Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.

[whole diary]

[brooklea]

Definitely unpopular - not just with the travelling public, but also with SWR^» (South Western Railway - about)!

Not that that would matter, were DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to issue SWR with an instruction that that was what they were to do.

Twelve months ago the withdrawal of the through service between Bristol and Waterloo was unpopular, but it still happened, in the interests of saving money….

[brooklea]

I would be amazed to see GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) be allowed (by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) to bring back 153s.

But then would they need to go back direct to GWR?

Attach the 153s to other compliant 153s and 150s in the TfW fleet where they already have spares and the total trains would have accessible loos, and cascade some 150s and 158s from TfW to GWR to enhance their fleet.

No, that’s a fair point.

I haven’t experienced one of TfWs ‘PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility)-lite’ 153s to know what level of modification they’ve received to allow them to continue in service, though I understand there’s a bit more to it than locking the toilet door.

No doubt for the right level of compensation TfW could release some 150s or 158s in return for 153s, but as the goal is to cut costs, I expect GWR will just have to do less with less (or rather fewer) trains. Would love to be proved wrong.

[Electric train]

So this is just cost-cutting, not because they were not up to the job?

As stated elsewhere, this does nothing to address the problems with a shortage of carriages further west. We now have the [ridiculous?] situation where on Thames Valley routes we have 8 car trains (2x Electrostars) running most of the day with perhaps 20% of the seats filled on services that used to be 2- or 3- car Turbo operated, and overcrowded trains on other routes further west because Turbos cannot be cascaded from non-electrified services (or not fully electrified ones). If we had electrified most of the network, or even achieved the electrification of the Thames Valley branches and filled the gaps on the North Downs the existing fleet of Electrostars would presumably filled the slots adequately.

Presumably the cost-cutting imperative means that the sensible step of bringing back the 153s suggested by Grahame will not be followed up to save the leasing cost?

Cost cutting by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) I would say is the main force behind this

North Downs electrification whist an answer, it is a long term one though then the 319 could have worked that.  The Electrification AC/DC^▸ (Direct Current) interface at Reading has no easy solution to it, all of the proposals I've heard of from colleges are expensive, there does need to be a traction power systems isolation between DC and AC systems, even just to allow the units into and out of Reading Train Care.   These interfaces are complex, I deal with 3 of them in my day job.

The electrification Didcot to Oxford again not an overnight fix would release some 165/66

I fear the reality will be service cuts, reduced frequencies, train lengths etc.  The DfT will be placing a lot of rigor on ToC's to justify their operating costs

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

If Reading – Gatwick becomes third rail throughout then it's pretty obvious to transfer the route to South Western and to resource it from a bigger fleet maintained at Wimbledon or wherever. 

[Electric train]

If Reading – Gatwick becomes third rail throughout then it's pretty obvious to transfer the route to South Western and to resource it from a bigger fleet maintained at Wimbledon or wherever. 

Or Southern the fleet would then run out of Brighton

[CyclingSid]

From my point of view as a passenger, SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) any day rather than Southern. Not that that will concern DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) one jot.

[didcotdean]

I suppose signs like this (on Reading platform 7) will hang around as the ghost of the never to be 769 for years to come.

Both the 769 and the short HST^▸ (High Speed Train) were functions of the parsimonious DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), which looked at the capital cost but not the value, at a time when interest rates were low.

[JayMac]

If Reading – Gatwick becomes third rail throughout then it's pretty obvious to transfer the route to South Western and to resource it from a bigger fleet maintained at Wimbledon or wherever. 

Redundancy for those GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) staff at Reading unable, or unwilling, to transfer? Where would the sets for early morning Reading starters be stabled? The third rail platforms are already fully utilised for overnight stabling of Waterloo services.

The service pattern at present requires the fleet and staff to be at the Reading end of the North Downs Line. Just one unit is outstationed overnight at Redhill.

Changing the fleet and depot would require a huge timetable re-write. To say nothing of the less than zero chance of 3rd rail infill being authorised.

To my mind, the only logical answer is for DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)/GWR to order some new trains. Logical, but unlikely. Suitable for the existing infrastructure. Either diesel all the way, as at present, or DC^▸ (Direct Current) third rail electro-diesel. While they're at it, order similar diesel only and AC electro-diesels for the West. The commonality across the fleet would do wonders for staffing and maintenance costs. I look to what Greater Anglia have achieved with their Stadler fleet commonality.

Am I a dreamer?

[bradshaw]

I think with the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) thoughts on electrification sequence in the August Modern Railways (p61), there should be a single design of multiple unit, as there was for the Electrostars, which is then modified to the specific needs of its allocated line(s). For GWR this would probably be AC/diesel hybrid or AC/BEMU. For SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) a AC/DC^▸ (Direct Current) diesel hybrid or AC/DC/BEMU,which could also be used for the North Down line.

[eightonedee]

I might be mistaken, but aren't the Electrostars GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) already bi-modal? I think they have those pick-up bars on their bogies that look like they are ready for 3rd rail use.

[paul7575]

I might be mistaken, but aren't the Electrostars GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) already bi-modal? I think they have those pick-up bars on their bogies that look like they are ready for 3rd rail use.

They are definitely “dual voltage”, and IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) were tested on DC^▸ (Direct Current) during acceptance.

But then again that capability wasn’t usually described as “bi-mode” until very recently.   

Paul

[Electric train]

I might be mistaken, but aren't the Electrostars GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) already bi-modal? I think they have those pick-up bars on their bogies that look like they are ready for 3rd rail use.

387 "Electrostars" are dual Voltage not bi-mode.  Bi-mode is 2 different energy forms.

I cannot see electrification of the North Downs line happening in the next 2 or 3 Control Periods (10 to 15 years), it could be argued that the 769 offered the best chance of third rail in-fill schemes.

There is still the problem of the AC/DC^▸ (Direct Current) traction power interface at Reading, there is no simple or cheap way to do it and it has to be done due to some simple principles that 25kV AC is and Earthed Traction Return ie the Neutral at the supply transformer is bonded to Earth, where as the Third Rail DC Traction Return ie the negative is not directly bonded to Earth; this is to reduce stray DC return currents using alternative Earth paths back to the rectifier and causing Cathodic erosion of metal in that Earth path (Utilities, building and structure foundations etc even ones outside the railway will get effected)
The AC / DC interface is basically a Galvanic isolator between the 2 systems, they require a piece of line in each direction of travel (or 4 for 4 track railway) 1 carriage longer than the longest train (irrespective of them being electric, diesel, steam or clockwork) they involve a lot of electrical equipment .................... not cheap or simple  

[JayMac]

Imagine what could've been done across the network if £100bn wasn't being spaffed on the vanity project carving its way through the Chilterns.

Yeah, I know. Capex v opex. National infrastructure v local. Shiny superfast inter city trains v needed run of the mill local/regional stock. Buying votes v doing the right thing...

[TonyK]

Imagine what could've been done across the network if £100bn wasn't being spaffed on the vanity project carving its way through the Chilterns.

Yeah, I know. Capex v opex. National infrastructure v local. Shiny superfast inter city trains v needed run of the mill local/regional stock. Buying votes v doing the right thing...

They could have borrowed £100 billion at cheap government rates to upgrade the existing services? Doubt it somehow. That start-up money was borrowed and spent nearly 200 years ago. Pretty much everything on the existing network is supposed to be running costs and planned replacement of stock and infrastructure within a certain timescale. We don't do it that way here, preferring the last-minute refurb of time-expired stock and a few running repairs on the PW^▸ (Permanent Way).

[Electric train]

Imagine what could've been done across the network if £100bn wasn't being spaffed on the vanity project carving its way through the Chilterns.

Yeah, I know. Capex v opex. National infrastructure v local. Shiny superfast inter city trains v needed run of the mill local/regional stock. Buying votes v doing the right thing...

I would not say HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is a vanity project the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 1955 modernisation plan (which did not finish until 1974) cost £345 million, that's about £11 Billion today; in the 1990's  a further £14 billon (that's £37 Billion today) the 1990's upgrade was not completed because of the difficulties of completing the Southern end in to London and rising costs

So over nearly half a centaury close on c £47 Billion was spent on the WCML with only marginal increase in speed and capacity.  HS2 will give the extra capacity on the WCML especially for freight

Its likely the signalling system North of Crewe will be ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) ie in cab signalling to take advantage of HS2 for faster journeys to Scotland.

The bit the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Governments have never been any good at is real stratgigic transport planning all MP^▸ (Member of Parliament)'s can only see as far as 5 years