Differences Between Various Sprinters Acceleration

[Kurolus Rex]

Noticed the latest Rail Express has 0-60 timings for 159/1s now. A rather unimpressive 119 seconds.

For comparison of Sprinter types:

158/8 - 98 seconds
156 - 124 seconds
153 - 156 seconds

Thanks for those figures!

 

[hexagon789]

I'm surprised a 222 is slower than a 221. Mainly because they don't carry around the tilting bits & bobs

Surprised me as well; 221s being a good 5-6 tonnes per car heavier.

Thanks for those figures!

No bother

 

[superkev]

Noticed the latest Rail Express has 0-60 timings for 159/1s now. A rather unimpressive 119 seconds.

For comparison of Sprinter types:

158/8 - 98 seconds
156 - 124 seconds
153 - 156 seconds

I cant help but think that the 159 400hp engines have been derated. After all 400hp should be quicker than the normal 350hp.
K

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I cant help but think that the 159 400hp engines have been derated. After all 400hp should be quicker than the normal 350hp.
K

Horsepower isn't everything though. That just tells you how much power the engine can develop - it's not a measure of what actually meets the wheels. That is determined by the way the engine power is transferred to the wheels - be that through a generator and motor, a hydraulic transmission, or a gearbox.

 

[superkev]

Horsepower isn't everything though. That just tells you how much power the engine can develop - it's not a measure of what actually meets the wheels. That is determined by the way the engine power is transferred to the wheels - be that through a generator and motor, a hydraulic transmission, or a gearbox.

158 350bhp and 159 400bhp transmissions are presumably identical so the extra horses should count.
K

 

[gimmea50anyday]

If it's any good:

Class 185 0-60: 68 seconds
220: 53 secs
221: 58 secs
222: 59 secs

Now if that's the case I find those figures very surprising, esp of the 222 being slower than a 221. My observations from 12 years at TPE on 158s and 185s and 4 at XC on 5 and 8 car HST and voyagers paints me a different picture. Of course benchmark figures can only tell one story, as out in the field many other factors come in to play that can significantly affect the real world performance. Driver performance and handling, the design and number of powered axles (per coach a 220 has two traction motors driving an axle each whereas a 185s hydraulic transmission drives just one axle), engine output (which can vary engine to engine especially where in a given unit different auxiliaries may be connected or otherwise driven), railhead condition, on train defects, weather etc can all give a train performance advantages and disadvantages over its contemporaries. If only we could put trains side by side and drag race them......

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Horsepower isn't everything though. That just tells you how much power the engine can develop - it's not a measure of what actually meets the wheels. That is determined by the way the engine power is transferred to the wheels - be that through a generator and motor, a hydraulic transmission, or a gearbox.

Absolutely. Engines may be much higher rated now compared to 20 years ago but power demands for on board have also risen. Auxiliaries such as Aircon, heating, lighting, power sockets, catering all draw power through the electrical generation being driven from the engine as well as engine cooling, air compression for braking and door systems which may be mechanical. Plus the transmission system itself removes part of the power in the conversion process, for example the conversion of mechanical energy in the drive shaft off the engine into electrical power in the traction alternator or the change in ratios within the gearbox then further reductions caused by resistance in the power wires to the traction motors or the final drive cardan shafts all creates heat energy meaning there may only be 50-60% of the engines power actually being put in to the track I.e the power at rail figure. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of engine power generated in a 142 reaching the track as traction power (the power at rail when compared as a percentage of the engines power output) was higher than a 180 simply because there are much less auxiliary systems running on a 142 than on a 180.

 

[bastien]

I'm surprised a 222 is slower than a 221. Mainly because they don't carry around the tilting bits & bobs

Or it could be that the acceleration figures being quoted were compiled in a completely un-scientific fashion.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

158 350bhp and 159 400bhp transmissions are presumably identical so the extra horses should count.
K

Are you sure the same transmission is used on both? Do we know for sure that the full 400hp are released as quickly as the 350hp engine?

 

[Llama]

158s have either:
Cummins NTA855R1 (350hp / 2100rpm) / Voith T211rz
Cummins NTA855R3 (400hp / 1900rpm) / Voith T211rzz (also 159 units)
Perkins 2006TWH (350hp / 2100rpm) / Voith T211rz

So yes the transmissions are different on the 400hp units, but they function in an almost identical manner. The engine characteristics (eg torque curve) will differ because the higher powered version of the Cummins engine is governed to the lower speed of 1900rpm as compared to the 2100rpm of the lower powered Cummins engine.

 

[hexagon789]

158 350bhp and 159 400bhp transmissions are presumably identical so the extra horses should count.
K

Similar but not the same, the 400hp engines rev at a maximum of 1,900rpm, the 350hp (Perkins and Cummins) rev at up to 2,100rpm.

The consensus seems to be the 400hp 158/159s are slower off the mark, presumably the engine speed affects the acceleration.

Or it could be that the acceleration figures being quoted were compiled in a completely un-scientific fashion.

I believe they follow the Rail Performance Society guidelines, certainly they don't just make one measuring run, they usually do a few over the same (ideally) level stretch of line in both directions and take an average.

Differing driving techniques, weather conditions and differences unit to unit don't make it a simple task I wouldn't imagine.

 

[hexagon789]

Now if that's the case I find those figures very surprising, esp of the 222 being slower than a 221. My observations from 12 years at TPE on 158s and 185s and 4 at XC on 5 and 8 car HST and voyagers paints me a different picture. Of course benchmark figures can only tell one story, as out in the field many other factors come in to play that can significantly affect the real world performance. Driver performance and handling, the design and number of powered axles (per coach a 220 has two traction motors driving an axle each whereas a 185s hydraulic transmission drives just one axle), engine output (which can vary engine to engine especially where in a given unit different auxiliaries may be connected or otherwise driven), railhead condition, on train defects, weather etc can all give a train performance advantages and disadvantages over its contemporaries. If only we could put trains side by side and drag race them......

Definitely, trains can perform differently within the same class, let alone because of driver handling. The above figures are supposed to be averages anyway I believe.

 

[37057]

whereas a 185s hydraulic transmission drives just one axle

Two driven axles per car. A cardan shaft connects the two wheelsets of the powered bogie.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Now you mention it, think you could be right. Will have a quick look under 53118 when I get to Leeds! XD

Being the tail lamp I dont normally deal with the intricacies of the transmission system. Its not something that is taught in conductor school which personally I think should be as part of traction knowledge. Basically the how it works and what it should or shouldnt sound like and basic fault finding within the practical limitations of the individual and the environment

 

[37057]

If you look closely enough, you'll notice that the wheel sizes on the powered bogie are the same size for that reason, they're locked together.

I've bashed my head on enough final drives!

 

[londonmidland]

Speaking of 158's, particularly the Cummins engine Northern 158/9's, does anyone else think they are the 'loudest' interior wise? They have that distinctive 'whine' which can both be heard on the interior and exterior. In most cases in the middle of the carriage.

 

[Llama]

That whine is the alternator which is driven hydrostatically from a variable displacement pump connected to the engine.

 

[londonmidland]

That whine is the alternator which is driven hydrostatically from a variable displacement pump connected to the engine.

So is this the alternator I am hearing in this video? It seems to be particularly loud and varies greatly from each 158.

 

[Llama]

The main alternator can be heard in that video but I am not sure exactly what noise you are pointing out. When the unit starts away you can hear the whine increase in pitch and volume as the engine revs rise.

When a 158's engines are first started the alternator can be heard starting to operate about 30 seconds later. There is usually a whine which starts suddenly, increases rapidly in pitch and then reduces slightly in pitch as a load is applied to it.

 

[londonmidland]

I am not sure exactly what noise you are pointing out.

The noise when the unit is idle, most noticeable in the video between 0:07 and 0:10 seconds.

 

[Llama]

Quite likely to be the alternator, could be the air con though.

 

[matacaster]

Quite likely to be the alternator, could be the air con though.

That won't be in the summer then!
(158 aircon - seemingly designed to only work in winter)

 

[darylyates17]

If it's any good:

Class 185 0-60: 68 seconds
220: 53 secs
221: 58 secs
222: 59 secs[/QUOTE]
I was thinking about making a thread for unit and Loco acceleration times, I’m surprised that the Voyagers are quicker than the 185 as I thought they were quicker however I think I know which one of them sounds better though it’s amazing what a different exhaust set up can do to an engines sound.

 

[Grannyjoans]

Yes definetely the 185's sound better than the 22X's.

I don't know why the 22X's accelerate quicker, lighter weight than a 185 maybe ?

A 323 can probably 0-60mph faster than any of the above ?

 

[hwl]

Yes definetely the 185's sound better than the 22X's.

I don't know why the 22X's accelerate quicker, lighter weight than a 185 maybe ?

Electric transmission vs hydraulic transmission

 

[hexagon789]

If it's any good:

Class 185 0-60: 68 seconds
220: 53 secs
221: 58 secs
222: 59 secs

I was thinking about making a thread for unit and Loco acceleration times, I’m surprised that the Voyagers are quicker than the 185 as I thought they were quicker however I think I know which one of them sounds better though it’s amazing what a different exhaust set up can do to an engines sound.[/QUOTE]

Voyagers have electric transmission, ignoring the losses for heating, lighting etc you get more power-at-rail first traction with electric transmission than you typically do with hydraulic transmission.

Yes definetely the 185's sound better than the 22X's.

I don't know why the 22X's accelerate quicker, lighter weight than a 185 maybe ?

A 323 can probably 0-60mph faster than any of the above ?

Electric transmission being more efficient, you get more power down and more effectively across the speed range.

I can look and see if they've done a 323.

 

[hexagon789]

A 323 can probably 0-60mph faster than any of the above ?

Class 323 is listed as 51 seconds.

 

[NoOnesFool]

I'm surprised a 222 is slower than a 221. Mainly because they don't carry around the tilting bits & bobs

If I am told correctly, the 221s run at the original output of 750hp, whereas the 222s were reduced to 700hp back in Midland Mainline days.

 

[londonmidland]

If I am told correctly, the 221s run at the original output of 750hp, whereas the 222s were reduced to 700hp back in Midland Mainline days.

Could this be the reason why you don't get that distinct 'rumble' of the engines whilst approaching, passing and passed with 222's at speed, whereas you do with the 220s and 221s?

 

[hexagon789]

If I am told correctly, the 221s run at the original output of 750hp, whereas the 222s were reduced to 700hp back in Midland Mainline days.

I'm fairly certain that it was CrossCountry that derated its Voyagers to 700hp, and as far as I'm aware the 222s are still 750hp.