GWR Class 800

[jimm]

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

I can't think anyone will want 90mph Turbos anywhere near the fast lines if they can help it, given the need there will be to give the 800s as much 125mph running under 25kv as possible to minimise the impact on timings of the extra diesel-mode working further west. HSTs will offer the speed plus plenty of seats and allow more Turbos to go to Bristol, so surely are the better bet, albeit with higher running costs.

 

[Rich McLean]

I can't think anyone will want 90mph Turbos anywhere near the fast lines if they can help it, given the need there will be to give the 800s as much 125mph running under 25kv as possible to minimise the impact on timings of the extra diesel-mode working further west. HSTs will offer the speed plus plenty of seats and allow more Turbos to go to Bristol, so surely are the better bet, albeit with higher running costs.

They are/were looking at other options, including 442s local hauled, but that has be canned. The issue they have got is the need to operate non compliant HSTs post 2019 for a short time until the knitting is up and live.

 

[455driver]

I can't think anyone will want 90mph Turbos anywhere near the fast lines if they can help it, given the need there will be to give the 800s as much 125mph running under 25kv as possible to minimise the impact on timings of the extra diesel-mode working further west. HSTs will offer the speed plus plenty of seats and allow more Turbos to go to Bristol, so surely are the better bet, albeit with higher running costs.

125 on the fast lines, yeah right!
If you attempt to get above about 110 now the ATP has a fit, 90-100 is enough to run on greens, any more and its ATP flashy flashy time and double/single yellows.
When there are more trains running it will be even worse!

 

[jimm]

125 on the fast lines, yeah right!
If you attempt to get above about 110 now the ATP has a fit, 90-100 is enough to run on greens, any more and its ATP flashy flashy time and double/single yellows.
When there are more trains running it will be even worse!

Well if that's the case, then why are we even bothering to buy trains that can do 125mph, never mind 140 - and why are people worrying about running on diesel at 100mph?

Think how much money Network Rail could save itself by not pointlessly maintaining track for 125mph. Or maybe some trains actually do run at 125mph on the GWML now and again...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They are/were looking at other options, including 442s local hauled, but that has be canned. The issue they have got is the need to operate non compliant HSTs post 2019 for a short time until the knitting is up and live.

I have a funny feeling someone from the ORR will not be throwing themselves in front of HSTs to stop them leaving Paddington on January 1, 2020. A short-term fiddle for a few months is almost guaranteed.

 

[irish_rail]

:roll:

125 on the fast lines, yeah right!
If you attempt to get above about 110 now the ATP has a fit, 90-100 is enough to run on greens, any more and its ATP flashy flashy time and double/single yellows.
When there are more trains running it will be even worse!

Whooaa, slow down speedy!!! On a service from the south west direction (b and h), anything above 85mph between Reading and Padd will result in a swift and harsh brake application shortly after.

Generally we are timed about 29 minutes on average for a journey easily do able in about 23-24.

All these boasts about saving ten mins (or whatever it is) between London and Plymouth with AT300s, yet remove the ridiculous padding between Reading and London (5 minutes) and on the B and H (7 minutes) then those time savings could easily be achieved with a HST tomorrow....

 

[RobShipway]

:roll:

Whooaa, slow down speedy!!! On a service from the south west direction (b and h), anything above 85mph between Reading and Padd will result in a swift and harsh brake application shortly after.

Generally we are timed about 29 minutes on average for a journey easily do able in about 23-24.

All these boasts about saving ten mins (or whatever it is) between London and Plymouth with AT300s, yet remove the ridiculous padding between Reading and London (5 minutes) and on the B and H (7 minutes) then those time savings could easily be achieved with a HST tomorrow....

The timings will be saved, until the class 800's have to end up stopping at the stations being passed through.

I remember the days, when the HST's would stop at Swindon after Reading, then at Bath, but before then completing the journey at Bristol. Now you have the same trains stopping at Didcot and Chippenham, so which stations I wonder will the class 800's stop at in the future, which they will not be stopping into when they are introduced?

 

[jimm]

The timings will be saved, until the class 800's have to end up stopping at the stations being passed through.

I remember the days, when the HST's would stop at Swindon after Reading, then at Bath, but before then completing the journey at Bristol. Now you have the same trains stopping at Didcot and Chippenham, so which stations I wonder will the class 800's stop at in the future, which they will not be stopping into when they are introduced?

The old DfT spreadsheet showing potential diagrams for the IEPs gives an idea of stopping patterns but can people please not read too much more into it than this. It is not some sort of definitive timetable.

A link to the Excel file is in this thread in post 2 http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=118656

 

[Dave1987]

125 on the fast lines, yeah right!
If you attempt to get above about 110 now the ATP has a fit, 90-100 is enough to run on greens, any more and its ATP flashy flashy time and double/single yellows.
When there are more trains running it will be even worse!

You are forgetting that these new trains will apparently reduce dwell times massively according to some, even though some journalists have pointed out that because of the design that dwell times may not be reduced much at all. The power operated doors will help massively as slam doors should have gone years ago but the way the train was designed means that people boarding and alighting will take just as long if not longer than it does now. Every month I read how this whole project descends into more of a farce (as in the whole GW modernisation program with these trains are part of) as time goes on and the costs keep going up and up and up.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

You are forgetting that these new trains as was well will apparently reduce dwell times massively according to some, even though some journalists have pointed out that because of the design that dwell times may not be reduced much at all. The power operated doors will help massively as slam doors should have gone years ago but the way the train was designed means that people boarding and alighting will take just as long if not longer than it does now. Every month I read how this whole project descends into more of a farce as time goes on and the costs keep going up and up and up.

Dwell times will be comparable to HST stock or slightly better - some factors will decrease dwell time, other factors will increase dwell time, it'll balance itself out or average slightly lower dwell times.

There will be some services which have a slightly longer dwell time, other services will have a slightly shorter dwell time, it will depend on passenger numbers, other services operating within the same time frame, what luggage passengers have and so on.

I'd be surprised if throughout a diagram a minute lost at one point isn't recovered by a minute gained somewhere else, just because of the different traffic types. End to end, I don't see the IEP sets missing their dwell time targets on average.

When everybody is onboard, of course, the superior acceleration will significantly improve performance.

 

[Dave1987]

Dwell times will be comparable to HST stock - some factors will decrease dwell time, other factors will increase dwell time, it'll balance itself out, on average.

There will be some services which have a slightly longer dwell time, other services will have a slightly shorter dwell time, it will depend on passenger numbers, other services operating within the same time frame, what luggage passengers have and so on.

I'd be surprised if throughout a diagram a minute lost at one point isn't recovered by a minute gained somewhere else, just because of the different traffic types. End to end, I don't see the IEP sets missing their dwell time targets on average.

But the whole point was to decrease dwell times wasn't it? Again considering these are Intercity trains and people are likely to be carrying large luggage then surely they should have been designed with that in mind?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

But the whole point was to decrease dwell times wasn't it? Again considering these are Intercity trains and people are likely to be carrying large luggage then surely they should have been designed with that in mind?

You keep saying things like "should have been designed with that in mind" so what exactly do you think Hitachi, who have a little more experience in designing trains than you do, were doing ?

You also seem to be ignoring (wilfully, it seems) the issues of increasing passenger demand. It takes longer to load 300 passengers than it does to load 250 passengers, no matter how many doors, luggage racks and seats your train has. What IEP will achieve is lower dwell times when compared to an HST, for the same passenger demand.

It might be that IEP dwell times are higher in 2020 than they were for an HST or IC225 set in 2000, but they will be lower than if an HST or IC225 set was to operate the same service in 2020.

 

[Dave1987]

You keep saying things like "should have been designed with that in mind" so what exactly do you think Hitachi, who have a little more experience in designing trains than you do, were doing ?

You also seem to be ignoring (wilfully, it seems) the issues of increasing passenger demand. It takes longer to load 300 passengers than it does to load 250 passengers, no matter how many doors, luggage racks and seats your train has. What IEP will achieve is lower dwell times when compared to an HST, for the same passenger demand.

It might be that IEP dwell times are higher in 2020 than they were for an HST or IC225 set in 2000, but they will be lower than if an HST or IC225 set was to operate the same service in 2020.

Because these are bloody expensive trains no matter how you cut it! For the amount they are costing they should be better in every single way compared to what they are replacing. I am not "wilfully ignoring" anything. When all the specs were released it was pointed out by several well respected individuals that the design would cause issues yet the people at the DFT ploughed on anyway. There are other people on this thread who have made out that these trains will be fantastic in every way, there are some of us who are pointing out that they won't. Because they are as expensive as they are the design should be perfect. From what I have read there were much cheaper alternatives on the table but MP's and DFT got all gooey eyed at being able to announce about the factory Hitachi would build and the jobs they could announce. The money being ploughed into this project as a whole is potentially costing investment elsewhere in the country which frankly stinks. The only thing about them that makes dwell times shorter is the power operated doors, apart from that the dwell times will be as long or maybe longer. Hey if I'm wrong and they are fantastic and everything is great when they enter service then I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

 

[AM9]

Because these are bloody expensive trains no matter how you cut it! For the amount they are costing they should be better in every single way compared to what they are replacing. I am not "wilfully ignoring" anything. When all the specs were released it was pointed out by several well respected individuals that the design would cause issues yet the people at the DFT ploughed on anyway. There are other people on this thread who have made out that these trains will be fantastic in every way, there are some of us who are pointing out that they won't. Because they are as expensive as they are the design should be perfect. From what I have read there were much cheaper alternatives on the table but MP's and DFT got all gooey eyed at being able to announce about the factory Hitachi would build and the jobs they could announce. The money being ploughed into this project as a whole is potentially costing investment elsewhere in the country which frankly stinks. The only thing about them that makes dwell times shorter is the power operated doors, apart from that the dwell times will be as long or maybe longer. Hey if I'm wrong and they are fantastic and everything is great when they enter service then I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

No doubt you could enlighten us here with an example of a 'perfect' inter-city UK train, we then could all stand back and agree with you that the 800s are as flawed as you point out.

 

[Dave1987]

No doubt you could enlighten us here with an example of a 'perfect' inter-city UK train, we then could all stand back and agree with you that the 800s are as flawed as you point out.

Copy the German ICE trains...... but with slightly shorter coaches.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Copy the German ICE trains...... but with slightly shorter coaches.

I'm not convinced the Class 800 interior is all that different from what a UK ICE4 would look like. Indeed, the use of greys and wood effect is very ICE indeed.

Personally I think it looks quite good. Might well beat my favourite UK "InterCity" unit, the Class 444.

 

[JamesRowden]

Because these are bloody expensive trains no matter how you cut it! For the amount they are costing they should be better in every single way compared to what they are replacing. I am not "wilfully ignoring" anything. When all the specs were released it was pointed out by several well respected individuals that the design would cause issues yet the people at the DFT ploughed on anyway. There are other people on this thread who have made out that these trains will be fantastic in every way, there are some of us who are pointing out that they won't. Because they are as expensive as they are the design should be perfect. From what I have read there were much cheaper alternatives on the table but MP's and DFT got all gooey eyed at being able to announce about the factory Hitachi would build and the jobs they could announce. The money being ploughed into this project as a whole is potentially costing investment elsewhere in the country which frankly stinks. The only thing about them that makes dwell times shorter is the power operated doors, apart from that the dwell times will be as long or maybe longer. Hey if I'm wrong and they are fantastic and everything is great when they enter service then I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

800s should be significantly cheaper than HSTs in terms of energy costs. Have you considered this in your `bloody expensive trains' calculations?

 

[southern442]

:roll:

Whooaa, slow down speedy!!! On a service from the south west direction (b and h), anything above 85mph between Reading and Padd will result in a swift and harsh brake application shortly after.

Generally we are timed about 29 minutes on average for a journey easily do able in about 23-24.

All these boasts about saving ten mins (or whatever it is) between London and Plymouth with AT300s, yet remove the ridiculous padding between Reading and London (5 minutes) and on the B and H (7 minutes) then those time savings could easily be achieved with a HST tomorrow....

Perhaps it is a sinister plot to add another reason to introduce the AT300's. "The old, slow HST's can only do Reading to Paddington in 29 minutes, but our lovely new trains can do it in 23!" On a serious note, could they (or would they be able to) get away with saying something like that?

 

[455driver]

800s should be significantly cheaper than HSTs in terms of energy costs. Have you considered this in your `bloody expensive trains' calculations?

So you are trying to say that the IEP (which costs 3 times more per coach) than a HST can claw some of that cost back in lower energy usage costs?

The IEPs are also much heavier than an equivalent HST so will probably consume at least the same amount energy to move them, okay they will get a tiny amount back when running on electric with the regen braking but it doesn't make that much difference in the grand scheme of things!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps it is a sinister plot to add another reason to introduce the AT300's. "The old, slow HST's can only do Reading to Paddington in 29 minutes, but our lovely new trains can do it in 23!" On a serious note, could they (or would they be able to) get away with saying something like that?

You can bet your last penny they will be coming out with statements like that on a weekly basis to try and make it sound like these new trains are much better than what went before them.

 

[JamesRowden]

So you are trying to say that the IEP (which costs 3 times more per coach) than a HST can claw some of that cost back in lower energy usage costs?

The IEPs are also much heavier than an equivalent HST so will probably consume at least the same amount energy to move them, okay they will get a tiny amount back when running on electric with the regen braking but it doesn't make that much difference in the grand scheme of things!

Then how are electric trains cheaper than diesels?

The answer is that the costs of carrying fuel, carrying diesel engine(s) onboard and the maintenance required by the diesel engine(s) are the difference. Bi-modes can significantly reduce the effect of the first and third factors.

HSTs have very poor acceleration due to not having distributed traction, which should allow an 800 to leave an HST completely behind when track conditions are very slippery. This allows an 800 to require far less timetable padding for timetable reliability reasons, even if there isn't such a large performance difference in normal conditions. Therefore the costs of a class 800 should really be compared to that of another 125mph DMU such as a Voyager or a 180.

 

[The Ham]

So you are trying to say that the IEP (which costs 3 times more per coach) than a HST can claw some of that cost back in lower energy usage costs?

The IEPs are also much heavier than an equivalent HST so will probably consume at least the same amount energy to move them, okay they will get a tiny amount back when running on electric with the regen braking but it doesn't make that much difference in the grand scheme of things!

Can we have some clarity, as IIRC over the last week various people have claimed that the IEP contract will cost three times as much as the HST's only some have said per seat, some have said per coach and I think someone said as the existing fleet. It's also not clear as to whether it is just a like for like or the whole HST fleet or the whole GWR fleet. Which is it and can you provide your source?

It's just that those figures would result in different answers to each other, given that there are more coaches in the fleet and more seats in the coaches (as we know that the number of full length trains is comparable to the existing HST and 180 fleet plus one 5 coach set spare).

This leads to a further question, does the extra cost take into account the cost of the 180's? As we now know that there are enough for the replacement of those as well.

Also what was costed, for instance is just lease costs for the HST's or if more than that does it provide a true like for like cost comparison?

As for instance if the cost is on a fleet replacement (assuming just the thirty odd HST's which the IEP contract for the GWML covered) then the cost per seat will be a lot lower than the 3 times figure (probably not very close to 1:1, but a lot better value than would be implied). As there will be more seats over more trains and not on a like for like basis as the original cost didn't allow for the leasing of the 180's. Likewise if the cost comparison didn't include the maintenance costs of the HST's then again the comparison isn't quite as accurate it could be and would mean that the "real" coat for the TOC would be better value than is implied in the 3 times higher statistic.

 

[jimm]

Because these are bloody expensive trains no matter how you cut it! For the amount they are costing they should be better in every single way compared to what they are replacing. I am not "wilfully ignoring" anything. When all the specs were released it was pointed out by several well respected individuals that the design would cause issues yet the people at the DFT ploughed on anyway. There are other people on this thread who have made out that these trains will be fantastic in every way, there are some of us who are pointing out that they won't. Because they are as expensive as they are the design should be perfect. From what I have read there were much cheaper alternatives on the table but MP's and DFT got all gooey eyed at being able to announce about the factory Hitachi would build and the jobs they could announce. The money being ploughed into this project as a whole is potentially costing investment elsewhere in the country which frankly stinks. The only thing about them that makes dwell times shorter is the power operated doors, apart from that the dwell times will be as long or maybe longer. Hey if I'm wrong and they are fantastic and everything is great when they enter service then I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

What makes the 800/801 look so expensive is the way that the Government decided to procure and pay for them, under what is basically a PFI agreement - and we know how well those have worked out for us taxpayers when it comes to footing the bills for new hospitals for the NHS and how much we are going to be paying to get electricity from Hinkley Point C, if it ever gets built...

But you know all this already, don't you? And are still wilfully ignoring it.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The old DfT spreadsheet showing potential diagrams for the IEPs gives an idea of stopping patterns but can people please not read too much more into it than this. It is not some sort of definitive timetable.

A link to the Excel file is in this thread in post 2 http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=118656

Perhaps they should just have ordered more class 345 units and extended Crossrail services to Bristol and Oxford?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No doubt you could enlighten us here with an example of a 'perfect' inter-city UK train, we then could all stand back and agree with you that the 800s are as flawed as you point out.

Perfect inter-city train?Plenty of mark 1s with a restuarant car and food cooked on board. Just like the sets introduced on the WCML in the early 1950s, and van space for luggage and cycles. Add some LED lighting as the low voltage tungsten bulbs were a bit dim and drained the batteries quickly.

 

[The Ham]

Perfect inter-city train?Plenty of mark 1s with a restuarant car and food cooked on board. Just like the sets introduced on the WCML in the early 1950s, and van space for luggage and cycles. Add some LED lighting as the low voltage tungsten bulbs were a bit dim and drained the batteries quickly.

Reintroduction of Mark 1's wouldn't happen given that the Mark 2's were introduced to make trains safer and reduce maintenance issues.

Later coach developments have further developed safety, efficiency and passenger comfort. The last versions under BR was the Mark 5 (never constructed) and a variant of the Mark 4 which both proposed 26m long coaches!

Therefore it is unsurprising that the class 80x's ended up with that length.

In theory it could be possible to develop a 21's century Mark 1, but it would have more in common with the 80x's than it's 1950's counterpart.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A 21st century Mk1 would probably look a bit like the Voyager hybrid coach (all tables, big windows) without the tilt profile.

 

[HowardGWR]

I'm not convinced the Class 800 interior is all that different from what a UK ICE4 would look like. Indeed, the use of greys and wood effect is very ICE indeed.

Personally I think it looks quite good. Might well beat my favourite UK "InterCity" unit, the Class 444.

Your two examples have indeed very good leg room properties. Will there be such good leg room on Class 80x?

 

[Dave1987]

Then how are electric trains cheaper than diesels?

The answer is that the costs of carrying fuel, carrying diesel engine(s) onboard and the maintenance required by the diesel engine(s) are the difference. Bi-modes can significantly reduce the effect of the first and third factors.

HSTs have very poor acceleration due to not having distributed traction, which should allow an 800 to leave an HST completely behind when track conditions are very slippery. This allows an 800 to require far less timetable padding for timetable reliability reasons, even if there isn't such a large performance difference in normal conditions. Therefore the costs of a class 800 should really be compared to that of another 125mph DMU such as a Voyager or a 180.

If you read MR magazine December edition, Page 28 has an article on the bi-mode acceleration. It is pointed out that although the new trains have distributed traction and accelerate very well from a standing start that acceleration quickly dies off above 13 mph and at around 70 mph a HST would actually overtake one. So clearly the lack of horse power makes a really big difference at higher speeds. As is pointed out in the article, distributed traction cannot make up for lack of horse power. Yes under the wires these things will be fast, but no one ever denied that would be the case. If the wires were all up and these were pure EMU's then half the drawbacks would not even apply.

 

[455driver]

Then how are electric trains cheaper than diesels?

Because they don't have to lug around their power generators and the fuel that they need.

The answer is that the costs of carrying fuel, carrying diesel engine(s) onboard and the maintenance required by the diesel engine(s) are the difference. Bi-modes can significantly reduce the effect of the first and third factors.

Straight electrics (or trains with one engine as an emergency generator/limp home supply) are much cheaper/lighter.

HSTs have very poor acceleration due to not having distributed traction, which should allow an 800 to leave an HST completely behind when track conditions are very slippery. This allows an 800 to require far less timetable padding for timetable reliability reasons, even if there isn't such a large performance difference in normal conditions. Therefore the costs of a class 800 should really be compared to that of another 125mph DMU such as a Voyager or a 180.

IEPs will be quicker away from a standing start (because of the distributed power) but HSTs have the grunt as the speed increases simply because of the installed horsepower, something IEPs don't have so HSTs will soon overtake them and disappear off into the distance simply because of the horsepower available.

It all depends on your viewpoint whether bi-mode is the best of both worlds with its go anywhere ability (as long as the route is cleared for 26m coaches ), or whether its the worst idea because of the weight penalty of having to drag around the diesel engines and fuel when running on electric or lugging around the transformers, rectifiers etc when running on diesel!

 

[JamesRowden]

Because they don't have to lug around their power generators and the fuel that they need.


Straight electrics (or trains with one engine as an emergency generator/limp home supply) are much cheaper/lighter.


IEPs will be quicker away from a standing start (because of the distributed power) but HSTs have the grunt as the speed increases simply because of the installed horsepower, something IEPs don't have so HSTs will soon overtake them and disappear off into the distance simply because of the horsepower available.

It all depends on your viewpoint whether bi-mode is the best of both worlds with its go anywhere ability (as long as the route is cleared for 26m coaches ), or whether its the worst idea because of the weight penalty of having to drag around the diesel engines and fuel when running on electric or lugging around the transformers, rectifiers etc when running on diesel!

As I see it, potential Saturday line closures on parts of the GWML mean that some normal bi-mode diagrams will be completely under the wires (such as Swansea services once electrification is complete) in order to have enough bi-modes to operate diverted services during engineering works and disruption. The alternatives as I see it would be to: operate diesels completely under the wires, not have closures on Saturdays or diversions during disruption; operate diverted routes by forcing passengers to change twice between diesels and electrics (e.g. Reading and Bath/Bristol via the Berks and Hants). The new AT300 order may have changed this balance since the 800s were ordered. But the late electrification project moves the priorities the other way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your two examples have indeed very good leg room properties. Will there be such good leg room on Class 80x?

I hope so

 

[455driver]

As I see it, potential Saturday line closures on parts of the GWML mean that some normal bi-mode diagrams will be completely under the wires (such as Swansea services once electrification is complete) in order to have enough bi-modes to operate diverted services during engineering works and disruption. The alternatives as I see it would be to: operate diesels completely under the wires, not have closures on Saturdays or diversions during disruption; operate diverted routes by forcing passengers to change twice between diesels and electrics (e.g. Reading and Bath/Bristol via the Berks and Hants). The new AT300 order may have changed this balance since the 800s were ordered. But the late electrification project moves the priorities the other way.

Maybe they should look at infill electrification schemes that would open up other opportunities as well as provide an alternative route!