Transport for Wales 769's

[Bob Price]

No easy way out. May explain why the 231's are due up the Rhymney on Saturday very early morning.

 

[Bikeman78]

769421 seems to have been discarded having been one of the eight. 769426 had the problem with a damaged vehicle from accidents in Thameslink days.

I found some photos on flickr so it has worked passenger trains but none of the photos are very recent.

769421 photos on Flickr

Flickr photos, groups, and tags related to the "769421" Flickr tag.

www.flickr.com

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I have travelled on 421, having said that it was around November time.

 

[Bikeman78]

I have travelled on 421, having said that it was around November time.

I've only been on 769/0. I'll have to have another ride before they go in the bin. Never thought I'd have the same units in Sussex and Wales.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Exactly that. If the 769s and 230's had worked as planned then TfW would be in a much different place and those units are ideal for what they were planned to do.
I think Arriva and the WG went into this unprepared though. They were sold units that were due to get extensive modifications and modifications never really seen before, yet no-one appeared to ask the questions, what if these don't work? There doesn't appear to have been any contractual clause or caution exercised in if this whole process didn't work,

Didn't Porterbrook lease TfW some extra 153s for free as compensation for the 769s not working?

Going back to the 'what if these don't work?' question though, even if that was asked at the start there wasn't alot of choice. It was effectively a choice between:

• Take a gamble that Porterbrook will be able to deliver working 769s as quickly as claimed
• Take a gamble that Vivarail will be able to deliver working 230s as quickly as claimed
• Find a way of keeping Pacers beyond the PRM deadline (probably involving a programme of PRM mods on the Pacer fleet)

The third option would have guaranteed major reputational damage by being the only region to intentionally retain Pacers beyond the PRM deadline. The other two would incur reputational damage if they went wrong (as they have) but potentially wouldn't if they went right. Indeed, by going for both 230s and 769s TfW in some respects hedged their bets - if there were troubles with either fleet there would be some disruption and consequent reputational damage but it would only be really serious if both plans went awry.

 

[Caaardiff]

Didn't Porterbrook lease TfW some extra 153s for free as compensation for the 769s not working?

Going back to the 'what if these don't work?' question though, even if that was asked at the start there wasn't alot of choice. It was effectively a choice between:

• Take a gamble that Porterbrook will be able to deliver working 769s as quickly as claimed
• Take a gamble that Vivarail will be able to deliver working 230s as quickly as claimed
• Find a way of keeping Pacers beyond the PRM deadline (probably involving a programme of PRM mods on the Pacer fleet)

The third option would have guaranteed major reputational damage by being the only region to intentionally retain Pacers beyond the PRM deadline. The other two would incur reputational damage if they went wrong (as they have) but potentially wouldn't if they went right. Indeed, by going for both 230s and 769s TfW in some respects hedged their bets - if there were troubles with either fleet there would be some disruption and consequent reputational damage but it would only be really serious if both plans went awry.

The majority of the additional 153's from Porterbrook all out of PRM compliance 153/9's.
TfW took on the 5 additional 153's from GWR in April 2019 which did have the PRM toilet mods, then further 9 from Greater Anglia and EMT in Dec 2019 and Jan 2020 and then the remaining 4 from EMT in November 2020, all of which except for the last 2 currently at Landore didn't have the new toilet installed. I'm not entirely sure if the GWR units were always planned or part of the compensation from Porterbrook.

So not only are the majority of them useless on their own and have to be attached to another compliant unit, they also had to go through an extensive refurbishment program where 1-2 units have always been at Landore. Also it would be interesting to know who picked up the cost of those refurbs.

Regardless of the alternatives, what I was referring to was contractual obligations. TfW have likely picked up a huge financial cost with the delays to these units as well as a huge reputational hit. With any contract there should be a sensible approach to getting out of the contract should there be issues in the introduction.
The costs picked up by TfW could have been spent on getting 170's route cleared on further routes, as well as taking on those 153's in the first place and getting them into service earlier, and even taking on more 153's to counter the difference in carriages of 769s vs available 170/153s.

The first 769 was due the end of 2018, delivered March 2019 and actually made it into passenger service November 2020. The Pacers weren't retired until 2021. Had these units not even been an option then it is likely the Pacers would have been extended and the 153's and surplus 170's could've picked up the slack. If the GWR 153's are included there's a total of 19 carriages whereas the number of 769 carriages is 36, but bearing in mind it's rare to see more than 5 units out in service at any one time, usually 3-4.

 

[47827]

A 2 to 3 year delay along with reliability only a little better than the 37s and mk2s that made a temporary comeback for several months just before they started isn't a very good start and the viva stock further north has been hit with delays too to aggravate things more. Only the poorer loadings for much of the period getting on 2 years has allowed there not to be a greater intervention on the situation. In fact I think without covid and had loadings continued to rise, as per most areas, as a result it would have been hard to have made a case against keeping a handful of pacer turns on the Valleys, until enough units were released by several 197 turns further north. Better still, with a crystal ball, the stop gap period of entry to service of the CAF fleet wouldn't have justified getting rid of pacers mostly to look good politically and the service could have been delivered to a more suitable standard.

 

[AM9]

A 2 to 3 year delay along with reliability only a little better than the 37s and mk2s that made a temporary comeback for several months just before they started isn't a very good start and the viva stock further north has been hit with delays too to aggravate things more. Only the poorer loadings for much of the period getting on 2 years has allowed there not to be a greater intervention on the situation. In fact I think without covid and had loadings continued to rise, as per most areas, as a result it would have been hard to have made a case against keeping a handful of pacer turns on the Valleys, until enough units were released by several 197 turns further north. Better still, with a crystal ball, the stop gap period of entry to service of the CAF fleet wouldn't have justified getting rid of pacers mostly to look good politically and the service could have been delivered to a more suitable standard.

I think that the pandemic was a major intervention to all three of the 769 programmes, in terms of mileage accumulation, driver training and most importantly technical support to investigate problems and turn them around. It's impossible to say wheter the COVID disruption drove the intermittent availability of resources alone, or the overall lack of passenger demand removed the pressure on those involved from what would involve much more commitment to bringing the trains up to a reliable standard. Interestingly those shiny new trains ordered as the long-term solutions to the various TOCs upgrading their fleets haven't exactly been a shining success in their repective programmes yet.
So in truth, COVID has made a mess of all the programmes in different ways. Nobody would (or could) have forseen such a chain of events so at least the 769s have offered a rather limited service utility, but in many cases they have been better than nothing.

 

[175001]

Between Burscough Bridge and Meols Cop it reached and sustained 73mph

I hope not considering the line speed is 70mph between Burscough and Pool Hey LC!

 

[AM9]

I hope not considering the line speed is 70mph between Burscough and Pool Hey LC!

It was a phone GPS measurement over a fair distance so given the potential errors in that and the 3mph grace that has been mentioned here many times, the two are not entirely incompatible. My point was about their relatively quiet running at linespeed.

 

[craigybagel]

I think that the pandemic was a major intervention to all three of the 769 programmes, in terms of mileage accumulation, driver training and most importantly technical support to investigate problems and turn them around. It's impossible to say wheter the COVID disruption drove the intermittent availability of resources alone, or the overall lack of passenger demand removed the pressure on those involved from what would involve much more commitment to bringing the trains up to a reliable standard. Interestingly those shiny new trains ordered as the long-term solutions to the various TOCs upgrading their fleets haven't exactly been a shining success in their repective programmes yet.
So in truth, COVID has made a mess of all the programmes in different ways. Nobody would (or could) have forseen such a chain of events so at least the 769s have offered a rather limited service utility, but in many cases they have been better than nothing.

The northern 769s were originally due to enter service in May 2018, GWR's in Spring 2019 and around a similar time frame for TfW. All between one and two years before the first Covid restrictions were brought in to the UK.

 

[Bikeman78]

I think that the pandemic was a major intervention to all three of the 769 programmes, in terms of mileage accumulation, driver training and most importantly technical support to investigate problems and turn them around. It's impossible to say wheter the COVID disruption drove the intermittent availability of resources alone, or the overall lack of passenger demand removed the pressure on those involved from what would involve much more commitment to bringing the trains up to a reliable standard. Interestingly those shiny new trains ordered as the long-term solutions to the various TOCs upgrading their fleets haven't exactly been a shining success in their repective programmes yet.
So in truth, COVID has made a mess of all the programmes in different ways. Nobody would (or could) have forseen such a chain of events so at least the 769s have offered a rather limited service utility, but in many cases they have been better than nothing.

I think it could have gone either way. The original plan was seven diagrams for the nine units. Big failures that require being rescued have reduced, but they still get taken out of service daily. The early failures would have been a big problem if the trains were full and standing with pre Covid loads. Although the failures are usually at a platform, the following train is often stranded.

 

[47827]

I think it could have gone either way. The original plan was seven diagrams for the nine units. Big failures that require being rescued have reduced, but they still get taken out of service daily. The early failures would have been a big problem if the trains were full and standing with pre Covid loads. Although the failures are usually at a platform, the following train is often stranded.

That could have kept the thunderbird a little busier! Very few passenger trains these days need that level of contingency hanging around (especially not units).

 

[Caaardiff]

I see from other forums that several more 153's are being retired in the Midlands. It's going to be several months until the 231's are in service. It might be worth TfW taking on some more 153's

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I see from other forums that several more 153's are being retired in the Midlands. It's going to be several months until the 231's are in service. It might be worth TfW taking on some more 153's

Is it though, when there seems to be as good as no staff to work them?

 

[Bikeman78]

That could have kept the thunderbird a little busier! Very few passenger trains these days need that level of contingency hanging around (especially not units).

The 319s on which they are based are generally okay. They did sulk back in Connex days but total failures were quite rare. The technically similar class 317s just keep going. I've had one failure in 25 years. Systems isolated and empty to Hornsey. Annoying for me but almost zero impact on the wider rail network.

 

[47827]

The 319s on which they are based are generally okay. They did sulk back in Connex days but total failures were quite rare. The technically similar class 317s just keep going. I've had one failure in 25 years. Systems isolated and empty to Hornsey. Annoying for me but almost zero impact on the wider rail network.

Yes. Never really remember hearing of too many issues between Bedford and Brighton. They were the ideal use for them really.

 

[Caaardiff]

Is it though, when there seems to be as good as no staff to work them?

Yes. 769s are still out every day on services that are running, and eventually staffing levels will start to improve again, soon hopefully.

 

[sd0733]

I see from other forums that several more 153's are being retired in the Midlands. It's going to be several months until the 231's are in service. It might be worth TfW taking on some more 153's

There’s plenty of off lease 153s from all around, believe only TfW and Scotrail use them now so there’s plenty spare. By the time they are brought up to a useable standard though the replacements wouldn’t be far off in service.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes. Never really remember hearing of too many issues between Bedford and Brighton. They were the ideal use for them really.

your memory fails you. I had several failures on my commute on them. They were of course specifically designed for Thameslink, so not surprising they were ideal!

 

[Anonymous10]

I see from other forums that several more 153's are being retired in the Midlands. It's going to be several months until the 231's are in service. It might be worth TfW taking on some more 153's

why granted more staff sign them still need to get the staff available added to that they arent prm compliant and would need dispensation which isnt likely to receive seems more expense than its worth

 

[47827]

your memory fails you. I had several failures on my commute on them. They were of course specifically designed for Thameslink, so not surprising they were ideal!

Over how many runs though? I'm guessing they weren't as bad as 769s.

 

[Bald Rick]

Over how many runs though? I'm guessing they weren't as bad as 769s.

thats testing me. more than one failure. Fewer than 10. That’s over 7-8 years commuting on them daily before they started to be replaced. The 700s that replaced them are (after a slightly sticky start) much more reliable.

 

[47827]

thats testing me. more than one failure. Fewer than 10. That’s over 7-8 years commuting on them daily before they started to be replaced. The 700s that replaced them are (after a slightly sticky start) much more reliable.

That's not bad. A failure every year maybe. On about 50k to 60k miles a year with heritage diesel locomotives it was a failure every month or two normally.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's not bad. A failure every year maybe. On about 50k to 60k miles a year with heritage diesel locomotives it was a failure every month or two normally.

yes - about once a year on my 20 mile commute.

 

[Wyrleybart]

I think that the pandemic was a major intervention to all three of the 769 programmes, in terms of mileage accumulation, driver training and most importantly technical support to investigate problems and turn them around. It's impossible to say wheter the COVID disruption drove the intermittent availability of resources alone, or the overall lack of passenger demand removed the pressure on those involved from what would involve much more commitment to bringing the trains up to a reliable standard. Interestingly those shiny new trains ordered as the long-term solutions to the various TOCs upgrading their fleets haven't exactly been a shining success in their repective programmes yet.
So in truth, COVID has made a mess of all the programmes in different ways. Nobody would (or could) have forseen such a chain of events so at least the 769s have offered a rather limited service utility, but in many cases they have been better than nothing.

There were other factors with the TfW units though. The first few were delivered by rail being hauled by ROG locos but then it was discovered the route was unacceptable. So rather than route the movements via the Thames Valley, Foxhall Jn and the SWML, the units were dellvered each by four low loaders to the brickyard sidings opposite Canton for a ROG loco to run light from Leicester to shunt the units together and across the mainline. But lets not forget they were fitted with diesels at Loughborough and theoretically could have run under their own power were it not for the red tape.

 

[AM9]

The northern 769s were originally due to enter service in May 2018, GWR's in Spring 2019 and around a similar time frame for TfW. All between one and two years before the first Covid restrictions were brought in to the UK.

Yes, and there were two significant issues during development that caused delays:
1) the hunting between the two gensets that required a revision to their control systems
2) the exhaust system that was out of gauge on certain routes. This required a redesign that under current rules needed the whole exhaust system to be re-qualified, and the major part of the delay was the non-availability of certified test facilities. I think the overall effect was an 18 month delay for their clearance meaning that not much commissioning work was done before the pandemic started affecting progress.
The delay of the initial Northern approval then rolled affecting the TfW and GWR deliveries.

 

[craigybagel]

There were other factors with the TfW units though. The first few were delivered by rail being hauled by ROG locos but then it was discovered the route was unacceptable. So rather than route the movements via the Thames Valley, Foxhall Jn and the SWML, the units were dellvered each by four low loaders to the brickyard sidings opposite Canton for a ROG loco to run light from Leicester to shunt the units together and across the mainline. But lets not forget they were fitted with diesels at Loughborough and theoretically could have run under their own power were it not for the red tape.

Given how many months the first units sat in Canton before they were deemed suitable to leave the confines of the depot under their own power, I don't think driving them down from Loughborough was ever that realistic.

Yes, and there were two significant issues during development that caused delays:
1) the hunting between the two gensets that required a revision to their control systems
2) the exhaust system that was out of gauge on certain routes. This required a redesign that under current rules needed the whole exhaust system to be re-qualified, and the major part of the delay was the non-availability of certified test facilities. I think the overall effect was an 18 month delay for their clearance meaning that not much commissioning work was done before the pandemic started affecting progress.
The delay of the initial Northern approval then rolled affecting the TfW and GWR deliveries.

As I just mentioned above, the delayed delivery of the first unit to Canton was still a long time before the unit left it again under its own steam. It's final delivery of March 2019 was still a year before Covid took hold.

 

[Bluejays]

769 at Newport this morning. Under its own power with a few people onboard. Maybe tfw are looking at getting them cleared over new routes

 

[craigybagel]

769 at Newport this morning. Under its own power with a few people onboard. Maybe tfw are looking at getting them cleared over new routes

Not too likely I'd have thought - there are no drivers qualified on both 769s and the route to Newport, and driver availability is low enough as it is without doing more training.

In the past units that have been under maintenance at Canton have had a run out to Newport for a test run so it might be that, or something different altogether.