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

[The Pilotman]

A few weeks ago I was waiting for a train at Tilehurst on one of my UK work visits and you could have knocked me down with a feather when I saw a green “Thameslink” unit approaching on the down relief. I was even more surprised to see it’s pantograph was down. Until then I’d paid no attention to this thread but it’s been interesting to read about the whole project. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by The Pilotman

[Mike_Walker]

As we've reached May 2022 it is sobering to reflect that this should have been the third anniversary of these entering service with GWR - originally planned for May 2019 - and yet there is still no chance of that happening in the foreseeable future.  The first one wasn't even delivered to GWR until August 2020 and it took until last moth to deliver the last of the nineteen.

[Banger Blue]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

As we've reached May 2022 it is sobering to reflect that this should have been the third anniversary of these entering service with GWR - originally planned for May 2019 - and yet there is still no chance of that happening in the foreseeable future.  The first one wasn't even delivered to GWR until August 2020 and it took until last moth to deliver the last of the nineteen.

Dec 2018 - the first of the donor 319 units (319449) arrived at Reading for Staff Familiarisation.

Aug 2020 - The first GWR 769 (769943) arrived at Reading.

Mar 2022 - The last of the batch 769944 is delivered to Reading.

 

one or two even got ‘delivered’ twice as they had to be sent back to works for rectifications to be done. The fleet are currently rotating through Arlington at Eastleigh and Long Marston for further modifications (ASDO, cab cooling etc etc). The 769s have certainly not been RTR, straight out of the box!

 

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

As we've reached May 2022 it is sobering to reflect that this should have been the third anniversary of these entering service with GWR - originally planned for May 2019 - and yet there is still no chance of that happening in the foreseeable future.  The first one wasn't even delivered to GWR until August 2020 and it took until last moth to deliver the last of the nineteen.

I think Mr H told our branch user group at one stage that we would be most likely to get them in December - 2019.  I seriously wonder if we will ever see them and if we do I doubt they'll last long as the timetable will fall to pieces if they can't equal Turbo running times.

[Mike_Walker]

Not to worry, Mike.  The Henley branch, like Maidenhead to Bourne End, isn't the most taxing schedule; it's their potential performance (or lack of) on the North Downs that is the main concern.

 

As mentioned above, cab cooling is being added although why this wasn't fitted during the conversion is unclear.  It seems ASLEF have an agreement with GWR that all cabs will be so fitted.  This came as news to one of the regular Night Riviera drivers which brought forth the reply: "The official term is the cab droplight".

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Not to worry, Mike.  The Henley branch, like Maidenhead to Bourne End, isn't the most taxing schedule; it's their potential performance (or lack of) on the North Downs that is the main concern.

 

As mentioned above, cab cooling is being added although why this wasn't fitted during the conversion is unclear.  It seems ASLEF have an agreement with GWR that all cabs will be so fitted.  This came as news to one of the regular Night Riviera drivers which brought forth the reply: "The official term is the cab droplight".

The problem with the Henley branch is a mixture of tight timings and some steep gradients - the worst is  the 1in 64 rising approaching Twyford (the one that defeated the Hymeks) but there is 1 in 101 as you leave Wargrave to climb to the Thames Viaduct although it is only 1 in 130 coming in the opposite direction.  So there is a lot of full power running in order to keep time  - and that is essential because witha 12 minute running time achieving the 30 minute interval service leaves only 3 minutes for each turnround (although there are occasions when the interval is extended). 

 

But yes - there is a lot of 1in 100 in both directions between Reading and Redhill plus one stretch of 1 in 96 and the gradients are mostly longer than those on the Henley branch although the 1 in 64 at Twyford, on the ciurve,  is the steepest and there is a stretch of 1 in 75 between Bourne End and Maidenhead.

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

I think the main issue for the branches is that the Class 769/9s are not permitted to run at DMU differential speeds, yet at least the Bourne End branch is 10/MU50. So theoretically, the 769s are restricted to 10mph on the Bourne End Branch.

 

HOWEVER, I know conversations have taken place as to establish why the differential speed is on the branch and the answer is no one, from any department, knows, so there are conversations happening to try and remove it.

 

Simon

[Covkid]

On 03/05/2022 at 20:34, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

I think the main issue for the branches is that the Class 769/9s are not permitted to run at DMU differential speeds, yet at least the Bourne End branch is 10/MU50. So theoretically, the 769s are restricted to 10mph on the Bourne End Branch.

 

HOWEVER, I know conversations have taken place as to establish why the differential speed is on the branch and the answer is no one, from any department, knows, so there are conversations happening to try and remove it.

 

Simon

 

A classic case of when is a multiple unit not a multiple unit !!!!

Yep, class 185s are in a similar situation on some routes up north.  Kinda makes you wonder whether the 185s should have been built with a trailer in the formation into which some of the components from the motor cars could have been placed to maybe balance the weight out overall.  I remember Modern Railways commenting at the time on "lardbutt" DMUs. 

[Covkid]

On 03/05/2022 at 11:03, Banger Blue said:

Dec 2018 - the first of the donor 319 units (319449) arrived at Reading for Staff Familiarisation.

Aug 2020 - The first GWR 769 (769943) arrived at Reading.

Mar 2022 - The last of the batch 769944 is delivered to Reading.

 

one or two even got ‘delivered’ twice as they had to be sent back to works for rectifications to be done. The fleet are currently rotating through Arlington at Eastleigh and Long Marston for further modifications (ASDO, cab cooling etc etc). The 769s have certainly not been RTR, straight out of the box!

 

 

Not only that - most of the transit movements have been made using diesel locos and barrier vehicles despite them being fitted with erm ..... diesel traction. 

And GWR are expecting to put fifteen of the nineteen into service everyday.  Wonder what odds the bookies would give on that happening after just two weeks from the start of service.  

On 03/05/2022 at 11:03, Banger Blue said:

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 03/05/2022 at 20:34, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

I think the main issue for the branches is that the Class 769/9s are not permitted to run at DMU differential speeds, yet at least the Bourne End branch is 10/MU50. So theoretically, the 769s are restricted to 10mph on the Bourne End Branch.

 

HOWEVER, I know conversations have taken place as to establish why the differential speed is on the branch and the answer is no one, from any department, knows, so there are conversations happening to try and remove it.

 

Simon

I thought that everybody knew why the DMU differential speeds were applied - it would seem that they don't.  Looks like lots of memory and understanding left with those who have gone but it should be very easy to work out why differential speeds are applied for either of the two principal reasons why they were introduced (yes, there are at least two different sorts of differential speeds for passenger trains).

 

For a day's consultancy fee (negotiable - upwards) I will be more than happy to explain to the latecomers and more recent arrivals in the industry what differential speeds are all about.

[phil-b259]

9 hours ago, Covkid said:

 

A classic case of when is a multiple unit not a multiple unit !!!!

Yep, class 185s are in a similar situation on some routes up north.  Kinda makes you wonder whether the 185s should have been built with a trailer in the formation into which some of the components from the motor cars could have been placed to maybe balance the weight out overall.  I remember Modern Railways commenting at the time on "lardbutt" DMUs. 

 

IIRC one of the problems is the 185s featured a steel body rather than an aluminium one thus increasing the weight (as well as needing more beefy engines to move it about).

[Mike_Walker]

On 03/05/2022 at 20:34, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

I think the main issue for the branches is that the Class 769/9s are not permitted to run at DMU differential speeds, yet at least the Bourne End branch is 10/MU50. So theoretically, the 769s are restricted to 10mph on the Bourne End Branch.

 

HOWEVER, I know conversations have taken place as to establish why the differential speed is on the branch and the answer is no one, from any department, knows, so there are conversations happening to try and remove it.

 

Simon

It's merely a cunning wheeze to keep the b****y things off our branch line!

[surfsup]

19 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

IIRC one of the problems is the 185s featured a steel body rather than an aluminium one thus increasing the weight (as well as needing more beefy engines to move it about).

Slightly incorrect - the 185 uses the same Aluminium bodies as the rest of the standard Desiro UK fleet, along with the same very heavy SF5000 UK bogie (of which SWT were considering replacing theirs with the same lighter weight design used under the 700s), but the addition of the Cummins QSK19 needed to provide rapid power over the Pennines adds around 10 tonnes to their car weight. 

[The Stationmaster]

On 06/05/2022 at 11:01, Mike_Walker said:

It's merely a cunning wheeze to keep the b****y things off our branch line!

And ours = Turbos rule ok!

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Class 769/9s are still under going testing on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, with generally a pair of return runs to Redhill / Gatwick:

 

 

This one was returning from its afternoon run yesterday, waiting on the incline connection for a Acton bound Stone Train to clear Reading.

 

(This is the view of our new office window, quite convenient for photo opportunities!)

 

Still no firm in service date though.

 

Simon

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

Class 769/9s are still under going testing on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, with generally a pair of return runs to Redhill / Gatwick:

 

 

This one was returning from its afternoon run yesterday, waiting on the incline connection for a Acton bound Stone Train to clear Reading.

 

(This is the view of our new office window, quite convenient for photo opportunities!)

 

Still no firm in service date though.

 

Simon

I wonder if there will ever be an in-service date for the Gatwick route?

[Ncarter2]

On 03/07/2022 at 10:32, The Stationmaster said:

I wonder if there will ever be an in-service date for the Gatwick route?

It’s beginning to look that way. GWR’s version of the 442 debacle?

[Mike_Walker]

It's been reported on the WNXX forum that Tony Miles and Ian Walmsley of Modern Railways collared Mark Hopwood on the matter recently and the official line is "We will put some into service and see how that goes"...  It was said in weary tones and clearly he's given up trying to sound like he supports the project.  It is reported that both Northern and TfW have taken several of their examples out of service on a semi-permanent basis until Porterbrook/Wabtec can guarantee trouble free operation whilst TfW have refused delivery of the final one of theirs..

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, Ncarter2 said:

It’s beginning to look that way. GWR’s version of the 442 debacle?

Not quite the same as in this case it's all down to DafT - their idea for the conversion, their failure to ensure the conversion provided adequate power on diesel, and them dumping these monstrosities on GWR.  100% down to DafT.

[DY444]

22 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not quite the same as in this case it's all down to DafT - their idea for the conversion, their failure to ensure the conversion provided adequate power on diesel, and them dumping these monstrosities on GWR.  100% down to DafT.

 

And as we know from past experience the DfT will not be told and has to be left to realise the folly of its decisions in its own time.  There was a report the other day of the first very tentative signs that the DfT is beginning to realise its extraordinary contortions to avoid proper electrification at all costs might not be such a good idea after all.  Let's hope that turns out to be true, a mere 15 years and counting after it made precisely the same mistake previously.   

 

This whole saga illustrates again how right Yes Minister was.  Sir Humphrey had a great enthusiasm for changes of minister because it meant the department could wipe the slate clean and recycle all the stuff which the previous minister had eventually got wise to.  That seems to me to be essentially what has happened with so-called viable electrification alternatives, albeit over a longer timescale. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by DY444

[surfsup]

On 06/07/2022 at 11:57, The Stationmaster said:

Not quite the same as in this case it's all down to DafT - their idea for the conversion, their failure to ensure the conversion provided adequate power on diesel, and them dumping these monstrosities on GWR.  100% down to DafT.

 

For once, I wouldn't entirely blame the DfT in this sorry saga. Porterbrook conceived the idea, Porterbrook Sold the idea, Porterbrook chose to allow these units to go for conversion without even conceiving or testing a prototype unit first. Even ROG seems to have gone cold with it's Parcel 768s, in part through their sheer unreliability and through a lack of trained drivers on them. The DfT might have allowed these units to happen as a result of the lack of electrified routes areas (and some kind of cohesive plan for consistent rolling electrification) but a large proportion of blame here lies at Porterbrook's door. The fact that this whole project (for TfW, GWR, Northern & ROG) is now several years late - and in the case of Northern, the newer trains have been built, tested and entered service quicker than the 769s did - and is still showing pretty abysmal levels of unreliability, has been something of an embarrassment for them. The 319s, post Thameslink or any other AC only use, should really have headed for Newport. 

[Mike_Walker]

I would blame the DfT.  Yes, Porterbrook conceived the idea but it was the DfT that seized on it as a "cheap" alternative to electrification and ordered the Northern and GWR fleets (the TfW fleet was also ordered by the Welsh government as a stop-gap) without allowing a prototype to be built. 

 

Were it a decision for the TOCs they would certainly not have proceeded without the concept being proven by a prototype.  In the case of one TOC the 769s were dumped on them against their better judgement.

 

As for ROG's 768s I recently asked Karl Watts (CEO) about them and his answer was short and blunt: "absolute c**p!"

 

There are multiple design flaws in these units and things are made worse by Wabtec (who did the actual conversions) seemingly washing their hands of the type and the senior people responsible at Porterbrook leaving that company, leaving the TOCs to attempt to sort out the problems themselves - certainly the staff at GWR's Reading depot have identified several basic but major problems which they have sought to correct themselves.

 

Sadly, it is not just the 769s.  The civil servants at the DfT have taken to micro-managing the industry and making decisions which should have been left to professional railwaymen in the TOCs.  Just look at the IEP...  As it stands, things will only get worse under the Shapps-Williams GBR plan.  Perhaps in the light of today's events, that may be sunk by the next administration although I wouldn't hold my breath, once they've seized control, those civil servants will be extremely reluctant to relinquish it.

 

 

[KingEdwardII]

3 hours ago, surfsup said:

some kind of cohesive plan for consistent rolling electrification

It seems as if no-one in government is able to conceive of this straightforward idea. In an era where NetZero is the holy grail, too.

 

I have nothing but contempt for the politicians and civil servants involved in this mess.

 

Yours, Mike.

[mdvle]

6 hours ago, RailroadRich said:

The 769s were a good idea, but wouldn't it have been a better idea to say build 5-10 prototypes based on the 319s, then roll out the proven technology on to something like the 350/2s when they become available as they have no confirmed future use?

 

With the 319 and 350 being of different generation and different manufacturer there would likely be enough differences and gotchas that if converting the 350/2 fleet was your ultimate goal you simply accept the cost of taking 1 or 2 350/2 units out of service early and use those to create prototypes for a rebuild.

 

But it likely still wouldn't have been a good idea - it is simply better to accept the higher cost and design from a digital equivalent of a blank sheet of paper - or of course better yet simply do the right thing and pay for more overhead electrification.

[Hesperus]

While the DfT should be electrifying most of the lines the 769s will run on there are still going to be plenty of lines where a Bi Mode train will be useful, particularly until the wires are up. 

 

In hindsight converting 30 year old trains would only have been a good idea if the wires were expected to be up inside 15 years and the companies involved had the skills to have them working out of the box.  As we're going to be waiting far longer it's probably best to keep Hitachi's order book full.