GWR Class 800

[samuelmorris]

So now the 80x are at fault for the diagramming?

Very defensive and unnecessarily unhelpful reply - clearly that is not what's implied by that post. Nonetheless I thought all this was provided as a package, so if it's not been done correctly, who is at fault?

 

[TractiveEffort]

Very defensive and unnecessarily unhelpful reply - clearly that is not what's implied by that post. Nonetheless I thought all this was provided as a package, so if it's not been done correctly, who is at fault?

Not defensive, just truthful, the diagrams are set by GWR, many of them are at the limits of the fuel mileages or nudging over the fuel mileages. Then there is no leeway for unplanned changes or issues. If anyone is at fault, it’s NR for not completing the OHL. Hitachi supply the trains for up to 36 hours, it’s GWR’s responsibility to diagram them within their fuel range, as they do with the rest of their fleet. When they are handed back, they are fuelled, serviced and cleaned, as any other fleet would be at any depot.

It’s a new way of working, it’s bound to have some glitches and issues that need to be ironed out, I’m sure there will be many changes as well as give and take by supplier and operator.

 

[JN114]

So now the 80x are at fault for the diagramming?

A cursory check of the diagrams show all 80x diagrams that start/end at a maintenance depot to have a FUEL leg at the end of the diagram; as is custom not only within GWR but every Diesel unit/loco diagram I’ve ever encountered. It is commonplace that that fuelling doesn’t always take place; and certainly in the case of Thames Valley division Reading depot work with GWR control to highlight units that are run by and find suitable work for them. In this case the diagram (over 2 days, as it outstables at Exeter) the unit was on was well within the mileage range for a 9 car; and at no point was the unit swapped off diagram.

The only logical conclusions are that either:
1) the unit in question was sent out by North Pole at 1006 Monday with insufficient fuel miles to complete it’s booked work; and that was then not picked up by the high speed train service controller
2) the unit in question had some kind of fault that dramatically increased its fuel consumption wasting nearly a fifth of a tank of fuel
3) the unit in question went on some secret 200 mile jolly in the middle of the night

 

[TractiveEffort]

A cursory check of the diagrams show all 80x diagrams that start/end at a maintenance depot to have a FUEL leg at the end of the diagram; as is custom not only within GWR but every Diesel unit/loco diagram I’ve ever encountered. It is commonplace that that fuelling doesn’t always take place; and certainly in the case of Thames Valley division Reading depot work with GWR control to highlight units that are run by and find suitable work for them. In this case the diagram (over 2 days, as it outstables at Exeter) the unit was on was well within the mileage range for a 9 car; and at no point was the unit swapped off diagram.

The only logical conclusions are that either:
1) the unit in question was sent out by North Pole at 1006 Monday with insufficient fuel miles to complete it’s booked work; and that was then not picked up by the high speed train service controller
2) the unit in question had some kind of fault that dramatically increased its fuel consumption wasting nearly a fifth of a tank of fuel
3) the unit in question went on some secret 200 mile jolly in the middle of the night

Or, the unit was taken out of service as a precaution, because no one in the operational sphere is 100% confident of running these units to the wire. There will undoubtedly be some review of the figures and the fuel gauge readings, to produce guide lines that give more confidence to run these units. That again, will only come as the experience of running them in different conditions and circumstances grows - on all sides.

 

[jyte]

The only logical conclusions are that either:
.....
3) the unit in question went on some secret 200 mile jolly in the middle of the night

I'm imaging some adorable Pixar style movie about anthropomorphic trains that go on wacky adventures late at night without the humans knowing. Cross Toy Story, Cars and Thomas the Tank Engine.

 

[spark001uk]

Thomas the toy story car engine??

 

[Clarence Yard]

Or, the unit was taken out of service as a precaution, because no one in the operational sphere is 100% confident of running these units to the wire. There will undoubtedly be some review of the figures and the fuel gauge readings, to produce guide lines that give more confidence to run these units. That again, will only come as the experience of running them in different conditions and circumstances grows - on all sides.

The diagram the unit was sent out on was only around 800 miles so it should have had enough, even allowing for the fact that it was operating on diesel only and had an engine out. However, either it was not sent out full or there was a problem with another engine that sky rocketed the consumption. The fact that it has to be left in Turnaround mode at Exeter overnight also would have reduced the range, about 10 miles for every hour in that mode.

It really should never have been allocated to that diagram by Hitachi. Sending out a diesel only unit with at least one engine out and overnighting at an outstation without ETH was not a good move. On the return leg from Exeter it would need fuelling en-route back to Paddington (where it was diagrammed to go to North Pole) so pulling it at Bristol was the best move. By then, if the fuel test figures from the "degraded mode" test runs still hold good, at least two of the engines would have been getting a bit near the end.

I suspect GWR will have "had words" with Hitachi about this one.

 

[spark001uk]

Indeed. So how long is this "close relationship" with Hitachi and the IETs set to last? Or is it permanent?

 

[samuelmorris]

Indeed. So how long is this "close relationship" with Hitachi and the IETs set to last? Or is it permanent?

27 years isn't it?

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. It isn't directly a fault of the stock, but it is a fault of the stock provisioning as a whole, seemingly not the TOC, so the outcome in real terms for passengers isn't really any different.

 

[Railperf]

Who takes the financial hit in this case?

 

[Railperf]

The diagram the unit was sent out on was only around 800 miles so it should have had enough, even allowing for the fact that it was operating on diesel only and had an engine out. However, either it was not sent out full or there was a problem with another engine that sky rocketed the consumption. The fact that it has to be left in Turnaround mode at Exeter overnight also would have reduced the range, about 10 miles for every hour in that mode.

It really should never have been allocated to that diagram by Hitachi. Sending out a diesel only unit with at least one engine out and overnighting at an outstation without ETH was not a good move. On the return leg from Exeter it would need fuelling en-route back to Paddington (where it was diagrammed to go to North Pole) so pulling it at Bristol was the best move. By then, if the fuel test figures from the "degraded mode" test runs still hold good, at least two of the engines would have been getting a bit near the end.

I suspect GWR will have "had words" with Hitachi about this one.

Why didn't somebody identify that it was low on fuel earlier and get it fueled up overnight rather than leaving it stabled at Exeter? Could it not have been run up to Stoke Gifford to be refuelled?

 

[Clarence Yard]

There would have been a general (and very wrong!) assumption that it would do it's diagram mileage so nobody would have thought anything about it until the next morning, when it would have been too late.

In BR days letting a unit or loco run out of fuel was a complete no-no and usually you would be in line for at least a PX (please explain letter) and/or a "white paper" (Form 1 - formal disciplinary). It's basic stuff which you have to get right when you allocate the unit to diagram, which is what Hitachi should have thought through when they put a degraded 318 on that working.

 

[JN114]

Why didn't somebody identify that it was low on fuel earlier and get it fueled up overnight rather than leaving it stabled at Exeter? Could it not have been run up to Stoke Gifford to be refuelled?

Actual fuel level is rarely checked on trains - the manufacturer states a (conservative) range capability; and the operator makes sure they refuel the train (fully) every time it reaches that range, or before. The only reason the fuel quantity was interrogated was because GUs were starting to shut down without clear reason on the approach to Bristol - over 120 miles before it was “due” to run out of fuel.

 

[spark001uk]

And if it's not fuel it's a stop. Stuck on 1C82 behind 1A15 at a stand at Southall East ladder at mo, waiting for NR to assess.
Edit: set back to Acton on UR now.

 

[Railperf]

Actual fuel level is rarely checked on trains - the manufacturer states a (conservative) range capability; and the operator makes sure they refuel the train (fully) every time it reaches that range, or before. The only reason the fuel quantity was interrogated was because GUs were starting to shut down without clear reason on the approach to Bristol - over 120 miles before it was “due” to run out of fuel.

So the lesson to learn here is that if a unit is on an 800 mile diagram diesel only and one engine out it needs to have at least 1000 to 1100 miles worth fuel in the tank?

 

[samuelmorris]

Arithmetically this makes sense assuming each GU has its own distinct fuel tank - with one unit isolated the others are doing proportionally more work and will run their tanks dry considerably quicker. Given the number of isolated GUs that have been reported on here I'm surprised this hasn't come up more often. Presumably they normally have the sense not to send units out with GUs isolated on long diagrams.

 

[JN114]

And if it's not fuel it's a stop. Stuck on 1C82 behind 1A15 at a stand at Southall East ladder at mo, waiting for NR to assess.
Edit: set back to Acton on UR now.

To be fair the issues at Southall this afternoon really are nothing to do with 800s...

 

[JN114]

So the lesson to learn here is that if a unit is on an 800 mile diagram diesel only and one engine out it needs to have at least 1000 to 1100 miles worth fuel in the tank?

On face value yes, but as has been eluded to it’s a little more complex than that; and that’s what people at GWR and Hitachi with much bigger pay packets than me are thrashing out. Hitachi and GWR have already done the numbers on one GU out, two GUs out etc. There was no suggestion that the unit was about to run out of fuel until GUs started shutting down at Nailsea. While I agree with CY in that I don’t think the unit should have been put on that diagram; on paper there’s no reason not to - it’s just inadvisable. On paper and with prior experience there shouldn’t have been any issue. That’s why my original points 1) and 2) are now being looked at by GWR and Hitachi.

1) Was the unit fully fuelled at North Pole
2) Was there some kind of fault that’s caused a dramatic (200 mile) reduction in fuel range.

An engine out will hurt fuel economy; as will turnaround mode overnight; but not to the tune of 200 miles range loss.

It’s not an exceptional occurrence. It’s garnered a lot of publicity on this forum in this instance; but that’s more a fact-checking response to certain comments that sought to deflect blame elsewhere.

 

[spark001uk]

To be fair the issues at Southall this afternoon really are nothing to do with 800s...

Yep sorry jumped the gun there... turned out to be a points failure.

 

[Clarence Yard]

On face value yes, but as has been eluded to it’s a little more complex than that; and that’s what people at GWR and Hitachi with much bigger pay packets than me are thrashing out. Hitachi and GWR have already done the numbers on one GU out, two GUs out etc. There was no suggestion that the unit was about to run out of fuel until GUs started shutting down at Nailsea. While I agree with CY in that I don’t think the unit should have been put on that diagram; on paper there’s no reason not to - it’s just inadvisable. On paper and with prior experience there shouldn’t have been any issue. That’s why my original points 1) and 2) are now being looked at by GWR and Hitachi.

1) Was the unit fully fuelled at North Pole
2) Was there some kind of fault that’s caused a dramatic (200 mile) reduction in fuel range.

An engine out will hurt fuel economy; as will turnaround mode overnight; but not to the tune of 200 miles range loss.

It’s not an exceptional occurrence. It’s garnered a lot of publicity on this forum in this instance; but that’s more a fact-checking response to certain comments that sought to deflect blame elsewhere.

Indeed. The nominal fuel range was worked out to include the effect of a GU going down during the day so there was contingency built in, as was the fact that an amount (100L of the 1550L in this case) was not to be included in the fuel range calculation. So the recommendation was 900 miles and that allowed for an average use of 1.6L, which was what was achieved on the degraded test runs (even allowing for adding in passengers and associated auxiliaries).

Turnaround mode, as I stated before, only knocks off around 10 miles per hour on mode so you can see, with a unit that has only just done 600 miles to get to Exeter, has burned through about 60 miles worth of fuel overnight (on two engines only) and then gets into trouble at Nailsea on the way back, then something is clearly very wrong.

Another engine in trouble could push the rate per mile up to around 1.8L - 1.9L a mile, depending on the duty cycle, and that could well account for it but even then it all seems a bit odd. Hence the need to see if North Pole did fill it right up. But whatever the reason, putting that degraded unit out on that diagram was inadvisable.

 

[samuelmorris]

Indeed. The nominal fuel range was worked out to include the effect of a GU going down during the day so there was contingency built in, as was the fact that an amount (100L of the 1550L in this case) was not to be included in the fuel range calculation. So the recommendation was 900 miles and that allowed for an average use of 1.6L, which was what was achieved on the degraded test runs (even allowing for adding in passengers and associated auxiliaries).

Turnaround mode, as I stated before, only knocks off around 10 miles per hour on mode so you can see, with a unit that has only just done 600 miles to get to Exeter, has burned through about 60 miles worth of fuel overnight (on two engines only) and then gets into trouble at Nailsea on the way back, then something is clearly very wrong.

Another engine in trouble could push the rate per mile up to around 1.8L - 1.9L a mile, depending on the duty cycle, and that could well account for it but even then it all seems a bit odd. Hence the need to see if North Pole did fill it right up. But whatever the reason, putting that degraded unit out on that diagram was inadvisable.

So there's a shared fuel resource between GUs then?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I'm imaging some adorable Pixar style movie about anthropomorphic trains that go on wacky adventures late at night without the humans knowing. Cross Toy Story, Cars and Thomas the Tank Engine.

It's called Chuggington...

 

[Ethano92]

I apologise if this has been asked already but in the narrow seats at carriage ends nearest to the vestibule which don't have a window due to the sliding door pockets, would a 'capitalstar' door pocket window such as on the 378s not have been feasible? I haven't seen these on any other trains except 376s and 378s so are they just too much fuss for nothing?

Also is there any notice that this seat doesn't have a window when booking/reserving it.

 

[samuelmorris]

Worth bearing in mind the doors on 376 and 378s are not pressure sealed and those units only do 75mph versus the 125 (and if track were to permit almost 150) of the AT300.

As for bookings, I don't believe they mention it, according to someone else in this thread (I forget who)

 

[tomglazed]

Worth bearing in mind the doors on 376 and 378s are not pressure sealed and those units only do 75mph versus the 125 (and if track were to permit almost 150) of the AT300.

As for bookings, I don't believe they mention it, according to someone else in this thread (I forget who)

It is not mentioned and to be frank I'm not sure how they would and what the benefit of mentioning it would be as today, booking a seat reservation on a UK train isn't like booking one for a flight (except Eurostar); you provide some preferences which could very well not be fulfilled and it spits out a seat assignment if lucky. Information like this would be good but right now seat reservations are just too cumbersome (even pre-flux period between old and new trains sets) to be able to do that reliably.

 

[samuelmorris]

It is not mentioned and to be frank I'm not sure how they would and what the benefit of mentioning it would be as today, booking a seat reservation on a UK train isn't like booking one for a flight (except Eurostar); you provide some preferences which could very well not be fulfilled and it spits out a seat assignment if lucky. Information like this would be good but right now seat reservations are just too cumbersome (even pre-flux period between old and new trains sets) to be able to do that reliably.

That may be so, but imagine booking a window seat for the view in the Devon/Cornwall section and being assigned that one. There must surely have been some complaints by now.

 

[tomglazed]

That may be so, but imagine booking a window seat for the view in the Devon/Cornwall section and being assigned that one. There must surely have been some complaints by now.

Completely agree and apologies I should have been clearer. When I say "what the benefit of mentioning it would be" I should have mentioned the ability to change it should you be given one is not an option made known to most passengers in an effort to reduce complaints. I'm sure there are more ways but I've only recently seen online if social media staff of your respective TOC aren't totally swamped they may be able to do something but it's mostly for those with no seat reservation at all and far enough in advance to issue one.

 

[spark001uk]

I saw 800001 on its 5Z20 leg yesterday morning (Bristol Parkway to Newbury). Couldn't see any camera mods on it so assuming it was just on training or something?

 

[ATW158Xpress]

I saw 800001 on its 5Z20 leg yesterday morning (Bristol Parkway to Newbury). Couldn't see any camera mods on it so assuming it was just on training or something?

Wouldn’t any camera mods be only minor work on the lens and any visible changes on the outside won’t be easier seen.

 

[Railperf]

Indeed. The nominal fuel range was worked out to include the effect of a GU going down during the day so there was contingency built in, as was the fact that an amount (100L of the 1550L in this case) was not to be included in the fuel range calculation. So the recommendation was 900 miles and that allowed for an average use of 1.6L, which was what was achieved on the degraded test runs (even allowing for adding in passengers and associated auxiliaries).

Turnaround mode, as I stated before, only knocks off around 10 miles per hour on mode so you can see, with a unit that has only just done 600 miles to get to Exeter, has burned through about 60 miles worth of fuel overnight (on two engines only) and then gets into trouble at Nailsea on the way back, then something is clearly very wrong.

Another engine in trouble could push the rate per mile up to around 1.8L - 1.9L a mile, depending on the duty cycle, and that could well account for it but even then it all seems a bit odd. Hence the need to see if North Pole did fill it right up. But whatever the reason, putting that degraded unit out on that diagram was inadvisable.

What astonishes me is that the 800 are supposed to have more monitoring sensors than any other train allowing the manufacturer and operator hopefully even the driver to know what is going on. Surely there must be the equivalent of a low fuel sensor to flag up to the train management system that one or more of the fuel tanks are low on fuel. Maybe even to flag up where the fuel rates on one particular tank is higher than the others? Or is that asking too much?