GWR IET diagrams.

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

The AT300s/802s have larger fuel tanks, don't they?

[stuving]

The AT300s/802s have larger fuel tanks, don't they?

Larger than what? I understand all the 800s and now-engined 801s have larger tanks than were originally intended for 800s. But I don't have figures I can be sure of for any of those.

[Adelante_CCT]

Has any 802 yet been delivered?....

Yes, one was parked up outside North Pole for a while a couple of months ago

[IndustryInsider]

802002 seen there tonight.

[ChrisB]

The AT300s/802s have larger fuel tanks, don't they?

Larger than what? I understand all the 800s and now-engined 801s have larger tanks than were originally intended for 800s. But I don't have figures I can be sure of for any of those.

The 800/801s - Agreed these are all now bi-modes but I'm not sure that included the larger fuel tanks that the 802s were ordered with - just the same smaller tank the original bi-modes are getting.

[Tim]

The AT300s/802s have larger fuel tanks, don't they?

Larger than what? I understand all the 800s and now-engined 801s have larger tanks than were originally intended for 800s. But I don't have figures I can be sure of for any of those.

The 800/801s - Agreed these are all now bi-modes but I'm not sure that included the larger fuel tanks that the 802s were ordered with - just the same smaller tank the original bi-modes are getting.

That is my understanding too.  It is also unclear to me as to whether the 801s have the same performance parameters as the 802s.  I know that they were "unmuzzled" but I am not sure that takes them to the same as he 802s.  The engines are computer controlled and there are a number of parameters that could have been lifted to unmuzzle them and I have not heard official confirmation that they have been uprated to the level of the 802s 

[stuving]

That is my understanding too.  It is also unclear to me as to whether the 801s have the same performance parameters as the 802s.  I know that they were "unmuzzled" but I am not sure that takes them to the same as he 802s.  The engines are computer controlled and there are a number of parameters that could have been lifted to unmuzzle them and I have not heard official confirmation that they have been uprated to the level of the 802s 

Wikipedia has some quite specific information that the 801s have been given the (or a) bigger tank. That seems plausible, since most of these were newly ordered with the extra engines. I doubt whether the 800s have had this upgrade, as their tanks will have been on order already. Of course without konwing the source for that it's hard to know if it really is the case.

Roger Ford is now suggesting that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have not bought out the power limit entirely - presumably Hitachi would need a bigger bung. So GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are under pressure to run trains muzzled, and it seems from other comments that it's not something the driver can turn off and on. Certainly I'd expect these first few weeks of running to involve trying various options (and missing engines) to see what it does to timekeeping under real-world conditions. Presumably the agreement with Hitachi/Agility could still be altered if DfT feel their faces deserve egg-free zone status.

[ChrisB]

The restriction is in the unit's software with no 'button' available to the driver, correct.

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are of the opinion that they won't be able to meet current timetable timings without the unmuzzling, so pressure is on the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) I reckon.

[1st fan]

The restriction is in the unit's software with no 'button' available to the driver, correct.

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are of the opinion that they won't be able to meet current timetable timings without the unmuzzling, so pressure is on the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) I reckon.

Shame that, I had visions of the tannoy announcement if they did. "This is your train manager speaking I'd like to welcome you on board this GWR service to Bristol. We're running late due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time. Therefore the driver is going to take us to full power as soon as we leave Slough. So please hold on tight when he (or she) hits the button to take us to full power.

[Chris from Nailsea]

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive 

[Tim]

The restriction is in the unit's software with no 'button' available to the driver, correct.

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are of the opinion that they won't be able to meet current timetable timings without the unmuzzling, so pressure is on the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) I reckon.

That all makes sense.  We also need to unpick what "unmuzzling" actually means.  It is not a simple as lifting the maximum possible power rating.  This is all software controlled so there are other parameters that can be eased such as acceleration.  Presumably, they will want to ease the parameters which give the greatest performance improvement for the least extra wear and tear (and extra maintenance) on the engines.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

The info on power outputs etc is all very interesting – thank you.   I’ve tried using Recent Train Times to see if there’s a correlation between punctuality and train type used (ie IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) or HST^▸ (High Speed Train)), but there have been so many other factors affecting timekeeping recently that this analysis fails. 

It makes sense what Tim is saying – they can try tweaks which will improve point to point timings by the odd minute or two, and quantify the consequential effect on the condition of the power units, cooling systems, traction motors etc.  In due course a deal will be struck between the train operator (GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)), the train provider (Hitachi) and the party that created the problem in the first place (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)), money will change hands and then everyone will be happy - or at least equally unhappy.

[SandTEngineer]

The info on power outputs etc is all very interesting – thank you.   I’ve tried using Recent Train Times to see if there’s a correlation between punctuality and train type used (ie IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) or HST^▸ (High Speed Train)), but there have been so many other factors affecting timekeeping recently that this analysis fails. 

It makes what Tim is saying – they can try tweaks which will improve point to point timings by the odd minute or two, and quantify the consequential effect on the condition of the power units, cooling systems, traction motors etc.  In due course a deal will be struck between the train operator (GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)), the train provider (Hitachi) and the party that created the problem in the first place (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)), money will change hands and then everyone will be happy - or at least equally unhappy.

According to sources elsewhere, the deal has already been done and a figure of £300m has been quoted.....

[Tim]

The info on power outputs etc is all very interesting – thank you.   I’ve tried using Recent Train Times to see if there’s a correlation between punctuality and train type used (ie IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) or HST^▸ (High Speed Train)), but there have been so many other factors affecting timekeeping recently that this analysis fails. 

It makes what Tim is saying – they can try tweaks which will improve point to point timings by the odd minute or two, and quantify the consequential effect on the condition of the power units, cooling systems, traction motors etc.  In due course a deal will be struck between the train operator (GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)), the train provider (Hitachi) and the party that created the problem in the first place (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)), money will change hands and then everyone will be happy - or at least equally unhappy.

According to sources elsewhere, the deal has already been done and a figure of £300m has been quoted.....

That seems very expensive.  The deal on the class 802s was reportedly at a cost of £380m.  Still Hitachi had DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) over a barrel.   My assumption had been that Hitachi would be paid for every hour of unmuzzled running used with price for use of the trains reverting to the original price once the wires were up and the trains muzzled again. 

[1st fan]

The info on power outputs etc is all very interesting – thank you.   I’ve tried using Recent Train Times to see if there’s a correlation between punctuality and train type used (ie IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) or HST^▸ (High Speed Train)), but there have been so many other factors affecting timekeeping recently that this analysis fails. 

It makes what Tim is saying – they can try tweaks which will improve point to point timings by the odd minute or two, and quantify the consequential effect on the condition of the power units, cooling systems, traction motors etc.  In due course a deal will be struck between the train operator (GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)), the train provider (Hitachi) and the party that created the problem in the first place (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)), money will change hands and then everyone will be happy - or at least equally unhappy.

According to sources elsewhere, the deal has already been done and a figure of £300m has been quoted.....

That seems very expensive.  The deal on the class 802s was reportedly at a cost of £380m.  Still Hitachi had DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) over a barrel.   My assumption had been that Hitachi would be paid for every hour of unmuzzled running used with price for use of the trains reverting to the original price once the wires were up and the trains muzzled again. 

That's alright it's not like it's the taxpayer that's going to be.........Oh wait!