Class 800 - Updates

[phil-b259]

If you bothered to read and inwardly digest some of my earlier posts you would remember me posting that the 800s cannot be upgraded to full 802 spec without fitting bigger radiators, fuel tanks, proper resistor grids etc, the only thing which can be upgraded by computer is the actual engine output because the engines are the same, nowhere have I said everything can be upgraded by computer.

 

You can, as you stated, upgrade the engine in the Fiesta by tweaking the ECU, just as you can upgrade the engines in the 800s to 700kW by adjusting the computer, until it overheats because the radiators cannot handle the extra heat generated.

 

I am aware of the different contracts and also the costs of the Variation Orders requested (badly) by DaFT due to the changes to the electrification project, the figures for the 'savings' Chris Grayling is trumpetting are a joke once you factor in the costs of the VO orders for the 800s, costs which cannot be recouped.

 

If you were aware of the differences between the 800s and 802s (and I am not disputing you are - but  I'm not going to wade through 2000 odd posts to find proof) then why did you then subsequently state in post 2463 that....

 

 

 

Please list all the differences made to the 802s if they are 'specifically designed around the WoE route' please, because as far as I know they have the same traction motors and gearing as the 800s.

 

 

.....which rather implies you don't know about said differences between the 800s and 802s

 

Rather than jumping down peoples throat can I ask that you check what you have recently posted when responding, because in long threads such as these, what you may have previously stated can easily overlooked.

Edited December 21, 2017 by phil-b259

[caradoc]

Given that the 800s are being gradually infiltrated onto diagrams previously covered by HSTs, and without (AFAIK) any change to the timetables, are the 800s unable to maintain the booked schedules, ie is every train worked by an 800 terminating late ?

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Having just seen the fault report from yesterday's incident, it was an OLE fault that initially caused the problem and a TMS fault which caused the failure.

 

Simon

[Coryton]

Delays currently north of 7,500 minutes with almost 150 trains cancelled either in full, part or failed to stop. That's going to cost GWR an awful lot of money.

 

It's going to cost someone, but do we know that it will be GWR?

 

If I were a shareholder I would not be impressed if GWR was having to make large payments because the trains they were forced to use seem to be suffering from some significant teething problems. 

[Coryton]

Again, reading other forums the crew who have worked HSTs for the last 40 years have effectively been working slam door stock (with CDL) powered by Bo Bo class 56 technology. These same people have now started working "space age" hi tech Hitachi trains full of computers, with power operated doors controlled from GPS satellites. Probably a similar step to Virgin crews on the West Coast who moved from Mk3 DVT sets hauled by class 87s to Pendolinos, although the TDM push pull gear was probably a technology step up. 

 

A while ago, someone posted an FGW training video on youtube showing what a driver had to do in order to get a 180 ready to start a trip (It looked as if this was for each journey, not just once in the depot). It involved starting at the rear cab then walking down the train with various controls having to be in the right configuration or when you got to the front cab it wouldn't start no matter what buttons you pressed.

 

I think of modern trains as being simpler to drive than a steam engine, but that made me start to wonder.

[jamie92208]

A while ago, someone posted an FGW training video on youtube showing what a driver had to do in order to get a 180 ready to start a trip (It looked as if this was for each journey, not just once in the depot). It involved starting at the rear cab then walking down the train with various controls having to be in the right configuration or when you got to the front cab it wouldn't start no matter what buttons you pressed.

 

I think of modern trains as being simpler to drive than a steam engine, but that made me start to wonder.

But fortunately you don't have to worry about whether the injectors will pick up before you have to throw the fire out.

 

Jamie

[Ron Ron Ron]

Hi,

 

Having just seen the fault report from yesterday's incident, it was an OLE fault that initially caused the problem and a TMS fault which caused the failure.

 

Simon

 

 

Thanks Simon.

 

It may be unrelated to this incident, but I seem to recall it being reported, that the pre-existing OHLE between Paddington and Airport Jct, would have to be substantially modified or replaced, to accommodate  the higher speed running speeds and twin pantographs of the the new IET's.

 

From personal, but limited observation (I don't travel that route much these days) and from video and photographic evidence gleaned from the internet, it would appear that not all of the head spans have been replaced by new structures.

It's hard to tell, but it doesn't appear to be Series 1 along part, or most of that section.

 

My question is, just how much "upgrading" has actually been achieved and has some "fudging of the calculations" been done to justify limiting the scope of this work, in order to make cost savings?

 

 

 

.

[JJGraphics]

800023 was reported solo today on 1A03, so I make that 11 sets turned out for 12 diagrams, of which two failed. That's 75% availability. (Or is that 75% reliability?)

 

Geoff Endacott

 

 

Or should that be 25% UNavailabilty? Pretty appalling statistic whichever way you put it!

[The Stationmaster]

You would think so wouldn't you. Reading between the lines, as well as reading other forums it appears that GWR don't have a recognised method of coupling and uncoupling the IETs away from their depots. You could conclude that this is because Hitachi and GWR havn't reached agreement on a method, particularly as the afternoon Paddington - Weston super Mare train, which should leave a unit at Bristol then recouple to it, doesn't. They take the full ten cars to Weston with one unit locked out of use, because they don't split and join at Temple Meads.

 

Again, reading other forums the crew who have worked HSTs for the last 40 years have effectively been working slam door stock (with CDL) powered by Bo Bo class 56 technology. These same people have now started working "space age" hi tech Hitachi trains full of computers, with power operated doors controlled from GPS satellites. Probably a similar step to Virgin crews on the West Coast who moved from Mk3 DVT sets hauled by class 87s to Pendolinos, although the TDM push pull gear was probably a technology step up. 

 

I think your latter comment is being unfair on the staff involved.  It is not exactly difficult to train staff on new technology in the driving cab - all it takes is a well prepared training programme and the time needed to properly implement it.  Stepping up from a Class 47 to an HST with an electrically controlled brake and a lot more power running at a substantially higher speed in some places was quite leap and don't forget that many of the men who learnt and drove HSTs had started on steam and some of them had even been passed to drive on steam.

 

The problem (if that is what you care to call it?) with a train like the Class 800 is its heavy reliance on software and the TMS but as far as the Driver is concerned in reality that should be no more difficult to get his/her head round than their home computer or one of the more sophisticated types of mobile 'phone - it's all a matter doing the right things at the right time and if the Class 800 is properly designed it should effectively be telling the Driver that sort of thing (that's 25+ year old technology).  But if the TMS doesn't work as it should - and we know there are some 'holes' in it (possibly corrected, or not, by now?) - you actually need a software expert and not a Driver to deal with some things - that's a system failure, not a Driver training problem.   Simple message, as i've already said, is to get the software and sensors which feed it right and I suspect that might take some time (and there might be debate over who will pay for it). 

[Coryton]

Or should that be 25% UNavailabilty? Pretty appalling statistic whichever way you put it!

 

I suppose it depends on how you look at the numbers, but it's possible that one of the pair failed and brought the other one down with it, just as it seems the rescue train wouldn't budge once connected to the failed pair.

 

Or maybe the failure was in the communication between the two original units, in which case neither and both failed. (Interfaces are often the cause of trouble, in my experience).

[The Stationmaster]

Or should that be 25% UNavailabilty? Pretty appalling statistic whichever way you put it!

 

On a matter of simple maths 1 out of 12 is not 25% but something nearer to 8.3% . And yes in contractual and operational terms it is a shortcoming in availability.

[Coryton]

On a matter of simple maths 1 out of 12 is not 25% but something nearer to 8.3% . And yes in contractual and operational terms it is a shortcoming in availability.

 

I presume the argument was that out of 12 units, 2 failed in service and 1 didn't even make it out of the depot.

 

So 9 out of 12 survived the day which is 75%.

[Titan]

Or should that be 25% UNavailabilty? Pretty appalling statistic whichever way you put it!

 

Well when I was working at Slade Green helping to commission Networkers, figures that good would have been cause for celebration! There was one particular day that the miles per casualty was so low I can't see how it was managed without every single unit breaking down at least twice during the day...

Edited December 22, 2017 by Titan

[bimble]

Or should that be 25% UNavailabilty? Pretty appalling statistic whichever way you put it!

 

though with such low numbers in use, a single unit will give a large percentage. I own two identical cameras. One broke recently, which left me with a 50% unavailability... a terrible statistic... what is it they say about statistics...

[jim.snowdon]

I understand that what happened was the whole episode was triggered by a genuine ADD activation just short of Hayes & Harlington station. The problem was that for obscure reasons best known to itself, the train's management system had reconfigured itself so that it thought the 10 car train was only composed of a single 5-car unit. It took the arrival of Hitachi technicians to discover that (and perhaps it is fortunate that North Pole depot wasn't that much of a drive away). At this point someone (from Hitachi?) seems to have thought it a good idea to effect a resue using another 800 unit - if you are in the midst of what appears to be an unknown software problem, coupling another unit of the same type is probably the last thing to be doing. Having proved that that did not work, a locomotive was eventually sent for to rescue the whole 15-car ensemble.

 

What is unfortunate are the considerable time delays whilst people worked out what to do, and that working out what to do to get round the problem was beyond the capabilities of the train crew, either because they have not been trained or because the facilities aren't there. It also exposes the risks inherent in putting all of the train control into a single software based system - doubtless it's not supposed to fail, but when it does, it does so mightily. Fortunately, aircraft aren't designed that way and perhaps it would be a good thing for today's train designers to take note of both their experience and that of the previous generation, who understood that failures do happen and that stopping the railway for hours is not an option.

 

The problem is that, to the passengers and the train operators, it is the major failures that are remembered and which will give the units a poor reputation far quicker than any number of days trouble free running will dispel. And, it is not just the passengers on the affected train that will remember, but all the passengers on trains that were delayed, not just by the failure, but the sheer length of time it took to get things sorted out. I'm not inclinled to think that anyone came out of the whole episode with any credit, except perhaps the crew of the train and the assisting locomotive.

 

Jim

[DY444]

I understand that what happened was the whole episode was triggered by a genuine ADD activation just short of Hayes & Harlington station. The problem was that for obscure reasons best known to itself, the train's management system had reconfigured itself so that it thought the 10 car train was only composed of a single 5-car unit. It took the arrival of Hitachi technicians to discover that (and perhaps it is fortunate that North Pole depot wasn't that much of a drive away). At this point someone (from Hitachi?) seems to have thought it a good idea to effect a resue using another 800 unit - if you are in the midst of what appears to be an unknown software problem, coupling another unit of the same type is probably the last thing to be doing. Having proved that that did not work, a locomotive was eventually sent for to rescue the whole 15-car ensemble.

 

What is unfortunate are the considerable time delays whilst people worked out what to do, and that working out what to do to get round the problem was beyond the capabilities of the train crew, either because they have not been trained or because the facilities aren't there. It also exposes the risks inherent in putting all of the train control into a single software based system - doubtless it's not supposed to fail, but when it does, it does so mightily. Fortunately, aircraft aren't designed that way and perhaps it would be a good thing for today's train designers to take note of both their experience and that of the previous generation, who understood that failures do happen and that stopping the railway for hours is not an option.

 

The problem is that, to the passengers and the train operators, it is the major failures that are remembered and which will give the units a poor reputation far quicker than any number of days trouble free running will dispel. And, it is not just the passengers on the affected train that will remember, but all the passengers on trains that were delayed, not just by the failure, but the sheer length of time it took to get things sorted out. I'm not inclinled to think that anyone came out of the whole episode with any credit, except perhaps the crew of the train and the assisting locomotive.

 

Jim

 

The report I've seen says that the rescue attempt with the locomotive (57306) was unsuccessful and that the 15 car train was finally moved under its own power after the Hitachi staff eventually managed to get power and brake release. 

 

It is also reported that GW have given Hitachi senior management a right rollocking over this incident in particular and the poor availability and performance of the units in general.  Also the DfT are reportedly asking Hitachi to explain why, having spent hundreds of millions of pounds on engine uprating, the units are barely better than an HST on one power car above 40 mph.

[royaloak]

Reported on another forum that todays ‘problem’ with the pair of class 800s resulted in;

 

 

Delays currently north of 7,500 minutes with almost 150 trains cancelled either in full, part or failed to stop. That's going to cost GWR an awful lot of money.

It wont cost GWR anything, it will cost Hitachi because its their train!

 

Oh, your figures are way off as well.

Edited December 22, 2017 by royaloak

[royaloak]

If you were aware of the differences between the 800s and 802s (and I am not disputing you are - but  I'm not going to wade through 2000 odd posts to find proof) then why did you then subsequently state in post 2463 that....

 

 

 

.....which rather implies you don't know about said differences between the 800s and 802s

 

Rather than jumping down peoples throat can I ask that you check what you have recently posted when responding, because in long threads such as these, what you may have previously stated can easily overlooked.

I was referring to the statement that 802s have been built specifically with the WoE route whereas all GWR have been able to do is order a full power version of what the DaFT had already ordered, GWR could see all the limitations of the train but could only address some of them within the spec available.

 

Even then it couldnt offer the power GWR wanted!

Edited December 22, 2017 by royaloak

[royaloak]

Given that the 800s are being gradually infiltrated onto diagrams previously covered by HSTs, and without (AFAIK) any change to the timetables, are the 800s unable to maintain the booked schedules, ie is every train worked by an 800 terminating late ?

They can maintain times on the Bristol and Cardiff routes because they are rather slack times (witness the video of the HST leaving Chippenham in notch 3) so the IETs being driven flat out can just maintain the timings of a leisurely driven HST.

[royaloak]

A while ago, someone posted an FGW training video on youtube showing what a driver had to do in order to get a 180 ready to start a trip (It looked as if this was for each journey, not just once in the depot). It involved starting at the rear cab then walking down the train with various controls having to be in the right configuration or when you got to the front cab it wouldn't start no matter what buttons you pressed.

 

I think of modern trains as being simpler to drive than a steam engine, but that made me start to wonder.

So the same as we have to do with a HST!

[royaloak]

I think your latter comment is being unfair on the staff involved.  It is not exactly difficult to train staff on new technology in the driving cab - all it takes is a well prepared training programme and the time needed to properly implement it.  Stepping up from a Class 47 to an HST with an electrically controlled brake and a lot more power running at a substantially higher speed in some places was quite leap and don't forget that many of the men who learnt and drove HSTs had started on steam and some of them had even been passed to drive on steam.

 

The problem (if that is what you care to call it?) with a train like the Class 800 is its heavy reliance on software and the TMS but as far as the Driver is concerned in reality that should be no more difficult to get his/her head round than their home computer or one of the more sophisticated types of mobile 'phone - it's all a matter doing the right things at the right time and if the Class 800 is properly designed it should effectively be telling the Driver that sort of thing (that's 25+ year old technology).  But if the TMS doesn't work as it should - and we know there are some 'holes' in it (possibly corrected, or not, by now?) - you actually need a software expert and not a Driver to deal with some things - that's a system failure, not a Driver training problem.   Simple message, as i've already said, is to get the software and sensors which feed it right and I suspect that might take some time (and there might be debate over who will pay for it). 

Unfortunately Mike to some people it will always be the drivers fault!

 

Of course if they actually knew what the procedures are when we breakdown they might not post their incorrect assumptions, the days of the driver disappearing to fault find have long gone.

Edited December 22, 2017 by royaloak

[jim.snowdon]

It wont cost GWR anything, it will cost Hitachi because its their train!

 

Oh, your figures are way off as well.

The delay minutes, which are comfortably in excess of 7500, will arrive at GWR's door, as they are the train operator, not Hitachi. What subsequently happens between GWR and Hitachi, or rather whoever it is that has the actual contract to provide the trains to GWR, will depend on what is written in the contract(s).

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

Unfortunately Mike to some people it will always be the drivers fault!

 

Of course if they actually knew what the procedures where when we breakdown they might not post their incorrect assumptions, the days of the driver disappearing to fault find have long gone.

But, on any train, it is the driver who is one person who is available to start sorting out the problem and use whatever means are provided to allow it to be isolated and the train got moving again. But, there is a responsibility on the part of whoever is procuring the train to include the necessary requirements about recoverability in the contract specification, otherwise it won't happen.

 

What, as a train operator you shouldn't do, is to simply allow the railway to be stopped by your broken down train whilst you wait for the railway equivalent of the AA to turn up. The sad part is that in an environment where the commercial considerations take precedence, a train operator can take just that position if the cost of the delay penalties and reputational damage are considered to be tolerable.

 

Jim

[royaloak]

But, on any train, it is the driver who is one person who is available to start sorting out the problem and use whatever means are provided to allow it to be isolated and the train got moving again. But, there is a responsibility on the part of whoever is procuring the train to include the necessary requirements about recoverability in the contract specification, otherwise it won't happen.

 

 

Jim

The driver wont start sorting anything out without first contacting a few people and receiving the correct permissions.

What, as a train operator you shouldn't do, is to simply allow the railway to be stopped by your broken down train whilst you wait for the railway equivalent of the AA to turn up. The sad part is that in an environment where the commercial considerations take precedence, a train operator can take just that position if the cost of the delay penalties and reputational damage are considered to be tolerable.

 I agree with that but what happens when the computer says no?

 

Its all well and good sitting behind a keyboard stating this shouldnt happen and that shouldnt happen but what if it does happen, it has to be dealt with but if you have pulled all the levers and pushed all the buttons but the computer is still saying no, then what?

[RJS1977]

Well when I was working at Slade Green helping to commission Networkers, figures that good would have been cause for celebration! There was one particular day that the miles per casualty was so low I can't see how it was managed without every single unit breaking down at least twice during the day...

 

Reminds me of the story that when London Transport got its first Leyland Atlanteans, it was found to be more efficient to keep the recovery vehicles trundling up and down the route all day rather than keep them in the garage and wait for a callout. Apparently it was rare for the recovery vehicle to reach the other end of the route without finding a stricken Atlantean!