Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I am intrigued by what can be considered more preferable in terms of testing. Pootling round the circular track at Long Marston at 25mph, or belting up and down the RIDC at Melton at up to 125mph, although obviously having to stop and change ends.
I notice there is a youtube clip of 810004 at Asfordby in December 2024. Obviously still waiting to go into EMR service.
If only it were true! It's actually 222018 on those services. I believe it's an error in the allocations as 158s can't work south of Leicester and mainline crew aren't trained on them
That said though, 222006 did do a St Pancras to Corby and back vice 360 this morning
If only it were true! It's actually 222018 on those services. I believe it's an error in the allocations as 158s can't work south of Leicester and mainline crew aren't trained on them
That said though, 222006 did do a St Pancras to Corby and back vice 360 this morning
Yes, an issue that hasn't been getting so much attention is the availability of the Connect fleet. The forum is probably not that far from needing to start a "stopgap" thread for the 360s!
It seems very rare that they are able to get the required 12 units out of bed in the morning (out of 20 - excluding the collision-damaged train). It looks like 10 today, but think I've seen it as low as 8, so 40-50% with short-forms on key commuter services like the 1717 and 1747 from St Pancras.
This is catastrophically bad for a relatively modern unit, especially if you look at comparable EMU, and I think it's been an issue since the 360s first came to EMR. A failure to improve this is in some ways a bigger black mark against the previous MD than a train contract signed by a predecessor that could not adequately incentivise/punish an incredibly badly-performing supplier.
Yes, an issue that hasn't been getting so much attention is the availability of the Connect fleet. The forum is probably not that far from needing to start a "stopgap" thread for the 360s!
It seems very rare that they are able to get the required 12 units out of bed in the morning (out of 20 - excluding the collision-damaged train). It looks like 10 today, but think I've seen it as low as 8, so 40-50% with short-forms on key commuter services like the 1717 and 1747 from St Pancras.
This is catastrophically bad for a relatively modern unit, especially if you look at comparable EMU, and I think it's been an issue since the 360s first came to EMR. A failure to improve this is in some ways a bigger black mark against the previous MD than a train contract signed by a predecessor that could not adequately incentivise/punish an incredibly badly-performing supplier.
Yes, an issue that hasn't been getting so much attention is the availability of the Connect fleet. The forum is probably not that far from needing to start a "stopgap" thread for the 360s!
It seems very rare that they are able to get the required 12 units out of bed in the morning (out of 20 - excluding the collision-damaged train). It looks like 10 today, but think I've seen it as low as 8, so 40-50% with short-forms on key commuter services like the 1717 and 1747 from St Pancras.
This is catastrophically bad for a relatively modern unit, especially if you look at comparable EMU, and I think it's been an issue since the 360s first came to EMR. A failure to improve this is in some ways a bigger black mark against the previous MD than a train contract signed by a predecessor that could not adequately incentivise/punish an incredibly badly-performing supplier.
The daftness of having a fleet that since it arrived has had to be dragged by a 60 year old diesel loco around the country for anything other than minor attention. Until they get an actual proper local depot where they can receive attention (yes, Cauldwell has had some attention but it's nowhere near a full TMD) they will continue to be a problem.
Yes, an issue that hasn't been getting so much attention is the availability of the Connect fleet. The forum is probably not that far from needing to start a "stopgap" thread for the 360s!
It seems very rare that they are able to get the required 12 units out of bed in the morning (out of 20 - excluding the collision-damaged train). It looks like 10 today, but think I've seen it as low as 8, so 40-50% with short-forms on key commuter services like the 1717 and 1747 from St Pancras.
This is catastrophically bad for a relatively modern unit, especially if you look at comparable EMU, and I think it's been an issue since the 360s first came to EMR. A failure to improve this is in some ways a bigger black mark against the previous MD than a train contract signed by a predecessor that could not adequately incentivise/punish an incredibly badly-performing supplier.
Pretty shocking really for a modern EMU, particularly a Siemens built unit.
For me it calls into question the fleet still being based on "diesel drag away" from EMR's own routes. I am guessing EMR cannot access the Cauldwell depot where the 319s were serviced back in the day. I am assuming that if a 360 develops a fault at Kettering, it might take a day to organise with GBRf for a VSTP move, a loco and a driver and maybe also a shunter to drag the 360 to Bletchley, then maybe another driver to drive the 360 to Kings Heath, and the same in reverse.
A 24 year old fleet where only half of them are in traffic is a depressing statistic.
Pretty shocking really for a modern EMU, particularly a Siemens built unit.
For me it calls into question the fleet still being based on "diesel drag away" from EMR's own routes. I am guessing EMR cannot access the Cauldwell depot where the 319s were serviced back in the day. I am assuming that if a 360 develops a fault at Kettering, it might take a day to organise with GBRf for a VSTP move, a loco and a driver and maybe also a shunter to drag the 360 to Bletchley, then maybe another driver to drive the 360 to Kings Heath, and the same in reverse.
A 24 year old fleet where only half of them are in traffic is a depressing statistic.
Back on topic, I think the ex-Avanti 221s will provide a good ‘temporary’ passenger experience. Ironically, perhaps even better than what the 222s have offered, with their broken toilets, aircon and door buttons, to name a few.
The 221s were refurbished not long before they went into storage. So should they still be physically and hygienically clean, their onboard experience may outperform that of the 222s.
Back on topic, I think the ex-Avanti 221s will provide a good ‘temporary’ passenger experience. Ironically, perhaps even better than what the 222s have offered, with their broken toilets, aircon and door buttons, to name a few.
The 221s were refurbished not long before they went into storage. So should they still be physically and hygienically clean, their onboard experience may outperform that of the 222s.
Thing is, there isn't actually anything fundamentally wrong with the 222s, the 221s are being brought in (if true, of course), at great expense no doubt, because EMR and Hitachi have run the 222s into the ground.
Does anyone have any idea on how long it will be until EMR gets it's first 221 in service to cover for the missing 810s and 222s or is that all up in the air currently ?
Does anyone have any idea on how long it will be until EMR gets it's first 221 in service to cover for the missing 810s and 222s or is that all up in the air currently ?
There hasn't even been any official announcement yet, then they have to be transferred then crew training to go through
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
EMR's interim Managing Director Neil Grabham has released a video about the current reduced timetable and makes reference to a "third fleet". No details are shared specifically, but it 's the first reference from EMR themselves about the 221s
Thank you to everyone who’s been watching, commenting and sharing feedback on our recent updates from Neil Grabham, Interim Managing Director. In this latest vlog, we answer some of the most common...
www.facebook.com
For those that don't use Facebook (the only place I can see the video at the moment) the quote details their mention of the "third fleet"
We are working really hard with other train operators and also the DFTO to explore any and all available fleet options that are out there to enable us to strengthen the fleet that we've got at our disposal and build back that timetable as quickly as possible. As soon as I can uodate you all, I will do.
It is particularly complex challenge with seat reservations at the moment. We are operating two fleets, and potentially we might be bringing in a third fleet type, which will make it very difficult for us to put reservations back in place quickly.
We're still waiting on an official announcement to back up the Voyager claim. Even if they are coming, I am concerned it will take too long for them to arrive, thereby dampening their usefulness.
Thing is, there isn't actually anything fundamentally wrong with the 222s, the 221s are being brought in (if true, of course), at great expense no doubt, because EMR and Hitachi have run the 222s into the ground.
Exactly the point Russel, and more importantly I assume that Hitachi have to hand the 222s back to the Rosco for dilapidation checks in FULL WORKING ORDER !!!
I think some of us remember how long it took TPE to hand back their last Mk5 set - at 30mph from Wolverton works back to Longsight, and I imagine Hitachi will be responsible for handing back all the 222s in full working condition - after they have got enough 810s into traffic to release them.
The important point about the stored ex AWC 221s is that they have been stored for a lot longer than the other ex AWC 221s with XC - the availability of which is quite noticable to staff.
Does anyone have any idea on how long it will be until EMR gets it's first 221 in service to cover for the missing 810s and 222s or is that all up in the air currently ?
Exactly the point Russel, and more importantly I assume that Hitachi have to hand the 222s back to the Rosco for dilapidation checks in FULL WORKING ORDER !!!
I think some of us remember how long it took TPE to hand back their last Mk5 set - at 30mph from Wolverton works back to Longsight, and I imagine Hitachi will be responsible for handing back all the 222s in full working condition - after they have got enough 810s into traffic to release them.
The important point about the stored ex AWC 221s is that they have been stored for a lot longer than the other ex AWC 221s with XC - the availability of which is quite noticable to staff.
I suppose, if Central Rivers look after these 221s, that at least no reliance is being made on Etches Park. Etches park is obviously overstretched.
Etches park was only ever going to be able to cope if the 810s came in reliably so the running down of the 222s had no effect (in fact they would not be cluttering up Etches park).
The state of the 222s is a natural effect of the depot responsible for them trying to maintain other units - 810s at the same time. This would not be a problem if the 810s worked and arrived less late so the 222s would not be used as they should have no longer been needed in such quantities.
"It's really positive if the Class 221s are being considered, but I find it astonishing how bad things have to get before serious action is taken. Has the DfT been asleep at the wheel up until now? I haven't heard a word from the Transport Secretary, which is disappointing given the stress and inconvenience EMR passengers have endured—not to mention the damage caused to local businesses along the MML. I really hope this marks a turning point in the crisis."
Exactly the point Russel, and more importantly I assume that Hitachi have to hand the 222s back to the Rosco for dilapidation checks in FULL WORKING ORDER !!!
I think some of us remember how long it took TPE to hand back their last Mk5 set - at 30mph from Wolverton works back to Longsight, and I imagine Hitachi will be responsible for handing back all the 222s in full working condition - after they have got enough 810s into traffic to release them.
It's not quite that simple. Firstly, EMR could just contract someone else to bring the stock up to the minimum level required, it doesn't have to be done by Hitachi or at Etches Park.
Secondly, they could just negotiate with the ROSCO about how much it will cost to hand them back in whatever condition they're in. Especially if they're already going in to a full refurb once handed back, there's no point for anyone doing a load of work that's just going to be immediately ripped out and thrown away.
The thing about contract terms is they're never set in stone. As long as both parties are willing to negotiate, anything can be changed.
It's not quite that simple. Firstly, EMR could just contract someone else to bring the stock up to the minimum level required, it doesn't have to be done by Hitachi or at Etches Park.
Secondly, they could just negotiate with the ROSCO about how much it will cost to hand them back in whatever condition they're in. Especially if they're already going in to a full refurb once handed back, there's no point for anyone doing a load of work that's just going to be immediately ripped out and thrown away.
The thing about contract terms is they're never set in stone. As long as both parties are willing to negotiate, anything can be changed.
Has it ever been ascertained what the issue with the current availability of the 222 fleet?
Is it that Hitachi are doing a.bd job at looking after them or is it that they're being stepped up more and used more intensively this requiring more maintenance sooner. A bit like the issue Northern had with the 195s?
Has it ever been ascertained what the issue with the current availability of the 222 fleet?
Is it that Hitachi are doing a.bd job at looking after them or is it that they're being stepped up more and used more intensively this requiring more maintenance sooner. A bit like the issue Northern had with the 195s?
I am of the opinion that Etches park just cannot handle so many units. Until the 810s behave themselves two things go wrong :-
2) With the 810s being so unrelieably they must be placing an above average demant on the facilities and staff at Etches Park. So less time and space available for the 222s.
1) The 222s get more use than planned meaning more going wrong with them. Exacerbated by the likelihood being that certain members of the 222 class were having big tasks not scheduled as they would be stood down instead - but they are not getting stood down at the rate that was planned so reliability is getting hit.
So it does mean Hitachi (or at least Etches Park) are responsible for the unreliability of the 222s. But can anyone find a suitable maintainer for them ? - Central Rivers might cope with some. It is a cost that Hitachi have to bear either because they are responsible for maintenance of 222s (they have taken over Etches Park iirc) OR its their fault anyway that the 810s are not ready.
Careful. Don't forget that the 222 maintenance was handled by Bombardier (later Alstom) at Etches Park, so the depot passed from Alstom to Hitachi responsibility. It should also be noted that Etches Park is not just 222/810 maintenance, there is an EMR part of the depot for 158/170 maintenance.
I am of the opinion that Etches park just cannot handle so many units. Until the 810s behave themselves two things go wrong :-
2) With the 810s being so unrelieably they must be placing an above average demant on the facilities and staff at Etches Park. So less time and space available for the 222s.
1) The 222s get more use than planned meaning more going wrong with them. Exacerbated by the likelihood being that certain members of the 222 class were having big tasks not scheduled as they would be stood down instead - but they are not getting stood down at the rate that was planned so reliability is getting hit.
So it does mean Hitachi (or at least Etches Park) are responsible for the unreliability of the 222s. But can anyone find a suitable maintainer for them ? - Central Rivers might cope with some. It is a cost that Hitachi have to bear either because they are responsible for maintenance of 222s (they have taken over Etches Park iirc) OR its their fault anyway that the 810s are not ready.
The lack of alternative maintenance depots along the route would be the big issue. While you could send a stood down 222 off to somewhere like Eastleigh or Wolverton for repair work prior to handing back to the ROSCO, you can't do that and expect it to be back in service at 6am the following day.
It's still EMR's responsibility in the end. They've currently contracted Hitachi to do the maintenance, but they could contract someone else to do it and kick Hitachi out. Whether that's sensible in the long term with them having agreed to lease Hitachi built stock is another matter - sometimes you have to go with the least worst option.
It's still EMR's responsibility in the end. They've currently contracted Hitachi to do the maintenance, but they could contract someone else to do it and kick Hitachi out. Whether that's sensible in the long term with them having agreed to lease Hitachi built stock is another matter - sometimes you have to go with the least worst option.
Assuming 222 and 810 maintenance are delivered from a common set of facilities and people that work interchangeably on both types at Etches Park, I do not see how EMR could divorce 222 and 810 maintenance (For what it's worth I don't think EMR would be in quite the same mess if Hitachi had built a new facility elsewhere as the overstretch on Etches Park might be less acute).
Alternatively, all Cl222 maintenance could be transferred elsewhere. But whilst I could imagine an Alstom facility rectifying significant faults on a small number of 222, none obviously have the capability and suitable location to take on day-to-day maintenance of around 20 train sets. I think if Central Rivers or wherever does do some work on them, it's more likely that Hitachi have felt pressured into subcontracting by DfT/GBR. They might perceive that not doing so risks jeopardising other (potential) contracts. This (from a passenger perspective) seems like the least worst option.
The last option - EMR directly contracting with another party for "some" Cl222 maintenance/repair feels like a world of pain. Hitachi would say (with merit) that its performance on residual 222 maintenance can no longer suitably measured because it cannot control work done by the other party (and vice versa). EMR would've established a commercial arrangement that incentivises each of the two maintenance providers to blame the other for every single fault. I can't see that ending well.
EMR would probably not be in this mess if Hitachi could get from the current situation of about 12/21 Cl222 availability to about 17/21 remaining Cl222 with say 5/10 Cl810s, which would allow everything to run. Common sense suggests it would normally be much, much easier to throw resource at Cl222s and get availability up than bring in a further microfleet. So with the increasingly likelihood of 6x221s coming to EMR for a while, that is telling me that getting EMR Cl222 availability to 17 is not seen as feasible. One reason for that would be a lack of agreement to defer their transfer to Scotrail. It's been a few weeks since 222103 was last out so I'm wondering if that has been quietly withdrawn from EMR use.
Careful. Don't forget that the 222 maintenance was handled by Bombardier (later Alstom) at Etches Park, so the depot passed from Alstom to Hitachi responsibility. It should also be noted that Etches Park is not just 222/810 maintenance, there is an EMR part of the depot for 158/170 maintenance.
So because Etches cannot cope you then assume that Central Rivers somehow has excess capacity.
I did say "Central Rivers might cope with some". I make no connection with how Etches Park are coping except to suggest somewhere else would be useful. I have no idea and no indication of how busy Central Rivers actually is.
Also, just thinking about it now, Central Rivers should be busier than they were anyway if EMR do get a use of the currently spare 221s !.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The lack of alternative maintenance depots along the route would be the big issue. While you could send a stood down 222 off to somewhere like Eastleigh or Wolverton for repair work prior to handing back to the ROSCO, you can't do that and expect it to be back in service at 6am the following day.
Indeed. It is more likely that an alternative location would just do the more major work on 222s leaving Etches park with the more day-to-day servicing along side the 810s.
It's still EMR's responsibility in the end. They've currently contracted Hitachi to do the maintenance, but they could contract someone else to do it and kick Hitachi out. Whether that's sensible in the long term with them having agreed to lease Hitachi built stock is another matter - sometimes you have to go with the least worst option.
Yes. EMR and DfT/GBR have to live with the fact that this is a short term (hopefully) problem and that it would be disingenuous to upset a long term relationship (the 810s for the next 20-30 years). Regardless of who is to blame the challenge is working together for a solutio.
Assuming 222 and 810 maintenance are delivered from a common set of facilities and people that work interchangeably on both types at Etches Park, I do not see how EMR could divorce 222 and 810 maintenance (For what it's worth I don't think EMR would be in quite the same mess if Hitachi had built a new facility elsewhere as the overstretch on Etches Park might be less acute).
Thats true. A new depot could even have been long enough to handle 9 car 80x's !. BUT.
It would have lead to a staffing problem, training new staff for maintenance of the 810s and eventually making existing maintenance staff for 222s redundant. It seems normal for an existing depot to have to cope with transition rather than redundancy and also the costs of building a new depot and discarding an old depot. Chester is an example where the 175s were chucked out and maintained (barely) at Crewe (iirc).
Alternatively, all Cl222 maintenance could be transferred elsewhere. But whilst I could imagine an Alstom facility rectifying significant faults on a small number of 222, none obviously have the capability and suitable location to take on day-to-day maintenance of around 20 train sets. I think if Central Rivers or wherever does do some work on them, it's more likely that Hitachi have felt pressured into subcontracting by DfT/GBR. They might perceive that not doing so risks jeopardising other (potential) contracts. This (from a passenger perspective) seems like the least worst option.
The last option - EMR directly contracting with another party for "some" Cl222 maintenance/repair feels like a world of pain. Hitachi would say (with merit) that its performance on residual 222 maintenance can no longer suitably measured because it cannot control work done by the other party (and vice versa). EMR would've established a commercial arrangement that incentivises each of the two maintenance providers to blame the other for every single fault. I can't see that ending well.
EMR would probably not be in this mess if Hitachi could get from the current situation of about 12/21 Cl222 availability to about 17/21 remaining Cl222 with say 5/10 Cl810s, which would allow everything to run. Common sense suggests it would normally be much, much easier to throw resource at Cl222s and get availability up than bring in a further microfleet. So with the increasingly likelihood of 6x221s coming to EMR for a while, that is telling me that getting EMR Cl222 availability to 17 is not seen as feasible. One reason for that would be a lack of agreement to defer their transfer to Scotrail. It's been a few weeks since 222103 was last out so I'm wondering if that has been quietly withdrawn from EMR use.
This begs the question would it be better if Central Rivers were to turn round the 222s in the most trouble rather than letting EMR get used to a third (albeit similar) type of unit (221) on the main lines to Nottingham and Sheffield. The question in my mind would be how soon can these spare (ex Avanti) 332s 221s be up and running - maybe they are 100% ready to go.
Still the issue of daily servicing of 221/222s to do on the route at Derby Etches Park. But if the major tasks go elsewhere that;s some relief. I think Central Rivers is not as inconvenient as other potential sites anyway ?.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
