Ken.W

Really? Maybe the steam section of some tours may be in parts of the north but.. I just received in the post today the season's brochure from one of the largest operators... A quick look through and I was left wondering why they'd even bothered to post it this far north... before consigning it to the waste bin

They will be so long as they arrive pre-Brexit and our leaving the Single Market Seriously though, just another example of the media running-down British manufacturing with half-truths (or even less if they can get away with it)! The actual difference isn't so much where they're being built, but who ordered them; The 800 / 801s are the original IEP series, "procured" by DafT on an apparently somewhat questionable contract. The 802s on the other hand were ordered direct by the TOC

Of the major upgrades required to provide capacity for the planned increased service; Werrington dive-under; not started Connington - Huntingdon quadrupling; not started Kings X approach; not started Overhead power supply upgrades; Welwyn - Hitchin just recently resumed after being stalled approx 3 years (the deadline for running the new Thameslink trains is fast approaching here - elsewhere, particularly north of Newcastle; not started I'm sure there's other works planned too, guess what? Yes, no sign of them! As far as stock provision for the extra services is concerned, the new IEP sets are due to start appearing on the route late this year (about 3 months late). VTEC currently has 45 sets for the current service levels, 30 Mk4 sets and 15 HST including the pair on loan from EMT. They're due to receive 65 new IEP sets. Plus it's said that some of the present fleet will also be retained. Six of the 91/Mk4 sets is the most quoted, though this still seems undecided. So no shortage of stock then. On the point of power supply upgrades, it's been discussed previously whether the overhead supplies are sufficient for the IEPs, besides the planned increase in services, it should be noted from the above though that a third of the current fleet are diesel, whereas with electrics and bi-modes all the new fleet will be expected to be running from the overheads, plus TPE and Hull Trains also have bi-modes on order, so even more trains wanting to use the overheads.

Not so sure about that, wasn't it reported at the time that VTEC had bit considerably more that the competition? As I understand it, VTEC did attempt to re-negociate the franchise on the basis that the failure to complete the planed route upgrades meant they would be unable to increase the service levels as required to be able to carry the increase in passengers required to meet the franchise forecasts, and it was DaFT that decided instead to terminate the franchise early

Grayling do the deed? Erm, the Transport Minister who, in his first week in office, car-doored a cyclist, reportedly left the scene, and took him all his time to even apologise. Don't hold your breath for that one

There's a proposal for a new charter set being made up from Mk3 stock, but no suggestion of it being fitted with vacuum brakes. It's actually a proposal from the A1 Trust, which of course designed Tornado to be built air braked to avoid all the problems of continuing to operate vacuum braked trains. But yes, having been trained on both, that's exactly how the Mk4 DVT / Cl.91 operate (as do any other driving trailers*, as far as I know). The DVT basically has a driver's brake control, some air reservoirs, and some pipework, basically all a steam loco would need, the compressor's on the 91. Or indeed, how HSTs managed to operate when the front engine shut down - pre re-engining when they were altered so the compressor can now run off the ETS, another possible solution, or combine the two for redundancy. All UK air-braked passenger stock, as far as I know, uses the two pipe system, so technically the compressor(s) can be anywhere on the train. * Including incidentally, the vacuum braked DMUs, which also had a two pipe system, the exhausters being direct drive off the engines, so not provided on driving trailer vehicles. Mention's been made earlier in comparison of the problems assisting failed units with incompatable couplings to that of assisting a failed vacuum braked train. In the case of the units though, there will be a similar unit around somewhere that can assist, even though it does considerably prolong the delay. It'd be much more of a problem finding a vacuum fitted loco within range to provide assistance in the case of a failed vacuum braked train, unless of course we go back to steam specials always having to tow their own thunderbird on the back - and there was even more complaints about the noise off that than that of an air pump. On the safety aspect, whilst vacuum fitted trains can of course be managed to operate safely, the major issue would be in an emergency situation. Mention has been made in relation to the DP2 incident and the difference that could have been made if the train was air-braked. A much more recent incident, involving the operator of the remaining vacuum fitted charters has also been mentioned. This incident, it will be recalled, narrowly missed fouling a trailing junction ahead of an HST approaching at line speed by around a minute. If the timing of the two trains had been slightly different, then had the charter been air-braked that could very well have made the difference in it stopping short of the fouling point instead of foul of the junction as it did, or in it reaching the fouling point behind the HST.

Apparently not now, according to the article linked above; Maybe paying more than DOR, but only by doing so at a level that was untenable and widely predicted to fail Edit to correct auto-incorrect

There's been no question over the performance of the 800s in electric mode so how will lugging the dead weight of the engines around be a problem? It's when actually running on the diesels that the performance question arises, and as you've said, HT have had sense to order 802s instead. As opposed to the alternative, Hull Trains' main problem at present of having to run on diesel for 170 miles under the wires for the sake of the short run from Templehurst to Hull, perhaps you'd prefer to see that continue? And after the GWML Electrification fiasco, there's no prospect of places like Hull being electrified anytime soon. Exactly. During the periods last year when high speed coasting was being used to get electrics though a dead section, there were at least two occasions of a train running short of Main Reservoir Air and consequently dumping the brake in the middle of the dead section - just because there was no power for the compressor! On another occasion I've previously related, due to a problem I'd to pan down around East Cowton, at about 80, and coast the approx 8 mile into Darlington, no problem speed-wise, still had to brake for going inside at Darlington, but had only just stopped in the platform when the Low Main Air Protection activated! edit to add; There's even long been considerations of fitting emergency gens. to Mk4 DVTs to maintain train supply when stuck in a dead section, but seems to have been dismissed as unfeasible to fit There has been some upgrading work taking place, particularly of 'weak spots'. For example, all the Neutral Sections in 'headspan' type structures have been converted to portal structures. If a train's entangled in the wires, having diesel engines will at least allow the one's stuck behind in the dead section to unstick themselves, and for the affected train to keep train supply on for air con etc. If you're still unsure of the value of this, try asking the passengers involved in the incident several years ago where a train was stuck for several hours on the hottest day of the year, and they ended up breaking windows and self-evacuating using emergency door releases, before either suffocating or roasting. Unfortunately, it's part of the nature of things that if a train's entangled in wires, it is going to be there for some time. A common situation is that the remains of the pan are left in an 'out of gauge' position so the train can't be moved without bringing even more wire down. Something I've experienced in both de-wirements I've attended with thunderbirds. This requires obviously, fitters to be got out to the site in order to remove the remains of the pan or secure it in a safe position if possible, but also an overhead line crew is needed to drive out to site (usually in the middle of nowhere) from wherever they're based, as it's necessary to physically isolate the affected section - using the manual post-mounted switches - and earthed by attaching actual earthing straps, before then going through the procedures of issuing authority to work permits, before anyone even thinks about going up on the roof to do the work. Usually the adjoining line also needs isolating while this takes place, so there's need to balance getting the work done and not getting too many trains stacked up in the queue. What might seem not entirely acceptable is not always in line with what's possible. You don't p*ss about where there's 25 killer volts about

Not mentioned so far, but Refuge Sidings could also be facing to direction of travel - the train would run straight in and be backed out. There were several like this on the Newcastle - Carlisle line. The 'box would have a pair of Refuge Sidings, one each direction, running parallel to each other from the points at the 'box, with one in the trailing direction and the other facing. In most cases they appeared to be formerly Goods Lines, but as an economy the 'box at the other end had been taken out leaving them as dead-end sidings. Incidentally, where a Refuge Siding is in the facing direction the buffer stop displays a white light, not red. (This can still be seen on the Reversing Siding for the Wensleydale branch at Northallerton)

No more so than the proliferation of units that nothing else will couple to... such as failed 180s blocking the ECML for 2 - 3 hours

....again Had just left Newcastle with 15:59 KX, and at King Edward Bridge South Jn past a pair of GWR 5-car 800s heading north On return, 20:00 from KX, past what seemed to be just one of them at Thirsk Headlights are d*mm*d bright!

Erm, apart perhaps from second in on bottom row?

I believe it was some sort of maintenance access panel, for changing compressors / exhausters or some such that wouldn't go through the cab. Photos show them as being bolted on, not welded

No confusion, that's actually correct... The (Gresley) A1 Class, of which 4472 actually remained until post-war, was the original "Pacific-Type" The A3s, an improved design with higher boiler pressure were therefore referred to as the "Super-Pacifics" Comments relating to the loco being named after the train service's actually a debatable point. AIUI, at the time 4472 came out 'flying scotsman' was only an unofficial nickname for the daily 10am KX / Edinburgh expresses, and the train title was only officially used from the first of the non-stop runs in 1928, hauled of course by 4472 - well, first by several minutes anyway - as the trains were 10am from KX and Edinburgh, there was of course another non-stop in the opposite direction at the same time - whether by chance or design, 4472's arrived first

Best place for them, from what I hear

None were, they were additional air reservoirs for train air brakes, so only present on conversion to duel brakes.

...and would probably move them

jamie, 1. As far as can be seen, not even started yet. It's also one of the upgrades not being delivered that's quoted by VTEC in ending the franchise. In fact, the power upgrade work in the Welwyn area, which you questioned over a year ago as having appeared abandoned for some time, has only recently re-commenced. 2. Don't know, but the real problems north of there anyway.

Certainly the (now ex) GC sets, as spare HST stock was unavailable at the time Don't know about the XC ones, which were re-introduced by Arriva after they took over there from Virgin Given the talk of re-use of Mk4s, it's also worth noting that these are rapidly approaching 30 years

Otherwise known as DaFT It was, as you say their program, so they'll have written the specification. What notice, if any, they've taken from any operator input's obviously debatable, they seem to have told the operators this is what you're getting. That is what the supplier will have provided, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, they're not making modifications to correct the deficiencies themselves and their engineers on that Inverness run were, apparently, rather surprised and somewhat taken aback to be told their new trains are not as good as the HSTs. This spec is also what the supplier will charge a price for to alter for the it not coming up to scratch. There's not yet been a test on the Aberdeen route, but the verdict on the Inverness run performance was something has to be done, and from NR apparently, a big no-no

Something like this perhaps? lol ; http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94506-class-800-updates/page-107 # 2660 / 2684 Regarding the gangways, if the DVT can be dispensed with and gangway connections into the power cars aren't required, then depending on the number of sets required perhaps putting a TOE on each end would provide a solution? Yes, and my original reply did include 'etc'. It is though, still a lot more significant work than adjustments. It is certainly a very fluid situation though with still nothing apparently decided on what sets will be running. I'd just recently heard, from someone I'd consider a reliable source, that the full HST fleet was to be retained, with just the two borrowed EMT sets going back to them. From what I've heard subsequently to these posts, is that this plan has run into difficulties with workshop capacity to now get the PRM compliance work done in time for the deadline, as they're now fully booked with the other sets that are being retained, so conversion of Mk4 stock is being considered. Something does need to be sorted though, following the recent 800 test run to Inverness, as NR apparently viewed that 'performance' as a big no-no, or face the possibility of the north of Edinburgh services being transferred to Scotrail

Yes agreed, but the EC aren't getting any 802s Which makes it even more critical when the 800s performance is significantly slower than that of the HST, to the point where it can become unacceptable On the EC it is not a short term problem, and has absolutely nothing to do with the delays in electrification, all of the EC routes where they were planned to run on electric were already electrified. Or again, perhaps you would care to inform us when Aberdeen / Inverness are being electrified? There's been nothing said to suggest that the trains aren't performing as specified, however whatever the reasons for their shortcomings, how can you suggest otherwise when they're clearly not performing as required on routes they were always going to require to work on diesel and which, again, was the reason for there being bi-modes. It's hardly a massively improved service for passengers expecting shiny new trains who may find themselves still on the same "clapped out" 40 year old ones, or on 'even more clapped out' 30 year old replacements, or even possibly, have no train at all and find they have to change trains at Edinburgh, and it's well known just how loathed the average potential passenger is to changing trains en-route particularly one where many have large amounts of luggage.

So a few trains a day north of Edinburgh may (or should) be slower, too far from London to bother about as that seems to be the only timings that concern you, as long as the timings into London make up for it (if they do) it doesn't matter about earlier delays, even though you also say not all passengers are traveling to London? Have you seen the passenger loadings on these trains you're commenting on? They're often actually the busiest trains on the route (including 'peak' times) and do in fact carry significant numbers of through London passengers, especially at holiday times as they're very popular with tourists and often fully booked. So much so in fact, that the Aberdeen / Inverness services are, south of Edinburgh, the only one's that we're advised not to travel on on our passes, and at certain Holiday times they're actually restricted from carry passengers between any stations south of Edinburgh. The performance of the 800 to Inverness means that, far from the 'considerable improvements' in service passengers have been led to expect 'other options are being considered' (discussed more on the future of HSTs thread), or even, casting into doubt the future of the service. These services are very popular, and suggestions to cut them have always drawn large opposition (and not just from politicians) but you would seem to be happy to see the Chieftain go the same way as the Clansman

On the climbs, possibly even more significant given the topography of the line. Either way, significant enough to put the future of the service in doubt

We don't know yet if it's planed to use 5 or 9 car sets (or any at all at that speed!) At a quick calculation though, the difference is only about 33 hp per car so fairly insignificant, and probably less so than the fact that's comparing the performance of the 800 running empty to that of an in service HST