Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.

[whole diary]

[Thatcham Crossing]

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have released the following to show what the 769's will look like inside....

https://twitter.com/GWRHelp/status/1296421240543027200?s=09

Does a good job of not mentioning it's a refurb of actually quite an old train.

Lots of debate over on RailUK Forum about where they will actually be able to operate on anything but diesel (remembering that primarily these are for the North Downs, Reading - Basingstoke and a few of the Thames Valley branches - I think?)

[onthecushions]

I think that the good news implicit in this announcement is that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) actually envisage that these units will finally enter service and operate as tri-mode.

While they are old in years, they are  modern in design, the Mark 3 being arguably a more balanced, economical concept than some of the post-privatisation offerings.

OTC

[IndustryInsider]

I think that the good news implicit in this announcement is that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) actually envisage that these units will finally enter service and operate as tri-mode.

We will see.  At least they can operate on Over-Head Line Equipment (OHLE^▸ (Over-Head Line Equipment (electrification via catenary))) between Reading and the depot.   

There is an element of future proofing, so that even if initially they are confined to diesel, the option remains in the future to use the other two modes of power.  More important (at least before the pandemic) to the users of the North Downs Line, where the vast majority of workings will be confined to, is that an 80-metre long train is replacing a 46m or 69m long train, so there's a capacity boost.

My main concern remains the reliability of the engines and their ability to haul a 4-car train over the gradients of the North Downs Line without impacting on performance too much.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying acronyms

[eightf48544]

My main concern remains the reliability of the engines and their ability to haul a 4-car train over the gradients of the North Downs Line without impacting on performance too much.

I would have thought 3rd rail operation would be essential between Guildford and Ash.

[eightonedee]

May be I ask for too much, but I noted 5 across seating, and that the top corners of the coaches had that kind of welded up/plated look that much High Speed Train (HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units))) stock and old 455s do - is that corrosion repair?

I may be back commuting for at least a day or two a week next month, but assume it will be a while before I can "road test" one from a passenger point of view.

It is a bit of a worry when some of the informed posters are concerned if the diesel engines will cope if they are introduced into service the leaf fall season.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[IndustryInsider]

I doubt you'll see any in passenger service until the December timetable change, though hopefully they'll be able to get some serious testing in during leaf fall to check they cope OK.

[Surrey 455]

3+2 seating? That's disappointing. I would have hoped that the configuration could have been changed to 2+2 in a similar way to what SWT^▸ (South West Trains) did to their 455's, also introducing a width gap of about an inch or two between the seats for more comfort.

I can't remember much about the Thameslink 319 seats but I have a vague memory of them being lower than on other trains and not as comfortable.

Incidentally do any new trains come in a 3+2 layout any more? That's new as in brand new. Not refurbished or rebuilt.

[IndustryInsider]

I don’t think so.  In terms of old trains though it’s often difficult to just replace a 3+2 seating with 2+2 as there are often under seat equipment that can’t easily be (re)moved.

[Electric train]

I don’t think so.  In terms of old trains though it’s often difficult to just replace a 3+2 seating with 2+2 as there are often under seat equipment that can’t easily be (re)moved.

Also if they were reduced to 2 + 2 seating a 4 car train would then only have the same seating capacity as a 3 car with 3 + 2 Assuming the 769's are 4 car 

[eightonedee]

Really Ii?

I will try to look under the seats if and when I get to use one. If they are anything like Turbos, the seat fixings heating paraphernalia etc seems all to be under the outer two seats.

Certainly there doesn't seem to have been much problem doing the quite radical shifting of seats in two car Turbos to replace the old first class seats and install the long cycle and luggage racks.

And if I recall correctly from the nicely refurbished 150 I rode on to St Ives two years ago that had been converted to 4 across with no problem.

Dare I suggest if this is right the wrong redundant stock has been used as the basis of this conversion?

[eightonedee]

And in response to Electric Train, checking the seating diagrams GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) publish for 2 car 165s and 3 car 166s the three across seating actually only adds 14 and 19 extra seats respectively.  The additional coach should therefore still add considerable extra capacity if they were 4 across throughout. The discomfort of narrow packed seating doesn't seem justified in any stock these days- the Electrostars are all the better for being 4 across and they are in use on high density commuter services

A substantial part of the business ( or potential business) on the North Downs line is middle distance/ cross country travelers, including luggage laden  weary holiday makers returning from Gatwick looking to avoid the hassle of crossing London.  Surely something a little more suitable for them is in order too.

[IndustryInsider]

Really Ii?

I’m sure it could be done, but only at an extra cost that probably couldn’t be justified, and you might find that the project was authorised based on it providing a set percentage of seating uplift on the existing Turbo fleet - as well as providing the extra stock needed for the long proposed 3tph service.

Without seeing the specific numbers, I doubt a 4-car 80m train with 2+2 would have more seats than a 3-car 69m train with some 3+2.

I agree that 2+2 is a much more modern and sensible layout, but as with cascaded Turbos sometimes that isn’t the way it works out.  At least the North Downs route has had the same internal layouts for many years, so it’s just a like-for-like replacement.

[Electric train]

Really Ii?

I’m sure it could be done, but only at an extra cost that probably couldn’t be justified, and you might find that the project was authorised based on it providing a set percentage of seating uplift on the existing Turbo fleet - as well as providing the extra stock needed for the long proposed 3tph service.

Without seeing the specific numbers, I doubt a 4-car 80m train with 2+2 would have more seats than a 3-car 69m train with some 3+2.

I agree that 2+2 is a much more modern and sensible layout, but as with cascaded Turbos sometimes that isn’t the way it works out.  At least the North Downs route has had the same internal layouts for many years, so it’s just a like-for-like replacement.

It could have been worse ................... could have gone for the 345 seating plan 

[IndustryInsider]

My main concern remains the reliability of the engines and their ability to haul a 4-car train over the gradients of the North Downs Line without impacting on performance too much.

I would have thought 3rd rail operation would be essential between Guildford and Ash.

Just reading over on RailForums and Clarence Yard (a very reliable source of information) says that one of the three DC^▸ (Direct Current) sections is looking OK to power the 769s, with the potential to use all three still being investigated.

[Fourbee]

It'll be essentially 2+2, because people will put their suitcase on the third seat

To me 165s seem to have more room than 166s when everyone is doing that with their bags anyway and the luggage rack remains unused.