GWR Class 800

[61653 HTAFC]

Thanks for your reply swt_passenger. That's made it more clear to me. Although on Summer Saturdays there should not be any 5 car running.

If you mean to the West Country, then it seems fair to assume pretty much everything will be a nine-car or 2x5 formation across the busiest parts of the day - but there will still be plenty of 5-car sets operating on other GW routes to the likes of Worcester and Cheltenham.

Though the 5-car sets do bring up the possibility of say a 5+5 set leaving Paddington (admittedly it'd more likely be the uprated dedicated West of England sets rather than the initial IEP run) and splitting at Plymouth/Par to serve Penzance and Newquay...

 

[jimm]

Though the 5-car sets do bring up the possibility of say a 5+5 set leaving Paddington (admittedly it'd more likely be the uprated dedicated West of England sets rather than the initial IEP run) and splitting at Plymouth/Par to serve Penzance and Newquay...

I take it that 800s that are not needed on other routes on a summer Saturday would cover Exeter and Torbay services, so the AT300s could be concentrated on Plymouth and Cornwall duties. But not sure I'd fancy trying to split a Newquay set off a Penzance one if there were a lot of people with surfboards and big rucksacks in the 'wrong' one at the point the train splits... so perhaps a nine-car for Newquay to avoid aggro and keep to time, especially with pathing on the branch such a headache.

 

[superalbs]

I wonder if they'll do intensive tests on the seawall prior to service. The voyagers had quite a problem with that salt-water in early days.

 

[jimm]

I wonder if they'll do intensive tests on the seawall prior to service. The voyagers had quite a problem with that salt-water in early days.

Unless Hitachi have repeated the design of air intake in the roof used on Voyagers that allows water ingress which affects the resistors then there should not be any problems with the waves for the 800/AT300 family.

The problem with the Voyagers has not been solved and they are banned from the seawall if high waves are expected. But if the forecasters get it wrong, there are still incidents, such as this one from last October.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...rain-Dawlish/story-23079585-detail/story.html

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If they were to be retrofitted with TVM, would they be allowed on HS1 for all sections where the Javelins are cleared for?
(would anything else in addition to all the external and internal TVM equipment need to be fitted?)

 

[455driver]

Unless Hitachi have repeated the design of air intake in the roof used on Voyagers that allows water ingress which affects the resistors then there should not be any problems with the waves for the 800/AT300 family.

The problem with the Voyagers has not been solved and they are banned from the seawall if high waves are expected. But if the forecasters get it wrong, there are still incidents, such as this one from last October.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...rain-Dawlish/story-23079585-detail/story.html

There aren't any air intakes on the roof of a Voyager, the resistors are mounted directly on the roof.

IEPs, 300 etc are designed with the 'roof washing' of Dawlish in mind.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you mean to the West Country, then it seems fair to assume pretty much everything will be a nine-car or 2x5 formation across the busiest parts of the day - but there will still be plenty of 5-car sets operating on other GW routes to the likes of Worcester and Cheltenham.

There are only 7 nine coach AT300 sets, all the others are 5 coach sets.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If they were to be retrofitted with TVM, would they be allowed on HS1 for all sections where the Javelins are cleared for?
(would anything else in addition to all the external and internal TVM equipment need to be fitted?)

What business case is there for IEPs on HS1?
Apart from the cost of fitting TVM, getting 26m coaches round the east Kent lines off HS1 might not be easy.

 

[jopsuk]

If they were to be retrofitted with TVM, would they be allowed on HS1 for all sections where the Javelins are cleared for?
(would anything else in addition to all the external and internal TVM equipment need to be fitted?)

If any further AT300 are ordered for HS1/Kent, they'll be in the 20m carriage size used for the Class 395, with no diesel engines, no hump etc. Why would they go to the hassle of doing anything else?

 

[notadriver]

I'm getting the impression these trains will have similar performance to the 390s. That isn't fast enough for HS1 timings.

 

[Dave1987]

There are only 7 nine coach AT300 sets, all the others are 5 coach sets.

I think its safe to believe that they will run 5 coach sets where ever they believe they can get away with it. Experience elsewhere tells us the powers that be would rather see a 5 car rammed to the gunwales with people standing than run a full length train and have spare seats.

 

[jimm]

There aren't any air intakes on the roof of a Voyager, the resistors are mounted directly on the roof.

IEPs, 300 etc are designed with the 'roof washing' of Dawlish in mind.

Well air intakes is the official explanation that gets trotted out by XC whenever a Voyager drowns - in any case the root of the problem is that seawater and resistors don't mix, which was basically what I said, wasn't it?

There are only 7 nine coach AT300 sets, all the others are 5 coach sets.

And your point is what? I don't think anyone is envisaging sending a five-car set out of Paddington to Penzance on a summer Saturday at 10am, are they? A number of 800s that are needed elsewhere on weekdays will be available on summer Saturdays to help out, same as several HSTs are now. Some of the 800s might even be nine-car sets if the DfT decides to order those extra diesel engines.

I think its safe to believe that they will run 5 coach sets where ever they believe they can get away with it. Experience elsewhere tells us the powers that be would rather see a 5 car rammed to the gunwales with people standing than run a full length train and have spare seats.

Ah yes, the broken record gets another spin...

 

[Dave1987]

Ah yes, the broken record gets another spin...

One could say the same about your unanimous defence of this whole project! One wonders whether you will admit you were wrong if and when we see 5 cars running around packed with people standing?

 

[NotATrainspott]

One could say the same about your unanimous defence of this whole project! One wonders whether you will admit you were wrong if and when we see 5 cars running around packed with people standing?

Why would they only put out 5 car sets if they've ordered enough to double them up on these journeys?

 

[jimm]

One could say the same about your unanimous defence of this whole project! One wonders whether you will admit you were wrong if and when we see 5 cars running around packed with people standing?

You keep saying this and I have to keep pointing out that I have slated the DfT over its handling of the thing time and again, like, oh I don't know, yesterday, in the light of the latest information about the cost of the GWR AT300 order compared with the DfT's contract for the 800/801 fleets.

As for the trains themselves, I'll see what I make of them when I actually get to see and ride on one but as I've said before, not all express trains need to be 10 coaches long with a big blue engine at the front all the time.

Are you going to admit you were wrong if and when the five-coach trains are not running around all the time packed with people standing? Which they won't be on the evidence of the many HSTs with empty seats much of the day, or the Class 180s where they are used.

 

[455driver]

They don't have to send a 5 coach out instead of a 10 'all the time', just once or twice will prove the point!

I am of the opinion that Dave1987 will be proved right quite quickly after these things are introduced, and I amember equally sure that you will use the teething troubles/new trains bedding in/some other excuse to make it sound okay.

 

[Dave1987]

You keep saying this and I have to keep pointing out that I have slated the DfT over its handling of the thing time and again, like, oh I don't know, yesterday, in the light of the latest information about the cost of the GWR AT300 order compared with the DfT's contract for the 800/801 fleets.

As for the trains themselves, I'll see what I make of them when I actually get to see and ride on one but as I've said before, not all express trains need to be 10 coaches long with a big blue engine at the front all the time.

Are you going to admit you were wrong if and when the five-coach trains are not running around all the time packed with people standing? Which they won't be on the evidence of the many HSTs with empty seats much of the day, or the Class 180s where they are used.

Who on earth is talking about express trains being "10 coaches long with a big blue engine at the front"?

The point is is that the DFT have ordered mostly 5 cars. Experience elsewhere tells us that they will probably run 5 cars as often as they feel they can get away with it. They would rather have people standing than dare have spare seats and "inefficiency". If I am wrong I will be more than willing to admit that.

 

[jimm]

Who on earth is talking about express trains being "10 coaches long with a big blue engine at the front"?

The point is is that the DFT have ordered mostly 5 cars. Experience elsewhere tells us that they will probably run 5 cars as often as they feel they can get away with it. They would rather have people standing than dare have spare seats and "inefficiency". If I am wrong I will be more than willing to admit that.

Experience also tell us that there are a lot of GW services, to the Cotswolds, west of Swansea and west of Plymouth, where a nine/10/11 whatever coach train is capacity overkill on a massive scale for much of the time. There is nothing efficient about it all.

If your idea of an express train does not allow for a five-coach set where and when it is appropriate, then what is it, if not nine or 10 coaches long? Presumably with a buffet and restaurant to boot...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They don't have to send a 5 coach out instead of a 10 'all the time', just once or twice will prove the point!

I am of the opinion that Dave1987 will be proved right quite quickly after these things are introduced, and I amember equally sure that you will use the teething troubles/new trains bedding in/some other excuse to make it sound okay.

Just once or twice? Where? On the Cotswold Line/to Cheltenham/west of Cardiff or Plymouth in the contra or off-peak periods? Don't think so somehow.

Or are people's travel patterns going to magically be transformed all of a sudden on the day the first IEP enters service?

 

[Minilad]

I remember a lot of people were also saying 4 and 5 coach Voyagers would be enough because there would be double the trains. That worked out OK as well didn't it

 

[455driver]

I remember a lot of people were also saying 4 and 5 coach Voyagers would be enough because there would be double the trains. That worked out OK as well didn't it

People seem to have very short memories.

 

[WatcherZero]

With the voyagers though they just ended up having to cover services which should have been Pendolino as frequencies were improved.

 

[route:oxford]

This is great.

3x 23m coach turbo trains being replaced by 5x 26m coach trains on many Oxford services.

Why the tantrums about needing 10 coach trains on every service?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I remember a lot of people were also saying 4 and 5 coach Voyagers would be enough because there would be double the trains. That worked out OK as well didn't it

It did/does as far as Chester/North Wales is concerned.
Four Voyagers are doubled up in the peaks, single otherwise.
XC's problem is not having enough to double up in the core/peak.
10 cars all the way from Paddington to Penzance/Swansea/Hereford is overkill most of the day.

 

[jimm]

I remember a lot of people were also saying 4 and 5 coach Voyagers would be enough because there would be double the trains. That worked out OK as well didn't it

People seem to have very short memories.

Well I can reminder a fair degree of scepticism at the time about the wisdom of two 200-seat Voyagers per hour replacing an hourly 460-seat HST. They didn't even offer that much of an increase on a 380-seat XC Mk2 rake either.

As LNW-GW Joint observes, there aren't enough Voyagers of either variety to contemplate doubling them up on the scale likely to be feasible on GW services, where 52 HSTs and five 180s will be replaced with 21 nine-car Class 801 electric sets and 36 five-car Class 800 bimodes, plus seven nine-car AT300s and 22 five-car.

In 'big train' nine or 10-car mode that is 57 sets, so you've already gained five extra 'half-sets' as five 180s will be replaced by 10 five-car 800s, before you even begin to look at the HST services that would be better handled by a five-car train, or the current infill HST workings to Oxford and assorted current Thames Valley peak HST jobs serving the likes of Didcot and Maidenhead that will be covered by 387s, rather than an IEP or AT300.

 

[455driver]

What about the IEPs which are needed to replace the 166's on the Oxford's, that will take care of your 5 extra sets!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How many "non-powered" coaches could be added to Voyagers without taking too much of a hit to the timetabling (increase of time for acceleration and braking)?

 

[JamesRowden]

What about the IEPs which are needed to replace the 166's on the Oxford's, that will take care of your 5 extra sets!

The Paddington to Oxford fasts will be operated using 387s of up to 12-car.

 

[D365]

How many "non-powered" coaches could be added to Voyagers without taking too much of a hit to the timetabling (increase of time for acceleration and braking)?

None - additional coaches will not be built!

 

[jimm]

What about the IEPs which are needed to replace the 166's on the Oxford's, that will take care of your 5 extra sets!

As James Rowden has pointed out, the 387s will be taking up the Oxford terminating and originating fast services, not IEPs (though they might still do a bit of HST-style infill running if diagrams permit) though there will certainly be a few more IEPs than the current HST/180 mix on the Cotswold Line services through Oxford (and the IEPs will also be allowed out of the depot at the weekend, unlike the 180s) as the route will move to a regular hourly interval service - this being made possible by the availability of five-car sets suited to the loadings outside the peaks, which can then be doubled up for the peaks. And which offer almost 50 more seats than a 180 as well, just in case you have forgotten.

 

[Kettledrum]

8 car trains cause other problems (i.e. can't be doubled up, reduce capacity if they are used to replace a 9 coach set, etc.). There are a few key advantage of 5 car sets which can be paired up, these include:
- being able to run them as 5 coach sets when capacity is low which can then free up units to be used where extra capacity is required
- being able to run more frequent services by pairing up sets out of London and then running them to two different locations meaning that each of those two locations can have 2tph rather than 1 tph without using any extra paths whilst increasing capacity over running a single HST

A good example of this happening is with the 158/159's which SWT's use which often drop sets or split to serve Exeter and Bristol at Salisbury. If they had fixed length (long) trains then either people would have to change trains at Salisbury or they would have to find extra paths for the Bristol services. There would also be a lot of empty seats on some services west of Salisbury.

Doubling up 5 coach sets is also the approach used by East Midlands Trains on the St Pancras to Sheffield route, and most of the time it works well. It also means fewer cancellations due to failed units. Occasionally a unit will fail, and a 5+5 service is replaced with just a single 5 coach unit - which will be absolutely packed, but at least the service is able to run.

 

[Dave1987]

As James Rowden has pointed out, the 387s will be taking up the Oxford terminating and originating fast services, not IEPs (though they might still do a bit of HST-style infill running if diagrams permit) though there will certainly be a few more IEPs than the current HST/180 mix on the Cotswold Line services through Oxford (and the IEPs will also be allowed out of the depot at the weekend, unlike the 180s) as the route will move to a regular hourly interval service - this being made possible by the availability of five-car sets suited to the loadings outside the peaks, which can then be doubled up for the peaks. And which offer almost 50 more seats than a 180 as well, just in case you have forgotten.

And this is exactly how you get overcrowded services with people standing with the general attitude that 5 cars are fine for the off peak as if hardly anyone travels except during the peaks. This is evident in many services around the country, which is why I'm sure the powers that be would rather see people standing than have spare seats.