GWR Class 800

[47271]

Totally agree on the reservation system. I had it work properly once between Newton Abbot and Taunton a couple of months ago, and it's brilliant.

 

[samuelmorris]

The cheapest internal fitment on the 800s to me seemed the window blinds. I wonder if they plan to do anything about them...

 

[Mag_seven]

Are class 802s prohibited from running in electric mode? I was on a pair of Class 802 departures from London Paddington earlier and they were on diesel. I also passed an inbound pair of 802s at Slough and they were also on diesel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The cheapest internal fitment on the 800s to me seemed the window blinds. I wonder if they plan to do anything about them...

Those seem OK to me. Unlike almost everything else about the interior fitment.

To be fair, they’d be decent if a full refurb including new seats (Grammer) was conducted. The bodyshell and mechanicals are fine. Nothing special but decent enough.

 

[samuelmorris]

Both sides of the unit I was on were rattling considerably and had to be given a firm shove to stop doing so. They had quite a cheap tacky feel to me, moreso than I would have said the rest of the cabin.

 

[Railperf]

It would be great for marketing if they could get it down to 100 minutes. (The M4 could sure do with less traffic). I have been assuming that the new faster schedules would be introduced at the start of the summer 2019 timetable - but perhaps I am wrong?

100 minutes to Cardiff would only match what was possible with HST's in 1987!! You would hope it could be nearer 90 mins or even 95...but that seems unlikely to happen.

 

[jyte]

Are class 802s prohibited from running in electric mode? I was on a pair of Class 802 departures from London Paddington earlier and they were on diesel. I also passed an inbound pair of 802s at Slough and they were also on diesel.

May just be that both drivers aren't signed to drive 802s on electric traction yet.

 

[FGW_DID]

Are class 802s prohibited from running in electric mode? I was on a pair of Class 802 departures from London Paddington earlier and they were on diesel. I also passed an inbound pair of 802s at Slough and they were also on diesel.

No, no blanket prohibition for running in electric however a number of 80x (including several 802s) do have a diesel only restriction for varying reasons. It's likely these you saw.

 

[Mag_seven]

No, no blanket prohibition for running in electric however a number of 80x (including several 802s) do have a diesel only restriction for varying reasons. It's likely these you saw.

Fair enough.

 

[Wychwood93]

100 minutes to Cardiff would only match what was possible with HST's in 1987!! You would hope it could be nearer 90 mins or even 95...but that seems unlikely to happen.

The RPS archive shows a 1985 special run with a 2+5 formation doing said journey in 80m 45s - speeds up to 130. The same run, on the same day, shows as 80m 39s - in such situations the RPS takes the higher of the times as being correct. With AC to Cardiff a headline time of 100 minutes with stops at Reading, Swindon, B.Parkway and Newport should be alright - just. There must be somebody on the forum who has access to the SRTs for the full AC service?

 

[Peter Sarf]

100 minutes to Cardiff would only match what was possible with HST's in 1987!! You would hope it could be nearer 90 mins or even 95...but that seems unlikely to happen.

Interesting that list you attached. I also noticed that there were no WCML times ?. Then I realised it was a 100mph railway then so I hope that means it would now exhibit a faster journey - does it ?. And if it does then it suggests to me that for many decades 125mph has been a threshold that we are not getting past .

Begs the question should we be expecting a *MUCH* faster schedule from trains that are replacing 40 year old trains. Possibly not as the network is more crowded. So should we be squeezing more out of an existing route or building new ?. I am thinking WCML PUG vs HS2.

 

[w1bbl3]

There comes a point when track layout and stopping patterns make the benefits of increased line speed somewhat notional. The introduction of 125mph running on parts of the GWML and ECML in the 70's and 80's reached this point for much of the route.

Beyond that 125mph having been decided upon as the limitation where in cab signalling is required has then acted a limitation on seeing higher line speeds where the layout would permit. Remember the ECML has seen trains designed and specified for 140mph running operate for 20+ years without having ever operated a commercial passenger service running at those speeds and will now see those trains withdrawn from service on the route prior to the route infrastructure being ready to support them.

It is possible and actually quite likely with HS2 and proposed WCML ETCS fitment date that the 390's will never run at design speed in service on the WCML.

Higher operating speeds and thus reduced journey times IHMO are not likely to see that much of a benefit to leisure travellers but are of considerable benefit to business travellers and long distance commuters. HS1 domestic services have seen Ebbsfeet and Ashford become far more viable as communing location, just like HST introduction in the 70's and 80's saw Grantham, Peterborough, Didcot and Reading become realistic communing locations.

The short term benefit of HS2 is as a very expensive WCML capacity enhancement programme, longer term if the full route is ever constructed then the wider loading gauge opens up options for higher passenger capacity trains e.g. double deck.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The short term benefit of HS2 is as a very expensive WCML capacity enhancement programme

Pretty much the entire point of HS2 is a WCML capacity enhancement project. The rest of it is incidental benefit.

 

[TractiveEffort]

Or it’s been adopted by GWR due to its presence on IETs

When the first IEP’s were delivered, they had a different strip, it was changed to that green before delivery.

 

[Jpeg]

Are 800001/2 now in service?

 

[CMRail]

Are 800001/2 now in service?

Should be by end of the week.

 

[JN114]

When the first IEP’s were delivered, they had a different strip, it was changed to that green before delivery.

Again, I think the sarcasm badge is missing from my post, apologies.

 

[Envoy]

So, it would appear that we may actually get back to a 1987 timing between Cardiff & London. Mention has been made of the 125mph limit under present trackside signalling conditions. Is the intention to run the Inter City Express Trains up to their maximum 140mph - which would probably mean 130mph as leeway is always given for ‘catch-up’ time? Why can’t they go faster in south Wales on the straight sections between Cardiff & Newport (limit now is 95mph) and east of Newport?

Mention has been made that there is little point in having faster trains than 125mph outside ‘commuter’ areas. Might I point out that it is not just commuters that go in and out of London. The Inter City Express trains also carry considerable numbers of commuters into other major centres such as Bristol & Cardiff. So, the faster the journeys between say Swansea and Cardiff, Newport & Bristol Parkway etc. the more customers the trains are likely to attract - which would mean less road traffic. (Severn Bridge tolls go on the 17 December). Leisure traffic is also likely to increase with shorter journey times - as long as the fare as ‘affordable’ by the majority of the population.

 

[AlexNL]

Is the intention to run the Inter City Express Trains up to their maximum 140mph

That would need ETCS fitment to the Western route, which has been descoped on cost grounds as far as I know.

 

[trebor79]

Is it really that difficult to read signals at 140mph? I can't see how 15mph over the existing maximum can make such a huge difference. Sure in some places sighting won't allow it, but a blanket ban seems excessive.
The section of the ECML north of York for example, it must be possible to sight signals from several miles away.

 

[jopsuk]

Is it really that difficult to read signals at 140mph? I can't see how 15mph over the existing maximum can make such a huge difference. Sure in some places sighting won't allow it, but a blanket ban seems excessive.
The section of the ECML north of York for example, it must be possible to sight signals from several miles away.

\I don't know the full facts, but my understanding is that due to increased brekaing distance you essentially need a fifth aspect (unless oyou move the signals), which experimentally was the flashing green on the ECML. My impression is that this isn't all that easy to distinguish from a static green in reality. As far as I can find signal spacing for 125mph is 2054m on flat track- but that's the distance from the double yellow to the red; so the actual signals are passing approximately every 18 seconds at 125mph, every 16 seconds at 140mph.

 

[Railperf]

\I don't know the full facts, but my understanding is that due to increased brekaing distance you essentially need a fifth aspect (unless oyou move the signals), which experimentally was the flashing green on the ECML. My impression is that this isn't all that easy to distinguish from a static green in reality. As far as I can find signal spacing for 125mph is 2054m on flat track- but that's the distance from the double yellow to the red; so the actual signals are passing approximately every 18 seconds at 125mph, every 16 seconds at 140mph.

Remember too that driver's get an audible signal to warn them of either a caution or clear aspect. It isn't only visual. I guess in respect of signal aspects there were other options other than flashing green. In Italy for example they use various combinations of red and green and green and yellow. So it is conceivable that a fifth aspect could have worked along with a combination of Speed protection such as the French kvb system.
In reality though 140 miles per hour running consumes a lot more energy and creates a lot of extra maintenance plus additional infrastructure costs to save very little time. Granted if the proposed service pattern involved non-stop running between Paddington and Bristol or Reading and Bristol, the distance involved would probably yield a worthwhile saving of several minutes. But who is going to bear the cost of modifying the whole class 800 Fleet to install in cab signalling for 2 or 3 non-stop journeys a day?

 

[jimm]

Perhaps discussion of the technicalities of running at speeds above 140mph could be taken out of this thread.

 

[broadgage]

There's plenty more - try post 9125 on page 305 for a flavour.

Perhaps broadgage is getting tired of typing the same things out over and over after so many years. But probably not.

There are other issues that concern me, but I listed only the most important three.
I don't much like the lurid green stripe, but as said it is IMHO a very low priority, and could presumably be altered.

Short formations, absence of reservations and no buffet are more fundamental.
Also some people might like bright green stripes, just as others like the seats. Very few people prefer a half capacity train.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interesting that list you attached. I also noticed that there were no WCML times ?. Then I realised it was a 100mph railway then so I hope that means it would now exhibit a faster journey - does it ?. And if it does then it suggests to me that for many decades 125mph has been a threshold that we are not getting past .

Actually the WCML was a 110mph railway in the 1980s (and still is, if you take away the tilt option).
The WCML is significantly faster today than in 1987, something like 20 minutes between London and Crewe for similar stops, more like 40 minutes to Glasgow.
125mph is indeed a significant threshold, with the safety bods insisting on cab signalling above that speed.
ETCS is the only realistic option for cab signalling now it is a proven European (and worldwide) standard, supported by the rolling stock and signalling majors.
But only the GWML has suitable infrastructure (track and OHLE) designed for 140mph, and probably only practicable east of Badminton/Box tunnels.
The ECML will need significant upgrade to support it (even with ETCS fitted), and its desirability may evaporate with HS2.

 

[paul1609]

\I don't know the full facts, but my understanding is that due to increased brekaing distance you essentially need a fifth aspect (unless oyou move the signals), which experimentally was the flashing green on the ECML. My impression is that this isn't all that easy to distinguish from a static green in reality. As far as I can find signal spacing for 125mph is 2054m on flat track- but that's the distance from the double yellow to the red; so the actual signals are passing approximately every 18 seconds at 125mph, every 16 seconds at 140mph.

As I understand it the issue wasn't recognising the flashing green but the risk of a steady green being misinterpreted as a flashing green particularly in wet weather when viewed through an area cleared by a window wiper with the subsequent risk of an overspeed with insufficient braking distance.

 

[jayah]

The planned requirement on the GWR 800 sets has been contracted by the DfT. It’s not an option for GWR to “wind it down”.

GWR have to pay, in the case of the 5 car units, for 32 diagrams a day, seven days a week at a cost of five figures per unit, per day. Even having two of these units at the moment on train crew diagrams is hideously expensive.

If one of those 32 units are not available for a whole day and that non-availability is the fault of Hitachi, GWR only get half that daily payment back, as there is a % “bedding in factor” for the first few years of service. Again that was decided by the DfT.

With the Scottish requirement, there has been no contingency on offer to GWR. The early plans that did have such a contingency (I know they did - I wrote them) were junked when the delays to the Hitachi delivery schedules occurred and no-one was going to move on the HST release dates. Since that point it has been hand to mouth, week to week, trying to get to the next stage of the Cascade plan without having to rewrite it again.

Using contracted units for crew training sounds expensive. But how else were the crew ever supposed to get trained? Surely this isn't unexpected.

If you are only contracting for units produced then we are back at Hitachi charging for something they can't / aren't going to deliver, it is all their fault. At which point you can plan some diagrams around a reduced number of units like with subtracting the two non traffic sets or spend some of the money paid in damages renting something to fill the gaps. The quoted fee of £75,000 per vehicle month works out around £12,500 per day for each 5 car train or perhaps half that if it doesn't make it out of the depot.

Do you really have to pay the other 50% even if the unit is not produced at all? That sounds like money, literally for nothing? Often it has been noted here they are made available but only for the latter part of the day.

The large number of HSTs still around so close now to what was to have been the all IET timetable suggests the whole cascade - new trains in and old trains out - has slipped by a very long way indeed.

 

[43096]

Using contracted units for crew training sounds expensive. But how else were the crew ever supposed to get trained? Surely this isn't unexpected.

If you are only contracting for units produced then we are back at Hitachi charging for something they can't / aren't going to deliver, it is all their fault. At which point you can plan some diagrams around a reduced number of units like with subtracting the two non traffic sets or spend some of the money paid in damages renting something to fill the gaps. The quoted fee of £75,000 per vehicle month works out around £12,500 per day for each 5 car train or perhaps half that if it doesn't make it out of the depot.

Do you really have to pay the other 50% even if the unit is not produced at all? That sounds like money, literally for nothing? Often it has been noted here they are made available but only for the latter part of the day.

The large number of HSTs still around so close now to what was to have been the all IET timetable suggests the whole cascade - new trains in and old trains out - has slipped by a very long way indeed.

It really is utterly astonishing that Hitachi still get paid even if they don't provide a train. In theory that means they could have the entire fleet sat on depot all day and still get paid 50%. Far better would have been a "no train, no pay" from the outset, with this ratcheting up to a penalty payment from Hitachi for non-delivery in future years once initial reliability has been sorted out. That might have focused a few minds with the supplier.

No doubt "jimm" will be along shortly to tell us all how the deal is wonderful and in the best interests of those pay (i.e. passengers and taxpayers).

 

[Bletchleyite]

No doubt "jimm" will be along shortly to tell us all how the deal is wonderful and in the best interests of those pay (i.e. passengers and taxpayers).

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the train itself (in my book fairly decent) or the interior (in my book pretty rubbish), the deal is only of benefit to one organisation - Hitachi.

 

[ainsworth74]

It really is utterly astonishing that Hitachi still get paid even if they don't provide a train. In theory that means they could have the entire fleet sat on depot all day and still get paid 50%. Far better would have been a "no train, no pay" from the outset, with this ratcheting up to a penalty payment from Hitachi for non-delivery in future years once initial reliability has been sorted out. That might have focused a few minds with the supplier.

Wait, I thought the deal was that Hitachi (well Agility Trains) get paid on a diagram basis? No train for the diagram no payment. Or did I get the wrong end of a stick somewhere down the line?