Should EMR cancel the Class 810 order?

[STINT47]

Moderator note - split from:

Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

Looks like the new Hitachi AT300's based on the IET platforn for EMR are going to be called the Class 804. These are going to be bi-mode trains and should be capable of running at up to 140mph, even if 125 is all they see in service. We're looking at 33, 5-car long sets, with 23m long coaches...

www.railforums.co.uk

If these new units continue to be so unreliable then it must be approaching the point where EMR cancelles the order and goes with an alternative train.

If i purchased a car for example that had this manh issues i dould reject it. Better to cut their losses now if the manufacturer cannot deliver.

 

[43096]

If these new units continue to be so unreliable then it must be approaching the point where EMR cancelles the order and goes with an alternative train.

So how are they going to do that? Run no trains for three years?

 

[tram21]

If these new units continue to be so unreliable then it must be approaching the point where EMR cancelles the order and goes with an alternative train.

If i purchased a car for example that had this manh issues i dould reject it. Better to cut their losses now if the manufacturer cannot deliver.

That will never happen! Not really possible for a start and then what would you do, design a new train and wait 10+ years for them to enter service, all with your current trains already destined for another operator with many already gone? And all the money already invested?
The issues aren't that bad, yes there are some teething issues but the severity of issues are reducing, and reliability is starting to improve.

 

[InTheEastMids]

That will never happen! Not really possible for a start and then what would you do, design a new train and wait 10+ years for them to enter service, all with your current trains already destined for another operator with many already gone? And all the money already invested?
The issues aren't that bad, yes there are some teething issues but the severity of issues are reducing, and reliability is starting to improve.

Exactly, the 810 programme is 80% done.

If i purchased a car for example that had this manh issues i dould reject it.

If you reject a lemon car, there's another one following it down the production line, with off-the-shelf alternatives from another manufacturer. You're not rejecting an entire fleet of highly customised trains, ordered because nobody could accept the costs/consequences of buying off the shelf.

Whilst there's a fun fantasy thread about how this gap might be filled, the point is that the railway has neither suitable redundant capacity nor flexibility to do this because of how the industry is structured.

I do agree Hitachi have been very poor at delivering this contract; powered doors have been a feature of trains for decades, and to any objective outsider it beggars belief that a mature technology is the cause of much of the trouble.

The longer term issue is if the 810s never match promised reliability, i.e. instead of adding capacity, a disproportionate amount of the "extra" trains end up sitting in workshops or acting as hot standby.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

So how are they going to do that? Run no trains for three years?

Were you not the person proposing exactly this for the 701 order, citing ÖBB as an example of where it's been done before, if I remember correctly?

 

[43096]

Were you not the person proposing exactly this for the 701 order, citing ÖBB as an example of where it's been done before, if I remember correctly?

Bit of a difference, though - SWR’s units had no future homes, so could have been retained on full maintenance. EMR’s 222s have new leases signed up.

 

[Zomboid]

They're on the way down the introduction phase of the bathtub failure rate curve. There's no way they'll be ditched now anyhow, but let's see how good they are once they settle down into service.

 

[Russel]

What would the alternative be, realistically, more CAF rubbish?

 

[D365]

What would the alternative be, realistically, more CAF rubbish?

Bombardier was the ’runner up’ option, with a bi-mode InterCity variant of the Aventra.

 

[Russel]

Bombardier was the ’runner up’ option, with a bi-mode InterCity variant of the Aventra.

We'd still be in a similar position with that though, a new type of train needing to go through the same tests/trials as the 810s along with the initial running in faults we're seeing currently.

 

[ScottGallagher]

Bombardier was the ’runner up’ option, with a bi-mode InterCity variant of the Aventra.

Thought it was Stadler?

 

[Kite159]

We'd still be in a similar position with that though, a new type of train needing to go through the same tests/trials as the 810s along with the initial running in faults we're seeing currently.

But it will have been built in Derby so any problems swept underneath the oversized rug of lateness

 

[Russel]

But it will have been built in Derby so any problems swept underneath the oversized rug of lateness

Guaranteed to work straight out of the box!

 

[Dave61]

They're on the way down the introduction phase of the bathtub failure rate curve. There's no way they'll be ditched now anyhow, but let's see how good they are once they settle down into service.

Sometimes it feels like the bathtub is lying upside down. It has not been a great start and I would hope that EMR have got Hitachi's ears burning with the performance but I agree there is no way back now - its these trains or nothing. The days of rolling stock sitting waiting in sidings are long gone.

 

[AM9]

Sometimes it feels like the bathtub is lying upside down. It has not been a great start and I would hope that EMR have got Hitachi's ears burning with the performance but I agree there is no way back now - its these trains or nothing. The days of rolling stock sitting waiting in sidings are long gone.

Whilst the instance of failure might seem to be increasing, so is number of units in service and the running ours of each of them. That will rapidly increase the statistical failure rate.

 

[Class15]

Were you not the person proposing exactly this for the 701 order, citing ÖBB as an example of where it's been done before, if I remember correctly?

Bit of a difference, though - SWR’s units had no future homes, so could have been retained on full maintenance. EMR’s 222s have new leases signed up.

I agree, ‘43096’. I think, for SWR, cancelling the 701 order would have been a good idea but in this scenario it leaves the MML with no trains basically.

 

[bramling]

Moderator note - split from:

Class 810 for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates

Looks like the new Hitachi AT300's based on the IET platforn for EMR are going to be called the Class 804. These are going to be bi-mode trains and should be capable of running at up to 140mph, even if 125 is all they see in service. We're looking at 33, 5-car long sets, with 23m long coaches...

www.railforums.co.uk

If these new units continue to be so unreliable then it must be approaching the point where EMR cancelles the order and goes with an alternative train.

If i purchased a car for example that had this manh issues i dould reject it. Better to cut their losses now if the manufacturer cannot deliver.

It won’t happen, as apart from being a contractual minefield there’s the issue of how the service is maintained in the meantime. The 222 fleet is essentially now committed elsewhere, so if the 810 fleet were to be ditched then the only option is to run the service with a bus/coach replacement, which is unlikely to be well received.

In many ways it’s unfortunate these units were ordered, given how problematic the Hitachi fleets seem to be becoming. But again, what’s the alternative? CAF aren’t exactly wonderful either. Had the entire route been electrified I guess it might have been possible to go with some kind of Aventra-based fleet, though there would be a whole load of issues to work through not least 125mph capability.

The focus is going to have to be to get the 810 fleet working properly.

 

[Bob85]

These sort of issues have happened with other fleets, they are usually ironed out after a while.

Running no trains at all is not a solution.

 

[tsyxa]

Realistically, if 810s continue down this path, what options do EMR have?

The main focus is 221s at the moment in this thread, however there's two problems with them: there are only 6 of them, and no doubt they'll be wanted by XC as soon as possible after EMRs had their go with them. Not only that, but if they've been sat in storage for however long, they won't exactly be the most reliable themselves.

I've seen several people talk about the European operator that sent their AnsaldoBreda units back - would this be plausible for EMR to do, at the end of the 810s current lease for example?

And if they were thinking about sending them back, what would this process look like? What would cover for the 810s exit?

 

[Zomboid]

AnsaldoBreda

What do they have to do with anything? 810s are built at Newton Aycliffe, not the factory they bought in Italy. And I don't believe that the Italian built 80xs are notably different in reliability from the rest of the 800 series units anyway.

 

[800001]

What do they have to do with anything? 810s are built at Newton Aycliffe, not the factory they bought in Italy. And I don't believe that the Italian built 80xs are notably different in reliability from the rest of the 800 series units anyway.

The factory/team at Italy are responsible for the design and specification of the class 810.

 

[Trainbike46]

Realistically, if 810s continue down this path, what options do EMR have? The main focus is 221s at the moment in this thread, however there's two problems with them: there are only 6 of them, and no doubt they'll be wanted by XC as soon as possible after EMRs had their go with them. Not only that, but if they've been sat in storage for however long, they won't exactly be the most reliable themselves. I've seen several people talk about the European operator that sent their AnsaldoBreda units back

That's at least NS and NMBS who sent AnsaldoBreda units back, and DSB got so much compensation that they got their AnsaldoBreda units for very little money in the end. Though all these operators lost money on them in the end!

- would this be plausible for EMR to do, at the end of the 810s current lease for example? And if they were thinking about sending them back, what would this process look like? What would cover for the 810s exit?

I don't see how sending the 810s back to Newton Aycliffe would improve anything? There's nothing else available to replace them, and some trains is better than no trains

 

[tsyxa]

and some trains is better than no trains

Yep, definitely, I think we'll just have to make do with the little that we've got.
Have any other units has such a troubled introduction in the past? How was the introduction of the 180s?

 

[Teapot42]

Just about the main feature of the Abellio tender was the commitment to a completely new fleet of bi-mode trains. They won the bidding on 10 April 2019. They were able to place the order for the new stock almost immediately after taking up the franchise on 18 August 2019. Of course they didn't build the trains, but is it credible they didn't have major input into the specification of something that is nothing like a simple adaptation of an off-the-shelf 800 series unit?

A specification is very broad. Train length, top speed, acceleration, things like that.

However, a specification is not engineering. A specification doesn't include how every wire runs, how things are packaged, design of control circuits etc.

EMR know nothing about building trains. If Hitachi assured them that a design to their specification was possible, how are they to know otherwise?

And by the time it started to appear that maybe Hitachi had been a bit over-confident, what options did they realistically have?

Even within Hitachi, the salespeople would be reliant on engineers to say that is possible, and engineers are often pressed to promise things they aren't 100% confident they can deliver. I design things far smaller and simpler than trains, and I can't always be sure until the first one is built that everything meets the spec. For many things you can do prototypes before committing to a design, I'd imagine it's much harder with trains due to the cost and timescales involved.

I wonder, actually, whether there were any concerns within Hitachi that they'd overpromised, and whether discussions where had with EMR at any point about scaling back parts of the spec. I doubt we'll ever know.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Yep, definitely, I think we'll just have to make do with the little that we've got.
Have any other units has such a troubled introduction in the past? How was the introduction of the 180s?

The 180s had their problems alright, which is why FGW washed their hands of them the first time, but a crucial difference was they were there to supplement the HST fleet. They didn’t replace anything so their inefficiencies didn’t cause enormous disruption or an urgent need to fill their place.

 

[InTheEastMids]

What do they have to do with anything? 810s are built at Newton Aycliffe, not the factory they bought in Italy. And I don't believe that the Italian built 80xs are notably different in reliability from the rest of the 800 series units anyway.

The factory/team at Italy are responsible for the design and specification of the class 810.

It does seem that the informal line being taken is to wave in the general direction of Italy, perhaps making an association to 1970s/80s rusty Fiats in the minds of the middle-aged male railway journos! The role of Italian engineering in - say - aerospace tends not to get a mention at this point. I'd be unsurprised if this was not being informally briefed out by senior Hitachi UK sources, because scapegoating the Italians is a really effective way to divert attention from issues closer to home.

This would be lazy thinking. Hitachi Global cannot have somehow been unaware that there had been serious issues with other trains associated with the Pistoia facility it bought. It was obviously aware of issues affecting other 80x trains that appear to have had little to no Italian input. It could and should have had controls and assurance processes in place to ensure that poor quality design work was discovered and corrected. If Italian design work is the issue, then it obviously failed to do this.

If Hitachi assured them that a design to their specification was possible, how are they to know otherwise?

EMR should have had highly skilled consultant rolling stock engineers advising it, both to assess Hitachi's technical proposal during tendering, and to monitor Hitachi's progress on contract delivery. If we're in full-on public enquiry mode, then this is another area to dig into - not for individual failings, but whether that system worked as it should have.

 

[Trainbike46]

It does seem that the informal line being taken is to wave in the general direction of Italy, perhaps making an association to 1970s/80s rusty Fiats in the minds of the middle-aged male railway journos! The role of Italian engineering in - say - aerospace tends not to get a mention at this point. I'd be unsurprised if this was not being informally briefed out by senior Hitachi UK sources, because scapegoating the Italians is a really effective way to divert attention from issues closer to home.

AnsaldoBreda had a long track-record of delivering trains with very serious issues, including the Fyra (for NS and NMBS/SNCB), IC4 (for DSB). There have also been reports of (less serious) issues with rolling stock for the Italian network, after the take-over by Hitachi.

This would be lazy thinking. Hitachi Global cannot have somehow been unaware that there had been serious issues with other trains associated with the Pistoia facility it bought. It was obviously aware of issues affecting other 80x trains that appear to have had little to no Italian input. It could and should have had controls and assurance processes in place to ensure that poor quality design work was discovered and corrected. If Italian design work is the issue, then it obviously failed to do this.

It is a good question as to the extent to which the design and the actual build caused issues. A more important question though, in my view, is how it will be resolved.

EMR should have had highly skilled consultant rolling stock engineers advising it, both to assess Hitachi's technical proposal during tendering, and to monitor Hitachi's progress on contract delivery. If we're in full-on public enquiry mode, then this is another area to dig into - not for individual failings, but whether that system worked as it should have.

Do you think there will be a public enquiry?

 

[QSK19]

Do you think there will be a public enquiry?

Wouldn’t have thought so. EMR have never been seen as that important (very much the Cinderella of the ECML/MML/WCML siblings); and would cause embarrassment for the government considering such a public enquiry would take place after EMR comes under GBR (hence makes the government look incompetent at running the East Midlands operation).

 

[WesternLancer]

I suppose it's possible that some of these issues have their roots way back in the original DfT lead Inter City Express Programme HST replacement project - which I recall being widely criticised at the time for vast expense, lack of clear objectives, and then other less that brilliant outcomes (Maybe there are old threads on it on this forum) - a project started under the 1997-2010 Labour Government IIRC.
Then further problems with govt attitudes towards MML electrification etc under the post 2010 governments will have also caused significant issues
As well as things like specifying a longer length inter city carriage than had hitherto been standard which has created some of the infrastructure problems mentioned at St P for example.

Even if it did deserve a public enquiry in the view of some people - it isn't going to happen. Procurement of trains for one inter city route that has gone a bit wrong isn't in the realm of Public Inquiries (have a look at topics that have had them in recent years).

At best some sort of Transport Parliamentary Select Committee enquiry - which actually would probably be a good thing, concentrate a few minds and be sufficient to give some of the issues that have happened a proper airing and is perhaps proportionate to the issues that have come to pass on EMR.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Do you think there will be a public enquiry?

No. But if we were doing something like that, it needs to be scoped to look GB wide to look at all the other problematic rolling stock projects that probably constitute about a third of all the messages that have ever been posted here!

At best some sort of Transport Parliamentary Select Committee enquiry

It's something they should be paying attention to, given there are a lot of significant DMU replacement orders, plus HS2 rolling stock contracts at various phases of procurement, which the taxpayer will be on the hook for, for decades. Not sure on the scope of the National Audit Office, but as GBR is increasingly responsible for rolling stock procurement, perhaps they will take a look.

Although to be fair, we already know most of the answers
1. DfT policies of "anything but electrification" and "maximise seats at all costs" leading to more exotic technical solutions bringing more risk; especially considering restrictive GB loading gauges compared to RotW (and worse trains from a passenger perspective).
2. Boutique customisation to very specific operator requirements losing economies of scale and increasing development costs, often leading to inflexible non-standard fleets that make redeployment slow and costly
3. Manufacturers overwhelmed by complexity; particularly software and systems integration

Can't think of a single rolling stock project that is not a victim of at least one of these factors. Class 810 is probably all 3.