Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About
Waterloo Campaign
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 20:35 04 Oct 2022
- Train strikes: What are the dates and where is affected?
* Shell boss says taxing energy firms to help the poor is 'inevitable'
- More rail disruption expected as 9,000 train drivers strike
- Supermarket push to cut waste hits food bank donations
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 21/10/22 - TWSW General Meeting
02/11/22 - WWRUG / Trowbridge

On this day
4th Oct (1976)
HST - first public service (*)

Train RunningCancelled
22:00 Hereford to Worcester Shrub Hill
05/10/22 16:33 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
Short Run
22:22 London Paddington to Bedwyn
05/10/22 08:32 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
05/10/22 10:32 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
05/10/22 13:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
05/10/22 15:32 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
Delayed
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:23 Swansea to London Paddington
18:58 London Paddington to Hereford
19:02 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 05/10/22 08:32 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2022-10-04 Airport closure (Doncaster) - what to you think?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
October 04, 2022, 08:38:39 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[99] Eurostar - snapshot of current services
[80] Rail Strikes - Effects ?
[56] Bikes on trains - it is possiple
[49] Bristol Temple Meads Station redevelopment
[43] New PM and Transport Secretary - Liz Truss & Anne-Marie Trevel...
[30] Cotham Hill opening to non-motorists
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
  Print  
Author Topic: Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.  (Read 90354 times)
ray951
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 407


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2018, 03:20:32 pm »

Quote
If this story is true, it does beg the question why 800s are going to be used on the Bedwyn services

Indeed, and one wonders whether a 4-coach 769 would fit in the Bedwyn turnback without need to extend it (which as far as I know work has yet to start on)?

Is an 8-coach 769 longer or shorter than an 8-coach 387? (which is what the platform extensions at Thatcham and Theale are being extended to accommodate)

Also (while I'm at it!), will a 4-coach 769 fit at some of the smaller stations on the North Downs?

A 4 car 319 is roughly 80 metres long. A 3 car 165 is 66m long and a 4 car 387 is roughly 81 metres.

I don't think the 319s ever had SDO (Selective Door Opening) fitted as they were typically run in 4 and 8 car sets and stopped at stations that could take 8 cars.
Appleford springs to mind as well.
I know there were plans to lengthen the stations between Didcot and Oxford including Appleford, but since electrification has been stopped nothing has happened. 
Logged
nickswift99
Full Member
***
Posts: 90


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2018, 03:48:51 pm »

Quote
If this story is true, it does beg the question why 800s are going to be used on the Bedwyn services

Indeed, and one wonders whether a 4-coach 769 would fit in the Bedwyn turnback without need to extend it (which as far as I know work has yet to start on)?

Is an 8-coach 769 longer or shorter than an 8-coach 387? (which is what the platform extensions at Thatcham and Theale are being extended to accommodate)

Also (while I'm at it!), will a 4-coach 769 fit at some of the smaller stations on the North Downs?

A 4 car 319 is roughly 80 metres long. A 3 car 165 is 66m long and a 4 car 387 is roughly 81 metres.

I don't think the 319s ever had SDO (Selective Door Opening) fitted as they were typically run in 4 and 8 car sets and stopped at stations that could take 8 cars.
Appleford springs to mind as well.
I know there were plans to lengthen the stations between Didcot and Oxford including Appleford, but since electrification has been stopped nothing has happened. 

The Sectional Appendix says that Appleford is 76m long so would still need extending for a 769.
Logged
ray951
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 407


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2018, 04:16:51 pm »

I guess we don't know for certain how many seats would a class 769 have; looking at the data for a 319 it would have less than a 3 car 165 but more than a 2 car 165.
A 319 having 16F/256S (although this may vary between the different types) and a 2 car 165 having 170S/16F and a 3 car 264S/24F (although not sure whether this includes the changes to meet the disability requirements).
Logged
nickswift99
Full Member
***
Posts: 90


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2018, 04:50:36 pm »

Fundamentally, you're swapping width (3+2 seating) for length (2+2 seating).

You'll then lose seats for a DDA» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) compliant toilet and apparently there's going to be more luggage space, so remove some more seats for that. Essentially, a 4 car 769 isn't going to have as many seats as a 165. It's only going to be marginally faster on electric (but will accelerate faster) and we've yet to see what its diesel performance will be like.

For the North Downs Line, or even an Oxford-Gatwick service (subject to capacity enhancements between Oxford/Didcot), I think this is a good option and the combination of diesel and third rail will suit it well.

I would be concerned about these trains running into Paddington as future traffic density will depend on acceleration and similar traction top speeds which these won't have.
Logged
didcotdean
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1367


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2018, 04:59:32 pm »

Elsewhere I have seen claims that the GWR (Great Western Railway) 769s will have some 2+3 seating in the middle two carriages. Certainly over the years there were 319s with this type of seating.
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5170


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2018, 06:07:33 pm »

I would be concerned about these trains running into Paddington as future traffic density will depend on acceleration and similar traction top speeds which these won't have.

I think the recent rumours, and now taking this published announcement as more evidence, seem to support the view that they won’t normally go to Paddington.

Paul
Logged
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 951


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2018, 07:15:30 pm »


IMHO (in my humble opinion) the 319's are very good, BR (British Rail(ways)) designed trains, like all the 317 - 322 classes and still state of the art, even without inverter drives. As long as the flex conversion is done competently they'll last 60 years. The innards can let them down though but a modern refurbishment would be to higher standards than in past decades.

Remember the Tadpoles!

OTC
Logged
devonexpress
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2018, 09:52:15 pm »

Aren't more 387's being released next year from C2C anyway? Surely a more streamlined fleet would be better for GWR (Great Western Railway), this only complicates it further, and then puts up the cost tickets in extra training, refresher training, parts etc.

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 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.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 36948



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2018, 10:08:07 pm »

Aren't more 387's being released next year from C2C anyway? Surely a more streamlined fleet would be better for GWR (Great Western Railway), this only complicates it further, and then puts up the cost tickets in extra training, refresher training, parts etc.

I'm sure GWR would love them. Just need to string up wires along the North Downs line and to Oxford, Windsor, Banbury and Henley.  Grin
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Adelante_CCT
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1314



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2018, 10:26:49 pm »

Aren't more 387's being released next year from C2C anyway?
Likely to be during 2021
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5170


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2018, 10:40:25 pm »

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
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 10:52:54 pm by paul7755 » Logged
devonexpress
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 21, 2018, 09:00:06 am »

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

I was told the shoegear was removed after testing on the Brighton Mainline? As for the Battery 379, where any test results handed out? Also wasn't it only operate a branchline service, where as if a battery power mode was fitted to the 387's they could then charge up from Didcot back up to Paddington.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9414


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 21, 2018, 09:13:57 am »

I think there would be far too much risk operating a regular battery operated service on a key trunk route such as Didcot to Oxford.  Branch lines, yes, and then when the technology matures and proves itself then you can start to think about wider application.  The fact the 379 trial hasn’t come to anything so far perhaps indicates cost and/or reliability weren’t what they hoped for.

Regarding B&H (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) services, the 769s with poor acceleration and ‘only’ 100mph top speed would impact on paths available for the fast Bedwyn’s.  Much better to be using the higher quality and 125mph capable 800/802s IMHO (in my humble opinion)
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5170


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2018, 12:49:08 pm »

I was told the shoegear was removed after testing on the Brighton Mainline...
I don’t think so.  What I’m seeing is that all the trains still have shoe-beams, as can easily be seen in the numerous videos available online.  The shoe arm is in the raised position when on AC, and the shoes themselves are nearly out of sight behind the shoe-beam.  Now the contact shoe itself can easily be removed from the arm as it is a wearing or sacrificial part, but it’s absence doesn’t really mean the DC (Direct Current) capability is “removed”.   

Quote
As for the Battery 379, where any test results handed out? Also wasn't it only operate a branchline service, where as if a battery power mode was fitted to the 387's they could then charge up from Didcot back up to Paddington.
Nothing was ever made public AFAIK (as far as I know).  Suggests to me that the trial wasn’t as overwhelmingly successful as battery fans might have hoped.

Paul
Logged
4064ReadingAbbey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 444


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2018, 01:23:01 pm »

I was told the shoegear was removed after testing on the Brighton Mainline...
I don’t think so.  What I’m seeing is that all the trains still have shoe-beams, as can easily be seen in the numerous videos available online.  The shoe arm is in the raised position when on AC, and the shoes themselves are nearly out of sight behind the shoe-beam.  Now the contact shoe itself can easily be removed from the arm as it is a wearing or sacrificial part, but it’s absence doesn’t really mean the DC (Direct Current) capability is “removed”.   

Quote
As for the Battery 379, where any test results handed out? Also wasn't it only operate a branchline service, where as if a battery power mode was fitted to the 387's they could then charge up from Didcot back up to Paddington.
Nothing was ever made public AFAIK (as far as I know).  Suggests to me that the trial wasn’t as overwhelmingly successful as battery fans might have hoped.

Paul

If I understood an article in one of the technical magazines correctly - and, sorry, I can't remember the reference - the batteries from the 379 trial have been bought by Vivarail and are now being used for the battery packs for the Class 230 conversions.

As for the results of the 379 trial indications in the technical press were that it was shown to work. The snags being that the battery capacity was marginal for the task and the batteries are very expensive.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page