Class 800 - Updates

[Coryton]

Whatever but now after their fiasco do we believe they will ever try again, for the Anglia franchise they seem to have left it up to the TOC.

 

I'm not sure that there was the intention to move from TOCs to the DfT specifying trains in general.

 

My understanding was that in this case they wanted to come up with a single train design as a replacement for the HST and 91+Mk 4's rather than leave each TOC to their own devices and end up with different types of train on the ECML, GWML and possibly elsewhere.

 

Now, it seems that the DfT procured ones might not exactly be value for money, but given that TPE and Hull Trains are ordering 802's that suggests that the design they came up with might not be so bad.

 

(Maybe there was DfT influence in this, but presumably given that Hull Trains is open access there shouldn't have been overt pressure to take them on).

[D854_Tiger]

I'm not sure that there was the intention to move from TOCs to the DfT specifying trains in general.

 

My understanding was that in this case they wanted to come up with a single train design as a replacement for the HST and 91+Mk 4's rather than leave each TOC to their own devices and end up with different types of train on the ECML, GWML and possibly elsewhere.

 

Now, it seems that the DfT procured ones might not exactly be value for money, but given that TPE and Hull Trains are ordering 802's that suggests that the design they came up with might not be so bad.

 

(Maybe there was DfT influence in this, but presumably given that Hull Trains is open access there shouldn't have been overt pressure to take them on).

 

 

I suspect they are rather good trains it's just the DfT learning curve expense incurred in getting there, not helped by all the add on stuff caused by the delay with the electrification.

 

However, on the positive side, the UK just gained a new train builder and a serious one at that, with big plans for Europe.

[Ron Ron Ron]

...My understanding was that in this case they wanted to come up with a single train design as a replacement for the HST and 91+Mk 4's rather than leave each TOC to their own devices and end up with different types of train on the ECML, GWML and possibly elsewhere....

 

That was indeed a large part of the rational for the IEP.

 

There was some concern from the experience of the early years of post-privatisation, that it could end up with more small, incompatible fleets being ordered by various TOC's.

At the time the concept was being drawn up (mid-00's) we already had several small fleets of new trains, e.g. Class 175, 180, 332 & 333 .

Also at that time, there had been the problem of newly delivered fleet of 9-car Class 222 Meridians, being redundant and without work even before they were delivered, as the new services they had been ordered for, were not progressed.

 

The concerns included the questions of increased long term cost (lack of economies off scale), anticipated future problems with redeployment (cascades) and the long term prospects for the availability and cost of spares and maintenance in later life.

The concept of a standard family fleet was lifted straight from BR practice and BR's rational for common train families was accepted as a more pragmatic way forward.

 

 

 

....given that TPE and Hull Trains are ordering 802's that suggests that the design they came up with might not be so bad.

 

(Maybe there was DfT influence in this, but presumably given that Hull Trains is open access there shouldn't have been overt pressure to take them on).

Don't forget that TPX and Hull Trains are part of First Group and their orders for 802's are an add on to the GWR order.

There are economies for both First and Hitachi through a common order.

 

 

.

 

 

.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[Coryton]

 

 

Don't forget tat TPX and Hull Trains are part of First Group and their orders for 802's are an add on to the GWR order.

There are economies for both First and Hitachi through a common order.

 

I had forgotten the former.

 

I don't think I ever knew the latter.

 

Nevertheless, if the trains were dreadful I doubt they would be voluntarily ordering more.

[D854_Tiger]

 

That was indeed a large part of the rational for the IEP.

 

There was some concern from the experience of the early years of post-privatisation, that it could end up with more small, incompatible fleets being ordered by various TOC's.

By that time (mid-00's) we already had several small fleets of new trains, e.g. Class 175, 180, 332 & 333 .

Also at that time, there had been the problem of newly delivered 9-car Class 222 Meridians, being redundant and without work on delivery, as the new services they had been ordered for, were not progressed.

 

The concerns included the questions of increased long term cost (lack of economies off scale), anticipated future problems with redeployment (cascades) and the long term prospects for the availability and cost of spares and maintenance in later life.

The concept of a standard family fleet was lifted straight from BR practice and BR's rational was common train families was accepted as a more pragmatic way forward.

 

.

 

Yet how often have small incompatible fleets really been a problem, most UK train fleets operate self contained services, on more or less self contained networks and are maintained separately in self contained facilities, in a way that still does a fair impression of the pre-1923 selection of private companies.

 

Then even when commonality was possible on the modern privatised railway, between the Voyagers and the Meridians, we find the opportunity was never taken, both fleets being incompatible with each other. Indeed, when it came to producing incompatible fleets of trains, BR were dab hands at it, as well, prior to nationalisation virtually everything on the big four could couple up and work together, by the time privatisation came around, there was no standard for multiple working (there never has been) and multiple mechanisms for coupling.

 

As for economy of scale, buying off the shelf (or as near as off the shelf as the UK loading gauge allows) you can have that by buying onto a standard family of trains shared across other European railways, with all the cost advantages that go with it e.g, the Pendoliono and Desiro family of trains.

 

I seriously doubt the IET has export potential, even in its all electric configuration, like the HST before it, it's bespoke for the UK, so we can confidently expect an order from Australia and then that's it.

[Ron Ron Ron]

...As for economy of scale, buying off the shelf (or as near as off the shelf as the UK loading gauge allows) you can have that by buying onto a standard family of trains shared across other European railways, with all the cost advantages that go with it e.g, the Pendoliono and Desiro family of trains....

 

There was nothing to buy off the shelf. 

Only bespoke UK gauge and practice derivatives can be ordered, even if based on established trains used elsewhere.

Like the UK derivatives of European platforms (e.g. Desiro) the Class 800 series is also based on a common Hitachi platform.

The AT300 platform is a derivative of Hitachi's successful A Train platform.

There's already 10 years worth of UK operational experience of another of the AT300 family.; the Class 395 Javelin.

 

 

....I seriously doubt the IET has export potential, even in its all electric configuration, like the HST before it, it's bespoke for the UK, so we can confidently expect an order from Australia and then that's it.

You've successfully contradicted yourself there.

You say that derivatives of European trains can be made for the UK, so why can't derivatives of a train designed for the UK not be made for continental European railways?

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

[Coryton]

Then even when commonality was possible on the modern privatised railway, between the Voyagers and the Meridians, we find the opportunity was never taken, both fleets being incompatible with each other. 

 

But wasn't that a large part of the reason for the IEP? So that this mistake wasn't repeated?

[Ron Ron Ron]

I know for a fact GWR didn't want them but the 800s were foisted on them .....

 

 

Know for a fact or urban myth?

 

Originally the IEP trains were due to be delivered towards the end of FGW's franchise, so they would have had little or no interest.

Then the delay in the programme put delivery some time after the franchise had ended, when First may have been long gone from the GW.

 

Had the GW franchise been relet in 2013 as planned (or 2015, if First had taken up the extension option) and not deferred; It's altogether possible that First could have lost and never have operated them on the GWML.

It might have been another operator (note that Arriva, NEX or Stagecoach were the other shortlisted bidders named  in 2012).

 

 

.

[D854_Tiger]

Like the UK derivatives of European platforms (e.g. Desiro) the Class 800 series is also based on a common Hitachi platform.

The AT300 platform is a derivative of Hitachi's successful A Train platform.

There's already 10 years worth of UK operational experience of another of the AT300 family.; the Class 395 Javelin.

 

 

 

 

.

 

I cannot disagree with that just that by the time the DfT had finished with their input the IET had moved a long way from being a common platform.

 

My big problem with the IET, which I'm sure is a wonderful train, is that it isn't really doing anything that existing train fleets couldn't already do, no doubt wonderful design, but take way the (questionable) bi-mode bit, and they've largely reinvented the wheel.

[phil-b259]

Know for a fact or urban myth?

 

 

I doubt the truth will ever be known, however it was common knowledge by all involved in the whole IEP that the HST fleet was in need of replacement by 2020. As such its quite likely that FGW were already in discussions with manufacturers - indeed they could easily have seen them as critical to the next franchise bid.

 

However there are two strategic decisions made by the DfT which subsequently altered any tentative plans the TOCs may have had for obtaining replacements.

 

The first was the assertion by the DfT that the ROSCOs were "ripping them off" when numerous enquiries over the years have put the blame squarely back on the DfT for the whole privatisation structure, and particularly their obsession with short franchises.

 

The second was the sudden decision to electrify the GWML (in spite of the UK lacking the necessary resource or knowledge base thanks to the DfTs inaction on the matter in the previous two decades). This caused a major revision in the IEP project (which at one stage still had the 'power car' concept as part of the design)

 

Had neither of these two decisions been made then I'm sure that First would have been more than capable of ordering replacement trains.

[phil-b259]

I cannot disagree with that just that by the time the DfT had finished with their input the IET had moved a long way from being a common platform.

 

My big problem with the IET, which I'm sure is a wonderful train, is that it isn't really doing anything that existing train fleets couldn't already do, no doubt wonderful design, but take way the (questionable) bi-mode bit, and they've largely reinvented the wheel.

 

And thats the nub of it - the class 800s could very easily have been developed by the traditional mix of builders, leasing companies and operators without the DfT sticking its oar in for what basically amounts to political reasons.

 

We didn't let civil servants get involved with train design under British Rail and there is absolutely no need to do so now. All the DfT needed to say that bids for the next round of franchises for the GWML, ECML, etc must include a new train fleet, and that it should be powered from OLE where that exists.

[D854_Tiger]

Know for a fact or urban myth?

 

Originally the IEP trains were due to be delivered towards the end of FGW's franchise, so they would have had little or no interest.

Then the delay in the programme put delivery some time after the franchise had ended, when First may have been long gone from the GW.

 

Had the GW franchise been relet in 2013 as planned (or 2015, if First had taken up the extension option) and not deferred; It's altogether possible that First could have lost and never have operated them on the GWML.

It might have been another operator (note that Arriva, NEX or Stagecoach were the other shortlisted bidders named  in 2012).

 

 

.

 

 

Thus far, the only TOCs that have ordered IETs are those TOCs that have been told they must have them, or follow on orders, where doing anything different didn't add up.

 

It's very noticeable that Greater Anglia did not order them (why not) when at one time Uncle Roger was telling us the intention was that IETs were going to spread far and wide, he even specifically mentioned Kings Lynn.

 

Supposedly there will be new (non-tilting) trains ordered for the next WCML franchise, to supplement the Pendolinos, will be interesting to see if they're IETs.

 

It looks as if the MML is going to get bi-mode and XC is crying out for them, but again, will they be IET, given the choice.

 

I wonder how they compare on the leasing cost and remember IET was a New Labour big idea, quite probably the current incumbents feel they need have no particular loyalty to it.

[Coryton]

I cannot disagree with that just that by the time the DfT had finished with their input the IET had moved a long way from being a common platform.

 

My big problem with the IET, which I'm sure is a wonderful train, is that it isn't really doing anything that existing train fleets couldn't already do, no doubt wonderful design, but take way the (questionable) bi-mode bit, and they've largely reinvented the wheel.

 

OK. So the plan is to replace the HSTs (Wasn't this originally the HST2 project?)

 

What are the options if you're not going to design anything new?

 

All that comes to mind for 125 mph diesel trains is the Voyager/Meridian design and the 180s.

 

I don't think the 180s were considered all that successful and would probably need some redesign for a 9 coach train.

 

The Voyagers were designed around tilt requirements so probably not where you'd really want to start for a non-tilting train. And I don't know if you could fit a modern emissions-compliant engine under a Voyager anyway.

 

And I believe at the start of the programme the understanding was that the GWML would likely be electrified during the life of the trains, so a train which can start out as diesel powered and be converted to electric power later will have more life than one which can't.

 

The alternative in the "only buy something existing" view could be that you order a fleet of Pendolinos for the GWML when its electrified, and also for the ECML when the 91+MK4's need replacing. And then you're buying tilting trains and not using the tilt.

 

Then again we have another fleet of 125 mph+ electric trains - the 395s. So maybe instead of Pendolinos you could go to Hitachi and order a fleet based on the platform used in the 395 design, but modified for the needs of intercity services...which is probably going to look not too far off an 800...

 

And if we don't take away the bi-mode bit, then none of the above works anyway. And the alternatives to bi-modes (stop through services off the wires, drag them with a loco, run diesels most of the way under the wires) don't seem that great either.

[Coryton]

And thats the nub of it - the class 800s could very easily have been developed by the traditional mix of builders, leasing companies and operators without the DfT sticking its oar in for what basically amounts to political reasons.

 

We didn't let civil servants get involved with train design under British Rail and there is absolutely no need to do so now. All the DfT needed to say that bids for the next round of franchises for the GWML, ECML, etc must include a new train fleet, and that it should be powered from OLE where that exists.

 

It's hard to see how this could ensure a common fleet between operators.

 

Now - maybe that isn't too important in the grand scheme of things but it seems to me that wanting a common fleet is a pragmatic not political objective.

[royaloak]

I suspect they are rather good trains it's just the DfT learning curve expense incurred in getting there, not helped by all the add on stuff caused by the delay with the electrification.

 

However, on the positive side, the UK just gained a new train builder and a serious one at that, with big plans for Europe.

With what you have previously posted about your intimate knowledge of them I thought you were leading the staff introducing them into service, oh wait Brian is doing that isnt he!

[royaloak]

Know for a fact or urban myth?

.

Fact, unless the very high up, long standing Manager I was talking to was telling porky pies!

[D854_Tiger]

OK. So the plan is to replace the HSTs (Wasn't this originally the HST2 project?)

 

What are the options if you're not going to design anything new?

 

All that comes to mind for 125 mph diesel trains is the Voyager/Meridian design and the 180s.

 

I don't think the 180s were considered all that successful and would probably need some redesign for a 9 coach train.

 

The Voyagers were designed around tilt requirements so probably not where you'd really want to start for a non-tilting train. And I don't know if you could fit a modern emissions-compliant engine under a Voyager anyway.

 

And I believe at the start of the programme the understanding was that the GWML would likely be electrified during the life of the trains, so a train which can start out as diesel powered and be converted to electric power later will have more life than one which can't.

 

The alternative in the "only buy something existing" view could be that you order a fleet of Pendolinos for the GWML when its electrified, and also for the ECML when the 91+MK4's need replacing. And then you're buying tilting trains and not using the tilt.

 

Then again we have another fleet of 125 mph+ electric trains - the 395s. So maybe instead of Pendolinos you could go to Hitachi and order a fleet based on the platform used in the 395 design, but modified for the needs of intercity services...which is probably going to look not too far off an 800...

 

And if we don't take away the bi-mode bit, then none of the above works anyway. And the alternatives to bi-modes (stop through services off the wires, drag them with a loco, run diesels most of the way under the wires) don't seem that great either.

 

I'm not so much questioning the train just the way it was specified and ordered, the harsh reality is that the DfT, in a highly questionable attempt to stop the train leasing companies ripping us off (if indeed they ever were), has arrived at one of the most expensive trains ever produced for the UK, that does nothing previous trains didn't already do, and whichever way you want to write that up .....

 

Oh and apparently it might have s**t seats, which is a bit like paying eight hundred quid for a suit and finding there's a great big hole where your a**e goes.

 

I'm going to really go for it now and suggest maybe a fleet of nine car tilting Voyagers would not have been such a bad idea for the WoE main line, what Plymouth has been crying out for, for a very long time, is something a bit more imaginative that doesn't spend the first hour or so never getting past 40 mph, not the gesture of bi-mode that's mostly going to be used in one mode only, and, in the process, serve as a reminder to the West Country of what the government really thinks of them (less important than Newbury).

 

I know Pendolinos were looked at for the ECML and the tilt might have been useful north of Newcastle.

 

I reckon ideally for GW we should have just left it to the TOCs and the manufacturers, then we could well have ended up with something bi-mode that looks remarkably like a class 800 but surely nothing like as expensive.

 

I really cannot understand the obsession with having a common fleet, how many times did the HST's commonality prove to be useful, how many times was that really exploited, had they serviced them all in one place maybe but they never did.

[royaloak]

I doubt the truth will ever be known, however it was common knowledge by all involved in the whole IEP that the HST fleet was in need of replacement by 2020. 

 

 

Which sort of calls into question how come they are suddenly suitable for conversion and reuse in Scotland, but when FGW asked to do similar things (before the Super Hitachi Intercity Trains were ordered) they were told the HST was too old and had to be scrapped and replaced.

[royaloak]

I'm not so much questioning the train just the way it was specified and ordered, the harsh reality is that the DfT, in a highly questionable attempt to stop the train leasing companies ripping us off (if indeed they ever were), has arrived at one of the most expensive trains ever produced for the UK, that does nothing previous trains didn't already do, and whichever way you want to write that up .....

The 800s are by far the most expensive trains to be built for use in Britain, I think (I might be wrong) they are 5 times more expensive than the HSTs they replace on GWR and over twice as expensive as the second placed train, the Pendos.

 

The rail industry and passengers are going to be paying a lot of money for a very long time because of the monumental eff ups made by various Government departments, cancelling the electrification to save £160million which will end up costing various other departments over £300million over the life of the trains, now that is a bargain! 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

With wholesale electrification schemes now apparently on the back burner, wouldn't it make sense to electrify (say) Newton Abbot to Plymouth?

[D854_Tiger]

With what you have previously posted about your intimate knowledge of them I thought you were leading the staff introducing them into service, oh wait Brian is doing that isnt he!

 

I know I shouldn't really bother my empty head having any opinion on them and leave it to the experts, it's just that my fare box and taxes are paying for them (eventually) and I'm funny that way.

[Coryton]

I'm not so much questioning the train just the way it was specified and ordered, the harsh reality is that the DfT, in a highly questionable attempt to stop the train leasing companies ripping us off (if indeed they ever were), has arrived at one of the most expensive trains ever produced for the UK, that does nothing previous trains didn't already do, and whichever way you want to write that up .....

 

Surely that depends on what you mean by "previous trains couldn't do"?

 

Both an IET and an HST can run for 400 miles under the wires and then beyond. But only the IET can use the overhead power for those 400 miles.

 

I know Pendolinos were looked at for the ECML and the tilt might have been useful north of Newcastle.

 

Personally I'm glad they didn't. Despite the hard seats, I'd take the lovely large windows and decent sized overhead luggage space of an IET over the Pendolino's cramped interior and portholes any day (and the fact that an IET can keep the air conditioning on if the power goes out).

 

As for tilt north of Newcastle - that would presumably involve infrastructure costs as well - is that something that's likely to happen given the backlog of other things?

 

I really cannot understand the obsession with having a common fleet, how many times did the HST's commonality prove to be useful, how many times was that really exploited, had they serviced them all in one place maybe but they never did.

 

That's a good question.

 

Just because they aren't serviced in one place doesn't mean there aren't savings in terms of spare parts etc.

 

I believe MML HSTs end up in Neville Hill, sharing with ECML ones.

 

Also, I think there were times when HSTs were shifted from one route to another.

 

Now clearly this isn't a show-stopper - for example Cross-Country cope with a mixed fleet. But that doesn't mean that a single-type fleet wouldn't be cheaper.

 

Let's put it another way - what's the advantage of having lots of different types of train when you could have fewer? 

 

Why didn't BR design entirely separate types of high speed diesel train for different routes?

Edited February 24, 2018 by Coryton

[HillsideDepot]

I really cannot understand the obsession with having a common fleet, how many times did the HST's commonality prove to be useful, how many times was that really exploited, had they serviced them all in one place maybe but they never did.

 

I certainly can, as, it appears First can through its various buy-ins to the IET concept.

 

Look at the HST. When the ECML was electrified the displaced sets joined others already on the GWML and on Cross Country. How useful would a few sets of Mk4s with a diesel class 91 at fitting in? Having loco hauled and unit Mk3s has also helped. OK they need rewiring, but had there not been the opportunity to convert how many HSTs would XC be able to run now? 

 

And Sprinters too, that large fleet moves around between franchises, but is a known quantity to crews and depots. I saw an perfect example only this afternoon. A South Western Railway 158 on hire to GWR. That couldn't happen if they had 157s or 160s or whatever on the South Western when GWR only knew 158s. 

 

Its not the fleet size purchases, but the mid-life shuffling, where standardisation comes in to play. 

[Coryton]

The 800s are by far the most expensive trains to be built for use in Britain, I think (I might be wrong) they are 5 times more expensive than the HSTs they replace on GWR 

 

What is 5 times more expensive though? 

 

It's been said here that the contract with Agility trains for the 800's includes maintenance, cleaning etc.

 

Does the figure for HSTs include all that or is it just to lease the trains?

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Back in the day, all HST power cars had their Heavy General repairs at Derby Loco and the trailers at Derby C & W.