GWR Class 800

[samuelmorris]

6 units out immediately following adverse weather isn't unusual, but the point isn't that shortforms are the worst thing in the world because they are indeed far better than cancellations, but there is a reason why the IET was so expensive to procure, and a large part of that was supposed to be to have sufficient cover for situations like this. As I understand it the vast majority of the units are ready for service now, so how come this has happened? There are presumably far more units out of service than just the 6 that aren't working services they should be.

 

[VT 390]

How many of the class 802's are now in service? Also are the services from Paddington/Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance going to operate with just 9/10 car formations or will some 5 car units operate on this route?

 

[Siemens Staines]

At least the following have seen passenger use at some point

802001/003-019/021/022
802101-103

This list isn't definitive so possibly more?

 

[Thunderer]

Yes, the seats are rubbish and the colour scheme is drab, but those things are relatively easy to resolve in the scheme of things. You can't polish a turd, but you can polish a piece of tarnished silverware.

On the positive side, surprising for a DfT-specced train, the legroom is the best in the business - the extra 3m have been used to space seats out rather than cram more in.

Just wait, as with the HST MK3, they will be re-designed over time to fit more seats in at the expense of that extra leg room and less tables. As this country gets more and more populated and even more people take to the rails to travel, they will eventually need even more seats. The GW HST started off with 4 standard class coaches, then five, then at the expense of a TF, 6 standard class coaches. A 9 coach GWR IET has 7 standard class coaches and still I see them leaving Cardiff towards London with little or no space at peak times. Give it another 2 to 5 years, and 7 standard class coaches as it stands will not be enough, so bye bye legroom and extra tables, or they will have to add more trailers to the IET...I guess time will tell?

 

[The Ham]

1x 5 vice 9
2x 5 vice 10 (800)
3x 5 vice 10 (802)

How does that compare to the total number of units which should be running?

If it's <10% then it's probably not too bad, if it's >25% then it's likely to be a big problem.

 

[VT 390]

Just wait, as with the HST MK3, they will be re-designed over time to fit more seats in at the expense of that extra leg room and less tables. As this country gets more and more populated and even more people take to the rails to travel, they will eventually need even more seats. The GW HST started off with 4 standard class coaches, then five, then at the expense of a TF, 6 standard class coaches. A 9 coach GWR IET has 7 standard class coaches and still I see them leaving Cardiff towards London with little or no space at peak times. Give it another 2 to 5 years, and 7 standard class coaches as it stands will not be enough, so bye bye legroom and extra tables, or they will have to add more trailers to the IET...I guess time will tell?

Why don't they just make all the 9 coach sets fixed 10 car sets?

 

[jimm]

Just wait, as with the HST MK3, they will be re-designed over time to fit more seats in at the expense of that extra leg room and less tables. As this country gets more and more populated and even more people take to the rails to travel, they will eventually need even more seats. The GW HST started off with 4 standard class coaches, then five, then at the expense of a TF, 6 standard class coaches. A 9 coach GWR IET has 7 standard class coaches and still I see them leaving Cardiff towards London with little or no space at peak times. Give it another 2 to 5 years, and 7 standard class coaches as it stands will not be enough, so bye bye legroom and extra tables, or they will have to add more trailers to the IET...I guess time will tell?

GWR already has a plan to add more seats for the peaks - running a third train each hour into London in the mornings and back out in the afternoon and early evening on both the Swansea and Bristol Temple Meads routes when the new IET timetable comes into effect. So that's another 640+ seats per hour, without doing anything at all to the train interiors.

Who cares if a trailer first was taken out of the HSTs? The number of first class business passengers - the reason the coaches were there in the first place, due to the big hit of revenue each anytime first class fare provides for GWR - dropped off after the banking crash in 2008 and never recovered, while the number of people using trains on standard class tickets continued to grow.

RE short-forms yesterday, several of them listed on Journeycheck weren't short-formed after all. The following posts have appeared on the GW Passengers' Forum

Rather curiously these five from that list (diagram NP108) are on Journeycheck as a 5-car, but according to the allocations on internal system Genius are in fact 9-car, 800306.

1L24 Swansea 06:29 Padton 09:30
1C09 Padton 10:00 BrstlTM 11:39
1A17 BrstlTM 12:30 Padton 14:14
1B46 Padton 14:45 Swansea 17:43
1L92 Swansea 18:29 Padton 21:29

If anyone is out and about and can confirm then it would be intestesting to know which system is wrong.

Just boarded 1A17, 800306, definitely 9 coaches.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=18792.1350

 

[gallafent]

Why don't they just make all the 9 coach sets fixed 10 car sets?

That would certainly provide a nice capacity uplift, … except where 9 cars fit but 10 don't so you'd be back down to a maximum train length of 5. Not sure where those areas are but I expect there are plenty of high peak traffic areas that can fit 9 but not (without major work) 10 … which currently (/near future) see 9 in peak and 5 in off-peak.

It might well make a good improvement in the medium term though, once it's feasible to fit them in at the places they'd need to get to!

 

[VT 390]

That would certainly provide a nice capacity uplift, … except where 9 cars fit but 10 don't so you'd be back down to a maximum train length of 5. Not sure where those areas are but I expect there are plenty of high peak traffic areas that can fit 9 but not (without major work) 10 … which currently (/near future) see 9 in peak and 5 in off-peak.

It might well make a good improvement in the medium term though, once it's feasible to fit them in at the places they'd need to get to!

Could selective door operation not be used on platforms are not long enough as last time I travelled from London to Bath Spa it was a 10 coach (5+5) class 800. If it works for a 10 coach set made of 2 5 coach units then I can't see a reason why it wont work with a fixed 10 car formation set.

 

[JN114]

Gloucester, Hereford, Cheltenham all would have issues with 10 cars that SDO wouldn’t be able to solve (too long to stand between signals/points etc)

 

[gallafent]

Could selective door operation not be used on platforms are not long enough as last time I travelled from London to Bath Spa it was a 10 coach (5+5) class 800. If it works for a 10 coach set made of 2 5 coach units then I can't see a reason why it wont work with a fixed 10 car formation set.

Yes, if 10 cars fit, 10 cars fit. I'm not talking about platform lengths here, but about other actual physical constraints on the length of train which will fit in the infrastructure. If only 9 cars fit, then you have a choice of 5 or 9. To allow 10 cars to fit, you need an extra 26m … changes might be needed to the location of points, signals, level crossings, tunnel portals etc., and in some locations that might become extremely involved and expensive, especially where space is constrained (often the case at railway stations since they're in built up areas). Others here will have knowledge of which bits of the current GWR (and LNER / Scotrail) network “fit” 9 cars but not 10 cars.

 

[FGW_DID]

How does that compare to the total number of units which should be running?

If it's <10% then it's probably not too bad, if it's >25% then it's likely to be a big problem.

I think on that day there was somewhere in the region of 55 diagrams (1 unit per diagram) required so using the figures at post #10681:

1x 9 car & 4x 5 cars short

 

[JN114]

I think on that day there was somewhere in the region of 55 diagrams (1 unit per diagram) required so using the figures at post #10681:

1x 9 car & 4x 5 cars short

54 units for 59 diagrams

 

[jimm]

Gloucester, Hereford, Cheltenham all would have issues with 10 cars that SDO wouldn’t be able to solve (too long to stand between signals/points etc)

You can add Moreton-in-Marsh to that list, as a nine-car set reversing in platform 1 to head back towards Oxford just about fits inside the starting signal for the crossover. A 10-car would be past the signal and fouling the point for the crossover.

There are, of course, issues over nine-car sets in the depot at Penzance, never mind 10.

 

[TractiveEffort]

You can add Moreton-in-Marsh to that list, as a nine-car set reversing in platform 1 to head back towards Oxford just about fits inside the starting signal for the crossover. A 10-car would be past the signal and fouling the point for the crossover.

There are, of course, issues over nine-car sets in the depot at Penzance, never mind 10.

That’s just nuts.... all that work at Penzance and they can’t accommodate a 10 car set, who ever signs these things off.

 

[irish_rail]

That’s just nuts.... all that work at Penzance and they can’t accommodate a 10 car set, who ever signs these things off.

They can't even accommodate 9 car sets apparently it really is a dogs dinner.

 

[Clarence Yard]

That’s just nuts.... all that work at Penzance and they can’t accommodate a 10 car set, who ever signs these things off.

The site at Long Rock isn't long enough to stable 5 x 9 cars - it was known about when the recent works were signed off at design stage. You can get 3 x 9 in there but then you stitch up the depot and block in stock in other sidings. 1 x 9, if it is last in - first out, is best.

If that public road wasn't right behind the sidings, there would be no issue in going back, at a price. But that, combined with the tight point arrangements to get you into the sidings/into the depot makes Long Rock a very constrained site. Even the recent works is a bit of a compromise as to how the depot operates.

If you need 9 car accommodation, then re-instating the link into Ponsondane (which used to go off just before the washer) and putting in a few new sidings is your best hope, again at a cost. Anyone want the two tankers that have been stranded in there for a decade or more?

 

[SamYeager]

Perhaps various posters on this thread could bear this excerpt from the rules in mind?

We aim to create a friendly environment for all members, where individuals respect each other. Please ensure your contributions comply with this.

 

[404250]

I didn't consider my comments disrespectful, but I've had a warning so will accept that as the rules here.

 

[Thunderer]

GWR already has a plan to add more seats for the peaks - running a third train each hour into London in the mornings and back out in the afternoon and early evening on both the Swansea and Bristol Temple Meads routes when the new IET timetable comes into effect. So that's another 640+ seats per hour, without doing anything at all to the train interiors.

Who cares if a trailer first was taken out of the HSTs? The number of first class business passengers - the reason the coaches were there in the first place, due to the big hit of revenue each anytime first class fare provides for GWR - dropped off after the banking crash in 2008 and never recovered, while the number of people using trains on standard class tickets continued to grow.

RE short-forms yesterday, several of them listed on Journeycheck weren't short-formed after all. The following posts have appeared on the GW Passengers' Forum





http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=18792.1350

Thats all good stuff, extra trains and diagrams, Im all for that. I was looking ahead 5 to 10 years perhaps, when even the extra trains and capacity may then be squeezed as more and more people take to the rails and our population grows. Is it possible then that more trailers/motor vehicles could be ordered to strengthen the 5 car units to lets say 8 or even 9, or does the DFT/Agility prohibit that happening for the 800's? i'm curious really about the future and the flexibility of the contract, should this need to happen in the future......

 

[jimm]

Thats all good stuff, extra trains and diagrams, Im all for that. I was looking ahead 5 to 10 years perhaps, when even the extra trains and capacity may then be squeezed as more and more people take to the rails and our population grows. Is it possible then that more trailers/motor vehicles could be ordered to strengthen the 5 car units to lets say 8 or even 9, or does the DFT/Agility prohibit that happening for the 800's? i'm curious really about the future and the flexibility of the contract, should this need to happen in the future......

With Brexit on the way, no one is taking any bets on what state the economy, rail travel, the UK population or anything else is going to be in five or 10 years from now. If the government felt moved to shell out for more coaches or complete trains it could do, in theory, assuming Hitachi was still set up to build them by then.

But I doubt anyone would want to go down the road of varying the IEP contract under any circumstances. A bog-standard leasing company deal would surely be a better option.

 

[JN114]

In short, yes - the DfT specified in the spec for them to be able to be lengthened (although perhaps only to a max of 9 cars, I’d have to read the spec again). One would thus assume the (commercially sensitive) contract has some provision to exercise that capability; otherwise why would the micro-managing DfT have specified that capability to the manufacturer? I don’t know if such a clause exists; but I’d wager one does.

I certainly wouldn’t rule out additional vehicles being possible - if required - under the IEP contract.

But I also agree with jimm’s Assessment. It’s way too early to be making those judgements yet. The fleet as ordered does bring a significant capacity uplift of its own - both in seats-per-service and sufficient sets for additional services. On top of that other fleet cascades and enhancements are still ongoing. I think it’s prundent to sit on it for the time being and see how it all fits together in a few years time when upgrades are complete; before jumping to lengthen everything to 9 cars.

5 is the longest you can have an IET set (at least in GW land) if you want to run it in multiple. 11 car won’t fit in many of the platforms at Paddington alone; never mind anywhere else. As touched upon upthread 10 is already too long for a number of locations without significant infrastructure works - even 9 is problematic in some places.

I’d suggest that a lengthening of a few 5s to 9s would be a sensible option in medium-term future - if needed - I can foresee the turn-up-and-go level of service enhancements to certain services unlocking considerable suppressed demand; and thus various services intended in future as 5 car should probably be 9. But I don’t yet foresee the benefit of lengthening 9s to 10s - certainly not in light of the necessary accompanying infrastructure works at the likes of Gloucester, Cheltenham, Hereford and others where if the regular 9 car operations were lengthened to 10 problems would occur.

I see no case for lengthening beyond 10 car due to significant infrastructure costs involved at depots; terminal stations and so forth.

 

[CapitalStar378]

Technical question, does the train's software control the brightness of the interior lights?

 

[JamesT]

GWR (will) have 22 5-car 802s. Presumably lengthening those would be easier contractually than their class 800 brethren if you decided you needed more 9-car units?

 

[tomglazed]

GWR (will) have 22 5-car 802s. Presumably lengthening those would be easier contractually than their class 800 brethren if you decided you needed more 9-car units?

That and the units are modified in a way that more suits the entirety of the GWR network as has been pretty well documented recently.

 

[Unclepete]

Hi all,
just wondered if there is any update on the camera mods for the Bedwyn turns?

thanks,

 

[Kettledrum]

If the 5 car units were ever extended to 9 cars, I have three questions:

- are there any platforms where 9 cars just won't fit?
- is the capacity of 9 cars much less than 2 x 5 car units running together?
- are some services reliant upon splitting 2 x 5 car units so a 9 car unit couldn't do it?

 

[Clarence Yard]

The capacity of a 9 car is almost identical to 2 x 5 cars. 9 cars are an issue for Long Rock depot but there is a possible, if expensive, solution for that, re-instating a connection and nearby sidings.

It would be much easier to extend the 802 fleet to 9 car as you don't have to go through the Agility 800 contract "porridge" with the "Government" sets. You don't need to do all the fleet to turn the Plymouth/Penzance services to all 9 car, probably the services you could best justify it on, and you wouldn't want to do all anyway as the cost per car isn't going to come cheap.

That means it will all have to be justified to the DfT and they are not into major expense at the moment.

 

[broadgage]

If the 5 car units were ever extended to 9 cars, I have three questions:

- are there any platforms where 9 cars just won't fit?
- is the capacity of 9 cars much less than 2 x 5 car units running together?
- are some services reliant upon splitting 2 x 5 car units so a 9 car unit couldn't do it?

Yes, there are many platforms that wont take the full length of a 9 car train. Selective door opening is the answer as is already used on the existing 9 car sets.
The capacity of a 9 car train is almost the same as a pair of 5 car units.
Yes there are services intended to use a pair of 5 car units.

It therefore seems to me that there is a strong case for lengthening SOME 5 car units into 9 car. Not all of them of course, but fewer 5 cars and more 9 cars than at present seems desirable.
Building another 4 cars to lengthen an existing 5 car set should be cheaper than building the 5 cars required for an additional 5 car unit, and provides similar extra capacity.
Better still would be lengthening the 9 car sets and some 5 car sets into 10 car. These should fit everywhere already cleared for 5+5 operation. Add a buffet in the extra vehicle and they might start to feel like inter-city trains.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, there are many platforms that wont take the full length of a 9 car train. Selective door opening is the answer as is already used on the existing 9 car sets.
The capacity of a 9 car train is almost the same as a pair of 5 car units.
Yes there are services intended to use a pair of 5 car units.

It therefore seems to me that there is a strong case for lengthening SOME 5 car units into 9 car. Not all of them of course, but fewer 5 cars and more 9 cars than at present seems desirable.
Building another 4 cars to lengthen an existing 5 car set should be cheaper than building the 5 cars required for an additional 5 car unit, and provides similar extra capacity.
Better still would be lengthening the 9 car sets and some 5 car sets into 10 car. These should fit everywhere already cleared for 5+5 operation. Add a buffet in the extra vehicle and they might start to feel like inter-city trains.

If we assumed that there would be a 5 year period before we started to see 10 coach units, then how many locations and how much work would be required in that timeframe to make it so that 10 coach units were an option everywhere (i.e. SDO was still in use at intermediate stations with short platforms)?