GWR Class 800

[AnonymousUser1]

Erm I don't think anybody said you just turn up and put them on full power, however I've no doubt the Dft will do whatever is needed for damage limitation even if its means giving more money to Aglity.

exactly ...

given the histroy that rail operations have with having to derate and /or modify engines to achieve relaible full power running ...

 

[Class 170101]

There is also the issue of fuel capacity. I believe it's been established if Didcot is the limit of electric operation, the 800s will not last a full day without needing refuelling. Presumably if they were run on the full rated power they would use even more fuel.

Do we know how many miles the fuel range is meant to be?

 

[spark001uk]

'insufficient' power i think not; given the 802 has exactly the same powerpoacks , just a different set of ECU settings as standard ( the 'optional but it costs you more per hour/ mile ' settings for the vehicles running under the IEP programme , rather than the 802 procurement model )

I was just going by the Wiki article about insufficient power/fuel tank capacity. Guess best to not to believe everything that site says then!

 

[coppercapped]

I was just going by the Wiki article about insufficient power/fuel tank capacity. Guess best to not to believe everything that site says then!

Oh dear! The wrong end of the stick, I think. It pays to do your own research...!

The IEP order for bi-modes assumed the use of these trains on the two Cotswold lines from the ends of the electrification at Oxford and Swindon, the extension of the trains from Cardiff to Swansea until the wires reached Swansea and on the services to Exeter and Paignton from the ends of the wires at Bristol Temple Meads and Newbury.

There are no steep hills, with the possible exception of Sapperton Bank, and train speeds mostly cannot exceed 100mph on diesel power because of the line limits. The trains can keep to the notional timetable using the 'de-rated' power settings. The fuel tank capacity was calculated to be sufficient, with a daily refill, for the trains to run that part of their daily diagrams which were expected to be diesel-powered. These 'de-rated' settings also helped Hitachi/Agility Trains to meet the DfT's reliability specification which is based on fulfilled diagrams.

The GWR order for the 802s are for trains to climb the Devon banks and run through to Penzance. It stands to reason that larger fuel tanks are needed as the mileage away from the wires is increased and the extra power is needed for the three engines in a five coach train to get up Hemerdon quickly. These trains have been ordered by a ROSCO (Eversholt) and don't need to meet the IEP reliability specification.

So, horses for courses.

 

[spark001uk]

...There are no steep hills, with the possible exception of Sapperton Bank, and train speeds mostly cannot exceed 100mph on diesel power because of the line limits. The trains can keep to the notional timetable using the 'de-rated' power settings. The fuel tank capacity was calculated to be sufficient, with a daily refill, for the trains to run that part of their daily diagrams which were expected to be diesel-powered...

I never disputed this.

...The GWR order for the 802s are for trains to climb the Devon banks and run through to Penzance. It stands to reason that larger fuel tanks are needed as the mileage away from the wires is increased and the extra power is needed for the three engines in a five coach train to get up Hemerdon quickly...

This is exactly what I said five pages back; the 802s are the uprated power/fuel tanks for dev/corn. I'm now a bit lost as to what stick I've got the wrong end of exactly??!

All I was wrong about, was I assumed the testing in the south west had highlighted the need for the 802s, I didn't realise they had already long since ordered them.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I never disputed this.



This is exactly what I said five pages back; the 802s are the uprated power/fuel tanks for dev/corn. I'm now a bit lost as to what stick I've got the wrong end of exactly??!

All I was wrong about, was I assumed the testing in the south west had highlighted the need for the 802s, I didn't realise they had already long since ordered them.

Yes iirc the 802s were ordered by Great Western when they decided they wanted to replace the remaining HSTs that were running all the way to Penzance. It was known that more power would likely to be needed so they were specified as NOT having de-rated engines. Plus bigger fuel tanks were required as they would spend a larger proportion of their time running on diesel. Otherwise they are the same as 800s (the 801s are the electric only version). They were ordered as a later addition and NOT as part of the electrification (non) project.

Note that the 800s and 801s are also known by the term IEP - they are the Intercity Express Programme (or project ?). These were specified (and ordered ?) a lot earlier by the Department For Transport as part of the Great Western Electrification Project. Not to forget the East Coast route as well.

The only connection with the 802s is that there has been conjecture that the 800s will need more power because faster sections of the route they will use will not be electrified in time. Also I think the 800s are proposed to get the larger fuel tanks that the 802s will have. Both are technically possible because the 802s are designed like that of course.

Part of GWs IEP fleet were to be electric only 801s. These are now to be built with engines etc and therefore classed as 800s. This is due to the GW electrification delays.

An extra seven (iirc) bi-mode units have been ordered for the services from Paddington to Oxford. These services were originally expected to be operated by electric units - the 387s iirc. These will be the higher powered variant of the 800 known as the 802.

The term IEP relates to the project and not exactly the 800 & 801 units themselves. It is argued that the 800s and 801s are part of a rather expensive contract that the DFT oversaw or influenced. The 802s on the other hand were ordered separately and later by GW. The 802s are supposed to be cheaper. This could be because they are a follow on order so all the development work is theoretically already paid for OR it could be because GW came up with a cheaper/more-sensible deal.

The thing that puzzles me is how many of these things have been ordered for GW, Intercity East Coast, Trans-Pennine and some other small operators. Yet none have really worked in anger yet. Compare to the drawn out emergence of the APT !. Then again compare to the emergence of the HST !. Whatever happens the UK railways are committed to these trains.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The larger capacity fuel tanks are going to be fitted to all 800 units. Unit 4 has them already. They are supposed to be 1550L capacity as opposed to the original 1350L.

The Agility contract states the maximum distance on diesel is 700 miles but that is a very conservative figure and the recent FG/GWR full bifters 110 mph run was partially to test that assumption. The figures from that are being evaluated and discussed now but, if I was a betting man, I would say 900 miles is a more realistic planning limit for 110mph running.

That is still way under the range for an HST but a 800 set has to (on average) have more contracted downtime so they won't be doing the very long turns that HST sets currently do.

The 7 set Oxford 802 order actually includes an extra set for core GWML services as the bi-modalisation has cost an extra set on the availability (it drops from 18 to 17) and there is also an extra set to release a couple of five cars to do the through Bedwyns.

 

[47802]

The larger capacity fuel tanks are going to be fitted to all 800 units. Unit 4 has them already. They are supposed to be 1550L capacity as opposed to the original 1350L.

The Agility contract states the maximum distance on diesel is 700 miles but that is a very conservative figure and the recent FG/GWR full bifters 110 mph run was partially to test that assumption. The figures from that are being evaluated and discussed now but, if I was a betting man, I would say 900 miles is a more realistic planning limit for 110mph running.

That is still way under the range for an HST but a 800 set has to (on average) have more contracted downtime so they won't be doing the very long turns that HST sets currently do.

The 7 set Oxford 802 order actually includes an extra set for core GWML services as the bi-modalisation has cost an extra set on the availability (it drops from 18 to 17) and there is also an extra set to release a couple of five cars to do the through Bedwyns.

Out of interest when you say all 800 units does that include the Virgin units as well?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Only know about the GWR sets. But if the DfT are sensible they will do the lot.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Only know about the GWR sets. But if the DfT are sensible they will do the lot.

Why though? The ICEC units won't be doing anything less under the wires than they had always been planned to. If anything, they'll be doing slightly less given that the Chieftan will have another hour of 25kV courtesy of Transport Scotland. Increasing the size of the fuel tank would mean more weight but no obvious benefit - if they would benefit, then they would probably have been fitted with a larger tank in the first place.

 

[47802]

Why though? The ICEC units won't be doing anything less under the wires than they had always been planned to. If anything, they'll be doing slightly less given that the Chieftan will have another hour of 25kV courtesy of Transport Scotland. Increasing the size of the fuel tank would mean more weight but no obvious benefit - if they would benefit, then they would probably have been fitted with a larger tank in the first place.

If you still put the same amount of fuel in I wouldn't have thought the weight would be much different, and if some were to get moved to a different route in the future it gives extra flexibility.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Why though? The ICEC units won't be doing anything less under the wires than they had always been planned to. If anything, they'll be doing slightly less given that the Chieftan will have another hour of 25kV courtesy of Transport Scotland. Increasing the size of the fuel tank would mean more weight but no obvious benefit - if they would benefit, then they would probably have been fitted with a larger tank in the first place.

If they are manufacturing 1550L tanks at the behest of GWR anyway, why not have them all fitted? A bit of extra weight or more versility on engineering weekends and electrical power supply limit resilience? Dunno which way the DfT have gone on the ECML sets but you can see them going for it.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What sort or range would 1550L tanks give them compared with the Adelantes, Voyagers and Meridians (probably the closest 3 equivalents to a IEP running in diesel mode)?

 

[deltic08]

The larger capacity fuel tanks are going to be fitted to all 800 units. Unit 4 has them already. They are supposed to be 1550L capacity as opposed to the original 1350L.

The Agility contract states the maximum distance on diesel is 700 miles but that is a very conservative figure and the recent FG/GWR full bifters 110 mph run was partially to test that assumption. The figures from that are being evaluated and discussed now but, if I was a betting man, I would say 900 miles is a more realistic planning limit for 110mph running.

That is still way under the range for an HST but a 800 set has to (on average) have more contracted downtime so they won't be doing the very long turns that HST sets currently do.

The 7 set Oxford 802 order actually includes an extra set for core GWML services as the bi-modalisation has cost an extra set on the availability (it drops from 18 to 17) and there is also an extra set to release a couple of five cars to do the through Bedwyns.

As has been mentioned several times in this thread, why not electrify the 30 odd route miles between Newton Abbot and Plymouth costing say £60m. This will save carrying all that extra power and fuel around unnecessarily just to negotiate this stretch.

 

[47802]

As has been mentioned several times in this thread, why not electrify the 30 odd route miles between Newton Abbot and Plymouth costing say £60m. This will save carrying all that extra power and fuel around unnecessarily just to negotiate this stretch.

And how are Network Rail going to find the time and money to do this exactly before these trains enter service, as the they presently struggling with both.:roll:

 

[D365]

There is no 'extra power'. The engines on the Class 802s are exactly the same.

 

[spark001uk]

As has been mentioned several times in this thread, why not electrify the 30 odd route miles between Newton Abbot and Plymouth costing say £60m. This will save carrying all that extra power and fuel around unnecessarily just to negotiate this stretch.

They're having trouble electrifying the routes they've set out to do!!

 

[WatcherZero]

There is no 'extra power'. The engines on the Class 802s are exactly the same.

The same engines but on the 800 they are derated through software.

 

[HSTEd]

As has been mentioned several times in this thread, why not electrify the 30 odd route miles between Newton Abbot and Plymouth costing say £60m. This will save carrying all that extra power and fuel around unnecessarily just to negotiate this stretch.

... 30 odd route miles from £60m.....
Good luck with that, electrification is currently costing £2.5m/TRACK-kilometre.
Which on doublet rack is something like £8m/route-mile.

So more like ~£240m.

[The scottish contracts that have been cited on this forum include no signalling work and no gauge clearance work]

 

[najaB]

The scottish contracts that have been cited on this forum include no signalling work and no gauge clearance work.

There's been an awful lot of bridge raising going on for no gauge clearance.

 

[Typhoon_93]

Aycliffe Hitachi Monday 06/02/2017 1130
Class 801 (believed to be for VTEC).
800005 in Yard.
800006 in Yard (first time outside).
385001 in Yard.

Gareth

 

[HSTEd]

There's been an awful lot of bridge raising going on for no gauge clearance.

Yes, but the stated contract price includes none of it.
That was all agreed under seperate contracts.

 

[Master29]

... 30 odd route miles from £60m.....
Good luck with that, electrification is currently costing £2.5m/TRACK-kilometre.
Which on doublet rack is something like £8m/route-mile.

So more like ~£240m.

[The scottish contracts that have been cited on this forum include no signalling work and no gauge clearance work]

Added to the fact this is a very slow part of the West country mainline anyway.

 

[Chris125]

[The scottish contracts that have been cited on this forum include no signalling work and no gauge clearance work]

Is there any evidence that including them would produce a figure anywhere near £2.5m ptkm?

 

[leomartin125]

Aycliffe Hitachi Monday 06/02/2017 1130
Class 801 (believed to be for VTEC).
800005 in Yard.
800006 in Yard (first time outside).
385001 in Yard.

Gareth

I think Hitachi need to get a move on if we are to introduce the GWR IEP's to the network by autumn. We need some 9 Car 802's soon to start testing, as with electrification delayed, the 802's are expected to run up to Oxford in place of 387's by Christmas. So whether that 801 may well be a 9 car 802 for GWR remains to be seen.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I think Hitachi need to get a move on if we are to introduce the GWR IEP's to the network by autumn. We need some 9 Car 802's soon to start testing, as with electrification delayed, the 802's are expected to run up to Oxford in place of 387's by Christmas. So whether that 801 may well be a 9 car 802 for GWR remains to be seen.

The 802 units will start to enter service in mid 2018 and are being assembled in Italy. There will be no build swaps. Other solutions are planned for the fast Oxfords, a lot of which are through trains to/from the North Cotswolds.

 

[HSTEd]

Is there any evidence that including them would produce a figure anywhere near £2.5m ptkm?

We have little evidence of anything unfortunately.
However considering that the cost of the steelwork alone is still greater than the cost predicted by the Electrification RUS does not bode well.

 

[Sean Emmett]

I posted this earlier under GW Electrification but perhaps better posted here
Can anyone confirm the tare weights for
5 car bi mode
9 car bi mode
5 car electric (incl one diesel engine)
9 car electric (ditto)
I've seen 249.3 tonnes quoted on here for a 5 car bi mode but wikipedia quoting 300 tonnes.
Source of info would be much appreciated.

 

[Sean Emmett]

I posted this earlier under GW Electrification but perhaps better posted here
Can anyone confirm the tare weights for
5 car bi mode
9 car bi mode
5 car electric (incl one diesel engine)
9 car electric (ditto)
I've seen 249.3 tonnes quoted on here for a 5 car bi mode but wikipedia quoting 300 tonnes.
Source of info would be much appreciated.

If 249 tonnes is right for a 5-car bi mode then that suggests basic weight of a coach is 45 tonnes plus 8 tonnes for each power pack. (2 x 45) + (3 x 53) = 249 tonnes, or 245 imperial tons.

For a 9 car this suggests (4 x 45) + (5 x 53) = 445 tonnes, or 438 imperial tons.

Now I recon a GW 2+8 HST weighs 404 tons. With 2 X 2,250 hp MTUs that’s 11.1 hp/ton.

An EC 2+9 HST is say 437 tons, so that’s 10.3 hp/ton.

A 5 car class 800 bi mode on diesel will have 2,250 hp for 245 tons, that’s only 9.2 hp/ton!

A 9 car on diesel will have 3,750 hp for 438 tons, so even less at 8.6 hp/ton.

But on the class AT300 the underfloor engines will work at their full rating of 940 hp rather than 750 hp.

So 5 car AT300 on diesel will have 2,820 hp for the 245 tons, 11.5 hp/ton so just beats the HST!

The 9 car AT300 on diesel will have 4,700 hp for 438 tons, 10.7 hp/ton – less than an HST.

I appreciate that the IEP's distributed traction will make it quicker off the mark than an HST, but above say 50 kmh the HST can put down something approaching full power and its grunt that counts.

The IEP had better show of its paces when on electric, otherwise journey times to Bristol will be slower, not quicker.

Happy to be corrected...

 

[snowball]

I appreciate that the IEP's distributed traction will make it quicker off the mark than an HST, but above say 50 kmh the HST can put down something approaching full power and its grunt that counts.

If I remember correctly Roger Ford in the current Modern Railways puts the transition speed much lower, I think he says 7mph.