Class 800 - Updates

[Ken.W]

Thanks for the info about Thunderbird possibility. I reckon there is an opportunity for one or two owners of loco's to get some couplings sorted and be available to rush about dragging the things away as quickly as possible. The ECML will need several; they use DB 67s at the moment I think but I have no idea what couplings they have?

It will be interesting to read info from any Crew that are on RMW & that drive 800s if they are permitted to share their experiences of the behaviour of the Units in different circumstances.

Phil

Yes, it's DB 67s used for EC Thunderbirds, and there's four in use at a time (Kings X, Doncaster, Newcastle, Edinburgh). Although whether any adapters would be carried on the 67s is another matter as they keep being changed, or if they'd be carried by the 800s themselves.

 

The emergency screw coupling's used to the 67 on either end of a 91/Mk4 set. (In fact, just put a 67 onto a Mk4 set at Heaton at lunchtime).

 

In the dis-jointed post-privatisation world, even 'conventional' couplings can be incompatable. Although the 91s and 67s both have buckeye type couplers, we're not allowed to use the 67's buckeye (the DVT only has a drawhook for an emergency screw shackle).

I recall one occasion with a failed Mk4 set at Durham, a 66 was turned out onto the rear, onto the 91, to haul the set back to Newcastle. Although neither loco had an emergency scew coupling onboard we weren't allowed to use the 66's buckeye (same as a 67's), and I'd to get the screw coupling from the DVT end. I commandeered one of the passenger luggage trolleys to carry the thing the length of the platform!

Also, although the 67 with the buckeye swung to the side out of use then has a 'conventional' drawbar hook, that's not compatible with the emergency coupling bar of an HST!

In this case an adaptor, carried in the Power Car, is used to connect the coupling bar to the 67's buckeye!

[rodent279]

Yes, it's DB 67s used for EC Thunderbirds, and there's four in use at a time (Kings X, Doncaster, Newcastle, Edinburgh). Although whether any adapters would be carried on the 67s is another matter as they keep being changed, or if they'd be carried by the 800s themselves.

 

The emergency screw coupling's used to the 67 on either end of a 91/Mk4 set. (In fact, just put a 67 onto a Mk4 set at Heaton at lunchtime).

 

In the dis-jointed post-privatisation world, even 'conventional' couplings can be incompatable. Although the 91s and 67s both have buckeye type couplers, we're not allowed to use the 67's buckeye (the DVT only has a drawhook for an emergency screw shackle).

I recall one occasion with a failed Mk4 set at Durham, a 66 was turned out onto the rear, onto the 91, to haul the set back to Newcastle. Although neither loco had an emergency scew coupling onboard we weren't allowed to use the 66's buckeye (same as a 67's), and I'd to get the screw coupling from the DVT end. I commandeered one of the passenger luggage trolleys to carry the thing the length of the platform!

Also, although the 67 with the buckeye swung to the side out of use then has a 'conventional' drawbar hook, that's not compatible with the emergency coupling bar of an HST!

In this case an adaptor, carried in the Power Car, is used to connect the coupling bar to the 67's buckeye!

 

Why can't the buckeye's be used? Are they actually incompatible, or have they just not been tested to someone's satisfaction?

[jim.snowdon]

Why can't the buckeye's be used? Are they actually incompatible, or have they just not been tested to someone's satisfaction?

As far as I was aware, the "freight" version of the buckeye coupler used on the 66s and 67s is a full size AAR coupler, whereas the one that the GNR (and thus BR) adopted for coaching stock is a 3/4 size version and is invariably used with a centre buffing plate, part of whose function is to damp out the vertical movement between the coupled vehicles. The traditional British version of the buckeye coupler has no vertical interlocking and, as Maunsell found out in the 1930s, is prone to coming out of engagement if the relative vertical movement between carriages exceeds the depth of the coupler head, which is not much.

 

Jim

[Steadfast]

Correct, the AAR version is larger.

They will couple, I've seen wagons shunted with an 08 with a drop head BR buckeye (was an ex HST depot 08), so they will couple, but not because they're not designed to, I doubt it's a good idea on the mainline. The same situation occurs with 67s or 66s on MK1 and MK2 stock, emergency screw coupler is used. I agree about the weight of the things, had to use one once to put a pair of 66s together when one had a jammed buckeye release pin. Carrying it up the yard was fun...

 

Jo

Edited December 27, 2018 by Steadfast

[david.hill64]

On communication between systems, it isn't necessary for different systems to be able to fully communicate, it is necessary to define the key interfaces and critical information to be exchanged. Industrial control systems do that routinely, most complex industrial processes (many of which are very high hazard such as petrochem, nuclear, defence etc) are designed around distributed control systems controlled by a central control system (a so called system of systems). Each of these distributed control elements may be designed and manufactured by different entities and use proprietary software but by defining the interfaces and comms protocols they all communicate to the degree necessary to operate the wider system. Surely this should be possible for railway rolling stock with standard protocols for various permissives, fault signals and basic controls?

And indeed this happens with things like ETCS where the interfaces to everything took forever to agree due to vested interests.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the EU wasn't already working towards a common standard for the Train Control and Management Systems (if somebody reading this knows, please advise).

 

At a simple level BR had something similar with standard coupling codes for locos and DMU. Yes non-standard locos and DMU's existed and there were technical reasons for change.

[Yellowperil]

Yes, it's DB 67s used for EC Thunderbirds, and there's four in use at a time (Kings X, Doncaster, Newcastle, Edinburgh). Although whether any adapters would be carried on the 67s is another matter as they keep being changed, or if they'd be carried by the 800s themselves.

 

The emergency screw coupling's used to the 67 on either end of a 91/Mk4 set. (In fact, just put a 67 onto a Mk4 set at Heaton at lunchtime).

 

In the dis-jointed post-privatisation world, even 'conventional' couplings can be incompatable. Although the 91s and 67s both have buckeye type couplers, we're not allowed to use the 67's buckeye (the DVT only has a drawhook for an emergency screw shackle).

I recall one occasion with a failed Mk4 set at Durham, a 66 was turned out onto the rear, onto the 91, to haul the set back to Newcastle. Although neither loco had an emergency scew coupling onboard we weren't allowed to use the 66's buckeye (same as a 67's), and I'd to get the screw coupling from the DVT end. I commandeered one of the passenger luggage trolleys to carry the thing the length of the platform!

Also, although the 67 with the buckeye swung to the side out of use then has a 'conventional' drawbar hook, that's not compatible with the emergency coupling bar of an HST!

In this case an adaptor, carried in the Power Car, is used to connect the coupling bar to the 67's buckeye!

Those who are interested in UK coupling systems may find this RSSB document useful:

 

https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/reldocs/sd001%20iss%202.pdf

 

Interesting point, the Alliance and Drophead type couplers as made had no in built vertical restraint. However BR modified them in the late 1980s/early 1990s to incorporate a lower shelf bracket which provides vertical restraint after a movement of about 104mm IIRC. Certainly on the alliance couplers the LSB only has a strength of about 30kN and doesn’t really help in a high speed crash, there were also a lot of problems with knuckle pin fatigue due to the weight of the LSB, which is now why many drophead and alliance couplers incorporate a welded LSB.

 

The buckeyes in the US have cast lower and upper shelf brackets, but this was deemed too expensive on legacy BR fleets.

 

Regards

 

YP.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Yellowperil

[royaloak]

Correct, the AAR version is larger.

They will couple, I've seen wagons shunted with an 08 with a drop head BR buckeye (was an ex HST depot 08), so they will couple, but not because they're not designed to, I doubt it's a good idea on the mainline. The same situation occurs with 67s or 66s on MK1 and MK2 stock, emergency screw coupler is used. I agree about the weight of the things, had to use one once to put a pair of 66s together when one had a jammed buckeye release pin. Carrying it up the yard was fun...

 

Jo

The coupler on the 08 would be a single casting with no moving parts, unlike the Alliance coupler on the 91s etc.

[The Stationmaster]

While I am not an advocate of wholesale rail renationalisation, I do believe that a strong case could be made to take a lot of these outsourced activities - particularly safety critical ones - back under NR direct management. I am not proposing that NR gets into signalling design, but installation and the various verification and validation works (and I say that working for a company that would lose valuable contracts if this happened).

 

As NR already carries out signalling design it would seem logical for it to take back any design which might currently still be contracted out.   I would definitely go along with installation and testing being within NR's orbit of direct management and staffing but I suspect the uneven pattern of work in recent years has meant it is more economic (for NR) to use contractors (the same might be said of ohle work where, I have been told, part of the problem on the GWML was due to use of contractors and a poor decision chain in the relationship with NR in respect of any emerging problems).

[Re6/6]

First time that I've seen one at Paignton.

 

 

[royaloak]

They have been running to Paignton for months, 5 or 9 coach only, 10s not allowed due to distance between Level crossing and down signals..

Edited December 28, 2018 by royaloak

[rodent279]

History already, these two photos were taken in April 2018. 800 014 at Parkway on a Cardiff-Padd working.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by rodent279

[rodent279]

Does anyone know whether an 800/801/802 can run on electric with the diesel engines still idling? If so, for how long? Indefinitely (fuel permitting), or is there a limit?

[Zomboid]

To do a mobile power changeover the diesel engines would need to be started whilst the train is running on electric.

To do a mobile power changeover the diesel engines would need to be started whilst the train is running on electric.

[rab]

To do a mobile power changeover the diesel engines would need to be started whilst the train is running on electric.To do a mobile power changeover the diesel engines would need to be started whilst the train is running on electric.

I take it this refers to a 2x5 version!!

[royaloak]

Does anyone know whether an 800/801/802 can run on electric with the diesel engines still idling?

Yes,

 

# If so, for how long?

until the computer decides the engine is cool enough to shut down, they shut down individually not all together unless they are all below shut down temperature,

 

 Indefinitely (fuel permitting), or is there a limit?

ask the computer it is in charge of everything, when the XZ81 oops I mean the latest all singing, all dancing super dooper computer decides each engine is cool enough it will be shut down.

 

Edit-

Another full day driving IETs and all were on diesel only restriction, so no electric operation for me.

Edited January 3, 2019 by royaloak

[jim.snowdon]

Another full day driving IETs and all were on diesel only restriction, so no electric operation for me.

Although the ones I saw today were running on electric, so presumably we still have the daft situation of some electric units not being permitted to run from the OLE.

 

Jim

Edited January 3, 2019 by jim.snowdon

[royaloak]

To do a mobile power changeover the diesel engines would need to be started whilst the train is running on electric.

Why?

The engines start at the same time the pan drops.

 

They have pre-heaters and the compooter will start the pre-heat sequence so when the engines are needed they will be up to temperature, if the engines are not up to temperature they wont start so no need for them to be started up earlier, they wouldnt anyway.

Edited January 4, 2019 by royaloak

[Geoff Endacott]

These things seem to be getting random stickers. First it was teddy bears, then rainbows and I think I saw one yesterday with red flowers behind each door and an indecipherable name. (I was along way away.) What ever happened to proper names?

 

Geoff Endacott

[Mallard60022]

I'm due to take a trip to Plymouth for a footy match on March 12th and returning on the 09.49 off North Road to Padd on the 13th. Is that likely to be an 800 by any chance; does anyone have that sort of info please?

Phil

[HillsideDepot]

These things seem to be getting random stickers. First it was teddy bears, then rainbows and I think I saw one yesterday with red flowers behind each door and an indecipherable name. (I was along way away.) What ever happened to proper names?

 

Geoff Endacott

That sounds like 800306

800306 - GWR Staff Remembrance j by GWR 43040, on Flickr

 

The set also carries the names of all the GWR employees who gave their lives in World War 1 on the broad silver strip under the windows. 

800306 Allan Leonard Lewis VC by Adrian Hampton, on Flickr

 

Some of The Many by Adrian Hampton, on Flickr

 

I'd say that they were "proper names", they are certainly continuing the railway tradition of namings for fallen staff.

 

As for the other IETs they are named after "Great Westerners" 100 of which were chosen by the public, although most of those which have been named so far aren't from the list they published.

[royaloak]

I'm due to take a trip to Plymouth for a footy match on March 12th and returning on the 09.49 off North Road to Padd on the 13th. Is that likely to be an 800 by any chance; does anyone have that sort of info please?

Phil

the 09.49 off North Road is currently booked a HST, part of diagram IW6 so should still be a HST in March.

[Steadfast]

One of the names in 306 is an Alder, I mentioned it to dad (who's in to his family history) and he knew who it'd be, a cousin of his uncle, or some similar distance. First time I've seen a historic Alder on something other than a local gravestone

 

Jo

[Geoff Endacott]

That must have been it. The grey bit was behind a fence.

 

Maybe I should have said proper nameplates rather than names and one name per set.

 

Names such as James Nighthall G C were entirely appropriate - and done properly.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Talltim]

Delete

Edited January 5, 2019 by Talltim

[RJS1977]

That sounds like 800306

800306 - GWR Staff Remembrance j by GWR 43040, on Flickr

 

The set also carries the names of all the GWR employees who gave their lives in World War 1 on the broad silver strip under the windows. 

800306 Allan Leonard Lewis VC by Adrian Hampton, on Flickr

 

Some of The Many by Adrian Hampton, on Flickr

 

I'd say that they were "proper names", they are certainly continuing the railway tradition of namings for fallen staff.

 

As for the other IETs they are named after "Great Westerners" 100 of which were chosen by the public, although most of those which have been named so far aren't from the list they published.

 

I saw that on Vastern Road Bridge a couple of times on Thursday (only day I've been in the office this week), but both times at a distance (first time as I crossed Reading Bridge, second time from the office). Both times I could see the poppies and what I presumed were lists of names but of course far too far away to read.

 

Of course this isn't the first WW1 commemorative train not to have proper nameplates - LBSCR 'Remembrance' had its name painted on!