IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent performance issues

[whole diary]

[stuving]

15 Ltrs, an hour strikes me as a very high rate of consumption for a modern engine with a electronic management system ,especially when left to run at an idle speed also very high emissions if this is the case ?

And whilst I am in no way wishing to dispute your understanding S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) I would be interested to have a link to details if at all possible thanks.

WP, You have to have a login to view the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) Forum so no good putting a link here.  The 15L per hour figure came from a poster in GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) who is involved closely in the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) introduction/maintenance so I fully trust his calculations.  Apparently the 15L figure equates to approximately 50 miles travel in service mode.

My understanding is that when the engine is running in the TURNAROUND MODE that its supplying the 'hotel power' to the whole unit keeping the lighting/heating/air con etc. working, so under considerable load and probably not just running at idle speed.

Now where is STUVING when you need him?  He's very good at searching these things out!

As it happens, I was just looking at the TARA^▸ (Train Availability and Reliability Agreement) - which says that almost everything about what it calls layovers is to be agreed between Hitachi and GWR. The IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) specification doesn't say anything about external power other than 25kV, so that would be included in the list of TBAs, and does not specify a cabin warm-up time. But these days one would expect a train to be provided at the start of its diagram (or day's work) all warm and toasty inside, especially in this weather. If GWR are being insistent on that Hitachi may be insistent on their rules about keeping some engines on.

There's a more accessible discussion on railforums.co.uk about that latest out-of-fuel incident, including this post from Clarence Yard (the expert's expert on 800s). This was 1A08 yesterday, (800318, 9-car) which was at Exeter overnight and meant to make it back to North Pole. From various comments, in this case Exeter does not have a shore supply ("ETH"), so that wasn't an option, and it was short of an engine when sent out (!) so the others would be burning more fuel. Refuelling would have been an option too, if thought necessary, as this is a standard facility available at any agreed layover point, as are cleaning and simple maintenance checks.

I suspect that each instance of this has a few specific features of its own, so care is needed quoting general comments. But one thing we may be seeing is Hitachi's inexperience - having to learn a load of new things as they go along.

Oh, and the TARA has a detailed description of an arbitration procedure, as well as an adjudication procedure, in case of disputes....

[didcotdean]

This was actually the one I referred to yesterday. It was cancelled onwards from Bristol TM^‡(resolve) just as I was booking a mobile ticket from Didcot for it - it was just showing a few minutes late when I started.

[Incider]

One thing that does seem to occur at present more often than you might expect are trains being withdrawn completely or terminating short because of a lack of sufficient fuel on board.

Yes, there is an interesting discussion on the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) forum regarding this.  When trains are shutdown at a terminus they enter what is called 'TURNAROUND MODE'.  This shutsdown all engines except two.  In idle the engines consume about 15L per hour per engine, and it has been found that when units are stabled overnight that there is insufficient fuel left for the train to complete its next scheduled trip(s), especially those that stable at remote locations overnight.  Apparently HITACHI will not allow the units to be completely shutdown and be connected to a shore supply!

Is that why the Hereford oustabled set is on shore supply every night and there is shore supply at Worcester Hereford sidings for those sets as well.  The units there are shutdown - try leaving an engine running at Hereford all night, it doesn’t take long to get complaints, hardly surprising how close the houses are to the stabling road.

[1st fan]

15 Ltrs, an hour strikes me as a very high rate of consumption for a modern engine with a electronic management system ,especially when left to run at an idle speed also very high emissions if this is the case ?

And whilst I am in no way wishing to dispute your understanding S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) I would be interested to have a link to details if at all possible thanks.

WP, You have to have a login to view the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) Forum so no good putting a link here. 

Try this link for the wnxx forum and look for Clarence Yard (which is who you were referring to I think):

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:re4U61AneMkJ:https://www.wnxxforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D16%26p%3D566891+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

No need to have an account or log in.

[broadgage]

Would IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) supporters care to suggest a date by which short formations will be virtually eliminated?

Would supporters of any MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) rolling stock type care to pick a date when short formations are eliminated?

MU formations are here to stay. They offer operational flexibility and running cost savings. And most importantly, if one unit in an MU does throw a wobbly, the particular service can still run. Inconvient for some intending passengers but better than inconvenient for all. You can't say the same when a fixed formation (eg the sainted HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) or loco hauled train sits down.

Have we moved on from "short formations simply wont happen" towards the new reality of "better get used to short formations, they are part and parcel of the downgrade to DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)"

Years ago, I and others expressed doubts about 5 car DMUs for inter-city services, and in particular about the likelihood of short trains. Advocates pointed out that firstly the fleet size was ample, and that short formations simply "wont happen" It was also suggested that criticism was premature until the new trains came into service.

In many years of long distance travel on what was then FGW^▸ (First Great Western), I never once experienced a half length HST ! And very seldom a cancellation for lack of rolling stock.
I appreciate that failed HSTs on the longer routes were covered for by taking a train from another route. That however is little consolation to the regular Bristol or Cardiff passenger who used to get a full length train but now experience regular half trains.

Usual selection of half length services today BTW^▸ (by the way).

[SandTEngineer]

Thanks to STUVING and 1st fan for their responses above.

[Rob on the hill]

Would IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) supporters care to suggest a date by which short formations will be virtually eliminated?

Would supporters of any MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) rolling stock type care to pick a date when short formations are eliminated?

MU formations are here to stay. They offer operational flexibility and running cost savings. And most importantly, if one unit in an MU does throw a wobbly, the particular service can still run. Inconvient for some intending passengers but better than inconvenient for all. You can't say the same when a fixed formation (eg the sainted HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) or loco hauled train sits down.

Have we moved on from "short formations simply wont happen" towards the new reality of "better get used to short formations, they are part and parcel of the downgrade to DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)"

Years ago, I and others expressed doubts about 5 car DMUs for inter-city services, and in particular about the likelihood of short trains. Advocates pointed out that firstly the fleet size was ample, and that short formations simply "wont happen" It was also suggested that criticism was premature until the new trains came into service.

In many years of long distance travel on what was then FGW^▸ (First Great Western), I never once experienced a half length HST ! And very seldom a cancellation for lack of rolling stock.
I appreciate that failed HSTs on the longer routes were covered for by taking a train from another route. That however is little consolation to the regular Bristol or Cardiff passenger who used to get a full length train but now experience regular half trains.

Usual selection of half length services today BTW^▸ (by the way).

I assume it is not possible to take out a faulty coach from a 5 or 9 coach IET set? With the HST, coaches can be removed/replaced and the set can continue in service. Likewise HST power cars can be swapped if a fault needs to be fixed.

[Western Pathfinder]

Thanks to STUVING and 1st fan for their responses above.

Seconded many thanks chaps it makes very interesting reading .

[IndustryInsider]

Why does turn around mode require that TWO engines be run ?
The nominally electric units have a single engine which is said to suffice for "hotel power" when the wires come down. So surely a single running engine should be able to supply a stabled train.

And as for running short of fuel due to this requirement, should not this have been foreseen and allowed for?

I guess two engines running is an insurance policy in case one should shut down?  When left stabled the train can be unattended for several hours so an engine stopping might not be spotted.  If in the case of a Class 801 electric train there will be a driver on board in the case of 'hotel power' being needed so they are able to check the one engine is working OK and take steps to solve the problem if not.  It could also be that 'hotel power' does some load shedding of some systems supplied by the engines, whereas turnaround mode keeps everything working fully.

I'm sure that when shore supply systems on depots are all working properly it won't be a problem, but everything seems to be delayed - platform extensions, OHLE power to depots, the new timetable etc. so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.

Have we moved on from "short formations simply wont happen" towards the new reality of "better get used to short formations, they are part and parcel of the downgrade to DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)"

Years ago, I and others expressed doubts about 5 car DMUs for inter-city services, and in particular about the likelihood of short trains. Advocates pointed out that firstly the fleet size was ample, and that short formations simply "wont happen"

Could you point us towards a post where somebody has said "short formations simply won't happen"?  Sounds like a rather daft thing for anyone to say, even the strongest of advocates.

I accept of course that a very few short formations might be unavoidable, but by "virtually eliminated" I mean no more than 0.5% of services being short formed, or one train in 200.

I think a target of 0.5% short forms is probably about right.  HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) operate just over 200 trains a day currently, so when the full fleet is introduced and the new timetable starts I would expect the number of 80x passenger workings per day to increase to over 300 when you include the additional services on many HSS routes and the Paddington to Bedwyn/Oxford trains that currently come under LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley).  So if we said 300 a day, a 0.5% target would see an average of around ten shortformed train per week.

[stuving]

I too am surprised to hear that two engines have to be run overnight. After all, the 9-car electric trains (801/2) only have one engine to provide a full hotel (auxiliary) power supply when locomotive hauled (the original reason for that engine, remember). While Hitachi say a second one would be needed for a 10-car unit, that could be for this requirement or for the secondary one of last-ditch traction (I suspect it is the latter).

Assuming it is keeping warm that matters, and is preferred to letting the cabin space cool and then reheating because that demands more power, I have waved my magic envelope (backwards) at the problem. The outside area is about 2500 m², and assuming a temperature difference of 20 K and a U-value of 1.0, I find 50 kW of heating is needed. Lights ought to be a lot less than that, and in any case do not need to be on! Ventilation would use power and add an extra heating demand for the make-up air, but again that should be a small fraction of the  main heating and could be turned off.

Now even the windows in new houses don't need a U-value that low, and the walls of the train may be even worse at insulating than the windows. The outer shell is double-skinned aluminium, and inside that is a "self-supporting interior module", presumably some plastic or composite inner wall. That leaves a gap that may be just air, but might have solid insulation - I suspect the former, though even that has some insulating effect. Overall a U-value of about 3 seems a reasonable one, for a power demand of 150 kW.

The traction/APS system for one engine provides 240 kW of auxiliary power, which seems to be enough for the loads estimated above.

[broadgage]

This thread
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15944.0

Contains a statement by a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) representative  that sufficient IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) would be available to replace ALL HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) with 9 car or 10 car IETs.
They also state that additional capacity will be available in the form of the new EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) for Thames valley services.

[IndustryInsider]

I too am surprised to hear that two engines have to be run overnight.

Two engines don't have to run overnight, that's just the standard number that run when 'turnaround' mode is selected.  Turnaround is specifically designed for cutting emissions when there are long layovers at places like Paddington, Hereford and Oxford and is invoked by pressing a button the TMS.  A bit like shutting the one engine down on a HST^▸ (High Speed Train).  I should imagine the systems would all be adequately provided for with one engine running, but as well as the insurance I mentioned in my previous post I expect it's much easier just to leave it in turnaround mode than mess about than shutting down all engines then locally starting one of them back up.

This thread
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15944.0

Contains a statement by a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) representative  that sufficient IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) would be available to replace ALL HSTs with 9 car or 10 car IETs.
They also state that additional capacity will be available in the form of the new EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) for Thames valley services.

If that's in response to my post then I see nothing wrong with Ben (long since left the shire of course) saying that in that there are enough of them for planned diagrams.  There are, albeit the replacement of HSTs with them during the transitional phase hasn't gone as well as anyone would like.  It would be wrong IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) to twist that into him saying shortforms "simply won't happen" implying that under no operational circumstances would anything planned to be a 10 or 9 car run as anything less.

[grahame]

Contains a statement by a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) representative  that sufficient IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) would be available to replace ALL HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) with 9 car or 10 car IETs.

Going back to first (or should that be First) principles ... I would see the length of a train required being more a factor of the number of people to be carried than of the length of the journey.   And where a frequency is stepped up,  then length of each train can perhaps be reduced; of course, a more frequent service will encourage more passengers ...

Looking at a very old example, my timetables from the 1980s show a train from Trowbridge to Bath and Bristol every 2 hours, and that's now two trains an hour - a fourfold increase.  I recall Class 33 diesels pulling 6 or 7 carriages on many services in those days - so we're looking at perhaps 3.5 passenger carriages per hour.   Today, we're up to 5 or 6 passenger carriages per hour, and that's increasing to 7 or 8 .... double the capacity per hour, even though there are not longer any trains of six or seven carriages. 

Let's look at the plans for Cornwall.  Before current changes, you're looking at a main line service with gaps of up to 80 minutes, with trains of up to 7.5 passenger carriages (8 Mk 3 carriages, half of one taken up by a buffet).  That's around 5.8 carriages per hour.  Change the timetable to a 30 minute service, and run either 5 car IETs or Castle Class HSTs, and you've increased the capacity to around 9 carriages per hour - that's an increase of 50%.

Can I suggest that replacement of 1 (2 + HST by 2 x 5 car IET services (and with an extra service too) does replace "each HST with 9 or 10 IET cars".  The fact that they're running through Cornwall as 2 separate 5 car trains isn't going to be a huge concern to most passengers provided the train aren't quickly overloaded.

I am reminded very much of the winter of 2007, when the TransWilts service had been slashed from 5 each way a day to 2. The Great Western Regional Manager at the time was at pains to point out that single carriage trains five times a day had been replaced by longer trains twice a day, and that the route capacity was thus unaltered.  I know that at the time I expressed a preference for the higher frequency ... and really didn't care how long the train was.   A wait at Swindon from 06:20 (having missed the 06:18) for the next train at 18:44 was a ******* long time - and having it turn up as 3 cars rather than a shorter train at 08:36, 13:00 or 17:36 was no compensation.

[plymothian]

IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) are not so Dawlish proof.
2 have been hit by waves in succession and have had engines shut down  (1A90 3 of 5 knocked out and 1A88 5 of 6 knocked out)

[Celestial]

It shouldn't matter.  The PM said yesterday at PMQ that Network Rail has the best engineers in the world looking at the problem of Dawlish, and that it remains a top priority for the government (it's been a top priority now for 5 years, so I'm sure it'll be fixed soon).

In the meantime though, maybe GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) should keep a few more HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s to run when the tide is high, or if that's too extravagant, there will be a few Pacers free soon that could do the job just as well.