EMR Class 222’s - declining reliability

[QSK19]

Aren't there some ex-Avanti 221s sitting around off-lease somewhere*? Surely the question should be why aren't they being utilised in some way to mitigate the situation? I know the answer, but it does somewhat highlight the issues of such a fragmented railway.

* - Class 180s as well? Although I can fully understand nobody wanted to even entertain the idea of utilising them!

Yes, they’re all sat there doing nothing, but money is king these days. I would be amazed if the DfT dipped into their wallet to pay for extra stock for EMR - they’ve said on many occasions that there is no money; so, as I said before, let’s expect the “do nothing” option and anything above that is a bonus.

 

[amahy]

Personally, I find the situation ludicrous, because it is already fairly easy to get between London Euston and Stirling, with a straightforward change at either Edinburgh or Glasgow (although a change at Glasgow involves a walk across town). Services are also fairly fast and frequent, on both the London to Edinburgh/Glasgow and Edinburgh/Glasgow to Stirling legs. It would not be detrimental to travellers between London and Stirling for the service to start a few months later than planned.

On the other hand, customers travelling between London the East Midlands have little alternative but to use EMR services (other than using the ECML or WCML and changing, but services between these lines and East Midlands cities are largely slow and infrequent).

My opinion, is that the existing services on the network should be working before adding new ones!

 

[43096]

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree.

You diagree with what? Contract law? Because that is what it is.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

There's other options too, hiring in loco and coaching stock (and crew) from a charter/freight operator for example to free up 170s. There is (or was) 175s, 180s, 221, 68s and Mk5s etc - yes, probably far too late now, but options did exist to at least mitigate some of this. Nobody wanted to pay to make any of this happen, and likely nobody wants the hassle.

Ultimately there are solutions of varying degrees of sensibility - but DfT isn't going to authorise payment. That then begs the question why Hitachi aren't on the hook for compensation - and potentially hints that it may not be straightforward that Hitachi has done anything wrong, at least contractually.

 

[duffield]

There's other options too, hiring in loco and coaching stock (and crew) from a charter/freight operator for example to free up 170s. There is (or was) 175s, 180s, 221, 68s and Mk5s etc - yes, probably far too late now, but options did exist to at least mitigate some of this. Nobody wanted to pay to make any of this happen, and likely nobody wants the hassle.

Ultimately there are solutions of varying degrees of sensibility - but DfT isn't going to authorise payment. That then begs the question why Hitachi aren't on the hook for compensation - and potentially hints that it may not be straightforward that Hitachi has done anything wrong, at least contractually.

Hitachi are on the hook - but only to the RoSCO (Rock Rail), and are paying them compensation (it's been reported here repeatedly, I think it shows in the accounts). That's who their contractual relationship is with. What I don't think we know is what is going on between the RoSCO and EMR - obviously EMR are not paying the leasing costs to Rock Rail but if there's anything beyond that for non-delivery it is (I think) being kept confidential.

 

[Taunton]

Whether or not you think Lumo chose the right rolling stock is irrelevant. The point is, the deal was agreed, and Lumo should not lose out primarily because EMR ordered a train that has taken a ridiculously long time to become suitable for use.

Surely ALL new trains take a ridiculously long time to become suitable for use nowadays, and such should be taken into account.

 

[170UTD]

1F47 terminated at Derby instead of Sheffield today, the automated announcement said "due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time" but RTT said "due to a problem with the traction equipment". This is only going to get worse in September. Hopefully contingency plans have been discussed?

 

[QSK19]

1F47 terminated at Derby instead of Sheffield today, the automated announcement said "due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time" but RTT said "due to a problem with the traction equipment". This is only going to get worse in September. Hopefully contingency plans have been discussed?

Indeed. As the phrase goes, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”

One hopes so as well, but let’s not forget expect any!

 

[Supercoss]

222 101 out of use dumped at Cricklewood since Monday with bearing issue ,long long way from maintenance facility

 

[InTheEastMids]

Aren't there some ex-Avanti 221s sitting around off-lease somewhere*?

Obviously wider speculation is for a separate thread if they're no longer off to open access because of ORR determinations, perhaps the chances of a short-term deal to bail out EMR are somewhat improved.

222 101 out of use dumped at Cricklewood since Monday with bearing issue ,long long way from maintenance facility

I had a quick look at the St Pancras EMR departures today and it looks like the service is holding together, but short forms do reinforce the impression that all is not well.
I am not sure what it says about the 200th anniversary of the railway, that many people visiting the festivities will be cramming themselves onto what is probably England's most decrepit inter-city train fleet.

Surely ALL new trains take a ridiculously long time to become suitable for use nowadays, and such should be taken into account.

"East Midlands Railway's fleet of Class 810 Aurora trains were originally meant to enter service in 2022 but have yet to be used by passengers."*
So a delay of 3 years has already been managed around, but clearly this issue cropped up too late, the deal with Lumo had already been done.

*From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq53z6gnqjyo

 

[Martin222002]

Hitachi are on the hook - but only to the RoSCO (Rock Rail), and are paying them compensation (it's been reported here repeatedly, I think it shows in the accounts). That's who their contractual relationship is with. What I don't think we know is what is going on between the RoSCO and EMR - obviously EMR are not paying the leasing costs to Rock Rail but if there's anything beyond that for non-delivery it is (I think) being kept confidential.

Not just that. It's Hitachi that are the ones 'delivering' this woful 222 fleet reliability as their current maintainer. Hitachi have form of delivering poor reliability of fleets they inherit maintenance of. Compare with the state of the LNER HSTs when EMR had to use them. Also wouldn't surprise me if it was at least part of the reason LNER moved it's 225 (class 91 and Mk4) fleet maintenance to Neville Hill.

 

[RichardAsh1981]

Currently on 1F67 to Sheffield (I'm going to Derby), plus side there are two 5-car sets to give 10 coaches, but in coach M (second from the back) the PIS is alternately loud and quiet within a sentence, so very hard to make anything out. 222019 according to Real Time Trains.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Currently on 1F67 to Sheffield (I'm going to Derby), plus side there are two 5-car sets to give 10 coaches, but in coach M (second from the back) the PIS is alternately loud and quiet within a sentence, so very hard to make anything out. 222019 according to Real Time Trains.

I’ve also noticed patchy PA announcements on a lot of 222s over the past year or so.

 

[dosxuk]

Been a problem with the 222's as long as I can remember. Always particularly bad when navigating tight point work on departure which makes me suspect the wiring harnesses between carriages - and that it's probably difficult to diagnose/fix on depot if the fault isn't evident when it's checked.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There's been loads of trivial - ish faults on the 222s for a couple of years at least. The ones I've noticed are - vestibule door push buttons not working - lavatory soap dispensers broken - lavatories locked out of use - exterior doors locked out - double glazing steamed up - windows fitted inside-out - engines shut down - ac not working - tatty tables in 1st.
Presumably DfT have refused to underwrite the cost of repairs BUT won't all these defects have to be repaired before the trains are handed back to the lease company? So where's the saving?

 

[dosxuk]

That stock has to be handed back in fully working order is oft repeated on these pages, but it's also invariably proven to not be the case. Whether this is because the contacts are varied (no point refurbing a set if it's just going to scrap, or needs to be refurbished to a new operators spec) or because the contacts allow for fair wear and tear during the lifetime of the lease, pretty much every hand back we see evidence of has the stock not in new condition upon return.

 

[Merle Haggard]

That stock has to be handed back in fully working order is oft repeated on these pages, but it's also invariably proven to not be the case. Whether this is because the contacts are varied (no point refurbing a set if it's just going to scrap, or needs to be refurbished to a new operators spec) or because the contacts allow for fair wear and tear during the lifetime of the lease, pretty much every hand back we see evidence of has the stock not in new condition upon return.

That sounds absolute, that it never happens.
Allegation (just an anecdote, I know) from someone that I know in South Eastern maintenance that floor covering repairs, in accordance with lease conditions, were made to their units which were going off lease to scrap.
In the case of the 222s far from going for scrap the first to go are required for use imminently elsewhere. 222005, allegedly already stepped down by EMR, is visible from passing trains at Etches Park and seems to be having work being undertaken on it. No cab door, for instance.
Of course there's always secrecy - 'commercial sensitivity' - which seems very poor considering how much public money from taxation is spent on sustaining the leases.

 

[Yew]

We have had this discussion previously on other threads, but  why should Lumo, a non DfT co trolled TOC, be blocked from taking stock that has had a lease agreement signed, as the previous agreement, with EMR, had or was about to expire...why should that private enterprise be blocked?

Because we should put public services ahead of private sector profits.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2025 ==

Whether or not you think Lumo chose the right rolling stock is irrelevant. The point is, the deal was agreed, and Lumo should not lose out primarily because EMR ordered a train that has taken a ridiculously long time to become suitable for use.

The passengers on the MML should not lose out so that some shareholders can get some dividends though a barely masked ORCATS raid.

 

[coppercapped]

Because we should put public services ahead of private sector profits.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2025 ==

So Lumo does not offer services to the public?

The passengers on the MML should not lose out so that some shareholders can get some dividends though a barely masked ORCATS raid.

What an out of date comment. Why should passengers ‘lose out’ through an ‘ORCATs raid’?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Because we should put public services ahead of private sector profits.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2025 ==


The passengers on the MML should not lose out so that some shareholders can get some dividends though a barely masked ORCATS raid.

You obviously have no idea how revenue works these days. Dedicated fares have rendered ORCATS almost redundant on main line flows. ORCATS Raiding is so last century.

Contract laws exist for a reason - so nobody can come in and easily disrupt agreements, governments included. If the DfT couldn’t put extension provisions in their TOC ROSCO contracts, that’s entirely their fault and they should suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Taking a step back from contract law etc, a fragmented railway system isn't a system

 

[800001]

Not just that. It's Hitachi that are the ones 'delivering' this woful 222 fleet reliability as their current maintainer. Hitachi have form of delivering poor reliability of fleets they inherit maintenance of. Compare with the state of the LNER HSTs when EMR had to use them. Also wouldn't surprise me if it was at least part of the reason LNER moved it's 225 (class 91 and Mk4) fleet maintenance to Neville Hill.

The 225s had to move from Bounds Green as there was no room at the depot to maintain them.
Nothing what so ever to do with hitachi and there 'poor reliability of fleets inherited'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2025 ==

Personally, I find the situation ludicrous, because it is already fairly easy to get between London Euston and Stirling, with a straightforward change at either Edinburgh or Glasgow (although a change at Glasgow involves a walk across town). Services are also fairly fast and frequent, on both the London to Edinburgh/Glasgow and Edinburgh/Glasgow to Stirling legs. It would not be detrimental to travellers between London and Stirling for the service to start a few months later than planned.

On the other hand, customers travelling between London the East Midlands have little alternative but to use EMR services (other than using the ECML or WCML and changing, but services between these lines and East Midlands cities are largely slow and infrequent).

My opinion, is that the existing services on the network should be working before adding new ones!

It was also easy to get from London to Edinburgh on LNER before Lumo introduced there trains, yet we have still seen LNER ridership increase and Lumo also running majority of full trains.

So not quite sure what your point is here?

 

[QSK19]

Because we should put public services ahead of private sector profits.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2025 ==


The passengers on the MML should not lose out so that some shareholders can get some dividends though a barely masked ORCATS raid.

Fully agree with Clarence Yard. Left-wing arguments do not outweigh contract law.

A contract has been signed between parties freely and in all good faith. The public sector cannot simply disapply legal processes thinking it has supremacy over others.

I am an MML user myself and have very outspoken views on the raw deal we get, but I simply refuse to blame private enterprise (but of course those who see it as the absolute evil in the world will do, even when the public sector messed up in this case).

 

[Yew]

So Lumo does not offer services to the public?

Typically, when we discuss public services in the context, we mean something provided for the benefit of the public, as opposed as to as an entirely for-profit enterprise. In this case, a hyper-literal interpretation of "any service that is offered to the public is a public service" would be incorrect.

What an out of date comment. Why should passengers ‘lose out’ through an ‘ORCATs raid’?

If nothing is done, the passengers on the MML very much will be losing out, as they have fewer seats on their line, and a higher likelihood of service disruptions.

 

[Bikeman78]

That sounds absolute, that it never happens.
Allegation (just an anecdote, I know) from someone that I know in South Eastern maintenance that floor covering repairs, in accordance with lease conditions, were made to their units which were going off lease to scrap.
In the case of the 222s far from going for scrap the first to go are required for use imminently elsewhere. 222005, allegedly already stepped down by EMR, is visible from passing trains at Etches Park and seems to be having work being undertaken on it. No cab door, for instance.
Of course there's always secrecy - 'commercial sensitivity' - which seems very poor considering how much public money from taxation is spent on sustaining the leases.

The TOC and the ROSCO need to come to a sensible agreement about what is required. Clearly there is no point putting new lino or carpet into a train that is about to be smashed to pieces. I recall that the Moorgate class 313s were typically sent for scrap 24 to 48 hours after carrying their last passengers. I think that little or nothing was done to them in that time. As regards the 222s, are they having a refurb before Lumo puts them into service? If so, there is no point in repairing anything that will end up in a skip as part of that process.

 

[Yew]

You obviously have no idea how revenue works these days. Dedicated fares have rendered ORCATS almost redundant on main line flows. ORCATS Raiding is so last century.

My terminology might be a little outdated, but to suggest there will be no revenue abstraction from public service operators is obviously incorrect.

Contract laws exist for a reason - so nobody can come in and easily disrupt agreements, governments included.

Primary legislation outweighs contract law, this idea that somehow a contract between two companies is some form of unbreakable bond that renders all government entities powerless to act is obviously wrong. If that were true, companies would use contract law to render themselves immune from new legislation, which does not happen.

A good example of this recently would be the COVID-19 restrictions, which were mostly made using the provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act.

If the DfT couldn’t put extension provisions in their TOC ROSCO contracts, that’s entirely their fault and they should suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

It is not the DFT that will be doing the suffering, though, it is the passengers and staff on the MML.

Fully agree with Clarence Yard. Left-wing arguments do not outweigh contract law.

Left wing arguments do not outweigh contract law by themselves, but primary legislation does, as do acts like the Civil Contingencies Act. Either of which are mechanisims could be utilised (supposedly) left-wing government.

A contract has been signed between parties freely and in all good faith. The public sector cannot simply disapply legal processes thinking it has supremacy over others.

The government would not be disapplying legal processes, it does hold the legal trump card in the arguments, should it wish to play it.

I am an MML user myself and have very outspoken views on the raw deal we get, but I simply refuse to blame private enterprise (but of course those who see it as the absolute evil in the world will do, even when the public sector messed up in this case).

There were faults in the 222 contract, for sure, but we must remember that Hitachi also bears some of the blame.


To be clear, I am not suggesting that the government will use these tools, nor that they are likely, but that the government does have the authority to intervene if it wishes.

 

[py_megapixel]

Of course there's always secrecy - 'commercial sensitivity' - which seems very poor considering how much public money from taxation is spent on sustaining the leases.

You make an excellent point with this last sentence. If central government was really serious about cutting wasteful spending, one of the easiest things they could do would be to remove that particular exemption in the Freedom of Information rules.

The amount of secrecy surrounding the use of the use of what we are repeatedly told is "our money" is nothing short of scandalous, especially when the relevant bodies quite openly admit that such secrecy is for the primary purpose of protecting the interests of commercial entities.

 

[amahy]

It was also easy to get from London to Edinburgh on LNER before Lumo introduced there trains, yet we have still seen LNER ridership increase and Lumo also running majority of full trains.

So not quite sure what your point is here?

Lumo ordered their own trains to operate their service, without taking rolling stock away from main TOCs where the stock is needed!

 

[Clarence Yard]

My terminology might be a little outdated, but to suggest there will be no revenue abstraction from public service operators is obviously incorrect.

Primary legislation outweighs contract law, this idea that somehow a contract between two companies is some form of unbreakable bond that renders all government entities powerless to act is obviously wrong. If that were true, companies would use contract law to render themselves immune from new legislation, which does not happen.

A good example of this recently would be the COVID-19 restrictions, which were mostly made using the provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act.

Left wing arguments do not outweigh contract law by themselves, but primary legislation does, as do acts like the Civil Contingencies Act. Either of which are mechanisims could be utilised (supposedly) left-wing government.

The government would not be disapplying legal processes, it does hold the legal trump card in the arguments, should it wish to play it.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the government will use these tools, nor that they are likely, but that the government does have the authority to intervene if it wishes.

The Civil Contingencies Act is not a catch-all. There are limitations on use, based around proportionality and not creating or causing offences. It is certainly not applicable where the DfT themselves screw up a ROSCO contract, badly in this case.

OA Abstraction is something that is very emotive and some assumptions about its extent (both ways) are very wide of the mark. We shall shortly find out about Lumo to Stirling, in reality and not just because someone thinks it will be or not be abstractive.

What is certain is that the 222 fleet is getting pounded and when the 810 fleet finally arrive and get prepared for and enter service, the transition is going to be “interesting”. Resources at Derby to maintain any stock are going to be stretched.

 

[43066]

Primary legislation outweighs contract law, this idea that somehow a contract between two companies is some form of unbreakable bond that renders all government entities powerless to act is obviously wrong. If that were true, companies would use contract law to render themselves immune from new legislation, which does not happen.

But surely it’s obvious that companies entering into contracts need to have a degree of certainty that they won’t be interfered with on a whim by the government. If the government started arbitrarily interfering with businesses’ property and contractual arrangements, the integrity of the legal system would be undermined, and the UK would rapidly stop being seen as a place where it’s desirable to do business.

If an ability to delay transfer of the units was desirable why wasn’t this negotiated when the contract was agreed?