GWR operating short 'HSTGTi' sets (see diagrams section for workings)

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure I approve of the TGS being a slam door, unless the guard will always dispatch from there? People's bikes often get forgotten by staff on Pendolinos. I see the security benefit of a "guard only" door but the practical disbenefit is significant.

 

[bastien]

Surely one of the primary advantages of having the power doors fitted was shorter dwell times, not worse than a 158 dwell times and potentially no better than existing HST dwells.

Sorry to spoil another RF.co.uk 'scoop', but... Didn't someone say, earlier on, that fitters have travelled down with the train? The doors may not be correctly set up yet.

 

[43096]

Not sure I approve of the TGS being a slam door, unless the guard will always dispatch from there? People's bikes often get forgotten by staff on Pendolinos. I see the security benefit of a "guard only" door but the practical disbenefit is significant.

Given that the TGS van door is different to other doors you’re adding a whole lot of cost and complexity for minimal benefit in what is not a passenger carrying area.

 

[43096]

It's still the Grammer IC3000s, excellent news. It has been done to GWR spec, much like set LA15.

I have a photo.

More to the point, what’s the seat layout? Still minimal tables and maximum airline or something more suitable for the services they will operate?

 

[47802]

Surely one of the primary advantages of having the power doors fitted was shorter dwell times, not worse than a 158 dwell times and potentially no better than existing HST dwells.

I think the primary advantage is to meet the PRM compliance, the other is a side benefit. Or put this way do you think they would have fitted Power doors given the cost and complexity just to improve dwell time?

 

[jimm]

Surely one of the primary advantages of having the power doors fitted was shorter dwell times, not worse than a 158 dwell times and potentially no better than existing HST dwells.

A lot of the time spent by HSTs standing at unstaffed stations/platforms is so that the train manager can walk up and down the length of the train, or most of it, to check that the slam doors are actually shut - with interlocked power doors there won't be any need to do that.

Not sure I approve of the TGS being a slam door, unless the guard will always dispatch from there? People's bikes often get forgotten by staff on Pendolinos. I see the security benefit of a "guard only" door but the practical disbenefit is significant.

People will not be putting bikes on and off at every stop anyway and it is just one single door to check on a short formation when someone has actually been putting a bike on or taking one off.

Simply not worth the time and money to put a power door there, given how little use it would get compared with the other doors.

 

[Goldfish62]

Surely one of the primary advantages of having the power doors fitted was shorter dwell times, not worse than a 158 dwell times and potentially no better than existing HST dwells.

They're slow, but don't look excessively so to me, no more say than on a Class 450, and if you know just how long HST dwell times are at the many unstaffed stations with curved platforms in Cornwall this must definitely be an improvement

 

[superalbs]

More to the point, what’s the seat layout? Still minimal tables and maximum airline or something more suitable for the services they will operate?

I think it's the same as the low-density carriages on the current layout, maybe eight tables per carriage?

 

[hexagon789]

lk up and down the length of the train, or most of it, to check that the slam doors are actually shut - with interlocked power doors there won't be any need to do that.

True, it will probably be an improvement just not as much as I thought it might be.

 

[hexagon789]

They're slow, but don't look excessively so to me, no more say than on a Class 450, and if you know just how long HST dwell times are at the many unstaffed stations with curved platforms in Cornwall this must definitely be an improvement

I only really have experience of the Highland Chieftain in recent times

 

[edwin_m]

However slow the power doors they are quicker than having the platform staff walk or run (according to level of fitness and enthusiasm) along the platform when they've been left open.

 

[hexagon789]

However slow the power doors they are quicker than having the platform staff walk or run (according to level of fitness and enthusiasm) along the platform when they've been left open.

Good bit of exercise though! But yes it is far more ideal, I'm a bit anxious to see how they shape up here in Scotland if they have slower doors than the 170s.

 

[Starmill]

I think the primary advantage is to meet the PRM compliance, the other is a side benefit. Or put this way do you think they would have fitted Power doors given the cost and complexity just to improve dwell time?

It's not a question of improving dwell times. HSTs in any form will always have worse dwell times than 150s.

I hope they have rearranged the seating layout into something more tourist friendly. The 'Reading Commuter' layout in some of the vehicles is almost worse than a 150 for enjoying the view.

 

[43096]

I think it's the same as the low-density carriages on the current layout, maybe eight tables per carriage?

"Low density" (which is a joke) is 4 tables per coach; "high density" is 2. Except for the TSD vehicles which have, er, none.

 

[IanXC]

Not sure I approve of the TGS being a slam door, unless the guard will always dispatch from there? People's bikes often get forgotten by staff on Pendolinos. I see the security benefit of a "guard only" door but the practical disbenefit is significant.

I can't think where but I feel as though I have read that there is some issue with that slam door on the TGS which means they could not be replaced with the same design of new door as the others. Its clearly not going to be worth designing an alternative door if that is the issue.

 

[43096]

I can't think where but I feel as though I have read that there is some issue with that slam door on the TGS which means they could not be replaced with the same design of new door as the others. Its clearly not going to be worth designing an alternative door if that is the issue.

If you look at the TGS door, it's a wider door - there's an extra opening element to it.

 

[hexagon789]

I can't think where but I feel as though I have read that there is some issue with that slam door on the TGS which means they could not be replaced with the same design of new door as the others. Its clearly not going to be worth designing an alternative door if that is the issue.

The Guard's Van on the TGS has a different door design.

 

[IanXC]

If you look at the TGS door, it's a wider door - there's an extra opening element to it.

The Guard's Van on the TGS has a different door design.

Exactly!

 

[hexagon789]

Exactly!

I think it's actually two doors isn't it? A standard one and a very narrow opening section next to it.

 

[whhistle]

I thought all the door mods were being done by the same company?
Hence MML not being able to get theirs done in time as they other operators got their orders in first?
If (being done by the same company), how come these are different to the Chiltern version?

I understand "inner slide" doors are quicker to open than the "pop-out" doors, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

 

[Goldfish62]

I thought all the door mods were being done by the same company?
Hence MML not being able to get theirs done in time as they other operators got their orders in first?
If (being done by the same company), how come these are different to the Chiltern version?

I understand "inner slide" doors are quicker to open than the "pop-out" doors, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

The Chiltern conversion was a completely separate, unrelated project. There were huge problems with it because each door had to be tailor made to fit individual coaches. With a sliding pocket door the same precision of fit is not so vital.

 

[47802]

I thought all the door mods were being done by the same company?
Hence MML not being able to get theirs done in time as they other operators got their orders in first?
If (being done by the same company), how come these are different to the Chiltern version?

I understand "inner slide" doors are quicker to open than the "pop-out" doors, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

Because its some time since the Chiltern version was done, things have moved on the sliding door solution is meant to be cheaper and easier to implement.

If the doors are a bit slow to close so what, the point is they are PRM compliant and are still likely to have a quicker dwell time than a slam door version.

 

[bastien]

I love how these doors are now officially too slow, based on one video clip of one door one one test run!

Surely we should at least reserve judgement until the GPS crew have had at them with their stopwatches and done an Excel spreadsheet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I love how these doors are now officially too slow, based on one video clip of one door one one test run!

Surely we should at least reserve judgement until the GPS crew have had at them with their stopwatches and done an Excel spreadsheet.

The speed may well be adjustable.

 

[hexagon789]

I love how these doors are now officially too slow, based on one video clip of one door one one test run!

Surely we should at least reserve judgement until the GPS crew have had at them with their stopwatches and done an Excel spreadsheet.

You know this forum, everyone's an expert based on one photo, a media article, a short video or hearsay and rumour!

 

[hexagon789]

The speed may well be adjustable.

Hopefully it is! The 158s are bad enough, you press the button and it takes such an age for anything to happen, sometimes one wonders if the doors are actually working!

 

[hexagon789]

Because its some time since the Chiltern version was done, things have moved on the sliding door solution is meant to be cheaper and easier to implement.

If the doors are a bit slow to close so what, the point is they are PRM compliant and are still likely to have a quicker dwell time than a slam door version.

The Chiltern doors look far nicer, being flush with the bodyside.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Chiltern doors look far nicer, being flush with the bodyside.

I certainly agree here, the inset doors that don't follow the bodyshell shape look cheap and nasty. But if they make the concept viable by keeping the cost low, it's worth putting up with this.

 

[hexagon789]

I certainly agree here, the inset doors that don't follow the bodyshell shape look cheap and nasty. But if they make the concept viable by keeping the cost low, it's worth putting up with this.

It's always the way though isn't it, the way to save money is get something cheap and ugly.

 

[Domh245]

It's always the way though isn't it, the way to save money is get something cheap and ugly.

Cheap and ugly, but in service after hopefully a few months (once Wabtec get up to speed) rather than a few years. I'd rather have an ugly train than a short formed train or none at all.