Class 800 - Updates

[iands]

... it seems the specifiers were at fault here, not the supplier ...

 

Or even the NoBo/AsBo etc. for not picking up on the issue?

[The Stationmaster]

... it seems the specifiers were at fault here, not the supplier ...

 

Or even the NoBo/AsBo etc. for not picking up on the issue?

 

You could point it at the NoBo/AsBo but the equally a broadly similar sort of arrangement of inter-vehicle cabling has been running round on the WCML for quite a few years but seems to have escaped censure on these grounds.  Does this suggest a more adventurous type of vandal on the ECML  (hence the ban there) or have vandals on the GWML been more adventurous than those on the WCML causing a concern to arise and if that is the case why haven't RAIB or HMRI been pushing the problem on the 'net?

 

It all seems rather too coincidental to me that this 'safety issue' should suddenly emerge just after other issues have emerged regarding the operation of these trains on the ECML.  Or am I too much into conspiracy theories?

[phil-b259]

You could point it at the NoBo/AsBo but the equally a broadly similar sort of arrangement of inter-vehicle cabling has been running round on the WCML for quite a few years but seems to have escaped censure on these grounds.  Does this suggest a more adventurous type of vandal on the ECML  (hence the ban there) or have vandals on the GWML been more adventurous than those on the WCML causing a concern to arise and if that is the case why haven't RAIB or HMRI been pushing the problem on the 'net?

 

It all seems rather too coincidental to me that this 'safety issue' should suddenly emerge just after other issues have emerged regarding the operation of these trains on the ECML.  Or am I too much into conspiracy theories?

 

Alternatively maybe someone in the DfT decided they wanted to make a name for themselves in a 'look how clever I am' way.

 

Maybe they are hoping for a discount on the variation orders HM Government are being billed for by Hitachi on the grounds that Hitachi have supplied 'unsafe' trains.

Edited October 14, 2018 by phil-b259

[Wild Boar Fell]

You could point it at the NoBo/AsBo but the equally a broadly similar sort of arrangement of inter-vehicle cabling has been running round on the WCML for quite a few years but seems to have escaped censure on these grounds.  Does this suggest a more adventurous type of vandal on the ECML  (hence the ban there) or have vandals on the GWML been more adventurous than those on the WCML causing a concern to arise and if that is the case why haven't RAIB or HMRI been pushing the problem on the 'net?

 

It all seems rather too coincidental to me that this 'safety issue' should suddenly emerge just after other issues have emerged regarding the operation of these trains on the ECML.  Or am I too much into conspiracy theories?

 

It has been mentioned elsewhere that the 395s have already had a 'Jumper Climbing Deterrent' system fitted whilst in service, so not just an ECML things. 

Elsewhere there is commentary that this all relates to a fatality at Manchester Piccadilly with a Pendolino.

Presumably this incident:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live-manchester-piccadilly-trains-cancelled-13984709

 

The Javelin approach can just be seen in this photo, the two offset plates on the body-end.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mach32/9285507980/

 

Wild Boar Fell

 

Edit: It would appear the Javelin mod predates the incident in question.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Wild Boar Fell

[Mark_A]

Apologies if it's been answered up-thread. Those 2x5 IET formations are... sub-optimal, and in curious ways.

 

Does anyone know how possible it is to reconfigure them, removing the two 'Ends' in the centre of the sets, replacing those two driving cabs with 1 or 2 carriages (and then re-using the ends with new build carriages for additional complete sets)?

 

Mark

[phil-b259]

Apologies if it's been answered up-thread. Those 2x5 IET formations are... sub-optimal, and in curious ways.

 

Does anyone know how possible it is to reconfigure them, removing the two 'Ends' in the centre of the sets, replacing those two driving cabs with 1 or 2 carriages (and then re-using the ends with new build carriages for additional complete sets)?

 

Mark

 

Anything (broadly speaking) is possible if you throw enough money at it - however with the 800s you need to remember they are multiple units with key equipment spread throughout the train. The 'driving' cars for example lack engines while other cars may have engines or electrics but no traction motors. Further things like the train management system (which does so much more these days than make announcements) would need a complete software re-write....

 

This complexity was why adding extra vehicles to the Pendalio's was so expensive (and why the DfT refused to make them all 11 car as Virgin wanted even though a mixed length fleet thus totally mucked up the diagramming and maintenance cycles) and is why it would be enormously expensive to mess round with they Voyager / Meridian fleet.

Edited October 16, 2018 by phil-b259

[HillsideDepot]

And why are 2 x 5-cars "sub-optimal" when the intention is to run a pair part way, split and send 5 through to the destination while the other 5 team up with an incoming 5 and head back to London on the busy part of the route?

 

It remains to be seen how it works in practise, and whether the new trains running extra journeys generates demand which results in egg on faces, but as a comparison in the bus side of public transport we constantly get criticised for using using empty double deckers when a minibus would do during the day, except the economics are such that there is only one vehicle has to do all.

[jim.snowdon]

Apologies if it's been answered up-thread. Those 2x5 IET formations are... sub-optimal, and in curious ways.

 

Does anyone know how possible it is to reconfigure them, removing the two 'Ends' in the centre of the sets, replacing those two driving cabs with 1 or 2 carriages (and then re-using the ends with new build carriages for additional complete sets)?

 

Mark

Those 2x5 formations are rather more optimal when it comes to services that split en route either to serve more than one destination or to reduce fleet requirements by not sending a full 9-car set to the final destination when a single 5-car set will do. Added to that, it can be a useful solution to line capacity limitations on the approaches to the main termini.

That the Southern, in particular, made something of a specialty out of using 2- and 4-car units and splitting/combining en route would suggest the concept had some value.

 

Jim

[HillsideDepot]

Purely out of interest I have today been using the "Tiger" website to look at GWR formations through Chippenham. I have noted the traction and number of coaches and whether the set is the correct was round. I have shown the "correct" formations in green. I may however have been unfair to the HST7 sets by considering them "short-formed" whereas I didn't check IET9 sets to see if they were booked IET10. 

 

Anyway, for what its worth:

 

[exet1095]

Saw my first 802 laying over in the down carriage sidings in Oxford at 11.05 this morning. 802 009. The paintwork certainly looks better than the vinyl on the 800s, which is starting to look rather matt.

[MarshLane]

Anything (broadly speaking) is possible if you throw enough money at it - however with the 800s you need to remember they are multiple units with key equipment spread throughout the train. The 'driving' cars for example lack engines while other cars may have engines or electrics but no traction motors. Further things like the train management system (which does so much more these days than make announcements) would need a complete software re-write....

 

This complexity was why adding extra vehicles to the Pendalio's was so expensive (and why the DfT refused to make them all 11 car as Virgin wanted even though a mixed length fleet thus totally mucked up the diagramming and maintenance cycles) and is why it would be enormously expensive to mess round with they Voyager / Meridian fleet.

 

Yes, thats why those two Voyager driving cars at Central Rivers cannot be used on their own.  Some bright spark put the air compressors on the intermediate cars, so two back to back driving cars have no brakes!  In their defence, I don't suppose Bombardier's design team ever expected four and five car Voyager sets to ever need to be operated as two-car units.

 

 

Purely out of interest I have today been using the "Tiger" website to look at GWR formations through Chippenham. I have noted the traction and number of coaches and whether the set is the correct was round. I have shown the "correct" formations in green. I may however have been unfair to the HST7 sets by considering them "short-formed" whereas I didn't check IET9 sets to see if they were booked IET10. 

 

Anyway, for what its worth:

Capture.JPG

 

 

Have I missed something here, whats the 'Tiger' website?

 

Rich

[HillsideDepot]

Have I missed something here, whats the 'Tiger' website?

 

Rich

 

The website is at http://iris2.rail.co.uk/tiger/ and includes train formation details if you select "staff view" once you've chosen your station. Here is the current Chippenham screen (and oh dear, its all gone wrong!)

[Coryton]

Yes, thats why those two Voyager driving cars at Central Rivers cannot be used on their own.  Some bright spark put the air compressors on the intermediate cars, so two back to back driving cars have no brakes!  In their defence, I don't suppose Bombardier's design team ever expected four and five car Voyager sets to ever need to be operated as two-car units.

 

Perhaps not, but it's not hard to find historical examples where multiple units have ended up in rather different configurations to how they started out, including mixing coaches from completely different classes.

 

Sadly this sort of flexibility looks like a thing of the past for now, if only because of the software problems it would introduce.

 

A two coach Voyager would be an interesting sight. Not sure what it would be used for, mind.

[Banger Blue]

The website is at http://iris2.rail.co.uk/tiger/ and includes train formation details if you select "staff view" once you've chosen your station. Here is the current Chippenham screen (and oh dear, its all gone wrong!)

CIS.JPG

Around 20.30 ish, 802016 working 5Z65 ECS North Pole - Stoke Gifford was involved in a dewirement at Ealing Broadway whilst on the Down Main. Originally thought to be just that line, subsequently all lines were blocked and no power to the OLE between Paddington 7 Maidenhead.

 

Last update I saw at 23.25 ish was that all lines were blocked between Paddington & Slough. Lots of services cancelled or were being started from Reading (including the down sleeper).

[david.hill64]

... it seems the specifiers were at fault here, not the supplier ...

 

Or even the NoBo/AsBo etc. for not picking up on the issue?

The duty of a NoBo (Notified Body) is only to check compliance with the TSI's (Technical Standards for Interoperability - despite the name these are nothing to do with interoperability per se, just a unified set of railway standards mandatory within the EU)  : if the TSI's don't cover an issue then the NoBo cannot comment on it.

 

As TSI's are not yet comprehensive, some Railway Group Standards remain in force, now known as National Notified Technical Rules. These are assessed by a DesBo (Designated Body). This may or may not be the NoBo.

 

In addition, to ensure that the project safety risks have been assessed in accordance with the EU Common Safety Method, and AsBo (Assessment Body) is used. This may or may not be the NoBo or DesBo.

 

It would be a good argument that the AsBo's review of the project Hazard Log should have picked up the risk of access to the roof being facilitated by the end 'steps'.

[iands]

The duty of a NoBo (Notified Body) is only to check compliance with the TSI's (Technical Standards for Interoperability - despite the name these are nothing to do with interoperability per se, just a unified set of railway standards mandatory within the EU)  : if the TSI's don't cover an issue then the NoBo cannot comment on it.

 

As TSI's are not yet comprehensive, some Railway Group Standards remain in force, now known as National Notified Technical Rules. These are assessed by a DesBo (Designated Body). This may or may not be the NoBo.

 

In addition, to ensure that the project safety risks have been assessed in accordance with the EU Common Safety Method, and AsBo (Assessment Body) is used. This may or may not be the NoBo or DesBo.

 

It would be a good argument that the AsBo's review of the project Hazard Log should have picked up the risk of access to the roof being facilitated by the end 'steps'.

Thanks for the clarifications David, very useful.

[Zomboid]

A two coach Voyager would be an interesting sight. Not sure what it would be used for, mind.

It would show up on trains where they really need about 8 coaches, if normal XC train formations are anything to go by.

[Coryton]

check IET9 sets to see if they were booked IET10. 

 

 

Is that short-forming though? I thought that overall the seating capacity was similar (two fewer cabs, one fewer kitchen) and that's why the full length trains are 9 cars rather than 10.

 

 

 

It would be a good argument that the AsBo's review of the project Hazard Log should have picked up the risk of access to the roof being facilitated by the end 'steps'.

 

I suppose that depends on whether you think it's actually a risk worth considering or not.

 

Certainly we accept much higher risks on the rail network and particularly on the roads to people who aren't even attempting something silly. On the other hand they would mostly be a lot more expensive or disruptive to mitigate.

[HillsideDepot]

Is that short-forming though? I thought that overall the seating capacity was similar (two fewer cabs, one fewer kitchen) and that's why the full length trains are 9 cars rather than 10.

.

Sorry, I didn't explain my thought process very well.

 

It's often been mentioned that Hitachi are presenting the trains to service the wrong way round, so I thought I'd look at that. At the same time it came apparent that GWR are also struggling with reverse and short formed HSTs. So whilst there are indeed pretty much the same number of seats on 2x5 as on 1x9 I was thinking more about what Hitachi was delivering in terms of actual against planned (contracted) than actual seats. There did seems to be some 1x5 out on the South Wales route but quite how that might have churned around onto other diagrams I didn't study.

 

I might do the exercise again, but it won't be today...

[MarshLane]

Hitachi are providing single units instead of pairs for some diagrams from what people in the industry are telling me, but they are short of IETs anyway as deliveries are slightly behind, a situation that won't be helped with the ORR action, as no more Class 802s can be accepted now until the problem is resolved.  I gather the HST transfer to ScotRail is contractually required to take place because of the Wabtec work, meaning that GWR are now potentially loosing HST sets with no '802s' for Plymouth/Cornish services to replace them, which might lead to further short-formed singles rather than doubles on some diagrams to release stock for elsewhere.  

 

Could be an interesting time for GWR control.  The TauntonTrains Database website (http://tauntontrains.co.uk/workingslog) is an interesting one to look at the day by day operations.

 

Rich

 

PS My last update on Hitachi deliveries was about 3-4 weeks ago so the situation could have changed slightly since my last info, but I doubt much (if anything) has altered.

[Banger Blue]

 

 

PS My last update on Hitachi deliveries was about 3-4 weeks ago so the situation could have changed slightly since my last info, but I doubt much (if anything) has altered.

 

it hasn't!

[SouthernMafia]

And why are 2 x 5-cars "sub-optimal" when the intention is to run a pair part way, split and send 5 through to the destination while the other 5 team up with an incoming 5 and head back to London on the busy part of the route?

 

It remains to be seen how it works in practise, and whether the new trains running extra journeys generates demand which results in egg on faces, but as a comparison in the bus side of public transport we constantly get criticised for using using empty double deckers when a minibus would do during the day, except the economics are such that there is only one vehicle has to do all.

Works nicely on the Carmarthen diagrams where a 5-car is required as you won't get 9 in at Carmarthen.

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that GWR have released all the required HST sets headed north so shouldn't be at a loss going forward, aside from releasing sets for 2+4 conversion which is behind schedule.

[Geoff Endacott]

A two coach Voyager would be an interesting sight. Not sure what it would be used for, mind.

 

Very small model railway layouts.

 

Geoff Endacott

[andy stroud]

Why are class 800's referred to as 'Bi-mode', where as class 73's are called 'electro-diesels'?  Both are designed to be principally powered by an external electrical supply, supplemented by less powerful diesel when need be.

[frobisher]

Why are class 800's referred to as 'Bi-mode', where as class 73's are called 'electro-diesels'?  Both are designed to be principally powered by an external electrical supply, supplemented by less powerful diesel when need be.

 

It's semantics mostly I suppose, but possibly because the long term goal is for conversion (by removal of gen sets) of the 800's to 801's as they are (D)EMUs where as the 73 and 88 are locomotives?