GWR Class 800

[tbtc]

The reason I no longer take part in this thread much is it seems to be a general forum rule that you are not allowed to criticise class 80X's

... or it could be that, now the 80Xs are up and running, a lot of the earlier criticism of them has turned out to look a little silly?

For example, I've seen discussions recently between people about rides through the Thames Valley where there's been confusion about whether the train was powered by diesel or electric during that stretch - i.e. the underfloor engines are apparently quiet enough for people not to notice them working (though I'm sure that before they started running I read people complaining about the decibel level meaning people would be unable to read a book/ work at a laptop?). One of the first posts on this thread refers to "thumping great Cummins engines constantly droning away underneath all the time".

I've seen mentions of trollies on 80Xs without any reference to the floors being too steep for a trolley to get through (the slope being necessary due to the underfloor engines). Was that just another load of froth?

I've not noticed any complaints about all peak hour Paddington services being formed with only five coaches, but perhaps I've missed those?

The words "Voyager" and "clone" seem to be discussed a lot less nowadays, once people (who were too lazy to read the specifications, or didn't want to read specifications that wouldn't fit with their preconceived dislike of IEP) can see the trains "in the flesh".

The "an 80X tried to make it up to Inverness but was delayed for ages and blocked the HML up" story seems to have been... less than an accurate representation of the truth?

Funny how a lot of the scaremongering seems to have died down once people can actually use the trains and decide for themselves?

Again, I'll reiterate that I think the 80Xs are probably a necessary compromise, given the complications of the GWML and ECML - nobody has come up with a better alternative (bearing in mind the problems Virgin had with loco drags at Crewe, the need to retain through services to London, the need for more seats at the "London" end of the route etc).

They aren't perfect, but nothing is. Especially something that needs to run at 125mph as it carries best part of a thousand people into London at rush hour, but also deal with hills on unelectrified lines that have platforms shorter than 260m (like to Inverness). Accusing anyone who defends them of being a "fanboy" doesn't help your argument.

The problems with IEP tend to be with the way that the Government set it up (rather than with the trains themselves) - but a lot of the people angry with the way that the Government failed to procure trains cheaply and quickly are often those who want the Government to take over complete control over the UK railway!

 

[Domh245]

There have been quite a few reports of 5 vice 10, but those have mainly been down to there being insufficient staff for both units to be available. 10 cars have turned up but only 5 have been usable by passengers!

 

[SWT_USER]

There have been quite a few reports of 5 vice 10, but those have mainly been down to there being insufficient staff for both units to be available. 10 cars have turned up but only 5 have been usable by passengers!

If only GWR could have had some advanced warning of these trains being ordered so they'd have time to recruit and train sufficient staff..

 

[fishquinn]

I'm currently on 800013 and 800022 on the 1410 from Newport to Bristol Parkway. My first journey on an IET so thought I'd give my opinion.

Entering 800022 at Newport gave a new train smell. The doors to enter the main compartment of the coach and to change coach are, like the HSTs, automatic although you don't have a click and hiss as the doors open. The coach itself is very airy and spacious. The windows are a good size and someone of my height can easily see over the seat tops, giving a panoramic view instead of the restricted one you get on the HSTs and other units such as pendolinos. A good mix of airline and table seats with good legroom in both. The major downside is the seats themselves. I found that they were very hard and bent in a awkward way for my back to be comfortable. The area where your head would rest is very hard too so I found that it was comfier to lean forward. Definitely not suitable seats for a long distance journey.

Vibrations from the engines were pretty much unnoticeable although the engine noise was although less so after gaining speed. Acceleration was impressive up to 30mph with it being a bit sluggish after that. Electronic reservation system wasn't working on this trip so can't comment on that (other than the fact it may be unreliable because it hasn't been working on 100% of my trips )

Overall a rather good unit as units go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There have been quite a few reports of 5 vice 10, but those have mainly been down to there being insufficient staff for both units to be available. 10 cars have turned up but only 5 have been usable by passengers!

Which is down to their policy, as not every TOC requires there to be staff in every unit. In particular, Thameslink used to run with no member of staff in the rear unit of *any* 8-car train, which was most of them, and this only ceased when the 319s left, not because there was a problem with it.

 

[JN114]

If only GWR could have had some advanced warning of these trains being ordered so they'd have time to recruit and train sufficient staff..

If only GWR had got the first 6 units from Hitachi in May as promised to do their training over the summer rather tha 4 weeks before the first service ran...

 

[FGW_DID]

There have been quite a few reports of 5 vice 10, but those have mainly been down to there being insufficient staff for both units to be available. 10 cars have turned up but only 5 have been usable by passengers!

If only GWR could have had some advanced warning of these trains being ordered so they'd have time to recruit and train sufficient staff..

Which is down to their policy, as not every TOC requires there to be staff in every unit. In particular, Thameslink used to run with no member of staff in the rear unit of *any* 8-car train, which was most of them, and this only ceased when the 319s left, not because there was a problem with it.

Perhaps it more down to a disagreement with the unions as to what type of staff need to be present to staff the other 5 car!

 

[Dave1987]

So since you no longer participate in this thread (except when you see a chance to have a pop at me, apparently), we will never get an explanation of why you claim to have been "proven correct" about what a bad idea bi-modes are, despite never offering any hint as to how else through services between London and locations beyond the electrified area should be operated.

It's very easy to be negative about things, but you seem to find it very hard to - your words - "engage" and "respond" whenever anyone asks you to explain or justify what you post, never mind propose a practical alternative to the use of bi-modes.

Well this post just sums you up really. Maybe you should take note of what others have said and stop being so condescending of other people and then people might engage with you and have a conversation with you.

 

[Dave1987]

... or it could be that, now the 80Xs are up and running, a lot of the earlier criticism of them has turned out to look a little silly?

For example, I've seen discussions recently between people about rides through the Thames Valley where there's been confusion about whether the train was powered by diesel or electric during that stretch - i.e. the underfloor engines are apparently quiet enough for people not to notice them working (though I'm sure that before they started running I read people complaining about the decibel level meaning people would be unable to read a book/ work at a laptop?). One of the first posts on this thread refers to "thumping great Cummins engines constantly droning away underneath all the time".

I've seen mentions of trollies on 80Xs without any reference to the floors being too steep for a trolley to get through (the slope being necessary due to the underfloor engines). Was that just another load of froth?

I've not noticed any complaints about all peak hour Paddington services being formed with only five coaches, but perhaps I've missed those?

The words "Voyager" and "clone" seem to be discussed a lot less nowadays, once people (who were too lazy to read the specifications, or didn't want to read specifications that wouldn't fit with their preconceived dislike of IEP) can see the trains "in the flesh".

The "an 80X tried to make it up to Inverness but was delayed for ages and blocked the HML up" story seems to have been... less than an accurate representation of the truth?

Funny how a lot of the scaremongering seems to have died down once people can actually use the trains and decide for themselves?

Again, I'll reiterate that I think the 80Xs are probably a necessary compromise, given the complications of the GWML and ECML - nobody has come up with a better alternative (bearing in mind the problems Virgin had with loco drags at Crewe, the need to retain through services to London, the need for more seats at the "London" end of the route etc).

They aren't perfect, but nothing is. Especially something that needs to run at 125mph as it carries best part of a thousand people into London at rush hour, but also deal with hills on unelectrified lines that have platforms shorter than 260m (like to Inverness). Accusing anyone who defends them of being a "fanboy" doesn't help your argument.

The problems with IEP tend to be with the way that the Government set it up (rather than with the trains themselves) - but a lot of the people angry with the way that the Government failed to procure trains cheaply and quickly are often those who want the Government to take over complete control over the UK railway!

These trains are quite rightly being compared with what they are replacing. I only accuse people who point blank refuse to accept any criticism as being "fanboys". I take my information from experienced journalists like Roger Ford. Some on here have dismissed his comments and analysis of the class 80X seemingly because he doesn't have glowing praise for them. But he justifies his remarks with cold hard facts so I take his word over what I read on here. These trains should have been all things to all people especially considering the price and they are not. I have read comments including some on here that it is difficult to board with a large suitcase. Hmmm these are long distance Intercity trains and yet passengers are expected to travel with a small cabin bag? I've also read that the trolley hostesses hate walking up and down the train with the buffet trolley because of the ramp up and down into the vestibules which suggests it is not an unnoticeable slope. And on diesel their power to weight ratio is lower than that of which they are replacing because they are such heavy trains. I've also read that they will struggle to get to 125mph on the diesel engines even with the engines de-muzzled because of the drag caused by the pocket doors and the equipment on the roof. So we have a brand new train engineered to within an inch of its life using all the latest materials that can't keep up with the 40 year old train it is replacing. My opinion of bi-modes has not changed. They are a ridiculous idea and waste vast amounts of energy. With all the money that is being poured into variation orders and the money on developing the dam things I'm sure the whole of the GW could have been electrified for the same costs!

I'm well aware that you will disagree with me and I respect your right to disagree. You seem to believe bi-modes are the answer to everywhere whereas I think getting the wires up should be the priority. We will now be stuck with the bi-mode menace for decades to come.

 

[Dave1987]

Oh I'm not sure about that, I've seen plenty of criticism of them. I'm quite anxious to try one to see what I think myself. There has been plenty of criticism of the units in terms of performance which from what I've read sounds somewhat justified, even if it's more a criticism of DfT policy than the units themselves, the issue still remains. Seating comments are largely irrelevant as they are always subjective, though I do agree it's more important not to have excessively firm seating for longer-distance express services.

From what I have read on electric they are pretty dam good trains. Getting on and off with large luggage seems to be an issue. On long distance intercity trains to expect people to only be travelling with small luggage is a bit ridiculous. The whole objective seems to have been number of seats and not necessarily comfort. The vestibule width and the slopes in and out of the carriages is just how they will be as that's not changeable now. Dwell times will certainly be interesting with lots of people with large luggage boarding and alighting. The whole bi-mode thing is just ridiculous to me. Accept it is a flawed idea and get the wires up.

 

[samuelmorris]

On principle I agree with you. However, DfT/NR have collaboratively demonstrated on numerous occasions they simply aren't capable of doing that, so bi-mode units are simply the most responsible alternative to running DMUs long after combustion engined cars are outlawed. Until the mentality changes that electrification is unachievable, you'll continue to see trains like the 800s. They're the best effort at an unreasonable specification.

 

[bastien]

These trains are quite rightly being compared with what they are replacing. I only accuse people who point blank refuse to accept any criticism as being "fanboys". I take my information from experienced journalists like Roger Ford. Some on here have dismissed his comments and analysis of the class 80X seemingly because he doesn't have glowing praise for them. But he justifies his remarks with cold hard facts so I take his word over what I read on here. These trains should have been all things to all people especially considering the price and they are not. I have read comments including some on here that it is difficult to board with a large suitcase. Hmmm these are long distance Intercity trains and yet passengers are expected to travel with a small cabin bag? I've also read that the trolley hostesses hate walking up and down the train with the buffet trolley because of the ramp up and down into the vestibules which suggests it is not an unnoticeable slope. And on diesel their power to weight ratio is lower than that of which they are replacing because they are such heavy trains. I've also read that they will struggle to get to 125mph on the diesel engines even with the engines de-muzzled because of the drag caused by the pocket doors and the equipment on the roof. So we have a brand new train engineered to within an inch of its life using all the latest materials that can't keep up with the 40 year old train it is replacing. My opinion of bi-modes has not changed. They are a ridiculous idea and waste vast amounts of energy. With all the money that is being poured into variation orders and the money on developing the dam things I'm sure the whole of the GW could have been electrified for the same costs!

I'm well aware that you will disagree with me and I respect your right to disagree. You seem to believe bi-modes are the answer to everywhere whereas I think getting the wires up should be the priority. We will now be stuck with the bi-mode menace for decades to come.

So, in short, you don't believe anything you read on here, except the negative stuff, which you do believe.

Glad we cleared that up!

 

[Dave1987]

So, in short, you don't believe anything you read on here, except the negative stuff, which you do believe.

Glad we cleared that up!

Well actually I take a combination of various social media and Internet based reports, together with print media from the likes of MR mag. For the shear costs involved I believe it is very fair to scrutinise the entire IEP. In electric mode apart from being hard for people with large luggage to board (I mean who on earth could have foreseen people travelling on an intercity train having large luggage eh?) they are pretty dam good trains. All the other problems seem to be as a result of these being bi-mode trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For clarity, the ramp is not from the saloon to the vestibule. It is down from the coach as a whole to the connecting gangway door, similar to the one (though that slopes up) on the SBB EW I and II coaches.

If you don't move between coaches you will not encounter it.

FWIW, I don't understand why they didn't go for one floor height for the whole train and just have the inter-coach gangways a bit higher up.

As for the width of the doors they are near identical to a Class 156, on which I have never heard a complaint of being unable to board with any kind of suitcase.

Dave1987, have you travelled on one? If not perhaps you should?

 

[tbtc]

It's worth looking back at the start of this thread to appreciate how we've gone from...

..."IEP will be dirty noisy trains with thumping great engines, sloped floors so steep that trollies won't be able to get through, seats will be crammed into these cheap plastic Voyager clones with smelly toilets and all of the other unlearnt lessons from the 220/221s - and we'll have to spend billions of pounds on reguaging the entire GWML and ECML to deal with the huge swing from the 26m carriages that will come into contact with most platforms en route"...

...to people actually getting to use them...

...and now a world where the complaints are along the lines of "the seat moquettes are a big boring".

We've come a long way, baby

These trains are quite rightly being compared with what they are replacing. I only accuse people who point blank refuse to accept any criticism as being "fanboys". I take my information from experienced journalists like Roger Ford. Some on here have dismissed his comments and analysis of the class 80X seemingly because he doesn't have glowing praise for them. But he justifies his remarks with cold hard facts so I take his word over what I read on here. These trains should have been all things to all people especially considering the price and they are not. I have read comments including some on here that it is difficult to board with a large suitcase. Hmmm these are long distance Intercity trains and yet passengers are expected to travel with a small cabin bag? I've also read that the trolley hostesses hate walking up and down the train with the buffet trolley because of the ramp up and down into the vestibules which suggests it is not an unnoticeable slope. And on diesel their power to weight ratio is lower than that of which they are replacing because they are such heavy trains. I've also read that they will struggle to get to 125mph on the diesel engines even with the engines de-muzzled because of the drag caused by the pocket doors and the equipment on the roof. So we have a brand new train engineered to within an inch of its life using all the latest materials that can't keep up with the 40 year old train it is replacing. My opinion of bi-modes has not changed. They are a ridiculous idea and waste vast amounts of energy. With all the money that is being poured into variation orders and the money on developing the dam things I'm sure the whole of the GW could have been electrified for the same costs!

I'm well aware that you will disagree with me and I respect your right to disagree. You seem to believe bi-modes are the answer to everywhere whereas I think getting the wires up should be the priority. We will now be stuck with the bi-mode menace for decades to come.

A few points:

1. You think that 80Xs "should have been all things to all people especially considering the price and they are not", but have no realistic alternative. Realistically, I can accept that most trains are a compromise (e.g. you have to balance long distance passengers against the need to cram short distance commuters, you have to balance one Airport station on a route like TPE against passengers at other stations who have less luggage)... but you can only accept perfection. Fair enough.

2. 80Xs struggle to get to 125mph on diesel? They weren't meant to have this capability. The publicly owned Network Rail was mean to electrify the 125mph bits so that the only running on diesel would be routes where top speed wouldn't need to be above 100mph. You do realise that you are now blaming 80Xs for not being able to do something perfectly that they weren't designed to do?

3. You think that we should have simply electrified the entire GWML (presumably including Hereford, Carmarthen, Cheltenham etc)? Great - I'd love that. I'm a huge fan of electrification. But Network Rail have failed - and I can't blame any politician for losing faith with them. If you take twice as long to finish just half of the job (whilst going significantly over budget) then that's where the fault lies. You seem to want to blame the trains instead?

4. Despite my constructive criticism, you continue to try to paint me as someone so blind to IEP's imperfections that I think that they are "the answer to everywhere"... I'd argue but I don't think I'll change your mind

5. You've still not given a sensible alternative (other than hoping that the electrification fairies can wire up the entire GWML despite the fact that they've taken several years just to get anywhere near Didcot).

6. If Network Rail ever do get their act together and wire more of the GWML then we won't be "stuck with the bi-mode menace for decades to come" - we'll be able to remove the diesel engines from them (and use them on other trains) - these are future-proof trains

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW they very much have not "crammed in short distance commuters" - the legroom is excellent, probably better than anything else on the network including the previous winners of that accolade, the 175s and 180s.

 

[aar0]

HST coaches don't have these noticeable background noises.

Erm.... squeak, rattle and roll? They're quiet but they do have noticeable background noises.

being hard for people with large luggage to board

I'm not sure I understand this one. Surely a tad easier since the door isn't slowly closing against your side?

 

[Marklund]

For clarity, the ramp is not from the saloon to the vestibule. It is down from the coach as a whole to the connecting gangway door, similar to the one (though that slopes up) on the SBB EW I and II coaches.

That's a useless example without pictures, seeing as they don't run in the UK, and the vast majority of forum users won't have travelled on one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a useless example without pictures, seeing as they don't run in the UK, and the vast majority of forum users won't have travelled on one.

It's the only example I can think of. At least some posters on here will have used one, so it is better than nothing.

Photographs of gangways are rather hard to find!

 

[Marklund]

That's true, interior photos are rare of various items of rolling stock, but for the majority, it's a useless comparison.

 

[Pete_uk]

I remember when the 66s first came into this country people said that they couldn't pull a empty coal Hopper around a siding. It's that fear of loosing something you know for something new.

I would still like to have seen something like a 68 with 180 style carriages. But that's just me!

 

[nuneatonmark]

It's worth looking back at the start of this thread to appreciate how we've gone from...

..."IEP will be dirty noisy trains with thumping great engines, sloped floors so steep that trollies won't be able to get through, seats will be crammed into these cheap plastic Voyager clones with smelly toilets and all of the other unlearnt lessons from the 220/221s - and we'll have to spend billions of pounds on reguaging the entire GWML and ECML to deal with the huge swing from the 26m carriages that will come into contact with most platforms en route"...

...to people actually getting to use them...

...and now a world where the complaints are along the lines of "the seat moquettes are a big boring".

We've come a long way, baby



A few points:

1. You think that 80Xs "should have been all things to all people especially considering the price and they are not", but have no realistic alternative. Realistically, I can accept that most trains are a compromise (e.g. you have to balance long distance passengers against the need to cram short distance commuters, you have to balance one Airport station on a route like TPE against passengers at other stations who have less luggage)... but you can only accept perfection. Fair enough.

2. 80Xs struggle to get to 125mph on diesel? They weren't meant to have this capability. The publicly owned Network Rail was mean to electrify the 125mph bits so that the only running on diesel would be routes where top speed wouldn't need to be above 100mph. You do realise that you are now blaming 80Xs for not being able to do something perfectly that they weren't designed to do?

3. You think that we should have simply electrified the entire GWML (presumably including Hereford, Carmarthen, Cheltenham etc)? Great - I'd love that. I'm a huge fan of electrification. But Network Rail have failed - and I can't blame any politician for losing faith with them. If you take twice as long to finish just half of the job (whilst going significantly over budget) then that's where the fault lies. You seem to want to blame the trains instead?

4. Despite my constructive criticism, you continue to try to paint me as someone so blind to IEP's imperfections that I think that they are "the answer to everywhere"... I'd argue but I don't think I'll change your mind

5. You've still not given a sensible alternative (other than hoping that the electrification fairies can wire up the entire GWML despite the fact that they've taken several years just to get anywhere near Didcot).

6. If Network Rail ever do get their act together and wire more of the GWML then we won't be "stuck with the bi-mode menace for decades to come" - we'll be able to remove the diesel engines from them (and use them on other trains) - these are future-proof trains

One of the most sensible posts on this subject! I don't go near the west country by train much but much as i loved the HSTs I am sure these will end up being better.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The problem with Roger Ford, is lots of people take his major criticism of the way they have been procured and the fact the government keep lying about their diesel performance as criticism of the train.

 

[jimm]

Though it all depends on which aspect of diesel performance you choose to focus on.

Such as how they are performing on the Cotswold Line - one of the routes the bi-modes were developed to operate in the first place - as opposed to being pushed up past 120mph on diesel between Maidenhead/Didcot and Bristol Parkway - which they were not expected to do.

On the Cotswold Line, observations of realtimetrains logs over the past month show no signs of distress on the part of 800s in keeping up with HST timings - or 180s for that matter.

And plenty of instances where minutes are being shaved off the booked station-to-station times, suggesting that as well as the reduced dwell time at stations, there is scope for some running time to be saved as well when the new timetable built around IETs comes into effect next January.

I have spotted some Moreton-in-Marsh to Oxford start-to-stop runs in 32 or 33 minutes, inclusive of calls at Kingham, Charlbury and Hanborough. HSTs used to be allowed 32 minutes when there were just two stops at Kingham and Charlbury but once the Hereford HSTs started to call at Hanborough, that became 36 or 37 minutes.

And while the booked time for Evesham to Moreton-in-Marsh, including a call at Honeybourne station at the bottom of Chipping Campden bank, was eased in the public timetable from 17 to 19 minutes at the start of this month for some reason, I have spotted several 800 runs coming in at 16 minutes.

While it would be lovely to have overhead electric wires to Worcester (and Hereford - and Cheltenham, Swansea and Penzance...), it is not going to be happening any time soon, so until that happens the Class 800s and 802s seem a sensible way to serve these places.

Roger Ford seems to have been greatly exercised for years now by what might happen to the timings of VTEC services north of Edinburgh - all of one trip each way a day to Inverness, and four each way on the Aberdeen route.

But I don't recall him saying a thing about how the bi-modes might perform on the likes of the Cotswold Line, with its closely-spaced stations and permitted speed limit range of 75mph to 100mph. A place where how long an 800 (or an HST) takes to get near 125mph on diesel power is neither here nor there, the initial burst of acceleration out of stations is useful, and there will be a whole lot more services running day in, day out then there ever will be north of Edinburgh.

 

[47802]

Well as many posters have already said it wasn't designed to be a 125mph diesel train so the comparison is crazy.

Ok some people don't like the Bi-mode concept I think its good, it offers train with tremendous flexibility and should reduce Diesel under the wires running a great deal which from an environmental perspective is what's needed. Is the Bi-mode concept perfect no it isn't it has some disadvantages but then so do the alternatives, are the trains perfect no I'm sure they aren't I'm not impressed with sliding doors when some of the trains they replace have had plug doors for years, but a lot of basic concerns such as noise level from underfloor mounted engines seem to have been smashed out of the water by this train, and of course some of the stuff about seats etc. would have likely applied whatever train is procured.

 

[coppercapped]

Erm.... squeak, rattle and roll? They're quiet but they do have noticeable background noises.

Erm...! I very carefully wrote that

don't have these noticeable background noises.

where the 'these' refers to the noticeable noises of the gubbins to do with the transformer. The 80X of course have all the normal noises of wheels, rails and wind...

However, whatever the noise source, I would expect newer trains to be quieter than their predecessors and one improvement is that I've not yet noticed creaking noises associated with the gangways which is typical of the HST.

 

[MizzyMoo]

... or it could be that, now the 80Xs are up and running, a lot of the earlier criticism of them has turned out to look a little silly?

!

The new 800 trains are fine, are vastly superior to Voyagers (not that that's difficult), whilst before commenting on build quality... for a proper perspective suggest you should get yourselves back in an HST vestibule for an hour or two...

Having lost count of the number of IET rides, and being able to directly compare back to still not uncommon HSTs, would note:
- The Diesel firing up as the wires run out is noticeable (if you're paying attention), and inevitably some of them are occasionally a bit lumpy/noisy... haven't heard any strange noises in the electric bit, but across the fleet that wouldn't surprise.
- Acceleration not noticeably different under diesel, although performance under the wires is impressive, which has led to the novel experience of making up time between Reading and Paddington, which is something that have never seen an HST do.
- Don't think the luggage access criticism is valid, as doors are a normal width, and get fully out of the way (rather than being a free mass that swings back at you), whilst the inter-car accesses are about the same width as the sliding doors in a Mk3 coach, and just feel narrower because the they are built out into extended corridors.
- The fabled ramps are pretty steep, and would best be avoided by the mobility impaired, but GWR seem to have found staff that are robust enough to get a trolley up'em, and no particular need for passengers to use them.
- Have seen one rammed PAD-BTM 5 car set which should have been a 10 car set, and 5 car sets on peak BTM-WSM/TAU will never work (equivalent HSTs with 6 and a half standard cars operate with all seats taken, and the vestibules well populated... so why even try to squeeze that into 3 and a half cars (excluding first class and the humungous train crew facilities in the leading car)?).
- Like anything new, tend to notice anything/everything, and experience of getting back on an HST for the same trip is informative in highlighting all the things have learnt to be normal, but were really never that great, and they really are showing they're age. Don't miss the enclosure of the high seat backs, and generally a lot more room and light, which is all good.
- Passenger information all needs work, with: automated seat reservation that change after you've sat down, and various nonsensical announcements, such as "this train will split at BTM (it doesn't back five cars continue attached, but empty), please travel in the front 10 coaches!", although do appreciate the occasional apology that trains are only 5 cars long, instead of a more appropriate 8, which provides some small amount of hope...

Lugging all that diesel around would obviously better be avoided, but full credit for giving us new trains in spite of NR's truly woeful electrification performance. Don't really see a detriment of bi-mode as a passenger, and don't suppose they'll ever hit VW's levels of environmental degradation, so subject to understanding what the final operating regime will be for the full GWR fleet, more concerned/puzzled as to the how/why of 2x5 car sets?

 

[Lanley]

Having sampled my first HST on the same day as a 2 hour voyager journey with my first IET journey the following day, I have to say that out of the trains I travelled on, I was most impressed by the IET. Having used voyagers a fair bit, I am used to the seats and vibrations in the cabin but overall think of it as a pleasant experience - granted the rare pins and needles in my toes isn't pleasant but coach D on VT has my one of my favourite cabin arrangements. My first HST (unrefurbed GWR example) was in comparison a bit of a disappointment. Granted the seats were squishier but with the amount of praise for comfort on this forum I was expecting much better. No underfloor engines is a bonus but the atmosphere is very dated not to mention the damp smell. The IET was a breath of fresh air in terms of atmosphere and environment and, yes, the seats are hard but I found them to be comfortable and more so than the HST though not more than the voyager (both VT and XC which I believe have identical seats). The HST is a prime example of pioneering British technology and innovation in a time when it was desperately needed and has stood the test of time. To forget it would be a crime but the greater crime would be to keep the future at bay. I think that the IET, once fully optimised with the infrastructure, will be a valid successor on both the GW and EC routes.

 

[Phil G]

There has been a lot of comments on here about the Mk3 high seat backs - we must not forget that these are an aberration of the previous FGW refurbishment that ruined the lovely open Mk3 experience that was present in the original layouts. At least the 800s have reversed that trend, even if the seats are rock hard (but surprisingly not that uncomfortable). One thing that is good about Voyages is the window size and low seat backs (and those are the only good things i can think of!).

 

[swt_passenger]

There has been a lot of comments on here about the Mk3 high seat backs - we must not forget that these are an aberration of the previous FGW refurbishment that ruined the lovely open Mk3 experience that was present in the original layouts. At least the 800s have reversed that trend, even if the seats are rock hard (but surprisingly not that uncomfortable). One thing that is good about Voyages is the window size and low seat backs (and those are the only good things i can think of!).

Were the high seat backs something that resulted from the Ufton Nervet accident, and at the time it was widely thought they would have to be fitted to all high speed stock, and FGW sort of ‘got ahead of themselves’?