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!
An 80x, any type, has one genset feeding power to 2x bogies, each with 2x traction motors per powered vehicle, 1 powering 4.
The 810 has one (upgraded) genset feeding power to 1 bogie, each with 2 traction motors. 1 powering 2.
That means the current draw is more than double- the wiring has to accommodate this.
I wouldn't disagree that the design has been comprehensively upgraded from the 800 / 802 layout. Overall though I am under the impression Hitachi have several general product ranges, AT100, AT200 and AT300. AIUI the class 385s come under the AT200 stream.
For me though I consider the 810s in a kind of parallel to the Airbus designation where the A318 / 319 / 320 / 321 / 320 Neo / 321 Neo are basically an Airbus manufacturer single aisle airline, some longer, some shorter, some with different "traction" to others, obviously different avionics. Obviously the Boeing 737 line was similar where an old Boeing 737-100 could only be identified as some fuselage an nose cone - but still from the Boeing 737 family. IIRC this was also why GBRf wanted to designate the 73/9 rebuild as a class 73 - retaining type designations blah blah.
I believe that the product currently being assembled is a 24m bodyshell with upgraded engines and avionics - effectively a "shorty" Boeing 737-700 instead of the regular sized Boeing 737-800. It is still an AT300 family train, but different to the original AT300 class 800 and 802.
I wouldn't disagree that the design has been comprehensively upgraded from the 800 / 802 layout. Overall though I am under the impression Hitachi have several general product ranges, AT100, AT200 and AT300. AIUI the class 385s come under the AT200 stream.
For me though I consider the 810s in a kind of parallel to the Airbus designation where the A318 / 319 / 320 / 321 / 320 Neo / 321 Neo are basically an Airbus manufacturer single aisle airline, some longer, some shorter, some with different "traction" to others, obviously different avionics. Obviously the Boeing 737 line was similar where an old Boeing 737-100 could only be identified as some fuselage an nose cone - but still from the Boeing 737 family. IIRC this was also why GBRf wanted to designate the 73/9 rebuild as a class 73 - retaining type designations blah blah.
I believe that the product currently being assembled is a 24m bodyshell with upgraded engines and avionics - effectively a "shorty" Boeing 737-700 instead of the regular sized Boeing 737-800. It is still an AT300 family train, but different to the original AT300 class 800 and 802.
It is a new engine completely different to the 8X.
I really wouldn’t compare planes to trains.
As I said it is more or less a new train.
Nearly everything is different and redesigned hence why it needs to do all the testing that the original 8Xs did.
It is a new engine completely different to the 8X.
As I said it is more or less a new train.
Nearly everything is different and redesigned hence why it needs to do all the testing that the original 8Xs did.
I understand the class 810 is a new train, but are the engines simply upgraded MTUs squeezing out an extra 60odd horsepower ? In the way BR bought the 1250hp Sulzer 6LDA28B to uprate newer build locos from the 1160hp Sulzer 6LDA28A model.
An 80x, any type, has one genset feeding power to 2x bogies, each with 2x traction motors per powered vehicle, 1 powering 4.
The 810 has one (upgraded) genset feeding power to 1 bogie, each with 2 traction motors. 1 powering 2.
That means the current draw is more than double- the wiring has to accommodate this.
I understand the class 810 is a new train, but are the engines simply upgraded MTUs squeezing out an extra 60odd horsepower ? In the way BR bought the 1250hp Sulzer 6LDA28B to uprate newer build locos from the 1160hp Sulzer 6LDA28A model.
It very clearly isn’t comparable to locos fitted with updated engines in the BR era - just think about how much more complexity is involved with modern rolling stock.
another thing I noticed. The 810 traction equipment looks very much like that used on the 385.
The 385/1, a 4x23m emu with 4 powered bogies. The 810 5x24m 4 powered bogies, plus 4 gensets, and obviously geared for 125mph top speed- that's quite a bit of extra weight to lug about with the long legged gearing reducing available tractive effort.
Super unrelated post (well not that unrelated cos it’s about construction), could anyone tell me what or where the exhausts are on the driving coaches from this video? Surely they haven’t split them in two? Would be reminiscent of HST exhausts if so
Super unrelated post (well not that unrelated cos it’s about construction), could anyone tell me what or where the exhausts are on the driving coaches from this video? Surely they haven’t split them in two? Would be reminiscent of HST exhausts if so
I think they have, and are running them up through new locations behind the cabs to those metal pieces you mention in the comment you made on the video page. I have big speakers hooked up to my PC and the deep exhaust sound is locatable to those new exhaust outlets as they pass under the camera. Very unusual and I wasn't expecting that at all. So a total of 6 exhaust pipes for the 4 engines.
Super unrelated post (well not that unrelated cos it’s about construction), could anyone tell me what or where the exhausts are on the driving coaches from this video? Surely they haven’t split them in two? Would be reminiscent of HST exhausts if so
Dunno, but the 810s have two diesel generating units in each of coach 2 and coach 4. Whatever is on the driving coaches 1 and 5 won't be diesel exhausts.
Dunno, but the 810s have two diesel generating units in each of coach 2 and coach 4. Whatever is on the driving coaches 1 and 5 won't be diesel exhausts.
Thought it was one engine on each of cars 1,2,4,5 but traction motors on cars 2,4? At least that's what wikipedia has. Would two engines even fit under a single car?
Edit: same arrangement quoted at Railway Gazette
UK: East Midlands Railway has released final details of the interiors of its future Hitachi Class 810 Aurora inter-city trainsets, which although derived from existing Class 80x designs are now being seen as a new product.
www.railwaygazette.com
The centre car of the electro-diesel trainsets will hold the transformer, with the other four cars having engines rated at 735 kW
Thought it was one engine on each of cars 1,2,4,5 but traction motors on cars 2,4? At least that's what wikipedia has. Would two engines even fit under a single car?
What are our thoughts regarding whether 10-car operation will actually ever happen?
It seems to have been extremely problematic up to now; so if there is a need to get them into service asap and given that 33 units is arguably not enough, will 10-car running be abandoned and every diagram will simply be 5-car? Or at the very least, will 10-car testing run in parallel with introduction of the fleet?
I think they have, and are running them up through new locations behind the cabs to those metal pieces you mention in the comment you made on the video page. I have big speakers hooked up to my PC and the deep exhaust sound is locatable to those new exhaust outlets as they pass under the camera. Very unusual and I wasn't expecting that at all. So a total of 6 exhaust pipes for the 4 engines.
Dunno, but the 810s have two diesel generating units in each of coach 2 and coach 4. Whatever is on the driving coaches 1 and 5 won't be diesel exhausts.
As @eastwestdivide said, they have 4x diesel engines (one in each of vehicles 1, 2, 4 and 5).
The 810s were specified as 5-car units with 4x 986hp diesel engines per unit, for a total of 3944hp of diesel power.
The 810s were required to have better acceleration on diesel power than the 5-car 222s (which have 5x 750hp diesel engines per unit, for a total of 3750hp of diesel power).
The best that 5-car 80x units could do was 3x diesel engines per unit, which, even at the new power rating of 986hp per engine, would've only meant a total of 2958hp of diesel power, which would've failed to meet the required specification.
If the 810s had just 2x 986hp diesel engines per unit, that would've meant a total of just 1972hp of diesel power, which would've failed even more to meet the required specification.
As for the 810s' exhaust pipes, @benji and I worked out that vehicles 1 and 5 each have 2x smaller exhaust pipes (running up through new locations behind the cabs to the metal pieces that he mentioned in the comment he made on the page of the below video), whereas vehicles 2 and 4 each have the normal single big exhaust pipe (running up through the normal "vestibule" location).
Use your "bassiest" speakers or headphones (whichever are "bassier"), watch from 0:20 and notice the deep exhaust tone at 0:25 as the new exhaust outlets pass under the camera.
Again from 0:52 at the back as they pass under at 0:55, though not as noticeable this time.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yep Maybe, but it's not a like-for-like comparison because the engines are at different RPMs when the new twin exhaust outlets pass under the camera, compared to when the big single pipes pass under.
Using two smaller exhaust pipes per engine (the actual pipes under the metal outlets will be of smaller diameter than the visible big single ones) can be necessary for packaging reasons, bearing in mind that they're in different spaces behind the cabs, whereas the only locations used previously were the "vestibule" ones.
But yes, it took over 20 years for twin pipes per engine to be fitted again to units after the 175s and 180s, albeit a mixture of twin and single in this case!
Given the extra complexity of 10 car operations and the need to redesign the train with all the consequent problems and delays, perhaps they should have ordered fewer longer sets and kept with the original design, operating them as single units.
Given the extra complexity of 10 car operations and the need to redesign the train with all the consequent problems and delays, perhaps they should have ordered fewer longer sets and kept with the original design, operating them as single units.
Suppose Matlock and Cleethorpes are out too. We can but dream, currently of them entering service anywhere. Who knows what will happen in 25 years time
With it being all but pointless sending the 222's to Norwich, and doubting very much the 810's are much (if any) lighter, there would be little point even testing them out that way.
Liverpool would be a little more likely, but with fewer 810's than even EMR belatedly realised they needed, it's unlikely there will ever be slack in the fleet for an extra service up that way. It's not going to be like the old days where there was always extra stock available for specials or hire outs
Suppose Matlock and Cleethorpes are out too. We can but dream, currently of them entering service anywhere. Who knows what will happen in 25 years time
Matlock is (or at least was, a few years ago) cleared for 222s (see past discussions of the late Queen's visit on a 222), but I guess it doesn't look as if they will be clearing the 810s.
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.
www.railwaygazette.com
