GWR Class 800

[Emblematic]

Perhaps there's some misunderstanding, I'm talking about a redesigned 390 with a diesel powerpack, not strapping a powerpack onto the existing design.
Neither was the original IEP frame designed to support an engine underneath it.
Surely the design could be modified to tilt less?
That's due to a design fault where the exhaust pipe is too close to the septic tanks.

In other words, could Alsthom build a train to meet current IEP spec? Probably. Just as Hitachi could probably add tilt to a new design based on the AT300, if there was a demand. But other than adding yet more compromise to a design beset by compromise already, I'm not sure what you would achieve.

As an aside, the one significant advantage of the 26m car length is that it allow the CET tanks to be the other side of the bogies to the hot bits. I still think it's a step too far, 23m is near ideal IMHO.

 

[Peter66]

In other words, could Alsthom build a train to meet current IEP spec? Probably. Just as Hitachi could probably add tilt to a new design based on the AT300, if there was a demand. But other than adding yet more compromise to a design beset by compromise already, I'm not sure what you would achieve.

"Hitachi aims to achieve higher speeds on curves using existing infrastructure" http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/rolling_stock/tilting/

 

[Domh245]

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

Ah right. That makes more sense, but I'm not sure why you would want to go with the pendolino. It has got it's faults (something about windows apparently) and would probably need a bit of a redesign to comply with the latest crash-worthiness standards. And if you are doing that, why not start afresh

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

The original IEP (the design with individual power cars) wasn't designed to support underbody engines, but I would rather hope that the design they are building at the moment is strong enough to hold an engine!

Surely the design could be modified to tilt less?

You could, but then you would end up having to run to voyager EPS speeds. Coincedentally, where is your bi-modal pendolino running? WCML to replace voyagers (in which case there isn't a problem) or ECML/GWML in lieu of the IEP sets - in which case why are we investigating tilt? It is fairly well known that those lines would have almost no time benefits from using tilt, and you would be imposing a tilting body profile (which is another flaw with the 390s apparently) on passengers for no real reason.

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

But do you think that in the Bombardier design office there was a conversation a bit like this:

"I think we've got a problem, the exhaust goes close to the retention tank"
"Ah well, to hell with the passengers, I'm too tired to redo the underside"

or is it more likely that having investigated all (if not most) layouts of underfloor equipment, they realised that the solution they have, whilst not perfect, is the best they could do with what they've got. If you've got a given amount of parts to install, limited space, and parts which have to go through certain points, you have to do the best you can.

 

[Emblematic]

"Hitachi aims to achieve higher speeds on curves using existing infrastructure" http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/rolling_stock/tilting/

Oh yes, forgot about the Queensland Tilt Trains. Not Hitachi built, but does have Hitachi tilt mechanism.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But do you think that in the Bombardier design office there was a conversation a bit like this:

"I think we've got a problem, the exhaust goes close to the retention tank"
"Ah well, to hell with the passengers, I'm too tired to redo the underside"

Alternatively:
"Health and Safety have identified a potential biohazard risk from the stored sewage. Any suggestions?"
"How about if we boiled it?"

 

[fgwrich]

There's still a very long road to convince me about these AT300s / IEPs. But I will admit that if this video is anything to go by, MTU has successfully made a quieter engine than Cummins that doesn't sound as loud as a Voyager. This may also be the first video of the pair moving under their own power on here.

(If that isn't working, here is the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A4d_qtuRJs&feature=youtu.be)
[youtube]?v=3A4d_qtuRJs[/youtube]

 

[asylumxl]

There's still a very long road to convince me about these AT300s / IEPs. But I will admit that if this video is anything to go by, MTU has successfully made a quieter engine than Cummins that doesn't sound as loud as a Voyager. This may also be the first video of the pair moving under their own power on here.

(If that isn't working, here is the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A4d_qtuRJs&feature=youtu.be)
[youtube]?v=3A4d_qtuRJs[/youtube]

To me it sounds about the same, but as it's a video it's hard to know for sure (auto-levelling of sound etc).

Does remind me of the MTU engined HSTs a bit. Not surprising I guess.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Not seen any close up videos of them running in electric mode yet. Do they have the same traction package as the Javelins?

 

[thomson787]

Not seen any close up videos of them running in electric mode yet. Do they have the same traction package as the Javelins?

I would think they would be less powerful as they won't need to perform in the same way that the 395 does.

 

[ainsworth74]

Well they are capable of 140mph on electric so I wouldn't be so sure.

 

[MCR247]

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



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



Surely the design could be modified to tilt less?



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

But no more 390s of any kind will be produced, so you're not talking about a 390, you're talking about a new pendolino. It would need to be a new design anyway, so no modification. So your question now is "could Alstom design a similar train to IEP?" which is much simpler and has an obvious answer

 

[Domh245]

Not seen any close up videos of them running in electric mode yet. Do they have the same traction package as the Javelins?

They will have the same traction package, with the same sound, but as mentioned previously, they may be either uprated or downrated depending on several factors.

 

[WatcherZero]

Hull trains have put in a access application for another decade, included is they plan to aquire bimodes to replace their Adelante fleet from 2020, so possibly another order for Newton Aycliffe.

 

[D365]

Hull trains have put in a access application for another decade, included is they plan to aquire bimodes to replace their Adelante fleet from 2020, so possibly another order for Newton Aycliffe.

Is it right that electrification to Hull was only to be completed after that of the 'core' TransPennine North route?

 

[ainsworth74]

Is it right that electrification to Hull was only to be completed after that of the 'core' TransPennine North route?

It was always going to be a separate project so wasn't really dependent on Transpennine electrification. The suspicion was that it might have been done at the same time as Leeds - Selby as it would be an obvious extension to that work.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think Hull Trains currently believe it will be carried out in the 2024-2026 timeframe.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Apart from Hull Trains already mentioned a few posts up, which other TOCs would likely go for 800s once all the East Coast and FGW ones are all built?

 

[Manchester77]

Will the Hull Trains 180s go to Grand Central then?

 

[MCR247]

Will the Hull Trains 180s go to Grand Central then?

Isn't it a bit early for anything other than an educated guess? Logically, I'd say yes, but its a long way off yet and I've learnt never to assume the railways will be logical

 

[RobShipway]

Isn't it a bit early for anything other than an educated guess? Logically, I'd say yes, but its a long way off yet and I've learnt never to assume the railways will be logical

It is just as logical that both Grand Central and Hull Trains go for AT300 trains which then means you have the class 180's replacing the class 185's with TPE/Northern where the routes have not been electrified.

Or another totally nonsense idea, is that they end up back with GWR to replace class 166's on the Reading - Redhill/Gatwick route as I cannot see the parts of that route that are not electric, being electrified any time within the next 10 years.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Apart from Hull Trains already mentioned a few posts up, which other TOCs would likely go for 800s once all the East Coast and FGW ones are all built?

Grand Central would make sense for the same reasons as Hull Trains.

If the remaining short IC225 sets prove to be more trouble than they're worth for Virgin Trains East Coast then a follow-on order of a handful of electric IEP clones, but financed through a standard ROSCO, would make some sense.

If the rumours that no TransPennine bidder has suggested using 442s are true, then the only other diesel stock that could be available quickly would be 800s. A small-ish fleet big enough for all Liverpool to Newcastle services (plus some extensions to Edinburgh) could free up 185s for the services where end doors and 125mph capability wouldn't be useful.

Further orders could well depend on what economic life the Class 22x have given their low passenger capacity and high fuel consumption. If the increased capacity and reduced running costs of a series-built AT300 make it a more economical option than a 22x with a lower lease cost we could see CrossCountry and EMT take on quite a few. If not, then we could see enough being ordered to replace the non-ScotRail HSTs like-for-like plus capacity improvements and then a cascade to give each operator the most optimum fleet.

 

[southern442]

There's still a very long road to convince me about these AT300s / IEPs. But I will admit that if this video is anything to go by, MTU has successfully made a quieter engine than Cummins that doesn't sound as loud as a Voyager. This may also be the first video of the pair moving under their own power on here.

(If that isn't working, here is the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A4d_qtuRJs&feature=youtu.be)
[youtube]?v=3A4d_qtuRJs[/youtube]

AAH! My ears!

I didn't think any break squealing could be as bad as the 180's but I guess I was wrong!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If the rumours that no TransPennine bidder has suggested using 442s are true, then the only other diesel stock that could be available quickly would be 800s. A small-ish fleet big enough for all Liverpool to Newcastle services (plus some extensions to Edinburgh) could free up 185s for the services where end doors and 125mph capability wouldn't be useful.

Would 26m stock require additional clearance works (above and beyond what's already budgeted for under the Intercity Express Project) though? A mixed fleet on the Transpennine core would create issues too: the new Liverpool to Newcastle service isn't used much differently to the other services between Manchester and Leeds and particularly between Huddersfield and Leeds (admittedly it will probably take another 6 months for people to fully adjust to using Victoria rather than Piccadilly on occasion). So narrow doors at vehicle ends would still be a problem (as it would be with hauled 442s too, admittedly). Such things would presumably be less of an issue for South TPE though.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the 180s end up joining their cousins in Wales, perhaps Chester depot could even make them work properly! The 125mph capability wouldn't be needed, but they'd be a step up in terms of capacity on both the North Wales and Marches line, even just a small fleet could come in handy for the "Gerald", what with having a buffet of sorts.

As for Voyagers, perhaps Iranian State Railways could resume their role as custodians of our sub-par trains!

 

[asylumxl]

AAH! My ears!



I didn't think any break squealing could be as bad as the 180's but I guess I was wrong!

I would assume that, being that they're being hauled, they'd only be using disc brakes.

In service they'd probably only be used to bring the train to a total halt, so it shouldn't be too bad.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Grand Central would make sense for the same reasons as Hull Trains.

If the remaining short IC225 sets prove to be more trouble than they're worth for Virgin Trains East Coast then a follow-on order of a handful of electric IEP clones, but financed through a standard ROSCO, would make some sense.

If the rumours that no TransPennine bidder has suggested using 442s are true, then the only other diesel stock that could be available quickly would be 800s. A small-ish fleet big enough for all Liverpool to Newcastle services (plus some extensions to Edinburgh) could free up 185s for the services where end doors and 125mph capability wouldn't be useful.

Further orders could well depend on what economic life the Class 22x have given their low passenger capacity and high fuel consumption. If the increased capacity and reduced running costs of a series-built AT300 make it a more economical option than a 22x with a lower lease cost we could see CrossCountry and EMT take on quite a few. If not, then we could see enough being ordered to replace the non-ScotRail HSTs like-for-like plus capacity improvements and then a cascade to give each operator the most optimum fleet.

Can the 185s have any mods/tweeks done to make them less fuel thirsty, either physically or in the software?

 

[Haydn1971]

If the rumours that no TransPennine bidder has suggested using 442s are true, then the only other diesel stock that could be available quickly would be 800s. A small-ish fleet big enough for all Liverpool to Newcastle services (plus some extensions to Edinburgh) could free up 185s for the services where end doors and 125mph capability wouldn't be useful.

Other than the little issue of free market, if you were looking to order some new stuff from Hitachi, you would have to consider 395 style door positioning over the 800/801 style - mid rather than end - whilst York to Newcastle isn't that bad, York to Liverpool won't work with end door stock.

 

[Stats]

Apart from Hull Trains already mentioned a few posts up, which other TOCs would likely go for 800s once all the East Coast and FGW ones are all built?

Should they be successful with their track access application East Coast Trains (FirstGroup) will use electric variant AT300s. GNER (Alliance) also propose bi-mode AT300s for their Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the remaining short IC225 sets prove to be more trouble than they're worth for Virgin Trains East Coast then a follow-on order of a handful of electric IEP clones, but financed through a standard ROSCO, would make some sense.

I'm not so certain about that. There would need to be a long term cascade plan as they wouldn't be needed on the ECML once phase 2 HS2 opens. The small fleet of 225 stock is dependent on VTEC being awarded all 6.5tph paths they've applied for. If they only get 6tph paths they won't be keeping any 225s.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Would 26m stock require additional clearance works (above and beyond what's already budgeted for under the Intercity Express Project) though? A mixed fleet on the Transpennine core would create issues too: the new Liverpool to Newcastle service isn't used much differently to the other services between Manchester and Leeds and particularly between Huddersfield and Leeds (admittedly it will probably take another 6 months for people to fully adjust to using Victoria rather than Piccadilly on occasion). So narrow doors at vehicle ends would still be a problem (as it would be with hauled 442s too, admittedly). Such things would presumably be less of an issue for South TPE though.

Other than the little issue of free market, if you were looking to order some new stuff from Hitachi, you would have to consider 395 style door positioning over the 800/801 style - mid rather than end - whilst York to Newcastle isn't that bad, York to Liverpool won't work with end door stock.

My thoughts are that at the moment, there isn't really any other option. The IEP design has raised floors above the diesel engines which could well make it impossible to have 395-style doors. If Northern will be taking on the ScotRail 170s, there aren't any other diesels available which would have doors in the right places for the TPE core.

Any Class 800s bought for the route would be a temporary measure for the few years until the route has been properly modernised and electrified. If the trains are only going to be around for a few years, then economically they would need to be standard and able to be cascaded away, so I can't see any structural changes being made. It could be the case that the interior would be set up to reduce dwell times below the level in the IEP specification.

If I'm not mistaken, the service I would run 800s on calls at Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle. Leeds and beyond will all see 9/10-car IEPs all day, every day, so handling any length of IEPs would be easy. How long any TransPennine 800s could be would then depend on what's possible at Lime Street (which is being remodelled soon), Victoria and Huddersfield. All IEPs support SDO, so it may be possible to squeeze in a 208m long 8 carriage set, and failing that a 7 carriage set. Dwell times won't be as much of an issue if as few people are having to stand in the vestibules as possible. The 185 freed up by the IEPs would be able to double up other services and shorter-distance passengers would need to be coaxed into using these instead. It really might not be ideal but I can't see any other option that would increase capacity and reduce journey times immediately.

Should they be successful with their track access application East Coast Trains (FirstGroup) will use electric variant AT300s. GNER (Alliance) also propose bi-mode AT300s for their Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not so certain about that. There would need to be a long term cascade plan as they wouldn't be needed on the ECML once phase 2 HS2 opens. The small fleet of 225 stock is dependent on VTEC being awarded all 6.5tph paths they've applied for. If they only get 6tph paths they won't be keeping any 225s.

There are already more IEPs than could ever be needed by ICEC services alone after Phase 2 opens, and the Government is still required to pay Agility Trains for them for 28.5 years. What's going to happen is that some of the East Coast IEPs will have their interiors replaced with high density versions and they'll be used as long-distance commuter trains into King's Cross mainline station. The 26m EMU with end doors will still be useful on the lines relieved by HS2 since it can take a huge number of passengers in reasonable comfort on routes without enough stops for dwell times to be that important.

 

[notadriver]

Can the 185s have any mods/tweeks done to make them less fuel thirsty, either physically or in the software?

They already have Eco-mode where two out of three engines work ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They will have the same traction package, with the same sound, but as mentioned previously, they may be either uprated or downrated depending on several factors.

On the Javelins only the driving vehicles are not motored whereas the IEP has intermediate unpowered vehicles.

 

[D365]

They already have Eco-mode where two out of three engines work ?

Unfortunately the excess engine and fuel weight still exists, the idea/funding for additional carriages was cut... Well off-track here, sorry :P

 

[sprinterguy]

On the Javelins only the driving vehicles are not motored whereas the IEP has intermediate unpowered vehicles.

There'll be two intermediate unpowered vehicles on each of the 9-car sets, but on the 5-car sets, it is the same arrangement as the 395s inasmuch as only the driving vehicles are unpowered.