GWR Class 800

The Ham · 12 Jun 2018

jimm said:
That would depend on whether you thought the engine management and acceleration settings the DfT specified for the 800s were the optimum ones, whatever the extent of electrification. GWR don't appear to think so.

I would suggest that assuming the originally planned extent of electrification and not being used on the B&H line then it probably was fairly good, probably good enough.

However the 802's are due to do a lot of away from the wires running which is why there's a change, which has lead to the change. This change had then been extended to other services because of the cutting back of the wires/the wires being late.

RailUK Forums

59CosG95 · 12 Jun 2018

The Ham said:
I would suggest that assuming the originally planned extent of electrification and not being used on the B&H line then it probably was fairly good, probably good enough.

However the 802's are due to do a lot of away from the wires running which is why there's a change, which has lead to the change. This change had then been extended to other services because of the cutting back of the wires/the wires being late.

Plus operation over parts that the 800s/801s were never specified to operate over normally...remember the 802s' engines were uprated to cope with the Devon Banks among others.

47802 · 12 Jun 2018

jimm said:
That would depend on whether you thought the engine management and acceleration settings the DfT specified for the 800s were the optimum ones, whatever the extent of electrification. GWR don't appear to think so.

The GWR ones are specified for a totally different purpose and hence have different spec, the GWR DFT ones are working to a more uprated spec at present than originally intended at present due to Network fail why is that concept difficult for some people to grasp?

If they get the MML order then we will likely see a different spec to First Group 802's.

Sean Emmett · 12 Jun 2018

I have been timing 800s since their introduction into service and, from a performance point of view, the results are still mixed. For the 800s on diesel, full power (940 hp) only seems to be available up to around 30 mph or so, before easing back to 750 hp. When there's an engine out sometimes the others run up to the higher rating to compensate, sometimes not. Even when they do it only appears to be those in the same set that uprate, not those in the other set.

GWR/DfT/Agility seem unwilling to fully explain exactly what the original settings were, what changes have been made and whether any further changes are likely to be made, although the gen on here and the WNXX forum has been helpful.

I gather there has been a recent software upgrade for the 800s to try to sort out the traffic light reservation system (why has this taken so long?) and to update the SDO information in the light of recently extended platforms. Has there been any tweak to the engine management software as well?

It will be interesting to see how the 802s fare in comparison to the 800s. With the Berks & Hants shut for electrification works there may be a short window to sample them on diesel on diversions over the GWML, before the electrification to Swindon and beyond is available for passenger use.

jimm · 12 Jun 2018

47802 said:
The GWR ones are specified for a totally different purpose and hence have different spec, the GWR DFT ones are working to a more uprated spec at present than originally intended at present due to Network fail why is that concept difficult for some people to grasp?

If they get the MML order then we will likely see a different spec to First Group 802's.

What totally different purpose? Running a train service?

There is nothing stopping the use of 800s west of Newton Abbot, however they are set up. Just that it will not be expected to happen in the normal run of things and they would not pack the same punch for hill-climbing as an 802.

Well aware of what is going on with 800s at the moment as a result of electrification delays thanks - and why First/GWR specified the 802s as it did.

But that was not the point I was trying to make.

If the key basis of the engine and acceleration settings on the First Group-specfied 802s was simply about getting up and down the Devon banks, perhaps someone could explain why First Group has opted for Class 802s for Hull Trains as well?

The non-electrified routes between the ECML and Hull, via Goole or Selby, are notable chiefly for being nice and flat, so why not just go for something set up to the DfT specification for diesel operation, as that ought to be more than adequate?

Which suggests to me that the view within GWR/First Group is that they do not regard the DfT spec as being the optimum one, wherever 80x units are running on diesel - even if they will just have to live with it when it comes to using the 800s.

59CosG95 said:
Plus operation over parts that the 800s/801s were never specified to operate over normally...remember the 802s' engines were uprated to cope with the Devon Banks among others.

Sorry, but part of the initial 802 order was always intended to provide some peak workings on the Cotswold Line. Which is plain as day one of the places that that 800s were planned by the DFT to operate over normally on diesel power.

The Ham · 12 Jun 2018

I do wonder if there's an element of chicken or egg with the above logic.

It could be that, other than the Devon Banks, there was little need to change the specification but it was just easier to have one uniform fleet which could be used for wherever it was needed.

Of course the opposite could be true, that the IET specification was poor and needed changing just to cope with longer runs away from the wires.

Just because the logic fits one view, it doesn't mean that the other wasn't the reason.

D365 · 12 Jun 2018

59CosG95 said:
802009 & (presumably) 802010 are on their way, seen here passing through München Heimeranplatz.
(Credit to the original photographer)
View attachment 48211

An “InterCity Express” in Getmany that isn’t German!

Not often you can say that.

Bletchleyite · 12 Jun 2018

D365 said:
An “InterCity Express” in Getmany that isn’t German!

Not often you can say that.

I'd take the Siemens product any day.

Domh245 · 12 Jun 2018

jimm said:
The non-electrified routes between the ECML and Hull, via Goole or Selby, are notable chiefly for being nice and flat, so why not just go for something set up to the DfT specification for diesel operation, as that ought to be more than adequate?

Which suggests to me that the view within GWR/First Group is that they do not regard the DfT spec as being the optimum one, wherever 80x units are running on diesel - even if they will just have to live with it when it comes to using the 800s.

Of course there is nothing to stop the HT 802s being different to other 802s, they could quite easily modify the engine software to more closely match that of the 800s (or even optimise further), install smaller fuel tanks, etc. The only thing that might complicate it is the wording of the options contract

jimm · 12 Jun 2018

The Ham said:
I do wonder if there's an element of chicken or egg with the above logic.

It could be that, other than the Devon Banks, there was little need to change the specification but it was just easier to have one uniform fleet which could be used for wherever it was needed.

Of course the opposite could be true, that the IET specification was poor and needed changing just to cope with longer runs away from the wires.

Just because the logic fits one view, it doesn't mean that the other wasn't the reason.

Or it could be that the DFT told GWR to like it or lump it when it came to the engine and acceleration settings on the 800s, as with other aspects of the trains it ordered under IEP.

It has been noted previously on this forum that even the modified interim diesel power settings that DfT has permitted on the 800s are not to GWR's liking, so I feel it is perfectly reasonable to surmise that the 802s' set-up reflects the considered view from within First Group about what specification will work best for the 80xs.

Contrary to your statement above about the 800s

not being used on the B&H line

they were always intended by DfT to work Paddington-Exeter semi-fasts along Berks & Hants, and would seem a logical choice to cover Torbay services provided as extensions of those services as well.

Some Cotswold Line duties require far more running on diesel than electricity, which will continue for the long term.

At present, 95 so miles of a 150-mile Paddington-Hereford run are on diesel - and wires to Oxford will only take 10 miles off that. The DfT also envisaged 800s working empty between Hereford and Stoke Gifford depot - regular runs should start in a couple of weeks, which adds another 45 or so miles on diesel to/from Newport.

IETs working the 05.28/06.42 or their future equivalents from Hereford to Paddington, which work empty stock from Bristol - or evening services that end up back at the depot - will notch up 140 miles of sustained diesel running between Didcot, Hereford and Newport, which is the equivalent of Newbury to Newton Abbot.

And with plenty of climbing in the Malvern Hills and between Hereford and Pontypool along the way, plus Chipping Campden bank for a London-bound service, so not exactly a walk in the park. Nor is Sapperton bank for an eastbound service from Gloucester.

Domh245 said:
Of course there is nothing to stop the HT 802s being different to other 802s, they could quite easily modify the engine software to more closely match that of the 800s (or even optimise further), install smaller fuel tanks, etc. The only thing that might complicate it is the wording of the options contract

I think the fact that they are numbered as 802s should be enough of a clue as to the specification, as opposed to being an 800/x

Domh245 · 12 Jun 2018

jimm said:
I think the fact that they are numbered as 802s should be enough of a clue as to the specification, as opposed to being an 800/x

Attempting to find sense in contemporary rail vehicle numbering is a sign of madness :P

In all seriousness though, 800 vs 802 doesn't have to be used to differentiate performance & range, indeed I'd suggest that it better remains used to differentiate means of procurement (ie IEP contract vs Eversholt financed)

After all, the 800/0 and 800/3 fleets will be different to the 800/1 and 800/2 fleets in terms of fuel capacity & engine performance*, so there isn't any reason why the HT 802s have to be identical to the GWR 802s. That said, this article from RAIL seems to imply that the HT and TPE 802s will be "from the same batch" - so presumably they'll have near enough identical design in all aspects bar paint and interior decor - I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but I'm willing to guess that if HT can arrange for the engine output to be more suited to the flat routes to Hull rather than the Devon Banks or the Pennines, they'll do it - after all any savings they can make from operations means increased profit (as they don't have to pay any premiums to DfT as far as I'm aware)

*at least, as far as we know

PHILIPE · 13 Jun 2018

There is currently a severe shortage of GWR IETs availabile in traffic at the moment, 5 x 10 Car formations today reduced to 5 only. GWR Twitter has a cut and paste available to say that the shortfall is due to maintenance requirements and that the subsequent overcrowding must be frustrating. When people complain they explain proper answers rather than vagueness..

47802 · 13 Jun 2018

jimm said:
What totally different purpose? Running a train service?

There is nothing stopping the use of 800s west of Newton Abbot, however they are set up. Just that it will not be expected to happen in the normal run of things and they would not pack the same punch for hill-climbing as an 802.

Well aware of what is going on with 800s at the moment as a result of electrification delays thanks - and why First/GWR specified the 802s as it did.

But that was not the point I was trying to make.

If the key basis of the engine and acceleration settings on the First Group-specfied 802s was simply about getting up and down the Devon banks, perhaps someone could explain why First Group has opted for Class 802s for Hull Trains as well?

The non-electrified routes between the ECML and Hull, via Goole or Selby, are notable chiefly for being nice and flat, so why not just go for something set up to the DfT specification for diesel operation, as that ought to be more than adequate?

Which suggests to me that the view within GWR/First Group is that they do not regard the DfT spec as being the optimum one, wherever 80x units are running on diesel - even if they will just have to live with it when it comes to using the 800s.

Sorry, but part of the initial 802 order was always intended to provide some peak workings on the Cotswold Line. Which is plain as day one of the places that that 800s were planned by the DFT to operate over normally on diesel power.

First group may have a difference of opinion to the DFT so what, but also it is likely simpler to get the whole fleet of trains with the same spec and as has already been suggested Hull Trains may choose to run them de-rated or not.

You seem to be questioning my comment about a different purpose, yet it seems fairly clear to me that the DFT sets were designed to spend the majority of their time on Electric, and no need for over 100mph on Diesel, while the design for GWR was clearly tweaked to allow better performance and longer range on Diesel, and of course the DFT 800's on GWR have had to tweaked to some degree in terms of performance and longer range fuel tanks to take account of Network fail.

Now if you trying to say then that even in there intended roles for working on Diesel the DFT have under specified them and they will end up having to run at higher performance levels then originally intended well I guess we will have to see on that one.

D365 · 13 Jun 2018

47802 said:
... and of course the DFT 800's on GWR have had to tweaked to some degree in terms of performance and longer range fuel tanks to take account of Network fail.

Ah yes because the DfT are totally absolvent of blame here??

jimm · 13 Jun 2018

47802 said:
First group may have a difference of opinion to the DFT so what, but also it is likely simpler to get the whole fleet of trains with the same spec and as has already been suggested Hull Trains may choose to run them de-rated or not.

You seem to be questioning my comment about a different purpose, yet it seems fairly clear to me that the DFT sets were designed to spend the majority of their time on Electric, and no need for over 100mph on Diesel, while the design for GWR was clearly tweaked to allow better performance and longer range on Diesel, and of course the DFT 800's on GWR have had to tweaked to some degree in terms of performance and longer range fuel tanks to take account of Network fail.

Now if you trying to say then that even in there intended roles for working on Diesel the DFT have under specified them and they will end up having to run at higher performance levels then originally intended well I guess we will have to see on that one.

None of which is the same thing as what was being claimed by 159220 - the point I was actually addressing in the first place. here's a reminder:

The 802 is a true “diesel train with electric capabilities”

All 80x units are clearly bi-mode trains, with tweaks to specifications among the various sub-categories for various reasons, but none is a "true diesel train" in a million years.

PHILIPE said:
There is currently a severe shortage of GWR IETs availabile in traffic at the moment, 5 x 10 Car formations today reduced to 5 only. GWR Twitter has a cut and paste available to say that the shortfall is due to maintenance requirements and that the subsequent overcrowding must be frustrating. When people complain they explain proper answers rather than vagueness..

Cut and paste or simple statement of the facts? By now Hitachi should have supplied GWR with 36 five-car IETs, which would allow for 32 in traffic each day with four stopped for maintenance/spare.

Only 32 sets are available at the moment, with 001-004 still awaited by GWR for various reasons.

It looks like Hitachi has, perhaps not surprisingly, failed to achieve 100% availability from the 32. There were some short-forms yesterday morning as well, but at least one of them was restored to 2x5 for the afternoon peak, judging by later Journeycheck messages about services now being formed as planned.

As noted in the IET diagrams thread, GWR was expecting to have a couple of nine-car 800 sets available for traffic as of this morning and was planning to give them a soft launch on the Cotswold Line, ahead of formal diagrams from next Monday, thus freeing up a couple of five-car sets that could be used to make 2x5s.

This did not happen - though it still might tomorrow or Friday - and there are no spare HSTs around, so it was a choice of short-forms for some Bristol and South Wales trains while maintaining the frequencies or Cotswold Line cancellations where there is only an hourly service most of the day, so any cancellations blow big holes in the timetable and are a bit more than frustrating to passengers at places past Oxford.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...p-initial-diagrams-allocations.153431/page-31

47802 · 13 Jun 2018

D365 said:
Ah yes because the DfT are totally absolvent of blame here??

Maybe not but I'm not really commenting on that, merely the fact that there have had to be changes to the GWR 800's to take account of the fact that the GWR electrification scheme is years late and vastly over budget

Victor C · 13 Jun 2018

I went on a trip to the STEAM museum in Swindon yesterday, and took a Class 800 out and another one back.

800012 has a different type of fabric used for seat covers in standard class:

This is the door panel on 800012, although I was told by the Guard/Conductor that it's not actually used, as the doors are controlled by the driver.

800009 at Swindon:

800306 was working 5Z31 [STP] Swindon to North Pole IEP Depot:

It looked quite new, with bogie labels:

On my way back I had a look at the door locking mechanism. It looks like the doors are pushed outwards when the train reaches a certain speed, and released inwards when the train slows down.

Nippy · 13 Jun 2018

Those doors were very disconcerting when we came to a stand just outside Reading!

JN114 · 13 Jun 2018

Victor C said:
This is the door panel on 800012, although I was told by the Guard/Conductor that it's not actually used, as the doors are controlled by the driver.

The present method of operation for GWR sees the driver confirm train location on the TMS on arrival, release doors on the correct side then operate the pass door control button in the cab; which allows the guard to activate a panel. Guard then closes doors, train safety check, closes local door and gives RA to driver.

IET is capable of full driver or full guard control; the former will be used (obviously) for DOO services (5 car fast Oxfords and Bedwyns), no plans to use the latter mode at present.

Phil G · 13 Jun 2018

PHILIPE said:
There is currently a severe shortage of GWR IETs availabile in traffic at the moment, 5 x 10 Car formations today reduced to 5 only. GWR Twitter has a cut and paste available to say that the shortfall is due to maintenance requirements and that the subsequent overcrowding must be frustrating. When people complain they explain proper answers rather than vagueness..

In addition to short forms my train 1C03 the 07:00 Padd to Bristol, usually 2x5 was cancelled completely. Allegedly due to staff issue but seems unlikely given these shortages. Service has been dire these last few weeks.

Why are they introducing 9 cars on the Cheltenham services? They are needed on the Bristol and South Wales services where 2x5 is just rubbish due to the lack of mobility between sets.

JN114 · 13 Jun 2018

Phil G said:
Allegedly due to staff issue but seems unlikely given these shortages.

There was no IET qualified driver for the service - traincrew issues on GWR past few months have been well documented. What would possibly motivate GWR to lie about this - given Agility/Hitachi have stringent penalties for non-availability of sets they then blame themselves and something unrelated that’s their own responsibility? Complete nonsense.

To your second part (multi-quote not working for me) - the Cheltenham route has platforms shorter than 1x 5 car, so 5+5 with no walkthrough can result in people “trapped” on a set which won’t be platformed at their station. On the Bristol and S Wales routes all platforms can at least accommodate part of both sets. 10 cars are also restricted to only 1 platform at Gloucester. While some might argue 5+5 isn’t ideal for Bristol/S Wales services it’s a damn sight better for those routes than Cheltenham. I still don’t get the fascination with being able to walk between two completely identical sets - the only time I ever get up from my seat on a train (If I have one) is to use the bathroom; and even then only if on a longer journey. I don’t have sudden, unexplained urges to see if an impromptu art gallery has been installed in Coach B for customers travelling West of Llanelli.

jimm · 13 Jun 2018

Victor C said:
I went on a trip to the STEAM museum in Swindon yesterday, and took a Class 800 out and another one back.

800012 has a different type of seat cushion in standard class

No, it doesn't, it just has a different type of fabric used for the seat covers, which GWR says should give a softer feel to the seats. As already noted in this thread.

What lies beneath is the same as on any other Class 800.

Phil G · 13 Jun 2018

JN114 said:
There was no IET qualified driver for the service - traincrew issues on GWR past few months have been well documented. What would possibly motivate GWR to lie about this - given Agility/Hitachi have stringent penalties for non-availability of sets they then blame themselves and something unrelated that’s their own responsibility? Complete nonsense.

To your second part (multi-quote not working for me) - the Cheltenham route has platforms shorter than 1x 5 car, so 5+5 with no walkthrough can result in people “trapped” on a set which won’t be platformed at their station. On the Bristol and S Wales routes all platforms can at least accommodate part of both sets. 10 cars are also restricted to only 1 platform at Gloucester. While some might argue 5+5 isn’t ideal for Bristol/S Wales services it’s a damn sight better for those routes than Cheltenham. I still don’t get the fascination with being able to walk between two completely identical sets - the only time I ever get up from my seat on a train (If I have one) is to use the bathroom; and even then only if on a longer journey. I don’t have sudden, unexplained urges to see if an impromptu art gallery has been installed in Coach B for customers travelling West of Llanelli.

Well If i was introducing more trains to a schedule that should have happened some time ago i'd have recruited more drivers in time to implement it. I'd also have ensured the training programme was planned so that i could staff the new trains as they were introduced. So the real excuse is worse for me than if it had been because of lack of trains. Really isn't necessary to be so passive aggressive.
The reason everyone is fed up with 2x5 is that they are always formed in random configurations so you never know where first class is going to be and equally which portion of the train is going to be busy so when you get on you may need to walk to find a seat. If you only have the choice of half the train your chance of finding a seat has been halved, simple. You don't need an obsession with walking through trains to work that one out. When you pay to get to work on the train and one or both legs of your journey have been significantly late or cancelled every day this week and last week a number of totally packed 5 car short forms you get to be a bit cynical and annoyed.

irish_rail · 13 Jun 2018

JN114 said:
There was no IET qualified driver for the service - traincrew issues on GWR past few months have been well documented. What would possibly motivate GWR to lie about this - given Agility/Hitachi have stringent penalties for non-availability of sets they then blame themselves and something unrelated that’s their own responsibility? Complete nonsense.

To your second part (multi-quote not working for me) - the Cheltenham route has platforms shorter than 1x 5 car, so 5+5 with no walkthrough can result in people “trapped” on a set which won’t be platformed at their station. On the Bristol and S Wales routes all platforms can at least accommodate part of both sets. 10 cars are also restricted to only 1 platform at Gloucester. While some might argue 5+5 isn’t ideal for Bristol/S Wales services it’s a damn sight better for those routes than Cheltenham. I still don’t get the fascination with being able to walk between two completely identical sets - the only time I ever get up from my seat on a train (If I have one) is to use the bathroom; and even then only if on a longer journey. I don’t have sudden, unexplained urges to see if an impromptu art gallery has been installed in Coach B for customers travelling West of Llanelli.

So are we safe to assume Ivybridge will be lost to the Paddington Plymouth route with a short platform and services to be formed of 2x5 car sets ?

jimm · 13 Jun 2018

Phil G said:
Well If i was introducing more trains to a schedule that should have happened some time ago i'd have recruited more drivers in time to implement it. I'd also have ensured the training programme was planned so that i could staff the new trains as they were introduced. So the real excuse is worse for me than if it had been because of lack of trains. Really isn't necessary to be so passive aggressive.
The reason everyone is fed up with 2x5 is that they are always formed in random configurations so you never know where first class is going to be and equally which portion of the train is going to be busy so when you get on you may need to walk to find a seat. If you only have the choice of half the train your chance of finding a seat has been halved, simple. You don't need an obsession with walking through trains to work that one out. When you pay to get to work on the train and one or both legs of your journey have been significantly late or cancelled every day this week and last week a number of totally packed 5 car short forms you get to be a bit cynical and annoyed.

Fact. GWR has a record number of train drivers on its books.

Something like four months of the IET training programme were lost last summer last summer as Network Rail and Hitachi could not sort out issues over operation of the trains between Reading and Didcot for training until a few weeks before they entered service, so GWR has been playing catch-up since then. How would you plan your way out of that one then?

I've linked to it before, but probably worth repeating. Here's a letter from GWR md Mark Hopwood explaining some of the issues over IETs, among other things.

http://www.clpg.org.uk/blog/cotswold-line-service-problems-a-response-from-gwr/

irish_rail said:
So are we safe to assume Ivybridge will be lost to the Paddington Plymouth route with a short platform and services to be formed of 2x5 car sets ?

You know there will nine-car diagrams as well - and that there will be extra regional services in Devon and Cornwall, which are arguably the sort of services that should be calling at Ivybridge,

The current two or three HST calls a day each way, that appear to be just as much about local travel than anything else, doesn't exactly suggest that there is some mass market for travel to and from London at Ivybridge.

jimm · 13 Jun 2018

Nine-car 800304 confirmed as being in passenger traffic, working the 14.21 from Paddington to Worcester - just got a message to say it was seen at Moreton-in-Marsh and FGW_DID has had a ride on it apparently. See the IET diagrams thread

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...p-initial-diagrams-allocations.153431/page-31

Victor C · 13 Jun 2018

jimm said:
No, it doesn't, it just has a different type of fabric used for the seat covers, which GWR says should give a softer feel to the seats. As already noted in this thread.

What lies beneath is the same as on any other Class 800.

Thanks – corrected!

Nozzacook · 14 Jun 2018

When I was collecting tickets today from Penzance it was nice to see 802001 sitting in platform 2.

Charlie M. · 14 Jun 2018

Victor C said:
I went on a trip to the STEAM museum in Swindon yesterday, and took a Class 800 out and another one back.

800012 has a different type of fabric used for seat covers in standard class:

This is the door panel on 800012, although I was told by the Guard/Conductor that it's not actually used, as the doors are controlled by the driver.

800009 at Swindon:

800306 was working 5Z31 [STP] Swindon to North Pole IEP Depot:

It looked quite new, with bogie labels:

On my way back I had a look at the door locking mechanism. It looks like the doors are pushed outwards when the train reaches a certain speed, and released inwards when the train slows down.

Any more comfortable seats? Also, I thought the doors were released by driver and locked by guard? This is what I saw during my hour stranded at Didcot once.

And the doors scared the living ... out of me when I wasn’t pushed against the door on the 16:30 to Taunton!

corsaVXR · 14 Jun 2018

Victor C said:
I went on a trip to the STEAM museum in Swindon yesterday, and took a Class 800 out and another one back.

800012 has a different type of fabric used for seat covers in standard class:

Another photo here. It's a really poor fit - it doesn't look like the cover has been designed to the underlying cushion well. Looks cheap and old.

GWR Class 800

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member