No; that's my point - they won't know of the saga's details but they/we have been promised 'new' trains on the NDL for many years - my and others' complaints to GWR have been fobbed off by that promise every time, but with nothing forthcoming. Then there has been the platform lengthenings and the very large zone 1-4 signs painted on the platforms (sometimes wrongly). Perhaps the PR side of it is minor enough not to worry the railway - who knows?
Majority of passengers won't care as long as a train turns up when it supposed to and they can get a seat. My gripe is if the 769's aren't coming can we retime them back to turbo timings as the trains sit around now even at intermediate stations since they slackened off the SRTs.
Probably right, although they have been promised longer trains, which are badly needed on some airport runs. Most passengers crammed into a two car 165 (which is fairly uncommon these days) will care a lot. However, I go back to my point that this has been a very tortuous way to gain some possible knowledge about bi-modes!
769s have been in service with Northern and TfW for many weeks. In what way do the GWR examples add to "possible knowledge about bi-modes"?
Slack timings are the way of the railway today - anything to avoid penalties. As you say passengers won't care as long as they have a seat.
Exactly - but that's what is being claimed at post 1648.
Maybe you should check what was posted: "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." That was not in any way limited to the GWR units, however given the differences between the three implementations of 769s, the experience of all three contributes to the knowkedge base of bi-modes which outherwise would be extremely limited in the UK.
Again, fair enough up to a point, but we don't just want experiments (whole fleets' worth at that) but actual useful and reliable trains that fulfil their purpose. Or, better still, infill electrification, giving a huge increase in stock choices and lower ICE use. BTW, it looks more and more as if it will only be two implementations of 769s at this rate.
I thioink that statements like that were posted for both the Northern units and the TfW units.
Haven't seen or travelled on a two car 165 along the North Downs for a very long time and even then they were usually restricted to the stopper which doesn't extend to Gatwick airport runs.
The wait at Guildford is for a non-existent GWR train to overtake associated with the aborted 3tph timetable.
Yes, the 2018 timetable was much better balanced than the current one and better for passengers across the route. However, before the trains switched side of the hour, the slowed down timetable in 2018 moved the stoppers back by up to ten minutes relative to the established timings back to the mid 1990s.
A compromise needs to be reached on this one to run a train at 22:34 from Reading to Guildford with the unit then returning to Reading, trying as best possible to connect out of a Waterloo arrival. I dont believe it needs to go further east.
70 weeks for TfW and 44 weeks for Northern…
Amazing really. AIUI GWR have taken delivery of all nineteen trains. Now I understand there have to two serviceable units for the first one to go off shed, the other being to rescue the first when it conks out. But theoretically GWR have nineteen of the buggers to choose from, apart from all the broken ones. I have read that traction motors are one of their problems, but who would have thought that parking them on Long Marston for a couple of years would damage them !!!!
Regardless of the availability of units, is it really a good use of the relevant driver manager's time to make two trips from Reading and Gatwick three days a week and back to test whether a unit works or not when there is no agreed plan for driver training?
Went to go and view it two weeks back at Redhill but it didn't run then.
Agree with Jonathan. A complete waste of instructor / manager hours. These trains simply are not reliable enough to consider driver training, and the driver training is not going to happen anyway until the trains are fit for the purpose Aslef have designated. But as Minstral25 says, so long as these things keep moving up and down between Eastleigh, Reading and Long Marston (assuming the Wolverton work is finally complete) they can be assumed to be "in traffic". We could also assume that as all nineteen have been handed over to GWR they they are paying the leases to Porterbrook. But hang on. That cannot be right because GWR drivers have not been trained on them. So are GWR paying ROG to move their own trains ?
Not necessarily GWR paying. Wasn't there some shrewd business in the direct award that pushed the costs of a delay onto the DfT? Presumably these arrangements wouldn't change in any subsequent contract.
I noticed yet another cancellation and I suspect you are right, but I still hope not.
Indeed - the saga has been pathetic and I don't believe the claimed acquisition of bi-mode knowledge has justified this fleet of failures. I suspect my few photos of them running on the NDL will soon have rarity value (but still want to be wrong and see them succeed)!
I don't care who is paying, someone is using good money to ferry seemingly useless and future-less trains around the country.
Taxpayer is paying but despite people suggesting DofT is micro managing everything it has neither the bandwidth nor the knowledge to spot waste like this.
If GWR does not want them, I should think Northern could use at least three more 769s. That would enable all 9 Southport diagrams to be worked by 769s and free up six 2-car 150s to strengthen other Northern services.
That certainly makes a lot of sense unless it breaches the local ASLEF agreement for working the 769s of course.
