Class 810 (was originally class 804) for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
11,116
Location
Glasgow
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....<(
I reserve judgement until I've sampled them ;)


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:
The 2000kW total motor rating seems too low somehow.


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 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.


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!
I suppose I was using 'mostly' a bit freely.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
11,116
Location
Glasgow
It's less than a 3-car 755, put it that way. A unit that it not only half the size, but also only (currently) set to run at 100mph.
It's the only figure that looks suspect. The vehicle lengths look fine, engine ratings, seating capacity and weights.

But the motor output just seems too low. They've got an uprated figure from somewhere because they mention it being higher than the standard 226kW of the other 80x.

I think the 250kW must be wrong, but where they've got the figure from...
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
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.

Used to, but not any more (as Clarence Yard must have posted a good 801 times by now ;)) - the only mechanical difference between them now is the resistor grids and lack of on the 800s, which will carry a weight penalty of course. That possibly does explain some of the weight difference, but I expect the use of inboard frame bogies on 2 of the trailer vehicles in the 9 car formation will throw the estimate, along with other subtle differences. I don't know if the vehicle weights are quoted dry (I would have assumed so, or at least, not at 100% fuel capacity) so even the larger fuel tanks may not account for as much difference as thought

It's less than a 3-car 755, put it that way. A unit that it not only half the size, but also only (currently) set to run at 100mph.

The 755s are notoriously overpowered! They've got a max (not continuous) installed of 2.6MW, and a mean acceleration to 40kph of 1.3m/s2 - almost double the assumed 0.75m/s2 I took from the IEP TTS
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
6,542
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
The Leicester/Loughborough/Nottingham/Derby triangle commuters who worship mountain bikes will love them then :lol:
Indeed, each new design of late has made travelling with a Mountain Bike less and less easier, be it the stupid design in the Voyagers (and carried over to the Scottish HST's of hanging them from the ceiling) to the annoyingly narrow bike racks on the floor of the 444 - It seems each new design is based around super thin road bike's, which of course have thinner tires and a thinner design.

If there's one thing I hope they taken on board, it's not including the silly multi space as on the GW Sets - where friends have had their bikes and luggage stolen from - at least FGW got this right with the glass partition between saloon and luggage racks on their HSTs.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
11,116
Location
Glasgow
Used to, but not any more (as Clarence Yard must have posted a good 801 times by now ;)) - the only mechanical difference between them now is the resistor grids and lack of on the 800s, which will carry a weight penalty of course. That possibly does explain some of the weight difference, but I expect the use of inboard frame bogies on 2 of the trailer vehicles in the 9 car formation will throw the estimate, along with other subtle differences. I don't know if the vehicle weights are quoted dry (I would have assumed so, or at least, not at 100% fuel capacity) so even the larger fuel tanks may not account for as much difference as thought
You mean none of them have larger tanks? I thought the 800s were upgraded to put them on par with the 802s in that respect?


The 755s are notoriously overpowered! They've got a max (not continuous) installed of 2.6MW, and a mean acceleration to 40kph of 1.3m/s2 - almost double the assumed 0.75m/s2 I took from the IEP TTS
Even so, it still seems rather low for a 125mph unit.

Interesting that the "low floor" vehicle isn't either of the ones with wheelchair accommodation. Might it have been cheaper to make them all the same?
It does seem pretty pointless, I agree
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
You mean none of them have larger tanks? I thought the 800s were upgraded to put them on par with the 802s in that respect?

You're correct - I butchered the response. The GWR 800s have the same fuel tanks as the 802s

Even so, it still seems rather low for a 125mph unit.

It all depends on the relation of ratio of continuous rating to the sort of power they can actually get out of them. Instinctively it does seem low but it's not the sort of mistake a company like Hitachi would make
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
11,116
Location
Glasgow
You're correct - I butchered the response. The GWR 800s have the same fuel tanks as the 802s
That's fine, just trying to confirm my original understanding was correct.


It all depends on the relation of ratio of continuous rating to the sort of power they can actually get out of them. Instinctively it does seem low but it's not the sort of mistake a company like Hitachi would make
Assuming that is the source of the figures, then yes I agree. I do see your point and I would understand that in relation to the diesel output.

I suppose really the 2000kW suggested is the power to hold at 125mph rather than get there in the first place.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
I suppose really the 2000kW suggested is the power to hold at 125mph rather than get there in the first place.

Indeed, and (coincidentally) the model I used for those graphs earlier when limited to 2MW exactly shows an acceleration of functionally zero (-0.0003m/s2) at 200kph - ie at the balancing point!
 

Nottingham59

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
186
Location
Nottingham
when there's any hint of a hill or head wind the'll not be able to hit it
Well, that's for a 5-car set, of course. When they're running doubled up, the wind resistance won't be twice a great. I would expect that 4000kW would be plenty to shift a 10-car consist at 125mph. And power/acceleration matters the most at the busiest periods in the timetable, when trains are most heavily loaded and dwell times that bit longer.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,058
Location
Croydon
Interesting that the "low floor" vehicle isn't either of the ones with wheelchair accommodation. Might it have been cheaper to make them all the same?
I can see EMR wishing that thelow floor TS was instead made with a high/sloping floor the same as the other four vehicles in the set. That way they could add another engine if it transpires that more power is needed.

I am sure they have done their maths and (perhaps this is a Cinderella line still ?) but it really would make sense to future proof them. More power is bound to be attractive in the future and if GW get more electrification then engines with grandfather rights (emissions wise) should become available. Then again perhaps EMR are hoping that more knitting gets done in the crucial power hungry stretches in the not too distant future, if not the whole route(s). That is certainly my hope/dream.
 

43096

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
9,545
I can see EMR wishing that thelow floor TS was instead made with a high/sloping floor the same as the other four vehicles in the set. That way they could add another engine if it transpires that more power is needed.

I am sure they have done their maths and (perhaps this is a Cinderella line still ?) but it really would make sense to future proof them. More power is bound to be attractive in the future and if GW get more electrification then engines with grandfather rights (emissions wise) should become available. Then again perhaps EMR are hoping that more knitting gets done in the crucial power hungry stretches in the not too distant future, if not the whole route(s). That is certainly my hope/dream.
Doesn’t the centre car have the transformer underneath it? There’s not going to be space for a transformer and an engine.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
I can see EMR wishing that thelow floor TS was instead made with a high/sloping floor the same as the other four vehicles in the set. That way they could add another engine if it transpires that more power is needed.

I am sure they have done their maths and (perhaps this is a Cinderella line still ?) but it really would make sense to future proof them. More power is bound to be attractive in the future and if GW get more electrification then engines with grandfather rights (emissions wise) should become available. Then again perhaps EMR are hoping that more knitting gets done in the crucial power hungry stretches in the not too distant future, if not the whole route(s). That is certainly my hope/dream.

As @43096 points out, the TS car has the transformer underneath, so space is already at a premium. Not only that, but given the 2.9MW of diesel already installed, they're not going to need any more engines - it's the electric motors (or lack of) that are the concern! A 5 engined 810 would have a power:weight ratio of 20 bhp/ton, which is about in line with a 755, and entirely unnecessary on an intercity train!
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,058
Location
Croydon
Doesn’t the centre car have the transformer underneath it? There’s not going to be space for a transformer and an engine.

As @43096 points out, the TS car has the transformer underneath, so space is already at a premium. Not only that, but given the 2.9MW of diesel already installed, they're not going to need any more engines - it's the electric motors (or lack of) that are the concern! A 5 engined 810 would have a power:weight ratio of 20 bhp/ton, which is about in line with a 755, and entirely unnecessary on an intercity train!
Doh. Silly me went all Crayonista over the odd flat floor :oops:. I forgot about a transformer and that its the traction motors that are left behind !.

I suppose there might still be room for traction motors, if the bogies are appropriate ?. Although I have lost track of how many vehicles in the unit don't have traction motors or suitable bogies.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,918
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Doesn’t the centre car have the transformer underneath it? There’s not going to be space for a transformer and an engine.

Yes, true. I still find it bizarre. After all, the original plan on the 800s was that only the powered vehicles would be high-floor, and those without engines (e.g. on the 9-cars where not all intermediates are powered, or on the EMU version) would be lower-floor. But in the end they went for all intermediates high-floor because it was cheaper. I get that lower-floor might work better for access, but then in that case why isn't the Standard wheelchair space and accessible toilet in that vehicle?
 

Martin222002

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2011
Messages
238
Location
Chesterfield, Derbyshire
I would personally take the 250kw traction motor rating stated in the Today's Railways article with a pinch of salt. No other articles have highlighted / quoted the traction motor rating, and as other posters have pointed out it is just too low an overall rating for 125mph train. It's also the same rating as the 385s traction motors, so maybe some copy and paste assumptions. The Today's Railways article also states the wrong number of toilets when comparing the 810s to the other 80Xs, stating that the 5 car 80Xs only have 3 toilets when they actually have 5 (2 universal and 3 space savers).

The March issue of Modern Railways also has an article on the 810s, which mentions two new facts not mentioned in previous articles. Firstly that the two space saver toilets in the centre TS will be located at either end of the coach instead of opposite each other as on the 80Xs. The second is that the TFT PIS screens won't just be on the bulkhead ends of the passenger compartment but also in the vestibules.

In addition to this article is a side article regarding the seating on the 810s by Ian Walmsley. It mentions that seat pitch will be 800mm, which is am amount Ian Walmsley approves of, but to allow this it does mean there are only 6 bays of 4 seats, down from 8 bays which were originally planned and as found on the other 80Xs. As mentioned the seats will be FISA Leans, but apparently will have a more reclined position than their GA counterparts, of 107 degrees to horizontal for the EMR seats vs 102 degrees as found on the GA seats. All sounding positive, but the true comfort test will be sitting on these in reality.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
24,596
The March issue also has an article on the 810s, which mentions two new facts not mentioned in previous articles. Firstly that the two space saver toilets in the centre TS will be located at either end of the coach instead of opposite each other as on the 80Xs. The second is that the TFT PIS screens won't just be on the bulkhead ends of the passenger compartment but also in the vestibules.

In addition to this article is a side article regarding the seating on the 810s by Ian Walmsley...

I suppose this is referring to the March issue of Modern Railways, noting you mentioned Ian Walmsley?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
6,336
As @43096 points out, the TS car has the transformer underneath, so space is already at a premium. Not only that, but given the 2.9MW of diesel already installed, they're not going to need any more engines - it's the electric motors (or lack of) that are the concern! A 5 engined 810 would have a power:weight ratio of 20 bhp/ton, which is about in line with a 755, and entirely unnecessary on an intercity train!
From the vehicle weight It looks like:
a) there is more under the TS than just the transformer - potentially 2 sets of traction electrics for the adjacent cars?
b) the traction motors are under the 2nd (MC) and 4th (MS) which are the heaviest* which will help with tractive effort particularly with bigger traction motors. *(despite the overall weight saving)

With Kettering to MH electrification veg clearance starting and assuming the electrification goes ahead the worst MML gradients are then electrified.

The isn't that much 125mph running on MML overall but plenty of acceleration/ high power for 6-7minutes max.
With the nominal 2940kW on Diesel, upto 250-300kW will be going to hotel loads etc. so max traction power of 2640kW? which is 33% more than the motor continuous rating which would align with continuous rating total of 200kW (max can be up to 55% greater than continuous.)
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
a) there is more under the TS than just the transformer - potentially 2 sets of traction electrics for the adjacent cars?

I'm not sure that the traction electronics would be under the TS - there's a ~5t weight difference between the driving vehicles and the motors, which I would think is predominantly the traction electronics and motors (given the notional weight advantage they start with by lacking Pantographs and cabs). The TS will have two sets of tanks and toilets in addition to the transformer, which given Hitachi's supposed 'robust' vehicle weights, and likely not using inside frame bogies I don't think that 40t with just those is out of the question
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
11,116
Location
Glasgow
Indeed, and (coincidentally) the model I used for those graphs earlier when limited to 2MW exactly shows an acceleration of functionally zero (-0.0003m/s2) at 200kph - ie at the balancing point!
I did look at your graphs, but I think I've misunderstood the conclusions you drew. Not your fault, entirely mine - I misinterpreted it as saying they couldn't quite make 125 rather than they would roughly balance at that speed.

The isn't that much 125mph running on MML overall but plenty of acceleration/ high power for 6-7minutes max.
With the nominal 2940kW on Diesel, upto 250-300kW will be going to hotel loads etc. so max traction power of 2640kW? which is 33% more than the motor continuous rating which would align with continuous rating total of 200kW (max can be up to 55% greater than continuous.)
That explanation would seem to fit to me, I think it's just that in comparison with the other 80x they have much higher continuous electric outputs than maximum diesel outputs
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
I did look at your graphs, but I think I've misunderstood the conclusions you drew. Not your fault, entirely mine - I misinterpreted it as saying they couldn't quite make 125 rather than they would roughly balance at that speed.

The previous graphs don't show that scenario to be fair - they just considered the notional acceleration assuming a maximum power of 1.25x continuous. The 125mph balancing comes from this graph which shows the maximum achievable acceleration for a given power (with total weight as published, and some assumed figures for rolling resistances and drag) with the IEP TTS acceleration profile thrown in for comparison. The 2MW profile hits zero just before 200kph so it'd never quite hit it, but 2MW is the "lower bound" if you like - we know that they've got more power than that available.

1614269499907.png

To actually reach 125mph (away from a lovely theoretical world with no headwind, perfectly straight and level track, no passengers, etc) they'll clearly need more than the notional 2MW continuous (assuming my guesstimated values hold) - but the estimate of 2.6MW from @hwl would seem to be ample

That explanation would seem to fit to me, I think it's just that in comparison with the other 80x they have much higher continuous electric outputs than maximum diesel outputs

The possible explanation here is that the other 80x, all being either part of or derived from, IEP with it's financially incentivised reliability will have had more power than strictly necessary thrown at them so that they can still keep to time (or be run even faster, etc) with motors out.

810 being later, and a different design without the same procurement, they can take a more aggressive approach having gained experience on the reliability of their equipment (and not worrying about being stung as hard if motors drop out)
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
11,116
Location
Glasgow
The previous graphs don't show that scenario to be fair - they just considered the notional acceleration assuming a maximum power of 1.25x continuous. The 125mph balancing comes from this graph which shows the maximum achievable acceleration for a given power (with total weight as published, and some assumed figures for rolling resistances and drag) with the IEP TTS acceleration profile thrown in for comparison. The 2MW profile hits zero just before 200kph so it'd never quite hit it, but 2MW is the "lower bound" if you like - we know that they've got more power than that available.
Right, got it now.

Can I just ask how you produce the graphs? What you used.


To actually reach 125mph (away from a lovely theoretical world with no headwind, perfectly straight and level track, no passengers, etc) they'll clearly need more than the notional 2MW continuous (assuming my guesstimated values hold) - but the estimate of 2.6MW from @hwl would seem to be ampl
It also matches with the engine outputs a lot better


The possible explanation here is that the other 80x, all being either part of or derived from, IEP with it's financially incentivised reliability will have had more power than strictly necessary thrown at them so that they can still keep to time (or be run even faster, etc) with motors out.

810 being later, and a different design without the same procurement, they can take a more aggressive approach having gained experience on the reliability of their equipment (and not worrying about being stung as hard if motors drop out)
Because Hitachi won't be responsible for providing a set number of units for service without financial penalty? ;)
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
Right, got it now.

Can I just ask how you produce the graphs? What you used.

Just google sheets! Not very neat admittedly, but roughly:

For 5kph steps from 1 to 200kph, estimate the resistive force for the speed*, then calculating the force needed to match the IEP TTS profile (F=(ma)+F_res), and then determining the power needed for that (P=Tw or P=Fv - I did the first option because it's the logical one that came to mind when dealing with motors (hence torque) but it cancels itself out). To make the accel/speed graph I have a very rough integration (difference in the speeds/acceleration)

*comprising an independent (static) term, velocity dependant (rolling resistance) term, and velocity squared (drag) term

Because Hitachi won't be responsible for providing a set number of units for service without financial penalty? ;)

Pretty much!
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
6,336
The possible explanation here is that the other 80x, all being either part of or derived from, IEP with it's financially incentivised reliability will have had more power than strictly necessary thrown at them so that they can still keep to time (or be run even faster, etc) with motors out.

810 being later, and a different design without the same procurement, they can take a more aggressive approach having gained experience on the reliability of their equipment (and not worrying about being stung as hard if motors drop out)
800/801 were designed for 140mph on electric hence having far more power than needed at low speeds to meet the TTS acceleration requirements.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
11,116
Location
Glasgow
Just google sheets! Not very neat admittedly, but roughly:

For 5kph steps from 1 to 200kph, estimate the resistive force for the speed*, then calculating the force needed to match the IEP TTS profile (F=(ma)+F_res), and then determining the power needed for that (P=Tw or P=Fv - I did the first option because it's the logical one that came to mind when dealing with motors (hence torque) but it cancels itself out). To make the accel/speed graph I have a very rough integration (difference in the speeds/acceleration)

*comprising an independent (static) term, velocity dependant (rolling resistance) term, and velocity squared (drag) term
And there was me thinking you had a fancy piece of software kit there!

Thanks for the explanation
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
7,519
Location
nowhere
And there was me thinking you had a fancy piece of software kit there!

Thanks for the explanation

Sadly not! As much as anything it's a combination of my (probably worrying!) tendency to make spreadsheets when I'm bored, and a feeling that I'd not really put my degree to any use since graduating! :/
 

Top