My idea for Class 769's for GWR

[MatthewRead]

People on this forum have been saying that GWR should consider taking on class 769's because they would be better than min HST sets. They would be good for services to Oxford and the Cotswold's and services around Bristol under partially electrified routes whats everyone else's view?

 

[JN114]

I don't see why GWR would want them.

Cotswolds will be entirely IET operated (with the possible exception of the Morning halts train) in the timescales they could be procured.

West Country is already furnished with comparable or newer DMU stock, and not enough of the route is being electrified to justify the procurement of older bi-modes replacing newer DMUs.

Mini-HSTs are only a stop gap until enough Turbos are cascaded West to release the entire 15x fleet to be based out of Exeter for Devon and Cornwall. Again they will be largely or completely unelectrified routes and will be a significant downgrade in quality of onboard offering.

 

[northwichcat]

People on this forum have been saying that GWR should consider taking on class 769's because they would be better than min HST sets. They would be good for services to Oxford and the Cotswold's and services around Bristol under partially electrified routes whats everyone else's view?

As it's nothing more than an idea you are proposing you should name the thread appropriately - at present it implies you've heard GWR will be taking on 769s.

 

[DarloRich]

i get confuddled by all these new unit classes. Whats a 769?

 

[JN114]

i get confuddled by all these new unit classes. Whats a 769?

319 with a Diesel engine.

 

[MatthewRead]

As it's nothing more than an idea you are proposing you should name the thread appropriately - at present it implies you've heard GWR will be taking on 769s.

It was mentioned in a previous thread.

 

[CosherB]

It was mentioned in a previous thread.

Then perhaps this is where the discussion should be made?

 

[Lockwood]

If we are in the hypothetical world...
Would the 769 on Cardiff-Portsmouth runs work?

 

[AM9]

If we are in the hypothetical world...
Would the 769 on Cardiff-Portsmouth runs work?

We don't know yet how the 369s will perform under diesel power.

 

[Bertie the bus]

If we are in the hypothetical world...
Would the 769 on Cardiff-Portsmouth runs work?

Why would you replace air conditioned, express units with non-air con commuter units? Apart from the fact that you could.

 

[MCR247]

Especially when there are Turbos earmarked for the route

 

[AM9]

Why would you replace air conditioned, express units with non-air con commuter units? Apart from the fact that you could.

Because when the GWML is electrified to Cardiff, over 50% of the route from Portsmouth to Cardiff will can be run free from diesel.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Because when the GWML is electrified to Cardiff, over 50% of the route from Portsmouth to Cardiff will can be run free from diesel.

Ridiculous comment.

 

[D365]

Is it any coincidence that I come back after a few weeks off, and this is the first thread that catches my eye..!

 

[AM9]

Ridiculous comment.

Please explain why you think it is ridiculous.

 

[JN114]

Because when the GWML is electrified to Cardiff, over 50% of the route from Portsmouth to Cardiff will can be run free from diesel.

Using currently committed Electrification boundaries:

25mi 69ch Portsmouth Harbour to Southampton Central on DC 3rd Rail

Power change (which 319s can't do on the move) DC to Diesel

83mi 34ch Southampton Central to Patchway

Power change Diesel to AC

32mi 11ch Patchway to Cardiff Central

= 58mi Electric + 83mi 34ch Diesel

= ~41% Electric + ~59% Diesel

Not exactly "over 50% electric".

 

[AM9]

Using currently committed Electrification boundaries:

25mi 69ch Portsmouth Harbour to Southampton Central on DC 3rd Rail

Power change (which 319s can't do on the move) DC to Diesel

83mi 34ch Southampton Central to Patchway

Power change Diesel to AC

32mi 11ch Patchway to Cardiff Central

= 58mi Electric + 83mi 34ch Diesel

= ~41% Electric + ~59% Diesel

Not exactly "over 50% electric".

OK, I'd forgotten that NR has given up (temporarily) electrifying through to Temple Meads.
Anyway, even 40% less diesel pollution is worth having.

 

[The Ham]

My thoughts on a potentially suitable use for 769's could be the Reading Gatwick services. They would:
- increase capacity a little (iirc 16 extra standard seats)
- provide more standing space for the very busy peak time services
- provide more doors to help with loosing/unloading times at some key stations on the busy services (including Farnborough North with all the students)
- possibly be able to use the third rails where they exist
- wouldn't be that much longer than the existing trains, meaning limited need to lengthen platforms

If you included the Thames Valley branch lines (where they mainly run as shuttles) then you could get rid of a significant number of the remaining DMU's from around Reading.

 

[Lockwood]

Why would you replace air conditioned, express units with non-air con commuter units? Apart from the fact that you could.

Isn't that the point of thought exercises?

 

[physics34]

My thoughts on a potentially suitable use for 769's could be the Reading Gatwick services. They would:
- increase capacity a little (iirc 16 extra standard seats)
- provide more standing space for the very busy peak time services
- provide more doors to help with loosing/unloading times at some key stations on the busy services (including Farnborough North with all the students)
- possibly be able to use the third rails where they exist
- wouldn't be that much longer than the existing trains, meaning limited need to lengthen platforms

If you included the Thames Valley branch lines (where they mainly run as shuttles) then you could get rid of a significant number of the remaining DMU's from around Reading.

would be pretty much perfect for the route

 

[43096]

My thoughts on a potentially suitable use for 769's could be the Reading Gatwick services. They would:
- increase capacity a little (iirc 16 extra standard seats)
- provide more standing space for the very busy peak time services
- provide more doors to help with loosing/unloading times at some key stations on the busy services (including Farnborough North with all the students)
- possibly be able to use the third rails where they exist
- wouldn't be that much longer than the existing trains, meaning limited need to lengthen platforms

If you included the Thames Valley branch lines (where they mainly run as shuttles) then you could get rid of a significant number of the remaining DMU's from around Reading.

This. Using 769s you could pretty much get out of using 165/166s in the Reading area as they could do the branches with the exception of Marlow (which really needs the issue addressing), and remaining mainline diesel work (Reading-Basingstoke, Newbury-Bedwyn, Didcot-Oxford). That would leave Reading with a fleet of 769s and 387s, which must offer benefits in terms of crew knowledge and maintenance costs.

 

[JN114]

This. Using 769s you could pretty much get out of using 165/166s in the Reading area as they could do the branches with the exception of Marlow (which really needs the issue addressing), and remaining mainline diesel work (Reading-Basingstoke, Newbury-Bedwyn, Didcot-Oxford). That would leave Reading with a fleet of 769s and 387s, which must offer benefits in terms of crew knowledge and maintenance costs.

For the Gatwick route they're too long for the platforms, with the exception of Reading, Wokingham, Guildford, Reigate, Redhill and Gatwick.

Years of service on the Brighton Main Line showed they were utterly unsuitable for Airport loadings- limited luggage space and a very cramped 3+2 seating layout (much more cramped than the 3+2 on Turbos) - and if you "fix" those issues by changing the seating layout and installing luggage racks you will eradicate any capacity advantage.

On the branches Henley and Windsor are already accounted for in the 387 order. Both Marlow and Greenford need 2 Car DMUs. Similarly there are sufficient 387s for Basingstoke and Oxford semi Fast services if the wires ever reach those places.

There just isn't sufficient 3rd rail to run on to justify a bi-mode unit. I don't have figures to hand; but where they can't changeover on the move we're only talking Reading to Wokingham and Reigate to Gatwick; the stretch through Guildford wouldn't and couldn't be used.

Finally, how do you justify replacing (reasonably) comfortable, air conditioned stock with trains that are 5 years older, are more cramped and offer no benefits to customers?

***

769s at GWR are a solution looking for a problem.

 

[JamesRowden]

the stretch through Guildford wouldn't and couldn't be used.

It should be very simple to change between diesel and third rail power while on the move on a bi-mode since there's no pantograph to raise/drop. The diesel generator could be switched on/off by the driver while on third rail and the automatic diesel generator control system and power electronic control system does the rest of the work.

 

[notlob.divad]

Years of service on the Brighton Main Line showed they were utterly unsuitable for Airport loadings- limited luggage space and a very cramped 3+2 seating layout (much more cramped than the 3+2 on Turbos) - and if you "fix" those issues by changing the seating layout and installing luggage racks you will eradicate any capacity advantage.

And yet they where introduced on the Liverpool to (you guessed it) Manchester Airport. :roll:

 

[Chester1]

This thread has highlighted that there is a risk that 769s could become the default choice for ToCs that want to cascade diesels but don't want to pay for new bi modes. Windermere to Manchester service should be a good match once they have been refitted but they will never be great for long distance services. Its not just lack of air conditioning, there can only be a small number of power sockets and some usb charging because of a limit to power supply when using the diesel engines.

 

[JN114]

And yet they where introduced on the Liverpool to (you guessed it) Manchester Airport. :roll:

But they're not the only services between Manchester Airport and Liverpool, and they have significantly more capacity than what they replaced. A 4 car 319 has broadly similar capacity as a 3 car 166, but in a much more cramped layout and with next to zero luggage storage.

They're older, They don't bring additional capacity, the environmental benefits seem dubious at best, and they provide worse on board facilities than the stock presently in use. Once again I see ZERO case for bringing them to GWR. Turbos will STILL be needed for branches, so might as well keep them on the Downs.

 

[JN114]

It should be very simple to change between diesel and third rail power while on the move on a bi-mode since there's no pantograph to raise/drop. The diesel generator could be switched on/off by the driver while on third rail and the automatic diesel generator control system and power electronic control system does the rest of the work.

Depends I guess how they wire them up - presently changing traction mode on 319s can't be done on the move - if it is easy to change/bypass that when they fit diesel engines fair enough. But I'd suggest if it really was that easy it would have been done years ago when they were operating on the West London Line.

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder if there's an opening for a bi-mode regional express unit, interior and performance similar to a 158 but also able to use 25kV.

 

[JamesRowden]

Depends I guess how they wire them up - presently changing traction mode on 319s can't be done on the move - if it is easy to change/bypass that when they fit diesel engines fair enough. But I'd suggest if it really was that easy it would have been done years ago when they were operating on the West London Line.

That's a switch involving a pantograph and a non-self-powered train, a very different situation.

 

[The Ham]

For the Gatwick route they're too long for the platforms, with the exception of Reading, Wokingham, Guildford, Reigate, Redhill and Gatwick.

There are only two stations that can't take 4 coach units, they are Crowthorne and Gomshall. As such even if you have to lengthen those two it would be significant.

Years of service on the Brighton Main Line showed they were utterly unsuitable for Airport loadings- limited luggage space and a very cramped 3+2 seating layout (much more cramped than the 3+2 on Turbos) - and if you "fix" those issues by changing the seating layout and installing luggage racks you will eradicate any capacity advantage.

Aug there are some luggage racks in the 16x's there are still Lisa of cases on seats and in door ways. With more doors and 16 extra seats there's scope for a new luggage rack (still about 12 extra seats).

Do you have any figures add to how much more cramped it is, or does it just feel that way.

There just isn't sufficient 3rd rail to run on to justify a bi-mode unit. I don't have figures to hand; but where they can't changeover on the move we're only talking Reading to Wokingham and Reigate to Gatwick; the stretch through Guildford wouldn't and couldn't be used.

The third rail could be used between Guildford and Ash on the stopping services. With the better acceleration when running on the third rail network it could be that it's worth a stop at Ash on the fast services (when looking at medium length journey) so as to take advantage of the third rail.

Finally, how do you justify replacing (reasonably) comfortable, air conditioned stock with trains that are 5 years older, are more cramped and offer no benefits to customers?

***

769s at GWR are a solution looking for a problem.

The Aircon doesn't always work And I though the 165's don't have A. ¢.