Class 800 - Updates

[Trevellan]

Meanwhile, looking ahead to March in the Solent...

[Ron Ron Ron]

I've been looking out of my window at that all week.

[phil-b259]

FGW will be retaining quite a few of their HST's for services from London to the SW (Devon & Cornwall) for the foreseeable future. 

They'll obviously be replaced at some later time on, as yet to be decided.

I think it likely, follow on orders or later iterations of the SET will supplant them early in the next decade.

 

I suspect FGW's Class 180's will be gone as soon as the first Class 800's go into service.

 

On the ECML, all the EC IC franchise (Virgin Trains EC) HST's will be withdrawn.

The IC225 sets were also due to be displaced, but there is currently some talk or speculation that a few sets may be retained for a while. I'm not sure how much credence can be placed on those stories though?

 

The future of the IC225 sets hasn't been decided yet.

Rail enthusiast forums are full of speculation and imagined proposals, but we'll just have to wait and see what transpires.

 

There is a firm proposal to use some shortened HST sets in Scotland and it's possible some others will be put to use elsewhere. 

People who work on them have reported on the condition of many Mk3's, suggesting quite a few will be ready for the scrapyard by the end of this decade.

In any event, I'd expect the first HST's to be scrapped not long after the Class 800/801's are introduced into full service.

 

 

.

 

If the Mk3s are that bad then I imagine it wouldn't be an impossibility to mod the HST power cars to work with MK4s when they get displaced from front line ECML service.I don't see the 91s having a future in the UK frankly - The GEML is screeming out for an EMU solution to ditch the 'dead space' the loco occupies, not more hand me downs that perpetuate the same problems.

[Ron Ron Ron]

The GEML is screeming out for an EMU solution to ditch the 'dead space' the loco occupies, not more hand me downs that perpetuate the same problems.

 

Indeed. The popular call is for a Class 444 type of EMU.

Unsurprisingly, that will be available off the peg though....................in the shape of the Class 801 (or other derivative).

 

 

.

[Christopher125]

Why ON EARTH don't cross country units do the same? I've stood all the way Birmingham-Sheffield on a stupid 4 car unit so many times now...... Bring back a class 45/0 with13on ..........

If that would involve more units they simply don't have more to use, though platform lengths may also be an issue.

 

Apologies if this is an obvious question to those in the know, but what is (if anything) planned for all the units that will be displaced by the production of classes 800 and 801?

 

Will the HSTs all be withdrawn? What happens to the 91s and Mk4 stock?

All East Coast HSTs will go off-lease as will the FGW 180s, the latter to Grand Central.

 

Most of the 91/Mk4 sets will also go off-lease, but it seems 6 or so may be retained. FGW will also give up most of their HSTs but are currently expected to keep some for services to the South West.

 

27 shortened HSTs will go to Scotrail; it's been suggested that they will cascade their entire Turbostar fleet plus a few 156s and 158s south of the border as a result of this and electrification.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if other franchises follow the example of Scotrail, with shortened HSTs replacing short-formation DMUs on longer distance workings.

 

Chris

[JeffP]

I can't see platform lengths being a problem when in summer a 45/0 and 15 was regular.

 

And as for not having the units, what moron decided to replace EIGHT CAR HST's with FOUR CAR Voyagers????????

[jonny777]

Richard Branson, I think.

 

Or at least his accountants. The idea was to have shorter trains running much more frequent services on the most profitable routes, i.e Bristol - Birmingham.

 

Whether they envisaged a four car unit doing Plymouth to Edinburgh, I don't know.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....The idea was to have shorter trains running much more frequent services on the most profitable routes, i.e Bristol - Birmingham.

 

...and it worked brilliantly. more than they ever expected.

So popular that passenger usage went through the roof and the 4 & 5 car trains were proved to be far too short. 

The exercise became a victim of its success.

 

 

.

[298]

If the Mk3s are that bad then I imagine it wouldn't be an impossibility to mod the HST power cars to work with MK4s when they get displaced from front line ECML service.I don't see the 91s having a future in the UK frankly - The GEML is screeming out for an EMU solution to ditch the 'dead space' the loco occupies, not more hand me downs that perpetuate the same problems.

Longer distance commuter services are a possibility for Mk4 sets, but nobody really wants them and by the time they are released they'll be as bad a condition as some of the Mk3's.

 

I can't see the GEML getting new locos and coaches as was once rumoured (not necessarily at the same time), but it'd depend upon a successful franchisee to find the investment to order something like an AC version of the Siemens 444.

Edited January 9, 2015 by 298

[Indomitable026]

...and it worked brilliantly. more than they ever expected.So popular that passenger usage went through the roof and the 4 & 5 car trains were proved to be far too short. The exercise became a victim of its success.  .

My irritation here is that the likes of southern, SWT, London Overground and others on the west coast have been able to increase fleets to try and match demand.

 

Not so cross country.

[jamie92208]

As regards the 170's released in Scotland I believe that they have already been snaffled by Southernb to strengthen the 171 worked services to places like Uckfield.

 

Jamie

[Glorious NSE]

My irritation here is that the likes of southern, SWT, London Overground and others on the west coast have been able to increase fleets to try and match demand.

 

Not so cross country.

 

Actually they have added 5 HST sets to the fleet since the Princess issue - and whilst I think personally they could use those a bit more, if you get a day predicted as being busy then they are likely to be out allowing key Voyager services to be formed of 8 or 9 cars.

[45125]

I can't see platform lengths being a problem when in summer a 45/0 and 15 was regular.

 

And as for not having the units, what moron decided to replace EIGHT CAR HST's with FOUR CAR Voyagers????????

The moron actually replaced 2+7 HSTs with 4/5 car piles of poo.  The whole operation ugly sister was a farce...........

[jonny777]

...and it worked brilliantly. more than they ever expected.

So popular that passenger usage went through the roof and the 4 & 5 car trains were proved to be far too short. 

The exercise became a victim of its success.

 

 

.

 

 

But that doesn't answer the question of why they did not reinstate the HSTs on the improved service, or modify the Voyagers so that they became 8-cars.

 

 

I'm not convinced that passenger usage "went through the roof". Do you have 'before' and 'after' figures to support this.

 

It is easy for the accountants to say that passenger loading percentages increased, when they have cut the length of the trains in half (or by two-thirds when compared with a Peak + 12).  But that is what the accountants want, all seats filled at all times - so their answer is to cut the number of seats on each train until they run at 100% capacity, not tempt more passengers onto a longer train.

 

Of course, the extra bonus of cutting the number of seats on each train until they are packed, is to then turn to the public and say "to prevent overcrowding, we will increase ticket prices".

 

QED, and a nice little earner for some.

[The Stationmaster]

But that doesn't answer the question of why they did not reinstate the HSTs on the improved service, or modify the Voyagers so that they became 8-cars.

 

 

I'm not convinced that passenger usage "went through the roof". Do you have 'before' and 'after' figures to support this.

 

It is easy for the accountants to say that passenger loading percentages increased, when they have cut the length of the trains in half (or by two-thirds when compared with a Peak + 12).  But that is what the accountants want, all seats filled at all times - so their answer is to cut the number of seats on each train until they run at 100% capacity, not tempt more passengers onto a longer train.

 

Of course, the extra bonus of cutting the number of seats on each train until they are packed, is to then turn to the public and say "to prevent overcrowding, we will increase ticket prices".

 

QED, and a nice little earner for some.

Passenger usage has undoubtedly increased on some parts of their routes - just travelling on the trains nowadays compared with the BR period clearly demonstrates that. 

 

But let's consider why the Voyager fleet is what it is - a mixture of 4 & 5 car dmus why are not exactly the most comfortable way to travel for a variety of reasons but do offer a good network with, in many cases, journey times and ease of use which competes well with travel via London.  Well that 'ease of use' is of course one key ingredient in the popularity of some services - no need to traipse across London; frequency is another key component, plenty of choice of the time at which you can travel especially on the core Reading - Birmingham section.

 

The downsides are of course that in some places the trains are not comfortable for long distance travel and they lack the capacity needed (partly a victim of their success and the timetable frequency they offer) so Cross Country have added HSTs to their fleet to cater for some of the discomfort and capacity element.

 

But that still doesn't necessarily answer why the trains were so short in the first place and that was down to a combination of circumstances but very much one of making best use of the money available to build the fleet plus the constraint of platform length at Reading plus the original idea of portion working over various sections of route.  But all still constrained by the available budget for construction of the fleet, which of course also led to the type of train the Voyager is - a fancified dmu with underfloor engines which do not enhance 'the passenger experience' due to noise and vibration.  Whatever their various advantages in offering a route around London the simple fact is that they still do not offer as comfortable a ride as either a Mk3, or even a Mk4, hauled coach.  But as fancified dmus they have of course seemingly shown Britain's railways a way forward with the IEP to come as the ultimate emu/dmu/edmu.

[Xerces Fobe2]

FGW's Class 180 are going to Grand Central  to replace their HST's. T

 

he Class 800's are a DaFT abomination which Govia is far from happy with  - I wonder what the future holds?

[woodenhead]

ScotRail will be receiving 27 HSTs, plus a few spares (enough for one more set)   

Initially they will operate as 5 coaches, but this will be increased to 6 coaches once the refurbishment of Glasgow Queen Street is completed

Equally, once Glasgow Queen Street closes the sets can be increased, but it has now been realised some of the sets could be dedicated to serve Edinburgh only and commence as 6 coaches

 

Queen Street closes, what have I missed in the news?

[dvdlcs]

Hello.

Perhaps somebody could clear something up for me.

From my understanding the new units are coming in 9-car (long) and 5-car (short) formations.

Why did they not make the long formation a multiple of the short formation, e.g. 5-car and 10-car units or 3-car and 9-car units?

Presumably this would give a lot more flexibility in the sense that if one of the long formations failed it could, if necessary, be substituted by 2 or 3 short formations coupled together? Admittedly there would be a slight loss of capacity due to the driving cabs within the formation and perhaps an excess of first class seats, but wouldn't that be better than (for example) substituting a 5-car unit for a failed 9-car unit because 2x5-car units would be too long for some stations?

[i'm assuming that 9 cars is the maximum length possible for various stations. If 2x5-car units can be used, then why not make the long units 10 cars? We all know that if they are any good then demand will expand to fill, and exceed, capacity.]

Thanks for any forthcoming thoughts.

[JeffP]

Exactly...that would need joined up thinking, something that seems sadly lacking in the modern railway scene.

 

In France a 20 car double TGV leaves for the south, taking ONE path. At Avignon it splits with one 10 car set going east towards Marseille and maybe Nice, while the other 10 car set goes west towards Perpignan and  maybe Spain.

 

Passengers do NOT get on the wrong part, oir are spotted and placed on the correct one at Avignon, train crews allow the service and EVERYONE WINS!

[Ron Ron Ron]

I'm not convinced that passenger usage "went through the roof". Do you have 'before' and 'after' figures to support this.

 

It's not an argument that I need to support, but a well known and well reported fact.

However here are the figures....

 

When Virgin XC took over the franchise in 1997, total passenger numbers were around 12 million p.a.

By 2005, they had increased to 19.6 million, breaking through 20 million in 2006.

Most of the increase occurred post Operation Princess.

By 2007 (after the franchise holder changed to Arriva), the numbers had more than doubled from when Virgin originally took over the first XC franchise.

 

In 2006, Virgin were operating 70% more services than pre-Operation Princess.

 

Just a couple of claims from the report.

 

On the Reading route, which links the south coast with the West Midlands, business travel went up by a staggering 181% from September 2002 to 2006.

When the CrossCountry network was re-launched, business travel between Bournemouth and Southampton Airport Parkway increased by 61% and between Bournemouth and Brockenhurst by 50%.

Leisure travel between Brockenhurst and Southampton increased by 43%.

[jonny777]

Ok, but I'm not sure that Bournemouth-Brockenhurst-Southampton was quite what I had in mind as an example of the typical Cross Country traveller's route.

[Glorious NSE]

[i'm assuming that 9 cars is the maximum length possible for various stations. If 2x5-car units can be used, then why not make the long units 10 cars? We all know that if they are any good then demand will expand to fill, and exceed, capacity.]

 

Not sure that assumption is correct. 

 

They will be building these things for a few years, so they should be able to add a 10th car later.

[Glorious NSE]

Exactly...that would need joined up thinking, something that seems sadly lacking in the modern railway scene.

 

In France a 20 car double TGV leaves for the south, taking ONE path. At Avignon it splits with one 10 car set going east towards Marseille and maybe Nice, while the other 10 car set goes west towards Perpignan and  maybe Spain.

 

Passengers do NOT get on the wrong part, oir are spotted and placed on the correct one at Avignon, train crews allow the service and EVERYONE WINS!

So what happened on VXC was that they replaced a single 47+6/7 Mk2s or 2+6 HST with not one, but TWO voyager operated services on the core network. So yes they could have coupled the two together and only run half the train service they decided to, but it would have been no more seats per hour overall.

 

Edited January 9, 2015 by Glorious NSE

[Christopher125]

From my understanding the new units are coming in 9-car (long) and 5-car (short) formations.

 

Why did they not make the long formation a multiple of the short formation, e.g. 5-car and 10-car units or 3-car and 9-car units?

I'm not sure it's anything more complex than a 2x5 car IEP having roughly equivalent capacity to a 9-car, which presumably reduces the issues if one has to operate instead of the other.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Christopher125

[The Stationmaster]

Ok, but I'm not sure that Bournemouth-Brockenhurst-Southampton was quite what I had in mind as an example of the typical Cross Country traveller's route.

Judging by the numbers which use it I would have said it was.  And that of course reflects both the beauty/benefit of the Cross-Country service and its greatest handicap.  For many folk it is simply no more than 'another train' between, say, Derby and Birmingham while for other people that same train is the most convenient of an hourly service between York and Reading or 'just another train' between Newcastle and Durham, or Oxford and Reading.

 

I have made several quite long trips on Cross Country in the past year - from Durham to Reading, and from Reading to York & return and what I have described is exactly the sort of travel pattern which can be seen on these trains with certain stretches of route, especially Birmingham - Reading, being subject to very high loadings (which reach crush level on trains at certain times of day).  Thus defining a 'typical' Cross Country passenger is not at all easy and will inevitably be a pretty broad definition.