Should there be a follow on order for GWR to extend their 80x's?

[nat67]

There's two problems with reusing the HST's. First the class 80x's are providing a 18% increase in capacity when comparing the full length 80x's with a HST.

Second, what would you do about the lack of DMU's some of which are currently proposed with HST GTi's (likewise the Scottish units)?

By using 80x's, there's scope to potentially lengthen the units (the main purpose of this thread) to provide more capacity, something that couldn't be done with the HST's without showing them down.

Well there will be a redundant usage of VTEC HST's soon. They should have just made them all 10 car units and no 5 car's. Its just a faf.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The only sane arrangement is to continue with slow but sure expansion of electrification not the stop start rush fail deadlines arrangement we've got at present and continue gradually building rolling stock of a (broadly) compatible type so we don't end up with numerous small, incompatible, cleared for only a few routes sets of stock. Alas franchising seems to have left us with exactly the opposite - a rush to build and buy at franchise changes so coupled with competition rules we are left with a large number of builders making small fleets of incompatible stock. Briefly in BR days we seemed to be heading for sanity; almost all the Sprinter era DMUs would couple and work, pretty much all of the Southern EMUs too.

Madness.

 

[The Ham]

The only sane arrangement is to continue with slow but sure expansion of electrification not the stop start rush fail deadlines arrangement we've got at present and continue gradually building rolling stock of a (broadly) compatible type so we don't end up with numerous small, incompatible, cleared for only a few routes sets of stock. Alas franchising seems to have left us with exactly the opposite - a rush to build and buy at franchise changes so coupled with competition rules we are left with a large number of builders making small fleets of incompatible stock. Briefly in BR days we seemed to be heading for sanity; almost all the Sprinter era DMUs would couple and work, pretty much all of the Southern EMUs too.

Madness.

Although there's a lot of small fleets, the 80x's with over 1,200 coaches (and more than the combined Mark 3 and Mark 4 fleets) certainty isn't one of them.

I would also suggest that with the total replacements of units which had been happening of late within franchises there's slightly less of a problem then it was.

 

[cactustwirly]

No there should not be any (Super Hitachi Inter-City Trains) we have got enough Voyagers to cope with. They should either be all electric or nothing at all. It would have been cheaper and easier to just convert the MK3's for PRM (Person Reduced Mobility) mods.

For about 5 years maybe, but then you'll have to replace them anyway.
The HSTs already have corrosion issues (they're very minor atm), which would become a huge and expensive issue in the medium term.
So it works out cheaper to replace them now.

 

[jimm]

But that new fleet are not even performing as they should have been so its still a 'muddle of pies'. And with leaving passengers and half a trains length that's not exactly new just an annoyance to every commuter. The modernisation of wires as you say isn't going that quickly as there are no wires up after Wantage Rd and no wires where grade 2 listed bridge is before Swindon and with cheap wires they will just fall of in the wind.

You clearly haven't got a clue about the progress of the GMWL wiring work - the 25kv is now live all the way from Paddington to the western edge of Swindon and there is plenty of wire up further west as well.

There are live wires under the bridge at Steventon, but with a speed limit applying until the bridge can be replaced

Go here for the latest state of progress with electrification work

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/great-western-electrification-progress.83452/page-241

None of which has anything to do with extending IETs.

 

[D365]

Well there will be a redundant usage of VTEC HST's soon. They should have just made them all 10 car units and no 5 car's. Its just a faf.

For how many years now have we been going round in circles about this?

 

[swt_passenger]

For how many years now have we been going round in circles about this?

It isn't as though the OP hasn't been around these forums long enough to realise its been done to death in existing GW 800 threads anyway...

 

[The Ham]

It isn't as though the OP hasn't been around these forums long enough to realise its been done to death in existing GW 800 threads anyway...

Which was why I was specific about asking if there should be a follow on order, given that they are here to stay.

 

[tbtc]

No there should not be any (Super Hitachi Inter-City Trains) we have got enough Voyagers to cope with. They should either be all electric or nothing at all. It would have been cheaper and easier to just convert the MK3's for PRM (Person Reduced Mobility) mods.

1) Requiring them to be all electric means a very large and very sudden program of electrification, which is a recipe for massive overruns in cost and time (à la GWEP)
2) Given Wabtecs glacial pace for their MK3 program, I'd strongly disagree that upgrading mk3s would be easier (and it is worth noting that mk3s aren't that good a ride compared to more modern stock)

I'm with @Domh245 here - it's taken so long to upgrade/convert tiny numbers of "old" trains - not just the Mk3s but also the costs and time involved in the "Renatus" 321 programme - brand new trains are much simpler.

Other than that, there seem to be a lot of armchair experts on these threads who *know* that we ought to be running 260m long trains at all times on the GWML, and who tend to ignore the evidence of people at the coal face like @jimm who understand that different diagrams have different levels of demand.

Often the same people insisting on sending 260m long trains all the way to Hereford etc at all times are the ones complaining about the additional weight of fuel tanks under 800/801s being a drain on resources - apparently its bad to lug fuel tanks around under the wires but they have no problem with taking a full ten coach rake all the way to the western termini.

I'm sure there will be orders for longer trains or new trains (the DfT's "amazing" negotiation skills with Hitatchi probably mean it'll be easier to order new trains rather than extend existing ones), but (as well as dealing with the VTEC/LNER 800/801s) there are 802s to build for gWr/ Hull Trains/ TransPennine and the FirstGroup London - Edinburgh service, and then the potential for bi-modes in the next EMT/EMR franchise, so its not as if the production line will be closing any time soon.

Five and nine coach trains seem a sensible way forward though. A seven coach train is neither nowt nor summat (as they say around these parts). Too short to deal with busy services, too long to double up. Keep it simple with two lengths of train.

 

[The Ham]

Five and nine coach trains seem a sensible way forward though. A seven coach train is neither nowt nor summat (as they say around these parts). Too short to deal with busy services, too long to double up. Keep it simple with two lengths of train.

The opening question wasn't too do with lengthening to 7 coach, therefore only 5/9/10 coach unit lengths.

 

[Starmill]

In the case of the 16.22 from Paddington to Great Malvern, it should not be full and standing "as far as Reading" in the normal course of things. It calls at Reading to pick up only.

This is rather naive. A significant number of people (the people standing mostly) left the train at Slough and Reading. It is often reported that these restrictions are ignored - just because you think it's a bit early that hardly means that people won't go for it.

This meant that there was no catering because the trolley couldn't get through the train either, and the standing environment on an 800 is woeful. The vestibules are narrower than a Voyager.

 

[jimm]

This is rather naive. A significant number of people (the people standing mostly) left the train at Slough and Reading. It is often reported that these restrictions are ignored - just because you think it's a bit early that hardly means that people won't go for it.

This meant that there was no catering because the trolley couldn't get through the train either, and the standing environment on an 800 is woeful. The vestibules are narrower than a Voyager.

It's not naive - I suspect that given your location, I probably travel on this 16.22 far more often that you ever will, and have been doing so for the best part of three years, once or twice a week.

So I would dare to suggest that my overall experience of its operation, whether with a 180 until last December or an IET since the start of this year, is ever so slightly more representative of what happens on the 16.22 than yours. And the number of people getting off at Reading is limited, perhaps 20 maximum and the only times I have failed to get a seat joining at Reading have been days when the 15.52 was cancelled.

 

[Starmill]

So I would dare to suggest that my overall experience of its operation, whether with a 180 until last December or an IET since the start of this year, is ever so slightly more representative of what happens on the 16.22 than yours.

Touchy touchy touchy

Why don't you stick to the 800 thread, where people don't mind you speaking to them like dirt?

 

[jimm]

Touchy? No, just fed up to the back teeth of being told that the only answer to everything on GWR is 10-coach single-unit IETs, or that actual experiences count for nothing in the face of 'opinion'.

Why don't you accept that other people may have a more accurate view of a situation than you? Based on journeys made over an extended period. I also often travelled on the 16.22 or previous equivalents from 2001 to 2015 out of Oxford, so have a fair grasp of what overall loadings are like - and on other services in the Thames Valley and Cotswolds. Do you?

Since when does one journey experience provide definitive, representative evidence for something like a business case, which is what would be needed to secure any future lengthening of trains?

In the case of the 16.22, anyone with a tally counter could work out that the numbers on board mean there is no case whatever for this service to be operated by a 10-coach IET with 700 seats - with all of one door being opened for passengers at Combe International and Finstock...

 

[Starmill]

Based on journeys made over an extended period. I also often travelled on the 16.22 or previous equivalents from 2001 to 2015 out of Oxford, so have a fair grasp of what overall loadings are like - and on other services in the Thames Valley and Cotswolds. Do you?

Your primary contribution to the Class 800 thread has been to tell others that they're wrong and that you're qualified to speak where they're not because you know best. This is very different from suggesting your point of view - even if you think that's based on more evidence than others are. Your primary interest in this thread and indeed in this post has also been to tell others that they're wrong and that you know best. If you frame your opinions in this way, their substance is lost. I don't give a damn if you say you've used the 1622 every single day for 20 years. How do I know that? And how do you know that I haven't also done so? Usually this would be based on trust, but most trustworthy people would never present their opinions in the way you have.

You simply assumed that you knew best and told everyone so, and that others would accept that simply because you told them. They won't.

 

[jimm]

There is a world of difference between just telling people they are wrong, and what I always aim to do, which is to explain why that is the case and provide evidence to back it up.

As tbtc observed above, plenty of people positing here say they 'know' things, or such and such a thing just 'should' be done and then fail to provide any evidence to support such statements and often ignore anything that anyone else posts that conflicts with their opinion/contains information to the contrary.

The Class 800 thread is replete with posts from people who 'knew' things about the trains, even before Hitachi had ordered the first widget to build one - eg, no tables, no legroom, the engine noise would be worse than Voyagers, that it would be Operation Princess all over again, etc, ad infinitum.

What's the biggest gripe now that the trains are in service? Some people don't like the seats, just like the seats on just about any type of train in the country, if this forum is anything to go by.

If you won't accept what I say about my usage of the 16.22 or its equivalents over many years, that's your business.

But I can assure others that what I say about my travel habits is correct, as are my observations about the typical loadings on the 16.22 in recent months, which a five-car IET can handle just fine unless things have gone wrong on another service/Network Rail's GWML infrastructure plays up again and screws up GWR services generally.

Loadings which do not provide any evidence of a compelling need for all of GWR's IET fleet to be made up of 1x10 700-seaters.

 

[Starmill]

There is a world of difference between just telling people they are wrong, and what I always aim to do, which is to explain why that is the case and provide evidence to back it up.

Well then you've failed. You've presented exactly zero evidence other than 'this is right because I said so'.
Regarding things that you 'know' I recall a case where I made the point that 45*4 car EMUs at GWR might leave a surplus against the number of available diagrams for services just to Didcot Parkway and Newbury. You simply said that I was wrong using this tone because you knew better. I had presented the evidence that the date that the ROSCO had announced the number of trains to be leased to GWR was many months before the TfL Board had approved the purchase of the 4 additional 345s but you still thought that you knew better. Of course, I turned out to be correct as I actually had some evidence - despite your assertion that you knew better. The surplus 387s will be used on Heathrow Express.

On the basis of that incident and your tone, I see no reason to believe that your views are more accurate than anyone else's in the absence of any verifiable external sources (you haven't presented any). You may make whatever claims you wish - this is the purpose of a public forum. But if you want to treat people in this way, don't get cross when people don't listen to you.

 

[jimm]

So actually using a service frequently and knowing full well what demand is like as a result of that experience does not count for anything here these days...

Evidence does not have to mean "verifiable external sources" so far as I'm concerned, but accounts of a single journey are not exactly compelling evidence, never mind a business case for 10-car IETs.

Or are you about to demonstrate you use the 16.22 all the time and on-board conditions are actually always the way you described on the previous page? As opposed to the way I know they really are, as someone who does frequently use that specific service.

Why should anyone believe any claims you may make about passenger numbers on services around Manchester, since you have now declared that such personal experience is irrelevant?

One of these days perhaps someone will provide compelling evidence to demonstrate why a GWR IET fleet almost entirely made up of long single-unit formations, whether of nine or 10 coaches, is what is required, but I won't be holding my breath.

Having seen the - being generous - modest number of people on board the first nine-car GWR IET returning to London while working the 17.25 from Worcester earlier this evening, I know for sure that is one service that does not need to be worked by a unit with anything like 640 seats, which is why it won't be in the normal course of things.

You may have a point about 387s - or you may not. We don't know quite what the 769s will be doing long term, which may well include things some 387s are doing right now. There were plenty of other factors at play when it came to the HEx deal, such as avoiding big bills to build a new depot for the 332s, plus a 387 top-up for GWR could be on the cards in 2021 when c2c releases the sets it is using until its Aventras are delivered, as those 387s came from the same batch as the GWR fleet.

There was disquiet within GWR about losing known quantities, in the shape of 387s and Turbos, for 769s. And no, you won't be getting a verified external source for that, as I know it from private conversations with people inside GWR.

 

[D365]

There was disquiet within GWR about losing known quantities, in the shape of 387s and Turbos, for 769s. And no, you won't be getting a verified external source for that, as I know it from private conversations with people inside GWR.

To be fair, I can't imagine that needing much in the way of verification at all. Currently it's looking like Wales will be getting their 230s before their 769s even show up.

 

[Rail Blues]

It isn't as though the OP hasn't been around these forums long enough to realise its been done to death in existing GW 800 threads anyway...

Some folk have been determined to find fault from day one and as their dire predictions about noisy diesel thumping away so loudly that they'd drown out conversation and the barely perceptible slope between the carriages would mean you'd need a rope and tackle to move between them. As there prophesies of doom have all been shown to be unwarranted they're looking for ever more petty stuff to moan about.

 

[The Ham]

Paradoxically the big complaint is now about the short nature of the fleet, as such they are then by extension suggesting that more should be ordered!

 

[nat67]

Paradoxically the big complaint is now about the short nature of the fleet, as such they are then by extension suggesting that more should be ordered!

Its the case of that the DFT should have said yes to 50 5 car or just make 50 9 car in stead of just faffing around but then there is the issues of lagging fuel tanks around and the Cotswold route.

 

[Rail Blues]

Paradoxically the big complaint is now about the short nature of the fleet, as such they are then by extension suggesting that more should be ordered!

Sorry that wasn't aimed at you, but the joker on this thread making up infantile nicknames for the class 80Xs and generally making suggestions about how quick and easy it would be to convert mk3 stock despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[The Ham]

Sorry that wasn't aimed at you, but the joker on this thread making up infantile nicknames for the class 80Xs and generally making suggestions about how quick and easy it would be to convert mk3 stock despite all evidence to the contrary.

My comment was a thought I'd had following some of the comments by those opposed to the 80x's, I was just following on from your comments. No slight was felt on my part, so don't worry.

 

[JamesT]

Don't we really need more time to say whether GWR need more 80Xs? They've barely started getting the 9 coach 800s into service so there are presumably many services that aren't running with their final allocation of stock yet. I think you'd be more looking at December 2019 when Crossrail has started running to Reading and the 387, 769, and 80X deployments are complete to say there's insufficient stock and more needs ordering. The production line will still be running for the 802s so there doesn't appear to be a risk of not being able to order more from that POV. Indeed any order would have to wait until the existing orders were completed, no?

 

[ainsworth74]

Indeed any order would have to wait until the existing orders were completed, no?

Considering that people were able to make cast iron guarantees about how awful these trains were going to be in every way and how they were going to be Voyager the Second before so much a single piece of metal had been welded or plastic formed why change now and wait until they're fully in service before deciding that we need more?

 

[tbtc]

The only sane arrangement is to continue with slow but sure expansion of electrification not the stop start rush fail deadlines arrangement we've got at present and continue gradually building rolling stock of a (broadly) compatible type so we don't end up with numerous small, incompatible, cleared for only a few routes sets of stock. Alas franchising seems to have left us with exactly the opposite - a rush to build and buy at franchise changes so coupled with competition rules we are left with a large number of builders making small fleets of incompatible stock. Briefly in BR days we seemed to be heading for sanity; almost all the Sprinter era DMUs would couple and work, pretty much all of the Southern EMUs too.

Madness.

I'm hoping that this is what is happening - and we'll get "802s" (or equivalent) for the new East Midlands Railway franchise.

Whilst I'm not defending DfT's IET procurement (albeit some of the comparisons use a chunk of fairly dodgy maths), it may be seen in five/ fifteen years time that it was worth biting the bullet and paying over-the-odds to secure one big fleet of comparable/ compatible trains for HST replacement on the GWML and ECML - which then provides a useful template for Hull Trains, Transpennine (and the Devon/ Cornwall bit of the GWML too).

It's not necessarily a cheap way to do things, I accept, but I don't want to see more diddy classes like the 180s.

The opening question wasn't too do with lengthening to 7 coach, therefore only 5/9/10 coach unit lengths.

Yes, but since the OP asked "Given discussions that have happened elsewhere, what are people's views on if the 80x's are likely to be extended in length (either to create more 9 coach versions or to extend the 9 coach versions to 10 coaches) as part of the next GWR franchise?", I thought I'd add to the people pointing out that medium sized 80xs would be a waste of time.

Some folk have been determined to find fault from day one and as their dire predictions about noisy diesel thumping away so loudly that they'd drown out conversation and the barely perceptible slope between the carriages would mean you'd need a rope and tackle to move between them. As there prophesies of doom have all been shown to be unwarranted they're looking for ever more petty stuff to moan about.

It's funny how some people (who were so prolific on IET threads a few years ago) now seem to be quiet... weren't trollies going to struggle to get along the humped carriages, and the Guard would need to hand out ear-muffs because of the incessant din?

(usually the same people love going in the front coach of loco-hauled services, because they love the noise...)

Considering that people were able to make cast iron guarantees about how awful these trains were going to be in every way and how they were going to be Voyager the Second before so much a single piece of metal had been welded or plastic formed why change now and wait until they're fully in service before deciding that we need more?

Don't forget the claims from all the passengers who would miss their destination station because they were at the windowless seats!

 

[The Ham]

That's Fine I will just get an XC HST from BHM to PLY. Its not difficult to avoid one.

Until XC change the way that their fleet is used and/or 80x's are ordered to increase capacity for XC.

 

[nat67]

Until XC change the way that their fleet is used and/or 80x's are ordered to increase capacity for XC.

That's not what I said i was asked about travelling on an IET to the west country but I can easily get 1V44 from New Street its still a booked HST at the moment.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's not necessarily a cheap way to do things, I accept, but I don't want to see more diddy classes like the 180s.

Yes that's very true. I think sometimes people forget that quite how large the IET fleet is looking at being. Between the units in service, being built/delivered/commissioned and on order there are a total of 182 sets comprising a total of 1,222 vehicles. That's a very large fleet of trains. Plus there may be more in the future with East Midlands Railway and the future Inter City Cross Country franchise as well as any extras that may or may not be required on the GW franchise.

By way of comparison it would seem from Wikipedia (so if anyone has a more authoritative source I'd be welcome to hear it!!) that there were only 848 Mk3 carriages built. So we've already got more IET vehicles on the books than the venerable Mk3 and there may yet be more to be ordered and delivered!

Don't forget the claims from all the passengers who would miss their destination station because they were at the windowless seats!

I used to have a bookmark of the train technical specification as I was having to refer to it so often to debunk various claims