Class 800 - Updates

[Zomboid]

How about running a MK4 set, take the 91 off at Edinburgh and onwards to Inverness with a 68? (Aberdeen too? How are 800s on that?)

Doubt it would even need to be controlled by the DVT, it could just couple to it to head south...

[Davey]

If you look carefully, the bags are labelled up for the destination stations. I can make out Rock Ferry, Stonehaven, Stonehouse, Gravelly Hill, Stone (Staffs), Stone Crossing (Kent), and Aberdeen (The Granite City).

 

Stone ME!!!

 

Davey

[DY444]

I would expect that it would be easier to convert the power cars to work with the mk4s, much as was done before for the 91's but with suitable converters for the three phase ETS to standard ETS - Another box to go in the ex-guards compartment - if there is any space left? In fact with the short formations proposed, would one power car and a DVT suffice?

 

Yes it's already being looked at according to reports from usually reliable sources

[Zomboid]

If you look carefully, the bags are labelled up for the destination stations. I can make out Rock Ferry, Stonehaven, Stonehouse, Gravelly Hill, Stone (Staffs), Stone Crossing (Kent), and Aberdeen (The Granite City).

Stonegate

London Eustone

[nightstar.train]

How about running a MK4 set, take the 91 off at Edinburgh and onwards to Inverness with a 68? (Aberdeen too? How are 800s on that?)

Doubt it would even need to be controlled by the DVT, it could just couple to it to head south...

The DfT seem to regard switching locos as akin to murdering puppies, so I can’t see being allowed*. I’m not sure how much power a 68 has anyhow, would it be any better than an IEP? At a quick glance it would seem the most sensible option. A lot would depend on the track layout and capacity in Edinburgh of course.

 

 

*(What I’ve read is that a senior civil servant once had a delay at Crewe whilst a 57 was hitched to a Pendilino for the run to Holyhead, and ever since the idea has been verboten at the DfT).

[jamie92208]

The DfT seem to regard switching locos as akin to murdering puppies, so I can’t see being allowed*. I’m not sure how much power a 68 has anyhow, would it be any better than an IEP? At a quick glance it would seem the most sensible option. A lot would depend on the track layout and capacity in Edinburgh of course.

 

 

*(What I’ve read is that a senior civil servant once had a delay at Crewe whilst a 57 was hitched to a Pendilino for the run to Holyhead, and ever since the idea has been verboten at the DfT).

I've also heard the story about Crewe. It may even have been Gwynneth Dunwoody who's constituency was nearby.

 

Jamie

[Zomboid]

I was being slightly facetious. A 68 apparently has 3800hp, so on a full MK4 set it'll probably be a bit slower than a HST.

But you could always use 2 of them, that would race over Slochd (in some other countries that's exactly what would happen, too).

Edited March 26, 2018 by Zomboid

[RJS1977]

I was being slightly facetious. A 68 apparently has 3800hp, so on a full MK4 set it'll probably be a bit slower than a HST.

But you could always use 2 of them, that would race over Slochd (in some other countries that's exactly what would happen, too).

 

How about replacing the DVT with an HST power car, and rigging the controls so either loco can be driven from either cab?

[nightstar.train]

I was being slightly facetious. A 68 apparently has 3800hp, so on a full MK4 set it'll probably be a bit slower than a HST.

But you could always use 2 of them, that would race over Slochd (in some other countries that's exactly what would happen, too).

It’s a lovely idea but impossible on the privatised railway. VTEC would be paying lease costs for three locos, which just wouldn’t fly, not unless they’re getting them each for a fiver. Maybe if just one company owned the trains, and ran them, and owned the track too. A railway for the whole of Britain, a British Railway if you will.

 

Something will undoubtably be done. I expect the engines on the VTEC IEPs will be uprated as the GWR sets are, probably for free along with free servicing as it’s Hitachi’s cock up this time.

[royaloak]

Something will undoubtably be done. I expect the engines on the VTEC IEPs will be uprated as the GWR sets are, probably for free along with free servicing as it’s Hitachi’s cock up this time.

How so?

If Hitachi have built the trains to the specification as laid down by VTEC then it is VTECs cock up for speccing the trains wrong, Hitachi are very good at reading between the lines and using any ambiguity to their advantage (see GWR power increase on the 800s for example).

 

I hope they dont upgrade them as they have the GWR sets because they 'throttle back' to the 560kW setting at about 40mph which is where you actually need the full 700kW so you can maintain acceleration.

 

VTEC need to ensure that any variation order (kerching for Hitachi) is written in a way that no ambiguity is possible!

Edited March 27, 2018 by royaloak

[nightstar.train]

VTEC didn’t specific the trains, the DfT did before VTEC was even formed. That specification said they were to run London to Inverness. Presumably they included sample journey times, or expected journey times, and the profile of the HML is hardly a secret. So Hitachi knew where the trains were going and what was expected from them. If they didn’t then it’s a DfT fowl up, and that’s not an impossibility of course. I believe a lot of people at the DfT were told by Hitachi that power doors and quicker acceleration (due to distributed traction) would make up for lack of power, although anyone with a A level grasp of physics could tell them that’s a load of bull. Especially on the HML where there are few stops and long big hills.

 

I’m sure that armies of lawyers are pouring over every word of the contracts now, and they’ll be he ones going kerching, at least for now.

 

If talk of VTEC keeping all their HSTs is true then I guess that power pack uprating has been examined and deemed not feasible for some reason. Maybe they’d also require the modifications with big rheostats for braking down the big hills and that’s not possible, or not possible quick enough.

[frobisher]

If talk of VTEC keeping all their HSTs is true then I guess that power pack uprating has been examined and deemed not feasible for some reason. Maybe they’d also require the modifications with big rheostats for braking down the big hills and that’s not possible, or not possible quick enough.

I'd almost say that braking modifications are the least of the issues with the line speed and current performance there.

 

As I understand it, only the 9 car units have been tested to Inverness so far. The 5 car units might fair a little better and would probably be a more sensible choice in pairs on the route if the units have to be used there. The 802s should be better still (and again, untested on the line?), but I don't think there can be any scope to respec any portion of the ECML fleet to this but they could probably be refitted at a later point to that specification (but not cheaply).

[frobisher]

I'm wondering how this mooted retention of the HST power cars for reuse with MK4s is being approached.

 

Slightly pie in the sky idea, but one of the proposed benefits of the 800's was that they did not need to run on diesel power under the wires and perhaps a rebuild of the power cars could try to embrace that.

 

We know that Hitachi had previously used a TGS semi-permanently coupled to an HST power car with a substantial battery pack for their hybrid test programme and inter vehicle supply for traction power, so there is a known solution for traction supply switching on the HST platform. Batteries are damn heavy, so we're in at least the same ball park as a pantograph and transformer as a substitution in stock we know will be available.

 

The modified TGS possible could also handle the conversion of the ETS from 3 to a single phase, and perhaps the MW conversion from HST to TDM,, and coupling and gangway conversion to the MK4s (I'm presuming that the MK4 DVTs and TSOE's will be at a premium to be reused with the 91's and the shortened rakes so would not be repurposed for HST use so it would be the intermediate carriages that would be used).

 

Potentially then, TGS's only have compliance rebuilding to occur, and that capacity might be findable for that, and it does also make the MK4 fleet stretch a little further as you potentially have two less vehicles per rake to find.

[david.hill64]

Fake news! It’s all fake news! After all, the experienced rolling stock engineers in DfT assured us that with distributed traction the normal laws of physics don’t apply. Clearly the 800’s are fine, so the infrastructure must be wrong. Network Rail will just have to reduce the gradients.

[Zomboid]

Electrifying the HML is clearly the answer. (As electrifications go it would probably be a pretty easy one too, not very much of anything between Perth & Inverness, so only a few bridges...).

[black and decker boy]

Electrifying the HML is clearly the answer. (As electrifications go it would probably be a pretty easy one too, not very much of anything between Perth & Inverness, so only a few bridges...).

Ahh, but there are 2 ploys that DfT can use here:

 

1) Use 'SMART' electrification (similar to 'SMART' motorways that invent capacity) and as you own Bi-Modes that are fine going down hill, you only need to wire the uphill side and only the uphill line (where double track).

2) Scotlands Railways are now devolved so when you relet EC, you stop at Edinburgh and let Scotrail run their HSTs to Inverness (or let Scotrail run Inverness & Aberdeen to London)

 

Alternatively, DfT could take the view that the slower speed isn't important (its not London) and so do nothing....

[caradoc]

I'd almost say that braking modifications are the least of the issues with the line speed and current performance there.

 

As I understand it, only the 9 car units have been tested to Inverness so far. The 5 car units might fair a little better and would probably be a more sensible choice in pairs on the route if the units have to be used there. The 802s should be better still (and again, untested on the line?), but I don't think there can be any scope to respec any portion of the ECML fleet to this but they could probably be refitted at a later point to that specification (but not cheaply).

 

Does a 9 or 10-car need to run north of Edinburgh at all ? Perhaps being able to run a 5-car 800, instead of a full-length HST, might justify more than one ECML service per day to Inverness ?

[Zomboid]

Ahh, but there are 2 ploys that DfT can use here:

 

1) Use 'SMART' electrification (similar to 'SMART' motorways that invent capacity) and as you own Bi-Modes that are fine going down hill, you only need to wire the uphill side and only the uphill line (where double track).

Anyone know knows the first thing about electrification will tell you that is absolute nonsense which would actually cost more than doing the job properly...

 

You said DfT didn't you? As you were.

 

(Though thankfully for Scotland transport is devolved so the DfT don't get involved, although that doesn't necessarily mean that there's any greater competence in the Scottish government/ civil service)

[nightstar.train]

I'm wondering how this mooted retention of the HST power cars for reuse with MK4s is being approached.Slightly pie in the sky idea, but one of the proposed benefits of the 800's was that they did not need to run on diesel power under the wires and perhaps a rebuild of the power cars could try to embrace that.We know that Hitachi had previously used a TGS semi-permanently coupled to an HST power car with a substantial battery pack for their hybrid test programme and inter vehicle supply for traction power, so there is a known solution for traction supply switching on the HST platform. Batteries are damn heavy, so we're in at least the same ball park as a pantograph and transformer as a substitution in stock we know will be available.The modified TGS possible could also handle the conversion of the ETS from 3 to a single phase, and perhaps the MW conversion from HST to TDM,, and coupling and gangway conversion to the MK4s (I'm presuming that the MK4 DVTs and TSOE's will be at a premium to be reused with the 91's and the shortened rakes so would not be repurposed for HST use so it would be the intermediate carriages that would be used).Potentially then, TGS's only have compliance rebuilding to occur, and that capacity might be findable for that, and it does also make the MK4 fleet stretch a little further as you potentially have two less vehicles per rake to find.

Non of the problems a real terribly difficult.

 

1) Electrics. That was a problem in the 70s, but it’s simple now. You just need a converter from weird HST electikery to normal 1000v ETH. A good power electronics company might have something off the shelf, or would only take a few weeks to make one. Who owns the ECML HSTs and Mk4s? One problem with this idea for the MML is that the power cars are owned by a different ROSCO than the Mk4s so there will be some discussion as to who pays for the transformer and does it go in the PC or a coach. The obvious place is in one or both luggage spaces in the HST, otherwise the vestibule end of the end coach.

 

2) Control for the HSTs. There will need to be a wire run the length of the train to allow the PCs to multi. Not hard to do, but will require the coaches to have a works visit. Or a converter box in each PC to allow TDM working, although that might be less favoured as TDM can be unreliable.

 

3) Couplings. You don’t HAVE to have the TSOE. The PCs could be fitted with compatiable (tightlock I think) couplers,as they’re not designed to run with anything else. The main reason for the TSOE is so that different locos can pull the Mk4s (such as 90s and the 89), and so that the 91 can have normal couplings and pull parcels and sleeper trains when off duty (not that that ever happened).

 

Lovely as the idea of an HST with a pantograph is it’ll never happen. That’s a project costing millions and taking a couple of years, whereas VTEC and EMT are looking for an emergency solution to prevent a disaster. IF the 800s are too crap to go to Inverness then there’ll be a few more years of HSTs running 400 miles under the wires.

[ejstubbs]

Electrifying the HML is clearly the answer. (As electrifications go it would probably be a pretty easy one too, not very much of anything between Perth & Inverness, so only a few bridges...).

 

In engineering terms possibly true.  But given the hoo-ha that kicked off when the Beauly-Denny power line upgrade was proposed, I wouldn't bank on electrification of the line over Drumochter being allowed to go ahead without meeting some fairly vocal objections.

 

But then we're basically in the realms of fantasy here.  No-one is going to pay to electrify 175 miles of railway for one or two trains a day from London.  Add to the cost issue the problems ScotRail seem to be having with trains for EGIP at the moment and it all goes to make the introduction of electric services to Inverness highly unlikely in the readily foreseeable future.  IMO.

[nightstar.train]

Does a 9 or 10-car need to run north of Edinburgh at all ? Perhaps being able to run a 5-car 800, instead of a full-length HST, might justify more than one ECML service per day to Inverness ?

I think that was the idea, running 10 cars to Edinburgh, then 5 on to Inverness. They could maybe combine Inverness and Aberdeen, depending on the Aberdeen loading.

 

From figures I’ve seen a 5 car train on diesel has 9.2hp/ton, and a nine car has 8.5hp/ton. So it’ll be a slight improvement. A 2+9 ECML HST set has 10.3hp/ton. So a five car set will be an improvement, but still over 10% less power than an HST.

[jamie92208]

Non of the problems a real terribly difficult.

 

1) Electrics. That was a problem in the 70s, but it’s simple now. You just need a converter from weird HST electikery to normal 1000v ETH. A good power electronics company might have something off the shelf, or would only take a few weeks to make one. Who owns the ECML HSTs and Mk4s? One problem with this idea for the MML is that the power cars are owned by a different ROSCO than the Mk4s so there will be some discussion as to who pays for the transformer and does it go in the PC or a coach. The obvious place is in one or both luggage spaces in the HST, otherwise the vestibule end of the end coach.

 

2) Control for the HSTs. There will need to be a wire run the length of the train to allow the PCs to multi. Not hard to do, but will require the coaches to have a works visit. Or a converter box in each PC to allow TDM working, although that might be less favoured as TDM can be unreliable.

 

3) Couplings. You don’t HAVE to have the TSOE. The PCs could be fitted with compatiable (tightlock I think) couplers,as they’re not designed to run with anything else. The main reason for the TSOE is so that different locos can pull the Mk4s (such as 90s and the 89), and so that the 91 can have normal couplings and pull parcels and sleeper trains when off duty (not that that ever happened).

 

Lovely as the idea of an HST with a pantograph is it’ll never happen. That’s a project costing millions and taking a couple of years, whereas VTEC and EMT are looking for an emergency solution to prevent a disaster. IF the 800s are too crap to go to Inverness then there’ll be a few more years of HSTs running 400 miles under the wires.

As far as I know it is already possible to MU to a power car from a 91 via Mk 3 stock because this was done very quickly with the hybrid HST + 91's to Leeds when the 91's were ready before the mark 4's.  I don't remember there being any cabling problems or extra ones between the loco and the end coach of the HST so I presume that it would be fairly easy to go from a Power car to a Mark 4 using existing cabling.  After all it would only e control voltages and not traction current.  I accept that one way or another the hotel power needs to be sorted.

 

Jamie

[Glorious NSE]

With VTEC in trouble financially ,and not achieving passenger numbers, might there be reluctance to go to the extra expense . They had originally planned to keep some Class 91s on short rakes of Mk4s, I don't know if they are still going ahead with that

 

It wouldn't be VTECs expense either way - the defining thing will likely be whether NR is willing/able to do the upgrades that enable the extra trains, if they don't, there's no point in VTEC or whoever runs it leasing extra trains they can't run.

[Glorious NSE]

It’s a lovely idea but impossible on the privatised railway. VTEC would be paying lease costs for three locos, which just wouldn’t fly, not unless they’re getting them each for a fiver. Maybe if just one company owned the trains, and ran them, and owned the track too. A railway for the whole of Britain, a British Railway if you will.

Nothing to do with privatisation - whatever organisational structure you have, the railway would need to fund more loco's to run it, unless they're getting them each for a fiver.

 

 

 

[jjb1970]

I love the way the IEP is being used to criticise the privatised railway, it's not like government had any involvement in that whole program is it  If only DafT could get involved in rolling stock procurement and micromanaging service delivery........