Stopgap options to cover for delays to introduction of Class 810 for EMR?

[D365]

... but as enthusiasts we'd all like to see a variety of old or shortformed stock on the MML for a very short period of time.

Has there been any indication yet that short term rolling stock will be drafted in on MML?

 

[trainswitheddy]

Has there been any indication yet that short term rolling stock will be drafted in on MML?

Afaik no, the only plan we've seen (I think) is the 170 plan

 

[Russel]

Afaik no, the only plan we've seen (I think) is the 170 plan

So robbing Peter to pay Paul?

How did the railways get into this mess?

 

[yorksrob]

So robbing Peter to pay Paul?

How did the railways get into this mess?

By being forced to withdraw HST's prematurely.

 

[Russel]

By being forced to withdraw HST's prematurely.

It's not just an EMR problem though, it's industry wide, there seems to be no real rolling stock plan.

Look at XC, they run 4 car Voyagers through Derby, passengers crammed in like sardines yet there is 5 (?) usable 221's stored literally meters away but the DFT won't pay for them....

It's infuriating.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not just an EMR problem though, it's industry wide, there seems to be no real rolling stock plan.

Look at XC, they run 4 car Voyagers through Derby, passengers crammed in like sardines yet there is 5 (?) usable 221's stored literally meters away but the DFT won't pay for them....

It's infuriating.

Indeed.

 

[HSTEd]

It's not just an EMR problem though, it's industry wide, there seems to be no real rolling stock plan.

Look at XC, they run 4 car Voyagers through Derby, passengers crammed in like sardines yet there is 5 (?) usable 221's stored literally meters away but the DFT won't pay for them....

Ultimately this is what happens when you separate rolling stock ownership from the rest of the railway.
It's not really in anyone in the industry's interests to actually develop a rolling stock plan, because its implications would probably lead to less money being spent on the railway.

We wouldn't have panic orders for trains placed solely to keep surplus factories open and probably less trains going for scrap than can still move.

But thats not really the topic of the thread.

 

[Bald Rick]

How did the railways get into this mess?

By being forced to withdraw HST's prematurely.

Nothing to do with the HSTs, which lets not forget were mostly 40 years+

Everything to do with a certain manufacturer not delivering to the timescales it committed to.

 

[WAO]

A proper railway would at least own its older stock and be able to use it without lease charges (and with grandfather rights) until something newer is finally ready to enter squadron service. Fine for a Leasco to charge a lease for newish stock and make a good profit while it's being written down - not after. NR/GBR or whatever, should then have the right to purchase outright at scrappish value.

It is quite immoral to charge a lease for fully written down stock "mostly 40 years +" or to create the fantasy of permanent external ownership of such stock. This is bureaucracy and paperwork trumping (good word!) engineering and physics.

I believe that "lease charges" now account for 1/3 of farebox income.

WAO

 

[yorksrob]

Nothing to do with the HSTs, which lets not forget were mostly 40 years+

Everything to do with a certain manufacturer not delivering to the timescales it committed to.

A sensibly run railway would wait until its replacements were being delivered before scrapping all of its flagship fleet. It's 100% to do with the HST's. Imagine if SWR had scrapped all of its 455's a few years ago when the new units were due !

I don't blame the industry, so much as Governments for causing the problem.

 

[The exile]

Nothing to do with the HSTs, which lets not forget were mostly 40 years+

Everything to do with a certain manufacturer not delivering to the timescales it committed to.

So that manufacturer should be being contractually held to provide replacements in full from day 1 or be sued for every penny it has.

 

[Bald Rick]

A sensibly run railway would wait until its replacements were being delivered before scrapping all of its flagship fleet.

The HSTs were not EMRs flagship fleet, at least not since the 222s arrived. They were taken out of service well before the 810s were due. The SWR compariosn is relevant, not least because SWR has scrapped many of them before the 701s arrived, and both EMR and SWR still had other stock to run the service. Their situations are quite similar. Albeit SWR is coming out of theirs now, as EMR will do in a few months.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2025 ==

So that manufacturer should be being contractually held to provide replacements in full from day 1 or be sued for every penny it has.

As explained by others above, the manufacturer has indeed been paying penalties for late delivery.

In the world of major contracts, penalties have to be carefully set. You want a strong incentive to deliver to contract, but you don’t want the penalties set so high that the contractor goes bust and leaves you with nothing forever.

 

[yorksrob]

The HSTs were not EMRs flagship fleet, at least not since the 222s arrived.

You've given me a good chuckle @Bald Rick

They were taken out of service well before the 810s were due.

And we all knew they needed replacing so they clearly shouldn't have been.

 

[Trainbike46]

HSTs were replaced with the 360s and the 180s, retiring the very old HSTs is not what caused the issues.

Retiring the 180s without replacement, and having (some of) the 222s leave before the 810s are in service, on the other hand.

 

[baz962]

Afaik no, the only plan we've seen (I think) is the 170 plan

Not sure it's an actual plan. Keep hearing rumours about it , but nothing communicated to us drivers yet.
Never say never though.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The HSTs were not EMRs flagship fleet, at least not since the 222s arrived. They were taken out of service well before the 810s were due.

Retiring the 180s without replacement, and having (some of) the 222s leave before the 810s are in service, on the other hand.

Somebody will correct me if I'm misremembering, but I think full length HST could not keep up with the new timetable when EMR Connect was launched.
So the option was to keep a fleet of shorter HSTs that still did not comply with accessibility regulations that were by this point 10 years old.

Hindsight, and Scotrail and GWR's experience, suggests that keeping a small fleet of short HSTs would also have been problematic.

As Trainbike46 notes, if HSTs had been kept, they'd almost certainly have gone when the 180s did.

you don’t want the penalties set so high that the contractor goes bust and leaves you with nothing forever.

My experience bidding work is that excessive penalties will be a show-stopper during internal governance and we would not submit a bid. If all suppliers come to that conclusion, there's no bids, a failed procurement and a significant delay as the client re-runs the procurement.

Or, as Bald Rick says, you may get bidders that are absolutely desperate for the work because they need the cashflow to remain solvent (the Carillion problem).
If a client finds that it's down to the last supplier, then it's the supplier that will start to dictate terms.
Closing train factories/redundancies because of all this is also politically challenging.

EMR and their DfT stakeholders would not have wanted any of this to happen.

 

[liamf656]

Somebody will correct me if I'm misremembering, but I think full length HST could not keep up with the new timetable when EMR Connect was launched.
So the option was to keep a fleet of shorter HSTs that still did not comply with accessibility regulations that were by this point 10 years old.

As I understand it the ex LNER HSTs were shorter because the condition of the coaches were not worth spending money on bringing back up to scratch, bearing in mind no service was busy (we were in the early stages of lockdown) and it was known that they weren't staying for a long time

More here:

Transfer of LNER HST 125s to East Midlands Railway (EMR)

Hi all, Is there any news regarding the transfer of the High Speed Train (HST) 125s from LNER to East Midlands Railway (EMR)? With the finale of these trains on the East Coast Mainline, is there any update on their transition to the Midland Mainline?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[yorksrob]

HSTs were replaced with the 360s and the 180s, retiring the very old HSTs is not what caused the issues.

Retiring the 180s without replacement, and having (some of) the 222s leave before the 810s are in service, on the other hand.

The point is that three clapped out 180's were never going to be adequate to replace the fleet of HST's on the main line services - as I found out on the occasions I used the line towards the start of the decade.

 

[Trainbike46]

The point is that three clapped out 180's were never going to be adequate to replace the fleet of HST's on the main line services - as I found out on the occasions I used the line towards the start of the decade.

you're forgetting that the 222s and HSTs also worked the services now run by 360s.

Before the Abellio EMR franchise, there were HSTs and 222s for the IC and "connect" services, though they weren't called that yet.

The HSTs left, and were replaced with the 360s and the 4 180s, to give a fleet of 222s, 360s, and 180s for IC and connect services under Abellio.

This mostly worked, and for the long term the 810s were ordered to replace the 222s and 180s. However, problems became an issue when first the 180s left without replacement, and likely will become worse when the 222s start to leave before the 810s are in service.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The point is that three clapped out 180's were never going to be adequate to replace the fleet of HST's on the main line services

you're forgetting that the 222s and HSTs also worked the services now run by 360s.

Trainbike46 has just beaten me to this point, so I will add my anecdotal experience; it was almost always commuter traffic from Luton/Airport, Bedford and Wellingborough/Kettering that caused trains to be full and standing

But multiple things can be true at the same time, and it is also true that the Cl222 fleet is inadequate for the job that it is being asked to do.

The next few months until the 810s stumble over the line into service is not going to be great, and I think it's reasonable to wonder if what has been ordered will be adequate in the long-term, now HS2 East is not going to ride to the rescue of MML capacity

 

[LowLevel]

you're forgetting that the 222s and HSTs also worked the services now run by 360s.

Before the Abellio EMR franchise, there were HSTs and 222s for the IC and "connect" services, though they weren't called that yet.

The HSTs left, and were replaced with the 360s and the 4 180s, to give a fleet of 222s, 360s, and 180s for IC and connect services under Abellio.

This mostly worked, and for the long term the 810s were ordered to replace the 222s and 180s. However, problems became an issue when first the 180s left without replacement, and likely will become worse when the 222s start to leave before the 810s are in service.

The problems started before that, because the 180s were rubbish as they always are and so have been the 360s.

The "Blue HSTs" had an internal and external overhaul intended to have them see out a few more years service. Instead they were promptly withdrawn in favour of some trashed East Coast sets that had been maintained with the intent of being sent to the scrap yard and which took up a ridiculous amount of resource for the short time they were in traffic as a box ticking exercise to make a train that was never going to be remotely PRM compliant slightly more so by getting rid of fixed arm rests and having a full sized accessible toilet.

The long gone Abellio bid team were asked about the viability of their plan when they were touring on their bus (which itself was not exactly a beacon of reliability) and insisted that everything would be fine, the 180s would be sorted etc.

Instead arbitrary cost reductions directed by DfT alongside the 810 issues have resulted in wrecked fleets of trains limping along.

The 360s were never going to work out well without a proper depot. The 180s were never going to be reliable. The 222s were never going to last in decent condition without the overhaul they've missed by about 10 years.

 

[Russel]

So that manufacturer should be being contractually held to provide replacements in full from day 1 or be sued for every penny it has.

Yes, indeed.

But, the DFT/EMR should not have even considered withdrawing any stock until the replacements are delivered, with the HSTs gone and the 222s about to gradually start departing, it's just another kick in the teeth to the paying customers who are already paying extortionate fares for a service that is about to get even worse.

 

[HSTEd]

If a client finds that it's down to the last supplier, then it's the supplier that will start to dictate terms.
Closing train factories/redundancies because of all this is also politically challenging.

EMR and their DfT stakeholders would not have wanted any of this to happen.

All part of the wonderful world of trying to maintain a market in a product with a single monopsony purchaser that only has demand to justify a single factory!

 

[yorksrob]

you're forgetting that the 222s and HSTs also worked the services now run by 360s.

Before the Abellio EMR franchise, there were HSTs and 222s for the IC and "connect" services, though they weren't called that yet.

The HSTs left, and were replaced with the 360s and the 4 180s, to give a fleet of 222s, 360s, and 180s for IC and connect services under Abellio.

This mostly worked, and for the long term the 810s were ordered to replace the 222s and 180s. However, problems became an issue when first the 180s left without replacement, and likely will become worse when the 222s start to leave before the 810s are in service.

True, but the big traffic generators on the route are the cities, and the 360's don't serve those. I had various occasions turning up to what used to be an HST diagram only to find a short 222.

It was a poorly thought out plan.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2025 ==

Trainbike46 has just beaten me to this point, so I will add my anecdotal experience; it was almost always commuter traffic from Luton/Airport, Bedford and Wellingborough/Kettering that caused trains to be full and standing

But multiple things can be true at the same time, and it is also true that the Cl222 fleet is inadequate for the job that it is being asked to do.

The next few months until the 810s stumble over the line into service is not going to be great, and I think it's reasonable to wonder if what has been ordered will be adequate in the long-term, now HS2 East is not going to ride to the rescue of MML capacity

I refer you to my point above.

 

[InTheEastMids]

True, but the big traffic generators on the route are the cities, and the 360's don't serve those.

Except London...

It was a poorly thought out plan.

It is unreasonable for EMR to anticipate that the 810s would be as late as they've proven to be, and it's a cop out to just say "I'd have made Hitachi deliver on time" (we all wish we could've done that, especially Hitachi's leadership).

Specifically, you've criticised the 360+222+180 plan in general (should that be "Plan 762"?), not the immediate issue of 222s departing before 810s are in service

The key decisions that I think led us here were
1. Cancellation of MMLE* due to the unfolding carnage on GWEP
2. Ending 2+8 HST operations on the MMLE by introducing the clock-face timetable we have grown to love
3. Not to spend £££ on HST RVAR compliance (eg power doors), and not to continue with non-compliant rolling stock
4. Cuts made in response to reduced income and demand during/after the pandemic

Which of these decisions should have gone differently?

*Specifically the 2017 cancellation, not all the other times it's been cancelled

 

[Bald Rick]

True, but the big traffic generators on the route are the cities, and the 360's don't serve those.

I don’t have the numbers to hand, but I’d bet that Derby, Sheffield, Leicester and even Nottingham have fewer passengers to London than Luton Airport Parkway, Luton and Bedford.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don’t have the numbers to hand, but I’d bet that Derby, Sheffield, Leicester and even Nottingham have fewer passengers to London than Luton Airport Parkway, Luton and Bedford.

Nottingham: 1250 passengers per day to London St Pancras
Bedford: 2400
Luton: 2000
LAP: 2500

 

[HSTEd]

I don’t have the numbers to hand, but I’d bet that Derby, Sheffield, Leicester and even Nottingham have fewer passengers to London than Luton Airport Parkway, Luton and Bedford.

The top four destinations according to the Origin Destination Matrix for St Pancras are St Albans City, Luton Airport, Bedford and Luton.

Leicester is even behind Ebbsfleet and Ashford

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks both!

 

[WAO]

I don’t have the numbers to hand, but I’d bet that Derby, Sheffield, Leicester and even Nottingham have fewer passengers to London than Luton Airport Parkway, Luton and Bedford.

That's generally true of any comparison of commuter versus IC travel, certainly for London. Whether the farebox balance is as skewed, I' m not sure.

It might have been better to curtail electrification at Leicester for the moment and to keep the Meridians which seem to work well and be flexible about consists/formations.

Any open access bids for 810's!

WAO