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!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!
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.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.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!
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...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
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.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.
They are not cleared on v.5 of the SOC for going east of Maidenhead
Didn't 'Clarence Yard' indicate, albeit some time ago, that they weren't even to be cleared east of Maidenhead?
Did GWR's batch ever have shoes fitted in the first place?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?
Ah, didn't realise that. Thanks for the info.Yes, as several of them were tested on the Brighton Mainline.
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 clearanceAh, didn't realise that. Thanks for the info.
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.
I've had a look, and the third rail shoe was picked up by the driver of 2N36, after being knocked off of 5Q10.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”?
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.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 seem to remember a similar issue when Southern extended their Watford service to Rugby using 319s many years ago.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
Absolutely agree. This is what our social media policies are for. That said, certain tocs' twitter desk handlers often divulge more than they should.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
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…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