Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[greatvoyager]

I really would be surprised to see EMR introduce a brand name for the 804s. Once they get the final fleets in place branding is actually quite simple:

• EMR InterCity - Class 804s
• EMR Electric - Class 360s
• EMR Regional - Class 170s

I agree, as you say they already have branding for the specific services.

 

[greatvoyager]

Are the 804s also replacing 180s? I keep getting confused.

 

[JonathanH]

Are the 804s also replacing 180s? I keep getting confused.

Yes, the 180s are just an interim fleet.

 

[Energy]

180s are just there because they are available and I believe to take over some HSTs

 

[Murray J]

I believe the 180s are coming in to replace the ex grand central 2+6 HSTs

 

[greatvoyager]

Yes, the 180s are just an interim fleet.

180s are just there because they are available and I believe to take over some HSTs

That makes sense, wouldn't think why they'd take unreliable stock in the long term.

 

[323217]

Will these definitely be 804s? I thought I saw in Modern Railways they don't have a number yet?

 

[greatvoyager]

Will these definitely be 804s? I thought I saw in Modern Railways they don't have a number yet?

Yes, it's in Today's Railways magazine, these are 804s, East Coast Trains version is class 803.

 

[greatvoyager]

I believe the 180s are coming in to replace the ex grand central 2+6 HSTs

That's what I thought, but it looks like then they will be replaced by the 804s and will once again have an uncertain future.

 

[greatvoyager]

I look at names of trains (both the classes and individual units) and I see things that are either ridiculous (Azuma), incomprehensible (IET) or meaningless (Old Oak Common - HST Depot 1976-2018) and I think, why don't they give them sensible names or names that are easy to understand. Why don't they just call them Gary?

In seriousness, I don't see the need to name trains.

I agree to an extent, but the Old Oak Common Name won't be meaningless to many people who worked on or used HSTs. I definitely agree that the IET name can be confusing, seeing as some people think it's actually an IEP because of the Intercity Express Programme.
Whilst Gary would be a fun name, it wouldn't have meaning unless your name is Gary. Most names are for marketing purposes.
Having said that, I doubt the 804s will have a name, they don't really need one as they are going to be working under a branded service of EMR Intercity, so why confuse things more?

 

[swt_passenger]

That's what I thought, but it looks like then they will be replaced by the 804s and will once again have an uncertain future.

180s being temporary has been known about for some time, it’s all covered in one of the other more general threads about EMR rolling stock plans.

 

[paul332]

Guppy. They look like guppies and it usefully rhymes with puppy. "Ride East Midlands Guppy, Treat your little puppy!"

 

[PG]

I'm curious about the use of Intercity as a branding having seen it applied to coach sides on a recent journey through Derby.

IIRC DfT specifically banned usage of the term Intercity post privatisation yet, I assume, they've obviously relented for EMR. Given that EMR is a long term name that should in theory remain with the franchise that implies that the Intercity branding will too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm curious about the use of Intercity as a branding having seen it applied to coach sides on a recent journey through Derby.

IIRC DfT specifically banned usage of the term Intercity post privatisation yet, I assume, they've obviously relented for EMR. Given that EMR is a long term name that should in theory remain with the franchise that implies that the Intercity branding will too.

They didn't ban it, they own the rights to it so charged licence fees for it that the TOCs mostly didn't want to pay, though a few did use it for a while e.g. FGW.

 

[Nym]

I agree to an extent, but the Old Oak Common Name won't be meaningless to many people who worked on or used HSTs. I definitely agree that the IET name can be confusing, seeing as some people think it's actually an IEP because of the Intercity Express Programme.
Whilst Gary would be a fun name, it wouldn't have meaning unless your name is Gary. Most names are for marketing purposes.
Having said that, I doubt the 804s will have a name, they don't really need one as they are going to be working under a branded service of EMR Intercity, so why confuse things more?

IEP is a Sub-Type of IET in the eyes of Hitachi down at Old Oak Common (Sorry, North Pole). The other type being a WoE, as they are actually rather different.

 

[greatvoyager]

180s being temporary has been known about for some time, it’s all covered in one of the other more general threads about EMR rolling stock plans.

Thanks, always seems to get lost in translation.

 

[greatvoyager]

I assume the interior will feature purple in some way.

 

[transmanche]

IIRC DfT specifically banned usage of the term Intercity post privatisation yet, I assume, they've obviously relented for EMR.

They didn't ban it, they own the rights to it so charged licence fees for it that the TOCs mostly didn't want to pay, though a few did use it for a while e.g. FGW.

And the IPO website confirms that the DfT has licensed the trademark to Abellio East Midlands Limited.

But what really intrigues me is that the DfT has also licensed it to First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Limited...

IGiven that EMR is a long term name that should in theory remain with the franchise that implies that the Intercity branding will too.

EMR use InterCity as a sub-brand - there's no guarantee that sub-brands will survive the franchise.

 

[PG]

But what really intrigues me is that the DfT has also licensed it to First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Limited...

EMR use InterCity as a sub-brand - there's no guarantee that sub-brands will survive the franchise.

Hmmm, intriguing as you say...

Given the general state of UK rail there's no guarantee the franchise will survive...

 

[greatvoyager]

I can't remember if this has been mentioned, but are the 804s going to have a micro buffet, or a trolley service?

 

[ohgoditsjames]

I can't remember if this has been mentioned, but are the 804s going to have a micro buffet, or a trolley service?

Considering they’re only ordered 5 car units one would assume there’s no chance for a buffet!

 

[greatvoyager]

Considering they’re only ordered 5 car units one would assume there’s no chamber for a buffet!

Agreed, probably the shorter carriages mean there is even less room for it.

 

[w1bbl3]

I'd have thought that the first class driving unit would still have a mini food service area to both store trolley stock and allow the first class complimentary service to be operated. I'd expect the actual service to be trolley based either mobile or on the busiest static from the trolley base.

 

[greatvoyager]

I'd have thought that the first class driving unit would still have a mini food service area to both store trolley stock and allow the first class complimentary service to be operated. I'd expect the actual service to be trolley based either mobile or on the busiest static from the trolley base.

Trolley service seems to be the preferred choice.

 

[route101]

Whats the difference between 804 and the rest of the 800s?

 

[43096]

Whats the difference between 804 and the rest of the 800s?

Shorter bodyshells (~24m vs ~26m) and four engines in a five-car set.

 

[jh64]

You can also see some visual differences in the initial CG render compared to one of Hull's 802s. The side body panel below the lights is flatter and more angular compared to the rounded 802, and the light cluster itself has a different LED layout inside.

 

[greatvoyager]

Whats the difference between 804 and the rest of the 800s?

Shorter bodyshells (~24m vs ~26m) and four engines in a five-car set.

Also a facelifted front with new headlight layout and revised nose profile.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Why does the MML need shorter body shells? Is it a gauge issue with middle and end of cars swinging out more on curves? I know Mk4s won't fit up the MML on some platforms. It does seem unsatisfactory to have different fleet requirements on one of the three northbound main lines. Apologies as I am sure I've overlooked the answer elsewhere.

 

[Nym]

Potentially more likely the desire for coupleable formations of maximum length and the limiting factor of St Pancras platforms?