Jump to content

Kato announces Class 800 in N


Mike Harvey
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, gedlee said:

Hi All

I have put together a short video of the LNER Azuma and a Class 802 in TPX livery. I used ElectraRail vinyls for the conversion. I have also included 2 Azumas coupled together.

Here is the link:

 

 

Thank you for showing off the TPx 802 far better than I could. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, gedlee said:

Hi Nova Scotian

Thank your partner for the compliment. It is funny, as one of my Youtube subscribers suggested I take up doing Station Announcements!!

 

 

For the TPE you mention the need to cut out the lights on the power/motor cars. I have had a look a couple of times but I must say the only ones I can see are on the driving trailers. Am I missing something, are the lights on the GWR version you used as a base?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gedlee said:

Sorry, it should be the driving trailers. However, on the real thing, they are the power cars and have the pantographs.

cheers,

Ged.

 

 

That's not correct as I understand it. The driving trailers have the pantographs as you state, but the motors are on the three intermediate carriages.

 

Formation from Wikipedia:

DPTS-MS-MS-MC-DPTF

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ash39 said:

 

That's not correct as I understand it. The driving trailers have the pantographs as you state, but the motors are on the three intermediate carriages.

 

Formation from Wikipedia:

DPTS-MS-MS-MC-DPTF

 

 

Correct, all non driving cars have higher floors too allow engines to be fitted if required (on the five cars, not sure if the inner bearing trailer vehicles on the 9 cars can be motorised). The low ceiling under the pan well and the higher floor wouldn't mix well, so all drive end vehicles are trailer only. There's a noticeable ramp inside the real things between the vehicles

Jo

Edited by Steadfast
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

For accurate operation, it is now standard practice for the rear pan to be raised in service. The idea is to give the driver an extra few milliseconds to lower the pan in the event of OHE damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has not that always been the case? Certainly the early AC electric locos with two pantographs generally used the rear one. I think one of the reasons being that if the pantograph failed it wouldn't damage the second.

 

Steven B.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kaput said:

Pendolino's always seem to have the rear pan up. Every 80X I've seen until very recently has had the front one up.

 

 

Up to around December 2009 Pendos ran with front pan up and rear down - then NR dictated a change to rear, not sure of the exact science but it didn't seem it was possible for a Pendo to run rear panto up earlier than that though that would be the most efficient and best for caring for the OHLE.

Edited by woodenhead
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/06/2021 at 12:33, Captain Electra said:

For accurate operation, it is now standard practice for the rear pan to be raised in service. The idea is to give the driver an extra few milliseconds to lower the pan in the event of OHE damage.

 

I have never seen a LNER or TPE 5 car on its own on the juice but on 2x5 cars it has been front pan on front unit and rear pan on rear unit other wise the max speed was limited to 110mph.  May have changed but ECML MK3 overheads are much less rigid than earlier systems - even the slightly earlier MK3s on the Norwich line has less give, never mind the 1960's Clacton line equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/06/2021 at 12:33, Captain Electra said:

For accurate operation, it is now standard practice for the rear pan to be raised in service. The idea is to give the driver an extra few milliseconds to lower the pan in the event of OHE damage.

However, if two five-cars are coupled, the pans at the extreme front and rear are raised.  This is to minimise the effect on current collection at the rear caused by vibrations in the wire set up by the pantograph ahead.  If they can't raise either of those, they can raise one in the middle but are subject to speed restriction.  

 

This is unlike Pendolinos, which have two pans but only one can be raised at a time because there is a 25kV connection through the unit between them.  Hence one can power the whole train and raising two would cause a short circuit if they bridged a neutral section.  Conversely, 700s also have two pans but run with both raised, which is fine at the lower top speed and works because they two halves of the train are electrically independent.  

On 23/06/2021 at 21:22, Steadfast said:

Correct, all non driving cars have higher floors too allow engines to be fitted if required (on the five cars, not sure if the inner bearing trailer vehicles on the 9 cars can be motorised). The low ceiling under the pan well and the higher floor wouldn't mix well, so all drive end vehicles are trailer only. There's a noticeable ramp inside the real things between the vehicles

Jo

Interestingly the Class 810 units now under construction for East Midlands Railway will have engines in four of the five cars but will still need pantographs each end.  It will be interesting to see how they work that one out.  The bodyshells are also a bit shorter to allow 10 cars to fit at St Pancras - another one for Kato to go at?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 13/05/2021 at 18:17, ash39 said:

Hattons have them in stock now, they look great in the images. Hopefully not long until the LNER models follow.

 

If anyone has access to a set I'd love to see some close up images of the roofs of the three intermediate vehicles. I'm trying to work out if I can turn one into an 801 and I think 2 of the exhaust ports will need removing (5 car 801 has 1 engine in coach 4, 5 car 800 has an engine in all 3 intermediate vehicles)

 

Just to follow up my own post, sadly after spending a bit of time observing the real thing in more detail (amazing what trivial things you notice that you never would unless modelling!) - sadly it's not possible to easily modify an 800 into an 801.

 

The good news first - the 800/2 and 801/1 both have a driving trailer at each end with a pantograph and no underfloor engine. As far as I have been able to decipher, these vehicles (1 & 5) are identical on both types of unit.

 

Vehicle 2 - I can't be 100% sure as I need to see more angles of the real thing but I believe these are also identical on both types (this is the vehicle on the 801/1 EMU which houses the backup power unit for low-speed rescue movement and backup power in the event of OHLE failure). What I'm not certain of is whether there are any subtle differences or whether this is a regular full-fat power unit with the same appearance as the 800/2 bi-mode.

 

Vehicles 3 & 4 - this is what scuppers the plan to simply renumber the unit to an 801. The exhaust ports on the roof could be easily cut & filed away, The issue is the underside cowlings have a lot more vents & maintenance access detail on the 800/2 due to the diesel engines. The attached photo shows the comparison between a vehicle 4 (pulled from a useful video on YouTube showing an 800/801 combo on diversion at Carlisle, credit to the videographer).

 

If I haven't missed anything obvious - it's relatively good news as the underbody shroud clips off easily as I found out when I had to repair my driveshaft from postage damage, so hopefully Kato have tooled for the EMU version further down the line. I'm still not optimistic about the 9-car versions as that also brings different bogies into the equation. 

 

So as lovely as the LNER 800/2 model is, it's only really useful at the moment if you're modelling Lincoln or Harrogate :D

8x4xxx car.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ash39 said:

 

Just to follow up my own post, sadly after spending a bit of time observing the real thing in more detail (amazing what trivial things you notice that you never would unless modelling!) - sadly it's not possible to easily modify an 800 into an 801.

 

The good news first - the 800/2 and 801/1 both have a driving trailer at each end with a pantograph and no underfloor engine. As far as I have been able to decipher, these vehicles (1 & 5) are identical on both types of unit.

 

Vehicle 2 - I can't be 100% sure as I need to see more angles of the real thing but I believe these are also identical on both types (this is the vehicle on the 801/1 EMU which houses the backup power unit for low-speed rescue movement and backup power in the event of OHLE failure). What I'm not certain of is whether there are any subtle differences or whether this is a regular full-fat power unit with the same appearance as the 800/2 bi-mode.

 

Vehicles 3 & 4 - this is what scuppers the plan to simply renumber the unit to an 801. The exhaust ports on the roof could be easily cut & filed away, The issue is the underside cowlings have a lot more vents & maintenance access detail on the 800/2 due to the diesel engines. The attached photo shows the comparison between a vehicle 4 (pulled from a useful video on YouTube showing an 800/801 combo on diversion at Carlisle, credit to the videographer).

 

If I haven't missed anything obvious - it's relatively good news as the underbody shroud clips off easily as I found out when I had to repair my driveshaft from postage damage, so hopefully Kato have tooled for the EMU version further down the line. I'm still not optimistic about the 9-car versions as that also brings different bogies into the equation. 

 

So as lovely as the LNER 800/2 model is, it's only really useful at the moment if you're modelling Lincoln or Harrogate :D

8x4xxx car.jpg


Hang in there though. Kato have produced countless versions of the French TGV, some with just minor differences, so you never know, they may produce a 9 car version in the future.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or someone might decide to make 3D print alternatives ;) 

 

It’s a good option for a small project with minimal risk if they announce it later. 

Edited by PaulRhB
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ash39 said:

 

Just to follow up my own post, sadly after spending a bit of time observing the real thing in more detail (amazing what trivial things you notice that you never would unless modelling!) - sadly it's not possible to easily modify an 800 into an 801.

 

The good news first - the 800/2 and 801/1 both have a driving trailer at each end with a pantograph and no underfloor engine. As far as I have been able to decipher, these vehicles (1 & 5) are identical on both types of unit.

 

Vehicle 2 - I can't be 100% sure as I need to see more angles of the real thing but I believe these are also identical on both types (this is the vehicle on the 801/1 EMU which houses the backup power unit for low-speed rescue movement and backup power in the event of OHLE failure). What I'm not certain of is whether there are any subtle differences or whether this is a regular full-fat power unit with the same appearance as the 800/2 bi-mode.

 

Vehicles 3 & 4 - this is what scuppers the plan to simply renumber the unit to an 801. The exhaust ports on the roof could be easily cut & filed away, The issue is the underside cowlings have a lot more vents & maintenance access detail on the 800/2 due to the diesel engines. The attached photo shows the comparison between a vehicle 4 (pulled from a useful video on YouTube showing an 800/801 combo on diversion at Carlisle, credit to the videographer).

 

 

 

While everyone's opinion varies, given that Dapol's Mk3 have been used to represent versions with different underside fairings with little note (and much less than the roof vent issue) it's not something that will cause too many modellers to pause. In terms of more obvious changes the roofs of TPE 800/2 have differences, including the reostatic brake grid.  While they may currently be on other services in 2019 pre Covid the main peak Leeds services tended to be pairs of 800/2 leaving 800/1 for diagrams to Hull (possibly?) and Scottish destinations north of Waverley. Most useful when there was a jumper at Newark and we took the scenic route via Spalding.

 

Captain Electra - for the TPE overlays which version GW/LNER requires less work to get it look correct (front etc)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bomag said:

 

While everyone's opinion varies, given that Dapol's Mk3 have been used to represent versions with different underside fairings with little note (and much less than the roof vent issue) it's not something that will cause too many modellers to pause. 

 

That's a fair point. The relief on the Kato fairing is fairly modest so most people wouldn't notice on the model (I didn't even notice on the real thing until after I'd looked at about 15 YouTube clips!)

 

Personally, I've tried to force an interest in these trains as they've replaced two of my childhood favourites so they have a lot to live up to. Personally, being the strange character I am, the subtle differences are what make them interesting to me. 54 9-car bi-modes numbered 800101 to 800154 would have been pretty dull!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have a photo of the rheostatic grid on the 802s?  Perhaps something an aftermarket supplier could produce to go with the Electra vinyls?  

 

I think I'm promising myself one of these as a reward for if I get the layout back into working condition.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ash39 said:

Vehicles 3 & 4 - this is what scuppers the plan to simply renumber the unit to an 801. The exhaust ports on the roof could be easily cut & filed away, The issue is the underside cowlings have a lot more vents & maintenance access detail on the 800/2 due to the diesel engines. The attached photo shows the comparison between a vehicle 4 (pulled from a useful video on YouTube showing an 800/801 combo on diversion at Carlisle, credit to the videographer).

Is it possible to add a skim of filler to the grills and repaint? Easier to take then away than to add them back in!

 

Jo

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
22 hours ago, Bomag said:

Captain Electra - for the TPE overlays which version GW/LNER requires less work to get it look correct (front etc)?

I've found both units perfect for the TPE overlays, as they cover all the green bits on the GWR ones.  I used a GWR unit to develop the TPX vinyls and then re-wrapped it later with Hull Trains (which I've kept).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
21 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Anyone have a photo of the rheostatic grid on the 802s?  Perhaps something an aftermarket supplier could produce to go with the Electra vinyls?  

 

I think I'm promising myself one of these as a reward for if I get the layout back into working condition.  

I've not done a check on the detail differences between the 800 and the 802 - I gather there are some roof differences, as they were designed to be Dawlish-proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 800 doesn't have rheostatic braking because it was expected to be on electric (regenerative) most of the time, and it was up against a weight limit in the DfT spec.  The GWR ones were all converted to bi-mode but didn't get the rheostatic braking.  GWR's 802s were specified (by GWR itself) with rheostatic braking and larger fuel tanks, reflecting their use on West of England services with much longer runs on diesel.  I assume TPE went for the same configuration.  

 

It's the rheostatic grids that cause problems for Voyagers at Dawlish, but I haven't heard of 802s having similar problems.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I see what you mean - the rheo braking is in a large extra pod on the centre vehicles. That would make a nice 3D printed add on for the 802s.

 

The all-electric 803 does not have these mounted on the roof but it is, again, different to the 800.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captain Electra said:

I see what you mean - the rheo braking is in a large extra pod on the centre vehicles. That would make a nice 3D printed add on for the 802s.

 

The all-electric 803 does not have these mounted on the roof but it is, again, different to the 800.

I think the electric ones are assumed to be able to regenerate most of the time, and revert to friction braking in the rare event that the supply can't take the regenerated power.  So fitting rheo braking to a modern electric train is arguably a waste of money.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...