EMR Class 222’s - declining reliability

[43096]

I think the Class 365 emus were among the last to be bought by the Government.

The 365s were not bought by the Govenment, they were leased.

 

[43096]

They were then sold to the ROSCOs. Many said at far too cheap a price. Then leased back to TOCs at sums mentioned. Ultimately paid by taxpayers with overall subsidies paid to TOCs to run the services.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of it. The trains were bought using BR money, but then depreciated over 25/30 years are per standard practice. The assets were transferred to the leasing companies at their book values. It was the leasing company businesses that were then sold off - not individual assets.

 

[WesternLancer]

I think the Class 365 emus were among the last to be bought by the Government.

Date wise that would make sense.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jun 2026 ==

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of it. The trains were bought using BR money, but then depreciated over 25/30 years are per standard practice. The assets were transferred to the leasing companies at their book values. It was the leasing company businesses that were then sold off - not individual assets.

Thanks for posting that.

 

[RiverDon]

It amazes me how much interest there is in these HSTs. For some reason the last fortnight or so has been crazy with the number of people taking photos and filming them, I've lost count of how many people I've seen pointing a camera at my train. It's not just the stereotypical trainspotters either (though there are plenty of them!) but just normal looking folk too.

 

[WesternLancer]

It amazes me how much interest there is in these HSTs. For some reason the last fortnight or so has been crazy with the number of people taking photos and filming them, I've lost count of how many people I've seen pointing a camera at my train. It's not just the stereotypical trainspotters either (though there are plenty of them!) but just normal looking folk too.

I assume its the equivalent of when the A4 steam locos spent their final days in internal Scottish city services

 

[Merle Haggard]

The two scenarios are in no way comparable.

Because if all the details of the contracts were in the public domain you'd quickly get to a scenario where you couldn't negotiate terms. It's not just interested members of the public who would read the details, it's also every other bidder for that contract and future similar ones. The next time that contract gets renewed every single bidder will know exactly what the last accepted deal was.

This is not limited to the DfT. Basically all government contracts are classified as confidential when people try and FoI them, for the same reasons.

I can't work out how to quote from websites so the following may not conform to Forum rules.

On the GOV.UK website, if you go Government> Government Efficiency, Transparency and Accountability > Government Spending you will come to a page 'Transparency of Suppliers and Government to the Public' . It's in the usual GOV.UK format, and very lengthy.
However, an early paragraph (using copy + paste) reads as follows:-

"1 - Transparency and accountability of public service delivery data and information builds public trust and confidence in public services. It enables citizens to see how taxpayers’ money is being spent; and allows the performance of public services to be independently scrutinised. It also supports the functioning of competitive, innovative and open markets by providing all businesses with information about public sector purchasing and service providers’ performance. This note[footnote 1] sets out a high level statement of the expectations on government and its suppliers in meeting these aims."

('footnote 1 reads.

1. This was set-out originally in PPN 13/15 (pdf, 129 kb) and has now been updated and simplified." so is not material to the discussion.

Sounds promising, doesn't it?

But later there's what might be a get-out clause

"10 - Note that the following categories of information could be reasonably withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality:

a - Pricing. The way the supplier has arrived at the price they are charging government in a contract could normally be withheld but this should not be grounds for withholding the contract value itself."

Which suggests to me that only the working figures not the total amount can be kept behind 'Commercial sensitivity'.


I'm not sure who you complain to when the Government (DfT) does not apparently conform to Government guidelines.

 

[WesternLancer]

I can't work out how to quote from websites so the following may not conform to Forum rules.

On the GOV.UK website, if you go Government> Government Efficiency, Transparency and Accountability > Government Spending you will come to a page 'Transparency of Suppliers and Government to the Public' . It's in the usual GOV.UK format, and very lengthy.
However, an early paragraph (using copy + paste) reads as follows:-

"1 - Transparency and accountability of public service delivery data and information builds public trust and confidence in public services. It enables citizens to see how taxpayers’ money is being spent; and allows the performance of public services to be independently scrutinised. It also supports the functioning of competitive, innovative and open markets by providing all businesses with information about public sector purchasing and service providers’ performance. This note[footnote 1] sets out a high level statement of the expectations on government and its suppliers in meeting these aims."

('footnote 1 reads.

1. This was set-out originally in PPN 13/15 (pdf, 129 kb) and has now been updated and simplified." so is not material to the discussion.

Sounds promising, doesn't it?

But later there's what might be a get-out clause

"10 - Note that the following categories of information could be reasonably withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality:

a - Pricing. The way the supplier has arrived at the price they are charging government in a contract could normally be withheld but this should not be grounds for withholding the contract value itself."

Which suggests to me that only the working figures not the total amount can be kept behind 'Commercial sensitivity'.


I'm not sure who you complain to when the Government (DfT) does not apparently conform to Government guidelines.

The Information Commissioners Office

But I’m certain this sort of information is not revealed for reasons explained above.

Plenty of hardened journalists and others would have found a way to get contract costs released if it was possible to do so (I would think)

 

[bib]

1F10 222018 binned off at Derby this morning due to a traction fault, was running fairly on time up till then - https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:W70945/2026-06-11/detailed

 

[hexagon789]

I assume its the equivalent of when the A4 steam locos spent their final days in internal Scottish city services

I'm sure someone made that very comparison when the HSTs were only just arriving onto Scottish internal express duties.

 

[Spartacus]

I'm sure someone made that very comparison when the HSTs were only just arriving onto Scottish internal express duties.

Not to mention A4s used on freight, not totally unlike some 43s now!

 

[londonmidland]

222023 is currently delayed at Bedford and will terminate short at Leicester.

 

[Andy Pacer]

222023 is currently delayed at Bedford and will terminate short at Leicester.

Looks like it terminated at Bedford.

 

[CR165022]

Looks like it terminated at Bedford.

Terminated at Bedford and got added onto the front of 1F50 to get it to Derby

 

[duffield]

Second allocated unit missing from 1D63 1735 St Pancras International to Nottingham, 222012 only, 222015 did not turn up (from Cricklewood I think). Composite coach "D" empty (in 1st anyhow) due to broken A/C.

However, although I didn't have a proper look at standard class, the train didn't seem particularly crowded despite the missing unit; does this service really need to be 5+5? Is there some reason people were not travelling much today?

 

[CR165022]

It didn't show up for 1D63 because came off Cricklewood to do 1F56 instead, unless that's a misallocation, but it's allocated to both.

 

[DannyMich2018]

Also yes off topic but two 810s failed today (810006 and 018), just looking at that thread their reliability is awful with at least one failing every day (out of 5 diagrams). I'm travelling Leicester to Kettering Sunday, it's Corby diverts, looking at both fleets I'm really considering the Leicester-Mkt H-Kett rail replacement bus...

 

[duffield]

It didn't show up for 1D63 because came off Cricklewood to do 1F56 instead, unless that's a misallocation, but it's allocated to both.

I seem to remember there's some issue where when a unit gets swapped - or removed for use elsewhere in this case, RTT gets notified about where it's gone to but not about where it was removed from, so I'm guessing that's it.

 

[LowLevel]

Second allocated unit missing from 1D63 1735 St Pancras International to Nottingham, 222012 only, 222015 did not turn up (from Cricklewood I think). Composite coach "D" empty (in 1st anyhow) due to broken A/C.

However, although I didn't have a proper look at standard class, the train didn't seem particularly crowded despite the missing unit; does this service really need to be 5+5? Is there some reason people were not travelling much today?

Friday peak commuter trains are much quieter.

 

[Spartacus]

I've heard 1F62, 222103 & 222015, is only on THREE engines tonight.

 

[tram21]

I've heard 1F62, 222103 & 222015, is only on THREE engines tonight.

Two train units and only 3 engines of a possible 10?!

 

[Spartacus]

Two train units and only 3 engines of a possible 10?!

Yep. Cancelled at Derby.

 

[tram21]

Yep. Cancelled at Derby.

That was supposedly due to the points failure at Ambergate, although I'm sure the engines played a part too!

That's insane though- and can't be good for the three remaining engines!

EDIT: I note that 'problem with train' is the reason on RTT- ignore the above!

 

[CR165022]

Wasn't 222103 already withdrawn? Or was that only 104

 

[liamf656]

Wasn't 222103 already withdrawn? Or was that only 104

Only 104, although 103 will be the next to depart

 

[ajp999]

Wheelflats reported on 1B13 (0646 Nottingham to St Pancras) - service returning to Leicester where the rear set (222018) is being detached.

 

[Amos390]

At Notts now, just overheard that 222009 is running a few engines down, currently sat in P3 on 1B98 waiting for the road.

 

[voyagerdude220]

At Notts now, just overheard that 222009 is running a few engines down, currently sat in P3 on 1B98 waiting for the road.

222009 showing as being on 1C71 16:00 Sheffield to London.

 

[Amos390]

222009 showing as being on 1C71 16:00 Sheffield to London.

Defo was at Notts, maybe a set swap that hadn’t been updated yet?

 

[voyagerdude220]

Defo was at Notts, maybe a set swap that hadn’t been updated yet?

Ok thanks.

 

[Taunton]

At Notts now, just overheard that 222009 is running a few engines down

One wonders what analysis is done of engine failures. It could be a genuine mechanical fault, such as a blown head gasket, it could be transient, such as coolant overheated triggering a shutdown, or it could be plain lack of attention, such as running out of fuel.