Hull Trains order for 5x Class 800 (now confirmed as AT300)

[westv]

Off topic but I have always wondered if VTEC should really abandon the Hull Executive service and concentrate on other services use the set to run an extra train to Lincoln or somewhere else.

Can I politely request that you stick that idea where the sun doesn't shine?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Can I politely request that you stick that idea where the sun doesn't shine?

Hull, you mean?

 

[westv]

Can I politely request that you stick that idea where the sun doesn't shine?

Hull, you mean?

Grrr!

If everything stayed the same would this new stock make any difference to journey times?

 

[asylumxl]

Grrr!

If everything stayed the same would this new stock make any difference to journey times?

Do you need any ointment for that burn? :P

Don't know about journey times but it's better for capacity to have trains with matching performance and good for when things go wrong too.

 

[Chris125]

I wonder if on reflection the design should have been for a diesel "power car" that could be removed at a later time

With IEP they can, should they wish, convert the intermediate vehicles into unpowered trailers - that should be much cheaper and easier to justify than building and operating a vehicle that would later become redundant at a relatively early age.

 

[DarloRich]

One of the things I'm not sure about is the current obsession for 5 car units. Many of the new orders feature 5 car units. Why 5? I'm fearful of CrossCountry style overcrowding problems appearing on many routes. I know HT doesn't use long trains, but what about future-proofing? These 5 car units are appearing everywhere; are they really sufficient for the next, say, 20 years? Interested in other people's views on this.

no they wont be long enough, offer enough capacity and they will not be as comfortable as the trains they replace being a clone of a voyager and a javelin. You can dress it up in any way you like but it is just a repeat of the XC situation where trains are unsuitable for the services they run. But then any suggestion new is not best is a heresy on this site............

The one HST a day to/from Hull is clearly the best way to travel.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The 5 car units are probably to give them the maximum possible flexibility, two units of 6 cars or longer coupled together could well be too long for a good few of the stations

 

[CdBrux]

no they wont be long enough, offer enough capacity and they will not be as comfortable as the trains they replace being a clone of a voyager and a javelin. You can dress it up in any way you like but it is just a repeat of the XC situation where trains are unsuitable for the services they run. But then any suggestion new is not best is a heresy on this site............

The one HST a day to/from Hull is clearly the best way to travel.

Why would Hull trains spend money on buying assets that will generate them little or no incremental revenue if the capacity is not yet needed? Would that not simply push up the fares in order to recover the investment?

At a future point should demand increase by enough then I am sure they would purchase / get hold of additional capacity to profitably service the demand.

 

[jimm]

no they wont be long enough, offer enough capacity and they will not be as comfortable as the trains they replace being a clone of a voyager and a javelin. You can dress it up in any way you like but it is just a repeat of the XC situation where trains are unsuitable for the services they run. But then any suggestion new is not best is a heresy on this site............

The one HST a day to/from Hull is clearly the best way to travel.

And your evidence for the claim that they won't have enough capacity is what?

BR never offered that extensive a through service between Hull and London, GNER and its successors haven't bothered to offer more than one out and one back, which opened the way for Hull Trains to develop its niche, so why do you think Hull Trains will suddenly be swamped if it uses AT300s instead of 180s? AT300s which will have several dozen extra seats to boot.

It is not a repeat of the XC situation, it is nothing like the XC situation - unless you know about some secret HT plan to double the number of trains it runs... which would more than double the seats offered, which is a bit different from the situation where Virgin XC ran more trains but with fewer seats than the previous hourly service in many cases. The trains will not have tilt bodies, nor will the interiors be designed with three vast accessible toilets in a small four-car train.

And the East Coast HST will also be replaced by a Class 800 formation anyway.

And if new is not always better, then presumably old must have been better, so let's bring back the Hull Pullman, with 1+1 first class seats. That will do a lot for seating capacity.

 

[westv]

How does the sit pitch for the airline style seats differ between these new trains and what HTs already uses? I trust it's not as bad as EC!

 

[swt_passenger]

How does the sit pitch for the airline style seats differ between these new trains and what HTs already uses? I trust it's not as bad as EC!

Assuming you are referring to a future HT order for AT300 derivatives, their seat pitch will only be defined at the point when they definitely order them, it isn't set by the train builder so there's no way of knowing.

It isn't constrained to be the same as either FGW AT300s, or anyone else's SETs.

 

[The Ham]

But then any suggestion new is not best is a heresy on this site............

There are a few other forms of heresy on this site; these include:
- HST's are in need of replacement
- The 442's are going to be scraped at some point (the sooner the suggestion the more such heretics are shouted down)
- Modern train lengths and frequencies are better than the few trains a day which used to run a similar service but had a lot more coaches than the modern trains

Yes Virgin dropped the ball with XC when they brought in the Voyagers, however hindsight is a great thing which is why most new train orders have options for extra units so that this is less likely to happen again.

It should also be pointed out that the majority of XC's Voyagers are actually only FOUR couches long with 200 seats on them, the new AT300's have about 315 seats (57.5% more), which is about the same number of seats that a five coach Voyager would have if an extra standard coach of seating was added to form a six coach set.

 

[westv]

How does the sit pitch for the airline style seats differ between these new trains and what HTs already uses? I trust it's not as bad as EC!

Assuming you are referring to a future HT order for AT300 derivatives, their seat pitch will only be defined at the point when they definitely order them, it isn't set by the train builder so there's no way of knowing.

It isn't constrained to be the same as either FGW AT300s, or anyone else's SETs.

AT300 same as class 800 (which this thread is about)?
I did real elsewhere that the 800 seating is "very firm"? If true, why do manufacturers do that?

 

[swt_passenger]

AT300 same as class 800 (which this thread is about)?
I did real elsewhere that the 800 seating is "very firm"? If true, why do manufacturers do that?

Same train body on AT300 and SET, but the actual seats or seat pitch don't have to be the same, they are adjustable to the specifiers requirements, like in any other modern train.

 

[DarloRich]

Why would Hull trains spend money on buying assets that will generate them little or no incremental revenue if the capacity is not yet needed? Would that not simply push up the fares in order to recover the investment?

At a future point should demand increase by enough then I am sure they would purchase / get hold of additional capacity to profitably service the demand.

And your evidence for the claim that they won't have enough capacity is what?

BR never offered that extensive a through service between Hull and London, GNER and its successors haven't bothered to offer more than one out and one back, which opened the way for Hull Trains to develop its niche, so why do you think Hull Trains will suddenly be swamped if it uses AT300s instead of 180s? AT300s which will have several dozen extra seats to boot.

It is not a repeat of the XC situation, it is nothing like the XC situation - unless you know about some secret HT plan to double the number of trains it runs... which would more than double the seats offered, which is a bit different from the situation where Virgin XC ran more trains but with fewer seats than the previous hourly service in many cases. The trains will not have tilt bodies, nor will the interiors be designed with three vast accessible toilets in a small four-car train.

And the East Coast HST will also be replaced by a Class 800 formation anyway.

And if new is not always better, then presumably old must have been better, so let's bring back the Hull Pullman, with 1+1 first class seats. That will do a lot for seating capacity.

my point which is always missed is that these new super duper trains will be a backward step in terms of passenger comfort. I seem to be the only person not blinded by the emperors new clothes.......

Capacity wise I am not merely limiting my comments to Hull Trains but generally relating to new trains. They aren't long enough generally. Replacing an 7/8 carriage train with a 4/5 carriage train is stupid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Same train body on AT300 and SET, but the actual seats or seat pitch don't have to be the same, they are adjustable to the specifiers requirements, like in any other modern train.

the TOC /ROSCO will specify the cheapest, most parsimonious, seat possible. You know that surely..................

 

[Haydn1971]

It should also be pointed out that the majority of XC's Voyagers are actually only FOUR couches long with 200 seats on them, the new AT300's have about 315 seats (57.5% more), which is about the same number of seats that a five coach Voyager would have if an extra standard coach of seating was added to form a six coach set.

Although the 180 that HT currently uses has 287 seats - so the upgrade per unit isn't as great - however the fifth AT300 (if that's what the bi-mode actually is) will presumably allow a greater frequency at peak than the current every two hour frequency - so potentially something like 2.2x increase in seats per hour at peak, subject to paths of course ! What's the loading like on the service, is there a "peak" as such ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

AT300 same as class 800 (which this thread is about)?

Class 800/801 are a rail class name, AT300 is the Hitachi product name - the units ordered for the Southwest are very likely to be a new rail class number, Class 8xx, the Hull Trains units, if they are AT300's may share that class name with the fleet ordered for the Southwest.

Which brings me to the thread title - FirstHull Trains are wanting to order some bi-modes, someone has concluded these will be Class 800's - they will not - they may be AT300's, they could also be a product supplied by another manufacturer. Can we change the thread title please.

I did real elsewhere that the 800 seating is "very firm"? If true, why do manufacturers do that?

Odd that, considering there are no units in service, just a pre-production mock.

 

[sprinterguy]

Capacity wise I am not merely limiting my comments to Hull Trains but generally relating to new trains. They aren't long enough generally. Replacing an 7/8 carriage train with a 4/5 carriage train is stupid.

Not that there's much evidence for this with the Hitachi class 800/801 order: On the East Coast, there will be thirteen 9-car Bi-mode sets compared to fifteen 2+9 HST formations, as well as an additional twenty two 5-car class 800/801 sets: That's 93 carriages more than makes up the HST fleet at present.

30 x 9-car mark 4 sets will be replaced by 30 x 9-car class 801s on a like for like basis, but with 99 more standard class seats.

On Great Western, 21 x 9-car class 801s and 36 x 5-car class 801s, plus 7 x 9-car and 22 x 5-car higher rated AT300s, totalling 542 carriages, will replace fifty three HSTs in 2+8 formations and 5 x 5-car class 180s (plus an unspecified smattering of Turbos on the likes of Cotswold services): A total of 449 carriages. Or in other words, every Great Western HST could be replaced by either a 9-car class 801 or a pair of 5-car class 800s as the diagrams stand at present, and still leave three 5-car units spare if you also replace the 180s on a like for like basis.

I have my own doubts about the Hitachi AT300 series of trains, mostly concerning the proposed passenger environment, in terms of decreased luggage space compared to the trains they replace, seat to window arrangement and the comfort of the seats themselves: The latter two points being harder to qualify without having boarded one of these trains myself. I am not however dismayed by the number of carriages that are being built.

 

[Haydn1971]

Not that there's much evidence for this with the Hitachi class 800/801 order

Out of interest, have you done a seat gain comparison on both EC & GW ?

 

[D365]

Nobody seems to be complaining that Class 442s (5x23m) are being replaced by fewer equivalent units of Class 387/1 (4x20m) on Gatwick/Brighton express duties...

 

[sprinterguy]

Odd that, considering there are no units in service, just a pre-production mock.

But the railway press have had the opportunity to sit in the proposed seats on the mock-up and report back:

http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1524-Class-800-interior
Both the First and Standard class seats were very firm which now seems to be a fairly common feature...

 

[DarloRich]

Not that there's much evidence for this with the Hitachi class 800/801 order: On the East Coast, there will be thirteen 9-car Bi-mode sets compared to fifteen 2+9 HST formations, as well as an additional twenty two 5-car class 800/801 sets: That's 93 carriages more than makes up the HST fleet at present.

30 x 9-car mark 4 sets will be replaced by 30 x 9-car class 801s on a like for like basis, but with 99 more standard class seats.

On Great Western, 21 x 9-car class 801s and 36 x 5-car class 801s, plus 7 x 9-car and 22 x 5-car higher rated AT300s, totalling 542 carriages, will replace fifty three HSTs in 2+8 formations and 5 x 5-car class 180s (plus an unspecified smattering of Turbos on the likes of Cotswold services): A total of 449 carriages. Or in other words, every Great Western HST could be replaced by either a 9-car class 801 or a pair of 5-car class 800s as the diagrams stand at present, and still leave three 5-car units spare if you also replace the 180s on a like for like basis.

I have my own doubts about the Hitachi AT300 series of trains, mostly concerning the proposed passenger environment, in terms of decreased luggage space compared to the trains they replace, seat to window arrangement and the comfort of the seats themselves: The latter two points being harder to qualify without having boarded one of these trains myself. I am not however dismayed by the number of carriages that are being built.

I HOPE they learn both the capacity and comfort lessons from the Voyager procurement. On the bare figures the first seems to be covered, my concern remains about the latter.

The other issue is the double crewing required by operating joined 5 car trains and the impact on running costs this causes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nobody seems to be complaining that Class 442s (5x23m) are being replaced by fewer equivalent units of Class 387/1 (4x20m) on Gatwick/Brighton express duties...

i don't travel on those

 

[sprinterguy]

Out of interest, have you done a seat gain comparison on both EC & GW ?

I think I posted some numbers in the main "Class 800" thread a while ago, which is where this comparison would probably sit more comfortably, but to just quickly go over some figures:

GW 9-car Class 801 (electric): 71 First, 576 Standard = 647 Seats
GW 5-car Class 800 (Bi-mode): 36 First, 290 Standard = 326 Seats

GW HST capacities (I think these are fairly accurate and up to date) range from 64 First/455 Standard (519 seats) to 72 First/504 Standard (576 seats). The lowest capacity being the Laira Low density sets and the highest being the Old Oak Common "Super High density" sets.

FGWs' class 180s seats 42 First and 226 Standard class passengers, so 268 in total.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although the 180 that HT currently uses has 287 seats - so the upgrade per unit isn't as great...

Moving back towards topic, are you sure? I thought they still had the same seating capacity as the FGW sets: Totting up the totals on the Hull Trains seating plan seems to support the idea that they have a total of 268 (266? There seem to be two less in first class than I would have expected) seats (though that's not counting tip-up seats in the vestibules).

 

[ainsworth74]

(266? There seem to be two less in first class than I would have expected)

They've fiddled with the catering arrangements in first class so they can provide a more substantial catering offer than FGW do. That's probably where the seats have gone.

 

[Haydn1971]

I think I posted some numbers in the main "Class 800" thread a while ago, which is where this comparison would probably sit more comfortably, but to just quickly go over some figures:

Drifting off topic, I was thinking fleet totals rather than per unit I'll drop the figures into a spreadsheet

 

[NorthernSpirit]

One of the things I'm not sure about is the current obsession for 5 car units. Many of the new orders feature 5 car units. Why 5? I'm fearful of CrossCountry style overcrowding problems appearing on many routes. I know HT doesn't use long trains, but what about future-proofing? These 5 car units are appearing everywhere; are they really sufficient for the next, say, 20 years? Interested in other people's views on this.

In my view, anything "Intercity" should be at the very minimum, no less than eight coaches. This way the future proofing is there and by the time the unit is well and truly knackered after 20 years of service the unit should have paid for itself and the unit will be just at capacity.

Then whatever replaces it should be no less than ten coaches in length, again future proofing it again for the following 20 years by which time more routes should have reopened and given the sparks treatment.

 

[Martin222002]

Odd that, considering there are no units in service, just a pre-production mock.

800002, which was on display at the opening of the Hitachi Newton Aycliffe facility, has been delivered with its seating fitted, and reports have been that the standard seats are were 'firm'.

But to add, this doesn't mean that Hull Trains won't have the same seating on their AT300 (if they do order them), just as the 222s have different seats to the 220s and 221s.

 

[jimm]

my point which is always missed is that these new super duper trains will be a backward step in terms of passenger comfort. I seem to be the only person not blinded by the emperors new clothes.......

Capacity wise I am not merely limiting my comments to Hull Trains but generally relating to new trains. They aren't long enough generally. Replacing an 7/8 carriage train with a 4/5 carriage train is stupid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


the TOC /ROSCO will specify the cheapest, most parsimonious, seat possible. You know that surely..................

So even though you have not set foot on one, the same as the rest of us, you just know they will be a backward step in passenger comfort. That must be one powerful crystal ball you have.

How will Hull Trains be replacing a 7/8 carriage train with a 4/5 carriage train? Their Class 180s have five coaches, the AT300s will have five coaches. Longer ones at that, with more seats.

And last time I looked, lots of the 800s and AT300s will have nine coaches, which is more than 7 or 8...

800002, which was on display at the opening of the Hitachi Newton Aycliffe facility, has been delivered with its seating fitted, and reports have been that the standard seats are were 'firm'.

So firm equals uncomfortable does it? Or perhaps not. For every person that extols the wonders of 'Mallard' seats on EC sets, there's bound to be another that hates them, based on umpteen posts on this forum.

For my part I find FGW HST standard class seats firm but perfectly comfortable to sit in - the height of the seat backs and their impact on the ambience in the coaches is another matter.

 

[swt_passenger]

...the TOC /ROSCO will specify the cheapest, most parsimonious, seat possible. You know that surely..................

Exactly - so Hull Trains (as an OA operator not being leaned on by DfT) could theoretically choose a seat either much worse than the GW or EC versions; or much better than them - so we still have no way of knowing, and the question I was answering remains premature...

 

[jimm]

In my view, anything "Intercity" should be at the very minimum, no less than eight coaches. This way the future proofing is there and by the time the unit is well and truly knackered after 20 years of service the unit should have paid for itself and the unit will be just at capacity.

Then whatever replaces it should be no less than ten coaches in length, again future proofing it again for the following 20 years by which time more routes should have reopened and given the sparks treatment.

Future-proofing for what? The FGW 180s were delivered in 2001 and almost all the services they are deployed on now are still well within their capabilities, bar the 15.52 Paddington-Worcester, where the HST was taken off a while back to allow for the overhauls at Kilmarnock - an HST is due to return to this service in December - and the 17.18 Paddington-Oxford semi-fast, where the 180 is used because there just aren't enough Turbos available.

There is no point sending eight or 10-car trains up the Cotswold Line or to Cheltenham very hours off-peak, so a five-car 800 will do perfectly well for many years to come. And the Thames Valley will get masses of extra capacity thanks to the influx of 387s and 365s, on top of the 800/801 fleets.

 

[DarloRich]

So even though you have not set foot on one, the same as the rest of us, you just know they will be a backward step in passenger comfort. That must be one powerful crystal ball you have.

What I have is the word of the railway press who have all commented on how hard the seats are on the prototype IEP & the past introduction of new trains to go on. Not one has offered an improvement on the passenger comfort offered by the replaced trains.

This train may offer unparalleled passenger comfort and be a step up on the 40 year old trains they replace. My view is that it wont be better and will, in fact, be less good.

Now these trains may be fantastic inside and if they are i will happily admit that i was wrong. Will you?

So firm equals uncomfortable does it? Or perhaps not. For every person that extols the wonders of 'Mallard' seats on EC sets, there's bound to be another that hates them, based on umpteen posts on this forum.

I find Mkiv very comfortable. My circulation isn't cut off after 1.5 hours like it is in the crappy seats offered on Pendolini

For my part I find FGW HST standard class seats firm but perfectly comfortable to sit in - the height of the seat backs and their impact on the ambience in the coaches is another matter.

I like their seats - but they wont be the ones used. I bet it is the same type fitted to the Javelin.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly - so Hull Trains (as an OA operator not being leaned on by DfT) could theoretically choose a seat either much worse than the GW or EC versions; or much better than them - so we still have no way of knowing, and the question I was answering remains premature...

they will all be fitted with the same low quality seat because that is cheaper. Sod the passenger. To think otherwise is naive in the extreme.