Nice idea with the Class 769 in theory but in practice. I think the 2x 750hp Cummins QSK19 engines should have been used as they would have 1500hp to give hotel power to the traction motor car. Not sure what the horsepower is from the MAN diesel units but I know the Cummins QSK19's that are used on Voyagers and 185's are 750hp. Great video.
On a wet / slippery rail yes, on a dry rail no. The 769 suffers from too few driving wheels, as did the 319. A shame they couldn't find room for one of the Diesel engines in the power car with the traction motors, the additional weight would be useful there.
Great points. I think it would work really well for visibility if you were to edit it down, starting the clip five minutes in and use a voice over to get rid of the distracting background sound.
Hey! Thanks for your points! I mentioned this in another comment but this video is quite a while back now before I really upped my quality of video making. I agree with everything you said and I wish I could go back and remake the video! If you want to see what I do nowadays I would highly appreciate it - hopefully it's better quality than this! Thanks again
Nice video but how a train enthusiast can do a video on a 769 and completely avoid the traction motor power car (with the pantograph on top) for the entire journey is disappointing to say the least. All we got is the Diesel engine noise, even when you got out of the train at the end! Perhaps you don't enjoy the sounds a train makes but a lot of us do. Also, on a wet / slippery rail, had you sat in the 319 power car you may have heard the reason for poor acceleration in wet conditions as the traction motors spin the wheels a little as some traction is lost (power is automatically backed off, I believe, to restore grip). Hope you are ok with the constructive criticism. Subscribed !
Hi Martin; thanks for this feedback! I probably should have recorded this video and then gone and done a voice over later to get the details correct but hey ho. I may not have mentioned this but the TFW 769s don't have working pantographs on them - they are solely diesel units! Having worked with the TFW 769s on my work experience at Porterbrook I know this for a fact (although the pantograph is still above mothballed). The northern 769s are bi mode however so you can get diesel and electric traction on them! The TFW 769s were purely a stock gap to replace the pacers and allow the 231 introduction to occur. As this was filmed a while back now I was less informed on things such as wheelslip (or it just passed through my mind that it was a little damp) so I apologise about missing this out. I appreciate your feedback and your subscription though!
@@Vanmanyo Thanks mate. I’m glad you liked the 769, a great effort by Brush etc. in modifying the 319s. I’m very disappointed that they have been unreliable - producing interference to signalling equipment etc. When the 319 was new it seemed so light weight and advanced and everyone it seemed loved the rather loud noises available in the power car (no one seemed to move to the quieter adjacent carriages). Sitting in the power car you could hear ‘engineering in action’. Not that I’m an Anorak or anything 😂😂
Haha I totally get what you mean having been on a plethora of 319s, 318s etc which have that pantograph low roof section. I'm not one who loves "thrash" but it is still a nice sounding train!
Sadly, as much as I love them, they'll either sit in storage with Porterbrook (like they were when I visited Porterbrook in June), or they'll be scrapped. I have hope though that Porterbrook will make them more reliable and try and get another operator for them!
To their credit, they were improving drastically at the end of their service, and the reasons for the unreliability were not of TfWs making. The execution at build was not what it should have been and faults that should have been identified and rectified during static/dynamic testing and proving runs made it into service and required rectification. By the end of their tenure at TfW they were regularly hitting between 8-10,000 MTIN (low in comparison to modern units, but for a frankenstein, perfectly acceptable). They had the potential, with the right modifications to be a steady 10k + MTIN unit. The issue is, they are only stopgap units and nobody wants to fix the issues.
Nice idea with the Class 769 in theory but in practice. I think the 2x 750hp Cummins QSK19 engines should have been used as they would have 1500hp to give hotel power to the traction motor car. Not sure what the horsepower is from the MAN diesel units but I know the Cummins QSK19's that are used on Voyagers and 185's are 750hp. Great video.
The acceleration is bad as a pacer
Esp with diesel fuel/engine weight added
On a wet / slippery rail yes, on a dry rail no. The 769 suffers from too few driving wheels, as did the 319.
A shame they couldn't find room for one of the Diesel engines in the power car with the traction motors, the additional weight would be useful there.
Worse than a pacer....
The way you said USB, sounded like it's a gem to have 😂
For the age of those trains it is!
5:54 is when I first get on the 769 - I kind of waffle for the first 5 minutes :/
They look very identical to the class 319s.
There is a reason for that!!!
Lmaooo
Great points. I think it would work really well for visibility if you were to edit it down, starting the clip five minutes in and use a voice over to get rid of the distracting background sound.
Hey! Thanks for your points! I mentioned this in another comment but this video is quite a while back now before I really upped my quality of video making. I agree with everything you said and I wish I could go back and remake the video! If you want to see what I do nowadays I would highly appreciate it - hopefully it's better quality than this! Thanks again
@@Vanmanyo Absolutely, I was particularly interested in the class 769 but your point is well made of course.
Nice video but how a train enthusiast can do a video on a 769 and completely avoid the traction motor power car (with the pantograph on top) for the entire journey is disappointing to say the least. All we got is the Diesel engine noise, even when you got out of the train at the end! Perhaps you don't enjoy the sounds a train makes but a lot of us do.
Also, on a wet / slippery rail, had you sat in the 319 power car you may have heard the reason for poor acceleration in wet conditions as the traction motors spin the wheels a little as some traction is lost (power is automatically backed off, I believe, to restore grip).
Hope you are ok with the constructive criticism. Subscribed !
Hi Martin; thanks for this feedback! I probably should have recorded this video and then gone and done a voice over later to get the details correct but hey ho. I may not have mentioned this but the TFW 769s don't have working pantographs on them - they are solely diesel units! Having worked with the TFW 769s on my work experience at Porterbrook I know this for a fact (although the pantograph is still above mothballed). The northern 769s are bi mode however so you can get diesel and electric traction on them! The TFW 769s were purely a stock gap to replace the pacers and allow the 231 introduction to occur. As this was filmed a while back now I was less informed on things such as wheelslip (or it just passed through my mind that it was a little damp) so I apologise about missing this out. I appreciate your feedback and your subscription though!
@@Vanmanyo Thanks mate. I’m glad you liked the 769, a great effort by Brush etc. in modifying the 319s.
I’m very disappointed that they have been unreliable - producing interference to signalling equipment etc.
When the 319 was new it seemed so light weight and advanced and everyone it seemed loved the rather loud noises available in the power car (no one seemed to move to the quieter adjacent carriages). Sitting in the power car you could hear ‘engineering in action’.
Not that I’m an Anorak or anything 😂😂
Haha I totally get what you mean having been on a plethora of 319s, 318s etc which have that pantograph low roof section. I'm not one who loves "thrash" but it is still a nice sounding train!
How dare they replace one of the best trains in British Rail history.
The Brilliant Pacer
😁😁
I think that's debatable.... Hmmmmm 😅😅
Hopefully now TFW have got rid of them, they'll be preserved or sent to Northern.
Sadly, as much as I love them, they'll either sit in storage with Porterbrook (like they were when I visited Porterbrook in June), or they'll be scrapped. I have hope though that Porterbrook will make them more reliable and try and get another operator for them!
I was looking forward to these but i think there rubbish
Well they are much better than the pacers for sure!
@@Vanmanyo yeah but i do miss the pacers
@@jasongnrfan7374I don’t.
Glad TFW got rid of them. They're just terrible. Awful reliability and not a good train in general.
Better than pacers though!
@@Vanmanyo Yeah that's true
northerns rellability for the class have improved dramatically
I think they should have used the Cummins QSK19 engine like on the Voyager trains.
To their credit, they were improving drastically at the end of their service, and the reasons for the unreliability were not of TfWs making. The execution at build was not what it should have been and faults that should have been identified and rectified during static/dynamic testing and proving runs made it into service and required rectification.
By the end of their tenure at TfW they were regularly hitting between 8-10,000 MTIN (low in comparison to modern units, but for a frankenstein, perfectly acceptable). They had the potential, with the right modifications to be a steady 10k + MTIN unit. The issue is, they are only stopgap units and nobody wants to fix the issues.