Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[bastien]

no it doesn't add up. Although 4x 940bhp is about the same as makes no odds as 5x 750bhp, provided the traction motors can make use of that power.

None of this makes sense so far. For example, the pantograph cars on the 800 are the ones with lower floors. But presumably these will have the power packs, higher floors and a pantograph. And presumably a rather low ceiling...

 

[samuelmorris]

None of this makes sense so far. For example, the pantograph cars on the 800 are the ones with lower floors. But presumably these will have the power packs, higher floors and a pantograph. And presumably a rather low ceiling...

The EMR fleet director has confirmed today in a staff update that a) the fleet won't be class 804, that detail will be confirmed shortly and b) the sets will have 4 vehicles with 1 diesel engine each and one vehicle with a pantograph and transformer - no vehicle will have 2 engines.

If that's correct then it's as I stated - the vehicle with the pantograph and transformer presumably won't have an engine in it, thus can keep its low floor.

 

[Rob F]

Do we know for sure that a 5 car is going to have 2 pantographs?

 

[Aictos]

Do we know for sure that a 5 car is going to have 2 pantographs?

Why would a 5 car need two pantographs?

 

[bastien]

Why would a 5 car need two pantographs?

In case one of them goes wrong... But I suppose, these aren't subject to the same DfT over-specification as the 800s so sanity might be allowed to prevail. Oh, and they're presumably 125mph vehicles rather than 140?

 

[Nym]

Why would a 5 car need two pantographs?

In order to maximise the spacing between pantographs when running in multiple without applying speed restrictions.

If an IET is in 'close' or 'intermediate' spacing with a pair of 5 cars, some reasonable, or pretty severe speed restrictions are imposed.

 

[Jozhua]

In order to maximise the spacing between pantographs when running in multiple without applying speed restrictions.

If an IET is in 'close' or 'intermediate' spacing with a pair of 5 cars, some reasonable, or pretty severe speed restrictions are imposed.

Can the high voltage AC from a second pantograph be cabled over to a transformer in another carriage to avoid needing all the equipment twice?

 

[Nym]

Can the high voltage AC from a second pantograph be cabled over to a transformer in another carriage to avoid needing all the equipment twice?

Yes, this is normal practice.
Hence my comment about an "HT" (High Tension) Busline in an earlier post.

Link here for one such product used. These are used on Class 390s to my recollection.

 

[D365]

Deleted.

 

[Jozhua]

Yes, this is normal practice.
Hence my comment about an "HT" (High Tension) Busline in an earlier post.

Link here for one such product used. These are used on Class 390s to my recollection.

Oh nice, well with those they could potentially have two pantographs without two transformers!

 

[Rob F]

But then you are back to having a pantograph and a gen set in the same vehicle which may lead to some headroom issues.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Yes, this is normal practice.
Hence my comment about an "HT" (High Tension) Busline in an earlier post.

Link here for one such product used. These are used on Class 390s to my recollection.

But can they be used to link SETS?

My understanding was that they can be used within a set, but not between two; consequently, won't a pair of (let's call them) 804s only be able to operate in the same way as, say, a pair of 350s, each set having it's pan located somewhere near the middle and raised to provide power to that particular set?

 

[D365]

But can they be used to link SETS?

My understanding was that they can be used within a set, but not between two; consequently, won't a pair of (let's call them) 804s only be able to operate in the same way as, say, a pair of 350s, each set having it's pan located somewhere near the middle and raised to provide power to that particular set?

individual units cannot couple together and share a high voltage power bus, no.

 

[swt_passenger]

Oh nice, well with those they could potentially have two pantographs without two transformers!

Of course. If you take another example, of an 11 car Pendolino, they operate with one pan up connected to three transformers along the train. There’s no direct relationship between pan and transformer numbers or positions, all sorts of solutions can be designed.

 

[PG]

All this faff about pantographs and transformers makes me think that the history books will reflect on the folly of not going for loco+coaches+dvt a la 91+mk4

 

[D365]

All this faff about pantographs and transformers makes me think that the history books will reflect on the folly of not going for loco+coaches+dvt a la 91+mk4

I don’t understand where the issue is.

 

[PG]

I don’t understand where the issue is.

Maybe its just me but the ECML has managed fine with loco+coaches for 30 odd years, so why can't the MML? There seems to be a load of complications as soon as more than one pantograph is mentioned.

 

[samuelmorris]

EMR want bi-mode capability. There aren't currently any bimode locos that fit in the UK's loading gauge, so multiple units are a necessity. MUs are also far more space-efficient than loco setups allowing for more passenger capacity within a given length, accelerate far better and handle poor weather conditions better due to distributed traction and, when it works of course, allow for split services / capacity adjustment by operating in multiple. Loco-hauled trains do have some advantages, but not many. Their time is arguably up for regular passenger services in the UK.

 

[Raul_Duke]

EMR want bi-mode capability. There aren't currently any bimode locos that fit in the UK's loading gauge, so multiple units are a necessity. MUs are also far more space-efficient than loco setups allowing for more passenger capacity within a given length, accelerate far better and handle poor weather conditions better due to distributed traction and, when it works of course, allow for split services / capacity adjustment by operating in multiple. Loco-hauled trains do have some advantages, but not many. Their time is arguably up for regular passenger services in the UK.

Exactly, you’d be wasting two coach lengths at St Pancras for a start.

 

[PG]

Fair enough and I get it, guess I'm just yearning for the simplicity of yesteryear

 

[samuelmorris]

Fair enough and I get it, guess I'm just yearning for the simplicity of yesteryear

It'll still be available on Transpennine's Nova 3 sets for a long time to come

 

[Nym]

But can they be used to link SETS?

No. They can not.

 

[Mk81]

EMR want bi-mode capability. There aren't currently any bimode locos that fit in the UK's loading gauge, so multiple units are a necessity. MUs are also far more space-efficient than loco setups allowing for more passenger capacity within a given length, accelerate far better and handle poor weather conditions better due to distributed traction and, when it works of course, allow for split services / capacity adjustment by operating in multiple. Loco-hauled trains do have some advantages, but not many. Their time is arguably up for regular passenger services in the UK.

Aren't the 88s Bi mode? Although with the alleged racket 68s make when the ETH is cranked up I can't see them being welcome anyway.

 

[Speed43125]

Aren't the 88s Bi mode? Although with the alleged racket 68s make when the ETH is cranked up I can't see them being welcome anyway.

88s are only really good for shunting duties on diesel, they can barely do 20 with any weight on and are effectively electric locos with a tiny diesel range extender

 

[swt_passenger]

88s are only really good for shunting duties on diesel, they can barely do 20 with any weight on and are effectively electric locos with a tiny diesel range extender

Yes, there’s a good reason it’s often referred to as a “last mile diesel”...

 

[gingertom]

Yes, there’s a good reason it’s often referred to as a “last mile diesel”...

if the UK had the continental loading gauge then we might have had the 16 cylinder Cat engine in the 88. Still, if the Euro 4000's co-co wheel arrangement was acceptable for running at 100+mph we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Energy]

Class 93? An 88 with a much bigger engine.

 

[Railperf]

no it doesn't add up. Although 4x 940bhp is about the same as makes no odds as 5x 750bhp, provided the traction motors can make use of that power.

That's if you have all engines running reliably on a daily basis. The GWR fleet still sees around 25% 800/802's running round with at least one engine not providing power. I don't know what XC 220/221's are like, but the last Voyager i travelled on was also running on only 4 out of 5 engines.

 

[Domh245]

Class 93? An 88 with a much bigger engine.

Will it be able to match the performance of a 222 on diesel though? Taking a rough estimated weight for the 222s and their known power gives a power:weight ratio of 13.3

A rake of mk5 comes in at 160.77t, and assuming an optimistic loco weight of 90t (the 88 comes in at 86t) then you're looking at needing 3400hp to match the power:weight of a 222 - or roughly the power of 1x 68, and about double the quoted power of the 93 from wikipedia. And that's before you get to the problem of then being stuck with permanent 5 car trains

That's if you have all engines running reliably on a daily basis. The GWR fleet still sees around 25% 800/802's running round with at least one engine not providing power. I don't know what XC 220/221's are like, but the last Voyager i travelled on was also running on only 4 out of 5 engines.

I thought on the 22x at least that was done deliberately, whereas the 802s are down to unreliability

 

[Railperf]

Will it be able to match the performance of a 222 on diesel though? Taking a rough estimated weight for the 222s and their known power gives a power:weight ratio of 13.3

A rake of mk5 comes in at 160.77t, and assuming an optimistic loco weight of 90t (the 88 comes in at 86t) then you're looking at needing 3400hp to match the power:weight of a 222 - or roughly the power of 1x 68, and about double the quoted power of the 93 from wikipedia. And that's before you get to the problem of then being stuck with permanent 5 car trains



I thought on the 22x at least that was done deliberately, whereas the 802s are down to unreliability

The 22x traction curve was downgraded deliberately to reduce fuel consumption and engine life etc. But i've not heard anything about engines being deliberately shut down for that purpose. And they don't have the same engine optimisation system as the Class 185's either that will shut down an engine when not required. That is a novelty - maintaining 100mph across the York plain with one of the engines deliberately shutting down. I understand they can't be restarted until the unit comes to a stand though.