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

[zwk500]

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.

They'd not be particularly helpful on the 99.9% of the diagram without OLE though.

 

[Energy]

They'd not be particularly helpful on the 99.9% of the diagram without OLE though.

Even fitted with diesel engines they'd be less ideal with them no longer able to use 3rd rail.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

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

Motors aren't a staff safety issue

 

[CharlesR]

Is it the case that the turbos displaced by the 769s are more for the introduction of a half hourly service between Gloucester-Bristol and Bristol-Westbury, and not with the aim of moving castle sets on? And am I correct in suggesting that 387s will move to the Cardiff runs so that 800s can do Cardiff-Taunton/Penzance, instead of being replaced by turbos?

 

[cactustwirly]

Is it the case that the turbos displaced by the 769s are more for the introduction of a half hourly service between Gloucester-Bristol and Bristol-Westbury, and not with the aim of moving castle sets on? And am I correct in suggesting that 387s will move to the Cardiff runs so that 800s can do Cardiff-Taunton/Penzance, instead of being replaced by turbos?

Nope not enough 387s, the Cardiff runs are limited. As there are only a few spare during the day

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Is it the case that the turbos displaced by the 769s are more for the introduction of a half hourly service between Gloucester-Bristol and Bristol-Westbury, and not with the aim of moving castle sets on? And am I correct in suggesting that 387s will move to the Cardiff runs so that 800s can do Cardiff-Taunton/Penzance, instead of being replaced by turbos?

Correct turbos cascaded will allow the additional Metro West services to run.

There are no current plans to replace the bulk of the Castle HSTs.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Motors aren't a staff safety issue

I didn't suggest they were.
Overall the 769s have been very very late entering service, assuming at least some eventually will. One of the problems with the fleet is traction motor issues. Perhaps, had Porterbrook contracted Wabtec to overhaul the 76 traction motors involved in the project plus the spares, then they would have presented a more reliable fleet to GWR. They could easily have cycled the motors for overhaul from the stored units and simply dropped the overhauled motors in at Loughborough.

 

[alastair]

The latest Railways Illustrated mag states that "although some testing continues, the 769's are unable to meet the section times required on the North Downs route". Is this actually true, if so seems like a rather fundamental problem?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The latest Railways Illustrated mag states that "although some testing continues, the 769's are unable to meet the section times required on the North Downs route". Is this actually true, if so seems like a rather fundamental problem?

The test runs meet the timings fine if not better them but they maybe rather slack compared to what is required to run the timetable which i recollect had already been eased to cover slower SRTs from 769s.

 

[Snow1964]

The test runs meet the timings fine if not better them but they maybe rather slack compared to what is required to run the timetable which i recollect had already been eased to cover slower SRTs from 769s.

So the solution to this is to timetable the trains to take longer, as replacement stock cannot keep to time.

Is that a serious passenger growth strategy, or a bad bodge.

 

[Benjwri]

So the solution to this is to timetable the trains to take longer, as replacement stock cannot keep to time.

Is that a serious passenger growth strategy, or a bad bodge.

To be fair the North Downs Line has always felt slow, and in Wales they have only been losing a few minutes on steep gradients. I doubt compared to the overall journey time it will make a whole lot of difference.

 

[Mzzzs]

I think acceleration on the units is much close to a class 150 than a turbo networkers so would expect the units to take longer.

 

[FenMan]

The latest Railways Illustrated mag states that "although some testing continues, the 769's are unable to meet the section times required on the North Downs route". Is this actually true, if so seems like a rather fundamental problem?

I hope not!

The test runs meet the timings fine if not better them but they maybe rather slack compared to what is required to run the timetable which i recollect had already been eased to cover slower SRTs from 769s.

The timing of the Reading - Gatwick semi-fasts has already been relaxed by 7-8 minutes to allow for 769 operation.

So the solution to this is to timetable the trains to take longer, as replacement stock cannot keep to time.

Is that a serious passenger growth strategy, or a bad bodge.

Timetabling the NDL is difficult enough as it is, due to interactions with other lines at very busy junctions and shared track and the short turn round times at Gatwick. I doubt if timings could be relaxed further without fatally undermining the business case for the 769s.

To be fair the North Downs Line has always felt slow, and in Wales they have only been losing a few minutes on steep gradients. I doubt compared to the overall journey time it will make a whole lot of difference.

It is not an inter city route and journey times are perfectly acceptable if services run to time. The cost of increasing line speeds would be very considerable and would deliver very little benefit in reality.

 

[Minstral25]

Timetabling the NDL is difficult enough as it is, due to interactions with other lines at very busy junctions and shared track and the short turn round times at Gatwick. I doubt if timings could be relaxed further without fatally undermining the business case for the 769s.

All other services along the route now run to clock face times so I don't see why North Downs times couldn't be made simpler and I am sure the very short turn round times either end do not help. The new timetable for the "new" 769's reduced speed was definitely a step backwards, especially as they haven't entered service yet!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

All other services along the route now run to clock face times so I don't see why North Downs times couldn't be made simpler and I am sure the very short turn round times either end do not help. The new timetable for the "new" 769's reduced speed was definitely a step backwards, especially as they haven't entered service yet!

Been using the route for over 30 years and the crews are exceptionally well choreographed at changing ends and getting the train away at Gatwick and Redhill especially when its running late have seen sub 3mins easily achieved.

 

[Minstral25]

Been using the route for over 30 years and the crews are exceptionally well choreographed at changing ends and getting the train away at Gatwick and Redhill especially when its running late have seen sub 3mins easily achieved.

Yep, very aware of the speed. Especially yesterday when my Thameslink to Gatwick was cancelled at last minute (Quarry line diversion) and they turned it round faster than I could get to P1B. They are very efficient - but there should be more time to turn round and will they be able to do this with a 769

 

[Benjwri]

It is not an inter city route and journey times are perfectly acceptable if services run to time. The cost of increasing line speeds would be very considerable and would deliver very little benefit in reality.

My point was more that the few minutes the 769s will be losing is in reality a very small difference on a 1hr 20 route. There is obviously no realistic solution to make the route faster.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yep, very aware of the speed. Especially yesterday when my Thameslink to Gatwick was cancelled at last minute (Quarry line diversion) and they turned it round faster than I could get to P1B. They are very efficient - but there should be more time to turn round and will they be able to do this with a 769

well they are a four car so a bit further to walk!

 

[AM9]

well they are a four car so a bit further to walk!

Actually just 11m extra so about 10 seconds.

 

[Deepgreen]

My point was more that the few minutes the 769s will be losing is in reality a very small difference on a 1hr 20 route. There is obviously no realistic solution to make the route faster.

However, making it yet slower is a backward step. This saga's humour value has evaporated now and the serious element of the railway losing its way and accepting regressive performance is a worry. I have always been vehemently pro-rail vs. car to the extent that I will put myself out to use rail, but I can see my resolve being tested too far here. The whole thing smacks of no strategic view, and technological incompetence, ending up with a product that worsens the service and is subject to serious IR problems.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2022 ==

So the solution to this is to timetable the trains to take longer, as replacement stock cannot keep to time.

Is that a serious passenger growth strategy, or a bad bodge.

It's a bad bodge and an admission that they don't want extra passengers!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2022 ==

All other services along the route now run to clock face times so I don't see why North Downs times couldn't be made simpler and I am sure the very short turn round times either end do not help. The new timetable for the "new" 769's reduced speed was definitely a step backwards, especially as they haven't entered service yet!

Which route has a clockface timetable?

 

[Minstral25]

Which route has a clockface timetable?

SWR services through Guildford, along the Ash Vale and Wokingham to Reading, Thameslink & Southern have fully clock face timetables. So threading North Downs trains through on a clock face basis should not be difficult but somehow GWR changes the times a little every hour

Agree it is a joke that services are being made slower with the introduction of older lass able stock, very regressive step. Should be improving timetables, making more regular to encourage usage

 

[HamworthyGoods]

SWR services through Guildford, along the Ash Vale and Wokingham to Reading, Thameslink & Southern have fully clock face timetables. So threading North Downs trains through on a clock face basis should not be difficult but somehow GWR changes the times a little every hour

Agree it is a joke that services are being made slower with the introduction of older lass able stock, very regressive step. Should be improving timetables, making more regular to encourage usage

SWR through Guildford is not totally clockface, like the North Downs in many hours there are subtle variations by a minute ir two in the Working Timetable it’s just SWR prefer to use public/working differentials to keep the public timetable on pattern at the risk of trains always actually being a minute or two late whereas GWR go by the actual working timetable. Each option has its positive and negative implications.

 

[Invincible]

Agree it is a joke that services are being made slower with the introduction of older lass able stock, very regressive step. Should be improving timetables, making more regular to encourage usage

The new MAN engines on the 769 should be more efficient and powerful than the 165s, 523 hp/390 kW, but there are less engines per train, also the aluminium bodied 165s must be lighter than the steel bodied 769s.
But with electric power part of the route the 769s are "greener" in operation and why GWR will eventually get them working.
Any news on the update on the cab panel to make the 769s more ergonomic for the driver?

 

[Minstral25]

SWR through Guildford is not totally clockface, like the North Downs in many hours there are subtle variations by a minute ir two in the Working Timetable it’s just SWR prefer to use public/working differentials to keep the public timetable on pattern at the risk of trains always actually being a minute or two late whereas GWR go by the actual working timetable. Each option has its positive and negative implications.

I thought it was intended to be clock face but happy to be corrected

The new MAN engines on the 769 should be more efficient and powerful than the 165s, 523 hp/390 kW, but there are less engines per train, also the aluminium bodied 165s must be lighter than the steel bodied 769s.
But with electric power part of the route the 769s are "greener" in operation and why GWR will eventually get them working.
Any news on the update on the cab panel to make the 769s more ergonomic for the driver?

I do though appreciate they will run greener thanks to using 3rd rail at some sections, however a decent modern battery powered train would be much better

Additionally: -
The passenger environment is from the 1980s with a bit of tarting up (the 165s are not much better)
The timetable has been slowed to accommodate their lack of power

Both of the above will mean less journeys as people will see the perceived disadvantages.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I thought it was intended to be clock face but happy to be corrected



I do though appreciate they will run greener thanks to using 3rd rail at some sections, however a decent modern battery powered train would be much better

Additionally: -
The passenger environment is from the 1980s with a bit of tarting up (the 165s are not much better)
The timetable has been slowed to accommodate their lack of power

Both of the above will mean less journeys as people will see the perceived disadvantages.

Both routes during the off-peak are intended to be clockface but there are often trains a minute or so adrift because if say a freight or a RHTT etc.

 

[DelW]

Additionally: -
The passenger environment is from the 1980s with a bit of tarting up (the 165s are not much better)
The timetable has been slowed to accommodate their lack of power

Both of the above will mean less journeys as people will see the perceived disadvantages.

There's also the problem that the current timetable was (I think) intended for the 3tph service with two Gatwick trains per hour, though the second Gatwick has never actually been introduced. This means that the Redhill stoppers sit pointlessly at Guildford for up to ten minutes, a period intended to allow pax to change to or from an overtaking Gatwick train that now doesn't exist.
Assuming that 3tph won't ever happen, since DfT won't even fund the repair of the Redhill stabling sidings let alone provide an enhanced service, the timings really need to be sorted out to avoid this. The line has been slowed down enough by the 769 retiming without wasting even more time sitting at stations.

 

[AM9]

The new MAN engines on the 769 should be more efficient and powerful than the 165s, 523 hp/390 kW, but there are less engines per train, also the aluminium bodied 165s must be lighter than the steel bodied 769s.
But with electric power part of the route the 769s are "greener" in operation and why GWR will eventually get them working.
Any news on the update on the cab panel to make the 769s more ergonomic for the driver?

It's not as simple as the power that an engine is rated at, it's the range of speeds that the power is available and the torque that is available. Diesel-electric traction was introduced to deal with the mismatch between engine speed and wheelspeed. By running the engine at an optimum speed for maximum power or torque and then converting the power into electricity is why a DE traction system can accelerate without thrashing the engine. An electric motor has maximum torque at low revolutions, but it doesn't care how fast the diesel engine that generated its supply is running.

 

[Deepgreen]

If the 769s ever enter service, whether 3tph or 2tph, they will still provide slower journeys. What was a fine concept to convert old trains has become regressive, except for the use of third rail where available. The dithering and feeble indecision regarding third rail infill has been ludicrous and the line could have been able to provide good timings with rolling stock type flexibility decades ago. On top of that the programme of conversion has been dreadful, with IR problems that should have been foreseen and mechanical issues that would make anyone think that electro-diesels are a new concept, rather than one that saw the very successful 1950s-designed class 73s produced! An embarrassment.

 

[jackot]

If the 769s ever enter service, whether 3tph or 2tph, they will still provide slower journeys. What was a fine concept to convert old trains has become regressive, except for the use of third rail where available. The dithering and feeble indecision regarding third rail infill has been ludicrous and the line could have been able to provide good timings with rolling stock type flexibility decades ago. On top of that the programme of conversion has been dreadful, with IR problems that should have been foreseen and mechanical issues that would make anyone think that electro-diesels are a new concept, rather than one that saw the very successful 1950s-designed class 73s produced! An embarrassment.

Yes, when new* trains (*or at least new in the eyes of the general public and mainstream media) are seen to be slower than 30yr old trains, especially considering the vast sums of money that has been spent on them, it does not paint a good image of the railway in the slightest. It won't be long before news articles are stating '£X million trains are slower and less reliable than the existing fleet'. The Turbos are not exactly rapid either, so its hardly a ridiculous benchmark to have meet.

 

[AM9]

Yes, when new* trains (*or at least new in the eyes of the general public and mainstream media) are seen to be slower than 30yr old trains, especially considering the vast sums of money that has been spent on them, it does not paint a good image of the railway in the slightest. It won't be long before news articles are stating '£X million trains are slower and less reliable than the existing fleet'. The Turbos are not exactly rapid either, so its hardly a ridiculous benchmark to have meet.

Speed isn't everything, - especially likely to be true in the future when energy is at a premium and pollution/greenhouse gases are actively being avoided.