Class 800 - Updates

[Banger Blue]

As I understand it, the 2x 5 car 800s don’t require a second guard per se but does require another member of staff. It seems the issue is who or what grade qualifies as that member of staff. If I’ve read things correctly one side says a Customer Host / catering staff is enough, the other side says not.

[royaloak]

I dont think they should have built ANY five car sets.

Funnily enough there are quite a few high up at GWR who agree with you, unfortunately it wasnt their decision to make!

 

Please remember a 9 coach 800 has (basically) the same seating capacity as 2x5 coach 800s because of the wasted space having 2 cabs in the middle and the extra 1st class gally on the 2x5 coach ones, all that weight to lug around for no good reason!

[royaloak]

As I understand it, the 2x 5 car 800s don’t require a second guard per se but does require another member of staff. It seems the issue is who or what grade qualifies as that member of staff. If I’ve read things correctly one side says a Customer Host / catering staff is enough, the other side says not.

Its to do with evacuation and fire scenarios, one side says the staff member needs to be trained in it but the other side says they dont, it doesnt take a genius to work out what use they would be in an emergency situation with no traction or rules training does it!

[royaloak]

So would I.  As I understood things from what I was told on the first day there was only one Guard on the train and indeed that was the same impression I had on a recent trip back from Cardiff - Guard in one set and a Senior Conductor or Conductor in the other set.   There might well be a shortage of trained staff if the pace of introduction is outpacing training and I can understand that happening as a possible consequence of late handover of sets or maybe a shortage of staff in the first place but  still don't see why a 2x5car train needs two Guards.

They dont need two Guards (who said they did?), what they do need is 2 competent staff members. 

[royaloak]

I can see the argument (especially on an inter city train) that the guard needs to be able to get everywhere at any time - notwithstanding any precedent elsewhere (what do XC and EMT do when they run in multiple?).

Though the guard in that particular case wasn't getting anywhere without crowd-surfing, so I'm not sure how valid it is.

XC have to have a Train Manager in each set, I dont know what EMT do.

[royaloak]

I dont really see that it matters. One way or another, the indications are (from their own website) that  they are inadequatley  staffed. They are in the business of running trains and I am simply an intending passenger.

 

It is a shame that with the introduction of new trains, the  service is let down by staffing issues.

Is that the fault of the staff?

[royaloak]

And it would be interesting to know why there needs to be a guard per unit, given that  - as pointed out earlier - this isn't generally the rule.

 

Round here a single guard happily hops from unit to unit at stations when two Pacers or a Pacer and a Sprinter are coupled together. 

How far apart are the stations?

How long is each unit left unstaffed?

What sort of speeds are we talking about? The faster the speed the worse any incident is likely to be!

[Zomboid]

They dont need two Guards (who said they did?), what they do need is 2 competent staff members.

The guard on the train I was on said over the PA that we couldn't use the rear set because there wasn't a "guard" available for it.

That was the wording she used. Not "competent staff member" or anything else.

[caradoc]

This is an interesting debate on staffing requirements when two (or more) sets, without gangway connection between the sets, are coupled. In Scotland, policy on providing gangways has varied wildly over the years; The earlier EMU fleets, 303, 311 and 314, did not have gangways; Class 318 was built with them, but they were later removed; Classes 320 and 334 were built without, and finally Classes 380 and 385 were/are built with them ! The result is that some trains, ie formed of 6-car 318/320 or 334 sets, have no gangway between the sets, and of course no Guard in either set, never mind both. Obviously these do not work at the same speed or for the same journey length as Voyagers or Class 800s, but they can be extremely busy trains.

 

Regarding the 5-car Class 800, these have the benefit of justifying through trains on routes where a full 9-car could not be justified, or would exceed platform lengths, however there will inevitably be occasions when a 5-car ends up working vice a booked 9 or 10-car formation. It will also be interesting to see how they are diagrammed; On the Oxford/Worcester route, for example, a 5-car 800 is a step up from a 3-car Class 165/166, however a definite step down from an HST. 

[Coryton]

This is an interesting debate on staffing requirements when two (or more) sets, without gangway connection between the sets, are coupled. In Scotland, policy on providing gangways has varied wildly over the years; The earlier EMU fleets, 303, 311 and 314, did not have gangways; Class 318 was built with them, but they were later removed; Classes 320 and 334 were built without, and finally Classes 380 and 385 were/are built with them ! The result is that some trains, ie formed of 6-car 318/320 or 334 sets, have no gangway between the sets, and of course no Guard in either set, never mind both. Obviously these do not work at the same speed or for the same journey length as Voyagers or Class 800s, but they can be extremely busy trains.

 

Regarding the 5-car Class 800, these have the benefit of justifying through trains on routes where a full 9-car could not be justified, or would exceed platform lengths, however there will inevitably be occasions when a 5-car ends up working vice a booked 9 or 10-car formation. It will also be interesting to see how they are diagrammed; On the Oxford/Worcester route, for example, a 5-car 800 is a step up from a 3-car Class 165/166, however a definite step down from an HST. 

 

Personally (reasonably or not) I'd rather take my chances in a crew-less 5 car IET section than be squashed into the other end with a guard. I expect I'd feel differently if the train got stuck somewhere, the PA failed and there was nobody on board to tell us what was going on or what to do. Especially if it was in the middle of the Severn Tunnel.

 

However - while local trains travel more slowly and with more frequent stops, a similar situation could still arise - is a 4 car train stuck in Caerphilly tunnel with no crew member in the rear unit all that different? (So far as I know, the guard can travel in either unit - I'm fairly sure I've seen them swap units at stations - but I might be wrong on that.)

 

Is that the fault of the staff?

 

I took the phrase "staffing issues" to mean issues with providing sufficient suitable staff, not issues with the behaviour of the staff. I've seen lots of criticism of various groups of people on this thread, but little aimed at the staff on the ground.

 

The guard on the train I was on said over the PA that we couldn't use the rear set because there wasn't a "guard" available for it.

That was the wording she used. Not "competent staff member" or anything else.

 

It might be nice it if those "in the know" were a bit more tolerant with people who are just repeating what they've been told by members of staff.

[andy stroud]

Is that the fault of the staff?

I never said it was. Certainly not the train crew themselves or the station staff.  However, if by the companys own admittance, they had to cancel twelve long distance trains due to staff shortage on Sunday, then that does imply a certain level of incompetence somewhere in the company, as they are after all, in the business of operating a train service. This gradual introduction of new trains has been known about for years so they have had ample time to plan their staff levels and training program. They publish leaflets and posters proclaiming new trains with extra seats and yet overcrowding is in some cases made worse as an indirect result of these new trains by something as simple, in the scale of things, as not providing enough staff. Such a shame, when such a huge amount of money has gone in to all this.

Edited February 13, 2018 by andy stroud

[phil-b259]

....but  still don't see why a 2x5car train needs two Guards.

 

But what if the train becomes divided in service? I'm sure the RMT will be only to happy to explain how dangerous that would be if you want

 

Not 2 class 80x units coupled in multiple but https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/northern-rail-train-splits-in-two/   https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/low-cost-train-maintenance-provider-under-the-spotlight/

Edited February 13, 2018 by phil-b259

[Zomboid]

And if a train with inter-unit gangways splits (eg a 4 car 156), how will the gangways help? Presumably one guard per vehicle is necessary...

[Coryton]

And if a train with inter-unit gangways splits (eg a 4 car 156), how will the gangways help? Presumably one guard per vehicle is necessary...

 

If there's a gangway it's easier for the guard to stand between the units holding them together :-)

[The Stationmaster]

They dont need two Guards (who said they did?), what they do need is 2 competent staff members. 

 

Post No. 3136 specifically mentioned Guards although that might have been an assumption. and confirmed in Post 3158 .  And if you'd bothered to read my post you know full well that I did not state two Guards so why bother to raise it?

I never said it was. Certainly not the train crew themselves or the station staff.  However, if by the companys own admittance, they had to cancel twelve long distance trains due to staff shortage on Sunday, then that does imply a certain level of incompetence somewhere in the company, as they are after all, in the business of operating a train service. This gradual introduction of new trains has been known about for years so they have had ample time to plan their staff levels and training program. They publish leaflets and posters proclaiming new trains with extra seats and yet overcrowding is in some cases made worse as an indirect result of these new trains by something as simple, in the scale of things, as not providing enough staff. Such a shame, when such a huge amount of money has gone in to all this.

 

They were planning their training programme a long while ago - or at least parts of it so it's reasonable to presume all.  But if you haven't got any trains on which to train staff you can hardly train them can you and the trains are arriving late (for a variety of reasons) and HSTs are being transferred away quite rapidly so it's hardly logical, let alone fair, to blame an operator for something which is being dumped on them.  Don't forget that GWR can't do any practical training on the trains until they are physically handed over and you can't do all the training in a classroom.

 

My own view is that these trains are being put into service far too quickly in view of the emerging faults but presumably someone with no railway experience whatsoever is sitting in DafT playing their usual ignorant trick of telling the industry what to do without understanding what that actually means.  And that disrupts carefully planned training schedules just as much as any other problems it might cause.

But what if the train becomes divided in service? I'm sure the RMT will be only to happy to explain how dangerous that would be if you want

 

Not 2 class 80x units coupled in multiple but https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/northern-rail-train-splits-in-two/   https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/low-cost-train-maintenance-provider-under-the-spotlight/

 

Give 'em chance Phil. If they actually knew anything about railway working in the higher echelons of the RMT they'd no doubt be demanding the re-introduction of Front and Rear Guards on all passenger trains on the basis that the train might divide accidentally.  Load of politically motivated idiots I'm afraid who don't give a tuppenny damn about the railway industry unless it dances to their ill-informed tunes.

[Coryton]

and the trains are arriving late (for a variety of reasons) and HSTs are being transferred away quite rapidly 

 

We might be in a better position now if the HSTs were all heading for the scrapyard.

 

I'm quite glad they're not though.

 

They may be getting a bit old now but there still seems to be a fair amount of life in them (and I gather that the USAF is planning on keeping its B-52s until the 2050s by which time they will be over 90 years old - compared to that 40 years is nothing...)

[royaloak]

The guard on the train I was on said over the PA that we couldn't use the rear set because there wasn't a "guard" available for it.

That was the wording she used. Not "competent staff member" or anything else.

Probably a case of using a term the General Public will understand, that isnt meant in a derogatory manner either, sometimes its just easier that way IE signal failure when its actually a track circuit failure and the signal is working correctly.

[royaloak]

They were planning their training programme a long while ago - or at least parts of it so it's reasonable to presume all.  But if you haven't got any trains on which to train staff you can hardly train them can you and the trains are arriving late (for a variety of reasons) and HSTs are being transferred away quite rapidly so it's hardly logical, let alone fair, to blame an operator for something which is being dumped on them.  Don't forget that GWR can't do any practical training on the trains until they are physically handed over and you can't do all the training in a classroom.

 

My own view is that these trains are being put into service far too quickly in view of the emerging faults but presumably someone with no railway experience whatsoever is sitting in DafT playing their usual ignorant trick of telling the industry what to do without understanding what that actually means.  And that disrupts carefully planned training schedules just as much as any other problems it might cause.

you are correct, the trains were very late arriving but the HSTs must leave on time so the IETs are being forced into service before enough staff are trained.

 

You should see the IET training program down here, it starts in March or April or is it May, no its definitely March but ASLEF have reminded GWR about the agreements re existing training being complete before any new training is started, that has focussed their minds so we have oodles of class 57 and unit training courses booked in over the next couple of months much to the lazy gits chagrin, some of them have got far to comfy sat in the mess room while others do their jobs due to their lack of traction knowledge.

 

I have also had a look at the company flexibility bribe and wont be taking up the kind offer, basically if they have got an IET job uncovered, they can take you off your booked HST job, move you a couple of hours and extend your job another couple of hours, so if you were on at 08:00, they can take you off that, put you spare and then give you an IET diagram starting at 10:00, but it could actually be spare for the first 2 hours as the duty should normally start at 12:00 but they have 'bulked up' the front (changing it to a 9000 diagram) so they can cover it as no driver was available in the required time slot, I have seen it done several times previously, it within agreements but not exactly in the spirit of the agreements and does smack of making it fit.

Edited February 13, 2018 by royaloak

[Coryton]

Probably a case of using a term the General Public will understand, that isnt meant in a derogatory manner either, sometimes its just easier that way IE signal failure when its actually a track circuit failure and the signal is working correctly.

 

That's fair enough, but it shouldn't then come as a surprise that people here might repeat what they were told in good faith without realising that it wasn't quite the truth.

 

I have come across the reverse where an announcement could have done with some rephrasing.

 

I was on the "WAG Express" that only made it as far as Newport from Cardiff.

 

We were told something along the lines that the train would be terminated there due to an ETS failure and that we should board the 170 across the platform...

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Paddington is going to be quite a boring place soon with basically just IETs, Electostars and HEX, with a passing stream of TfL S stock.

 

Going back to staffing, how does the intro of IET compare with HST? It all seemed much more seamless back in the heady days of 1976.

[Ken.W]

Earlier today on the Great Western Website there was a list of 12 trains (Bristol/South Wales/Cheltenham to/from Paddington) cancelled due to shortage of train crew.  If they are struggling to run their existing service, how can they hope to double the frequency.

 

It will no doubt make a difference when they do not have considerable numbers of crew engaged on Class 800 training although obviously the running of 2x5car sets could will lead to a need for extra customer service staff whatever else happens.  And judging by many of the staff one now encounters both on-train and at some GWR stations they'll be even shorter of staff if they have future problems recruiting folk from the European mainland.

 

Interesting. VTEC, despite there problems and usual criticism, have already recruited around 50 additional drivers over the route (mostly now through training), in order to cover for class 800 training and then the planed additional services.

[St. Simon]

Paddington is going to be quite a boring place soon with basically just IETs, Electostars and HEX, with a passing stream of TfL S stock.

 

Off Topic I know, but Paddington will be quieter and cleaner and overall a more pleasant experience (not that it's unpleasant at the moment).

 

SImon

[Geoff Endacott]

As I understand it, the 2x 5 car 800s don’t require a second guard per se but does require another member of staff.

 

At least they don't need two drivers.

 

Geoff Endacott

[The Stationmaster]

you are correct, the trains were very late arriving but the HSTs must leave on time so the IETs are being forced into service before enough staff are trained.

 

You should see the IET training program down here, it starts in March or April or is it May, no its definitely March but ASLEF have reminded GWR about the agreements re existing training being complete before any new training is started, that has focussed their minds so we have oodles of class 57 and unit training courses booked in over the next couple of months much to the lazy gits chagrin, some of them have got far to comfy sat in the mess room while others do their jobs due to their lack of traction knowledge.

 

I have also had a look at the company flexibility bribe and wont be taking up the kind offer, basically if they have got an IET job uncovered, they can take you off your booked HST job, move you a couple of hours and extend your job another couple of hours, so if you were on at 08:00, they can take you off that, put you spare and then give you an IET diagram starting at 10:00, but it could actually be spare for the first 2 hours as the duty should normally start at 12:00 but they have 'bulked up' the front (changing it to a 9000 diagram) so they can cover it as no driver was available in the required time slot, I have seen it done several times previously, it within agreements but not exactly in the spirit of the agreements and does smack of making it fit.

 

I caused a major hoo-hah back in the early 1990s with one of my newly acquired diagrammers because he issued, or tried to issue, before I stopped him, a complete depot's working with made-up time added into diagrams - it's atrocious practice and should not be necessary.  Mind you in that case it was a 'cosy agreement' with the depot concerned to save the roster clerk and staff side of the LDC a lot of work - they didn't like my approach one bit but they had to get on and do what they were supposed to do for once.

 

The 'flexiibility bribe' as you call would be much simpler if it said 'we can take you off your booked turn and move you up to, say, 4 hours provided you will have sufficient rest before your next originally rostered turn.  Once you start bending diagrams you create havoc unless you are putting correct work into them - not good management practice.

Interesting. VTEC, despite there problems and usual criticism, have already recruited around 50 additional drivers over the route (mostly now through training), in order to cover for class 800 training and then the planed additional services.

 

GWR might well have recruited extra people for their extra services - that seems logical - but it doesn't alter the fact that if the trains aren't there then they can't train people on them and that seems to have been on the wrong foot right from the off with trains having to go into service in order to release HSTs.

 

BTW we were forbidden many years ago (in the late 1960s) not to use the terms 'signal failure' or 'track circuit failure' in any sort of current public announcement or notice because the terms had been used in relation to collisions and it was considered that passengers might think something dangerous was happening if they were told there was a 'signal etc failure'.

[Coryton]

At least they don't need two drivers.

 

Geoff Endacott

 

Unlike HSTs for a long time... (OK a driver and a secondman)