GWR to lease ‘tri-mode’ class 769 multiple units from Porterbrook

[Northmoor]

As my local line (Reading-Gatwick) is going to be one of the recipients of these - presumably when all the platforms are long enough? - you have to wonder whether the DfT's third rail ban will turn out to have unintended and unfortunate consequences.

Electrify the Wokingham-Ash and Guildford-Reigate sections, accept the small increased risk of electrocution of track-workers (and greater increased risk to trespassers), or provide a service that becomes so unreliable that people travel by road to Gatwick Airport instead.  Because lets face it, that's so much safer......

 

As for the South Wales Valleys, of course the WAG could have just electrified what is a simple high-frequency network with little constraining infrastructure and taken advantage of the glut of mid-life EMUs currently going for scrap.  This would have deferred the cost of buying lots of new EMUs for 10-15 years and might actually have been a more sensible way to spend taxpayers money, instead of basically funding CAF to build a new factory so that the politicians can claim to have created jobs (when in a few years the employees will be blaming their imminent redundancy on a lack of new train orders).

[Mike_Walker]

30 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

As my local line (Reading-Gatwick) is going to be one of the recipients of these - presumably when all the platforms are long enough? - you have to wonder whether the DfT's third rail ban will turn out to have unintended and unfortunate consequences.

Electrify the Wokingham-Ash and Guildford-Reigate sections, accept the small increased risk of electrocution of track-workers (and greater increased risk to trespassers), or provide a service that becomes so unreliable that people travel by road to Gatwick Airport instead.  Because lets face it, that's so much safer......

 

As for the South Wales Valleys, of course the WAG could have just electrified what is a simple high-frequency network with little constraining infrastructure and taken advantage of the glut of mid-life EMUs currently going for scrap.  This would have deferred the cost of buying lots of new EMUs for 10-15 years and might actually have been a more sensible way to spend taxpayers money, instead of basically funding CAF to build a new factory so that the politicians can claim to have created jobs (when in a few years the employees will be blaming their imminent redundancy on a lack of new train orders).

It's not the DfT that are blocking further 3rd rail electrification but the ORR and legislation.

 

It should be remembered that TfW's 769s were acquired as a short term stop gap to cover the withdrawal of the large fleet of Pacers in the Valleys whilst electrification is carried out on much of the Valleys network.  Thanks to the delays, TfW has been forced to rethink its rolling stock strategy and can now largely get by without the 769s.

[St. Simon]

5 hours ago, Northmoor said:

As my local line (Reading-Gatwick) is going to be one of the recipients of these - presumably when all the platforms are long enough?

 

Hi,

 

I know that GWR have been round extending many of the platforms between Reading and Gatwick, but I don't know if all of them will be long enough, I know they've rationalised and moved all the Car Stop Markers which gains a few 

 

As I work closely with the 769 project teams in GWR and NR (having designed all the Dynamic PCO sites for the units, which are installed), I can assure you that they are committed to making sure the units are reliable before they enter service, simply because of the importance of the route that they will serve. I think part of the problem is that because of the lack of drivers being trained up (primarily because of the delay in doing the modifications the unions require, but also because of the clash with driver training for E.T.C.S.), then they can't get that many units out and running. Once they are out and running a bit more, the reliability will pick up. However, I do acknowledge that there are some reliability problems being caused by some design issues (not that I know what these are, I'm speaking generically).

 

From a personal point of view, they are very swish externally and a huge improvement internally over the Turbos in terms of being light, airy, cleaner etc. and they are are just as comfortable (having been out on two of the test runs), however the conversion could be better in places, especially the mods to the cab desk (although I haven't seen the cabs with the latest mods). I think it is a great concept and they have the potential to be great in service if the reliability is brought up, it just could be so much better.

 

Simon

[Northmoor]

Thanks @St. Simon; although not a regular user I look forward to the 769s on the North Downs route.  It is a busy local commuter route and not just to/from Reading - although that was very significant before the pandemic - but also the amount of people clearly travelling to/from Gatwick has to be seen to be believed at some times of year.  I have certainly had to stand from Blackwater in the mornings before and witnessed crush loading such that some people choose not to board at Wokingham.

There is no doubt that 4x20m will certainly be an improvement on 2 or 3x23m sets; I just wish the 3rd rail gaps could be filled as the Turbos clearly have to work very hard on some of the (surprisingly steep) gradients, with nothing in reserve to make up lost minutes.

[TravisM]

I find the whole 769 saga very protracted, for such a simple idea, it’s been plagued with problems.  I appreciate that there’s been design challenges but I would have thought the Northern and TfW 769 were simple by removing the DC, redesigning the under frames to accept and fit the power units.

 

I can understand that the FGW 769’s are a completely different animal with three different power systems and they’ve got to be wired through one control system to work properly.

[phil-b259]

On 09/04/2022 at 13:22, Northmoor said:

 

 

As for the South Wales Valleys, of course the WAG could have just electrified what is a simple high-frequency network with little constraining infrastructure and taken advantage of the glut of mid-life EMUs currently going for scrap.  This would have deferred the cost of buying lots of new EMUs for 10-15 years and might actually have been a more sensible way to spend taxpayers money, instead of basically funding CAF to build a new factory so that the politicians can claim to have created jobs (when in a few years the employees will be blaming their imminent redundancy on a lack of new train orders).

 

You overlook

 

(1) There is a desire to take some valley line trains onto the streets of Cardiff as part of a Tram-Train scheme which handily overcomes heavy rail capacity constraints at Cardiff 

(2) Electrification takes a good few years to complete (particularly as the dfT have let the skills base built up for the GWML project to wither away while they procrastinated over 'Bionic Duckweed' AGAIN!) where as the pacers had to go within a few months.

 

 

[phil-b259]

On 09/04/2022 at 19:26, St. Simon said:

 

Hi,

 

I know that GWR have been round extending many of the platforms between Reading and Gatwick, but I don't know if all of them will be long enough, I know they've rationalised and moved all the Car Stop Markers which gains a few 

 

 

 

All platforms previously not long enough (which is basically on the non-electrified bits) have been extended to cope with a single 769 unit 

[phil-b259]

On 09/04/2022 at 13:56, Mike_Walker said:

  Thanks to the delays, TfW has been forced to rethink its rolling stock strategy and can now largely get by without the 769s.

 

Actually its more thanks to the Pandemic (and big service cuts) than an 'internal rethink' as it were

 

Had service frequencies remained at pre 2020 levels then the 769s would defiantly have been needed. In the post pandemic world however they are not really necessary.

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

As a further update and to continue my efforts of showing off PCO signage, the final signs required for dynamic Power Change-Over for the Class 769/9s on the Reading to Gatwick line were installed, to my design, last weekend:

 

 

This is an 'AJ03 Lower Pantograph' sign to inform the driver of Class 769/9s that they are to lower their pantograph before reaching this sign and, in the case of Western, to immediately bring their train to stand if Pantograph is still raised as you pass this sign. Three are installed at Reading, one out of sight on the Down Main close to the Southern Junction and two at the London End of Platforms 14 & 15 for trains running towards the Reading Low Level line:

 

 

Simon

Edited April 18, 2022 by St. Simon

[cctransuk]

31 minutes ago, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

As a further update and to continue my efforts of showing off PCO signage, the final signs required for dynamic Power Change-Over for the Class 769/9s on the Reading to Gatwick line were installed, to my design, last weekend:

 

 

This is an 'AJ03 Lower Pantograph' sign to inform the driver of Class 769/9s that they are to lower their pantograph before reaching this sign and, in the case of Western, to immediately bring their train to stand if Pantograph is still raised as you pass this sign. Three are installed at Reading, one out of sight on the Down Main close to the Southern Junction and two at the London End of Platforms 14 & 15 for trains running towards the Reading Low Level line:

 

 

Simon

 

As a matter of design interest, what is the symbol intended to represent visually - it is not intuitive, to me at least?

 

CJI.

[St. Simon]

 

On 18/04/2022 at 21:55, cctransuk said:

 

As a matter of design interest, what is the symbol intended to represent visually - it is not intuitive, to me at least?

 

CJI.

 

Hi,

 

Not sure to be honest, it is the standard harmonised European symbol for lower pantograph, so I presume that on the continent it is more intuitive. However, as long as the drivers are briefed on their meaning and the signs are used consistently for the same instruction in a single region, then what they actually represent is sort of redundant.

 

If you compare it with the Raise Pantograph Sign amongst the suite of electrification signage (all of which, expect for the Traction Change-Over Initiation Sign, are standard harmonised European signs):

 

 

Then it does sort of make a bit more sense, and it does look vaguely like the outline of raised and lowered pantographs if viewed from the front. 

 

If you take that the Neutral Section signs looks a lot like the symbol for a capacitor and the Warning of Traction Change-Over looks sort of like a circuit breaker, I would guess it could be based on an symbol for an electrical component.

 

EDIT: Thinking about it, given that most European countries use the same or similar locomotives as each other, I wander whether the symbol could simply be shape of the switch used to raise and lower the pantograph on  the drivers desk?

 

We just refer to it as an AJ03 or the 'Horizontal Clamshells'

 

Simon

Edited April 20, 2022 by St. Simon

[DY444]

On 10/04/2022 at 22:18, jools1959 said:

I find the whole 769 saga very protracted, for such a simple idea, it’s been plagued with problems.  I appreciate that there’s been design challenges but I would have thought the Northern and TfW 769 were simple by removing the DC, redesigning the under frames to accept and fit the power units.

 

I can understand that the FGW 769’s are a completely different animal with three different power systems and they’ve got to be wired through one control system to work properly.

 

Going through all the problems would take all day but wrt traction the number of power sources is not the problem.  My take on it is the biggest problems have been the characteristics of the supply from the alternator sets and how that supply interacts with the existing traction equipment, and diesel engine cooling. 

 

Cooling was an obvious potential gotcha given a tightly packaged engine raft but as we saw with the IET there is a bit of a blind spot here, which given the state of computer modelling is a surprise.  It may be that the commitment to do the 319 conversion was made before it was realised the cooling was marginal (which is not a good way to run a project).  Either way it is a clear weakness and a guarantee of engine shut downs on warmer days.  Throw in the fact that the engine start mechanism is both too clever for its own good and clearly designed by someone who has never been near the sharp end of an operational railway and you have an instant delay generator.

 

The supply from the alternator sets and interfacing it to the traction equipment should have been front, back and centre of the design work because that is in essence what this project is.  Part of that should have included consultancy with either Alstom (as the 319 traction equipment was designed by GEC) or people who worked for GEC Traction at the time.  For reasons that have not been disclosed it did not. 

 

Driving a traction pack from multiple engines is more difficult than driving it from one (due to the need for dynamic load balancing etc) and unofficial mutterings suggest this was not properly considered from the outset which is one reason why the sets took so long to deliver.  GWR have also suffered a spate of traction motor flashovers during their test running, something which the 319s don't have a history of, and more unofficial mutterings about that suggest the management of the supply from the alternator sets and the functionality of the original 319 traction control software are not on the same page.  

 

In my career I experienced instances where the sales force went ahead and sold something we'd doodled on a fag packet before we knew if we could build it.  This all sounds very like that.  Throw in a failure to consult 319 traction system experts and operationally daft features and hey presto you end up here.

Edited April 19, 2022 by DY444

[Phatbob]

I think it's about time the class 769 got a pukka enthusiast nickname.
May I suggest that they be henceforth known as "Graylings".
Rationale;
a) they're constantly failing,
b) if the eponymous Secretary of State for Transport hadn't cancelled various electrification schemes, the need to convert perfectly servicable electric trains to diesel would never have arisen in the first place.

🙂

 

[Steadfast]

7 hours ago, DY444 said:

Part of that should have included consultancy with either Alstom (as the 319 traction equipment was designed by GEC) or people who worked for GEC Traction at the time.  For reasons that have not been disclosed it did not. 

From several directions I've heard help was offered and Wabtec declined it for whatever reasons.

 

Jo

[DY444]

8 minutes ago, Steadfast said:

From several directions I've heard help was offered and Wabtec declined it for whatever reasons.

 

Jo

 

Yep I've heard the same. 

[The Stationmaster]

On 18/04/2022 at 21:55, cctransuk said:

 

As a matter of design interest, what is the symbol intended to represent visually - it is not intuitive, to me at least?

 

CJI.

It's been the standard sign for 'Lower Pantograph' on most, if not all, western European railway networks for a long time (and in Britain for quite a while as well).  There are slight differences in explanatory wording but basically it means the pantograph must be lowered before this sign is passed.  There should normally be an advanced warning sign to remind Drivers that the are approaching a 'Lower Pantograph' sign - that is the one shown in St Simon's post as 'Warning of Traction Changeover' .

 

Where there is a 'flying' changeover between overhead supplies, say between the different electrification systems of two different countries,  there will be an advanced warning sign, then the Lower Pantograph sign and then a Raise Pantograph sign once the train has crossed to the next system.  (And it will probably use a different pantograph for that system.)  Very spectacular to watch when an express passenger train does it at about 70+mph with some very noticeable arcing between the pan and the contact wire as one pan lowers and later as the other pan raises.

[adb968008]

I have to wonder the point in the Gatwick section post Covid.

These could just terminate at Redhill, and have passengers change.

 

it seems like a lot of effort to get a train down a short section of BML, which has an intense service already, all of it being someone lesser used post covid.

 

Dft is looking to cost cut all over, this looks like an easy one.

[DY444]

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I have to wonder the point in the Gatwick section post Covid.

These could just terminate at Redhill, and have passengers change.

 

it seems like a lot of effort to get a train down a short section of BML, which has an intense service already, all of it being someone lesser used post covid.

 

Dft is looking to cost cut all over, this looks like an easy one.

 

You must be talking about a different Gatwick to the one I went to a couple of weeks ago.  You could hardly move in the South Terminal check in area when I was there.  They must have all got there somehow. 

 

I'm sure that airport passengers with their luggage will appreciate having to get from the upside at Redhill to the downside to get to the airport.  The Dft/Treasury want to reduce the difference between revenue and costs and one way is indeed to cut costs.  You can choose to do that in a way which is operationally convenient and damn the passengers or you can attempt to do it in a way which minimises the disincentive to use rail, or here's a novelty, you could actually try and promote rail travel to grow revenue.   Encouraging more people onto the M25 and M23 to get to the airport because you've made the train service a PITA to use isn't really the right answer if you're a Government pretending to be in favour of going green.

Edited April 23, 2022 by DY444

[The Stationmaster]

On 23/04/2022 at 07:44, adb968008 said:

I have to wonder the point in the Gatwick section post Covid.

These could just terminate at Redhill, and have passengers change.

 

it seems like a lot of effort to get a train down a short section of BML, which has an intense service already, all of it being someone lesser used post covid.

 

Dft is looking to cost cut all over, this looks like an easy one.

Every time I have travelled on one of the Reading -Gatwicks (and vice versa - including joining at Gatwick) passenger loadings have been substantial.  The Gatwick passengers are easily recognised from the nature of their luggage and forcing them to crossover at Redhill on the journey from Reading and Wokingham, plus probably Guildford, would no doubt be a smoking hole in somebody's foot exercise.

 

Bearing in mind who is the MP for Wokingham, in particular, I can't see DafT or anyone else getting away with any sort of proposal to terminate them short at Redhill.

[adb968008]

Tonbridge Redhills already share a platform, and a walk over exists to northbounds too.

its possible to change trains at Redhill without changing platforms.

 

its not as if Redhills overcrowded any more, trains can crossover.

 

 

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Tonbridge Redhills already share a platform, and a walk over exists to northbounds too.

its possible to change trains at Redhill without changing platforms.

 

its not as if Redhills overcrowded any more, trains can crossover.

 

 

 

 

You miss the point.

 

Passengers HATE changing! - particularly when travelling for leisure or with luggage. This is backed up by copious amounts of research and is why back in BR days the once a day Brighton - Manchester train was well used even though it was much quicker (not to mention much more flexible time wise) to travel via London.

 

NSE were well were that passengers using the North Downs route to make connections with planes at Gatwick* was a profitable market to cater for - thats why NSE ditched the Reading - Tonbridge mod of operation in the first place.

 

Curtailing the service at Redhill would thus be commercial suicide bearing in mind the user base - its why their have been strenuous pre-pandemic efforts to increase the service frequency to 2tph to Gatwick and remove the lesser used intermediate stops to improve the offering.

 

(the pre pandemic plan was effectively a 2tph Gatwick - Reading semi fast service and a 1tph skip stop Redhill - Reading service to serve the rural stations like Betchworth.

 

*Its not just about planes, given the lack of a direct tube connection between Victoria and Paddington there is substantial traffic between places on the BML seeking access to the GWML at Reading. Although Thameslink has improved the situation a bit, many fast trains from Brighton and those from Eastbourne do not call at Redhill but they do call at Gatwick.

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

You miss the point.

 

Passengers HATE changing! - particularly when travelling for leisure or with luggage. This is backed up by copious amounts of research and is why back in BR days the once a day Brighton - Manchester train was well used even though it was much quicker (not to mention much more flexible time wise) to travel via London.

 

NSE were well were that passengers using the North Downs route to make connections with planes at Gatwick* was a profitable market to cater for - thats why NSE ditched the Reading - Tonbridge mod of operation in the first place.

 

Curtailing the service at Redhill would thus be commercial suicide bearing in mind the user base - its why their have been strenuous pre-pandemic efforts to increase the service frequency to 2tph to Gatwick and remove the lesser used intermediate stops to improve the offering.

 

(the pre pandemic plan was effectively a 2tph Gatwick - Reading semi fast service and a 1tph skip stop Redhill - Reading service to serve the rural stations like Betchworth.

 

*Its not just about planes, given the lack of a direct tube connection between Victoria and Paddington there is substantial traffic between places on the BML seeking access to the GWML at Reading. Although Thameslink has improved the situation a bit, many fast trains from Brighton and those from Eastbourne do not call at Redhill but they do call at Gatwick.

Seems to be the complete opposite of the purpose of HS2 then, as I see it virtually no one can use it without changing…its designed for changes, even though its not exactly over flowing with suitable connections either.

 

You cant have the argument both ways.

Brighton to Manchester is long gone and dead, nothings bringing that back… dft doesnt do things for convienience, they are doing it for cuts and savings right now, and this is a duplication, and an awkward one at that.

 

Plenty of people travel from across the UK to Gatwick, but most will have to change, and do so today, why is a leafy village line a special case ?.. Is Gomshall a hot bed of Gatwick activity ?

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by adb968008

[surfsup]

On 18/04/2022 at 21:21, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

As a further update and to continue my efforts of showing off PCO signage, the final signs required for dynamic Power Change-Over for the Class 769/9s on the Reading to Gatwick line were installed, to my design, last weekend:

 

 

This is an 'AJ03 Lower Pantograph' sign to inform the driver of Class 769/9s that they are to lower their pantograph before reaching this sign and, in the case of Western, to immediately bring their train to stand if Pantograph is still raised as you pass this sign. Three are installed at Reading, one out of sight on the Down Main close to the Southern Junction and two at the London End of Platforms 14 & 15 for trains running towards the Reading Low Level line:

 

 

Simon

 

On a quick trip up to Reading this week, I did notice that these signs have now gone up at Southcote Junction in the Basingstoke direction - I'm unsure if there is any for the Reading bound direction instructing drivers to raise the pantograph though? 

 

But what did catch my eye, and you may know the answer to this one, was a rather unusual camera type thing, pointing downwards towards the rails, and mounted from one of the OHLE gantries. Unfortunately I couldn't nab a photo of it on the return journey. 

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Seems to be the complete opposite of the purpose of HS2 then, as I see it virtually no one can use it without changing…its designed for changes, even though its not exactly over flowing with suitable connections either.

 

You cant have the argument both ways.

Brighton to Manchester is long gone and dead, nothings bringing that back… dft doesnt do things for convienience, they are doing it for cuts and savings right now, and this is a duplication, and an awkward one at that.

 

Plenty of people travel from across the UK to Gatwick, but most will have to change, and do so today, why is a leafy village line a special case ?.. Is Gomshall a hot bed of Gatwick activity ?

 

 

HS2 is principally about removing existing fast trains between London and the North West! Most services will be unchanged from now with respect to their starting and origin (Euston, Manchester Piccadilly, etc). There is no grater requirement to change to maintain current journey patterns once it opens so quite why you think HS2 has any relevance to the well proven point that customers dislike changing is a mystery

 

The point about the removal of the Brighton to Manchester service is the people using it by and large went 'sod it we will drive instead' rather than 'lets traipse across London with our luggage' the net result was a loss of revenue to the railways (though I accept in that case there were significant cost savings to be had too with respect to crew and it did avoid problems with procuring additional XC stock to strengthen their core routes so did effectively make big savings for the Government of the day).

 

But when it comes to passengers the situation with the Gatwick - Reading service is similar - a large chunk of the ridership will simply stop using the train and there will be a material loss in revenue. However in this case the savings that would be made are rather less than the XC example as you would only be cutting out the 6 mile trip along the BML to / from Redhill and as such the potential savings in terms of train crew or rolling stock leasing are extremely small.

 

There is also the little matter of political and business pressure (including the owners of Gatwick) - the DfT have been known to cave in before (not least with protests over the potential removal of the Wimbledon loop from Thameslink) so its going to be a tougher thing to push through than cuts elsewhere.

 

[Tankerman]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

You miss the point.

 

Passengers HATE changing! - particularly when travelling for leisure or with luggage. This is backed up by copious amounts of research and is why back in BR days the once a day Brighton - Manchester train was well used even though it was much quicker (not to mention much more flexible time wise) to travel via London.

 

NSE were well were that passengers using the North Downs route to make connections with planes at Gatwick* was a profitable market to cater for - thats why NSE ditched the Reading - Tonbridge mod of operation in the first place.

 

Curtailing the service at Redhill would thus be commercial suicide bearing in mind the user base - its why their have been strenuous pre-pandemic efforts to increase the service frequency to 2tph to Gatwick and remove the lesser used intermediate stops to improve the offering.

 

(the pre pandemic plan was effectively a 2tph Gatwick - Reading semi fast service and a 1tph skip stop Redhill - Reading service to serve the rural stations like Betchworth.

 

*Its not just about planes, given the lack of a direct tube connection between Victoria and Paddington there is substantial traffic between places on the BML seeking access to the GWML at Reading. Although Thameslink has improved the situation a bit, many fast trains from Brighton and those from Eastbourne do not call at Redhill but they do call at Gatwick.

 

Not so much nowadays, but up to 2017 I travelled from Wokingham to Gatwick and return about eight times a year. Having tried driving via the M3/M25/M23, I decided to use the train. The first time I did it, not knowing the system, I had to change at Redhill with my heavy luggage. Once was enough! After that I always made sure I used the through train, as many other locals who also know about getting the 'wrong train' means having to change at Redhill, make sure they use the through train.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Tankerman
punctuation