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

[FenMan]

This sentence in the RAIL article is, I believe, GWR being somewhat disengenous:-

GWR had assumed 12% passenger growth on the line between 2019 and 2022. In reality, it has dropped by 3%.

1) GWR's 12% growth assumption was predicated on their plan to increase weekday off peak service frequency to 3tph, with Gatwick getting 2tph. This plan has been shelved (hopefully not abandoned entirely).

2) Passenger numbers on the North Downs have recovered to 97% of the 2019 figure, which is very good news. I daresay the revenue recovery will also be fair to decent, given that - unlike many other lines in the south east - the £££ gap between peak and off peak fares is not eye-watering.

3) This coming summer will see Gatwick Airport operating at close to capacity for the first time in four years (the number of flights last summer was way down compared with 2019), so I'd expect 2023 passenger numbers on the North Downs to increase accordingly.

 

[Goldfish62]

This sentence in the RAIL article is, I believe, GWR being somewhat disengenous:-



1) GWR's 12% growth assumption was predicated on their plan to increase weekday off peak service frequency to 3tph, with Gatwick getting 2tph. This plan has been shelved (hopefully not abandoned entirely).

This was actually introduced in Dec 2019 - and of course quickly disappeared with the first lockdown.

 

[FenMan]

This was actually introduced in Dec 2019 - and of course quickly disappeared with the first lockdown.

The 3tph plan was never implemented. The Dec 2019 timetable published by Network Rail says 2tph (1tph to Gatwick). There were occasional test runs of empty coaching stock running to the schedules planned for the second hourly Reading-Gatwick services.

See Table 148 on this page:-

05. 2019-12 NRT Tables | Network Rail Corporate Archive

history.networkrail.co.uk

 

[Goldfish62]

The 3tph plan was never implemented. The Dec 2019 timetable published by Network Rail says 2tph (1tph to Gatwick). There were occasional test runs of empty coaching stock running to the schedules planned for the second hourly Reading-Gatwick services.

See Table 148 on this page:-

05. 2019-12 NRT Tables | Network Rail Corporate Archive

history.networkrail.co.uk

I can assure you I used the services several times. They ran fast between Wokingham and Guildford.

Maybe it wasn't December 2019 but they were definitely introduced around the early Covid period before disappearing very quickly.

 

[FenMan]

I can assure you I used the services several times. They ran fast between Wokingham and Guildford.

There was one Gatwick - Reading service on weekdays that misses out the stops at North Camp and Blackwater, just as there is in the current timetable, so perhaps that's what you are recalling?

I'll leave it there.

 

[Goldfish62]

There was one Gatwick - Reading service on weekdays that misses out the stops at North Camp and Blackwater, just as there is in the current timetable, so perhaps that's what you are recalling?

I'll leave it there.

All I got wrong was the date. 3tph was introduced in September 2020:

Increase in trains for the North Downs Line after 10-year ambition

This week, Great Western Railway began operating a three-an-hour train service on the North Downs Line.

www.railadvent.co.uk

Increase in trains for the North Downs Line after 10-year ambition
Three trains an hour are now running on the line
By Alan Holden 2 years Ago

 

[JonathanH]

3tph was introduced in September 2020:

For a few hours in the middle of the day to see whether the concept worked. The full 3tph timetable was not introduced. GWR did not have enough units for a start.

 

[Goldfish62]

For a few hours in the middle of the day to see whether the concept worked. The full 3tph timetable was not introduced. GWR did not have enough units for a start.

Pedantry corner.

 

[stuving]

For a few hours in the middle of the day to see whether the concept worked. The full 3tph timetable was not introduced. GWR did not have enough units for a start.

This was not the 2 tph to Gatwick originally specified. There were four extra fast trains to Redhill, overtaking a slower Redhill train at Guildford (around 10/12/13/1400 to Redhill, returning 90 minutes later). This ran right up to Christmas, then was lost in emergency changes, and the reduced timetable from 4/1/21 went down to below 2 tph off-peak.

 

[Deepgreen]

Pedantry corner.

Not pedantic at all - the full 3tph service was never implemented, and an off-peak trial does not constitute the full, robust improvement that was promised. We are left with 2 and 3 car 165s which are either poorly-refurbished or seemingly not maintained at all internally prior to their refurbs and in a sorry state. I have just written to GWR to complain about the line's abysmal situation, including GWR not even bothering to label its first class in any way when refurbishing its 165s (while happily charging first class fares on the NDL), and the staff not even knowing whether first class applies or not!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2023 ==

This was not the 2 tph to Gatwick originally specified. There were four extra fast trains to Redhill, overtaking a slower Redhill train at Guildford (around 10/12/13/1400 to Redhill, returning 90 minutes later). This ran right up to Christmas, then was lost in emergency changes, and the reduced timetable from 4/1/21 went down to below 2 tph off-peak.

3 tph?

 

[DelW]

3 tph?

I think the post to which you're replying was referring to the then-proposed 2tph to Gatwick, which with the existing 1tph to Redhill, made the total intended 3tph along the main section of the NDL. Which it seems is unlikely ever to appear now of course.

 

[stuving]

I think the post to which you're replying was referring to the then-proposed 2tph to Gatwick, which with the existing 1tph to Redhill, made the total intended 3tph along the main section of the NDL. Which it seems is unlikely ever to appear now of course.

Yes, but. The original 2 tph Reading-Gatwick service specification came with the 2006 franchise; previously it was 1 tph. In both cases faster and slower trains alternated. That was never operated because Network Rail said the extra paths were not feasible, and "declared [part] of the railway infrastructure to be congested in accordance with Regulation 23 of the Access and Management Regulations." In any case, I wonder how the timings would work out - it's awkward enough with the stopper terminating at Redhill. The third tph only got added to the requirement in 2020.

 

[JonathanH]

The original 2 tph Reading-Gatwick service specification came with the 2006 franchise; previously it was 1 tph. In both cases faster and slower trains alternated.

To be pedantic, FGW did actually consult in the first combined timetable around 2006 or 2007 on a 2tph skip stop pattern which would have seen two equally paced trains an hour between Reading and Gatwick Airport. It would however have meant some local journeys were no longer feasible and slower journeys and it was never implemented (although it did apply on an hourly basis on Sundays for a timetable period).

In practice, we got the two hourly skip stop east of Guildford and stopping / semi-fast pattern currently operated.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Not pedantic at all - the full 3tph service was never implemented, and an off-peak trial does not constitute the full, robust improvement that was promised. We are left with 2 and 3 car 165s which are either poorly-refurbished or seemingly not maintained at all internally prior to their refurbs and in a sorry state. I have just written to GWR to complain about the line's abysmal situation, including GWR not even bothering to label its first class in any way when refurbishing its 165s (while happily charging first class fares on the NDL), and the staff not even knowing whether first class applies or not!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2023 ==


3 tph?

Do you actually buy first class fares, because if not then you’re cutting off your (and mine, and many other standard class users of the line’s) nose to spite your face there?

 

[Minstral25]

To be pedantic, FGW did actually consult in the first combined timetable around 2006 or 2007 on a 2tph skip stop pattern which would have seen two equally paced trains an hour between Reading and Gatwick Airport. It would however have meant some local journeys were no longer feasible and slower journeys and it was never implemented (although it did apply on an hourly basis on Sundays for a timetable period).

In practice, we got the two hourly skip stop east of Guildford and stopping / semi-fast pattern currently operated.

The Result was that customers between Guildford and Reading opposed the plan completely so it was never likely to happen.

It is possible to do just East of Guildford to create an even pattern Guildford, Dorking, Reigate, Redhill to Gatwick (as I believe few passengers would complain) but they did not tried to implement

 

[pigs bay]

Hey First grp strikes again... firstly it was the 442's not req'd and NOW the 769's.... whats next, the 800's

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Hey First grp strikes again... firstly it was the 442's not req'd and NOW the 769's.... whats next, the 800's

Wrong target... it's the DfT and H.M. Treasury pulling all the strings on this.

 

[zwk500]

Hey First grp strikes again... firstly it was the 442's not req'd and NOW the 769's.... whats next, the 800's

Why would they get rid of the 800s given that they're not causing signalling failures like the 442s and are actually working/accepted by the drivers unlike the 769s?

 

[WizCastro197]

Why would they get rid of the 800s given that they're not causing signalling failures like the 442s and are actually working/accepted by the drivers unlike the 769s?

I agree, the 800s tenure in GWR seems to be fine (no major problems at the moment), apart from the crack issue a couple years ago, which @pigs bay may be referring to?

 

[Deepgreen]

Do you actually buy first class fares, because if not then you’re cutting off your (and mine, and many other standard class users of the line’s) nose to spite your face there?

Sometimes, but it's mostly about the principle of the thing - the continuing general failure by GWR to label its stock properly and thus causing doubt/confusion in the minds of passengers and staff alike. It's just a lazy and lax state of affairs. They turned out the 769s as they should be, so why can't they bother with the refurbished Turbos? It smacks of a lack of direction and consistency in the TOC management. BR heads would have rolled, and rightly so.

 

[The exile]

I do get their point. Electrification of Bath would be detrimental to the city whatever happens, but if it were to lose their UNESCO status the economic impact to the city would be huge.

Electrification using the standard GWML equipment would certainly be an eyesore, but such monstrosities are not needed. It’s not as if tensioning for 140mph will ever be needed through Bath. The are plenty of examples of OHL equipment suitable for 25kV in use that are a lot less intrusive. They would also be a lot less intrusive on a day to day basis than the plethora of street furniture / signage in the city. Here speaks a resident!

 

[gabrielhj07]

Electrification using the standard GWML equipment would certainly be an eyesore, but such monstrosities are not needed. It’s not as if tensioning for 140mph will ever be needed through Bath. The are plenty of examples of OHL equipment suitable for 25kV in use that are a lot less intrusive. They would also be a lot less intrusive on a day to day basis than the plethora of street furniture / signage in the city. Here speaks a resident!

They ought to take a leaf out of the Royal Border Bridge's book.

 

[zwk500]

Electrification using the standard GWML equipment would certainly be an eyesore, but such monstrosities are not needed. It’s not as if tensioning for 140mph will ever be needed through Bath. The are plenty of examples of OHL equipment suitable for 25kV in use that are a lot less intrusive. They would also be a lot less intrusive on a day to day basis than the plethora of street furniture / signage in the city. Here speaks a resident!

This blog: https://bathnewseum.com/2016/04/26/is-this-the-sydney-gardens-rig-for-electrification/ has some 3D renders of what was originally proposed. Other suppliers of OLE Cantilever design are available, of course!

 

[FenMan]

Electrification using the standard GWML equipment would certainly be an eyesore, but such monstrosities are not needed. It’s not as if tensioning for 140mph will ever be needed through Bath. The are plenty of examples of OHL equipment suitable for 25kV in use that are a lot less intrusive. They would also be a lot less intrusive on a day to day basis than the plethora of street furniture / signage in the city. Here speaks a resident!

But, we're talking Network Rail here, aversion to even reasonable risk resulting in massive over-engineering has been the way to go following the Railtrack disaster.

The electrified bits of the GW mainline are Exhibit A.

The other day I watched a TGV cab ride from Marseille to Paris on YouTube. Much is new/recent railway built for much higher speeds, however the amount of metalwork on view is a small fraction of what can be seen on the GW mainline.

 

[RobShipway]

But, we're talking Network Rail here, aversion to even reasonable risk resulting in massive over-engineering has been the way to go following the Railtrack disaster.

The electrified bits of the GW mainline are Exhibit A.

The other day I watched a TGV cab ride from Marseille to Paris on YouTube. Much is new/recent railway built for much higher speeds, however the amount of metalwork on view is a small fraction of what can be seen on the GW mainline.

Is that not down to the fact that France, like many countries throughout Europe have their OHLE line at a higher height than Network Rail do here in the UK? Having the OHLE line at a higher height, gives the European countries the ability to be having less pillars holding the line up. However, if any of the European countries where to have a hurricane force wind, as we did here in the UK back in 1987. Would the OHLE cable then be such that it could damage local buildings? Possibly, Network Rail is thinking about this with having more pillars to hold up the OHLE line?

 

[Bikeman78]

But, we're talking Network Rail here, aversion to even reasonable risk resulting in massive over-engineering has been the way to go following the Railtrack disaster.

The electrified bits of the GW mainline are Exhibit A.

I've never understood that. When OHL fails, it's not the metal posts that are falling down.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Sometimes, but it's mostly about the principle of the thing - the continuing general failure by GWR to label its stock properly and thus causing doubt/confusion in the minds of passengers and staff alike. It's just a lazy and lax state of affairs. They turned out the 769s as they should be, so why can't they bother with the refurbished Turbos? It smacks of a lack of direction and consistency in the TOC management. BR heads would have rolled, and rightly so.

Might it be that the Turbos were intended, until very recently, to migrate westwards when replaced by the 769s.
Is there any First class on the Devon and Cornwall GWR branches ?

 

[Benjwri]

I've never understood that. When OHL fails, it's not the metal posts that are falling down.

Exactly, at the end of the day it's a metal wire, if you pull it hard enough it'll come down.

 

[RPI]

Might it be that the Turbos were intended, until very recently, to migrate westwards when replaced by the 769s.
Is there any First class on the Devon and Cornwall GWR branches ?

The Turbos aren't cleared for Cornwall, the first is declassified on all of the West routes that turbos are used on.

Though if one strays onto any part of a Penzance-Cardiff diagram (obviously Plymouth northwards) that is booked an IET then I suppose the 1st can be classified

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Though if one strays onto any part of a Penzance-Cardiff diagram (obviously Plymouth northwards) that is booked an IET then I suppose the 1st can be classified

That’s an interesting thought; that hadn’t occurred to me. I reckon that would catch a lot of people out who will be used to never having the sections that were First Class on LTV services as First Class on their local routes, so I hope they’re reasonable should that happen.