GWR Class 800

[najaB]

I'm amazed at how many people can look at a pretty poor quality grab shot of a seat and know how comfortable it will be to sit in.

 

[43074]

I'm struggling to think of any ICE route where the traffic patterns in any way resemble what GWR's long-distance services are being asked to do in weekday peaks. Some of the planned Class 387 services, such as 12-car Swindon queue-busters, will help but in a lot of places the mix of being a long-distance business/leisure train and commuter service all in one will be the day-to-day lot of the 800s and 801s, same as it is for HSTs now, especially when the cost of keeping a roof over one's head in London continues to rise to ever more insane levels and people look for alternatives, thus fuelling yet more long-haul commutes.

I'm not entirely convinced IEP was actually the right option for Bristol & South Wales - perhaps something akin to a fleet of 5- or 10-car Desiro Verve units (125mph top speed, 1/3 and 2/3 door positions etc) would have been more appropriate given the number of important stops and different flows as you allude, but hey-ho it's a bit late to debate that now; I'd be inclined to suggest something similar would suit the semi-fast MML services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The key differences are:-

- Quality of environment - panelling, lighting etc
- Quality of seat
- Legroom

As for commuters crowding out IC services, we need to solve that by using a more WCML-like service pattern on the GWML. Reading commuters should not be using the ICs at all; there needs to be a 12-car EMU fast service for them.

 

[najaB]

Reading commuters should not be using the ICs at all; there needs to be a 12-car EMU fast service for them.

The problem is enforcing it. How do you stop them using the IC services? They'll just see it as more seats being available for them to use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is enforcing it. How do you stop them using the IC services? They'll just see it as more seats being available for them to use.

1. Add pick up/set down restrictions as required (thus removing the trains from the PIS in relevant cases).
2. Manual ticket checks on the relevant platforms at Paddington preventing access to those holding tickets which are not for use on those trains.

This approach seems to work perfectly well for MKC <-> EUS as well as the longer-standing example of WFJ <-> EUS. There may be the odd few that ignore it, but not enough to cause capacity problems on the relevant trains.

You can then have fun once in a while to create the required FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) - drop the Reading stop entirely from time to time (providing an alternative for those travelling between the west and Reading) and have them enjoy their trip to Swindon or beyond and back, with the full fare of course charged for the additional return journey being made from Reading to wherever.

In any case, does everything even need to *stop* at Reading? Quite a number of longer-distance services could simply omit the stop entirely as they do WFJ/MKC. Some could serve Didcot instead, while others could simply run fast.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In any case, does everything even need to *stop* at Reading? Quite a number of longer-distance services could simply omit the stop entirely as they do WFJ/MKC. Some could serve Didcot instead, while others could simply run fast.

The draft IEP timetable has 2tph non-stops Paddington-Bristol Parkway.
That should sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

[cactustwirly]

In any case, does everything even need to *stop* at Reading? Quite a number of longer-distance services could simply omit the stop entirely as they do WFJ/MKC. Some could serve Didcot instead, while others could simply run fast.

Yes, there is a lot of 'backwards' commuting into Reading, also a lot of people travel from Reading to Bristol, Cardiff etc

 

[JamesRowden]

1. Add pick up/set down restrictions as required (thus removing the trains from the PIS in relevant cases).
2. Manual ticket checks on the relevant platforms at Paddington preventing access to those holding tickets which are not for use on those trains.

This approach seems to work perfectly well for MKC <-> EUS as well as the longer-standing example of WFJ <-> EUS. There may be the odd few that ignore it, but not enough to cause capacity problems on the relevant trains.

You can then have fun once in a while to create the required FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) - drop the Reading stop entirely from time to time (providing an alternative for those travelling between the west and Reading) and have them enjoy their trip to Swindon or beyond and back, with the full fare of course charged for the additional return journey being made from Reading to wherever.

In any case, does everything even need to *stop* at Reading? Quite a number of longer-distance services could simply omit the stop entirely as they do WFJ/MKC. Some could serve Didcot instead, while others could simply run fast.

Reading is a hub where many routes connect. Milton Keynes Central only has WCML services. As a result intercity services need to stop at Reading (not neccesarily all intercity services) in order to provide network connectivity.

Pick-up set/down limitations between Reading and Paddington would be futile since you would make the trains busier west of Reading than east and therefore waste capacity between Reading and Paddington. The obvious solution is to do that which is planned and run the services which are not required to stop at Reading for connectivity reasons non-stop through Reading. Those services that I saw in a document as being planned to run non-stop through Reading during the peak are:

• 2tph Bristol Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway the 2tph via Bath, and the 1tph Swansea service provide the required connectivity.
• 1tph Cardiff Central the Swansea service will stop at Reading, and the Cardiff service will stop at Didcot and Swindon so connections are available.
• 1tph Worcester via Oxford the hourly full length Cotswald service which calls at Reading provides the connectivity.

 

[LexyBoy]

As for commuters crowding out IC services, we need to solve that by using a more WCML-like service pattern on the GWML.

But the GWML is completely different to the WCML. Leaving aside Devon & Cornwall for a minute, the core GWML is London-Bristol & Cardiff. That is not a long distance - comparable to Birmingham on the WCML. In effect, the current service is akin to the LM fasts, and the whole route could be considered a commuter route. I'd also put that Reading and Swindon are more important as both destinations and interchanges than MK and Northampton.

The proposed services post-IEP do include some limited stop services to Bristol and Cardiff - like Virgin on the WCML - but I don't think there's the same level of demand for end-to-end travel (purely on population grounds), plus capacity is limited as the GWML is 2-track for the most part.

Certainly the GWML needs fast, long, outer-suburban EMU services to Oxford and Swindon - but I don't believe that this will remove the need for most IC services to keep a similar calling pattern to the status quo. Add enough extra seats with these and the number of "commuters" travelling on IC services will reduce accordingly (and who complains about overcrowding anyway? It's mostly the "commuters", not the long-distance travellers).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pick-up set/down limitations between Reading and Paddington would be futile since you would make the trains busier west of Reading than east and therefore waste capacity between Reading and Paddington.

PU/SD restrictions could be a benefit for some services which are excessively overcrowded between Reading and London. But the first thing to do should be to look at why they are so overcrowded - is there a long gap between London-Reading services? First Off Peak? ...and use this to decide the scheduling of EMU services aimed at Reading/Oxford/Swindon commuters. I'm sure a 1910 Swindon EMU would be welcomed...

 

[AM9]

But the GWML is completely different to the WCML. Leaving aside Devon & Cornwall for a minute, the core GWML is London-Bristol & Cardiff. That is not a long distance - comparable to Birmingham on the WCML. In effect, the current service is akin to the LM fasts, and the whole route could be considered a commuter route. I'd also put that Reading and Swindon are more important as both destinations and interchanges than MK and Northampton.

Actually the core GWML services are comparable to the VTWC services to Birmingham. The fastest LM services from Euston to Birmingham take between 1.5 and 2 hours. The VT services only take just over 1 hour. That's why Virgin reserves its services for longer distance travellers, preventing Watford Junction and most Milton Keynes passengers from cluttering up trains designed for long journeys with relatively long dwell times. I doubt that many travel regularly all the way from Birmingham (New St or Airport), or even Coventry, on slower LM trains all the way into Euston.
The longer Cardiff/Swansea and Exeter services are the equivalent of Liverpoool/Manchester services, so it is even more wasteful filling every spare seat and much of the gangways with commuters between London and the first stop on their trains' long journeys.[/QUOTE]

The proposed services post-IEP do include some limited stop services to Bristol and Cardiff - like Virgin on the WCML - but I don't think there's the same level of demand for end-to-end travel (purely on population grounds), plus capacity is limited as the GWML is 2-track for the most part.

Certainly the GWML needs fast, long, outer-suburban EMU services to Oxford and Swindon - but I don't believe that this will remove the need for most IC services to keep a similar calling pattern to the status quo. Add enough extra seats with these and the number of "commuters" travelling on IC services will reduce accordingly (and who complains about overcrowding anyway? It's mostly the "commuters", not the long-distance travellers).

PU/SD restrictions could be a benefit for some services which are excessively overcrowded between Reading and London. But the first thing to do should be to look at why they are so overcrowded - is there a long gap between London-Reading services? First Off Peak? ...and use this to decide the scheduling of EMU services aimed at Reading/Oxford/Swindon commuters. I'm sure a 1910 Swindon EMU would be welcomed...

If that is so, then why are there so many IC trains running at the moment? I doubt that the DfT are funding them so that they can be crushed as far as Reading or Didcot and then run virtually empty for the rest of the journey. If there is a high demand in the peak hours for travel between Reading and Bristol/Cardiff/Swansea, (which I doubt) then the trains can run just the 36 miles with a few empty seats and pick-up the masses at Reading. That will also reduce the dwell times, releasing more paths.

I think that there is an attraction for travelling to work even short distances on Inter City layout trains. I can remember as far back as the '70s on the GEML where the Norwich trains were packed, the Clactons were full and the outer suburban EMUs which stopped once or twice were half empty. Eventually, rules and stopping restrictions channeled the commuters ont0o the appropriate trains. Providing 1000+ seats on 12 car EMUs is more cost effective and better use of limited line capacity than allowing the hoardes to clog up and slow down the long distance trains. I think the rules will change as demand on the GWML rises. That's why they have decided to provide 5 car units in the mix rather than make every train full length.

 

[JamesRowden]

I have a table from the Great Western Route Utilisation study to throw in the face of those who think that Reading to London journeys should not be served by long distance stock :

Figure 3.10 – Top 10 LDHS journeys to or from London Paddington (2007/08)
Flows Journeys (million)
Reading 4.6
Didcot Parkway 1.1
Swindon 1.0
Bristol Temple Meads 0.9
Bath Spa 0.8
Cardiff Central 0.7
Bristol Parkway 0.6
Newbury 0.6
Exeter St Davids 0.4
Chippenham 0.4

As can be seen, Reading had more LDHS journeys to/from London Paddington than the next 5 stations combined.

 

[jimm]

Can we please not turn this into yet another thread about Reading-Paddington commuting?

I may have mentioned the c-word above but that was in the context of comments made about the IEP interior and the jobs the GW 800/801s are going to be doing - which, Neil, is not the same job that the ICEs do in Germany, TGVs do in France, AVEs in Spain, etc - because we live in a small, crowded country where long-distance commuting is a fact of life, which the trains have to be able to handle.

And since you presumably have not been inside that Class 800 and sat in one of the seats, you cannot possibly know whether any of the following applies from a dodgy picture taken through a window using a mobile phone, with the possible exception of the legroom - but that looks generous enough to me, though an NBA basketball player might disagree...

The key differences are:-

- Quality of environment - panelling, lighting etc
- Quality of seat
- Legroom

 

[AM9]

I have a table from the Great Western Route Utilisation study to throw in the face of those who think that Reading to London journeys should not be served by long distance stock :



As can be seen, Reading had more LDHS journeys to/from London Paddington than the next 5 stations combined.

So what, you seem to have missed the point of this discussion. those figures are for the year 2007/8 and published nearly 5 years ago. Even if they are still true today, that's because most of the capacity between Reading and London is provided by HSTs despite it being overloaded. It would be much more meaningful if it compared GWML IC service loadings with other outer suburban railheads usage on other routes into London, e.g. Milton Keynes and Peterborough. LDHS is irrelevant, it's the expensive to provide, long distance style of coach interiors (including class 390s) that is the attraction that needs to be curbed. With little else in terms of faster trains running through Reading, the GWML Inter City services have been misused for a number of years.
When electrification is complete and appropriate rolling stock is deployed, (starting with the 387s and 365s) a suitable timetable with PU/SD restrictions will probably be introduced to put the commuters with shorter journey tickets onto the right type of trains.

 

[JamesRowden]

So what, you seem to have missed the point of this discussion. those figures are for the year 2007/8 and published nearly 5 years ago. Even if they are still true today, that's because most of the capacity between Reading and London is provided by HSTs despite it being overloaded. It would be much more meaningful if it compared GWML IC service loadings with other outer suburban railheads usage on other routes into London, e.g. Milton Keynes and Peterborough. LDHS is irrelevant, it's the expensive to provide, long distance style of coach interiors (including class 390s) that is the attraction that needs to be curbed. With little else in terms of faster trains running through Reading, the GWML Inter City services have been misused for a number of years.
When electrification is complete and appropriate rolling stock is deployed, (starting with the 387s and 365s) a suitable timetable with PU/SD restrictions will probably be introduced to put the commuters with shorter journey tickets onto the right type of trains.

So you think that people making Reading to Paddington journeys should not be deterred from traveling on intercity stock, that the intercity service on the GWML should be massively reduced compared to its present form with some semi-fast Bristol services added operated using 387s, and that therefore the DfT have ordered far too many class 800/801s for the GWML?

If you don't think that then the maths of your argument simply doesn't add up.

 

[jimm]

The true point of the discussion in this thread is the Class 800/801 fleet, not Reading-Paddington commuting. Knock it off - or start a separate thread/reopen one of the many old ones...

 

[JamesRowden]

The true point of the discussion in this thread is the Class 800/801 fleet, not Reading-Paddington commuting. Knock it off - or start a separate thread/reopen one of the many old ones...

AM9 does seem to imply that too many 800/801s have been ordered, but I suppose that is a diagramming question rather than a Traction & Rolling Stock question

 

[RobShipway]

AM9 does seem to imply that too many 800/801s have been ordered, but I suppose that is a diagramming question rather than a Traction & Rolling Stock question

Besides which, we will not officially know what services the trains will do until the Class 800/801, class 387 and class 365's are introduced.

At the moment, you have the issue that the GWML electrification will be anything up to 2 years late, so in that time things can change.

By 5am this morning Piling should have been completed as far as Tilehurst according to Network Rail's website.

 

[AM9]

AM9 does seem to imply that too many 800/801s have been ordered, but I suppose that is a diagramming question rather than a Traction & Rolling Stock question

Just like HSTs, 80Xs can and will be reallocated during their Agility Trains contract so the correct balance of stock on the GWML and other lines can be established. If 80Xs are to perform in a similar role to that of the HSTs over the last 20+ years, they are likely to find their way onto cleared routes such as the MML and the various XC services (as electrification proceeds). DfT (or any successor Govenment body) will be free to send them wherever the high-cost units are best suited. They are not (owned) by the current or future GWML TOC, (or their passengers).
The need to establish manufacturing in the UK and secure jobs was a major driver in the ordering of initial high quantities of the design. consequently, the high cost per seat will need to be justified throughout their operating life.

 

[The Ham]

Just like HSTs, 80Xs can and will be reallocated during their Agility Trains contract so the correct balance of stock on the GWML and other lines can be established. If 80Xs are to perform in a similar role to that of the HSTs over the last 20+ years, they are likely to find their way onto cleared routes such as the MML and the various XC services (as electrification proceeds). DfT (or any successor Govenment body) will be free to send them wherever the high-cost units are best suited. They are not (owned) by the current or future GWML TOC, (or their passengers).
The need to establish manufacturing in the UK and secure jobs was a major driver in the ordering of initial high quantities of the design. consequently, the high cost per seat will need to be justified throughout their operating life.

One problem with comparing costs is that we know the total bill for the lease over the 27.5 years of their service and people are comparing that to today's prices. However by the time 2044 rolls around what is very expensive will be fairly cheap. As if inflation runs at 2% per year what currently costs £1 will cost £1.70.

Also given the number of seats, assuming each train is used for one return journey a day (which I would suggest is underestimating), there will be about 1 billion seats over the life of the trains which means that each seat over the life of the train will cost circ £5.50. Hardly a large figure, especially as a) some trains will run multiple runs in a day (bearing in mind even before journey time savings London-Swansea is 3 hours) b) many seats could be used more than once. However, I also haven't accounted for that not all the seats will be occupied all the time. As such I think the figure is fairly a reasonable estimate of the revenue that would need to be generated per ticket to cover the cost of the lease for the train.

As such every seat would only need to be used (say) once per day off peak between Reading and London (£18) even allowing for other costs to be worth getting. Even if the cost per seat was half that calculated (due to having cheaper trains) it would have little impact on profitability of the services.

 

[najaB]

As such every seat would only need to be used (say) once per day off peak between Reading and London (£18) even allowing for other costs to be worth getting. Even if the cost per seat was half that calculated (due to having cheaper trains) it would have little impact on profitability of the services.

While I totally agree with the sentiment of your post, this analysis only looks at capital costs and ignores operating costs.

 

[jimm]

Just like HSTs, 80Xs can and will be reallocated during their Agility Trains contract so the correct balance of stock on the GWML and other lines can be established. If 80Xs are to perform in a similar role to that of the HSTs over the last 20+ years, they are likely to find their way onto cleared routes such as the MML and the various XC services (as electrification proceeds). DfT (or any successor Govenment body) will be free to send them wherever the high-cost units are best suited. They are not (owned) by the current or future GWML TOC, (or their passengers).
The need to establish manufacturing in the UK and secure jobs was a major driver in the ordering of initial high quantities of the design. consequently, the high cost per seat will need to be justified throughout their operating life.

But no one is going to send them away from the GWML when passenger numbers across the UK are currently growing by something like six per cent a year - and it is higher than that in a number of cases, such as the Cotswold Line, a route where GWR is already on record as saying that it will need to deploy a set from the AT300 order for the West Country to provide enough trains for the planned peak-hour service from 2018, due to the projected diagramming demands on the initial 800/801 fleets - and this is even with the 387s added to the mix and picking up some current short-distance HST work such as Oxford/Didcot peak queue-busters.

 

[The Ham]

While I totally agree with the sentiment of your post, this analysis only looks at capital costs and ignores operating costs.

Which is why I picked a fairly short distance journey in the off peak.

Given that a lot of people travel peak time, where the return from Reading jumps to £44, and/or travel further distances which are also more expensive and most units will do 2 or even 3 return journeys per day then there is a lot of scope to cover all the operating costs.

Also IIRC the contract costs also include the cost of maintenance which covers most of the operating costs of the trains.

 

[najaB]

Also IIRC the contract costs also include the cost of maintenance which covers most of the operating costs of the trains.

Does it also include track access and staffing costs?

 

[The Ham]

But no one is going to send them away from the GWML when passenger numbers across the UK are currently growing by something like six per cent a year - and it is higher than that in a number of cases, such as the Cotswold Line, a route where GWR is already on record as saying that it will need to deploy a set from the AT300 order for the West Country to provide enough trains for the planned peak-hour service from 2018, due to the projected diagramming demands on the initial 800/801 fleets - and this is even with the 387s added to the mix and picking up some current short-distance HST work such as Oxford/Didcot peak queue-busters.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the next franchise lengthen some units (either from 9 to 10 coaches and/or from 5 to 9 or 10 coaches) as a service which is currently generating enough passengers for a 9 coach 800/801 to be 75% full could be getting on for 90% full by the time the new franchise starts. Adding a tenth coach would only reduce capacity to 80%.

Even a service which currently has 250 passengers (so suitable for a 5 coach train) could be getting close to 300 passengers by the start of the next franchise, meaning a 5 coach train would likely be unsuitable.

 

[jimm]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the next franchise lengthen some units (either from 9 to 10 coaches and/or from 5 to 9 or 10 coaches) as a service which is currently generating enough passengers for a 9 coach 800/801 to be 75% full could be getting on for 90% full by the time the new franchise starts. Adding a tenth coach would only reduce capacity to 80%.

Even a service which currently has 250 passengers (so suitable for a 5 coach train) could be getting close to 300 passengers by the start of the next franchise, meaning a 5 coach train would likely be unsuitable.

Well the options for 30 more AT300 trains - of unspecified size - are there and Hull Trains would only account for a few, same as the First Group open access London-Edinburgh service, should that happen.

 

[sbatts43]

But no one is going to send them away from the GWML when passenger numbers across the UK are currently growing by something like six per cent a year - and it is higher than that in a number of cases, such as the Cotswold Line, a route where GWR is already on record as saying that it will need to deploy a set from the AT300 order for the West Country to provide enough trains for the planned peak-hour service from 2018, due to the projected diagramming demands on the initial 800/801 fleets - and this is even with the 387s added to the mix and picking up some current short-distance HST work such as Oxford/Didcot peak queue-busters.

I have a e-mail which came today. I asked GWR how many carriages will these new Hitachi trains have going down to the West Country. Answer was 10 carriages which is an increase from what the HST are operating which was 5. Now I thought that HST have 7 or 8 carriages on them. Overall It will mean an extra 9,000 seats on our services across the network so they say. Just thought I let people know.

 

[sprinterguy]

I have a e-mail which came today. I asked GWR how many carriages will these new Hitachi trains have going down to the West Country. Answer was 10 carriages which is an increase from what the HST are operating which was 5. Now I thought that HST have 7 or 8 carriages on them. Overall It will mean an extra 9,000 seats on our services across the network so they say. Just thought I let people know.

Great Westerns' HSTs all operate with 8 carriages.

The AT-300 trains that have been ordered for the West Country services will operate as 9-car units (7 trains) and pairs of 5-car units as far west as Plymouth (22 trains - giving the maximum 10 carriage length stated).

 

[Haydn1971]

I notice that someone on Wikipedia has been having fun with sub-classes for the Class 800, referencing a website called "abrail".

 

[coppercapped]

One problem with comparing costs is that we know the total bill for the lease over the 27.5 years of their service and people are comparing that to today's prices. However by the time 2044 rolls around what is very expensive will be fairly cheap. As if inflation runs at 2% per year what currently costs £1 will cost £1.70.

Er, not quite! On 9th July 2014 the National Audit Office published a report (Procuring new trains HC 531 Session 2014-15 9 July 2014) which was openly critical of the way the DfT procured the IEP and Thameslink trains.

The figures quoted for the total programme cost (£4.1 billion) for the 27.5 year length of the IEP contract were quoted at Net Present Value figures. That is, the expenses incurred in the future were deflated to current values allowing for future inflation. This means that the costs in the future will remain at the same relative values as they are today - the costs of running the trains will not apparently decrease with time.

The financial figures included in the NAO’s report for the IEP were analysed by Roger Ford in the August 2014 edition of Modern Railways on pages 30 to 31. He concluded that the annual charge on the train operator for the Western’s tranche of trains will be some £300 million (my rounding).

Using data from the ORR it can be shown that this annual charge for the IEP fleet alone will be some three times what fGW has paid, and what GWR now pays, for all of its trains - HSTs, Class 180s, Class 165 and 166, Class 150s and so on and so forth.

I wrote to the DfT about this matter, and received a reply from Claire Perry which did not explicitly disagree with this analysis but stated that the costs of running the Class 800 fleet will not affect fare levels.

In other words - the taxpayer will pay as the premium payable by the present and future GW franchise holders will not be as large as they would have been if the train service provision payments were not so high.

However you cut it - buying train miles using a PFI-type deal ('Train Service Provision') is an expensive way of running a railway.

 

[The Ham]

Er, not quite! On 9th July 2014 the National Audit Office published a report (Procuring new trains HC 531 Session 2014-15 9 July 2014) which was openly critical of the way the DfT procured the IEP and Thameslink trains.

The figures quoted for the total programme cost (£4.1 billion) for the 27.5 year length of the IEP contract were quoted at Net Present Value figures. That is, the expenses incurred in the future were deflated to current values allowing for future inflation. This means that the costs in the future will remain at the same relative values as they are today - the costs of running the trains will not apparently decrease with time.

The financial figures included in the NAO’s report for the IEP were analysed by Roger Ford in the August 2014 edition of Modern Railways on pages 30 to 31. He concluded that the annual charge on the train operator for the Western’s tranche of trains will be some £300 million (my rounding).

Using data from the ORR it can be shown that this annual charge for the IEP fleet alone will be some three times what fGW has paid, and what GWR now pays, for all of its trains - HSTs, Class 180s, Class 165 and 166, Class 150s and so on and so forth.

I wrote to the DfT about this matter, and received a reply from Claire Perry which did not explicitly disagree with this analysis but stated that the costs of running the Class 800 fleet will not affect fare levels.

In other words - the taxpayer will pay as the premium payable by the present and future GW franchise holders will not be as large as they would have been if the train service provision payments were not so high.

However you cut it - buying train miles using a PFI-type deal ('Train Service Provision') is an expensive way of running a railway.

The point was more to do with the amount of money that the cost per seat would be compared with the cost of a ticket. Therefore what appears to be expensive now will not be expensive in 25 years time.

Likewise comparing the cost of old trains with brand new trains isn't the same, especially as the new trains include the cost of maintenance.

If the IEP order such bad value it's then surprising that GWR has ordered AT300's.