Class 800 - Updates

[frobisher]

2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

The Class 800, 801 and 802 driving vehicles are trailers and do not have the raised floor level to accommodate the underfloor diesel power packs.

This also allows for interior cabin headroom clearance for the pantograph well in these driving vehicles.

I assume these vehicles also carry the primary OHLE power equipment?

If one of the driving vehicles is now to incorporate accommodation for an additional power pack module, then the design of that vehicle will be quite different, in having a raised floor level...... and possibly no pantograph or AC power equipment fitted ?????

 

Perhaps one of the intermediates is double engined?  There might be room if said intermediate didn't have retention tanks (so no toilets), and that would keep the driving trailers with their floor levels etc as they are at current.

 

But the scheme you're proposing might be better, especially if it allows for traction motors to be fitted to that driving trailer as well which would obviously have benefits.

[caradoc]

22 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Reading is the biggest problem as there are times when it is occupied by three XC trains plus there is the regular pattern where north & southbound trains in effect cross each other so two platforms are needed simultaneously.  This means that one train always has to use Platform 3 which will only hold a maximum of a 5 car Voyager style set (and it can't be extended).

 

I can't really see any answer to this  - continued regular use of Platform 7 (the old Platform 4) shouldn't be too difficult although it does depend on what happens with Newbury/Bedwyn and West of England trains in December.  I would think that regular XC use of Platform 8 (the former Platform 5) will become much more difficult from December with increases in GWR services towards Bristol etc.  The big question mark must be over the Newcastles reversing in  one of the Relief Line side platforms and that depends in some respects what happens with Crossrail trains.  I know that from 15 December the GWR half hourly semi-fast service between Reading and Paddington will not turn round at Reading due to lack of platform capacity (a consequence of Crossrail opening up to Reading) but will run through to/from Didcot so that might also impact on XC using that side of the station.  

 

I sincerely hope that we don't lose the Newcastles at Reading because they provide not only a very useful additional XC route north of Birmingham but a boost to capacity on the Reading - Birmingham core XC route.  To exchange those for next to useless (from Reading)  Crossrail trains would be a major imposition should it happen.

 

According to the most interesting Great Western special in the current (August) Modern Railways, the off-peak services from Paddington towards Newbury (ie using Reading Platform 7) from this December will be at xx03, xx07 and xx37, so there should be some capacity for through XC trains to turn in 7 ? The half-hourly Thames Valley/Birmingham service is well-used throughout the day, with IMHO increased capacity definitely required, on the Manchester trains to start with. 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

3 hours ago, frobisher said:

 

Perhaps one of the intermediates is double engined?  There might be room if said intermediate didn't have retention tanks (so no toilets)..............

 

Would there be room and what about the weight?

Here's a photo of the power pack (stretches from the MTU sign to the camera)......

 

 

[Mallard60022]

800107 was the Unit on the York shuttle this afternoon. It was not the liveried Scotsman set. That was seemingly working a Leeds service between Scotsman duties; I believe it is 114?

Plenty of room for me to not have to use my allocated seats; down to York there was almost an empty coach H except for the person sitting next to my booked seat, 08. I went to a better and vacant seat. Up to Retford my booked seat (76) in Coach H did not have a decent window and was the end that was almost full; I went to the other end that was empty and again had a decent seat. 

There was some ceremony and gifts and radio interviews on arrival and I got interviewed by Radio York on departure. 

I have to say that the train staff are great, friendly, smiling, helpful and interested in what passengers were doing on this train. The 38 minutes on it did not numb my bum and this was a very pleasant experience indeed. Well done LNER. 

One comment. The café bar in coach G I think it is, is very cramped and not a clever design at all; not enough room for customers and people passing by right next to a vestibule.

I shall look at doing a Harrogate or maybe Hull trip sometime in the future to sample the other types of 800s.

P

[31A]

800107 leaving York this afternoon with @Mallard60022 on board:

 

[frobisher]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Would there be room and what about the weight?

Here's a photo of the power pack (stretches from the MTU sign to the camera)......

 

To be completely honest, not a clue.  Looking at the size of the thing, there probably could be space for a pair, provided you're not packing too much else down there (cue list of all things that would need to be displaced...) so easier is probably adding one to a driving car and all those knock-on's as you said.

[Zomboid]

Seems obvious to me that the EMT 80xs will most likely only have one pantograph vehicle, so space under the other 4 vehicles for the diesel.

What will be interesting is how they'll marshall them. They have to use the outer pans on GWML to run at 125, but that won't be an option if there's only one pantograph per 5 set and the two are next to each other. Perhaps they'll put the pans on the middle vehicles so the spacing is uniform at least.

[Ian Hargrave]

On 31/07/2019 at 16:50, Ian Hargrave said:

 

XC does in fact regularly operate certain services only with a combination of 220/221 in multiple.

 

Whatever the reasons may be it does not alter the certainty that the service is both overstrained and overcrowded.

 Reasons are cold comfort for both passengers and crew.

 

 

And yet...here’s a thing.This pm was my first passenger experience of the 800....a journey from Bath to Burton via TM. The Paddington-Bristol service was a 2x 5 car 800,looking very stylish,sleek and smart in GWR green.

Waiting for incoming passengers to alight,the door closed without warning as one poor soul had his foot on the step.Were it not for the timely reaction of a member of platform staff who just happened to be on the spot,embarrassment was avoided. Not a good start.Why this should happen is unclear.Perhaps some software bug   

needs clearing.

Performance on diesel was smooth and brisk but by Keynsham my  rib cage and “seat” were protesting .There is little upholstery filling in evidence.The design of seating by Hitachi for these units was,presumably,entrusted to ergonomic design by those best qualified in their field ? Who then might these luminaries be ......orthopaedic Japanese caterpillars with stiff collars ?  I would like the opportunity of a private ( unpaid ) consultation with them.I would also invite them to a 500 mile strapped -in  test in one of these creations. Or were they designed by a machine ? By  TM,I was glad to get off. Plenty of legroom I grant you but the seats reminded me of a Valley miners’ 1950’s bus.

The XC 221 from TM home,venerable though it now is and cramped too,had far more comfortable seats.

Come on chaps.Treat your passengers with a bit more respect than this.....or stick to TV sets and washing machines.It may look smart and perform like a greyhound.But you can’t ride a dog can you....too cruel.

[Fat Controller]

2 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 

And yet...here’s a thing.This pm was my first passenger experience of the 800....a journey from Bath to Burton via TM. The Paddington-Bristol service was a 2x 5 car 800,looking very stylish,sleek and smart in GWR green.

Waiting for incoming passengers to alight,the door closed without warning as one poor soul had his foot on the step.Were it not for the timely reaction of a member of platform staff who just happened to be on the spot,embarrassment was avoided. Not a good start.Why this should happen is unclear.Perhaps some software bug   

needs clearing.

Performance on diesel was smooth and brisk but by Keynsham my  rib cage and “seat” were protesting .There is little upholstery filling in evidence.The design of seating by Hitachi for these units was,presumably,entrusted to ergonomic design by those best qualified in their field ? Who then might these luminaries be ......orthopaedic Japanese caterpillars with stiff collars ?  I would like the opportunity of a private ( unpaid ) consultation with them.I would also invite them to a 500 mile strapped -in  test in one of these creations. Or were they designed by a machine ? By  TM,I was glad to get off. Plenty of legroom I grant you but the seats reminded me of a Valley miners’ 1950’s bus.

The XC 221 from TM home,venerable though it now is and cramped too,had far more comfortable seats.

Come on chaps.Treat your passengers with a bit more respect than this.....or stick to TV sets and washing machines.It may look smart and perform like a greyhound.But you can’t ride a dog can you....too cruel.

Weren't the seats specified by DAFT, rather than by Hitatchi or FGW?

[Ian Hargrave]

35 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Weren't the seats specified by DAFT, rather than by Hitatchi or FGW?

 

Really ?  Sorry then Hitachi. But the end result is the same. Why ?

[rodent279]

Comes to something when a Voyager is more comfortable and preferable to travel in!

[Ron Ron Ron]

The seats are designed and made by Fainsa, to a specification set out by the IEP.

There was supposed to have been consultation with the various safety bodies and experts, as well as the prospective TOC’s, regards the design criteria.

 

Fainsa are one of several train seat manufacturers supplying seats for new UK and other European trains.

I’ve no idea how these particular seats were chosen, but the usual process involves the bidding seat manufacturers submitting their designs and providing prototypes or existing examples. Then those who make the decisions, choose the manufacturer and design they prefer the best......oh! and not forgetting the all important contract price.

 

It’s rather unfair to put the blame at Hitachi’s door for the seat comfort. They just had to install them.

 

p.s.  IIRC, in a much earlier post on here, it was suggested that the chosen seat design was similar to one that Fainsa supplied for use in outer commuter and regional trains.

 

 

Ron

 

[Mallard60022]

2 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

Weren't the seats specified by DAFT, rather than by Hitatchi or FGW?

Daft asked for a train and Hitachi said we can do that and here is the bid. Daft said oh that' s nice and shiny, can we come and have a booze up and stuff our faces at your expense and see a similar train. Hitachi said yes. Daft spent loads of money going on a jolly, the Hitachi sales team got them pi##ed and sold them their spec. Daft said thankyou very much we will have loads of those and make sure the price never exceeds your bid or we will never come and see you again. That's how much input the Daft mob had in specifications. 

Cynical? Moi?

Ar$£

[Ian Hargrave]

Fainsa,IEP,Daft ?   Humanoids then,,   Thought so. Designed by robots not people.This is plain silly A flagship train designed by a committee. How very British

[melmerby]

17 hours ago, 31A said:

800107 leaving York this afternoon with @Mallard60022 on board:

 

Not this Mallard?

 

[Chris116]

Given the amount of paperwork normally required for anything to be allowed onto the National Railway system, I wonder when they started planning this move. Knowing how Network Rail announce a few days before a move that something is out of gauge LNER must consider themselves lucky that it didn't happen on this occasion. 

[Richard E]

1 hour ago, Chris116 said:

Given the amount of paperwork normally required for anything to be allowed onto the National Railway system, I wonder when they started planning this move. Knowing how Network Rail announce a few days before a move that something is out of gauge LNER must consider themselves lucky that it didn't happen on this occasion. 

The move is about 2/3rds of a mile with only the platform as a possible out of gauge issue.

[4630]

TPE 802202 heading east at Heaton Lodge Junction on 2nd August 2019 with 5Z49, 08.31 Edge Hill Intercity Depot to Doncaster IEP Depot.

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 31/07/2019 at 14:54, royaloak said:

Just because XC use the shorter platforms at the moment it doesnt mean they have to use those platforms, its probably a case of they fit so we will put them in there.

The problem at Reading is that there aren't any other platforms which are readily available for the service pattern which XC operates and the arrival of Crossrail, especially when (if ever) it's alleged 'full' service starts, basically neutralises two platforms on the Relief Line side - hence GWR moving to through workings to operate its future semi-fasts east of Reading.

 

Platform 3 at Reading was specifically extended for XC services in order to replace the old No.7 bay when that was subsumed into the rebuilding of the 5/8 island.  3 & 7 of course also fit well into the special provision made in the new flyovers for crossing from the Reliefs to the Down side of the station without fouling the Main Lines.  (the new) Platform 7 will obviously take longer trains and any platform on the Relief side could also of course but the central pair will be mainly used by Crossrail and it's not necessarily easy to work into and out of the sidings across the Up Relief although it does happen of course (although I wonder if XC Drivers know the sidings?).

 

Once the new GWR timetable comes in during December - albeit for only one week before the engineering work timetable kicks for two weeks in over Christmas and the New Year - Reading is going to be a lot busier and with some trains running through non-stop on the Mains there will no doubt be some pressure on the use of the Main Line 'loop' platforms so XC might not have much access to No.8.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 

Really ?  Sorry then Hitachi. But the end result is the same. Why ?

The seats are allegedly to this specification to reduce/eliminate fire risk, hence the very hard seat (non) cushions.   Clearly whoever came up with this does really understand risk assessment process because it appears to have completely ignored the fact that smoking is not allowed on trains, hence removing the biggest potential for starting a fire.   Moreover the casualty rate resulting from on-train fires since dieselisation and electrification is miniscule particularly when compared with the casualty/fatality rate resulting from collisions with road vehicles on level crossings or indeed with collisions between trains.

 

Basically some idiot somewhere seemingly set out to deal with a risk which hardly existed.  While another idiot apparently found it quite acceptable to put fuel tanks and diesel engines under the floor of trains capable of travelling at 125 mph and to put passengers in the leading vehicles of such trains whereas the latter had previously been barred on safety grounds.  And the rate of collisions massively exceeded the near non-existence of on-train fires resulting in casualties.

 

As far as I'm aware (and I'm happy to be corrected) every train fire which has occurred on the national network in the last 3 years has been a consequence of either a train hitting something and fracturing a fuel tank on a non-passenger carrying power car (no direct passenger fatalities or injuries) or the result of fuel tanks breaking in a high speed head-on collision (Ladbroke Grove) - but note, again, the primary cause was a collision.  Maybe self-sealing fuel tanks would be a better idea than harder seat cushions?

[Gwiwer]

I would be interested to learn of any statistics relating to passenger injury (or discomfort requiring any sort of remedial treatment) arising from the fitting of such unsuitable seats.

 

They first appeared with the class 377 units IIRC in the 3+2 seated coaches though interestingly not in the 2+2 seated ones in the  same units.  They have since spread to become a grudgingly accepted standard.  Whilst most journeys made on the ironing-board equipped Electrostars would be of up to 60 minutes at most and these seats are not that much less comfortable than those fitted to the 4Vep (class 423) units it is asking a lot for the Great British (or International) Bottom to endure such conditions for journeys of up to 6 hours on GWR and 8 by LNER.  

 

I am aware that a number of complaints has constantly trickled in to the TOCs but not whether any actual damage has been claimed for.  One risks quite a shock if sitting too hard too fast expecting "give" and comfort.  

 

[Ian Hargrave]

19 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

I would be interested to learn of any statistics relating to passenger injury (or discomfort requiring any sort of remedial treatment) arising from the fitting of such unsuitable seats.

 

They first appeared with the class 377 units IIRC in the 3+2 seated coaches though interestingly not in the 2+2 seated ones in the  same units.  They have since spread to become a grudgingly accepted standard.  Whilst most journeys made on the ironing-board equipped Electrostars would be of up to 60 minutes at most and these seats are not that much less comfortable than those fitted to the 4Vep (class 423) units it is asking a lot for the Great British (or International) Bottom to endure such conditions for journeys of up to 6 hours on GWR and 8 by LNER.  

 

I am aware that a number of complaints has constantly trickled in to the TOCs but not whether any actual damage has been claimed for.  One risks quite a shock if sitting too hard too fast expecting "give" and comfort.  

 

 

Indeed. After five minutes in an 800 yesterday,I speculated on a chiropractor’s bill .My skeletal frame and its seating are not a match and I really wonder how I would be after a proper mileage,other than Bath to TM.

 

I do not jest.This seating is unsuitable.  There are such things as fire resistant materials too.Wonder how many others feel as I do ?

[DavidB-AU]

 

[Mallard60022]

I should have said that the seats in 'my' Zoomer to York and back yesterday seemed not so bad, but maybe I was distracted by the quite attractive member of Train Crew I was chatting with most of the journey home!!!! Certainly anything more than half an hour has been horrible on my other trips.

P

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

.....As far as I'm aware (and I'm happy to be corrected) every train fire which has occurred on the national network in the last 3 years has been a consequence of either a train hitting something and fracturing a fuel tank on a non-passenger carrying power car (no direct passenger fatalities or injuries) or the result of fuel tanks breaking in a high speed head-on collision (Ladbroke Grove) - but note, again, the primary cause was a collision.  ........

 

What about the Class 180 Adelantes Mike?

They are reputed to bust into flames if you so much as give them a filthy look. 

 

 

.