GWR Class 800

[jimm]

For all those desperately worried about the seatback tables in first class on the 800s, here's a picture showing a bit of them when the first set was unveiled at Kasado.

http://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/na...arriage-of-hitachis-nachrichtenfoto/458959274

They look to be just the same design as was seen in the studio mock-up, pictured here

http://d20tdhwx2i89n1.cloudfront.ne...en_article_large_940/ilkpmx62bi19tgqmlrhw.jpg

 

[southern442]

For all those desperately worried about the seatback tables in first class on the 800s, here's a picture showing a bit of them when the first set was unveiled at Kasado.

http://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/na...arriage-of-hitachis-nachrichtenfoto/458959274

Nice to see the train has been prepared for the grand reopening of the Burnham-on-Sea branch!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

For the length of vehicle, the seating density is no greater than those much heralded paragons of comfort, the mark 2 and mark 3 coaches (post-eighties refurb for the latter):

20 metre mark 2 seats 64.
23 metre mark 3 seats 76.
26 metre AT-300 seats 88.

The maximum number of seats per vehicle is no greater than that proposed by BR for its' 26 metre mark 5 carriage in 1993, so if that's "just the way it's going now" then it has been doing so for over twenty years.

The mark 2 comparison is interesting because all the seating was in table bays of four, and the bay dimension was 1.95, corresponding to a pitch of 975 mm - a very generous amount compared with eg class 180 (1.90 bay) and class 377 (1.8 bay).

Which makes one wonder where the space has gone?

A major disadvantage of airline seating is the consequent loss of the seat-back luggage space, which then has to be provided elsewhere (or is not, or insufficiently, provided eg GW HST sets, Thalys, SJ X2000, etc). Airline seats work in aircraft because aircraft have an underfloor hold and the luggage is handled separately.

 

[jopsuk]

Which makes one wonder where the space has gone?

For one thing, the doors/vestibules have got larger. This helps with boarding/alighting and is necessary for accessibility- which doesn't just mean wheelchairs

 

[The Ham]

The mark 2 comparison is interesting because all the seating was in table bays of four, and the bay dimension was 1.95, corresponding to a pitch of 975 mm - a very generous amount compared with eg class 180 (1.90 bay) and class 377 (1.8 bay).

Which makes one wonder where the space has gone?

A major disadvantage of airline seating is the consequent loss of the seat-back luggage space, which then has to be provided elsewhere (or is not, or insufficiently, provided eg GW HST sets, Thalys, SJ X2000, etc). Airline seats work in aircraft because aircraft have an underfloor hold and the luggage is handled separately.

It depends on what the train is being used for. Blocks of 4 facing seats are good for families traveling together but less so for individuals. Likewise not all travellers are using the train for long holidays and as such the use of between chair storage may not be that beneficial to all passengers.

Also with the advent of budget airlines encouraging people to travel with just hand luggage meaning that they are able to use the overhead storage for their possessions.

When given the choice (unless the train is going to be empty enough that I know that I won't be forced to sit opposite someone - which is fairly rare on most trains) I will mostly opt for an airline seat as I get more legroom than I would at a table (even one with a larger bay distance).

You have previously quoted data that indicates that more people like table seating than airline seating, however given how busy trains can be and 100% of people would rather have a seat than have to stand. If that means that we have to squeeze a few extra seats per coach to cater for this on busier services (as there isn't the space to run more services) then that is a price that the majority will accept.

 

[Dave1987]

You have previously quoted data that indicates that more people like table seating than airline seating, however given how busy trains can be and 100% of people would rather have a seat than have to stand. If that means that we have to squeeze a few extra seats per coach to cater for this on busier services (as there isn't the space to run more services) then that is a price that the majority will accept.

Well actually the solution is to have more carriages and not waste space on middle cabs by running 2 x 5 cars around on busy services. These are long distance trains, not suburban commuter trains. It's not just a case of cram as many seats as possible in.

 

[JN114]

Well actually the solution is to have more carriages and not waste space on middle cabs by running 2 x 5 cars around on busy services. These are long distance trains, not suburban commuter trains. It's not just a case of cram as many seats as possible in.

Except that between Reading/Oxford/Didcot even dare I say Swindon/Chippenham and London they are being used as suburban commuter trains. Existing capacity is insufficient during the peaks but under-used in the off-peak. Improved journey times and frequencies will make that imbalance worse, not better. Having shorter Intercity trains that are then joined up in the peaks is the perfect use of resources. At god knows how many millions of pounds per vehicle, can the fare payers really afford everything to be 10/11 car units that'll spend the off peak and weekends carting around fresh air? No of course they can't, fares are eye-wateringly expensive as it is.

This isn't the 1980s when only 12 people a day commute from Reading to London - this is 2015 and we have to design a train that can cope with 2015 traffic and beyond. If that means 90 airline ironing board seats, where I'm at least guaranteed half a chance of getting one then I'll take that over 60 armchairs that have been taken up since St Austell and I have to spend 40 minutes standing, getting no benefit out of improved window views, triple-padding and the narrower aisles this supposed increased comfort offers.

 

[Bayum]

Except that between Reading/Oxford/Didcot even dare I say Swindon/Chippenham and London they are being used as suburban commuter trains. Existing capacity is insufficient during the peaks but under-used in the off-peak. Improved journey times and frequencies will make that imbalance worse, not better. Having shorter Intercity trains that are then joined up in the peaks is the perfect use of resources. At god knows how many millions of pounds per vehicle, can the fare payers really afford everything to be 10/11 car units that'll spend the off peak and weekends carting around fresh air? No of course they can't, fares are eye-wateringly expensive as it is.

This isn't the 1980s when only 12 people a day commute from Reading to London - this is 2015 and we have to design a train that can cope with 2015 traffic and beyond. If that means 90 airline ironing board seats, where I'm at least guaranteed half a chance of getting one then I'll take that over 60 armchairs that have been taken up since St Austell and I have to spend 40 minutes standing, getting no benefit out of improved window views, triple-padding and the narrower aisles this supposed increased comfort offers.

You make it sound as if the new trains will actually have an impact on fre reduction! We can all wish!

 

[The Ham]

Well actually the solution is to have more carriages and not waste space on middle cabs by running 2 x 5 cars around on busy services. These are long distance trains, not suburban commuter trains. It's not just a case of cram as many seats as possible in.

It's not quite that simple, as by running pairs of trains two end destinations can be served and only use up one path closer into London.

By doing so places which "normally" (i.e. using a loco and rakes or full length MU's) can only justify 1 rain every two hours because of the light loadings can see 1 tph "sharing" a path into London with another similar destination.

Also, by running in pairs, there are benefits in the number of spare coaches sat around in case of unit failure. For instance would you rather have 18 coaches sat idle at Paddington (two sets) forming 2 spare trains or do you have 15 coaches (three sets)? With the first you only have two and they have to go as full length trains (regardless of what the failed unit was), with the second these can be used to form a 5 coach train half of a 10 coach train (if one half fails) or a full length train (if one of those fails). It therefore is more flexible but with lower costs as there are less coaches sat idle.

I wouldn't be surprised if we started to see 10 coach 800's or 801's being introduced early on in the next GW franchise as the 9 coach sets start to get overcrowded.

 

[jimm]

Well actually the solution is to have more carriages and not waste space on middle cabs by running 2 x 5 cars around on busy services. These are long distance trains, not suburban commuter trains. It's not just a case of cram as many seats as possible in.

They might also be long-distance commuter trains. Not that you seem to have noticed that ever more people using trains in this way is what has been happening on GW routes, especially to Oxford, the Cotswolds, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath and even Bristol for almost 40 years since the HSTs first appeared.

Have you anything new to say? You always get very exercised about cabs supposedly wasting space on busy services but seem not the slightest bit bothered about the waste of space and energy that would be involved in carting around lots of empty seats on less busy trains running against the main peak flows and off-peak. Nor have any suggestions as to how this issue should be addressed.

 

[Dave1987]

They might also be long-distance commuter trains. Not that you seem to have noticed that ever more people using trains in this way is what has been happening on GW routes, especially to Oxford, the Cotswolds, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath and even Bristol for almost 40 years since the HSTs first appeared.

Have you anything new to say? You always get very exercised about cabs supposedly wasting space on busy services but seem not the slightest bit bothered about the waste of space and energy that would be involved in carting around lots of empty seats on less busy trains running against the main peak flows and off-peak. Nor have any suggestions as to how this issue should be addressed.

Well we all know that you absolutely love these trains and won't have a word said against them even though some very respected journalists have pointed out some very big flaws with them, so I'm not surprised you think the seating and lack of tables on a long distance intercity train is fine probably because its these particular trains. Need I point out that I praised the amount of legroom?

So the answer is to cram as many seats as possible into 5 car trains to offset the loss because of the intermediate cabs ensure that no trains have any wasted capacity during the off peak? Yeah that sounds totally logical...... not. Consider also that a lot of the travelling public want table seats particularly on intercity trains and particularly when travelling as a family. Or are these trains solely designed for commuters and people travelling alone?

 

[AlexNL]

Personally, I always prefer airline seating over table seats on long distance services. Having a window seat is nice on new routes, but on my usual commuting stretch I couldn't care less about having a view or not - I know what it looks outside and if something changes I'll see it a day or two later.

 

[Dave1987]

Personally, I always prefer airline seating over table seats on long distance services. Having a window seat is nice on new routes, but on my usual commuting stretch I couldn't care less about having a view or not - I know what it looks outside and if something changes I'll see it a day or two later.

If no one wants table seats then why are they always the first to be occupied by people boarding trains? Why do people always comment how good it is that the Chiltern Mainline services have nearly all table seats?

 

[RobShipway]

Personally, I just want a comfortable seat on a train whatever the journey distance and it does not matter if it is a set of seats facing each other or within a set of two sets, just as long as a seat is available. This I think is the thought of most that travel whatever time of day.

 

[jimm]

Well we all know that you absolutely love these trains and won't have a word said against them even though some very respected journalists have pointed out some very big flaws with them, so I'm not surprised you think the seating and lack of tables on a long distance intercity train is fine probably because its these particular trains. Need I point out that I praised the amount of legroom?

So the answer is to cram as many seats as possible into 5 car trains to offset the loss because of the intermediate cabs ensure that no trains have any wasted capacity during the off peak? Yeah that sounds totally logical...... not. Consider also that a lot of the travelling public want table seats particularly on intercity trains and particularly when travelling as a family. Or are these trains solely designed for commuters and people travelling alone?

I don't absolutely love these trains, I'm just not as utterly negative about them as others, you included, seem to be.

You praised the legroom..? Woo-hoo. But then go on to claim they are cramming seats into the trains, which would suggest that far from there being lots of legroom, there would in fact be precious little.

Yet again you just bluster, instead of giving a straight answer to me, or addressing the points made by two others above, about running vast numbers of empty coaches around outside the peaks on your 10-coach super trains. What's your solution? It can't be that hard for you to say something that actually deals head-on with the issue, can it? After all, GWR currently addresses it, on the Cotswold Line at least by using, er, five-car Class 180s...

And lots of the travelling public don't want table seats, such as the people GWR talked to before coming up with the new look for first class in the HSTs with the single airline seats. Not everyone makes a beeline for a big table, contrary to what you seem to believe.

 

[JN114]

You make it sound as if the new trains will actually have an impact on fre reduction! We can all wish!

Oh they absolutely won't reduce fares at all! In fact they've likely contributed to increases we've seen and will see years down the line... But if they were all 10 car? I dread to think...

 

[RAGNARØKR]

They might also be long-distance commuter trains. Not that you seem to have noticed that ever more people using trains in this way is what has been happening on GW routes, especially to Oxford, the Cotswolds, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath and even Bristol for almost 40 years since the HSTs first appeared.

Have you anything new to say? You always get very exercised about cabs supposedly wasting space on busy services but seem not the slightest bit bothered about the waste of space and energy that would be involved in carting around lots of empty seats on less busy trains running against the main peak flows and off-peak. Nor have any suggestions as to how this issue should be addressed.

Perhaps a train like a 23 metre version of the class 377 would have been more suitable for a service which these days has a traffic pattern more like the routes south of London.

The running of empty stock is reduced by the practice of leaving units in station platforms off-peak. It means a walk to the unit(s) which form the train but it solves the problem in a rough-and-ready way.

Pointy-nose cabs take up more train length than the flattish ones on stock such as the 377/450 types.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally, I always prefer airline seating over table seats on long distance services. Having a window seat is nice on new routes, but on my usual commuting stretch I couldn't care less about having a view or not - I know what it looks outside and if something changes I'll see it a day or two later.

Don't you need to look out to see where you are?

 

[AM9]

Perhaps a train like a 23 metre version of the class 377 would have been more suitable for a service which these days has a traffic pattern more like the routes south of London.

Why would 23 metre versions of Electrostars be any better than 20 metre ones of which there will soon be over 2500 examples of 20 metre cars running? The bodyshells are fully proven, have many options of seating and standing optimisation and also (within the two main technical subgroups) have good interchangeability.
Creating yet another class won't make any real difference, especially as on the major commuter routes into London, where is the service volume is there, the platforms lengths are maximised for 8 or 10-car trains.

 

[The Ham]

Don't you need to look out to see where you are?

First off I have this ability called "moving" which allows me to look around an obstruction if I can't see out the window from where I am sat. Often this requires me to just lean forward or turning of my head, so that I can see out of a window (sometimes not even on my side of the train).

However, I only need that ability if the on train announcements/displays are not providing suitable warning of which station we are approaching, which from experience tends to be good on longer distance services (not always so good on metro services).

No matter how bad a train is (even on the Voyagers) I have never failed to be able to know where I am enough to get off the train at the correct stop.

 

[Haydn1971]

Why would 23 metre versions of Electrostars be any better than 20 metre ones of which there will soon be over 2500 examples of 20 metre cars running? The bodyshells are fully proven, have many options of seating and standing optimisation and also (within the two main technical subgroups) have good interchangeability.
Creating yet another class won't make any real difference, especially as on the major commuter routes into London, where is the service volume is there, the platforms lengths are maximised for 8 or 10-car trains.

Although the Electrostar successor, the Aventra based Class 345 is coming in at 22m per car (9 cars in 200m length).

Interesting that Porterbrook ordered 80 Class 387's rather than the successor Aventra based units though - Although I seem to recall it being said on here that the 387's are effectively Aventra's in a Electrostar body anyways ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although the Electrostar successor, the Aventra based Class 345 is coming in at 22m per car (9 cars in 200m length).

Interesting that Porterbrook ordered 80 Class 387's rather than the successor Aventra based units though - Although I seem to recall it being said on here that the 387's are effectively Aventra's in a Electrostar body anyways ?

Who (other than a complete new-build like Crossrail) would want a 22m coach based EMU? It isn't a standard length, so normal South East platform lengths wouldn't fit normal multiples of 4, 8 or 12.

I'm certain they will lose orders if it is not offered in a 20m vehicle.

 

[AM9]

Who (other than a complete new-build like Crossrail) would want a 22m coach based EMU? It isn't a standard length, so normal South East platform lengths wouldn't fit normal multiples of 4, 8 or 12.

I'm certain they will lose orders if it is not offered in a 20m vehicle.

I agree. Siemens have only produced two versions of 23m desiros, and neither are for mainstream commuter use into London so the quantities are correspondingly low.

 

[hwl]

Who (other than a complete new-build like Crossrail) would want a 22m coach based EMU? It isn't a standard length, so normal South East platform lengths wouldn't fit normal multiples of 4, 8 or 12.

I'm certain they will lose orders if it is not offered in a 20m vehicle.

It is Aventra - any length between 20m and 23.x m.

The Overground 710s will be 20.x m

 

[Dave1987]

I don't absolutely love these trains, I'm just not as utterly negative about them as others, you included, seem to be.

You praised the legroom..? Woo-hoo. But then go on to claim they are cramming seats into the trains, which would suggest that far from there being lots of legroom, there would in fact be precious little.

Yet again you just bluster, instead of giving a straight answer to me, or addressing the points made by two others above, about running vast numbers of empty coaches around outside the peaks on your 10-coach super trains. What's your solution? It can't be that hard for you to say something that actually deals head-on with the issue, can it? After all, GWR currently addresses it, on the Cotswold Line at least by using, er, five-car Class 180s...

And lots of the travelling public don't want table seats, such as the people GWR talked to before coming up with the new look for first class in the HSTs with the single airline seats. Not everyone makes a beeline for a big table, contrary to what you seem to believe.

So you are basically saying the whole point is make sure that no capacity is wasted during the off peak?

 

[D365]

So you are basically saying the whole point is make sure that no capacity is wasted during the off peak?

Once again you are stoically ignoring the other benefits of portion working: it allows single units to go for maintenance whilst the standard off-peak service is provided, and different destinations can be served from one departure/arrival at London.

 

[Dave1987]

Once again you are stoically ignoring the other benefits of portion working: it allows single units to go for maintenance whilst the standard off-peak service is provided, and different destinations can be served from one departure/arrival at London.

Portion working - yes fine you can serve two destinations from one departure at London. When did maintenance come into that? If you are asking people to stand on a crowded 5 car train in the off peak purely because the other 5 car is at the depot for maintenance then that isn't really acceptable is it.

 

[D365]

It's not going to be crowded, that's the point. By taking coaches off it saves on unit mileage, which allows these assets to be used more resourcefully. If there's particular off-peak services which warrant additional capacity, then a unit can be coupled on wherever needed.

 

[The Ham]

It's not going to be crowded, that's the point. By taking coaches off it saves on unit mileage, which allows these assets to be used more resourcefully. If there's particular off-peak services which warrant additional capacity, then a unit can be coupled on wherever needed.

Quite, as an example my local station sees up to 4 trains an hour with up to 12 coaches during the peaks, yet off peak it see 2 trains an hour with up to 8 coaches (sometimes just 4 coaches). The off peak trains tend to still be less crowded than the peak hour services, even though there are a LOT less seats available per hour than in the peaks due to less coaches being used.

If the off peak services ever got very busy then more coaches could just be added to services in question, I certainly wouldn't to be paying for the TOC to be running 12 coach trains all the time when for most of the day they were't needed.

 

[tbtc]

There seems to be a general mood of I Don't Like 800s (But I've Not Yet Found A Reason To Justify It Yet) on here - e.g. the complaints that the seats are too hard on these trains that nobody has sat on yet... the complaints that there are both too many tables and also not enough tables... the complaints that the seats are crammed in despite the density being no different to BR... complaints that they have space for paper reservations as well as electronic ones...

...it won't be long until we see people complaining that the colour scheme is too bright and too dull at the same time, or that the doors are too wide and too narrow.

If you are asking people to stand on a crowded 5 car train in the off peak purely because the other 5 car is at the depot for maintenance then that isn't really acceptable is it

What's the alternative, Dave?

That you have a ten coach unit that's taken out of service because it needs maintenance?

Despite all your posts about the GEML, I've yet to see you complain about the wasted cab space caused by double/ triple EMUs like 321s on that route - you seem to accept that these are okay to be multiples of four coaches (rather than arguing for AGA to buy a fleet of eight/ twelve coach EMUs)? You appreciate the flexibility that having four coaches gives them?

I've read thousands of threads on here and never seen anyone demand that the twelve coach services from Fenchurch Street to Essex should be one twelve coach unit (instead of 3x four coach 357s). We seem to cope with the idea of 450s or 377s or 158s working in multiple in different parts of the UK...

...so why is the concept of doubled up 800s/801s so tricky? They can cope with fluctuations in demand, they can allow services to be doubled up on key bits (e.g. ten coaches from London to Oxford but maybe only five needed as far as Hereford).

I get that you don't like them; you just need to find a better reason to justify it.

 

[fairysdad]

...it won't be long until we see people complaining that the colour scheme is too bright and too dull at the same time, or that the doors are too wide and too narrow.

Well, now you come to mention it...

... We seem to cope with the idea of 450s or 377s or 158s working in multiple in different parts of the UK...

...so why is the concept of doubled up 800s/801s so tricky?

I'm not one of the complainers - until they're out in service, how can we tell what they're like? But, for this latter part, I'm wondering if the problem isn't the idea of having the trains doubled up, but more the fact that 450s, 444s, 377s, 158s, 150s, 153s, and a lot more when they're doubled (or tripled) up still effectively only form one train whereas the 800s and 801s, as well as the 220s, 221s, 222s, and other trains like that don't have a way of connecting the two trains up so they are two trains connected together rather than one double-length train.