Porterbrook Cl.769 'Flex' trains from 319s, initially for Northern

[FenMan]

Are they? One for the other thread but I thought the first obstacle was the drivers' dispute, until such time they're not really being anything?

Plenty of signs GWR are treading water. No training runs for quite a while now following some embarrassing failures, one extremely so.

Meanwhile COVID has happened and travelling habits have changed. The capacity pressures on commuting into Bristol and Exeter (the destinations for the existing 16x stock) have vanished. It won't be too long before other suitable diesel stock becomes available to cover those markets in any case.

The ASLEF dispute is a convenient fig leaf for all concerned, well, apart from the ROSCO, who continues to pay the bills for the long delays in making the 769s suitable for revenue-earning service.

So, this is a long way of saying the 769s are unlikely to happen in GWR-land. If the ROSCO pushes it (despite their manifest failures) my view is it could well end up with the parties concerned taking their chances in the courts. Well, unless UKGov signals its displeasure at the thought, at which point I'd hazard a guess the ROSCO would back down, mindful of its other rather more profitable long term revenue streams.

 

[Xavi]

The capacity pressures on commuting into Bristol and Exeter (the destinations for the existing 16x stock) have vanished.

The Devon Metro is back to pre-Covid passenger traffic, probably greater as more passengers are enjoying the half-hourly Riviera Line and increased capacity (4-car 150s or 3-car 158/166) which only happened in December 2019 just before COVID. However, apart from schools traffic the patronage is more evenly spread through the day, so agreed no further capacity required although a full 3-car 165/166 service would have been welcomed. The 150s will soldier on.

The Okehampton line is also thriving and going hourly in May, and 6-car 159s are definitely required on the SWR route for westbound traffic. All of which makes Exeter Central a very busy place these days, the barriers are struggling to cope with queues trailing back to the platforms.

 

[Bikeman78]

Plenty of signs GWR are treading water. No training runs for quite a while now following some embarrassing failures, one extremely so.

Meanwhile COVID has happened and travelling habits have changed. The capacity pressures on commuting into Bristol and Exeter (the destinations for the existing 16x stock) have vanished. It won't be too long before other suitable diesel stock becomes available to cover those markets in any case.

The ASLEF dispute is a convenient fig leaf for all concerned, well, apart from the ROSCO, who continues to pay the bills for the long delays in making the 769s suitable for revenue-earning service.

So, this is a long way of saying the 769s are unlikely to happen in GWR-land. If the ROSCO pushes it (despite their manifest failures) my view is it could well end up with the parties concerned taking their chances in the courts. Well, unless UKGov signals its displeasure at the thought, at which point I'd hazard a guess the ROSCO would back down, mindful of its other rather more profitable long term revenue streams.

The GWR project could well be binned. No different to the 442 project being cancelled.

TfW seems keen to remove its fleet ASAP, given the diversion of the 231 fleet to the Rhymney line.

I expect the Northern fleet will go as soon as 150s or 158s are released from TfW.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Another failure at Wigan this morning

Wonder when a day will pass without a breakdown?!

 

[physics34]

This is what happens when you do things on the cheap.

 

[Bikeman78]

Another failure at Wigan this morning

Wonder when a day will pass without a breakdown?!

If there are five units out, each doing 300-400 miles, with an MTIN of 1000 miles, statistically there will be one or two failures every day.

 

[Jamesrob637]

If there are five units out, each doing 300-400 miles, with an MTIN of 1000 miles, statistically there will be one or two failures every day.

1000 miles between failures?! If my car did only that, I'd sell it and always get the train!

But not a 769 type

 

[Killingworth]

This is what happens when you do things on the cheap.

Have they been cheap, production delays and breakdown disruptions costed in? A good idea but more a triumph of good intentions than outcomes. That said 434 performed perfectly on the 2 journeys when I used it.

 

[craigybagel]

This is what happens when you TRY do things on the cheap.

Fixed that for you!

 

[Grumpy Git]

A really simple solution to this would have been to put wires-up and use 319's.......................

 

[Jamesrob637]

A really simple solution to this would have been to put wires-up and use 319's.......................

Or 331s then they can work in pairs.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Have they been cheap, production delays and breakdown disruptions costed in? A good idea but more a triumph of good intentions than outcomes. That said 434 performed perfectly on the 2 journeys when I used it.

That is the $64,000 question. We don't know which costs of the project are borne by whom.
I was under the impression that the entire class 769 project had been handed over to the operators except for 76942? for TfW and the eight 768s and eight 326s for ROG

What I am struggling to understand is what constituted a class 769 at handover to the TOC ? I hear that several GWR 769s are having traction motor issues requiring TM exchanges. I could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the original class 319 traction motor overhauls were not part of the class 769 conversion project, and Porterbrook simply expected the original motors to perform as "standard after being parked at Long Marston for a couple of years. So if neglecting the class 319 traction motor overhauls is one aspect of the conversions, what else has been skipped ?

 

[Mikey C]

So basically the whole concept of taking elderly EMUs and turning them into Bimodes by adding a diesel engine, when you consider the struggles of the 230 project as well, hasn't really worked.

Maybe in future, the only conversions of older stock proposed, will be battery ones.

 

[AM9]

So basically the whole concept of taking elderly EMUs and turning them into Bimodes by adding a diesel engine, when you consider the struggles of the 230 project as well, hasn't really worked.

Maybe in future, the only conversions of older stock proposed, will be battery ones.

Same problems if you start with a worn out EMU, - an old motor is still an old motor whether powered by 3rd rail/OLE, diesel gensets or batteries. It's not that motors can't be kept going for longer, (the Southern Railway kept their running gear going more than twice the life of some bodies), but without overhauls, fitting new gensets or batteries is a risk.

 

[fgwrich]

So basically the whole concept of taking elderly EMUs and turning them into Bimodes by adding a diesel engine, when you consider the struggles of the 230 project as well, hasn't really worked.

Maybe in future, the only conversions of older stock proposed, will be battery ones.

You say that, but the Vivarail 230 project has seen their units enter service quicker and seemingly settle down quicker than the 769s seem to - has anyone got the MTIN details for the Vivarail fleets?

I wonder what came of all the newish ex442 Vossloh motors? (18 + order 1 for 19 GWR units?)

 

[507020]

At 16:55 today, the driver of 769456 left Manchester Victoria on electric mode for Stalybridge and reached Bromley Street before coming to a very abrupt stop after running off the end of the wires, but fortunately didn’t go far enough to strike the road bridge with the pantograph. The unit sat there for 20 minutes while the driver got out to inspect non-existent damage to the pantograph and the guard announced “a fault with the train” while passengers sat in emergency lighting. Eventually the signaller declined permission to continue to Stalybridge and it had to reverse back into Victoria. I suspect the driver was distracted from doing the power changeover by a last minute platform alteration when arriving there the first time. Electrification can’t come soon enough given the amount of mishaps Chris Grayling has caused by descoping it.

 

[AM9]

At 16:55 today, the driver of 769456 left Manchester Victoria on electric mode for Stalybridge and reached Bromley Street before coming to a very abrupt stop after running off the end of the wires, but fortunately didn’t go far enough to strike the road bridge with the pantograph. The unit sat there for 20 minutes while the driver got out to inspect non-existent damage to the pantograph and the guard announced “a fault with the train” while passengers sat in emergency lighting. Eventually the signaller declined permission to continue to Stalybridge and it had to reverse back into Victoria. I suspect the driver was distracted from doing the power changeover by a last minute platform alteration when arriving there the first time. Electrification can’t come soon enough given the amount of mishaps Chris Grayling has caused by descoping it.

Interesting that the guard described what sounds like a driver error as 'a fault with the train'. It seems a common issue with the 769s that any disruption is described as a train failure when in reality, it can be signalling, OLE power, other trains late running, crew shortages etc.. Yet many here also echo these erroneous judgements, until the facts are known, then it goes quiet for a while

 

[Bovverboy]

Is there never a dead section of wiring at the end of a live section, in order to prevent pantographs running out of wire? It wouldn't prevent all incidents, I know, but it would prevent a lot.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Interesting that the guard described what sounds like a driver error as 'a fault with the train'. It seems a common issue with the 769s that any disruption is described as a train failure when in reality, it can be signalling, OLE power, other trains late running, crew shortages etc.. Yet many here also echo these erroneous judgements, until the facts are known, then it goes quiet for a while

I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that all sorts of "I gizmos" are needed to automatically changeover power at such locations, or does it vary by type. Don't Network Rail provide such kit for the GWR Hitachis ?

 

[JN114]

I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that all sorts of "I gizmos" are needed to automatically changeover power at such locations, or does it vary by type. Don't Network Rail provide such kit for the GWR Hitachis ?

Varies by type - but generally yes you need some kind of positive “yes you’re definitely here” system for automated power changeovers or end of wire protection - geofencing isn’t reliable enough given the potential safety implications of not changing modes.

769s can change on the move (at least at the technical level, company rules may vary), but it is all controlled by the driver. They’re not fitted with a so-called “goalkeeper” system.

 

[modernrail]

You can’t be putting anymore of these out with that failure rate surely. Doesn’t the regulator get to have a say on this at some point? Doesn’t it also become a passenger safety issue as fleet increases and so increased risk of failure in an awkward place?

 

[507020]

Interesting that the guard described what sounds like a driver error as 'a fault with the train'. It seems a common issue with the 769s that any disruption is described as a train failure when in reality, it can be signalling, OLE power, other trains late running, crew shortages etc.. Yet many here also echo these erroneous judgements, until the facts are known, then it goes quiet for a while

It certainly seemed like driver error from the moment where we left Manchester Victoria in electric mode and I was very much expecting an incident when we ran out of wire. I was sat in the declassified first class section so I heard most of the drivers lengthy call to the signaller. Once we returned to Victoria the guard admitted that there had been no fault on the train but they had done something they “weren’t allowed” to do and the next Stalybridge service would be at 17:52. The issue with the 769s for passengers is that they are deceptive. Most passengers are unaware of the correct behaviour and so are unnerved when the engines stop at Bolton, thinking the unit has broke down, only for it to leave a few seconds later with improved acceleration, but are oblivious if for whatever reason the engines don’t start when required, until an incident presents itself.

I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that all sorts of "I gizmos" are needed to automatically changeover power at such locations, or does it vary by type. Don't Network Rail provide such kit for the GWR Hitachis ?

A single gizmo is provided in the cab, with a button labelled “pan down engine start” and another labelled “pan up engine stop” which should handle the power changeover when pressed by the driver.

769s can change on the move (at least at the technical level, company rules may vary), but it is all controlled by the driver. They’re not fitted with a so-called “goalkeeper” system.

769s can not change on the move, only because 319s could never switch between AC and DC modes on the move. Electric mode obviously uses AC and Diesel mode uses DC. GWR 769s may be able to switch between Diesel and 3rd rail on the move but certainly not AC and will need to stop to raise the pantograph at Reading.

You can’t be putting anymore of these out with that failure rate surely. Doesn’t the regulator get to have a say on this at some point? Doesn’t it also become a passenger safety issue as fleet increases and so increased risk of failure in an awkward place?

They just need to get on with extending the wires to Stalybridge as quickly as possible. I wonder if the overrun at Lostock Junction is long enough for a 769 that’s run off the end of the wires to be clear of the Preston line, otherwise there will be chaos.

 

[FenMan]

GWR 769s may be able to switch between Diesel and 3rd rail on the move but certainly not AC and will need to stop to raise the pantograph at Reading.

GWR 769s on North Downs services heading into Reading Platforms 4-6 i.e. the normal platforms except when taking units into and out of service, would never encounter OHLE.

 

[507020]

GWR 769s on North Downs services heading into Reading Platforms 4-6 i.e. the normal platforms except when taking units into and out of service, would never encounter OHLE.

I know. The only place they will encounter OHLE is Reading before and after ECS movements. In passenger service they will only encounter 3rd rail and Diesel and should be able to switch on the move with the 319 underneath remaining in DC mode

 

[Greybeard33]

I wonder if the overrun at Lostock Junction is long enough for a 769 that’s run off the end of the wires to be clear of the Preston line, otherwise there will be chaos.

There is a long overrun from Lostock Junction towards Westhoughton. It was provided to facilitate the extension of the wires to Wigan.

 

[fgwrich]

I know. The only place they will encounter OHLE is Reading before and after ECS movements. In passenger service they will only encounter 3rd rail and Diesel and should be able to switch on the move with the 319 underneath remaining in DC mode

Well, there is the potential of the Basingstoke branch too. Though it'll depend on if they chose to run them AC between Reading and Reading west and diesel onto Basingstoke or just stick with Diesel all the way, all day long.

 

[507020]

There is a long overrun from Lostock Junction towards Westhoughton. It was provided to facilitate the extension of the wires to Wigan.

They should have just wired to Wigan in the first place and got on with the Atherton line while they were at it to avoid creating an island, leaving them to come up with a way to run into Wallgate.

Well, there is the potential of the Basingstoke branch too. Though it'll depend on if they chose to run them AC between Reading and Reading west and diesel onto Basingstoke or just stick with Diesel all the way, all day long.

The Basingstoke branch is unelectrified (but an extremely high priority for electrification) so why would the 769s run on AC on it? Are they also to displace 165s on it as well as the North Downs line? Is there a station right at the end of the wires? Otherwise I suspect they will run on Diesel to Reading.

This is why there should be Wigan platforms at Lostock. 769s would be able to do another 3 miles on electric using the existing overrun.

 

[fgwrich]

The Basingstoke branch is unelectrified (but an extremely high priority for electrification) so why would the 769s run on AC on it? Are they also to displace 165s on it as well as the North Downs line? Is there a station right at the end of the wires? Otherwise I suspect they will run on Diesel to Reading.

Reading to Reading West and Southcote Junction is electrified (and onwards to Newbury). Annoyingly the run off finishes just before Green Park station, which would have made a convenient change over point from Diesel to AC. It’s only a 5 minute or so journey between the two though, so they may just keep them on Diesel.

 

[JN114]

They are definitely capable of moving changeover; whether that’s an additional mod GWR have had done I don’t know - but the (GWR) Class 769 traction manual has a whole section on dynamic (moving) changeover between Diesel/AC, with a note of “only where authorised”

 

[Wyrleybart]

They are definitely capable of moving changeover; whether that’s an additional mod GWR have had done I don’t know - but the (GWR) Class 769 traction manual has a whole section on dynamic (moving) changeover between Diesel/AC, with a note of “only where authorised”

And I would have thought a Bimode train would at least sit in Reading under the OLE and run on the OLE to at least Reading West before switching the diesels on and creating emissions.
Wonder if the flex conversion involved fitting preheaters to the MANs so they would be at optimum temperature for starting when needed.