Class 800 - Updates

[Coryton]

Closing the doors will be quicker because its pressing one button, but the time taken before that button can be pressed will be longer, therefore the alleged time savings for station dwell times wont be as much is anticipated, also remember that platform staff are quite versed in closing those slam doors quickly.

 

Thanks for the explanation - and yes, I'd agree that on the whole staff are pretty nippy at getting the doors closed (though I only tend to travel on the Cardiff - London route - I imagine that on further flung routes there are stations less well blessed with platform staff).

 

Not sure what you mean by the time taken before the button can be pressed being longer (than what?) though.

[royaloak]

Thanks for the explanation - and yes, I'd agree that on the whole staff are pretty nippy at getting the doors closed (though I only tend to travel on the Cardiff - London route - I imagine that on further flung routes there are stations less well blessed with platform staff).

 

Not sure what you mean by the time taken before the button can be pressed being longer (than what?) though.

The coaches are longer and have more seats so each coach will have more passengers on board, as they have more passengers to get off and on at each station it will take longer for them to do it so it will be longer before the button can be pressed.

[Reorte]

The coaches are longer and have more seats so each coach will have more passengers on board, as they have more passengers to get off and on at each station it will take longer for them to do it so it will be longer before the button can be pressed.

What are other aspects like in comparison, i.e. door size and space around the vestibule areas? If there's less struggling manouevring luggage about (for example) that might make up for some of it.

[jamesg]

Have you got a link to the RTT runs (plural) because I heard it ended up 35 minutes late causing 717 minutes delay to other services and 3 part cancellations.

 

Edit-

Here we are-

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V18325/2017/12/19/advanced

And (better) return-

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O53898/2017/12/19/advanced

The Northbound run lost time at Oxford North Jn., Evesham, Worcester and Shelwick Jn., which except for Oxford, could have been due to entering single line sections.  The return was better, but it ran to the timings of one of the cancelled passenger services.  There must have been a few passengers annoyed that their trains was cancelled, and they couldn't board a perfectly good Class 800.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

A quick, on the back of an envelope, calculation gives the following figures:

 

HST 8-car low density = 34 seats per exit door

HST 8-car high density = 40 seats per exit door

 

IET 10-car = 41 seats per exit door

[royaloak]

A quick, on the back of an envelope, calculation gives the following figures:

 

HST 8-car low density = 34 seats per exit door

HST 8-car high density = 40 seats per exit door

 

IET 10-car = 41 seats per exit door

Thats a very simplistic way of looking at it.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just giving a few rough figures, that's all........

[Coryton]

The coaches are longer and have more seats so each coach will have more passengers on board, as they have more passengers to get off and on at each station it will take longer for them to do it so it will be longer before the button can be pressed.

 

To some extent I would hope that the extra seats are used so that more people get to sit down, rather than being able to cram more people into the train.

 

In my (limited) experience - at least West of Reading much of the time GWR HSTs aren't crush loaded.

 

 

Thats a very simplistic way of looking at it.

 

Yes - it overlooks the fact that on an HST coach A (not quite but nearly the same capacity as other standard class coaches) has to empty and fill through one door. Now I don't work for the railways and I only generally use a limited part of the network that will be covered by the IETs, but one thing I do know is that if you stand on the platform at the ends of coaches A and B when a busy HST arrives you will be waiting a lot longer for people to stop coming out of the door at the end of coach A than coach B. People don't even themselves out using both doors.

 

On a train busy enough that the difference in capacity between an HST and IET coach counts, the fact that there are two sets of doors in each coach on the IET is going to make a significant difference.

 

[jim.snowdon]

So is not having to have platform staff chase around after passengers not closing doors behind them (or not even being aware that they won't be closed remotely by the conductor) - HSTs have for some time been the only train in general use that doesn't have power operated doors.

 

Jim

[D854_Tiger]

You shouldn't be getting 800s to Plymouth that often though, and the 802s which you will get regularly were specified to provide adequate performance on diesel.

Obviously when an 800 shows up you'll lose time, but you'd expect that - like substituting a 47 where a deltic was needed.

I suppose the unknown is whether 802s will actually perform properly.

 

I maintain that slogging over the hills on the Highland main line is where 800s will really embarrass themselves. Thankfully there aren't that many ICEC trains to Inverness.e 

 

The class 800s should only reach Devon via Bristol and the plan is that those trains will not go further west than Exeter or Torbay.

 

The performance of the class 802 has been specifically designed around the WoE route (unlike the HST) a route where there is no 125 mph running whatsoever west of Reading.

[royaloak]

The class 800s should only reach Devon via Bristol and the plan is that those trains will not go further west than Exeter or Torbay.

 

The performance of the class 802 has been specifically designed around the WoE route (unlike the HST) a route where there is no 125 mph running whatsoever west of Reading.

Yeah, they are not planned to but you can be sure they will.

 

Please list all the differences made to the 802s if they are 'specifically designed around the WoE route' please, because as far as I know they have the same traction motors and gearing as the 800s.

 

I am still waiting for the answer to the question of what experience you actually have with IETs as you obviously have loads due to your very knowledgeable (but incorrect) posts!

[phil-b259]

Please list all the differences made to the 802s if they are 'specifically designed around the WoE route' please, because as far as I know they have the same traction motors and gearing as the 800s.

 

 

 

They have specifically been designed from the outset to have the engines de-restricted, bigger fuel tanks fitted than the 800s and most importantly have reostatic braking that works under diesel mode thus saving considerable wear on the brakes. Plus of course the whole maintenance regime is designed to support extensive diesel operation.

 

The 800s by contrast have restricted engines, smallish fuel tanks, no reostatic braking in diesel mode and a maintenance package all based round minimal diesel running. Whilst these are all correctable - IT COSTS LOTS OF MONEY IN VARIATION FEES as Roger Ford has pointed out in his blog.

 

As such it is perfectly correct to say the 802s ARE specifically designed around the WOE route.

 

You also need to remeber that modern train design is not about producing bespoke trains for every single different order - as with motor or aircraft manufacturers, trains are designed as a 'family' - be that the 'Desiro', 'Electrostar' 'Flirt', Aventra', etc. TOCs or ROSCOs will pick the features they want from the manufacturers catalogue, plus the appropriate maintenance support regime as demanded by the intended sphere of operation. The 800s and 802s are no different - the same basic train but with different configurations depending on their intended routes demands. What has thrown a spanner in the works is the massively late / curtailed GWML electrification which has totally undermined the specifications the 800s were designed to achieve.

[royaloak]

As such it is perfectly correct to say the 802s ARE specifically designed around the WOE route.

 

All GWR have been able to do is order the unrestrictive version of what the DaFT had already ordered, if it was possible for GWR to order a train specific to the WoE route they would not have chosen the IET/AT300 family of train!

 

Hardly 'specifically designed for the WoE route' is it!

 

Its like saying 'you can have any new car you want as long as its a Ford Fiesta'.

Edited December 20, 2017 by royaloak

[phil-b259]

All GWR have been able to do is order the unrestrictive version of what the DaFT had already ordered, if it was possible for GWR to order a train specific to the WoE route they would not have chosen the IET/AT300 family of train!

 

Hardly 'specifically designed for the WoE route' is it!

 

Its like saying 'you can have any new car you want as long as its a Ford Fiesta'.

 

Not True.

 

The size of fuel tanks cannot be increased by computer neither can the modifications to allow reostaic braking to be used under diesel power be done by Laptops alone! Equally I believe  there were also so internal changes GWR requested to better reflect the 'long distance' profile of users as opposed to the 'commuter' influenced internals provided in the 800s.

 

Its a common trap that most fall into is to assume that 'ALL' that needs to be done is re-programme the computer to turn one into the other...

 

You cannot upgrade the engine fitted to a ford fiesta (though you can of course tweak what is there through the ECU), neither can you change the suspension, wheels or internal styling by plugging in a laptop. In that respect the Ford Fiesta is no different to a 'Desiro' - the purchaser chan select a number of options depending on their needs - but once purchased changing those options is very expensive and can invoke all sorts of Warranty issues.

 

Now it is true that if your boss says you can 'only have a Ford Fiesta as your company car' then choice is restricted compared to having a totally free hand - but thats what you get when people with no real first hand knowledge of the industry / market go round making strategic business decisions. A Ford Fiesta may well not be the ideal car for your needs but within that 'family' of models you still do have quite a lot of choice.

 

As I said there is also the maintenance angle to consider - GWR have not simply gone and signed a leasing agreement for a train, the whole servicing, maintenance and set availability is also included in the deal. Much like you can lease a car for X years but are restricted to Y miles (or you have to pay more as servicing costs are grater) so it is that the WoE sets will have a distinct performance / servicing / availability regime very different to that originally contracted for with the 800s that reflects the more intensive diesel mileage for example.

Edited December 20, 2017 by phil-b259

[D854_Tiger]

All GWR have been able to do is order the unrestrictive version of what the DaFT had already ordered, if it was possible for GWR to order a train specific to the WoE route they would not have chosen the IET/AT300 family of train!

 

Hardly 'specifically designed for the WoE route' is it!

 

Its like saying 'you can have any new car you want as long as its a Ford Fiesta'.

 

In addition to what phil-b259 has already stated the class 802 will have just under an extra 200 bhp on diesel, per power car, that's nearly 1000 bhp extra for a nine car set.

 

I rather think you just don't like these new trains and that's fine but there can be no doubting that Hitachi are world class train manufacturers. I get to visit Japan quite a lot and their railway works like no other railway, on the planet, and mostly with lots of Hitachi products.

 

I reckon their engineers do know what they are doing, their geography in Japan is rather more challenging than here in the UK and it's going to take rather more than the word of one poster on a model railway forum to convince me otherwise.

 

P.S. I am not aware that I have ever knowingly posted opinion as fact, as I am most careful to qualify any statements I make that I am not 100% sure of, but yes I will quote manufacturer's blurb as fact and why on earth not.

[Coryton]

All GWR have been able to do is order the unrestrictive version of what the DaFT had already ordered, if it was possible for GWR to order a train specific to the WoE route they would not have chosen the IET/AT300 family of train!

 

Hardly 'specifically designed for the WoE route' is it!

 

Its like saying 'you can have any new car you want as long as its a Ford Fiesta'.

 

OK. How about this? Procured via a contract set up to provide sufficient functioning sets to operate the timetable on the WoE route?

 

As opposed to the 800's which were procured to operate in rather different circumstances to those they find themselves in now.

 

Presumably if the 802's aren't up to the job, that's Hitachi's problem.

 

I'm curious though. So far as I know the IETs were procured by the DfT and 'imposed' on operators, but GWR themselves procured the 802's (with approval from the government). I had assumed that they went for IETs because they were the best deal (presumably cheaper for Hitachi than anyone else because they already provide 800's on the route). Are you saying that the DfT would only let GWR order new long distance trains so long as they were from Hitachi? Unless these were an option in the original contract and a price agreed then, I don't see how you could ensure good value for money in such circumstances if competition isn't allowed.

[D854_Tiger]

Not True.

 

The size of fuel tanks cannot be increased by computer neither can the modifications to allow reostaic braking to be used under diesel power be done by Laptops alone! Equally I believe  there were also so internal changes GWR requested to better reflect the 'long distance' profile of users as opposed to the 'commuter' influenced internals provided in the 800s.

 

Its a common trap that most fall into is to assume that 'ALL' that needs to be done is re-programme the computer to turn one into the other...

 

You cannot upgrade the engine fitted to a ford fiesta (though you can of course tweak what is there through the ECU), neither can you change the suspension, wheels or internal styling by plugging in a laptop. In that respect the Ford Fiesta is no different to a 'Desiro' - the purchaser chan select a number of options depending on their needs - but once purchased changing those options is very expensive and can invoke all sorts of Warranty issues.

 

Now it is true that if your boss says you can 'only have a Ford Fiesta as your company car' then choice is restricted compared to having a totally free hand - but thats what you get when people with no real first hand knowledge of the industry / market go round making strategic business decisions. A Ford Fiesta may well not be the ideal car for your needs but within that 'family' of models you still do have quite a lot of choice.

 

As I said there is also the maintenance angle to consider - GWR have not simply gone and signed a leasing agreement for a train, the whole servicing, maintenance and set availability is also included in the deal. Much like you can lease a car for X years but are restricted to Y miles (or you have to pay more as servicing costs are grater) so it is that the WoE sets will have a distinct performance / servicing / availability regime very different to that originally contracted for with the 800s that reflects the more intensive diesel mileage for example.

 

 

My nephew ordered a boy racer Peugeot and, trust me, it's nothing like the bog standard version to drive or run, as he found out when he got his insurance quote.

[Zomboid]

I suspect the fact that GWR were going to have a large fleet of 800s played into the decision to buy 802s, because of things like being able to use Filton & North Pole, (presumably) MU or at least coupling compatibility, and lots of common ground for type approval which the likes of Siemens & Bombardier wouldn't have easily been able to offer.

I highly doubt Daft actually instructed GWR to buy the WoE fleet from Hitachi though.

[Titan]

All GWR have been able to do is order the unrestrictive version of what the DaFT had already ordered, if it was possible for GWR to order a train specific to the WoE route they would not have chosen the IET/AT300 family of train!

 

Hardly 'specifically designed for the WoE route' is it!

 

Its like saying 'you can have any new car you want as long as its a Ford Fiesta'.

Not True.

 

The size of fuel tanks cannot be increased by computer neither can the modifications to allow reostaic braking to be used under diesel power be done by Laptops alone! Equally I believe  there were also so internal changes GWR requested to better reflect the 'long distance' profile of users as opposed to the 'commuter' influenced internals provided in the 800s.

 

Its a common trap that most fall into is to assume that 'ALL' that needs to be done is re-programme the computer to turn one into the other...

 

You cannot upgrade the engine fitted to a ford fiesta (though you can of course tweak what is there through the ECU), neither can you change the suspension, wheels or internal styling by plugging in a laptop. In that respect the Ford Fiesta is no different to a 'Desiro' - the purchaser chan select a number of options depending on their needs - but once purchased changing those options is very expensive and can invoke all sorts of Warranty issues.

 

Now it is true that if your boss says you can 'only have a Ford Fiesta as your company car' then choice is restricted compared to having a totally free hand - but thats what you get when people with no real first hand knowledge of the industry / market go round making strategic business decisions. A Ford Fiesta may well not be the ideal car for your needs but within that 'family' of models you still do have quite a lot of choice.

 

As I said there is also the maintenance angle to consider - GWR have not simply gone and signed a leasing agreement for a train, the whole servicing, maintenance and set availability is also included in the deal. Much like you can lease a car for X years but are restricted to Y miles (or you have to pay more as servicing costs are grater) so it is that the WoE sets will have a distinct performance / servicing / availability regime very different to that originally contracted for with the 800s that reflects the more intensive diesel mileage for example.

OK. How about this? Procured via a contract set up to provide sufficient functioning sets to operate the timetable on the WoE route?

 

As opposed to the 800's which were procured to operate in rather different circumstances to those they find themselves in now.

 

Presumably if the 802's aren't up to the job, that's Hitachi's problem.

 

I'm curious though. So far as I know the IETs were procured by the DfT and 'imposed' on operators, but GWR themselves procured the 802's (with approval from the government). I had assumed that they went for IETs because they were the best deal (presumably cheaper for Hitachi than anyone else because they already provide 800's on the route). Are you saying that the DfT would only let GWR order new long distance trains so long as they were from Hitachi? Unless these were an option in the original contract and a price agreed then, I don't see how you could ensure good value for money in such circumstances if competition isn't allowed.

 

 

In addition to what phil-b259 has already stated the class 802 will have just under an extra 200 bhp on diesel, per power car, that's nearly 1000 bhp extra for a nine car set.

 

I rather think you just don't like these new trains and that's fine but there can be no doubting that Hitachi are world class train manufacturers. I get to visit Japan quite a lot and their railway works like no other railway, on the planet, and mostly with lots of Hitachi products.

 

I reckon their engineers do know what they are doing, their geography in Japan is rather more challenging than here in the UK and it's going to take rather more than the word of one poster on a model railway forum to convince me otherwise.

 

P.S. I am not aware that I have ever knowingly posted opinion as fact, as I am most careful to qualify any statements I make that I am not 100% sure of, but yes I will quote manufacturer's blurb as fact and why on earth not.

 

 

It does not matter how correct you are, even if you have 100% proof, Royaloak will try to discredit it if it does not match his opinion, usually describing something valid as 'Hardly'.  See the previous discussion about the importance of power over gearing...

Edited December 20, 2017 by Titan

[D854_Tiger]

I suspect the fact that GWR were going to have a large fleet of 800s played into the decision to buy 802s, because of things like being able to use Filton & North Pole, (presumably) MU or at least coupling compatibility, and lots of common ground for type approval which the likes of Siemens & Bombardier wouldn't have easily been able to offer.

I highly doubt Daft actually instructed GWR to buy the WoE fleet from Hitachi though.

 

A single family of trains does makes sense from the perspective of things like staff training, maintenance and service provision, low cost airlines are normally based on one single type of aircraft, for the same reasons.

 

I get the distinct impression of late that DfT has rather gone off the idea of specifying trains, fingers must have been burned over the class 800.

 

The TOCs never wanted the IET, preferring all along to source something off the shelf (as best as the UK loading gauge ever allows for it).

 

I know that National Express were quite keen on the Pendolino, for the EC, and considered using the tilt as well (but only north of Newcastle).

 

Had the class 800 never materialised, I reckon a fleet of tilting Voyagers could have transformed the WoE route, but with rather more than five cars, of course.

[Ron Ron Ron]

...The TOCs never wanted the IET, preferring all along to source something off the shelf (as best as the UK loading gauge ever allows for it).......

 

 

Be careful about trying to re-write history.

At the time when the IEP had specified its requirements and then ran the competition for the new IC train; the initial target routes that the train was to be deployed on (ECML & GWML) were one or two franchises away in the future.

The incumbent TOC's at the time had little interest, as they knew in all probability, they might not be running those franchises.

The only murmurings came later on, when contracts had been let and the build programme had already got underway.

 

 

.

[Ken.W]

At the time when the IEP had specified its requirements and then ran the competition for the new IC train; the initial target routes that the train was to be deployed on (ECML & GWML) were one or two franchises away in the future.

.

 

 

In the ECML's case more like 3 or 4

 

.

[royaloak]

In addition to what phil-b259 has already stated the class 802 will have just under an extra 200 bhp on diesel, per power car, that's nearly 1000 bhp extra for a nine car set.

 

I rather think you just don't like these new trains and that's fine but there can be no doubting that Hitachi are world class train manufacturers. I get to visit Japan quite a lot and their railway works like no other railway, on the planet, and mostly with lots of Hitachi products.

 

I reckon their engineers do know what they are doing, their geography in Japan is rather more challenging than here in the UK and it's going to take rather more than the word of one poster on a model railway forum to convince me otherwise.

 

P.S. I am not aware that I have ever knowingly posted opinion as fact, as I am most careful to qualify any statements I make that I am not 100% sure of, but yes I will quote manufacturer's blurb as fact and why on earth not.

I do actually think the IETs are okay from a passenger point of view, although the interior and seats could have been better.

 

The problem I have is not the trains but you continuing to post your opinion as if it is fact, the 800s on diesel are dog slow accelerating (above 40mph) with a poor top speed, or are you still maintaining they will get to 125mph when running on diesel?

They cant even maintain 125mph when switching from electric to diesel so why you think they will maintain HST timings (when running on diesel) is beyond me.

 

Because manufacturers blurb is normally half the truth, you need to look behind the headlines to get a true picture, something you never do!

[royaloak]

Not True.

 

The size of fuel tanks cannot be increased by computer neither can the modifications to allow reostaic braking to be used under diesel power be done by Laptops alone! Equally I believe  there were also so internal changes GWR requested to better reflect the 'long distance' profile of users as opposed to the 'commuter' influenced internals provided in the 800s.

 

Its a common trap that most fall into is to assume that 'ALL' that needs to be done is re-programme the computer to turn one into the other...

 

You cannot upgrade the engine fitted to a ford fiesta (though you can of course tweak what is there through the ECU), neither can you change the suspension, wheels or internal styling by plugging in a laptop. In that respect the Ford Fiesta is no different to a 'Desiro' - the purchaser chan select a number of options depending on their needs - but once purchased changing those options is very expensive and can invoke all sorts of Warranty issues.

 

Now it is true that if your boss says you can 'only have a Ford Fiesta as your company car' then choice is restricted compared to having a totally free hand - but thats what you get when people with no real first hand knowledge of the industry / market go round making strategic business decisions. A Ford Fiesta may well not be the ideal car for your needs but within that 'family' of models you still do have quite a lot of choice.

 

As I said there is also the maintenance angle to consider - GWR have not simply gone and signed a leasing agreement for a train, the whole servicing, maintenance and set availability is also included in the deal. Much like you can lease a car for X years but are restricted to Y miles (or you have to pay more as servicing costs are grater) so it is that the WoE sets will have a distinct performance / servicing / availability regime very different to that originally contracted for with the 800s that reflects the more intensive diesel mileage for example.

If you bothered to read and inwardly digest some of my earlier posts you would remember me posting that the 800s cannot be upgraded to full 802 spec without fitting bigger radiators, fuel tanks, proper resistor grids etc, the only thing which can be upgraded by computer is the actual engine output because the engines are the same, nowhere have I said everything can be upgraded by computer.

 

You can, as you stated, upgrade the engine in the Fiesta by tweaking the ECU, just as you can upgrade the engines in the 800s to 700kW by adjusting the computer, until it overheats because the radiators cannot handle the extra heat generated.

 

I am aware of the different contracts and also the costs of the Variation Orders requested (badly) by DaFT due to the changes to the electrification project, the figures for the 'savings' Chris Grayling is trumpetting are a joke once you factor in the costs of the VO orders for the 800s, costs which cannot be recouped.

[royaloak]

OK. How about this? Procured via a contract set up to provide sufficient functioning sets to operate the timetable on the WoE route?

 

As opposed to the 800's which were procured to operate in rather different circumstances to those they find themselves in now.

 

Presumably if the 802's aren't up to the job, that's Hitachi's problem.

 

I'm curious though. So far as I know the IETs were procured by the DfT and 'imposed' on operators, but GWR themselves procured the 802's (with approval from the government). I had assumed that they went for IETs because they were the best deal (presumably cheaper for Hitachi than anyone else because they already provide 800's on the route). Are you saying that the DfT would only let GWR order new long distance trains so long as they were from Hitachi? Unless these were an option in the original contract and a price agreed then, I don't see how you could ensure good value for money in such circumstances if competition isn't allowed.

GWR were 'requested' to order trains compatible with the DaFT ordered 800s, they were also 'requested' to have very similar interiors so we ended up with a 'common user' fleet even though there are no plans to send the 800s to Plymouth or Cornwall (I couldnt keep a straight face posting that), which begs the question why the interiors need to be similar to the DaFT ordered 800s unless the DaFT realised they had mucked them up.

 

If the 802s are built to the specification as laid down in the contract then its GWRs problem not Hitachis because they have complied with the contract.