Should Class 800 be ordered for the Cross Country franchise?

[Chris172]

Do you think CrossCountry will get 800s in the new franchise in bi mode as I would love to see a class 800 coming through birmingham

 

[TwistedMentat]

Do you think CrossCountry will get 800s in the new franchise in bi mode as I would love to see a class 800 coming through birmingham

Last I remember this topic coming up the sticking point is that XC operate primarily away from wires. Whereas GW are the other way round. And the 800 is designed more for under wire use and not extended periods of high speed running under diesel.

Could Hitachi modify the design if wanted? Probably. But would XC pay for it over some other design? Dunno. And then you'd have to deal with the procedure/hardware for doing the switchovers as it sounds like to do the switchovers at speed the catanery needs special tensioning.

 

[Master29]

Last I remember this topic coming up the sticking point is that XC operate primarily away from wires. Whereas GW are the other way round. And the 800 is designed more for under wire use and not extended periods of high speed running under diesel.

Could Hitachi modify the design if wanted? Probably. But would XC pay for it over some other design? Dunno. And then you'd have to deal with the procedure/hardware for doing the switchovers as it sounds like to do the switchovers at speed the catanery needs special tensioning.

Isn`t that precisely why the 802`s are being introduced?

 

[class26]

Last I remember this topic coming up the sticking point is that XC operate primarily away from wires. Whereas GW are the other way round. And the 800 is designed more for under wire use and not extended periods of high speed running under diesel.

Could Hitachi modify the design if wanted? Probably. But would XC pay for it over some other design? Dunno. And then you'd have to deal with the procedure/hardware for doing the switchovers as it sounds like to do the switchovers at speed the catanery needs special tensioning.

Most Cross Country routes probably operate more under the wires than the 800`s doing Paddington - Penzance will !
The exception is Leeds - Plymouth but Edinburgh/Newcastle - Plymouth has a reasonable amount of under the wires running.

 

[Kite159]

Most Cross Country routes probably operate more under the wires than the 800`s doing Paddington - Penzance will !
The exception is Leeds - Plymouth but Edinburgh/Newcastle - Plymouth has a reasonable amount of under the wires running.

Similar with a Bournemouth - Manchester services which spend a reasonable amount of time under the wires (Manchester - Coventry & Reading - Didcot) so something like a 802 would be suitable (assuming they can be cleared for working over the third rail part of the route).

Then the voyagers can be used to strengthen those South West - North East services. Although it will require some juggling of diagrams as IIRC the Manchester services currently interwork (Southampton - Manchester - Bristol - Manchester - Southampton)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A variation of the IET would certainly be ideal for Cross Country, but they should be a uniform fleet 7 or 8 car sets - it would be a one-off opportunity to sort out the capacity issues. There is enough under the wires running to make it worth them being a bi-mode variant; notably north of Doncaster and as has been mentioned above, Birmingham / Manchester...

 

[gingertom]

if class 800/802s are ordered for XC, what length do you make them? There's been plenty of talk on forums about the performance away from the wires, but I haven't seen anything about what could be achieved. Given that the end vehicles contain the driving cab, the pantograph, transformer and electrical switchgear, these don't contain traction equipment. A 5-car set has 2 of these and 3 powered vehicles; a 9 car set has 5 powered vehicles in addition to the 2 driving/pantograph/transformer cars and 2 dead-weight trailers. Now if these 2 were to be equipped with traction gear, for an extra couple of tonnes of engine and traction gear you'd have an additional 1880 BHP available on diesel. Attractive? You bet!

 

[59CosG95]

if class 800/802s are ordered for XC, what length do you make them? There's been plenty of talk on forums about the performance away from the wires, but I haven't seen anything about what could be achieved. Given that the end vehicles contain the driving cab, the pantograph, transformer and electrical switchgear, these don't contain traction equipment. A 5-car set has 2 of these and 3 powered vehicles; a 9 car set has 5 powered vehicles in addition to the 2 driving/pantograph/transformer cars and 2 dead-weight trailers. Now if these 2 were to be equipped with traction gear, for an extra couple of tonnes of engine and traction gear you'd have an additional 1880 BHP available on diesel. Attractive? You bet!

But what if that couldn't be achieved due to power supply constraints?
It's entirely plausible that it might be no better to have 5 powered vehicles than 7, if the weight to power ratio is the same for both.

 

[sprinterguy]

A fleet of 7-car class 802s would surely be a good idea for the North East – South West services. Using 5 powered vehicles would give an improved power to weight ratio over existing AT-300 formations. Based on current XC fleet usage, that’d require around 20 daily diagrams resulting in a fleet size of around 23 units based on existing AT-300 utilisation figures, which isn’t dissimilar to the size of existing individual commercial class 802 orders.

They could utilise (subject to agreement) established IEP maintenance facilities located strategically along (or close to) the line of route at Edinburgh Craigentinny, Doncaster and Stoke Gifford, and I believe that work is also already being undertaken to allow Plymouth Laira and Penzance Long Rock depots to accommodate GWRs’ class 802 units at the South West end of the route.

That’d be sufficient additional units brought into the franchise to displace Crosscountry’s HSTs (Although Porterbrook might not be impressed to see such short term utilisation of their power door fitted sets, whenever they finally see the light of day), and to permit all the 4-car Voyager units to operate in pairs as 8-car sets on all Manchester – Exeter and the majority of Manchester – Bournemouth diagrams (Or whichever busiest services require them).

 

[broadgage]

I can see the merit of 800s for cross country services.
As is well known I don't think much of the 800s currently being introduced on GWR. My objections are however not on technical or engineering grounds, but the poor standard of interior design.
New trains based MECHANICLY on the 800s but with a proper long distance internal fit out could be attractive.
I don't like the largely airline seating layout of the GWR units, but a future build could have mainly facing seats at full size tables.
I don't like so-called intercity trains without a buffet, but future cross country units could have a buffet.
I don't like so called intercity trains that consist of a pair of short multiple units with no through gangway, but a future cross country order could be all full length units.

Electrification will slowly spread, so bi mode units will get more use on electric power in future.

Any future order for cross country should in my view consist entirely of 9 car units, so as be mechanically identical to the GWR trains, no development costs, simply build some more identical to the existing fleet (apart from internal fit out)
A new fleet of full length trains would largely solve the overcrowding that plagues many cross country services.
Some voyagers could be retained for less busy services.

 

[physics34]

i would replace the voyagers with 800s to improve the passenger experience for a start. Then voyagers can be shifted onto longer distance DMU routes replacing 158s etc.

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't like the largely airline seating layout of the GWR units, but a future build could have mainly facing seats at full size tables.
I don't like so-called intercity trains without a buffet, but future cross country units could have a buffet.

Those two criteria would certainly require a step change in thinking by whomever is chosen to operate the next Crosscountry franchise!

Any future order for cross country should in my view consist entirely of 9 car units, so as be mechanically identical to the GWR trains, no development costs, simply build some more identical to the existing fleet (apart from internal fit out)

There's issues with trains longer than 9x23 metres calling at selected stations served by Crosscountry network, though it would depend on which routes AT-300 series trains were deployed on, and I suspect that lengthening works for the GWR IEP programme might also reduce some such limitations.

One of the benefits of the AT-300 programme was touted as the "plug and play" ability to provide different permutations and formations as requested by an operator, so there shouldn't be any development costs in specifying a different train length if desired. The bigger concern to an operator is likely to be the franchise cost of leasing, track access charges, fuel consumption and maintenance of additional vehicles simply to maintain identical characteristics to an unrelated operators fleet.

i would replace the voyagers with 800s to improve the passenger experience for a start. Then voyagers can be shifted onto longer distance DMU routes replacing 158s etc.

I suppose how many trains might be ordered will depend on how big the cheque book will be for the "Cinderella" of intercity franchises, with a different revenue and demand profile to the London-centric operators. Though recent franchise awards have proffered some pleasant surprises.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure 9x26m is necessary for XC. I would support 7x26m with the option for a follow on order to extend to 8 in case it proves that there is substantial suppressed demand caused by overcrowding.

Certainly I support the use of bi-modes - XC is going to be operating on non-electrified routes for the foreseeable future, and we do need to stop running DMUs under the wires.

 

[43096]

I'm not sure 9x26m is necessary for XC. I would support 7x26m with the option for a follow on order to extend to 8 in case it proves that there is substantial suppressed demand caused by overcrowding.

Certainly I support the use of bi-modes - XC is going to be operating on non-electrified routes for the foreseeable future, and we do need to stop running DMUs under the wires.

We need to be stringing the wires up, really. I get why we don’t want to be running DMUs under the wires, but bi-modes are both under-powered DMUs and overweight EMUs; which means you’re always carting around more weight than ideal so you use more fuel/electricity to shift it and is less “track friendly”.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'm not sure 9x26m is necessary for XC. I would support 7x26m with the option for a follow on order to extend to 8 in case it proves that there is substantial suppressed demand caused by overcrowding.

I'd wholeheartedly agree with that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We need to be stringing the wires up, really.

We do, but XC's need for more rolling stock is much more urgent than that.

Another option would I suppose be to split off the Manchester to Birmingham section (the biggest waste of DMUs) to free Voyagers for doubling up on the "big X" part which proportionally has far less electrification (you could use 91+Mk4 for Manchester to Birmingham services, formed as buffet first plus 6 Standard), but that would reduce flexibility and have even more people forced to change at New St, and more trains terminating there when there is an effort going on to try to reduce this, unless there would be capacity to send them to International like the standalone Manchester XCs used to pre-Voyager.

 

[gingertom]

But what if that couldn't be achieved due to power supply constraints?
It's entirely plausible that it might be no better to have 5 powered vehicles than 7, if the weight to power ratio is the same for both.

If there's a power supply constraint then it won't be possible to run any sort of unit on electrical power without upgrades to the 25kv feeds. Well documented it can take 5 years for a new grid feeder as well as being expensive.
Do the maths. Power to weight ratio improves dramatically the more dead weight you remove and the more power you install. The 800/802 3 powered out of 5 vs 5 powered out of 9 makes for very similar power to weight ratios. With so much anecdotal evidence of an 800 balancing out at 118mph on the level it is clear extra power is needed. The MTU engine Hitachi has selected it the most powerful in the range that can be fitted, so all we can do is fit more engines in the vehicles that can support them. Could you imagine a Voyager having to drag a couple of MK3s about without some help? They have been known to drag a dead Pendolino rake in emergency but not at 125mph!

 

[gingertom]

I'd wholeheartedly agree with that.

maybe even 6 but the option to extend to 7/8 or more needs retaining if the demand calls for it. Are we talking here of ending the practice of running sets in pairs during peaks? This would impact greatly on platform lengths required, and as a consequence where pairs could run.

 

[HSTEd]

Im going to be unpopular and suggest that the easiest, and chepeast way to solve the capacity issues is 2+5 HSTs

 

[Bletchleyite]

maybe even 6 but the option to extend to 7/8 or more needs retaining if the demand calls for it. Are we talking here of ending the practice of running sets in pairs during peaks? This would impact greatly on platform lengths required, and as a consequence where pairs could run.

I would abandon doubling up and run peak extras instead.

And work on timetabling to get commuters off.

 

[JohnRegular]

How feasible would it be to bolt shoegear onto a class 800 for the 3rd rail sections? With all this talk of diesel running under the wires, it would be a shame to miss out on a potentially quite simple way to further reduce diesel running on electrified track. I suspect, however, it won't be seen as worth doing for the relatively few 3rd rail routes that XC run.

 

[swt_passenger]

How feasible would it be to bolt shoegear onto a class 800 for the 3rd rail sections?

Probably as easy as it is to have shoe gear on the 395s, also members of the AT300 family.

I suspect, however, it won't be seen as worth doing for the relatively few 3rd rail routes that XC run.

Agreed. Only one route, (once Guildford dropped), about an hour or so average running time from Basingstoke to Southampton 2 tph or Bournemouth 1 tph.

 

[Domh245]

Not particularly easy - the 80x units utilise an AC bus between vehicles, unlike a lot of contemporary units which use a DC bus. The DC feed would thus need to be inverted and stepped up to the right voltage before being passed to other vehicles, or of course you could re-engineer it to use a DC bus, but that's a lot of work for little gain. Also, you have to consider if the power supply can take the additional draw of a heavy high speed multiple unit, and the answer will be no, unless you throttle back the current draw, but then you start loosing performance and it may end up being easier to just run them on Diesel instead.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Im going to be unpopular and suggest that the easiest, and chepeast way to solve the capacity issues is 2+5 HSTs

Which takes us right back to Operation Princess...

 

[The_Engineer]

Im going to be unpopular and suggest that the easiest, and chepeast way to solve the capacity issues is 2+5 HSTs

No way! 2 + 8 HSTs please, for the busiest runs and free up Voyagers for strengthen other trains.

 

[mallard]

Dare I mention Bombardier's eVoyager proposal? Would provide one new carriage per unit at least...

In answer to the question: bi-modes for XC? Yes. 800s for XC? No, but maybe 802s or some other bi-mode (see above).

 

[59CosG95]

Dare I mention Bombardier's eVoyager proposal? Would provide one new carriage per unit at least...

In answer to the question: bi-modes for XC? Yes. 800s for XC? No, but maybe 802s or some other bi-mode (see above).

Besides, I think the 800/801 number range was only for units ordered as part of the Intercity Express Programme.
My pedantic side is a stickler for pointing out that IEP is not the name of the unit family; rather the programme they were initially procured under.
Hence you have IETs (GWR), Azumas (Virgin EC), Nova 1s (TPE).
802s would be the more likely option.

The eVoyager programme could work if the will to install jigs for the Voyagers & Meridians at Litchurch Lane is large enough. Remember - they were built in Bruges, not Derby, and the jigs have since been removed from Bruges.

 

[HSTEd]

No way! 2 + 8 HSTs please, for the busiest runs and free up Voyagers for strengthen other trains.

2+8 will never keep up with the existing timetable, and a total recast again is going to cause all sorts of problems.

2+5 HSTs are available in large numbers and could displace the entire 4 car 220 fleet with ease.

 

[59CosG95]

2+8 will never keep up with the existing timetable, and a total recast again is going to cause all sorts of problems.

2+5 HSTs are available in large numbers and could displace the entire 4 car 220 fleet with ease.

2+6 perhaps? That would give the increase in seats that XC desperately needs, without overly impinging on the capacity and timetable. I'm sure a few TFs could be converted into TSs if needs be.

 

[Domh245]

The eVoyager programme could work if the will to install jigs for the Voyagers & Meridians at Litchurch Lane is large enough. Remember - they were built in Bruges, not Derby, and the jigs have since been removed from Bruges.

Litchurch Lane would also need to retool for steel instead of Aluminium. I would think though that they're a bit short of capacity at the moment with all of the Aventra orders.