GWR Class 800

[Mikey C]

With regard to the Class 800, while I quite like the good legroom that is provided, you could easily create space for a minibuffet like that by just taking 0.5-1" off the legroom throughout the unit, which would just make it about the same as the HST.

The seats are poorly designed for footspace under them, with the intrusive legs. If you cantilevered them from the side you could reduce the spacing while still providing plenty of room.

 

[Clarence Yard]

So why did LNER get the buffet car yet GWR didn't? That baffles me! I didn't realise they were to have buffet cars on the east coast until this thread.

They both serve the same inter city routes, so I don't understand. I have seen many passengers on GWR complain about the removal of this.

The DfT designed the interior with next to no input from the TOCs. The DfT closed down the design for the GWR build but allowed bidders for the EC franchise up to 12 minor changes, iirc, before they would close down the design for those sets.

The so called consultation on GWR buffets was carried out after the design was closed down. It was a 'political' consultation, done at the behest of politicians, who were getting complaints. Goodness knows what the DfT would have done if the result had gone the other way - played the too difficult, too expensive and too much programme delay excuses card perhaps.

The problem for the west is that the GW DA comes at just the wrong time for moving from 5 to 9 on the majority of the 802 fleet or inserting expensive bun trucks, for which there is no design as yet. A 2 year DA with good boy extensions doesn't get you a long enough deal to get that kind of work done.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's been 18 months since their introduction and still no sign of the promised hot food from the trolleys.

It's worse than that in my view. Not only are we 18 months removed from the introduction of the new trains but it's hardly like GWR were taken by surprise by their introduction! We knew the format of the trains and the onboard equipment what? Two years prior to their introduction? How can it possibly be that we're now at least three maybe four years down the line from knowing what the GWR sets will offer in terms of catering and GWR still haven't gotten to grips with it beyond the Pullman?

I mean really? Do they just not care about the "product" they're providing?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I mean really? Do they just not care about the "product" they're providing?

This is entirely typical of FirstGroup. Announce something with a big fanfare, then only do a half-hearted implementation of it.

People criticise VTWC, but they at least, where it's within their control, tend to under-promise and over-deliver.

 

[Master29]

They have:
CrossCountry - reduced from buffet to trolley
SWT - reduced from buffet to trolley
Chiltern - removed all catering
Southern - removed all catering
EMT - reduced buffet cars in favour of more trolleys

I use the route on a nearly daily basis, and the majority of passengers on each train didn't/don't use the buffet. Far more notice the impact of limited seating.

You`d have to be talking about an HST unless you mean the trolley. I`ve noticed most people don`t bother with the trolley. 16 seats in the space of a mini buffet is hardly a huge impact on seating but I take your point about people regarding this as important. The unused space in 2 kitchens would be far greater than only 16 for a mini buffet.

 

[Wychwood93]

The seats are poorly designed for footspace under them, with the intrusive legs. If you cantilevered them from the side you could reduce the spacing while still providing plenty of room.

True. I could mention the 'easily' available power points, a too easy gripe - probably on the thread somewhere!

 

[PHILIPE]

GWR have been well and truly stuffed with the 800s as they have very limited control over them thanks to the DFT who have left them at the mercy of Hitachi so far as allocation flexibility and any improvements can be made, for example the "Quiet Coach" signs mentioned up thread which have taken a year to do them and still counting. The main points about which passengers are complaining, seats and catering were done and dusted before they came out into the open so, by that time, it was past the point of no return so far as any modifications could be done. No prizes for guessing who has to take all the flak from customers, though. Not the DFT.

 

[Kite159]

Interesting to note that on my last few VTWC journeys, the standard class trolley has been around a couple times. Whereas in years gone by it was the shop only for standard class. Maybe VTWC sees the cost of having another member of staff to run the trolley up and down is worth it for the extra revenue it brings in from those not wanting to leave luggage/laptops unattended

 

[CptCharlee]

Could you theoretically in the future add an east Coast style Buffet kiosk to the GWR units? Surely it wouldn't be too difficult.

 

[Gagravarr]

You could set up a pseudo-buffet point in the train with a strategically placed trolley, which then could go back to the Kitchen for refilling. That doesn’t stop another trolley going through the train. But it needs staff, it needs organisation and it needs a will to do it.

Isn't that what GWR already do? Most of the time when I want something from the trolley on a GWR 800, I find the trolley (and associated staff member) lurking in their special trolley cupboard somewhere in the middle of the train. They don't come through, they sometimes announce where they can be found over the PA, but they don't move from the cupboard

Admittedly, this does then mean they have access to all the stuff you want to buy, not just the subset loaded on the trolley, which is good. They also have boiling hot water too, for hot drinks. However, it does feel rather less efficient / effective than just putting a proper mini buffet in the space occupied by the trolley cupboard and trolley....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could you theoretically in the future add an east Coast style Buffet kiosk to the GWR units? Surely it wouldn't be too difficult.

Easiest way would probably be a Class 319 style trolley dock buffet, which could be fitted by unbolting seats and bolting it onto the runners in their place. You could fit a standing table on the opposite side. Fully reversible in case Hitachi are bothered.

 

[aitchbomb2014]

Hopefully the rail review from Keith Williams might loosen the grip that DfT have with regard to issues such as the ludicrous extent to which they have been able to negatively over specify the IET. If this were the case you’d like to think First Group would be only too keen to modify such things as seat comfort and on-board catering on the very long distance services to Penzance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hopefully the rail review from Keith Williams might loosen the grip that DfT have with regard to issues such as the ludicrous extent to which they have been able to negatively over specify the IET. If this were the case you’d like to think First Group would be only too keen to modify such things as seat comfort and on-board catering on the very long distance services to Penzance.

Given that the Penzance sets are 802s ordered on a conventional lease contract (aren't they?) we can entirely blame GWR for them being the same rubbish. They didn't even have to order 80x, the original plan was for HSTs, though there would have been other options like CAF DMUs or loco-hauled Mk5s or whatever.

 

[trebor79]

Given that the Penzance sets are 802s ordered on a conventional lease contract (aren't they?) we can entirely blame GWR for them being the same rubbish.

Apparently not. Elsewhere in this thread those closer to it have suggested that some contractual lever or string was pulled by the DfT to ensure the 802s had the same interior as the 800s. Allegedly so that it would be less obvious that they'd needlessly specified cheap and nasty seats and no buffet.

Have to admit, omitting the buffet but wasting an entire coach to kitchens that aren't used is totally ridiculous. The pragmatic thing to do would be to convert most of the kitchens to a decent buffet/bistro.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have to admit, omitting the buffet but wasting an entire coach to kitchens that aren't used is totally ridiculous. The pragmatic thing to do would be to convert most of the kitchens to a decent buffet/bistro.

They're really in the wrong place, but what they could do is to convert the kitchen to a seating area then put a buffet with a standing cafe area in place of the First Class bit of the composite coach.

 

[trebor79]

I think that would be very costly as there are no/few windows in the kitchen area for a start. Plus there's all of the water storage, plumbing, power to think about too.
Might not be ideal to have it at the end of the train, but it's better than not at all.

 

[irish_rail]

My prediction is the 802s on the Penzance route won't last long and will be getting replacement trains at some point in the next 5 years for this route . As much as I think a common fleet makes sense the 802s are just SO bad I can't see gwr sticking with them and will eventually bow to pressure to replace and cascade them onto other routes maybe pompey to Cardiff for example. I just hope they don't give us some stadler rubbish with an engine in the middle of the train and weirdly placed doors.......

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that would be very costly as there are no/few windows in the kitchen area for a start.

The windows are just blanked out (like a panel van), they are structurally there and can be reinstated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My prediction is the 802s on the Penzance route won't last long and will be getting replacement trains at some point in the next 5 years for this route . As much as I think a common fleet makes sense the 802s are just SO bad I can't see gwr sticking with them and will eventually bow to pressure to replace and cascade them onto other routes maybe pompey to Cardiff for example. I just hope they don't give us some stadler rubbish with an engine in the middle of the train and weirdly placed doors.......

Have you ever been on an IC-config FLIRT such as those used by LEO Express or PKP? If not, give one a go, you may be pleasantly surprised.

There is an argument, as you say, for the 802s to be moved onto Bristol/Cardiff services to up capacity, then order something specific for Penzance. But while it would make sense I doubt the money is there.

 

[Mintona]

My prediction is the 802s on the Penzance route won't last long and will be getting replacement trains at some point in the next 5 years for this route . As much as I think a common fleet makes sense the 802s are just SO bad I can't see gwr sticking with them and will eventually bow to pressure to replace and cascade them onto other routes maybe pompey to Cardiff for example. I just hope they don't give us some stadler rubbish with an engine in the middle of the train and weirdly placed doors.......

I can’t see it. Far more likely is an order of centre cars (maybe one with a buffet) to increase capacity of about ten 5 car IETs to 9 cars. And a corresponding build of sidings somewhere in Cornwall for them to be kept and serviced etc overnight.

 

[PHILIPE]

Hopefully the rail review from Keith Williams might loosen the grip that DfT have with regard to issues such as the ludicrous extent to which they have been able to negatively over specify the IET. If this were the case you’d like to think First Group would be only too keen to modify such things as seat comfort and on-board catering on the very long distance services to Penzance.

Williams said at the start that passengers should be put first so keep fingers crossed

 

[ainsworth74]

Could you theoretically in the future add an east Coast style Buffet kiosk to the GWR units? Surely it wouldn't be too difficult.

The trains are modular and the Train Technical Specification provides a very wide range of possible catering solutions and also requires that you can change between the different levels of catering (though obviously it won't be an overnight job!). All of which is to say that there's no reason to expect that the catering arrangements that they start with are the end state for all time.

Given that the Penzance sets are 802s ordered on a conventional lease contract (aren't they?) we can entirely blame GWR for them being the same rubbish. They didn't even have to order 80x, the original plan was for HSTs, though there would have been other options like CAF DMUs or loco-hauled Mk5s or whatever.

As far as I'm aware the DfT leaned very heavily on GWR to ensure that the interiors were identical between the IEP procured units and the conventionally procured units.

 

[Master29]

Have you ever been on an IC-config FLIRT such as those used by LEO Express or PKP? If not, give one a go, you may be pleasantly surprised.

There is an argument, as you say, for the 802s to be moved onto Bristol/Cardiff services to up capacity, then order something specific for Penzance. But while it would make sense I doubt the money is there.

I would loved to have seen something like a class 745 rather than an 802 anyway like will soon be running on the Liverpool Street to Norwich route. Now they do look decent both inside and out. The Swiss ones I`ve been on give a lovely smooth ride too. I`m afraid I envy Greater Anglia a little on this one.

 

[fgwrich]

As far as I'm aware the DfT leaned very heavily on GWR to ensure that the interiors were identical between the IEP procured units and the conventionally procured units.

I believe it was part of the carrot on the stick for First Group with regards to the direct award franchise - First orders the conventionally ordered 802s, and they have to be the same internally and the DfT ones. Otherwise First can kiss goodbye to their biggest earning franchise and the whole lot goes out to re-tender.

And of course, we wouldn't want to show the DfT ordered ones up would we?

 

[Clarence Yard]

The original DfT plan in the DA was to consider retaining HST vs 222. The 800 series were out of favour because of the cost of extending the IEP contract. SDG had done an 800 timetable West Country cl.800 option for "The Great Cartographer" as part of the original IET contract discussions but the option didn't get to contract stage.

When the 222 proposal became a no-go (as everyone thought it would!), it became cl.802 vs HST and the 802 won hands down on cost and deliverability. The problem was a 9 car killed the Cornish half hourly scheme, the cost of going all 9 car was prohibitive and there wasn't the all year round demand to justify it. So to get the proposition to fly and preserve the Cornish half-hourly, portion working saved the day. You could always go from 5 to 9 at a later date, when the all year round demand justified it but you wouldn't be able to easily resurrect the Cornish half hourly.

The potential for a different interior design of the cl.802 caused the DfT a major panic. It is fair to say (and I was there) they would not have been authorized by the DfT if they differed internally from the 800 build. It was a very, very sensitive issue with them.

Going from 5 to 9 on the 802 fleet to make all the West Country workings 9 car isn't a big deal. You can do it with 48 more cars (24 x GU, 12 x motor only and 12 x Trailer) to do 12 sets but if you want some kind of bun truck you would probably do 14 sets (28 x Bun truck GU, 14 x motor only and 14 x Trailer). That would make all the 802 x 9 car fitted with a buffet. You then could keep 8 or 10 x 5 car 802 on the Bedwyns and ex 180 North Cots 5 car workings. Putting this stock on regional services to absorb 5 car sets is a possibility, Cardiff to Penzance is the most likely as 26m long vehicles on Pompey-Cardiff is not going to work, even if they could keep to time.

Altering 800 sets is currently seen as too difficult. The hoops of fire you have to go through to do even a minor change on the IEP TARA means that if you had to boost formations, you go to the 802 fleet first. Re-instating Ponsondane sidings at Penzance to enable 9 cars to be stabled down there is currently required if GWR went to all 9 car operation on the London-Plymouth/Penzance trains and that needs money. Is the DfT up for all of this? Frankly, no. A two year DA doesn't make it easy to finance and they are still nervous about the buffet issue. As they don't care much for what TOCs or user groups think, a lot of Tory MP's need to get on Grayling's (or his SPADs) case to make it all happen.

 

[coppercapped]

Given that the Penzance sets are 802s ordered on a conventional lease contract (aren't they?) we can entirely blame GWR for them being the same rubbish. They didn't even have to order 80x, the original plan was for HSTs, though there would have been other options like CAF DMUs or loco-hauled Mk5s or whatever.

This is punditry pure and simple.

In other threads and posts you have promoted the use of train power which does not pollute at the point of use. And now you are suggesting that gWr should have continued to use HSTs for the Paddington - Penzance services. These diesel trains would be running within the Paddington train shed which in other posts you have claimed smells of faeces or diesel emissions depending on the topic being discussed. You can’t have it both ways.

In any event the HSTs are getting long in the tooth and would need to be be replaced within the next few years if they are not given yet another life-extension both for the coaches - including fitting controlled emission toilets and possibly also power doors - and the power cars. But you claim you don’t like Mk 3s either, so why propose keeping them?

Why CAF dmus? The emissions issue doesn’t go away and underfloor engined dmus, even the Class 80X if sat over an engine, are not ideal for four hour journeys. Any loco hauled train would need to be able to keep up with the 125mph Class 80Xs and 387s on the Mains between at least Reading and Paddington (and for some trains from Bristol). There aren’t many 5,000+ bhp, 125mph capable diesels on the market at the moment.

Class 80X trains to the West of England via the Berks and Hants line will be electrically powered as far as Newbury. There are huge advantages in having a consistent fleet which I don’t have to enumerate. Others, much closer to the actual events than I, have already posted here how the DfT pressured gWr to adopt the same interior fit as the IEP procured trains by threatening not to sign the Section 54(?) guarantee - by which the DfT guarantees the further use of the trains after the current franchise has run its course.

So, no, we cannot 'entirely blame gWr'. The choice it made was entirely rational - the pity is that the DfT is so inflexible.

 

[Mikey C]

The IEP contract does seem exactly like those PFI contracts that hospitals and schools are lumbered with where every aspect is specced in minutiae detail, and installing for example a new light switch is a massive and expensive contractual headache.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The potential for a different interior design of the cl.802 caused the DfT a major panic. It is fair to say (and I was there) they would not have been authorized by the DfT if they differed internally from the 800 build. It was a very, very sensitive issue with them.

This makes me very, very angry. Saving face more important than doing the right thing for the passenger. That is the kind of thing you would expect from a tin-pot dictatorship, not the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In other threads and posts you have promoted the use of train power which does not pollute at the point of use. And now you are suggesting that gWr should have continued to use HSTs for the Paddington - Penzance services. These diesel trains would be running within the Paddington train shed which in other posts you have claimed smells of faeces or diesel emissions depending on the topic being discussed. You can’t have it both ways.

The main reason I took this line was that most of the route they run is not under wires nor will it be in the near future, so the benefits of bi-mode are limited, and the Paddington issue could be avoided by using shore supplies until immediately before departure.

In any event the HSTs are getting long in the tooth and would need to be be replaced within the next few years if they are not given yet another life-extension both for the coaches - including fitting controlled emission toilets and possibly also power doors - and the power cars. But you claim you don’t like Mk 3s either, so why propose keeping them?

I don't have to like the options, they just have to be viable. LH Mk4 (and I know I really don't like those) would be another viable option.

Why CAF dmus?

Because, demonstrated by the TPE order, CAF are in a position to supply something of the relevant quality. Look at (the seats aside) the TPE WCML EMUs or Mk5s.

Class 80X trains to the West of England via the Berks and Hants line will be electrically powered as far as Newbury. There are huge advantages in having a consistent fleet which I don’t have to enumerate. Others, much closer to the actual events than I, have already posted here how the DfT pressured gWr to adopt the same interior fit as the IEP procured trains by threatening not to sign the Section 54(?) guarantee - by which the DfT guarantees the further use of the trains after the current franchise has run its course.

I must admit I was not aware of this, and it absolutely stinks.

 

[cactustwirly]

This is punditry pure and simple.

In other threads and posts you have promoted the use of train power which does not pollute at the point of use. And now you are suggesting that gWr should have continued to use HSTs for the Paddington - Penzance services. These diesel trains would be running within the Paddington train shed which in other posts you have claimed smells of faeces or diesel emissions depending on the topic being discussed. You can’t have it both ways.

In any event the HSTs are getting long in the tooth and would need to be be replaced within the next few years if they are not given yet another life-extension both for the coaches - including fitting controlled emission toilets and possibly also power doors - and the power cars. But you claim you don’t like Mk 3s either, so why propose keeping them?

Why CAF dmus? The emissions issue doesn’t go away and underfloor engined dmus, even the Class 80X if sat over an engine, are not ideal for four hour journeys. Any loco hauled train would need to be able to keep up with the 125mph Class 80Xs and 387s on the Mains between at least Reading and Paddington (and for some trains from Bristol). There aren’t many 5,000+ bhp, 125mph capable diesels on the market at the moment.

Class 80X trains to the West of England via the Berks and Hants line will be electrically powered as far as Newbury. There are huge advantages in having a consistent fleet which I don’t have to enumerate. Others, much closer to the actual events than I, have already posted here how the DfT pressured gWr to adopt the same interior fit as the IEP procured trains by threatening not to sign the Section 54(?) guarantee - by which the DfT guarantees the further use of the trains after the current franchise has run its course.

So, no, we cannot 'entirely blame gWr'. The choice it made was entirely rational - the pity is that the DfT is so inflexible.

Technically suitable carriages, plus a 5000hp locomotive does exist, but not to the UK loading gauge.
It would also be more expensive, and maintenance would be an issue.
The 802s are the best all round solution, they just need to be fitted with a buffet and better seats.