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

[norbitonflyer]

Perhaps they've been deemed as more flexible as they can use 3rd rail?

768s were converted from 319s, so refitting the shoes would seem a simpler option if you want a 3rd-rail capable parcels unit..

 

[Anonymous10]

768s were converted from 319s, so refitting the shoes would seem a simpler option if you want a 3rd-rail capable parcels unit..

That's true, unless another operator want them?

 

[mic505]

You could but there’s a couple of very big hoops to jump through:

1) convince ORR of the safety aspects as they have concerns about new third rail. They haven’t said totally no but need a lot to convince them.

2) funding, this will be an even bigger hurdle. Third Rail needs substations to power it, neither of these grow on trees. The Railway isn’t exactly flush at the moment.

3) No plans to put battery packs on GWR's 387's and 800's. So I would assume new trains with third-rail, battery and/or diesel. However battery EMU's would affect performance, reliability and speed issues because of the additional weight on the train.

 

[AM9]

768s were converted from 319s, so refitting the shoes would seem a simpler option if you want a 3rd-rail capable parcels unit..

3) No plans to put battery packs on GWR's 387's and 800's. So I would assume new trains with third-rail, battery and/or diesel. However battery EMU's would affect performance, reliability and speed issues because of the additional weight on the train.

It's not that simple. Any requirement to use a 3rd rail supply would require additional switchgear to prevent the shoes being live when the gensets are running, plus, the ground return cabling between the gensets and the motor car might need modifiying. All this was completed with the 769/9s that GWR was intending to deploy..

 

[wickham]

The two 769s than went to Brodie Kilmarnock were 769922/959 so are different to those two mentioned in MR for parcels use. There are two thoughts as to why they have gone there, but neither have been confirmed: 1) Scotrail apparently needs bimode units for a new service, but currently can only supply diesels and 2) it has been reported that Northern are to diagram all of it's 769s to work after the 319s have left, so will need some maintainance back up. We will see in due course if either of these is true !
Regarding electrification of Wokingham to Ash and Shalford Jcn to Reigate, I understand that there is a complete ban on new third rail electrification on safety grounds. Regarding the use of bimode battery units on this line, they will have to have pretty hefty batteries to deal with the stiff graidients on this line and I believe that this was one of the downfalls of the 769s. Starting away from station stops at various places like Chilworth, Gomshall and Deepdene, which are all on stiff gradients takes a good deal of "umff".
It was a sight and sound to see the DEMUs starting from these places and quite similar today with the 165s, but these make a lot of noise starting from anywhere !

 

[Bald Rick]

You could but there’s a couple of very big hoops to jump through:

1) convince ORR of the safety aspects as they have concerns about new third rail. They haven’t said totally no but need a lot to convince them.

2) funding, this will be an even bigger hurdle. Third Rail needs substations to power it, neither of these grow on trees. The Railway isn’t exactly flush at the moment.

3) No plans to put battery packs on GWR's 387's and 800's. So I would assume new trains with third-rail, battery and/or diesel. However battery EMU's would affect performance, reliability and speed issues because of the additional weight on the train.

4) Some of the track (definitely) and signallign (probably) isn‘t compatible with third rail.

 

[AM9]

4) Some of the track (definitely) and signallign (probably) isn‘t compatible with third rail.

Would that be steel sleepers?

 

[JonathanH]

Would that be steel sleepers?

Yes, as 'Bald Rick' posted nearly ten years ago in a post which suggested the line would never be electrified - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/redhill-reading.103510/#post-1858025

Also, https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/steel-sleepers.95790/page-2#post-1694669

 

[Bikeman78]

Yes, as 'Bald Rick' posted nearly ten years ago in a post which suggested the line would never be electrified - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/redhill-reading.103510/#post-1858025

Also, https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/steel-sleepers.95790/page-2#post-1694669

What is the typical life of a steel sleeper? They are presumably much cheaper than concrete sleepers.

 

[JonathanH]

What is the typical life of a steel sleeper? They are presumably much cheaper than concrete sleepers.

If you look back in the threads, a steel sleepers was more expensive than a concrete sleeper, but could be placed on less ballast so overall worked out cheaper.

 

[D365]

Yes, as 'Bald Rick' posted nearly ten years ago in a post which suggested the line would never be electrified - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/redhill-reading.103510/#post-1858025

Also, https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/steel-sleepers.95790/page-2#post-1694669

Has it ever been suggested that OHLE is impossible?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Would that be steel sleepers?

Pretty sure they haven't relaid in steels on any of the non electrified sections as policy on Southern area was always to use concretes so no issues with future electrification however fanciful that might be.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Has it ever been suggested that OHLE is impossible?

Not impossible, but expensive to install two isolated sections of 25kV and the potential for problems at each of the four changeover points. (Look at gtthe numbver of time pantographs get entangled in the roof of Blackfriars station, and I think tyhe tiunnel mouth at Drayton Park has collected a few as well)
It could be limited to two changeovers if the wires are carried through Guildford (although that would get expensive because of the tunnel south of Guildford station), or just one if you extend them beyond Wokingham to link up with the existing wires at Reading, but signal immunisation is difficult if you have both ac and dc traction current present (track circuits generally use dc in ac territory and vice versa, to avoid interference from the return current in the running rails).

 

[73128]

You could but there’s a couple of very big hoops to jump through:

1) convince ORR of the safety aspects as they have concerns about new third rail. They haven’t said totally no but need a lot to convince them.

2) funding, this will be an even bigger hurdle. Third Rail needs substations to power it, neither of these grow on trees. The Railway isn’t exactly flush at the moment.

There are substations at Dorking (North) and (I recall) somewhere near Farnborough already which are a good start.

In any event the GWR Churchward stock project would I suspect have a batch for dc and diesel (or battery) and perhaos ac too for Gatwick and Portsmouth to Bristol trains.

Not impossible, but expensive to install two isolated sections of 25kV and the potential for problems at each of the four changeover points. (Look at gtthe numbver of time pantographs get entangled in the roof of Blackfriars station, and I think tyhe tiunnel mouth at Drayton Park has collected a few as well)
It could be limited to two changeovers if the wires are carried through Guildford (although that would get expensive because of the tunnel south of Guildford station), or just one if you extend them beyond Wokingham to link up with the existing wires at Reading, but signal immunisation is difficult if you have both ac and dc traction current present (track circuits generally use dc in ac territory and vice versa, to avoid interference from the return current in the running rails).

A short run off extension at Wokingham would probably be acceptable, and perhaps Shalford too.

Not impossible, but expensive to install two isolated sections of 25kV and the potential for problems at each of the four changeover points. (Look at gtthe numbver of time pantographs get entangled in the roof of Blackfriars station, and I think tyhe tiunnel mouth at Drayton Park has collected a few as well)
It could be limited to two changeovers if the wires are carried through Guildford (although that would get expensive because of the tunnel south of Guildford station), or just one if you extend them beyond Wokingham to link up with the existing wires at Reading, but signal immunisation is difficult if you have both ac and dc traction current present (track circuits generally use dc in ac territory and vice versa, to avoid interference from the return current in the running rails).

A short run off extension at Wokingham would probably be acceptable, and perhaps Shalford too.

 

[AM9]

There are substations at Dorking (North) and (I recall) somewhere near Farnborough already which are a good start.

In any event the GWR Churchward stock project would I suspect have a batch for dc and diesel (or battery) and perhaos ac too for Gatwick and Portsmouth to Bristol trains.


A short run off extension at Wokingham would probably be acceptable, and perhaps Shalford too.


A short run off extension at Wokingham would probably be acceptable, and perhaps Shalford too.

Still no acknowledging the safety case here then?

 

[Fincra5]

Still no acknowledging the safety case here then?

Whilst there is one, same as there would be for AC, doesn't mean it can't be done.
There's little to no point not infilling 3rd Rail Islands due to the slim chance of an incident involving the CRE.

 

[Dan G]

If GWR's 769s had been introduced, how many 16xs would that have released?

Whilst there is one, same as there would be for AC, doesn't mean it can't be done.
There's little to no point not infilling 3rd Rail Islands due to the slim chance of an incident involving the CRE.

You can step on a third rail. To get close enough to OHLE to be killed you have to try pretty hard. For that reason new third rail is very unlikely (never) going to be installed. Sticking batteries under trains is far cheaper anyway.

 

[norbitonflyer]

If GWR's 769s had been introduced, how many 16xs would that have released?

There were going to be nineteen of them, so presumably at least nineteen 16xs would have been released - probably more, as a single 4-car 769 could replace 2x2car 165s (or, at a pinch, a 2+3 pairing).

 

[Clarence Yard]

There were going to be nineteen of them, so presumably at least nineteen 16xs would have been released - probably more, as a single 4-car 769 could replace 2x2car 165s (or, at a pinch, a 2+3 pairing).

The original plan for the 759 units was that they would release all 16 of the 165/1 3 cars to the west. Post Crossrail, all London area Turbos operated single diagrams, so no 1 x 769 for 2 x Turbo release opportunities existed.

 

[Wyrleybart]

You can step on a third rail. To get close enough to OHLE to be killed you have to try pretty hard. For that reason new third rail is very unlikely (never) going to be installed. Sticking batteries under trains is far cheaper anyway.

Haven't London Transport recently (or about to) laid some brand new third rail to Battersea ?

 

[Snow1964]

There are substations at Dorking (North) and (I recall) somewhere near Farnborough already which are a good start.

From memory there is also something in Frimley area, might even be disconnected switchgear from days when Sturt Lane spur existed

In any event the GWR Churchward stock project would I suspect have a batch for dc and diesel (or battery) and perhaos ac too for Gatwick and Portsmouth to Bristol trains.

You would probably also need to also need the short section from Dorchester junction to station too, to allow same stock on Bristol-Weymouth trains. Without it, going to have to take the 25kv further towards Frome to avoid problems with battery range.

A short run off extension at Wokingham would probably be acceptable, and perhaps Shalford too.

There is strong case for short third rail extensions on approach tracks, rather than run off. The basis being that battery trains might be stopped at junction approach signal, and if stopped, better to change system there, especially if can accelerate faster on line power than batteries. Only needs to be about 150m before junction signal, even the back set of a double unit would have a shoe on third rail.

Actually some of them would not be new, if you look at older photos of junctions, SR often took third rail beyond a crossover, so electric trains could reverse in emergencies, so in some locations it is more a case of just putting some third rail back, rather than laying it for first time.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Haven't London Transport recently (or about to) laid some brand new third rail to Battersea ?

I think laying third rail in a tunnel is rather different!

There is strong case for short third rail extensions on approach tracks, rather than run off.

I think the runoff extensions suggested were for extending the knitting to a point where the overheight detection system has time to operate and drop the pantograph before it hits an overhead structure (as does not happen at Blackfriars!). The problem at Shalford would be that it would require extending the wires through the tunnel immediately south of Guildford station, which would mean lowering the track (which may be aflood risk, as the River Wey is nearby) or raising the roof.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Haven't London Transport recently (or about to) laid some brand new third rail to Battersea ?

1. London Transport (as London Regional Transport, LRT) was abolished in 2000.
2. London Transport [sic] does not use third rail
3. The Battersea extension opened in September 2021 using fourth rail.
4. As already mentioned, the risk profile around third/fourth rail is very different for (tube) tunnel applications versus open sections.

 

[Dan G]

The original plan for the 759 units was that they would release all 16 of the 165/1 3 cars to the west. Post Crossrail, all London area Turbos operated single diagrams, so no 1 x 769 for 2 x Turbo release opportunities existed.

Would have made such a big, positive, improvement to Devon metro and Cardiff-Portsmouth

C'est la vie

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Would have made such a big, positive, improvement to Devon metro and Cardiff-Portsmouth

C'est la vie

Yes, not for the North Downs though. No line deserves any form of 319, especially not one serving Surrey

 

[Class15]

Yes, not for the North Downs though. No line deserves any form of 319, especially not one serving Surrey

But the 769s were going to be longer than the Turbos…

 

[D6130]

Yes, not for the North Downs though. No line deserves any form of 319, especially not one serving Surrey

Why not? It would give the entitled, self-assured residents of Surrey a taste of what we have to put up with 'oop North'! (Wink!). And don't forget....the 319s served Surrey - and Sussex - well for many years on Thameslink routes.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Why not? It would give the entitled, self-assured residents of Surrey a taste of what we have to put up with 'oop North'! (Wink!). And don't forget....the 319s served Surrey - and Sussex - well for many years on Thameslink routes.

Obviously I was only saying it tongue in cheek, as a way of saying keep them well away from me (loathsome trains)

It is a big shame though that the capacity was not gained for the Devon Metro and Bristol area, where it’s certainly needed.

 

[RPI]

Would have made such a big, positive, improvement to Devon metro and Cardiff-Portsmouth

C'est la vie

It certainly would, though I seem to recall that it would have sent some or all of the 150's off lease?

 

[Express380]

It certainly would, though I seem to recall that it would have sent some or all of the 150's off lease?

Wouldn't be all because of the Cornish Branches particually Gunnislake,Looe,Newquay