IETs

[whole diary]

[GWR 158]

How long are IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) expected to last on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)? I would have thought around 35-40 years like the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)?

[grahame]

How long are IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) expected to last on GWR? I would have thought around 35-40 years like the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)?

Taken a look at the technical specifications which is at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/mirror/tts-redacted.pdf (mirrored from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf) but whilst it refers to whole life, about the one definition I can't find is how long that is.   It does talk about a flexibility to reconfigure and redeploy, so they could have a shorter life on GWR (if indeed GWR is around as long as they are!) and move on elsewhere.

[Jamsdad]

Hopefully the awful seats will wear out first and allow a refit with something better suited to providing a comfortable a journey from Paddington to Penzance

[grahame]

From Hitachi - http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2014/r2014_10_105.pdf

Hitachi was formally awarded a rolling stock manufacturing and maintenance contract for the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) project in July 2012 through Agility Trains Ltd. Including additional orders, the contract covers the manufacture of a total of 866 cars and the provision of maintenance services for a period of 27.5 years. With a total value of 5.8 billion pounds, the IEP is the largest project in the history of British railways, and is intended to replace the aging rolling stock on the UK’s East Coast Main Line and Great Western Main Line, which run between London and other major cities in the UK. The Class 800/801 rolling stock for the IEP was developed based on the A-train concepts of lightweight aluminum carbodies and self-supporting interior modules by taking technologies developed in Japan to provide lighter weight and higher speed and applying them to UK railway systems. It will contribute to the provision of high-quality and reliable railway services, with commercial operation scheduled to commence in 2017, following operation trials in the UK that will start in 2015.

[Lee]

So we are not eligible for parole until the early 2040's...

[Clan Line]

So we are not eligible for parole until the early 2040's...

Don't bank on that - the existing contract is for 27.5 years, after that they can take them to the "back street garage" for maintenance .................. don't forget the Pacers were designed to have a lifespan of "no more than 20 years".

[Lee]

So we are not eligible for parole until the early 2040's...

Don't bank on that - the existing contract is for 27.5 years, after that they can take them to the "back street garage" for maintenance .................. don't forget the Pacers were designed to have a lifespan of "no more than 20 years".

Yes, but imagine if broadgage had been in charge of the relaunch:

[grahame]

So we are not eligible for parole until the early 2040's...

Don't bank on that - the existing contract is for 27.5 years, after that they can take them to the "back street garage" for maintenance .................. don't forget the Pacers were designed to have a lifespan of "no more than 20 years".

But ... who will own them in 2045?  Have trains become so complex that it will be impractical for them to be maintained in working order by anyone except the original builder, even allowing contract terms and final ownership after the 27 year lease period - is it expiring lease, or lease purchase?   Will spares be available or even manufacturable?    Noting issues with IT systems that started even 20 or 30 years ago of - systems built into new warships using technology that was moving so far that it was out of date even by the time the ships entered service, and the need to hold / have a spares route for "whole life".

[Electric train]

So we are not eligible for parole until the early 2040's...

Don't bank on that - the existing contract is for 27.5 years, after that they can take them to the "back street garage" for maintenance .................. don't forget the Pacers were designed to have a lifespan of "no more than 20 years".

But ... who will own them in 2045?  Have trains become so complex that it will be impractical for them to be maintained in working order by anyone except the original builder, even allowing contract terms and final ownership after the 27 year lease period - is it expiring lease, or lease purchase?   Will spares be available or even manufacturable?    Noting issues with IT systems that started even 20 or 30 years ago of - systems built into new warships using technology that was moving so far that it was out of date even by the time the ships entered service, and the need to hold / have a spares route for "whole life".

Systems are replaceable, the engines, traction packs etc are on pallets, control systems etch can be replaced with up grades.

Bit like Triggers Broom

[stuving]

So we are not eligible for parole until the early 2040's...

Don't bank on that - the existing contract is for 27.5 years, after that they can take them to the "back street garage" for maintenance .................. don't forget the Pacers were designed to have a lifespan of "no more than 20 years".

But ... who will own them in 2045?  Have trains become so complex that it will be impractical for them to be maintained in working order by anyone except the original builder, even allowing contract terms and final ownership after the 27 year lease period - is it expiring lease, or lease purchase?   Will spares be available or even manufacturable?    Noting issues with IT systems that started even 20 or 30 years ago of - systems built into new warships using technology that was moving so far that it was out of date even by the time the ships entered service, and the need to hold / have a spares route for "whole life".

Certainly I can foresee more cases of equipment and systems still within the reasonable lifetime of the hardware that can't be used because of software issues. I've avoided calling that "obsolete" since the term has been largely displaced by "obsolescent/ce" and given a different meaning. But for systems with a large non-software component, where the cost may not have been fully amortised yet, we may see more downgrades - replacing the software by something simpler. The main reason would, I suspect, be more about reducing the cost of maintaining the documentation (and having to keep reading it!) so as to maintain the code. And test it.

I'm trying the think of examples, and I'm sure there have been several. The only one I can think of now is Edmonton LRT, which is a bit different in that the new signalling was scrapped during commissioning. There was also a large contribution from politics - of all kinds: company and city, inter- and intra- - and poor interpersonal skills all round. But the upshot has been fitting a new fixed-block system in place of the CBTC^▸ (Communications-based train control) one that was either fully up and running or not (depending on who's talking).

Of course you would not need to be an outrageous cynic to say that we already have systems in operation in which the software never reaches the status of "100% correct", or even a steady state of "good enough".

[broadgage]

I expect that some IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) will be running beyond the 27.5 year contract.
The limiting factor will probably be spare parts and software. Mechanical components are fairly easy to rebuild or to manufacture new stocks, alternatively new and different components that do the job could be used.
Microchips are more problematic, as is complex software, and for safety critical functions use of alternatives might not be allowed.

Use on secondary routes would depend on clearances. I doubt that major work to clear a route for for a 30 year old IET would be considered. OTOH^▸ (On The Other Hand), other new stock might be of similar dimensions, and "IET CLEARANCES" might become the new standard.

And as regards customer acceptance, a lot depends on future uses or refurbisments. As presently fitted out many people including me dislike IETs and consider them unsuitable for inter city routes.
But they could be cascaded to seondary routes for which they are acceptable, or they could be refurbished to a proper inter city specification.