Class 800 - Updates

[Coryton]

34 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Thanks Ken.W. I have to say, having been involved (as a Controller) in innumerable incidents of objects and, sadly, people, under trains, such an restriction has never been imposed on any other type of traction. Occasionally the Emergency Services would request the OLE power to be switched off when they were on the line, but once we had explained the system to them they were satisfied and the OLE remained live.

 

 

I presume things are different if there is a live third rail.

 

It would be interesting to know how Hitachi would give assurance that the train is safe - over the phone after confirmation that the right steps have been taken, or using telemetry, or someone coming down in person?

 

I would hope not the latter, if nobody can give first aid to someone who has gone down the gap between the train and the platform until Hitachi say they can.

 

[Coryton]

2 minutes ago, 40052 said:

Ken,

 

It looked like most of the carriages were only fitted with skeleton seats (no seat or back cushions)

 

Might not be any less comfortable than the real thing...

 

(Actually I don't find them that bad. But not great either.)

[Rivercider]

Yesterday I had a trip down to Exeter and found that a 5 car IET was deputising for a 2+4 HST on the Cardiff-Taunton route,

due I believe to a derailment at St Phillips Marsh which was blocking in two 2+4 HSTs.

 

cheers

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, HillsideDepot said:

Following the replies/comments to my earlier post about IET washing I have been back to my source, and it seems that "DfT" was exasperated shorthand for ORR, and a search on their website finds a prohibition notice

P-CVI-HMRI-0802-019-1 Hitachi Rail Europe Ltd prohibition notice.pdf 517.1 kB · 17 downloads

and an improvement notice

I-HMRI-CVI-21-02-19 Hitachi Rail Europe Ltd improvement notice.pdf 624.91 kB · 12 downloads

for Stoke Gifford. I've not been able to find mention of North Pole or Maliphant.

 

It is surprising that an industrial concern, be that considered to be Hitachi, the depot construction contractor, or the wash sub-contractor didn't spot the issue. By comparison we've just employed local trades people to built a new class room/ meeting room next to church, and the idea of running the hot water from the church boiler about 5 metres from the new sink was met with an instant "can't do that, there's a risk of legionella."

 

None of which gets the trains clean....

But a 'trade waste plant' doesn't mean a carriage washing machine but is more likely to mean a waste compactor.  If he meant a CWM why didn't he say so?

 

17 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

I'd be rather surprised if Hitachi built the carriage washers in their depots. More likely is that, whoever the actual client is, that they would have been subcontracted to one of the specialist companies that designs and builds such equipment. That said, the 387 on which I am currently travelling shows all the same signs of inadequate washing by machine, namely a growing covering of droplet stains, common to harder water areas and carriage washers that leave the train to drip dry. Each drying droplet leaves a limescale deposit that attracts more droplets and limescale deposition every time the carriage is washed.

 

Jim

The 387s are presumably only washed at Reading  (which is a hard water area) and I suspect part of the problem with them is the turn-in at the end of the body which is clearly not being washed properly judging by all the sets I have seen.  But I do wonder if it is the plant or the train as the 165s on our branch - based at Reading - aren't too bad at all exterior wise.

[jamie92208]

I had a day out to Doncaster today and was very pleasantly surprised at the number of class 800's that I saw.

 

Two of the Trans Pennine batch were out and about.   No 1 is in TPE livery and No  2 was in grey.

Here's 1 and 2 coupled together.

800 113 and 109 were running in main line service on LNER London to Leeds diagrams. Here's 113 after arrival at Leeds.

800 108 and 109 were running to Leeds, presumably on crew training, coupled together.  800 110  was also around on test.

On my way back I rode on 113.   The ride was generally good, except on pointwork.  The seats were bearable but very hard. The reservation system seemed to be working well and the noise level was very low.  I did like the fact that the tables lined up with window bays.

 

Jamie

[Richard E]

9 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I had a day out to Doncaster today and was very pleasantly surprised at the number of class 800's that I saw.

 

  800 110  was also around on test.

 

Jamie

According to a member of LNER staff on twitter 800110 was in revenue service along with 800104 and 800113 from 6th June.

[Mallard60022]

16 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I had a day out to Doncaster today and was very pleasantly surprised at the number of class 800's that I saw.

 

Two of the Trans Pennine batch were out and about.   No 1 is in TPE livery and No  2 was in grey.

Here's 1 and 2 coupled together.

800 113 and 109 were running in main line service on LNER London to Leeds diagrams. Here's 113 after arrival at Leeds.

800 108 and 109 were running to Leeds, presumably on crew training, coupled together.  800 110  was also around on test.

On my way back I rode on 113.   The ride was generally good, except on pointwork.  The seats were bearable but very hard. The reservation system seemed to be working well and the noise level was very low.  I did like the fact that the tables lined up with window bays.

 

Jamie

Donny is Zoomer heaven if you want it. Sadly it is no longer the freight heaven it once was. However, we should be thankful for smallish mercies, but when the Zoomer craze has worn off it will be a less exciting place. 

Phil

[Zomboid]

Having left the station at Doncaster once, I'm really not sure that "heaven" is a word I could place in the same sentence as "Doncaster" without some kind of negator...

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Having left the station at Doncaster once, I'm really not sure that "heaven" is a word I could place in the same sentence as "Doncaster" without some kind of negator...

To be fair, the same goes for a lot of British cities & towns. 

[jamie92208]

8 hours ago, Richard E said:

According to a member of LNER staff on twitter 800110 was in revenue service along with 800104 and 800113 from 6th June.

I've just checked my notes and it was indeed 110 and 113 in service.  109 was on test.  I think that the two 5 cars on test were 801 108 and 109.

 

Jamie

[Mallard60022]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Having left the station at Doncaster once, I'm really not sure that "heaven" is a word I could place in the same sentence as "Doncaster" without some kind of negator...

Ummmm! However it was Zoomer Heaven, not Doncaster Heaven that I was suggesting. A bit rough around the edges and Faragetown it may be, but it does have some quite nice places if you look very carefully, one of them being the road out to the south beyond the racecourse and the other being a very special Fish and Chip Shop just opposite the racecourse.

Ar$£

[Richard E]

 

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

I've just checked my notes and it was indeed 110 and 113 in service.  109 was on test.  I think that the two 5 cars on test were 801 108 and 109.

 

Jamie

 

I posted pictures of 800110, 801108 and 801109 at Peterborough on 24th May. 801108/9 were running as a 10  car set reversing at, according to Realtimetrains, Shaftholme Junction.

[Ken.W]

On 05/06/2019 at 10:34, 40052 said:

Ken,

 

Yesterday afternoon 801201 departed North from Darlington on electric, have they now got electrical clearance through to Newcastle? It looked like most of the carriages were only fitted with skeleton seats (no seat or back cushions) although I couldn't get a close-up view as the train wasn't on a platform line.

 

Graham

Hi Graham,

 

No there's still no change in the restriction, however that could indicate more progress is being made, as the instruction has always had the proviso "except where specially authorised" (and also except within the confines of Heaton depot), and the following has now appeared in the notice boards;

 

 

(my blotting out of contacts)

[Ken.W]

On 02/06/2019 at 23:52, Ken.W said:

The overhead racks are meant for most cases / holdalls, with larger ones in the coach-end racks. Smaller bags go under the seats.

 

Just oversized cases should go in the storage compartments. However, the similar reserved bikes compartments have just a small white on gray notice by the door saying luggage is not to be stored there - can imagine how many will  take notice of , or even see, that

 

There's even airport-style bag size guides at Kings X, not that I've yet to see anyone use them

 

 

 

Although today I saw a Mk4 with cases standing in the vestibules in first class, so remains to be seen how it will work out on these on busy services.

 

Also today, had what I expect was my last run on ''the flyer', 1E01, 07:05 NCL - KGX non-stop (the 05:40 ex EDB) with a 91/Mk4 set (82209 / 91130), as I'm on holiday next month and that turn's due to be an Azuma by the time I return. And yes, managed to do non-stop and to time.

 

Just north of York, passed a 67 hauling 91119 North, light engines. Odd I thought, as 91s are usually taken to Bounds Green or Doncaster if going for repair. These appeared heading towards Craigentinny, which does the HSTs.

 

91119 on Wednesday;

 

[jamie92208]

4 hours ago, Richard E said:

 

 

I posted pictures of 800110, 801108 and 801109 at Peterborough on 24th May. 801108/9 were running as a 10  car set reversing at, according to Realtimetrains, Shaftholme Junction.

They were in Hemsworth down loop yesterday then came back to Donny later.

 

Jamie

[Ken.W]

5 hours ago, Richard E said:

 

 

I posted pictures of 800110, 801108 and 801109 at Peterborough on 24th May. 801108/9 were running as a 10  car set reversing at, according to Realtimetrains, Shaftholme Junction.

 

There was recent discussion as to how this is done at Shaftholme with the 801s. I doubt that NR would be keen on them limping along the 5 miles from Doncaster on their single engine, a section which includes 3 busy level crossings.

It is possible, given sufficient time, which there'd appear to be from a previous post, for them to simply reverse on the main line without going onto the branch..

As I had to do Wednesday last week with 1W11 (10:00 KGX - Aberdeen)...

 

 

.... back at Doncaster. Then nicked the set off 1E09 to carry on.

 

The p/car's 43206, so originally 43006 before the MTU re-engining. So one of the original power cars for '76, which makes it 43 years for this 43, and still on principle main-line work.

Also, the replacement set had 43208 (ex 43008) on rear.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Ken.W

[rodent279]

7 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

There was recent discussion as to how this is done at Shaftholme with the 801s. I doubt that NR would be keen on them limping along the 5 miles from Doncaster on their single engine, a section which includes 3 busy level crossings.

It is possible, given sufficient time, which there'd appear to be from a previous post, for them to simply reverse on the main line without going onto the branch..

As I had to do Wednesday last week with 1W11 (10:00 KGX - Aberdeen)...

 

 

.... back at Doncaster. Then nicked the set off 1E09 to carry on.

 

The p/car's 43206, so originally 43006 before the MTU re-engining. So one of the original power cars for '76, which makes it 43 years for this 43, and still on principle main-line work.

Also, the replacement set had 43208 (ex 43008) on rear.

They've got to be the best trains BR built, yet people hated them when they were introduced.

[JJGraphics]

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

They've got to be the best trains BR built, yet people hated them when they were introduced.

 

I doubt the IEPs will ever be described as "the best trains anyone ever built" . . . 

[4630]

14 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

Just north of York, passed a 67 hauling 91119 North, light engines. Odd I thought, as 91s are usually taken to Bounds Green or Doncaster if going for repair. These appeared heading towards Craigentinny, which does the HSTs.

 

 

91119 was being taken by 67006 working as 0Z91, 07.15 Doncaster West Yard to Crewe.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R22079/2019/06/07/advanced

 

The 91 (and I guess the 67 too) is on display at the ‘All Change’ event being held at Crewe today. 

 

It *should* be making the return trip, again as 0Z91, on the 9th June, I would hazard a guess with 67006 still providing the traction.

 

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R22091/2019/06/09/advanced

Edited June 8, 2019 by 4630
To add a link to the timings for the return schedule on 9/6.

[s182ggu]

Hi.

Can anyone tell me why these two LE workings between Doncaster and Crewe have been routed via Newcastle and Carlisle when there would seem to be two far more direct and therefore shorter routes via Manchester & Leeds or Manchester and Sheffield?

 

I guess there must be a perfectly logical reason (?) - just curious to know what it might be!!

 

Thanks in advance.

[4630]

The reason I’ve seen quoted elsewhere is that Cl 91s are cleared for the route between Carlisle and Newcastle (diesel hauled obviously) as it is a reasonably regular diversionary route when there’s engineering work on the ECML north of Newcastle.

 

Thus the ‘route clearance paperwork’ already exists for them to be taken that way.

 

Whereas, as far as I know, a Cl 91 has never been taken to Crewe via the Trans Pennine routes from Leeds or Sheffield to Manchester, so no ‘paperwork’ exists and it wouldn’t be worth the time, effort or money to organise for what is effectively a one-off.

[s182ggu]

4630 - Thanks for this quick reply - much appreciated.

 

I can fully understand about the 'route clearance' paperwork already being in place and therefore no need for time, effort and money to have a new 'route clearance' established.

 

However when you consider the mileage involved, approx. 640 mile round trip via Newcastle & Carlisle v. 160 mile round trip direct from Doncaster to Crewe, I just wonder how the fuel cost of the Cl 67 compares to the cost of creating a new 'route clearance'?

 

Anybody know the Cl 67 mpg figures?

Edited June 8, 2019 by s182ggu

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, s182ggu said:

4630 - Thanks for this quick reply - much appreciated.

 

I can fully understand about the 'route clearance' paperwork already being in place and therefore no need for time, effort and money to have a new 'route clearance' established.

 

However when you consider the mileage involved, approx. 640 mile round trip via Newcastle & Carlisle v. 160 mile round trip direct from Doncaster to Crewe, I just wonder how the fuel cost of the Cl 67 compares to the cost of creating a new 'route clearance'?

 

Anybody know the Cl 67 mpg figures?

The mpg figure isn't really relevant - that cost will be down to the operator/owner (or event organiser) and it's their decision whether or not to support an open day by paying the costs of getting their items to it.

 

The important thing is that if the job has to be arranged at relatively short notice it's much quicker and cheaper (for NR) to use a route which already has clearance instead of messing about checking out a new route for clearance which could well involve site visits to check details.   Nothing new really as in the past in BR days we would if necessary send stuff via a longer route in the case of relatively short notice jobs because it could be a faff and time consuming getting a new route cleared for a one off move, and if the route couldn't be cleared ...   ...  ...

[s182ggu]

Thanks SM

[rodent279]

Slightly OT, but I think this is the right thread-there were a few posts about coupling compatibility a while back, something to do with 67's with buckeye not being able to couple to 91's or similar.

Out of interest, and apologies if this isn't the right thread, but I've just seen this on Faceache. A Dutch double deck emu rescuing a DB ICE.

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1959101417494266&id=587433071327781