GWR Class 800

[spark001uk]

I've noticed that all the chairs shake quite violently when the switching to/from diesel mode.

Really? I suppose if you're right over an engine you could feel it start/stop, but I wouldn't say violently. In fact I've been impressed with how hard it is to hear them running, the soundproofing is very good.

There have been gauging runs but a problem exists between Exeter Central and St.Davids. Haven't heard anything about it being resolved yet.

Ah that was probably why then.

 

[Mag_seven]

Really? I suppose if you're right over an engine you could feel it start/stop, but I wouldn't say violently. In fact I've been impressed with how hard it is to hear them running, the soundproofing is very good.

Maybe "violently" is a bit strong. Its certainly "noticeable" if you are sitting at the end of a motor coach.

 

[jimm]

Oh please! I did not pose a question because Modern Railways has been publishing train reliability data for several years and promotes the Golden Spanners industry awards every November which are based on these figures. The accuracy of these numbers has never before been called into question - so why should I doubt them?

On the other hand the industry has form in not completing work to the published schedules - this includes the introduction of new and rebuilt rolling stock as well as infrastructure work. It is entirely appropriate to take some statements with a pinch of salt.

I repeated my statements because it seems that my original post had not been completely understood although I tried to make it as clear as possible. As it is now clear from Clarence Yard's and JN114's posts that the numbers published in Modern Railways do not reflect the situation on the ground, and have not done so for several months, but show the trains as performing worse than they are in practice, I would hope that GWR and Hitachi will now ensure that the correct data is made available. Even the DfT might be interested to show that it has not bought a lemon!

I think people understood straight away that something in your figures wasn't right - that's why they said so.

Plenty of other information is available that you could have referred to, such as the many diagrams in the relevant thread where sets are clearly required to cover far more than 500-odd miles in day. Just a few pages further on from the Golden Spanners report and tables, the same issue of Modern Railways has the article about a visit to Stoke Gifford IET depot that mentions MTIN in mid-November was up to 7,500 miles and gives details of how many sets were available for passenger service and diagrammed each day.

Did none of that give you pause for thought before getting out the calculator?

Please don't try to make out that information posted over the weekend about progress towards the introduction of the full GWR IET fleet was some kind of revelation.

Clarence Yard - surely the insider's insider on the subject - has made posts here over a long period giving next spring as the target for this to happen and I'm sure could be counted on to provide an update had things changed. Articles in the railway press have been giving the same ballpark timing since at least the middle of last year. And plenty of posts in this thread have given updates on IET sets entering service during the year - with no sign of a three-month gap in deliveries.

 

[HowardGWR]

Have the 80x been cleared for Castle Cary - Yeovil - Exeter?
Reason I ask is there was an incident at Taunton yesterday, and looking on Twitter there was one doing a Penzance, that passengers were initially told may be diverted, but was instead held at CC for almost 1.5hrs, before taking the normal route through Taunton.

Perhaps the reason was that the driver did not sign that route? What about the pax who wanted to leave /join between Castle Cary and Exeter?

 

[spark001uk]

Perhaps the reason was that the driver did not sign that route? What about the pax who wanted to leave /join between Castle Cary and Exeter?

That would be another possibility yes. Though I imagine most sign that diversionary route, maybe a driver could answer that better?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

There have been gauging runs but a problem exists between Exeter Central and St.Davids. Haven't heard anything about it being resolved yet.

That will be the tunnel up the bank. Small tunnel as it is and certainly isn't for 26 coaches. Do you know what the issue is?

 

[JN114]

That would be another possibility yes. Though I imagine most sign that diversionary route, maybe a driver could answer that better?

Only Exeter and a small(?) Number of Plymouth crews sign the LSWR. With the single line sections NR Wessex aren’t always happy to have the additional traffic.

 

[Dren Ahmeti]

Only Exeter and a small(?) Number of Plymouth crews sign the LSWR. With the single line sections NR Wessex aren’t always happy to have the additional traffic.

When are they ever happy?

Not much was operating down that way, it could’ve been sent, but iirc, the railway reopened after the BTP established it wasn’t a fatality and non-suspicious.

 

[coppercapped]

I think people understood straight away that something in your figures wasn't right - that's why they said so.

I repeat - they are NOT my figures. They were taken from a sequence of numbers which has been published continuously for the past year which I have kept, for ease of access, on a spreadsheet. I did some simple arithmetic to arrive at the (reported) miles per day per unit.

These data show neither Hitachi nor any of the other train builders in a good light. If these companies' reputations were being damaged because incorrect data were being published then Hitachi, Bombardier and Siemens have had plenty of time to ask for a retraction or correction.

As they did not there was no reason whatsoever to suppose the published data were inaccurate.

I can't say I have noticed that you pointed out the inaccuracies in the Modern Railways' figures at any time during the past year, and it is clear that you read the magazine, in spite of all the posts you have made correcting inaccuracies in other posters comments about the IET saga.

Plenty of other information is available that you could have referred to, such as the many diagrams in the relevant thread where sets are clearly required to cover far more than 500-odd miles in day. Just a few pages further on from the Golden Spanners report and tables, the same issue of Modern Railways has the article about a visit to Stoke Gifford IET depot that mentions MTIN in mid-November was up to 7,500 miles and gives details of how many sets were available for passenger service and diagrammed each day.

Did none of that give you pause for thought before getting out the calculator?

And it shows you also have not read what I wrote — I made no mention of the MTINs, this parameter was raised by other posters. I wrote about the miles covered per day.

And as you well know the DIAGRAMMED mileage is that which it hoped will be achieved - it does not mean that it WILL be, or has been, achieved.

Please don't try to make out that information posted over the weekend about progress towards the introduction of the full GWR IET fleet was some kind of revelation.
Clarence Yard - surely the insider's insider on the subject - has made posts here over a long period giving next spring as the target for this to happen and I'm sure could be counted on to provide an update had things changed. Articles in the railway press have been giving the same ballpark timing since at least the middle of last year. And plenty of posts in this thread have given updates on IET sets entering service during the year - with no sign of a three-month gap in deliveries.

Again — you are claiming I wrote something that I did not. My original point was that up to now the IET fleet has been replacing HSTs basically on a one for one basis - then because the miles (apparently) run per day by each IET unit was not as high as that achieved by each HST (on average) there would be a capacity gap. Now I shall be very careful to make sure that I am not going to write anything that can be misconstrued. Just before the Class 180s left for pastures new, the fGW/GWR's combined HST and Class 180 fleet consisted of 449 vehicles - 53 8 coach HSTs and 5 5 coach 180s. (I think that is correct). At the moment I understand that all the IEP units have been delivered as well as some of the Class 802 fleet (from a total of 236 vehicles) so currently the Class 80x fleet is a bit larger than the old HST/180 fleet counted as vehicles. I think around 130 Class 802 vehicles are still to come which will make the new fleet some 156 vehicles bigger than the old. Until some of the capacity is swallowed up by a more intensive timetable they are effectively extra trains. As the more intensive timetable has been delayed I calculated that these extra trains would be very welcome in filling the, now discredited, capacity gap but would still require the assistance of some retained HSTs. I could have added all this to my first post but I thought it would make everything too long and complicated, so I didn't. Mea culpa - I never thought the subject would be so sensitive.

 

[superalbs]

I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing the announcements say 'Plimmer', instead of 'Plymouth'.

 

[TractiveEffort]

Or something similar, yes. Certainly nothing to be concerned about. My technical knowledge of IETs isn’t amazing; @TractiveEffort might have a more detailed explanation of what’s involved mechanically.

Passenger doors have 4 pneumatically operated cam locks that operate and push the door outwards against the seal when the speed is above 25kph - purely speed related which is why you hear them operate off and back on when stopping at a signal etc.

The cab doors have an inflatable seal, which inflates when the speed is above 3kph or when the train wash button is pressed.

 

[jimm]

I repeat - they are NOT my figures. They were taken from a sequence of numbers which has been published continuously for the past year which I have kept, for ease of access, on a spreadsheet. I did some simple arithmetic to arrive at the (reported) miles per day per unit.

These data show neither Hitachi nor any of the other train builders in a good light. If these companies' reputations were being damaged because incorrect data were being published then Hitachi, Bombardier and Siemens have had plenty of time to ask for a retraction or correction.

As they did not there was no reason whatsoever to suppose the published data were inaccurate.

I can't say I have noticed that you pointed out the inaccuracies in the Modern Railways' figures at any time during the past year, and it is clear that you read the magazine, in spite of all the posts you have made correcting inaccuracies in other posters comments about the IET saga.


And it shows you also have not read what I wrote — I made no mention of the MTINs, this parameter was raised by other posters. I wrote about the miles covered per day.

And as you well know the DIAGRAMMED mileage is that which it hoped will be achieved - it does not mean that it WILL be, or has been, achieved.

Again — you are claiming I wrote something that I did not. My original point was that up to now the IET fleet has been replacing HSTs basically on a one for one basis - then because the miles (apparently) run per day by each IET unit was not as high as that achieved by each HST (on average) there would be a capacity gap. Now I shall be very careful to make sure that I am not going to write anything that can be misconstrued. Just before the Class 180s left for pastures new, the fGW/GWR's combined HST and Class 180 fleet consisted of 449 vehicles - 53 8 coach HSTs and 5 5 coach 180s. (I think that is correct). At the moment I understand that all the IEP units have been delivered as well as some of the Class 802 fleet (from a total of 236 vehicles) so currently the Class 80x fleet is a bit larger than the old HST/180 fleet counted as vehicles. I think around 130 Class 802 vehicles are still to come which will make the new fleet some 156 vehicles bigger than the old. Until some of the capacity is swallowed up by a more intensive timetable they are effectively extra trains. As the more intensive timetable has been delayed I calculated that these extra trains would be very welcome in filling the, now discredited, capacity gap but would still require the assistance of some retained HSTs. I could have added all this to my first post but I thought it would make everything too long and complicated, so I didn't. Mea culpa - I never thought the subject would be so sensitive.

Where did anyone say anything about the 'published data' not being someone else's?

What people questioned was the conclusions you drew from your sums using that data, conclusions which you posted without any hint of qualification or equivocation, despite plenty of information being around that might have suggested something was not quite right about the numbers your sums produced.

Your principal conclusion

the best of the IETs are running some 200 miles per day fewer than the HSTs they are replacing

was shown by FGW_DID to be way off beam.

Whatever the size of the train fleet declared in the figures compiled by the Rail Development Group, there is no suggestion anywhere that the IET MTIN figure is way off beam when it comes to providing an indication of the overall reliability and performance of the trains, as opposed to a crude average daily mileage figure, that tells you nothing, for example, about the impact of a 10-minute delay at Swindon due to a door fault.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

One thing to remember in terms of IETs replacing HSTs over a period of time is that the diagrams are very much NOT direct replacements. Just consider the impact of having major depots in entirely different locations, the fact that daytime HST stabling in London is no longer possible, etc. In the early stages of the transition the primary difficulty was constructing a small number of logical productive IET diagrams without destroying overall fleet productivity by cutting things up too much. Now, in the latter stages, the opposite problem is now dominant; constructing useful HST diagrams against a background of predominantly IET work. There is also the need to continue cycling HSTs through SPM and Laira, resulting in the reappearance of HSTs on Bristol and Swansea work (introducing new ‘inefficiencies’ and further changing 800 workings), the ever-evolving dates for IET shore-supply provision at key locations, the well-documented issues with planning attach/detach, platform length issues at Gloucester and Maidenhead, dialogue concerning DOO on Padd-Oxford fasts (thankfully resolved), the current DOO self-dispatch camera issues, driver training progress... the list goes on. Some of these issues develop / change almost daily, against which background the planners - who take Clarence Yard’s overall cascade plans and tweak & revise them as necessary - try to maintain some sense of sanity and stability.

Furthermore the LTP diagrams through certain periods have been done in ‘blocks’ - whereas many of the continual changes to requirements have been handled by the STP process. This is all still before the diagrams hit the operational reality of running a railway, control swaps for Hitachi maintenance requirements, plus anything else arising that the official plan couldn’t incorporate / wouldn’t touch (e.g. due to timescales) / overlooked.

All these things considered, I am astonished if the diagrammed miles are in the same ballpark as the actual miles. Combine this with the double-set / single-set miles vice single-set HST and I’m impressed that Modern Railways - as an independent (well informed) observer - can draw any meaningful conclusions whatsoever.

 

[coppercapped]

Where did anyone say anything about the 'published data' not being someone else's?

What people questioned was the conclusions you drew from your sums using that data, conclusions which you posted without any hint of qualification or equivocation, despite plenty of information being around that might have suggested something was not quite right about the numbers your sums produced.

Your principal conclusion



was shown by FGW_DID to be way off beam.

Whatever the size of the train fleet declared in the figures compiled by the Rail Development Group, there is no suggestion anywhere that the IET MTIN figure is way off beam when it comes to providing an indication of the overall reliability and performance of the trains, as opposed to a crude average daily mileage figure, that tells you nothing, for example, about the impact of a 10-minute delay at Swindon due to a door fault.

Let me ask you this.

If Modern Railways had put an extra column in the tables it produces every month which contained the results of the distances in the 'Unit Miles' column divided by the fleet size in the 'Number of Units/Trainsets' column, and I had quoted the numbers in this extra column, what would have been your reaction?

 

[Clarence Yard]

That the figures would have been rubbish, because the fleet totals that RDG have used are almost certainly wrong.

The missing ingredient is average daily diagrams. Dividing total mileage run (by type) by average number of diagrams (by type) is the only way you will get to the right figure of average miles per day.

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes, I read the MR columns for new stock as being a 'pro memore' snapshot of how far deliveries have got. So the column cannot be accurately used as divisor, it would seem.

I noticed this on Wikipedia about another new class where new units are described thus e.g.:
'So far 13 units have been delivered'. Clearly this is an inadvisable entry, as it would have become OOD very shortly after that!

A correct way of doing this in Wikipedia is 'On xx/xx/xxxx there were yy units delivered'.

 

[coppercapped]

That the figures would have been rubbish, because the fleet totals that RDG have used are almost certainly wrong.

The missing ingredient is average daily diagrams. Dividing total mileage run (by type) by average number of diagrams (by type) is the only way you will get to the right figure of average miles per day.

Thank you for the clarification. But your answer raises two questions (at least!) in my mind:

• why are the RDG figures wrong? and
• why has nobody questioned them before now?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Because the concentration of the engineers is on the MTIN calculation itself, not on total fleet numbers.

And the answer to the second must be fairly obvious. Nobody cares much about a variation in average miles run per day.

 

[Erniescooper]

Thank you for the clarification. But your answer raises two questions (at least!) in my mind:

• why are the RDG figures wrong? and
• why has nobody questioned them before now?

If the RDG information is wrong then it’s because the information supplied by each TOC for the railway period is wrong .I would imagine nobody has questioned the fleet size being wrong is because the RDG information is only used as a record of MTIN or primary DPI. If someone was interested in average miles per day you would just go onto Web Germini and get it off there but a fleet engineering department would have little use for the information.

 

[HowardGWR]

Thank you for the clarification. But your answer raises two questions (at least!) in my mind:

• why are the RDG figures wrong? and
• why has nobody questioned them before now?

Who said they are 'wrong'? I've suggested it is your interpolation that was inadvisable.

 

[coppercapped]

Who said they are 'wrong'? I've suggested it is your interpolation that was inadvisable.

Clarence Yard wrote earlier that as new units were accepted the fleet sizes were changing. The MR figures show, as I have written before, that the size of the Class 800 fleet was constant at 44 units and the 802 fleet was constant at 10 units over Periods 6, 7 and 8.

If the fleet sizes were changing over these three periods then the numbers are unlikely to reflect the actual state of affairs. I would suggest that the term 'wrong' is not inappropriate under such circumstances. I appreciate that the total fleet size is not a question that concerns the engineering side greatly - as long as there are enough trains!

I am not aware how scheduled maintenance downtime on the one hand and modification and repair downtimes on the other are allocated and analysed. Are they included in the diagram or does a diagram end when a unit goes onto depot? This is a general question and is not specifically concerned with the IET fleet.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Diagrams normally end on arrival at depot, subject to any additional time allowances required for washing / tanking / shunting etc. However some maintenance does effectively appear on diagrams, in that certain daily diagrams are set aside as ‘maintenance, not to be used’, as opposed to ‘spare - for Control use only’ or simply ‘spare resource’. Overnight maintenance requirements will not appear on diagrams at all, but effectively between diagrams in each cycle. For IETs this time margin between End of Day A and Start of Day B is specified in the TARA agreement and effectively ensures that the maintenance time that Agility agreed the fleet will require is catered for within the life cycle of the fleet. Think of it as the equivalent of the Hidden Report mandating minimum rest periods between safety critical shifts in a rostered manpower link.

 

[FGW_DID]

I am not aware how scheduled maintenance downtime on the one hand and modification and repair downtimes on the other are allocated and analysed. Are they included in the diagram or does a diagram end when a unit goes onto depot? This is a general question and is not specifically concerned with the IET fleet.

A Diagram will start when the unit first leaves the Depot (or other overnight stabling point) and will finish when the unit returns to depot (or other overnight stabling). An example of a Class 802 Diagram is below:

 

[Clarence Yard]

A daily diagram usually excludes maintenance downtime if that is done before or at the end of the day. During the daily diagram there may be an opportunity for some maintenance downtime if the unit is not fully utilised, such as a unit that only works peak trains, an increasingly unusual occurrence.

Diagrams begin and end at either depots or stabling points, which can include stations.

It is really important in any fleet that the maintenance downtime not only includes time for the statutory exams but also the necessary repairs arising and then get the unit out ASAP, without it failing with the same faults it went in with.

Longer term jobs and modifications have to factored into your fleet availability targets. You will always have a unit or two out for something so getting the right availability for a particular fleet is key. Too slack is equally as bad as too tight and in an availability crisis never, ever, give the depot more units to look after when they are struggling to maintain what they have got. I have seen that happen too often.

Maintenance planning is an art, much helped (or hindered) by systems because human knowledge and anticipation is key. Take this example. In 1979 I was at DME KX helping plan the weekly schedule at FP. The depot had suggested putting in 47410 for a C exam and were following it up too closely with another big exam on another 47 or 55. As 47410 was a bit of a dog and the C exam would examine the electrical components that were showing signs of distress, I successfully pushed for it to be planned to be stopped for another day for potential repairs arising with the following big exam on that 47 or 55 put back a day.

If a modern depot ever gets into the habit of just servicing/examining them and slinging them out, that’s not Availability Management. It requires a far more in depth and intuitive knowledge of the kit.

 

[Wychwood93]

deleted

 

[ATW158Xpress]

Seen 2 800 running east of Bristol Parkway running on diesel at around 3:30 pm. Are they units temporary barred from running on electric today west of Swindon?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Probably more likely to be units that have been stabled away from North Pole over the Xmas period and their electric mode certification having expired. Until Monday just gone, I believe only North Pole could undertake the mandatory pantograph exams. Stoke Gifford can do them as well now (having been energised) but not all units have cycled yet due to the Severn Tunnel blockade.

 

[ATW158Xpress]

Probably more likely to be units that have been stabled away from North Pole over the Xmas period and their electric mode certification having expired. Until Monday just gone, I believe only North Pole could undertake the mandatory pantograph exams. Stoke Gifford can do them as well now (having been energised) but not all units have cycled yet due to the Severn Tunnel blockade.

Oh just seen 800 313 panning up at Bristol Parkway on the 17:33 to Paddington.

 

[TractiveEffort]

Clarence Yard wrote earlier that as new units were accepted the fleet sizes were changing. The MR figures show, as I have written before, that the size of the Class 800 fleet was constant at 44 units and the 802 fleet was constant at 10 units over Periods 6, 7 and 8.

If the fleet sizes were changing over these three periods then the numbers are unlikely to reflect the actual state of affairs. I would suggest that the term 'wrong' is not inappropriate under such circumstances. I appreciate that the total fleet size is not a question that concerns the engineering side greatly - as long as there are enough trains!

I am not aware how scheduled maintenance downtime on the one hand and modification and repair downtimes on the other are allocated and analysed. Are they included in the diagram or does a diagram end when a unit goes onto depot? This is a general question and is not specifically concerned with the IET fleet.

I found the figures for period 9. IET fleet comprising 34 5 cars and 15 9 cars in that period, average miles 730.19 per day. The WoE fleet have a lower mileage for that period, but it is ramping up significantly now.

 

[Kite159]

Am I right in thinking that 800001 & 800002 have yet to enter traffic?

Are all the 800/3s in traffic, or is there one being used for driver testing?