GWR Class 800

[Dave1987]

i take it RF means Roger Ford? What else did the article say specifically about performance? I haven't seen the latest copy of Modern Railways.

He said the bill for "bi-moding" the entire fleet was £300 million extra. But the fee for operating the engines a full power was still being negotiated.

 

[Domh245]

It’s the recurring issue of trains unable couple on depot because computer says no. Hitachi need to fix that quickly - must be costing them a fortune in penalty payments.

Interestingly, if what I've read elsewhere (and my memory) is correct, one of the units involved in today's "computer says no" incident was the same one that said no last week leading to a cancelled return trip to Bristol. Could well just be an issue with that unit rather than some inherent problem with the fleet.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Basically big powerful diesel engines operate most efficiently at high constant output. Turning them on and off continually and putting them through repeated thermal cycles it not a good idea. At Steventon on GW there is a protected bridge very close to a level crossing. The DFT's answer to not putting a speed restriction in for the gradient of the wires is to just use the diesel engines for a very short stretch. But as RF pointed out MTU will not be happy with their engines being put through a full thermal cycle for short a short period. I can only imagine what their reaction would be to their engines being turn off and on repeatedly. So the costs are likely to skyrocket for any ridiculous discontinuous electrification schemes.

One way is to install electric heating in the coolant water to keep the engines warm, (not cheap to install or run)

 

[Dave1987]

One way is to install electric heating in the coolant water to keep the engines warm, (not cheap to install or run)

You will never keep the cylinder blocks themselves up to temperature no matter how much you heat the coolant. You will always have a thermal cycle when you shut off the engines. I believe MTU have precisely calculated the number and magnitude of thermal cycles their engines would be subjected under the original agreements and had maintenance regimes in place for those calculations. Now that the DFT wants to run their engines at max power for much much longer then I'm sure their calculations are completely out of the window and no wonder the negotiations are probably fractious. With discontinuous electrification the number of thermal cycles would be many many more, therefore the maintenance regimes would be more costly.

 

[D365]

Let’s be honest though, Tory Transport Ministers and basic railway principles have always been poles apart.

 

[Dave1987]

Let’s be honest though, Tory Transport Ministers and basic railway principles have always been poles apart.

I just have to smile when I see the Transport Secretary saying ow we won't worry about electrification, we will just electrify the easy bits and our new bi-modes will deal with the bits we think are too difficult to do. I believe he has actually used the excuse of disruptive engineering works as an excuse not to electrify. I don't think they have even considered the maintenance costs of switching the diesels on/off loads of times. And sure the extra maintenance costs associated with doing that are comparable with just getting the lines electrified throughout in the long term. The whole Steventon situation says it all.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

When one single Tory MP can rack up £150k per year in expenses plus maintaining a very dubious arrangement of employing their husband as 'office manager' for another £50k per annum, are we really surprised that government sponsored engineering projects just seem to burn through the cash for very little added value? Those who have too much money don't appreciate the virtue of making incremental savings.

 

[jayah]

One way is to install electric heating in the coolant water to keep the engines warm, (not cheap to install or run)

Why not just pan down and coast the 500 yards? You would lose 10mph on a bad day. Better than a 60mph TSR.

 

[jayah]

But as RF pointed out MTU will not be happy with their engines being put through a full thermal cycle for short a short period. I can only imagine what their reaction would be to their engines being turn off and on repeatedly.

MTU will be over the moon as long as it is chargeable or a contractural change. There are already large payments when HSTs are switched on without being preheated on depot. Perhaps you would end up with a situation where the diesel simply idles under the wires and let's the AC do the real work where wires exist.

 

[50031]

I thought there had been mention previously of coasting through Steventon... Question: can the IET only coast with the pan up, so meaning that they will have no choice but to switch to diesel mode through the area?

 

[Crun]

GWR Class 800s seen heading south from Peterborough station at 12:12: 800 014 & 800 015.

 

[Railperf]

1B40 1345 Paddington to Swansea and 1L90 1729 Swansea to Paddington today formed 5 Cars only. According to Journey Check the epidemic of "more trains than usual under repair" has spread to the IEPs.

any news on how the sets are performing today? Those trains yesterday suffered horrendous timekeeping

 

[D1009]

any news on how the sets are performing today? Those trains yesterday suffered horrendous timekeeping

According to RTT, performance has been excellent, and according to Iris2 both diagrams are 10 car IETs. Whether they are the same units as yesterday I have no idea.

So bad news for those out to rubbish them at every opportunity.

 

[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.

Having analysed my data, IET's only seem to be achieving the 0.7 m/s/s acceleration rate between approx 9 and 19 mph , tailing off to around 0.5 m/s/s at 20mph and only 0.3 m/s/s at around 30mph. The 802's are not going to much quicker at 0.82 m/s/s over a similar speed range unless the acceleration rate over the whole speed range is increased to at least 80 or 90mph

 

[Dave1987]

MTU will be over the moon as long as it is chargeable or a contractural change. There are already large payments when HSTs are switched on without being preheated on depot. Perhaps you would end up with a situation where the diesel simply idles under the wires and let's the AC do the real work where wires exist.

Diesels Idling under the wires? I thought it was akin to committing treason to have a diesel engine running under the wires? On a serious note yes that is an option but diesel engines work at peak efficiency at max power. And you are going to be using a lot more fuel and wear on other components by idling them constantly. There is no silver bullet here. Discontinuous electrification is a completely mad idea thought up by people looking for a scape goat from the mess they have made.

I'm looking forward to seeing the full electric IET on the East Coast. I believe that will demonstrate exactly how good the design really is, without having to make up for the excuses of half arsed electrification. They will also have full buffets on board so you can get a decent cup of coffee

 

[jayah]

Diesels Idling under the wires? I thought it was akin to committing treason to have a diesel engine running under the wires? On a serious note yes that is an option but diesel engines work at peak efficiency at max power. And you are going to be using a lot more fuel and wear on other components by idling them constantly. There is no silver bullet here. Discontinuous electrification is a completely mad idea thought up by people looking for a scape goat from the mess they have made.

I'm looking forward to seeing the full electric IET on the East Coast. I believe that will demonstrate exactly how good the design really is, without having to make up for the excuses of half arsed electrification. They will also have full buffets on board so you can get a decent cup of coffee

They are already idling constantly because they can't be turned off unless plugged in to a shore supply. Still plenty of diesel under the wires there too.

 

[Thunderer]

One question if I may? (Sorry if its already been asked and answered) ... What Horsepower is available on ELECTRIC power for a 5 car and 9 car 800? I see the figures are readily available for Diesel power (750hp to 940hp per engine) but I've seen no data for HP for electric traction? Grateful for any info on this.

 

[D365]

Have a look through here. Btw electric motor power is usually measured in kW.

 

[broadgage]

Why not just pan down and coast the 500 yards? You would lose 10mph on a bad day. Better than a 60mph TSR.

That seems sensible for short gaps.
ONE engine might have to be run to provide ETS, but short cycling one engine (not the same one each time) should be a lot cheaper than ALL of them.
Or would the batteries have enough capacity to keep the lights on, other loads could presumably be turned off for brief gaps.

 

[D365]

That seems sensible for short gaps.

Emphasis on the word short. Definitely not what Grayling has in mind for TPE.

 

[Railperf]

I have read that a 5 car electric IET is rated at 2712Kw or 3641 Hp. The 9 car units are said to be 4520KW or 6070HP. So around 14hp/ton.
A 5 car unit has 3 diesel engines rated at a maximum of 700 KW or 940hp each. That is 2100Kw or 2820Hp,

The 9 car units have 5 diesel engines - so a toal of 3500Kw or 4700 Hp.

Of course the diesel engines have to supply power to the trains computer and control systems, air conditioning, power doors, lighting and auxiliary systems. So the power to rail is going to be less than this. An HST only delivers 78% of its installed diesel engine output to the rail, 3540 hp rather than the 4500Hp quoted. So it is fair to say that an IET would probably at maximum offer a similar percentage to the rail. Based on a 78% diesel output to the rails, that would be 2200 HP for a 5-car and 3666 HP for a 9-car IEt. Despite the fact that newer trains have more efficient traction packages, and LED lighting, i would imagine that chemical retention toilets, passenger information systems, and the vast computer control systems balance things out - possibly even consuming more than the basic auxiliary systems aboard HST power cars and Mk3 coaches. I'm sure the real information is way too commercially sensitive to be revealed here.

 

[D365]

To be fair, assuming a constant auxiliary load value, it shouldn't been too difficult to give an approximate power at rail figure.

 

[jayah]

... no wonder the negotiations are probably fractious.

Lucrative. Not fractious. Very lucrative.

 

[jayah]

I have read that a 5 car electric IET is rated at 2712Kw or 3641 Hp. The 9 car units are said to be 4520KW or 6070HP. So around 14hp/ton.
A 5 car unit has 3 diesel engines rated at a maximum of 700 KW or 940hp each. That is 2100Kw or 2820Hp,

The 9 car units have 5 diesel engines - so a toal of 3500Kw or 4700 Hp.

Of course the diesel engines have to supply power to the trains computer and control systems, air conditioning, power doors, lighting and auxiliary systems. So the power to rail is going to be less than this. An HST only delivers 78% of its installed diesel engine output to the rail, 3540 hp rather than the 4500Hp quoted. So it is fair to say that an IET would probably at maximum offer a similar percentage to the rail. Based on a 78% diesel output to the rails, that would be 2200 HP for a 5-car and 3666 HP for a 9-car IEt. Despite the fact that newer trains have more efficient traction packages, and LED lighting, i would imagine that chemical retention toilets, passenger information systems, and the vast computer control systems balance things out - possibly even consuming more than the basic auxiliary systems aboard HST power cars and Mk3 coaches. I'm sure the real information is way too commercially sensitive to be revealed here.

Suffice to say the Class 800, just like the Class 221, 180 etc... is more than capable of beating a HST on diesel at any speed, just it will only happen when the required palms have been lubricated sufficiently to overcome the friction of the beans against the runners of the abacus.

 

[jayah]

Emphasis on the word short. Definitely not what Grayling has in mind for TPE.

The penny has dropped, and with schools, hospitals, housing the police and everything funded by the public purse in a crisis state, spending £1bn - £2bn on overhead electric wires that deliver no material speed or capacity improvement is hardly the best use of taxpayer funds. We are not talking about firing up and shutting down diesel trains every time you get to a road bridge.

Can't believe 4 years ago it was seriously discussed about spending £94m electrifying Leeds - Harrogate - York. You could spend that today and probably not have a single mast in the ground.

 

[Railperf]

Suffice to say the Class 800, just like the Class 221, 180 etc... is more than capable of beating a HST on diesel at any speed, just it will only happen when the required palms have been lubricated sufficiently to overcome the friction of the beans against the runners of the abacus.

In its present guise, the 800's in diesel mode don't beat any HST unless it is working on a single power car only or completely dead. But yes, i wouldn't bet against a financial agreement between DfT, GWR and any other stakeholders to improve the acceleration curve, which seems to be severely restricted at the moment.

 

[D365]

Except it does deliver material improvements. How much longer do you expect us to keep on buying new diesel trains?

And you don't think that electrification costs will improve as supply chain experience is built again?

 

[jayah]

Except it does deliver material improvements. How much longer do you expect us to keep on buying new diesel trains?

And you don't think that electrification costs will improve as supply chain experience is built again?

Electrification is demonstrably throwing good money after bad. It is impossible to find any rational justification for the vast sums involved.

If we have a rolling stock shortage, what is wrong with more new or converted diesel stock? Much of the current shortage has arisen because government policy has trashed the leasing market for diesel stock, a correction is long overdue.

Rail passengers want safety, value for money, speed, capacity and a phone signal and spending £2bn on electric wires does not deliver any of the above.

 

[jayah]

In its present guise, the 800's in diesel mode don't beat any HST unless it is working on a single power car only or completely dead. But yes, i wouldn't bet against a financial agreement between DfT, GWR and any other stakeholders to improve the acceleration curve, which seems to be severely restricted at the moment.

Sadly the DfT were spending too much time reading Modern Railways telling them that electric trains with great heavy diesel engines would never amount to much on electric let alone diesel and they had better aim low and find a cheap way to electrify almost ever nook west of Paddington instead.

The worst part is they had already asked XC to design the Class 802 prototype and then changed their minds, leaving us all with 4 car trains between Aberdeen and Penzance for the foreseeable.

 

[D365]

Electrification is demonstrably throwing good money after bad. It is impossible to find any rational justification for the vast sums involved.

So by that logic, European countries should be completely de-electrifying their networks, right?