Has EMR ordered enough 810s?

[Energy]

What I fear is that East Midlands Railway will realise they’ve made this mistake too.

[referring to Virgin XC not ordering enough voyagers for the demand today]

Class 222: 4 (4 cars) + 17 (5 cars) + 6 (7 cars) = 27 units
Class 180: 4 units
27 + 4 = 31 units, 33 810s have been ordered.
The 810s are only replacing the 180s and 222s, the HSTs are being replaced by the 180s and the 360s which will allow the 222s to be cascaded.

However Abellio could have done with ordering a couple more 745s for GA so have they ordered enough?

 

[Domh245]

The 810s are only replacing the 180s and 222s, the HSTs are being replaced by the 180s and the 360s which will allow the 222s to be cascaded.

That's a bit of a misnomer, the 180s are temporary units because of PRM-TSI. They are directly replacing the HSTs and sharing replacement of the 222s alongside the 360s

At franchise close EMT had 257 vehicles across 42 trains, the EMR replacement fleet is 249 vehicles across 54 trains. If you look at just the IC fleet (ie, not the corbys, which by my rough & ready maths is 4 diagrams) that's 38 trains but some horrific fleet utilisation including hour long turnarounds and several trains sitting in Cricklewood all day

The simplification of the intercity fleet means that around half of the trains will be able to run at double length which also by merit of the way these theoretical diagrams would work means the morning peak double units into London are the units working out of London in the evening peak

The other consideration is that the IC timetable is unlikely to change and therefore (unlike XC) won't be generating massive increase in demand. It would have been nicer if they'd increased train lengths but an effective like-for-like replacement isn't terrible.

 

[Ianno87]

The rate at which 80x variants keep getting spat out of Newton Aycliffe suggests a follow-on order would not be completely unlikely if the initial fleet does prove insufficient.

LNER are already expanding their fleet, and GWR effectively tagged the 802s onro their original order.

 

[hexagon789]

That's a bit of a misnomer, the 180s are temporary units because of PRM-TSI. They are directly replacing the HSTs and sharing replacement of the 222s alongside the 360s

At franchise close EMT had 257 vehicles across 42 trains, the EMR replacement fleet is 249 vehicles across 54 trains. If you look at just the IC fleet (ie, not the corbys, which by my rough & ready maths is 4 diagrams) that's 38 trains but some horrific fleet utilisation including hour long turnarounds and several trains sitting in Cricklewood all day

The simplification of the intercity fleet means that around half of the trains will be able to run at double length which also by merit of the way these theoretical diagrams would work means the morning peak double units into London are the units working out of London in the evening peak

The other consideration is that the IC timetable is unlikely to change and therefore (unlike XC) won't be generating massive increase in demand. It would have been nicer if they'd increased train lengths but an effective like-for-like replacement isn't terrible.

I would agree, it's better than it could've been. Obviously with the present situation it's difficult to know if passenger numbers will recover to the same levels or how long they might take to do so but the order as is should prove at least adequate if not exactly ambitious.

The rate at which 80x variants keep getting spat out of Newton Aycliffe suggests a follow-on order would not be completely unlikely if the initial fleet does prove insufficient.

LNER are already expanding their fleet, and GWR effectively tagged the 802s onro their original order.

They may well do so but then again they might not need to.

 

[greatvoyager]

The rate at which 80x variants keep getting spat out of Newton Aycliffe suggests a follow-on order would not be completely unlikely if the initial fleet does prove insufficient.

LNER are already expanding their fleet, and GWR effectively tagged the 802s onro their original order.

I wouldn’t be surprised.

 

[edwin_m]

I should think any new order would depend on how things pan out (sorry) on electrification decisions and on demand recovery after Covid.

The demand level once we are out of social distancing could be enough to change a situation that might have been too tight without the pandemic to one that is tolerable. Although if Covid hadn't happened the franchise would still have been on a commercial basis so, if faced with overcrowding, would probably have choked demand unless they could persuade someone to pay for extra units.

A decision to electrify at least to Nottingham would open up the possibility of ordering electric-only units to cover any shortfall, although that would create some problems with diagramming. If electrification went ahead all the way to Sheffield then the entire 810 fleet might be cascaded, depending on whether the various off-route extensions were either electrified too or could be abandoned.

 

[Speed43125]

I should think any new order would depend on how things pan out (sorry) on electrification decisions and on demand recovery after Covid.

The demand level once we are out of social distancing could be enough to change a situation that might have been too tight without the pandemic to one that is tolerable. Although if Covid hadn't happened the franchise would still have been on a commercial basis so, if faced with overcrowding, would probably have choked demand unless they could persuade someone to pay for extra units.

A decision to electrify at least to Nottingham would open up the possibility of ordering electric-only units to cover any shortfall, although that would create some problems with diagramming. If electrification went ahead all the way to Sheffield then the entire 810 fleet might be cascaded, depending on whether the various off-route extensions were either electrified too or could be abandoned.

That seems unlikley for most AT300 fleets, and especially so with the 810s as they are specifically built to have 24m vehicles for the short St.Pancras platforms. I doubt they'll go anywhere else for the first 25 years of their life.

 

[Domh245]

That seems unlikley for most AT300 fleets, and especially so with the 810s as they are specifically built to have 20m vehicles for the short St.Pancras platforms. I doubt they'll go anywhere else for the first 25 years of their life.

24m vehicles, but your point stands. There'd very little benefit from ordering new units (from Hitachi again) as you'd end up with the same train, minus the raised floor for the engines. The alternative would be ordering entirely new vehicles, but still likely to be 120m units for double working - it'd need to be a pretty big upgrade over de-engined 810s to justify replacement.

Similarly, where would they be sent? The only logical place for them to go is XC, but 33x 5 cars isn't enough on it's own, and whilst more could be ordered, or even additional vehicles, I would think that a fleet of the more standard 26m trains would be preferable for both capacity and standardisation

 

[BayPaul]

If electrification went ahead all the way to Sheffield then the entire 810 fleet might be cascaded, depending on whether the various off-route extensions were either electrified too or could be abandoned.

Much more likely that they'd simply remove the engines, as others have said, the 810s are pretty much custom built for St Pancras.

 

[Speed43125]

24m vehicles, but your point stands. There'd very little benefit from ordering new units (from Hitachi again) as you'd end up with the same train, minus the raised floor for the engines. The alternative would be ordering entirely new vehicles, but still likely to be 120m units for double working - it'd need to be a pretty big upgrade over de-engined 810s to justify replacement.

Similarly, where would they be sent? The only logical place for them to go is XC, but 33x 5 cars isn't enough on it's own, and whilst more could be ordered, or even additional vehicles, I would think that a fleet of the more standard 26m trains would be preferable for both capacity and standardisation

Duly corrected. Sorry about that.

 

[tbtc]

33 trains means that you've got sufficient units for half of the diagrams to be doubled up (as well as a number used for maintenance/ hot spares/ peak extras).

(I fear that people are going to look back and "remember" that five coach 810s replaced seven coach 222s, in the way that people "remember" that Virgin replaced nine coach loco hauled sets with four coach Voyagers, and forget that both operators also replaced some much shorter trains)

I've done the maths before on the back of a fag packet, but if you assume that EMR will be able to switch units between "Sheffield" and "Nottingham" services (rather than the current set up where a southbound "Nottingham fast" can only return as a northbound "Nottingham fast" and therefore occupies a St Pancras platform for seventy minutes!) then a Sheffield - London - Nottingham journey would take around four hours (just over two hours from Sheffield to London, just over ninety minutes from London to Nottingham, add on turnaround time at St P).

Call that an 8h30 round trip and you'd need seventeen units to run half hourly. Thirty three trains to do seventeen diagrams sounds okay to me.

That's on the basis that you either smooth journey times (rather than having one "fast" and one "slow" on each route) or that a northbound "fast" becomes a southbound "slow", so that the journey times balance out.

But the nice thing about an 8h30 round trip is that if you ensured that every train arriving in London in a ninety minute morning "peak" was ten coaches long then those trains would be thee same ones that provided the London departures for a ninety minute evening "peak" - so you could ensure that the longest trains were used on the busiest services.

I can see why the 33 units might not look like a lot but you need to remember that there are going to be none required for the Corby service and that by having one common train for long distance services, EMR can arrange things much more efficiently at St Pancras (rather than having some trains sat at platforms for long periods like the HSTs on "Nottingham fast" services that I referred to above) - this is going to be more like the Virgin/Avanti 390s at Euston, where a southbound Manchester can form the next service north to Birmingham/ Liverpool/ Glasgow if needed.

It's not a mega generous order of trains, it's not going to double the number of seats, but it will allow for growth and a much more efficient use of stock. If you want to grumble about any of the EMR plans then I'd look at the Turbostars for local routes, which looked a little on the tight side last time I checked the numbers (great news for the lines that saw just a solo 153 but the rest of the franchise isn't going to see much of a capacity improvement - again though, having one type of DMU should mean things are a little more efficiently utilised)

 

[edwin_m]

That seems unlikley for most AT300 fleets, and especially so with the 810s as they are specifically built to have 24m vehicles for the short St.Pancras platforms. I doubt they'll go anywhere else for the first 25 years of their life.

The use of 24m rather than 25m vehicles makes them more versatile, as they are less likely to need clearance work. Having said that there can't be many "intercity" routes that aren't already cleared for 80x.

24m vehicles, but your point stands. There'd very little benefit from ordering new units (from Hitachi again) as you'd end up with the same train, minus the raised floor for the engines. The alternative would be ordering entirely new vehicles, but still likely to be 120m units for double working - it'd need to be a pretty big upgrade over de-engined 810s to justify replacement.

Similarly, where would they be sent? The only logical place for them to go is XC, but 33x 5 cars isn't enough on it's own, and whilst more could be ordered, or even additional vehicles, I would think that a fleet of the more standard 26m trains would be preferable for both capacity and standardisation

Why would the fleet have to come from Hitachi? Other suppliers are available.

Bearing in mind the trains are likely to be on lease for the length of the EMR franchise term, if they aren't re-used it's the leasing company's problem.

They could potentially go to augment the XC fleet or replace a proportion of the Voyagers. By concentrating them on the routes with the most electrification, this would give some combination of extra capacity and decarbonization.

 

[Domh245]

The use of 24m rather than 25m vehicles makes them more versatile, as they are less likely to need clearance work. Having said that there can't be many "intercity" routes that aren't already cleared for 80x.

I'd thought the 26m 80x clearance profile was pretty 'standard', or at least close to the existing mk3s? That was part of the reason for the large tapered vehicle end overhangs.

Why would the fleet have to come from Hitachi? Other suppliers are available.

You're right that they don't have to be Hitachi, but whoever builds them, they won't be substantially different to the 810s once the engines have been removed.

You could go for a Stadler SMILE, should you want level boarding access, an Aventra if you want something unreliable, unproven but light on the track, or you could go for something from CAF if you want something even more unreliable and poorly built. Alstom could probably offer something, ditto Talgo, CRRC, Siemens or whoever else, but unless you decide to change away from a uniform fleet of half length trains, you're stuck with a 120m long 125mph EMU, and there's only so many ways to skin a cat. An 810 with the engines removed may not be perfect, but it'd be entirely adequate and certainly at the moment, the expenditure for a new fleet to replace an adequate train with a slightly better one is going to be a tough sell.

They could potentially go to augment the XC fleet or replace a proportion of the Voyagers. By concentrating them on the routes with the most electrification, this would give some combination of extra capacity and decarbonization.

Augmenting the voyagers would be the preferable option of the two, but I would hope that by the time MML electrification is completed (allowing the 810s to be cascaded) XC would have a long term fleet strategy in place with the voyager replacements already defined. It may be that said plan involves ordering a bunch more 810s and cracking on with the MML, but I'd be amazed if it was.

I just fail to see what the advantage of brand new trains for the MML and cascading the 810s to part fix XC's fleet is, as opposed to just fixing XCs fleet entirely and accepting the 'adequate' 810s

 

[edwin_m]

I'd thought the 26m 80x clearance profile was pretty 'standard', or at least close to the existing mk3s? That was part of the reason for the large tapered vehicle end overhangs.

I believe there have been issues with stepping distance, as the length and the taper both increase the gap at a convex curved platform. I think it was Ian Walmsley who suggested this nullified any benefit of going to 25m.

You're right that they don't have to be Hitachi, but whoever builds them, they won't be substantially different to the 810s once the engines have been removed.

You could go for a Stadler SMILE, should you want level boarding access, an Aventra if you want something unreliable, unproven but light on the track, or you could go for something from CAF if you want something even more unreliable and poorly built. Alstom could probably offer something, ditto Talgo, CRRC, Siemens or whoever else, but unless you decide to change away from a uniform fleet of half length trains, you're stuck with a 120m long 125mph EMU, and there's only so many ways to skin a cat. An 810 with the engines removed may not be perfect, but it'd be entirely adequate and certainly at the moment, the expenditure for a new fleet to replace an adequate train with a slightly better one is going to be a tough sell.

Without the need for bi-mode provision the design would be a standard EMU with the speed profile pushed out a bit and maybe a bit longer nose. This has the benefit of being available from multiple suppliers, whereas a 125mph bi-mode is single source.

Augmenting the voyagers would be the preferable option of the two, but I would hope that by the time MML electrification is completed (allowing the 810s to be cascaded) XC would have a long term fleet strategy in place with the voyager replacements already defined. It may be that said plan involves ordering a bunch more 810s and cracking on with the MML, but I'd be amazed if it was.

I just fail to see what the advantage of brand new trains for the MML and cascading the 810s to part fix XC's fleet is, as opposed to just fixing XCs fleet entirely and accepting the 'adequate' 810s

I agree there are many imponderables around this. But I think the government will want to stick with the existing fleets on both XC and MML for several years until the longer-term prospects for passenger numbers are a bit clearer. In parallel with that there may (may!) be a programme of electrification where extending northwards from Kettering would be one of the first elements. So it's possible, but I agree not very likely, that things would fall into place for a cascade of 810s round about the year 2030.

 

[Domh245]

Without the need for bi-mode provision the design would be a standard EMU with the speed profile pushed out a bit and maybe a bit longer nose. This has the benefit of being available from multiple suppliers, whereas a 125mph bi-mode is single source.

This is all true, if you were buying new and didn't already have a 125mph EMU to hand once the engines have been removed. It's not as if the 80x are a hugely compromised design to accommodate the bi-modal capability.

It's difficult to justify a future cascade (post electrification) of these away on the basis of them fitting well elsewhere, nor on the basis of them being inappropriate for the services they'd be working

 

[Energy]

whereas a 125mph bi-mode is single source.

A bi-mode Stadler SMILE was offered for EMR, seen in one of Stadler's official documents as an order they didn't get. Other manufacturers also offer bimode (Bombardier) but haven't got an order yet in the UK for a bimode product (the Stadler SMILE is based of the FLIRT which already has the 755s and soon the 756s and 231s.

 

[edwin_m]

This is all true, if you were buying new and didn't already have a 125mph EMU to hand once the engines have been removed. It's not as if the 80x are a hugely compromised design to accommodate the bi-modal capability.

Do you have any evidence on that question? Seems to me a bi-mode, or a train that has design provision to be a bi-mode, needs a lot of extra structure to carry the weight of the diesels and fuel tanks. If the 810s no longer needed to be used in the bi-mode role for which they were procured, in the centrally-planned railway we may now be moving to it might make more sense to move them to a route where the bi-mode capability was useful, rather than build more bi-modes for that other route.

 

[Domh245]

Do you have any evidence on that question? Seems to me a bi-mode, or a train that has design provision to be a bi-mode, needs a lot of extra structure to carry the weight of the diesels and fuel tanks. If the 810s no longer needed to be used in the bi-mode role for which they were procured, in the centrally-planned railway we may now be moving to it might make more sense to move them to a route where the bi-mode capability was useful, rather than build more bi-modes for that other route.

I was thinking more from the passenger point of view in terms of compromises, but yes the bi-modes will be heavier than a corresponding pure EMU although it's difficult to tell as Hitachi seem to build their trains robustly anyway. To attempt to stick some data on it, the track access charge for a TPE 802 is 1.5x higher per mile (correcting for lengths, 1.38x) than a 397 as the only contemporary 125mph pure EMU. With engines & fuel tanks removed I'd expect that difference to come down, but as I can't find costs for the LNER 801s, I don't know how much this would come down by. The million dollar question then becomes do the savings justify the new fleet

The centrally planned railway may choose to move the bi-modes around to save building more, but given the relative ease of building them, and of converting bimodes to EMUs, it may decide that a full fleet of 26m units suit XC better. My gut feeling is that a uniform XC fleet of 26m bimodes and leaving the 810s where they are is preferable all round, but there certainly seem to be plenty of people on the forum who think that the 810s should be cascaded to XC.