Transport for Wales 769's

[Grumpy Git]

That "someone" would be the people at Porterbrook who in 2016 thought it would be easy to sling diesel engines into the empty space underneath the 319s and extend the life of their assetts (and so get more £££££ from them), the civil servants at the DfT who bought the 769 idea from Porterbrook's sales people, and finally the SoS at the time, Chris Grayling, who authorised Northern to sign the first leasing contract for the 769s, spurring other TOCs on to do the same.
Welsh Govt signed a contract for 5 x 769s in July 2017, thinking they'd have them running on the Rhymney line within a year and the 769s would help to solve the looming PRM rolling stock crisis in Wales. As we know, neither of those things happened.

How could I forget that the oxygen thief Grayling had his sticky fingers all over this! Sort of makes sense now.

I'd like to bet Porterbrook are not one penny out of pocket either?

 

[Class360/1]

How could I forget that the oxygen thief Grayling had his sticky fingers all over this! Sort of makes sense now.

I'd like to bet Porterbrook are not one penny out of pocket either?

They don’t call him ‘failing grayling’ for nothing!

 

[Bob Price]

How could I forget that the oxygen thief Grayling had his sticky fingers all over this! Sort of makes sense now.

I'd like to bet Porterbrook are not one penny out of pocket either?

Poterbrook had to supply 153's free to cover. The interesting thing is the GWR ones seem to be doing OK so far but the TfW ones have been far from successful.

 

[PHILIPE]

That "someone" would be the people at Porterbrook who in 2016 thought it would be easy to sling diesel engines into the empty space underneath the 319s and extend the life of their assetts (and so get more £££££ from them), the civil servants at the DfT who bought the 769 idea from Porterbrook's sales people, and finally the SoS at the time, Chris Grayling, who authorised Northern to sign the first leasing contract for the 769s, spurring other TOCs on to do the same.
Welsh Govt signed a contract for 5 x 769s in July 2017, thinking they'd have them running on the Rhymney line within a year and the 769s would help to solve the looming PRM rolling stock crisis in Wales. As we know, neither of those things happened.

Can heads roll or not. They went through the testing and mileage accumulation process and TFW accepted them

 

[StKeverne1497]

Eldest has had cause recently to travel almost daily between Caerphilly and the Bay. He says the 769 0s seem underpowered and labour going uphill whereas the 769 4 that he was on was much more relaxed. Presumably there's a difference in the power pack or something?
M.

 

[AM9]

Poterbrook had to supply 153's free to cover. The interesting thing is the GWR ones seem to be doing OK so far but the TfW ones have been far from successful.

This is a key observation, plus the fact that the Northern 769s seem to be somewhere in between the TfW & GWR units reliability. It wouldn't be the first time that cascaded units fare better with some recipients vis a vis others, remember the 319s that were dispersed once they were withdrawn from TL services (not entirely different to the 769s) where the Northern units took over a year to attain usable reliability whereas the few that went to LM were for a while relied on to thrash up and down the southern WCML at speeds in the '90s with a degree of success. I think that the refurb/overhaul state of cascaded stock and the subsequent care that the depots give them is crucial to their in-service reliability.
In the case of 769s, their modifications into bi-modes and particularly their sub-system integration (both hardware and software) is a maturing design issue and crucial to keeping the trains in service is maintenance depot understanding of its operation and failure modes.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Eldest has had cause recently to travel almost daily between Caerphilly and the Bay. He says the 769 0s seem underpowered and labour going uphill whereas the 769 4 that he was on was much more relaxed. Presumably there's a difference in the power pack or something?
M.

Pretty sure the mechanics and electrics are identical between /0 and /4. Think it is only the interior that is different

 

[craigybagel]

This is a key observation, plus the fact that the Northern 769s seem to be somewhere in between the TfW & GWR units reliability. It wouldn't be the first time that cascaded units fare better with some recipients vis a vis others, remember the 319s that were dispersed once they were withdrawn from TL services (not entirely different to the 769s) where the Northern units took over a year to attain usable reliability whereas the few that went to LM were for a while relied on to thrash up and down the southern WCML at speeds in the '90s with a degree of success. I think that the refurb/overhaul state of cascaded stock and the subsequent care that the depots give them is crucial to their in-service reliability.
In the case of 769s, their modifications into bi-modes and particularly their sub-system integration (both hardware and software) is a maturing design issue and crucial to keeping the trains in service is maintenance depot understanding of its operation and failure modes.

Ah yes, once again let's blame maintenance and gloss over the fact the 769s have had serious issues with all 3 TOCs who've ordered them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2021 ==

The interesting thing is the GWR ones seem to be doing OK so far

Apart from the the minor issue that they were meant to be in service 2½ years ago.....

As to the different degrees of reliability between the different TOCS, is it any wonder the TfW sets are struggling the most given they're running exclusively in diesel mode and on very steeply graded lines?

I'm open to correction but I've not seen any suggestion that the 769s are any less reliable than the 319s when running in electric mode (and indeed, why shouldn't they?). The Northern units are only spending half their time on diesel. And as for the routes themselves, in general Bolton - Southport is a lot less hilly than Rhymney - Penarth, which can't be helping things very much.

As to the GWR sets, can we really draw any conclusions from their reliability yet when they're still yet to enter passenger service?

If there was a TOC where the 769s had entered service relatively on time, and had little issues with reliability ever since, then of course it would be fair to ask questions of the different maintenance regimes at the TOCs where they had been less successful. But so far, that hasn't happened. We're at nil for 3 on entering service on time, and nil for 2 on reliability with 1 match left to play.

 

[AM9]

Ah yes, once again let's blame maintenance and gloss over the fact the 769s have had serious issues with all 3 TOCs who've ordered them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2021 ==


Apart from the the minor issue that they were meant to be in service 2½ years ago.....

As to the different degrees of reliability between the different TOCS, is it any wonder the TfW sets are struggling the most given they're running exclusively in diesel mode and on very steeply graded lines?

I'm open to correction but I've not seen any suggestion that the 769s are any less reliable than the 319s when running in electric mode (and indeed, why shouldn't they?). The Northern units are only spending half their time on diesel. And as for the routes themselves, in general Bolton - Southport is a lot less hilly than Rhymney - Penarth, which can't be helping things very much.

As to the GWR sets, can we really draw any conclusions from their reliability yet when they're still yet to enter passenger service?

If there was a TOC where the 769s had entered service relatively on time, and had little issues with reliability ever since, then of course it would be fair to ask questions of the different maintenance regimes at the TOCs where they had been less successful. But so far, that hasn't happened. We're at nil for 3 on entering service on time, and nil for 2 on reliability with 1 match left to play.

The services run with class 769s have had issues, - some like any other trains e.g. brake problems, door problems, difficulty passing through the Castlefields corridor owing to freight train delays, etc., none of which are relevant to their unique bi-mode configuration, (yet it doesn't stop the usual suspects from trotting out the same old moans - until they are corrected with facts from others).
The refurbs (or cursory 'refresh' as Northern gave them) are significant, as is the amount of training that was given. That isn't a criticism of the TOC, (unless depot maintenance staff actually authorise the funds for refurb, their own training and define the top level budgets for in-service care. I would put that on the TOCs as a strategic planning and budgeting exercise, mayby I'm wrong and it is somer curse from above.
As far as the different modes of operation that their different deployments put them into, many of the early failures were occurring at changeovers, (usually OLE to diesel) so that wouldn't have been an issue with TfW. 'Failures' of a brand new engine of mature design and railway use elsewhere would be an issue for MAN and possiblly Wabtec in terms of the environment they operate under. AFAIK, there havent been any fauilures that haven been fixed when a maintenance person gets to them so maybe somebody here could give us an insight of how they were resolved. Pattern failures (where the same failure repeatedly occurs should be easier to resolve as the database of those events gets more precise in maintenance terms.
The Northern experience of the initial 319 deployment has clearly imparted a body of knowledge such that they are now running with relatively few incidents. Where relelvant, that organisation would feed that knowledge directly into the 769 support plans which is why the 769s have had few pure electrical traction failures (based on reports here of course).
The GWR sets have done a lot of mileage accumulation both on the North Downs line and along the SWML at speed, so apart from testing the doors (which are the same proposition as all 319 doors) there is little difference in stress terms from full passenger terms.
The repeated moaning about the lateness of their late delivery is not relevant to a discussion of their reliability. The primary delays in the programme up to their clearance for mainline use were:

1) a problem concerning the two gensets tendency to hunt alternately, - rectified by a change to the control system design early in the program​

2) the exhaust system piping in some respect put the trains out of gauge, - rectified by a mechanical design change. The re-qualification of the new exhaust design needed a total retest as a system requiring access to a test house. This took many months to secure.​

3) the oset of COVID-19 cause many shortages of availble manpower and facilities, not specifically a 769 programme, look at the delays of the SWR new EMUs and others, the whole industry has been hit.​

So forget their later than planned introduction, consider their reliability in context and observe how different TOCs are having varying degrees of success, just like the cascaded 319s did.

 

[craigybagel]

The services run with class 769s have had issues, - some like any other trains e.g. brake problems, door problems, difficulty passing through the Castlefields corridor owing to freight train delays, etc., none of which are relevant to their unique bi-mode configuration, (yet it doesn't stop the usual suspects from trotting out the same old moans - until they are corrected with facts from others).
The refurbs (or cursory 'refresh' as Northern gave them) are significant, as is the amount of training that was given. That isn't a criticism of the TOC, (unless depot maintenance staff actually authorise the funds for refurb, their own training and define the top level budgets for in-service care. I would put that on the TOCs as a strategic planning and budgeting exercise, mayby I'm wrong and it is somer curse from above.
As far as the different modes of operation that their different deployments put them into, many of the early failures were occurring at changeovers, (usually OLE to diesel) so that wouldn't have been an issue with TfW. 'Failures' of a brand new engine of mature design and railway use elsewhere would be an issue for MAN and possiblly Wabtec in terms of the environment they operate under. AFAIK, there havent been any fauilures that haven been fixed when a maintenance person gets to them so maybe somebody here could give us an insight of how they were resolved. Pattern failures (where the same failure repeatedly occurs should be easier to resolve as the database of those events gets more precise in maintenance terms.
The Northern experience of the initial 319 deployment has clearly imparted a body of knowledge such that they are now running with relatively few incidents. Where relelvant, that organisation would feed that knowledge directly into the 769 support plans which is why the 769s have had few pure electrical traction failures (based on reports here of course).
The GWR sets have done a lot of mileage accumulation both on the North Downs line and along the SWML at speed, so apart from testing the doors (which are the same proposition as all 319 doors) there is little difference in stress terms from full passenger terms.
The repeated moaning about the lateness of their late delivery is not relevant to a discussion of their reliability. The primary delays in the programme up to their clearance for mainline use were:

1) a problem concerning the two gensets tendency to hunt alternately, - rectified by a change to the control system design early in the program​

2) the exhaust system piping in some respect put the trains out of gauge, - rectified by a mechanical design change. The re-qualification of the new exhaust design needed a total retest as a system requiring access to a test house. This took many months to secure.​

3) the oset of COVID-19 cause many shortages of availble manpower and facilities, not specifically a 769 programme, look at the delays of the SWR new EMUs and others, the whole industry has been hit.​

So forget their later than planned introduction, consider their reliability in context and observe how different TOCs are having varying degrees of success, just like the cascaded 319s did.

If the sets had arrived late but given sterling service once they did eventually arrive I could accept that there's little point in going on about it now - but given the sets arrived late and have continued to show poor reliability to this day, it seems harder to just gloss over this fact. If their arrival was delayed to iron out their issues before delivery, it doesn't seem to have been all that successful.

It's also worth pointing out that the effects of those late deliveries are still being felt today. Northern have had to remove some from service this week to use on training. Between that, and their general reliability they've only been able to diagram 3 sets out of a fleet of 8 today.

But since you want me to consider how different TOCs are coping, we could look at today? As mentioned above, Northern appear to have had 3 out of 8 in public service this morning. TfW had 6 out of 9. GWR of course are still on a big fat zero.

None of those figures are impressive, even if you add in an extra two at Northern for training - but especially not several years after they were meant to be in service.

I'm sorry to be so negative - and as I've said before I admire the ingenuity that this project has shown, and accept that when working the 769s provide a decent level of service. But trying to brush off the major problems this project has encountered is doing everybody a disservice.

 

[Buzz68]

I see there were lots of 769 issues yesterday.
769006 5R04 (off the 2F10) had issues when reversing at Ninian Park and was replaced by 150235
769452 2D64 Penarth to Bargoed terminated at Ystrad Mynach and returned to Canton as 5D64
769002 2R24 Penarth to Rhymney lost power at Caerphilly but did make Rhymney

 

[47444]

Has there been any progress with 769426? Last reported moving from Cardiff back to Brush in April, but with one driving car from 319374 (77342) in the formation, in place of 77485.

Is there an update on 769426. Is it still at Loughborough, or now in South Wales?

TIA

 

[berneyarms]

Still ar Loughborough from what I can tell - no reports anywhere of it being delivered.

 

[47444]

Still ar Loughborough from what I can tell - no reports anywhere of it being delivered.

Thank you

 

[Max]

Another day, more chaos on the TfW network. While I can't be totally sure it looks like 769003 has failed at Grangetown on 2P77. Fortunately there was just about enough time for me to run to Cogan for a train into Cardiff! Looks like the VoG line is blocked westbound.

EDIT - looks like they are trying to move it, but it's not playing ball (just witnessed it at Grangetown).

EDIT 2 - finally limped into Penarth 30 late, but not without causing a fair amount of damage to the peak time valleys service. This is starting to become unsustainable.

 

[PHILIPE]

Another day, more chaos on the TfW network. While I can't be totally sure it looks like 769003 has failed at Grangetown on 2P77. Fortunately there was just about enough time for me to run to Cogan for a train into Cardiff! Looks like the VoG line is blocked westbound.

EDIT - looks like they are trying to move it, but it's not playing ball (just witnessed it at Grangetown).

EDIT 2 - finally limped into Penarth 30 late, but not without causing a fair amount of damage to the peak time valleys service. This is starting to become unsustainable.

Fitter attended so wouldn't have had far to go. A change from failing up the Rhymney Valley

 

[anthony263]

769003 been one of the better behaved of TFW's class 769s

 

[Cardiff123]

Another day, more chaos on the TfW network..........This is starting to become unsustainable.

769s at TfW became unsustainable many months ago. TfW just don't have any other immediate alternatives unfortunately

 

[PHILIPE]

769008 seems to be the only one that has come out to play today.

EDIT:- 769003 was having a lie-in and now appeared

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Is 769426 mothballed or will it be coming to work with TfW eventually, just late

 

[Anonymous10]

further to the last comment how are the 769s now have they finally sorted out their issues

 

[PHILIPE]

2D06 0734 Penarth to Bargoed (TFW) worked by 769008 has sat outside Llanbradach since 0815 this morning. Understand Thunderbird being scrambled at Rhymney so further details when available. The majority of failures experienced seem to have occurred in the Llanbradah/Ystrad Mynach area.

37418 hauled it to Ystrad Mynach dropping the passengers off (200 late) and shunted to Loop pro tem

 

[CapitalStar378]

2D06 0734 Penarth to Bargoed (TFW) worked by 769008 has sat outside Llanbradach since 0815 this morning. Understand Thunderbird being scrambled at Rhymney so further details when available. The majority of failures experienced seem to have occurred in the Llanbradah/Ystrad Mynach area.

37418 hauled it to Ystrad Mynach dropping the passengers off (200 late) and shunted to Loop pro tem

May be an idea for TfW to send the 231s to the Rhymney line ahead of the Maesteg/Ebbw Vale lines if this is what the 769s are offering. Not sure I'd be keen on train travel after sitting on a failed train for hours and possibly multiple times!

 

[PHILIPE]

May be an idea for TfW to send the 231s to the Rhymney line ahead of the Maesteg/Ebbw Vale lines if this is what the 769s are offering. Not sure I'd be keen on train travel after sitting on a failed train for hours and possibly multiple times!

And what would work the Maesteg and Ebbw Vales

 

[Caaardiff]

And what would work the Maesteg and Ebbw Vales

If the 170s can't be extended, there should be some units displaced from 197s introductions, more likely 175s. There will be enough mainline training happening with 197s without having 231s not far behind.

 

[anthony263]

Too be honest I wouldn't be surprised if this option . isn't being or hasn't been looked at by Tfw.

One member of staff has said similar but class 197s would be used on.Maesteg to Cheltenham services

 

[47827]

Would have been better off with several pairs of pacers retained (or pacer+150s) than 769s if the political elements hadn't needed the full UK elimination of pacers for reasons most of us are aware of. The 769 project has been fudged through as an innovation and success when they are almost in a league with the 37s and mk2s that briefly reappeared pre covid as a stop gap. At least the latter didn't come with the same high expectations and was cut some slack given the age and operational challenges with LHCS in modern times.

 

[Anonymous10]

Would have been better off with several pairs of pacers retained (or pacer+150s) than 769s if the political elements hadn't needed the full UK elimination of pacers for reasons most of us are aware of. The 769 project has been fudged through as an innovation and success when they are almost in a league with the 37s and mk2s that briefly reappeared pre covid as a stop gap. At least the latter didn't come with the same high expectations and was cut some slack given the age and operational challenges with LHCS in modern times.

and appeared a tad more reliable to boot

 

[Grumpy Git]

The timetable on the Rhymney line should be made to display a warning akin to food safety standards:

"may contain a 769"

 

[Bletchleyite]

Too be honest I wouldn't be surprised if this option . isn't being or hasn't been looked at by Tfw.

One member of staff has said similar but class 197s would be used on.Maesteg to Cheltenham services

How many 197s are being released by the increased LHCS fleet? Enough to get rid of all the quirky old tat?