Transport for Wales 769's

[PHILIPE]

It just isn’t better to transport rail vehicles by road. There can’t possibly be any lines where a standard Mk3 body shell isn’t route cleared, after it was used prolifically by BR for vehicles built in the 80s. Has nothing Mk3 based ever run through the Severn Tunnel since it was built and is there any documentation anywhere which states that it would be breached and flood if one was to?

The Severn Tunnel was mentioned by myself but only as a hypothetical example and not as a fact.

 

[AM9]

The Severn Tunnel was mentioned by myself but only as a hypothetical example and not as a fact.

507020's response is hypothetical as well. Route clearance covers a lot more than whether there are holes through which a trains may not clear. Clearance for a specific move can require a lot more, e.g. a path, overnight stabling locations if necessary, a loco to haul the consist fitted with the correct coupling, braking load vehicles, driver(s) and maybe other things. Whilst I agree that it looks bad for the railway to use road transport, with a commmercial railway, and responsibilities placed on private companies (Porterbrook/Wabtec in this case), decisions are made on marginal costs, - such is the 'benefit' of a privatised railway.

 

[Grumpy Git]

507020's response is hypothetical as well. Route clearance covers a lot more than whether there are holes through which a trains may not clear. Clearance for a specific move can require a lot more, e.g. a path, overnight stabling locations if necessary, a loco to haul the consist fitted with the correct coupling, braking load vehicles, driver(s) and maybe other things. Whilst I agree that it looks bad for the railway to use road transport, with a commmercial railway, and responsibilities placed on private companies (Porterbrook/Wabtec in this case), decisions are made on marginal costs, - such is the 'benefit' of a privatised railway.

I'm taking my van for an MOT tomorrow and if I can get GBR to re-introduce "Motorail", I think I'll have it done in Inverness.

 

[konstant]

If 769s aren't cleared through the Severn Tunnel they bloody well should be, especially given the rumour about the potential SWA-BRI service. They are effectively a 150 with different engines, funny valances and with non functioning shoebeam brackets which could have been removed.

The fact that it might be cheaper to move rail vehicles by road should not be the reason, simply because the haulier and owner are importing risk when manoeuvring these things through crowded streets as well as A roads and motorways.

That fact that a 57 managed to tow one of the first deliveries to Cardiff by rail - apparently without any bits of railway being scraped tells us everything.

I think 445 or 452 night stopped at Rhymney and worked back to Cardiff, then probably onto the shed.

Two out of the nine in traffic today is a disgrace

Whilst your intentions are clearly meaning well, the reality is that to the average outsider the reasons for needing a road move are not obvious at first glance, but that doesn't mean it isn't required.

When a 769 arrives at Canton post-Flex, it is generaly in a condition where the systems haven't been fired up in 4/5 years, the interior is torn out or a state at best, the inter-vehicle connections are all in a state of distress and as a rule, the unit isn't remotely fit to move by rail. Each unit is reassembled close to Cardiff Canton and then spends around a day being moved a short distance into the depot. It isn't about cost as to why this is done this way - as a rule it's significantly more expensive. However, the risk is far more controlled and the operational ability to deliver the movement is far higher than any other alternative options. There is a significant (read, many months) amount of work to be done when the unit arrives in Canton - first by Pullman and their sub-contractors, then to TfW and their subcontractors, before the unit is even touched by a TfW man. The actual reality is that the units are shipped by road as they're nothing more than part complete and still have a significant labour journey to go before they're ready for anything more than a low speed drag from the Brickyard to Canton.

There is genuinely no benefit whatsoever to moving them by rail at this stage. For what it's worth, in a past life I used to move mainline rail vehicles frequently by road as it was significantly faster and cheaper - this is just one of those quirks of business management and if people can't understand that then.. fair enough. There are often a vast array of reasons for this and it's probably best to not let emotion get the better of you when trying to understand why rail operators use road transport. In short, we balance risk, cost and availability of resource to achieve the right outcome, and the "Moving by rail because it's a railway vehicle" card is rarely one that's pulled out.

 

[Caaardiff]

If 769s aren't cleared through the Severn Tunnel they bloody well should be, especially given the rumour about the potential SWA-BRI service. They are effectively a 150 with different engines, funny valances and with non functioning shoebeam brackets which could have been removed.

The fact that it might be cheaper to move rail vehicles by road should not be the reason, simply because the haulier and owner are importing risk when manoeuvring these things through crowded streets as well as A roads and motorways.

That fact that a 57 managed to tow one of the first deliveries to Cardiff by rail - apparently without any bits of railway being scraped tells us everything.

I think 445 or 452 night stopped at Rhymney and worked back to Cardiff, then probably onto the shed.

Two out of the nine in traffic today is a disgrace

The things can't currently reliably get through Caerphilly tunnel, never mind an underwater 4 mile tunnel!
There's a major difference between a 150 and a 769. A 4 car 150 has 4 engines, a 4 car 769 has 2 engines. The rescue procedures for a 769 would also make many people a bit twitchy.

As for the SWA-BRI rumour, it's likely a long way off, and is still only a rumour. TfW need to get their current route network in order first with the introduction of all the new fleets, as well as frequency increases and introduction of Cardiff - Liverpool.
According to the original Keolis Franchise plan, the 769's were due to leave by Q2 2022. Whether that is still the case remains to be seen. The tri-modes aren't due to arrive until Q2 2023, so it's likely once the Metro vehicles arrive that 150's will return to the Rhymney line to allow to the 769s to go elsewhere (hopefully a long way away!)

 

[Adlee Turner]

No photo unfortunately but 769452 is heading back to Canton being dragged another Class 769. Just saw it passing through Pontlottyn as 5Z55

 

[PHILIPE]

No photo unfortunately but 769452 is heading back to Canton being dragged another Class 769. Just saw it passing through Pontlottyn as 5Z55

A round trip between Cardiff Cen and Bargoed has been cancelled in order to provide a path

 

[AdamWW]

A round trip between Cardiff Cen and Bargoed has been cancelled in order to provide a path

According to Realtimetrains, it seems that it's being followed by a 37 (I assume) as 0Z37.

 

[Cardiff123]

According to the original Keolis Franchise plan, the 769's were due to leave by Q2 2022. Whether that is still the case remains to be seen. The tri-modes aren't due to arrive until Q2 2023, so it's likely once the Metro vehicles arrive that 150's will return to the Rhymney line to allow to the 769s to go elsewhere (hopefully a long way away!)

Well they don't need to go too far tbh, SIMS Newport is close enough

 

[66050]

Photos of the 8 car 769

 

[_toommm_]

769445 has failed at Llanbradach with a few trains stuck behind it.

1Z99 has been sent from Rhymney to rescue it (hopefully without the 5moh restriction).

 

[PHILIPE]

Another disaster on the Rhymney Valley line this afternoon with 2D14 1407 Penarth to Bargoed following the failure of 769445 at Ystrad Mynach South necessitating another rescue mission by Thunderbird 37418. Hauled to Ystrad Mynach where it terminated 147 minutes late.
Everything else on stop during this time. Following the previous 769 failures on the route one wonders how long the situation continues.

 

[Class360/1]

Another disaster on the Rhymney Valley line this afternoon with 2D14 1407 Penarth to Bargoed following the failure of 769445 at Ystrad Mynach South necessitating another rescue mission by Thunderbird 37418. Hauled to Ystrad Mynach where it terminated 147 minutes late.
Everything else on stop during this time. Following the previous 769 failures on the route one wonders how long the situation continues.

Oh my not again!

 

[6Gman]

It just isn’t better to transport rail vehicles by road. There can’t possibly be any lines where a standard Mk3 body shell isn’t route cleared, after it was used prolifically by BR for vehicles built in the 80s. Has nothing Mk3 based ever run through the Severn Tunnel since it was built and is there any documentation anywhere which states that it would be breached and flood if one was to?

I assume "the railway" doesn't do it (move rail vehicles by road) simply to annoy people on here, so I must assume they do it because it is "better" in some way.

Such as . . . cheaper, or more practical/convenient.

 

[507020]

I assume "the railway" doesn't do it (move rail vehicles by road) simply to annoy people on here, so I must assume they do it because it is "better" in some way.

Such as . . . cheaper, or more practical/convenient.

My mind has already it been changed on this since I posted it by @konstant’s very informative post. While it is not “better” to move rail vehicles by road, whatever that means, it is not “beneficial” either. Either option may be faster, cheaper or more convenient depending on other circumstances and one is chosen over the other as appropriate. I’m sure you’ll be glad to know I am no longer annoyed.

 

[Cardiff123]

Following the previous 769 failures on the route one wonders how long the situation continues.

Indeed, when do TfW say to Porterbrook "enough is enough"? 6 of the 769s are supposed to be out in service every day, yet 2 or 3 seems to be the maximum they can get out, some days just 1. Even then the 769s that they do get out can't last in service all day and are frequently failing, causing enormous disruption.

The only solution I can think of instead of 769s is TfW taking on the 153s from elsewhere that are being sent off-lease until the Flirts arrive, or until enough 150s can be cascaded from other routes in Wales by 197s/230s. I'd say TfW have a pretty strong case for getting PRM exemptions for any off-lease 153s they could secure.
The 769 plan is clearly a complete failure for TfW, the current situation surely isn't sustainable much longer.

 

[Class360/1]

Indeed, when do TfW say to Porterbrook "enough is enough"? 6 of the 769s are supposed to be out in service every day, yet 2 or 3 seems to be the maximum they can get out, some days just 1. Even then the 769s that they do get out can't last in service all day and are frequently failing, causing enormous disruption.
The only solution I can think of instead of 769s is TfW taking on the 153s from elsewhere that are being sent off-lease until the Flirts arrive, or enough 150s can be cascaded from other routes in Wales by 197s/230s. I'd say TfW have a pretty strong case for getting PRM exemptions for any off-lease 153s they could secure.
The 769 plan is clearly a complete failure for TfW, the current situation surely isn't sustainable much longer.

I agree, just look at the 37 going 5mph to rescue a 769 that had failed for what feels like the millionth time. The situation cannot continue for much longer.

TFW need to stand up to Porterbrook and say, ‘hold up, why is this happening?’

To summarise the project in one word, ‘a disappointment’.

To summarise the situation in one word, ‘untenable’

 

[Caaardiff]

Indeed, when do TfW say to Porterbrook "enough is enough"? 6 of the 769s are supposed to be out in service every day, yet 2 or 3 seems to be the maximum they can get out, some days just 1. Even then the 769s that they do get out can't last in service all day and are frequently failing, causing enormous disruption.

The only solution I can think of instead of 769s is TfW taking on the 153s from elsewhere that are being sent off-lease until the Flirts arrive, or until enough 150s can be cascaded from other routes in Wales by 197s/230s. I'd say TfW have a pretty strong case for getting PRM exemptions for any off-lease 153s they could secure.
The 769 plan is clearly a complete failure for TfW, the current situation surely isn't sustainable much longer.

Internal comms still say they are confident work behind the scenes is still on going to get them up to scratch ready for Sept timetable change.
Reality appears to be somewhat different to that optimism.
It also means maintenance resources being ploughed into work on these 769s slowing down keeping the rest of the fleet out and working.

153's are very likely the only option. It seems no other operators are getting rid of 150's or even 158's any time soon. Additional 153's without PRM mods could at least attach to a 2 car 150 to provide a 3 car for needed extra capacity. There is absolutely no hope of going back to full December timetable change, even Septembers timetable change is doubtful without the required number of 769s.

The other option is to delay current refurbs. I'm sure passengers would prefer an actual train that's a bit grubby and in different colours rather than be crammed in because 5 trains are out of service getting a lovely new paint job. The 153 and 175 program should at least be done by the end of the year. Although there's the 4 from Angel trains that will have the writing on the wall unless dispensation is granted. Am i right in thinking these 4 are only in use and have dispensation until December this year?

 

[PHILIPE]

Internal comms still say they are confident work behind the scenes is still on going to get them up to scratch ready for Sept timetable change.
Reality appears to be somewhat different to that optimism.
It also means maintenance resources being ploughed into work on these 769s slowing down keeping the rest of the fleet out and working.

153's are very likely the only option. It seems no other operators are getting rid of 150's or even 158's any time soon. Additional 153's without PRM mods could at least attach to a 2 car 150 to provide a 3 car for needed extra capacity. There is absolutely no hope of going back to full December timetable change, even Septembers timetable change is doubtful without the required number of 769s.

The other option is to delay current refurbs. I'm sure passengers would prefer an actual train that's a bit grubby and in different colours rather than be crammed in because 5 trains are out of service getting a lovely new paint job. The 153 and 175 program should at least be done by the end of the year. Although there's the 4 from Angel trains that will have the writing on the wall unless dispensation is granted. Am i right in thinking these 4 are only in use and have dispensation until December this year?

The 4 Angel 153s can run until the end of the year and just work round with the Porterbrook ones

 

[43096]

The 4 Angel 153s can run until the end of the year and just work round with the Porterbrook ones

Which four 153s are those? As far as I'm aware there are NO Angel 153s left with TfW. All nine were sold to TfW, along with 153302/374 a few months ago.

 

[Cardiff123]

Internal comms still say they are confident work behind the scenes is still on going to get them up to scratch ready for Sept timetable change.
Reality appears to be somewhat different to that optimism.
It also means maintenance resources being ploughed into work on these 769s slowing down keeping the rest of the fleet out and working.

153's are very likely the only option. It seems no other operators are getting rid of 150's or even 158's any time soon. Additional 153's without PRM mods could at least attach to a 2 car 150 to provide a 3 car for needed extra capacity. There is absolutely no hope of going back to full December timetable change, even Septembers timetable change is doubtful without the required number of 769s.

TfW may just about get away with the kind of disruption we are seeing every few days in August, but next month when many people might be returning to the office for the first time in over 18 months, it won't get away with it. Imagine the scenes when the (hypothetical) 07.30 from Rhymney sits down at Caerphilly and won't move every other morning, putting everything on stop. Angry stranded passengers regularly late for work, and a PR disaster for TfW. The 769s also have never been tested when they might be full and standing.
Replacement buses will need to be run alongside the 769s every morning and evening just in case it breaks down, ready to pick up passengers en route without delay.

I was thinking 153s on their own in a 2 or 3 car formation as direct replacements for the 769s, not as an add on to 150s. Steal 150s from elsewhere (most likely from Taff Valley services) for Penarth - Rhymney services and that just causes even more problems, with TfW having to run everything as two carriages for the forseeable future.

 

[AM9]

TfW may just about get away with the kind of disruption we are seeing every few days in August, but next month when many people might be returning to the office for the first time in over 18 months, it won't get away with it. Imagine the scenes when the (hypothetical) 07.30 from Rhymney sits down at Caerphilly and won't move every other morning, putting everything on stop. Angry stranded passengers regularly late for work, and a PR disaster for TfW. The 769s also have never been tested when they might be full and standing.
Replacement buses will need to be run alongside the 769s every morning and evening just in case it breaks down, ready to pick up passengers en route without delay.

I was thinking 153s on their own in a 2 or 3 car formation as direct replacements for the 769s, not as an add on to 150s. Steal 150s from elsewhere (most likely from Taff Valley services) for Penarth - Rhymney services and that just causes even more problems, with TfW having to run everything as two carriages for the forseeable future.

TfW must be doing something wrong with their maintenance and/or driving of 769s. Both Northern and GWR have been running them with far few failures. The TfW sets are diesel only so they don't even have the changeover failure modes to cause problems.

 

[Grumpy Git]

TfW must be doing something wrong with their maintenance and/or driving of 769s.

Yes, heading north towards Rhymney every morning instead of to Newport.

 

[craigybagel]

TfW must be doing something wrong with their maintenance and/or driving of 769s. Both Northern and GWR have been running them with far few failures. The TfW sets are diesel only so they don't even have the changeover failure modes to cause problems.

Bear in mind the GWR sets still haven't actually entered passenger service yet, and Northerns have hardly been a benchmark of reliability. Also, I would suggest that Bolton - Southport (the section where Northerns units normally run on diesel) is a lot more flat and less demanding on the train than Rhymney - Penarth.

 

[AM9]

Bear in mind the GWR sets still haven't actually entered passenger service yet, and Northerns have hardly been a benchmark of reliability. Also, I would suggest that Bolton - Southport (the section where Northerns units normally run on diesel) is a lot more flat and less demanding on the train than Rhymney - Penarth.

I don't think that the terrain is as big a thing as some are implying. The motors are capable of starting a fully loaded train on a 1:29 gradient, (as they did until they were replaced on Thameslink). They were also driven at linespeeds up to 80mph between stations on a stopping service with stops every 5 minutes. Now consider their current operation, the prime power comes from new current design compliant diesel engines and three-phase generators. Lower power, but that only accounts for slower acceleration but the ageing motors get a much easier job as the electronic traction control keeps them well within their normal operating range.
Until we know what the nature of the failures are, there's no reason to think that their operational environment is actually causing more failures.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Bear in mind the GWR sets still haven't actually entered passenger service yet, and Northerns have hardly been a benchmark of reliability. Also, I would suggest that Bolton - Southport (the section where Northerns units normally run on diesel) is a lot more flat and less demanding on the train than Rhymney - Penarth.

Rhymney to Penarth shouldn’t be a problem, but going back might be!

 

[Caaardiff]

Until we know what the nature of the failures are, there's no reason to think that their operational environment is actually causing more failures.

Mainly loss of power or one of the 2 engines cutting out and going into limp mode.
The exact cause of the loss of power I'm not sure of and unless there's anyone here that works on them, I doubt we'll find out.

 

[craigybagel]

I don't think that the terrain is as big a thing as some are implying. The motors are capable of starting a fully loaded train on a 1:29 gradient, (as they did until they were replaced on Thameslink). They were also driven at linespeeds up to 80mph between stations on a stopping service with stops every 5 minutes. Now consider their current operation, the prime power comes from new current design compliant diesel engines and three-phase generators. Lower power, but that only accounts for slower acceleration but the ageing motors get a much easier job as the electronic traction control keeps them well within their normal operating range.

Less demand on the motors maybe, but still a hefty demand on the diesel engines.

Until we know what the nature of the failures are, there's no reason to think that their operational environment is actually causing more failures.

And yet you previously suggested that it must be TfW doing something wrong with how they maintained or drove the trains?

Rhymney to Penarth shouldn’t be a problem, but going back might be!

Rhymney to Cogan Junction maybe. The branch to Penarth is a very steep climb almost throughout.

These units might not have to deal with hauling crush loads up the steep bit from City Thameslink to Blackfriars any more that so often is quoted, but they're doing much longer periods of sustained climbing, day in day out (at least when they're working anyway). This is by no means an easy semi retirement.

 

[PHILIPE]

Which four 153s are those? As far as I'm aware there are NO Angel 153s left with TfW. All nine were sold to TfW, along with 153302/374 a few months ago.

The Angel ones were 153918, 153968, 153972 and 153982. I don't know whether TFW have actually bought any yet or whether they stiill on lease. It has been announced that TFW will be buying 8 x 153s for the future

 

[43096]

The Angel ones were 153918, 153968, 153972 and 153982. I don't know whether TFW have actually bought any yet or whether they stiill on lease. It has been announced that TFW will be buying 8 x 153s for the future

Those four have been bought by TfW as part of the 11 mentioned previously. As above there are no Angel 153s on lease to TfW.