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

[Senna1210]

AWS issue so returned to depot

 

[IronHorse]

Try again on the 28th...

Realtime Trains - 531F 1133 Reading Traincare Depot to Reading Traincare Depot

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Senna1210]

769946 running tomorrow

 

[Roger B]

769946 running tomorrow

Presumably no 769s have been accepted for service yet, as testing is still continuing, and mileage accumulation / FFR is outstanding. Anyone know when these are due to commence? Some driver training will also have to have taken place prior to FFR - a prerequisite being agreement with unions / fitment of cab AC. I wouldn't have thought it would be sustainable for FFR trips to be driven solely by management grades - and it would seriously slow things down further - and progress seems pretty glacial now!

 

[FGW_DID]

Presumably no 769s have been accepted for service yet, as testing is still continuing, and mileage accumulation / FFR is outstanding. Anyone know when these are due to commence? Some driver training will also have to have taken place prior to FFR - a prerequisite being agreement with unions / fitment of cab AC. I wouldn't have thought it would be sustainable for FFR trips to be driven solely by management grades - and it would seriously slow things down further - and progress seems pretty glacial now!

FFR trips are being done by Colas drivers.

 

[43102EMR]

Presumably no 769s have been accepted for service yet, as testing is still continuing, and mileage accumulation / FFR is outstanding. Anyone know when these are due to commence? Some driver training will also have to have taken place prior to FFR - a prerequisite being agreement with unions / fitment of cab AC. I wouldn't have thought it would be sustainable for FFR trips to be driven solely by management grades - and it would seriously slow things down further - and progress seems pretty glacial now!

There is some hope with the TfW ones being in mainline service and the Northern ones to follow at the May TTC - then again, they’ve both had longer to iron out any issues whereas GWR have only just received their first few. Let’s just hope that further issues don’t delay their introduction even further.

 

[JonathanH]

Presumably no 769s have been accepted for service yet, as testing is still continuing, and mileage accumulation / FFR is outstanding. Anyone know when these are due to commence? Some driver training will also have to have taken place prior to FFR - a prerequisite being agreement with unions / fitment of cab AC. I wouldn't have thought it would be sustainable for FFR trips to be driven solely by management grades - and it would seriously slow things down further - and progress seems pretty glacial now!

There is already comment in this thread that it is unlikely that any GWR 769s would be in passenger service before the autumn.

 

[palmersears]

Try again on the 28th...

Realtime Trains - 531F 1133 Reading Traincare Depot to Reading Traincare Depot

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Looks like this made it as far as the first reversal at Maidenhead, then gave up. It's still there now, and a 1Z99 has just come up behind it from Reading on Railcam maps then disappeared...

 

[JN114]

The original set sustained some damage in the Slough area, reportedly shoegear impacting trackside furniture, which caused other complications so set limped back to Maidenhead where it was rescued back to Reading by another 769.

Slough wasn’t in the original schedule for the test run, it’s not completely clear why the train continued on to Slough from Maidenhead.

 

[spark001uk]

Yes I noticed it showed a report at Slough, I didn't believe it initially so I checked openrail and it appears as though it did. Strange.

 

[JonathanH]

The original set sustained some damage in the Slough area, reportedly shoegear impacting trackside furniture, which caused other complications so set limped back to Maidenhead where it was rescued back to Reading by another 769.

Slough wasn’t in the original schedule for the test run, it’s not completely clear why the train continued on to Slough from Maidenhead.

Didn't 'Clarence Yard' indicate, albeit some time ago, that they weren't even to be cleared east of Maidenhead? Was there an infrastructure problem that necessitated going to Slough to turn back? I assume that the initial delay at Maidenhead was for access to platform 5 whilst the Marlow service used the platform.

They are not cleared on v.5 of the SOC for going east of Maidenhead

 

[Non Multi]

Time to put up some instructions at Maidenhead...

 

[spark001uk]

Must've been given the road to continue east though?

 

[JN114]

Didn't 'Clarence Yard' indicate, albeit some time ago, that they weren't even to be cleared east of Maidenhead?

Indeed, the last paperwork I saw still had Maidenhead as the current limit of clearance. But that was paperwork issued to GWR and while they’re ultimately destined to be our units, these runs aren’t really anything to do with GWR from an operational standpoint. It’s entirely possible for them to be running under different route clearance certificate with the test train operator.

To address the wider point - Whether Maidenhead ends up the permanent limit of route clearance; I mean I won’t overtly contradict CY as they’re much more into the weeds of the longer term future etc than I am - but from an ops perspective it’d be... short-sighted if that’s a fair expression.

 

[spark001uk]

One assumes it was a good job the shoes were removed from the 387s then, if there's obstacles they'd hit.?

 

[py_megapixel]

One assumes it was a good job the shoes were removed from the 387s then, if there's obstacles they'd hit.?

Did GWR's batch ever have shoes fitted in the first place?

 

[fgwrich]

Did GWR's batch ever have shoes fitted in the first place?

Yes, as several of them were tested on the Brighton Mainline.

 

[py_megapixel]

Yes, as several of them were tested on the Brighton Mainline.

Ah, didn't realise that. Thanks for the info.

 

[aleggatta]

Ah, didn't realise that. Thanks for the info.

Shoes on a 387 are air operated and raised out of the way when not in use, they are not retractable on 319s so form part of the route clearance

 

[Mag_seven]

But that was paperwork issued to GWR and while they’re ultimately destined to be our units, these runs aren’t really anything to do with GWR from an operational standpoint. It’s entirely possible for them to be running under different route clearance certificate with the test train operator.

Given the shoe allegedly hit something there will be questions asked regardless of whether they were cleared to run east of Maidenhead or not.

 

[fgwrich]

Given the shoe allegedly hit something there will be questions asked regardless of whether they were cleared to run east of Maidenhead or not.

I have to admit, it also doesn't fill me with much confidence that, after knocking its shoes off on a section no-where near the 3rd rail, it then went on to fail and require rescuing by another unit. While these issues can be ironed out in testing, they've got a lot to prove themselves in service with!

 

[Senna1210]

as far as i know the unit was not cleared beyond maidenhead but was sent to slough by xxx the unit clipped something on the way into slough(poss ballast) and on the road back towards maidenhead it hit something and removed all its shoes on one side causing quite alot of damage to the unit hence why it had to be rescued
Rescue vehicle 769930 recoved it back without a hitch

 

[JN114]

If that is a confirmation of the shoegear issue then that’s unsurprising in a sense, in so much as far as I’m concerned the unit would be out of gauge east of Maidenhead; so at least the “failure” isn’t a 769 issue per se, more of an operational incident. Still not great and I guess will further set the test plan back while whatever damage is done is repaired, but it’s not GU issues or a fundamental 769 issue.

I would, and indeed personally have tried to, avoid pointing fingers anywhere, particularly in such a public setting. While collectively I think we’ve established amongst our own understanding that Maidenhead is the limit of clearance; I don’t think anyone here is in possession of the actual test plan and gauging certificate applicable to today’s runs, which may well have allowed the train to be run to Slough. “xxxx sent the train” is a very strong allegation to be making in a setting where evidence cannot be shared.

I’m sure relevant parties will undertake a full investigation but really feel this sub-thread of the conversation needs a line drawing under at this point. Anything any of us put is only speculation and serves little to no benefit.

As to loss of shoegear causing further damage - it’s not totally outlandish. The detached shoegear is then a further out-of-gauge obstruction that could go on to snag cables, pipe work etc. The train did get back to Maidenhead under its own power (presumably on AC?) so although it needed rescuing perhaps that was only for “insurance”?

 

[Dren Ahmeti]

If that is a confirmation of the shoegear issue then that’s unsurprising in a sense, in so much as far as I’m concerned the unit would be out of gauge east of Maidenhead; so at least the “failure” isn’t a 769 issue per se, more of an operational incident. Still not great and I guess will further set the test plan back while whatever damage is done is repaired, but it’s not GU issues or a fundamental 769 issue.

I would, and indeed personally have tried to, avoid pointing fingers anywhere, particularly in such a public setting. While collectively I think we’ve established amongst our own understanding that Maidenhead is the limit of clearance; I don’t think anyone here is in possession of the actual test plan and gauging certificate applicable to today’s runs, which may well have allowed the train to be run to Slough. “xxxx sent the train” is a very strong allegation to be making in a setting where evidence cannot be shared.

I’m sure relevant parties will undertake a full investigation but really feel this sub-thread of the conversation needs a line drawing under at this point. Anything any of us put is only speculation and serves little to no benefit.

As to loss of shoegear causing further damage - it’s not totally outlandish. The detached shoegear is then a further out-of-gauge obstruction that could go on to snag cables, pipe work etc. The train did get back to Maidenhead under its own power (presumably on AC?) so although it needed rescuing perhaps that was only for “insurance”?

I've had a look, and the third rail shoe was picked up by the driver of 2N36, after being knocked off of 5Q10.

The working theory was that the train hit a length of rail in the 6ft, but P-way found no evidence of this.

 

[Wyrleybart]

If that is a confirmation of the shoegear issue then that’s unsurprising in a sense, in so much as far as I’m concerned the unit would be out of gauge east of Maidenhead; so at least the “failure” isn’t a 769 issue per se, more of an operational incident. Still not great and I guess will further set the test plan back while whatever damage is done is repaired, but it’s not GU issues or a fundamental 769 issue.

I would, and indeed personally have tried to, avoid pointing fingers anywhere, particularly in such a public setting. While collectively I think we’ve established amongst our own understanding that Maidenhead is the limit of clearance; I don’t think anyone here is in possession of the actual test plan and gauging certificate applicable to today’s runs, which may well have allowed the train to be run to Slough. “xxxx sent the train” is a very strong allegation to be making in a setting where evidence cannot be shared.

I’m sure relevant parties will undertake a full investigation but really feel this sub-thread of the conversation needs a line drawing under at this point. Anything any of us put is only speculation and serves little to no benefit.

As to loss of shoegear causing further damage - it’s not totally outlandish. The detached shoegear is then a further out-of-gauge obstruction that could go on to snag cables, pipe work etc. The train did get back to Maidenhead under its own power (presumably on AC?) so although it needed rescuing perhaps that was only for “insurance”?

You speak very wisely and are of course absolutely correct. There is stuff that happens on the railway which does not need to be in the public domain at all As an employee of another TOC I have publicly observed the genesis of the 769 and struggle with some of it, but there is obviously a great deal of testing and development, particularly as the /9 variant are significantly more complex.

 

[St. Paddy]

The loss of shoes isn’t unusual. GTR had the same issue with 700s between Royston and Cambridge. Much scrap rail was removed and considerable ballast shoulder reprofiling had to be done prior to further testing

 

[northernbelle]

If that is a confirmation of the shoegear issue then that’s unsurprising in a sense, in so much as far as I’m concerned the unit would be out of gauge east of Maidenhead; so at least the “failure” isn’t a 769 issue per se, more of an operational incident. Still not great and I guess will further set the test plan back while whatever damage is done is repaired, but it’s not GU issues or a fundamental 769 issue.

I would, and indeed personally have tried to, avoid pointing fingers anywhere, particularly in such a public setting. While collectively I think we’ve established amongst our own understanding that Maidenhead is the limit of clearance; I don’t think anyone here is in possession of the actual test plan and gauging certificate applicable to today’s runs, which may well have allowed the train to be run to Slough. “xxxx sent the train” is a very strong allegation to be making in a setting where evidence cannot be shared.

I’m sure relevant parties will undertake a full investigation but really feel this sub-thread of the conversation needs a line drawing under at this point. Anything any of us put is only speculation and serves little to no benefit.

As to loss of shoegear causing further damage - it’s not totally outlandish. The detached shoegear is then a further out-of-gauge obstruction that could go on to snag cables, pipe work etc. The train did get back to Maidenhead under its own power (presumably on AC?) so although it needed rescuing perhaps that was only for “insurance”?

Hear, hear.

 

[43096]

The loss of shoes isn’t unusual. GTR had the same issue with 700s between Royston and Cambridge. Much scrap rail was removed and considerable ballast shoulder reprofiling had to be done prior to further testing

I seem to remember a similar issue when Southern extended their Watford service to Rugby using 319s many years ago.

 

[spark001uk]

You speak very wisely and are of course absolutely correct. There is stuff that happens on the railway which does not need to be in the public domain at all

Absolutely agree. This is what our social media policies are for. That said, certain tocs' twitter desk handlers often divulge more than they should.
Anyway, back on track, is there any news on the extent of the damage to 946 yet? Is it just the shoes or has it broken mounts etc?

 

[swt_passenger]

The loss of shoes isn’t unusual. GTR had the same issue with 700s between Royston and Cambridge. Much scrap rail was removed and considerable ballast shoulder reprofiling had to be done prior to further testing

I was thinking of that yesterday, and of course they were new trains so no-one used it as a criticism of the actual stock…