Class 800 - Updates

[The Stationmaster]

Just now, Gwiwer said:

Dawlish can be very wet and wild.  But most loco-hauled trains backalong got through unless the line itself was blocked.  HSTs and even the widely-loathed Pacers normally got through.  The problem seems to be the more complex the hardware the more there is to go wrong and the more sensitive it is to anything upsetting it.  May we please apply KISS to future builds?  

 

Comments about using IETs on the Cotswold line where nearly all trains now stop at nearly all stations (the diminutive Combe, Finstock and Shipton excepted) reminds me that they are also now used for locals to Bedwyn.  Both of those services have sprints up and down the Thames Valley but for only 25 minutes or so out of the journey.   The Cotswold (nee Oxford, Worcester & Wolverhampton or Old Worse and Worser) has long been a pedestrian service on a secondary route with most stations served out of necessity.  

 

Using IETs, of which there are apparently too few to reliably run the timetabled service, on Paddington - Bedwyn trains which are largely for the very local needs of quite modest numbers of customers through the Kennet Valley and which are paralleled by a good many other trains between Reading and London, does seem excessive and somewhat hard to justify.  They are even advertised as offering trolley refreshments.  If that service is provided they will be doing better than some Penzance trains which continue (especially at weekends) to be devoid of any form of catering for 5-6 hours.  

 

Even allowing for the post-electrification rolling stock shuffle it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to run the Bedwyns with a 166 and release IETs for where the need is greater.  The fact that they run stopping services to Hereford is a legacy.  The route has been served by the same stock as has operated on faster main lines for many years though for a time the HST / Adelante services were limited to a few trips with others offering a 165 / 166 Turbo instead.  Just as a couple of trips still do.  There is no other realistic option.  At least the length of the journey justifies the provision of main line stock which cannot be argued for the Bedwyn services.  

Actually Rick the Paddington - Bedwyn trains serve a far more important purpose than 'the local needs of modest numbers of passengers' as they provide considerable capacity between Newbury/Reading and Paddington plus at certain times of day fast services to certain Thames Valley stations east of Reading.  The (well loaded) train I travelled on from Paddington the other evening was an Oxford but the next one an hour later would have been for Bedwyn both offering fast connections from Paddington to the Thames Valley branches.  Effectively they are additional Reading - Paddington services extended through to provide a service to other places including giving the Kennet Valley a through service to London which is no bad thing considering the revenue it generates.  While the trains are advertised as providing a trolley I do wonder if it is provided as it definitely wasn't there on our train on Wednesday evening

 

These 'modest number of customers' in fact provided Reading Guards with the wherewithal for a decent length holiday in the West Indies every year back in the days when Conductor Guards got 7% of their takings as commission.  According to several Guards I know a week on a Reading - Bedwyn turn was worth a commission amount well into three figures and there was considerable competition for spare turns on the route.

 

However I suspect that part of the reason for using IETs to Bedwyn is because they exist and would in any case be used to boost capacity between Reading and Paddington if they were doing nothing else although they do of course have the advantage of providing a through service to Newbury and stations between there and Bedwyn.  I doubt GWR would have put them there if they thought they could bring in more revenue elsewhere.  And of course as 'Zomboid' has already pointed out there is simply no room to path anything slower than an IET on the Mains east of Reading for much of the day so any 16X - if there was one available - wouldn't be any use to go beyond Reading.  In any case the 'rump' 16X fleet at Reading is already hard pressed having to cope in the new timetable with providing extra capacity on Reading - Basingstoke as well as the Gatwick service and the Thames Valley branches

 

Obvious answer - agains as 'Zomboid' has already said would be to wire to Bedwyn but I suspect the economics of that would be rather dubious even if it offers operational advantages.  But I think we'd still be seeing the IETs running to Newbury, and maybe further, if that happened because there is a commercial need for them to offer a London service from certain stations in the Kennet Valley east of Newbury as well as Newbury itself and Reading.

[Zomboid]

Bedwyn will probably only get wires when Basingstoke, Oxford and the TV branches do.

 

With the bi-modes holding sway on the long distance services, such incremental changes might be a bit more achievable, as it would allow more electric operation on those trains as well as eliminating lots of diesels. (North Downs is still a problem though).

[caradoc]

Not having worked in an operational role on the WR I am not aware of the restrictions on running trains along the Dawlish sea wall, however I was responsible for assessing weather forecasts in Scotland and in conjunction with tide tables, deciding what action to take for our vulnerable sea wall locations at Saltcoats and Craigendoran. When high winds and high tide coincided it became standard practice to withdraw the service for a couple of hours; One of the reasons (not applicable at Dawlish of course) is the risk of damage to the OLE and resulting stranding of trains, however another factor is the very real danger of debris thrown up by the waves striking and damaging trains. I must admit to being slightly surprised that trains are allowed to continue running at Dawlish in such conditions, or do geographical features mean that that particular risk does not exist there ?

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Bedwyn will probably only get wires when Basingstoke, Oxford and the TV branches do.

 

With the bi-modes holding sway on the long distance services, such incremental changes might be a bit more achievable, as it would allow more electric operation on those trains as well as eliminating lots of diesels. (North Downs is still a problem though).

Allegedly the 769 tri-modes - when they arrive - would at least provide an interim solution on the North Downs as  part of the mileage would be powered from the 3rd rail instead of burning diesel fuel.  Quite what is happening with the conversions for GWR still seems to be unclear although the last I heard from them at a presentation to our Branch User Group was that deliveries were unlikely until 'some time in 2020'.   Until then 16X units will have to continue on the North Downs route and various other routes they currently work from their base at Reading.

 

A single (I think) 319 unit has lurked at Reading for some time and has been used for artisan (and Driver?) familarisation - I noticed last week that it is being kept nice and warm as its pan was raised in the western part of the depot yard  

[Zomboid]

If the other routes ever do get wires, a DC/ Diesel bi-mode would probably be the answer for the North Downs - and with it maybe a change of operator since that route interfaces with both SWR and Southern, both of which would have other routes to use DC/ Diesel bi-modes on. Either of those would make sense as an alternate operator once GWR have no further use for diesels in the Thames Valley. Or possibly before that!

[Gwiwer]

Historically the North Downs route was SECR and ran through SR and LSWR territory to the GWR.  The tables are somewhat turned today.  Infill electrification seems to be off the table these days at least so far as third rails are concerned but it isn't all that far to join the dots.  Reigate to Guildford is a few miles of largely plain track.  Ash to Wokingham likewise.  The other bits have been third-rail for years.  

 

Multi-mode trains are more expensive and much more complex than single-mode but have greater flexibility in terms of being able to run beyond wires or juice rails.  The class 769 conversion is supposed to be for the North Downs route specifically.  It may benefit the Henley branch but not Marlow as those trains are limited to two-car by the reversal at Bourne End being very short.  An alternative there might be something like the VivaRail D-stock but that introduces another type when standardised fleets are preferable.  

 

The 769s are 100mph stock and maybe could be used on the Bedwyn service if that came by the Relief lines up to somewhere like Dolphin Junction.  But then we introduce a conflicting move every hour requiring more line capacity.  

 

Returning for a moment to the Dawlish problem the sea-floor there is substantially sandy with fine shingle.  Solids thrown up by stormy seas can damage trains but the worst that happens in most cases is a light shower of sand washed off by much larger volumes of water.  I have experienced that much a couple of times.  I am not familiar with sea-floor conditions at Saltcoats or Craigendoran.   

[Afroal05]

7 hours ago, caradoc said:

Not having worked in an operational role on the WR I am not aware of the restrictions on running trains along the Dawlish sea wall, however I was responsible for assessing weather forecasts in Scotland and in conjunction with tide tables, deciding what action to take for our vulnerable sea wall locations at Saltcoats and Craigendoran. When high winds and high tide coincided it became standard practice to withdraw the service for a couple of hours; One of the reasons (not applicable at Dawlish of course) is the risk of damage to the OLE and resulting stranding of trains, however another factor is the very real danger of debris thrown up by the waves striking and damaging trains. I must admit to being slightly surprised that trains are allowed to continue running at Dawlish in such conditions, or do geographical features mean that that particular risk does not exist there ?

 

Initially it's speed restrictions on the down line with pway riding some services in the cab to inspect standing water levels and any damage/debris. When spray and waves reach a certain level then reversible working is put in place on the up line. In the last couple of years on days I've been in Control I can't think of a time where there's been a block on services because of the threat of wave damage, only when there has been standing water above the railhead.

Usually the only damage to trains is a wave striking a window and cracking/breaking it although from photos taken during bad weather clearly there is a little bit of solid debris that gets thrown around.

[royaloak]

22 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Much like anything else, there is an amount of  Dawlish splashing that they'll tolerate, and more than that they'll be at risk of being broken by it.

 

Dawlish Proof would most likely be impossible given how bad it can get down there.

So the 143s, 150s, 153s, HSTs etc are all proof that impossible is possible then!

[Zomboid]

1 minute ago, royaloak said:

So the 143s, 150s, 153s, HSTs etc are all proof that impossible is possible then!

There are some conditions that they aren't allowed to run in, so no.

[royaloak]

34 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

There are some conditions that they aren't allowed to run in, so no.

Hardly comparable to the issues the (supposedly Dawlish proof) IETs are suffering though is it, when was the last time all trains were stopped and how often does it happen compared to the IETs having issues?

[Zomboid]

I wouldn't claim that 800s are more Dawlish resistant than the other trains down there, because that is not what the evidence that's available so far appears to be showing.

 

But I would claim that building a train that will work down there in *anything* is either impossible or so difficult and expensive as to not be worth it.

[bimble]

On 20/12/2019 at 20:28, Zomboid said:

Dawlish Proof would most likely be impossible given how bad it can get down there.

 

Considering the track itself isn't always Dawlish Proof... 

[Mallard60022]

 

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I wouldn't claim that 800s are more Dawlish resistant than the other trains down there, because that is not what the evidence that's available so far appears to be showing.

 

But I would claim that building a train that will work down there in *anything* is either impossible or so difficult and expensive as to not be worth it.

Steam didn't have that many problems through Dawlish in conditions that would prevent almost all of today's stuff.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Mallard60022

[jamie92208]

2 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

 

Steam didn't have that many problems through Dawlish in conditions that would prevent almost all of today's stuff.

Perhaps it's time to open up the strategic reserve and base it at Exeter and Newton Abbott.

 

Jamie

Edited December 21, 2019 by jamie92208

[Gwiwer]

The Dawlish problem seems to have worsened as trains have become more complex and carried more - and more sensitive - electronic equipment.  The Voyagers which definitely don't voyage when it's a bit wet down there were probably the first build to encounter serious problems.  Whether the IETs are as bad or are maybe somewhere between HST and Voyager would really be for the operators or daily users to comment upon.  There seems to have been a slight upturn in delays related to weather and sea conditions since their introduction but I'm not on the spot and a daily snapshot review of operations via RTT or the NR app is not a full and fair sample.  

[Dunsignalling]

6 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

The Dawlish problem seems to have worsened as trains have become more complex and carried more - and more sensitive - electronic equipment.  The Voyagers which definitely don't voyage when it's a bit wet down there were probably the first build to encounter serious problems.  Whether the IETs are as bad or are maybe somewhere between HST and Voyager would really be for the operators or daily users to comment upon.  There seems to have been a slight upturn in delays related to weather and sea conditions since their introduction but I'm not on the spot and a daily snapshot review of operations via RTT or the NR app is not a full and fair sample.  

The strengths and weaknesses of the IETs in their contest with the English Channel when in full flight are yet to be fully established.

 

I hope they'll be better than Voyagers, though, which are sometimes referred to locally as slugs; i.e. they die if exposed to salt.

 

John

[TravisM]

Silly question but someone told me that the new West Coast operator wants to replace the Class 221 voyagers with 800’s.  Is there any truth in this and if so, are they going to be added to the current batch when they are completed or has no date been given for them?

[Zomboid]

They are apparently buying some bi-modes and straight electrics to replace their 221s. No idea where it'll sit in Hitachi's order book queue.

[Gwiwer]

Class number 803 assigned, I believe

[Zomboid]

Would 803 be for the MML ones? It's not immediately apparent why 801/ 802s wouldn't suit the WCML. (In fact, would 800s be up to the job for the North Wales coast and the couple of other trains to Wrexham/ Shrewsbury?)

[Oldddudders]

Not my field, but is 803 simply a reflection of the pace of technological advance? I suspect that by the time a train rolls out of the works, it is already obsolete, in that new and better ways of running the electronics have already been developed. The same may apply to power supply and indeed traction motor systems, too. So differentiating fleets is important.

[talisman56]

I think it might also be the case of a new franchise wanting 'their own' stock rather than another batch of whatever other Franchises are using...

[Christopher125]

On 20/12/2019 at 21:20, Gwiwer said:

Dawlish can be very wet and wild.  But most loco-hauled trains backalong got through unless the line itself was blocked.  HSTs and even the widely-loathed Pacers normally got through.  The problem seems to be the more complex the hardware the more there is to go wrong and the more sensitive it is to anything upsetting it.  May we please apply KISS to future builds?  

 

If it was that simple then rolling stock should have become progressively, and significantly, less reliable as the complexity increased - it's hard to see much evidence of that.

 

Surely what we see at Dawlish is the downside of trains designed to protect themselves from damage - ordinarily a big benefit to reliability, but unhelpfully conservative in exceptional circumstances.

 

Thankfully this is something that can be addressed, as it was for Electrostars and Desiros when they struggled in their first bad winters - AIUI the 800s are due a software update which should address issues restarting engines knocked out by a wave, while a long-awaited fix for the Voyagers has been recently tested.

 

Quote

Even allowing for the post-electrification rolling stock shuffle it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to run the Bedwyns with a 166 and release IETs for where the need is greater.

 

I don't think that was ever on the cards, IIRC the initial plan was for a Newbury-Bedwyn DMU shuttle before the plan to lengthen the Bedwyn headshunt and use 800s - no conceivable business case could be found for electrification .

Edited December 30, 2019 by Christopher125

[black and decker boy]

On 23/12/2019 at 08:57, Zomboid said:

Would 803 be for the MML ones? It's not immediately apparent why 801/ 802s wouldn't suit the WCML. (In fact, would 800s be up to the job for the North Wales coast and the couple of other trains to Wrexham/ Shrewsbury?)

They are buying AT300 trains not IETs. Class 800 & 801 are IETs. Class 802 are AT300s (basically open market versions of IET with some of the DfT inspired silliness removed or improved).

 

class 803 is the straight electric AT300 version First Group have bought for the open access Edinburgh trains. It has no back up GU unlike the class 801 AC IET units which still have 1 GU.

 

the MML units are also AT300 but shorter body length (24m) and IIRC will become class 804.

[Banger Blue]

IET is only the name given to the GWR 80x units by GWR themselves, likewise ‘Azuma’ was Virgin’s choice of name for the ECML 80x trains.