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

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

An IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) should perform better than an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) in leaf fall or otherwise slippery conditions, because a greater proportion of the total weight is on powered wheels.
My concern is that the great complexity of the IETs and the (over?)reliance on computers might lead to a "computer says no" situation when the train could otherwise have proceeded.

[PhilWakely]

Whilst waiting at Castle Cary for the Down Cornishman (15:03 ex-PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)), I thought for a millisecond that a 15-car formation was going to turn up!

The automated announcement said "Please join the correct portion of the train - the front 10 coaches for Liskeard, Bodmin Parkway,...., Penzance. The rear 5 coaches will detach and terminate at Plymouth."   

[IndustryInsider]

An IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) should perform better than an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) in leaf fall or otherwise slippery conditions, because a greater proportion of the total weight is on powered wheels.
My concern is that the great complexity of the IETs and the (over?)reliance on computers might lead to a "computer says no" situation when the train could otherwise have proceeded.

Yes indeed, a clear benefit of MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) working over loco and coaches.  The HST also had ‘computer says no’ moments when dealing with wheel slide in the form of a ‘locked axle’ warning.  You had to reset the system and do a rotation test every time which was a pain.

[Incider]

An IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) should perform better than an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) in leaf fall or otherwise slippery conditions, because a greater proportion of the total weight is on powered wheels.
My concern is that the great complexity of the IETs and the (over?)reliance on computers might lead to a "computer says no" situation when the train could otherwise have proceeded.

Yes indeed, a clear benefit of MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) working over loco and coaches.  The HST also had ‘computer says no’ moments when dealing with wheel slide in the form of a ‘locked axle’ warning.  You had to reset the system and do a rotation test every time which was a pain.

Blimey, that’s stretching it a bit 😀.  Computer!!!  The locked axle detection was a bolt on to the BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) MKII wheelslide rack fitted to power cars some years after build.  The ones for ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) had an upgrade when they were refurbed, but GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) didn’t have the full refurb, they didn’t take the Brush Traction Control system, which included wheelslide equipment.  Two of the GWR powers did have it, when they took them 43053 &43056.  They also had an improved wheelslip control system, the Driver could leave the power handle open instead of notching offf and the traction control would compensate.

[phile]

There seem to be 4 Diagrams today being worked with 5 vice 9/10

[SandTEngineer]

Interesting comment on the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) Forum concerning IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) Introduction, from Tony Miles of Modern Railways:

The general view is that Hitachi focused heavily on building the new trains and not enough on the day to day delivery of sets in fully working state (and the right sets on the right diagrams). Odd as this is the lucrative part of the various contracts.. 30+ years of income... so much so that there is a significant change of senior management at Hitachi UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and a big push.to get things reorganised... both GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about) are politely saying they have confidence in Hitachi (openly) but behind the scenes the three TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) currently using 80x sets are understood to have reminded Hitachi they want operational trains as promised and not compensation... compensation doesn't carry passengers...

[broadgage]

Perhaps Hitachi should have borrowed my crystal ball

Or put more seriously, I based my very negative forecasts on actual experience of at least three other major train fleet renewals, ALL of which ended up with shorter trains than used before the renewals. As I said at the time, "why should this one be different"
Experts on these forums who studied the matter in more detail said it would be different this time, and that my negative experiences with other new fleets were no guide to the future.

Cynical experience trumps optimistic forecasts.

I wonder what Hitachi will do to improve reliability/availability?
Build a few more units perhaps so as to allow for a few spares ?
Or perhaps lengthen a few 5 car sets into 9 car sets ? Which would have a similar effect.

[SandTEngineer]

Perhaps Hitachi should have borrowed my crystal ball

Or put more seriously, I based my very negative forecasts on actual experience of at least three other major train fleet renewals, ALL of which ended up with shorter trains than used before the renewals. As I said at the time, "why should this one be different"
Experts on these forums who studied the matter in more detail said it would be different this time, and that my negative experiences with other new fleets were no guide to the future.

Cynical experience trumps optimistic forecasts.

I wonder what Hitachi will do to improve reliability/availability?
Build a few more units perhaps so as to allow for a few spares ?
Or perhaps lengthen a few 5 car sets into 9 car sets ? Which would have a similar effect.

I think you have unfairly interpreted that quote.  The correct trains are there as ordered by the customer, but its the way the implementation has been handled that's failed.  Not ordering the correct number of trains, or car formation in the first place, is not Hitachi's fault.  Don't think I need to remind you who did the specifying and ordering......

[broadgage]

But did the customer ever specify the number of trains to be built ? My understanding was that the customer specified the number of trains to be available each day for service, and that it was up to Hitachi how many trains to build in order to meet this requirement.

79 trains available for service was the requirement IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly). Up to Hitachi to decide if they need to build 83 trains, or 85, or some other number was my understanding.

As the expected reliability/availability has not been achieved, building a few extras would seem to be one way of meeting the contracted availability.

Likewise lengthening a few 5 car sets to 9 cars, would help reduce short formations when failures occur.

[stuving]

But did the customer ever specify the number of trains to be built ? My understanding was that the customer specified the number of trains to be available each day for service, and that it was up to Hitachi how many trains to build in order to meet this requirement.

79 trains available for service was the requirement IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly). Up to Hitachi to decide if they need to build 83 trains, or 85, or some other number was my understanding.

As the expected reliability/availability has not been achieved, building a few extras would seem to be one way of meeting the contracted availability.

Likewise lengthening a few 5 car sets to 9 cars, would help reduce short formations when failures occur.

There was an agreed fleet size in the contracts, visible in the delivery schedule. But the logic of the way the procurement was done is indeed that the agreed fleet was a minimum. The idea was that the whole fleet should be big enough to provide the specified number of units in service. Making that contract with the manufacturer, and setting the penalties high enough to hurt, only makes sense if they would add to the fleet if their initial plans turned out optimistic.

I imagine the trouble with that is the need to make a decision for such an extra build in advance of doing it. "We will have to built another couple of units - at our own cost - in case we can't fix the serviceability issues within a year at most." Doesn't look good as a pitch to the boss does it? And a request for that much money out of the bottom line is going to your boss's boss's boss (at least). Plus, of course, it would be more that a year if building form scratch, and "borrowing" off production only works if the later orders are for nearly identical designs.

[1st fan]

Perhaps Hitachi should have borrowed my crystal ball

Or put more seriously, I based my very negative forecasts on actual experience of at least three other major train fleet renewals, ALL of which ended up with shorter trains than used before the renewals. As I said at the time, "why should this one be different"
Experts on these forums who studied the matter in more detail said it would be different this time, and that my negative experiences with other new fleets were no guide to the future.

Cynical experience trumps optimistic forecasts.

I wonder what Hitachi will do to improve reliability/availability?
Build a few more units perhaps so as to allow for a few spares ?
Or perhaps lengthen a few 5 car sets into 9 car sets ? Which would have a similar effect.

I think you have unfairly interpreted that quote.  The correct trains are there as ordered by the customer, but its the way the implementation has been handled that's failed.  Not ordering the correct number of trains, or car formation in the first place, is not Hitachi's fault.  Don't think I need to remind you who did the specifying and ordering......

My dad was of the opinion that it didn't matter the voyagers were short because there was a more frequent service of them. That was until he traveled on one and then asked what idiot ordered and specified them. I don't blame Hitachi for building what they were asked to. That's because the blame lies with the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and DCA design.

[broadgage]

I do not blame hitachi for building what was ordered.
But I DO BLAME Hitachi for the trains not working reliably. If the customer wants a suburban DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) I cant blame Hitachi for supplying them. BUT they should still work with sufficient reliability to provide the advertised service.
After over two years this has not been achieved.

[IndustryInsider]

Interesting comment on the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) Forum concerning IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) Introduction, from Tony Miles of Modern Railways:

The general view is that Hitachi focused heavily on building the new trains and not enough on the day to day delivery of sets in fully working state (and the right sets on the right diagrams). Odd as this is the lucrative part of the various contracts.. 30+ years of income... so much so that there is a significant change of senior management at Hitachi UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and a big push.to get things reorganised... both GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about) are politely saying they have confidence in Hitachi (openly) but behind the scenes the three TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) currently using 80x sets are understood to have reminded Hitachi they want operational trains as promised and not compensation... compensation doesn't carry passengers...

Good to hear, if true, that the TOCs are not simply going to lied down and accept some shortforms and instead rake in lots of compensation.  I'd seem to recollect some cynics predicting that?

[nickswift99]

Can someone explain how GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) propose to introduce a reliable new timetable in December given that rolling stock availability isn’t meeting their existing service needs?

With less than 3 weeks to go is Hitachi able to step up in time?

[grahame]

Can someone explain how GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) propose to introduce a reliable new timetable in December given that rolling stock availability isn’t meeting their existing service needs?

As I understand it (from GWR managers) resources have been being tuned for the new timetable for some while, and at present they're using the resources that are set up for the new timetable to run the old one.

I don't have the figures / diagram details, but it's noted that the trains will be faster end to end.  Let's say a gain of 15 minutes along the whole route on average, and in 15 minutes typically 3 x IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) leave Paddington - so leaving turn around time unaltered you have 3 more trains available.   Do the same with turn arounds at the country end and this adds up to 6 trains.  "Superfast" is 5 car rather than 10 much of the time, I believe, so if 4 of these extra trains are long ones, perhaps you have 2 + 8 extra diagrams available if they're 5 car ones.

Comment has also been made in public about one of the risks being the TfL^» (Transport for London - about) takeover of many services. Not sure how this effects trains and 387, 165, 166 cascades, etc, nor how it effects staff when it comes to IET services - can the same people drive a 387 as an 802, for example?  If so, the roll out of Elizabeth line trains to Reading will crews at least, as TfL have a well documented pool of drivers not doing very much operational work while they await the openings ....

IET answer. I would give you a different answer about coping from December for Bristol passed 1xx unit operated trains (and with which I include castles)