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

[Doomotron]

I agree there are very few places in the UK that need OHLE and 3rd rail, along with diesel. Certainly don’t think we’ll see them on HS1 any time soon

Off the top of my head the only other operator that could take advantage of the third rail and diesel abilities is Southern for Marshlink and Uckfield services... Other than that they're not really needed (other than for spares).

 

[zwk500]

Off the top of my head the only other operator that could take advantage of the third rail and diesel abilities is Southern for Marshlink and Uckfield services... Other than that they're not really needed (other than for spares).

769s are Mk3 bodyshells, so that's the Uckfield line out (unless somebody wants to take an angle grinder to Oxted Tunnel lining).

 

[Bob Price]

The TfW ones have all gone. The only operator left with 769's is Northern. Even the Orion parcels one is languishing at Crewe unused.

 

[jackot]

The actual testing didn’t take very long, there were working units. There was a rolling mods program with units switching between Eastleigh & Long Marston (ASDO, air cooling etc) but probably the biggest reason the GWR sets never entered traffic was there were never any drivers trained due to no agreement with ASLEF over cab ergonomics! Even that hurdle had been overcome but then the IA reared its head and the training was kiboshed.
Had the units (that were working, some others were indeed shocking) been in regular use, it may have been a different story but we’ll never know!

Ah that makes sense, I was always confused as to whether the final decision was based on the units themselves or the drivers; seems to have been a bit of both! Even so, I don't think anyone will be in a rush to get their hands on them other than the scrapyard!

 

[norbitonflyer]

Is there a particular mode that's the problem? Could they be used somewhere where the engines/shoes/pantograph and transformer (which ever is the issue) are not needed. (At Honeybourne they will presumably only run in diesel mode)

 

[Benjwri]

Is there a particular mode that's the problem? Could they be used somewhere where the engines/shoes/pantograph and transformer (which ever is the issue) are not needed. (At Honeybourne they will presumably only run in diesel mode)

The diesel capability is the whole selling point, there are plenty of bi modes around that are far newer and more reliable.

 

[Deepgreen]

It has been an object lesson in how not to run a project, from the very top down. Notwithstanding the C19 intervention, the technical and IR issues were compounded by other poor decisions. However, will it be the case that 'lessons will be learnt'? Who knows, but I have my doubts.

 

[FGW_DID]

It has been an object lesson in how not to run a project, from the very top down. Notwithstanding the C19 intervention, the technical and IR issues were compounded by other poor decisions. However, will it be the case that 'lessons will be learnt'? Who knows, but I have my doubts.

‘Other poor decisions‘ - which were?

 

[Greybeard33]

Is there a particular mode that's the problem? Could they be used somewhere where the engines/shoes/pantograph and transformer (which ever is the issue) are not needed. (At Honeybourne they will presumably only run in diesel mode)

From Northern's experience, it is the diesel mode that is the problem. If that is not needed, an unmodified 319 could do the job better. There are still plenty of those off lease and waiting to be scrapped.

Class 319's into storage/withdrawals tracker

Thought it would be best to create a thread for this rather than clog up other Thameslink related threads about the 319's heading to storage. This thread is also to keep track of all Class 319's in storage along with units that have been scrapped. The Class 319's are now all withdrawn from...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

From Northern's experience, it is the diesel mode that is the problem. If that is not needed, an unmodified 319 could do the job better. There are still plenty of those off lease and waiting to be scrapped.

Class 319's into storage/withdrawals tracker

Thought it would be best to create a thread for this rather than clog up other Thameslink related threads about the 319's heading to storage. This thread is also to keep track of all Class 319's in storage along with units that have been scrapped. The Class 319's are now all withdrawn from...

www.railforums.co.uk

Who want's them? There's no services requiring dual-voltage capability, any OLE operator has just had or is getting new stock, and 3rd rail operators are drawing down fleets or replacing them with new trains, not drafting in hard-flogged displaced trains.
Gillette can make better use of them than any TOC.

 

[Dan G]

Ah that makes sense, I was always confused as to whether the final decision was based on the units themselves or the drivers; seems to have been a bit of both! Even so, I don't think anyone will be in a rush to get their hands on them other than the scrapyard!

That's my point. Suggestions seem to be that the units were ready for use, but a specific group of drivers didn't want to drive them.

If Porterbrook want to take revenue with them there's no particular reason why they need to go somewhere where their tri-mode abilities will be used. They're also simply DMUs or EMUs with brand new interiors.

 

[b0b]

They're also simply DMUs or EMUs with brand new interiors.

and a very tarnished reputation

 

[jackot]

That's my point. Suggestions seem to be that the units were ready for use, but a specific group of drivers didn't want to drive them.

I get that, but what's to say that by moving them to a new TOC their drivers will be 'eager' to drive them? As far as I'm aware the main complaint is that they were a downgrade with worse cab ergonomics, so chances are unless they are replacing trains with an even worse cab they might still face issues. The issue was with ASLEF as well, who represent not just GWRs drivers. I get that this was eventually solved at GWR, but I feel the units themselves hold more of the problem.

If Porterbrook want to take revenue with them there's no particular reason why they need to go somewhere where their tri-mode abilities will be used. They're also simply DMUs or EMUs with brand new interiors.

But in that case they are a bit of a 'Jack of all trades master of none' scenario, which as far as trains go seems to be a lot worse than being a master of one! As EMUs go they are old and are worse in most aspects than almost any EMU class I can think of for both operators and passengers, bar perhaps units like the 455s which have clear replacements lined up anyway. The 379s are some of the best EMUs around and yet they still haven't found a new home, so I suppose it would all be determined by how much Porterbrook would want to charge in the unlikely event they even decided to try and find a new operator - a lot less than the 379s I would hope!

As far as being a DMU; with similar performance to something like a 150; why would an operator bother replacing a fleet of those which have been working fine for years with a train that is unproven and overly complex for it's job?

 

[infobleep]

If the 769s had gone into service would that have led to fewer trains needing repairs at the same time than usual and fewer services cancelled? Or would a high-frequency timetable, had the original plan occurred, meant that there still would have been data where more trains needed repairs at the same time than usual?

What made me wonder about this was the cancellations on the North Downs Line yesterday, including the 18:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading, which I'd planned to catch.

 

[JonathanH]

If the 769s had gone into service would that have led to fewer trains needing repairs at the same time than usual and fewer services cancelled?

They would have needed to be reliable for that to be true.

 

[infobleep]

They would have needed to be reliable for that to be true.

Good point. I guess my question is more had they been reliable would there have been enough back yo to avoid more trains needing repairs at the same time as usual?

 

[Annetts key]

They would have needed to be reliable for that to be true.

The trouble is, if you apply that to stock that is currently in use, it’s possible that the reliability of the 769s would not have been any worse

We would only get to know their real in service reliability if they were actually used regularly in service.

 

[LUYMun]

3tph on the North Downs is needed. A 2tph schedule from Reading to Gatwick is a game-changer for those using public transport to get to/from Gatwick = no longer having to plan to arrive extremely early outbound or kicking your heels for an hour inbound. Hopwood is on the record as saying the North Downs has been one of the top performers post the pandemic, while Gatwick is pretty much operating at capacity again.

To me this seems to suggest that the semi-fast (skip-stop) services should have the extra tph. I reckon the slower NDL trains should be 2tph as this should benefit smaller stations, including mine (Farnborough North).

 

[norbitonflyer]

Agreed they are no better than any other mark 3 emu. Except that they have just been through a major refurbishment, whilst some of their contemporaries (455s in particular) are running out of hours, and their replacements are running over four years late with no sign of them appearing any time soon. SWT used the 456s on the Ascot-Aldershot shuttle when they first got them, presumably to minmimise the number of staff needing to be trained on them. Coukld the 769s be used there to release three units for use elsewhere? (It's not even very far from the Reading/Guildford line - for most of its length they are less than a mile apart!)

 

[Sm5]

Do the 769’s retain their overhead and 3rd rail gear or was it one or the other in addition to diesel ?

 

[zwk500]

Do the 769’s retain their overhead and 3rd rail gear or was it one or the other in addition to diesel ?

GWR ones were Dual-voltage Bi-Mode. I think the TfW ones may have had the 3rd rail shoes removed as there's no real need for them. Not sure about Northern, but they could also have had the shoes removed as 769s wouldn't be going onto Merseyrail.

 

[sd0733]

GWR ones were Dual-voltage Bi-Mode. I think the TfW ones may have had the 3rd rail shoes removed as there's no real need for them. Not sure about Northern, but they could also have had the shoes removed as 769s wouldn't be going onto Merseyrail.

Tfws had the pantograph removed too. They weren't in effect any more bi-mode units than a 150

 

[Sm5]

GWR ones were Dual-voltage Bi-Mode. I think the TfW ones may have had the 3rd rail shoes removed as there's no real need for them. Not sure about Northern, but they could also have had the shoes removed as 769s wouldn't be going onto Merseyrail.

So we have a GWR unit here which could offer a direct Heathrow to Gatwick stopping at Ealing Briadway, Shepherds Bush, Kensington and Clapham Junction service ?

overhead out of heathrow, diesel for the Ealing climb and 3rd rail for the rest ?

South East to Heathrow, avoiding Zone 1 is imo a gap in public transport.
it would also give west london access to Westfield at Shepherds Bush, and south london access to the GWML and XR avoiding zone 1.

 

[Bob Price]

On paper yes, but you have to convince a DfT which isn't very pro rail.

 

[zwk500]

So we have a GWR unit here which could offer a direct Heathrow to Gatwick stopping at Ealing Briadway, Shepherds Bush, Kensington and Clapham Junction service ?

overhead out of heathrow, diesel for the Ealing climb and 3rd rail for the rest ?

South East to Heathrow, avoiding Zone 1 is imo a gap in public transport.
it would also give west london access to Westfield at Shepherds Bush, and south london access to the GWML and XR avoiding zone 1.

The Unit, yes. The timetable, no. Also, they're off lease now so you'd need to get them back soonish before the ROSCO decide to cut their losses (literally, with an oxypropane torch).

 

[fgwrich]

Tfws had the pantograph removed too. They weren't in effect any more bi-mode units than a 150

Indeed, best way to remember it is that they are the ‘dumb’ versions of the family, solely running on Diesel only. Northerns Bi-mode and more grown up, GWRs too complicated for their own good.

 

[JN114]

The Unit, yes. The timetable, no. Also, they're off lease now so you'd need to get them back soonish before the ROSCO decide to cut their losses (literally, with an oxypropane torch).

Unit no.

Not fitted with ETCS which is required for regular/routine Heathrow branch operation nowadays (superseding the requirement for GW-ATP)

 

[zwk500]

Unit no.

Not fitted with ETCS which is required for regular/routine Heathrow branch operation nowadays (superseding the requirement for GW-ATP)

Good point. I'd forgotten that while Conventional signals were retained the train protection is ETCS.

 

[D365]

Tfws had the pantograph removed too. They weren't in effect any more bi-mode units than a 150

Indeed, best way to remember it is that they are the ‘dumb’ versions of the family, solely running on Diesel only. Northerns Bi-mode and more grown up, GWRs too complicated for their own good.

There's a lot more to it than this, but that's by-the-by.

 

[infobleep]

To me this seems to suggest that the semi-fast (skip-stop) services should have the extra tph. I reckon the slower NDL trains should be 2tph as this should benefit smaller stations, including mine (Farnborough North).

I do think Dorking West, being step-free would be nice hourly. Dorking Depdene isn't step free. 769s timetable wouldn't have changes this though.