Class 800 engine upgrade

[Benjwri]

Was talking to a GWR train manager earlier in the week, who told me that the output of the Class 800 engines is now 900hp, same as the Class 802. Although apparently the trains still have to conform to the DfT's power output curve, and still can't actually reach 125mph on diesel.

Does anyone on here have any more information on this, obviously the first question being if this is correct. Also how this was done, have the engines been replaced, and why hasn't the power output been updated?

 

[Clarence Yard]

It’s been the same as the 802 since 2017. It’s just a software change.

If you are going by wiki - don’t. It is wrong.

 

[VP185]

They can reach 125mph on diesel as well, may take a while, and a falling gradient helps but they can do it!!!

 

[Clarence Yard]

Wiki also has the fuel tanks as being different. They aren’t - they are all 1550L. Only the first two or three (iirc) 800 units came out with smaller tanks and these units were retrofitted with the larger fuel tanks before entering public service.

The need for the larger tanks and uprated engines on the 800 units was because, from day one, they needed to work in HST timings and go the distance on HST diagrams. There were timing and fuel trials carried out on GWR with the test units to prove that need to the DfT, who then authorised the necessary expenditure.

 

[hexagon789]

Was talking to a GWR train manager earlier in the week, who told me that the output of the Class 800 engines is now 900hp, same as the Class 802. Although apparently the trains still have to conform to the DfT's power output curve, and still can't actually reach 125mph on diesel.

Does anyone on here have any more information on this, obviously the first question being if this is correct. Also how this was done, have the engines been replaced, and why hasn't the power output been updated?

The engines were always 700kW (939bhp), all that was done was they were originally to be downrated to 750bhp in normal service on the 800s. LNER's still do this, but as GWR has more diesel running than originally intended its 800s were modified to match 802 performance.

 

[XAM2175]

It’s been the same as the 802 since 2017. It’s just a software change.

If you are going by wiki - don’t. It is wrong.

Was this change published by an authoritative source, either at the time or subsequently? I can find an article in Modern Railways that buries some moaning about the DfT not wanting to "unmuzzle" the engines in a mountain of other drivel, but nothing that states it clearly and unambiguously.

Wiki also has the fuel tanks as being different. They aren’t - they are all 1550L. Only the first two or three (iirc) 800 units came out with smaller tanks and these units were retrofitted with the larger fuel tanks before entering public service.

Third para of the second section seems to reflect this correctly:
In July 2016, it was revealed that GWR's intended fleet of Class 801 units were to be converted from pure EMU to bi-mode due to delays in the electrification. Subsequently, these were reclassified as Class 800/3.[18] As a part of this reconfiguration, the original 1.35 m3 (300 imp gal) fuel tanks were replaced with larger capacity 1.55 m3 (340 imp gal) tanks.

But yes, in the lead it does still suggest that the 802s have larger tanks.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No. It was “published” on here, by me! I was intimately involved with their introduction onto GWR. I was also on those trial trips, carrying out the fuel range calculations on the various engine scenarios. For the initial tests we went from Paddington to Parkway and back for a few days.

The IEP contract still shows a much lower fuel range figure than GWR use. The latter is 900 miles and that works out to be 1.6L per mile per engine max on a 1550L tank, usable quantity 1450L. (I like to leave a bit in the bottom!) The engines usually consume far less than 1.6L, but if you drop an engine, you will need that headroom to 1.6L.

The engine software is usually loaded by laptop and the traction curve has been reset a few times since 2017, the initial idea being that the units were muzzled right down to ensure the end to end journey times were met at minimum engine wear. Even with the traction curve they are on now, the acceleration on diesel is still governed.

 

[Doomotron]

If the LNER ones have the downrated engines do they also have the smaller fuel tanks?

 

[Cowley]

The Wikipedia discussions have been moved to here:

How useful is Wikipedia as a resource?

Wikipedia is a useful resource for many things. However, it can also be infuriating at times. Nearly all my edits, which are generally along the lines of rewriting content and correcting errors, have been undone by other users for a variety of reasons. Yet, other users' edits that are incorrect...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[hexagon789]

If the LNER ones have the downrated engines do they also have the smaller fuel tanks?

AFAIK, the LNER 800s are to the original 800 spec - so as well as the software limiting the engines to 750bhp (unless one or more fails, in which case they do uprate to compensate) and the smaller fuel tanks.

 

[gingertom]

I note the engines that are to be fitted to the 810 for EMR are 985BHP. Are these a different engine or an upgrade to the 800/802 engine? Could/should they become the standard across the 80x fleet?

 

[hexagon789]

I note the engines that are to be fitted to the 810 for EMR are 985BHP. Are these a different engine or an upgrade to the 800/802 engine? Could/should they become the standard across the 80x fleet?

They are being fitted to Avanti 805s, but downrated to 750bhp in service.

 

[56xx]

I can't see a relevant unlocked thread for class 800s so I'll post the query here.
This afternoon a GWR Cardiff - Paddington 10 car set left Cardiff with the front unit on diesel and the rear unit on electric.
I guess the traction motors are the control point and will work in unison provided both power sources can supply.
I guess this is unusual but maybe due to a faulty pantograph or other such problem.
I would welcome any enlightenment. Sorry if it's been covered elsewhere.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I can't see a relevant unlocked thread for class 800s so I'll post the query here.
This afternoon a GWR Cardiff - Paddington 10 car set left Cardiff with the front unit on diesel and the rear unit on electric.
I guess the traction motors are the control point and will work in unison provided both power sources can supply.
I guess this is unusual but maybe due to a faulty pantograph or other such problem.
I would welcome any enlightenment. Sorry if it's been covered elsewhere.

Didn't even know that was possible. It doesn't sound particularly safe.

 

[northernbelle]

Didn't even know that was possible. It doesn't sound particularly safe.

It's possible and I don't really see any reason why it wouldn't be safe. I didn't think it was done in practice though.

Is "56xx" sure that it didn't start rolling in diesel mode and then switched to electric mode before the rear unit passed them?

There's a video floating around somewhere of a mixed diesel/electric 80x formation in action.

 

[56xx]

It's possible and I don't really see any reason why it wouldn't be safe. I didn't think it was done in practice though.

Is "56xx" sure that it didn't start rolling in diesel mode and then switched to electric mode before the rear unit passed them?

There's a video floating around somewhere of a mixed diesel/electric 80x formation in action.

The pantograph was down on the leading unit until it disappeared out of sight under the Taff Vale bridge.

 

[43096]

Didn't even know that was possible. It doesn't sound particularly safe.

Why wouldn’t it be safe?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Didn't even know that was possible. It doesn't sound particularly safe.

It's at least 30 years since BR operated hybrid IC225 sets with a 91 on the front and an HST power car on the back - both working.

 

[D365]

Didn't even know that was possible. It doesn't sound particularly safe.

What doesn’t sound safe? There certainly isn’t a 25kV busline across the autocoupler.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What doesn’t sound safe? There certainly isn’t a 25kV busline across the autocoupler.

Is there not a risk of the diesel unit leading and the pantograph not dropping when coming off of the electricty?

 

[D365]

Is there not a risk of the diesel unit leading and the pantograph not dropping when coming off of the electricty?

No - I understand this happens regularly on the LNER Bradford & Harrogate services, where a 5 car 800 ’drags’ a 5 car 801.

 

[Wyrleybart]

No - I understand this happens regularly on the LNER Bradford & Harrogate services, where a 5 car 800 ’drags’ a 5 car 801.

Haha. Technically it is a 10 car with 4 instead of 6 GUs providing power then.

 

[hexagon789]

Haha. Technically it is a 10 car with 4 instead of 6 GUs providing power then.

The GU on the 801 only provides hotel power though in those circumstances, the 800 does all the traction. So 3 GUs out of all 4 within the formation.

 

[mightyena]

No - I understand this happens regularly on the LNER Bradford & Harrogate services, where a 5 car 800 ’drags’ a 5 car 801.

In that case though, the 801 is actually still a bi-mode - it has a single engine for emergency use. AIUI when an 800 drags an 801, the 801 does not provide any traction power, and its emergency engine just supplies its fixtures (lights, air con etc)

 

[hexagon789]

In that case though, the 801 is actually still a bi-mode - it has a single engine for emergency use. AIUI when an 800 drags an 801, the 801 does not provide any traction power, and its emergency engine just supplies its fixtures (lights, air con etc)

Correct.

 

[jackot]

I note the engines that are to be fitted to the 810 for EMR are 985BHP. Are these a different engine or an upgrade to the 800/802 engine? Could/should they become the standard across the 80x fleet?

I think it is an upgrade on the existing platform rather than a new engine entirely, so it will meet EU Stage V emissions rather than the existing IETs which only meet Stage IIIB. This link is a useful pdf about the powerpacks used.

 

[D365]

In that case though, the 801 is actually still a bi-mode - it has a single engine for emergency use. AIUI when an 800 drags an 801, the 801 does not provide any traction power, and its emergency engine just supplies its fixtures (lights, air con etc)

In any case, a 5+5 IEP with one unit ’dragging’ the other is certainly a normal occurence.

 

[Wyrleybart]

The GU on the 801 only provides hotel power though in those circumstances, the 800 does all the traction. So 3 GUs out of all 4 within the formation.

But 801s have the ability to work under own power surely? I recall an incident an OLE at Wakefield Westgate where a single or double 801 was able to continue to Leeds under its own power. It lost about 20 minutes I think, but must have been on diesel because the OLE had been isolated.

 

[RichardAsh1981]

But 801s have the ability to work under own power surely? I recall an incident an OLE at Wakefield Westgate where a single or double 801 was able to continue to Leeds under its own power. It lost about 20 minutes I think, but must have been on diesel because the OLE had been isolated.

As I've read somewhere on here, the single engine on an 801 can do on-board hotel power or drag itself along, but not both at the same time - and the train supply contract bills extra for doing it (because of high engine wear), so it only gets done to get out of a crisis, not in normal service.

 

[507020]

In that case though, the 801 is actually still a bi-mode - it has a single engine for emergency use. AIUI when an 800 drags an 801, the 801 does not provide any traction power, and its emergency engine just supplies its fixtures (lights, air con etc)

This happened last weekend during Lincoln diversions. The motors of the 800 could be heard, but not the 801, suggesting they were not operating.

Does an 800 dragging an 801 or an 801 dragging itself on one engine remove the software limit from the engines when this is happening?

But 801s have the ability to work under own power surely? I recall an incident an OLE at Wakefield Westgate where a single or double 801 was able to continue to Leeds under its own power. It lost about 20 minutes I think, but must have been on diesel because the OLE had been isolated.

Why would it need to continue all the way from Wakefield Westgate to Leeds on one engine if it was already at a station, rather than terminate there?