Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

[800001]

Could this be an 810 move tomorrow 16/6?
A 5Q70 1221 Old Dalby to Merchant Park Sidings

Realtime Trains | 5Q70 1221 Old Dalby to Merchant Park Sidings | 16/06/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q70 1221 departure from Old Dalby to Merchant Park Sidings on 16/06/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

It’s all it could be.

 

[jfowkes]

In what way is the ROSCO setup to blame for Hitachi’s inability to deliver trains anywhere near to the contracted delivery schedule? Because that is the root cause.

That is the root cause, but that's a bad situation made worse by (as I understand it) the 222s going to Lumo regardless of how it affects EMR. This is happening because the rolling stock is a privately owned resource under the control of the ROSCOs.

That, to me, is silly. The best way to manage this already bad situation is to keep the 222s at EMR and let Lumo wait.

 

[Iskra]

That is the root cause, but that's a bad situation made worse by (as I understand it) the 222s going to Lumo regardless of how it affects EMR. This is happening because the rolling stock is a privately owned resource under the control of the ROSCOs.

That, to me, is silly. The best way to manage this already bad situation is to keep the 222s at EMR and let Lumo wait.

The financiers of Lumo, would strongly disagree I suspect, and win easily if it came to a legal case. Therefore, also ‘silly.’

 

[43096]

That is the root cause, but that's a bad situation made worse by (as I understand it) the 222s going to Lumo regardless of how it affects EMR. This is happening because the rolling stock is a privately owned resource under the control of the ROSCOs.

That, to me, is silly. The best way to manage this already bad situation is to keep the 222s at EMR and let Lumo wait.

Why should Lumo wait? They have signed a contract for the trains.

Just to remind you, that the growth of the rail industry over the last 30 years or so has been significantly funded by privately-owned leasing companies in the new trains to carry all those extra passengers. Without that funding, there would never have been that level of investment.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Thats makes sense given they are going for a refurb first and i guess Widnes will only be resourced to deal with 1-2 units at a time. So are they taking one 7 car and one 5 to make 2 x six cars or is that detail not yet decided?

Not close enough to the detail to know this. But it was meant to be one at a time stretched over several months, not all released from EMR at once.

Which is why I asked the question about 810 service introduction, to gauge for myself exactly any possible shortfall for EMR. If EMR get some 810 units in service by the end of the year, there doesn’t seem to be much of a problem.

 

[Snow1964]

The numerous delays have been discussed to death here and elsewhere, no (apparent) 10-car testing has commenced and we’ve now heard that there are major wiring issues. So, to hear that a unit is being handed over in September seems a bit premature given the introduction issues are not insignificant.

I might have missed it, but is the major wiring issue in the operation of the train, or in the hotel services.

If it is just affecting latter, the passenger comfort, toilets and displays etc. And there is no problem operating a train, then it would be possible to hand over a few for driver training, so can train the crews whilst others are updated and fixed. Once a few are in service the training units then go back for modification.

The very long 701 Introduction thread mentions about 6-8 units passed for training, but not fully updated to passenger carrying condition, so could similar happen with 810s

 

[D365]

I might have missed it, but is the major wiring issue in the operation of the train, or in the hotel services.

If it is just affecting latter, the passenger comfort, toilets and displays etc. And there is no problem operating a train, then it would be possible to hand over a few for driver training, so can train the crews whilst others are updated and fixed. Once a few are in service the training units then go back for modification.

The very long 701 Introduction thread mentions about 6-8 units passed for training, but not fully updated to passenger carrying condition, so could similar happen with 810s

The ’hotel power’ moniker is a misnomer. On modern passenger stock, the TCMS (Train Control & Management System, of which the PIS is a subsystem) is so integral to train function that it cannot be fully electrically isolated on a test service train.

If this speculation about the Class 810s is true - it’s nothing in common with Class 701. No comparison can be drawn there.

 

[AJDesiro]

The ’hotel power’ moniker is a misnomer. On modern passenger stock, the TCMS (Train Control & Management System, of which the PIS is a subsystem) is so integral to train function that it cannot be fully electrically isolated on a test service train.

If this speculation about the Class 810s is true - it’s nothing in common with Class 701. No comparison can be drawn there.

Are we sure that’s how it works? On the 805/807s the PIS is a separate system with its own data buses to the TCMS. They’re able to “talk” to each other, but they’re separate systems. Allowing the operator to update the PIS without having to do a load of testing for a TCMS update (I believe, might be wrong on that last part).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are we sure that’s how it works? On the 805/807s the PIS is a separate system with its own data buses to the TCMS. They’re able to “talk” to each other, but they’re separate systems. Allowing the operator to update the PIS without having to do a load of testing for a TCMS update (I believe, might be wrong on that last part).

It appears, if I recall, to be the Class 777 that has put safety critical functions (the smart card "dispatch" system) as part of the PIS, which certainly struck me as a bad decision.

 

[43066]

I might have missed it, but is the major wiring issue in the operation of the train, or in the hotel services.

If it is just affecting latter, the passenger comfort, toilets and displays etc. And there is no problem operating a train, then it would be possible to hand over a few for driver training, so can train the crews whilst others are updated and fixed. Once a few are in service the training units then go back for modification.

The very long 701 Introduction thread mentions about 6-8 units passed for training, but not fully updated to passenger carrying condition, so could similar happen with 810s

The issue is to do with wiring catching fire such that they need to be rewired, hence there is a major problem operating the train(!) That doesn’t sound remotely like something that can be fudged - it will need to be entirely fixed before training can commence. As things stand the units are not even able to run in test conditions at Old Dalby.

I think we can be completely confident that: a. The company would never suggest such a thing, and b. if they did, ASLEF wouldn’t countenance it.

 

[Failed Unit]

Why should Lumo wait? They have signed a contract for the trains.

Just to remind you, that the growth of the rail industry over the last 30 years or so has been significantly funded by privately-owned leasing companies in the new trains to carry all those extra passengers. Without that funding, there would never have been that level of investment.

I don't disagree with your statement. However when EMR have waited for other companies to release stock the answer was tough. The 156s were later following delays to the 755s, and the 170s were late because the of delays to the CAF production of the WMT stock. That said Lumo is different as it can't even start service until the stock is released. The dalays to EMR really was only severe over-crowding and thinning out of the timetable. Still very unfair but it does seem EMR always seems to be the ones that lose when these situations arise.

 

[dosxuk]

I think we can assume that as testing abruptly stopped and hasn't resumed again since, that the issues that were detected make it undesirable to operate the trains, even without passengers.

 

[PG]

The issue is to do with wiring catching fire such that they need to be rewired, hence there is a major problem operating the train(!) That doesn’t sound remotely like something that can be fudged - it will need to be entirely fixed before training can commence. As things stand the units are not even able to run in test conditions at Old Dalby.

I can't remember if this has been linked to already? Rail Engineer had an article back in February which contained some interesting snippets concerning the manufacture of the units. I wonder if the new methods have led/contributed to the recent issues?

Hitachi has used some new (to them) manufacturing techniques for the Class 810 which are based on Hitachi Rail Italy’s preferred methods. For example, the ‘Megarack’ assembly of underframe cabling and pipework which is built and tested away from the line and offered up as a whole.

 

[800001]

A loco is dragging 810003* back to Merchant Park today from Old Dalby, path attached below from RTT.

*believed to be 810003 (could be 001 or 004).

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K36995/2025-06-16/detailed

 

[The_Train]

b. if they did, ASLEF wouldn’t countenance it.

Considering the fuss they have kicked up recently over things like cab layouts & in-cab noise on new units, I imagine they will be going over the 810s with a fine toothcomb once these wiring issues are resolved!

Dependent on the level of work needed, both to the complete units and those units nearing completion at the factory, EMR might be being optimistic with having driver training commencing by September 2025, never mind having anything in service by then!

 

[43066]

I can't remember if this has been linked to already? Rail Engineer had an article back in February which contained some interesting snippets concerning the manufacture of the units. I wonder if the new methods have led/contributed to the recent issues?

Interesting, thanks. I don’t think I’ve seen that one before.

Intuitively packing the same equipment into a smaller space seems likely to cause “challenges” - as does the inherent complexity in designing what are very different trains to the rest of the 8XX fleet.

Those short platforms at St Pancras have a lot to answer for!

Considering the fuss they have kicked up recently over things like cab layouts & in-cab noise on new units, I imagine they will be going over the 810s with a fine toothcomb once these wiring issues are resolved!

Dependent on the level of work needed, both to the complete units and those units nearing completion at the factory, EMR might be being optimistic with having driver training commencing by September 2025, never mind having anything in service by then!

Agreed.

 

[Nym]

Interesting, thanks. I don’t think I’ve seen that one before.

Intuitively packing the same equipment into a smaller space seems likely to cause “challenges” - as does the inherent complexity in designing what are very different trains to the rest of the 8XX fleet.

Those short platforms at St Pancras have a lot to answer for!



Agreed.

I’d say it’s more the penny pinching of insisting on 5 car units rather than just ordering 9x26m units that will fit nicely into the platforms that is the issue here.
If the known constraint is the platforms, maybe re-examine the insistence on half length units

 

[dosxuk]

Those short platforms at St Pancras have a lot to answer for!

They're not short though - they're designed to the standard 10x23m or 12x20m length that was normal up until the IET decided to go off-piste with 26m carriages.

 

[Spartacus]

I’d say it’s more the penny pinching of insisting on 5 car units rather than just ordering 9x26m units that will fit nicely into the platforms that is the issue here.
If the known constraint is the platforms, maybe re-examine the insistence on half length units

Then you've got to re-examine the flexibility offered by them, not least that you can double up sets at St Pancras, at times you need to have two trains in one platform there, and you can only do that with sets short enough to double up.

 

[43066]

They're not short though - they're designed to the standard 10x23m or 12x20m length that was normal up until the IET decided to go off-piste with 26m carriages.

Fair point.

 

[43096]

I can't remember if this has been linked to already? Rail Engineer had an article back in February which contained some interesting snippets concerning the manufacture of the units. I wonder if the new methods have led/contributed to the recent issues?

Hitachi Italy. AnsaldoBreda as was - and all the serial failures of rolling stock builds that went with it. It should be deeply worrying that that company would be a source of good practice.

 

[Snow1964]

The issue is to do with wiring catching fire such that they need to be rewired, hence there is a major problem operating the train(!) That doesn’t sound remotely like something that can be fudged - it will need to be entirely fixed before training can commence. As things stand the units are not even able to run in test conditions at Old Dalby.

Ok, thanks.
In my limited experience of electric rewiring, sometimes bypassed undersized cables that might get hot or burn. That is disconnect them, cut them back and insulate both ends, not always remove them completely if not easily accessible.

Just thought I would ask for clarity, as entirely fixed might suggest to some that all (not just some) of the wiring needs replacing, which might not need to happen. It's very unlikely a data cable will ever carry enough power to catch fire, so presumably is a power cable.

 

[Nym]

Just thought I would ask for clarity, as entirely fixed might suggest to some that all (not just some) of the wiring needs replacing, which might not need to happen. It's very unlikely a data cable will ever carry enough power to catch fire, so presumably is a power cable.

Data cable *intentionally* carrying power.

Nothing to say that the wiring quality of our domestic manufacturing wouldn't result in it 'accidentally' carrying power.

 

[Yew]

I’d say it’s more the penny pinching of insisting on 5 car units rather than just ordering 9x26m units that will fit nicely into the platforms that is the issue here.
If the known constraint is the platforms, maybe re-examine the insistence on half length units

Whilst I agree that I'd like 9 car units, I do feel that keeping a 26m carriage in gauge is the root of the ride-quality issues of the Azumas. And I wouldn't support expansion of the 26m fleet unless more significant alignment changes were specified to account for that.

 

[Nym]

Whilst I agree that I'd like 9 car units, I do feel that keeping a 26m carriage in gauge is the root of the ride-quality issues of the Azumas. And I wouldn't support expansion of the 26m fleet unless more significant alignment changes were specified to account for that.

I’m very much inclined to agree that Hitachi is not the right product for this car length, or seemingly the shorter card lengths…

But from experience it just brings out the Hitachi Bashing / Hitachi Fan Club whenever we go down this route

 

[Yew]

In my limited experience of electric rewiring, sometimes bypassed undersized cables that might get hot or burn. That is disconnect them, cut them back and insulate both ends, not always remove them completely if not easily accessible.

If these cables are on an external frame, it is possible that the required changes could be made quite quickly.

 

[NCT]

In what way is the ROSCO setup to blame for Hitachi’s inability to deliver trains anywhere near to the contracted delivery schedule? Because that is the root cause.

Quite. Proponents of a big-brother railway seem to justify their position on the basis of being able to rob Peter to pay Paul and hide problems.

Letting things fail transparently and spectacularly, with nowhere to hide, while painful, is ultimately better for accountability and learning lessons and for everyone's long-term good.

 

[Yew]

In what way is the ROSCO setup to blame for Hitachi’s inability to deliver trains anywhere near to the contracted delivery schedule? Because that is the root cause.

If the government owned the 222s, I don't think they'd be stitching up a franchised operator to support an open access one. Whereas the private company has no such scruples.

Similarly, under BR micro-fleets such as the 180s were much less common, instead of a handful of 180s, and a handful of voyagers kicking around spare, we might have a large homogenous class which is easier to transfer around.

 

[43096]

If the government owned the 222s, I don't think they'd be stitching up a franchised operator to support an open access one. Whereas the private company has no such scruples.

“If”. But they don’t and never have done, so it is irrelevant making suppositions on what may have happened.

 

[Snow1964]

If the government owned the 222s, I don't think they'd be stitching up a franchised operator to support an open access one. Whereas the private company has no such scruples.

I am not sure stitching up is correct term, EMR had to option to extend, took the time extension (but not for long enough), and then chose (or were not in position to) commit to continuing or match a competing bid for the trains. More a case of market taking logical option.