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

[JN114]

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?)

DOO Cameras are all well and good, but pointless if you don’t have in-cab door controls! As it stands at this exact moment in time if 769s end up on their intended routes more services will require guards; not less - routes that haven’t had guards in nearly 30 years in the case of Henley!

There is still a standing commitment, as far as I’m aware, that there will not be any geographic expansion of DOO operation - so presuming that commitment does still stand then Basingstoke and Reading - Redhill are off-limits for DOO.

 

[cactustwirly]

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?)

The DOO cameras are for the Henley and Bourne End services which are already DOO

 

[fgwrich]

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

DOO Cameras are all well and good, but pointless if you don’t have in-cab door controls! As it stands at this exact moment in time if 769s end up on their intended routes more services will require guards; not less - routes that haven’t had guards in nearly 30 years in the case of Henley!

There is still a standing commitment, as far as I’m aware, that there will not be any geographic expansion of DOO operation - so presuming that commitment does still stand then Basingstoke and Reading - Redhill are off-limits for DOO.

Out of interest, how well do the cameras work on the Turbo fleets? I assume it's the same bit of kit being installed to both Turbo and 769 fleets.

 

[JN114]

Out of interest, how well do the cameras work on the Turbo fleets? I assume it's the same bit of kit being installed to both Turbo and 769 fleets.

It isn’t in use yet; and I think still only installed on a handful of units.

 

[Fincra5]

Out of interest, how well do the cameras work on the Turbo fleets? I assume it's the same bit of kit being installed to both Turbo and 769 fleets.

Not sure, I was talking from experience with 377s (and updated cameras/ screens) and 387s

 

[autotank]

I live next to and am a regular user of the Henley branch and I'm glad these units are being installed with cameras to allow continued DOO operations. The 30 minute frequency service was only relatively recently introduced and I'm worried that any increase in operating cost (guards) might tip the balance and mean service reductions.

 

[JN114]

Cameras weren’t ever the issue. And they’re going to be useless for DOO if the driver doesn’t have any controls with which to operate the doors.

 

[Fincra5]

I live next to and am a regular user of the Henley branch and I'm glad these units are being installed with cameras to allow continued DOO operations. The 30 minute frequency service was only relatively recently introduced and I'm worried that any increase in operating cost (guards) might tip the balance and mean service reductions.

I don't think having a guard and a frequency of the service is related...

 

[cactustwirly]

I don't think having a guard and a frequency of the service is related...

Well it does if having a guard increases the dwell time at stations.
The 30 minute service is tightly timetabled with only 3 minute turnarounds at each end

 

[Fincra5]

Well it does if having a guard increases the dwell time at stations.
The 30 minute service is tightly timetabled with only 3 minute turnarounds at each end

I doesn't really. From experience of working both DOO and Guarded Trains... (Timetables can always be tweaked, which is likely as I'm not sold a 769 can match a 166 timing!)

 

[221101 Voyager]

What I don't get is how slow these things are to accelerate.

Surely at some point, someone must have thought these trains are pretty slow as 319s, how about give it some more power, as opposed to what actually seems to have happened which is - oh just a few more tonnes to slow it down some more.

I don't get it at all.

 

[Domh245]

What I don't get is how slow these things are to accelerate.

Surely at some point, someone must have thought these trains are pretty slow as 319s, how about give it some more power, as opposed to what actually seems to have happened which is - oh just a few more tonnes to slow it down some more.

I don't get it at all.

Because they were initially developed as a 150 replacement, so lethargic performance was entirely acceptable. That and perhaps most importantly they were supposed to be a fairly simple conversion by just adding the engines and reusing as much else as possible. The cost (both £ & time) for developing, installing & certifying new traction equipment just doesn't make sense, particularly when the weight of the additional equipment (at ~15t per train) is less than a full seating load at an average 75kg/passenger

 

[samuelmorris]

What I don't get is how slow these things are to accelerate.

Surely at some point, someone must have thought these trains are pretty slow as 319s, how about give it some more power, as opposed to what actually seems to have happened which is - oh just a few more tonnes to slow it down some more.

I don't get it at all.

The weight isn't the issue, it's more the fact that apart from the added weight, they have less power than on electric. All that said, I'm still not convinced the performance witnessed thus far is appropriate for the amount of power they have. They're not exactly going to be fast, but they should be better than what we've seen at the moment.

 

[cactustwirly]

I doesn't really. From experience of working both DOO and Guarded Trains... (Timetables can always be tweaked, which is likely as I'm not sold a 769 can match a 166 timing!)

Well a DOO 165 can do a stop at say Wargrave in 30 seconds.
The door opening process on a guarded train is 30 seconds to get the doors open. The guard needs to open their local door, step out onto platform, check and step back in to open the doors. On a DOO train it's a matter of a couple of seconds for the driver to check the mirrors and release the doors.

 

[221101 Voyager]

Because they were initially developed as a 150 replacement, so lethargic performance was entirely acceptable. That and perhaps most importantly they were supposed to be a fairly simple conversion by just adding the engines and reusing as much else as possible. The cost (both £ & time) for developing, installing & certifying new traction equipment just doesn't make sense, particularly when the weight of the additional equipment (at ~15t per train) is less than a full seating load at an average 75kg/passenger

I've hear these trains are slower than 150's, is that true?

The weight isn't the issue, it's more the fact that apart from the added weight, they have less power than on electric. All that said, I'm still not convinced the performance witnessed thus far is appropriate for the amount of power they have. They're not exactly going to be fast, but they should be better than what we've seen at the moment.

Less power than on electric? Blimey, that explains why they are so sluggish!


Surely, they could've had more power on diesel mode by fitting higher horsepower engines?

 

[JonathanH]

I doesn't really. From experience of working both DOO and Guarded Trains... (Timetables can always be tweaked, which is likely as I'm not sold a 769 can match a 166 timing!)

It depends a lot on whether the guard is doing revenue duties and where they are in the train. If they are at the front selling a ticket when the train arrives in the station, there can be a substantial dwell while the guard completes the ticket sale and gets to the dispatch point.

Henley and Bourne End are DOO but, in my experience, morning trains on both routes usually have a member of revenue staff aboard to sell tickets. With only a few minutes between stops and assuming that the guard would have to do revenue, it would appear that a non-DOO operation (and indeed 769 acceleration) could lead to slower timings.

I note that the Bourne End peak trains (as well as Basingstoke / North Downs) are timed for 769s from May but the Henley branch isn't yet.

Surely, they could've had more power on diesel mode by fitting higher horsepower engines?

It depends on what fits, what weight can be supported by the frame of the unit and what meets emissions standards, plus cost of course.

 

[samuelmorris]

I've hear these trains are slower than 150's, is that true?


Less power than on electric? Blimey, that explains why they are so sluggish!


Surely, they could've had more power on diesel mode by fitting higher horsepower engines?

Not more, as the same electric motors still drive the wheels. Enough diesel power to cater for all the auxiliary power requirements while matching the rating of the traction motors after accounting for efficiency losses, would result in similar performance, if not quite the same due to the extra weight of the gensets. Fitting that within an existing 20m per-vehicle EMU, however, is easier said than done, especially when adhering to emissions regulations that older DMUs did not have to meet.

 

[autotank]

Dwell times are a concern with such tight turnarounds hat the 30 minute frequency demands. Also I believe there is an agreement in place that means drivers only do a certain number of round trips in a row on the branch. Would this be the case for guards as well? This type of agreement would make it more cost effectve to reduce the service frequency as it would mean a guard and driver could cover the branch for longer as each return trip would take longer. Adding a guard also adds in another reason to cancel services - if there is no guard, no train! From my point of view (as purely a passenger and keen rail supporter), I'd much rather reduce the Henley branch to a 2 car Monday to Friday (we currently get 3), in return for keeping 165s and secure the 30 minute frequency.

 

[Greybeard33]

The cost (both £ & time) for developing, installing & certifying new traction equipment just doesn't make sense, particularly when the weight of the additional equipment (at ~15t per train) is less than a full seating load at an average 75kg/passenger

But surely they are designed to carry the same number of passengers as a 319? In which case the weight of the passengers is not relevant to the comparison.

Surely, they could've had more power on diesel mode by fitting higher horsepower engines?

No room. The existing engines are shoehorned into the available space. The way to improve performance would be to replace the old inefficient DC traction motors with modern AC equivalents. That would make better use of the available power, particularly accelerating away from a stand.

But that would have made the conversion even more expensive....

 

[Clarence Yard]

Dwell times are a concern with such tight turnarounds hat the 30 minute frequency demands. Also I believe there is an agreement in place that means drivers only do a certain number of round trips in a row on the branch. Would this be the case for guards as well? This type of agreement would make it more cost effectve to reduce the service frequency as it would mean a guard and driver could cover the branch for longer as each return trip would take longer. Adding a guard also adds in another reason to cancel services - if there is no guard, no train! From my point of view (as purely a passenger and keen rail supporter), I'd much rather reduce the Henley branch to a 2 car Monday to Friday (we currently get 3), in return for keeping 165s and secure the 30 minute frequency.

The service frequency isn’t going to be reduced - that frequency is a contractual requirement and as routes in franchises are not separately costed, it really doesn’t matter whether a 319 costs more than a 165. The costs of either type are already baked into the franchise, the running costs being relatively marginal - the lease costs of the unit being by far the biggest sum.

 

[JonathanH]

But surely they are designed to carry the same number of passengers as a 319? In which case the weight of the passengers is not relevant to the comparison.

The passengers loads they are going to carry as 769s on the current planned routes do not have anything like the crush loading that some 319s saw in Thameslink days, and if at any point they do it will only be for a short part of the journey.

 

[Roger B]

The service frequency isn’t going to be reduced - that frequency is a contractual requirement and as routes in franchises are not separately costed, it really doesn’t matter whether a 319 costs more than a 165. The costs of either type are already baked into the franchise, the running costs being relatively marginal - the lease costs of the unit being by far the biggest sum.

I'm not sure what was / wasn't recorded in franchise agreements holds much sway over today's operations - and probably even less so going forwards.

 

[Fincra5]

Well a DOO 165 can do a stop at say Wargrave in 30 seconds.
The door opening process on a guarded train is 30 seconds to get the doors open. The guard needs to open their local door, step out onto platform, check and step back in to open the doors. On a DOO train it's a matter of a couple of seconds for the driver to check the mirrors and release the doors.

Depends on what the set up is, if its Driver Release and Guard Close, its not really that much in it. Thats how it is at my TOC (we do both)... Closing the Door adds what 5 seconds maybe? Again depends on setup. But, a 769 will still require Timetable alterations due to the slower nature of the train!

 

[Clarence Yard]

I'm not sure what was / wasn't recorded in franchise agreements holds much sway over today's operations - and probably even less so going forwards.

It’s still a contractual requirement until the DfT decides to alter it.

It’s peak frequencies into London Termini where the real savings are.

 

[Domh245]

But surely they are designed to carry the same number of passengers as a 319? In which case the weight of the passengers is not relevant to the comparison.

Like @JonathanH says, they're unlikely to be carrying the same number of passengers as 319s did in their heyday on Thameslink. The main point though was that 15t, in the scheme of a 4 car train is not much (~10% increase), particularly in the context of variable weights like passengers (which for a 319 as set out in the northern franchise agreement, taking a 75kg average is 30t different from full empty to fully loaded)

 

[800 Driver]

These trains will never enter service. Apart from the MD no one at GWR wants them. The local Union Reps have refused to approve them until a suitable air con system is fitted to the cab and they also want changes to the cab design to create more room for drivers (both of these would be impossible to deliver without huge expense) I hear that the union reps are being egged on by senior managers that also think these trains are crap and don't want them.

So I hear today's test run has been postponed ......

 

[Clarence Yard]

Next Wednesday - providing everyone is able to attend.

 

[IronHorse]

Any testing today?

 

[JonathanH]

Any testing today?

Reported elsewhere as deferred to Monday. No paths yet shown.

 

[Bikeman78]

Cameras weren’t ever the issue. And they’re going to be useless for DOO if the driver doesn’t have any controls with which to operate the doors.

319s were DOO pretty much from day one. Have the door controls been taken out of the cabs?
EDIT: Just read post 545 which answers my question.

(Timetables can always be tweaked, which is likely as I'm not sold a 769 can match a 166 timing!)

No chance of a 769 matching a 166 schedule. They only keep time on the valleys because of the extra dwell time put in since Covid.