IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent performance issues

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

Whilst 7 car is an improvement over 5 car, I have serious misgivings about this idea.

My natural cynicism leads me to assume that the idea is primarily to REDUCE train lengths. Going on the project so far, it seems likely that any 7 car units would be used as a downgrade from a 9 car or a 5+5 and not a way of lengthening a service planned to be 5 car.

I might even suspect that Hitachi and GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are trying to "creep away" from the original promise that all services that need to be full length, will be either 9 car or 5+5. Extend a few 5 car units to 7 car, and rebrand these as "full length"

So after years of disruption and promises of more capacity, we would end up with new 7 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) replacing 8 car HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), but with under floor engines, no buffet, only 36 first class seats, and hard seats.
How's that for progress?

[REVUpminster]

Maybe it's a way to reinstate a buffet in a new coach and put more seats into the end coach. They will have a lot coaches with cabs over unless they eventually replace the short HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s

Devon and Cornwall have certainly been short changed in regards to new rolling stock still getting cascaded 158's and 150/2's

[SandTEngineer]

Maybe it's a way to reinstate a buffet in a new coach and put more seats into the end coach. They will have a lot coaches with cabs over unless they eventually replace the short HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s

Devon and Cornwall have certainly been short changed in regards to new rolling stock still getting cascaded 158's and 150/2's

Ahem,  What about the HST GTi then.....?

[REVUpminster]

Also when is GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) going to risk an 802 on the 18.03 Paddington to Penzance. I was booked on one a few weeks ago but at the last minute it was changed to a HST^▸ (High Speed Train).

[stuving]

An interesting comment from a GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) Insider on the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) Forum....

If the passenger figures justify it there is already talk that the production line could be opened to extend the length of some 5 cars and do away with a proportion of the multiple working. My Hitachi contact informs me that it is a relatively simple job to insert two 'lightweight standards' (38t) into the 5 cars but that a completely standard fleet of nine cars is not justifiable at the moment.

As it stands, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not comparing like with like - the real alternative is a few more 9-cars; a "completely standard fleet of nine cars" is no more realistic than a mix of the existing nines and only sevens. And operationally it would be a mess, surely? But we don't now the actual question it might have been an answer to.

I thought there was some information from Hitachi that even-length trains would have half their vehicles motored, with one trailer more if odd-length - but that may have been my/our inference instead. In any case this idea breaks that "rule", at a cost in performance. The original designs included an eight-car variant, which was like a nine with the central MES2 taken out. If adding TS2s (38.1 t tare) is as easy as that post suggests, you could take one of those out of an 8-car, and then the two vehicles added to a 5-car would be an MEC3 (or MES3 - 49.4 t I think) and a TPS (41.0 t). More weight, obviously, but more power too.

Incidentally, that TPS looks an odd code - there certainly isn't a pantograph on it is there? However, there is a 25 kV insulator on the corner to feed power downwards, so obviously it has a transformer (though as I said earlier that should have a code letter X). That suggests that each transformer weighs 2.9 t and can supply 2.5 MW but nor 3 MW.

(Sorry about the dark picture, but they stop in the stygian underdeck at Reading - hence no picture from above either.)

[Timmer]

It was obvious right from the start that we would see 5 car sets running in lieu of 8/9/10 sets and this has been the case ever since the 800s commenced operations just over a year ago. A degree of understanding could have been given at the start but this is still happening now. When you couple this with talk of 5 car sets have additional carriages being added, it’s quite clear that the practice of running 5 car in place of longer sets isn’t going to stop and that Dft have got it wrong.

[Clan Line]

So after years of disruption and promises of more capacity, we would end up with new 7 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) replacing 8 car HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), but with under floor engines, no buffet, only 36 first class seats, and hard seats.
How's that for progress?

My goodness........you are as big a cynic as I am  !!

[martyjon]

So after years of disruption and promises of more capacity, we would end up with new 7 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) replacing 8 car HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), but with under floor engines, no buffet, only 36 first class seats, and hard seats.
How's that for progress?

My goodness........you are as big a cynic as I am  !!

.... and me.

[broadgage]

It was obvious right from the start that we would see 5 car sets running in lieu of 8/9/10 sets and this has been the case ever since the 800s commenced operations just over a year ago. A degree of understanding could have been given at the start but this is still happening now. When you couple this with talk of 5 car sets have additional carriages being added, it’s quite clear that the practice of running 5 car in place of longer sets isn’t going to stop and that Dft have got it wrong.

My experience of at least three other downgrades resulted in my forecast that single 5 car units would be a regular feature on services previously operated by a full length HST^▸ (High Speed Train)

I can not support adding a third train length to an already complex mixture.

Better IMO^▸ (in my opinion),  to make all the 9 car units into 10 car by adding a proper full sized hot buffet car, not a microbuffet, or a minibuffet, or a static trolley, but a proper buffet car that serves freshly made coffee, and freshly cooked bacon rolls and the like.
Add 6 more first class seats to the composite vehicle by removing 12 standard class seats.
Remove 4 standard class seats from each of 4 vehicles to give more table seats and luggage space.
Add about 48 standard class seats in the new buffet car.
Net result-------6 more first class seats---------20 more standard class seats, and an additional gain in capacity by VOLUNTARY standing in the buffet whilst taking refreshment.
And a much better specified train that despite the underfloor engines feels more like an inter city train and not a regional DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit).

Then make perhaps 12 of the 5 car units into another 12 full length 10 car units, layout as above.

Keep some 5 car sets for lightly used services and those routes not originally worked by HSTs.

That would keep a fleet of only two types of train rather than adding a third sort. ALL busy long distance services would be the improved 10 car units.

[Clan Line]

I can not support adding a third train length to an already complex mixture.

5 Car, 7 Car, 9 Car, 10 Car, (12 Car ?) - can you imagine the complete shambles the seat reservation system would dissolve into ? .......and as to where you would stand on the platform to line up with your Class of travel on the train .............

[IndustryInsider]

Incidentally, that TPS looks an odd code - there certainly isn't a pantograph on it is there? However, there is a 25 kV insulator on the corner to feed power downwards, so obviously it has a transformer (though as I said earlier that should have a code letter X). That suggests that each transformer weighs 2.9 t and can supply 2.5 MW but nor 3 MW.

It’s a TpS rather than TPS, with the small ‘p’ meaning powered as it has its own transformer, auxiliary powers supply and link to the 25kV busline.  Definitely no pantograph!

[broadgage]

Indeed.
There is something to be said for having two train lengths, but more than two adds ever growing complexity.

Lengthening 5 car units to 6, 7, or 8 vehicles is not so smart because they then cant run in multiple in passenger service as most platforms are not long enough.

Lengthening 9 car units to more than 10 car is not realistic for the same reason.

So that leaves the only sensible options as.
5 car into 9 car
5 car into 10 car
9 car into 10 car.

A mixture of 9 car and 10 car (not 5+5) is not ideal but acceptable, especially as an interim measure. Reservations would be based on the 9 car trains with the extra vehicle being non-reservable.
First class could be always at one end as on a proper inter city train, rather than in two different and random locations as on a regional DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit).

[grahame]

First class could be always at one end as on a proper inter city train, rather than in two different and random locations as on a regional DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit).

It does get a bit confusing ... even to the railway's systems ...

[Clan Line]

It does get a bit confusing ... even to the railway's systems ...

With GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)'s mania for joining trains together, the 08:25 is obviously a 16 car HST^▸ (High Speed Train) !

[stuving]

Incidentally, that TPS looks an odd code - there certainly isn't a pantograph on it is there? However, there is a 25 kV insulator on the corner to feed power downwards, so obviously it has a transformer (though as I said earlier that should have a code letter X). That suggests that each transformer weighs 2.9 t and can supply 2.5 MW but nor 3 MW.

It’s a TpS rather than TPS, with the small ‘p’ meaning powered as it has its own transformer, auxiliary powers supply and link to the 25kV busline.  Definitely no pantograph!

From what I've seen, Tp (it was T(p)) is Hitachi's functional type code, which defines what can go where in a unit and it still work, but TPS is painted on its end. The same apples to the 'e' meaning "has engine", and some of the numbers in functional types also appear in paint (along with S, C, or F) - but not necessarily in the same order.

As to where bits like the power converters and APS go, I only have a scruffy little diagram showing them as part of the combined "Traction/APS system" on motor vehicles. That looks logical, given that they do have to operate powered solely by the on-board GUs on 800/802s. How intermediate power is routed from transformer to APS is less clear to me - and is it AC (up to 1800 V) or DC^▸ (Direct Current) (up to 3000 V)? Either way it's one of the reasons for all those big cables between the carriages!