Transport for Wales 769's

[AM9]

I see the point you're making, but a failed 769 is a failed unit. One out of two units failing in a 2 X 150 formation usually means a reduction in capacity, not a cancellation.

Also, at least with 2 150s one can rescue the other. Not the case with 769s.

In any case, I think the most damning verdict of all for the 769s at TfW is that the company changed it's plans for introducing new stock in order to get rid of the 769s faster. The 231s now being introduced temporarily onto the Rhymney Valley were never supposed to be used there - but instead of cascading out 150s to other TOCs, or increasing capacity before other new units are delivered, the newest fleet on the valleys is being used to replace the second newest.

The nature of failure may not be as black and white as you present it. The failure of one of the two MAN prime movers (quite unlikely as they are almost new) may still provide as much 'limp home' capability as a single failed 150 dragging a dead line blocking one, especially on a steeply graded line.

As far as the 230s are concerned, I suspect that it was an opportunistic move that wasn't available to TfW when the 769 agreement was made. It is strange though that the Northern sets are steadily improving whereas the TfW operation seems to have given up earlier.

 

[craigybagel]

The nature of failure may not be as black and white as you present it. The failure of one of the two MAN prime movers (quite unlikely as they are almost new) may still provide as much 'limp home' capability as a single failed 150 dragging a dead line blocking one, especially on a steeply graded line.

That's a fair point - a 759 does by it's nature bring with it a decent amount of redundancy. But if the failure is enough to render the unit unfit for service, you've straight away lost 4 cars from traffic. You need to lose 2 150s to get the same loss

As far as the 230s are concerned, I suspect that it was an opportunistic move that wasn't available to TfW when the 769 agreement was made. It is strange though that the Northern sets are steadily improving whereas the TfW operation seems to have given up earlier.

I think the TfW units have a much harder life. The Northern units only spend part of their day on diesel, and when they do it's mostly on the relatively flat Wigan - Southport line. The TfW units exclusively run on diesel, mostly on a very hilly route, and with more stop-start. We know the 769s should work fine on electricity - but I you're comparing diesel running I'd be worried if the Northern units weren't proving more reliable.

 

[AM9]

That's a fair point - a 759 does by it's nature bring with it a decent amount of redundancy. But if the failure is enough to render the unit unfit for service, you've straight away lost 4 cars from traffic. You need to lose 2 150s to get the same loss

I think the TfW units have a much harder life. The Northern units only spend part of their day on diesel, and when they do it's mostly on the relatively flat Wigan - Southport line. The TfW units exclusively run on diesel, mostly on a very hilly route, and with more stop-start. We know the 769s should work fine on electricity - but I you're comparing diesel running I'd be worried if the Northern units weren't proving more reliable.

Well of course the (319) 'Flex' programme was originally a hybrid design using an EMU that had been replaced. That meant that the reliability in typical EMU/DEMU mix would be the primary aim and generally the EMU part of the Northern 769 services have shown similar reliabiltiy to the original services that the 319s were allocated to. In terms of 769 failures on the TfW routes, AFAIK, there haven't been any prime mover failures in the MAN engines, and I've not heard of any generator issue either. Apart from the occasional motor failure, - (which should be less frequent than on the existing class 319 EMUs as they are subject to reduced stress because of maximum power input), failures have tended to be in the 'glue' which holds the genset and motors together, i.e. electrical control system and the existing traction control in the non-pantrgraph trailer. These look like design shortfalls and maintenance issues.

 

[StKeverne1497]

Not really what you asked for, but Roger Ford's article in Modern Railways on the Golden Spanners awards gives the following figures for MTIN (Miles per Technical INcident) for the various fleets.

TfW 150s 8335
TfW 769s 1030
Northern 769s 1317

So the 150s are about eight times as reliable as the 769s on TfW. The Northern 769s are about 30% more reliable than TfW's. Note that a TIN doesn't necessarily mean a complete failure.

Fleet	2022/23 Period 6 MTIN​	2022/23 Period 8 MTIN​	Difference​
Northern class 769	2,394​	2,838​	444​
TfW class 769	2,690​	2,863​	173​

Thanks both, so the take-home I get from this (and for the later discussion of all-Diesel versus bi-mode running - I dunno about the rest of the required equipment, but TfW 769s don't actually have pantographs anyway) is that while TfW's 150s aren't the most reliable things on the network, they are considerably more reliable than the 769s even if the latter are improving slowly.

I gather that "self rescue" capability was approved for the 769s after some time in service with TfW - remember that a pair of class 37s was kept on hand as "Thunderbirds" for some time after the introduction of the 769s. As I understand it, while they can't couple with 150s they are perfectly capable of coupling with each other, and only last week I saw a video of a pair of 769s running through Queen Street - a failed unit in front being propelled by a working unit at rear (I'm told), making an 8-unit train.

 

[Ribbleman]

Thanks both, so the take-home I get from this (and for the later discussion of all-Diesel versus bi-mode running - I dunno about the rest of the required equipment, but TfW 769s don't actually have pantographs anyway) is that while TfW's 150s aren't the most reliable things on the network, they are considerably more reliable than the 769s even if the latter are improving slowly.

I gather that "self rescue" capability was approved for the 769s after some time in service with TfW - remember that a pair of class 37s was kept on hand as "Thunderbirds" for some time after the introduction of the 769s. As I understand it, while they can't couple with 150s they are perfectly capable of coupling with each other, and only last week I saw a video of a pair of 769s running through Queen Street - a failed unit in front being propelled by a working unit at rear (I'm told), making an 8-unit train.

Northern have also run two x 769 sets together, both for empty stock movements and when one set has rescued another.

 

[Dai Corner]

remember that a pair of class 37s was kept on hand as "Thunderbirds" for some time after the introduction of the 769s.

Just one; 37418. It was normally kept at Rhymney and there are videos online of it rescuing a 769. Rhymney drivers signed 37s as they were previously used to haul Mk3 stock in passenger service on the branch.

 

[ancientsolar]

Just one; 37418. It was normally kept at Rhymney and there are videos online of it rescuing a 769. Rhymney drivers signed 37s as they were previously used to haul Mk3 stock in passenger service on the branch.

There were 2 using the MK3 stock - used to run about an hour apart during peak time.. I believe even a 3rd unit came down to swap out one of the other 37s (?) (head scratching moment)

 

[43096]

Just one; 37418. It was normally kept at Rhymney and there are videos online of it rescuing a 769. Rhymney drivers signed 37s as they were previously used to haul Mk3 stock in passenger service on the branch.

There were 2 using the MK3 stock - used to run about an hour apart during peak time.. I believe even a 3rd unit came down to swap out one of the other 37s (?) (head scratching moment)

Mark 2 stock, I assume you both mean?

 

[Anonymous10]

There were 2 using the MK3 stock - used to run about an hour apart during peak time.. I believe even a 3rd unit came down to swap out one of the other 37s (?) (head scratching moment)

They were mk 2's not 3

 

[Mag_seven]

There were 2 using the MK3 stock - used to run about an hour apart during peak time.. I believe even a 3rd unit came down to swap out one of the other 37s (?) (head scratching moment)

As pointed out by other posters above they were Mark 2s not 3s. However that is off topic for this thread so can we get back to discussing Class 769s for TfW please.

 

[Express380]

To get back on the 769 topic is there any news of any withdrawals of any 769s yet?

 

[Invincible]

To get back on the 769 topic is there any news of any withdrawals of any 769s yet?

Maybe mentioned earlier, aren't the 769s on short leases, to be replaced by new Stadler 756s (currently being commissioned) sometime this year?

 

[Dai Corner]

Maybe mentioned earlier, aren't the 769s on short leases, to be replaced by new Stadler 756s (currently being commissioned) sometime this year?

231s (diesel Stadler Flirts) are starting to replace 769s. Once the wires are up the tri-mode 756s will replace the 231s which will go onto Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Cheltenham services. I doubt if this will be this year. See

Transport for Wales Class 231 / 756 FLIRTs

That'd introduce a fall hazard as you're then creating a situation in which an open door usually has a ramp, but sometimes it does not. It doesn't take much for someone to lose track of the situation (e.g. guard getting asked a question by a passenger) and then falling between train and platform...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[StripeyNick]

769007 has worked it's final service for TfW......2F39, 21:24 Penarth to Cardiff Central.

According to gen seen elsewhere, it's heading away by road on Tuesday.

The end has started!

 

[Techniquest]

It has indeed started, going to be weird to not see/expect a 769 soon! My planned trip to Cardiff keeps getting postponed, but soon I will go!

 

[lumitumey12345]

I presume the withdrawn units will be sent for scrap?

 

[Invincible]

I presume the withdrawn units will be sent for scrap?

The current leasing operation means some trains have expired leases due to high costs and interest rates when built, even though many trains have been refurbished and have some years of life left.

The 769s were 319s on Thameslink between 1990 and 2014, so have been in use for only 24years before the addition of diesel engines in 2018 and entering service in 2020. So have been in use now for 28 years, and maybe some could stretch to 7 years more life left, but being left in sidings too long was not good.

Looks like the leasing companies will try and short term lease the older refurbished trains again if they can, before scrapping them.

Meet the FLEX Family · Porterbrook

Innovation rolls out to meet the future. Porterbrook is leading the development of a first-ever UK retrofit project to convert electric multiple unit Class 319 units into electric-diesel bi-mode units.

www.porterbrook.co.uk

 

[Bob Price]

Problem is there are 19 unused GWR ones sitting in sidings ready to go so I can't see the TfW ones finding much of a market unless they extend their lease and use them short term on Ebbw Vale and Maesteg. Knowing the shortage of 175's there may be use for one or two.

 

[JonathanH]

Problem is there are 19 unused GWR ones sitting in sidings ready to go so I can't see the TfW ones finding much of a market unless they extend their lease and use them short term on Ebbw Vale and Maesteg. Knowing the shortage of 175's there may be use for one or two.

There is very little chance of any TfW 769 finding more use, because traincrew don't know them, regardless of the 175 shortage.

They have spent all their time in Wales running Penarth to Caerphilly / Ystrad Mynach / Bargoed / Rhymney services and the Driver Knowledge thread confirms that only Valley Lines drivers have the requisite knowledge, so Ebbw Vale and Maesteg are out of the question.

I think that describing the GWR 769s as 'ready to go' can only really apply to the scrapyard. They certainly haven't been proven to work.

 

[Energy]

There is very little chance of any TfW 769 finding more use, because traincrew don't know them, regardless of the 175 shortage.

They have spent all their time in Wales running Penarth to Caerphilly / Ystrad Mynach / Bargoed / Rhymney services and the Driver Knowledge thread confirms that only Valley Lines drivers have the requisite knowledge, so Ebbw Vale and Maesteg are out of the question.

I think that describing the GWR 769s as 'ready to go' can only really apply to the scrapyard. They certainly haven't been proven to work.

No chance for other operators, I doubt anyone will touch the 769s now with their bad reliability.

 

[meld3]

Got to remember, there really is only ONE other operator at present - DFT. They decide everything, including what trains run where, and are at present demanding cuts not expansions.
OK, open Access Operators are different, but none would remotely have use for 769's.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Got to remember, there really is only ONE other operator at present - DFT. They decide everything, including what trains run where, and are at present demanding cuts not expansions.
OK, open Access Operators are different, but none would remotely have use for 769's.

Indeed, it would be rather absurd if having told GWR to ditch its plans to introduce its fleet of 769s DfT then decided to take on the TFW ones.

 

[Geoff DC]

Got to remember, there really is only ONE other operator at present - DFT. They decide everything, including what trains run where, and are at present demanding cuts not expansions.
OK, open Access Operators are different, but none would remotely have use for 769's.

Sound perfect for GO-OP
https://go-op.coop/our-planned-services/

 

[Brissle Girl]

Ha-ha! That initiative seems no further forward than it was 10 years ago, having had numerous iterations of routes, rolling stock etc. it’s website always seems to suggest timescales and start dates that are so ludicrously short that it makes you wonder whether those trying to get it off the ground have any idea of what is needed.

 

[Roger B]

Sound perfect for GO-OP
https://go-op.coop/our-planned-services/

GO-OP? I'm not familiar with that one - what is it, please?

 

[adc82140]

GO-OP? I'm not familiar with that one - what is it, please?

They are an organisation who have had, to put it politely, some rather optimistic plans to operate open access services between obscure locations largely in the south west, with start dates always slated to be just a few weeks ahead. This has been going on for about 10 years to my knowledge. I don't think the plans have ever advanced as far as ORR approval, rolling stock confirmation, or Network Rail agreeing paths.

 

[Roger B]

They are an organisation who have had, to put it politely, some rather optimistic plans to operate open access services between obscure locations largely in the south west, with start dates always slated to be just a few weeks ahead. This has been going on for about 10 years to my knowledge. I don't think the plans have ever advanced as far as ORR approval, rolling stock confirmation, or Network Rail agreeing paths.

Many thanks adc82140. I've found them - https://go-op.coop/ (perhaps should've googled it first!). 10/10 for positivity, but, as you suggest, a little light on pretty much everything else.

 

[Bob Price]

They have great ambition but I have seen their plans mention using a 156, a D Train and now a IPEMU. Good luck to them but I will believe they are credible when I see a train actually running.

 

[tricky18jan]

Seen a pic on facebook earlier of 769007 split in brickyard sidings Cardiff ready to be dragged away on a truck. Assuming these are going to Sims ?

 

[SuperLuke2334]

Seen a pic on facebook earlier of 769007 split in brickyard sidings Cardiff ready to be dragged away on a truck. Assuming these are going to Sims ?

Going by road to Long Marston for now.