GWR Class 800

[jimm]

No I didn't bother. I'm sure in the past you've stated that many services only need a 5.

My comments about use of five-cars sets on the Cotswold Line, over who knows how long, have always said plain as day this is in the context of them being used on off-peak services - not at peak times, whether that is on a weekday or at weekends - times when, guess what, the normal allocation is an HST or nine-car IET.

Departures from Paddington around 18.00 on a Saturday are definitely at the busier end of the scale - which is why when a normal service is in operation on the Cotswold Line, as opposed to one ending part-way up the route as is the case at the moment due to the platform extension scheme - the Saturday 18.22 has a long formation allocated.

Is that clear enough for you?

What almost all train companies do when there's engineering work? A reduced timetable displaces rolling stock, this is then used to strengthen the amended service. You claim the opposite is the case here. I'm surprised you've never come across this concept?

Excuse me? I have explained the circumstances that applied yesterday. There was no reduction whatever in the frequency of the service between London and Moreton-in-Marsh, so why on earth do you keep going on about a reduced timetable?

The difference was that there were no passengers (expect for a hardy few using the rail replacement buses operating out of Moreton-in-Marsh) to and from stations in Worcestershire or Herefordshire.

Except that the main custom is for London to Oxford and intermediate stations, as you well know, and this custom was not reduced.

After Reading, only a handful were still on their feet, and they probably could all have been seated and were just standing through habit (or bags on seats by those who were sat). The problem was less that there were inadequate seats and more than there's simply no space to stand on these trains, as I have tried to highlight. There isn't much to hold on to and the vestibules are very tight. It's even more difficult to stand in the aisle or vestibule than it is on a Voyager or Pendolino.

Had the train been formed of a 5 car Turbo, we would probably all have been absolutely fine. Had a portion of First Class been declassified on the 800, it would also have been fine.

But compared with the number of people who would be using that service on a normal Saturday to get home to places west of Moreton-in-Marsh, the number of passengers using it will have been reduced markedly yesterday - with an increase in those using the 18.15 to Cheltenham, extended to Worcester.

Someone has to make a judgment call as to whether to continue to provide a high-capacity train, that would by your account have been half-empty west of Reading, never mind Oxford. They chose to stick with a five-car IET set that was already on the diagram for the rest of the day.

You do get that Reading depot now has just about enough Turbos left to cover booked Turbo duties in the Thames Valley area, do you? Rustling up spare sets for one random service in mid-diagram is rather less straightforward that it might once have been. And IET allocations have to be made in the context of the contract under which the 800s are provided to GWR. Control can't just shuffle the pack as they see fit in the middle of the day when it comes to deploying 800s.

If declassifying part of first class - all 36 seats of it in total - would have meant things would have been "fine", that hardly suggests the service was, as you put it yesterday, "horribly crowded" - especially once the Slough passengers had all got off 15 minutes into the journey.

So was it actually as bad a call by whoever did the rolling stock allocations for yesterday's service as you seemed to be suggesting at the outset?

Out of interest are they full and standing on the actual Cotswold Line, or is Reading the issue as usual? (Which as I've said before needs a WCML style solution, i.e. getting the commuters off the ICs onto dedicated fast EMU services, as unless they keep some 5-cars at Reading to strengthen, running a 9 or 10-car to be half empty past Reading is incredibly inefficient).

What on earth do Reading commuters have to do with a service on a Saturday evening?

People did do it, though, particularly tourists.

No they don't, because the departure boards and announcements at Paddington and Oxford do not give the actual end destination for the semi-fast services between these two points, specifically to try to avoid tourists ending up on them - which used to happen when the trains were announced as going to Oxford or Paddington and was why the change to give Radley (currently Didcot, for obvious reasons, on most services) and Ealing Broadway as the end destinations was made in the first place.

 

[404250]

My comments about use of five-cars sets on the Cotswold Line, over who knows how long, have always said plain as day this is in the context of them being used on off-peak services

Many off peak services can be rammed. Even though some 9 car trains may run near empty occasionally don't you think it's better that way than having 5 car trains that are sometimes full and standing? The public deserve a comfortable journey EVEN in standard class. A big investment in new trains should result in happier passengers in both classes and peak or off peak, not just match the previous service with a couple of small bonuses.

 

[43096]

What cannot so easily be predicted is what time people attending those events might be returning home, nor how many people will turn up at Paddington wanting a fast train back to Slough at any given point - a role that the Oxford/Cotswold services have to fulfil all day at weekends, as well as the more obvious one.

Sorry, but GWR should be able to predict loadings on their services. Part of the cr@p that gets spouted is about how they have the experience of the route and therefore that they are uniquely qualified to run it. Likewise, a rugby international on a Saturday in November is not a new phenomenon - they've been going on for years - so the effect on passenger loadings should be well understood by now.

 

[CMRail]

Ha ha. Would 9 instead of 5 really cost that much more to run? The original order of new trains should have been for more carriages. The extra investment would surely have been worth it long term. How many years are that supposed to last? We should be encouraging more people to be using the railway and having just enough seats on each line along with high prices won't help at all.

Read the original quote. The impression forgiven suggests that there should be more nine cars about. What people fail to understand is there are circumstances where five cars could be nine and ten when nine and ten could be five. But GWR can’t get the 13:00 from Penzance up for the 13:20 from Worcester, my point being that a lot of the time it is not operationally possible. As stated before by members GWR don’t walk over to Swindon Tesco, buy some popcorn and laugh at the people on the five vice nine 17:42.. point being they work to try and figure a solution. No one ever mentioned all that time when the Cotswolds had to cope with sheds running up and down all day except peak; oh wait, dare I mention about lack of HSTs.

 

[jimm]

Many off peak services can be rammed. Even though some 9 car trains may run near empty occasionally don't you think it's better that way than having 5 car trains that are sometimes full and standing? The public deserve a comfortable journey EVEN in standard class. A big investment in new trains should result in happier passengers in both classes and peak or off peak, not just match the previous service with a couple of small bonuses.

Perhaps read back over what has been posted above.

We have gone from a service that was "horribly crowded" to one where anyone on board past Reading (and a good few people had probably got off at Slough prior to that to start to ease said crowding) could have had a seat if they wanted. Declassifying some of the first class seats on the five-car 800 could apparently have all but eliminated the crowding on departure from Paddington anyway.

Which doesn't sound much like a catastrophic mismatch between train capacity and the actual loading on yesterday's 18.22 to me. Unless you think there should have been two seats available for every person on board west of Reading and three per person past Oxford, which would have been the case with a nine-car set.

There are good reasons for GWR to have a mix of train lengths in the IET fleet, as opposed to all big trains, all the time - which would be operating at less frequent intervals than will be seen on various GWR routes when the new timetable pattern eventually comes into effect. Without the five-car sets, things like the all-day hourly through service between Paddington and Gloucester/Cheltenham and extra off-peak limited-stop services for Bristol would probably not happen at all.

 

[Railperf]

On a lighter note..i overheard a female passenger excitedly tell her companions how 'lovely' the new trains were and 'luxurious' lol!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a lighter note..i overheard a female passenger excitedly tell her companions how 'lovely' the new trains were and 'luxurious' lol!!

I think people do generally seem to like them. The specific issues with the seats won't be issues for everyone.

 

[Mag_seven]

I think people do generally seem to like them. The specific issues with the seats won't be issues for everyone.

There has been a vociferous minority of Class 800 haters right from the outset, mainly from the enthusiast community it has to be said.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There has been a vociferous minority of Class 800 haters right from the outset, mainly from the enthusiast community it has to be said.

Similar thing there was for Pendolinos 15 years ago.

I don't like the seats, but that really is the only significant issue in my eyes other than issues with the contract and teething troubles.

 

[samuelmorris]

On a lighter note..i overheard a female passenger excitedly tell her companions how 'lovely' the new trains were and 'luxurious' lol!!

If you came from a 165 I don't necessarily take issue with that. They could also have come from another part of the country where they're lumbered with Mk3 EMUs or Sprinters.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Does anybody know if they managed to resolve the staffing difficulties surrounding the 800s? I know the RMT we're not happy about them running with a Leading Host or Ticket Examiner in one set on non-gangway units and then they were contemplating running them on DOO routes to Oxford with no Train Manager.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does anybody know if they managed to resolve the staffing difficulties surrounding the 800s

Nope.

 

[Grumbler]

Does anybody know if they managed to resolve the staffing difficulties surrounding the 800s? I know the RMT we're not happy about them running with a Leading Host or Ticket Examiner in one set on non-gangway units and then they were contemplating running them on DOO routes to Oxford with no Train Manager.

It's a pity the units do not have end gagways. Is that precluded because of lack of streamlining at 125mph?

 

[Railperf]

It's a pity the units do not have end gagways. Is that precluded because of lack of streamlining at 125mph?

More than likely. But gangways aren't a problem at 110mph for 350's and 387's ..so not sure how much it is an issue at 125mph to be honest. I guess it is more an aesthetic issue. Part of the HST's success was the 'nose cone' effect. So the 800's continue that legacy. A 125mph Class 380 style desiro front end would possibly have worked but would have ruined the 'high speed' look.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Does anybody know if they managed to resolve the staffing difficulties surrounding the 800s?

5 Car DOO to Oxford is already happening. As per the DOO agreement with ASLEF so has nothing to do with the RMT.

The Front Set Lead is still happening, and when RMT said they were going to withdraw support, a huge chunk of the Customer Hosts who are FSLs threw in their membership to carry on being an FSL.

 

[Mag_seven]

and when RMT said they were going to withdraw support

Why did the RMT withdraw their support?

 

[tiptoptaff]

Why did the RMT withdraw their support?

Why does the RMT do anything.

On a serious note - they have always wanted 2 TMs on, for a double set ala XC for double voyagers. The conceeded to allow safety-trained ATEs and then CHs to act as competent in the front set, ala VTWC.
For whatever reason, they then decided they wanted 2 TMs again and weren't going to support or recognise the FSL grade. So the FSLs shunned RMT and GWR have carried on. I'm unsure if RMT have continued to endorse FSLs to avoid losing more members, however.

 

[TractiveEffort]

Why does the RMT do anything.

A good question, the RMT has undoubtedly won some great terms and conditions for its members, but the intransigent attitude to progress is ruining it. I left some years ago, after several months they rang to ‘discuss’ why I left. When I said it was because they were disruptive strike mongers, the phone the other end was disconnected with undue haste, so no discussion then!!.

 

[samuelmorris]

Could someone advise if 1C11 1100 Paddington - Bristol is currently assigned to an 800/802 please, or is this still an HST diagram?

 

[FGW_DID]

Could someone advise if 1C11 1100 Paddington - Bristol is currently assigned to an 800/802 please, or is this still an HST diagram?

1C11 on an 800/3 diagram this week. 800305 doing the honours today.

 

[Bikeman78]

The biggest issues regarding performance seems to be 'congestion' or rather more signalling and pathing issues between Paddington and Reading.
This was a Saturday - so not exactly the most taxing of days to path trains in and out of Paddington. But watching Open time trains signalling diagrams - i cannot understand why a train departing Paddington on time - has rows and rows of red lights ahead with nothing in front of it coming in or leaving. At times, the same seemed to apply on inbound services. It is not as if there were any line blockages, broken down trains, trains well out of path. Was there a signalling issue, or a shortage of signallers?

I've noticed the same thing sometimes. Depart Paddington, accelerate up to 40-50, then slow down to a crawl. If I look at open train times, there is nothing about that would conflict, then suddenly the signal goes green and the train accelerates.

 

[samuelmorris]

1C11 on an 800/3 diagram this week. 800305 doing the honours today.

Many thanks - looks like I may have a site visit in Reading on Friday so will be travelling solo this time, will pay closer attention and see how the 800s fare this time round!

 

[Bikeman78]

You do get that Reading depot now has just about enough Turbos left to cover booked Turbo duties in the Thames Valley area, do you? Rustling up spare sets for one random service in mid-diagram is rather less straightforward that it might once have been. And IET allocations have to be made in the context of the contract under which the 800s are provided to GWR. Control can't just shuffle the pack as they see fit in the middle of the day when it comes to deploying 800s.

Isn't that exactly what control has to do to keep the service running? It's going to be tough if they can't step up or swap things around in Paddington.

 

[Nippy]

I've noticed the same thing sometimes. Depart Paddington, accelerate up to 40-50, then slow down to a crawl. If I look at open train times, there is nothing about that would conflict, then suddenly the signal goes green and the train accelerates.

SN.105 on Line 1 has been approach released for nearly a year now due to a problem with the Preliminary Route Indicator associated with the signal. Pre the 'upgrade' to IECC Scalable, if we placed a reminder on SN.105, ARS would route to Line 2 giving greens throughout, now it just stops trains at the Signal in rear. If we aren't busy we will manually route to Line 2 around the problem, if we are then we leave it to ARS resulting in the slow departure from Padd. Trust me, we are frustrated by these long standing faults. The other day, there was also a 20mph EROS on the Up Main just ahead of SN.120 signal at Ladbroke Grove. This was on for a few days, and removed on Sunday morning

 

[jimm]

Isn't that exactly what control has to do to keep the service running? It's going to be tough if they can't step up or swap things around in Paddington.

As has been explained back up the thread a few times now, as a result of the contracts for the 800s, GWR has far less flexibility than it did when it was running the HSTs and 180s and controlling the maintenance as well. They can make adjustments but when they are required to hand back 800s at the depots at specific times each night there are bound to be more headaches to deal with than in the past when juggling diagrams.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As has been explained back up the thread a few times now, as a result of the contracts for the 800s, GWR has far less flexibility than it did when it was running the HSTs and 180s and controlling the maintenance as well. They can make adjustments but when they are required to hand back 800s at the depots at specific times each night there are bound to be more headaches to deal with than in the past when juggling diagrams.

And so we're back to the Incredibly Expensive Procurement again.

Really, there's very little wrong with the trains that a day per train with some thicker base foams, dark green moquette and a roll of 4" sticky backed dark green plastic wouldn't solve. But the way they were bought and are contracted for use is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Wolfie]

As has been explained back up the thread a few times now, as a result of the contracts for the 800s, GWR has far less flexibility than it did when it was running the HSTs and 180s and controlling the maintenance as well. They can make adjustments but when they are required to hand back 800s at the depots at specific times each night there are bound to be more headaches to deal with than in the past when juggling diagrams.

Makes sense. If the contract specifies train availability (with financial penalties) the contractor will be much less willing to skip or postpone maintenance.

 

[Bikeman78]

SN.105 on Line 1 has been approach released for nearly a year now due to a problem with the Preliminary Route Indicator associated with the signal. Pre the 'upgrade' to IECC Scalable, if we placed a reminder on SN.105, ARS would route to Line 2 giving greens throughout, now it just stops trains at the Signal in rear. If we aren't busy we will manually route to Line 2 around the problem, if we are then we leave it to ARS resulting in the slow departure from Padd. Trust me, we are frustrated by these long standing faults. The other day, there was also a 20mph EROS on the Up Main just ahead of SN.120 signal at Ladbroke Grove. This was on for a few days, and removed on Sunday morning

Thank you for the explanation. There is a similar problem with CF.2011 on the down main at Moorland Road junction, east of Cardiff. It stays red until the train has passed the previous signal so every train has a single yellow and slows to a crawl because there is a curve there. This has been the case for 23 months with no sign of a solution. Millions of pounds invested and we're worse off than before!

 

[Starmill]

If declassifying part of first class - all 36 seats of it in total - would have meant things would have been "fine", that hardly suggests the service was, as you put it yesterday, "horribly crowded" - especially once the Slough passengers had all got off 15 minutes into the journey.

It would not have added any seating particularly for standard passengers but it would have allowed people to stand in that vestibule, which was the real nature of the problem. If an alternative service had been strengthened then presumably passengers for Slough and Reading should have been encouraged in advance to use those and to avoid the 5 car services.

The real problem with this trip, as I have said many times, was the lack of standing accommodation on these trains. They're terribly designed for it, which is bizarre given your claims that a standing for half an hour or longer is acceptable. If they have been designed to be too short to accommodate heavy loading, as you claim, perhaps fewer seats would be an answer?

As for allocations I have nothing to do with this so I'm unsure what sort of comment you want. I can comment only on my experience, and the experience of the other passengers on that train. If you think it was positive about the new trains then you are as deluded as the people who came here hating them before they even began to work passenger services.

 

[Starmill]

As has been explained back up the thread a few times now, as a result of the contracts for the 800s, GWR has far less flexibility than it did when it was running the HSTs and 180s and controlling the maintenance as well.

This sounds like a huge disadvantage to be placed at, and the opposite outcome most people would have specified for trains which cost more to run than the old ones.