Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[ohgoditsjames]

Anyone know if the Transformers used in the 800 series are made by ABB?

 

[Rob F]

On an 800, do the gen sets only power the motors of the coach they are in or is their output distributed to all motors? The same question also applies to the 801s, even though there is only one gen set.

 

[VagueShot]

I think LNER will be splitting at Leeds to serve Bradford, Harrogate, Huddersfield etc. We shall find out pretty soon.

I think that the most interesting thing about the EMR trains is that they will have a new nose. Will it be more aerodynamic, so that the train can cruise at a higher speed on the same power?

The new trains for Avanti West Coast will probably be built after those for the MML. So will they have the new nose and the extra diesel, as it has been stated these will be able to do Pendelino timings without tilt?

 

[rdlover777]

The new trains for Avanti West Coast will probably be built after those for the MML. So will they have the new nose and the extra diesel, as it has been stated these will be able to do Pendelino timings without tilt?

the Avanti ones are to replace the 221s, not the 390s

 

[swt_passenger]

I think LNER will be splitting at Leeds to serve Bradford, Harrogate, Huddersfield etc. We shall find out pretty soon.

I think that the most interesting thing about the EMR trains is that they will have a new nose. Will it be more aerodynamic, so that the train can cruise at a higher speed on the same power?

The new trains for Avanti West Coast will probably be built after those for the MML. So will they have the new nose and the extra diesel, as it has been stated these will be able to do Pendelino timings without tilt?

I suspect the new nose being shorter is everything to do with keeping the overall train length within a limit, and nothing to do with aerodynamics or speed. As electric trains the 80x series are already 125 mph units.

Also, there’s no obvious need for extra diesel power for the WCML units, because they’ll be on electric when on their high speed routes. It’s only the MML where 125 mph on diesel is explicitly required? But there’s probably other better threads to discuss the WCML units...

 

[TRAX]

Is this "new nose" not just a small design facelift ? Subtle changes to the headlights for example ?

 

[Jozhua]

Is this "new nose" not just a small design facelift ? Subtle changes to the headlights for example ?

Hopefully, I quite like the 80X nose design, 397's are truly the most beautiful of nose cones though

 

[Nym]

Excellent. The intermediate spacing is theoretically at the lower end of the should be OK range but always a good idea to check.
What that doesn't of course measure is the long term effects e.g. dropper fatigue

No, but given that it does measure instantaneous and average contact force I suspect that can be linked to fatigue of infrastructure components.

 

[greatvoyager]

Is this "new nose" not just a small design facelift ? Subtle changes to the headlights for example ?

Apparently they will have a different nose profile.

 

[TRAX]

Apparently they will have a different nose profile.

Hmmm I’m interested.

 

[43055]

In the latest modern railway magazine the formation of the sets have been confirmed.

Driving Trailer First (DTF)
Motor Composite (MC)
Trailer Standard (TS)
Motor Standard (MS)
Driving Trailer Standard (DTS)

Also noted in the article it states that the operator is not tied to the current AT300 seat design that is currently used and that the class number has not been allocated yet so 804 might not be correct.

 

[greatvoyager]

Hmmm I’m interested.

As well as a new headlight design.

 

[greatvoyager]

In the latest modern railway magazine the formation of the sets have been confirmed.

Driving Trailer First (DTF)
Motor Composite (MC)
Trailer Standard (TS)
Motor Standard (MS)
Driving Trailer Standard (DTS)

Also noted in the article it states that the operator is not tied to the current AT300 seat design that is currently used and that the class number has not been allocated yet so 804 might not be correct.

That makes sense as the engine layout is symmetrical. Look forward to seeing what the seats are like.

 

[Domh245]

In the latest modern railway magazine the formation of the sets have been confirmed.

Driving Trailer First (DTF)
Motor Composite (MC)
Trailer Standard (TS)
Motor Standard (MS)
Driving Trailer Standard (DTS)

Also noted in the article it states that the operator is not tied to the current AT300 seat design that is currently used and that the class number has not been allocated yet so 804 might not be correct.

Only 2 motor vehicles? Presumably those will be all axles motored, otherwise I'd be a bit worried about their performance. (And presumably the driving trailers will have engines?)

 

[43055]

That makes sense as the engine layout is symmetrical. Look forward to seeing what the seats are like.

I wouldn't mind something like the 222's current seats (just less threadbare) and having a similar capacity to a 7 car 222 with be a big help as a lot of the time the 4/5 cars can be full and standing.

Only 2 motor vehicles? Presumably those will be all axles motored, otherwise I'd be a bit worried about their performance. (And presumably the driving trailers will have engines?)

That is what is in the mag. I'm sure it will the driving vehicles with the engines.

 

[greatvoyager]

I wouldn't mind something like the 222's current seats (just less threadbare) and having a similar capacity to a 7 car 222 with be a big help as a lot of the time the 4/5 cars can be full and standing.


That is what is in the mag. I'm sure it will the driving vehicles with the engines.

I agree with you about seats. I assume that the driving vehicles will also have an engine.

 

[greatvoyager]

Only 2 motor vehicles? Presumably those will be all axles motored, otherwise I'd be a bit worried about their performance. (And presumably the driving trailers will have engines?)

I think if the driving trailers would be fitted with engines, it would be the sensible option.

 

[hexagon789]

I'm sure it will the driving vehicles with the engines.

I think the driving motors will have engines, it would be the sensible option.

My understanding was the four engines would be split as two per motor car, this from the information given sone time ago now. Presumably each engine would power two traction motors driving one bogie at one end of the Motor Composite and Motor Standard.

I could of course be wrong, but it seems more likely the engines will be in the same vehicles as the traction motors

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the driving motors will have engines, it would be the sensible option.

But there are no “driving motors” listed above. “Driving” refers here to the cab location, and “trailer” means a carriage with no motors...

 

[greatvoyager]

My understanding was the four engines would be split as two per motor car, this from the information given sone time ago now. Presumably each engine would power two traction motors driving one bogie at one end of the Motor Composite and Motor Standard.

I could of course be wrong, but it seems more likely the engines will be in the same vehicles as the traction motors

That could also work. I hope we find out soon.

 

[greatvoyager]

But there are no “driving motors” listed above. “Driving” refers here to the cab location, and “trailer” means a carriage with no motors...

I meant to say "Driving Trailer", my mistake.

 

[hexagon789]

But there are no “driving motors” listed above. “Driving” refers here to the cab location, and “trailer” means a carriage with no motors...

That's why I'm expecting two engines per motor car

That could also work. I hope we find out soon.

Indeed, it leads me to consider that if two engines of sufficient power can be fitted to one car, then could any future builds be fitted with say six engines for a 5-car set and so on, to give greater performance.

 

[greatvoyager]

Am I right in thinking that there will be less seats in each carriage in an 804 compared to the other 80x units due to shorter vehicle, or are the seats going to be crammed in as much as possible?

 

[Jozhua]

I'm going to assume the seats will be made out of some form of Concrete, for maximum passenger discomfort. Each one will be attached directly to the engine mounting to ensure a satisfactory skull rattle. There will be a nice looking fabric cover to lull passengers into a false sense of security and comfort, before having their spine sharply smashed to pieces by the unforgiving seat.

In regards to motor cars, I have to wonder if the magazine is correct on the driving cars trailing? Unless these trains are to be powered by nuclear fusion or afterburning jet engines, I have my doubts the required power can be produced by just two engines.

 

[Domh245]

My understanding was the four engines would be split as two per motor car, this from the information given sone time ago now. Presumably each engine would power two traction motors driving one bogie at one end of the Motor Composite and Motor Standard.

I could of course be wrong, but it seems more likely the engines will be in the same vehicles as the traction motors

Unless the current 80x are particularly empty underneath the solebar, that seems a bold way forward. 2 engines and sets of exhaust treatment (vice 1), large fuel tank to feed both engines, and the traction electronics, in a shorter vehicle (or best case equivalent if the outer overhangs get trimmed) - and that's before considering the cooling for it all, which must also be a worry given the reports of 80xs operating with engines out because of overheating this summer just gone!

As for motor bogies, i wonder if it's feasible to adopt an aventra type system where one set of traction electronics feeds motored bogies across different cars

 

[greatvoyager]

That's why I'm expecting two engines per motor car



Indeed, it leads me to consider that if two engines of sufficient power can be fitted to one car, then could any future builds be fitted with say six engines for a 5-car set and so on, to give greater performance.

Would 2 engines per motor car not make those coaches exceedingly heavy?

 

[greatvoyager]

Unless the current 80x are particularly empty underneath the solebar, that seems a bold way forward. 2 engines and sets of exhaust treatment (vice 1), large fuel tank to feed both engines, and the traction electronics, in a shorter vehicle (or best case equivalent if the outer overhangs get trimmed)

As for motor bogies, i wonder if it's feasible to adopt an aventra type system where one set of traction electronics feeds motored bogies across different cars

I think the shorter carriages are going to be a big barrier.

 

[JamesT]

Would 2 engines per motor car not make those coaches exceedingly heavy?

The axle load of a Class 800 carriage is 15 tonnes with an engine, 13 without. If we just as a very rough guess add another engine’s weight on, that gets us to 17 tonnes for an ‘804’. Though the shorter length would presumably drop some of the weight too.
In comparison, the axle load of a Class 43 is 17.5 tonnes, so it’s not massively heavy that would prevent it from being able to follow routes.

 

[greatvoyager]

The axle load of a Class 800 carriage is 15 tonnes with an engine, 13 without. If we just as a very rough guess add another engine’s weight on, that gets us to 17 tonnes for an ‘804’. Though the shorter length would presumably drop some of the weight too.
In comparison, the axle load of a Class 43 is 17.5 tonnes, so it’s not massively heavy that would prevent it from being able to follow routes.

In that case, it would be fine.

 

[gingertom]

the driving trailers of the 80x to date have the pantographs and transformers. The transformer is a reasonably heavy piece of kit, so I wonder if the plan is to relocate them to the trailer vehicle and sling engines under the driving trailers to spread the weight about? When the 804 scheme was launched great emphasis was placed on there being 4 engines to keep to 222 timings on diesel.