GWR Class 800

[Taunton]

The HST shore supply isn’t compatible with IETs sadly.

 

[The Ham]

The HST shore supply isn’t compatible with IETs sadly.

However once there are no (or very few) HST's running presumably it would be fairly easy to convert them to be able to power 80x's during their turn around at platforms.

Generally with utility supply the big city is getting the supply to where you need it (i.e. digging up stuff to run cables) whilst the actual costs of the "box" is fairly reasonable.

There's an argument that given you can only power one train at a platform (and power supply systems being based on maximum loads) you could run two "boxes" off the one supply.

As such if suggest that in, say, 12 months time there'll be a program to change them over, with a few platforms at certain locations where HST's are likely to run being retained.

 

[47802]

You really would have thought that by 2018 and all the expenditure on the project, this one would have been cracked.


I think that should be "at most" 110mph on Diesel. Not as fast as their predecessors. But also, not as quick to accelerate. So, overall, slower.

".

Except we have not really seen the full capability of the 802 version, with 800 being set to be just fast enough to meet the current HST timetable, an article in the Railway Gazette with regard to the new TPE 802's it would appear that Hitachi regard the 802 version as being 125mph capable on Diesel.

 

[BestWestern]

However once there are no (or very few) HST's running presumably it would be fairly easy to convert them to be able to power 80x's during their turn around at platforms.

Generally with utility supply the big city is getting the supply to where you need it (i.e. digging up stuff to run cables) whilst the actual costs of the "box" is fairly reasonable.

There's an argument that given you can only power one train at a platform (and power supply systems being based on maximum loads) you could run two "boxes" off the one supply.

As such if suggest that in, say, 12 months time there'll be a program to change them over, with a few platforms at certain locations where HST's are likely to run being retained.

The issue will more likely be whether an IET has the facility to be 'plugged in'. The shore supply would be compatible with the notoriously unfriendly HST three phase train supply (i.e. the reason that standard MK3s won't work in an HST) and so would likely be completely the wrong kit to work with an IET anyhow.

 

[Taunton]

The issue will more likely be whether an IET has the facility to be 'plugged in'

Well the IET was always meant to operate to termini "off the wires". Can it be that, despite all the hoopla about their 21st century environmental concern, etc, nobody has thought about how to prevent the noise and exhaust while they are sat on extended turnround at such locations. Adequate batteries, just run one engine, shore supply, has any thought been given to any of these? What about places like Penzance with a low overall roof?

 

[broadgage]

I would presume that they have the facility to run one engine only when stabled. After all the nominally electric 9 car version has only one engine, and can use this to supply on board power to the whole train.

 

[Thunderer]

1B25 10:37 Paddington-Port Talbot (8000??) and the 1B28 11:37 Paddington-Port Talbot (800016) and return trips to London, both operated by just one 5 car 800 today.

 

[D1009]

1B25 10:37 Paddington-Port Talbot (8000??) and the 1B28 11:37 Paddington-Port Talbot (800016) and return trips to London, both operated by just one 5 car 800 today.

Presumably as a result of the short formations of trains off Stoke Gifford reported on the allocations and diagrams sub forum.

 

[Phil G]

Just got on the 17:00 Bristol to Paddington one of the busiest services of the day and it's a 5 car totally overcrowded. Is there a shortage of units, this has been an HST until yesterday when it was a 10 car 800. Sooner the 9 cars are here the better.

 

[JN114]

Just got on the 17:00 Bristol to Paddington one of the busiest services of the day and it's a 5 car totally overcrowded. Is there a shortage of units, this has been an HST until yesterday when it was a 10 car 800. Sooner the 9 cars are here the better.

Not a shortage per se today - displacement of units across the 3 depots (Maliphant, Stoke Gifford and North Pole) and 2x 10 cars failing very early hours on Stoke Gifford conspired today to cause issues. While it’ll fall on deaf ears today was rather exceptional for (physical) 5 vice 10s.

The 0448 Bristol TM to Paddington was split at Bristol to provide a unit for the 0529. There was hope that strengthening would be carried out later in the day to male both diagrams; and one other back up to 10 car. I’ve been sleeping so don’t know if that’s actually been achieved though.

 

[D1009]

Yesterday I travelled from Bristol Parkway to Swindon on the 1520 Swansea to Paddington, formed of 800012+800023. The rear set was locked out of use.
Passengers on this route are not used to having to join a train in a different place from normal, so most people at Bristol Parkway boarded the train through the rear coach of the front set, coach E. This meant they all had to walk through the first class, and coaches C and D ended up full and standing, while there was plenty of room in coaches A and B. After departure there was an announcement that due to severe overcrowding there would be no at seat catering, but people were advised to go to coach E if they wanted food or drink, but there were no hot drinks available.

Food for thought as to how the current problems with the introduction of these trains should be managed?

During the Swindon stop I had a chat with the very friendly Swansea train manager, who told me Customer Hosts are now being trained to be Competent Persons to take charge of the second set in the absence of two TMs.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

During the Swindon stop I had a chat with the very friendly Swansea train manager, who told me Customer Hosts are now being trained to be Competent Persons to take charge of the second set in the absence of two TMs.

Which is what should have happened in the first place. What a shame that it didn’t.

 

[swt_passenger]

Which is what should have happened in the first place. What a shame that it didn’t.

This is the railway. Just because XC have been operating safely like that for years doesn’t mean anyone can...

 

[Mugby]

I'm not familiar with GWR's operating rules but can't a driver be regarded as the competent person in a front unit, as I believe is the case with some other TOCs?

 

[BestWestern]

There is only one Train Manager on a ten car IET. A TE (ticket examiner) should be present in the front set to oversee things, reporting to the TM anything of concern. If a TE is not available, the role can of course be filled by an additional TM. The rostered TM, who will be in the rear set, remains in overall charge of the train and the on board staff, and is the sole crew member aside from the Driver who is safety critical. Customer Hosts are shortly due to be trained to take over the TE role, to ease rostering and ensure adequate provision. This should eliminate the issues of the rear set of 10 car formations being locked out.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that the IET was designed, essentially from scratch, to replace the HST on trains out of Paddington, and to a much lesser extent EC.....

Why is the HST shore supply not compatible?
Who thought that was not a good thing to specify?

The post privatisation railways hatred of standardisation strikes again.

 

[swt_passenger]

Given that the IET was designed, essentially from scratch, to replace the HST on trains out of Paddington, and to a much lesser extent EC.....

Why is the HST shore supply not compatible?
Who thought that was not a good thing to specify?

The post privatisation railways hatred of standardisation strikes again.

Perhaps it is the HST that is a product of BR’s non-standardisation. In any case, how does anyone know yet if IET remote overnight stabling locations will be fitted with suitable supplies before they are needed? Do any IETs stable away from Hitachi depots yet?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Perhaps it is the HST that is a product of BR’s non-standardisation. In any case, how does anyone know yet if IET remote overnight stabling locations will be fitted with suitable supplies before they are needed? Do any IETs stable away from Hitachi depots yet?

Not yet - Worcester and Hereford will be the first two and they are being fitted with IET shore supply. The AT300 will use the GWR depots at Long Rock, Penzance and Exeter - they will also be fitted with IET shore supply.

In the late 1970's we had two sets of shore supplies at KX and in the various sidings/depots. What we called "the 850" for Mk2 LHCS and "the 415" for HST sets. Each had their own switchgear in the sub stations, different control equipment at the platform ends and different cabling/plug connectors for the trains. At KX it would be two sets of kit for each of platforms 1 to 8, feeding back to the two different voltage switchgear cabinets in the relevant sub.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not yet - Worcester and Hereford will be the first two and they are being fitted with IET shore supply. The AT300 will use the GWR depots at Long Rock, Penzance and Exeter - they will also be fitted with IET shore supply...

Thanks for confirming what was little more than an educated guess. As often happens a molehill has been treated as a mountain by some posters...

 

[TwistedMentat]

You'd think that would be something that would have been standardised on long ago. If not by manufacturers then at least by an internal standards body.

I guess the way trains are used doesn't make it worth the effort to force such a standardisation.

 

[BestWestern]

You'd think that would be something that would have been standardised on long ago. If not by manufacturers then at least by an internal standards body.

I guess the way trains are used doesn't make it worth the effort to force such a standardisation.

Again though, we have to remember that the HSTs have a rather obscure electrical system as built, so it is indeed fair to suggest that it's the rolling stock, rather than the shore based equipment, that is non-standard here.

 

[themiller]

Wouldn't it be easy to run a single contact wire over the tracks in stations to feed stabled trains? This would avoid staff from having to access the track to carry out manual handling of the shore supply cable. I know that it might cost a bit more than an extension lead but it would be out of the way of the p'way gang and away from contamination by diesel engine leaks etc.

 

[gordonjahn]

Wouldn't it be easy to run a single contact wire over the tracks in stations to feed stabled trains? This would avoid staff from having to access the track to carry out manual handling of the shore supply cable. I know that it might cost a bit more than an extension lead but it would be out of the way of the p'way gang and away from contamination by diesel engine leaks etc.

The key issue with that would be the cost of the electrical infrastructure. You'd need a 25kV transformer from a suitable grid feed, associated switchgear and revised earthing arrangements for a few kW.

 

[59CosG95]

Wouldn't it be easy to run a single contact wire over the tracks in stations to feed stabled trains? This would avoid staff from having to access the track to carry out manual handling of the shore supply cable. I know that it might cost a bit more than an extension lead but it would be out of the way of the p'way gang and away from contamination by diesel engine leaks etc.

All the disruptive piling & construction works associated with traditional electrification would still apply - the only difference would be that you would have 1 wire instead of 2.
Single wires also limit train speed when accelerating out of a station. Only places that tend to have single "trolley" wires are depots.

 

[Domh245]

Only places that tend to have single "trolley" wires are depots.

Paddington looks like it has a single contact wire

 

[59CosG95]

Paddington looks like it has a single contact wire

Ah yes, my mistake.
I think special exemptions may be given for listed terminal stations (King's X is another that springs to mind), but a system of that nature would be fairly useless at a through station like Temple Meads.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Wouldn't it be easy to run a single contact wire over the tracks in stations to feed stabled trains? This would avoid staff from having to access the track to carry out manual handling of the shore supply cable. I know that it might cost a bit more than an extension lead but it would be out of the way of the p'way gang and away from contamination by diesel engine leaks etc.

In a word, no! You really don't want electrical supplies of wildly different voltages with different earths (traction earth and mains earth need to be kept very, very separate!) in very close proximity to each other. At big terminal stations it is much cheaper to tap off the station mains, put in the appropriate switchgear and then run the supply to the platforms at low level. At outstations, you usually have to put in a new mains if it is a new installation.

If people wonder why there is a separate earth for Traction, just think what a 25kv to earth fault would do if it tracked across the mains supply to a station and, potentially, nearby properties.

 

[Domh245]

Ah yes, my mistake.
I think special exemptions may be given for listed terminal stations (King's X is another that springs to mind), but a system of that nature would be fairly useless at a through station like Temple Meads.

It depends on what sort of speeds you are dealing with. @GazK's book says that Tramway OLE is suitable for up to 30kph and has to have fairly close spans. Add stitching either side of the mast and it is good for 80kph, which I would think is more than enough for Temple Meads. I suppose the difficult thing to consider is whether the costs saved by having a simple system like that are lost by having to have more frequent structures. In stations with grand old train sheds, you can probably get away with it as you can string up structures from the building

 

[59CosG95]

It depends on what sort of speeds you are dealing with. @GazK's book says that Tramway OLE is suitable for up to 30kph and has to have fairly close spans. Add stitching either side of the mast and it is good for 80kph, which I would think is more than enough for Temple Meads. I suppose the difficult thing to consider is whether the costs saved by having a simple system like that are lost by having to have more frequent structures. In stations with grand old train sheds, you can probably get away with it as you can string up structures from the building

I'm sure you can get away from it inside Temple Meads' Digby Wyatt shed, but not on the platforms to the south...you might as well add in an "updated" modern overall trainshed roof over P6-15 while you're at it!

 

[gsnedders]

If people wonder why there is a separate earth for Traction, just think what a 25kv to earth fault would do if it tracked across the mains supply to a station and, potentially, nearby properties.

Maybe a special for November 5?