• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
BR had spent a huge amount of time and resources on the HST project so it's hardly surprising that they marketed 125 mph running and peddled the Intercity125 for all its worth. I would argue that a train capable of travelling at 125 mph with a vertical cab would not have been aerodynamically efficient. Are you trying to suggest otherwise?

I remember that there was an interview on the TV a few years ago with a designer of the Intercity 125 who stated: that the raised nose design was chosen to make the train look good rather than for having any aerodynamic advanatges over the low aerodynamic nose that all other aerodynamic trains (except 90s and IC225s) seem to have. In my mind it doesn't seem particuly aerodynimcally efficient to send air under the train.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Theres also the tale of the A4 class, their performance improved when they removed the streamlining.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Well it would be rather odd peddling those new electric services with a class 180. It's hardly a case of "Sherlock strikes again".

Well, they could use whatever brick-shaped emu is eventually allocated to the outer-suburban services, since you tell us that a train's design has no impact whatever on passengers.

Well how do you suggest FGW solve the Turbo problem, other adjusting the climate control settings and drafting in more DMU’s?

I only raised the point about Turbos and the contrast with 180s and HSTs in this neck of the woods in the first place because of your assertion that the appearance of rolling stock means nothing at all to passengers, nor sends out any signals about the kind of journey they may experience. I wasn't suggesting a solution, because there isn't one until electrification brings us some different rolling stock. There are no more HSTs or 180s to be had.

The only way to deal with the 166 air-con once and for all would probably be to take a different approach - see below. The initial system was, as I said previously, added as an afterthought to the basic Class 165 design, so was hardly likely to be as good as something that was part of the brief from the start. The recent attempt to rework it suffers from the same constraints but is a distinct improvement until the temperature climbs past 20C. However, when Chiltern put a/c in its 165s, it did indeed take a different approach. No wonder, having seen the struggles of its neighbours with the 166 set-up.
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Theres also the tale of the A4 class, their performance improved when they removed the streamlining.

Well that's interesting because from memory the only significant section of streamlining removed was the valence that surrounded the running gear. I think that was removed in the 1940's in order to help with loco maintenance during the war years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, they could use whatever brick-shaped emu is eventually allocated to the outer-suburban services, since you tell us that a train's design has no impact whatever on passengers.

Well actually you make a very good point there. In fact they could invite the advertising company to design a train using their imagination to advertise the new services given that travellers are unlikely to take a blind bit of notice! There is no need to even show a picture of the train, just hit motorists with the facts!

The selling points for the new trains will be the increased service frequency and reduced journey times. As I've previously stated the external design of the train won't make a scrap of difference for people considering giving up the M4 for the train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I remember that there was an interview on the TV a few years ago with a designer of the Intercity 125 who stated: that the raised nose design was chosen to make the train look good rather than for having any aerodynamic advanatges over the low aerodynamic nose that all other aerodynamic trains (except 90s and IC225s) seem to have. In my mind it doesn't seem particuly aerodynimcally efficient to send air under the train.

That's a very good point regarding the aerodynamics of the HST but I'm amazed that they chose looks over engineering, especially given the amount of time and resources spent on developing the train.
 
Last edited:

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
That's a very good point regarding the aerodynamics of the HST but I'm amazed that they chose looks over engineering, especially given the amount of time and resources spent on developing the train.

Looks and engineering aren't mutually exclusive...

Besides. Isn't the nose of the HST just a fibreglass shell designed to envelope the core engineering?

Within the boundaries of the envelope and gauge - it could have looked like anything.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Looks and engineering aren't mutually exclusive...

Besides. Isn't the nose of the HST just a fibreglass shell designed to envelope the core engineering?

Within the boundaries of the envelope and gauge - it could have looked like anything.

Yes, it's just a fibreglass nose cone.

As you say they aren't mutually exclusive. Below 100mph, due to the large surface area of the front end, streamlining will make little difference to performance. But beyond 100mph as the drag becomes stronger aerodynamics become more important. So a 140mph train certainly will benefit from a more aerodynamic front.
 

sng7

Member
Joined
22 Oct 2013
Messages
162
Location
Edinburgh
Isn't this the case with the Class 91s as I thought i had read that they are restricted to 110mph when running blunt end first
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
That's a very good point regarding the aerodynamics of the HST but I'm amazed that they chose looks over engineering, especially given the amount of time and resources spent on developing the train.

In the case of the Class 180, the designers went to a great deal of time and trouble to produce a design that cut through the air efficiently at the front end and minimised drag at the rear. It also produced something that looks good and makes a visual statement to boot, expect perhaps in Richmond, with all those brick-shaped emus from Siemens and Bombardier...
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
In the case of the Class 180, the designers went to a great deal of time and trouble to produce a design that cut through the air efficiently at the front end and minimised drag at the rear. It also produced something that looks good and makes a visual statement to boot, expect perhaps in Richmond, with all those brick-shaped emus from Siemens and Bombardier...

Occasionally I disagree with you, occasionally I agree with you, that's the difference of our opinions for you but I do completely agree with you on the 180s. They were very well designed - even to the small point of the very slightly angular nose running right down the front to aid the streamlining and the smooth sides aiding it's kinetic envelope. While I still like the Mk3s and think that they are a hard act to beat, my benchmark for all modern Express type trains will still be the 180 - Ignoring the unfortunate mechanical design issues, They look good, feel good, are laid out well, and are rather good units - and show Bombardier what could have been done as apposed to the awful Voyager/Meridian family.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Well that's interesting because from memory the only significant section of streamlining removed was the valence that surrounded the running gear. I think that was removed in the 1940's in order to help with loco maintenance during the war years.

Some may have only had the running gear stuff removed, others they removed the front slanted section and the side panels that surrounded the boiler so it went back to being a traditional cylinder in appearance like an A3. The weight of the streamlining panels removed more than offset the loss in aerodynamics, since they average about 90-100mph anyway and rarely hit 125mph+ where the streamlining becomes extremely beneficial.
 

themiller

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,056
Location
Cumbria, UK
Isn't this the case with the Class 91s as I thought i had read that they are restricted to 110mph when running blunt end first

I would have thought that any such speed differential would be more to do with crash-worthyness than streamlining (or lack of)!
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
In the case of the Class 180, the designers went to a great deal of time and trouble to produce a design that cut through the air efficiently at the front end and minimised drag at the rear. It also produced something that looks good and makes a visual statement to boot, expect perhaps in Richmond, with all those brick-shaped emus from Siemens and Bombardier...

I understand the importance of aerodynamics (although I’m not an engineer) so I'm not questioning anything in your first sentence.

However, I don't see how the rail traveler benefits from a train that allegedly looks good, let alone apparently makes a "visual statement". Who is that visual statement aimed at? That "visual statement" will not attract new customers to the railways so I really don't understand why people choose to focus on it. How do you as an individual benefit from a train that you perceive to “look good” If the class 180 didn't look good or made what you describe as a visual (I assume positive) statement would you avoid it and wait for the next train?

In terms of trains servicing Richmond, I don't think any of my fellow commuters pay any attention to the design of the train taking us into Waterloo. There is a difference between noticing the approaching train and paying any real attention to it. Anyway what's wrong with a train with a vertical front given that it won't get above 100 mph at any point during its journey?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Looks and engineering aren't mutually exclusive...

Besides. Isn't the nose of the HST just a fibreglass shell designed to envelope the core engineering?

Within the boundaries of the envelope and gauge - it could have looked like anything.

Sorry perhaps I didn't make myself very clear. Given what I've read and digested on this thread, it appears to me that the aerodynamics of the HST could have been improved but the nose of the HST was designed for "looks" rather than following engineering principles.
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
A train has to look like something. So why not make it look good than not good, especially if the designer has any sense of pride.

Okay, so someone who currently drives might not take a blind bit of notice, but imagine the impact on the reputation of the railway if the train looks hideous. People will pay attention then, and not in a good way.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
A train has to look like something. So why not make it look good than not good, especially if the designer has any sense of pride.

Okay, so someone who currently drives might not take a blind bit of notice, but imagine the impact on the reputation of the railway if the train looks hideous. People will pay attention then, and not in a good way.

Thinking a little like the 458/5 project for example in that respect, which despite the livery the rebuilt Junipers appearances or lack of are proving to be something of a headache for SWT...
 
Last edited:

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
A train has to look like something. So why not make it look good than not good, especially if the designer has any sense of pride.

Okay, so someone who currently drives might not take a blind bit of notice, but imagine the impact on the reputation of the railway if the train looks hideous. People will pay attention then, and not in a good way.

Quite. Early batches of the Class 317 spring to mind here... for some reason BR decided to redesign the front end.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,262
Thinking a little like the 458/5 project for example in that respect, which despite the livery the rebuilt Junipers appearances or lack of are proving to be something of a headache for SWT...

I don't think there's any criticism of the exterior look of these trains, apart from a few individuals posting here a year or so back. When you see them moving they just look like 450s really.

The real headache for SWT is the delayed delivery and internal refurb quality.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
However, I don't see how the rail traveler benefits from a train that allegedly looks good, let alone apparently makes a "visual statement". Who is that visual statement aimed at? That "visual statement" will not attract new customers to the railways so I really don't understand why people choose to focus on it. How do you as an individual benefit from a train that you perceive to “look good” If the class 180 didn't look good or made what you describe as a visual (I assume positive) statement would you avoid it and wait for the next train?

Good looking trains will attract new customers for two reasons :-

1) Marketing - new, attractive trains help with promoting a modern, reliable, easy-to-use rail infrastructure. If the appearance of the trains didn't matter, no TOC would bother removing graffiti.



2) Percieved safety - people don't like using things that don't fit their preconceptions of what is safe (and reliable). Yes, there's no reason you couldn't have trains running around with huge boxes, grilles and random missing panels - where it doesn't affect the operation of the vehicle - but people won't want to use something that looks like the only attention it's had in the last 10 years is from a dodgy scrap man.


The public constantly complain about the ancient trains we have up north. They're not complaining about the actual age of those trains (they don't know how old they are) - they're complaining that they look old, decrepid and unreliable. Nobody is going to use a 142 as their base for a new design of vehicle, not because it's not suitable for use, but because the travelling public associates that look with horrible journeys. So yes, the look of a train can affect how many people want to use them.

[Oh, and yes, up here where we have a choice between many different trains for the same journey - e.g. 142/158/185/220 between Sheffield and Doncaster - many people do chose not to travel on the 142's simply by sight]
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
Sorry perhaps I didn't make myself very clear. Given what I've read and digested on this thread, it appears to me that the aerodynamics of the HST could have been improved but the nose of the HST was designed for "looks" rather than following engineering principles.

I'm not claiming that the HST nose is optimal, but it's probably not all that bad in terms of aerodynamics, especially in its contemporary context of 1960s & early 1970s. Vertically, there's roughly 75% air pushed up and over, 25% down and under. Horizontally (and at the top of the wedge), it's cleanly rounded which should reduce turbulence in the air spilling around it.

I have no doubt that 21st century engineering and analysis could improve on the design, but the HST is at least "not bad" in terms of aerodynamics, and excellent in aesthetics. At the time of its design, looking modern, fast and, aerodynamic was quite probably much more important than actually being ideally aerodynamic. "Not bad" and "good enough" can be quite valid goals in engineering, as it's rare to have the time and resources to engineer perfection.
 

DownSouth

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2011
Messages
1,545
Good looking trains will attract new customers for two reasons :-

1) Marketing - new, attractive trains help with promoting a modern, reliable, easy-to-use rail infrastructure. If the appearance of the trains didn't matter, no TOC would bother removing graffiti.
And more importantly, trains which can be identified as new just by sight also give the impression that attention is paid to other areas of the service.

It's like the Van Halen contract which had an obscure line requiring a bowl of M&Ms with no brown ones buried in the middle of the contract - if a train is grotty or hasn't been replaced for 30 years, people make the quite rational deduction that the same low level of attention has been paid to important things such as the trains' performance/reliability/safety, the quality of the staff or the state of the track. Even shuffling around different trains of roughly the same age would be a PR win, because a change really is as good as a holiday.

An update to the appearance can be achieved simply with a new livery though! The brightly coloured liveries of the HST fleet under the current private operators look smart and modern, light years ahead of the BR Intercity sector liveries which made the rookie error of using brown paint - bad because brown is usually assumed to be white paint coated with grime which in turn says that corners are being cut on important stuff. The casual observer's perception of even the most boxiest of brick-shaped multiple units can be almost completely turned around with a good livery that deflects attention from the boxy edges and has a livery with swooping curves mixing up the appearance of the slab sides.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
And more importantly, trains which can be identified as new just by sight also give the impression that attention is paid to other areas of the service.

It's like the Van Halen contract which had an obscure line requiring a bowl of M&Ms with no brown ones buried in the middle of the contract - if a train is grotty or hasn't been replaced for 30 years, people make the quite rational deduction that the same low level of attention has been paid to important things such as the trains' performance/reliability/safety, the quality of the staff or the state of the track. Even shuffling around different trains of roughly the same age would be a PR win, because a change really is as good as a holiday.

An update to the appearance can be achieved simply with a new livery though! The brightly coloured liveries of the HST fleet under the current private operators look smart and modern, light years ahead of the BR Intercity sector liveries which made the rookie error of using brown paint - bad because brown is usually assumed to be white paint coated with grime which in turn says that corners are being cut on important stuff. The casual observer's perception of even the most boxiest of brick-shaped multiple units can be almost completely turned around with a good livery that deflects attention from the boxy edges and has a livery with swooping curves mixing up the appearance of the slab sides.

Couldn't have put it better myself. SWT's 455 fleet looks practically brand new on the overhauled sets; a real breath of fresh air! And incidentally, so is Van Halen's latest effort, A Different Kind Of Truth. It even has a picture of an NYC Hudson on it!:D
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,262
The brightly coloured liveries of the HST fleet under the current private operators look smart and modern, light years ahead of the BR Intercity sector liveries which made the rookie error of using brown paint - bad because brown is usually assumed to be white paint coated with grime which in turn says that corners are being cut on important stuff.

I was having exactly the same thoughts sat in a Voyager the other day. The central ceiling panel seems to be coloured from brand new to look as though it is badly nicotine stained. Replacing it with something near white now trains are fully non-smoking might brighten the look significantly. I don't like the Voyager tables much either, tbh...
 

ert47

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2010
Messages
688
With all the conversation on looks of trains and the aerodynamics of an HST and 180, Im surprised there has been no mention of the Darth Vaders class 460! :lol:
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Theres also the tale of the A4 class, their performance improved when they removed the streamlining.
That's incorrect; the streamlining was never removed from the A4s, only the valances over the valve gear and driving wheels in order to ease wartime maintenance.

The streamlining on the A4s was scientifically designed and saved 138hp at 90mph over the equivalent (unstreamlined) A3 class loco.

You may be thinking about the LMS' Coronation streamliners, where the streamlining was purely cosmetic, and Stanier ensured that a number were built without streamlining (and the remainer were subsequently converted) as he was adamant that it gave no saving in power exerted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some may have only had the running gear stuff removed, others they removed the front slanted section and the side panels that surrounded the boiler so it went back to being a traditional cylinder in appearance like an A3. The weight of the streamlining panels removed more than offset the loss in aerodynamics, since they average about 90-100mph anyway and rarely hit 125mph+ where the streamlining becomes extremely beneficial.
None of the A4s ever had the frontal or bodyside streamlined cladding removed (Except while in works under heavy overhaul). Even at 60mph, the streamlining on the A4s reportedly saved 41hp over an unstreamlined A3.
 
Last edited:

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Wwas the A4, showed video of the modifications being made during a documentary on wartime railways. The valances were removed to speed access to running gear and not replaced but they removed the rest of the streamlining to speed access for boiler repairs and found the pulling performance increased, they replaced the rest of the bodyshell after the war, the only class which they did.

Thing is while the streamlining on the A4's and other cars and planes at the time looked aerodynamic the limited understanding of the time and only basic wind tunnel tests meant the actual effect was often flawed. In the case of the A4 that calculated through wind tunnel tests they calculated the shape would produce a 40% energy reduction at 150mph and 2.5% energy saving at 60mph compared to the A3 shape (based on 1600hp average, some reportedly hit 2200 and one hit 2450). However they performed other modifications such as increasing the boiler pressure from 220 to 250psi which would have increased power in the actual production versions, there were also small tweaks made during their life which increased power but not enough to offset the gradual power drain from aging such that they never ran as fast after the war as they did before the war. You have to understand that on a 100 tonne locomotive around 15% of the weight was the panels and the performance improvement when pulling war time freight more than offset the loss of around 2% energy efficency.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Wwas the A4, showed video of the modifications being made during a documentary on wartime railways. The valances were removed to speed access to running gear and not replaced but they removed the rest of the streamlining to speed access for boiler repairs and found the pulling performance increased, they replaced the rest of the bodyshell after the war, the only class which they did.
If this was the case, why is there not, to my knowledge, a single written or online source that supports this? Most pertinently, how has the usually exhaustive Yeadon’s Register failed to overlook such a notable alteration to the A4s appearance?

Any clues as to which A4(s) reportedly underwent this alteration?
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Cant say, just documentaries that have been on in the past showing wartime footage of the workshops and stripped down double A4's pulling freight. Under the panels the A4 is essentially an A3 anyway so you wouldnt really be able to tell them apart from a distance. Suppose the I or the documentary could have been wrong and was showing the Coronation class rather than the A4 which recieved similar treatment just after the war.
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
I was having exactly the same thoughts sat in a Voyager the other day. The central ceiling panel seems to be coloured from brand new to look as though it is badly nicotine stained. Replacing it with something near white now trains are fully non-smoking might brighten the look significantly. I don't like the Voyager tables much either, tbh...

From memory...

I don't think smoking was ever permitted on Voyager units.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Cant say, just documentaries that have been on in the past showing wartime footage of the workshops and stripped down double A4's pulling freight. Under the panels the A4 is essentially an A3 anyway so you wouldnt really be able to tell them apart from a distance. Suppose the I or the documentary could have been wrong and was showing the Coronation class rather than the A4 which recieved similar treatment just after the war.
Seems a strange one, as I can find no evidence anywhere of this occurring. Could it not have been something to do with one or other of the later Gresley P2s, which certainly were thoroughly "defrocked" during WW2 and turned into ungainly looking Pacific locos by Thompson?

Also, where has the 15% statistic for the weight of the streamlined panels been sourced from? The best comparison that I can make is between the streamlined and non-streamlined Duchesses: In "as built" condition, the streamlined locos weighed 108.1 tons, while in de-streamlined form they weigh 105.5 tons: A difference of less than 3%.

Granted, the difference between an A4 and an A3, the best comparison that can be made between LNER Pacifics, is greater, at 102.95 tons versus 96.25 tons, but that is not a strict comparison due to the design differences between them and still falls well short of a figure of 15% of the total weight of the engine to be made up of streamlined panels (more like 6%).
 
Last edited:

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,751
Location
Epsom
Cant say, just documentaries that have been on in the past showing wartime footage of the workshops and stripped down double A4's pulling freight. Under the panels the A4 is essentially an A3 anyway so you wouldnt really be able to tell them apart from a distance. Suppose the I or the documentary could have been wrong and was showing the Coronation class rather than the A4 which recieved similar treatment just after the war.

There were a couple of other locomotives that had the A4 type wedge front but which did not have any of the rest of the casing ever applied; I'll hazard a guess the footage was of those.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top