GWR Class 800

[WatcherZero]

Couple of interesting things in Modern Rail. Firstly despite their speculation they've done the maths and believe the 800 is on target for weight. Secondly they've investigated the order for AT300 and the engine discrepancy and they've come to the conclusion that the engines in the 800 are likely de rated from 700KW to something like 600KW in regular service so that if one of the engines failed the output of the others could be increased to compensate helping to maintain timings, the de rating would also reduce the strain prolonging engine life. The order for GWML though will have the engines at the full 700KW rating to cope with gradients along with an extra 3 tonnes of fuel.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Seems a bit weird to purposefully slow the entire timetable down just so that we don't get the odd delay.

After all, if it usually takes 14 minutes to get somewhere but 16 with an engine failure, it's shooting myself in the foot to make it always take 16 minutes, just so that I can say there wasn't a delay. I suppose if it's to reduce engine strain that makes sense, but I suspect delay repay is probably the more pertinent factor...

 

[Martin222002]

Seems a bit weird to purposefully slow the entire timetable down just so that we don't get the odd delay.

After all, if it usually takes 14 minutes to get somewhere but 16 with an engine failure, it's shooting myself in the foot to make it always take 16 minutes, just so that I can say there wasn't a delay. I suppose if it's to reduce engine strain that makes sense, but I suspect delay repay is probably the more pertinent factor...

From what I read from this Modern Railways article, even with the IEP 800s derated power from the MTUs 700kw maximum they will still be able to meet the specified timing the DfT asked for the IEP trains to be capable of doing. Its is the reason why Hitachi decided to go with the MTU engine as it allowed them to have an engine which wouldn't be overly taxed in normal operation, but would have be potential to not loose as much time if one of a sets engines does fail. This due to the high level of reliability that the DfT specified these the IEP trains to be capable of. Any reliabilty failures will result in financial penalties to Agility (Hitachi and co) as specified in the IEP contract.

The AT300s require the full 700kw from the MTU 1600 engine to be capable of at least matching the HST timing over the Devon banks between Newton Abbot and Plymouth.

 

[47802]

From what I read from this Modern Railways article, even with the IEP 800s derated power from the MTUs 700kw maximum they will still be able to meet the specified timing the DfT asked for the IEP trains to be capable of doing. Its is the reason why Hitachi decided to go with the MTU engine as it allowed them to have an engine which wouldn't be overly taxed in normal operation, but would have be potential to not loose as much time if one of a sets engines does fail. This due to the high level of reliability that the DfT specified these the IEP trains to be capable of. Any reliabilty failures will result in financial penalties to Agility (Hitachi and co) as specified in the IEP contract.

I think its also worth remembering that the Diesel sections that these trains will run on are not particularly high speed routes, and so the spec will presumably be adequate for the job, obviously the West of England is a bit different hence the change in spec.

Even de-rated to about 800hp that still 2400hp for a 5 car or 4000hp for a 9 car so ought to move reasonably well.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I think its also worth remembering that the Diesel sections that these trains will run on are not particularly high speed routes, and so the spec will presumably be adequate for the job, obviously the West of England is a bit different hence the change in spec.

Even de-rated to about 800hp that still 2400hp for a 5 car or 4000hp for a 9 car so ought to move reasonably well.

and an 2+9 HST is about 4500hp iirc - which is what the engine under every car units on the ECML and associated routes will be replacing ...

 

[47802]

and an 2+9 HST is about 4500hp iirc - which is what the engine under every car units on the ECML and associated routes will be replacing ...

I'm not what your point is really, and they wont have an engine under every carriage. On the actual East coast Mainline they will normally be electric running with better performance than a HST, and diesel sections we have 4500hp for an steel 11 car HST and 4000hp for an aluminium 9 car 26m train, I'm not sure what the relative overall weight to power ratio between the 2 is but suspect there not going to be that much difference between them, and even if they are slightly slower on the diesel section it will probably be more than made up for on the electric section. While the AT300's for the West of England presumably on full power will have 2820hp available for the 5 car and 4700hp for the 9 car.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think its also worth remembering that the Diesel sections that these trains will run on are not particularly high speed routes, and so the spec will presumably be adequate for the job, obviously the West of England is a bit different hence the change in spec.

Even de-rated to about 800hp that still 2400hp for a 5 car or 4000hp for a 9 car so ought to move reasonably well.

Roger Ford's article also says that the Penzance AT300s will have a 100mph maximum speed under diesel (125mph under electric).
That suggests they won't be able to use the 100mph+ sections of the route between Newbury and Taunton (although I think there are only 12-ish miles of 110mph route).
A lower maximum speed capability than the HSTs and XC Voyagers, anyway.
I'm not sure of the diesel speed limit of the 80x trains.

 

[47802]

Roger Ford's article also says that the Penzance AT300s will have a 100mph maximum speed under diesel (125mph under electric).
That suggests they won't be able to use the 100mph+ sections of the route between Newbury and Taunton (although I think there are only 12-ish miles of 110mph route).
A lower maximum speed capability than the HSTs and XC Voyagers, anyway.
I'm not sure of the diesel speed limit of the 80x trains.

Well a suspect any slight loss on that section would be made up by better performance under the electrics between Newbury and Paddington. I don't think its totally clear what the top speed of the AT300 on diesel will be anyway the press release at the time seemed confusing to me as it talked about a 100mph limit but seemed to be referring to the 80x trains. So the conclusion to me is that the 80x will be 100mph on Diesel, the AT300 may be 100mph but given there will be difference from the 80x trains and a different procurement process maybe they looked at pushing it up to 110mph and decided the overall time penalty was not worth it in terms of possible extra cost and reliability.

For both the 800 series and AT300 the majority or route where the 100mph+ capability will be required they will be on Electric, and if as we hope Electrification is gradually extended further that will be even more so.

 

[Martin222002]

Roger Ford's article also says that the Penzance AT300s will have a 100mph maximum speed under diesel (125mph under electric).
That suggests they won't be able to use the 100mph+ sections of the route between Newbury and Taunton (although I think there are only 12-ish miles of 110mph route).
A lower maximum speed capability than the HSTs and XC Voyagers, anyway.
I'm not sure of the diesel speed limit of the 80x trains.

I remember reading that in the Hitachi press release and thinking it wasn't very clear what it was referring to, the just the AT300s, just the IEP 800s, or both. For those that haven't seen the article in question, here's what Hitachi told Roger Ford when he asked out the 100mph diesel speed reference:

"The speed quoted in the press release refers to the maximum speed the train will encounter on diesel power. This is determined by the line speed which is usually 100mph. Under the wires, the line speed will be 125mph."

The use of the word "encounter" is an interesting choice of words.

 

[DownSouth]

Well a suspect any slight loss on that section would be made up by better performance under the electrics between Newbury and Paddington.

A very slight loss if indeed it is correct that there is only 12 miles of 110mph running.

12 miles at 100mph takes 7 minutes and 12 seconds.
12 miles at 110mph takes 6 minutes and 33 seconds.

That's a theoretical maximum difference of 39 seconds, with the actual gain being much less as parts of the 110mph segment would be spent accelerating to and decelerating from the maximum speed.

Better performance than a HST could be expected from the SET/AT300 trains having distributed traction and AC motors where the HST has two locomotives (the rear one always running at a lower output than the front) and old-style DC traction motors. This should have the SET/AT300 easily making up the 25 seconds or so "lost" to the HST on those 110mph segments just by making faster departures from a couple of station stops.

Unless you're building a proper high speed railway, there's way more time to be made up from being smarter than from going faster. Minimising the amount of time travelling slowly (e.g. by using a DEMU for better acceleration than a DMU or a locomotive can offer, or by installing higher speed turnouts to raise speeds around stations) is a far smarter strategy than using obscene amounts of energy to save a few seconds with a higher top speed.

 

[samuelmorris]

I was going to say, distributed traction should more than make up for the slight difference in power output.
I'm curious to know more about the diesel speed restriction, I of course never expected the units to be capable of 140mph post-signalling on diesel, but not even being permitted to do 110 seems a little restrictive.

 

[jopsuk]

Presumably the south of England sets will be class 802 when eventually the order is inked?

 

[WatcherZero]

If their substantially different they might end up something like 805's along with any other AT300 variants in 805-810 range.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If their substantially different they might end up something like 805's along with any other AT300 variants in 805-810 range.

As far as I know the only physical difference is the enhanced fuel tank, with the engines running at full-power all the time. Conversion of an 800 into these would merely involve the installation of a bigger tank, as down/uprating engines appears to be a simple procedure. At least, it'll have to be for them to do it in the event of engine failure.

 

[fgwrich]

I'm not sure if either of these two have been mentioned on here yet - I've not seen any evidence of it out on testing yet though.

GBRF has modified 66751 with a fixed retractable Dellnor coupling to haul the 800s around to the various test sites. Pictures can be found here on GBRFs facebook page.

Another project nears inception for GB Railfreight as 66751 was today named "Inspiration Delivered - Hitachi Rail Europe" at the Rail Innovation and Development Centre at Old Dalby by MD John Smith and Hitachi IEP Project Manager Andy Rogers.

The loco has been fitted with a retractable Scharfenberg Coupler to enable coupling with new Class 800 Super Express Trains, and GBRf will from next week be hauling these trains to the East Coast Main Line for overnight testing.

Hitachi has chosen GBRf as the nominated test train operator for the new trains to be delivered to the Great Western Main Line over the coming years.

https://www.facebook.com/GBRailfreight?fref=ts

And some news from the Old Dalby website:

April 2015

IEP testing on the ECML will begin on Wednesday night 22nd April. As expected 66751 will be dragging the unit from Old Dalby to a possession site between Grantham and Peterborough and back each night. It is expected that these moves will be taking place for several months. Timings below for the overnight outward moves (down to run Weds, Thurs & Fri this week), no timings available for the return moves yet but will advise once they are. 66751 is already on site having arrived light engine from Peterborough yesterday morning.

5E98
Old Dalby 2207
Melton Jn. 2227-2232
Melton Mowbray 2235
Whissendine L.C. 2241
Ashwell L.C. 2243
Langham Jn. 2245
Oakham 2246
Manton Jn 2250
Luffenham 2254
Ketton S.B. 2257
Uffington S.B. 2303
Helpston Jn. 2309
Peterborough 2328-2358
Helpston Jn. 0005
Tallington Jn. 0012

http://www.old-dalby.com/

 

[ainsworth74]

Have those test runs on the ECML been taking place?

 

[Class377/5]

Have those test runs on the ECML been taking place?

Posted elsewhere they happened last night.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm curious to know more about the diesel speed restriction, I of course never expected the units to be capable of 140mph post-signalling on diesel, but not even being permitted to do 110 seems a little restrictive.

It's probably a question of not having enough power to go over 100 rather than being specifically restricted to that speed on diesel. I can't think of any technical reason why a train with diesels fitted but not running could be allowed to go faster than the same train with the diesels running.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's probably a question of not having enough power to go over 100 rather than being specifically restricted to that speed on diesel. I can't think of any technical reason why a train with diesels fitted but not running could be allowed to go faster than the same train with the diesels running.

Seems odd when there are parts of the line that can cope with it. Perhaps the west of England models will be slightly modified to cope with 110mph for certain Berks and Hants sections. Would make sense given their uprating.

 

[DownSouth]

Seems odd when there are parts of the line that can cope with it. Perhaps the west of England models will be slightly modified to cope with 110mph for certain Berks and Hants sections. Would make sense given their uprating.

But you would be fighting the law of diminished returns with any modifications along those lines - the "advantage" you're looking at is worth less than 30 seconds!

 

[asylumxl]

Posted elsewhere they happened last night.

I know it was probably not possible, but did anyone get photos or videos?

 

[Class377/5]

I know it was probably not possible, but did anyone get photos or videos?

I've not seen anything so far.

 

[Pure BR]

Arrggh. A journey to Penzance with a noisy, vibrating Diesel engine strapped beneath my carriage. Couldn't think of anything worse. FGW may well not get the go-ahead for the AT 300s anyhow. Put an engine on the end of the carriages where it is supposed to be on akng distance intercity service! Just like Chiltern!!

 

[Emblematic]

It's probably a question of not having enough power to go over 100 rather than being specifically restricted to that speed on diesel. I can't think of any technical reason why a train with diesels fitted but not running could be allowed to go faster than the same train with the diesels running.

The only thing I can think of is braking. There is this section in the IEP Technical Spec:

4.5 Motive Power
TS1750 In the case of Electric IEP Units and Bi-mode IEP Units operating in electric mode, the traction system alone must deliver at least the same level of deceleration during braking as is achieved during acceleration, at any speed greater than 20km/h and during the entire duration of a brake application bringing the IEP Train to a stand from maximum speed on level track.

So, possibly the braking in Diesel mode is reduced to the extent that the maximum speed is also reduced. The conventional brakes must be able to handle the braking requirement if the traction braking goes out of service, but possibly only for one-off emergency use rather than regular service application. Just a guess.

 

[MCR247]

Arrggh. A journey to Penzance with a noisy, vibrating Diesel engine strapped beneath my carriage. Couldn't think of anything worse. FGW may well not get the go-ahead for the AT 300s anyhow. Put an engine on the end of the carriages where it is supposed to be on akng distance intercity service! Just like Chiltern!!

Yawn.

 

[Class 170101]

Couple of interesting things in Modern Rail. Firstly despite their speculation they've done the maths and believe the 800 is on target for weight. Secondly they've investigated the order for AT300 and the engine discrepancy and they've come to the conclusion that the engines in the 800 are likely de rated from 700KW to something like 600KW in regular service so that if one of the engines failed the output of the others could be increased to compensate helping to maintain timings, the de rating would also reduce the strain prolonging engine life. The order for GWML though will have the engines at the full 700KW rating to cope with gradients along with an extra 3 tonnes of fuel.

Can a driver actually uprate the remaining engines should one be lost in service?

If so how would a driver do this?

 

[Domh245]

I suspect that sort of thing would be dealt with by onboard computers. It'd be much easier for a computer to detect and then rectify a fault with an engine than a driver.

 

[Bigfoot]

Yawn.

If only there was a like button. Or high five!

 

[Erniescooper]

Can a driver actually uprate the remaining engines should one be lost in service?

If so how would a driver do this?

It's not something new as in the Class 175 there is traction boost button in the cab that load sheds the HVACs and re-rates the engines from 450 to 520hp for 20 minutes at a time.

 

[AM9]

Arrggh. A journey to Penzance with a noisy, vibrating Diesel engine strapped beneath my carriage. Couldn't think of anything worse. FGW may well not get the go-ahead for the AT 300s anyhow. Put an engine on the end of the carriages where it is supposed to be on akng distance intercity service! Just like Chiltern!!

LHCS will be a thing of the past one day, - get used to it!