GWR Class 800

[Dave1987]

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.

I've already said that I get portion working and it's advantages (there are disadvantages as well but you don't seem to want to have a word said against this project so wont acknowledge that fact). What I do not want to see is a 5 car used on its own and have people standing just because using a 9 or a 10 car train would have meant there were some spare seats. I also hate the fact that commuters are seen as the only people who used the railway and therefore every train must satisfy commuter needs over those of leisure travellers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

It was a full coach picture and looked very much finished.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I've already said that I get portion working and it's advantages (there are disadvantages as well but you don't seem to want to have a word said against this project so wont acknowledge that fact). What I do not want to see is a 5 car used on its own and have people standing just because using a 9 or a 10 car train would have meant there were some spare seats. I also hate the fact that commuters are seen as the only people who used the railway and therefore every train must satisfy commuter needs over those of leisure travellers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It was a full coach picture and looked very much finished.

You're attacking a scenario which isn't actually going to happen. If a 5 car train is going to be full, then it will be swapped for a 9 or doubled up to make a 10 car. Enough IEP/AT300 trains have been ordered to take over duties and it will be possible to add additional non-diesel vehicles in future if required. Any loss from being able to run a 5 car set when it may have been necessary to run a 2+8 HST previously is outmatched from the gain when it now becomes possible to run a 5 car set rather than a 2/3 car DMU. It becomes economical to upgrade the train service to InterCity quality much earlier now as the minimum length of such a train has decreased. That means more InterCity quality trains relieving shorter trains on more rural routes.

 

[AlexNL]

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

On my regular route? Nope. If my train runs on time I usually have a pretty good idea of where I am and how much time is left before I have to get off.

 

[455driver]

You're attacking a scenario which isn't actually going to happen. If a 5 car train is going to be full, then it will be swapped for a 9 or doubled up to make a 10 car. Enough IEP/AT300 trains have been ordered to take over duties and it will be possible to add additional non-diesel vehicles in future if required. Any loss from being able to run a 5 car set when it may have been necessary to run a 2+8 HST previously is outmatched from the gain when it now becomes possible to run a 5 car set rather than a 2/3 car DMU. It becomes economical to upgrade the train service to InterCity quality much earlier now as the minimum length of such a train has decreased. That means more InterCity quality trains relieving shorter trains on more rural routes.

You have swallowed all the rhetoric haven't you!

Full 5 coach trains wont be swapped for 9 coach ones or doubled up, there wont be any 'spare' trains (not at £2.5 million a coach) the whole fleet will be out as much as possible to try and rake in enough revenue to pay for them. Don't forget these things will cost 3 times the amount a HST costs PER SEAT (probably more than that now all the electric sets are going to be bi-modes), the money has to come from somewhere and it isn't from the train sitting in a siding 'just in case' its needed!

By all accounts these are quite pleasant trains to travel on even when on diesel but there is no getting away from the fact they are effing expensive and they have got to be paid for!

 

[JaJaWa]

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

I certainly wouldn't be sure of that. Once the other DfT procured rolling stock, the Class 700s for Thameslink had their interior revealed, Thameslink has been unable to make any changes.

Hitachi have now posted a very high resolution image of the interior on their website (press the button below the image for full resolution).

"The interior of the standard class Class 800/801 trains for the InterCity Express Programme, taken on December 2 at North Pole Train Maintenance Centre, on Train 800002."

You can see that even the directional stickers have been affixed to the train.


I had thought that the colour scheme at least might change, but someone sent them a Tweet on Twitter and they replied

"Hitachi Rail Europe ‏@HitachiRailEU Dec 4
@speedysticks #Class800 interior design result of award-winning collaboration. DM us any qs you may have and we'll do our best to help."

suggesting that it is final. They are asking for people to message them questions on Twitter, so if there are concerns, you could go ahead and do so.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hitachi have now posted a very high resolution image of the interior on their website (press the button below the image for full resolution).

Interestingly, now that you can count the exact number of seat backs, the tables in the foreground are roughly in the middle of the carriage (assumed an 88 seater?)

So in the ongoing debate about the exact number of tables, there could just as easily be enough tables behind the photographer to get up to the spec's numbers, i.e. 8 per coach?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly, now that you can count the exact number of seat backs, the tables in the foreground are roughly in the middle of the carriage (assumed an 88 seater?)

So in the ongoing debate about the exact number of tables, there could just as easily be enough tables behind the photographer to get up to the spec's numbers, i.e. 8 per coach?

7 tables (or at least sets of facing seats) already seem to be visible, with an odd gap with what seems to be a missing row on the left. So that seems entirely feasible. 8 tables per coach is not bad - certainly more than the present fGW HST, Pendolino, Voyager (except hybrid coach) etc - not the 10 of the Mk3, but matching the 8 of the original Class 158 layout.

I would say that is the right balance.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

Interior looks very good - bright and airy, and sensible amount of table seats - far better than the Voyagers' design - rode two XC ones a few weeks ago and they really require a refurb now - looking a bit tired inside.

Really looking forward to seeing the 800s and 801s come out in service eventually - a new modern era for the GW and EC lines, and they certainly look the part.

 

[Dave1987]

Indeed that image does seem to show 8 table bays.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You have swallowed all the rhetoric haven't you!

Full 5 coach trains wont be swapped for 9 coach ones or doubled up, there wont be any 'spare' trains (not at £2.5 million a coach) the whole fleet will be out as much as possible to try and rake in enough revenue to pay for them. Don't forget these things will cost 3 times the amount a HST costs PER SEAT (probably more than that now all the electric sets are going to be bi-modes), the money has to come from somewhere and it isn't from the train sitting in a siding 'just in case' its needed!

By all accounts these are quite pleasant trains to travel on even when on diesel but there is no getting away from the fact they are effing expensive and they have got to be paid for!

No, I'm not saying that there's going to be a whole fleet of spare trying lying around waiting for the day when it will then be necessary to run longer sets on some routes.

The AT300 design is such that it will remain possible to increase capacity on the fleet in future regardless of whether it is feasible to meet new diesel emissions standards. The reason for the capacity crunch across the non-electrified network is that it hasn't been possible just to order a few more diesel trains or carriages, because by the time the need arises the old design is no longer compliant with the current standards. Meanwhile in electric-land Virgin West Coast not only got extra carriages for some of its Pendolinos, it got entirely new sets as well and that's because the train is fundamentally an electric design.

When additional capacity is required in the AT300 fleet, so long as enough wiring has been done somewhere on the AT300 route network there will be diesel carriages available to be cascaded and replaced by electric ones on their old routes. For instance, today we've for all intents and purposes found out that First TransPennine Express will be getting bi-mode AT300s. These will only arrive in 2020 or so, only a few years before the route is scheduled to be electrified, and once electrified these diesel carriages won't have much of a point staying there. If the successor to the new TPE franchise wants to stay with the AT300 design, and GWR or some other bi-mode 5 car operator wants to take on extra intermediate carriages, then they just need to order electric intermediate carriages to replace the diesel ones which would then end up strengthening 5 car services. Since no new diesel carriages are needed, the changes to the regulations are irrelevant. As more and more diesel carriages are needed further out on the network to provide extra capacity, more and more of the core routes will be electrified and thus will be able to give up their diesels.

Why am I so confident about this? Because people with real money to spend seem to be pretty happy to order diesel carriages with only a few years worth of use in them. All those extra diesels for the core GWML services due to the electrification delays, the diesels for Hull Trains, the diesels for ICEC when Aberdeen and Inverness will be wired before 2030 and now the large number for TransPennine will all need to go somewhere.

 

[Dave1987]

You have swallowed all the rhetoric haven't you!

Full 5 coach trains wont be swapped for 9 coach ones or doubled up, there wont be any 'spare' trains (not at £2.5 million a coach) the whole fleet will be out as much as possible to try and rake in enough revenue to pay for them. Don't forget these things will cost 3 times the amount a HST costs PER SEAT (probably more than that now all the electric sets are going to be bi-modes), the money has to come from somewhere and it isn't from the train sitting in a siding 'just in case' its needed!

By all accounts these are quite pleasant trains to travel on even when on diesel but there is no getting away from the fact they are effing expensive and they have got to be paid for!

And don't forget the variation order because the wires aren't going to be up on time so they will be running on the bi-mode even longer. That's bumped the costs even higher. The are going to be very very expensive. At least they will be pleasant to travel on. From that high def they do look very nice inside.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, I'm not saying that there's going to be a whole fleet of spare trying lying around waiting for the day when it will then be necessary to run longer sets on some routes.

The AT300 design is such that it will remain possible to increase capacity on the fleet in future regardless of whether it is feasible to meet new diesel emissions standards. The reason for the capacity crunch across the non-electrified network is that it hasn't been possible just to order a few more diesel trains or carriages, because by the time the need arises the old design is no longer compliant with the current standards. Meanwhile in electric-land Virgin West Coast not only got extra carriages for some of its Pendolinos, it got entirely new sets as well and that's because the train is fundamentally an electric design.

When additional capacity is required in the AT300 fleet, so long as enough wiring has been done somewhere on the AT300 route network there will be diesel carriages available to be cascaded and replaced by electric ones on their old routes. For instance, today we've for all intents and purposes found out that First TransPennine Express will be getting bi-mode AT300s. These will only arrive in 2020 or so, only a few years before the route is scheduled to be electrified, and once electrified these diesel carriages won't have much of a point staying there. If the successor to the new TPE franchise wants to stay with the AT300 design, and GWR or some other bi-mode 5 car operator wants to take on extra intermediate carriages, then they just need to order electric intermediate carriages to replace the diesel ones which would then end up strengthening 5 car services. Since no new diesel carriages are needed, the changes to the regulations are irrelevant. As more and more diesel carriages are needed further out on the network to provide extra capacity, more and more of the core routes will be electrified and thus will be able to give up their diesels.

Why am I so confident about this? Because people with real money to spend seem to be pretty happy to order diesel carriages with only a few years worth of use in them. All those extra diesels for the core GWML services due to the electrification delays, the diesels for Hull Trains, the diesels for ICEC when Aberdeen and Inverness will be wired before 2030 and now the large number for TransPennine will all need to go somewhere.

So how does any of that TPE stuff have anything to do with the fact that you may well end up with 5 car trains in the off peak full and standing because it used to be a full HST set? It's already been said multiple times on this thread that the whole idea is to run 5 cars on their own in the off peak. Because some people seem to believe the railway turns into a ghost town in the off peak and only commuters use the railway. I'm sure we will see a 5 car SET at Paddington full and standing in the future.

 

[D365]

Perhaps because [the majority of] off-peak HSTs are underfilled? :roll:

 

[Dave1987]

Perhaps because [the majority of] off-peak HSTs are underfilled? :roll:

Clearly I've been unlucky when I've travelled on them then because they were definitely not underfilled.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So how does any of that TPE stuff have anything to do with the fact that you may well end up with 5 car trains in the off peak full and standing because it used to be a full HST set? It's already been said multiple times on this thread that the whole idea is to run 5 cars on their own in the off peak. Because some people seem to believe the railway turns into a ghost town in the off peak and only commuters use the railway. I'm sure we will see a 5 car SET at Paddington full and standing in the future.

My point is that there are enough carriages being built to strengthen these 5 car off-peak services when passenger demand starts filling them completely. Some of these extra diesel carriages are going to be available very quickly indeed, only a few years after 5 car AT300s are introduced on these routes. Your fundamental assumption is that the TOCs will do everything in their power to make their trains overcrowded so that they can minimise costs, and it can certainly seem that way due to the current network-wide shortage of diesel rolling stock. However, when there is no such shortage of suitable rolling stock it in is in the interests of the TOC to expand capacity as then they can increase revenue without there necessarily being a similar increase in running costs. Why else would Virgin Trains want to have more Pendolino carriages and trains?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why am I so confident about this? Because people with real money to spend seem to be pretty happy to order diesel carriages with only a few years worth of use in them.

Is that perhaps because, as bi-modes, it wouldn't exactly be hard to remove the engines and run them as EMUs, which only throws away the relatively low costs of 3 engine-generator pairs, and not 3 entire coaches?

Indeed, they could leave one in as a low-speed rescue engine, as I think is being fitted to the EMU versions?

 

[Starmill]

I'm sure we will see a 5 car SET at Paddington full and standing in the future.

When the booked run was for 10? Of course you will. Just as how you see a 9 car F+S now when the previous service was cancelled.

 

[Emblematic]

Do remember that the IEP contract is for specific daily diagrams, not trains. The TOC is not free to strengthen services, run additional trains etc. without a contract variation and commensurate costs. Conversely short-formed or unavailable stock will have financial penalties specified in the contract. The post-IEP orders are conventional leases, so usage and availability is the TOCs responsibility.

 

[The Ham]

Clearly I've been unlucky when I've travelled on them then because they were definitely not underfilled.

..and those services are likely to continue to be full length trains (9 or 10 coaches), yet there will be times when there isn't the need for a full length train on some (or parts of some services).

As an example a HST can be full leaving Paddington, however once it's past Plymouth it is generally not as full and tends to get emptier the further west it goes. As such GWR could split a pair of 5 coach sets at Truro with one half heading down to Penzance and the other joining with a set coming back from Penzance to form a full length train back to Penzance.

By doing so it could arrive back at Paddington anything up to an hour and a half before the unit which went down to Penzance. That then means that it is ready for the next service sooner and effectively results in more capacity not less. Of course if there are trains where the spilt can be done further east then that further increases the availability of the units (and staff for that matter).

Also have you looked at how many full length (or full length equivocally) trains could be run by the new trains and compared that to the number of HST's that there are now. Then compared what services are run now and what will be run (bearing in mind journey time savings) and looked at options where spitting units short (such as above) are unlikely to cause capacity problems (bearing in mind a 5 coach train can hold getting on fit 60%/the number of passengers that a HST can).

I haven't but I would guess that given that the AT300 order (before any options) allows for the direct replacement (with full length trains) of 18 HST's (and back when the plan was to use HST's the talk was for 17 to be retained for the Cornwall services) that it's not going to be much difference. That's before any unit saving like the above allows for and the journey time savings which will be achieved.

Although 15 minutes mast not be much, over four runs (down, up, down and back up again) that's an hour saved.

 

[455driver]

So now they are going to detach and attach at Truro, that's news to me!
Or are you just making it up as you go along?

You are talking as if the extra IEPs ordered are going to be used to strengthen existing services whereas in actual fact they will be used to run extra services (such as the 2 extra trains an hour to Bristol TM via Bristol Parkway etc) and are not replacing HSTs on a one for one basis, how many 9 coach IEPs have been ordered?

 

[sprinterguy]

So now they are going to detach and attach at Truro, that's news to me!

The detachment on Penzance services is actually set to take place at Plymouth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also have you looked at how many full length (or full length equivocally) trains could be run by the new trains and compared that to the number of HST's that there are now. Then compared what services are run now and what will be run (bearing in mind journey time savings) and looked at options where spitting units short (such as above) are unlikely to cause capacity problems (bearing in mind a 5 coach train can hold getting on fit 60%/the number of passengers that a HST can).

To do the maths, First Great Western currently operate 53 HSTs (on 49 diagrams) and 5 x 180s on Intercity services. There's also a handful of Turbos operating on the Cotswold line, but that's a fairly marginal consideration.

Based on your numbers (which are similar to the number of Laira long distance sets, which I had assumed are the ones that would have been kept for the West of England services if the AT-300s hadn't been ordered) we can further break the HST fleet down into:

35 x HST for Bristol/South Wales services
18 x HST for West of England services

21 x 9-car electric and 36 x 5-car Bi-mode class 800/801 units have been ordered for Bristol/South Wales services. If 5 x 5-car Bi-mode units act as direct replacement for the 180s, then that still allows 36 x 9/10-car trains to be formed up (plus one spare 5-car class 800 which you could call a replacement for a Cotswold Turbo diagram) to replace 35 x 2+8 HSTs.

7 x 9-car and 22 x 5-car AT-300s have been ordered for West of England services. This allows for 18 x 9/10-car trains to replace 18 x 2+8 HSTs.

 

[455driver]

The detachment on Penzance services is actually set to take place at Plymouth.

I know, it's just the way Truro was brought up as a detachment point because it suited their idea even though it isn't the case.

To do the maths, First Great Western currently operate 53 HSTs (on 49 diagrams) and 5 x 180s on Intercity services. There's also a handful of Turbos operating on the Cotswold line, but that's a fairly marginal consideration.

Based on your numbers (which are similar to the number of Laira long distance sets, which I had assumed are the ones that would have been kept for the West of England services if the AT-300s hadn't been ordered) we can further break the HST fleet down into:

35 x HST for Bristol/South Wales services
18 x HST for West of England services

21 x 9-car electric and 36 x 5-car Bi-mode class 800/801 units have been ordered for Bristol/South Wales services. If 5 x 5-car Bi-mode units act as direct replacement for the 180s, then that still allows 36 x 9/10-car trains to be formed up (plus one spare 5-car class 800 which you could call a replacement for a Cotswold Turbo diagram) to replace 35 x 2+8 HSTs.

7 x 9-car and 22 x 5-car AT-300s have been ordered for West of England services. This allows for 18 x 9/10-car trains to replace 18 x 2+8 HSTs.

So not exactly swimming in spare trains then unless a few services THROUGHOUT THE DAY are run as 5 coaches.
Thanks for clarifying things.

 

[The Ham]

So now they are going to detach and attach at Truro, that's news to me!
Or are you just making it up as you go along?

You are talking as if the extra IEPs ordered are going to be used to strengthen existing services whereas in actual fact they will be used to run extra services (such as the 2 extra trains an hour to Bristol TM via Bristol Parkway etc) and are not replacing HSTs on a one for one basis, how many 9 coach IEPs have been ordered?

I didn't say that Truro was where they were going to split them I said "GWR could" the reason for picking Truro is that some on here have in the past suggested that splitting at Plymouth could result in there being too many people west of Plymouth for a 5 coach train. As such I pointed out a location which was west of Plymouth (but was still fairly well staffed to allow such a split to happen if required) where there could still be an advantage of splitting trains as trains would tend to be significantly quieter than immediately west of Plymouth.

 

[jimm]

I know, it's just the way Truro was brought up as a detachment point because it suited their idea even though it isn't the case.

So not exactly swimming in spare trains then unless a few services THROUGHOUT THE DAY are run as 5 coaches.
Thanks for clarifying things.

Well the Class 180 diagrams on Oxford and Cotswold Line services are run throughout the day with five-coach trains and apart from the problems of overcrowding on the 15.52 Paddington-Worcester, occasionally east of Oxford on the 08.26 from Worcester, or on the 17.18 Paddington-Oxford semi-fast (where a 180 is used simply because there is nothing more suitable left in GWR's locker to cover the job) they tend to do very nicely thank you.

The issue of the 15.52 is being addressed as of next Monday with a timetable recast featuring a new 15.22 departure to Great Malvern (180), an HST at 15.52 to Moreton-in-Marsh, and the 16.22 becoming a 180 from Paddington through to to Great Malvern, taking up the path of the halts train from Oxford and removing the need for passengers from London and Reading to change there.

If there were more 180s available now, they would certainly be working a good few Cheltenham services - as they did up to 2009 - and with the move to an hourly frequency for that route post-electrification, a five-car 800 should be fine outside the peaks there as well.

That the 800/801 fleet will be tightly diagrammed and require high availability is not in doubt - GWR has already said the AT300s will help cover peak needs on the Cotswold Line as well as the West Country - but can we please get away from this idea that every GWR long-distance needs to be a long train all day, every day, throughout its entire journey.

 

[The Ham]

To do the maths, First Great Western currently operate 53 HSTs (on 49 diagrams) and 5 x 180s on Intercity services. There's also a handful of Turbos operating on the Cotswold line, but that's a fairly marginal consideration.

Based on your numbers (which are similar to the number of Laira long distance sets, which I had assumed are the ones that would have been kept for the West of England services if the AT-300s hadn't been ordered) we can further break the HST fleet down into:

35 x HST for Bristol/South Wales services
18 x HST for West of England services

21 x 9-car electric and 36 x 5-car Bi-mode class 800/801 units have been ordered for Bristol/South Wales services. If 5 x 5-car Bi-mode units act as direct replacement for the 180s, then that still allows 36 x 9/10-car trains to be formed up (plus one spare 5-car class 800 which you could call a replacement for a Cotswold Turbo diagram) to replace 35 x 2+8 HSTs.

7 x 9-car and 22 x 5-car AT-300s have been ordered for West of England services. This allows for 18 x 9/10-car trains to replace 18 x 2+8 HSTs.

Thanks. The only other thoughts to add, are:

5 class 800's would effectively be more than 5 class 180's as if all 5 180's are used then another type of train is needed (166?) to cover them if a unit fails whilst with 36 class 800's there is less need for all of them to be in use at any one time.

This is also true of replacing two 800's for one HST, in that if one HST fails you need another HST to replace it whilst if one of the two 800's fail you can replace it with another 5 coach 800.

Therefore rather than having (say) two spare HST's at Paddington you could have 3 spare (5 coach) class 800's which would allow for two of them to be used to replace a 9 coach set if that failed AND still have a spare in case a 5 coach set were needed. That would then mean that there was half a train (although still worth getting on for 60% of the seating of a HST) extra which could be used to provide extra capacity and/or extra services elsewhere.

That's before any advantage created by being able to split units to create extra capacity where it is possible (i.e. at the quieter edges of the network).

 

[WatcherZero]

Do remember that the IEP contract is for specific daily diagrams, not trains. The TOC is not free to strengthen services, run additional trains etc. without a contract variation and commensurate costs. Conversely short-formed or unavailable stock will have financial penalties specified in the contract. The post-IEP orders are conventional leases, so usage and availability is the TOCs responsibility.

I understand that each individual diagram is costed based on route (factoring in fuel required, length of train, wear and tear and any other special considerations) and they can just order another diagram up if they desire for strengthening (as long as the stock is available) to a pre agreed price.

If they wanted to create a new diagram with different route or number of journeys (e.g only made one trip or a crowd buster shuttle) that would require negotiating a price and potentially contract variation to include it as a diagram option.

 

[The Ham]

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

First off that photo is deceptive (unless you are fairly short) as it is taken from about chest height of the person opposite (who doesn't look very tall).

Yes that would be harder to see out a window to find out where you are, however as I've said previously my "movement" skill would only need to come into play if the displays and announcements were not suitable.

There are two other tricks which can be used to work out where you are, firstly you can check the time and compare this to your journey planner. This can be tricky if the train is delayed and/or station stops are close together. The second is to ask someone. Therefore even if movement was difficult it would be possible.

Back to moving to see, there are a number of options:
- looking through the gap between the headrests
- turning around in your chair to face sidewise to look through the window to the left of the photo
- looking over the headrests (this may involve standing up)

Personal I have some limited veiw over the top of headrests, which means that the headrests on the other side of the train tend not to block my veiw of station signs.

Also, such a veiw is from a very few number of seats, which means that (bearing in mind that it would only be a major inconvenience for a fairly small number of people who travel by train) it is only really a problem for a relatively few people (even if you include those that want to find fault with these trains). In reality virtually no one is going to miss their stop due to not being able to see where they are.

 

[jopsuk]

Remember that some HST services (eg Oxford) will be replaced not with 800s but with 387s

 

[RAGNARØKR]

..and those services are likely to continue to be full length trains (9 or 10 coaches), yet there will be times when there isn't the need for a full length train on some (or parts of some services).

As an example a HST can be full leaving Paddington, however once it's past Plymouth it is generally not as full and tends to get emptier the further west it goes. As such GWR could split a pair of 5 coach sets at Truro with one half heading down to Penzance and the other joining with a set coming back from Penzance to form a full length train back to Penzance.

By doing so it could arrive back at Paddington anything up to an hour and a half before the unit which went down to Penzance. That then means that it is ready for the next service sooner and effectively results in more capacity not less. Of course if there are trains where the spilt can be done further east then that further increases the availability of the units (and staff for that matter).

Also have you looked at how many full length (or full length equivocally) trains could be run by the new trains and compared that to the number of HST's that there are now. Then compared what services are run now and what will be run (bearing in mind journey time savings) and looked at options where spitting units short (such as above) are unlikely to cause capacity problems (bearing in mind a 5 coach train can hold getting on fit 60%/the number of passengers that a HST can).

I haven't but I would guess that given that the AT300 order (before any options) allows for the direct replacement (with full length trains) of 18 HST's (and back when the plan was to use HST's the talk was for 17 to be retained for the Cornwall services) that it's not going to be much difference. That's before any unit saving like the above allows for and the journey time savings which will be achieved.

Although 15 minutes mast not be much, over four runs (down, up, down and back up again) that's an hour saved.

Good points about utilisation of stock by splitting trains.

 

[coppercapped]

Good points about utilisation of stock by splitting trains.

This is nothing new - it is what the genuine GWR and BR(WR) did on many train services - until the arrival of the HST.

Trains to the Devon and Cornwall often split at Newton Abbott (for Kingswear) or Plymouth (for Cornwall) or at Worcester on the Cotswold line where the restaurant car section stayed and the front coaches went on to Hereford.

On the continent DBAG use 'Flugelbetrieb' regularly where trains split at some convenient point as neither of the two destinations could support a regular interval full length train. It avoids passengers having to change in order to be able to travel on one of the branches and it saves a train path on the most heavily travelled section.

Dellner couplers make such operations economic again.

 

[Rich McLean]

Remember that some HST services (eg Oxford) will be replaced not with 800s but with 387s

Electrification between Didcot and Oxford has been delayed until 2020, but one of the plans is to keep either the 5 First Group owned HSTs or an allocation of 16x for Oxford Fast Terminators, with 800s covering the diagrams that continue on the Cotswolds

A shuttle provided between Oxford and Didcot using 16x to connect into 387s on the stopping services is also written into the plans. Platforms 4 & 5 set to be used at Didcot for this to happen to enable cross platform transfer.

GWR wanted to avoid this, but the DfT deems mainline electrification more important