GWR Class 800

[jopsuk]

It reduces having a 2-car DMU running into Paddington. When Crossrail gets going that EMU to Hayes will be replaced with a Crossrail service. There's going to be a huge increase in capacity into Paddington

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I will wait to see what the ambience of a class 80x coach will be like. As for capacity I can see that a pair of power cars (HST) use up more space than the driving ends of a single IEP/SET unit. But as many services seem to be running round as pairs of units we will have the best part of two coach lengths not occupied. The advantage is portion working of course.

Still waiting to see how much the underfloor engines will affect the ambience. I wonder how much more noisy they will be after a few years service.

I do not understand why this concern about space occupied by locomotives has arisen.

In the days of steam, Paddington, Euston and Kings Cross had space for the pilot locomotive, 17 mark 1s and the train locomotive. That is about 370 metres. All the main intermediate station would also accommodate such traiins.

Some London terminals have lost platform length as the concourses have been extended, but in most cases it would not be difficult to reinstate this. Where platforms at less important through stations are too short, selective door opening solves the problem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The FGW seats are too close together? Hardly. There is plenty of legroom unless you're a giant. The problem with that refurbishment is the height of the seat backs.

Sorry but you can't compare IEP coaches with continental stock, built to continental gauges, so not needing the slightly tucked-in coach end to fit in the UK loading gauge.

And you didn't make a wise choice of coach type for comparison. Where do you think the toilets on many Corail coaches are? At the coach ends, with the entrance doors inset. Remind you of anything, I don't know, perhaps the location of IEP toilets and entrance doors...?

Where else do you propose bikes should go? An IEP-arrangement for them is rather better use of available space than taking out seating space in the middle of a coach, as done on Class 166s.

There will also be luggage stacks inside the saloons in the same sort of locations as on Mk3s, Mk4s and Class 180s.

And if you've ever been on a Eurostar or TGV, you ought to be well aware that there are plenty of luggage spaces in the entrance vestibules, out of sight of seated passengers. Some TGVs also have them opposite toilets at the coach ends without doors. How could they do that? Ruining another of your theories about the unique horrors of the IEP...

I am comparing continental coaches precisely because the loading gauge does not give rise to problems with 26 metre vehicles. The UK loading gauge is the problem. Even 23 metre vehicles result in a loss of about 8 cm of potential width, as the bogie spacing has to increase from 14.17 metres to 16 metres, and further loss in width at a 17 metre spacing. The optimum length is around 21.5 metres with a 15 metre bogie spacing - the width lost is proportional to the square of the bogie spacing.

The place for bikes is in a single dedicated area where they can be stacked compactly in racks and locked, or kept under the supervision of a member of staff, and loaded, and unloaded from a dedicated entrance instead of having to mix it with other passengers.

Luggage stacks at the ends of vehicles are an undesirable feature of all the stock you mentioned. I have seen all the luggage having to be unloaded onto the station platform to enable people to get on and off the Thalys. On the Swedish X2000 stock, if there is a lot of luggage at a busy time, it all ends up in an untidy heap all over the floor. The older Swedish stock dating back to the 1960s, most of which is still in service, has several small luggage areas distributed through the length of the vehicles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It reduces having a 2-car DMU running into Paddington. When Crossrail gets going that EMU to Hayes will be replaced with a Crossrail service. There's going to be a huge increase in capacity into Paddington

Which could have been used for an enhanced service from London to Birmingham, which is the principal reason given for HS2.

 

[jimm]

I do not understand why this concern about space occupied by locomotives has arisen.

In the days of steam, Paddington, Euston and Kings Cross had space for the pilot locomotive, 17 mark 1s and the train locomotive. That is about 370 metres. All the main intermediate station would also accommodate such traiins.

Some London terminals have lost platform length as the concourses have been extended, but in most cases it would not be difficult to reinstate this. Where platforms at less important through stations are too short, selective door opening solves the problem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am comparing continental coaches precisely because the loading gauge does not give rise to problems with 26 metre vehicles. The UK loading gauge is the problem. Even 23 metre vehicles result in a loss of about 8 cm of potential width, as the bogie spacing has to increase from 14.17 metres to 16 metres, and further loss in width at a 17 metre spacing. The optimum length is around 21.5 metres with a 15 metre bogie spacing - the width lost is proportional to the square of the bogie spacing.

The place for bikes is in a single dedicated area where they can be stacked compactly in racks and locked, or kept under the supervision of a member of staff, and loaded, and unloaded from a dedicated entrance instead of having to mix it with other passengers.

Luggage stacks at the ends of vehicles are an undesirable feature of all the stock you mentioned. I have seen all the luggage having to be unloaded onto the station platform to enable people to get on and off the Thalys. On the Swedish X2000 stock, if there is a lot of luggage at a busy time, it all ends up in an untidy heap all over the floor. The older Swedish stock dating back to the 1960s, most of which is still in service, has several small luggage areas distributed through the length of the vehicles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Which could have been used for an enhanced service from London to Birmingham, which is the principal reason given for HS2.

Ah yes, let's make the circulation area behind the buffers at Paddington a narrow strip again and cut Liverpool Street station in half again... just in case you haven't noticed, UK rail passenger numbers have doubled and the chief executive of Network Rail, Mark Carne, told MPs and peers last week that he expects them to double again in the next 25 years, so shrinking concourses is about the last thing that will be needed.

Talk about flogging a dead horse. We've had all your sums about bogie spacings and optimum lengths umpteen times. We know the UK loading gauge is an issue but it's not going to go away, nor are the growing numbers of passengers, so 21.5m coaches are not going to be optimum for anything at all except causing overcrowding.

The IEPs are not going to be used in Sweden, we're not in the 1960s and in the 1960s people's luggage tended to be rather smaller than the huge things people lug around today, which are entirely unsuitable for dragging up and down the aisles inside the passenger saloon on trains, never mind storing them there. Which might by why all these trains all over Europe, Sweden included, have luggage racks in places that encourage people to leave their mobile homes near the vestibule areas. If luggage thefts are at epidemic proportions as a result, let's see some evidence.

HSTs have a single dedicated area for bikes, which often causes delays at places like Oxford and Reading as people wanting to put bikes on have to wait for people wanting to take them off to appear from half-way down the train, meaning it is often the last door to be closed on the train. If a train is running in reverse formation, there are a number of GW area stations where signal positions mean that coach A cannot be on the platform, so bikes either have to be removed at a previous stop or, if someone has ignored the announcements to that effect, the train has to stop twice, so a single area is not the panacea you seem to think.

 

[swt_passenger]

It reduces having a 2-car DMU running into Paddington. When Crossrail gets going that EMU to Hayes will be replaced with a Crossrail service. There's going to be a huge increase in capacity into Paddington

The reason given was to remove the flat crossing conflicts between the down trains towards the Greenford branch and through trains on the up relief.

Making better use of platforms at Paddington seems to be more of a side effect.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Which could have been used for an enhanced service from London to Birmingham, which is the principal reason given for HS2.

You're seriously suggesting blowing precious station capacity at Paddington on more services to Birmingham and screwing over Wales and the South West ?

That's quite seriously the most idiotic thing I've heard when discussing the railway network in the UK for many, many years. And I remember some of the audacious drivel that was talked about during the planning for Operation Princess.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Blimey, engine, 17 x 64 foot coaches and engine at the Cross in steam days - you're nearly in Gasworks!

Someone needs to look at how long the trains REALLY were in steam days as well as the length of the platforms at KX back then.

When I worked there, in diesel loco days, you had to have special arrangements for long trains and that wasn't anything near load 17!

 

[swt_passenger]

Blimey, engine, 17 x 64 foot coaches and engine at the Cross in steam days - you're nearly in Gasworks!

Someone needs to look at how long the trains REALLY were in steam days as well as the length of the platforms at KX back then.

When I worked there, in diesel loco days, you had to have special arrangements for long trains and that wasn't anything near load 17!

Probably predates Mark 1s by a generation, when the LNER were running relatively short coaches, around 56 ft?

But we risk the thread going round in circles if we all keep responding to the Scandinavian trolling. It has happened a few times before...

 

[petersi]

It's easy to forget just how many more intercity trains kings cross now has compared to the mid eighties (off peak comparison)
1980's
1 tph leeds
1 tph Edinburgh
1 tph Newcastle

Days of having capacity to have platforms blocked by long trains are long gone

Now
2 tph Leeds
1 tph Edinburgh
1 tph Newcastle
1 tph Newark/York
1 tph open access

how the railway now works is very different to 30 years ago and needs solutions for today's problems

 

[asylumxl]

It's easy to forget just how many more intercity trains kings cross now has compared to the mid eighties (off peak comparison)
1980's
1 tph leeds
1 tph Edinburgh
1 tph Newcastle

Days of having capacity to have platforms blocked by long trains are long gone

Now
2 tph Leeds
1 tph Edinburgh
1 tph Newcastle
1 tph Newark/York
1 tph open access

how the railway now works is very different to 30 years ago and needs solutions for today's problems

Quite a shame the Edinburgh trains frequency has stayed stagnant. I use them regularly and they are pretty rammed the whole way.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Ah yes, let's make the circulation area behind the buffers at Paddington a narrow strip again and cut Liverpool Street station in half again... just in case you haven't noticed, UK rail passenger numbers have doubled and the chief executive of Network Rail, Mark Carne, told MPs and peers last week that he expects them to double again in the next 25 years, so shrinking concourses is about the last thing that will be needed.

Talk about flogging a dead horse. We've had all your sums about bogie spacings and optimum lengths umpteen times. We know the UK loading gauge is an issue but it's not going to go away, nor are the growing numbers of passengers, so 21.5m coaches are not going to be optimum for anything at all except causing overcrowding.

The IEPs are not going to be used in Sweden, we're not in the 1960s and in the 1960s people's luggage tended to be rather smaller than the huge things people lug around today, which are entirely unsuitable for dragging up and down the aisles inside the passenger saloon on trains, never mind storing them there. Which might by why all these trains all over Europe, Sweden included, have luggage racks in places that encourage people to leave their mobile homes near the vestibule areas. If luggage thefts are at epidemic proportions as a result, let's see some evidence.

HSTs have a single dedicated area for bikes, which often causes delays at places like Oxford and Reading as people wanting to put bikes on have to wait for people wanting to take them off to appear from half-way down the train, meaning it is often the last door to be closed on the train. If a train is running in reverse formation, there are a number of GW area stations where signal positions mean that coach A cannot be on the platform, so bikes either have to be removed at a previous stop or, if someone has ignored the announcements to that effect, the train has to stop twice, so a single area is not the panacea you seem to think.

The concourse at Paddington is much as it always was. The former concourse area was converted to retail, thereby losing about three coach lengths. In steam days, one of these lengths was occupied by the locomotive that brought the train in, and there was still space for 16-17 coaches plus the train locomotive. An additional retail floor was then inserted. If the ground level retail were removed and the mezzanine extended, that enables the lost platform length to be retained and retains the retail floor space. Problem solved.

As regards problems due to reverse formation and short platforms, then the solution is to put the cycle space and conductor's cubicle in the centre of the formation. Problem solved.

People in the 1950s often had more luggage than they do now. It was common to travel with cabin trunks, especially pupils at boarding schools and university students. Nowadays if people were taking that amount of stuff they would make the journey by car. In the 1950s, it would be a taxi to the station and the stuff would be labelled and put in the van. There was no space for large items in compartments.

21.5 m is optimum if you do not want to lose width. 23 m gives the same width as mark 1 stock, which had projecting hinges, handles, etc occupying about 80 mm of overall width.

I am still waiting for the answer to my original question about furnishable length of the IEP, to compare with the furnishable length of 16.8 metres of a mark 3 and enable a like-for-like comparison to be made. Surely someone has this figure of 9 times the bay dimension?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's easy to forget just how many more intercity trains kings cross now has compared to the mid eighties (off peak comparison)
1980's
1 tph leeds
1 tph Edinburgh
1 tph Newcastle

Days of having capacity to have platforms blocked by long trains are long gone

Now
2 tph Leeds
1 tph Edinburgh
1 tph Newcastle
1 tph Newark/York
1 tph open access

how the railway now works is very different to 30 years ago and needs solutions for today's problems

If a platform is long enough to accommodate a 400 metre long train, how is it more blocked than if the standard formation is reduced to 300 metres?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Blimey, engine, 17 x 64 foot coaches and engine at the Cross in steam days - you're nearly in Gasworks!

Someone needs to look at how long the trains REALLY were in steam days as well as the length of the platforms at KX back then.

When I worked there, in diesel loco days, you had to have special arrangements for long trains and that wasn't anything near load 17!

Euston certainly was - 17 was standard for trains like the Royal Scot during the summer.

Old photographs will show. Don't forget that the space included the length of the engine that brought the train in and acted as a banking engine.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Probably predates Mark 1s by a generation, when the LNER were running relatively short coaches, around 56 ft?

But we risk the thread going round in circles if we all keep responding to the Scandinavian trolling. It has happened a few times before...

This "trolling" began with a straightforward request for information about the furnishable length of the IEP, to enable a proper like-for-like comparison to be made. It is a simple piece of information which none of you well-informed sources has yet come up with. It must be around somewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're seriously suggesting blowing precious station capacity at Paddington on more services to Birmingham and screwing over Wales and the South West ?

That's quite seriously the most idiotic thing I've heard when discussing the railway network in the UK for many, many years. And I remember some of the audacious drivel that was talked about during the planning for Operation Princess.

The previous poster referred to a huge increase in capacity. How would three trains an hour screw up all the other services if there really is a huge increase in capacity. This would be all the local services coming into the east side of the station, plus Heathrow Express, which will now use Crossrail

 

[jopsuk]

Euston has a couple of platforms that can take longer trains. Kings Cross has never been able to take trains that long. Paddington may be able/have been able to take a long train on Platform 1, but all the platforms on the northeast side have always been short.

Anyway, you're still tilting at windmills. The Class 800/801 (and 802) are coming, they're being built.

Edit:
trying to find actual formation info. Have found that in 1960 the Royal Scot, Mid-day Scot and Caledonian were made into 8-carriage maximum, seated only for speed purposes

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The previous poster referred to a huge increase in capacity. How would three trains an hour screw up all the other services if there really is a huge increase in capacity. This would be all the local services coming into the east side of the station, plus Heathrow Express, which will now use Crossrail

That's capacity that will be needed sooner rather than later for services to Wales and the South West though.

If you can't understand that it's not just the London to Birmingham corridor which has both capacity and pathing issues, I honestly hold out little hope for you. I've seen some of the more generous growth forecasts and they suggest we could well be looking at the 9 car Class 800 sets being extended to 10 cars and the 5 car sets being extended to either 9 or 10 cars (or a mixture) whilst even the most pessimistic are likely to require additional strengthening and some lengthening or additional sets.

There's significant potential demand on the London to Oxford corridor in particular, it's residents are generally very keen to reduce car use and commute using train or coach where capacity allows.

It would be little more than a sticking plaster solution to an arterial bleed, you would waste almost all the capacity on Birmingham services and still need to build HS2, only you've hamstrung every other route out of Paddington in the pursuit of putting off the inevitable.

Anyway, as is being said repeatedly, it's all academic. IEP and AT300 sets are coming, they're being built, and they'll do the job for which they've been designed quite well.

 

[jimm]

The concourse at Paddington is much as it always was. The former concourse area was converted to retail, thereby losing about three coach lengths. In steam days, one of these lengths was occupied by the locomotive that brought the train in, and there was still space for 16-17 coaches plus the train locomotive. An additional retail floor was then inserted. If the ground level retail were removed and the mezzanine extended, that enables the lost platform length to be retained and retains the retail floor space. Problem solved.

No, it's not as it always was. The buffer stops at Paddington were moved several metres west to extend the passenger circulation area between the barrier line and the buildings. Someone else may know the date.

I note you have nothing to say about Liverpool Street, where the old arrangement with a couple of extra-long platforms cut the station in two and was bloody awful.

As regards problems due to reverse formation and short platforms, then the solution is to put the cycle space and conductor's cubicle in the centre of the formation. Problem solved.

Or have several bike spaces spread the length of the train so the cyclists are not all fighting to get in and out of one door - oh, that's what they are doing.

People in the 1950s often had more luggage than they do now. It was common to travel with cabin trunks, especially pupils at boarding schools and university students. Nowadays if people were taking that amount of stuff they would make the journey by car. In the 1950s, it would be a taxi to the station and the stuff would be labelled and put in the van. There was no space for large items in compartments.

I wasn't talking about 1950s luggage. Yes, people will likely use the car for the purposes you describe these days, but I was talking about the sort of things people travel on trains with now, which are way larger than the average suitcase used to be. I too plead guilty in that regard.

I am still waiting for the answer to my original question about furnishable length of the IEP, to compare with the furnishable length of 16.8 metres of a mark 3 and enable a like-for-like comparison to be made. Surely someone has this figure of 9 times the bay dimension?

Why don't you just contact Hitachi and ask them?

 

[D365]

It must be around somewhere.

But when information does surface again, in all likelihood, you'll merely glaze over it and carry on with your precious rants, regardless of statistics.

The previous poster referred to a huge increase in capacity. How would three trains an hour screw up all the other services if there really is a huge increase in capacity. This would be all the local services coming into the east side of the station, plus Heathrow Express, which will now use Crossrail

Stop being obnoxious, this is what swt_passenger had said:

The reason given was to remove the flat crossing conflicts between the down trains towards the Greenford branch and through trains on the up relief.

Making better use of platforms at Paddington seems to be more of a side effect.

In no way is the removal of flat crossing conflicts at West Ealing going to give a "huge increase in capacity".

As an separate point of order, HEx has guaranteed track access rights until 2023, and it's more than likely that their service will be the one extended to Reading via Heathrow.

 

[hibtastic]

Quite a shame the Edinburgh trains frequency has stayed stagnant. I use them regularly and they are pretty rammed the whole way.

Not for much longer though. New VTEC franchise promised extra EDB trains and there could be some open access services too.

 

[swt_passenger]

The furnishable length of an IEP carriage, (at least to the level of accuracy required for discussion) can be scaled off the DfT's drawings, as was done quite a while ago in a different thread, and is 20m.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3469/iep-train-layouts.pdf

I'm sure you've been a party to this information before.

 

[SephenWorceste]

On another matter. The draft five car layout does not seem to have many toilets. Particularly only one in first. If that is in use or out of order it quite a way through two other carriages (that may have standing passengers) to the nearest other facilities.

 

[ainsworth74]

Quite a shame the Edinburgh trains frequency has stayed stagnant. I use them regularly and they are pretty rammed the whole way.

Yeah it is a bit of shame. Thankfully change is on the horizon and hopefully from May 2019 there will two trains per hour to Edinburgh which will be a big improvement.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Had the passenger numbers and growth predictions of today been like it when they were built, would all Voyagers and Meridians have been 10/11 car units?

 

[sprinterguy]

Had the passenger numbers and growth predictions of today been like it when they were built, would all Voyagers and Meridians have been 10/11 car units?

Passenger numbers have been rising since 1995/96 (though the response to the Hatfield derailment in 2000/01 and the recession starting to bite in 2008/09 both had negative effects during this period), so no, I don't think it would have made a great deal of difference.

I certainly can't see Virgin Crosscountry going for 10/11 coach trains, at a far higher frequency, to replace 7 coach formations, even with the benefit of hindsight. Before the proposal for push-pull rakes was dropped, the new Crosscountry fleet was intended to consist entirely of four carriage formations.

We only saw Meridians longer than four carriages because Midland Mainline wanted to operate an improved London to Leeds service which the SRA subsequently blocked, which has fortunately allowed much of the rest of the Meridian fleet to be extended to five carriages in length subsequently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On another matter. The draft five car layout does not seem to have many toilets. Particularly only one in first. If that is in use or out of order it quite a way through two other carriages (that may have standing passengers) to the nearest other facilities.

They can't win, eh? The Voyagers are criticised for having too many toilets, and now the class 800/801 units are being criticised for having too few.

Granted, the main criticism of the toilets on the Voyagers is the size of them, rather than the total number. Looking at the draft plans I actually agree that there is a long stretch without toilets at one end of these trains. I wonder whether this is something that might get changed round on the production trains.

 

[petersi]

Looks as though the project for the ecml could be in difficulty
https://ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2015.09.21.04.00.archive.txt
"So which schemes could be consigned to Sir Peter’s ‘unaffordable in CP5’ category? Well obviously the Trans-Pennine and Midland Main Line electrification projects. Other ‘probables’ are also outlined in the column and a sure sign that things are really desperate is the appearance of IEP readiness on the ECML in this category. "

Hope it is wrong

 

[asylumxl]

It's quite sad when a modernisation programme is considered an "impossible dream".

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Looks as though the project for the ecml could be in difficulty
https://ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2015.09.21.04.00.archive.txt
"So which schemes could be consigned to Sir Peter’s ‘unaffordable in CP5’ category? Well obviously the Trans-Pennine and Midland Main Line electrification projects. Other ‘probables’ are also outlined in the column and a sure sign that things are really desperate is the appearance of IEP readiness on the ECML in this category. "

Hope it is wrong

What effect would this gave on the franchise agreement then?

 

[jimm]

Looks as though the project for the ecml could be in difficulty
https://ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2015.09.21.04.00.archive.txt
"So which schemes could be consigned to Sir Peter’s ‘unaffordable in CP5’ category? Well obviously the Trans-Pennine and Midland Main Line electrification projects. Other ‘probables’ are also outlined in the column and a sure sign that things are really desperate is the appearance of IEP readiness on the ECML in this category. "

Hope it is wrong

I have a funny feeling that the DfT will give a little bit of 'direction' on the importance of IEP readiness.

 

[Dent]

They can't win, eh? The Voyagers are criticised for having too many toilets, and now the class 800/801 units are being criticised for having too few.

Granted, the main criticism of the toilets on the Voyagers is the size of them, rather than the total number.

As you just acknowledges yourself, the Voyagers are not criticised for having too many toilets, they are criticised for the toilets being unnecessarily large.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I have a funny feeling that the DfT will give a little bit of 'direction' on the importance of IEP readiness.

Only at the cost of something else dropped out of the CP5 plan.
Roger Ford's point was that GW and other costs keep increasing and the overall budget is fixed.
He thinks the MML route upgrade (not electrification) is in trouble too.

 

[SephenWorceste]

I am not overly familiar with the Voyagers. I use HSTs more regularly and they are well equipped with one or two toilets per coach I think on FGW.

 

[Stats]

. Other ‘probables’ are also outlined in the column and a sure sign that things are really desperate is the appearance of IEP readiness on the ECML in this category. "

Hope it is wrong

VTEC have already said (in a letter to the ORR last month on the decision process of all the ECML track applications) that the necessary works programme is slipping and unlikely to be delivered before early CP6.

The ORR have requested Network Rail to report by next Friday on what works are required for the proposed services on the ECML and when they will be delivered by.

 

[southern442]

As you just acknowledges yourself, the Voyagers are not criticised for having too many toilets, they are criticised for the toilets being unnecessarily large.

Surely you mean unnecessarily smelly

 

[Peter Sarf]

VTEC have already said (in a letter to the ORR last month on the decision process of all the ECML track applications) that the necessary works programme is slipping and unlikely to be delivered before early CP6.

The ORR have requested Network Rail to report by next Friday on what works are required for the proposed services on the ECML and when they will be delivered by.

Virgin must be getting rather tired of infrastructure upgrades being curtailed !. I think the ECML upgrades to cater for 80Xs will go ahead - or at least the minimum required to use the 80Xs. Otherwise there will be nowhere soon for the 80Xs to be used !.