Class 800 - Updates

[Ron Ron Ron]

Information posted on another forum, from someone who has fairly detailed knowledge of what is going on, suggests that the software power upgrade has been implemented on those trains being used in service, but that the engine performance and acceleration and speed profiles have been tailored to achieve the overall timetable timings. Apparently the trains are not running at maximum power and the prime considerations appear to be the effect on engine wear, maintenance and fuel efficiency, no doubt as a result of the complicated and probably costly amendments to the IEP contracts and train lease arrangements.

 

Furthermore, it is becoming clear that the software is dynamic, in that it adjusts the engine power output according to various parameters. For example if one engine is shut down (e.g. 5 out 6 running on a 5+5 pair) then the power output is adjusted accordingly.

 

It is entirely possible that further software tweaks will continue to be applied as operational experience is gained.

 

As D854_Tiger and others (here and on other forums) have said, the current situation is temporary, forced on Agility/Hitachi and GWR by the DafT and NR's failure to deliver the electrification programme on time.

 

 

.

[D854_Tiger]

Information posted on another forum, from someone who has fairly detailed knowledge of what is going on, suggests that the software power upgrade has been implemented on those trains being used in service, but that the engine performance and acceleration and speed profiles have been tailored to achieve the overall timetable timings. Apparently the trains are not running at maximum power and the prime considerations appear to be the effect on engine wear, maintenance and fuel efficiency, no doubt as a result of the complicated and probably costly amendments to the IEP contracts and train lease arrangements.

 

Furthermore, it is becoming clear that the software is dynamic, in that it adjusts the engine power output according to various parameters. For example if one engine is shut down (e.g. 5 out 6 running on a 5+5 pair) then the power output is adjusted accordingly.

 

It is entirely possible that further software tweaks will continue to be applied as operational experience is gained.

 

As D854_Tiger and others (here and on other forums) have said, the current situation is temporary, forced on Agility/Hitachi and GWR by the DafT and NR's failure to deliver the electrification programme on time.

 

 

.

 

 

As I understand it, to turn a 100 mph (on diesel) 750 bhp class 800 into a (125 mph) 940 bhp class 802 (if indeed that is the ultimate intention) requires more than just a software configuration change.

 

It also requires the fitting of a larger radiator and it's also desirable to have full rheostatic braking, rather than the electric only version the class 800s currently have.

 

My understanding is that some or all of that upgrade is now planned but it surely is not just a case of going ahead and doing it, when, as you rightly intimate, this would have a considerable impact upon the maintenance contracts, that have already been negotiated, and presumably will now have to be completely renegotiated.

 

I can't believe, whatever kind of upgrade is planed for those class 800s, has been completely put in place yet, given the timescales involved, and what has must be more a case of tweaking, as allowed within the parameters of the current maintenance regime.

 

P.S, The class 802s also have larger fuel tanks but I doubt they will bother with that so the class 800 upgrade will probably mean they become some sub-class of the class 800 as they wouldn't want to end sending one, to you know where, in Devon by mistake.

[Coryton]

Redeployed due to the 800's on the western, a former GWR HST set now in Scotrail livery was in Aberdeen yesterday for a naming ceremony,  Shortened to four cars coaches/two powercars

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

IMG_0359.JPG

 

IMG_0357.JPG

 

The "Scotrail livery" looks like FGW with the branding taken off and some new vinyls added on the lower body side.

 

Anyone know if they are changing the seating or keeping to the current airline seats crammed into a tube look (albeit with quite generous legroom)?

[frobisher]

The "Scotrail livery" looks like FGW with the branding taken off and some new vinyls added on the lower body side.

 

Anyone know if they are changing the seating or keeping to the current airline seats crammed into a tube look (albeit with quite generous legroom)?

That definitely isn't the final livery, and the set in question has not yet been refurbished and is purely for training and route learning. Rail magazine had some renders of the proposed liveries (each coach is slightly different!) an issue or so back (836). The seating layout was also covered there, which is definitely changing; Standard class is going to be about 50/50 tabled bays/airline style seats with seats aligned to windows where practical.

 

The five coach configuration is 2 x TSL (74s) + TS (74s)+ TSD (58s) + TGFB (32f) with a single toilet in all but the TS which has none, and an accessible toilet in the TSD.

[royaloak]

Do you have evidence for that? This would seem to contradict other reports that say the issue with acceleration is around the ton plus.

Does sitting in the front cab looking at the speedo count as evidence?

[royaloak]

I think the key issues at Steventon are

1) vocal local opposition to the road closure needed to raise the bridge (with the highway authority agreeing with them)

2) the listed status of the bridge meaning additional consent is needed. This too has attracted great local opposition.

3) NR seemingly not seeing this coming in the early years of the GWML programme and thinking everyone would cede to their requests / bullying.

 

I travel through Steventon regularly and build roads for a living and I don’t see any highways design issues that should stop this moving forward.

 

NR do state in their press release about the speed limit & diesel option that it is short term whilst they sort out the legal to raise the bridge.

Why is it listed?

It is a normal run of the mill brick built arched overbridge of which there are probably thousands throughout the country, or am I missing something!

[Metr0Land]

Why is it listed?

It is a normal run of the mill brick built arched overbridge of which there are probably thousands throughout the country, or am I missing something!

https://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101284749-road-bridge-over-railway-steventon#.WgC0e3arepo

[royaloak]

https://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101284749-road-bridge-over-railway-steventon#.WgC0e3arepo

Thanks for the link, so basically its listed because it is, nothing special about it at all.

 

Blow the bloody thing up and be fined about £5k or delay the whole electrification programme some more?

 

Lets think about that for a minute, BANG.

Edited November 6, 2017 by royaloak

[Titan]

Why is it listed?

It is a normal run of the mill brick built arched overbridge of which there are probably thousands throughout the country, or am I missing something!

 

Unfortunately anything with a hint of Brunel seems to get listed, irrespective of whether or not there are dozens of similar examples in existence. It would not surprise me if over half of the bridges on the GWML were listed...

[caradoc]

Wasn't there some nonsense spouted a few years ago that the entire Paddington-Bristol route was a historic monument and therefore could never be electrified ? Obviously that is not the case (although I bet Network Rail wish it was !)

[Ron Ron Ron]

That bridge was listed along with hundreds, if not thousands of mundane and not very special buildings and structures, during a period in the 1980's and early 90's of (in my opinion, excessive) listing frenzy.

While I agree that it remains very important to value and where possible, preserve our built environment and its impact on local areas and communities, the people responsible for many of these unnecessary listings went much too far.

There are numerous examples around the country, where you cannot avoided asking, Why????

 

The railway infrastructure isn't a museum and nor should it be, but there is a place to retain certain buildings and structures that not only preserve our heritage, but that also continue to add tangible practical and aesthetic value.

e.g. St. Pancras St, KGX and various outstanding viaducts and bridges.

A bl**dy mundane brick built road bridge certainly does not come into that category and even if this particular one did have some "special" redeeming feature, practical considerations should see it either raised in a sympathetic manner, or removed for preservation elsewhere.

 

The primary concern of locals, at least from the local press reports, appears to be from local businesses (pubs, cafes, shops and other small businesses) who are worried about the potential loss of trade and subsequent damage to their businesses during any period of rebuilding or replacement.

In other words, their concerns and worries about that one years business is holding up an important national infrastructure improvement that should endure for decades if not for another century and a half. 

Surely the focus should be on whether (or not) to address the concern of the local businesses, but in the meantime, get the bridge replaced or rebuilt ASAP.

If that can't be done, then remove the bridge and provide an alternative crossing point (expensive of course).

 

Maybe HS2 should provide some guidance here?

 

 

p.s. This discussion should be in the GWML Electrification thread, not this one concerning the Class 800.

.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[RJS1977]

Wasn't there some nonsense spouted a few years ago that the entire Paddington-Bristol route was a historic monument and therefore could never be electrified ? Obviously that is not the case (although I bet Network Rail wish it was !)

 

There was an unsuccessful attempt to get it listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site, which is probably what you're thinking of.

[Jonboy]

The main issue in Steventon to the locals is it is still a major through route from many local villages to the A34 and Milton park (and Didcot Parkway) avoiding the bottlenecks at Rowstock for Harwell/Newbury/Wallingford and Reading, and Marcham for Abingdon and Oxford.

 

This is, rarely for Oxfordshire, locals complaining for a very clear reason.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Jonboy

[royaloak]

I have just had a look on Google Earth and the two level crossings (Causeway and Stocks Lane) actually connect with each other and then the B4017 (the road with the bridge on it) about 2 miles away from the Railway so why not simply close Stocks Lane level crossing (which is the one in the middle of Causeway LC and the bridge) which would seem to solve the problem.

 

Map here-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Steventon,+Abingdon/@51.6210099,-1.32553,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4876b9cf9363ce4b:0x251610c01ec0c1a6!8m2!3d51.62533!4d-1.328262

Edited November 6, 2017 by royaloak

[Reorte]

It's the bridge not the crossings that are the issue. Mind you looking at Streetview (which can be misleading) the bridge gradients don't look severe so might be raisable.

[HillsideDepot]

Looking at the arrivals and departures at North Pole and Stoke Gifford depots on the Real Time Trains website it appears that a further two class 800 diagrams are activated from Monday 13th. I've been trying to follow the workings through the RTT website, but the data is a little confused in places (arriving at one and departing from another platform at PAD, and a potential splitting of a pair at BRI which means North Pole ends every day with one 5-car less than it starts!), or I've missed something.

 

So, does anyone have the diagrams, please? 

 

I recall people recently asking about the build up of IC125 services 40 odd years ago, so it would be good to try to record the incremental introduction of class 800 for the future. 

[royaloak]

Looking at the arrivals and departures at North Pole and Stoke Gifford depots on the Real Time Trains website it appears that a further two class 800 diagrams are activated from Monday 13th. I've been trying to follow the workings through the RTT website, but the data is a little confused in places (arriving at one and departing from another platform at PAD, and a potential splitting of a pair at BRI which means North Pole ends every day with one 5-car less than it starts!), or I've missed something.

 

So, does anyone have the diagrams, please? 

 

I recall people recently asking about the build up of IC125 services 40 odd years ago, so it would be good to try to record the incremental introduction of class 800 for the future. 

Yes 2 more diagrams start on Monday (hopefully) and no they are not splitting and joining at BRI due to the coupling 'issues' they are currently suffering from.

 

Edit-

Shamelessly lifted from another forum-

 

1) 10 car. (As from 28th October)

0730 Bristol TM - Paddington

1000 Paddington - Bristol TM

1230 Bristol TM - Paddington

1445 Paddington - Swansea

1829 Swansea - Paddington.

 

2) 10 car (As from 28th October)

0830 Paddington - Bristol TM

1100 Bristol TM - Paddington

1300 Paddington - Bristol TM

1530 Bristol TM - Paddington

1800 Paddington - Bristol TM

Edited November 7, 2017 by royaloak

[royaloak]

It's the bridge not the crossings that are the issue. Mind you looking at Streetview (which can be misleading) the bridge gradients don't look severe so might be raisable.

I thought the problem was the proximity of the two meaning the OHLE had to be at quite a steep angle to get from full height over the LC to minimum height under the bridge.

 

They can electrify under the bridge and will be doing shortly (hence the intended imposing of a 60 mph restriction for any trains with pantographs raised) so I dont know what the issue is with the bridge, could you enlighten me please, genuine interest.

[Reorte]

I thought the problem was the proximity of the two meaning the OHLE had to be at quite a steep angle to get from full height over the LC to minimum height under the bridge.

 

They can electrify under the bridge and will be doing shortly (hence the intended imposing of a 60 mph restriction for any trains with pantographs raised) so I dont know what the issue is with the bridge, could you enlighten me please, genuine interest.

I was thinking of the comments upthread that the bridge couldn't be raised, with suggestions that the gradient on the road would be too steep being one reason why, and it affecting any possible frontage. A quick look at Streetview and they're not obvious issues with raising it, although I'm no sort of highway engineer so could well be talking nonsense.

 

If it's just the gradient of the wires and there's enough clearance for a pantograph under the bridge then from a glance at the map closing at least the nearest crossing to the bridge doesn't look like it would be too inconvenient.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Yes 2 more diagrams start on Monday (hopefully) and no they are not splitting and joining at BRI due to the coupling 'issues' they are currently suffering from.

 

Edit-

Shamelessly lifted from another forum-

 

1) 10 car. (As from 28th October)

0730 Bristol TM - Paddington

1000 Paddington - Bristol TM

1230 Bristol TM - Paddington

1445 Paddington - Swansea

1829 Swansea - Paddington.

 

2) 10 car (As from 28th October)

0830 Paddington - Bristol TM

1100 Bristol TM - Paddington

1300 Paddington - Bristol TM

1530 Bristol TM - Paddington

1800 Paddington - Bristol TM

 

 

I think that might be the Saturday only diagrams, that must have already started (28th Oct).

 

The GW Coffee Shop and Rail UK Forums report the following two additional diagrams starting on Monday 13th Nov.

I've no idea about the accuracy of this information, or whether or not splitting of units is delayed for now..

 

 

From 13th November 2017 (4x 10 car sets in service)

 

As above, plus:

1A04 06:33 Bristol TM - Paddington 08:14

1B15 08:45 Paddington - Swansea 11:43

1L62 12:28 Swansea - Paddington 15:33

1C24 17:30 Paddington - Taunton* 2023

1A37 21:27 Taunton - Paddington^† 00:34

 

1B05 06:45 Paddington - Swansea 09:47

1L52 10:28 Swansea - Paddington 13:33

1B42 14:15 Paddington - Cardiff C 16:23

1L82 16:55 Cardiff C - Paddington 19:02

1C28 19:30 Paddington - Weston SM* 21:48

 

Notes:

*Service splits at Bristol TM, 5 car forward to Weston SM/Taunton

^5 car from Taunton/Weston SM, 10 car from Bristol TM

†Because of engineering works, during the first two weeks of operation, the 2127 from Taunton will reverse at Chippenham and then run non stop via Melksham and Pewsey to Reading 0023, arriving Paddington 0102.

 

.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Ron Ron Ron

[frobisher]

Does sitting in the front cab looking at the speedo count as evidence?

It depends... Were you driving? If not, were you aware of any operational instructions to the drivers (one way or another)? Context can be important...

[HillsideDepot]

Thanks Ron, that pretty much agrees with what I'd managed to uncover.

 

Noting what Royal Oak said about trains not splitting/joining yet, on paper the split at BRI on the Taunton is odd as a 5C24 to Stoke Gifford exists, but that creates an imbalance of units between the depots. The only way out of it I can think is that half of 1C27 remains at BRI to pair up with the Taunton on its return while the other half works 5C27 to Stoke Gifford. Its all a bit academic as splitting and joining is yet to begin, but the sort of thing that intrigues me.

 

I also found that the set which works the Taunton is booked a late afternoon trip to North Pole:

 

5L62 1552 PAD     1601 NP

5C24 1701 NP      1708 PAD

 

This appears to be just to release a platform as the present HST diagram goes to Old Oak in the same way.

 

There is also an additional return trip for the first pair out of North Pole, due to Engineering Work (the same work which sends 1A37 via the B&H).

 

1T35 2201 BRI     2224 CPM

 1T32 2303 CPM     2334 BRI

 

This has run before with a double IET.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks Ron, that pretty much agrees with what I'd managed to uncover.

 

Noting what Royal Oak said about trains not splitting/joining yet, on paper the split at BRI on the Taunton is odd as a 5C24 to Stoke Gifford exists, but that creates an imbalance of units between the depots. The only way out of it I can think is that half of 1C27 remains at BRI to pair up with the Taunton on its return while the other half works 5C27 to Stoke Gifford. Its all a bit academic as splitting and joining is yet to begin, but the sort of thing that intrigues me.

 

I also found that the set which works the Taunton is booked a late afternoon trip to North Pole:

 

5L62 1552 PAD     1601 NP

5C24 1701 NP      1708 PAD

 

This appears to be just to release a platform as the present HST diagram goes to Old Oak in the same way.

 

There is also an additional return trip for the first pair out of North Pole, due to Engineering Work (the same work which sends 1A37 via the B&H).

 

1T35 2201 BRI     2224 CPM

 1T32 2303 CPM     2334 BRI

 

This has run before with a double IET.

 

I think the splitting/joining (or not) issue might be down to continuing 'problems' with the TMS (referred to by Ron at the top of this page as 'software tweaks') where various sources and information I have heard suggests that considerable 'refinement' of the software is still needed - some of which relates to sets when coupled.

 

To be honest this is hardly surprising on a train which is heavily software orientated - Class 373 Eurostar sets took more than a couple of years to get up to Issue 16 of their software and they weren't even required to work coupled in traffic.  And the latter is a situation which my past experience suggests can often unearth various unexpected things when attempts are made to couple things.   Overall I think these sorts of 'problems' (if that is the correct word?)  are only going to really emerge in everyday operation where the trains' systems are subject to the full rough and tumble of the operational railway which is not easy to reproduce in virtually all types of pre-service testing apart from, perhaps, loaded shadow timetable running.

[Richard E]

800101 was in York tonight heading for Doncaster. Running as a 9 car set it was still kitted out with test gear despite being in Virgin livery. What seats were fitted were plastic covered and ballasted with bagged gravel. It was running on electric and stepped away from the platform extremely quickly making a 225 look quite pedestrian by comparison. Very quiet too.

 

As an aside I saw the 700 in service at Peterborough for the first time yesterday - well, I noticed it in service ....

Edited November 7, 2017 by Richard E

[SouthernMafia]

There was just a single set out today on 1A03 etc, 800009. Was booked to couple to another set at Padd on arrival but seemingly this didn't happen (probably due to very late arrival after incident between Bath and Chippenham this morning involving 1A02) and so single set has been running around on its own today.

 

I expect the Twitterarmy were out in force scoffing at the success of the capacity increase these new trains will provide. It was hardly going to be long before a 5-car got out on a 10-car diagram, wonder how wedged it was at Reading.