I have to say, after watching various videos of the 800/801s on YouTube lately including the Virgin Azuma example moving under its own power, IMHO these are the best looking trains in the UK at the moment. It will be fantastic to see them in full action across the country.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
GWR Class 800
- Thread starter SpacePhoenix
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It is a good looking train but it sounds liked a pimped 158. About time this country got serious about electrifying the network and catching up with the rest of the developed European countries.
coppercapped
Established Member
You are easily pleased...
A big improvement would be smaller deadlights between the windows...
...oh, and by the way, deeper windows...
...and smooth sides...
southern442
Established Member
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
It is a good looking train but it sounds liked a pimped 158. About time this country got serious about electrifying the network and catching up with the rest of the developed European countries.
Got serious - we're doing 10% of the network in this Control Period and early next CP, and there's another 10% lined up for late CP6, CP7 and early CP8.
We (and not just electrification) couldn't cope with more work going on - more closures, no diversionary routes, road closures everywhere for bridge rebuilding, it would be absolute chaos.
Could you imagine trying to do the Glasgow Queen Street electrification and having the Tay Viaduct at Perth closed at the same time, or the Severn Tunnel and the diversion via Cheltenham both closed for electrification at the same time.
It would be anarchy trying to do more at the present time. And that's all assuming the various suppliers and contractors could cope - there's gauge clearance, track lowering, re-signalling and immunisation to deal with, and re-signalling and re-controlling routes into an ROC can be especially disruptive.
Mate it was said with a smiley face. That said it should have been done decades ago.
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,913
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
Is Roger losing the plot in his old age ?
He knows this already, we tested it with a pair of Class 91s and Mark 4 stock at the same pantograph spacing as IEP was intended to use. It's OK at 125mph, at 140mph the second pantograph loses contact too often and ADD or VCB operation would be a concern causing the second trailing unit to lose power (and possibly damaging the OLE in the process).
Is 140mph operation with a nine-car set okay? (They only have a single pantograph, right?)
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
Yes, the Mark 3 OLE was modified to work with a single pantograph at 140mph, when the decision was made to order the 140mph Class 91 rather than the 125mph Class 89 and pursue 140mph running. It wasn't initially designed for that use though, it started life as a cheap suburban electrification system.
That's why there would be a reliability trade off involved, given the number of sets which will ultimately be operating using the ECML OLE. IEP 9 car sets for the East Coast is now 43 (30 electric, 13 bi-mode) and there's a further 25 x 5 car sets (12 electric, 13 bi-mode) with a small number of IC225 sets being retained (or another 6 x 5 car AT300 sets to replace them).
Hull Trains will be operating 5 x 5 car bi-mode sets, and TransPennine's 19 bi-mode units will also be using the ECML between Edinburgh, York and Doncaster.
That's an enormous increase in electric units using the OLE, which will increase the failure rate with predictable and chaotic consequences.
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,913
Correct me if I am wrong, but the 1st application Mk 3 was Weaver Jn to Glasgow (1970-74). Cheap, yes, suburban, no.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,722
This is BR we are talking about.
Since when did anything do what it was designed for?
Since when did anything do what it was designed for?
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
Yes, but it's not what it was initially designed for.
The initial Mark 3 design couldn't cope with the uplift at speeds greater than 90mph, the registration arms didn't have sufficient clearance between the top of the registration arm and the bottom of the cantilever tube to which it's attached. That was, of course, later modified.
Weaver Junction was before my time, but I believe it was initially supposed to be Mark 2, but that system never really took off (it was only ever used on, I think, the Inverclyde Line) and Mark 1 was considered (and should have been used) but Mark 3 was settled on instead, as some sort of attempt to standardise on one system.
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,913
At what time was the 90mph limitation identified? When was it modified?
Did the adoption of Mk3 rather than Mk2 reflect BR's need to reduce costs on Weaver to Glasgow?
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
APT-P and BR/BW High Speed Pantograph testing (which 'sticks' to the OLE better anyway). They were swapped for registration arms allowing more uplift during the WCRM, if they hadn't been swapped out previously by BR.
Just the reg arm and its pivot point needed swapped, so an easy and quick fix, they were a bit obvious at the time as they were cleaner and shiny, the rest of the arm wasn't. The old registration arms are almost perfectly horizontal, the new ones are much the same shape as the Series 1 reg arms, with a clear bend in them, so they hold the contact wire clearer of the cantilever arm.
I've heard various stories about the Mark 3 on the WCML - saving money probably helped, but it was more about demonstrating a cheaper electrification system with an eye to getting other routes electrified. The electrification team at the time probably correctly realised, with cheap North Sea oil coming, diesel traction was never going to be replaced by electric unless compelling cost savings could be demonstrated to the BR Board, but there are books and books on BR politics and it's all before my time.
QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,913
Thank you for the information. ARe there any before and after pictures?
I have noticed another modification from the time of the WCRM wHere there are two vertical bars stuck on one either side of the cantilever arms/registration arms. This is unsightly, but no doubt has a good reason behind it. Any clues?
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
Hard going to find photos, few people care about the OLE.
The original registration arms, as installed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhayes/6167220165
The newer style of registration arm.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16506140@N05/17105053481
https://www.flickr.com/photos/trainsruleandroll/14917160298
Do you have a photo of the other modification you describe ?
QueensCurve omits a few key words when he quotes Roger Ford. What RF actually wrote (Modern Railways April, page 26) was
"Three Hitachi Class 800 bi-mode trains, 2x5 car plus a nine-car, are already running on the East Coast main line. This has confirmed that the much-maligned Mk 3b British Rail Overhead Line Equipment (OHLE) provides satisfactory current collection with a pair of five-car units in multiple running at 125mph with two pantographs raised."
Just a random subject here which I've not seen mentioned in this thread:
If a one of two 5-car class 800s that form a 10-car train was to suffer an electrical collection fault, e.g. loss of carbon contact strips, would it be possible for that one to be operated as a diesel-electric unit with the other fully operational unit still running from OLE?
If a one of two 5-car class 800s that form a 10-car train was to suffer an electrical collection fault, e.g. loss of carbon contact strips, would it be possible for that one to be operated as a diesel-electric unit with the other fully operational unit still running from OLE?
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Not above 100mph. That's to say nothing of how that sort of interworking would work!
I wondered whether the alternative power would be used to allow the service to continue, minimising the disruption whilst keeping local pollution to a minimum.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
They have two pantographs (every driving vehicle has a pantograph) and the chances of both pantographs being damaged the same day would be slim, if they both became damaged, I'd want the unit out of service and back to the nearest IEP depot for inspection.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Indeed. Not to mention checking the Overhead line in the area for damage perhaps ?. A good case for all the following trains being on diesel for a while ?.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
That would depend on reports from other units. The same unit shouldn't be damaging both pantographs on the same section of OLE, defective OLE should be tripping up every unit and requiring a change to the second pantograph in the same area, something that would indeed be remedied by then closing the offending line to electric traction.
If both pans are damaged on just one unit, I'd be wanting to check the unit first for damage that might have occurred when operating away from electrified track, these units will be operating to Inverness for example, quite possible a fallen branch or partially uprooted tree could have damaged both pantographs. That's something one would hope would be picked up when changing to electric at Dunblane/Stirling, but it may not manifest itself until later in the journey, perhaps after operating at higher speed.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Good point. And I suppose a load of salty water might get thrown into the pantograph well of an IEP as it passes along the seawall at Dawlish leading to current flowing along the surface of an insulator - that is if not dried out before reaching the wires further East/North. Possibly even some stones or larger rocks !.
OK, thanks for the replies. I chose a non-operational pantograph as an example of electric power being unavailable to pose the question about mixed mode running. I was really wondering whether the control sysem would allow it, as it mght reduce potential delays on a long distance service where the train is split. The alternatives that I envisage would be:
a) remove the diesel only unit and pack the passengers into a 5-car set for the service - probably delaying the train with overcrowding and possibly longer if the failed unit is the leading one
b) run both units on diesel on the electrified main line (GWML or ECML) - making timekeeping difficult and creating local pollution in areas that in the future may have become 'electric only'
I presume that the stated 100mph speed limit in diesel mode is a result of the downrated diesel engines on the 800s having insufficient power to sustain higher speeds. The combined power of a 5-car electric and 5-car diesel train should be capable of sustaining speeds well over 100mph unless there is a bar in the controls system.
a) remove the diesel only unit and pack the passengers into a 5-car set for the service - probably delaying the train with overcrowding and possibly longer if the failed unit is the leading one
b) run both units on diesel on the electrified main line (GWML or ECML) - making timekeeping difficult and creating local pollution in areas that in the future may have become 'electric only'
I presume that the stated 100mph speed limit in diesel mode is a result of the downrated diesel engines on the 800s having insufficient power to sustain higher speeds. The combined power of a 5-car electric and 5-car diesel train should be capable of sustaining speeds well over 100mph unless there is a bar in the controls system.
For the millionth time, the engines on Class 800s are not downrated/derated or anything else.
In normal diesel mode the engine management system is set up to draw less than the maximum power output from the engines. But if an engine fails, the engine management system calls for the maximum output from the others to compensate and can be reset to call for maximum output from all the engines all the time - like the set-up for the AT300/Class 802 - if that is what is wanted, assuming someone will foot the bill for the increased engine maintenance and overhaul bills for the Class 800s that would result from such a change.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Even the DfT has noticed the issues with Voyagers at Dawlish, consequently the IEP technical specification contains the following - something else that has also been pointed out ad infinitum previously...
Page 24 at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf
To me that's what derated means. Maybe it's different for aircraft.
The power output of a Class 800 can be adjusted electronically while in service using the engine management system - which is a different matter from derating, which generally is taken by diesel manufacturers to involve the kind of changes that require a visit to the workshops to implement or reverse, such as different designs of turbocharger, fuel valves or air intakes and rpm limiters - the change made to Class 47s in the 1960s, down from 800rpm to 750rpm to stop crankcases suffering cracking, which permanently cut their power output from 2,750hp to 2,580hp. The same considerations apply when the same design of engine is offered by manufacturers with different power outputs.
- Status