Class 800 - Updates

[D854_Tiger]

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.

 

 

You would expect though that given all the money that has been spent on them the IETs will eventually be granted a timetable that is designed around them and the available electrification.

 

Sending them out expecting them to behave like diesel HSTs rather misses the point of them.

[jim.snowdon]

Instead of concentrating on the installed power and acceleration rates, what matters in any comparison between IETs and HSTs is the overall speed/distance and speed/time curves for the whole journey, which I suspect none of us have. They will have been plotted and reviewed in detail by everyone from NR, GWR, Hitachi and the DfT from long before the first one was even built. What matters in the long term is their ability to deliver the timetable set for them, which is a matter for the train operator and NR to agree upon.

 

Jim

[royaloak]

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

Dont worry, somebody has read a timetable and has decided everything will be fine!

 

He also believes all the fluffy press releases and video propaganda so I am sure everyone who has been on an IET and found the diesel performance lacklustre are wrong and he is right, I mean I have corrected him about 10 times and he is still posting it!

[royaloak]

You would expect though that given all the money that has been spent on them the IETs will eventually be granted a timetable that is designed around them and the available electrification.

 

Sending them out expecting them to behave like diesel HSTs rather misses the point of them.

So in your world you order a train with poor performance and then work a timetable out around that do you?

Thank you for the correction, and there was me thinking you ordered a train which offered the performance to maintain or improve on what went before!

 

They are supposed to be an improvement on the HSTs, why spend millions of pounds on something that is worse?

[jim.snowdon]

Dont worry, somebody has read a timetable and has decided everything will be fine!

 

He also believes all the fluffy press releases and video propaganda so I am sure everyone who has been on an IET and found the diesel performance lacklustre are wrong and he is right, I mean I have corrected him about 10 times and he is still posting it!

As a passenger, do I care if the performance is lacklustre so long as the train will get me to where I want to be when the timetable says it will and the journey time is not so different that I have to get an earlier train? The answer to that is, I suggest, No. Only the Jeremy Clarksons of the world get hung up on whether the 0-60 time for an IET working on diesel is more than that of an HST.

 

Jim

[JeffP]

So in your world you order a train with poor performance and then work a timetable out around that do you?

Thank you for the correction, and there was me thinking you ordered a train which offered the performance to maintain or improve on what went before!

 

They are supposed to be an improvement on the HSTs, why spend millions of pounds on something that is worse?

 

 

But haven't the HST's and the 91's on the ECML been "dumbed down" since their inception?

 

I seem to remember that when HST's first came online, Doncaster to KX was 1hr 40 minutes fastest.

Isn't it 1hr 45 or 1 hr 50 now?

 

And the excuse was pathing, iirc? Nothing to do with the easing of the timetable to avoid lateness penalties then?

[royaloak]

Instead of concentrating on the installed power and acceleration rates, what matters in any comparison between IETs and HSTs is the overall speed/distance and speed/time curves for the whole journey, which I suspect none of us have. They will have been plotted and reviewed in detail by everyone from NR, GWR, Hitachi and the DfT from long before the first one was even built. What matters in the long term is their ability to deliver the timetable set for them, which is a matter for the train operator and NR to agree upon.

 

Jim

Why have there been variation orders then, would it be because they cant match HST timings, they are okay from between 0mph and 30mph they are pathetic and lose time hand over fist from 40mph onwards but hey what do you and I know!

[royaloak]

But haven't the HST's and the 91's on the ECML been "dumbed down" since their inception?

 

I seem to remember that when HST's first came online, Doncaster to KX was 1hr 40 minutes fastest.

Isn't it 1hr 45 or 1 hr 50 now?

 

And the excuse was pathing, iirc? Nothing to do with the easing of the timetable to avoid lateness penalties then?

Extra stops, OTMR and as stated pathing, you cant have a train doing 125 if it is mixed in with lots of other 90 and 100mph trains can you unless you thin out the timetable, and as we are now running more trains than in 1976 there isnt the room for all the 125mph paths required so they have to run slower.

 

Do you understand how pathing and timetabling actually work?

 

Edit-

Would you rather have a headline 1hr40 timetable that wasnt possible because it doesnt allow for any speed restrictions or would you prefer a 1hr50 timetable that did allow for speed restrictions and gave a much more reliable chance of arriving on time?

 

125mph runnings eats up paths much more than 100mph paths so its  trade off between speed and number of trains run, and thats before we begin to call at stations or use junctions.

Edited December 30, 2017 by royaloak

[royaloak]

As a passenger, do I care if the performance is lacklustre so long as the train will get me to where I want to be when the timetable says it will and the journey time is not so different that I have to get an earlier train? The answer to that is, I suggest, No. Only the Jeremy Clarksons of the world get hung up on whether the 0-60 time for an IET working on diesel is more than that of an HST.

 

Jim

Apparently to some its all about the headline speed, never mind if it isnt possible in the real world!

[phil-b259]

As a passenger, do I care if the performance is lacklustre so long as the train will get me to where I want to be when the timetable says it will and the journey time is not so different that I have to get an earlier train? The answer to that is, I suggest, No. Only the Jeremy Clarksons of the world get hung up on whether the 0-60 time for an IET working on diesel is more than that of an HST.

 

Jim

 

Stop making excuses.

 

The brutal truth is that the IETs as specified by the DfT are simply NOT UP TO THE JOB when running on diesel power.

 

This would not be an issue if electrification had been completed as planned but does cause real issues with pathing as on our congested network an extra minute inserted at X then produces a timetable clash at Y. Its no exaggeration to say that unless the IET performance improves then there will have to be lots of alterations to non GWR services across large areas to give GWR services half a chance of working reliably in the post IET world

 

To try and claim it is perfectly acceptable that a brand new train cannot meet the performance of its predecessor goes against any sane analysis of rail transport since the Stockton and Darlington opened.

 

The acid test of course will be when the 802s start being used on West of England services - can they maintain HST timings thanks to the enhanced specification laid down by GWR or will the design still fall short?

[Metr0Land]

But haven't the HST's and the 91's on the ECML been "dumbed down" since their inception?

 

I seem to remember that when HST's first came online, Doncaster to KX was 1hr 40 minutes fastest.

Isn't it 1hr 45 or 1 hr 50 now?

 

And the excuse was pathing, iirc? Nothing to do with the easing of the timetable to avoid lateness penalties then?

Don't forget that along with all the tech issues being discussed back and forth in this column, since HST's and 91's were introduced we had 'charter minutes' creep into the equation.  We don't hear much about them these days but with penalty payments for late running I assume they're in there somewhere?

[royaloak]

I thought the charter minutes were added right at the end of the run to ensure an on time arrival at the last station, they are not much use now each station is measured instead of just the last one.

[jjb1970]

I think the problem with these trains is that a diesel mode of operation which seemed to be initially intended for a last mile and emergency capability and expanded to normal operation beyond wires and finally became necessary for operation on their core routes because of a failure to deliver some of the intended electrification schemes. That isn't really the fault of Hitachi and in terms of their responsibility they have to deliver the contractual performance, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately the trains seem to be taking the blame for a wider set of problems.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

One hopes that in the 40+ years between the introduction of the HST and the IET there has been improvement in terms of:

• passenger comfort
• safety systems
• train performance
• operating cost / fuel economy
• environmental emissions

[jamie92208]

One hopes that in the 40+ years between the introduction of the HST and the IET there has been improvement in terms of:

• passenger comfort
• safety systems
• train performance
• operating cost / fuel economy
• environmental emissions

And I seem to remember that initially the IET was called the HST replacement.

 

Jamie

[Geoff Endacott]

Safety has improved. If the slightest thing goes wrong it stops moving.

 

Geoff Endacott

[The Stationmaster]

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).

 

Exactly so west of Maidenhead/Reading - and that shows how they're not up to HST timings.  Now what sort of mystical trick will occur which might suddenly make them able to keep to HST timings over either the Worcester road or from Swindon to Gloucester?  If they aren't able to match (while on diesel power) HST timings on the lower than 125 mph stretches west of Reading how are they suddenly going to be able to match HST timings over the OWW without some serious change to the laws of physics (as a former colleague of mine would put it)?  We know they're not up to HST performance when they're running on diesel power especially in those areas where mid-range acceleration and the power to do it are critical - just like it will be on both the OWW and between Swindon and Standish Jcn.  All the electric power in the world between Swindon and Paddington is going to do nothing for a train from Cheltenham that misses its path at Swindon in the morning peak

 

The $64,000 question of course is why not, and did the change from the original Hitachi proposal of HST like engine siting to what they now have result in that shortcoming?  I don't know the answer to that but what I do know from my own timing and details recorded by others is that they simply aren't up to HST performance levels in areas where that sort of performance is not only needed but can be critical so at some time or other unless timings are eased there are going to be cases of lost time, potentially leading to lost paths, broken diagram balances, 'fines' on the operators,  and so on.

[The Stationmaster]

Instead of concentrating on the installed power and acceleration rates, what matters in any comparison between IETs and HSTs is the overall speed/distance and speed/time curves for the whole journey, which I suspect none of us have. They will have been plotted and reviewed in detail by everyone from NR, GWR, Hitachi and the DfT from long before the first one was even built. What matters in the long term is their ability to deliver the timetable set for them, which is a matter for the train operator and NR to agree upon.

 

Jim

 

Somehow I get the impression that might not be the case and please stop going on about things ike speed and power curves for the whole journey which are irrelevancies when it comes to putting together a reliable and workable timetable.  It might well be the sort of approach DafT took in their ignorance of timetabling requirements as it makes nice headline figures.  But it is a long way from what is actually needed for practical purposes in point-to-point times and they are what should have been analysed in detail to feed into the specification for the trains.  If a Class 800 can't match existing P-P times when running in HST timings then from the start something is not right - we are taking a step backwards instead of going forwards because what that means is that in order to get a reliable timetable the P-P times will have to be eased (i.e. decelerated) from those which had been established over the past 40 years for HSTs.

 

Alright so a train will undoubtedly get from London to Cardiff more rapidly on electric power than a diesel could manage but that's not necessarily much use if you have to rebuild the timetable between Cardiff and Swansea (or, equally, Thingley Jcn and Bristol) to take account of the brand new trains failure to match the performance of the existing 40 year old ones.  Again I wonder if Hitachi were being rather cute with their original diesel powered idea in that they had in mind/definitely intended to at least match, if not better, existing HST timings.  Let's not forget that Roger Ford has been sounding the warning for a long time about these trains being underpowered on diesel - great, and totally irrelevant if they are running on an electrified railway - but for substantial chunks of journey time they won't be on an electrified railway and never would have been on even some of the original plans for their deployment.

 

True some of this would not have been the case if GWML electrification had not been curtailed.  And maybe there has been a plan all along for timings to be eased over those routes where it has always been known that Class 800s will be running on diesel power and it's been considered impolitic to admit it in public?

[Ken.W]

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...

No, what you said was that on the latter part of the route, under the wires "their performance on diesel shouldn't be a factor"

When just a few minutes lost from the north can cause significant delay with them being out of path, it most certainly will.

Just to spell it out then, on a recent run south, a delay of 'just 3 or 4 minutes' from the north resulted in being behind a TPE at Northallerton, and then following it all the rest of the way to York, including it being let back in front from Thirsk. Result? 15 to 20 late the rest of the way, and I've seen much worse resulting from 'just a few minutes'. So losing just a few minutes on the diesel section shouldn't be a factor? The routes just too busy for trains that can't keep time.

 

And just what difference will route learning and handling make when the power to match HST performance simply isn't there? I'd really like to know how that one works!

(besides, the test run was worked by a GBRf driver, who've been handling them for all the testing, route conducted by a VTEC driver who's a regular on the HST over the route)

 

Wow so they can actually get there, but not as good as an HST, that's a really great improvement after 40 years! (and it was certainly talk within VTEC that they wouldn't)

[D854_Tiger]

Somehow I get the impression that might not be the case and please stop going on about things ike speed and power curves for the whole journey which are irrelevancies when it comes to putting together a reliable and workable timetable.  It might well be the sort of approach DafT took in their ignorance of timetabling requirements as it makes nice headline figures.  But it is a long way from what is actually needed for practical purposes in point-to-point times and they are what should have been analysed in detail to feed into the specification for the trains.  If a Class 800 can't match existing P-P times when running in HST timings then from the start something is not right - we are taking a step backwards instead of going forwards because what that means is that in order to get a reliable timetable the P-P times will have to be eased (i.e. decelerated) from those which had been established over the past 40 years for HSTs.

 

Alright so a train will undoubtedly get from London to Cardiff more rapidly on electric power than a diesel could manage but that's not necessarily much use if you have to rebuild the timetable between Cardiff and Swansea (or, equally, Thingley Jcn and Bristol) to take account of the brand new trains failure to match the performance of the existing 40 year old ones.  Again I wonder if Hitachi were being rather cute with their original diesel powered idea in that they had in mind/definitely intended to at least match, if not better, existing HST timings.  Let's not forget that Roger Ford has been sounding the warning for a long time about these trains being underpowered on diesel - great, and totally irrelevant if they are running on an electrified railway - but for substantial chunks of journey time they won't be on an electrified railway and never would have been on even some of the original plans for their deployment.

 

True some of this would not have been the case if GWML electrification had not been curtailed.  And maybe there has been a plan all along for timings to be eased over those routes where it has always been known that Class 800s will be running on diesel power and it's been considered impolitic to admit it in public?

 

Yes but Joe Public won't be interested in any of that.

 

What the vast majority of them will be interested in are the faster overall journey times made possible to London, by those wires (eventually), the return of two stop fast services to the core GW route and a doubling of service frequency over virtually the entire GW network.

 

Now if you commute between Cardiff and Swansea or from Chipenham to Bristol it may not be such a fun story but, even then, by how much and will they even notice given the existing HST schedules are somewhat slack to say the least.

 

You can argue the toss all you like about a HSTs better performance going up Sapperton but what use was that ever put to when a train from Cheltenham typically wastes eight minutes on the reversal at Gloucester.

 

There will undoubtedly be problems initially trying to run the IETs to HST timings, on diesel power most of the way, but boo hoo the GW upgrade may have been delayed but compared to what WCML passengers had to put up with, for their upgrade, it's been a walk in the park.

[royaloak]

 

One hopes that in the 40+ years between the introduction of the HST and the IET there has been improvement in terms of:

• passenger comfort debatable, I find the seats okay, others dont
• safety systems same as everything else
• train performance Those of us who have experience of them say they are poor, others who have read a timetable or looked at the spec sheet say they are brilliant
• operating cost / fuel economy huge increase in leasing costs and a lot of weight to lug around
• environmental emissions again a very heavy train which spends most of its time on full power

Time will tell but unless the DaFT have finally managed to rewrite the laws of physics I think these (including the 802s) will overall be a disappointment.

 

The really annoying bit is GWR wanted to completely rebuild the HSTs (power doors, retention bogs, new air con etc but were told the HTs were too old and only fit for scrap and for political reasons they were going to get new trains, unfortunately GWF were not allowed to spec them because DaFT knew best.

 

Once the order was in and there was no going back, conveniently a new way of doing the doors was found which meant the HSTs could be cascaded to Scotland and GWR stopping services, the less said about the attention to detail on the conversions the best!

[D854_Tiger]

No, what you said was that on the latter part of the route, under the wires "their performance on diesel shouldn't be a factor"

When just a few minutes lost from the north can cause significant delay with them being out of path, it most certainly will.

Just to spell it out then, on a recent run south, a delay of 'just 3 or 4 minutes' from the north resulted in being behind a TPE at Northallerton, and then following it all the rest of the way to York, including it being let back in front from Thirsk. Result? 15 to 20 late the rest of the way, and I've seen much worse resulting from 'just a few minutes'. So losing just a few minutes on the diesel section shouldn't be a factor? The routes just too busy for trains that can't keep time.

 

And just what difference will route learning and handling make when the power to match HST performance simply isn't there? I'd really like to know how that one works!

(besides, the test run was worked by a GBRf driver, who've been handling them for all the testing, route conducted by a VTEC driver who's a regular on the HST over the route)

 

Wow so they can actually get there, but not as good as an HST, that's a really great improvement after 40 years! (and it was certainly talk within VTEC that they wouldn't)

 

At the end of the day, it's one train a day, designing the entire IET program around a one per day train service would have been a bit silly.

 

Chuck a few recovery minutes in the timetable, if necessary, it's nice scenery after all.

 

The class 800 is a bi-mode, it was always going to be a compromise by default, but, when they get them, ask the good citizens of Lincoln enjoying a bi-hourly service to London, they never had before, what they think of them and the compromise that will make it possible.

[royaloak]

I agree with your whole post but wanted to reply to this bit-

True some of this would not have been the case if GWML electrification had not been curtailed.  And maybe there has been a plan all along for timings to be eased over those routes where it has always been known that Class 800s will be running on diesel power and it's been considered impolitic to admit it in public?

Or simply order a train which matches HST timings on diesel but is quicker on electric, then as the wires get extended the journey times can be reduced, the good old sparks effect!

Edited December 30, 2017 by royaloak

[APOLLO]

Want HST performance where there are no wires ?

 

Easy, bolt a couple of Jet engines on top !!!!

 

 

 

 

Brit15

Edited December 30, 2017 by APOLLO

[royaloak]

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.

 

 

Loose 3 or 4 minutes on the Southbound run and you will lose your path at Edinburgh and its game over, you will end up following all and sundry because other TOCs wii not accept their trains being delayed time and time again because somebody has ordered underpowered train, retiming the slower services wont be possible because of the conflicting moves and connections they have to make, setting off earlier with the underpowered service might not be possible because of the same reasons, timetabling is quite easy, good timetabling is bloomin difficult actually all timetabling is now bloomin difficult because of the number of trains on the network.

 

 

 

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...     

 They might have to 'route learn' with the new trains but if the new trains are better they should be able to keep to HST timings from day one and improve on them as they get used to the new trains, the experiences of the Bristol and Paddington drivers between Paddington and Bristol/Cardiff says otherwise!

 

As for 'incapable of getting to Inverness' who said that?

Edited December 30, 2017 by royaloak