GWR Class 800

[jimm]

Many thanks Ainsworth! Back to the on-topic rambling



I recall seeing a film about the Post Office overnight air freight operation, in which a small commuter aircraft had most (if not all) of it seats removed after it's last passenger flight of the day, flew mail bags up and down the country overnight, then had all the seats refitted ready for the next morning's passenger service. Even if the trains don't have this capability (and it sounds like they might) this sounds like a great idea, to be able to reconfigure from weekday business to weekend/bank holiday leisure travel configurations, or to optimise specific sets for different flows and journey lengths. That might make up for some of the other misgivings I have.

Quite apart from the amount of work depots have already got to do overnight anyway, without humping seats and tables around, how would reducing seating capacity on busy summer Saturday trains make sense, never mind the complications for seat reservation systems/opportunities for chaos if seats weren't moved?

 

[swt_passenger]

I am sure that I either read an article or saw a program on the IEP trains where they were suppose to be able to be converted in minutes. But perhaps I am mistaken on that point.

This was the requirement, doesn't suggest changing seating is to be a regular thing:

TS1536
IEP Vehicles must allow for a menu of customisation measures, for application at franchise change or redeployment. These measures are separate from the main building block interior elements, although the configuration of the latter may influence the scope and nature of customisation.

TS1537
IEP Vehicles must allow the following minimum customisation:
• interior colours (including handrails, for contrast);
• trim materials;
• soft furnishings;
• seat types, quantities and pitch;
• toilet/passenger ratio;
• First Class/Standard Class ratio;
• luggage capacity ratio;
• replace a catering area with another of the other catering options of a lower catering level as per TS1630; and
• replace a catering area with seating.

My bolding - info is from the train technical spec linked earlier.

 

[Emblematic]

Quite apart from the amount of work depots have already got to do overnight anyway, without humping seats and tables around, how would reducing seating capacity on busy summer Saturday trains make sense, never mind the complications for seat reservation systems/opportunities for chaos if seats weren't moved?

I agree such regular reconfiguration is unlikely (even if airlines can manage it twice daily, when the business is there)
But being able to tailor the sets for specific diagrams, without having dedicated sub-fleets, or even switching ratio of first and standard for different seasonal requirements, would still be be useful. If this came down to a 1/2 carriage being switched between 1st and standard, making this area unreserved avoids any dramas with the reservation system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This was the requirement, doesn't suggest changing seating is to be a regular thing:

My bolding - info is from the train technical spec linked earlier.

Never mind, even if useful it doesn't sound like we have the option.

 

[TheBerry]

I agree such regular reconfiguration is unlikely (even if airlines can manage it twice daily, when the business is there)
But being able to tailor the sets for specific diagrams, without having dedicated sub-fleets, or even switching ratio of first and standard for different seasonal requirements, would still be be useful. If this came down to a 1/2 carriage being switched between 1st and standard, making this area unreserved avoids any dramas with the reservation system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Never mind, even if useful it doesn't sound like we have the option.

I'm pretty sure I read recently that some train services in New Zealand have configurable seating while in service that allows seating to be turned to the direction of travel and allow additional seats to be added to meet demand.

 

[Emblematic]

I'm pretty sure I read recently that some train services in New Zealand have configurable seating while in service that allows seating to be turned to the direction of travel and allow additional seats to be added to meet demand.

It's been a feature of Sydney CityRail services for several generations. You just flip the seatbacks like this.

 

[7Pinza]

It's been a feature of Sydney CityRail services for several generations. You just flip the seatbacks like this.

Or Japanese stylehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSsMO9dzrnI

Remember being on a train about to 'reverse' out of a station, gobsmacked as the locals rose as one and swung their seats round

 

[notadriver]

Very true. A 12 car javelin from Canterbury to Ashford on 750DC is incredibly tedious. The same train on leaving Ashford on 25kv AC is a different beast. Once clear of the pointwork and onto HS1 proper the acceleration through Ashford tunnel with the full 6.6mw (9000hp) is a real push in the back. It does help being downhill!

Believe it or not it's mostly uphill departing Ashford. There is a brief 500 meters steep decline about 2km away from Ashford that aids acceleration to 160 kph plus.

 

[Peter66]

How does this train compare with the Class 390 Pendolino ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How does this train compare with the Class 390 Pendolino ?

Don't know if the figures are strictly comparable, but Agility gives the power of the 10-car electric version of the IEP (class 801) as 4MW (2MW for the 5-car).
http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf

Meanwhile the Pendolino is quoted at 5.95MW for 11-car and 5.1MW for 9-car.
I suppose the 11-car 23m class 390 is equivalent to the 10-car 26m class 801.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390

So at first sight the 390 wins comfortably, with 50% more power on electric only.
However the IEP will also have the diesel boost if required.
On the ECML, I'm not sure the OHLE could support the maximum Pendolino power draw. The WCML was upgraded to do that.

 

[Peter66]

Thank you for your reply LNW-GW Joint

My line of thinking was that the newly designed IEP will probably cost a huge amount more than the existing and well tested 390s, with very little if any performance or efficiency advantages ?

Comparing the max power draw, you'd expect the IEP to be slower accelerating than the 390 ?

 

[47802]

Thank you for your reply LNW-GW Joint

My line of thinking was that the newly designed IEP will probably cost a huge amount more than the existing and well tested 390s, with very little if any performance or efficiency advantages ?

Comparing the max power draw, you'd expect the IEP to be slower accelerating than the 390 ?

Well your not comparing like for like 390 isn't a bi-mode train which the 800 series is even the Electric only version is essentially the same design. Possibly they will be slower to accelerate than a 390 but they will still be quicker than a 91 or HST unless you reduce the number of coaches they haul. I don't doubt that as electric only train IEP isn't an optimum design.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Well your not comparing like for like 390 isn't a bi-mode train which the 800 series is even the Electric only version is essentially the same design. Possibly they will be slower to accelerate than a 390 but they will still be quicker than a 91 or HST unless you reduce the number of coaches they haul. I don't doubt that as electric only train IEP isn't an optimum design.

How many powered bogies will the 800s have compared with the 390s?

 

[sprinterguy]

How many powered bogies will the 800s have compared with the 390s?

Ten powered bogies on a 9-car class 800 (or 801), compared to twelve on a 9-car 390 or fourteen on an 11-car 390.

Of each powered bogie on a 390, one axle is fitted with a traction motor, the other is unpowered: I presume that the class 800/801 will have the same arrangement?

 

[Peter66]

Well your not comparing like for like 390 isn't a bi-mode train which the 800 series is even the Electric only version is essentially the same design. Possibly they will be slower to accelerate than a 390 but they will still be quicker than a 91 or HST unless you reduce the number of coaches they haul. I don't doubt that as electric only train IEP isn't an optimum design.

I wonder how difficult it would have been to modify the design of a 390 so that you could hang a MTU Series 1600 PowerPack underneath ?

 

[GM228]

I wonder how difficult it would have been to modify the design of a 390 so that you could hang a MTU Series 1600 PowerPack underneath ?

Very difficult I'd imagine-it's not just the powerpack that needs go in, but also a tank and probably a 1000 other bits to supplement it, and then you have to relocate the stuff that's already there!

 

[507 001]

I wonder how difficult it would have been to modify the design of a 390 so that you could hang a MTU Series 1600 PowerPack underneath ?

Very I would imagine. 390 TMs are not bogie mounted, they are mounted to the underside of the body and drive via cardan shafts, so I would imagine there isn't a lot of room under there.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Don't know if the figures are strictly comparable, but Agility gives the power of the 10-car electric version of the IEP (class 801) as 4MW (2MW for the 5-car).
http://www.agilitytrains.com/assets/pdf/AT-090205-Key_Facts-Released-1_5.pdf

Meanwhile the Pendolino is quoted at 5.95MW for 11-car and 5.1MW for 9-car.
I suppose the 11-car 23m class 390 is equivalent to the 10-car 26m class 801.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390

So at first sight the 390 wins comfortably, with 50% more power on electric only.
However the IEP will also have the diesel boost if required.
On the ECML, I'm not sure the OHLE could support the maximum Pendolino power draw. The WCML was upgraded to do that.

The way I see it is that the Agility asset list quotes power at the rail. That to me will be the maximum the traction motors can deliver. So if the diesel engine is running along with the pantograph being up then the maximum is still 4MW.

It all seems a bit odd though. Different coach lengths for the diesel coaches !. I thought they were all the same ?. It shows each diesel coach being 5m shorter so why is a ten car unit only 5m or 10m shorter ?. I thought there was an engine under every coach - or is that just for hotel power ?.

Then again I am a little confused at there being six versions. Were there not only two versions (Bi-Mode and straight electric) for the 5 and 9 coach units ?. I thought there were no self powered ones.

The more I think about it the more I seem to be out of date.

 

[D365]

The more I think about it the more I seem to be out of date.

You're not wrong; it's the linked document which is by far out of date

 

[Stompehh]

The way I see it is that the Agility asset list quotes power at the rail. That to me will be the maximum the traction motors can deliver. So if the diesel engine is running along with the pantograph being up then the maximum is still 4MW.

It all seems a bit odd though. Different coach lengths for the diesel coaches !. I thought they were all the same ?. It shows each diesel coach being 5m shorter so why is a ten car unit only 5m or 10m shorter ?. I thought there was an engine under every coach - or is that just for hotel power ?.

Then again I am a little confused at there being six versions. Were there not only two versions (Bi-Mode and straight electric) for the 5 and 9 coach units ?. I thought there were no self powered ones.

The more I think about it the more I seem to be out of date.

That info is very out of date and relates to Hitachi's original IEP proposal with separate power cars.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yeah I would say that's a dud document at this point and to me it looks like it's still making reference to having diesel power cars (a la the HSTs) rather than underfloor engines hence the difference in length.

 

[swt_passenger]

That info is very out of date and relates to Hitachi's original IEP proposal with separate power cars.

IIRC Roger Ford did a detailed explanation of all the changes made compared with that original data sheet, I haven't kept all the back issues but I'd agree that it is very much out of date.

I'm fairly sure those were the figures he originally rubbished, but they nearly all changed for the positive in the eventual analysis

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thanks - so I am not mad (completely).

 

[Peter66]

Very I would imagine. 390 TMs are not bogie mounted, they are mounted to the underside of the body and drive via cardan shafts, so I would imagine there isn't a lot of room under there.

You're probably right, but the traction motors are only about a 1 metre in length

The Cl221 5-car Super Voyager has 10 of the exact same Onix 800 traction motors as the Pendolino. It also is distributed power, and has tilt technology. And they manage to find space to put in 5 750hp diesel engines to power the electric motors

 

[Emblematic]

Ten powered bogies on a 9-car class 800 (or 801), compared to twelve on a 9-car 390 or fourteen on an 11-car 390.

Of each powered bogie on a 390, one axle is fitted with a traction motor, the other is unpowered: I presume that the class 800/801 will have the same arrangement?

Nope, 2 x Onyx 800 425 kW motors per motor carriage on the 390, 4 x 226 kW on the Hitachis. Body mounted with driveshafts to Voith final drive on inner axle on the Pendolino, bogie frame mounted on the IEP.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're probably right, but the traction motors are only about a 1 metre in length


The Cl221 5-car Super Voyager has 10 of the exact same Onix 800 traction motors as the Pendolino. It also is distributed power, and has tilt technology. And they manage to find space to put in 5 750hp diesel engines to power the electric motors

Arguably the MTU power raft doesn't really fit under the 800s, it needs the floor raised somewhat. The need to support bi-mode in 5 car sets and provide accessible accommodation results in a design where you have the end cars with flat floors and intermediate cars with raised floors for the larger 700 kW engines, as you can now only have 3 in a 5 car set. Losing an additional 2m between the bogies wouldn't help get this unit under a 390.

 

[sprinterguy]

Nope, 2 x Onyx 800 425 kW motors per motor carriage on the 390, 4 x 226 kW on the Hitachis. Body mounted with driveshafts to Voith final drive on inner axle on the Pendolino, bogie frame mounted on the IEP.

Ah, that's interesting to know, thanks.

 

[Peter66]

Losing an additional 2m between the bogies wouldn't help get this unit under a 390.

The IEP was redesigned with raised floors to accommodate the power packs, so one would assume it would be just as easy to redesign the 390 to accommodate the same?

 

[swt_passenger]

The IEP was redesigned with raised floors to accommodate the power packs, so one would assume it would be just as easy to redesign the 390 to accommodate the same?

You'd have to allow for the tilt as well - presumably bits of that lump underneath cannot be allowed to go lower when the train tilts...

 

[Peter66]

You'd have to allow for the tilt as well - presumably bits of that lump underneath cannot be allowed to go lower when the train tilts...

The Cl221 Voyager with it's under-slung power packs also tilt

 

[Domh245]

The IEP was redesigned with raised floors to accommodate the power packs, so one would assume it would be just as easy to redesign the 390 to accommodate the same?

The IEP (or at least it's current incarnation) was designed with the sloped floors as standard. To get sufficient clearance underneath the 390, you would have to give it even bigger bogies, which would lead to the door being comically high above the platform surface. You may also need to consider that the pendolino's frame won't have been designed to support a huge engine underneath it, and so it won't be as simple as strapping an engine underneath it, unless you don't mind the body sagging and being written off much sooner than it would have been.

As for the 221, couple of things to be considered here:

1) The engines that it was built with didn't have to comply with European emissions standards 3B - which meant they didn't have to bung loads of exhaust scrubbing equipment alongside the engine

2) They tilt less than the 390s, in part because of what would effectively be a huge counterweight (engine and fuel) that it would have to tilt against

Bear in mind that the voyagers are renowned for their 'fragrance' which arises partly because of the tight packaging underneath the frame.

In short, whilst you could shoehorn a large diesel powerpack underneath a pendolino, you would effectively ruin the train.

 

[Peter66]

The IEP (or at least it's current incarnation) was designed with the sloped floors as standard.

Perhaps there's some misunderstanding, I'm talking about a redesigned 390 with a diesel powerpack, not strapping a powerpack onto the existing design.

You may also need to consider that the pendolino's frame won't have been designed to support a huge engine underneath it, and so it won't be as simple as strapping an engine underneath it, unless you don't mind the body sagging and being written off much sooner than it would have been.

Neither was the original IEP frame designed to support an engine underneath it.

2) They tilt less than the 390s,

Surely the design could be modified to tilt less?

Bear in mind that the voyagers are renowned for their 'fragrance' which arises partly because of the tight packaging underneath the frame.

That's due to a design fault where the exhaust pipe is too close to the waste retention tanks.