Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[AM9]

What I don't get at all is why no seating plans for anything (planes included) include showing the window positions! Maybe someone needs to set up a railway SeatGuru.

Probably because it isn't a high priority for enough people to make it worthwhile.

 

[Mikey C]

What I don't get at all is why no seating plans for anything (planes included) include showing the window positions! Maybe someone needs to set up a railway SeatGuru.

Virgin provided one for their trains, which included which seats had a limited view. I always consulted it when reserving seats - I downloaded the attached file back in 2012

 

[py_megapixel]

Virgin provided one for their trains, which included which seats had a limited view. I always consulted it when reserving seats - I downloaded the attached file back in 2012

CrossCountry do something similar - the seats on the window side which you can't see out properly from aren't highlighted in the "Window Seat" colour. Link to CrossCountry Voyager seating plan PDF:

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/1051/voyager_seating_plan.pdf

Unfortunately it doesn't like EMR offer online seating plans at all!

 

[YorksLad12]

CrossCountry do something similar - the seats on the window side which you can't see out properly from aren't highlighted in the "Window Seat" colour. Link to CrossCountry Voyager seating plan PDF:

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/1051/voyager_seating_plan.pdf

Unfortunately it doesn't like EMR offer online seating plans at all!

Was there not a suggestion of doing something by/through forum members? We'd have to wait for the 810, obviously. And no two 80x vehicles seem to be the same!

 

[Rick1984]

I quite like the concept of this version of the class 8xx. I wonder if there's other routes it could be suited to. Maybe as a 110moh regional express?

 

[Snow1964]

I quite like the concept of this version of the class 8xx. I wonder if there's other routes it could be suited to. Maybe as a 110moh regional express?

Of course there are other routes, where a 110mph version would be handy, everything from replacing GWR castle HSTs to long secondary routes like Cardiff-Portsmouth. But really any service that is more semi-fast than limited stop needs more doors. So an altered 810 is not really a good starting point and would be better starting with something like a class 385 bodyshell, making it bi-mode

 

[irish_rail]

Of course there are other routes, where a 110mph version would be handy, everything from replacing GWR castle HSTs to long secondary routes like Cardiff-Portsmouth. But really any service that is more semi-fast than limited stop needs more doors. So an altered 810 is not really a good starting point and would be better starting with something like a class 385 bodyshell, making it bi-mode

End doors work absolutely fine on the castle fleet, and the Cardiff to Penzance route warrants them in my opinion. Many people on 2 hour plus journies, they are essentially intercity trains. Doors through out the coach aren't necessary on that particular route. There are also reasonable dwell times at most stations. Cant speak for Pompey Cardiff mind you.

 

[AM9]

End doors work absolutely fine on the castle fleet, and the Cardiff to Penzance route warrants them in my opinion. Many people on 2 hour plus journies, they are essentially intercity trains. Doors through out the coach aren't necessary on that particular route. There are also reasonable dwell times at most stations. Cant speak for Pompey Cardiff mind you.

Portsmouth - Cardiff trains stop 15+ times with the average travelling time between them less than 15 minutes, - often less than 10 minutes. The service provides a local service to many stops along the line, - there's nothing 'inter-city' about it that warrants end doors which would just extend dwell times. Do that and the path would become disruptive to SWML, South Coast and GWML services.

 

[Mikey C]

A 110mph version would presumably ditch the unnecessarily long nose as well, which wouldn't be needed.

 

[swt_passenger]

Was there not a suggestion of doing something by/through forum members? We'd have to wait for the 810, obviously. And no two 80x vehicles seem to be the same!

Yes, there was an attempt but the thread petered out eventually, I guess it’s much harder to do than was expected.

It’s here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/seating-plans-project.120853/

 

[HOOVER29]

I guess it will be just one of the driving cars allocated to 1st class and the rest will be standard class? Should have gone for 33 x 9 cars really, it would have made more sense.

Should’ve been a minimum of 7 cars
Train companies still not learning

 

[Bletchleyite]

Should’ve been a minimum of 7 cars
Train companies still not learning

If they'd gone for 9 car they could have gone for standard length sets. 9 x 26m = 234m, 10 x 24 = 240m, nobody is going to argue about 6m particularly as that would mean more overall capacity due to less space lost on the 2 "inside" cabs.

 

[superalbs]

What I don't get at all is why no seating plans for anything (planes included) include showing the window positions! Maybe someone needs to set up a railway SeatGuru.

Eurostar does! Though amusingly the seat map on the website is completely wrong, so you have to find the internal one on Google...

 

[800001]

Should’ve been a minimum of 7 cars
Train companies still not learning

But then they would be limited to a 7 car, as 2 x 7 cars coupled would not fit in St Pancras.
Where as 2 x 5 car sets can. Could make the argument they should of gone for 10 car formation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Eurostar does! Though amusingly the seat map on the website is completely wrong, so you have to find the internal one on Google...

It shouldn't be hard to do, as every TOC that's bought a train has the proper formal schematic of its layout, and all those show the window positions. They just need editing a bit to stick the numbers on them.

 

[superalbs]

It shouldn't be hard to do, as every TOC that's bought a train has the proper formal schematic of its layout, and all those show the window positions. They just need editing a bit to stick the numbers on them.

It's also fairly easy to do in an hour or so, even without such diagrams.

I must admit, with my focus on train reviews, I have looked in to producing such a website as SeatGuru for trains, but I'm not sure if I have the time.

 

[DannyMich2018]

But then they would be limited to a 7 car, as 2 x 7 cars coupled would not fit in St Pancras.
Where as 2 x 5 car sets can. Could make the argument they should of gone for 10 car formation.

Regular users of the MML will know like I do how busy the trains can get (not just at the weekend). Maybe some more 5 car 810s could have been ordered to enable busiest services to be 10 cars? Good job the 180s are been retained. Last Sunday Forest were home and Nott services were rammed-the 19.50 ex Nott and previous Nott to St Pancras were both 5 cars. How we miss the HSTs extra capacity.

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe some more 5 car 810s could have been ordered to enable busiest services to be 10 cars?

The busiest services are already expected to be 10 car trains. EMR have 33 810s on order to replace a current fleet of 27 222s and 4 180s. Given they don't run all the 180s at once, I'd imagine they can have 3 or 4 more 10 car trains than currently run.

 

[43102EMR]

The busiest services are already expected to be 10 car trains. EMR have 33 810s on order to replace a current fleet of 27 222s and 4 180s. Given they don't run all the 180s at once, I'd imagine they can have 3 or 4 more 10 car trains than currently run.

I don’t think the 180s will stay for much longer, maybe a year max beyond their original withdrawal date; the main issue is getting the DfT to play ball and allow EMR to exercise the option for 3-4 more extra units.

 

[JonathanH]

I don’t think the 180s will stay for much longer, maybe a year max beyond their original withdrawal date; the main issue is getting the DfT to play ball and allow EMR to exercise the option for 3-4 more extra units.

I suspect it more likely that the 180s are retained until such point as the 810s reach an acceptable level of reliability, and then withdrawn on the grounds of being non-standard with EMR left to run with the fleet of 33 810s.

I think that if the order was going to be changed to more than 33 units, it would have needed to happen by now. Given where inflation is, any extra units will now be more expensive.

It does seem a slightly difficult one to approve, because there are already enough units on order to run certain services as 10-car. What is being proposed is running some initially weaker cases for longer length trains as 10-car instead of 5-car, and, I think, making up for slightly lower availability than initially thought.

 

[tbtc]

To put things in context, let’s pretend that the MML is operated as a half hourly service of Sheffield - London - Nottingham.

With a reasonable layover at St Pancras, let’s say that it gets into Nottingham 4h15m after leaving Sheffield

So call it a nine hour round trip (in theory you could do Sheffield - London in 2h and London - Nottingham in 1h30 but that’s not including any layovers, plus half the trains need to run “slow” to maintain the frequency at Beeston/ Long Eaton etc)

A half hourly service with a nine hour round trip would require eighteen diagrams

Let’s assume that we’ll need to have at least 10% of trains spare at any time (maintenance, accident damaged etc), so we have four idle at any time

Let’s say that one unit is a “hot spare” at St Pancras and one “hot spare” at Leicester, so that leaves 27 trains and 18 diagrams

(I’m trying to be conservative here by assuming six trains aren’t diagrammed to run services, similarly I’m trying to use a duration - nine hours - that doesn’t sound too tight and recognise that even trains with engines under 80% of carriages might not be able to run as fast as they’d like if there are freight paths/ flat junctions/ bottlenecks into stations like Sheffield)

Half of the diagrams can therefore be ten coaches long.

So I don’t think that there’s too much to worry about in terms of fleet size based on the current requirements. And a single 5x24 810 is equivalent to the standard class seats of a seven coach 222 (despite a significant number of EMR services being just four/five coaches - something that the 360s to Corbyn has helped slightly, admittedly)

Obviously if they get stretched into things like daytime extensions to Leeds/ Lincoln then we might have problems, given the way that TPE’s 185s were horribly stretched once they were expected to cover the WCML to Glasgow/ Edinburgh. Whilst I understand the reasons for the specialist 24m carriages, it does leave EMR a hostage to fortune in future once the production line closes, but I suppose they can always order some 9x26m 80Xs to work alongside the 810s.

I’d like to think that we’ll reach “now that the MML has been fully electrified to Sheffield, what do we do with the 810s?” before we reach “how do we order some additional self powered trains to augment the EMR LDHS fleet?” though!

 

[43102EMR]

To put things in context, let’s pretend that the MML is operated as a half hourly service of Sheffield - London - Nottingham.

With a reasonable layover at St Pancras, let’s say that it gets into Nottingham 4h15m after leaving Sheffield

So call it a nine hour round trip (in theory you could do Sheffield - London in 2h and London - Nottingham in 1h30 but that’s not including any layovers, plus half the trains need to run “slow” to maintain the frequency at Beeston/ Long Eaton etc)

A half hourly service with a nine hour round trip would require eighteen diagrams

Let’s assume that we’ll need to have at least 10% of trains spare at any time (maintenance, accident damaged etc), so we have four idle at any time

Let’s say that one unit is a “hot spare” at St Pancras and one “hot spare” at Leicester, so that leaves 27 trains and 18 diagrams

(I’m trying to be conservative here by assuming six trains aren’t diagrammed to run services, similarly I’m trying to use a duration - nine hours - that doesn’t sound too tight and recognise that even trains with engines under 80% of carriages might not be able to run as fast as they’d like if there are freight paths/ flat junctions/ bottlenecks into stations like Sheffield)

Half of the diagrams can therefore be ten coaches long.

So I don’t think that there’s too much to worry about in terms of fleet size based on the current requirements. And a single 5x24 810 is equivalent to the standard class seats of a seven coach 222 (despite a significant number of EMR services being just four/five coaches - something that the 360s to Corbyn has helped slightly, admittedly)

Obviously if they get stretched into things like daytime extensions to Leeds/ Lincoln then we might have problems, given the way that TPE’s 185s were horribly stretched once they were expected to cover the WCML to Glasgow/ Edinburgh. Whilst I understand the reasons for the specialist 24m carriages, it does leave EMR a hostage to fortune in future once the production line closes, but I suppose they can always order some 9x26m 80Xs to work alongside the 810s.

I’d like to think that we’ll reach “now that the MML has been fully electrified to Sheffield, what do we do with the 810s?” before we reach “how do we order some additional self powered trains to augment the EMR LDHS fleet?” though!

Worth noting that EMR no longer run to Leeds - services there were withdrawn at the May TTC.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2022 ==

I suspect it more likely that the 180s are retained until such point as the 810s reach an acceptable level of reliability, and then withdrawn on the grounds of being non-standard with EMR left to run with the fleet of 33 810s.

I think that if the order was going to be changed to more than 33 units, it would have needed to happen by now. Given where inflation is, any extra units will now be more expensive.

It does seem a slightly difficult one to approve, because there are already enough units on order to run certain services as 10-car. What is being proposed is running some initially weaker cases for longer length trains as 10-car instead of 5-car, and, I think, making up for slightly lower availability than initially thought.

The whole reason the 180s are staying is because EMR realised they didn’t order enough and were unable to retain the 222s (can imagine their future will be confirmed soon enough, a discussion for a different thread) - so hopefully soon enough, a couple of more will be added to the order.

 

[QSK19]

The whole reason the 180s are staying is because EMR realised they didn’t order enough.

Interesting that the blame for insufficient stock seems to be on EMR instead of the DfT being penny-pinching (which I’d have thought was the reason). In any case, I highly doubt they’ll be generous enough to authorise another 3 or 4 (even though now is the prime opportunity in terms of the production line being open).

So, looks like it’s a case of making sure that we don’t mistakenly get the 18 and 81 the wrong way round when referring to the IC rolling stick

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2022 ==

The whole reason the 180s are staying is because EMR […] were unable to retain the 222s.

My view is that the 810s were simply a sop to the East Midlands* for Failing Grayling’s cancelled MML electrification instead of a desire for the DfT to grant EMR new stock. I was surprised that EMR weren’t told by them that the 222s are staying and make do with them.

*That being said, the 810s have grown on me and hopefully they will live up to expectations.

 

[Roast Veg]

Interesting that the blame for insufficient stock seems to be on EMR instead of the DfT being penny-pinching (which I’d have thought was the reason).

The decision was made in the old franchise bid, which EMR proposed and DfT accepted.

 

[Snow1964]

The decision was made in the old franchise bid, which EMR proposed and DfT accepted.

But if there are options, there must have been serious thoughts about needing extras for something (an extension to a service, or more frequent services), or considerable uncertainty regarding if enough were ordered.

The big question is how many options, are they fixed price, and long is the option valid.

Of course if inflation makes cost of ordering a new train more expensive but sitting on fixed price options which are cheaper then it is sensible to exercise them all if more trains are needed.

 

[YorksLad12]

Obviously if they get stretched into things like daytime extensions to Leeds/ Lincoln then we might have problems, given the way that TPE’s 185s were horribly stretched once they were expected to cover the WCML to Glasgow/ Edinburgh. Whilst I understand the reasons for the specialist 24m carriages, it does leave EMR a hostage to fortune in future once the production line closes, but I suppose they can always order some 9x26m 80Xs to work alongside the 810s.

I’d like to think that we’ll reach “now that the MML has been fully electrified to Sheffield, what do we do with the 810s?” before we reach “how do we order some additional self powered trains to augment the EMR LDHS fleet?” though!

Interesting point raised there. I'd assumed that the 81x series would be used for future orders rather than the 80x series, as they are the latest iteration of the design and lessons will (should) have been learned.

 

[supervc-10]

What I don't get at all is why no seating plans for anything (planes included) include showing the window positions! Maybe someone needs to set up a railway SeatGuru.

Not SeatGuru - who are a bit rubbish IMO, but AeroLOPA. Full detailed seat maps, including windows positioning, the way some seats get cramped in by the curvature of the fuselage, everything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not SeatGuru - who are a bit rubbish IMO, but AeroLOPA. Full detailed seat maps, including windows positioning, the way some seats get cramped in by the curvature of the fuselage, everything.

I like! Bookmarked.

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting point raised there. I'd assumed that the 81x series would be used for future orders rather than the 80x series, as they are the latest iteration of the design and lessons will (should) have been learned.

I think it’s the opposite, and future orders will be for the 26m version, it’s the limited length of the MML platforms at St Pancras, (and the difficulty in extending them), that is the main reason they’re using a shorter vehicle length.

But what came first, the 24m 810s (originally suggested in some sources to be 804) or the 26m 805/807s?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting point raised there. I'd assumed that the 81x series would be used for future orders rather than the 80x series, as they are the latest iteration of the design and lessons will (should) have been learned.

They are specifically for the MML due to the 240m platforms at St P. The 26m version is the standard one.