Class 800 - Updates

[jjb1970]

I think the fundamental problem with the Class 800 family is that what should have been a small niche sub-class of dual mode to serve those routes for which electrification is unlikely to be viable for a long time became a principal mode of operation as a result of delays and cost overruns in the electrification program. I just can't see that lugging around diesel engines and a lot of flammable fuel to operate under wires as being sensible. You don't need much of an engine package if its  only purpose is to move the train out of the way if it breaks down, if you want those engines to power the thing at 125mph in normal service then it is a lot of power and weight whichever way you do it. Even the extremely highly blown MTU engines which sell on the basis of very high energy density aren't exactly small once you need that sort of power.

[caradoc]

Surely the 800s were ordered with the ability to meet, if not better, existing timings on the routes they operate in diesel mode ? For the the Worcester route, this should have been Oxford/Worcester but will now be Didcot East Jc/Worcester (approximately 10 miles more). If they cannot meet those timings, here and on other routes eg Swindon/Cheltenham, this will be an incredible embarassment for the rail industry.

[The Stationmaster]

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.

 

I'm afraid you still miss the point - that if these trains cannot achieve existing HST performance where they are running on diesel power then timetable alterations will probably result in order to achieve a reliable timetable and trainplan.  Such a change could well affect other services especially if it hits margins at key junctions, it could equally well impact Driver and traincrew diagrams potentially increasing resource costs (I've seen a couple of minutes added to running time do that more than once in the past) and it might even impact set diagrams and turnrounds.  The simple answer is that thus far - certainly in the public arena - we don't know what those impacts might be and what any on-costs might be, irrespective of how quick the journeys will be from London to Cardiff or east of Swindon or wherever.

 

Let's assume that somebody developed a trainplan based on these things equalling, or even improving on HST P-P times on the bits it has always been known they would be likely to work on diesel power.  How valid is that trainplan now - not just because poor implementation of GWML electrification has added to the mileage to be run on diesel power but because even that always planned to be run on diesel power might not be delivered?  Say for example you have to put in 3 or 4 minutes each way between Cardiff and Swansea - which will add 6 or 8 minutes to your total cycle time Cardiff - Swansea - Cardiff, and your current turnround time at Swansea is 2 minutes more than the minimum required in the Timetable Planning Rules.  Net result your turnround time is bust so you either retime one or other of the trains, or possibly even both - all the way to/from Paddington or maybe you can getaway with restricting it in extent by taking out an intermediate stop - whichever you're already in big alterations country with the impact spreading far beyond where your problem is.

Edited December 30, 2017 by The Stationmaster

[4630]

Surely the 800s were ordered with the ability to meet, if not better, existing timings on the routes they operate in diesel mode ? For the the Worcester route, this should have been Oxford/Worcester but will now be Didcot East Jc/Worcester (approximately 10 miles more). If they cannot meet those timings, here and on other routes eg Swindon/Cheltenham, this will be an incredible embarassment for the rail industry.

 

 

Unfortunately the travelling public won't get that message from the DafT, GWR or the mainstream media.  The message marketing spin will be presented as;

 

"We've delivered a fleet of brand new trains with extra seats and legroom which we know our customers will value, replacing trains that are 40 years old."

 

Known in the marketing industry as "Don't bother with the facts, just give me the bullsh1t"

Edited December 30, 2017 by 4630

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Unfortunately the travelling public won't get that message from the DafT, GWR or the mainstream media.  The message marketing spin will be presented as;

 

"We've delivered a fleet of brand new trains with extra seats and legroom which we know our customers will value, replacing trains that are 40 years old."

 

Known in the marketing industry as "Don't bother with the facts, just give me the bullsh1t"

 

Spot-on.

 

New = good

Brand new = even better

Old = bad

 

End of.

[Ken.W]

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.

A bit silly to design a train to cope with the services it's known it's intended to operate??? And it's just one train, out of several, where there's been serious questions as to it's ability to keep to time.

 

Just chuck in a few minutes recovery? Have you not read any of the previous posts (from several contributors) concerning pathing issues?

To start with, it wouldn't be recovery time - that's for making up p-way slacks or other minor delays, it'd be a change to actual running times. Just chucking in a few extra minutes, on a route like the HML with several single track sections, could result in a train missing it's path at a crossing point, which would result in just chucking in an extra half hour or even longer. How would that suit the good citizens of Inverness who for some strange reason are likely to be expecting an improved service with getting new trains?

 

And I can assure you, I know of no other operator that would sit back and accept it's own regular established timetable being messed with, especially if that extended their times, to make up for deficiencies in another operator's trains

Edited December 30, 2017 by Ken.W

[Ken.W]

Further to what what has been said previously concerning pathing issues, the other factor here is that the ECML is about to become even busier by the time these are all in service.

Besides the extra services VTEC are scheduled to run,TPE are to double, I believe, services through to Newcastle, and extend running from there through to Edinburgh.

Then there's yet another new freeby access operator, this time over the whole core route Edinburgh - London, been approved by DaFT (without of coarse, the required route upgrades completed) and after in the Invitation To Tender for the current ECML franchise specifically instructed bidders 'not to base their bids on the assumption of their being any significant increase in open access competition'

There's also plans for Scotrail to extend running of local services through to Berwick, or even possibly Newcastle.

 

This is all going to make things 'interesting', particularly the Newcastle - Berwick section which has 110 / 125 running on 3-aspect signalling. Catch the train ahead on here, and unlike 4-aspect where you can reduce to run at caution as the signals step up ahead, on this 3-aspect you're simply getting stopped, and the sighting of most signals means by the time you do see the next one ahead, the train ahead's long gone while you've lost at least  minutes. Also, I commented previously in discussion re the new plan for the EC franchise taking over the route, that Scotrail already think they own their part, well, if one of these 800s arrives late from the north into Edinburgh, Scotrail wouldn't think twice of running all the way through ahead of it.

 

All of which makes it even more critical for these things to be able to keep to their booked paths

[Ron Ron Ron]

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

 

 

It was. It was initially called HST 2.

 

That's what they (the DafT in the form of the IEP) originally asked for....an all-diesel HST replacement for the GWML.....but also an all-electric version for the ECML and a Bi-mode for the non-wired, top end of the ECML.

That's what Agility (in the form of Hitachi) proposed and won the IEP completion on.

That's what was going to be ordered...........

 

......Then, out of the blue came the decision to electrify the GWML....the IEP having already specified, put out to tender and selected a train design expressly for use in the absence of wires on this route.

 

Electrification was obviously going to have a significant impact on the whole IEP, so the incumbent Labour government stalled the procurement programme.

In the immediate post crash financial environment, there came questions about the whole cost of the project.

Sir Andrew Foster was called in to review the whole programme = more delay.

Then a change of government in 2010 .

The new government didn't want to rush into a decision until the review had been completed and they had got a handle on what was happening and the costs involved = more delay.

 

There were also widespread misgivings over the Bi-mode being able to perform adequately off the wires, using a single diesel engine.

Meantime, some bright sparks, somewhere in the system, recognised that as the diesel version was no longer needed, big powerful diesel power cars weren't needed either.

Multiple underfloor engines in the Bi-modes will do just as well they said....and so it came to pass.

 

Could it be that 125 mph running on diesel, went out of the window at this stage, before the formal orders were placed?

Mike asks a similar question....

 

 

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?  

 

 

 

.

[Ken.W]

I recall Chris Garnett, when head of GNER, calling for the development of an HST2 using power cars like the original

 

It's all since gone downhill since DaFT decided they could take over running it

[Ken.W]

So, the 800s are underpowered on diesel compared to the HST, easy, problem solved....

(also solves the issue of lugging diesel engines around for hundreds of miles when under the wires)

 

Heaton

 

York

 

 

the first Mk4 test train to Edinburgh (before elecrification energized through Newcastle)

Edited December 31, 2017 by Ken.W

[Barry O]

There will be a winner in this. If the trains are operated on diesel above set levels higher payments to the train providers will be required and Hitachi may have a bit more paid work to do under any maintenance schedules. Just hope Daft have a big pot of gold stuffed in their pillow case for this event.

 

Baz

[jjb1970]

You really have to question why DafT didn't just leave it to the TOCs and ROSCOs to specify and manage acquisition of new trains. I know the TOCs are a bit here today, gone tomorrow but you'd hope that the essential properties needed from trains don't alter that much between franchises and they're a lot more likely to know what is wanted and needed than DafT. And the ROSCOs provide the long term continuity and stability that may be lacking in TOCs.

[jamie92208]

You really have to question why DafT didn't just leave it to the TOCs and ROSCOs to specify and manage acquisition of new trains. I know the TOCs are a bit here today, gone tomorrow but you'd hope that the essential properties needed from trains don't alter that much between franchises and they're a lot more likely to know what is wanted and needed than DafT. And the ROSCOs provide the long term continuity and stability that may be lacking in TOCs.

There's a very simple answer to that. DaFT and the Treasury have always disliked the ROSCO's. They have tried several times to get various enquiries to convict them of profiteering and failed. I can't remember the exact sequence of events but as far as I now the decision to run a direct procurement was an entirely political/civil service driven one. We are now where we are and the taxpayer is going to have to pay the extra high leasing costs for the next 30 years.

 

Jamie

[rab]

Just hope Daft have a big pot of gold stuffed in their pillow case for this event.

Baz

They have, its got a big label on it:

 

Income from taxation

 

[The Stationmaster]

You really have to question why DafT didn't just leave it to the TOCs and ROSCOs to specify and manage acquisition of new trains. I know the TOCs are a bit here today, gone tomorrow but you'd hope that the essential properties needed from trains don't alter that much between franchises and they're a lot more likely to know what is wanted and needed than DafT. And the ROSCOs provide the long term continuity and stability that may be lacking in TOCs.

 

I'm sure Ron will answer this with his usual thoroughly researched chapter and verse but in essence what was happening through a TOC/ROSCO situation was little or nothing as seemingly nobody could agree on some sort of common standard HST replacement (well that was DafT's story).

[nigel newling]

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.

The good citizens of Lincoln owe their bi-hourly service to an investment in new trains - any investment - not specifically to the 8xx ttrains.

As a supportability engineer, I find the adoption of bi-modal train sets bizzare. Why would youy choose to lug tons of dead weight arround and commit your train set to diesel based maintenance cycles when you could have put your primer move in a detatchable unit? The Bournemouth solution with class 33's is where we should have looked for the solution. 

[jjb1970]

In fairness, if the TOCs and ROSCOs had managed it all they'd still have hit the same cliff as the IEP as a result of changes in the electrification program and presumably the government would have been sent a bill for the variation work.

Edited December 31, 2017 by jjb1970

[Barry O]

You really have to question why DafT didn't just leave it to the TOCs and ROSCOs to specify and manage acquisition of new trains. I know the TOCs are a bit here today, gone tomorrow but you'd hope that the essential properties needed from trains don't alter that much between franchises and they're a lot more likely to know what is wanted and needed than DafT. And the ROSCOs provide the long term continuity and stability that may be lacking in TOCs.

Because Civil servants know far more about engineering than all other engineers. Trust me, been there seen that!

 

Baz

Edited December 31, 2017 by Barry O

[D854_Tiger]

Because Civil servants now far more about engineering than all other engineers. Trust me, been there seen that!

 

Baz

 

To be fair to the DfT, when the GW upgrade project commenced, their specification was for at least 21 sets of IET to have really crap diesel power, as in no diesel power whatsoever to speak of, the sets were supposed to be class 801s

 

As for the Cotswold routes, well currently half the service is provided by class 150s and class 165/6s so even an under powered IET should be able to match their timings. Then it is abundantly clear from my experience of class 180s over the Cotswold Line (i.e. the ultimate overkill in diesel power) that the timetable is not really designed to exploit them, on the not unreasonable basis that half the time a 90 mph class 166 turns up.

 

Cardiif to Swansea was also supposed to be electrified (though I accept the somehow was rather left undecided) and may still be, but nearer to an election, when such announcements don't get wasted.

 

The real blame for this less than ideal situation really lies with NR but to be fair to them they were handed the hospital pass of a railway originally designed by Brunel, some questionable asset management dating from the year dot and the only very small number of engineers they had, that could remember how to electrify a railway, more than likely coming up to their retirement by now.

 

So personally I will blame a previous government (that shall remain nameless) for only electrifying eleven miles of railway, during their incumbency, thus allowing the current less than perfect state of affairs to materialise.

 

So, they've all done very well really.

 

The only real lesson to be learned here is that if you want to specify (what is an otherwise pretty good train) cost effectively best not let the DfT near the case.

[royaloak]

The good citizens of Lincoln owe their bi-hourly service to an investment in new trains - any investment - not specifically to the 8xx ttrains.

As a supportability engineer, I find the adoption of bi-modal train sets bizzare. Why would youy choose to lug tons of dead weight arround and commit your train set to diesel based maintenance cycles when you could have put your primer move in a detatchable unit? The Bournemouth solution with class 33's is where we should have looked for the solution. 

But according to DaFT it takes about 10 minutes to attach the loco so it would impact the timetable requirements, the fact that attachments and detachments take place every weekend at Woking and Eastleigh (okay its units but the principles are the same ) in far less time than that seems to pass them by.

[jamie92208]

But according to DaFT it takes about 10 minutes to attach the loco so it would impact the timetable requirements, the fact that attachments and detachments take place every weekend at Woking and Eastleigh (okay its units but the principles are the same ) in far less time than that seems to pass them by.

I may have posted this before but the belief about the time to attach/detach a loco is believed to stem from the experience of an MP for a constituency near Chester. The MP regularly got stuck at Crewe whilst they had problems putting 57's on the front of the Pendelino they were sitting in before dragging it to Chester. IIRC the MP in question was on the Transport Select Committee and effectively kyboshed any suggestion that loco's could be part of the HST replacement solution. They were being talked about for places like Edinburgh and Bristol.

 

Jamie

[D854_Tiger]

I may have posted this before but the belief about the time to attach/detach a loco is believed to stem from the experience of an MP for a constituency near Chester. The MP regularly got stuck at Crewe whilst they had problems putting 57's on the front of the Pendelino they were sitting in before dragging it to Chester. IIRC the MP in question was on the Transport Select Committee and effectively kyboshed any suggestion that loco's could be part of the HST replacement solution. They were being talked about for places like Edinburgh and Bristol.

 

Jamie

 

Then to be fair to that MP how many loco changes of that sort were ever timetabled to take place within say five minutes, ten or fifteen more like, so he had a point.

 

Even if the computers could manage to talk to each other in less than a second, you just knew the operators would find a way and a justification to drag the whole process out.

[jjb1970]

Surely if you were serious about dragging trains off the wires today you'd buy a new locomotive such as the class 68 or a UK version of the TRAXX family and fit the same auto couplers as the units it would drag and specify interoperability? In theory that should allow coupling and uncoupling as quickly as units do it and with no need for anybody to go anywhere near the couplings while retaining full control of the train. All academic now of course but it would avoid carting a few MW of diesel generator and fuel around the country under the wires.

[4630]

Surely if you were serious about dragging trains off the wires today you'd buy a new locomotive such as the class 68 or a UK version of the TRAXX family and fit the same auto couplers as the units it would drag and specify interoperability? In theory that should allow coupling and uncoupling as quickly as units do it and with no need for anybody to go anywhere near the couplings while retaining full control of the train. All academic now of course but it would avoid carting a few MW of diesel generator and fuel around the country under the wires.

 

 

Far too sensible an idea, unfortunately.

[jamie92208]

Far too sensible an idea, unfortunately.

As mentioned this was suggested by many people in the early days of the HST2 procurement but got squashed. IIRC the same point about a purpose designed new loco rather than the converted class 47. was made at the time by commentators in Modern Railways.

 

Jamie