Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The 22Xs suffer from a nonoptimal seating layout so the 810s have much better density.
The 22Xs have 2 350KW motors (1 per bogey) body mounted, feeding the bogeys via carden shafts. The motors are over speced with the engines only outputting 560KW (280KW per motor). The class 390s are the same drive but with only 6/9 cars powered and 450KW motors.
The 810s have 4/5 vehicles powered with a 250KW motor per axle, giving 2000KW total or 400KW per axle. It's a little less than the current 222s but more than the same as the 395s so shouldn't be an issue.
Thats the rating of the diesel engines the output from the alternators will be less. The continuous rating of earlier 8xx traction motors is 226kW and they will have the ability to be temporarily overloaded when accelerating on AC so will be able to better accelerate under the wires. Thus an all electrified MML (ha ha) will be able to deliver better timings.
Understand that the continuous rating of the traction motors of the Class 810 sets is 290kW (needed as there are only eight of them compared to twelve on previous 5-car Hitachi bimode sets).
Does anyone know please whether the overnight ECML runs between Merchant Park/Darlington and York planned for the start of this week (5Q08-13) are a continuation of last week's trial running with 810001 (and if so are these for further testing or mileage accumulation/set acceptance purposes). TIA
Understand that the continuous rating of the traction motors of the Class 810 sets is 290kW (needed as there are only eight of them compared to twelve on previous 5-car Hitachi bimode sets).
Does anyone know please whether the overnight ECML runs between Merchant Park/Darlington and York planned for the start of this week (5Q08-13) are a continuation of last week's trial running with 810001 (and if so are these for further testing or mileage accumulation/set acceptance purposes). TIA
My query - perhaps I was being opaque - was how electrification would result in higher passenger numbers, something which seems to be taken for granted without explanation.
Isn't that because historically electrification has come with new trains and other line upgrade works which have sped up services (acceleration & top speed) and, in general, improved reliability. The MML has maxed out most of those gains with the Meridians so a switch to electrification won't make a huge difference to the timetable and therefore attracting passengers?
Understand that the continuous rating of the traction motors of the Class 810 sets is 290kW (needed as there are only eight of them compared to twelve on previous 5-car Hitachi bimode sets).
So the maximum continuous power available at the rail will be 8x290= 2.32MW? Is that why their design speed is just 125mph, rather than the 140mph of other 80x?
Do we know what is the short-term power rating of these motors for bursts of acceleration? Thanks
The previous attempt to electrify the MML came with a detailed economic case showing a hugely positive Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR). But that BCR compared fully electric against fully diesel, and ignored the possibility of bimodes.
This time around, they have chosen not to publish any BCR figures, which makes me suspect that the financial case is bad and that the BCR is less than 1. There's no way that allowing 810s to run pan up instead of pan down gives benefits worth a billion quid.
Remember that MML electrification was promised as a political gesture to the north for cutting HS2 to Leeds and replacing it with the IRP.
So the maximum continuous power available at the rail will be 8x290= 2.32MW? Is that why their design speed is just 125mph, rather than the 140mph of other 80x?
Do we know what is the short-term power rating of these motors for bursts of acceleration? Thanks
It will have a one hour rating about 10% higher but its quite possible that during acceleration the motors could be overloaded by 20-30% for 20-30 seconds but it very much depends on what acceleration rate the specification requires (if it is even specified these days). The main criteria that determines how much you can overload the motors in the short term is not to overheat the motors and damage the insulation.
No electric testing has taken place. Only diesel operation. Unsure what speed they have got up to in diesel operation.
Pan up is going to be undertaken on ECML as Old Dalby line is currently blocked in places due to flood/storm damage.
No electric testing has taken place. Only diesel operation. Unsure what speed they have got up to in diesel operation.
Pan up is going to be undertaken on ECML as Old Dalby line is currently blocked in places due to flood/storm damage.
No electric testing has taken place. Only diesel operation. Unsure what speed they have got up to in diesel operation.
Pan up is going to be undertaken on ECML as Old Dalby line is currently blocked in places due to flood/storm damage.
Interesting thank you.
Looking at progression through the line signalling blocks northbound after York during last week's brake testing runs, then on at least several occasions 810001 seems to have come close to the 125 mph line speed limit. Do you know if these runs were in electric or diesel mode?
Am I correct in thinking that at some stage during type acceptance certification there is testing at 10% overspeed or does that not apply when the maximum plated speed is 125 mph?
Interesting thank you.
Looking at progression through the line signalling blocks northbound after York during last week's brake testing runs, then on at least several occasions 810001 seems to have come close to the 125 mph line speed limit. Do you know if these runs were in electric or diesel mode?
Am I correct in thinking that at some stage during type acceptance certification there is testing at 10% overspeed or does that not apply when the maximum plated speed is 125 mph?
810001 seen tonight at Darlington working 5Q08 Merchant park to York, then 5Q09 back to Darlington, then it’s is showing as 5Q10 Darlington to Old Dalby.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
810001 seen tonight at Darlington working 5Q08 Merchant park to York, then 5Q09 back to Darlington, then it’s is showing as 5Q10 Darlington to Old Dalby.
So the maximum continuous power available at the rail will be 8x290= 2.32MW? Is that why their design speed is just 125mph, rather than the 140mph of other 80x?
Do we know what is the short-term power rating of these motors for bursts of acceleration? Thanks
I understand they've got a slightly blunter nose. But I would assume that came as a result of the decision to limit top speed to 125mph, not the cause of it.
I understand they've got a slightly blunter nose. But I would assume that came as a result of the decision to limit top speed to 125mph, not the cause of it.
I thought the blunt nose was primarily to reduce the length a little so 10 car units could fit on platforms.
Seems like other people have had basically the same discussion upthread and don't know whether the chicken or the egg came first but in any case it all works out quite nicely
I understand they've got a slightly blunter nose. But I would assume that came as a result of the decision to limit top speed to 125mph, not the cause of it.
The nose which is ever so slightly blunter is not to do with speed, it’s to do with length of train and the requirement for 2 x 5 cars to be able to fit in platforms at St Pancras.
The nose which is ever so slightly blunter is not to do with speed, it’s to do with length of train and the requirement for 2 x 5 cars to be able to fit in platforms at St Pancras.
The previous attempt to electrify the MML came with a detailed economic case showing a hugely positive Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR). But that BCR compared fully electric against fully diesel, and ignored the possibility of bimodes.
This time around, they have chosen not to publish any BCR figures, which makes me suspect that the financial case is bad and that the BCR is less than 1. There's no way that allowing 810s to run pan up instead of pan down gives benefits worth a billion quid.
Remember that MML electrification was promised as a political gesture to the north for cutting HS2 to Leeds and replacing it with the IRP.
More reliable railway (far fewer train failures, less track damage)
Lower cost of operation (big difference in fuel and maintenance costs)
Much simpler maintenance allows better early/late service / better service recovery / fewer trainsets (but not all at the same time)
Normally better acceleration means more attractive journey times
Clean/quiet/smooth journeys compared to diesel
More seats per train
Much of this is cost saving (fewer trainsets, staff etc) but that enables other benefits within the same budget...
Bimodes shift the equation but there is still a business case for increasing electric running...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I would set our expectations a bit lower in terms of doubling up in light of how many of the 33 units will need to be in service - as I and others have said before, the original intention requiring 31 of the 33 being in service is unsustainable. And in any case, we’ve seen so many letdowns in EMR’s life that I’ve set my expectations low.
Let’s assume that some peak services will be doubled up. If in reality it does end up being “most” (I’m not saying “most” won’t happen, I’m just urging caution), then we would see that as a pleasant bonus.
More reliable railway (far fewer train failures, less track damage)
Lower cost of operation (big difference in fuel and maintenance costs)
Much simpler maintenance allows better early/late service / better service recovery / fewer trainsets (but not all at the same time)
Normally better acceleration means more attractive journey times
Clean/quiet/smooth journeys compared to diesel
More seats per train
Much of this is cost saving (fewer trainsets, staff etc) but that enables other benefits within the same budget...
Bimodes shift the equation but there is still a business case for increasing electric running...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Have Hitachi ever met their contractual commitment for trainsets yet?
GWR run short formed even after stripping back their timetable; LNER had to retain an entire trainfleet to cover lack of availability.
The availability committed in the contract was heroic for an EMU, let alone a complex bi-mode with numerous issues.
Not forgetting they were also late on the Avanti order. It beggars belief how they keep getting work. EMR could walk away from the contract penalty free at this point - should they want to of course.
Not forgetting they were also late on the Avanti order. It beggars belief how they keep getting work. EMR could walk away from the contract penalty free at this point - should they want to of course.
Any sign of EMR actually getting a unit to start training?
Still only 810001 been seen, no other units are reported as leaving the factory even to go on test track at Newton Aycliffe.
Any sign of EMR actually getting a unit to start training?
Still only 810001 been seen, no other units are reported as leaving the factory even to go on test track at Newton Aycliffe.
Hats off to those who made guesses years ago that entry into service would be 2025: it was a throwaway guess back then, but now looking more and more likely!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Any sign of EMR actually getting a unit to start training?
Still only 810001 been seen, no other units are reported as leaving the factory even to go on test track at Newton Aycliffe.
Not forgetting they were also late on the Avanti order. It beggars belief how they keep getting work. EMR could walk away from the contract penalty free at this point - should they want to of course.
Makes me think that the Stadler FLIRT/SMILE bid might have been a wiser option! But, EMR/DfT didn’t have the guts to push the boat out and look for something potentially better - they simply chose incumbent IC option.
Yes, I get the argument that the 810s are highly bespoke compared to the 8xx; but they seem to have simply gone to the manufacturer that had the monopoly on IC stock because it was all too easy to do that.
Let’s hope that my (and others) scepticism is proved wrong given the hiccups we’ve seen with the 8xx.
The 22Xs suffer from a nonoptimal seating layout so the 810s have much better density.
The 22Xs have 2 350KW motors (1 per bogey) body mounted, feeding the bogeys via carden shafts. The motors are over speced with the engines only outputting 560KW (280KW per motor). The class 390s are the same drive but with only 6/9 cars powered and 450KW motors.
The 810s have 4/5 vehicles powered with a 250KW motor per axle, giving 2000KW total or 400KW per axle. It's a little less than the current 222s but more than the same as the 395s so shouldn't be an issue.
Based on Class 222 derated setting of 700hp per engine and allowing for appx 80% power at rail equals 418kW per vehicle or 2,089kW for a 5-car 222 - with all engines running. Do we know the overall weight of an 810 yet? In electric mode at least - the power application of an 810 will likely be more responsive and so acceleration should be better to both 100 and 125mph than a 222 by a fair margin. And I would expect that in diesel mode the more modern power control systems will allow more responsive acceleration too.
Hats off to those who made guesses years ago that entry into service would be 2025: it was a throwaway guess back then, but now looking more and more likely!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I stand corrected if I’m wrong, but I believe (part of) 810002 is in Pistoia and bits of 810004 and 810005 are floating about around Newton Aycliffe?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Makes me think that the Stadler FLIRT/SMILE bid might have been a wiser option! But, EMR/DfT didn’t have the guts to push the boat out and look for something potentially better - they simply chose incumbent IC option.
Yes, I get the argument that the 810s are highly bespoke compared to the 8xx; but they seem to have simply gone to the manufacturer that had the monopoly on IC stock because it was all too easy to do that.
Let’s hope that my (and others) scepticism is proved wrong given the hiccups we’ve seen with the 8xx.
Yes 002 went by road wrapped up to Italy. Up to units 015 allegedly on production.
2 units nose cones visible in test shed and have been for months, they are normally there for 30 days in test building, but just seem to be stuck there.
They can't. I mean it's not a credible threat. Whilst the wording of the contract might allow them to, two things need to be true in order to make it a plausible option:
1. The freedom to act - which they don't have, as they're on a management contract from DfT, so DfT need to be prepared to take the political heat from cancelling ("bungling civil servants", job losses in the North East etc)
2. A viable alternative option, which would basically mean either retaining the 222s (unlikely to be acceptable as it renders electrification pointless), or being able to rapidly source a fleet of 30+ bimode, 125mph capable trains (infeasible - no such train exists)
Hitachi of course know all this and it will inform their approach to delivering the contract.
So does everybody else, which is why the order for CAF bimodes by LNER is important beyond the order because it breaks Hitachi's de facto monopoly of this segment of the rolling stock market. To me it's also a further example of how the privatisation model fundamentally misunderstood how the rolling stock market would operate, but that's another story.
Being realistic it's now impossible to get the full fleet operational until 2026. Even that may be challenging. Meanwhile the planned refurbishment of the existing fleet/s is increasingly essential.
Being realistic it's now impossible to get the full fleet operational until 2026. Even that may be challenging. Meanwhile the planned refurbishment of the existing fleet/s is increasingly essential.
Wishful thinking. Diarise this post for 31.12.2025 and realistically I suspect there'll still be Meridians in service. Too little produxtion, testing and training to do before then. Hope I'm wrong
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
