GWR Class 769 information. (Units no longer with GWR - Off Lease March 23)

[OTRail]

As currently equipped the 769s are not capable of DOO(P) operation.

We will have to wait and see what that means for the Henley branch, which hasn’t had guards in nearly 30 years now.

That’s surprising - they were used under DOO throughout their duration with Thameslink. What exact mods do they need, or is it a case of mirrors needing to be fitted on the platforms?

 

[py_megapixel]

That’s surprising - they were used under DOO throughout their duration with Thameslink. What exact mods do they need, or is it a case of mirrors needing to be fitted on the platforms?

Someone mentioned that the Northern examples have had the functionality for driver operation of the doors from the cab deliberately removed at the request of the unions, who want assurance that DOO can never be introduced on them without modifications.

(Maybe "request" is a slightly disingenuous term to use in this case; "threat" might well be closer)

 

[OTRail]

Someone mentioned that the Northern examples have had the functionality for driver operation of the doors from the cab deliberately removed at the request of the unions, who want assurance that DOO can never be introduced on them without modifications.

(Maybe "request" is a slightly disingenuous term to use in this case; "threat" might well be closer)

Not surprised with Northern, but DOO has been/is used on the bulk of Thames Valley services, so I’m surprised they need mods to use it - especially considering 446 (946) was the only one used in passenger service since being retired from Thameslink services...

 

[Fincra5]

Not surprised with Northern, but DOO has been/is used on the bulk of Thames Valley services, so I’m surprised they need mods to use it - especially considering 446 (946) was the only one used in passenger service since being retired from Thameslink services...

Might be the money involved in moving DOO Mirrors or Monitors?

 

[JN114]

Door controls were previously removed before being selected for conversion. A lot of the new kit has re-used that space they left behind.

Do not forget that there’s a lot to fit on to a 769 desk, off the top of my head as a bare minimum the driver needs at hand:-

Master Key
Direction Controller
Power Controller
Brake Controller
Speedo
Brake Pressure Gauge
Horn
AWS Reset
AWS Sunflower
TPWS Panel
DRA
Couple/Uncouple buttons
AC Traction Select
DC Traction Select
Diesel Traction Select
Pan Up / Pan Down
Fire System Test
Engine Start
Engine Stop
Traction Mode Indicator
Line Light Indicator
VCB Indicator
Head/Tail Lights Switch
Head/Tail Lights Repeat Indicator
Signal Buzzer
Multiple Fault Indication lights

All in just 1/3rd the width of the vehicle because of the emergency end doors. And that’s before we get onto comfort items like air con and so forth, or operationally convenient things such as door controls and such.

As this and other 769 threads before have likely shown, I’ve generally been a staunch defender of the project - done well these will be ideal. But even I’ve started to lose my optimism of late. The continued delays achieving a statement of compatibility is just the latest in a litany of delays for which the excuses are running somewhat thin. And as more materialises about how the units as-delivered don’t match my “done well” expectation the more my confidence wanes. I may even have uttered to a colleague over the weekend that we should have ordered some of those shiny bi-mode trains Anglia use in Norfolk - kitted out for 110mph AC operation they’d be awesome for Oxfords and Bedwyns, and could run purely on Diesel on Gatwicks until better self-power options were available.

But alas the 769s will be here, eventually. It is on us to make them work now.

 

[Wyrleybart]

But alas the 769s will be here, eventually. It is on us to make them work now.

Not a problem "JN114" because "800 driver" in post 494 says they will never come into traffic. I don't quite share his optimism / pessimism though.

Clearly Porterbrook were trying to offer a single solution train to three different TOCs, with three differing requirements.
TfW only need diesel
Northern need 25kV and diesel
GWR need 750V DC and diesel and a bit of 25kV.

Was the 769 a wise choice ?

 

[AM9]

Not a problem "JN114" because "800 driver" in post 494 says they will never come into traffic. I don't quite share his optimism / pessimism though.

Clearly Porterbrook were trying to offer a single solution train to three different TOCs, with three differing requirements.
TfW only need diesel
Northern need 25kV and diesel
GWR need 750V DC and diesel and a bit of 25kV.

Was the 769 a wise choice ?

Great stuff, hindsight.

 

[Mollman]

Not a problem "JN114" because "800 driver" in post 494 says they will never come into traffic. I don't quite share his optimism / pessimism though.

Clearly Porterbrook were trying to offer a single solution train to three different TOCs, with three differing requirements.
TfW only need diesel
Northern need 25kV and diesel
GWR need 750V DC and diesel and a bit of 25kV.

Was the 769 a wise choice ?

Yes if you think about the economics. If they had got it right it would have worked well in regards to having a single 'platform' to build on in a production line, just like manufacturers now like to offer their DMU, Bi-mode and EMU options based on the same design. The only other EMU available at the time to convert was the 365 which were doing other things at the time (ScotRail).

 

[3973EXL]

57312 769938 reported on 5Q98 today.

Realtime Trains - 533E 1113 Loughborough Brush to Burton Ot Wetmore Sidings

 

[FGW_DID]

Another 769 delivery to Reading is expected in the very near future but no timings or unit number known as of yet.

The 769 Fault Free Running is ‘allegedly’ starting next week! Wednesday supposedly is the first run, with runs Mon/Wed/Fri in the following weeks.

As ever, watch this space....!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Not a problem "JN114" because "800 driver" in post 494 says they will never come into traffic. I don't quite share his optimism / pessimism though.

Whether that is the case or not, there is a looming shortfall of units for the MetroWest programme and currently the 769 programme is the only way to release them. It has been temporarily shored up by the extension of 2+4 HST operations but this has pretty much reached its limit now.

(Personally I agree with JN114 that the Stadler fleets could have been a much better choice, but as they say hindsight is a wonderful thing, and their introduction in Anglia hasn’t exactly been without its difficulties either. Perhaps for a future 2+4 replacement, now there’s a thought )

 

[DorkingMain]

Whether that is the case or not, there is a looming shortfall of units for the MetroWest programme and currently the 769 programme is the only way to release them. It has been temporarily shored up by the extension of 2+4 HST operations but this has pretty much reached its limit now.

(Personally I agree with JN114 that the Stadler fleets could have been a much better choice, but as they say hindsight is a wonderful thing, and their introduction in Anglia hasn’t exactly been without its difficulties either. Perhaps for a future 2+4 replacement, now there’s a thought )

I don't think it's a "Hindsight is 20/20" situation, more of the typical attitude the railway takes to buying cheaply, and then ending up having to buy twice.

The Class 442 reintroduction at SWR has run into a similar stream of issues, as did the Class 230 re-engineering, etc.

 

[OTRail]

Another 769 delivery to Reading is expected in the very near future but no timings or unit number known as of yet.

The 769 Fault Free Running is ‘allegedly’ starting next week! Wednesday supposedly is the first run, with runs Mon/Wed/Fri in the following weeks.

As ever, watch this space....!

Ooohhh this will be interesting! Will it be working the North Downs route or will it be doing runs between Reading and Oxford?

 

[FGW_DID]

Ooohhh this will be interesting! Will it be working the North Downs route or will it be doing runs between Reading and Oxford?

Colas drivers, who will be carrying out the Fault Free Running were route learning the North Downs last week so presumably the runs will include the North Downs.

 

[OTRail]

Colas drivers, who will be carrying out the Fault Free Running were route learning the North Downs last week so presumably the runs will include the North Downs.

Cheers! Presumably they’ll be doing some GWML runs as well to test them in AC mode?

 

[800 Driver]

That’s surprising - they were used under DOO throughout their duration with Thameslink. What exact mods do they need, or is it a case of mirrors needing to be fitted on the platforms?

it's not the 1980s any more, mirrors are not an acceptable solution for new DOO infrastructure. They are being fitted with a camera system (which actually takes up a lot of the room in an already tiny cab)

 

[OTRail]

it's not the 1980s any more, mirrors are not an acceptable solution for new DOO infrastructure. They are being fitted with a camera system (which actually takes up a lot of the room in an already tiny cab)

Fair enough

 

[FGW_DID]

Another 769 delivery to Reading is expected in the very near future but no timings or unit number known as of yet.

The 769 Fault Free Running is ‘allegedly’ starting next week! Wednesday supposedly is the first run, with runs Mon/Wed/Fri in the following weeks.

As ever, watch this space....!

769943 will return to Reading TCD tomorrow 11/03, ROGs Loco hauled

LD Move: 0R98 07.05 Leicester Sidings - Burton WS 08.28

Loco + 769: 5Q74 09.47 Burton WS - Reading TCD 13.04

 

[3973EXL]

5Q74 37800
Realtime Trains - 561F 0947 Burton Ot Wetmore Sidings to Reading Traincare Depot

90 late start

 

[Greybeard33]

Isn't Reading to Guildford a slightly drier part of the land than Wilmslow to the Fylde Coast? So if Northern examples won't struggle with adhesion, GWR's examples won't be too bad either.

For info two Northern 769s made trial runs from Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge yesterday, in preparation for introduction on the Southport to Stalybridge route. They both climbed Miles Platting bank (1 in 47) in the wet on diesel without apparent difficulty.

According to RTT, they took 3 and 2.75 minutes respectively from Victoria to Miles Platting (average speed of 27 - 30mph), compared with the standard Class 15x timing of 2.5 minutes (33mph).

Realtime Trains - 3Z01 0918 Allerton Depot to Stalybridge

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains - 3Z02 1054 Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Aictos]

it's not the 1980s any more, mirrors are not an acceptable solution for new DOO infrastructure. They are being fitted with a camera system (which actually takes up a lot of the room in an already tiny cab)

But what about platform sited DOO cameras with a row of monitors 2 up and 2 across at the ends of the platforms?

Surely that is just as acceptable as in cab DOO monitors?

 

[AM9]

For info two Northern 769s made trial runs from Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge yesterday, in preparation for introduction on the Southport to Stalybridge route. They both climbed Miles Platting bank (1 in 47) in the wet on diesel without apparent difficulty.

According to RTT, they both took 2.75 minutes to climb the bank, compared with the standard Class 15x timing of 2.5 minutes.

So on a typical mixed electrified and non-electrified service, their better performance in EMU mode would at least result in the same end to end times. Add to that their faster than 75mph capability, and the fact that unelectrified lines would probably have lower traffic densities and be able to accomodate their slower climbing/accleration, means their reliability is the only potential downside as with any unit.

 

[JonathanH]

But what about platform sited DOO cameras with a row of monitors 2 up and 2 across at the ends of the platforms?

Surely that is just as acceptable as in cab DOO monitors?

There aren't a lot of those on the GWR DOO network though. It is mainly mirrors, particularly on the branches.

 

[Greybeard33]

So on a typical mixed electrified and non-electrified service, their better performance in EMU mode would at least result in the same end to end times. Add to that their faster than 75mph capability, and the fact that unelectrified lines would probably have lower traffic densities and be able to accomodate their slower climbing/accleration, means their reliability is the only potential downside as with any unit.

Timings corrected in previous post. I am not sure that these runs enable any conclusions to be drawn about 769 diesel performance in service. The Class 150 service trains (presumably lightly loaded) were actually climbing Miles Platting bank in 2 minutes (41mph) yesterday, but I do not know if the 769s were carrying ballast.

 

[AM9]

Timings corrected in previous post. I am not sure that these runs enable any conclusions to be drawn about 769 diesel performance in service. The Class 150 service trains (presumably lightly loaded) were actually climbing Miles Platting bank in 2 minutes (41mph) yesterday, but I do not know if the 769s were carrying ballast.

Nor do we know if the driver was extracting the maximum performance from the train on that test. Even if there is one minute difference, the higher top speed and acceleration of the 769s in EMU mode would tend to balance the difference, which means that there is no or little degradation in overall service quality but a valuable reduction in carbon emissions.

 

[Greybeard33]

Nor do we know if the driver was extracting the maximum performance from the train on that test. Even if there is one minute difference, the higher top speed and acceleration of the 769s in EMU mode would tend to balance the difference, which means that there is no or little degradation in overall service quality but a valuable reduction in carbon emissions.

See this post in the Northern thread for a driver's opinion, which is not entirely in agreement with yours.

 

[AM9]

See this post in the Northern thread for a driver's opinion, which is not entirely in agreement with yours.

It's been said a few times here that Northern drivers have been told to pull away slowly before the use higher steps. The 319s are (late) '80s introductions vs the 150s early '80s . I've been on plenty of 319s driven under full load with tight headways, - had they not done that the timetable would have collapsed. I've also been on quite a few 150s Owned by three TOCs. They make a lot of noise, but their progress is nothing special, and certainly wouldn't leave a 319 behind.
Oh, and the weight of the 769 gensets and fuel is less than the normal full (i.e. not crush) passenger load of the class, so even with a load that represents a typical service for which they are intended, I doubt that the performance would be an embarassment in a correctly constructed timetable.
Just another opinion in advance of anybody here seeing them in full service.

 

[800 Driver]

But what about platform sited DOO cameras with a row of monitors 2 up and 2 across at the ends of the platforms?

Surely that is just as acceptable as in cab DOO monitors?

Not at all. The problem with platform monitors is that if you stop in slightly the wrong position you can't see the cameras and even if you do stop in the right place at certain times of day the sunlight can make them un-useable.

 

[pompeyfan]

It’s slightly concerning that 769s are reported to be getting DOO cameras, where does this leave guards in the North Downs and Basingstoke areas? (Reading conductors I assume?)

 

[Fincra5]

Not at all. The problem with platform monitors is that if you stop in slightly the wrong position you can't see the cameras and even if you do stop in the right place at certain times of day the sunlight can make them un-useable.

To be fair, there's certain times of the day (and weather!) when the Sun Glare makes DOO Camera's unsuable..