Class 800 upgrades to address performance and reliability issues

[Jurassicjewel]

If they don't get these issues sorted the December timetable changeover will be a total shambles

 

[samuelmorris]

Reported elsewhere that they are 10 sets short today and any units with diesel only restriction must stop by 11am for fear of overheating later.

You can’t make this stuff up. An over priced, poorly spec’d train that doesn’t work. So much for (s)Hitachi’s Japanese levels of reliability.

Wow that's disgusting. The set shortage seems a perpetual issue but admitting that diesel-only units can't run once it reaches 30°C is bad. The top temperature is 32°C as far as I can see, which is a value that it seems to reach at least once every year, at least in the Southeast.
What happens to the units when they're in diesel-only areas? The risk of overheating is presumably the same, if not worse. If this is a big enough issue to warrant withdrawing diesel-only sets then I can see the number of duds (excluding those withdrawn as a precaution) much higher than 10 by the end of the day, higher still by the end of tomorrow.

 

[Clarence Yard]

There is enough evidence of design issues here to cause severe concern. December timetable change is fraught enough, especially as NR are now unwilling to put the super fast Bristols in at the timetable change date (performance reasons), the infrastructure to Cardiff isn't going to be ready, some of the proposed point to point SRT's for 800/802 stock seem to be out, the timetable is still being finalized (the FG HQ Bid Team planners have had to be drafted in) and now the stock is misbehaving, badly.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if NR pull the plug before too long and say, "You are on HST timings until everything is sorted out. Deal with it". Apart from it being a bit late for that, this is probably something that the DfT would try and stop as they have spent a huge amount of (our) money and want to see a quick return for it. So do the politicians.

On the stock itself, sometimes a diesel only fault will result in a GU having to be isolated (such as in a traction changeover issue). In this heat, operating at 700kw with at least one GU out seems to be a dodgy move. You don't get load shedding with these units as engine temperatures rise, the engine will just cut out at a set temperature and won't restart until the engine temperature returns to a much lower level.

Once one engine goes, it can become a domino effect and I, for one, would prefer Drivers to be concentrating on the road ahead, rather than worrying about the engine temperatures on the TMS. ASLEF might have something to say about this if the problems with this stock continue.

 

[Railengineer]

Good ol' FG.....makes yer proud

(taking SWR down the toilet daily as well!)

 

[Roast Veg]

First Group are not to blame for these issues, the blame lies partly with Hitachi and quite solidly with the DfT for cancelling electrification.

 

[samuelmorris]

First Group are not to blame for these issues, the blame lies partly with Hitachi and quite solidly with the DfT for cancelling electrification.

Agree, I fail to see how First are at fault here.

 

[Railengineer]

FG not managing their contractor. Hiding behind contracts instead of running a railway. Farm it all out and blame others...the FG way.

 

[ainsworth74]

FG not managing their contractor.

It's not their contractor though is it? It's the DfTs. They're just stuck trying to manage a contract on behalf of the DfT!!

 

[Dave1987]

Anyone remember the soundbites from MPs and others saying how utterly reliable these were going to be? Anyone remember particular people saying that we don't need electrification as the bi-modes will solve everything?

 

[samuelmorris]

Anyone remember the soundbites from MPs and others saying how utterly reliable these were going to be? Anyone remember particular people saying that we don't need electrification as the bi-modes will solve everything?

The first one was at least plausible. The second never was.

 

[Railengineer]

Anyone remember the DFT saying FG were the best people to give the franchise to?

 

[samuelmorris]

Anyone remember the DFT saying FG were the best people to give the franchise to?

This doesn't have anything to do with the issues with the 800s though. I agree with your comment about SWR but that's irrelevant here. This situation is likely to have developed regardless of who got the franchise, thanks to the DfT's involvement.

 

[43096]

It's not their contractor though is it? It's the DfTs. They're just stuck trying to manage a contract on behalf of the DfT!!

It is GWR and WorstGroup’s reputation though.

And it is GWR’s contract - they pay the bills - just it was negotiated by DfT.

 

[ainsworth74]

It is GWR and WorstGroup’s reputation though.

And it is GWR’s contract - they pay the bills - just it was negotiated by DfT.

Indeed and the DfT must be loving it. They get none of the blame for their failings outside of circles like this and also have none of the financial risk!

 

[Railengineer]

GWR (FG) negotiated the contract with Hitachi to maintain the trains NOT the DFT. Same as they negotiated contract with the train owners for the lease. Hence...not managing their contractor properly
Buy cheep get cheep

 

[Railengineer]

It is GWR and WorstGroup’s reputation though.

Just thought..do WorstGroup actually have a reputation any more?

 

[irish_rail]

Time to electrify Newbury to at least Exeter, plus swansea and thingley to bristol. No excuses. Find the money from somewhere , it's the 21st century for crying out loud.

 

[43096]

Just thought..do WorstGroup actually have a reputation any more?

That thought did cross my mind after I posted it!

I suppose, like quality, reputation can be good, indifferent, bad, appalling etc.

 

[Railengineer]

Thats the solution!!! Electrify throughout, change the Franchisee and save the planet!
Sorted
no more smelly unreliable diesels

 

[samuelmorris]

Thats the solution!!! Electrify throughout, change the Franchisee and save the planet!
Sorted
no more smelly unreliable diesels

Would electric only 800s (i.e. the 801s originally ordered) be as unreliable as the electric mode on the 800s?

 

[Railengineer]

good question

 

[Clarence Yard]

Given recent events, I think LNER might have some views on that particular question!

The contractual matrix is complicated. On the IEP sets the MARA contract is between the DfT and Agility. The TARA is between the Operator and Agility but is negotiated via the DfT and is about compliance, obligations and what happens when things go wrong. As it is a train supply (diagram supply) agreement there isn't effectively much that a TOC does "manage".

The 802 contract mirrors that train supply arrangement but through a leasing structure with a far less bureaucratic approach to the compliance, obligations and what happens when things go wrong, but it is the same kind of deal because only that kind of deal was on offer.

In both cases the levers available to the TOC to "manage" the situation when things go wrong are very limited - you just have to deal with the effects, which at the moment are not great.

 

[Jurassicjewel]

Given that we are to expect higher summer temperatures in future it looks that the IEP's will struggle if nothing is done to sort out the issues now let alone what happens with the timetable change. Surely there is a case now to extend the wires to Exeter from Newbury and Chippenham/ Bristol/Filton/ Cardiff to Swansea and at least, Didcot to Oxford. I am no traction expert but an electric only IEP would on the face of it, be more reliable. We are in a situation where the trains have been required to operate in diesel mode beyond original plans and I am more than concerned now the promised service improvements with these units may not materialise.

 

[43096]

Given recent events, I think LNER might have some views on that particular question!

The contractual matrix is complicated. On the IEP sets the MARA contract is between the DfT and Agility. The TARA is between the Operator and Agility but is negotiated via the DfT and is about compliance, obligations and what happens when things go wrong. As it is a train supply (diagram supply) agreement there isn't effectively much that a TOC does "manage".

The 802 contract mirrors that train supply arrangement but through a leasing structure with a far less bureaucratic approach to the compliance, obligations and what happens when things go wrong, but it is the same kind of deal because only that kind of deal was on offer.

In both cases the levers available to the TOC to "manage" the situation when things go wrong are very limited - you just have to deal with the effects, which at the moment are not great.

Given where things are and granted it would be contractually risky, at what point does someone turn round to Hitachi and say “I don’t care what’s in the contract, we’re withholding payment until you sort this out”?

 

[JN114]

Given where things are and granted it would be contractually risky, at what point does someone turn round to Hitachi and say “I don’t care what’s in the contract, we’re withholding payment until you sort this out”?

Once one side is intentionally in breach of contract; the other will quickly follow. If money starts being withheld on one side; I suspect very quickly the trains won’t be sent out at all.

 

[samuelmorris]

Once one side is intentionally in breach of contract; the other will quickly follow. If money starts being withheld on one side; I suspect very quickly the trains won’t be sent out at all.

Didn't I hear somewhere they only have to send out a train for 50% of diagrams to get paid? Or was it that they still got paid half even if they sent no trains out at all?

As for LNER, how have they performed by comparison?

 

[Clarence Yard]

JN114 - you are absolutely correct. Withholding of "SAP" payments to Agility is not an option. That way you get no trains.

In any event that would be a Franchise Breach and the DfT would step in very quickly. You would get instructed to pay or you would immediately lose the franchise.

You have to stick to what it says about non-provision in the relevant contract, which essentially (and I am not going to get into detail here) is all about rebates.

 

[father_jack]

Snipped.....

You have to stick to what it says about non-provision in the relevant contract, which essentially (and I am not going to get into detail here) is all about rebates.

Which does nothing for the staff on board, the juggling controllers or the unfortunate travelling public on a 5 vice 9/10 today. 39 degrees tomorrow............

 

[coppercapped]

FG not managing their contractor. Hiding behind contracts instead of running a railway. Farm it all out and blame others...the FG way.

It seems that you are entirely unaware of the way the Hitachi trains have been specified and ordered or you would not make such statements.

For a start try reading the National Audits Office's 2014 report which demonstrates that the Train Operating Companies were only marginally involved.

Then reconsider your post.

 

[coppercapped]

GWR (FG) negotiated the contract with Hitachi to maintain the trains NOT the DFT. Same as they negotiated contract with the train owners for the lease. Hence...not managing their contractor properly
Buy cheep get cheep

If you are referring to the trains issued to the TOCs under the IEP contract, you are wrong. That is solely and entirely the DfT's doing.