My idea for Class 769's for GWR

[JN114]

That's a switch involving a pantograph and a non-self-powered train, a very different situation.

It's traction motors and related control circuitry taking power from one source and switching to another - it is an identical situation. They can already drop Pantographs on the move - that's a critical safety feature available to all AC traction since the year dot.

 

[JN114]

There are only two stations that can't take 4 coach units, they are Crowthorne and Gomshall. As such even if you have to lengthen those two it would be significant.

A 3 Car 166 is visibly a tight fit at several stations - not just Crowthore and Gomshall. I suspect to comply with modern standards more than just Crowthorne and Gonshall would have to be lengthened.

Aug there are some luggage racks in the 16x's there are still Lisa of cases on seats and in door ways. With more doors and 16 extra seats there's scope for a new luggage rack (still about 12 extra seats).

Do you have any figures add to how much more cramped it is, or does it just feel that way.

I don't have precise figures to hand but 319s and other MkIII derived EMUs are several cm narrower than a 16x, and have a greater bodyside taper. As such both the seats and the aisles are narrower. Not by much, but enough to make 3+2 uncomfortable when compared to 3+2 on a 16x, which unlike most applications is actually usable as such.

The third rail could be used between Guildford and Ash on the stopping services. With the better acceleration when running on the third rail network it could be that it's worth a stop at Ash on the fast services (when looking at medium length journey) so as to take advantage of the third rail.

So we're now stopping at extra stations to justify the use of trains we don't need? Why not just carry on not stopping at Ash with diesel trains?

The Aircon doesn't always work And I though the 165's don't have A. ¢.

I find air con reliability is generally an awful lot better that anecdotal evidence would suggest. This arises from the psychological fallacy that causes people to remember negative experiences, but not notice or recognise positive ones. The 165s are presently being fitted with air cooling like Chilterns fleet, and thus won't have that disadvantage by the time any 769s would be delivered.

The better solution for the North Downs would be electrification and use of 387s. I see no desire for a micro fleet of a dozen or so 30 year old hand me downs - especially when the 769s would still not completely oust Turbos from LTV-land with the requirement for a 2 car DMU for both Marlow and Greenford branches. Why have 2 micro fleets - one not particularly ideal for the job it's doing - when you can have one that everyone is already well familiar with.

 

[43096]

On the branches Henley and Windsor are already accounted for in the 387 order. Both Marlow and Greenford need 2 Car DMUs. Similarly there are sufficient 387s for Basingstoke and Oxford semi Fast services if the wires ever reach those places.

Irrelevant if there are 387s for them as without wires they are as much use as a chocolate teapot!

Finally, how do you justify replacing (reasonably) comfortable, air conditioned stock with trains that are 5 years older, are more cramped and offer no benefits to customers?

Air conditioned? Don't make me laugh - 166 aircon is (and always has been) a joke.

 

[JamesRowden]

It's traction motors and related control circuitry taking power from one source and switching to another - it is an identical situation. They can already drop Pantographs on the move - that's a critical safety feature available to all AC traction since the year dot.

Pantograph up at wrong time, pantograph comes into contact with bridge......

The diesel power would be available everywhere at no additional infrastructure cost. Sections of dual electrified track are supposedly very expensive.

I believe drop pantograph, coasting, raise pantograph actions occur on the Romford-Upminster line under a couple of bridges. I expect that it is allowed on that line since it saves money and a pantograph incident would only affect Romford-Upminster services. An on the move diesel to third rail switch would be simpler and produce less risk.

The following link is a thread in which it is explained that Class 73s switch between diesel and third rail while on the move:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/76778-class-73-changing-from-diesel-to-electric/

 

[The Ham]

A 3 Car 166 is visibly a tight fit at several stations - not just Crowthore and Gomshall. I suspect to comply with modern standards more than just Crowthorne and Gonshall would have to be lengthened.

First off a 166 has 23m long coaches Vs a 769 which has 20m coaches, therefore the difference in length is 11m.

Next it could well be that ASDO is brought in, as it is cheaper than platform lengthening and could allow for longer train lengths in the future without additional costs, especially on faster services which tend to mostly stop at the stations with longer platforms.

Finally with 3tph due soon (ish), but before the next franchise, it could well be that the case for longer trains becomes bigger of growth takes off (given that the timetable gaps can be 20/40 minutes rather than 30 minutes). As such it could be that the extra revenue could pays for the works.

I don't have precise figures to hand but 319s and other MkIII derived EMUs are several cm narrower than a 16x, and have a greater bodyside taper. As such both the seats and the aisles are narrower. Not by much, but enough to make 3+2 uncomfortable when compared to 3+2 on a 16x, which unlike most applications is actually usable as such.

I don't have accurate figures either, but according to Wikipedia the 165's are 2.81m wide whilst the 319's (and this is unlikely to change) are 2.82m wide.

The narrower bidder profile tends to occur on the 23m long units.

As such the 769's are likely to have broadly the same size seats as currently are used on the 16x's.

So we're now stopping at extra stations to justify the use of trains we don't need? Why not just carry on not stopping at Ash with diesel trains?

I said that it could be possible (Vs couldn't be used) , but the main point was that between Guildford and Ash would (vs. wouldn't be used) be used by at least 50% of all services and most peak services.

I find air con reliability is generally an awful lot better that anecdotal evidence would suggest. This arises from the psychological fallacy that causes people to remember negative experiences, but not notice or recognise positive ones. The 165s are presently being fitted with air cooling like Chilterns fleet, and thus won't have that disadvantage by the time any 769s would be delivered.

In which case it could be that there was an option to fit Aircon to the 769's. Even if it isn't provided it is unlikely to be a deal breaker. Again the extra doors would help as it would allow more of an airflow than the current units.

The better solution for the North Downs would be electrification and use of 387s. I see no desire for a micro fleet of a dozen or so 30 year old hand me downs - especially when the 769s would still not completely oust Turbos from LTV-land with the requirement for a 2 car DMU for both Marlow and Greenford branches. Why have 2 micro fleets - one not particularly ideal for the job it's doing - when you can have one that everyone is already well familiar with.

Of course the better option is for electrification (when is it not).

However it could be that with the 769's you could spread the electrification over a period of time and still gain the benefits from it.

The problem with the 387's is that many of the arguments against the 769's also apply to them, other than Aircon.

The two branch lines which can only take two coach units are going to be a problem whatever happens and so are likely to require a micro fleet for a significant period of time. As such, although something that does need to be considered it shouldn't be a reason not to do something that otherwise is reasonable.

With the two branch lines you just have fitters who are based at Bristol and who are posted to Reading as needed, it's not like GWR don't have any other units of that class. As such, although there could be some extra costs it's unlikely that the costs would be as much as if you had 195's (or some other unit type that GWR don't have) on the branches.

 

[TheWalrus]

I don't think it's a terrible idea for them to be used on Cardiff-Portsmouth when Bristol-Cardiff is electrified if the internal layout was adjusted to make them more suitable.

 

[Envoy]

I wonder if there's an opening for a bi-mode regional express unit, interior and performance similar to a 158 but also able to use 25kV.

I would say yes - though without the through corridor connection of the 158’s. Possibly a 4 / 5 coach bi-mode train. As well as the Portsmouth to Cardiff route - where Bath to Cardiff will eventually be under the wires, I think the Carmarthen to Manchester route would be another contender for such trains. (Swansea to Newport under the wires and Crewe to Manchester). Another possibility is the Nottingham to Cardiff route - with a possible extension to Swansea.

 

[Mordac]

I would say yes - though without the through corridor connection of the 158’s. Possibly a 4 / 5 coach bi-mode train. As well as the Portsmouth to Cardiff route - where Bath to Cardiff will eventually be under the wires, I think the Carmarthen to Manchester route would be another contender for such trains. (Swansea to Newport under the wires and Crewe to Manchester). Another possibility is the Nottingham to Cardiff route - with a possible extension to Swansea.

Again with replacing modern trains with old ones. I bet the punters on these services would be really happy to see their comfortable, modern air conditioned 170s and 175s replaced by these turds.

 

[MatthewRead]

Again with replacing modern trains with old ones. I bet the punters on these services would be really happy to see their comfortable, modern air conditioned 170s and 175s replaced by these turds.

They aren't turds there really comfortable and in much better condition than the Southern electrostars!

 

[MCR247]

They aren't turds there really comfortable and in much better condition than the Southern electrostars!

In your opinion, which is in the absolute minority when considering regular passengers

 

[47802]

They aren't turds there really comfortable and in much better condition than the Southern electrostars!

Yes they are, OK for stopping services and fairly short distance working but not really Portsmouth - Cardiff, well unless of course your in Northern land when they are good for anything

 

[D365]

Nope, the Mk3 MU seats are horrendous.

 

[PHILIPE]

I would say yes - though without the through corridor connection of the 158’s. Possibly a 4 / 5 coach bi-mode train. As well as the Portsmouth to Cardiff route - where Bath to Cardiff will eventually be under the wires, I think the Carmarthen to Manchester route would be another contender for such trains. (Swansea to Newport under the wires and Crewe to Manchester). Another possibility is the Nottingham to Cardiff route - with a possible extension to Swansea.

The Portsmouth to Cardiff route is intended (at the moment) to be 5 Coaches (2 Car + 3 Car Turbo combination) so you would be a coach short. The use of the ATW ones is being discussed elsewhere with their use still to be decided but most probably in the Valleys. Not aware that XC are expecting any to work the Nottingham to Cardiff route. Wherever they work they would be required trains where 4 Cars would be required and not waste valuable capacity.

 

[MatthewRead]

Nope, the Mk3 MU seats are horrendous.

Then see this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9n03h-C-js

 

[Kite159]

Before making all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas wouldn't it be best to wait to see what the finished product behaves like in the real world.

No point saying they can replace DMUs if the acceleration makes a 170 feel like a rocket in comparison (i.e only 2 powered bogies in one coach compared to 4 bogies split over 4 coaches if they are to replace pairs of units.

 

[PHILIPE]

The 769s are being sourced is, in effect, to provide additional capacity by converting an EMU into a DMU in order to provide additional DMU capacity. . The fact they will be bi-mode is a side issue in this project and if they run under the wires anywhere will be a coincidence.

 

[47802]

The 769s are being sourced is, in effect, to provide additional capacity by converting an EMU into a DMU in order to provide additional DMU capacity. . The fact they will be bi-mode is a side issue in this project and if they run under the wires anywhere will be a coincidence.

Well yes and no I would have thought, true they may be used as pure DMU's in some cases but I would imagine there will be some cost benefit if they can be run partially on electric on some routes if they are suitable, but really without a lot of work they are not really suitable for longer distance routes and I doubt they will be used as such so I don't know why people are suggesting it.

 

[D365]

Then see this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9n03h-C-js

Mk3 seats are again far worse. Though that's partly why the trend is towards "ironing board" seats

 

[Chester1]

The 769s are being sourced is, in effect, to provide additional capacity by converting an EMU into a DMU in order to provide additional DMU capacity. . The fact they will be bi-mode is a side issue in this project and if they run under the wires anywhere will be a coincidence.

Thats is only true for the 5 ATW units. Northern's 8 units will run Manchester Airport to Barrow/ Windermere. Some services will only do part of this e.g. Windermere-Oxenholme but overall the fleet will spend more time running electric than diesel. If for some reason they obtain more then there are plenty of services were this would also be true:

Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Oxford Road
Buxton - Manchester Piccadilly
Hazel Grove - Clitheroe (via Manchester and Bolton)
Rose Hill Marple - Manchester Piccadilly (via Hyde)

There are no plans to use 769s on these services but they highlight there are plenty of opportunities to use them as genuine bi modes. There doesn't appear to be any suitable routes for GWR. Perhaps if Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads gets wired then they could be used on the Bristol Metro.

 

[Envoy]

Again with replacing modern trains with old ones. I bet the punters on these services would be really happy to see their comfortable, modern air conditioned 170s and 175s replaced by these turds.

No, I am not suggesting using the old trains. I am suggesting that new regional express trains that are bi-mode would be very useful on the routes mentioned.

 

[PHILIPE]

No, I am not suggesting using the old trains. I am suggesting that new regional express trains that are bi-mode would be very useful on the routes mentioned.

But your'e talking about ATW and XC routes when the thread is about GWR routes.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Thats is only true for the 5 ATW units. Northern's 8 units will run Manchester Airport to Barrow/ Windermere. Some services will only do part of this e.g. Windermere-Oxenholme but overall the fleet will spend more time running electric than diesel. If for some reason they obtain more then there are plenty of services were this would also be true:

Barrow/Windermere to the Airport are Connect routes - new stock for these unless there is a substantial refurbishment.

 

[northwichcat]

Barrow/Windermere to the Airport are Connect routes - new stock for these unless there is a substantial refurbishment.

Northern have implied 769s will be a temporary solution on Windermere services until brand new 195s are introduced on Manchester Airport to Barrow & Windermere diagrams in December 2019.

 

[northwichcat]

Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Oxford Road
Buxton - Manchester Piccadilly
Hazel Grove - Clitheroe (via Manchester and Bolton)
Rose Hill Marple - Manchester Piccadilly (via Hyde)

The first one will be the most suitable route.

Rose Hill Marple doesn't need 4 cars except at peak times.

Hazel Grove services will terminate at Piccadilly from next May. They'll be Alderley Edge to Wigan services (769s) and Macclesfield to Blackpool instead, so no path for Hazel Grove services to go to Clitheroe unless you suggest it's pathed via Denton. Perhaps the Alderley Edge services could be extended to Southport once Wigan-Bolton is wired?

I understand Northern want to move towards using 156s as the primary traction on the Buxton line so a 769 in lieu of a 4 car 156 might not go down well!