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

[JonathanH]

I wouldn’t say it’s not liking them, it’s more a case of “GWR should have ordered new bi-modes instead of the 769s” given the amount of time and effort it’s taking to get them into service - then again, that’s just my opinion…

Presumably if a business case could have been made for new bi-modes, that might have happened. Clearly it wasn't possible, even with other work found within GWR for the Turbo fleet they would be displacing.

 

[AM9]

I wouldn’t say it’s not liking them, it’s more a case of “GWR should have ordered new bi-modes instead of the 769s” given the amount of time and effort it’s taking to get them into service - then again, that’s just my opinion…

I wasn't necessarily aiming at any one person, but in all three 769 threads (GWR, NT & TfW) there have been comments that seem to be expressing personal dislikes as a reason for the relevant TOC to abandon them. They have had an extended introduction in all three modes that they are operating in, largely owing to the experimental elements of their system design. The fact that bi-modes are what is needed and back in 2017, there were no UK spec bi-modes available on the market. Much has been learnt during the 319 flex programme about bi-modes so the next time that there is a service need AND the budget to purchase from new, they can be ask a manufacturer to design and make units that will serve the decarbonisation of the railway as well as deliver the bi-mode service for which they would be ordered.

 

[43102EMR]

I wasn't necessarily aiming at any one person, but in all three 769 threads (GWR, NT & TfW) there have been comments that seem to be expressing personal dislikes as a reason for the relevant TOC to abandon them. They have had an extended introduction in all three modes that they are operating in, largely owing to the experimental elements of their system design. The fact that bi-modes are what is needed and back in 2017, there were no UK spec bi-modes available on the market. Much has been learnt during the 319 flex programme about bi-modes so the next time that there is a service need AND the budget to purchase from new, they can be ask a manufacturer to design and make units that will serve the decarbonisation of the railway as well as deliver the bi-mode service for which they would be ordered.

Yes I knew what you meant At the time I thought it was a decent idea given the PRM mods done to nearly all 86 units, but with all the newer EMUs coming off-lease and the 365s heading for scrap, I started to dislike the project more and more as time went on.

 

[AM9]

Yes I knew what you meant At the time I thought it was a decent idea given the PRM mods done to nearly all 86 units, but with all the newer EMUs coming off-lease and the 365s heading for scrap, I started to dislike the project more and more as time went on.

But the newer EMUs weren't as suitable for converting to bi-mode. The big gain from the 319s is that they have a DC bus onto which the generator can provide local power. I think this is the architecture adopted for the entire Electrostar family and maybe the Desiro EMUs. The appeal of the cosmetics of the 319s seem to be driving the opinions of some posters.
In essence, the whole exercise was an experiment initiated by Porterbrook who as the 319s' RoSCo wanted to create an ongoing revenue stream for at least some the 86 EMUs that were coming off their lease to GTR. Northern were offered an opportunity to have something that would increase the capacity of lines then being served by 2-car class 150s that would be nearing 40 years old by the time that the 769s should have arrived. They would also have the opportunity to run those trains from the recently installed catenary that some of their routes offered.
The experimental programme had a couple of technical hitches, one of which caused an inordinate delay in design clearance, causing some to question the wisdom of committing certain live services to the risks of such a programme.
Back on the main topic here, both GWR and TfW were attracted to the same programme so inevitably they are vulnerable to the same risks. Interestingly, it seems that the three TOCs acquiring them have had quite different experiences with them so far which I have suggested may be a reflection on the effectiveness of their respective maintenance provisions.

 

[73128]

Would the 769s potentially mean direct Henley on Thames to Paddington fast trains again as opposed to the change that happened when the 387s came in.

most unlikely - they're not passed east of Slough/Maidenhead and the crossing moves are tricky to timetable.

 

[swt_passenger]

most unlikely - they're not passed east of Slough/Maidenhead and the crossing moves are tricky to timetable.

Please note you’re replying to a three year old post, that was answered at the time, eg in post #33.

 

[FenMan]

Presumably if a business case could have been made for new bi-modes, that might have happened. Clearly it wasn't possible, even with other work found within GWR for the Turbo fleet they would be displacing.

But it wasn't a business case, but it was definitely a political case.

The scenario at that time was Network Rail was massively overspending on electrifying points west of Paddington, thereby killing off all hope of electrifying less used lines. The then Transport Secretary, one Chris Grayling, was in a bind and, being ambitious (how we can laugh now at his misplaced ambition) and wanting to look good, he pushed hard for bi- or tri-mode trains that would eliminate the (then substantial) risk of Network Rail making him look like an idiot.

Porterbrook, looking at its soon to be off-lease 319s, heard the call and proposed a cut-price alternative to ordering new stock.

And here we are.

 

[JonathanH]

But it wasn't a business case, but it was definitely a political case.

The scenario at that time was Network Rail was massively overspending on electrifying points west of Paddington, thereby killing off all hope of electrifying less used lines. The then Transport Secretary, one Chris Grayling, was in a bind and, being ambitious (how we can laugh now at his misplaced ambition) and wanting to look good, he pushed hard for bi- or tri-mode trains that would eliminate the (then substantial) risk of Network Rail making him look like an idiot.

Porterbrook, looking at its soon to be off-lease 319s, heard the call and proposed a cut-price alternative to ordering new stock.

And here we are.

That would seem realistic if they were operating to Oxford where electrification has been cut back but they aren't. They are for different routes which weren't part of the electrification plans. They were needed because they could displace Turbos to the west, not to make good failings with the reach of electrification.

 

[The Ham]

That would seem realistic if they were operating to Oxford where electrification has been cut back but they aren't. They are for different routes which weren't part of the electrification plans. They were needed because they could displace Turbos to the west, not to make good failings with the reach of electrification.

I'm only sort of minded to agree, in that if the electrification had gone well then it could have been that some of the Thames Valley branches could have had electrification added to them within a fairly short time and/or more electrification to remove the need for diesels around Bath and Bristol (yes there's probably not a lot without getting wires up between Western-super-Mare and Seven Beach, which would take a good few years) and so the need to have bimodals in the short term for GWR could have been reduced.

Likewise it could have meant the full development of the Electric Spine, which wouldn't have gained many DMU's (a few for the GWR Banbury services) again could have seen further electrification in other areas to remove the need for DMU's across the network within the next few years (freeing then up for others to use).

 

[Wyrleybart]

That would seem realistic if they were operating to Oxford where electrification has been cut back but they aren't. They are for different routes which weren't part of the electrification plans. They were needed because they could displace Turbos to the west, not to make good failings with the reach of electrification.

I believe you are correct. IIRC The GWR franchise needed DMUs in the West and more on the Cardiff - Pompey route. Not sure who offered who, but the nineteen 769s were signed up by the DfT solely to migrate 165 and 166 west. Didcot - Oxford OLE is a red herring because a number of IETs operate the Paddington services, although obviously not as many as the commuters would hope for.

Technically, I believe the Oxford electrification hasn't been cut back . merely paused until Oxford station is rebuilt, resignalled and OLE'd

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, the decision to go for 769 units was based on the (HS2 related) need for the 332 units to come out of service and be replaced by 387 units.Turbos would temporally work the services the released 387 had worked and the 769 units would backfill the Turbos.

Once the December 2018 timetable (in actuality December 2019) came in and further 387 would be released off services now operated by 345 units, the 16 3 car 165 units would go West and release 10 2 car 150 and the 2 3 car 150 units, which would have gone to Northern to replace Pacers. There would have been some spare Turbos for service enhancements in the West.

That was the original plan, as approved by the DfT. I know because I wrote it and did a lot of the negotiation. There was also an option for another 4 769 units, which was not taken up. Since approval, a lot has happened (or not happened) so GWR are now in a completely different situation.

The choice of 769 units was because they were the only unit likely to be available before the December 2018 requirement for Heathrow Express to be out of OOC and the 332 units had nowhere else where they could go.

 

[cactustwirly]

No, the decision to go for 769 units was based on the (HS2 related) need for the 332 units to come out of service and be replaced by 387 units.Turbos would temporally work the services the released 387 had worked and the 769 units would backfill the Turbos.

Once the December 2018 timetable (in actuality December 2019) came in and further 387 would be released off services now operated by 345 units, the 16 3 car 165 units would go West and release 10 2 car 150 and the 2 3 car 150 units, which would have gone to Northern to replace Pacers. There would have been some spare Turbos for service enhancements in the West.

That was the original plan, as approved by the DfT. I know because I wrote it and did a lot of the negotiation. There was also an option for another 4 769 units, which was not taken up. Since approval, a lot has happened (or not happened) so GWR are now in a completely different situation.

The choice of 769 units was because they were the only unit likely to be available before the December 2018 requirement for Heathrow Express to be out of OOC and the 332 units had nowhere else where they could go.

So where does that leave the 769s now?
All of that happened a long time before the 769s were ready.
769s are still a long way from being in service, so does it not make sense to bin the 769s and keep the turbos in Reading?

In the next franchise additional 158s could be leased to get rid of the castle HSTs

 

[JonathanH]

769s are still a long way from being in service, so does it not make sense to bin the 769s and keep the turbos in Reading?

While that is one view, the additional 165s moving to Bristol displaced by 769s could still start to remove HSTs on diagrams that don't go south of Taunton and enable more of the Portsmouth services to run with 5 coaches as there are still plenty where only 3 coaches are provided (although maybe that is sufficient).

I dont think it is speculative to note that the 769 programme hasn't come to a halt so there must be some reason to keep it going linked to using the Turbos elsewhere.

 

[reddragon]

So where does that leave the 769s now?
All of that happened a long time before the 769s were ready.
769s are still a long way from being in service, so does it not make sense to bin the 769s and keep the turbos in Reading?

In the next franchise additional 158s could be leased to get rid of the castle HSTs

769's will use the OLE / 3rd rail in the depot (noise complaints), Gatwick service, and other allocated locals. No change required.

 

[3973EXL]

STP 26/01 1042 Wolverton - Reading
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K01087/2022-01-26/detailed
Inwards loco move (Q) has not run.

STP 28/01 1042 Wolverton - Reading
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K01087/2022-01-28/detailed

 

[Wyrleybart]

But the newer EMUs weren't as suitable for converting to bi-mode. The big gain from the 319s is that they have a DC bus onto which the generator can provide local power. I think this is the architecture adopted for the entire Electrostar family and maybe the Desiro EMUs. The appeal of the cosmetics of the 319s seem to be driving the opinions of some posters.

Is the DC bus reason totally correct though ? I am not totally sure but I believe Wabtec have had to install another DC bus into each unit to effectively "balance" , or provide a return between the new engine rafts on the outer cars. I believe another / allied reason why the 319s were selected was because of their chopper control, something that new EMUs like the 321 etc didn't have.

No, the decision to go for 769 units was based on the (HS2 related) need for the 332 units to come out of service and be replaced by 387 units.Turbos would temporally work the services the released 387 had worked and the 769 units would backfill the Turbos.

Once the December 2018 timetable (in actuality December 2019) came in and further 387 would be released off services now operated by 345 units, the 16 3 car 165 units would go West and release 10 2 car 150 and the 2 3 car 150 units, which would have gone to Northern to replace Pacers. There would have been some spare Turbos for service enhancements in the West.

That was the original plan, as approved by the DfT. I know because I wrote it and did a lot of the negotiation. There was also an option for another 4 769 units, which was not taken up. Since approval, a lot has happened (or not happened) so GWR are now in a completely different situation.

The choice of 769 units was because they were the only unit likely to be available before the December 2018 requirement for Heathrow Express to be out of OOC and the 332 units had nowhere else where they could go.

Thanks "CY". Was that because the class 332 maintenance facility was in the way of the HS2 groundworks, that the 332s had to go ?

 

[AM9]

Is the DC bus reason totally correct though ? I am not totally sure but I believe Wabtec have had to install another DC bus into each unit to effectively "balance" , or provide a return between the new engine rafts on the outer cars. I believe another / allied reason why the 319s were selected was because of their chopper control, something that new EMUs like the 321 etc didn't have.



Thanks "CY". Was that because the class 332 maintenance facility was in the way of the HS2 groundworks, that the 332s had to go ?

Not quite. The return for the 750VDC bus was via the running rails both under 25k ac or 750VDC. However when running on diesel on unelectrified track there is no guaranteed return path (other than track circuits which are unsuitable for traction currents), so a negative return line was installed. The chopper control was on the 319s as the technology of the day offered that as an improvement over a camshaft or contactor switched resistor bank that would have been used on earlier designs, similar to the 455s. The class 306 and 307 were GE unts originally running under 1500VDC OLE with resisteance banks to control their DC motors. When they were modified to run on 6.25/25kVac, the resistors and contactors were retained and powered by a 1500VDC supply from the transformer/rectifier.

 

[Clarence Yard]

[QUOTE="Wyrleybart, Thanks "CY". Was that because the class 332 maintenance facility was in the way of the HS2 groundworks, that the 332s had to go ?
[/QUOTE]

Yes. There was no room at Reading and an idea to put a depot up at Langley, paid for by HS2, foundered on grounds of cost and lack of space.

 

[craigybagel]

Despite some here calling for the immediate scrapping of the 769s (presumably because they don't like them), it doesn't look like GWR are going to give up on them, so they are likely to be put in service as planned.

"As planned" - except for the fact the "plan" had them entering service with GWR nearly 3 years ago.

Back on the main topic here, both GWR and TfW were attracted to the same programme so inevitably they are vulnerable to the same risks. Interestingly, it seems that the three TOCs acquiring them have had quite different experiences with them so far which I have suggested may be a reflection on the effectiveness of their respective maintenance provisions.

As I've pointed out to you before, I'm finding it hard to see how the three TOCs involved have had such a different experience, and how aspersions can be cast on their respective maintenance. All three of the fleets were heavily delayed into service. Two of the three fleets have suffered from appalling reliability in service, and we can't say much about the third since it hasn't actually entered service yet (again, nearly 3 years late!).

Indeed, I'm starting to wonder if we'll actually see all three fleets in service at the same time - or whether TfW, having seemingly decided to replace their 769s earlier than planned with Stadlers will manage to do so before GWR get theirs into service.

 

[AM9]

"As planned" - except for the fact the "plan" had them entering service with GWR nearly 3 years ago.

As this part of the thread is discussing the delays I didn't think there would be any benefit in repeating that. The services that they will be deployed on by GWR are the same as originally intended though aren't they?

As I've pointed out to you before, I'm finding it hard to see how the three TOCs involved have had such a different experience, and how aspersions can be cast on their respective maintenance. All three of the fleets were heavily delayed into service. Two of the three fleets have suffered from appalling reliability in service, and we can't say much about the third since it hasn't actually entered service yet (again, nearly 3 years late!).

It's still my opinion so I stated it for in response to a post from another member. Meanwhile, you are still finding it hard to believe. OK.

 

[craigybagel]

As this part of the thread is discussing the delays I didn't think there would be any benefit in repeating that. The services that they will be deployed on by GWR are the same as originally intended though aren't they?

Yes, but presumably GWR have had to undertake some kind of shuffle or otherwise delayed the introduction of extra capacity on other routes to cope with them still being short of useable 769s, which I'm sure wouldn't have been planned.

It's still my opinion so I stated it for in response to a post from another member. Meanwhile, you are still finding it hard to believe. OK.

If you're going to suggest that there is a tangible difference in the reliability of the fleets at different TOCs and that this is somehow a "reflection on the effectiveness of their respective maintenance provisions", don't be surprised when people challenge you.

When you have a fleet this unreliable across 3 TOCs, surely it's more of a problem with the unit itself?

To bring this back to GWR, they have 0 out of 19 sets in public use today. TfW have 4 out of 9, and Northern 3 out of 8.

 

[AM9]

Yes, but presumably GWR have had to undertake some kind of shuffle or otherwise delayed the introduction of extra capacity on other routes to cope with them still being short of useable 769s, which I'm sure wouldn't have been planned.

If you're going to suggest that there is a tangible difference in the reliability of the fleets at different TOCs and that this is somehow a "reflection on the effectiveness of their respective maintenance provisions", don't be surprised when people challenge you.

When you have a fleet this unreliable across 3 TOCs, surely it's more of a problem with the unit itself?

To bring this back to GWR, they have 0 out of 19 sets in public use today. TfW have 4 out of 9, and Northern 3 out of 8.

As far as I know, the GWR trains are still destined for the same routes that they were ordered for.
Challenges, especially those who think wrongly that I am criticising the individuals themselves don't bother me. I don't waste webspace doing me-too posts. We've seen how long it took the Northern support operation to get used to the 319s when they were transferred to Allerton even when they were getting a much easier time than in Thameslink service. Bedding down previously reliable trains in a new organisation can take time.
The three sub classes of 769s have different configurations and different usage, consequently the failure patterns are also different. The GWR sets have the most complex role (ac,DC & diesel-electric) but personally, I suspect that they will prove to be the most reliable in service. So when all the prep work is completed and there are enough drivers to run a full service, the impact of their maintenance regime should be apparent.
Just how many of the 19 GWR sets have a trained crew ready to take them out?

 

[warwickshire]

As far as I know, the GWR trains are still destined for the same routes that they were ordered for.
Challenges, especially those who think wrongly that I am criticising the individuals themselves don't bother me. I don't waste webspace doing me-too posts. We've seen how long it took the Northern support operation to get used to the 319s when they were transferred to Allerton even when they were getting a much easier time than in Thameslink service. Bedding down previously reliable trains in a new organisation can take time.
The three sub classes of 769s have different configurations and different usage, consequently the failure patterns are also different. The GWR sets have the most complex role (ac,DC & diesel-electric) but personally, I suspect that they will prove to be the most reliable in service. So when all the prep work is completed and there are enough drivers to run a full service, the impact of their maintenance regime should be apparent.
Just how many of the 19 GWR sets have a trained crew ready to take them out?

Fully agree they will be in service as soon as gwr can get them into service.
Another reason is that the moves are still going on mainly week by week since late November 2021 and our ongoing by delivering a unit week by week from wolverton centre sidings to reading gwr Depot.
Iff it had been cancelled the moves would have been to ely mlf Papworth for example giving more a cause for concern.

 

[3973EXL]

28/01

1042 Wolverton - Reading
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K01087/2022-01-28/detailed

0923 Oxford CS -Eastleigh Q Path
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K06147/2022-01-28/detailed

1040 Long Marston - Eastleigh Q Path
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K06148/2022-01-28/detailed

1111 Reading - Oxford Up CS
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K06145/2022-01-28/detailed

1313 Oxford Up CS - Long Marston
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K06146/2022-01-28/detailed

 

[spark001uk]

0923 Long Marston -Eastleigh Q Path
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K06147/2022-01-28/detailed

Did you mean Oxford Cs - Eastleigh? That's what the corresponding link brings up.

 

[3973EXL]

Did you mean Oxford Cs - Eastleigh? That's what the corresponding link brings up.

There's Q paths from Oxford & Long Marston - post updated.

 

[FGW_DID]

28/01

1042 Wolverton - Reading
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K01087/2022-01-28/detailed

0923 Oxford CS -Eastleigh Q Path 769925
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K06147/2022-01-28/detailed

1040 Long Marston - Eastleigh Q Path
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K06148/2022-01-28/detailed

1111 Reading - Oxford Up CS 769939
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K06145/2022-01-28/detailed

1313 Oxford Up CS - Long Marston 769938
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K06146/2022-01-28/detailed

Units added were known. (Usual disclaimer applies! )
769949 pencilled in for the usual Gatwick run.

 

[3973EXL]

0H70 Derby just arrived Wolverton 0903 for 5Q74.

0923 Oxford - Eastleigh dep RT

5Q74 1042 Wolverton - Reading dep 1029

1111 Reading - Oxford Caped

1313 Oxford CS - Long Marston dep RT

 

[warwickshire]

Good afternoon 5Q74 57310 with 769940 through Hatton 8 early on it's way from wolverton centre sidings to reading tmd Depot at reading.

 

[JonathanH]

Good afternoon 5Q74 57310 with 769940 through Hatton 8 early on it's way from wolverton centre sidings to reading tmd Depot at reading.

Are all 19 going to be delivered before they get anywhere near entering service?