Class 800 - Updates

[JDW]

Surely it would be better to announce at stations prior to it that passengers travelling beyond BTM* should travel in the front 5 coaches rather than wait til they get there and then make people move?  I thought that was/would be fairly standard practice.  Obviously a final check/announcement is still be needed to make sure there's no one left, but from the earlier post I get the feeling there were people in both sets going beyond BTM, suggesting it maybe wasn't made clear on boarding.  If so, it seems an easy way to annoy people!

 

 

( * that's an abbreviation for Bristol Temple Meads, station code BRI, for those who were getting upset/confused by such things)

[andy stroud]

They have solved it today. 1A04, which later forms 1C24 to Taunton, is reported as a single five-car set. I hope they don't try splitting that.

 

Geoff Endacott

So that's an evening peak London to Bristol train formed of five coaches?

[HillsideDepot]

Surely it would be better to announce at stations prior to it that passengers travelling beyond BTM* should travel in the front 5 coaches rather than wait til they get there and then make people move?  I thought that was/would be fairly standard practice.  Obviously a final check/announcement is still be needed to make sure there's no one left, but from the earlier post I get the feeling there were people in both sets going beyond BTM, suggesting it maybe wasn't made clear on boarding.  If so, it seems an easy way to annoy people!

 

 

( * that's an abbreviation for Bristol Temple Meads, station code BRI, for those who were getting upset/confused by such things)

It was being announced on the platform at Chippenham last night. Both on the dot matrix displays and the public address.

 

Unfortunately, but I think I can see why now, the PA was saying "...where the train will divide, the front ten coaches for Nailsea and Backwell..." etc "... and the rear <pause> coaches for Bath Spa and Bristol Temple Meads". I suspect the system is getting the "will divide" message from the schedule, but is then getting the "10 coaches" bit from "real time" information (TRUST?) which knows the whole both units will run throughout, resulting in the confused message. 

 

So that's an evening peak London to Bristol train formed of five coaches?

 

Yes, 17:30 Paddington - Taunton via Bristol TM. Two ways of looking at this, I suppose, "running just 5 coaches will make a sardine tin look spacious", or "at least they could split it and still run 5 coaches".

[andy stroud]

 

Yes, 17:30 Paddington - Taunton via Bristol TM. Two ways of looking at this, I suppose, "running just 5 coaches will make a sardine tin look spacious", or "at least they could split it and still run 5 coaches".

Still cannot believe that they are building longish distance inter city type trains as five car sets. Thought they might have learnt after the Voyager debarcle.

[The Stationmaster]

Granted, it is a day to day operating problem that the operators have to get to grips with, and with the difficulties that go with the greater permutations available. But, whilst it was quite straightforward for Old Oak Common to send a train round the Greenford Loop, North Pole depot is on the wrong side of the railway to make it a simple move.

I suspect that in time, as the need for test running diminishes, things will settle down and reversed sets will become an exception.

 

Jim

 

The only difference between Old Oak Common sending a train 'round Greenford' and North Pole sending a train 'round Greenford' is the point at which the train has to reverse after leaving the depot and before returning to it (assuming it goes back to it rather than to Paddington) although that might mean a train from NP having to possibly run further east unless you can still access No. 1 Reception Line at Old Oak East from the flyover.

If it were all one organisation, in principle it ought to be easy.

 

But with a contract like this you have to think of everything ahead of time.

 

If someone forgot to specify the trains being put together in the depot the right way round something that is technically fairly straightforward can become contractually complicated.

 

Exactly - 'someone' (or several someones) has to think - but it is hardly difficult thinking unless you don't have a clue what you're doing and if you don't have a clue why are you in the job?  I was involved in contracting services in (and out) from 1994 onwards, it isn't exactly a new idea just that in this case there is what might for some be a novel boundary where a contract exists.  But in 1994 in terms of agreed priced and contracts it was all new and all it required was a bit of careful thought and knew your costs and what you could get away with charging the relevant market prices - liking making sure you accounted/charged for fuel when hiring out locos or specifying response times

[Ron Ron Ron]

Still cannot believe that they are building longish distance inter city type trains as five car sets. Thought they might have learnt after the Voyager debarcle.

 

 

Don't forget, a large number of these trains will be 9-car units.

 

GWR are getting 35 x 9-car sets as opposed to 58 x 5-car sets, which will be mostly coupled in pairs.

 

VTEC or whoever replaces them, will be getting twice as many 9-cars than 5-car trains.

43 x 9-car as opposed to 22 x 5-car, which again will be mostly coupled in pairs on the core sections of the ECML.

 

Note also, that these trains are designed from the start to be extended up to 12-car in length.

 

 

.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[St. Simon]

Note also, that these trains are designed from the start to be extended up to 12-car in length.

 

Hi,

 

There was talk at one point of running 2 x 12 car units on Western, but my boss and I had to put down that idea as it was simply ridiculous!

 

Simon 

[Zomboid]

Just because a train goes a long way doesn't mean it needs to have lots of carriages.

Voyagers are often too short, but I would suspect that a HST is too long for a number of the places they're used. Splitting and joining to match demand is nothing new- before HSTs carriages would be attached and detached at Plymouth on at least some of the London to Cornwall trains for example.

[leavesontheline]

Surely it would be better to announce at stations prior to it that passengers travelling beyond BTM* should travel in the front 5 coaches rather than wait til they get there and then make people move? I thought that was/would be fairly standard practice. Obviously a final check/announcement is still be needed to make sure there's no one left, but from the earlier post I get the feeling there were people in both sets going beyond BTM, suggesting it maybe wasn't made clear on boarding. If so, it seems an easy way to annoy people!

 

 

( * that's an abbreviation for Bristol Temple Meads, station code BRI, for those who were getting upset/confused by such things)

I imagine they probably did but I only got on at BTM where they were reinforcing the message on the platform and on-train announcements. But then there were additional announcements to make sure passengers alighting at the shorter stations would be far enough forward. These messages combined could have been confusing to some people particularly those busy chatting!

 

I, on the other hand, was like an exited school boy on finding that I'd be getting my first ride on one! I never normally get lucky with HST's, usually ending up with a Class 150, though I have noticed Class 166's filtering down to routes down here recently. My wife though, not so bothered!

Edited December 14, 2017 by leavesontheline

[Bomag]

I managed to ride on a pair of 800s from Padington to Reading. It seams that they looked at all the previous train's positive and negative aspects and chose the negative in nearly all cases. My colleague, who had been on a Mk4 set down from Leeds with me and knows nothing about IEP said he was glad we were getting Azumas instread!

[D854_Tiger]

Hi,

 

There was talk at one point of running 2 x 12 car units on Western, but my boss and I had to put down that idea as it was simply ridiculous!

 

Simon 

 

Exactly, those Japanese, coming over here, with their Japanese ways just because they are used to dispatching eighteen coaches worth of bullet train, every quarter of an hour, doesn't mean they can get away with the same thing over here.

[Coryton]

Exactly, those Japanese, coming over here, with their Japanese ways just because they are used to dispatching eighteen coaches worth of bullet train, every quarter of an hour, doesn't mean they can get away with the same thing over here.

 

Possibly they built their "new trunk line" (Shinkansen) to accommodate such trains?

 

Unfortunately Brunel doesn't appear to have had the same foresight.

[Ken.W]

I doubt very much the ECML would accommodate 12 cars with these trains, never mind 24

[37114]

Surely it would be better to announce at stations prior to it that passengers travelling beyond BTM* should travel in the front 5 coaches rather than wait til they get there and then make people move? I thought that was/would be fairly standard practice. Obviously a final check/announcement is still be needed to make sure there's no one left, but from the earlier post I get the feeling there were people in both sets going beyond BTM, suggesting it maybe wasn't made clear on boarding. If so, it seems an easy way to annoy people!

 

 

( * that's an abbreviation for Bristol Temple Meads, station code BRI, for those who were getting upset/confused by such things)

I noticed that there are now posters in and around Paddington station advising of the need to be in the front five coaches

[Coryton]

I doubt very much the ECML would accommodate 12 cars with these trains, never mind 24

 

They sort of managed the North of London Eurostars as far north as York, using a rather primitive form of SDO. (Not so selective).

 

Somewhat shorter coaches...so I'm not sure how the lengths compare.

[SouthernMafia]

Regarding turning, 800s aren't signed off to go via Greenford yet.

Turning at Reading is rarely accepted by NR train running because of the potential for congestion it causes from an unpathed move. It also requires a Pad driver who signs Reading West curve as Reading men don't sign 800s yet, and that's even if you can source a spare driver.

 

Similar story in the Bristol area. A service train is unlikely to be turned in service just to put 1st at the right end because it will incur a delay (cost).

So this requires an ECS move which again requires spare driver and path.

 

From where I sit it seems Hitachi are just focusing on getting the things running reliably for now before faffing about with less significant problems such as which end 1st Class is.

[The Stationmaster]

Regarding turning, 800s aren't signed off to go via Greenford yet.

Turning at Reading is rarely accepted by NR train running because of the potential for congestion it causes from an unpathed move. It also requires a Pad driver who signs Reading West curve as Reading men don't sign 800s yet, and that's even if you can source a spare driver.

 

Similar story in the Bristol area. A service train is unlikely to be turned in service just to put 1st at the right end because it will incur a delay (cost).

So this requires an ECS move which again requires spare driver and path.

 

From where I sit it seems Hitachi are just focusing on getting the things running reliably for now before faffing about with less significant problems such as which end 1st Class is.

 

So not a particularly tightly drafted train presentation contract and definitely a lack of logical thinking by the sound of things.  As I've said - it's all about properly contracting the detail and that isn't difficult after 20 odd years of getting used to it.

 

Interesting too that they aren't yet cleared via Greenford - hope there's no awkward total blockages of the route between Old Oak West and Hanwell in the near future.

 

In the meanwhile s*d the passengers and platform congestion as they all run up & down like the tangle at Cardiff on the first day or making GWR's publicity look like some sort of joke.  Great way to get one's new trains a positive image in the passengers' minds and dead easy to forget who pays the wages.  Sorry but that is what the reality boils down to and it is what should have been planned for, after getting trains the right way round isn't exactly a new idea.

[royaloak]

Dont worry Mike, I am sure lessons will be learned etc!

 

If it p-sses you off , imagine how the staff are feeling?

 

We keep getting updates about all the problems these things are suffering from, and a lot of them should have been discovered and sorted during the shakedown runs (or even at build) but they were allowed through and into service.

 

The one person I really feel sorry for is Mark Hopwood, he is a fantastic MD and he is the one getting it in the neck for a mess which is basically nothing to do with him, they are trains he was forced to take (by the DaFT), on a contract he didnt draw up (DaFT again) which Hitachi have drawn up so tight that any variation order on our part costs millions, but is vague enough that they dont get penalised for anything they get wrong, maintained at a depot he has no control over (Hitachi) and he cannot refuse to accept anymore because his old trains have to leave the franchise on time (ScotRail) and there is nothing he can do about that, but boy did he try.

 

I am no fanboy for Management but I do genuinely have a lot of sympathy for Mark and the position he is currently in.

 

I hear the recent contract between GWR and Arriva for Arriva to carry out some B exams for us was written (by finance, not fleet) on one sheet of A4, a contract worth 12k a week!

[Coryton]

I hear the recent contract between GWR and Arriva for Arriva to carry out some B exams for us was written (by finance, not fleet) on one sheet of A4, a contract worth 12k a week!

 

You should see how much money gets spent in the space industry before contracts are even signed - just a piece of paper promising to pay for work up to a certain value. 

 

To echo what the Stationmaster said, first impressions are quite important. Stagecoach got that right when they took over Greater Manchester Buses South. They kept the existing buses in the old livery, then brought in new buses in the Stagecoach livery route by route, which meant that the Stagecoach brand was tied into the nice new buses.

[Geoff Endacott]

Meanwhile, 800010/17 failed today on 1C16. Train terminated at Swindon then ECS to Stoke Gifford. I was waiting for it at Chippenham.

 

Geoff Endacott

Edited December 16, 2017 by Geoff Endacott

[The Stationmaster]

Dont worry Mike, I am sure lessons will be learned etc!

 

If it p-sses you off , imagine how the staff are feeling?

 

We keep getting updates about all the problems these things are suffering from, and a lot of them should have been discovered and sorted during the shakedown runs (or even at build) but they were allowed through and into service.

 

The one person I really feel sorry for is Mark Hopwood, he is a fantastic MD and he is the one getting it in the neck for a mess which is basically nothing to do with him, they are trains he was forced to take (by the DaFT), on a contract he didnt draw up (DaFT again) which Hitachi have drawn up so tight that any variation order on our part costs millions, but is vague enough that they dont get penalised for anything they get wrong, maintained at a depot he has no control over (Hitachi) and he cannot refuse to accept anymore because his old trains have to leave the franchise on time (ScotRail) and there is nothing he can do about that, but boy did he try.

 

I am no fanboy for Management but I do genuinely have a lot of sympathy for Mark and the position he is currently in.

 

I hear the recent contract between GWR and Arriva for Arriva to carry out some B exams for us was written (by finance, not fleet) on one sheet of A4, a contract worth 12k a week!

 

I've got a lot of time for Mark - he's excellent with local passenger groups such as ours locally and he puts a lot of effort into getting things right for what his passengers want (when his hands aren't tied).

 

As a matter of fact the hire contracts I used to write were basically two sheets of A4 until the company acquired it's own solicitor who then injected two pages worth of totally meaningless gobbledegook.  Oddly all the legal protections and exclusions were included in my original two pages as they were based on what I'd had previously agreed with a corporate solicitor when we were hiring out locos in the preservation sector, he had more idea about things than our company solicitor did !  Strangely when our fleet people took some contracting work off me (to keep a blue-eyed boy in a job) they managed to agree a longish term contract for loco hire which cost us money as they charged the wrong rate for fuel and forgot to allow for consumables such as brake blocks and having to sub-contract in exams as the locos were well off out patch.

[jjb1970]

Writing a good contract is an art, as is managing contracts. Some  organizations are very good at it and others aren't. I've worked with people who were extremely well paid because they were superb not only at writing contracts but also identifying risks, omissions and opportunities in contracts. And perhaps most importantly, they knew how to maximize variation order revenue without taking it too far and poisoning future opportunities. I think it's fair to say that DafT don't have the best reputation in this area. My pet theory is that companies love the high handed approach of  certain other departments and actually encourage some of it as part of their commercial strategy to suck the government in and draw them into ridiculous contracts. After all what's having to put up with a high handed mandarin if you know you're about to take them to the cleaners? Government departments are among the worst culprits for entering into contracts then blaming the counter party if the contract is not appropriate for what they want/need.

[phil-b259]

From Roger Fords latest 'Informed Sources' preview e-mail (the emphasis on certain sections is mine)

 

Class 800 performance logs

Steve Jobs of Apple was credited with the ability to create a ‘reality distortion field’ when his team were developing the original Macintosh.  A similar field surrounded the Department for Transport when the Intercity Express Programme specification was being developed.

One of the longest campaigns in Informed Sources history has seen me patiently explaining why DfT’s belief that distributed traction compensates for a shortage of installed power is delusional.  But people have continued to cling to it like a security blanket.

However, the train is now in the metal, in the form of the Class 800 and, entering service with Great Western.  And, as they say in motor racing ‘when the flag drops the b*llsh*t  stops.
So I was delighted to receive the first analysis and modelling of Class 800 logs to date from the  Railway Performance Society (RPS)  And very interesting it has proved too.

For example when the delays to GWEP meant that the Class 800 bi-modes were going to be running under diesel power for over a year, DfT finally conceded that the  750hp (560kW) ‘reliability rating’  of the Class 800  MTU engines was not enough to match IC125 times.

So as part of the deal which saw the 9-car electrics for GWR delivered as bi-modes, Hitachi agreed to ‘unmuzzle’ the engines and run them at their 940hp (700kW) commercial rating.  This added £300 million to the cost of the IEP contract.

Thus far the RPS members have failed to find any evidence of the uprating, analysis being consistent with the 750hp power output. Nor does analysis of performance with an engine out indicate that the automatic uprating of the other engines in the set to the commercial rating is happening.

These are, of course,  early days for the Class 800 fleet,  with the first sets being bedded in. I would not be surprised if the engine management software was locked at the Reliability rating.  In addition, according to Informed Sources, GWR is under pressure from DfT not to ‘unmuzzle’ the engines.

As part of the £300 million deal the engine reliability regime within the contract is suspended for uprated power units. If an engine fails, Hitachi is held harmless for any performance regime penalties during the rest of the diagram and DfT compensates  GWR.

One interesting feature to emerge from the analysis is the comparative performance from a standing start.  Obviously the Class 800 zips away, but then the IC125 overhauls it.  Way back in the IEP saga, my brother, the engineering professor, analysed just such a ‘drag race’ as part of my efforts to discredit the distributed traction fallacy.  Using just published acceleration curves and excel he was within 20% of 2017 real world performance. Clever stuff, eh?

[Coryton]

From Roger Fords latest 'Informed Sources' preview e-mail (the emphasis on certain sections is mine)

 

 

Interesting stuff...but I get the impression that certain parties are determined not to find anything positive in these trains.

 

I had a flick through the Modern Railways issue covering the IET launch but the coverage was so overwhelmingly negative that I left it on the shelf, having been reminded why I stopped buying Modern Railways.

[D854_Tiger]

Interesting stuff...but I get the impression that certain parties are determined not to find anything positive in these trains.

 

I had a flick through the Modern Railways issue covering the IET launch but the coverage was so overwhelmingly negative that I left it on the shelf, having been reminded why I stopped buying Modern Railways.

 

By any measure, by now, surely the concept of the DfT specifying trains to address the issues and pitfalls of the TOCs doing so, by them going it alone, has been totally discredited.

 

Modern railways are merely the messenger in this.

 

However, there can be no doubting that they will probably be very good (though expensive) trains and, though the bi-mode concept can be faulted, it seems strange to me that people are choosing to criticise the trains based on the performance aspect.

 

On electric they can clearly go like the proverbial, just as they were designed, on diesel less so, also just as designed, the problem is the lack of wires and Hitachi or for that matter the DfT can hardly be blamed for that.

 

As for spending 300m on uprating the diesels, what a terrible waste of our money, just for a year, the GW, NR and their customers should have been told to make do in the meantime with contracts, timetables and fares adjusted accordingly, if need be.

 

Once the wires reach Swindon, an HST like timetable should be an easy ask, and it's nothing but ongoing improvement from then on.