Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[Bletchleyite]

But you can't sit directly behind the cab with those You've still got the luggage / van space behind the cab and the first row of seats. Admittedly the 395s do have passenger useable door immediately behind the cab.

The WCML Voyagers still have the bike space at one end, and while it was originally meant to be locked off from passenger use other than for putting bikes in it never actually is, so it sometimes becomes standing room.

 

[tetudo boy]

Just a review on what the seat's based on the video from EMR about them:

Standard-Class: It looks ok, but the headrest bit at the top looks like it's going to be hard. Other than that, the rest looks okay.

First-class: Like the standard one, the headrest does look hard, but the other looks fine.

The video mention that despite the fact it looks firm and hard, it will be actually comfortable when seated.

 

[edwin_m]

But you can't sit directly behind the cab with those You've still got the luggage / van space behind the cab and the first row of seats. Admittedly the 395s do have passenger useable door immediately behind the cab.

The 395s are a red herring in this discussion. They only exceed 100mph on HS1 where they are under ATP protection with no level crossings, so accidents are much less likely.

 

[Domh245]

It doesn't stack up unless they make major changes. They would need 325kW / motor given weight and length reductions vs 26m but inside frame bogies on 3 cars might also help reduce weight and hence power requirements a bit further.
They have a 300kW motor design available off the shelf but then a huge power gap up to high floored / large wheel diameter locomotive traction motors.

Major changes wouldn't/shouldn't come as a surprise at this point! It'll definitely be interesting to see what the solution they use to put all the power down - a left field suggestion might be to be 'inspired' by the aventras which will have a traction converter feeding motors on other carriages to end up with a 2'Bo'+Bo'Bo'+2'2'+(etc) formation, but I'm not sure that they'd be announcing it as a Trailer+Motor+Trailer(etc) in that case. I hope that they put out one of their development papers on these, it'll make for fascinating reading from a technical point of view.

 

[hwl]

Major changes wouldn't/shouldn't come as a surprise at this point! It'll definitely be interesting to see what the solution they use to put all the power down - a left field suggestion might be to be 'inspired' by the aventras which will have a traction converter feeding motors on other carriages to end up with a 2'Bo'+Bo'Bo'+2'2'+(etc) formation, but I'm not sure that they'd be announcing it as a Trailer+Motor+Trailer(etc) in that case. I hope that they put out one of their development papers on these, it'll make for fascinating reading from a technical point of view.

As I said before the contract was awarded, Hitachi would have to make a big leap in terms weight and power to meet the DfT performance specs compared to an 802...
The Japanese heavy electrical firms (Hit./Tosh./Mit. etc.) have all been a bit ahead of the curve on rail use of PM motors and SiC traction electrics so I'm wondering if they might have made a leap here. The box for the SiC MOSFET electronics is about half the size of an Si IGBT equivalent which might help in terms of squeezing stuff in.

 

[WesternLancer]

It sounded to me like one of those myths, like "you can't have decent sized luggage racks", "you can't have big windows", "you can't have end gangways", "you can't have decent seats in an IET" etc etc etc. Just about every single one of these things has been proven a myth.

The corridor next to a kitchen would be no smaller than that through the "engine room" of a FLIRT.

May well be!

 

[Railperf]

The railway gazette article quotes two motored coaches (relevant bit quoted in this post) although it's something that's been bandied around for a while, this post quotes Jan 2020 Modern Railways with a 2 motored configuration.

Does seem surprising to install more diesel power and then reduce the number of motored axles - if they use the exact same motors as the other 80x, it gives them an installed 1808kW (continuous) for 2940kW of engine, which unless the motors have a far higher peak rating, would mean most of that extra power is pointless (and no chance of matching 22x timing). I suppose it might be possible that they've realised that can up the power in each motor as part of a weight saving drive (which starts adding up if they can put inboard frame bogies under more vehicles) but I'd worry about the ability to put the power down

As these will have a max speed of only 125mph v 140mph for Class 802, they will theoretically need 71% of an 802's power provided overall weight stays the same. So traction motors of 325 to 350 hp will be needed if the quantity reduced to eight unless they use existing 303 hp motors from 802's and exploit the greater 1 hr power rating.

 

[Halish Railway]

As these will have a max speed of only 125mph v 140mph for Class 802, they will theoretically need 71% of an 802's power provided overall weight stays the same. So traction motors of 325 to 350 hp will be needed if the quantity reduced to eight unless they use existing 303 hp motors from 802's and exploit the greater 1 hr power rating.

Currently the entire Class 80x fleet is geared for a top speed of 200 KPH / 124 MPH.

 

[Domh245]

Currently the entire Class 80x fleet is geared for a top speed of 200 KPH / 124 MPH.

They aren't "geared for 200kph", indeed they aren't even electronically limited to it as evidenced by the TPE set that got to over 235kph (145mph)

As these will have a max speed of only 125mph v 140mph for Class 802, they will theoretically need 71% of an 802's power provided overall weight stays the same. So traction motors of 325 to 350 hp will be needed if the quantity reduced to eight unless they use existing 303 hp motors from 802's and exploit the greater 1 hr power rating.

Whilst they don't need as much power with the reduced top speed, would that not also limit acceleration? It may just be possible that the other 80x are overspecced and that Hitachi have realised that they can run things a bit harder with these, particularly if the peak power they can get out of the motor is much higher than the continuous

 

[hwl]

They aren't "geared for 200kph", indeed they aren't even electronically limited to it as evidenced by the TPE set that got to over 235kph (145mph)



Whilst they don't need as much power with the reduced top speed, would that not also limit acceleration? It may just be possible that the other 80x are overspecced and that Hitachi have realised that they can run things a bit harder with these, particularly if the peak power they can get out of the motor is much higher than the continuous

Indeed the power needed for the enhanced acceleration on diesel compared to 802 etc. is the main issue not the top speed!

 

[DorkingMain]

Generally there's a degree of built in redundancy with power so the train doesn't cease to be functional if it loses one traction pack.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Indeed the power needed for the enhanced acceleration on diesel compared to 802 etc. is the main issue not the top speed!

I recall all the talk of the installed horse power on the 800s not being an issue. It was promised that the ability to lay those horses down through many axles was the important thing. Maybe that was rubbish or maybe the Midland Main Line is not considered important enough or congested enough to need fast accelerating trains .

 

[Railperf]

I recall all the talk of the installed horse power on the 800s not being an issue. It was promised that the ability to lay those horses down through many axles was the important thing. Maybe that was rubbish or maybe the Midland Main Line is not considered important enough or congested enough to need fast accelerating trains .

The issue identified on the 802's was indeed the lack installed diesel power - especially as the earliest units were set at 750hp each. So we knew they would leap away from the stations to around 30-40mph and then the acceleration rate would drop to Class 158 standards.
The Midland Main Line has a sawtooth speed profile - mainly 100/110mph with lots of short 125mph sections mainly on easy or downhill gradients. So acceleration is key on this route from all the low speed limits that punctuate the route.

Currently the entire Class 80x fleet is geared for a top speed of 200 KPH / 124 MPH.

The traction equipment should be designed to run at a top speed of 140mph plus 10% - so a minimum 154mph!
On the 810 it will be 125mph plus 10% - so a minimum 137.5mph.

They aren't "geared for 200kph", indeed they aren't even electronically limited to it as evidenced by the TPE set that got to over 235kph (145mph)

The Railway Performance Society quarterly magazine 'Milepost' for this Jan 2021 estimates that a speed of 147mph may have been achieved on that run! www.railperf.org.uk

 

[Halish Railway]

The issue identified on the 802's was indeed the lack installed diesel power - especially as the earliest units were set at 750hp each. So we knew they would leap away from the stations to around 30-40mph and then the acceleration rate would drop to Class 158 standards.
The Midland Main Line has a sawtooth speed profile - mainly 100/110mph with lots of short 125mph sections mainly on easy or downhill gradients. So acceleration is key on this route from all the low speed limits that punctuate the route.

Only the 800s have 750hp engines, the 802s and presumably the rest of the Hitachi bi-modes on order have 940hp. It’s better, although not entirely brilliant.

 

[43096]

Only the 800s have 750hp engines, the 802s and presumably the rest of the Hitachi bi-modes on order have 940hp. It’s better, although not entirely brilliant.

This old chestnut again. At least the GWR 800s are rated the same as the 802s.

 

[Railperf]

Only the 800s have 750hp engines, the 802s and presumably the rest of the Hitachi bi-modes on order have 940hp. It’s better, although not entirely brilliant.

The engines across the whole 800/802 fleet are capable of generating up to 940hp. From what we understand, the actual figure is variable depending mainly on train speed and the position of the power/brake controller. The traction electronics are more complex. HST's used to deliver a fixed engine speed and therefore a fixed power output at a given power controller notch.

On the 800's the power/brake controller simply tells the traction electronics what level of power is required, and the traction system applies as much power as it is programmed to.

Modern car engine ECU's do much the same job, the amount of fuel being injected into your car engine is dependent on throttle position, air flow, and engine speed.

On a modern electric train the traction system similarly has to feed an amount of power to the motors without overloading them and burning them out. Therefore it is programmed to feed in as many amps of electrical power depending on the motors rotational speed.
On a bi-mode, you have to match the engine output to meet the amount of electrical power going to those motors - so two lots of 'mapping' so to speak - to marry the two up so that the system can be responsive but not too responsive so as to risk damaging drivetrain components.

GWR took a decision to have a common 940bhp capable fleet in diesel mode. And GWR has a far greater proportion of diesel running - and needs the higher outputs to ensure journey times on those diesel sections would not be slower than the outgoing HST's.

LNER seem to have stuck with the original 750bhp spec - to keep maintenance costs down. The only significant sections of diesel running are Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Stirling to Inverness via Perth - which are easy schedules at the moment. Clearly the convenience of offering a through service from London to Aberdeen and London to Inverness is worth it even if the schedule north of Edinburgh is slightly slower than the HST GTi's.

 

[Ethan1852]

The class 810s will be tested at the Old Dalby test track as the class requires type approval due to the differences between it and other Class 80x stock.

 

[Prestige15]

Voyager and Meridian buffets are tiny, basically just taking up the space where an accessible bog could be, or barely 8 seats.

According to RAIL (923)...Class 810 will not have a buffett, Trolly for standerd, Small Kitchen for first class, Very much like Hull Trains

 

[hexagon789]

The March issue of Today's Railways UK has some details on the sets. I know engine power and Motor/Trailer configuration has been mentioned but I haven't seen seating capacity, weight etc mentioned so I'll put it below for interest.

As mentioned the engines are rated at the sightly higher figure of 735kW against 700 for other 80x, there are only eight traction motors but these are rated at a higher continous output - 250kW against the usual 226kW.

Floor height is 1290mm in the four vehicles with engines, 1185mm in the centre vehicle without one.

Vehicle length is 24.3m for the driving cars and 23.8m for the intermediates.

Formation is - PDTF-MC-TS-MS-PDTS

PDTF (Pantograph Driving Trailer First) - 3m Galley Kitchen, 22 First Class, UAT (Universal Access Toilet). 46.9 tonnes

MC (Motor Composite) - 25 First/38 Standard, Catering trolley stowage. 51.9 tonnes

TS (Trailer Standard) - 80 Standard, two standard toilets. 40.5 tonnes

MS (Motor Standard) - 80 Standard, two bike spaces. 50.5 tonnes

PDTS (Pantograph Driving Trailer Standard) - UAT, 56 Standard. 47.8 tonne

Totals:
Seats - 47 First/254 Standard
Toilets - 2 UAT, 2 std
Weight - 237.6 tonnes

So slightly fewer First Class than both the 5 and particularly 7-car 222s but more Standard Class than both.

 

[samuelmorris]

This still makes absolutely no sense to me, having 2940kW of diesel power for only 2000kW of traction motor power. I know there are some losses and other systems to power, but if HSTs made do with 20% loss, 32% for these units seems absurd.

 

[hexagon789]

This still makes absolutely no sense to me, having 2940kW of diesel power for only 2000kW of traction motor power. I know there are some losses and other systems to power, but if HSTs made do with 20% loss, 32% for these units seems absurd.

Presumably the one hour and maximum ratings of the motors are higher, so the greater engine output can be used when accelerating. Admittedly, 2000kW in electric mode does seem a little low even for 125mph units. Only 11.8hp per tonne, less than even a 91 and 225 set.

 

[Speed43125]

This still makes absolutely no sense to me, having 2940kW of diesel power for only 2000kW of traction motor power. I know there are some losses and other systems to power, but if HSTs made do with 20% loss, 32% for these units seems absurd.

Pardon my ignorance, but is the 2940kW figure a continuous rating or peak power output? If it's the latter, then what about the traction motors? Don't they tend to have an output they can operate at beyond the usual figure? I recall reading something to that affect about 90s and 91s.

 

[LowLevel]

The March issue of Today's Railways UK has some details on the sets. I know engine power and Motor/Trailer configuration has been mentioned but I haven't seen seating capacity, weight etc mentioned so I'll put it below for interest.

As mentioned the engines are rated at the sightly higher figure of 735kW against 700 for other 80x, there are only eight traction motors but these are rated at a higher continous output - 250kW against the usual 226kW.

Floor height is 1290mm in the four vehicles with engines, 1185mm in the centre vehicle without one.

Vehicle length is 24.3m for the driving cars and 23.8m for the intermediates.

Formation is - PDTF-MC-TS-MS-PDTS

PDTF (Pantograph Driving Trailer First) - 3m Galley Kitchen, 22 First Class, UAT (Universal Access Toilet). 46.9 tonnes

MC (Motor Composite) - 25 First/38 Standard, Catering trolley stowage. 51.9 tonnes

TS (Trailer Standard) - 80 Standard, two standard toilets. 40.5 tonnes

MS (Motor Standard) - 80 Standard, two bike spaces. 50.5 tonnes

PDTS (Pantograph Driving Trailer Standard) - UAT, 56 Standard. 47.8 tonne

Totals:
Seats - 47 First/254 Standard
Toilets - 2 UAT, 2 std
Weight - 237.6 tonnes

So slightly fewer First Class than both the 5 and particularly 7-car 222s but more Standard Class than both.

The Leicester/Loughborough/Nottingham/Derby triangle commuters who worship mountain bikes will love them then

 

[py_megapixel]

Do we actually have a citation for the fact that these were ever planned to be classed as 804, or was that just a typical jump-to-conclusions-before-the-official-announcement scenario?

 

[Domh245]

Seating has been knowable (although I don't think posted properly in this thread) since the EMA and EMRA were published, although curiously they state 44/268 rather than the numbers MR have published.

The weight and floor heights are interesting - how do these compared to the other 80xs

 

[py_megapixel]

Seating has been knowable (although I don't think posted properly in this thread) since the EMA and EMRA were published, although curiously they state 44/268 rather than the numbers MR have published.

The weight and floor heights are interesting - how do these compared to the other 80xs

I'd be surprised if they're any heavier than the 80x, as the carriages are a few metres shorter IIRC

 

[swt_passenger]

Do we actually have a citation for the fact that these were ever planned to be classed as 804, or was that just a typical jump-to-conclusions-before-the-official-announcement scenario?

It was originally a quote from Today’s Railways magazine, which quoted the numbers as 804001-33, the post is in a different thread back in 2019: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...idlands-franchise.180920/page-74#post-4284336

 

[hexagon789]

Pardon my ignorance, but is the 2940kW figure a continuous rating or peak power output? If it's the latter, then what about the traction motors? Don't they tend to have an output they can operate at beyond the usual figure? I recall reading something to that affect about 90s and 91s.

2940 is the total diesel engine maximum ouput.

The Leicester/Loughborough/Nottingham/Derby triangle commuters who worship mountain bikes will love them then

Well, I suppose given they will mostly run as 10-car that's a bit better than your average 7-car Meridian but obviously not better than a double 222 set and a single is worse than an HST. So pretty much the usual nowadays.

Seating has been knowable (although I don't think posted properly in this thread) since the EMA and EMRA were published, although curiously they state 44/268 rather than the numbers MR have published.

The weight and floor heights are interesting - how do these compared to the other 80xs

I'd be surprised if they're any heavier than the 80x, as the carriages are a few metres shorter IIRC

Hitachi lists the 5-car 800s as 243 tonnes, so these are slightly lighter at 237.6t.

 

[WesternLancer]

The March issue of Today's Railways UK has some details on the sets. I know engine power and Motor/Trailer configuration has been mentioned but I haven't seen seating capacity, weight etc mentioned so I'll put it below for interest.

As mentioned the engines are rated at the sightly higher figure of 735kW against 700 for other 80x, there are only eight traction motors but these are rated at a higher continous output - 250kW against the usual 226kW.

Floor height is 1290mm in the four vehicles with engines, 1185mm in the centre vehicle without one.

Vehicle length is 24.3m for the driving cars and 23.8m for the intermediates.

Formation is - PDTF-MC-TS-MS-PDTS

PDTF (Pantograph Driving Trailer First) - 3m Galley Kitchen, 22 First Class, UAT (Universal Access Toilet). 46.9 tonnes

MC (Motor Composite) - 25 First/38 Standard, Catering trolley stowage. 51.9 tonnes

TS (Trailer Standard) - 80 Standard, two standard toilets. 40.5 tonnes

MS (Motor Standard) - 80 Standard, two bike spaces. 50.5 tonnes

PDTS (Pantograph Driving Trailer Standard) - UAT, 56 Standard. 47.8 tonne

Totals:
Seats - 47 First/254 Standard
Toilets - 2 UAT, 2 std
Weight - 237.6 tonnes

So slightly fewer First Class than both the 5 and particularly 7-car 222s but more Standard Class than both.

strange that the whole modern train approach to comfort seems to be be to make Std so stark that you really feel you want / need to upgrade to 1st, but then reduce the numbers of 1st seats so they can't really gain that market share. They really do want people to use their cars don't they (or suffer discomfort) - and cars get more and more comfortable with each new model....

 

[Domh245]

I'd be surprised if they're any heavier than the 80x, as the carriages are a few metres shorter IIRC

I had thought that the extra engine would have made quite an impact, but I remembered a spreadsheet I'd whipped up a while ago where I've got a 5 car 802 down as 252.8t (from Angel's website) - which represents a moderate weight saving.

Plugging the numbers into said spreadsheet (with assumptions made on rolling resistance and the like + a 25% allowance on continuous to max power) suggests that they should still accelerate to 125 faster than a 222 (though not quite as quickly as the other 80x, but they only begin to diverge after 100mph) - imposing a hard limit of 2MW with the assumed resistances says they'd fail to reach 125! Goes without saying that model is only as good as the data I put in (which ISTR I did try to get reasonable values for!), but for a rough idea:

Hitachi lists the 5-car 800s as 243 tonnes, so these are slightly lighter at 237.6t.

That 243t figure seems to be derived from a 9 car 802 based on the cited source on wiki. Angel give an actual 5 car weight almost 10t heavier

Well, I suppose given they will mostly run as 10-car that's a bit better than your average 7-car Meridian but obviously not better than a double 222 set and a single is worse than an HST. So pretty much the usual nowadays.

ISTR consensus is about half of the trains will run as double units. Goes without saying though that double 222s were very much the exception not the rule (something like 13 services a day were diagrammed for doubles), and that whilst these do represent a reduced capacity over an HST, they were seldom run at capacity - more just that HSTs were what they had to try and run the service with!