Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

I think there will be, yes.  300 cancellations a day for Scotrail planned IIRC^▸ ('if I recall/remember/read correctly')?  There will be much more of a surplus of EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) I think, but I expect there to be a diesel surplus too.

You may be right, but for at least ten years  we have been told that there will be soon be a surplus of stock on FGW^▸ (First Great Western)/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) with improved capacity, longer trains, and much reduced overcrowding.
But the actual result has been shorter trains and worse overcrowding. I suppose that eventually it might get better, but the last ten years or more do not fill me with confidence.

The failed IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) project has significantly cut capacity and train length of main line services.
And the even more failed 769 project has cut branch line capacity even more.

I don't expect improvement any time soon.

[IndustryInsider]

I very much doubt the spare stock would come from a surplus that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) would have, more likely Scotrail (hence mentioning them in my post) or other operators of large diesel fleets.

[grahame]

I very much doubt the spare stock would come from a surplus that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) would have, more likely Scotrail (hence mentioning them in my post) or other operators of large diesel fleets.

I also wonder what is happening to new deliveries such as the 77 class 197 units on order for Transport for Wales; from Wikipedia:

The Class 197 trains will also have fewer toilets than the Class 158 and Class 175 trains they are intended to replace.

ignoring the toilets, could new homes for those 158s be found at Salisbury, Bristol and Exeter? I would almost welcome something that's tried and tested and can reliably run within days of arriving, of a know type and generally well liked and suitable.   There might even be enough to run a service from Waterloo to Bristol and Cardiff ...

[eightonedee]

My trepidation grows....

Thanks all for your input. It's not an encouraging picture, but I think it leaves us with the following scenario(s)-

1 - class 769s may not come into use until first/second quarter of 2022. Purely selfishly, if reliability remains as poor as seems to be the case at present, if this delayed until after April I will quietly be relieved (never thought I would be grateful to continue to use the current scruffy Turbo fleet with their poor standard class seats!). Is there still the possibility that they might be rejected as sub-standard? I have noticed that I have only seen one with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) signwriting, the others have only been painted not sign-written, which after all this time does not look like a vote of confidence or confirmation of acceptance.


2- GW^» (Great Western - used as an abbreviation for the area / lines under the Great Western franchise, as opposed to FGW which includes "First", the company operating them too. For tickets - about) management (or DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) pulling the strings behind the scenes) have a dilemma. Do they keep Turbos east in case the 769s fail (or are rejected because of continuing unresolved issues?) at the expense of those further west or send them west and transfer the problems to the Thames Valley/North Downs? If there really will be trains to cascade from Wales or Scotland, presumably these would have to be types already in use on GW, so 150s and 158s, which may be seen as a reason to keep the Turbos east where crew are familiar with the type, and send the 150s and 158s west (again, where crew are familiar with them). But what if there is delay in delivering the new Welsh trains, or if Nichola Sturgeon under pressure from her new Green allies reinstates many of the cancelled trains (does the Scottish government have any say?)?

3 - And are the cab problems confined to the 769s? While they have been using them in the past and they are still on the fleet, are there problems putting 150s and 158s back on services now run using Turbos? I know 158s give a better passenger experience, but what about drivers?

Timmer's comments are not so daft. I believe that the Electrostars have the ability to run on third rail and if we had a properly run railway the Reading "pool" of these would be running the North Downs as well, instead of being raided for Heathrow work, with a lot of recently installed new interior fittings being removed and presumably wasted even though nearly new.

[broadgage]

I very much doubt the spare stock would come from a surplus that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) would have, more likely Scotrail (hence mentioning them in my post) or other operators of large diesel fleets.

I do not share you optimism, firstly that Scotrail will release the units, secondly that they will work reliably and prove suitable.
Scotrail would naturally send the worst examples from the fleet.

[Lee]

How many years of active National Rail service do we think that the 15x and 16x units have left in them, and how many more years do we think it will be considered acceptable to continue to run diesel trains in general on the National Rail network, given how markedly attitudes have changed even over the past few years towards all things diesel from a Climate Emergency perspective?

[PrestburyRoad]

How many years of active National Rail service do we think that the 15x and 16x units have left in them, and how many more years do we think it will be considered acceptable to continue to run diesel trains in general on the National Rail network, given how markedly attitudes have changed even over the past few years towards all things diesel from a Climate Emergency perspective?

I've been wondering: what's the relative carbon footprint between

• The energy used operating a unit over its lifetime of say 40 years - such as the diesel it burns
• The energy used in manufacturing the unit in the first place - such as getting the steel/aluminium from ore, minus any energy saved in recycling the materials from eventual scrapping

The balance between these can affect whether it's worth keeping old units running even if they are less fuel-efficient.

[IndustryInsider]

How many years of active National Rail service do we think that the 15x and 16x units have left in them, and how many more years do we think it will be considered acceptable to continue to run diesel trains in general on the National Rail network, given how markedly attitudes have changed even over the past few years towards all things diesel from a Climate Emergency perspective?

I would say around 20 years more service could be achieved with Turbos fairly easily.  The same with other units of a similar era - 158/9s specifically, perhaps a bit less for 150/3/5/6 units. 

Whether demand for diesel units will mean that happens is a whole other matter.  I would expect the change to battery/electric to be a more gradual one than with cars - but at exactly what pace will be deemed suitable and/or achievable I’d be much less confident in forecasting.

[grahame]

Working this out while others posted - what I think is a complete list of pure diesel passenger train (original build dates) running scheduled services on the national network these days that are pure diesel.

 47   1962-8 (converted to 57 - GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) sleeper locos)
253   1975-82
D78   1978-? (converted to 230)
150   1984-7
155   1986-7 (most converted to 153)
156   1987-9
158   1989-92 (some converted to 159)
165   1990-2
166   1992-3
168   1998-2004
170   1998-2005
175   1999-2001
180   2000-1
220   2000-1
221   2001-2
171   2003-4
222   2003-5
185   2005-6
172   2010-1
195   2017-20
196   2019-
197   2021-
231   t.b.a.

[Rhydgaled]

I've been wondering: what's the relative carbon footprint between

• The energy used operating a unit over its lifetime of say 40 years - such as the diesel it burns
• The energy used in manufacturing the unit in the first place - such as getting the steel/aluminium from ore, minus any energy saved in recycling the materials from eventual scrapping

The balance between these can affect whether it's worth keeping old units running even if they are less fuel-efficient.

So have I. The least-fuel-efficient units appear to be the early-privatisation ones (170s, 175s and 185s) with Sprinters (150-159) and the latest diesels (195-197) both getting through less fuel per mile I think. I'm not sure there's much in it between a 195 and a 158, the different ratio of 3-car to 2-car units makes it hard to make a fair comparison.

I believe the energy used in manufacturing is quite significant, but how significant? Is it better to scrap a diesel train after 26yrs service in order to replace it with a new battery/hydrogen-electric bi-mode or to get the full 35-40 years life out of the diesel train before incuring the carbon cost of manufacturing the new fleet?

[ellendune]

I believe the energy used in manufacturing is quite significant, but how significant? Is it better to scrap a diesel train after 26yrs service in order to replace it with a new battery/hydrogen-electric bi-mode or to get the full 35-40 years life out of the diesel train before incuring the carbon cost of manufacturing the new fleet?

That is a really good question and also what is the feasibility and carbon implications of retractioning these diesel units to give them longer life?

[broadgage]

The best thing to do with old diesel units IMHO^▸ ('in my humble opinion') is to store them as a reserve fleet for for breakdowns or exceptional passenger flows. The fuel consumption is of relatively little importance if used thus rather than than in intensive daily use.

New trains should preferably be either OHLE^▸ (Over-Head Line Equipment (electrification via catenary)) or for secondary routes perhaps battery powered. All new electric trains should include either a diesel engine or a battery for proceeding at much reduced performance to the next station when the wires come down, or for on board services if unable to proceed.

[Rhydgaled]

I believe the energy used in manufacturing is quite significant, but how significant? Is it better to scrap a diesel train after 26yrs service in order to replace it with a new battery/hydrogen-electric bi-mode or to get the full 35-40 years life out of the diesel train before incuring the carbon cost of manufacturing the new fleet?

That is a really good question and also what is the feasibility and carbon implications of retractioning these diesel units to give them longer life?

My gut feeling is that retractioning the diesel units is likely to be by far the best option in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, I fear the feasibility of retractioning the recent diesel orders (classes 195, 196 and 197) is pretty much non-existant because the following would be required:

• Hacking a hole or two in the roof to install pantograph(s)
• Replacing the entire (mechancial) traction system with traction motors etc.
• Installing a traction power bus between vehicles so that current collected from the pantograph on one vehicle can reach the traction motors on other vehicles

This is likely to require all existing electrical systems to be stripped out while the work is ongoing partly due to the possibility of sensitive electrical equipment being fried during welding in the pantograph wells (I think these are aluminium bodied) and partly because there're going to have to find somewhere to put the traction power bus.

[RichT54]

Recent posts on RailUK forums have discussed rumours that the introduction of the 769s will be delayed another 12 months, although not all insiders seem to agree.

    800 Driver said:
    Hearing from multiple sources that the 769s have failed their fault free running and the project has been put back at least 12 months .....

Clarence Yard said
That doesn’t make any sense.

Fault free running is specific to the unit being accepted, not the class as a whole. The class authorisation is done through the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) type acceptance programme which, unless GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have recently discovered an EMC^▸ (ElectroMagnetic Compatibility) or another serious issue to effectively negate it, has already been completed.

Recent delays to the programme have been mainly around ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) not accepting the units as fit for their members. The cab seats and desks have been the latest areas of contention.

Can anyone here confirm the rumours?

[IndustryInsider]

I can confirm that Clarence Yard is an extremely reliable source of information.  However that doesn’t mean the 769s will be entering service any time soon!