GWR Class 800

[AM9]

For the millionth time, the engines on Class 800s are not downrated/derated or anything else.

In normal diesel mode the engine management system is set up to draw less than the maximum power output from the engines. But if an engine fails, the engine management system calls for the maximum output from the others to compensate and can be reset to call for maximum output from all the engines all the time - like the set-up for the AT300/Class 802 - if that is what is wanted, assuming someone will foot the bill for the increased engine maintenance and overhaul bills for the Class 800s that would result from such a change.

Well despite your exaggeration about the number of times that you claim to have explained that you don't call it 'derated', what you have explained above does not have any relevance to my post. So call it whatever, in the scenario that I outlined where one of the units couldn't run under OLE power, it would be switched over to diesel operation. As far as that 5-car unit was concerned, it would be fully functional so the class 800 set would run at the 'reduced' power level (or 'downrated' to many other people but let's not get hung up on words), assuming that its controls allowed it to when there was an OLE-powered. My original question was just that, i.e. 'would the controls allow it'. This unfortunate unit would however get a fair bit of help from its partnered unit which would have much more power as it would be running on OLE. So, would it be allowed to run at speeds above 100mph on suitable track whilst being partly dragged/pushed along by the fully functional unit?

 

[QueensCurve]

Hard going to find photos, few people care about the OLE.

The original registration arms, as installed.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhayes/6167220165

The newer style of registration arm.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/16506140@N05/17105053481

https://www.flickr.com/photos/trainsruleandroll/14917160298

Do you have a photo of the other modification you describe ?

I don't have a photo but I will try to get one next time I see one.

I like the first photo which shows a Class 86 with the type of pantogrpah originally fitted to the Class 87. I had no idea such a thing had ever existed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

QueensCurve omits a few key words when he quotes Roger Ford. What RF actually wrote (Modern Railways April, page 26) was

"Three Hitachi Class 800 bi-mode trains, 2x5 car plus a nine-car, are already running on the East Coast main line. This has confirmed that the much-maligned Mk 3b British Rail Overhead Line Equipment (OHLE) provides satisfactory current collection with a pair of five-car units in multiple running at 125mph with two pantographs raised."

Apologies. No deliberate omission. I just lost track slightly when transcribing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good point. And I suppose a load of salty water might get thrown into the pantograph well of an IEP as it passes along the seawall at Dawlish leading to current flowing along the surface of an insulator - that is if not dried out before reaching the wires further East/North. Possibly even some stones or larger rocks !.

Does this represent a significant problem at coastal locations that are currently electrified eg Saltcoats/Ardrossan?

 

[jimm]

Well despite your exaggeration about the number of times that you claim to have explained that you don't call it 'derated', what you have explained above does not have any relevance to my post. So call it whatever, in the scenario that I outlined where one of the units couldn't run under OLE power, it would be switched over to diesel operation. As far as that 5-car unit was concerned, it would be fully functional so the class 800 set would run at the 'reduced' power level (or 'downrated' to many other people but let's not get hung up on words), assuming that its controls allowed it to when there was an OLE-powered. My original question was just that, i.e. 'would the controls allow it'. This unfortunate unit would however get a fair bit of help from its partnered unit which would have much more power as it would be running on OLE. So, would it be allowed to run at speeds above 100mph on suitable track whilst being partly dragged/pushed along by the fully functional unit?

I wasn't attempting to dissect your post or be 'relevant' to it, simply correcting an incorrect statement about the engines of the Class 800s, which keeps being repeated here.

But if you want me to address your scenario, the first thing I would say, as noted above by others, is that any set that lost the ability to use both of its pantographs at one go would be straight off to a depot at the earliest opportunity to find out what had gone wrong.

My reading of the IEP technical specification is that with a pair of coupled sets you cannot operate one off 25kv and the other on diesel at the same time - so your scenario is a non-starter. If one set lost 25kv capability, then both would have to switch to diesel mode.

Point N084 seems to go straight to the heart of the matter:

Bi – Mode IEP Unit:
Means an IEP Unit where the main power source(s) can be provided by means of a 25kV Overhead Electric Supply and by means of a Self Power Source but only one of these at a time.

From Page 9 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf

Nothing I can see elsewhere in the document about multiple working or what happens in case of failures suggests that the DfT ever envisaged a coupled pair of sets using different power modes at the same time.

What is called multiple hauled mode does require that if an all-electric set fails, it could be hauled around for up to six hours by a bi-mode - but note that the bi-mode formation must be as long as or longer than the electric set in this scenario.

 

[AM9]

I wasn't attempting to dissect your post or be 'relevant' to it, simply correcting an incorrect statement about the engines of the Class 800s, which keeps being repeated here.

But if you want me to address your scenario, the first thing I would say, as noted above by others, is that any set that lost the ability to use both of its pantographs at one go would be straight off to a depot at the earliest opportunity to find out what had gone wrong.

My reading of the IEP technical specification is that with a pair of coupled sets you cannot operate one off 25kv and the other on diesel at the same time - so your scenario is a non-starter. If one set lost 25kv capability, then both would have to switch to diesel mode.

Point N084 says:

N084
Bi – Mode IEP Unit:
Means an IEP Unit where the main power source(s) can be provided by means of a 25kV Overhead Electric Supply and by means of a Self Power Source but only one of these at a time.

Its use of the words "an IEP Unit..." which I presume is a unit with a cab at each end only, i.e. (currently to be found in 5 and 9-car versions). I think it is fairly obvious that if one of the pantographs/ac power sources is unavailable then the other can power the whole unit or if not, as PP suggests, both would be lowered and diesels used throughout. I don't think that N084 is concerned with two separate units.
My question was about two IEP units, i.e. two five-car types where control of the rear unit would be soley via cables between the two units. My engineering is not specifically rail, but I presume that whatever system is used on the 800s, (TDM etc.) it would be the same system, same wires, same commands etc., for whichever mode is in use. There maybe flags to indicate which mode is in use and the software may take action to prevent such a mix, but I have not seen anything that defines whether such an operational mixed mode train would in practice be either possible or even just allowed.

 

[Emblematic]

Its use of the words "an IEP Unit..." which I presume is a unit with a cab at each end only, i.e. (currently to be found in 5 and 9-car versions). I think it is fairly obvious that if one of the pantographs/ac power sources is unavailable then the other can power the whole unit or if not, as PP suggests, both would be lowered and diesels used throughout. I don't think that N084 is concerned with two separate units.
My question was about two IEP units, i.e. two five-car types where control of the rear unit would be soley via cables between the two units. My engineering is not specifically rail, but I presume that whatever system is used on the 800s, (TDM etc.) it would be the same system, same wires, same commands etc., for whichever mode is in use. There maybe flags to indicate which mode is in use and the software may take action to prevent such a mix, but I have not seen anything that defines whether such an operational mixed mode train would in practice be either possible or even just allowed.

I think your point is covered by TS231:

3.2 Multiple working
TS231
All IEP Trains must deliver full Multiple Working in normal passenger service with other IEP Trains (of any type) within the following constraints;
• Up to a maximum of two IEP Units; and
• Up to a maximum total multiple length of 312m.
And when operating in Multiple Working within such constraints, there shall be full control of such systems throughout the train that are capable of being controlled from the cab of a single IEP Unit such that there is no difference in functionality between a single IEP Unit and an IEP Train formed from two IEP Units coupled together.

So the whole train will be in the same mode, which would either be 'standard' where both units are providing power (albeit from Diesel, if there is pantograph damage) or one of the degraded operation modes, which I wont bother detailing here but all presume Diesel operation.

 

[jimm]

My question was about two IEP units, i.e. two five-car types where control of the rear unit would be soley via cables between the two units.

Which was why I mentioned multiple working as well... but N084 is plain enough to my mind - you use one power mode or the other, not both. Why should it be any different with two units coupled?

 

[AM9]

Which was why I mentioned multiple working as well... but N084 is plain enough to my mind - you use one power mode or the other, not both. Why should it be any different with two units coupled?

084 refers to a Unit whereas I am talking about a train which can be one or two units. I've not seen anything in the documentation that mentions taht both units in a train must be operating in the same mode. Even TS231 only says:

... and when operating in Multiple Working within such constraints, there shall be full control of such systems throughout the train that are capable of being controlled from the cab of a single IEP Unit such that there is no difference in functionality between a single IEP Unit and an IEP Train formed from two IEP Units coupled together.

So in the absense of anything I've seen to the contrary, a pair of 5-car 800s with one on OLE and the other on diesel will behave as a 10-car unit with full control from the cab etc., unless somebody is saying that control system (wiring, TDM parameters, doors, etc.) when operating under diesel power is incompatible with the same physical hardware when units are powered by OLE.
If that is so then it is a wasteful design.

 

[leomartin125]

In terms of movements recently, Monday saw two Class 800's (800001 + 80002) move from Old Dalby back to North Pole IEP depot, both being GWR's anyway, I'm presuming these are units positioning back at North Pole in light of the 387's not cascading over to GWR next month as originally planned.

 

[43074]

In terms of movements recently, Monday saw two Class 800's (800001 + 80002) move from Old Dalby back to North Pole IEP depot, both being GWR's anyway, I'm presuming these are units positioning back at North Pole in light of the 387's not cascading over to GWR next month as originally planned.

I'm not sure the late introduction of the 387s and the movement of the 800s are connected in any way, I think you're reading too much into that...

 

[jimm]

084 refers to a Unit whereas I am talking about a train which can be one or two units. I've not seen anything in the documentation that mentions taht both units in a train must be operating in the same mode. Even TS231 only says:

So in the absense of anything I've seen to the contrary, a pair of 5-car 800s with one on OLE and the other on diesel will behave as a 10-car unit with full control from the cab etc., unless somebody is saying that control system (wiring, TDM parameters, doors, etc.) when operating under diesel power is incompatible with the same physical hardware when units are powered by OLE.
If that is so then it is a wasteful design.

What is lacking is anything saying that it should be possible for a coupled pair of bi-modes to be operating in different power modes.

The lack of any such requirement in the IEP technical specification surely ought to be enough of a clue that it is not going to happen.

Why would it when both sets can use diesel if there is any sort of issue with the 25kv supply, even in the highly nlikely event that one set were to end up with two useless pantographs?

 

[leomartin125]

I'm not sure the late introduction of the 387s and the movement of the 800s are connected in any way, I think you're reading too much into that...

It would make sense if this is why the Class 800's have returned, the space originally needed at North Pole pending the cascading of the Class 387's is no longer required for now so they move the Class 800's back to where they belong instead of moving them to Old Dalby to create room.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The cl.387 units, or lack of, has absolutely nothing to do with the movement of the cl.800 sets to or from Old Dalby. North Pole is a huge site and 8 cl.387 units won't take up much space there!

The moves are all to do with the Class 800 testing & approvals programme.

 

[AM9]

What is lacking is anything saying that it should be possible for a coupled pair of bi-modes to be operating in different power modes.

The lack of any such requirement in the IEP technical specification surely ought to be enough of a clue that it is not going to happen.

No, not if the design at the control interface was power system agnostic (maybe with flags to record record the current power source without preventing mixed mode operation).

Why would it when both sets can use diesel if there is any sort of issue with the 25kv supply, even in the highly nlikely event that one set were to end up with two useless pantographs?

Within the lifetime of this stock, two things will probably happen:

1) there will be instances of two units being combined in service at an intermediate stop where one of them exhibits a fault in the primary electric power system, (there are plenty more areas than just the pantographs, e.g. main transformer, rectifers, ABBs to name a few). In such circumstances, there may be no replacement unit nor may it be acceptable to double up the passengers if the loading is already at maximum thereby possibly creating further pathing delays.

2) the environmental pressure to remove as much IC engine use from all forms of transport as is possible will encourage such a reasonable* operating mode of a whole train given the potential performance increase.​

* I am presuming that such mixed mode train operation does not create a safety or reliability hazard to passengers/staff, the rolling stock or the service of the route. If you think there is a significant issue, other than a perceived breach of specification or contract, it would help if you shared it with me.
As far as Hitachi is concerned, it could be argued that the fewer miles that the stock runs on diesel power, the lower level of engine wear and tear and consequently the less maintenance/compensation required. So they may have already thought this through.

 

[Domh245]

The IEP units when on diesel are downrated have the engine mode that reduces the output and limits the speed to 100mph, but whilst on OLE can operate at up to 140mph (ETCS dependant). Obviously then, there would be an issue in that case where the driver might unknowingly overspeed the unit on the rear, and whilst it isn't documented what would happen, I expect it'd want to be avoided.

Furthermore, to my mind it makes sense that whilst a train comprised of 2 units is operating on one power mode, the leading train checks what power mode the rear unit is operating and ensures that they match the front unit (or vice versa, depending on what is the safest state - which would be diesel). Sure, there may be pressure to reduce emissions, but machines are dumb - for all the train knows, it is about to go off on one of the un-electrified routes with no OLE - it won't know that it is running under the wires. The train doesn't want to have it's pantographs ripped off by a low structure or damaged by rising too high, so it would prefer to run the entire thing on diesel.

 

[jimm]

No, not if the design at the control interface was power system agnostic (maybe with flags to record record the current power source without preventing mixed mode operation).



Within the lifetime of this stock, two things will probably happen:

1) there will be instances of two units being combined in service at an intermediate stop where one of them exhibits a fault in the primary electric power system, (there are plenty more areas than just the pantographs, e.g. main transformer, rectifers, ABBs to name a few). In such circumstances, there may be no replacement unit nor may it be acceptable to double up the passengers if the loading is already at maximum thereby possibly creating further pathing delays.

2) the environmental pressure to remove as much IC engine use from all forms of transport as is possible will encourage such a reasonable* operating mode of a whole train given the potential performance increase.​

* I am presuming that such mixed mode train operation does not create a safety or reliability hazard to passengers/staff, the rolling stock or the service of the route. If you think there is a significant issue, other than a perceived breach of specification or contract, it would help if you shared it with me.
As far as Hitachi is concerned, it could be argued that the fewer miles that the stock runs on diesel power, the lower level of engine wear and tear and consequently the less maintenance/compensation required. So they may have already thought this through.

1. Trains break down/suffer faults. There may not always be a replacement available. Passengers might have to pack themselves into fewer coaches. Nothing new there.

2. I doubt passengers will be overly worried about the environmental consequences if there is a fault preventing use of 25kv but their train can still get them where they want to go using diesel instead. Rail emissions were about 0.5% of total UK CO2 emissions back in the mid-2000s, while road traffic accounted for about 20%. The odd Class 800 service using diesel in an emergency situation is not exactly going to make that much difference.

Instead of endlessly repeating all your speculations, why not just sit down and read the technical specification?

There is no suggestion anywhere in it that I can see that says Hitachi was asked to design a bi-mode train that could be operated in the manner you describe. If it wasn't required, why on earth would you design it in and add yet more complexity to the train for what is most likely a once-in-a-blue-moon circumstance?

If you can see something in that specification saying that it is possible, then feel free to share it.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Sure, there may be pressure to reduce emissions, but machines are dumb - for all the train knows, it is about to go off on one of the un-electrified routes with no OLE - it won't know that it is running under the wires. The train doesn't want to have it's pantographs ripped off by a low structure or damaged by rising too high, so it would prefer to run the entire thing on diesel.

The train will know immediately it's operating on an unwired route, as soon as you lose contact wire contact, you'll trigger the pantograph over height valve which will activate the ADD system, and that's the sort of event which will have the TMS freaking out and the driver's desk flashing like it's at a disco.

You'll probably have caused a dewirement and ripped the pantograph off the train too, anchor or tensioning arrangements at the end of an electrified section of line are just perfect for a pantograph head to get caught up in.

Over height on the BR/BW pantograph generally requires at the very least an inspection before they can be used to draw power, and may require the pantograph to be replaced on the unit and sent off for overhaul, they do not take kindly to rising to full extent and then dropping down like a sack of spuds.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Will bliases be placed trackside which the train detects telling it to raise or lower the pantograph if the driver hasn't already done so at the start and end of the wires?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Will bliases be placed trackside which the train detects telling it to raise or lower the pantograph if the driver hasn't already done so at the start and end of the wires?

Don't know, though the train itself is capable of accepting data from ETCS signalling, GPS and balises.

 

[MCR247]

Will bliases be placed trackside which the train detects telling it to raise or lower the pantograph if the driver hasn't already done so at the start and end of the wires?

I feel like we've coped with dual voltage trains long enough without this, would it really be worth the expenditure? (and the risk of it going wrong)

 

[AM9]

...

Instead of endlessly repeating all your speculations, why not just sit down and read the technical specification? ...

... If you can see something in that specification saying that it is possible, then feel free to share it.

I've read all the relevant part os the spec. as well as those parts that you think specifically support your responses. So far, I've not found anything that specifically asks for such a capability but more importantly nor is there anything that specifically prevents it so the specification is indeterminate. I'm sure that it isn't the first time that a train spec. has been like that nor will it be the last.
Thanks for those offering answers but it seems that nobody here knows the true situation.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I feel like we've coped with dual voltage trains long enough without this, would it really be worth the expenditure? (and the risk of it going wrong)

Apparently changeovers can happen on the move, and the points at which they will occur will be far more numerous than the very occasional AC/DC changeover points we have at the moment (at a brief count, I can see 18 changeover points when all wiring currently confirmed is finished - temporary partial completion will add to that number). It would probably make sense to have balises so that they can be done in an optimal manner, rather than risking the driver doing it too late when going from AC to diesel.

At the very least, I'd expect some sort of sign informing the driver when to change.

 

[jimm]

I've read all the relevant part os the spec. as well as those parts that you think specifically support your responses. So far, I've not found anything that specifically asks for such a capability but more importantly nor is there anything that specifically prevents it so the specification is indeterminate. I'm sure that it isn't the first time that a train spec. has been like that nor will it be the last.
Thanks for those offering answers but it seems that nobody here knows the true situation.

So you don't think the absence of any such requirement in the formal technical specification for the trains isn't a rather big and obvious clue to 'the true situation'?:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Apparently changeovers can happen on the move

Nothing apparent about it. That requirement - unlike a certain other matter - is there in black and white in the specification.

 

[westcoaster]

Reports of a 5X10 failing at Doncaster, and being rescued by a loco with emergency coupler.

 

[Domh245]

Reports of a 5X10 failing at Doncaster, and being rescued by a loco with emergency coupler.

As odd as it sounds, good! It is much better to have a train failing now with hopefully a quick and easy fix (do we know what it was that caused the failure) than in squadron service and causing mass cancellations.

 

[Tracked]

Reports of a 5X10 failing at Doncaster, and being rescued by a loco with emergency coupler.

I heard it was in platform 1 for quite a while, 5:30-9:30?

 

[jimm]

800101 had an outing from North Pole depot to Reading West last night, then headed back to Acton and on to Old Dalby.

Video of it passing through Twyford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7lR5wfj54Q

Realtime Trains details http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97582/2016/05/09/advanced

 

[Rich McLean]

800101 had an outing from North Pole depot to Reading West last night, then headed back to Acton and on to Old Dalby.

Video of it passing through Twyford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7lR5wfj54Q

Realtime Trains details http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97582/2016/05/09/advanced

From those timings, it looks as though it can do 125mph on Diesel after all

 

[Harbornite]

Looking good.

 

[D1009]

From those timings, it looks as though it can do 125mph on Diesel after all

How do you work that out?

 

[leomartin125]

800101 had an outing from North Pole depot to Reading West last night, then headed back to Acton and on to Old Dalby.

Video of it passing through Twyford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7lR5wfj54Q

Realtime Trains details http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97582/2016/05/09/advanced

Can't believe I missed it, don't have the time to constanly check RTT for it's movements, always on Short Term Planning too! Went passed my local station, Maidenhead, twice!