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

[Krokodil]

I'm well aware of the short forming of other DMUs, including the turbos around Bristol, and this is far more of a problem than the IETs. I have never seen a short formed IET so full it had to reject passengers at anywhere but Reading and perhaps Oxford a few times, and in Reading the frequency is high enough this doesn't matter. To get into that kind of situation you would have to have had some major issue.

People have been left behind at places like Liskeard by five coach sets (booked formation rather than short-form, due to double-up on arrival at Plymouth). A service which would have been a 2+8 HST before.

Not too sure what line you actually think the Cotswold route is, but Worcester to Paddington is 3 hours on an IET, longer on a Turbo.

"Generally shorter" was the phrase used. I.e. most people on the Cardiff services go all the way from London to Cardiff, whereas the Cotswold trains have plenty of passengers only going to/from Oxford and other intermediate stops.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2023 ==

And ask passengers how they feel about a 'little 5-car set' turning up rather than no train at all - you probably wouldn't get the answer you want in many cases, as they would rather have a shot at getting where they want to go at the time they expected, even if conditions on board are less than perfect. But passengers in the West Country are, of course, entitled to expect nothing less than perfect.

When I turn up with (yet another) two car train on a busy holiday route, I would very much prefer the train to have been cancelled because at least then I wouldn't be sworn at and verbally abused. "You should put more carriages on" as if I had any influence over fleet deployment. People don't care that the short-form is an improvement upon a cancellation, they wanted an adequate train.

 

[Benjwri]

When I turn up with (yet another) two car train on a busy holiday route, I would very much prefer the train to have been cancelled because at least then I wouldn't be sworn at and verbally abused. "You should put more carriages on" as if I had any influence over fleet deployment. People don't care that the short-form is an improvement upon a cancellation, they wanted an adequate train.

Except you’re just passing the buck there, I can absolutely guarantee the station staff get it even worse when the train is cancelled. (Although GWR staff seem to have discovered if they go hide in the staff room during disruption that problem disappears). The only solution is to not short form or cancel, by having enough trains. Short forming is still a better alternative than cancelling whatever way you look at it.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Where the load gets on the North Cots varies by train but, pre covid, there was a gentle but significant move westwards in the amount getting on/off. It is a bit of a myth that most people get on or off from Oxford, leaving the trains very empty on the North Cots itself. There are some key trains that get a good load.

It was the loadings on this stretch of line that the DfT got wrong with the initial order of IET sets so the 802 9 car order had to come to the rescue and this was taken into account in the numbers of 9 car sets FG ordered.

The number of SX trains that are booked to detach/attach at Plymouth is now down to two each way, being the 2315 and 0035 arrivals at and 0503 and 0715 departures from Penzance.

 

[Krokodil]

The only solution is to not short form or cancel, by having enough trains.

Yes, this is what I've been saying for several pages. But those who make the decisions regarding the UK railway will insist on running the thing on a shoestring.

Where the load gets on the North Cots varies by train but, pre covid, there was a gentle but significant move westwards in the amount getting on/off. It is a bit of a myth that most people get on or off from Oxford, leaving the trains very empty on the North Cots itself. There are some key trains that get a good load.

My reference to Oxford wasn't insinuating that trains carried fresh air west of there, it was saying that plenty of people use the service for short journeys from places like Worcester or Charlbury to/from Oxford, as well as those who travel all the way to London or join at Oxford for London. John standing from Worcester to Oxford, getting off and being replaced by Mike who stands from there to London is the same level of overcrowding as Bryn standing from Cardiff to London, but Bryn is standing for longer in one go.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2023 ==

Except you’re just passing the buck there, I can absolutely guarantee the station staff get it even worse when the train is cancelled.

I didn't say that I actually did cancel trains (it wouldn't have been in my power to anyway). Station staff get it just as bad whether a train is cancelled or it ran but passengers couldn't get on - they amount to the same thing from the passenger's point of view. That assumes of course that the station is actually staffed.

 

[TurboMan]

Probably need to train up a few Worcester men on turbos first

What about the female drivers at Worcester, do they get training on Turbos too?

 

[irish_rail]

What about the female drivers at Worcester, do they get training on Turbos too?

If you wish to be pedantic, Are there any female HSS Worcester drivers? I assume the GWR ones are already trained up on turbos anyway.

 

[TurboMan]

If you wish to be pedantic, Are there any female HSS Worcester drivers? I assume the GWR ones are already trained up on turbos anyway.

I'm not being pedantic, just respectful of the fact that there are female drivers, and to talk about 'Worcester men', or 'Plymouth men', or 'Paddington men' or 'men' at any other depot lacks that respect in my view.

Your assumption is incorrect by the way. No-one at Worcester currently signs 16x (well, apart from a couple of drivers who have legacy 16x competence held at their previous depots), although it is in the training plan.

 

[irish_rail]

I'm not being pedantic, just respectful of the fact that there are female drivers, and to talk about 'Worcester men', or 'Plymouth men', or 'Paddington men' or 'men' at any other depot lacks that respect in my view.

Your assumption is incorrect by the way. No-one at Worcester currently signs 16x (well, apart from a couple of drivers who have legacy 16x competence held at their previous depots), although it is in the training plan.

Surprising as I had assumed the GWR drivers did turbos in the Bristol direction, but obviously not. The whole "men" thing is just the dinosaur BR way of speaking, certainly not intended to cause anyone offence.

 

[trebor79]

I'm not being pedantic, just respectful of the fact that there are female drivers, and to talk about 'Worcester men', or 'Plymouth men', or 'Paddington men' or 'men' at any other depot lacks that respect in my view.

Yawn. Can we keep the discussion to railways please, rather than lecturing each other on what words we choose to use. It's obviously a figure of speech and not "disrespectful" of anyone. And even if it was "disrespectful", so what?

 

[zwk500]

Yawn. Can we keep the discussion to railways please, rather than lecturing each other on what words we choose to use.

If you'd left it at this I would agree wholeheartedly.

It's obviously a figure of speech and not "disrespectful" of anyone.

Whether or not it's disrespectful is in the perception of the subject.

And even if it was "disrespectful", so what?

I've only worked in offices not driver depots, but in the rail industry, and it's been reported plenty of times that referring to 'men' only has felt exclusionary, demeaning, or even bullying at times (of course the context it is used in is important), and it feeds the wider attitude that presumes men to be the more capable employees. Another example of language that matters is that 'boy' is almost never used, 'man' or 'lad' being preferred, whereas 'girl' is used all the time.

To the people affected by the choice of language, it matters a great deal. To the people who don't care, it costs nothing to say 'Driver' instead of 'man' or 'signaller' instead of 'signalman'.

But yes, let's get back to the topic.

 

[coppercapped]

The initial agreement signed by Labour in 2009 was investigated by the coalition government in 2010/11, with a "value for money" report prepared. I thought the "value for money" report was by the NAO, but Google suggests it wasn't.

Lo and behold, it wasn't value for money, but Hitachi reduced the cost per train and the deal then got signed in 2011/12.

I think a little clarity about the Intercity Express Programme would not come amiss as memories seem to be fading.

As I wrote in my earlier post ( #85 ) back in the early days of franchising HST operators of both the Western and East Coast franchises started to look at possible successors. As there was no intention at the time of electrifying the Western GWT/fGW were studying a diesel train, dubbed ‘HST2’; the East Coast being largely electrified a different train was on the cards. These studies were being done in conjunction with the ROSCOs.

In June 2005 the DfT decided it would take over HST2 procurement with one of the aims being the simplification of the approvals process - at the time there were horror stories in circulation about the difficulties in getting all the new varieties of trains through the Railtrack/Network Rail approvals processes regarding issues such as gauging and signalling interference. There were various other ‘motherhood and apple pie’ statements as well.

The train part of the IEP was still based around an updated HST but with traction motors distributed along the train with the aim of reducing the power cars’ axle loads (by not having motors) and improving adhesion by using multiple axles. By 2007 three main train types were specified, each consisting of either five or ten carriages with options for different interior layouts dependant on the types of services to be operated:

• electric (with an electric transformer carriage at each end),
• diesel (with a diesel generator carriage at each end), or
• bi-mode (with an electric transformer carriage at one end and a diesel generator carriage at the other).

The bi-mode train was specified to operate both from the overhead when ‘under the wires’ and from the diesel-generator when ‘off- wire’ (although, initially, with the possibility of a short term electrical boost if additional power was needed when ‘under the wires’). The pure electric train was also required to have a small diesel generator to provide power in the event that the overhead electric power failed.

Hitachi, Siemens and Bombardier were asked to quote but the latter two dropped out when they realised that they could not reach the DfT’s combination of performance, weight and cost requirements; by 2009 Agility Trains (Hitachi, Barclays and John Laing) had been selected as preferred bidder in a one horse race.

Because of the ground swell of dissatisfaction with the process and progress so far - in four years the DfT had only got as far as selecting a bidder whereas BR had designed and built the prototype HST in little more than three, but by then the DfT had spent some £27 million on paper studies without any hardware to show for it. In late 2009, early 2010 the then Secretary of State (Andrew Adonis) asked for a review of the project; the Foster Review was published in June 2010 and presented to the new Secretary of State Philip Hammond. The Review called for a pause for a rethink and consideration of other options. The DfT however pushed ahead and Hitachi proposed a redesign by placing the ‘donkey engine’ in the electric version of HST2 under many of the coaches in the train for the diesel version. This was the train which was finally built.

Whether this was the most suitable train concept or whether the Total Train Service Provision model adopted to pay for it was the most effective will never be known as no other contractor was given a chance to quote for the new train architecture. No other possibilities for financing the development, manufacture and operation of the trains were ever put out for competitive tendering.

As for Hitachi reducing the price… Estimates made at the time of the approval of the amended programme, and confirmed after the NAO’s report of Procuring New Trains of 2014, showed that the the IEP coaches were costing some £20,000 per month to hire/lease/use than equivalent coaches (Pendolinos) procured using more conventional methods. If this is the reduced price I hate to think what the original design would have cost.

I don't understand the hate for them.
They are comfortable with lots of seats, generous legroom and decent overhead storage for luggage.

I don't find the ride that bad, not completely perfect but miles better than the Aventras and 220s.

The train itself is nothing to write home about. I suspect that most of the people reading this are too young to remember what a massive improvement the Mark 3 coach/HST concept was to previous trains. Not all trains were equipped with Mark 2 air conditioned coaches so the HST also replaced BR Mark 1 coaches of various vintages and riding qualities. The riding qualities of the BT10 bogie coupled with the stiff body shell with the body bending resonant frequencies well away from the bogie’s natural frequencies made for a fundamentally quiet environment at all speeds. Some posters may belittle the Mk 3s nowadays, but at the time they were revolutionary with a mass per seat of around half a ton and a total mass lower than some of the preceding, shorter, coaches.

One would expect the Hitachi trains, with the benefit of 40 years of further development to be a vast improvement over the HST. They should be smoother and quieter than anything else on the rails and not be susceptible to track condition. If a modern battle tank can be driven at speed over rough ground with a filled beer glass attached to the end of the gun barrel without spilling anything then the Class 8XX is a missed opportunity. I have been in a Class 8XX on the GW Main Line when the body started to resonate severely at speeds over 115mph — I am not surprised that the bodies cracked.

Edit: added reference to my earlier post.

 

[Master29]

Thanks Coppercapped for a good overview of the development process for the HST replacement. That is an excellent point that is often missed in that for 40 years of development the IET can never be even called remotely a success. In deed compared to the rolling stock of the time the Mk 3 was something else even compared to the non air con mk2's that were less than 10 years older than the mk 3. There is no way the IET can ever be considered a worthy successor to the HST. It's not about problems or issues that either may have had, it is so many things about the whole train. An average train really. Not all bad but nonetheless could be miles better. I always compare them to The Daimler Fleetline as a replacement to the Routemaster. Many parallels I think.

 

[ainsworth74]

An average train really. Not all bad but nonetheless could be miles better.

Yes I suppose that's the nature of my complaints really. It's average whilst what went before was good to excellent. I used a Mk4 for the first time since probably early 2020 a couple of months ago and the interior was just nicer. The lighting was that bit warmer, the seats were that bit more comfortable (yes, subjective), the ride a little bit smoother, the socket worked throughout the journey, the general ambiance was that bit nicer. It all added up to a good product. There wasn't anything especially wrong with the Azuma I had used that morning. It was just meh.

It amuses me still that the Mk4s (and Mk3s) by the end of their mass usage with LNER could provide real time updates on loadings on PIS screens and could even give an indiation of which specific seats might be empty by signing into the on train wifi. Whilst, as far as I'm aware, the IETs just show the reservation level (happy to be corrected!) on station PIS and certainly there's no facility to suggest which seats are empty. Progress? Another thing that gets me are incongruities with the interior finishes. You have lovely damped coat hooks so they gently ease back into the closed position. But then right next to them you have (what I assume are) screw holes in the panels just open. Could these not have been capped? You showed great care and attention to the coat hook but not the interior panels?

Are either of these issues such that every time I get on the train I internally rage about them and they ruin my journey? No, of course not. It just feels like a symptom of the lack of care and attention to the product that should be on offer. It's just meh.

 

[Mzzzs]

I thought this for a while but GWR maintenance of the units seems far worse than LNER.
Traveled on GWR 800s there always seems to be a broken thing while LNER units seems to be all working and in good condition.

 

[trebor79]

Yes I suppose that's the nature of my complaints really. It's average whilst what went before was good to excellent. I used a Mk4 for the first time since probably early 2020 a couple of months ago and the interior was just nicer. The lighting was that bit warmer, the seats were that bit more comfortable (yes, subjective), the ride a little bit smoother, the socket worked throughout the journey, the general ambiance was that bit nicer. It all added up to a good product. There wasn't anything especially wrong with the Azuma I had used that morning. It was just meh.

It amuses me still that the Mk4s (and Mk3s) by the end of their mass usage with LNER could provide real time updates on loadings on PIS screens and could even give an indiation of which specific seats might be empty by signing into the on train wifi. Whilst, as far as I'm aware, the IETs just show the reservation level (happy to be corrected!) on station PIS and certainly there's no facility to suggest which seats are empty. Progress? Another thing that gets me are incongruities with the interior finishes. You have lovely damped coat hooks so they gently ease back into the closed position. But then right next to them you have (what I assume are) screw holes in the panels just open. Could these not have been capped? You showed great care and attention to the coat hook but not the interior panels?

Are either of these issues such that every time I get on the train I internally rage about them and they ruin my journey? No, of course not. It just feels like a symptom of the lack of care and attention to the product that should be on offer. It's just meh.

The Mk4 when first introduced had a pretty horrible interior ambience - lots of grey and pretty harsh fluorescent lighting that wasn't even in diffusers, just tucked above slotted panels. I *hated* travelling on them at night as the lightning was far too bright and harsh. The refurbishment sorted that and they became very nice to travel in.
Presumably the IET could display individual seat status on a web page, as the computer knows which are reserved and which are free to drive the "traffic lights" above each seat.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Mk4 when first introduced had a pretty horrible interior ambience - lots of grey and pretty harsh fluorescent lighting that wasn't even in diffusers, just tucked above slotted panels. I *hated* travelling on them at night as the lightning was far too bright and harsh. The refurbishment sorted that and they became very nice to travel in.

Before my time (we're of an age me and the MK4s so my memories only really kick on post-Mallard!) but we can live in hope! But considering the ludicrious way that the trains were specified I fear that we're stuck with them as no doubt changes like that will be expensive contractually...

Presumably the IET could display individual seat status on a web page, as the computer knows which are reserved and which are free to drive the "traffic lights" above each seat.

It probably could be but the advantage of what was fitted to the Mk3s and Mk4s was that it was live. As in it could tell, mostly, if someone was actually sat in the seat or not. It was by no means foolproof. But I actually used a couple of times and it lead me to an empty seat on both occasions!

 

[Clarence Yard]

I thought this for a while but GWR maintenance of the units seems far worse than LNER.
Traveled on GWR 800s there always seems to be a broken thing while LNER units seems to be all working and in good condition.

To be pedantic, neither GWR nor LNER maintain their sets. Both are maintained by Hitachi but at different depots.

 

[PG]

To be pedantic, neither GWR nor LNER maintain their sets. Both are maintained by Hitachi but at different depots.

Out of interest who maintains the 802s that GWR procured additionally to the IEP fleet - Hitachi or GWR?

 

[43096]

Out of interest who maintains the 802s that GWR procured additionally to the IEP fleet - Hitachi or GWR?

Hitachi currently.

 

[stuu]

On the subject of the variability of the ride quality of the 800/802, which is something I have queried before... it occurred to me the other day that it could be the difference between coaches with engines and ones without. I haven't had a chance to test this theory yet, but has anyone noticed that?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Out of interest who maintains the 802s that GWR procured additionally to the IEP fleet - Hitachi or GWR?

Hitachi. GWR do some work at Laira on the 802 fleet, including nearly all of the 36 day exams but engine and pan work as well as the heavier repairs still have to be done at North Pole or Stoke Gifford.

There is a problem with the 80x fleet generally with wheelset and damper wear so the older the fleet, the more likely you are to experience it.

 

[43096]

There is a problem with the 80x fleet generally with wheelset and damper wear so the older the fleet, the more likely you are to experience it.

Is there no end to the issues with this fleet?

The ride was shocking from day 1 with them, so they started at the bottom… and still got worse.

 

[Snow1964]

The only solution is to not short form or cancel, by having enough trains. Short forming is still a better alternative than cancelling whatever way you look at it.

Short forming where it is too crowded for people to get on, is worst than a cancellation.

The cancellation results in delay repay, but an overcrowded short form that cannot be boarded doesn't.

Short forming is generally worse, because the whole purpose of having additional unit coupled is the capacity is needed on that service. If train wasn't expected to be busy, why not timetable it to be shorter (and I realise a small proportion of trains have extra vehicles because they are balancing moves of busy services, but those will be busy in one direction so affected badly by the short form).

Short forming is a bad concept, unless started with excessive capacity, and the short form still leaves excess capacity.

 

[Master29]

Yes I suppose that's the nature of my complaints really. It's average whilst what went before was good to excellent. I used a Mk4 for the first time since probably early 2020 a couple of months ago and the interior was just nicer. The lighting was that bit warmer, the seats were that bit more comfortable (yes, subjective), the ride a little bit smoother, the socket worked throughout the journey, the general ambiance was that bit nicer. It all added up to a good product. There wasn't anything especially wrong with the Azuma I had used that morning. It was just meh.

It amuses me still that the Mk4s (and Mk3s) by the end of their mass usage with LNER could provide real time updates on loadings on PIS screens and could even give an indiation of which specific seats might be empty by signing into the on train wifi. Whilst, as far as I'm aware, the IETs just show the reservation level (happy to be corrected!) on station PIS and certainly there's no facility to suggest which seats are empty. Progress? Another thing that gets me are incongruities with the interior finishes. You have lovely damped coat hooks so they gently ease back into the closed position. But then right next to them you have (what I assume are) screw holes in the panels just open. Could these not have been capped? You showed great care and attention to the coat hook but not the interior panels?

Are either of these issues such that every time I get on the train I internally rage about them and they ruin my journey? No, of course not. It just feels like a symptom of the lack of care and attention to the product that should be on offer. It's just meh.

No it's not just you. It makes sense. You don't expect a miracle but 40+ years on you do expect a level of progress.

 

[coppercapped]

Hitachi. GWR do some work at Laira on the 802 fleet, including nearly all of the 36 day exams but engine and pan work as well as the heavier repairs still have to be done at North Pole or Stoke Gifford.

There is a problem with the 80x fleet generally with wheelset and damper wear so the older the fleet, the more likely you are to experience it.

Looking at the whole story from the outside - but with the advantage of having been invited to many of the IMechE's public lectures and talks over the years - it seems to me that there are other issues at play than just the engineering.

Hitachi is an old established company with a history of industrial and consumer electrical products so buying a train based on an existing product should have been low risk. However I would suggest that in the UK the Hitachi trains business is essentially a start-up company, its business only really starting in June 2005 when Hitachi Europe agreed a contract valued at £250 million to supply Class 395 units for the Kent domestic HS1 services. The trains were designed and built in Japan and shipped complete to the UK. Hitachi's UK business was responsible for building and operating the Ashford maintenance depot - so Hitachi's rail business in the UK by 2009 when the 395's entered service consisted of a headquarters office in London and running one maintenance depot with technical support coming from Japan.

The business only really took off with the signing of the IEP contract in 2009. From the start of assemby of the Class 8XX trains in 2014 there has been an explosive growth in the number of sites - the assembly site at Newton Aycliffe and the building or repurposing of the maintenance sites at Old Oak Common, Stoke Gifford, Doncaster, Craigentinny and Bounds Green/Ferme Park all occurred within a short space of time. There was a parallel explosion in the number of employees, Newton Aycliffe alone was planned to employ some 700 people at full production rates.

Back in the late 1980s to mid-1990s I was a hardware development manager, based in Paris, at Apple Computer which was also 'enjoying' very rapid growth and, it has to be said, also a 'near death' experience. Trying to do product development under such circumstances is very difficult: there are continual staffing changes; the new people don't know what went before or why; budgeting is a moving feast and being eight or nine time zones away from the 'mother ship' in Cupertino slows up decision making by much more than eight hours. The switch from being an exciting start-up to being a boring middle-aged company is very, very difficult.

I have to wonder whether some, at least, of the very public difficulties, that Hitachi and Agility Trains have had, are to be found in the very rapid growth the company experienced at the time - compounded by all the development and engineering expertise being half a world away. What also might be of relevance are the financial difficulties in which Hitachi found itself between 2006 and 2010; in that time it lost US$12.5 billion, the largest corporate loss in Japanese history, and it sold off or closed many of its activities. Such events also tend to get people to take their eye off the ball.

It seems to me that the DfT negotiators, being civil servants with no generic experience in making things, did not know about or consider the consequences of funding a start-up - which basically is what the guaranteed 27 1/2 year income was doing - to supply trains for very high profile train services without having any significant on-site engineering expertise with design authority in the same time zone.

I may, of course, be barking up the wrong tree - but somehow I think I am in the right forest.

 

[Meerkat]

It seems to me that the DfT negotiators, being civil servants with no generic experience in making things, did not know about or consider the consequences of funding a start-up

Is it too cynical to think the CS/politicians just went “Ooh Japanese, that must be efficient and reliable!”?

 

[MattRat]

Is it too cynical to think the CS/politicians just went “Ooh Japanese, that must be efficient and reliable!”?

Even though even mild digging would have they discover they aren't actually built in Japan.

 

[PG]

Looking at the whole story from the outside - but with the advantage of having been invited to many of the IMechE's public lectures and talks over the years - it seems to me that there are other issues at play than just the engineering.

Hitachi is an old established company with a history of industrial and consumer electrical products so buying a train based on an existing product should have been low risk. However I would suggest that in the UK the Hitachi trains business is essentially a start-up company, its business only really starting in June 2005 when Hitachi Europe agreed a contract valued at £250 million to supply Class 395 units for the Kent domestic HS1 services. The trains were designed and built in Japan and shipped complete to the UK. Hitachi's UK business was responsible for building and operating the Ashford maintenance depot - so Hitachi's rail business in the UK by 2009 when the 395's entered service consisted of a headquarters office in London and running one maintenance depot with technical support coming from Japan.

The business only really took off with the signing of the IEP contract in 2009. From the start of assemby of the Class 8XX trains in 2014 there has been an explosive growth in the number of sites - the assembly site at Newton Aycliffe and the building or repurposing of the maintenance sites at Old Oak Common, Stoke Gifford, Doncaster, Craigentinny and Bounds Green/Ferme Park all occurred within a short space of time. There was a parallel explosion in the number of employees, Newton Aycliffe alone was planned to employ some 700 people at full production rates.

Back in the late 1980s to mid-1990s I was a hardware development manager, based in Paris, at Apple Computer which was also 'enjoying' very rapid growth and, it has to be said, also a 'near death' experience. Trying to do product development under such circumstances is very difficult: there are continual staffing changes; the new people don't know what went before or why; budgeting is a moving feast and being eight or nine time zones away from the 'mother ship' in Cupertino slows up decision making by much more than eight hours. The switch from being an exciting start-up to being a boring middle-aged company is very, very difficult.

I have to wonder whether some, at least, of the very public difficulties, that Hitachi and Agility Trains have had, are to be found in the very rapid growth the company experienced at the time - compounded by all the development and engineering expertise being half a world away. What also might be of relevance are the financial difficulties in which Hitachi found itself between 2006 and 2010; in that time it lost US$12.5 billion, the largest corporate loss in Japanese history, and it sold off or closed many of its activities. Such events also tend to get people to take their eye off the ball.

It seems to me that the DfT negotiators, being civil servants with no generic experience in making things, did not know about or consider the consequences of funding a start-up - which basically is what the guaranteed 27 1/2 year income was doing - to supply trains for very high profile train services without having any significant on-site engineering expertise with design authority in the same time zone.

I may, of course, be barking up the wrong tree - but somehow I think I am in the right forest.

Interesting to note that, at an outside glance, Hitachi now only have a 25% shareholding in Agility Trains. Indeed in 2020 they reduced their own holding of ATE from 40%.
https://www.agilitytrains.com/about

• The Agility Trains West shareholder group consists of Hitachi Rail (25%), Apple BidCo 2 Limited (45%), JLIF Holdings (ATW) Limited (15%) and AXA Real Estate Investment Managers (15%).
  The Apple BidCo 2 Limited shareholder group consists of Dalmore Capital, Equitix, Japan Infrastructure Initiative Company and Rock Rail.
  The JLIF Holdings (ATW) Limited shareholder group consists of Dalmore Capital and Equitix.
• The Agility Trains East shareholder group consists of Hitachi Rail (25%), AIP Management (30%), GLIL Infrastructure (30%) and Equitix (15%).

 

[Meerkat]

Was the deal such bad value that Agility are still making money? Sounds like they must be paying a lot of availability penalties, even before the cracking.

 

[XAM2175]

One would expect the Hitachi trains, with the benefit of 40 years of further development to be a vast improvement over the HST. They should be smoother and quieter than anything else on the rails and not be susceptible to track condition.

No it's not just you. It makes sense. You don't expect a miracle but 40+ years on you do expect a level of progress.

It's an entirely reasonable assumption, but I'd argue that it really only holds true if you assume that there's no change in development objectives between then and now. Hitachi's designers and engineers were working in a significantly different environment to that which BR's were, with different commercial circumstances and to different safety regulations - so yes, they might have failed on "make a new train that provides a better passenger experience than a Mk 3 does", but not necessarily on "make a train that is safer than a Mk 3 in a collision", or "make a train that attracts lower track access charges than a Mk 3 does".

Indeed, poor ride quality is one of several common refrains across trains from pretty much all manufacturers at the moment, and it's no coincidence that the uptick in complaints corresponds with the track access charge regime incentivising the use low-mass bogies.

If a modern battle tank can be driven at speed over rough ground with a filled beer glass attached to the end of the gun barrel without spilling anything then the Class 8XX is a missed opportunity.

I think this is an unfair, and barely-relevant, comparison. The beer test, which is an excerpt (at 1 minute 40) from this information video on the Leopard 2's weapons stabilisation system, shows the results of a design objective along the lines of "allow accurate use of the main gun even when the vehicle is in motion because this is a life-or-death necessity in combat". You could impose a similar requirement that an IEP be capable of running more smoothly than anything else before it, but the necessity for it is less clear-cut and it'll have some effect on cost.

The lighting was that bit warmer, the seats were that bit more comfortable (yes, subjective), the ride a little bit smoother, the socket worked throughout the journey, the general ambiance was that bit nicer. It all added up to a good product. There wasn't anything especially wrong with the Azuma I had used that morning. It was just meh.

The Mk4 when first introduced had a pretty horrible interior ambience - lots of grey and pretty harsh fluorescent lighting that wasn't even in diffusers, just tucked above slotted panels. I *hated* travelling on them at night as the lightning was far too bright and harsh. The refurbishment sorted that and they became very nice to travel in.

I agree that the IEPs all have disappointing interiors and harsh lighting, although TP have at least put a wee bit of effort into theirs. But it's also a topic we've done across all modern trains, and we know it's partly the result of accessibility requirements (brighter lighting helps people with reduced visual acuity) and partly driven by security concerns from vulnerable passengers. Certainly though I would like to see a better compromise found.

It amuses me still that the Mk4s (and Mk3s) by the end of their mass usage with LNER could provide real time updates on loadings on PIS screens and could even give an indiation of which specific seats might be empty by signing into the on train wifi.

This isn't entirely unexpected, though. No different to a ten-year-old A380's original entertainment system comparing poorly to the brand-new one just installed in a twenty-year-old 777.

It seems to me that the DfT negotiators, being civil servants with no generic experience in making things, did not know about or consider the consequences of funding a start-up - which basically is what the guaranteed 27 1/2 year income was doing - to supply trains for very high profile train services without having any significant on-site engineering expertise with design authority in the same time zone.

I may, of course, be barking up the wrong tree - but somehow I think I am in the right forest.

On the whole though I can entirely agree with this conclusion. Not necessarily incompetence, but definitely naïvety.