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

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm just starting to get the impression that broadgage isn't 100% keen on IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train)?

I don't know why I'm thinking that way, maybe just a hunch? 🙂

It's a point of view that I have some sympathy with.  But simply repeating it every time there is some mention of a failing with IETs is rather monotonous. I'm getting bored with it after only 3 months on here.

There does indeed get to be a stage at which a view becomes diluted through repetition.

I know I have had that reputation for repeatedly posting about the poor train service at Melksham.  Yesterday I had volunteer duty at Chippenham Station ... 12:00 to 14:00 ... which would have meant catching the 10:02 in the morning from Melksham to Chippenham, and getting back there at 15:45.  Oops - I've done it again!

[IndustryInsider]

Still lots of training going on, probably about 75% of the full number of drivers who will eventually sign them done now.  Availability remains poor, but oh so much better than not so long ago.

Presumably lack of drivers can't be the problem of short formations though, so most of them will be down to Hitachi?

As fast as I know they still have to provide two units per day at Stoke Gifford for ‘static’ training - each course has three days of that within it for training and tests.  Modifications are also being made all the time as the long list of niggly faults is slowly worked through.  I agree though, whilst improving, the reliability and availability is still nowhere near where it will eventually settle down at.

[broadgage]

Would IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) supporters care to suggest a date by which short formations will be virtually eliminated ?

I accept of course that a very few short formations might be unavoidable, but by "virtually eliminated" I mean no more than 0.5% of services being short formed, or one train in 200.

[JayMac]

Would IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) supporters care to suggest a date by which short formations will be virtually eliminated?

Would supporters of any MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) rolling stock type care to pick a date when short formations are eliminated?

MU formations are here to stay. They offer operational flexibility and running cost savings. And most importantly, if one unit in an MU does throw a wobbly, the particular service can still run. Inconvient for some intending passengers but better than inconvenient for all. You can't say the same when a fixed formation (eg the sainted HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) or loco hauled train sits down.

[Fourbee]

Will 5 car IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) be coupled/uncoupled from each other in service?

Just wondering where the nose cone gets put. They look a bit odd coupled up IMO^▸ (in my opinion).

[JayMac]

The nose cone doors of IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) retract into the body.

[SandTEngineer]

Will 5 car IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) be coupled/uncoupled from each other in service?

Just wondering where the nose cone gets put. They look a bit odd coupled up IMO^▸ (in my opinion).

Yes.  Its already happening daily at Plymouth.  Dual 5-car sets Paddington to Plymouth, 5-car set uncoupled and forward to Penzance.

[didcotdean]

MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) formations are here to stay. They offer operational flexibility and running cost savings. And most importantly, if one unit in an MU does throw a wobbly, the particular service can still run. Inconvient for some intending passengers but better than inconvenient for all. You can't say the same when a fixed formation (eg the sainted HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) or loco hauled train sits down.

The previous usual 'solution' to this kind of issue at least for problems arising at the London end was for an Oxford or Cotswold Line service or diagram to be turbostuted to release an HST. Thus those on the main line remained blissfully unware of any issue to their original HST, at the cost of others ending up with a much shorter train.

One thing that does seem to occur at present more often than you might expect are trains being withdrawn completely or terminating short because of a lack of sufficient fuel on board.

[SandTEngineer]

One thing that does seem to occur at present more often than you might expect are trains being withdrawn completely or terminating short because of a lack of sufficient fuel on board.

Yes, there is an interesting discussion on the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) forum regarding this.  When trains are shutdown at a terminus they enter what is called 'TURNAROUND MODE'.  This shutsdown all engines except two.  In idle the engines consume about 15L per hour per engine, and it has been found that when units are stabled overnight that there is insufficient fuel left for the train to complete its next scheduled trip(s), especially those that stable at remote locations overnight.  Apparently HITACHI will not allow the units to be completely shutdown and be connected to a shore supply!

[eightonedee]

so what started as an electric train ends up with two of its diesel engines (albeit to the latest low emission standards) merrily running all night emitting fumes etc into the atmosphere! Whatever happened to the low carbon railway?

[Western Pathfinder]

15 Ltrs, an hour strikes me as a very high rate of consumption for a modern engine with a electronic management system ,especially when left to run at an idle speed also very high emissions if this is the case ?
And whilst I am in no way wishing to dispute your understanding S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) I would be interested to have a link to details if at all possible thanks .

[broadgage]

Why does turn around mode require that TWO engines be run ?
The nominally electric units have a single engine which is said to suffice for "hotel power" when the wires come down. So surely a single running engine should be able to supply a stabled train.

And as for running short of fuel due to this requirement, should not this have been foreseen and allowed for ?

[Rob on the hill]

Would IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) supporters care to suggest a date by which short formations will be virtually eliminated?

Would supporters of any MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) rolling stock type care to pick a date when short formations are eliminated?

MU formations are here to stay. They offer operational flexibility and running cost savings. And most importantly, if one unit in an MU does throw a wobbly, the particular service can still run. Inconvient for some intending passengers but better than inconvenient for all. You can't say the same when a fixed formation (eg the sainted HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) or loco hauled train sits down.

Are IET 5 & 9 car formations fixed? My understanding is that they are, therefore a fault in one vehicle could mean the whole train is out of use. Whereas with a HST a faulty coach or power car can be swapped for a serviceable one.

[SandTEngineer]

15 Ltrs, an hour strikes me as a very high rate of consumption for a modern engine with a electronic management system ,especially when left to run at an idle speed also very high emissions if this is the case ?

And whilst I am in no way wishing to dispute your understanding S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) I would be interested to have a link to details if at all possible thanks.

WP, You have to have a login to view the WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes) Forum so no good putting a link here.  The 15L per hour figure came from a poster in GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) who is involved closely in the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) introduction/maintenance so I fully trust his calculations.  Apparently the 15L figure equates to approximately 50 miles travel in service mode.

My understanding is that when the engine is running in the TURNAROUND MODE that its supplying the 'hotel power' to the whole unit keeping the lighting/heating/air con etc. working, so under considerable load and probably not just running at idle speed.

Now where is STUVING when you need him?  He's very good at searching these things out!

[TaplowGreen]

Would IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) supporters care to suggest a date by which short formations will be virtually eliminated?

Would supporters of any MU^▸ (Multiple Unit) rolling stock type care to pick a date when short formations are eliminated?

MU formations are here to stay. They offer operational flexibility and running cost savings. And most importantly, if one unit in an MU does throw a wobbly, the particular service can still run. Inconvient for some intending passengers but better than inconvenient for all. You can't say the same when a fixed formation (eg the sainted HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) or loco hauled train sits down.

I think the difference being was that assurances were given that IET stock would be so plentiful that there would be no need for short formations on longer distance routes to and from London?