Hitachi trains grounded

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Again, it's down to Hitachi's failure to present the units for service in a fit state.  They routinely send out sets with more than one defective toilet (although the universal one has to be operational) and inadequate water supplies.  The contract between Hitachi and the DfT prevents GWR from topping them up during the day - only Hitachi are allowed to at the depot!

That is eye opening.

 

It makes me wonder why Hitachi (and GWR) put up with a situation like that, because a contract that restrictive can't be good for either of their brand images. I can't see that it would be any skin off Hitachi's nose if GWR were able to to up water tanks at stations,

 

It also makes me wonder why the TOCs put up with it? Why, given the fact that GWR at least appear to have virtually no control over things, would they not simply walk away, and leave the DfT to run it directly?

[woodenhead]

16 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

It makes me wonder why Hitachi (and GWR) put up with a situation like that, because a contract that restrictive can't be good for either of their brand images. I can't see that it would be any skin off Hitachi's nose if GWR were able to to up water tanks at stations,

 

It also makes me wonder why the TOCs put up with it? Why, given the fact that GWR at least appear to have virtually no control over things, would they not simply walk away, and leave the DfT to run it directly?

The contract with Hitachi will have a specification about turning out trains in a fit condition and the TOC returning them in such a condition at the end of the day.

 

If a TOC allowed one of it's staff to top up water then it means someone other than Hitachi has touched something that Hitachi are responsible for and it allows Hitachi off the hook if something goes wrong as they will simply penalise the TOC for having broken Hitachi's unit.

 

Clearly just like when TPE found a loophole to cancel trains the night before rather than on the day, Hitachi are able to turn out trains at the minimum viable standard for the TOC to take the flak on when it's barely usable.  It's not what was planned when the contract was written, but it's what you've got when the one party finds the loophole that saves some money.

[rodent279]

Maybe Hitachi should be the TOC then? Give them end to end responsibility.

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Maybe Hitachi should be the TOC then? Give them end to end responsibility.

There would be no guarantee about how long they'd have the franchise for, which is probably why rolling stock ownership and operator are separate.

[phil-b259]

44 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

That is eye opening.

 

It makes me wonder why Hitachi (and GWR) put up with a situation like that, because a contract that restrictive can't be good for either of their brand images. I can't see that it would be any skin off Hitachi's nose if GWR were able to to up water tanks at stations,

 

It also makes me wonder why the TOCs put up with it? Why, given the fact that GWR at least appear to have virtually no control over things, would they not simply walk away, and leave the DfT to run it directly?

Because they have no choice!

 

Please remember that ALL the contracts relating to the IETs were drawn up by civil servants in Whitehall and as with lots of Goverment contracts are full of more holes than a Swiss cheese….

 

Hitachi meanwhile has very good lawyers who are experts in finding and expoliting said holes to their advantage even if that is against the interests of passengers or the operator.

 

As for GWR - they simply inherited the contracts the DfT had already drawn up as a condition of the franchise and were powerless to do anything about them. Of course post COVID what with GWR merely reduced to a management contract charged with doing what the DfT say their is even less ability to try and challenge Hitachi.

 

Even if First group (the people behind GWR) walked away it would change sod all for uses as the new operator would still have to deal with the effects of Government incompetence….. 

 

Oh and those contracts with Hitachi - thanks to the Goverment trying (and failing) to get ‘value for the taxpayer’ they have a duration of 25 years!

[phil-b259]

18 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Maybe Hitachi should be the TOC then? Give them end to end responsibility.

You cannot ‘give’ / force anyone to be a train operator!

 

If Hitachi wanted to become one then they would need to apply to take over the GWR managent contract when the agreement with first group expires. Unsurprisingly such a move would be regarded as not good for Hitachis shareholders so it won’t happen….

[Gwiwer]

Hitachi seems to have found a way to address capacity issues. 
 

Tonight’s 17.03 Paddington - Penzance is booked for 802102+802013. 14 carriages 😮

 

Clearly that won’t happen but the thought occurred to me that someone somewhere has been following this topic. 
 

[Mallard60022]

Having read the rest of this, it's absolutely chronic for you all.

What's your thoughts on LNER being with the OOLR and the seemingly better all round service...and by this I mean state of vehicles and appropriate numbers of seats etc.? I don't know if the Contract is different to the awful one you are describing.

Does anyone know who's responsible for what with LNER?

Not sure where Hull Trains Units go for service either? Is it somewhere in the North East? 

Thanks.

Phil

[phil-b259]

46 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

Having read the rest of this, it's absolutely chronic for you all.

What's your thoughts on LNER being with the OOLR and the seemingly better all round service...and by this I mean state of vehicles and appropriate numbers of seats etc.? I don't know if the Contract is different to the awful one you are describing.

Does anyone know who's responsible for what with LNER?

Not sure where Hull Trains Units go for service either? Is it somewhere in the North East? 

Thanks.

Phil

For starters the Government learn’t its lesion after the botched GWR IET contracts with Hitachi and as a result left it up to the rail operator to hammer out the finer details of the contracts. As a result LNER was able to make changes to the on board fit out and also to the servicing arrangements which GWR could not do due to those 25 year Government organised contracts they handed to them as done deals.

 

Its also true the operators being run under the ‘Operator Of Last Resort’ seem to be given far more leeway in terms of running their own affairs than other operators run by private sector companies as DfT issued management contracts.

 

Why this should be the case is not clear but I suspect it’s because there is an extra ‘insulating layer’ between the DfT and the likes of LNER which isn’t present for the likes of GWR.

 

A bit like what you used to get with the British Rail Board who acted as a firebreak between civil servants / ministers and day to day train operations in fact….

 

DfT - DOR* - LNER

DfT - GWR 

 

* Directly Opperated Railways - the Goverment owned vehicle under which LNER, South Eastern and Northern are grouped.

Edited February 8 by phil-b259

[GMKAT7]

Good afternoon folks,

 

To amplify St Enodoc's comments about structural integrity, this can relate to the vehicle bodyshell, bogies or wheelsets.

 

When the Heathrow Express 332 units were refurbished in 2012 the weight of the STD vehicle (yes, really) was significantly more than expected and originally designed for.

 

The design consultancy had some involved work on identifying the correct maximum number of passengers and that mass impact on the axle integrity, especially for that particular vehicle.

It took some hard sums to get to a position of 'comfort ' with what was signed off by the VAB.

 

Cheers, Nigel.

[Mallard60022]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

For starters the Government learn’t its lesion after the botched GWR IET contracts with Hitachi and as a result left it up to the rail operator to hammer out the finer details of the contracts. As a result LNER was able to make changes to the on board fit out and also to the servicing arrangements which GWR could not do due to those 25 year Government organised contracts they handed to them as done deals.

 

Its also true the operators being run under the ‘Operator Of Last Resort’ seem to be given far more leeway in terms of running their own affairs than other operators run by private sector companies as DfT issued management contracts.

 

Why this should be the case is not clear but I suspect it’s because there is an extra ‘insulating layer’ between the DfT and the likes of LNER which isn’t present for the likes of GWR.

 

A bit like what you used to get with the British Rail Board who acted as a firebreak between civil servants / ministers and day to day train operations in fact….

 

DfT - DOR* - LNER

DfT - GWR 

 

* Directly Opperated Railways - the Goverment owned vehicle under which LNER, South Eastern and Northern are grouped.

I had not twigged that GWR had IEPs before LNER.

Been looking into service delays and there doesn't seem to be total chaos overall with delays, from what I've gleaned, with WOE services usually getting to Paddington in reasonable times if getting caught up in congestion east of Reading .

Thanks for that phil b.

I also watched loads of Cam at the Royal Albert Bridge (new cam) and Dawlish last year (plenty of Steam action) and there were not a lot of issues, except for the Strike days when Cornwall had little or no GWR services due to Staffing issues.

The Summer services, including Cardiffs to Newquay for example, were always running to reasonable time.

So I'm concluding that GWR are actually doing 'their best' and can run good services down west (except when Dawlish is howling). 

Hitachi are seemingly just taking the pi$$.

Phil

 

P

[ColinK]

Reading about all the in service faults on the GWR IET’s it makes me wonder if Hitatchi are finding it more expensive to maintain them when they agreed the contract?  Perhaps to the point that Hitatchi make little or no profit, or even a loss. 
 

Perhaps it is also why LNER have ordered CAF units to replace the 91s, rather that IETs which would be the logical choice in order to keep a common fleet.

[Siberian Snooper]

When I go to visit the girlfriend, who lives just outside Reading, or go to gigs in London, I catch the 09.15, they tend to run to time, until arrival at Exeter. From a usual 2 or 3 minutes late departure, it tends to lose time, between 5 and 10 minutes down by Taunton departure, I now expect to be at least 15 minutes down on arrival at Reading.

 

I usually catch the "14.29" back, I regard anything less than 10 minutes late as an ontime departure, if the 14.37 to Newbury leaves before us, we will lose time until it arrives in there and then continue to lose time all the way to Plymouth. I assume that the late departure from Pad, is that the crew have arrived late and need to have their required break, or the stock arrived late in Pad.

The 80*'s don't have the get up and go of the HST's, to recover time and with big brother watching, there's no opportunity for the driver to give it a bit of extra, here and there.

 

 

 

[rodent279]

3 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

So I'm concluding that GWR are actually doing 'their best' and can run good services down west (except when Dawlish is howling). 

Hitachi are seemingly just taking the pi$$.

Oh I think the staff on the frontline do their utmost to keep the job going, with professionalism and (usually) with a smile, which is no mean feat when you are up against it in front of the fare paying D@!|¥ M@!| reading public. I think probably the senior leadership also get it, and are probably just as frustrated as the rest of us at how little room to manoeuvre they have.

At I said earlier, the clever bit is that its the DfT and ministers who put us where we are, but they are not getting the blame.

[Gwiwer]

I am watching the progress of 1C92 tonight.  Normally it would be 1C90 an hour earlier but Dr. SWMBO was obliged to travel later tonight.  

 

The progress is depressingly familiar.  Steadily losing time.  This is a 9-car set which I am told is moderately loaded.  Dr. SWMBO would have no idea whether any engines were out.  

 

[Mike_Walker]

14 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

The 80*'s don't have the get up and go of the HST's, to recover time and with big brother watching, there's no opportunity for the driver to give it a bit of extra, here and there.

The general view is that on diesel, assuming all engines are working correctly, an IET will just about match the acceleration and performance of an HST up to about 60mph on level track.  Above that the HST romps away.  Cut out some engines and add some hills and you can forget time keeping.

 

But as mentioned up thread, they were specified by someone who thought the basic laws of physics don't apply (and is no longer on the planet to see what he left us with) and a manufacturer who would prefer to hide behind expensive lawyers and quote the most obscure parts of the contract rather than provide what they are being paid an arm and a leg to provide.

[Mike_Walker]

13 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

I am watching the progress of 1C92 tonight.  Normally it would be 1C90 an hour earlier but Dr. SWMBO was obliged to travel later tonight.  

 

The progress is depressingly familiar.  Steadily losing time.  This is a 9-car set which I am told is moderately loaded.  Dr. SWMBO would have no idea whether any engines were out.  

 

 

Dr SWMBO was indeed lucky.  The Up line was closed at South Brent at 21:20 last night and the Down at 21:50 due to flooding.  Seems the river rose very quickly raising concerns for the bridge once again.

[Mallard60022]

13 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Oh I think the staff on the frontline do their utmost to keep the job going, with professionalism and (usually) with a smile, which is no mean feat when you are up against it in front of the fare paying D@!|¥ M@!| reading public. I think probably the senior leadership also get it, and are probably just as frustrated as the rest of us at how little room to manoeuvre they have.

At I said earlier, the clever bit is that its the DfT and ministers who put us where we are, but they are not getting the blame.

Succinctly put; despite not being involved I can not but agree. I feel for you and your Colleagues.

There may be different attitudes coming along however I can't see any alterations to the DFT's ability to spend and think straight!

It's of no solace I am sure but my local Station Staff have seen 4 changes of operator in 20 years I think it is? Maybe even 5?

Pity Newton Abbot to Plymouth isn't  Electrified. I know that sounds odd, but it would maybe solve the Devon banks issues, however if these can't deal with Whitball then that's pathetic?

Phil

[rodent279]

So to sum up, GWR is in this sticky situation because Hitachi had cleverer lawyers then the DfT, and they were able to run rings around them, not solely because Hitachi's product is no good, or GWR are inept.

[Siberian Snooper]

Mr Duck,

 

Not only Whiteball, but Somerton, the one between Castle Cary and Frome (I can't remember the name of it) and Savernake.

 

[rodent279]

52 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Mr Duck,

 

Not only Whiteball, but Somerton, the one between Castle Cary and Frome (I can't remember the name of it) and Savernake.

 

Brewham?

[Gwiwer]

I am watching 1C76 which forms 1A90 later on that Dr. SWMBO requires.  

 

The slow-down at Newbury as it switched to diesel is typical and a dreadful indictment of these units' performance.  And, by extension, of Hitachi's performance.  

 

[Steadfast]

4 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

The slow-down at Newbury as it switched to diesel is typical and a dreadful indictment of these units' performance.  And, by extension, of Hitachi's performance.  

The time loss at Newbury in Up direction currently is because everything is being routed through the platform instead of using the centre road, dropping to 40 mph as a result.

 

Jo

[Mallard60022]

On 09/02/2024 at 14:00, Siberian Snooper said:

Mr Duck,

 

Not only Whiteball, but Somerton, the one between Castle Cary and Frome (I can't remember the name of it) and Savernake.

 

Grief. I didn't even know there were 'inclines' there. In good old Steam days  I never noticed any sort of profound struggling. Maybe I was asleep? I can understand things struggling west of Newton Abbot as most stuff has always had that problem, unless lightly loaded and the appropriate physics was positive.

'Even' A4s did well when they appeared and they were 'Cruisers'. However they were quite special Engines, as proved on their Swansong workings in Scotland.

Foreign Toy Trains of this type aren't much kop then.

P

[Gwiwer]

5 hours ago, Steadfast said:

The time loss at Newbury in Up direction currently is because everything is being routed through the platform instead of using the centre road, dropping to 40 mph as a result.

 

Jo

Indeed. But my point was that this was a down train swapping to diesel. Even if it had lost time being looped through the station it failed to regain that time and lost a little more.