GWR Class 800

[southern442]

I really can't see the resemblance.

Same seats. Yes, the IEP's have a little more padding and they are slightly bigger but they are basically the same model.

 

[sprinterguy]

Same seats. Yes, the IEP's have a little more padding and they are slightly bigger but they are basically the same model.

Nope, can't see it. The seats in standard class in an 800 look to have a similar shape and profile to those fitted in first class on the new Thameslink 700s, but the seats fitted to the 377/6s; in first and standard alike from what I have seen; are the same as those fitted in standard class on the 700s, and that's the only (tenuous) link I can make between the two completely different designs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Same seats. Yes, the IEP's have a little more padding and they are slightly bigger but they are basically the same model.

They don't look anything like them. In particular they are not as high-backed.

 

[sprinterguy]

They don't look anything like them. In particular they are not as high-backed.

That was certainly my thoughts.

 

[southern442]

Nope, can't see it. The seats in standard class in an 800 look to have a similar shape and profile to those fitted in first class on the new Thameslink 700s, but the seats fitted to the 377/6s; in first and standard alike from what I have seen; are the same as those fitted in standard class on the 700s, and that's the only (tenuous) link I can make between the two completely different designs.

The seats in standard and the seats in first on a class 700 are the same, apart from the fact that the first class seats are bigger at the top. If you look closer at the design and structure of the seats, you will see they are the same.

 

[sprinterguy]

The seats in standard and the seats in first on a class 700 are the same, apart from the fact that the first class seats are bigger at the top. If you look closer at the design and structure of the seats, you will see they are the same.

Having stared intently at some pictures of seats for a couple of minutes (what an exciting life I lead ), I'll grant you that there appear to be some common design features between the two classes of seat on 700s. There's still a considerable difference between the two. I'm not convinced that the seats on the 800s are exactly the same as those found in first class on the 700s, though, I just said that they have a similar sort of shape: The 800 seats look to be larger again.

There's no similarity between the interior of a 377/6 and an 800, in my opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. It looks like a Japanese design of seat not yet used in the UK.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I agree. It looks like a Japanese design of seat not yet used in the UK.

It's a Fainsa design of seat - same manufacturer as the Class 700, but beyond sharing a similar design of backrest and base shape, which will be down to ergonomic and orthopaedic design work, they're really quite different.

Class 800 uses floor and wall mounting, Class 700 cantilevers out their seats from the wall, arm rests are different and the seat backs are different.

Train interiors are a million miles away from my areas of expertise, but there could be crash force requirements which will require a heavier more resilient seat on the 140mph capable IEP units too.

 

[southern442]

I agree. It looks like a Japanese design of seat not yet used in the UK.

It most definitely has. You can tell as the frame for the seat has the sweeping curve at the bottom.

Images not mine

 

[Bletchleyite]

It most definitely has. You can tell as the frame for the seat has the sweeping curve at the bottom.

So it is, sneaky!

It isn't the same back or cushion as the SN version, though, and it is those that determine the comfort level.

As for the Class 700, that a South East commuter EMU uses the same seats for First Class as an InterCity vehicle uses for Standard is not overly unusual. The First Class seats in 321s as built are the same as the Standard ones in 442s as built, if I recall rightly.

 

[coppercapped]

Therefore a train with a mix of airline and tables is what is required, given a third have no preference and of those that have a preference for table seating there will be those that will more than tolerate airline seating it's not too unreasonable to provide over 60% airline seats.

Especially it it enables more seats to be provided making the chance of getting ANY seat higher. Given that 100% of people would prefer a seat to not having a seat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


OK, but it is still a rate set by the UK government. Which means that if it is set within the contract then other organisations can (if it is useful in allowing them to win work) off set this increase against other costs to keep their prices down. If it is not set in the contract then there is nothing stopping others setting it lower.

It may not be inflation but it exists because of inflation, therefore in a country where inflation doesn't exist (such as Japan) the rate of return needn't be as high as somewhere where inflation (such as the UK) does exist.

No. The analytical technique of Net Present Value calculations exists because money which you have in the hand NOW is of more value to you NOW than the money which you will get in the FUTURE is to you NOW. NPV is a way of quantifying this effect.

The clue is in the name Present Value (of future cash flows). Please try reading what I actually wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Blimey, you've got a very optimistic view of future rail travel in the UK! What makes you so certain that rail will retain its' modal share in the long term, against future developments in transportation and communications?

Closer to the present, there are a large number of early nineties EMUs (Networkers, 323s), as well as presumably a lot of late eighties DMUs and EMUs that are likely to be requiring replacement after the current rush of orders is complete. Although, given the frequent "boom or bust" nature of privatised train orders, there'll probably be a gap until after 2025 before the manufacturers witness the next major tranche of train building.

I mentioned it elsewhere, but RDG have calculated we will need between 13,000 and 19,000 new electric vehicles, and upto 3,500 diesel/self powered vehicles through to 2043.

The workload will decrease after 2020, but factories are going to be producing stock pretty much continually for the next couple of decades - we've even got ROSCOs doing opportunistic electric train orders for the first time, such is their confidence.

We keep hearing magic things will stop people using trains - first it was mobile phones, then telephone conferences, then video conferences, we've heard it all about airplanes and better cars and new motorways. The only thing that's going to eliminate rail travel is a Star Trek transporter device, we're already past peak car usage in the UK, train travel is the future and usage is only going one way, and that's up.

Rail can be carbon free in future, currently it's a low energy, environmentally friendly, ultra safe and relatively reliable transportation system capable of moving enormous numbers on a daily basis.

 

[tbtc]

There are statistics on this. There was a Swedish study published in English but I can't find it on line any more. It found that roughly 1/3 prefer table bays, 1/3 prefer airlines and 1/3 have no preference

That's only meaningful on a quiet railway with dozens of empty seats in each carriage. Since railways are much busier nowadays than the 1950s, you'd need to ask questions along the line of hwether people would prefer eight table seats (and a twenty percent chance of having to stand) or ten airline seats.

Otherwise you might as well come up with surveys that show that 80% of people prefer to sit facing forwards, 5% of people prefer to sit facing backwards and 15% of people have no preference and then moan when the IEP has only 50% of seats facing forwards

Seriously though, the days of people travelling in nice little nuclear family groupings all the time are past. If I'm travelling in a foursome then I want a table, but since most of my journeys are in a couple or alone, I'm happier with an Airline seat.

Give me an empty carriage and I'll probably make a beeline for a table seat, but if it means being cramped in with strangers and accidentally playing footsie with someone directly opposite that I don't want to make eye contact with then I'd prefer an Airline seat.

The seating is just another red herring argument from those who are trying anything to discredit the trains that they've not yet sat on - the fact that they are also complaining about too few Airline seats in First Class maybe tells you that.

Blimey, you've got a very optimistic view of future rail travel in the UK! What makes you so certain that rail will retain its' modal share in the long term, against future developments in transportation and communications?

IF Zoe were here, she'd tell us about self driving cars being the future, of course

 

[sprinterguy]

IF Zoe were here, she'd tell us about self driving cars being the future, of course

Aye, it seems like a long time since we used to see those long, cyclical conversations on here. At least we are all in agreement now that 442s are the future!

 

[GatwickDepress]

What people want and what people need are two entirely kettles of fish. Sure the 377/2s with a carriage or two of table seats are quite nice, but the West London Line during any busy period will show you that a large amount of airline seating is preferable
.

Aye, it seems like a long time since we used to see those long, cyclical conversations on here. At least we are all in agreement now that 442s are the future!

So what about self-driving 442s, eh? The DLR might be interested in that...

 

[hwl]

Closer to the present, there are a large number of early nineties EMUs (Networkers, 323s), as well as presumably a lot of late eighties DMUs and EMUs that are likely to be requiring replacement after the current rush of orders is complete. Although, given the frequent "boom or bust" nature of privatised train orders, there'll probably be a gap until after 2025 before the manufacturers witness the next major tranche of train building.

Assuming 20m cars for Crossrail too that will be 850-900cars for 2030 assuming they start at 10 car length...
Possibly the remaining 455s/456s on SWT routes not going over to Crossrail 2, 465s, 466s, 319s, 320s 321s post 2025. The WA 317s might survive till Crossrail 2

The next southern franchise will be replacing 455s and 313s and next Scotrail franchise 318s in the early 2020s and grow will probably mean some franchise let in the early 2020 adding additional stock. MML post electrification... quieter in the early 2020s but still a reasonable amount.

 

[Dave1987]

What people want and what people need are two entirely kettles of fish. Sure the 377/2s with a carriage or two of table seats are quite nice, but the West London Line during any busy period will show you that a large amount of airline seating is preferable.

[sarcasm]Why bother having any table seats then or any windows for that matter if passengers aren't bothered about comfort any more then and just purely want a seat? If it's purely about capacity I'm sure they could have squeezed a few more seats in there to improve the headline figures. [\sarcasm]

 

[Mikey C]

Assuming 20m cars for Crossrail too that will be 850-900cars for 2030 assuming they start at 10 car length...
Possibly the remaining 455s/456s on SWT routes not going over to Crossrail 2, 465s, 466s, 319s, 320s 321s post 2025. The WA 317s might survive till Crossrail 2

The next southern franchise will be replacing 455s and 313s and next Scotrail franchise 318s in the early 2020s and grow will probably mean some franchise let in the early 2020 adding additional stock. MML post electrification... quieter in the early 2020s but still a reasonable amount.

The new Tube for London will be ramping up by 2020, and that will potentially be a massive order for the Piccadilly, Bakerloo and Central lines

 

[southern442]

So it is, sneaky!

It isn't the same back or cushion as the SN version, though, and it is those that determine the comfort level.

As for the Class 700, that a South East commuter EMU uses the same seats for First Class as an InterCity vehicle uses for Standard is not overly unusual. The First Class seats in 321s as built are the same as the Standard ones in 442s as built, if I recall rightly.

Yes that's right, also the 317's have the IC70 seats in first.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a Fainsa design of seat - same manufacturer as the Class 700, but beyond sharing a similar design of backrest and base shape, which will be down to ergonomic and orthopaedic design work, they're really quite different.

Class 800 uses floor and wall mounting, Class 700 cantilevers out their seats from the wall, arm rests are different and the seat backs are different.

Train interiors are a million miles away from my areas of expertise, but there could be crash force requirements which will require a heavier more resilient seat on the 140mph capable IEP units too.

Having done a bit of research, the Fanisa Ironing Board Co. are also responsible for these monstrosities:

However these are also in their product range:

These aren't the best seats in the world, but they are so much better than what we are getting. Why can't we have these?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Why can't we have these?

They probably cost a lot more?

 

[Bletchleyite]

These aren't the best seats in the world, but they are so much better than what we are getting. Why can't we have these?

What, bus seats? You can keep those. Particularly the recline at the likely seat pitch.

Don't knock them until you've tried them - the cushion provides most of the support and comfort, which frame is used is of little consequence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They probably cost a lot more?

It is listed as a "low cost regional seat". Hmm.

 

[southern442]

So what about self-driving 442s, eh? The DLR might be interested in that...

I would pay to see a 442 try and make it around Delta Junction

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Therefore a train with a mix of airline and tables is what is required, given a third have no preference and of those that have a preference for table seating there will be those that will more than tolerate airline seating it's not too unreasonable to provide over 60% airline seats.

Especially it it enables more seats to be provided making the chance of getting ANY seat higher. Given that 100% of people would prefer a seat to not having a seat

That ratio does not resolve the other issue, which is that people like to have their luggage close by, which is not possible when the seat-back luggage space is not available. Having to worry about the security of ones luggage seriously adds to journey stress.

There also comes a point where people prefer to stand than sit in an uncomfortable seat. This was evident on class 319 stock with 2+3 seating, where people stand rather than sit in the middle seat. Not the same situation precisely but if the aim is just to cram seats in, why stop at 88 seats per vehicle?

The underlying issues are that (1) the trains are too expensive so that there will always be a chronic shortage of vehicles, thus the seats have to be crammed in, and (2) the current infrastructure is inadequate for the traffic, let alone projected growth in traffic.

 

[IanXC]

Mod note: I have removed a large number of posts which were several galaxies off topic. Please remember this thread is about the Class 800 production, testing, delivery etc. The moved posts are in a thread entitled Hitachi strategy, and can be found here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=124782 Many thanks!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I like my luggage close by - preferably above my head where I can see it. A good sized, deep overhead rack capable of taking any reasonable size of bag, such as that provided on all Desiros, solves that issue well. It appears to me that that is provided on the 800.

 

[The Ham]

That ratio does not resolve the other issue, which is that people like to have their luggage close by, which is not possible when the seat-back luggage space is not available. Having to worry about the security of ones luggage seriously adds to journey stress.

This maybe true, but as many people have pointed out before there are a lot more people who travel with "hand luggage" which will fit overhead. Also larger bags (large himself large backpacks, etc - which are more popular now) wouldn't fit between seat backs anyway, so would need to be stored in floor to ceiling racks.

There also comes a point where people prefer to stand than sit in an uncomfortable seat. This was evident on class 319 stock with 2+3 seating, where people stand rather than sit in the middle seat. Not the same situation precisely but if the aim is just to cram seats in, why stop at 88 seats per vehicle?

There is a balance to be had, 88 seams to be about right, in that although there are a significant number of airline seats (which some may not like to sit in as much as at a table, but gives a few more people seats) but doesn't go as far as relying on 3+2 seating which is possiblely tolerated by a few commutators during the peaks.

The underlying issues are that (1) the trains are too expensive so that there will always be a chronic shortage of vehicles, thus the seats have to be crammed in, and (2) the current infrastructure is inadequate for the traffic, let alone projected growth in traffic.

Between the IEP order and AT300's there will be the same number of 9 or 10 coach trains as there are HST's as well as enough to replace the class 180's. That is before the "reduction" in units required due to journey time savings and the use of half length trains where capacity allotted it (I.e. not every train, but also with enough that significant numbers of services could be full length).

I agree that the infrastructure is inadequate for much passenger growth, yet without using these trains there would need to be significant improvements sooner. Especially if loco hauled trains with all at table seating was the way forward (as some suggest that should have happened).

 

[47802]

Given that the GWR routes that the 800's will work are essentially medium distance routes and essentially a glorified commuter route the seating layout doesn't seem unreasonable to me. 88 seats doesn't seem that dense considering GWR get 84 seats in a HST carriage which is 3 metres shorter.

Ideally of course you would expect more tables in the VTEC trains and AT300's for the South West.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn't look any worse than the Pendolino, and that is used on journeys of 5 hours and up.

 

[swt_passenger]

They have more tables than present day GW HSTs, and as was established from the photos a few pages ago they do meet the DfT's spec of 8 per carriage.

Roger Ford and Ian Walmsley have also mentioned in their recent Modern Railways article that the seat pitch is fine:

"...and legroom is excellent with 150 cm bays and 78 cm airline. You have to go back to the 1930s or travel to Europe to get numbers like that."

So seat padding aside, that's two of the perpetually repeated 'faults' that seem to have disappeared...

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the pitch on 378s? It seems very good to me, largely because a row of airline seats is replaced with a single side facing seat.