GWR Class 800

[Steve14]

Just passed Old Oak Common, they finally shunted the Class 800 out and it was slowly crawling passed the train wash... But my my she looks beautiful! I can't wait to see them run up and down the GWML in a green livery!

 

[sprinterguy]

It was said of either Manchester's or Birmingham's Ansaldo trams that no two of them had identical cabling.

That was in reference to Birmingham's trams, since replaced. "Wiring like plates of spaghetti" as the Midland Metro's chief said at one point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In a nutshell (agreeing with the above post). The government need to butt out of interfering with the PRIVATISED railway. I was not comfortable with railway privatisation but consoled myself with the fact that at least the railways would then be left alone to run themselves commercially with out interference.

Personally I'm glad to see the Government taking the lead in specifying a standard train design that can be used interchangeably across the network. Giving the TOCs free reign to order individual batches of trains to a myriad of different specifications as suits them at the time is of no use to anyone when franchise boundaries are redrawn or stock becomes available to cascade.

 

[asylumxl]

That was in reference to Birmingham's trams, since replaced. "Wiring like plates of spaghetti" as the Midland Metro's chief said at one point.

So like British Rail and the PEPs?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Personally I'm glad to see the Government taking the lead in specifying a standard train design that can be used interchangeably across the network. Giving the TOCs free reign to order individual batches of trains to a myriad of different specifications as suits them at the time is of no use to anyone when franchise boundaries are redrawn or stock becomes available to cascade.

Fair enough. I must admit since the state (you and I) are still stumping up so much in subsidy it is only fair we should all have a say. Efficiently that is done via our elected representatives and the DaFT. I just worry it is too many cooks. I have lost sight of the reasons for privatisation and will try not to go off thread.

I also am keen on the idea of a standard train - without restricting the fleets versatility of course. I accept that the IEP based on the 395 etc should work out. But with diesel engines added under the carriages I hope this is not adding a big technical risk AND that the engines do not affect the ambience for the passenger (my old bugbear). Time will tell but the IEP does have the potential to be a very versatile train.

The other concern I have is regarding long coaches - non standard. I wonder how restrictive the carriage lengths are going to be - I am thinking of deployment on alternative lines later in the trains life. I can see the IEP being cascaded to other partially electrified routes once more and more of the Great Western routes are completely electrified - that is unless it works out cheaper to remove the diesel engines instead. The HSTs moved around a bit (I am thinking Cross Country and now ScotRail) but they have generally stayed put for their long lives.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So like British Rail and the PEPs?

Talking of messy wiring. I also recall the Westerns (Class 52) had variations. If I remember correctly the Crewe built ones differed from the Swindon built ones. One lot had the piping fitted before the electrics and the other had the electrics in first which made the routing of the piping (for air/water etc) more complicated and messy.

I wonder if there will be unnecessary differences between the British and Italian built IEP/AT300s.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So like British Rail and the PEPs?

Hehehe.

It's a bit of a moot point with IEP sets anyway - they're all going to be built using pre-assembled wiring looms with lots of conventional CAT6/CAT7 ethernet cabling or fibre optic cabling, and power supplied by conventional power cabling, there's going to be relatively little in the way of bespoke wiring of the type we're used to seeing on trains.

It's all about modularity, ease of repair, upgradability and weight saving when it comes to IEP, to ensure high levels of availability, Hitachi want (or need) repairs, even quite complicated jobs, to be very quick and easy, nobody wants engine rafts with twenty different sensor plugs to disconnect, one to be forgotten, get pulled off and the wiring loom on the train to need repaired, no, it's all about one big plug, carefully routed wiring looms and turning an hour's job into a five minute job.

It's even better, really. Hitachi have a massive cable manufacturing division - Hitachi Metal, and what do you know, they make wiring harnesses for cars, including electric cars.

If the ex Ansaldo people can't fasten and cable tie a pre assembled wiring harness onto a pre assembled bodyshell properly, I should imagine Hitachi will be (using a Hitachi built crawler crane) demolishing the Ansaldo works.

 

[coppercapped]

Hehehe.
It's all about modularity, ease of repair, upgradability and weight saving when it comes to IEP, to ensure high levels of availability, Hitachi want (or need) repairs, even quite complicated jobs, to be very quick and easy, nobody wants engine rafts with twenty different sensor plugs to disconnect, one to be forgotten, get pulled off and the wiring loom on the train to need repaired, no, it's all about one big plug, carefully routed wiring looms and turning an hour's job into a five minute job.

In the aeronautical world there is the concept of the Line Replaceable Unit which is a module (radio, sensor, instrument, generator, etc.) which has been specified to be replaceable and testable on the flight line without moving or disconnecting any other bit of equipment.

It works!

 

[The Ham]

The other concern I have is regarding long coaches - non standard. I wonder how restrictive the carriage lengths are going to be - I am thinking of deployment on alternative lines later in the trains life. I can see the IEP being cascaded to other partially electrified routes once more and more of the Great Western routes are completely electrified - that is unless it works out cheaper to remove the diesel engines instead. The HSTs moved around a bit (I am thinking Cross Country and now ScotRail) but they have generally stayed put for their long lives.

It depends on how long they stay put for, however given the Mark 5 BR coaches were designed to be 26m and the 390's have long driving vehicles (circa 25m) it is likely that as elements are replaced/upgraded that over time 26m stock would be able to be the norm on quite a few routes (even if the paper work isn't done to clear them for those lines until it's needed).

It's worth noting that on straight (or nearly straight) track the length will make no difference, it only potentially becomes an issue at bends.

It's also worth noting that routes which are diversionary routes would also need clearing, as such, although this may make the whole of the XC network difficult to do there could well be sections which would already be cleared because of needing to be cleared for GW or EC for diversionary reasons. As such with fairly minimum work some XC services could be run by 80x stock.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It depends on how long they stay put for, however given the Mark 5 BR coaches were designed to be 26m and the 390's have long driving vehicles (circa 25m) it is likely that as elements are replaced/upgraded that over time 26m stock would be able to be the norm on quite a few routes (even if the paper work isn't done to clear them for those lines until it's needed).

It's worth noting that on straight (or nearly straight) track the length will make no difference, it only potentially becomes an issue at bends.

It's also worth noting that routes which are diversionary routes would also need clearing, as such, although this may make the whole of the XC network difficult to do there could well be sections which would already be cleared because of needing to be cleared for GW or EC for diversionary reasons. As such with fairly minimum work some XC services could be run by 80x stock.

For Cross Country NE-SW I assume that means clearance work for 26m vehicles from the ECML to Birmingham and from Birmingham to Bristol. Basically the two bits that I think deserve electrification !. The not-yet electrified part from West of Bristol to the SW will be cleared already for GW AT300s.

 

[Dave1987]

The other concern I have is regarding long coaches - non standard. I wonder how restrictive the carriage lengths are going to be - I am thinking of deployment on alternative lines later in the trains life. I can see the IEP being cascaded to other partially electrified routes once more and more of the Great Western routes are completely electrified - that is unless it works out cheaper to remove the diesel engines instead. The HSTs moved around a bit (I am thinking Cross Country and now ScotRail) but they have generally stayed put for their long lives.

I sincerely hope that the engines are never removed on these things. Otherwise you have the ridiculously high floors with no reason for it!

 

[D365]

*yawn* Next! :roll:

 

[sprinterguy]

I sincerely hope that the engines are never removed on these things. Otherwise you have the ridiculously high floors with no reason for it!

Does anybody know whether the electric sets will have raised floors in the saloons throughout the train, or for that matter whether the unpowered intermediate trailers on 9-car Bi-mode sets will also have raised floors? It would seem strange, if Bi-mode and electric sets alike are using the same bodyshell design, if some vehicles had raised floors and others level, so I'm guessing they'll all have that slight slope regardless.

 

[Dave1987]

Does anybody know whether the electric sets will have raised floors in the saloons throughout the train, or for that matter whether the unpowered intermediate trailers on 9-car Bi-mode sets will also have raised floors? It would seem strange, if Bi-mode and electric sets alike are using the same bodyshell design, if some vehicles had raised floors and others level, so I'm guessing they'll all have that slight slope regardless.

If you read MR magazine, the RF and IW article tells you that the raised floors on the 5 car bi-modes are on the three middle coaches which have the engines underneath them. The fact they have had to put warning signs on the vestibule doors to warn about the slope says the slope in not insignificant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you read MR magazine, the RF and IW article tells you that the raised floors on the 5 car bi-modes are on the three middle coaches which have the engines underneath them. The fact they have had to put warning signs on the vestibule doors to warn about the slope says the slope in not insignificant.

Or says that modern-day H&S means you have to put a warning sticker on anything, however slight.

Has anybody here actually seen it?

 

[tbtc]

I sincerely hope that the engines are never removed on these things. Otherwise you have the ridiculously high floors with no reason for it!

Are they really going to be "ridiculously high", Dave?

Ridiculously?

Will we need crampons? Or is there just going to be a slight incline that most passengers won't even notice?

Try reading the previous post. The big problem is with the design which will still be 100% Hitachi and 0% Italian, couple that with Hitachi quality control people instead of Italians. BL / Rover was simply a change of name , nothing more , same design , same everything. Not comperable

Agreed.

So changing the sign on the front wall will fix all the problems will it, just like when British Leyland became Rover! :roll:

I think a fairer comparison would be Volkswagen taking over Skoda and bringing VW quality to the "budget" Skoda operation.

It didn't happen overnight, but it meant Skoda has turned from a joke to a fairly respectable brand.

Personally I'm glad to see the Government taking the lead in specifying a standard train design that can be used interchangeably across the network. Giving the TOCs free reign to order individual batches of trains to a myriad of different specifications as suits them at the time is of no use to anyone when franchise boundaries are redrawn or stock becomes available to cascade.

I also am keen on the idea of a standard train - without restricting the fleets versatility of course. I accept that the IEP based on the 395 etc should work out

I think it's positive.

We all moan about the fragmented industry and complain about the problems of small classes of non-standard stock (cascades would have been a lot easier if we'd had more 170s instead of any 175s... if we'd had more 222s instead of 180s...)...

...and most enthusiasts seem to want state control...

...but when the Government start laying down specifications for a new standard of stock that will run nationwide (Penzance, Inverness, Swansea, London), the same people start complaining about "interference".

The alternative would be botched short term decisions from different TOCs, no long term strategy and more non-standard stock.

If the ex Ansaldo people can't fasten and cable tie a pre assembled wiring harness onto a pre assembled bodyshell properly, I should imagine Hitachi will be (using a Hitachi built crawler crane) demolishing the Ansaldo works

It depends on how long they stay put for, however given the Mark 5 BR coaches were designed to be 26m and the 390's have long driving vehicles (circa 25m) it is likely that as elements are replaced/upgraded that over time 26m stock would be able to be the norm on quite a few routes (even if the paper work isn't done to clear them for those lines until it's needed).

It's worth noting that on straight (or nearly straight) track the length will make no difference, it only potentially becomes an issue at bends.

It's also worth noting that routes which are diversionary routes would also need clearing, as such, although this may make the whole of the XC network difficult to do there could well be sections which would already be cleared because of needing to be cleared for GW or EC for diversionary reasons. As such with fairly minimum work some XC services could be run by 80x stock.

I don't remember much fuss being made of work to allow 25m 390s on the WCML (and associated diversionary lines - e.g. S&C, GSW), so I think that some people are over-egging the costs of coping with 26m 800s.

 

[The Ham]

For Cross Country NE-SW I assume that means clearance work for 26m vehicles from the ECML to Birmingham and from Birmingham to Bristol. Basically the two bits that I think deserve electrification !. The not-yet electrified part from West of Bristol to the SW will be cleared already for GW AT300s.

Not all the way from the ECML, for instance no works required Doncaster to Leeds (or probably Leeds to York for diversionary purposes). Likewise at the southern end they would be cleared to Cheltenham Spa.

Although neither of this are significant in their own right, it does mean that on the Penzance to Aberdeen services there is a section of 25% of the total length of the route which would not already be cleared due to needing to accommodate the 80x's under normal circumstances (or would be an obvious diversion route between Leeds and York).

Some of the missing section could already be cleared for diversionary purposes (although I would guess not much). Quite a lot of it would be on straight or nearly straight track so wouldn't need any work anyway. Meaning that there would be fairly limited areas where works would be needed.

 

[sprinterguy]

If you read MR magazine, the RF and IW article tells you that the raised floors on the 5 car bi-modes are on the three middle coaches which have the engines underneath them. The fact they have had to put warning signs on the vestibule doors to warn about the slope says the slope in not insignificant.

Yes, and I'm what I'm wondering whether this will be a feature on all intermediate vehicles across the fleet, regardless of unit type.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has anybody here actually seen it?

The following photo is of the interior of an intermediate carriage on Bi-mode unit 800002:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800#/media/File:Class_800002_interior.jpg

To my eyes the gradient is barely perceptible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The following photo is of the interior of an intermediate carriage on Bi-mode unit 800002:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800#/media/File:Class_800002_interior.jpg

To my eyes the gradient is barely perceptible.

Agreed.

 

[sprinterguy]

The other concern I have is regarding long coaches - non standard. I wonder how restrictive the carriage lengths are going to be - I am thinking of deployment on alternative lines later in the trains life.

I've been led to believe that the old North Eastern Railway had a fairly restrictive loading gauge. If the IEP trains can be cleared for the Durham Coast line, which they are being as a diversionary route, where even class 150s face restrictions for reasons I'm unsure of, then I shouldn't think there'll be too much of an issue elsewhere. Consideration of local factors elsewhere will of course remain important, though.

 

[AM9]

If you read MR magazine, the RF and IW article tells you that the raised floors on the 5 car bi-modes are on the three middle coaches which have the engines underneath them. The fact they have had to put warning signs on the vestibule doors to warn about the slope says the expense of dealing with speculative claims would not be insignificant.

There, I've corrected that for you. You can get over it now unless you've still got the hump.

 

[The Ham]

Are they really going to be "ridiculously high", Dave?

Ridiculously?

Will we need crampons? Or is there just going to be a slight incline that most passengers won't even notice?

As an example a 1 in 40 slope (the same steepness as the standard crossfall of a footway or road which most people would walk on without realising that there is even a slope there*) would gain 250mm over 10m.

In highway terms 1:30 is seen as fairly flat and that would gain you 333mm, even 1:20 (which is often the gradient of the steeper bit of paving next to a dropped kerb) would gain you 500mm over 10m.

A gradient which is flatter than 1:20 (say 1 in 21) is considered DDA compliant and as such needs no flat sections for wheelchair users to rest on when ascending/descending

* I do not see our newspapers filled with people complaining about ridiculous gradients on all our zebra and pelican crossing where you have to descend down a tricky 1:20 gradient only to climb up a 1:40 gradient to then descend an equally steep gradient back down again before the final challenge of a 1:20 gradient back to the main footway. (Note there are some crossing where there are complaints but these will have steeper gradients than the standard ones listed).

If the height gained starts to get too much, I would suggest that more people would complain about the lack of headroom over the seats before the steepness of the ramp.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There, I've corrected that for you. You can get over it now unless you've still got the hump.

Quite. It would for example seem downright obvious that getting things or body parts trapped in doors may result in pain or death, for example, but unfortunately society doesn't see it that way, and as a result things like the ridiculous "crocodile teeth" on TPE Desiros come in.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm sure there is a document somewhere dictating the degree of slope that requires warning signs. Roger Ford has pointed out previously that the coaches with engines have a double step up into them from the platform so the floors are clearly considerably higher than other trains that have level floors.

 

[Mintona]

For Cross Country NE-SW I assume that means clearance work for 26m vehicles from the ECML to Birmingham and from Birmingham to Bristol. Basically the two bits that I think deserve electrification !. The not-yet electrified part from West of Bristol to the SW will be cleared already for GW AT300s.

I would be shocked if they aren't cleared from Abbottswood Jn (near Worcester) to Westerleigh Jn for ECS movements. If a train is broken down in Worcester, it'd be a long way to get it back to Old Oak Common for repairs.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I would be shocked if they aren't cleared from Abbottswood Jn (near Worcester) to Westerleigh Jn for ECS movements. If a train is broken down in Worcester, it'd be a long way to get it back to Old Oak Common for repairs.

If correct then that is useful as it brings Birmingham closer so the IEP cleared GW network. I wonder what alternative routes on the ECML could help with for ECML Southwards towards Derby. Mind you if there was a decent link between Leeds and Manchester then perhaps NE-SW would go that way - Cue HS3.

 

[asylumxl]

Agreed.

I disagree. I see an insurmountable mountain with snow falling on the peak. I will personally be hiring a Sherpa to help me make my ascent through the carriage...

 

[455driver]

To my eyes the gradient is barely perceptible.

That's probably because they are stood at the top of the slope when taking the picture!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I disagree. I see an insurmountable mountain with snow falling on the peak. I will personally be hiring a Sherpa to help me make my ascent through the carriage...

Don't see what use a small van would be?
Unless you were going to travel in that instead of the train!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's probably because they are stood at the top of the slope when taking the picture!

Is the top not in the middle of the coach? The photograph appears to be taken from one end.

 

[455driver]

Is the top not in the middle of the coach? The photograph appears to be taken from one end.

Don't know, the way I read it the slope is at either end with a level floor over the middle of the coach consisting of most/all of the actual seating area.

 

[jimm]

I would be shocked if they aren't cleared from Abbottswood Jn (near Worcester) to Westerleigh Jn for ECS movements. If a train is broken down in Worcester, it'd be a long way to get it back to Old Oak Common for repairs.

The DfT issued the linked list in 2011, with maps right at the bottom, of routes that would be cleared for IEP operation on the GWML and ECML, whether in passenger service, for diversions or as ecs.

At the time, west of Plymouth was noted as being a non-core route (but was going to be cleared anyway) but obviously that has been overtaken by the AT300 order. And Virgin East Coast's future service plans will also entail additional clearance work in West Yorkshire to allow them to serve Huiddersfield and also on Teesside to reach Middlesbrough.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4888/dft-f0008119.pdf

 

[Peter Sarf]

Don't know, the way I read it the slope is at either end with a level floor over the middle of the coach consisting of most/all of the actual seating area.

I am assuming it is a short slope, that may or may not be steep, at each end of the passenger compartment. That short slope may be considered a bit likely to fool passengers who do not expect such as slope within a coach and so a reminder was considered prudent rather than necessary. What worries me more is that if it is necessary to raise the floor height then how much sound insulation is there between the top of the engine and the raised floor.

Begs the question - How many steps are there and how high leading from the platform in through the door. Next question - why not make the steps from the outside/platform a bit higher ?.

I wonder how much does this "crooked" floor interfere with the structure of the coach. Probably not as much as the windows and doors.