GWR Class 800

[D365]

Have you never travelled in a train which splits at some point en route - eg London to Eastbourne and Littlehampton, dividing at Haywards Heath? People travel in the part of the train which goes to their destination. The information is given provided on displays and through announcements. Trains have been run that way for since the start of railways.

That's nothing to do with Selective Door Opening...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yeah there is, Alliance Rail have new six-car 'Pendolinos' on order.

No, they don't.
It may be the intention, but Alliance have not yet got a full access agreement so they are not in a position to order trains from Alstom.
Might not have too long to wait though.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Have you never travelled in a train which splits at some point en route - eg London to Eastbourne and Littlehampton, dividing at Haywards Heath? People travel in the part of the train which goes to their destination. The information is given provided on displays and through announcements. Trains have been run that way for since the start of railways.

Yes, but with a 16 carriage train that would essentially be every station other than the London terminus, making those extra carriages pointless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you had bothered to read my post correctly I was refering to passengers from Reading to London. I Know very well that trains do not run from Castle Cary onto Crossrail.

They all work in Paddington, do they?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No, they don't.
It may be the intention, but Alliance have not yet got a full access agreement so they are not in a position to order trains from Alstom.
Might not have too long to wait though.

ORR showing the Alliance (GNWR) track access agreement as already having been actioned by Network Rail, they got supplementary access requests in that they need processed first ?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

That's nothing to do with Selective Door Opening...

If you have been following the thread you would have realised that your comment was irrelevant.

It was a response to a point made in relation to long trains at short platforms. People can be directed to the correct portion of the train. SDO gets round the safety issue. There are probably easier ways of doing SDO eg by having a detector which can "see" if a door has a platform alongside.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, but with a 16 carriage train that would essentially be every station other than the London terminus, making those extra carriages pointless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many stations have platforms 350 m long? I am not going to stick my head out an assert this as a certainty, but probably Reading, Bristol Temple Meads, Exeter St Davids, Plymouth, possibly Bath, Swindon and Oxford.

On the ECML, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh.These are major destinations.

Short of getting hold of plans or visiting them with a long tape measure, neither you nor I are in a position to say. Since 350 metre trains were commonplace until the 1960s and many stations have not lost platform length, the issue is worth looking into at a time of traffic growth.

The present day practice of running relatively short trains is a hangover from the 1970s.

 

[jopsuk]

How many stations have platforms 350 m long? I am not going to stick my head out an assert this as a certainty, but probably Reading, Bristol Temple Meads, Exeter St Davids, Plymouth, possibly Bath, Swindon and Oxford.

On 2009 data (and so before the recent rebuild) Reading had
4 301m
5: 323m
8: 278m
9: 252m.

Swindon has
1: 261m
3: 282m
4: 300m

Bristol Temple Meads
3: 223m
5: 227m
7: 226m
9: 225m
11: 227m
13: 265m
15: 263m

Exeter
1: 283m
3: 276m
4: 277m
5: 322m
6: 323m

Plymouth
4: 298m
5: 300m
6: 260m
7: 298m
8: 300m

Oxford:
1: 274m
2: 275m

I could go on

 

[The Ham]

If you have been following the thread you would have realised that your comment was irrelevant.

It was a response to a point made in relation to long trains at short platforms. People can be directed to the correct portion of the train. SDO gets round the safety issue. There are probably easier ways of doing SDO eg by having a detector which can "see" if a door has a platform alongside.

What like ASDO, which works well on SWT's services, and is fairly easy to install. Especially to new trains which IIRC are specified to inclined it.

How many stations have platforms 350 m long? I am not going to stick my head out an assert this as a certainty, but probably Reading, Bristol Temple Meads, Exeter St Davids, Plymouth, possibly Bath, Swindon and Oxford.

On the ECML, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh.These are major destinations.

Short of getting hold of plans or visiting them with a long tape measure, neither you nor I are in a position to say. Since 350 metre trains were commonplace until the 1960s and many stations have not lost platform length, the issue is worth looking into at a time of traffic growth.

The present day practice of running relatively short trains is a hangover from the 1970s.

There's a big difference between something that happens on Summer Saturdays (say 7 days a year) and something that happens every day on a much busier network, including by the very nature of trying to provide capacity the morning peaks.

Also, if we are talking about lengthening platforms to 350m, then I suggest that a better alternative would be to lengthen for 12 coaches of 26m. As it would save about 30m of platform AND probably provide significantly more capacity than a loco hauled train of 350m (which would need some fairly powerful locomotives to get it going, which could be interesting when the rails are slippery).

 

[Steve14]

Just out of interest, does anyone know if the demo train is still in Old Oak Common? Went passed there this morning and I'm pretty sure I saw it stabled inside the building close to the North Pole Portal.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If you have been following the thread you would have realised that your comment was irrelevant.

It was a response to a point made in relation to long trains at short platforms. People can be directed to the correct portion of the train. SDO gets round the safety issue. There are probably easier ways of doing SDO eg by having a detector which can "see" if a door has a platform alongside.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
How many stations have platforms 350 m long? I am not going to stick my head out an assert this as a certainty, but probably Reading, Bristol Temple Meads, Exeter St Davids, Plymouth, possibly Bath, Swindon and Oxford.

On the ECML, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh.These are major destinations.

Short of getting hold of plans or visiting them with a long tape measure, neither you nor I are in a position to say. Since 350 metre trains were commonplace until the 1960s and many stations have not lost platform length, the issue is worth looking into at a time of traffic growth.

The present day practice of running relatively short trains is a hangover from the 1970s.

I've never encountered someone so devoid of clue.

You've been told that in the 1960s and 1970s, not all 350 metre trains could be platformed fully, grandfather rights exist precisely because trains would hang off the back end of the platforms, hell, I can remember hanging out with the guard at the back end of trains and bailing onto the ballast, in the days before you would be hung, drawn and quartered by half the people on this forum for trampling around in the ballast without hiviz and a flashing neon sign above your head saying you have a PTS ticket.

Open the door on an HST set at half the stations in Scotland and you'll go arse over tit and land face first in the ballast. Today. Right now. 1E13 is a right hoot if you're into endless twaddle about long platforms.

Newcastle, York and Edinburgh do have long platforms, but this is a complete irrelevance, you need capacity where traffic demand is, not where platform capacity is conveniently located. Yes, these are large markets, but there are HST sets stopping at smaller, shorter stations more often than was ever the case before, getting an ideal length for some of these stations is important as dwell times will become biblical.

Mind you, in the days of load 16 summer specials hauled by no heat Duffs, you had plenty of time to bail onto the ballast, get onto the platform, into Casey Jones for a burger (or another catering establishment) and back to your coach, because it would take the best part of 10 or 15 minutes to get pax off with prams and kiddies, and there would invariably be some sort of locomotive swap to cope with a Duff having boiled all of its coolant off trying to shift 16 coaches. Probably with binding brakes. Thank **** we didn't have HAB detectors back in those days.

It really was **** back in those days, other than the camaraderie of all being BR and all pulling together to get the job done.

 

[455driver]

Well this thread has gone rather silly hasn't it!

SDO works on SWT because it is only dealing with commuters, try it on a long distance train to the South West on a Saturday afternoon when Mr & Mrs Normal with their 2.4 children are going on holiday with everything but the kitchen sink in their suitcases and they have reservations in coach J (which happens to be at the back of the train because it is in reverse formation)!
Are you saying that all the families etc will be put in the front 5 or 6 coaches?
Cant see that working somehow!

 

[Matt Taylor]

It also works perfectly well on weekend and off peak services through the New Forest and Dorset, no commuters involved.

 

[The Ham]

Well this thread has gone rather silly hasn't it!

SDO works on SWT because it is only dealing with commuters, try it on a long distance train to the South West on a Saturday afternoon when Mr & Mrs Normal with their 2.4 children are going on holiday with everything but the kitchen sink in their suitcases and they have reservations in coach J (which happens to be at the back of the train because it is in reverse formation)!
Are you saying that all the families etc will be put in the front 5 or 6 coaches?
Cant see that working somehow!

SDO works on GWR services in Cornwall too, as the HST's are too long for some of the stations (or would at least appear to be given the announcements about getting off from the front x coaches), or are all these commuters too? (given the last time I did it is was Christmas Eve in the evening I would suggest not).

As long as the train isn't too busy, walking through a few coaches (assuming they can not find alternative seating) would probably be doable for most people (unless they are taking far too much). Even if they can't make it through the train, they could probably wait a few stops and walk up on the outside of the train if they really needed to.

 

[TheKnightWho]

SDO works on GWR services in Cornwall too, as the HST's are too long for some of the stations (or would at least appear to be given the announcements about getting off from the front x coaches), or are all these commuters too? (given the last time I did it is was Christmas Eve in the evening I would suggest not).

As long as the train isn't too busy, walking through a few coaches (assuming they can not find alternative seating) would probably be doable for most people (unless they are taking far too much). Even if they can't make it through the train, they could probably wait a few stops and walk up on the outside of the train if they really needed to.

If anything, this is an advantage to the 5 car IEPs, since when they leave in double formation from Paddington any passengers from Cornwall will be directed to the correct coaches...

 

[RobShipway]

I am also sure at times that SDO works well on the Cotswold line as I seem to remember at some stations when I was on a HST train not all coaches where in the station due to the short length of the platforms at some stations.

 

[Rich McLean]

I am also sure at times that SDO works well on the Cotswold line as I seem to remember at some stations when I was on a HST train not all coaches where in the station due to the short length of the platforms at some stations.

It's fun and games depending on which station and which direction you are heading in. All Stations on that line, bar Worcester Shrub Hill, Evesham and Hereford, can take 5 carriages, Hanbrough can only fit 3. The small shacks such as Finstock etc can only take 2.

 

[jopsuk]

it's all gone a little quiet... is there any actual news whilst our Scandinavian bridge dweller digests the unfortunate platform length facts?

 

[absolutelymilk]

it's all gone a little quiet... is there any actual news whilst our Scandinavian bridge dweller digests the unfortunate platform length facts?

Well in the absence of any news, does anyone know of/have any suggestions for naming the IEPs?

(as in the entire class, not individual trains)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Well in the absence of any news, does anyone know of/have any suggestions for naming the IEPs?

(as in the entire class, not individual trains)

Gazelle?

 

[AlexNL]

Given that the 395s are named Javelin and the 800's are also Hitachi-built, what about streal?

 

[The Ham]

Given that the 395s are named Javelin and the 800's are also Hitachi-built, what about streal?

Might not be so good, as although it means arrow the urban dictionary has a different meaning:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=streal

streal
Someone who is a mess, not done up, etc.
You look like a streal

(Although some on here may think that is a good definition).

 

[RAGNARØKR]

On 2009 data (and so before the recent rebuild) Reading had
4 301m
5: 323m
8: 278m
9: 252m.

Swindon has
1: 261m
3: 282m
4: 300m

Bristol Temple Meads
3: 223m
5: 227m
7: 226m
9: 225m
11: 227m
13: 265m
15: 263m

Exeter
1: 283m
3: 276m
4: 277m
5: 322m
6: 323m

Plymouth
4: 298m
5: 300m
6: 260m
7: 298m
8: 300m

Oxford:
1: 274m
2: 275m

I could go on

26 x 9 = 234
26 x 10 = 260
26 x 11 = 286
26 x 12 = 312

Not so unfortunate. That looks like there is scope for running longer trains. Given the major rebuild that is in progress for the electrification, there may also be scope for platform lengthening.

To establish what the possibilities were would take a full scale feasibility study. If traffic is expected to keep on growing, it is a nettle that will have to be grasped sooner or later.

 

[jopsuk]

You "stuck your neck out" to assert all those stations had platforms of 350m or more. They're pretty much all on restricted sites, and not due to "recent" development.

 

[southern442]

Not so unfortunate. That looks like there is scope for running longer trains. Given the major rebuild that is in progress for the electrification, there may also be scope for platform lengthening.

To establish what the possibilities were would take a full scale feasibility study. If traffic is expected to keep on growing, it is a nettle that will have to be grasped sooner or later.

You could also have the long trains straddle platform 3-4 at Bristol, which will give plenty of room.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

That looks like there is scope for running longer trains. Given the major rebuild that is in progress for the electrification.

There's very little on the GWep that could tie in with platform extensions - that's a mammoth amount of work moving crossovers and switches, moving signals, reworking the signal sighting again. It's probably worth waiting until we've moved to in-cab ETCS Level 2 signalling, so part of it is made a lot easier.

Platform extensions on the GWML to take, say, 12 car Class 800/801 units would therefore be a major project in its own right, not something tacked onto the electrification.

It'll happen, probably 2024-2029 (CP7) I'd guess, which would tie in quite nicely with very little break between current IEP and AT300 orders coming off the production line and additional carriages for extending additional stock to be built. That gets you some additional capacity ready for 2030s.

I'd also suggest the magic number will be either 312m as you suggest, or possibly 320m, which would enable 16 x 20m formations as well as 12 x 26m IEP sets.

 

[Class 170101]

The additional paths in the DfT timetable specification is going to mean quite a bit of 5 car running in the off peaks but with that huge increase in paths there will be a large amount of load spreading, as compared to the current service pattern.

That was modelled in some detail for the Direct Award, to validate the lack of overcrowding and the units were diagrammed accordingly. All available were out in service during the off peak except those requiring their mandatory maintenance windows and, iirc, all peak London services were bid as at least load 9.

Load spreading was assuming when Cross Country went from one long train an hour to two shorter trains and look where that's ended up. More demand and now there are demands for longer trains on XC routes to cope with it. Demand will increase with a more frequent service.

No my argument hasn't got any weaker the more I have "barked" on. In fact my opinions on this are broadly similar to some very well respected journalists! The DFT have ordered diagrammed vehicles. So if a 5 car train is packed out regularly off-peak it would take a contract change with Hitachi for that service to be strengthened, and as a result make the contract even more expensive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The AT300 order is completely separate from the IEP order. The DFT have ordered diagrammed vehicles not trains. So what ever will be five car trains post IEP introduction will stay as five cars no matter how packed they may be until the TOC agrees more diagrammed vehicles with Hitachi at yet more expense. I believe the new Northern and TPE franchises are ordering way more trains than they will need to anticipate for future growth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Having witnessed "careful" diagramming where they basically try and get away with as few units on a service as possible I have no doubt that some people will be forced to stand. Just like the people claiming you could run five car trains on the off-peak London - Norwich services merely because they are off-peak trains and no one ever travels off-peak. Anyone who actually sees those services would know that a five car train would be absolutely wedged!

On GEML there are plenty of services both peak and off-peak I believe could do with extra units added to them. But GEML suffers with a distinct lack of rolling stock. This IEP contract is brand new so all services should have adequate numbers of seats for now and the future.

I believe you are right here. The DFT seem to be in love with Hitachi now and can see order after order going their way, even though most of those orders would not be bolted together in this country anyway.

I doubt any new trains will be ordered the ay the DfT ordered them as they have proven to be too expensive. However, as I believe has been alluded to above, I would suggest GW (or succesors) may order more AT300s or IEP trains in a convential manner and use the existing trains to make 5 cars upto 10 car trains with that gap created covered by GW (or successor) ordered train.

GEML does have units available off peak - just go past Ilford Depot and see for yourself. However they are maintained there between the peaks so this maintenance would need to be done at another time - probably overnight and the units are not at Ilford Depot overnight but based out in sidings at the country end of the route so these units need to be maintained there.

Perhaps it's more that there isn't a business case for Crosscountry to order extra stock at this time.

The new Northern and TPE franchises are expecting to procure new rolling stock AND convert that into an operating surplus. So apparently it's not impossible...

From bitter experience I cannot believe there isn't a business case for extra trains / capacity or both on XC routes. Whether it would be new bi-modes at this stage or cascaded HSTs I think depends on the cost of new trains. I am still angling for the DfT going for refurbished HSTs at this time if the Scotrail conversion goes well.

If anything, this is an advantage to the 5 car IEPs, since when they leave in double formation from Paddington any passengers from Cornwall will be directed to the correct coaches...

In theory yes, as it gives stations that don't warrant a full length service still having through trains rather than passengers having to change trains which is not liked by leisure passengers and regularly comes up in surveys concerning engineering works and rail replacement. However from experience having seen trains divide at weekends communicating this is not always easy to convey and regularly there are passengers swapping between units going to the opposing destination.

 

[Haydn1971]

One thought, the IEP contract is for paths, how is more capacity determined and by whom ? Are extra carriages specified in the IEP contract ? Presumably it's not possible for the TOC to add in a few extra carriages themselves ?

 

[coppercapped]

One thought, the IEP contract is for paths, how is more capacity determined and by whom ? Are extra carriages specified in the IEP contract ? Presumably it's not possible for the TOC to add in a few extra carriages themselves ?

The IEP contract is for diagrams, not paths. The order was based on a notional timetable prepared by the DfT around 2007 or 2008 - anyway, before Hitachi was selected as the preferred supplier in February 2009. At a presentation to the Railway Division of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on 27th June 2011 which I attended and which included one of the DfT’s civil servants responsible for the IEP, Stuart Baker, Hitachi showed a simulation of the places the trains would visit based on this notional timetable.

Of course, over the seven or eight years since the timetable was prepared traffic has increased considerably and one doesn't know if the notional timetable included such traffic growth - after all when it was prepared the trains were expected to enter service by 2011 or 2012.

Who knows what details the contract covers - it may have clauses allowing for extra carriages or trains. But if these are paid for a pro rata increase in the per diagram payments, then it may well be cheaper for Eversholt to order more AT300s... In any event the IEP is a contract between the DfT and Agility Trains - the complications of a TOC, or even a ROSCO, buying coaches from Hitachi to incorporate into somebody else's trains doesn't bear thinking about!

 

[Class 170101]

then it may well be cheaper for Eversholt to order more AT300s...

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

My sentiments exactly.

+1.

But Hitachi do have 70% in both Agility East and Agility West, so there's a natural conflict between their desire to ensure they pick up new rolling stock orders, make the most money they can out of their Agility Trains shareholding and stop train orders going to other builders.

They'll have to walk a very fine line between Agility Trains pricing themselves out of the market for additional diagrams, Hitachi pricing themselves into the market for additional rolling stock and making sure they beat other bidders for the contract for new rolling stock.

In some ways, they've got FGW and DfT over a barrel, in other ways, FGW and ROSCOs can really brutally screw every last penny out of Hitachi by threatening to buy from Siemens or Alstom or someone else AND to use the minimum service obligation, not buying any additional diagrams in from Agility Trains.

I did say I should start selling adding machines - the bills and number crunching over the next 27.5 years will be monumental.

 

[D6975]

On 2009 data (and so before the recent rebuild)

Bristol Temple Meads
3: 223m
5: 227m
7: 226m
9: 225m
11: 227m
13: 265m
15: 263m



I could go on

Those figures for TM are mostly irrelevant. Of those mentioned only 13 and 15 are applicable. Platforms 3-11 all continue on into platforms 4-12 and are therefore effectively way over the figures given.