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

[class397tpe]

It is explained upthread that these are the primary workplace for many of the relevant drivers whereas on TfW and Northern, the drivers also work other types of rolling stock.

Thanks for the explanation

 

[Snow1964]

When it was announced in 2018 they were just over 30 years old, now they are heading to be 35 years before they are put in service (if/when). Hitting their design life when starting in operation, with newer trains going for scrap. Doesn't seem right anymore.

And that is part of the problem, basically got a train design that is 42 years old, with a cab design from 36 years ago.

Standards have moved on since, so being older than stock they replace mean there is less space & comfort. So not a good recipe for making them the (almost) full time workplace of drivers in 2020s

 

[JonathanH]

Standards have moved on since, so being older than stock they replace mean there is less space & comfort. So not a good recipe for making them the (almost) full time workplace of drivers in 2020s

Despite that, someone was still prepared to drive 769935 (Monday), 769959 (Wednesday) and 769938 (Friday) from Reading Depot to Redhill and back this week.

Perhaps their job is worth more than complaining, or they enjoy the incredulity of driving a train three times a week that might not ever enter passenger service.

 

[Energy]

It is explained upthread that these are the primary workplace for many of the relevant drivers whereas on TfW and Northern, the drivers also work other types of rolling stock.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...mation-discussion.174866/page-17#post-5028467
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cab-design.229153/#post-5572731

The other rolling stock an operator has would also presumably affect the decision, the rest of TfWs fleet at the time was mostly sprinters and pacers where the 769s operate.

 

[JN114]

Despite that, someone was still prepared to drive 769935 (Monday), 769959 (Wednesday) and 769938 (Friday) from Reading Depot to Redhill and back this week.

Perhaps their job is worth more than complaining, or they enjoy the incredulity of driving a train three times a week that might not ever enter passenger service.

There are a (very) small handful of competency managers who can drive them

 

[Bikeman78]

It is over 3 years ago that they were announced.

Quick reminder for those who don’t want to plough back through the thread, DFT plan was 76 vehicles (19 x 4car) with 264 standard seats, 2 wheelchair spaces in standard, 276 standing, 12 First class seats, no wheelchair space in First class, and fitted with baby changing facilities in toilets. (Details taken from appendix 2 additional rolling stock, in section 1.6 rolling stock) of latest published GWR Franchise award)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1013732/great-western-rail-franchise-agreement.pdf

So basically GWR haven’t yet got 19 trains in service which are 32-35 years old with more standing than seated, to replace slightly newer (30+ year old) trains.

For comparison of capacity (from appendix 1 existing stock)
class 165 (2car) 159 seats, 2 wheelchair, 56 standing, 0 First class
class 165 (3car) 259 seats, 2 wheelchair, 91 standing, 0 first class
class 166 244 seats, 2 wheelchair, 85 standing, 0 first class

so the 769s would have similar standard class seating capacity as a 3car 165 which is probably why DfT assumed they would be a good choice.

The figures for standing passengers don't make sense. 276 in a 769 but only 85 in a 166? The latter is only 10 metres shorter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Aug 2022 ==

It is explained upthread that these are the primary workplace for many of the relevant drivers whereas on TfW and Northern, the drivers also work other types of rolling stock.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...mation-discussion.174866/page-17#post-5028467
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cab-design.229153/#post-5572731

I think Rhymney drivers spend most of their time on 769s. Are the alternative 150s really much better? I've had a cab ride on a Pacer. They were pretty good.

Unless I've missed something, Reading drivers would cover different routes from day to day? So a lot of their work would be on 387s. Unless there is a link that only does the Redhill line?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Unless I've missed something, Reading drivers would cover different routes from day to day? So a lot of their work would be on 387s. Unless there is a link that only does the Redhill line?

Southerns Redhill depot used to have a link that largely did North Downs route although I believe they only help on a few turns at the beginning and end of the day now.

 

[craigybagel]

I think Rhymney drivers spend most of their time on 769s. Are the alternative 150s really much better? I've had a cab ride on a Pacer. They were pretty good.

Unless I've missed something, Reading drivers would cover different routes from day to day? So a lot of their work would be on 387s. Unless there is a link that only does the Redhill line?

Rhymney drivers work all over the entire Valleys network so spend plenty of time on 150s and 153s. Compared to 769s there probably isn't much difference.

Reading drivers will also work on other routes, not just towards Redhill - but so will the 769s.

 

[adc82140]

I'm going to ask a similar question to one I asked in the SWR 701 thread.

I've trawled many pages on here, and at this point I'm struggling to understand what is preventing these 769s from entering service.

Are there technical problems?
Design problems?
It is it just industrial relations problems?

 

[JonathanH]

I've trawled many pages on here, and at this point I'm struggling to understand what is preventing these 769s from entering service.

Are there technical problems?
Design problems?
It is it just industrial relations problems?

At the current point, as discussed a number of times, including in the discussion on this page, there are no drivers trained on the units. They have not yet been accepted by ASLEF for driver training to start. This has been going on for ages.

Clearly, there have been technical issues that have delayed their introduction, originally planned for February 2019, then for September 2020, but all the conversion work was completed some time ago, and upgrades have been made at Eastleigh and Long Marston to implement other updates - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...mation-discussion.174866/page-46#post-5498698

As pointed out above, there seems to be a plan to get six units into service in December - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...mation-discussion.174866/page-60#post-5664653. These appear to have been the six active units since at least June.

There is one trip from Reading depot to Redhill on Monday, Wednesday and Friday each week to keep that group of six units moving. It was suggested that these runs would have stopped if there was no chance of them entering service - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...mation-discussion.174866/page-62#post-5716855

 

[Wyrleybart]

So that must equate to technical problems and industrial relations problems then. As was explained, most of the conversion work was done a long time ago and it is only the "bits and bobs" like the "bluetoothy thingey" above the front door which seems to have been added more recently. The fact that not a single driver has been trained on them yet silently says volumes. Unless of course it has suited GWR not to train their drivers yet. One of the issues with training the drivers months and months prior would be keeping the drivers competent before introduction.

 

[Invincible]

It is explained upthread that these are the primary workplace for many of the relevant drivers whereas on TfW and Northern, the drivers also work other types of rolling stock.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...mation-discussion.174866/page-17#post-5028467
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cab-design.229153/#post-5572731

From a comment back in March by "Clarence Yard" "seat arrangement is totally unsuitable for the build of a few drivers at Reading, which is why GWR is redesigning it."
Has the seat arrangement been updated?.

 

[FGW_DID]

From a comment back in March by "Clarence Yard" "seat arrangement is totally unsuitable for the build of a few drivers at Reading, which is why GWR is redesigning it."
Has the seat arrangement been updated?.

There's a modification program under way..................to chop a few inches off, here & there, from a few drivers!

[Humour........no drivers were actually harmed in the making of this post!]

 

[Recessio]

From a comment back in March by "Clarence Yard" "seat arrangement is totally unsuitable for the build of a few drivers at Reading, which is why GWR is redesigning it."
Has the seat arrangement been updated?.

My Dad was a bus driver. He told me once some new buses cabs were opposed at first because a few of the "girthier" drivers couldn't get the cab door shut when sat in the cab! Given the size difference in bus and train cabs, hopefully not the same issue here...

 

[reddragon]

How do such drivers pass the medical, PTS training and railway safety requirements? If ASLEF/RMT are so safety driven in every rail dispute how an earth can they accept drivers that are not safe & healthy?

 

[Wyrleybart]

From a comment back in March by "Clarence Yard" "seat arrangement is totally unsuitable for the build of a few drivers at Reading, which is why GWR is redesigning it."
Has the seat arrangement been updated?.

Must have missed "CY's" post in March, but it really does beggar belief. What has changed in respect of the gap between the driver's seat and the surroundings, desk etc ? I am not totally ignorant of such things because the TOC I work for had a issue with drivers seats / bolt holes etc. One of the drivers is 6'7" and simply didn't fit for a couple of months until the fitting of the new seats was "reevaluated"

I would have thought a 769 cab is a 319 cab - with air con and a few more buttons and gauges.

 

[Fincra5]

Must have missed "CY's" post in March, but it really does beggar belief. What has changed in respect of the gap between the driver's seat and the surroundings, desk etc ? I am not totally ignorant of such things because the TOC I work for had a issue with drivers seats / bolt holes etc. One of the drivers is 6'7" and simply didn't fit for a couple of months until the fitting of the new seats was "reevaluated"

I would have thought a 769 cab is a 319 cab - with air con and a few more buttons and gauges.

By modern standard the Cab of a Class 319 wouldn't be acceptable. It's not always down to the "size" of a driver more Height Issues.

When 313's came to SN they modified the cab desk to give more legroom for our taller drivers. It's probably a similar issue on the Class 319, I know the desks have been modifed previous compared to this pic but as you can see it's not the most spacious of cabs.


There's also the issue with ergonomics.

 

[craigybagel]

Before people get out the hammer and pitchfork for the drivers again, might I point out that BR standards for cab design were pretty appalling, and it's not just "unhealthy" drivers that can find them uncomfortable.

I'm barely 6 feet tall, and my BMI is within the normal healthy range, and yet I can't drive 150s or 158s without my knees being wedged against the bulkhead underneath the dashboard, which can get very uncomfortable. I accept this as part of the job and something I knew about when I applied - and most importantly, safe in the knowledge that both units should be coming off my traction cards in a year or two.

But if i was a driver who'd spent years driving more modern units with comfortable cabs, and was suddenly presented with a cab I didn't physically fit in and told to just get on with it, I'd expect ASLEF to have strong words with management, as is the case here.

For all the talk of "they were fine on Thameslink for 30 years" - I bet if you told the drivers there now you were taking the 700s off them and giving them back 319s, there would be uproar - and rightly so.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Before people get out the hammer and pitchfork for the drivers again, might I point out that BR standards for cab design were pretty appalling, and it's not just "unhealthy" drivers that can find them uncomfortable.

I'm barely 6 feet tall, and my BMI is within the normal healthy range, and yet I can't drive 150s or 158s without my knees being wedged against the bulkhead underneath the dashboard, which can get very uncomfortable. I accept this as part of the job and something I knew about when I applied - and most importantly, safe in the knowledge that both units should be coming off my traction cards in a year or two.

But if i was a driver who'd spent years driving more modern units with comfortable cabs, and was suddenly presented with a cab I didn't physically fit in and told to just get on with it, I'd expect ASLEF to have strong words with management, as is the case here.

For all the talk of "they were fine on Thameslink for 30 years" - I bet if you told the drivers there now you were taking the 700s off them and giving them back 319s, there would be uproar - and rightly so.

Thanks for that Craigy and Fincra.
So ASLEF are quite rightly protecting their members interests. Is it therefore time the relevant sections of ASLEF moved forward a step, saved a lot of p1ssing around and declared the 769 cab as unfit for use ?

 

[TurboMan]

Thanks for that Craigy and Fincra.
So ASLEF are quite rightly protecting their members interests. Is it therefore time the relevant sections of ASLEF moved forward a step, saved a lot of p1ssing around and declared the 769 cab as unfit for use ?

They did, hence the delay in the introduction to service on GWR. But a compromise has (almost) been reached, whereby various mods to the cab have been agreed by GWR and ASLEF, funded by the DfT. That includes upgraded cab aircon, anti-spall windcsreens, modifications to the driver's seat and desk to give a little more leg room. It's just the modifications to the desk that have yet to be completed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2022 ==

How do such drivers pass the medical, PTS training and railway safety requirements?

Because they meet the requirements. Clearly, or they wouldn't be driving.

 

[Towers]

It's also worth noting here that, quite poorly for this day and age, it does appear from various posters here that some TOCs have higher regard for the conditons that crew work in than others - I'm thinking in particular of retrofitted cab aircon on BR-era stock, which I believe is regarded as non-essential in some places but is, quite rightly, a condition of being fit for service elsewhere. Hence some TOCs' reps might end up accepting a lower standard than others.

 

[reddragon]

Before people get out the hammer and pitchfork for the drivers again, might I point out that BR standards for cab design were pretty appalling, and it's not just "unhealthy" drivers that can find them uncomfortable.

I'm barely 6 feet tall, and my BMI is within the normal healthy range, and yet I can't drive 150s or 158s without my knees being wedged against the bulkhead underneath the dashboard, which can get very uncomfortable. I accept this as part of the job and something I knew about when I applied - and most importantly, safe in the knowledge that both units should be coming off my traction cards in a year or two.

But if i was a driver who'd spent years driving more modern units with comfortable cabs, and was suddenly presented with a cab I didn't physically fit in and told to just get on with it, I'd expect ASLEF to have strong words with management, as is the case here.

For all the talk of "they were fine on Thameslink for 30 years" - I bet if you told the drivers there now you were taking the 700s off them and giving them back 319s, there would be uproar - and rightly so.

Good answer, so far all indication has been about girth rather than length

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2022 ==

They did, hence the delay in the introduction to service on GWR. But a compromise has (almost) been reached, whereby various mods to the cab have been agreed by GWR and ASLEF, funded by the DfT. That includes upgraded cab aircon, anti-spall windcsreens, modifications to the driver's seat and desk to give a little more leg room. It's just the modifications to the desk that have yet to be completed.

That sound very reasonable to me, maybe now all the speculation can stop and we accept that the 769s are fine?

 

[Snow1964]

It's also worth noting here that, quite poorly for this day and age, it does appear from various posters here that some TOCs have higher regard for the conditons that crew work in than others - I'm thinking in particular of retrofitted cab aircon on BR-era stock, which I believe is regarded as non-essential in some places but is, quite rightly, a condition of being fit for service elsewhere. Hence some TOCs' reps might end up accepting a lower standard than others.

I think it also depends on timeframe, something that is temporary (even a couple of years) used some of the time, is going to be viewed differently to a main workplace 5-10 years.

There is also a comparison with what is current, going to be viewed differently if replacing something similar to replacing something modern and comfortable.

As for air con, clearly going to be seen as more of an essential in SW London Home Counties than in the cooler climate of Lancashire area.

 

[Recessio]

They did, hence the delay in the introduction to service on GWR. But a compromise has (almost) been reached, whereby various mods to the cab have been agreed by GWR and ASLEF, funded by the DfT. That includes upgraded cab aircon, anti-spall windcsreens, modifications to the driver's seat and desk to give a little more leg room. It's just the modifications to the desk that have yet to be completed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2022 ==


Because they meet the requirements. Clearly, or they wouldn't be driving.

Cheers for the detailed answer, really appreciate it. What is an anti-spall windscreen though? I've only heard of spalling with respect to concrete.

 

[Benjwri]

What is an anti-spall windscreen though?

An anti-spall windscreen has a layer on the inside which protects the driver by stopping any fragments from breaking away from the windscreen towards the driver in case it cracks.

 

[Recessio]

An anti-spall windscreen has a layer on the inside which protects the driver by stopping any fragments from breaking away from the windscreen towards the driver in case it cracks.

Thank you! Seems very reasonable, though I'll be honest I thought all train windows were that way anyway (I remember that being an issue in the Croydon tram crash, that tram windows only have to meet bus regulations not the safer train regs). Little did I know that 319s are running around with sheets of glass nicked from a greenhouse

 

[AM9]

Thank you! Seems very reasonable, though I'll be honest I thought all train windows were that way anyway (I remember that being an issue in the Croydon tram crash, that tram windows only have to meet bus regulations not the safer train regs). Little did I know that 319s are running around with sheets of glass nicked from a greenhouse

I suspect that the behaviour of windscreens and other glass on the front of trains has been subject to constant improvement for decades as the ever unfortunate presence of things being thrown at them doesn't seem to go away. Then there's starightforward operational hazards such as ballast picking up and birdstrikes etc.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I suspect that the behaviour of windscreens and other glass on the front of trains has been subject to constant improvement for decades as the ever unfortunate presence of things being thrown at them doesn't seem to go away. Then there's starightforward operational hazards such as ballast picking up and birdstrikes etc.

You would have thought that all driver windscreens would have been retrofitted with anti spall glass as a matter of course if this failure mode has been picked up as a recommendations from previous incidents.

 

[Wyrleybart]

You would have thought that all driver windscreens would have been retrofitted with anti spall glass as a matter of course if this failure mode has been picked up as a recommendations from previous incidents.

True Nicholas, but by the same token you might expect the class 319 traction motors to have been overhauled for reuse on class 769...........................

 

[Rich1974]

Shame the class 365s got scrapped, they'd almost be exactly the same as a class 165/6, even learning them would be much easier.