Class 800 - Updates

[HillsideDepot]

Back on the 800s, the closed I came to either a lion or a leopard was a bear, from darkest Peru! 

 

I went down to Cornwall on 1C04 today, one of the workings which had been expected to be 802s from Monday last. The Train Manager told everyone that that was the case when he explained that the seat reservations for the expected new train, don;t match the seats in the actual old train! The platform announcements were also geared for 802 operation as they mentioned at-seat catering.

 

On alighting at Camborne I was talking to the Train Manager (not the one who made the reservation announcements) as she walked back up the train ready to dispatch from the rear. She was passed out on IET operation yesterday, and told me that the reason for the delay in entering service was due to problems getting the GPS selective door opening to work reliably at all the short platforms in Cornwall. Whether that's true or not, its what she said.

 

At Swindon this evening, as I was waiting for aforementioned bear (coupled rear of 030) I scored a bonus as 802006 came through on 5Z57 1948 North Pole to Stoke Gifford.

[AMJ]

Was at Doncaster for a short time yesterday morning, 800202 arrived into a platform from south then went back south. It was running on the juice as was one that passed through on the fast line heading south.

Looks like running on juice it's using front pantograph.

[Ken.W]

First VTEC LNER drivers (some of the DriverTrainers) due to pass out on Azumas today.

Also apparently, there's still some sort of issue with them running north on electric, and this restriction is now extended down to York.

 

The proposed deal for training / operating them has been accepted, this includes the driver releasing the doors, and the guard will still close them.

[Covkid]

Yet, this has already been addressed on the Agility West fleet by uprating the engines upto 40 mph to full 900 kw (which slowly downgrades to 700 kw in the higher speed notches). The 0.7 m/s acceleration of the TTS is being met, under sustained diesel mode operation. No need for locos (which is historic from a very different plan for IEP units). Over on Agility East fleet, it has always been known/accepted by VTEC/LNER that the East fleet shall be slower under diesel than the HST, though with time savings under electric mode on most of the route the downgrade North of Edinburgh is outweighed by the gain south. Thus the Agility East fleet shall operate under diesel mode at the planned 700 kw output. I assure everyone, this has long been known and accepted by everyone involved in the industry, who shall be using the Agility East fleet. 

 

 

 

Interesting.  Does this mean there are no concerns over an 800 on standard engine ratings achieving HST timings on the Inverness diagram ? 

The limited press I have seen suggested the 800 tests struggled to achieve the necessary timekeeping

[Zomboid]

No "concerns", I think it's empirically proven that they won't match a HST on the HML. More likely there's an acceptance that that's what these things do so timings will have to be adjusted...

 

Obviously the real solution is to electrify the HML

[royaloak]

No "concerns", I think it's empirically proven that they won't match a HST on the HML. More likely there's an acceptance that that's what these things do so timings will have to be adjusted...

 

Obviously the real solution is to electrify the HML

They can't adjust the timings because they have their path from Kings Cross to Edinburgh, the path continues to Inverness, on arrival it returns to Edinburgh where it has it's alloted path back to Kings Cross.

 

It's not really possible to adjust the paths between Kings Cross and Edinburgh but they can't keep time between Edinburgh and Inverness so there is some head scratching required, East Coast (as was) asked if it was possible to retain some HSTs but were told no, interesting times ahead.

[jamie92208]

First VTEC LNER drivers (some of the DriverTrainers) due to pass out on Azumas today.

Also apparently, there's still some sort of issue with them running north on electric, and this restriction is now extended down to York.

 

The proposed deal for training / operating them has been accepted, this includes the driver releasing the doors, and the guard will still close them.

Does that mean that the electrical upgrades on the northern section of the ECML have still not been finished.

 

Jamie

[Ken.W]

Does that mean that the electrical upgrades on the northern section of the ECML have still not been finished.

 

Jamie

 

No

 

The last I heard, it wasn't even started

[RJS1977]

They can't adjust the timings because they have their path from Kings Cross to Edinburgh, the path continues to Inverness, on arrival it returns to Edinburgh where it has it's alloted path back to Kings Cross.

 

It's not really possible to adjust the paths between Kings Cross and Edinburgh but they can't keep time between Edinburgh and Inverness so there is some head scratching required, East Coast (as was) asked if it was possible to retain some HSTs but were told no, interesting times ahead.

 

How long do they lay over for at Inverness? The electronic seat reservations on the Azumas mean it doesn't take as long to turn them round as an HST because there are no paper labels to put out.

[Ken.W]

How long do they lay over for at Inverness? The electronic seat reservations on the Azumas mean it doesn't take as long to turn them round as an HST because there are no paper labels to put out.

Overnight

[caradoc]

There is only one East Coast through service per day over the Highland Main Line, and as Ken W says the Down train remains at Inverness overnight to form the next day's Up train. The timetable will need adjusting to accommodate these trains as Class 800 cannot maintain HST timings, but as Scotrail are soon introducing HSTs on their services, and have ambitions to increase service frequency, the timetable will need to be recast anyway. It is certainly a great pity that the trains, north of Edinburgh (or possibly Dunblane, if they can use the OLE that far) will be slower, but that is where we are.

[Ken.W]

Indeed, it seems quite clear these things will be incapable of maintaining HST timings over the HML (which can only be discribed as pretty pathetic for a modern train replacing a 40 year old one).

As I've posted previously, the first test run was lumbering up the banks at 45 mph where the HSTs cruising up at 65, and this came directly from the VTEC driver actually doing the route conducting on it.

 

What remains unclear is how, or even if, the timetables can be adjusted to accomodate them, and things seem to have gone rather quiet on that matter. I heard that NR had quite a dim view of their performance!

As royaloak points out above, they have their slots in the regular EC timetable south of Edinburgh which they need to keep to. These can't be just 'tweaked' to make up for time losses north of Edinburgh, they're regular interval paths, and with the congestion level on the ECML any tweaking would cause all sorts of problems with pathing conflicts with all the other operators on the route.

However, the HML also presents serious problems with adjusting the timings to suit, as it has very significant single line sections, where it's necessary to keep to the timings in order to avoid pathing conflicts with other trains they're booked to cross, and also to clear the sections without delaying following services. Also, as Caradoc said above, Scotrail are introducing their HSTs on the line, which they're expecting to speed up their services as well as possible increased frequency, and they're not going to want then trailing along behind one of these things that can't climb!

Also on the test run, they weren't allowed to run use the OLE north of Edinburgh, as there was some sort of issue between the design of the pan and that of the new OLE.

 

Besides the proposal to retain some HSTs which Royaloak also mentioned, there was also actually serious proposals to modify some 43s to operate sets of Mk4 stock!

 

It's also clear now that the GW style uprating wouldn't help either, as if it faids out at 40 mph, they can do that anyway, it's once they get to that speed the problems start.

[Coryton]

 

Also on the test run, they weren't allowed to run use the OLE north of Edinburgh, as there was some sort of issue between the design of the pan and that of the new OLE.

 

Isn't overhead wiring these days built to inter-operability standards so this sort of thing doesn't happen?

 

 

It's also clear now that the GW style uprating wouldn't help either, as if it faids out at 40 mph, they can do that anyway, it's once they get to that speed the problems start.

 

Presumably it's just in the software though, so keeping the higher power above 40 mph would be possible. In principle.

[Ken.W]

Isn't overhead wiring these days built to inter-operability standards so this sort of thing doesn't happen?

 

 

Presumably it's just in the software though, so keeping the higher power above 40 mph would be possible. In principle.

 

Well you'd think so, but that's what did happen on the test run, again heard from someone who was there

 

The GW style uprating was mentioned above, and permanant uprating would probably require the larger capacity fuel tanks and associated changes which as the sets are already in build is rather unlikely.

[Geoff Endacott]

Why not keep the timetables but alter the clocks?

 

Geoff Endacott

[Covkid]

Presumably it's just in the software though, so keeping the higher power above 40 mph would be possible. In principle.

 

Well you'd think so, but that's what did happen on the test run, again heard from someone who was there

 

The GW style uprating was mentioned above, and permanant uprating would probably require the larger capacity fuel tanks and associated changes which as the sets are already in build is rather unlikely.

 

I suspect the DfT is the main issue here - going against industry thinking by going to Hitachi and trusting they can deliver a product to match the HST2 requirements. Roger Ford is not the only "expert" to have questioned the physics of the IET way back two years ago, and sure enough he has been proved right in the case of the IET on diesel. Apart from the Inverness service things would have worked out OK, until the Right Honourable Chris Grayling chose to cancel / defer some electrification schemes.

 

But we are where we are. I suspect that a small pool of dedicated LNER 800s could be uprated to 802 spec fairly easily with larger fuel and adblue tanks and uprated rheo brakes. This handful of units would be dedicated to the highland service and could even wear a special livery to promote it. Trouble is conversion costs through Agility, then the lifetime much increased running costs of increased downtime and more frequent replacement of MTU engines set at 900bhp whilst working in Scotland.

 

If only the DfT actually listened to the industry experts who cut their teeth in railway engineering.   

Edited July 22, 2018 by Covkid

[Zomboid]

I wouldn't point the finger at Hitachi particularly for the lack of power; The specification was down to DafT, and it was they who thought that the laws of physics were negotiable and consequently didn't ask for enough power.

[Oakydoke]

I suspect the DfT is the main issue here - going against industry thinking by going to Hitachi and trusting they can deliver a product to match the HST2 requirements......

 

Wasn't it pointed out earlier in this topic that the IEP specifications were changed away from matching HST performance on diesel, following the change to using underfloor engines on the bi-modes?

The later modified DfT IEP specifications clearly state a requirement for a reduced performance, compared with the original spec.

[Ken.W]

I suspect the DfT is the main issue here - going against industry thinking by going to Hitachi and trusting they can deliver a product to match the HST2 requirements. Roger Ford is not the only "expert" to have questioned the physics of the IET way back two years ago, and sure enough he has been proved right in the case of the IET on diesel. Apart from the Inverness service things would have worked out OK, until the Right Honourable Chris Grayling chose to cancel / defer some electrification schemes.

 

But we are where we are. I suspect that a small pool of dedicated LNER 800s could be uprated to 802 spec fairly easily with larger fuel and adblue tanks and uprated rheo brakes. This handful of units would be dedicated to the highland service and could even wear a special livery to promote it. Trouble is conversion costs through Agility, then the lifetime much increased running costs of increased downtime and more frequent replacement of MTU engines set at 900bhp whilst working in Scotland.

 

If only the DfT actually listened to the industry experts who cut their teeth in railway engineering.   

 

Agreed, I believe most of us on here think this mess is down to the DafT being too closely involved in the train specification. However as you say that's where we're at now so the question is what can be done.

The suggestion of a small pool uprated to 802s is probably the best idea so far, although onlytwo would be needed for the Inverness workings, plus a spare or two (which could do Aberdeen workings when not required, the problem would be how many would be actually required and could it be done without needing extra sets, as they're not, at present, self-contained diagrams;

The KX - Inverness is formed off the 05:40 Sunderland (05:59 N'cle) - KX, having worked 20:00 KX - Sunderland the previous evening;

The Inverness - KX then forms the 17:00 KX - Edinburgh (which returns the set to it's Craigentinny base).

With the 800s, it would possibly work out if diagrams could be altered so they work in conjunction with Yorkshire services, which would get them from / back to, their new Doncaster base, but as this would reduce their mileage could other workings be altered to cover, or would extra an set be required?

 

I suspect however, they're already too far into the build program to do anything with them anyway, particularly with the time DafT takes to decide anything.

 

Perhaps the easiest solution now would be for passengers to continue using HSTs north of Edinburgh

ie Scotrail

[Coryton]

 

The GW style uprating was mentioned above, and permanant uprating would probably require the larger capacity fuel tanks and associated changes which as the sets are already in build is rather unlikely.

 

It's not obvious to me that uprating would necessarily require larger fuel tanks - a given set on a trip between Inverness and London will be running on electric power far more of the day than a train on the London to Penzance route.

 

If I recall correctly the 802s can use dynamic braking on diesel, unlike 800s. But again, I don't see that this necessarily has to go with uprating engines.

[royaloak]

If I recall correctly the 802s can use dynamic braking on diesel, unlike 800s. But again, I don't see that this necessarily has to go with uprating engines.

Depends if you are paying for the discs and pads which the 800s eat when running on diesel.

[Coryton]

Depends if you are paying for the discs and pads which the 800s eat when running on diesel.

 

Right - but a train to Inverness will run as far on diesel with uprated engines as without.

 

If the 800s were uprated, they would presumably reach similar speeds as HSTs currently do on that route. Do the 800's have brakes which are much more expensive to use than HSTs? (And I recall a comment from many years ago about how touching the brake on an HST was like setting light to £10 notes...)

[royaloak]

Ask Hitachi.

 

I know how much the variation order is over the life of the contract but am not allowed to make it public, all I will say is there are lots of zeros on the end.

Edited July 22, 2018 by royaloak

[jamie92208]

Ask Hitachi.

 

I know how much the variation order is over the life of the contract but am not allowed to make it public, all I will say is there are lots of zeros on the end.

Roger Ford estimated it at £300,000,000 I think.

 

Jamie

[Geoff Endacott]

There's a bloke in Cornwall who will do it for much less than that. His name is Denzil Penberthy.

 

Geoff Endacott