IET availability

[Richard123]

MR this month reports improved IET availability on ECML, with it being "some time" since the planned 49 trains have not been available.

That's 25% unavailable! The original contract was for 58 diagrams daily, for which Hitachi built 65 trains.

That explains the retention of the class 91s, and the number of trains reduced to five cars from December.

Does anyone know whether GWML availability is this dire? Or are there any other modern fleets with such low availability after a decade in service?

And do Agility get paid for all 58 diagrams, given LNER have trimmed their service to a level Hitachi can deliver? Presumably Hitachi are insulated from any pain as Agility sit in the middle...

Edit to quote source:

Modern Railways November 2025:
"LNER safety and operations director Warwick Dent Dent... There will be more 5 car Azuma services in the new timetable. Acknowledging the reduction in capacity on the Leeds route...

He also explained that LNER had 49 out of 65 Azumas in traffic each day and this will rise to 50 from the start of the new timetable while there will also be 5 IC225 sets in use. As part of our readiness we monitored the availability of trains and this has not dipped below the December 2025 requirement for some time now."

The original contract was for 58 diagrams (87% availability) in service each day out of 65 trains built.

 

[Clarence Yard]

LNER have some of their contracted units diagrammed every day as spares. GWR does not and their contracted number of (currently) 79 units every day are usually all required for traffic.

Really whether Hitachi have built too many units or not enough units for GWR is their problem. They just have to provide their contracted number of units (providing it isn’t the TOCs fault that they can’t) and if they don’t then they won’t be getting their megabucks a day set availability payment.

 

[Russel]

LNER have some of their contracted units diagrammed every day as spares. GWR does not and their contracted number of (currently) 79 units every day are usually all required for traffic.

Really whether Hitachi have built too many units or not enough units for GWR is their problem. They just have to provide their contracted number of units (providing it isn’t the TOCs fault that they can’t) and if they don’t then they won’t be getting their megabucks a day set availability payment.

With some of the other nonsense we see, I almost expected to read that Hitachi get paid weather they provide the contracted number of units or not!

 

[Snow1964]

With some of the other nonsense we see, I almost expected to read that Hitachi get paid weather they provide the contracted number of units or not!

In practice the contract penalties are not that onerous, it's not like Hitachi lose the whole weeks income if the miss by one train.

They are apparently clauses that exclude trains from the count that the operator has damaged or delivers late (broken, hit tree with, turns up to late for maintenance etc).

But like all contracts, only as good as enforcement, and it is not as if the Operators on random days accompany the first driver with one of their legal team armed with cleanliness swabs, window clarity probes, micrometers to check brake discs and pads, spirit levels to check for sagging seats, and generally checking for zero faults etc. Of course if not enforced to strict nth degree standards, then Hitachi are likely to still get paid if they release a train a few percent short of contractual spec.

It doesn't take many days of enforcement by rejecting trains not upto spec, to let a depot know the trains have to be 100% fixed if they want to be paid. Rather than sort of ok. It is a lucrative contractual relationship and shouldn't be treated like two mates saying don't worry about some things not being quite right.

I have heard stories of trains with defective diesel-generator sets being put in traffic. Surely the contract doesn't allow that (except in very limited exceptional cases), whereas seems to happen regularly which suggests legal Dept need kick up the backside, and then go out to depot train handover roads armed with rulers, swabs etc to compare to quality specs listed on their tablet computers

 

[Richard123]

In practice the contract penalties are not that onerous, it's not like Hitachi lose the whole weeks income if the miss by one train.

They are apparently clauses that exclude trains from the count that the operator has damaged or delivers late (broken, hit tree with, turns up to late for maintenance etc).

But like all contracts, only as good as enforcement, and it is not as if the Operators on random days accompany the first driver with one of their legal team armed with cleanliness swabs, window clarity probes, micrometers to check brake discs and pads, spirit levels to check for sagging seats, and generally checking for zero faults etc. Of course if not enforced to strict nth degree standards, then Hitachi are likely to still get paid if they release a train a few percent short of contractual spec.

It doesn't take many days of enforcement by rejecting trains not upto spec, to let a depot know the trains have to be 100% fixed if they want to be paid. Rather than sort of ok. It is a lucrative contractual relationship and shouldn't be treated like two mates saying don't worry about some things not being quite right.

I have heard stories of trains with defective diesel-generator sets being put in traffic. Surely the contract doesn't allow that (except in very limited exceptional cases), whereas seems to happen regularly which suggests legal Dept need kick up the backside, and then go out to depot train handover roads armed with rulers, swabs etc to compare to quality specs listed on their tablet computers

I think the issue is that LNER want to run a service so have to accept what they get.

David Horne has been forthright (including on LinkedIn) criticising Hitachi's availability but it hurts LNER more if they diagram trains that Agility can't deliver consistently. I suspect that LNER "choosing" not to diagram might mean Agility face no penalty for failing to provide the originally contracted number. I suspect this as Agility report large profits each year despite providing only 85% of their originally committed trains.

Sets running without a GU is minor in comparison. LNER are pricing traffic off the rails while running 5 car trains, even after retaining an expensive sub-fleet of Class 91 sets.

We have read Roger Ford talk about the problems for years but until this article I didn't realise how bad they were.

Which brings us back to the original question, what availability are fleets like pendolinos diagrammed for?

 

[Snow1964]

I think the issue is that LNER want to run a service so have to accept what they get.

I think we will differ on this.

We are no longer old railway, where my mate in the depot couldn't quite finish the job so we take what we have, and I mean this in legal and contractual terms (and being 100% paid for). It's an era where get paid to meet quality and performance specs, and shouldn't be paid if don't. Hard luck if contract is poor, but at least implement clauses where they can, not just continue the have to make do mentality.

I realise in practice normal everyday staff do not want to get involved in nitty gritty of arguments over should train be rejected until fixed fully, or how much should be deducted from an invoice until it is done so. Thats what legal Depts are for. If necessary management needs to work with legal, not resign themselves to not rocking the boat.

Maybe it's because part of my career was in International oil shipping, where it would be easy for foreign registered companies to let things slip over time, if don't regularly do random inspections going through quality with fine tooth comb. But I know old school railway staff aren't used to that mentality, instead they take a make do approach.

Some of the maintenance contracts run for another 2 or 3 decades, so not clamping down on quality standards and completeness of work will just encourage things to get more lax over next few years. If depots know they aren't penalised they will gradually not bother and let things slip more. It's not like GBR and a nationalised railway will fix it in next year or two, because maintenance contracts go on for years. So tough contract enforcement action needs to happen.

 

[D1537]

If LNER had 65 identical Azumas the number required to be available every day could almost certainly be higher.

However, they don't, they have four subfleets. For example, a single 800/2 being on maintenance is 10% of the fleet right there.

800/1 - 13 units, 10 diagrams, 1 spare (85%)
800/2 - 10 units, 7 diagrams, 1 spare (80%)
801/1 - 12 units, 9 diagrams, 1 spare (83%)
801/2 - 30 units, 23 diagrams*, 3 spare (87%)

*24 diagrams from December (90%)

The six spare diagrams mean that there are effectively 55 units available every day (56 from December).

58 actual passenger diagrams every day from four subfleets would effectively leave you practically zero contingency once you take maintenance into account, and would almost certainly lead to cancellations.

 

[Clarence Yard]

In practice the contract penalties are not that onerous, it's not like Hitachi lose the whole weeks income if the miss by one train.

They are apparently clauses that exclude trains from the count that the operator has damaged or delivers late (broken, hit tree with, turns up to late for maintenance etc).

But like all contracts, only as good as enforcement, and it is not as if the Operators on random days accompany the first driver with one of their legal team armed with cleanliness swabs, window clarity probes, micrometers to check brake discs and pads, spirit levels to check for sagging seats, and generally checking for zero faults etc. Of course if not enforced to strict nth degree standards, then Hitachi are likely to still get paid if they release a train a few percent short of contractual spec.

It doesn't take many days of enforcement by rejecting trains not upto spec, to let a depot know the trains have to be 100% fixed if they want to be paid. Rather than sort of ok. It is a lucrative contractual relationship and shouldn't be treated like two mates saying don't worry about some things not being quite right.

I have heard stories of trains with defective diesel-generator sets being put in traffic. Surely the contract doesn't allow that (except in very limited exceptional cases), whereas seems to happen regularly which suggests legal Dept need kick up the backside, and then go out to depot train handover roads armed with rulers, swabs etc to compare to quality specs listed on their tablet computers

The contract does not allow for rejecting trains unless they have what is known as a Category 1 fault which is confined to such safety related items such as ATP and SDO. They shouldn’t be offered to the Operator with any Category 1 fault. Engines being out is a Category 3 incident and as long as the set or sets can, in theory, operate the planned diagram, it/they cannot be rejected.

Hitachi put on the handover certificate what Category 2 and 3 faults there are with the set and off it then goes. There is also a self reporting KPI regime for passenger facing items which the operator can audit but that is the limit of their audit powers - they don’t stretch to the traction equipment, brakes, etc.

How this all turns into money, I’m not going to get into because the contract is confidential and I would be instantly down the road if I got into the finances but it is heavily weighted towards Agility/Hitachi. If that wasn’t the case, that additional financial risk would have been added into the already eye-watering daily set availability payments.

If you specify some of your fleet as traffic spares, you still have to pay the daily availability payments. That appears to be what LNER have been doing.

 

[43094]

LNER have 54 diagrams per day to use (including spares).

This is:

10x 800/1
8x 800/2
10x 801/1
26x 801/2

 

[crablab]

Hitachi put on the handover certificate what Category 2 and 3 faults there are with the set and off it then goes. There is also a self reporting KPI regime for passenger facing items which the operator can audit but that is the limit of their audit powers - they don’t stretch to the traction equipment, brakes, etc.

For those interested, the TARA (Train Availability and Reliability Agreement) you're referring to is in the public domain: https://assets.publishing.service.g...great-western-iep-network-train-agreement.pdf

(There's an equivalent for East Coast)

Indeed the 'Payment' appendix is entirely redacted, as you acknowledge.

I would be interested to know which exemption DfT are relying on here; it appears to be 'commercial confidentiality' going by Section 13 of the TARA.

I'm not sure if that holds water, particularly as aggregate numbers about IEP costs are known and public. There would seem to be public interest in transparency as to the extent to which the TSP (Agility) are meeting the contracted service & how that translates into costs to the public purse.

It should, presumably, be possible to FoI LNER for Handover Certificates and 'KPI Scorecards' they have in their possession, which should be provided on handover of each set each day. That would give one an indication of what faults sets are being handed over with.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Dec 2025 ==

But like all contracts, only as good as enforcement, and it is not as if the Operators on random days accompany the first driver with one of their legal team armed with cleanliness swabs, window clarity probes, micrometers to check brake discs and pads, spirit levels to check for sagging seats, and generally checking for zero faults etc. Of course if not enforced to strict nth degree standards, then Hitachi are likely to still get paid if they release a train a few percent short of contractual spec.

The Operator has the ability to perform an audit of up to 10% of the Maximum Available Sets each day (up to 5 days in a reporting period) and complete an independent KPI Scorecard.

You might wish to ask LNER how often it avails itself of this provision, and the delta between the KPI Scorecards from Agility and the ones completed by LNER.

There are some additional provisions which kick in if Agility have failed to complete the scorecard properly; it would be interesting to know how often that's happened.

 

[Richard123]

Rail this month provides a bit of insight on the contract:

Manufacturer yet to identify root cause of fuel pump issues affecting performance, with one train reaching Plymouth more than four hours late​

FAILURES of diesel engines on bi-mode Hitachi Intercity Express Trains are causing delays to Great Western Railway services.

The diesel generator units (GUs) generate the electricity used to power both the electric motors that drive the wheels and all the on-board electrical equipment when the train is operating away from overhead power lines.

GWR has confirmed that the problem lies in the fuel pumps. To reach the fuel pump and replace the faulty part, the engine must be taken out.

A staff member cited a failure on November 19 on the 2003 Paddington-Plymouth service, comprising two five-car Class 802s.

They claimed that only three of the six engines across the two units were functioning when they left London, with 150 miles to run beyond the wires.

All three remaining engines failed during the journey and the train was stranded at Lipson Junction, near Plymouth.

It eventually reached its destination nearly four hours late, at 0316. GWR said if only one engine had kept working, it could have reached the next station.

Hitachi maintains the vehicles and is contracted to make the correct number of trains available each day to meet timetable obligations. Some of these trains are being supplied with one or more of the GUs not working.

It has been suggested that up to 100 of approximately 300 engines a day are not functioning - a claim that GWR did not deny.

 

[43096]

Rail this month provides a bit of insight on the contract:

"

Manufacturer yet to identify root cause of fuel pump issues affecting performance, with one train reaching Plymouth more than four hours late​

FAILURES of diesel engines on bi-mode Hitachi Intercity Express Trains are causing delays to Great Western Railway services.

The diesel generator units (GUs) generate the electricity used to power both the electric motors that drive the wheels and all the on-board electrical equipment when the train is operating away from overhead power lines.

GWR has confirmed that the problem lies in the fuel pumps. To reach the fuel pump and replace the faulty part, the engine must be taken out.

A staff member cited a failure on November 19 on the 2003 Paddington-Plymouth service, comprising two five-car Class 802s.

They claimed that only three of the six engines across the two units were functioning when they left London, with 150 miles to run beyond the wires.

All three remaining engines failed during the journey and the train was stranded at Lipson Junction, near Plymouth.

It eventually reached its destination nearly four hours late, at 0316. GWR said if only one engine had kept working, it could have reached the next station.

Hitachi maintains the vehicles and is contracted to make the correct number of trains available each day to meet timetable obligations. Some of these trains are being supplied with one or more of the GUs not working.

It has been suggested that up to 100 of approximately 300 engines a day are not functioning - a claim that GWR did not deny. "

I’d not call that “insight”: there’s nothing there that we don’t already know.

 

[irish_rail]

Things are slowly improving. I've had several sets this week with all engines running, and that was unheard of through September, October and November.

 

[JUMOUK]

Chime Whistle on Twitter allegedly reporting that timetable changes will be coming as a result of the fuel pump issue, though he also said this two weeks ago, so possibly grain of salt needed

I've just been sent the GW timetable amendments, due to come into force from 5 January, in reaction to the ongoing fuel pump issues. -https://x.com/chimewhistle/status/2000278585152577675?s=46

Stopping short, DMU vice IET, additional station stops etc.

https://x.com/chimewhistle/status/2000290208974352551?s=46

 

[Railperf]

Rail this month provides a bit of insight on the contract:

"

Manufacturer yet to identify root cause of fuel pump issues affecting performance, with one train reaching Plymouth more than four hours late​

FAILURES of diesel engines on bi-mode Hitachi Intercity Express Trains are causing delays to Great Western Railway services.

The diesel generator units (GUs) generate the electricity used to power both the electric motors that drive the wheels and all the on-board electrical equipment when the train is operating away from overhead power lines.

GWR has confirmed that the problem lies in the fuel pumps. To reach the fuel pump and replace the faulty part, the engine must be taken out.

A staff member cited a failure on November 19 on the 2003 Paddington-Plymouth service, comprising two five-car Class 802s.

They claimed that only three of the six engines across the two units were functioning when they left London, with 150 miles to run beyond the wires.

All three remaining engines failed during the journey and the train was stranded at Lipson Junction, near Plymouth.

It eventually reached its destination nearly four hours late, at 0316. GWR said if only one engine had kept working, it could have reached the next station.

Hitachi maintains the vehicles and is contracted to make the correct number of trains available each day to meet timetable obligations. Some of these trains are being supplied with one or more of the GUs not working.

It has been suggested that up to 100 of approximately 300 engines a day are not functioning - a claim that GWR did not deny. "

We've been discussing engine reliability on here and elsewhere for a long time now. The fuel pump issue seems to be the latest issue. This is highly embarrassing for Hitachi / Rolls Royce, but with the money being claimed by them daily - despite sets being sent out with one engine or more not working - this should be a priority to fix, and I'm sure it is.

But this is not a car dealer where the manufacturer can do a massive recall and or perform engine swaps. I imagine the supply chains for these components is stuggling to keep up with the demand, along with the staff required to do all this additional remedial work aside from the daily maintenance.

Bearing in mind these cost more than double the price of a Pendolino per vehicle - a longer term solution needs to be found to reduce the maintenance costs.

The engines started life set to around 750hp per engine and then later upgraded to closer to 940hp per engine - a 20% increase in power - which now seems to be a factor in the unreliability. It has been suggested that probably closer to 800hp is where the engines 'go bang' less often.

Everyone is going to want a quick fix, and it seems that a detune - for now - might ease the pressure.

Certainly it seems EMR's new Class 810's are starting life with their engines set at a significantly lower power level than those in GWR land. And @Clarence Yard has posted elsewhere that from a high of 77 sets running round with one engine out on 25th November, the latest figure was down to 64 sets. So some imrpovement is going on. But there is lots of work to do.

I do wonder - contactually what GBR can or will do - as there is a lot of pressure to get better value for money for the tax payer whilst improving performance.
The decision to pause or scrap some aspects of GWML electrification seems a very costly one now.

 

[Snow1964]

And @Clarence Yard has posted elsewhere that from a high of 77 sets running round with one engine out on 25th November, the latest figure was down to 64 sets. So some imrpovement is going on. But there is lots of work to do.

A few weeks ago was suggested that only 3 engines could be fixed each day, and just over 100 engines were dead (Some sets had 2 engines down).

If in 20 days since 25 November, the number has only dropped by 13 trains (77 to 64), then clearly slowed down on fixing them and not sorting 3 per day. Unless the replacement parts are such poor quality they are breaking too.

 

[Railperf]

A few weeks ago was suggested that only 3 engines could be fixed each day, and just over 100 engines were dead (Some sets had 2 engines down).

If in 20 days since 25 November, the number has only dropped by 13 trains (77 to 64), then clearly slowed down on fixing them and not sorting 3 per day. Unless the replacement parts are such poor quality they are breaking too.

For every new engine being fixed, others in the fleet are failing - but a lowering of the number is a good thing.

 

[Russel]

Chime Whistle on Twitter allegedly reporting that timetable changes will be coming as a result of the fuel pump issue, though he also said this two weeks ago, so possibly grain of salt needed

I've always treated that source with a heavy dose of scepticism.

Not one I'd trust.

 

[ptreanor]

There’s quite a comprehensive article about this issue in the January 2026 edition of Modern Railways. Will probably make uncomfortable reading for some me thinks...

 

[crablab]

I do wonder - contactually what GBR can or will do - as there is a lot of pressure to get better value for money for the tax payer whilst improving performance

From my reading of the MARA/TARA this is an issue for Agility Trains to resolve with Hitachi (as maintainers).

My understanding is that Agility have to deliver the contracted sets to satisfy the agreed diagrams each day. A set should not be sent out with more than 3 (from memory) engines out, or where set performance cannot meet the planned diagram.

There are contractual penalties (precise numbers are not publicly known) for lack of availability or sets which do not meet the KPIs in the contract.

Of course, I'm happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable, and I don't know exactly how the cancelled electrification plays into this other than diesel set availability is charged at a higher price.

This is the benefit of the IEP contracts, though. Issues like this (and resolving them) are outsourced and why the availability payments are high to begin with - they're pricing this in.

Indeed, Agility are even the ones on the hook for rescuing failed sets!

 

[Russel]

There are contractual penalties (precise numbers are not publicly known) for lack of availability or sets which do not meet the KPIs in the contract.

Let's just hope this is actually enforced.

 

[Benjwri]

Chime Whistle on Twitter allegedly reporting that timetable changes will be coming as a result of the fuel pump issue, though he also said this two weeks ago, so possibly grain of salt needed

There are timetable changes, they are already visible in sources such as RealTimeTrains. Seems to be mostly minor things such as removal of a few Filton services and their stops added to a Gloucester.

 

[irish_rail]

I'm led to believe that we are to return to the "bad old days" of 802s only on the WofE route, and 800s being used more or less exclusively only east of Exeter. This will of course lead to potential shortforms and cancellations on SW services if an 800 cannot readily substitute for an 802 as is commonplace at present. It's noticeable since 800s began coming to the far south west regularly (since Covid), that there have been fewer short forms , and more 9 car trains and a better overall service on GWRs "most intercity" route. These changes are apparently needed as the 800s are being downrated power wise, whilst the 802s will remain with the higher power settings needed for the more challenging WofE route. So slower journey times on 800 served routes, and less stock availability on 802 WofE routes. What isn't to like.........

 

[Bornin1980s]

The engines started life set to around 750hp per engine and then later upgraded to closer to 940hp per engine - a 20% increase in power - which now seems to be a factor in the unreliability. It has been suggested that probably closer to 800hp is where the engines 'go bang' less often.

Everyone is going to want a quick fix, and it seems that a detune - for now - might ease the pressure.

Certainly it seems EMR's new Class 810's are starting life with their engines set at a significantly lower power level than those in GWR land.

The 810 engines were to be rated at 983hp! What is their rating now?

 

[Richard123]

From my reading of the MARA/TARA this is an issue for Agility Trains to resolve with Hitachi (as maintainers).

My understanding is that Agility have to deliver the contracted sets to satisfy the agreed diagrams each day. A set should not be sent out with more than 3 (from memory) engines out, or where set performance cannot meet the planned diagram.

There are contractual penalties (precise numbers are not publicly known) for lack of availability or sets which do not meet the KPIs in the contract.

Of course, I'm happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable, and I don't know exactly how the cancelled electrification plays into this other than diesel set availability is charged at a higher price.

This is the benefit of the IEP contracts, though. Issues like this (and resolving them) are outsourced and why the availability payments are high to begin with - they're pricing this in.

Indeed, Agility are even the ones on the hook for rescuing failed sets!

While you see this as the benefit of the contract, it seems the reverse. Agility’s profits, despite poor availability of working trains, suggests they are under little commercial pressure to spend serious money improving. Even when the LNER service was being hammered and the MD was livid, they reported huge profits. They ended up paying to keep an extra fleet.

It’s not like a car where you can hand it back because it doesn’t work: it you are GWR or LNER MD, if Hitachi take their football home you can’t run a service and you have no income.

That’s why I thought the Rail article worth quoting, it seemed to confirm they get paid for delivering faulty trains, as long as they leave the depot.

Given the service cancellations historically due to insufficient trains each day, it seems the TOCs are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[The exile]

There are timetable changes, they are already visible in sources such as RealTimeTrains. Seems to be mostly minor things such as removal of a few Filton services and their stops added to a Gloucester.

That doesn’t help travellers from Lawrence Hill or Stapleton Road to either Ashley Down or Filton, though.

 

[Railperf]

The 810 engines were to be rated at 983hp! What is their rating now?

That is a maximum rating. It doesn't mean the engines run up to that maximum in service

We have been monitoring performance so far and the 810's accelerate slower than a Class 222 on 5 engines but quicker than a 222 that is running with an engine out - in fact roughly mid way between the two. So you could say a Meridian on 4.5 engines
A good Meridian can reach 100mph from rest on level track in appx 160 seconds. The fastest time I have seen for an 810 on diesel is 191 seconds!
But the 810's are slightly heavier trains.
So a quick bag of a fag packet calculation suggests somewhere around 800-810 at the flywheel per engine. But what we have learned on GWR fleet is that not all engines deliver identical outputs to traction depending on other electrical demands. So the figure is likely to be an average across all four engines.

 

[GilfachFargoed]

That doesn’t help travellers from Lawrence Hill or Stapleton Road to either Ashley Down or Filton, though.

Looks OK to me... If anything it allows better access to BPW and beyond from the inner city stations.

 

[Alpaca]

Anyone know why 1E15 is set swapping at Doncaster? Train fault?

 

[bramling]

While you see this as the benefit of the contract, it seems the reverse. Agility’s profits, despite poor availability of working trains, suggests they are under little commercial pressure to spend serious money improving. Even when the LNER service was being hammered and the MD was livid, they reported huge profits. They ended up paying to keep an extra fleet.

It’s not like a car where you can hand it back because it doesn’t work: it you are GWR or LNER MD, if Hitachi take their football home you can’t run a service and you have no income.

That’s why I thought the Rail article worth quoting, it seemed to confirm they get paid for delivering faulty trains, as long as they leave the depot.

Given the service cancellations historically due to insufficient trains each day, it seems the TOCs are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Where is the accountability for all this? It seems increasingly clear the IEP contract has been a disaster for the railway, both operationally and financially.