GWR Class 800

[Railperf]

That depends on how many of those 940 horses per powered vehiclr in each set are getting to the rails after you take transmission losses auxiliary power supplies etc out of the equation. HST for example only manages to push out three and a half thousand horsepower at the rail compare to the 4500 horsepower being produced by it's diesel engines. One would hope that amore modern traction package would be more efficient but probably only Hitachi engineers know that figure. I don't think there is any doubt that given a long enough stretch of level track these units will eventually reach 125 miles an hour. But at the moment on stretches such as Didcot to Reading and Swindon to Didcot they seem to struggle to reach more than about 120 miles an hour. What is clear is that they could do with a tad more power to help them reach 125 miles a lot earlier.

 

[D1009]

I can also confirm the engine on coach number 814005 was not running this morning on the 1055 Cardiff to Paddington. Later in the day I travelled on the other set (800009/800011) on which all engines were working, and the speed coming out of Sodbury Tunnel was exactly the same at 96 mph. I conclude from this that in the event of an engine being out, the TMS adjusts the power output of the remaining engines to compensate, which IIRC was in the original DfT specification for the 800s.

A pal of mine is reporting that out of nine journeys he has made, six have been on a set with an engine out. So maybe - they are - as suggested - running at up to 930hp especially when an engine is out, and possibly reverting back to 700hp when all six are working. What is making this intriguing is the reports of similar on the road performance between sets with an engine out and those with all running. Then again another pal reports having seen a genuine rare 125mph between Didcot and Swindon on an IET, which would suggest a higher output on that set. But that may have been a test! So much confusion. Does anyone know if the acceleration curve is managed on the level or both uphill and downhill? The acceleration out of Paddington recorded to date seems to agree with The DfT specified acceleration curve. Whereas in diesel mode, there is a huge deficit in performance - apart from that initial surge to around 30mph or so before quickly tailing off.

I've quoted my own post from a couple of pages ago, with a subsequent one from Railperf. To expand on my own post, the two runs from last Thursday between Bristol Parkway and Swindon to which I referred were on 1L51 formed of 800005/800006, with the engine out on 814005, and 1L76 formed of 800009/800011 with all engines working. I can confirm that both runs were unchecked, except that 1L76 seemed to run slower than usual on the approach to Swindon. I recorded the time on the second run, which was 24 mins 4 secs, but unfortunately not the first. However, these are the times on Real Time Trains.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C29277/2017/11/02/advanced

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C29290/2017/11/02/advanced

Now I know for a variety of reasons times shown on RTT will never be totally accurate, but I am sure that, other things being equal, a set with an engine out would show a greater difference on RTT.

A number of contributors to this thread seem to believe that there is a binary choice between what the engines can deliver, either 700 hp or 940 hp. I believe this is not the case, and that the engine management software is clever enough to deliver a pre determined performance over the whole speed range, and this is adjusted automatically if an engine is out. This is part of what Hitachi and GWR have agreed to minimise engine maintenance costs.

 

[jayah]

Isn’t the whole point of the Class 800s that they are a step up from the Voyagers, at least in terms of passenger experience. I don’t know how many 125mph routes the Voyagers operate on where no electrification is present, but I can’t think it would be many.

The question ought to be how many 125mph routes DO they operate with wires. Get the Voyager, get the AC, problem solved!

The IET is a Voyager with 3/5 diesel cars and derated diesel engines. There is ample scope to make them perform as well on diesel or electric as a Voyager already proves, despite various attempts at derating them.

Somehow for a colossal sum we have ended up with a train that can't even match a HST and north of Edinburgh and takes us back towards Class 47 timings.

The interior is for the birds. The Voyager is pretty bad, but not really relevant here, it can be whatever you like.

 

[D365]

The question ought to be how many 125mph routes DO they operate with wires. Get the Voyager, get the AC, problem solved!

You’re completely missing the point here, the intention with the Class 800s was never to match Voyager performance away from the wires. Once GWEp is wrapped up there will be no need for it.

I don’t know what figures you have that suggest that Class 800s won’t keep to HST timings north of Edinburgh.

 

[jayah]

You’re completely missing the point here, the intention with the Class 800s was never to match Voyager performance away from the wires. Once GWEp is wrapped up there will be no need for it.

I don’t know what figures you have that suggest that Class 800s won’t keep to HST timings north of Edinburgh.

Modern Railways has said they aren't expected to meet the HST times on the Scottish runs and they are looking at extending them. Not exactly surprising if they can't match a HST on the level.

The point is IET wasn't necessary as the concept should have been proved in the Voyager. No need to spend £bn on something different including endless debates about bi-modes vs hauled EMUs off the wires and fretting over the weight of the diesel engines which amounts to nothing in the great scheme of things.

What goes in the shell is best left to the interior designers, but despite all the money spent they don't look to have done particularly well there either.

 

[Clarence Yard]

A number of contributors to this thread seem to believe that there is a binary choice between what the engines can deliver, either 700 hp or 940 hp. I believe this is not the case, and that the engine management software is clever enough to deliver a pre determined performance over the whole speed range, and this is adjusted automatically if an engine is out. This is part of what Hitachi and GWR have agreed to minimise engine maintenance costs.

Well put. This is indeed the case except that the agreement is between Agility and the DfT. What is happening in this discussion is that people who are noting their performance are effectively not analysing maximum power output but how well Hitachi are adjusting the engine management electronics for a number of factors over the entire speed range.

The train is operating well within it’s power output. It’s just that the maximum power output is not being allowed to be called upon in certain circumstances. That is quite deliberate as the train in diesel mode is set up to deliver HST overall journey times at power settings with an acceptable level of torque variance.

I’ve been on test on a 700kw unit with 0.82 acceleration, lightly governed and the performance was impressive with acceleration really good up to around the 80mph-90mph mark and a top speed of 121mph (and it could have done more) and then went on a 565kw unit with 0.7 acceleration, heavily governed and the performance was awful and we could barely get over 100mph. How the electronics are set up overall is quite crucial, not just what the acceleration rate and the maximum power rating are.

The point about the current engine settings is that they have been optimised to meet a current timetable, not the one that is due to come in December 2018. That, as has been said, always was and still is dependant on electric traction.

 

[jayah]

Well put. This is indeed the case except that the agreement is between Agility and the DfT. What is happening in this discussion is that people who are noting their performance are effectively not analysing maximum power output but how well Hitachi are adjusting the engine management electronics for a number of factors over the entire speed range.

The train is operating well within it’s power output. It’s just that the maximum power output is not being allowed to be called upon in certain circumstances. That is quite deliberate as the train in diesel mode is set up to deliver HST overall journey times at power settings with an acceptable level of torque variance.

I’ve been on test on a 700kw unit with 0.82 acceleration, lightly governed and the performance was impressive with acceleration really good up to around the 80mph-90mph mark and a top speed of 121mph (and it could have done more) and then went on a 565kw unit with 0.7 acceleration, heavily governed and the performance was awful and we could barely get over 100mph. How the electronics are set up overall is quite crucial, not just what the acceleration rate and the maximum power rating are.

The point about the current engine settings is that they have been optimised to meet a current timetable, not the one that is due to come in December 2018. That, as has been said, always was and still is dependant on electric traction.

Well if as suggested London Inverness has another 10min added when IET is introduced serious questions will rightly be asked.

Ditto if all that is actually required is a difficult contractural and trivial software change, no doubt costing the taxpayer £££m.

These trains are meant to be speeding up journeys not extending them, nor bankrupting us in the process.

 

[D1009]

Well put. This is indeed the case except that the agreement is between Agility and the DfT. What is happening in this discussion is that people who are noting their performance are effectively not analysing maximum power output but how well Hitachi are adjusting the engine management electronics for a number of factors over the entire speed range.

The train is operating well within it’s power output. It’s just that the maximum power output is not being allowed to be called upon in certain circumstances. That is quite deliberate as the train in diesel mode is set up to deliver HST overall journey times at power settings with an acceptable level of torque variance.

I’ve been on test on a 700kw unit with 0.82 acceleration, lightly governed and the performance was impressive with acceleration really good up to around the 80mph-90mph mark and a top speed of 121mph (and it could have done more) and then went on a 565kw unit with 0.7 acceleration, heavily governed and the performance was awful and we could barely get over 100mph. How the electronics are set up overall is quite crucial, not just what the acceleration rate and the maximum power rating are.

The point about the current engine settings is that they have been optimised to meet a current timetable, not the one that is due to come in December 2018. That, as has been said, always was and still is dependant on electric traction.

Thanks for confirming what I thought. Yes I know it's Agility, but since all their staff walk up and down the trains with HITACHI on the backs of their shirts, this is obviously the name they want to promote as far as the public is concerned, and surely GWR must have come into it as regards delivering a performance acceptable in terms of timetable planning, even if it was later formalised into the variation to the contract with the DfT.

 

[Railperf]

Wl
The train is operating well within it’s power output. It’s just that the maximum power output is not being allowed to be called upon in certain circumstances. That is quite deliberate as the train in diesel mode is set up to deliver HST overall journey times at power settings with an acceptable level of torque variance.

I’ve been on test on a 700kw unit with 0.82 acceleration, lightly governed and the performance was impressive with acceleration really good up to around the 80mph-90mph mark and a top speed of 121mph

What does lightly governed mean? And how do you define impressive performance. Some figures / stats would be helpful here to describe how much better an 802 might be..and certainly to compare to an HST.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 395 is not an intercity train - they are just faster commuter trains. It's fair enough to say that the 800s are better (I probably agree), but they certainly shouldn't be compared to Pacers.

They are rather nice for commuter trains. The interior is nicer than the Pendolino in my view. It's basically a slightly upgraded equivalent of the Class 150/1, which is also a very nice commuter train (us on the WCML really like them).

 

[scruffer04]

Modern Railways has said they aren't expected to meet the HST times on the Scottish runs and they are looking at extending them. Not exactly surprising if they can't match a HST on the level.

Scotrail HST's will be catching them up

 

[D1009]

Well if as suggested London Inverness has another 10min added when IET is introduced serious questions will rightly be asked.

Ditto if all that is actually required is a difficult contractural and trivial software change, no doubt costing the taxpayer £££m.

These trains are meant to be speeding up journeys not extending them, nor bankrupting us in the process.

As regards the Highland Chieftain, at present this train is slower than some of the Scotrail services between Edinburgh and Inverness, but offers a step change in terms of comfort, number of seats and catering service. This therefore attracts a significant number of "domestic" passengers between Edinburgh and Inverness. It is however likely to change once Scotrail introduce their HSTs. I can't see people preferring IETs to HSTs from a comfort angle, and if it is only to be a 5 car set north of Edinburgh, there won't be a huge difference in the number of seats.

 

[class387]

They are rather nice for commuter trains. The interior is nicer than the Pendolino in my view. It's basically a slightly upgraded equivalent of the Class 150/1, which is also a very nice commuter train (us on the WCML really like them).

Agreed. I think you mean 350/1 though...

 

[Clarence Yard]

Thanks for confirming what I thought. Yes I know it's Agility, but since all their staff walk up and down the trains with HITACHI on the backs of their shirts, this is obviously the name they want to promote as far as the public is concerned, and surely GWR must have come into it as regards delivering a performance acceptable in terms of timetable planning, even if it was later formalised into the variation to the contract with the DfT.

No, the DfT are most definitely in the lead. GWR told the DfT that 565kw would not deliver the current timetable and they wanted 700kw if the trains were going to be accepted for service. The timing tests authorised by the DfT earlier this year were part of that process.

In terms of timetable planning for the current introduction, there isn’t any. They are running in HST diagrams, timed as HST units. 800D and 800E timings are not yet agreed by NR and the whole December 2018 Timetable is when these timings should finally come into play.

 

[jayah]

As regards the Highland Chieftain, at present this train is slower than some of the Scotrail services between Edinburgh and Inverness, but offers a step change in terms of comfort, number of seats and catering service. This therefore attracts a significant number of "domestic" passengers between Edinburgh and Inverness. It is however likely to change once Scotrail introduce their HSTs. I can't see people preferring IETs to HSTs from a comfort angle, and if it is only to be a 5 car set north of Edinburgh, there won't be a huge difference in the number of seats.

The IET spec in Appendix B is 192min net Edinburgh to Inverness. The current time is 3hr31 gross and the standing / allowance time is over 30min. If they are talking about adding more time to the gross because they can't keep the IET inside the 3/4min calls the HST gets, they might as well forget dynamic loops and build a crawler lane for them.

Or pay another few hundred £m for a software tweak to get what they should have asked for in the first place - a train that can keep up with one that has 40 years on it.

 

[jimm]

I'm worried about 'jimm'!
He seems to be under the impression that the new trains are animate objects and that if they hear criticism of themselves they'll go into a sulk and refuse to run.

He accuses people of being somewhat overheated in their approach to these trains, and yet can barely contain his anger at any suggestion they might not be what everyone approves of.

The trains cant be blamed for any inadequacies. The fault lies with Network Rail and the DfT.
Hitachi are making the best of a bum deal.
What some of us are expressing, much to the annoyance of some on here, is disappointment that we are getting trains that might just be able to keeep to a timetable introduced 40 years ago!
That certain aspects of passenger comfort leave somethings to be desired, that taxpayers money is being spent, for whatever reason, on trains that are too heavy, too slow, too expensive to buy, run and maintain, and that will be with us for the next 30 years!

And I'm worried about people who keep trying to hold these trains to a performance standard on diesel power - keeping up to the milli-second with HST timings on 125mph-passed track, that they were not planned to have to meet, and will only need to get somewhere near for a little over a year before use of 25kv into Wiltshire and South Wales renders such 'disappointment' utterly irrelevant - and yet appear unwilling to brook any criticism when I and others keep pointing this out.

Hitachi are indeed making the best of a bum deal - yet you and railperf seem to think that this still isn't good enough.

You also manage to trot out the old one about how much the trains cost - the thing that is costing stupid money is the 27-year deal that DfT went with to maintain the pretence that the IEP programme is not part of the public debt, never mind that the government is the guarantor of that agreement - and you could say the same about every other PFI-type agreement for school, hospitals, etc, made under governments of various political persuasions since the 1990s. Subsequent orders for Class 802s for First Group operations, made in the normal way via a leasing company, have come in at a price per coach that is competitive with other orders for various types of express train around Europe.

For trains running for extended periods off the wires - I.E to Cornwall, Cotswolds, Aberdeen, Inverness etc, the specification should have been enough installed power in diesel mode (power to weight ratio) to match a Class 180 or 220/1/2.

Why? It could be argued the 180 is massively overpowered for operation away from 125mph track - we are talking about a train that was designed to keep time at 125mph with one engine not working.

I am aware of the odd occasion when 180s recovered something like a 15-minute late start from Hereford by Oxford, which was largely achieved by absolutely hammering the acceleration to get up to line speed after every stop. C'est magnifique, but knows what it all cost in extra fuel burned.

When it comes to Scotland, we are still more than a year away from entry to service with Virgin, and I expect they will probably be sitting down with Hitachi and the DfT to discuss how the trains should be set up for their part of the world once there is lots of data to look at from GWR operations. What exactly requirements north of Edinburgh have to do with sustained running on diesel at speeds above 100mph escapes me.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The 395 is not an intercity train - they are just faster commuter trains. It's fair enough to say that the 800s are better (I probably agree), but they certainly shouldn't be compared to Pacers.

Well I did say “exaggeration”

 

[snowball]

Once again though the Class 800 diesel is designed as a "last mile" functionality and was never an intended replacement for the HSTs.

You seem to be thinking of Class 801. GWR are no longer getting any of those - they have all been converted to Class 800.

 

[Railperf]

I believe ... that the engine management software is clever enough to deliver a pre determined performance over the whole speed range, and this is adjusted automatically if an engine is out. This is part of what Hitachi and GWR have agreed to minimise engine maintenance costs.

Maybe it is becoming clearer that the acceleration rate in diesel mode is set artificially much lower than in electric mode.
Is it possible we are seeing one set with an engine out for reliability testing purposes to see how if compares to the six engined set, or there is a serious teething issue, and as a result the diesel mode acceleration rate has been set artificially lower through the upper speed ranges to keep reliability as high as possible and prevent more failures?
It was mentioned earlier in the thread about Class 180 Adelantes and Class 220/1/2 Voyagers being overpowered, but when one considers how unreliable these trains have been, with reports of at least 2 engines out at a time, then probably this was a great decision.

Clearly someone at the treasury took into account ehe extra diesel fuel and engine maintenance costs when cancelling and deferring parts of the GWML electrification. And if the new trains do end up being scheduled with longer journey times over the diesel run sections of track, then it is going to be an embarrassment for all the stakeholders concerned.

 

[D365]

You seem to be thinking of Class 801. GWR are no longer getting any of those - they have all been converted to Class 800.

I’m not. The diesel power packs in those aren’t intended for service running at all.

“Last miles” might be a more accurate way of describing it.

 

[samuelmorris]

Edinburgh to Inverness isn't really 'last miles' is it? The engines in the 801s are by definition 'last mile', I'm pretty sure I've seen that terminology used before. Using it to describe the kit fitted to 800s wouldn't be remotely accurate, hence why the 801 assumption was made, I would have done the same.

 

[Dai Corner]

Maybe it is becoming clearer that the acceleration rate in diesel mode is set artificially much lower than in electric mode.
Is it possible we are seeing one set with an engine out for reliability testing purposes to see how if compares to the six engined set, or there is a serious teething issue, and as a result the diesel mode acceleration rate has been set artificially lower through the upper speed ranges to keep reliability as high as possible and prevent more failures?
It was mentioned earlier in the thread about Class 180 Adelantes and Class 220/1/2 Voyagers being overpowered, but when one considers how unreliable these trains have been, with reports of at least 2 engines out at a time, then probably this was a great decision.

Clearly someone at the treasury took into account ehe extra diesel fuel and engine maintenance costs when cancelling and deferring parts of the GWML electrification. And if the new trains do end up being scheduled with longer journey times over the diesel run sections of track, then it is going to be an embarrassment for all the stakeholders concerned.

I doubt very much that any of the stakeholders, especially the general public, will care that trains take a minute or two longer between Chippenham and Bath or don't climb Filton Bank quite as quickly as a Voyager if they go like the clappers once they're on the juice and their overall journey is quicker.

 

[jimm]

Maybe it is becoming clearer that the acceleration rate in diesel mode is set artificially much lower than in electric mode.
Is it possible we are seeing one set with an engine out for reliability testing purposes to see how if compares to the six engined set, or there is a serious teething issue, and as a result the diesel mode acceleration rate has been set artificially lower through the upper speed ranges to keep reliability as high as possible and prevent more failures?
It was mentioned earlier in the thread about Class 180 Adelantes and Class 220/1/2 Voyagers being overpowered, but when one considers how unreliable these trains have been, with reports of at least 2 engines out at a time, then probably this was a great decision.

Clearly someone at the treasury took into account ehe extra diesel fuel and engine maintenance costs when cancelling and deferring parts of the GWML electrification. And if the new trains do end up being scheduled with longer journey times over the diesel run sections of track, then it is going to be an embarrassment for all the stakeholders concerned.

What I clearly said about the 180s - not the Voyagers - was not that you could argue they were overpowered in general, at least not as a purpose-built diesel train intended to run for long periods at 125mph, but that they are overpowered for use in areas where the speed limit is not above 100mph - like the areas where Class 800s will need their diesel engines for most of their working lives, as opposed to 125mph areas of the GWML where the 800s were not expected to need to use the diesels - and will only have to use them in the short term. There is a difference.

In the cass of a five-car Class 221, they probably do need every last bit of engine power to get up to 125mph on a regular basis, since they weigh in at 280 tonnes plus, so not much less than the 300 tonnes of a five-car 800.

And the idea that the engines are dropping out all the time on 180s and 22xs is daft. It happens, yes, but not exactly at epidemic proportions. HST power cars also fail on occasion and that's half the train's power gone at stroke when it happens.

Clearly people in the government took account of all sorts of things - as has been discussed in this thread for a very long time...

On the Cotswold Line (maximum permitted speed 100mph) IETs are not going to be scheduled with longer journey times, as you can see by looking at realtimetrains for January 2 - the timings are just the same as for the current 180 services - and when there is no longer a need to allow for Turbos on various services or them substituting for other rolling stock, the revised timetable from the end of next year will see time taken out of most journeys on the route - as there will no longer be a need to allow the extra time for Turbos or for guards shutting slam doors on HSTs on all the unstaffed platforms. But don't let any of that spoil your theorising, will you?

 

[physics34]

please please please, i know its lazy but please tell me what the 800s are on today.... or at least point me to the post thatll tell me, cheers.

 

[Darandio]

please please please, i know its lazy but please tell me what the 800s are on today.... or at least point me to the post thatll tell me, cheers.

Surely there are either in the dedicated thread, or the question needs to be asked there? It's here.

 

[physics34]

Surely there are either in the dedicated thread, or the question needs to be asked there? It's here.

thanks.

 

[Railperf]

On the Cotswold Line (maximum permitted speed 100mph) IETs are not going to be scheduled with longer journey times, as you can see by looking at realtimetrains for January 2 - the timings are just the same as for the current 180 services - and when there is no longer a need to allow for Turbos on various services or them substituting for other rolling stock, the revised timetable from the end of next year will see time taken out of most journeys on the route - as there will no longer be a need to allow the extra time for Turbos or for guards shutting slam doors on HSTs on all the unstaffed platforms. But don't let any of that spoil your theorising, will you?

That is reassuring. I think we all hope that they will perform as well as the current rolling stock, if not better. The key will be how much more accelerative the 802's will be to 90 and 100mph. So far, i haven't seen any huge reduction in station dwell times with the powered doors to suggest there will be huge time savings to be gained. But every little helps - as they say. It is still early days, and passengers and station staff are getting used to the boarding and despatching of the new trains.

 

[Railperf]

I doubt very much that any of the stakeholders, especially the general public, will care that trains take a minute or two longer between Chippenham and Bath or don't climb Filton Bank quite as quickly as a Voyager if they go like the clappers once they're on the juice and their overall journey is quicker.

Let's qualify that the maximum speed remains at 125mph, and the current HST's are not being driven like the clappers (unless they are running late) because the station to station schedules have been extended over the years for different reasons.

It appears that an IET in electric mode can shave off a minute on sections of track more than 10 miles long because it gets to 125mph quicker than an HST. And of course IET will be able to recover back to maximum permitted line speed from any lower speed limits and out of course slowings due to temporary speed limits and signal checks much quicker than an HST too. So further time savings can be gained 15 secs here, 20 secs there en route. I am still not sure where the claimed 17 minute time savings are going to come from on a journey between Paddington and Bristol TM via Bath

 

[Dai Corner]

The standard timing Paddington to Temple Meads with five stops today is about 103 mins and I don't have the old timetables to hand but seem to remember (can anyone verify?) that the HSTs at one time did it in 87 mins stopping at Reading and Bath only. That's 16 minutes faster.

So the acceleration they're claiming may be more to with additional fast trains than performance?

 

[Sean Emmett]

In the cass of a five-car Class 221, they probably do need every last bit of engine power to get up to 125mph on a regular basis, since they weigh in at 280 tonnes plus, so not much less than the 300 tonnes of a 800

I thought it was 250.5 tonnes for a 5 car 800?

If it's 300 tonnes the diesels are doing better than we thought.