What (if anything) was wrong with the IEP procurement?

[Dan G]

Piqued by this post by @Watershed, I'm curious what people think was wrong with the IEP procurement process?

 

[43096]

Piqued by this post by @Watershed, I'm curious what people think was wrong with the IEP procurement process?

Everything about the entire process was flawed. Just never let civil servants specify trains: badly specified, badly designed, badly built, financed in just about the worst way possible and all wrapped up in an appalling contract.

 

[800001]

Everything about the entire process was flawed. Just never let civil servants specify trains: badly specified, badly designed, badly built, financed in just about the worst way possible and all wrapped up in an appalling contract.

Why are they badly built? In what way?

 

[zwk500]

Why are they badly built? In what way?

Well, using the wrong alloy that led to cracking which grounded the whole fleet was hardly a spectacular success.

 

[43096]

Why are they badly built? In what way?

There's the cracks that caued the whole fleet to be grounded for a start (and it is only a start).

 

[Benjwri]

Well, using the wrong alloy that led to cracking which grounded the whole fleet was hardly a spectacular success.

Don’t think that’s the fault of the civil servants though, ‘won’t crack and ground the whole fleet’ isn’t something that’s generally put in the specification of any train.

 

[zwk500]

Don’t think that’s the fault of the civil servants though, ‘won’t crack and ground the whole fleet’ isn’t something that’s generally put in the specification of any train.

Not at all, the builders used a different alloy from the one in the spec (AIUI, happy to be corrected). But the question was how were they badly built - and using the wrong materials is, to me, building something badly.

 

[pdeaves]

As I understand things, the contract was let before the specification had been finalised, leading to 'extras' (in cost terms) all over the place.

 

[Class360/1]

Why are they badly built? In what way?

Some of the GWR units built in Pistoia have shaky ride quality. The video below goes into detail about it:

 

[fgwrich]

Not at all, the builders used a different alloy from the one in the spec (AIUI, happy to be corrected). But the question was how were they badly built - and using the wrong materials is, to me, building something badly.

Speaking of, the first 80X at Eastleigh seem to be spending a lot longer than planned there. I have a feeling things may not be going to plan - and that's taking into account that the first in class will always take longer than the rest.

As for the original question, further to @43096 post, I would also say the lack of consultation by the DfT to the TOCs (and public) of the train foisted upon them didn't help at all, it's particularly irking that every GWR set has a kitchen which spends the majority of it's time out of use, while the LNER examples (and thanks to some pestering by Stagecoach / Virgin) have a small buffet counter. The GWR examples at the start also suffered from a poor choice of interior materials - the flat cloth used bearing virtually no relation to the rest of GWRs interiors, subsequently changed as the 802s came along with the GWR Specified astro-turf moquette. Then there was the ridiculously tight Terms and Conditions of the contract, which specified that the 800s went to a dedicated Hitachi depot each night with clauses and penalties to the TOC if it couldn't.

On paper they had the potential to be a decent train. Just dragged down by civil service intervention, poor quality materials, some poor design choices, and a contract so inanely expensive and complicated anyone with a financial brain would have ran away from a long time ago.

 

[Mzzzs]

The Italian-made units suffer from bad build quality I have heard. Even on a ride on one of them, I could hear loose panels, and the ride quality definitely feels worse.
The factory in Italy reportedly has a reputation for bad quality.

My biggest letdown is the seats other than that I kind of like them more the LNER ones.

 

[MattRat]

and a contract so inanely expensive and complicated anyone with a financial brain would have ran away from a long time ago.

And yet this is the same group of people telling the country that we've ran out of money and have to deal with cuts and lack of spending. Well, for a start, I wonder why that is, and also, I doubt it will stop them making the same mistakes in the future.

 

[Via Bank]

The failure to accommodate outsized luggage (surfboards, bicycles that aren't skinny-tyred carbon fibre affairs that can be lifted into those wretched hangers) suggests a lack of understanding of how people use inter-city rail… or more likely, was a conscious choice to tell large swathes of people to stay away from the railway in order to value engineer the maximum number of seats per set. The surfboard thing in particular, on the Great Western of all lines, just comes across as incompetent.

We could also talk about the whole bi-mode thing then being used as a lever to delay and de-scope important electrification projects (e.g. to Bristol and Swansea) because this country loves spending money on cancelling and deferring infrastructure projects.

 

[irish_rail]

Far too many 5 cars instead of 9 cars but then I guess this is perhaps a case of hindsight being a wonderful thing.

 

[dm1]

Aside from all of the above, not specifying level boarding in at least one car was a massive missed opportunity that will hinder the accessibility of the rail network for decades unless something is done about it.

 

[fgwrich]

The failure to accommodate outsized luggage (surfboards, bicycles that aren't skinny-tyred carbon fibre affairs that can be lifted into those wretched hangers) suggests a lack of understanding of how people use inter-city rail… or more likely, was a conscious choice to tell large swathes of people to stay away from the railway in order to value engineer the maximum number of seats per set. The surfboard thing in particular, on the Great Western of all lines, just comes across as incompetent.

We could also talk about the whole bi-mode thing then being used as a lever to delay and de-scope important electrification projects (e.g. to Bristol and Swansea) because this country loves spending money on cancelling and deferring infrastructure projects.

This unfortunately demonstrates the One Size Fits All approach those in the civil service took with the project. Lots of seats (tick), a stupid multipurpose space that doubles up as either a cycle rack or luggage rack but not both (tick). Also, from a luggage point of view, the IETs have taken a step backwards to the HSTs they replaced. First Great Westerns choice of glass panels in the luggage racks weren’t just for aesthetics but also for security. By putting the main luggage rack into the vestibule and next to the doors, it is results in luggage at further risk of being stolen.

 

[DarloRich]

Everything about the entire process was flawed. Just never let civil servants specify trains: badly specified, badly designed, badly built, financed in just about the worst way possible and all wrapped up in an appalling contract.

Is the correct answer - the contracting arrangements alone must have kept our learned friends in claret for years!

EDIT - might it be easier to ask what is right with them?

 

[fgwrich]

Is the correct answer - the contracting arrangements alone must have kept our learned friends in claret for years!

EDIT - might it be easier to ask what is right with them?

I mean, there is a reason why it was dubbed (I think by the ever critical Modern Railways), the Insanely Expensive Project a few years ago!

If you ever have a chance to read through Roger Ford’s informed sources e-zine, they’ve always been quite interesting and often informative and scathing of the procurement. The figures alone, for an IET vehicle Vs a conventionally ordered Pendolino coach were staggeringly expensive.

 

[Benjwri]

Far too many 5 cars instead of 9 cars but then I guess this is perhaps a case of hindsight being a wonderful thing.

I would argue more a case of bad software and linking of trains, 5 cars would’ve been far better if they could be couples and uncoupled quickly like the 395s. And obviously a case of changing demand thanks to Covid.

Although with 802s being used by GWR in the west instead of HSTs, perhaps the decision is paying off.

 

[CapitalStar378]

The whole process was devoid pf any proper thought for passenger comfort or facilities. At least the LNER versions have a buffet and a nicer interior colour scheme, but worthy replacements for 125/225 sets they are certainly not. GWR sets are a massive step down in every way.

Heard some rumours about some retro fitting improvements by GWR but guess that's unlikely now they're on a management contract.

 

[Benjwri]

Far too many 5 cars instead of 9 cars but then I guess this is perhaps a case of hindsight being a wonderful thing.

The abundance 5 cars have also come into its own this weekend, with the landslide near Oxford meaning the Cotswold line has had to be split, but 5 cars have meant a far larger number of services have been able to run because 10 car trains have been split to give units to place in each side.

 

[MattRat]

Far too many 5 cars instead of 9 cars but then I guess this is perhaps a case of hindsight being a wonderful thing.

Except they already knew what was going to happen due to the 180s also being too short. It wasn't the only problem with them, of course, but someone should have taken notes about it for the IET program.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The use of bimodes rather than traction changes, as well as discouraging infill electrification, may also be seen as shortsighted. Reputedly, someone at DfT once had a bad experience at Crewe with a problematic link up of a Class 47 and a Pendolino (what do you expect trying to get 1960s technology to co-operate with that of the 21st century?).
Nevertheless the Southern achieved it, with EP-compatible class 33s, reliably every hour at Bournemouth for over 20 years - in fact that went even further, by swapping traction rather than just adding a diesel to haul an electric train, so that the electric traction equipment was not taken to Weymouth and back).

The result is that there has been a lot more capital expenditure on fitting diesel engines, which then spend much of their working lives simply being carried around "dead in train" for hundreds of miles (with a weight penalty of about 2 tons per carriage, if you compare the stats for Classes 800 and 801), rather than having a suitable locomotive waiting to take over at Newark (for Lincoln), Doncaster (for Hull), Leeds (for Harrogate), Edinburgh (for Aberdeen), Stirling (for Inverness), Didcot (for Oxford and the Cotswold Line), Swindon (for Gloucester or Bristol), Cardiff (for Swansea) or Newbury (for the West Country - and soon Wolverhampton (for Shrewsbury), Crewe (for North wales), and however far the wires will get on the Midland as well. Just as was done on the Bournmouth line, the loco would operate push-pull at the "country" (non-London) end of the train, and no shunting would be needed - the loco would simply be left behind and the next train couple up to it on arrival - efficient scheduling of up and down services to ensure the platform is not occupied by the waiting loco for too long.

(Push-pull might be harder to arrange for Transpennine, as traction changes would be needed at both Manchester and York)


And it's not even as if coupling and uncoupling is seen as a major issue by whoever came up with the Incredibly Expensive Project - some IEP services divide, hence the large number of 5-car sets (which causes another problem, as there is no gangway connection between the units so you need twice as many staff to provide the same level of service).

 

[zwk500]

The use of bimodes rather than traction changes, as well as discouraging infill electrification, may also be seen as shortsighted. Reputedly, someone at DfT once had a bad experience at Crewe with a problematic link up of a Class 47 and a Pendolino (what do you expect trying to get 1960s technology to co-operate with that of the 21st century?).

Would have been a 57, surely?

And it's not even as if coupling and uncoupling is seen as a major issue by whoever came up with the Incredibly Expensive Project - some IEP services divide, hence the large number of 5-car sets (which causes another problem, as there is no gangway connection between the units so you need twice as many staff to provide the same level of service).

There are operational issues with haulage, even with push-pull operations and so forth, that Bi-modes eliminate. There are arguments for both methods, but on the whole a single fleet of Bi-mode MUs is more flexible than partial fleets of Trailers, EMUs and Loco haulage.

 

[507 001]

The whole thing seemed to be a huge mess, and the train is frankly horrible to travel in if you’re in Standard.

 

[Carlisle]

Would have been a 57, surely?

Yes, but the class 390 coupling systems were only really designed for very occasional or emergency use & with Virgin unwilling to spend time or money upgrading to a superior system, the rest is history.

 

[ainsworth74]

Far too many 5 cars instead of 9 cars but then I guess this is perhaps a case of hindsight being a wonderful thing.

No I'm not sure it's hindsight really, I think it's Civil Servants and Ministers interfering in things that they weren't qualified to do so. The split of 5s and 9s makes sense in a world where you're going to be splitting and joining lots of a services day in and day out to focus resources on busy cores (say London to Oxford) but without having to run oversized trains to quieter extremities. In that world the fleet make up probably makes sense (though even then perhaps there is a small imbalance in the number of 5s vice 9s but it isn't "far too many").

However in a world where neither GWR nor LNER do much (if any in the case of LNER, I'm not up enough on GWR to know for certain) splitting and joining then you're quite right it's somewhat mad to have 10-car sets running around which spend their whole diagram coupled together! Might as well have been a 9-car set and cut down on duplication of expensive and 'dead' bits (from a passenger space perspective) like cabs and to enable staff and passengers to walk through the whole train as needed.

It's the same thing as the kitchens on GWR. Every train having a full kitchen makes sense on LNER where most services will make at least some use of them. Utterly barmy on GWR considering the catering offer designed by the TOC only requires full kitchens on a handful of services per day! But that's the DfT for you. Specifying that they must all have kitchens without reference to what the operator is actually going to be providing in terms of catering.

Which to circle around is the main issue with them. The specification from the DfT just wasn't up to snuff and the result is a train with plenty of potential (it is after all mostly a tube that can have stuff put in it) but the delivery of which has been disappointing and the procurement process eye-wateringly expensive (and inflexible). One of the little things that amuses me (in an otherwise you'd cry sort of way) is that the Mk4s can provide power through neutral sections to the sockets used by passengers but the shiny new Azuma's cut out through the neutral sections. A small thing but for the person I was travelling with annoying as it meant that they couldn't use their laptop (dead battery). Whereas if we'd been on a Mk4 it wouldn't have been an issue. But presumably no-body thought to specify that the power sockets should remain active through neutral sections and so...

 

[Benjwri]

However in a world where neither GWR nor LNER do much (if any in the case of LNER, I'm not up enough on GWR to know for certain) splitting and joining then you're quite right it's somewhat mad to have 10-car sets running around which spend their whole diagram coupled together! Might as well have been a 9-car set and cut down on duplication of expensive and 'dead' bits (from a passenger space perspective) like cabs and to enable staff and passengers to walk through the whole train as needed.

GWR don’t do much splitting en-route. Originally more was planned but the on board interfacing of the computers makes the coupling process take too long so it was scrapped.

The 5 cars are useful though to minimise cancellations when the fleet is so spread out for example it’s quite common for a train to fail away from the depot, but then the other unit can be decouples so the service isn’t cancelled, and as I mentioned above they are useful when routes are split by engineering etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==

Didcot (for Oxford and the Cotswold Line), Swindon (for Gloucester or Bristol), Cardiff (for Swansea) or Newbury

Bi-Modes allow for power changeover on the move though, which push pull doesn’t. It certainly wouldn’t be possible at Didcot, the services towards Oxford/North Cotswolds don’t generally stop, and the station doesn’t have the capacity to let them, let alone to let them couple.
Similarly many services through Newbury don’t stop, and so would be significantly slower down by doing so.

I don’t really think push pull would be possible on a busy line like the GWML, where typically the changeover stations have maximum one more platform than lines leading into the station. Having to shunt the loco unit the platform, sometimes across both fast lines, before then shunting the train into the platform, then coupling would create huge time penalties.

 

[ainsworth74]

The 5 cars are useful though to minimise cancellations when the fleet is so spread out for example it’s quite common for a train to fail away from the depot, but then the other unit can be decouples so the service isn’t cancelled, and as I mentioned above they are useful when routes are split by engineering etc.

True and I've spotted LNER will do it on occasion as well to keep things going on the "a short train is better than no train" principle. But I'm still not totally sold that, considering the timetable we've ended up with, it justifies all the 5-cars that spend their lives coupled up as 10s for their whole diagram.

Bi-Modes allow for power changeover on the move though, which push pull doesn’t. It certainly wouldn’t be possible at Didcot, the services towards Oxford/North Cotswolds don’t generally stop, and the station doesn’t have the capacity to let them, let alone to let them couple.
Similarly many services through Newbury don’t stop, and so would be significantly slower down by doing so.

I don’t really think push pull would be possible on a busy line like the GWML, where typically the changeover stations have maximum one more platform than lines leading into the station. Having to shunt the loco unit the platform, sometimes across both fast lines, before then shunting the train into the platform, then coupling would create huge time penalties.

I have to say I was something of a bi-mode sceptic but I do think that this is one of the areas that the IETs have actually been a success and trying to faff around with coupling and uncoupling locomotives rather than just changing mode on the move or in a minute or two during a station call has been a big benefit of the bi-modes. As well as enabling LNER to undertake unplanned diversions without needing to sit around and wait for a locomotive to appear to haul the train away from the wires. I'm a total convert and think that it was an excellent idea. If anything I think that LNER could have benefited from a handful more bi-modes and shade less EMU only versions.

 

[geoffk]

I mean, there is a reason why it was dubbed (I think by the ever critical Modern Railways), the Insanely Expensive Project a few years ago!

PFI = paying for indefinitely