Stopgap options to cover for delays to introduction of Class 810 for EMR?

[Iskra]

Wouldn't the main problem be where to stable them on the St Pancras end.

I don't think Cricklewood depot is able to take HSTs anymore, Its been quite heavily rebuilt since the HST's were withdrawn.
Does Bedford Caudwell or Jowett have provisions for HST sets ?

If it gets to the point of reintroducing HST’s/180’s/Charter trains/Anything that moves, there could easily be an accompanying emergency timetable that could allow any stock used not to stable at the Southern end of the route.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 20:48 ==

Bit of a daft suggestion, burn the midnight oil, offer the train testers and crew trainers enhanced overtime and a bonus if they get 810 fleet certified and in service by the 222 off lease date

Maybe I am being far too radical, and powers that be don't see any urgency to get 810s in service sooner rather than sometime in next year or two.

Or even more radical, temporarily abolish the Sheffield service. Implement ticket acceptance with LNER/Grand Central/Hull Trains to Doncaster and run a shuttle service from Doncaster to Derby via Sheffield.

 

[43096]

More radically: Derby Network Rail presumably still do HST maintenance (or is it done at Barrow Hill?), either way both are on the right patch.

What is "Derby Network Rail" and why do you think they would magically have capacity for them?

 

[D365]

Bit of a daft suggestion, burn the midnight oil, offer the train testers and crew trainers enhanced overtime and a bonus if they get 810 fleet certified and in service by the 222 off lease date

Maybe I am being far too radical, and powers that be don't see any urgency to get 810s in service sooner rather than sometime in next year or two.

If you believe the currently unsubstantiated speculation on the ’master’ Class 810 thread, additional test hours will not resolve the issues.

 

[99009]

In my opinion, the only semi-realistic 125mph stock available spare to cover the 222's going to Lumo (assuming they go before the 810's are ready to enter service) are the 6 stored 221's.

In the event no stock arrives, 170's covering the Nottingham - St Pancras service in some form would be the only quick/without needing to train crew option, as bad as it is. This, along with perhaps running an additional Nottingham - Grantham service to connect with the ECML services to Kings Cross (instead of cutting a Sheffield service) could be doable, but should really be last resort.

 

[cactustwirly]

In my opinion, the only semi-realistic 125mph stock available spare to cover the 222's going to Lumo (assuming they go before the 810's are ready to enter service) are the 6 stored 221's.

In the event no stock arrives, 170's covering the Nottingham - St Pancras service in some form would be the only quick/without needing to train crew option, as bad as it is. This, along with perhaps running an additional Nottingham - Grantham service to connect with the ECML services to Kings Cross (instead of cutting a Sheffield service) could be doable, but should really be last resort.

Pretty sure crew will need to be trained, they are worked by different crews ie ex Central Trains not ex Midland Mainline crews

 

[LowLevel]

Pretty sure crew will need to be trained, they are worked by different crews ie ex Central Trains not ex Midland Mainline crews

Depending on what you want to do and for how long there's no need - 156 and 170 have both been used to cover Intercity services in the recent past, you just pair up the guards (use a regional conductor and Intercity train manager working together) to achieve traction and route competency (though many Regional conductors from Nottingham and Derby do actually sign Leicester to Sheffield direct as a product of diversionary route knowledge - there's no cross cover agreement though) and diagram the work to the Derby "local link" drivers who sign both 170s and the route.

It's inefficient but so is running the 170s in the first place.

 

[Topological]

Could an additional 170 on the Liverpool to Norwich be achieved over the Sheffield to Nottingham section?

(This would probably mean swapping around some 158 and 170s so that the Liverpool to Norwich was a single class. Possibly even split at Nottingham so that it was a single traction type between Nottingham and Sheffield)

You could then cut one of the Sheffield services.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Sorry for asking about a source. I agree that was unnecessary, but a 'i think' in front of your assertion goes a long way for another user in making it is clear that your view is speculation, just as there is a chance that services to London are scaled back.

From my angle, I think that the idea that Northern's 100mph 3-car 170s will be released by bringing in 75mph 2-car 150s is unlikely for reasons people have previously posted many times around maintenance facilities in Hull and the capacity they offer, which was the point of my post.

The TfW 150's are gangwayed and 2 coaches can be used at quieter times.

 

[duffield]

In my opinion, the only semi-realistic 125mph stock available spare to cover the 222's going to Lumo (assuming they go before the 810's are ready to enter service) are the 6 stored 221's.

In the event no stock arrives, 170's covering the Nottingham - St Pancras service in some form would be the only quick/without needing to train crew option, as bad as it is. This, along with perhaps running an additional Nottingham - Grantham service to connect with the ECML services to Kings Cross (instead of cutting a Sheffield service) could be doable, but should really be last resort.

So how are the (100mph max) 170s going to manage on the southern section of the MML (in paths currently run with 125mph stock) without screwing up the Thameslink timetable? Obviously it's not 125mph all the way from Bedford to St. Pancras but I understand there are substantial sections at 110mph+.

I don't think we'll see 170s at St. Pancras in any circumstances.

 

[Failed Unit]

It think the problem is that no-one actually knows how long the problem is going to go on for. It is very frustrating with respect to the fact when EMR were waiting for other operators to release stock because thier new stock was delayed it was OK for EMR to take the pain (The 156s from Greater Anglia and the 170s from various operators)

To me the idea solution is something that uses the existing paths. The least worse option would be to use an EMU to some connection point such and then use what 222s they have left to keep the frequency the same. (Taking the 170s will cause overcrowding on regional services that already lack the required capacity).
The next worse option would be to try and encourage Sheffield and Nottingham passengers onto LNER (if we need to trim the MML frequency). Putting a shuttle on between Nottingham and Grantham should be less resource intensive then some of the other options suggested. Sheffield - Doncaster could possibly be absorbed into existing capacity. Not sure EMR have enough units to strengthen all service between Norwich and Liverpool to 4 cars for the entire journey.

If the problem is only going to last 2 months the grit the teeth is maybe the best option (worked for Avanti and TPE for a long period when they were short of stall). If it will be for many months charters stock maybe the option.

 

[ChrisC]

Is the situation really going to be as bad as some people are suggesting in this thread, or are the problems being exaggerated a bit. I know that the introduction of the 810’s is not going to plan, and the delays get longer, but are many of the 222’s realistically going to be taken away that quickly. When I read the other thread concerning the introduction of the 810’s, it suggests that the 222’s will only be removed a couple at a time as they are refurbished for a new operator. If the refurbishment takes as long as the EMR regional stock it won’t happen very quickly.

Surely when the first few 222’s leave, it will initially just be that some trains will be short formed especially at peak times. There will not be enough units to double up some peak time trains to 10 carriages and there will be some significant overcrowding at peak times. I can’t see the need for all the timetable cuts, 170’s etc, that people are suggesting unless no 810’s are introduced before next summer. Peak times are going to be a problem, but running the current timetable during a large part of the day should be able to be continued unless there are even further delays and over time more of 222’s are removed.

 

[LowLevel]

Is the situation really going to be as bad as some people are suggesting in this thread, or are the problems being exaggerated a bit. I know that the introduction of the 810’s is not going to plan, and the delays get longer, but are many of the 222’s realistically going to be taken away that quickly. When I read the other thread concerning the introduction of the 810’s, it suggests that the 222’s will only be removed a couple at a time as they are refurbished for a new operator. If the refurbishment takes as long as the EMR regional stock it won’t happen very quickly.

Surely when the first few 222’s leave, it will initially just be that some trains will be short formed especially at peak times. There will not be enough units to double up some peak time trains to 10 carriages and there will be some significant overcrowding at peak times. I can’t see the need for all the timetable cuts, 170’s etc, that people are suggesting unless no 810’s are introduced before next summer. Peak times are going to be a problem, but running the current timetable during a large part of the day should be able to be continued unless there are even further delays and over time more of 222’s are removed.

The problems are far from exaggerated.

The 222s are years overdue on major exams and their reliability has sunk. There's already entire stock diagrams cancelled when units fail or aren't available at start of service. "Hunt the working toilet" is a routine situation.

Losing even one or two units is likely to be disastrous and it's fair to say that the prospect is concerning.

There are very few 10 car trains left to short form anyway and they're interworked with other services.

The situation you refer to is already routinely happening without losing any more trains - and these are consistently busy, well used routes that have recovered well from the COVID era - they don't need to be trashed just before the long promised new trains finally arrive.

 

[dosxuk]

Is the situation really going to be as bad as some people are suggesting in this thread, or are the problems being exaggerated a bit.

No, it's really that bad. The line is already massively over loaded, after losing a significant amount of capacity when the HST's and then 180's were released with no replacement.

The cynic in me would say that trashing the line for a few months would be good for making the new stock seem spacious and kicking the "we didn't order enough 810's" problem down the road a few more years.

 

[baz962]

Depending on what you want to do and for how long there's no need - 156 and 170 have both been used to cover Intercity services in the recent past, you just pair up the guards (use a regional conductor and Intercity train manager working together) to achieve traction and route competency (though many Regional conductors from Nottingham and Derby do actually sign Leicester to Sheffield direct as a product of diversionary route knowledge - there's no cross cover agreement though) and diagram the work to the Derby "local link" drivers who sign both 170s and the route.

It's inefficient but so is running the 170s in the first place.

Yes of course as neither London or Kettering drivers sign 170's. Although we couldn't cover Derby local link work. Not sure I and many other London drivers would be happy with death by Corby either. No easy solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have the 221s not taken by XC been mentioned? They can't pair up with 222s but they could run on their own or as pairs within class - they're certainly closer to 222s than anything else available and so the conversion training could be relatively short? Certainly seems to have worked for Grand Central.

 

[baz962]

So how are the (100mph max) 170s going to manage on the southern section of the MML (in paths currently run with 125mph stock) without screwing up the Thameslink timetable? Obviously it's not 125mph all the way from Bedford to St. Pancras but I understand there are substantial sections at 110mph+.

I don't think we'll see 170s at St. Pancras in any circumstances.

125 isn't really needed other than for recovery. In fact if on time anything over 110 isn't needed really.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The problems are far from exaggerated.

The 222s are years overdue on major exams and their reliability has sunk. There's already entire stock diagrams cancelled when units fail or aren't available at start of service. "Hunt the working toilet" is a routine situation.

Losing even one or two units is likely to be disastrous and it's fair to say that the prospect is concerning.

There are very few 10 car trains left to short form anyway and they're interworked with other services.

The situation you refer to is already routinely happening without losing any more trains - and these are consistently busy, well used routes that have recovered well from the COVID era - they don't need to be trashed just before the long promised new trains finally arrive.

I think if we are heading for that point, it's another political/PR disaster. Possibly the threat of being shown as incompetent managers of the railway will help drive a bit of action at DfT and GBR. It will, I think, be a tough sell to persuade people that the off-lease Avanti 221s should remain parked a few miles from Derby when to most people they are the same train as a 222.

That being said, if it is a phased departure of 222s, then can expect EMR to try and wing it for a few weeks with 1-2 units down and hope not too many people notice the further short-forms and cancellations.

No, it's really that bad. The line is already massively over loaded,

Agree with this based on most recent trip. Salt rubbed into the wounds when I then got on a 701 at Vauxhall in the evening peak and had a bay of 4 to myself...

125 isn't really needed other than for recovery. In fact if on time anything over 110 isn't needed really.

170s would struggle to pull the skin off my mother-in-law's gravy so acceleration might be as much an issue as top speed.
Might perhaps eliminate delay from EMR IC services catching 700s around St Albans/Harpenden though, so maybe every cloud does have a silver lining.

Final thought is that it does show the folly of privatisation-era train procurement. Lots of specialised (and in many cases small) fleets that take longer to introduce, cannot interwork, are often not cleared except for much beyond their core routes and have bespoke systems that mean drivers need to be retrained to drive a virtually identical unit.

 

[ChrisC]

The problems are far from exaggerated.

The 222s are years overdue on major exams and their reliability has sunk. There's already entire stock diagrams cancelled when units fail or aren't available at start of service. "Hunt the working toilet" is a routine situation.

Losing even one or two units is likely to be disastrous and it's fair to say that the prospect is concerning.

There are very few 10 car trains left to short form anyway and they're interworked with other services.

The situation you refer to is already routinely happening without losing any more trains - and these are consistently busy, well used routes that have recovered well from the COVID era - they don't need to be trashed just before the long promised new trains finally arrive.

Thank you @LowLevel for that explanation.
I hadn’t realised things had got so bad with the 222’s. I don’t travel on them more than a couple times of a month, and usually off peak, so I didn’t realise how bad things had become. The only things I have been aware of are toilets not working, difficulty opening some internal doors and the constant problem of the reservation system not working. That’s quite a lot, but I didn’t know that things had got so bad.

 

[Brubulus]

In my opinion, the only semi-realistic 125mph stock available spare to cover the 222's going to Lumo (assuming they go before the 810's are ready to enter service) are the 6 stored 221's.

In the event no stock arrives, 170's covering the Nottingham - St Pancras service in some form would be the only quick/without needing to train crew option, as bad as it is. This, along with perhaps running an additional Nottingham - Grantham service to connect with the ECML services to Kings Cross (instead of cutting a Sheffield service) could be doable, but should really be last resort.

EMR did operate 180s, so staff will have an idea of how to operate them and they will be able to cover for the 222s which go to Lumo. However if the DfT are in a subsidy cutting mood, which they are, I can see 170s forced into the MML.

 

[LowLevel]

EMR did operate 180s, so staff will have an idea of how to operate them and they will be able to cover for the 222s which go to Lumo. However if the DfT are in a subsidy cutting mood, which they are, I can see 170s forced into the MML.

A handful of derelict 180s that have been in a siding for 2 years isn't really going to be the answer realistically.

 

[Failed Unit]

So how are the (100mph max) 170s going to manage on the southern section of the MML (in paths currently run with 125mph stock) without screwing up the Thameslink timetable? Obviously it's not 125mph all the way from Bedford to St. Pancras but I understand there are substantial sections at 110mph+.

I don't think we'll see 170s at St. Pancras in any circumstances.

I hope not, as it would really screw up the regional services. Which regional services would they cut to provide this stock? If they have spare stock on the regional routes why are we constantly suffering from overcrowding because of short forms? They only way I can see them releasing 170s is do something like cut Liverpool - Norwich down to 2 cars for the entire route to free up 158s to displace 170s on other regional routes.

 

[Trainbike46]

170s on mainline duties would be insane. They can't really be missed on their other duties, are way too low capacity, and seem unlikely to be able to keep to time.

The suggestion to remove the section south of Kettering on the IC services, and have passengers transfer onto the Corby services (extended to 12 cars) for the last leg down to London would be more sensible, as it doesn't require mass retraining of staff, and there is at least theoretically space in the 360 fleet, unlike the 170s/158s.

However, I think the most likely outcome would be shortforming until all services operate as a single.

I wouldn't think it will be a truly massive issue though, the 222s heading to Scotrail could likely be delayed (Has Scotrail even signed a contract for them yet?), so it's really only a small number that will go before the 810s arrive.

It's an unfortunate truth that usually shortly before the new stock arrives is when the stock situation is worst.

A handful of derelict 180s that have been in a siding for 2 years isn't really going to be the answer realistically.

Agreed. The 180s have no home other than the shredder (and potentially increasing the size of GCs fleet, if they want them)

 

[baz962]

A handful of derelict 180s that have been in a siding for 2 years isn't really going to be the answer realistically.

And only Derby drivers signed them.

 

[QSK19]

I hope not, as it would really screw up the regional services. Which regional services would they cut to provide this stock? If they have spare stock on the regional routes why are we constantly suffering from overcrowding because of short forms? They only way I can see them releasing 170s is do something like cut Liverpool - Norwich down to 2 cars for the entire route to free up 158s to displace 170s on other regional routes.

Me neither, however if all the Regional services combined (bar Liverpool-Norwich) account for just 5% of EMR revenue, they’d presumably be first for the chop? Sad state of affairs whichever way one looks at it, though.

 

[43066]

A handful of derelict 180s that have been in a siding for 2 years isn't really going to be the answer realistically.

As was proved last time EMR pressed derelict 180s into service after they’d been languishing in sidings .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Me neither, however if all the Regional services combined (bar Liverpool-Norwich) account for just 5% of EMR revenue, they’d presumably be first for the chop? Sad state of affairs whichever way one looks at it, though.

I don't know how many units it would free up if you lopped Liverpool-Norwich back to Piccadilly main train shed? Two pairs probably? That might be enough if the four 158s were used to free up four three-car 170s to run as two pairs on the mainline?

It would be inconvenient for some but there are plenty of other Liverpool<->Manchester services.

 

[Yew]

Out of curiosity, how similar are the intermediate cars of the 222s and 221s, could you add a 221 carriage to a 222 formation in any way?


(For the record, my heritage solutionn of choice would be to get the Pretendolino on the MML, and call it the Mirage-ian)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of curiosity, how similar are the intermediate cars of the 222s and 221s, could you add a 221 carriage to a 222 formation in any way?

I doubt it would be easy to do that because they run different TMS software, if I recall rightly. Easier to run a 221 separately.

 

[Nym]

Out of curiosity, how similar are the intermediate cars of the 222s and 221s, could you add a 221 carriage to a 222 formation in any way?


(For the record, my heritage solutionn of choice would be to get the Pretendolino on the MML, and call it the Mirage-ian)

Short answer.
No.

Long answer…
Not typing it all out, but really, no.

 

[londonmidland]

Take this with a very big pinch of salt, as it’s a comment I saw on Facebook and cannot reliably confirm if this is true or not, however apparently there is a risk of over voltage which could potentially cause a fire to the components.

Supposedly this means that the 810s are having to go back to the manufacture for replacement and retesting of the components.

Again, take this with a pinch of salt, however this can’t be good news if true, to the already delayed introduction of the 810s.