GWR Class 800

[RichmondCommu]

What are you on about?

The testing programme is being carried out by Hitachi, not the TOCs.

Does it really matter? Is it worth having a rant over?

 

[jimm]

Does it really matter? Is it worth having a rant over?

What rant? It's a statement of fact.

This thread is long and complicated enough to keep track of already without people posting up stuff that is just plain wrong.

Equally, I would completely agree with your post in the Virgin Azuma thread questioning people's ability to know all about the trains just by looking at a photograph/CGI impression. A phenomenon not unknown in this thread either...

 

[RichmondCommu]

What rant? It's a statement of fact.

This thread is long and complicated enough to keep track of already without people posting up stuff that is just plain wrong.

Equally, I would completely agree with your post in the Virgin Azuma thread questioning people's ability to know all about the trains just by looking at a photograph/CGI impression. A phenomenon not unknown in this thread either...

Look, the way you worded your post suggested that you were annoyed that someone had posted that the TOC's were doing the testing as opposed to the manufacturer. You and I know that it is Hitachi but it's not worth getting wound up over it. There is much to be learn't from reading your posts but there is no need to be abrupt. Just saying that's all.

Personally, given that Hitachi have their reputation at stake with the introduction of these trains I've got a feeling that they will be very popular. Of course there will always be people who want to cut their nose off to spite their face.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Look, the way you worded your post suggested that you were annoyed that someone had posted that the TOC's were doing the testing as opposed to the manufacturer. You and I know that it is the TOC but it's not worth getting wound up over it. There is much to be learn't from reading your posts but there is no need to be abrupt. Just saying that's all.

Personally, given that Hitachi have their reputation at stake with the introduction of these trains I've got a feeling that they will be very popular. Of course there will always be people who want to cut their nose off to spite their face.

I presume that's a typo, but to confirm, it's Hitachi and not the TOCs who are responsible for testing work.

When full approval is granted for the units, they will be delivered to either Agility Trains (West) or Agility Trains (East) for the GW and ICEC franchises, respectively. There is, for reasons beyond any level of comprehension, slightly different shareholders in the two Agility Trains businesses.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I presume that's a typo, but to confirm, it's Hitachi and not the TOCs who are responsible for testing work.

When full approval is granted for the units, they will be delivered to either Agility Trains (West) or Agility Trains (East) for the GW and ICEC franchises, respectively. There is, for reasons beyond any level of comprehension, slightly different shareholders in the two Agility Trains businesses.

Yes it is a typo! Thanks for the correction

 

[D1009]

Most of the Class 800 testing is done under diesel power at the moment but once this is completed, the electric testing will most certainly commence.

Talking of muddy waters, has ANY electric testing of these units taken place anywhere in the UK yet?

 

[coppercapped]

Talking of muddy waters, has ANY electric testing of these units taken place anywhere in the UK yet?

6 posts before yours (no. 2373) is a clear statement.

 

[D1009]

Been reported elsewhere that 800s aren't permitted to run under AC yet so the move was diesel powered.

That is correct. No Class 800's are permitted to run on the mainlines under electric power, and are confined to diesel motors instead. Once testing starts at night on the ECML in SPZ's under electric power, if successful, we might start seeing more operations and tests with the 800 under electric power.

So these posts are wrong then.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So these posts are wrong then.

The difference is that the North Pole and King's Cross diesel moves were under regular traffic conditions, so IEP must have some level of clearance in diesel mode.
By contrast the ECML electric testing still appears to be under possession (SPZ) with no other traffic around.

 

[najaB]

This might be a silly question, but as I understand it there are power supply limitations on the southern ECML, meaning that some under the wire services have to run as HSTs in the peaks. Will bi-modes replace these services running in diesel mode from Kings Cross to their first station stop and then switch to electric mode (and vv the other way around)?

 

[TheKnightWho]

This might be a silly question, but as I understand it there are power supply limitations on the southern ECML, meaning that some under the wire services have to run as HSTs in the peaks. Will bi-modes replace these services running in diesel mode from Kings Cross to their first station stop and then switch to electric mode (and vv the other way around)?

I imagine, if that's true, that there'll be power supply upgrades in the works.

 

[47802]

This might be a silly question, but as I understand it there are power supply limitations on the southern ECML, meaning that some under the wire services have to run as HSTs in the peaks. Will bi-modes replace these services running in diesel mode from Kings Cross to their first station stop and then switch to electric mode (and vv the other way around)?

There was a issue when the Eurostar sets ran on the East Coast which meant they were diagrammed to avoid the Southern Section in the peak but didn't think it applied to anything else, that would be difficult to manage when diagrams are changed due to disruption etc.

In any case if that it is an issue that's something they will need to fix for IEP

 

[jimm]

This might be a silly question, but as I understand it there are power supply limitations on the southern ECML, meaning that some under the wire services have to run as HSTs in the peaks. Will bi-modes replace these services running in diesel mode from Kings Cross to their first station stop and then switch to electric mode (and vv the other way around)?

There is an ECML power supply upgrade programme under way, due for completion later this year.

Network Rail’s Power Supply Upgrade (PSU) project on the East Coast Main Line (ECML) is a key component of Network Rail’s wider investment programme to deliver the Intercity Express Programme (IEP), safely support more frequent and longer train services along the East Coast Main Line and provide brand new electrification equipment along the Trans-Pennine route.

http://www.volkerrail.co.uk/en/projects/detail/east-coast-main-line-power-supply-update

Look, the way you worded your post suggested that you were annoyed that someone had posted that the TOC's were doing the testing as opposed to the manufacturer. You and I know that it is Hitachi but it's not worth getting wound up over it. There is much to be learn't from reading your posts but there is no need to be abrupt. Just saying that's all.

What I'm fed up about - as opposed to ranting/being annoyed or wound up - is wrong information being posted as though it is correct, even though the right information has already been posted on this forum or can be ascertained by a simple search of the internet, e.g. the details requested about progress at Newton Aycliffe, which took me a matter of seconds to find online.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

There is an ECML power supply upgrade programme under way, due for completion later this year.

If anybody is interested, ECML converts to auto transformer feed (ATF) between London and just south of Doncaster, and a new conventional feeding point at Ardsley is installed (which has already been completed).

The remainder of the route remains conventionally fed for the time being.

 

[najaB]

There was a issue when the Eurostar sets ran on the East Coast which meant they were diagrammed to avoid the Southern Section in the peak but didn't think it applied to anything else, that would be difficult to manage when diagrams are changed due to disruption etc.

It applies to at least a couple of northbound services in the evening peak - it was mentioned in the Highland Chieftain thread.

There is an ECML power supply upgrade programme under way, due for completion later this year.

Thanks - will do some reading.

If anybody is interested, ECML converts to auto transformer feed (ATF) between London and just south of Doncaster, and a new conventional feeding point at Ardsley is installed (which has already been completed).

The remainder of the route remains conventionally fed for the time being.

Thanks also.

 

[leomartin125]

I presume that's a typo, but to confirm, it's Hitachi and not the TOCs who are responsible for testing work.

When full approval is granted for the units, they will be delivered to either Agility Trains (West) or Agility Trains (East) for the GW and ICEC franchises, respectively. There is, for reasons beyond any level of comprehension, slightly different shareholders in the two Agility Trains businesses.

Just to clarify, I know the testing is done by Hitachi and not the TOC's. I was simply referring to the units as to which operator they are destined for, sorry for the confusion. Lets just keep this thread on track without any arguments, nothing is worth getting stressed about a simple mistake.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Just to clarify, I know the testing is done by Hitachi and not the TOC's. I was simply referring to the units as to which operator they are destined for, sorry for the confusion. Lets just keep this thread on track without any arguments, nothing is worth getting stressed about a simple mistake.

The work at present is to secure the 'type approval' for the Class 800/801 family, and that doesn't require any specific units to be used.

The units involved and their intended destinations don't generally matter, there's only a couple of very minor weight issues to deal with depending on the catering package installed which specifically require a GW or EC unit.

The type approval process has to be completed for each new family of trains, after that is completed variations to the type approval can be permitted easily and quickly, allowing variants of the original design. This will enable the Class 802 units for GWR and Hull Trains to bypass almost all of this work, requiring a much less detailed testing regime, of the sort we saw when Bombardier introduced the Class 387.

 

[Class 170101]

Uprate the engines, and Hitachi will want more money (for a more intensive maintenance regime and earlier engine replacement).

If there is an engine failure and the rest are uprated to compensate who pays? TOC to Agility for the Uprated use or Agility to TOC for the failure of said engine? (NB I am assuming no delay minutes are caused)

This might be a silly question, but as I understand it there are power supply limitations on the southern ECML, meaning that some under the wire services have to run as HSTs in the peaks. Will bi-modes replace these services running in diesel mode from Kings Cross to their first station stop and then switch to electric mode (and vv the other way around)?

I imagine, if that's true, that there'll be power supply upgrades in the works.

There was a issue when the Eurostar sets ran on the East Coast which meant they were diagrammed to avoid the Southern Section in the peak but didn't think it applied to anything else, that would be difficult to manage when diagrams are changed due to disruption etc.

In any case if that it is an issue that's something they will need to fix for IEP

It applies to at least a couple of northbound services in the evening peak - it was mentioned in the Highland Chieftain thread.

Currently the 17:00 and 18:00 Kings Cross to Edinburgh weekdays are HSTs for the power supply reason. Should go away (if it hasn't already) as the power is being uprated as Phillip Phlopp as outlined above.

Previously the 18:03 Skipton service was the diesel due to limitations of the power supply beyond Bradford, so the 18:00 remained electric these two services have now swapped motive power.

I would be surprised that the power supply would be so limiting that if both the 18:00 and 18:03 departures were electric on one night the supply would go bang. However power draw might have to be reduced.

 

[gsnedders]

If anybody is interested, ECML converts to auto transformer feed (ATF) between London and just south of Doncaster, and a new conventional feeding point at Ardsley is installed (which has already been completed).

The remainder of the route remains conventionally fed for the time being.

Is there any good description of the different types of OLE feeding?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is there any good description of the different types of OLE feeding?

This NR presentation is on the web at: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...n2.cfm&usg=AFQjCNGto8JiYcCOMXOAeJP3mkQhlaQ8WA

Sorry about the stupid link.
I googled "autotransformer rail" and it shows up as "Railway Electrification Programme".
ATF is on chart 14/15.
There are some specific charts on the GW feeding system from p23 onwards.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Is there any good description of the different types of OLE feeding?

There's nothing that's totally simple to understand, everything assumes either a basic or expert level of electrical engineering knowledge. This is a fair report though (it's the first that came to mind, was looking at it for third rail losses on another thread earlier this week).

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...closed 07 july 2010/ec4t loss report v1.0.pdf

 

[47802]

Currently the 17:00 and 18:00 Kings Cross to Edinburgh weekdays are HSTs for the power supply reason. Should go away (if it hasn't already) as the power is being uprated as Phillip Phlopp as outlined above.

Previously the 18:03 Skipton service was the diesel due to limitations of the power supply beyond Bradford, so the 18:00 remained electric these two services have now swapped motive power.

I would be surprised that the power supply would be so limiting that if both the 18:00 and 18:03 departures were electric on one night the supply would go bang. However power draw might have to be reduced.

I knew about the Aire Valley but I didn't realise it was that tight on the East Coast.

 

[159220]

If there is an engine failure and the rest are uprated to compensate who pays? TOC to Agility for the Uprated use or Agility to TOC for the failure of said engine? (NB I am assuming no delay minutes are caused)

? The whole point of the 800s delivered under the 'IEP' contract having their engines down-rated to 560 Kw is to, under a power pack failure, to up-rate the remaining power packs to 700 Kw to meet the diagrams to which Agility are contractually bound to meet.

I am at a loss to where the original poster feels there is an extra cost outside of Agility paying (delay charges) if this is failed to be met.

I strongly advice the DfT specifications and contracts of the IEP between DfT and Agility is referenced back to: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ogramme-technical-specification-and-contracts

 

[coppercapped]

If there is an engine failure and the rest are uprated to compensate who pays? TOC to Agility for the Uprated use or Agility to TOC for the failure of said engine? (NB I am assuming no delay minutes are caused)

Essentially DfT has contracted Agility Trains for the supply of a certain number of diagrams. As long as the diagram is completed, then Agility Trains is paid. If no delay is caused then Agility Trains takes the cost on the chin. That is why the Train Service Provision payments are so eye-wateringly high, such costs have already been priced into the deal.

If a train is delayed because of the engine failure, then the Delay Attribution scheme comes into play - if it is the train's fault then the TOC pays NR for the delay. I would assume, and it is an assumption as I can't be bothered to read all the publicly available stuff about the IEP deal again, the TOC would then make a claim against Agility Trains.

Whether the engine is working in de-rated or full rated mode is irrelevant as any delay could be caused by faulty doors or sticking brakes - that is Agility Trains' problem to sort out.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I've been told to watch the 2020 Golden Spanner awards. Hitachi are quietly confident about the reliability they can achieve. They've got their Class 395 units close to Siemens Class 350 units in terms of reliability, and the Siemens units don't do 140mph, have six vehicles, have TVM signalling equipment, or have dual voltage switchovers to contend with.

They've maybe forgotten about Siemens new Desiro City fleets though - they're bound to be keen to obtain some pretty absurd MPC and MP5MD figures too.

 

[ainsworth74]

I can think of worse things that Hitachi and Siemens trying to outdo each other to reach absurd levels of reliability

 

[Class 170101]

If there is an engine failure and the rest are uprated to compensate who pays? TOC to Agility for the Uprated use or Agility to TOC for the failure of said engine? (NB I am assuming no delay minutes are caused)

Uprate the engines, and Hitachi will want more money (for a more intensive maintenance regime and earlier engine replacement).

I am at a loss to where the original poster feels there is an extra cost outside of Agility paying (delay charges) if this is failed to be met.

See comment by LNW, as posted above, 159220 - hence my question who pays?

 

[najaB]

See comment by LNW, as posted above, 159220 - hence my question who pays?

There's a difference between temporarily raising the output to allow the train to complete the diagram, and permanently increasing the rated output. In the former case nobody pays (there shouldn't be any any additional maintenance cost, and if there are then Agility trains 'eats' them in order to still be paid for the diagram).

In the latter case the lease payments will go up.

 

[coppercapped]

See comment by LNW, as posted above, 159220 - hence my question who pays?

Which bit of my post No. 2399 did not answer your question?

 

[IanXC]

I have moved a large collection of off topic posts relating to Control Periods and other business terminology to a new thread here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=128606

Can we please endeavour to stay at least vaugely on topic from here on?

Many thanks!