GWR Class 800

36270k · 15 May 2019

800302 struggling today on the Worcester line with several engines out. Causing late running to others over the single line sections.

RailUK Forums

Pete_uk · 16 May 2019

Several engines? That's not good for a new unit surly?

Also, I don't like the idea of giving a train two names.

Oh yeah, seen the pictures of the Azuma 800s buffet area? Very nice.

jimm · 16 May 2019

fgwrich said:
No doubt I’ll be told off for this as well by the everything’s fine brigade, but I have a new complaint with these units. I’m currently travelling on one of the 800/3s, along a route I have travelled on near daily for many years, at linespeed. Yet nothing I’ve travelled on has oscillated this badly before. There’s a lot of side to side motion and subsequent rattling / creaking.

Unfortunately for this forum I’ve filmed it as a video but can’t upload it.

I assume this mean to be a reference to me, so would you please enlighten me as to where exactly I have ever said everything is perfect, or anything remotely like that?

There is a world of difference between saying that and commenting on things that are wrong, half-baked, nonsense, etc. And often repeated

Yesterday I too experienced some rough riding on an 800, but then I have also experienced rough riding on Mk4s, which no one ever seems to have got to grips with in 30 years, and the 180s in their early years, to give an example from GW-land, which could be truly awful on anything but the most beautifully-tamped track with continuous welded rails and still lurched across pointwork in some places until they left GWR at the end of 2017.

Master29 said:
There you go again Jimm, leaning on Clarence yard for all your replies. We know he has his finger on the pulse and works in the front line and I for one respect that. I disagree with him on points of the IET as a train now but that`s a viewpoint. I am also fully aware that some of the 802`s were intended for the Cotswolds routes hence the reason seven further 9 car units were introduced. Incidentally that cannot have been true when the original DtT procurement of 21 Electric 9 car and 36 bi mode 5 car for the South Wales routes was made can it as there was no mention of replacing the West of England stock at that time so why would they now need 802`s on these routes. Surely with all the millions spent on consultations and various other money drains they would have known this.

Please explain why I should not cite factual information from someone within GWR? What exactly is your problem with me, or anyone else, doing so? Since when have I relied on Clarence Yard for "all" my replies?

Sets from the initial order for 802s were always intended to help out with peak time workings on the Cotswold Line, because, as I said, the initial order for IETs placed by the DfT did not provide the number needed to operate the timetables that the DfT told GWR it wanted to see in future.

The follow-on order for seven more nine-car 802s was made because of the decision to put Oxford electrification on hold, making it impossible for Class 387s to cover some of the Oxford fast services, as initially planned, and the decision to maintain through services between London and Bedwyn, rather than passengers at the stations west of Newbury being put in a Turbo shuttle. The extra nine-car sets allowed for 2x5 formations to be split up to cover the higher number of five-car duties that resulted from those decisions.

cactustwirly said:
I was under the impression that splitting/joining at Oxford had been dropped, because of punctuality issues.
Doesn't the Worcester route not have a clock face timetable anyway?

The Cotswold Line has steadily got closer to a baseline hourly service over the years, but isn't quite there yet. There are still trains that turn back at Moreton-in-Marsh from Monday to Saturday, but it will be hourly between London and Worcester from the start of the new timetable - plus the usual peak extras into London in the morning and back in the afternoon peak.

northernbelle · 16 May 2019

jimm said:
I assume this mean to be a reference to me, so would you please enlighten me as to where exactly I have ever said everything is perfect, or anything remotely like that?

There is a world of difference between saying that and commenting on things that are wrong, half-baked, nonsense, etc. And often repeated

Yesterday I too experienced some rough riding on an 800, but then I have also experienced rough riding on Mk4s, which no one ever seems to have got to grips with in 30 years, and the 180s in their early years, to give an example from GW-land, which could be truly awful on anything but the most beautifully-tamped track with continuous welded rails and still lurched across pointwork in some places until they left GWR at the end of 2017.

Please explain why I should not cite factual information from someone within GWR? What exactly is your problem with me, or anyone else, doing so? Since when have I relied on Clarence Yard for "all" my replies?

Sets from the initial order for 802s were always intended to help out with peak time workings on the Cotswold Line, because, as I said, the initial order for IETs placed by the DfT did not provide the number needed to operate the timetables that the DfT told GWR it wanted to see in future.

The follow-on order for seven more nine-car 802s was made because of the decision to put Oxford electrification on hold, making it impossible for Class 387s to cover some of the Oxford fast services, as initially planned, and the decision to maintain through services between London and Bedwyn, rather than passengers at the stations west of Newbury being put in a Turbo shuttle. The extra nine-car sets allowed for 2x5 formations to be split up to cover the higher number of five-car duties that resulted from those decisions.

The Cotswold Line has steadily got closer to a baseline hourly service over the years, but isn't quite there yet. There are still trains that turn back at Moreton-in-Marsh from Monday to Saturday, but it will be hourly between London and Worcester from the start of the new timetable - plus the usual peak extras into London in the morning and back in the afternoon peak.

I wouldn't worry yourself about it too much Jimm. There's a core of forum members here who won't be told anything except the negative when it comes to IETs - the fact is there are plus and minus points - I'm sitting on the 0740 Paignton-Paddington via Bristol now, and the 802 is keeping time far better than the previous HST ever did.

There are some valid points being made (albeit so hammered they are rather boring now), but just be happy in the thought that a number of specific individuals continually post based on opinion and anecdote rather than fact and first-hand knowledge.

Master29 · 16 May 2019

northernbelle said:
I wouldn't worry yourself about it too much Jimm. There's a core of forum members here who won't be told anything except the negative when it comes to IETs - the fact is there are plus and minus points - I'm sitting on the 0740 Paignton-Paddington via Bristol now, and the 802 is keeping time far better than the previous HST ever did.

There are some valid points being made (albeit so hammered they are rather boring now), but just be happy in the thought that a number of specific individuals continually post based on opinion and anecdote rather than fact and first-hand knowledge.

It isn`t just based on opinion though is it. Valid reasons have been given and you just dismiss it all in one sentence as anecdotal. That the Dft didn`t order enough trains for GWR on the South Wales Cotswolds lines goes to show what a cock up this project has been all along. Millions or possibly billions spent on consultations couldn`t forsee this? The electrification fiasco, some poorly built brand new trains with cheap looking interiors, costs running billions over budget. Sounds a bit more than anecdotal to me. As to the 802 keeping time far better than a 40+ year old train, I don`t think that`s even worth a statement and if you take that over that time period it isn`t true anyway.

northernbelle · 16 May 2019

Master29 said:
It isn`t just based on opinion though is it. Valid reasons have been given and you just dismiss it all in one sentence as anecdotal. That the Dft didn`t order enough trains for GWR on the South Wales Cotswolds lines goes to show what a cock up this project has been all along. Millions or possibly billions spent on consultations couldn`t forsee this? The electrification fiasco, some poorly built brand new trains with cheap looking interiors, costs running billions over budget. Sounds a bit more than anecdotal to me. As to the 802 keeping time far better than a 40+ year old train, I don`t think that`s even worth a statement and if you take that over that time period it isn`t true anyway.

You've rather evidenced the 'opinion and anecdote' aspect of my post, haven't you?

'Cheap looking interiors' - where's the evidence for that other than it being your opinion? There have been some failures on new units, and some rattles on others - but the majority I travel on seem solid enough (my opinion) - the MTIN figures (evidence) show the HSTs to be less reliable than the IETs, despite the IETs not yet achieving their design reliability. GWR's train service performance is sitting at nearly 94% - higher than for a long time and thanks in no small part to IET performance (power doors, acceleration, dwell times at short platforms etc).

As for 'billions over budget' - the electrification scheme may well be, but I don't recall the IET orders running significantly over budget? The additional cost I'm aware of is bi-moding 21 x 9 car sets as a result of curtailed electrification.

And timekeeping? It very much is worth a statement. While end-to-end journey times might be comparable with 1976 HSTs, the IETs will be delivering those with quite a few additional stops en route. That's without the huge increase in frequency and capacity that wasn't offered in the 70s. I was making a direct comparison on a specific service that has recently changed from HST to IET operation - and the performance of the IET was significantly better. In the spirit of evidence, not anecdote, have a look at the arrival times at each station here: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C54400/2019/05/16/advanced - noting a delay departing Bristol Temple Meads after someone dropped some luggage on the track. From experience, an HST struggled to keep up with those times because of the dwell times at unstaffed stations and more sedate acceleration between closely spaced stops.

northernbelle · 16 May 2019

Master29 said:
It isn`t just based on opinion though is it. Valid reasons have been given and you just dismiss it all in one sentence as anecdotal. That the Dft didn`t order enough trains for GWR on the South Wales Cotswolds lines goes to show what a cock up this project has been all along. Millions or possibly billions spent on consultations couldn`t forsee this? The electrification fiasco, some poorly built brand new trains with cheap looking interiors, costs running billions over budget. Sounds a bit more than anecdotal to me. As to the 802 keeping time far better than a 40+ year old train, I don`t think that`s even worth a statement and if you take that over that time period it isn`t true anyway.

Apologies, I didn't address the 'cock up', as you put it, in ordering enough trains.

Enough trains were ordered, but the additional 802s for the Cotswold route will displace 800s to work to Bedwyn to maintain the existing through services.

The original plan for Bedwyn had been 387s to Newbury with a Turbo shuttle from there, so the opportunity was taken to maintain the through service, increase capacity, displace more Turbos towards Bristol and add 7 extra 9-car IETs into the fleet - win-win in my view.

Clarence Yard · 16 May 2019

There were not enough trains ordered in the original 800 build. The proposed formations in the original DfT/SDG plan were insufficient for the loadings and this had to be addressed via the initial 802 order.

The move to bi-modes for the 800 9 cars dropped the TARA availability from 18 to 17 and that had to be addressed via the 2nd 802 order which also had to directly/indirectly deal with the Oxford/Bedwyn issues.

northernbelle · 16 May 2019

Clarence Yard said:
There were not enough trains ordered in the original 800 build. The proposed formations in the original DfT/SDG plan were insufficient for the loadings and this had to be addressed via the initial 802 order.

The move to bi-modes for the 800 9 cars dropped the TARA availability from 18 to 17 and that had to be addressed via the 2nd 802 order which also had to directly/indirectly deal with the Oxford/Bedwyn issues.

My understanding was that, in similar vein to the 802 order, the Cotswold line was always to be part-served by whatever the WoE fleet turned out to be (whether rebuilt HST or 222), and so the original order of 800s was sufficient to cover what was envisaged at the time? Feeling like I might have dreamt that now.

Master29 · 16 May 2019

northernbelle said:
Apologies, I didn't address the 'cock up', as you put it, in ordering enough trains.

Enough trains were ordered, but the additional 802s for the Cotswold route will displace 800s to work to Bedwyn to maintain the existing through services.

The original plan for Bedwyn had been 387s to Newbury with a Turbo shuttle from there, so the opportunity was taken to maintain the through service, increase capacity, displace more Turbos towards Bristol and add 7 extra 9-car IETs into the fleet - win-win in my view.

That does make a little more sense now as I had thought the Bedwyns were originally considered in the order. My bad too. Clarence Yard as ever on hand to clarify things.

irish_rail · 16 May 2019

northernbelle said:
I wouldn't worry yourself about it too much Jimm. There's a core of forum members here who won't be told anything except the negative when it comes to IETs - the fact is there are plus and minus points - I'm sitting on the 0740 Paignton-Paddington via Bristol now, and the 802 is keeping time far better than the previous HST ever did.

There are some valid points being made (albeit so hammered they are rather boring now), but just be happy in the thought that a number of specific individuals continually post based on opinion and anecdote rather than fact and first-hand knowledge.

Hmmm I regularly drive the train u mention and never had a problem keeping it to time as an HST so not quite sure what point you are making there???? Is that first hand enough for you???

northernbelle · 16 May 2019

irish_rail said:
Hmmm I regularly drive the train u mention and never had a problem keeping it to time as an HST so not quite sure what point you are making there???? Is that first hand enough for you???

I'm sorry but I simply don't agree and as a daily user of that service suspect I travel on it more regularly than you drive it. There was never enough dwell time at the likes of Starcross, Exeter St Thomas, Nailsea or similar (except when a second TM was provided to assist with doors).

A right time 1000 departure from Temple Meads was rarely achieved with an HST - has become the norm since 802s were introduced.

northernbelle · 16 May 2019

irish_rail said:
Hmmm I regularly drive the train u mention and never had a problem keeping it to time as an HST so not quite sure what point you are making there???? Is that first hand enough for you???

In the spirit of data and facts as evidence, I've pulled the recent arrival times for 1A12 into Bristol. The first two weeks are HST operated, the subsequent three weeks are IET operated. The figure is against the Bristol Temple Meads arrival time (0957).

15 April - 1002 - 5L
16 April - 1007 - 10L
17 April - 1003 - 6L
18 April - 1002 - 5L
19 April - Cancelled

22 April - 0957 - RT
23 April - 1005 - 8L
24 April - 1012 - 15L
25 April - 0959 - 2L
26 April - 1000 - 3L

HST operated above
IET operated below

29 April - 0957 - RT
30 April - 1003 - 6L
1 May - 0957 - RT
2 May - 1002 - 5L
3 May - 1013 - 16L

6 May - 0957 - RT
7 May - 0958 - 1L
8 May - 0958 - 1L
9 May - 0957 - RT
10 May - 0957 - RT

13 May - 0958 - 1L
14 May - 1000 - 3L
15 May - 0957 - RT
16 May - 0957 - RT

While every delay is not down to rolling stock, the recent uptick in performance on this particular service isn't just a coincidence.

route101 · 16 May 2019

Mikey C said:
If it ever actually operated in electric mode in the first place!

Now thats an interesting point , i think i did see the panto up

CptCharlee · 16 May 2019

Does anyone know if any formal conversation regarding catering and buffet cars have taken place between GWR and DfT? Or is it a case of nothing is changing lets hope the passengers calm down and move on?

There social media is ripe with people complaining about trolleys not coming through and lack of catering. I mean it's going to be impossible to do on the 5 cars.

irish_rail · 16 May 2019

northernbelle said:
In the spirit of data and facts as evidence, I've pulled the recent arrival times for 1A12 into Bristol. The first two weeks are HST operated, the subsequent three weeks are IET operated. The figure is against the Bristol Temple Meads arrival time (0957).

15 April - 1002 - 5L
16 April - 1007 - 10L
17 April - 1003 - 6L
18 April - 1002 - 5L
19 April - Cancelled

22 April - 0957 - RT
23 April - 1005 - 8L
24 April - 1012 - 15L
25 April - 0959 - 2L
26 April - 1000 - 3L

HST operated above
IET operated below

29 April - 0957 - RT
30 April - 1003 - 6L
1 May - 0957 - RT
2 May - 1002 - 5L
3 May - 1013 - 16L

6 May - 0957 - RT
7 May - 0958 - 1L
8 May - 0958 - 1L
9 May - 0957 - RT
10 May - 0957 - RT

13 May - 0958 - 1L
14 May - 1000 - 3L
15 May - 0957 - RT
16 May - 0957 - RT

While every delay is not down to rolling stock, the recent uptick in performance on this particular service isn't just a coincidence.

It's all about regulation my friend. So often running on time and at bristol west checked down due to a conflicting movement although admittedly this does seem to have improved a little lately. Similarly in past six months it has been Penzance drivers from Newton abbot to Exeter and they do not have experience at stopping at the starcrosses and st Thomas of this world , whereas Plymouth men are used to stopping at these and thus are far better at keeping time. I suspect the improvement now being seen is as much to do with Penzance drivers increasing in confidence at stopping at those little stations.

irish_rail · 16 May 2019

CptCharlee said:
Does anyone know if any formal conversation regarding catering and buffet cars have taken place between GWR and DfT? Or is it a case of nothing is changing lets hope the passengers calm down and move on?

There social media is ripe with people complaining about trolleys not coming through and lack of catering. I mean it's going to be impossible to do on the 5 cars.

Personally I'd say it's almost inevitable we will have to see a Change in the next couple of years such is the anger and opposition amongst customers and staff to the inadequate trolley services. Whether it will occur on all sets who knows but I think it's a fair assumption changes will be coming on the longer distance routes.....

Clarence Yard · 16 May 2019

CptCharlee said:
Does anyone know if any formal conversation regarding catering and buffet cars have taken place between GWR and DfT? Or is it a case of nothing is changing lets hope the passengers calm down and move on?

There social media is ripe with people complaining about trolleys not coming through and lack of catering. I mean it's going to be impossible to do on the 5 cars.

None whatsoever. The DfT are, apparently, not asking for any changes in the forthcoming direct award either which is not totally surprising as financing any rolling stock changes with just a two year direct award period on offer is nigh on impossible.

Pete_uk · 17 May 2019

Anyone know why one of the 9 carriage Paddington to Cheltenham services is cancelled? The 2 carriage trains following as far as swindon be packed.

Nippy · 17 May 2019

The ECS hit something on the way to Swindon, damaging brakes and ATP equipment. They are trying to get a set to Gloucester to start the 08:31 from Cheltenham there.

Pete_uk · 17 May 2019

OK, thanks. I suppose its good it was a something rather than someone.

Thatcham Xing · 17 May 2019

irish_rail said:
Personally I'd say it's almost inevitable we will have to see a Change in the next couple of years

Not saying it will make a difference, but the clamour will only increase now that LNER have introduced the Azuma into service with a buffet (and trolley).

bastien · 17 May 2019

route101 said:
Now thats an interesting point , i think i did see the panto up

It's pretty funny that this thread has gone from 'aaargh underfloor engines, voyager mark 2 grrr' rage to 'actually, I can't tell if they are running on diesel or not', Isn't it?

irish_rail · 17 May 2019

bastien said:
It's pretty funny that this thread has gone from 'aaargh underfloor engines, voyager mark 2 grrr' rage to 'actually, I can't tell if they are running on diesel or not', Isn't it?

If u can't tell your probably in an un powered coach. It is very noticeable (on 802s anyway) when sat in a diesel coach, though admittedly not quite as bad as voyagers in that respect

northernbelle · 17 May 2019

irish_rail said:
It's all about regulation my friend. So often running on time and at bristol west checked down due to a conflicting movement although admittedly this does seem to have improved a little lately. Similarly in past six months it has been Penzance drivers from Newton abbot to Exeter and they do not have experience at stopping at the starcrosses and st Thomas of this world , whereas Plymouth men are used to stopping at these and thus are far better at keeping time. I suspect the improvement now being seen is as much to do with Penzance drivers increasing in confidence at stopping at those little stations.

I'm not convinced. The same data shows a similar trend for departure times from Nailsea & Backwell. We do occasionally sit at Bristol West, but the time was generally lost by sitting at unstaffed stations for twice as long as booked.

Bletchleyite · 17 May 2019

irish_rail said:
If u can't tell your probably in an un powered coach. It is very noticeable (on 802s anyway) when sat in a diesel coach, though admittedly not quite as bad as voyagers in that respect

It's about as noticeable as it is in a Class 230, i.e. not very noticeable once underway.

Antman · 17 May 2019

It is obvious when you're on diesel. They thrum away. Especially under acceleration. As you'd expect- they're on diesel and you're basically in a metal tube that will reverberate. The NVH has not been eradicated. It's just not as bad as a Voyager. And they don't smell of poo.

If they were replacing XCs 4 car Voyagers, with the Voyagers cascading to routes run by 158s or similar, then the 800s would be an improvement. Sadly, as I think may be becoming more accepted (on here), they are not really flagship intercity trains, they are highish density medium to long distance commuter interiors (bar a large waste of kitchen space)

Bletchleyite · 17 May 2019

Justapunter said:
It is obvious when you're on diesel. They thrum away. Especially under acceleration. As you'd expect- they're on diesel and you're basically in a metal tube that will reverberate. The NVH has not been eradicated. It's just not as bad as a Voyager. And they don't smell of poo.

If they were replacing XCs 4 car Voyagers, with the Voyagers cascading to routes run by 158s or similar, then the 800s would be an improvement. Sadly, as I think may be becoming more accepted (on here), they are not really flagship intercity trains, they are highish density medium to long distance commuter interiors (bar a large waste of kitchen space)

Apart from the seats being a bit rubbish they're on a par with the Class 444 - but that does some pretty long runs e.g. Weymouth, which is far more of a "proper" InterCity journey than the "shuttle" to Bristol.

cactustwirly · 17 May 2019

Justapunter said:
It is obvious when you're on diesel. They thrum away. Especially under acceleration. As you'd expect- they're on diesel and you're basically in a metal tube that will reverberate. The NVH has not been eradicated. It's just not as bad as a Voyager. And they don't smell of poo.

If they were replacing XCs 4 car Voyagers, with the Voyagers cascading to routes run by 158s or similar, then the 800s would be an improvement. Sadly, as I think may be becoming more accepted (on here), they are not really flagship intercity trains, they are highish density medium to long distance commuter interiors (bar a large waste of kitchen space)

I don't get the 'proper intercity trains' marlarkey, with the exception of a missing buffet counter, they are intercity trains in my view.

Bletchleyite · 17 May 2019

cactustwirly said:
I don't get the 'proper intercity trains' marlarkey, with the exception of a missing buffet counter, they are intercity trains in my view.

They seem to be being very well received on LNER despite being basically the same train (give or take the buffet cupboard - it's not exactly a nicely-done open counter or cafe area with seating). This might suggest that the issue is FirstGroup, not the train.

GWR Class 800

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member