nat67
Established Member
They should have keeper hold of the 365's for a bit longer I reckon.
To counter balance the shortage of stock movements and scrapping's.
To counter balance the shortage of stock movements and scrapping's.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion
- Thread starter Clansman
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Agreed. I think the 365s, whilst not perfect, di a very useful job and should have been kept on until the entire fleet of 385s was delivered and accepted into service before handing them back. It's not like they have anywhere to go...
Sounds to me like a bean counter decision.
If they still need to use diesels then there's not enough 385s in service yet to cover the diagrams. Retaining the 365s until there were would have been cheap insurance.
Stoney1979
Member
There's no point going on about that - this thread has been suspended at least twice and had numerous mod. interventions because of folks going off on rants about this and that, all in hindsight.
Fact is, it's happening (or not, as the case may be). Dreadfully managed project - yes of course. But that's not the fault of the HSTs as trains.
I'm more interested in how the ones that are here are performing, and where/when any improvements come.
Retaining them would have a negative impact on performance.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,302
Only because ScotRail couldn't be arsed to maintain them properly. Presumably that is as opposed to the negative impact on performance of not having enough crews trained on 385s now the 365s have gone.
Highlandspring
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,777
Do you have any actual evidence that the fitters at Shields “couldn’t be arsed to maintain them properly” as you so disparagingly put it? Presumably they were working to the appropriate VMIs. I know that obtaining spare parts was proving very, very difficult for example. Perhaps you know different...?
chuff chuff
Member
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 461
Or possibly could be perhaps not everyone who works these routes are electric trained yet.
Or possibly because the units need to work to Perth as part of their diagrams.
Killingworth
Established Member
Is this a good sign; http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P86014/2019/03/23/advanced
At least XC are getting something.
At least XC are getting something.
jingsmonty
Member
Definetly agree with that - desparate shortage of DMUs just now, we see this regularly up in Inverness, with short formed trains
47271
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 2,983
Okay thanks, that's useful to know, not so much for myself but for when I'm surrounded by bewildered passengers clutching non existant reservations.
I'm sure Inverness cleaning will be consistent between train types, but there's definitely something going wrong with HST cleaning and preparation in Edinburgh. Based on my experience, it seems that sets are going to Haymarket depot untouched, I don't imagine that it's the depot's job to do litter picking, and then coming back with no time for the work to be done at Waverley either. Maybe I've just been unlucky, but in general it's very unusual for a train to leave Edinburgh full of litter and carrying dead reservations.
As one of many suffering the consequences of the early removal of the 365 on grounds of alleged issues of maintaining them albeit they did to me provide reliable service unlike the position now with cancelled services . I am perfectly happy to accept the views here it was the right decision for Scotrail. It may be more debatable if that was in the passenger interest which I hope we all accept is paramount. But what is not acceptable is the manner of the implementation. Scotrail just don't explain actions. Warn customers. Inform them of the anticipated and duration of impact. They just cancel trains. End off! To those using our railway for the first time as a few of my fellow passengers are in these past weeks they are incredulous that you have trains but no drivers. By any standards of management competence anywhere in the world it's a failure. Certainly a failure of communication which Abellio accept they were poor at. Vowed to not repeat the mistakes of the past , then promptly do it again. Scotrail stand out as a body without any capacity to learn any capacity to change attitude or approach to transition. They are either chronically accident prone or cynical about the contract with the public and TS.
As with HST. The same applies. There is no candour in their dealings just same old story. To not fix the easy stuff they can fix like train cleaning shows that cynicism. Now as predicted I travel on a new 3 week old dirty train! Why?
I'm told there are train inspections under Squire. It ain't working!
So rather than us rail users and or enthusiasts on here attack each other on the details or technical reasons of x y and z. We should be challenging our politicians to do better. To demand better, to be better .
The rail industry has many fine people working for it. But it can't go on telling us it's got high levels so customer satisfaction when the reality is not
Northhighland
Member
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 606
This post is pretty much spot on. The catalogue of failure documented shows that the passenger is not at the centre of decision making in any way at all.
No business can flourish if it continually ignores the needs of it’s customers.
I had experience before Christmas of an Inverness Edinburgh train terminating at Perth due to staff shortages. Just abandoned in Perth station with little assistance.
The whole culture is wrong. Passengers interests must be better represented. We pay sweetly for this service it should be run to provide the service needed.
I feel passenger reps should be at the decision making table. This would sharpen the process and focus on the need to provide a decent reliable service and communicate honestly and effectively with the public.
Ecactly. The railway is currently lost in itself. Something needs to change
Highland37
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 1,259
Agree with the above but am unsure what politicians can do.
There is a cultural issue very manifesting itself in the extreme reticence to call out Wabtec and their total failure to deliver. There are even people feeling sorry for a machine.....
These trains should be in service. Two have been delivered and only one has ever seen a passenger. There is a culture of trying to avoid the reality of multiple areas of failure and spending time on avoidance strategies instead of addressing the issues.
1247 for me today to Aberdeen. HSTs No chance!
There is a cultural issue very manifesting itself in the extreme reticence to call out Wabtec and their total failure to deliver. There are even people feeling sorry for a machine.....
These trains should be in service. Two have been delivered and only one has ever seen a passenger. There is a culture of trying to avoid the reality of multiple areas of failure and spending time on avoidance strategies instead of addressing the issues.
1247 for me today to Aberdeen. HSTs No chance!
chuff chuff
Member
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 461
Second refurb made it into service today,so that's two out today.
twpsaesneg
Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 418
I'm genuinely interested in the answer to this - @Highland37 is the latest of many to mention "call out Wabtec" (or words to that effect). Whilst they have failed to deliver to the originally published timescales (bearing in mind that "we" as the public have no sight of any assumptions that were made when agreeing dates and any change which may have been outwith Wabtec's control) I'm unsure what people think "calling them out" will do?
Will the Chief Engineer of Wabtec's apology help the trains come quicker? Will it spur the lads on the shop floor to work faster? Will it make Abellio or ScotGov suddenly pump huge amounts more money into the programme and magic up some engineering resource to speed things up?
I'm no apologist for Wabtec and I agree that looking from the outside the contract has been poorly executed. But I work in a field of Rail Engineering where original deadlines for work have been missed because the client instructed contractors to make certain assumptions regarding their asset condition. When after contract award they find the assumptions are incorrect it pushes the programme and cost up, due to more design and construction works being required than were originally programmed in or budgeted for. If the client has told you to as a contractor to assume something and it's not as they've said, how can you be blamed for it!
It's an awful situation and it doesn't seem to be getting better, but blaming people will do no good. I can guarantee that no-one is sitting there feeling great about the contract, and the amount of anger directed towards them isn't going to help them do a better or faster job.
Will the Chief Engineer of Wabtec's apology help the trains come quicker? Will it spur the lads on the shop floor to work faster? Will it make Abellio or ScotGov suddenly pump huge amounts more money into the programme and magic up some engineering resource to speed things up?
I'm no apologist for Wabtec and I agree that looking from the outside the contract has been poorly executed. But I work in a field of Rail Engineering where original deadlines for work have been missed because the client instructed contractors to make certain assumptions regarding their asset condition. When after contract award they find the assumptions are incorrect it pushes the programme and cost up, due to more design and construction works being required than were originally programmed in or budgeted for. If the client has told you to as a contractor to assume something and it's not as they've said, how can you be blamed for it!
It's an awful situation and it doesn't seem to be getting better, but blaming people will do no good. I can guarantee that no-one is sitting there feeling great about the contract, and the amount of anger directed towards them isn't going to help them do a better or faster job.
Highland37
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 1,259
My point is that recognising the issue is part of the remedy. Whilst Scotrail's management of this has been abysmal, like they are in many other areas, it is not their fault that the trains have not been delivered. It also not the fault of the Scottish Government or Transport Scotland.
A contractor is responsible for what they have agreed to deliver. If they are instructed to deliver something, it is up to them to decide whether they can or cannot deliver it. If they agree to do something after giving advice that they are uncertain, that in no way relieves them of their obligations. It's a contract. So in short, the contractor is under no obligation to deliver anything other than what they have agreed to.
We know that set three is still at Doncaster and that corrosion etc is not stopping it leaving. Something else is.
I'd also say that I don't think Wabtec are able to deliver this. At best, they might be able to bang some sets out sporadically.
So blame isn't helpful but recognising the issues is. Scotrail have been awful but this is not their fault and when the passengers are faced with an inferior service, moving to the road (they are!) and the reputation of the railway is getting worse (it is!), then it is fair, but tough to blame that on the company that has in in the main, been responsible for it.
twpsaesneg
Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 418
I see your point but I disagree with what you are saying about the contract. If the contract has been signed with declared assumptions the risk is then passed onto the client. If the assumptions are incorrect the contractor is totally within their rights to challenge for more time and money or even to walk away entirely in extreme circumstances. Say you were getting your house re-rendered. The builder states an assumption in his price that the brickwork is sound under the existing render, but then when it is taken off it is found to be in poor condition requiring repointing / bricks replacing before the new render can be applied. Would you expect the builder to honour his original time and cost? Unless he has stated that he takes that risk, it would fall onto you as client to put up the extra funds and accept the additional time.
I believe that Wabtec have also underestimated the resources required and there may be elements of poor workmanship too, but I suspect strongly that the corrosion issue is a very touchy subject that the legal teams of all the affected parties are beating out. So it's also likely that all parties are being told to keep well and truly quiet to avoid any legal implications.
Recognising the issues is fine, but I can't see any public announcements of who's to blame coming until any legal issues around the contract are resolved!
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a dig at you in any way, but I just see many other people on this board who seem to want some kind of public ritual humiliation of the entire Wabtec workforce as a way of fixing the issues
For me, I'd just like to see the trains delivered to a good standard to all of the operators.
158820
Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 242
Everything we say on this topic is speculation because we don't no the ins and outs of the contract between Wabtec, the leasing company and Abellio Scotrail.
The points made about assumptions of asset condition are very interesting but also worrying. How could people involved in rolling stock planning/maintaining/ overhaul not know that a HST coach nearly approx 40 years might be in a bad condition and need lots metal work done to it prior to interior and prm/tsi refurbishment.
Perhaps it is something similar to the issues Abellio Great Anglia had we with their bid teams not getting assumptions correct either.
The points made about assumptions of asset condition are very interesting but also worrying. How could people involved in rolling stock planning/maintaining/ overhaul not know that a HST coach nearly approx 40 years might be in a bad condition and need lots metal work done to it prior to interior and prm/tsi refurbishment.
Perhaps it is something similar to the issues Abellio Great Anglia had we with their bid teams not getting assumptions correct either.
Without wishing to misrepresent any post and not wishing to drive off topic (this being a HST thread), but since 365's got thrown into the thread, and picking up this comment which I appreciate is really talking about HST/365's.... I feel I have to give my experience in writing to Scotrail who have, coincidently or not, given me what I asked for... i.e. they are increasing the Croy/Edinburgh service to every 30 mins 7 days a week including evenings from May. Plus they have thrown in an extra stopping service at Croy (to Edinburgh) on a Sunday morning which was a specific request I made to them a few months back. This now means I can leave the car at home on those Sunday's and still meet my commitments. So I do think they listen.
I'm not defending their failures elsewhere, just saying they are clearly listening and I am one of many passengers who will benefit from the changes noted above.
twpsaesneg
Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 418
I'm not for one minute saying they didn't by the way - as you say, we don't KNOW.
However in my side of engineering it is a completely normal thing to state an assumption that the asset you are altering is in good condition. Old doesn't necessarily mean poor condition if it has been correctly maintained, and unless the client is willing to pay for you to do a condition survey then why would you not accept their assurances that the asset is in good condition? There has to be a starting point from which to estimate a piece of work, and the asset owner should know the condition of their asset!
From a supplier point of view, if I assume that the whole coach will need to be rebuilt and price / programme accordingly then I'm not going to get the contract - plus you will sometimes find that the client will want everyone to price with the same assumptions to get a better comparison of costs, so I could be told to assume that the asset is good like everyone else has.
It's not necessarily the cut-and-dried incompetence on the part of Engineers that a lot of people seem to think it is.
jingsmonty
Member
I wouldn't disagree with this at all, but it needs to be noted that the front line staff aren't to blame, but they take the flak for it. I don't blame passengers for being frustrated in the slightest. I'm still right behind the HST introduction, but when a 158 turns up as a replacement (on a peak train), this is just as frustrating for the staff as it is for the passengers!
Surely a train that occasionally breaks down still performs better than no train at all?
nat67
Established Member
Look at they other week when something broke down between Dundee and Aberdeen it messed up stuff for hours. It will make other Trains capped what ever happens.
As a reminder: A big part of the problem is that Hitachi opened their new IEP depot in Doncaster because of plenty of local rail experience, the result was that lots of Wabtec staff left and went to Hitachi. (Other rail engineering locations in Yorkshire also lost staff to the IEP depot so not just Wabtec).
Wabtec have been struggling to recruit replacement staff...
Wabtec only started loosing staff after winning the contract.
- Status