GWR Class 800

[AM9]

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.

It's as wide as an Electrostar coach, about 2.1 metres.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's as wide as an Electrostar coach, about 2.1 metres.

Glad you answered, I thought it was a trick question...

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's as wide as an Electrostar coach, about 2.1 metres.

I meant the airline seat pitch. Though I do get the joke

 

[jimm]

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.

Not true in the case of the most recent batch of TSOs converted last year for GW HSTs from redundant buffet cars. They have eight tables.

 

[Starmill]

Eight tables per carriage is fantastic. I'm currently on an XC Voyager which has some coaches with only two.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

It's as wide as an Electrostar coach, about 2.1 metres.

2.80, it says on the label at the end of the vehicles. Class 455, 465, etc are 2.82, so are the 23 metre 165/166.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

tolerated by a few commutators during the peaks.



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).

There are standard sizes for hand luggage. The biggest items will not go between seat back but if the seats are designed for the purpose a case sufficient for a couple of weeks will fit. There is a spin-off benefit that providing the space for the luggage means that the seat profile had good lumbar support.

Infrastructure in the more populated parts of the UK is not sized for the number of people who live there, let alone the projected growth. Investment has been put off for two long. It needs a lot more than what is currently being proposed.

Modern trains with 3-phase motors do not have commutators.

 

[The Ham]

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.

8 tables per coach with 4 seats per table is 32 seats per coach. Given each coach has 88 seats that's about 36%, as such there should broadly be enough table seats to accommodate those who prefer table seats.

 

[jimm]

There are standard sizes for hand luggage. The biggest items will not go between seat back but if the seats are designed for the purpose a case sufficient for a couple of weeks will fit. There is a spin-off benefit that providing the space for the luggage means that the seat profile had good lumbar support.

Are these trains meant to move people or just their luggage?

One of the specific points made by Roger Ford in the latest Modern Railways article is that the designers have taken a lot of trouble to maximise the height available above the overhead luggage racks, most likely with the precise idea of accommodating the maximum size of bags that airlines permit as hand luggage - and which a lot of people own as a result and travel with on occasions other than when flying, such as using a train.

They are not trying to recreate the Mk1 coach - get over it.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

They are not trying to recreate the Mk1 coach - get over it.

Mark 1 coaches - are we trying to frighten small children ?

They and the older Mark 2s were, to be brutally honest, crap for all but the occasional doss on an overnight service, or a hurl up the WHL.

There's a good reason passenger demand picked up when the Mark 2e/f stock and Mark 3 stock appeared on the scene - might not be what people desired, but it's what they needed, and it got people back onto trains.

 

[Haydn1971]

I was just reviewing the IEP Wikipedia article, I'm reminded that the original specification had a maximum allowed length of 312m - which is 12 carriages. This could open up some creative ideas when the lengthening starts up, where we could see some intellect with lengthening of half the five car fleet to 7 cars and half the 9 car fleet to 12 cars, creating 5, 7, 9 & 12 car options. There's a lot of platform lengthening ahead

 

[Mikey C]

Are these trains meant to move people or just their luggage?

One of the specific points made by Roger Ford in the latest Modern Railways article is that the designers have taken a lot of trouble to maximise the height available above the overhead luggage racks, most likely with the precise idea of accommodating the maximum size of bags that airlines permit as hand luggage - and which a lot of people own as a result and travel with on occasions other than when flying, such as using a train.

They are not trying to recreate the Mk1 coach - get over it.

That's good, as the Pendolino luggage racks (as a result presumably of the tapering sides) are far too shallow, and even normal sized bags don't fit

 

[AM9]

2.80, it says on the label at the end of the vehicles. Class 455, 465, etc are 2.82, so are the 23 metre 165/166.

That is the external maximum. The distance between the seat backs is probably somewhat less than that and 2.1m was a guess.
It was actually a joke so the odd 200mm doesn't matter.

Nevermind.

Better change the subject before the OT police get here!

 

[The Ham]

I was just reviewing the IEP Wikipedia article, I'm reminded that the original specification had a maximum allowed length of 312m - which is 12 carriages. This could open up some creative ideas when the lengthening starts up, where we could see some intellect with lengthening of half the five car fleet to 7 cars and half the 9 car fleet to 12 cars, creating 5, 7, 9 & 12 car options. There's a lot of platform lengthening ahead

If there is space for 12 cars then is there much advantage to having a mux of 5 and 7 car sets over having a universal fleet of 6 car sets?

 

[Haydn1971]

If there is space for 12 cars then is there much advantage to having a mux of 5 and 7 car sets over having a universal fleet of 6 car sets?

Very much depends on which way the loadings go, if a five car is still good for off peak loadings in 10 years, but not for the shoulders, 5+7 may work better than 6+6 - but to be fair, the ease of running standard sized fleets will probably shine through regardless of a 7 car unit being required

 

[Dave1987]

Are these trains meant to move people or just their luggage?

One of the specific points made by Roger Ford in the latest Modern Railways article is that the designers have taken a lot of trouble to maximise the height available above the overhead luggage racks, most likely with the precise idea of accommodating the maximum size of bags that airlines permit as hand luggage - and which a lot of people own as a result and travel with on occasions other than when flying, such as using a train.

Yes they have done as much as they can with the overhead storage as they can which is great but once again you seem to be under the illusion that no one ever travels with anything more than a very small bag. Where exactly are people supposed to store larger suitcases? Why ow why ow why do you seem to believe that the only people who will travel on these trains are commuters or people travelling with small luggage?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Yes they have done as much as they can with the overhead storage as they can which is great but once again you seem to be under the illusion that no one ever travels with anything more than a very small bag. Where exactly are people supposed to store larger suitcases? Why ow why ow why do you seem to believe that the only people who will travel on these trains are commuters or people travelling with small luggage?

I'd guess people will sit with oversize suitcases on their laps, oh no, wait, you've said they can't fit them through the doors, so they won't be on the train in the first instance.

Or away from your odd little world, they'll drop them in the huge luggage and bike storage racks at the coach ends, exactly as they do with Mark 3 stock today.

 

[Dave1987]

I'd guess people will sit with oversize suitcases on their laps, oh no, wait, you've said they can't fit them through the doors, so they won't be on the train in the first instance.

Or away from your odd little world, they'll drop them in the huge luggage and bike storage racks at the coach ends, exactly as they do with Mark 3 stock today.

Huge luggage racks? What pictures or tech drawings have you been looking at? According to the tech drawings they are no where near the size of what's available at the end of a Mark 3! And as is pointed out in MR magazine by RF and IW these trains aren't designed for long distance travellers.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Huge luggage racks? What pictures or tech drawings have you been looking at? According to the tech drawings they are no where near the size of what's available at the end of a Mark 3! And as is pointed out in MR magazine by RF and IW these trains aren't designed for long distance travellers.

The luggage racks will hold more suitcases, even though they're slightly smaller in floor space. They're simply better designed for the newer suitcase types (the Mark 3 design is better suited to old fashioned suitcases).

The IEP units also have the bulk storage/cycle racks, a couple of which are installed. They'll take a huge amount of luggage with their convenient fold down shelving. The overheads we've talked about, much bigger than a Mark 3 and well ahead of a Pendolino or Voyager, and there's sufficient space for suitcases under double seats, with enough space for a laptop bag or rucksack under the single first seats.

There's really not a shortage of storage space unless you're being completely unrealistic and selfish about what you want to carry on.

 

[Dave1987]

The luggage racks will hold more suitcases, even though they're slightly smaller in floor space. They're simply better designed for the newer suitcase types (the Mark 3 design is better suited to old fashioned suitcases).

The IEP units also have the bulk storage/cycle racks, a couple of which are installed. They'll take a huge amount of luggage with their convenient fold down shelving. The overheads we've talked about, much bigger than a Mark 3 and well ahead of a Pendolino or Voyager, and there's sufficient space for suitcases under double seats, with enough space for a laptop bag or rucksack under the single first seats.

There's really not a shortage of storage space unless you're being completely unrealistic and selfish about what you want to carry on.

Yes the overhead racks are very well designed and will provide enough storage for most smaller luggage.

You know what I didn't realise that the bike racks converted into extra storage for luggage. Very intelligent idea although I can foresee issues if a bike gets on and it's full of luggage or vice versa. I'm willing to admit I was wrong there! Hitachi have come up with some very intelligent designs.

But the drawbacks with the sloping floors and narrow vestibule door are still design flaws. Both RF and IW said their overall impression of the interior of the IEP was "disappointment".

 

[absolutelymilk]

It seems that there is an awful lot of discussion about tables and luggage space, would it be possible to move these discussions into their own threads? A similar thought applies to tables for the Class 700s.

I am excited for the class 800s and 700s and like to keep up to date with what is going on, but I don't want to trawl through lots of posts about in-depth discussions of numbers of tables and whether the luggage capacity will be adequate for the routes served.

 

[jimm]

Yes they have done as much as they can with the overhead storage as they can which is great but once again you seem to be under the illusion that no one ever travels with anything more than a very small bag. Where exactly are people supposed to store larger suitcases? Why ow why ow why do you seem to believe that the only people who will travel on these trains are commuters or people travelling with small luggage?

As you know perfectly well, there are luggage stacks inside the passenger saloons and further space for large luggage in the vestibules on these trains, so are you actually trying to make a point, or being negative about IEP for the sake of it - yet again? Why do you and Ragnarokr seem to think that everyone travels with steamer trunks?

But the drawbacks with the sloping floors and narrow vestibule door are still design flaws. Both RF and IW said their overall impression of the interior of the IEP was "disappointment".

What they also said - and the conclusion ran to a few more carefully-chosen words than just 'disappointment' - was that the trains are the way they are because of what the DfT said it wanted - indeed earlier in the article they mention the stark contrast between the latest GWR first class interior and what DfT has specified on the 800s.

As for the door width, they said not a word, nor about the legendary slope, beyond noting that there are warning notices on vestibule doors to advise passengers of the different levels - so maybe you're just making a mountain out of a rather modest, slightly sloping molehill.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It seems that there is an awful lot of discussion about tables and luggage space, would it be possible to move these discussions into their own threads? A similar thought applies to tables for the Class 700s.

I am excited for the class 800s and 700s and like to keep up to date with what is going on, but I don't want to trawl through lots of posts about in-depth discussions of numbers of tables and whether the luggage capacity will be adequate for the routes served.

Why? We are talking about the tables and luggage space in the Class 800s - and an article about the trains in Modern Railways, which might loosely be defined as 'what is going on'. What would be the point of another thread for that aspect of these trains? Someone would then complain that it should be merged into the main Class 800 thread....

 

[Dent]

As you know perfectly well, there are luggage stacks inside the passenger saloons and further space for large luggage in the vestibules on these trains, so are you actually trying to make a point, or being negative about IEP for the sake of it - yet again? Why do you and Ragnarokr seem to think that everyone travels with steamer trunks?

I see you're making straw man arguments again.

 

[deltic08]

Mark 1 coaches - are we trying to frighten small children ?

They and the older Mark 2s were, to be brutally honest, crap for all but the occasional doss on an overnight service, or a hurl up the WHL.

There's a good reason passenger demand picked up when the Mark 2e/f stock and Mark 3 stock appeared on the scene - might not be what people desired, but it's what they needed, and it got people back onto trains.

The only thing wrong with Mark 2, 2a-c was pressure ventilation where if batteries went dead then heating and lighting was lost. If batteries could have been charged other than from bogie mounted alternators it would have been a good coach.

Some 2c TSOs, such as 5569, were subsequently fitted with a type of static motor alternator to provide power for keeping the batteries charged. As with Mark 2 d-f an ETH fitted loco was required to keep batteries charged as well as providing heating .

 

[The Ham]

The only thing wrong with Mark 2, 2a-c was pressure ventilation where if batteries went dead then heating and lighting was lost. If batteries could have been charged other than from bogie mounted alternators it would have been a good coach.

Some 2c TSOs, such as 5569, were subsequently fitted with a type of static motor alternator to provide power for keeping the batteries charged. As with Mark 2 d-f an ETH fitted loco was required to keep batteries charged as well as providing heating .

However, would they be able to cope with modern passenger demands such as charging points, let alone air-conditioning?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

As you know perfectly well, there are luggage stacks inside the passenger saloons and further space for large luggage in the vestibules on these trains, so are you actually trying to make a point, or being negative about IEP for the sake of it - yet again? Why do you and Ragnarokr seem to think that everyone travels with steamer trunks?

Shelves by the vestibule is a bad place to leave things. It is liable to get stolen. It happens. One thief stole a case with an IRA bomb in it a few years ago and had to confess to the police. You can get a case big enough for a couple of weeks stay between the seat backs in a Danish IC train, and more than that one would not want to lug around. The same was true with the original seating on the earlier batches of mark 2 stock, which were designed with that aim in mind.

Given the present situation it would help if there was some means of securing items eg through the use of a lockable cable. However, that assumes people stacked them things sensibly in the first place, which is not always the case.

It can get worse. I once travelled on a Thalys train and all the luggage had to be removed from the vestibule on to the station platform (and put back again), so that people could get on and off.

 

[urpert]

Mark 1 coaches - are we trying to frighten small children ?



They and the older Mark 2s were, to be brutally honest, crap for all but the occasional doss on an overnight service, or a hurl up the WHL.



There's a good reason passenger demand picked up when the Mark 2e/f stock and Mark 3 stock appeared on the scene - might not be what people desired, but it's what they needed, and it got people back onto trains.

Agreed. The air-conditioned Mk2s were one of those quantum leaps forward in train design in this country (similar to when the backward looking 312s were followed by the still reasonably up to date PEPs).

 

[theageofthetra]

Re the point on luggage security you can get lightweight luggage cables and locks similar to a lightweight version of a bike cable lock. Very useful if travelling through parts of Europe where luggage theft is rife. Lack of luggage space does seem to be a problem in many countries- in many cases (pun intended) blocking escape routes.

 

[Haydn1971]

When I travel, I place my valuables in a small bag that I can keep with me, my clothes and things that have no real value go into a larger case that I don't have to worry about. Theft will still happen, but really, is it that much more of an issue than cases left unattended anywhere else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, would they be able to cope with modern passenger demands such as charging points, let alone air-conditioning?

I'm fairly convinced that charging points are, like wifi, a short term requirement that will cease to be useful well within the lifetime of the stock. Battery technology is improving all the time.

 

[Mikey C]

I'm fairly convinced that charging points are, like wifi, a short term requirement that will cease to be useful well within the lifetime of the stock. Battery technology is improving all the time.

I never seem to have a convenient charger to hand anyway!

WiFi is more useful, but then the main benefit is in areas with poor mobile reception, and those areas generally have rubbish WiFi as well!