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

[AM9]

Sorry, but as a career railwayman and enthusiastic passenger using the NDL, this has been utterly pathetic. I have no idea what the full cost has been for this abortive project but it will have been very substantial.

Not necessarily, the majority of the engineering cost has probably been borne by the RoSCo, so effectively a private venture.

There has been a lack of drive in the railway to pursue vigorously the blindingly obvious sensible option of third rail infill ...

Nope, the decision on no more exposed high voltages on knee level conductors is on safety grounds, so what may be "blindingly obvious" to you, doesn't stand up to scrutiny by the relevant safety authorities.

... and there appears to have been an amazing naivety about the conversion of very old units into reliable electro-diesels. The shambolic nature of rolling stock deployment on the whole railway has added to the mess and is one of the innumerable disasters of privatisation. I know others will say that the knowledge gained will be valuable - but will it really?

Whist I agree that the specification and provision of rollong strock in the pseudo privatised railway is shambolic, the bi-mode experiment with the released class 319s was not wasted, and even if it is seriously considered as a 'disaster', as you put it, much has been learned, both in engineering terms and generating future procurement requirements. In life, we learn more from failures that successes. Just look back at BR's 40+ years and see the failures there.

Will anyone touch any project like this again with a barge pole? Meanwhile the NDL blunders on with the appalling decade-plus-long mismanagement of the 165/166 regime for who knows how much longer. An embarrasment.

You would need to ask a RoSCo that question.

 

[Razorblades]

Deepgreen said:
'I have no idea what the full cost has been for this abortive project but it will have been very substantial.'

Not necessarily, the majority of the engineering cost has probably been borne by the RoSCo, so effectively a private venture.

I don't see the relevance; the cost is still a cost that could have otherwise been put to different, potentially better, use. The source of this sunk cost barely matters, as it will be passed-on via the TOC, ultimately to the end user, one way or another via the fare-box.

Nope, the decision on no more exposed high voltages on knee level conductors is on safety grounds, so what may be "blindingly obvious" to you, doesn't stand up to scrutiny by the relevant safety authorities.

If safety was that badly compromised by the presence of the juice-rail, the third-rail network would have been converted to OHLE by now. The relevant authorities' binary-appearing scrutiny needs to be rigorously scrutinized itself, as infill electrification has huge benefits.

 

[Class455]

Has it actually been confirmed that GWR are not going to use their Class 769 or has all this discussion been borne out of speculation because a government sheet published in June said their leases were not been renewed?

 

[AM9]

Deepgreen said:
'I have no idea what the full cost has been for this abortive project but it will have been very substantial.'

I don't see the relevance; the cost is still a cost that could have otherwise been put to different, potentially better, use. The source of this sunk cost barely matters, as it will be passed-on via the TOC, ultimately to the end user, one way or another via the fare-box.

Why would that be the case, RoSCos are profit making companies pure and simple. Some they win some they don't, - here's no charity handout when EMUs are scrapped as early as possible instead of developing them for some other task. If that was the case then the Porterbrook 350/2s should have been scrapped when they were first released.
Of course, you might prefer that trains that have lost their gloss are replaced with brand new stock to make the TOC's job easier, maybe just like the 701s?

If safety was that badly compromised by the presence of the juice-rail, the third-rail network would have been converted to OHLE by now. The relevant authorities' binary-appearing scrutiny needs to be rigorously scrutinized itself, as infill electrification has huge benefits.

That's unrealistic given the amount of grandfather rights that the railway depends on elsewhere especially where the installed equipment and the surrounding infrastructure has considerable working life. That is why it applies to new electrification schemes where an established hazard is being made worse :

a) by increasing the size of the danger​

and​

b) introducing it in locations where there is no familiarity with the danger​

Increasing hazards unnecessarily on the railway (especially when there are alternative methods) has huge disbenefits.

 

[TurboMan]

Has it actually been confirmed that GWR are not going to use their Class 769 or has all this discussion been borne out of speculation because a government sheet published in June said their leases were not been renewed?

Everyone working on the GWR class 769 project is still working on the GWR class 769 project.

The M/W/F runs to Redhill are on hold until the new year but that is due to the strike action, Xmas leave, and Xmas engineering works.

 

[Deepgreen]

Why would that be the case, RoSCos are profit making companies pure and simple. Some they win some they don't, - here's no charity handout when EMUs are scrapped as early as possible instead of developing them for some other task. If that was the case then the Porterbrook 350/2s should have been scrapped when they were first released.
Of course, you might prefer that trains that have lost their gloss are replaced with brand new stock to make the TOC's job easier, maybe just like the 701s?



That's unrealistic given the amount of grandfather rights that the railway depends on elsewhere especially where the installed equipment and the surrounding infrastructure has considerable working life. That is why it applies to new electrification schemes where an established hazard is being made worse :

a) by increasing the size of the danger​

and​

b) introducing it in locations where there is no familiarity with the danger​

Increasing hazards unnecessarily on the railway (especially when there are alternative methods) has huge disbenefits.

Given that almost all of the stretches that are non-electrified on the NDL are rural, trespass risk, and therefore hazard, is very low compared with urban areas. I'm leaving aside staff risk here for the moment as training deals with that, and the staff involved are very likely to encounter third rail elsewhere anyway. Increasing hazard needs to realistically quantified, while the "alternative method" (presumbly OHLE) is also unrealistic from a cost perspective. Even a stop-gap measure (769s) is unavailable, it now increasingly seems. So, we are still stuck with the (very old) 'diesel all the way' medium-term future. There had been talk not long ago of a possible relaxation of stringency regarding some infilling - is that also not happening?

 

[jackot]

Sorry, but as a career railwayman and enthusiastic passenger using the NDL, this has been utterly pathetic. I have no idea what the full cost has been for this abortive project but it will have been very substantial. There has been a lack of drive in the railway to pursue vigorously the blindingly obvious sensible option of third rail infill and there appears to have been an amazing naivety about the conversion of very old units into reliable electro-diesels. The shambolic nature of rolling stock deployment on the whole railway has added to the mess and is one of the innumerable disasters of privatisation. I know others will say that the knowledge gained will be valuable - but will it really? Will anyone touch any project like this again with a barge pole? Meanwhile the NDL blunders on with the appalling decade-plus-long mismanagement of the 165/166 regime for who knows how much longer. An embarrasment.

The 769s seem to have been a real failure so far, and I truly doubt they will ever enter passenger service for GWR - hopefully I will be proven wrong... The amount of money wasted on trains like the 442s, 769s and now the 458 refurbishment must equate to hundreds of millions in the South of England alone; it really is not a good image for the railways in general at all. As you said infill would make more sense, but as always short-term thinking prevailed and we are left in a position even worse than we were before. Not to say that in 2019 we could have predicted with 100% accuracy that the 769s would be a guaranteed failure, but in retrospect it seems blindingly obvious. Even if they do enter service, it seems they will have an exceptionally short lifespan as well, just to really add to the success and viability of the project.

 

[Wyrleybart]

The 769s seem to have been a real failure so far, and I truly doubt they will ever enter passenger service for GWR - hopefully I will be proven wrong... The amount of money wasted on trains like the 442s, 769s and now the 458 refurbishment must equate to hundreds of millions in the South of England alone; it really is not a good image for the railways in general at all. As you said infill would make more sense, but as always short-term thinking prevailed and we are left in a position even worse than we were before. Not to say that in 2019 we could have predicted with 100% accuracy that the 769s would be a guaranteed failure, but in retrospect it seems blindingly obvious. Even if they do enter service, it seems they will have an exceptionally short lifespan as well, just to really add to the success and viability of the project.

Really not sure anymore. The one thing I believe is the gestation period of the class 769 variants was way too short. The diesel only variety operating for TfW seem to have settled down and they normally run 5 of the 8 every day. The Northern ones seem more problematic, maybe because they are Flex 25kV and diesel. GWR flexs seem to be a very political problem which should never have been allowed to develop. There seem to have been constant upgrades and modifications carried out to them, but still they are not in service. Time the DfT stepped in and took the decision.

 

[jackot]

Really not sure anymore. The one thing I believe is the gestation period of the class 769 variants was way too short. The diesel only variety operating for TfW seem to have settled down and they normally run 5 of the 8 every day. The Northern ones seem more problematic, maybe because they are Flex 25kV and diesel. GWR flexs seem to be a very political problem which should never have been allowed to develop. There seem to have been constant upgrades and modifications carried out to them, but still they are not in service. Time the DfT stepped in and took the decision.

Yes, for a train that was planned to be introduced 'Spring 2019' there is no denying that there must be a real systematic issue with the trains and therefore those in charge - we are 3½ years on since they should have been introduced with no clear indication of their future, other than the lease supposedly ending next year, and no obvious step in from the DfT. As you said the GWR 769s seem to have disproportionately major issues compared to the other operators, likely due to their additional complexities, but nothing that should mean they take years longer to enter service that their TfW and Northern counterparts. The whole project is a failure in my opinion, and I will regard it that way until I ever travel on one.

 

[Bessie]

Everyone working on the GWR class 769 project is still working on the GWR class 769 project.

The M/W/F runs to Redhill are on hold until the new year but that is due to the strike action, Xmas leave, and Xmas engineering works.

Does everyone working on the project believe they will enter service in 2023?

 

[Deepgreen]

Does everyone working on the project believe they will enter service in 2023?

If so, why does the lease then immediately end? As a resident I want them to succeed but I have no reserves of hope left on this one. Perhaps the recent run for dignitaries was a requiem?

The 769s seem to have been a real failure so far, and I truly doubt they will ever enter passenger service for GWR - hopefully I will be proven wrong... The amount of money wasted on trains like the 442s, 769s and now the 458 refurbishment must equate to hundreds of millions in the South of England alone; it really is not a good image for the railways in general at all. As you said infill would make more sense, but as always short-term thinking prevailed and we are left in a position even worse than we were before. Not to say that in 2019 we could have predicted with 100% accuracy that the 769s would be a guaranteed failure, but in retrospect it seems blindingly obvious. Even if they do enter service, it seems they will have an exceptionally short lifespan as well, just to really add to the success and viability of the project.

I also meant that infill was the obvious solution decades ago (and, based on genuine risks, still is I believe).

 

[AM9]

Really not sure anymore. The one thing I believe is the gestation period of the class 769 variants was way too short. The diesel only variety operating for TfW seem to have settled down and they normally run 5 of the 8 every day. The Northern ones seem more problematic, maybe because they are Flex 25kV and diesel. GWR flexs seem to be a very political problem which should never have been allowed to develop. There seem to have been constant upgrades and modifications carried out to them, but still they are not in service. Time the DfT stepped in and took the decision.

I think that you've hit the nail on the head there. The programme was always going to be a technical challenge but the driver issues have extended into the period when they should have been driving (pun not intended) the failures out and raising the reliability in service. That is what Northern eventually did.

If so, why does the lease then immediately end? As a resident I want them to succeed but I have no reserves of hope left on this one. Perhaps the recent run for dignitaries was a requiem?


I also meant that infill was the obvious solution decades ago (and, based on genuine risks, still is I believe).

Infill of non-3rd rail was an option for quite a few years, but nobody grasped the nettle. That option one has probably flown now so the two remaining options are OLE or bi-mode, (not necessarily 769 but functionally, - the suitability of the option) has surely been evaluated by NR/GWR using a train with the required reliability. That at least would be a gain from the 769 programme.

 

[Deepgreen]

I think that you've hit the nail on the head there. The programme was always going to be a technical challenge but the driver issues have extended into the period when they should have been driving (pun not intended) the failures out and raising the reliability in service. That is what Northern eventually did.

With your obvious expertise on the issue, what is your opinion of the viability of new-build electro-diesel units for the routes for which the 769s (not just the GWR ones) were intended, in terms of overall cost, likely reliability and service life (i.e. basic value for money) rather than the huge programme of modifications?

 

[TurboMan]

Does everyone working on the project believe they will enter service in 2023?

Yes.

 

[AM9]

With your obvious expertise on the issue, what is your opinion of the viability of new-build electro-diesel units for the routes for which the 769s (not just the GWR ones) were intended, in terms of overall cost, likely reliability and service life (i.e. basic value for money) rather than the huge programme of modifications?

All this talk of massive costs for the 769s, does anybody here have actual costs? I would imagine that just because it has gone on a long time that it isn't necesaarily as high as some are indicating.
Apart from the fecitious comment about expertise, I believe that a major failing of recent multiple unit acquisition has been the authorisation of the CAF Civity DMUs. In years to come, the opportunity to make those orders of a type based on a DEMU transmission will be regretted when pressure to remove as much diesel running under wires/over 3rd rail reaches a higher level. The CAF Civity trains, although quite cheap and agricultural are offered as bi-modes elsewhere in Europe and given that in the last 3 1/2 years over 400 cars, basically of the same design, have been delivered to UK TOCs, the buying power in bulk would probably make ED bi-modes only marginally more expensicve to acquire and have a lower through life cost of ownership that a hotch-potch of DMUs with their transmission that will become an environmental embarassment before they are life expired.

 

[Greybeard33]

Could Northern potentially take them and use them to run the whole Southport line with 769’s just on Diesel mode as since the timetable change there is no longer any electrified paths for the 769s

Since the timetable change the Northern 769s still use the OLE between Bolton and either Manchester Victoria or Oxford Road. There are still two diagrams on the Southport line booked to 4-car 150+156 DMU formations, so these four DMUs could be released for use elsewhere if Northern acquired more 769s. However, if DfT authorised such an acquisition, I think it is more likely to involve some of the TfW 769s, which are closer in specification to the Northern ones than are the GWR examples.

 

[jackot]

All this talk of massive costs for the 769s, does anybody here have actual costs? I would imagine that just because it has gone on a long time that it isn't necesaarily as high as some are indicating.
Apart from the fecitious comment about expertise, I believe that a major failing of recent multiple unit acquisition has been the authorisation of the CAF Civity DMUs. In years to come, the opportunity to make those orders of a type based on a DEMU transmission will be regretted when pressure to remove as much diesel running under wires/over 3rd rail reaches a higher level. The CAF Civity trains, although quite cheap and agricultural are offered as bi-modes elsewhere in Europe and given that in the last 3 1/2 years over 400 cars, basically of the same design, have been delivered to UK TOCs, the buying power in bulk would probably make ED bi-modes only marginally more expensicve to acquire and have a lower through life cost of ownership that a hotch-potch of DMUs with their transmission that will become an environmental embarassment before they are life expired.

Without going off topic too much, I've always thought it would be a good idea to do a similar thing to the Networker program or IEP, in the sense of designing a versatile Bi-mode platform that could be used by many operators - something suitable for replacing pacers, sprinters and other DMUs. As you say, a large order would likely make the cost difference negligible when compared to pure DMUs, yet make a more sustainable and futureproof option. This could have been an alternative to lots of recent orders for Civity DMUs, and could have helped prevent the 769s.

GWR are likely to be looking for a new Bi-Mode fleet for replacing the Sprinters and eventually Turbos in the long term, and I think that will fill the gap that the 769s were supposed to fill. Until then, we will either be stuck with the Turbos or potentially the 769s if they ever enter service.

 

[Deepgreen]

All this talk of massive costs for the 769s, does anybody here have actual costs? I would imagine that just because it has gone on a long time that it isn't necesaarily as high as some are indicating.
Apart from the fecitious comment about expertise, I believe that a major failing of recent multiple unit acquisition has been the authorisation of the CAF Civity DMUs. In years to come, the opportunity to make those orders of a type based on a DEMU transmission will be regretted when pressure to remove as much diesel running under wires/over 3rd rail reaches a higher level. The CAF Civity trains, although quite cheap and agricultural are offered as bi-modes elsewhere in Europe and given that in the last 3 1/2 years over 400 cars, basically of the same design, have been delivered to UK TOCs, the buying power in bulk would probably make ED bi-modes only marginally more expensicve to acquire and have a lower through life cost of ownership that a hotch-potch of DMUs with their transmission that will become an environmental embarassment before they are life expired.

It wasn't intended to be facetious at all - a genuine enquiry, and thanks for your thoughts.

 

[norbitonflyer]

, I think it is more likely to involve some of the TfW 769s, which are closer in specification to the Northern ones than are the GWR examples.

They may be closer under the skin, but do the TfW examples still have their pantographs and associated ac gubbins. If not, could there be unforeseen problems in re-equipping them? As planned, the GWR ones, if they can be got to work, will not lose theirs.

Given that almost all of the stretches that are non-electrified on the NDL are rural, trespass risk (and therefore hazard) is very low compared with urban areas.

Certainly on the three diesel operated routes in Southern Electric land (NDL, Uckfield, Marshlink), all three routes are surrounded by electrified routes so most people will already be aware of the dangers. Nowhere on the NDL is more than five miles from an electrified line - Rye is probably the most remote - about ten miles from both Ore and Ashford.

 

[Greybeard33]

They may be closer under the skin, but do the TfW examples still have their pantographs and associated ac gubbins. If not, could there be unforeseen problems in re-equipping them? As planned, the GWR ones, if they can be got to work, will not lose theirs.

I believe the pantographs removed from the TfW 769s are in storage at Canton and could easily be refitted to enable them to use the OLE.

 

[Wyrleybart]

With your obvious expertise on the issue, what is your opinion of the viability of new-build electro-diesel units for the routes for which the 769s (not just the GWR ones) were intended, in terms of overall cost, likely reliability and service life (i.e. basic value for money) rather than the huge programme of modifications?

But assuming a 2 year lead time for new rolling stock procurement, why would you be building brand new trains fitted with diesel engines in 2025 ? If the Reading - Guildford route were infill electrified with 750V third rail (no matter how unpalatable) there would not be a need fpr new diesels on that service.

 

[Deepgreen]

I have often thought that new third rail could easily be coated on the sides and underneath with plastic (recycled) such that only the top is exposed, thus cutting the risk associated with brushing against it hugely. I'm sure there must be a reason why that isn't adopted more widely, but it would surely make infills' safety cases rather more acceptable.

 

[AM9]

It wasn't intended to be facetious at all - a genuine enquiry, and thanks for your thoughts.

OK, apologies for presuming that it was. My 'thoughts' have been along those lines for some time, and originally it seemed as if I was the only one with that view. However, as time went by, more Civitys were ordered, and then GA procured a fleet of Flirts (class 755). This reinforced my view that there is a real need for a 1/4 3/4 door bi-mode in the UK. The Flirts are not suitable for high density services, but an ED unit along the lines of the 769 (without the reliability issues that they currently have) would have extensive roles around many large towns and cities where there are unelectrified lines that branch off electrified trunk routes.
In that situation, the type of electrification, OLE or 3rd rail is irrelevant, it's the issue of removing the diesel from the city approaches that is important.
Sooner or later, something will be done, but delaying is not only prolonging pollution around high density city centre stations, but also not offering an easy low risk route to o more electrification, as the 80xs should on IC routes.

 

[Ribbleman]

But assuming a 2 year lead time for new rolling stock procurement, why would you be building brand new trains fitted with diesel engines in 2025 ? If the Reading - Guildford route were infill electrified with 750V third rail (no matter how unpalatable) there would not be a need fpr new diesels on that service.

Given the continuing development of battery technology, I would have thought that the DfT are looking on with interest with a view that battery equipped EMUs may well be the answer for these lines, whether they be conversions of existing stock or new build.

 

[Sam 76]

Since the timetable change the Northern 769s still use the OLE between Bolton and either Manchester Victoria or Oxford Road. There are still two diagrams on the Southport line booked to 4-car 150+156 DMU formations, so these four DMUs could be released for use elsewhere if Northern acquired more 769s. However, if DfT authorised such an acquisition, I think it is more likely to involve some of the TfW 769s, which are closer in specification to the Northern ones than are the GWR examples.

Ahh ok thanks I’m based in Southport but don’t use the Manchester branch much so couldn’t remember the switching point. Yeah it may make sense if they are technologically similar for them to be put on there. It was also allow them to increase capacity on the core Manchester routes with the released units from those diagrams

 

[FenMan]

Given the continuing development of battery technology, I would have thought that the DfT are looking on with interest with a view that battery equipped EMUs may well be the answer for these lines, whether they be conversions of existing stock or new build.

That's a long way away, well beyond the expected life of the 16xs (or the 769s). The size of the batteries required to power a 250 seat train over the unelectrified sections of the North Downs Line on a typical diagram would be very considerable, not to mention the cost and time penalties of the necessary charging point infrastructure. At the very best, only short and extremely inefficient diagrams would be possible, meaning the business case would fail at the first hurdle.

Battery-powered trains may well turn out to be viable on fairly short branch lines - we'll see in good time. But I'm not at all convinced this technology could be a viable solution for the North Downs. As some have pointed out, the obvious solution is 3rd rail in-fills, but then the discussion goes back to square one.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I have often thought that new third rail could easily be coated on the sides and underneath with plastic (recycled) such that only the top is exposed, thus cutting the risk associated with brushing against it hugely. I'm sure there must be a reason why that isn't adopted more widely, but it would surely make infills' safety cases rather more acceptable.

That would cause issues with applying short circuiting bars to get traction current off as well as using short circuiting straps for securing isolations. However, I would suggest these can be dealt with by the following.

1. Any new electrification would now include trackside earthing switches to avoid possession staff having to go on track and work on potentially live rails to secure the isolation and
2.With the use of GSMR now its far quicker for a driver to use that in an emergency than having to remove the s/c bar get out of the cab and apply it.

So your idea is reasonable although probably the bigger issue would be handling coated con rails with the current rail delivery trains without damaging it. There is precedent here in that 60ft running rails are coated for use in LXings to avoid corrosion issues.

Anyway going off topic above but remember those NRC contract documents are being subjected to variations on a daily basis so it would be easy enough for DfT to add 769's back in if they want.

 

[AzureOtsu]

I have often thought that new third rail could easily be coated on the sides and underneath with plastic (recycled) such that only the top is exposed, thus cutting the risk associated with brushing against it hugely. I'm sure there must be a reason why that isn't adopted more widely, but it would surely make infills' safety cases rather more acceptable.

Wouldn't the heat dissipation caused by the friction and transfer of electricity damage the plastic? im no expert but I believe the SR used wooden boards to cover their third rails but only in depots and terminal stations (Brighton)

 

[AM9]

Wouldn't the heat dissipation caused by the friction and transfer of electricity damage the plastic? im no expert but I believe the SR used wooden boards to cover their third rails but only in depots and terminal stations (Brighton)

That's because there wasn't the range of plastics available that would stand up to the conditions. Wood is cheap and durable. In truth, unless the design of the 3rd rail contact system designed out the risk, (the only real alternative is a bottom contact system as used on the DLR, there's no chance of making it safe enough for universal acceptance. The boarding around the NYC subway's 3rd rail only provides frost protection, and electrocution of individuals occurs there as in the UK.

 

[Evelynm]

Staff are trained on DC lines so not sure where the risk is with new third rail?