GWR Class 769 information. (Units no longer with GWR - Off Lease March 23)

[Starmill]

As with the 230s, I think there's a general sense of pan-industry relief that they're finally going to be put out of their misery before long. Transport for Wales didn't want to keep them and Northern don't want to have to use them either. They're a serious maintenance liability, and they are poor value for money because their availability is too low.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

@FGW_DID I wonder if you’d consider updating the title to something like “GWR Class 769 (now cancelled)” or something to reflect that it’s not happening?

 

[AM9]

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.

But the gangways were never used on the 455s, and of course in later years they ran coupled to 456s which didn't have gangways anyway. View attachment 125521

I was taking on your comment that it was the MD that had an aesthetic problem with gangways.

 

[Tetchytyke]

To be fair, drivers have, I understand, usually preferred non-gangwayed cabs, for the better view ahead and the absence of unwanted ventilation.

I seem to recall the 360s were forced to have non-gangway cabs precisely because of the sighting issues and their DOO use. No idea if that's urban legend though.

As for the 769, the government/TOCs massively over-ordered new EMUs and under-ordered new DMUs. So we have bodge jobs like the 769, as well as wastes of money like the 707, rather than sufficient suitable trains in sufficient numbers.

 

[Deepgreen]

I seem to recall the 360s were forced to have non-gangway cabs precisely because of the sighting issues and their DOO use. No idea if that's urban legend though.

As for the 769, the government/TOCs massively over-ordered new EMUs and under-ordered new DMUs. So we have bodge jobs like the 769, as well as wastes of money like the 707, rather than sufficient suitable trains in sufficient numbers.

Yes, in other words, privatisation precluded a sensible network-wide rolling stock strategy. Scandalous mis-management.

 

[physics34]

I seem to recall the 360s were forced to have non-gangway cabs precisely because of the sighting issues and their DOO use. No idea if that's urban legend though.

As for the 769, the government/TOCs massively over-ordered new EMUs and under-ordered new DMUs. So we have bodge jobs like the 769, as well as wastes of money like the 707, rather than sufficient suitable trains in sufficient numbers.

Also wouldve been nice is stock types were built to be compatable with each other within reason. It was a thing that the SR and BR in general did very well.

 

[FGW_DID]

@FGW_DID I wonder if you’d consider updating the title to something like “GWR Class 769 (now cancelled)” or something to reflect that it’s not happening?

Still a thread for information and obviously plenty of discussion so I’ve left the title at that but added the fact that they go off lease in March.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I hate to say it but I think with the governments focus on decarbonisation it wouldn't surprise me if Northern got the whole fleet. Northern have 141 sprinters to replace this decade. 19 x 4 coach bimodes would help eat into that. Reliability won't appear on the treasury spreadsheet. They should be scrapped.

Sounds emmantly sensible to me if DfT were serious about decarbonisation but they aren't

 

[cactustwirly]

Sounds emmantly sensible to me if DfT were serious about decarbonisation but they aren't

How does running clapped out EMUs with diesel engines slapped on, do anything for decarbonization?

 

[gabrielhj07]

How does running clapped out EMUs with diesel engines slapped on, do anything for decarbonization?

Nothing compared to new builds, had they been ordered at the start. I think the point is that now they have them, it would be more efficient to keep them in service than to waste them on scrap.

 

[Richard Scott]

Nothing compared to new builds, had they been ordered at the start. I think the point is that now they have them, it would be more efficient to keep them in service than to waste them on scrap.

In reality running old vehicles does help as takes an awful lot of energy to recycle an old train and make a new one. If they can be used on electric for parts of a journey and use their more modern engines for non electrified part then certainly would help. Not taking reliability into account here, I appreciate.

 

[JonathanH]

I think the point is that now they have them, it would be more efficient to keep them in service than to waste them on scrap.

The number of GWR staff who can work the 769s in indicated to be in single figures. They aren't in service and have effectively run out of time. Scrap isn't waste because they aren't now needed to deliver the agreed service levels.

 

[JN114]

they aren't now needed to deliver the agreed service levels

Technicality, but more accurately it’s “aren’t perceived to be needed to deliver the agreed service levels”

The Turbo fleet isn’t in the greatest of shape at the moment, short forms in the West are commonplace just to keep the service running; and more dramatically lately we’ve been short in the east where we can’t short form 16x and have nothing else to cover; resulting in sometimes dozens of cancellations per day.

The agreed service level will have to change in light of this decision with the 769s; or poor performance will continue.

 

[JonathanH]

Before this sorry saga the off peak timetable on the North Downs used 6 units and the Basingstoke line 2 units. I recognise that the latter has to now allow for the stop at Green Park so unfortunately an extra unit is needed but tightening up the North Downs to put it back to Turbo timings would create a spare unit.

It really would be good to get back to tighter schedules and remove the wait at Guildford on the stopping services now 769s are not going to be used and any thoughts of 3tph are a distant memory.

 

[gabrielhj07]

The number of GWR staff who can work the 769s in indicated to be in single figures. They aren't in service and have effectively run out of time. Scrap isn't waste because they aren't now needed to deliver the agreed service levels.

In reference to post #2414 about their possible use by Northern, it would be a waste, as they already have 769s.

 

[JonathanH]

In reference to post #2414 about their possible use by Northern, it would be a waste, as they already have 769s.

They don't have 769/9s though - the GWR units have different features which may well preclude their use with Northern. In any case, Northern are unlikely to be looking for additional units and it isn't clear which route they would be able to run on with the right traincrew knowledge.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I seem to recall the 360s were forced to have non-gangway cabs precisely because of the sighting issues and their DOO use. No idea if that's urban legend though.

As for the 769, the government/TOCs massively over-ordered new EMUs and under-ordered new DMUs. So we have bodge jobs like the 769, as well as wastes of money like the 707, rather than sufficient suitable trains in sufficient numbers.

There's not enough room in a post to unpack the various economic distortions that led to so much new rolling stock being ordered but it is all connected with the post-2008 financial crash and decade plus of 'quantitive easing' that resulted in banks being awash with cash available at nominal rates for corporate lending. This in turn has had all sorts of unfortunate/weird effects, including the one where anyone bidding for a franchise could find it cheaper to procure and lease a brand new fleet of trains than take on the lease of trains that may have been bought just a few years before; or at least were not life expired.

As usual with these things, each individual cog in the chain acts rationally - the Government is procuring the lowest cost/best value solution from bidders; the bidder is adopting a strategy that achieves a quality bonus ('new trains') at a cheaper rate; and the rank madness of rendering fairly new trains obsolete because of even newer ones can be observed but not prevented by the 'rules of the game'.

This has of course exploded spectacularly with the (inevitable) inflation spike that continually pumping new money into a static economy would eventually achieve. The only benefit is that (similar to the Modernisation Plan over-ordering of new fleets against a rapidly contracting railway system) the surplus of new and newish rolling stock will help tide the industry over what is likely to be a massive cost squeeze for the next few years when I suspect very little fleet replacement will take place.

 

[AM9]

In reality running old vehicles does help as takes an awful lot of energy to recycle an old train and make a new one. If they can be used on electric for parts of a journey and use their more modern engines for non electrified part then certainly would help. Not taking reliability into account here, I appreciate.

In addition, I would suggest that a 769s creates significantly less CO2 than a pair of two car class 150s, - the nearest equivalent in passenger capacity, door styles and overall length. The reasons:

1) the MAN engines in the 769s are cleaner than the Cummins types in the 150s (even in an as-new state).​

2) a diesel-electric transmission give better power to torque conversion and more closely matches the power curve required for a passenger train.​

As you say, if the 769s are run in both diesel and electric modes on a suitable route, their gross CO2 level is way below the DMUs.

 

[Chester1]

They don't have 769/9s though - the GWR units have different features which may well preclude their use with Northern. In any case, Northern are unlikely to be looking for additional units and it isn't clear which route they would be able to run on with the right traincrew knowledge.

My worry is DfT transfer 19 x 769s to Northern and 38 x 2 coach sprinters get scrapped. That could work if they were reliable. What features would prevent Northern running them? They might not be able to run doubled up with 769/4s but would be no routes needing 8 coach units.

 

[JonathanH]

My worry is DfT transfer 19 x 769s to Northern and 38 x 2 coach sprinters get scrapped. That could work if they were reliable. What features would prevent Northern running them?

Nothing points to a transfer to Northern being likely. The only Northern drivers that work 769s (according to the driver route knowledge thread) are Liverpool, Manchester Victoria and Wigan Wallgate. That is nowhere near as many as work 150s.

The three basic reasons that 769s are going off lease at GWR apply equally at Northern - eg budget cuts, chance to avoid traincrew training and poor reliability.

 

[Rich1974]

Before this sorry saga the off peak timetable on the North Downs used 6 units and the Basingstoke line 2 units. I recognise that the latter has to now allow for the stop at Green Park so unfortunately an extra unit is needed but tightening up the North Downs to put it back to Turbo timings would create a spare unit.







It really would be good to get back to tighter schedules and remove the wait at Guildford on the stopping services now 769s are not going to be used and any thoughts of 3tph are a distant memory.

Sometimes the extra time a Guildford can be a good thing, it's a pee break for me as I'm getting old and can't hold to much Tea these days and useful for making up time during leaf fall. I understand from the publics view it's a pain but for drivers it can help and often has.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Sometimes the extra time a Guildford can be a good thing, it's a pee break for me as I'm getting old and can't hold to much Tea these days and useful for making up time during leaf fall. I understand from the publics view it's a pain but for drivers it can help and often has.

Does a driver’s “pee break” halfway through a 90 minute commuter service really constitute a reason for not tightening the timetable

 

[The Ham]

Having just watched Mark Hopwoods Linkedin video at Barnstaple it's interesting to hear that he wants to get the company through the current financial restrictions and then eventually look to bring in newer rolling stock and to provide more services.

Currently (July to September 2022) GWR are moving passengers over a distance of 1.4bn km, whilst this is about 14% lower than it was in 2019 is only about 6.5% lower than in 2011.

However it's also running about 95% of services.

July to September is a tiny fall (1.399 vs 1.406) compared to the quarter before. January to March was 1.061, which was a tiny fall on the quarter before (1.084) however was still an towards trend from the quarters before that (1.015 July to September 2021 and 0.645 April to June 2021).

Making cuts now does appear a bit premature, given that there's been a continued upwards trend (with some quarters seeing significant growth).

As such, whilst the government may well like to see cuts, the TOC's may well be looking at the data trends and understand that with passenger numbers at rates seen about 12 years ago and looking like they've got potential to keep on growing, it's no surprise that they are talking of new trains for the next contract period.

Also, bringing the discussion towards 769's, it could well be that due to the loss of the 769's and there going to be a need for a replacement for some 15x units, it could well be that they are thinking about battery units. It would be interesting to see, given the ongoing delays in electrification to Bath and Oxford, if other local services could be run by battery trains (for instance OHLE to Didcot and then battery power to Oxford and back, which would be less than 30 miles for the round trip).

 

[heathrowrail]

Currently (July to September 2022) GWR are moving passengers over a distance of 1.4bn km, whilst this is about 14% lower than it was in 2019 is only about 6.5% lower than in 2011.

However it's also running about 95% of services.

July to September is a tiny fall (1.399 vs 1.406) compared to the quarter before. January to March was 1.061, which was a tiny fall on the quarter before (1.084) however was still an towards trend from the quarters before that (1.015 July to September 2021 and 0.645 April to June 2021).

Making cuts now does appear a bit premature, given that there's been a continued upwards trend (with some quarters seeing significant growth).

As such, whilst the government may well like to see cuts, the TOC's may well be looking at the data trends and understand that with passenger numbers at rates seen about 12 years ago and looking like they've got potential to keep on growing, it's no surprise that they are talking of new trains for the next contract period.

Also, bringing the discussion towards 769's, it could well be that due to the loss of the 769's and there going to be a need for a replacement for some 15x units, it could well be that they are thinking about battery units. It would be interesting to see, given the ongoing delays in electrification to Bath and Oxford, if other local services could be run by battery trains (for instance OHLE to Didcot and then battery power to Oxford and back, which would be less than 30 miles for the round trip).

I agree with mostly all of that. Although as I get updates from the Bedwyn passenger group GWR have firmly slated the idea of batteries on the 387s (something we proposed to keep Bedwyn direct services).

 

[Energy]

I agree with mostly all of that. Although as I get updates from the Bedwyn passenger group GWR have firmly slated the idea of batteries on the 387s (something we proposed to keep Bedwyn direct services).

Wonder why?

 

[brad465]

As for the 769, the government/TOCs massively over-ordered new EMUs and under-ordered new DMUs. So we have bodge jobs like the 769, as well as wastes of money like the 707, rather than sufficient suitable trains in sufficient numbers.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is they scaled back on electrification projects too much.

 

[Greybeard33]

Nothing points to a transfer to Northern being likely. The only Northern drivers that work 769s (according to the driver route knowledge thread) are Liverpool, Manchester Victoria and Wigan Wallgate. That is nowhere near as many as work 150s.

The three basic reasons that 769s are going off lease at GWR apply equally at Northern - eg budget cuts, chance to avoid traincrew training and poor reliability.

As well as the crew training and reliability issues, other obstacles to Northern taking GWR 769s in lieu of 150s are:

1. 769s on diesel have much less range before refuelling than 150s, due to smaller tanks. Northern 150s are often stabled overnight at locations without fuelling facilities.
2. Northern 769s are maintained at Allerton (near Liverpool) with the 319s, whereas the 150s are maintained at Newton Heath (east of Manchester) and Neville Hill (east of Leeds).
3. There are currently relatively few diagrams in which two 150s are paired (otherwise they operate singly, or paired with a 156 to provide more capacity)

Taking these together, a wholesale revision of unit and crew diagrams would be needed, necessitating a timetable recast.

 

[The_Train]

Is anyone able to assist with the current locations of the GWR 769's please, I've let my recording of the movements slip a bit so I have as follows:

Reading TC - 922, 923, 925, 930, 935, 938, 943, 949, 959
Long Marston - 928, 932, 936, 937, 939, 940, 944, 946, 947
Wolverton - 927

I suspect the Wolverton unit has long since left there and I'm sure some of the Reading units are dotted around the GWR depots - if anyone can update, it would be appreciated

 

[FGW_DID]

Is anyone able to assist with the current locations of the GWR 769's please, I've let my recording of the movements slip a bit so I have as follows:

Reading TC - 922, 923, 925, 930, 935, 938, 943, 949, 959
Long Marston - 928, 932, 936, 937, 939, 940, 944, 946, 947
Wolverton - 927

I suspect the Wolverton unit has long since left there and I'm sure some of the Reading units are dotted around the GWR depots - if anyone can update, it would be appreciated

Reading TCD: 935, 938, 943
Oxford UCS: 930, 949, 959

All the rest are in store at Long Marston.

Edit: 927 is showing as back at Long Marston.

 

[Stephen Lee]

Guys, anyone know when will the GWR Class 769s be in service