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

[amazon1675]

Who is actually making these rolling stock decisions? It could be a very interesting 2023.Is driver training usuallly done on overtime?

 

[Richard Scott]

This might not be GWR's decision, rather the DfTs - and - the fact that GWR have overcrowded services does not change the fact these are approximately fifty year old trains, absolutely knackered, with questionable health and safety and expensive to run - plus, when the ordered 769s finally enter service, said overcrowding issue will be resolved anyway.

Questionable health and safety, look what happened around 20 years ago when an HST hit a 165, know which one I'd rather take my chance in.

 

[Deepgreen]

Or third rail and transfer to Southern (or South-Eastern)? Presumably the Govt can over-rule any ORR objection to more third rail.

Indeed, but I imagine the business case for third rail here has weakened considerably with the money (sunk costs) spent on the 769s (successfully or not). It is a scandal that it wasn't installed decades ago as the common-sense solution to various infills like this, rather than getting bogged down in the turmoil that has afflicted it. Even producing a fleet of push-pull units (say 3/4 car) in the 1990s with a 73 providing power from an uprated diesel engine and third rail would have been better.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2022 ==

Questionable health and safety, look what happened around 20 years ago when an HST hit a 165, know which one I'd rather take my chance in.

I assume the post referred to the drop-lights in the doors.

 

[Richard Scott]

I assume the post referred to the drop-lights in the doors.

Don't have droplights anymore!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Questionable health and safety, look what happened around 20 years ago when an HST hit a 165, know which one I'd rather take my chance in.

I’m not sure what you are hinting at here? Assume you are referring to Ladbroke Grove, well if that’s the case:

HST - front power car and front coach destroyed. Second coach badly damaged, rest of train lighter damage.

165 - front coach destroyed, second coach badly damaged, 3rd coach lighter damage.

Intrigued what your logic is as the trains fared about the same in terms of damage. There were more deaths on the turbo because it was a heavier loaded standard accommodation front coach versus an HST with lower density first class as the coach which was destroyed.

 

[Richard Scott]

I’m not sure what you are hinting at here? Assume you are referring to Ladbroke Grove, well if that’s the case:

HST - front power car and front coach destroyed. Second coach badly damaged, rest of train lighter damage.

165 - front coach destroyed, second coach badly damaged, 3rd coach lighter damage.

Intrigued what your logic is as the trains fared about the same in terms of damage. There were more deaths on the turbo because it was a heavier loaded standard accommodation front coach versus an HST with lower density first class as the coach which was destroyed.

Front coach of 165 totally destroyed beyond point of even being recognisable as a rail vehicle, looks like power car went through it like it was paper. Front coach of HST destroyed, agreed, but may have stood a chance in that. Probably many injuries/fatalities there due to fire from ruptured fuel tank, which can happen to any vehicle.

 

[craigybagel]

Front coach of 165 totally destroyed beyond point of even being recognisable as a rail vehicle, looks like power car went through it like it was paper. Front coach of HST destroyed, agreed, but may have stood a chance in that. Probably many injuries/fatalities there due to fire from ruptured fuel tank, which can happen to any vehicle.

Given both drivers were sadly killed I'm really not sure what the point of this branch of the discussion is, and it's very off topic for 769s in any case.

 

[Richard Scott]

Given both drivers were sadly killed I'm really not sure what the point of this branch of the discussion is, and it's very off topic for 769s in any case.

Agree it's drifted off topic but came out of a comment further up that 769s entering traffic should allow 165s to replace Castle sets, which were quoted as questionable Health and Safety.

 

[Bikeman78]

Not really, the West desperately needs the extra units, Devon and Cornwall are one of the few areas where actual passenger numbers are exceeding pre-covid

Given the often mentioned lack of money, I cannot understand why any more is being wasted on these trains. Who wants a train that develops a fault every 1200 miles? They'll have to keep some 165s at Reading to stand in the failures. Either that or cancel the rest of the diagram. Does GWR seriously think its 769s on intensive 500 mile diagrams will do better than the others?

 

[AM9]

Don't have droplights anymore!

They did 20 years ago which is what you were referring to.

 

[Invincible]

Not Driver training, those would still run as ECS. Believe todays run was for the MD / Execs and possibly some invited guests.

There’s some testing coming up this week (or next) which should see an 8 car 769 out and about.

Presume the management will continue to progress the 769?
A lot of the 769 is new.
There is the "bath curve" where initially problems are identified and fixed, then several years of reliability before things wear out.

https://www.efficientplantmag.com/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/2013/0313rockwell2.jpg

 

[Snow1964]

Presume the management will continue to progress the 769?
A lot of the 769 is new.
There is the "bath curve" where initially problems are identified and fixed, then several years of reliability before things wear out.

https://www.efficientplantmag.com/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/2013/0313rockwell2.jpg

The 769s are basically modified trains that are 32-35 years old

Do you think they have enough years left to not already be climbing towards the exit of the bathtub curve.

Possibly a better analogy for where the 769 programme is going might be the old phrase flogging a dead horse.

 

[Richard Scott]

They did 20 years ago which is what you were referring to.

No, was referring to current ones which were criticised for their questionable health and safety.

 

[AM9]

No, was referring to current ones which were criticised for their questionable health and safety.

OK, I read it as you comparing the two train types in the Ladbroke Grove collision in which the MKIIIs did have droplights.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Nov 2022 ==

The 769s are basically modified trains that are 32-35 years old

Do you think they have enough years left to not already be climbing towards the exit of the bathtub curve.

Possibly a better analogy for where the 769 programme is going might be the old phrase flogging a dead horse.

A better comparison would be to look at the class 319s which have all the 32-35 year old bits. The new parts will follow the bathtub curve, (which effectively includes the MAN engines [1], the ABB generators [2] and the software and hardware string [3] integrating them into the 319 system.

[1] - These are established technology diesel engines proven in extensive railway use in many countries
[2] - These are very well established technology in many rail and other transport applications
[3] - This is where most of the issues have been with 'infant mortalities' (to use the correct term), mainly design related, that earlier in the programme were modified as they progressed.

So the 'dead horse' comment is hardly appropriate and more like a tabloid assessment where the author didn't really understand the isssues and wanted to capitalise on the ire of the readership.

 

[Wyrleybart]

This might not be GWR's decision, rather the DfTs - and - the fact that GWR have overcrowded services does not change the fact these are approximately fifty year old trains, absolutely knackered, with questionable health and safety and expensive to run - plus, when the ordered 769s finally enter service, said overcrowding issue will be resolved anyway.

Class 319s built between 1987 and 1990. That makes the youngest 32 years and the oldest around 36 years old. Not quite fifty years old methinks.

 

[Deepgreen]

Class 319s built between 1987 and 1990. That makes the youngest 32 years and the oldest around 36 years old. Not quite fifty years old methinks.

I think that response from 'TT-ONR-NRN' was about the HSTs. This has become confusing now - perhaps we should return to the 769s? The whole issue seems to me to hang on whether the 769s have enough life in them to soldier on for a decade or more and if their reliability can be raised to the point where they can offer a sensible service. Assuming the units' basic structure is OK, and their electrical main kit similarly, it comes down to the diesel engines installed, and the interface between diesel and electric power. There are also peripherals such as cab design and union acceptance. Are we close to having the traction elements resolved, I wonder? If not, they will not provide the reliable capacity enhancements needed; if so, that leaves the staffing issue, and whether the cab re-design and re-building costs can be absorbed. Perhaps the NDL run for dignitaries (which concluded 4 minutes early at Reading) does indicate serious progress? Another concern is that other 769 operators seem to be having serious problems with them already, and that does not instill confidence in me that they would do the job here (and will someone please get those erroneous platform zone markers at Dorking West EB platform swapped round!!).

 

[gmaguire]

I think that response from 'TT-ONR-NRN' was about the HSTs. This has become confusing now - perhaps we should return to the 769s? The whole issue seems to me to hang on whether the 769s have enough life in them to soldier on for a decade or more and if their reliability can be raised to the point where they can offer a sensible service. Assuming the units' basic structure is OK, and their electrical main kit similarly, it comes down to the diesel engines installed, and the interface between diesel and electric power. There are also peripherals such as cab design and union acceptance. Are we close to having the traction elements resolved, I wonder? If not, they will not provide the reliable capacity enhancements needed; if so, that leaves the staffing issue, and whether the cab re-design and re-building costs can be absorbed. Perhaps the NDL run for dignitaries (which concluded 4 minutes early at Reading) does indicate serious progress? Another concern is that other 769 operators seem to be having serious problems with them already, and that does not instill confidence in me that they would do the job here (and will someone please get those erroneous platform zone markers at Dorking West EB platform swapped round!!).

Did SWT have reliability packages for the 455s? Would that info be of any use to the 769 project? If they’re even able to get hold of that info.

 

[Deepgreen]

Did SWT have reliability packages for the 455s? Would that info be of any use to the 769 project? If they’re even able to get hold of that info.

I imagine the interface with the diesel engines makes the two types very different animals.

 

[Cowley]

I think that response from 'TT-ONR-NRN' was about the HSTs. This has become confusing now - perhaps we should return to the 769s?

Yes. That’s what we should indeed do from now please.

 

[Bevan Price]

Looking at RTT for the last week, the Southport / Alderley Edge services need 5 Class 769s. Excluding strike days and staff shortage cancellations, only on one day has one of the five diagrams needed to replaced by dmus (Class 150).
That certainly seems much better than was typical in the months after Class 769 were introduced to that route.

 

[Greybeard33]

Looking at RTT for the last week, the Southport / Alderley Edge services need 5 Class 769s. Excluding strike days and staff shortage cancellations, only on one day has one of the five diagrams needed to replaced by dmus (Class 150).
That certainly seems much better than was typical in the months after Class 769 were introduced to that route.

One of the four Southport - Stalybridge diagrams is also supposed to be worked by a 769, i.e a daily turnout of 6 of Northern's fleet of 8 769s. Did that happen on any of the days in question?

 

[Bevan Price]

One of the four Southport - Stalybridge diagrams is also supposed to be worked by a 769, i.e a daily turnout of 6 of Northern's fleet of 8 769s. Did that happen on any of the days in question?

Seems to have been dmu once in the same period. Part of today's diagram shown as cancelled due to staff shortage, but a 769 appeared this afternoon.

 

[Snow1964]

Today DfT has uploaded the new GWR rail contract
(warning it is 583 pages long)

per page 83 current rolling stock
Class 769 76 (19 x 4 car) lease ends 1st April 2023

then on pages 84 and 85 tables of specified additional rolling stock
the leases for these stated as commencing 1st April 2023

includes (all from 1st April 2023)
Class 150/2 6 (3 x 2 car) Angel leasing
Class 150/2 34 (17 x 2 car) Porterbrook
Class 158/0 22 (11 x 2 car) Porterbrook
Class 158/0 12 (4 x 3 car) Porterbrook
Class 158/0 9 (3 x 2 car) seating capacity not shown, and clearly 3x2=6 not 9 so don’t understand this one, but guessing some sort of set reformation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1122644/first-greater-western-ltd-2022-nrc.pdf

The obvious question is why does it appear the 769s get replaced by used DMUs, have they finally given up on them.

 

[JonathanH]

The obvious question is why does it appear the 769s get replaced by used DMUs, have they finally given up on them.

Those aren't additional DMUs though. 150202/207/216 are the 3 Angel 150s for example, and there are 17 existing Porterbrook 150s. Doesnt the number of 158 vehicles tie up with the existing fleet?

The current 150/158 diesel fleet is:
* 20 2-car 150s 150202/07/16/19/21/32/33/34/38/39/43/44/46-49/61/63/65/66 (40 vehicles)

* 19 2-car 158s 158745-51/60-62/64-69/71/76/78 (38 vehicles)
* 1 3-car 158 158798 (3 vehicles)
(currently formed as 10 2-car 158745/47/49/50/60/62/65-67/69 and 7 3-car units 158798/950/51/56-59)

40 150 vehicles and 41 158 vehicles matches the numbers above.

Still, if the 769 lease does end on 1 April 2023, and isn't renewed, it seems odds on they will never operate for GWR.

 

[RPI]

No mention of the 16x fleet?

 

[JN114]

No mention of the 16x fleet?

They are in there, leases to be extended to 2028; as are 33x 4 car units to same specification as current 387/1 fleet - which is very likely to be current 387/1 fleet but not wanting to prejudice ongoing tender.

769s are absent beyond April 2023 though…

 

[JonathanH]

Was 1 April 2023 just a natural break in the direct award agreed in March 2020, such that all leases ended then, and they are then being selective about what is kept on from 1 April 2023 in the light of budgets / demand etc?

Great Western Franchise Extension 2020 to?

Confirmed extension for First Group until 2023. Just had it through on an email. Although on a management contract until September. Including the introduction of flexi season tickets, which I like the sound of. Excellent news. Possibility of a 4 year extension too :D

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Greybeard33]

Today DfT has uploaded the new GWR rail contract
(warning it is 583 pages long)

per page 83 current rolling stock
Class 769 76 (19 x 4 car) lease ends 1st April 2023

then on pages 84 and 85 tables of specified additional rolling stock
the leases for these stated as commencing 1st April 2023

includes (all from 1st April 2023)
Class 150/2 6 (3 x 2 car) Angel leasing
Class 150/2 34 (17 x 2 car) Porterbrook
Class 158/0 22 (11 x 2 car) Porterbrook
Class 158/0 12 (4 x 3 car) Porterbrook
Class 158/0 9 (3 x 2 car) seating capacity not shown, and clearly 3x2=6 not 9 so don’t understand this one, but guessing some sort of set reformation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1122644/first-greater-western-ltd-2022-nrc.pdf

The obvious question is why does it appear the 769s get replaced by used DMUs, have they finally given up on them.

Note that the document is dated 14 June 2022. Things can change in six months....

 

[Snow1964]

They are in there, leases to be extended to 2028; as are 33x 4 car units to same specification as current 387/1 fleet - which is very likely to be current 387/1 fleet but not wanting to prejudice ongoing tender.

769s are absent beyond April 2023 though…

Yes, tables are presented as original/existing fleet and a subsequent table for specified additional rolling stock

For clarity it is from new June 2022 contract, it’s not the 2020 management contract

The rail contract between the Secretary of State for Transport and First Greater Western Limited, dated 14 June 2022, which ends on the expiry date of 25 June 2028.

The 165s and 166s leases are all extended to June 2028, but does appear there is no extension for 769s


Per page 70, at least 35% of the rolling stock staying after June 2025 has to have passenger counting equipment (excluding mk3 carriages), so there is some modifications due to retained fleet (but this is drifting off topic)

 

[jackot]

Not a good indicator of the 769s whatsoever, but if I'm honest doesn't come as a surprise - it seems that between the drivers disputing over the cab layout, and the fact they don't seem to be able to make it from Reading to Redhill and back without needing to be rescued, I have been losing any hope of their entry into service for quite a few months now.

GWR is stretched for stock as it is right now, to the point where if one Turbo fails (which they often do at the moment) it can mean short forms for multiple days at a time on the Cardiff-Pompey or outright cancellations to dozens of services on the NDL or Basingstokes - and with the HSTs also on the way this general 'trend' of unreliability is only looking to get worse. I don't like their 769s very much, but they fill a much needed role at GWR, and it seems things must be pretty bad with them to scrap the whole scheme - it's not like the 458 refurbishment where they have only done two of them - many 769s have been built and tested over the last few years so from a cost perspective this must be a much bigger loss.