GWR Class 800

[coppercapped]

I suspect this isn'tquite so much of an issue as people think. I don't think the ECML becomes 125mph until Wolmer Green, just north of the Welwyn tunnels and many of the services are on the slows after that.

My post referred to conditions on the GW - as was clear from the context. At the moment a 90mph Class 165/166 running on the Mains non-stop between Paddington and Reading effectively takes two paths timed for an HST at 125mph. For example the XX.18 departures for Newbury and Bedwyn are scheduled to take 30 minutes to the Reading stop. HST schedules vary between 25 and 27 minutes and these are about 5 minutes slower than they were some years ago. This is partly due to fuel saving measures, partly due to the time lost due to the running brake test made while leaving Paddington and partly due to the slow approach to Reading - in spite of the re-aligned tracks - because the drivers want to avoid an ATP (not TPWS but ATP) overspeed trip while running into the platforms.

A 90mph dmu can do the run in about 28 or 29 minutes if not checked - which means they are about 5 or 6 minutes slower than an HST could be. As Paddington can - over a 15 or 20 minute period - pump out trains at 3 minutes headway this means a Class 165/166 essentially occupies 2 HST paths.

The Class 387s have not only a higher acceleration rate than the dmus, they also have a higher top speed so they are a better match to the HSTs and could probably run in an HST path to Reading. The better acceleration would balance out the HSTs speed over such a short distance.

However the HSTs are being replaced by the Class 80X trains which, although they have the same top speed have much better acceleration than the HSTs, so the pathing gap will open up again.

This may not be an issue on other routes, but on the GW it is important. Ideally the trains for the outer suburban services should have the same 125mph top speed as the other trains using the same rails, but compromises obviously had to be made. The order for the extra Class 80X placed a couple of days ago is a step in the right direction. Ideally - for maximum capacity - nothing should be pathed on the Mains which cannot run at 125mph. So any idea of cascading older, slower trains to the route is an absolute nonsense. In this case the much-maligned GW management got it right.

 

[AM9]

My post referred to conditions on the GW - as was clear from the context. At the moment a 90mph Class 165/166 running on the Mains non-stop between Paddington and Reading effectively takes two paths timed for an HST at 125mph. For example the XX.18 departures for Newbury and Bedwyn are scheduled to take 30 minutes to the Reading stop. HST schedules vary between 25 and 27 minutes and these are about 5 minutes slower than they were some years ago. This is partly due to fuel saving measures, partly due to the time lost due to the running brake test made while leaving Paddington and partly due to the slow approach to Reading - in spite of the re-aligned tracks - because the drivers want to avoid an ATP (not TPWS but ATP) overspeed trip while running into the platforms.

A 90mph dmu can do the run in about 28 or 29 minutes if not checked - which means they are about 5 or 6 minutes slower than an HST could be. As Paddington can - over a 15 or 20 minute period - pump out trains at 3 minutes headway this means a Class 165/166 essentially occupies 2 HST paths.

The Class 387s have not only a higher acceleration rate than the dmus, they also have a higher top speed so they are a better match to the HSTs and could probably run in an HST path to Reading. The better acceleration would balance out the HSTs speed over such a short distance.

However the HSTs are being replaced by the Class 80X trains which, although they have the same top speed have much better acceleration than the HSTs, so the pathing gap will open up again.

This may not be an issue on other routes, but on the GW it is important. Ideally the trains for the outer suburban services should have the same 125mph top speed as the other trains using the same rails, but compromises obviously had to be made. The order for the extra Class 80X placed a couple of days ago is a step in the right direction. Ideally - for maximum capacity - nothing should be pathed on the Mains which cannot run at 125mph. So any idea of cascading older, slower trains to the route is an absolute nonsense. In this case the much-maligned GW management got it right.

So what is the maximum load for a class 800 compared with a 12 car class 387? If total route service capacity is the issue, it may be better to have an outer-suburban train on the outer suburban services despite it taking one or two minutes longer to get to Reading.

 

[coppercapped]

So what is the maximum load for a class 800 compared with a 12 car class 387? If total route service capacity is the issue, it may be better to have an outer-suburban train on the outer suburban services despite it taking one or two minutes longer to get to Reading.

I can't be bothered to look up the numbers, but I think one can be assured that a 12 car 387 can carry more people - even if not seated - than a 9 car Class 80X, even allowing for the latter's longer coaches. However the difference won't be huge - a 12 car 387 is only 8 or 10 metres longer than the IEP.

The point is really that, unlike the other northern routes out of London, the Western branches out: to Newbury and the West of England; Oxford and the Cotswolds; from Swindon to Kemble and Cheltenham; to Bath and Bristol; and to the Severn Tunnel and South Wales. In the next few years the service intensity on all these routes will be increased.

So the issue is really not so much total passenger capacity in each train (although that is important), but the total number of trains which can be pathed along the Mains between Reading and Paddington in the peaks. Any loss of a path here means a bigger gap in the service to Stroud or Moreton-in-Marsh or Westbury. To maximise the number of trains they all need to have similar performance. So although 110mph is better than 90mph it could be better.

 

[AM9]

I can't be bothered to look up the numbers, but I think one can be assured that a 12 car 387 can carry more people - even if not seated - than a 9 car Class 80X, even allowing for the latter's longer coaches. However the difference won't be huge - a 12 car 387 is only 8 or 10 metres longer than the IEP.

The point is really that, unlike the other northern routes out of London, the Western branches out: to Newbury and the West of England; Oxford and the Cotswolds; from Swindon to Kemble and Cheltenham; to Bath and Bristol; and to the Severn Tunnel and South Wales. In the next few years the service intensity on all these routes will be increased.

So the issue is really not so much total passenger capacity in each train (although that is important), but the total number of trains which can be pathed along the Mains between Reading and Paddington in the peaks. Any loss of a path here means a bigger gap in the service to Stroud or Moreton-in-Marsh or Westbury. To maximise the number of trains they all need to have similar performance. So although 110mph is better than 90mph it could be better.

Well the 800s will have longer dwells than the 387s so maybe the effective difference is almost negligible. However time will tell whether the difference in the cost of ownership and and track costs are also in favour of using express stock on outer suburban duties.

 

[JamesRowden]

I can't be bothered to look up the numbers, but I think one can be assured that a 12 car 387 can carry more people - even if not seated - than a 9 car Class 80X, even allowing for the latter's longer coaches. However the difference won't be huge - a 12 car 387 is only 8 or 10 metres longer than the IEP.

The point is really that, unlike the other northern routes out of London, the Western branches out: to Newbury and the West of England; Oxford and the Cotswolds; from Swindon to Kemble and Cheltenham; to Bath and Bristol; and to the Severn Tunnel and South Wales. In the next few years the service intensity on all these routes will be increased.

So the issue is really not so much total passenger capacity in each train (although that is important), but the total number of trains which can be pathed along the Mains between Reading and Paddington in the peaks. Any loss of a path here means a bigger gap in the service to Stroud or Moreton-in-Marsh or Westbury. To maximise the number of trains they all need to have similar performance. So although 110mph is better than 90mph it could be better.

Or all trains run at the speed of the slowest stock to maximise capacity.

 

[coppercapped]

Well the 800s will have longer dwells than the 387s so maybe the effective difference is almost negligible. However time will tell whether the difference in the cost of ownership and and track costs are also in favour of using express stock on outer suburban duties.

Your first point is absolutely valid. These days the Down Main at Reading feeds into three Down platform faces (two of which can also be used to reverse trains arriving from the west so they are not available 100% of the time - just most of it!) so there is now no bottleneck and if one type of stock needs a bit more time that shouldn't affect the next arrival.

I'm not suggesting the express stock is used for the outer suburban stopping services - but the western limit of the 'outer suburban' zone keeps moving westwards! In days gone by there was a steam shed at Southall which supplied 61XX tanks for the Slough terminators and it and Reading had some for the Reading terminators. There were a few - countable on the fingers of one hand - trains serving the local stations to Oxford and Newbury. No train terminates at Slough any more and with the exception of two terminators at Reading (which will transmogrify into Crossrail trains in the next couple of years) all the 'local' services run through, so the 'suburban' area now runs out to Bedwyn (and even further southwest albeit served more sparsely) and Oxford and is now creeping down the line to Worcester. As electrification will stop at Oxford, although there is talk of extending it to Hanborough to reduce the number of trains reversing at Oxford, all trains going past Oxford will have to be bi-modes. So whether one classifies Paddington - Reading - Oxford trains as 'outer suburban' or express is a matter of taste

West of Didcot the next stop is Swindon and reversing trains arriving from the east with only three platforms will be tricky so in the immediate future this will continue to be served by Class 80Xs going further.

So basically the 'outer suburban' Class 387s making stops at any or all of Slough, Reading and Didcot have to be able to stay ahead of the Class 800s as far as Reading (for the Newbury line) and as far as Didcot East Junction for the Oxford trains. I'm sure its possible, but it will probably more difficult than it needs to be.

The payments for the Train Service Provision for the IEP services will be very high because of the structure of the contract. For those Class 80X and 387 trains supplied by ROSCOs the leasing charges will be more in line with current rates. The costing of the services will be quite complicated!

 

[AM9]

... I'm not suggesting the express stock is used for the outer suburban stopping services - but the western limit of the 'outer suburban' zone keeps moving westwards!

Outer Suburban services are increasingly being classified as such by their (average) journey times, rather than the distance travelled. With the cruising speeds of trains steadily increasing, distances of over 80 miles can be covered within the hour by peak services.
I think there should be a move to four track trunk routes that carry intensive services of both non-stop trains and fast stoppers having track arrangements of DS,DF,UF,US which gives better opportunities for F-S switching.

 

[coppercapped]

Outer Suburban services are increasingly being classified as such by their (average) journey times, rather than the distance travelled. With the cruising speeds of trains steadily increasing, distances of over 80 miles can be covered within the hour by peak services.
I think there should be a move to four track trunk routes that carry intensive services of both non-stop trains and fast stoppers having track arrangements of DS,DF,UF,US which gives better opportunities for F-S switching.

I agree. In the case of the GW changing the arrangement between Paddington and Didcot would probably not be worth the time, effort and expense - certainly since the flyovers at Reading have removed many of the conflicts. But any extension of four tracking west of Didcot to Swindon (ideally to Wootton Basset junction) and from Didcot to Oxford should use such an layout. Both these corridors need extra capacity - especially since the Class 80Xs will operate a more intensive service to Gloucester from Swindon and to Bristol and so the conflicts at Didcot will become more frequent even if the 80Xs can accelerate and get out of the way faster.

 

[AM9]

I agree. In the case of the GW changing the arrangement between Paddington and Didcot would probably not be worth the time, effort and expense - certainly since the flyovers at Reading have removed many of the conflicts. But any extension of four tracking west of Didcot to Swindon (ideally to Wootton Basset junction) and from Didcot to Oxford should use such an layout. Both these corridors need extra capacity - especially since the Class 80Xs will operate a more intensive service to Gloucester from Swindon and to Bristol and so the conflicts at Didcot will become more frequent even if the 80Xs can accelerate and get out of the way faster.

The downside of that four-track layout is that turnbacks within the section become a bit messy.

 

[irish_rail]

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but are these to be 800s or 802s (ie theoretically capable of running west of Exeter).

 

[NotATrainspott]

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but are these to be 800s or 802s (ie theoretically capable of running west of Exeter).

802s, as with the other FirstGroup orders.

 

[jimm]

I can't be bothered to look up the numbers, but I think one can be assured that a 12 car 387 can carry more people - even if not seated - than a 9 car Class 80X, even allowing for the latter's longer coaches. However the difference won't be huge - a 12 car 387 is only 8 or 10 metres longer than the IEP.

A four-car 387 seats something like 225 people, so 675 in a 12-car formation. A nine-car 800 - ie in DfT spec, as we don't know exactly what interiors GWR has asked for on AT300/802s - is 630 or so.

Why the UK announcement didn't include these details is anyone's guess, but Hitachi Rail Italy's press release confirms the new order is for seven more nine-car AT300s, indicated back up the thread by Clarence Yard, and gives the contract price as £139 million.

The UK Government has given official approval for First Great Western and its financing partner Eversholt Rail Group to purchase from Hitachi Rail Europe an additional seven trains for the West of England franchise in a new deal worth £139 million.

In July 2015 First Great Western ordered a fleet of 29 AT300s to run between London Paddington to Plymouth and Penzance. Today’s announcement of an additional seven nine-car bi-mode trains, able to run on both diesel and electric power, will see the fleet increase to 36 new trains.

http://italy.hitachirail.com/en/fir...leet-size-with-new-139-million-order_517.html

 

[swt_passenger]

802s, as with the other FirstGroup orders.

Have you got that in writing then? Why can't they be 803s? Or any other number between 802 and 899?

 

[irish_rail]

A four-car 387 seats something like 225 people, so 675 in a 12-car formation. A nine-car 800 - ie in DfT spec, as we don't know exactly what interiors GWR has asked for on AT300/802s - is 630 or so.

Why the UK announcement didn't include these details is anyone's guess, but Hitachi Rail Italy's press release confirms the new order is for seven more nine-car AT300s, indicated back up the thread by Clarence Yard, and gives the contract price as £139 million.



http://italy.hitachirail.com/en/fir...leet-size-with-new-139-million-order_517.html

Ah yes I missed that, definitely suggests 7 more additional AT300s, thanks

 

[swt_passenger]

Ah yes I missed that, definitely suggests 7 more additional AT300s, thanks

That price above must also be a pretty good proof of 9 cars.

There's no way a set of 7 x 5 cars would cost £4million per coach, whatever the exchange rate is doing...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

That price above must also be a pretty good proof of 9 cars.

There's no way a set of 7 x 5 cars would cost £4million per coach, whatever the exchange rate is doing...

The press release specifically states this to be the case. Fleet to 36 (Class 802) and length to be 9 cars.

Today’s announcement of an additional seven nine-car bi-mode trains, able to run on both diesel and electric power, will see the fleet increase to 36 new trains.

 

[jimm]

Have you got that in writing then? Why can't they be 803s? Or any other number between 802 and 899?

The Class 802 designation was used by GWR to refer to the initial 29-train AT300 order in the brochure they issued the day of the Class 800 launch at Paddington. And Class 802 was certainly used in correspondence between Hull Trains and the ORR when discussing their order for Hitachi bi-modes in connection with an extension of track access right earlier this year.

From Page 5 of the GWR brochure (though of course GWR is no longer getting any sets classed as 801s with that number now reserved for 25kv-only sets):

The first trains – from the initial batch of 57 Class 800 and 801 electro-diesel vehicles – will come into service next year, with 29 Class 802s joining them by the end of 2018. Services to Bristol, South Wales and the Cotswolds will get the benefit of the IETs first, with the second batch serving principally the west of England route. These will be specially adapted with more power available for the hills on the routes through Devon and Cornwall.

A download link for the brochure is at the bottom of this page at the GWR website

https://www.gwr.com/about-us/building-on-our-heritage

 

[swt_passenger]

The Class 802 designation was used by GWR to refer to the initial 29-train AT300 order in the brochure they issued the day of the Class 800 launch at Paddington. And Class 802 was certainly used in correspondence between Hull Trains and the ORR when discussing their order for Hitachi bi-modes in connection with an extension of track access right earlier this year.

I wasn't denying that the 29 are 802s, but past decisions don't necessarily apply to the future. I accept it is highly likely, but until it is in black and white somewhere how can the above post be treated as gospel?

 

[jimm]

I wasn't denying that the 29 are 802s, but past decisions don't necessarily apply to the future. I accept it is highly likely, but until it is in black and white somewhere how can the above post be treated as gospel?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because the Hitachi Italy announcement states that the seven sets are just an addition to the initial GWR order for 29 AT300/802s. There is no suggestion whatever that there will be anything different about them, compared with the other AT300/802 sets going to GWR, TPE and HT, that might indicate they would have their own separate class number.

There are still a few Class 802/x sub-classifiactions to go at if some differentiation were deemed to be necessary...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That price above must also be a pretty good proof of 9 cars.
There's no way a set of 7 x 5 cars would cost £4million per coach, whatever the exchange rate is doing...

I imagine the "£139m" figure (£2.2m per vehicle for 63) includes maintenance by Hitachi.

 

[swt_passenger]

The £2.2m per vehicle for this order compares well with just under £2.1m per vehicle for the 29 x 802 order, (173 cars @ £361m), so it must be a very similar deal overall. Not sure if it will include much maintenance though, on Rosco financed deals (Eversholt in this case) wouldn't that usually be a separate contract?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The £2.2m per vehicle for this order compares well with just under £2.1m per vehicle for the 29 x 802 order, (173 cars @ £361m), so it must be a very similar deal overall. Not sure if it will include much maintenance though, on Rosco financed deals (Eversholt in this case) wouldn't that usually be a separate contract?

I don't think any TOC has taken on Hitachi train maintenance directly (excluding local servicing).
So I think you'd expect the contract value to include it.
It's also unusual for a manufacturer to reveal the unit price of its products...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I don't think any TOC has taken on Hitachi train maintenance directly (excluding local servicing).
So I think you'd expect the contract value to include it.
It's also unusual for a manufacturer to reveal the unit price of its products...

Generally any new stock built since around 2000 is maintained under contract by the manufacturer who is contracted to provide x number of serviceable units each day. Don't know if the day-to-day servicing is also done under contract by the manufacturer.

 

[jimm]

So I think you'd expect the contract value to include it.
It's also unusual for a manufacturer to reveal the unit price of its products...

No, the contract value in this case is for the purchase of the trains only, not maintenance. Also, it's not hard to work out roughly how much trains cost per coach if the total value of the contract and the number of coaches ordered are known.

If you want to see what you are looking at cost-wise when it comes to a combined deal for trains and maintenance, Italian open-access intercity operator NTV ordered eight seven-car Pendolinos from Alstom last year in a contract that includes 20 years of maintenance. The contract price was 460m Euros, giving per coach cost of about 8.2m Euros, so it's fairly obvious that a unit cost of £2.1m to £2.2m per Class 802 coach does not include maintenance.

Closer to home, it is a matter of record that the CAF trains for TPE will be maintained by Alstom under a 40m Euros, five-year contract, quite separate from the deals totalling £230m between CAF and leasing companies for the emus and loco-hauled coaches.

 

[Bayum]

Are there any videos of the 800s pulling away using overheads as opposed to the Diesel engines? I've seen there are some videos of them running at speed drawing from OHLE but haven't been able to find any with them pulling away.

 

[leomartin125]

Are there any videos of the 800s pulling away using overheads as opposed to the Diesel engines? I've seen there are some videos of them running at speed drawing from OHLE but haven't been able to find any with them pulling away.

Basically no, because the Class 800 has done such little amount of testing with the OHLE on the mainlines so far, and most of the stations on the GWML are unelectrified (par a few). Also most of the OHLE testing was conducted at night and used diesel power until in the test zone.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Basically no, because the Class 800 has done such little amount of testing with the OHLE on the mainlines so far, and most of the stations on the GWML are unelectrified (par a few). Also most of the OHLE testing was conducted at night and used diesel power until in the test zone.

There might be footage of it accelerating using OLE at Old Dalby, there's certainly been plenty of interest in the units whilst testing there from photographers.

 

[Nym]

I still can't make out the difference between the two. It's all the same train to me

IEP is a project, and AT300 is the product...

 

[jopsuk]

IEP is a project, and AT300 is the product...

Quite:
IEP: the project to modernise the Intercity fleet on the GWML and ECML, incorporating infrastructure, stock and future maintenance.
INCLUDES: Class 800 (bi mode) and Class 801 (electric)

AT300: Product family that includes Class 800 (bi mode), Class 801 (electric), Class 802 (bi mode but configured differently) and also Class 395...

 

[JamesRowden]

Various reports in the rail press have indicated that they are intended for Oxford/Cotswold use, which was the case with two or three of the sets in the initial AT300 order anyway. And perhaps a Newbury peak job or two. The all-387 Thames Valley emu fleet is smaller than the previous proposed 387/365 mix anyway and with the delay to Oxford wiring, more bi-mode capacity is not going to hurt, however it is used.

Most of the Oxford peak services come from the Cotswold Line in the morning and continue that way in the evening and they are busy arriving at and leaving Oxford, so long trains are needed.

The positions of a number of starting signals at station platform ends on the Cotswold Line mean that it will not be possible to use 2x5 formations by stopping part of each set on platforms - at least until such time in the future as new signals appear - so that means nine-car sets are a necessity. There are also a few lumpy bits in the Cotswolds and Malverns where having full power all the time will not hurt.

We've been over the question of West Country portion working rather a lot already not that long ago. Do you not think GWR might just be planning to diagram nine-car sets on Pullman duties anyway?

Perhaps the extra 802s are being ordered to allow the Turbos to be cascaded from the Oxford-Paddington stoppers before the delayed Oxford-Didcot electrification is complete.

The service could run as a stopper between Oxford and Reading, and then fast to Paddington. This service could be operated by 800s displaced by the extra 802s.

There would probably be demand for the 802s to be transfered to other routes once Oxford-Didcot electrification is complete and the service can transfer to EMU operation.