Class 319 flex - upcycling for the north

[phil-b259]

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.

 

 

Which is the problem of short franchises.

 

When BR procured a train it had the ability to say "we expect it to last XX number of years at a minimum - and that figure was normally in the region of 40 years. A ROSCO can only actually guarantee it the stock will be used for the life of the franchise - I doubt for example that the owners of the 321s on Anglia expected them to be ditched in the recent franchise award.

 

As to how long they will last - that basically depends on the bodyshells and traction gear. If we assume around a 40 year lifespan then the 319s are roughly half way through it (wile the D stock is roughly 2/3rds though its life). Providing the changes are not too radical (and both proposals seem to be based on the 'replaceable power pack' concept to power the existing 3rd / 4th rail traction gear) then the overall costs shouldn't be that great in the overall scheme of things.

[Edwin_m]

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.

I'm pretty sure the power electronics on the 319 is microprocessor controlled. 

[phil-b259]

I'm pretty sure the power electronics on the 319 is microprocessor controlled.

 

Possibilly - although I was under the impression that only came in with the GTO and AC drive technology found in Networkers.

 

I think the 319s were in many ways a 'bridgeing' unit in technology terms as the final drive still used DC traction motors.

[frobisher]

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.

My comment was in reference to putting pantographs on pacers....

[phil-b259]

My comment was in reference to putting pantographs on pacers....

Technically it would be rather difficult as the Pacers, like most DMUs have mechanical or hydraulic transmission, so you would need to replace everything below the solebar with new equipment.

 

A DEMU on the other hand such as the 'Thumpers' built for the Southern region uses electrical transmission and as such it would be straight forward to install a pantograph and transformer to provide power to the traction motors instead of the Diesel engine + generator combo.

[david.hill64]

Possibilly - although I was under the impression that only came in with the GTO and AC drive technology found in Networkers.

 

I think the 319s were in many ways a 'bridgeing' unit in technology terms as the final drive still used DC traction motors.

The 319s are GTO with DC motors. I think that they were the first BR EMUs to use GTO drives. (Now waiting for somebody to prove me wrong!)

[Titan]

The 319s are GTO with DC motors. I think that they were the first BR EMUs to use GTO drives. (Now waiting for somebody to prove me wrong!)

 

I think the 315's were the first EMU's to use thyristors, but they probably weren't the GTO type. 

[PenrithBeacon]

Possibilly - although I was under the impression that only came in with the GTO and AC drive technology found in Networkers.

 

I think the 319s were in many ways a 'bridgeing' unit in technology terms as the final drive still used DC traction motors.

This thread is getting to be jargon heavy. I turned to Wiki for an explanation only to find more jargon!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_electronics

[Edwin_m]

I think the 315's were the first EMU's to use thyristors, but they probably weren't the GTO type. 

Indeed.  These (and 87101) were "traditional" thyristors that could only be turned off by reversing the current through them, which happens every half cycle on AC.  Using them on DC would require significant extra circuitry known as a "chopper", and because of the extra complexity and/or the conservatisim of the Southern it never happened in the UK except for a couple of experimental installations on 455s.  The advent of the "Gate Turn Off" thyristors meant that the DC power could be controlled in a simpler way. 

[robertcwp]

314s predated 315s (just) and I thought they had thyristor control too but I may be wrong there.

 

On the SR, 456s have chopper control of some sort I believe.

[DY444]

The 319s are GTO with DC motors. I think that they were the first BR EMUs to use GTO drives. (Now waiting for somebody to prove me wrong!)

 

They were.  The 456s which followed have the same system.

[frobisher]

Technically it would be rather difficult as the Pacers, like most DMUs have mechanical or hydraulic transmission, so you would need to replace everything below the solebar with new equipment.

Yeeeerse - that's why I posted what I posted, you know, the bit about a lack of an electronic traction package...

[corneliuslundie]

And also replace a Transport Minister (or is it already ex-minister) - mind you that might/might not (delete to taste) be a good thing!

[SwissRailPassion]

And also replace a Transport Minister (or is it already ex-minister) - mind you that might/might not (delete to taste) be a good thing!

In the hiatus after Brexit the change of Transport Secretary and ministers enabled the good old civil servants to change policy and work against electrification. They, or at least certain long serving staff, have always been against it.

[SwissRailPassion]

I would be careful about using the previous 319 introductions to prove future intent for a number of reasons.

 

Firstly I believe they were introduced in something of a hurry because the Governemt was facing new OHLE but no trains available to use it and secondly, the previous Northern franchise was in its last days with no firm plan in Whitehall as to what the replacement would look like making spending large quantities of money inadvisable.

 

Thus the 319s, with a quick refresh were the obvious solution to the immediate problem.

 

There is also the question of what services they are being used on - as I understand it the 319s are effectively used on stopping and semi-fast Liverpool - Manchester / Wigan duties which are somewhat different from say TPE Express services that cross the Pennines. As such a more urban / metro / basic interior fit out may be appropriate.

 

I would also suggest that if the proposed 319 Flex concept is sucessfull then the leasing company and Northern may be interested in rolling the mod out across all their 319 fleet - which could result in a better interior being fitted to all class members.

 

Put it this way if Northern and the leasing company are left to work things out we may be pleasantly surprised. If on the other hand the 'dead hand of Whitehall and the mandarins in Whitehall that specified the class 800 interiors have any input then yes, interior standards are unlikely to match the aspirations of travellers.

The 319 idea for the NW was announced by Lord Adonis in 2009. They were to be fully refurbished and fitted with aircon as they were displaced by Thameslink stock. Alas, there was no funding for a Siemens deal and the long delay in ordering what became class 700 created the hiatus which led to unrefurbished 319s going north. Few in the north believed they would see an aircon fitted 319 and events have proved them right. Even fewer would believe that Diesel engines might one day be strapped to them.

[peterfgf]

This thread is getting to be jargon heavy. I turned to Wiki for an explanation only to find more jargon!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_electronics

[Hesperus]

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.

 

 

While there is no guarantee that they will get another 15-20 years service as diesel hybrid units it is reasonably certain that they won't get any use for a few years if they don't convert them.  Porterbrook are a business and should be capable of taking a risk without the DFT making promises.

[Glorious NSE]

While there is no guarantee that they will get another 15-20 years service as diesel hybrid units it is reasonably certain that they won't get any use for a few years if they don't convert them.  Porterbrook are a business and should be capable of taking a risk without the DFT making promises.

Lease companies parking unused stock until it's needed again (or until they give up and scrap it) is no new thing, and might be seen as a less risky bet though. We're talking about the side of banking that loves long steady low risk strategies, not the side of banking that loves gambling.

 

 

 

[Hesperus]

I initially thought that a less risky bet could be to convert a batch of older 313/4/5/7 units that would otherwise be scrapped.  I suppose that it would need to be 750v DC unit though and the PEP units (313/507/508) have corrosion issues and are very close to being life expired anyway.

 

That leaves a realistic choice between 319's and 321's unless an engine can be fitted to the 442's.

 

(Got coat and running   )

['CHARD]

More detailed piece in RTM, as the project increasingly breaks cover....

 

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/porterbrook-and-northern-to-develop-bi-mode-class-319s

[Edwin_m]

I initially thought that a less risky bet could be to convert a batch of older 313/4/5/7 units that would otherwise be scrapped.  I suppose that it would need to be 750v DC unit though and the PEP units (313/507/508) have corrosion issues and are very close to being life expired anyway.

 

That leaves a realistic choice between 319's and 321's unless an engine can be fitted to the 442's.

 

(Got coat and running   )

Being a dual-voltage unit the 319 has a high-current DC bus cable through the train that can be used to carry power from the generators either end.  Though it occurs to me it probably needs another one for the return - I must see if Chard's link has anything to say on that.  It also has a solid-state traction package that runs off either DC or AC, so no major changes needed although I think there might have to be some software tweaks to limit the current drawn in diesel mode.  314s, 315s and 321s don't have either of these things, and while a 313 does it has an older generation camshaft controller.  Also, of the above classes, only the 319 is owned by Porterbrook so they didn't have much choice. 

[SwissRailPassion]

8 units for northern so far, but up to 42 more if sources are to be believed.

[nightstar.train]

Lease companies parking unused stock until it's needed again (or until they give up and scrap it) is no new thing, and might be seen as a less risky bet though. We're talking about the side of banking that loves long steady low risk strategies, not the side of banking that loves gambling.

 

But parking stock costs money for renting the sidings. And I also believe there aren't enough sidings around the country for all the stock that'll be withdrawn in the next ~5 years. So I expect it's a sellers market for siding space, meaning higher rents.

Also scrapping them costs money, as the careful dismantling and recycling now required by law costs more than the scrap value of the metals. So if they can get a deal for further rental, even if it means spending a few bob on refurbishment, then it's a win for them.

Indeed we might see all sorts of new traffic with old stock as ROSCOs push their prices as low as possible to avoid paying for the scrapping.

[Glorious NSE]

So if they can get a deal for further rental, even if it means spending a few bob on refurbishment, then it's a win for them.

 

It's only a 'win' if the costs of the rebuild/refurb is covered by the future rental charges.

 

 

Also scrapping them costs money, as the careful dismantling and recycling now required by law costs more than the scrap value of the metals.

 

It's a steel bodied train. Scrapping it IS recycling! 

[dale159]

Being a dual-voltage unit the 319 has a high-current DC bus cable through the train that can be used to carry power from the generators either end. Though it occurs to me it probably needs another one for the return

On Electric power the return is via the running rails so maybe (I'm no electrical engineer) if the negative off the genset was somehow bonded to the axle it may still work without the need to fit a purpose bus wire for the job. As long as that doesn't interfere with signalling and track circuits.

 

Dale