EMR Class 810 reliability: potential improvements

[liamf656]

Presumably having had several 810s delivered which aren't fit to enter service isn't helping matters in terms of depot space.

Have the 810s been cleared to work in multiple yet? I saw testing was progressing but I've not seen any timescales or outcomes. The temporary timetable not withstanding, but I believe they can't use that many more in service until they can work in multiple - without altering diagrams. It was hinted elsewhere that a significant recast of services will happen once the 810s are all in service, and with more units than there were 222s, I'd imagine more services will run as 10 cars.

Was there any intention to extend the network, or have the likes of Leeds, Scarborough etc been permanently discarded?

It's been suggested that the 222s are due to start going off lease pretty imminently, and at a fairly rapid rate. Is there chapter and verse on this anywhere, rather than a twitter post from someone who may or may not actually have the gen?

AFAIK there has been 10 car training within EMR but I don't know how much of this has progressed

York/Scarborough is pretty much dead in the water now unfortunately. I'm not sure whether or not it was planned to continue or whether COVID was the reason, but the MML recast in 2021 saw the end to it. Leeds, I believe there were plans for a few trains a day but I can't see that happening now either

I have spoken to people in the know about the departure of the 222s, and that they were due to leave throughout the Autumn/Winter, however this was a good number of months ago so I could now be off the mark with this as I haven't heard anything since

 

[Teapot42]

Permanently discarded. The 810 fleet is sized to operate the 2tph to each of Sheffield / Nottingham service.

That's a shame. Sheffield to Leeds is fairly poorly served considering how close they are. The new Northern service helps a little, but a higher capacity intercity service would be better.

York isn't too bad as you have 2x hourly XC.

 

[Railperf]

That would require a comllete timetable rewrite.

The net working times are not achieved by 222's or 810's north of Leicester. There is a deficit of up to four mins in one direction and three mins in the other for 810's and a minute less for 222's. The only way any service can keep the timetable is to recoup the time loss using up engineering allowances, pathing time etc.
And services running on less than a full set of engines will struggle to keep time.
A comparison of fastest achieved times Vs average driving times Vs the working times suggests the working times can be met only when the driver drives it like he/she/ they stole it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2026 ==

Hitachi will always set the software for a power curve nearer the minimum power to meet the end to end journey times for the operation rather than the absolute maximum that can be attained by the engine. They do this for engine economy reasons.

Engines on all 8xx units have always been governed in this way, to a greater or lesser degree. Getting Hitachi to give you more is a major task, as FG/GWR found out.

That's the problem though. They are not set up to meet the sectional running times - except on electric only. Possibly just about meeting the gross timetable including all additional allowances on diesel eating into dwell times.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Presumably having had several 810s delivered which aren't fit to enter service isn't helping matters in terms of depot space.

If they have been signed off by EMR they I guess they need to be at EP to be sorted out. If not though perhaps they should be dumped at Chaddesden, or sent back to Newton Aycliffe.

The temporary timetable not withstanding, but I believe they can't use that many more in service until they can work in multiple - without altering diagrams. It was hinted elsewhere that a significant recast of services will happen once the 810s are all in service, and with more units than there were 222s, I'd imagine more services will run as 10 cars.

AIUI EMR had 27 class 222s before the first five sets were stood down, and all were at least five cars. So I imagine Hitachi need to deliver at least 27 class 810s to restore the equilibrium notwithtanding four 222s were 7 car units. It seems to me that Hitachi are (technically) very far from having to routinely provide pairs of 810s any more than EMR used pairs of 222s.

It seems to me that Hitachi have twin goals. Get the 810s into traffic ASAP but also keep the 222s running. After all, I assume that Hitachi will still be responsible for handing back the 222s in dilapidation exam status, which includes the accident damaged set apparently needing the new cab .

It's been suggested that the 222s are due to start going off lease pretty imminently, and at a fairly rapid rate. Is there chapter and verse on this anywhere, rather than a twitter post from someone who may or may not actually have the gen?

Presume Beacon have already lined up the sidings to park up the 222s after they have been handed back for dilapidation exams, and before they go for a works overhaul. Who is overhauling the 222s ? Litchurch Lane ? Plenty of room there after 345071-080 have been delivered ?

 

[liamf656]

Presume Beacon have already lined up the sidings to park up the 222s after they have been handed back for dilapidation exams, and before they go for a works overhaul. Who is overhauling the 222s ? Litchurch Lane ? Plenty of room there after 345071-080 have been delivered ?

I believe so, as 222104 went there

 

[marshlinker]

That would require a complete timetable rewrite.

Surely that's inevitable now? Didn't the class 222s knock something like 12 mins off the HST times. I suspect the hindsight will be that if you wanted to match the acceleration of the 222s with a 810 they would have needed a more powerful engine beyond the rating of the current MTU V12 1600, because to comply with Euro V you have to accept a flatter torque curve.

 

[Teapot42]

It seems to me that Hitachi are (technically) very far from having to routinely provide pairs of 810s any more than EMR used pairs of 222s.

My understanding of what was discussed on another thread is that the diagrams are such that there are only 6 which don't require coupling and uncoupling at some point during the day. (Referring to the 'normal' timetable)

Presuming 810s can't be coupled to 222s that means until multiple working is sorted they can't have more than 6 in service. I don't recall if the discussion mentioned how many they'd need to step up to - whether there are diagrams which only couple to one other unit during the day for example. I guess it would also mean enough confidence in reliability to put 810s out on diagrams which couple as you'd not be able to sub failed ones with a 222.

 

[Dave61]

Surely that's inevitable now? Didn't the class 222s knock something like 12 mins off the HST times. I suspect the hindsight will be that if you wanted to match the acceleration of the 222s with a 810 they would have needed a more powerful engine beyond the rating of the current MTU V12 1600, because to comply with Euro V you have to accept a flatter torque curve.

Or complete (or at least extend) the electrification.

 

[Teapot42]

Or complete (or at least extend) the electrification.

I can't understand why it didn't at least extend to Leicester. It surely must be technically easier to switch from diesel to electric at a stand, so that would have removed one reliability concern with bimode stock.

 

[Kneedown]

I can't understand why it didn't at least extend to Leicester. It surely must be technically easier to switch from diesel to electric at a stand, so that would have removed one reliability concern with bimode stock.

I don't understand why it wasn't allowed to continue to Derby at the very least, seeing as how most of the really expensive work (Bridge rebuilding, track lowering etc) has already been mostly completed.

 

[Amos390]

Something interesting out of the latest RAIL article on the 222s and 810s, it appears Etches are going to solely work on the 222s again and the 810s will be sent off elsewhere for maintenance (Long Marston will be that place) under the new plan for the repairing of the intercity timetable as said in the latest RAIL article:

“This plan will see engineers at EMR’s Etches Park depot work solely on the class 222s for the immediate future with the Porterbrook-owned Long Marston site used for maintenance and testing of the Class 810s.”

EMR are also going to reintroduce the old timetable back to 92% capacity using the ex-Avanti 221s starting on the 31st Aug. Whilst there is no given deadline for the 221s coming in, I am presuming it’ll be around that date and crew training will commence soon (there will be training, but not much is needed due to the units similarity to the 222). These parts of the article are about this topic:

“From August 31, EMR will reinstate 12 core services that were previously fully withdrawn under the July emergency timetable. These reinstatements will ensure five weekday and three weekend services to the Sheffield route will return, alongside three weekday and one weekend service on the Nottingham line.”

“As the operator works on returning to a full timetable, it is also working with the Department for Transport Operator (DfTO) on securing a short-term agreement on current off-lease rolling stock. This deal is expected to be for six five-car Class 221 ‘Voyager’ units that were last used by Avanti West Coast in December 2024 and have been in storage since, with a deal close as RAIL went to press.”

“To work on EMR routes, the Voyagers will need their tilt mechanisms disabled while staff training will be required given the small differences between them and the ‘222s’. Timescales for their introduction have not been confirmed.”

This is the article for anyone with the subscription, a very full article on it so quite informative: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/emr-to-reintroduce-some-services-after-fleet-issues

 

[43096]

“This plan will see engineers at EMR’s Etches Park depot work solely on the class 222s for the immediate future with the Porterbrook-owned Long Marston site used for maintenance and testing of the Class 810s.”

That's just another recipe for disaster. Maintaining trains away from their home patch works so well, doesn't it? Exhibit A: EMR's Class 360s...

 

[Teapot42]

That's just another recipe for disaster. Maintaining trains away from their home patch works so well, doesn't it? Exhibit A: EMR's Class 360s...

Doesn't exactly look a quick or easy move to get there from Etches.

For the uninitiated, how frequently would units require attention? Will 'working' 810s still be based out of Etches to be used for services, and they just go to Long Marston if something breaks or when regular maintenance is needed?

Surely they won't be going there each night then back to the MML the next morning?

 

[InTheEastMids]

I can't understand why it didn't at least extend to Leicester.

Scope creep. The original Grayling 2017 cancellation stopped at Corby and Kettering North Junction. Then it was accepted that they needed to get to Braybrooke GSP somehow. For some reason it was extended to Harborough (the end point was going to be south of Great Bowden Road Bridge). Then it got extended to Wigston as presumably it was cheap, simple plain line work where most of the bridges had already been done and IRP said MMLE would be done in full. Stopping there was - I think - based on avoiding abortive work due to the proposed Leicester Capacity Scheme from Wigston South to Syston that is currently a long way into the long grass. The basic idea was to do Syston-Trent before Wigston-Syston.

I don't understand why it wasn't allowed to continue to Derby at the very least, seeing as how most of the really expensive work (Bridge rebuilding, track lowering etc) has already been mostly completed.

Had they? There's some quite restrictive looking bridges between Long Eaton and Derby in an area prone to flooding, have never seen anything definitive either way. Also, getting to Derby would presumably have needed the new GSP at Kegworth.

That's just another recipe for disaster. Maintaining trains away from their home patch works so well,

I would expect lack of maintenance capacity to be a consequence of franchise/rolling stock competitions. If you want to win the commercials then that could incentivise absolute minimum investment in maintenance/repair capacity. This may all work fine in "steady state" operations for 300 days a year. However, when you're in severe weather, getting to grips with a new fleet's teething troubles and are facing the consequences of perhaps having taken a bit of a maintenance holiday on the outgoing fleet...

 

[londonmidland]

EMR are also going to reintroduce the old timetable back to 92% capacity using the ex-Avanti 221s starting on the 31st Aug. Whilst there is no given deadline for the 221s coming in, I am presuming it’ll be around that date and crew training will commence soon (there will be training, but not much is needed due to the units similarity to the 222).

Just over two weeks from today’s date. Somehow I can’t see them being introduced that soon.

 

[43074]

EMR are also going to reintroduce the old timetable back to 92% capacity using the ex-Avanti 221s starting on the 31st Aug. Whilst there is no given deadline for the 221s coming in, I am presuming it’ll be around that date and crew training will commence soon (there will be training, but not much is needed due to the units similarity to the 222). These parts of the article are about this topic:

No chance the uplift at the end of August will be using the 221s - they are currently using only 12 out of 21 222s which they have on lease at present, based on the linked letter to stakeholders in another thread it looks like they are introducing an extra 222 (or 810) diagram to reinstate some of the services which have been removed. Training enough crews on 221s, even if only a conversion course from 222 traction knowledge will take longer than a couple of weeks.

 

[Kneedown]

Had they? There's some quite restrictive looking bridges between Long Eaton and Derby in an area prone to flooding, have never seen anything definitive either way. Also, getting to Derby would presumably have needed the new GSP at Kegworth.

I did say "most", not all. A heck of a lot were done up to Trent. All bar one IIRR.