Class 800 - Updates

[royaloak]

Would "Jobsworth" be more appropriate?

Not really because I class the word 'jobsworth' as a compliment as it means you are doing your job correctly, in this case the staff member was being a tool!

[Chris116]

The great thing was he must have realised what a fool he was making of himself and didn't appear again and I had a quiet laugh to myself. I could not be bothered to do anything more about it and if the same thing happened again I would search out the guard and ask where they wanted me to sit.

[Ken.W]

Why? The status of the ticket takes precedence, even if the reservation is wrong.

 

And no member of staff deserves to be called an idiot for doing his job, even if his employer has made a mess of things.

 

Jim

 

Sorry but, had you read the post that was being replied to there?

 

First of all, he berates the passenger for not sitting in his reserved seat with a Standard ticket when the reservation's in First class, and instucts him to use his reserved seat.

 

Then next thing, he berates him again for sitting in his reserved First class seat with a Standard ticket, which he's just instructed him to do!

 

And then, how can it be the passenger's fault that the reservation's incorrect, and the passenger need to buy another ticket??

 

Sorry but in my opinion 'idiot' is being quite complimentary. I'd hope he doesn't get a job more responsible that punching tickets

[Ken.W]

You should have reported the idiot, its hardly your fault GWR have made a pigs ear of the coach lettering/reservations is it!

 

I have heard that GWR will be re-lettering the HSTs so the seating corresponds with the IETs rather than we have now where a Standard reservation on an IET is actually a First class seat on a HST, something they should have done long ago.

 

EC sets* have long since had the coaches lettered differently between HST and Mk4 sets, so that where coach types differ in the formations the reservations don't clash.

 

Hence, with 9 coaches in either set type, we use letters from A to P

 

'Coaches' A & P anyone?

 

Yes, they do exist -

Cycle reservations, A in the TGS (North end) on an HST, and P in the DVT (South end) of a Mk4. Hence the North end passenger coach is always B, HST or Mk4.

Letters for the catering vehicles differ, as they're First on an HST and Standard on a Mk4, as do the adjoining vehicles which are an additional Standard on HSTs and First on Mk4s.

 

* "EC sets" used as, at the rate we tend to go through them, this has been the case through several variations of operator

[magic_monkey09]

The only time I have travelled in an IET was from Cardiff to Paddington. I had a Standard class ticket with a seat reservation and the system appeared to be working. Trouble was my reservation turned out to be in the First class area so I went and sat in an unreserved Standard class seat only to be told off by the person who came through checking tickets. He insisted I go to my reserved seat and would not listen to me so off I went only to be threatened by him a few minutes later for using first class on a standard class ticket. He then said it was my fault that GWR had given me the wrong reservation with my ticket and that I would have to buy a complete new ticket as mine was not valid with my reservation. I told him to call BTP and he went off saying he would get me thrown off the train but strangely never came back!

This happens when a 10 car IET replaces a service booked for a HST. Coaches D and E have traditionally been standard class carriages on a HST but on a 10 car IET they are first class carriages causing confusion. To further confuse matters coaches D and E do not even exist on 9 a car IET hence why GWR have been abolishing seat reservations on services where the allocated stock does not match the revervations.

It must have been some jobsworth revenue protection inspector you encountered as I cannot see a train manager not being familiar with the layout of his train.

Edited December 2, 2018 by magic_monkey09

[jim.snowdon]

Would it not just have been simpler to design trains which are compatible with the existing infrastructure and signalling ?

Assuming that the limitations of existing signalling equipment are actually known, and aren't so fundamental as to be incompatible with any electrically noisy train.

 

Jim

[caradoc]

Assuming that the limitations of existing signalling equipment are actually known, and aren't so fundamental as to be incompatible with any electrically noisy train.

 

Jim

 

Sorry if I'm being simple here (I was only ever a railway operator, not an engineer !), but why not build trains which are not electrically noisy, or at least no more electrically noisy than the trains already operating over the route ?

[jamie92208]

Assuming that the limitations of existing signalling equipment are actually known, and aren't so fundamental as to be incompatible with any electrically noisy train.

 

Jim

Or in the case of the ECML north of York, had been forgotten about.

 

Sorry if I'm being simple here (I was only ever a railway operator, not an engineer !), but why not build trains which are not electrically noisy, or at least no more electrically noisy than the trains already operating over the route ?

According to Uncle Roger the means of making a train less noisy are well known but carry a substantial weight penalty and the DaFT wanted so many other things in the spec that the transformer had to be lightened, (That may be a gross over simplification).  This happened before with the Pendelinos and the solution was found and implemented but the solution had been 

forgotten about in some areas by the time the IET arrived.   Apparently there was still corporate memory in Scotland and the requisite work was done for the Edinburgh to Glasgow electrification.

 

Jamie

[iands]

Assuming that the limitations of existing signalling equipment are actually known, and aren't so fundamental as to be incompatible with any electrically noisy train.

Jim

The existing electic traction works okay with the SSI at York and north thereof (even if very close to the upper threshold limit), so a degree of information on the limitations (on immunisation requirements) are known (even with the knowledge the screening cables are missing), yet the assumption is that DfT still didn't get the spec for the 800s right in this respect - assuming they were in possession of the full facts of course? However, what I'm not clear on is if the GWR 800s were ordered first, and as the GWML would have new OLE, that any EMC issues with existing infrastructure did not exist. Was this "not a problem" attitude taken forward into the Azuma fleet contract without a second thought? An "ignorance is bliss" approach perhaps?

[iands]

Or in the case of the ECML north of York, had been forgotten about.

 

I don't think the troops on the ground have forgotton about the issues as "Hot Wire Working" precautions were instituted on the ECML at York and north thereof in the early days of Railtrack, and to my knowledge have never been rescinded.

[jamie92208]

Or in the case of the ECML north of York, had been forgotten about.

 

I don't think the troops on the ground have forgotton about the issues as "Hot Wire Working" precautions were instituted on the ECML at York and north thereof in the early days of Railtrack, and to my knowledge have never been rescinded.

 

I'm not sure exactly what Hot wire working means in this context but it sounds as if nobody actually bothered to ask the troops on the ground as happens so often in many circumstances.

 

Jamie

[GWRPhil]

I'm not sure exactly what Hot wire working means in this context but it sounds as if nobody actually bothered to ask the troops on the ground as happens so often in many circumstances.

 

Jamie

 

 

Would I be right in assuming it’s working on overhead equipment etc whilst still live?

 

Seems a little dicey.

[iands]

GWRPhil and Jamie,

 

Apologies, I didn't explain what Hot Wire Working is. Basically the S&T techs take extra precautions when working on signalling and/or telecoms cables and equipment on electrified routes due to the potential for higher than expected/permitted voltages on the cables/equipment, due, in part at least, in the case of the ECML, the missing screening cables.

[Siberian Snooper]

I'm not sure exactly what Hot wire working means in this context but it sounds as if nobody actually bothered to ask the troops on the ground as happens so often in many circumstances.

 

Jamie

Or they do and then choose to ignore it until it all goes wrong, other phrases are available.

[Ken.W]

Assuming that the limitations of existing signalling equipment are actually known, and aren't so fundamental as to be incompatible with any electrically noisy train.

 

The limitations were, or at least should have been, known, as the same happened with Pendolinos and 92s

 

Would I be right in assuming it’s working on overhead equipment etc whilst still live?

 

Seems a little dicey.

 

Erm NO, you don't go within 9ft of live OHLE

 

...and, it's always live unless you're in possession of an isolation and permit

Edited December 2, 2018 by Ken.W

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Funnily enough, despite the generally negative reaction to the 80X trains here and among railway enthusiasts in general I have to say that all of the "normal" I know who have travelled on them have been positive about them ...

 Single data point, my own dear sister who uses the train relatively infrequently, for Cornwall-London and return. Came up last week on an HST. Her return journey on Friday just past on an 800: best railway journey ever, (standard) seat most comfortable ever experienced on a train. (She's 1.62m tall.)

[Arun Sharma]

 Single data point, my own dear sister who uses the train relatively infrequently, for Cornwall-London and return. Came up last week on an HST. Her return journey on Friday just past on an 800: best railway journey ever, (standard) seat most comfortable ever experienced on a train. (She's 1.62m tall.)

That's pretty much my experience - I'm 165cm and similarly I find the seat lordosis curve is in exactly the right place so that the seat [whilst seemingly quite thin and stiff] is actually very comfortable - Personally I find the 800's  seats more comfortable than those on a FGW HST even on a PAD-DID journey.

[The Stationmaster]

The existing electic traction works okay with the SSI at York and north thereof (even if very close to the upper threshold limit), so a degree of information on the limitations (on immunisation requirements) are known (even with the knowledge the screening cables are missing), yet the assumption is that DfT still didn't get the spec for the 800s right in this respect - assuming they were in possession of the full facts of course? However, what I'm not clear on is if the GWR 800s were ordered first, and as the GWML would have new OLE, that any EMC issues with existing infrastructure did not exist. Was this "not a problem" attitude taken forward into the Azuma fleet contract without a second thought? An "ignorance is bliss" approach perhaps?

 

Something has clearly been wrong somewhere - either in the spec or the type/interference testing (or both).  It isn't necessarily difficult to build compliant trains - assuming that is what the spec says is wanted - and it isn't the end of the world adding the necessary kit to turn a non-compliant train into a compliant one, which is exactly what was done on Regional Eurostar sets to make them WCML & ECML compliant in electronic emissions terms.  But the l kit needed to make the train compliant will take up space and even on Eurostar power cars the only place the cabinet could be put was in the access gangway along on side of the power car leaving only one access gangway (which upset SNCF Drivers).

 

I'm sure advances in electronics over the past couple of decades would probably mean a much smaller piece of kit for a Class 80X but there would still be a big question mark over where to put it.

[2750Papyrus]

What do they do with the incompetent members of staff?

 

Geoff Endacott

Promote them!

[JDW]

That's pretty much my experience - I'm 165cm and similarly I find the seat lordosis curve is in exactly the right place so that the seat [whilst seemingly quite thin and stiff] is actually very comfortable - Personally I find the 800's  seats more comfortable than those on a FGW HST even on a PAD-DID journey.

 

I suspect thats the case for many.  Whilst we are the kind of people who notice the details, and know the difference, for a lot of people it's just a clean modern train to get them from A to B, they don't care who, why, where, what or how, so long as it does the job reasonably well, and unless probed probably wouldn't give too much thought to things like seat design.  A good many people barely seem to notice the environment around them anyway, unless something specific stands out (for example the seat being one that particularly makes them uncomfortable)

[jjb1970]

I think seat harness has been used a lot as a proxy for seat comfort. I prefer a firm seat but that's just personal preference, however I do think good shape (anatomic design) counts for far more than seat firmness in determining whether or not a seat is comfortable.

[Mallard60022]

I think seat harness has been used a lot as a proxy for seat comfort. I prefer a firm seat but that's just personal preference, however I do think good shape (anatomic design) counts for far more than seat firmness in determining whether or not a seat is comfortable.

 

Sorry jjb...seat harness is?

Phil

[jjb1970]

Sorry jjb...seat harness is?

Phil

 

Sorry, should read hardness (or softness).

[Geoff Endacott]

I think seat harness has been used a lot...

 

Is that what they use to stop people getting off at the wrong station?

 

Geoff Endacott

[4630]

Rail magazine is reporting this morning that Great Western Railway is to delay 'until further notice' the introduction of Newbury IET for CCTV modifications.

 

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/great-western-railway-delays-newbury-iet-introduction-for-cctv-modifications?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter