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

[whole diary]

[martyjon]

The HST^▸ (High Speed Train) was the best rolling stock ever produced in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). The replacement IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) is not a patch on it. Ah they were life expired say the experts so why are GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) keeping some shortened formations and modifying the Mk III coaches with sliding doors.

My solution would have been a new build lengthened bi-mode power cars with the Guards compartment area used as an electrical room with a pantograph on top for running under the wires. A new build coach shell using the original drawings with modifications to reflect todays standards into which could be fitted a number of varying choices, First Class, Standard Class, Half First and Half Standard, Half Buffet Half Standard Table Seating, etc. Sets could be assembled into fixed formations for the services they are used on, commuter, long distance, inter-urban.

The problem with the IET is that a defect on just one vehicle in the formation means that the set is out of use whereas a defective vehicle in a HST could be cut out and replaced or not at a depot.

In the uk we seem to have a fetish to want to have a wide choice so I can get a train from say Bristol to Cheltenham and travel on a class 150 2-car sprinter or a class 158 3-car sprinter or a 5-car voyager or a 3-car 166 turbo or a 2-car 158 sprinter or a 2-car 165 turbo or a 3-car class 150 sprinter or a ........

Say a new build train cost £10 million in design and sold 10,000 units then each unit would have to include £1,000 in design costs in its unit cost but with the proliferation of rolling stock in the UK a train design selling only a 100 units with the same design costs would have to include £100,000 in its unit price which would make it near unsaleable but to be competitive would mean a £90,000 loss on each vehicle sold and it would'nt be too long before that train builders belly would be seeing the full fury of the midday sun.

[JayMac]

These IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) (Class 80x) are terrible and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) train operators have steered well clear of them beyond the original government procurement for Greater Western and East Coast.

Oh, hang on, that's not right. By 2022 there will be five TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) using these trains. I'm pretty sure we'll see other orders too. All these companies must be mad to procure such terrible trains. Why are they not listening to the armchair experts and keyboard warriors? 

[IndustryInsider]

It’s all a part of the big downgrade conspiracy. 

[TaplowGreen]

These IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) (Class 80x) are terrible and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) train operators have steered well clear of them beyond the original government procurement for Greater Western and East Coast.

Oh, hang on, that's not right. By 2022 there will be five TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) using these trains. I'm pretty sure we'll see other orders too. All these companies must be mad to procure such terrible trains. Why are they not listening to the armchair experts and keyboard warriors? 

Shouldn't that be bus seat experts rather than armchair? 😉

[Celestial]

These IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) (Class 80x) are terrible and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) train operators have steered well clear of them beyond the original government procurement for Greater Western and East Coast.

Oh, hang on, that's not right. By 2022 there will be five TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) using these trains. I'm pretty sure we'll see other orders too. All these companies must be mad to procure such terrible trains. Why are they not listening to the armchair experts and keyboard warriors? 

Shouldn't that be bus seat experts rather than armchair? 😉

Either way, they are very hard.

[grahame]

These IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) (Class 80x) are terrible and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) train operators have steered well clear of them beyond the original government procurement for Greater Western and East Coast.

Oh, hang on, that's not right. By 2022 there will be five TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) using these trains. I'm pretty sure we'll see other orders too. All these companies must be mad to procure such terrible trains. Why are they not listening to the armchair experts and keyboard warriors? 

I strongly suggest I am answering a rhetorical question

1. Because the need to convey, seated, large numbers of people over a medium distance they travel frequently is key, and to do so at a price they will pay without complaint (or at least not vote the government out over). Those journeys made by people doing the same trip frequently, biased towards young and middle aged, and usually travelling at busy(est) times.

2. To meet modern safety and political correctness standards - anywhere from high back seating to avoid whiplash in an emergency stop through flame retardant seating material and power points that don't require the invasion of the privacy of the person opposite to plug in.  Similar issues with very limited / facing tables - many ladies really dislike sitting opposite strange men sharing legroom, and many have that worry based on personal (from wider life) experience of the activities of certain men.

3. Because the development costs for different train type are mindbogglingly high and can be spread across a bigger fleet - run on orders probably not as expensive as the originals.  And through the lifetime, same trains, one set of spares to stock, reduced need to set up / retain special jigs once production has finished but repairs of parts that don't normally fail are needed

4. Because the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) encourages their use, and the DfT is the franchise selector and paymaster.

5. Because (bi-mode) they are green(er) than pure diesel, and more flexible about where they can go than pure electric.

6. Because they can (?) (by design) run and be serviced with fewer staff, and can be turned around at the end of runs more quickly meaning you need fewer trains. And ( 6a ) those staff who are there optionally or for safety or manning agreement reasons can be as commercially productive as possible.

7. Because they will be liked – in time, perhaps - by the vast majority of people who use them; gains on inter-station time, on station dwell time, and so on end to end journey time. Dwell time is effected not only by external (door) design but also by internals getting people to and from the doors.

[broadgage]

These IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) (Class 80x) are terrible and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) train operators have steered well clear of them beyond the original government procurement for Greater Western and East Coast.

Oh, hang on, that's not right. By 2022 there will be five TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) using these trains. I'm pretty sure we'll see other orders too. All these companies must be mad to procure such terrible trains. Why are they not listening to the armchair experts and keyboard warriors? 

From a TOCs point of view I can see the merit of ordering IETs. Whilst reliability of the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) fleet has disappointed, presumably they will eventually work reliably, and new builds for another TOC might come complete with the latest software and with the reliability modifications.
A new design by contrast would likely come with its own set of problems and might be even worse than an IET.

I am not opposed to the principle of the IETs, there is a lot to be said for bi mode operation, and for equipping electric trains with limited diesel power for when the wires come down.
My main objections  to the GWR IETS are as follows.

Too unreliable; This should have been addressed by keeping some HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), not in the long term but for a few years until the IETS worked properly. Alternatively, the IET fleet should have been slightly larger, perhaps an extra 4 trains or about a 5% increase in the fleet would have compensated for reliability not meeting expectations.

Too short, partly related to the poor reliability. Could have been addressed by building more 9 car and fewer 5 car units.

No buffet. Other TOCs are allowing this facility.

Underfloor engines, less of a problem on other routes as these have more electric mileage.

Hard seats; I refuse to believe the mantra that padding is now illegal.

[johnneyw]

Although I do have some considerable agreement with the spirit of BG^▸ (Brake Gangway (carriage))'s critique of the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) generation, I have to say that, with use, those seats are softening up a bit. I'm still not sure if I would say the same thing if I did  London to Cornwall run though.

[rogerw]

I have recently done some fairly long trips including Swindon to Penzance, Bath to Penzance and Newquay to Westbury.  I do find that the seats have softened a bit - or perhaps I have gained more padding on my backside.  If only they could get the wifi and seat reservations systems working reliably.  On my journeys today the wifi only worked for about 10 mins in every hour and on the 1400 ex Penzance the seat reservations only appeared as we passed through Lostwithiel, triggering a bout of musical seats (without the music) as people had to move from reserved seats - including me

[JayMac]

So, whats needed is some music when the seat reservations fire up.

May I suggest:


Or perhaps:

[johnneyw]

So, whats needed is some music when the seat reservations fire up.

May I suggest:


Or perhaps:

One is amused! 

[rogerw]

Missed out there. I've got yakety sax as one of my ring tones on the phone

[martyjon]

19092019

Number of 9's instead of 10's out today which would seem to suggest there should be a number of 5's or 10's instead of 9's but no, 5's instead of 10's, yes, which seems to suggest maintenance spares 9's are pressed into service to cover more 5's in the defects queue than anticipated.

[broadgage]

About a dozen 5 car IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) instead of 9 car or 10 car now showing. Seems to be the new normal.

[1st fan]

These IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) (Class 80x) are terrible and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) train operators have steered well clear of them beyond the original government procurement for Greater Western and East Coast.

Oh, hang on, that's not right. By 2022 there will be five TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) using these trains. I'm pretty sure we'll see other orders too. All these companies must be mad to procure such terrible trains. Why are they not listening to the armchair experts and keyboard warriors? 

I strongly suggest I am answering a rhetorical question

1. Because the need to convey, seated, large numbers of people over a medium distance they travel frequently is key, and to do so at a price they will pay without complaint (or at least not vote the government out over). Those journeys made by people doing the same trip frequently, biased towards young and middle aged, and usually travelling at busy(est) times.

2. To meet modern safety and political correctness standards - anywhere from high back seating to avoid whiplash in an emergency stop through flame retardant seating material and power points that don't require the invasion of the privacy of the person opposite to plug in.  Similar issues with very limited / facing tables - many ladies really dislike sitting opposite strange men sharing legroom, and many have that worry based on personal (from wider life) experience of the activities of certain men.

3. Because the development costs for different train type are mindbogglingly high and can be spread across a bigger fleet - run on orders probably not as expensive as the originals.  And through the lifetime, same trains, one set of spares to stock, reduced need to set up / retain special jigs once production has finished but repairs of parts that don't normally fail are needed

4. Because the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) encourages their use, and the DfT is the franchise selector and paymaster.

5. Because (bi-mode) they are green(er) than pure diesel, and more flexible about where they can go than pure electric.

6. Because they can (?) (by design) run and be serviced with fewer staff, and can be turned around at the end of runs more quickly meaning you need fewer trains. And ( 6a ) those staff who are there optionally or for safety or manning agreement reasons can be as commercially productive as possible.

7. Because they will be liked – in time, perhaps - by the vast majority of people who use them; gains on inter-station time, on station dwell time, and so on end to end journey time. Dwell time is effected not only by external (door) design but also by internals getting people to and from the doors.

As I've said before I think the IET isn't a bad train and runs fast between A to B. My journeys have been very efficient and often arrived early which is nice. I don't care what is powering the damn thing so long as it's reliable and fast. They could be using unobtanium  or hydrogen  or  fairy dust or a combination of all three underfloor or not. So long as they run and run as fast as their predecessors then great.

The interiors and seats are another matter and a serious downgrade over trains that have gone before. The seats in 1st are for me hard and uncomfortable and are covered in a nasty rough fabric. It says something that the carpet on the floors is softer than the fabric on the seats. I think that the seats in 1st on a Turbo are more more comfortable than those on the IET. The door chimes are too loud and the lighting to bright. The powerpoints are in the wong place in 1st and impede exit from the window seats when being used. There's no hot food and the coffee options are a real downgrade I am not advocating adding a buffet though. The blinds don't reach the bottom of the window and are too translucent. Therefore they don't do much to prevent sunlight from being a pain

Like I say as a means of just getting from A to B they're not bad at all.  However I cannot believe that the people at the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) etc. thought the interiors were comparable/suitable as a replacement for the HST^▸ (High Speed Train). These trsins may get better but they should never have been this bad in the first place.