• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

GWR Class 800

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pete_uk

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2017
Messages
1,252
Location
Stroud, Glos
Once they have finished getting the 800's into service I'm sure they will look at the ride quality and find that a bit of a tweak at maintenance time that will help. Also remember that we are riding trains sometimes in their first week of service.

As it happens I went into Gloucester about a decade ago on a Midland Mainline ex Rio MK3. Now that did float over the rails, but maybe that was just luck that it had got like that.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,099
Location
Reading
Once they have finished getting the 800's into service I'm sure they will look at the ride quality and find that a bit of a tweak at maintenance time that will help. Also remember that we are riding trains sometimes in their first week of service.
Why would Agility Trains spend time and money to improved something (ride, seat squishyness, whatever) if it (a) can be shown to meet the specification or (b) they are not being paid for it?

Finding the source(s) and transmission path(s) of the Noise, Vibration Harshness (NVH) and the occasional crashes and bangs experienced by the passenger and designing and installing a fix falls well outside a 'bit of a tweak'.

Trains should be at their best when they are brand new, when all the components are 'as designed' and not worn.
As it happens I went into Gloucester about a decade ago on a Midland Mainline ex Rio MK3. Now that did float over the rails, but maybe that was just luck that it had got like that.

That's what Mk 3s were originally like. It wasn't luck.
 

bastien

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2016
Messages
427
Why would Agility Trains spend time and money to improved something (ride, seat squishyness, whatever) if it (a) can be shown to meet the specification or (b) they are not being paid for it?

To stop their trains vibrating and/or tearing themseves apart and therefore needing extra maintenance, maybe?
 

gallafent

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2010
Messages
517
But are they (the IEPs) really that bad?

I haven't done any proper measurements and graphing yet, but I did start getting some tools on my phone for measuring and logging vibration and noise levels the other day. A little bit of playing with an SPL meter (Haven't done any logging runs yet, and haven't played properly with the vibration logger with the phone held firmly to a seat back or window (for example)) suggested that an HST Mk3 at 120mph is somewhere aroung 5dB quieter than an IET when stationary (transformer hum? Air con? Coach A in both cases (IET was 9 coaches), so next to the front power car on the HST and in a non-diesel-containing coach on the IET (did my sampling under the wires east of Didcot anyway)). Really. So I fear they are. Definitely looking forward to doing some vibration logging runs. Sort of looking forward.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
Trains should be at their best when they are brand new, when all the components are 'as designed' and not worn.
Has any train/loco/carriage been 'at its best' when first introduced? Remember the Class 458s? So bad, SWT were going to send them back to the ROSCO in 2004 when they couldn't even manage 5,000 miles per failure. Then, eight years later after some intensive TLC, they became the most reliable unit in Britain - the first to achieve over 100,000 miles per failure.

It's not a new phenomenon either. Even the venerable 1938 tube stock had a lot of teething troubles. But they're still going strong on the Isle of Wight today.
 

Charlie M.

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2015
Messages
170
Location
Gloucester
The IET was rushed. Both GWR and DfT’s fault. Most commuters do not want to keep the HST because of the train but because of the issues that the two involved have caused.

1. Shortforms will probably be a fault only occurrence by February March time as all IETs would have been introduced without the loss of rolling stock.
2. The hard seats will be sorted soon before GWR twitter team will have to put out a auto reply for the seats.
3. Standing room only will be rare with the new timetable, unless point 1 is in effect.
4. Faults with the units would be fixed soon, and by 2020 will be good trains.

I don’t like to try and talk to train enthusiasts who criticise the IET as bad compared to the HST as they are not the people who experiance this everyday. These trains are not suitable for a busy network 40 years after first produced! British Rail fans want steam back if they could!
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,099
Location
Reading
Has any train/loco/carriage been 'at its best' when first introduced? Remember the Class 458s? So bad, SWT were going to send them back to the ROSCO in 2004 when they couldn't even manage 5,000 miles per failure. Then, eight years later after some intensive TLC, they became the most reliable unit in Britain - the first to achieve over 100,000 miles per failure.

It's not a new phenomenon either. Even the venerable 1938 tube stock had a lot of teething troubles. But they're still going strong on the Isle of Wight today.
I am sorry - what I wrote was possibly ambiguous. What I was trying to say that wear in bogie components will lead to reduction in ride quality, so a brand new bogie will ride better than one due for overhaul. My statement was not intended to address development work on the train - I assumed that that phase in the life cycle of the train had already been completed.
The IET was rushed. Both GWR and DfT’s fault. Most commuters do not want to keep the HST because of the train but because of the issues that the two involved have caused.

1. Shortforms will probably be a fault only occurrence by February March time as all IETs would have been introduced without the loss of rolling stock.
2. The hard seats will be sorted soon before GWR twitter team will have to put out a auto reply for the seats.
3. Standing room only will be rare with the new timetable, unless point 1 is in effect.
4. Faults with the units would be fixed soon, and by 2020 will be good trains.

I don’t like to try and talk to train enthusiasts who criticise the IET as bad compared to the HST as they are not the people who experiance this everyday. These trains are not suitable for a busy network 40 years after first produced! British Rail fans want steam back if they could!
My comments have nothing whatsoever to do with whether passengers want to continue with HSTs or not and I am not, repeat not, suggesting that the IEP is 'bad' (for some value of 'bad') compared to the HST. What I am suggesting is that certain aspects of the ride and Noise Vibration and Harshness of the IEP as experienced by the passengers are not what one would expect for a train which was designed nearly 50 years after the HST and which is expected to remain in front line service for another quarter of a century.

One would hope that the faults are fixed sooner than 2020 - because Agility Trains only gets paid (the full amount) if the trains fulfil their scheduled diagrams.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,453
Location
UK
The IET was rushed. Both GWR and DfT’s fault. Most commuters do not want to keep the HST because of the train but because of the issues that the two involved have caused.

1. Shortforms will probably be a fault only occurrence by February March time as all IETs would have been introduced without the loss of rolling stock.
2. The hard seats will be sorted soon before GWR twitter team will have to put out a auto reply for the seats.
3. Standing room only will be rare with the new timetable, unless point 1 is in effect.
4. Faults with the units would be fixed soon, and by 2020 will be good trains.

I don’t like to try and talk to train enthusiasts who criticise the IET as bad compared to the HST as they are not the people who experiance this everyday. These trains are not suitable for a busy network 40 years after first produced! British Rail fans want steam back if they could!

I agree that the HSTs need to go, but the IETs aren't the best replacement.
They're worse than the HST in comfort and ride quality.
In an ideal world we'd replace them with a UK sized RailJet (they are brilliant trains, and an improvement on the HST)
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
I agree that the HSTs need to go, but the IETs aren't the best replacement.
They're worse than the HST in comfort and ride quality.
In an ideal world we'd replace them with a UK sized RailJet (they are brilliant trains, and an improvement on the HST)

But what unit is better than the HST that currently operates in the UK?

This may be the closest in ride and comfort for a unit so far?
 
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
61
Trains should be at their best when they are brand new, when all the components are 'as designed' and not worn.

The Power Cars were often adorned with experiment plaques of modifications, all through the 80s, so that's not necessarily true.
Much like the latest version of operating system software, wait until the x.1 version comes out, ironing out all the bugs from the brand new as designed features.

Edit - I see you're meaning suspension components. That's true of course that brand new should mean better.
Getting rid of the original awful smelling brake pads on the Mark 3s on the other hand!
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
Are the 9 car trains any better at accelerating?
Almost exactly the same, they have a very similar power to weight ratio, and as regards diagramming and timetabling a 9 car bi mode and a pair of 5 car bi modes are intended to be interchangeable, also suggesting very similar performance
 

gingertom

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2017
Messages
1,256
Location
Kilsyth
Almost exactly the same, they have a very similar power to weight ratio, and as regards diagramming and timetabling a 9 car bi mode and a pair of 5 car bi modes are intended to be interchangeable, also suggesting very similar performance
the 5 car is marginally better but the difference is so slight you'd be hard put to measure the difference with a stopwatch. As you say the performance difference is negligible allowing diagramming for both to be interchangeable with no performance impact.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Probably a 444?

Fair do's the ride of a 444 or 350 may be superior to a HST, some would debate that I'm sure. But would anyone say the 444 interior is better than the 800s? Seat padding excluded.

I'm betting that if a 444 type unit capable of bi-mode had been specified for GWR people would have complained and said they were introducing inter regional spec trains onto intercity routes.
 
Last edited:

Clansman

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2016
Messages
2,573
Location
Hong Kong
people would have complained and said they were introducing inter regional spec trains onto intercity routes.
What is the primary difference in this though in terms of the 444s vs IETs? A window blind, 25mph enhanced running speed, and an end gangway?
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,099
Location
Reading
Fair do's the ride of a 444 or 350 may be superior to a HST, some would debate that I'm sure. But would anyone say the 444 interior is better than the 800s? Seat padding excluded.

I'm betting that if a 444 type unit capable of bi-mode had been specified for GWR people would have complained and said they were introducing inter regional spec trains onto intercity routes.
A railway coach is simply a steel or aluminium tube with windows and doors. The tube is agnostic as to whether it will become an inter-regional or inter-city or inter-urban train - with the slight proviso that crashworthiness requirements may vary with the maximum operating speed. (Coach bodies for metro-type services tend to have more doors, so these bodies are intended for a particular use).

What makes the difference to the passengers perception of the type of train is the choice and arrangement of the internal furnishings and fittings - not the body structure.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,321
What is the primary difference in this though in terms of the 444s vs IETs? A window blind, 25mph enhanced running speed, and an end gangway?

With some minor changes like the 350's received you could probably drop the speed difference to 15mph.

Edit: until in cab signals and then it goes back to 25mph
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
A railway coach is simply a steel or aluminium tube with windows and doors. The tube is agnostic as to whether it will become an inter-regional or inter-city or inter-urban train - with the slight proviso that crashworthiness requirements may vary with the maximum operating speed. (Coach bodies for metro-type services tend to have more doors, so these bodies are intended for a particular use).

What makes the difference to the passengers perception of the type of train is the choice and arrangement of the internal furnishings and fittings - not the body structure.

Ok good point.

So are we thinking that theoretically a 444/350 type unit (AC capable), cable of 125mph bi-mode, fitted with the internal setup of an IET and end vestibules (444 has these anyway) would have been an improvement on the class 80xs?

And that possibly these are the only units in services that actually do ride better than the 80xs up until now?
Or do the 700s offer an improvement ride quality/noise/vibration wise?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,321
Ok good point.

So are we thinking that theoretically a 444/350 type unit (AC capable), cable of 125mph bi-mode, fitted with the internal setup of an IET and end vestibules (444 has these anyway) would have been an improvement on the class 80xs?

And that possibly these are the only units in services that actually do ride better than the 80xs up until now?
Or do the 700s offer an improvement ride quality/noise/vibration wise?

They certainly would have been much quieter between Didcot and Oxford than the current trains, although maybe not able to transport as many passengers.
 

LiftFan

Member
Joined
27 May 2016
Messages
343
Just stick a dogbox on every Paddington service instead of an 800 then see how long it takes until the passengers want them back...
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
10,030
Just stick a dogbox on every Paddington service instead of an 800 then see how long it takes until the passengers want them back...
So you're saying that as long as a long distance train is an improvement over a 153 we should be happy? Not really a viable argument.
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
Are we at the point now where there are more IETs in service than HSTs?

Also, does each unit have to go through mileage accumulation before being released into service?
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,453
Location
UK
Are we at the point now where there are more IETs in service than HSTs?

Also, does each unit have to go through mileage accumulation before being released into service?

I don't know about specific numbers, but from a casual observation it's very close to 50/50 atm, with probably a few more 800s than HSTs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top