GWR Class 800

[Filton Bank]

I'm pretty sure NR rules state that trains can not enter platforms at a greater speed than 35mph - unless the track speed limit is lower. But there are cases when a late running service enters the platform a few mph above that.

That's not true. The only restrictions applied by TOCs (not NR) tend to be where the train enters the platform where the starter signal is at danger, or is a terminal platform with buffer stops. Other than that, some drivers might set themselves a maximum speed when entering a platform to adhere to (nothing wrong with that) but that's usually as part of a personal risk management strategy.
Very common at somewhere like Reading to arrive with the starter at danger, so a slower approach is required. Particularly on something like an HST or 800 where the ATP release speed needs to be taken into account.

 

[Railperf]

A significant number (more than half) of the trains in passenger service are currently being worked by a driver with a driver instructor. The power changeover procedure itself is so simple I don't think that would have been a factor here.

Signage is in place - 3 signs in each direction. But they are quite small!

The Blue run was last Friday's 1A11, the green was 1A15. I'm not sure anything was close enough in front of the 1A11 for there to have been adverse signals - nothing showing up on Realtime Trains.

 

[Railperf]

That's not true. The only restrictions applied by TOCs (not NR) tend to be where the train enters the platform where the starter signal is at danger, or is a terminal platform with buffer stops. Other than that, some drivers might set themselves a maximum speed when entering a platform to adhere to (nothing wrong with that) but that's usually as part of a personal risk management strategy.
Very common at somewhere like Reading to arrive with the starter at danger, so a slower approach is required. Particularly on something like an HST or 800 where the ATP release speed needs to be taken into account.

Yes, the starter at reading westbound seems to have been set to danger on one of my runs from Paddington to Reading, so not quite sure where the driver would have spotted his first double yellows and what the subsequent approach speeds for passing each aspect should be until he comes to a stop. but it does explain a slower run in to Reading from Twyford.

 

[irish_rail]

That's not true. The only restrictions applied by TOCs (not NR) tend to be where the train enters the platform where the starter signal is at danger, or is a terminal platform with buffer stops. Other than that, some drivers might set themselves a maximum speed when entering a platform to adhere to (nothing wrong with that) but that's usually as part of a personal risk management strategy.
Very common at somewhere like Reading to arrive with the starter at danger, so a slower approach is required. Particularly on something like an HST or 800 where the ATP release speed needs to be taken into account.

Platform 7 at Reading a good example, drivers need to be doing 15mph mid way down platform and 10mph once close to the signal otherwise ATP dumps the brakes on you! Always get funny looks from bemused passengers crawling in there!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I haven't yet spotted any visible marker boards advising drivers where to raise/lower pantographs and/or apply power.

Yesterday, for what it's worth, I got a bleep on my phone indicating "power on" while crossing the River Thames bridge at Maidenhead (eastbound), quickly followed by the speed surge before Taplow.
Nothing so obvious westbound.

 

[Railperf]

Thank you to @Railperf for this data. I've been waiting to see some proper analysis of diesel power on the 80X series for too long, given the amount of speculation flying around and Hitachi's incredibly coy attitude to releasing details.

Do tell me if I'm wrong, but does this data pretty much confirm that the diesel engines on an IEP fail to achieve the acceleration of even a HST? The rates when the switch is made at the wires are good, but up to that point the "old guard" seem well ahead in speed and acceleration terms.

Speaking from my own interests, this should make grim reading for those advocating IEP series bi-mode introduction on the MML if so, not least as the 222s they will ultimately have to keep up with have a superior performance to both 43s and 180s and any introduced IEP will be operating far longer distances "off grid" than is ultimately the case on the GWML.

Side-note: interesting to see that the Adelante appears to have a faster deceleration rate than a HST. How does an IEP compare in this respect? A quick deceleration time can at the very least shave a few seconds off journey times.

@mushroomchow My best data recording of the day showed that an IET can build a lead up over an HST of around 20 secs within half a mile and to around 45mph. After that the IET acceleration rate in diesel mode reduces significantly and the HST had caught up after 7 miles. At that point the IET had only just about reached 102mph whereas the HSt was up to 115mph. Both trains were still accelerating because at the 11.5 mile mark HSt was now easing off around 123mph, whereas the IET was still accelerating and had now reached 112mph.
What makes this interesting is that the HST driver seems to have limited his power application to notch 3 or lower until the rear power car had left the station canopy/platform. I say this because the initial start to 30mph was slower than other starts that we have recorded from signal stops in similar conditions.

As for your side note - the Adelante had a tighter schedule of 12 mins compared to 13 mins for the HST. But the braking points and applications as mentioned somewhere earlier are down to driver risk assessment/ driver confidence / TOC instruction / railhead condition/ operational and technical issues. there is no way that graph would prove that an Adelante has better brakes. It simply shows that on this run, the Adelante (180106) accelerated faster, and that the driver chose to coast earlier , before making a much later and harder brake application than the driver in the recorded HST run. The exact reasons we do not know.

 

[TwistedMentat]

All this sounds like to me is reinforcing the idea that the diesel power is aimed for sections that aren't long runs of 125mph.

As originally it seems the intent was for all those sections to be wired and only the slower sections to be on diesel. Where the lower acceleration profile is not a real issue.

And even with the vastly restricted electrification that will be done the sections that are still being wired are the sections where you have long runs of 125mph running.

 

[Railperf]

All this sounds like to me is reinforcing the idea that the diesel power is aimed for sections that aren't long runs of 125mph.

As originally it seems the intent was for all those sections to be wired and only the slower sections to be on diesel. Where the lower acceleration profile is not a real issue.

And even with the vastly restricted electrification that will be done the sections that are still being wired are the sections where you have long runs of 125mph running.

@TwistedMentat Yes, that is the conclusion I have come to also. But there is a concern that as the DfT scrap electrification schemes in favour of going bi-mode, the diesel performance of future bi-mode trains is going to have to be vastly improved if they are to provide equal or better performance than the trains they would potentially replace such as Class 222's on the midland main line. However, we shall wait and see how the 802's perform first, as they are supposedly uprated to a higher initial acceleration.

 

[TwistedMentat]

@TwistedMentat Yes, that is the conclusion I have come to also. But there is a concern that as the DfT scrap electrification schemes in favour of going bi-mode, the diesel performance of future bi-mode trains is going to have to be vastly improved if they are to provide equal or better performance than the trains they would potentially replace such as Class 222's on the midland main line. However, we shall wait and see how the 802's perform first, as they are supposedly uprated to a higher initial acceleration.

That's a reasonable worry. Though I would expect the remaining lines that are capable of long stretches of fast running are the easier ones to electrify. Could be totally wrong on that however.

 

[mushroomchow]

@mushroomchow My best data recording of the day showed that an IET can build a lead up over an HST of around 20 secs within half a mile and to around 45mph. After that the IET acceleration rate in diesel mode reduces significantly and the HST had caught up after 7 miles. At that point the IET had only just about reached 102mph whereas the HSt was up to 115mph. Both trains were still accelerating because at the 11.5 mile mark HSt was now easing off around 123mph, whereas the IET was still accelerating and had now reached 112mph.
What makes this interesting is that the HST driver seems to have limited his power application to notch 3 or lower until the rear power car had left the station canopy/platform. I say this because the initial start to 30mph was slower than other starts that we have recorded from signal stops in similar conditions.

As for your side note - the Adelante had a tighter schedule of 12 mins compared to 13 mins for the HST. But the braking points and applications as mentioned somewhere earlier are down to driver risk assessment/ driver confidence / TOC instruction / railhead condition/ operational and technical issues. there is no way that graph would prove that an Adelante has better brakes. It simply shows that on this run, the Adelante (180106) accelerated faster, and that the driver chose to coast earlier , before making a much later and harder brake application than the driver in the recorded HST run. The exact reasons we do not know.

Interesting stuff.

Also worth noting and hot off the press that the Practice and Performance folks at the Railway Magazine have been savvy to running data of their own, and it seems to confirm these reservations.

They'll be publishing a full run-down next month.

 

[Railperf]

If anyone on the forum spots an 800 with an engine out please post details here. Yesterday I am led to believe the consist with an engine out was 80000 5 / 006

 

[Railperf]

Interesting stuff.

Also worth noting and hot off the press that the Practice and Performance folks at the Railway Magazine have been savvy to running data of their own, and it seems to confirm these reservations.

They'll be publishing a full run-down next month.

The person that writes the practice and Performance feature in railway magazine is a member of the Railway performance Society. For obvious reasons he doesn't share those articles with other members until they are published. But he along with quite a few other members are also collecting performance data, sharing and analysing it with other members. So if that interests you it might be worth looking to become a member. Www.railperf.org.uk

 

[spark001uk]

Coach 812008 has a smashed window halfway down.

 

[mushroomchow]

Thanks, @Railperf , I'll take a look.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Thanks @Clarence Yard , it has been reported to me that at least one set has frequently had an engine out. Not just today.

Interesting that the 802's will be set up for higher acceleration rate, as the DfT specification says that an increased acceleration rate over their specification may be allowed if it can be proved to be compatible with the network. If the 802's can be specced at the higher rate, why not the 800's? is there a technical reason for this? Seems strange to have almost identical trains running with different acceleration rates over the network. Unless the difference in timings is negligible? Can you provide any insight as to how much better the 802's will perform than the current 800's in both diesel and electric mode?

Yes, the engine out is not a new fault. One engine out on a ten car can be lived with, two will be bad for timekeeping.

The reason for not uprating the acceleration rate on the 800's is to reduce engine wear and consequential cost risk to the Agility contract. The idea is to optimise the ability of the unit to meet the overall HST timings (note overall, not individual point to points) with an acceleration rate that doesn't send the torque percentage readings flying up and down on the TMS screen! 0.7 meets that requirement and the effect on the engine is much smoother than it was when it was tested on a higher setting.

GWR have specified the higher rate to meet the challenges of the route to Penzance where the 0.7 acceleration rate is currently thought to be inadequate.

 

[spark001uk]

If anyone on the forum spots an 800 with an engine out please post details here. Yesterday I am led to believe the consist with an engine out was 80000 5 / 006

Can confirm 814005 (the composite) was out as it left Reading on 1B28 today. Consist was 005/006.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If anyone on the forum spots an 800 with an engine out please post details here. Yesterday I am led to believe the consist with an engine out was 80000 5 / 006

I was on that train yesterday (005 coach A/B), but there was no shortage of performance on diesel.
We recovered a 5-minute late departure from Cardiff with ease.

 

[Railperf]

Yes, the engine out is not a new fault. One engine out on a ten car can be lived with, two will be bad for timekeeping.

The reason for not uprating the acceleration rate on the 800's is to reduce engine wear and consequential cost risk to the Agility contract. The idea is to optimise the ability of the unit to meet the overall HST timings (note overall, not individual point to points) with an acceleration rate that doesn't send the torque percentage readings flying up and down on the TMS screen! 0.7 meets that requirement and the effect on the engine is much smoother than it was when it was tested on a higher setting.

GWR have specified the higher rate to meet the challenges of the route to Penzance where the 0.7 acceleration rate is currently thought to be inadequate.

Thanks @Clarence Yard. Out of interest...what significance is the Torque reading on TMS to the driver? Does he / she have to manually adjust power to keep the engine torque within a certain range? Is the power controller on 800's notched or notchless? And if these fluctuating torque percentages are crucial...how is that issue being addressed on the 802's?

 

[Clarence Yard]

There is no significance as far as the driver is concerned. The significance of the torque variation were to those technical staff on board the test trains (and afterwards with the downloads) who were trying to get to the optimum settings for the 800 units.

The 802 units are not being managed through a risk averse DfT contract with bankers so the torque variation with these units is currently less of an issue.

 

[Railperf]

There is no significance as far as the driver is concerned. The significance of the torque variation were to those technical staff on board the test trains (and afterwards with the downloads) who were trying to get to the optimum settings for the 800 units.

The 802 units are not being managed through a risk averse DfT contract with bankers so the torque variation with these units is currently less of an issue.

@Clarence Yard Thanks very much. That is so insightful.

 

[spark001uk]

Ah, a pressure seal against the doors! I must admit I've been on 3 or 4 of these now and have only just noticed. Sounds like a release of air just after coming to a stand, and suddenly the outside world can be heard. Quite impressive I think. Shows how well sealed they are.
Engines are the same, in fact on hard acceleration you can hear the motors whine more than anything else; the engine itself is barely identifiable. Have to listen real careful to hear them start/stop when the moving changeover takes place.

 

[Filton Bank]

Thanks @Clarence Yard. Out of interest...what significance is the Torque reading on TMS to the driver? Does he / she have to manually adjust power to keep the engine torque within a certain range? Is the power controller on 800's notched or notchless? And if these fluctuating torque percentages are crucial...how is that issue being addressed on the 802's?

Notchless power and brake controller. The instruction for taking power (assuming green signals and decent adhesion) is to gradually bring the CPBC back to full power by about 10mph.
The TMS torque readings are pretty meaningless to the driver, and anyway, the driver should be focussing on driving the train, not constantly monitoring the TMS.

 

[spark001uk]

...bring the CPBC back to full power...

Clarence Park Baptist Church??

 

[Railperf]

A significant number (more than half) of the trains in passenger service are currently being worked by a driver with a driver instructor. The power changeover procedure itself is so simple I don't think that would have been a factor here.

Signage is in place - 3 signs in each direction. But they are quite small!

Does anyone have any pics of the signage?
Yes, on the second of my two runs, power was shut off in diesel mode as we sped through Maidenhead station and restored in AC mode by Milepost 23, an operation that took around 42 seconds. Whereas the earlier run of the day shut off power around Milepost 26 and didn't restore power until around Milepost 22.5. I cannot be certain at which point the diesel engines shut down on either run. Maybe someone who has an insight can explain the drivers procedure for the changeover. Do the diesel engines only shut down once AC traction is verified. And in the other direction, at what point are the engines started up prior to the end of the AC section. I cannot imagine the diesels being started up and expected to run at full power without having some warm up time - especially if engine wear and tear is a sensitive issue in the DfT contract.

 

[JN114]

Clarence Park Baptist Church??

California Police Bereavement Counsel

 

[Railperf]

Notchless power and brake controller. The instruction for taking power (assuming green signals and decent adhesion) is to gradually bring the CPBC back to full power by about 10mph.
The TMS torque readings are pretty meaningless to the driver, and anyway, the driver should be focussing on driving the train, not constantly monitoring the TMS.

Is that to give the diesel engines time to spool up into full power, or is wheelslip an issue?

 

[Domh245]

And in the other direction, at what point are the engines started up prior to the end of the AC section. I cannot imagine the diesels being started up and expected to run at full power without having some warm up time - especially if engine wear and tear is a sensitive issue in the DfT contract.

As I understand it, the engines are prewarmed whilst on AC so that they can be started up with very little time penalty.

CPBC stands for Combined Power (&) Brake Controller

 

[Filton Bank]

As I understand it, the engines are prewarmed whilst on AC so that they can be started up with very little time penalty.

Apparently not. But when the automatic power changeover set up is complete, the pre-heat will be programmed to commence when the train reaches a certain location prior to the changeover point (as determined by GPS).

 

[Filton Bank]

Is that to give the diesel engines time to spool up into full power, or is wheelslip an issue?

Just mechanical sympathy and good driving practice across all traction types.

 

[Filton Bank]

Does anyone have any pics of the signage?
Yes, on the second of my two runs, power was shut off in diesel mode as we sped through Maidenhead station and restored in AC mode by Milepost 23, an operation that took around 42 seconds. Whereas the earlier run of the day shut off power around Milepost 26 and didn't restore power until around Milepost 22.5. I cannot be certain at which point the diesel engines shut down on either run. Maybe someone who has an insight can explain the drivers procedure for the changeover. Do the diesel engines only shut down once AC traction is verified. And in the other direction, at what point are the engines started up prior to the end of the AC section. I cannot imagine the diesels being started up and expected to run at full power without having some warm up time - especially if engine wear and tear is a sensitive issue in the DfT contract.

Manual power changeover requires the driver to shut off power and press one button. That's it.
Going from electric to diesel, pressing the Diesel button starts the engines, engages diesel mode and lowers the pantographs. Going from diesel to electric, pressing the Electric button raises the pans, closes the Vacuum Circuit Breakers (VCBs) to engage Electric mode, and shuts the engines down, although this might take a few minutes while the engines run through a cooling cycle first.
There's no engine pre-heat with a manual power changeover from electric to diesel, but the engines will run at reduced revs/output until warmed up. It is possible to pre-heat the engines via the TMS, but it's way too much of a distraction risk to expect drivers to do it on the move.