Class 800 - Updates

['CHARD]

I must admit that I was surprised when he said the HST’s were to stay for another five years as I know they have to be disability compliant by the end of 2020 (I think).

 

 

Not quite, by 1st January 2020.

[Ken.W]

Given that the signalling interference issues are York and northwards, is there any reason why the new trains cannot at least be introduced on Leeds services (once the absurd inter-coach 'ladder' problem has been addressed) ?

As I've posted earlier, the interference issues affect the York (and other) IECC / SSI signalling. York IECC actually takes over from between Balne and Great Heck (yes, that place!), around 3 miles south of Templehirst Jn and 20 miles south of York. The restriction to run in Diesel mode only applies therefore from Doncaster station, and they're required to stop there in both directions to change over.

Not sure if also relevant, but on leaving Doncaster there's an OHL Neutral Section immediately after Marshgate Jn, trains are then in an OHL electrical section partially signalled by York IEEC, the next OHNS not being till between the junctions at Hambleton (the point where the Leeds - Selby line crosses over).

 

It was still the intention to introduce them on Leeds services this month as planned, until the intervention of ORR's imbargo

 

I can only write here what he told me and by the sound of it, him and his colleagues were pretty unimpressed by the situation to say the least. To say he was using some very strong expletives would be a understatement. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions to what he was saying.

 

I must admit that I was surprised when he said the HST’s were to stay for another five years as I know they have to be disability compliant by the end of 2020 (I think). He could have got it around the wrong way and HST’s for two years, 91’s and Mk IV’s for five, but even if that was the case, surely LNER would have a strong case to retain the HST’s after 2020 as the fleet that was supposed to replace them has not yet been delivered because of the ongoing difficulties?

 

Hitachi do seem to be getting themselves somewhat unpopular.

 

Even before they took their toys away, I've heard of Hitachi being less than co-operative with the training when they've wanted the sets for other purposes.

 

The EC HSTs actually become non-compliant at the begining of 2020.

From what I've heard, the various Works to do the conversion work are fully booked (and Doncaster seriously behind time with their work)

 

It was planned for IETs to be running to Leeds this month, Newcastle from February, and Edinburgh from May.

With the interference problems, the connecting cables, and I believe other issues, introduction has been put back "until next year", but no indication of when next year and I've heard it could be late next year...

 

Another issue that now seems likely to arise is by the time we do get them, those already trained will be needing to review. The test running's still being done by GBRf.

We've also not heard of any resolution to the problem of the Highland Main Line.

 

Meanwhile the clock's ticking on the HSTs!!

Edited December 10, 2018 by Ken.W

[The Stationmaster]

Something which may or may not be relevant is the way the IETs have been procured.  AIUI the IET design has been specced by the DfT to Hitachi with apparently little industry involvement. It has hitherto been usual for new rolling stock to be procured by a leasing company, with a few exceptions. The usual Roscos have been Angel, Porterbrook and Eversholt (name change ?) More recent Roscos are Beacon and Rock Rail, but the DfT authorised Hitachi class 8xx have been arranged via Agility trains (East) and Agility Trains (West) which I believe are Hitachi companies. The GWR derivitive of the IET for the West Country services is a development of the DfT procured trains and is via a "conventional" Rosco.     

 

And don't forget too that Hitachi have been rumoured in financial circles to be seeking buyers for their share of the Agility Trains companies (who can blame them?)

 

Overall this entire procurement seems to have turned into a mess of pretty epic proportions.  Clearly there have been problems with the specification while the train presentation contract looks as if it was either drawn up by a juvenile or Hitachi are in deep dodo trying to comply with it (or both).  Add in limited power on diesel, reliability problems (hardly unusual with new builds of course but electric trains which can't run on electricity is pretty serious), software shortcomings (again hardly unusual), and what has now emerged as major problems regarding emissions compatibility (lack of) and there are some serious questions to be asked about the entire procurement process and any independent safety and contract assessments (if there were any?).

 

Hardly a good advertisement for state involvement in railway rolling stock procurement if this is supposedly the 'flagship' example.  But how will it all be sorted as the scruffs of several necks need to be grabbed in order that various heads can be banged together, PDQ.

[APOLLO]

Aptly named street in York !!

 

 

Brit15

['CHARD]

And don't forget too that Hitachi have been rumoured in financial circles to be seeking buyers for their share of the Agility Trains companies (who can blame them?)

 

Could be judged a somewhat risky secondary investment, that 

[jamie92208]

Perhaps GWR and LNER could put in a bargain basement bid for Agility Trains and then run the things themselves at considerably lower lease payments than at present.  IIRC the lease payments on the IET's are rumoured to be about double what LNER are paying per coach for the Mk4/91 fleet.

 

Jamie

[Coryton]

Hardly a good advertisement for state involvement in railway rolling stock procurement if this is supposedly the 'flagship' example.  But how will it all be sorted as the scruffs of several necks need to be grabbed in order that various heads can be banged together, PDQ.

 

You will know much better than me, but I suspect that BR would have made a somewhat better job of things.

 

Would it be better to say "direct government" involvement rather than "state"?

[Richard E]

Well, sort of, LNER haven't actually stopped training - yet - there's still a course on atm, however the situation seems to be...

Training has previously be done using Hitachi's sets

This was due to end as LNER are now supposed to have their own sets to use for training

LNER don't have any of their sets yet due to the ORR embargo on further sets being introduced

So Hitachi won't let us play with their trains

 

RTT seems to back this up if I am reading it correctly - the header from 5Q31 today which ran as an LNER service. Timed for 72 minutes from Doncaster to Peterborough with a 9 minute layover at Claypole Loop it actually covered the run in 83 minutes with a 6 minute layover. It returned as 5Q32 leaving PBO at 13:09 arriving in York at 16:03 due to a 38 minute layover in Ranskill Loop and a further 45 minutes at Arksey Loop:

 

 

It is due to return from York to Pbo at 16:09 taking 97 minutes for the journey with a 12 minute layover at Carlton-on-Trent. I assume that all the timings on these, which are considerably slower than the 125/225 timings is down to finding suitable pathing amongst the normal day to day traffic - or is it down to the performance of the sets?

 

Interestingly there are quite a number of paths allocated today, and being used, marked as other users (ZZ) on RTT which are also IEP runs.

[iands]

Aptly named street in York !!

 

 

Brit15

During my time in Railtrack, we had a bit of a reorganization that resulted in the creation of 3 new meeting rooms. A competition was organized for staff to submit suggested "names" for the meeting rooms (rather than just having room numbers). Guess which name was submitted most? Also guess which name was rejected by the management - yep, some people have no sense of humour!

[Coryton]

During my time in Railtrack, we had a bit of a reorganization that resulted in the creation of 3 new meeting rooms. A competition was organized for staff to submit suggested "names" for the meeting rooms (rather than just having room numbers). Guess which name was submitted most? Also guess which name was rejected by the management - yep, some people have no sense of humour!

 

On the other hand, I have had several meetings in the "Albatross" room at a large company which I will not name.

[Covkid]

Perhaps GWR and LNER could put in a bargain basement bid for Agility Trains and then run the things themselves at considerably lower lease payments than at present.  IIRC the lease payments on the IET's are rumoured to be about double what LNER are paying per coach for the Mk4/91 fleet.

 

Jamie

Would you buy anything from these ? Seeing the daily shambles on the Great Western I wouldn't be touching Hitachi products with a bargepole, especially those ticking timebombs built in Pistoia. 

[TravisM]

We've also not heard of any resolution to the problem of the Highland Main Line.

I didn’t realise that they we’re having problems over the Highland mainline?

['CHARD]

I didn’t realise that they we’re having problems over the Highland mainline?

 

Couldn't achieve the required sectional running times during test?

[Ken.W]

I didn’t realise that they we’re having problems over the Highland mainline?

 

Not much, only around 20mph slower than the HSTs over the hills which, it's said, NR have deemed unacceptable - it would clearly cause havoc with other services waiting to cross on the single line sections

 

Edit;

It's been said on here several times, by those that have actually been on them, that 800s on diesel are about as good as an HST on one engine.

 

And HSTs on one engine aren't normally allowed to leave Inverness!!

Edited December 10, 2018 by Ken.W

[caradoc]

If nothing else, hopefully the Class 800 shambles will ensure that in future TOCs are allowed to order stock which suits their needs and is compatible with the routes they are to operate over, without the incompetent hand of DfT meddling at every turn. Hopefully too this whole sorry saga will be fully exposed and explained to the general public.

[TravisM]

Not much, only around 20mph slower than the HSTs over the hills which, it's said, NR have deemed unacceptable - it would clearly cause havoc with other services waiting to cross on the single line sections

Sounds like the whole IET project has become shambolic to say the least. Hitachi must be pulling their hair out with these ongoing issues as Japanese ethics are that products must be good quality and work first time. Forget the “Jap crap” label from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s as Hitachi for one have really upped their game.

[Ken.W]

Couldn't achieve the required sectional running times during test?

 

...and that was with an empty train!

[royaloak]

Sounds like the whole IET project has become shambolic to say the least. Hitachi must be pulling their hair out with these ongoing issues as Japanese ethics are that products must be good quality and work first time. Forget the “Jap crap” label from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s as Hitachi for one have really upped their game.

Have you actually ridden on one of these things?

 

They are thoroughly deserving of the sHitachi nickname!

[jamie92208]

If nothing else, hopefully the Class 800 shambles will ensure that in future TOCs are allowed to order stock which suits their needs and is compatible with the routes they are to operate over, without the incompetent hand of DfT meddling at every turn. Hopefully too this whole sorry saga will be fully exposed and explained to the general public.

 

I can see the squadron of pigs ready fuelled and ready for take off.   I strongly suspect that the people behind this farce will have already moved on to other departments and will probably appear on the next honours list.   Or am I being a tad cynical.

 

Jamie

[Ken.W]

They are thoroughly deserving of the sHitachi nickname!

 

And of the Satsuma one...

 

Rhymes with Azuma...

 

...and a close relative of a lemon!

[Zomboid]

I have, and I couldn't disagree more. I'd much rather an 800 showed up than a GWR HST. Though their lack of performance on diesel is a horrible mistake made somewhere in the procurement process. I can kind of forgive it on the GWML, as that was supposed to be fully electrified when they were specified, but they were always going to Inverness on diesel, and being unable to get over the hills to get there is a very poor showing.

 

Whether it's Hitachi or the DfT at fault for the HML debacle I couldn't say for sure, but if I had to pick one, then the large corporation which has built many, many trains over the years would be the one that I would suggest is more likely to know what it's doing.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Zomboid

[Gwiwer]

Even the GWR ones with uprated diseasal engines are struggling on oil power. Acceleration doesn’t match the HST sets and performance over the Devon banks is very patchy. They also struggle to maintain 125mph.

 

The Highland Main and Aberdeen roads have critical sections of single line (as does the Cornish main line) where any late running stands to upset the entire timetable.

 

One of the original arguments for bi-mode sets was to maintain the through services to points north of Edinburgh with journey times no greater than with the HSTs

 

Trains which cannot achieve that requirement when it was a fundamental requirement are unfit for purpose.

[Coryton]

I have, and I couldn't disagree more. I'd much rather an 800 showed up than a GWR HST. 

 

I will miss the HST's, but from a passenger rather than enthusiast point of view I much prefer the IETs to the GWR HSTs in their current form.

[Coryton]

Even the GWR ones with uprated diseasal engines are struggling on oil power. Acceleration doesn’t match the HST sets and performance over the Devon banks is very patchy. They also struggle to maintain 125mph.

 

The Highland Main and Aberdeen roads have critical sections of single line (as does the Cornish main line) where any late running stands to upset the entire timetable.

 

One of the original arguments for bi-mode sets was to maintain the through services to points north of Edinburgh with journey times no greater than with the HSTs

 

Trains which cannot achieve that requirement when it was a fundamental requirement are unfit for purpose.

 

Though the bi-mode capability did come in handy for other reasons, as it turned out.

 

I would be most interested to know what would have happened on the various occasions when IETs have been restricted to diesel power if they were electric-only. Would we have had a severe shortage of trains, or would a way have been found to keep them running on electric?

[Chris116]

.... Trains which cannot achieve that requirement when it was a fundamental requirement are unfit for purpose.

So the trains match DafT in being unfit for purpose!