Class 800 - Updates

[JDW]

I seem to remember somewhere (maybe here or possibly elsewhere online) someone mentioning the vinyls statring to peel on some of the GWR sets.  I was quite surprised at the state of the LNER set (800 112) on p74/75 of the current issue of RAIL, which has part of the red flash on the front missing, all of the red/thin grey stripe between the door and inner end, then on the second coach the dark red along the top and bottom of the window line, the thing grey stripe for most of it's length, a couple of panels between windows/door/coach end, with similar bits missing further down the set too.  What a mess - I can't imagine it started off with bits missing haphazardly.

[Wild Boar Fell]

On 02/02/2019 at 14:55, JDW said:

I seem to remember somewhere (maybe here or possibly elsewhere online) someone mentioning the vinyls statring to peel on some of the GWR sets.  I was quite surprised at the state of the LNER set (800 112) on p74/75 of the current issue of RAIL, which has part of the red flash on the front missing, all of the red/thin grey stripe between the door and inner end, then on the second coach the dark red along the top and bottom of the window line, the thing grey stripe for most of it's length, a couple of panels between windows/door/coach end, with similar bits missing further down the set too.  What a mess - I can't imagine it started off with bits missing haphazardly.

 

Photos and discussion elsewhere of GWR 800 003 & 004 (IIRC) suffering the most from vinyl damage, it is believe that these have different vinyls to the remainder of the fleet as these were done well before the others (for Royal duties from what I remember). 

On the East Coast, from photos and experience, the vinyls are still being applied so some formations do have odd combinations of what is and isn't applied yet.

 

Similarly I have seen pendolinos with all yellow coupler doors whilst still in the old colours. 390 130 was running around with everything from the headlights forward in flowing silk livery and everything else in VTWC the other week.

 

Hopefully embedded Flickr photo below (not mine).

 

HTH

Wild Boar Fell

Edited February 4, 2019 by Wild Boar Fell

[JDW]

Interesting!  Presumably the nose cone needed replacing, and if so there's no point painting it in the old colours just to re-paint it a few weeks later - especially if the spray booths were set up already for those colours.  

 

As far as the LNER sets go, it's the only one I've seen a picture of in such a mess - even if they're slowly working their way through the fleet, it seems odd to do it in such a hodge-podge way, with random bits missing here and there.  

[MarshLane]

On 02/02/2019 at 09:54, jim.snowdon said:

What complicates matters further is the trains being specified by a third party, the DfT, whose understanding of what really happens on a railway system may be questionable. 

 

Erm.. is anyone suggesting that the understanding of DaFT is anything BUT questionable?  They couldn't organise a brake van trip on a 300yard siding! Everything the DfT have an involvement in goes wrong, is wrongly spec'd, over budget and/or doesn't meet its timescales.  The classic had to be the revelation from the National Audit Office that they signed the contract with Hitachi before Network Rail confirmed that the electrification of the GWML was achievable, and then took two years to create the business case for the award they'd made! 

 

 

On 01/02/2019 at 18:07, The Stationmaster said:

I would think it was very much in Hitachi's control when sets first delivered into traffic were the wrong way round.  all GWR got was a new train presented off depot incorrectly formed.  Getting turned in traffic is one thing - and obviously that can really only be corrected in traffic (although sometimes in the past with HSTs it was corrected before they re-entered traffic).  But coming fresh into traffic the wrong way round or incorrectly formed is 100% down to Hitachi and is clearly something where the contract for train presentation was either not properly drafted or is not being applied

Very straightforward situation when you're running a depot - an important part of presenting trains for traffic is having them correctly formed.  And what is a happening with Hitachi is very different from trains being presented in reverse formation (a comparatively simple thing to handle until such time as the train is reversed).  For example if the four 1st Class vehicles are in the middle of the train then one set is the wrong way round and reversing the train won't make any difference because one set will still be the wrong way round - as happened on the very first day of public operation when the train came into traffic formed like that; its first revenue earning trip. 

On an Up train the 1st Class should be should be in coaches  (London end) 1 & 2 and 6 & 7.  On a Down train it should be in coaches 4 & 5 and 9 & 10 (London end)

 

Presumably the diagramming of the sets should take into account presenting the train(s) to the depot/service in the correct formation?  By which I mean, the set will arrive one way round off Diagram 23 (for example) and the next morning it works Diagram 34 (again, for example) which requires a set with the first class at the same end as it arrived off the previous diagram?

 

Rich

[The Stationmaster]

44 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

 

Erm.. is anyone suggesting that the understanding of DaFT is anything BUT questionable?  They couldn't organise a brake van trip on a 300yard siding! Everything the DfT have an involvement in goes wrong, is wrongly spec'd, over budget and/or doesn't meet its timescales.  The classic had to be the revelation from the National Audit Office that they signed the contract with Hitachi before Network Rail confirmed that the electrification of the GWML was achievable, and then took two years to create the business case for the award they'd made! 

 

 

 

Presumably the diagramming of the sets should take into account presenting the train(s) to the depot/service in the correct formation?  By which I mean, the set will arrive one way round off Diagram 23 (for example) and the next morning it works Diagram 34 (again, for example) which requires a set with the first class at the same end as it arrived off the previous diagram?

 

Rich

As far as the latter point is concerned I would sincerely hope so but if a set is reversed on diagram A then it ought to be diagrammed to be put right when it progresses to diagram B.  Similarly sets which get reversed on diversions should eventually (and as early as possible) be turned back the right way round on another diagram.   Overall I would say that running in reverse formation ought not to be a major problem - it just needs suitable advice to passengers.  The big problem is the fact that sets of mixed orientation are formed into the same trains  which could be down to them entering service from new the wrong way round and never being corrected or down to swaps on depots for whatever reason.

 

In simple terms it isn't really difficult taking account when diagramming of factors which turn sets as part of their planned working and folk on the Western who have been there long enough will have plenty of experience of it with HST diagrams.  You also have to plan your diagram rotation to take account of it - as instanced above - and of course a problem can then arise if sets do not come off depots in the diagrams they were supposed to form the next day.  But that is a fairly simple thing to get right provided sets don't fail or get taken out for exams.  I found a similar problem when I was doing some work on the Sydney suburban service in Australia some years ago but it was a simple thing to get put right as all it needed was communication and explaining to people why sets (EMUs in that instance) had to come off depots/stabling points in a particular order each morning.

 

In reality none of these problems are difficult to solve provided the sets are reliable and they start their working lives the right way round but what it does need is careful attention to detail by everybody who is involved and clear communication and understanding between everybody involved.

[MarshLane]

7 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

In reality none of these problems are difficult to solve provided the sets are reliable and they start their working lives the right way round but what it does need is careful attention to detail by everybody who is involved and clear communication and understanding between everybody involved.

 

Ah well with the modern day industry, there in lies the problem!

 

Rich

[jim.snowdon]

15 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As far as the latter point is concerned I would sincerely hope so but if a set is reversed on diagram A then it ought to be diagrammed to be put right when it progresses to diagram B.  Similarly sets which get reversed on diversions should eventually (and as early as possible) be turned back the right way round on another diagram.   Overall I would say that running in reverse formation ought not to be a major problem - it just needs suitable advice to passengers.  The big problem is the fact that sets of mixed orientation are formed into the same trains  which could be down to them entering service from new the wrong way round and never being corrected or down to swaps on depots for whatever reason.

 

In simple terms it isn't really difficult taking account when diagramming of factors which turn sets as part of their planned working and folk on the Western who have been there long enough will have plenty of experience of it with HST diagrams.  You also have to plan your diagram rotation to take account of it - as instanced above - and of course a problem can then arise if sets do not come off depots in the diagrams they were supposed to form the next day.  But that is a fairly simple thing to get right provided sets don't fail or get taken out for exams.  I found a similar problem when I was doing some work on the Sydney suburban service in Australia some years ago but it was a simple thing to get put right as all it needed was communication and explaining to people why sets (EMUs in that instance) had to come off depots/stabling points in a particular order each morning.

 

In reality none of these problems are difficult to solve provided the sets are reliable and they start their working lives the right way round but what it does need is careful attention to detail by everybody who is involved and clear communication and understanding between everybody involved.

If a set is reversed by virtue of its diagramed routing, then it is reasonable to expect the train operator, which is FGW, to manage the situation by correcting the reversal at a later stage in that set's diagram. The bigger problem is when Network Rail cause a set to be reversed as a result of out of course routing to accommodate engineering works or infrastructure failures. Such events may or may not be expected, and I would be quite certain that Hitachi will have seen to it that it is not their liability to turn sets round for the Operators convenience. Turning a set round costs time and money, as well requiring a train crew.

 

FGW/GWR have doubtless had plenty experience of coping with reversed HST sets, and as the maintainer, had control over the process of getting a set sent out specially. What they have had no experience of is coping with 2-unit trains where either or both units could be wrong way round, or of trains whose units could arrive for coupling en route in either order. Hitachi simply provide trains against a contract specification; it's GWR who operate them.

 

Jim 

[The Stationmaster]

3 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

If a set is reversed by virtue of its diagramed routing, then it is reasonable to expect the train operator, which is FGW, to manage the situation by correcting the reversal at a later stage in that set's diagram. The bigger problem is when Network Rail cause a set to be reversed as a result of out of course routing to accommodate engineering works or infrastructure failures. Such events may or may not be expected, and I would be quite certain that Hitachi will have seen to it that it is not their liability to turn sets round for the Operators convenience. Turning a set round costs time and money, as well requiring a train crew.

 

FGW/GWR have doubtless had plenty experience of coping with reversed HST sets, and as the maintainer, had control over the process of getting a set sent out specially. What they have had no experience of is coping with 2-unit trains where either or both units could be wrong way round, or of trains whose units could arrive for coupling en route in either order. Hitachi simply provide trains against a contract specification; it's GWR who operate them.

 

Jim 

I  don't think I have suggested that it is necessarily Hitachi's job to sort out the consequences of reversals in traffic (that depends on what the contract says) but I would certainly see it as their responsibility to put newly delivered sets into traffic the right way round and the contract ought to stipulate that (although I suspect it probably doesn't).  What also clearly needs to be in the contract is that sets should not come off depot with one set one way round and the other the opposite way round unless GWR's diagrams have led to that happening (which is not impossible of course when trains split enroute).

 

Keeping track of the orientation of sets in traffic and getting turned within diagram or by unplanned event ought to be a simple task for GWR's Control and they presumably know which way round sets are judging from the fact that information is being given to stations.  that is something i wholeheartedly agree which GWR should be managing.

[rodent279]

Sat in 802 103 now, on the way to Padd. Ride definitely better than an 800, and quieter, but still not as good as a Mk3.

Wish GWR would sort their WiFi out, I rarely manage to connect to it.

[Coryton]

I did a journey via London and back from Cardiff today, the Cardiff to
London legs not surprisingly by IET.

The train out was a 9 coach train. Good things: it was facing the
right way round. The ride was OK in parts. Not so good: Rather dirty
on the outside, including the windows which were not very good to look
through. Reservations were on cards not the electronic system. The
trolley first came round after Swindon (i.e. after about an hour).
All of these are rather disappointing, really. Also, the
ride at times was pretty bad, with the coach swaying from side to
side. The seat felt rather hard right from the start (other times they
haven't seemed so bad).

While I was waiting for it, I saw a train heading towards Swansea. Two
5 car units. The front one was the wrong way round, the rear one was
correct. BUT: the letters on the two units were the wrong way round,
with "A" in the unit on the London end. Also a bit disappointing - I
can see that units can get reversed, but it seems odd that it doesn't
seem to be practical to choose which unit has which coach numbers
appropriately. (Unless, of course, it somehow got reversed between
London and Cardiff, which I doubt).

On the way back it was another 9 coach train. I had my first (brief)
experience of 1st class, having got there just in time to jump into
the door the guard had open, having been delayed on my previous
journey.  Again no electronic reservations - indeed no sign of
reservations of any kind. The trolley came through not long after
leaving - but to make up for that it was taking cash only.

Two toilets I tried (in the same coach) were both lacking water. There
was an "out of order" sign lit up for each one, but it was above the door
and not at all obvious - who looks above a toilet door?

Finally, at Didcot I thought I briefly saw a sign saying: "IET Drivers - please
select a platform number before releasing the doors" Does anybody know
what that is about? Select on what?
 

[Reorte]

6 minutes ago, Coryton said:

Finally, at Didcot I thought I briefly saw a sign saying: "IET Drivers - please

select a platform number before releasing the doors" Does anybody know
what that is about? Select on what?
 

At a guess so the doors are released on the correct side?

[Zomboid]

Aren't the slow line platforms shorter than the fasts? Maybe SDO is needed on some of them.

[Coryton]

 

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Aren't the slow line platforms shorter than the fasts? Maybe SDO is needed on some of them.

 

I thought (automatic) SDO worked by transponders that inform the on-board systems how many doors to open so I'd be surprised if the scheme required the driver to manually input what platform number the train is at.

 

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

At a guess so the doors are released on the correct side?

 

Maybe but a scheme to prevent them being opened on the wrong side which requires the driver to input the platform number seems a little odd to me.

 

And I'm still curious as to what they select the platform number on.

 

On the other hand, maybe I misread the sign.

 

 

[159220]

This list *should* be up to date: 

 

GWR IET Status 20/02/19

 

800/0

 

001/002 - Hitachi/Agility Trains West. Accepted by GWR. Used for testing. Passenger service from May 19 TC.

003-036 - GWR Passenger Service. Total available units: 34/36.

 

800/3

 

301-321 - GWR Passenger Service. Total available units: 21/21.

 

802/0

 

001-022 - GWR Passenger Service. Total available units: 22/22.

 

802/1

 

101-106 - GWR Passenger Service. Total available units: 6/14.

107-109 - Hitachi Commissioning, North Pole

110 - enroute

111-114 - Hitachi, Pistoia, Italy.

 

Basically, nearly there!

Edited February 20, 2019 by 159220

[St. Simon]

On 19/02/2019 at 14:19, Coryton said:

Finally, at Didcot I thought I briefly saw a sign saying: "IET Drivers - please
select a platform number before releasing the doors" Does anybody know
what that is about? Select on what?
 

 

On 19/02/2019 at 14:26, Reorte said:

At a guess so the doors are released on the correct side?

 

On 19/02/2019 at 14:40, Zomboid said:

Aren't the slow line platforms shorter than the fasts? Maybe SDO is needed on some of them.

 

On 19/02/2019 at 16:23, Coryton said:

 

 

I thought (automatic) SDO worked by transponders that inform the on-board systems how many doors to open so I'd be surprised if the scheme required the driver to manually input what platform number the train is at.

 

 

Maybe but a scheme to prevent them being opened on the wrong side which requires the driver to input the platform number seems a little odd to me.

 

And I'm still curious as to what they select the platform number on.

 

On the other hand, maybe I misread the sign.

 

 

 

Hi 

 

You are correct in that there is a sign on Platform 1 at Didcot asking drivers to select a platform number, it is there for the same reason the IEP Car Stop Markers on Western state the platform underneath.

 

The reason is Manual Selective Door Opening (MSDO), at the moment MSDO is in operation on Western.

 

MSDO on the Class 80x's only requires driver intervention where there is a choice of platform lengths that require different door opening patterns.  Where a station has equal length platforms (even if they are shorter than the train) the train automatically selects the door pattern.

 

If a station has different length platforms that use different door opening patterns, the train requires the driver to select a platform from a list of available of platforms on their Train Management System Screen. The train knows where it is (i.e. It is near Didcot Station, GPS for trains is not accurate enough to tell which line a train is one or which platform it is at) and will display the suitable platforms, but requires the Driver to manually select the correct platform. I can't remember whether the train only shows platforms for the correct direction (although at Didcot, Platforms 3-5 are Bi-Directional). 

 

The reason for the signage at platforms I've been told is part of the drivers risk based commentary they use as part of the checks before opening the doors, so they correlate the platform stated on the sign with the platform on screen.

 

There is an Automatic Selective Door Operation (ASDO) system, I was the lead designer for the infrastructure side of things and it will soon be installed on Western. This uses ETCS Eurobalises (although not with full ETCS Data on them) placed on immediate approach to each platform (but again, only where a station has different length platforms with different door opening patterns). This is basically a electrical drivers finger and automatically picks the correct platform based on data in the Balise (effectively the Balise tells the train it is approaching "Didcot Platform 2"), it also does correct side door enabling, which prevents the doors being released on the wrong side. 

 

The ASDO system still requires the drivers / guard to push the door release buttons before the doors can be opened.

 

In both cases, the actual door opening pattern is held within the trains on-board data base.

 

Hope that explains it enough.

 

Simon

Edited February 20, 2019 by St. Simon

[Coryton]

1 hour ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hope that explains it enough.

 

Simon

 

Thanks for such a thorough explanation.

 

I wouldn't have expected a manual system like that to be allowed even temporarily for new trains given the possibility of a driver selecting the wrong platform and doors being wrongly released. I'm glad that bit of the train management system works, even if luxuries such as the seat reservation system don't.

[St. Simon]

23 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

Thanks for such a thorough explanation.

 

I wouldn't have expected a manual system like that to be allowed even temporarily for new trains given the possibility of a driver selecting the wrong platform and doors being wrongly released. I'm glad that bit of the train management system works, even if luxuries such as the seat reservation system don't.

 

Hi,

 

ASDO / CSDE systems are becoming more and more prevalent nowadays and I’m designing more of the systems.

 

The difficulty is testing and integrating  the systems (both on train and infrastructure) along with anything else prior to entering service, particularly when the manual system is still pretty safe.

 

The manual system still has a lot of safety in it, for SDO if the driver doesn’t do anything then the system will default to the shortest door opening pattern for that station. Then the driver has to press a pair of buttons to release the doors.

 

The biggest risk is during perturbed working or irregular situations such as equipment failure or station overruns rather than totally normal working.

 

Simon

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

It’s also worth noting that on the 80x’s (and possibly other units), the Driver has the ability to individually select doors (rather than just a pattern) to be released if needed.

 

Simon

[Zomboid]

With the current diversions in place on the Exeter route, how do they handle stations that they won't usually call at like Yeovil Junction & Honiton? Those won't have 10 x 26m platforms, so are they entirely manual SDO, or does the train have those in its database?

[jim.snowdon]

11 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi,

 

ASDO / CSDE systems are becoming more and more prevalent nowadays and I’m designing more of the systems.

 

The difficulty is testing and integrating  the systems (both on train and infrastructure) along with anything else prior to entering service, particularly when the manual system is still pretty safe.

 

The manual system still has a lot of safety in it, for SDO if the driver doesn’t do anything then the system will default to the shortest door opening pattern for that station. Then the driver has to press a pair of buttons to release the doors.

 

The biggest risk is during perturbed working or irregular situations such as equipment failure or station overruns rather than totally normal working.

 

Simon

Not only more prevalent but seemingly more incompatible. From what contact I had with these systems during the course of various platform lengthening projects, it seems that every train builder has their own solution to the problem and none of them are compatible with each other. Not only that, but when it comes to updates, the train operator is at the mercy of the carbuilder when it comes to doing and paying for the update.

in a sensible world, you would have thought that the railway industry, led by the infrastructure operator, could have come up with, if not a standard system, at least a common communications protocol that would allow any trainborne equipment to communicate with any trackside equipment.

 

Jim

[jamie92208]

28 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Not only more prevalent but seemingly more incompatible. From what contact I had with these systems during the course of various platform lengthening projects, it seems that every train builder has their own solution to the problem and none of them are compatible with each other. Not only that, but when it comes to updates, the train operator is at the mercy of the carbuilder when it comes to doing and paying for the update.

in a sensible world, you would have thought that the railway industry, led by the infrastructure operator, could have come up with, if not a standard system, at least a common communications protocol that would allow any trainborne equipment to communicate with any trackside equipment.

 

Jim

Come come Jim, I can hear the Pigs being fuelled.   They can't even come up with a coupling protocol that works...…..

 

Maybe I'm a tad cynical.

 

Jamie

[jim.snowdon]

7 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Come come Jim, I can hear the Pigs being fuelled.   They can't even come up with a coupling protocol that works...…..

 

Maybe I'm a tad cynical.

 

Jamie

That'll be two of us then - Britain's railways, or how not to do it.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

With the current diversions in place on the Exeter route, how do they handle stations that they won't usually call at like Yeovil Junction & Honiton? Those won't have 10 x 26m platforms, so are they entirely manual SDO, or does the train have those in its database?

Through services via Honiton only appear to be two hourly, which means that only a very small number of sets are involved. It looks to be within the bounds of probability that they could be arranged to be HST only, thus avoiding any issues with 1x9 or 2x5 80x formations. Are the 80x sets even gauge cleared for that route?

 

Jim

[Zomboid]

The 1733 to Plymouth via Honiton which I caught earlier this week was definitely not a HST. It was a 9 car 80x (didn't see the set number so don't know if it was an 800 or 802).

[Gwiwer]

The diverted service is a mixture of HST and IET sets with perhaps more HSTs than IETs in a reverse of what has been the norm of late.