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

[TJDevon]

Just where are we with solving the issues that the unions require changing. Air conditioning and cramped conditions are the sticking points if I read things correctly. Have acceptable solutions at least been agreed?

 

[JonathanH]

Just where are we with solving the issues that the unions require changing. Air conditioning and cramped conditions are the sticking points if I read things correctly. Have acceptable solutions at least been agreed?

Wasn't there a suggestion up thread that the Union's demands can't practically be met in full?
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...mation-discussion.174866/page-17#post-5027788

 

[Deepgreen]

Wasn't there a suggestion up thread that the Union's demands can't practically be met in full?
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...mation-discussion.174866/page-17#post-5027788

I do wonder at what point the cab issues were raised by the union and whether they were even thought of by anyone involved early on. IF they were known about but avoided then that's poor management. In my union interactions I always thought it best to discuss these things early on, because the one thing unions don't like is perceived attempts to hoodwink them. I'm NOT saying that's what happened here, but it does smack of a lax approach to getting the necessary approvals for this project.

 

[TJDevon]

Why is there an issue with the GWR units but seemingly not with Northern or TfW?

 

[JonathanH]

Why is there an issue with the GWR units but seemingly not with Northern or TfW?

Explained here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cab-design.229153/#post-5572731

The short answer to this is that in Wales the 769s are a stop gap for a year until their brand new traction arrives, in Northern there are so few 769s that drivers only drive them sporadically and they have an agreement to only drive them a max 3 hours. However at Reading they will become the main traction for most drivers for the foreseeable future, which means drivers could be stuck in the cabs for 7 - 8 hours a day, day in day out. A 769 is much worse than the traction it will replace (16x) so why should a drivers union accept a worsening of workplace ergonomics and comfort for the long term?

 

[TJDevon]

Many thanks for helpful reply. I quite agree with your final sentence.

 

[Deepgreen]

Many thanks for helpful reply. I quite agree with your final sentence.

So do I, which is why this has seemingly been an engineering and industrial relations debacle.

 

[FenMan]

I've stopped caring about when 769s will ever enter service on GWR. Life is too short.

With apologies to viewers located further west, I'm perfectly happy with the service provided by the Turbos, although it's a shame that 166s no longer do the airport runs.

 

[Fincra5]

Explained here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cab-design.229153/#post-5572731

Was there not some plan by the ROSCO ages ago to offer a rebuild frontend/ cab for a 319? I'm sure I recall seeing some CAD work...

That might have been the smart approach for the 769s!

Edit: Found it! It was from Porterbrook's 319 Brochure several years ago! https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/40683146/319-brochure

 

[Greybeard33]

Was there not some plan by the ROSCO ages ago to offer a rebuild frontend/ cab for a 319? I'm sure I recall seeing some CAD work...

That might have been the smart approach for the 769s!

Edit: Found it! It was from Porterbrook's 319 Brochure several years ago! https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/40683146/319-brochure

View attachment 111579

The same brochure included an option (on p11) to retraction the 319 with AC motors. That mod would have given the 769 improved performance and better Wheel Slip Protection, but also fell by the wayside.

 

[Towers]

Was there not some plan by the ROSCO ages ago to offer a rebuild frontend/ cab for a 319? I'm sure I recall seeing some CAD work...

That might have been the smart approach for the 769s!

Edit: Found it! It was from Porterbrook's 319 Brochure several years ago! https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/40683146/319-brochure

View attachment 111579

Quite impressed that as well as a new front end they were also offering to replace the bodysides with a Class 365-inspired design!

 

[Fincra5]

Quite impressed that as well as a new front end they were also offering to replace the bodysides with a Class 365-inspired design!

With Plug Doors too...

 

[Wyrleybart]

Quite impressed that as well as a new front end they were also offering to replace the bodysides with a Class 365-inspired design!

Someone clearly left the packs of crayons out !!!

With all the pratting around that Porterbrook and Wabtec have done with the Flex project, they would have been better off ordering new Bimode trains. Obviously DfT don't give a hoot how many times a ROG 37 or 57 shimmies around between Wolverton, Loughborough, Burton, Oxford, Reading and Eastleigh, not forgetting the low loadering of the Welsh ones.

It is unbelievable - except yes, it actually is totally believable

 

[Towers]

Someone clearly left the packs of crayons out !!!

With all the pratting around that Porterbrook and Wabtec have done with the Flex project, they would have been better off ordering new Bimode trains. Obviously DfT don't give a hoot how many times a ROG 37 or 57 shimmies around between Wolverton, Loughborough, Burton, Oxford, Reading and Eastleigh, not forgetting the low loadering of the Welsh ones.

It is unbelievable - except yes, it actually is totally believable

I expect DfT are very open indeed to the idea of any project that alleviates the consequences of some of their recent botched electrification disasters!

 

[Pete_uk]

But what else is there? Could anything be cascaded from Wales when their new trains com into service?

 

[JonathanH]

But what else is there? Could anything be cascaded from Wales when their new trains com into service?

The existing GWR fleet. The 769s have now just reached the point where they are essentially part of a cascade which pushes (some) HSTs out of the bottom so in this instance the 'what else is there' is the current 165 fleet staying where it is.

 

[Bob Price]

But what else is there? Could anything be cascaded from Wales when their new trains com into service?

There will be a batch of 158's and 175's as well as 150's. They have all been refurbished and will be available soon. There is talk some will go west to replace the HST's

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

There will be a batch of 158's and 175's as well as 150's. They have all been refurbished and will be available soon. There is talk some will go west to replace the HST's

Very speculative talk, mind you. Nothing has been raised other than suggestions by other forum members.

 

[Deepgreen]

None of these cascades would address the issue of running on diesel power only where there is no electric supply - e.g. over the North Downs line (NDL). The 769s were touted as being mainly for this purpose - simply putting different diesel units there will have achieved nothing in terms of better electrification utilisation. What an almightly mess.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Very speculative talk, mind you. Nothing has been raised other than suggestions by other forum members.

That is true, but with DfT in more or less total charge of our railway system they have the powers to switch TOC fleets around as they see fit. The only limiter is probably the deals they can strike with fleet owners.
As Bob hinted, the entire fleets of TfW 150/2, 158 and 175 are needing new homes or disposal, and DfT will be aware of that. Us armchairers can only guess and speculate as you say, but a lot of those spinning plates need replacing, and the use of fossil fuels does eventually have to be significantly reduced. It does also however make sense for the "2nd gen" sprinter fleets to replace diesel fleets, and find something more environmentally friendly for what the 769 has been planned to do.

It always bounces back to the same basic requirement. More electrification = less ICE emissions.
AIUI Wokingham - Ash and Shalford - Redhill are the gaps in 3rd rail which are the "show stopper" because it is patently unsafe to even think about making the environment a better place.

 

[Deepgreen]

That is true, but with DfT in more or less total charge of our railway system they have the powers to switch TOC fleets around as they see fit. The only limiter is probably the deals they can strike with fleet owners.
As Bob hinted, the entire fleets of TfW 150/2, 158 and 175 are needing new homes or disposal, and DfT will be aware of that. Us armchairers can only guess and speculate as you say, but a lot of those spinning plates need replacing, and the use of fossil fuels does eventually have to be significantly reduced. It does also however make sense for the "2nd gen" sprinter fleets to replace diesel fleets, and find something more environmentally friendly for what the 769 has been planned to do.

It always bounces back to the same basic requirement. More electrification = less ICE emissions.
AIUI Wokingham - Ash and Shalford - Redhill are the gaps in 3rd rail which are the "show stopper" because it is patently unsafe to even think about making the environment a better place.

Indeed - it's a farce that the third rail hasn't been filled in here, and it should have been done decades ago. Even today, it's clearly a case for pragmatic thinking to get the route electrified and open up the rolling stock options hugely. The third rail is already well-known by rail workers, etc., in the area so would not be an unknown sudden threat to them. The dogmatic refusal to infill has led to this huge mess and could so easily have been avoided (ideally with re-signalling thrown in).

 

[3973EXL]

STP 21/03 5Q11 0923 Oxford Up Carriage Sdgs - Eastleigh Works 769940
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K03854/2022-03-21/detailed

STP 21/03 5Q12 1146 Eastleigh Works - Oxford Up Carriage Sdgs 769935
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K03855/2022-03-21/detailed

 

[Carlisle]

Indeed - it's a farce that the third rail hasn't been filled in here, and it should have been done decades ago. Even today, it's clearly a case for pragmatic thinking to get the route electrified and open up the rolling stock options hugely. The third rail is already well-known by rail workers, etc., in the area so would not be an unknown sudden threat to them. The dogmatic refusal to infill has led to this huge mess and could so easily have been avoided (ideally with re-signalling thrown in).

Indeed, but being essentially part of the Western operationally rather than Southern region for decades might’ve contributed to the lack of enthusiasm for electrification.

 

[swt_passenger]

Indeed, but being essentially part of the Western operationally rather than Southern region for decades might’ve contributed to the lack of enthusiasm for electrification.

A good point I think.

 

[Deepgreen]

Indeed, but being essentially part of the Western operationally rather than Southern region for decades might’ve contributed to the lack of enthusiasm for electrification.

Quite agree, but that doesn't excuse the last couple of decades at least. The push to minimise diesel running on electrified tracks in the UK generally has been feeble, and the NDL has suffered, but, a third rail job here would be vastly cheaper than an OHLE one, especially given that the onwards stuff at the eastern end is third rail already. Any network-wide OHLE scheme for the ex-SR third rail network must be many, many decades away and so a relatively cheap third rail infill would be quite long-lived. Of course, as an NDL resident, I'm biased! However, as I've said before, we seem to be progressing at a snail's pace given the 1950s ability to produce a hugely successful electro-diesel in the class 73!

 

[AM9]

we seem to be progressing at a snail's pace given the 1950s ability to produce a hugely successful electro-diesel in the class 73!

The class 73 was a totally different animal to the type of train that the 769 is meant to be. It has less total diesel power than a 769, mainly because the diesel genset was a fix for goods yards and preventing gapping over crossings etc.. Also it's electric output was only marginally higher than the 769's.
There was no perceived need for a bi-mode train until recently, partly cause by the lack of appetite for electrification on low priority routes. This meant that a bimode was a known technology but little need to develop one.

 

[Deepgreen]

The class 73 was a totally different animal to the type of train that the 769 is meant to be. It has less total diesel power than a 769, mainly because the diesel genset was a fix for goods yards and preventing gapping over crossings etc.. Also it's electric output was only marginally higher than the 769's.
There was no perceived need for a bi-mode train until recently, partly cause by the lack of appetite for electrification on low priority routes. This meant that a bimode was a known technology but little need to develop one.

Yes, I know, but electrical output (1,600hp for a 73) is easily solved in a four car unit (2,000hp is commonly achieved and would be more than enough) as opposed to a single Bo-Bo (along with gapping issues, etc.), and diesel engines are so much more efficient than in the 1950s that it should be feasible to convert successfully to give a well-powered electric and diesel capability, also bearing in mind that it's all under-car mounted. This leaves aside any IR issues such as the cab configuration, which should have been faced early on. Easy for me in my armchair to say, of course, but it really does seem like a 1980s botch than a 2020s project.

 

[AM9]

Yes, I know, but electrical output (1,600hp for a 73) is easily solved in a four car unit (2,000hp is commonly achieved and would be more than enough) as opposed to a single Bo-Bo (along with gapping issues, etc.), and diesel engines are so much more efficient than in the 1950s that it should be feasible to convert successfully to give a well-powered electric and diesel capability, also bearing in mind that it's all under-car mounted. This leaves aside any IR issues such as the cab configuration, which should have been faced early on. Easy for me in my armchair to say, of course, but it really does seem like a 1980s botch than a 2020s project.

Of course, if a new unit is being designed from scratch, it would have 1600kW + on electric (if that could be accommodated on a 3rd rail line), and if much more than c 600kW was needed on diesel, space for sufficient genset(s) would be designed in, - just like the major manufacturers seem to be doing in mainland Europe.
The 769s are in part an experiment in using redundant but generally serviceable EMUs and filling (in some cases inadequately) a growing need for bi-mode units. Even if the 769s are barely used, a lot of useful knowledge has been acquired, (stands back for all the smart arse but pointless comments), that may be beneficial for future non diesel-only service planning.

 

[Deepgreen]

Of course, if a new unit is being designed from scratch, it would have 1600kW + on electric (if that could be accommodated on a 3rd rail line), and if much more than c 600kW was needed on diesel, space for sufficient genset(s) would be designed in, - just like the major manufacturers seem to be doing in mainland Europe.
The 769s are in part an experiment in using redundant but generally serviceable EMUs and filling (in some cases inadequately) a growing need for bi-mode units. Even if the 769s are barely used, a lot of useful knowledge has been acquired, (stands back for all the smart arse but pointless comments), that may be beneficial for future non diesel-only service planning.

All good points but we have been promised 'new' trains for over five years now and we seem no closer to getting them. I'm a career railwayman with the background knowledge that goes with it, so who knows how the general public regard this farce (which they will just see as 'jam tomorrow' promises). Knowledge gathering/experimentation is one thing but real trains on the ground (rails) is what is needed. It's a big experiment when a whole fleet is converted, with the planning, trial running and ground works that go with it, just for it to seem likely that they will not appear, for mechanical and staffing reasons.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm a career railwayman with the background knowledge that goes with it, so who knows how the general public regard this farce (which they will just see as 'jam tomorrow' promises).

Does the general public know or care about the 769 saga? There was a GWR press release some time ago but I doubt anyone really knows there is meant to be a change. The timetable changes that have been made have more bearing on their view of the service.