GWR Class 800

[viya0414]

I believe they have a frequency curve with levels for various frequencies which the bi-mode IEP cannot exceed at any speed on "the IEP network".


PCBA

 

[jimm]

Thanks for the info regarding the station lengthening. I didn't think for some reason they would double up between Swindon and Cheltenham??!!

They have to cover all the bases, which includes 2x5 operation.

There are only so many nine-car sets to go around and whatever is said above by leomartin, the idea that the Gloucester/Cheltenham service is going to be worked nine-car sets all day is hard to believe.

Leo, how does a service that currently only sees an HST every hour other outside the peaks (and Class 180s worked several off-peak Cheltenham duties as recently as 2008), with two-car dmus to and from Swindon in between, suddenly justify a 620+ seat train to and from Paddington every hour all day? If that were the case you'd be transporting around lots of empty coaches past Swindon most of the time - just the kind of thing having the five-car Class 800s available is intended to prevent.

This route has never been mentioned in connection with Class 802s - the first batch allowed for a nine-car set or two to assist with peak workings on the Cotswold Line, while the second batch of nine-car sets was ordered specifically with Oxford/Cotswold Line duties in mind, replacing both 387s that won't be able to reach Oxford for the time being and displacing some five-car Class 800s to allow the continuation of Paddington-Bedwyn through services.

 

[Mintona]

They have to cover all the bases, which includes 2x5 operation.

There are only so many nine-car sets to go around and whatever is said above by leomartin, the idea that the Gloucester/Cheltenham service is going to be worked nine-car sets all day is hard to believe.

Leo, how does a service that currently only sees an HST every hour other outside the peaks (and Class 180s worked several off-peak Cheltenham duties as recently as 2008), with two-car dmus to and from Swindon in between, suddenly justify a 620+ seat train to and from Paddington every hour all day? If that were the case you'd be transporting around lots of empty coaches past Swindon most of the time - just the kind of thing having the five-car Class 800s available is intended to prevent.

This route has never been mentioned in connection with Class 802s - the first batch allowed for a nine-car set or two to assist with peak workings on the Cotswold Line, while the second batch of nine-car sets was ordered specifically with Oxford/Cotswold Line duties in mind, replacing both 387s that won't be able to reach Oxford for the time being and displacing some five-car Class 800s to allow the continuation of Paddington-Bedwyn through services.

Without wishing to put words into his mouth, I think Leo was under the (mistaken) belief that all the 9 carriage trains are Class 802s, and also that the Kemble Line would only see 5 car trains off peak and 9 car trains in the peak. That 10 carriage trains wouldn’t visit.

 

[JN114]

On the one hand I can see the issue with coupling/uncoupling at Swindon - on the current timetable it doesn’t work; you can’t have a set hanging around at Swindon for all the time it would need to off peak.

However as jimm has said what Leo has supposedly been told - which is much much more specific than anything briefed to the company about IET ops to date - doesn’t make sense either. Perhaps some messroom gossip has been misunderstood and regurgitated here as fact (it wouldn’t be the first time); or perhaps somewhere out there is some brief that Cheltenham will only get 9 Car 802s. We will see.

Due to my privileged position I won’t make bets - that would be unfair - but I’m fairly sure which of those two scenarios I believe.

My understanding; and that of my fellow control staff is that IET operations to start with will almost all be 10 Car; with the only in-service coupling and uncoupling taking place at Bristol Temple Meads. That’s backed up by the initial diagrams posted a few pages back.

In the next year or so there will be a complete timetable recast. THEN we might see fancy things like 10 split at Swindon with 5 for Cheltenham and 5 for Cardiff.

 

[Clarence Yard]

In the existing timetable it will be 9 car 80x only for Cheltenham - 5, 9 and 10 formations are booked for December 2018 onwards, if they sort out the 10 car platform issues on the route. There won't be any splitting and joining at Swindon in the Dec 2018 timetable either.

 

[jimm]

In the existing timetable it will be 9 car 80x only for Cheltenham - 5, 9 and 10 formations are booked for December 2018 onwards, if they sort out the 10 car platform issues on the route. There won't be any splitting and joining at Swindon in the Dec 2018 timetable either.

Thanks for the explanation - nine-car sets replacing existing HSTs in existing duties until the end of next year makes a lot more sense, pending platform extension work.

Then five-car sets off-peak from the December 2018 change and the start of the hourly workings, plus the option of nine-car or 10-car peak operations, in the same way the platform work on the Cotswold Line allows the 2x5 or nine-car options for the peaks.

As far as I know, all the requisite prior approval notifications for platform extensions to the various district councils along both routes were submitted this year or in 2016 and endorsed by the councils, so by now it should really be a case of completing the Grip process, letting the contracts for construction and getting the work done.

 

[irish_rail]

They have to cover all the bases, which includes 2x5 operation.

There are only so many nine-car sets to go around and whatever is said above by leomartin, the idea that the Gloucester/Cheltenham service is going to be worked nine-car sets all day is hard to believe.

Leo, how does a service that currently only sees an HST every hour other outside the peaks (and Class 180s worked several off-peak Cheltenham duties as recently as 2008), with two-car dmus to and from Swindon in between, suddenly justify a 620+ seat train to and from Paddington every hour all day? If that were the case you'd be transporting around lots of empty coaches past Swindon most of the time - just the kind of thing having the five-car Class 800s available is intended to prevent.

This route has never been mentioned in connection with Class 802s - the first batch allowed for a nine-car set or two to assist with peak workings on the Cotswold Line, while the second batch of nine-car sets was ordered specifically with Oxford/Cotswold Line duties in mind, replacing both 387s that won't be able to reach Oxford for the time being and displacing some five-car Class 800s to allow the continuation of Paddington-Bedwyn through services.

Am hoping that these 7 additional 9 car 802s ordered last year will instead be diverted to the Plymouth route creating spare 5 car 802s to work in pairs padd to Oxford then 5 car onward onto the cotswold line. Other than peak times, 9 car sets on the north cotswold line would be wasteful...
Perhaps clarence_yard could update us on the current thinking on unit allocation from Dec 2018 if this is indeed known yet?

 

[jimm]

I assume the extra batch of nine-car 802s will be expected to work the Cotswold Line peak jobs that one or two sets from the initial batch were previously meant to cover, so presumably these will now be available for Devon and Cornwall duties full-time.

And there are also times of the day when nine-car sets would be wasteful west of Plymouth.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Can’t get too far into Dec 2018 diagrams, would be a little prejudicial to one’s job, but two of the original cl.802 9 car sets did half a day each on the North Cots. The new sets have been diagrammed work all over the GWML, including Bristol, North Cots, South Cots and Oxfords.

In service splitting and joining of 5 car sets is being kept to a minimum so all such moves at Oxford are currently planned to take place in the sidings.

 

[Mintona]

Can’t get too far into Dec 2018 diagrams, would be a little prejudicial to one’s job, but two of the original cl.802 9 car sets did half a day each on the North Cots. The new sets have been diagrammed work all over the GWML, including Bristol, North Cots, South Cots and Oxfords.

In service splitting and joining of 5 car sets is being kept to a minimum so all such moves at Oxford are currently planned to take place in the sidings.

There was talk recently that the Dec 2018 timetable change might be moved to May 2019 as a whole load of timings wouldn’t be ready in time. Do you know if these issues have been resolved?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Can’t comment on that - the DfT are currently involved in the NR class 800 timings issue. Very sensitive.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Nothing's ever ready in time!

 

[Starmill]

The timings were done on time - it's just that they won't be very accurate without the wires

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Yes, but they are bi-mode

 

[50031]

Yes, but they are bi-mode

Well I don't think we know yet whether IETs can even reach 125mph in diesel mode, let alone keep to HST timings. Time will tell..

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I should hope so, because HSTs are slow as it is, name or no name

 

[Hadders]

I should hope so, because HSTs are slow as it is, name or no name

The new 800s won’t be any faster than the trains they replace and in all probability will be slower.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Well, GWR boast faster journey times with them! The 802s anyway.

 

[Hadders]

Don’t believe everything train operating companies tell you...

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I learned that when they promised 387s to Oxford by May 17! Ha, more like May 20!

 

[superalbs]

GWR claim the Class 387s and Class 800s to offer more comfortable journeys on some posters. That alone should prove why their PR is not always to be believed! :P

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I like 387s more than 165s, I think theyre much more comfortable apart from declassified first.

 

[jimm]

The new 800s won’t be any faster than the trains they replace and in all probability will be slower.

On what traction power supply system? No problem matching an HST on 25kv and going faster if 140mph is ever authorised. The IETs were never expected to have to operate on diesel power much above 100mph in normal service - and once wires reach Bristol Parkway next year the only places it will happen are between Chippenham and the Box area, plus a few miles of the Berks & Hants line.

Well, GWR boast faster journey times with them! The 802s anyway.

Have you ever heard of better acceleration on electric power and the time saved at stations (especially unstaffed ones) by not having to make sure slam doors on HSTs are properly shut.

I learned that when they promised 387s to Oxford by May 17! Ha, more like May 20!

The 'promise' was made on the basis of what GWR was being told by Network Rail.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well, GWR boast faster journey times with them! The 802s anyway.

Shorter dwell times at stations from using power doors are a significant factor in reducing journey times, irrespective of the traction source.

 

[Rob F]

Shorter dwell times at stations from using power doors are a significant factor in reducing journey times, irrespective of the traction source.

This should be a major benefit. A busy HST stopping at most places in Cornwall can lose a LOT of time.

Rob

 

[Dave1987]

Shorter dwell times at stations from using power doors are a significant factor in reducing journey times, irrespective of the traction source.

Would you stake your house on it?

 

[Mintona]

Would you stake your house on it?

It is true. I’m regularly stopped at stations for 3 to 4 minutes, when a power door train would be more like 60-90 seconds. A good example is Yatton on the down, 7 carriages and self dispatch, so the train manager has to walk the entire platform to ensure all doors are correctly closed. See also Weston Milton in both directions.

 

[hassaanhc]

GWR claim the Class 387s and Class 800s to offer more comfortable journeys on some posters. That alone should prove why their PR is not always to be believed! :P

The Class 387s are faster and quieter than a 165. While I do have a soft spot for the 165s, there is no doubt that they are slow and noisy, and pretty much every passenger will prefer a 387.

 

[Olaf]

Class 800 affected:

Steel Firm Faked Data for Metal Used in Planes and Cars
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ed-amid-deluge-of-sell-orders-on-data-scandal

...
Shares plunged 22 percent and bond risk jumped to a 19-month high as customers including Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Subaru Corp. said they had used materials from Kobe Steel that were subject to falsification while Hitachi Ltd. said trains exported to the U.K. were affected. It could cost the company as much as 15 billion yen ($133 million) to replace the parts, assuming 5 percent of its aluminum product sales were affected, JPMorgan Securities Japan Co. estimated.
...
Kobe Steel materials were used in Hitachi trains exported to the U.K.’s Agility Trains, according to Hitachi spokesman Masataka Morita. The trains haven’t started operation yet. Materials were also used in East Japan Railway Co., Central Japan Railway Co. bullet trains in Japan, he said, adding that the trains were inspected after completion and there was no problems with their strength.

 

[50031]

The Class 387s are faster and quieter than a 165. While I do have a soft spot for the 165s, there is no doubt that they are slow and noisy, and pretty much every passenger will prefer a 387.

And us lovely people in the South West are so looking forward to receiving our 'new' 165s and 166s, which apparently aren't even any longer getting a half decent interior upgrade!