GWR Class 800

[Agent_Squash]

- Have seen one rammed PAD-BTM 5 car set which should have been a 10 car set, and 5 car sets on peak BTM-WSM/TAU will never work (equivalent HSTs with 6 and a half standard cars operate with all seats taken, and the vestibules well populated... so why even try to squeeze that into 3 and a half cars (excluding first class and the humungous train crew facilities in the leading car)?).

It's important to remember that the HSTs have 23m coaches compared to the 80x's which have 26m coaches - not as nice as it could be but introduces more flexibility to the GWR network.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Confusing statement in this months modern railways. It says the class 800 for virgin will operate to 5 out of scotlands 7 cities from 2019. Surely it will serve all 7? Possibly not glasgow due to 801s but surely not 5.

Or is it just a delayed introduction to aberdeen and so from 2020 it will be more and the article is not clear?

 

[Typhoon_93]

800007 final breaks cover at Aycliffe on 01/02/2018 almost exactly 1 year since it’s sister 800006 was first outside on 06/02/2017.

 

[reddragon]

The lemon is out then!
Hope 007 doesn't have problems with bond ing

 

[StephenHunter]

The lemon is out then!
Hope 007 doesn't have problems with bond ing

Groan...

Anyway, I rode on 800 009 yesterday from London to Reading (part of a two unit train). Great looking interiors, but the seating is very hard.

 

[dp21]

800007 final breaks cover at Aycliffe on 01/02/2018 almost exactly 1 year since it’s sister 800006 was first outside on 06/02/2017.

Why the year gap?

 

[92002]

Confusing statement in this months modern railways. It says the class 800 for virgin will operate to 5 out of scotlands 7 cities from 2019. Surely it will serve all 7? Possibly not glasgow due to 801s but surely not 5.

Or is it just a delayed introduction to aberdeen and so from 2020 it will be more and the article is not clear?

Considering there have been two test runs to Glasgow in the last week, with 800s it would appear to be a starter.

More likely to be an 801 when services finally start.

Who knows they may start more services again with an 800 joining with another.

Not that long ago there was a 2 hourly service to Glasgow, which was taken over by a not appreciated Cross Country trains service.

 

[Railperf]

2. 80Xs struggle to get to 125mph on diesel? They weren't meant to have this capability. The publicly owned Network Rail was mean to electrify the 125mph bits so that the only running on diesel would be routes where top speed wouldn't need to be above 100mph. You do realise that you are now blaming 80Xs for not being able to do something perfectly that they weren't designed to do?

Sorry. According to Hitachi....these are designed to do 125mph...
The following quotation is from Hitachi's PR team when questioned about the comparatively poor IET performance in diesel mode...
- "IETs accelerate faster than HSTs in both diesel and electric mode
- IETs have a top speed of 125mph in diesel mode and 140mph in electric mode"

And in the context of the slowly rolled out and delayed GWML electrification..it is right to question - and criticise where justified - the relatively slower performance of these new '125mph' trains that are -in the main - slower than the 40 year old HST's - bar a small sprint to 30 or 40mph! I tell you what - they might just be faster than the 172's on my local Gospel Oak to Barking Line. Now there's a thought LOL.

 

[50031]

Presumably, then, the 125mph diesel capability is only realised in unmuzzled mode, as we have many reports of 115 to 120 at most in service so far, given we know full power is only allowed at low speeds when leaving stations

 

[Railperf]

I hate this phrase 'unmuzzled'. It's simply a different software setting regards to engine power output. BMW have been doing it for years with their cars. A 318d and a 320d are exactly the same car with the same engine..just that the 318d engine management software is programmed to inject less fuel into the engine..and therefor it produces less power and has a lower performance.
The MTU engines fitted to these trains were delivered with engines that can run at up to 700KW (940HP) - and possibly more , but contracted to provide only 560Kw (750hp). Now it has been determined that they are too slow at 750hp, a compromise seems to be reached where they will run at up to 940hp, but seeming only up to around 30 or 40mph, where the engine software throttles back the fuel to a maximum of 750hp.
And yes - on level track in this current setting 114-115mph is about the maximum top speed they will achieve.

 

[bastien]

Sorry. According to Hitachi....these are designed to do 125mph...
The following quotation is from Hitachi's PR team when questioned about the comparatively poor IET performance in diesel mode...
- "IETs accelerate faster than HSTs in both diesel and electric mode
- IETs have a top speed of 125mph in diesel mode and 140mph in electric mode"

Got a link to that quote?

 

[jimm]

Sorry. According to Hitachi....these are designed to do 125mph...
The following quotation is from Hitachi's PR team when questioned about the comparatively poor IET performance in diesel mode...
- "IETs accelerate faster than HSTs in both diesel and electric mode
- IETs have a top speed of 125mph in diesel mode and 140mph in electric mode"

And in the context of the slowly rolled out and delayed GWML electrification..it is right to question - and criticise where justified - the relatively slower performance of these new '125mph' trains that are -in the main - slower than the 40 year old HST's - bar a small sprint to 30 or 40mph! I tell you what - they might just be faster than the 172's on my local Gospel Oak to Barking Line. Now there's a thought LOL.

Is there some particular reason you keep going on and on and on and on about this?

The context of the delayed GWML electrification is neither here nor there - except apparently for the purposes of you going on about the 800s' performance on diesel at 100mph+. When the bi-modes were being designed at Hitachi in Japan six years ago or so, there wasn't the slightest hint of a delay to the electrification programme, so guess what, they weren't designed with that in mind.

The DfT could just have specified a train able to run at no more than 110mph on diesel, given that would suffice for the places the bi-modes will operate on diesel for the long term - but where would we be now if they had done that?

Most likely lots of new trains sat in sidings doing precious little and Scotrail waiting even longer for some HSTs - or a very big re-engineering bill - but as the 800s can manage more than 110mph on diesel, that did not happen.

Most passengers couldn't care less what the acceleration rate is or where the power for the traction motors is coming from, so long as they get to their destination at the advertised time.

We haven't heard a thing from you about how Class 800s are performing on the Cotswold Line - you know, one of the places the bi-modes were built for, with a maximum speed limit of 100mph... why is that? Or between Bristol and Taunton, or Swansea and Carmarthen...

 

[bastien]

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, the 800s are bowling along at 125mph... And the press corps are up in arms about the 'eyewatering cost' of wringing an extra 5-10mph out of them. "How much taxpayers money is being wasted on running this pointless drag-race with the fuel guzzling dinosaur HSTs?" Asked the shadow minister. And so on, and so on...

 

[Rob F]

Is there some particular reason you keep going on and on and on and on about this?

The context of the delayed GWML electrification is neither here nor there - except apparently for the purposes of you going on about the 800s' performance on diesel at 100mph+. When the bi-modes were being designed at Hitachi in Japan six years ago or so, there wasn't the slightest hint of a delay to the electrification programme, so guess what, they weren't designed with that in mind.

The DfT could just have specified a train able to run at no more than 110mph on diesel, given that would suffice for the places the bi-modes will operate on diesel for the long term - but where would we be now if they had done that?

Most likely lots of new trains sat in sidings doing precious little and Scotrail waiting even longer for some HSTs - or a very big re-engineering bill - but as the 800s can manage more than 110mph on diesel, that did not happen.

Most passengers couldn't care less what the acceleration rate is or where the power for the traction motors is coming from, so long as they get to their destination at the advertised time.

We haven't heard a thing from you about how Class 800s are performing on the Cotswold Line - you know, one of the places the bi-modes were built for, with a maximum speed limit of 100mph... why is that? Or between Bristol and Taunton, or Swansea and Carmarthen...

You really are ultra sensitive about any criticism of these trains, aren't you? It is almost as though you take it as a personal insult, you didn't work on the design of them, did you?

Rob

 

[Clarence Yard]

I hate this phrase 'unmuzzled'. It's simply a different software setting regards to engine power output. BMW have been doing it for years with their cars. A 318d and a 320d are exactly the same car with the same engine..just that the 318d engine management software is programmed to inject less fuel into the engine..and therefor it produces less power and has a lower performance.
The MTU engines fitted to these trains were delivered with engines that can run at up to 700KW (940HP) - and possibly more , but contracted to provide only 560Kw (750hp). Now it has been determined that they are too slow at 750hp, a compromise seems to be reached where they will run at up to 940hp, but seeming only up to around 30 or 40mph, where the engine software throttles back the fuel to a maximum of 750hp.
And yes - on level track in this current setting 114-115mph is about the maximum top speed they will achieve.

No compromise has been reached. Agility have taken the DfT instruction to unmuzzle the engines in order to meet the current end to end journey times quite literally but, in so doing, have also electronically muzzled them to reduce engine wear and thereby maximise their maintenance cost margins. It isn’t a straight 700/565kW switchover - they are being electronically tuned to a specific traction curve which commences at around 30mph.

How far Agility are under the traction curve on diesel in the IEP TTS is unknown (because they are not saying) but they are taking that, contractually, as the absolute maximum the train must achieve so acceleration drops off rapidly at the very point (30 to 60 mph) when, operationally speaking, you want some poke.

I have been on a GWR service train, on the level, accelerating to more than 115mph on diesel but I don’t really get the angst over the top speed ability because the current timetable doesn’t warrant sustained 120+mph running on diesel.

The question of what to do regarding their poor time keeping and the link with the contracted acceleration curve is a live one with FG pressing the DfT to do something about it.

 

[Railperf]

This 'Unmuzzle' phrase is marketing BS!! After this post, i refuse to use it any more in relation to 800's. But yes, i like the analogy, 'it's like taking a dog's muzzle off for a second so that he can bark, and then putting it back on quickly in case he bites someone!

The engines are not running at their full BHP output over the whole speed range. So they continue to be muzzled -more than partially. You get the full 940 beans to exit the platform up to 30mph and then the muzzle goes back on to restrict these to 750hp -gradually - in case the engine goes bang or a piston goes through the crankcase - bit of humour required here!! Lol. And that IS a compromise. Otherwise the engines would be running at the full 940hp across the complete speed range. I've never heard of any other diesel loco, diesel multiple unit that has such a setup.

But thanks Clarence, you are right - the poor timekeeping due to this crazily stupid scenario is a concern to a great many people - not just me - and i guess GWR's top brass are pretty concerned about it too!

 

[Dai Corner]

Are there any thoughts or stats on the poor timekeeping, how much occurred in the currently electrified, the to-be-electrified and not-to-be-electrified areas and how much would have been avoided if the engines were allowed to deliver their full output throughout the speed range?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Are there any thoughts or stats on the poor timekeeping, how much occurred in the currently electrified, the to-be-electrified and not-to-be-electrified areas and how much would have been avoided if the engines were allowed to deliver their full output throughout the speed range?

My ASSUMPTIONS are that the DfT and Angel have decided a quick burst of maximum possible power away from station and then ease off is not too harsh on the engines but provides reasonable timekeeping. Hopefully not reaching 125mph is mitigated by a sharp acceleration away from stations with the bonus of automatically closing doors - it is quite likely. I am talking about in diesel mode obviously and the only issues are long term the time it will take to electrify the remaining 125mph stretches of railway and the apparent (unnecessary ?) boasts that IEP can achieve 125mph on diesel.

Long term the 125mph capability on diesel will be unimportant. I always remind myself that *IF* a stretch of line is 125mph then it is very likely to be electrified. The given stretch of line must be important enough to justify 125mph so is also likely to justify electrification. If a stretch of line does not justify electrification then it follows that the top speed of 125mph is probably not important. There are not too many exceptions to that on GW. Well that was the case until the electrification went all wrong !. Lets not forget the debacle of an electrification project is the true culprit.

Honestly I am not biased in favour of IEP. Early on I worried about noise from underfloor engines but that does not seem to crop up as a complaint much although maybe it will once they are a bit worn out. There are however plenty of reports from people who find the seats too hard or uncomfortable and I can believe that as I find other new trains that I do use uncomfortable (377/6s ,/7s and 700s). I might never know what 800s are like for myself as the only journey I do out West is by Coach to Cardiff. That is probably more noisy, slower (except when compared to engineering works) and probably no more comfortable. The coach is however CHEAP - if I time it right I can pay about £5 one way London to/from Cardiff. That is roughly the same as it costs for me to get from my home in Croydon (outer London) to London Victoria Coach station by bus and train !. If I wanted to spend more then the car becomes an option as I would then miss out travel via central London. See how the other halves live ? !.

 

[StephenHunter]

How much of the lines not being electrified have 125mph line speed anyway?

 

[Domh245]

How much of the lines not being electrified have 125mph line speed anyway?

I understand that there will only be a single stretch of unelectrified 125mph line between Thingley Junction and Middle Hill Tunnel on the GW network once the current program is finished.

 

[Wychwood93]

How much of the lines not being electrified have 125mph line speed anyway?

The word 'none' springs to mind. Under diesel they can muster a full 125, I have recorded that on an up run in the Little Somerford area. Anyone familiar with the location will know why this could happen.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Are there any thoughts or stats on the poor timekeeping, how much occurred in the currently electrified, the to-be-electrified and not-to-be-electrified areas and how much would have been avoided if the engines were allowed to deliver their full output throughout the speed range?

If everything works to plan, the units keep time on diesel. But if there are delays or it is running on restrictive aspects, it will lose time as it doesn’t have the acceleration in the mid speed range to cope. You are then into minimising station dwells.

The laws of physics will always give you a maximum acceleration rate/speed curve but by restricting the acceleration rate curve to a level below that set by the DfT in the IEP TTS, the units are meeting the letter of the DfT instruction on providing a nominal 700kW (the actual kW for traction will, of course, be lower) but are not performing as GWR expected because of the (assumed) newly applied electronic restrictions.

Answering another post, this whole subject has now got way above the level of GWR management. It is being discussed at senior FG/DfT levels.

 

[Wychwood93]

I understand that there will only be a single stretch of unelectrified 125mph line between Thingley Junction and Middle Hill Tunnel on the GW network once the current program is finished.

I stand corrected - 125 allowed up and down to/from the north portal of Middle Hill tunnel - 101 miles 39 chains. See the online NR Sectional Appendix page 71.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Sorry. According to Hitachi....these are designed to do 125mph...
......

The original IEP specification required it, but the later revisions, after the change in design to having underfloor Diesel engines said....

(Taken from the IEP TTS Issue 05 from 2013.)

IEP-TECH-REQ-35-Issue 05 Intercity Express Programme

3.8 Performance

TS261
The IEP Trains must have a maximum service speed of at least 125mph and shall be able to achieve that speed on the whole of the IEP Network.
The requirement to be able to operate at 125mph applies during operation in Standard Mode and Locomotive Hauled Mode.

It is accepted that 125mph may not be achieved under the following circumstances:

• on adverse gradients;
  
  
• in excessive headwinds;
  
  
• in the case of an IEP Train containing Bi-mode IEP Units operating in Self Power Mode;
  
  ....etc, etc,......

 

[StephenHunter]

Ask a stupid question, but as the 800s have 26 metre carriages, is there anywhere on GWR they're not cleared for?

 

[jimm]

You really are ultra sensitive about any criticism of these trains, aren't you? It is almost as though you take it as a personal insult, you didn't work on the design of them, did you?

Rob

I am ultra tired of people coming up with spurious reasons to have a go at these trains - it has been going on in this thread and others since before one had even been built, as was noted the other day.

Long-distance running at 100mph+ speeds on diesel was never expected to happen - so had Network Rail been able to deliver electrification as scheduled, Railperf would have had nothing to gripe about in the first place - and won't in 12 months' time, yet still keeps returning to it as though this is something that will affect the trains for the rest of their working lives.

There may be an issue over ability to recover delays in the current scenario, but you could argue that the money that it would presumably take to work the diesel engines harder the rest of this year might be better spent on delivering long-term fixes for the infrastructure faults and capacity choke-points that are the cause of so many of the delays on the GWML in the first place.

It appears Railperf has nothing to say about how Class 800s are performing on the Cotswold Line on diesel. No surprise as - short-term traincrew availability issues aside - they seem to be doing just what they were designed to do, without any fuss. And even clawing back lost time on occasion.

 

[StephenHunter]

If everything works to plan, the units keep time on diesel. But if there are delays or it is running on restrictive aspects, it will lose time as it doesn’t have the acceleration in the mid speed range to cope. You are then into minimising station dwells.

Which will be easier because you've not got to deal with slam door stock.

 

[Railperf]

Got a link to that quote?

Sorry, No, Hit people generally don't publish their emails online.

I am ultra tired of people coming up with spurious reasons to have a go at these trains - it has been going on in this thread and others since before one had even been built, as was noted the other day.

Long-distance running at 100mph+ speeds on diesel was never expected to happen - so had Network Rail been able to deliver electrification as scheduled, Railperf would have had nothing to gripe about in the first place - and won't in 12 months' time, yet still keeps returning to it as though this is something that will affect the trains for the rest of their working lives.

There may be an issue over ability to recover delays in the current scenario, but you could argue that the money that it would presumably take to work the diesel engines harder the rest of this year might be better spent on delivering long-term fixes for the infrastructure faults and capacity choke-points that are the cause of so many of the delays on the GWML in the first place.

It appears Railperf has nothing to say about how Class 800s are performing on the Cotswold Line on diesel. No surprise as - short-term traincrew availability issues aside - they seem to be doing just what they were designed to do, without any fuss. And even clawing back lost time on occasion.

I did plan to travel along the Cotswold line some weeks ago - but yes the 800's had been substituted with HST's and 166 Turbo's - not sure of the exact issues that day - but could have been lack of train crew.

There will always be comparisons made between new and older rolling stock -whether you like it or not. Even if the GWML had been fully electrified as planned, we would still be comparing the performance of both these sets of machinery and coming up with the conclusion that we have done. That above 30-40mph, the 800's (in current diesel settings) do not have the mid range or top end grunt to recover from restrictive signal aspects or Temporary Speed restrictions as well as the older HST's do.

In the context of GWR's claim that these new trains will deliver journey time savings across the whole network - the reality suggests not. The 800's will clearly deliver journey time savings on the electrified parts of the network. But as things stand - it looks unlikely that there will be any reasonable time savings on the sections of track that are unelectrified because the so called slightly better acceleration of the 800's at lower speeds is offset by their lack of midrange and top end power (compared to HST's) - which is needed when things go wrong and time needs to be made up.

No wonder First Group are pretty fed up with the situation. They have a so-called 125mph bi-mode train that should have been perfect for this exact scenario -delayed and partial electrification - but they have turned out to be pretty limp in (current settings ) diesel mode and struggle with the timings - especially when there are delays - which are quite frequent on GWR these days. And that sounds like it is all down to contractual issues - basically none of the players involved want to end up with the additional repair and maintenance bill - which were inevitable when parts of the electrification scheme were cancelled in the first place.

As for infrastructure faults and capacity constraints - that is another question that needs to be addressed aside of this discussion. And that cash should be coming out of another pot.

 

[mushroomchow]

Is there some particular reason you keep going on and on and on and on about this?

The context of the delayed GWML electrification is neither here nor there - except apparently for the purposes of you going on about the 800s' performance on diesel at 100mph+. When the bi-modes were being designed at Hitachi in Japan six years ago or so, there wasn't the slightest hint of a delay to the electrification programme, so guess what, they weren't designed with that in mind.

The DfT could just have specified a train able to run at no more than 110mph on diesel, given that would suffice for the places the bi-modes will operate on diesel for the long term - but where would we be now if they had done that?

Most likely lots of new trains sat in sidings doing precious little and Scotrail waiting even longer for some HSTs - or a very big re-engineering bill - but as the 800s can manage more than 110mph on diesel, that did not happen.

Most passengers couldn't care less what the acceleration rate is or where the power for the traction motors is coming from, so long as they get to their destination at the advertised time.

We haven't heard a thing from you about how Class 800s are performing on the Cotswold Line - you know, one of the places the bi-modes were built for, with a maximum speed limit of 100mph... why is that? Or between Bristol and Taunton, or Swansea and Carmarthen...

As a regular passenger on the MML, where Bi-modes are being mooted as suitable replacements for the HSTs and possibly even the operationally-superior 222s, I consider Railperf's information very relevant and thank them for it. The comparisons on the stretches referenced are comparable with many stretches of the route through the East and South Midlands, where their performance will ultimately be under most scrutiny should they be introduced.

The widely-documented issues with diesel performance should absolutely be taken into account when considering the introduction of IETs on a route which will A) require longer stretches away from the wires, B) currently runs 125mph diesel services on those stretches, C) has little or no prospect of those routes being electrified in the predicted lifespan of the incoming units, D) requires upgrades to the existing electrified infrastructure south of Bedford to allow 125mph running on electric power and E) is implementing a service intensification from next year which will reduce any leeway previously built into the timetable.

At the moment, the franchise consultation seems to be sleepwalking into advocating their introduction purely because there's no alternative on the market. To ignore it and order an inadequate fleet of units without getting Hitachi to go back to the drawing board and come up with a solution will shaft travellers from the East Midlands for the next twenty-plus years - not that we on the MML haven't become used to that anyway.

 

[JN114]

In the context of GWR's claim that these new trains will deliver journey time savings across the whole network - the reality suggests not. The 800's will clearly deliver journey time savings on the electrified parts of the network. But as things stand - it looks unlikely that there will be any reasonable time savings on the sections of track that are unelectrified because the so called slightly better acceleration of the 800's at lower speeds is offset by their lack of midrange and top end power (compared to HST's) - which is needed when things go wrong and time needs to be made up.

All the publicity has been around saved journey times from X to/from London - and in all of those cases trains will benefit from electrification. I may be mistaken; but I don’t recall a single reference to journey time savings wholly off of the electrified (or to be electrified) infrastructure. I’m not sure where this claim is that they’ll be faster on the whole network; perhaps a source can be provided in case I’ve missed it.