GWR Class 800

[w1bbl3]

No not really.
Restaurant in front unit will leave very few non dining first class seats. Therefore those with first class tickets who are not dining will need to use the rear unit. They will have to change at Plymouth if going further west.
Alternatively restaurant in rear unit, restaurant customers will have to use the rear unit to dine, and then have to change to the front unit if going beyond Plymouth.

Which ever option is used, significant numbers will have to walk along the platform at Plymouth. All part of downgrading from proper inter-city trains to short DMUs.

Earlier on I'm sure I saw a post bemoaning that the service only has 17 seats vs the previous HST allocation, yet it's now a "significant number". I thought that the Pullman service has first call for dinner at Newton Abbot and the last call at Taunton with the service packed away by Reading on services departing WoE so surely the departure boards could be preset to indicate which part of the train to board for dinner and on joining services to advise walking down the platform at Plymouth if the service is starting in the waiting unit.

In terms of the London departures I'd expect that over time 1st passengers would board the continuing portion at their origin station leaving only the Pullman passengers continuing towards Penzance seated in the wrong part and needing to move down the train at Plymouth, surely and logically the Pullman services can't have every seat occupied by passengers going beyond Plymouth all 17 of them (or if they did it would not have made sense to schedule a splitting diagram). Ironically if Pullman demand becomes consistently strong then rostering 10 cars with both kitchens in use would be a method of increasing dinning capacity beyond the HST service (34 covers vs 24 covers) as was.

What is the 1st class loading Penzance to Plymouth like in the morning and afternoon? and again Plymouth to Penzance in the evening?

The sub two hour journey time between Plymouth and Penzance also makes a WoE only service currently impossible to deliver as the full three course menu takes a little over two hours, hence the service starting at Plymouth and I assume the chief joining the service.

Of course they are. Throw more money at it (buildings/staff/equipment) and they'd be completed in less time.

The problem with speeding up manufacturing isn't usually money or for that matter staff but building/facilities. Generally a new build factory unit is a 3 - 4 year project from land acquisition to start up, it typically takes at least a year get a spade in ground then two to three to build the shed followed by 6 to 12 months of fit-out and commissioning. Actually hiring the staff can be done whilst the shed is being built and in most cases the initial recruits can be trained at existing facilities whilst the new one is being built. Map this back to the mk3 power door programme and by the time it became apparent that dates where hopelessly optimistic and even with the very slow rate of delivery any new facility wouldn't become operational until after the programme will have completed at which point the added capacity is pointless. Remember mk3 power doors are only happening because industry couldn't deliver new build stock in time for RAVR, post 2020 and there is spare capacity for new builds with Hitachi and Bombardier.

 

[northernbelle]

One of the biggest problems with the railway - it’s always someone else’s fault.

And one of the biggest problems of the railway forum - those who think they are best-placed to be critical but really aren't.

Seriously - you have been offered a reasonable (and correct) explanation. It was actually the TOCs who lobbied DfT to provide a softer seat base spec in the IEP design but to no avail.

 

[3973EXL]

5X81 Eastleigh to N Pole 800301

 

[59CosG95]

5X81 Eastleigh to N Pole 800301

To which I can add that 800321 is currently working 5X80 from Doncaster Carr to North Pole.

 

[43096]

And one of the biggest problems of the railway forum - those who think they are best-placed to be critical but really aren't.

Seriously - you have been offered a reasonable (and correct) explanation. It was actually the TOCs who lobbied DfT to provide a softer seat base spec in the IEP design but to no avail.

Not really interested in the who, what or how in this instance. Trains get less comfortable and cars get more comfortable - guess which I'll use?

 

[samuelmorris]

Not really interested in the who, what or how in this instance. Trains get less comfortable and cars get more comfortable - guess which I'll use?

To be fair, this is the right viewpoint to have. We understand why limitations cause the problems they do, but if the combination of government policy, health & safety regulations and so on rendered public transport impossible to use, then it is a pointless exercise. We are not yet at the point where we can afford to downsize public transport options for everyone that could otherwise drive to use electric cars instead. It's obviously hyperbole to suggest you physically can't use the train for those sorts of reasons at this stage, but that's the direction we're headed in. I used to travel to York quite a bit, and back then I also suffered quite badly with sciatica which has fortunately since abated but who knows one day it may return. I could do that journey on an HST or Mk4 quite happily but if I still had those symptoms I'm genuinely not sure I could tolerate it on an 800. Now that I have the option to drive instead, I'd probably take it. I find that situation at least a little maddening. I'd probably be happier to do such a journey on a 3+2 360/1 if you can believe it.

I know seating preferences are subjective and I know the debate has been done to death, but it is potentially a growing problem. The acid test I think will be the 720s, to see if when real effort is put into providing a decent seat, it can actually produce something tolerable.

The GWR buffet situation I find less of an issue. Yes, it's annoying for the people that use it and unquestionably a downgrade but it's relatively uncommon for people to travel such a length of time on a train that they can't buy food for themselves beforehand, from what I can tell. It does, however, create an interesting contrast between the TOC that were permitted to install a buffet and the one that weren't.

I wouldn't suggest the DfT are making new trains deliberately bad, as the saying goes, - "never attribute to malice that which is explained through incompetence", but between uncomfortable new rolling stock and rapidly declining punctuality, rail travel is looking pretty unappealing right now. Shiny new trains, especially on the more premium long-distance routes, should be the perfect way to try and mitigate that damage and get some more people off the roads. There's a real environmental case to be made here, and by making the 800s in particular so <expletive>, they blew it.

 

[northernbelle]

Not really interested in the who, what or how in this instance. Trains get less comfortable and cars get more comfortable - guess which I'll use?

It was you who felt the need to finger point in the first place.

Train seats, with the current standards around crashworthiness and fire resistance, are a dark art. It is difficult to get any new design through the acceptance for these standards - the seat shells for crashworthiness and the foam and covers for fire resistance.

Each new combination of seat cover + foam shape + seat shell used requires a specific fire safety test and it can take months of work to go through the test and acceptance process. You can't just select a seat design, add a material of your choice to it and install it in a brand new train, unless that combination had already been used.

This only applies to new-build stock and so putting swathes of leather on armchairs in HSTs didn't fall foul of this. East Coast had aspirations of higher-quality seat covers and padding on their IEPs - it'll be interesting to see what actually materialises.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is difficult to get any new design through the acceptance for these standards - the seat shells for crashworthiness and the foam and covers for fire resistance.

That may be so - but why put such an awful design through in the first place? (I know - cost).

 

[43096]

It was you who felt the need to finger point in the first place.

Train seats, with the current standards around crashworthiness and fire resistance, are a dark art. It is difficult to get any new design through the acceptance for these standards - the seat shells for crashworthiness and the foam and covers for fire resistance.

Each new combination of seat cover + foam shape + seat shell used requires a specific fire safety test and it can take months of work to go through the test and acceptance process. You can't just select a seat design, add a material of your choice to it and install it in a brand new train, unless that combination had already been used.

This only applies to new-build stock and so putting swathes of leather on armchairs in HSTs didn't fall foul of this. East Coast had aspirations of higher-quality seat covers and padding on their IEPs - it'll be interesting to see what actually materialises.

So we just keep treating the passengers like cattle for ever more, do we? No wonder the railway is such a ****ed up, dysfunctional mess.

 

[samuelmorris]

That may be so - but why put such an awful design through in the first place? (I know - cost).

or the regulations are so strict that it's almost impossible to get a 'not awful' design approved for IC use. Seemingly the regs for 125mph IC stock are different to 100mph stock based on an earlier post suggesting that Kiel and Grammer seats aren't compliant for IC use.

 

[Grumbler]

Bring your own cushions!

 

[Bletchleyite]

or the regulations are so strict that it's almost impossible to get a 'not awful' design approved for IC use.

I very, very much doubt that is the case.

Seemingly the regs for 125mph IC stock are different to 100mph stock based on an earlier post suggesting that Kiel and Grammer seats aren't compliant for IC use.

It may be that the only seat presently passed for 125mph is that garbage, but that does not preclude someone putting the Grammer or Kiel seats through, subject to any required modifications.

What is absolutely certain is that a seat design through which one's backside can feel the metal supports is not the only seat likely to pass, and it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that it is.

FWIW, are the regs UK specific or are they EU-wide? If the latter, it only takes a short trip to Europe to confirm that other designs of InterCity seat are available and clearly pass.

 

[northernbelle]

So change the standards and/or spend more time developing and testing compliant designs?

It'll be interesting to see what seating looks like on new European stock - I'd put money on the fact that armchairs are out on the mainland as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So change the standards and/or spend more time developing and testing compliant designs?

It'll be interesting to see what seating looks like on new European stock - I'd put money on the fact that armchairs are out on the mainland as well.

The ICE4 has seating very similar to previous generations - Grammer-made, I believe, but an even more premium design than the venerable IC3000.

Oh, and yes, leather in 1st.

 

[samuelmorris]

I very, very much doubt that is the case.



It may be that the only seat presently passed for 125mph is that garbage, but that does not preclude someone putting the Grammer or Kiel seats through, subject to any required modifications.

What is absolutely certain is that a seat design through which one's backside can feel the metal supports is not the only seat likely to pass, and it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that it is.

Just going by post 9929 from 159220. I'd like to see why the other seats used don't satisfy the conditions though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just going by post 9929 from 159220. I'd like to see why the other seats used don't satisfy the conditions though.

That posting suggests that only that seat is presently passed, which may be so, and that ROSCOs have no motivation to pass another, which may also be so. That does not preclude TOCs opening their wallets and requesting another design to be put through[1] - and they should indeed do that, because that design is garbage. (It wouldn't take much of a change to make it acceptable, which is what's the worst thing!)

[1] If putting another design through was to be profitable, only a very stupid ROSCO would turn it down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seriously - you have been offered a reasonable (and correct) explanation. It was actually the TOCs who lobbied DfT to provide a softer seat base spec in the IEP design but to no avail.

They may have lobbied, but did they open their wallets?

Knowing FirstGroup I bet GWR did not, certainly, nor TPE for their new stock.

 

[jimm]

They may have lobbied, but did they open their wallets?

It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference in the case of the trains acquired under the IEP orders - the trains were not GWR's to specify or equip. Hitachi have spent a year quibbling about GWR wanting to have Quiet Coach stickers on the windows in coach A on IETs, so what on earth do you think they would say about fitting different seats to what the DFT wanted?

And as was noted above, even in the case of the 802s or any other train a TOC wants to order, the DfT still sticks its on oar in anyway on seats among many other things.

Why should a TOC pay to have seats tested? I would have though it would be in the commercial interests of seat manufacturers to get the testing done - so they can, er, sell their seats...

 

[404250]

The new green GWR seats on 158s are more comfortable than the 800 ones and must pass the safety tests? I went on a non refurbished 158 recently with blue FGW seats. These were REALLY comfortable - loads of soft padding.

 

[cactustwirly]

The new green GWR seats on 158s are more comfortable than the 800 ones and must pass the safety tests? I went on a non refurbished 158 recently with blue FGW seats. These were REALLY comfortable - loads of soft padding.

No because they're the existing seats, so they don't have to conform to the new safety regulations.

 

[Grumbler]

No because they're the existing seats, so they don't have to conform to the new safety regulations.

Simple solution - remove the seats from the old trains and fit them into the new ones!

 

[broadgage]

Earlier on I'm sure I saw a post bemoaning that the service only has 17 seats vs the previous HST allocation, yet it's now a "significant number". I thought that the Pullman service has first call for dinner at Newton Abbot and the last call at Taunton with the service packed away by Reading on services departing WoE so surely the departure boards could be preset to indicate which part of the train to board for dinner and on joining services to advise walking down the platform at Plymouth if the service is starting in the waiting unit.

In terms of the London departures I'd expect that over time 1st passengers would board the continuing portion at their origin station leaving only the Pullman passengers continuing towards Penzance seated in the wrong part and needing to move down the train at Plymouth, surely and logically the Pullman services can't have every seat occupied by passengers going beyond Plymouth all 17 of them (or if they did it would not have made sense to schedule a splitting diagram). Ironically if Pullman demand becomes consistently strong then rostering 10 cars with both kitchens in use would be a method of increasing dinning capacity beyond the HST service (34 covers vs 24 covers) as was.

What is the 1st class loading Penzance to Plymouth like in the morning and afternoon? and again Plymouth to Penzance in the evening?

The sub two hour journey time between Plymouth and Penzance also makes a WoE only service currently impossible to deliver as the full three course menu takes a little over two hours, hence the service starting at Plymouth and I assume the chief joining the service.



The problem with speeding up manufacturing isn't usually money or for that matter staff but building/facilities. Generally a new build factory unit is a 3 - 4 year project from land acquisition to start up, it typically takes at least a year get a spade in ground then two to three to build the shed followed by 6 to 12 months of fit-out and commissioning. Actually hiring the staff can be done whilst the shed is being built and in most cases the initial recruits can be trained at existing facilities whilst the new one is being built. Map this back to the mk3 power door programme and by the time it became apparent that dates where hopelessly optimistic and even with the very slow rate of delivery any new facility wouldn't become operational until after the programme will have completed at which point the added capacity is pointless. Remember mk3 power doors are only happening because industry couldn't deliver new build stock in time for RAVR, post 2020 and there is spare capacity for new builds with Hitachi and Bombardier.

My statement regarding "significant numbers" having to change to the other unit at Plymouth, was not referring ONLY to Pullman dining customers, but also to non dining first class customers.
If the Restaurant is in the front portion, then most non-dining first class customers will have to use the rear portion and will have to change at Plymouth.
Alternatively if the restaurant is in the rear portion, then dining customers going west of Plymouth will have to change.

In the other direction, if the Pullman is in the portion being attached at Plymouth, then anyone already on the portion from Penzance will also have to change.

A backwards step, but that's progress.

 

[43096]

It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference in the case of the trains acquired under the IEP orders - the trains were not GWR's to specify or equip. Hitachi have spent a year quibbling about GWR wanting to have Quiet Coach stickers on the windows in coach A on IETs, so what on earth do you think they would say about fitting different seats to what the DFT wanted?

And as was noted above, even in the case of the 802s or any other train a TOC wants to order, the DfT still sticks its on oar in anyway on seats among many other things.

Why should a TOC pay to have seats tested? I would have though it would be in the commercial interests of seat manufacturers to get the testing done - so they can, er, sell their seats...

So how did Virgin manage to get the internal spec changed on their IEP order, including buffets and different seat covers?

All the evidence points to WorstGroup not really trying. Not surprising in a corporate culture where they don't give a stuff about the passengers. They also don't give a stuff about shareholders, given they haven't paid a dividend in years and the share price heads downwards. Just what is the point of the organisation?

 

[JN114]

It's a DfT thing, as has been discussed many times before. They closed down the interior design of the GWR units and then allowed about 12 items that the bidders for East Coast could change, one of which was the buffet, which raised eyebrows with the FG team who were bidding for East Coast, as well as being involved with the GWR IEP programme. The DfT then made sure that the cl.802 fleet would be "identical" to the cl.800 fleet - bluntly they would not have been authorized if FG/GWR had deviated - it caused a real panic at the DfT at even the thought that they might be able to.

So how did Virgin manage to get the internal spec changed on their IEP order, including buffets and different seat covers?

As Clarence Yard stated in #9897, relevant paragraph requoted for you. I suspect it’s a circular argument.

Why don’t you put your question to the DfT, they’re the ones that hold the answer you seek. And when they inevitably don’t answer the question you’ve asked grow a pair yourself and don’t accept their answer. Then report back here.

In the meantime can we leave this thread at actual news? Rather than yet another ramble about seat quality?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why should a TOC pay to have seats tested? I would have though it would be in the commercial interests of seat manufacturers to get the testing done - so they can, er, sell their seats...

You'd think so. But in the end if the market doesn't offer something you can still get it in most cases - commission it yourself.

 

[northernbelle]

They may have lobbied, but did they open their wallets?

Knowing FirstGroup I bet GWR did not, certainly, nor TPE for their new stock.

So how did Virgin manage to get the internal spec changed on their IEP order, including buffets and different seat covers?

All the evidence points to WorstGroup not really trying. Not surprising in a corporate culture where they don't give a stuff about the passengers. They also don't give a stuff about shareholders, given they haven't paid a dividend in years and the share price heads downwards. Just what is the point of the organisation?

Evidence, or just the usual conjecture and opinion asserted as fact?

GWR was actually the first to get agreement to improve the seat cover specification - some sets from new, others retro-fitted (a process not yet complete). Stagecoach built the cost of adding a buffet into its now terminated franchise bid but GWR has operated on a Direct Award contract since late 2013 which has limited the ability for much in the way of commercial wriggle room. The addition of a buffet to the GWR sets would also have delayed introduction - these sets already being in build by the time the debate about the DfT-specified lack of buffet really kicked off.

All this is of course ignoring the fact that a trolley is more appropriate for the London-Bristol/South Wales/Cotswolds services for which the GW IEPs were ordered when compared to the Anglo Scottish route. The reason GWR's own order of 802s don't have a buffet? See countless posts above regarding DfT desire for seat number headlines and a standard fleet.

I'm sorry this doesn't tally with your anti-Firstgroup crusade, but it's about time you realised just how the DfT micro-manage the railway - and not always in a consistent way across TOCs.

 

[broadgage]

So how did Virgin manage to get the internal spec changed on their IEP order, including buffets and different seat covers?

All the evidence points to WorstGroup not really trying. Not surprising in a corporate culture where they don't give a stuff about the passengers. They also don't give a stuff about shareholders, given they haven't paid a dividend in years and the share price heads downwards. Just what is the point of the organisation?

I agree.
Advocates of the new DMUs will no doubt blame all shortcomings on the department for transport, and yet as noted above other operators DO have buffets on their IETs.
Did the government REALLY say "GWR cant have a buffet, but other TOCs can have a buffet" That seems a bit improbable to me, why the different policy for different TOCs ?
Much more likely IMO is that FGW as they were called at the time said "great, we have been trying to get of buffets for years, this is the perfect opportunity" AFTER the new shorter trains had been specified without buffets, they then did a survey to show that buffets are no longer wanted. So no doubt as to what answer was required from the survey.

 

[broadgage]

Bring your own cushions!

Make certain that you also bring with you the certificate of fire resistance for the cushion. Consider the terrible fire risk if several non-approved cushions are used in the same coach.

 

[Grumbler]

Make certain that you also bring with you the certificate of fire resistance for the cushion. Consider the terrible fire risk if several non-approved cushions are used in the same coach.

Think of all the luggage items without fire certificates! Not to mention coats etc., and passengers who've been at the whisky!

 

[broadgage]

As Clarence Yard stated in #9897, relevant paragraph requoted for you. I suspect it’s a circular argument.

Why don’t you put your question to the DfT, they’re the ones that hold the answer you seek. And when they inevitably don’t answer the question you’ve asked grow a pair yourself and don’t accept their answer. Then report back here.

In the meantime can we leave this thread at actual news? Rather than yet another ramble about seat quality?

Well I HAVE asked the question of the department for transport, regarding the prohibition on buffets.
The reply was that "the type of catering offered is a matter for the TOC to decide, the internal design of the new inter city express trains was specified to be readily re-configured if needs change"