Class 800 - Updates

[nightstar.train]

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........

I certainly don’t criticise GWR and VTEC over IEP. The whole shambles is entirely due to the DfT, and GWR and VTEC are having to do their best with it. I was reading in another forum some posts from a GWR manager and it’s very interesting. Apparently at the start of this week they had 20 trains serviceable to cover 27 diagrams. It also seems that no HSTs are being kept as warm spares for a few weeks until the IEP Service beds in. As they’re urgently needed in Doncaster for conversion they’re heading off as soon as the 800s arrive.

 

I get the intent behind the DfT doing the IEP program. It was good intent. But the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

[The Stationmaster]

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.

 

Only problem being - judging by what I have seen on daytime London trains in both directions over the Highland main line - that a 5 car train would be totally inadequate for passenger loadings especially in the busy times of year.

[Ken.W]

Some unusual sightings on the ECML yesterday;

Firstly, a newly named 91 at Newcastle (on class 91 photos thread)

Doncaster West Yard, a pair of Scotrail 43s

Doncaster Carr Depot, several GWR green 800s, one grey one, and a single grey driving car

Ranskill, passed a grey 800 on test running

Peterborough (on return) an NSE 47 with 2 blue 'Peaks' in New England yard

[nightstar.train]

Only problem being - judging by what I have seen on daytime London trains in both directions over the Highland main line - that a 5 car train would be totally inadequate for passenger loadings especially in the busy times of year.

But would it be so busy if there was more than one service a day? Presumably they’re planing on running 9 car trains there, so that’s why they tested one up there.

[royaloak]

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.

I am sorry but a funny smillie just doesnt do that post justice! 

Edited March 28, 2018 by royaloak

[jamie92208]

I am sorry but a funny smillie just doesnt do that post justice! 

 

Unfortunately it is all too true. Uncle Roger exploded that myth 2 or 3 years ago and explained that the civil servants at the DaFT had re written the laws of physics and had briefed their Ministers to that effect.

 

Jamie

[Covkid]

Unfortunately it is all too true. Uncle Roger exploded that myth 2 or 3 years ago and explained that the civil servants at the DaFT had re written the laws of physics and had briefed their Ministers to that effect.

 

Jamie

 

 

It really is that simple. Roger Ford is a time served engineer who knows what he is talking about. You cannot dress up the fact that the IET is an EMU with added diesel power packs, the sum of which have less installed horsepower than the HST they are replacing. Common sense to me would dictate that the IET should have been test run over the most arduous routes intended, to see how the train compares to it's predecessor. Probably the most challenging pair of East Coast trains are the up and Down "Highland Chieftains" over the Highland mainline. Perhaps the only real solution on the 9 car units is to replace the unpowered car 6 with another diesel power car so that every non driving car has a diesel engine under it - ie 7 power cars.     

Edited March 28, 2018 by Covkid

[Geoff Endacott]

...or keep the HSTs.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Oakydoke]

Perhaps the only real solution on the 9 car units is to replace the unpowered car 6 with another diesel power car so that every non driving car has a diesel engine under it - ie 7 power cars.

 

There are 2 unpowered intermediate trailer cars in the 9 car units.

i.e. 5 diesel powered cars and 4 unpowered trailers (including the driving cars).

Both unpowered intermediate trailers would need to be replaced with diesel powered cars to get the 7 power cars you mention.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Oakydoke

[nightstar.train]

There are 2 unpowered intermediate trailer cars in the 9 car units.

i.e. 5 diesel powered cars and 4 unpowered trailers (including the driving cars).

Both unpowered intermediate trailers would need to be replaced with diesel powered cars to gat 7 power cars.

With one extra power trailer you’d get up to 10.2hp/ton, which compares favourably to the ECML HSTs 10.3hp/ton, and with two extra power trailers you’d get 11.9hp/ton, which is more than a 2+8 GWR set (11.1) and nearly as much as the XC 2+7 sets at 12.1hp/ton.

 

Although as I understand the power trailers are COMPLETELY different to the unpowered trailers, so Hitachi would have to scrap them and start again.

[Christopher125]

Although as I understand the power trailers are COMPLETELY different to the unpowered trailers, so Hitachi would have to scrap them and start again.

 

I was under the impression that powered and non-powered trailers were specifically designed to share a common bodyshell, so I'd be surprised if that was true. 

[Oakydoke]

Although as I understand the power trailers are COMPLETELY different to the unpowered trailers, so Hitachi would have to scrap them and start again.

How are they "completely different"?

During development, Hitachi said the unpowered trailers would have the same body shell with the raised floor, to provide commonality across the fleet and to simplify and reduce the cost of design and construction.

 

If need be, the generator power packs under the powered cars can be removed to turn them into all electric units.

The IEP specification required easy conversion of the trains from bi-mode to electric.

 

If it's the presence or not of traction motors, does the modular nature of the design not allow traction motors to be retro fitted to unpowered cars?

[jamie92208]

From what I've read the trailers are identical which is why it has been relatively easy (Though expensive) to convert the mainly electric GWR sets to diesel with all the extra power packs.  The only thing that can't be done, as I understand it, is to put power packs under the driving trailers due to them having the lower floor.

 

Jamie

[Coryton]

From what I've read the trailers are identical which is why it has been relatively easy (Though expensive) to convert the mainly electric GWR sets to diesel with all the extra power packs.  The only thing that can't be done, as I understand it, is to put power packs under the driving trailers due to them having the lower floor.

 

Jamie

 

I think there's some confusion here. No trailers (in the usual sense of the word) have been converted to diesel.

 

There are two types of intermediate car - powered and unpowered (and while I know what people mean here by "powered trailer" I don't think it's a particularly helpful term).

 

The powered ones have motors, and can also have diesel generators. The generators can be added or removed without much fuss.

 

The unpowered ones have no motors, and in principle could have the same low floor as the driving trailers. I very much doubt they do given the strong drive to commonality in bodyshells these days. Also, a low floor would require space for ramps at both ends of the coach, taking up space (on the driving trailers the ramp is, I think, alongside the large accessible toilets) and forcing the doors to be moved inwards (you can see this clearly on the driving trailers in Hornby's side-on views of their 800). 

 

So there should be plenty of space for generators under them, but how easy it would be to retrofit them and change the trailing bogies to powered ones I don't know. 

 

Something else I don't know is whether the generators feed a power bus (which must exist for power from the pantograph to reach all the motors) or if in diesel mode each generator only feeds the motors in its own coach.

 

If there is a power bus, them my (tongue in cheek) solution is to stick a nice big generator in the kitchen and tell first class passengers they'll have to go to Burger King before they get on the train.

[jjb1970]

Unfortunately it is all too true. Uncle Roger exploded that myth 2 or 3 years ago and explained that the civil servants at the DaFT had re written the laws of physics and had briefed their Ministers to that effect.

 

Jamie

Some mistake surely, after all full on nationalisation with those same civil servants and politicians driving the bus (off a cliff) is apparently the panacea to cure all the industries ailments  

[nightstar.train]

From what I've read the trailers are identical which is why it has been relatively easy (Though expensive) to convert the mainly electric GWR sets to diesel with all the extra power packs.  The only thing that can't be done, as I understand it, is to put power packs under the driving trailers due to them having the lower floor.

 

Jamie

Ah, okay. I’d forgotten that GWR had had to convert their all electric trains. I was under the impression that the unpowered trailers had a low floor, and thus no room for engines. They would still require new bogies as well as engines to make them as suggested. I would guess it’d be easier to fully uprate the engines on the existing power trailers than put engines in the other ones. And of course you can’t add any extra engines to the 5 car sets anyway.

[frobisher]

Ah, okay. I’d forgotten that GWR had had to convert their all electric trains. I was under the impression that the unpowered trailers had a low floor, and thus no room for engines. They would still require new bogies as well as engines to make them as suggested. I would guess it’d be easier to fully uprate the engines on the existing power trailers than put engines in the other ones. And of course you can’t add any extra engines to the 5 car sets anyway.

The saving grace for VTEC is that by and large their 9 car fleet hasn't begun manufacture yet, so mostly wouldn't need to be refitted per se if all trailer cars became powered/motored - though the question might be then given the number of traction motors on the 9 car unit were deemed more than sufficient for electric operation, do you "only" need to fit generator rafts et al to the previously unpowered 2 trailer vehicles rather than going full belt and braces?

[Coryton]

Ah, okay. I’d forgotten that GWR had had to convert their all electric trains. I was under the impression that the unpowered trailers had a low floor, and thus no room for engines. They would still require new bogies as well as engines to make them as suggested. I would guess it’d be easier to fully uprate the engines on the existing power trailers than put engines in the other ones. And of course you can’t add any extra engines to the 5 car sets anyway.

 

That depends where you put them...

[Ron Ron Ron]

Ah, okay. I’d forgotten that GWR had had to convert their all electric trains.

No trains have been converted.

GWR's Class 801's hadn't been assembled when the change of order was announced.

They have been built as Class 800's instead.

 

 

Ron

[Coryton]

Some mistake surely, after all full on nationalisation with those same civil servants and politicians driving the bus (off a cliff) is apparently the panacea to cure all the industries ailments  

 

I think the terminology is somewhat lacking here.

 

We've tried various ways of running the railways in peace time.

 

1) Purely commercial (pre-nationalisation)

2) Run by a state-owned "arms-length" organisation with the government holding the purse-strings but not generally actually trying to run the railway

3) Run commercially (apart from East Coast) to strictly defined franchise contracts set up by the government or as management contracts under government control

 

We call 1, and 3 "privatised" and 2 "nationalised", yet so far as I can see, under 1 and 2 in a meaningful way the government wasn't running the railway and under 3 it is.

 

There are also degrees of government control in 3, and it seems that since privatisation that control has become much stronger.

[St. Simon]

How are they "completely different"?

During development, Hitachi said the unpowered trailers would have the same body shell with the raised floor, to provide commonality across the fleet and to simplify and reduce the cost of design and construction.

 

If need be, the generator power packs under the powered cars can be removed to turn them into all electric units.

The IEP specification required easy conversion of the trains from bi-mode to electric.

 

If it's the presence or not of traction motors, does the modular nature of the design not allow traction motors to be retro fitted to unpowered cars?

 

A trailer with a diesel engine fitted can be converted to an trailer without an engine fitted in a few hours. However, an un-powered trailer can't be converted easily into a powered trailer, as they have inside bearing bogies (or at least the ones I saw at North Pole had them), so you would have to swap bogies over.

 

Simon

[jjb1970]

I think the terminology is somewhat lacking here.

 

We've tried various ways of running the railways in peace time.

 

1) Purely commercial (pre-nationalisation)

2) Run by a state-owned "arms-length" organisation with the government holding the purse-strings but not generally actually trying to run the railway

3) Run commercially (apart from East Coast) to strictly defined franchise contracts set up by the government or as management contracts under government control

 

We call 1, and 3 "privatised" and 2 "nationalised", yet so far as I can see, under 1 and 2 in a meaningful way the government wasn't running the railway and under 3 it is.

 

There are also degrees of government control in 3, and it seems that since privatisation that control has become much stronger.

I think that point cuts to the heart of the political debate about the modern passenger railway (less so freight) and the fact that it is one which seldom seems to be raised in the general media or by politicians is striking. Politicians like to talk about simple concepts which they believe are comprehensible by their electorate, hence the simple private vs. state owned stuff. People seem to really believe we have a privatised railway and politicians at least in public hold onto that idea whether or not they claim to be in favour of it (for their own reasons). Yet we have a system where the track and infrastructure is nationalised (the charade of NR being a company limited by guarantee was dropped a while ago which I thought was a positive statement of reality), government has increasingly got involved in micro-managing franchises and some major routes are operated as management contracts and with the government getting involved in train procurement. The passenger railway is effectively a nationalised system with service delivery contracted out. However admitting that would probably plunge politicians from both sides of the political spectrum into some sort of existential crises. On one side it would shatter the idea of a privatised railway and all the political baggage around that, on the other it'd beg the question of why if they think the railways are so dire when all the important decisions are made by government that formally nationalising the service delivery bit would change anything.

 

In a sense I think the whole nationalised vs. privatised debate is a distraction and a bit pointless but unfortunately it still seems to overshadow most political interest in railways. I think either system can work if properly implemented (even including our pseudo private concept). I see a lot of merit to an arms length BR but I can't see that happening as DafT and politicians are now too accustomed to power. Equally I see merit in a privatised system but again I can't see DafT and politicians surrendering their power to a genuine private operator. So we are where we are.

[The Stationmaster]

I think that point cuts to the heart of the political debate about the modern passenger railway (less so freight) and the fact that it is one which seldom seems to be raised in the general media or by politicians is striking. Politicians like to talk about simple concepts which they believe are comprehensible by their electorate, hence the simple private vs. state owned stuff. People seem to really believe we have a privatised railway and politicians at least in public hold onto that idea whether or not they claim to be in favour of it (for their own reasons). Yet we have a system where the track and infrastructure is nationalised (the charade of NR being a company limited by guarantee was dropped a while ago which I thought was a positive statement of reality), government has increasingly got involved in micro-managing franchises and some major routes are operated as management contracts and with the government getting involved in train procurement. The passenger railway is effectively a nationalised system with service delivery contracted out. However admitting that would probably plunge politicians from both sides of the political spectrum into some sort of existential crises. On one side it would shatter the idea of a privatised railway and all the political baggage around that, on the other it'd beg the question of why if they think the railways are so dire when all the important decisions are made by government that formally nationalising the service delivery bit would change anything.

 

In a sense I think the whole nationalised vs. privatised debate is a distraction and a bit pointless but unfortunately it still seems to overshadow most political interest in railways. I think either system can work if properly implemented (even including our pseudo private concept). I see a lot of merit to an arms length BR but I can't see that happening as DafT and politicians are now too accustomed to power. Equally I see merit in a privatised system but again I can't see DafT and politicians surrendering their power to a genuine private operator. So we are where we are.

 

An arms Length BR would undoubtedly be a good thing for the British railway industry but too much time has passed for it to be anything other than an impossible dream as the process of wresting control from DafT would be an extremely difficult battle and require considerable independence of spirit on the part of its senior managers.  As you have so rightly said we are where we are.

[jjb1970]

I count myself lucky as although I work in the transport sector I'm usually spared from the excesses of DafT thanks to the MCA being the agency responsible for regulating maritime affairs. Although not perfect (are any of us?) the MCA do generally know what they're doing and are competent in undertaking their duties.

[brushman47544]

First Class 802s on their way from Hitachi in Italy http://www.ferrovie.it/portale/articoli/7304

Edited March 31, 2018 by brushman47544