GWR Class 800

[sprinterguy]

That would likely be several thousand miles of diesel running, meaning that they would not need filling up very often.

Quite! Assuming a fuel consumption similar to a Voyager (quite fuel thirsty things), then that'd be a range of around 13,000 miles across three engines. That'll get you to Hereford and back a few times!

 

[WatcherZero]

Eh? As I have outlined, it's 16 tonnes of additional weight on a train that would otherwise weigh 233 tonnes.

I seriously doubt that the weight of fuel is going to account for an additional 34 tonnes.

Note also that a 9-car Bi-mode IEP train will actually weigh less than one of Virgin's 9-car Pendolinos: Not bad going considering that the IEP is using 26 metre coaches.

Think Modern Rail pointed out that all the extra engine weight in a 9 car IEP still added up to less than that of a single Locomotive.

 

[jimm]

I suggest you calm down and pull your neck in before you do damage to yourself. It is just an option as personally I am not in favour of dragging around 50 tons of additional weight on a train weighing only 200 tons.

You obviously didn't carefully read my post where I said my family farm between Gloucester and Chepstow. I am very familiar with the route to Paddington. 2+5/6/7 is adequate for all stations between Cheltenham and Swindon and London as it is now with 180s. It may be insufficient for Reading-Paddington passengers but I was thinking of not stopping at Didcot and Reading, as it was in steam days, to stay ahead of IEPs. Changing at Swindon would provide a connection.

I may be "stupid" at my age but I can add 10 years onto 2014/5 thank you very much. HSTs should be good for that length of time with a bit of fettling as Chiltern have done and Abellio plan to do until further electrification of the Cotswold routes.

I'm very calm thanks, but if someone who clearly knows nothing about traffic patterns on the Cotswold Line and lives at the other end of the country starts pontificating about services down here, then I will feel free to have my say - in a robust way. I wouldn't dream of pontificating about service patterns in Yorkshire, as I haven't lived there for 30 years.

As others have pointed out, it is not 50 tonnes (metric) of 'extra' weight' and if you had a diesel loco to drag an IEP about then it would be another 70-odd tonnes if a 68 is anything to go by.

I did see the bit about Chepstow thanks, but you missed the fact that I used the words heavily-loaded peak in relation to Cotswold Line and Cheltenham trains, where five cars would not be adequate west of Oxford and Swindon in the mornings towards London and late afternoon and early evening in the other direction. The rest of the day five cars is fine but the ability to quickly join and split IEP means more seats can be provided east of Oxford and Swindon across the day if needed - and with the growth in traffic, they may very well be, well within 10 years - something that just can't be done with an HST of any length.

It doesn't help inspire confidence in your opinions when you talk about Class 180s - one last ran between Cheltenham and London in 2009. Bar an early-morning train from Newbury, the five that returned to FGW only work to Oxford and the Cotswold Line and they are all carefully diagrammed so that almost all their jobs are against the peak tidal flows. But the 17.18 semi-fast from Paddington to Oxford isn't and is full and standing well past Reading, while the 180 on the 06.48 to Malvern is rather busy the closer it gets to Reading and is often full and standing between Didcot and Oxford. Even the boost in capacity IEP will provide will be eaten up quite quickly on current trends.

So as well making people change at Oxford, you want to keep them changing at Swindon as well, which is one of the things the IEP timetable will get rid of. That would go down well with the burghers of Gloucester and Cheltenham - just look at some of the stuff on the websites of the local papers if you don't believe me.

And if you were as in touch with things down here as you claim to be, you would know that the sheer scale of traffic growth means you can't skip Didcot (aka housebuilding central) and Reading - never mind the limited number of paths there will be for the GW operator between London and Reading once Crossrail starts running.

We're not in steam days any more, the world has changed and the HST developed long-distance, high-volume commuting, but is now struggling to cope with the creature it created, which is why FGW now has high-density HSTs, extra standard class coaches, conversions of first class coaches to composites... we can't afford to wait another 10 or more years because a few people are hung up about trains offering extra capacity that have diesel engines under the floor so they can run off the wires as well as under them.

PS: Where do you think Abellio proposes to get HSTs from? FGW-land... they appear to want 27 sets. FGW currently has 52 or 53 sets in traffic - I'm sure someone will know the exact figure - for which it has 118 power cars on the books. So I'm guessing Abellio will be looking for at least 60 power cars. Unless more IEPs are ordered soon, FGW will need to keep 17 or 18 HSTs for the West Country routes, so that's another 40-odd power cars accounted for.

Given the age of these trains, both operators may well want a few extra spare power cars, over and above FGW's current allowance, which would leave precious few to none available to run your continuing HST services, never mind that I'm sure there are a good few HST trailers - those surviving from the prototype train for a start - that will be unlikely candidates for life extension anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know previously FGW has run 2 Class 180's in multiple before they decided to have them go off lease.

They did, but the train management system was never designed for fast coupling and uncoupling, so FGW only ever joined and split them in depots, or at the end of journeys, not mid-journey.

HT and GC have on occasion joined and split sets at Doncaster to save paths during ECML engineering work, but I believe a generous amount of time is allowed for this to be done.

 

[WatcherZero]

The first pre-series unit has now left Japan, will arrive in the UK in March.

 

[Iskra]

It looks rather good, if a bit Eurostarry. Is it an emergency coupling in the bulbous bit at the front?

 

[sprinterguy]

It looks rather good, if a bit Eurostarry. Is it an emergency coupling in the bulbous bit at the front?

Yes that houses the coupler, which will be used for more than just emergency purposes on the 5-car sets in particular.

 

[D6975]

It looks rather good, if a bit Eurostarry. Is it an emergency coupling in the bulbous bit at the front?

More like a dead ringer for a 395 Javelin I think, just imagine it in dark blue and you wouldn't spot the difference at a glance.

 

[JaJaWa]

The first pre-series unit has now left Japan, will arrive in the UK in March.

Oooh! Applying the Virgin Trains / Great Western Railway liveries over here then?

 

[sprinterguy]

Oooh! Applying the Virgin Trains / Great Western Railway liveries over here then?

Most of the production sets are being built in Britain anyway, so yes. With the pre-production trains, I wouldn't be surprised if they wear some sort of generic Hitachi branding for a while yet during testing before any TOC liveries are applied.

 

[Geezertronic]

I can't tell whether it is a coach or another driving end behind the one being lifted, does anyone know what consist the pre-series unit will have?

 

[fgwrich]

Now it's on it's way, NR better pick up the pace on the GWML Electrification from Maidenhead to Didcot then!

I presume this is going to Old Dalby & the ECML first?

 

[sprinterguy]

I can't tell whether it is a coach or another driving end behind the one being lifted, does anyone know what consist the pre-series unit will have?

Three pre-series trains are being built:

2 x 5-car Bi-mode units for Great Western and 1 x 9-car Bi-mode unit from the East Coast order. This first train is one of the 5-car Bi-mode units.

 

[jon0844]

More like a dead ringer for a 395 Javelin I think, just imagine it in dark blue and you wouldn't spot the difference at a glance.

Yeah, shape wise but it's the paint that does make it look more like a Eurostar.

Shame the cover is only for a coupler, as I hoped for a jet rocket to help recover lost minutes during disruption. Another glaring omission that I'm surprised the antis haven't picked up on!

 

[Saint66]

I quite like the look of it, and I'm looking forward to it finally reaching the UK.

 

[BananaRepublic]

More like a dead ringer for a 395 Javelin I think, just imagine it in dark blue and you wouldn't spot the difference at a glance.

Not surprising as they are both versions the Hitachi AT300 design family.
That was clear from the beginning.

 

[Suraggu]

I quite like the look of it, and I'm looking forward to it finally reaching the UK.

Oh my, I never thought I would see the day someone would say that.
I can imagine these will be the new 'In things' for the kids and they will turn their backs on the 'mighty' Class 390....,:roll:

 

[TheKnightWho]

Oh my, I never thought I would see the day someone would say that.
I can imagine these will be the new 'In things' for the kids and they will turn their backs on the 'mighty' Class 390....,:roll:

Or maybe we've all moved on from the HST, because, you know, progress happens.

 

[Saint66]

Oh my, I never thought I would see the day someone would say that.
I can imagine these will be the new 'In things' for the kids and they will turn their backs on the 'mighty' Class 390....,:roll:

How silly of me to be looking forward to new rolling stock. By the way, I do like the 390, it gets me from A to B, and in relative comfort and safety. Clearly I'm a blithering idiot for liking those too? :roll:

 

[RichmondCommu]

Oh my, I never thought I would see the day someone would say that.
I can imagine these will be the new 'In things' for the kids and they will turn their backs on the 'mighty' Class 390....,:roll:

Oh goody gum drops. Another poster living in the past hoping that the HST's will run forever. On the other hand I agree with you that the class 390's are indeed 'mighty'.

 

[jon0844]

Did the people that worked on the HST think that would be it? No more progress or innovation; we now had the ultimate train that should be maintained forever and never replaced?

I suspect not.

 

[Techniquest]

Well since the HST was only supposed to be a stop-gap...

The 800s are finally on the way, I too look forward to finally seeing one on these shores! And that's from a former HST crank, but then I've always been interested in the HST replacement, ever since first finding out about the Ventura on FGW's website back in autumn 2003!

Will they be any good? Only one way to find out, oh and as for 'mighty' 390s I echo they are indeed so. I'll never forget being on the last EUS-CAR one cold night in 2006 for an all-nighter in the Border City, that was a fun trip up the WCML!

 

[Suraggu]

Oh goody gum drops. Another poster living in the past hoping that the HST's will run forever. On the other hand I agree with you that the class 390's are indeed 'mighty'.

Actually no. The HST's are getting more and more expensive to maintain and no matter how much they spend on them, they will need very deep pockets.
I work with HST's everyday and trust me we need an upgrade.

It's just a shame the Class 800/801 in its current form is not an upgrade by any means. The design of a Power Car with A Diesel engine and a transformer with TM's spread across the set was a much better idea and its a shame that IEP has been mutated into its current form.
Intercity Travel with Powerpacks for non electrified parts, a lovely underfloor rumble. No Luggage van which on the ECML is used day in day out and saves so much hassle and gives passenger more comfort and room.

Have you tried the seats being fitted to all variants, I'm not thin by any means nor obese but I struggled to get comfortable and having a armrest dig Into my side.

We as taxpayers are take the brunt with IEP and it shows how extremely expensive it is to build and lease.
It's not about living in 1976 by any means, its showing serious faults with the IEP project and what happens when you let politicians and accountants redesign a train that Hitachi thought within the original bid would work.

Actually the first HST2 design was probably the best idea.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It's just a shame the Class 800/801 in its current form is not an upgrade by any means. The design of a Power Car with A Diesel engine and a transformer with TM's spread across the set was a much better idea and its a shame that IEP has been mutated into its current form.
Intercity Travel with Powerpacks for non electrified parts, a lovely underfloor rumble. No Luggage van which on the ECML is used day in day out and saves so much hassle and gives passenger more comfort and room.

"Power cars" are a non-starter really, they're x meters of space that can't be used to house passengers. The trend now is for distributed traction

 

[cjmillsnun]

"Power cars" are a non-starter really, they're x meters of space that can't be used to house passengers. The trend now is for distributed traction

IEP was always going to be distributed traction when running from OHLE.. However the diesel bit was going to be power cars.

 

[TheKnightWho]

IEP was always going to be distributed traction when running from OHLE.. However the diesel bit was going to be power cars.

But the point still stands. You've got a load of wasted space, and their acceleration on diesel would be poor.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

"Power cars" are a non-starter really, they're x meters of space that can't be used to house passengers.

Genuine question - why's that a problem? On InterCity routes, the main restriction on train length is platform length, and that doesn't apply to power cars other than at terminus stations.

And power cars do have a benefit for passengers - they can provide luggage accommodation (e.g. the extra bike spaces on FGW HSTs) which permits more seating in the passenger cabins.

 

[Domh245]

If you'd have had one power car that fed a common electrical bus, the distributed traction would still be feasible.

+ves: No underfloor engines therefore, lower floor level and none of the low throbbing that irritates enthusiasts

-ves: Loss of passenger capacity, need to diagram units seperately (eg a Bi-Mode couldn't be put on an electric only service) to prevent difference in capacity, need to have a different design for the Powered and non Powered end cars.

There are probably more points that could be added to both sides

 

[jimm]

Genuine question - why's that a problem? On InterCity routes, the main restriction on train length is platform length, and that doesn't apply to power cars other than at terminus stations.

And power cars do have a benefit for passengers - they can provide luggage accommodation (e.g. the extra bike spaces on FGW HSTs) which permits more seating in the passenger cabins.

Bikes don't go in the power cars on FGW HSTs and haven't for quite some time.

 

[jopsuk]

Genuine question - why's that a problem? On InterCity routes, the main restriction on train length is platform length, and that doesn't apply to power cars other than at terminus stations.

it can still be a problem at intermediate stations- it's preferred that they don't foul points, there may be signal position isssues and more

 

[SpacePhoenix]

it can still be a problem at intermediate stations- it's preferred that they don't foul points, there may be signal position isssues and more

Issues with track circuits as well, depending on where the sections end?