GWR Class 800

[Domh245]

It is worth waiting to see how the 802s will perform for the MML option, as that is what will be offered, and they *should* have the full power available throughout the speed range. The 800s, being run on the type of contract that they are, are being restricted wherever possible to maintain Agility's margins, which the 802s shouldn't, be a conventionally procured train. I can't remember if the presentation that @Railperf put together showed any modelling for how a nominally unrestricted unit would perform, but that is what you'd want - not this.

 

[JN114]

Ask a stupid question, but as the 800s have 26 metre carriages, is there anywhere on GWR they're not cleared for?

Not at present. There are some concerns about Narbeth tunnel on the Pembroke branch - but it’s indeterminate how much of that is genuine and how much is Platform-end Wibble.

I’m fairly sure that it was a requirement in the specification that they would be able to operate anywhere the existing stock can..

EDIT - if you mean passenger service however - yes, at present not allowed beyond Taunton in passenger service as platform validation work not yet completed.

 

[bastien]

Sorry, No, Hit people generally don't publish their emails online.

Whereas you, er, do. Which is nice of you.

 

[Railperf]

Goodness me - bi-modes for the MML could be a step backwards. London to Sheffield times were only reduced to 2 hrs when the more powerful 222's were introduced on the route.
If Bi-mode is the only option for MML, then you ned a train that can achieve similar acceleration in diesel mode to at least 100 or 110mph. 125mph preferable. Unless today's technology has advanced far enough forward - the effectively means you would need 5 engines in a 5 -car set rather than 3 at present. As there isn't the space to fit all this, plus the electrical traction equipment - then the only other option is to build an additional dedicated vehicle with either all of the electrical gibbons (effectively a loco without any cabs or at one end of the train with a cab, leaving the 5 engines under each coach (on a 5 car set). Or alternatively build a diesel generation vehicle that fits into the consist, and leave the distributed electrical traction equipment under each coach. Something tells me the latter would be preferred by passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or alternatively build a diesel generation vehicle that fits into the consist, and leave the distributed electrical traction equipment under each coach. Something tells me the latter would be preferred by passengers.

Stadler certainly thinks so, and I agree with them.

 

[jimm]

Sorry, No, Hit people generally don't publish their emails online.

I did plan to travel along the Cotswold line some weeks ago - but yes the 800's had been substituted with HST's and 166 Turbo's - not sure of the exact issues that day - but could have been lack of train crew.

There will always be comparisons made between new and older rolling stock -whether you like it or not. Even if the GWML had been fully electrified as planned, we would still be comparing the performance of both these sets of machinery and coming up with the conclusion that we have done. That above 30-40mph, the 800's (in current diesel settings) do not have the mid range or top end grunt to recover from restrictive signal aspects or Temporary Speed restrictions as well as the older HST's do.

In the context of GWR's claim that these new trains will deliver journey time savings across the whole network - the reality suggests not. The 800's will clearly deliver journey time savings on the electrified parts of the network. But as things stand - it looks unlikely that there will be any reasonable time savings on the sections of track that are unelectrified because the so called slightly better acceleration of the 800's at lower speeds is offset by their lack of midrange and top end power (compared to HST's) - which is needed when things go wrong and time needs to be made up.

No wonder First Group are pretty fed up with the situation. They have a so-called 125mph bi-mode train that should have been perfect for this exact scenario -delayed and partial electrification - but they have turned out to be pretty limp in (current settings ) diesel mode and struggle with the timings - especially when there are delays - which are quite frequent on GWR these days. And that sounds like it is all down to contractual issues - basically none of the players involved want to end up with the additional repair and maintenance bill - which were inevitable when parts of the electrification scheme were cancelled in the first place.

As for infrastructure faults and capacity constraints - that is another question that needs to be addressed aside of this discussion. And that cash should be coming out of another pot.

Which is a very long way of saying you have no information about how they are going on the Cotswold Line - has no one from the Railway Performance Society bothered to ride an IET on the route in the past month?

Unless you look at how the 800s are working in the sort of place they will be using diesel power at speeds up to 100-105mph for many years, how can you claim they will not be able to deliver time savings in those places? I repeat, realtimetrains logs show no signs of stress on the part of 800s in keeping up with HST or 180 timings west of Oxford, or improving on them in a number of cases.

Or doesn't a Sunday run in 3hrs 5mins from Paddington to Hereford, against a booked HST time of 3hrs 14minutes, count as recovering delay minutes? Take out the Slough and Didcot calls that feature in Sunday schedules and it would have been a sub 3-hour run. The GWR target for the fastest time to Hereford in the 2019 timetable is 2hrs 54minutes, which seems entirely achievable on current evidence - and all of four minutes more than the fastest booked time I'm aware of for an HST, back in the days when the Hereford services did not call at Reading, Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore, never mind Slough or Didcot.

JN114 is quite correct to point out that the target journey times GWR has mentioned are end to end times, not broken down by what traction is used at what point and where any savings are to be made. Take out 10 minutes between London and Oxford and it's still 10 minutes taken out of the overall running time to Worcester or Hereford. Which is what will matter to the average passenger.

Delays down to infrastructure are all part of the big picture - sort them out and you reduce the risk of delays in the first place. Whatever happened to investing money - from whatever pot - where it delivers the best long-term return?

As a regular passenger on the MML, where Bi-modes are being mooted as suitable replacements for the HSTs and possibly even the operationally-superior 222s, I consider Railperf's information very relevant and thank them for it. The comparisons on the stretches referenced are comparable with many stretches of the route through the East and South Midlands, where their performance will ultimately be under most scrutiny should they be introduced.

No specification for any type of new train to be used on the MML, bi-mode or otherwise, has been issued and they won't be ordered by the DfT, so it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the current (DfT-specified) traction package set-up for short-term diesel operation of Class 800s at 100mph+ on the GWML. We have yet to see what the GWR-specified 802s can do.

An MML order may not even be for an 802 variant. Stadler might be interested in offering a bi-mode variant of their new InterCity trains for East Anglia and Alstom are supposed to be keen on returning to the UK market and know plenty about bi-modes, having built lots for use in France.

 

[Wychwood93]

Re. jimm on post 1684 - the RPS does have some Cotswold line logs. Have a look at http://www.railperf.org.uk/index/iet - a bit of a mixture at an initial view re. comp. HST/800. On some of the short runs the 800s initial grunt is useful. Always have a look at lateness, as this spurs some drivers on - if on time, just plod on, whatever the traction.

We would all like to see 'electrification creep' when the magic money tree drops its fruit - generally in the autumn, just a question of which year?

Actually post 6784 - sorry!

 

[squizzler]

We would all like to see 'electrification creep' when the magic money tree drops its fruit - generally in the autumn, just a question of which year?

Not like British Rail days when they regularly cleared the magic money trees from the lineside so in autumn there was no creep or slippage of any kind and everything happened on time and on budget and you could see the views from the carriage and they should bring back national service and corporal punishment in schools, etc. etc.

 

[Railperf]

800s in electric mode are starting to show their pace. Reading to Didcot fastest recorded time is down to 10 min 30sec start to stop. Train had left Reading 2 late on a 13 min schedule. Shiws how slack the schedule is even for a HST Previous best was 10:46 by a 180 and 11:08 by HST. Demonstrates the folly of cutting back a horrendously managed and budgeted electrification project.

 

[jimm]

Re. jimm on post 1684 - the RPS does have some Cotswold line logs. Have a look at http://www.railperf.org.uk/index/iet - a bit of a mixture at an initial view re. comp. HST/800. On some of the short runs the 800s initial grunt is useful. Always have a look at lateness, as this spurs some drivers on - if on time, just plod on, whatever the traction.

We would all like to see 'electrification creep' when the magic money tree drops its fruit - generally in the autumn, just a question of which year?

Actually post 6784 - sorry!

Thank you.

The initial grunt is one of the key factors when it comes to the Cotswold Line and the average seven-mile station-to-station run. And nothing I can see there that sets alarm bells ringing about performance on the routes where they will be using diesel traction in the long term.

Demonstrates the folly of cutting back a horrendously managed and budgeted electrification project.

So although the money had all been spent, and then some more, they should just keep on going all the way to Swansea?
That's not the way HM Treasury thinks - especially not when Network Rail's accumulated debt was reported to be £46.3bn last year, with it expected to grow by another £7bn by the end of Control Period 5 next March.

 

[Starmill]

I travelled on a 5 car 800 on the 1522 London Paddington to Great Malvern today, changing at Oxford. I am given to understand that this is a long-standing class 180, and thus 5*23m diagram - is that right? For the small increase in onboard space, the train was full and standing as we left Paddington. A significant number of people did leave the train at Reading, so there were plenty of empty seats from there to Oxford. However, so many people were waiting at Oxford that the train departed there full and standing again. Some of this effect was schoolchildren, but only some. First Class was almost full with seated passengers, and there were plenty of people standing in the vestibules. I did wonder if earlier disruption might have caused a problem, but as far as I can see, the preceding train at 1421 from London Paddington was broadly fine.

I do wonder, then, what this service was like as a 180 or when covered by a Turbo? Was what I saw a typical loading for the 1625 from Oxford along the Cotswolds? And will that service be 5 car only for the foreseeable future?

 

[jimm]

Yes, had been a 180 working since it reappeared in the timetable after quite a long gap. Thames Trains used to have a 15.18 (I think) from London but that went with the 2006 FGW timetable rewrite - and it was badly overcrowded for some years before that as a three-car Turbo.

It has only been around for a couple of years or so in its current guise, since the 15.52 from Paddington was cut back to terminate at Moreton-in-Marsh and the 15.22 began to run to maintain a mid-afternoon service for Worcestershire destinations.

It is always busy in school terms, as it is ideally timed out of Oxford for pupils going home, but something like 40 to 50 people will get off at Hanborough, the first stop out of Oxford and just eight minutes away, with the same number or more off at Charlbury after 16 minutes, so it gets much quieter at a rate of knots.

A similar effect can be observed on the next three services out of Oxford as well. There is also a bunching effect due to the short platform at Hanborough. A lot of people heading there insist on riding in the front two or three coaches and standing, even if there are some seats available around them or further back down the train. The forthcoming platform extension at Hanborough may help to address that issue by encouraging people to spread out down the trains.

I gather that GWR is hoping to have enough drivers trained on Class 800s by early next week for the 16.22 from Paddington to Great Malvern to be all but guaranteed to be worked by an IET instead of the lucky dip of 800s or two-car or three-car Turbos that have been turning up in recent weeks.

 

[deltic08]

As there isn't the space to fit all this, plus the electrical traction equipment - then the only other option is to build an additional dedicated vehicle with either all of the electrical gibbons (effectively a loco without any cabs or at one end of the train with a cab, leaving the 5 engines under each coach (on a 5 car set).

Those poor little monkeys having to hang on underneath coaches amongst all the other gubbins.

 

[deltic08]

Has nobody else picked up on what Grayling stated on the television on Tuesday lunchtime? He said that if the East Coast franchise was renationalised then introduction of class 800 trains would not happen as funding for them would not be available. What is going to happen then? Cancel the contract with Hitachi/Agility or divert them to MML? Another veiled threat against renationalising East Coast?
Every private franchise on this route has had to be bailed out. That must tell even Grayling something about privatisation when DOR operated East Coast very well and made a handsome profit for Government.
There was great resentment in Yorkshire and Northeast that it was awarded to Branson. I used East Coast a lot to London and Scotland under DOR but have used the car since in protest at Branson and what he is trying to do to our NHS. The Virgin logo should go asap. Even before the changeover. Good riddance I say.

 

[Master29]

Has nobody else picked up on what Grayling stated on the television on Tuesday lunchtime? He said that if the East Coast franchise was renationalised then introduction of class 800 trains would not happen as funding for them would not be available. What is going to happen then? Cancel the contract with Hitachi/Agility or divert them to MML? Another veiled threat against renationalising East Coast?
Every private franchise on this route has had to be bailed out. That must tell even Grayling something about privatisation when DOR operated East Coast very well and made a handsome profit for Government.
There was great resentment in Yorkshire and Northeast that it was awarded to Branson. I used East Coast a lot to London and Scotland under DOR but have used the car since in protest at Branson and what he is trying to do to our NHS. The Virgin logo should go asap. Even before the changeover. Good riddance I say.

This sounds like another British Aerospace with the Nimrod sham in 2009. It may be just him saying that as he`ll avoid talk of renationalising this route like the plague. Even so; the thought of all those Azumas just rotting in sidings. Just a thought though.

 

[D365]

... but have used the car since in protest at Branson and what he is trying to do to our NHS.

That’s quite something for a train company where Virgin effectively only has naming rights!

 

[JN114]

That must tell even Grayling something about privatisation when DOR operated East Coast very well and made a handsome profit for Government.

We’re going way off topic but while DOR made money for the DfT; it’s nowhere near the sums NXEC were due to pay the DfT in franchise premiums over the same period.

****

I don’t subscribe to the whole bi-mode = bad argument. While I would love to see more electrification until NR bring costs down I can’t see it being feasible with the Government’s current stranglehold over NR’s purse strings. Bi-Modes offer a short term stop gap while smaller electrification schemes are spread out over a longer period; with the ultimate ability to changeover to pure electric operation once routes are fully wired. Hitachi have built a good train in the 800 series; it’s the risk averse contractual arrangements that hamper top end diesel performance.

***

There’s a school of thought that reasons that cancelling the EC 800s makes sense. ICEC only operate a very small number of non-electrified routes. The ICEC franchise has also now failed financially 3 times. Perhaps it’s time the scope was re-evaluated and they concentrated only on the core, electric, routes. At that point bi-modes for ICEC cease to make sense.

 

[samuelmorris]

That's all well and good but most of the order for VTEC is 801s thus all-electric anyway, but the 801s are, I assume, still covered by the same Agility trains contract.

 

[Siemens Staines]

I gather that GWR is hoping to have enough drivers trained on Class 800s by early next week for the 16.22 from Paddington to Great Malvern to be all but guaranteed to be worked by an IET instead of the lucky dip of 800s or two-car or three-car Turbos that have been turning up in recent weeks.

But isn't it the case the 16.22 is just going to use the IET that this week is working the 15.22, and next week its the 15.22 turn to be booked a turbo/lucky dip? If it is for next week only it may not be too bad with the half term holidays.

 

[Tyrion]

We’re going way off topic but while DOR made money for the DfT; it’s nowhere near the sums NXEC were due to pay the DfT in franchise premiums over the same period

****

I don’t subscribe to the whole bi-mode = bad argument. While I would love to see more electrification until NR bring costs down I can’t see it being feasible with the Government’s current stranglehold over NR’s purse strings. Bi-Modes offer a short term stop gap while smaller electrification schemes are spread out over a longer period; with the ultimate ability to changeover to pure electric operation once routes are fully wired. Hitachi have built a good train in the 800 series; it’s the risk averse contractual arrangements that hamper top end diesel performance.

***

There’s a school of thought that reasons that cancelling the EC 800s makes sense. ICEC only operate a very small number of non-electrified routes. The ICEC franchise has also now failed financially 3 times. Perhaps it’s time the scope was re-evaluated and they concentrated only on the core, electric, routes. At that point bi-modes for ICEC cease to make sense.

Re your first point, they didn’t though did they???

Your third point does not make sense either! There is more than enough demand on non electrified routes on EC to justify bi modes! Especially Aberdeen and Inverness services.

 

[jimm]

But isn't it the case the 16.22 is just going to use the IET that this week is working the 15.22, and next week its the 15.22 turn to be booked a turbo/lucky dip? If it is for next week only it may not be too bad with the half term holidays.

No idea - I was just told that at the GWR East customer panel meeting on Tuesday it was stated that the 16.22 should be an IET from next week. The person I spoke to said nothing about the 15.22. The meeting was also told that most Worcester and Oxford drivers should be IET trained by late March.

Probably makes sense for half-term at least, as day-trippers are more likely to use the 16.22 next week, as the last Cotswold Line train where off-peak tickets are valid until the 19.22 departure.

The 16.22 has been awkward to operate with an 800 due to the issue of having enough trained crew and that it doesn't fit in with the interim diagrams that are being operated for Cotswold Line services until enough drivers are available to start working 800s on services running between London and Oxford only.

At the start of the year there was a path for an empty set to come from North Pole to work it*, whereas it should apparently be part of this diagram, which isn't running yet, pending driver training at Oxford.

1P80 0559 Reading – London Paddington
1W14 0652 London Paddington – Great Malvern
1P25 0954 Great Malvern – London Paddington
1D26 1250 London Paddington – Oxford
1P32 1501 Oxford – London Paddington
1W33 1622 London Paddington – Great Malvern
1P47 1942 Great Malvern – London Paddington

*Edit: Looking at realtimetrains, the path for the ecs from North Pole to Paddington is reinstated from next Monday and while the 15.21 is shown as a Turbo next week, both the 15.21 and 16.22 are showing as booked for high speed trains from Monday the 19th.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C14214/2018/02/12/advanced

 

[LordCreed]

The meeting was also told that most Worcester and Oxford drivers should be IET trained by late March.

Training at Oxford hasn’t even begun yet as far as I’m aware, late March isn’t going to happen.

 

[jimm]

Late March was what was said at the customer panel - and that 16 drivers a week are now being passed to work 800s, which would make it almost 100 more available by Easter if that rate is maintained.

There has certainly been an obvious improvement in staff availability for the Cotswold Line IET services in the past couple of weeks, with cancellations and Turbo or HST replacements rare, unlike the first part of January, so they must be making headway somewhere - even if that is just at Worcester at the moment.

 

[D365]

Where on earth has this argument for cancelling the EC 800s come from? Keeping the HSTs would be a backwards step...

 

[jimm]

Hitachi don't seem to think anything has changed - at least that's what they told the Northern Echo yesterday. Obviously it is a general comment, as opposed to something specific about bi-modes.

A RAIL operator’s franchise woes will have no bearing on a trainbuilder’s rolling stock supply deal, company bosses have told The Northern Echo.

Hitachi Rail Europe is just weeks away from starting work in earnest on trains destined for the East Coast Mainline at its £82m County Durham factory.

However, operator Stagecoach will only oversee the franchise for “a small number of months” after the Government said it “got its numbers wrong”.

But Hitachi has told the Echo its manufacturing timetable remains on schedule, with its stock, known as Azuma, due to enter service from December onwards.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...till_on_track____despite_Stagecoach_upheaval/

 

[YorkshireBear]

Has nobody else picked up on what Grayling stated on the television on Tuesday lunchtime? He said that if the East Coast franchise was renationalised then introduction of class 800 trains would not happen as funding for them would not be available. What is going to happen then? Cancel the contract with Hitachi/Agility or divert them to MML? Another veiled threat against renationalising East Coast?
Every private franchise on this route has had to be bailed out. That must tell even Grayling something about privatisation when DOR operated East Coast very well and made a handsome profit for Government.
There was great resentment in Yorkshire and Northeast that it was awarded to Branson. I used East Coast a lot to London and Scotland under DOR but have used the car since in protest at Branson and what he is trying to do to our NHS. The Virgin logo should go asap. Even before the changeover. Good riddance I say.

He is talking crap. End of discussion.

 

[D365]

IEP has never had anything to do with Virgin/Stagecoach despite what they tried to make out with their marketing guff.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The termination of the VTEC franchise would give the DfT the opportunity to change the plan for the EC IEPs, but I can't imagine this impacting the Hitachi contract.
More likely, it will mean ditching any plan to keep some IC225s going after the changeover, because there won't be paths to run them without the ECML upgrades.
Any surplus of IEPs would be pointed at the East Midlands franchise, I would have thought, although this needs bi-modes not electrics.

 

[83G/84D]

Not at present. There are some concerns about Narbeth tunnel on the Pembroke branch - but it’s indeterminate how much of that is genuine and how much is Platform-end Wibble.

I’m fairly sure that it was a requirement in the specification that they would be able to operate anywhere the existing stock can..

EDIT - if you mean passenger service however - yes, at present not allowed beyond Taunton in passenger service as platform validation work not yet completed.

There are a number of lines west of Exeter that are either restricted or barred to IET’s at the moment.

These will have to be relaxed by July as the first IET working “in service” to Penzance is due to start on 16th July.

 

[ainsworth74]

There are a number of lines west of Exeter that are either restricted or barred to IET’s at the moment.

These will have to be relaxed by July as the first IET working “in service” to Penzance is due to start on 16th July.

Well seeing as an 800 has been to Penzance presumably these are paperwork issues rather than major physical problems?