GWR Class 800

[Bletchleyite]

Having experienced Standard Class in one of the new Eurostar units last night, I would suggest that Standard in the new GWR Class 800s is vastly superior in terms of "bay of four table seats" provision.

And in terms of the tables - the E*s have stupidly designed tables that eat legroom.

 

[43096]

You aren't paying for a new fleet if Hitachi are late delivering it.

You've missed my point. What you say is correct for what has actually happened. If Hitachi had delivered on time - which had to be the assumption when the HST off-lease plan was agreed - how long do you leave as a buffer period, because you do then end up paying for two fleets.

 

[Clarence Yard]

All of what?

I keep hearing Hitachi are late delivering the trains, are you saying Hitachi are paid by the month for trains they are still building?

Were the entire 802 order not Bi-Mode?
Where are they and why are sets in the country for months apparently not in traffic?

What has happened to the 14 or so HSTs not being used in Scotland this year?

802001-12 and 802101 are in traffic. 802013-22 are in the UK and are undergoing pre-acceptance work/mods. Hitachi have got this work rather round their neck at the moment and are carrying out pre-acceptance work at several locations.

The HST sets that have gone off lease and are not being used in Scotland are mainly in bits at either Loughborough or Doncaster. 20 sets of trailers (& spares) and 23 sets of power cars have already gone off lease, with another 2 sets of power cars this month and another 2 sets of power cars in November. That completes the vehicles going to Scotland.

There has also been a comment by another poster that the bigger fuel tanks are not needed. All 800 and 802 units have the larger 1550L tanks and they need them. 1550L gets you 900 miles easily but the original 1350L tanks would have only got you 750 miles easily. That is insufficient for most GWR diagrams.

 

[jayah]

You've missed my point. What you say is correct for what has actually happened. If Hitachi had delivered on time - which had to be the assumption when the HST off-lease plan was agreed - how long do you leave as a buffer period, because you do then end up paying for two fleets.

My point is that as they aren't paying for trains Hitachi haven't delivered they can afford not to send the old fleet off lease as Scotrail are months away from being able to use most of them and Wabtec probably can't handle 20 rakes in pieces either.

 

[broadgage]

I, for one never doubted that the new units would accelerate away from stops at a reasonable rate, nor did I doubt the general performance if compared to an HST.
There are no doubt differences in performance but these are minor.
I also never claimed that they would not fit the infrastructure on the relevant routes.

What I DID claim was that most of the fleet would be much shorter than an HST and therefore of significantly lower capacity. This was factually correct. More than half of the fleet is of 5 car length with a minority of 9 car.
Advocates of the IETs pointed out that this was irrelevant as all services that needed to be, would be either 5+5 or 9 car. This has not been achieved. It might be achieved in future but we have had a year of frequent short formations of busy rush hour trains.
(I stand corrected regarding pedantic use of English, and will henceforth refer to short formations as being "frequent" rather than as being "regular")

I also stated that the new trains would not have buffets. This has been found to be factually correct.
I also forecast that on a 5+5 train that the trolley would often be in the other portion, this has been reported frequently despite a trolley in each portion being promised.
And as for GWR recruiting more trolley staff, better late than never, but why did they not do this a year ago and get it right from the beginning ?

As regards the frequency of short formations, I THINK that read that 17% of services have been short formed ? can anyone confirm or deny?

A report on these forums referred to only 3 diagrams out of 25 being half length and implied that this was good, or at least acceptable. I think that one train in eight being half length is in fact a poor performance. Especially for new and expensive trains that were advertised as being such a great improvement.

The reservation system still seems unreliable.

The provision of 20 tables in a 5 car train is being touted as a great improvement. And whilst it is factually correct that this IS more than on a high density HST, it compares very poorly with a traditional inter city train.
I can remember when HSTs had 16 tables per coach, and when BR mark 2 coaches had almost every seat at a table, so compared to an older inter city train, the IET layout is a downgrade.

 

[jayah]

Not all short formation services have a major effect. During the holidays, the 17:30, in the top ten busiest intercity services, was not as busy. Off peak Cheltenham’s run fine and so do some Bristol/Cardiff. Imagine if HSTs came in halves in 1975, you wouldn’t moan as often because this wouldn’t exist.

How many diagrams could actually cope as 5 cars given most of them work one reasonably busy train in the morning and the evening? Are they the ones targeted for short formations? How busy is less busy at 1730?

HSTs didn't come in halves. Pendolinos don't either. Virgin trains manage 98% reliability on London Liverpool. I am not buying this 'better half than none' argument.

 

[jayah]

I, for one never doubted that the new units would accelerate away from stops at a reasonable rate, nor did I doubt the general performance if compared to an HST.
There are no doubt differences in performance but these are minor.
I also never claimed that they would not fit the infrastructure on the relevant routes.

What I DID claim was that most of the fleet would be much shorter than an HST and therefore of significantly lower capacity. This was factually correct. More than half of the fleet is of 5 car length with a minority of 9 car.
Advocates of the IETs pointed out that this was irrelevant as all services that needed to be, would be either 5+5 or 9 car. This has not been achieved. It might be achieved in future but we have had a year of frequent short formations of busy rush hour trains.
(I stand corrected regarding pedantic use of English, and will henceforth refer to short formations as being "frequent" rather than as being "regular")

I also stated that the new trains would not have buffets. This has been found to be factually correct.
I also forecast that on a 5+5 train that the trolley would often be in the other portion, this has been reported frequently despite a trolley in each portion being promised.
And as for GWR recruiting more trolley staff, better late than never, but why did they not do this a year ago and get it right from the beginning ?

As regards the frequency of short formations, I THINK that read that 17% of services have been short formed ? can anyone confirm or deny?

A report on these forums referred to only 3 diagrams out of 25 being half length and implied that this was good, or at least acceptable. I think that one train in eight being half length is in fact a poor performance. Especially for new and expensive trains that were advertised as being such a great improvement.

The reservation system still seems unreliable.

The provision of 20 tables in a 5 car train is being touted as a great improvement. And whilst it is factually correct that this IS more than on a high density HST, it compares very poorly with a traditional inter city train.
I can remember when HSTs had 16 tables per coach, and when BR mark 2 coaches had almost every seat at a table, so compared to an older inter city train, the IET layout is a downgrade.

Lots of people don't want tables. They want their own space and travel in ones and twos. The table provision is well balanced IMO, but there can be too many as well as too few.

 

[43096]

My point is that as they aren't paying for trains Hitachi haven't delivered they can afford not to send the old fleet off lease as Scotrail are months away from being able to use most of them and Wabtec probably can't handle 20 rakes in pieces either.

No, you’re still not getting it.

 

[jayah]

No, you’re still not getting it.

As per your earlier message, I have not said anyone should pay for two fleets and they aren't. If the new trains are late they need to adapt the wind down of the old fleet to balance. Scotrail are a month away from using even 10 unrefurbished HSTs. These great nationwide cascades always turn out so and have to be managed accordingly.

There is no point leaving trains in store while claiming to be unable to provide carriages because the new ones haven't been delivered.

 

[II]

As regards the frequency of short formations, I THINK that read that 17% of services have been short formed ? can anyone confirm or deny?

The current MAA (Moving Annual Average) for the percentage of trains shortformed on HSS services is 12.5%, the last month was virtually the same at 12.91%. Too high, but I assume that would also cover shortforms such as 10-car IET's being worked by 9-car ones (which makes no difference in terms of seating provision), and when 2+8 HST's are replaced by 2+7 ones.

 

[CMRail]

I, for one never doubted that the new units would accelerate away from stops at a reasonable rate, nor did I doubt the general performance if compared to an HST.
There are no doubt differences in performance but these are minor.
I also never claimed that they would not fit the infrastructure on the relevant routes.

What I DID claim was that most of the fleet would be much shorter than an HST and therefore of significantly lower capacity. This was factually correct. More than half of the fleet is of 5 car length with a minority of 9 car.
Advocates of the IETs pointed out that this was irrelevant as all services that needed to be, would be either 5+5 or 9 car. This has not been achieved. It might be achieved in future but we have had a year of frequent short formations of busy rush hour trains.
(I stand corrected regarding pedantic use of English, and will henceforth refer to short formations as being "frequent" rather than as being "regular")

I also stated that the new trains would not have buffets. This has been found to be factually correct.
I also forecast that on a 5+5 train that the trolley would often be in the other portion, this has been reported frequently despite a trolley in each portion being promised.
And as for GWR recruiting more trolley staff, better late than never, but why did they not do this a year ago and get it right from the beginning ?

As regards the frequency of short formations, I THINK that read that 17% of services have been short formed ? can anyone confirm or deny?

A report on these forums referred to only 3 diagrams out of 25 being half length and implied that this was good, or at least acceptable. I think that one train in eight being half length is in fact a poor performance. Especially for new and expensive trains that were advertised as being such a great improvement.

The reservation system still seems unreliable.

The provision of 20 tables in a 5 car train is being touted as a great improvement. And whilst it is factually correct that this IS more than on a high density HST, it compares very poorly with a traditional inter city train.
I can remember when HSTs had 16 tables per coach, and when BR mark 2 coaches had almost every seat at a table, so compared to an older inter city train, the IET layout is a downgrade.

I understand your points but it is invalid to compare a pre-2005 design to a 2018 design. You couldn’t cope with a 7 car HST with tables at nearly every seat and 2 full first class carriages, and people are unsociable and sometime put bags on their seats. It wouldn’t work.

 

[Goldfish62]

I understand your points but it is invalid to compare a pre-2005 design to a 2018 design. You couldn’t cope with a 7 car HST with tables at nearly every seat and 2 full first class carriages, and people are unsociable and sometime put bags on their seats. It wouldn’t work.

Yes. Provision of table seats really does vary by country. DB for example largely use airline seats, even in 1st Class, where SBB intercity trains have largely bay seats in both classes

 

[404250]

Sorry if this has been covered already.

Why was the order for so many 5 compared to 9 when most services are supposed to be 9 or 10? The services that only need 5 could be covered with far fewer of them. Why weren't any full 10 car trains ordered?

 

[Jamesrob637]

Sorry if this has been covered already.

Why was the order for so many 5 compared to 9 when most services are supposed to be 9 or 10? The services that only need 5 could be covered with far fewer of them. Why weren't any full 10 car trains ordered?

I've just mentioned that exact same thing in the Allocations, Timetables and Diagrams thread. 2 First, 1 First/Diner and 7 second. Logical eh?!

 

[JN114]

No, you're right, it's not. However, I don't see a problem with moaning on here. No one is forcing anyone to read the posts.

Execept - people follow the various new fleets threads to pick up on news of new fleet introductions

Sorry if this has been covered already.

Why was the order for so many 5 compared to 9 when most services are supposed to be 9 or 10? The services that only need 5 could be covered with far fewer of them. Why weren't any full 10 car trains ordered?

Because there are a number of places on the network 10 car units are barred from
operating. And while most, if not all ex-HST services are to be 9/10 coaches, the ex-16x and ex-180 services are to be 5 cars; plus a number of the new services if they ever introduce the new timetable.

I’m not convinced the balance is quite right between 9s and 5s; the ratio is currently 2 5s for each 9, if I were the powers that be I would have skewed things a bit more to the 9 car side; perhaps 3 5s for every 2 9s.

 

[Grumbler]

Execept - people follow the various new fleets threads to pick up on news of new fleet introductions


Because there are a number of places on the network 10 car units are barred from
operating. And while most, if not all ex-HST services are to be 9/10 coaches, the ex-16x and ex-180 services are to be 5 cars; plus a number of the new services if they ever introduce the new timetable.

I’m not convinced the balance is quite right between 9s and 5s; the ratio is currently 2 5s for each 9, if I were the powers that be I would have skewed things a bit more to the 9 car side; perhaps 3 5s for every 2 9s.

Presumably at some future date it will be possible to lengthen some five-car sets to nine by acquiring additional intermediate vehicles?

 

[JN114]

Presumably at some future date it will be possible to lengthen some five-car sets to nine by acquiring additional intermediate vehicles?

Possible yes, whether it would happen or not who knows. I certainly think it should.

 

[jimm]

I, for one never doubted that the new units would accelerate away from stops at a reasonable rate, nor did I doubt the general performance if compared to an HST.
There are no doubt differences in performance but these are minor.
I also never claimed that they would not fit the infrastructure on the relevant routes.

What I DID claim was that most of the fleet would be much shorter than an HST and therefore of significantly lower capacity. This was factually correct. More than half of the fleet is of 5 car length with a minority of 9 car.
Advocates of the IETs pointed out that this was irrelevant as all services that needed to be, would be either 5+5 or 9 car. This has not been achieved. It might be achieved in future but we have had a year of frequent short formations of busy rush hour trains.
(I stand corrected regarding pedantic use of English, and will henceforth refer to short formations as being "frequent" rather than as being "regular")

I also stated that the new trains would not have buffets. This has been found to be factually correct.
I also forecast that on a 5+5 train that the trolley would often be in the other portion, this has been reported frequently despite a trolley in each portion being promised.
And as for GWR recruiting more trolley staff, better late than never, but why did they not do this a year ago and get it right from the beginning ?

As regards the frequency of short formations, I THINK that read that 17% of services have been short formed ? can anyone confirm or deny?

A report on these forums referred to only 3 diagrams out of 25 being half length and implied that this was good, or at least acceptable. I think that one train in eight being half length is in fact a poor performance. Especially for new and expensive trains that were advertised as being such a great improvement.

The reservation system still seems unreliable.

The provision of 20 tables in a 5 car train is being touted as a great improvement. And whilst it is factually correct that this IS more than on a high density HST, it compares very poorly with a traditional inter city train.
I can remember when HSTs had 16 tables per coach, and when BR mark 2 coaches had almost every seat at a table, so compared to an older inter city train, the IET layout is a downgrade.

Let's try the dictionary definition of frequent then:

frequent
adjective

1. 
   occurring or done many times at short intervals.

So on the basis of the following statement, we are now supposed to accept that short-forming is 'frequent' (or routine or regular, lest we forget) are we?

As regards the frequency of short formations, I THINK that read that 17% of services have been short formed ? can anyone confirm or deny?

When was this momentous event? Yesterday? Last week? Last month? Six months ago?

Surely, since you have such a laser-like focus on this matter, you should be able to quote what was supposedly said chapter and verse and provide everyone with some means to become similarly enlightened?

Is this the best you can come up with?

Maybe you could systematically monitor the situation, rather than persisting in making unsubstantiated assertions on the amount of short-forms operating, but then I expect GWR has a secret policy to suppress the truth by not getting every single short-form on Journeycheck - as opposed to someone occasionally overlooking it in the midst of trying to keep on top of a complicated situation.

What I DID claim was that most of the fleet would be much shorter than an HST and therefore of significantly lower capacity. This was factually correct.

Really? Let's try some basic maths then. At its peak, the GWR HST fleet had 52 or 53 sets of coaches in total

The full IET fleet will have 35 nine-car class 800s and 802s. It's a while since I did maths O-level, but according to my sums, 35 is just shy of two-thirds of 53.

So if there had just been a straight one for one swap of nine-car IETs for HSTs at GWR (as opposed to acquiring a more flexible train fleet to reflect current needs and future service plans), 'most' of the IET fleet would not be shorter than an HST.

The 36 five-car Class 800s paired up then account for replacing the rest of the HST fleet - though we'd better not forget the usual rider that, whether you like it or not, those 53 HSTs were not all spending every second of their working lives on services that needed a train offering well over 500 seats, never mind the best part of 650. They were what was available to GWR, so they were what got used.

And whether a nine-car or a 2x5, there are rather more seats in an IET formation than any flavour of GWR HST. How is that 'significantly lower capacity'? A limited number of unplanned short-formed trains are not statistically significant set against the total number of GWR High Speed Services trains running every day.

If you care so much about short-forms, why is it that we have never heard a peep out of you about its occurrence on Oxford and Cotswold services (knocking on to the Thames Valley services) for the many years it has been going on there?

And then we come to the five-car Class 802s, which, for mathematical purposes, as opposed to actual daily operational use, we can pretend are replacing the five Class 180s and a number of three-car Class 16x diagrams. That figure probably tots up to something near to the 14 five-car 802 sets being provided - but again, how does using trains with 320-odd seats in place of ones with 240 to 280 seats (if we take a charitable view of the seats on Turbos) result in 'significantly lower capacity'?

Never mind the enhanced service frequencies there will be in various places when the new timetable finally starts, putting yet more seats out there on the tracks over the course of a day.

 

[Clarence Yard]

As per your earlier message, I have not said anyone should pay for two fleets and they aren't. If the new trains are late they need to adapt the wind down of the old fleet to balance. Scotrail are a month away from using even 10 unrefurbished HSTs. These great nationwide cascades always turn out so and have to be managed accordingly.

There is no point leaving trains in store while claiming to be unable to provide carriages because the new ones haven't been delivered.

With respect, you still aren't getting it.

The off lease HST sets are not GWR's to use. It has nothing to do with money - GWR has been paying through the nose for the sets it has been able to retain past the official lease return date but neither the leasing company nor Scotland wish to lease any more of them to GWR. They cannot be forced to do so.

The current problem with 5 vs 9 or 10 is overstated. It's annoying when it does happen as every unit short affects around 5 to 6 trains a day (if it doesn't appear later on) but it isn't the endemic problem that it was when Hitachi were trying to maintain 100% availability on all fleet types. You can go days now without short forming happening at all but it isn't as perfect as it should be.

Retaining HST sets doesn't really help when Hitachi tell GWR Control in the early morning that they are going to be a set down at, say, Maliphant, for the morning service. Then it is usually a question of what service do you short form? If they were all 9 car sets, it would be a question of what service do you cancel? What is worse is when the unit fails just before handover and the driver arrives expecting to get a 9 or 10 but he has to pick up a 5. Then the choice of service to short form is effectively made for you.

 

[irish_rail]

Too be fair short forms on the route to Devon and Cornwall the past couple of weeks are I would say roughly 50 percent of services a day. Admittedly we only have 3 or 4 diagrams but when half of them are sort formed it's causing a lot.of issues. Personally I don't give two hoots about the routes to Bristol and Oxford as they are essentially commuter ones. Travel on the longer distance stuff is more discretionary and when 5 turns up vice 9 or 10 and u either stand or have a very crowded train then custom is bound to be lost. Surely this route should be an absolute priority for full length trains though as we all know GWR will always prioritise the more lucrative "suburban" oxfords and bristols etc.

 

[spark001uk]

Quick ponder whilst I'm on board staring at the item in question. Was the 80x interior shell designed before the seating layout was finalised?
I'm looking at the coat hooks in particular, which in part don't match up in the slightest. I know, the obvious answer is "where else are you going to put them?", but I can't help but feel they could have chosen a different layout that lined up with them a bit better perhaps? Or put them above the window line? Or just not bother putting one where it would be impractical even.
I'm assuming the ideal layout would have been a table at every window, but of course passenger numbers outstrip those nowadays I guess.

 

[Bikeman78]

Re your point 4, the 180s' lease expired at the end of 2016 - six months before a single IET was due to have entered traffic, even on the original schedule. Grand Central agreed to a 12-month extension. The DfT did not give GWR a choice about holding on to HSTs to provide some margin of cover during the transition.

This is the bit I don't understand. Scotrail only has one refurb HST in service. The rest are parked up at Doncaster or in sidings at Ely. They might as well be carrying people in and out of Paddington for a few more months.

 

[Bikeman78]

Train. Delivery. Behind.

Is it really difficult? Really, Really difficult?

It is difficult to understand why trains are being sent off to sit in sidings whilst there are insufficient replacements.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Too be fair short forms on the route to Devon and Cornwall the past couple of weeks are I would say roughly 50 percent of services a day. Admittedly we only have 3 or 4 diagrams but when half of them are sort formed it's causing a lot.of issues. Personally I don't give two hoots about the routes to Bristol and Oxford as they are essentially commuter ones. Travel on the longer distance stuff is more discretionary and when 5 turns up vice 9 or 10 and u either stand or have a very crowded train then custom is bound to be lost. Surely this route should be an absolute priority for full length trains though as we all know GWR will always prioritise the more lucrative "suburban" oxfords and bristols etc.

It's not as much as 50% a day with the 802 sets but it still has been too much. Availability of those has been poor, partly because so many checks have had to be done, as a result of the numerous recent incidents. One of the issues with the 800 fleet is how the contract works so the 800 and 802 fleet are not fully interchangeable so "priority" of one route over another doesn't really come into it. The 800 fleet is more fixed in it's workings.

This is the bit I don't understand. Scotrail only has one refurb HST in service. The rest are parked up at Doncaster or in sidings at Ely. They might as well be carrying people in and out of Paddington for a few more months.

As I said above, that's not a decision for anyone except the owner and Scotland. They prefer to have them unused/under conversion and you can add Loughborough to that list - a lot of power cars are in bits there. That's the real show stopper.

 

[Bikeman78]

Your post says that you are not paying hitachi for a late train. You are not paying hitachi but you are sending trains that lease has ran out, ScotRail need to refurbished. This means that trains are unavailable leading to 5 car units running on 10/9 car diagrams. Class 800/802s are both effected.

They aren't all going to Scotrail straight away. Some are sitting in sidings at Ely.

 

[Bikeman78]

As I said above, that's not a decision for anyone except the owner and Scotland. They prefer to have them unused/under conversion and you can add Loughborough to that list - a lot of power cars are in bits there. That's the real show stopper.

There are definitely some power cars at Ely. Given that the Scottish sets are shorter, there must be numerous trailers off lease that aren't going to be converted. I assume that Scotrail is only paying the lease charge for sets that are available to use, either in passenger service or for driver training. It is very strange that the ROSCO would rather have trains parked in sidings, for which they probably have to pay a storage charge, rather than earn some income by leasing them to GWR for a few more weeks.

 

[JN114]

It is very strange that the ROSCO would rather have trains parked in sidings, for which they probably have to pay a storage charge, rather than earn some income by leasing them to GWR for a few more weeks.

It is, unfortunately that is the reality of the situation.

 

[swt_passenger]

The date for Old Oak Common depot closure is fixed and has presumably been factored into the HST off-lease timings?

 

[JN114]

Vehicles potentially due for heavy exam/overhaul that the ROSCO would have to pay for; and that it doesn’t justify on the basis of a short term indefinite lease.

 

[jimm]

Too be fair short forms on the route to Devon and Cornwall the past couple of weeks are I would say roughly 50 percent of services a day. Admittedly we only have 3 or 4 diagrams but when half of them are sort formed it's causing a lot.of issues. Personally I don't give two hoots about the routes to Bristol and Oxford as they are essentially commuter ones. Travel on the longer distance stuff is more discretionary and when 5 turns up vice 9 or 10 and u either stand or have a very crowded train then custom is bound to be lost. Surely this route should be an absolute priority for full length trains though as we all know GWR will always prioritise the more lucrative "suburban" oxfords and bristols etc.

So you think people being wedged into a three-car Turbo when an HST has been 'borrowed' off a service where people are making journeys of two hours plus to Worcester or beyond (well past the commuter belt) won't put anyone off rail travel in future?

How is replacing a train seating 550+ people in reasonable comfort with one where you can wedge in 250 in 3+2 seats designed for people without arms, plus a few dozen more packed like sardines into vestibules and aisles, 'prioritising' the Oxford and Cotswold route?