IET availability

[John R]

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.

It depends who you want to find accountable. If politicians then good luck with getting that a decade after the decision was made.

And if Civil Servants then I understand that the one who was instrumental in the process sadly died a couple of years ago, (and is being commemorated by having a new viaduct in Yorkshire named after him).

 

[father_jack]

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

View attachment 193984

That's the only train......

 

[bramling]

It depends who you want to find accountable. If politicians then good luck with getting that a decade after the decision was made.

And if Civil Servants then I understand that the one who was instrumental in the process sadly died a couple of years ago, (and is being commemorated by having a new viaduct in Yorkshire named after him).

What a depressing situation. I agree that assessment seems pretty realistic though.

 

[Snow1964]

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.

These sort of high value, long term, contracts are not put together by some over worked clerk, they are written and checked by very expensive consultants and legal advisers.

One has to wonder what sort of brief the railway of DfT instructed for the penalties and restitution to be so one sided. Or perhaps the railways lawyers simply did a dreadful job of looking at what ifs, and got walked over (although not heard any mention of suing the lawyers for professional incompetence).

Someone's name will be against approving and checking that contract. They might even know about this forum and the disaster they created.

 

[800001]

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

Possibly due to service disruption? Issues earlier at Huntingdon.

 

[bahnause]

One has to wonder what sort of brief the railway of DfT instructed for the penalties and restitution to be so one sided. Or perhaps the railways lawyers simply did a dreadful job of looking at what ifs, and got walked over (although not heard any mention of suing the lawyers for professional incompetence).

Why should these contracts be one-sided? After all, both parties have agreed to them. You get what you pay for. Those who demand more pay more. This applies to services as well as to any penalties. When you factor in all the disadvantages, such as limited flexibility, loss of know-how, lengthy negotiations for necessary adjustments and a lack of direct influence, these 'convenient' and (financially) predictable offers may seem cheap, but they may not be the best option.

But perhaps the TOC doesn't want to take any responsibility. You can point the finger at your contractual partner and you're off the hook. That doesn't help running the railway, but at least you have a scapegoat.

 

[Snow1964]

It is not just the fuel pumps that are causing problems, eg this mornings early train from Bristol to London cancelled due to faults onboard. Not clear to me how they are leaving depot in a condition where can't be used, unless they are only being checked after leaving the depot (or depot inspection is unreliable, which raises questions of are Hitachi meeting contract if errors are made during checks)

Realtime Trains | 1K71 0510 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington | 19/12/2025

Real-time train running information for 1K71 0510 departure from Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington on 19/12/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

But I do wonder if testing is going on, 3 days (Wednesday, yesterday, today) have been running a circuit from Stoke Gifford via Swindon, Reading West, Newbury, Trowbridge. A route with mix of electric and diesel, that is about 160 miles

Realtime Trains | 5Z80 1029 Stoke Gifford to Stoke Gifford | 18/12/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Z80 1029 departure from Stoke Gifford to Stoke Gifford on 18/12/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Russel]

How bad does the IET situation have to get before the DFT give Hitachi / Agility a good kicking?

 

[John R]

How bad does the IET situation have to get before the DFT give Hitachi / Agility a good kicking?

That will depend to a large extent on the terms of the contract and thus on the relative skill of the two sides when negotiating it.

 

[Russel]

That will depend to a large extent on the terms of the contract and thus on the relative skill of the two sides when negotiating it.

Given the penny pinching we see elsewhere, you'd think there would be a bit more scrutiny here.

 

[Snow1964]

That will depend to a large extent on the terms of the contract and thus on the relative skill of the two sides when negotiating it.

The contracts were done years ago, what they now need is Operators to regularly audit that it is 100 achieved, and if something has slipped below spec (and I mean even 0.5% off spec, not wait until blatantly miles off), and whilst off spec need to withhold hefty chunks of payments until sorted.

No company will go to commercial court chasing outstanding payment for a reduction on invoice because they have failed to deliver 100% of their contract. They might moan and threaten legal action, but will reluctantly sort it first, only then will they actually implement legal action.

So Operator need to check things vs any defect sheets, and if that means taking micrometers, cleanliness swabs or whatever to ensure not just 99% of condition then that's what they need to do. If a defect has been 'missed' or under reported then action needs to be taken against failure to report correctly.

No point in having specifications and measurements in a contract if they are not enforced to nth degree at frequent intervals. Got to get out of mindset of doesn't matter, and nearly good enough is ok.

 

[John R]

The contracts were done years ago, what they now need is Operators to regularly audit that it is 100 achieved, and if something has slipped below spec (and I mean even 0.5% off spec, not wait until blatantly miles off), and whilst off spec need to withhold hefty chunks of payments until sorted.

No company will go to commercial court chasing outstanding payment for a reduction on invoice because they have failed to deliver 100% of their contract. They might moan and threaten legal action, but will reluctantly sort it first, only then will they actually implement legal action.

So Operator need to check things vs any defect sheets, and if that means taking micrometers, cleanliness swabs or whatever to ensure not just 99% of condition then that's what they need to do. If a defect has been 'missed' or under reported then action needs to be taken against failure to report correctly.

No point in having specifications and measurements in a contract if they are not enforced to nth degree at frequent intervals. Got to get out of mindset of doesn't matter, and nearly good enough is ok.

Agree completely with this, though again it comes down to what is in the contract re deficiencies of delivery and the remedies available to the customer.

Having negotiated commercial contracts in the financial services field involving asset transfers of billions and of maybe 50 year term, the trickiest part of the negotiation was always around what happens if one side breaches the terms, and the remedies available to the other side. It’s not hard to envisage a situation whereby Hitachi’s commercial lawyers were more experienced and got themselves a very good deal in that regard, thus leaving the govt with relatively little wriggle room when Hitachi/Agility delivery becomes deficient.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Snow1964, that’s not how the performance regime runs in the contract. You cannot withhold payment. There is a periodic performance element to it which deals with non-compliances. That automatically adjusts the period payment - it’s a highly specified and mechanistic process and Hitachi are usually very good at owning up to Category faults or KPI failures.

Types of fault are graded between three categories and basically you cannot refuse a set unless it has a Category 1 fault, which are just safety system related. If the unit isn’t able to complete its diagram (for example, it has too many engines out) the set can also be refused.

It’s not a contract that requires Hitachi to produce a perfect unit every time it comes off maintenace.

 

[crablab]

they now need is Operators to regularly audit that it is 100 achieved, and if something has slipped below spec (and I mean even 0.5% off spec, not wait until blatantly miles off), and whilst off spec need to withhold hefty chunks of payments until sorted.

Operators are not entitled to do any of these things. As I said previously:

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.

They can't just rock up with micrometers and start measuring random things that aren't part of that scorecard, then unilaterally refuse payment.

I'd suggest reading the TARA yourself, as it answers some of the questions you have about how the contract is arranged: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ogramme-technical-specification-and-contracts

Here's extracts of the KPI scorecard from the GWR TARA.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2025 ==

And the first page... (9 file limit per post)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How bad does the IET situation have to get before the DFT give Hitachi / Agility a good kicking?

The other side of the coin is repeat orders for Hitachi.
DfT seems to have been falling over itself to route new orders to Hitachi to keep Newton Aycliffe open (even if it's for Open Access TOCs).
Hitachi also have the HS2 order in the bag (with Alstom jointly).
You'd think that if the IEP contract is failing to deliver, that would show up in negotiations for new trains, but apparently not.

The same thinking must also apply to CAF and the deficiencies in its Civity delivery and maintenance.
And yet Hitachi and CAF trains are at the forefront of future fleet planning (eg the CAF 897s for LNER).

 

[Russel]

The other side of the coin is repeat orders for Hitachi.
DfT seems to have been falling over itself to route new orders to Hitachi to keep Newton Aycliffe open (even if it's for Open Access TOCs).
Hitachi also have the HS2 order in the bag (with Alstom jointly).
You'd think that if the IEP contract is failing to deliver, that would show up in negotiations for new trains, but apparently not.

The same thinking must also apply to CAF and the deficiencies in its Civity delivery and maintenance.
And yet Hitachi and CAF trains are at the forefront of future fleet planning (eg the CAF 897s for LNER).

Yes true, it's almost like the DFT have developed some kind of stockholm syndrome!

 

[bramling]

The other side of the coin is repeat orders for Hitachi.
DfT seems to have been falling over itself to route new orders to Hitachi to keep Newton Aycliffe open (even if it's for Open Access TOCs).
Hitachi also have the HS2 order in the bag (with Alstom jointly).
You'd think that if the IEP contract is failing to deliver, that would show up in negotiations for new trains, but apparently not.

The same thinking must also apply to CAF and the deficiencies in its Civity delivery and maintenance.
And yet Hitachi and CAF trains are at the forefront of future fleet planning (eg the CAF 897s for LNER).

There’s now something of an issue that the industry has backed itself into a corner. Who else can actually now supply long distance high speed trains that meet the UK specification? The Hitachi flag has kind of firmly been nailed to the DFT flagpole, simply by virtue of the sheer number of IETs. Notwithstanding the issues over the contract specification, one does wonder what these trains are going to be like in another 5-10 years. They certainly seem to be showing the signs of becoming problem children, and that’s a big issue when there’s so many of them.

 

[AndrewP]

Operators are not entitled to do any of these things. As I said previously:

They can't just rock up with micrometers and start measuring random things that aren't part of that scorecard, then unilaterally refuse payment.

I'd suggest reading the TARA yourself, as it answers some of the questions you have about how the contract is arranged: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ogramme-technical-specification-and-contracts

Here's extracts of the KPI scorecard from the GWR TARA.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2025 ==

And the first page... (9 file limit per post)

That actually looks a pretty decent performance measurement system to me and looks like the practical people have been involved although my experience is in other sectors.

When I write performance management systems, again in other sectors, I always include a ratchet mechanism so that repeated faults and failure to address faults is more harshly punished - not sure if that occurs here but there will be a huge raft of detail and contract terms behind all of this.

Generally speaking, in my experience, where there are problems with any performance management systems this is normally due to uninformed lawyers who do not get the subtleties or detail of what is being delivered or poor specifications which may have used a poor consultant (good consultants are worth their weight in gold but are few and far between - I admit bias here!)

 

[Snow1964]

Operators are not entitled to do any of these things. As I said previously:

They can't just rock up with micrometers and start measuring random things that aren't part of that scorecard, then unilaterally refuse payment.

I think we were talking at cross purposes, yes no one can just waltz in and start measuring things.

But are entitled to validate or audit the scorecard after collecting the train, and dispute if it is filled in wrongly, eg something marked as completed and good, but it is only ok.

Take this mornings 1K71 05:10 from Bristol, failed on safety systems before service, if that safety item was ticked as working, then could have opened a dispute (although if the legal team were on firing on all cylinders at 05:10 on a Friday morning is questionable). I don't know exactly what happened to this train, but on face of it appears to be classic example of not checked correctly, or not ready in usable condition.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Agility Trains West Ltd own the 57 class 800's procured under the IEP programme for GWR. The leasing income year ending 31/03/2024 was £219m up from 197m the previous year. Taking all years in aggregate that we have reported accounts for its 870m add in the 2025 and 9mnths of 26 financial year and we are talking over 1.2B. Of course Hitachi have to maintain the trains so that absorbs a fair chunk of the income but be under no illusion thats this is a typical city financial engineering and a fair amount gets absorbed by that as well. So Hitachi aren't short of cash to get this sorted and of course you can be sure they will have performance contract with Rolls Royce as well.

Still seems odd though how its the GWR fleet that is afflicted and not LNER or Hull Trains.

 

[3RDGEN]

I think we were talking at cross purposes, yes no one can just waltz in and start measuring things.

But are entitled to validate or audit the scorecard after collecting the train, and dispute if it is filled in wrongly, eg something marked as completed and good, but it is only ok.

Take this mornings 1K71 05:10 from Bristol, failed on safety systems before service, if that safety item was ticked as working, then could have opened a dispute (although if the legal team were on firing on all cylinders at 05:10 on a Friday morning is questionable). I don't know exactly what happened to this train, but on face of it appears to be classic example of not checked correctly, or not ready in usable condition.

Not sure 1K71 had come off Stoke Gifford Depot from RTT the unit arrives Bristol Temple Meads off 5K17 from Parkway have gone there as 5C37 from Temple Meads, Arrives Parkway 00:54 and departs 03:36 so doesn't appear to drop onto the depot although Hitachi may send staff to the station to do a walk through. On arrival at Paddington 1K17 appears to work 5K17 to North Pole so presumable gets serviced there on days, another set does the same but works Bristol TM - Parkway - Cheltenham, does anyone know if this is the case as RTT data appears to confirm it?

Re any electrical system it can be working fine on Depot the train goes half a mile into a station and then fails, its electronics for you.

 

[D1537]

Still seems odd though how its the GWR fleet that is afflicted and not LNER or Hull Trains.

And indeed TPE's 802s.

As regards the engines, my guess is that the GWR fleet spend a lot more time off the OHLE than the LNER fleet. LNERs 800/1s, for example, cover around 9,900 miles per day but only around 1,450 miles on diesel. The 800/2s spend even less time off the wires (effectively just Hull to Doncaster, Leeds to Harrogate, Newark to Lincoln, and Northallerton to Middlesbrough plus an ECS to/from Heaton).

 

[Bornin1980s]

Might the problem be that these things simply can never be made to work, no matter how hard anyone tries, at least as bi-modes?

 

[Russel]

And indeed TPE's 802s.

As regards the engines, my guess is that the GWR fleet spend a lot more time off the OHLE than the LNER fleet. LNERs 800/1s, for example, cover around 9,900 miles per day but only around 1,450 miles on diesel. The 800/2s spend even less time off the wires (effectively just Hull to Doncaster, Leeds to Harrogate, Newark to Lincoln, and Northallerton to Middlesbrough plus an ECS to/from Heaton).

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but there have never been any concrete proposals for wiring Devon and Cornwall has there?

In which case, it would suggest the diesel part of the IET's were spec'd wrong right from the start? No doubt to save a few ££ on the initial order, ignoring the long term costs of repairs and effect on service, as we're seeing now...

Or am I just being cynical?

 

[Benjwri]

In which case, it would suggest the diesel part of the IET's were spec'd wrong right from the start? No doubt to save a few ££ on the initial order, ignoring the long term costs of repairs and effect on service, as we're seeing now...

The 800s were originally specified as 801s, and would have run nearly entirely on the wires, it wasn't until the electrification was getting delayed they were changed, and even then it was still meant to happen eventually. It is theorised these are the units with the problems, and if so that makes sense as by this point in their lives they shouldn't have been even running on diesel regularly. You are correct the 802s see a more similar share of running on diesel as originally planned.

 

[FGW_DID]

Not sure 1K71 had come off Stoke Gifford Depot from RTT the unit arrives Bristol Temple Meads off 5K17 from Parkway have gone there as 5C37 from Temple Meads, Arrives Parkway 00:54 and departs 03:36 so doesn't appear to drop onto the depot although Hitachi may send staff to the station to do a walk through. On arrival at Paddington 1K17 appears to work 5K17 to North Pole so presumable gets serviced there on days, another set does the same but works Bristol TM - Parkway - Cheltenham, does anyone know if this is the case as RTT data appears to confirm it?

Re any electrical system it can be working fine on Depot the train goes half a mile into a station and then fails, its electronics for you.

Correct, units starts its day at Bristol Parkway having come off Laira the previous day. Having worked 1K17, the unit is booked to go to North Pole.

Re your second point, never mind the half mile into the station, we’ve had units that have been serviced and prepped yet throw up a fault before they even get off depot!

 

[3RDGEN]

Might the problem be that these things simply can never be made to work, no matter how hard anyone tries, at least as bi-modes?

The latest data for the Modern Railways Golden Spanners shows the 80x fleets in general as good for reliability, the FHT ones are over 50,000 miles a failure and the other fleets in the 20 - 30,000 miles a failure range. The GWR fleets are the worst performers but they do far more running on diesel than the other fleets, for comparison the 390's are around 10,000 miles a failure and no one complains about them.

 

[Richard123]

The other side of the coin is repeat orders for Hitachi.
DfT seems to have been falling over itself to route new orders to Hitachi to keep Newton Aycliffe open (even if it's for Open Access TOCs).
Hitachi also have the HS2 order in the bag (with Alstom jointly).
You'd think that if the IEP contract is failing to deliver, that would show up in negotiations for new trains, but apparently not.

The same thinking must also apply to CAF and the deficiencies in its Civity delivery and maintenance.
And yet Hitachi and CAF trains are at the forefront of future fleet planning (eg the CAF 897s for LNER).

Railways seem expert in picking lowest cost bids, disregarding previous contract overspends/overruns. It can seem being an honest bidder with regard to programme and capability as well as price is marked down. Witness NR national programmes a decade late and multiple of original cost as NR ignored longstanding suppliers and accepted wonder bids from new suppliers without UK rail experience, followed by constant variation orders or under delivery. Traffic management, signalling, national SCADA, etc to add to the repeat Hitachi orders et al.

It's not just DfT: past performance is no influence on future orders!