Class 800 engine upgrade

[hexagon789]

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 a 'rescue mode', yes - not in normal service. It can't supply hotel load and move itself at any significant speed.

It also puts a lot of strain on the engine which Hitachi bill for.

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.

Yes, also mentioned in a relatively recent Practice & Performance article in the Railway Magazine.

For 801s using their 'emergency' engine the relevant balancing speeds on level track were calculated as being approximately:

801 five-car: 80mph
801 nine-car: 60mph

The latter in particular being 'eventually'...

The article also contains mention and description of a few runs with mixed 10-car 800/801 formations. In all cases the engine on the 801 was providing hotel power only.

 

[gingertom]

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.

Thank you for sharing. No doubt there will be a cost penalty for the higher-powered machines, not just in terms of upfront capital costs but that of fuel used, shorter servicing intervals and engine life.

 

[jackot]

Thank you for sharing. No doubt there will be a cost penalty for the higher-powered machines, not just in terms of upfront capital costs but that of fuel used, shorter servicing intervals and engine life.

That might well be the case compared to other IETs, and they will probably cost more in maintenance than say an LNER 800, but with the improvements made over the last few years I would think the fuel difference will be negligible compared the 802s which are only a few hp less.

However, I reckon EMR are looking at a huge overall decrease in fuel compared to the Meridians. They can utilise the electrification, and when operating on diesel I am certain they will use way less fuel than the 222s - which I reckon might be the least fuel-efficient trains in the country right now with such a low seating density and the extremely thirsty QSK19 engines.

 

[Trainbike46]

However, I reckon EMR are looking at a huge overall decrease in fuel compared to the Meridians. They can utilise the electrification, and when operating on diesel I am certain they will use way less fuel than the 222s - which I reckon might be the least fuel-efficient trains in the country right now with such a low seating density and the extremely thirsty QSK19 engines.

Even compared to HST short sets and other 22x classes?

But definitely agree that the 810s (and 805s) will give enormous fuel savings when they enter service

 

[gingertom]

That might well be the case compared to other IETs, and they will probably cost more in maintenance than say an LNER 800, but with the improvements made over the last few years I would think the fuel difference will be negligible compared the 802s which are only a few hp less.

However, I reckon EMR are looking at a huge overall decrease in fuel compared to the Meridians. They can utilise the electrification, and when operating on diesel I am certain they will use way less fuel than the 222s - which I reckon might be the least fuel-efficient trains in the country right now with such a low seating density and the extremely thirsty QSK19 engines.

as the QSK19s are thirsty would it make sense to re-engine the 22x fleet with an appropriate MTU unit? I'll start to answer it myself. 1, cost; 2, physical size.

 

[anamyd]

as the QSK19s are thirsty would it make sense to re-engine the 22x fleet with an appropriate MTU unit? I'll start to answer it myself. 1, cost; 2, physical size.

QSK19s are 19-litre 6-cylinder 750hp, but MTU only seem to offer a 13-litre 6 cylinder up to 630hp, and then a 21-litre V12 down to 758hp.

 

[jackot]

Even compared to HST short sets and other 22x classes?

But definitely agree that the 810s (and 805s) will give enormous fuel savings when they enter service

Good point, I think the short HSTs might well claim that title. I think the 222s are worse than the Voyagers as AFAIK they are even less dense with an even bigger kitchen.

as the QSK19s are thirsty would it make sense to re-engine the 22x fleet with an appropriate MTU unit? I'll start to answer it myself. 1, cost; 2, physical size.

I doubt it. The whole MTU system really comes as a package that takes up most of the carriage floor, as it includes emissions and fuel systems etc., so the train really has to be design around it in the first place. The sizing doesn't work either as has been mentioned above.

 

[Bikeman78]

As a 'rescue mode', yes - not in normal service. It can't supply hotel load and move itself at any significant speed.

It also puts a lot of strain on the engine which Hitachi bill for.


Yes, also mentioned in a relatively recent Practice & Performance article in the Railway Magazine.

For 801s using their 'emergency' engine the relevant balancing speeds on level track were calculated as being approximately:

801 five-car: 80mph
801 nine-car: 60mph

The latter in particular being 'eventually'...

The article also contains mention and description of a few runs with mixed 10-car 800/801 formations. In all cases the engine on the 801 was providing hotel power only.

How does it strain the engine? No worse than an IET on diesel trying to get to 125 mph I wouldn't have thought.

I have been on an 800+801 combination on diesel. It eventually got to 90 mph and lost a few minutes from York to Doncaster.

 

[800001]

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.

If the 801 is using its single engine, it is still providing very basic hotel facilities eg light, power for the doors etc. so yes it can do both at same time.

 

[hexagon789]

How does it strain the engine? No worse than an IET on diesel trying to get to 125 mph I wouldn't have thought.

I have been on an 800+801 combination on diesel. It eventually got to 90 mph and lost a few minutes from York to Doncaster.

Ask Hitachi - they make the rules!

 

[800001]

How does it strain the engine? No worse than an IET on diesel trying to get to 125 mph I wouldn't have thought.

I have been on an 800+801 combination on diesel. It eventually got to 90 mph and lost a few minutes from York to Doncaster.

Can’t see why they would be on diesel between York and Doncaster, when it’s electricified

 

[Wyrleybart]

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?

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?

Possibly because it had paxx for Leeds onboard, and perhaps it was a signal or two beyond Wakefield Westgate maybe ? Can't remember all the details, but it did prove to me at the time that LNER didn'ty just give up, and tip everyone off like seems to be the norm these days.

 

[D365]

as the QSK19s are thirsty would it make sense to re-engine the 22x fleet with an appropriate MTU unit? I'll start to answer it myself. 1, cost; 2, physical size.

One would effectively be ripping the entire carriage apart, in order to start again.

 

[Bikeman78]

Can’t see why they would be on diesel between York and Doncaster, when it’s electricified

I queried it at the time. Apparently there was a power supply fault. I was also surprised that such formations were booked to divert from Peterborough via Ely. Having said that, the power to weight ratio is about the same as a class 47 hauling a mark 4 set with a 91.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2022 ==

One would effectively be ripping the entire carriage apart, in order to start again.

I'd be quite happy for Voyagers to be ripped apart and replaced. IETs are far more pleasant to travel on. I fully expect to get shot down!

 

[AL1875]

Only in the UK could the authorities be so incompetent as to spend billions introducing a new fleet of intercity trains that are slower than their near half century old predecessors and see it as progress.

 

[Benjwri]

Only in the UK could the authorities be so incompetent as to spend billions introducing a new fleet of intercity trains that are slower than their near half century old predecessors and see it as progress.

I’m struggling to see how they are slower (Unless we’re back to the whole limited slightly below 125mph argument)? The class 800s are undeniably faster, especially on electric. They’re slower when a unit is failed, but if they took an engine out of a50 year old train it too would be slower.

 

[TreacleMiller]

Literally a remap of the ECU and a slight increase in boost pressure from the turbo unit. Thats it. Hardware is 100% identical in terms of the MTU engine.

 

[D365]

Only in the UK could the authorities be so incompetent as to spend billions introducing a new fleet of intercity trains that are slower than their near half century old predecessors and see it as progress.

Perhaps that’s because the 800s were intended to go hand-in-hand with electrification…

 

[jackot]

Literally a remap of the ECU and a slight increase in boost pressure from the turbo unit. Thats it. Hardware is 100% identical in terms of the MTU engine.

The lines are limited in speed anyway so it wouldn't change the top speed argument. I would image they have chosen to profile the ECU in that way to reduce fuel costs and maintenance (caused by extra stress on the engine).
Chances are with pathing considered there would be minimal/no change in journey times even if they did what you suggested. It is not advisable to have an engine working at complete full capacity like that permanently on the basis of wear and overheating either I would imagine.

 

[Taunton]

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.

Ah, in the image of Charles Collett himself, about 110 years beforehand, who in his more junior, but up-and-coming days, was apparently on the footplate of the Saint 4-6-0 which was got up to "about" 120mph on the selfsame line in 1906 when out for trials from Swindon. Mentioned in Wikipedia (below), but Tuplin, in his book on the Saints, has a more substantial description, which appears to have been briefed to him by someone in the know ...

GWR 2900 Class - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TreacleMiller]

The lines are limited in speed anyway so it wouldn't change the top speed argument. I would image they have chosen to profile the ECU in that way to reduce fuel costs and maintenance (caused by extra stress on the engine).
Chances are with pathing considered there would be minimal/no change in journey times even if they did what you suggested. It is not advisable to have an engine working at complete full capacity like that permanently on the basis of wear and overheating either I would imagine.

You quote the wrong person?

 

[jackot]

You quote the wrong person?

Yes sorry about that.

 

[hwl]

Literally a remap of the ECU and a slight increase in boost pressure from the turbo unit. Thats it. Hardware is 100% identical in terms of the MTU engine.

The difference between the current set max Class 80x engine power and the actual max power (which the 810 will use) is that the later is a result of setting the max rpm to be 40 higher (or rather not setting it to be 40 below the max when installed in 80x...), allowing the engine to be able to rev slightly higher allows the max power to be higher without any other changes.

Currently the 80x engines/rafts run at current max rpm when circa >75% of max power is required, the question is whether the entire current >75% (~70% of future max) power range will be supplied at the higher max rpm or whether the software will be tweaked to retain say 70-90% of future max power at the current max rpm and 90%+ at the new max rpm (very little time overall will be spent at >90% of max power)

 

[Clarence Yard]

I would be very concerned if RPM is increased - on GWR they have a habit of blowing their sump gaskets if the engine is repeatedly worked.

 

[hwl]

I would be very concerned if RPM is increased - on GWR they have a habit of blowing their sump gaskets if the engine is repeatedly worked.

At least they know that it is a problem and it is one of the more easy things to address on an engine.