GWR Class 800

[JamesRowden]

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

It's quicker to build new trains than electricity a route

 

[HowardGWR]

I hope so

I've looked on the net but have not discovered a diagram with those vital data.
I'm sat in a second class 800 - what's the leg room compared with a 444? As another important issue, can I, as an airport-bound passenger, sling my airline size wheeled suitcase* up on the rack, or is it almost risking injury to me or my fellow pax, as in a 159, for instance?

*These are the ones that don't need to go in the hold. Mrs GWR and I can go for a 12 day holiday without needing to trouble the aircraft hold, or our bank account (yes, we do stay pristine clean ).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's quicker to build new trains than electrify a route

As a result of Paris, it's clear that it will all be electrified eventually. It's the only way the energy could be produced from renewable sources or nuclear, so that is what will happen. In fairness to him, although making good points, the likes of Roger Ford have been confounded.

He was right to call attention to both the efficiency and funding issues, but on grounds of flexibility, resilience (think diversion), and enabling stepwise expansion of the network, the 80x bi-modes have to have been a strategic winner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a bit hard to tell about legroom from a simple figure, there are too many factors affecting it - pitch, back thickness, back shape, height, lower leg and upper leg proportions and length, width of hips and so on. For instance I am more comfortable (if you'd call it that) in a Voyager airline seat than a Mk3 one despite the latter having a much greater pitch, because the fixed armrest forces my knees forwards into the table supports (the latter only because of lower leg length).

Luggage racks look big enough in the picture.

 

[HowardGWR]

Luggage racks look big enough in the picture.

Why don't they make them closable like in the aircraft? It would help both safety and reduce chance of theft.

 

[najaB]

Why don't they make them closable like in the aircraft? It would help both safety and reduce chance of theft.

Would it really help safety that much? Can't remember the last time a train hit a pocket of severe turbulence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't remember ever having seen a piece of luggage fall off a luggage rack on a train except when someone was attempting to put it up or down.

 

[HowardGWR]

I can't remember ever having seen a piece of luggage fall off a luggage rack on a train except when someone was attempting to put it up or down.

Thanks for supporting my point. Try and put up a wheeled airline bag, next time you are on a 158 or 159. Also, tell us how you avoided the hernia while doing so and avoided causing serious injury to the passenger sat nearest the window. One of the wheels will stick out over the rack precipitously.

 

[tbtc]

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

How does it work on the GEML, Dave?

The moment there's someone stood on an eight coach 321 unable to get a seat, they quickly attach another unit to make it twelve coaches (because Nobody Should Be Forced To Stand)?

On the GWML, are FGW regularly attaching an extra 165/166 onto any Thames Valley service that have a single standing passenger on board?

I certainly don't remember any EMT services at St Pancras having an extra 222 added when the Guard spotted a passenger standing?

Does your local bus company quickly find a double decker if there's anyone forced to stand on a busy single decker?

So why are people being precious about standing passengers on the GWML in the 2020s?

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

Well, if you are so concerned about dwell times then we could have something more like a 350 with doors closer to the middle of the carriages?

Oh, wait, you've already complained that these trains are too focussed on commuters... which way do you want it?

Are you now reaching for "dwell times" as the latest thing to justify your dislike for these trains, even though you'd complain if they had "commuter" door spacing?

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

I think that this thread is broadly split between those who accept that 800/801s are a reasonable compromise (given the need to deal with long distance leisure passengers and large volumes of short distance commuters, given the need to run a 125mph railway that has a much more frequent stopping pattern than other long distance lines, given the need to move to electric operation despite large sections remaining unwired for many years to come, given the need to deal with ten coaches worth of Reading commuters and much shorter platforms and quieter stations towards places like Hereford)...

...and those who are trying to find any excuse to moan about trains that none of us have been on yet.

Anything that can cope with a thousand Reading commuters on the 125mph electrified Thames Valley and can cope with the Hereford end of the line is going to be a compromise - I can accept that no existing design is going to be perfect so that the 800/801s have to be good at lots of things without being *perfect* for one specific market.

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)

I don't know where the "three times" cost comes from - I've seen it mentioned many times but generally by people who are comparing apples and oranges.

I'll not defend the PFI deal - other than to say that it's likely that any stock produced by the DfT would be financed in such an overpriced way.

I would say that comparing the simple cost of purchasing units against a contract that includes maintenance (with associated guarantees/ penalties) isn't fair. Much modern stock comes with these kind of arrangements (that appear to push the price up a bit more).

Also, I'd point out that in our imperfect situation (slowly electrifying routes), we need something a bit more complicated that 100% electric or 100% diesel over the next thirty years - so the "cost of purchasing an off-the-shelf EMU" isn't really relevant - there are some design costs in designing this new design of train for the UK market that are always going to be included in the first batch (in the way that the NBfL seems stupidly expensive, if you only look at the first batch ordered).

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

This is basically the railway equivalent of "Old maids bicycling to holy communion through the morning mist"

Still, keep on complaining about the seating density / pitch whilst wanting to take up Paddington platform space with luggage vans

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!

How much is the weight of the transformers, compared to the number of passengers on a 260m train, out of interest?

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

Given how long it's taking Network Rail to wire up the main lines (GWML, MML, TPML), I think it's a long time before we have the luxury of starting work on all the diversionary routes.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Given how long it's taking Network Rail to wire up the main lines (GWML, MML, TPML), I think it's a long time before we have the luxury of starting work on all the diversionary routes.

I agree with almost all of your post, but on the diversionary routes it would be a lot more acceptable to have full weekend closures relatively often, rather than trying to do almost all of the work overnight and at Christmas/Easter. I would guess it would be significantly faster to electrify diversionary lines, especially with the skill base being built up from electrifying the main lines first.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for supporting my point. Try and put up a wheeled airline bag, next time you are on a 158 or 159. Also, tell us how you avoided the hernia while doing so and avoided causing serious injury to the passenger sat nearest the window. One of the wheels will stick out over the rack precipitously.

I'm not sure why I am supporting your point, because the presence of a door does not affect whether someone drops a bag on your head while trying to place it in the rack or remove it therefrom, because when doing so the door is open.

The rack on 158s is a bit small. This was a fad on units designed around the mid 1990s to early 2000s, including the comically small rack on Turbostars (oddly, the ScotRail ones have a more usable rack in First Class), Electrostars and Voyagers (you can get an IATA carry-on on the latter, though, without it being precarious). Pendolinos and later designs have better-sized racks, the Desiro being the best - massive, and shaped to ensure that even the largest bags are properly secure.

Putting bags up is not something I find difficult because I'm tall (the seating itself is more likely to pose a difficulty) but larger racks tend to be mounted lower down so this solves your issue as well. But if you can't get your bag up there, don't put it up there, use a floor-level rack or between the seat backs of facing seats.

Knowing what I do about the size of windows (having ridden a Javelin unit which are very similar) the photo upthread seems to show a sensibly sized rack at a sensible height.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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?

I had a 22 minutes start to stop last month...

 

[Haydn1971]

How much is the weight of the transformers, compared to the number of passengers on a 260m train, out of interest?

This question intrigued me... The average man is 11st apparently, working on generous 12st per person, to cover weight of clothes, baggage, cycles, laptops etc... For 650 people your looking at about 50 tonnes

 

[RAGNARØKR]

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.

Distributed traction gives better acceleration on starting, but at higher speeds the limiting factor is the power available. Informed Sources has discussed this many times.

The benefits apply to trains running on services with frequent stops eg metro type routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

The BREL International was the train - mark 3 construction, 9 bays instead of 8 and big windows. The intermediate coaches on the class 180 come close.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't remember ever having seen a piece of luggage fall off a luggage rack on a train except when someone was attempting to put it up or down.

I have. There was a jolt and a heavy case landed on someone's head. They were badly cut. This was on a mark 4. The case should not have been there in the first place. The lesson is to keep an eye on what is in the rack above where you are sitting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

between the seat backs of facing seats.

Which is not possible when most of the seats are airline configuration.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is basically the railway equivalent of "Old maids bicycling to holy communion through the morning mist"

Still, keep on complaining about the seating density / pitch whilst wanting to take up Paddington platform space with luggage vans

And a pannier tank standing at the buffer stops. It was the answer to the question though.

Paddington has lost about 60 metres of platform length since they were running that sort of train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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!

Serilously, though, the BREL International and the class 180 intermediate cars come close. Both had a bay dimension of 1.9 metres which makes it possible to align most of the seats with the windows. The International was a 9 bay design to mark 3 construction with large windows. 72 seats in an all-bay configuration 76 or 80 with a mixture of bays and airlines. The intention was that they would be the mark 4 but things worked out differently in the end.

 

[jimm]

I agree with almost all of your post, but on the diversionary routes it would be a lot more acceptable to have full weekend closures relatively often, rather than trying to do almost all of the work overnight and at Christmas/Easter. I would guess it would be significantly faster to electrify diversionary lines, especially with the skill base being built up from electrifying the main lines first.

Well it probably wouldn't be acceptable to the passengers whose routes were closed every weekend for months on end and the odds of any GW diversionary routes being wired any time soon are remote. Wiring routes for diversions alone is never going to be viable. It must be part of a scheme to convert as many services as possible using a route to electric traction.

The study of wiring Newbury-Westbury-Bath was less than convincing in terms of a business case and Swindon-Gloucester-Severn Tunnel Junction will only ever get wires in conjunction with a Birmingham-Bristol/Cardiff XC route scheme, which now looks unlikely until the mid-2020s at the earliest as electrification resources are likely to be tied up on East-West, the Midland Main Line and in South Wales in the early part of the next decade.

 

[Dave1987]

How does it work on the GEML, Dave?

The moment there's someone stood on an eight coach 321 unable to get a seat, they quickly attach another unit to make it twelve coaches (because Nobody Should Be Forced To Stand)?

On the GWML, are FGW regularly attaching an extra 165/166 onto any Thames Valley service that have a single standing passenger on board?

I certainly don't remember any EMT services at St Pancras having an extra 222 added when the Guard spotted a passenger standing?

Does your local bus company quickly find a double decker if there's anyone forced to stand on a busy single decker?

So why are people being precious about standing passengers on the GWML in the 2020s?



Well, if you are so concerned about dwell times then we could have something more like a 350 with doors closer to the middle of the carriages?

Oh, wait, you've already complained that these trains are too focussed on commuters... which way do you want it?

Are you now reaching for "dwell times" as the latest thing to justify your dislike for these trains, even though you'd complain if they had "commuter" door spacing?



I think that this thread is broadly split between those who accept that 800/801s are a reasonable compromise (given the need to deal with long distance leisure passengers and large volumes of short distance commuters, given the need to run a 125mph railway that has a much more frequent stopping pattern than other long distance lines, given the need to move to electric operation despite large sections remaining unwired for many years to come, given the need to deal with ten coaches worth of Reading commuters and much shorter platforms and quieter stations towards places like Hereford)...

...and those who are trying to find any excuse to moan about trains that none of us have been on yet.

Anything that can cope with a thousand Reading commuters on the 125mph electrified Thames Valley and can cope with the Hereford end of the line is going to be a compromise - I can accept that no existing design is going to be perfect so that the 800/801s have to be good at lots of things without being *perfect* for one specific market.



I don't know where the "three times" cost comes from - I've seen it mentioned many times but generally by people who are comparing apples and oranges.

I'll not defend the PFI deal - other than to say that it's likely that any stock produced by the DfT would be financed in such an overpriced way.

I would say that comparing the simple cost of purchasing units against a contract that includes maintenance (with associated guarantees/ penalties) isn't fair. Much modern stock comes with these kind of arrangements (that appear to push the price up a bit more).

Also, I'd point out that in our imperfect situation (slowly electrifying routes), we need something a bit more complicated that 100% electric or 100% diesel over the next thirty years - so the "cost of purchasing an off-the-shelf EMU" isn't really relevant - there are some design costs in designing this new design of train for the UK market that are always going to be included in the first batch (in the way that the NBfL seems stupidly expensive, if you only look at the first batch ordered).

1 - There are a lot of arguments currently going on on GEML about capacity and I believe the new franchise will see a dramatic increase in capacity both peak and off-peak. Some who frequent this forum believe that the London - Norwich intercity sets would be fine with 5 cars of-peak which is just insane! Some people seem believe that hardly anyone travels in the off peak which simply isn't true.

2 - The point is that there should be sufficient capacity to cope with demand. The notion that you shouldn't run a 9 car train off-peak just in case there might be a coach worth of empty seats and that's just waste is crazy.

3 - The thread is split into those who love the project and refuse to accept there are any flaws in it what so ever and those of us who feel the price tag is that high the design should be absolutely perfect. Yes these train will bring many benefits but some huge drawbacks as well.

4 - The DFT seem to have been confused with these trains as to whether they are targeting the needs of the Reading commuter belt or the long distance travellers. As I have read the simple fact that these have high floors and are 26m long mean they have some major drawbacks at stations. Apart from power doors they are a worse design than the HST's that they are replacing for passengers boarding and alighting. Now to me that's not on is it. The obsession with creating very long coaches just to squeeze that extra few seats per coach mean the tapered ends haven't got as much room. So to fit the toilet and bike storage the gangways have to be narrower. Just look at photos of ICE trains in Germany and see how big the vestibule areas are. So are these commuter trains or intercity trains?

5 - The whole bi-mode idea is fine on paper (which I'm sure the civil servants at the DFT thought 'Bingo we've got it!') but in reality it does not perform as well again as what it is replacing except not running diesel engines under the wires. I'm of the firm belief that the only reason the DFT went with the Hitachi bid was so they could make their big announcement about them being built at Newton Aycliffe and al the jobs it would create. Their were much cheaper alternatives they could have gone with.

6 - I just hope this whole saga hasn't cost much needed investment elsewhere in the country.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Well it probably wouldn't be acceptable to the passengers whose routes were closed every weekend for months on end and the odds of any GW diversionary routes being wired any time soon are remote. Wiring routes for diversions alone is never going to be viable. It must be part of a scheme to convert as many services as possible using a route to electric traction.

I mean routes that are of lesser importance but which could be used for diversions to the main lines if necessary, rather than purely used as a diversionary line.

 

[jimm]

1 - There are a lot of arguments currently going on on GEML about capacity and I believe the new franchise will see a dramatic increase in capacity both peak and off-peak. Some who frequent this forum believe that the London - Norwich intercity sets would be fine with 5 cars of-peak which is just insane! Some people seem believe that hardly anyone travels in the off peak which simply isn't true.

No one has ordered AT300 type trains for the GEML so far, and what happens there has nothing to do with what is appropriate - or otherwise - in the parts of the network that will be served by the 800s and AT300s.

If I - and others who make the same point are "some people" we have never said that hardly anyone travels off-peak, just that not enough people are doing so to do anything like fill 600-seat trains every hour, and that a 300-seat train every hour will be far more appropriate in several parts of the GWR network both off-peak and contra-peak.

2 - The point is that there should be sufficient capacity to cope with demand. The notion that you shouldn't run a 9 car train off-peak just in case there might be a coach worth of empty seats and that's just waste is crazy.

What demand? You have been told umpteen times that there is not the demand outside the peaks on the Cotswold Line, or to the likes of Cheltenham and in Cornwall, or even west of Cardiff to justify use of an HST off-peak now, never mind a nine or 10-car IEP formation with even more seats. On the Cotswold Line, the HSTs are often running with no more than two coaches' worth of passengers most of the time. Really, how hard is it for you to accept this and draw the obvious conclusion that a 600-seat train is never, ever going to be appropriate here off-peak? Whereas the ability to couple a 300-seat train to another 300-seat train at Oxford, the point at which the 15.14 from Hereford actually needs lots of seats as it forms the 17.31 fast to Paddington, makes a great deal of sense, to me at least.

3 - The thread is split into those who love the project and refuse to accept there are any flaws in it what so ever and those of us who feel the price tag is that high the design should be absolutely perfect. Yes these train will bring many benefits but some huge drawbacks as well.

No. Anyone who dares to criticise your take on things is said to 'love the project', whatever it is they actually say. You keep going on about the price tag, when it was shown with the AT300 order that had the 800/801 order been done in the same way, via a leasing company, the cost of the trains is about £2m per coach, bearing comparison with the likes of Pendolinos. That the Government chose to go about it in another way is not the fault of Hitachi, GWR, Virgin EC or anyone else. And what is a 'perfect' train? There's no such thing. The inflexibility of HST formations is most certainly a very big drawback in their case.

4 - The DFT seem to have been confused with these trains as to whether they are targeting the needs of the Reading commuter belt or the long distance travellers. As I have read the simple fact that these have high floors and are 26m long mean they have some major drawbacks at stations. Apart from power doors they are a worse design than the HST's that they are replacing for passengers boarding and alighting. Now to me that's not on is it. The obsession with creating very long coaches just to squeeze that extra few seats per coach mean the tapered ends haven't got as much room. So to fit the toilet and bike storage the gangways have to be narrower. Just look at photos of ICE trains in Germany and see how big the vestibule areas are. So are these commuter trains or intercity trains?

And what about the Didcot, Oxford, Swindon, Bath and Cotswolds commuter belt? How many times have you been told that commuters don't end at Reading? HSTs leave Oxford full and standing on occasion. And the 800s from the Cotswolds will still form half the Oxford fast service through the day and most of it during the peaks, even when the 387s finally get to Oxford. HSTs, 180s and 22xs also have relatively high floors and are 23m long, so what's the big deal about another few metres? And yes, you can look at pictures of ICEs and their big vestibules, but you also need to look at the more generous loading gauge in Germany and the rather different job they are being asked to do. Long-distance, high-volume commuting is something of a British phenomenon, in part down to the provision of 125mph trains since the late 1970s and aided and abetted in recent years by the insane cost of housing in and around London. We can't turn back the clock to the 1950s when Ragnarokr's idea of a perfect train sailed though Reading non-stop.

5 - The whole bi-mode idea is fine on paper (which I'm sure the civil servants at the DFT thought 'Bingo we've got it!') but in reality it does not perform as well again as what it is replacing except not running diesel engines under the wires. I'm of the firm belief that the only reason the DFT went with the Hitachi bid was so they could make their big announcement about them being built at Newton Aycliffe and al the jobs it would create. Their were much cheaper alternatives they could have gone with.

Cheaper? Really? People keep telling us this but while Roger Ford may have done many sums about what the IEP lease deal costs, I have never seen any attempt to cost the provision of lots of diesel locos and the necessary supporting facilities instead. I suspect Stadler, which has just bought the Vossloh plant in Valencia, would take one look at the stop-start duty cycle required on the Cotswold Line and run a mile if asked to come up with a suitable loco.

6 - I just hope this whole saga hasn't cost much needed investment elsewhere in the country.

Well you could say much the same about pretty much any Government procurement project since the 1990s, with PFIs galore costing way more than simply borrowing the money and paying it back over time and the utter shambles that is the defence sector, where overspending and lack of oversight by the MoD over so many years makes Network Rail look like amateurs.

I mean routes that are of lesser importance but which could be used for diversions to the main lines if necessary, rather than purely used as a diversionary line.

Which routes do you mean? The routes I mentioned are both of lesser importance and are about the only obvious ones that could be used for diversions in the GW area. No one is going to pay to wire such routes if you cannot get the everyday services using them switched to electric traction once the wires are up, which was not the case with Newbury-Westbury-Bath, given the large number of services continuing beyond Westbury to the South Coast that would still need diesel traction.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Which routes do you mean? The routes I mentioned are both of lesser importance and are about the only obvious ones that could be used for diversions in the GW area. No one is going to pay to wire such routes if you cannot get the everyday services using them switched to electric traction once the wires are up, which was not the case with Newbury-Westbury-Bath, given the large number of services continuing beyond Westbury to the South Coast that would still need diesel traction.

More of a general point about wiring, not specifically to the GW area which I don't know much about. Just saying that wiring less busy routes will not necessarily take more time, and I reckon will take less time if they are able to close the route on a few weekends a year (not necessarily for months at a time as other people have commented, but certainly more than on main lines)

 

[The Ham]

I don't know where the "three times" cost comes from - I've seen it mentioned many times but generally by people who are comparing apples and oranges.

I'll not defend the PFI deal - other than to say that it's likely that any stock produced by the DfT would be financed in such an overpriced way.

I would say that comparing the simple cost of purchasing units against a contract that includes maintenance (with associated guarantees/ penalties) isn't fair. Much modern stock comes with these kind of arrangements (that appear to push the price up a bit more).

Hence the reason for asking for the source of the "three times" cost, as I am interested to know whether this figure is something that those who are firmly in the "IEP is bad" camp have heard and repeat (even if the figure is flawed) or whether it is a truly representative figure or somewhere between the two.

Therefore can someone provide a link to where this three times figure comes from?

 

[coppercapped]

Hence the reason for asking for the source of the "three times" cost, as I am interested to know whether this figure is something that those who are firmly in the "IEP is bad" camp have heard and repeat (even if the figure is flawed) or whether it is a truly representative figure or somewhere between the two.

Therefore can someone provide a link to where this three times figure comes from?

I don't know if this is quite the link you were expecting, but it is my evaluation of the published figures.

On 9th July 2014 the National Audit Office published a report (Procuring new trains, HC 531 Session 2014-15 9 July 2014) which was openly critical of the way the DfT has procured the trains for the IEP and Thameslink.

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

The Office of Rail and Road publishes a range of statistics on railway use, costs and revenues. In its document entitled “GB rail industry financial information for the year ending 31 March 2013” are included the annual rolling stock charges for the Train Operating Companies (TOCs). Those for first Great Western (fGW) (as was) amount to £68 million.

To this amount must be added the cost of daily maintenance and cleaning to bring the numbers to about the same basis as the IEP charges. In the ORR table is a heading ‘Other operating expenditure’ which amounted to £177 million for fGW which includes these, and many other, expenses. If it is assumed that some £20 million of this sum is for train cleaning and maintenance (including consumables), it would be reasonable to assume a total charge of some £90 million for the current fleet. Note that this is the cost to the train operator for the total fleet: all the High Speed Trains and all the trains required for the Thames Valley and Bristol suburban services, the Cotswold lines and the West Country.

I used the ORR figures for 2013 - I don't think the 2014 figures are wildly different.

On this basis the annual cost of the IEP fleet alone will be some three times what fGW currently pays for all of its trains. Even if all the £177 million were connected with train operation, this would still make the IEP by itself 18% to 20% more expensive than the entire existing fleet.

The point is that by (a) only paying for operated diagrams when the trains have entered service and (b) by not making any progress payments during development and construction of the trains, the DfT has put all the funding responsibility on Hitachi. As a result Hitachi has had to fund the 8 years of the entire programme from the time it was named as preferred supplier to the time the first train enters service. This is covered largely by borrowing - although the Foster report assumed that some of the capital would be raised as equity I do not know whether Hitachi issued any shares to help finance this programme. In any event the interest on the money borrowed over 8 years must be considerable - and largely explains why the Train Service Provision payments are so high.

The advantage for the DfT is that this is an 'off balance sheet' transaction which is not reflected in its budgeting. For the DfT the trains are free - all it has done is guarantee the Train Service Provision payments being made by the TOC. And none of these fall due for another year or more.

 

[JamesRowden]

Distributed traction gives better acceleration on starting, but at higher speeds the limiting factor is the power available. Informed Sources has discussed this many times.

I was only referring to the start, I didn't say that an HST would never eventually catch up. :roll: Can you give us the complete displacement to time plot of an 800 and an HST starting from zero accelerating to 125mph on a rainy day to prove your point?

 

[Dave1987]

I was only referring to the start, I didn't say that an HST would never eventually catch up. :roll: Can you give us the complete displacement to time plot of an 800 and an HST starting from zero accelerating to 125mph on a rainy day to prove your point?

Well for a start rain does not signify there will be low rail adhesion low rail adhesion! In fact if its raining a lot it can clean the rail head and you get very good rail adhesion. In the December edition of MR, Roger Ford does a study on the acceleration of a bi-mode SET compared to a HST. Event though the bi-mode accelerates quickly up to about 13mph after that the acceleration lowers significantly, when it reaches 72mph the HST is up to 80mph and overtaking it. Once you get up to the higher speeds you need the horse power which the bi-modes are severely lacking compared to HST's.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Well for a start rain does not signify there will be low rail adhesion low rail adhesion! In fact if its raining a lot it can clean the rail head and you get very good rail adhesion. In the December edition of MR, Roger Ford does a study on the acceleration of a bi-mode SET compared to a HST. Event though the bi-mode accelerates quickly up to about 13mph after that the acceleration lowers significantly, when it reaches 72mph the HST is up to 80mph and overtaking it. Once you get up to the higher speeds you need the horse power which the bi-modes are severely lacking compared to HST's.

Bi-modes are only lacking in power if the engine is derated, if it's configured for the full 750kW, bi-mode IEP will leave an HST behind.

There is a reason, of course, IEP has been configured with a derated engine - it has the power it needs to meet the timetabling and diagrams asked of it, without excessive fuel consumption and with maintenance benefits.

Roger likes his "too much power is a good starting point" mantra, but when there are 3 car Class 185 units running with 2,250hp compared with the 1,350hp of their three car Class 158 predecessors, it's easy to get drunk on power, all that happens is you waste it all in heat, noise and worn out brake pads, at least going a bit mad with power in an electric train will get you a fair chunk of that back in regenerative braking.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Roger likes his "too much power is a good starting point" mantra, but when there are 3 car Class 185 units running with 2,250hp compared with the 1,350hp of their three car Class 158 predecessors, it's easy to get drunk on power, all that happens is you waste it all in heat, noise and worn out brake pads, at least going a bit mad with power in an electric train will get you a fair chunk of that back in regenerative braking.

Other than the Parry People Mover, why has a hybrid approach not yet been used for a DMU (guess it'd have to be a DEMU), i.e. shove it all in batteries (or an air reservoir) and use it to help accelerate (or if not that, just to power other things on the train)? Even Voyagers just burn it off in the roof mounted resistors.

 

[Dave1987]

No one has ordered AT300 type trains for the GEML so far, and what happens there has nothing to do with what is appropriate - or otherwise - in the parts of the network that will be served by the 800s and AT300s.

If I - and others who make the same point are "some people" we have never said that hardly anyone travels off-peak, just that not enough people are doing so to do anything like fill 600-seat trains every hour, and that a 300-seat train every hour will be far more appropriate in several parts of the GWR network both off-peak and contra-peak.



What demand? You have been told umpteen times that there is not the demand outside the peaks on the Cotswold Line, or to the likes of Cheltenham and in Cornwall, or even west of Cardiff to justify use of an HST off-peak now, never mind a nine or 10-car IEP formation with even more seats. On the Cotswold Line, the HSTs are often running with no more than two coaches' worth of passengers most of the time. Really, how hard is it for you to accept this and draw the obvious conclusion that a 600-seat train is never, ever going to be appropriate here off-peak? Whereas the ability to couple a 300-seat train to another 300-seat train at Oxford, the point at which the 15.14 from Hereford actually needs lots of seats as it forms the 17.31 fast to Paddington, makes a great deal of sense, to me at least.



No. Anyone who dares to criticise your take on things is said to 'love the project', whatever it is they actually say. You keep going on about the price tag, when it was shown with the AT300 order that had the 800/801 order been done in the same way, via a leasing company, the cost of the trains is about £2m per coach, bearing comparison with the likes of Pendolinos. That the Government chose to go about it in another way is not the fault of Hitachi, GWR, Virgin EC or anyone else. And what is a 'perfect' train? There's no such thing. The inflexibility of HST formations is most certainly a very big drawback in their case.



And what about the Didcot, Oxford, Swindon, Bath and Cotswolds commuter belt? How many times have you been told that commuters don't end at Reading? HSTs leave Oxford full and standing on occasion. And the 800s from the Cotswolds will still form half the Oxford fast service through the day and most of it during the peaks, even when the 387s finally get to Oxford. HSTs, 180s and 22xs also have relatively high floors and are 23m long, so what's the big deal about another few metres? And yes, you can look at pictures of ICEs and their big vestibules, but you also need to look at the more generous loading gauge in Germany and the rather different job they are being asked to do. Long-distance, high-volume commuting is something of a British phenomenon, in part down to the provision of 125mph trains since the late 1970s and aided and abetted in recent years by the insane cost of housing in and around London. We can't turn back the clock to the 1950s when Ragnarokr's idea of a perfect train sailed though Reading non-stop.



Cheaper? Really? People keep telling us this but while Roger Ford may have done many sums about what the IEP lease deal costs, I have never seen any attempt to cost the provision of lots of diesel locos and the necessary supporting facilities instead. I suspect Stadler, which has just bought the Vossloh plant in Valencia, would take one look at the stop-start duty cycle required on the Cotswold Line and run a mile if asked to come up with a suitable loco.



Well you could say much the same about pretty much any Government procurement project since the 1990s, with PFIs galore costing way more than simply borrowing the money and paying it back over time and the utter shambles that is the defence sector, where overspending and lack of oversight by the MoD over so many years makes Network Rail look like amateurs.



Which routes do you mean? The routes I mentioned are both of lesser importance and are about the only obvious ones that could be used for diversions in the GW area. No one is going to pay to wire such routes if you cannot get the everyday services using them switched to electric traction once the wires are up, which was not the case with Newbury-Westbury-Bath, given the large number of services continuing beyond Westbury to the South Coast that would still need diesel traction.

I had typed out a full response to your post but then the website messed up and deleted all I had written and I'm not going to retype it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bi-modes are only lacking in power if the engine is derated, if it's configured for the full 750kW, bi-mode IEP will leave an HST behind.

There is a reason, of course, IEP has been configured with a derated engine - it has the power it needs to meet the timetabling and diagrams asked of it, without excessive fuel consumption and with maintenance benefits.

Roger likes his "too much power is a good starting point" mantra, but when there are 3 car Class 185 units running with 2,250hp compared with the 1,350hp of their three car Class 158 predecessors, it's easy to get drunk on power, all that happens is you waste it all in heat, noise and worn out brake pads, at least going a bit mad with power in an electric train will get you a fair chunk of that back in regenerative braking.

One thing I always like about reading Roger Ford's articles is that he backs up all of his claims with evidence. Whether the bi-mode IEP could or could not leave a HST for dead on full power isn't the point really. They won't be able to beat a HST and complete the standard of reliability the DFT wants.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Other than the Parry People Mover, why has a hybrid approach not yet been used for a DMU (guess it'd have to be a DEMU), i.e. shove it all in batteries (or an air reservoir) and use it to help accelerate (or if not that, just to power other things on the train)? Even Voyagers just burn it off in the roof mounted resistors.

It need not be a DEMU specific technology - there's the GKN/Williams Hybrid flywheel system which can feed out of and back into a mechanical or hydraulic transmission system.

It's more a space issue as I understand it, from speaking to those who have to design trains for a living. Euro IIIb diesel units may need to have some engine ancillaries located within the passenger saloon (under seats) and finding space for flywheels or battery/super capacitor packs just isn't achievable.

 

[RobShipway]

Well for a start rain does not signify there will be low rail adhesion low rail adhesion! In fact if its raining a lot it can clean the rail head and you get very good rail adhesion. In the December edition of MR, Roger Ford does a study on the acceleration of a bi-mode SET compared to a HST. Event though the bi-mode accelerates quickly up to about 13mph after that the acceleration lowers significantly, when it reaches 72mph the HST is up to 80mph and overtaking it. Once you get up to the higher speeds you need the horse power which the bi-modes are severely lacking compared to HST's.

I don't think that you or Roger Ford from Modern Railways are taking into account that come the time that the IEP trains are introduced wiring from Airport Junction to Reading should I believe be complete as part of the Crossrail project.

So I think you will find that certainly up to Reading the IEP/800 trains will be quicker in 9 car mode than an HST and would only be caught by the HST if both trains where travelling to say Bristol, by the time the two reached Chippenham which would be down to the quicker dwell times of the IEP.

However, I think those dwell time would be very different if the doors on the coaches of the HST where automatic either like the class 442 or like the Chiltern Mk3 coaches, rather than being manual.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

They won't be able to beat a HST and complete the standard of reliability the DFT wants.

I've spoken with Roger about IEP and it's through discussing it with him (and others) that I know IEP with full 750kW power output from the engines will be able to beat an HST set. That's why First have ordered 750kW derivatives of IEP, the AT300 fleet for West of England.

IEP does exactly what DfT has required of it, it has the performance, fuel consumption and reliability is needs to have, performance is worse than an HST, fuel consumption is lower and reliability is contractually required to be much higher. HST is faster than IEP (and when electrification is complete, realistically, HST would be faster than it needs to be on the remaining diesel operated routes).

AT300, which has been designed more as an HST replacement for West of England services, has higher performance because of additional demands and requirements to match HST's performance into Devon.

 

[tbtc]

In the December edition of MR, Roger Ford does a study on the acceleration of a bi-mode SET compared to a HST. Event though the bi-mode accelerates quickly up to about 13mph after that the acceleration lowers significantly, when it reaches 72mph the HST is up to 80mph and overtaking it. Once you get up to the higher speeds you need the horse power which the bi-modes are severely lacking compared to HST's.

One thing I always like about reading Roger Ford's articles is that he backs up all of his claims with evidence. Whether the bi-mode IEP could or could not leave a HST for dead on full power isn't the point really. They won't be able to beat a HST and complete the standard of reliability the DFT wants.

Once the electrification committed to in the CP5 announcement is completed (i.e. Paddington to Bristol/ Swansea/ Oxford) then how much need is there going to be for an IEP to go from 0-125mph?

Most of the unelectrified lines are going to be limited to slower speeds where the train is going to be making relatively frequent stops because it's the only train on the line (i.e. not much scope to get up to anything remotely fast before you need to start breaking).

In short, worrying about IEPs getting up to 125mph on unelectrified lines is willy waving from a macho magazine contributor who is more bothered about Big Boys Toys than the practicalities of routes like Oxford - Hereford. How much west of Oxford is going to be 100mph+ plus?

 

[RobShipway]

Once the electrification committed to in the CP5 announcement is completed (i.e. Paddington to Bristol/ Swansea/ Oxford) then how much need is there going to be for an IEP to go from 0-125mph?

Most of the unelectrified lines are going to be limited to slower speeds where the train is going to be making relatively frequent stops because it's the only train on the line (i.e. not much scope to get up to anything remotely fast before you need to start breaking).

In short, worrying about IEPs getting up to 125mph on unelectrified lines is willy waving from a macho magazine contributor who is more bothered about Big Boys Toys than the practicalities of routes like Oxford - Hereford. How much west of Oxford is going to be 100mph+ plus?

Having been a few times on a HST west of Oxford to go to Worcestor, there is not much running above 100mph along the route and certainly during the summer when I travelled on a Saturday morning most of the 8 coache train was empty but for about 3 or 4 coaches, which shows outside of peak times i think 5 coaches would be enough west of Oxford.

I would also point out that the class 802 AT300's will be designed to work with the class 800/801 trains. So for example you could have a class 800 couple up to a class 802 up to say Exeter and then from Exeter the class 802 5 car unit travels onwards on it's own.