Class 800 - Updates

[jim.snowdon]

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. 

When a timetable is so critical that a few minutes either way can make the difference between success and failure, it is not a good timetable, as the real world is never quite so obliging. One reason why, in a different place, some of us are waiting to see how Thamslink actually manage t odeliver a 24tph service through the central section with real passengers, especially the non-commuters with luggage wanting to go to either Luton or Gatwick. Delivering 24tph is not the problem; it is coping with passengers who don't work to the same set of rules.

 

Jim

[D854_Tiger]

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.

 

I wonder how the track access charges reflect upon the class 800, is it charged as an EMU or a DMU or some bi-mode derivative.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Reported elsewhere on another forum.

Another ADD on the new OHLE yesterday; west of Maidenhead.

 

Not at Class 800 this time, but a Class 387 (387133).

Line closed for a safety inspection.

 

 

.

[royaloak]

 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.

Can you please post what experience you have of the IETs to be able to make that statement?

 

I have practical experience of them on hills from both a standing start and with a run up and not to put too fine a point on it, they are diabolical, any sort of hill leads to a loss of speed hence timekeeping suffers!

[royaloak]

I wonder how the track access charges reflect upon the class 800, is it charged as an EMU or a DMU or some bi-mode derivative.

It is charged on axle loading and some other parameters, they are rather big numbers, way ahead of any other passenger train on the Network.

[royaloak]

When a timetable is so critical that a few minutes either way can make the difference between success and failure, it is not a good timetable, as the real world is never quite so obliging. One reason why, in a different place, some of us are waiting to see how Thamslink actually manage t odeliver a 24tph service through the central section with real passengers, especially the non-commuters with luggage wanting to go to either Luton or Gatwick. Delivering 24tph is not the problem; it is coping with passengers who don't work to the same set of rules.

 

Jim

With the amount of trains run a few minutes makes all the difference, have a look at Waterloo arrivals and departures for each set of lines, trains every 3-5 minutes so a minute matters never mind 3 or 4 minutes.

 

What do you suggest to make the timetable more robust-

 

Increase the length of the trains? Already been done so in the peaks they are all at maximum length (some platforms are only 8 or 10 coaches long so not all trains can run at 12 coach length)

Thin the service so there is more 'wiggle' room, what about the passengers who have lost their train?

Keep your fingers crossed and hope it all works?

 

 

Other lines will have single line sections and a 'few minutes' will lead to conflicts messing up the whole timetable, some lines have several single line sections so a retiming of one train to prevent a conflict at one will cause a conflict at another, the Cornish Mainline is a good example of that.

 

What has happened is (where trains are available, thats a whole other subject) services are run at maximum length for the platforms available, as more passengers are travelling the only option is more (short) trains because longer ones wont fit the available platforms.

[4630]

I wonder how the track access charges reflect upon the class 800, is it charged as an EMU or a DMU or some bi-mode derivative.

 

 

Roger Ford has covered this in the January 2018 issue of Modern Railway, pages 32 & 33.  To cut a long story short, it's complicated with IET because of the different vehicle types that make up an IET.  It's worth a read.

Edited December 29, 2017 by 4630

[D854_Tiger]

Can you please post what experience you have of the IETs to be able to make that statement?

 

I have practical experience of them on hills from both a standing start and with a run up and not to put too fine a point on it, they are diabolical, any sort of hill leads to a loss of speed hence timekeeping suffers!

 

I can read timetables.

 

I have also read plenty of comments from Highland Line drivers that they would rather prefer something a bit more powerful than the class 170s, over that route, however I'm assuming they do cope, although I would imagine most of the PAX are rather more concerned by the overcrowding associated with the class 170s rather than their performance.

 

I also know that a class 170 has 422 bhp per car and a class 800 has the equivalent of 450 bhp per car so for a five car class 170 that's 2110 bhp verses 2250 bhp for a class 800, see I can do maths as well.

 

Now I know that's all a bit rule of thumb and there are plenty of other factors to consider. Then I also know my driving experience of class 800 over the Highland Line is jack s**t but then, up to now, only a couple of drivers in the entire nation could make that claim.

 

In short, I have made an educated guess, which the words pretty sure (not will) cover me on that, and any assertions you may have to the contrary, sufficient to shoot me down in flames, are every bit as much an educated guess as my educated guess.

 

I will leave it to you to explain why your much higher favoured and more powerful HSTs, in fact, run to slacker timings than the class 170s despite that extra power.

 

I have an idea why (note use of the word idea) but will not offer it should it yet again be interpreted as opinion dressed up as fact even though, of course, it would be no such thing.

[royaloak]

Horsepower is only part of the equation, gearing also has a factor but please ignore that fact!

 

And thank you for not answering my question again!

 

 

As for-

 

 

and any assertions you may have to the contrary, sufficient to shoot me down in flames, are every bit as much an educated guess as my educated guess.

I have actually been in the cab while it was on test and watched how it was driven and what speeds were attained, so not an educated guess at all but real world experience which is why you continuing to post your (un)educated guesses pees me off, I have corrected you several times but you continue to post your opinions oops I mean 'educated guesses' as fact, and you are completely and utterly wrong on some things.

 

You posted on another thread about the operation of the Looe branch and while some of what you posted was correct it was lost in all the made up bits and assumptions.

Edited December 29, 2017 by royaloak

[royaloak]

I will leave it to you to explain why your much higher favoured and more powerful HSTs, in fact, run to slacker timings than the class 170s despite that extra power.

 

I have an idea why (note use of the word idea) but will not offer it should it yet again be interpreted as opinion dressed up as fact even though, of course, it would be no such thing.

I dont know why, but like you I have several ideas as to why that might be the case, but unlike you I wont post that idea as the actual reason because I dont know (or care) if it is the actual reason or not!

[rab]

I dont know why, but like you I have several ideas as to why that might be the case, but unlike you I wont post that idea as the actual reason because I dont know (or care) if it is the actual reason or not!

I hope its not new Christmas toys

you two are throwing out of your prams

[D854_Tiger]

I have actually been in the cab while it was on test and watched how it was driven and what speeds were attained, so not an educated guess at all but real world experience which is why you continuing to post your (un)educated guesses pees me off, I have corrected you several times but you continue to post your opinions oops I mean 'educated guesses' as fact, and you are completely and utterly wrong on some things.

 

Indeed, and I'm sure we all value your hands on opinion of the class 800 (which seems to be that they are a pile of crap) but nothing you have had to say about them could ever be offered as evidence that they are failing to do the job they were designed to do or that this could adversely impact upon their ability to deliver on the existing timetable or even an improved one.

 

But then, this month, we should finally be able to find out, as I believe they are due to work diagrams over the Cotswold Line and electrification was due to be available as far as Didcot.

 

So we shall get to see how they perform as intended on an existing timetable (that they always were supposed to deliver) and can also compare them with the HST in similar circumstances.

[royaloak]

Indeed, and I'm sure we all value your hands on opinion of the class 800 (which seems to be that they are a pile of crap) but nothing you have had to say about them could ever be offered as evidence that they are failing to do the job they were designed to do or that this could adversely impact upon their ability to deliver on the existing timetable or even an improved one.

 

But then, this month, we should finally be able to find out, as I believe they are due to work diagrams over the Cotswold Line and electrification was due to be available as far as Didcot.

 

So we shall get to see how they perform as intended on an existing timetable (that they always were supposed to deliver) and can also compare them with the HST in similar circumstances.

Where have I said that?

The cabs are well laid out, the interiors are okay if a bit 'clinical' and lacking luggage space but its okay for the intended market.

 

As for 

 

 

evidence that they are failing to do the job they were designed to do

Why have there had to be quite a few (expensive) variation orders if they were up to the job?

 

edit-

Whats the difference between an opinion and an educated guess?

Edited December 29, 2017 by royaloak

[royaloak]

I hope its not new Christmas toys

you two are throwing out of your prams

Dont worry, another couple of days and I am stopping visiting the forum so you can all take D854s 'educated guess' as fact because there wont be anyone left to question or correct him!

 

I am not sure how you can make an educated guess when you havent had any 'education' on the subject!

[Gwiwer]

I have yet to ride aboard an 800-series train of any type.  SWMBO had her first trip by chance on Wednesday making her way from Reading to Chippenham on the service selected for her by the booking system.

 

Her reservation was a window seat at a table.  She was unable to get herself into the seat owing to the cramped layout and was obliged to sit elsewhere.  SWMBO isn't uncommonly over-scale (to use a modelling euphemism) but has never had a problem on HSTs nor does she have any real difficulty on any other train we have travelled on.

 

She occupied an airline-style aisle seat nearby which she describes as uncomfortably cramped, cutting off lower leg circulation and without leg room for a 5' 7" woman.  Her comments were, she says, echoed by others aboard who had difficulty accessing window seats and getting around tables.  She isn't au fait with the technical side of trains but described the trip along Brunel's Billiard Table as "lumpy and bumpy" and has sworn to avoid such trains in the future.

 

All those comments will be forwarded to GWR for information.

[The Stationmaster]

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

 

Oh no it isn't.  The ability of any train to run to time in the timings which it is allocated is simple - it must be able to achieve, consistently what some l know as point-to-point times and what some know as sectional running times.  These both mean the same thing - the length of time the train needs to get fro one timing point to the next, plus whatever allowances might be separately added for starting away after a station stop and decelerating to a station stop.

 

These timings are the critical part of putting together a timetable - for any sort of train and what happens in terms of avoiding clashes at junctions or stations all stems from the basic point-to-point times and it can often be an area where a minute is critical in achieving not only a workable timetable and trainplan and one which will work reliably, especially on an increasingly crowded railway.  What we have seen to date about Class 800 performance on diesel power is an inability to maintain point-to-point times in various places - often because of the deficit of these trains when it comes to mid range acceleration from lower speed restrictions; the 125mph bit is totally irrelevant in these circumstances, little more than a faded pink herring.  And the official comment about the Class 800 run to Inverness which described it as 'encouraging' sounds as if things were certainly not 'sparkling' or 'magnificent' which is what we would have heard if that was what happened.

 

In all of this the matter of average speeds over whatever distance or between whatever stations is simply largely a commercial thing which relates to advertised journey times and passenger expectations - these might be completely irrelevant if you can't construct a reliable workable timetable in the first place. And if times have to be slacked out to cater for Class 800 shortcomings whiie the average speed or journey time might not look so good the far more critical thing is where time goes, or has to be taken from, to put together that reliable workable timetable. You start putting in 'the odd minute' here and there and you start missing junction clearance times or headways or whatever and you're potentially into major replanning of your timetable.  Your only hope might be that the existing path has gash time in it for whatever reason, but particularly pathing allowance, and you can still make your booked time at passing points even while not meeting the point-to-point times.

 

And don't forget that all existing times include Recovery time (for temporary restrictions of speed), for example a Euston - Manchester train has 5 minutes of Recovery Time  spread through its path in it so if there are no perway restrictions it's already got 5 minutes in hand if speed is reduced to 100mph.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Interesting comment Rick, considering that by all accounts, the Class 800 has better leg room than the HST's on that route.

There are lots of comments on various forums and in the media, declaring surprise at the decent amount leg room.

The adverse comments usually seem to relate to the firmness of the seats.

 

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

I can read timetables.

 

I have also read plenty of comments from Highland Line drivers that they would rather prefer something a bit more powerful than the class 170s, over that route, however I'm assuming they do cope, although I would imagine most of the PAX are rather more concerned by the overcrowding associated with the class 170s rather than their performance.

 

I also know that a class 170 has 422 bhp per car and a class 800 has the equivalent of 450 bhp per car so for a five car class 170 that's 2110 bhp verses 2250 bhp for a class 800, see I can do maths as well.

 

Now I know that's all a bit rule of thumb and there are plenty of other factors to consider. Then I also know my driving experience of class 800 over the Highland Line is jack s**t but then, up to now, only a couple of drivers in the entire nation could make that claim.

 

In short, I have made an educated guess, which the words pretty sure (not will) cover me on that, and any assertions you may have to the contrary, sufficient to shoot me down in flames, are every bit as much an educated guess as my educated guess.

 

I will leave it to you to explain why your much higher favoured and more powerful HSTs, in fact, run to slacker timings than the class 170s despite that extra power.

 

I have an idea why (note use of the word idea) but will not offer it should it yet again be interpreted as opinion dressed up as fact even though, of course, it would be no such thing.

 

There's a very considerable difference between reading them and putting one together, especially on Britain's railway which by UIC Fiche standards are so incredibly short of infrastructure capacity it's nigh on unbelievable. 

 

Now back to Perth to Inverness and I have just done a detailed comparison between booked HST times (9/125 timings) and booked Class 170 north of Aviemore where there are examples of both running non-stop through to Inverness.  there are differeences between them on some of the SRTs (Sectional Running Times) but both timings even out by Tomatin and both total to15.5 minutes start to pass There are again some SRT differences from there to inverness with the HST booked half a minute longer than a 170 from Tomatin. to Moy and not regaining that over the rest of the route to Inverness.  Thus overall on nett times from Aviemore start to Inverness stop an HST is booked half a minute longer than a Class 170.  So if a Class 800 can manage HST performance it might still not equal Class 170 performance.

 

Going in the opposite direction the HST does considerably better than a 170, understandably it's minute slower to Millburn jcn (2 minutes instead of 1) but then it consistently beats the 170 by a minute or more on every SRT to Tomatin but from there to Slochd  it's half a minute slower that a 170.  Overall the HST is 5 minutes quicker than a 170 from Inverness to Perth.

 

However one thing which needs to be understood from the above details is that I have found at least one error in one of the train times (which doesn't affect the figures I've quoted) so there might possibly be others as some timings, particularly for 170s appear to work more on an SNCF timing principle (which is far from principled as it happens) rather than normal British practice (probably down to old Spanish Scottish customs - they were long different from the rest of BR in a number of things).

Indeed, and I'm sure we all value your hands on opinion of the class 800 (which seems to be that they are a pile of crap) but nothing you have had to say about them could ever be offered as evidence that they are failing to do the job they were designed to do or that this could adversely impact upon their ability to deliver on the existing timetable or even an improved one.

 

But then, this month, we should finally be able to find out, as I believe they are due to work diagrams over the Cotswold Line and electrification was due to be available as far as Didcot.

 

So we shall get to see how they perform as intended on an existing timetable (that they always were supposed to deliver) and can also compare them with the HST in similar circumstances.

 

But we have already seen how they perform against existing HST timings west of Reading to both Swansea and Bristol and various observers, including a couple of us on this thread, have shown in detail how they have been unable to maintain existing HST point-to-point times in a number of places.  The Oxford -Worcester route will be an interesting further test for them as will Swindon - Gloucester/Cheltenham when they get on there.  

 

And I'll lay odds that there is no way on the face of this earth that a fully loaded 5 car Class 800 will be able to get anywhere near matching the performance of the double chimney 'Castle' I timed up from Gloucester back in 1985 because it even beat the HST P-P times on the climb through Stroud up to Sapperton and down to Kemble

[jim.snowdon]

With the amount of trains run a few minutes makes all the difference, have a look at Waterloo arrivals and departures for each set of lines, trains every 3-5 minutes so a minute matters never mind 3 or 4 minutes.

 

What do you suggest to make the timetable more robust-

 

Increase the length of the trains? Already been done so in the peaks they are all at maximum length (some platforms are only 8 or 10 coaches long so not all trains can run at 12 coach length)

Thin the service so there is more 'wiggle' room, what about the passengers who have lost their train?

Keep your fingers crossed and hope it all works?

 

 

Other lines will have single line sections and a 'few minutes' will lead to conflicts messing up the whole timetable, some lines have several single line sections so a retiming of one train to prevent a conflict at one will cause a conflict at another, the Cornish Mainline is a good example of that.

 

What has happened is (where trains are available, thats a whole other subject) services are run at maximum length for the platforms available, as more passengers are travelling the only option is more (short) trains because longer ones wont fit the available platforms.

I don't think you can compare the management of the Waterloo throat with St Pancras to Blackfriars. The four stations in the Thameslink core are set to have a stream of trains, all looking the same, at three minute intervals on a timetable so tight that it is, apparently, only possible with ATO. Now throw into the mix passengers who are not regular travellers and liable to be encumbered with luggage, or are less mobile, and the risk is that an extended dwell time at one or more of the stations starts to impact on the train behind, and so on. I appreciate that the Underground was routinely running 30tph well before ATO was invented, but their trains have long had rather better performance than main line stock and little by way of destinations off the main line of route.

 

Waterloo in its heyday, ie when it was run by people rather than computers, was run by a highly experienced team who could, and did, adjust platforming as required if a train was late arriving or delayed getting away. It wasn't exactly by telepathy, but by a well disciplined team who fully understood how each other's area of the signalling and layout functioned. It wasn't the same as it is these days when it is common to end up stood outside the station waiting for the assigned platform to be vacated by the previous train.

 

Successful timetabling depends on a degree of elasticity in planning the train paths. Take that out in an effort to reach the theoretical maximum capacity will simply result in a timetable that works only if everything runs at precisely the right time, and gets into a mess if anything goes slightly awry.

 

Getting back to the likes of the Highland main line, factors that matter are the lengths of the double track sections (aka. Dynamic loops) and what recovery times are built into the station stops. Ultimately, what matters is not the timetabled run time but the predictability of the scheduled times.

 

Jim

[Ken.W]

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.

Really? I've seen trains loose 'just a few minutes' from the north end up 40+ late in London due to pathing issues!

 

All the post on here from those who have actually been on 800s, or spoken with those who have, seem to indicate that they're not up to matching HST performance, particularly in mid-range acceleration, and there's plenty of speed restrictions and station stops on the Highland Main Line where this will tell

[37114]

Interesting comment Rick, considering that by all accounts, the Class 800 has better leg room than the HST's on that route.

There are lots of comments on various forums and in the media, declaring surprise at the decent amount leg room.

The adverse comments usually seem to relate to the firmness of the seats.

 

 

 

.

I am 6'3" and find there is plenty of legroom, better than an HST.

[jjb1970]

Most people I've spoken to who've travelled in them have been rather positive about the interiors and leg room and also consider them to be an improvement in that respect. In terms of leg room, does anybody have figures for seat pitch in these compared to other equivalent long distance trains?

[frobisher]

Really? I've seen trains loose 'just a few minutes' from the north end up 40+ late in London due to pathing issues!

 

All the post on here from those who have actually been on 800s, or spoken with those who have, seem to indicate that they're not up to matching HST performance, particularly in mid-range acceleration, and there's plenty of speed restrictions and station stops on the Highland Main Line where this will tell

Sigh - you kinda missed the point there. What I said was that the northern end (past Edinburgh) was the only part of the route where the diesel performance of the 800's would be a potential factor, not whether that would knock through on the way south.

 

I would expect that a certain degree of "route learning" with the 800's on the Highland end has to occur and maybe drivers will have to accommodate their style on the route to how the 800's handle it rather than how the HSTs currently do. Early days...

 

I remember certain doom sayers stating out right that the 800's were incapable of getting to Inverness...

Edited December 30, 2017 by frobisher

[HillsideDepot]

Sigh - you kinda missed the point there. What I said was that the northern end (past Edinburgh) was the only part of the route where the diesel performance of the 800's would be a potential factor, not whether that would knock through on the way south.

Agreed, but if the timetable can't be adjusted on the single line sections north of Edinburgh, then the train will be arriving under the wires later than now, and therefore not in the path it currently has further south. 

 

Rather like the view which is often expressed by one contributor that GWR units running on electric east of Swindon or Didcot will make it all fine, but with no regard any capacity constraints at Bathampton, or Temple Meads throat where trains will potentially arrive a few minutes later on the Down, and need to leave a few minutes earlier to arrive at Wootton Bassett Junction on time on the Up.    

 

We'll have to wait and see how it all pans out, but initial impressions are that on diesel they aren't performing as well as an HST and on a congested railway that is the last thing timetable planners will want to hear.

[D854_Tiger]

 

But we have already seen how they perform against existing HST timings west of Reading to both Swansea and Bristol and various observers, including a couple of us on this thread, have shown in detail how they have been unable to maintain existing HST point-to-point times in a number of places.  The Oxford -Worcester route will be an interesting further test for them as will Swindon - Gloucester/Cheltenham when they get on there.  

 

And I'll lay odds that there is no way on the face of this earth that a fully loaded 5 car Class 800 will be able to get anywhere near matching the performance of the double chimney 'Castle' I timed up from Gloucester back in 1985 because it even beat the HST P-P times on the climb through Stroud up to Sapperton and down to Kemble

 

 

I would argue though that west of Reading the class 800 are currently being used in a way that was never intended, on diesel power over the core GW route.

 

I must admit Sapperton does look as if it may be a challenge for them but ultimately their ability to satisfy Cotswold commuters will all depend on the timetable they are expected to operate all the way to London, not just one bit over Sapperton, any shortfall there could hopefully be compensated for later with faster electric running beyond Swindon, once the wires reach there.

 

I travel the Worcester route occasionally and the only observation I can make is that a class 180 was the dream train for that line, plenty of power and automatic doors. 

 

At least the class 800 will have the automatic doors, if not their power, but those doors will be a huge bonus on that line, the HST schedules can be as much as ten minutes slower over the route compared to the class 180 worked trains but I would be very surprised if a class 800 can get close to a class 180 north of Oxford.

 

But hey ho they will certainly be preferable to the class 166 when they show up (all too often).