IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent performance issues

[whole diary]

[Tim]

3 days of passenger operation is far to short a time to describe minor faults as 'an utter farce'.

absolutely agree.  But hardly the "Japanese way" either. 

[johnneyw]

What an utter farce already.....they've only had.....oh....several years & loads of testing to get it right?

I'm not old enough to remember the introduction of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) in 1976 but have read about it extensively. Their introduction came 4 years after the first prototype ran. Despite that 4 years of testing they were plagued with teething troubles. Soon sorted.

The issues with the Class 800s will be fixed in short order.

It's also worth remembering the APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train). Another train that had some issues on introduction to passenger service. Issues that would have been fixed were it not for an anti-rail Tory government who swallowed the press hyperbole hook, line and sinker. Thank God this time the government can't pull the plug.

3 days of passenger operation is far to short a time to describe minor faults as 'an utter farce'.

True but I did sort of enjoy seeing highly/over paid government, TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) & supplier top brass rocking up for a bit of public self congratulation but ending up in a bit of a cringe fest. Just me?

[chrisr_75]

3 days of passenger operation is far to short a time to describe minor faults as 'an utter farce'.

I think what is concerning is that the fact they have had the best part of a year to test these trains and basic stuff like coupling/uncoupling, door operation and so on really ought to have been ironed out by now. The whole idea of test running and mileage building is to sort these things out. Most of the components will almost certainly have been used in other trains, so I'm afraid the excuse of 'we weren't expecting that' doesn't really wash.

Most out of character of a Japanese company! But maybe that's the FGW^▸ (First Great Western)* effect...!

As I mentioned previously, I think FGW*/Hitachi dropped a ball by introducing these trains into passenger service at peak time and with such an attempt at fanfare - an unannounced introduction on quieter diagrams would probably have worked better with the provision of a fanfare invite only service to launch it properly for the politicians and media types, if they really must have that.

* deliberate use of FGW, GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) isn't really a fitting name - Brunel is probably giggling in his grave at the on-going ineptitude!

[DidcotPunter]

I'm not old enough to remember the introduction of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) in 1976 but have read about it extensively. Their introduction came 4 years after the first prototype ran. Despite that 4 years of testing they were plagued with teething troubles. Soon sorted.

The issues with the Class 800s will be fixed in short order.

It's also worth remembering the APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train). Another train that had some issues on introduction to passenger service. Issues that would have been fixed were it not for an anti-rail Tory government who swallowed the press hyperbole hook, line and sinker. Thank God this time the government can't pull the plug.

3 days of passenger operation is far to short a time to describe minor faults as 'an utter farce'.

I am and remember the introduction of the HST well. Recall waiting at Bristol Parkway one hot day for a delayed HST which rolled in with water pouring out from the louvres of the front power car with the engine shut down. Subsequent run on one engine only got us to Padd but with even more delay. Then there was the fault some time later with the power cars fitted with GEC (I think?) traction motors which caused some of the fleet to be withdrawn. What is now a reliable workhorse did indeed have a chequered start.

So I'm not surprised that there were teething problems with the 800s. Agree that with the Japanese reputation on the line these will soon be sorted out.

I took my first two rides on the 800 on Tuesday from Didcot to Padd and back later to Reading. First impressions were that it was an excellent train and a worthy successor to the HST. Looking forward to more being rolled out.

[TaplowGreen]

3 days of passenger operation is far to short a time to describe minor faults as 'an utter farce'.

I think what is concerning is that the fact they have had the best part of a year to test these trains and basic stuff like coupling/uncoupling, door operation and so on really ought to have been ironed out by now. The whole idea of test running and mileage building is to sort these things out. Most of the components will almost certainly have been used in other trains, so I'm afraid the excuse of 'we weren't expecting that' doesn't really wash.

Exactly - these are basic, easily tested functions............as are aircon systems which in most environments are tested thoroughly enough to prevent those seated underneath them receiving impromptu showers.........other examples of railway failures 40+ years ago aren't really relevant and don't serve to mitigate these at all, other than to illustrate the way in which in public or private ownership the railways always seem to manage to make a spectacular mess of these things, in the full incandescent glow of publicity.

[IndustryInsider]

I'm not old enough to remember the introduction of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) in 1976 but have read about it extensively. Their introduction came 4 years after the first prototype ran. Despite that 4 years of testing they were plagued with teething troubles. Soon sorted.

The issues with the Class 800s will be fixed in short order.

It's also worth remembering the APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train). Another train that had some issues on introduction to passenger service. Issues that would have been fixed were it not for an anti-rail Tory government who swallowed the press hyperbole hook, line and sinker. Thank God this time the government can't pull the plug.

3 days of passenger operation is far to short a time to describe minor faults as 'an utter farce'.

Well said BNM.  We should also remember that the first press run from Reading to Paddington and the naming run by the Queen from Slough to Paddington, went without a hitch.  Had the aircon leak not occurred there would have been no cause to describe it as a farce and a PR^▸ (Public Relations) fiasco, but it did occur so I'm not surprised some have taken that easy route.  However, had the Queen had an impromptu shower then that really would have been a disaster worth the press going crazy over!

I too remember issues with introducing new trains in our area far more recently than 40+ years - Turbo doors were a nightmare to start with, and the less said about the 180s the better!  The 387s have settled in quickly, but that's no surprise given they are simply a version of an existing train type and we shouldn't forget how complex these new IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) are with bi-mode operation at high speed.

What I find far more interesting than a leaky roof is the fact that after some quite hefty dwell times at the start of the week the IET does indeed seem able to cope with the existing HST schedules.  That is the important thing in the long run.  One look at the 15:29 SWA^» (Swansea - next trains)-PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) yesterday, sees arrival times at Neath and Port Talbot of half a minute early, and Bridgend and Cardiff one and a half minutes early, and despite leaving Swindon a minute late it arrived at Reading half a minute early.  Given the operation of the train is only going to improve when staff and passengers become more familiar with them (and it isn't leaf fall season), I am pleased to see those timings being recorded so soon.

[didcotdean]

It would also these days be much harder if not impossible to hide an attempt at a low-key yet public operation of a new train as movement information etc is freely available.

Another example of what proved in the end to be a good train but suffered numerous early niggles is the 442. At least for its initial purpose.

[TaplowGreen]

Some succeed, the rest make excuses ☺

[1st fan]

With anything there are normally teething troubles even if you've done extensive testing and trials. The companies obviously wanted to start the new era with a bang and a bit of pomp and circumstance. That with 20:20 hindsight was a mistake but you can't predict the future easily. A soft launch would have been better with a press, dignitaries etc. run later in the day.

Yes I'll admit to finding it funny that there were problems given the Japanese reputation for reliability and the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) desire to show off. However I'm sure:
They'll bed in over time,
More electricity will be used as quickly as they can hang it/certify it,
The seats will get softer with use,
The complimentary offering in 1st is improved,
Etc.

So long as journey times stay the same with more seats available then you've filled the main government requirement for these trains.

[Sixty3Closure]

I think i'd be more understanding if the rest of the service wasn't so poor.

[chrisr_75]

It would also these days be much harder if not impossible to hide an attempt at a low-key yet public operation of a new train as movement information etc is freely available.

Indeed, but had they not bothered with loading up with press and making a fanfare of it on what is probably one of the busier long distance services, it probably would've slipped completely under the radar. 22:45 PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-SWA^» (Swansea - next trains) might've been a sensible candidate, or perhaps some of the daytime offpeak services. They really were asking for it to go wrong by launching in the manner that they chose.

[didcotdean]

Not clear of course how much it was really GWRs^▸ (Great Western Railway) decision to make. But the early morning start had strange whiffs of the APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train) launch.

[John R]

Had the aircon leak not occurred there would have been no cause to describe it as a farce and a PR^▸ (Public Relations) fiasco, but it did occur so I'm not surprised some have taken that easy route. 

I'm sure the press would still have made considerable comment as to the near half hour delay in departure at outset and the further delay around Maidenhead resulting in a 41 minute late arrival.  The in built shower facility was purely the icing on the cake in terms of a visual aspect to the problems, and one which therefore got all the publicity.

Remember that on its very first outing the first train arrived at Temple Meads nearly an hour late, and presumably left a lot of dignitaries and press cooling their heels on the platform at 5.30 in the morning instead of getting on board early and being schmoozed by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and Hitachi. Do you blame the press for focussing on the negatives?

[SandTEngineer]

With anything there are normally teething troubles even if you've done extensive testing and trials. The companies obviously wanted to start the new era with a bang and a bit of pomp and circumstance. That with 20:20 hindsight was a mistake but you can't predict the future easily. A soft launch would have been better with a press, dignitaries etc. run later in the day.

Yes I'll admit to finding it funny that there were problems given the Japanese reputation for reliability and the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) desire to show off. However I'm sure:
They'll bed in over time,
More electricity will be used as quickly as they can hang it/certify it,
The seats will get softer with use,
The complimentary offering in 1st is improved,
Etc.

So long as journey times stay the same with more seats available then you've filled the main government requirement for these trains.

Its called the 'Bathtub Effect'.  New things will fail frequently in the first few weeks/months, then go on for years with minor problems and then begin to fail again more frequently (but less frequently than when new) towards the end of useful life....

However, I am puzzled why no testing was done with full passenger loads before actual public service started.  I'm sure that would of sorted out the snagging issues out of the glare of full publicity.  I raised this issue on another forum frequented by some of the engineers closely involved in the fleet introduction process.  The response was that only an 'emergency evacuation test' had been carried out with a full train (in a depot) and nothing else 

[grahame]

Its called the 'Bathtub Effect'. 

I seem to recall illustrating that ... http://www.wellho.net/pix/bathtubeffect.jpg