Stopgap options to cover for delays to introduction of Class 810 for EMR?

[43096]

I appreciate that. My point is has anyone considered saying to them 'You can have these trains as a temporary thing x months earlier than you'd be getting the 222s. That means you can retire the HSTs your traincrew don't like, and as you'd be doing us a favour we'll cut you a deal on price'.

Cut a deal on price? Does that include the cost of staff training for what would be a micro-fleet?

A practical solution that allows Scotrail to keep the unions happy, EMR to maintain some semblance of a service, and Hitachi a bit more time to understand where things have gone wrong.

Keep the unions happy? It's six trains.

Perfectly possible Scotrail would say no, but it would avoid EMR having to introduce yet another variable in to an already complex problem.

Why would ScotRail, Transport Scotland and by extension the SNP be interested in helping out an incompetent operator in England? It's a total none-option and all it does is move a problem to an operator who didn't create the issue.

but are neither of those classes maintained anywhere else in the country? My point was that their maintenance could perhaps be transferred elsewhere to release capacity at Etches Park..

How's that going to work? Nearest depot for 158 and 170 maintenance would be Neville Hill. EMR no longer have route knowledge to Leeds, so all that does is a create another problem.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think that both overstates the problems that would be caused at Scotrail if the 222s were delayed and understates the extent of the issues at EMR. On a daily basis Scotrail are not facing daily cancellations or failures in service and there is nothing to suggest the HSTs are likely to give up on exactly the planned introduction date for the 222s.
Whilst I would agree that there is absolutely no point in Scotrail taking any 221s as a short term measure there is absolutely no reason that the HSTs couldn’t remain in service for several months longer than originally planned to allow the 222s to remain at EMR for the foreseeable future.

I would not say problems "would" happen but "could" happen. If the 222s are delayed long enough then Scotrail will face the same problems that Etches Park are - namely running out of space and resources to maintain the outgoing fleet while at the same time catching up with the new fleet. They will not want to go through that iteration twice by going HST to 221 and then to 222.

The risk should be less for Scotrail as the 810s are a brand new design whereas the 221 and 222s are very much settled in. The only nasty risk with the 222s is if the refurbishment causes problems but it is more likely to be things like delays in delivery (either refurbishment overruns or delays in EMR giving them up). My gut feeling is that the 221s might be a bigger risk depending how long that have sat around unused.

So does anyone know what the 221s storage was like ?.

 

[Teapot42]

Cut a deal on price? Does that include the cost of staff training for what would be a micro-fleet?

How much difference is there between the 221 and 222? How much training would not carry over?

Someone needs training on the differences, if there is an opportunity to get Scotrail staff familiar with a largely similar unit then why not take it?

Keep the unions happy? It's six trains.

Would at least allow some HSTs to be withdrawn, and earlier than if they waited for the 222s.

Why would ScotRail, Transport Scotland and by extension the SNP be interested in helping out an incompetent operator in England?

No reason at all, unless you can make it a benefit to them, as I suggested. Reduce their costs, get something sooner. If none of that is a benefit to them then I agree there is no reason to entertain it.

As for EMR - what do you propose they could have done - that is within their power - to appear more competent? They are pretty much making the best they can with what they are given. They couldn't know when they signed for the 810s things would turn in to such a farce. There is only so much contingency you can plan before the potential costs become unviable. And looking further back, the decision to provide only 4 short platforms at St Pancras and curb the MML electrification aren't anything they have control of either. Both of which have fairly significant roles in where we are now.

They are the public face of what is going wrong, but their options and ability to take meaningful steps to fix things is practically zero.

 

[43096]

As for EMR - what do you propose they could have done - that is within their power - to appear more competent? They are pretty much making the best they can with what they are given.

Really? You don't think that all of their fleets having reliability/availability problems might be in some way down to the operator than being entirely down to bad luck.

 

[dosxuk]

How much difference is there between the 221 and 222? How much training would not carry over?

Two major differences - no tilt on the 222, and the train management system on the 221 is by Alstom for 390 compatibility vs Bombardier for the 222.

And looking further back, the decision to provide only 4 short platforms at St Pancras and curb the MML electrification aren't anything they have control of either. Both of which have fairly significant roles in where we are now.

The platforms at St Pancras aren't short by any measure - they're 260m - plenty long enough for 10x23m or 12x20m standard length stock. That the IEP design moved to longer carriages is a decision that came long after 260m became the standard platform length for long distance services and what was provided at St Pancras during the rebuild.

 

[Teapot42]

Two major differences - no tilt on the 222, and the train management system on the 221 is by Alstom for 390 compatibility vs Bombardier for the 222.

Am I mistaken that tilt was disabled on all 221s? Even if not, how many routes will they operate on which are fitted with balises?

The platforms at St Pancras aren't short by any measure - they're 260m - plenty long enough for 10x23m or 12x20m standard length stock. That the IEP design moved to longer carriages is a decision that came long after 260m became the standard platform length for long distance services and what was provided at St Pancras during the rebuild.

I was more implying the combination of very limited platform numbers without the capability to hold more than a single 'typical' train in each.

 

[800001]

Am I mistaken that tilt was disabled on all 221s? Even if not, how many routes will they operate on which are fitted with balises?

I was more implying the combination of very limited platform numbers without the capability to hold more than a single 'typical' train in each.

Xc 221s had the tilt disabled.

And the only route that currently uses the balises is the wcml.

 

[dosxuk]

Am I mistaken that tilt was disabled on all 221s? Even if not, how many routes will they operate on which are fitted with balises?

They wouldn't go near any balises on the MML, but the running gear and bogies are completely different designs, needing different maintenance and trouble shooting compared to the 222's.

I was more implying the combination of very limited platform numbers without the capability to hold more than a single 'typical' train in each.

They've successfully held many multiple units of different typical types since they were built, including for joining and splitting. The IEP really is the outlier with regards to train / carriage length, and the cause of the platform length issues and the need to have a redesigned unit to fit.

 

[Senex]

They've successfully held many multiple units of different typical types since they were built, including for joining and splitting. The IEP really is the outlier with regards to train / carriage length, and the cause of the platform length issues and the need to have a redesigned unit to fit.

The Midland provision in the rebuilt St Pancras is pretty wretched, but as has been said, the platform-lengths are very much what was seen as a standard at the time. Isn't the problem rather a twofold one? In the first—and prime—place is the Abellio decision to go for a mix of train-lengths coupled with a policy of aiming to combine/split short train-sets in St Pancras station (and, as on certain other lines, to try to pretend that a 5-car unit is adequate for busy London services). And in the second place is their pandering to the absurd DfT "policy" on Midland electrification that required everyone to be able to boast that the brand-new trains would have performance as good in diesel mode as in electric mode. (And maybe it was also extremely unwise then to go for AnsaldoBreda, especially in view of the experience of other north- and west-European operators.)

 

[Teapot42]

Really? You don't think that all of their fleets having reliability/availability problems might be in some way down to the operator than being entirely down to bad luck.

I very carefully asked, and you very carefully failed to answer, what could EMR have done differently?

They didn't design or build the 810s.

They don't maintain the 222s or 810s.

The franchise is on an NRC, so any costs have to be approved by the DfT.

I'm sure they'd have liked to secure the 222s for longer, and I suspect they would change who maintains them if they could, but that's not a quick job and is probably tightly under contract.

 

[Senex]

They didn't design or build the 810s.

Just about the main feature of the Abellio tender was the commitment to a completely new fleet of bi-mode trains. They won the bidding on 10 April 2019. They were able to place the order for the new stock almost immediately after taking up the franchise on 18 August 2019. Of course they didn't build the trains, but is it credible they didn't have major input into the specification of something that is nothing like a simple adaptation of an off-the-shelf 800 series unit?

 

[londonmidland]

It's noticeable that even with the reduced intercity timetable, there are still daily train failures occurring, leading to cancellations. Late night Derby and Nottingham services seem to be hit quite badly.

 

[QSK19]

What would cover for the 810s exit?

I doubt the 810s ever get sent back (the general principle of replacing faulty products just wouldn’t be feasible); but if they did, then I could only assume that some 170s would be requisitioned to run some form of skeleton shuttle service between Derby/Nottingham and Kettering (Sheffield-Derby services being reliant entirely on XC). The Connect service then does the southern leg to STP and EMR would then have to hire in any suitable EMUs which are available to boost capacity (crashing through route clearance permissions pronto).

158s would then shoulder the burden of a severely cut back Regional service and then any DMU that they could get their hands on (eg 15x, 196s, 755s, anything that other TOCs could make available) to supplement them.

Would be a nightmare of epic proportions.

 

[Wyrleybart]

How much difference is there between the 221 and 222? How much training would not carry over?

In fact the class 222 is more similar to the class 220. Neither have tilt and both have the same inside framed bogies. Were DFTO to be fully operational with both XC and EMR in house, a simple "old Railway" move would have been to diagram the six ex AWC class 221s to class 220 diagrams particularly as several are 4 car units anyway - 130 136 144 and another possibly 140, then release 220s as short term cover on the MML.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

In fact the class 222 is more similar to the class 220. Neither have tilt and both have the same inside framed bogies. Were DFTO to be fully operational with both XC and EMR in house, a simple "old Railway" move would have been to diagram the six ex AWC class 221s to class 220 diagrams particularly as several are 4 car units anyway - 130 136 144 and another possibly 140, then release 220s as short term cover on the MML.

The problem there is the 220s are only 4 cars, with a high proportion of that space wasted, whereas the 221s are at least 5 cars?

 

[TastyMaltesers]

The problem there is the 220s are only 4 cars, with a high proportion of that space wasted, whereas the 221s are at least 5 cars?

A few 221s with XC are 4 car sets as well

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A few 221s with XC are 4 car sets as well

They are, yes - but the six spares being talked about ( 221 101 to 221 106 ) are all 5 car versions aren't they?

 

[Dazza12]

Hi,

Two major differences - no tilt on the 222, and the train management system on the 221 is by Alstom for 390 compatibility vs Bombardier for the 222.

The platforms at St Pancras aren't short by any measure - they're 260m - plenty long enough for 10x23m or 12x20m standard length stock. That the IEP design moved to longer carriages is a decision that came long after 260m became the standard platform length for long distance services and what was provided at St Pancras during the rebuild.

The major differences (for a driver) between 221 and 222 are tilt (assuming it has not been disabled) and door control.

The TMS on all 22X is the same base design and is definitely nothing to do with Alstom or Pendolinos.

The bogie types are largely irrelevant - other than replacing brake pads, bogies are a very low maintenance item (other than when full overhauls are required). There is perhaps a minor difference in that 221, having outside frame bogies, might operate lineside hot axlebox detection (HABD) equipment whereas lineside HABD activation can be ignored by 222 drivers.