IEP bandwagon of hate?

[mushroomchow]

Those lauding the IEPs as a "step-up" in quality and legroom obviously have short enough memories to have assumed that the Ryanair-esque "refurbishment" of FGW's Mk. 3s in the past decade has always been the standard to be expected on the GW route. Of course it's an improvement on that shameless pursuit of revenue, but it really sticks in the craw to hear people talking about the new stock like it's some sort of major step-up.

It's a reversion to form at best, and GWR shouldn't be applauded for it, as believe it or not they're still the same company that callously crammed all those seats into previously good stock in the first place.

I still think the IC70s were more comfortable than anything to have come since, armrests or not. Had the Mk. 3 refurbishment never happened, this introduction would be seen in the same light as "voyagerisation".

I still think they're decent units, all told - certainly based on the standard of new-build stock in this day and age. At least they're not Aventras. Bombardier are looking to repeat history with their introduction if the appalling internal plans for GA are anything to go by.

 

[TFN]

Well, it better had be, because at present it stinks of diesel fumes and human faeces. Same as Manchester Piccadilly.

Well it doesn’t smell like faeces but the horrible diesel smells yes, (I work at Paddington). Last weekend when the (mostly) HSTs weren’t being operated at Paddington and only 387s were there, Paddington felt the nicest Ive ever seen. No roar of the HST or 165/166 when they depart and then passengers cant hear me when I shout instructions or announcements on the platform. So yeah, I’m sort of looking forward to a quieter, nicer, Paddington.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still think the IC70s were more comfortable than anything to have come since, armrests or not. Had the Mk. 3 refurbishment never happened, this introduction would be seen in the same light as "voyagerisation".

Whereas I think the Grammer seats in the HSTs are the best Standard seat on the network (though the pitch is a bit tight). Other European railways (OeBB, PKP) also like them and their slightly wider First Class variant.

Seating is and always will be subjective.

 

[Alteran Ancient]

Those lauding the IEPs as a "step-up" in quality and legroom obviously have short enough memories to have assumed that the Ryanair-esque "refurbishment" of FGW's Mk. 3s in the past decade has always been the standard to be expected on the GW route. Of course it's an improvement on that shameless pursuit of revenue, but it really sticks in the craw to hear people talking about the new stock like it's some sort of major step-up.

They're surely a step-up from yesterday. Perhaps not as luxurious compared to the maiden voyage of the HSTs back in the 70s, but I think customers will appreciate punctuality and modern convenience over the nostalgia... as well as a better opportunity to get a seat during the rush crush.

I don't expect First Class treatment on a train unless I've paid for First Class. So long as I get a seat that isn't too uncomfortable, I'm generally quite happy. I'd rather sit in an IEP over a Class 700 any day of the week.

 

[bnm]

Those lauding the IEPs as a "step-up" in quality and legroom obviously have short enough memories to have assumed that the Ryanair-esque "refurbishment" of FGW's Mk. 3s in the past decade has always been the standard to be expected on the GW route. Of course it's an improvement on that shameless pursuit of revenue, but it really sticks in the craw to hear people talking about the new stock like it's some sort of major step-up.

It's a reversion to form at best, and GWR shouldn't be applauded for it, as believe it or not they're still the same company that callously crammed all those seats into previously good stock in the first place.

I still think the IC70s were more comfortable than anything to have come since, armrests or not. Had the Mk. 3 refurbishment never happened, this introduction would be seen in the same light as "voyagerisation".

Had the horrible IC70 seats not been replaced, mini buffets introduced, 1st Class reduced, then there would have been far more FGW/GWR HST services running absolutely rammed for more of their journeys. It would have been no fun standing all the way to Cornwall looking at someone sat in an IC70 with their rose tinted spectacles on.

The extra capacity was 'callously' crammed in because it was bloody well needed. The railways are carrying far more passengers than they did when BR introduced the HST. It is encumbent on the railway to do all it can to ensure passengers get a seat on long distance services. Had the capacity increases not been done you would have enjoyed getting up close and personal with the midriff of a standing passenger whilst sat in your sainted IC70.

 

[sprinterguy]

can we really justify wiring Cardiff-Swansea for what would be just one train per hour each way most of the day?

The ECML north of Newcastle was wired with little more than that using the wires, and the WCML north of Preston with probably less, although with the benefit that electric freight could also use the overheads as well as passenger trains.

I'm not suggesting that Network Rail go ahead and wire the Cotswold route to Worcester and Hereford for example, but there does seem to be a sensible case to wire up to the end of a core route that sees an all day hourly service.

 

[aar0]

Whereas I think the Grammer seats in the HSTs are the best Standard seat on the network (though the pitch is a bit tight). Other European railways (OeBB, PKP) also like them and their slightly wider First Class variant.

Seating is and always will be subjective.

With regard to leg room, I'm 6'6" and have very long legs. I have sat comfortably for 5 hours on a GWR HST, working on my laptop or reading. I haven't managed a comfortable 2 hours on the IC70s to Norwich. I also can't lower the tables on IC70s as they interact with my knees, which I can't move due to the lack of leg room.

I've only done 30 minutes in an IET, but there was more leg room than on a GWR HST, and the table is wider. Additionally, a GWR HST has more legroom than a VTEC one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problems with IC70s are, for bigger people:-
- Fixed armrests forcing legs straight forwards and making access awkward
- Thick seat backs wasting space
- Seat base provides poor support
- Table too low, supports press into knees

They are a poor, old-fashioned seat design from a different era. If you replaced them with Grammers at the same pitch the legroom would be unrivalled.

Similarly, ATW and EMT replaced the original Class 158 seating with Grammers at a tighter pitch - but you actually get more legroom.

 

[Melancholia]

I had a u-turn in opinion about the IETs when I travelled on its first day for the whole day. I expected it to be the Voyager No.2, however I really like them and from a passenger's point of view, they are an upgrade to what HSTs are. Don't get me wrong, HSTs are still excellent, but it is time for them to go, and be replaced with something modern.

 

[mushroomchow]

Seating is and always will be subjective.

True, and I agree with you in that the seats themselves are comfortable enough, but taking out even one row of those seats and spacing them accordingly would have saved the knees of passengers a lot of grief!

Funnily enough, I actually quite like the Grammer seats where they've been installed in Pacers, but I guess anything beats the rattle of a metal bus seat bar on your neck!

Had the horrible IC70 seats not been replaced, mini buffets introduced, 1st Class reduced, then there would have been far more FGW/GWR HST services running absolutely rammed for more of their journeys. It would have been no fun standing all the way to Cornwall looking at someone sat in an IC70 with their rose tinted spectacles on.

The extra capacity was 'callously' crammed in because it was bloody well needed. The railways are carrying far more passengers than they did when BR introduced the HST. It is encumbent on the railway to do all it can to ensure passengers get a seat on long distance services. Had the capacity increases not been done you would have enjoyed getting up close and personal with the midriff of a standing passenger whilst sat in your sainted IC70.

Crikey, you're awfully riled by my dislike of FGW's disregard for passenger comfort, aren't you? I find it baffling that anybody could defend higher-density seating as a necessary evil when the alternatives are in every way better for passengers and long-term network sustainability, but would happen to cost a little more.

For the record, and in case it wasn't clear, I accept that the IC70s were tatty and needed replacing. What didn't need to happen was completely tearing up the carriage layout and taking the provision of new seating too far. As Bletchleyite pointed out, the space saved on Grammers, with a little more thought given to comfort, could acheive improvements in capacity without impacting on the passenger. Taking out tables is one thing, but the resulting refurbishment was appalling - a true exercise in treating passengers as numbers rather than customers.

The answer is platform and consist lengthening, not forcing more seats into the same number of carriages (or in FGW's case, less on some services). Platform length isn't even a real excuse anyway - there are plenty of stations on the MML that operate consists longer than a lot of platforms, and they run just fine. Yet still, station improvements are the key, as they will future-proof the network and allow consist lengthening on franchises without challenge from the ORR.

I could also mention that the HST sets lost seats when they reduced 17 consists to 7 coaches - in fact, I believe rake OC45 now has only six. It clearly wasn't an issue for them to operate 8-coach consists for 30 years on the GW route - even 9 at times - so why they felt the need to cram those lost seats into less coaches is beyond me.

I'm also wary of most of the IEPs being introduced as 5-car consists. Voyagerisation on XC services should have taught us by now that proposals to run multiple units in tandem ends up being the exception rather than the rule, which would leave most services with less seating in the near future.

It's a simple matter of physics - you can't force more matter into a smaller space and expect comfort levels to improve!

 

[capital12]

I'm in two minds about them - I had hoped to try one this morning but it was replaced by an HST!

Firstly - as much as I love the HST I also realise they can't go on forever!

However what also really winds me up is the die hard fans of IEP and the GWR tweets trying to make out they're the most amazing trains, when clearly they're not.

They look good from the outside, I'll give them that - if you ignore the awful way they've been wrapped into GWR livery (which I really like and they look a million times better than the VTEC version which looks like it has some old tarpaulin caught in the front!) with loads of white bits showing.

And by the sounds of it they are pretty quiet on diesel which is a good thing too.

It's the blandness of the interior that really lets them down in my opinion. Ignoring the slam doors of the Mk3s, the VTEC interior refresh knocks spots of the IET. (They have GNER to thank of course for the well designed and executed Mallard refurb). However these look and feel much newer, well designed and welcoming than the IET. Just add next stop and electronic reservations like the XC HST and you'd be there.

The other thing for me is the 5 car sets - I think all should have been full length. They clearly learnt nothing from the Voyagers.

So for me, at the moment, it's not a die hard hatred of them. More disappointed in what they could have been. They should be something amazing, a great travelling environment and really encouraging people to use the trains. What they've got is dull DfT specified blandness. And the constant bombardment of tweets about how amazing they are is pretty tedious, especially when you have buses that have better specced interiors, just look at the 36 between Harrogate and Leeds.

 

[Sleepy]

Just heard GWR have removed IEP's from service due to SDO fault and other issues (source GWR employee) !!!

 

[sprinterguy]

Funnily enough, I actually quite like the Grammer seats where they've been installed in Pacers, but I guess anything beats the rattle of a metal bus seat bar on your neck!

I didn't think any Pacers had Grammer seats. The ATW class 142 and 143 fleet all have Chapman seats, and the Northern 144s have Richmonds, except for demonstrator 144012 which has seats from Fainsa. No idea who was the manufacturer behind the coach seating in the former Arriva Trains Northern 142s or the 3+2 seating in the ex-Merseyrail units, but I doubt it was Grammer.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'm also wary of most of the IEPs being introduced as 5-car consists. Voyagerisation on XC services should have taught us by now that proposals to run multiple units in tandem ends up being the exception rather than the rule, which would leave most services with less seating in the near future.

Single unit operation on Crosscountry was always intended to be the rule once the Voyagers entered squadron service, as the increase in frequency as part of Operation Princess was (foolishly) deemed sufficient to cater for demand. The intended Great Western diagrams, I am led to believe, are quite different in nature, and while it's been mentioned before it's worth repeating that GWR will have more than enough IETs to replace every HST with a 9-car or 10-car formation and still have enough units left over to replace the 180s on a carriage by carriage basis.

I'd prefer full length trains as well, but if a five coach train with over 300 seats offers sufficient capacity to operate west of Plymouth or beyond Oxford off peak I can see why GWR view it as more efficient not to send a 9-car set instead.

 

[tbtc]

I think that the telling point about the "bandwagon of hate" is that the thread about the TPE Mk5s (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/first-tpe-mark-5a-bodyshell-completed.143579/) is full of enthusiasm about new carriages - how nice they look etc. The equivalent Caledonian Sleeper thread seems fairly positive too.

The threads about 800/801s seem to be along the lines of "cheap modern stock, new seats are never as comfortable as old seats, Voyager-clones" etc.

The fact that the Mk5s will be loco-hauled trains that replace DMUs whilst the 800/801s will replace the sainted HSTs might have something to do with it? I've not seen many people moaning about how the seats on the Mk5s (that they haven't travelled on yet) will be "uncomfortable". but I have seen a number of people moan about how the seats on the 800/801s (that they hadn't travelled on yet) would be. Telling?

(same kind of thing affected the 220/221/222s - Voyagers replaced lovely old loco hauled trains, but Meridians mainly replaced Turbostars - so certain aspects of Voyagers get complained about a lot more than equivalent features of Meridians)

The procurement does seem flawed, though I don't really have the knowledge to do an analysis of it. The rash of (apparently cheap) new orders does paint the IEP in a less-favourable light though

I think that, in a decade or so, we'll see the expensive initial procurement as a necessary evil to ensure that the network had a new "uniform" LDHS train (and not lots of small "180-style" classes).

Like with the NB4L/ Borrismaster, when you put all of the development costs onto an initial batch, everything looks expensive, but when these are spread over the number finally built, the costs seem a bit more reasonable.

The question that I believe has never been truly answered is are these commuter trains or are they long distance intercity trains?

I don't think that the UK railway has space for that kind of distinction nowadays.

I know that things are different in Germany, I know that things were different in the UK in the 1980s, but I don't think there's capacity to treat our railway like that now (however much some enthusiasts like to pigeon-hole things).

For example, I have a friend who was commuting daily from Reading to London in the '90s, when that was relatively unusual amongst the people he knew. Nowadays, the commuter belt has spread so that Didcot/ Swindon see significant numbers of Paddington commuters.

I think we've got to accept that modern trains have to be built to cater to different markets - BR could have a rake designed for tourists heading from London to Cornwall - BR could accept having that rake out of use for periods - but we don't have those luxuries now.

Preferably running on a reopened country branch line serving a few small villages (the more sparsely populated the better) with the multi million reopening costs justified by it being used as a diversionary route once a decade.

Okay, I genuinely laughed out loud...

The big problem is that the bi-mode capabilities of the 800/802 units are being used as an excuse to cut major modernisation projects

It does if the major infrastructure provider (NR) has shown itself utterly incompetent in the project management, costings and delivery of the electrification work it has carried out recently. Once they've got that sorted out (don't ask me how they do that, the expertise is already sat within NR allegedly) then absolutely, revisit electrification, but it just can't carry on the way it is now, it's a huge waste of money and needs to be drawn back to a more manageable level until NR's internal issues are resolved.

I'm with mpthomson here - if Network Rail were capable of delivering the electrification that they promised, to the timescale that they promised, to the budget that they promised, then we wouldn't be in a position where any politician of any colour was using bi-mode as a "Plan B" for places like Cardiff - Swansea.

I'd love lines to get electrified - I've suggested it as a solution for a number of routes - but at the moment we don't have a railway capable of managing those kind of schemes to a budget and to a timescale. That's not the fault of Hitachi.

No Government would give Network Rail an open chequebook, given their problems - it's no wonder that some bits have been trimmed (e.g. Oxford, Bristol, Swansea) so that they can focus on delivering a "basic" GWML electrification. The fact that we have bi-mode trains allows us a "Plan B" in the circumstances, rather than cancelling the whole thing.

Seating is and always will be subjective.

True.

Yet it's also one of the most debated topics on the Forum, despite our different frames/ legs/ preferences etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be (un)fair to Voyagers, they are not only 3m shorter per coach (that's more than half a coach extra on the IET, and all of it with seats in) but have an incredibly wasteful interior layout which has seats in only about 2/3 of the coach length. So a 5-car IET has rather more capacity. But do see your point.

 

[Mojo]

I was about to say if anything my perception has been totally the opposite for what is implied by the OP in that I was quite surprised to see that there haven't been any level of substantial negativity about the IEPs unlike pretty every other new train introduced in the past 15 years, and the few non-positive comments that I have seen tend to be constructive criticism or observations rather than an irrational hatred for something because it is new/replacing a type of train that they do like.

 

[bramling]

Those lauding the IEPs as a "step-up" in quality and legroom obviously have short enough memories to have assumed that the Ryanair-esque "refurbishment" of FGW's Mk. 3s in the past decade has always been the standard to be expected on the GW route. Of course it's an improvement on that shameless pursuit of revenue, but it really sticks in the craw to hear people talking about the new stock like it's some sort of major step-up.

It's a reversion to form at best, and GWR shouldn't be applauded for it, as believe it or not they're still the same company that callously crammed all those seats into previously good stock in the first place.

I still think the IC70s were more comfortable than anything to have come since, armrests or not. Had the Mk. 3 refurbishment never happened, this introduction would be seen in the same light as "voyagerisation".

I still think they're decent units, all told - certainly based on the standard of new-build stock in this day and age. At least they're not Aventras. Bombardier are looking to repeat history with their introduction if the appalling internal plans for GA are anything to go by.

I don’t see a bandwagon of hate. People were evidently a little sceptical over certain aspects of the interior, however the general trend seems to be people are finding it quite okay, which is a positive sign for those of us who haven’t been on one yet. It’s a shame that other trains have proven to be as bad or worse than anticipated - yes I’m thinking of the class 700.

 

[Gareth Marston]

IEP is the symbol of much that is wrong on the UK railway today;
Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you of transport policy failure the failure to electrify our mainlines and commuter networks.
Every time you see a Bi mode IEP it reminds you that Network Rail has lost control of Infrastructure costs.
Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you its a civil service micromanaged project that's taken many more years to enter service than "deeply inefficient" BR took to get the HST into squadron service when there was plenty of European stock that could have been bought off the shelf with UK mods more quickly and more cheaply.
Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you its being used an an excuse to cancel decades overdue investment in electrification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t see a bandwagon of hate. People were evidently a little sceptical over certain aspects of the interior, however the general trend seems to be people are finding it quite okay, which is a positive sign for those of us who haven’t been on one yet. It’s a shame that other trains have proven to be as bad or worse than anticipated - yes I’m thinking of the class 700.

Even that is a matter of opinion. I find them a noticeable improvement over the Thameslink-layout (2+2) Class 319, which is what they were designed to replace. The use of rather more luxurious Electrostars on Thameslink was only ever a stopgap.

 

[capital12]

One thing I forgot to add from the 0700 this morning - I was sat near some (I assume regular commuters) who were actually pleased to have the HST back today!

They clearly didn't like the IET seats, or air con (more to do with the temperature being too cold than the onboard shower!) and one said she was trying to get into PAD early each morning to get the 0630 to avoid them!

 

[jimm]

Crikey, you're awfully riled by my dislike of FGW's disregard for passenger comfort, aren't you? I find it baffling that anybody could defend higher-density seating as a necessary evil when the alternatives are in every way better for passengers and long-term network sustainability, but would happen to cost a little more.

I could also mention that the HST sets lost seats when they reduced 17 consists to 7 coaches - in fact, I believe rake OC45 now has only six. It clearly wasn't an issue for them to operate 8-coach consists for 30 years on the GW route - even 9 at times - so why they felt the need to cram those lost seats into less coaches is beyond me.

I'm also wary of most of the IEPs being introduced as 5-car consists. Voyagerisation on XC services should have taught us by now that proposals to run multiple units in tandem ends up being the exception rather than the rule, which would leave most services with less seating in the near future.

You're a bit out of touch when it comes to the interiors of the IET - GWR's input has been minimal. This is the Department for Transport's train set we're talking about, so what Hitachi has fitted is what the DfT wanted. Nor do you seem to understand, or just don't care, about the huge rise in the number of people travelling by train since the 1990s - stay as you are was not an option.

You could also have mentioned that as of 2012, FGW's management reversed the decision taken by their predecessors and put the shortened sets back to eight-coach rakes, in part by having extra TSOs converted from the redundant buffets previously removed from eight-coach rakes. Unless there is a fault on a coach and it goes out with seven in the set, GWR HSTs are all eight coaches. I can't recall ever seeing one in passenger service with six.

In case you haven't noticed, there are 35 nine-car 800s and 802s on order for GW services, as well as the 58 five-car versions and GWR's md is on the record more than once saying that all peak trains into London in the morning and back out in the afternoon and early evening will be nine-car or 10-car (2x5) formations, but what does he know, eh?

Many of the services being worked by five-car sets will be to places where most of the day there is no point whatever running a long formation, such as the Cotswold Line, Cheltenham (where the arrival of the five-coach sets is allowing the launch of an hourly London service all day), the two extra Bristol limited-stop services each hour, extensions past Bristol to Weston and Taunton by splitting 2x5 formations at Temple Meads, Berks & Hants line semi-fasts and extra Penzance-London services, dividing/joining 2x5s at Plymouth.

IEP is the symbol of much that is wrong on the UK railway today;
Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you of transport policy failure the failure to electrify our mainlines and commuter networks.
Every time you see a Bi mode IEP it reminds you that Network Rail has lost control of Infrastructure costs.
Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you its a civil service micromanaged project that's taken many more years to enter service than "deeply inefficient" BR took to get the HST into squadron service when there was plenty of European stock that could have been bought off the shelf with UK mods more quickly and more cheaply.
Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you its being used an an excuse to cancel decades overdue investment in electrification.

No wonder people think there is a bandwagon of hate when posts like this appear.

While we wait for the magic money tree to produce the funds for all that electrification, there are rather a lot of places that need new trains that are able to take advantage of electrification where it is available and also operate where it isn't. And bi-modes are not some new-fangled only-in-Britain idea - there are hundreds of them in France, with more being delivered by the week, including for mainline services.

The bi-modes were part of the plan for both GW and East Coast fleet replacement irrespective of Network Rail's subsequent problems over electrification delivery.

As was pointed out only the other day in another thread, the prototype HST was conceived in 1970, with the prototype completed in 1972. It was another four years before the production trains entered traffic, so not exactly warp-speed under BR either. Yes, DafT faffed around for a very long time - the change of tack to favour more electrification came in the middle of all that - but once Hitachi finally got the go-ahead to build them in 2012, the first Class 800 was completed at the end of 2014. Passenger services have started just under three years later.

Since when have you been able to buy European rolling stock off the shelf for the UK? The 390s and Siemens multiple units aren't that closely related to the European trains supposedly from the same product 'family'. The Class 185 dmu is a complete one-off.

Sum total of cancelled electrificaction projects due to bi-modes - two. Swansea, which has never seemed to make much sense to me unless it forms past of a wider South Wales scheme, allowing many more services to use 25kv as well. And Midland Main Line - probably one for the ever-growing list of decisions Mr Grayling has taken that end up being reversed by whoever replaces him at a ministry.

 

[mpthomson]

The answer is platform and consist lengthening, not forcing more seats into the same number of carriages (or in FGW's case, less on some services). Platform length isn't even a real excuse anyway - there are plenty of stations on the MML that operate consists longer than a lot of platforms, and they run just fine. Yet still, station improvements are the key, as they will future-proof the network and allow consist lengthening on franchises without challenge from the ORR.


It's a simple matter of physics - you can't force more matter into a smaller space and expect comfort levels to improve!

That's only an answer if you have extremely deep pockets. The only answer within the budget available to them at the time was to do what they did.

 

[AndrewE]

IEP is the symbol of much that is wrong on the UK railway today;
Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you of transport policy failure the failure to electrify our mainlines and commuter networks.
Every time you see a Bi mode IEP it reminds you that Network Rail has lost control of Infrastructure costs.
Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you its a civil service micromanaged project that's taken many more years to enter service than "deeply inefficient" BR took to get the HST into squadron service when there was plenty of European stock that could have been bought off the shelf with UK mods more quickly and more cheaply.
Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you its being used an an excuse to cancel decades overdue investment in electrification.

I don't hate them, but they also remind me than a) most of the real manufacturing, as opposed to assembly, is being done abroad and b) they are costing an arm and a leg, which will add to the claims that our railways are too expensive [and should be replaced by extra road building.]

 

[bnm]

Every time you see a Bi Mode IEP it reminds you its a civil service micromanaged project that's taken many more years to enter service than "deeply inefficient" BR took to get the HST into squadron service.

4 years and 4 months from HST prototype first run (July 1972) to first Class 43 in revenue service (October 1976). Full squadron service on the Western Region came in 1980. 8 years after the prototype first ran.

The Class 80x firm order was placed in July 2012. The first pre-production set began UK testing in March 2015. First set into revenue earning service in October 2017. 5 years 3 months from date of order. Squadron service in the Greater Western Area (across a far wider area with a much larger fleet than the HSTs originally served) is expected by March 2019.

HST (Western Region): 8 years from prototype to squadron service.
Class 80x (Greater Western) 7 years from order to squadron service.

The ordering and testing regimes are very different. But it is wrong to suggest that the Class 80x have taken many more years to enter service. Even if we go right back to genesis. HST genesis was 1970, ten years before squadron service on the Western. They were though originally intended only as a stop-gap before APT entered service across the UK. APT genesis was the mid 1960s.

Class 80x genesis was the DfT starting the procurement process in March 2007.

 

[jimm]

I don't hate them, but they also remind me than a) most of the real manufacturing, as opposed to assembly, is being done abroad and b) they are costing an arm and a leg, which will add to the claims that our railways are too expensive [and should be replaced by extra road building.]

Rather a lot of the parts in trains assembled by Bombardier at Derby are manufactured in other countries, or parts in 'German' trains and so on. It's the way the industry is now.

The trains ordered for the IEP programme under a Private Finance Initiative-type contract to keep the Treasury happy are expensive due to the way that deal is structured. Subsequent orders for Class 802s for GWR, Hull Trains and TransPennine, done in the usual way via a leasing company, compare perfectly well on price with express rolling stock on order elsewhere.

 

[Starmill]

I have no recognition of a 'bandwagon of hate' towards these trains at all. Almost everyone seems to like them and in proportion I have heard very few negative comments and even then by people who appreciate the benefits.

Compare that to a number of other new train introductions, highlighted best by the Voyagers and Class 700s, comments are nothing but negative from almost all corners. Years have not diminished the negative press and complaining, and it comes from radically different quarters, including the railway and non-railway press, regular passengers and surveys, and, yes, forum comments.

 

[nlogax]

The only criticism I can vaguely my hat on with the introduction of Class 800s is in the direction of Network Rail and their inability to stick to initial budgetary promises when it came to electrification beyond Airport Junction. Even then I don't know what exactly went wrong. I need to read more into the details.

It'd be great for IEPs to stay under wires beyond Thingley Junction and down beyond Cardiff and into Swansea but the situation is what it is and diesel will have to take up the slack. Meanwhile I'm looking forward to getting on one and seeing how they are!

 

[bnm]

Rather a lot of the parts in trains assembled by Bombardier at Derby are manufactured in other countries, or parts in 'German' trains and so on. It's the way the industry is now.

Indeed. And the naysayers conveniently forget, when they refer to these trains as 'foreign' or 'Jap crap', is that 70% of the components that go in to making a Class 80x are British or European. And, after the pre-production sets were built, these trains are 100% British (800) or Italian (802) assembled. These trains are as Japanese as a Nissan from Sunderland or Honda from Swindon. That is, not very Japanese, beyond initial design, at all.

 

[Severn40]

I wouldn't say 'bandwagon of hate'. In South Wales, given the years and years of waiting for some new rolling stock, it is natural that expectations are going to be somewhat high.

Had my first journey on one of the trains last night and the general reaction is "promising but room for improvement". The interiors do feel they are designed to civil servant specs for a shorter commuter run into London rather than being of intercity quality. My biggest doubts are around the luggage space and the 2x5 car formations. I can see large luggage in aisles (blocking the trolley service) and with timetable reconfigurations in the future, one of the 5 car formations being slowly removed from the outer reaches of the GWR network to cater for ever growing Reading to London demand.