samuelmorris
Established Member
If you use the 'CAN' filter in RTT (next to the WTT/VAR/STP buttons in the top right) it'll show services removed from the timetable.
-
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!
Class 800 upgrades to address performance and reliability issues
- Thread starter Railperf
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Siemens Staines
Member
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 782
So it does, I never knew that - thank you for that information. This isn't how most cancelled trains that were planned to run, but cancelled on the day are treated though is it?
It was CAN'ed 'OZ - Other Network Rail Operating cause'
Although I am slightly miffed about it appearing to be a planned cancelation. Usually, the cancellations put in during the day remain in the schedule list, and simply don't run (cancelled). They don't usually make it into the 'CAN' list on somewhere like RTT (not that I've ever seen anyway).
Last edited:
Although, I see it is a 'VSTP cancellation'. Which may affect how the system sees itm
Rather than cancelling the WTT schedule, a new VSTP was created (essentially overlaying the WTT - thus removoing the WTT schedule) and th VSTP was CAN'ed.
This is the schedule:- http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20357/2019/07/29/advanced
Rather than cancelling the WTT schedule, a new VSTP was created (essentially overlaying the WTT - thus removoing the WTT schedule) and th VSTP was CAN'ed.
This is the schedule:- http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20357/2019/07/29/advanced
Siemens Staines
Member
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 782
Will this affect how the cancellation gets treated with respect to PPM metrics because I guess if 1C88 was really never intended to run it won't get counted as a cancellation, but I don't think that is the case here? There must be a cut-off point how far in advance a Cancellation does or does not count towards PPM, but I do know what that time is.
If the schedule / train in in the timetable at 0200 that day, and is subsequently cancelled, it counts towards PPM - wheather the reason given (this case, OZ - currently) counts towards the TOC'S specific targets (as in reliability / performance) I don't think it does.
Need to know why it was CAN'ed - that'll tell who the delay belongs too.
*I note the cause, OZ, is still under investigation (as per RTT, for what that is worth)
samuelmorris
Established Member
The Modern Railways table seems wrong. 70 units in the 800 fleet and only 10 in the 802 fleet? I think someone's got the numbers wrong, so I just took the average for both fleets by summing the mileages and dividing by the total number of units.
The argument here is that you are replying with individual services. Now if (dare I even think about it) I sat down and told you all the amendments to services back in 2016 that would be pointless as it doesn’t generally way up the performance and reliability issues.
LNER to be fair to them have introduced the 800s a lot more smoothly and faultless than GWR did, with seat and signage already complete and they are generally more reliable than GWRs are. A lot are out of service for upgrades, or in 800001/002s case for training and testing. Ultimately by December we should have all the fleet ready for better reliability and a lot less short formations.
LNER to be fair to them have introduced the 800s a lot more smoothly and faultless than GWR did, with seat and signage already complete and they are generally more reliable than GWRs are. A lot are out of service for upgrades, or in 800001/002s case for training and testing. Ultimately by December we should have all the fleet ready for better reliability and a lot less short formations.
TractiveEffort
Member
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 290
LNER are benefitting from GWR’s experiences and are staring at higher levels of software etc. which has yet to be updated on the GWR fleet.
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,943
Wouldn't the priority be to upgrade the software on GWRs fleet as it requires more diesel running? LNER are benefiting from having negligible diesel only mileage on their diagrams. You cannot compare both operators equally in this matter. GWR were pretty much forced to introduce these trains at the time that they did!
Almost like LNER are getting to use them as intended...
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,943
Hmmm. I wonder hw LNER would have fared if they had been first to launch including the long diesel sections such as Aberdeen, Inverness etc. And then to see how GWR would have fared if they had the luxury to launch much later on at LNER's pace and an almost wholly electrified network?? But it does seem strange that GWR's fleet has not the software upgrades that people are saying the LNER fleet has. Does anyone know what the timescale is on updating GWR's fleet with the latest software.
In the meantime, the reality is GWR drivers are having to nurse their fleet of 800's to get from A to B without the engines overheating and going into shut-down with the risk of trains breaking down completely, particularly on the West of England run. That wouldn't be happening if GWR's network was electrified to the same percentage as LNER's.
samuelmorris
Established Member
Well, who knows. Not all of the LNER network is electrified. The 800s may yet end up perpetually going wrong on the Aberdeen and Inverness services.
TractiveEffort
Member
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 290
The software upgrades are being expedited, as much as you can expedite change in the railway industry. Any change has to be agreed and signed off by 4 parties, Hitachi, GWR, Agility and Eversholt ( or 5 parties in the case of the MTU software), they all have to be satisfied that the changes are an improvement and safe. This takes time. There is a traction and MTU software update due to start imminently, but it takes quite a few hours per train, so they can only be done as service allows.
Indeed and then that would be a concern as they were always intended to do that! I've always thought one of the problems with the GWR examples is that they're doing far more diesel mileage than was ever expected of them when the design was set. The LNER ones should, broadly, only ever be doing mileage that they were always intended for so you'd expect them to handle that better!
samuelmorris
Established Member
I would, but I'd also expect the 80x units on GWR to have handled their situation better. Granted, they're being run outside their originally intended usage pattern, but the majority of their diesel running, certainly on WoE routes is from faults of their own making, not the scaled back electrification. Even if all the wires that were expected to be there had been installed, I still think we'd have this problem with the GWR units, it would just be a little less severe.
It may be that new software improves matters, or that the lower temperatures in Scotland cause fewer issues but frankly, unless the TMS is controlling the radiators on the engines themselves, I think the overheating is a hardware design flaw that will presumably also need rectification on LNER's fleet. Perhaps given the reduced usage on diesel mode they won't bother.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,302
Yet we keep being told that GWR are but a poor innocent bystander who will get what they’re given and have no say over anything....
Apples and the Bolivian Navy.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,494
As the official Operator of the stock, the statutory safety rules mean that all material software changes have to go through the individual TOC safety and technical approval processes.
If you don’t and something bad happens, you are in the dock.
That does not mean the Operator promotes any of the proposed changes or has any detailed technical competence in the equipment concerned.
If you don’t and something bad happens, you are in the dock.
That does not mean the Operator promotes any of the proposed changes or has any detailed technical competence in the equipment concerned.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Now that 14.15, 1B42, is interesting in itself; at about the same time it was due at Reading, a 10 car 800 pairing from Bristol towards Paddington was run into platform 9 at Reading and terminated. I think one of them was 800 026. This appears to have confused the systems as both RTT and the "Tiger Rail" screens showed it as being a cancellation of the train FROM Paddington, which it was not; it arrived from the west full of passengers and a large number of people had to cross over the footbridge to platforms 10 and 11 whereupon they continued to Paddington on the late running 14.46 ( 1A19 ) which left at 15.07. The terminated 10 car appears to have worked back west at 5B42, but because the systems are so insistent that it was 1B42 from Paddington which was terminated at Reading, but I think it was an extremely - two hours - late 1A15. It seems to have lost the time in the Chippenham - Swindon area; the reason given on RTT is "a problem under investigation".
Which gives rise to a question - is 1B42 the booked return working out of Paddington of 1A15?
In other words - was the train so late that it terminated at Reading at the time it should have been back there going the other way? Was this an attempt to keep it on diagram which was later abandoned?
northernbelle
Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 680
GWR having influence over the base specification of the train is a different thing to needing to have to sign off third-party modifications to trains it operates under its safety case.
Were you once sacked by GWR or something? Only your irrational crusade against every move they make is bizarre.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 6,853
Bimodes are a perfect solution for the LNER network really, as the mainline is electrified and the diesel sections are "add ons" at a lower speed, whereas the GWR units, especially on the West of England section, have longer high speed runs.
irish_rail
Established Member
Not seen this mentioned yet, but yesterday two separate IETs came unstuck at dawlish being hit by waves and losing several engines each only just managing to limp onto Exeter. Trains involved were 0529 and 0553 plymouth to padd .
That is worrying as I expect GWR will not have the luxury of just stopping running west of Exeter like CrossCountry do when it gets a bit blowy on the seawall.
Is this a first recorded occuance of sea water causing issues with the 80x's?
irish_rail
Established Member
No, there were some issues a few months back i recall can't remember exactly what though. Worrying stuff however as we will be left cut off in bad weather down here completely.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,494
One of the two 9 cars involved was stopped on North Pole today to fully understand what happened. Hitachi are obviously concerned.
Agreed - certainly worrying considering it was part of the orginial spec - to avoid such incidence as with Cross Country currently - was it not? (I can't recall recall the specifics)
Might be helpful (for observers, here) to know what the weather report / status (err, is it Infrastructure readiness report still? (Or something to that effect)) was for early yesterday morning.
Hopefully it was Red or very serious (whatever the report gives -icant recall).
Impractical, not going to happen. They were minor errors which Hitachi will look into.
The issues months back involved 800s which are not Dawlish proof unlike 802s.
- Status