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

[Meerkat]

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.

That sounds like an awful lot of diesels and their drivers hanging about, and a diagramming and rostering nightmare!

 

[DanNCL]

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.

I wouldn't read too much into that. The first in class Tyne & Wear Metro units to undergo full corrosion repairs and rewiring took a year longer than planned to do, but the project was still completed on time.

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.

Not just the Italian units although they're definitely worse, some of the Newton Aycliffe units aren't exactly great either.

The Italian units came out of the same factory that the ill fated NS Fyra and DSB IC2 and IC4 units came out of, think that says it all about the quality of what comes out of that place!

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.

5 car units have booked work solo on LNER, all week to/from Leeds and Lincoln, and on Sundays additionally Newcastle. All in paths that pre 2020 were 9-car HST or Mk4 sets on the core part of the ECML. That's on top of the substitutions for unavailable 9 car units!

 

[trebor79]

Really there's a lot of hyperbole. No doubt the procurement contract is ridiculously expensive and constrained. But from a passenger POV if they had more comfortable seats, a bit better luggage provision and a buffet counter they'd be fine.
The only thing I really dislike about them is the seats with the metal support bar pushing on the back of my thighs.

 

[GLC]

With the structural cracks that were found, and the subsequent fines that Hitachi would have then faced for not providing units, does this not improve the value for money aspect of the procurement? Or were the fines immaterial mostly?

 

[Meerkat]

Really there's a lot of hyperbole. No doubt the procurement contract is ridiculously expensive and constrained. But from a passenger POV if they had more comfortable seats, a bit better luggage provision and a buffet counter they'd be fine.
The only thing I really dislike about them is the seats with the metal support bar pushing on the back of my thighs.

Its rather a big boo boo to have seats that are actually uncomfortable, rather than just not comfortable, on a long distance train!

 

[TurboMan]

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.

There is still a bit of attaching/detaching, but less than pre-pandemic certainly. When the pandemic happened a lot of the splitting and attachment disappeared, but it hasn't been scrapped. Although you're right that the process is quite long, the bit that takes the longest is the TMS reconfiguring after the couple button is pressed. But once it was discovered that the doors can be released before pressing the couple button (door control circuits through the coupler are live as soon as the coupler heads meet), it made the process much quicker, as the passengers can board & alight while the TMS is reconfiguring.

It didn't help that the timetables that were produced before the trains were introduced were based on Hitachi's timings for coupling/uncoupling, which didn't appear to include any time allowance for passengers to board and alight.

 

[CptCharlee]

The specification of the GWR fleet was all wrong. Lack of buffets, lack of Storage for larger bags and bikes.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

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

It aint much better in FC rock hard seats- the 755s have far more comfy seats in second class

 

[norbitonflyer]

That sounds like an awful lot of diesels and their drivers hanging about, and a diagramming and rostering nightmare!

Not if you plan it properly - have an up service pass a down service close to the changeover point. And no reason for a driver to hang around - he/she just transfers to the loco's cab. (Don't even need to do that when the loco is being deteched from the rear on the way back!)

 

[fgwrich]

I wouldn't read too much into that. The first in class Tyne & Wear Metro units to undergo full corrosion repairs and rewiring took a year longer than planned to do, but the project was still completed on time.


Not just the Italian units although they're definitely worse, some of the Newton Aycliffe units aren't exactly great either.

We shall see, I have a strong feeling they are struggling. In part, the design of the coach (being a long 26 metre aluminium tube) isn't helping either. I understand there's a feeling that it would have been simpler to just scrap the affected coaches and just start again (which was mooted way back at the start of all this in 2021). Of course though, being a modern fixed unit, you cant as easily chop and change vehicles around from affected units and come up with some form of hybrid (see the 180s for example!).

As for the build quality - I still remember boarding a fairly new unit in 2019, which had the CDL covers in one coach held on with hazard tape (as it had fallen off it's hinges) and missing carpet in the vestibule. Whats also noticeable - mostly on the painted 800/3s, is the amount of bubbling up underneath the paintwork too. Not just on the ends of the vehicles, but it's becoming more noticeable on the bodysides around the window pockets and door pockets too, which suggests either poor body preparation or a problem with the Aluminium.

Of course, given the stringent Terms and Conditions of the contract, and the fact we are talking about nearly brand new units here (5 if that years old), you do have to wonder how Hitachi have managed to make such a mess of this!

 

[norbitonflyer]

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.


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.

The wires were originally intended to reach Oxford.

And many of the changeover points have bidirectional platforms (e.g platform 3 at Newark), so no shunting of light locos would be necessary. At Leeds, trains reverse so the loco could just be left on the stops at one of the bay platforms.

 

[Meerkat]

Not if you plan it properly - have an up service pass a down service close to the changeover point. And no reason for a driver to hang around - he/she just transfers to the loco's cab. (Don't even need to do that when the loco is being deteched from the rear on the way back!)

Getting all those combos of up and downs crossing and still working at the London end would be ‘interesting’, and a massive performance risk. Doing it all with the train drivers would lead to some very lengthy changeovers!
Anyway I think the OP is assuming IEP was chosen, but specified/procured badly.

 

[Benjwri]

The wires were originally intended to reach Oxford.

And many of the changeover points have bidirectional platforms (e.g platform 3 at Newark), so no shunting of light locos would be necessary. At Leeds, trains reverse so the loco could just be left on the stops at one of the bay platforms.

They were originally intended to reach enough places half the fleet wouldn’t even need to be bi mode, at which point having a bi mode train that was common made much more point.

As for Oxford it still wouldn’t have the capacity, the timetable doesn’t allow for decoupling of IETs as it is.

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

Not if you plan it properly - have an up service pass a down service close to the changeover point. And no reason for a driver to hang around - he/she just transfers to the loco's cab. (Don't even need to do that when the loco is being deteched from the rear on the way back!)

What about in disruption? Say the line was blocked so no up trains were getting there but down trains could. What do you do with all the locos?

And again it still you’re adding time to many peoples journeys with the coupling, most trains stop for the minimum time already.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

What is (was) the alternative to the IEPs?

 

[norbitonflyer]

And again it still you’re adding time to many peoples journeys with the coupling, most trains stop for the minimum time already.

Joining and uncoupling of portion trains happens with great efficiency all over the world, including still in the UK in a few places. (Salisbury for example)

 

[irish_rail]

Joining and uncoupling of portion trains happens with great efficiency all over the world, including still in the UK in a few places. (Salisbury for example)

And yet when it was tried on the Penzance to London route it caused countless problems. Passengers especially didn't take to it, consistently ending up in the wrong half of the train. Whilst not the end of the world , costs time and is an inconvenience for customers that they shouldn't really have to put up with.
I agree on certain routes where passengers are "regulars" splitting and joining may have a place, but on proper intercity journies where much of the custom is occasional, it really isn't desirable. Added to that, as others have pointed out here, the IETs are not quick couplers, especially on the Western where ATP set up is a factor. Its noticeable how many 10s and 5s are operating now compared with last year, and generally the 10s don't split or join in service now for the reasons above. Shame about the short forms that occur every single day these days, but that's a symptom of losing most of the 9 car sets to the Bristol/ Swansea route and the Wofe now managing mainly with 5s and 10s.

 

[fgwrich]

Joining and uncoupling of portion trains happens with great efficiency all over the world, including still in the UK in a few places. (Salisbury for example)

But, those places are well versed to coupling and uncoupling portion workings and have done so for years. IIRC the DfT used Bournemouth as their primary example, but Bournemouth isn’t Bristol Temple Meads (with a nice big curve) or Plymouth (where the extra portion either has to come up from Cornwall or round from Laira). Also, some blame has to be laid at Hitachi’s door for the issues with the units TMS and the time taken for the units to couple / uncouple and all the issues with them.

 

[Wolfie]

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

I hardly imagine that civil servants specified the material that rolling stock was made from!

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

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.

Indeed.

 

[fgwrich]

And yet when it was tried on the Penzance to London route it caused countless problems. Passengers especially didn't take to it, consistently ending up in the wrong half of the train. Whilst not the end of the world , costs time and is an inconvenience for customers that they shouldn't really have to put up with.
I agree on certain routes where passengers are "regulars" splitting and joining may have a place, but on proper intercity journies where much of the custom is occasional, it really isn't desirable. Added to that, as others have pointed out here, the IETs are not quick couplers, especially on the Western where ATP set up is a factor. Its noticeable how many 10s and 5s are operating now compared with last year, and generally the 10s don't split or join in service now for the reasons above. Shame about the short forms that occur every single day these days, but that's a symptom of losing most of the 9 car sets to the Bristol/ Swansea route and the Wofe now managing mainly with 5s and 10s.

The other advantage to those more traditional routes has always been the rolling stock - Your Southern EMUs & DMUs have always had corridor connections, so following the announcements, passengers do move through the train. Something you can’t do with an IET and involves a lot of faf to do so, particularly if travelling with luggage.

 

[Wolfie]

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.

Since when should everyone's leisure requirements, regardless of cost, be accommodated on the railway? Certainly, pre-COVID when these trains were specified, people getting seats was prioritised. I doubt that most people would disagree with that choice

 

[ainsworth74]

Since when should everyone's leisure requirements, regardless of cost, be accommodated on the railway? Certainly, pre-COVID when these trains were specified, people getting seats was prioritised. I doubt that most people would disagree with that choice

Sorry but the luggage capacity of these trains was and is inadequate. It isn't a question of "leisure requirements" but simply not having enough room for more than a couple of people to bring suitcases of anything above suitable for an aircraft cabin. Which is an issue for long distance trains which will have people bringing perfectly reasonable amount of luggage.

 

[Wolfie]

Sorry but the luggage capacity of these trains was and is inadequate. It isn't a question of "leisure requirements" but simply not having enough room for more than a couple of people to bring suitcases of anything above suitable for an aircraft cabin. Which is an issue for long distance trains which will have people bringing perfectly reasonable amount of luggage.

Now that l do agree with. But surf boards etc are a whole different issue.

 

[fgwrich]

Sorry but the luggage capacity of these trains was and is inadequate. It isn't a question of "leisure requirements" but simply not having enough room for more than a couple of people to bring suitcases of anything above suitable for an aircraft cabin. Which is an issue for long distance trains which will have people bringing perfectly reasonable amount of luggage.

The fact that LNER has admitted they were inadequate and since modified them to include another small luggage rack in place of the pointless windowless seats speaks some volume for how how poor they were in the first place. Now, if LNER can do it as a DOR TOC... GWR?!

The problem regarding the surfboard issue is that these trains - well, the GWR Ordered 802s - as we well know were built to run down to the West Country, an area well known for Surfing and Beach Holidays. It's a legacy that has gone back well past the HSTs, and not at all helped by GWRs own advertising either "The Famous 5 Go Surfing!". However, perhaps in the case of these units, this is more of a DfT led issue than IEP Contract, given the limitations placed upon GWR by the DfT in ordering them (they wouldn't want to be shown up by someone else now would they!). But if they can haul around an unused kitchen everywhere, then there's no reason why they couldn't have been built with a small van space, particularly on the 9 car 802s. Heck, if the 180s, Voyagers or Pendolinos can have them!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now that l do agree with. But surf boards etc are a whole different issue.

A surfboard would easily fit in place of a bicycle in a well designed bike space.

 

[fgwrich]

A surfboard would easily fit in place of a bicycle in a well designed bike space.

I've got mine in the bike space (both old and new) of a 158 / 159 with plenty of space to spare before. If anything, the rather large Dragon Tree or Palm Plant someone else was conveying on my 159 the last time I moved my board by rail took up more space and was far more of a nuisance!

 

[507 001]

It aint much better in FC rock hard seats- the 755s have far more comfy seats in second class

Yeah I know they’re pretty hard, but the recline feature means I can actually get fairly comfortable, unlike standard where I feel like I’m sat bolt upright!

 

[Meerkat]

Does the railway really want people swinging surfboards around on the platform?
How many people own a surfboard but not a car/camper - you won’t get much choice of beach if you are carrying the thing and relying on public transport, and there are loads to rent in Newquay anyway.

 

[irish_rail]

Re surfboards, I can honestly say that in HST days I only ever recall once seeing a surfboard at a station. Could be my mind playing tricks , but I'm not convinced the whole surfing thing is relevant. Its actually extremely niche. Cornwall is far more about the beach, the fishing villages, celticity, etc etc than people coming down specifically to surf. Perhaps boardmasters could be the exception the rule.

 

[Chester1]

What is (was) the alternative to the IEPs?

An ordinary tender for new rolling stock.

I like them but by the sound of it they should have cost much less. They seem to be some peoples pet hate but they are a decent intercity and regional exprees combi. HSTs were designed for different service patterns and usage.

 

[43096]

Does the railway really want people swinging surfboards around on the platform?
How many people own a surfboard but not a car/camper - you won’t get much choice of beach if you are carrying the thing and relying on public transport, and there are loads to rent in Newquay anyway.

Oh, let's put it all in the too difficult category - so very, very 21st century railway.

Let's forget that FGW used to insert an additional TGS into HST sets on a Friday night so they could provide additional luggage capacity on the Saturday morning Newquay turn.