GWR Class 800

[hwl]

Reading February MR 'Informed Sources' gives a rather more pessimistic view. RF's sources claim that London to Bristol will be 15 minutes slower than today. Dwell times are not going to be that much shorter because of the length of the carriages and they are end doors. RF's calculations show that even with the distributed traction the pure fact that the engines are derated means that they will be losing time compared to a HST because a HST has 25% more tractive effort per tonne. He also says there is considerable pressure on the DFT to get Agility trains to allow the engines to be put up to full commercial rating, at a cost no doubt.....

He says the easy way out of the mess is to allocate them to Oxford services.

Bristol TM with a few stops or Parkway with minimal stops - there is big difference, I bet RF means the former...

 

[najaB]

He also says there is considerable pressure on the DFT to get Agility trains to allow the engines to be put up to full commercial rating, at a cost no doubt.

Apparently, the timing run last week showed that they could keep to HST times on diesel as is. Throw in some electrified sections and they should be able to beat them comfortably.

 

[Dave1987]

You may all say that RF isn't a fan of IEP but at least he provides evidence to his claims. We will all see but reading the article I think I will tend to believe RF over people on here. He raises some very interesting points though. The deal which the DFT agreed with Agility was based on far far less running on the Diesel engines than will be the case. This will put the engines under far more engine hours per diagram than was originally agreed. If the hugely complicated 'pay per diagram' wasn't in place then this would all be irrelevant as they would just increase power to full commercial rating. And seeing how boarding of intercity trains work in the real world I can see why he is doubtful that sliding doors will save that much dwell time.

 

[Martin222002]

Reading February MR 'Informed Sources' gives a rather more pessimistic view. RF's sources claim that London to Bristol will be 15 minutes slower than today. Dwell times are not going to be that much shorter because of the length of the carriages and they are end doors. RF's calculations show that even with the distributed traction the pure fact that the engines are derated means that they will be losing time compared to a HST because a HST has 25% more tractive effort per tonne. He also says there is considerable pressure on the DFT to get Agility trains to allow the engines to be put up to full commercial rating, at a cost no doubt.....

He says the easy way out of the mess is to allocate them to Oxford services.

Just to clarify, if I'm remembering the article right, this was 15 minutes slower was based on work done by the DfT running up to 100mph at the 750hp rating. Very much a worse case scenario.

 

[47802]

Just to clarify, if I'm remembering the article right, this was 15 minutes slower was based on work done by the DfT running up to 100mph at the 750hp rating. Very much a worse case scenario.

Well we know they can go faster than 100mph on Diesel, if they have to be full rated then presumably that's what they will do, it may be a compromise if they can get away without full rating at a cost of only a few min's rather than 15 suggested then maybe that's what they will go for. and at the end of the day its only temp situation.

 

[ainsworth74]

Any information on the sounds inside the passenger compartment from the engines?

From the IEP Train Technical Specification:

When the IEP Vehicle is running at speed from 50km/h up to the maximum, the arithmetic mean of the measured interior noise levels within the saloon of each IEP Vehicle must be within the range 50 to 57 dB, described using the Preferred Speech Interference Level (PSIL) descriptor.

At speeds below 50km/h, the arithmetic mean of the measured interior noise levels within the saloon of each IEP Vehicle shall be below 57 dB, described using the Preferred Speech Interference Level (PSIL) descriptor.

A rapid bit of Googling would suggest that 50-60db is equivalent to 'normal conversation' so not exactly loud.

 

[hwl]

He says the easy way out of the mess is to allocate them to Oxford services.

Agree on this point, but given it is the most logical thing to do it probably won't happen!
Oxford and Cotswold services getting them first may not be the most politically appeasing thing to do.
Oxford and Cotswolds won't release that many 180s and HSTs overall and probably not enough by the required times hence GWR probably discounting it as a plan initially though it may make more sense now.

If another electrified section west of Didcot is available pre Dec '18 then those services would make more sense to keep the extra hours (and cost) on the engines down especially if run harder.

 

[ainsworth74]

Agree on this point, but given it is the most logical thing to do it probably won't happen!
Oxford and Cotswold services getting them first may not be the most politically appeasing thing to do.
Oxford and Cotswolds won't release that many 180s and HSTs overall and probably not enough by the required times hence GWR probably discounting it as a plan initially though it may make more sense now.

Wouldn't it free up some Turbo's to go West though?

 

[47802]

Wouldn't it free up some Turbo's to go West though?

I wouldn't have thought so they are really going to only want to release services that use HST's and 180's, in order to release HST's to Scotrail as a priority and the 180's to GC.

Is not the release of Turbo units mainly dependent on a combination of 387's being able to get to Didcot, plus the few extra AT300's that were ordered to compensate for the lack of wires to Oxford.

 

[Dave1987]

Well we know they can go faster than 100mph on Diesel, if they have to be full rated then presumably that's what they will do, it may be a compromise if they can get away without full rating at a cost of only a few min's rather than 15 suggested then maybe that's what they will go for. and at the end of the day its only temp situation.

Er you can't just say 'ow just run them at full commercial rate then'. The 'pay per diagram' agreement the DFT signed with Agility trains was with the engines derated. It is for Agility and their financial backers to decide if they will allow for the engines to be used at full commercial rating and from what RF has said on previous Informed Sources columns there seems little appetite to allow that. And why should they really? The whole agreement was done based on the old electrification timetable. Ever since the electrification project started going wrong and they deffered indefinitely some parts this has all been about damage limitation for the whole GWEP project. As I have said before I'm sure the MPs are hoping the sight of shiny new trains will appease the fact that journey times may not change or in some cases possibly increase!

 

[47802]

Er you can't just say 'ow just run them at full commercial rate then'. The 'pay per diagram' agreement the DFT signed with Agility trains was with the engines derated. It is for Agility and their financial backers to decide if they will allow for the engines to be used at full commercial rating and from what RF has said on previous Informed Sources columns there seems little appetite to allow that. And why should they really? The whole agreement was done based on the old electrification timetable. Ever since the electrification project started going wrong and they deffered indefinitely some parts this has all been about damage limitation for the whole GWEP project. As I have said before I'm sure the MPs are hoping the sight of shiny new trains will appease the fact that journey times may not change or in some cases possibly increase!

Erm I don't think anybody said you just turn up and put them on full power, however I've no doubt the Dft will do whatever is needed for damage limitation even if its means giving more money to Aglity.

 

[najaB]

It is for Agility and their financial backers to decide if they will allow how much more they will charge for the engines to be used at full commercial rating...

I suspect it's something more like the above.

 

[hwl]

Er you can't just say 'ow just run them at full commercial rate then'. The 'pay per diagram' agreement the DFT signed with Agility trains was with the engines derated. It is for Agility and their financial backers to decide if they will allow for the engines to be used at full commercial rating and from what RF has said on previous Informed Sources columns there seems little appetite to allow that. And why should they really? The whole agreement was done based on the old electrification timetable. Ever since the electrification project started going wrong and they deffered indefinitely some parts this has all been about damage limitation for the whole GWEP project.

Indeed Agility aren't going to want to create additional diesel engine maintenance capacity (facility and staff) just for the short term as that will be very expensive and they will want to be suitable reimbursed if required.

As maintenance required will mainly be a function of hours run and intensity run at, I suspect this might have lead to a focus on cutting running hours by NR focusing on completing the via Parkway and Cardiff routes to maximise hours run on electric?

 

[Dave1987]

Erm I don't think anybody said you just turn up and put them on full power, however I've no doubt the Dft will do whatever is needed for damage limitation even if its means giving more money to Aglity.

These are already extremely expensive trains. Converting all the electric only one into bi-modes was yet more cost. It's not just a case of giving Agility even more money when the TOC are already paying eye watering amounts compared to other trains bought in the conventional way.

 

[Dave1987]

Indeed Agility aren't going to want to create additional diesel engine maintenance capacity (facility and staff) just for the short term as that will be very expensive and they will want to be suitable reimbursed if required.

As maintenance required will mainly be a function of hours run and intensity run at, I suspect this might have lead to a focus on cutting running hours by NR focusing on completing the via Parkway and Cardiff routes to maximise hours run on electric?

I suspect that RF is entirely correct in that when they are eventually introduced into service that they are put into diagrams that absolutely maximise running under the wires and negate as much as possible the time lost under diesel workings. I'm doubtful the engines will be put to full commercial rating.

 

[najaB]

It's not just a case of giving Agility even more money when the TOC are already paying eye watering amounts compared to other trains bought in the conventional way.

I probably missed it in the just under 4000 posts on this thread but is there a whole life comparison of the costs of the pay-per-diagram model vs a regular lease?

 

[47802]

These are already extremely expensive trains. Converting all the electric only one into bi-modes was yet more cost. It's not just a case of giving Agility even more money when the TOC are already paying eye watering amounts compared to other trains bought in the conventional way.

I don't doubt turning them into Bi-modes is expensive but they didn't have much choice having decided to postpone electrification into Oxford and Bristol, similarly if the only way they can make the timetable work is do whatever upgrades are needed be that full power, and bigger fuel tanks then I don't doubt that will happen, yes its expensive besides the extra cost of converting the electric only units, there is the additional units ordered to cover for the lack of wires to Oxford plus 1 additional unit ordered covers the fact that Bi-mode availability is lower than electric only.

 

[deltic08]

A few thoughts:
a) The IEP Dwell time should be lower due to non manual doors and the timetabling risk that door(s) isn't/aren't closed.
b) IEP acceleration and braking even at original spec on diesel should be far better than HST.

So that might produce a higher performance without needing too much time at higher rated engine power output (and hence fuel consumption) to compensate for the less than 125mph max speed. Especially if lots of running at less than 125mph and lots of stop the top speed matters less. The via Oxford services would have virtually all the high speed running under electric so might make the most sense in the circumstances if worrying about fuel levels as there would be the least difference overall in terms of extra Diesel running.

c) I haven't been following the GW electrification ultra closely but I assume that the 2 main issues that will caused delays on the Didcot - Bristol Parkway route are at Steventon then the Cotswold AONB section resulting in the December 2018 go live date with the other parts able to be completed far sooner, the question is could they be energised sooner as well? E.g. current piling in Wooton Basset Area but theoretical go live in 22 months...
Similar situation for Bristol Parkway - Cardiff presumably a useful section could be energised earlier than Decmeber 2018 given the amount of work completed to date (piling, bridge rebuilding, resignalling)

So would another section or 2 available earlier reduce a sensible amount of diesel running in terms of refuelling and diagramming?

Am I right in assuming they can change mode at speed?

 

[najaB]

Am I right in assuming they can change mode at speed?

That was stated to be the case upthread.

 

[hwl]

Am I right in assuming they can change mode at speed?

Yes so adding incremental sections rather than just between stops makes some sense provided it is meaningful length of running under the wires and on and off every few minutes as the engines won't be too happy with that.

 

[deltic08]

Er you can't just say 'ow just run them at full commercial rate then'. The 'pay per diagram' agreement the DFT signed with Agility trains was with the engines derated. It is for Agility and their financial backers to decide if they will allow for the engines to be used at full commercial rating and from what RF has said on previous Informed Sources columns there seems little appetite to allow that. And why should they really? The whole agreement was done based on the old electrification timetable. Ever since the electrification project started going wrong and they deffered indefinitely some parts this has all been about damage limitation for the whole GWEP project. As I have said before I'm sure the MPs are hoping the sight of shiny new trains will appease the fact that journey times may not change or in some cases possibly increase!

What a mess. This could only happen on a privatised railway. How much will fares rise to pay for some faceless civil servants cockup. The poor fare payer. Bring back British Rail asap.

 

[Domh245]

What a mess. This could only happen on a privatised railway. How much will fares rise to pay for some faceless civil servants cockup. The poor fare payer. Bring back British Rail asap.

I thought we'd been over this before. The privatised railway doesn't go for that kind of contract (see the GWR, Hull Trains, and TPE Class 802 orders through conventional ROSCO deals). A renationalised railway would leave stock procurement in the hands of the "faceless civil servants" who have a track record of going for this kind of leasing deal.

 

[deltic08]

I don't doubt turning them into Bi-modes is expensive but they didn't have much choice having decided to postpone electrification into Oxford and Bristol, similarly if the only way they can make the timetable work is do whatever upgrades are needed be that full power, and bigger fuel tanks then I don't doubt that will happen, yes its expensive besides the extra cost of converting the electric only units, there is the additional units ordered to cover for the lack of wires to Oxford plus 1 additional unit ordered covers the fact that Bi-mode availability is lower than electric only.

Not only the extra cost of conversion to bimodes but the cost of wire installation on top of that. The whole mess seems to be lacking project management.

 

[43074]

Not only the extra cost of conversion to bimodes but the cost of wire installation on top of that. The whole mess seems to be lacking project management.

Of course it is, it's being 'managed', for want of a better term, by politicians and the DfT.

 

[najaB]

The whole mess seems to be lacking project management.

Of course there is project management, however they didn't correctly identify the risks at the project definition stage. There's a maxim that I came across about designing a computer system which applies here equally: £1 at the requirement definition stage = £10 at the design stage = £100 at the implementation stage = £1000 in operation.

 

[coppercapped]

Not only the extra cost of conversion to bimodes but the cost of wire installation on top of that. The whole mess seems to be lacking project management.

Read the report Modernising the Great Western railway issued by the National Audit Office in November 2016 (HC 781 SESSION 2016-17 9 NOVEMBER 2016).

Before you womble on about re-nationalisation remember this:

• the DfT IS part of the structure of nationalisation, and
• Network Rail is effectively, but not quite legally, nationalised.

No private company would have gone for any deal, organisation or governance structure that in any way resembles what we have at the moment.

 

[coppercapped]

I probably missed it in the just under 4000 posts on this thread but is there a whole life comparison of the costs of the pay-per-diagram model vs a regular lease?

Not to my knowledge. The DfT was very cagey in releasing any figures which could be analysed to give the equivalent of lease cost/vehicle/month until the National Audit Office published the basic data in its report Procuring new trains (HC 531 SESSION 2014-15 9 JULY 2014).

Roger Ford then published an analysis a month or so later, which showed that the costs were significantly higher than for the Pendolino coaches. These are a good comparison as they also have a 140mph design speed and, in addition, tilt so the overall complexity is similar to the Class 80X.

Don't forget, the per diagram costs include maintenance, cleaning and servicing the debt that Hitachi / Agility Trains have accrued since the start of the project. In normal leasing deals maintenance and cleaning are paid for separately.

 

[najaB]

Don't forget, the per diagram costs include maintenance, cleaning and servicing the debt that Hitachi / Agility Trains have accrued since the start of the project. In normal leasing deals maintenance and cleaning are paid for separately.

Indeed. That's why I was wondering as it might seem that the costs are quite expensive but if rates stay the same over the near 30 year lifetime of the deal (or climb slower than inflation) the latter years of the contract may work out quite cheap.

Edit: Not to mention that it'll be Hitachi/Agility Trains stuck with the hassle of making sure that a 2038 Class 800 has the same performance as a 2018 Class 800.

 

[leomartin125]

Last night a Class 800 returned from Bristol Stoke Gifford IEP Depot to North Pole IEP Depot, not sure which one it was. If anyone knows, would be great to find out.

It operated this:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97207/2017/02/03/advanced

After doing an evening of testing between Bristol Parkway and Swindon.

Most likely was 800004 or 800003, just would like to know.

Cheers.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Would I be right in thinking it was those tests which contributed toward the realisation of insufficient power, and the subsequent order of the 802's with higher output?

'insufficient' power i think not; given the 802 has exactly the same powerpoacks , just a different set of ECU settings as standard ( the 'optional but it costs you more per hour/ mile ' settings for the vehicles running under the IEP programme , rather than the 802 procurement model )