GWR Class 800

[43096]

As part of Ansaldo and Ansaldo-Breda, Pistoia certainly did turn out some terrible trains - but do you really think that Hitachi has done nothing about quality control?

No doubt they have tried to do so, but to expect an overnight transformation to producing high quality products after Hitachi bought the factory is naïve - these things take time.

They have an appalling reputation - see the Fyra debacle for example - and it should also be noted that Hitachi Rail Europe itself has not exactly covered itself in glory so far, which does rather beg the question of just what standards they are implementing at Pistoia.

 

[Siemens Staines]

From my point of view I was only referring to in general terms and not one specific incident. From my own journeys to Oxford, delays due to the reason I describe at Reading, even if only a few minutes, leads to them missing their path across Didcot East junction and hence getting stuck as you describe. I agree that Didcot East is a bigger problem though.

 

[samuelmorris]

From the anecdotal evidence posted on this forum, it does appear like there are more issues with the 802s than 800s, but it is correct to point out that a few of the affected units came from Kasado. I don't know off the top of my head whether the units that have caused high-profile issues (in particular the one at Exeter earlier in the year) have come from Pistoia or not. It is something I had concerns about, though. Hitachi management will definitely improve matters but it will take time. Things like incorrectly installed components is exactly the sort of stuff that would have been associated with that factory back when it was under AB's management.

 

[reddragon]

To a casual observer like myself, the problems you mention at Reading seem to have become more apparent since the advent of 8-car 387s on Reading - Paddington stoppers. When these were turbo operated they could use the East end of one of the higher numbered platforms, while an XC service shared the West end of the same platform. Now more XC services have to use P7 or P8 than before. If everything is running fine then there is no issue, but the moment there are delays it can become a bottleneck impeding trains on the Down Main from Paddington. In the morning peak a XC unit sits in P8 0703-0746 so if two Down trains from Paddington end up close together, for whatever reason, the second one has to sit outside waiting for the first to depart P9 in Ye Olde tradition of Reading. Switching to P7 could be used, but rarely is because the amount of time it would take passengers to negotiate the overbridge and (often broken) escalators probably wouldn't save any time over leaving them on P9

XC trains use P3,7,8,9,12,13,14,or 15 to reverse and can even use p10 & 11.

They mostly use p3 or p12/13, often p7/8/9. It is a pain when left in the wrong platform when delayed as they hold up other services. I am sure the signaller makes the decision?

I do not know if an XC can share a platform with an 8-car 387, but as platforms easily take 12-car units there is technically space even if signals prohibit it.

Crossrail will only make things even busier!

 

[Railperf]

So a swan wandering around on the main lines (as opposed to the reliefs where the 387 stoppers operate) becomes conflated into Reading still being a bottleneck.

You should try being on an Oxford route fast trying to get through Didcot East junction if you want a bottleneck on the GWML in the Thames Valley these days. Fingers crossed a flyover or diveunder there features in CP6 investment plans.

Much agreed about Didcot East. But what I mean about Reading, is that it is rare to get a clean run in on any service without either slowing significantly in one direction or another due to a train being in platform or not long having cleared the platform. Or maybe i am just unlucky. it doesn't help now that the 800's on electric can arrive from Paddington or Didcot at least a minute quicker than an HST.

 

[3973EXL]

XC trains use P3,7,8,9,12,13,14,or 15 to reverse and can even use p10 & 11.

They mostly use p3 or p12/13, often p7/8/9. It is a pain when left in the wrong platform when delayed as they hold up other services. I am sure the signaller makes the decision?

I do not know if an XC can share a platform with an 8-car 387, but as platforms easily take 12-car units there is technically space even if signals prohibit it.

Crossrail will only make things even busier!

Just a minor point, there is not route to/from 9 to/from Reading West.

 

[FGW_DID]

Just to illustrate the above:

 

[gallafent]

Has anyone measured interior noise?

I've just started but keep getting distracted. In case you have an iOS device to hand, I can recommend the “AudioTools” application for logging and analysis. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/audiotools/id325307477

I don't have proper logs yet, but a few random samples so far suggest the IETs are definitely a lot noisier than GWR HSTs … and yes, seems to be a mixture of air-con, drivetrain, wind noise, …

 

[gallafent]

As for the wind noise in the leading vehicles, I noticed this fairly early on into service. I did question at the time if it had anything to do with the roof layout - some of it is fairly streamlined, however there are the odd and completely square "Boxes" as well.

… yeah. Definite noticeable wind noise, especially but not only in the end vehicles. From an aesthetic perspective it looks dreadful too … it's quite something when all the random boxes on the roof make these “high speed” trains look substantially less aerodynamic than the “metro” (332, 345, 387) trains they run alongside out of Paddington … a very strange design decision. Intended to facilitate faster or easier servicing perhaps, though for any given component surely unclipping a few securing clips to gain access would add a trivially small amount of time and complexity to the service process. I wonder how much energy it wastes. Unlikely to be much, but then again, over 27.5 years and the entire fleet, ………

 

[Bletchleyite]

… yeah. Definite noticeable wind noise, especially but not only in the end vehicles. From an aesthetic perspective it looks dreadful too … it's quite something when all the random boxes on the roof make these “high speed” trains look substantially less aerodynamic than the “metro” (332, 345, 387) trains they run alongside out of Paddington … a very strange design decision. Intended to facilitate faster or easier servicing perhaps, though for any given component surely unclipping a few securing clips to gain access would add a trivially small amount of time and complexity to the service process. I wonder how much energy it wastes. Unlikely to be much, but then again, over 27.5 years and the entire fleet, ………

FWIW, Pendolinos have a lot of "stuff" on the roof, but there is a fairing there so you don't really see it.

 

[gallafent]

FWIW, Pendolinos have a lot of "stuff" on the roof, but there is a fairing there so you don't really see it.

Yeah, absolutely, I'm all for putting equipment where it's best to put it and where there's space, clearly. Fairing it in so the outline is smooth, as you say, feels like a completely obvious thing to do from both an aerodynamic and an aesthetic perspective … and indeed has been the norm on high speed stock (both on the roof and below the body) since the HST mk3 more than 40 years ago, … until now!

The IETs seem to be pretty smooth-looking underneath (from the sides at least, I haven't been at the right angle to see one properly from underneath, (thankfully, since I'm not an engineer employed to work there! , it's on top that we've gone backwards.

I looked at some pictures of 395s, and they seem quite a lot smoother on top than IETs, though still not really faired in much, just with more kit (three big lumps) up there, making for a less jumbled look at least! http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1844243

 

[gallafent]

You should try being on an Oxford route fast trying to get through Didcot East junction if you want a bottleneck on the GWML in the Thames Valley these days. Fingers crossed a flyover or diveunder there features in CP6 investment plans.

Definitely … along with four-tracking from Didcot to Oxford and of course the deferred electrification! … hang on, I'm running out of pairs of fingers to cross (and meandering off topic, apologies, … to get back onto it, this would allow 800s to run in electric mode for the whole journey on some services, and would also allow more fleet flexibility by allowing substitution of a 387 in the event that there aren't enough IETs in working order to cover all diagrams, freeing up an IET to work a route which is not fully electrified.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely … along with four-tracking from Didcot to Oxford and of course the deferred electrification! … hang on, I'm running out of pairs of fingers to cross (and meandering off topic, apologies, … to get back onto it, this would allow 800s to run in electric mode for the whole journey on some services, and would also allow more fleet flexibility by allowing substitution of a 387 in the event that there aren't enough IETs in working order to cover all diagrams, freeing up an IET to work a route which is not fully electrified.

Or allowing 387s to work all the Oxford trains that terminate there, which wouldn't be unpopular as the interiors are nicer than 800s and would allow more 800s to be available for mainline work.

Not wiring to Bristol TM and Oxford was utterly mad, even if it was always going to stop at those two.

 

[gallafent]

Or allowing 387s to work all the Oxford trains that terminate there, which wouldn't be unpopular as the interiors are nicer than 800s and would allow more 800s to be available for mainline work.

Yeah, this would be fine too. They're enormously nicer than the turbos which used to be used a lot on those services!

 

[Melancholia]

Yeah, this would be fine too. They're enormously nicer than the turbos which used to be used a lot on those services!

It'd be great, however if all goes to plan, we'll get 32 year old even more sluggish Frankenstein tri-mode contraptions. I'd rather keep the Turbos to be quite honest.

But that's enough about that in this thread, it's certainly very off-topic.

 

[jimm]

Or allowing 387s to work all the Oxford trains that terminate there, which wouldn't be unpopular as the interiors are nicer than 800s and would allow more 800s to be available for mainline work.

Not wiring to Bristol TM and Oxford was utterly mad, even if it was always going to stop at those two.

a. We are still waiting to hear about completion of electrification to Oxford
b. If more trains terminating at Oxford are extended up the Cotswold Line, which may well happen at some point, then 387s wouldn't be a whole lot of use unless overhead wires were also extended.

And coming next, why 387s with 'nicer' interiors should have been ordered for Bristol and Cardiff services.... since when have their seats not been the absolute archetypal 'ironing board' and they don't let in lots of cold air in winter when the doors open?

From the anecdotal evidence posted on this forum, it does appear like there are more issues with the 802s than 800s

Anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything.

No doubt they have tried to do so, but to expect an overnight transformation to producing high quality products after Hitachi bought the factory is naïve - these things take time.

They have an appalling reputation - see the Fyra debacle for example - and it should also be noted that Hitachi Rail Europe itself has not exactly covered itself in glory so far, which does rather beg the question of just what standards they are implementing at Pistoia.

I am very well aware of the problems with some of Ansaldo-Breda's past products - like I said in my post - so don't need to be given any examples, thanks.

And of course Hitachi had no idea of the issues when they acquired the Ansaldo-Breda trainbuilding operations for the vast sum of.... nothing at all, so desperate were the previous owners to walk away from it and get their hands on the cash Hitachi paid for the rather better-regarded signalling part of the company. And obviously Hitachi won't have done anything at all to try to improve matters and just let the Italians carry on as they were, especially on a not exactly low-profile contract like the 802s.

Much agreed about Didcot East. But what I mean about Reading, is that it is rare to get a clean run in on any service without either slowing significantly in one direction or another due to a train being in platform or not long having cleared the platform. Or maybe i am just unlucky. it doesn't help now that the 800's on electric can arrive from Paddington or Didcot at least a minute quicker than an HST.

Or maybe I'm just lucky. I catch the odd inbound train that gets stopped on the flyover, or crawls across it, but the vast majority I ride on are quick runs straight into 10 or 11. Unlike trying to get through Didcot East in either direction, where a non-stop run, slow or fast, is a rarity. Any delays on trains coming out of London are rarely anything to do with Reading, usually late starts from Paddington or trundles through west London are what usually seem to cost time.

 

[fgwrich]

802101, the set referred to in irish_rail's post that you quoted, was built at Kasado in Japan, like the other 80x pre-series sets, including 802001 and 802002.

As for



do you have anything by way of evidence/statistics to back up this sweeping statement?

As part of Ansaldo and Ansaldo-Breda, Pistoia certainly did turn out some terrible trains - but do you really think that Hitachi has done nothing about quality control?

No doubt they have tried to do so, but to expect an overnight transformation to producing high quality products after Hitachi bought the factory is naïve - these things take time.

They have an appalling reputation - see the Fyra debacle for example - and it should also be noted that Hitachi Rail Europe itself has not exactly covered itself in glory so far, which does rather beg the question of just what standards they are implementing at Pistoia.

You quite literally took the words right out of my mouth 43096. Considering the number of reported issues and faults both on here and from staff which seems to be effecting the largely Italian built 802s, there is clearly an issue which is effecting the fleet and unless the journey across Europe is that bad that it's causing Hitachi's wonderful work to fall apart en route, it has to be coming from the factory itself. Both Ansaldo's Pistoia and Naples factories hardly had a glowing reputation through their lives, and just because Hitachi has taken over it will hardly change change that overnight. It will take time to change attitude's and product quality, however what seems to be churned out - Not just for our British market, but Hitachi Rail Europe as well. If a Japanese built unit is also now having issues as well, then we really should have a right to question Hitachi's build quality.

I'm well aware Hitachi knew what they wanted from Ansaldo - the surprisingly better reputable Signalling Systems. However, the fact they have chosen to continue train building out of the former Ansaldo factories, and choosing such a high profile contract for the UK to deliver from, was risky given its history. Yes, you can change the management but can you change the working attitudes quickly? I doubt that! It doesn't take much to look at similar examples from the past I.e British Leyland etc.

 

[43096]

I am very well aware of the problems with some of Ansaldo-Breda's past products - like I said in my post - so don't need to be given any examples, thanks.

Jeepers, you really are an objectionable, arrogant ****, aren't you? You wonder why people are so blunt in response to you - it's your attitude.

You might not need to be given examples - no doubt because it doesn't help your "Hitachi can do no wrong" stance - but you are not the only one reading this forum.

And of course Hitachi had no idea of the issues when they acquired the Ansaldo-Breda trainbuilding operations for the vast sum of.... nothing at all, so desperate were the previous owners to walk away from it and get their hands on the cash Hitachi paid for the rather better-regarded signalling part of the company. And obviously Hitachi won't have done anything at all to try to improve matters and just let the Italians carry on as they were, especially on a not exactly low-profile contract like the 802s.

Why don't you read what I wrote, rather than jumping to conclusions. As I said, no doubt Hitachi have made improvements, but turning round performance from what it was to even a reasonable level in the timescale they've had is a tall order, especially given the issues are a long-term, ingrained culture and Hitachi are integrating it into what is a new business anyway (Hitachi Rail Europe). Further, I understand from elsewhere, that the Italians won't talk direct to Newton Aycliffe and will only communicate via the "mother ship" in Japan. That does not inspire confidence that they have got a grip on it.

 

[samuelmorris]

As much as I might agree with sentiment of that post, I don't fancy the useful resource that this thread is being locked. I don't wish to backseat moderate but I think that's best left there and ignored.

As much as reusing Pistoia for UK stock concerned me at the time, if there's one country I would suggest to take it over, it would be Japan, and if there's one company in the rail industry I'd trust to do it, it would be the co-manufacturer of the Shinkansen units. That's all that stopped me doom-mongering about use of the plant when it was announced.

As jimm points out, even if rather curtly, the evidence we have so far is anecdotal, realistically we'd need someone who works in or is close to the maintenance division at GWR to comment on the comparable failure rates of 802s vs 800s on a per-unit basis, so the pre-series Japanese built units can be excluded.
New units having technical problems is par for the course, but when it's things like components being fitted back-to-front that is inexcusable, alarming, potentially dangerous and, realistically, typical of what AnsaldoBreda used to be famous for. It it's an issue that's come up a few times on 802s and not 800s, then it suggests Hitachi's management of Pistoia isn't as effective as it needs to be, yet. That of course, is all an if, without the data it isn't really possible to comment.

It could just simply be that across the board Hitachi's manufacturing isn't that good, but I find that hard to believe.

 

[cactustwirly]

As much as I might agree with sentiment of that post, I don't fancy the useful resource that this thread is being locked. I don't wish to backseat moderate but I think that's best left there and ignored.

As much as reusing Pistoia for UK stock concerned me at the time, if there's one country I would suggest to take it over, it would be Japan, and if there's one company in the rail industry I'd trust to do it, it would be the co-manufacturer of the Shinkansen units. That's all that stopped me doom-mongering about use of the plant when it was announced.

As jimm points out, even if rather curtly, the evidence we have so far is anecdotal, realistically we'd need someone who works in or is close to the maintenance division at GWR to comment on the comparable failure rates of 802s vs 800s on a per-unit basis, so the pre-series Japanese built units can be excluded.
New units having technical problems is par for the course, but when it's things like components being fitted back-to-front that is inexcusable, alarming, potentially dangerous and, realistically, typical of what AnsaldoBreda used to be famous for. It it's an issue that's come up a few times on 802s and not 800s, then it suggests Hitachi's management of Pistoia isn't as effective as it needs to be, yet. That of course, is all an if, without the data it isn't really possible to comment.

It could just simply be that across the board Hitachi's manufacturing isn't that good, but I find that hard to believe.

Newton Aycliffe's build quality is nothing to shout home about either (on par with Litchurch lane tbh)
Krefeld, Bussnang & Simmering have by far the best build quality IMO

 

[samuelmorris]

That of course is also possible. As a new factory with new staff, however, I'd expect it to be at least somewhat well organised.

 

[Railperf]

Or allowing 387s to work all the Oxford trains that terminate there, which wouldn't be unpopular as the interiors are nicer than 800s and would allow more 800s to be available for mainline work.

Not wiring to Bristol TM and Oxford was utterly mad, even if it was always going to stop at those two.

The 387's are very capable and fast too. Enjoyed Reading to Didcot in 12 mins 20 secs despite 110mph limit and having to negotiate Didcot East Junction from the down main to down relief at reduced speed.

 

[Ethano92]

And coming next, why 387s with 'nicer' interiors should have been ordered for Bristol and Cardiff services.... since when have their seats not been the absolute archetypal 'ironing board' and they don't let in lots of cold air in winter when the doors open?

That's what I don't get. Why is it always people say one thing then someone else has to exaggerate it. Same thing happens all the time.

"Lots" of cold air on a service calling at only 3 stops before it's terminus (I believe only Slough, reading and Didcot) with a train whose doors have a very reliable and well timed auto-close wouldn't be a much of a problem. Also, although it's subject to opinion, GWRs 387s do have a nicer, less cheap feeling interior. The seats aren't much worse that the IETs seats anyway. Surely Oxford services on the fast lines don't take much longer than Didcot services on the relief lines. Those going to Cholsey or Pangbourne etc are on 387s for upwards of an hour.

 

[Kite159]

That's what I don't get. Why is it always people say one thing then someone else has to exaggerate it. Same thing happens all the time.

"Lots" of cold air on a service calling at only 3 stops before it's terminus (I believe only Slough, reading and Didcot) with a train whose doors have a very reliable and well timed auto-close wouldn't be a much of a problem. Also, although it's subject to opinion, GWRs 387s do have a nicer, less cheap feeling interior. The seats aren't much worse that the IETs seats anyway. Surely Oxford services on the fast lines don't take much longer than Didcot services on the relief lines. Those going to Cholsey or Pangbourne etc are on 387s for upwards of an hour.

Not really, in my experience those going to the local stations beyond Reading tend to catch a fast service to Reading and then change onto the 387s (and vice versa heading towards London)

 

[CMRail]

From the anecdotal evidence posted on this forum, it does appear like there are more issues with the 802s than 800s, but it is correct to point out that a few of the affected units came from Kasado. I don't know off the top of my head whether the units that have caused high-profile issues (in particular the one at Exeter earlier in the year) have come from Pistoia or not. It is something I had concerns about, though. Hitachi management will definitely improve matters but it will take time. Things like incorrectly installed components is exactly the sort of stuff that would have been associated with that factory back when it was under AB's management.

Where did you find access to the fault book? Would love to find out.

Does anyone realise people at GWR know how to run a railway or is it just me?

 

[Darandio]

Does anyone realise people at GWR know how to run a railway or is it just me?

Well, they know how to run a TOC, they just don't do it very well at times.

 

[irish_rail]

Where did you find access to the fault book? Would love to find out.

Does anyone realise people at GWR know how to run a railway or is it just me?

Eh? The 800s/802s don't have a fault book.
Secondly, 802s are blatantly less reliable than 800s no one sensible could possibly argue against that.

 

[CMRail]

Eh? The 800s/802s don't have a fault book.
Secondly, 802s are blatantly less reliable than 800s no one sensible could possibly argue against that.

For public reveal then, I’ll take your word but how would you know the exact statistics between faults?

 

[TractiveEffort]

Eh? The 800s/802s don't have a fault book.
Secondly, 802s are blatantly less reliable than 800s no one sensible could possibly argue against that.

What a bizarre statement. By reliable do you mean faults that take a train out of service, faults that cause significant delays, faults that are a pain, but can be managed, faults that are faults, but don’t have any significant effect.

 

[jimm]

You quite literally took the words right out of my mouth 43096. Considering the number of reported issues and faults both on here and from staff which seems to be effecting the largely Italian built 802s, there is clearly an issue which is effecting the fleet and unless the journey across Europe is that bad that it's causing Hitachi's wonderful work to fall apart en route, it has to be coming from the factory itself. Both Ansaldo's Pistoia and Naples factories hardly had a glowing reputation through their lives, and just because Hitachi has taken over it will hardly change change that overnight. It will take time to change attitude's and product quality, however what seems to be churned out - Not just for our British market, but Hitachi Rail Europe as well. If a Japanese built unit is also now having issues as well, then we really should have a right to question Hitachi's build quality.

So in the blink of an eye, you have gone from having a go at the Italian plant because of faults on the 100% Japanese-assembled 802101 to

the largely Italian built 802s

and then having a go at Hitachi generally in what looks like a smokescreen, rather than just admitting you got it wrong about 802101 and its origins.

Are there faults on new and/or recently introduced trains in the UK, and elsewhere? Yes. But this is not some amazing new phenomenon confined to 80xs. The less than perfect early years of the HSTs have been mentioned here rather a lot previously.

when it's things like components being fitted back-to-front that is inexcusable, alarming, potentially dangerous and, realistically, typical of what AnsaldoBreda used to be famous for.

Of course, no one else has ever done anything like that, just the Italians, Hitachi, or whoever else is next in the firing line...

On 8 December 2005, 221125 suffered an exhaust fire at Starcross. Other members of the Voyager class suffered similar fires in the 2005-2006 period due to an incorrectly performed engine overhaul.

Now that quote does come from Wikipedia, but is accurate. Cummins kept putting an engine component back the wrong way round when overhauling engines that they had designed and built in the first place.