Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[AM9]

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

But having developed a 24m variant, there may be other potential uses, especially where other 23/24m stock is already in use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But having developed a 24m variant, there may be other potential uses, especially where other 23/24m stock is already in use.

There might, but it's not going to be the core offering, it's an alternative that may be useful in some circumstances.

 

[TheBigD]

The 810s (on diesel) will match the performance of the existing 222s on the non wired section of the MML which the 800/801/802 etc would not. They will have 4 engines per 5 cars vs the 3 per 5 of the 26m fleet. Obviously under the wires their performance will be similar between the various fleets.

Whether that makes them a suitable Voyager replacement for XC is one for speculation section!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 810s (on diesel) will match the performance of the existing 222s on the non wired section of the MML which the 800/801/802 etc would not. They will have 4 engines per 5 cars vs the 3 per 5 of the 26m fleet. Obviously under the wires their performance will be similar between the various fleets.

Whether that makes them a suitable Voyager replacement for XC is one for speculation section!

It would also presumably be possible to build a 26m version with 4 engines per 5 cars. It's a modular platform.

 

[JonathanH]

It would also presumably be possible to build a 26m version with 4 engines per 5 cars. It's a modular platform.

Not without redesigning the end cars of the 26m units as they aren't set up for generating units. That was the whole point of the 810 redesign.

 

[rjames87]

Is it definitely 3 more they would need, or would one additional unit provide enough flex?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not without redesigning the end cars of the 26m units as they aren't set up for generating units. That was the whole point of the 810 redesign.

Yes, they'd need the whole unit to be high floor rather than just the intermediates, though I don't entirely understand why they didn't do that in the first place as it's not like it offers level boarding. But if you can do a 24m version of that, you can do a 26m version - again, it's a modular platform.

 

[Domh245]

Yes, they'd need the whole unit to be high floor rather than just the intermediates, though I don't entirely understand why they didn't do that in the first place as it's not like it offers level boarding. But if you can do a 24m version of that, you can do a 26m version - again, it's a modular platform.

Even being a modular platform, there'll still be redesign costs associated with doing that. What you could potentially do is combine the 26m intermediate cars with the 24m driving cars - although you would then be limited to the reduced 125mph design speed of the 810s rather than the 140mph of the original design (which for XC I don't think would pose a problem?) although there'd still be elements of redesign (shifting the transformer to an intermediate vehicle) I'd expect it to be potentially be lower than the 26m genset driving vehicle

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even being a modular platform, there'll still be redesign costs associated with doing that. What you could potentially do is combine the 26m intermediate cars with the 24m driving cars - although you would then be limited to the reduced 125mph design speed of the 810s rather than the 140mph of the original design (which for XC I don't think would pose a problem?) although there'd still be elements of redesign (shifting the transformer to an intermediate vehicle) I'd expect it to be potentially be lower than the 26m genset driving vehicle

Given how modular they are, I suspect a 26m genset driving vehicle would be an hour or two on whatever CAD package they use. You're just taking an intermediate as they are now, moving the door at one end and bolting a cab on, that's all. If someone orders that, they'll get it. Though I don't think anyone likely will; regular 802s would be fine for XC if it was decided to go that way - if they're OK for TPE they'll be OK for XC, there is very little practical difference between their operations now.

 

[Benjwri]

I suspect a 26m genset driving vehicle would be an hour or two on whatever CAD package they use.

Unfortunately not that simple I’m afraid. Any change to the design, especially the exterior would have to go through a far more detailed design, with parts being selected to deal with changes in the design. It would also obviously have to go through simulations etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately not that simple I’m afraid. Any change to the design, especially the exterior would have to go through a far more detailed design, with parts being selected to deal with changes in the design. It would also obviously have to go through simulations etc.

I am however absolutely 100% confident without any shadow of a doubt that they would do it if it was to be ordered. This Forum loves to put up objections to things which mostly end up happening. I've probably got an A4 length list of them by now, the most prominent one being my proposal for e-ticketing I made a few years ago being thoroughly rubbished then being very, very close to the one that's been rolled out pretty much across the network a couple of years later.

 

[Benjwri]

This Forum loves to put up objections to things which mostly end up happening.

I’m not saying it they wouldn’t do it, not am I saying it wouldn’t be worthwhile. However I don’t think the correct solution is to trivialise a redesign which would take an entire team at least a few months of work.

 

[tbtc]

But having developed a 24m variant, there may be other potential uses, especially where other 23/24m stock is already in use.

That’s an interesting question, e.g. I know that platforms at Glasgow Queen Street are probably going to determine the length of ScotRail’s HST replacements , so could it be that the lengths there are better suited to multiples of 24 rather than 26?

I am however absolutely 100% confident without any shadow of a doubt that they would do it if it was to be ordered

If you go to the manufacturer with a bucket of cash, they’ll design what you are looking for (just like they created a “bespoke” version of the 800/802s with 24m carriages and a higher ratio of engines for EMR rather than the “of the peg” 26m carriages)

The question is how much are they going to build into the price for all of the additional design work (which will no doubt be more complicated than us amateurs of a Forum assume), especially if they expect this to be the only order for this new design (so no chance of spreading the design costs over subsequent orders)… or, in other words, will the increased costs be worth the faff?

And if you are Hitatchi and know that the TOC have very few other options, you’re probably going to be putting a healthy mark up on all your costs since where else are they going to go?

Your idea that it’s just take “an hour or two” to completely redesign/ change production lines/ test the finished models (which would no doubt be deemed as a new class and therefore require proving their safety) feels like it can be put with your other simplistic answers to difficult issues (“money for old rope” etc)

 

[Rob F]

There is no reason CrossCountry couldn’t just order the 24m version ‘off the peg’. 26m vehicles are by no means essential.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no reason CrossCountry couldn’t just order the 24m version ‘off the peg’. 26m vehicles are by no means essential.

There's no reason they couldn't order the 26m version "off the peg" either. They don't need high speed running on diesel any more than GWR or TPE do.

 

[hexagon789]

There's no reason they couldn't order the 26m version "off the peg" either. They don't need high speed running on diesel any more than GWR or TPE do.

I suppose the slight losses on Derby-Birmingham can be made up by accelerating running elsewhere, where operation would now be on electric.

 

[YorksLad12]

But having developed a 24m variant, there may be other potential uses, especially where other 23/24m stock is already in use.

Which is what I was thinking of...

That’s an interesting question, e.g. I know that platforms at Glasgow Queen Street are probably going to determine the length of ScotRail’s HST replacements , so could it be that the lengths there are better suited to multiples of 24 rather than 26?

... which hadn't ocurred to me. But I was thinking about routes that you couldn't run 5x26m on for whatever reason, such as shorter platforms or points issues. IET and derivative 26m-long coaches may be the "off the shelf" design but lots of rolling stock in the UK is around the 20m or 23m marks.

 

[JamesT]

Which is what I was thinking of...

... which hadn't ocurred to me. But I was thinking about routes that you couldn't run 5x26m on for whatever reason, such as shorter platforms or points issues. IET and derivative 26m-long coaches may be the "off the shelf" design but lots of rolling stock in the UK is around the 20m or 23m marks.

Though one of the design goals for the IET as I understand it was that it should fit inside a similar kinematic envelope to existing shorter carriages, hence the tapered ends etc.

 

[AM9]

Though one of the design goals for the IET as I understand it was that it should fit inside a similar kinematic envelope to existing shorter carriages, hence the tapered ends etc.

That is a line clearance issue, the platform-car length relationship is really only a station/stabling issue affecting flexibility of configurations and ultimately matching train capacity with line capacity.

 

[43102EMR]

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 ==


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.

EMR said so themselves in the interview they did for Modern Railways; they claimed they underestimated how many units they needed and as such, the long-term retention of the 180s is an attempt to rectify this.

Most likely, the new operator of the 222s successfully negotiated a lease with Eversholt long before EMR realised they needed to retain the 4 extra units, leaving the unwanted 180s as the only units available to plug the gap.

 

[LowLevel]

EMR said so themselves in the interview they did for Modern Railways; they claimed they underestimated how many units they needed and as such, the long-term retention of the 180s is an attempt to rectify this.

Most likely, the new operator of the 222s successfully negotiated a lease with Eversholt long before EMR realised they needed to retain the 4 extra units, leaving the unwanted 180s as the only units available to plug the gap.

Are you assuming there is a new operator for the 222s, rather than the owner just not wanting to split the fleet up with a tiny microfleet?

 

[43102EMR]

Are you assuming there is a new operator for the 222s, rather than the owner just not wanting to split the fleet up with a tiny microfleet?

It’s a reasonable assumption to make given that the DfT have already pitched them to operators such as CrossCountry; there’s probably a lot of active plans going on behind the scenes regarding their future beyond EMR as opposed to the 180s.

 

[LowLevel]

It’s a reasonable assumption to make given that the DfT have already pitched them to operators such as CrossCountry; there’s probably a lot of active plans going on behind the scenes regarding their future beyond EMR as opposed to the 180s.

Fair enough - apart from forum speculation I've not heard a single thing is all!

 

[43102EMR]

Fair enough - apart from forum speculation I've not heard a single thing is all!

I’ve not heard much either beyond around a year ago when the DfT publicly announced that XC has the option to take them on as part of their capacity enhancement strategy/direct award - not sure how much has changed since then!

 

[bluelagoon8951]

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.

yes, absolutely this. i think 5 car sets are best suited to the route - especially with stations like long eaton - if i'm not mistaken a 5 car 810 can just fit in, and a 10 car may be able to fit at chesterfield. either way, capacity is much higher, with more intercity vehicles than before each of which can hold more seats.

edit - just checked and no, the stations are still too short. i reckon long eaton could easily be made 120m though...

 

[Prestige15]

yes, absolutely this. i think 5 car sets are best suited to the route - especially with stations like long eaton - if i'm not mistaken a 5 car 810 can just fit in, and a 10 car may be able to fit at chesterfield. either way, capacity is much higher, with more intercity vehicles than before each of which can hold more seats.

edit - just checked and no, the stations are still too short. i reckon long eaton could easily be made 120m though...

Chesterfield can only take 9 car

 

[XCTurbostar]

Attached image: Shows purple driving coach 810001 outside Hitachi Merchant Park.
Image from Facebook: James Garthwaite

 

[St. Paddy]

Attached image: Shows purple driving coach 810001 outside Hitachi Merchant Park.
Image from Facebook: James Garthwaite

Oh god, hope this picture doesn’t generate another 3 pages of seat wibble

 

[800001]

Oh god, hope this picture doesn’t generate another 3 pages of seat wibble

No seats in it to wibble about

 

[St. Paddy]

No seats in it to wibble about

There weren’t any seats in the previous photo either