• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transport for Wales 769's

Status
Not open for further replies.

158srule

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2019
Messages
45
Forgive me for labouring the point but doesn't a similar adaptor exist to the one shown in this video of a 37 rescuing a 755 to attach to 769s? It looks like it could be fitted to any loco fairly quickly.

They have as charge berg coupling (a sell we type variant) that allows through control when coupled using an adaptor coupling as you can see in the video a main res pipe is connected from the loco through the adaptor. The tight lock is effectively a buckeye with an pneumatic connector with no main res feed from the loco possible.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Forgive me for labouring the point but doesn't a similar adaptor exist to the one shown in this video of a 37 rescuing a 755 to attach to 769s? It looks like it could be fitted to any loco fairly quickly.

The FLIRTs are a different kettle of fish as they a) have Dellner couplers, which allows both mechanical and pneumatic coupling of unit/adapted loco to take place with the one bit of kit, and b) appear to have a 'traditional' twin pipe braking system, meaning a loco can operate the brakes on the unit with the standard two pipe setup - it's as easy as making sure you've got the relevant adaptor, slamming the

A 769 on the other hand a) has a tightlock coupler, where the pneumatic connections are in the box underneath the coupler, requiring a secondary box to be attached to transfer air and b) have an electropneumatic brake system, requiring the loco to be able to send the right signals (being an old unit - voltages on select wires) to actuate the brakes on the unit, requiring that box to go underneath the mechanical coupler again, but also the right thing on the loco itself to do the talking, which AFAIK only the ROG/Europheonix locos actually have.

This picture of a 321 being hauled to Newport managed to get a reasonable closeup of the coupling between the unit & the loco, you can see the aforementioned box connected to the 321 with (what appears to be) main reservoir pipe on the left with the yellow star valve, and the control cable disappearing off on the other side of the box and into the loco's nose (level with the 321's headlights)

All this supposes of course that there isn't a brake issue on the 769 itself!
 

Envoy

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2014
Messages
2,453
Some people have said that TfW would have been better off with FLIRTS for their long distance services rather than the CAF 197’s. Having just watched the video of the rescue by a 37 at Wymondham, how can that be so? Surely, if the one diesel engine on the FLIRT fails you are left with this situation and having all the bother of getting and coupling a rescue locomotive. With the 197’s, each car has its own diesel engine so if one fails, it can still get along. (The tri-mode FLIRTS for SE Wales of course would not have this problem).
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Some people have said that TfW would have been better off with FLIRTS for their long distance services rather than the CAF 197’s. Having just watched the video of the rescue by a 37 at Wymondham, how can that be so? Surely, if the one diesel engine on the FLIRT fails you are left with this situation and having all the bother of getting and coupling a rescue locomotive. With the 197’s, each car has its own diesel engine so if one fails, it can still get along. (The tri-mode FLIRTS for SE Wales of course would not have this problem).
The Anglia Flirts have either two engines (3-car) or 4-engines (4-car). Perhaps you would like to re-think?
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
The Anglia Flirts have either two engines (3-car) or 4-engines (4-car). Perhaps you would like to re-think?
To be fair I see where he's going with that. Most other TOCs would probably end up with the 2-engine 3-car versions and a single engine failure on those does evidently seem to fail the unit.
 

Wyrleybart

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2020
Messages
1,623
Location
South Staffordshire
Forgive me for labouring the point but doesn't a similar adaptor exist to the one shown in this video of a 37 rescuing a 755 to attach to 769s? It looks like it could be fitted to any loco fairly quickly.

Not sure that the braking system on the units is the same - certainly not generically. BR and subsequent "British" designs don't encompass the normal 5 Bar / 72.5psi air train pipe. This means unless the hauling locomotive can control the indigenous electric brake which multiple units use, there is incompatibility. The Stadler EMUs however, can be hauled by a standard 5 bar braked loco. That can be evidenced by the Stadler EMUs being delivered to GA by a DBC loco with no brake converter vehicles.

Don't though confuse the coupler type and the brake type. I believe ROG have a small number of locos which can couple to Tightlock couplered MU's possible by switching the coupler heads on their locos.

The Anglia Flirts have either two engines (3-car) or 4-engines (4-car). Perhaps you would like to re-think?
That has left me wondering why a number of Flirts have needed rescuing by a loco and adapter coupling. This is particularly as the Stadlers are dual mode and whatever amps come out of the little car in the middle can be delivered to the traction system. S if one of the two engines on a 755/3 shuts down, does the GA safety case allow for the 755/3 to proceed on one of two engines, assuming the design allows for it. I would have thought the 755/3 was designed to have redundancy, and more so if you lost one of the four engines on a 755/4.

It seems to me that GA bought a whole load of trouble by not following the fairly standard procurement model used by other TOCs when acquiring new rolling stock.
 
Last edited:

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,421
That has left me wondering why a number of Flirts have needed rescuing by a loco and adapter coupling. This is particularly as the Stadlers are dual mode and whatever amps come out of the little car in the middle can be delivered to the traction system. S if one of the two engines on a 755/3 shuts down, does the GA safety case allow for the 755/3 to proceed on one of two engines, assuming the design allows for it. I would have thought the 755/3 was designed to have redundancy, and more so if you lost one of the four engines on a 755/4.
I think at the start they were having a couple software problems (small teething problems though, nothing like Bombardiers) so dragging them would be needed.
It seems to me that GA bought a whole load of trouble by not following the fairly standard procurement model used by other TOCs when acquiring new rolling stock.
Split here.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
A 769 on the other hand a) has a tightlock coupler, where the pneumatic connections are in the box underneath the coupler, requiring a secondary box to be attached to transfer air and b) have an electropneumatic brake system, requiring the loco to be able to send the right signals (being an old unit - voltages on select wires) to actuate the brakes on the unit, requiring that box to go underneath the mechanical coupler again, but also the right thing on the loco itself to do the talking, which AFAIK only the ROG/Europheonix locos actually have.

This picture of a 321 being hauled to Newport managed to get a reasonable closeup of the coupling between the unit & the loco, you can see the aforementioned box connected to the 321 with (what appears to be) main reservoir pipe on the left with the yellow star valve, and the control cable disappearing off on the other side of the box and into the loco's nose (level with the 321's headlights)

All this supposes of course that there isn't a brake issue on the 769 itself!
February last year a 319 sat down in the throat of Manchester Piccadilly with a failed Motor Alternator and flat batteries. A 323 was sent to assist but was unable to release the brakes despite having a supposedly compatible tightlock coupler. The passengers were evacuated and the failed unit was eventually rescued by another 319. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ccadilly-mon-10-02.200129/page-6#post-4436486
 
Last edited:

Caaardiff

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2019
Messages
851
Some good days some bad days. I think the past few days some planned services have had to be covered by alternative fleets. There's one been stuck at Rhymney for several days with a fault. Not sure which one. Full May introduction is still questionable
 

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
We're around 6 weeks away from the May TT change, when according to information TfW gave to industry magazines including RAIL and MR earlier in the year, the full 9 x 769s (or enough to cover all Penarth - Rhymney diagrams) would be in all day passenger service on Penarth - Rhymney, in order to retire the remaining 143s still in service, that have PRM exemptions until the end of May.
Likelihood of that happening? I'd put money on the 143s getting extensions until at least September.

How many 769s are in all day service at the moment? 2 or 3?
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
We're around 6 weeks away from the May TT change, when according to information TfW gave to industry magazines including RAIL and MR earlier in the year, the full 9 x 769s (or enough to cover all Penarth - Rhymney diagrams) would be in all day passenger service on Penarth - Rhymney, in order to retire the remaining 143s still in service, that have PRM exemptions until the end of May.
Likelihood of that happening? I'd put money on the 143s getting extensions until at least September.

How many 769s are in all day service at the moment? 2 or 3?
The Penarth to Rhymney and Bargoed timetable requires six units. Might be seven, given the need to fuel them every day. Personally I think there is zero chance of six units being available for passenger service. We'll compare notes in six weeks!
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
We're around 6 weeks away from the May TT change, when according to information TfW gave to industry magazines including RAIL and MR earlier in the year, the full 9 x 769s (or enough to cover all Penarth - Rhymney diagrams) would be in all day passenger service on Penarth - Rhymney, in order to retire the remaining 143s still in service, that have PRM exemptions until the end of May.
Likelihood of that happening? I'd put money on the 143s getting extensions until at least September.

How many 769s are in all day service at the moment? 2 or 3?

There should be 2 x 769s in service per day at the moment but I think it has in practice been a figure of NIL recently. Training is still continuing and priority has to be given to this resulting in "fit" units having to be used for this purpose, some of it being static and coupling/uncoupling on Depot.

TUESDAY 06/04

Both jobs covered today by 769002 and 769008
 
Last edited:

Optom1

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2019
Messages
95
Location
Cardiff
Busy day today 007/008 on service trains,and445/452 on”Zs” all within an hour of each other at Lisvane. 2R15/5Z47/2P16/5Z49
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,674
Location
Nowhere Heath
Is it me or are the numbers different sizes on those two? Seems a bit odd / sloppy not to use the same sized stickers across the fleet!

Separately, interesting that there's a different door seal on the emergency evacuation door too.

Definitely wasn't just you, I've just looked at this thread and noticed the digits looking very different too. Makes it look like a rushed job.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
Definitely wasn't just you, I've just looked at this thread and noticed the digits looking very different too. Makes it look like a rushed job.

The only part of the conversion that was! :lol:

I still find the sight of a 319 running on non-electrified lines a bit strange, I’m looking forward to trying these out at some point.
 

Bob Price

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2019
Messages
1,028
Read on the GWR 769 thread someone claiming TfW have given up on the idea of the 768's ever coming to anything and they have accelerated the Stadler procurement. My thought process on that is, it's garbage, but the 769's haven't exactly been an easy introduction!
 

Caaardiff

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2019
Messages
851
Read on the GWR 769 thread someone claiming TfW have given up on the idea of the 768's ever coming to anything and they have accelerated the Stadler procurement. My thought process on that is, it's garbage, but the 769's haven't exactly been an easy introduction!
Surely there's other deliveries needed to be honoured before the TfW stock. I struggle to see how TfW can move up the queue. It does seem like big decisions need to be made on the viability of the 769s within TfW. They weren't supposed to be around for much longer with the Stadlers coming. Is it worth all the time and effort trying to get these into service given their continual unreliability? Despite the optimism of some on here, talk around the patch within TfW is they are just too risky to be relied upon for a decent service. Porterbrook provided all the necessary mods to make them diesel but the units themselves weren't in a particularly good state which has brought their own issues that TfW has had to deal with.
Are there more 153s still floating around that no-one else except TfW seem to be able to make use of?
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
Surely there's other deliveries needed to be honoured before the TfW stock. I struggle to see how TfW can move up the queue. It does seem like big decisions need to be made on the viability of the 769s within TfW. They weren't supposed to be around for much longer with the Stadlers coming. Is it worth all the time and effort trying to get these into service given their continual unreliability? Despite the optimism of some on here, talk around the patch within TfW is they are just too risky to be relied upon for a decent service. Porterbrook provided all the necessary mods to make them diesel but the units themselves weren't in a particularly good state which has brought their own issues that TfW has had to deal with.
Are there more 153s still floating around that no-one else except TfW seem to be able to make use of?

Any 153s would have to be PRMd eventually and this is being done. Of the 9 x 153s that transferred as a temporary measure from EMR and GA and a further 4 that followed later from EMR, 9 of them are being given the PRM treatment during the first half of 2021 in readiness for a longer stay. 153906 was the first to go and went to Landore for work this week. The 4 left over will be consigned to oblivion.
 

Caaardiff

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2019
Messages
851
Any 153s would have to be PRMd eventually and this is being done. Of the 9 x 153s that transferred as a temporary measure from EMR and GA and a further 4 that followed later from EMR, 9 of them are being given the PRM treatment during the first half of 2021 in readiness for a longer stay. 153906 was the first to go and went to Landore for work this week. The 4 left over will be consigned to oblivion.
They are having PRM mods with the exception of the PRM toilet. That should speed up the refurb but the toilet will remain out of use so they will still need to be coupled to another PRM unit.
I can see the temporary 4 most recent additions staying longer and others that might become available from elsewhere to compensate for the lack of reliable 769s.
 

Wyrleybart

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2020
Messages
1,623
Location
South Staffordshire
Surely there's other deliveries needed to be honoured before the TfW stock. I struggle to see how TfW can move up the queue. It does seem like big decisions need to be made on the viability of the 769s within TfW. They weren't supposed to be around for much longer with the Stadlers coming. Is it worth all the time and effort trying to get these into service given their continual unreliability? Despite the optimism of some on here, talk around the patch within TfW is they are just too risky to be relied upon for a decent service. Porterbrook provided all the necessary mods to make them diesel but the units themselves weren't in a particularly good state which has brought their own issues that TfW has had to deal with.
Are there more 153s still floating around that no-one else except TfW seem to be able to make use of?

Have all of TfW's nine 769s been delivered to Canton now ? Think I have seen class 2 and class 5 allocations of 769002/003/006/007/008/421 and 452. That would leave 426 and 445.

Worth remembering that 769002 was delivered to Canton in March 2019 - over two years ago.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
Have all of TfW's nine 769s been delivered to Canton now ? Think I have seen class 2 and class 5 allocations of 769002/003/006/007/008/421 and 452. That would leave 426 and 445.

Worth remembering that 769002 was delivered to Canton in March 2019 - over two years ago.

They have all been delivered but that doesn't mean that all work required has been completed yet before they can enter traffic
 

Caaardiff

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2019
Messages
851
They have all been delivered but that doesn't mean that all work required has been completed yet before they can enter traffic
Which begs another question. Why would a new fleet addition, as a unit marked as a new concept, not be fit for service and require several months of work by the TOC to make it fit for service? Whoever agreed to take on these and not ensure that Porterbrook had them fit for service should have some serious questions to answer.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
Which begs another question. Why would a new fleet addition, as a unit marked as a new concept, not be fit for service and require several months of work by the TOC to make it fit for service? Whoever agreed to take on these and not ensure that Porterbrook had them fit for service should have some serious questions to answer.


I can't explain all the details but can only go on what has been posted in this and other threads and Forums and Groups. Certain mods have to be carried out to make TFW friendly, a continuous round of investigations and problem serving as faults showed themselves along the way during testing. . Having to put the later batch which came by road together and all this would increase Depot workload. I can only assume that some were put to one side while work continued on others to try and get some into a fully working condition. On the point of Porterbrook having them fit for service, how many classes create problems after leaving the manufacturer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top