What could the future hold for 769s once TfW have finished with them?

[Jacob Porrett]

Yeah, withdrawn yesterday......and didn't make its full diagram.

The 769/0s are going first with the 769/4s finishing last and all are heading to Long Marston for storage

mods note - split from this thread

Do you think they will be scrapped afterwards or is their a potential future for them?

 

[Anonymous10]

Do you think they will be scrapped afterwards or is their a potential future for them?

The consensus seems to be likely scrap

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you think they will be scrapped afterwards or is there a potential future for them?

‘Nearly 35 years old - two careful owners - high mileage - new engines - spares or repair’

(knackers yard, it’s the only option).

 

[AM9]

‘Nearly 35 years old - two careful owners - high mileage - new engines - spares or repair’

(knackers yard, it’s the only option).

Out of interest, would the MAN engines be suitable for any other UK rolling stock?

 

[Greybeard33]

Out of interest, would the MAN engines be suitable for any other UK rolling stock?

As I previously posted in the GWR 769 thread:

The MAN diesel engines are designed specifically for rail vehicle applications, with a flat configuration that differs from marine, automotive and stationary versions. They are not used in any other Class of British train and do not comply with the latest Stage V exhaust emissions requirements, so could not be reused in new build vehicles. I believe the generators and other electrical equipment are bespoke for the 769s.

 

[Meerkat]

As I previously posted in the GWR 769 thread:They are not used in any other Class of British train and do not comply with the latest Stage V exhaust emissions requirements, so could not be reused in new build vehicles.

Is that correct - weren't there some cl66s that were built using engines that had been specifically imported to the UK before the next stage of requirements, and then were sent back to the US to be installed?

 

[Greybeard33]

Is that correct - weren't there some cl66s that were built using engines that had been specifically imported to the UK before the next stage of requirements, and then were sent back to the US to be installed?

I believe you are correct that the emissions regs apply from the date of manufacture of the engine not the vehicle. So theoretically it would be permissible for someone to design and build a brand new class of DMU or bi-mode that reused the second hand engines from the 769s. But I think that is highly unlikely.

 

[Meerkat]

I believe you are correct that the emissions regs apply from the date of manufacture of the engine not the vehicle. So theoretically it would be permissible for someone to design and build a brand new class of DMU or bi-mode that reused the second hand engines from the 769s. But I think that is highly unlikely.

Stack them up in a loco rebuild - didn't some of the 73s get multiple engines?
Someone will make them into generators wont they, even if its just back up power units out the back of an office somewhere?

 

[Greybeard33]

Stack them up in a loco rebuild - didn't some of the 73s get multiple engines?
Someone will make them into generators wont they, even if its just back up power units out the back of an office somewhere?

According to Wikipedia, the two Network Rail 73s were re-engined with dual Cummins QSK19s. But those engines have much more grunt than the MANs. And two little engines have almost double the maintenance costs of one big one.

I should think that an "off the peg" purpose built standby generator installation would have a lower cost of ownership than a bespoke lash-up using a pre-owned 769 engine.

But time will tell....

 

[AdamWW]

According to Wikipedia, the two Network Rail 73s were re-engined with dual Cummins QSK19s. But those engines have much more grunt than the MANs. And two little engines have almost double the maintenance costs of one big one.

I should think that an "off the peg" purpose built standby generator installation would have a lower cost of ownership than a bespoke lash-up using a pre-owned 769 engine.

Even buying the engines at scrap value?

As for the cost of maintaining two small engines vs one large one - it is of course what the railway copes with on DMU's - including the 231's currently replacing the 769s even though their four engines are all in one place not under different vehicles so probably could have been at least just two rather than four if the will was there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==

And it's a shame they're having to withdraw the 769's so quickly given the frequency with which TfW currently have to cancel services due to "more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time". (Except that it seems to be very usual).

It looks as if today there was a two hour gap in the evening after 17:31 for anyone going beyond Bargoed.

 

[StripeyNick]

Are they doing what BR used to?

Run them until they fail and then immediately withdraw them?

No, they need to be handed back in a serviceable condition. So much so that 003 had a test run to Bargoed and back after failing on it's last service. 007 took itself off to it's date with the low loaders

 

[AdamWW]

No, they need to be handed back in a serviceable condition. So much so that 003 had a test run to Bargoed and back after failing on it's last service. 007 took itself off to it's date with the low loaders

I suppose it worked differently with BR because they made the decision themselves on the ultimate fate.

Seems a bit wasteful though making sure they are still in working condition if they are never going to run again.

 

[CardiffKid]

Seems a bit wasteful though making sure they are still in working condition if they are never going to run again.

Hopefully they will. There’s lots of places that need extra capacity/rolling stock.

This essentially being a mini fleet light make some TOCs reluctant to take them though.

 

[MattRat]

Hopefully they will. There’s lots of places that need extra capacity/rolling stock.

This essentially being a mini fleet light make some TOCs reluctant to take them though.

I'd place my bets on Northern. They know how to use them, and they can be used to bin some 150s.

 

[JonathanH]

There’s lots of places that need extra capacity/rolling stock.

Unfortunately that isn't the opinion of the people who hold the purse strings.

 

[CardiffKid]

Unfortunately that isn't the opinion of the people who hold the purse strings.

Hence the reason I started my post with the word, Hopefully.

Hopefully they will get use, they’re good units, in a good condition and the leasing company will clearly want to make some cash out of them if they can.

 

[Whistler40145]

I'd place my bets on Northern. They know how to use them, and they can be used to bin some 150s.

Surely the 769s would be a downgrade from a 150

 

[Bletchleyite]

Scrap. They are junk.

 

[bramling]

I'd place my bets on Northern. They know how to use them, and they can be used to bin some 150s.

Why would you want to replace 150s, which are generally pretty reliable, with a type which has inferior performance and dubious reliability? Also less flexible due to being a 4-car unit.

If Northern were going to increase fleet size would they not take some of the TFW 150s or 158? They are already taking some of the ex EMR 156s. All of these are likely to be rather less hassle than the 769s. (Which from my point of view is a shame in many ways as the 769 in principle isn’t a bad concept, but sadly it just doesn’t seem to have been able to be made fit for purpose).

 

[Whistler40145]

I assumed the 769s were temporary until new units become available and as 319s were already on borrowed time

 

[DelW]

Hence the reason I started my post with the word, Hopefully.

Hopefully they will get use, they’re good units, in a good condition and the leasing company will clearly want to make some cash out of them if they can.

If there is a home for any 769s, I'd have expected the effectively unused GWR ones to have found it ahead of the ex TfW examples. The GWR ones also have OHLE and 3rd rail capability, widening their sphere of usefulness.

 

[MattRat]

Why would you want to replace 150s, which are generally pretty reliable, with a type which has inferior performance and dubious reliability? Also less flexible due to being a 4-car unit.

If Northern were going to increase fleet size would they not take some of the TFW 150s or 158? They are already taking some of the ex EMR 156s. All of these are likely to be rather less hassle than the 769s. (Which from my point of view is a shame in many ways as the 769 in principle isn’t a bad concept, but sadly it just doesn’t seem to have been able to be made fit for purpose).

Because 150s are soon to be life expired. Plus 'flexibility' just means a 2 car train on a service that should be 4 car, looking specifically at Lime Street to Manchester Oxford Road. The 769s would improve that service for passengers a lot, IMO.

 

[JonathanH]

If there is a home for any 769s, I'd have expected the effectively unused GWR ones to have found it ahead of the ex TfW examples. The GWR ones also have OHLE and 3rd rail capability, widening their sphere of usefulness.

There clearly isn't a home for them. Essentially the reason they are not going to work for GWR is because they weren't reliable enough, the staff did not accept working them, and there is a significant training cost.

There isn't some magic that is going to deal with either of those issues.

There is no part of the network that is looking for more rolling stock. Most of the effort is being put into rightsizing fleets downwards.

 

[RobShipway]

If there is a home for any 769s, I'd have expected the effectively unused GWR ones to have found it ahead of the ex TfW examples. The GWR ones also have OHLE and 3rd rail capability, widening their sphere of usefulness.

All you can possibly do as I believe will be done with the GWR class 769 units, is place them into storage and hope that they don't rust away before they are needed.

But I suspect that given the age of the donor class 319 units, that they will be scraped.

For instance the GWR ones, would be good to replace the class 171 units on both the Uckfield and Eastbourne - Ashford services. But with 9 ft 2.9 in width maybe too wide for some of the tunnels, especially on the Uckfield route. But would you want to replace units that are 20 years old with one that are 36 years old? I think the answer there would be no, especially if the parts get more difficult to obtain.

Also, as JonathenH has pointed out above, you have the reliability of the units. If i was at GTR and new stock was able to be purchased, then I will more than likely look at new stock from Alstom, Hitachi, CAF or Stadler where more than one power can be used and if diesel power is used initially with said units, that it can be replaced to be used with battery power at a later date. But there is no funds available for that to happen, hence GTR have shortened the class 171 fleet to just what is required for the limited services that are run both Uckfield and Ashford routes.

 

[StripeyNick]

I assumed the 769s were temporary until new units become available and as 319s were already on borrowed time

They were.

They were introduced as a short term gap filler so the Pacers could be withdrawn however their unreliability (which ironically seems to have improved) has seen the introduction of the Flirts altered as the 231s weren't meant for the Rhymney workings

 

[tbtc]

They were introduced as a short term gap filler so the Pacers could be withdrawn

The frustrating thing is that, if CP5 electrification had happened according to plan, we’d have seen the GWML/ MML/ Valleys/ Electric Spine etc wired by 2019, meaning that we’d now be focusing on the secondary lines by now (like the CLC, Sheffield - Moorthorpe/ Doncaster, Weston, Swansea), meaning that (after the weakest 150s of the litter has been scrapped) the 769s would be ready for retirement after valiantly plugging the gap between “Pacer/153 withdrawal” and “getting sufficient Provincial routes electrified”

But we all know what happened with regards to electrification, so the well intended plan for these stopgap trains has been a failure

Can’t see any future for them in this reality though, but wouldn’t be surprised if they end up clogging our sidings along with the 379s etc, whilst the owners wait for them to depreciate sufficiently

 

[DanNCL]

A one way trip to Newport Docks.

 

[Whistler40145]

A one way trip to Newport Docks.

I totally agree, life expired

 

[RichJF]

Put the MAN engines into some industrial shunters or power generators then scrap the remainder!

Puzzling project from the start when you could have ordered some FLIRT/CAF DMUs or bimodes.

 

[JonathanH]

Puzzling project from the start when you could have ordered some FLIRT/CAF DMUs or bimodes.

They did order new units. There was a gap between pacer withdrawals and the new units arriving that needed to be filled. The 769s were intended to be a solution that was available quickly.