Class 800 - Updates

[caradoc]

Turning a set is not always as simple as it would first seem. For example, Up Pendolinos from Glasgow Central are occasionally turned via the Carstairs triangle; The obvious move would be Carstairs station-Carstairs East Jc (change ends)-Carstairs South Jc and away. However there is no signalled move at Carstairs East for a train from the station to head towards the South Jc, therefore the actual move is via Carstairs South Jc (change ends)-East Jc (change ends)-station (change ends). Quite time-consuming, and the passengers must wonder what on earth is going on !

[Coryton]

Turning a set is not always as simple as it would first seem. For example, Up Pendolinos from Glasgow Central are occasionally turned via the Carstairs triangle; The obvious move would be Carstairs station-Carstairs East Jc (change ends)-Carstairs South Jc and away. However there is no signalled move at Carstairs East for a train from the station to head towards the South Jc, therefore the actual move is via Carstairs South Jc (change ends)-East Jc (change ends)-station (change ends). Quite time-consuming, and the passengers must wonder what on earth is going on !

 

OK but....while they do turn up backwards, GWR does fairly well at putting HSTs the right way round and keeping them that way.

 

The story with the IETs at the moment seems to be very different.

[Geoff Endacott]

Perhaps they need to build a fiddle yard.

 

Geoff Endacott

[The Stationmaster]

OK but....while they do turn up backwards, GWR does fairly well at putting HSTs the right way round and keeping them that way.

 

The story with the IETs at the moment seems to be very different.

 

That's about the size of it - GWR HSTs do sometimes get the wrong way round and generally they do seem to get turned back the correct way round fairly quickly.  But with an HST it is not too difficult a matter to announce to intending passengers that it's in reverse formation.  Equally it would be too difficult to announce a pair of Class 800s as running in reverse formation - the real problem is when they are incorrectly marshalled whichever way round they happen to be, and it's a problem which is easy to resolve (or should be if heads with working brains were attached to the shoulders of those responsible for such matters).  It boils down to a train presentation issue for the contracted supplier of the train - it really is that simple.

[jim.snowdon]

That's about the size of it - GWR HSTs do sometimes get the wrong way round and generally they do seem to get turned back the correct way round fairly quickly.  But with an HST it is not too difficult a matter to announce to intending passengers that it's in reverse formation.  Equally it would be too difficult to announce a pair of Class 800s as running in reverse formation - the real problem is when they are incorrectly marshalled whichever way round they happen to be, and it's a problem which is easy to resolve (or should be if heads with working brains were attached to the shoulders of those responsible for such matters).  It boils down to a train presentation issue for the contracted supplier of the train - it really is that simple.

Granted, it is a day to day operating problem that the operators have to get to grips with, and with the difficulties that go with the greater permutations available. But, whilst it was quite straightforward for Old Oak Common to send a train round the Greenford Loop, North Pole depot is on the wrong side of the railway to make it a simple move.

I suspect that in time, as the need for test running diminishes, things will settle down and reversed sets will become an exception.

 

Jim

[HillsideDepot]

Granted, it is a day to day operating problem that the operators have to get to grips with, and with the difficulties that go with the greater permutations available. But, whilst it was quite straightforward for Old Oak Common to send a train round the Greenford Loop, North Pole depot is on the wrong side of the railway to make it a simple move.

I suspect that in time, as the need for test running diminishes, things will settle down and reversed sets will become an exception.

 

Jim

Whilst agreeing that North Pole is not located as conveniently as Old Oak for turning via Greenford, all 6 diagrams either start or finish at Stoke Gifford which lies within a complex of 4 triangles, and its trains enter or leave service at Temple Meads which has a triangle and the option to run via St Phillips Marsh to turn. I accept that not all of those moves might be cleared for 26m long vehicles, or signalled for turning moves, or have GWR route knowledge, but some of them must be.

 

I wonder what the current position is on coupling units? If there are still issues then that might be why the mis-matched pairs are staying thus. The scheduler in me says "but there'll be no time in the driver duties to do it" however the same applies to HSTs, and they get turned back. Hopefully it is just early days teething troubles. 

[Zomboid]

I'd expect them to end up backwards about as often as HSTs do, which can vary quite a bit (Mondays after a disruptive weekend possession obviously being worse than Friday when everything has been fine). The various splitting and joining diagrams for the 5 cars would suggest that a 10 car could arrive in any of the 4 possible combinations, especially early in the week.

[andy stroud]

Just out of interest, a (perhaps silly) question on front end design of modern fast trains like these. How much of the design is actually required for areodynamics/speed, and how much is the front end design actually just for show? I was wondering if with modern technology, it  was in any way possible to have 125mph units with flattish fronts that could have corridor connections. A bit late now I know, but intersting anyway as I think a big problem with these things is that you cant get from one part of the train to the other, once it's on the move.

[D854_Tiger]

Just out of interest, a (perhaps silly) question on front end design of modern fast trains like these. How much of the design is actually required for areodynamics/speed, and how much is the front end design actually just for show? I was wondering if with modern technology, it  was in any way possible to have 125mph units with flattish fronts that could have corridor connections. A bit late now I know, but intersting anyway as I think a big problem with these things is that you cant get from one part of the train to the other, once it's on the move.

 

Nowadays, they go to the trouble of designing city cars, which mostly totter around doing thirty (on a good day), to be aerodynamic because of the fuel it can save, so I reckon it must be worth doing for 125 mph trains.

 

Indeed, looking at the number of units around with corridor connections, running at 100 mph, I would argue that is wasting quite a bit of energy.

[black and decker boy]

Just out of interest, a (perhaps silly) question on front end design of modern fast trains like these. How much of the design is actually required for areodynamics/speed, and how much is the front end design actually just for show? I was wondering if with modern technology, it  was in any way possible to have 125mph units with flattish fronts that could have corridor connections. A bit late now I know, but intersting anyway as I think a big problem with these things is that you cant get from one part of the train to the other, once it's on the move.

From what I've seen posted by journalists elsewhere is the problem of crash worthiness for high speed trains effectively rules out corridor connectors. The long nose is the energy dissipation crumple zone as much as its aerodynamics.

 

I think thats why all of the commuter units are max speed 110mph when they could probably achieve 125mph with ease.

[andy stroud]

I

 

From what I've seen posted by journalists elsewhere is the problem of crash worthiness for high speed trains effectively rules out corridor connectors. The long nose is the energy dissipation crumple zone as much as its aerodynamics.

 

I think thats why all of the commuter units are max speed 110mph when they could probably achieve 125mph with ease.

Thanks, I had overlooked crashworthyness

[HillsideDepot]

Regarding aerodynamics at lower speeds, Union Pacific considers an aero-dynamic container at the front of its double-stack trains gives a worthwhile fuel saving 

ArroWedge 2.0 by Daniel Fredrickson, on Flickr

[dhjgreen]

Japanese think it is worthwhile in Japan too

Edited December 14, 2017 by dhjgreen

[leavesontheline]

I was surprised to find myself travelling on one of these for the first time last night. Surprised because I was travelling south of Bristol Temple Meads and I wasn't aware they were operating on this route yet. I guess as they are gradually replacing HST's they must be!

 

First impressions are the seats are very hard, though it was a smooth comfortable ride and the rate of acceleration and deceleration was very impressive. However, I still think that comfort wise the HST and Mk3 combo is still leagues ahead of everything else I've ridden on! (which isn't a huge range I must admit).

 

Last night our train was formed, I think, of two five car sets. Everyone travelling on from BTM was told to move to the front five coaches so they could decouple the rear of the train. We left fifteen minutes late (for a 17 minute journey! Typical GWR in my experience) and a Hitachi technician was walking up and down the gangway for the short duration of the journey. On arrival we realised that the rear set was still attached! Obviously they'd had a problem decoupling them!

[Coryton]

That's about the size of it - GWR HSTs do sometimes get the wrong way round and generally they do seem to get turned back the correct way round fairly quickly.  But with an HST it is not too difficult a matter to announce to intending passengers that it's in reverse formation.  Equally it would be too difficult to announce a pair of Class 800s as running in reverse formation - the real problem is when they are incorrectly marshalled whichever way round they happen to be, and it's a problem which is easy to resolve (or should be if heads with working brains were attached to the shoulders of those responsible for such matters).  It boils down to a train presentation issue for the contracted supplier of the train - it really is that simple.

 

If it were all one organisation, in principle it ought to be easy.

 

But with a contract like this you have to think of everything ahead of time.

 

If someone forgot to specify the trains being put together in the depot the right way round something that is technically fairly straightforward can become contractually complicated.

[Coryton]

I'd expect them to end up backwards about as often as HSTs do, which can vary quite a bit (Mondays after a disruptive weekend possession obviously being worse than Friday when everything has been fine). The various splitting and joining diagrams for the 5 cars would suggest that a 10 car could arrive in any of the 4 possible combinations, especially early in the week.

 

Are they actually doing the splitting yet?

 

In any case, despite what you or I might expect, so far it is much worse than with HSTs. 

[Coryton]

Japanese think it is worthwhile in Japan too

 

The fact that Shinkansen have pointy noses doesn't tell you if it's driven by aerodynamics or style any more than the fact that an IET has a sloping front.

 

I believe some of the stranger Shinkansen front end designs are supposed to be for nose abatement.

 

Regarding aerodynamics at lower speeds, Union Pacific considers an aero-dynamic container at the front of its double-stack trains gives a worthwhile fuel saving 

ArroWedge 2.0 by Daniel Fredrickson, on Flickr

 

I find it very hard to see how that makes much difference given the large empty spaces between containers. You don't just need a slopy front for aerodynamics - you need smooth sides.

 

The front of an IET might be aerodynamic but the gap where two are coupled together certainly isn't.

[dhjgreen]

Nose abatement (good freudian slip), yes I do recall noise reduction as being part of the design.

[JDW]

The fact that Shinkansen have pointy noses doesn't tell you if it's driven by aerodynamics or style any more than the fact that an IET has a sloping front.

 

I believe some of the stranger Shinkansen front end designs are supposed to be for nose abatement.

 

 

I find it very hard to see how that makes much difference given the large empty spaces between containers. You don't just need a slopy front for aerodynamics - you need smooth sides.

 

The front of an IET might be aerodynamic but the gap where two are coupled together certainly isn't.

 

I'd imagine it's the same as when you see lorries travelling close behind each other, or F1 cars on a long fast straight, they're travelling in the slipstream of the one in front which means they meet less air resistance, the one in front having pushed lots of it aside already.  Same effect here, the front container pushes the air aside for the rest to follow.  It's over-simplifying but imagine the air in the gap between the containers as just travelling along between the containers, whilst the air that was in front flows down the side of them.

[DY444]

Are they actually doing the splitting yet?

 

 

No.  They haven't found a way to do splits/joins reliably in a curved platform (ie Bristol TM)

[Zomboid]

Are they actually doing the splitting yet?

 

In any case, despite what you or I might expect, so far it is much worse than with HSTs.

At present I agree, once it settles down into the new normal with 800s throughout it'll probably be similar to today, with a wider variety possible on the 10 cars.

[royaloak]

Last night our train was formed, I think, of two five car sets. Everyone travelling on from BTM was told to move to the front five coaches so they could decouple the rear of the train. We left fifteen minutes late (for a 17 minute journey! Typical GWR in my experience) and a Hitachi technician was walking up and down the gangway for the short duration of the journey. On arrival we realised that the rear set was still attached! Obviously they'd had a problem decoupling them!

As has been very well publicised,the rear set is not uncoupled but as only the front 4 or 5 coaches will be platformed at the smaller stations and there is no gangway the rear unit has to be locked out of use, the same thing happens with units on the route as well.

 

I will ignore the dig at GWR.

[Coryton]

As has been very well publicised,the rear set is not uncoupled but as only the front 4 or 5 coaches will be platformed at the smaller stations and there is no gangway the rear unit has to be locked out of use, the same thing happens with units on the route as well.

 

 

It may have been well publicised, but despite following this thread I couldn't have told you if the splitting had now started or not.

 

If on-train staff made an announcement that the train was going to split rather than saying that the rear unit will be taken out of use, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they intended to split the train and failed to.

[leavesontheline]

It may have been well publicised, but despite following this thread I couldn't have told you if the splitting had now started or not.

 

If on-train staff made an announcement that the train was going to split rather than saying that the rear unit will be taken out of use, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they intended to split the train and failed to.

Indeed, the wording "decoupled" or similar was used by the announcer and also shown on the electronic platform displays! I think a bit later when the delay in leaving was announced the wording "separating the units" or similar was used, again leading me to believe that they would actually be physically detached!

 

For the shorter platforms, like Nailsea and Backwell, there was an additional announcement for all passengers leaving the train to move forwards of the rear doors of the penultimate coach. So that was after they had already 'decoupled' or switched off the second unit.

 

As for my 'dig' at GWR, I am by no means a regular rail user, perhaps less than 20 journeys per year, but pretty much without fail in recent times, I can say that each and every journey with FGW/GWR has been affected by some level of delay, quite often this delay ends up longer than the original journey time! Maybe in original GWR days things were better?

[Geoff Endacott]

They have solved it today. 1A04, which later forms 1C24 to Taunton, is reported as a single five-car set. I hope they don't try splitting that.

 

Geoff Endacott