GWR Class 800

[D365]

Faster - that is very very questionable considering the electrification won't be complete and IEP can't keep the timings on the bi-mode!

Right, so compared to a Voyager, say, a loco-hauled 390 or Mk3 rake is able to keep time?

The costs wouldn't have been any different. Just the location of attaching and detaching the loco would have been different.

Could you give us an estimate of how many additional locomotives will be required under your plans, had locomotive haulage been decided upon instead?

 

[455driver]

Right, so compared to a Voyager, say, a loco-hauled 390 or Mk3 rake is able to keep time?

HSTs are faster than a 395GTI on diesel power simply because of the horsepower available, okay the 395GTI is quicker off the mark but the HST equals it at about 30mph and then pulls away from about 50mph upwards, on a stop start route a 395GTI on diesel might keep to the same timings as a HST but on routes with long distances between stations the HST wins hands down.
A 395GTI on electric would win every time but as they are going to be running on diesel a lot of the time that isn't really relevant yet, not that it stops people trotting out the electric performance even though it wont be used for a number of years yet!

I wonder what the times are for a 395GTI from Bristol to Paddington on diesel instead of electric?

 

[najaB]

Funnily enough most passenger wanted the HSTs to be done up but it was a political decision to buy these vanity project trains...

I suspect this is starting another loop of the circle, but as much as I love HSTs even I have to admit that they are old. The youngest power cars are already pushing 30-plus years old and the coaches aren't far behind. Do you really want to turn the HST into the B-52* of the train world?

*There are pilots flying the same B-52s that their grandfathers flew.

 

[JamesRowden]

HSTs are faster than a 395GTI on diesel power simply because of the horsepower available, okay the 395GTI is quicker off the mark but the HST equals it at about 30mph and then pulls away from about 50mph upwards, on a stop start route a 395GTI on diesel might keep to the same timings as a HST but on routes with long distances between stations the HST wins hands down.
A 395GTI on electric would win every time but as they are going to be running on diesel a lot of the time that isn't really relevant yet, not that it stops people trotting out the electric performance even though it wont be used for a number of years yet!

I wonder what the times are for a 395GTI from Bristol to Paddington on diesel instead of electric?

Might Didcot to Paddington electrification not be complete by the time that the 800s turn up?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

HSTs are faster than a 395GTI on diesel power simply because of the horsepower available, okay the 395GTI is quicker off the mark but the HST equals it at about 30mph and then pulls away from about 50mph upwards, on a stop start route a 395GTI on diesel might keep to the same timings as a HST but on routes with long distances between stations the HST wins hands down.
A 395GTI on electric would win every time but as they are going to be running on diesel a lot of the time that isn't really relevant yet, not that it stops people trotting out the electric performance even though it wont be used for a number of years yet!

I wonder what the times are for a 395GTI from Bristol to Paddington on diesel instead of electric?

It's comparing apples with compact disks. If you 'slug' the engines up to the full 750kW, then it's apples with pears, and the IEP sets will leave HST sets for dead, but there's nothing that's like for like for a sensible comparison in any case.

IEP is designed for 100mph operation on diesel, 140mph operation on electric, so it's fitted with sufficient diesel power and the traction motors are geared accordingly.

Power to weight, with the engines set to 750kW, IEP is about equal with an HST in 2+8, but has a better traction system with fewer losses and better control systems.

 

[po8crg]

There's a lot less of the hand in contact with a push button than a handle though, especially those on HSTs which often require a good hard pull. At least it gets rid of the leaning out the window bit, at any rate.

Have we finally got trains with buttons you can push before the door is released, so it opens the instant it is released?

I've got so accustomed to those buttons on Manchester trams that I'm always disappointed when I get on a train and you have to hover over the button until it lights up and then push it.

It's particularly handy if you have luggage, as you can push the button, then pick up your stuff and step off the instant you arrive at the stop, rather than standing there and blocking the door while you're picking your stuff up (which I can't hold and push the button at the same time).

Reduces dwell times too, which the 800s will definitely benefit from; their dwell times aren't going to be great.

 

[455driver]

It's comparing apples with compact disks. If you 'slug' the engines up to the full 750kW, then it's apples with pears, and the IEP sets will leave HST sets for dead, but there's nothing that's like for like for a sensible comparison in any case.

I don't think they will!

IEP is designed for 100mph operation on diesel, 140mph operation on electric, so it's fitted with sufficient diesel power and the traction motors are geared accordingly.

Is that geared for optimal 140mph running or geared for optimal 100mph running?

Power to weight, with the engines set to 750kW, IEP is about equal with an HST in 2+8, but has a better traction system with fewer losses and better control systems.

Is that the same amount of power at the rail or just installed horsepower?
If it aint going to the traction motors then it isnt propelling the train is it!

 

[Dave1987]

It's comparing apples with compact disks. If you 'slug' the engines up to the full 750kW, then it's apples with pears, and the IEP sets will leave HST sets for dead, but there's nothing that's like for like for a sensible comparison in any case.

IEP is designed for 100mph operation on diesel, 140mph operation on electric, so it's fitted with sufficient diesel power and the traction motors are geared accordingly.

Power to weight, with the engines set to 750kW, IEP is about equal with an HST in 2+8, but has a better traction system with fewer losses and better control systems.

But hold on a sec, the engines were going to be derated to meet the DFT's reliability requirements. As Roger Ford has pointed out in his article, Hitachi may be freed of that burden if the answer is to just uprate the power to full. So either they won't meet the reliability requirements or Hitachi are going to want a lot money money for the excess engine wear. It's not just a case of uprating the engines and be done with it. Again as Roger Ford has pointed out distributed traction does not make up for lack of grunt at higher speeds.

 

[najaB]

But hold on a sec, the engines were going to be derated to meet the DFT's reliability requirements.

I thought it was more that they didn't need to run at full power to meet performance requirements - which had the added benefit of increasing reliability?

 

[Dave1987]

Right, so compared to a Voyager, say, a loco-hauled 390 or Mk3 rake is able to keep time?

Aren't Voyagers known for being extremely overpowered which is why they accelerate so quickly?

Could you give us an estimate of how many additional locomotives will be required under your plans, had locomotive haulage been decided upon instead?

Er I go off what I read in MR magazine, other suppliers proposed drags off the wires but the DFT were besotted by the bi-mode idea and Hitachi were the ones who gave them what they wanted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought it was more that they didn't need to run at full power to meet performance requirements - which had the added benefit of increasing reliability?

I read that they were specifically derated to accomplish the reliability requirements. Running on full power substantially increases wear and tear.

 

[D365]

Aren't Voyagers known for being extremely overpowered which is why they accelerate so quickly?

How about a 180 then?

I read that they were specifically derated to accomplish the reliability requirements. Running on full power substantially increases wear and tear.

Does that mean the '802s' will need significantly more downtime?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Is that geared for optimal 140mph running or geared for optimal 100mph running?

Is that the same amount of power at the rail or just installed horsepower?
If it aint going to the traction motors then it isnt propelling the train is it!

It's much the same as the Class 395 unit from what I've been told, so it'll be geared for a sweet-spot around 120mph, giving good acceleration to 100mph, which suits those routes with closer station calls, and then acceleration upto 140mph on the longer runs.

Power at rail - no idea what those figures are yet, and they're not going to be much use anyway, given we're looking at AC motors and a far superior wheelslip protection system across multiple powered bogies, even if it's down by 50kW at rail compared with an HST, it could still match HST performance, if it's comparable, it could be faster, we just don't know yet, but Hitachi do.

What we really need is real world acceleration data.

 

[jimm]

Er the comments I and others have made is that some of you seem to believe that no one ever travels during the off peak so 5 car formations would be perfectly adequate. I have seen lots of off peak services that are very well loaded and if a 5 car set was used you would have many people standing! But as we all know commuters are the main target. As long as they are happy then sod anyone else who wants to travel on the railway.

Ah yes, it's the sound of that broken record again. Where do you think all the nine-car and 10-car formations will be between the peaks? In sidings? Or just maybe they will be running up and down all day, with some smart diagramming directing them to the routes and services that may well need more than five coaches off-peak - I suspect GWR have a list of such services and by now have a shrewd idea of how to allocate stock accordingly to cover them, never mind that the new timetables will step up frequencies in many places anyway. If GWR don't have such a list maybe you could help them out by posting a list of all their services you have seen that are packed to the rafters off-peak. Others of us have managed to point out various places where five-car sets will do perfectly off-peak and contra-peak, so why is it so hard for you to spell out where all these hugely popular off-peak GWR services are running and when?

So to make up for their massive balls up with the electrification they have changed the order to all bi-modes at yet more cost? This is priceless! ANY other project would have been cancelled by now but because the DFT ordered these trains and the politicians can't be embarrassed they have continued to throw more and more money at it. They must really really want to keep their voters happy in the South West. They will have to cram as many people as possible into every train just to keep up with the payments.

In your antipathy towards these trains you seem to have forgotten that the AT300 order for the South West is nothing to do with DfT, beyond it signing off on GWR's plans to acquire them via a leasing company as part of the current direct award franchise.

I thought these were going to be built at 2 (or is it 3) factories so they can all be built quickly, once that production is finished do you think they will be keeping the factories open 'just in case' DaFT decide to order 10 extra coaches 5 years after the last unit was built, just look at the problems building the extra bendidildo coaches and units, they were no longer compliant with the new regs and dispensations had to be applied for etc.

You sound about as confident as I am sceptical!

The series production run already stretches from this year into 2020 and I doubt Hitachi will just be lobbing all the bodyshell jigs into a skip at that point. Never mind that Alstom thought it worthwhile, after five-year gap, to set up a new production line for Class 390s in Italy when Virgin wanted more. They could perfectly well have declined to bother.

And after building Newton Aycliffe and buying up the former AnsaldoBreda plant in Italy as part of a strategy to get into European markets I think Hitachi will be looking for more orders for various types of train, here and on the Continent, rather than sitting on their backsides admiring their current order book and then shutting down both sites once the trains are built and seeing their investments go to waste. I'd expect they will be eyeing up orders for the MML electrification and replacement of Mk3s on Norwich services - I wonder what trains First Group might offer in their bid for the new Greater Anglia franchise?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I read that they were specifically derated to accomplish the reliability requirements. Running on full power substantially increases wear and tear.

The Class 800 units can meet the reliability requirements of the train service contract with the engines at full power, they exceed the reliability requirements with the engines de-rated.

The original plan was for Cummins QSK19R engines at their nominal 750hp setting, which would have met the reliability requirements, but there would have been no scope to increase train performance to 125mph on diesel.

The engines are on rafts, it's a simple case of removing them more frequently and sending them back to MTU for overhaul, at additional cost. It's not a reliability issue in that it will cause train failures to become more frequent, just that increased maintenance will be required.

 

[455driver]

Aren't Voyagers known for being extremely overpowered which is why they accelerate so quickly?

They were derated to save fuel, on a Voyager each coach has its own (700hp) engine (unlike the At300 in which the end coaches don't have an engine) and they don't have to drag around a transformer either meaning a 5 coach 221 has 5x700hp engines but a 5 coach AT300 only has 3x750hp engines plus the weight of a transformer!
How is an AT300 going to get anywhere near the acceleration of a HST set at 70mph with the power to weight ratio?

 

[The Ham]

Ah yes, it's the sound of that broken record again. Where do you think all the nine-car and 10-car formations will be between the peaks? In sidings? Or just maybe they will be running up and down all day, with some smart diagramming directing them to the routes and services that may well need more than five coaches off-peak - I suspect GWR have a list of such services and by now have a shrewd idea of how to allocate stock accordingly to cover them, never mind that the new timetables will step up frequencies in many places anyway. If GWR don't have such a list maybe you could help them out by posting a list of all their services you have seen that are packed to the rafters off-peak. Others of us have managed to point out various places where five-car sets will do perfectly off-peak and contra-peak, so why is it so hard for you to spell out where all these hugely popular off-peak GWR services are running and when?

(not wanting to sound like a broken record) There are enough 80x's to run as full length (i.e. 9 or 10 coach trains) for every HST and 180 that GW currently has (plus one extra 5 coach unit).

To provide for extra services there maybe SOME services which get shortened to 5 coaches from 10 coaches at places like Cardiff, Oxford and Plymouth. However that isn't to say that the all will need to, which allows for those services which need to longer to be so.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

They were derated to save fuel, on a Voyager each coach has its own (700hp) engine (unlike the At300 in which the end coaches don't have an engine) and they don't have to drag around a transformer either meaning a 5 coach 221 has 5x700hp engines but a 5 coach AT300 only has 3x750hp engines plus the weight of a transformer!
How is an AT300 going to get anywhere near the acceleration of a HST set at 70mph with the power to weight ratio?

PS = metric horsepower, as the MTU engines are German and so designated.

The MTU engines for IEP are 1020PS (750kW) units, the Cummins engines in the Voyager family are 750PS (550kW). It gives the IEP 9 car units 5100PS to HST's 4500PS nominal, subject to the engines being set to 1020PS/750kW.

 

[455driver]

PS = metric horsepower, as the MTU engines are German and so designated.

The MTU engines for IEP are 1020PS (750kW) units, the Cummins engines in the Voyager family are 750PS (550kW). It gives the IEP 9 car units 5100PS to HST's 4500PS nominal, subject to the engines being set to 1020PS/750kW.

PS, KW, HP its all BS if you ask me!

So AT300 have their engines rated at 1020hp/PS (750KW) and the Voyagers are 700hp/PS (525KW).

Not going to be very economical on Diesel are they, Voyagers had their engines derated to save fuel, I wonder how long these things will stay at full power?

 

[jimm]

(not wanting to sound like a broken record) There are enough 80x's to run as full length (i.e. 9 or 10 coach trains) for every HST and 180 that GW currently has (plus one extra 5 coach unit).

To provide for extra services there maybe SOME services which get shortened to 5 coaches from 10 coaches at places like Cardiff, Oxford and Plymouth. However that isn't to say that the all will need to, which allows for those services which need to longer to be so.

The basic point I was aiming to make is that dave1987 always makes it sound as though between the hours of 9am and 4pm and after 7pm on weekdays and all weekend that the only trains to be seen on GWR express services will be five-car sets, never mind that, as you observe, a lot of the 2x5 formations are likely to be coupled throughout the day and that there will be a mere 28 nine-car sets available across the 801 (21) and AT300 (seven) orders - which, of course, will not be spending much of their time in the sidings.

 

[Master29]

I would have thought the 9 car Devon and Cornwall sets would be reserved for the Cornish Riviera, Royal Duchy and other such named and well patroned express services but of course, this may have already been pointed out.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

PS, KW, HP its all BS if you ask me!

So AT300 have their engines rated at 1020hp/PS (750KW) and the Voyagers are 700hp/PS (525KW).

Not going to be very economical on Diesel are they, Voyagers had their engines derated to save fuel, I wonder how long these things will stay at full power?

There's only 3 engines per 5 car set, and 5 engines per 9 car set, unlike the Voyager family. In terms of fuel consumption, they'll use a little more fuel than an HST set when fully rated, and a little less fuel when de-rated.

The fuel consumption/energy usage is a contractual requirement too.

 

[superkev]

PS, KW, HP its all BS if you ask me!

So AT300 have their engines rated at 1020hp/PS (750KW) and the Voyagers are 700hp/PS (525KW).

Not going to be very economical on Diesel are they, Voyagers had their engines derated to save fuel, I wonder how long these things will stay at full power?

Not all the cars on an IEP have an engine e so I suspect the hp/ton may be similar.
Not seen any weights for the iep yet.
Perhaps someone has a comparison of different train weights on a tons per m of train.
The lard butt 185 probably worst the 158 prob best.
K

 

[Domh245]

PS, KW, HP its all BS if you ask me!

So AT300 have their engines rated at 1020hp/PS (750KW) and the Voyagers are 700hp/PS (525KW).

Not going to be very economical on Diesel are they, Voyagers had their engines derated to save fuel, I wonder how long these things will stay at full power?

Having done some digging, it would seem that the IEP's MTU engines will be 21l V12 cylinder turbo diesels, whilst the Cummins engines fitted to the voyagers are 19l I6 cylinder turbo diesels. The B/S (Bore/Stroke) ratio of the IEP engines is 0.813, whilst the B/S of the voyager engines is exactly 1. The smaller bore of the IEP engine means that the cylinder is more efficient at transferring combustion energy to the crankshaft, with smaller losses in the piston itself.

Additionally, MTU have said that their engine has a fuel usage of 166.1 l/h (43.9 gal/h) at 1900rpm. The Cummins engine (albeit a marine engine but with the same cylinder geometry and a slightly higher power output than the specific model used in the voyagers) has a quoted figure of 148.8l/h (39.9 gal/h) at 2100rpm. Because everybody likes 'figures per something comparable' if we look at l/h/kW, the MTU has 4.214 l/h/kW vs 3.810 l/h/kW. So whilst the IEP is more thirsty outright, it gives you an increased efficiency so when used in service conditions, I imagine that there won't be all that much difference between them

(and that is enough thermodynamics/fluid mechanics revision for today!)

 

[superkev]

Having done some digging, it would seem that the IEP's MTU engines will be 21l V12 cylinder turbo diesels, whilst the Cummins engines fitted to the voyagers are 19l I6 cylinder turbo diesels. The B/S (Bore/Stroke) ratio of the IEP engines is 0.813, whilst the B/S of the voyager engines is exactly 1. The smaller bore of the IEP engine means that the cylinder is more efficient at transferring combustion energy to the crankshaft, with smaller losses in the piston itself.

Additionally, MTU have said that their engine has a fuel usage of 166.1 l/h (43.9 gal/h) at 1900rpm. The Cummins engine (albeit a marine engine but with the same cylinder geometry and a slightly higher power output than the specific model used in the voyagers) has a quoted figure of 148.8l/h (39.9 gal/h) at 2100rpm. Because everybody likes 'figures per something useful' if we look at l/h/kW, the MTU has 4.214 l/h/kW vs 3.810 l/h/kW. So whilst the IEP is more thirsty outright, it gives you an increased efficiency so when used in service conditions, I imagine that there won't be all that much difference between them

(and that is enough thermodynamics/fluid mechanics revision for today!)

From my days testing engine generators a good rule of thumb was half a pint per kw hour.
Kev

 

[sprinterguy]

PS = metric horsepower, as the MTU engines are German and so designated.

The MTU engines for IEP are 1020PS (750kW) units, the Cummins engines in the Voyager family are 750PS (550kW). It gives the IEP 9 car units 5100PS to HST's 4500PS nominal, subject to the engines being set to 1020PS/750kW.

Hang on, when did the maximum engine rating for the IEP trains change from 700kW/940hp, as regularly reported (here, for example: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...werpacks-for-intercity-express-programme.html)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's only 3 engines per 5 car set, and 5 engines per 9 car set, unlike the Voyager family.

Interestingly, Voyagers not infrequently operate on 3 engines out of 5. It doesn't seem to generally affect the train's ability to keep to schedules to any great degree.

 

[Domh245]

From my days testing engine generators a good rule of thumb was half a pint per kw hour.
Kev

The MTU's figure is 199g/kWh which would roughly convert to 0.23 l/kWh or 0.42 pints/kWh

https://mtu.cwshops.com/media/files_public/fofnmtur/3234421_MTU_Rail_spec_12V1600R70_St3b_1_14.pdf

(it is the 12V 1600 R80L that will be fitted to the IEPs)

 

[sprinterguy]

Not seen any weights for the iep yet.

233.3 tonnes for a 5-car Electric IEP Unit;
249.3 tonnes for a 5-car Bi-mode IEP Unit;
399.8 tonnes for a 9-car Electric IEP Unit;
431.8 tonnes for a 9-car Bi-mode IEP Unit.

Perhaps someone has a comparison of different train weights on a tons per m of train.
The lard butt 185 probably worst the 158 prob best.
K

Class 158 (2-car): 77 tonnes/45.14m = 1.71 tonnes/m
Class 170 (3-car): 132.8 tonnes/70.85m = 1.87 tonnes/m
Class 180 (5-car): 252.5 tonnes/116.51m = 2.17 tonnes/m
Class 185 (3-car): 163 tonnes/71.27m = 2.29 tonnes/m
Class 220 (4-car): 194.6 tonnes/94.55m = 2.06 tonnes/m
Class 221 (5-car, Virgin variant): 283.2 tonnes/118.35m = 2.39 tonnes/m
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How about a 180 then?

The 180s use the same 750hp Cummins QSK19 engine as the Voyagers, and as far as I know remain at their original rating. The biggest difference between the two of course is the mechanical transmission versus electric drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The biggest difference between the two of course is the mechanical transmission versus electric drive.

3 "speed" (via torque converter, direct 1, direct 2) hydraulic/mechanical, I believe.

 

[Dent]

a lot of the 2x5 formations are likely to be coupled throughout the day

If that is true then what is the justification for using multiples rather than continuous trains of the right length? If the flexibility to join/split services will not be used then these trains will suffering from all the problems caused by separate unconnected sections for no reason.

 

[RobShipway]

If that is true then what is the justification for using multiples rather than continuous trains of the right length? If the flexibility to join/split services will not be used then these trains will suffering from all the problems caused by separate unconnected sections for no reason.

What is the potential for two sets to be coupled together, but end up being parted with both sets individually going to separate destinations or doing the reverse?

I think this was discussed previously in the thread, but have not been able to find the details. but I was wondering what is the potential of having two 5 car units coupled together as far as Oxford, but then the front car unit goes off to Hereford with the back 5 car unit first of stabled in the sidings, but then later doing a Oxford - London Paddington service?

The splitting of the two units I presume could also potentially be done on services to the West Country with one set going to say Exeter and the other to Penzance?