GWR Class 800

[FGW_DID]

That's fine, and working ok for the transition period. Long term, what's the reason for having so many 5 car trains?

Flexibility being the main point methinks.
The initial plans if I recall was to have services splitting at various places I.e a 10 splits at Bristol TM with 5 onward to Weston SM, similar was to occur at Swansea, with 5 onwards to Carmarthen(?).

There are people better placed and actually involved with the program, on this forum, who could probably tell you the reasons behind the amount of vehicles ordered.

 

[irish_rail]

So IETs are 20 percent more reliable than HSTs are they?
I have driven 4 IETS this week and each one had technical faults on that caused a minimam of 5 minutes delay, and in some cases much more......

 

[Geoff DC]

I've only travelled on one - but that had a 20 minute stand between racecourse & Newbury while the driver fixed a 'Technical fault' good on him for fixing it "Arigato"

 

[samuelmorris]

So IETs are 20 percent more reliable than HSTs are they?
I have driven 4 IETS this week and each one had technical faults on that caused a minimam of 5 minutes delay, and in some cases much more......

I'd generally describe the failure rate of the 800s still as totally unacceptable but I'm kind of shocked to read how bad the HSTs were, not being a regular user of them I had no idea. I've done maybe 3000-4000 miles on HSTs in the last 12 years and not had one go wrong but I admit that isn't a particularly big sample size when most of those journeys have been non-stop from York to Kings Cross. What really brought it home to me was seeing the Class 90 LHCS fleet in Anglia get the golden spanner during a time when I was constantly seeing them fail. I suppose LHCS fleets just aren't very reliable in the UK.

 

[JN114]

The “standard” measure is miles per technical incident - IETs are better than GW HSTs but they’re not exactly a gold standard to be measured against. If you compare say IETs against GWR 387s the reliability is in the hundreds of percentage points better in favour of the 387s.

 

[TractiveEffort]

The “standard” measure is miles per technical incident - IETs are better than GW HSTs but they’re not exactly a gold standard to be measured against. If you compare say IETs against GWR 387s the reliability is in the hundreds of percentage points better in favour of the 387s.

Would be interesting to see ATP & GU figures removed from 800’s and then re-compare them.

 

[deltic08]

London Reading in 23 then Reading to Swindon in 23.

That is impressive. It takes 38 minutes to commute just 18 miles from Harrogate to Leeds.

 

[jayah]

The “standard” measure is miles per technical incident - IETs are better than GW HSTs but they’re not exactly a gold standard to be measured against. If you compare say IETs against GWR 387s the reliability is in the hundreds of percentage points better in favour of the 387s.

Miles per technical incident sounds like a daft measure. Why not minutes of delay per thousand miles? A 5hr shutdown should not be the same as a 5min door fault.

 

[TRAX]

I suppose it’s considered that whatever the duration, origin, and impact of the fault, it’s still a fault and it gets counted anyway.

 

[jayah]

I'd generally describe the failure rate of the 800s still as totally unacceptable but I'm kind of shocked to read how bad the HSTs were, not being a regular user of them I had no idea. I've done maybe 3000-4000 miles on HSTs in the last 12 years and not had one go wrong but I admit that isn't a particularly big sample size when most of those journeys have been non-stop from York to Kings Cross. What really brought it home to me was seeing the Class 90 LHCS fleet in Anglia get the golden spanner during a time when I was constantly seeing them fail. I suppose LHCS fleets just aren't very reliable in the UK.

I suspect that because the vast majority of delays are infrastructure related the relatively minor delays nowadays caused by train faults don't register. People get very excited by MTIN but to make the railway more punctual far more effort is needed on the infrastructure. Some of the highest PPM routes have the worst MTIN for the trains operating them.

 

[jayah]

Good performance on electric. It's a shame 40yrs hasn't improved it further though. Bristol Paddington will have an insignificant reduction in journey time.

Roughly speaking the IET is worth about 1min per stop from acceleration and less station time and something like 3-5min from missing out a station entirely.

It is very expensive and arguably wasteful to improve journey times by adding new duplicate services that simply miss all the stations out, but from 1hr30/35 on an IET today depending if they call at Didcot the new limited stop services promised will bring it down far more.

 

[jayah]

I'm sure you will carry on huffing and puffing.

Is that the best you can do? Even if there are short forms 'daily' - how are these regular if they are on a South Wales train or trains one day, Bristols the next and Penzance on another? Please enlighten us.

I was well aware there was one short form this morning, the 09.29 Swansea-Paddington to be precise, but that was it - so unless the GWR secrecy police suppressed any further Journeycheck mentions for the rest of the day, it appears the set was swapped out of the diagram or another five-car was added at Paddington.

And your standards are slipping in the search for catastrophic, epidemic-level failings in IET operations, as the 06.09 from Newbury was cancelled due to fault on the set. The diagram was then picked up by a five-car IET at Paddington, with a 30-minute late departure of the 07.22 to Oxford, which I saw heading into the sidings there shortly before 9am.

In case you hadn't noticed, jayah was the one who brought Virgin Trains into this, so I was simply pointing out that the said TOC, which has been coupling up five-car trains to make a 10-car formation for a lot longer than GWR, was not immune from turning out a short-formed 221 service on occasion either - but for some reason you don't seem to want get in a lather about that. Why not? Oh, because it's not GWR, so that's all right then...

And perhaps because of the belief you and others posting here seem to have that somehow the IET fleet is supposed to be delivering flawless performance - unlike just about any other type of train ever built - see above for a description of the 390s' early days in traffic. I must have missed the clause in the technical specification requiring 100 percent availability of every 80x set in traffic, seven days a week...

I do sometimes wonder why Clarence Yard, FGW_DID, Nippy and others even bother to try to provide informed insight from within GWR given the response they sometimes get and the kind of attitudes about 80xs displayed for so many years in this thread and other threads, such as this gem on the previous page



Ah yes, those secret GWR policies to ruin their own services being deployed again...

And when northernbelle posted this on Tuesday



his words were totally twisted yesterday by jayah, who claimed what had been said was



PS: I am not Mark Hopwood, or Karen Boswell, come to that. I have no idea what GWR's corporate PR messages are and couldn't care less what they might be.

It is clear that your standards are rather lower than most and having endured Class 165s on long distance trains clearly hard seats or not the Class 800 is a huge step forward. Ditto your high pain threshold when it comes to short formations and this 'stop moaning twas always so' attitude.

The 1203 proves that 'headcodes' aren't always suitable for downgrades. Most diagrams work a busy off peak or busy peak service both morning and evening if not between and really won't tolerate being 50% downgraded, hence the ire you see here.

Rereading the post from Clarence Yard it looks to me that the required availability is 32 including 2 trainers and the public fleet is 34 + 2 only allowed on the trainers.

Given how long this has been going on now, it is a bit like the emergency timetable debate.

The only thing 'random' right now is that nobody can predict exactly where the very tight elastic will snap next.

Aficionados of words like 'deliberate' and 'regular' won't like this but if there aren't Class 165 or HSTs to shrink the requirements, then fewer service trains need to be diagrammed and appropriate or 'least worst' services need to be downgraded in a planned and properly evaluated way.

That may not work with your dictionary but would actually deliver better outcomes.

 

[cactustwirly]

It is clear that your standards are rather lower than most and having endured Class 165s on long distance trains clearly hard seats or not the Class 800 is a huge step forward. Ditto your high pain threshold when it comes to short formations and this 'stop moaning twas always so' attitude.

The 1203 proves that 'headcodes' aren't always suitable for downgrades. Most diagrams work a busy off peak or busy peak service both morning and evening if not between and really won't tolerate being 50% downgraded, hence the ire you see here.

Rereading the post from Clarence Yard it looks to me that the required availability is 32 including 2 trainers and the public fleet is 32 + 2 only allowed on the trainers.

Given how long this has been going on now, it is a bit like the emergency timetable debate.

The only thing 'random' right now is that nobody can predict exactly where the very tight elastic will snap next.

Aficionados of words like 'deliberate' and 'regular' won't like this but if there aren't Class 165 or HSTs to shrink the requirements, then fewer service trains need to be diagrammed and appropriate or 'least worst' services need to be downgraded in a planned and properly evaluated way.

That may not work with your dictionary but would actually deliver better outcomes.

So you're saying GWR should cancel rather than shortform?
I suspect most people would rather a short train ran, than nothing at all.

 

[jayah]

So you're saying GWR should cancel rather than shortform?
I suspect most people would rather a short train ran, than nothing at all.

I am not saying that at all.
I am saying they need a plan that stands up instead of one that comes apart every day. Given the number of paired sets the point of least resistance is to work out which are the least worst services to take a 50% reduction in seats. As demonstrated by the 1203 it is not an easy thing to tackle, which is why trying to do the exercise in real time delivers on randomness but not much else.

 

[jayah]

I suppose it’s considered that whatever the duration, origin, and impact of the fault, it’s still a fault and it gets counted anyway.

The impact isn't considered as everything breaching a very low threshold counts the same.

 

[JN114]

The impact isn't considered as everything breaching a very low threshold counts the same.

Only a “technical incident” that causes more than 5 minutes delay or cancellations is counted.

 

[TRAX]

The impact isn't considered as everything breaching a very low threshold counts the same.

That’s my point yeah

 

[cactustwirly]

I am not saying that at all.
I am saying they need a plan that stands up instead of one that comes apart every day. Given the number of paired sets the point of least resistance is to work out which are the least worst services to take a 50% reduction in seats. As demonstrated by the 1203 it is not an easy thing to tackle, which is why trying to do the exercise in real time delivers on randomness but not much else.

Isn't that what they do already?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is impressive. It takes 38 minutes to commute just 18 miles from Harrogate to Leeds.

It's quite good even compared with the WCML - I guess the slow bit around Euston itself must be the issue there. That typically takes 30 minutes Euston-MKC with almost no slack.

 

[jayah]

Isn't that what they do already?

Apparently it is occasional and random.

 

[CC 72100]

The “standard” measure is miles per technical incident - IETs are better than GW HSTs but they’re not exactly a gold standard to be measured against. If you compare say IETs against GWR 387s the reliability is in the hundreds of percentage points better in favour of the 387s.

Interesting... But not surprising. Always got the impression that the 387s worked straight out of the box much better than the IETs, which is logical given the fact they're just a continuation of a successful family of products.

At the same time, I'm not surprised to hear HSTs are where they are - anecdotally performance does seem to have slumped, but again is this such a shock for a fleet that is now at less than half as big as it once was (less room for 'error') and given the HST knowledge from fitters that have disappeared to pastures new...

 

[CMRail]

I disagree. It was a mistake to order 5 car trains in the first place. Why not just order 9 cars that are much less staff heavy and use other trains for routes that don't require 9? Short forms are a massive problem. HS1 is an example of better planning.

So you are telling me that GWR should’ve have ordered 93 9 car (640 seats) units for all off peak Cheltenham’s, Bedwyns, Bristol Fast, Cotswolds Line, Oxfords and Plymouth to Penzance? No. The new timetable will show how the order will work practically.

The “standard” measure is miles per technical incident - IETs are better than GW HSTs but they’re not exactly a gold standard to be measured against. If you compare say IETs against GWR 387s the reliability is in the hundreds of percentage points better in favour of the 387s.

You are comparing it to it’s replacement. Is that not fair considering, HSTs are the best trains on the planet to some and IETs are worse than every train to ever be made? I think not.

Apparently it is occasional and random.

It needs to be in the right depot at night. It needs available crew to take the empty stock route. And then, how can you practically choose a train?

Sometimes Bristol’s can be quite busy where as sometimes they can be empty. Same with Cheltenham’s and the Cotswolds, it’s all down to the time of year and what’s happening.

 

[43096]

Only a “technical incident” that causes more than 5 minutes delay or cancellations is counted.

3mins is the threshold for a TIN, I believe.

And in response to an earlier point about MTIN being a daft measure, delay per incident is used as well. See the Modern Railways “Golden Spanners” awards.

 

[Wychwood93]

London Reading in 23 then Reading to Swindon in 23. This sounds like a new benchmark.

I will still maintain that you could close most of the HST to AC gap with a high performance DMU that isn't being deliberately throttled but this is still impressive.

Are there many non stop runs to Reading in 180s to compare to this?

The fastest Paddington to Reading time in the RPS archive is 22m 12s back in 2006 - the fastest 800 (on AC) 21m 40s in July this year. The fastest HST a 20m 46s - no doubt some speeds in excess of 125! - in 1988.

 

[Sean Emmett]

London Reading in 23 then Reading to Swindon in 23. This sounds like a new benchmark.

I will still maintain that you could close most of the HST to AC gap with a high performance DMU that isn't being deliberately throttled but this is still impressive.

Are there many non stop runs to Reading in 180s to compare to this?

Of the two dozen RDG SWI runs in the RPS archive with 180s the best time is 23m 26s.

Friend of mine was timing the 800s (not a misprint) in Cornwall yesterday and was very impressed with them, and the determined driving.

A point about short platforms - why aren't announcements made before people join the train so they are in the correct part of the train for alighting?

 

[Sean Emmett]

Flexibility being the main point methinks.
The initial plans if I recall was to have services splitting at various places I.e a 10 splits at Bristol TM with 5 onward to Weston SM, similar was to occur at Swansea, with 5 onwards to Carmarthen(?)..

Yes, and the DfT spec said they must be able to couple and uncouple in two minutes! Why is this still not being done?

Daft that the are BRI PAD services turning up with 5 coaches while their other 5 are still heading down to Weston or Taunton, locked out of use.

 

[cactustwirly]

So you are telling me that GWR should’ve have ordered 93 9 car (640 seats) units for all off peak Cheltenham’s, Bedwyns, Bristol Fast, Cotswolds Line, Oxfords and Plymouth to Penzance? No. The new timetable will show how the order will work practically.
No amount of whinging on here will make them disappear.


You are comparing it to it’s replacement. Is that not fair considering, HSTs are the best trains on the planet to some and IETs are worse than every train to ever be made? I think not.



It needs to be in the right depot at night. It needs available crew to take the empty stock route. And then, how can you practically choose a train?

Sometimes Bristol’s can be quite busy where as sometimes they can be empty. Same with Cheltenham’s and the Cotswolds, it’s all down to the time of year and what’s happening.

Yeah you're right, the HSTs are probably the best trains to run on the network!
But their time is up, it's just annoying that their replacement is inferior to them.
However they are still decent trains, and we're stuck with them, so we have to make the best out of a bad situation.

 

[tasky]

Sorry for the slight diversion, but does anyone else think the general ambiance of the second class interior of these trains is absolutely awful? (I've read back a while in the thread, but I'm afraid not all 300 pages)

The bright green stripe down the carriage appears to serve no purpose and gives me a headache. It feels cheap and reminds me of a frustrating Saturday morning visit to Homebase. Why is it there? It isn't for safety because the same panel in first class is coloured black.

The cheap looking faux MDF on the carriage walls is jarring too, and the lighting is nasty.

It's a shame because the trains look very smart on the outside.

 

[superalbs]

Sorry for the slight diversion, but does anyone else think the general ambiance of the second class interior of these trains is absolutely awful? (I've read back a while in the thread, but I'm afraid not all 300 pages)

The bright green stripe down the carriage appears to serve no purpose and gives me a headache. It feels cheap and reminds me of a frustrating Saturday morning visit to Homebase. Why is it there? It isn't for safety because the same panel in first class is coloured black.

The cheap looking faux MDF on the carriage walls is jarring too, and the lighting is nasty.

It's a shame because the trains look very smart on the outside.

I agree, it's exceedingly bright, and very loud.

 

[Mordac]

They were indeed modified - all the engines on every unit were derated from 750hp to 700hp - mainly due to their insatiable appetite for diesel.

Perfect. Change the TMS to re-rate one back to 750hp and remove the speed limiter, then recreate the HST speed record run! Obviously this'd have to be done under a special track possession, just like the original run was, and it's doubtful the will to do that would exist on today's railway, but we can dream!