Class 800 - Updates

[Coryton]

23 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

And Adelantes and Voyagers have passenger accommodation for the full length of the end vehicles (excepting the cab of course).

 

Not quite the full length. Voyagers have a small storage area between the cab and the passenger door - the cab door doesn't open straight into the vestibule.

 

And 180s (unlike the 175s) do not have a passenger door at the cab end of the driving vehicles so again there is a (small) non-passenger area.

 

17 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Wasn't this essentially part of the whole principle behind the choice of 91 + Mk4 operation for the ECML in the first place, as well as original suggestions for the IET being a purely electric train with diesel haulage beyond the wires? (Shades of the Southern's operations to Weymouth before the third rail was extended.)

 

 

I don't recall any plans for 91's to be replaced with diesel locomotives beyond the wires, though I could be wrong.

 

What I remember is the argument that while a dedicated passenger unit such as the APT made sense when it was designed, the railway had moved on and having power cars sitting idle all night was no longer acceptable to the modern, efficient, railway and they needed locomotives so they could be taken off to haul freight (and sleeper trains) at night.

 

How things change...

 

[Coryton]

Just now, royaloak said:

All reservations are for IET whether the train is booked one or not, hence HST coaches D and E being changed to H and J they have been like that for months.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong that they make all reservations for IETs, but the fact that the HST coach letters were changed could have been just to reduce the impact of a set change.

 

 

[royaloak]

On 03/03/2019 at 22:19, Banger Blue said:

I’ve also overheard plenty of positive comments whilst onboard the ‘new trains’ so let’s not try and make out the whole populace hate them!

 

i’m quite sure that if these weren’t replacing the HST, there wouldn’t be half the ‘hysteria’ that does follow them!

I have also received positive comments from passengers, one while I was leaning over the nose trying to fix the wiper, ironic.

[Afroal05]

 

On 01/03/2019 at 00:00, royaloak said:

If GWR were responsible for the diagramming then fine, unfortunately (in the case of the 800s) they arent and any deviation from the booked diagram has to be agreed with HRE who will only agree it if the necessary funds are passed across.

 

Once again I am reading many many posts about things a joined up railway would do in a heart beat, unfortunately the railways are far from 'joined up' these days so these simple things are not possible to arrange in the timescales/budgets available, we now have the situation where trains are booked to arrive onto a depot at 03:00 and HRE are diagramming them to leave at 03:40 which is impossible, and despite there being 3 other sets sat spare in the sidings they refused to allow a set swap, end result train cancelled, but hey what do I know!

 

GWR are definitely responsible for the diagramming and can deviate from the LTP. However there are contractual obligations to get sets onto a certain depot (NP or SG) every 36hrs or 1500 miles. For the Whiteball blockade some of the diagrams have been written from scratch so there is definitely some deviation it's just that there are much stricter criteria. Previously if there was disruption and a set destined for Old Oak ended up out-stabling in Temple Meads for the night then all you had to do was make sure it had enough fuel. That doesn't cut it anymore if that IET will now miss its maintenance window.

 

Once GWR have completed their STP diagrams they are then sent to Hitachi's 'CPC' - Central Planning Cell - who then ear mark a set to a diagram. The depot may then do something completely different of course and that is what causes sets to arrive at 03:00 and then need to leave again at 03:40. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Afroal05

[Afroal05]

9 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

I'm not saying you're wrong that they make all reservations for IETs, but the fact that the HST coach letters were changed could have been just to reduce the impact of a set change.

 

 

 

The letters were indeed changed to better tie up with IET lettering and reservations.

[royaloak]

On 04/03/2019 at 08:27, HillsideDepot said:

 

More than that, GWR took the decision that, from a passenger point of view, an 802 should look just like an 800, including the catering capability. I've had conversations with the managers concerned who stated that well before the first 802 was delivered.

GWR were originally going to have a proper buffet but after many phone calls from DaFT hinting it would be a good idea if we had a fully compatible fleet the decision was changed, and bearing in mind how FGW were put on the naughty step when First Group purchased some HST sets back in 2003 because DaFT wouldnt let them lease them I can understand why GWR complied with the 'request'.

 

[royaloak]

21 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

The impression I got, from front-line staff rather than any “official” source, is that GWR intend to work with what they’ve got rather than make changes to trains they don’t own. 

 

You may interpret that as you wish but my version is that the existing kitchen area may become a serving area at the risk of upsetting first class customers when the standard ones walk through, queue and return. 

 

I suspect that will be argued to be safer than a trolley on busy trains and will permit the sale of hot snacks. There already is capacity to stock sandwiches etc. but the trolleys have no chilled holding area so cannot display them.  My experience has been that very little food is offered on WoE IETs but Bristol and South Wales trips usually have at least one variety of sandwich. 

 

Who ever signed off on the design seems to have little understanding of customer needs. Paddington - Bristol is a quite short trip these days as is Cardiff. But Plymouth and all points west remain a rather more remote from London with travel times up to (and sometimes exceeding) six hours. 

 

If Pullman dining is good enough for the few (and when it has been provided it has been very good) then the rest should at least be able to do better than hope for a cup of coffee once in six hours if the trolley passes through. 

The only 'improvement' I have heard about is each train having more trolleys so they can get get through more often, I understand one trolley per 2 coaches is what they are hoping for.

[bgman]

Two shots taken last Saturday at Exeter Central of a Paddington bound set being diverted due to engineering work around Taunton.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by bgman

[royaloak]

13 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

They are also not reliably Dawlish-proof. 

< Pedant mode on>

 

The IETs were never designed to be Dawlish proof, only Dawlish RESISTANT, when I asked (on many occasions) what the difference was nobody has answered, but I guess they are arriving at Newton Abbot with engines shut down and/or suffering door faults because of salt water ingress around the door seal (using the term loosely) I think we can work out the answer for our selves.

 

<pedant mode off> 

[royaloak]

13 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

 

Easier in the old old days when 50ps were much thicker. 

 

 

Its because of crash worthiness. The regulations say you can’t have any passengers in the front 1/3rd of the first coach of a train going 125mph+. So you have to have an empty 1/3rd at each end of the train. So it becomes the logical place to put a kitchen to feed first class at seat meals and bike stowage at the other end. Of course the Pendolinos still have a shop in the middle of third (sorry, standard) class, so things are better than on an IEP. 

 

Edit: apparently this is my 500th post. I’d like to thank my family, the mods, Andy Y.....

What about at the other end of the train where it is full of Standard class seats?

 

Congratulations n reaching 500 posts.

[royaloak]

1 hour ago, Afroal05 said:

 

I think that's more to do with putting more stops into some services, at present GWR don't have any non stop runs to Swindon or Chippenham which they've historically had (although they are on the horizon when the timetable goes full IET). Certainly when it comes to services west of Plymouth I think the opinion is it's better to provide more services to intermediate stations than save a few minutes for a headline time.

 

 

They go no faster on diesel. True within the Thames Valley they can struggle to get above about 120mph on diesel but they should all be on electric within the 125mph sections. Their performance against HSTs there is excellent and they accelerate considerably faster. Some services between Swindon and Bristol Parkway when on the wires can make up 7 minutes and have to sit at Parkway/Swindon awaiting departure time. GWR's PPM and right time figures have improved with IETs running on HST timings. Clearly that won't be the case for much longer as the timetable will be recast reflecting the IETs timings.

 

I don't think there have been any major issues with 802s slipping about on Hemerdon either but I take your point that in inclement weather in the Highlands they are as yet unproven.

Um okay, you can put your IET appreciation membership card away now.

 

IETs are indeed faster up to about 35/40mph but then the acceleration tails off, they are then equal with a HST up about 60 when the HST out performs an IET up to 125mph.

 

I would love to see some comparative 0-60 times so we can put this 'IETs are faster than HSTs' to bed once and for all, they are not.

Climbing Hemerdon bank (line speed 80), both from the 60 at the bottom running on green signals with good railhead, all engines working, power handle yanked open etc etc, a HST will still  be doing about 65 at the top and will have to be throttled back near the top to allow the speed to fall back for the 60 at Hemerdon loop, an IET will be doing about 56 or 57mph over the crest and will be kept wide open until the speed climbs back up to 60 which is normally well into the 60 section. as the acceleration is so poor in that speed range.

[royaloak]

53 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

I'm not saying you're wrong that they make all reservations for IETs, but the fact that the HST coach letters were changed could have been just to reduce the impact of a set change.

 

 

It was for reservation reasons, on a HST coaches D and E are standard class but on an 5 coach IET they are First class so when an IET turns up the Standard class passenger with a reservation in D or E is entitled to take their allocated seat.

 

You have to remember that during the introduction the trains worked by IETs have changed, going from a HST to an IET, than a few months later when more IETs enter service it goes back to being a HST, 1A72 0553 Plymouth to Paddington and 1A73 0529 Plymouth to Paddington being prime examples which spring instantly to mind, thats before we get onto the HST vice IET examples.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, royaloak said:

GWR were originally going to have a proper buffet but after many phone calls from DaFT hinting it would be a good idea if we had a fully compatible fleet the decision was changed, and bearing in mind how FGW were put on the naughty step when First Group purchased some HST sets back in 2003 because DaFT wouldnt let them lease them I can understand why GWR complied with the 'request'.

 

 

One can see that there are operational and financial benefits to having a larger fleet of identical trains. It's the low-cost airline methodology.

 

Works fine where all the journeys are of similar length. But that is not the case on GWR and why my friends from Bodmin nearly always take the plane from Newquay rather than the train.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I know that I will get told off again for this, but.....

 

Are there really that many passengers who travel through from Kings Cross and other ECML stations to the Highlands? It seems such a waste to me to have units such as 802s climbing slowly through the Highlands when they could be better deployed further south. Would it really discourage so many passengers if they had to change at Waverley, a very convenient station to change at with no overbridges or subways to tackle?

Having only done the trip in summer time, which is no doubt the peak period, the amount of through travel is considerable.  When we travelled back southwards the vehicle we were in was pretty full before we left Inverness and there was a relatively small turnover of passengers at Edinburgh.  The majority who had joined  from Perth northwards in that vehicle travelled a good way into England with most going all the way to London.

 

As far as HD ST journey times on the former WR are concerned there have been a number of changes since the early days which have increased journey.  Running times have been slackened by a noticeable amount between Reading and Paddington (in both directions) to improve reliability and in the Up direction to improve overall punctuality ('Charter Time').  But sets can, and do, still achieve the original time although that suggests that something which should happen might not necessarily be happening.  I have yet to travel on an 80X in the Down direction (running on electric power) which has equalled the best HST achievements - rare tho' the latter were.

 

Similarly overall in the timetable timings were slackened out partly by 'Charter Time' but also, again. to improve reliability and of course the further a train travels the greater the impact of that.  Also on the West of England stopping patterns have changed as well with Tiverton Parkway seeing far more trains calling than was ever the case at Tiverton Junction.

 

I would agree about 80X early arrivals in the Down direction at Bristol Parkway although not by as much as 7 minutes in my experience and of course the dwell times at Parkway are pretty generous which increases the impression that the train has been running well.  In fact as trains have booked net running time, start-to-stop,  of 24 minutes for the 34 miles between Swindon and Parkway to arrive 7 minutes early indicates an average start-to-stop speed of 120 mph which I would suggest is unachievable if all permanent restrictions of speed are observed, there being less than 20 miles of the total distance cleared for 125mph running (although my electronic Sectional Appendix is not wholly up to date).  I suspect that information might have come from electronic sources.

[Zomboid]

How big would a dedicated fleet for the Plymouth line be?

Operationally the benefits of them all being the same and interchangeable are pretty clear. But if only the 802s are up to the job then there has to be a dedicated fleet anyhow.

 

Any feedback yet specifically on whether 802s are actually up to the job? The pathetic nature of an 800 is well documented, of course... And are 802s needed to do the job on the Cotswold routes?

[Afroal05]

59 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Um okay, you can put your IET appreciation membership card away now.

 

IETs are indeed faster up to about 35/40mph but then the acceleration tails off, they are then equal with a HST up about 60 when the HST out performs an IET up to 125mph.

 

I would love to see some comparative 0-60 times so we can put this 'IETs are faster than HSTs' to bed once and for all, they are not.

Climbing Hemerdon bank (line speed 80), both from the 60 at the bottom running on green signals with good railhead, all engines working, power handle yanked open etc etc, a HST will still  be doing about 65 at the top and will have to be throttled back near the top to allow the speed to fall back for the 60 at Hemerdon loop, an IET will be doing about 56 or 57mph over the crest and will be kept wide open until the speed climbs back up to 60 which is normally well into the 60 section. as the acceleration is so poor in that speed range.

 

I most certainly didn't say I was a fan! The HSTs aren't coming back and we have to accept the reality that IETs are here to stay, I'm not saying you can't complain about them but that if I share an opinion to the contrary or try to be positive when the majority seems to be negative it doesn't make me an IET fan. They have their pros and they have their cons.

 

Based on how late running IETs can be seen to claw back time when the line ahead is fairly clear then whether or not an HST can hold them over 60 appears to be of little consequence. Also is your assertion on acceleration based on diesel vs diesel? Are they faster with the pan up or is an HST better regardless? (I don't know, that's a genuine question).

New Sectional Running Times are going to be taken (or already have been) and journey times are going to be timetabled to be less. From that I think the opinion of some is that they're quicker.

 

Your Hemerdon comparison is interesting! I suppose on balance you don't actually lose much time over there though, it's not noticeable from a timeliness point of view. I did try to find out what the restrictions are on 802s going over Hemerdon with engines shut down (in the same vein that an HST in inclement conditions on one engine either doesn't call at Totnes or doesn't go at all) and it turns out there aren't really any. That's not because they're deemed okay to run up there with only one engine - although they were tested to do so - but that there isn't a set rule.

 

 

[Afroal05]

10 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I would agree about 80X early arrivals in the Down direction at Bristol Parkway although not by as much as 7 minutes in my experience and of course the dwell times at Parkway are pretty generous which increases the impression that the train has been running well.  In fact as trains have booked net running time, start-to-stop,  of 24 minutes for the 34 miles between Swindon and Parkway to arrive 7 minutes early indicates an average start-to-stop speed of 120 mph which I would suggest is unachievable if all permanent restrictions of speed are observed, there being less than 20 miles of the total distance cleared for 125mph running (although my electronic Sectional Appendix is not wholly up to date).  I suspect that information might have come from electronic sources.

 

I believe the first train in passenger service using the wires on the Down was reported in Control to have arrived at Parkway 7 minutes early although I wasn't on it so cannot say that was an accurate platform to platform time and not a report through TRUST.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Afroal05

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I know that I will get told off again for this, but.....

 

Are there really that many passengers who travel through from Kings Cross and other ECML stations to the Highlands? It seems such a waste to me to have units such as 802s climbing slowly through the Highlands when they could be better deployed further south. Would it really discourage so many passengers if they had to change at Waverley, a very convenient station to change at with no overbridges or subways to tackle?

 

You are ignoring the POLITICAL angle - and I emphasise that word deliberately.

 

What prevents the 'all change at Edinburgh' from happening is not the desires of the TOCs or Network Rail (both of whom would welcome simpler train service patterns for a variety of reasons), its the political backlash such a situation would provoke.

 

As with many things under the control of Westminster, any attempts to force something on Scotland which the Scottish Government haven't come up with themselves will be fiercely resisted and portrayed as the English / UK Government riding roughshod over the will of the Scottish people (even though said Scottish people are massively subsidised by English taxpayers thanks to the Barnett Formula).

 

Therefore regardless of the inferior climbing ability of the 800s, through services from London to Aberdeen and Inverness will remain with NR and the TOCs given the problems of actually providing it....

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by phil-b259

[Joseph_Pestell]

23 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You are ignoring the POLITICAL angle - and I emphasise that word deliberately.

 

What prevents the 'all change at Edinburgh' from happening is not the desires of the TOCs or Network Rail (both of whom would welcome simpler train service patterns for a variety of reasons), its the political backlash such a situation would provoke.

 

As with many things under the control of Westminster, any attempts to force something on Scotland which the Scottish Government haven't come up with themselves will be fiercely resisted and portrayed as the English / UK Government riding roughshod over the will of the Scottish people (even though said Scottish people are massively subsidised by English taxpayers thanks to the Barnett Formula).

 

Therefore regardless of the inferior climbing ability of the 800s, through services from London to Aberdeen and Inverness will remain with MR and the TOCs given the problems of actually providing it....

 

 

I am always conscious of political aspects.

 

It would be interesting, in that context, to know if the through traffic to/from the ECML to the Highlands is English folk visiting Scotland or Scots visiting England.

[The Stationmaster]

48 minutes ago, Afroal05 said:

 

I most certainly didn't say I was a fan! The HSTs aren't coming back and we have to accept the reality that IETs are here to stay, I'm not saying you can't complain about them but that if I share an opinion to the contrary or try to be positive when the majority seems to be negative it doesn't make me an IET fan. They have their pros and they have their cons.

 

Based on how late running IETs can be seen to claw back time when the line ahead is fairly clear then whether or not an HST can hold them over 60 appears to be of little consequence. Also is your assertion on acceleration based on diesel vs diesel? Are they faster with the pan up or is an HST better regardless? (I don't know, that's a genuine question).

New Sectional Running Times are going to be taken (or already have been) and journey times are going to be timetabled to be less. From that I think the opinion of some is that they're quicker.

 

Your Hemerdon comparison is interesting! I suppose on balance you don't actually lose much time over there though, it's not noticeable from a timeliness point of view. I did try to find out what the restrictions are on 802s going over Hemerdon with engines shut down (in the same vein that an HST in inclement conditions on one engine either doesn't call at Totnes or doesn't go at all) and it turns out there aren't really any. That's not because they're deemed okay to run up there with only one engine - although they were tested to do so - but that there isn't a set rule.

 

 

The big problem with the 800s running on diesel is that in lots of places they can't maintain HST point-to-point times, even on good rail conditions and with reasonable weather.  But they don't lose too much on the public times because they are  basically using recovery and circle time in order to show what equates to punctual running.  All it needs is one TROS in the wrong place and they'll be losing time even on public TT bookings.

 

I haven't had the opportunity to detail time 802s and haven't experienced them on the West of England route (either way) but somebody driving them ought to have a pretty good idea how their performance compares with an HST in similar running conditions as far as rail condition and weather are concerned.  Judging by one trip on one from Cardiff I got the impression that they do perform better on diesel than an 800 but what I didn't do was time it through the Severn Tunnel where all the 800s I have timed have been incapable of achieving the HST point-to-point times through the tunnel in either direction. 

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, royaloak said:

GWR were originally going to have a proper buffet but after many phone calls from DaFT hinting it would be a good idea if we had a fully compatible fleet the decision was changed, and bearing in mind how FGW were put on the naughty step when First Group purchased some HST sets back in 2003 because DaFT wouldnt let them lease them I can understand why GWR complied with the 'request'.

 

 

Not unexpected information.

 

Again I remind folk that with all things IEP / IET /class 800 / class 802 / etc what we have got is largely down to the DfT who not only specified directly - or as in the case of the 802s heavily leaned on the TOC to achieve what ministers / civil servants in Whitehall wanted in terms of fit out, but also were able to ensure the IET solution was the only one going when it came to letting new franchise / management contracts.

 

Oh for the days of BR when such mandarins could be told to get lost and leave the finer details of railway running (including rolling stock development / fit out) to the professionals

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Afroal05 said:

 

I most certainly didn't say I was a fan! The HSTs aren't coming back and we have to accept the reality that IETs are here to stay, I'm not saying you can't complain about them but that if I share an opinion to the contrary or try to be positive when the majority seems to be negative it doesn't make me an IET fan. They have their pros and they have their cons.

 

Based on how late running IETs can be seen to claw back time when the line ahead is fairly clear then whether or not an HST can hold them over 60 appears to be of little consequence. Also is your assertion on acceleration based on diesel vs diesel? Are they faster with the pan up or is an HST better regardless? (I don't know, that's a genuine question).

New Sectional Running Times are going to be taken (or already have been) and journey times are going to be timetabled to be less. From that I think the opinion of some is that they're quicker.

 

Your Hemerdon comparison is interesting! I suppose on balance you don't actually lose much time over there though, it's not noticeable from a timeliness point of view. I did try to find out what the restrictions are on 802s going over Hemerdon with engines shut down (in the same vein that an HST in inclement conditions on one engine either doesn't call at Totnes or doesn't go at all) and it turns out there aren't really any. That's not because they're deemed okay to run up there with only one engine - although they were tested to do so - but that there isn't a set rule.

 

 

 

You raise an interesting point here. Given that 800/802s perform so much better under the wires than on diesel, would it be worth doing further electrification in an unusual fashion? By that I mean, instead of extending from the existing wires, should they focus on those parts of the network such as South Devon where performance is an issue?

[Gwiwer]

Both personal experience and the potentially more precise comments made in recent months in Railway Magazine - not least by their train performance columnists - suggest that while any 80x on electric power will out-perform its elders the problems arise on diesel. 

 

800s have struggled over Dainton and certainly drop point-to-point time on the HST schedules. 802s have performed better (although the words adequate and well have not been used) but may be running at the limit of power output to just keep time. They do seem sure footed but it is harder to detect wheel slip now that we have neither opening windows nor locomotive sound effects. 

 

The 800s are simply sluggish on diesel. I rode one (not a scientific sample I grant you) down from Paddington to Reading which was definitely on diesel power.  Whilst we probably travelled some of the way at 125mph the engines were audible and the vibration noticeable which suggested they were working flat out. We ran with no obvious signal checks and only a couple of minor slacks in 33 minutes when 25-27 is required by the public timetable. 

 

My only trip over Dainton in an 800 (2x5) thus far was from the usual standing start at Newton Abbot and again the engines could be heard and felt straining. In fairness that twisting ascent has taxed everything ever sent up it and affects HST performance too. But we lost 7 minutes on the public times to Totnes and it felt - and looked as we passed familiar landmarks -slow. 

 

Yes they can (usually, just) keep the overall timings but I cannot see how they will reach Penzance in anything under 5h 30m no matter how much they gain under the wires. 

 

The timetable will change. Which of course requires a global timetable change to eliminate conflicts and ensure platform availability. But quite how these things might recover lost time when they are running to the schedules devised for them remains to be seen. 

[billbedford]

48 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

It would be interesting, in that context, to know if the through traffic to/from the ECML to the Highlands is English folk visiting Scotland or Scots visiting England.

 

 

.... or Scots folks, having made their money in the Great Wem, going back to have a holiday with their ain folks. 

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

You raise an interesting point here. Given that 800/802s perform so much better under the wires than on diesel, would it be worth doing further electrification in an unusual fashion? By that I mean, instead of extending from the existing wires, should they focus on those parts of the network such as South Devon where performance is an issue?

That kind of solution only really works on paper. Whilst putting up wires is not cheap, connecting to the grid is even more costly, and discontinuous electrification is likely to require more connections than a conventional approach.

 

There are new technologies coming along which might change that by allowing a rail connection at a lower (ie cheaper) voltage, but as yet they're not proven to the level that you'd want to rely on for building the business case to electrify Exeter - Plymouth.