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

[yorksrob]

Except London...

Of course

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

I think its all part of the problem, fueled by the ridiculous way rolling stock is managed in this country, so yes, getting rid of 222's before their replacements are ready is nonsensical.

No rail provider can predict how easily a fleet will settle in, which is why cascades ought to happen when existing rolling stock has been released.

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.

I don't doubt you, but I would have expected the Luton's to be mainly soaked up by Thameslink, so not particularly relevant to IC provision.

 

[dosxuk]

Considering the number of people I know who now prefer to travel via Doncaster or even drive the whole way rather than go Sheffield - St Pancras direct, I suspect the EMR figures are being somewhat suppressed by their own bad performance.

I've had many a pleasant journey down the MML - all of them from before EMR took over. Every trip since then has turned in to a feat of endurance - with cancellations, overcrowding, double-booked seating, unreliable and uncomfortable trains being the norm.

It was obvious to everyone that their back-of-a-napkin, its-alright-we-wont-win-anyway calculations they did for the franchise bid were optimistic at best - belatedly even to them with the "oh, I guess we could take on the 180's" plan they had to implement after they won and realised they couldn't afford enough 810's. Unfortunately, with the DfT now in charge, we're stuck with these half baked plans and the MML passengers are going to be stuck with insufficient trains for another generation. Still, at least there's decent options / prices available via Doncaster for when you can't drive...

 

[BerkshireRails]

It was obvious to everyone that their back-of-a-napkin, its-alright-we-wont-win-anyway calculations they did for the franchise bid were optimistic at best - belatedly even to them with the "oh, I guess we could take on the 180's" plan they had to implement after they won and realised they couldn't afford enough 810's. Unfortunately, with the DfT now in charge, we're stuck with these half baked plans and the MML passengers are going to be stuck with insufficient trains for another generation. Still, at least there's decent options / prices available via Doncaster for when you can't drive...

How many 810s would have been required? There is a slight capacity increase compared to the 180s+222s. 4x180s+27x222s=31 units, and as mentioned above, 360s have taken over some former diesel diagrams.

 

[Trainbike46]

Considering the number of people I know who now prefer to travel via Doncaster or even drive the whole way rather than go Sheffield - St Pancras direct, I suspect the EMR figures are being somewhat suppressed by their own bad performance.

I've had many a pleasant journey down the MML - all of them from before EMR took over. Every trip since then has turned in to a feat of endurance - with cancellations, overcrowding, double-booked seating, unreliable and uncomfortable trains being the norm.

It was obvious to everyone that their back-of-a-napkin, its-alright-we-wont-win-anyway calculations they did for the franchise bid were optimistic at best - belatedly even to them with the "oh, I guess we could take on the 180's" plan they had to implement after they won and realised they couldn't afford enough 810's. Unfortunately, with the DfT now in charge, we're stuck with these half baked plans and the MML passengers are going to be stuck with insufficient trains for another generation. Still, at least there's decent options / prices available via Doncaster for when you can't drive...

The 180s were not initially intended to stay when the 810s were in service, rumour says this then changed, and then it changed again with their early retirement.

 

[D365]

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 !

The four ex-HT Class 180s were supposed to be the replacement for the remaining HSTs.

Apologies, I've just seen that this has already been discussed.

 

[yorksrob]

The four ex-HT Class 180s were supposed to be the replacement for the remaining HSTs.

Apologies, I've just seen that this has already been discussed.

No worries, but really - four (sorry - I originally said 3) 180's were never going to be enough to replace the HST fleet adequately.

What should have happened was that the HST and 222 fleets should have been kept in place, offering EMR's characteristically at the time, excellent high quality service up until they could be replaced by the new trains.

 

[Trainbike46]

No worries, but really - four (sorry - I originally said 3) 180's were never going to be enough to replace the HST fleet adequately.

What should have happened was that the HST and 222 fleets should have been kept in place, offering EMR's characteristically at the time, excellent high quality service up until they could be replaced by the new trains.

So in your view, the 360s should have entirely been a fleet size increase, not replacing anything?

 

[BerkshireRails]

Based on there being 2tph of Corby and it taking 3 hours to work a round trip, that is 6 diagrams of HSTs which would have been replaced and East Midlands Trains only had 12 sets to begin with so that leaves you with 6 sets left.

 

[yorksrob]

So in your view, the 360s should have entirely been a fleet size increase, not replacing anything?

More or less, yes. The Corby line is a different beast to the IC services.

Maybe with them, you could have wound down the HST's a bit, as they would be taking some of the southern passengers. This could have been done at the same time as evaluating need on the IC services. But the HST's were working Nottingham and Market Harborough. These are not 360 areas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2025 ==

Based on there being 2tph of Corby and it taking 3 hours to work a round trip, that is 6 diagrams of HSTs which would have been replaced and East Midlands Trains only had 12 sets to begin with so that leaves you with 6 sets left.

Indeed. Six sets to be replaced by four unreliable 180's.

And those 360's can't serve Nottingham or Market Harborough either.

That plan was doomed from the start. The phrase "quart into a pint pot" doesn't give it justice.

I reiterate, I blame the government of the day for the fiasco. Railway professionals wouldn't have come up with it.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The "keep the HST" option does, in my opinion, mean glossing over some important issues. HSTs were not the silver bullet that incompetent TOCs and DfT officials refused to use.

1. LNER moved train maintenance into Neville Hill. So either the retained MML HST or the 91 fleet would have been homeless and Etches Park was being rebuilt for the 810s so could've been a poor option

2. 2+8 HST weren't compatible with the EMR timetable so would have needed shortening, reducing their crowd busting potential.

3. HST would have needed significant investment in RVAR compliance for just a couple of years use*. Or a further user lined up to justify the investment. Or the regulations needed to be ignored** ("derogation").


*Given the evident dissatisfaction of GWR and ScotRail with their HSTs, why would it have gone any better for EMR?

**I don't know whether it's "Railway Exceptionalism" or ableism that makes some people seem to believe that compliance with these regs should somehow be optional or deferable because the industry made a mess of things

 

[yorksrob]

The "keep the HST" option does, in my opinion, mean glossing over some important issues. HSTs were not the silver bullet that incompetent TOCs and DfT officials refused to use.

1. LNER moved train maintenance into Neville Hill. So either the retained MML HST or the 91 fleet would have been homeless and Etches Park was being rebuilt for the 810s so could've been a poor option

2. 2+8 HST weren't compatible with the EMR timetable so would have needed shortening, reducing their crowd busting potential.

3. HST would have needed significant investment in RVAR compliance for just a couple of years use*. Or a further user lined up to justify the investment. Or the regulations needed to be ignored** ("derogation").


*Given the evident dissatisfaction of GWR and ScotRail with their HSTs, why would it have gone any better for EMR?

**I don't know whether it's "Railway Exceptionalism" or ableism that makes some people seem to believe that compliance with these regs should somehow be optional or deferable because the industry made a mess of things

HST maintenance wasn't "moved" to Neville Hill, it was always there.

They could perhaps have worked with one less carriage.

I don't see what dissatisfaction on Scotrail or anywhere else has to do with the price of fish. EMR had a stable timetable with HST's and 222's. I don't think that this has been achieved with any of the subsequent timetables.

Ableism or not, arbitrary deadlines are a stupid way to run a railway. The sensible way to introduce improvements is to build them into the next generation of rolling stock.

 

[43096]

They could perhaps have worked with one less carriage.

There was a plan at one stage (that never got off the drawing board) to improve performance by removing a TS, converting the TRFB with standard class seats and spin it through 180deg. So you'd have a 2+7 set formed 2TF-TRFB-3TS-TGS.

 

[BerkshireRails]

They could perhaps have worked with one less carriage.

Isn't LNER finding that out with there 225s which are going to be shorted to keep with the Azuma timings?

I don't see what dissatisfaction on Scotrail or anywhere else has to do with the price of fish. EMR had a stable timetable with HST's and 222's. I don't think that this has been achieved with any of the subsequent timetables.

I am going to guess it is more unions and DfT are controlling the withdrawal of HSTs with GWR & Scotrail, rather than GWR & Scotrail themselves.

3. HST would have needed significant investment in RVAR compliance for just a couple of years use*. Or a further user lined up to justify the investment. Or the regulations needed to be ignored** ("derogation").

**I don't know whether it's "Railway Exceptionalism" or ableism that makes some people seem to believe that compliance with these regs should somehow be optional or deferable because the industry made a mess of things

Maybe an exemption from part of RVAR might have been the solution, with window bars fitted. In a similar idea to the Northern & Transport for Wales Pacers which could contuine to work as they had an exemption which required them to work with a 150 or another RVAR complaint vechile.

 

[800001]

Bu

was always there.

Isn't LNER finding that out with there 225s which are going to be shorted to keep with the Azuma timings?

I am going to guess it is more unions and DfT are controlling the withdrawal of HSTs with GWR & Scotrail, rather than GWR & Scotrail themselves.

Maybe an exemption from part of RVAR might have been the solution, with window bars fitted. In a similar idea to the Northern & Transport for Wales Pacers which could contuine to work as they had an exemption which required them to work with a 150 or another RVAR complaint vechile.

LNER is 2 less carriages on there Mk4s to maintain Azuma timings.

 

[yorksrob]

Isn't LNER finding that out with there 225s which are going to be shorted to keep with the Azuma timings?

I am going to guess it is more unions and DfT are controlling the withdrawal of HSTs with GWR & Scotrail, rather than GWR & Scotrail themselves.

Maybe an exemption from part of RVAR might have been the solution, with window bars fitted. In a similar idea to the Northern & Transport for Wales Pacers which could contuine to work as they had an exemption which required them to work with a 150 or another RVAR complaint vechile.

Well, yes, its the same disappointment, but better to have a shortened 125/225 than a gap in the timetable (which is what the midlanders have had to put up with)!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2025 ==

Yes, the Unions have popped up since, but they didn't (to my knowledge) have any view on the HST's on the MML.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2025 ==

Bu



LNER is 2 less carriages on there Mk4s to maintain Azuma timings.

Yes, I'm sceptical about the shortening, but I'll take having the additional capacity of the 225's anyday.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2025 ==

There was a plan at one stage (that never got off the drawing board) to improve performance by removing a TS, converting the TRFB with standard class seats and spin it through 180deg. So you'd have a 2+7 set formed 2TF-TRFB-3TS-TGS.

If it had kept them through to replacement, it would have been worthwhile.

 

[InTheEastMids]

HST maintenance wasn't "moved" to Neville Hill, it was always there.

I meant when the Azumas introduction led to the relocation of the 225 maintenance from Bounds Green to Neville Hill.

Ableism or not, arbitrary deadlines are a stupid way to run a railway. The sensible way to introduce improvements is to build them into the next generation of rolling stock.

This is a point where we will have to agree to differ. Given rolling stock lifecycles this could mean that improvements takes decadesb because they seem inconvenient. All deadlines are to an extent arbitrary but if we don't have them, things don't get done.

Maybe an exemption from part of RVAR might have been the solution, with window bars fitted.

Every other Mark 3 fleet needed to be bodged with power doors to continue operating in everyday service so presumably lesser bodges would have been non-compliant.

 

[yorksrob]

This is a point where we will have to agree to differ. Given rolling stock lifecycles this could mean that improvements takes decadesb because they seem inconvenient. All deadlines are to an extent arbitrary but if we don't have them, things don't get done.

We clearly will.

Better to have a steady evolution in rolling stock standards with some work arounds than having to scrap trains without replacement. No one benefits from a large deterioration in service.

 

[NCT]

It's not some arbitrary deadline, it's legislation. Service deterioration is the consequence of not treating DDA legislation seriously and trying to put off decisions, and what we are having serves as a deterrent to fvcking things up in the future.

There has to be accountability. Not just legal accountability but commercial accountability too - there are contracts between players that need to be honoured and that's how a non banana republic operates. Otherwise there's no accountability and just perpetual drift.

 

[yorksrob]

And yet they still manage to fvck things up regardless. Perhaps someone ought to be accountable for running the train service first and foremost.

Contracts contracts everywhere - yes anyone without the perpetual money-go-round of contracting out everything is clearly a banana republic (sarcasm).

 

[FrontSideBus]

Re the non compliant MkIII coaching stock, it's too bad that they started scrapping the MkIV coaching stock so soon as I bet a few sets with 67's on them would come in handy now for things like this. When was the last time a Class 67 actually ran 125mph?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Re the non compliant MkIII coaching stock, it's too bad that they started scrapping the MkIV coaching stock so soon as I bet a few sets with 67's on them would come in handy now for things like this. When was the last time a Class 67 actually ran 125mph?

They certainly got up to 110mph (non-EPS) when Wrexham & Shropshire services were diverted via the WCML during Engineering Work on the Chiltern route. (Reversals at Wembley and Acton Canal Wharf.)

 

[yorksrob]

Re the non compliant MkIII coaching stock, it's too bad that they started scrapping the MkIV coaching stock so soon as I bet a few sets with 67's on them would come in handy now for things like this. When was the last time a Class 67 actually ran 125mph?

That would have been a handy float of spare stock to have around.

 

[InTheEastMids]

It's not some arbitrary deadline, it's legislation. Service deterioration is the consequence of not treating DDA legislation seriously and trying to put off decisions, and what we are having serves as a deterrent to fvcking things up in the future.

There has to be accountability. Not just legal accountability but commercial accountability too - there are contracts between players that need to be honoured and that's how a non banana republic operates. Otherwise there's no accountability and just perpetual drift.

I agree with much of this. By "arbitrary", I mean there's not usually a reason why legislation/regs must come into force on the days that they do.

I wonder if somebody at DfT/EMR hoped that ORR would roll over and give a derogation when faced with "challenges from the industry" (or "consequences of mismanagement", choose your own view!) and were very unpleasantly surprised when this didn't happen. The ex-LNER HST looks like a panicked, knee-jerk response.

However, it was of course quite difficult to do a sensible rolling stock replacement plan. The privatised model meant new trains were usually ordered at the start of a franchise (2019 in the end)
Plus the plan would have been impacted each time MMLE was changed. Electrification was started in 2011/2012. Paused in 2015. Cancelled in 2017, partially reinstated around 2019/20. Fully reinstated by the IRP 2021. Cancelled again in 2025.

The extraordinarily late delivery of the 810s, is just the latest turn in this sorry saga.

That would have been a handy float of spare stock to have around.

On the one hand, we do - both 180s and 221s are off lease with no obvious other customer at this moment.
We can only assume that EMR think the next few months are manageable without them, and it does appear that fixed units are returning from Hitachi.

However, not using 180s/221s may also cast doubt on whether a "float of spare stock" is feasible in the current model - i.e. it's not cost effective to lease, recommissiong the trains, train up crew etc., for these interim periods.

 

[Bikeman78]

However, it was of course quite difficult to do a sensible rolling stock replacement plan. The privatised model meant new trains were usually ordered at the start of a franchise (2019 in the end)
Plus the plan would have been impacted each time MMLE was changed. Electrification was started in 2011/2012. Paused in 2015. Cancelled in 2017, partially reinstated around 2019/20. Fully reinstated by the IRP 2021. Cancelled again in 2025.

The East Midlands franchise change date was even worse than the Welsh franchise. Why would Stagecoach care about a deadline five months after the franchise ended, unless the government forced it to care? The new operator had absolutely no chance of replacing or converting all the non compliant trains in a few months.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Re the non compliant MkIII coaching stock, it's too bad that they started scrapping the MkIV coaching stock so soon as I bet a few sets with 67's on them would come in handy now for things like this. When was the last time a Class 67 actually ran 125mph?

The 67s aren't known for being that reliable, plus 67003 has already been scrapped and there might more heading for the scrapyard. I would imagine the last time a 67 did 125mph was on a rail tour.

 

[yorksrob]

On the one hand, we do - both 180s and 221s are off lease with no obvious other customer at this moment.
We can only assume that EMR think the next few months are manageable without them, and it does appear that fixed units are returning from Hitachi.

However, not using 180s/221s may also cast doubt on whether a "float of spare stock" is feasible in the current model - i.e. it's not cost effective to lease, recommissiong the trains, train up crew etc., for these interim periods.

Well, it sounds as though we need something similar for the South Western to Exeter at the moment as well.

 

[Yew]

It's worth thinking about the consequences of what you are suggesting. If the government decided to unilaterally make a significant amendment to a fair and legal contract, made between two private companies in good faith then it would have massive consequences way beyond the railway industry. Effectively it would be legalised theft. It would effectively mean that no one could ever trust the government with a contract again. That in turn would push the cost of contracts with the government up significantly, as companies would need to price in the risk. Politically, a Labour government running roughshod over established company law would decimate their respect in the business community.

If the DfT wants to keep those trains for longer, they just need to negotiate with First to hire them back. It's been made clear on here that this is an available, if expensive option.

And yet plenty of people have bid for government contracts since they did exactly that during COVID. Similarly, compulsory purchase orders are issued for property very regularly and the world hasn't collapsed. I agree, that contractual negotiations are more likely, but it's important to remember that we're talking about the government, which has avenues of influence that are not available to mere companies.

 

[NCT]

And yet plenty of people have bid for government contracts since they did exactly that during COVID. Similarly, compulsory purchase orders are issued for property very regularly and the world hasn't collapsed. I agree, that contractual negotiations are more likely, but it's important to remember that we're talking about the government, which has avenues of influence that are not available to mere companies.

And those avenues of influence should only be used in exceptional circumstances, of which COVID was one. Compulsory purchases are exercised within very strict legal safeguards. The government isn't above the law.

 

[InTheEastMids]

And yet plenty of people have bid for government contracts since they did exactly that during COVID. Similarly, compulsory purchase orders are issued for property very regularly and the world hasn't collapsed. I agree, that contractual negotiations are more likely, but it's important to remember that we're talking about the government, which has avenues of influence that are not available to mere companies.

Covid contracts and compulsory purchase are quite different situations.

With Covid contracts, it's all stuff (as far as I know) that can and does go wrong with other types of contract, it's just that Government organisations were one of the counterparties.
- Did Govt followed mandatory public sector procurement rules ("VIP Lane")
- Were goods/services were delivered at all, and/or met required specifications?
- Was criminal fraud was committed during the failure to deliver what had been agreed, and has this been used to buy a massive yacht?

Compulsory purchase is supported by legislation - e.g. TCPA 1990 is one act that sets out when and how it can be done. What would be the legal basis for intervening in Lumo's contract with the ROSCO? Govt simply do not have sweeping powers available at the stroke of the PM's pen (and you can look across the Atlantic and see why arbitrary power isn't a brilliant idea).

Whilst the Civil Contingencies Act can give those powers to ministers, it only does so when the test of "Emergency" has been met. EMR's inter city service collapse would not meet that test and the only debateable part is whether the state of Cl222 carpets...

" threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom "

Civil Contingencies Act 2004

An Act to make provision about civil contingencies.

www.legislation.gov.uk

But the EMR inter city service is not going collapse. At couple of 810 are about to enter service. There will be some short-forms, perhaps more cancellations than normal, but EMR will muddle through. It is the British way.

 

[hwl]

, but EMR will muddle through. It is the British way.

Or just dust off some preserved / retired ex EM 153s for Nottingham - Bedford shuttles for onwards transport by Thameslink. Far cheaper than any other temporary options . The new owners would probably accept next to peanuts in leasing fees.

People wishing for 1 temporary solution are much more likely to end up with one far worse.

The legal starting point of a 4th party failing to perform isn't going to stand up to much scrutiny in court especially if DfT, 810 ROSCO and EMR failed to use every instrument they had in their powers (which they haven't) let alone sufficiently early enough.