GWR Class 800

[Master29]

The trains in the IEP contracts were specified by the DfT.

The design, development, manufacture and testing of the trains and the construction of the assembly plant in Newton Aycliffe[1] was paid for by Hitachi using its own and, mostly, borrowed money. The construction/modification of the depots was paid for by Agility Trains which also carries out all maintenance and cleaning.

The TOCs pay Agility Trains for each completed diagram - with adjustments for short formations/not properly presented trains/etc. The TOC is obliged to get a specific train back to its pre-determined maintenance depot at the end of the diagram - if it doesn't further adjustments are made.
The payments are set down in the various DfT/Agility Trains contracts. The TOCs make the payments to Agility Trains but these payments are guaranteed by the DfT for the duration of the contract - in this case for 27 1/2 years.

[1] There was government/local government 'sweetener' made in connection with the construction of the plant.

So, in short the taxpayer then.

 

[gsnedders]

Thank you.

So although First / GWR took on the contract knowing what they were getting - they had next to no input into the train design either from an engenerjnv point of view or a customer comfort/facility point of view?

Correct. (First/GWR took on the contract with the DfT for the franchise, and a condition for bidding was the acceptance of these DfT specified trains.)

 

[w1bbl3]

Usage of trains procured under the intercity express programme is written in the to GW franchise / direct award the franchisee isn't able to choose to use different stock. So in effect only semi permanent input the TOC had was to suggest the interior colours.

The seating arrangement, seats themselves and catering arrangements are DfT specified items. The exterior vinyl wrap is GWR's doing and to be returned to grey at the end of the franchise unless the next operator decides to keep the green.

GWR had specification authority on the 802's procured directly, but these have been specified internally to match IEP procured trainsets.

 

[cactustwirly]

Did the TOCs pay for them or are they being paid for by the TOCs? Or did Agility Trains build them as an investment?

Thanks for confirming that the DfT set the specifications for them.

Well technically paid for by agility, but the TOCs pay for them in leasing costs.
Agility trains were the preferred bidder and chosen by the DfT

 

[Clarence Yard]

And in procuring the 802 sets as part of that DA, the DfT were very “interested” in the final specification.

 

[Jpeg]

The one slightly odd issue I've noticed is with the power supplied to the sockets for customer use. When running on diesel my phone charges and works normally, but when running on electric the phone will take a charge but behaves strangely - constantly switching between screens / input types etc.

It goes back to normal as soon as I unplug the power, so I'm assuming it's an issue with the 240v supply. Anyone else encountered this?

Are you using a third party charger, I’ve heard these grounding issues are common with them

 

[coppercapped]

Well technically paid for by agility, but the TOCs pay for them in leasing costs.
Agility trains were the preferred bidder and chosen by the DfT

There are some subtle but important differences between trains being 'leased' and the 'Train Service Provision' contract that DfT agreed with Agility Trains. In the 'leasing' case the TOC has use of the trains when it will during the lease period and pays for them even if they fail either in the depot or on the track. The TOC carries some of the risks involved in train operation.

In the latter Agility only gets paid in full if (a) the train is presented in a condition meeting the contract terms and (b) it runs the full diagram. The DfT/Agility Trains contract essentially puts all the technical and maintenance risks on Agility Trains. In its turn the TOC has to hand back the train for maintenance in the right place at the right time or it is liable for Agility's extra costs. I don't know how this is then sorted out between the TOC and Network Rail if the hand-back is late or at the wrong depot due to issues with operating or the infrastructure. I presume that the TOC then claims for its extra costs from NR.

 

[Dai Corner]

Ultimately, of course, the trains are paid for by the farepayer, the taxpayer (depending on the premium/subsidy profile), and possibly the TOC (if they make a loss on their operations).

 

[Dren Ahmeti]

Are you using a third party charger, I’ve heard these grounding issues are common with them

I have the same issue with an offical iPhone charger + cable.
It affects both my iPhone 8 and my old SE, it’s very weird.

 

[Clarence Yard]

There are some subtle but important differences between trains being 'leased' and the 'Train Service Provision' contract that DfT agreed with Agility Trains. In the 'leasing' case the TOC has use of the trains when it will during the lease period and pays for them even if they fail either in the depot or on the track. The TOC carries some of the risks involved in train operation.

In the latter Agility only gets paid in full if (a) the train is presented in a condition meeting the contract terms and (b) it runs the full diagram. The DfT/Agility Trains contract essentially puts all the technical and maintenance risks on Agility Trains. In its turn the TOC has to hand back the train for maintenance in the right place at the right time or it is liable for Agility's extra costs. I don't know how this is then sorted out between the TOC and Network Rail if the hand-back is late or at the wrong depot due to issues with operating or the infrastructure. I presume that the TOC then claims for its extra costs from NR.

The TOC is on risk for this as under the TAA with NR, NR are not liable for consequential loss. Agility can also withhold a unit (at TOC cost) if it hasn't been handed back in time for it's mandatory 3.75, 7 or 9 hour maintenance slot.

However, there are reasonableness clauses under the TARA which deal with and mitigate the exposure for on the day disruptive events.

 

[coppercapped]

The TOC is on risk for this as under the TAA with NR, NR are not liable for consequential loss. Agility can also withhold a unit (at TOC cost) if it hasn't been handed back in time for it's mandatory 3.75, 7 or 9 hour maintenance slot.

However, there are reasonableness clauses under the TARA which deal with and mitigate the exposure for on the day disruptive events.

Thank you for the clarification.

I heard somebody say at an IMechE meeting in Swindon some months ago that Hitachi had supplied a very flexible train but that the DfT had supplied very rigid contracts!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The East Coast 800s had more TOC input (VTEC - remember them?) for the interior design than did GWR, because the deal was finalised later.
The DfT also specified and procured the class 700 for Thameslink (so GTR are not responsible for any shortcomings).
HS2 Ltd (effectively another branch of DfT) are specifying and procuring the HS2 classic-compatible stock which will run on the northern section of the WCML.
The winner of the WCP franchise competition, who will operate them, will have very little if any say in the design.

 

[ainsworth74]

The East Coast 800s had more TOC input (VTEC - remember them?) for the interior design than did GWR, because the deal was finalised later.
The DfT also specified and procured the class 700 for Thameslink (so GTR are not responsible for any shortcomings).
HS2 Ltd (effectively another branch of DfT) are specifying and procuring the HS2 classic-compatible stock which will run on the northern section of the WCML.
The winner of the WCP franchise competition, who will operate them, will have very little if any say in the design.

Which of course is ideal for the DfT. They can drive down price of the trains themselves by making them as bargain basement as possible (though no-body look too closely at the eye watering IEP contract) whilst cramming as many seats as possible into them (the seat next to the door pocket is crying out for a luggage rack) and being able to pass off any passenger unhappiness onto the TOCs because it's all so complex that your average punter won't be aware of the various intricacies that led to the train they now sit in.

 

[sprinterguy]

Clocked 800202 sitting in bay platform 7 at York about an hour ago: I hadn't realised that Hitachi were turning out East Coast 5-car sets already, given that the 13 x 9-car 800/1s were due to be accepted first, and I haven't heard anything about all but pre-series set 800101.

Watched it pull away on electric power, and while it's a gentle start to clear the pointwork out of platform 7, it seemed notably quieter than a 390, which are hardly obtrusive noisewise themselves.

 

[class26]

Clocked 800202 sitting in bay platform 7 at York about an hour ago: I hadn't realised that Hitachi were turning out East Coast 5-car sets already, given that the 13 x 9-car 800/1s were due to be accepted first, and I haven't heard anything about all but pre-series set 800101.

Watched it pull away on electric power, and while it's a gentle start to clear the pointwork out of platform 7, it seemed notably quieter than a 390, which are hardly obtrusive noisewise themselves.

I saw a 5 car on electric stop at platform 1 at Grantham last week and then accelerate away southwards like a scalded cat. They really do shift on electric

 

[jimm]

Clocked 800202 sitting in bay platform 7 at York about an hour ago: I hadn't realised that Hitachi were turning out East Coast 5-car sets already, given that the 13 x 9-car 800/1s were due to be accepted first, and I haven't heard anything about all but pre-series set 800101.

Watched it pull away on electric power, and while it's a gentle start to clear the pointwork out of platform 7, it seemed notably quieter than a 390, which are hardly obtrusive noisewise themselves.

800201 and 800202 were built in Japan as pre-series sets, so no impact on what is being turned out at Newton Aycliffe

 

[sprinterguy]

800201 and 800202 were built in Japan as pre-series sets, so no impact on what is being turned out at Newton Aycliffe

Ah fair enough, hadn't realised those two were pre-series trains. Cheers for the clarification.

 

[realnovice]

How many will go into service on ECML when they've finished training?

 

[Kite159]

Not sure if notable but 800020 has just departed Plymouth heading towards Penzance as "5Z50 0454 Laira T.& R.S.M.D. to Penzance". I assume driver training?

Certainly an unusual sight to see from the sleeper this morning

 

[sprinterguy]

How many will go into service on ECML when they've finished training?

13 x 9-car Class 800/1 bi-mode sets
10 x 5-car Class 800/2 bi-mode sets

12 x 5-car Class 801/1 electric sets
30 x 9-car Class 801/2 electric sets (225 replacement)

 

[kje7812]

Wasn't there something that NR needs to do power supply upgrades before they can run north of Doncaster? Is their a date for this yet?

 

[coppercapped]

So, in short the taxpayer then.

Sorry, should have responded to your post earlier.

The response to your comment is 'No', at least not at the moment.

As the current franchisee pays a premium to the DfT it is clear that all the costs of running the franchise are paid for by the passenger, including the costs of leasing trains from the ROSCOs and the Train Service Provision payments due to Agility Trains. The taxpayer only becomes liable for the Train Service Provision payments if the TOC ceases to make them, wholly or in part.

There are of course questions about the levels of the access charges paid to Network Rail and adjustments made to the premium profile as a result of the second Direct Award - but these are debates which are not wholly connected with the Class 800 and therefore do not belong in this thread.

 

[Master29]

Passenger, taxpayer, all the same difference in the end however it`s dressed up that`s what it boils down to. Not really a problem with this from a passenger perspective as agreed the cost has to start somewhere, but when TOC`s and franchises start to screw up then this becomes a problem but as you rightly point out a different thread entirely.

 

[coppercapped]

Passenger, taxpayer, all the same difference in the end however it`s dressed up

SNIP

This is incorrect.

Not all taxpayers use trains.

Not all passengers are tax-payers.

 

[Master29]

This is incorrect.

Not all taxpayers use trains.

Not all passengers are tax-payers.

OK users if you like. We as users pay for it but again, another topic entirely.

 

[TractiveEffort]

This is incorrect.

Not all taxpayers use trains.

Not all passengers are tax-payers.

You’d be hard pushed not to be a tax payer in this country, VAT, fuel duty, beer duty, tobacco duty, road fund licence, etc etc. All taxes, which I’m sure mount up to a considerable sum for most of us.

 

[Phil G]

Went past North pole yesterday and there was a lot of 800s there which surprised me as I thought they would be out working. Some 800/3s and 800001 in green, first time I've seen that. Saw 800306 arrive into Paddington on a training run and then leave again. Very impressed with acceleration under electric power but have to confirm the very load bangs from the bogies at speed.

 

[MaxB]

A couple of years ago I used the TGV from Lille to Avignon. Unfortunately our bit had a defective buffet car and all we had for the journey (extended by a failed train in front) was free bottled water. People in the "other" half were fine! Yesterday, coming back from Bristol on the 1600 with 2x800 units while the front half had facilities (and empty seats apparently) we had neither and people were standing as far as Swindon. Yet again, it seems, the HST design of a fixed unit through train wins again. I could also go on about the hard seats and draughty (and very cold) aircon, but I won't!

 

[Mikey C]

Which of course is ideal for the DfT. They can drive down price of the trains themselves by making them as bargain basement as possible (though no-body look too closely at the eye watering IEP contract) whilst cramming as many seats as possible into them (the seat next to the door pocket is crying out for a luggage rack) and being able to pass off any passenger unhappiness onto the TOCs because it's all so complex that your average punter won't be aware of the various intricacies that led to the train they now sit in.

Not sure that's entirely fair, the legroom is pretty decent. Personally I wouldn't want to sit next to a blank wall, but for people who will spend the whole journey looking at a tablet/laptop, it probably isn't a big issue

 

[D365]

Yet again, it seems, the HST design of a fixed unit through train wins again.

What happens if a HST has a defective buffet car?