An awful lot of heavy kit is being carried around for nothing, though. It is more efficient to do a locomotive change eg as BR ran the Waterloo to Weymouth service when the electricification stopped at Bournemouth.
Is this a thing? I probably can't remember any loco or unit like this (ok, I know some, but only for special purposes - site construction, accidents, measurement etc.)
@@truecamvidea5881 Locomotive change is the same as splitting or joining a pair of EMUs. Two minutes is allowed at Haywards Heath. Four minutes was allowed at Bournemouth and Rickmansworth for loco changes. Where does this 15 minute figure come from? Bi mode is incredibly inefficient. Heavy dead equipment which has had to be paid for and receive maintenance is being carried unnecessarily.
@@physiocrat7143 It comes from a totally rubbish study by the DfT when looking into alternatives for HST replacement (primarily for the ECML, as at the time the GWML was supposed to be electrified to a far greater extent). One of the proposals was to use loco hauled trains with loco changes at Edinburgh etc. Someone at the DfT pulled this 15min figure out of their backside, and it became gospel as to how long loco changes take (IIRC it came from a personal experience when travelling on a Pendolino that was hauled off the wires by a 57, before they got the Delner couplers and before software mods were made to the 390s to make hauling them easier). Myself, I've travelled on a few trains on the continent where there has been a loco change (often when crossing borders, but also sometimes to or from electrified lines), and it's always been just a few minutes.
from what i can see and hear they still fully electric trains, but the engines are used as a generator type so they still using taction motors rather than engine itself
@@11Daniel2k yes, however not all diesel-electrics accelerate this fast, since you still need to have powerful engines, and as many of them as possible, which is why these are so quick
As far as I've been able to tell an IET will accelerate faster than the HST on diesel up to about 40mph, then it craps out. On electric the IET demolishes an HST.
TPE 802s always have the front pantograph raised whereas LNERs have their Rear ones raised (5 & 9 Cars) & 10 cars have the front raised on front 5 & Rear on rear 5
@@carsongreen4503 all trains if built properly run with the rear pan up, the reason is damage mitigation should something happen to the pan on the move. if the front pantograph is raised and it gets torn off and hangs down or if a peice of the OLE starts hanging down and scraps along the roof off the train then this will likely proceed to strike the rear pantograph, rendering it inoperable aswell. whereas if the rear pan is raised and something happens, the front pan will be undamaged and can then be used to move the train onwards
Pantographs raised too close together can set up oscillations in the catenary, which can cause damage to both, especially at high speeds. This is why Eurostar and TGV etc keep the raised Pantographs as far apart as possible.
@@Trainman10715 Also if the driver spots an issue with the OLE that they know is going to take out the pan, they can press whatever button to drop the pan, and hopefully they'll do it in time for the pan to avoid the issue with the OLE
I have not understood as to why progress of electrification is so slow in UK. Here in India, we are 80% electrified as against Britain's 40%. The British built India's Railway system and introduced Electrification in 1925 in Bombay followed by Madras in 1931. But India is aiming at 100% electrification by 2024 whereas UK is aiming at 100% by 2040.
Clearance problems for OHLE and the traffic on a lot of lines makes the investment uneconomic. There is far too much electrification of routes with only light traffic in some countries.
Lack of political will in the past (and, to some degree, at present). The government should have had a rolling programme of electrification, spending a £500m a year since about 1990, and it would be mostly done by now, but it's been all start and stop, with efficiencies of scale and knowledge lost.
It’s very expensive as a project (railway employee here!😅) Railway electrification in the UK is slow for a number of reasons, some include, cost of planning and implementation, infrastructure issues (we are quite a smaller and narrow country so you’ll notice how our trains aren’t so bulky either), and electric demand. The demand of electric in the UK is far greater than the supply. If we electrified 80-100% we’d struggle to keep those lines electric especially quieter lines. I do agree that major lines require electrification and this has been in the works for over a decade with still another 14 years to go. Train owning groups (the ones who lease trains to operators) are looking at working with manufacturers to explore alternatives such as battery and hydrogen. A recent project involving one of the units in this video (unit 207) has been under battery trials, this involved removing 1 of the 3 engines to swap to battery. Reducing the emissions and fuel use. One term we often use at work when people ask “why???” or “how???” is usually answered with “because it’s the railway!!”
0:37 Pantographs lower
0:39 Engines start
0:58 Engines revs
0:59 Traction motors start
Gotta love bimodal trains
An awful lot of heavy kit is being carried around for nothing, though. It is more efficient to do a locomotive change eg as BR ran the Waterloo to Weymouth service when the electricification stopped at Bournemouth.
Is this a thing? I probably can't remember any loco or unit like this (ok, I know some, but only for special purposes - site construction, accidents, measurement etc.)
@@physiocrat7143 It might not be, because locomotive change is at least 15 min.
@@truecamvidea5881 Locomotive change is the same as splitting or joining a pair of EMUs. Two minutes is allowed at Haywards Heath. Four minutes was allowed at Bournemouth and Rickmansworth for loco changes.
Where does this 15 minute figure come from?
Bi mode is incredibly inefficient. Heavy dead equipment which has had to be paid for and receive maintenance is being carried unnecessarily.
@@physiocrat7143 It comes from a totally rubbish study by the DfT when looking into alternatives for HST replacement (primarily for the ECML, as at the time the GWML was supposed to be electrified to a far greater extent). One of the proposals was to use loco hauled trains with loco changes at Edinburgh etc. Someone at the DfT pulled this 15min figure out of their backside, and it became gospel as to how long loco changes take (IIRC it came from a personal experience when travelling on a Pendolino that was hauled off the wires by a 57, before they got the Delner couplers and before software mods were made to the 390s to make hauling them easier).
Myself, I've travelled on a few trains on the continent where there has been a loco change (often when crossing borders, but also sometimes to or from electrified lines), and it's always been just a few minutes.
Gosh that was synchronous, i would of imagined they would of got the engines running first before they dropped the pantograph
Yeah LNER start their engines up on Move when approaching Unelectrified lines
When selecting diesel power the panto automatically drops
I believe the coolant/engine is preheated before it starts to reduce wear.
Starting the engine just before dropping from the overheads also ensure smooth transition and constant power supply when changing over
I’m impresses how fast these accelerate even on diesel
Because they generate power with these engines and use it to accelerate
from what i can see and hear they still fully electric trains, but the engines are used as a generator type so they still using taction motors rather than engine itself
@@11Daniel2k yes, however not all diesel-electrics accelerate this fast, since you still need to have powerful engines, and as many of them as possible, which is why these are so quick
As far as I've been able to tell an IET will accelerate faster than the HST on diesel up to about 40mph, then it craps out. On electric the IET demolishes an HST.
TPE 802s always have the front pantograph raised whereas LNERs have their Rear ones raised (5 & 9 Cars) & 10 cars have the front raised on front 5 & Rear on rear 5
Any idea on why that is?
@@carsongreen4503 not sure tbh
@@carsongreen4503 all trains if built properly run with the rear pan up, the reason is damage mitigation should something happen to the pan on the move. if the front pantograph is raised and it gets torn off and hangs down or if a peice of the OLE starts hanging down and scraps along the roof off the train then this will likely proceed to strike the rear pantograph, rendering it inoperable aswell. whereas if the rear pan is raised and something happens, the front pan will be undamaged and can then be used to move the train onwards
Pantographs raised too close together can set up oscillations in the catenary, which can cause damage to both, especially at high speeds. This is why Eurostar and TGV etc keep the raised Pantographs as far apart as possible.
@@Trainman10715 Also if the driver spots an issue with the OLE that they know is going to take out the pan, they can press whatever button to drop the pan, and hopefully they'll do it in time for the pan to avoid the issue with the OLE
I have not understood as to why progress of electrification is so slow in UK. Here in India, we are 80% electrified as against Britain's 40%. The British built India's Railway system and introduced Electrification in 1925 in Bombay followed by Madras in 1931. But India is aiming at 100% electrification by 2024 whereas UK is aiming at 100% by 2040.
Clearance problems for OHLE and the traffic on a lot of lines makes the investment uneconomic. There is far too much electrification of routes with only light traffic in some countries.
Lack of political will in the past (and, to some degree, at present). The government should have had a rolling programme of electrification, spending a £500m a year since about 1990, and it would be mostly done by now, but it's been all start and stop, with efficiencies of scale and knowledge lost.
We have a large amount of hills and tunnels
Blame Thatcher.
It’s very expensive as a project (railway employee here!😅)
Railway electrification in the UK is slow for a number of reasons, some include, cost of planning and implementation, infrastructure issues (we are quite a smaller and narrow country so you’ll notice how our trains aren’t so bulky either), and electric demand. The demand of electric in the UK is far greater than the supply.
If we electrified 80-100% we’d struggle to keep those lines electric especially quieter lines. I do agree that major lines require electrification and this has been in the works for over a decade with still another 14 years to go.
Train owning groups (the ones who lease trains to operators) are looking at working with manufacturers to explore alternatives such as battery and hydrogen. A recent project involving one of the units in this video (unit 207) has been under battery trials, this involved removing 1 of the 3 engines to swap to battery. Reducing the emissions and fuel use. One term we often use at work when people ask “why???” or “how???” is usually answered with “because it’s the railway!!”
Our 805s on Avanti West Coast will be doing this also
same with our 810s
There are 100% electric trains, right? So...how does the pantograph go up?
Sounds like 222 when departing
Are they not allowed to switch over on the move like the GWR 800s?
Class 802 is actualy cool and IMMA tell this to scr players
SCR is overrated imo
i was left feeling "meh" about scr on my first time playing
A kind of hybrid CRH2A
I know that startup sound (I think) that is (hopefully) a Cummins qsk19 edit' nevermind no I don't it's actually a mtu V12
It's some kind if rolls Royce I think
*Rolls-Royce MTU 21L V12
When they are on diesel they feel as if there is an overloaded Black Five in charge of the train.
Kinda sound like class 170
🤣🤣🤣 barely