GWR Class 800

[Darandio]

I was quite surprised to see a notice fixed to the trolley "PROPERTY OF HITACHI RAIL UK". I hadn't realised their responsibilities extended to the trollies!

I'd never really considered it, but I'd imagine they are a bespoke design by/for Hitachi? Presumably they are made to fit/be tethered in a certain section of the train when not used.

 

[D1009]

I was on that train yesterday (005 coach A/B), but there was no shortage of performance on diesel.
We recovered a 5-minute late departure from Cardiff with ease.

I can also confirm the engine on coach number 814005 was not running this morning on the 1055 Cardiff to Paddington. Later in the day I travelled on the other set (800009/800011) on which all engines were working, and the speed coming out of Sodbury Tunnel was exactly the same at 96 mph. I conclude from this that in the event of an engine being out, the TMS adjusts the power output of the remaining engines to compensate, which IIRC was in the original DfT specification for the 800s.

 

[bonzawe]

I can also confirm the engine on coach number 814005 was not running this morning on the 1055 Cardiff to Paddington. Later in the day I travelled on the other set (800009/800011) on which all engines were working, and the speed coming out of Sodbury Tunnel was exactly the same at 96 mph. I conclude from this that in the event of an engine being out, the TMS adjusts the power output of the remaining engines to compensate, which IIRC was in the original DfT specification for the 800s.

I agree that was the original specification. Operation at 700hp, one engine out automatically up-rate to 930hp. There has been no indication that operation above 930 was possible, so if these set are now operating at 930hp as has been stated, operation with one engine out should be slower.

Otherwise the up rate is somewhat illusory, the acceleration limitation is still saying operation is being held back and true operation at 930 is only available when the set is operating with less engines.

 

[D1009]

I agree that was the original specification. Operation at 700hp, one engine out automatically up-rate to 930hp. There has been no indication that operation above 930 was possible, so if these set are now operating at 930hp as has been stated, operation with one engine out should be slower.

Otherwise the up rate is somewhat illusory, the acceleration limitation is still saying operation is being held back and true operation at 930 is only available when the set is operating with less engines.

I believe the claim that they are operating at 930 hp has been disputed, somewhere in this thread, but can't be bothered to trawl back to find the particular post. My personal belief is that they are operating at some point between 700 and 930 hp, so it should be possible to vary this in the eventuality of an engine being out, without the need to go to the full...wasn't it 940 hp?

 

[Railperf]

I believe the claim that they are operating at 930 hp has been disputed, somewhere in this thread, but can't be bothered to trawl back to find the particular post. My personal belief is that they are operating at some point between 700 and 930 hp, so it should be possible to vary this in the eventuality of an engine being out, without the need to go to the full...wasn't it 940 hp?

A pal of mine is reporting that out of nine journeys he has made, six have been on a set with an engine out. So maybe - they are - as suggested - running at up to 930hp especially when an engine is out, and possibly reverting back to 700hp when all six are working. What is making this intriguing is the reports of similar on the road performance between sets with an engine out and those with all running. Then again another pal reports having seen a genuine rare 125mph between Didcot and Swindon on an IET, which would suggest a higher output on that set. But that may have been a test! So much confusion. Does anyone know if the acceleration curve is managed on the level or both uphill and downhill? The acceleration out of Paddington recorded to date seems to agree with The DfT specified acceleration curve. Whereas in diesel mode, there is a huge deficit in performance - apart from that initial surge to around 30mph or so before quickly tailing off.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I’ll try again. The engines are set for 700kw but they are governed so you won’t exceed the acceleration rate and the software has been tweaked to ensure optimum engine wear. So the output is harmonised to suit, it isn’t a straight 700kw at all times. How the Hitachi boffins have done this exactly (i.e. their optimised curve) I don’t know but they have some rather clever people dealing with engine set ups.

I can assure you that if they were on flat 565kw they would not be meeting the HST timings on GWR. I have personally been on the test trains when they were and they didn’t do the job. Those test runs persuaded a very reluctant DfT to authorise the 700kw setting.

One of the test runs simulated an engine out on a five car, all at 565kw. That was just painful. I’ve been on one engine only Deltics with more poke.

 

[Pete_uk]

Its a shame the multiple unit route was taken.

Seems like some of the DfT's hopes are falling apart.

 

[Railperf]

I’ll try again. The engines are set for 700kw but they are governed so you won’t exceed the acceleration rate and the software has been tweaked to ensure optimum engine wear. So the output is harmonised to suit, it isn’t a straight 700kw at all times. How the Hitachi boffins have done this exactly (i.e. their optimised curve) I don’t know but they have some rather clever people dealing with engine set ups.

I can assure you that if they were on flat 565kw they would not be meeting the HST timings on GWR. I have personally been on the test trains when they were and they didn’t do the job. Those test runs persuaded a very reluctant DfT to authorise the 700kw setting.

One of the test runs simulated an engine out on a five car, all at 565kw. That was just painful. I’ve been on one engine only Deltics with more poke.

Sitting on an HST with only a single power car working is also excruciatingly slow - especially if the 'dead' power car has been shut down completely.
Let's face it, disappointingly the IET cannot meet net HST timings in diesel mode without eating into the recovery, performance and pathing allowances in the WTT. So with all the best optimism in the world, i cannot see how a set with engine out will fare any better. Voyagers with their superior performance cannot meet their net timings with an engine out.

@Clarence Yard - the DfT specified acceleration rate seems to be maintained in electric mode above 50mph, but clearly not in diesel mode. Are you able to indicate what the maximum power is available at the electric motors in both diesel/electric modes. I've seen a figure of 2712Kw mentioned for electric mode, but assuming the diesel engines are rated at 700kw - that's 2100kw in total for diesel. Taking into account transmission losses and power needed for auxiliary supplies / control systems , lighting, aircon etc, do you have any idea what power available is available for traction? Would a figure of between 500 and 600kw for traction be more likely?

 

[Railperf]

Its a shame the multiple unit route was taken.

Seems like some of the DfT's hopes are falling apart.

Maybe not. After spending billions on electrification, station remodelling and a fleet of new trains, then i guess we will end up with a more modern, reliable and more frequent service, with more seats, even if journey times remain the same or are slightly improved. There has always been concern over the Dft specification for IET relating to whether it could improve on HST timings especially in diesel mode - and now we see that concern was well founded especially if, as @Clarence Yard says - the sets performed poorly in their original spec of 565kw per engine. I don't know how Class 802 will fare much better, because the installed power remains the same, and although there is a better minimum acceleration specified - this will again probably apply at very low speeds but certainly over 50mph in diesel mode, i don't see how they will accelerate any faster than 800's.

 

[jimm]

Sitting on an HST with only a single power car working is also excruciatingly slow - especially if the 'dead' power car has been shut down completely.
Let's face it, disappointingly the IET cannot meet net HST timings in diesel mode without eating into the recovery, performance and pathing allowances in the WTT. So with all the best optimism in the world, i cannot see how a set with engine out will fare any better. Voyagers with their superior performance cannot meet their net timings with an engine out.

Maybe not. After spending billions on electrification, station remodelling and a fleet of new trains, then i guess we will end up with a more modern, reliable and more frequent service, with more seats, even if journey times remain the same or are slightly improved. There has always been concern over the Dft specification for IET relating to whether it could improve on HST timings especially in diesel mode - and now we see that concern was well founded especially if, as @Clarence Yard says - the sets performed poorly in their original spec of 565kw per engine. I don't know how Class 802 will fare much better, because the installed power remains the same, and although there is a better minimum acceleration specified - this will again probably apply at very low speeds but certainly over 50mph in diesel mode, i don't see how they will accelerate any faster than 800's.

In what way is it disappointing? Why do you - and others - keep trying to hold these trains to some performance standard they were not intended to meet in normal service using diesel engines?

Yet, with a bit of adjustment to the traction management systems, allowing full engine power all the time, and some juggling with timing allowances, they can basically match the overall timings of an HST on 125mph sections of the GW route using diesel - all of which Clarence Yard has explained. It's hardly surprising that the 565kw setting didn't exactly cut the mustard compared with an HST out on the racetrack bits of the GWML.

The 800s were not expected to operate on a regular basis using diesel power at speeds much above 100mph. Once the overhead wires are live to Bristol Parkway and Thingley junction from the end of next year there will just be one short section of track with a 125mph limit where diesel will still be used - Thingley to the Box area - and bits of the Berks & Hants where the limit is 110mph or 115mph (the bulk of the services there will be 802s anyway) and 105mph for the limited IET service between Cheltenham and Worcester.

The planned overall journey time savings in the GWR area from the end of next year (typically 15 minutes to Bristol Temple Meads - once wires are complete all the way - and Cardiff) are linked to the superior performance on electric power and things like not having to allow lots of time for guards to check slam doors are shut at unstaffed stations in places like the Cotswold Line - a place where frequent station stops mean the initial burst of acceleration will come in handy. Improvements on the West Country timings will be more modest than elsewhere, because much more of the journey will be on diesel - all of which is a matter of public record.

 

[Railperf]

@jimm - i agree that on electric power, IET's will improve journey times. Any disappointment on my part is in the context of what has been promised in terms of journey time improvements by DfT and GWR.
And in the context of what IET delivers over HST, compared with what HST delivered over the stock it replaced.

In the first context, the goalposts have been moved by DfT regarding the speed and scope of electrification, and for another year we will have trains having to travel in diesel mode - for more than half the journey - which as you rightly say - they were not designed to be doing on 125mph sections of track. So in that respect, the performance is a step back rather than a step forward. And that is disappointing. And it is disappointing that rather than simply uprating the engines, some more were not fitted to create a product that could deliver the promise. But then again, I am not the one paying for the bill of redesign and the cost of all those engines.
Once we do have a service in full electric mode between Paddington Bristol and Cardiff, and we start to see journey times improve, then I am sure I will be happier than I am now.
In the second context, HST delivered an improved quality of service and a step up in performance that IET will not match. And that is also disappointing for me. Let's face it current HST schedules are vastly bloated - there is no good reason say - why Reading to Didcot which was formerly scheduled for 12 mins has been bloated to 13 and 14 mins in cases, which means that our so-called 125mph service has become a 110-115mph service with lots of coasting and time dissipation. And it is a known fact that HST's can achieve a net time of 11 mins when driven to their capability, and 180's can achieve a start to stop time of 10.5 mins. So is it acceptable that after billions spent on new higher performing trains, station redevelopment and infrastructure improvements, that we start tweaking more allowances and bloating the schedule even further? How does that improve the customers perception of improvement, when their train is trundling along at 105 or 110mph as to 125mph or greater. Ordinary passengers are not fools - they do perceive the difference. So yes, many will be disappointed until the service is running in full electric mode! That's not a criticism of the product or those who are working on it. In the context of what it was designed to do, I am convinced it will do what is says on the tin - eventually.

 

[jimm]

So in essence you are just going to slate them over a series of things that would not even have registered had the 25kv wiring project proceeded as projected and before GWR receives its complete all-new fleet of express stock, plus new emus in the Thames Valley, thus getting the opportunity to rewrite the entire timetable at the end of 2018 (hard to do when the tracks are still being shared with 90mph Turbos until well into next year)...

 

[Railperf]

@jimm If the 25kV project had proceeded on time as planned, most of these trains would not have had retrofitted diesel engines in the first place and would be performing as promised.
But when somebody decided to defer and cancel parts of the wiring and decided to retrofit underpowered engines to these units to try and maintain HST timings - knowing they would have to use those engines for vast stretches of existing 125mph track, then absolutely I will slate that decision because it hasn't worked, and the units are struggling - even on HST schedules bloated with excess recovery and pathing time! and then to hear that units are regularly running with 1 engine out....i rest my case.

 

[D365]

And it is disappointing that rather than simply uprating the engines, some more were not fitted to create a product that could deliver the promise. But then again, I am not the one paying for the bill of redesign and the cost of all those engines.

I don’t understand what you are saying. The diesel power packs are not being redesigned or refitted. The only change (aside from the fuel tanks?) is a software tweak.

Engines on all Class 80x units are exactly the same.

 

[swt_passenger]

@jimm If the 25kV project had proceeded on time as planned, most of these trains would not have had retrofitted diesel engines in the first place and would be performing as promised.
But when somebody decided to defer and cancel parts of the wiring and decided to retrofit underpowered engines to these units to try and maintain HST timings - knowing they would have to use those engines for vast stretches of existing 125mph track, then absolutely I will slate that decision because it hasn't worked, and the units are struggling - even on HST schedules bloated with excess recovery and pathing time! and then to hear that units are regularly running with 1 engine out....i rest my case.

There won't be any vast stretches pf 125 mph track surely? I think the exact distance was determined earlier in this thread, and it wasn't much at all.
Slate the decision by all means, but please be clear that the problem is more to do with the wiring decisions than the trains.

 

[Railperf]

the problem is more to do with the wiring decisions than the trains.

I agree completely

 

[Railperf]

I don’t understand what you are saying. The diesel power packs are not being redesigned or refitted. The only change (aside from the fuel tanks?) is a software tweak.

Engines on all Class 80x units are exactly the same.

I am referring to the decision to add engines to some of the Class 801's as a result of electrification delays https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/06/08/hitachi-converts-gwr-801s-to-bi-mode-operation

 

[D365]

I am referring to the decision to add engines to some of the Class 801's as a result of electrification delays

That wasn’t at all clear in your original post.

 

[Railperf]

That wasn’t at all clear in your original post.

Sorry for that. I originally posted in response to questions about IEP performance having recorded a number of runs. The discussion carried on from there.

On a positive note the IET sets new standards of traction performance out of Paddington (in electric mode) , it accelerates faster to 125mph than Class 180 Adelante or HST and is cleaner too (no nasty diesel products of combustion). I look forward to seeing the performance benefits along other sections of route as the wires are energised further westwards. Until then, and while they are posted on HST 125mph diagrams, their performance in diesel mode on those schedules will be compared to the trains that they replace - the HST's. And that comparison is not favourable.

On a positive note the Class 800 drivers will have to learn to drive these things flat out and learn to have confidence in and utilise the claimed superior braking performance of these new trains to minimise time loss - especially if they are running late.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

John Heaton, in the new edition of the Railway Magazine, highlights the inferior performance in diesel mode on the 0930 Bristol TM to Padd on the first day.

... initial acceleration was good, ... but this did not continue through the middle speed ranges,and spot speeds such as 90mph into Box Tunnel and coming out at 83mph were around 10mph shy of a HST. This was worse at the top of the 1/100 climb from Dauntsey, where a HST minimum speed would be around 110mph, and the Class 800 units could manage only 91mph. The maximum speed unchecked from Swindon to Didcot was no more than an eventual 118mph.

He confirms all engines were working. The problem will go away as electrfication progresses - we have to hope that Thingley Junction to Bristol TM will be included eventually, or the issue remains.

The passengers reviews are not exactly glowing either - admittedly its the 'Western Mail' after a negative story, but clearly the IET does not have the ambience and comfort of a HST. I hope to judge for myself next week.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/people-really-dont-like-hard-13849595

People really don't like the 'hard' seats on the posh new trains serving the south Wales mainline
But the company claimed 70% of comments had been positive or neutral

Commuters have bombarded Great Western Railway with criticism of the seats on its new trains.

The Hitachi Class 800 faced problems when they were introduced last month and were taken out of service within days.

They returned to the tracks the following day.

Great Western Railway (GWR) has said the most of the feedback it had received on social media was positive or neutral.

But not everyone’s happy.

 

[Sean Emmett]

Need to make clear I like the train, but as I posted from the first public service, its underpowered on diesel.

What has made me angry is the pretence from DfT and politicians that IET on diesel can match existing HST schedules, often with the caveat "overall" i.e. implying shorter dwell times, when what I and others have found is that they clearly can't, without using up some of the recovery allowances.

I'm also angry that electrification to Bristol* has been cancelled. Have not yet timed an IET up Filton bank, none scheduled that way yet but one got diverted, but working on diesel will mean time lost not gained, adverse environmental impact of all those service trains and ECS moves, fat chance of any local services running on electric which in turn means fat chance of local station re-openings.

*Bristol Parkway is in South Glos, not Bristol.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the seats are that much of a problem, new thicker foams are hardly likely to be too big a thing. The old ones could be stored to be reinstated at the end of the franchise.

Different base foams can after all turn ironing boards from just about OK to actually quite comfortable (if you don't believe me, try a 385).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm also angry that electrification to Bristol* has been cancelled. Have not yet timed an IET up Filton bank, none scheduled that way yet but one got diverted, but working on diesel will mean time lost not gained, adverse environmental impact of all those service trains and ECS moves, fat chance of any local services running on electric which in turn means fat chance of local station re-openings.

I do agree with this. Even if it went no further it should have gone to Temple Meads.

 

[swt_passenger]

I do agree with this. Even if it went no further it should have gone to Temple Meads.

Bristol Temple Meads via both routes is still shown in the Sept 2017 EDP. It is only Cardiff to Swansea that has been explicitly cancelled in that document.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bristol Temple Meads via both routes is still shown in the Sept 2017 EDP. It is only Cardiff to Swansea that has been explicitly cancelled in that document.

I could have sworn Temple Meads had also been reported as cancelled in here. I do hope you are correct and it was not.

 

[swt_passenger]

I could have sworn Temple Meads had also been reported as cancelled in here. I do hope you are correct and it was not.

I think people must misread "postponed into early CP6" as "cancelled". Easy mistake to make...

 

[snowball]

Electrification to Bristol TM by both routes was "deferred" in November 2016. The same thing happened at the same time to Didcot-Oxford and the Henley and Windsor branches.

Cardiff to Swansea (the state of which had been unclear for a long time) was "cancelled" in July 2017.

The deferred schemes may be resurrected in CP6 but will have to compete with other enhancements on their cost/benefit merits.

None of the deferred schemes has an absolute guarantee of being resurrected in CP6, let alone of being resurrected early in CP6.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think people must misread "postponed into early CP6" as "cancelled". Easy mistake to make...

Or people (like myself) are just being understandable pessimistic and realise that while it is officially just differed at the moment, if you read the comments from politicians about Bi-mode's being just as good, then it being cancelled in the future isn't really much of a stretch of the imagination!

 

[jimm]

@jimm If the 25kV project had proceeded on time as planned, most of these trains would not have had retrofitted diesel engines in the first place and would be performing as promised.
But when somebody decided to defer and cancel parts of the wiring and decided to retrofit underpowered engines to these units to try and maintain HST timings - knowing they would have to use those engines for vast stretches of existing 125mph track, then absolutely I will slate that decision because it hasn't worked, and the units are struggling - even on HST schedules bloated with excess recovery and pathing time! and then to hear that units are regularly running with 1 engine out....i rest my case.

What case is that then? That they should have parked dozens of new trains in sidings until the end of next year while GWR carried on with HSTs for the sake of a couple of minutes' added running time? And told the Scots they couldn't have any HSTs to modernise until then and Grand Central that they would have to wait another year for their 180s, and Oxford/Cotswold Line and Newbury/Bedwyn passengers that they would have to put up with Turbos even longer?

We are where we are and some compromises have been needed for the interim period - so to keep harping on about this as though this is some terrible failing of the new trains is ridiculous when they are being required to operate in a way that was never expected - for all of 14 months.

Nor was anyone promising journey time reductions at an early stage - even if 25kv wires had been operational much further west by now - due to the mix of rolling stock with different performance characteristics that will still be operating on the GWML until well into next year - and that was always going to be the case anyway, pending arrival of all the 800s, 802s and 387s.

The full 800 - and what were meant to be 801s - fleet was not going to be delivered to GWR until summer 2018, never mind the 802s that were ordered later, hence why December 2018 was the point selected for overhauling the GWML timetable and building in those faster journeys.

Or people (like myself) are just being understandable pessimistic and realise that while it is officially just differed at the moment, if you read the comments from politicians about Bi-mode's being just as good, then it being cancelled in the future isn't really much of a stretch of the imagination!

As I and others have pointed out previously, Mr Grayling's decisions tend to be overturned at a rate of knots once another minister replaces him.

Once the obstacles of Oxford and Bristol resignalling are out of the way (both fundamental, as the existing signals are not immunised for use adjacent to overhead wires), I can't see any rational basis for not pressing ahead with wiring in both those areas at an early stage of CP6 - if they don't, then hard-won electrification expertise will be lost, as teams will be broken up for lack of work. Cardiff-Swansea looks likely to be bound up with decisions about what to do with the Valley lines.

 

[greatkingrat]

5X80 Doncaster - North Pole has failed at North Pole Jn and has been there for 45 minutes so far, currently causing chaos on the West London Line.