Class 810 (was originally class 804) for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,386
Looks like the new Hitachi AT300's based on the IET platforn for EMR are going to be called the Class 804. These are going to be bi-mode trains and should be capable of running at up to 140mph, even if 125 is all they see in service.

We're looking at 33, 5-car long sets, with 23m long coaches. A 2022 introduction date has been quoted, although I think delays can be expected!

I believe they will have about 4-engines a set in order to match the timings of a 222 on diesel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

222001

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2006
Messages
712
Location
Chesterfield
The fleet director at EMR, has also stated that they will have the 'same capacity' as a 7 car 222. I assume he meant standard seating only.
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
372
Location
UK
Looks like the new Hitachi AT300's based on the IET platforn for EMR are going to be called the Class 804. These are going to be bi-mode trains and should be capable of running at up to 140mph, even if 125 is all they see in service.

We're looking at 33, 5-car long sets, with 23m long coaches. A 2022 introduction date has been quoted, although I think delays can be expected!

I believe they will have about 4-engines a set in order to match the timings of a 222 on diesel.

Why 23m and not 26m like the rest of the 800/801/802 series? If they’re having the same capacity as the 7 coach 23m 222s that’s going to be pretty cramped!
 

Thunderer

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2013
Messages
407
Location
South Wales
I guess it will be just one of the driving cars allocated to 1st class and the rest will be standard class? Should have gone for 33 x 9 cars really, it would have made more sense.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,518
Location
Central Belt
I guess it will be just one of the driving cars allocated to 1st class and the rest will be standard class? Should have gone for 33 x 9 cars really, it would have made more sense.
It does seem odd. But at least they can join LNER and GWR with the. “Only formed of 5 coaches”. Or catering is only in the front 5.
TOCs putting customers first again. (Although some will split en route)
 

Thunderer

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2013
Messages
407
Location
South Wales
It does seem odd. But at least they can join LNER and GWR with the. “Only formed of 5 coaches”. Or catering is only in the front 5.
TOCs putting customers first again. (Although some will split en route)
I know all to well about short formed GWR IEP's living in South Wales ha. Ah well, perhaps EMR will run two units together as a ten coach service to Leicester or EM Parkway, split them and send one to Nottingham and one to Sheffield, saving paths south of Leicester? Who knows eh?
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
2,405
Usually I wouldn't car too much about 5 cars as they are longer carriages and it would bridge the gap between 5 car 222s and 7 car 222s / HSTs.

But as they aren't longer carriages it seems a little strange not to go for 7 or 9 car units...
 

Thunderer

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2013
Messages
407
Location
South Wales
Usually I wouldn't car too much about 5 cars as they are longer carriages and it would bridge the gap between 5 car 222s and 7 car 222s / HSTs.

But as they aren't longer carriages it seems a little strange not to go for 7 or 9 car units...
Why 5? I agree. Surely Hitachi could offer a 7 coach train with 5 x 940hp engines giving it 4,700hp on Diesel (200hp more than a HST) with 2 first class coaches and 5 standard class coaches. That would have been a sensible solution for MML - proving aprox. 400 standard class seats per train.
 

JonathanH

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,571
Why 23m and not 26m like the rest of the 800/801/802 series? If they’re having the same capacity as the 7 coach 23m 222s that’s going to be pretty cramped!

Platform lengths at St Pancras prevent 10 x 26m.

Why 5? I agree. Surely Hitachi could offer a 7 coach train with 5 x 940hp engines giving it 4,700hp on Diesel (200hp more than a HST) with 2 first class coaches and 5 standard class coaches. That would have been a sensible solution for MML - proving aprox. 400 standard class seats per train.

Some trains will run with 10 coaches which is more than 7. A fleet of 5-car trains provides for more efficient diagramming than fleets of 4, 5 and 7 which they currently operate.

Should have gone for 33 x 9 cars really, it would have made more sense.

33 x 9 cars would be somewhat more expensive to lease than 33 x 5 cars. Does the demand exist for that number of trains that can't be catered for by running 5+5 on the services which require It?
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,124
5 Coaches also allows for easier Splitting Services - Thus one Train takes up one path on the Busy southern section of the MML and then divides further up where there are more paths. 1 train at London... 2 end points.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,518
Location
Central Belt
5 Coaches also allows for easier Splitting Services - Thus one Train takes up one path on the Busy southern section of the MML and then divides further up where there are more paths. 1 train at London... 2 end points.
Splitting trains is pure evil according to dft.....

but it would give a brilliant timetable. Split at Leicester 5 fast to Nottingham. 5 all stations to Sheffield via Earwash valley for example. If they do that I think people will be in favour.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,555
Platform lengths at St Pancras prevent 10 x 26m.
Um, the pdf of the Sectional Appendix on the Network Rail site quotes P1-4 at St Pancras as all being 260m. As far as I understand quoted platform lengths are always given as "maximum length of train that can use the platform", not the physical structure length
 

JonathanH

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,571
Um, the pdf of the Sectional Appendix on the Network Rail site quotes P1-4 at St Pancras as all being 260m. As far as I understand quoted platform lengths are always given as "maximum length of train that can use the platform", not the physical structure length

Previously suggested as difficult to accommodate a split / join at St Pancras even if a rigid 10x26 would fit in the usable space.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...idlands-franchise.180920/page-65#post-4190306
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
3,254
Location
Devon (Ex Sussex)
Splitting trains is pure evil according to dft.....

but it would give a brilliant timetable. Split at Leicester 5 fast to Nottingham. 5 all stations to Sheffield via Earwash valley for example. If they do that I think people will be in favour.

How many Sheffields are you suggesting? if you send all of them via the Erewash I think you may well have some people not in favour when they have no fast service choice from Derby
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,518
Location
Central Belt
How many Sheffields are you suggesting? if you send all of them via the Erewash I think you may well have some people not in favour when they have no fast service choice from Derby

that was just an example. 4 tph south and 8 north of Leicester gives lots of options.

however from my understanding we will see few changes. A split at Kettering for Melton Mowbray. A split at Nottingham for Lincoln. But very little to get excited about.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
3,871
Location
Gateway to the South West
Um, the pdf of the Sectional Appendix on the Network Rail site quotes P1-4 at St Pancras as all being 260m. As far as I understand quoted platform lengths are always given as "maximum length of train that can use the platform", not the physical structure length
The quoted length is 'usable length' that includes any tolerance requirements (so is longer than the maximum train length). Different TOCs have preferred tolerances, sometimes dictated by train type. How far back does the train stop from the buffers? How far back does the train have to be from the signal for the driver to see it? These factors all get rolled into the overall length needed.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,520
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
We've had this argument a few times already but... the planned numbers should mean half the services can run with doubled up sets (assuming that there's a half hourly Sheffield service and a half hourly Nottingham service)... and that's allowing 10% or so for maintenance etc... so plenty of scope for services that take advantage of the full length of St Pancras platforms whilst also being able to provide shorter services at other times (with the *shortest* services still providing roughly equivalent capacity to a seven coach 222, which is what the *longest* Sheffield trains currently get).

Providing anything longer than 5x24m means no scope for doubling up - and I'd rather we had ten coaches when most needed with five at quieter times than tried running a uniform seven coaches on every service. Keep it simple with one length of train, sure, but the capability to run doubled up services where needed. We don't want the complication that we have right now with five types of high speed stock (four coach 222, five coach 222, six coach HST, seven coach 222, eight coach HST)!

And having one fleet of 33x5x24m bi-mode 125mph stock should be easier for future cascades (rather than building something bespoke, given the problems we've had with trains like 460s before). The 804 might be something suitable for other TOCs to order too.

I don't think the timetable needs to be particularly complicated - no need for much joining/splitting - just simpler half hourly services (instead of the gaps caused by a combination of fast/slows).

Most importantly though (!), I'm glad that we are seeing 800, 801, 802, 803 and 804, rather than the nonsense of each new type of train being five or ten higher than the TOPS allocation of the previous type - finally, sensible numbers rather than the vanity of having a nice round number!
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
2,405
The issue with splitting trains is that you can get short form trains, like what's happening at GWR.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
16,849
Most importantly though (!), I'm glad that we are seeing 800, 801, 802, 803 and 804, rather than the nonsense of each new type of train being five or ten higher than the TOPS allocation of the previous type - finally, sensible numbers rather than the vanity of having a nice round number!

But, but, but... Boeing do it so it must be right!:lol:
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,774
The issue with splitting trains is that you can get short form trains, like what's happening at GWR.

The issue with fixed-formation trains is that instead of a short-form you may get no train at all - an argument consistently made on this forum for years about 8 and 12-car 700s replacing 4-car Thameslink units.

There are good arguments either way but I'm not sure it makes a huge amount of difference tbh...
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,095
Location
Sheffield
Think it’s been suggested the 803 is for the First Open-access East Coast Trains units, which will have batteries instead of the single diesel unit of the 801’s
 

Top