I can’t see it being an issue. 80xs handle Newcastle with tighter corners without issue.
Depends which part of the station. The lower numbered platforms that Avanti most commonly use no, but some of the higher numbered platforms yes.
And indeed some places a Mk3 can’t/isn’t permitted to go too, such as Newcastle P5/P6.
Not quite
I remember that incident, and I seem to recall it was eventually established that the train wasn't at fault. A TSR was imposed on all trains through Newcastle East Junction (not just 80xs) for more than a year after that incident.
That should be hung up in a frame somewhere. Taken across the whole country, gauge clearance specifically for 26m 80x variants is practically in railway myth territory.
We’d be fooling ourselves to say there weren’t any difficulties accommodating 26m vehicles on the network. Work did have to be done at a few locations, for example Burntisland as I mentioned above, to accommodate the 800s. And if I recall correctly (which I may not be), much of the southern region is pretty much out of the question for clearing 80xs, much like it is for 23m stock too - there’s a reason the only 23m stock on the Southern region are DMUs and 444s. That said though, clearance issues for 26m stock aren’t anywhere near as bad as some seem to think it is.
The 805 and 807 are not an issue for the Birmingham New Street platforms. I ran modelling for the tightest curve platforms, P11 & P12, and the clearance results are fine.
805 and 807 are different gauging profiles to 800/801/802.
But why? When the body profile is the same, surely any actual modelling results should be identical, even if considered as a separate train.
Thought as much.
Although as they're exactly the same dimensions, any route cleared for 800/801/802/803 should in theory be able to be cleared for 805/807 without issues.
Network Rail acceptance is a lot more than gauge clearance. It's worth adding that no 80x variant appears as "cleared" in the sectional appendix, despite obviously being gauge clear on the routes they operate, and currently run using a temporary gauging license. This is usually due to signalling or OLE issues.
A few reasons could be the upgraded engines have a lower or greater weight which changes load distribution and centre of mass, or the vehicles have a different suspension system/damping.
805 - 299, 25 in first
34 bay tables on an 805 and 50 on an 807.
That is an average of 7 (34/5 rounded up and 50/7 rounded down) bay tables per coach, not bad.
There are enough differences between most AT300 builds to warrant separate classifications. It's better this way than to lump all vehicles under one class; case in point, the Class 37 & 47 TOPS allocations are a mess.
If 805s had an even number like the other bimiodes (800/802/810) with the odd numbers (801/803/807) being straight electric, there would at least be be some consistency.
Yes, but it's the lack of consistency I hate. You have almost identical stock like 801 and 803 separated purely because of how they were ordered, and then 377/3 and 377/7 in the same class.
Would have thought that 801s having one diesel engine and 803s having a battery to retain hotel power would constitute a sufficient enough difference to warrant separate classifications; but yes, I completely agree that the lack of consistency is daft!
Again there are technical reasons for each. TOPS is [almost] as much for the engineers as it is for ops.
The various 377s is the one that bugs me.
