Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[GoneSouth]

They also get upgraded

Nice. Presumably that’s how GWR manage it too ?

 

[hwl]

The 810s have a published acceleration of 0.75m/s^2, compared to 0.8m/s^2 in a class 222. You'd expect them to be a bit slower at low to medium speeds from a standing start. That acceleration requires an achieved coefficient of friction of nearly 18.75%, which is high for steel wheels on steel rail. Their wheelslip control will have to be world class.

And the 810 has only 8 powered axles each rated at 290kW = 2.32 MW, which appears to be the limitied factor whatever the energy source. Though these may have a boost mode for short periods, or else I can't see why the four diesel engines have been uprated to 735kW = 2.94MW per unit. I assume power on AC will match or exceed this, but I haven't seen any figures.

The 222 has one 559kW diesel engine in every coach = 2.80MW in a 5-car unit, and two powered axles in each coach, rated at 300kW each, so not a constraint. The 810s should be able to out-accelerate a 222 at medium to high speeds, but only if the axle motors are pushed beyond their continuous power rating.

The 22x all had had the engines detuned from 750hp to 700hp (559kW to 522kW), this has been covered in numerous threads on the forum. (See Railperf's comment in bold below)
You are forgetting about hotel and auxiliary loads these will be 40-50kW per vehicle on electric and higher on each vehicle with diesel engine when it is running, being prewarmed or post cooled. The 810 only have these loads power by the 4 vs 5 engines.
The 222 and even more so the 810s are heavily software limited, your reverse engineered 18.x% on the 222 is one of those software limits. You won't learnt anything about achieved coefficients of friction from that calc. but just how Bombardier Belgium (Pre Adtranz who had a much better idea about this merger) picked numbers for their software for their early three phase drive projects. Adtranz and Siemens EMUs of the same vintage use software values between 21.5% and 24%. If you go above 24% the passenger timetabling reliably goes down as variability of conditions becomes a bigger factor. For timetabling purposes Japanese railways (non-metro) typically assume a low adhesion value for calculations thus giving themselves lots of wriggle room to achieve timing perfection - as the units can always over perform against timings with lots of padding.
Loco can achieve far higher adhesion values and especially with freight where the acceleration rates are much slower there is far less sensitivity for adhesion values on acceleration and timetabling impacts.

As Railperf point out the 810 will be highly software constrained with lots of conditional variability hence using just hardware numbers won't allow firm conclusion to be drawn.

I think Hitachi's main issue will be how well the 222s performance which they had to match was understood at the time. If it wasn't understood accurately enough then the 810s could end up running harder on diesel than Hitachi originally anticipated.

The published acceleration figures are a maximum at a given point in the acceleration curve rather than a constant figure. In terms of putting power down it has as many powered axles as a 2+3 HST. in its current state, the difference in acceleration between diesel and electric suggests that Hitachi / MTU traction software maybe more consrvatively set from a power point of view - possibly due to the reliably issues Avanti have been having with their Class 805's which use the same power units but one less GU per set.

Let's face it, the 222's had their engines detuned from a reliability and fuel saving point of view. So there will be a process here in understanding the best settings for East Midlands.

If GWR land is anything to go by, it looks like the engines will eventually be tuned to the minimum level to achieve current schedules at highest reliability level. Experience is telling us that these engines don't like being highly tuned in a rail application.

Lets hope they have done lots more work on aerodynamics for cooling across the speed range.

Anyway, if my journey yesterday highlighted any performance issues, it was that the train should more or less meet the schedule. But the infrastructure through Leicester and Sheffield (not enough through tracks and too many flat junctions) was the cause of most delays where late running freight ended up impeding my runs both ways through there. And as @Bald Rick has mentioned before, once you pick up a delay, the schedule is too tight to make any sort of recovery. Therefore once out of path by more than a couple of minutes you end up with Corby and Thameslink trains in front!

The MML is probably far less forgiving than most other Hitachi 8xx routes for ability to recover. Most of the time it feels like 1 minute recovery on St Pancras - Sheffield (and v/v) is pretty typical for the best achievable along the route.

 

[800301]

isn't it four powered bpgies on the two driving vehicles at each end of the train.
The issue isn't helped by the lack of drive axles, but it seems the traction software backs off drastically - especially under full power - and seems to go back to Idle before power can be reapplied. Stadler 745's have the same amount of bogies for six vehicles yet the traction software seems more adept to backing off the power slightly - even allowing some slip until the wheels gain traction again. Unless this was a fault on this particular unit?

The GWR 80X really seems to back off power when accelerating in poor rail adhesion but only when running in diesel, I don’t know if it just reverts the GU to idle like on a 165/6 but it’s certainly a very noticeable drop in performance, but when running on electric I’ve had no issue pulling away from stations, trying to stop on the other hand is a whole other issue

 

[The_Train]

Anyway, I’m shocked, we’ve got this far and nobody has mentioned the seats yet!

I think we have just given up when it comes to seat quality on new trains in the UK

 

[SansHache]

The 22x all had had the engines detuned from 750hp to 700hp (559kW to 522kW), this has been covered in numerous threads on the forum. (See Railperf's comment in bold below)
You are forgetting about hotel and auxiliary loads these will be 40-50kW per vehicle on electric and higher on each vehicle with diesel engine when it is running, being prewarmed or post cooled. The 810 only have these loads power by the 4 vs 5 engines.
The 222 and even more so the 810s are heavily software limited, your reverse engineered 18.x% on the 222 is one of those software limits. You won't learnt anything about achieved coefficients of friction from that calc. but just how Bombardier Belgium (Pre Adtranz who had a much better idea about this merger) picked numbers for their software for their early three phase drive projects. Adtranz and Siemens EMUs of the same vintage use software values between 21.5% and 24%. If you go above 24% the passenger timetabling reliably goes down as variability of conditions becomes a bigger factor. For timetabling purposes Japanese railways (non-metro) typically assume a low adhesion value for calculations thus giving themselves lots of wriggle room to achieve timing perfection - as the units can always over perform against timings with lots of padding.
Loco can achieve far higher adhesion values and especially with freight where the acceleration rates are much slower there is far less sensitivity for adhesion values on acceleration and timetabling impacts.

The Traction equipment on the Class 222 (and also Class 220/221 Voyagers) is Alstom Onix, designed at Preston. The software parameters are defined by Alstom engineers now based at Widnes / Longsight and implemented by software contractors managed by Alstom in France. The de-tuning of the engines was agreed with the operators and the ex-Bombardier teams at Derby and Central Rivers. Further software changes are to be implemented during the refurbishment of the Lumo Class 222s to manage engine use during station layovers.
The Class 222 has adaptive wheelslip control, limiting the power applied dependent on the tractive effort when the wheelslip occurred. This methodology had been in use for more than 30 years and would no doubt now be classed as AI!

 

[Railperf]

The train he was on the pan. came down south of Kilby Bridge Jn. That were I saw it. That seems to be the case with most of the test trains

I was waiting for the diesel engines to turn off after Kilby Bridge going back to London until i remembered i was on a 222 lol.

The GWR 80X really seems to back off power when accelerating in poor rail adhesion but only when running in diesel, I don’t know if it just reverts the GU to idle like on a 165/6 but it’s certainly a very noticeable drop in performance, but when running on electric I’ve had no issue pulling away from stations,

In wet conditions, 810s are trying to deliver better acceleration with four less motored axles on a five car, than an 80x so it's very likely they will be more prone to slipping. So far the Hitachi method of backing off the power feels more severe than a 222. But I guess it is early days.

 

[43102EMR]

Seems like 810010 is performing better than 006 yesterday, on time so far!

 

[Railperf]

I think Hitachi's main issue will be how well the 222s performance which they had to match was understood at the time. If it wasn't understood accurately enough then the 810s could end up running harder on diesel than Hitachi originally anticipated.

Yesterday's driver is the same one that was on Geoff Marshall's video. He made the point of reminding me that the Hitachi units are heavier than 222's. Silly me. Forgot to check the plated weights.
It is unlikely that all four engines are running at full power - probably closer to somewhere between 85 to 90% . By my maths that would give an 810 a slightly lower power to weight ratio being delivered through one motored axle less, before you take into account power consumed for other train equipment, HVAC, etc.

Based on all the information I've seen in the press, and on these forums, I don't believe Hitachi would have promised anyone that the class 810 would perfectly match a class 222 in acceleration.
But computer modelling would probably have proved - albeit tightly - that the public timetable could be met.

As it stands from all the publicly available information and independent measurements, a class 810 delivers performance in between a 222 5-car with all engines running and one with an engine out.
So the pressure is going to be to ensure that the majority of these services are going to run on all engines.
Otherwise we're going to end up with the debacle that GWR are facing of trains running late due to engine issues.

There's a suggestion elsewhere - not officially confirmed that the agility GER 800 fleet may have to be or will be reduced to 800hp per GU for reliability reasons - because power levels over that amount don't seem to agree with the engines - and contributing to so many GWR sets having engine / fuel pressure pump issues.

What's not clear is how that will relate - if true - to the GUs on Class 810 in the long term.
But if similar problems present themselves then brace yourselves for slightly slower journey times north of Leicester.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Dec 2025 ==

Seems like 810010 is performing better than 006 yesterday, on time so far!

Dry weather and probably no freight train issues at Leicester. No one has yet explained the long stop at Long Eaton. Open train times map indicated the route was clear ahead. But that may not have been the case.

 

[tram21]

Dry weather and probably no freight train issues at Leicester. No one has yet explained the long stop at Long Eaton. Open train times map indicated the route was clear ahead. But that may not have been the case.

Its been overcrowding the last couple of days.

 

[Alpaca]

K

What about anyone travelling with them? Pay first class or be separated?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Dec 2025 ==

Geoff has had his first ride on one. Here’s a link to his YouTube video

In this an EMR staff member says they will be alternating 010 and 006 for the next few weeks, until more come into service in January. I wonder why the aim isn’t to have both running a diagram, if 006 goes out tomorrow and 010 doesn’t have any faults today surely that should be the aim?

 

[800001]

In this an EMR staff member says they will be alternating 010 and 006 for the next few weeks, until more come into service in January. I wonder why the aim isn’t to have both running a diagram, if 006 goes out tomorrow and 010 doesn’t have any faults today surely that should be the aim?

Iron out any issues, soft launch, like all
Other companies have done with there new fleets. And then gradually start adding extras in.

 

[43096]

Seems like 810010 is performing better than 006 yesterday, on time so far!

1C17 was 11 late into London this morning, which is a strange definition of "on time"!

 

[eastwestdivide]

wonder why the aim isn’t to have both running a diagram

Maybe they want another available for training?

 

[liamf656]

Maybe they want another available for training?

They already have 008/009 for training as these are not fit for passengers service

In this an EMR staff member says they will be alternating 010 and 006 for the next few weeks, until more come into service in January. I wonder why the aim isn’t to have both running a diagram, if 006 goes out tomorrow and 010 doesn’t have any faults today surely that should be the aim?

I was told internally that if possible, both sets (006/010) will be out on two diagrams. At the moment though, expect to see just one out

 

[QSK19]

I was waiting for the diesel engines to turn off after Kilby Bridge going back to London until i remembered i was on a 222 lol.

It’s the being-used-to-Meridian syndrome: I did it on Wednesday with wondering why there are no vestibule seats, door open/close buttons not in the “right” place, door open beeping being different, etc

 

[DaveyJones]

To be 810010 tomorrow

5C17 0522 XEP SHF 0631
1C17 0700 SHF STP 0909
5C17 0923 STP CRI 0943
5F32 1103 CRI STP 1120
1F32 1132 STP SHF 1342
1C59 1400 SHF STP 1609
5D61 1620 STP STP 1650
1D61 1705 STP NOT 1855
1B88 1913 NOT STP 2054
1F82 2132 STP SHF 2341
5F82 2356 SHF XEP 0114

Is there sufficient time between 5F82 arriving 01:15 and 05:22 for them to turn the train around to go back out? or is there a minimum downtime?

 

[800001]

Is there sufficient time between 5F82 arriving 01:15 and 05:22 for them to turn the train around to go back out? or is there a minimum downtime?

LNER have a 4 hour minimum window for a unit arriving and departing depot. (@43094 may confirm)
That's gives it the most basic check that it can, including fuel, CET and a wash.
Can imagine when fully settled into service an 810 could be something similar.
But can imagine for now they will want longer on depot just to get wanting right.

 

[Triumph]

Is there sufficient time between 5F82 arriving 01:15 and 05:22 for them to turn the train around to go back out? or is there a minimum downtime?

The booked time for 5F82 onto XEP is 0039 normally.

The 4 7-car diagrams are booked to drop into the next diagram normally, but it is still only booked 3 hours 35 mins down time.
701 0522 0039 DT 3.35
702 0414 0156 DT 2.48
703 0444 0302 DT 26.20
704 Spare
They have a very tight DT as one only arrives at 0302, which drops into the spare diagram.

 

[Railperf]

Looks to be an issue on the up main at East Midlands - trains being routes along the slow lines.

Seems like 810010 is performing better than 006 yesterday, on time so far!

 

[liamf656]

Looks to be an issue on the up main at East Midlands - trains being routes along the slow lines.

Track circuit issues on the fast lines I believe

 

[720144]

They already have 008/009 for training as these are not fit for passengers service


I was told internally that if possible, both sets (006/010) will be out on two diagrams. At the moment though, expect to see just one out

Any news on (001/004/007) in which have been built ages ago ?

 

[800001]

Any news on (001/004/007) in which have been built ages ago ?

001 was test unit for many years and is now back at Aycliffe for a full rebuild and interior fit out.

004 based at Old Dalby for testing (interior fitted)

007 remains at Newton Aycliffe, presume needs a rewire of unit based on press reports of 'Thermal Incidents'.

 

[liamf656]

Any news on (001/004/007) in which have been built ages ago ?

001-005 and 007 should be the last to be delivered to EMR. Most of these were test units so won't have been complete when they were sent for their tests. Which is why although they were the first to be built they still need bringing up to a standard worthy of passenger service

 

[800001]

001-005 and 007 should be the last to be delivered to EMR. Most of these were test units so won't have been complete when they were sent for their tests. Which is why although they were the first to be built they still need bringing up to a standard worthy of passenger service

005 and 007 have never been test units, and are currently being worked on at Newton Aycliffe, highly doubt they will be some of the last to be introduced.

003 and 004 both have interiors fitted, so will not take too much work to bring them to passenger standard.

As for 002, that is a mystery, I don't even know if it's in the country.

 

[liamf656]

005 and 007 have never been test units, and are currently being worked on at Newton Aycliffe, highly doubt they Weill be some of the last to be introduced.

003 and 004 both have interiors fitted, so will not take too much work to bring them to passenger standard.

The source I have states that those six units are the last to be delivered, but of course I appreciate things do change so maybe we will see them sooner

 

[Pegpilot]

Fascinating discussion about acceleration performance of the 810's and power available compared with the 222's, but I can find no mention scrolling back a few pages about the tare weight of a 5-car 810, which is surely equally important as the train transitions from constant acceleration to constant power on the acceleration curve. Are Hitachi being deliberately coy on this subject, as the usual sources on the interweb are shedding no light at all on this topic?

 

[Railperf]

Fascinating discussion about acceleration performance of the 810's and power available compared with the 222's, but I can find no mention scrolling back a few pages about the tare weight of a 5-car 810, which is surely equally important as the train transitions from constant acceleration to constant power on the acceleration curve. Are Hitachi being deliberately coy on this subject, as the usual sources on the interweb are shedding no light at all on this topic?

I forgot to check the plated weights that would normally posted on the carriage ends. Be good if someone can have a look for that info and report it to us. EMRs 810 driver did mention the 810's ARE heavier!

 

[QSK19]

Took my kids on an 810 trip tonight. Was hoping to get to Market Harborough in order to give them the novelty of departing on diesel and arriving on electric; but the late arrival into Loughborough meant that we’d have missed the tight connection back. So the journey was curtailed to Leicester and back. Ah well, another day!

Nevertheless, they thought it looked “new and shiny”, the seats were comfortable and “the Meridians look old and dusty”

 

[WesternLancer]

Sampled one today for a short journey in first class. Comfortable I thought and good to see decent wind ow alignment.
Standard looked a bit cramped tho I didn’t sit in it. Not many table seats in my view.

 

[222001]

I forgot to check the plated weights that would normally posted on the carriage ends. Be good if someone can have a look for that info and report it to us. EMRs 810 driver did mention the 810's ARE heavier!

Makes sense, they're lacking the lightweight 222 bogies, although the aluminium vs steel construction will help the 810s slightly.