GWR Class 800

[LNW-GW Joint]

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

The issue with extending to Bristol is the resignalling necessary for OHLE, for which there is no date yet (in CP6).
Once that is in train, I would expect the wiring to follow closely afterwards.
Some station works will also be necessary.
It's essentially the same issue for Oxford.

 

[D1009]

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.

The reason the HST schedules are, to use your word, bloated is that there are vastly more trains running round on the railway now and not all of them perform perfectly, the old adage of passenger always takes priority over freight has gone, and to manage this the operators need more flexibility, otherwise punctuality would fall off a cliff.

Though never a member of the Railway Performance Society, I used to be a keen train timer, but since the interest involving different traction types has largely gone, also drivers are now far more risk averse than used to be the case, my interest in the subject has largely gone, other than noticing speeds shown on my GPS shown at summit locations such as Badminton, which enables me to take part in debates like this.

Since ceasing taking detailed logs regularly, I generally take a wider view of railway performance generally, and believe that elimination of the faffing at stations surrounding making sure HST doors are closed to be far more important than the few seconds which may be lost on the sections the 800s on diesel can't do the same speeds as the HSTs. Also I believe a vast improvement will be delivered in Cornwall when the half hourly service from Plymouth, in which the superior acceleration of the 802 will play a major part.

I strongly disagree with your view regarding public perception, on my first run to Paddington when I was out on the IETs last Friday, the batteries on my GPS had gone flat and had omitted to bring with me the fully charged replacements, so I had no knowledge of the speeds. Even to me as an experienced traveller, our departure from Reading certainly felt faster than an HST, and that is what the general public will notice. It was only after Maidenhead when the electric kicked in that I realised we hadn't been doing anything near 125. The public are also far more interested in a punctual arrival than they are about how fast their train may be going at any particular point.

 

[VoyagerMeridie]

so cool but where is the original opening door alarm

it is used on our 158s

 

[ben2012]

Hi can I ask what units have been built yet just wondering where they are at with the build

 

[Railperf]

The public are also far more interested in a punctual arrival than they are about how fast their train may be going at any particular point.

@D1009 You made some good points. No-one can argue about the overall benefits of the project once it is complete. But punctuality on current schedules appears to be more at risk using IET than HST. Why, because IET performance in diesel mode - despite a slightly faster acceleration to around 50mph, is slower above those speeds. And that will impact on its ability to maintain schedule on adverse gradients and accelerating from TSR's. It seems to be pretty clear that IET in electric mode meets the maximum Dft acceleration profile and has to be reigned back. And in diesel mode it is clear that there is an improved start from a station stop to around half a mile due to having more powered axles and more modern traction control package. But as we have seen from the charts above, in diesel mode, the IET is not being pegged back to meet a maximum acceleration rate above 50mph. It simply does not have enough installed power. And herein lies a potential problem. You can't beat cubic inches. And if you are on a 90 to 100mph route having to negotiate several -say - 50mph TSR's the IET will lose time over an HST. That is not good for punctuality! But then again - taking an even wider view - i am sure the timetable planners can bloat the schedule by a few minutes if they need to - and probably will!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It has already been proven by test running that the IET on diesel mode can achieve the HST sectional running times, which are not generally requiring of 125mph. Whether the HST / 800 acceleration graphs line up or not is irrelevant to this fact - it just illustrates that GWR HSTs are not being driven flat out in order to keep scheduled time. (Hence why the operator has been able to install DAS and realise some fuel savings.)

But it is correct to say that the 800 will not recover time as readily as the HST can. And herein lies the performance risk.

 

[Railperf]

Sectional running times require 100% power output and are based on max achievable speeds. DAS does not work when there is no unused recovery/pathing/performance allowances or early departures by using advertised/working differentials. The statement that 800s will recover time as easily as an HST simply shows a possible lack of timing and operational knowledge. HSTs are hard pressed to recover any unused allowances in total. Where there is say a 2min allowance it is normal to recover only 1½ especially if a running brake test is needed or the driver starts away without full power for a long time on a straight exit layout or brakes as modern drivers are taught- or gets a whiff of a double yellow miles in the distance or having to stop at a precise point on the platform which was not necessary when SRTs were calculated. If 800s can keep HST timings why are they not doing so when all their diesel engines are working? HST sectional running times are based on a BR steam-powered computer that did not even properly cater for approach control! 800s can keep most gross timnings when they have all engines running but so can an HST in notch 4!!!

 

[coppercapped]

In some ways this debate, while interesting, is a bit like a storm in a teacup - if I may excuse the mixed metaphor.

The loss in higher speed performance of the Class 800 5-coach bi-modes using diesel power compared to an HST in undeniable, but in the great scheme of things is probably only of interest in the short term. By January the overhead wires will be energised as far as Didcot and completed through to Cardiff and Newbury a year later. During this period it has been published that there is no intention of tightening up schedules to allow for (a) replacement of an IET by an HST if necessary and (b) slack for continuing electrification and modernisation works.

In this context it is worth pointing out that Network Rail has developments in place so it can hand back relayed track for higher speeds so the incidence of 50mph TSRs will, with time, be reduced.

I also anticipate that, following the resignalling of the Bristol and Oxford areas with 50Hz immunised kit, these areas will be wired in the next Control Period. This means that the IEP-procured trains will then be used under the originally planned extent of the wires - with the possible exception of the one train per hour service between Cardiff and Swansea.

The soon-to-be-delivered nine coach long Class 800s will have a better power to weight ratio than the five coach sets as they will have seven powered vehicles out of nine rather than six in ten. It is to be expected that their high end performance under diesel power will be measurably better.

It is not publicly known whether the acceleration settings of the Class 802 trains in both 5 and 9 coach forms and which are being procured for GWR by a ROSCO, rather than via the DfT instigated and managed Intercity Express Programme as is the case for the 800s, will differ from the 800s issued to GWR. One can be sure that they will be suitable for GWR's plans for the future as GWR has specified them.

Finally I agree with D1009 about power doors. I reckon they alone are worth 1,000bhp...

 

[samuelmorris]

Under normal circumstances I agree - I think the point being made is not that the 800s will fail to achieve the existing timetable - clearly that will still be doable, but it does require working the units to within a higher percentage of their maximum ability. The issue is that, for any minor issues - extended dwells due to disruptive passengers, minor delays from other late running services and so on, the 800s may be less effective and gaining time back and thus the net result is there will still be a small negative impact on punctuality as a result. Of course, more wires will go up which will mean a journey time benefit will be forthcoming, but on the whole, even though the reasons why are perfectly clear, the fact that newly introduced trains are introducing a potential performance risk despite the advantages of distributed traction and having 40 years of technological advancement on their predecessors is, as has been said, disappointing.

 

[Domh245]

the fact that newly introduced trains are introducing a potential performance risk despite the advantages of distributed traction and having 40 years of technological advancement on their predecessors is, as has been said, disappointing.

Disappointing, yes, but the blame has to be laid at Network Rail's door for that. Hitachi have done everything (and more) that was asked of them in the contract.

 

[samuelmorris]

Agreed, the specification was so stringent it can only really be the DfT at fault, notwithstanding the electrification issues...

 

[Sean Emmett]

Re post 5768

I had understood the 9 car bi modes for GWR (class 800/3?) would have 5 (not 7) powered cars.

Is this another change of spec?

 

[bonzawe]

The soon-to-be-delivered nine coach long Class 800s will have a better power to weight ratio than the five coach sets as they will have seven powered vehicles out of nine rather than six in ten. It is to be expected that their high end performance under diesel power will be measurably better.

My understanding is the 9car have a worse power to weight ratio, only 5 engines not 7. 5 engines in 9 vehicles is worse that 6 engines in 10 vehicles. This represents c7% less power per tonne.

To my mind this is the key, a nine car set to Aberdeen or Inverness. Operating as designed, never intended to be electrified, will it match the schedule of an 9 car HST, let alone what Scotrail can do with a 5 car HST!

Re post 5768

I had understood the 9 car bi modes for GWR (class 800/3?) would have 5 (not 7) powered cars.

Is this another change of spec?

Sorry posted as I typed, I agree 5 engines, no menton I have heard of a change

 

[Sean Emmett]

I did some number crunching on the RPS website earlier in the year which suggests a 9 car 802 (for Devon / Cornwall) will have a power weight ratio on diesel of 10.7 hp/ton, based on 5 powered vehicles @ 940 hp each

This is less than a 2+8 HST with 11.1 hp/ton.

2 x 5 car bi modes with 6 cars @ 940 hp gives 11.5 hp/ton.

Will the 802s have the same power management systems as the (now uprated) 800s i.e. unable to deliver the full 940 hp?

 

[Domh245]

I did some number crunching on the RPS website earlier in the year which suggests a 9 car 802 (for Devon / Cornwall) will have a power weight ratio on diesel of 10.7 hp/ton, based on 5 powered vehicles @ 940 hp each

This is less than a 2+8 HST with 11.1 hp/ton.

Will the 802s have the same power management systems as the (now uprated) 800s i.e. unable to deliver the full 940 hp?

AIUI, the 800s are uprated, but still aren't operating at the maximum possible. The 802s, which don't have the DfT specified levels of availability, should have higher performance than the 800s. I'm guessing that those hp/ton figures are based on installed power, rather than power at rail? The 802s being newer should have fewer losses, so it'd be interesting to compare that statistic.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Disappointed we have not *YET* arrived where we actually wanted to be. Cannot blame the product from Hitachi which was expected to make use of 25kV on the most important stretches of track. By important I mean 125mph and/or intensively worked (so a lot of braking/acceleration required). The train was not expected to perform well on non-electrified track as, logically, those stretches are not important enough to warrant electrification. Indeed the product from Hitachi is being tweaked to overcome the temporary problem of lack of wires - and we can argue over how successful this is but it is not an abject failure.

One of the simple positives are the expected reduction in station dwell times due to power doors. So this is a performance improvement gained without a negative environmental impact.

My concern is that the extra Bi-Modes and no straight electrics makes long term postponement of electrification on the GW a possibility. The optimist in me suggests that these trains can move on to another route as that gets electrified at a slow and manageable pace. Assuming their diesel only performance is good enough. We might then enter a whole new world of steady electrification progress. Hopefully no more disappointment.

 

[coppercapped]

Re post 5768

I had understood the 9 car bi modes for GWR (class 800/3?) would have 5 (not 7) powered cars.

Is this another change of spec?

No. You are correct, I mis-read a spec sheet. The actual power-to-weight values are:

• 5-car 800/0 11.2kW/tonne under electric power and 8.6kW/tonne for diesel
• 9-car 800/3 10.3kW/tonne under electric power and 8.0kW/tonne for diesel.

(Data from Rail Engineer).

The 802s have the same power-to-weight ratios.

I need to go to SpecSavers...

Nonetheless, the I still maintain that the difference in power-to-weight ratio between the two forms of traction will become less important the further the wires are extended. In just over a years time the wires will energised through to Cardiff, Newbury and, IIRC, Chippenham as the feeder point for the Badminton route from the 400kV grid is close to Beanacre between Melksham and Thingley Junction.

 

[D365]

Disappointing, yes, but the blame has to be laid at Network Rail's door for that. Hitachi have done everything (and more) that was asked of them in the contract.

However there are still a number of concerns with the bi-mode system that Hitachi have yet to resolve adequately on the Network Rail side.

We might then enter a whole new world of steady electrification progress. Hopefully no more disappointment.

I hope so too, as I've said before the whole shebang should really have been completed at least ten years ago.

 

[Dave1987]

Summary from what I have read and heard so far about them. Seats very firm and uncomfortable for a long journey - DFT specified and not surprising seeing as every new train seems to have rock hard seats now. Hardly any luggage space - DFT specified as they are commuter trains not intercity trains aimed at the commuter belts. On electric mode they are seriously quick, and very quiet. Diesel mode they are exactly as expected and seriously lack power unless you have them on max power where they can just keep up with a HST. Again this is what the DFT wanted and the civil servants wanted the laws of physics to be broken. Overall so far everything negative about them seems to be as a result of what the DFT specified and Hitachi have done the best they could with a terrible spec. Nice to see some people point blank refuse to have a single word said against them and attack anyone who has a single critical word. The one major criticism I have is simply the costs. These are massively expensive trains that just about keep up with what they are replacing and are seemingly not as comfortable. Millions and millions of pounds spent, surely in the 21st century this should have been better than this? I really hoped that I would be eating my own words and saying my cynicism was unfounded etc etc but I don't feel I have to. Well certainly on GW I don't. Remains to be seen what Virgin do with theirs on the East Coast.

 

[D365]

Once again though the Class 800 diesel is designed as a "last mile" functionality and was never an intended replacement for the HSTs.

 

[47802]

. On electric mode they are seriously quick

Yes and isn't that the Fundamental Point that the bashers on here are ignoring, they are quick on electric and on the fast 125mph sections that's what they were designed for to run on Electric Yes Electric Not Diesel, the fact there is temp lack of wires is not the fault of Hitachi, and the fact that the train can be tweaked to run on full power and keep up with HST's on Diesel on the 125mph sections is testament to the flexibility of the design in my view and the fact that the 802 version could be tweaked further for faster acceleration. All this dissecting of Performance on a route where the Diesel operation is temporary and will reduce further as early as January is a complete waste of time in my view.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes and isn't that the Fundamental Point that the bashers on here are ignoring, they are quick on electric and on the fast 125mph sections that's what they were designed for to run on Electric Yes Electric Not Diesel, the fact there is temp lack of wires is not the fault of Hitachi, and the fact that the train can be tweaked to run on full power and keep up with HST's on Diesel on the 125mph sections is testament to the flexibility of the design in my view and the fact that the 802 version could be tweaked further for faster acceleration. All this dissecting of Performance on a route where the Diesel operation is temporary and will reduce further as early as January is a complete waste of time in my view.

If there were wires for them to run under all the way and they did not have to cart around tonnes and tonnes of dead weight in fuel and engines they would be even quicker! Any piece of engineering design is only as good as it’s weakest part. If they were as quick on diesel as on 25kv I would concede the concept is sound. Get the Diesel engines off, redo the interiors with more luggage space and more comfortable seats and you have a good train.

 

[D365]

Did you choose to ignore my comment then? Why would the 800s have been designed for maximum performance under diesel?

 

[bonzawe]

Yes and isn't that the Fundamental Point that the bashers on here are ignoring, they are quick on electric and on the fast 125mph sections that's what they were designed for to run on Electric Yes Electric Not Diesel, the fact there is temp lack of wires is not the fault of Hitachi, and the fact that the train can be tweaked to run on full power and keep up with HST's on Diesel on the 125mph sections is testament to the flexibility of the design in my view and the fact that the 802 version could be tweaked further for faster acceleration. All this dissecting of Performance on a route where the Diesel operation is temporary and will reduce further as early as January is a complete waste of time in my view.

I agree they were not designed for 125 on the GWR main line (or the ECML). This should be electric. This is why I ask questions and bring back to mind the question of the 700hp version over the HML to Inverness and the Aberdeen road. Speed here is not the issue but power to climb the gradients is. These trains were designed for this, it was part of he original specification and reports of the test performance to Plymouth before up-rating does not inspire much confidence. Remember for the next ten years there will be a direct comparison to the performance of a 5 car HST for the passenger to compare.

If the power upgrade phase 2 is not completed north of York can the infrastructure support the operation fo the Azuma fleet and the TPE units (and the First open access units) all operating on electric power or will the power be overloaded. Remember I do niot believe anything in Control period 6 has been approved.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Ridiculous that they are being compared to Voyagers. That's like comparing an HST to a Turbostar.

As for comparing an 800 to a Javelin. That's like comparing an HST to a Pacer. OK - exaggeration. But they are better than Voyagers and way way better than Javelins.

 

[class387]

Ridiculous that they are being compared to Voyagers. That's like comparing an HST to a Turbostar.

As for comparing an 800 to a Javelin. That's like comparing an HST to a Pacer. OK - exaggeration. But they are better than Voyagers and way way better than Javelins.

What's wrong with 395s? Never really had any problems with them - they're decent trains.

 

[47802]

I agree they were not designed for 125 on the GWR main line (or the ECML). This should be electric. This is why I ask questions and bring back to mind the question of the 700hp version over the HML to Inverness and the Aberdeen road. Speed here is not the issue but power to climb the gradients is. These trains were designed for this, it was part of he original specification and reports of the test performance to Plymouth before up-rating does not inspire much confidence. Remember for the next ten years there will be a direct comparison to the performance of a 5 car HST for the passenger to compare.

If the power upgrade phase 2 is not completed north of York can the infrastructure support the operation fo the Azuma fleet and the TPE units (and the First open access units) all operating on electric power or will the power be overloaded. Remember I do niot believe anything in Control period 6 has been approved.

Well The Overheads and Power Supply are not the fault of the Train or Hitachi and clearly that needs to resolved between Network Rail the Dft and the TOC's, I agree their may yet be issues with regard performance on 700hp and perhaps that may need to change in some instances but at least the trains have the flexibility to do that

As for 'Dave1987' other comments whacking an extra Luggage rack or 2 per carriage wouldn't be difficult and could get rid of the seats without a view but of course you would loose some seats, seat comfort of course is subjective, and I don't see that 800's has to be as fast on Diesel as that was not specified or is really needed other than in current temporary situation. Of Course it could for instance be that the spec for MML requires better performance on Diesel than even the current 802 spec for First Group in which case Hitachi may have to revise the design further, or another Bi-mode design will emerge from another manufacturer.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What's wrong with 395s? Never really had any problems with them - they're decent trains.

Well, I neither like nor dislike them really. But I think 800s are superior, nice warm wooden effect panelling like on EC services, first class, enough armrests. And the biggie: 395s have external doors in the carriage with the seats, I dislike that - it has the feel of a local train. When you board a high speed train or intercity/long distance journey, you should enter the vestibule - toilets, tip up seats, and then there should be doors into the main seating area. Just like on a HST, 225, 390, Voyager, 444, 800, 158/159, 180, etc... Do you know what I mean by that or is it just me going mad?

 

[class387]

Well, I neither like nor dislike them really. But I think 800s are superior, nice warm wooden effect panelling like on EC services, first class, enough armrests. And the biggie: 395s have external doors in the carriage with the seats, I dislike that - it has the feel of a local train. When you board a high speed train or intercity/long distance journey, you should enter the vestibule - toilets, tip up seats, and then there should be doors into the main seating area. Just like on a HST, 225, 390, Voyager, 444, 800, 158/159, 180, etc... Do you know what I mean by that or is it just me going mad?

The 395 is not an intercity train - they are just faster commuter trains. It's fair enough to say that the 800s are better (I probably agree), but they certainly shouldn't be compared to Pacers.

 

[Railperf]

It is not publicly known whether the acceleration settings of the Class 802 trains in both 5 and 9 coach forms and which are being procured for GWR by a ROSCO, rather than via the DfT instigated and managed Intercity Express Programme as is the case for the 800s, will differ from the 800s issued to GWR. One can be sure that they will be suitable for GWR's plans for the future as GWR has specified them..

@Clarence Yard says that the acceleration settings for 802's will be slightly higher for Class 802's - just over 0.8m/s/s compared to 0.7m/s/s for Class 800. However, the installed diesel power remains the same. So while we expect the 802's to accelerate to around 40-50mph ever so slightly quicker than an 800, there does not appear to be enough installed diesel power / alternators to provide any more traction current to improve the acceleration over 50mph.