lumitumey12345
Member
Has there been any updates/info on Grand Unions proposal which would see Class 769s running between Marchwood and Waterloo?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Grand Union Waterside Line and Class 769s
- Thread starter lumitumey12345
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I would have a guess that having seen the Network Rail report done a few years back and current political situation, they are likely to struggle to get the investment to cover the costs of upgrading several level crossings, building a new station plus car park. Would easily be several £million?
Let alone gather the rest of the funding to launch a new operation to secure rolling stock, set up HQ, mobilise and recruit staff.
As an example: In June 2025, Go-op signed a track access contract with Network Rail and are in discussions to lease Class 769 trains. They are continuing to seek investors to raise £2.5 million needed to launch services!
Let alone gather the rest of the funding to launch a new operation to secure rolling stock, set up HQ, mobilise and recruit staff.
As an example: In June 2025, Go-op signed a track access contract with Network Rail and are in discussions to lease Class 769 trains. They are continuing to seek investors to raise £2.5 million needed to launch services!
lumitumey12345
Member
According to the website they intend to have operations up and running by 2026, although I haven't been able to find any recent information.
The Pelican
Member
Ultimately any organisation which can manage to get scarce South Western Mainline paths between Waterloo and Southampton can probably manage to get some more suitable rolling stock than a Class 769- I think in a world where growth had continued through COVID, the 769s might have become a standard train for suburban and reigonal diesel routes in areas where the main stations and main lines are electrified- but that didn't happen, there are only the Northern ones left operating (so they are non-standard) and the existing operator on the route runs very reliable desiros.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,189
It’s one for a separate discussion, but the writing was always on the wall for the 769s. Porterbrook was trying to do too much with a train fleet that was already knackered.
The Pelican
Member
Fair enough, I just remember the use of 319s in the NW electrification and previous (pre-tram) versions of the Cardiff Valleys schemes, and it seemed like a good idea to use a bi-mode version in the same areas for unelectrified lines- I suppose it would have been an electrification spend heavy, rolling stock spend light version of various UK reigonal rail networks. I always liked seeing them because they were designed for a fairly limited network (pre-expansion Thameslink) but ended up running in an amazing variety of places.
TFT YouTube
Member
Grand Union will get the /0 769s, I'm not sure if they'll get any others
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
December 2026.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,189
That is a diesel only subclass. Pantographs could be refitted but how would that help out of Waterloo?
Class15
Established Member
Possibly a typo for /9 769s?
TFT YouTube
Member
Possibly, either way it is the former TfW ones GU will get.
If Porterbrook have both the TfW and GWR 769s to lease out, and the GWR ones are the ones which retain their third rail functionality, who are Porterbrook going to lease the GWR 769s to instead, and who is paying for the third rail functionality to be restored on the TfW units?
Clearly the whole proposal is unlikely to happen but my recollection is that the TfW fleet not leased to Northern is six units 769002/3/6/7/8/445. Is GU's plan based on six units?
Last edited:
TFT YouTube
Member
GWR units have plans unrelated to GU
OK, I can't guess what those are and why 18 units are needed. Somewhat surprised they haven't gone for scrap.
Unfortunate we live in a world in which the semi-fast Waterloo-Southampton is still missing and this proposal presumably doesn't get off the ground, meaning a continuation of the current post-Covid cutbacks timetable for now. Would love to see something more exciting on the SWML, whether from SWR or from an open-access operator. Marchwood would have been very interesting indeed.
I do understand that an SWR recast to make a more friendly timetable might be forthcoming, though (it's come up a couple of times on various threads), which is potentially good news. Not sure of the timescale.
In a world in which Greater Anglia have brought back many peak extras (not quite as much as pre-Covid but still around double the off-peak service level) and Chiltern and LNWR also have peak extras, it seems sad that SWR barely have any mainline peak extras out of Waterloo. IIRC it's just three per hour, a fourth train down the Direct (which used to run all day in any case) and two stoppers to Woking (which almost catch up the regular Woking stopper in any case so cannot fully claim to provide an even-interval 4tph service to the Surbiton-Woking stations; remember Esher to West Byfleet at one stage had a regular-interval 6tph service in the peak!)
The old xx39 doesn't even run in the height-of-peak slot at 1739, let alone at any off peak time! Now that did surprise me when I found that out last year. A service considered worthy of all-day operation from 2004-19 cannot now be justified even at the peak of the peak. But from 2004-2019, not only was there a 1739, there was also a 1748 too providing another semi-fast in the height of the peak.
I guess there just isn't the demand for anything better anymore - but it's still sad.
I do understand that an SWR recast to make a more friendly timetable might be forthcoming, though (it's come up a couple of times on various threads), which is potentially good news. Not sure of the timescale.
In a world in which Greater Anglia have brought back many peak extras (not quite as much as pre-Covid but still around double the off-peak service level) and Chiltern and LNWR also have peak extras, it seems sad that SWR barely have any mainline peak extras out of Waterloo. IIRC it's just three per hour, a fourth train down the Direct (which used to run all day in any case) and two stoppers to Woking (which almost catch up the regular Woking stopper in any case so cannot fully claim to provide an even-interval 4tph service to the Surbiton-Woking stations; remember Esher to West Byfleet at one stage had a regular-interval 6tph service in the peak!)
The old xx39 doesn't even run in the height-of-peak slot at 1739, let alone at any off peak time! Now that did surprise me when I found that out last year. A service considered worthy of all-day operation from 2004-19 cannot now be justified even at the peak of the peak. But from 2004-2019, not only was there a 1739, there was also a 1748 too providing another semi-fast in the height of the peak.
I guess there just isn't the demand for anything better anymore - but it's still sad.
Last edited:
I’d suggest a multitude of factors at play here.
- SWML hasn’t had the best return to growth, as others have had - especially where this element of the SWML mains are commuter dependent
- Increase in carriage formations with 701 displacements of 450s
- It’s a questionable project to reopen it plus the level crossings, and at who’s cost for what genuine benefit?
- It’s an ORCATS raid up the line
- Finding genuine bimode stock (not just a Class 442 with a Loco on the front fantasties) are pretty difficult to magic up, and adding diesel stock into an electric majority terminal also wouldn’t politically be great
The Covid cuts into the Waterloo throat have probably had a decent impact on delay minutes snowballing.
- SWML hasn’t had the best return to growth, as others have had - especially where this element of the SWML mains are commuter dependent
- Increase in carriage formations with 701 displacements of 450s
- It’s a questionable project to reopen it plus the level crossings, and at who’s cost for what genuine benefit?
- It’s an ORCATS raid up the line
- Finding genuine bimode stock (not just a Class 442 with a Loco on the front fantasties) are pretty difficult to magic up, and adding diesel stock into an electric majority terminal also wouldn’t politically be great
The Covid cuts into the Waterloo throat have probably had a decent impact on delay minutes snowballing.
Trains ready for testing if new Marchwood and Southampton to London service is approved
A decision is expected soon by the Office of Rail and Road for Alliance Rail's proposed new service from Marchwood to Southampton and London Waterloo.
www.railadvent.co.uk
An article on RailAdvent was published the other day.
billybox
New Member
What class 769 units will be used between London Waterloo and Marchwood (if the ORR give the green flag) and when could we potentially start seeing testing.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,189
Given the need for third rail running, it would have to be Class 769/9.
brad465
Veteran Member
If this line ever reopens, they would be better off being served by 450s with a battery conversion (if this is feasible), or by an expanded BEMU order as part of how SWR might replace 158/159s. Neither of these are viable options though for an Open Access operator on this route, and 769s are not something I can see working out.
Solent_Desiro
Member
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 33
interesting article in Rail on these proposals: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/a...ts-position-as-it-awaits-open-access-decision
Trainguy34
Established Member
Do the 350/2s have third rail shoes? There's nothing for them I can think of at the moment and they could probably get batteries put in easily enough.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,189
Somehow we keep circling back to traction batteries on Class 350/2. I’d love to see ”easy enough” defined in engineering terms - Porterbrook has already been stung by the Class 769!
The proposal has been rejected by ORR.
Yes, it will be interesting to see whether the 769s now go for scrap.