GWR Class 800

[pt_mad]

That may well be the case, however that could well be sure to the fact that there's little or no scope for improvement.

There will always be things that are so good that there's no noticeable improvement on them for a long time. In fact there's probably things now of lower quality than they were 30 years ago, because they are things that people care little about.

Too right, there is little scope for improved ride quality vs a MK3. But there's loads of improvements on these trains Vs the original MK3 design (when it was introduced) such as it's a bi-mode, which was in the spec. Plug sockets throughout, WiFi, and meeting safety standards which apply to 21st century new trains being introduced.
I assume MK3s wouldn't pass safety standards for new trains if introduced as new today. It's only their historic introduction that allows them to run, same as the Pacers. Standards have changed. And things have to be economical and economical regards wear and tear as well and being heavy duty. It had to offer some value to the taxpayer not just luxury like in the Victorian times.

 

[PHILIPE]

You could ask in the class 800 diagrams thread in the allocations sub forum?

Or in the TOPS request thread, The Diagrams thread is for publication of diagram details rather than other discussion and queries as the Mods have earlier pointed out.

 

[JN114]

Does anyone know which 9 carriage unit worked 1G11 paddington to Cheltenham on the 18th and the 21st of June and what it's operating history is?

800305 both days

 

[coppercapped]

Maybe so but most information seems to show what most passengers want most of all is a fairly priced ticket, a seat, and for the train to run on time, and obviously to be safe. Everything else comes secondary to most passengers and commuters. These will do the job well and I think they will likely meet (and exceed - they're new) the average expectations of most. I'd imagine a heck of a lot of passengers, especially leisure travelers, will just be impressed that they have a new train rather then these 'old trains' as many occasional travelers know the HSTs. I've heard many a passenger at a station who's not been on a train for a few years standing there as a HST rolls in and commenting that 'these trains are a bit old aint they, they still got old fashioned doors' They expect something 21st century now, and this will meet the need I feel. And they could end up the most reliable units ever in service. We won't know for a few years. They would deserve total credit if they were.

I know you said other units are not relevant, but they are all we have to compare to. Exactly the same happened on the WCML, the busiest line. They went from a full rake of Mk3s to a fleet of EMUs and DMUs. The Pendolinos got stick for having plastic panels instead of windows, less leg room, less tables, darker inside, smaller windows. However they have revolutionised the West Coast in terms of the timetable that can be in place by using them. They are ultra reliable and they are now pretty respected because of all this. And they were new and so were like the new aircraft of the railways at the time. Spotters weren't much for them, but commuters and business travelers absolutely loved the new journey times and very high frequency timetable that they could offer. And they were (are) very clean.

Its all a matter of relative opinion anyway. The voyagers tried to solve the need on the XC routes and they didn't really live up to the mark. But these by far exceed voyagers, and sprinters really. We, as people with an interest in trains have higher standards than someone simply wanting to travel from a to b as quickly as possible with a clean train and a seat. They had a budget and they're not going to perform miracles as far as new stock is concerned.

So what? If the ride is reasonable and it does its job, it doesn't really matter if its better or worse than a HST, in a few years time most punters wont remember what the ride was like on HST's on GWML and EC express services, A MK4 is in many respects inferior to a MK3 but it doesn't stop people travelling, a 390 is awful train in many respects compared to the MK2/Mk3 stock that was replaced but it doesn't stop people travelling, a 158 is in many respects inferior to the many Loco Hauled trains that they replaced but it doesn't stop people travelling.

As long as the ride quality is adequate for the purpose, why does that matter?

Engineering design is all about getting the best compromises between the myriad (usually conflicting) design constraints imposed on the product. If the designers of the Mk3 coach had had the same design constraints as the Hitachi engineers it might well have ridden differently - we will never know. Also occasionally (as I know after nearly 40 years spent designing electronics) occasionally the 'stars align' and you finish up with a product that is better than you expected, but that doesn't normally happen - most product designs are 'good enough' but no more than that, cost and time pressures being a big factor (you can't spend forever tweaking and modifying something - it has to get 'out the door').

These positions are all votes for mediocrity.

The Class 80X/IET/Azuma/whatever will be the front-line high speed train on all the classic inter-city routes for the next quarter of a century.

In that time the competition will get better in terms of smoothness of travel and reduction in what the automotive industry calls ‘NHV’ - Noise, Vibration and Harshness. There are already moves towards adaptive and active suspensions and the wider adoption of electric and hybrid drives will mean that internal combustion engines - a notable source of vibration - can be reduced in size or even removed altogether. Driving assistance, or even autonomous driving in some scenarios, will reduce stress levels further. Car travel may well become as smooth and as easy as using the train.

As some posters have pointed out - the train was built to a specification. This only proves the old adage that generals always prepare to fight the last war again. Similarly with Civil Servants.

One final point. The Midland Main Line has always been challenging for the Mark 3 coach and its BT10 bogies. So much so that BR experimented with active lateral damping on a pair of BT10s on that route. This, by all reports, worked well as it avoided bump stop contact between the bolster and the bogie frame on curves. For one reason or another it was not generally adopted - but such technology existed 25 years ago so it is disgraceful that the IET offers nothing better in terms of basic engineering than that achieved nearly 50 years ago.

One can only hope that the trains to be constructed for HS2 will be an improvement.

 

[pt_mad]

But are they (the IEPs) really that bad?

They're hardly a poor result like a Voyager was and even they do the job they were supposed to and aren't pencilled for replacement even next franchise.

 

[coppercapped]

But are they (the IEPs) really that bad?

They're hardly a poor result like a Voyager was and even they do the job they were supposed to and aren't pencilled for replacement even next franchise.

Where did I write that they were 'bad'?

I wrote that they ride no better than, and in some places worse than, the Mark 3 / BT10 combination designed nearly 50 years ago. Since the Mk 3 and BT10 there have been other good riding bogie/body combinations. The Series 3 and the 4 - the latter used under the Class 158s and some DVTs - are also good examples. Apart from the DVTs they run at lower speeds but at 90 or 100mph they are more 'relaxed' than the IET with its occasional crashes and bangs.

One should expect better, much better, for a train that will remain in front line service for the next quarter century and more. You can assume that the car you buy in 2043 will ride better and have lower values of Noise, Vibration and Harshness than the Ford Cortina or Morris Oxford of 1971.

 

[Dave1987]

Where did I write that they were 'bad'?

I wrote that they ride no better than, and in some places worse than, the Mark 3 / BT10 combination designed nearly 50 years ago. Since the Mk 3 and BT10 there have been other good riding bogie/body combinations. The Series 3 and the 4 - the latter used under the Class 158s and some DVTs - are also good examples. Apart from the DVTs they run at lower speeds but at 90 or 100mph they are more 'relaxed' than the IET with its occasional crashes and bangs.

One should expect better, much better, for a train that will remain in front line service for the next quarter century and more. You can assume that the car you buy in 2043 will ride better and have lower values of Noise, Vibration and Harshness than the Ford Cortina or Morris Oxford of 1971.

I 100% agree. For the sheer cost they should have been absolutely brilliant. We are now going to end up with a mediocre train as the main flagship intercity service for the next quarter century and paying vast amounts for it. Whole IEP project is an absolute shambles.

 

[James James]

These positions are all votes for mediocrity.

The Class 80X/IET/Azuma/whatever will be the front-line high speed train on all the classic inter-city routes for the next quarter of a century.

In that time the competition will get better in terms of smoothness of travel and reduction in what the automotive industry calls ‘NHV’ - Noise, Vibration and Harshness. There are already moves towards adaptive and active suspensions and the wider adoption of electric and hybrid drives will mean that internal combustion engines - a notable source of vibration - can be reduced in size or even removed altogether. Driving assistance, or even autonomous driving in some scenarios, will reduce stress levels further. Car travel may well become as smooth and as easy as using the train.

As some posters have pointed out - the train was built to a specification. This only proves the old adage that generals always prepare to fight the last war again. Similarly with Civil Servants.

One final point. The Midland Main Line has always been challenging for the Mark 3 coach and its BT10 bogies. So much so that BR experimented with active lateral damping on a pair of BT10s on that route. This, by all reports, worked well as it avoided bump stop contact between the bolster and the bogie frame on curves. For one reason or another it was not generally adopted - but such technology existed 25 years ago so it is disgraceful that the IET offers nothing better in terms of basic engineering than that achieved nearly 50 years ago.

One can only hope that the trains to be constructed for HS2 will be an improvement.

You can bluster all you like, but even on the continent nationalised train companies are focussing on reducing train weight (for rail wear and acceleration reasons, both ultimately reducing cost and improving service). And that focus on train weight is having the exact same effect: worse ride quality.

 

[jayah]

You can bluster all you like, but even on the continent nationalised train companies are focussing on reducing train weight (for rail wear and acceleration reasons, both ultimately reducing cost and improving service). And that focus on train weight is having the exact same effect: worse ride quality.

Interesting of worse ride quality is an outcome of trying to reduce rail wear.

There are some tonnes of passengers on a single long distance railway carriage. The most technically efficient solution to the supposed weight issue, is simply not to let them get on.

 

[James James]

Interesting of worse ride quality is an outcome of trying to reduce rail wear.

There are some tonnes of passengers on a single long distance railway carriage. The most technically efficient solution to the supposed weight issue, is simply not to let them get on.

If you drive the prices up enough with an inefficient railway system, very few will get on. But you'd be hard pressed to create ride quality worse than that of a car on a british road.

Passengers are only about 10% of the weight of a train though, and that's an unavoidable weight.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Passengers are only about 10% of the weight of a train though, and that's an unavoidable weight.

If all Reading commuters were encouraged to diet in exchange for season ticket discounts, it would reduce track wear in the Thames Valley, save fuel and allow more to be squeezed onto a peak hour IET, thereby saving paths.

 

[D1009]

You can bluster all you like, but even on the continent nationalised train companies are focussing on reducing train weight (for rail wear and acceleration reasons, both ultimately reducing cost and improving service). And that focus on train weight is having the exact same effect: worse ride quality.

It amuses me when people use phrases like "even on the continent" as if it is assumed that the railways of our European neighbours are so much better than ours. Can anyone seriously prefer the travel experience in an ICE3 over an ICE1, or a 374 over a 373?

 

[superalbs]

Can anyone seriously prefer the travel experience in an ICE3 over an ICE1, or a 374 over a 373?

Both of those are true for me!

 

[coppercapped]

You can bluster all you like, but even on the continent nationalised train companies are focussing on reducing train weight (for rail wear and acceleration reasons, both ultimately reducing cost and improving service). And that focus on train weight is having the exact same effect: worse ride quality.

Given that the design is properly engineered, there is absolutely no reason for a reduction in train weight - by which I suppose you mean a reduction in body mass - to result in a poorer quality of ride.

As I wrote in an earlier post one of the critical issues is ensuring that the natural resonant frequencies in the absence of damping - the eigenfrequencies - of the body and suspension do not get close enough to interfere with each other. It is possible to use active control of the suspension to accommodate track irregularities and to set up the bogies (if these are still being used) for curves. Articulation as done on the French TGVs means that damping across the primary suspension is not needed so removing a vibration path between the rails and the body. And lots of other things are conceivable and, quite possibly, do-able.

For inter-city travel, as long as a coach has a total mass of around 30 to 35 tonnes there is no great need to reduce the mass much further - mass only affects acceleration and not top speed which is mostly to do with aerodynamics. The requirements for metro and suburban services are slightly different. Mass has an indirect effect on track wear but bogie suspension characteristics (e.g., the stiffness of the bogie in yaw) are more significant. Train mass does affect the necessary strength of track and bridges but on a mixed traffic railway the designs are set by freight trains with 25 tonne axle loads, not by lighter weight passenger trains.

 

[jayah]

If all Reading commuters were encouraged to diet in exchange for season ticket discounts, it would reduce track wear in the Thames Valley, save fuel and allow more to be squeezed onto a peak hour IET, thereby saving paths.

The problem is the railway would rewrite its timetable planning rules and decide to run 20% more vehicle miles, without increasing the renewals budget by 20% or designing assets that last 20% longer.

 

[jayah]

If you drive the prices up enough with an inefficient railway system, very few will get on. But you'd be hard pressed to create ride quality worse than that of a car on a british road.

Passengers are only about 10% of the weight of a train though, and that's an unavoidable weight.

10%?

It is quite a bit more, even before 100% of the seats are occupied and far more than the diesel engines and fuel that the electrification lobby would have us believe are weighing down the trains and wrecking the track.

 

[James James]

10%?

It is quite a bit more, even before 100% of the seats are occupied and far more than the diesel engines and fuel that the electrification lobby would have us believe are weighing down the trains and wrecking the track.

5-car class 800 weight: 300t
weight/car: 60t
Seats per 5 car unit [1]: 315
Seats/car: 63
Average human weight: 63kg
Average human mass per car: 4t
4t humans seated / 60t car: 6.7% with every seat filled.
(It's hard to tell what the standing capacity is, but I'd hope the trains aren't that full most of the time.)

Just for comparison, a MTU 12V 1600 R80L is about 6t[2], so you're wrong on the diesel engine vs passenger count too.

[1] http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2014/r2014_10_105.pdf
[2] https://mtu-online-shop.com/print/3234421_MTU_Rail_spec_PowerPack_12V1600.pdf

On the ride quality topic, I've never actually been on an 800, but I can tell you the Mk3's I've taken weren't exactly smooth or quiet. Creaky and bumpy were more fitting adjectives.

 

[Sean Emmett]

5-car class 800 weight: 300t
weight/car: 60t.

Lots of discussion on here and WNXX re weight of the 800. I thought generally accepted to be 250 tonnes for a 5 car in working order?

 

[Goldfish62]

It amuses me when people use phrases like "even on the continent" as if it is assumed that the railways of our European neighbours are so much better than ours. Can anyone seriously prefer the travel experience in an ICE3 over an ICE1, or a 374 over a 373?

Good point. The overall quality and ambience of the ICE1 and 2 is hard to beat, as is the ride quality alone of the 373. I've yet to go on an ICE4, but I bet I won't like it so much, just as I'm distinctly underwhelmed by the 374.

 

[pt_mad]

If all Reading commuters were encouraged to diet in exchange for season ticket discounts, it would reduce track wear in the Thames Valley, save fuel and allow more to be squeezed onto a peak hour IET, thereby saving paths.

Seriously though are most users of these trains going to regard these as any less superior to a HST? Would they rather keep the HSTs for another 20 years? And what about the disabled regulations which will effect the HSTs in due course?

And there's the safety side of usingslam door trains on this scale. They surely only have to exceed the expectations of their typical customer and not experts or people with a detailed interest in trains such as us.

Question is will their customers be satisfied with them? If they are reliable, run on time, and they get a seat I should imagine the answer will be yes. So they will then have achieved their goal.

On another note is there not a train of thought that says if you made a carriage feel totally weightless with the most premium of premium suspension and no engines, and there was no budget cap, would people feel sick like they said about the APT? (I know this tilted but it was said to feel very very smooth like weightless).

Surely with motion comes some expectation from the brain that you will feel some vibration and detect the fact the wheels are turning underneath you? I would imagine so. If you got into a car that was so smooth you couldn't even feel the fact it was moving I think this may make some people feel motion sick. Even more so if you started reading or doing work without looking outside. Even riding a bicycle you feel the road. Same with walking!

 

[jimm]

Where did I write that they were 'bad'?

I wrote that they ride no better than, and in some places worse than, the Mark 3 / BT10 combination designed nearly 50 years ago. Since the Mk 3 and BT10 there have been other good riding bogie/body combinations. The Series 3 and the 4 - the latter used under the Class 158s and some DVTs - are also good examples. Apart from the DVTs they run at lower speeds but at 90 or 100mph they are more 'relaxed' than the IET with its occasional crashes and bangs.

One should expect better, much better, for a train that will remain in front line service for the next quarter century and more. You can assume that the car you buy in 2043 will ride better and have lower values of Noise, Vibration and Harshness than the Ford Cortina or Morris Oxford of 1971.

Did I miss some rule that says new trains must instantly ride like a magic carpet from day one?

The problems with the Mk4s in their early days aren't a secret and this despite the SIG BT41 being a proven design in Europe.

The 180s were terrible on jointed rail in their first few years of operation, especially on heavily-worn bullhead rail that survived in a couple of places on the Cotswold Line until the middle of the last decade - they could feel like a ship in a swell, with added sound effects. Then you would get to an adjacent bit of welded rail on concrete sleepers, the 180 was happy again and you would wonder if it was the same train.

Suspension set-up is presumably not an exact science and given the pressures to get the 800s into service and keep them running, I doubt much time and effort is going to be devoted to exploring fine-tuning the suspension at the moment.

 

[TwistedMentat]

Good enough is good enough. Perfect is a nice to have. Go out and ask the regular travelling public if they've even noticed. I've been on the 800 several times now with the missus and she's made no comment about noise or ride or anything else. As far as she's concerned it's a nice new shiny train that's good enough.

Of course we all want perfect from day 1. That's a perfectly natural want. But we have to remember the real measure is good enough. Good enough to get the job done in relative comfort. The 800s have shown they meet this for the general travelling public. Come end of next year I would expect most travellers will have to be prompted to remember the HSTs between Bristol and Paddington.

 

[pt_mad]

Good enough is good enough. Perfect is a nice to have. Go out and ask the regular travelling public if they've even noticed. I've been on the 800 several times now with the missus and she's made no comment about noise or ride or anything else. As far as she's concerned it's a nice new shiny train that's good enough.

Of course we all want perfect from day 1. That's a perfectly natural want. But we have to remember the real measure is good enough. Good enough to get the job done in relative comfort. The 800s have shown they meet this for the general travelling public. Come end of next year I would expect most travellers will have to be prompted to remember the HSTs between Bristol and Paddington.

Exactly. And I would even suggest that the fact it's a shiny new train by itself might mean it does meet perfect from day one for many travelers. If you went out and bought a brand new Ford Focus (other family hatchbacks are available) and when you collected it it was all shiny and new, had mod cons your old car didn't have, everything worked as expected and it kept running and got you there safely without breakdown or technical issue you'd probably consider this to have met its requirements perfectly. This is what was ordered and this is what was delivered.
If you bought a Ford Focus but wanted to compare it's ride or luxuries to a Porsche however you are going to end up disappointed.

The trains have been procured now. There's nothing that can be done outside of tweaking so the sensible thing is for us to do is embrace them and give them every chance to become a success which I think customers will. Otherwise we will just end up complaining about something which we had no influence over and which can't or won't be replaced which is only going to leave us disappointed for a long time.

 

[Dai Corner]

I think most passengers would rather have a seat in a slighty rough riding in places train than stand in one with a silky smooth ride all the way.

By the way, I was forced to check out the ride and ambience in the vestibule of a short-formed 800 the other day and consider it superior to that of an HST vestibule.

 

[coppercapped]

The Mark 3 coach is not perfect and I have never claimed it to be. has its share of groans and thumps but the majority of these come from the gangway connections and drawgear rather than the running gear. The bodysides are also flexible laterally so there is a thump when passing a train running in the opposite direction at speed. Coach walls made of double skinned extruded aluminium planks, used in the Class 165 and 166 trains and now also in the IET, are very rigid so this effect belongs to the past. Gangway design is also better in the IET, it is quieter and is less draughty than the Pullman gangways used in the Mark 3 which are a pre-war design. (The prototypes and early production Mark 3 used a foamed plastic connection which was intended to cut draughts, but it didn't survive day-to-day operation. After a while the design was changed back to the original Pullman cover). There is always a little slack in Buckeye couplers which can give rise to bumps and bangs, the IET has a semi-permanent bar coupling arrangement between coaches so this source of noise has been removed.

And so on.

But the point remains that the Class 80X suspension gives rise to the occasional crashes and bangs and there is a higher frequency vibration which is transmitted to the passenger giving the impression of nervousness. The BT10 bogie under the Mark 3 coach or the Series 3 bogie under the Class 165s and 166s do not do this.

The BT10 is not perfect. In its original guise it was very smooth but like all designs of that era it probably needed more maintenance than does a modern design. For example they rode badly and jerks and jolts were common when running on the Western at the end of the BR era, especially when starting or stopping. One of the first things that Great Western Trains did at the start of its franchise - apart from putting every train through the carriage washer every day which seemed an impossible task for BR - was a campaign change of the traction rods and rubber bushes which locate the bolster to the bogie frame - this one change restored the ride experience to almost as new. Many vertical dampers were subsequently replaced - one could see all the shiny new dampers - and this also helped.

As to tweaking the suspension with time, this tended to work against the BT10 - shortening the vertical swing links to allow the bogie to work safely over third rail territory affected the lateral ride. On good track the effect was marginal, but the coach tended to lurch more if the track wasn't so good. This effect is noticeable to this day.

I would hope that the suspension of the Class 80X can be tweaked to give the silky smoothness that was the characteristic of the Mark 3/BT10 combination which was a significant improvement on what went before. It is not possible to claim that the Class 80X is a significant improvement over what went before - and after nearly 50 years that is damning.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Lots of discussion on here and WNXX re weight of the 800. I thought generally accepted to be 250 tonnes for a 5 car in working order?

The exact weights are listed in the Combined Volume.

Weight per car in tons ( or is it quoted in tonnes? )from the PDTSO end of a 5 car unit:

47.8
50.1
50.3
50.6
51.7

 

[toot toot]

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97194/2018/06/28/advanced

Out on test up to Aberdeen tonight.

 

[D1009]

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97194/2018/06/28/advanced

Out on test up to Aberdeen tonight.

It will be interesting whether the performance of the set, presumably to the original specification as regards power generates the same kind of debate over performance on GWR which took place earlier in this thred.

 

[gingertom]

It will be interesting whether the performance of the set, presumably to the original specification as regards power generates the same kind of debate over performance on GWR which took place earlier in this thred.

less of an issue on the Edinburgh-Aberdeen run as the gradients aren't severe. I'd be more interested in how they cope with climbs up Drumochter and Slochd on the Highland Main Line- do we have any facts and figures?

 

[Dai Corner]

It will be interesting whether the performance of the set, presumably to the original specification as regards power generates the same kind of debate over performance on GWR which took place earlier in this thred.

A key difference being that it was always the intention that they would operate on diesel to Aberdeen but doing so to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea is a stop-gap measure (the Bristol gap being of indeterminate length and the Swansea one probably infinite!).