Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.

[whole diary]

[stuving]

It's now being reported as official (within GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), I presume) that the lease for the 769s will be allowed to expire next April 23rd and Porterbrook will be left to work out what to do with them. It remains to be seen what, if anything, will be added to the fleet instead.

[IndustryInsider]

Embarrassing though that is, I’m quite glad.

[JayMac]

Will this lead to a stay of execution for the Castles Class HST^▸ (High Speed Train) sets?

[IndustryInsider]

I doubt it given how recent that announcement was.  I still wonder whether a whole host of ex TfW 150s might get transferred as and when their new trains enter service.

[Electric train]

It's now being reported as official (within GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), I presume) that the lease for the 769s will be allowed to expire next April 23rd and Porterbrook will be left to work out what to do with them. It remains to be seen what, if anything, will be added to the fleet instead.

Embarrassing though that is, I’m quite glad.

I have always had the view that trying to convert these units method of traction power was not a good plan, there never was a diesel powered version of this class.

[Timmer]

One suspects these units will follow the 442s on a one way ticket to Newport or Rotherham.

[grahame]

One suspects these units will follow the 442s on a one way ticket to Newport or Rotherham.

And meanwhile GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) can't find a single train all day yesterday to operate the Swindon to Westbury line - my analysis suggests that just three out of 17 (single) journeys happen - at 07:36 and 20:06 from Westbury, and at 08:44 from Swindon.

How much of who's money has been spent on converting the 19 class 369 trains (that's 76 carriages) that have never and probably never will now enter service?  How much rail traffic has been lost because of inadequate provision across the GWR regional / local fleet, with trains short formed and overflowing, and simply not running at all?

Question - $64,000 - how do we move on and get an appropriate and reliable service running across GWR territory? "Appropriate" means both the timetable and the capacity of trains running to that timetable. 

[Bob_Blakey]

Question - $64,000 - how do we move on and get an appropriate and reliable service running across GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) territory? "Appropriate" means both the timetable and the capacity of trains running to that timetable. 

Answer:
1) Temporarily reinstate some of the recently retired rolling stock currently rusting away in various locations around the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), e.g. not ideal I know but the UK Rail Log presently lists 31 stored Class 153 units many of which could probably be resurrected with a little TLC^▸ (three letter code ) (or a sledgehammer).
2) Prohibit the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) 'incompetents' from interfering in the micromanagement of rolling stock provision.
3) Get all interested parties (e.g. TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s, rail passenger groups, rolling stock manufacturers - and the DfT but only for the purpose of organising finance)) together to design and build a 'go anywhere' bi-mode MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) fleet for use on the many routes which are in desperate need of additional capacity.

N.B. I have now woken and this slightly odd dream has finished.

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, very sadly, back wide awake Bob and we see ClarenceYard over on Railforums saying that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) want eye watering savings on lease costs next financial year:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-class-769-information-discussion.174866/page-78#post-5978660

All very worrying.

[Trowres]

And meanwhile GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) can't find a single train all day yesterday to operate the Swindon to Westbury line - my analysis suggests that just three out of 17 (single) journeys happen - at 07:36 and 20:06 from Westbury, and at 08:44 from Swindon.

Sorry Grahame, but the 20:06 to Cheltenham didn't run either, as far as I can tell. 2/17.

[grahame]

And meanwhile GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) can't find a single train all day yesterday to operate the Swindon to Westbury line - my analysis suggests that just three out of 17 (single) journeys happen - at 07:36 and 20:06 from Westbury, and at 08:44 from Swindon.

Sorry Grahame, but the 20:06 to Cheltenham didn't run either, as far as I can tell. 2/17.

Oh dear / OK - thanks for that.    Looking back, it appears it was truncated - 166261 and started not from Westbury at 20:06, but from Gloucester at 21:57, arriving at Cheltenham Spa 1 minute late at 22:06.

This service was cancelled between Westbury and Gloucester due to late arrival of crew from an inbound service (YJ).

From a passenger viewpoint in Wiltshire, a cancellation.   For a statistician's viewpoint, a success as it was a train that arrived at its final desitination, in passenger service, within 5 minutes of when it was timetabled.

[eightonedee]

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?

[brooklea]

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?

I would be amazed to see GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) be allowed (by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) to bring back 153s. There’s not just leasing costs; reactivation expenses (heavy maintenance exams probably due as it’s likely their miles ‘in ticket’ will have been run-down prior to their withdrawal), modifications required to make them less non-compliant with accessibility rules, (re-)training of crew and maintenance staff, the requirement to increase depot stores inventories of spares....it certainly wouldn’t be a quick, or a long-term fix. I can’t see it happening.

GWR do have six 3-car 158s which could be reformed as nine 2-car 158s - probably the only easy way of increasing the number of trains in their fleet, and obviously it would come at a cost in terms of capacity where these trains are currently used, for example, the Barnstaple line.

Other potential sources of suitable stock might be SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) (by turning WoE Line trains back at Basingstoke instead of Waterloo, which I’m certain would be unpopular!), or TfW (158s and/or 150s, once they’re available). It’s not looking rosy at the moment

[PhilWakely]

Other potential sources of suitable stock might be SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) (by turning WoE Line trains back at Basingstoke instead of Waterloo, which I’m certain would be unpopular!)..............

Definitely unpopular - not just with the travelling public, but also with SWR!  During the recent 'emergency timetable' introduced by SWR because of the infrastructure problem between Tisbury and Gillingham and trains were only running between Basingstoke and Yeovil Junction [only extending to Exeter St Davids every other hour], I queried whether SWR could keep two 3-car 159s at Exeter to run a shuttle between Exeter and Axminster. Their answer was simply 'we do not have enough stock'!

[grahame]

I would be amazed to see GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) be allowed (by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) to bring back 153s. There’s not just leasing costs; reactivation expenses (heavy maintenance exams probably due as it’s likely their miles ‘in ticket’ will have been run-down prior to their withdrawal), modifications required to make them less non-compliant with accessibility rules, (re-)training of crew and maintenance staff, the requirement to increase dept t stores inventories of spares....it certainly wouldn’t be a quick, or a long-term fix. I can’t see it happening. ...

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 new types of spares or new types for crews or maintenance teams, though I grant you perhaps some heavy services.