I thought they had sorted the problems with the cabs and were just waiting for driver training to start.
You mean Porterbrook? GWR would just have looked at cost and entry into service time.
It was actually a Poterbrook project to repurpose old rolling stock rather than scrap it, aka milk the bone dry as much as possible.
GWR was one of the first customers to sign up if I remember?
It being, on paper, more attractive than going to tender for new replacements or waiting for a cascade.
Why would they when they've cancelled the order and won't be needing them. No need to train anyone for a train that will never run on the network.
That's what I'd do, but rail contracts seem to have bizarre commitments. The 365 that had ETCS fitted went for scrap along with its classmates, even though many were out of service for much of the works, but apparently a contract had to be fulfilled.
769s in general were a Porterbrook project, the GWR ones specifically were done by the DfT and were chosen due to their supposedly short timescales...
)!I believe this had actually been signed off and driver training was due to commence but the IA put paid to that.
see above for the “test run”. As the runs are only for competency retention, they probably won’t, I’m sure the Driver Managers have better things to do but you never know! Hopefully the 769s will depart for Long Marston (or elsewhere) sooner rather than later and not take up valuable siding space.
The order has not been cancelled, it was fulfilled - GWR ordered 19 and received 19. The lease is not being renewed when it expires next year.
There are, as far as I am aware, only two non-electrified passenger lines in west London. One is the Chiltern route, which would need electrifying all the way to Birmingham if EMUs were to use it. The other is the Greenford shuttle, which would require platform extensions at most stations if any surplus (i e existing) EMU were to use it.
To be fair i forgot about the DOO equipment. Oops. Yep too expensive. But without swaying too far away from the original point, the lines mentioned need more than 5 cars in the peak and other lines need more 377s. Anyway, expecting a slapped wrist from the mods again for going off topic lol
Did they actually remove the platform DOO equipment after withdrawing the 455s?
The 319s in their day were clearly designed for their Thameslink role, the most unique feature at the time was ac & DC operation. But (as subsequent deployments demonstrated) they were just as useful as 3rd rail only EMUs and OLE ac only EMUs with little penalty due to their dual power source capability. Similarly, the majority of the Electrostar fleet is also capable of dual supply operation, so it needn't be an nationalised/privatised influenced issue.
ac/dc operation was not unique - the 313s had been doing it for years.
701s have been reported running under test track conditions with pantographs fitted, but IIRC they haven’t done high mileage on the NR network. 707s were tested on AC.
I know that 707s were capable (at least the two delivered with pantographs were and they were derived fron 700/717 designs anyway.). I expected the 701s to be capable but hadn't heard anything.
'Aesthetics'! Mmm, so there are now 30 new 5-car trains that will inevitably be diagrammed to run in pairs sometimes, with no through gangway just because it would have offended a director of the TOC's eyes and maybe those of some of his favoured passengers. I doubt that most of them would even notice when standing on a cold and wet platform, much as they didn't with the 4-CORs, 421a, 444s and 455s.
To be fair, drivers have, I understand, usually preferred non-gangwayed cabs, for the better view ahead and the absence of unwanted ventilation. There have been examples, notably the class 126s and 318s, where gangways have been removed in later years, as the units had been cascaded to routes where they were less likely to work in pairs.
