Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.

[whole diary]

[devonexpress]

Right, so had a good look on the internet.  IPEMU^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) Class 379, Test was successful in that the battery would allow for 60 mile running before becoming empty.  Enough to do the Oxford to Didcot shuttle 6 times, or to allow for running in between non electrified sections of the Reading to Gatwick line. However, as it was only a short trial funded by Network Rail (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)), the batteries where removed after completion of the testing.  It now seems as has been posted Vivarail have taken on the technology. So if it proves to be successful in proper passenger service then who knows?

It just seems a shame that Bombarider, aren't using the trial as a benchmark for battery operated trains or if not haven't looked at retrofitting small diesel engines into the Class 387's for off wire power.


Edit: VickiS - Clarifying abbreviation

[ChrisB]

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have only mewntioned BAN-RDG^‡(resolve), and RDG to GTW. so no PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) runs at all. I could easily see BAN-GTW services, utilising the underpass east of RDG to access the Guildford route.

It could also cover the Cotswold stopper too, releasing yet another turbo.

That would just leave the TV branches needing the odd turbo.

[didcotdean]

There is currently one residual through Oxford-Paddington stopper (fast from/to Maidenhead) in each direction, up early morning and back evening peak. Not clear what would happen with this in a 'no turbo' scenario, apart from being binned.

[grahame]

I could easily see BAN-GTW services, utilising the underpass east of RDG^‡(resolve) to access the Guildford route.

Onward dreams towards extending from Banbury to Birmingham, and from Gatwick to Brighton? 

[grahame]

There is currently one residual through Oxford-Paddington stopper (fast from/to Maidenhead) in each direction, up early morning and back evening peak. Not clear what would happen with this in a 'no turbo' scenario, apart from being binned.

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has a history (old and new companies) of extra stops in expresses on peak routes at busy commuter times and very late at night - witness extra stops at stations like Severn Tunnel Junction and Dilton Marsh.  As well as binning the service, would there be an option of starting a first service on am 802 diagram from Oxford somewhat ahead of the normal clock face to still provide a direct link to London, and reversing the process in the evening?

[ChrisB]

I could easily see BAN-GTW services, utilising the underpass east of RDG^‡(resolve) to access the Guildford route.

Onward dreams towards extending from Banbury to Birmingham, and from Gatwick to Brighton? 

Yep, definitely a dream. Why the need to mirror XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) on the former, and there line's full to Three Bridges at least, if not to Brighton. On an refreshed 319? That is likely to be the new 'pacer' in less than a decade.

[didcotdean]

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has a history (old and new companies) of extra stops in expresses on peak routes at busy commuter times and very late at night - witness extra stops at stations like Severn Tunnel Junction and Dilton Marsh.  As well as binning the service, would there be an option of starting a first service on am 802 diagram from Oxford somewhat ahead of the normal clock face to still provide a direct link to London, and reversing the process in the evening?

The up service stops at the rare trifecta of Radley, Culham and Appleford although the down Radley only. I guess only Radley would ever even come into consideration for warranting stopping of a fast Oxford.

[Electric train]

What happened to the battery powered 379 that was going about in Greater Anglia? Surely Didcot to Oxford would be enough on batteries, and it could be recharged back on electric overheads?   Also GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) removed the 3rd rail, which could have been used on the Gatwick services. Either way, someone doesn't seem to have a lot of common sense here.

Battery 379 was converted back after the trial.  Do you mean 387 shoegear? I don’t believe GWR removed their 387 pickup shoes.  I’ve seen a few people questioning online why it is still there, but all the recent deliveries still have shoebeams visible, although the actual shoes will be retracted, and all did DC^▸ (Direct Current) testing on the Brighton line.

Paul

387 have retractable shoe gear, therefore it looks like it has been removed but it has not.  It is not in GWR gift to remove the shoe gear as they do not own the units, the trains would need modifying as there are interlocks on the shoe gear.

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) want inter operable EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) for redeployment etc.

Its unlikely 387 will be retrofitted with diesels, having batteries fitted to 3387 (and other units) is an option certainly on the DC network to capture the energy from regen braking to reduce the need for adding more traction substation capacity near stations ................ its a bit of work I have a loose involvement in at work

[hassaanhc]

There is currently one residual through Oxford-Paddington stopper (fast from/to Maidenhead) in each direction, up early morning and back evening peak. Not clear what would happen with this in a 'no turbo' scenario, apart from being binned.

There is also the 2P99 2006 Banbury to London Paddington, which stops at most stations on the way.

[didcotdean]

Yes that one has to be part of the consideration as well, although it is a bit different from the other two. It does mean the direct connection to London for the BAN-OXF^» (Oxford - next trains) stations is a bit odd.

[paul7575]

Do you mean 387 shoegear? I don’t believe GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) removed their 387 pickup shoes.  I’ve seen a few people questioning online why it is still there, but all the recent deliveries still have shoebeams visible, although the actual shoes will be retracted, and all did DC^▸ (Direct Current) testing on the Brighton line.

387 have retractable shoe gear, therefore it looks like it has been removed but it has not.

The very point I was just making.  A similar situation exists with some of the LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) 350/1s, the shoes are still there but almost impossible to see at first glance.

[eightonedee]

Anyone on our network know what's happening about these trains?

In the light of recent correspondence here about air condition/cooling, cascading of Turbo trains etc, I have done some Googling to  find out what specification we can expect. I ended up on something called RailUK Forums (a pale imitation of our own!) where there was much conflicting information as to the comfort of the trains from which they are being converted, and the delightful suggestion we should follow the French and call them Bi-Bis (rather than trimodes).

More significantly is the suggestion that there are problems with developing the trains - it is suggested that there is not yet a working prototype, and there may be problems with the conversion.

Should we start worrying? 

[IndustryInsider]

I don’t think we should start worrying, but I do think we should keep a watchful eye as clearly the development programme is slipping.

[Noggin]

Anyone on our network know what's happening about these trains?

In the light of recent correspondence here about air condition/cooling, cascading of Turbo trains etc, I have done some Googling to  find out what specification we can expect. I ended up on something called RailUK Forums (a pale imitation of our own!) where there was much conflicting information as to the comfort of the trains from which they are being converted, and the delightful suggestion we should follow the French and call them Bi-Bis (rather than trimodes).

More significantly is the suggestion that there are problems with developing the trains - it is suggested that there is not yet a working prototype, and there may be problems with the conversion.

Should we start worrying? 

It depends on whether you are worried about them being introduced, or not being introduced ;-)

More seriously, the thread on WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) has seen quite a lot of informed comment, including that of an ex-Alstom electrical engineer fairly well acquainted with them and a GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) manager. There were suggestions that whilst the issues with the traction kit may have been resolved, there may be more fundamental issues with the ability of the underframes to carry the extra weight. Wouldn't hold your breath waiting for their introduction, put it that way.

[eightonedee]

Noggin  - the answer to your question is - both! It is a shame that the short-sighted decision to halt electrification has led to what appears to be a looming rolling stock crisis as the Turbos are cascaded to replace trains that are not too much older which are being transferred elsewhere, but services which were (presumably) assumed to be electrified by now (Didcot - Oxford, the Henley and Windsor branches) now have to be served by something that does not need OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) electicity. Recycled late 1980s stopgaps do not look an attractive substitute.

Does your source indicate if the problem is corrosion of these ageing trains, or simply that the weight of engines and generators is too much for the structure? Either way, it is not looking good.