Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[Railperf]

I'd imagine it's the electric side of things that makes the difference. (I'd assume) to balance weight between cars, only four of the five have diesel engines. That means each one needs to be more powerful to allow for this, and I'd imagine there will be some performance requirements with one engine out. Indeed, while the 810 has a slight power advantage with all engines working, the 222 is slightly ahead with one out.

The 222's are running with engines derated to 700hp gross output each (originally 750hp) - which results in appx 565 hp at the rail.
The 810s are fitted with four larger engines which potentially can deliver as much as 986hp each, but so far the performance in diesel mode is the equivalent of a 222 on only four engines.
So the maximum engine horsepower figures are irrelevant at present because the engines appear to be tuned to deliver much lower power levels.
Unfortunately even in this detuned state the 810s are suffering a loss of traction power suggesting engine / traction system issues.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

Not as if there was not a precedent for this with the Ansaldo T69 Midland Metro trams (Ansaldo being what is today's Hitachi Italy)....infamous for their wiring looms and build quality. Albeit, more comfortable than the CAF replacements! As someone has already said, the approach for design and build is different to that of the other 80X series and forms part of the issue.

 

[YamYamDave]

Thing that seems odd to me is reason cited for 810 being built vs 805s is the length of platforms at STP. Yet one 5 car 805 is 130m and platforms are 260m. Did nobody think to do a test run using an LNER set, for example before going out on a limb and ordering the 810s?

 

[Trainman40083]

Thing that seems odd to me is reason cited for 810 being built vs 805s is the length of platforms at STP. Yet one 5 car 805 is 130m and platforms are 260m. Did nobody think to do a test run using an LNER set, for example before going out on a limb and ordering the 810s?

The issue with the platform, is down to the length of 2 x 5 car sets. So the 810 carriages are 2 metres shorter than the others...(10 metres per set).. If a 10 car 810 is the same length as the platform, it would surely have to stop in exactly one spot.

 

[liamf656]

The issue with the platform, is down to the length of 2 x 5 car sets. So the 810 carriages are 2 metres shorter than the others...(10 metres per set)..

The position of the signals come into play as well

 

[Trainman40083]

The position of the signals come into play as well

Yes indeed...And (I've forgotten the term). Where the train position in a platform could actually stop a train entering an adjacent platform. Is it the overlap?

 

[dk1]

Yes indeed...And (I've forgotten the term). Where the train position in a platform could actually stop a train entering an adjacent platform. Is it the overlap?

Yes and often referred to as ‘standing foul’.

 

[Trainman40083]

Yes and often referred to as ‘standing foul’.

I remember once being on a 3 car Class 170. It got routed into platform 5 (old bay) at Derby Station. End of the train was beyond the signal. Recall platforms 4 and 6 couldn't be used, until it had gone.. Interesting that the driver was beyond the signal. Easy to see how it could affect 810s at St Pancras.

 

[dosxuk]

There also needs to be space for splitting and joining sets in the platforms at St Pancras.

 

[fishwomp]

I do wonder how Hitachi must be viewing the UK now. From the cracking of the entire 80X fleet to having to include the 385s as well, to the somewhat plagued with faults by design 810s. Then you’ve got the constant chopping and changing of the HS2 fleets by the Gov, I almost wouldn’t be surprised if they have looked for a get out clause already.

Err.. you mean, you wonder how the UK is viewing Hitachi, surely?! It's not the country's fault that the trains were faulty - the cracking was a design flaw, the 810s has been execution - at the Italian - formerly Breda - factory.

Breda previously built the Fyra class for the Netherlands/Belgium that were delayed and so poorly built they were sent back: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnsaldoBreda_V250

V250s were delivered with a significant delay. Full commercial services with V250 started on 9 December 2012 but stopped only 39 days later on 17 January 2013, after the Belgian Railway Inspection Agency suspended the trains' operating license, because of safety and structural problems with the construction and maintenance of the V250s. All were removed from service and sent back to AnsaldoBreda in Italy.

In August 2017, Trenitalia purchased all 19 V250 sets to expand its high-speed fleet and rebranded them as ETR700s. After being refurbished, they entered service on Frecciargento services, on the Adriatic railway, between Milan and Lecce in 2019. Seventeen sets will be used for services, with the remaining two used for spare parts

HS2 on the other hand - that's where they'll make up for their lost profits - variation orders are gold mines for manufacturers.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Breda previously built the Fyra class for the Netherlands/Belgium that were delayed and so poorly built they were sent back

Hitachi would not have needed to read Wikipedia too know all this. That they failed to supervise their designers, factories &/or supply chain suggests serious programme management or organisational failures in the UK and probably Japan also.

It is convenient for people (including senior Hitachi UK managers) to point fingers at <overseas > perhaps via off-the-record briefings to favoured journalists. But just saying that it's the Italians wot dunnit isn't a serious analysis / explanation.

Worth noting that the 222s are not maintained in Italy, that's very much a home grown shambles and at least half the problem at the moment.

 

[Nottingham59]

The issue with the platform, is down to the length of 2 x 5 car sets. So the 810 carriages are 2 metres shorter than the others...(10 metres per set).. If a 10 car 810 is the same length as the platform, it would surely have to stop in exactly one spot.

Standard practice seems to require 20m spare to split and join at a terminus (hence HS2 specified 420m platforms for 400m trains). Platforms at STP are 260m long, so the Abellio bid team for the EMR franchise specified 5x24m for their bid.

 

[Nym]

Or perhaps just allow for growth and simplicity. Full fleet of 9x26m units, then you can just buy the same as everyone else (even if they are lacking quality) and then it’s “the devil you know”.

 

[Nottingham59]

Or perhaps just allow for growth and simplicity. Full fleet of 9x26m units, then you can just buy the same as everyone else (even if they are lacking quality) and then it’s “the devil you know”.

Indeed. The best choice for the country would have been all 9-car 80x (or a mix of 5-car and 9-car 80x). But those options would have required flexibility in the timetable to accommodate slower acceleration on diesel than the 222s, and so would presumably have not conformed to the DfT specification for the EMR franchise.

 

[Railperf]

Worth noting that the 222s are not maintained in Italy, that's very much a home grown shambles and at least half the problem at the moment

The Class 222's were among the most reliable fleets in the country - despite their age - because there were always enough units to cover the diagrams with a few spare sets that could have routine maintenance carried out and enough resource to repair failures. Am i right in understanding it is still the same people working on these albeit now being employed by Hitachi? If so the expertise is still there, but a different focus on priorities?
Did anyone foresee this tug of war between maintaining older fleet and introducing new fleet before a decision was made to let Hitachi do both?
Or did it come down to the cheapest and most convenient option?

 

[fishwomp]

Hitachi would not have needed to read Wikipedia too know all this. That they failed to supervise their designers, factories &/or supply chain suggests serious programme management or organisational failures in the UK and probably Japan also.

It is convenient for people (including senior Hitachi UK managers) to point fingers at <overseas > perhaps via off-the-record briefings to favoured journalists. But just saying that it's the Italians wot dunnit isn't a serious analysis / explanation.

Indeed, and that was not my point. I was stating the incontrovertible fact about an event in the history of the plant.

Hitachi have ownership and responsibility. It is they who own all the culture and quality of the plant now.

Worth noting that the 222s are not maintained in Italy, that's very much a home grown shambles and at least half the problem at the moment.

No, but they are rather old now..

 

[800001]

The Class 222's were among the most reliable fleets in the country - despite their age - because there were always enough units to cover the diagrams with a few spare sets that could have routine maintenance carried out and enough resource to repair failures. Am i right in understanding it is still the same people working on these albeit now being employed by Hitachi? If so the expertise is still there, but a different focus on priorities?
Did anyone foresee this tug of war between maintaining older fleet and introducing new fleet before a decision was made to let Hitachi do both?
Or did it come down to the cheapest and most convenient option?

The staff at Etches Park will of Tupe'd across when Hitachi took over the depot, how many of those original staff remain, who knows?

 

[Railperf]

Indeed. The best choice for the country would have been all 9-car 80x (or a mix of 5-car and 9-car 80x). But those options would have required flexibility in the timetable to accommodate slower acceleration on diesel than the 222s, and so would presumably have not conformed to the DfT specification for the EMR franchise.

Could the best choice have been continued electrification of the midland Mainline remaining route miles to Sheffield and Nottingham? Could that have resulted in a simpler and cheaper electric only fleet - and a larger pool of rolling stock suppliers to choose from?

 

[liamf656]

Could the best choice have been continued electrification of the midland Mainline remaining route miles to Sheffield and Nottingham? Could that have resulted in a simpler and cheaper electric only fleet - and a larger pool of rolling stock suppliers to choose from?

If we wanted an all electric fleet then all the diversions would need to be electirfied too (Manton, Erewash + Toton, Stenson and Beighton). Plus we had (and I really hope it continues) the utilisation of intercity stock to Lincoln, Crewe, Liverpool and formerly Skegness. Would you electrify all of those too or take away the possibility of such utilisation?

 

[Nottingham59]

Could the best choice have been continued electrification of the midland Mainline remaining route miles to Sheffield and Nottingham? Could that have resulted in a simpler and cheaper electric only fleet - and a larger pool of rolling stock suppliers to choose from?

Well, the whole point of the 80x design is that you can convert them to EMU by removing the diesel gensets, or to BEMU by replacing them with battery packs.

And at the time the EMR franchise was awarded, EMU were not on the cards

 

[Trainman40083]

If we wanted an all electric fleet then all the diversions would need to be electirfied too (Manton, Erewash + Toton, Stenson and Beighton). Plus we had (and I really hope it continues) the utilisation of intercity stock to Lincoln, Crewe, Liverpool and formerly Skegness. Would you electrify all of those too or take away the possibility of such utilisation?

Exactly. Be lucky if even all the main routes get done.

 

[Railperf]

FROM THE RAILWAY PERFORMANCE SOIETY WEBSITE: "Aurora reliability seems to have hit a new low this past week with on both Thursday 16th and Friday 17th July only four sets (I believe from a pool of nine with 015 out after the Elstow collision and 019 at Old Dalby for rectification work) available to operate the six daily weekday diagrams.

Moreover, on Thursday only one of the sets (012) appeared from remote performance monitoring to be operating on normal power in diesel mode, with the other three (011, 013 and 022) most likely running with an engine out. The situation was even worse on the Friday with all four sets in use (010, 011, 012 and 013) apparently running in diesel mode on only three of their four engines.

Meridians appear to have been struggling badly with engine issues as well, and so perhaps no real surprise about EMRs announcement."

 

[2001olib]

HITACHI RAIL also get name dropped by EMR station announcement when announcing the reduced timetable.

 

[dk1]

HITACHI RAIL also get name dropped by EMR station announcement when announcing the reduced timetable.

Crikey, it’s all kicking off.

 

[STINT47]

I may have missed it but have Hitachi said sorry for the poor service? I saw a quote about how hard they are working but cannot remember seeing the word sorry in it. If nor then it's pretty poor.

 

[800001]

I wonder who the third party is mentioned in this tweet attached.

Chime Whistle Publishing (@ChimeWhistle) on X

@railexpress Yesterday, I had candid conversations with some senior EMR people. The reality, which will never appear in a press release, is dreadful! However, it is unfair for EMR to lay all the blame on Hitachi for,so I was told, a third party must shoulder some responsibility.

x.com

Yesterday, I had candid conversations with some senior EMR people. The reality, which will never appear in a press release, is dreadful! However, it is unfair for EMR to lay all the blame on Hitachi for,so I was told, a third party must shoulder some responsibility.

 

[Trainman40083]

I wonder who the third party is mentioned in this tweet attached.

DfT??

 

[QSK19]

HITACHI RAIL also get name dropped by EMR station announcement when announcing the reduced timetable.

I think, in particular, the use of “their” in relation to Hitachi’s maintenance of the 222s was telling. As in, “we’re sick and tired of getting all the flak when it’s out of our control, it’s down to Hitachi” - EMR firmly and unambiguously putting it at Hitachi’s door. Whilst that’s correct IMO, some blame does have to be attributed to whoever awarded the maintenance contract to Hitachi - who were never going to do anything more than the bare minimum.

Back to the 810s, Hitachi are making at least some effort to get the 810s working properly (I’ve seen Hitachi personnel trying to implement fixes whilst on board); but IMO it’s clear that, other factors aside, they’re not fit to enter service yet.

 

[2001olib]

4 years late and still not fit for service. If EMR were a person theyd send the 810's back and ask for a refund.

 

[43074]

Back to the 810s, Hitachi are making at least some effort to get the 810s working properly (I’ve seen Hitachi personnel trying to implement fixes whilst on board); but IMO it’s clear that, other factors aside, they’re not fit to enter service yet.

It would be interesting to see reliability data for the 222s and 810s side by side. With the 222s in their current state I'm not convinced the 810s are that much worse. EMR's statements indicate they are clearly frustrated with Hitachi's delivery on both fleets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2026 ==

I wonder who the third party is mentioned in this tweet attached.

That account is known for stirring nonsense, I'd take it with a pinch of salt tbh

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2026 ==

Moreover, on Thursday only one of the sets (012) appeared from remote performance monitoring to be operating on normal power in diesel mode, with the other three (011, 013 and 022) most likely running with an engine out. The situation was even worse on the Friday with all four sets in use (010, 011, 012 and 013) apparently running in diesel mode on only three of their four engines.

What is the source of this alleged "remote performance modelling"?