"Not enough 810s"

[Energy]

And potentially the 180s for a while too if it’s deemed that not enough 810s were ordered.

There are also now rumours in other threads that it’s a possibility that insufficient 810’s have been ordered for the MML and the 180s could have to remain with EMR

Not sure where this is from, there are 33 810s and 31 222+180s with the 810s having higher capacity, if they were short of 810s it would make far more sense to add a couple on to the order than to have a second fleet of 2 or 3 units.

 

[QSK19]

Not sure where this is from, there are 33 810s and 31 222+180s with the 810s having higher capacity, if they were short of 810s it would make far more sense to add a couple on to the order than to have a second fleet of 2 or 3 units.

Agreed - that would indeed be the sensible option; but for those in charge of the purse strings, extending the 180s at a peppercorn lease rate would look more attractive cost-wise compared to extra 810s.

 

[JonathanH]

The 810s are presumably expected to be in service for 30 years or so on the MML. How long are the extra diesel units expected to be needed? What eventually replaces the diesel units? Just better 810 availability?

The retention of a small fleet of diesel only units doesn't really make sense from an operational viewpoint although I guess it is akin to the Intercity MML operation in the 1990s having a peak time 47+Mk2 formation on one service when there weren't enough HSTs.

extending the 180s at a peppercorn lease rate would look more attractive cost-wise compared to extra 810s.

There would still be operational costs that won't be cheap. It is by no means certain that 180s (or anything else) would be available at a peppercorn lease. When do the relevant 180s become due for a major overhaul? That may give an indication of how long any continued use may be credible.

If there 'aren't enough 810s', essentially the view is that insufficient services are expected to be scheduled for 10-car formations as there are plainly enough for all the services to be run as 5-car services.

Can anyone answer how what percentage of services can be run in the cycle with 10-car formations with 33 units and how many should be?

 

[swt_passenger]

If there 'aren't enough 810s', essentially the view is that insufficient services are expected to be scheduled for 10-car formations as there are plainly enough for all the services to be run as 5-car services.

Can anyone answer how what percentage of services can be run in the cycle with 10-car formations with 33 units and how many should be?

I’m not sure if this is a rhetorical question. I’m sure it’s been worked out a few times in previous threads. I believe it was said about half the diagrams could be 10 car, and these could easily be timed to provide the directional peak flow capacity in or out of St Pancras

I guess a few posters have just decided there aren’t enough and nothing will change their opinion.

 

[Nottingham59]

Can anyone answer how what percentage of services can be run in the cycle with 10-car formations with 33 units and how many should be?

As far as how many services should be 10-car, I'd say half of them. As a starting position, I'd say that in the morning peak period (0700h to 0915h?) all southbound 810s arriving in London should be doubled and all other trains could be single.

During the day, it doesn't really matter and EMR can use Advance ticket pricing to encourage leisure travellers onto the 10-cars units. (Or split them to allow day-time maintenance if they wanted to.)

Assuming each 10-car train does one round trip to Nottingham (4h, including 30 mins turnaround at each end), and one to Sheffield (5h) during the day then the 10-cars will arrive back in London nine hours later between 1600h and 1815h, ready for the evening peak.

 

[QSK19]

I’m not sure if this is a rhetorical question. I’m sure it’s been worked out a few times in previous threads. I believe it was said about half the diagrams could be 10 car, and these could easily be timed to provide the directional peak flow capacity in or out of St Pancras

I guess a few posters have just decided there aren’t enough and nothing will change their opinion.

Whilst I admittedly fall into the suspect-not-enough group, I think that we’ll see how things pan out once the 810s are actually in service - I think that, at the theoretical stage, so many different ideas/views get thrown about that it’s sometimes difficult to work out what’s what until we see the actual trains in action. I stand corrected if, when we do see them all in service, 33 is the right number.

 

[TheBigD]

Can anyone answer how what percentage of services can be run in the cycle with 10-car formations with 33 units and how many should be?

Roughly...

Realistically you would diagram around 28 of the 33 units for daily service, around 85% availability. You may be able to get 29 if the units are reliable.

10 units required for the Sheffield services
(5 for the fasts, 5 for the semi fasts)
9 units required for the Nottingham services.
So 19 required for the base service leaving another 9 units for strengthening.

Theoretically that would enable all peak departures from St Pancras between 1702 and 1902 (9 departures) to be 10 car, with all other services being 5 car.

For comparison, the seating of the 5 car 810 vs the 5 car 222 (pre May 2022 reforming)...

222/5 - 50 1st + 190 std (240 total)
810/5 - 47 1st + 254 std (301 total)*

810s have around 33% more std seats and 25% more seats overall than the 222/5.

* from wikipedia

 

[Nottingham59]

it’s sometimes difficult to work out what’s what until we see the actual trains in action.

There are lots of variables, especially over the longer term.

• The EMR/Dft/HMT can always adjust ticket pricing to encourage or discourage passenger numbers. At the moment, the Treasury seems happy to sacrifice the customer experience to save costs.
• With electrification coming to Leicester and beyond, EMR could provide more capacity by getting in more 360 trains or 350s instead of extra 810s. I would have thought these would be a lot cheaper. And I understand there are 350/2s looking for a home.
• And given that EMR seem unlikely to split and join the 10-car trains in practice, maybe they could just get some 9-car class 800s to provide more capacity? I understand they should fit the platforms at St Pancras.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Roughly...

Realistically you would diagram around 28 of the 33 units for daily service, around 85% availability. You may be able to get 29 if the units are reliable.

10 units required for the Sheffield services
(5 for the fasts, 5 for the semi fasts)
9 units required for the Nottingham services.
So 19 required for the base service leaving another 9 units for strengthening.

Theoretically that would enable all peak departures from St Pancras between 1702 and 1902 (9 departures) to be 10 car, with all other services being 5 car.

For comparison, the seating of the 5 car 810 vs the 5 car 222 (pre May 2022 reforming)...

222/5 - 50 1st + 190 std (240 total)
810/5 - 47 1st + 254 std (301 total)*

810s have around 33% more std seats and 25% more seats overall than the 222/5.

* from wikipedia

Another way to look at it is using this linked webpage, which (I hope) will show today's planned EMR Intercity departures from London from 1532-2005, which basically is all 26 EMR diagrams (24 are 222, with the 1902 being 2x180).

Realtime Trains | Departures from St Pancras International between 1529 and 2015 on 16/05/2022

Train information at St Pancras International between 1529 and 2015 on 16/05/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

If as @TheBigD suggests, there will be 28 Cl810 diagrams (seems reasonable), then which 2 of the 5/7 car departures get boosted to 10 car and which get cut to 5 car?
To me, the 1705 and 1802 are two of the obvious candidates for lengthening
Therefore 1535, 1805 and 2005 get shortened.

By that logic, EMR is probably about 3 diagrams, and maybe 4 units away from being able to boast increased capacity across all services. and basically doubling up all peak-time departures from London.
There might be a bit more diagramming efficiency too, as in the sunlit uplands of 810 operations, there are no 7 car trains.

It's therefore easy to see where the 180 theory comes from. 4 units, 2 diagrams - 2x180 to London in the morning, North in the evening and twiddling its thumbs at Cricklewood during the day.

There are lots of variables, especially over the longer term.

• The EMR/Dft/HMT can always adjust ticket pricing to encourage or discourage passenger numbers. At the moment, the Treasury seems happy to sacrifice the customer experience to save costs.
• With electrification coming to Leicester and beyond, EMR could provide more capacity by getting in more 360 trains or 350s instead of extra 810s. I would have thought these would be a lot cheaper. And I understand there are 350/2s looking for a home.
• And given that EMR seem unlikely to split and join the 10-car trains in practice, maybe they could just get some 9-car class 800s to provide more capacity? I understand they should fit the platforms at St Pancras.

All good suggestions for a speculative thread, and/however
- Shouldn't EMR probably already will be doing this anyway?
- pathing an additional EMU service to Leicester is difficult, if it's not additional, the EMU needs to be able to reach Notts/Shef otherwise it's a cut in service
- Are there spare 9x800s? are 26m trains cleared on the MML? Could additional 23m 810 intermediate vehicles be the answer, and would that give a microfleet that's more trouble than it's worth?

 

[Nottingham59]

Another way to look at it is using this linked webpage

That is very helpful, thank you.

So basically it seems that since EMR has only 11 departures in the period 1632 - 1835, then the most doublings-up they can usefully use are 11. There aren't the paths to accommodate more in the evening peak. So maybe they could use another couple of 810s, but I wouldn't buy them if it was my money.

Of course what will happen in real life is that the 10-car 1832 and 1835 trains will be lightly loaded and the 5-car 1902 and 1905 will be rammed (or whichever services are carry the first off-peak and super-offpeak passengers.) But that's a problem caused by ticket pricing policy; not rolling stock procurement.

Another way of looking at it is that if the railway needs more long-distance capacity in the peaks, then the railway will need to lengthen the platforms at St Pancras, rather than buying more shorter-than-standard-length 810s. The seems to be enough space, if they move the down escalators a bit further south. (They could put a third escalator there at the same time. It would solve a lot of problems.)

 

[TheBigD]

In the June edition of Modern Railways, the Moving Wheels section contains an article about EMR's plans.
One thing that stands out is the following...

"...The order for 810s was based on an availability requirement of 31 out of 33 sets in service. This is not viewed as feasible; alternatives would include retaining a small number of the existing diesel fleet, potentially the four 180s, or exercising an option for further 810s, which exists in EMR's order..."

Firstly, who on earth thought that 31 from 33 was ever feasible in the first place (approx 94% availability)?

And secondly, is that all but confirmation of the rumour that 180s will be retained?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Keeping a bit of old stock for occasional use (e.g. a couple of peak journeys) is a long-running theme on the railway (e.g. LNR 319s), but surely it'd be much simpler for them just to tack on a couple more 810s otherwise they've got a microfleet to faff with.

 

[QSK19]

Keeping a bit of old stock for occasional use (e.g. a couple of peak journeys) is a long-running theme on the railway (e.g. LNR 319s), but surely it'd be much simpler for them just to tack on a couple more 810s otherwise they've got a microfleet to faff with.

Completely 100% agree with you; but as we RF folk all well know, the beloved DfT will have the final say on the matter. The cynic in me thinks they won’t authorise any extra 810s - it would be either take the 4x 180s or make the 33x 810s work.

Mind you, I’m surprised that they didn’t cancel the 810 order and insist on EMR keeping the 222s - we should have sent thank you letters to Grayling for his generosity

 

[WideRanger]

If the idea that some 180s might be kept for contingency purposes, what would stop the 170s being used for London trips in those extreme circumstances? They used to do the route. If it's for something more than contingency, then it would seem more sensible to get more 810s.

 

[InTheEastMids]

If the idea that some 180s might be kept for contingency purposes, what would stop the 170s being used for London trips in those extreme circumstances? They used to do the route. If it's for something more than contingency, then it would seem more sensible to get more 810s.

Probably speed, capacity and availability.
As I understand it - the timetable is now geared around the acceleration of 222s, 360s and 700s (South of Bedford at least).
Also doubt there is appetite to run 2 and 3 car trains into London these days, so you'd be running in multiple.
EMR don't have enough 170s anyway, so doing that surely means cancelling multiple Regional services.

Presumably any 180s retained will be similar to several EMR/EMT HST diagrams, a peak 10-car working each way with most of the day spent relaxing at Cricklewood, with the other two presumably being mended/damped down.

 

[Class172]

If the idea that some 180s might be kept for contingency purposes, what would stop the 170s being used for London trips in those extreme circumstances? They used to do the route. If it's for something more than contingency, then it would seem more sensible to get more 810s.

The main issue with using 170s on London services would be a large number of staff would need to be retrained on them. Yes they were used on such services 20 or so years ago, but I would be fairly confident in saying competence will have lapsed by then!

 

[TheBigD]

Presumably any 180s retained will be similar to several EMR/EMT HST diagrams, a peak 10-car working each way with most of the day spent relaxing at Cricklewood, with the other two presumably being mended/damped down.

And summer Saturday trips to Skegness.

Longer term, surely 3 from 4 180s should be achievable (75% availability) with some modification/reliability work on them.

 

[43055]

And summer Saturday trips to Skegness.

Longer term, surely 3 from 4 180s should be achievable (75% availability) with some modification/reliability work on them.

75% is certainly achievable now. Some Sundays in the last month has produced 3 unit's and once the Skegness trips start there will be 3 diagrams on Saturdays. 222 substitutions don't seem to be happening often now which is a good sign.

 

[py_megapixel]

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but why on earth would the retention of the notoriously unreliable 180s that have only been introduced as a stop-gap measure be preferable to keeping some of the 222s which have served the line for years? Is it just as simple as them being cheaper to lease because they are less desirable?

 

[Snow1964]

Keeping a bit of old stock for occasional use (e.g. a couple of peak journeys) is a long-running theme on the railway (e.g. LNR 319s), but surely it'd be much simpler for them just to tack on a couple more 810s otherwise they've got a microfleet to faff with.

The other problem with keeping some old stock is that in 3-10 years you need to replace it, and often the original design is no longer available, so you just create a problem for next 30 years. Either a non standard top up or permanent shortage of stock.

Of course if accidentally lose one, or there is unexpected growth, then even more short of stock

 

[QSK19]

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but why on earth would the retention of the notoriously unreliable 180s that have only been introduced as a stop-gap measure be preferable to keeping some of the 222s which have served the line for years? Is it just as simple as them being cheaper to lease because they are less desirable?

I would imagine that Eversholt would set lease fees for only part of the 222 fleet at a prohibitive rate in order not to split it up. Therefore, in terms of affordability, the 4x 180s would be more preferable.

My gut feeling is that the 180s will be kept for the reason above and also because the DfT seem to hate dipping into their pockets when it comes to East Midlands stock - I think there is more chance of Starmer defecting to the Tories than the 810 order being topped up!