Yes the leg room is excellent (every seat feels like a priority seat in my opinion) but rather than sacrifice a few seats that are next to a blank wall (and have no spacer between) and add something useful like a couple of luggage racks let's have those extra seats.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
GWR Class 800
- Thread starter SpacePhoenix
- Start date
- Status
Yes the leg room is excellent (every seat feels like a priority seat in my opinion) but rather than sacrifice a few seats that are next to a blank wall (and have no spacer between) and add something useful like a couple of luggage racks let's have those extra seats.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
D1009
Established Member
Very true, I've seen those seats occupied when others are left empty.
Or when the HST is full and standing regularly yet these not enough to justify running a second service?
Typhoon_93
Member
With the GWR class 800 build drawing to a close at Aycliffe (only 8 shells for 301 still to arrive) the first LNER Class 800 shells are starting to arrive 2 shells for 800102/T59 arriving this week 814102 and 819102.
Remember a 2xTGV is 400m, a 2x800 is 260m, a (2+8) HST is 220m. Each TGV is about as long as an HST! How would you feel about a 2xHST operated service? Would that be inappropriate?
In time we may get 2x200m trains, however there's a number of people opposed to the proposals to allow this within the UK, however it appears to be going ahead.
However I would be strongly opposed to 2x HST services, for the simple reason that once a line requires that many services the route should be electrified.
Just as a side note a 2x80x can be one of the following lengths 260m, 390m or 520m, it's just a shame or network doesn't allow them to be run that long in service.
absolutelymilk
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,243
Is there a thread for the introduction of the Class 802s to the West of England line, which was planned to be from Monday? Is that still the plan?
irish_rail
Established Member
No, end of August is the current thinking
TBSchenker
Member
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Messages
- 552
Had my first trip on an 800 yesterday from Swindon back to London. I had already done Reading to Swindon on a HST. I did this to compare ride quality and experiences.
Firstly, the HST I caught had 2 coaches where air-conditioning wasn’t working, but as the rest of the train was full and standing I opted to sit in one of these coaches instead of standing. Once up to a decent speed there was some fresh cool air coming through the coach so it wasn’t that bad. Plus the staff handed out water.
The ride quality was pretty poor, every bump was felt, and I wasn’t sat over the bogies. Sideways swaying at some point. Not the ride I remembered from a Mark 3. Plus the FGW refurbishment spoilt the Mark 3 with the high backed seats. So for what may be one of my final trips on a GWT HST it was quite disappointing.
I boarded 2x800s at Swindon and the coach I was in was almost empty, which makes the experience different (an empty 220/221 is more of a pleasant train than a full one).
I have to say though the interior is surprising - very basic. No design to the ceiling panels, white plastic everywhere. I can forgive the green because it adds colour to the train.
The ride quality was better than the Mk 3, and the sound of the Diesel engine was masked by the very loud air conditioning, but I think it was quieter than a Voyager engine.
Once on Electric from Didcot the acceleration was noticeable, but at top speed the ride was a little rough, whether GW Pway is to blame I’m not sure.
Overall, I’m quite impressed. I’d like to see an IEP with a decent interior (so read this to be the TPE 802 as the next one i compare).
Firstly, the HST I caught had 2 coaches where air-conditioning wasn’t working, but as the rest of the train was full and standing I opted to sit in one of these coaches instead of standing. Once up to a decent speed there was some fresh cool air coming through the coach so it wasn’t that bad. Plus the staff handed out water.
The ride quality was pretty poor, every bump was felt, and I wasn’t sat over the bogies. Sideways swaying at some point. Not the ride I remembered from a Mark 3. Plus the FGW refurbishment spoilt the Mark 3 with the high backed seats. So for what may be one of my final trips on a GWT HST it was quite disappointing.
I boarded 2x800s at Swindon and the coach I was in was almost empty, which makes the experience different (an empty 220/221 is more of a pleasant train than a full one).
I have to say though the interior is surprising - very basic. No design to the ceiling panels, white plastic everywhere. I can forgive the green because it adds colour to the train.
The ride quality was better than the Mk 3, and the sound of the Diesel engine was masked by the very loud air conditioning, but I think it was quieter than a Voyager engine.
Once on Electric from Didcot the acceleration was noticeable, but at top speed the ride was a little rough, whether GW Pway is to blame I’m not sure.
Overall, I’m quite impressed. I’d like to see an IEP with a decent interior (so read this to be the TPE 802 as the next one i compare).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They really need a colour of seats that isn't grey - they just look too Spartan as they are.
MaxB
Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 37
A Eurostar is 400m long and accessible. But anyway, my point is that by dividing the train in half, you can deprive some "customers" of facilities but not others, hardly appropriate. I did not mention the further chaos the double unit no doubt caused, as they were "blowing up" as I ran up the stairs to the platform (not to be encouraged at my age) and leapt on. We than sat for 18 minutes because they discovered they didn't have a guard. The people on the "front" train not knowing what was happening in the "rear" train.
I make no secret that I detest the whole IEP program because of how hugely expensive it is for the end product.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The trains themselves are decidedly average (much as I don't like the seats), nothing special but nothing particularly good either. But I agree, the price has been outrageous; a traditional approach to Bombardier, Siemens, CAF or Stadler would have produced something better and cheaper.
Did we ever find out how much First Group were paying for their 800s that they bought themselves rather than through the mechanism of the Intercity Express Program?
I think the answer to that will remain "commercially confidential". But it will be less otherwise they'd have tagged it on as a variation.
Eversholt Rail are investing c.£497, 000, 000 inc spares etc in to the 22 x 5 car and 14 x 9 car class 802s, leased to GWR.
but not under the cost-secretive IEP scheme. That would have been considerably more.
D1009
Established Member
According to the Great Western Livery thread, up to 802012 have been delivered, but have any of the Pistoia built production series turned a wheel since delivery?
fgwrich
Established Member
Don't worry, because Great Western Railways has the solution to the DfT Grey seats...
https://shed83a.smugmug.com/Passenger/GWR/2018-GWR/i-PDd3wHZ/A
I think I prefer the DfT cloth to the GWR Astro-turf.
Really? I must have missed all the off-the-shelf intercity bi-modes those manufacturers offer.
Whoever got the order and however the deal was structured would have been wanting to recoup some hefty development costs to create such a train.
Alstom and a consortium involving Bombardier and Siemens all got invitations to tender from the DfT way back when. Alstom pulled out and Bombardier-Siemens lost out against Hitachi.
The interiors of CAF's TPE Mk5s can be seen here - I can't see that they differ that much from an IET interior bar some blue cloth on bits of the seats, blue carpet and the lovely fake wood panelling at the coach ends, which looks like something off a circa 1970 Mk2 coach. But then it's not the interior of a 'let's find fault with anything and everything' IET, so it is probably the best train interior under the sun...
http://m.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/transpennine-express-unveils-mk5a-coaches.html
Where do you get that idea from? It's not that hard to find the numbers.
The initial GWR Class 802 order was worth £361m for 22x5-car and 7x9-car trains - just under £2.1m per coach
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...rsholt-sign-hitachi-at300-train-contract.html
The GWR follow-one order for 7x9-car 802s was £139m for 63 coaches - £2.2m per coach.
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ern-orders-seven-new-intercity-express-trains
The Hull Trains order, for 5x5-car sets was stated in the official press release to be valued at £60m when it was agreed - £2.4m per coach.
http://press.hitachirail-eu.com/pre...and-fleet-with-60-pounds-million-deal-1629577
Can't find a figure for the TPE order, but it was agreed six months ahead of Hull Trains, and three months before the second batch of GWR 802s, so seems reasonable to assume we are probably talking something in the vicinity of £2.2m per coach.
does that include spares and maintenance?
What's that got to do with it?
Figures cited for orders for other types of trains acquired on behalf of TOCs by leasing companies rarely include the costs of spares, maintenance, etc, for which separate contracts are signed.
You blithely suggested that the figures for the 802 train orders weren't out there - but they are.
Figures cited for orders for other types of trains acquired on behalf of TOCs by leasing companies rarely include the costs of spares, maintenance, etc, for which separate contracts are signed.
You blithely suggested that the figures for the 802 train orders weren't out there - but they are.
I didn't suggest that. I'm suggesting the costs of the DfT's IEP procurement incorporates elements of design, Newton Aycliffe and depots to build plus a 27.5 year maintenance deal it makes the per coach cost is higher than the ~£2.2m per coach that the 802s are costing.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
UIVMM that's still grey (albeit with a pattern). They need some dark green on them like on the HSTs.
Or about £2.1 million per coach.
This compares with £7.5 million per coach for the IEP first phase coaches and £4.5 million per coach for the second phase coaches.
However it should be noted that the two are for different things in that the 802's probably don't include the maintenance costs which the IEP units do. Likewise the first phase coaches also had to find a lot of the infrastructure costs to allow the trains to run. Even if this was £600 million this would reduce the cost per train in the first phase by about £1 million per coach.
Therefore the costs are high (they always are with government contracts, I'm aware this can even be true for Parish Councils where I'm conscious of at least one where contractors have quoted a silly price for work and another who refused to quote as they didn't want the hastle of dealing with them).
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The IEP order included all the development and testing costs for the two fleets, plus depot construction and all the maintenance costs for 27.5 years.
Any follow on order is bound to benefit from this sunk cost, which is why incremental vehicle costs are as low as £2m.
No other manufacturer would be able to offer anything like this price for an equivalent train unless the fleet size was equally huge, which is impossible.
The HS2 stock will be following the same pattern, particularly as it will be classic compatible (ie not available off the shelf).
Any follow on order is bound to benefit from this sunk cost, which is why incremental vehicle costs are as low as £2m.
No other manufacturer would be able to offer anything like this price for an equivalent train unless the fleet size was equally huge, which is impossible.
The HS2 stock will be following the same pattern, particularly as it will be classic compatible (ie not available off the shelf).
coppercapped
Established Member
A point of order.
The IEP contracts do not include infrastructure costs (apart from any changes needed to existing depots taken over by Agility Trains). All the infrastructure costs on the running lines were included in Network Rail's CP5 settlement.
The question from ainsworth74 that you responded to was as follows:
There is nothing at all in that question about the IEP contract arrangements - just how much are the GWR/leasing company 80xs costing?
So I replied to your incorrect response that
When the answer was there in most of the announcements of 802 contracts in black and white.
How on earth the IEP contract breaks down and where various costs are allocated is another matter entirely - at the insistence of the people in the DfT and Treasury who decided this was the arrangement they wanted - despite more than enough evidence since the first hospital PFIs in the late 1990s that they are a stupid and unbelievably expensive way to pay for anything.
In terms of price comparisons, the first batch of Alstom bi-mode Coradia Liner trains for Intercites services in France cost something in the region of £2m per coach (34 six-car units for €150m) - again there is probably an element of benefit to the price from development work done on earlier regional bi-mode units for SNCF - but that figure hardly suggests the price of an 802 procured by conventional means is out-of-line with market rates.
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/france-to-invest-E15bn-in-tet-trains.html
And the last batch of Virgin Pendolinos came in at about £2.4m per coach for four new 11-car trains, plus the 62 coaches to lengthen 31 of the nine-car sets - contract total cited in 2008 was £255m.
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/rail-news/Pendolino-agreement-reached/20970
coppercapped
Established Member
I fundamentally disagree! The issue is not really one of sunk costs but of the cost of risk. In this context the leasing or usage cost per vehicle for HS2 will be more dependent on whether the DfT passes all the operational risk to the train supplier or whether the TOC carries some of the risk.
On 9th July 2014 National Audit Office published a report (Procuring new trains HC 531 Session 2014-15 9 July 2014) which was openly critical of the way the DfT has procured the IEP and Thameslink trains.
The financial figures included in the NAO’s report for the IEP were analysed by transport journalist Roger Ford in the August 2014 edition of Modern Railways (pages 30 to 31). He concluded that the annual charge on the train operator for the Western’s tranche of trains will be some £300 million (my rounding).
The Office of Rail Regulation (now the Office of Rail and Road) publishes a range of statistics on railway use, costs and revenues. In its document entitled “GB rail industry financial information for the year ending 31 March 2013” are included the annual rolling stock charges for the Train Operating Companies (TOCs). Those for first Great Western (fGW) amount to £68 million - I use the figures for 2013 for consistency as they refer to the same period as the NAO's report. To this amount must be added the cost of daily maintenance and cleaning to bring the numbers to the same basis as the IEP charges. In the ORR table is a heading ‘Other operating expenditure’ of £177 million for fGW which includes these, and many other, expenses, so it would be reasonable to assume a total charge of some £80 to £90 million for the current fleet on the same basis as the IEP calculations. Note that this is the cost to the train operator for the total fleet: all the High Speed Trains and all the trains required for the Thames Valley and Bristol suburban services, the two Cotswold lines and the West Country.
In other words the annual cost of the IEP fleet alone is some three times what fGW/GWR paid for all of its trains in that year. These charges are to be paid for the life of the contract, that is for 27.5 years, so the sums are significant: the Present Value (in 2013 pounds) of the IEP contract is £4.1 billion for the Great Western alone.
Analyses have also been published that suggest that the costs for leasing the Class 800 trains through the IEP deal will amount to around £20,000 more per vehicle per month than comparably complex trains purchased by a ROSCO. The comparison is with the 57 nine and eleven coach long 140mph tilting Class 390 trains - both the train types are 140mph 25kV emus with distributed traction and have been or are being built in comparable numbers. In the one case the trains have tilting packs throughout the length of the trains, in the other diesel power packs under many, but not all, of the coaches so the mechanical complexity is, although not the same, very similar. Both types require design, development and testing so these costs are not a sufficient reason for the large difference in monthly costs per vehicle.
This comparison has been made as a sanity check on the validity of the numbers - it is an approximation as an indication of orders of magnitude, it is not expected to be accurate to the last decimal place. But however one cuts the numbers the cost per vehicle per month for the IEP trains comes out considerably more than for those purchased by a ROSCO with a separate maintenance contract.
The conclusion is that the difference is the price between the trains procured under the IEP contract and those purchased by the ROSCO is not only due to the writing off of the R&D costs but is also because the DfT passed all the risks of train development and operation to Agility Trains who only get paid in full for completed diagrams - the price it charges will include an allowance for any missing/failed diagrams. A ROSCO deal with a TOC means that the TOC carries some of the operational risk itself.
Risk is very expensive to insure - look at the difference in your car insurance premiums if you select not to carry any excess.
This is now all water under the bridge - the difference in costs between the conventional trains and the 'IEP trains' was fudged in the second Direct Award to GWR in that the expected premiums were lower than would have been expected to be the case if a ROSCO had bought the trains.
Last edited:
thanks for your detailed answer. I had not realised just how much money is involved in the transfer of risk- a truly staggering amount.
- Status