GWR Class 800

[misterredmist]

Don't like it very much do they!

No, they don't do they !

but the Seating lay-outs and window spacing seem very similar to what the Pendolino's have and I think passengers have adapted to those coaches fine...

 

[Peter Sarf]

The electric class 801s will follow directly after the 5-car Bi-mode 800 sets, with deliveries expected between February and July 2018.

Thanks. I suppose that means all the Great Western IEPs get delivered first. So after July 2018 does that mean the East Coast IEPs arrive ?.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Thanks. I suppose that means all the Great Western IEPs get delivered first. So after July 2018 does that mean the East Coast IEPs arrive ?.

That's the plan, if it remains unchanged.

 

[sprinterguy]

Thanks. I suppose that means all the Great Western IEPs get delivered first. So after July 2018 does that mean the East Coast IEPs arrive ?.

Yep, as Philip Phlopp says, starting with the ten 9-car Bi-mode sets from late August 2018 all according to the original delivery plan.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Are they currently on-plan/schedule with the testing?

 

[leomartin125]

Are they currently on-plan/schedule with the testing?

I do believe they are. A few 800's are currently undergoing testing at Old Dalby now doing powered runs on the ECML at night, I do believe it's one 5 car Class 800 for GWR and one 9 car Class 800 for GWR also.

I have found a website that you can use to keep up to date with testing of the locomotives and delivery too:

http://www.old-dalby.com

Regards,
Leo

 

[WatcherZero]

Modern Rail says testing on East Coast will begin March and on GWML (Sep? Nov? Cant quite remember).

 

[leomartin125]

Modern Rail says testing on East Coast will begin March and on GWML (Sep? Nov? Cant quite remember).

Well Modern Railway's need to check their sources then. ECML testing has already begun this week. They are taking a Class 800 out tomorrow night from old Dalby Test Track to Darlington overnight for diesel and electric testing runs.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Well Modern Railway's need to check their sources then. ECML testing has already begun this week. They are taking a Class 800 out tomorrow night from old Dalby Test Track to Darlington overnight for diesel and electric testing runs.

Hopefully it won't be long before a few videos of the testing appear on Youtube

 

[Darandio]

Well Modern Railway's need to check their sources then. ECML testing has already begun this week. They are taking a Class 800 out tomorrow night from old Dalby Test Track to Darlington overnight for diesel and electric testing runs.

They were supposed to on Monday night, it didn't run. Don't hold your breath.

 

[leomartin125]

They were supposed to on Monday night, it didn't run. Don't hold your breath.

It's not easy to path these twilight test trains you know, with engineering works and constant changes to routing, they can test it when they can, after all thanks to NR they have time as these 800's due on the GWML won't be on test on the GWML for ages yet thanks to late electrification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought Ian Walmsley's part of the article laid the blame pretty much at them naively following the height and clearance (width) specifications given, the implication being that none of the typical current seat top handles as seen in HSTs etc. actually meet the height spec either. If that is the case the RVAR or wherever the spec comes from probably needs changing.

It wouldn't be the only aspect of it not making sense. It only takes a little observation of passengers to note that the requirement for priority seats to have extra legroom is a nonsense, because most target users (other than tall people, who do use them as I do but aren't the intended users) need to hold onto the seat in front to sit down. My observation is that most such users choose a *non* priority seat if one is available, because in priority seats it is too far away to be useful for that purpose.

Remove that, and you remove the need to misalign seats to windows, as in the Class 800, because you can make all your bays (airline or table) the same size, or use the Class 158 alternating large-small layout.

 

[mfranjic]

I was trying, rather unsuccessfully, to find a brochure or some other material which from I could see what are the total installed powers for the both, BR class 800 IEP Bi-Mode and BR class 801 IEP electric trains.
I was also browsing through the previous pages of this thread, maybe insufficiently carefully…
In the end, I pulled out some drawings and pictures from the HITACHI´s brochures:

. .

. .

made some modified formulas based on some exact data, but also on some assumptions and got:

9-car (class 800): DPTS + MdS/MeS + MdS/MeS + TS + MdS/MeS + TS + MdC/MeC + MdF/MeF + DPTF
5b x 1d x 700 kW + 5b x 2e x 226 kW =3.500 kW(d) + 2.260 kW(e) = Σ 5.760 kW

9-car (class 801): DPTS + MeS + MeS + TS + MeS + TS + MeC + MeF + DPTF
10b x 2e x 226 kW = Σ 4.520 kW

D: driving cab
P: pantograph
T: trailer car
M: motor car
S: standard class
C: composite (standard & first class)
F: first class
b: bogie
d: diesel engine MTU 12V 1600 R80L
e: electro motor

[youtube]3A4d_qtuRJs[/youtube]

Nice regards

Mario
Zagreb, CROATIA

P.S. I apologize if I have, by bringing some wrong assumptions in my calculations, come to the wrong results. It was done in a good faith…

 

[Domh245]

Mario, I think that you've assumed something wrong in the way that the bi-modes work. By the looks of it, you've assumed that each diesel power-pack (consisting of the MTU engine coupled only to an alternator) will drive a bogie, whereas in reality, they will be used to power the electric motors. The 800 will have the same amount of power at the wheels as the 801, except that it will be able to use it's power packs to generate this electricity when not being fed by the wires. The extra 1,240kW of diesel power will go towards powering things such as the lights, air conditioning and other train services.

NB - I was wondering why your calculations were suggesting very low power from the train and then I remembered that in European style, you use a comma as the decimal separator - oh the joys of inconsistency :P !

 

[Emblematic]

You are correct in that facts about these trains is hard to come by!

Ages ago, Agility trains put out a release saying the approximate power at rail of a nine-car train was 4MW on Electric and 2MW on Diesel. May have been for 10 cars back then, but no matter it's enough for what we want.

So, for electric, 20 motors @ 226kW gives us 4.52 MW (like Domh245 I took your point to be a decimal)

This would apply to all 9 car trains, classes 800, 801 and yet-unnamed GWR AT300. We assume the transformer and traction package can supply all this plus hotel power etc.

For Diesel we have 5 engines, these are derated in the 800s to around 600kW. So 3MW output. From this we deduct hotel power, say 300kW, and traction system losses, maybe another 200kW. This leaves somewhere around 2.5MW available, much less than electric.

The AT300s are similar, but the engines are not derated so around 3MW at the rail.

Hope that helps!

 

[mfranjic]

Mario, I think that you've assumed something wrong in the way that the bi-modes work. By the looks of it, you've assumed that each diesel power-pack (consisting of the MTU engine coupled only to an alternator) will drive a bogie, whereas in reality, they will be used to power the electric motors.

Domh245, thank You very much for paying attention to my post. You're right; I assumed that the diesel engine has a mechanical transmission to both axis in the bogie and that the generator is used only for power supply to the various subsystems, on-board power supply and´hotel´consumption, but not and for electricity supply to the electro motors in the EM powered bogies...

MTU has recently produced and the hybrid propulsion system with the electro motor-generator coupled to the MTU 6H 1800 R75 diesel engine, where the regenerative braking energy is used for charging the batteries, e.g. during trailing-throttle operation on gradients. Combined diesel engine/electric motor operation is used for powerful acceleration or optimum engine utilization. Electric motor propulsion mode is used for especially quiet, low-emission operation, e.g. on the startup, and the mode with only diesel engine in the normal operation...

Nice regards

Mario

 

[jimm]

You are correct in that facts about these trains is hard to come by!

Ages ago, Agility trains put out a release saying the approximate power at rail of a nine-car train was 4MW on Electric and 2MW on Diesel. May have been for 10 cars back then, but no matter it's enough for what we want.

So, for electric, 20 motors @ 226kW gives us 4.52 MW (like Domh245 I took your point to be a decimal)

This would apply to all 9 car trains, classes 800, 801 and yet-unnamed GWR AT300. We assume the transformer and traction package can supply all this plus hotel power etc.

For Diesel we have 5 engines, these are derated in the 800s to around 600kW. So 3MW output. From this we deduct hotel power, say 300kW, and traction system losses, maybe another 200kW. This leaves somewhere around 2.5MW available, much less than electric.

The AT300s are similar, but the engines are not derated so around 3MW at the rail.

Hope that helps!

Unless you have a different definition of derated from diesel engine manufacturers, then the engines of the Class 800s are not derated. Derating usually involves permanent alterations such as reducing maximum engine rpm - as was done with the Sulzer engines in the Class 47s in the 1960s to stop them destroying their crankcases - turbocharger adjustments and injection timing alterations. Should you want the engine output to be upped to what it was before, then you have to reverse these kind of changes.

Whereas what happens on the Class 800s is that the normal service mode setting of the engine management system on these trains produces a lower output figure. Should a higher output be required in situations such as one engine failing, then the driver can tell the system to up the output from the other engines to their maximum rated output to compensate.

And it could be the case that the engines on the 800s are used at full output all the time for an initial period if there is concern about their ability to keep to time running on diesel west of Didcot until the wires get to Bristol and Cardiff.

 

[IanXC]

This would apply to all 9 car trains, classes 800, 801 and yet-unnamed GWR AT300.

Hitachi have advertised for jobs on the "Class 802 project" which would appear to answer the GWR and presumably HT question.

 

[QueensCurve]

I really don't see the issue with under-floor engines, at least in new stock. I've never found the Voyagers, for example, to be too loud. I actually prefer them to the creaking and squeaking of the vestibules in Mark 3 coaches. They just suffer from being too short for the job they're given.

Anyway, I hope the IEP is a good train because we're going to be stuck with it for a while!

I for one will agree to differ about the voyagers. They are noisy, rasping and abrasive. I was appalled the first time I travelled in one and my heart sinks at the prospect of riding in one. I don't see what is super about them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When you've been sitting on similar trains (one or two Meridians, in my case) for long-distance journeys, and the engines have been faulty and vibrating horribly the whole time, then you come to realise that it's not always a good plan to keep them underfloor!

They vibrate horribly all the time whether faulty or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Mk3 ad Mk4 sets are antiquated and give a very uncomfortable ride; will glad to see the back of them.

And yet others would say that Mk3 sets the standard for ride quality.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

The Mk3 and Mk4s are so much more airy than a Voyager, and it is pleasant not to have the engine underneath. Best MK3s are the Chilterns - excellently turned out and very comfortable.

I don't mind the Voyagers, including the underfloor engines - just practically they're poor in regards to the size of the luggage rack and of course are too 'short' for the role they perform. The suspension on the Voyagers is better; the MK3s are a bit firm riding at times I find.

Looking forward to the IEPs - the interiors look good, the exerior design stylish and sure they'll be good trains for the future.

 

[Chris125]

Hopefully it won't be long before a few videos of the testing appear on Youtube

There's a couple of 800001 a few days back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhpPvB2SkHc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70ncLUj-KFE

 

[nuneatonmark]

A travel on a Super Voyager 2/3 times a week and in coach D or K it's better than a Pendo

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yet others would say that Mk3 sets the standard for ride quality.

To me the Mk3 is average and the Mk4 awful. For lower speeds, the Class 158 is hard to beat for ride quality, but the heavier Class 221 Voyager (not the 220) is also to the same standard even at speed. The Pendolino is at times rough but acceptable.

 

[Retorus]

There's a couple of 800001 a few days back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhpPvB2SkHc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70ncLUj-KFE

Sounds as dull as I imagined them being.

 

[Domh245]

Sounds as dull as I imagined them being.

Boo hoo. On the list of things that are important to a TOC, the noise they make (whilst cruising I hasten to add. Hitachi traction kit at low speed sounds truly odd interesting) is waaaaay down the list.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'd assumed that the electric traction pack would have been a variant of that used in the Javelins, but the sound in them vids was way different unless in both vids they were perhaps coasting

 

[Domh245]

I'd assumed that the electric traction pack would have been a variant of that used in the Javelins, but the sound in them vids was way different unless in both vids they were perhaps coasting

That'd be because they are running on Diesel, hence drowning out the (at that kind of speed) barely noticeable inverter noise. I know that in the first one it is running on Diesel, there being a distinct lack of OLE at Oakham, and I think it is the same with the other, based on there being neither evidence of a pantograph from the ambient light, nor an OLE illumination light as per 387s and 700s.

Are the OLE inspection cameras planned to be fitted to all trains, or be always on?

 

[thomson787]

Saw a unit on a trailer on the m20 towards ashford any ideas on why it would go the ashford depot

 

[SpacePhoenix]

That'd be because they are running on Diesel, hence drowning out the (at that kind of speed) barely noticeable inverter noise. I know that in the first one it is running on Diesel, there being a distinct lack of OLE at Oakham, and I think it is the same with the other, based on there being neither evidence of a pantograph from the ambient light, nor an OLE illumination light as per 387s and 700s.

Are the OLE inspection cameras planned to be fitted to all trains, or be always on?

They're quiet in diesel mode, I'd expected them to be really noisy when in diesel mode

 

[M7R]

Saw a unit on a trailer on the m20 towards ashford any ideas on why it would go the ashford depot

There was a driving unit on a trailer heading south on the M1 near Bedford late afternoon, I was heading north so didn't get a good look sadly,