid more normally called hybrid) was a lot of effort for limited real utility. However, given the problems with the electrification program, and the fact that MU trains can be engineered to as true dual mode trains (as opposed to last mile/shunting diesel power) then I can see that the concept does make sense in current conditions. Not ideal by any means but as a bridging technology to allow trains to make use of wires without delaying roll out of electric services until programs are fully completed or having to revert to dragging with diesel locomotives then I can see that it makes sense. My fear is that rather than being a bridging solution to allow time for NR to get electrification under control and to deliver new projects in realistic timescales it'll become an excuse not to continue many electrification projects.

[phil-b259]

I've never been a big fan of the electro-diesel concept, it always struck me that carrying a lot of (flammable) fuel around and the weight of the diesel engine and associated equipment (coolers, starters, water etc) coupled with the complexity of the hybrid power package (by hybrid I mean either electric power or diesel power, not a the sort of parallel/series hybrid more normally called hybrid) was a lot of effort for limited real utility. However, given the problems with the electrification program, and the fact that MU trains can be engineered to as true dual mode trains (as opposed to last mile/shunting diesel power) then I can see that the concept does make sense in current conditions. Not ideal by any means but as a bridging technology to allow trains to make use of wires without delaying roll out of electric services until programs are fully completed or having to revert to dragging with diesel locomotives then I can see that it makes sense. My fear is that rather than being a bridging solution to allow time for NR to get electrification under control and to deliver new projects in realistic timescales it'll become an excuse not to continue many electrification projects.

 

Hence my 'Bionic Duckweed' comment.

 

However as with much else in the rail industry the future direction is very much down to the inhabitants of Whitehall and the Treasuary. My fear is that whatever else you think about them at least George Osborne and Patrick McLoughlin were very much pro investment - where as Mr Hammond is much less of a vocal supporter and as for 'I won't let rail devolution happen and give control to a Labour Mayor' - lets just say he clearly put political ideology above users.

[jjb1970]

I get the impression that Hammond is quite a hard nosed pragmatist with an attention to detail. I witnessed some of the consequences of his time at the MoD where to be honest I thought he did a lot better in terms of procurement than perhaps given credit for. I'm not saying I agreed with all of the decisions on his watch but I do think he got nearer to overseeing some success in bringing the MoD budget under control than many others who've had that post. How he'll perform his current role time will tell, but I get the impression that if the railways can demonstrate a sound business case and have a robust plan for delivery then he will not be anti-rail.

[62613]

 

where as Mr Hammond is much less of a vocal supporter and as for 'I won't let rail devolution happen and give control to a Labour Mayor' - lets just say he clearly put political ideology above users.

 

Wasn't that Chris 'I'm not stupid really' Grayling?

[phil-b259]

Though the biggest issue is the lack of an electronic traction package on said units to start with...

Although the 319s lack computers, much of the traction control gear uses solid state electronics (i.e. Thyristors and suchlike as opposed to camshafts and resistors found in earlier units).

 

Having on board computers and 'software' to undertake key functions didn't get underway in ernest till after privatisation with the Turbostar being the first design to employ this. As such NR era EMUs are relatively straightforward things to modify.

[Titan]

 

Having on board computers and 'software' to undertake key functions didn't get underway in ernest till after privatisation with the Turbostar being the first design to employ this. As such NR era EMUs are relatively straightforward things to modify.

 

I would have thought the entire 465/466/365 fleet was a pretty earnest attempt, and they pre-dated the Turbostars by some years. Did not start too well either, the vast majority of the failures due to on board computer issues. One solution was to turn it off and on again - but the reboot sequence could take over five minutes to sort itself out. If you needed to do it at every station stop...

 

At the time I despaired at the door control modules - voltage spikes were causing them to fail. All they had to do was take a few inputs - door buttons, traction interlock, door interlock etc.  a job that could have been done with half a dozen relays and a bit of logic with no bother at all, and would probably have fitted in the same space too!

[Glorious NSE]

Of course the other issue might be that because of our short term franchises system, Porterbrook might feel the need to pay back the development costs within a very short time scale

 

I'm sure they are well aware that they are already c.25 years old, it's a fairly major mod, and they need to make a judgement on how long they can reasonably expect them to be in use. So that investment could need to be paid back in as little as 8-ish years - or another 25 - with no guarantee either way.