• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Should there be a follow on order for GWR to extend their 80x's?

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Given discussions that have happened elsewhere, what are people's views on if the 80x's are likely to be extended in length (either to create more 9 coach versions or to extend the 9 coach versions to 10 coaches) as part of the next GWR franchise?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

gordonthemoron

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2006
Messages
6,589
Location
Milton Keynes
it does seem daft to have permanently coupled 2x5 car sets which require two sets of guard and catering staff, plus the fact that 5 car sets don't have a buffet, just a trolley
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
it does seem daft to have permanently coupled 2x5 car sets which require two sets of guard and catering staff, plus the fact that 5 car sets don't have a buffet, just a trolley

9 car sets on GWR don't have a buffet either.

Isn't the intention that the 5-car sets won't be permanently coupled but will all portion work?
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
I don't think much of the IETs, but that is because of the poor quality internal fit out.
Too short, not enough seats at tables, no buffet. A short DMU without through gangways and with no buffet simply does not feel like an intercity train.

From a technical/mechanical point of view they are not bad IMHO.
I would support building more vehicles to lengthen existing sets.
I can see the merit of a few half length trains for portion working and lightly used services, but feel that the present numbers of short units are excessive.
Consideration should be given to increasing all the 9 car sets to 10 car, and also increasing some of the 5 car to 10 car.

Building extra vehicles should be cheaper since all the research and development has been done.
Extra non driving cars represent much better value in terms of cost per seat, since they contain more passenger space and should be cheaper to build, being simpler.
A 10 car train could even have a buffet car ! put it in the middle of the standard class section so that no standard class passenger has to walk too far to use it. Something with a central buffet counter and seating each end.
Significant numbers of longer distance commuters would I suspect CHOOSE to stand in the buffet car if in convivial company and enjoying a drink, as they would in a public house.
With a decent size buffet, it should be possible to provide about 40 longitudinal seats and standing space for another 50, with plenty of grab rails and small tables.
This would be popular, and people CHOOSING to stand would add useful capacity. And anyone who does not like it still has the choice of the other vehicles.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
Depending on passenger growth over the next few years and the ensuing changes in the timetables, it might be worth considering.

But...

...there are huge contractual difficulties in the way! Extending the 802s bought by Eversholt for GWR should be reasonably problem free as it would be a simple commercial agreement. The difficulties would lie with extending the trains bought under the IEP contract whereby the DfT contracted with Agility Trains for a service pattern (timetables and seats) and Agility ordered the trains to meet this contract from Hitachi. To extend these trains would mean that the DfT would have to re-negotiate its contracts - and to get it right.

To be honest, pigs are likely to learn to fly first.
 

gordonthemoron

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2006
Messages
6,589
Location
Milton Keynes
I was quite impressed with my 2 IET's between Paddington and Cardiff at the weekend. At least in standard class, there seem loads of seats and they weren't as hard as had been reported. First class seems manky though
 

ash39

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2012
Messages
1,503
I don't think much of the IETs, but that is because of the poor quality internal fit out.
Too short, not enough seats at tables, no buffet. A short DMU without through gangways and with no buffet simply does not feel like an intercity train.

From a technical/mechanical point of view they are not bad IMHO.
I would support building more vehicles to lengthen existing sets.
I can see the merit of a few half length trains for portion working and lightly used services, but feel that the present numbers of short units are excessive.
Consideration should be given to increasing all the 9 car sets to 10 car, and also increasing some of the 5 car to 10 car.

Building extra vehicles should be cheaper since all the research and development has been done.
Extra non driving cars represent much better value in terms of cost per seat, since they contain more passenger space and should be cheaper to build, being simpler.
A 10 car train could even have a buffet car ! put it in the middle of the standard class section so that no standard class passenger has to walk too far to use it. Something with a central buffet counter and seating each end.
Significant numbers of longer distance commuters would I suspect CHOOSE to stand in the buffet car if in convivial company and enjoying a drink, as they would in a public house.
With a decent size buffet, it should be possible to provide about 40 longitudinal seats and standing space for another 50, with plenty of grab rails and small tables.
This would be popular, and people CHOOSING to stand would add useful capacity. And anyone who does not like it still has the choice of the other vehicles.

Sounds good. Who's paying?
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Isn't the intention that the 5-car sets won't be permanently coupled but will all portion work?
This has been stated as the intention, but is there any point? 5 cars for Cardiff Central to Swansea? 5 cars for the peak Bristol Temple Meads to Taunton extensions? 5 cars for Plymouth to Penzance? How many services of each are really so quiet that 5 car is suitable? Only a handful. 5 cars are suitable for services west of Worcester or off peak services west of Oxford, but more common seems a 5 car throughout on that route (I caught the 1622 from London Paddington not long ago, 5 car and full and standing until Reading. Very unpleasant).

Some other ideas might bear fruit, like detaching a portion at Swindon to go to Cheltenham Spa while the rest of the train continues elsewhere - I do not know if that is planned though.
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,576
Significant numbers of longer distance commuters would I suspect CHOOSE to stand in the buffet car if in convivial company and enjoying a drink, as they would in a public house.

Breakfast on the train, cannot beat it.
 

Mugby

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2012
Messages
1,917
Location
Derby
Yes there should definitely be an option to purchase more trailer vehicles to add to the 5-car units.
This is set to become the Voyager saga all over again, they just never learn!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Yes there should definitely be an option to purchase more trailer vehicles to add to the 5-car units.
This is set to become the Voyager saga all over again, they just never learn!

Other than unlike the Voyagers there's more coaches already been ordered than they replaced, the coaches generally have a higher capacity, mostly the 5 coach units run in pairs and the specification for the IEP basically said "not a Voyager or any of the faults with them". Other than that it's just like the Voyagers all over again, and while we're at it what have the Romans ever done for us!?!?
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
Except what keeps being missed. Yes a 5 car iet has more seats than a 5 car voyager but luggage and bike provision ( both paticularly relevant to the wofe route) are questionable on an IET to say the least.
Some services merit 5 cars ( Bedwyns off peak Oxford ) but definitely more 9s should of been ordered for the longer distance trains.
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,576
New trains are always too short. Law of nature once the DfT is involved. Pendolinos, the crowded 185s, Voyagers, there must be others. The new Northern and TPE trains will bear me out.
 

JOHNR150

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2018
Messages
36
I only support an additional order as long as the seating is of the iron board type. We need to ensure that the public is the focus of such an order.
 

JOHNR150

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2018
Messages
36
New trains are always too short. Law of nature once the DfT is involved. Pendolinos, the crowded 185s, Voyagers, there must be others. The new Northern and TPE trains will bear me out.

I cannot agree with this many lessons have been learned since privatisation, when I used to travel between Cheshire and Birmingham under BR it was a 7\8 coach train hauled by a Class 86. Now it is normally a 4 car diesel unit despite the route having the wires up. I hope we do not return to the awful days of BR I enjoy standing on the Class 220.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
New trains are always too short. Law of nature once the DfT is involved. Pendolinos, the crowded 185s, Voyagers, there must be others. The new Northern and TPE trains will bear me out.


I cannot agree with this many lessons have been learned since privatisation, when I used to travel between Cheshire and Birmingham under BR it was a 7\8 coach train hauled by a Class 86. Now it is normally a 4 car diesel unit despite the route having the wires up. I hope we do not return to the awful days of BR I enjoy standing on the Class 220.

I would point out that early on in the privatisation era the trains were too short, mostly due to the government reducing the size of the order (happened with both the 185's and Voyagers). This happened under BR as well when they were only allowed to order two coaches for every three withdrawn when the latter DMU orders were happening.

It's also worth remembering (both on length of service but also on journey times) that the trains now the to be more frequent (either end to end and/or between key stops) as such the capacity of the network is generally higher than before on a like for like basis (Definitely at any time under BR and possibly even at any time ever).

Could the 80x orders been fit a larger fleet, yes. However given the building of a new factory to build them then chances are there's going to be scope for a follow on order for some years to come, so it wasn't quite so important to get it right first time.

In fact there's probably am argument to be made to have the order slightly low to begin with so that there's more of a case for a follow on order in a few years. As it would allow enable the original order to be delivered faster.

The other thing to bear in mind is that although GWR require broadly the same subsidy per passenger km, most of the services run by 80x's would be subsidising the rest of their network. As such more 80x's would likely reduce this figure (up to a point). With XC it's less clear cut, although they do need more trains.

Anyway all these arguments have been had before, and other than when the 80x's have been short formed I'm not aware of any 5 coach service that had been overcrowd as yet (bearing in mind that the whole fleet isn't in service yet and if XC were a unit down then chances are it would mean a cancelled service).

Anyway the comparison with XC probably isn't that comparable (given the number of coaches ordered was more than those the units are due to replace), probably a better example would be with SWR's class 444's where there's some services which could do with the being a bigger fleet of then but a lot of time they run services for which they are about right (either as single or double units).

As way of comparison, the total 22x fleet has just shy of 500 coaches split between 3 TOC's, whilst there's 650 coaches in the 80x fleet at GWR with a further 497 at LNER plus those at TPE and Hull Trains (120 coaches). Which is a total of 1,267 coaches.

Even the Mark 3's and Mark 4's only had a total combined fleet size of 1,162 coaches (848 plus 314).

With a total fleet size that big it's probably worth keeping the manufacturing kit for add long as the design meets the safety standards incase the a need for some more coaches. Especially given that the Mark 3's were in production for over a decade.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
I would point out that early on in the privatisation era the trains were too short, mostly due to the government reducing the size of the order (happened with both the 185's and Voyagers).
What did the government do to reduce the size of the Voyager order? Virgin's original specification was for a squadron fleet of 4-car trains (Non-tilting push-pull loco-hauled and tilting DEMUs) in numbers identical to those subsequently ordered with the Voyager programme, at which point the tilting fleet had been upped to a 5-car length.

The SRA reputedly refused to sign off on any additional carriages retrospectively, but that came later, and I cannot recall it ever being reported in the railway press at the time that Virgin ever actually submitted a request to do so.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Isn't the intention that the 5-car sets won't be permanently coupled but will all portion work?

This has been stated as the intention, but is there any point? 5 cars for Cardiff Central to Swansea? 5 cars for the peak Bristol Temple Meads to Taunton extensions? 5 cars for Plymouth to Penzance? How many services of each are really so quiet that 5 car is suitable? Only a handful. 5 cars are suitable for services west of Worcester or off peak services west of Oxford, but more common seems a 5 car throughout on that route (I caught the 1622 from London Paddington not long ago, 5 car and full and standing until Reading. Very unpleasant).

Some other ideas might bear fruit, like detaching a portion at Swindon to go to Cheltenham Spa while the rest of the train continues elsewhere - I do not know if that is planned though.

Any portion working will be, as has been stated in the Class 800 thread only recently - limited in scale. There will be a number of diagrams with 2x5 running coupled all day in the future, same as now.

In that same thread it has also been noted previously that rather a lot that rather a lot of services west of Cardiff can operate perfectly happily with a five-car set, if that were necessary.

Until HSTs were introduced, portion working west of Plymouth was the rule of thumb for services between London and Penzance - and GWR is beefing up its other services through Cornwall from the start of next year as well to give a basic 2tph service all day on the main line, with a bit of help from XC. How much more capacity do you think is needed there?

In the case of the 16.22 from Paddington to Great Malvern, it should not be full and standing "as far as Reading" in the normal course of things. It calls at Reading to pick up only. Almost inevitably a handful of people get off, but it runs too early for the Reading commuters.

You may well have caught it on a day when the preceding 15.52 to Moreton-in-Marsh had been cancelled, due to crew problems, which has happened quite a lot this year, but as someone who often travels on the 16.22, joining at Reading, I can assure you that a five-car IET is well suited to the numbers travelling normally.

It offers a good boost in capacity compared with the 180 previously used and while it is a busy service, standing is very much the exception (unless the 15.52 has not run) even between Oxford and Hanborough, which wasn't always the case with a 180. Whereas providing a train with 630 or 700 seats on this service would be total overkill.

As would be the case on an hourly Cheltenham service - without the five-car sets, Stroud, Gloucester and Cheltenham would not be getting an hourly London service at all. Bedwyn passengers would be on a Turbo shuttle most of the day, Bristol would not be getting 4tph off-peak and so on.

As for the 'buffet' vehicle suggested above, it sounds like a retread of the Southern region's less-than-successful/notorious Bulleid tavern cars. And hardly something calculated to provide the dozens more extra seats that some people seem to believe every GWR service should have, no matter the reality of the situation - which is that not all GWR express services need 700 seats all day, every day and never will.
 

nat67

Established Member
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Messages
1,477
Location
Warwickshire
Given discussions that have happened elsewhere, what are people's views on if the 80x's are likely to be extended in length (either to create more 9 coach versions or to extend the 9 coach versions to 10 coaches) as part of the next GWR franchise?
No there should not be any IETs; we have got enough Voyagers to cope with. They should either be all electric or nothing at all. It would have been cheaper and easier to just convert the Mk3's for PRM (Person Reduced Mobility) mods.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
No there should not be any (Super Hitachi Inter-City Trains) we have got enough Voyagers to cope with. They should either be all electric or nothing at all. It would have been cheaper and easier to just convert the MK3's for PRM (Person Reduced Mobility) mods.
1) Requiring them to be all electric means a very large and very sudden program of electrification, which is a recipe for massive overruns in cost and time (à la GWEP)
2) Given Wabtecs glacial pace for their MK3 program, I'd strongly disagree that upgrading mk3s would be easier (and it is worth noting that mk3s aren't that good a ride compared to more modern stock)
 

nat67

Established Member
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Messages
1,477
Location
Warwickshire
1) Requiring them to be all electric means a very large and very sudden program of electrification, which is a recipe for massive overruns in cost and time (à la GWEP)
2) Given Wabtecs glacial pace for their MK3 program, I'd strongly disagree that upgrading mk3s would be easier (and it is worth noting that mk3s aren't that good a ride compared to more modern stock)
When you say the MK3's aren't as good a ride that depends on what good a job they do with refitting and what seating layout they could redo. I understand that Wabtec are doing a crap job of time. But they should have just put wires up all the way but that's now too late says the DFT in the infant wisdom.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
No there should not be any (Super Hitachi Inter-City Trains) we have got enough Voyagers to cope with.
The argument that their similarities to Voyagers are negligible has already been laid out in detail above, though this post succinctly sums it up:
Other than unlike the Voyagers there's more coaches already been ordered than they replaced, the coaches generally have a higher capacity, mostly the 5 coach units run in pairs and the specification for the IEP basically said "not a Voyager or any of the faults with them".
- - - - -
They should either be all electric or nothing at all.
I'm not completely sold on the bi-mode concept where a more comprehensive programme of electrification would be feasible, but if these units weren't bi-mode then with the delays to the Great Western electrification we'd be in one hell of a mess right now.
It would have been cheaper and easier to just convert the MK3's for PRM (Person Reduced Mobility) mods.
Seriously? Only ONE rake of four modified carriages has so far been delivered to GWR since the first (XC) HST set went in for PRM mods fourteen months ago, while nearly the full fleet of 36 x 5-car (Pre-series trains 800001/002 still completing fitting out) IETs has been delivered to GWR within the same time frame, with deliveries of the 9-car sets now underway. How do you envisage that over fifty full-length HST sets would be modified ahead of the 01/01/2020 deadline? It simply couldn't be done.

Not to mention that retaining HST sets would do nothing to increase capacity and reliability or provide readiness for ETCS, and would leave GWR operating 40 year old stock that would still need replacing in 10-15 years time.

By insisting on electric only stock or modifying the HST fleet, I would suggest you would set back "modernisation" of the GWML by at least three years compared to the reality, and do nothing to increase capacity.
 

nat67

Established Member
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Messages
1,477
Location
Warwickshire
Seriously? Only ONE rake of four modified carriages has so far been delivered to GWR since the first (XC) HST set went in for PRM mods fourteen months ago, while nearly the full fleet of 36 x 5-car (Pre-series trains 800001/002 still completing fitting out) IETs has been delivered to GWR within the same time frame, with deliveries of the 9-car sets now underway. How do you envisage that over fifty full-length HST sets would be modified ahead of the 01/01/2020 deadline? It simply couldn't be done.

Not to mention that retaining HST sets would do nothing to increase capacity and reliability or provide readiness for ETCS, and would leave GWR operating 40 year old stock that would still need replacing in 10-15 years time.

By insisting on electric only stock or modifying the HST fleet, I would suggest you would set back "modernisation" of the GWML by at least three years compared to the reality, and do nothing to increase capacity.
I don't mean right this very moment lets start the mods I mean I should have been done from the very start of the new franchise but the DFT stopped them from doing that. The modernisation of the GWML is still no going to happen as they cant wire because of a Grade 2 listed bridge it wouldn't impact if it was still HST.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
I don't mean right this very moment lets start the mods I mean I should have been done from the very start of the new franchise but the DFT stopped them from doing that.
If you're going to electrify at the same time as the current inter-city fleet is reaching 40 years old and is operating at capacity on busy services, it makes perfect sense to order a new fleet of trains with more seats to go with it. Rather than muddling through with a piecemeal refurbishment of existing stock, when you can instead deliver all the benefits in one go with a new fleet.
The modernisation of the GWML is still no going to happen as they cant wire because of a Grade 2 listed bridge it wouldn't impact if it was still HST.
The modernisation of the GWML IS happening and is well underway: They're receiving an entirely brand new fleet of trains for inter-city services (And for Thames Valley main line suburban services), and electrification as far as Bristol Parkway and subsequently Cardiff. The failure to electrify to Oxford or Temple Meads at this stage is frustrating, to say the least, but at least they still see the benefits of new trains.
 

nat67

Established Member
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Messages
1,477
Location
Warwickshire
If you're going to electrify at the same time as the current inter-city fleet is reaching 40 years old and is operating at capacity on busy services, it makes perfect sense to order a new fleet of trains with more seats to go with it. Not muddling through with a piecemeal refurbishment of existing stock when you can deliver all the benefits in one go with a new fleet.
But that new fleet are not even performing as they should have been so its still a 'muddle of pies'. And with leaving passengers and half a trains length that's not exactly new just an annoyance to every commuter. The modernisation of wires as you say isn't going that quickly as there are no wires up after Wantage Rd and no wires where grade 2 listed bridge is before Swindon and with cheap wires they will just fall of in the wind.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
But that new fleet are not even performing as they should have been so its still a 'muddle of pies'. And with leaving passengers and half a trains length that's not exactly new just an annoyance to every commuter. The modernisation of wires as you say isn't going that quickly as there are no wires up after Wantage Rd and no wires where grade 2 listed bridge is before Swindon and with cheap wires they will just fall of in the wind.
Teething troubles are regrettable but not unusual with new train fleets, especially when the new fleet is only partially delivered and fitters and technicians are still getting to grips with practical day to day management of the fleet. The reliability targets that Agility Trains are required to meet are stringent and I don't doubt that they will begin to achieve them as the new service beds in. Plus as I understand it a fair proportion of the 5-car operations have been the result of staffing issues, rather than faults with the trains themselves.

I see no evidence that the GWML electrification is being done "on the cheap" - there seems in fact to be a good deal of reference to proverbial "gold plating" of the infrastructure elsewhere on this forum, so quite the opposite.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
But that new fleet are not even performing as they should have been so its still a 'muddle of pies'. And with leaving passengers and half a trains length that's not exactly new just an annoyance to every commuter. The modernisation of wires as you say isn't going that quickly as there are no wires up after Wantage Rd and no wires where grade 2 listed bridge is before Swindon and with cheap wires they will just fall of in the wind.

There's two problems with reusing the HST's. First the class 80x's are providing a 18% increase in capacity when comparing the full length 80x's with a HST.

Second, what would you do about the lack of DMU's some of which are currently proposed with HST GTi's (likewise the Scottish units)?

By using 80x's, there's scope to potentially lengthen the units (the main purpose of this thread) to provide more capacity, something that couldn't be done with the HST's without showing them down.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Seems to me that 6 car IEPS would be a waste of space, because they couldn't be doubled up in service because they'd be too long for nearly every station. So either extend 5 to 9 or 10 car and 9 to 10 car, but don't prat about with minor changes.
 

kje7812

Member
Joined
1 May 2018
Messages
400
Location
York or Kidderminster
Seriously? Only ONE rake of four modified carriages has so far been delivered to GWR since the first (XC) HST set went in for PRM mods fourteen months ago, while nearly the full fleet of 36 x 5-car (Pre-series trains 800001/002 still completing fitting out) IETs has been delivered to GWR within the same time frame, with deliveries of the 9-car sets now underway. How do you envisage that over fifty full-length HST sets would be modified ahead of the 01/01/2020 deadline? It simply couldn't be done.
And apparently the ones being used for GWR and ASR are the 'good' ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top