Should the GWR IET fleet be refurbished?

[crablab]

Not looking to rehash debates about whether people do or don't like the seats on GWR IETs.

The first of these trains are now a decade old, and some have been in service for 8.5 years.

That's not a long time but I think it's fairly uncontroversial that parts of them haven't worn well at all. It's not uncommon to find guard panels secured with hazard tape, bits of trim missing and, of course, the seats.

I think it's universally acknowledged on here that the seats are now starting to substantially deteriorate with collapsed bases and fabric wearing thin. I write this sat on the 'steel bar' - very uncomfortable.

With 'wear and tear' developing visibly so soon into the life of the fleet (it's hardly 'mid-life') are we just going to have to live with it?

Treasury/DfT are hardly going to cough up money here, and I'm not sure what provisions the Agility contract has for refurbishments.

Any informed posters?

 

[Anonymous10]

Not looking to rehash debates about whether people do or don't like the seats on GWR IETs.

The first of these trains are now a decade old, and some have been in service for 8.5 years.

That's not a long time but I think it's fairly uncontroversial that parts of them haven't worn well at all. It's not uncommon to find guard panels secured with hazard tape, bits of trim missing and, of course, the seats.

I think it's universally acknowledged on here that the seats are now starting to substantially deteriorate with collapsed bases and fabric wearing thin. I write this sat on the 'steel bar' - very uncomfortable.

With 'wear and tear' developing visibly so soon into the life of the fleet (it's hardly 'mid-life') are we just going to have to live with it?

Treasury/DfT are hardly going to cough up money here, and I'm not sure what provisions the Agility contract has for refurbishments.

Any informed posters?

Could they replace the seats with ones like on tfw, or at least seat base would help alot with comfort.

 

[Nym]

I don’t get why people see replacement of failed seats as refurbishment, it should surely be routine maintenance

 

[WarrenTManager]

The seating issues you mention would fail a SQE/SQR audit and would have to be rectified in the timescales agreed with the DfT under the NRC that the operator has set up.

 

[43096]

I don’t get why people see replacement of failed seats as refurbishment, it should surely be routine maintenance

Because everything has to be up-sold so the PR people can use impressive-sounding words.

See also "external refurbishment" = repaint

 

[43096]

The seating issues you mention would fail a SQE/SQR audit and would have to be rectified in the timescales agreed with the DfT under the NRC that the operator has set up.

Which gets messy with the 800/801 fleets as they are DfT procured, under DfT contracts.

 

[crablab]

I don’t get why people see replacement of failed seats as refurbishment, it should surely be routine maintenance

I'm not concerned with what it is branded as, the problem is "it", whether maintenance or refurbishment, isn't being done. It's not just the seats on these trains.

If calling it "refurbishment" and putting out a press release gets the work done, so be it.

 

[irish_rail]

I fear the new Government will prioritise the north, and that any substantial non HS2 spending will always head north. I just don't see enough of an outcry about the state of the GWR fleet, passengers have just become accepting of, and resigned to disappointment. It's a terrible shame there isn't more of a vocal outpouring about the horrific state of the seating on the GWR IET fleet.

 

[azOOOOOma]

Even if they just put a bit of memory foam padding on the seat base. The seats are just terribly but it’s my derrière that’s crying for more padding after an hour!

Laura x

 

[stuu]

There surely must be a provision in the contract for a refresh or whatever at some point in the contract. Although it's pretty shocking they didn't seem have a clause that the seats had to be kept in a decent condition for the life of the maintenance contract, so who knows

 

[Snow1964]

There surely must be a provision in the contract for a refresh or whatever at some point in the contract. Although it's pretty shocking they didn't seem have a clause that the seats had to be kept in a decent condition for the life of the maintenance contract, so who knows

I too wonder if the clause doesn't exist, or it is poorly enforced by GWR.

I didn't work for the railways, but in International oil shipping, and it was quite normal to send in inspectors at ports to do random quality checks (to ensure companies didn't think they could get away with 99.5% of the job). Anyone trying it on (thinking nearly right, not 100% will be acceptable) got threatened with legal action, and it would be progressed if not sorted within hours. Everyone knew the standards, otherwise if someone got away with it would probably do it again, next time slip bit more, and obviously over many weeks would be more stuff not perfect or gaffer taped.

GWR need to do same, inspectors and lawyers at depot exit with clipboards ticking things to agreed clauses, not letting the maintainer get away with didn't do it all excuses. But they don't seem to be as rigorous at clamping down as in the industry I worked in. I realise they might need to deliver their trains for maintenance on time and not damaged, because clauses work both ways, but I suspect the average GWR legal Dept employee does not go to depot exit line at 5am very regularly to check clauses are met and train is at agreed standard.

Unless anyone confirms otherwise, I suspect the clauses have equal weight (legally) on what has to done, not saying something like if safety critical do it, otherwise if you get around to it. I can't believe a contract allows a broken seat to go unrepaired, but not a broken brake. No point in having contract clause if you fail to enforce it fully.

 

[Clarence Yard]

There is no refurbishment clause in the GWR (or LNER) TARA.

The whole Handover and KPI regime relies on self-certification from Hitachi. In normal circumstances GWR can self audit 10% of the diagrammed fleet for KPI failures on any one day (it can rise to 20% in certain circumstances) but their powers of rejection are deliberately limited.

The powers that you wish an operator to have over Hitachi do not exist. The DfT has seen to that in its negotiation with Agility.

 

[stuu]

There is no refurbishment clause in the GWR (or LNER) TARA.

The whole Handover and KPI regime relies on self-certification from Hitachi. In normal circumstances GWR can self audit 10% of the diagrammed fleet for KPI failures on any one day (it can rise to 20% in certain circumstances) but their powers of rejection are deliberately limited.

The powers that you wish an operator to have over Hitachi do not exist. The DfT has seen to that in its negotiation with Agility.

Wow. Were the lawyers off that day?

 

[Snow1964]

There is no refurbishment clause in the GWR (or LNER) TARA.

The whole Handover and KPI regime relies on self-certification from Hitachi. In normal circumstances GWR can self audit 10% of the diagrammed fleet for KPI failures on any one day (it can rise to 20% in certain circumstances) but their powers of rejection are deliberately limited.

The powers that you wish an operator to have over Hitachi do not exist. The DfT has seen to that in its negotiation with Agility.

Thank you for clarity, I guess all they can do is watch like a hawk to see if Hitachi slip below 100% on (the 10-20% they can check), and get heavy on enforcement if they do.

 

[HSTEd]

Does the government even have much leverage over Hitachi?
Unless they are flagrantly abusing their position then Hitachi likely can't lose their contract, and they have a factory at Newton Aycliffe that they can threaten to close if the government try to push them.

The headlines from discussions on closing the factory are more damaging to the government than the status quo.

 

[crablab]

There is no refurbishment clause in the GWR (or LNER) TARA.

This is a 25 year agreement isn't it? So what was envisioned with regard to refurbishment?
That Hitachi would decide when the cost of patching up exceeded the capital cost of a refurbishment? Or GWR/LNER would negotiate a separate agreement/amendment?

Presumably the benefit of this structure has been seen in things like the cracking repairs. Hitachi are shouldering the direct costs of this entirely, and since they have a contract to deliver an agreed number of units, indirectly if the repairs impinge on fleet availability.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Hitachi are supposed to supply the vehicles to a certain standard through the life of the agreement so anything needed to refurbish interiors or equipment to maintain that standard is up to Hitachi.

In the case of any mods, the DfT will do the serious negotiation on any amendment to the contract.

 

[43096]

Hitachi are supposed to supply the vehicles to a certain standard through the life of the agreement so anything needed to refurbish interiors or equipment to maintain that standard is up to Hitachi.

Given what we know I'd bet that the "certain standard" is not well defined in the contract.

It is time this contract was properly enforced, although I won't hold my breath - it is evident from the current Modern Railways that IET ride quality has never met the contract specification and nothing has been done to enforce that contractually.

 

[Pat31]

I fear the new Government will prioritise the north, and that any substantial non HS2 spending will always head north. I just don't see enough of an outcry about the state of the GWR fleet, passengers have just become accepting of, and resigned to disappointment. It's a terrible shame there isn't more of a vocal outpouring about the horrific state of the seating on the GWR IET fleet.

There’s a huge outcry about the entire gwr fleet? The intercity regional and local is just not up it. It’s one of the oldest and worst fleets in the entire country.

Not looking to rehash debates about whether people do or don't like the seats on GWR IETs.

The first of these trains are now a decade old, and some have been in service for 8.5 years.

That's not a long time but I think it's fairly uncontroversial that parts of them haven't worn well at all. It's not uncommon to find guard panels secured with hazard tape, bits of trim missing and, of course, the seats.

I think it's universally acknowledged on here that the seats are now starting to substantially deteriorate with collapsed bases and fabric wearing thin. I write this sat on the 'steel bar' - very uncomfortable.

With 'wear and tear' developing visibly so soon into the life of the fleet (it's hardly 'mid-life') are we just going to have to live with it?

Treasury/DfT are hardly going to cough up money here, and I'm not sure what provisions the Agility contract has for refurbishments.

Any informed posters?

I suspect there will be some sort sort of midlife refurb circa 2030-2035.

 

[Helvellyn]

All I will say is that it's surprising how many people whose job it is to manage a supplier have never read the contract(s)!

 

[Clarence Yard]

Given what we know I'd bet that the "certain standard" is not well defined in the contract.

It is time this contract was properly enforced, although I won't hold my breath - it is evident from the current Modern Railways that IET ride quality has never met the contract specification and nothing has been done to enforce that contractually.

Because Hitachi do not believe their units are at fault. They believe the track is not maintained to the specification they were given. And they could well be right so that is why the DfT are not pushing the issue.

 

[Snow1964]

Because Hitachi do not believe their units are at fault. They believe the track is not maintained to the specification they were given. And they could well be right so that is why the DfT are not pushing the issue.

Unless I am missing something, either the track is at spec, or isn't, and if it is latter, why would DfT put the mythical spec in a contract, or not kick Network Rail if they have signed up to it but aren't bothering to achieve it.

The alternative makes less sense, DfT expects Network Rail to maintain tracks to a lower standard than DfT has agreed with Hitachi, which sounds like a complete balls up by DfT staff and their legal advisors whilst checking the contracts prior to signing.

 

[Belfastmarty]

They believe the track is not maintained to the specification they were given.

Genuine question - how do you define, contractually, how the track condition should be ? I'm struggling to think of any meaningful metric.

 

[HSTEd]

Unless I am missing something, either the track is at spec, or isn't, and if it is latter, why would DfT put the mythical spec in a contract, or not kick Network Rail if they have signed up to it but aren't bothering to achieve it.

The alternative makes less sense, DfT expects Network Rail to maintain tracks to a lower standard than DfT has agreed with Hitachi, which sounds like a complete balls up by DfT staff and their legal advisors whilst checking the contracts prior to signing.

If Network rail needs more money to maintain the track to the spec required, the DfT could quite easily have decided it is not worth it.

 

[crablab]

They believe the track is not maintained to the specification they were given.

Is that in relation to the bolster cracking too?

 

[stuu]

Genuine question - how do you define, contractually, how the track condition should be ? I'm struggling to think of any meaningful metric.

Presumably something using an accelerometer - maximum lateral and vertical deviations or something - a measure of the smoothness of the track. I might be totally wrong there though, I'm just guessing

 

[Clarence Yard]

Is that in relation to the bolster cracking too?

I understand Hitachi has not admitted full liability for the cracks but that has gone very quiet so nobody really knows what the true position is.

 

[3RDGEN]

Genuine question - how do you define, contractually, how the track condition should be ? I'm struggling to think of any meaningful metric.

In the Roger Ford article he quotes the relevant part as section 3.15 of Tech Spec "iep-tech-rep-35 issue 05" which is available here; "https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ogramme-technical-specification-and-contracts".

3.15 Ride. The ride comfort of the IEP Vehicles shall be assessed in accordance with DD ENV 12299:1999 ‘Railway Applications – Ride Comfort for Passengers – Measurement and Evaluation’. For each measuring location (which may be at any point along the saloon) within the saloon, the arithmetic mean of all Ride Indices (as defined in DD ENV 12299:1999 ‘Railway Applications – Ride Comfort for Passengers – Measurement and Evaluation’) taken at that point when operating at maximum line speed in both the Tare Condition and the Fully D Seated Condition must be:
• Less than 1.6 when measured on the East Coast Main Line over track with characteristics equivalent to those defined by the East Coast Main Line Track Data

East Coast Main Line Track Data is detailed in Annex 5, page 80, of the above document, not sure if the data files are publicly available or commercially sensitive but they contain the track geometry data. This is the manufacturers way out as the chances of the track actually being to that data on the dates of the testing is likely to be limited. However this is nothing to do with refurbishment of the units.