• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EMR - Retention of IC DMUs

Status
Not open for further replies.

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,413
Location
Farnham
From Modern Railways June 2022 issue (in summary):

It also acknowledges that insufficient 810s have been ordered and one option being considered is to order more (there is an option clause in the existing contract); another being considered is the retention of a small number of diesels, potentially the class 180s - this seems strange in view of what's reported in post 1012
Surely retaining the diesels defeats the objective of the MML electrification? Fair enough if it’s a stopgap solution until then, but ideally it would make more sense to order more 810s. Especially with the 180’s reliability streak with EMR…
It will be good to see some more 3 car sets as some routes are already leaving passengers behind. I know this may not be the case if the full December 2022 timetable is ever delivered. But certainly some services now are unusable because of demand but it is a case of put a 3 car on service x, and take it of service y and it then it is service y leaving passengers behind.
I suppose that a DMU would be permissible as a peak time crowd buster - I think that, in this scenario, people would prioritise extra trains over what power they use. They’d also be useful to provide extra capacity for special events or if there are an unusually high number of 810s with faults at a given time, but they certainly shouldn’t play a role in regular IC operations. Depends on what the DfT authorises/demands, though - I’m certainly with you on several more 810s being ordered.
I created a new thread to discuss EMR’s potential retention of 180/222 for IC, just to avoid speculation and off topic discussion on the 170 thread :)

Personally, I think that four 180s would be a nuisance to retain which such a small number. Two pairs would use them all up with no allowance for maintenance.

I would say ordering more 810s is a far better option. Better for emissions, capacity and fleet commonality.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
1,988
Location
Dyfneint
I would say ordering more 810s is a far better option. Better for emissions, capacity and fleet commonality.

Other than all the emissions of actually building them. That one gets passed up fairly often in these discussions.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
Interesting question, 2 years ago I would have bet that they would order more new units - but history shows us that it isn't good to have decent stock like the 379s stood with no work.

I can't see the 180s staying, the 222s have being always at the top of the reliability tables the 180s at the bottom. Then you look at the traction knowledge, I am lead to believe it isn't as widespread as the 222s so why train up lots of crew for an unreliable unit. The 222s would make more sense as they are well known by EMR.

The 180s are getting old (but maybe not by mileage). I just can't see them staying unless it is a mega cheap lease for some peak time services.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
2,253
Location
belfast
Other than all the emissions of actually building them. That one gets passed up fairly often in these discussions.
In the scheme of operating a train for 40 years the co2 emissions of construction are minimal

I created a new thread to discuss EMR’s potential retention of 180/222 for IC, just to avoid speculation and off topic discussion on the 170 thread :)

Personally, I think that four 180s would be a nuisance to retain which such a small number. Two pairs would use them all up with no allowance for maintenance.

I would say ordering more 810s is a far better option. Better for emissions, capacity and fleet commonality.
I guess it depends a bit on how many they need on top of the 810s. If only a small number (say around 4) then ordering more 810s is almost certainly cheaper due to lower fuel costs and lower costs around traction knowledge and planning. If a larger number is needed, retaining the 222s would be an option, because it wouldn't be too much of a microfleet then. Retaining the 180s doesn't seem to make sense in any situation, I'd guess
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Interesting question, 2 years ago I would have bet that they would order more new units - but history shows us that it isn't good to have decent stock like the 379s stood with no work.

I can't see the 180s staying, the 222s have being always at the top of the reliability tables the 180s at the bottom. Then you look at the traction knowledge, I am lead to believe it isn't as widespread as the 222s so why train up lots of crew for an unreliable unit. The 222s would make more sense as they are well known by EMR.

The 180s are getting old (but maybe not by mileage). I just can't see them staying unless it is a mega cheap lease for some peak time services.

BIB - they're only 3 years older than the 222s..... just sayin......
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
BIB - they're only 3 years older than the 222s..... just sayin......
So with the time some of the 180s stood out of service, the 222s could actually be older in terms of real work done. wow. time flies. But in terms of choosing the 180 is a dog (for reliability), TOCs don't take them for reliability but more because nothing else is available.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
can't see the 180s staying, the 222s have being always at the top of the reliability tables the 180s at the bottom. Then you look at the traction knowledge, I am lead to believe it isn't as widespread as the 222s so why train up lots of crew for an unreliable unit. The 222s would make more sense as they are well known by EMR.

The reason for it being 180s is the owner of the 222s wishes to keep the fleet together and retaining the entire fleet is too expensive for EMR to deal with a small shortfall - there’s no way EMR can force the owner to lease just a small number of 222s.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,812
Location
Plymouth
But not ageing anywhere near as well.
Last time I travelled on a 222 the interior was amongst the worst I've ever experienced on a UK intercity train. Absolutely abysmal in every way. 180s on the other hand are pleasant enough from a passenger point of view, or doesn't that matter anymore?....
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
2,253
Location
belfast
From my perspective, as a passenger, reliability is more important (at least for journeys like london-nottingham). In addition, if 222s were retained, they would probably get an internal renovation of some type.
 
Last edited:

Mikw

Member
Joined
20 Apr 2022
Messages
405
Location
Leicester
As a passenger i do like the 180's. Smooth, quick and the legroom is amazing. I think the drivers like them too - it's just a shame about the reliability though.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
As a passenger i do like the 180's. Smooth, quick and the legroom is amazing. I think the drivers like them too - it's just a shame about the reliability though.

And therein lies the problem. I'd rather get there on time in a bit of discomfort than late or not at all. Apart from the uselessly small luggage racks 180s are about as comfortable as it gets, but below the solebar they are utter junk.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,812
Location
Plymouth
And therein lies the problem. I'd rather get there on time in a bit of discomfort than late or not at all. Apart from the uselessly small luggage racks 180s are about as comfortable as it gets, but below the solebar they are utter junk.
OK so they might have a higher failure rate but if I was to travel on one today is it really LIKELY that it will fail. Probably not. Yes if I travel on one every day for 3 months perhaps it may fail once. But at least I will be travelling comfortably, the odd failure can be tolerated. I should also point out that whilst on the Western I never once experienced personally a single 180 failure, sometimes the "press" like to overblow the reliability issues.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Could the IC shortfall not be combined with the Liverpool to Nottingham requirement to take up the majority of the 222 fleet?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
Could the IC shortfall not be combined with the Liverpool to Nottingham requirement to take up the majority of the 222 fleet?
The 222s are unsuitable for Liverpool to Nottingham though as has been repeatedly pointed out when considering their future. Even if 222s were used on that route, there would be a different first class requirement.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The 222s are unsuitable for Liverpool to Nottingham though as has been repeatedly pointed out when considering their future. Even if 222s were used on that route, there would be a different first class requirement.

Make the upgrade cheaper and people will upgrade. I reckon they'd sell plenty at a fiver, say.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
I don't get why people think that swapping some seats out and using the already installed SDO for Liverpool to Nottingham is such a hardship.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
I don't get why people think that swapping some seats out and using the already installed SDO for Liverpool to Nottingham is such a hardship.
Swapping some seats out makes the units unsuitable for London services. However, the issue is arguably as much excessive fuel costs as passenger capacity.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
So EMR have finally come to same realisation as, well, everybody else, when they stated how many 810's they were going to get to replace the HST's & 222's.

Makes you wonder how their bid would have stood up if they hadn't decided to take the risk on the pensions and put in for a realistic replacement rolling stock plan. Which reminds me, I wonder how they're getting on with nicking all the 171's from down south?

Last time I travelled on a 222 the interior was amongst the worst I've ever experienced on a UK intercity train. Absolutely abysmal in every way. 180s on the other hand are pleasant enough from a passenger point of view, or doesn't that matter anymore?....

The 222 interiors are well overdue a proper refurb. However, the last few years of EMT's franchise being short extensions with no allowance for stock refurbs, coupled with the Government's ever changing plans for the MML mean that refurb hasn't occurred. EMR really should have been forced to do a decent refresh at least when they decided to order the 810's, knowing it was going to be 3-4 years more work with seats and carpets that were already looking worse for wear.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
How about... Make the 4 7 cars left and 4 of the 5 cars into a fleet of 6 cars dedicated to Liverpool to Nottingham. Then the balance would form a uniform fleet of 5 cars for use elsewhere including London's, or taking some of XCs services over.

Yes it's not a good use of a 125mph Diesel that's thirsty, but there needs to be diesel and an improved passenger experience will go a long way on other fronts.
 

liamf656

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2020
Messages
573
Location
Derby
Make the upgrade cheaper and people will upgrade. I reckon they'd sell plenty at a fiver, say.
Even at a tenner it’d work. At weekends it’s currently a £12 flat rate and it’s well utilised when I’ve used the 222s, I’ve often reminded people of this as it’s usually a forgotten perk
 

Skymonster

Established Member
Joined
7 Feb 2012
Messages
1,726
I said months ago the 180s were staying due to a shortfall in the order for 810s. My understanding remains the same and the question being considered is whether they stay short term (awaiting more 810s) or longer term (if no more 810s are ordered). The 222s going to Jockrail seems to be the talk of the town right now to replace the HSTs (relative fleet sizes are not that far off), with Cross Country benefiting from the released Avanti 221s.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
2,253
Location
belfast
I said months ago the 180s were staying due to a shortfall in the order for 810s. My understanding remains the same and the question being considered is whether they stay short term (awaiting more 810s) or longer term (if no more 810s are ordered). The 222s going to Jockrail seems to be the talk of the town right now to replace the HSTs (relative fleet sizes are not that far off), with Cross Country benefiting from the released Avanti 221s.
Can I ask, what is Jockrail?

Also, are 221s to XC definitely happening (It really should, but that doesn't mean that it will unfortunately)
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
Can I ask, what is Jockrail?

Also, are 221s to XC definitely happening (It really should, but that doesn't mean that it will unfortunately)
Jock is slang for Scot.

There is nothing in the public domain to indicate any confirmed future use for Avanti 221s or EMR 222s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top