I reserve judgement until I've sampled themstrange 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....
The 2000kW total motor rating seems too low somehow.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:
I got it from a PDF I downloaded a while ago, but I see that's the same source wiki quotes so perhaps not the best. Don't the 802s plus GWR 800s also have larger fuel tanks? Which would add weight.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
I suppose I was using 'mostly' a bit freely.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!