LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

hexagon789 · 8 Aug 2019

ainsworth74 said:
I am led to believe that 40mph might be achievable as long as you allow a hundred miles or so for them to accelerate up to it

Seriously though I've heard that they are absolutely dreadful on diesel and self-rescue isn't really a thing (though being able to supply hotel power, to my mind, is still a good reason to have them!!).

Oh yeah the performance is terrible, I was just repeating what they are designed to manage.

LNER would do well to keep the Thunderbirds!

RailUK Forums

FGW_DID · 8 Aug 2019

wellhouse said:
Except that these seats don't exist, and were they to be installed, they would be in a very claustrophobic compartment, with no windows, and a solid door.

Is there a similar arrangement on other (GWR/TPE) stock?

They aren’t for seats, they are for bike reservations and yes, they are on GWR versions as well.
That compartment is for large luggage and / or bicycles. Unsure about LNER but on GWR, bikes must have a reservation (wether it enforced or not is a different matter :rolleyes:

). You can just see the indicator at the top of the third picture and you will notice a bike symbol next to the 99.

LNW-GW Joint · 8 Aug 2019

We don't really know what agreement LNER has with the DfT about future services.
There's a significant power upgrade scheme to finish north of Doncaster, affecting the ability to run new services for TPE and First, as well as LNER.
LNER might have the scope to lease a number of extra trains (originally in the VTEC business case), which were supposed to be (cheap) IC225s.
But I'd expect DfT to take a lot of persuading about extra trains until the current roll-out is complete and increased ridership proved.
EU procurement rules might be irrelevant in 3 months time, but there will no doubt be WTO rules instead.

IanXC · 8 Aug 2019

swt_passenger said:
Well I for one hadn’t forgotten that, but was wondering why DfT had allowed such a low utilisation in the first place.

Try again:

themiller said:
People on this forum seem to forget that the IEP is not the same as the traditional way of providing stock. The TOC has no control over the number of trains allocated to it. It's Hitachi who have to make the judgement based on the number of diagrams that have to be covered. I would expect that any increase in train requirement would necessitate a contract variation.

Hitatchi have a contract to provide "x" diagrams. It is entirely their call how many sets they procure to cover this, the DfT, for once, have no involvement in this number whatsoever!

43096 · 8 Aug 2019

LNW-GW Joint said:
LNER might have the scope to lease a number of extra trains (originally in the VTEC business case), which were supposed to be (cheap) IC225s.

Not necessarily 225s. The VTEC franchise agreement include the option of retaining either 225s or HSTs.

Sprinter153 · 8 Aug 2019

FGW_DID said:
Unsure about LNER but on GWR, bikes must have a reservation (wether it enforced or not is a different matter ).

Some of us tried to enforce that particular rule after being told it was something we had no discretion over, then after a spate of assaults were told by local managers that we should have ‘used common sense’, which has quite understandably led to very few people bothering to enforce it at all.

FGW_DID · 8 Aug 2019

Sprinter153 said:
Some of us tried to enforce that particular rule after being told it was something we had no discretion over, then after a spate of assaults were told by local managers that we should have ‘used common sense’, which has quite understandably led to very few people bothering to enforce it at all.

Yep, mixed messages from above combined with the “self entitled, I can do what I like brigade” certainly doesn’t help matters and certainly undermines those that do try and enforce things.

ainsworth74 · 8 Aug 2019

IanXC said:
Hitatchi have a contract to provide "x" diagrams. It is entirely their call how many sets they procure to cover this, the DfT, for once, have no involvement in this number whatsoever!

Indeed. And I would suggest that Hitachi have taken the pragmatic view and have thought ahead twenty-five years when the trains have been thrashed millions of miles up and down the ECML/GWML and so keeping them in running order might be getting harder and harder*. At which point having lots of slack in the fleet might be very useful...

*Not that they're covering themselves in glory in that regard at the moment!

wellhouse · 9 Aug 2019

...and who on earth finds their navigation of the toilet cubicle enhanced by this map?

Chris125 · 9 Aug 2019

wellhouse said:
...and who on earth finds their navigation of the toilet cubicle enhanced by this map?View attachment 66935

It looks slightly embossed, perhaps a result of feedback from disability groups to help the blind/poorly sighted?

Pete_uk · 9 Aug 2019

ainsworth74 said:
Seriously though I've heard that they are absolutely dreadful on diesel...

I don't know if you are referring to a 'failed' set or not, but a 800 taking off on diesel is one of the fastest accelerating trains I have been on. Providing the throttle I'd opened up and you have good adhesion, it will push you against your seat.

If you are stood up and not expecting it you will have a good view of the ceiling or carpet!

ainsworth74 · 9 Aug 2019

Pete_uk said:
I don't know if you are referring to a 'failed' set or not, but a 800 taking off on diesel is one of the fastest accelerating trains I have been on. Providing the throttle I'd opened up and you have good adhesion, it will push you against your seat.

I'm talking about an 801 on diesel.

800001 · 9 Aug 2019

ainsworth74 said:
I'm talking about an 801 on diesel.

Of course an 801 on diesel will be dreadful, it's there to provide hotel power if power fails, or to move at a slow pace, about 20mph for a very short distance until.it makes contact with live overhead wires.

LNW-GW Joint · 9 Aug 2019

IanXC said:
Hitatchi have a contract to provide "x" diagrams. It is entirely their call how many sets they procure to cover this, the DfT, for once, have no involvement in this number whatsoever!

I'm not sure that's wholly true.
I think the IEP contracts cover fixed numbers of units for the diagrams that DfT specified for GWR/LNER, so that per-diagram prices could be agreed.
I'm sure there will be penalties if reliability is such that Hitachi can't supply the diagrams contracted.
But I don't think they are obliged to supply additional units to meet the requirement.
The incentive is for reliability to exceed the planned level and so avoid penalties.

It's a bit like the BA shuttles.
There never really was a backup aircraft in case the first one was full.

ainsworth74 · 9 Aug 2019

800001 said:
Of course an 801 on diesel will be dreadful, it's there to provide hotel power if power fails, or to move at a slow pace, about 20mph for a very short distance until.it makes contact with live overhead wires.

Yes indeed I am well aware of that. My point (which at this point has been utterly lost) was simply that even compared to what they're advertised as being capable of they are seemingly dreadful.

greatescape · 9 Aug 2019

ainsworth74 said:
Yes indeed I am well aware of that. My point (which at this point has been utterly lost) was simply that even compared to what they're advertised as being capable of they are seemingly dreadful.

A fair and precious moderator.
Why is it scarier than other EMUs?
Please explain so that it is not misunderstood.
Thank you very much.

samuelmorris · 9 Aug 2019

greatescape said:
Why is it scarier than other EMUs?
Please explain so that it is not misunderstood.

Because it's emergency power only. It's one engine for an entire 9-car train. There are enough complaints about performance when all 5 engines are working...

greatescape · 9 Aug 2019

Because it's emergency power only. It's one engine for an entire 9-car train. There are enough complaints about performance when all 5 engines are working...

samuelmorris said:
Because it's emergency power only. It's one engine for an entire 9-car train. There are enough complaints about performance when all 5 engines are working...

Is this the same kind of EMU as Class801?
FirstGroup and Hitachi announce new partnership for high speed trains linking London to Edinburgh
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hitac...ed-trains-linking-london-to-edinburgh-2851039

◇CLASS 800/801 (IEP)
http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/rolling_stock/bi_mode/index.html
◇British Rail Class 801
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_801

The class801 is not an auxiliary power supply car but a fine　EMU.
In the event of an emergency, the auxiliary power supply can work and evacuate to a safe place.

Thatcham Xing · 11 Aug 2019

Sprinter153 said:
Some of us tried to enforce that particular rule after being told it was something we had no discretion over, then after a spate of assaults were told by local managers that we should have ‘used common sense’, which has quite understandably led to very few people bothering to enforce it at all.

I witnessed it being enforced by an GWR TM at Newbury a few days ago. Youngish girl with bike denied boarding and left asking "what do I do now?" as TM nodded disapprovingly and walked off down platform. Train looked to be lightly loaded, but whether the bike spaces were free I don't know.

Bornin1980s · 12 Aug 2019

greatescape said:
More new trains on LNER wish list
08/08/2019
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/more-new-trains-on-lner-wish-list

The LNER
Are there non-Hitachi Bi-mode implementations?
Please tell me.

This 'open competition,' what happens if there is only one bidder?

ainsworth74 · 12 Aug 2019

Bornin1980s said:
This 'open competition,' what happens if there is only one bidder?

They you've either got an easy decision to make or you re-tender with amendments to make it more attractive! To be honest if this does go ahead from LNER I would assume that they'll ensure that the tender is written in such a way that the only bidder who can provide a cost effective solution is Hitachi with more AT300s. It'd be crackers to end up with a tiny micro-fleet of six to eight trains of one type and sixty-five of another (but it certainly can't be ruled out on that basis)!!

Bletchleyite · 12 Aug 2019

Bornin1980s said:
This 'open competition,' what happens if there is only one bidder?

Then they win by default. It's likely LNER will try to engineer this happening to avoid a microfleet.

YorkshireBear · 12 Aug 2019

Indeed I suspect the tender will be engineered. I'd say its fairly certain though. Interesting that they are going for 10 car though.

swt_passenger · 12 Aug 2019

YorkshireBear said:
Indeed I suspect the tender will be engineered. I'd say its fairly certain though. Interesting that they are going for 10 car though.

The track accesss application had suggested they’d shorten the intended Mk4 sets to seven coaches, wasn’t it said at one time this was to improve their performance to 801 standards? So although that reason for shortening wouldn’t apply to the extra trains, I’d have thought it would be easier all round to stick with compatible 5s in multiple or 9s.

EE Andy b1 · 12 Aug 2019

Slightly off topic for 800s....

But is there any reason why LNER couldn't use Class 91 loco's in push & pull mode with 8 Mk4 coaches in between.
They could re-build 20 class 91s to Super 91 for reliability and having 2 loco's the performance would be up there with Class 800s and would have a backup loco in case of failure (unless loss of overhead supply).
Surely the cost would be a lot less than a new order of 800s and they could be running fairly quickly even without the mods and there compliant.

samuelmorris · 12 Aug 2019

The cost would be lower, but as far as them being up and running quicker, I think that's a risky guess. How many old rolling stock upcycling programmes have come in quicker than ordering new stock in recent times?

ainsworth74 · 12 Aug 2019

My gut feeling is that this line in the RAIL article:

However, that has changed because the older stock would need significant rebuilding and refurbishment following a period out of traffic.

Relates to the scale of work that would be required to the 91s to keep them going for longer rather than the Mk4s. As far as I'm aware the Mk4s are already (or very close to being) fully compliant so shouldn't require a vast amount of work to continue in service. The 91s however are utterly shagged and I can well believe they'd need a comprehensive and very expensive overhaul to keep them going for a longer period of time. I can well believe that the calculation of cost of refurbishment plus the time out of service to do the work means that new stock and a homogeneous fleet starts to look much more attractive.

EE Andy b1 · 12 Aug 2019

samuelmorris said:
How many old rolling stock upcycling programmes have come in quicker than ordering new stock in recent times?

Yes none really!!

ainsworth74 said:
I can well believe that the calculation of cost of refurbishment plus the time out of service to do the work means that new stock and a homogeneous fleet starts to look much more attractive.

I do agree, so new really does outway the re-furbished in this instance. One fleet would be way better all round.

So more Hitachi Bi-modes by tender to all, for Hitachi to win. o_O

gsnedders · 13 Aug 2019

ainsworth74 said:
Relates to the scale of work that would be required to the 91s to keep them going for longer rather than the Mk4s. As far as I'm aware the Mk4s are already (or very close to being) fully compliant so shouldn't require a vast amount of work to continue in service. The 91s however are utterly shagged and I can well believe they'd need a comprehensive and very expensive overhaul to keep them going for a longer period of time. I can well believe that the calculation of cost of refurbishment plus the time out of service to do the work means that new stock and a homogeneous fleet starts to look much more attractive.

And really the problem is partly down to the fact there's no other 125mph locos that have been built since the 91s, so you can't just replace the 91s and keep the Mk4s for the ECML. You'd need to design a new 125mph electric loco (and of course that's doable) to fit the UK loading gauge.

themiller · 13 Aug 2019

gsnedders said:
And really the problem is partly down to the fact there's no other 125mph locos that have been built since the 91s, so you can't just replace the 91s and keep the Mk4s for the ECML. You'd need to design a new 125mph electric loco (and of course that's doable) to fit the UK loading gauge.

What about 67s?

LNER Azuma (Class 800/801)

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Emeritus Moderator

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Member