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!
Can someone please explain to me the differences (as in physical/functional differences) between all the different 80x classes? How is an 800 different from an 801/802, how will the 805/7 compare to the 800/801/802, will the 810 be the same as or different to an 800/801/802? Are there differences as a passenger/driver or are they purely physical differences?
Bit behind on this one - but it just confuses me as there’s so many variants of what, onboard anyway, seem to be identical trains.
800 & 801 are IEP units procured by the government and used by the ICEC and ICGW TOCs on a diagram basis (rather than for example a conventional wet lease) - the 800s are the fully bi-mode units, the 801s are the EMU variant (with singular emergency genset).
The 802s are conventionally procured (albeit on GW they are done on the same system as the IEP 800 units according to this post) - the main differences are bigger fuel tanks, engine power/map and being fitted with brake resistors, although the GW 800s have subsequently had the fuel tank and engine 'upgrades' - AFAIK only the LNER 800s retain the smaller tanks and lower engine power output.
The 805s will likely be the same as the 802s (albeit possibly different styling on the light clusters), 807s are hinted at being pure EMUs, no emergency generators as on the 801s, but there isn't much information about these yet
The 810s are shorter vehicles (24m vs 26m) and have 4 engines per 5 car set (compared to 3 per 5 car on the 800/802s) and will be the most different of the AT300s.
There's also the 803s being built for First's new East Coast OA operator, about which not much is known (but will likely be pure EMUs, like the 807s)
It does strike me that the way the new classes are being used is to use a new class number where previously a subclass would be used. This may well be because there are plenty of numbers going spare now, whereas Classes 1xx and 3xx were somewhat running out of space. (Though most 80x would surely be 2xx due to the diesel engines).
Mind you, it's happening with the CAF units too - in the BR world, Class 195, 196 and 197 would be 195/1, 195/2 and 195/3, or something.
Class 800 - engine rated at 750 BHP
Class 801 - engine for limp home mode only
Class 802 - engine rated at 940 BHP
Class 803 - pure electric with possible styling differences
Class 805 - presumably similar to Class 802
Between operators LNER’s have a small buffet whereas GWR’s don’t. Also, TPE’s have fewer luggage racks and a smaller ratio of first class seats, both of these seats make TPE’s the most capacious 5-car sets.
Between operators LNER’s have a small buffet whereas GWR’s don’t. Also, TPE’s have fewer luggage racks and a smaller ratio of first class seats, both of these seats make TPE’s the most capacious 5-car sets.
It does strike me that the way the new classes are being used is to use a new class number where previously a subclass would be used. This may well be because there are plenty of numbers going spare now, whereas Classes 1xx and 3xx were somewhat running out of space. (Though most 80x would surely be 2xx due to the diesel engines).
Mind you, it's happening with the CAF units too - in the BR world, Class 195, 196 and 197 would be 195/1, 195/2 and 195/3, or something.
Aye, there’s definitely not enough difference between an 800 and an 802 for an entirely new class of train. Let’s just keep it to two classes, one bi-mode, another for electric with an emergency engine.
I must disagree with having one class for the CAF DMUs as they have a different window layout.
Right, hopefully this is the very last time I will have to say this. Please disregard anything that might be said on wiki - it has been consistently wrong on this since introduction on GWR.
The GWR 800 and 802 classes have identical engines, with identical power output. They were all 700kw output on entering passenger service and the acceleration curve has been the subject of at least two software mods since introduction, carried out sequentially on both classes.
Nearly all of the 800 class (and all of the 802 class) were delivered with the larger 1550L fuel tanks from new. The other three (?) were retro fitted before entering passenger service.
The only significant difference between the GWR 800 and 802 classes is the roof mounted brake resistors on the latter.
It does strike me that the way the new classes are being used is to use a new class number where previously a subclass would be used. This may well be because there are plenty of numbers going spare now, whereas Classes 1xx and 3xx were somewhat running out of space. (Though most 80x would surely be 2xx due to the diesel engines).
Mind you, it's happening with the CAF units too - in the BR world, Class 195, 196 and 197 would be 195/1, 195/2 and 195/3, or something.
I think it's a fair shout to open a new TOPS class if there's a functional difference between units (couplers, motive power, coach length). However why Class 805 exists I have no idea.
A similar debacle exists with Class 375, 377 and 387
I think it's a fair shout to open a new TOPS class if there's a functional difference between units (couplers, motive power, coach length). However why Class 805 exists I have no idea.
A similar debacle exists with Class 375, 377 and 387
Precisely my point. Sub classes should suffice where relevant (they managed it with the 170’s and 172’s) but there is an obsession, especially now, with starting a new TOPS class for no reason.
Class 800 - engine rated at 750 BHP
Class 801 - engine for limp home mode only
Class 802 - engine rated at 940 BHP
Class 803 - pure electric with possible styling differences
Class 805 - presumably similar to Class 802
Between operators LNER’s have a small buffet whereas GWR’s don’t. Also, TPE’s have fewer luggage racks and a smaller ratio of first class seats, both of these seats make TPE’s the most capacious 5-car sets.
Between operators LNER’s have a small buffet whereas GWR’s don’t. Also, TPE’s have fewer luggage racks and a smaller ratio of first class seats, both of these seats make TPE’s the most capacious 5-car sets.
Right, hopefully this is the very last time I will have to say this. Please disregard anything that might be said on wiki - it has been consistently wrong on this since introduction on GWR.
The GWR 800 and 802 classes have identical engines, with identical power output. They were all 700kw output on entering passenger service and the acceleration curve has been the subject of at least two software mods since introduction, carried out sequentially on both classes.
Nearly all of the 800 class (and all of the 802 class) were delivered with the larger 1550L fuel tanks from new. The other three (?) were retro fitted before entering passenger service.
The only significant difference between the GWR 800 and 802 classes is the roof mounted brake resistors on the latter.
So, based on the above, it's something like this...
Class 800 - Intercity Express Programme, 5/9 car, electro-diesel (engines 3 in 5, 5 in 9), 26m vehicles [GWR, LNER]
Class 801 - Intercity Express Programme, 5/9car, EMU+emergency engine, 26m vehicles [LNER]
Class 802 - 5/9 car, electro-diesel (engines 3 in 5, 5 in 9), 26m vehicles, diesel mode dynamic braking [GWR, TPE, Hull]
Class 803 - 5 car, EMU, 26m vehicles [East Coast Trains, or FEC if you prefer]
Class 805 - 5 car, electro-diesel (engines 3 in 5), 26m vehicles, diesel mode dynamic braking* [Avanti]
Class 807 - 7 car, EMU, 26m vehicles [Avanti]
Class 810 - 5 car, electro-diesel (engines 4 in 5), 24m vehicles, diesel mode dynamic braking* [EMR]
* can anyone confirm that the 805s and 810s will have dynamic braking in diesel mode, like the 802s?
To my mind, at the very least the 805 and 807 classes shouldn't exist and should be classified as 802 and 803 respectively. Although given that engines can be removed or added, the whole lot bar the 810s ought to be under one class number.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The 375 and 377s were originally identical trains, but Southern's were renumbered to reflect their retrofitted dellner couplings. Connex/SouthEastern subsequently fitted their 375s with Dellners, but didn't renumber.
387s are a bit different though, as they're more of a hybrid Electrostar–Aventra train. There are key differences in how the train runs, at least from a software perspective, that distinguishes them. So giving them their own class makes sense. What makes less sense is not doing the same for the 377/6 and 377/7s, which are in the same position. Maximum speed is the key distinction between these and 387s, but again you only have to look at the 350s to see how a simple in-class renumbering will do the trick.
I think separating 800s and 801s made sense, given they have such different traction methods. It would be like saying a 165 and a 365 should be the same class because they're such similar trains aside from mechanically. I also understand the rationale of the 802s being separate, as at the time they were expected to have far greater specs than the 800s. But why the other members of the family are getting different classes, with the exception of EMT's quite distinctly different trains, is a mystery. I suspect there isn't particular logic that goes into it, at least not consistently.
Sort of. Originally (at least this is my understanding, I'm sure someone will correct any mistakes!) both the SouthEastern and SouthCentral orders were designated class 375 and had the same (Scharfenberg? Tightlock- cheers, @TRAX ) couplers. When Connex lost the SouthCentral franchise and GoVia took over, they amended the order (with most of the units yet to be delivered) to fit Dellner couplers instead. This led to the Central units being reclassified as 377s.
Later on, the SouthEastern 375s also had the couplers replaced with Dellners but stayed as 375s.
387s have the 110mph capability but were also a slightly revised design & different software system and can't work in multiple with the earlier 377s. Some later subfleets of 377s also had the newer software package, but without the 110mph upgrade.
So we have units of different classes which are basically identical, and units of the same class which can't work together except for rescue in an emergency. The moral of the story? Don't look for consistency in TOPS, that way madness lies!
Sort of. Originally (at least this is my understanding, I'm sure someone will correct any mistakes!) both the SouthEastern and SouthCentral orders were designated class 375 and had the same (Scharfenberg?) couplers. W
Sort of. Originally (at least this is my understanding, I'm sure someone will correct any mistakes!) both the SouthEastern and SouthCentral orders were designated class 375 and had the same (Scharfenberg?) couplers. When Connex lost the SouthCentral franchise and GoVia took over, they amended the order (with most of the units yet to be delivered) to fit Dellner couplers instead. This led to the Central units being reclassified as 377s.
Later on, the SouthEastern 375s also had the couplers replaced with Dellners but stayed as 375s.
387s have the 110mph capability but were also a slightly revised design & different software system and can't work in multiple with the earlier 377s. Some later subfleets of 377s also had the newer software package, but without the 110mph upgrade.
So we have units of different classes which are basically identical, and units of the same class which can't work together except for rescue in an emergency. The moral of the story? Don't look for consistency in TOPS, that way madness lies!
Conventional train leases are very much "dry"- in the airline world, a "wet" lease means the company you lease from provides the crew, the maintenance, insurance.
It's been said countless times on here that there is no difference between 800 and 802 engine ratings, so why post otherwise from an unreliable source?
Good luck to anyone that tries. In my experience it's a closed shop of people that will revert your edits back to incorrect information even if you provide evidence.
British Rail were responsible for the aberration that is Class 322 (Simply just a batch of Class 321 built for Stansted services) and classes 507/508 (erm???) so I don't think we can really look to them for sanity?
It's been said countless times on here that there is no difference between 800 and 802 engine ratings, so why post otherwise from an unreliable source?
Good luck to anyone that tries. In my experience it's a closed shop of people that will revert your edits back to incorrect information even if you provide evidence.
The 375 and 377s were originally identical trains, but Southern's were renumbered to reflect their retrofitted dellner couplings. Connex/SouthEastern subsequently fitted their 375s with Dellners, but didn't renumber.
387s are a bit different though, as they're more of a hybrid Electrostar–Aventra train. There are key differences in how the train runs, at least from a software perspective, that distinguishes them. So giving them their own class makes sense. What makes less sense is not doing the same for the 377/6 and 377/7s, which are in the same position. Maximum speed is the key distinction between these and 387s, but again you only have to look at the 350s to see how a simple in-class renumbering will do the trick.
I think separating 800s and 801s made sense, given they have such different traction methods. It would be like saying a 165 and a 365 should be the same class because they're such similar trains aside from mechanically. I also understand the rationale of the 802s being separate, as at the time they were expected to have far greater specs than the 800s. But why the other members of the family are getting different classes, with the exception of EMT's quite distinctly different trains, is a mystery. I suspect there isn't particular logic that goes into it, at least not consistently.
The 375 and 377s were originally identical trains, but Southern's were renumbered to reflect their retrofitted dellner couplings. Connex/SouthEastern subsequently fitted their 375s with Dellners, but didn't renumber.
387s are a bit different though, as they're more of a hybrid Electrostar–Aventra train. There are key differences in how the train runs, at least from a software perspective, that distinguishes them. So giving them their own class makes sense. What makes less sense is not doing the same for the 377/6 and 377/7s, which are in the same position. Maximum speed is the key distinction between these and 387s, but again you only have to look at the 350s to see how a simple in-class renumbering will do the trick.
Sort of. Originally (at least this is my understanding, I'm sure someone will correct any mistakes!) both the SouthEastern and SouthCentral orders were designated class 375 and had the same (Scharfenberg? Tightlock- cheers, @TRAX ) couplers. When Connex lost the SouthCentral franchise and GoVia took over, they amended the order (with most of the units yet to be delivered) to fit Dellner couplers instead. This led to the Central units being reclassified as 377s.
Later on, the SouthEastern 375s also had the couplers replaced with Dellners but stayed as 375s.
387s have the 110mph capability but were also a slightly revised design & different software system and can't work in multiple with the earlier 377s. Some later subfleets of 377s also had the newer software package, but without the 110mph upgrade.
So we have units of different classes which are basically identical, and units of the same class which can't work together except for rescue in an emergency. The moral of the story? Don't look for consistency in TOPS, that way madness lies!
As far as I am aware, with regards to the electrostars....
The tightlocks were originally specced to give a degree of rescue ability between the then old and new stock, the dellners were pushed for by Bombardier as they were easier to maintain and more reliable. The 375/7 change was due to the DOO system making the trains effectively incompatible for service. Its also worth noting that this wasn't a bad call in this instance as the sheer number of 375/7s subsequently ordered would have filled the 375 class number with regards to sub classes.
the 377/6/7's are, to all intentions the same as the earlier versions with regards to mitrac (the Train management software). the TMS was updated on the earlier versions after the latter fleets were rolled out. I believe the bogies are the same but the radial arms and wheelsets are different (larger axles). the DOO kit became 'old hardware in new chassis' and had to be manufactured specifically by Faiveley (Wabtec I think now?) for the fleet. the CCTV is the same system that Southeastern retrofitted to their 375's (and I think fitted to 379's, its a Petards system, not sure which fleet got it first) and the PIS has its own specific software differences but is fully compatible (thats why you never see latter 377's with two line destination displays).
387's are effectively 4 car 377/7's (the Line of route states this, I believe they were to be classed as 377/8's in development). TPWS v4.0 was fitted, The PIS was never made compatible with 377's but is the same kit, I believe the pass comms are incompatible, but have never heard the specific reasons for this. the DOO system was made by Petards and is used on 379's and is now widely used on many classes including 700's. As previously mentioned they were uprated to 110mph.
The traction/braking systems are largely unchanged, so if you could couple one of every class together you could have full power brake control, the irregularities come from this never having been tested, and each operators fleet software being developed independently of each other due to the specific requirements.
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.
