They can move the train very slowly, but they can move it.
I seem to recall at least one incident on the ECML north of Finsbury Park where power was off for a substantial time but 801s were able to crawl through at slow speed to continue their journey.
I
wasn't saying the class 801's diesel engine
couldn't physically move the train. It's just that, if the train is unable to get power from the OHLE while running on an electrified route, I'd have thought at least one of the following would be true in the vast majority of cases:
- a power outage in the OHLE is stopping an EMU (without self-rescue capability) ahead from moving, meaning the following signal is at danger and following trains (with diesel backup generators) can't proceed beyond that signal
- a power outage is impacting not just the OHLE but signalling as well, so no signals are lit - in such a situation isn't the driver supposed to assume the signal is at danger?
- the OHLE has come down and is blocking the line and/or is tangled around a train, preventing that train (and following trains) from moving beyond the next signal
Although you might ask why other countries don't feel the need to do this.
Not just other countries; I don't think (m)any of the suburban and regional electric units on the GB network share the class 801's peculiar ability to move themselves if the external power supply fails, but not fast enough to run normal services on unelectrified routes. Electrostars, for example, can't do that as far as I know.
The diesel engine also allows the 801s to be diagrammed to low speed diesel work in multiple with an 800. An 800+801 combo was/is booked to work a Harrogate train.
I think I read somewhere that they can divert via the Newcastle-Carlisle route with a 10-car formed of an 800/2 in multiple with an 801/1 if the ECML is shut north of Newcastle.
And the comment
but every one of the 40 new trains that have so-far been ordered with the intent of replacing IC225s on the ECML have been equipped with at least one diesel engine
seems to imply that the presence of a rescue/hotel power engine on the new fleet is a backward step given the fleet being replaced had no such facility.
Agreed; I did imply that. What's more, I did so intentionally; because
in some respects, the inclusion of diesel generator on the class 801s
is a backwards step compared to the IC225s. The diesel generator certainly brings some benefits, but it also has its drawbacks.
That to my mind is putting a dogmatic "electric is best" approach before a more practical approach that mitigates one of the primary drawbacks of overhead line power - that of a total failure of power supply stranding trains.
In my earlier post, my sentence began with the words "An electric railway is a better railway," a phrase which (followed by "however you define better") was often used in Modern Railways campaign for more electrification. The class 801 is (in terms of technical complexity and maintenance requirements) actually a bi-mode,
not an EMU. You still have the weight of a diesel engine and fuel to consider as well, so it is not as weight-efficient as a pure-electric train. You make a good point that pure-electric trains do have one drawback, that of a loss of 'hotel power' in certain categories of disruption,
but the 'solution' to this comes at the cost of some of the benefits of electrification. Both approaches have their pros and cons.
I wonder if the new design will cause further delay? Can't imagine it's as simple as slapping some tri-mode technology in an existing(ish) design? Unless CAF have a proven Tri-Mode product ready to fit 397-esque units. Definitely will be interesting to see how LNER cope if not. Maybe a return of the badger after all?
CAF certainly were advertising at least bi-mode on their website, with a Australian Civity bi-mode order having been placed some years ago. What I didn't know, until LNER ordered the 897s, was whether CAF offered multi-mode units in the Civity UK platform to fit our loading guage (if they can, as I've been saying since at least 2018 probably, the class 195s, 196s, and 197s should have been at least bi-mode).
