GWR Class 800

[TheKnightWho]

Does anyone have a handy link or breakdown as to what the time savings will be when they are introduced, and also if/when the ECML and GWML are upgraded for 225kph?

New times (and savings) are as follows:

ECML:

• Peterborough | 43 minutes (2 minutes)
• Doncaster | 92 minutes (4 minutes)
• Leeds | 126 minutes (6 minutes)
• York | 104 minutes (9 minutes)
• Newcastle | 155 minutes (17 minutes)
• Edinburgh | 245 (18 minutes)

GWML:

• Reading | 23 minutes (2 minutes)
• Oxford | 53 minutes (5 minutes)
• Worcester Shrub Hill | 120 minutes (19 minutes)
• Cheltenham Spa | 112 minutes (23 minutes)
• Bristol Parkway | 71 minutes (10 minutes)
• Bath Spa | 79 minutes (8 minutes)
• Bristol Temple Meads | 83 minutes (22 minutes)
• Cardiff | 104 minutes (17 minutes)
• Swansea | 159 (19 minutes)

A couple of the GWML timings seem a little odd - the Temple Meads time saving vs. the Bath Spa one seems very strange, for example.

 

[monsento]

if politics or money were not getting in the way, could they not design a new train especially for the gw covering every route. one uniform fleet would surely be great

 

[class26]

New times (and savings) are as follows:

ECML:

• Peterborough | 43 minutes (2 minutes)
• Doncaster | 92 minutes (4 minutes)
• Leeds | 126 minutes (6 minutes)
• York | 104 minutes (9 minutes)
• Newcastle | 155 minutes (17 minutes)
• Edinburgh | 245 (18 minutes)

GWML:

• Reading | 23 minutes (2 minutes)
• Oxford | 53 minutes (5 minutes)
• Worcester Shrub Hill | 120 minutes (19 minutes)
• Cheltenham Spa | 112 minutes (23 minutes)
• Bristol Parkway | 71 minutes (10 minutes)
• Bath Spa | 79 minutes (8 minutes)
• Bristol Temple Meads | 83 minutes (22 minutes)
• Cardiff | 104 minutes (17 minutes)
• Swansea | 159 (19 minutes)

A couple of the GWML timings seem a little odd - the Temple Meads time saving vs. the Bath Spa one seems very strange, for example.

Also quiet a large time saving between Doncaster and York which doesn`t really add up ?

 

[Domh245]

I meant for any potential XC orders, which certainly are in the running. I'm not really sure why you're ruling it out, other than pessimism.

I'd imagine it would be feasible to install a 3rd rail shoe on some bogies and run it off of 3rd rail, but there is an issue with power draw. I'm not entirely sure about how much power an IEP will draw, but I'd imagine that trying to run it on 3rd rail will likely see it need to reduce performance, or load shed, or both. There might also be an issue with it trying to get power whilst other trains are also trying to draw power, there was a need to upgrade the power supplies when the desiros were introduced, and i'm guessing that getting the IEPs to run on full power on 3rd rail would require (another) upgrade.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'd imagine it would be feasible to install a 3rd rail shoe on some bogies and run it off of 3rd rail, but there is an issue with power draw. I'm not entirely sure about how much power an IEP will draw, but I'd imagine that trying to run it on 3rd rail will likely see it need to reduce performance, or load shed, or both. There might also be an issue with it trying to get power whilst other trains are also trying to draw power, there was a need to upgrade the power supplies when the desiros were introduced, and i'm guessing that getting the IEPs to run on full power on 3rd rail would require (another) upgrade.

If they weren't to run them in diesel mode they'd probably be better off converting the SWML to overhead

 

[Noddy]

New times (and savings) are as follows:

ECML:

• Peterborough | 43 minutes (2 minutes)
• Doncaster | 92 minutes (4 minutes)
• Leeds | 126 minutes (6 minutes)
• York | 104 minutes (9 minutes)
• Newcastle | 155 minutes (17 minutes)
• Edinburgh | 245 (18 minutes)

GWML:

• Reading | 23 minutes (2 minutes)
• Oxford | 53 minutes (5 minutes)
• Worcester Shrub Hill | 120 minutes (19 minutes)
• Cheltenham Spa | 112 minutes (23 minutes)
• Bristol Parkway | 71 minutes (10 minutes)
• Bath Spa | 79 minutes (8 minutes)
• Bristol Temple Meads | 83 minutes (22 minutes)
• Cardiff | 104 minutes (17 minutes)
• Swansea | 159 (19 minutes)

A couple of the GWML timings seem a little odd - the Temple Meads time saving vs. the Bath Spa one seems very strange, for example.

Cheers that's excellent! I guess the large diffence between York and Newcastle is to do with 225kph running North of York?

 

[markydh]

No. It's due to the vastly superior acceleration when compared to 125s and 225s.

 

[D365]

Cheers that's excellent! I guess the large diffence between York and Newcastle is to do with 225kph running North of York?

I was under the impression that 140mph running is to be rolled out to London-Doncaster initially, with ERTMS and enabling works. Doesn't seem as if the times/savings stated reflect this?

No. It's due to the vastly superior acceleration when compared to 125s and 225s.

Is there a significantly greater proportion of acceleration which takes place along this section of line, to explain the great surge in journey time saving at this point?

 

[jimm]

New times (and savings) are as follows:

ECML:

• Peterborough | 43 minutes (2 minutes)
• Doncaster | 92 minutes (4 minutes)
• Leeds | 126 minutes (6 minutes)
• York | 104 minutes (9 minutes)
• Newcastle | 155 minutes (17 minutes)
• Edinburgh | 245 (18 minutes)

GWML:

• Reading | 23 minutes (2 minutes)
• Oxford | 53 minutes (5 minutes)
• Worcester Shrub Hill | 120 minutes (19 minutes)
• Cheltenham Spa | 112 minutes (23 minutes)
• Bristol Parkway | 71 minutes (10 minutes)
• Bath Spa | 79 minutes (8 minutes)
• Bristol Temple Meads | 83 minutes (22 minutes)
• Cardiff | 104 minutes (17 minutes)
• Swansea | 159 (19 minutes)

A couple of the GWML timings seem a little odd - the Temple Meads time saving vs. the Bath Spa one seems very strange, for example.

Think that will be down to the ability of the planned limited-stop trains running via Bristol Parkway to hit 125mph for more of the journey, as there are various restrictions via Chippenham, Box and Bath.

And the current journey time to Worcester seems a pretty random choice, as there are booked Class 180 runs now - with more to come from May - making all the regular stops west of Oxford, in 2hr 7min, which includes a dollop of recovery time. I suppose making a comparison with that timing doesn't make the shiny new trains look quite so good.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I meant for any potential XC orders, which certainly are in the running. I'm not really sure why you're ruling it out, other than pessimism.

Why? Because if we're talking bi-modes, then, as noted back up the thread, they will be able to run on their diesel engines in third-rail land anyway, indeed out-perform the capabilities of third-rail - which is pretty much limited to 100mph - if the track on the SWML was fettled up for 125mph.

If XC's Voyagers are run to anything like their full design life, then we're getting towards the back end of next decade when they come due for replacement, by which point there could be 25kv all the way to Southampton anyway, so it would hardly be worth going to the trouble of fitting 750v DC kit on XC trains to get from Southampton to Bournemouth - or from Basingstoke to Bournemouth either, come to that - when they can just fire up the MTUs.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Why? Because if we're talking bi-modes, then, as noted back up the thread, they will be able to run on their diesel engines in third-rail land anyway, indeed out-perform the capabilities of third-rail - which is pretty much limited to 100mph - if the track on the SWML was fettled up for 125mph.

If XC's Voyagers are run to anything like their full design life, then we're getting towards the back end of next decade when they come due for replacement, by which point there could be 25kv all the way to Southampton anyway, so it would hardly be worth going to the trouble of fitting 750v DC kit on XC trains to get from Southampton to Bournemouth - or from Basingstoke to Bournemouth either, come to that - when they can just fire up the MTUs.

Hopefully by the end of the next decade the SWML will have been fully converted to AC by then or at least be well on the way

 

[NotATrainspott]

if politics or money were not getting in the way, could they not design a new train especially for the gw covering every route. one uniform fleet would surely be great

That's pretty much what the IEP is. The HST is the most go-anywhere long distance train available in the UK, and the IEP was intended to take up the mantle. CrossCountry electrification will make its bi-mode capabilities even more useful, and there's no other high capacity InterCity EMU available off-the-shelf for the MML as well, so it would not be unlikely that the basic AT300 design could replace every current use of HSTs across Great Britain.

 

[fairysdad]

if politics or money were not getting in the way, could they not design a new train especially for the gw covering every route. one uniform fleet would surely be great

I assume you're talking about every long-distance route - you wouldn't use the same stock from Paddington to Penzance that you would on the St Erth to St Ives branch!

 

[monsento]

why not if every train had the same seats and shared as many parts as possible would be great, you would have say a 3 and a 5 car set that looked the same but had differences under the hood but so wherever you were from devon to york you have the same train,and also a universal smartcard card that stores tickets for travel,and railcard information and a ticketing structure that left joe public confident they were getting the right price every time

 

[samuelmorris]

Surely the difference between journey times for Doncaster and York is so small because York will be non-atop whereas Doncaster will have at least one or two other stops before it, as now?

 

[class26]

Surely the difference between journey times for Doncaster and York is so small because York will be non-atop whereas Doncaster will have at least one or two other stops before it, as now?

No, I meant the opposite. Theres only 2 minutes saved between Kings X and Peterborough but 5 between Doncaster (4 from Kings X) and York (9 from Kings X) , a much smaller distance.

 

[samuelmorris]

That's what I mean - the difference in journey time is small between Doncaster and York because the difference in improvement is much greater - since Doncaster will be served by trains calling at other stations beforehand whereas the York service stated will be direct from Kings Cross, maximising the use of higher line speeds.

 

[monsento]

Fuji heavy industries train, JR East use it to give free rides to children in quake hit areas.

cheers just saw them when googling japanese trains, thought it would be a nicer way to get to work in the morning than sitting in the vestibule cheek to cheek with a stranger.

 

[Chris125]

Some journalists suggesting the FGW order may be on DFTs behalf and some of them may actually be destined for Cross Country instead.

I'd have thought the MML is more likely - it will need electric stock in the next few years and the phased roll-out of electrification would make bi-mode units ideal, at least as an interim fleet.

 

[47802]

I'd have thought the MML is more likely - it will need electric stock in the next few years and the phased roll-out of electrification would make bi-mode units ideal, at least as an interim fleet.

I don't think Bi-modes are likely for MML, possibly some 222 might be retained for a few off wires services and diversions and use on other EMT routes, but allegedly one of the things against the use of 222's in the West Country was that they wouldn't be available for the 2020 compliance date which suggests the 222 are staying until the electrification is complete, obviously the electrification does need to get to Nottingham before 2020 so that the HST's can be binned before the compliance date.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Why? Because if we're talking bi-modes, then, as noted back up the thread, they will be able to run on their diesel engines in third-rail land anyway, indeed out-perform the capabilities of third-rail - which is pretty much limited to 100mph - if the track on the SWML was fettled up for 125mph.

If XC's Voyagers are run to anything like their full design life, then we're getting towards the back end of next decade when they come due for replacement, by which point there could be 25kv all the way to Southampton anyway, so it would hardly be worth going to the trouble of fitting 750v DC kit on XC trains to get from Southampton to Bournemouth - or from Basingstoke to Bournemouth either, come to that - when they can just fire up the MTUs.

It makes absolutely no sense to suggest an increase to 125mph on the SWML is a better solution than running bimodes on the 3rd rail.

a) If that was a viable option it would have been looked at long ago with the advent of the HSTs and Voyagers on the SWML, which have been running for around 40 years at this point. It isn't for two reasons: firstly, because it's expensive for only a few trains, and more importantly because of the capacity constraints of trying to run 125mph trains along that route without also increasing the speed of the large quantity of commuter services that also run down to Southampton and Bournemouth. It's completely unrealistic to expect them to be able to eat up all those paths.

b) If they can go current linespeed, it would save money for them to have a 3rd rail shoe so they can run electrically, rather than running diesel over the rails with no performance benefit. Indeed, it would be cheaper in addition to providing a better ride experience. Otherwise your argument that they could "just fire up the MTUs" is an argument against all electrification full-stop: ask yourself why we bother to electrify in the first place! This is ignoring the possibility of an increased XC network, which is something they're looking at in the longer-term, and will become far more possible as HS2 begins to relieve capacity. Running down to Brighton etc. used to be a regular occurence. Even without this speculation it would still be worth it if XC SETs were ordered before 2020, as you won't see any SWML overheads until at least 2025.

Finally, your point about the Voyagers having a lot of life left, there are plenty of places they could be moved to. Replacing the Scottish HSTs for a start, which will almost certainly have to happen at some point. And frankly, it's only enthusiasts who seem hellbent on running trains to their maximum service life: the DfT and NR are far more interested in saving themselves money and getting good PR. British "built" trains, a more uniform long-distance fleet and more electric running under wires and (possibly) 3rd rail would be good for both of those.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It makes absolutely no sense to suggest an increase to 125mph on the SWML is a better solution than running bimodes on the 3rd rail.

a) If that was a viable option it would have been looked at long ago with the advent of the HSTs and Voyagers on the SWML, which have been running for around 40 years at this point. It isn't for two reasons: firstly, because it's expensive for only a few trains, and more importantly because of the capacity constraints of trying to run 125mph trains along that route without also increasing the speed of the large quantity of commuter services that also run down to Southampton and Bournemouth. It's completely unrealistic to expect them to be able to eat up all those paths.

b) If they can go current linespeed, it would save money for them to have a 3rd rail shoe so they can run electrically, rather than running diesel over the rails with no performance benefit. Indeed, it would be cheaper in addition to providing a better ride experience. Otherwise your argument that they could "just fire up the MTUs" is an argument against all electrification full-stop: ask yourself why we bother to electrify in the first place! This is ignoring the possibility of an increased XC network, which is something they're looking at in the longer-term, and will become far more possible as HS2 begins to relieve capacity. Running down to Brighton etc. used to be a regular occurence. Even without this speculation it would still be worth it if XC SETs were ordered before 2020, as you won't see any SWML overheads until at least 2025.

Finally, your point about the Voyagers having a lot of life left, there are plenty of places they could be moved to. Replacing the Scottish HSTs for a start, which will almost certainly have to happen at some point. And frankly, it's only enthusiasts who seem hellbent on running trains to their maximum service life: the DfT and NR are far more interested in saving themselves money and getting good PR. British "built" trains, a more uniform long-distance fleet and more electric running under wires and (possibly) 3rd rail would be good for both of those.

There would be no logic in 'firing up the MTUs' when 25kV AC OHLE is available. However, third rail is much more problematic due to the power supply issues present across much of the network. It seems that every major new rolling stock procurement exercise in the former NSE area requires yet more power supply upgrades, since the third rail power supply network constantly runs at capacity. If it were possible that the trains didn't need any form of diesel power at all, such as in the case of future Manchester-South Coast via Birmingham or East-West services, then there's a clear case to be made for fitting third rail shoes despite the power supply issues. If, however, you would be using a fleet of trains otherwise still equipped with enough diesel power to run happily along the relatively short extent of their routes fitted with third rail then it's not going to be that clear.

The chance of Voyagers or Meridians replacing the HSTs once they're done with ScotRail duties is tiny. The HSTs will last until the line to Aberdeen is electrified at the very least, and it wouldn't be long after that Inverness would be done as well. With that, there's no need for diesel traction whatsoever on these routes. The only remaining sticking point is Aberdeen-Inverness but with the increased passenger numbers due to the HSTs, and a need to electrify whatever suburban routes there would be around Aberdeen, I don't think it unlikely that the long term solution there would be wires as well. The Voyagers and Meridians will face the scrapheap well before stock of a similar age, simply because they are no longer fit for purpose.

 

[47802]

.

The chance of Voyagers or Meridians replacing the HSTs once they're done with ScotRail duties is tiny. The HSTs will last until the line to Aberdeen is electrified at the very least, and it wouldn't be long after that Inverness would be done as well. With that, there's no need for diesel traction whatsoever on these routes. The only remaining sticking point is Aberdeen-Inverness but with the increased passenger numbers due to the HSTs, and a need to electrify whatever suburban routes there would be around Aberdeen, I don't think it unlikely that the long term solution there would be wires as well. The Voyagers and Meridians will face the scrapheap well before stock of a similar age, simply because they are no longer fit for purpose.

I think that's debatable, currently we seem to have two assumptions, one being the network will be electrified all over the place in the next 10 to 15 years and that other being that HST's will be cascaded all over the place.

Well given the escalating costs and delays to current electrification scheme's and a government who will need to make spending cuts in the next parliament I wouldn't put money on electrification to Inverness and all over the place.

As for the HST's well we have seen FGW's intention to get rid, and also not cascade them onto secondary services as was suggested, and what ever comes out of Northern's new trains requirement may well be a game changer that other Diesel dependent TOC's may well follow. While I'm sure work will be found for 22x as the only sizable fleet of fairly modern long distance diesel trains.

 

[class26]

I think that's debatable, currently we seem to have two assumptions, one being the network will be electrified all over the place in the next 10 to 15 years and that other being that HST's will be cascaded all over the place.

Well given the escalating costs and delays to current electrification scheme's and a government who will need to make spending cuts in the next parliament I wouldn't put money on electrification to Inverness and all over the place.

As for the HST's well we have seen FGW's intention to get rid, and also not cascade them onto secondary services as was suggested, and what ever comes out of Northern's new trains requirement may well be a game changer that other Diesel dependent TOC's may well follow. While I'm sure work will be found for 22x as the only sizable fleet of fairly modern long distance diesel trains.

Don`t forget that the electrification of Inverness - Aberdeen would be paid for by the Scottish Gov who are not hell bent on saving money

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The main intercity routes are probably covered by potential future orders of 8001s/801s but realistically is there any diesel train that could be built that could take on the routes that use 14xs and 15xs when they become life expired if them routes don't get electrified?

 

[swt_passenger]

... because of the capacity constraints of trying to run 125mph trains along that route without also increasing the speed of the large quantity of commuter services that also run down to Southampton and Bournemouth. It's completely unrealistic to expect them to be able to eat up all those paths.

...and of course all those container train paths - which as we know from the local RUS already prevent the second XC service being extended to Southampton.

 

[najaB]

Don`t forget that the electrification of Inverness - Aberdeen would be paid for by the Scottish Gov who are not hell bent on saving money

But who will find that the available pot is getting smaller.

 

[class26]

But who will find that the available pot is getting smaller.

But I don`t think that is going to worry the SNP.

 

[jimm]

...and of course all those container train paths - which as we know from the local RUS already prevent the second XC service being extended to Southampton.

Which has been happening on half a dozen services a day, every couple of hours, for four years or so. Is there really such a pressing need for this to happen all day - nice idea though it is - and does XC have enough rolling stock to operate it anyway if the paths were there?

A better idea, in the short term at least, pending arrival of extra stock and/or capacity enhancements south of Basingstoke, would be to try to coordinate better with FGW's Reading-Basingstoke trains, so that these are not heading out of the station just as the XC terminators arrive from Oxford, though this adjustment may well have to wait for the big GWML timetable revision in December 2018.

 

[D365]

The main intercity routes are probably covered by potential future orders of 8001s/801s but realistically is there any diesel train that could be built that could take on the routes that use 14xs and 15xs when they become life expired if them routes don't get electrified?

Quick reply; you should be aware of the order proposed in the Northern franchise ITT for 120 new-build self-powered vehicles. It's referenced in numerous posts across this forum, e.g. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2120436#post2120436

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I was under the impression that 140mph running is to be rolled out to London-Doncaster initially, with ERTMS and enabling works. Doesn't seem as if the times/savings stated reflect this?

225kph/140mph running on the ECML is still an aspiration, not a funded plan.
Roger Ford has an article on the subject in April's Modern Railways (p26).
Paraphrasing, the issues after ETCS is installed are:
- OHLE (needs to be rewired and some of it converted to portals instead of headspans)
- level crossings would have to be eliminated - at Newark for instance
- bridges (currently too great a rise/fall of pantographs at crossings and bridges for higher speeds)

A proposal has gone from Network Rail to DfT, but the big items are not funded yet.
Ironically, the section attracting most interest at the moment is (Leeds)-York-Newcastle as part of the Northern Powerhouse/HS3 debate.
The same issues apply to the GW route but the current electrification and clearance plans should avoid significant extra work (but over a relatively short distance compared to the ECML).

Edit: Something else mentioned the same issue of MR (Railtalk p7) is the possibility of the GW class 80x trains being introduced on VTEC services if the GW infrastructure is not ready.
It raises the spectre of the Bristol resignalling not being able to support the Stoke Gifford depot connections in time.