Class 800 - Updates

[Covkid]

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.

 

Perhaps I am making assumptions but if the MTUs are uprated to 900hp (per 802s) for the diesel work north of Dunblane then they surely will use more fuel than the "muzzled" MTUs - irrespective that the theoretical diesel portion is only in the Scottish Highlands.  What would the LNER policy be on carrying fuel in Bimodes I wonder.

 

The rheostatic brakes as fitted to the 802s would be really useful for running downhill over Slochd and Drumaichter and save considerable disc and pad wear compared to the 800s. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by Covkid

[Zomboid]

Seems like the train that we really need is actually an 802 (you know, the version which was specified by the TOCs, not DafT).

 

Though you could make the case that Hull Trains could have managed with 800s, but they've bought 802s...

Edited July 23, 2018 by Zomboid

[Ken.W]

Though you could make the case that Hull Trains could have managed with 800s, but they've bought 802s...

 

Perhaps they'd consider a swap if it was made worth there while?

Edited July 23, 2018 by Ken.W

[locoholic]

It's very simple. Just put 25KV OHL on the steep sections (uphill only on double track).

[jamie92208]

It's very simple. Just put 25KV OHL on the steep sections (uphill only on double track).

Having done that it might make sense to join up the isolated sections with cables and you might as well hang them over the track.

 

Jamie

[Coryton]

Perhaps I am making assumptions but if the MTUs are uprated to 900hp (per 802s) for the diesel work north of Dublane then they surely will use more fuel than the "muzzled" MTUs - irrespective that the theoretical diesel portion is only in the Scottish Highlands.  What would the LNER policy be on carrying fuel in Bimodes I wonder.

 

The rheostatic brakes as fitted to the 802s would be really useful for running downhill over Slochd and Drumaichter and save considerable disc and pad wear compared to the 800s. 

 

I agree, but (some) people seem to be making the assumption that uprating the engines would require enough extra fuel that larger tanks would be required, and that it would also require dynamic braking to be installed.

 

These may both be true, but I haven't seen any figures justifying it other than what seems to be an assumption that if you go for 802-style engine rating you have to go all the way and have everything else an 802 has.

[cheesysmith]

If you ae going to put wires on the hilly bits, you would do both line to use regenerative braking.

 

If the TOCs and leasing companies would have got a proper long term plan from the DaFT the HSTs would have been replaced 10 years ago. The only reason the HSTs are running around with engines limited in power is that no one could get a coherent strategy from DaFT over the inter city trains, so a proper re-tractioning of the HST with new alternators and 3 phase motors could not be justified. Hindsight has shown that the years in service would have justified such a package. And if the HST replacement had gone ahead earlier, we could have used a cummins 19L 6 cylinder engine under the coaches, allowing flat floors. A 5 coach train with 4 of these engines under them and the 5th coach with the transformer would not have the timing problems the IEP has.

[Siberian Snooper]

It's very simple. Just put 25KV OHL on the steep sections (uphill only on double track).

As most of the highland line is single track, most of it would need to be wired as downhill one way is uphill the other.

[Covkid]

I agree, but (some) people seem to be making the assumption that uprating the engines would require enough extra fuel that larger tanks would be required, and that it would also require dynamic braking to be installed.

 

These may both be true, but I haven't seen any figures justifying it other than what seems to be an assumption that if you go for 802-style engine rating you have to go all the way and have everything else an 802 has.

The key to successful LNER operations with the 800s will be keeping on top of the fuel levels matched to diagrams. If you have say a 1280 mile diagram for a Bimode with a diesel content of 320 miles, then whatever diagram the unit is next allocated to (assuming it is not fuelled overnight) will need to consider that.  As the 800s should normally be drawing 25kV between Kings Cross and Edinburgh, it will be offwire diversions and set swaps which weill potentially catch the Controllers out.

 

You are right though that bigger fuel and pigpee tanks won't be necessary unless Agility choose otherwise.  The MTU engine power output however appears to be a concern.  

 

If you ae going to put wires on the hilly bits, you would do both line to use regenerative braking.

 

If the TOCs and leasing companies would have got a proper long term plan from the DaFT the HSTs would have been replaced 10 years ago. The only reason the HSTs are running around with engines limited in power is that no one could get a coherent strategy from DaFT over the inter city trains, so a proper re-tractioning of the HST with new alternators and 3 phase motors could not be justified. Hindsight has shown that the years in service would have justified such a package. And if the HST replacement had gone ahead earlier, we could have used a cummins 19L 6 cylinder engine under the coaches, allowing flat floors. A 5 coach train with 4 of these engines under them and the 5th coach with the transformer would not have the timing problems the IEP has.

Absolutely

As most of the highland line is single track, most of it would need to be wired as downhill one way is uphill the other.

Correct. Which suggests electrification should be a darn sight simpler, with ample hydro electric power theoretically available. 

[jamie92208]

According to Roger Ford's blog the problem with using the electrics north of Northallerton is a signalling interference problem. Apparently there has been some intensive work and a successful test run has been done with one unit but they now need to test it with two passing each other.

 

 

Jamie

[jonny777]

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

 

Geoff Endacott

 

 

 

That reminds me of a great Jethro joke; but this thread is not the place to air it I suspect - at least not with my reputation. 

[frobisher]

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.

One thing that might be possible would be to build say the last 3 of the 13 800/1's with no TS's but MS's instead (becoming hypothetical 800/4s perhaps) in addition to the engine uprating might do something to address this without upsetting the build programme too greatly. The displaced TS's could be easily absorbed back into the 801/2 build. That you could do without going full 802 on them.

 

(Also, very theoretically, in total the 801/2's require 60 TS, and between the 800/1 and 800/3 could provide 68 TS if swapped out...)

 

The big questions would be, has that been considered (and possibly rejected), would it be within the scope of a variation, and would it be sufficiently effective beyond the current likely scenario?

 

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

ie Scotrail

Very probably... But the lack of a through service from London might ruffle some feathers up in Holyrood (perhaps tap Holyrood for the funding required to sort it..?)

Edited July 23, 2018 by frobisher

[Ken.W]

Perhaps it wouldn't be necessary for the larger tanks if uprating the 800s to 802 power spec, though all the 802s so far seem to have the larger tanks, including the Hull Trains ones.

Does anyone here know the range of an 802 on diesel? Even though they'll be running on electric south of Edinburgh, thats still only just over half the journey time-wise.

When it was sugested a small number of dedicated 802s could be used for the Inverness service, I comented this could work with diagrams also incorporating Yorkshire workings to get the from and back to their Doncaster depot. This could, depending on timings, need to include the Hull or Harrogate workings, so more mileage on diesel.

 

Also, although of coarse the HSTs are fuelled at Inverness overnight - the booked workings are Heaton - Sunderland - Kings X - Inverness, and Inverness - Kings X - Edinburgh, I don't know if Inverness depot is being modified to fuel the 800s.

 

In any case, there doesn't appear to be any intention of uprating the EC sets, and it's probably to late to make any alterations anyway.

 

A question was asked earlier about fuelling policy, it's always been a case with fuelling any diesel traction to refill to capacity.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Ken.W

[Siberian Snooper]

One would presume that the 802s will be running on diesel from Reading/Newbury to Penzance and back. I don't know how far that is, but probably further than Edinburgh to Inverness and return.

[caradoc]

Approximate mileages:

Edinburgh-Inverness 187, or Dunblane-Inverness 146

Newbury-Penzance 252

[Zomboid]

Living in the south of England, it's easy to forget just how big Scotland is...

[Siberian Snooper]

Living in Plymouth, I know that Reading to Plymouth is in the region of 190 miles using the B & H and Penzance is another 80 miles. Wiki says that Perth to Inverness is 118 miles and Edinburgh to Perth is 32 miles, so a bit less than a return trip Reading to Plymouth, let alone Penzance.

[rab]

That reminds me of a great Jethro joke; but this thread is not the place to air it I suspect - at least not with my reputation.

 

I was going to say if your going to see

Denzil by train, don't go on a Wednesday;

the train don't stop at Camborne on Wednesdays.

Edited July 24, 2018 by rab

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

The picture of the day for today (24/07/18) on the Railway Centre Website shows one of the TPE Class 802s on Dynamic Testing at Kings Cross, although still only in Base Grey:

 

http://www.railway-centre.com/

 

Simon

[Coryton]

The big questions would be, has that been considered (and possibly rejected), would it be within the scope of a variation, and would it be sufficiently effective beyond the current likely scenario?

 

 

 

I would imagine that pretty much anything is within scope of a variation order if you're prepared to pay what's asked.

 

Maybe not adding wings so they can fly from Edinburgh to Inverness...

[Mallard60022]

According to Roger Ford's blog the problem with using the electrics north of Northallerton is a signalling interference problem. Apparently there has been some intensive work and a successful test run has been done with one unit but they now need to test it with two passing each other.

 

 

Jamie

Bl''dy things must be DCC

P

[jim.snowdon]

Marvellous how DB could design signalling systems that were tolerant of the early 3-phase drives decades ago, yet we are still struggling.

 

Jim

[jamie92208]

Marvellous how DB could design signalling systems that were tolerant of the early 3-phase drives decades ago, yet we are still struggling.

 

Jim

The Midland managed to sort out interference problems on the Lancaster Morecambe Heysham electrification in 1907,That was 6.6Kv at 25 Hz with AC motors.

 

Jamie

Edited July 26, 2018 by jamie92208

[The Stationmaster]

Marvellous how DB could design signalling systems that were tolerant of the early 3-phase drives decades ago, yet we are still struggling.

 

Jim

 

I do wonder quite how far these tests go, and why.  When the Class 92s were being tested on the WCML there were initially all sorts of restrictions as they come with emissions which are not far short of being measured on nuclear weapon level.   Anyway one such test train was standing in a loop when the test instrumentation went berserk running right off the scale on some readings.  This caused a major panic until somebody very sensibly realised their train had been stationary and the 92 hadn't been doing anything, then somebody else said it might be worth checking if anything else had been moving and it was realised that a Class 90 had gone past at full chat - creating a major, and very 'dirty' electronic signature in its wake.

[jim.snowdon]

I do wonder quite how far these tests go, and why.  When the Class 92s were being tested on the WCML there were initially all sorts of restrictions as they come with emissions which are not far short of being measured on nuclear weapon level.   Anyway one such test train was standing in a loop when the test instrumentation went berserk running right off the scale on some readings.  This caused a major panic until somebody very sensibly realised their train had been stationary and the 92 hadn't been doing anything, then somebody else said it might be worth checking if anything else had been moving and it was realised that a Class 90 had gone past at full chat - creating a major, and very 'dirty' electronic signature in its wake.

A long time ago, in the late 1970s to be precise, I was involved in testing London Underground's first "proper " DC chopper traction equipment. Needless to say, the Signal Engineer was, shall we say, a little concerned that AC interference from the traction equipment would upset the signalling. There was a lot of testing, and eventually it emerged that that trains with the standard camshaft equipment emitted more electrical noise than the chopper equipment.

 

During all this time, we quietly mused on the fact that the Metadyne equipment on the O and P stock was well known for causing signal aspects to "bob", and the C69 stock, if there was an earth fault on one of the traction motors, they would generate track circuit frequency almost every time they started and stopped in the course of each inter-station run. Neither ended up being stopped on account of signalling interference.

 

By the time we were allowed to run our unit in service, the Signal Engineer insisted that it carried an expensively engineered fail-safe frequency monitor. Like the similar equipment used by BR on the Networkers, it turned out to be better at finding substation faults.

 

Jim