GWR Class 800

[Jonny]

Would it be possible to use top-and-tail or even double-headed Class 91 trains, possibly with a DVT in the consist for the guard or a TGS conversion once some of the route has been cleared, as a short-term patch to give enhanced acceleration while part of the route is cleared?

While I'm on, what infrastructure changes are needed for the ECML to take IEP? What about delivery from Newton Aycliffe?

 

[jimm]

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.

IEP is the DfT's pet project. Failure/delay is simply not an option now. New trains that cost the earth - thanks to DfT's fumblings - are not going to be allowed to sit in sidings doing nothing. It is far easier to kick other things down the road and that's what will happen. And rather than relying on Roger Ford - who has made the odd fumble himself down the years - it's probably best to wait until the reviews and reviews of reviews all report.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

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.



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.



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.



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

The buffer stops at Paddington were indeed moved westwards, about three coach lengths. And the previous circulation space, known as The Lawn, then became retail. Then a mezzanine was built on top with more retail. The previous platform and circulation space could be reclaimed if necessary and the mezzanine extended to retain the retail area thereby lost.

Liverpool Street worked perfectly well before. There was a high level walkway ie at street level then, and there is now, only it has been enlarged to make it into a mezzanine. I thought there was someone who was writing on this thread who would have known. Bay dimension is a key parameter in passenger stock. I did not mention it because it appears to cope with trains with a locomotive at one end and a DVT at the other ie two vehicle lengths are not passenger-carrying. It is also a long way off the original question which concerned the furnishable length of an IEP vehicle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

It does not really show and it is too small to scale from. There are seats in the windowless areas at the ends, which can hardly be described as "furnishable".
--- 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.

You do realise that the section of the old Birmingham main line from Old Oak Common to Northolt Junction is now "dead infrastructure"?
--- 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...

The Royal Scot was 17 in the summer in the 1950s. Scandinavian Troll used it regularly and one day I actually counted. The platforms at Euston and Glasgow Central had space for the banking engine, all the carriages and the locomotive, which was at the very end of the platform.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.



Stop being obnoxious, this is what swt_passenger had said:



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.

The main Paddington to Birmingham route did not go through West Ealing. It diverges at Old Oak Common and runs via Northolt. It that section of route now going to become "dead infrastructure"?

 

[D365]

It does not really show and it is too small to scale from. There are seats in the windowless areas at the ends, which can hardly be described as "furnishable".

Oh I see you're about to take a tape measure and do it all yourself... I for one am looking forward to seeing your constructive reprisal of the AT300 'family' upon their launch to the public.

You do realise that the section of the old Birmingham main line from Old Oak Common to Northolt Junction is now "dead infrastructure"?

The main Paddington to Birmingham route did not go through West Ealing. It diverges at Old Oak Common and runs via Northolt. It that section of route now going to become "dead infrastructure"?

Plan has changed, HS2 will be put into tunnel north of OOC. Far better value than regauging the existing line, plus it can be redoubled and renewed once construction is completed.

 

[jimm]

The buffer stops at Paddington were indeed moved westwards, about three coach lengths. And the previous circulation space, known as The Lawn, then became retail. Then a mezzanine was built on top with more retail. The previous platform and circulation space could be reclaimed if necessary and the mezzanine extended to retain the retail area thereby lost.

I know all about the Lawn and the shopping thanks, but the hugely increased number of people passing through Paddington these days and the need to provide enough space for them to move around and wait for trains is what matters. That is what is necessary there and that's why the alterations were made in the first place.

And in the halcyon days of the late 1950s, was the Western Region running formations that required platforms stretching half-way to Ealing Broadway? Er, no.

Bristolian 1957-61
7 coach - BCK, FK, FK, BUFFET, SK, SK, BCK
8 coach - BCK, FK, FK, BUFFET, SK, SK, BCK + SK [Monday only]
Cambrian Coast Express 1961
7 coach - BSK/ SK/ FK/ RU/ FK/ SK/ BSK
Cambrian Coast Express 1962
10 coach - BSK/ SK/ FK/ FK/ CK/ SK/ BSK plus RB/ SO/ BSK
Cornish Riviera Express
BTK (LH van), TK, TK, RTO, RF, CK, BTK (RH van) + TK, BCK, BCK ++ CK, BTK (RH), BCK

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/in...-formations-set-letter-codes-1930s-and-1940s/

Liverpool Street worked perfectly well before. There was a high level walkway ie at street level then, and there is now, only it has been enlarged to make it into a mezzanine. I thought there was someone who was writing on this thread who would have known.

That must have been some other Liverpool Street then, because I remember it as a bloody awkward place to get around compared with what is there now. Or maybe I'm just odd thinking what a good idea it is to be able to walk through at platform level... I now await the flood of posts supporting your position.

The Royal Scot was 17 in the summer in the 1950s. Scandinavian Troll used it regularly and one day I actually counted. The platforms at Euston and Glasgow Central had space for the banking engine, all the carriages and the locomotive, which was at the very end of the platform.

So the old Euston had some long platforms. So does the current station. So what?

 

[jon0844]

Having seen the loadings at Paddington and sudden rush to the train once the platform is announced so people can get a seat I believe running 5 cars around in the off peak will result in exactly the same issue you have with Voyagers at the moment. Heaven forbid there might be a couple of spare carriages, no much better that some people have to stand.

If it's like King's Cross then it doesn't really matter how long the train is because many Pele won't walk down even 10 minutes before departure and when the whistle blows everyone is on the first or second set of doors.

To sort this problem you'd be better off with 1 carriage trains, but leaving more regularly (like every minute!) although I think that might mess up the paths a little...

 

[sprinterguy]

While I'm on, what infrastructure changes are needed for the ECML to take IEP? What about delivery from Newton Aycliffe?

I'm assuming that "IEP Readiness" on the ECML covers the following aims in Network Rails' CP5 Enhancement Plan:

Intercity Express Programme (IEP) – East Coast Capability
Scope of works
The scope of works includes development, design and implementation works to introduce trains up to 260m long on the ECML from 2018 onwards. The constituent parts of the infrastructure capability works are as follows:
 gauge clearance on specific routes across ECML this includes provision of a test route;
 a review of all stations where trains are due to stop; this may result in the following
changes:
 platform extensions;
 introduction of selective door opening; and
 revisions to permissive working (attaching/detaching/platform sharing) arrangements;
and overhead line alterations.

IEP is proposed to operate over the core and diversionary routes as defined in the East Coast IEP Network Master Availability and Reliability Network Agreement.

Intercity Express Programme (IEP) – East Coast Power Supply Upgrade
CP5 output driver
The output is upgraded traction power supply capability between Doncaster and London to support Intercity Express Programme and Thameslink requirements and enable the introduction of new rolling stock on the ECML.

Scope of works
On the ECML mainline the scope of works consists of National Grid 400kV feeding supply transformer.
An upgrade of the existing classic overhead line feeding system between Wood Green and Bawtry.
Doncaster-Leeds: Ardsley feeder station has been upgraded with an additional
transformer in CP4.

Note - the upgrade of traction power supplies on the Hertford Loop is not required for either IEP or Thameslink KO2 services and is therefore not included in this scope of works.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

Which does boil down to an excessive number of disabled accessible toilets, though.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The main Paddington to Birmingham route did not go through West Ealing. It diverges at Old Oak Common and runs via Northolt. It that section of route now going to become "dead infrastructure"?

You're still burning through paths along the line from Paddington to Old Oak Common and you're still burning through platform capacity at Paddington itself.

The only way any of your Paddington to Birmingham suggestions make any sort of sense at all is if you have both spare paths available between Paddington and OOC AND there's some sort of imbalance of paths west of OOC somewhere. which can't reasonably be resolved to provide additional paths between Paddington and Wales or the South West.

 

[jopsuk]

Quite. This "run extra express trains from Paddington" plan requires the expresses to cross Crossrail and the GWR locals ON THE FLAT.

It would also mean Birmingham trains departing from three separate stations in London, and these express trains need to have capacity on the increasingly busy Chiltern mainline, which is only a 100mph route at best. It's insanity.

 

[SephenWorceste]

Am I right in thinking the current plans have have the cycle spaces distributed about the new trains? I wonder what will happen on the Cotswold Line where most carriages are not aligned with platforms at many station. I think In theory with the HSTs the bike store area is aligned with the platforms.

Best wishes, Stephen.

 

[swt_passenger]

It does not really show and it is too small to scale from.

Of course it can be scaled from, especially for length. Anyway, I'm out now, I don't really care what you think.

 

[LexyBoy]

Quite. This "run extra express trains from Paddington" plan requires the expresses to cross Crossrail and the GWR locals ON THE FLAT.

It would also mean Birmingham trains departing from three separate stations in London, and these express trains need to have capacity on the increasingly busy Chiltern mainline, which is only a 100mph route at best. It's insanity.

Moreover, if the argument is that "HS2 is about relieving the London-Birmingham WCML", then that would be best achieved by removing IC services from it. Running out of Paddington would cause significant increases in journey times - you'd be better off running them from Marylebone. Not that either is realistic anyway (in terms of capacity and speed).

 

[sprinterguy]

Am I right in thinking the current plans have have the cycle spaces distributed about the new trains? I wonder what will happen on the Cotswold Line where most carriages are not aligned with platforms at many station. I think In theory with the HSTs the bike store area is aligned with the platforms.

If the actual layouts are anything like the draft ones, then the five car units will have a pair of cycle storage units sharing a vestibule (space for 4 bikes in total), while the nine car units will have two pairs located in adjacent vestibules (space for a total of 8 bikes - Although Hitachi have previously said they will have space for 10?). In both cases these will be about a third of the way down the length of the train.

 

[jimm]

Am I right in thinking the current plans have have the cycle spaces distributed about the new trains? I wonder what will happen on the Cotswold Line where most carriages are not aligned with platforms at many station. I think In theory with the HSTs the bike store area is aligned with the platforms.

Best wishes, Stephen.

Outside the peaks and the busiest weekend services, the overwhelming majority of Class 800 services on the Cotswold Line will be five-car, which will fit just fine on most of the platforms at the main stations.

The bike spaces are indeed distributed throughout the trains but even with two or three coaches of each set on platforms when a pair of trains is in use, that still means there should be a good number of bike spaces available - it might also help if the peak-period restrictions on carriage of bikes and bike reservations were actually enforced on this route.

The TGS on an HST is only supposed to take six bikes anyway (and 180s take three bikes at each end of the train) so overall capacity shouldn't be that different. If a westbound HST is in reverse formation, the position of the starting signals at both Moreton-in-Marsh and Evesham means the TGS is not on the platform.

 

[SephenWorceste]

If the actual layouts are anything like the draft ones, then the five car units will have a pair of cycle storage units sharing a vestibule (space for 4 bikes in total), while the nine car units will have two pairs located in adjacent vestibules (space for a total of 8 bikes - Although Hitachi have previously said they will have space for 10?). In both cases these will be about a third of the way down the length of the train.

As long as the right carriages are aligned with the platform. It should be possible to get bicycles on and off at all stations. For both five and nine car trains. Thank you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Outside the peaks and the busiest weekend services, the overwhelming majority of Class 800 services on the Cotswold Line will be five-car, which will fit just fine on most of the platforms at the main stations.

The bike spaces are indeed distributed throughout the trains but even with two or three coaches of each set on platforms when a pair of trains is in use, that still means there should be a good number of bike spaces available - it might also help if the peak-period restrictions on carriage of bikes and bike reservations were actually enforced on this route.

The TGS on an HST is only supposed to take six bikes anyway (and 180s take three bikes at each end of the train) so overall capacity shouldn't be that different. If a westbound HST is in reverse formation, the position of the starting signals at both Moreton-in-Marsh and Evesham means the TGS is not on the platform.

Of course the two trains joined up service services will be interesting. Presumably one trains cycle storage will be usable. This will be quite a reduction in capacity. It would make sense for it to be the same train throughout the whole journey. Imagine if you loaded your bicycle in Worcester and a different train was on the platform at say Moreton in Marsh where you wanted to get off. The reservation system will have to take this in to account. Thank you.

 

[Dent]

Which does boil down to an excessive number of disabled accessible toilets, though.

That's about the number of disabled access versus other toilets, not the number of toilets.

The statement that "The Voyagers are criticised for having too many toilets" is as false statement, as is the statement that "They can't win". They could very easily "win" by providing the required number of disabled access toilets plus an adequate number of other toilets.

In fact a criticism of the voyagers is that they have too few toilets for the number of passenger.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Quite. This "run extra express trains from Paddington" plan requires the expresses to cross Crossrail and the GWR locals ON THE FLAT.

It would also mean Birmingham trains departing from three separate stations in London, and these express trains need to have capacity on the increasingly busy Chiltern mainline, which is only a 100mph route at best. It's insanity.

Yes it would eventually require a grade separated junction at Old Oak Common to gain access to the abandoned stretch of main line to Northolt Junction.

Using Paddington for some Chiltern Line services would release capacity at Marylebone, which as was pointed out elsewhere, is now becoming congested. It would also lead to shorter journey times as it would cut off the Finchley Road-Neasden long way round.

 

[jimm]

As long as the right carriages are aligned with the platform. It should be possible to get bicycles on and off at all stations. For both five and nine car trains. Thank you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course the two trains joined up service services will be interesting. Presumably one trains cycle storage will be usable. This will be quite a reduction in capacity. It would make sense for it to be the same train throughout the whole journey. Imagine if you loaded your bicycle in Worcester and a different train was on the platform at say Moreton in Marsh where you wanted to get off. The reservation system will have to take this in to account. Thank you.

We don't know yet that the draft layouts' bike storage arrangement is the one that will be used on the finished trains and most of the bikes being carried in peaks on the Cotswold Line tend to be between Hanborough or Charlbury and Oxford, by the same people, so they will quickly learn the routine on where to be positioned, same as they have with 166s, 180s and HSTs.

And due to the current issues with the position of the TGS is if an HST is in reverse formation, staff are all already well aware of the need to make sure people and bikes are in the right places to board and alight, so I'm sure they will adapt with the new trains.

Someone at GWR will have been looking at issues like this all over the network anyway, as there are short platforms in other places too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes it would eventually require a grade separated junction at Old Oak Common to gain access to the abandoned stretch of main line to Northolt Junction.

Using Paddington for some Chiltern Line services would release capacity at Marylebone, which as was pointed out elsewhere, is now becoming congested. It would also lead to shorter journey times as it would cut off the Finchley Road-Neasden long way round.

So you're saying Paddington isn't congested too? Platform space freed when Crossrail opens will be used by extra GW main line services and Crossrail's trains won't be disappearing off the tracks at Old Oak Common, they will still be using the route all the way to and from Royal Oak. Chiltern passengers would, I'm sure, really enjoy having to play a 'which station do I need?' game in London.

 

[RobShipway]

We don't know yet that the draft layouts' bike storage arrangement is the one that will be used on the finished trains and most of the bikes being carried in peaks on the Cotswold Line tend to be between Hanborough or Charlbury and Oxford, by the same people, so they will quickly learn the routine on where to be positioned, same as they have with 166s, 180s and HSTs.

And due to the current issues with the position of the TGS is if an HST is in reverse formation, staff are all already well aware of the need to make sure people and bikes are in the right places to board and alight, so I'm sure they will adapt with the new trains.

Someone at GWR will have been looking at issues like this all over the network anyway, as there are short platforms in other places too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So you're saying Paddington isn't congested too? Platform space freed when Crossrail opens will be used by extra GW main line services and Crossrail's trains won't be disappearing off the tracks at Old Oak Common, they will still be using the route all the way to and from Royal Oak. Chiltern passengers would, I'm sure, really enjoy having to play a 'which station do I need?' game in London.

Last time I checked Paddington was congested Monday to Friday and can only cope just about with extra Chiltern trains at Weekends when there is engineering work on the Chiltern line. But then it is only one extra train at a time.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

So you're saying Paddington isn't congested too? Platform space freed when Crossrail opens will be used by extra GW main line services and Crossrail's trains won't be disappearing off the tracks at Old Oak Common, they will still be using the route all the way to and from Royal Oak. Chiltern passengers would, I'm sure, really enjoy having to play a 'which station do I need?' game in London.

Someone else pointed out that Crossrail would release a lot of space at Paddington. What a pity that Crossrail comes up to the surface at Royal Oak and not further away eg Old Oak Common. As it is, HS2 has to go underground at OAC instead, the stretch of the old main line from OAC to Northolt is effectively unusable, and the line to Birmingham via High Wycombe can only be served from Marylebone, which is now obviously congested and with no room for expansion, whilst Euston will have to be completely rebuilt.

Chiltern passengers would not have had to play any games as the Birmingham services could have been returned to Paddington and the local ones to High Wycombe.

Oh well, it is all too late now and becomes a speculation on what might have been.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Someone else pointed out that Crossrail would release a lot of space at Paddington. What a pity that Crossrail comes up to the surface at Royal Oak and not further away eg Old Oak Common. As it is, HS2 has to go underground at OAC instead, the stretch of the old main line from OAC to Northolt is effectively unusable, and the line to Birmingham via High Wycombe can only be served from Marylebone, which is now obviously congested and with no room for expansion, whilst Euston will have to be completely rebuilt.

Chiltern passengers would not have had to play any games as the Birmingham services could have been returned to Paddington and the local ones to High Wycombe.

Oh well, it is all too late now and becomes a speculation on what might have been.

All the space made available at Paddington by Crossrail is being used for more long distance GWML services. That's the end of it. There is no space for Birmingham Chiltern trains to go to Paddington, nor is there any need or demand for it to happen. If you want to relieve space at Marylebone, you would instead consider running some of the Chiltern locals onto Crossrail via the NNML, as it can only realistically connect to the GWML Relief lines.

 

[CardiffKid]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/electrification-dubbed-shambles-multi-billion-10287160

Electrification dubbed 'shambles' as multi-billion pound electric trains may also have diesel engines because tracks won't be ready

Seems that the Class 801 might be fitted with Diesel tanks too

 

[Iskra]

Seems silly. Why not just send them to the ECML first instead, rather than fitting diesel engines?

 

[Stats]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/electrification-dubbed-shambles-multi-billion-10287160

Seems that the Class 801 might be fitted with Diesel tanks too

It has been known the Government have a commercially confidential quote for converting Class 801s for bi-mode operation since July.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...nts/written-question/Commons/2015-07-16/7660/

 

[The Ham]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/electrification-dubbed-shambles-multi-billion-10287160



Seems that the Class 801 might be fitted with Diesel tanks too

Being pedantic the 801's will have always been planned to diesel tanks.

Even if the slow progress of electrification means that not all the lines are wired up ready for delivery of all the 800's/801's then it is unlikely to cause too much of a problem.

Firstly, if needed gWr can always use some of the AT300's which are planed to be delivered from Summer 2018 (about the time which the final 801's are due to be delivered). In which case it could be possible that gWr come to an agreement with Hitachi to deliver the AT300's sooner and the 801's later, with NR covering the cost of said agreement.

A second (less popular) option could be to use the 801's running at 40 mph if they needed to run a short distance off the wires. Overall end to end journey times could be broadly the same however the bit off the wires would be slower.

Failing that gWr can always keep a few HST's running (I would suggest down to the West Country, as it is fairly self contained) until there is enough electrification.

IIRC the IEP order was finalised BEFORE the plans to electrify the line to Swansea were authorised, this has (in the past) lead to a lot of comments about there going to be a lot of 800's which would be running services under the wires when they could have been 801's. As such, if electrification is delayed, it just removes the problem of there being too many 800's for the first few years of the trains being in service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It has been known the Government have a commercially confidential quote for converting Class 801s for bi-mode operation since July.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...nts/written-question/Commons/2015-07-16/7660/

More likely the quote has been in place since the contract was placed. Just as a way of being prudent given that the wires don't exist.

Although it would be politically bad news to have to announce that you were going to have change the specification of the all* the electric trains so that they could carry on running. It would be political suicide to have sidings full of brand new electric trains with nowhere to go.

*even if there are no wires west of Bristol when the final 801 is delivered it is unlikely to require the engines to be included in all of them.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Even if the slow progress of electrification means that not all the lines are wired up ready for delivery of all the 800's/801's then it is unlikely to cause too much of a problem.

There are other options being looked at, with various other franchises and orders being mentioned.

One option, as I understand it, is to re-work the EC deliveries, and re-direct the EC bi-mode sets to GW, have a period on hire, refurbish, fit the upgraded catering and deliver to EC.

There's a few other different permutations that could come into play, if more orders for bi-mode units are forthcoming.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

All of which demonstrates yet again that a decision to use locomotives and coaches would have the flexibility and robustness needed to provide against this kind of uncertainty.

And why has this happened? Because some civil servants went to Crewe, looked at the inefficient loco changing there, and concluded that what had previously been done regularly in under five minute at places like Rickmansworth, Crewe and Bournemouth for decades could not be done in less than twelve.

 

[Haydn1971]

All of which demonstrates yet again....

Absolutely nothing !

 

[D365]

 

[47802]

Absolutely nothing !

Indeed usual load of hysterics on anything to do with IEP, and I guess its not about just late running electrification but also the need to release 27 HST's to Scotrail which will in turn release Sprinters elsewhere.