Talk:British Rail Class 800

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Traction[edit]

These will be electro-diesel trains (able to use overhead electrification or onboard diesel engines), rather than diesel-electric trains (using a diesel engine to produce electricity to drive the traction motors). Wheeltapper (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/hitachi-class-800-trainsets-begin-testing-in-japan.html

Engines[edit]

There is no information on the diesel engines on this train in this article. 90.219.154.155 (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there is no specifications available yet. Nordic Dragon^talk 11:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coach length[edit]

The coaches have a length of 25.500 mm or 25.850 mm (end coaches).

/Tomas Larsson Sweden Stockholm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.48.177 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

80.216.48.177 Do you have a sorce for the info? It appears this is already on the main user space. Nordic Dragon 11:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seen at Kings Cross[edit]

Someone posted a picture to Twitter: https://twitter.com/theoldstationuk/status/737938456568041472 of one of these units at Kings cross today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Speed on Diesel[edit]

I was on one of these units today. We ran at 125mph on diesel mode after a long stretch of acclerating. Struggling to think of what kind of source would be suitable for adding this to the article, which presently states 115mph.

Thanks all for help. Superalbs (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this link would be suitable? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It'll probably be covered in the regular "Practice & Performance" feature in The Railway Magazine within a few months - just as soon as John Heaton manages to blag a cab ride. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Powertrain[edit]

I have added a "Powertrain" section. Please expand it if you can. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five car set has 3 motor cars, nine car set has 5 motor cars. Infobox gives traction motor power as 120 kW per axle but Hitachi Review [1] gives 226 kW per motor. Does each motor drive 2 axles? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power for nine car set = 5x4x120 = 2,400 kW at rail. I think this is too low because a pair of British Rail Class 43 (HST) would deliver 2x1,320 = 2,640 kW at rail. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At 226 kW per axle, power for nine car set would be 5x4x226 = 4,520 kW. This seems more likely, compare British Rail Class 390 at 5,100 kW for a nine car set. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The base rating of the under-floor Generator Units is 560kW each, so a 9-car set has 5x560=2800kW available. The GWR 'Devon and Cornwall' sets have fully-rated GUs with more power, 700kW, (and less reliability?), so 3500kW in 9-car sets. 86.162.139.16 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couplings[edit]

I would like to see a paragraph explaining the unique retractable nose-mounted couplings I've seen on the driving units. They've certainly evolved from the Adelante days! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Port Talbot incident[edit]

Should we now add a section to the main article about the Port Talbot accident that happened this morning involving 800 025 and an unknown 800 hitting three network rail personal resulting in two deaths? Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any citations to say it's an 800? Is that it was an 800 actually relevant to the incident? I'm not convinced. It probably belongs on the line/station article though. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN's coverage of the accident shows 800 025 stopped at the site of the accident

Edit: Daily Posts article on the accident shows 800 021 was the other 800 involved https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/deaths-railway-workers-hit-train-16525534 Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A section on this was added to the article first by Pkbwcgs, which I reverted, and then a rather detailed version by an IP, which was reverted by The joy of all things. The IP version is very much WP:UNDUE emphasis on the incident, but I would still argue that the incident, with current reporting, does not belong in the article at all. While this is an incident involving an 800, it is not really an incident about an 800. Nor did the train sustain significant damage (as in the Oxshott incident). If the RAIB report implies that it being an 800 - rather than an HST or a Pacer - had something to do with the incident then that is when it should be included. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, if there had been a design fault with Class 800 such that the warning horn could not sound, or that the brakes would not apply, then the fact that a Class 800 was involved would be directly relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say wait for the RAIB report, whatever is mentioned, within reason could be added, and only then. Nightfury 11:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RAIB interim report has been published (5th Dec 2019) and confirms two five-car Class 800 sets, with 800021 leading. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/850720/IR012019_191205_Margam.pdf - Page 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailJournalist (talk • contribs) 22:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bogies[edit]

On the 5-car units, all the bogies are of similar appearance: the axles have outside bearings (rather like Class 221) and the wheels are partially hidden by the bogie frame. But on the 9-car units, two bogie designs are used: seven cars (positions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9) have bogies like those of the 5-car units, but the TS cars (positions 4 & 6) have bogies that are clearly different: the wheels are mostly visible (apart from a small portion concealed by the brake caliper), and their axles have inside bearings (rather like Class 220). Has this been described in the railway press? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

A 9-car is a 5-car with an extra MC (Motor Composite, as on the fives), two TS (Trailer Standards) and one MF (Motor First). For the TS, i.e. no traction motors on the bogies, "The weight of the trailer bogies used by intermediate cars in the nine-car configuration was significantly reduced by using an inner frame design " Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Class 804[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to close the discussion and make no changes, because of new information which came to light after the discussion had opened. Buttons0603 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As East Midlands Railway have confirmed its Hitachi AT300s will be classified as Class 800s[3] and not Class 804s as previously reported, propose merging the latter article into the former. Dycpserve (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Talk:British Rail Class 804. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd like to see more sources before performing such a merge. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the operator has confirmed, surely that is good enough confirmation. Everything else on the Cl 804 talk page sounds like original research. 86.17.136.109 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – while I would have supported this proposal (had I seen it earlier anyway) based on the information available at the time it was opened some time ago, EMR have since changed their minds and confirmed they will be Class 810s rather than 800s or even 804s. Therefore based on that I think it will be relatively uncontroversial for me to go ahead and swiftly close the discussion as the circumstances have significantly changed since it opened, and I will also complete the page move from 804 to 810. Buttons0603 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liveries[edit]

@WestRail642fan: You undid my edit without an edit summary, so I can't see/understand your reasoning for reverting. "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." WP:FIES Please try and ensure you always edit summaries in future :)

My point stands - 2 identical liveries of the same train but different lengths is unnecessary and too much. The longer 10car unit makes it hard to see the livery anyway - especially on smaller screens. Wikipedia isn't (and shouldn't be) a collection of every minor livery change to every train ever! WP:NOTGALLERY The 2 different liveries in the current edit clearly show what the livery looks like, and works well in the article. Best, Turini2 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Train horns[edit]

This story feels notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but I'm not sure whether to add it to this article, British Rail Class 801, or both. Thoughts? https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/transport/residents-of-village-near-skipton-prevented-from-using-public-footpath-because-lner-azuma-trains-on-the-airedale-line-have-been-fitted-with-the-wrong-horns-3281483 NemesisAT (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coupling[edit]

Like the other classes of this family, why is the coupling system listed as “Dellner automatic couplers”

Dellner is simply the brand name, like Voith etc., who produce their own version of the Scharfenberg couplers

The coupling “type” is still Scharfenberg like most other European trains AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because sources such as Pritchard, Robert (2021). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2021. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. p. 390. ISBN 978-1-909431-86-7. say "Dellner 10". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just unnecessarily complicated in my opinion and may be confused as a completely different type of coupling. Would be helpful to include both sets of information to help , so: Coupling system - Scharfenberg (Dellner).AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]