Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[QSK19]

Talking to staff when 04 was doing resumed EMR route-wide station validation checks earlier this month, I got the impression that 01 may currently be a non-runner, parts having been donated to keep other sets at Old Dalby serviceable - no more however than a hearsay rumour.

A 4-year old train already being a parts donor! If this is true, the 810 introduction sinks to a new low.

 

[LowLevel]

RMT have now also agreed a training plan and method of work for the units for the train managers and hosts with EMR so they're good to go with both drivers and traincrew when the trains are available. There will be a train manager rostered in both units on 10 car trains and the train manager will open and close the doors.

Hopefully one of the units will be handed over shortly and things can move on, mostly likely 008 rumours suggest.

 

[Killingworth]

A 4-year old train already being a parts donor! If this is true, the 810 introduction sinks to a new low.

2 years ago I was suggesting the aim of having the full fleet into service in 2025 looked optimistic. Too right! Currently 2026 looks likely to run into 2027. All 222s gone by end 2028?

i have the greatest sympathy for EMR managers having to deal with this situation which has ramifications for those expecting to refurbish the 222s, LUMO, Hitachi, RockRail and even the DfT!

I hear some in the wings wondering again about letting HSTs go - for Mexico and Nigeria!!

 

[NSEWonderer]

Its not unusual for the first built train usually number 1 numbered to be one of the last to be out of the production line for good. Number 1 is usually always a prototype that by the time all the necessary fixes and tweaks along the way are done, it often needs big reworking to get up to the standard. In some cases its completely scrapped(due to costs) and another unit built to current standard and renumbered as the first.

I'm not surprised if 810001 is being used for parts at the moment at all for that reason alone. Isn't unusual in my opinion.

 

[800001]

RMT have now also agreed a training plan and method of work for the units for the train managers and hosts with EMR so they're good to go with both drivers and traincrew when the trains are available. There will be a train manager rostered in both units on 10 car trains and the train manager will open and close the doors.

Hopefully one of the units will be handed over shortly and things can move on, mostly likely 008 rumours suggest.

Why the difference to all the other TOCs where drivers open the doors which saves time at stations and then the guard closes?

 

[D365]

Its not unusual for the first built train usually number 1 numbered to be one of the last to be out of the production line for good. Number 1 is usually always a prototype that by the time all the necessary fixes and tweaks along the way are done, it often needs big reworking to get up to the standard. In some cases its completely scrapped(due to costs) and another unit built to current standard and renumbered as the first.

I'm not surprised if 810001 is being used for parts at the moment at all for that reason alone. Isn't unusual in my opinion.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[LowLevel]

Why the difference to all the other TOCs where drivers open the doors which saves time at stations and then the guard closes?

Consistency maybe? There are plenty of mixed traction drivers at EMR (222 soon to be 810/360, 222(810)/158/170 - don't know if the Derby local link sign 360s too) and it keeps everything the same. Dwell time is I suppose a bit less of an issue on the services these trains operate than it would be on a suburban route.

Driver door release isn't practical on the 158s and 170s (170s have manual guard operated selective door opening) and probably isn't worth negotiating on the 360s/810s given their comparatively limited stop schedules.

 

[800001]

Its not unusual for the first built train usually number 1 numbered to be one of the last to be out of the production line for good. Number 1 is usually always a prototype that by the time all the necessary fixes and tweaks along the way are done, it often needs big reworking to get up to the standard. In some cases its completely scrapped(due to costs) and another unit built to current standard and renumbered as the first.

I'm not surprised if 810001 is being used for parts at the moment at all for that reason alone. Isn't unusual in my opinion.

When was the last time a first built unit/loco was scrapped? Can i certainly can not ever recall one.

And of all the Hitachi fleets built a not recall any of them being used to supply parts for the others.

The whole idea of the unit being at Dalby is for testing.

So it is very strange for it to be donating parts (if true).

 

[NSEWonderer]

When was the last time a first built unit/loco was scrapped? Can i certainly can not ever recall one.

And of all the Hitachi fleets built a not recall any of them being used to supply parts for the others.

The whole idea of the unit being at Dalby is for testing.

So it is very strange for it to be donating parts (if true).

Scrapped would refer to the Victoria line stock as an example. In yes the heavy rail world you'd have the first unit being often last to show up to the party as its often a glorified prototype. Loads of redundant equipment or wiring that needs to be then brought up to spec. Typical example was 345001 which did not enter service for a long while after the others did, as it needed the changes and updates implemented after being Alstoms test bed for the fleet.

 

[800001]

Scrapped would refer to the Victoria line stock as an example. In yes the heavy rail world you'd have the first unit being often last to show up to the party as its often a glorified prototype. Loads of redundant equipment or wiring that needs to be then brought up to spec. Typical example was 345001 which did not enter service for a long while after the others did, as it needed the changes and updates implemented after being Alstoms test bed for the fleet.

I know how new build units etc work (I work on railways) but I can not recall
First built being scrapped.

 

[NSEWonderer]

I know how new build units etc work (I work on railways) but I can not recall
First built being scrapped.

Victoria line stock as mentioned above the first two units were scrapped and then newer units built to the standard were built and renumbered to take their place. That is one example of the first units can potentially be scrapped in a fleet, depending on how many modifications have occurred during the production process. Recently yes, majority of the first units of a fleet have been mostly upgraded / modified to varying degrees without having to completely bin the unit and start afresh.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Victoria line stock as mentioned above the first two units were scrapped and then newer units built to the standard were built and renumbered to take their place

Any references to that? I couldn’t find any sources on the web

 

[NSEWonderer]

Any references to that? I couldn’t find any sources on the web

2009 Stock Train 1 and 2 Mystery

 

[Aspen90]

Why the difference to all the other TOCs where drivers open the doors which saves time at stations and then the guard closes?

Because the driver agreement included some vague wording which RMT (and drivers) took as an open door for future DOO. Therefore RMT have fought like hell to keep the current method of working and are working on getting the driver agreement wording changed to remove it. Regarding other TOC’s, EMR RMT don’t care what other TOC’s are doing, as far as they’re concerned they have a method of working and it doesn’t need to be changed.

 

[eastwestdivide]

2009 Stock Train 1 and 2 Mystery

Ah thanks. I was looking all over for the first two 1967 stock trains. Doh!

 

[QSK19]

2 years ago I was suggesting the aim of having the full fleet into service in 2025 looked optimistic. Too right! Currently 2026 looks likely to run into 2027. All 222s gone by end 2028?

i have the greatest sympathy for EMR managers having to deal with this situation which has ramifications for those expecting to refurbish the 222s, LUMO, Hitachi, RockRail and even the DfT!

I hear some in the wings wondering again about letting HSTs go - for Mexico and Nigeria!!

Yep, I‘ve already done my customary “surely not?!” line for 2027. The only thing I hadn’t done is put a quid on at the bookies

 

[MCR247]

I know how new build units etc work (I work on railways) but I can not recall
First built being scrapped.

Didn’t Siemens build some prototype 20m UK Desiros that ended up later being reworked into Class 360 carriages? Not quite the same thing I know

 

[Wyrleybart]

Didn’t Siemens build some prototype 20m UK Desiros that ended up later being reworked into Class 360 carriages? Not quite the same thing I know

Yes. There were some white vehicles hanging around Northam IIRC which had different gangway ends.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2025 ==

Because the driver agreement included some vague wording which RMT (and drivers) took as an open door for future DOO. Therefore RMT have fought like hell to keep the current method of working and are working on getting the driver agreement wording changed to remove it. Regarding other TOC’s, EMR RMT don’t care what other TOC’s are doing, as far as they’re concerned they have a method of working and it doesn’t need to be changed.

I think it varies from TOC to TOC. I believe some require the "guard" to open the local door, step onto the platform to ensure all the doors are on the platform before getting back in the train and opening them.

 

[dosxuk]

A 4-year old train already being a parts donor! If this is true, the 810 introduction sinks to a new low.

It's really not that unsurprising - it's a new fleet, being stabled long-term away from it's proper maintenance base, so there's not going to be a local parts store in Derby with everything they might need. Once the fleet is handed over, maintained in Derby and there's a process for manufacturing and supplying parts it will be completely different scenario if they need to strip bits off other units to keep the fleet going.

 

[Wyrleybart]

It's really not that unsurprising - it's a new fleet, being stabled long-term away from it's proper maintenance base, so there's not going to be a local parts store in Derby with everything they might need. Once the fleet is handed over, maintained in Derby and there's a process for manufacturing and supplying parts it will be completely different scenario if they need to strip bits off other units to keep the fleet going.

it is not unsurprising in the UK rail industry where you have DfT micromanaging the TOCs to order new fleets, but with little "togetherness" between manufacturer, fleet owner and operator. Lets not forget these trains were as a result of the Midland Mainline TOC seesaw where the electrified route was cancelled in 2015 by Chris Grayling because he felt he couldn't justify the 1 minute schedule difference between an electric train and a Bimode one. Very believeable wasnt it !!

 

[Merle Haggard]

it is not unsurprising in the UK rail industry where you have DfT micromanaging the TOCs to order new fleets, but with little "togetherness" between manufacturer, fleet owner and operator. Lets not forget these trains were as a result of the Midland Mainline TOC seesaw where the electrified route was cancelled in 2015 by Chris Grayling because he felt he couldn't justify the 1 minute schedule difference between an electric train and a Bimode one. Very believeable wasnt it !!

Grayling said, as I recall, that 'a bi-mode could be only a minute slower than an electric train'
'Could be'
But, similarly, all the problems, disputes, wars in the world 'could be' resolved.
Anything is theoretically possible, but saying 'could be' doesn't, in itself, provide the solution.

 

[td97]

There will be a train manager rostered in both units on 10 car trains and the train manager will open and close the doors.

Oh deary me. Is that an omen to become an XC-style operation where only 5 coaches out of 10 are in passenger use owing to guard shortages?

Consistency maybe? There are plenty of mixed traction drivers at EMR (222 soon to be 810/360, 222(810)/158/170 - don't know if the Derby local link sign 360s too) and it keeps everything the same. Dwell time is I suppose a bit less of an issue on the services these trains operate than it would be on a suburban route.

Unfortunately I don't buy that, as TPE use driver release on 802s whilst 185s are guard operated. Similarly on LNER where Cl.91s are guard operated whilst 800/801 are driver release.

 

[LowLevel]

Oh deary me. Is that an omen to become an XC-style operation where only 5 coaches out of 10 are in passenger use owing to guard shortages?

Unfortunately I don't buy that, as TPE use driver release on 802s whilst 185s are guard operated. Similarly on LNER where Cl.91s are guard operated whilst 800/801 are driver release.

If you've no reason to change it, then consistency is a pretty good reason to leave it alone.

I doubt, it is no different to now (in terms of two train managers being rostered) and it allows for various scenarios for one train manager to work the train if necessary. Train manager establishments are currently healthy with a decent talent pool waiting list so I don't see staff shortages being an issue any more than currently.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Seen this on LinkedIn: Looks like a network rail no objection letter for the 810.

Network Rail Assurance Panel (NRAP) makes the following Summary of Compatibility, related to the compatibility of Class 810 vehicles with the Network Rail managed infrastructure installed on the routes defined in Clause 3.1, subject to the conditions detailed herein.

This summary is issued on the basis of Network Rail's assessment of the documentation listed in Part 8
This document has been prepared to record the compatibility for the interim service operation of the Class 810 in both diesel and electric mode, in 5-car single unit formation, on defined Network Rail infrastructure. 10-car formations (rescue only) are restricted to diesel operation only.

It has been issued for one year.

 

[Nym]

View attachment 185357

Seen this on LinkedIn: Looks like a network rail no objection letter for the 810.

Looks like yet another issue with multi-pantograph setups again on Network Rail then...

Oh the joys!

 

[Wyrleybart]

Looks like yet another issue with multi-pantograph setups again on Network Rail then...

Oh the joys!

I wonder !!!
There surely was a reason why indigenous 25kV EMUs tended to be 4 car units with the pan as near to the middle as possible

 

[43066]

Because the driver agreement included some vague wording which RMT (and drivers) took as an open door for future DOO. Therefore RMT have fought like hell to keep the current method of working and are working on getting the driver agreement wording changed to remove it. Regarding other TOC’s, EMR RMT don’t care what other TOC’s are doing, as far as they’re concerned they have a method of working and it doesn’t need to be changed.

A lot of people expressed surprise that ASLEF agreed to the vague wording you mentioned during the negotiations, so I can absolutely see why the RMT are trying to beef it up a little.

 

[Verulamius]

I wonder !!!
There surely was a reason why indigenous 25kV EMUs tended to be 4 car units with the pan as near to the middle as possible

Could be related to the internal wiring issue, or maybe simply that 10 cars have not been tested yet so approval cannot be given?

 

[800001]

Looks like yet another issue with multi-pantograph setups again on Network Rail then...

Oh the joys!

It is because 10 car 810 have not done testing yet. Nothing more to it than that

 

[Nottingham59]

Can 2x5-car 810s operate with one unit in electric mode and one unit running on diesel?