GWR Class 800

[ainsworth74]

There was no mention of tapered bodies in the specifications but on unveiling, there is some sort of taper. The Mk.4's were built to tilt but equipment was never fitted.

Right but I'm not sure why it's an issue? So the body is tapered, so is the Mk4 and people don't seem to have much of an issue with them. That's what I'm driving at, why is it a bad thing?

 

[BananaRepublic]

There was no mention of tapered bodies in the specifications but on unveiling, there is some sort of taper.

The specifications required the winning bid to fulfil a lot of criteria, much classified as "essential" and a lot that was classified as "desirable".

The slight taper in the height was not part of any specification, but the desire for a 26m vehicle length was. It was up to Hitachi to design a train that fitted the specifications.
The end result is a tapering at the inner ends of the vehicles (longitudinally), so that these 26m vehicles can be kept in gauge. That's why the end vestibule doors are inset from the vehicle ends.

The very slight vertical taper, is not as marked as that on the Mk4 coaches.
I'm speculating that, like the end taper, it might be needed to keep these very long vehicles in gauge?

 

[swt_passenger]

As I suggested by referring to the Turbo/Electrostars, it is a valid design feature and there's no rule that I know of that body style is completely decided by whether a vehicle tilts or not. It may be a requirement for remaining in gauge with major suspension failure? Would DfT have even attempted to define the overall shape in the specification?

 

[BananaRepublic]

.....Would DfT have even attempted to define the overall shape in the specification?

Indeed...and of course they didn't.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Sorry if this has been asked before. I have had a very quick look at the posts and cannot find it. Why are Western IEPs going to be 5 car units only? I know they can be coupled together but isn't it really making the same mistake with the Voyagers i.e. most services will operate with two coupled together?

 

[HSTEd]

It allows for a marginal decrease in the carriage requirements which, when you are leasing them at the price they are, is important.

Really they should probably just run everything as ten car sets and be done with it.
I do wonder if a future WoE order will be extra intermediate vehicles rather than extra full sets.

 

[59CosG95]

It allows for a marginal decrease in the carriage requirements which, when you are leasing them at the price they are, is important.

Really they should probably just run everything as ten car sets and be done with it.
I do wonder if a future WoE order will be extra intermediate vehicles rather than extra full sets.

Probably a combination of the two.

 

[samuelmorris]

Not that it's the font of all knowledge, but looking at the wiki page, isn't it only the 800s that will be 5-car on Great Western, and not the 801s?

 

[sprinterguy]

Sorry if this has been asked before. I have had a very quick look at the posts and cannot find it. Why are Western IEPs going to be 5 car units only?

I may have misunderstood something here, but they're not? There's going to be 21 x 9-car electric IEP sets (class 801) and 36 x 5-car Bi-mode IEP sets (class 800).

There's enough Great Western Intercity services that only warrant the capacity of a 5-car train at the extremities of the journey at most times of the day that being able to operate 10-car sets over the "core" section from London, with one unit continuing onward west beyond Oxford, Cardiff or whatever offers greater flexibility to match capacity to demand.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Why are Western IEPs going to be 5 car units only?

....isn't it only the 800s that will be 5-car on Great Western, and not the 801s?

There are 36 5-car Class 800 (bi-mode) and 21 9-car class 801 (electric) SET's in the initial order for the GW franchise.

I do wonder if a future WoE order will be extra intermediate vehicles rather than extra full sets.

Probably a combination of the two.

It will probably be both.
The 9-car trains were originally due to be 10-cars long, but the DafT deemed that the recession has knocked back the growth in passenger numbers and that 9-cars will do for now.
The IEP specification called for trains that could easily be extended to 11 or 12 cars long, but that would require more infrastructure work than that currently planned under the IEP for the initial deployment of 5 and 9 car trains.

I'm guessing that the 9-car trains will be extended to 10-cars within just a few years after their introduction.

It's also possible that some of the GW franchise's 5-car bi-modes will be moved to another part of the network in due course, as electrification is extended in the WoE region and more all-electric SET's are ordered.

Other 5-car bi-modes will eventually lose their diesel engines, as intended, as more lines are electrified, Some of these may also end up being extended as all-electric trains.

Nothing is set in stone and a key component of the IEP is to provide flexibility of train configuration. The SET should be able to provide that.

 

[HSTEd]

Although I am pretty sure that pretty quickly we are going to need full length trains again - hence why I think WoE will be just intermediate vehicles to make 5-car sets into 9-car ones.

 

[Noddy]

I think the introduction of the voyager showed that having short sets can be a bit of a fiasco. Even at the so called 'extremities' of the route a Gloucester/Cheltenham HST can be pretty full at peak times. It's going to take some pretty clever timetabling to have the 5-car sets doubled up at peak times and not at other times!

 

[samuelmorris]

That's interesting - I assumed it'd simply be that a 10x26m train would fit in too few stations to be worth operating. I question the economic justification for dropping the extra carriage at the initial stage as I would have thought it'd only end up more expensive to add it later...

 

[BananaRepublic]

That's interesting - I assumed it'd simply be that a 10x26m train would fit in too few stations to be worth operating. I question the economic justification for dropping the extra carriage at the initial stage as I would have thought it'd only end up more expensive to add it later...

At the time of the actual order being signed, I remember it was just after the government review into the whole programme and with the cost of the IEP being under treasury, political and press scrutiny, you could say the DafT were looking to make some savings.
9-cars rather than 10 not only saves the cost of those extra vehicles, but also reduces the amount of infrastructure work needed to accommodate them.

I agree, it'll cost a lot more in the long run to add extra vehicles and extend and in some cases re-extend some platforms, but the treasury and government departments don't think about that. They're only interested in their current budgets.

 

[The Ham]

At the time of the actual order being signed, I remember it was just after the government review into the whole programme and with the cost of the IEP being under treasury, political and press scrutiny, you could say the DafT were looking to make some savings.
9-cars rather than 10 not only saves the cost of those extra vehicles, but also reduces the amount of infrastructure work needed to accommodate them.

I agree, it'll cost a lot more in the long run to add extra vehicles and extend and in some cases re-extend some platforms, but the treasury and government departments don't think about that. They're only interested in their current budgets.

There wouldn't be much extra work, as most infrastructure would have to cope with the 10 coaches of the doubled up 5 coach sets anyway. The big saving is not having to lease the extra 21 coaches needed to lengthen all the 9 coach sets in the GW franchise and/or the extra 42 coaches needed to lengthen all the 9 coach sets in the EC franchise to 10 coaches when they have more seating than the current trains anyway (somewhere in the region of 18% IIRC for the HST's and about 15% IIRC for the IC225's).

There is also the benefit that if 2x5 coach train turns up compared to a 9 coach train that the number of seats is broadly the same. Whilst a 10 coach train compared to a train formed of two 5 coach sets could have about 56-88 less seats (depending the layout of the extra coach).

Then of course there's the fact that the government of the time can earn some extra kudos when they can announce that they have funded an extra however many thousand extra seats each day when they do allow the TOC to lengthen the sets to 10 coaches. This will provide an increase of 9% to 14% over the current 9 coach sets (depending on layout). That would provide time for infrastructure works to then allow further lengthening or for other infrastructure works to improve the number of paths and/or new lines (such as HS2) to be built to take some of the strain.

Of course there is also the possibility that there are extra coaches ordered to lengthen some of the 5 coach sets to up to 10 coaches long. In doing so there would be the need for less doubled up sets which would mean that other services (i.e. those to Cornwall) could be run using IEP's were they are not currently planned to be.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I agree, it'll cost a lot more in the long run to add extra vehicles and extend and in some cases re-extend some platforms, but the treasury and government departments don't think about that. They're only interested in their current budgets.

While that's true, the way IEP is funded it doesn't cost the government a bean.
The cost would go on to the usage charges paid by the TOCs after delivery.
Hitachi and the banks might not have wanted to pay for the extra vehicles anyway - the deal was hard enough to close as it is.

 

[BananaRepublic]

While that's true, the way IEP is funded it doesn't cost the government a bean.
The cost would go on to the usage charges paid by the TOCs after delivery.
Hitachi and the banks might not have wanted to pay for the extra vehicles anyway - the deal was hard enough to close as it is.

In terms of funding, there are different aspects to this.
Firstly the IEP is a programme, not a type of train and while the purchase cost of the actual trains (the SET or Class 800/801) is met by the financial group working with Agility Trains, there are other costs involved that the DfT/treasury have to bear.

The infrastructure costs needed to introduce the new trains fall on NR which will have to be paid for from the IEP (remember it's a programme) and there is the cost of running the whole exercise (i.e. The IEP), which has cost the DfT a lot of money to date. Train lengths have relatively little bearing on these costs in the wider context of the programme.

Most significantly though, the biggest burden to the government is the cost of underwriting the purchase cost of the trains. Even if the actual trains don't the government "a bean", I'm assuming the underwriting costs must go on the treasury's books in the form of a liability?

 

[Dave1987]

Just heard that the acceleration profile of a bi-mode above 30 mph is pathetic when operating on the diesel engines. So much for them being fantastic.

 

[asylumxl]

Just heard that the acceleration profile of a bi-mode above 30 mph is pathetic when operating on the diesel engines. So much for them being fantastic.

Broken record comes to mind :roll:. Could you please cite a source for your claim?

The acceleration profile of HSTs is pretty pathetic anyway so I doubt it will be much of an issue. Not like they need to be particularly rapid on the lines they will operate under diesel power.

 

[starrymarkb]

Yep, HSTs are very slow to get up to speed, it'll just match the existing performance.

 

[notadriver]

HSTs are faster to 60 mph than a Turbostar (class 170) believe it or not !

 

[Class 170101]

I also thought HSTs were faster off the mark than Class 91s on the ECML hence why the HSTs are used on the Newark and York stoppers rather than the Class 91s?

I was also asked to confirm the view of somone that the Bi Mode seemed to actually lead to slower journey times between Kings Cross and Inverness than today and that seemed to be the case.

 

[asylumxl]

I also thought HSTs were faster off the mark than Class 91s on the ECML hence why the HSTs are used on the Newark and York stoppers rather than the Class 91s?

I was also asked to confirm the view of somone that the Bi Mode seemed to actually lead to slower journey times between Kings Cross and Inverness than today and that seemed to be the case.

Again. Please cite your sources.

 

[BananaRepublic]

I was also asked to confirm the view of somone that the Bi Mode seemed to actually lead to slower journey times between Kings Cross and Inverness than today and that seemed to be the case.

Both the Bi-Mode class 800 and electric Class 801 should be faster than the 125 and 225's all the way up from KX to Edinburgh.
With its distributed traction arrangement, the Bi-Mode should also have the edge over the 125's off the wires, even with a lower power output.

 

[notadriver]

Again. Please cite your sources.

Rail Express magazine ?

 

[asylumxl]

Rail Express magazine ?

Is it anything like the other rail magazines, where editors have a stake in ROSCOs like Porterbrook?

 

[notadriver]

Is it anything like the other rail magazines, where editors have a stake in ROSCOs like Porterbrook?

No it's just people timing trains [emoji1][emoji1]

 

[BananaRepublic]

No it's just people timing trains [emoji1][emoji1]

So they've managed to time a train that hasn't had a proper run out yet and there isn't even one in the country?
Clever stuff!

 

[Class 170101]

Again. Please cite your sources.

It was not a press source so no on this occasion.

However have a read of the link below.

http://www.fofnl.org.uk/newsletters/14Jan/14jan12.html

 

[asylumxl]

It was not a press source so no on this occasion.

However have a read of the link below.

http://www.fofnl.org.uk/newsletters/14Jan/14jan12.html

All I can see is talk about padding. Nothing about the actual acceleration of the train.

The general trend is to add more padding to minimise delay minutes. Has been happening for years and has nothing to do with new stock.