The story goes that they were due to go north by rail on the day Nuneham viaduct was closed. Indeed, one of them was the last train over it - so possibly the last train that broke the camel's abutment. They were not cleared for any of the alternative routes, and in any case must have been the lowest of priorities for getting a path, so were stuck where they were. Logically, by now it would be worth waiting for reopening day. So most likely they have now reached some required maintenance, and avoiding that is worth the road transport cost.

 
Also saw two units this morning as I passed Reading depot this morning, but as one was partly in one of the sheds, the other hidden behind the Sleeper stock, I couldn't see if they were complete.

Is it odd that they are being moved by road?

Does anyone know what will happen to them? Storage or scrap? Anyone want some MAN diesel engines and ABB generators, hardly used? If so, please contact Porterbrook Leasing, no reasonable offers refused!

Also available from Network Rail - a quantity of signage about switching to diesel power, good condition.

 
Looking at the timetable on Twitter it appears to be one unit shuttling up and down. 

Weren't there some parked up in the the sidings at Oxford?

 
As I came by Cow Lane depot earlier there were two coaches loaded up ready to go.

"Porterbrook's GWR769 Free Shuttle", how many units will they need to ensure the service performs all day?

 
If you want the chance to ride aboard one there is a shuttle between a specially built platform at Honeybourne and the Rail Live show at Long Marston show on the 21st and 22nd June. 

It is being advertised as a "Porterbrook's GWR769 Free Shuttle".

 
According to this list that coach is part of 769 949.

 
Today's mystery?

Two low loaders heading south in Reading towards J11 of M4 at about midday.

A railway carriage loaded on each, all I managed to get was a carriage number: 71868

The end of a sorry saga?

 
In transport as in health, anything with a longer timescale needs to be a visible 'legacy' so maintaining railways, roads, bridges, hospitals or schools is low priority, but a new railway, road, bridge, hospital (or 40) or school is good. Especially if the next government will end up footing the bill. 

The result is crumbling infrastructure - literally!  Only this week it has been reported that the Dept for Education has increased the risk of schools collapsing on its risk register.  This is not only dangerous, but also bad economics.  How much of Network Rail's back costs are due to lack of maintenance during the BR era? 

The USA has been going this way for many years which is perhaps why bridge collapses are in the news there. 

Sorry I have pulled this thread even further off course!

 
Unfortunately not only transport. Public Health has the same problem as it normally takes 10 - 15 years to see the benefits.

 

Or the next election whichever is the sooner.  Therefore at the moment no more than 2 years!

 

I would not say HS2 is a vanity project the WCML 1955 modernisation plan (which did not finish until 1974) cost £345 million, that's about £11 Billion today; in the 1990's  a further £14 billon (that's £37 Billion today) the 1990's upgrade was not completed because of the difficulties of completing the Southern end in to London and rising costs

So over nearly half a centaury close on c £47 Billion was spent on the WCML with only marginal increase in speed and capacity.  HS2 will give the extra capacity on the WCML especially for freight

Its likely the signalling system North of Crewe will be ETCS ie in cab signalling to take advantage of HS2 for faster journeys to Scotland.

The bit the UK Governments have never been any good at is real stratgigic transport planning all MP's can only see as far as 5 years

 

They could have borrowed £100 billion at cheap government rates to upgrade the existing services? Doubt it somehow. That start-up money was borrowed and spent nearly 200 years ago. Pretty much everything on the existing network is supposed to be running costs and planned replacement of stock and infrastructure within a certain timescale. We don't do it that way here, preferring the last-minute refurb of time-expired stock and a few running repairs on the PW.

 
Imagine what could've been done across the network if £100bn wasn't being spaffed on the vanity project carving its way through the Chilterns.

Yeah, I know. Capex v opex. National infrastructure v local. Shiny superfast inter city trains v needed run of the mill local/regional stock. Buying votes v doing the right thing...

 

387 "Electrostars" are dual Voltage not bi-mode.  Bi-mode is 2 different energy forms.

I cannot see electrification of the North Downs line happening in the next 2 or 3 Control Periods (10 to 15 years), it could be argued that the 769 offered the best chance of third rail in-fill schemes.

There is still the problem of the AC/DC traction power interface at Reading, there is no simple or cheap way to do it and it has to be done due to some simple principles that 25kV AC is and Earthed Traction Return ie the Neutral at the supply transformer is bonded to Earth, where as the Third Rail DC Traction Return ie the negative is not directly bonded to Earth; this is to reduce stray DC return currents using alternative Earth paths back to the rectifier and causing Cathodic erosion of metal in that Earth path (Utilities, building and structure foundations etc even ones outside the railway will get effected)
The AC / DC interface is basically a Galvanic isolator between the 2 systems, they require a piece of line in each direction of travel (or 4 for 4 track railway) 1 carriage longer than the longest train (irrespective of them being electric, diesel, steam or clockwork) they involve a lot of electrical equipment .................... not cheap or simple  

 
They are definitely “dual voltage”, and IIRC were tested on DC during acceptance.

But then again that capability wasn’t usually described as “bi-mode” until very recently.   

Paul

 
I might be mistaken, but aren't the Electrostars GWR already bi-modal? I think they have those pick-up bars on their bogies that look like they are ready for 3rd rail use.

 
I think with the GWR thoughts on electrification sequence in the August Modern Railways (p61), there should be a single design of multiple unit, as there was for the Electrostars, which is then modified to the specific needs of its allocated line(s). For GWR this would probably be AC/diesel hybrid or AC/BEMU. For SWR a AC/DC diesel hybrid or AC/DC/BEMU,which could also be used for the North Down line.

 

Redundancy for those GWR staff at Reading unable, or unwilling, to transfer? Where would the sets for early morning Reading starters be stabled? The third rail platforms are already fully utilised for overnight stabling of Waterloo services.

The service pattern at present requires the fleet and staff to be at the Reading end of the North Downs Line. Just one unit is outstationed overnight at Redhill.

Changing the fleet and depot would require a huge timetable re-write. To say nothing of the less than zero chance of 3rd rail infill being authorised.

To my mind, the only logical answer is for DfT/GWR to order some new trains. Logical, but unlikely. Suitable for the existing infrastructure. Either diesel all the way, as at present, or DC third rail electro-diesel. While they're at it, order similar diesel only and AC electro-diesels for the West. The commonality across the fleet would do wonders for staffing and maintenance costs. I look to what Greater Anglia have achieved with their Stadler fleet commonality.

Am I a dreamer?

 
I suppose signs like this (on Reading platform 7) will hang around as the ghost of the never to be 769 for years to come.

Both the 769 and the short HST were functions of the parsimonious DfT, which looked at the capital cost but not the value, at a time when interest rates were low.

 
From my point of view as a passenger, SWR any day rather than Southern. Not that that will concern DfT one jot.

 

Or Southern the fleet would then run out of Brighton

 
If Reading – Gatwick becomes third rail throughout then it's pretty obvious to transfer the route to South Western and to resource it from a bigger fleet maintained at Wimbledon or wherever. 

 

Cost cutting by the DfT I would say is the main force behind this

North Downs electrification whist an answer, it is a long term one though then the 319 could have worked that.  The Electrification AC/DC interface at Reading has no easy solution to it, all of the proposals I've heard of from colleges are expensive, there does need to be a traction power systems isolation between DC and AC systems, even just to allow the units into and out of Reading Train Care.   These interfaces are complex, I deal with 3 of them in my day job.

The electrification Didcot to Oxford again not an overnight fix would release some 165/66

I fear the reality will be service cuts, reduced frequencies, train lengths etc.  The DfT will be placing a lot of rigor on ToC's to justify their operating costs

 

No, that’s a fair point.

I haven’t experienced one of TfWs ‘PRM-lite’ 153s to know what level of modification they’ve received to allow them to continue in service, though I understand there’s a bit more to it than locking the toilet door.

No doubt for the right level of compensation TfW could release some 150s or 158s in return for 153s, but as the goal is to cut costs, I expect GWR will just have to do less with less (or rather fewer) trains. Would love to be proved wrong.

 

Not that that would matter, were DfT to issue SWR with an instruction that that was what they were to do.

Twelve months ago the withdrawal of the through service between Bristol and Waterloo was unpopular, but it still happened, in the interests of saving money….

 

But then would they need to go back direct to GWR?

Attach the 153s to other compliant 153s and 150s in the TfW fleet where they already have spares and the total trains would have accessible loos, and cascade some 150s and 158s from TfW to GWR to enhance their fleet. No new types of spares or new types for crews or maintenance teams, though I grant you perhaps some heavy services.

 

Definitely unpopular - not just with the travelling public, but also with SWR!  During the recent 'emergency timetable' introduced by SWR because of the infrastructure problem between Tisbury and Gillingham and trains were only running between Basingstoke and Yeovil Junction [only extending to Exeter St Davids every other hour], I queried whether SWR could keep two 3-car 159s at Exeter to run a shuttle between Exeter and Axminster. Their answer was simply 'we do not have enough stock'!

 

I would be amazed to see GWR be allowed (by DfT) to bring back 153s. There’s not just leasing costs; reactivation expenses (heavy maintenance exams probably due as it’s likely their miles ‘in ticket’ will have been run-down prior to their withdrawal), modifications required to make them less non-compliant with accessibility rules, (re-)training of crew and maintenance staff, the requirement to increase depot stores inventories of spares....it certainly wouldn’t be a quick, or a long-term fix. I can’t see it happening.

GWR do have six 3-car 158s which could be reformed as nine 2-car 158s - probably the only easy way of increasing the number of trains in their fleet, and obviously it would come at a cost in terms of capacity where these trains are currently used, for example, the Barnstaple line.

Other potential sources of suitable stock might be SWR (by turning WoE Line trains back at Basingstoke instead of Waterloo, which I’m certain would be unpopular!), or TfW (158s and/or 150s, once they’re available). It’s not looking rosy at the moment

 
So this is just cost-cutting, not because they were not up to the job?

As stated elsewhere, this does nothing to address the problems with a shortage of carriages further west. We now have the [ridiculous?] situation where on Thames Valley routes we have 8 car trains (2x Electrostars) running most of the day with perhaps 20% of the seats filled on services that used to be 2- or 3- car Turbo operated, and overcrowded trains on other routes further west because Turbos cannot be cascaded from non-electrified services (or not fully electrified ones). If we had electrified most of the network, or even achieved the electrification of the Thames Valley branches and filled the gaps on the North Downs the existing fleet of Electrostars would presumably filled the slots adequately.

Presumably the cost-cutting imperative means that the sensible step of bringing back the 153s suggested by Grahame will not be followed up to save the leasing cost?

 


Oh dear / OK - thanks for that.    Looking back, it appears it was truncated - 166261 and started not from Westbury at 20:06, but from Gloucester at 21:57, arriving at Cheltenham Spa 1 minute late at 22:06.


From a passenger viewpoint in Wiltshire, a cancellation.   For a statistician's viewpoint, a success as it was a train that arrived at its final desitination, in passenger service, within 5 minutes of when it was timetabled.

 

Sorry Grahame, but the 20:06 to Cheltenham didn't run either, as far as I can tell. 2/17.

 
Yes, very sadly, back wide awake Bob and we see ClarenceYard over on Railforums saying that the DfT want eye watering savings on lease costs next financial year:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-class-769-information-discussion.174866/page-78#post-5978660

All very worrying.

 

Answer:
1) Temporarily reinstate some of the recently retired rolling stock currently rusting away in various locations around the UK, e.g. not ideal I know but the UK Rail Log presently lists 31 stored Class 153 units many of which could probably be resurrected with a little TLC (or a sledgehammer).
2) Prohibit the DfT 'incompetents' from interfering in the micromanagement of rolling stock provision.
3) Get all interested parties (e.g. TOC's, rail passenger groups, rolling stock manufacturers - and the DfT but only for the purpose of organising finance)) together to design and build a 'go anywhere' bi-mode MU fleet for use on the many routes which are in desperate need of additional capacity.

N.B. I have now woken and this slightly odd dream has finished.

 

And meanwhile GWR can't find a single train all day yesterday to operate the Swindon to Westbury line - my analysis suggests that just three out of 17 (single) journeys happen - at 07:36 and 20:06 from Westbury, and at 08:44 from Swindon.

How much of who's money has been spent on converting the 19 class 369 trains (that's 76 carriages) that have never and probably never will now enter service?  How much rail traffic has been lost because of inadequate provision across the GWR regional / local fleet, with trains short formed and overflowing, and simply not running at all?

Question - $64,000 - how do we move on and get an appropriate and reliable service running across GWR territory? "Appropriate" means both the timetable and the capacity of trains running to that timetable. 

 
One suspects these units will follow the 442s on a one way ticket to Newport or Rotherham.

 


I have always had the view that trying to convert these units method of traction power was not a good plan, there never was a diesel powered version of this class.

 
I doubt it given how recent that announcement was.  I still wonder whether a whole host of ex TfW 150s might get transferred as and when their new trains enter service.

 
Will this lead to a stay of execution for the Castles Class HST sets?

 
Embarrassing though that is, I’m quite glad.

 
It's now being reported as official (within GWR, I presume) that the lease for the 769s will be allowed to expire next April 23rd and Porterbrook will be left to work out what to do with them. It remains to be seen what, if anything, will be added to the fleet instead.

 

Followed by better news - that order was in place for four weeks and rescinded on 20th June. It always was a "play it safe" overreaction while diagnosing the fault which, being the VCB, was an unchanged part of the original 319. 

 
Not good news.

Northern have instructed drivers of 769's to run on Diesel at all times due to Interferance with signalling equipment.

 
Part of a training programme for local graffiti artists.

 
I noticed some residing in the up carriage sidings at Oxford on Tuesday.

 
GWR was so full of promises back on 26/08/20:

https://news.gwr.com/news/great-western-railway-receives-the-uk-s-first-tri-mode-train

 
These are a long way from introduction - driver training can't start until ASLEF sign the units off, and there are recognised adjustments required before they can be accepted in service. It was thought very unlikely they'll make the May timetable change.

 

I remember drivers occasionally having to change down on the 117s out of Guildford (3rd to 2nd I think at about the "half way" point), maybe more frequently during leaf fall as not as much speed had been picked up at the bottom of the slope.

The turbos tend to be going a fair old lick at the bottom and power their way through.

 
They will be able handle the climbs.  They won’t be able to handle them quite as well as Turbos when on diesel.  The big issue is if one engine isn’t working - that leaves only one left and then they will struggle - especially during Autumn.  The engines are proving unreliable.

 
It's interesting to note there have been a number of additional posts in the thread on RailUK Forums that I quoted previously. Several have dismissed the original comments about the 769 class not being able to handle the climbs on the North Downs Line as being nothing more than 'mess room gossip'. Some members there have said that the Northern and TfW's 769s are regularly managing climbs on diesel power that are steeper than anything on the NDL.

 
Reading depot is quite an easy target for the determined individual - very long and with little used roads and tracks nearby and not overlooked by anything other than the main railway lines at the western end.

North Pole is probably the best protected as it has all of the fencing put in that used to protect the Eurostar trains.

 
If they can't prevent trains from being vandalised at Reading Depot, where can they?

 

There is a good argument that suggests that this rolling stock entered service between 1987 and 1990, and what's happening now is a mid-life upgrade. Not uncommon for stock to be put out to grass, face the ravages of weather and vandalism, and then be brought back - what is different here is that it has been brought back and refurbished and THEN been vandalised!

 
This morning there are 3 769s at the west end of the Reading depot, one of which has been vandalised by an aerosol paint attack.

How often has this happened to rolling stock before it enters service?

 

The service operated with class 117 type DMU which were 300 hp per power car for a 3 car a total of 600 hp.  Those DMU had a less efficient transmission.

Part of the reason I suspect for the higher power rating originally for the 165/6 would have been for increased acceleration to improve journey times on the Thames Valley NSE timetable in the early 1990's

 
As a non-engineer who struggles to follow some of this (but very grateful to Stuving and others for trying to explain) can I add a few (largely anecdotal) points from a user of the North Downs Line?

Wikipedia informs us that each coach of a Turbo has a 350 hp/261 kW engine, so currently if all engines are working that's 1050 bhp/783 kW for a three coach train. Even then, in poor railhead conditions in autumn wheelspin has been a regular feature of the journey on the gradients around Sandhurst.

There have been journeys I have been on when an engine has been "out" on a coach when the Turbo (hint for those who will be using then when they eventually get to the West Country - it's the quietest and most restful part of Turbo travel if you travel in the coach without a working engine), and they have coped, but that still puts 700 hp down for a three coach train with the traction helped by the weight being over the active traction equipment. And I assume that a "conventional" hydraulic transmission does not suffer the power generation issues canvassed above.

 

Again, by analogy, the  unlamented "Tadpole"units that once inhabited this route weighed in at 113t with a 500hp diesel and only one motor bogie.

Slipping was a minor feature of the Southern's EE507, big traction motor, single motor car policy - part of the reason the 508's were banished to Merseyside.

The other problem is the perennial Diesel electric problem, that the generator/alternator produces more power at "right away" than the TM's can use, leading to excessive windings' temperature rise. I think the 47's had a minimum continuous speed of 27mph to avoid TM damage, which limited their freight use.

What it does mean is that the makers need time to get even an adaptation right before launching anything new into service and making the public or at least the TOC's driver managers put up with an unfinished job.

OTC

 

Not sure, but when pairs of ex-Southern 456s were used on the Guildford-Ascot runs they really struggled to get out of Guildford and that was on lightly loaded trains, without extra engines and equipment added. Wikipedia quotes the power output as 373kW (so about 750kW as a pair of 2-cars).

 

No you fell into the trap as I did initially comparing 1000hp to 1.2MW


1.2MW to 720kW is a 40% drop in power!

Hence stuving's comment about an unusual usage of "somewhat".

 
That’s a useful post.

So if I have read that right the Diesel engines have added 10% to the weight while the available power has dropped 20%?

I appreciate there are other factors at play but that does suggest that performance is never going to be anywhere near that of a 319.

Does anyone know if a 150 has ever done the North Downs route?

 
Here's a comment about the 769s that may be relevant:
Helen Simpson, innovation and development manager, Porterbrook

She's probably now saying to herself "well, that's one thing I got right at least".

That's from an article in May 2019, so when the programme was already running late. Another quote suggests one of the areas of awkward co-operation:

The "bus" isn't an infinite busbar, or anything like. The two alternators and the four motor/converter loads are looking at only each other, and that close coupling offers a lot of scope for instability, surges, etc. And if that damages the motors, they may even fail when not on diesel power. Also, if the alternators can't meet the motors' current demands, that limits the power and torque available.

I know the GTO converters do what the big series resistors do in a tram: allow the starting volts across the motor to be low and then to rise as the train speeds up. That should mean that the starting current from the alternators is quite low, while in the motors it's high. I can't find out whether the controllers still use field switching or weakening for higher speeds.

Neither have I found out anything about the ABB alternators, though this is a key component. Vivarail had a lot of problems with their light-weight modern TSA ones (similar to the ones in 800s, I think) in the 230s, and ended up replacing them all with much heavier but more robust old-style ones.

Making the train accelerate depends on the adhesion (at low speed) and power (in the middle and higher speed ranges). Adhesion depends on the fraction of the weight on driven wheels, which for a 319 is 0.36 (4/16 axles motored, but a lot of weight in the MSO). Adding the two diesel generators adds 15 t (over 10%) to two trailers, bringing that fraction down to 0.33. That's similar to an HST, and much lower than most modern units (typically 0.5-0.6).

Here is a more explicit statement from Porterbrook about the available power (specially for OTC):

Simon explains: “The MAN engines have a rail pedigree and are compliant with Stage IIIb emissions rules. Their maximum rating is 390kW, but we decided to have them working at less than that to give ourselves some ‘headroom’. In service, the two engines will deliver around 720kW at the DC Link (just under 1,000hp), which is somewhat less than the 1.2MW available in electric mode, but in general speeds are expected to be lower when working on diesel, and this arrangement gives good power in the mid-range. Performance should be comparable to a Class 150.”

An unusual usage of "somewhat"?

 

Agreed and, if there was not enough power to get up an incline, would it come to a halt due to wheelspin (loss of adhesion), or because the motors just couldn't turn the wheels?

 

But when using diesel power the traction motors can only provide enough power if the alternators can supply that power.  If the diesel engines or the alternators are not powerful enough it doesn't matter how powerful the traction motors are. 

 

I thought the 769 still used the electric traction motors when running on diesel. The diesel engines just drive alternators which generate the electricity.

 


Is the 769 heavier (having extra diesel engines and fuel tanks) so heavier weight on the drive wheels, and thus better traction (though less power) .   Or is the extra weight over unpowered wheels, meaning the same traction on the powered wheels and indeed a reduced performance because it has a heavier base load in the train as a whole?

 

But they were using electric traction not diesel.

 

And the loadings at peak times far exceeded any loading they will encounter on the North Downs.

It would be interesting to know what the failures are? 

Is down the legacy equipment on the train these failures could be in part due to the age of the equipment, this can be helped by heavy overhaul, and new / refurb equipment
Is due to the knowledge / experience of the maintenance staff; then this should improve over time  is it down to the new systems and the fine tuning of these
Is it the new systems, then fine tuning and experience should improve this.

If it is a combination of all 3 then that will take some concerted effort to resolve

 
319s coped with a quite significant gradient between City T/L and Blackfriars for years…

 

By analogy, an 08 shunter with three axles and only 400/260hp can move almost anything, although not very quickly!

OTC

 
Does it have to be a problem due to lack of adhesion, or could it be that the motors would not have sufficient power to actually turn the wheels against the weight of the train trying to roll back down the slope?

 

A train's performance on a gradient does not depend on whether it is diesel or electric but on its adhesion and therefore tractive effort. This in turn depends on axle load, number of driven axles and rail conditions, where friction can vary typically between 12% and 30%. A  diesel might be less inclined to slip as it could not lay down as much power as when under electric drive.

There are a number of c1:100 gradients at the Eastern end, the worst is 1:96, not the 1:40's experienced in the Pennines!

OTC

 
A recent comment on RailUK forums


https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-class-319-769-information-discussion.174866/post-5560691

 

The d.c. traction motor and pneumatically operated doors are not exactly key NASA space technologies. There is a little more excuse for software but that has had decades on the learning curve.

The 769 problems say more about present UK rolling stock engineering expertise than they do about the relatively simple 319 stock. This should last indefinitely, like the 4SUBs which went to the torch in full working order with only wear and tear maintenance over their (several) lives.

OTC

 

Surely that depends on whether the DfT instructed First to take/use them?

 

The previous franchisee being First Group a.k.a. First Capital Connect. You'd think that someone at First Group would have remembered the previous problems with these trains before a different subsidiary took them on.

 
I commented earlier that the traction system  was part of the 319, not the conversions. In the latest case of failure that's even more relevant, as at Redhill it was running on third rail. I've heard that 319s had a poor reliability record in this area, and that does seem to be the case.

In 2015, DfT hit GTR with a section 55 improvement notice, for its number of cancellations. GTR's excuse generator came up with some explanations for the poor fleet reliability on Thameslink and Southern operations, citing "Inherited door system and traction motor failures on the class 319" and "...failures on a small number of train systems in the class 387/1 introduction". As further detail, they said:


I guess that's what you get if you choose to do up old trains. I wonder how much work Porterbrook did on those areas? The GWR ones do have new 3-phase inverters to cope with the extra load of cabin air cooling, so presumably they at least don't still have the old motor alternators.

 
Hopeless!

 

And less than a week later the same unit (769936) has been and gone and done pretty much the same thing again. This time it's at Redhill, and in another naughty siding - number 2 is a series of ...

 
It looks like the failed 769 has been rescued at last:

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:16493/2022-02-23/detailed

 
I have just realised why they are no longer going to use them for bi-mode trains between Reading and Oxford - they will need all 19 to run up and down the North Downs line rescuing one another when they break down!

 

Yes. Though it's got a traction motor fault, which might be attributed to the original 319. But the result is it lost the use of half its motors, and was unable to get up the hill to Wanborough. Hence it was sent to the naughty siding to wait for someone to do the sums to see if another 769 could pull it up 1/100.

Plans to shift is on Friday were Euniced, but I though there was another go planned today. At least, there was an ECS move from Oxford to the sidings, and another from there to Reading depot. Some timing reports of that are showing, but rather too few to be really convincing, so maybe (given that it's still there) that didn't happen.

 
Doesn't look like the failure rate is improving?

Saw first one at Guildford this evening,  but all shut up and dark in the sidings beyond platform 8 and the temporary site offices. Another failure?

 
There's been an interesting conversation on RailUK Forums today:



Edit: forgot the link https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-class-319-769-information-discussion.174866/page-51#post-5538947

 
... and maybe getting longer off!

While GWR's herd were doing better than the rest, recently they haven't done at all well. With six runs to Gatwick a week planned, so far this week it's been four no-shows out of six. That may be due to last week, where there were three failures at Guildford (one after a failed attempt to fail at Redhill, followed by a successful failure on the way beck). Two runs went OK, the sixth was cancelled.

These runs are still being called mileage accumulation, but with some scope for training. So far that's been training driver managers and trainers, but even if driver availability allowed their inclusion, ASLEF still don't.

 

According to the gwr staff 769937 seems to be the most behaved of the 769s they've received so far

 
I saw one move through platform 3 at Oxford station last week towards the sidings. I couldn’t see it on the real time trains website.

 
Only one 769 at Oxford this morning so they do move.

 

I was in Palmer Park, Reading about 1210 today and saw 3V11, 769 937 returning ecs to Reading from Gatwick on time. Looked very smart.

Try the Park's TuTu's Cafe, it's very good.

OTC

 

Driver training started early in September, but there hasn't been a great deal of it yet. I imagine that's because it calls for spare drivers - not needed to drive trains in service -  and they have been hard to find. Train failures on the runs that did happen have not been common, but a lot of trips have been cancelled throughout.

 

I wonder if GWR is waiting sensibly and quietly for Northern and TfW to sort out the 769's, one way or another, before taking the plunge on (and expense of)  driver training and introduction into service.

OTC

 
There’s three more stabled at Oxford, others at Eastleigh I believe and more no doubt dotted around the countryside!

 
Another month passes, and still no sign of progress. In the meantime the delay in bringing the 769s into service continues to feature in posts on other threads.

During my now weekly commute past Reading Traincare depot, I don't think I have seen more than 3 "on shed", of which (insofar as I can tell from fleeting views as I go past) only one seems to have its GWR logos and markings applied to its green and grey livery.

Any news - has the ASLEF problem been resolved? Are those that have been delivered working properly? When will the rest arrive? Will they enter service before I finally retire in April? Any inside knowledge out there? 

 
I can confirm that Clarence Yard is an extremely reliable source of information.  However that doesn’t mean the 769s will be entering service any time soon!

 
Recent posts on RailUK forums have discussed rumours that the introduction of the 769s will be delayed another 12 months, although not all insiders seem to agree.


Can anyone here confirm the rumours?

 
My gut feeling is that retractioning the diesel units is likely to be by far the best option in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, I fear the feasibility of retractioning the recent diesel orders (classes 195, 196 and 197) is pretty much non-existant because the following would be required:

• Hacking a hole or two in the roof to install pantograph(s)
• Replacing the entire (mechancial) traction system with traction motors etc.
• Installing a traction power bus between vehicles so that current collected from the pantograph on one vehicle can reach the traction motors on other vehicles

This is likely to require all existing electrical systems to be stripped out while the work is ongoing partly due to the possibility of sensitive electrical equipment being fried during welding in the pantograph wells (I think these are aluminium bodied) and partly because there're going to have to find somewhere to put the traction power bus.

 
The best thing to do with old diesel units IMHO is to store them as a reserve fleet for for breakdowns or exceptional passenger flows. The fuel consumption is of relatively little importance if used thus rather than than in intensive daily use.

New trains should preferably be either OHLE or for secondary routes perhaps battery powered. All new electric trains should include either a diesel engine or a battery for proceeding at much reduced performance to the next station when the wires come down, or for on board services if unable to proceed.

 

That is a really good question and also what is the feasibility and carbon implications of retractioning these diesel units to give them longer life?

 
So have I. The least-fuel-efficient units appear to be the early-privatisation ones (170s, 175s and 185s) with Sprinters (150-159) and the latest diesels (195-197) both getting through less fuel per mile I think. I'm not sure there's much in it between a 195 and a 158, the different ratio of 3-car to 2-car units makes it hard to make a fair comparison.

I believe the energy used in manufacturing is quite significant, but how significant? Is it better to scrap a diesel train after 26yrs service in order to replace it with a new battery/hydrogen-electric bi-mode or to get the full 35-40 years life out of the diesel train before incuring the carbon cost of manufacturing the new fleet?

 
Working this out while others posted - what I think is a complete list of pure diesel passenger train (original build dates) running scheduled services on the national network these days that are pure diesel.

 47   1962-8 (converted to 57 - GWR sleeper locos)
253   1975-82
D78   1978-? (converted to 230)
150   1984-7
155   1986-7 (most converted to 153)
156   1987-9
158   1989-92 (some converted to 159)
165   1990-2
166   1992-3
168   1998-2004
170   1998-2005
175   1999-2001
180   2000-1
220   2000-1
221   2001-2
171   2003-4
222   2003-5
185   2005-6
172   2010-1
195   2017-20
196   2019-
197   2021-
231   t.b.a.

 

I would say around 20 years more service could be achieved with Turbos fairly easily.  The same with other units of a similar era - 158/9s specifically, perhaps a bit less for 150/3/5/6 units. 

Whether demand for diesel units will mean that happens is a whole other matter.  I would expect the change to battery/electric to be a more gradual one than with cars - but at exactly what pace will be deemed suitable and/or achievable I’d be much less confident in forecasting.

 

I've been wondering: what's the relative carbon footprint between

• The energy used operating a unit over its lifetime of say 40 years - such as the diesel it burns
• The energy used in manufacturing the unit in the first place - such as getting the steel/aluminium from ore, minus any energy saved in recycling the materials from eventual scrapping

The balance between these can affect whether it's worth keeping old units running even if they are less fuel-efficient.