GWR Class 800

[D365]

Admittedly the lack of gangways on a half-length intercity train is a hinderance, but Class 365s seem to cope just fine on London-Cambridge-Kings Lynn, to give one further example.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

TGVs, ICEs and the like on the continent happily double up and split to different destinations part way.
It conserves capacity where it is needed.
I should think HS2 stock will do the same.

 

[455driver]

It's not just a case of cram as many seats as possible in.

Oh yes it is, got to get those headlines in the papers! :roll:
--- 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.

You obviously don't have kids then! :roll:

Why do single individuals think they can speak up for everyone in the Country!
It might surprise you but a great many travellers have families, especially kids, and they would like to travel together, but as these trains are configured as commuter trains that isn't going to be possible!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Admittedly the lack of gangways on a half-length intercity train is a hinderance, but Class 365s seem to cope just fine on London-Cambridge-Kings Lynn, to give one further example.

Is that comparable to London-Plymouth, Penzance, Swansea etc?
SWT have through gangways on their Weymouth. Portsmouth etc services so they only need one set of on board staff!

 

[D365]

Why do single individuals think they can speak up for everyone in the Country!

Are we not allowed to have personal opinions?

Is that comparable to London-Plymouth, Penzance, Swansea etc?
SWT have through gangways on their Weymouth. Portsmouth etc services so they only need one set of on board staff!

Obviously not, but as LNW-GW Joint has stated, intercity trains run in multiple on the continent, where splitting and joining units works just fine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It might surprise you but a great many travellers have families, especially kids, and they would like to travel together, but as these trains are configured as commuter trains that isn't going to be possible!

Yes, I must admit to being disappointed that a Class 158 like layout was not used, i.e. with alternating pairs of airline seats and tables. I do prefer an airline seat, particularly a single one as found in 1st or the very end seat in a fGW HST, but I think half and half is about the right balance.

The lack of tables might indeed be why I've noticed increasing numbers of families in 1st, though not all can afford it of course.

It might be worth taking into consideration, though, that families are probably the least important (environmentally) to attract off the roads. A family car with 4 or 5 people in it is an environmentally efficient way to travel, and does not make particularly poor use of road space either. The cars that it's most important to get off the road are those travelling at peak times (family holidays etc usually aren't) that have 1 or 2 people in them (again, family holidays usually aren't). Full cars aren't the problem, and the occupants of those full cars are the ones who most appreciate 4+table groups.

 

[455driver]

Are we not allowed to have personal opinions?

Yes of course, but how can a person that travels on his own answer for all the families that travel?

 

[D365]

Yes of course, but how can a person that travels on his own answer for all the families that travel?

He never said he was trying to provide an answer, just that table seats aren't an imperative for every travelling group.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes of course, but how can a person that travels on his own answer for all the families that travel?

[sarcasm]Come on surely you know that everyone who travels on the railway travels alone and wants an airline seat so they don't have to stare at a stranger for a couple of hours![/sarcasm]

People stating that airline seats are what people prefer goes against what I see day in day out in the real world. But as we know its the headline figures the politicians want. Even though these are long distance intercity trains they are clearly still aimed at commuters even though most of the people travelling on them won't be commuters.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He never said he was trying to provide an answer, just that table seats aren't an imperative for every travelling group.

No that's why you provide a balance between table seats and airline seats, rather than virtually all being airline seats.

 

[The Ham]

You obviously don't have kids then! :roll:

Why do single individuals think they can speak up for everyone in the Country!
It might surprise you but a great many travellers have families, especially kids, and they would like to travel together, but as these trains are configured as commuter trains that isn't going to be possible!

I have kids. When I am travelling on my own my preference is for airline seats, when I am travelling with one child my preference is for airline seats, when I am travelling with my wife and our children my preference is to use the car!

The reason families prefer tables is that it is easy for everyone can sit together and can point out things to everyone, it is still possible for a family of four to travel together on opposite sides of the train by occupying two pairs of airline seats it just makes pointing things out the windows a bit more one on one.

 

[swt_passenger]

No that's why you provide a balance between table seats and airline seats, rather than virtually all being airline seats.

The final edition of the train technical spec required 35% bays and 65% uni-directional seating, at 8 bays per coach, in standard class.

Has this part of the spec has been completely ignored?

 

[ainsworth74]

Has this part of the spec has been completely ignored?

Most of the rest of the spec has been...

 

[Haydn1971]

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.

Fixed multiples of 20m long platforms doesn't prevent the use of a 22m car unit. Platform lengthening, selective door operation, even having an asymmetric design for end carriages (no doors near the driving cab) are all possibilities.

 

[D365]

Most of the rest of the spec has been...

At this point you might as well add a hyperlink button to the forum software, to look up the relevant TTS for the rolling stock under discussion.

Of course, our dear contributors still won't be reading it

 

[asylumxl]

Of course, our dear contributors still won't be reading it

The way some of our dear contributors go on, you'd think Hitachi had designed the train as a personal insult toward them.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I for one prefer seats facing each other around a table. But then I am weird and like talking to other human beings even when I am travelling alone. I accept though that many people want to be in their own little bubble and not interact. This is especially true for commuters as the train journey is often a time to work, relax (in peace) or sleep - so airline seating suits them.

Contrastingly, thirty years ago, my morning commute (in 2-HAPs or 4-VEPs) was of course always face to face and there was a regular group of us collected together from our station and a few other stations on the line. My evening commute was the opposite - never recognised anyone and usually slept.

I worked out many years ago that, for leisure, when two or more of us are travelling together it is often cheaper to use the car. Most of my family long distance travel is by coach as that is cheaper even though it is airline seating with no tables. I go to Cardiff a lot and I have no idea how much the rail fare is from Croydon but the coach is £5-£15 each way and I book ahead aiming to pay less than £10 each way. If I travel with people with a railway bias we often take the cheapest method or one with offers. For the West Coast mainline we prefer the ergonomics of a 350 to a 390 fortunately. So for me, if I cannot have a nice Mark3 or Mark4 coach I will not notice as I will happily pay less instead.

What's this got to do with IEP ?.
OK I am biased - I do not like the idea of engines under coaches. But we will see how well insulated they turn out to be in reality.
It seems a shame to have cabs in the middle of a train that prevent a gangway connection. I always think that the multiple units that do not have a gangway connection through the cab are a let down (for example 170, 357s etc).

Its a valid point that perhaps more of the services on the GWR should be more like conventional Multiple Units. I wonder if the mix between intercity and long distance urban services has been got wrong. However the differences in solutions are merging as intercity is no longer a locomotive at one or both ends of a rake of coaches. I think its a shame but engine technology and the advantages of distributed power mean that we are (already) heading towards underfloor engines for intercity.

Long live the HSTs (and 442s).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main reason I dislike facing seating is that I am tall, and playing kneesie with someone else is much more awkward than playing it with a hard seat back.

If it was spaced better, I wouldn't mind.

 

[AM9]

Well, now you come to mention it...
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.

And what about 357s, the first mentioned in the list of EMUs that don't have a constant call for longer units.

 

[jimm]

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

No, basically I'm saying that the whole point is to have flexibility within the train fleet. Something which is not available with a long, fixed-formation train like an HST.

As has been pointed out to you previously umpteen times, portion working was a fact of life on GWR and Western Region express routes for many years before the HSTs arrived and removed the ability to operate that way.

All that the arrival of the 800s and AT300s will do is reinstate that ability and allow the people doing the timetabling and diagramming to better match on-train capacity to actual passenger numbers, rather than having to do things like sending HSTs from Paddington to Hereford and back in the middle of the day when the number of people on board both ways west of Oxford would fit into a Class 166 with umpteen seats to spare.

TGVs, ICEs and the like on the continent happily double up and split to different destinations part way.
It conserves capacity where it is needed.
I should think HS2 stock will do the same.

Equally, at busy times of the day, coupled formations operate throughout a train's journey without dividing en route, because of the number of people wanting to travel - rather like the way it's planned to use 800s on many GWR services.

What is this obsession with cabs lacking corridor connections in the middle of a train? As noted above - and ad infinitum on previous occasions - there are lots of trains running up and down like this all day in the UK and all over the world. Do some of you spend the entire journey walking up and down the length of HSTs and Pendolinos? Funnily enough, most people find a seat near to where they get on a train and sit in it for most of their journey.

 

[po8crg]

The main reason I dislike facing seating is that I am tall, and playing kneesie with someone else is much more awkward than playing it with a hard seat back.

I'm, I suspect, taller, and I have to lift my feet off the floor to get my knees into most airline seats. Facing seating means enough legroom if there's no-one opposite, and you can usually negotiate a bit with people if there is (get the smallest person on the table to sit opposite me).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you fit priority seats? I usually find these surprisingly easy to get.

 

[Dent]

What is this obsession with cabs lacking corridor connections in the middle of a train? As noted above - and ad infinitum on previous occasions - there are lots of trains running up and down like this all day in the UK and all over the world. Do some of you spend the entire journey walking up and down the length of HSTs and Pendolinos? Funnily enough, most people find a seat near to where they get on a train and sit in in for most of their journey.

Running trains, particularly long-distance trains, in unconnected sections has a number of objective disadvantages, which are identical regardless of where or when the same situation exists or has existed.

Repeating something ad infinitum does not make it become a valid argument.

 

[jimm]

Running trains, particularly long-distance trains, in unconnected sections has a number of objective disadvantages, which are identical regardless of where or when the same situation exists or has existed.

Repeating something ad infinitum does not make it become a valid argument.

And has the sky fallen in because railways all over the world still insist on running trains formed in this way? No. Are most passengers half as bothered about this 'problem' as some posters on here seem to be? Somehow I doubt it.

What about the objective disadvantages of running around lots of empty coaches on sections of route where the number of passengers using a service does not justify operating a long train? Maybe you would care to answer, since dave1987 still doesn't seem to have an explanation for us as to why this is apparently a good thing to do.

 

[D365]

Because without the cabs you could squeeze in another, um, 10 seats?

And considering how many trains are having amenities removed from them, two sets of crew can only be a bonus for the customer.

 

[Starmill]

I see yet another Mk4 carriage neglected, tired and with bits falling off with no power to sockets and failed heating.

Bring on the 800!!!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Are we not allowed to have personal opinions?



Obviously not, but as LNW-GW Joint has stated, intercity trains run in multiple on the continent, where splitting and joining units works just fine.

And the Danish ones and others of that general type have end-gangways. There are 3 and 4-car variants and the units ones can multiple with the diesels. The trains split and join within the duration of a normal station stop.

Personal opinions are diverse. The same individual may even have different preferences depending on the circumstances of their journey.

There was a study on this conducted in Sweden which suggested that about one-third prefer airline seating, one-third prefer table seating and one-third had no special preference. Unfortunately that study, which was published in English, no longer turns up on a search. A problem with airline seating is that more luggage space has to be provided as the between-seats space is not available.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And has the sky fallen in because railways all over the world still insist on running trains formed in this way? No. Are most passengers half as bothered about this 'problem' as some posters on here seem to be? Somehow I doubt it.

No but when there is no through accesss, catering and ticket-checking has to be doubled up, one-third of a vehicle length is wasted, a lot of the expensive electronic kit in the cabs is sitting unused and passengers must get themselves into the correct half of the train if they have booked seats, as they can not walk through once the train is on the move.

It is less than ideal. The half-cab plus gangway arrangement gets rid of some of the disadvantages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I see yet another Mk4 carriage neglected, tired and with bits falling off with no power to sockets and failed heating.

Bring on the 800!!!

Would you demolish and rebuild your house because the electrics and heating were knackered?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Effectively that would be the standard body for the 23M class 170 series. The 20M length x 2.8 is used south of London to run in the shadow of mark 1 stock. The GW lines have better clearances. Class 165/166 are 23M x 2.8.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Funnily enough, some people have more of this ability than others. As you get older you will probably find that for yourself. But if you are, for example, reading, it is easier to shift your glance than move to look round an obstruction. In the days when all the seats on trains had a window nearby, it was not even necessary to have the lights on during the daytime.

Is your movement good enough to see round this obstruction here on a Pendolino?

 

[Dent]

And has the sky fallen in because railways all over the world still insist on running trains formed in this way?

Who said it would cause the sky to fall in? That would be an absurd argument if anyone had made such a claim, but no one did! That is a straw man argument.

What about the objective disadvantages of running around lots of empty coaches on sections of route where the number of passengers using a service does not justify operating a long train? Maybe you would care to answer, since dave1987 still doesn't seem to have an explanation for us as to why this is apparently a good thing to do.

When did anyone say running with empty carriages was a good thing? This is another straw man argument, wrapped up in a false dichotomy.

No one needs to justify a statement they never made.

 

[jimm]

Who said it would cause the sky to fall in? That would be an absurd argument if anyone had made such a claim, but no one did! That is a straw man argument.

When did anyone say running with empty carriages was a good thing? This is another straw man argument, wrapped up in a false dichotomy.

No one needs to justify a statement they never made.

But what we have here are people making statements that they simply refuse to justify or explain.

 

[Dent]

But what we have here are people making statements that they simply refuse to justify or explain.

What statements would those be?

 

[Dave1987]

The final edition of the train technical spec required 35% bays and 65% uni-directional seating, at 8 bays per coach, in standard class.

Has this part of the spec has been completely ignored?

I can only make out 4-6 bays in the standard coach in the photo a couple of pages back, that would mean its far less than 35% bay seating.

 

[ainsworth74]

I can only make out 4-6 bays in the standard coach in the photo a couple of pages back, that would mean its far less than 35% bay seating.

You mean that small and rather poor quality image of train that isn't finished yet?