If GWR scrap the 769s then what?

[Bessie]

As time drags on and the GWR 769s accumulate more graffiti than miles a time may come when GWR/DfT say enough is enough and the whole project is scrapped. What happens then?

 

[JonathanH]

As time drags on and the GWR 769s accumulate more graffiti than miles a time may come when GWR/DfT say enough is enough and the whole project is scrapped. What happens then?

I'd imagine that

a) The LTV 165s stay where they are working the current timetable.

b) GWR continue to run the west timetable as it is using the stock they already have with the HSTs gradually replaced, first partly by spare 5-car 80x to reduce the numbers slightly, then the rest by 150 or 158 displaced from either TfW or EMR as they become available.

It is quite straightforward to imagine that there is no real need to introduce the 769s now. Remember that the 769s should already be in service and effectively a) and b) is what is already happening so just continuing the current arrangements is the easy answer.

c) GWR put in place a plan to replace 150 / 158 / 165 / 166 in the late 2020s / early 2030s.

The other option is to implement some timetable reductions, particularly in the LTV area, based on the standard contingency timetables.

 

[anthony263]

DFT be prepared to purchase some new Hydrogen powered trains

 

[AM9]

DFT be prepared to purchase some new Hydrogen powered trains

I doubt it - no fuel supply, and no point if there is running over electrified track. Eventally, DfT or whoever will catch up with the rest of the world's railway purchasers and buy some new Bimode trains. That would also allow other Thames Valley branches to update.

 

[JonathanH]

DFT be prepared to purchase some new Hydrogen powered trains

I'm not sure hydrogen power will work in GWR's area as it is somewhat remote from the places where hydrogen is generated.

Eventally, DfT or whoever will catch up with the rest of the world's railway purchasers and buy some new Bimode trains. That would also allow other Thames Valley branches to update.

I dont see why any new trains would go to the LTV routes. The LTV turbos are arguably better staying where they are with new stock working somewhere on the more remunerative of the western routes. However, in the short term, cascaded stock is much more likely.

It may also be noted that 230s are possible for the Thames Valley branches.

 

[Snow1964]

c) GWR put in place a plan to replace 150 / 158 / 165 / 166 in the late 2020s / early 2030s.

The other option is to implement some timetable reductions, particularly in the LTV area, based on the standard contingency timetables.

There doesn’t seem to be (at least not public) any plan to replace the sprinter and turbo units. Whilst understandable for 165, 166 the time for planning replacement of 1980s units must be close.

Thinning out the Thames Valley timetable will not make much difference to rolling stock, as GWR never had that big a commuter service anyway (compared to say Essex, Kent, Sussex etc) and the main part is now class 387s which can’t be used on majority of GWR network. However what it has lost in commuters, it seems to have gained further west in extra leisure traffic.

Realistically it is going to need to acquire some extra diesel units for services on its now busy routes. There may be a case for operating a less intense commuter service Mon and Fri, and moving some units west Friday-Monday to strengthen leisure trains. But at moment not really organised that way (although if it could be done on summer Saturdays in 1950s-1970s then a way could be found)

 

[Benjwri]

Thinning out the Thames Valley timetable will not make much difference to rolling stock, as GWR never had that big a commuter service anyway

Realistically I can’t see a way which GWR could scrape trains from the Thames Valley. The branch lines all operate on a single train, which obvious cannot be thinned. The only other Turbo service is the Didcot-Oxford/Bambury service, which has its own capacity problems, with it being the main route from the West to Oxford, and Oxford being a popular tourist destination itself. Most of these services are fairly busy even at unusual times, but when they would be needed by the West is also when they are most needed in Oxford, and are generally full and standing anyways. The commuter services are generally run by 387s, which as you say cannot really be repurposed.

 

[Purple Train]

Then we have pretty much exactly the same situation as we do now.
Also, is there an estimate for when the 769s will be in service with GWR? Or can the DfT not count that high?

 

[zwk500]

As time drags on and the GWR 769s accumulate more graffiti than miles a time may come when GWR/DfT say enough is enough and the whole project is scrapped. What happens then?

If we ever get to that point, I'd expect battery trains to be ordered.

 

[Energy]

Wonder if its possible to battery equip either the 379s or 387s still, the first has been done before. With much newer and more advanced battery cells it could work well.

 

[RobShipway]

Wonder if its possible to battery equip either the 379s or 387s still, the first has been done before. With much newer and more advanced battery cells it could work well.

I would expect it to be the class 379 units, especially if the no Heathrow Express Class 387's are moving to Govia Thameslink Railway.

 

[Snow1964]

Deleted

 

[Energy]

Aren’t the batteries the new bit being added

769s are 319s fitted with diesel engines.

 

[D365]

I would expect it to be the class 379 units, especially if the no Heathrow Express Class 387's are moving to Govia Thameslink Railway.

No chance of the HEx 387s moving anytime soon, after all the money that’s been spent on ETCS fitment.

 

[Caaardiff]

Tfw have done a lot of work to try and keep their 769's in services. The reliability seems to have improved quite a lot (except in the recent hot weather). Very soon the Cl.231's will replace or at least reduce the usage of 769s on the Rhymney line. This could means GWR could get TfW's 769s. At least they have been operating in service for some time now. Admittedly that isn't exactly going to resolve the issue but at least GWR could get some units that are fit for some level of service until a proper replacement is found.

 

[JonathanH]

This could means GWR could get TfW's 769s.

It isn't a matter of GWR needing TfW's 769s. The issue is that GWR's 769s aren't accepted by the union and no drivers are trained. If GWR's 769s aren't accepted, TfW's 769s won't be either.

 

[randyrippley]

It isn't a matter of GWR needing TfW's 769s. The issue is that GWR's 769s aren't accepted by the union and no drivers are trained. If GWR's 769s aren't accepted, TfW's 769s won't be either.

So why aren't they accepted when they're working elsewhere?

 

[507020]

Tfw have done a lot of work to try and keep their 769's in services. The reliability seems to have improved quite a lot (except in the recent hot weather). Very soon the Cl.231's will replace or at least reduce the usage of 769s on the Rhymney line. This could means GWR could get TfW's 769s. At least they have been operating in service for some time now. Admittedly that isn't exactly going to resolve the issue but at least GWR could get some units that are fit for some level of service until a proper replacement is found.

GWR need DC + Diesel bi-modes and more work has been done to the GWR 769s to enable them to switch between the 3rd rail and Diesel engines which TfW and Northern ones can’t do and they already have enough anyway. Northern are more likely to get the TfW 769s, but they will need pantographs fitting since they actually use the bi-mode capability.

So why aren't they accepted when they're working elsewhere?

Don’t they want cab air conditioning or something that drivers don’t have elsewhere?

 

[RobShipway]

So why aren't they accepted when they're working elsewhere?

On TFW they are only used in diesel mode. The 769's with Northern I believe have had their 3rd rail shoes removed, so they are worked bi-mode with diesel and AC overhead. Whereas the GWR units are to be used tri-mode. If you look at where say on the North Down route, the 3rd stops and then starts, this means that the driver is having to switch between third rail and diesel at least three times between Gatwick/Redhill to Reading.

If GWR where to accept the TFW 769's, then the overhead pantograph would have to be placed on them and third rail shoes added to them, with possibly the switch gear added too to be able to change power supply, if it is not already added. Once this is done, you will probably find that the TFW 769's will suffer in the same way as the GWR 769's, so you would not have achieved anything.

I am presuming that the GWR 769's are not accepted by the unions, due to to the tri-mode configuration?

 

[D365]

So why aren't they accepted when they're working elsewhere?

Different drivers, different acceptance criteria.

 

[Snow1964]

Different drivers, different acceptance criteria.

But isn’t ASLEF a single National Union, not an collection of small local unions each negociating their own policies

 

[zwk500]

But isn’t ASLEF a single National Union, not an collection of small local unions each negociating their own policies

ASLEF is, but each TOC is a different local business and can agree to different conditions from the other TOCs.

 

[Energy]

So why aren't they accepted when they're working elsewhere?

Quite different units. TfW effectively operate them as DEMUs with no pantograph and no 3rd rail (not sure if the shoes have been removed but there definetley isn't 3rd rail in Wales). GWR needs there's to operate on diesel, ohle and 3rd rail, I'm not an expert but the problems with Northern's 769s seem to he when they switch power modes.

 

[D365]

Quite different units. TfW effectively operate them as DEMUs with no pantograph and no 3rd rail (not sure if the shoes have been removed but there definetley isn't 3rd rail in Wales).

Northern and TfW 769s cannot be reequipped for third rail because of the architecture of the diesel system.

 

[AM9]

Northern and TfW 769s cannot be reequipped for third rail because of the architecture of the diesel system.

That is without modification of course. The gensets are essentially the same so if it was needed they could be made to.

 

[507020]

On TFW they are only used in diesel mode. The 769's with Northern I believe have had their 3rd rail shoes removed, so they are worked bi-mode with diesel and AC overhead. Whereas the GWR units are to be used tri-mode. If you look at where say on the North Down route, the 3rd stops and then starts, this means that the driver is having to switch between third rail and diesel at least three times between Gatwick/Redhill to Reading.

If GWR where to accept the TFW 769's, then the overhead pantograph would have to be placed on them and third rail shoes added to them, with possibly the switch gear added too to be able to change power supply, if it is not already added. Once this is done, you will probably find that the TFW 769's will suffer in the same way as the GWR 769's, so you would not have achieved anything.

I am presuming that the GWR 769's are not accepted by the unions, due to to the tri-mode configuration?

The Northern 769s were actually converted from some of the first 319s that ran on the new electrification out of Lime Street, which had their 3rd rail shoes (but not DC bus) removed and had new Bracknell Willis pantographs fitted before they arrived at Northern, which then received 331s as electrification was descoped and sent 319s for conversion and others off-lease. TfW received their units directly from Thameslink, with original Stone Faiveley pantographs which were then removed after arrival at TfW since they didn’t intend to use them.

Other than 769946, which is an ex-Northern unit which has had it’s 3rd rail shoes refitted, the GWR 769/9 conversion is a different specification which is able to switch between Diesel and DC, but not AC without stopping. To convert other units to this specification would be a lot of work and still wouldn’t achieve union acceptance.

I doubt the opposition from drivers is anything to do with the tri-mode system though, unless they want a pay rise for operating more complex equipment. The may be the simpler issue that rather than replacing older Sprinters or even Pacers, GWR want to replace Turbos with trains which are actually older than them.

 

[A0wen]

It isn't a matter of GWR needing TfW's 769s. The issue is that GWR's 769s aren't accepted by the union and no drivers are trained. If GWR's 769s aren't accepted, TfW's 769s won't be either.

So is the issue with GWR's 769s union acceptance or reliability of the units ?

If it's the former, then why would the units need to be replaced ?

 

[RobShipway]

The Northern 769s were actually converted from some of the first 319s that ran on the new electrification out of Lime Street, which had their 3rd rail shoes (but not DC bus) removed and had new Bracknell Willis pantographs fitted before they arrived at Northern, which then received 331s as electrification was descoped and sent 319s for conversion and others off-lease. TfW received their units directly from Thameslink, with original Stone Faiveley pantographs which were then removed after arrival at TfW since they didn’t intend to use them.

Other than 769946, which is an ex-Northern unit which has had it’s 3rd rail shoes refitted, the GWR 769/9 conversion is a different specification which is able to switch between Diesel and DC, but not AC without stopping. To convert other units to this specification would be a lot of work and still wouldn’t achieve union acceptance.

I doubt the opposition from drivers is anything to do with the tri-mode system though, unless they want a pay rise for operating more complex equipment. The may be the simpler issue that rather than replacing older Sprinters or even Pacers, GWR want to replace Turbos with trains which are actually older than them.

Fair point and I must confess I was not sure of the complete story for the 769's for both Northern and TFW. Okay, you may not be able to have DC power with it, but I am surprised that GWR did not follow Greater Anglia/TFW down the Stadler Flirt route. But I guess it was down to the DFT deciding what they should be equipped with to run their trains.

 

[Dren Ahmeti]

So is the issue with GWR's 769s union acceptance or reliability of the units ?

If it's the former, then why would the units need to be replaced ?

The issue is with the cab condition, as far as I remember.
Something about the cabs not being adequate enough? Air con?

 

[Energy]

The issue is with the cab condition, as far as I remember.
Something about the cabs not being adequate enough? Air con?

I believe they are getting fitted with air cooling/ air con in the cabs now. I think the problem now is getting them to work, not sure how many if any drivers have been trained.