GWR Class 800

[spark001uk]

Please, no more discussion regarding seating. Please use an existing thread (if there is one) or create a new one (if there isn't) to discuss seating.

I have moved some posts from this thread into: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/telegraph-article-regarding-ironing-board-seating.174981/

Just a thought, I wonder if it might therefore be prudent to give this thread a more specific title in order to discourage talk of its seating? "GWR Class 800" is very generic.

 

[HowardGWR]

I found the IET pretty good apart from the ridiculous seats. I liked the lighting, the ride was secure, it felt fast, and the noise levels were excellent for underfloor engines.
The only issues were the flickering PIS, the cramped vestibules, and having a numb backside and sore head after 30 minutes.
Throw decent seats in and it is a great train.

I am intrigued why the seats would give you a 'sore head'? Why was that?

 

[superalbs]

I am intrigued why the seats would give you a 'sore head'? Why was that?

Probably the lighting, which is somehow, even brighter than the already extremely bright FGW HST style lighting.

 

[CMRail]

I must be out of this world thinking that the HST ride quality is generally worse than the IET.

- From a person who uses them at least 2 times a week from Gloucester to London, not from Swindon to Didcot once a century.

 

[coppercapped]

I must be out of this world thinking that the HST ride quality is generally worse than the IET.

- From a person who uses them at least 2 times a week from Gloucester to London, not from Swindon to Didcot once a century.

The ride of the Mark 3 coach on the Western is not as good as it was even five years ago - it is certainly worse than at the time of their introduction. I suspect, though I don't know, that there are two basic reasons for the deterioration:

• the HSTs are going off-lease and it is very likely that the maintenance tolerances have been widened so the trains just about keep going until their withdrawal
• the track quality on the Western has deteriorated since access for track maintenance has been very limited during the on-going and interminable electrification.

Looking on the bright side - maybe the Class 80X ride will be slightly less 'nervous' when NR gets the tampers and stoneblowers out again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I found the IET pretty good apart from the ridiculous seats. I liked the lighting, the ride was secure, it felt fast, and the noise levels were excellent for underfloor engines.
The only issues were the flickering PIS, the cramped vestibules, and having a numb backside and sore head after 30 minutes.
Throw decent seats in and it is a great train.

If anyone wants to try what it would be like with that issue fixed, try a Javelin set.

 

[samuelmorris]

Basically yes. Though the 395s seem to have better PIS displays too.

 

[Meerkat]

I am intrigued why the seats would give you a 'sore head'? Why was that?

Because the back of my head rested against the very top of the ‘headrest’, which is rock solid meaning the contact area is a very small lip. I am 6’ 3” but that is hardly freakish these days.

 

[jimm]

Just a thought, I wonder if it might therefore be prudent to give this thread a more specific title in order to discourage talk of its seating? "GWR Class 800" is very generic.

Why would that make any difference?

A thread with a fairly specific title -

GWR/LNER IET first class: is it a downgrade?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-lner-iet-first-class-is-it-a-downgrade.169436/page-3

apparently wasn't just complete without broadgage sharing about buffets, 10-car sets, village pub lounge bars on wheels, etc, yesterday, just in case there was anyone alive who has not heard it all a thousand times in other threads by now.

 

[jayah]

Surprise surprise, thanks for confirming. Time for some extensions to 9 cars methinks

This coupling doesn't seem to be working out as smoothly as expected.

1A77 (6min planned station time)
Monday Devonport RT, Plymouth Depart 2L
Tuesday 1E / 7L
Wednesday 2E / 6L
Thursday RT / 23L
Friday RT / 7L

 

[spark001uk]

Why would that make any difference?

Because if you give a title that generic, you would assume anything relating to it was up for discussion. I don't know how much simpler I can put it?

A thread with a fairly specific title -

GWR/LNER IET first class: is it a downgrade?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-lner-iet-first-class-is-it-a-downgrade.169436/page-3

apparently wasn't just complete without broadgage sharing about buffets, 10-car sets, village pub lounge bars on wheels, etc, yesterday, just in case there was anyone alive who has not heard it all a thousand times in other threads by now.

Really? I've read that thread, and the poster you refer to has said nothing irrelevant to the discussion imo. (catering is a part of the 1st class experience, is it not?)
In fact the only thing I can see wrong in that thread is you criticising someone's spelling mistake.

I don't see why you are the only one here who feels the need to coat everything in such vitriol? And I'm not the first to mention this.
I refer you to points 1 and 3 at the top of the forum rules:

• We aim to create a friendly environment for all members, where individuals respect each other. Please ensure your contributions comply with this.
• Do not post material which in any way discriminates against, or provokes, any person or group of persons.

I do hope you can take this on board, and be a bit more polite going forward. We come together as a nice friendly community, we're all on the same side here!

 

[samuelmorris]

Complaining about the general direction of the debate is one thing but endlessly singling out an individual member isn't on, really. It is kind of tiresome to keep seeing it.

 

[irish_rail]

This coupling doesn't seem to be working out as smoothly as expected.

1A77 (6min planned station time)
Monday Devonport RT, Plymouth Depart 2L
Tuesday 1E / 7L
Wednesday 2E / 6L
Thursday RT / 23L
Friday RT / 7L

Quite , and to think this time next year this will apply to every Cornwall to London service

 

[cactustwirly]

Quite , and to think this time next year this will apply to every Cornwall to London service

Hopefully the issues are ironed out!
The Austrians can couple and uncouple their RailJets quickly and efficiently.

 

[43096]

Hopefully the issues are ironed out!
The Austrians can couple and uncouple their RailJets quickly and efficiently.

But they are all retro and use screw couplers, air pipes and jumper cables.

 

[cactustwirly]

But they are all retro and use screw couplers, air pipes and jumper cables.

Exactly my point! The 800s use Auto couplers, so should be a lot quicker!

 

[coppercapped]

Exactly my point! The 800s use Auto couplers, so should be a lot quicker!

I've seen TGVs couple together without any problem in something like 20 secs with no problems whatsoever using the same design of coupler. And the same thing with ICEs in Germany.

What, in <insert deity of choice>'s name is the problem here?

 

[Wychwood93]

I've seen TGVs couple together without any problem in something like 20 secs with no problems whatsoever using the same design of coupler. And the same thing with ICEs in Germany.

What, in <insert deity of choice>'s name is the problem here?

In their day the 442's had no general issues on the SW with jumpers, likewise the current 444/450's with auto's. Current booked stops for the latter some 4 or 5 minutes for attach/detach.

 

[Mintona]

Used to attach 375s with the corridor doors on the front in around 3 minutes.

And with Class 395sbat Ashford, the front set arrives, releases doors, opens the rear hatch, the rear set arrives, releases doors, opens the front hatch, all doors closed and couples up, and the whole formation continues 6 minutes after the front set arrives.

 

[irish_rail]

Yeah it all works well on paper, same with the trains ,but the reality is a little different

 

[jimm]

Because if you give a title that generic, you would assume anything relating to it was up for discussion. I don't know how much simpler I can put it?

Really? I've read that thread, and the poster you refer to has said nothing irrelevant to the discussion imo. (catering is a part of the 1st class experience, is it not?)
In fact the only thing I can see wrong in that thread is you criticising someone's spelling mistake.

I don't see why you are the only one here who feels the need to coat everything in such vitriol? And I'm not the first to mention this.
I refer you to points 1 and 3 at the top of the forum rules:

I do hope you can take this on board, and be a bit more polite going forward. We come together as a nice friendly community, we're all on the same side here!

The point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter how specific a thread title is - they will wander off in all sorts of directions, depending on what takes people's fancy, whether or not what they post is relevant to the title or specific points initially raised under that title by the person who started the thread.

This thread began more than four years ago, before Hitachi had started to build a Class 800, so a more specific thread title wasn't really realistic at that time and since then the discussion has ranged far and wide, so I can't see what alternative title could possibly work now.

In the instance I referred to, post 69 in that thread says nothing whatever about first class, so why are you trying to make out that what was said in that post was somehow relevant to a discussion that up until then was all about general ambience, seats, windows, window blinds, etc, with a lone reference to the so-called 'freebies' offered in first class?

It is an almost word-for-word retread of the same things the same poster has been saying, over and over, on this forum - and another forum - for years now.

How many more times does it need to be repeated and clog up threads plural? How many more times do we need to be told that the same people don't like the same things about the seats?

Just because someone says something over and over does not mean that everyone else will inevitably agree and I'm afraid that when it comes to the supposed benefits of GWR having a fleet of 700-seat jumbo trains, or the mystical allure of buffets (some of us can remember the 1970s BR buffet car sandwich...) we are definitely not all on the same side.

Complaining about the general direction of the debate is one thing but endlessly singling out an individual member isn't on, really. It is kind of tiresome to keep seeing it.

Is it? Well what else do you suggest I, or anyone else, should say when an individual member posts exactly the same thing over and over, in multiple threads, as though no one noticed it the previous thousand times?

As you put it, it is kind of tiresome to keep seeing it... I have no problem if people wish to shed some new light on a subject, but that was not the case here, was it?

 

[AlexNL]

It probably comes down to staff familiarity with splitting/joining. On GWRs long distance routes this hasn't been done before.

 

[Rob F]

Why would that make any difference?

A thread with a fairly specific title -

GWR/LNER IET first class: is it a downgrade?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-lner-iet-first-class-is-it-a-downgrade.169436/page-3

apparently wasn't just complete without broadgage sharing about buffets, 10-car sets, village pub lounge bars on wheels, etc, yesterday, just in case there was anyone alive who has not heard it all a thousand times in other threads by now.

That must be about the same number of times we’ve had you bleating about anyone who dares criticise your beloved IETs.

 

[jimm]

That must be about the same number of times we’ve had you bleating about anyone who dares criticise your beloved IETs.

I have never referred to them in such affectionate terms - just spent rather too many years rebutting nonsense posted about these trains in this thread and others - and explaining why what has been posted is nonsense and providing information and links to try to explain why.

That things attempting to get the record straight have had to be said over and over - and not just by me - is because nonsense kept getting posted over and over.

Which is a long way from being a 'fanboy' or any other term you care to use. I take a pragmatic view and was never expecting the IETs to be some kind of flawless magic carpet of a train - for the simple reason that such a thing does not exist. But nor are they the unmitigated horror show on wheels that one might guess would be the case from reading some of the things posted in this thread and others on this forum over a number of years.

 

[broadgage]

I am sorry if my dislike of IETs offends those who support them, and I have indeed posted such remarks fairly regularly, though no more often than supporters post as to how wonderful they are.

If have indeed been critical of the project since before the actual trains existed, and most of my criticisms have been proved to be factually correct.
In the very early days of the project, before designs were finalised, I forecast that the new trains would be DMUs with underfloor engines, this is the case.
I also forecast that the fleet would consist mainly of shorter trains than HSTs. Over half the fleet is 5 car units. Advocates of the new trains pointed out that this would be fine with multiple operation. In fact half length trains have appeared far more often than is desirable over the last year, despite IET supporters stating that these short formations are neither "regular" nor "frequent"
I also stated that the new units would not have buffets, this was proved factually correct. But don't worry a rigged survey shows no more need for a buffet, and some consider provision of such to be "totally unreasonable" these days.
Trolley catering has not been a complete success, with the single trolley often being in the other unit of a 5+5 train, or at the other end of a full length train. But don't worry, the advocates say, it might get better when the whole fleet is in service.

I have made a carefully considered suggestion that the 9 car sets could be lengthened into 10 cars by the addition of a buffet car, that would also provide about 44 extra seats.
Advocates of the IETs in the present form seem to suggest that removal of say 40 seats from an existing formation to add a buffet, would be an unacceptable loss of capacity, whilst others suggest that adding another vehicle to provide MORE seats AND a buffet would result in a "behemoth" of a train.
I have also suggested that some of the 5 car sets could be lengthened, also to 10 car, that seems a reasonable suggestion to provide extra capacity and improved facilities.

At no time have I ever suggested that the whole fleet should be made 10 car. I fully understand the merits of some shorter trains for lightly used services and for portion working, but I am not alone in feeling that the present proportion of 5 cars units is excessive.

So I am not JUST critical but have made a considered suggestion as to how matters could be improved.

There are other facets of the IETs that I don't much like, but these are more subjective and are liked by some so I limit comments on such.

 

[hexagon789]

The ride of the Mark 3 coach on the Western is not as good as it was even five years ago - it is certainly worse than at the time of their introduction. I suspect, though I don't know, that there are two basic reasons for the deterioration:

• the HSTs are going off-lease and it is very likely that the maintenance tolerances have been widened so the trains just about keep going until their withdrawal
• the track quality on the Western has deteriorated since access for track maintenance has been very limited during the on-going and interminable electrification.

Looking on the bright side - maybe the Class 80X ride will be slightly less 'nervous' when NR gets the tampers and stoneblowers out again.

I believe the original type of bogie dampers are increasingly hard to source so many TOCs use a different, generally inferior type, which don't cancel the inputs from indifferent track so well.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I am sorry if my dislike of IETs offends those who support them, and I have indeed posted such remarks fairly regularly, though no more often than supporters post as to how wonderful they are.

If have indeed been critical of the project since before the actual trains existed, and most of my criticisms have been proved to be factually correct.
In the very early days of the project, before designs were finalised, I forecast that the new trains would be DMUs with underfloor engines, this is the case.
I also forecast that the fleet would consist mainly of shorter trains than HSTs. Over half the fleet is 5 car units. Advocates of the new trains pointed out that this would be fine with multiple operation. In fact half length trains have appeared far more often than is desirable over the last year, despite IET supporters stating that these short formations are neither "regular" nor "frequent"
I also stated that the new units would not have buffets, this was proved factually correct. But don't worry a rigged survey shows no more need for a buffet, and some consider provision of such to be "totally unreasonable" these days.
Trolley catering has not been a complete success, with the single trolley often being in the other unit of a 5+5 train, or at the other end of a full length train. But don't worry, the advocates say, it might get better when the whole fleet is in service.

I have made a carefully considered suggestion that the 9 car sets could be lengthened into 10 cars by the addition of a buffet car, that would also provide about 44 extra seats.
Advocates of the IETs in the present form seem to suggest that removal of say 40 seats from an existing formation to add a buffet, would be an unacceptable loss of capacity, whilst others suggest that adding another vehicle to provide MORE seats AND a buffet would result in a "behemoth" of a train.
I have also suggested that some of the 5 car sets could be lengthened, also to 10 car, that seems a reasonable suggestion to provide extra capacity and improved facilities.

At no time have I ever suggested that the whole fleet should be made 10 car. I fully understand the merits of some shorter trains for lightly used services and for portion working, but I am not alone in feeling that the present proportion of 5 cars units is excessive.

So I am not JUST critical but have made a considered suggestion as to how matters could be improved.

There are other facets of the IETs that I don't much like, but these are more subjective and are liked by some so I limit comments on such.

If they were to add another car to the 9 car units it would most certainly have to be a powered car wouldn't it? As adding another 50 tonnes in the case of a buffet car would effect performance considerably if the unit was left as is with 5 engines.

 

[Geoff DC]

broadgage I have yet to meet a passenger/acquaintance or member of GWR staff in the far west that doesn't broadly agree with you.
However in commuter land things may be different & JIMM's comments may find some agreement there

 

[spark001uk]

Is it? Well what else do you suggest I, or anyone else, should say when an individual member posts exactly the same thing over and over, in multiple threads, as though no one noticed it the previous thousand times?
As you put it, it is kind of tiresome to keep seeing it... I have no problem if people wish to shed some new light on a subject, but that was not the case here, was it?

See you've sidestepped my (and others') point, again. It's not WHAT you say that's the problem here, it's HOW you say it. You are constantly flavouring your replies with arrogance and disrespect, and it's not on.

 

[FGW_DID]

Is there any point in this thread remaining open? Has anybody actually got anything new to say about the bi-mode IETs. The trains have been built, delivered and have been in service for about a year! Still posting about what they should or shouldn't have just seem pointless!