Class 800 - Updates

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Isn't the "shadow" running, which Mike states above, exactly what's happening with the new Crossrail units between Liverpool St and Shenfield?

[black and decker boy]

Roger Ford has written recently in Modern Railways of the reliability bathtub curve that all fleets go through when entering squadron service.

 

From his experience and monitoring of such things down the decades, he expects initial reliability to be awful but with an initial slow improvement. This is what you get when real world passengers mix with real world staff on new train packages. As those staff get used to the new trains and the maintenance teams get on top of the common faults then reliability builds quickly. You only expose the common faults by running lots of trainsets on lots of diagrams.

 

His prediction is for a less reliable network on the whole until around 2021. 2017 was the squadron service of the class 700s dragging down the national average. 2018 will be class 345, 385 and class 800s. 2019 will be those CAF DMU, EMU and Loco hauled fleets. 2020 will be the Stadler bi-modes and EMUs in Anglia. However, this period of poor reliability should be no more than 12 months for each new train type if I remember his article correctly. So for TPE and Hull Trains, they should get AT300 units that work well straight from the factory. The same for those Aventra in Anglia and Birmingham.

 

We also have the smaller fleets of Merseyrail, Cal Sleeper and the sliding door HSTs to get through their learning curves though these should only have local impact.

[Fat Controller]

Isn't the "shadow" running, which Mike states above, exactly what's happening with the new Crossrail units between Liverpool St and Shenfield?

It is, but they had the advantage of a fully-functioning railway on which to do their test running; progress on the GWML can hardly have been helped by  a combination of an absence of OCS over much of the route, and short-notice possessions as the contractors play 'catch-up'.

I was lucky enough to have been involved (by dint of marriage) in commissioning of the Channel Tunnel and both phases of CTRL/HS1: both projects had longer to accumulate mileage and 'de-bug' the trains. I spent a lot of weekends either driving on and off shuttles, and later been evacuated from Eurostars, as systems and procedures were tested.

[D854_Tiger]

That reads to me a bit like you're making excuses for Hitachi. Their 395s have been in actual service in the UK for more than 8 years, and weren't we told one of the reasons the IEP trains would be so brilliant was because they were using all of Hitachi's experience (hence having pocket doors, despite them not being optimal for high speed trains - they were allegedly more reliable)?

 

Hitachi is supposed to be a highly experienced, world-class, engineering-led company. It certainly isn't shy about boasting with full-page colour ads in the industry press, highlighting their (to me vacuous) slogan "Inspire the Next" (what on earth is that supposed to mean?).

 

Despite all those decisions to use sub-optimal equipment (because it was apparently more reliable), and all those months spent testing, Hitachi seems to have missed what appear to be some pretty important issues.

 

I guess they'll get it right in the end. It seems like a rum old way to launch a new product, though.

 

Paul

 

 

I'm guessing Hitachi's expectations though were being able to introduce their new trains (half of which were supposedly going to be all electric) onto an all electric railway, only using diesel at the country end (on a small proportion of services) and not having to do electric to diesel changeovers on the move at err ... Twyford.

 

Ideally, they should have been able to introduce their trains gently, on all electric runs over the core route, before moving onto the more complex operation of the trains and the staff, operating them.

 

Not much fun for the staff on trains packed full of commuters, already prone to losing time when working normally, and then experiencing teething troubles they're expected to work out under the pressure of several hundred seething ranting pax already p****d off just because they have to go to work on a Monday morning.

[Ron Ron Ron]

I bet this sort of thing doesn't happen to Japanese Railways.

 

 

You could argue there's not much Japanese about these trains though....

 

[jjb1970]

There are commissioning issues and there are commissioning issues.

 

There are certain time dependent fault modes which are difficult to properly identify and correct outside of physical operation of the completed system, critical dependencies which may evade processes such as FMEA, faults which rear their head because the way a system will be operated in service was not properly evaluated at specification and design stages (I think Hitachi probably have fair cause to complain about that one) and control systems are notoriously difficult to properly set up and de-bug without extensive operation of the completed system. And lots more. Which of course is why the commissioning phase is so important and why it is quite normal for it to be quite a stressful time for those involved. 

 

Then there are faults such as machinery disintegrating because of swarf left in the system, hydraulic and pneumatic lines not flushed through, rags left in pipes choking oil flow, major failures because somebody leaves a commissioning link in place by-passing some supervisory function etc etc (all familiar from my time in power plants and certain ship yards) which just indicate shoddy quality and inadequate QA processes and which I always considered poor form and inexcusable. One of the funniest examples I saw in hindsight (though not at the time) was a very well known supplier of power plant systems decided they didn't need to do a chemical clean of the boiler and steam headers for a new steam turbine generator unit. The chemical clean and flushing was predicted to need 5 days and they decided their QA process was so good that it wasn't necessary. A key part of the acceptance process for steam systems is that the vendor has to inset a highly polished target plate into the main steam turbine line just before the turbine inlet (with the turbine by-passed using a temporary steam diversion for commissioning) and doa high steampressure blow with the target plate then inspected for scratches and marking to demonstrate there is no debris left in the steam system. After 60 blows the target plate was still unacceptable and they finally swallowed defeat and did the chemical clean then needed another 5 blows to meet the acceptance criteria. What made it bad was that because of the noise created by venting a 200 bar steam line to atmosphere (even through silencers) the environment agency limited it to one blow per day. As an owners engineer I had advised it might not be wise to omit the cleaning process but was basically told it was a turn key project, I was only there to observe so shut up. And my employer wasn't that worried as they could live with the delay and the liquidated damages and late delivery payments were very agreeable. That decision basically meant the supplier made a loss on the plant. 

 

For all that, it is Hitachi's job to meet their contractual obligations and manage their processes.

[D854_Tiger]

You could argue there's not much Japanese about these trains though....

 

 

 

I would suspect the Japanese would claim the difference is the way they do things rather than who does them.

 

They have certainly proven that principle, with their automotive sector that's based here and similarly sources a large proportion of their components locally (if you accept the EU is local).

 

When Rover tied up with Honda (a partnership which, in my opinion, was made in heaven) the decision by BMW to acquire Rover (and hence shamefully dump the Honda partnership) was driven by a desire to acquire that Japanese quality knowhow.

 

Once acquired the final chapter for Rover was then largely written.

 

Personally, in my working life, I have dealt with the Asian business culture and always far preferred it to dealing with certain business cultures found within the EU, something that had coloured my prejudice towards the EU early on.

 

I could detail that with some highly politically incorrect observations, but not here, only to add that it was a constant source of frustration to find UK business always concentrating their resources on the EU, to the detriment of Asian customers, when my experience always was that their willingness to put business our UK way so much greater than the EU's willingness.

 

Without getting too political (over BREXIT) that at least makes me optimistic about our new found status in the world with the UK now having to broaden its horizons. That's one thing that has long been overdue, my experience of the EU always was that it was far too inward looking.

[scouser]

Good job this isn,t acceptable with aircraft!

[D854_Tiger]

On Decemeber 19th a class 800 reached Inverness on a test run over the Highland Line.

 

A Scottish transport minister described the test as encouraging as it now paves the way for their eventual introduction onto the Inverness - London day train.

 

Concern about a class 800's ability to climb those gradients needs to be considered alongside the timetable they will likely be expected to operate.

 

Currently the HST is allowed exactly two hours for the section between Inverness and Perth, a similar class 170 operation (just one stop more) is actually allowed one minute less.

 

Suggesting whatever else will affect the class 800 performance over the route, it's hardly likely to be their power.

 

My guess is that they won't be found wanting unless some bright spark, with an imagination, realises a Scotrail 2+5 HST could really storm that route, given its head, although they might have to do something about the Scotrail services currently making four extra stops.

[Ken.W]

On Decemeber 19th a class 800 reached Inverness on a test run over the Highland Line.

 

A Scottish transport minister described the test as encouraging as it now paves the way for their eventual introduction onto the Inverness - London day train.

 

Concern about a class 800's ability to climb those gradients needs to be considered alongside the timetable they will likely be expected to operate.

 

Currently the HST is allowed exactly two hours for the section between Inverness and Perth, a similar class 170 operation (just one stop more) is actually allowed one minute less.

 

Suggesting whatever else will affect the class 800 performance over the route, it's hardly likely to be their power.

 

My guess is that they won't be found wanting unless some bright spark, with an imagination, realises a Scotrail 2+5 HST could really storm that route, given its head, although they might have to do something about the Scotrail services currently making four extra stops.

I heard about this test run, and the verdict (first hand from someone involved) -

"Not as good as the HSTs"

In which case, it won't just be their ability to climb the grades, or speed at which they can do so, but also their ability to recover from the various significant speed restrictions on the route where they'll be found lacking.

It was also commented that, on elecric, they're not much faster than the 91s

[Ron Ron Ron]

......It was also commented that, on elecric, they're not much faster than the 91s

 

 

Both are restricted to a 125 mph max.

Both are designed for and capable of 140 mph.

 

.

[royaloak]

Both are restricted to a 125 mph max.

Both are designed for and capable of 140 mph.

 

.

One has 4 driven axles and is rather slow accelerating away but once underway are pretty good.

The other has distributed traction and is rather quicker getting away, but when underway not as fast as the figures would suggest.

 

On diesel the 800s are no match at all for a HST except when pulling away, above about 30mph the HST is King, checked with my own mark 1 eyeball on an IET proving run.

 

The 802s will be better on diesel but time will tell if they are a match, or better than a HST.

Edited December 29, 2017 by royaloak

[Ken.W]

Both are restricted to a 125 mph max.

Both are designed for and capable of 140 mph.

 

.

It was the performance in getting there he was talking about, not overall maximum.

 

Although the 91s seem to be considered slow when just observed starting from a station (yes, as they've just 4 powered axles, only 80 tons adhesion, and gearing for 140mph), once they do get going they do more than make up for it, and as they're designed for 140 mph there's still no noticable dropping off in performance up to 125, unlike other traction as they approach their maximum.

As I've previously posted (somewhere on here), you can stop at Northallerton, and still pass Thirsk at 125. Or at York, a 185 (which seem fast for diesel) passes at 30 from an adjacent platform for the Leeds line as the 91s just starting to move, by time the 91 gets going and clear of the restrictions to Holgate Br. the 185s already a clear section ahead on the adjacent Leeds line (yellow aspects behind it), but at Colton Jn the 91s passing it.

 

The 800s clearly underperform on diesel compared to the HST, I've heard them being described as equivelent to half-way between an HST on full power and one on one engine. I've also posted previously that southbound from Doncaster they're only doing 90 at Bawtry, where an HSTs up to 110, and have only managed 123 down Stoke Bank (so here, they're even embarrassed by an A4). Yes they're only meant to do 100 on diesel, but the motors, gearing etc means theres no reason they can't do more, it's just another symptom of their lack of power.

A number of posts excusing their diesel performance seem to suggest they're only running on diesel due to GW electrification being incomplete, or were just meant to for short extensions at the end of trunk electrified routes, there's actually significant distances where they were always going to have to run on diesel (hence the actual need for bi-modes in the first place), particularly Inverness / Aberdeen which are also challenging routes, and which will challenge them by the sound of it .

[jim.snowdon]

What should be remembered in all of this is that what matters is the average start to stop speed. On services with frequent stops, it is acceleration that matters most, and on longer distance services, it is the sustained speed that is the dominant factor. Further, once you get away from the high speed main lines, the maximum speed is often limited by the line speed limit. The trains may be capable of 125mph, but the tracks aren't.

 

Just by way of illustration, I did a London to Manchester trip earlier this year on a Pendolino set that was limited to 100mph by virtue of a tilt failure and was only about five, certainly not more than ten, minutes late into Manchester. The influencing factor is that whilst the permitted line speed is 125 as far as Colwich, between there and Manchester it is considerably lower, so that the speed limit on the train no longer mattered.

 

Jim

[D854_Tiger]

 

A number of posts excusing their diesel performance seem to suggest they're only running on diesel due to GW electrification being incomplete, or were just meant to for short extensions at the end of trunk electrified routes, there's actually significant distances where they were always going to have to run on diesel (hence the actual need for bi-modes in the first place), particularly Inverness / Aberdeen which are also challenging routes, and which will challenge them by the sound of it .

 

Only three or four HSTs run through to Aberdeen, per day, and only one to Inverness so the benchmark performance the class 800 needs to match (or exceed) over those routes is largely set by the class 170, as is the timetable.

 

Indeed, for some reason, the HSTs actually run to slacker timings than even the class 170 services, with fewer stops and despite their extra power, which possibly suggests the nature of the London services, their longer distance clientele and more of them largely dictates the timetable, whatever the available power.

 

However, 2+5 HSTs could embarrass those IETs, if the timetable were ever designed to exploit them but, even so, what's a few minutes on a journey from the Highlands to London, if the punters were even remotely bothered about speed somehow I doubt they would be putting their business the railway's way in the first place.

[HillsideDepot]

what's a few minutes on a journey from the Highlands to London

I don't know the timetable in sufficient detail to for sure, but "a few minutes" could be critical when you consider there are single track sections on the Highland Main Line, and double track bottlenecks on the ECML nearer London; all of which have to be passed seamlessly.

 

Then consider how many places an Inverness to Kings Cross service will make connections, which themselves are often now running to clock-face schedules and have their own pathing and connection constraints. "A few minutes" can't be so quickly dismissed. 

[D854_Tiger]

I don't know the timetable in sufficient detail to for sure, but "a few minutes" could be critical when you consider there are single track sections on the Highland Main Line, and double track bottlenecks on the ECML nearer London; all of which have to be passed seamlessly.

 

Then consider how many places an Inverness to Kings Cross service will make connections, which themselves are often now running to clock-face schedules and have their own pathing and connection constraints. "A few minutes" can't be so quickly dismissed. 

 

I was assuming that if the IET cannot match a HST running on diesel then the timetable could be modified to accommodate it but from what I can gather from table 229 everything is already timed around the class 170 (including the HST) and I'm pretty sure an IET will able to match that.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

But will the ScR timetable be recast when the short-formed HSTs arrive on the scene?

[D854_Tiger]

 

It was also commented that, on elecric, they're not much faster than the 91s

 

Thus demonstrating the inherent flaw of bi-mode operation, under the wires, and having to lug around the dead weight of those diesels.

 

A fairer comparison might be a class 91 verses class 801 (all electric).

 

According to wiki (?????) the axle load is two tonnes less without the diesel engines and a five car all electric set weighs 205 tonnes, against 300 tonnes for the bi-mode.

[D854_Tiger]

But will the ScR timetable be recast when the short-formed HSTs arrive on the scene? 

 

There was a time when the answer to that would have been a definite yes.

 

Not so sure nowadays, operators seem to like more conservative timetables as it means performance targets are more likely to be met. 

 

I guess the DfT will have had that covered in their franchise spec or maybe .......

[Zomboid]

Thus demonstrating the inherent flaw of bi-mode operation, under the wires, and having to lug around the dead weight of those diesels.

 

A fairer comparison might be a class 91 verses class 801 (all electric).

 

According to wiki (?????) the axle load is two tonnes less without the diesel engines and a five car all electric set weighs 205 tonnes, against 300 tonnes for the bi-mode.

Even 801s have one diesel engine to pointlessly lug around.

The weight difference is a big part of the benefit of electric trains, which the Bi-mode insanity completely negates.

[Oakydoke]

Even 801s have one diesel engine to pointlessly lug around....

Not so pointless when there's a failure or cut in the electric power supply, when the emergency power will provide the hotel power for lighting, aircon etc.

How well the limp home, last mile capability turns out to be in such circumstances, has yet to be demonstrated in public. But if it means a line can be cleared more quickly, that alone would be a large cost saving for the network each time a failure occurs.

 

There's also the potential savings in shunting costs at the depots, from the last mile capability, but I confess I wouldn't know if this is worthwhile or not.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Not so pointless when there's a failure or cut in the electric power supply, when the emergency power will provide the hotel power for lighting, aircon etc.

How well the limp home, last mile capability turns out to be in such circumstances, has yet to be demonstrated in public. But if it means a line can be cleared more quickly, that alone would be a large cost saving for the network each time a failure occurs.

 

There's also the potential savings in shunting costs at the depots, from the last mile capability, but I confess I wouldn't know if this is worthwhile or not.

 

If it actually works like that though..........

It didn't last week.

[frobisher]

However, 2+5 HSTs could embarrass those IETs, if the timetable were ever designed to exploit them but, even so, what's a few minutes on a journey from the Highlands to London, if the punters were even remotely bothered about speed somehow I doubt they would be putting their business the railway's way in the first place.

The Scotrail HSTs will be keeping to the 170 timings until the entire fleet is introduced thereafter there's an implication that timings may be improved.

[frobisher]

I don't know the timetable in sufficient detail to for sure, but "a few minutes" could be critical when you consider there are single track sections on the Highland Main Line, and double track bottlenecks on the ECML nearer London; all of which have to be passed seamlessly.

The former may or may not be an issue, the latter is under the wires where the IET's diesel performance shouldn't be a consideration.

 

Then consider how many places an Inverness to Kings Cross service will make connections, which themselves are often now running to clock-face schedules and have their own pathing and connection constraints. "A few minutes" can't be so quickly dismissed.

Only the ones North of Edinburgh should be the concern really (see above), so Stirling, Perth and Inverness then...

Edited December 29, 2017 by frobisher