GWR Class 800

[The Ham]

The basic point I was aiming to make is that dave1987 always makes it sound as though between the hours of 9am and 4pm and after 7pm on weekdays and all weekend that the only trains to be seen on GWR express services will be five-car sets, never mind that, as you observe, a lot of the 2x5 formations are likely to be coupled throughout the day and that there will be a mere 28 nine-car sets available across the 801 (21) and AT300 (seven) orders - which, of course, will not be spending much of their time in the sidings.

...let me get this straight IEP is expensive and has to provide a set number of diagrams per day, so GWR will leave them sat ideal when they could be using them to provide extra capacity on known busy services.

It has been pointed out that there are enough 5 coach sets to allow all the HST's to be replaced with pairs of 5 coach sets and still leave 6 sets (more than enough to also replace the 180's).

Unless you have something more scientific than what you think will happen, then the only way we are going to find out what GWR will do is to wait to see.

I have shown that GWR don't HAVE to run lots of short sets to provide the extra services, so now the view is that GWR will deliberately run short sets when they don't have to.

Virgin trains have 9 and 11 coach 390's which do I mostly see off peak in use? The 11 coach sets, in fact one of the few times I've seen a 9 coach set off peak it was sat ideal in the sidings. If Virgin do that, why would GWR necessarily be any different.

Do you have any examples of TOC's who deliberately (I.e. they have suitable available stock) run trains full and standing? As that is what you are saying that GWR will be doing.

The reason that TOC's (with enough resources) wouldn't want to do that is that by doing so there is no space for growth, if there is no room for growth then more people can't (or at the very least won't) use the trains, if nor people aren't using the trains then the TOC's won't make more money. The failed ICWC bids assumed growth of 5% per year, the TPE winning bid (First) and the Northern winning bid are both providing a lot of improvements based on the fact that the number of passengers will increase.

The way TOC's work now is by relying on growth, they are not going to curtaile that by leaving units ideal in sidings that they are paying for.

 

[Dent]

What is the potential for two sets to be coupled together, but end up being parted with both sets individually going to separate destinations or doing the reverse?

I think this was discussed previously in the thread, but have not been able to find the details. but I was wondering what is the potential of having two 5 car units coupled together as far as Oxford, but then the front car unit goes off to Hereford with the back 5 car unit first of stabled in the sidings, but then later doing a Oxford - London Paddington service?

The splitting of the two units I presume could also potentially be done on services to the West Country with one set going to say Exeter and the other to Penzance?

That was the justification that was given, but the quote

a lot of the 2x5 formations are likely to be coupled throughout the day

suggests that on a lot of services it won't happen, so that justification is no longer valid.

 

[The Ham]

What is the potential for two sets to be coupled together, but end up being parted with both sets individually going to separate destinations or doing the reverse?

I think this was discussed previously in the thread, but have not been able to find the details. but I was wondering what is the potential of having two 5 car units coupled together as far as Oxford, but then the front car unit goes off to Hereford with the back 5 car unit first of stabled in the sidings, but then later doing a Oxford - London Paddington service?

The splitting of the two units I presume could also potentially be done on services to the West Country with one set going to say Exeter and the other to Penzance?

Although there are limited scope for running to multiple destinations on the GWML, however you are half right about splitting the trains at Oxford. The diffence is that the return unit is unlikely to go and sit in the sidings or if it does it won't be for any particularly long time.

 

[RobShipway]

Although there are limited scope for running to multiple destinations on the GWML, however you are half right about splitting the trains at Oxford. The diffence is that the return unit is unlikely to go and sit in the sidings or if it does it won't be for any particularly long time.

Maybe, it is because I was born in the south where splitting and unsplitting of trains especially was and I believe still is a common sight at places like Hayward Heath and Worthing with class 377 fleets. So there is no reason why this cannot be done with the class 800's.

Although, if I was GWR rather than having the class 800 sit in the sidings at Oxford if there is the Capacity I would have it do a service to Birmingham International, stopping at Banbury, Leamington Spa, Coventry and Birmingham International once an hour and every two hours go to Birmingham New Street calling after Leamington Spa, at Warwick, Warwick Parkway, Solihull and then into Birmingham New Street. But I doubt with Cross Country and Chiltern trains doing similar services that there is the capacity to do such a service. But it does seem a waster that a 5 car class 800 is sitting in the sidings waiting for another 5 car class 800 to return from Hereford/Worcestor.

 

[najaB]

But it does seem a waster that a 5 car class 800 is sitting in the sidings waiting for another 5 car class 800 to return from Hereford/Worcestor.

Isn't it the case though that GWR wouldn't be wasting anything since they wouldn't be paying for it while it sits in the sidings?

 

[krus_aragon]

I suppose the difference of 6 metres is a lot..... But yes, you have undertsood my point when I have said that the Royal Scot carriages are a lot smaller so the train is taking less passengers I think in the 12 - 13 coaches then the HST does in the Mk3 coaches, but then that is 23 metres long and the Mark 1 is only 20 metres long.

I followed (and agreed with) your point. My post was in response to RAGNAROKR's analysis of your post.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Do you have any examples of TOC's who deliberately (I.e. they have suitable available stock) run trains full and standing? As that is what you are saying that GWR will be doing.

XC. Granted that is a bit different as IIRC they only pay for the HST's when in use so using them costs them money. Whereas I am assuming GWR will be paying for the IEP's regardless?

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn't it the case though that GWR wouldn't be wasting anything since they wouldn't be paying for it while it sits in the sidings?

I expect they'll only 'sit in sidings' for the few minutes needed to clear the through platforms and move to the up side of the station until the next return working appears for its join.

If hypothetically GWR operated at Oxford in a similar way to SWT at Bournemouth then units wouldn't be in the sidings very long.

 

[superkev]

233.3 tonnes for a 5-car Electric IEP Unit;
249.3 tonnes for a 5-car Bi-mode IEP Unit;
399.8 tonnes for a 9-car Electric IEP Unit;
431.8 tonnes for a 9-car Bi-mode IEP Unit.


Class 158 (2-car): 77 tonnes/45.14m = 1.71 tonnes/m
Class 170 (3-car): 132.8 tonnes/70.85m = 1.87 tonnes/m
Class 180 (5-car): 252.5 tonnes/116.51m = 2.17 tonnes/m
Class 185 (3-car): 163 tonnes/71.27m = 2.29 tonnes/m
Class 220 (4-car): 194.6 tonnes/94.55m = 2.06 tonnes/m
Class 221 (5-car, Virgin variant): 283.2 tonnes/118.35m = 2.39 tonnes/m
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 180s use the same 750hp Cummins QSK19 engine as the Voyagers, and as far as I know remain at their original rating. The biggest difference between the two of course is the mechanical transmission versus electric drive.

Thankyou most interesting. IEP looks around middle of the road with regard to weight
And 158 still best in class.
K

 

[The Ham]

233.3 tonnes for a 5-car Electric IEP Unit;
249.3 tonnes for a 5-car Bi-mode IEP Unit;
399.8 tonnes for a 9-car Electric IEP Unit;
431.8 tonnes for a 9-car Bi-mode IEP Unit.


Class 158 (2-car): 77 tonnes/45.14m = 1.71 tonnes/m
Class 170 (3-car): 132.8 tonnes/70.85m = 1.87 tonnes/m
Class 180 (5-car): 252.5 tonnes/116.51m = 2.17 tonnes/m
Class 185 (3-car): 163 tonnes/71.27m = 2.29 tonnes/m
Class 220 (4-car): 194.6 tonnes/94.55m = 2.06 tonnes/m
Class 221 (5-car, Virgin variant): 283.2 tonnes/118.35m = 2.39 tonnes/m

By my maths that puts the 5 coach bi modal at just over 1.92 tonnes/m and the 9 coach bi modal at just under 1.85 tonnes/m putting on a par with a class 170.

Hardly in the heavyweight category of trains.

 

[sprinterguy]

By my maths that puts the 5 coach bi modal at just over 1.92 tonnes/m and the 9 coach bi modal at just under 1.85 tonnes/m putting on a par with a class 170.

Hardly in the heavyweight category of trains.

Indeed; while the IEP sets are considerably heavier than the DfTs' originally specified weight (which at 362t for a ten car train always looked fairly unrealistic), they still compare very favourably with other contemporary inter-city multiple unit designs.

 

[coppercapped]

Isn't it the case though that GWR wouldn't be wasting anything since they wouldn't be paying for it while it sits in the sidings?

The TOC pays per diagram - so if the diagram calls for the train to sit in the sidings then, yes, the TOC will pay.

This means that the TOC has an incentive for the train to carry passengers - if it's not moving it's not earning money.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Do you have any examples of TOC's who deliberately (I.e. they have suitable available stock) run trains full and standing? As that is what you are saying that GWR will be doing.

TOCs do strange things because of the rolling stock cost profile.
They will turn out old trains at weekends while keeping new ones at the depot, if the maintenance costs are less (impending overhauls etc).
Refusing to lengthen trains off-peak and at weekends is another tactic.
With IEP we are tied to a contracted number of unit diagrams with a high level of availablilty, so it all depends on the ingenuity of the diagrams.
But you are likely to get 5-car trains on some busy services, just like Virgin runs a single Voyager on some Euston-Birmingham trains because it is linked in with longer-distance diagrams.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The cause of excessive 4-car trains on Saturdays and Sundays on LM appears to be the lease agreement on them.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

Do you have any examples of TOC's who deliberately (I.e. they have suitable available stock) run trains full and standing? As that is what you are saying that GWR will be doing.

SWT when they used to run 4 car trains on the Windsor services at weekends

 

[sprinterguy]

GWR need an alternative to around 21 x 9 car electric sets, so either 21 x 9 car bi-mode sets, or 42 x 5 car bi-mode sets.

The AT300 (Class 802) order would provide 7 x 9 car units and 22 x 5 car units, which would mean even with that order delivered out of sequence, there's a deficit of around 6 x 5 car bi-mode units needed to cover for the Class 801 9 car units which can't run due to lack of wiring.

I was thinking that Great Western would just keep hold of a handful of HSTs for a while longer, in order to cover the shortfall while using the West of England AT-300s on the GWML, as after all Scotrail don't need all of the HSTs: Once you take Scotrail's 27 sets and 16 sets retained temporarily for the West of England into account, that leaves 10 HST sets going spare. Five HST sets are after all owned by First Rail Holdings, too, and already have the longest lease expiry date (04/2019).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The GW AT300 sets may well be part of the solution but they only appear from late May 2018 onwards.

As the 9-car electric IEP sets are only due for delivery between February and July 2018, this might not represent that much of a delay.

 

[The Ham]

SWT when they used to run 4 car trains on the Windsor services at weekends

However, I take from your use of the past tense, that has now changed.

It wasn't that long ago that Farnborough Main only had one train per hour on Sundays whilst now there are times of the day (in the evening towards London) when there are three trains per hour. Why is this? It's because the TOC has noticed that there are services which are busy and are providing capacity to enable future growth in passengers (and therefore profits) to occur.

It's not uncommon for trains to be shorter at weekends to allow for the units to be maintained as generally less people are travelling. However that is a long way short of ALL off peak service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But you are likely to get 5-car trains on some busy services, just like Virgin runs a single Voyager on some Euston-Birmingham trains because it is linked in with longer-distance diagrams.

I understand that, however there is a big difference between SOME off peak busy services and the way that it is implied that ALL off peak services will be run as trains formed of single 5 coach sets and packed tighter than a tin of sardines (which is the inference of some).

IIRC didn't the ICWC failed bids include for extra trains either to free up the 221's (where they run wholly under the wires) or to replace them so that there would be less need for single Voyagers on busy services.

 

[jon0844]

From my days testing engine generators a good rule of thumb was half a pint per kw hour.
Kev

From my days at working at a print magazine, I also liked the average of half a pint per hour.

 

[JamesRowden]

The TOC pays per diagram - so if the diagram calls for the train to sit in the sidings then, yes, the TOC will pay.

This means that the TOC has an incentive for the train to carry passengers - if it's not moving it's not earning money.

I would expect the diagram leasing costs to mileage relationship to follow something similar to a `y=Mx+C' relationship rather than a `y=Mx' or a `y=C' relationship since the `y=Mx+C' formula would more accurately relate to the costs which Hitachi will have to pay to provide the trains. The constant component (C) would make it worth using an extra/longer unit when it prevents people having to stand, while the linear component (Mx) would make it better value to run a lone 5-car set (rather than a 9-car or 5+5 formation) when sufficient.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I would expect the diagram leasing costs to mileage relationship to follow something similar to a `y=Mx+C' relationship rather than a `y=Mx' or a `y=C' relationship since the `y=Mx+C' formula would more accurately relate to the costs which Hitachi will have to pay to provide the trains. The constant component (C) would make it worth using an extra/longer unit when it prevents people having to stand, while the linear component (Mx) would make it better value to run a lone 5-car set (rather than a 9-car or 5+5 formation) when sufficient.

I'd expect it to be more

Cost = Vehicles*Diagrams + Vehicles/Passengers to find a sweet spot between using too many vehicles, running too many diagrams and not carrying enough passengers.

 

[superkev]

From my days at working at a print magazine, I also liked the average of half a pint per hour.

Thanks. That was half a pint per kw of generator output where the figure quoted earlier for the tMTU engine of 0.42 was shaft output.
I don't think diesel efficiency on full load has improved much over the years. Only huge improvement on part loads.
K

 

[JamesRowden]

I'd expect it to be more

Cost = Vehicles*Diagrams + Vehicles/Passengers to find a sweet spot between using too many vehicles, running too many diagrams and not carrying enough passengers.

Perhaps you have misunderstood my post, because your formula in the place of mine would mean that more passengers using a certain stock pattern would reduce the amount of money that Hitachi would payed even though more passengers should increase the wear rate of the trains. I was referring to the cost per vehicle.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Right, so compared to a Voyager, say, a loco-hauled 390 or Mk3 rake is able to keep time?

Could you give us an estimate of how many additional locomotives will be required under your plans, had locomotive haulage been decided upon instead?

He is not a consultancy. To work out the detailed numbers would need the resources of a outfit like WS Atkins, based on assumptions of a draft timetable.

Locos like the TRAXX are under £3 million. There are electric, diesel and "last mile" electro-diesel options. Bombardier has done some work to modify the design to fit the UK loading gauge. The mark 3 fleet is good for another fifteen years at least, and could have been supplemented by some additional vehicles to satisfy accessibility regs. For the shorter distance services something like the 377 would have been more suitable for what have become commuter routes - probably now as far as Bristol.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suspect this is starting another loop of the circle, but as much as I love HSTs even I have to admit that they are old. The youngest power cars are already pushing 30-plus years old and the coaches aren't far behind. Do you really want to turn the HST into the B-52* of the train world?

*There are pilots flying the same B-52s that their grandfathers flew.

The coaches are in-between.

They were good for another 20 years minimum, according to a report delivered around five years ago. The main need is for retention toilets. A small additional build would cater for the accessibility requirements, and a further additional build for traffic growth.

There is a lot to be said for backwards-compatibility.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a lot to be said for backwards-compatibility.

That there is, and it seems odd that the UK obsesses over uniform (non-MU) trains while in Europe a mix of carriages of different vintages is very common.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Perhaps you have misunderstood my post, because your formula in the place of mine would mean that more passengers using a certain stock pattern would reduce the amount of money that Hitachi would payed even though more passengers should increase the wear rate of the trains. I was referring to the cost per vehicle.

I'm thinking in terms of cost to the TOC, though it's a slightly difficult point to quantify as a TOC can sell as many tickets as it wants with no requirement to actually provide enough capacity at specific points in time to meet those sales volumes.

 

[Dave1987]

I understand that, however there is a big difference between SOME off peak busy services and the way that it is implied that ALL off peak services will be run as trains formed of single 5 coach sets and packed tighter than a tin of sardines (which is the inference of some).

IIRC didn't the ICWC failed bids include for extra trains either to free up the 221's (where they run wholly under the wires) or to replace them so that there would be less need for single Voyagers on busy services.

But the whole point of these trains is to provide enough seating for every service. For the amount they are costing there should be enough seats for all passengers on every service. You will have some very very unimpressed passengers if these new trains arrive with less seats on services and passengers are forced to stand.

 

[fowler9]

But the whole point of these trains is to provide enough seating for every service. For the amount they are costing there should be enough seats for all passengers on every service. You will have some very very unimpressed passengers if these new trains arrive with less seats on services and passengers are forced to stand.

I was on a Northern Rail 156 a couple of years back. The heating wasn't working and the conductor called her manager to mention this. She was told that the customers had paid for the right to travel and not the right to a seat or any comfort. I wouldn't expect the TOCs to really care about the number of seats if they can keep customer numbers up along with profits. As long as the 800's still generate profit I wouldn't expect too much concern from the TOC.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

From my days at working at a print magazine, I also liked the average of half a pint per hour.

Fullers or Youngs?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That there is, and it seems odd that the UK obsesses over uniform (non-MU) trains while in Europe a mix of carriages of different vintages is very common.

They could do even better. I was stuck for four hours in a forest in Sweden because the train's pantograph brought down the overhead leaving no power. Two of those were spend trying to attach a diesel locomotive to the X2000 train. It ended up with some kind of lash-up and the train limited to about 30 mph till it could be got to a point where the passengers could be transferred to another train and the faulty train taken out of service.

 

[Dave1987]

I was on a Northern Rail 156 a couple of years back. The heating wasn't working and the conductor called her manager to mention this. She was told that the customers had paid for the right to travel and not the right to a seat or any comfort. I wouldn't expect the TOCs to really care about the number of seats if they can keep customer numbers up along with profits. As long as the 800's still generate profit I wouldn't expect too much concern from the TOC.

Well considering the DFT have ordered them I would suggest they should have ordered enough to ensure sufficient seating on all services.

 

[The Ham]

But the whole point of these trains is to provide enough seating for every service. For the amount they are costing there should be enough seats for all passengers on every service. You will have some very very unimpressed passengers if these new trains arrive with less seats on services and passengers are forced to stand.

There is a difference between a busy train (I.e. the vast majority of seats full, with the occasional day where some people may need to stand) and one where there are regularly several people standing. The latter does probably need to be run with double the capacity whist the former can cope as it is for the time being.

Also it is worth noting that as the new GWR franchise will be starting soon after the introduction of the 80x's there could be a further order (either of new units and/or to lengthen existing units) part way through to cope with future passenger growth.