Class 810 - The Right Fit For EMR?

[liamf656]

For comparison, how long did other classes like 180s, voyagers and all of the 19x variants suffer problems like this when they were introduced?

Not sure how to answer that regarding the 180s

 

[sad1e]

Wouldn’t life be much simpler if we just build a load of updated Mk3 or Mk4 coaches and stick a diesel loco on each end. We could call it something like… maybe… HST2

You would really only need a new lot of coaches built. There are enough 68's and 67's sitting around with no / Minimal work to easily pull a whole fleet.

 

[Spartacus]

For comparison, how long did other classes like 180s, voyagers and all of the 19x variants suffer problems like this when they were introduced?

Less said about the 180s (and cousins 175s) and 19xs the better, but even the Voyagers were affected, in their early days the 221s often had their tilt mechanisms isolated. The fleet did come with pretty enormous maintenance back up though with a brand new dedicated depot.

I remember the last big fleet roll-out on the MML, that of the 700s, and they had regular troubles in their early days. Even after full introduction it took a long time for them to feel like they were more reliable than the 319s they'd replaced!

 

[QSK19]

Less said about the 180s (and cousins 175s) and 19xs the better, but even the Voyagers were affected, in their early days the 221s often had their tilt mechanisms isolated. The fleet did come with pretty enormous maintenance back up though with a brand new dedicated depot.

I remember the last big fleet roll-out on the MML, that of the 700s, and they had regular troubles in their early days. Even after full introduction it took a long time for them to feel like they were more reliable than the 319s they'd replaced!

If I had to be awkward, I wouldn’t regard that as “proper” MML seeing as the 700s only go up as far as Bedford and as they cover a much wider area than just the MML. The 810s, for example, are pure MML, save for special runs like Skegness or Uttoxeter (if indeed they are going to be used for those).

Nevertheless, I’d rather get the gremlins out of the way at the beginning, especially whilst the 222s are available as a fallback option. Once those are gone, then stuff would really hit the fan!

 

[43074]

If I had to be very picky and awkward, I wouldn’t regard that as “proper” MML seeing as they only go up to Bedford and as the 700s cover a much wider area than just the MML. The 810s, for example, are pure MML, save for special runs like Skegness or Uttoxeter (if indeed they are going to be used for those).

In terms of passenger numbers St Albans and Luton Airport to London on their own probably account for more passengers than the rest of EMR Intercity put together.

 

[Trainman40083]

Not sure how to answer that regarding the 180s

Maybe "were they ever right?"

 

[BrickhillEWR]

Wouldn’t life be much simpler if we just build a load of updated Mk3 or Mk4 coaches and stick a diesel loco on each end. We could call it something like… maybe… HST2

I assume I’m about to be bombarded with comments telling me what an idiot I am for suggesting such a thing

Joking aside, this does seem very strange to be running around with passengers onboard, and after the departure of the first of the stock they are replacing. What flipping mess!

For comparison, how long did other classes like 180s, voyagers and all of the 19x variants suffer problems like this when they were introduced?

How about a rake of Mk5s with either a diesel on one end and an electric on the other or two bi-modes e.g. 88s (could these be unrated for 125mph?)

 

[ALEMASTER]

In terms of passenger numbers St Albans and Luton Airport to London on their own probably account for more passengers than the rest of EMR Intercity put together.

That isn't EMR Intercity though - Luton Airport Parkway is served by EMR Connect and St Albans is purely Thames link. Both are on Thameslink, one of the former Network South East London commuter lines.

It is of course still the Midland main line heading north out of St Pancras either way, a line that is shared between Intercity, regional and local commuter trains.

Eg
St Pancras to Bedford - Thameslink locals
St Pancras to Corby - EMR Connect
St Pancras to Sheffield/Nottingham - EMR Intercity
Leicester to Nottingham - EMR Regional
Derby to Sheffield - Cross country Intercity
Derby to Matlock - EMR Regional
Nottingham to Sheffield - EMR Regional and Northern local.
Nottingham to Derby - EMR Regional and Cross Country Regional.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

How about a rake of Mk5s with either a diesel on one end and an electric on the other or two bi-modes e.g. 88s (could these be unrated for 125mph?)

That reminds me, I never did get a ride on the shiny new Transpennine Express loco hauled trains before they were withdrawn! I'm sure Chiltern passengers will enjoy them whilst us in Sheffield continue with 185s!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

Running around with passengers and to the demands of the timetable is going to bring up issues that weren't apparent in the pre-release to the customer testing.

The fault free running isn't really intended to prove that the whole train is completely issue free, more that the traction equipment is sufficiently reliable that it's not going to sit down on every trip because of a silly mistake during construction.

I do remember when the 222s were first introduced they had one unit out working an additional passenger service and they kept being failed with door faults at Market Harborough. They'd be sent back to depot where the engineers, used to slam door HSTs, would do thorough mechanical checks on the door mechanism and find no fault. It turned out it was purely a power setting on the computer that was too low to pull the door shut when leaning on a cambered track!

The setting was changed, there was a learning point at the Midland Mainline train company and all then went well with the new train introduction with the 170s then cascaded elsewhere having been replaced by 222s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

On GWR with Class 8xx they continue to experience failures of the diesel pumps .. So engines get isolated, trains that do run then loose time.

Yesterday a class 8xx on a Wigan / Carlisle diverted over the Settle & Carlisle never actually made Carlisle but "gave up" at Hellifield and later returned to Wigan ... Given you most likely need full diesel engine power over the "long drag" .. that could very well of been another diesel pump failure .

And what of this damper fatigue issue that continues to plague class 8xx?

Overall I am not so sure that "new trains" on EMR intercity is going to be quite all EMR are trying to crack up it's going to be .

On a happier note during 2026 the EMR franchise comes to an end so that should mean Transport UK out of the picture .

I'm not a huge fan of EMR, however ultimately Transport UK are just a contractor delivering an operation to DfT specification and budget. They actually do a perfectly reasonable job of that, it's the DfT that has been cutting costs in ways that impact the service delivered to customers whereas in my view the savings that should be made is with industry structure, supply chain policy etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

Yesterday morning a 10 car 222 had one engine out leaving Leicester, the next train 10 mins later (10.45) which i was on needed a reboot and was late leaving Leicester (2 x 222) so 222s getting poor too not to mention filthy condition exterior.

The interior on many EMR 222s are also disgusting - white ceiling panels that are now black, filthy window frames, missing curtains in first class etc.

Reservations rarely work meaning musical chairs is part of the EMR experience.

All feels terribly neglected.

 

[Spartacus]

How about a rake of Mk5s with either a diesel on one end and an electric on the other or two bi-modes e.g. 88s (could these be unrated for 125mph?)

I always thought Mk5s & a 93 would have been a much better option than the still far from reliable 360s, but that's for another thread.

 

[Mgameing123]

EMR were originally going to keep the four 180s alongside their 33 810s, but the 180s went off lease and nothing has been mentioned about retaining any diesel capacity. So unless EMR retain the four seven car units (suitably reconfigured with less First Class) they will have less units than envisioned. The risk is that leisure traffic continues to go and 33 units will be a bit tight, but keeping a micro-fleet is hardly ideal as well. However, getting say another 3 810s ordered with the current Treasury/DfT control is probably unlikely.

Maybe they could in partnership with an open access operator make an order for additional 810’s?

 

[43074]

That isn't EMR Intercity though - Luton Airport Parkway is served by EMR Connect and St Albans is purely Thames link. Both are on Thameslink, one of the former Network South East London commuter lines.

It is of course still the Midland main line heading north out of St Pancras either way, a line that is shared between Intercity, regional and local commuter trains.

Eg
St Pancras to Bedford - Thameslink locals
St Pancras to Corby - EMR Connect
St Pancras to Sheffield/Nottingham - EMR Intercity
Leicester to Nottingham - EMR Regional
Derby to Sheffield - Cross country Intercity
Derby to Matlock - EMR Regional
Nottingham to Sheffield - EMR Regional and Northern local.
Nottingham to Derby - EMR Regional and Cross Country Regional.

Fully aware of the mix of traffic on the MML, but I was making the point that the 700s are definitely part of the mix of trains on the MML, and that there's no such thing as the MML "proper".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

I always thought Mk5s & a 93 would have been a much better option than the still far from reliable 360s, but that's for another thread.

Because Mark 5s and 68s went really well on Transpennine Express?

 

[QSK19]

EMR were originally going to keep the four 180s alongside their 33 810s, but the 180s went off lease and nothing has been mentioned about retaining any diesel capacity. So unless EMR retain the four seven car units (suitably reconfigured with less First Class) they will have less units than envisioned. The risk is that leisure traffic continues to go and 33 units will be a bit tight, but keeping a micro-fleet is hardly ideal as well. However, getting say another 3 810s ordered with the current Treasury/DfT control is probably unlikely.

My gut feeling is that EMR/GBR will conclude that more stock IC is needed and the DfT would cave. The only option on the table will be 180s, especially once GC ditch theirs.

Along the lines of your thoughts, I think more 810s would be out of the question seeing as the DfT won’t spend more than strictly necessary when it comes to the East Midlands.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

Fully aware of the mix of traffic on the MML, but I was making the point that the 700s are definitely part of the mix of trains on the MML, and that there's no such thing as the MML "proper".

By MML “proper”, I referred to it as a whole rather than just the commuter section of it. 700s are not reflective of the MML when it comes to the majority of the line - the 810s/360s are more reflective of it. But, yes I agree that the 700s are part of the mix.

 

[Railperf]

Surely, the long term aim has to be to do the sums on the cost of running bi-modes - especially the cost of running on diesel and all the associated costs of engine maintenance / replacements etc vs the long term cost of electrifying the remaining sections of MML to Sheffield and Nottingham - taking into account the long term benefits to freight and performance benefits.
With a bit of infill extended to Leeds and Doncaster looked at too.

 

[Nottingham59]

Surely, the long term aim has to be to do the sums on the cost of running bi-modes - especially the cost of running on diesel and all the associated costs of engine maintenance / replacements etc vs the long term cost of electrifying the remaining sections of MML to Sheffield and Nottingham - taking into account the long term benefits to freight and performance benefits.
With a bit of infill extended to Leeds and Doncaster looked at too.

The sums will show that at, over any time frame, the cost of electrification will greatly exceed any possible costs of diesel and extra costs of engine maintenance and replacements for the 810s.

 

[Railperf]

The sums will show that at, over any time frame, the cost of electrification will greatly exceed any possible costs of diesel and extra costs of engine maintenance and replacements for the 810s.

I should have specified in comparison to the costs of all electric fleet (not IET prices) over a longer term period. Electrification is a long term infrastructure enhancement ghat can't be measured over the lifetime of one fleet of trains.

 

[AM9]

My gut feeling is that EMR/GBR will conclude that more stock IC is needed and the DfT would cave. The only option on the table will be 180s, especially once GC ditch theirs.

Along the lines of your thoughts, I think more 810s would be out of the question seeing as the DfT won’t spend more than strictly necessary when it comes to the East Midlands.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==


By MML “proper”, I referred to it as a whole rather than just the commuter section of it. 700s are not reflective of the MML when it comes to the majority of the line - the 810s/360s are more reflective of it. But, yes I agree that the 700s are part of the mix.

The 700 services have a far greater influence on the timetables of all MML line users than EM, mainly because they require paths that mesh with the TL slows and are in part, slotted into paths between the BML primary services.

 

[HSTEd]

I should have specified in comparison to the costs of all electric fleet (not IET prices) over a longer term period. Electrification is a long term infrastructure enhancement ghat can't be measured over the lifetime of one fleet of trains.

At reasonable discount rates of capital, the cost of electrification at the prices at which it can currently be delivered will far exceed the incremental costs of electrodiesel trains Vs electric ones.

This is likely true regardless of repayment term.

 

[Helvellyn]

My gut feeling is that EMR/GBR will conclude that more stock IC is needed and the DfT would cave. The only option on the table will be 180s, especially once GC ditch theirs.

Along the lines of your thoughts, I think more 810s would be out of the question seeing as the DfT won’t spend more than strictly necessary when it comes to the East Midlands.

Maybe they could in partnership with an open access operator make an order for additional 810’s?

Yes, at this stage the only way extra 810s would be ordered if an Open Access Operator, or a DFTO TOC, ordered an 810 variant and an EMR top-up order could be tagged on. The only contender would realistically be TPE unless DFTO were to think ahead and look at a partial/full XC fleet replacement order and have a GBR fleet cascade plan in mind to use the 220s/221s elsewhere.

 

[Teapot42]

A technical question here, so hopefully in the right place - is it technically possible for the 810s to have extra cars added at a later date? Is there any part of the design that sets a fixed limit? I'm actually unsure if modern stock still has a single transformer for example, or if the 25kV AC is distributed to all carriages to be stepped down as necessary locally to control the traction motors. Even then, I'd assume there will be a current limit on the pantograph and wiring that would set the maximum which can be drawn from the OHLE?

 

[Spartacus]

A technical question here, so hopefully in the right place - is it technically possible for the 810s to have extra cars added at a later date? Is there any part of the design that sets a fixed limit? I'm actually unsure if modern stock still has a single transformer for example, or if the 25kV AC is distributed to all carriages to be stepped down as necessary locally to control the traction motors. Even then, I'd assume there will be a current limit on the pantograph and wiring that would set the maximum which can be drawn from the OHLE?

I suspect they could, potentially with modification, although others have said Hitachi don't really do carriage orders, just set orders, and unless you lengthen St Pancras making them any longer creates a whole host of problems only really solvable by cutting service levels, which is kinda defeating the object. I suspect by the time they move off the MML, where that woudn't be an issue, they'll be long out of production anyway.

 

[hwl]

A technical question here, so hopefully in the right place - is it technically possible for the 810s to have extra cars added at a later date? Is there any part of the design that sets a fixed limit? I'm actually unsure if modern stock still has a single transformer for example, or if the 25kV AC is distributed to all carriages to be stepped down as necessary locally to control the traction motors. Even then, I'd assume there will be a current limit on the pantograph and wiring that would set the maximum which can be drawn from the OHLE?

Not really, it is effectively maxed out from day 1. The transformer and wiring is the limitation at circa a 1/3 of the max for the pantograph. The transformer is very slightly smaller (electrically) than the one in each half of a 12car Thameslink Class 700 unit.

There area also additional ETCS issues with more than 5 vehicles as you exceed the default max number of connectors between the certain equipment and the EVC.

 

[D365]

There area also additional ETCS issues with more than 5 vehicles as you exceed the default max number of connectors between the certain equipment and the EVC.

It depends what the ETCS architecture is on the Class 810s - one centrally located EVC, or one EVC per driving vehicle?

 

[Teapot42]

Not really, it is effectively maxed out from day 1. The transformer and wiring is the limitation at circa a 1/3 of the max for the pantograph. The transformer is very slightly smaller (electrically) than the one in each half of a 12car Thameslink Class 700 unit.

Thanks, that was my suspicion. Only way to lengthen would be adding an extra transformer and pantograph car, which is not massively different to just coupling two sets.

Out of interest, how many seats do you lose in a driving car compared to a trailer?

 

[ExRes]

As @Spartacus has said the platforms would have to be extended to fit anything longer than the current length or you wouldn't be able to fit more than one unit at a time, the chances of extending the platforms? I would say none whatsoever

 

[Teapot42]

As @Spartacus has said the platforms would have to be extended to fit anything longer than the current length or you wouldn't be able to fit more than one unit at a time, the chances of extending the platforms? I would say none whatsoever

That's as maybe, the point of this thread is to understand if it's technically possible. If it were then any speculation would be for another thread in a different place.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely the issue is platform length at St Pancras. Not much point seeking to extend the trains if they don't fit in the platforms!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks, that was my suspicion. Only way to lengthen would be adding an extra transformer and pantograph car, which is not massively different to just coupling two sets.

Out of interest, how many seats do you lose in a driving car compared to a trailer?

Pendolinos have multiple transformer cars to deal with this. I think a 9 car has 2 and an 11 car has 3?

The pantograph could presumably be replaced with one with higher capacity, with a high voltage bus line added along the roof to the other transformer cars.

 

[DaveyJones]

Pendolinos have multiple transformer cars to deal with this. I think a 9 car has 2 and an 11 car has 3?

The pantograph could presumably be replaced with one with higher capacity, with a high voltage bus line added along the roof to the other transformer cars.

Correct - the additional cars are 1 Trailer with a Transformer, 1 Motor Car

 

[ExRes]

That's as maybe, the point of this thread is to understand if it's technically possible. If it were then any speculation would be for another thread in a different place.

Fair enough, but what point is there extending something which would no longer be fit for the purpose it was built?

 

[DaveyJones]

Correct - the additional cars are 1 Trailer with a Transformer, 1 Motor Car

Sadly this Article is behind a paywall, but if its the presentation I think it is, it's a really interesting article about how they managed the Phasing of the additional Transformer

https://digital-library.theiet.org/doi/10.1049/ic.2012.0086