GWR Class 800

[Class377/5]

The IEP infrastructure costs also include the cost of upgrading the power supplies on the ECML to cope with having many more electric trains running on the line, as well as the cost of upgrading the Paddington to Airport Junction OHLE to modern standards.

Gauge-clearing to allow 26m carriages is a one-time cost which will then enable those carriage lengths for trains well into the future. The IEP uses the 26m Mk5 dynamic envelope which has been the standard for new and rebuilt infrastructure for decades now. The works being done for the ECML and GWML mean that the work would already be done for CrossCountry services as well as any other >23m rolling stock in future. If I'm not mistaken, the same works would also make it easier to run 2.8m wide 23m rolling stock like 323s on more routes in future, meaning more passenger capacity without extra train length.

Doesn't change the fact that this 'one time cost' could have provide carriage outright for 30-40 years of passenger carrying. 23m meter stock is already in use to no it won't make it easiler to run so you re mistaken, its already possible!

Mk5 dyanmic envelope is pointless here routes aren't ready for it. You could have saved this cost in the first place. Considering how much pressure the railways are to save money, this is the railway being forced to be more expensive.

 

[455driver]

Gauge-clearing to allow 26m carriages is a one-time cost which will then enable those carriage lengths for trains well into the future.

Its a good job we have all this money lying around and can afford it easily!

It would have made a lot more sense to stick with 23m stock and carry out the necessary work for 26m mk5 stock over the next 15-20 years as things were up for renewal, this would have spread the costs and meant that less people would have been employed for much longer instead of this 'all hands on deck' followed by 'no work for years' we are suffering from, it just makes things much more expensive.

The IEP uses the 26m Mk5 dynamic envelope which has been the standard for new and rebuilt infrastructure for decades now. The works being done for the ECML and GWML mean that the work would already be done for CrossCountry services as well as any other >23m rolling stock in future. If I'm not mistaken, the same works would also make it easier to run 2.8m wide 23m rolling stock like 323s on more routes in future, meaning more passenger capacity without extra train length.

Why do we even need to go for this 26m Mk5 dynamic envelope stuff, it isn't like we are going to be running stock from Paris or Berlin to Swansea or Penzance any time soon is it!

Its just another Political idea making the railways a lot more expensive than they need to be. 9x26m or 10x23m would only make a difference of 20 or so seats per train set and I dont think its worth it either now or in the future!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Its a good job we have all this money lying around and can afford it easily!

It would have made a lot more sense to stick with 23m stock and carry out the necessary work for 26m mk5 stock over the next 15-20 years as things were up for renewal, this would have spread the costs and meant that less people would have been employed for much longer instead of this 'all hands on deck' followed by 'no work for years' we are suffering from, it just makes things much more expensive.



Why do we even need to go for this 26m Mk5 dynamic envelope stuff, it isn't like we are going to be running stock from Paris or Berlin to Swansea or Penzance any time soon is it!

Its just another Political idea making the railways a lot more expensive than they need to be. 9x26m or 10x23m would only make a difference of 20 or so seats per train set and I dont think its worth it either now or in the future!

Isn't a lot of the extra length down to the space needed to house a high enough speed engine that meets the emissions regs

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn't a lot of the extra length down to the space needed to house a high enough speed engine that meets the emissions regs

No, because the extra coach length is nearly all outside the bogies, which are at roughly the normal distance apart. That is why the carriage ends gave to be tapered inward.

Besides, the coach length was defined as 26m long even when the Diesel engines were going to be in end power cars.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why do we even need to go for this 26m Mk5 dynamic envelope stuff, it isn't like we are going to be running stock from Paris or Berlin to Swansea or Penzance any time soon is it!

No it isn't, and as the Mk5 envelope still isn't large enough for most European stock, that's probably a good thing!
I share your concerns about the cost, but it's happening so we might as well get used to it and use it to its advantages.

 

[455driver]

No it isn't, and as the Mk5 envelope still isn't large enough for most European stock, that's probably a good thing!
I share your concerns about the cost, but it's happening so we might as well get used to it and use it to its advantages.

So we are spending all this money and will still require bespoke stock, that's bloomin stupid!
Whats the point then because I cant see it?

I could (sort of) understand it if we could use standard sized (European) stock so savings in future procurement would be possible, but that isn't even the case so its all just a bit of a waste of money.

 

[jimm]

er I believe the AT200 order was placed after Hitachi made that commitment to investing more in the plant if they got more orders in.

Er, no. The comment about creating a welding facility was made at the time the AT200 order was placed, in the following terms:

This is the first order for Hitachi’s new AT200 EMU design, for which a mock-up bodyshell was unveiled in July and subsequently displayed at InnoTrans. Formed of 23 m vehicles, the 160 km/h EMUs will be fitted with cab-end gangways for multiple operation. They will have aluminium bodyshells manufactured at the company’s Kasado plant in Japan using friction stir welding. Hitachi suggests that this technology could be imported to its Newton Aycliffe factory in northern England, now under construction, if 'another two or three' follow-up orders were received.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...view/view/hitachi-to-build-scotrail-emus.html

ie, enough work to take production at Newton Aycliffe well into the 2020s. But as ever, don't let the facts get in the way.

As for the rest of this twaddle, if 26m coaches are a bad idea now, then I expect you lot would have been moaning back in the 1970s about newfangled 23m coaches and in the 1950s about newfangled 64ft coaches. Let's just go back to wooden-bodied four-wheelers, which would fit everywhere, forever. Progress is just so over-rated...

Its just another Political idea making the railways a lot more expensive than they need to be.

Apparently you missed the bit back up the thread about the 26m coach being a BR idea from the days of the Intercity250 project. BR also looked at getting the Mk4s built as 25.5m long.

So we are spending all this money and will still require bespoke stock, that's bloomin stupid!
Whats the point then because I cant see it?

I could (sort of) understand it if we could use standard sized (European) stock so savings in future procurement would be possible, but that isn't even the case so its all just a bit of a waste of money.

Well unless you know where there is an even bigger pot of money to start smashing about bridges, tunnels and platforms the length and breadth of the land, we are never going to get anywhere near a continental-size loading gauge. That does not mean to say that we should not try to get the most of out what we have now, on the back of what are, relatively speaking, pretty modest sums, much of which would likely need to be spent anyway in the context of allowing electrification or gauge clearance for other reasons, such as bigger shipping containers on standard wagons.

 

[AM9]

I would think it would be similar as both have the similar amounts of installed power.

But much more usable with more driven axles.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Doesn't change the fact that this 'one time cost' could have provide carriage outright for 30-40 years of passenger carrying. 23m meter stock is already in use to no it won't make it easiler to run so you re mistaken, its already possible!

Mk5 dyanmic envelope is pointless here routes aren't ready for it. You could have saved this cost in the first place. Considering how much pressure the railways are to save money, this is the railway being forced to be more expensive.

Or, if you actually read my post, you'll see that most of that cost isn't actually to do with gauge-clearing for 26m carriages. Power supply upgrades are very expensive and would be just as necessary regardless of the carriage lengths of any new trains.

26m carriage lengths are more efficient at carrying passengers because the total size of the vestibules and non-revenue earning areas has to remain pretty static regardless of carriage length, so the increased length goes straight to allowing more passengers per metre of train length. Over the long term, when you can then run 26m carriages all across the InterCity network, that extra efficiency is a bonus. 10x23m would be more expensive than 9x26m because it would involve the cost of an extra pair of bogies along with the other facilities which have to be provided on a per-carriage basis.

 

[RobShipway]

Jow many countries within Europe have or build 23M coaches other than those requested from UK railway companies?

 

[159220]

I want to point out, the Class 390 has driving cars of 25.1 Metres and intermediate cars of 23.9 Metres (IE 24m). Thus nothing new about plus 23.

 

[Martin222002]

I want to point out, the Class 390 has driving cars of 25.1 Metres and intermediate cars of 23.9 Metres (IE 24m). Thus nothing new about plus 23.

Class 185 coaches are also nearly 24m in length (haven't got the exact figures to hand). So again, nothing new about coaches longer than 23m.

It's also worth noting that the 80X coaches are tapered at each end where the toilet, bike/luggage storage and equipment cabinets are located, which will help with gauge clearance. The coaches are also 25m in length on their own, but 26 when including the corridor connection and or cab.

 

[The Ham]

Its just another Political idea making the railways a lot more expensive than they need to be. 9x26m or 10x23m would only make a difference of 20 or so seats per train set and I dont think its worth it either now or in the future!

An 11 coach class 390 has 589 seats (253m long train), now although a 9 coach 800/801 has circa 630 seats, which is only 41 extra seats the platform lengths allow for 10 coach trains, meaning that a 10 coach (260m long train) could have a further 54 (all first class) to 88 (all standard class) seats without having to do any extra platform lengthening.

Now it would be possible to alter the 390's to get a better number of seats or to use a different class of train. However, even using an 11 coach train based on the 444 with half the number of first class seats that a 390 has the total number of seats would be 738 (70 first class seats) compared with 715 (101 first class seats) for a 80x with 10 coaches. However would long distance passengers take the hit in journey times and facilities to fit in an extra 23 seats, likewise would a TOC take the hit on the number of first class seats (31) to squeeze in extra standard class seats to make a small overall increase in seat numbers? I would very much doubt it.

Also, it should be noted that to have 10 coach trains formed of 23m coaches would require an extra 64 coaches over what is required to run 9 coach trains of 26m coaches. If you then add to that an extra coach to half the 5 coach fleet that would mean an extra 29 coaches. That would mean that your total number of extra coaches which would be available for the rest of the network would fall from 172 to 79. If however all the 5 coach trains were formed of 6 coaches of 23m it would fall to 50.

If you then add in the FGW and HT orders (one extra coach for each set ordered) then the extra 34 coaches required would reduce the number of extra spare coaches to 16 which is hardly any at all (again even with half of all the short sets gaining one coach rather than all it would only be 61, which would be better but wouldn't be as much as you had hoped).

However if 11 coach trains were needed rather than 10 than just to lengthen the full length trains would require 142 coaches before any of the shorter sets were lengthened.

Also, as as been pointed out before on a straight or nearly straight section of rail no works are required to lengthen coaches. This then means that it is tends to only on bends and points where it is an issue. However by doing these works all in one go (i.e. for a set date) potentially along side other works (new signals, electrification/electrification upgrade works, track replacement, etc.) to enable a large single order of rolling stock which will replace nearly all the HST's and all the IC225's it will provide ongoing cost savings compared with lots of small fleet orders.

 

[Class377/5]

Or, if you actually read my post, you'll see that most of that cost isn't actually to do with gauge-clearing for 26m carriages. Power supply upgrades are very expensive and would be just as necessary regardless of the carriage lengths of any new trains.

26m carriage lengths are more efficient at carrying passengers because the total size of the vestibules and non-revenue earning areas has to remain pretty static regardless of carriage length, so the increased length goes straight to allowing more passengers per metre of train length. Over the long term, when you can then run 26m carriages all across the InterCity network, that extra efficiency is a bonus. 10x23m would be more expensive than 9x26m because it would involve the cost of an extra pair of bogies along with the other facilities which have to be provided on a per-carriage basis.

Power supply is only part of the issue unless your suggesting the works at Bristol are power supply related?

More efficient? Sorry but no. Efficient design works within guage not redefines it.

As for costing, you seriously believe that a besoke design that requires infrastructure altertions because the trains cannot physically fit is more cost effective than an off the shelf design that within guage? Really?

As for power supplies, there maybe some more efficent power design (700s use 25% less power than current trains while doing more) that could have meant less costs involved.

 

[sbatts43]

The Prime Minister said In PMQ last Wednesday that the Hitachi trains will be built In Britain, not Japan, giving 700 new jobs to the north east. I thought they were built In Japan and shipped over here, or have I got It wrong?

Just another point about these Hitachi trains. I sent a e-mail to FGW about the length of trains and I got a answer today. It said that the coaches will be between 10 and 12 coaches long. It was a short e-mail as you can guess. Just thought I give this information to you.

 

[sprinterguy]

Just another point about these Hitachi trains. I sent a e-mail to FGW about the length of trains and I got a answer today. It said that the coaches will be between 10 and 12 coaches long.

Something's been lost in translation there, then: We already know for certain that the class 800 and 801 trains will be 5 and 9 carriage formations.

That sounds more like the maximum lengths of train on the Paddington-Reading-Oxford corridor post-electrification: 10-car (class 800) Intercity trains, and 12-car commuter (class 387) ones.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

More efficient? Sorry but no. Efficient design works within guage not redefines it.

As for costing, you seriously believe that a besoke design that requires infrastructure altertions because the trains cannot physically fit is more cost effective than an off the shelf design that within guage? Really?

This is a once in a generation (longer, potentially, given the potential lifespan of Intercity rolling stock) to enhance the network and provide increased capacity that ties in with a complete fleet renewal. I can't think of a better time to do it than at the same time as electrification. Once the physical infrastructure changes have been carried out, then they remain valid for possible future designs of rolling stock designed to fit the same loading gauge envelope, even beyond the expected lifespan of the IEP trains.

The infrastructure and gauge clearance works undertaken prior to the introduction of HSTs on the Western region were substantial, and yet few seem to begrudge the benefits that introducing longer 23 metre carriages brought.

 

[The Ham]

Power supply is only part of the issue unless your suggesting the works at Bristol are power supply related?

More efficient? Sorry but no. Efficient design works within guage not redefines it.

As for costing, you seriously believe that a besoke design that requires infrastructure altertions because the trains cannot physically fit is more cost effective than an off the shelf design that within guage? Really?

As for power supplies, there maybe some more efficent power design (700s use 25% less power than current trains while doing more) that could have meant less costs involved.

Yes, power supply is only part of the issue, however it is part of the issue. As such unless we know how much is power supply related and how much is related to gauge clearance it would be impossible to state that by not doing the clearance works that it would result X extra coaches which could be purchased.

Also, I would suggest that there could have been some of the works which would have needed to be undertaken to allow trains to run at higher speeds which were also included as it was no more expensive to do so at the same time. In addition some works may have needed to have been done anyway in the next 5 years and by costing them in the IEP works it takes them out of the general NR costs.

With regards to efficiencies, it is more efficient to do some clearance works to allow longer coaches which results in more train length allocated to seating than it would be to lengthen platforms to allow longer trains to run which would have broadly the same number of seats.

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres a part of the IEP contract which puts the cost of the infrastructure works on the East Coast directly related to accommodating IEP (and not required on the ECML for any generic chosen design) is given as £80m, which is chickenfeed.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

With regards to efficiencies,...longer coaches which results in more train length allocated to seating than it would be to lengthen platforms to allow longer trains to run which would have broadly the same number of seats.

Have you done your sums on that? So as to make it on a like-for-like basis, use furnishable length of vehicles.

 

[WatcherZero]

Longer stock is cheaper on a coach by coach basis, there are fewer axles, bogies and other components required.

Comparing like for like according to function (intercity, outer suburban, inner suburban, etc..) on a per meter basis 15m coaches are more expensive than 18m which are more expensive than 20m which are more expensive than 23m and so on.

 

[The Ham]

Have you done your sums on that? So as to make it on a like-for-like basis, use furnishable length of vehicles.

Maybe you missed my last post:

An 11 coach class 390 has 589 seats (253m long train), now although a 9 coach 800/801 has circa 630 seats, which is only 41 extra seats the platform lengths allow for 10 coach trains, meaning that a 10 coach (260m long train) could have a further 54 (all first class) to 88 (all standard class) seats without having to do any extra platform lengthening.

Now it would be possible to alter the 390's to get a better number of seats or to use a different class of train. However, even using an 11 coach train based on the 444 with half the number of first class seats that a 390 has the total number of seats would be 738 (70 first class seats) compared with 715 (101 first class seats) for a 80x with 10 coaches. However would long distance passengers take the hit in journey times and facilities to fit in an extra 23 seats, likewise would a TOC take the hit on the number of first class seats (31) to squeeze in extra standard class seats to make a small overall increase in seat numbers? I would very much doubt it.

Although if the 11 coach class 444 type train aimed for a similar number of first class seats (105 vs 101) it would end up with 12 less seats while only being 7m shorter (703 seats).

Conversely if the class 80x's opted for less first class seats (71) then the total number of seats would increase to 735 or only a difference of 3 seats. However that would mean that rather than having about 16% of seats as first class it would be about 9.5% of seats as first class.

 

[jon0844]

As a rail user and not just an enthusiast, I think I'd prefer longer carriages. I don't have a problem walking through a train, but suspect some people aren't keen.

There is also wasted space at each gangway, so less carriages makes more sense there too.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no particular reason we have to have 'gangways' now though is there?

 

[jon0844]

I'd expect it to be quite loud and not really what you want on an Intercity journey (or any long journey).

It's going to be interesting to see what it's like on the 700s for those who go for a day trip to Brighton, which from stations north of the river is comparable to an Intercity journey.

Of course you can put in lots of partitions and sliding doors to reduce noise, but then they get wedged open by bags or just break.

I can't see us ever going back to compartments, even though it was quite nice travelling through Germany in our own first class compartment on one of the older ICE trains.

 

[po8crg]

I can't see us ever going back to compartments, even though it was quite nice travelling through Germany in our own first class compartment on one of the older ICE trains.

I could see a design with a small number of first-class or super-first-class compartments on long-distance trains, especially if some very long ones get built. For instance, if there's a 400m HS2 train (rather than using 2x200m).

 

[dubscottie]

I doubt the people that designed these ever travel by train in the UK..

What works on paper seldom works in practice..

AKA Idiots..

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Maybe you missed my last post:



Although if the 11 coach class 444 type train aimed for a similar number of first class seats (105 vs 101) it would end up with 12 less seats while only being 7m shorter (703 seats).

Conversely if the class 80x's opted for less first class seats (71) then the total number of seats would increase to 735 or only a difference of 3 seats. However that would mean that rather than having about 16% of seats as first class it would be about 9.5% of seats as first class.

You do not need to calculate seat numbers to do a like-for-like comparison. In fact, it does not give a like-for-like comparison as there are so many other variables eg seat pitch.

A mark 3 vehicle has 8 x 2.1M bays ie a furnishable length of 16.8 metres. An IEP vehicle has 9 bays. If the bay dimension is 2.0 metres, the furnishable length is 18 metres, ie an additional 1.2 metres. That amounts to 4 extra seats. 10 IEP vehicles would have a furnishable length of 180 metres, whereas 11 x 23 metre vehicles give 184.8, so that would be another 4.8 metres, equivalent to 16 seats.

That is theoretical - you need to measure the furnishable space in actual trains.

The problem with the long vehicles is that the doorways are so far from the ends, and the ends themselves are tapered, so that the extra vehicle length does not all translate into usable space.

 

[AM9]

The problem with the long vehicles is that the doorways are so far from the ends, and the ends themselves are tapered, so that the extra vehicle length does not all translate into usable space.

A 23m end-door coach will have a maximum 'furnishable length' with little else other than a transverse vestibule and gangway stub. The class 800 layout has doors inset from the ends nearer the bogie pivot centres to give a more consistent train-platform interface. That's fine but: on 23m MKIII coaches, amenities required for longer distance services, e.g. (non-DDA) toilets and luggage/cycle storage will come out of this furnishable length. The 800 layout gives tapered space that can be used for these ancillary uses thereby releasing space within the furnishable area.
We are now beginning to see the two extremes of passenger train design come into service. The 26m class 800 style designs will be for long journeys where passengers are expected to carry luggage, stay seated for long periods and as a consequence, longer dwell times will need to be accommodated. The other extremes are the class 700s where the design is focused on maximum passenger capacity, where mot passengers will have minimum luggage, and effective provisions for passenger ingress and egress, so that dwell times can be kept to a minimum. Toilets are provided but every coach has a maximum usable length including the wide gangways which provide additional standing room.

 

[jopsuk]

Something to mention about the 444s is that, being long distance commuter units, their luggage space is awful. Which is a problem given they serve holiday destinations and ferry ports

 

[jimm]

The problem with the long vehicles is that the doorways are so far from the ends, and the ends themselves are tapered, so that the extra vehicle length does not all translate into usable space.

As you know full well, the space is usable - it is being used for cycle and luggage space and toilets. Things that you would still need to provide if the doors were right at the corners of the coaches.

I doubt the people that designed these ever travel by train in the UK..

What works on paper seldom works in practice..

AKA Idiots..

So what is your non-idiotic plan then? We're all ears...