Class 800 - Updates

[Coryton]

I'm not sure of the extent to which Cardiff - Swansea ever was on the cards or might still be (eventually).

 

Swansea could though still benefit from the accelerated electric timetable east of Cardiff and the fewer stops planned between there and Paddington.

 

As for Inverness, a sluggish IET is just one train a day amongst what will be an otherwise super HST timetable (2 + 4) instead of the current class 170 timetable.

 

I would call that a nice problem to have.

 

So far as I know, when the trains were ordered it was assumed that Cardiff to Swansea would be electrified by the time they were in service. (Though it doesn't ever seem to have been quite clear who was going to pay for it all.) Someone will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

As for Inverness, under-powered is still under-powered whether it's one train a day or forty. Other people will have an informed view as to whether re-casting timetables (over single track?) to give IETs longer to get between Inverness and Edinburgh than now is a nice problem to have or not.

[Ron Ron Ron]

The simple fact is they are underpowered when running on diesel,.....

If the power output has met the technical specification (I don't know if does), then surely they can't be described as "underpowered".

The trains will be delivering what was asked for.

If it's not meeting the specification, then it would be considered "underpowered" and no doubt an issue that will have to addressed.

A comparison with the HST performance is irrelevant on this matter.

 

Do bear in mind that the original specification, pre-electrification, required the trains to match the full HST performance envelope.

Hitachi produced a design to that spec. that should have had advantages over HST performance, with the hybrid diesel/battery system providing a large amount of boost across the performance range; combined with the advantages of distributed traction.

That traction design was dropped and replaced with the less capable underfloor engines, when electrification came onto the table and the specification was changed.

 

 

.....the whys and wherefores are irrelevant to the travelling public who have an expectation that the new train should be better than the ones they replace.

The travelling public will most likely see that the new trains are better in several areas (bright and clean interiors, increased leg room, less claustrophobic seating etc,), in addition to being better in areas they won't be aware of, such as crashworthiness.

The diesel engine performance will probably not even register, if the trains arrive on time.

 

Just look at comments by members of the travelling public in the press and on passenger forums.

Comments like "replacing clapped out trains",  "clapped out 40 year old trains", "still running ancient 40 year old HST's" are commonplace.

All of which are rather unfair on the HST's, but nethertheless appears to be the general public view.

 

 

.

[Coryton]

If the power output has met the technical specification (I don't know if does), then surely they can't be described as "underpowered".

The trains will be delivering what was asked for..

 

I disagree.

 

If they can't meet the timings they are expected and required to, then I think it's entirely fair to describe them as underpowered for their intended use.

 

If that's because they were improperly specified (or because the goal-posts moved) then they aren't underpowered with respect to the specifications, and the blame doesn't lie with the manufacturers, but - in my view - that's not the only definition of underpowered.

 

Just look at comments by members of the travelling public in the press and on passenger forums.

Comments like "replacing clapped out trains",  "clapped out 40 year old trains", "still running ancient 40 year old HST's" are commonplace..

 

 

On the other hand, they might be aware of and complain about timetables being recast, or disruption increasing because there is less recovery time in schedules, without knowing that the cause is the shiny new trains.

If the power output has met the technical specification (I don't know if does), then surely they can't be described as "underpowered".

The trains will be delivering what was asked for.

If it's not meeting the specification, then it would be considered "underpowered" and no doubt an issue that will have to addressed.

A comparison with the HST performance is irrelevant on this matter.

 

Do bear in mind that the original specification, pre-electrification, required the trains to match the full HST performance envelope.

Hitachi produced a design to that spec. that should have had advantages over HST performance, with the hybrid diesel/battery system providing a large amount of boost across the performance range; combined with the advantages of distributed traction.

That traction design was dropped and replaced with the less capable underfloor engines, when electrification came onto the table and the specification was changed.

 

 

The travelling public will most likely see that the new trains are better in several areas (bright and clean interiors, increased leg room, less claustrophobic seating etc,), in addition to being better in areas they won't be aware of, such as crashworthiness.

The diesel engine performance will probably not even register, if the trains arrive on time.

 

Just look at comments by members of the travelling public in the press and on passenger forums.

Comments like "replacing clapped out trains",  "clapped out 40 year old trains", "still running ancient 40 year old HST's" are commonplace.

All of which are rather unfair on the HST's, but nethertheless appears to be the general public view.

 

 

.

 

[The Stationmaster]

Not necessarily, the timetable / path is only confirmed 12 weeks ahead of the train running, so for a trip beyond May, you won't be able to book until after February. Once the path is confirmed, they can allocate trains to the diagrams and then allow the seating plan to be confirmed.

 

Simon

 

 

I have been booking the same seat 6 months in advance for several years, as per the Virgin Website. this is the first time there has been an issue.

 

Today Virgin are taking bookings up to June 29.

 

https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.com/

 

Mike Wiltshire

12 weeks is the 'horizon' for release of timetable information for booking purposes and is the minimum UK horizon period (and well below the UIC statutory minimum of 26 weeks but that was all too difficult for Railtrack and is probably just as difficult for NR).  The main impact of the 12 week horizon is that it should ensure that special traffic alterations are out in good time to comply with the minimum horizon; remember the hoo-hah before Christmas with the shock revelations that trains weren't loaded into online systems at even closer dates than 12 weeks.

 

There should really be nothing to prevent regular timetabled services being in the system from the date of permanent timetable release (which on the old programme would be during the first two weeks of January for the May change) but there is a risk, particularly with weekend services, that they would be liable to alteration for engineering work which is outwith Rules of the Route (in other words engineering work which could not be taken into account when preparing the permanent timetable.  Possessions within Rules of the Route are known about in time to incorporate into the permanent timetable but operators might not chose to do that, and they would then have to comply with the 12 weeks horizon).

 

There was never anything in the past to require the type of train to be included in the 12 week horizon although logically it should be included in order to allow compliance for reservations - probably not stated because it wasn't a factor and ought really to be obvious in any case (to those who understand the system that is).

[The Stationmaster]

Why would you want to do that?

 

There seems to be an assumption at large that class 800s are under powered when running on diesel.

 

This is an incorrect assumption, the more correct assumption is that the class 800s are under powered when running on diesel but only when using diesel when they should rather be taking electricity from overhead wires.

 

This problem is being addressed (eventually) in other ways that does not involve diesel power.

 

In the meantime, it would appear that the DfT has already decided that GW will have to put up with this issue rather than providing the short term (expensive) fix of increasing the diesel power.

 

Er no.  The simple fact is that Class 800 trains cannot maintain various HST Point-To-Point times when running on diesel power - that is a fact, not an assumption (as more than a few people have observed and timed by means of stopwatches etc).  And burying heads in sand or calling facts 'assumptions' pics not going to change that.

 

Where their inability to maintain booked HST timings occurs is relevant when they are on lines which are not electrified and running in paths timed for HSTs - whether or not they were ever planned to be electrified (and some on various GW routes have.  as yet, very definitely never been planned to be electrified) or will at some time be electrified in a heavily delayed programme of electrification.  It thus becomes a pertinent matter wherever Class 800 trains are going to replace HSTs unless or until the relevant sections of route are electrified.

 

No doubt  DafT have washed their hands of the matter but that does not in my view absolve them of any responsibility for their failure to take account of it in the specification for the new trains - what they need to do is admit they got it wrong, confirm they have learnt their lesson, and say they will keep their fingers out of new train specifications in future. 

 

Cardiff - Swansea is an interesting case where basically 'somebody' (for rather several somebodies) will be faced with a running series of timetable alterations for quite a time to come - just what you need to build passenger familiarity with your timetable and confidence in your operation.  Whether or not electrification of this section of route was really ever more than a chimera or political sleight of hand need not necessarily concern us - hopefully it will happen one day but only time will tell.  In the meanwhile anyone trying to construct a workable and reliable timetable is going to have to face up to the fact that these trains are not up to HST levels of performance and either ignore that (and take any potential financial hit) or retime, with probable impacts on other operators which might even reach as far afield as Manchester and potential hits on resource costs which intern could affect the overall shape of the entire GWR/successor Class 80X trainplan and hit back into the contract with the train provider.  Until those things are investigated in detail nobody knows the answer one way or the other - the impact could be minimal or it could be expensive or it could be anything in between the two extremes.  But to suggest otherwise is yet again the burying the head in a very large patch of sand.

[The Stationmaster]

If the power output has met the technical specification (I don't know if does), then surely they can't be described as "underpowered".

The trains will be delivering what was asked for.

If it's not meeting the specification, then it would be considered "underpowered" and no doubt an issue that will have to addressed.

A comparison with the HST performance is irrelevant on this matter.

 

Do bear in mind that the original specification, pre-electrification, required the trains to match the full HST performance envelope.

Hitachi produced a design to that spec. that should have had advantages over HST performance, with the hybrid diesel/battery system providing a large amount of boost across the performance range; combined with the advantages of distributed traction.

That traction design was dropped and replaced with the less capable underfloor engines, when electrification came onto the table and the specification was changed.

 

 

The travelling public will most likely see that the new trains are better in several areas (bright and clean interiors, increased leg room, less claustrophobic seating etc,), in addition to being better in areas they won't be aware of, such as crashworthiness.

The diesel engine performance will probably not even register, if the trains arrive on time.

 

Just look at comments by members of the travelling public in the press and on passenger forums.

Comments like "replacing clapped out trains",  "clapped out 40 year old trains", "still running ancient 40 year old HST's" are commonplace.

All of which are rather unfair on the HST's, but nethertheless appears to be the general public view.

 

 

.

 

I'm sorry Ron but a comparison with HST performance is entirely relevant.  If the industry is going to claim, as it has, great improvements in journey time due to electrification between Paddington and wherever then it is making. comparison with the current trains, which are HSTs.  If the new trains are going to be put into service in HST timings - which is what is happening - then obviously someone somewhere has expected or been led to believe that these trains will equal HST performance.  

 

If they are going to be regarded as an advance then clearly for the vast majority of travellers they are going to be assessed as an advance on what they know - which is HSTs and nobody is likely to compare them with Class 47s and Aircon Mk 2s or D10XX and steam heated Mk2s because it is over 40 years since they ceased to be the premier trains on the routes over which the GWR Class 80X will operate.  And I doubt there are many folk attend to compare them with the Blue Pullman or even everyday steam haulage which means going back even further )for the latter).  Ipso facto - they will be compared by operators, traincrews, customer service onboard staff and passengers with what has immediately preceded them - and that is the HST (as you have yourself said above in respect of some passenger comments).

[Coryton]

hit) or retime, with probable impacts on other operators which might even reach as far afield as Manchester  

 

And with Thameslink 2000 or whatever it's called these days, don't we get a mechanism to propagate delays (or timetable changes?) from the ECML to the south of London too?

 

(We apologise for the delays in services at Brighton due to cows on the line at Aviemore?)

[Ken.W]

Not necessarily, the timetable / path is only confirmed 12 weeks ahead of the train running, so for a trip beyond May, you won't be able to book until after February. Once the path is confirmed, they can allocate trains to the diagrams and then allow the seating plan to be confirmed.

 

Simon

 

VTEC do have 6 month in advance reservations, excluding weekends /bank holidays

 

Rail Magazine reported that Virgin East Coast will begin Azuma service in December 2018.

 

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/vtec-confirms-december-2018-start-date-for-azumas

 

I book the same position return seats in coach K ( it's my seat!!!!!) every week and have been hit with a sudden change to advance bookings. If you try and book a ticket from May this year, there are no seating plans or quiet coaches available on KGX-Edinburgh trains. A phone call to Virgin revealed that they have no seating plans beyond the end of April, and can only reserve a seat but the actual position cannot be chosen by the customer. Speaking to on train staff, the booking system is allocating the next numerical seat up as they do not know what trains will be running.

 

Doe this mean the new trains will begin earlier?

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Erm, in a word, no.

They're presently said to be 3 months late, ie December, they were originally expected earlier.

And if they do turn up in 12 weeks time, errm, who's going to be driving them???

[Ken.W]

Why would you want to do that?

 

There seems to be an assumption at large that class 800s are under powered when running on diesel.

 

This is an incorrect assumption, the more correct assumption is that the class 800s are under powered when running on diesel but only when using diesel when they should rather be taking electricity from overhead wires.

 

This problem is being addressed (eventually) in other ways that does not involve diesel power.

 

In the meantime, it would appear that the DfT has already decided that GW will have to put up with this issue rather than providing the short term (expensive) fix of increasing the diesel power.

 

So, perhaps you could inform just when Aberdeen / Inverness are due to be electrified??

 

There seems to be a common assumption on here that the bi-modes are only for parts of the GW where electrification is delayed / deffered

 

The recent Inverness test run was, I've previously posted, up to 20mph slower than the HSTs! (which I heard first-hand from someone who was actually there!)

 

There's already been extensive talk of the problems that can occur if these can't keep to their booked paths over the single line sections to Inverness / Aberdeen, or coming onto the ECML southbound at Edinburgh.

Which at that speed is rather unlikely.

 

As though just to emphasize this further, last week there was a week long blockade on the King Edward Bridge between Newcastle / Gateshead (see thread Newcastle - whats going on).

The 'diversion' via the High Level Bridge instead is quite short, typically adding no more than 5 minutes - particularly as trains were changing drivers at the same time, the relieving driving waiting ready at the other end.

In order to maintain their booked path south of Newcastle however, most trains from Edinburgh were retimed to depart several minutes earlier than normal. Also trains to Aberdeen / Inverness were taking the preceding departure slot from Kings X to keep to their path north of Edinburgh

[Ken.W]

And with Thameslink 2000 or whatever it's called these days, don't we get a mechanism to propagate delays (or timetable changes?) from the ECML to the south of London too?

 

(We apologise for the delays in services at Brighton due to cows on the line at Aviemore?)

Given the long standing train regulation priorities on the route...

more likely to be the other way round!

[jim.snowdon]

The recent Inverness test run was, I've previously posted, up to 20mph slower than the HSTs! (which I heard first-hand from someone who was actually there!)

 

Is that 20mph slower average journey speed, or maximum speed? One is more significant than the other.

 

Jim

[frobisher]

I'm not an insider so I have no way of knowing if the claims that they will struggle between Edinburgh and Inverness are true. I do know though that no matter how well or not they perform, electrifying that line is not going to be the answer.

It was a nine car 800/1 unit that was used on that test run (presumably because that's it for testing currently on the ECML and beyond). I don't know if the intention is to run 800/1s on that route but they will be down on power compared to the five car units. We don't know yet the extent those are up to or short of the task on that route.

Edited January 18, 2018 by frobisher

[DavidB]

A much more positive experience to report this morning - the 06.59 from Didcot arrived and departed 7 mins late, but was 1 min early into Paddington in just 37 minutes for the 53 miles, inclusive of the Reading stop.  The late presentation at Didcot East, Reading and Airport Junction didn't cause any issues (for once - how often does that happen?), and we had some subdued running through Southall, all suggesting that even faster times should be possible in future.  That's more like it.

 

David

[royaloak]

A much more positive experience to report this morning - the 06.59 from Didcot arrived and departed 7 mins late, but was 1 min early into Paddington in just 37 minutes for the 53 miles, inclusive of the Reading stop.  The late presentation at Didcot East, Reading and Airport Junction didn't cause any issues (for once - how often does that happen?), and we had some subdued running through Southall, all suggesting that even faster times should be possible in future.  That's more like it.

 

David

Was that entirely on electric power?

If so then that is about right because their electric performance has never been in doubt.

[Zomboid]

I think they normally pull away from Didcot on diesel but are on electric by Cholsey. That's what it seemed like (judging on engine noise) when I went that way last week, at least.

[St. Simon]

I think they normally pull away from Didcot on diesel but are on electric by Cholsey. That's what it seemed like (judging on engine noise) when I went that way last week, at least.

 

Yes, Change-Over Stationary at Didcot is not allowed currently, the Change-Over occurs at South Moreton, East of Moreton Cutting.

 

Simon

[jim.snowdon]

Yes, Change-Over Stationary at Didcot is not allowed currently, the Change-Over occurs at South Moreton, East of Moreton Cutting.

 

Simon

How strange - or is there some obscure technical reason, like getting confused by the APCO balises east of Didcot?

 

Jim

[Glorious NSE]

12 weeks is the 'horizon' for release of timetable information for booking purposes and is the minimum UK horizon period (and well below the UIC statutory minimum of 26 weeks but that was all too difficult for Railtrack and is probably just as difficult for NR).  The main impact of the 12 week horizon is that it should ensure that special traffic alterations are out in good time to comply with the minimum horizon; remember the hoo-hah before Christmas with the shock revelations that trains weren't loaded into online systems at even closer dates than 12 weeks.

At present on GWR weekend dates are down to one month's notice according to this: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/44703.aspx  - which is frustrating if like me you're coming up to the 12 week window for booking the first leg of a holiday in May, and your first leg needs to happen on a Sunday....!

 

Kind of impressed at the longer weekday VTEC dates - should be aspirational for the industry IMHO.

 

 

[D854_Tiger]

So, perhaps you could inform just when Aberdeen / Inverness are due to be electrified??

 

There seems to be a common assumption on here that the bi-modes are only for parts of the GW where electrification is delayed / deffered

 

The recent Inverness test run was, I've previously posted, up to 20mph slower than the HSTs! (which I heard first-hand from someone who was actually there!)

 

There's already been extensive talk of the problems that can occur if these can't keep to their booked paths over the single line sections to Inverness / Aberdeen, or coming onto the ECML southbound at Edinburgh.

Which at that speed is rather unlikely.

 

As though just to emphasize this further, last week there was a week long blockade on the King Edward Bridge between Newcastle / Gateshead (see thread Newcastle - whats going on).

The 'diversion' via the High Level Bridge instead is quite short, typically adding no more than 5 minutes - particularly as trains were changing drivers at the same time, the relieving driving waiting ready at the other end.

In order to maintain their booked path south of Newcastle however, most trains from Edinburgh were retimed to depart several minutes earlier than normal. Also trains to Aberdeen / Inverness were taking the preceding departure slot from Kings X to keep to their path north of Edinburgh

 

 

Three or four class 800 trains per day to Aberdeen and one to Inverness on routes that are about to otherwise become super HST operated.

 

So a small number of trains may be slower north of Edinburgh (though noting the London trains all make fewer stops than the internal services, so maybe not) but overall the PAX should experience a transformed service.

 

GW class 800 running on reduced diesel power will primarily affect the Worcester route, the Cheltenham route, the Bristol (via Bath) route and Cardiff to Swansea.

 

As far as the Worcester route is concerned, the HSTs already have bloated timings (or fewer stops) over other types, to allow for their longer station dwell times, a particular problem over that route with busy slam door trains and next to no station staff to help out the lone train manager.

 

Cheltenham with a class 800, yes I see that problem over Sapperton, however minimum eight minutes to reverse a HST at Gloucester suggests no one has ever been in a hurry on that part of the GW and the new trains should be quicker to compensate between Swindon and London.

 

I cannot comment on the impact of the reduced class 800 diesel power over the Bristol via Bath route, only to accept that presumably the problem exists, however would point out that the eventual GW IET timetable will send the fastest limited stop Bristol service (one per hour) via Parkway (only five miles or so on diesel) and likely make one via Bath service per hour limited stop also.

 

Again Swansea to Cardiff will presumably be slower (but by how much) and after leaving Cardiff it's going to be electric all the way and the Swansea service will surely be one of the services (two per hour from Cardiff) chosen to be just two stops after Newport.

 

I don't deny the class 800 diesel power problem, just struggling to see how it's significant and is going to be any kind of a big deal, most especially for the PAX, who for the most part are only going to experience considerable improvement over their existing services. If indeed your average normal even notices the new trains, trust me, I've seen some try to get on steam charter trains and not notice the difference.

 

OK the new trains may present the timetable planners with a few headaches, here and there, but that's their job, so presumably a nice problem to have.

 

Ultimately the class 800 should and will be judged by their electric performance, not short bits of country end diesel running, or a few longer bits of diesel running just a few times a day.

 

Remembering that many times in the past, it has been proposed that the North of Edinburgh trains could (should) be a lot slower, as part of the XC franchise and to improve their usefulness, considering the largest proportion of the passengers don't go all the way to London and given that it's mainly been politics that keeps those trains the way they are.

 

For many years, the Inverness day train was the Clansman, via the WCML (even including via the West Midlands) and in no particular hurry and arguably a much more useful service.

[Zomboid]

The Inverness line in particular has long single track sections. Clearing those in good time is essential for the timetable to work, and finding a path for the London train to plod along much slower than the short & powerful HSTs around it can manage may cause significant headaches, and will at least limit the ability to fully exploit the power they have on tap.

Maybe they should try again with an 802. It'll probably still be slower than the 2+5 HSTs, but maybe not quite so embarrassingly so.

[HillsideDepot]

OK, we get it D854_Tiger, you're not bothered about people off the wires, they can just lump it because the end to end times will be fine.

 

It's not much help if someone from (say) Neath or Swansea wants to travel to one of the stops you decide to omit to get to London "on time". What do they do, change at Cardiff to the "stopper" 30 minutes behind? Regardless of point-to-point times that doesn't sound like an advance, does it?

 

People do certainly notice the new stock. Lots were commenting last time I travelled. Now, they may well respond likewise to the 2+4 GWR HSTs when they enter service, but they do notice a change.  

 

You've obviously never tried timetabling/scheduling, if you think a few [extra] headaches are a "nice problem to have".

 

Different views to yours have been presented by many people (most of whom have far more knowledge than me), in many ways, yet still you persist. Yes, there is probably a small amount of timetable tweaking that can be done, but as things presently stand the class 800s in diesel mode are proving to be unable to match HST timings, and that is a problem. Exactly how big a problem remains to be seen. 

[D854_Tiger]

The Inverness line in particular has long single track sections. Clearing those in good time is essential for the timetable to work, and finding a path for the London train to plod along much slower than the short & powerful HSTs around it can manage may cause significant headaches, and will at least limit the ability to fully exploit the power they have on tap.

Maybe they should try again with an 802. It'll probably still be slower than the 2+5 HSTs, but maybe not quite so embarrassingly so.

 

That problem was always going to exist, even with the HST operated London train.

 

The current Virgin EC Inverness train is a 2+9 set, the new Scotrail trains will only be 2+4, lightning quick by comparison.

 

Whichever way you could choose to look at it, the entire timetable is going to have to be recast north of Edinburgh, that's if the super power aspect of the new shorter HSTs is to be exploited.

[Zomboid]

Yes, but if the 800 is even slower than the 2+9 then the problem is worse and harder to solve.

[Coryton]

So a small number of trains may be slower north of Edinburgh (though noting the London trains all make fewer stops than the internal services, so maybe not) 

 

Is that true? If so it's changed from a few years ago, when the Aberdeen to London trains made more stops on the way to Edinburgh than the Scotrail Aberdeen to Edinburgh trains (the Aberdeen trains ran fast from Dundee, leaving stops to be served by the Dundee to Edinburgh trains).

[D854_Tiger]

OK, we get it D854_Tiger, you're not bothered about people off the wires, they can just lump it because the end to end times will be fine.

 

It's not much help if someone from (say) Neath or Swansea wants to travel to one of the stops you decide to omit to get to London "on time". What do they do, change at Cardiff to the "stopper" 30 minutes behind? Regardless of point-to-point times that doesn't sound like an advance, does it?

 

People do certainly notice the new stock. Lots were commenting last time I travelled. Now, they may well respond likewise to the 2+4 GWR HSTs when they enter service, but they do notice a change.  

 

You've obviously never tried timetabling/scheduling, if you think a few [extra] headaches are a "nice problem to have".

 

 

 

Whichever way you choose to look at it, it was always going to be the case that the entire GW timetable was going to be recast eventually, such that the HST timetable and its timings are destined to be tomorrow's chip paper.

 

The doubling of frequency on the core route, the reintroduction of fast (limited stop) trains to both Cardiff and Bristol (and via Parkway), I suspect that decision has already been made, otherwise what is the point of new trains and all that electrification.

 

There is a problem in the short term with class 800s having to run significant distances on diesel power, when they should rather be running under wires, but clearly someone at the DfT has decided GW are just going to have to live with it, then why not, similarly on the EC where the delays have even led to a complete franchise renegotiation.

 

It all comes down to the delays in the electrification, in the end, not the shortcomings (or otherwise) of the new trains.

 

Presumably the class 800 is working out of the box, as specified (I've read nothing to the contrary), and that does mean reduced power on diesel.

 

However, apart from the short term issue, I'm still struggling to understand how this is any kind of a problem or how, in the end, it is going to be a significant showstopper in providing what will surely be a massively improved service.

 

Unless that is you are a regular commuter between Stroud and Kemble (and there must be loads of those) that must endure an extra three or four minutes (presumably, I know not) because their HST has been replaced by an IET but then at least half of those regular commuters will be getting an IET, vice a class 150, and whichever way you want to write that up, it can't be as bad.