Class 800 - Updates

[Oldddudders]

Bedwyn trains run non stop on the fast lines from Paddington to Reading, so a class 1 headcode isn't that outrageous.

One that isn't obvious is the SWR Dorking trains, which run as class 1 for some reason, despite being all stations.

Equally ridiculous, I agree. Especially as they now call at Earlsfield and Vauxhall! The best train I recall from Waterloo was in the 1967 recast, the 17.22, which initially was fast to Motspur Park, Epsom, Dorking. I think it got a Wimbledon stop the next year. At Dorking it was cross-platform with the 17.28 Vic - Bognor, which had come fast from Vic. Commuting was cool in those days!

[Mallard60022]

Hi Phil,

 

If you’d said he was elderly, I would have understood his confusion and wouldn’t have mocked him. As to 800’s dying under the wires, they are all fitted with a engine or engines so they can get themselves out of trouble (even the pure electric ones) should it arise.

Understood thank you.

………...and if the engine(s) are dead as well, unlikely but possible?

[Coryton]

Understood thank you.

………...and if the engine(s) are dead as well, unlikely but possible?

 

While an engine failure at the same time as an overhead power failure might be unlikely, I'm sure there are plenty of other things that could disable a train and require rescue. The train (mis?)management system for one, perhaps.

[Mallard60022]

So, is there a strategy for rescuing disabled 800s? I'm only asking as several folk on here seem to be 'in the business'.

Thanks

Phil

[Banger Blue]

So, is there a strategy for rescuing disabled 800s? I'm only asking as several folk on here seem to be 'in the business'.

Thanks

Phil

On the GW side of things, the 57/6 can be used to rescue the IETs.

 

I think I may have posted these photos before on this thread (or maybe another) but will post again as relevant:

 

Taken during the coupling trials at Reading TCD

 

 

 

 

 

edited to add pics

Edited December 23, 2018 by Banger Blue

[St. Simon]

So, is there a strategy for rescuing disabled 800s? I'm only asking as several folk on here seem to be 'in the business'.

Thanks

Phil

Hi,

 

I don't know of a specific strategy, but I do know they have tested using various combinations of units to rescue each other.

 

I suppose that a couple of 66s, or any loco modified with Dellner Couplings (like the GBRF one used to haul the units for test) might be useful.

 

Simon

[4630]

No doubt “lessons will be learned” when one of these inevitably sits down, probably at the most inconvenient location, on the mainline.

[Gwiwer]

On the GW side of things, the 57/6 can be used to rescue the IETs.

 

In theory yes.  But with only four in the fleet and two of those tied up on overnight work (therefore of necessity at Penzance and Reading by day), the third required for the e.c.s. moves between Paddington and Reading and the fourth usually undergoing maintenance at Long Rock the chances of having one to hand, plus a qualified driver, at the right place and time to assist an 8xx would have to be fairly slim.  

[Banger Blue]

In theory yes.  But with only four in the fleet and two of those tied up on overnight work (therefore of necessity at Penzance and Reading by day), the third required for the e.c.s. moves between Paddington and Reading and the fourth usually undergoing maintenance at Long Rock the chances of having one to hand, plus a qualified driver, at the right place and time to assist an 8xx would have to be fairly slim.

 

Doesn’t necessarily need to be in the right place or time, there have been several instances recently of the 57s being launched from either Long Rock or Reading for a rescue mission (not IETs as it happens):

 

57306 & a 57/6 were used to clear stranded units after the big dewirement involving 802016.

One of the Night Riveria failures this year, somewhere in the South West, saw a 57 running all the way from Reading to rescue the train.

One of the 57s from Penzance, rescued a 66 hauled DB China clay train somewhere in the South West (see below, not my pic):

 

[jjb1970]

Is the 80x fleet any different from just about every other passenger train in terms of what happens if one fails? And the 80x trains do have the emergency diesel capability.

[phil-b259]

Is the 80x fleet any different from just about every other passenger train in terms of what happens if one fails? And the 80x trains do have the emergency diesel capability.

 

Nope

 

First choice is usually another unit of the same class as the couplers are the same and no need to mess round with adaptors. With some units this is deliberately factored into their design as if a 12 car 700 fails then can be rescued by an 8 car 700

 

With the replacement of the HST fleet by 800 series units, there will usually be one not that far away which can be commandeered for rescue purposes

 

Of course if the incident is a dewirment or displaced / iced up con rail then this is not an option - but most unit failures are not usually that catastrophic.

Edited December 23, 2018 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

No doubt “lessons will be learned” when one of these inevitably sits down, probably at the most inconvenient location, on the mainline.

 

One has sat down, fairly seriously, near Exeter a while back and dealing with it suggests that lessons should not only be learned but should have been thought about in the first place as it was a total shambles including - eventually - detraining the passengers onto the ground (where there's a relatively high ballast shoulder) to walk to the rescue train because there was nothing that could be used to drag the failed unit.  That was the day they realised the implication of the inability to assist assist an 802 with an 800.

Is the 80x fleet any different from just about every other passenger train in terms of what happens if one fails? And the 80x trains do have the emergency diesel capability.

 

If it's a dead duck, which can happen when it's already on diesel you need several things -

1. Something which can physically couple to it - see earlier posts re the 57s and where they are located (plus they will need a Driver on duty and ready to go)

2. That something also has to be able to release, and subsequently apply, the brakes on the failed train.

3. If another 80X unit is used it also has to be control software compatible, as far as moving it is concerned, with the dead one.

 

I think the failure 'in the south west' referred to by 'Banger Blue' is the one I have mentioned above - it takes quite a while to get anything, but especially a light engine, from Reading to Devon and that assumes there was also a Driver immediately to hand at Reading and someone to conduct him over the road he didn't know or to obtain a Driver who did know the 57 and the road to where the dead train was sitting.

 

Back in the '90s I used to make my then employer some good money hiring out suitable kit to shift auto coupler EMUs which nobody else in the vicinity good do because they didn't have the right couplings to attach to the EMU - it was what could be called a 'hirer's market' and it was 100% mine (although I didn't overcharge, but we definitely made a 'reasonable profit' on the deal).

[rodent279]

One has sat down, fairly seriously, near Exeter a while back and dealing with it suggests that lessons should not only be learned but should have been thought about in the first place as it was a total shambles including - eventually - detraining the passengers onto the ground (where there's a relatively high ballast shoulder) to walk to the rescue train because there was nothing that could be used to drag the failed unit.  That was the day they realised the implication of the inability to assist assist an 802 with an 800.

 

If it's a dead duck, which can happen when it's already on diesel you need several things -

1. Something which can physically couple to it - see earlier posts re the 57s and where they are located (plus they will need a Driver on duty and ready to go)

2. That something also has to be able to release, and subsequently apply, the brakes on the failed train.

3. If another 80X unit is used it also has to be control software compatible, as far as moving it is concerned, with the dead one.

 

I think the failure 'in the south west' referred to by 'Banger Blue' is the one I have mentioned above - it takes quite a while to get anything, but especially a light engine, from Reading to Devon and that assumes there was also a Driver immediately to hand at Reading and someone to conduct him over the road he didn't know or to obtain a Driver who did know the 57 and the road to where the dead train was sitting.

 

Back in the '90s I used to make my then employer some good money hiring out suitable kit to shift auto coupler EMUs which nobody else in the vicinity good do because they didn't have the right couplings to attach to the EMU - it was what could be called a 'hirer's market' and it was 100% mine (although I didn't overcharge, but we definitely made a 'reasonable profit' on the deal).

 

Why did BR & it's successors never standardise on one type of autocoupler for emu's & dmu's? It's the battle of the gauges/electrification sytems/brakes all over again! 

[phil-b259]

 

3. If another 80X unit is used it also has to be control software compatible, as far as moving it is concerned, with the dead one.

 

 

Protocols exist for pushing / pulling failed units as 'swingers' if necessary. For example the later versions of the Electrostar (387s)  EMUs cannot work with early versions (377s and 375s) on account of software differences.

 

However....

 

The coupling heads are still the same on all variants so its entirely possible to couple up to clear a dead unit off the line (even if that means proceeding at caution etc)

[phil-b259]

Why did BR & it's successors never standardise on one type of autocoupler for emu's & dmu's? It's the battle of the gauges/electrification sytems/brakes all over again! 

 

They did as far as Regional Railwaysis concerned!

 

All Pacers and Sprinters have identical BSI couplers - as do some of the post privatisation 170s

[Covkid]

Is the 80x fleet any different from just about every other passenger train in terms of what happens if one fails? And the 80x trains do have the emergency diesel capability.

 

I think the big problem with the IETs is the "command and control" structure of them is radically different to what the crew are used to. The traincrew are familar with HSTs which are basically a set of slam door mk3s with a "mini" class 56 on each end. No computers and TMS to confuse - just bulbs, LEDS and gauges. The moment you introduce significantly new equipment to the workplace it is likely initially to create unsuredness and niggling doubt.

 

I have heard that the incident at Hele & Bradninch involved a pair of practically brand new trains, of which one left the factory with a "ticking timebomb" - a loose union in the air system. So the train ground to a halt in the middle of nowhere and had a loss of air which mean the brakes don't release.  What would be going through the driver's mind when he was scrolling through pages of TMS data in the cab.  The last thing he would assume is that the train was delivered with a faulty air system, so he would be trying to find all the more obvious reasons why there was an air problem.

 

Obviously months on from that incident and the quirks of the trains (oh yes there are with all trains) have been discovered and briefed out to the instructors and managers. Managing a failure on a new train though is hugely different to your "mini" pointy end class 56s !!! 

[JJGraphics]

Went to from Reading to Cardiff on an HST last Tuesday:

• Clean
• Quiet
• Smooth ride
• On time

Came back on an 800 on Friday, my first 800 experience:

• Reservation system not working; traditional seat-back tickets in use, with a few mis-placed and missing as there were a number of minor disputes over seat occupancy
• Some seat upholstery already looking grubby with one having a partly-collapsed cushion
• Dirty windows
• Continuous annoying, rumbling vibration from under the floor whether the train was moving or not, which I could feel through my feet and my seat (seated in leading driving car, so probably Airconditioning-related)
• Some tremendous shocks transmitted though the floor and my seat over points and crossings, even at relatively low speeds
• Surprisingly noisy, generally rough ride, especially at higher speeds with a sickening vertical bouncing motion over some sections of track
• Sundry squeaks and rattles audible
• Seats like a park bench – my back felt like I had been beaten with a stick after I got off at Reading; I was so relieved to ride in the relative comfort and quietness of SWT 450 for the journey to my local station from Reading
• Late departure from Cardiff; late arrival at Reading
• Badly-voiced announcements with poor pronunciation which were fragmented and in some cases illogical

What a shambles the 800s are. I will not be in a hurry to travel on one again; thankfully it is my choice whether to do so or not. The 390s on the West Coast are far superior IMHO and the two Vomiters I went to Birmingham and back on the week before don't seem so bad after the 800 experience . . . except the toilets!

 

John

Edited December 24, 2018 by JJGraphics

[frobisher]

They did as far as Regional Railwaysis concerned!

 

All Pacers and Sprinters have identical BSI couplers - as do some of the post privatisation 170s

Also almost all second gen EMU's built by BR had Tightlock couplings. It went a bit dolally when the first new fleets were commissioned, but everything now seems to have settled down to using Delner (or compatible) couplers now.

[jim.snowdon]

Protocols exist for pushing / pulling failed units as 'swingers' if necessary. For example the later versions of the Electrostar (387s)  EMUs cannot work with early versions (377s and 375s) on account of software differences.

I wonder whose bright idea that was?

 

At least, under BR, and to a large extent the SR before that, the MU capabilities of the fleet had been rationalised to only a few standard types so that large groups of similar stock would couple together.

 

Then again, when I was involved with the procurement of the DLR B90 stock, GEC would not release the MU control details for the P stock, so we were never able to couple the two stocks together.

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

I wonder whose bright idea that was?

 

At least, under BR, and to a large extent the SR before that, the MU capabilities of the fleet had been rationalised to only a few standard types so that large groups of similar stock would couple together.

 

Then again, when I was involved with the procurement of the DLR B90 stock, GEC would not release the MU control details for the P stock, so we were never able to couple the two stocks together.

 

Jim

 

Its nobodies 'Bright idea' - its all to do with how fast computing technology evolves.

 

The first batch of Electrostars were running round with an embedded version of Windows 95! - and probably still are, while the latest batch built for the GWR will not only be be running something more modern software wise, the hardware it runs on will be light years away from installed on the first Electrostars.

 

Oh and before you say 'why not upgrade the software' - that is quite likely to involve new computing hardware (you try running Windows 95 on a machine built for Windows 10 or vi-sa-versa) - which in turn has to be tested and approved by the Vehicle Acceptance Bodies before you can roll it out across the fleet.

 

The thing is unlike computers, people don't go round 'updating' programmes for trains and demanding you move to the next version so there is no need to move on in technology terms. However given time you will find it impossible to obtain the required computer chips and software as the computing industry declares them 'obsolete' so you have to move on to the next generation for new builds.

 

Finally you need to actually have a look at the failure rates. Given engineers don't usually design things to fail you are better off focusing their engines of preventing problems occurring rather than worrying about rescue capabilities - particularly when on densely operated main lines there will usually be another unit with the same coupling (and software once the initial issues have been sorted) to rescue a dud. True that is not yet the case with the 800s pn the FWR - but neither was it when the Desiros were first introduced on the SWML or the 377s on the BML.

Edited December 24, 2018 by phil-b259

[royaloak]

Having had our first taste of 80x yesterday, it really wasn’t too bad. We had disembarked from a cruise at Southampton, so 221 to Reading and change into 10.03 Paddington - Penzance seemed reasonable, and probably better than the alternative GWR service changing at Bristol TM suggested by Journey Planner. “Any Reasonable” routing is obviously rather elastic these days. Sadly the poor 80x had had some sort of door problem, so was 8’ LS, but then lost its path and was behind a DMU going to Bedwyn, thus being about 14’ late from Reading. [How can anything going to Bedwyn possibly have a Class 1 train ID? 1K08 or some such, I think. Ridiculous, but fits well with Gerry Fiennes discovery 60 years ago that at Reading “Sir, we do not blow whistles at passengers from Newbury!”] Thus we lost more time before passing the DMU, and were 16’ or more late getting to Cogload. Implausibly the XC Manchester - Paignton we were booked to precede was held at Taunton to follow us, so we connected into that at Newton Abbot for Torquay. Comfort levels were reasonable and the coffee was ok. But effective catering seems to be lacking in these units?

I was in the cab of your train but sadly not your chauffeur, we were both shocked to see the Bedwyn in Towney loop (now passenger rated) and the Cross Country on the down relief at Taunton, unfortunately there was a 166 on the Down Main so we had to use the Down Passenger Loop at Taunton meaning slowing to 50 instead of running through at a 100.

 

If you are wondering about the slow crawl along platform 7 at Reading, it is caused by the ATP having a release speed of 15mph for the IET (10mph for a HST) at the transfer deck due to the proximity of the (red) signal to the points for the bays, we think it is a pain in the arris as well, a nice quick (50mph) set of points into Platform 7 but a ridiculously slow release speed meaning we have to slow down far too early to ensure the brake isnt dumped on us losing the advantage of the (reasonably) high speed points.

Edited December 25, 2018 by royaloak

[Talltim]

Its nobodies 'Bright idea' - its all to do with how fast computing technology evolves.

 

The first batch of Electrostars were running round with an embedded version of Windows 95! - and probably still are, while the latest batch built for the GWR will not only be be running something more modern software wise, the hardware it runs on will be light years away from installed on the first Electrostars.

 

Oh and before you say 'why not upgrade the software' - that is quite likely to involve new computing hardware (you try running Windows 95 on a machine built for Windows 10 or vi-sa-versa) - which in turn has to be tested and approved by the Vehicle Acceptance Bodies before you can roll it out across the fleet.

 

The thing is unlike computers, people don't go round 'updating' programmes for trains and demanding you move to the next version so there is no need to move on in technology terms. However given time you will find it impossible to obtain the required computer chips and software as the computing industry declares them 'obsolete' so you have to move on to the next generation for new builds.

 

Finally you need to actually have a look at the failure rates. Given engineers don't usually design things to fail you are better off focusing their engines of preventing problems occurring rather than worrying about rescue capabilities - particularly when on densely operated main lines there will usually be another unit with the same coupling (and software once the initial issues have been sorted) to rescue a dud. True that is not yet the case with the 800s pn the FWR - but neither was it when the Desiros were first introduced on the SWML or the 377s on the BML.

But you can still network a W95 computer with a W10 one, or with a new or old Mac or Linux PC, or a phone, or Rasberry Pi, etc. There are standards which still apply, they have been added to but the basics remain the same. The devices may do the function differently internally, but the their external communications are the same.

The older train should be able to control all the functions on the new train that the older train has. As new functions are introduced (eg door interlock, bodyside CCTV, reservation systems, etc) these should have new standards created, overlaid on the base standards.

There is no reason why a new train shouldn’t be able to couple to a 20 year old train and be able to control the basics needed to get it in the move (at full line speed, not just talking recovery) except sheer ineptitude in planning and specification.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Talltim

[jim.snowdon]

Exactly. What matters are the communication protocols between them, and how the various train control functions are disposed on the coupler heads (always assuming that the electrical coupler heads line up - try coupling a Siemens 707 to a Siemens 450). It is even possible to make 1960s era camshaft control gear multiple with 2010s solid state traction equipment (original and re-equipped 455s), although there are other reasons for not doing so in normal operation.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

If you are wondering about the slow crawl along platform 7 at Reading, it is caused by the ATP having a release speed of 15mph for the IET (10mph for a HST) at the transfer deck due to the proximity of the (red) signal to the points for the bays, we think it is a pain in the arris as well, a nice quick (50mph) set of points into Platform 7 but a ridiculously slow release speed meaning we have to slow down far too early to ensure the brake isnt dumped on us losing the advantage of the (reasonably) high speed points.

A consequence, possibly, of track engineers, signal engineers and operators not talking to each other in a joined up manner during the design stages, with the designated project engineer being almost certainly a specialist in one discipline, not necessarily even one of the three mentioned.

 

Jim

[royaloak]

It would be nice if we were told what the release speeds are and where they take effect, we only find out by trial and error, which leads to lots of paperwork.