Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Real-time train running information for 5Z01 2315 departure from Cricklewood A To E Sidings to Etches Park Sdgs on 03/08/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.
The 225s had to move from Bounds Green as there was no room at the depot to maintain them.
Nothing what so ever to do with hitachi and there 'poor reliability of fleets inherited'.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It was also easy to get from London to Edinburgh on LNER before Lumo introduced there trains, yet we have still seen LNER ridership increase and Lumo also running majority of full trains.
I thought Hitachi's abysmal train availability was of their own units.
Reliability in service good, but consistently unable to deliver the contracted number of sets off the depot, leading to daily cancellations and short-forming unless TOCs reduce their train plan to match.
A major part of reason for LNER's CAF plans I believe.
I thought Hitachi's abysmal train availability was of their own units.
Reliability in service good, but consistently unable to deliver the contracted number of sets off the depot, leading to daily cancellations and short-forming unless TOCs reduce their train plan to match.
A major part of reason for LNER's CAF plans I believe.
But surely it’s obvious that companies entering into contracts need to have a degree of certainty that they won’t be interfered with on a whim by the government. If the government started arbitrarily interfering with businesses’ property and contractual arrangements, the integrity of the legal system would be undermined, and the UK would rapidly stop being seen as a place where it’s desirable to do business.
Indeed, this shouldn't be the par for the course, however when the situation is caused by another supplier letting the government down, and risks causing dangerous crush-loading on a route that already has many fewer carriages per day than in 2019.
My understanding that the last time the contract was negotiated was in 2019, with an expected introduction of the 810s in 2021, giving a year of buffer before the expected end of contract in 2022. Nobody expected the Pandemic in 2019, nor the numerous delays that the 810s have faced. I think this is also before the Hitachi Bogie cracks issue?
Indeed, this shouldn't be the par for the course, however when the situation is caused by another supplier letting the government down, and risks causing dangerous crush-loading on a route that already has many fewer carriages per day than in 2019.
My understanding that the last time the contract was negotiated was in 2019, with an expected introduction of the 810s in 2021, giving a year of buffer before the expected end of contract in 2022. Nobody expected the Pandemic in 2019, nor the numerous delays that the 810s have faced. I think this is also before the Hitachi Bogie cracks issue?
Whilst you are technically correct, such pedantry adds little to the conversation, a more detailed description of the exact problem was omitted due to brevity.
I agree that there is no direct delay (okay, maybe the design reviews for those assemblies might have been a little more in depth than if the IEPs hadn't had this issue, but that's of the order of hours or days). However, to suggest that the significant investigation, redesign and remediation activities undertaken to resolve the issue has not distracted resources and attention within Hitachi that might otherwise have been used on the 810 programme is clearly incorrect.
My understanding that the last time the contract was negotiated was in 2019, with an expected introduction of the 810s in 2021, giving a year of buffer before the expected end of contract in 2022. Nobody expected the Pandemic in 2019, nor the numerous delays that the 810s have faced. I think this is also before the Hitachi Bogie cracks issue?
Perhaps, but it’s hardly unforeseeable that delays might occur in procuring new units, so you might expect contractual mechanisms to reflect this possibility. The government can’t just start legislating to move the goal posts because the DfT hasn’t negotiated something properly; I realise they can technically pass legislation to do anything, but doing so in this case would look very anti business. The situation vis a vis EMR’s fleet is one of inconvenience/cost, it is not equivalent to a dire national emergency such as Covid.
Whilst you are technically correct, such pedantry adds little to the conversation, a more detailed description of the exact problem was omitted due to brevity.
I agree that there is no direct delay (okay, maybe the design reviews for those assemblies might have been a little more in depth than if the IEPs hadn't had this issue, but that's of the order of hours or days). However, to suggest that the significant investigation, redesign and remediation activities undertaken to resolve the issue has not distracted resources and attention within Hitachi that might otherwise have been used on the 810 programme is clearly incorrect.
If you are going to state something that is cracked is causing delay to the build of the 810 then get it correct, even if it means typing a bit longer.
I am correct it is not the bogies. Absolutely nothing wrong with the bogies what so ever, as well you know.
It is the body shell where the yaw damper attaches to that was the issue on the rest of the 8XX fleet not on the 810.
Building continued as normal with these while the 'crack' problem was dealt with on all the other fleets.
The delay to the 810 is caused by many many things which have been dicusssed time and time again in here, slow building while stafff get used to welding, multiple poor quality parts and work which need rectification, poor weld issues, thermal incidents, test work that needs redoing and parts redesigned after test, the list goes on.
My understanding that the last time the contract was negotiated was in 2019, with an expected introduction of the 810s in 2021, giving a year of buffer before the expected end of contract in 2022. Nobody expected the Pandemic in 2019, nor the numerous delays that the 810s have faced. I think this is also before the Hitachi Bogie cracks issue?
Given all the reasons for delay that you set out, I wonder why no-one thought it might be a good idea to re-visit the terms of the 2019 negotiation during the following 6 years.
If the 2019 contract expected 2021 introduction, the fact that nothing had arrived in 2022 might have jogged someone's memory; but apparently not.
If you are going to state something that is cracked is causing delay to the build of the 810 then get it correct, even if it means typing a bit longer.
I'll be honest, I haven't thought about that problem for a few years, so my memory was that there were cracks, and they were related to the bogie, in this case, how it was attached. If you look at the original post, I had included a question mark, as my memory of the exact problem was uncertain. I had not expected such needlessly aggressive pedantry over a casual reference to something that is not the primary focus of this conversation. Whilst for any given topic it is almost always technically correct to suggest that "well actually it's more complicated than that", it is not something that is always helpful to the actual discussion at hand.
Apart from the fact that they put so much stress on the body of the train that it cracks. And also they certainly contribute to the poor ride quality that is consistently seen on these units.
Yes, and given that being attached to the train is a key characteristic of a bogie, and the yaw damper is one of the connection points between the bogies and the train, for normal people I feel that the term "bogie cracks" is reasonable enough for non-technical discussion. You will note that I did not say "cracks in the bogie", however to suggest that the cracks were unrelated to the bogie is nonsensical.
I'm sorry, but the idea that a significant amount of remediation work did not distract at all from the 810 programme at all is ludicrous. Essentially, you are asserting here that not a single minute of effort that would otherwise have been spent on the 810s was diverted to dealing with the issues faced by the 80Xs - that simply how large organisations work when there are critical, high profile issues.
The delay to the 810 is caused by many many things which have been dicusssed time and time again in here, slow building while stafff get used to welding, multiple poor quality parts and work which need rectification, poor weld issues, thermal incidents, test work that needs redoing and parts redesigned after test, the list goes on.
Yes, all of those things have contributed directly to the delays, at no point have I disputed that, indeed I referenced "numerous delays that the 810s have faced" in my original post.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Perhaps, but it’s hardly unforeseeable that delays might occur in procuring new units, so you might expect contractual mechanisms to reflect this possibility. The government can’t just start legislating to move the goal posts because the DfT hasn’t negotiated something properly; I realise they can technically pass legislation to do anything, but doing so in this case would look very anti business.
Indeed, it is not as severe as Covid, but neither is delaying one train contract slightly anywhere near as severe as the measures that we saw. A case of proportionality could be made.
Indeed, it is not as severe as Covid, but neither is delaying one train contract slightly anywhere near as severe as the measures that we saw. A case of proportionality could be made.
I’d respectfully disagree with that. Intervening in the way you’ve suggested would set a dangerous precedent, which the government is quite right to avoid.
The problem with the 80x units is material degradation in the 7000 series aluminium in the transverse bolster fitted to the underneath of the body. The bogies themselves are fine. 7000 series aluminium behaves in odd ways in certain environmental conditions (we have known about this for several decades) so it was an interesting choice to use it in this application.
The 810 build programme is unaffected by all this because the bolster rectification work is being organised and managed by a completely separate team to those involved in new build. It hasn’t resulted in any staff being diverted off new build activities.
The 80x fleet was built to an exact specification (with tolerances to match) and the wheelsets and dampers themselves take a lot of hammer from the track, more so than envisaged. As a result they need periodic attention/replacement.
The problem with the 80x units is material degradation in the 7000 series aluminium in the transverse bolster fitted to the underneath of the body. The bogies themselves are fine. 7000 series aluminium behaves in odd ways in certain environmental conditions (we have known about this for several decades) so it was an interesting choice to use it in this application.
The 810 build programme is unaffected by all this because the bolster rectification work is being organised and managed by a completely separate team to those involved in new build. It hasn’t resulted in any staff being diverted off new build activities.
The 80x fleet was built to an exact specification (with tolerances to match) and the wheelsets and dampers themselves take a lot of hammer from the track, more so than envisaged. As a result they need periodic attention/replacement.
Exactly.
SCC was first identified more than several decades ago, the first problems were identified in Supermarine airframe using 7001 in WW2 especially the carrier bourne Seafires.
The Hitachi choice of alloy was unusual, but they went with a Japanese alloy (which typically use alloy conpositions just outside patented ranges) similar to two 700x alloys but out side.
810 use 60xx alloy to avoid the SCC issues and making this change will have caused some delay.
Exactly.
SCC was first identified more than several decades ago, the first problems were identified in Supermarine airframe using 7001 in WW2 especially the carrier bourne Seafires.
The Hitachi choice of alloy was unusual, but they went with a Japanese alloy (which typically use alloy conpositions just outside patented ranges) similar to two 700x alloys but out side.
810 use 60xx alloy to avoid the SCC issues and making this change will have caused some delay.
The first vehicle from 810001 was seen outside at Hitachi on 07/09/22 under going static testing.
Even 'if' the alloy has caused delays. We are now nearly 3 years on and progress is absolutely ridiculous.
Unit 810018 has just been seen at Aycliffe.
In 3 years since 2022 the full fleet should have been built, not just over half way there, still no train handed over to EMR to start training, no 10 car testing carried out etc.
Maybe out 1-2 months delay on for the alloy, but over 3 years and rising of delays no.
The 810 project is managed by the Italian section of hitachi, and some of the stories I've heard about the build of the units, makes me surprised that any other toc would still order from them!
The 810 project is managed by the Italian section of hitachi, and some of the stories I've heard about the build of the units, makes me surprised that any other toc would still order from them!
Hopefully not the same place that built those useless units for Amsterdam to Brussels? Years late, and when they eventually entered service, pieces started falling off them. I can't recall how long they lasted but it was a matter of weeks before the Dutch refused to run them anymore.
Hopefully not the same place that built those useless units for Amsterdam to Brussels? Years late, and when they eventually entered service, pieces started falling off them. I can't recall how long they lasted but it was a matter of weeks before the Dutch refused to run them anymore.
Typically, when we discuss public services in the context, we mean something provided for the benefit of the public, as opposed as to as an entirely for-profit enterprise. In this case, a hyper-literal interpretation of "any service that is offered to the public is a public service" would be incorrect.
So, an entirely ‘for-profit enterprise’, such as the barber I use, does not provide a service to the public? Accepting the constraint that he only cuts men’s hair he is quite happy to offer a service to anyone who walks into his shop.
I would call this a public service or, possibly, even a service to the public. In any event he provides a benefit for the public — or at least to that part of it that wants to get its hair cut!
Many other examples of services offered by ‘for-profit’ organisations to the general public exist. If they generate profits these organisations can continue to exist because they successfully fulfill the needs and desires of their customers at acceptable prices.
It would seem that you have used the term ‘public service’ in the context of a service which can only be offered on an on-going basis if there is an additional external source of income which is needed because the business does not cover its costs at the prices charged. This is a special case - to claim that a given service is a ‘public service’ simply because it requires subsidy is unjustifiable.
So, an entirely ‘for-profit enterprise’, such as the barber I use, does not provide a service to the public? Accepting the constraint that he only cuts men’s hair he is quite happy to offer a service to anyone who walks into his shop.
The concept of public service is a twofold one: it embraces both the bodies providing services and the services of general-interest they provide. Public service obligations may be imposed by the public authorities on the body providing a service (airlines, road or rail carriers, energy producers and so on), either nationally or regionally. Incidentally, the concept of the public service and the concept of the public sector (including the civil service) are often wrongfully confused; they differ in terms of function, status, ownership and ‘clientele’.
In a similar vein, the Cambridge dictonary defines a public service as:
- a service provided by the government, such as hospitals, schools, or the police
- the government and the work that itsdepartments do
- something that is done or provided for the public because it is needed, and not in order to make a profit
I would call this a public service or, possibly, even a service to the public. In any event he provides a benefit for the public — or at least to that part of it that wants to get its hair cut!
Whilst it may be possible that your barber is running his shop out of sheer shame that the standards of coiffure in the area before he opened the shop, it is more likely he is simply trying to make a living.
Many other examples of services offered by ‘for-profit’ organisations to the general public exist. If they generate profits these organisations can continue to exist because they successfully fulfill the needs and desires of their customers at acceptable prices.
It would seem that you have used the term ‘public service’ in the context of a service which can only be offered on an on-going basis if there is an additional external source of income which is needed because the business does not cover its costs at the prices charged.
I am claiming that they are public services because they meet the third criteria suggested by Cambridge "- something that is done or provided for the public because it is needed, and not in order to make a profit"
I am not, as stated above. As far as I am aware, I have never used that criteria, please refrain from trying to construct straw man arguments in future.
Some may remember that, when Corby station re-opened, it was only served by one train a day in each direction. The reason given at the time was that 'Hull Trains won't release the trains to work the service'.
Can anyone state what the contractual arrangements were in that case? Presumably the reason H.T. didn't release them was because their replacements weren't available, much the same as the present problem; but had the lease expired and they just hung on to them? If so, what were the consequences?
As an aside, no attempt was made by EMT, by shuffling other services, to ameliorate the situation, jut no trains. Wonder if that's a precedent.
The Hull Trains units were still on lease to Hull. They were being individually released from that lease early, when their replacements (the 180’s) had arrived, enough staff had been trained on them and the units themselves were fit to be put into passenger traffic.
Iirc, the expectation at EMT was that they would all arrive at once, at a precise time, which was never going to happen. They thought they could force the issue through the DfT (who had arranged the deal with very senior FG management) but were rebuffed.
The Hull Trains units were still on lease to Hull. They were being individually released from that lease early, when their replacements (the 180’s) had arrived, enough staff had been trained on them and the units themselves were fit to be put into passenger traffic.
Iirc, the expectation at EMT was that they would all arrive at once, at a precise time, which was never going to happen. They thought they could force the issue through the DfT (who had arranged the deal with very senior FG management) but were rebuffed.
Thanks for that explanation, clearly it wasn't the same situation as the present one.
But, interestingly, EMT didn't have a 'Plan B' then, and it seems that EMR don't have one now.
Hopefully not the same place that built those useless units for Amsterdam to Brussels? Years late, and when they eventually entered service, pieces started falling off them. I can't recall how long they lasted but it was a matter of weeks before the Dutch refused to run them anymore.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
