• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mrs. Fortescue

On Moderation
Joined
1 Aug 2019
Messages
154
If the train is over-capacity due to being short-formed, the hard seats aren't an issue as you'll be standing. If you're sat down, 5 cars was probably still enough. I'm no fan of how the short-forms etc. have worked out, but that is a bit of a double standard there.

I can assure you that 5 car IETs do not provide enough standard seating for a peak commuter run on the SWML.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

CharlesR

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
236
I am referring to post December when bristol goes 4 trains per hour. Would of made a lot more sense to allow that to suffer a shortfall than expect people to cram onto a 5 car for journeys of over 3 hours.

Sending a 800 to Penzance when it’s due back at North Pole or Stoke Gifford causes difficulty later in the day. It’s not about picking on particular routes, it’s more about convenience. Cheltenham’s are normally first to get cancelled on Sundays because it’s a round trip signed by multiple depots and is therefore easy to get rid of.
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,462
No, if it was a fleet of 9 cars and there was a shortfall one of the 4 bristol trains per hour would be sacrificed to allow a full service on the wofe line. A far more acceptable compromise than the one we currently face with fairly frequent short forming which looks set to get much much worse come December. One rep I have spoken to says December, GWR will become the next "northern" rail, a crisis really is in the offing. 17 couplings and uncouplings a day at Plymouth station, let's just say we are going to have our work cut out.

No, it wouldn’t. Likely it would be the W of E would get canned. Hitachi supply diagrammed trains, not just trains and they determine where the spare units are. So GWR can do in day adjustments, as a reaction, but they don’t have the say over what unit comes off which depot to operate which service.

Take yesterday, for example. The problem with 1L34 was because the other half of the train got failed late overnight at Maliphant. There were no spares at Maliphant (they were all at North Pole that night) so the train was presented to GWR as load 5. It is always likely that diagrams that don’t start in London or Bristol are going to be the most vulnerable.

Because of the maintenance regimes, you have to be very careful where and when you adjust a diagram and mixing of the two fleets - they are not on the same maintenance regime - has to be very carefully done, if at all. You can get it disastrously wrong if you are not careful and get a unit stuck, which then has to be ferried back (sometimes after a Hitachi concession has been obtained) to Home Depot for attention. In one recent case, that took five days. If you present late for maintenance, they can give it back late (at no cost to Hitachi) and if you set up an imbalance of types at a depot overnight, the same result occurs and you can make a poor deployment situation even worse.

I really don’t get this fear of coupling and uncoupling. The 802 5 car sets will only have 42 other coupling possibilities per unit per location. When we introduced the Turbos it was 114 other coupling possibilities per unit per location and we soon found and dealt with the dodgy units and dodgy locations. I haven’t heard about any serious issues at Plymouth recently. Compared to other places on the network, managing 17 split and joins a day seems like a doddle to me.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
No, it wouldn’t. Likely it would be the W of E would get canned. Hitachi supply diagrammed trains, not just trains and they determine where the spare units are. So GWR can do in day adjustments, as a reaction, but they don’t have the say over what unit comes off which depot to operate which service.

Take yesterday, for example. The problem with 1L34 was because the other half of the train got failed late overnight at Maliphant. There were no spares at Maliphant (they were all at North Pole that night) so the train was presented to GWR as load 5. It is always likely that diagrams that don’t start in London or Bristol are going to be the most vulnerable.

Because of the maintenance regimes, you have to be very careful where and when you adjust a diagram and mixing of the two fleets - they are not on the same maintenance regime - has to be very carefully done, if at all. You can get it disastrously wrong if you are not careful and get a unit stuck, which then has to be ferried back (sometimes after a Hitachi concession has been obtained) to Home Depot for attention. In one recent case, that took five days. If you present late for maintenance, they can give it back late (at no cost to Hitachi) and if you set up an imbalance of types at a depot overnight, the same result occurs and you can make a poor deployment situation even worse.

I really don’t get this fear of coupling and uncoupling. The 802 5 car sets will only have 42 other coupling possibilities per unit per location. When we introduced the Turbos it was 114 other coupling possibilities per unit per location and we soon found and dealt with the dodgy units and dodgy locations. I haven’t heard about any serious issues at Plymouth recently. Compared to other places on the network, managing 17 split and joins a day seems like a doddle to me.
Well the fact they would rather can a padd to Penzance than one of the soon to be 4 an hour bristols says rather alot about the situation we are in. How on earth is that logic?
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,462
Not quite what I said. I was referring to start if day up workings. However, you could have a difficult situation in the other direction.

On the down it depends what unit we are talking about and when you need to substitute. The two fleets are not capable of total interworking, due to the contractual maintenance requirements.

So you may have an 800 set available for a down W of E working but it can’t overnight at Laira or Long Rock so you can the W of E to ensure the 800 set gets on the right depot overnight for it’s scheduled 3.75, 7.0 or 9.0 hour maintenance slot.
 

800002

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2019
Messages
689
Wasn't it kind of the same with the HST fleet? As in, they had to make sure the maintenance requirements were met, therefore were still limited in what could be swapped (although, less limited than the 80x fleets . I recall occasions where fuel was an issue with certain set swaps, when the last down Hereford or worcester was subbed in at the last minute and the overnight stabling meant a swap at pad in the morning as it was effectively out of fuel.
 

Nippy

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2013
Messages
645
If you present late for maintenance, they can give it back late (at no cost to Hitachi) and if you set up an imbalance of types at a depot overnight, the same result occurs and you can make a poor deployment situation even worse.

I have a question then, when we are queuing them for ages to get them onto NP at night because the yard can't/won't accept them who is responsible for that, I've had the ones that arrive around midnight queuing nearly an hour in some cases...
 

800002

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2019
Messages
689
I have a question then, when we are queuing them for ages to get them onto NP at night because the yard can't/won't accept them who is responsible for that, I've had the ones that arrive around midnight queuing nearly an hour in some cases...

Surely that is down to Depot Operations (if all planned to correct timescales) and GWR planning if they are planning outside the pre-set parameters.

What is the acceptance timescale at NP?
EDIT: It's 10 minutes between arrivals.
 
Last edited:

northernbelle

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2018
Messages
680
Well I think you’re very wrong. :)

But we aren’t talking about 9/10 cars, we are talking about the exact situation I brought up. Which was a FIVE car formation.

Start with the facts, otherwise you’re going to be wrong immediately.

Oh dear. I think it's you that needs to read things properly.

I was referring to your assertion that a 5 car IET doesn't have 'much more' in the way of standard class seats than a 175/1.

It does - about a third more.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
I am referring to post December when bristol goes 4 trains per hour. Would of made a lot more sense to allow that to suffer a shortfall than expect people to cram onto a 5 car for journeys of over 3 hours.

So what's your cunning plan for when the next Bristol service is a first-stop-at-Parkway one, formed of a five-car set?

Wait to take out the next nine-car or 2x5 on a Bristol run? By which time the next Plymouth or Penzance train will be due shortly anyway, or a proportion of the passengers for the West Country will already have got on a semi-fast to Exeter/Torbay if it's an hour when one of those operates?

Oh dear. I think it's you that needs to read things properly.

I was referring to your assertion that a 5 car IET doesn't have 'much more' in the way of standard class seats than a 175/1.

It does - about a third more.

Even if you charitably include the tip-up seats in a three-car 175 - which presumably would fail certain people's seat comfort test - the five-car IET still has about 40% more standard class seats.

I can assure you that 5 car IETs do not provide enough standard seating for a peak commuter run on the SWML.

That may well be the case, but a five-car IET still provides a lot more seats than there would have been if, in the past, an HST failed and nothing at all ran in its path, in South Wales or anywhere else on GWR.

If you are expecting IETs to run faultlessly forever, then I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed. Even the most reliable types of train on the network break down on occasion.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
So what's your cunning plan for when the next Bristol service is a first-stop-at-Parkway one, formed of a five-car set?

Wait to take out the next nine-car or 2x5 on a Bristol run? By which time the next Plymouth or Penzance train will be due shortly anyway, or a proportion of the passengers for the West Country will already have got on a semi-fast to Exeter/Torbay if it's an hour when one of those operates?



Even if you charitably include the tip-up seats in a three-car 175 - which presumably would fail certain people's seat comfort test - the five-car IET still has about 40% more standard class seats.



That may well be the case, but a five-car IET still provides a lot more seats than there would have been if, in the past, an HST failed and nothing at all ran in its path, in South Wales or anywhere else on GWR.

If you are expecting IETs to run faultlessly forever, then I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed. Even the most reliable types of train on the network break down on occasion.
Unfortunately that just doesn't work. 1833 cancelled on Friday so passengers do just what you say, board the next available, and it was so busy some were turned away, and many were standing for over 2 hours as far as Exeter. When will you realise the wofe is a proper intercity route, not a commuter operation like the Cotswold line or bristol route , and as such needs to be treated a little different. You cannot expect elderly or infirm people to stand for hours on end because GWR has decided to prioritise the commuter flow to oxford or bristol.
 

CharlesR

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
236
Unfortunately that just doesn't work. 1833 cancelled on Friday so passengers do just what you say, board the next available, and it was so busy some were turned away, and many were standing for over 2 hours as far as Exeter. When will you realise the wofe is a proper intercity route, not a commuter operation like the Cotswold line or bristol route , and as such needs to be treated a little different. You cannot expect elderly or infirm people to stand for hours on end because GWR has decided to prioritise the commuter flow to oxford or bristol.

So what your saying is if you happen to need to travel somewhere on the WoE line you deserve a seat more than somebody travelling to Bristol, Cardiff, Cheltenham or Worcester service?
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
So what your saying is if you happen to need to travel somewhere on the WoE line you deserve a seat more than somebody travelling to Bristol, Cardiff, Cheltenham or Worcester service?
Absolutely. Why should someone on a 3,4,5 hour journey stand , when it could be someone on a one hour journey? When difficult descions must be made then common sense needs to apply, and given the choice between making Cornwall bound passengers stand for many hours or passengers bound for places like bristol with a much shorter journey times, I know which I think should stand.
 

Wychwood93

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2018
Messages
634
Location
Burton. Dorset.
Absolutely. Why should someone on a 3,4,5 hour journey stand , when it could be someone on a one hour journey? When difficult descions must be made then common sense needs to apply, and given the choice between making Cornwall bound passengers stand for many hours or passengers bound for places like bristol with a much shorter journey times, I know which I think should stand.
I agree with that - standing for an hour is not good - longer is bad. I have had that scenario in France on a TGV - Avignon to Lille - double set, rear set o.o.u - you have probably surmised that my reservation was in the rear set! A seat until Lyon PD and then standing in a vestibule from Lyon to certainly Roissy. That's life!
 

Mrs. Fortescue

On Moderation
Joined
1 Aug 2019
Messages
154
Oh dear. I think it's you that needs to read things properly.

I was referring to your assertion that a 5 car IET doesn't have 'much more' in the way of standard class seats than a 175/1.

It does - about a third more.

Which, in number, equates to not that much more compared with a full IET service.

Also, you were the one bringing up 9/10 cars, not me. I suggest that you read your own posts before trying to look smart (and failing miserably!)
 

Mrs. Fortescue

On Moderation
Joined
1 Aug 2019
Messages
154
If kyou are expecting IETs to run faultlessly forever, then I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed. Even the most reliable types of train on the network break down on occasion.

You make a rather large assumption there. At no point have I said that they will run faultlessly forever.

In fact, the service on the SWML is superb. Very reliable and the new trains are fine, even if the seats aren’t great (in fact, they’re awful.)

However, there are far more short forms than there should be.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,937
I agree with that - standing for an hour is not good - longer is bad. I have had that scenario in France on a TGV - Avignon to Lille - double set, rear set o.o.u - you have probably surmised that my reservation was in the rear set! A seat until Lyon PD and then standing in a vestibule from Lyon to certainly Roissy. That's life!
If I was standing on a TGV I'd head straight to the buffet, which of course you can't do on an IET.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Unfortunately that just doesn't work. 1833 cancelled on Friday so passengers do just what you say, board the next available, and it was so busy some were turned away, and many were standing for over 2 hours as far as Exeter. When will you realise the wofe is a proper intercity route, not a commuter operation like the Cotswold line or bristol route , and as such needs to be treated a little different. You cannot expect elderly or infirm people to stand for hours on end because GWR has decided to prioritise the commuter flow to oxford or bristol.

Absolutely. Why should someone on a 3,4,5 hour journey stand , when it could be someone on a one hour journey? When difficult descions must be made then common sense needs to apply, and given the choice between making Cornwall bound passengers stand for many hours or passengers bound for places like bristol with a much shorter journey times, I know which I think should stand.

So we're now back to the lines about 'who cares about passengers elsewhere on GWR, because they are just mere commuters, unlike the special breed that inhabits the West Country' and 'routes between big cities aren't inter-city, unlike a route to largely rural counties' and 'a two-hour journey from London to Exeter or three hours to Plymouth is different from journeys taking exactly the same time to other places served by GWR'.

Which, of course, just wipe the floor with any points anyone else makes, every time.

You make a rather large assumption there. At no point have I said that they will run faultlessly forever. I suggest you stop putting words in my mouth.

In fact, the service on the SWML is superb. Very reliable and the new trains are fine, even if the seats aren’t great (in fact, they’re awful.)

However, there are far more short forms than there should be.

Passengers on South Western Railway - which operates trains on the route that is actually abbreviated to SWML, may not be quite so sure about the superb service there. Equally, passengers in South Wales may not be of that view either, given TfW's current troubles over crew and rolling stock availability.

How many short-forms should there be? Care to put a number on it? Through it's probably best not to go near numbers after your efforts over how many standard class seats there are on a five-car IET, compared with a three-car Class 175. Which was your comparison, not anyone's else's.

I think everyone agrees that short-forms are not a good thing but in the real world, they will happen on occasion. Today there appears to be a whole one short-formed formation operating on the whole GWR network. If GWR had two more five-car sets available, as it is supposed to, then that might not be the case, but 800001 and 002 have still to enter passenger service following refitting after being used for testing and training for an extended period.
 
Last edited:

Mrs. Fortescue

On Moderation
Joined
1 Aug 2019
Messages
154
I was clearly talking about the South Wales Main Line, which is often abbreviated to SWML - who are you to decide what I abbreviate?

Clearly, this is a topic about the 800 service, so bringing TFW into it is taking it off topic, as they don’t have any 800s (I hope you know that!) As I was saying, the GWR services you swansea are normally excellent.
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,462
Absolutely. Why should someone on a 3,4,5 hour journey stand , when it could be someone on a one hour journey? When difficult descions must be made then common sense needs to apply, and given the choice between making Cornwall bound passengers stand for many hours or passengers bound for places like bristol with a much shorter journey times, I know which I think should stand.

The difficult decision comes about when you look at the consequences of the action of substitution. In your example of the 1833, it's a West of England finisher so, unless there is a 10 car cl.802 set about (unlikely) that can be split to run that train and the other as load 5, it will probably get canned. The danger of shoving an cl.800 set on that working is that, unless it can be ferried to SG overnight, it will probably get stranded, waiting for an engineering concession from Hitachi to move ECS to either North Pole or Stoke Gifford.

So instead of being potentially 2 x cl.802 units down at end of play, you are now potentially 2 x cl.802 and 2 x cl.800 units down and Hitachi are excused from supplying you your full 32 cl.800 5 car diagrams the next day, as a direct result of that substitution. GWR would have lost a daily five figure non availability payment for each cl.800 set. That's big money to lose for just one substitution on the 1833.

And that is even before getting into what relative passenger compensation you have to shell out for the respective trains, if you cancel one or the other. In that case, the W of E may (and I stress may) be the one to cancel first.

Simply put, no cancelled or short formed train is good. But to say the W of E main line has to always have the priority isn't correct. There are both contractual and revenue reasons why that may (and I stress again may) not always be the case.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
The difficult decision comes about when you look at the consequences of the action of substitution. In your example of the 1833, it's a West of England finisher so, unless there is a 10 car cl.802 set about (unlikely) that can be split to run that train and the other as load 5, it will probably get canned. The danger of shoving an cl.800 set on that working is that, unless it can be ferried to SG overnight, it will probably get stranded, waiting for an engineering concession from Hitachi to move ECS to either North Pole or Stoke Gifford.

So instead of being potentially 2 x cl.802 units down at end of play, you are now potentially 2 x cl.802 and 2 x cl.800 units down and Hitachi are excused from supplying you your full 32 cl.800 5 car diagrams the next day, as a direct result of that substitution. GWR would have lost a daily five figure non availability payment for each cl.800 set. That's big money to lose for just one substitution on the 1833.

And that is even before getting into what relative passenger compensation you have to shell out for the respective trains, if you cancel one or the other. In that case, the W of E may (and I stress may) be the one to cancel first.

Simply put, no cancelled or short formed train is good. But to say the W of E main line has to always have the priority isn't correct. There are both contractual and revenue reasons why that may (and I stress again may) not always be the case.
That you for the insight. As I see it your description of the current situation is an example of the difficulties of trying to vertically integrate industries through contracts rather than organisational structure. However bright the lawyers, it is hard for them to envisage all the operational contingencies when drafting the contracts with the result that some cases are not covered. And it seems that both Hitachi and the DfT are being very rigid in the interpretation of the terms of the various maintenance contracts

I know that in the electricity generating industry, the need for short-term flexibility when the system fails in some way is catered for by paying some suppliers to be willing to over-ride contractual undertakings at very short notice in order to make additional capacity available. Such provisions are an overlay on the routine merit order in which generating capacity is dispatched. There is a technical name for these emergency agreements, but I am afraid I don't know it.

One would have expected the MARA/TARA/whatever contracts to have included such emergency clauses. It looks to me as if the DfT did not negotiate any clauses of this kind, I can't believe that the IEP maintenance regime could not be flexed a little. If it can't, then that suggests there is minimal spare capacity in Hitachi's depots and that's unsustainable.

As others have mentioned earlier in this thread there is another contributory factor - and that is the multiplicity of sub-fleets within the total. One of the under-celebrated features of the HST era was that all the trains were substitutable (reduced seat spacing and non-available catering cars notwithstanding and the fact there were never enough HSTs leading to Turbo substitutions on the Oxford and Cotswold services). The loss of this flexibility is surely now a permanent headache for the operator.

When the operator is master of his own fate, and very close to the customer, then more logical decisions tend to be made. It is not through accident that Ryanair has a fleet consisting only of practically identical Boeing 737s and Easyjet of practically identical Airbuses.

I would hope that at some point in the next couple of years the contracts will be closely examined and adjusted as necessary. This may cost the DfT some money...
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
You were making wild assumptions, which were wrong Jimm, accept it.

I was clearly talking about the South Wales Main Line, which is often abbreviated to SWML - who are you to decide what I abbreviate?

Clearly, this is a topic about the 800 service, so bringing TFW into it is taking it off topic, as they don’t have any 800s (I hope you know that!) As I was saying, the GWR services you swansea are normally excellent.

If the GWR service to Swansea is normally superb - your word, not mine - why is it necessary to moan in this thread the instant that one service is short-formed? As a result of a breakdown, something that you have accepted will happen on occasion.

The other option, which is what would have happened in the past with fixed-formation HSTs if GWR was not able to juggle around other services, would be no train at all.

Re SWML, it's not about what abbreviations you decide you want to use - it is about using abbreviations that are generally understood by other people reading posts. SWML is generally accepted in a railway context in the UK to refer to the South Western Main Line, as one of the group of key radial routes from London - along with the GWML, WCML, ECML and GEML.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
1a77 delayed again today due to problems with the unit to be attached at Plymouth. Seems it left 13 late and was 29 late into London. What is so worrying is that at present there are only a handful of attachments a day and a disproportionate amount of delays and complications.
 

Thunderer

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2013
Messages
429
Location
South Wales
Have Hitachi/GWR got to the bottom of the 802 failure at Dawlish last month when the sea was a bit rough? Last I can remember on this was Hitachi were looking into the root cause of the failure with a view to providing remedial action?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top