That’s a potentially very serious issue, though I’ve not heard any reports of it happening.  Are you able to provide any more information?

 

Followed by unwanted door releases.

 

Perhaps they should head for the West of England line after all - That would be perfect for Templecombe...

 
There is another problem begining to occur with wrong side door releases.  When the driver initiates a correct side door release, there have been a couple of instances when a door on the wrong side has been released in addition.

 

After you, Stuving! 

 

No, but I've found where they were hiding. RSSB research report T1188 "CLEAR: Analysis of Air Quality On Board Trains" is published in the sense that, provided you sign in to their site, it can be downloaded. I think anyone can still register to get access.

As to what it says, well that's a bit complicated. The report has 122 pages and it will take a while to dig out the relevant bits. For one thing, it uses positive matrix factorisation, boxplots, and Kruskal-Wallis test to present the data.

Feel free to get stuck in!

 
There's a problem with the information as presented in the Guardian - no clue as to the measurement methodology was, the number of samples taken or similar.

Having said that, there does not seem to be any clear pattern. Second worse for NO2 and worse for particulates is the (surely) all electric Euston - Birmingham New Street. The reference to Voyagers toward the end is odd - as far as I am aware Avanti just have a few for the North Wales services. Yet the (as far as I am aware) almost identical Meridians on the Midland Main line seem to outperform the Avanti electrics. And Chiltern, an all diesel serive outperforms most of its rivals!  The GWR particulate figures look good (all that ad-blue and the Dpfs doing their job well)?

Did they happen to take a measurement when the GWR IET opened its doors at Reading between idling Turbos and Voyagers?

Anyone know the answers?

 
An IET shouldn’t have been producing ANY pollution between London and Bristol Temple Meads had Chris Grayling not cancelled the final stretches of electrification between Chippenham/Parkway-Temple Meads. What a crazy decision that was.

 

Or, if you look at that Guardian article, a GWR IET! Yesterday's DfT news release described the RSSB report as "published" and provided a link to their site. I can't see it there, so all we have for now is press reports with limited content and headlines that don't even match that.

 
Indeed, the least polluting train is the one that stays in the depot. Or perhaps even better one that is not built.

 

Blimey. That's not good...................I guess GWR can say that by cancelling so many services due to staff shortages they are reducing pollution though?  

 

Not certain that I would hold diesel pollution against them since the proper trains that we had before the IETs also burnt diesel fuel and produced pollution.
The other problems though ARE due to a poorly specified and badly built train.

 
SWTSMBO was booked to travel on the 1558 WKF>KGX next Monday (20/09) but an email from LNER on Wednesday advised that the service had been cancelled because a number of Azuma units were being temporarily taken out of service for unspecified safety checks. Have they found the same issue as affected the GWR IET's or is this something different?

On the plus side the email carried a link via which any booking could be changed.

 
And the next one please?

Seats -> Catering -> Bicycles -> Surf Boards -> Cracks ............. now diesel pollution!

 

Post #1653 in this thread http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5508.1650 Suggests that coupling/uncoupling at Plymouth was causing time keeping issues and is therefore being avoided.

 
The ORR's interim report on the cracking problems has been published. Most of its content is about how the various bits of "the railway" coped with this, with safety the primary concern throughout. As such, the detailed technical descriptions of the cracking are background material. They are also incomplete, in the sense that the big question - how did Hitachi screw up so badly - is still being addressed. ORR will be concerned with that subject mainly in reviewing the processes involved in getting new trains accepted for use.

A lot of consultants have been involved in this, some of whom were also involved on the various train programmes. I was surprised to read this:

Ricardo worked for Hitachi to produce the safety case for IEP. While this is essentially a (virtual) paperwork exercise, I think it still does count as "technical".

SNC-Lavalin, as LNER's main advisors for the safety of reintroducing the trains after the May withdrawal, seem to have been a bit more cautious than everyone else. As it happens Interfleet, now part of SNC-L, was the Notified Body that certified all the AT200 and AT300 fleets as meeting the relevant standard (EN126631:2010 Railway Applications – Structural Requirements of Railway Vehicle Bodies). Small, world, these days.

Of course these different functions are parts of much larger organisatons, so should be capaple of acting independently. And the evidence above does suggest that this has been the case.

 

True, but I fail to see the relevance.
The IETs were ordered to fulfill certain specified needs, and have miserably failed to meet the contracted availability. The fact that electrification, if delivered in a timely fashion, could have reduced the need for IETs, is not really relevant.

I say again that our government need to say to Hitachi "You made them, you fix them" Or in more detail, make available for daily use the contracted number of trains. One means of achieving this would be supply extra or longer units so as to make up for the less than expected availability of the original build.

 
On the original plan the Oxford terminating fasts would have been Electrostars (not necessarily 387s at the beginning) with only the services continuing up the North Cotts being bimode IETs. These have ended up with the twists and turns of time on the Heathrow Express.

GWR managed to neutralise an amount of the early wrong-thinking of the fleet balance with the 802 order but they couldn't do it all.

 
There's another factor for which Hitatchi cannot be blamed.

If the first phase of the GWM electrification had gone to plan, with wires to Oxford and Bristol Temple Meads, GW could have used all those colourful Electrostars that the other TOCs have lent them to cover a larger proportion of IET services while (hopefully) they are being fixed.

Indeed, if we had had a sustained proper electrification campaign in the last 40 years any stock anywhere in the UK apart from 3rd rail only could have filled the gap.....

 
My crystal ball said that the "new trains will be too short" and I pointed out three other major fleet renewals that resulted in new trains being too short.

Experts said "this time will be different"

And now, many IET services are too short. I will let others argue about the exact proportion of short forms resulting from different causes, but the average passenger simply knows new trains=shorter trains.

 

Ah, but in current times they're running as 4 car short-forms in Cornwall up to Bristol / Cardiff, and on main lines within Scotland.  With the disadvantage over IETs that they can't be coupled in pairs.

There do seem to be too many shorter-than-ideal IETs running around at the moment, and that's even with "The Bedwyns" being "Turbotuted".   What the various plans are/were in terms of what %age of services could be short users contracts, and how many services could be shorter than ideal, I don't know.   Add to that cracks and crew shortages and changing patterns of travel and the equations are difficult to work out or feed data into.  Classic smoke and mirrors stuff.

 
Even I would have considered IETs an acceptable modern train if they had buffets, padded seats, and were reliably full length.
I don't remember HSTs ever being half length ! (and yes I know that failed HSTs were handled by taking a working example from another route, that however is no consolation for long distance passengers who used to simply get an HST, but now have a lottery as to 5 car or full length)

I don't blame Hitachi for the absence of buffets or the excessive numbers of 5 car units, that is what the customer ordered.

I do however blame Hitachi for the unreliability whether due to cracks or otherwise. Likewise I blame Hitachi for the failure to cope with waves at Dawlish.

In my view, the government or the relevant agencies thereof should be stricter with Hitachi over this failed project. "You built them, you make them work" Should be the message.
In particular I feel that Hitachi should be required to lengthen some of the 5 car sets to full 9 car length ENTIRELY AT THEIR EXPENSE  as compensation for the long term lack of availability.

 
Bit of a way to go yet there Broadgage as I actually quite like IETs, more especially the EC version. Nicer interior, slightly more comfortable seats, buffet but most of all; they almost entirely run on electric traction. That’s when they are at there best on the GWML also, which for all routes bar the South Wales mainline is nowhere near enough. Can’t blame the trains for that one.

My main gripe is there should have mainly been a like for like replacement in terms of train length with a small fleet of 5 coach trains for lesser used routes/services. And yes, a buffet certainly on the SW fleet.

At the end of the day the management of GWR know all this but what can they do about it with a train that was forced on them by the government for the next 30 or so years?

 

Careful now, or you also will start to sound like me

 
"It will be ok when the whole fleet has been delivered" (so why start withdrawing HSTs BEFORE then ?)
" It will be ok when staff are are trained on the new trains" (the need for training seemed to come as a surprise)
" It will be ok when reliability modifications have been completed" So much for Japanese reliability !
" The coupling/uncoupling failures will lessen with greater familiarity"
" All trains to/from London that need to be full length, will be."
" No one needs full length trains with covid reducing travel"
" Many of the problems are due to staff self isolating"
" Once the trains are inspected for cracks, all will be well"
" We don't need the full fleet because we have reduced the timetable"

My famous crystal ball forecast this.

Time for action. Hitachi should pay for alternative rolling stock.
IET supporters will no doubt dismiss this as broadgage bingo, but in what ways do they consider this project to have been a success.

And if as has been suggested, hitachi wriggle out of paying up then they should be banned FOREVER from any UK government funded project. Not just rail projects.

 
It was the barnpot decision to build so many 5 car sets rather than more single full length sets that for me is the biggest failure of the IET project. Look at the trouble it’s caused on the GWML, also on the ECML but to a lesser extent.

Passengers who used to be conveyed on 8 carriage HSTs now regularly rammed into 5 carriage trains. It’s pathetic.

This has been going on since day 1 so you can’t blame cracks appearing on sets as to the reason why Hitachi cannot provide the correct number of trains.

Agree, you cannot trust Journeycheck…I’ve seen five vice 9/10 car sets that WEREN’T listed on Journeycheck!

Having any services to/from the Southwest, bar perhaps the off peak semi fasts, as five car sets is absolutely ridiculous and I see nothing being done to resolve this. In fact, the complete opposite now every set will need to be repaired.

The 18:04 Penzance as a five car set in the Summer crazy!

Short trains. Short of traincrew 

 

IET supporters will no doubt say
Half a train is better than no train.
The service is better than looking at journey check suggests.
Social distancing no longer required so train length less important.
It is not always this bad.

Broadgage will say, I forecast that the new and often shorter trains would prove inadequate.
I more specifically forecast that the 18-03 (as it then was) would end being short formed. A particularly busy service and the LAST through train to Penzance.

Passengers in general, after experiencing the conditions reported are likely to say "never again" to GWR trains.

Time to admit that the IET project has failed and to obtain alternative rolling stock. Not of course for the whole fleet, may as well carry on using the IETs that still work. But time to admit defeat  and obtain some alternative stock to avoid this sort of thing.
Charter stock perhaps ? or are there any spare HSTs left ? I know that HST scrapping was accelerated, but have they ALL been scrapped ?
Even heritage stock for branch lines to free up Turbos for busy London services.

 

Just seen a tweet from someone on the 5 car 1804 PAD-PNZ, described as "packed, rammed and hideous", people standing throughout......let's hope COVID is taking time off for the Bank Holiday too.

Utter madness to short form this train on this date.

 

There's all sorts of wrong reports formation wise on journeycheck for today.  The only trains leaving Paddington all of today for Plymouth/Penzance that are not 9/10 cars are the 14:37 and 16:36 PAD-PLY Semi-Fasts, and the 18:04 PAD-PNZ.

 

There are a number of short forms today from London to Plymouth & Penzance.

Not the smartest move on the Thursday before the August Bank Holiday weekend, and with COVID infections on the rise in the region which may well be made worse by overcrowded trains.

I am sure someone will respond by saying "it's better than no train at all".

Remember folks, increased leisure travel is the railways future. This isn't the way to encourage it.

 

Just daily availability fluctuations.  Yesterday wasn’t great, but today there are few traincrew related cancellations and few IET short forms.

 
Possibly, but could also be slightly improved staff numbers. The degree of failed trains is often largely concealed by staff shortage. If a train is cancelled for want of staff, then who cares if it WOULD have been short formed. When staff are available, then more short formations result.

Or it might be unrelated breakdowns.
Or it might be an increase in mark one cracks.
Or mark two cracks.
Or as you suggest it might be the new cracks affecting the couplings.

 
There seem to be an unusually high number of short formations today – could this be due to the coupling issue?

 

Almost tried that a couple of months ago ... found that rail travel was even harder with all the IETs parked up while the crack risk was fully evaluated ...

 

"Let's call the whole thing off" 

 

Ah - one of my intended sentences seems to have gone missing, for which I must aplogise. I'll have to repair the original.

 

Broadgage says:  "THIRD Location"
Stuving says: "other parts of the vehicle body"

What exactly is different between these two statements ??      Except that Broadgage has used the singular whereas Stuving has used the plural.(Thinking ahead perhaps ?)

Having worked for a very large Government Dept for a number of years I can already see the way that this will shake out. The Govt will (as usual) totally fail to enforce its contractual rights. If they did Hitachi, and everyone else, would never bid for any work again, and everyone knows it - so the Govt is over a barrel. Eventually an "agreement" will be reached..........delays and disruption will be ignored and the extra costs will be "equally shared" - 80% to the taxpayer and 20% to the contractor.  Think .... Crossrail, HS2, Hinkley Point, Aircraft carriers, Nuclear submarines, Nimrod.... et al.     Been there, seen it, done it !!..............

 

No, that's not what has happened. This wasn't a new occurrence, after repairs, so it can't tell us anything about what will happen once that is done.

The same kind of cracking has been found in other parts of the vehicle body made in the same way. That is not really surprising; one would expect similar behaviour under similar conditions. The investigation will include a review of the engineering processes involved in producing the trains, leading to a proposed remedy. And for each method considered, short of the most drastic ones, they will look at what can be done to stop the same processes continuing (or at least slow them enough to last a lifetime). I can't see much point in betting on the outcome of that.

Edit: to insert the sentence I forgot

 
They will be on a supply contract of set number per day.

Penalties apply if this isn’t achieved.

 
I was not aware of the THIRD location affected by cracks when I described the IETs as a failed project.

I did however state that  "The general poor quality of IETs suggests that even when the cracks are fixed, that something else will go wrong."

That was perhaps overly optimistic since in fact something else HAS gone wrong wrong before even one existing crack has been fixed.

With three different areas affected by fatigue cracks already, what are the odds on these units lasting the planned 27.5 years without more faults ?

Hitachi SHOULD be paying significant compensation for the ongoing non-availability of these units. Does anyone know if such payments have actually been received ? Or as I cynically suspect, has some wiggle room been found by Hitachi.

 

So just a rumour then, not born out by the post above

 
More trouble for Hitachi 800 Series vehicles

From Roger Ford's INFORMED SOURCES e-Preview September 2021
( http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archives/759/759-2021.08.20.03.26.archive.txt)

 
Indeed.  I can’t remember the last time I heard of a coupling failure.


Some elements have been a success, others not so.

 

Uncoupling/coupling issues have largely been resolved.

 

Do you consider the project to have been a success then ?

 
Off he goes again…

 

I wonder what the timescale is ?

Until recently, the scale of cracked or otherwise not available trains has been largely hidden by the pandemic reducing demand, and by staff shortages. The long term timetable reduction also assists in covering up the problem.

I very much doubt that a reliable service of full length trains will return this calendar year, and have doubts about NEXT years holiday season.

I appreciate that IET supporters will point to recent days with very few short formations, but these seem to be days with dozens of cancellations.

The general poor quality of IETs suggests that even when the cracks are fixed, that something else will go wrong. They are still vulnerable to waves at Dawlish (an "essential requirement") and still fail to couple and uncouple reliably in the specified time (another "essential requirement")

At the beginning of this failed project I suggested that short formed trains/inadequate capacity  would be a problem. This forecast I based not on any detailed technical analysis but simply on first hand experience of other* major new train fleets that reduced capacity either permanently or least for many years.
IET supporters said that this fleet renewal would be different, would be ample, and with "Japanese levels of reliability" and in particular that all peak trains leaving London would be full length. This last has presumably become a future aspiration, or been ditched entirely.

For how many years of the planned 27.5 years service life are routine stock shortages acceptable, before admitting this to be a failed project.

*The three previous major stock renewals are
1) Networkers replaced older slam door DC EMUs. Mixed 4 car and 6 car trains in the rush hour replaced 8 car trains.
2) 4 car and 5 car Voyagers replaced HSTs and loco hauled trains on cross country, too short from day one, and still too short many years later.
3) Waterloo to Exeter service reduced from full length loco hauled trains to 3 car units. Badly overcrowded for many years until some trains were eventually lengthened to the same length as the old ones.

 
It is rumoured that a fix for the cracks is in place and will, for the GWR units, be carried out at Eastleigh. Other units 'up north'

 

Agree. IET availability is partly random due to maintenance requirements and the occurrence and rectification of minor faults.

The number of short formations is also related to the staffing situation which is best described as "insufficient but very variable" Suppose that on a bad day that only 50 IETs are available, with a full staff that would lead to dozens of short forms.

If however dozens of IET services were cancelled for want of staff, then just 50 units could operate the reduced number of services at full length.

Conversely a good day for IETs might see 65 units  available, but a lot of short forms if the staffing was improved.

I expect the staffing situation to improve long before the cracks are mended.

 

None listed for the rest of today.  Not sure if there were (m)any earlier on?  Good days and bad days…

 
I don’t expect that the Dec ‘19 timetable, and expected enhancements to the Bristol service the following May, will ever return.

The service will likely be structured differently to cope with a different market bias, which will be much more leisure based, but that might take several years to settle down into the finished article.

I expect IET availability to hover around the current 60 units a day, with some good days and some bad days, until the repairs are made.  I expect most of the time that will provide more than enough seats, but there is no doubt that there is a risk some routes will struggle to cope at times over the next couple of months.

 

When do you expect IETs to return to full availability, that is to operate the pre-covid time table.
And without "cheating" by stating that train length does not matter much now that social distancing is over.
Or that there are fewer commuters (whilst forgetting about extra leisure travel)

 
Good to see a couple of new phrases for the 2021 edition of Broadgage Bingo. 

 
Over 20 short formed IETs again today, And that is with the reduced "covid mode" timetable.

 

If I remember rightly the 10:06 is the first long distance train of the day from Penzance formed off an incoming service.  That didn’t run due to a shortage of crew so even if you could step up the crew from the 09:05 there wouldn’t have been a train for them to work.

 
A month ago, the ORR produced a "Passenger impact review – Hitachi class 800 trains". The have analysed what decisions the operators took, though only briefly, and have more to say on the information provided (completeness, consistency, etc.) as well as assistance of refunds. There are several such secitons - here, for example, is their assessment of GWR's "Consistency and clarity of travel information 10 – 21 May":

They also wrote individually to each operator (including NRE and the ticket sellers), copies to be found with the press release..

 

Yes it's a perfectly logical suggestion, but one with quite a complex set of reasons as to why it often can't happen.

Especially with the longer distance journeys, there is usually some stumbling block regarding the crew.  This particular train has four drivers allocated to it to do separate stints between Penzance and Paddington, and three train managers.  Almost certainly if they had been held back an hour to work the next train (rather than travelling on the next available service) it would have implications on their next workings for at least one of them and could end up causing a whole load of reactionary delays worse than the original problem.

You don't need to have four drivers and three train managers of course, a Penzance to Paddington could be done with two of each - and sometimes is - but trying to optimise staff utilisation (and also laziness in terms of diagramming sometimes) means that increasingly it seems short stints are used to cover certain routes.  Not to mention the fact that when staff are at a premium as they are now, they are often given different parts of several normal diagrams to get everything covered.  The elastic band only stretches so far.

 

Good point.  I’m sure there are shortages there as well as a result of being pinged.  It is after all badly affecting the whole country now.

 

I suppose it depends on wether track and trace has hit the maintenance staff leaving them short.
I’d also guess that some short formations occur where you have a driver booked to bring sets off the depot who is taken off that job to cover a service train.

 

It depends on were the 1006 is short of a crew!  For example.

The crew for the 0905 could work to Truro to then go onto the Falmouth, if there is no relieving driver, the train is stranded at Truro or there could have been similar issues further up the line.  
Or the crew on the 0905 might work to Exeter to then work one back to Penzance in which case they would taxi the driver up to Exeter.
A whole host of scenarios

 

Yes, that would explain the staff shortages, but not the number of short formations and cancellations due to train faults. These are presumably due to cracks, heat related faults or other mechanical failures.

 

One thought.....could the crew of the 0905 which failed not have run the 1006 which didn't have a crew?

 

Not much they can do when Track n Trace is ripping through depots up and down the country. The government should have envisaged this and acted accordingly

 
Consecutive cancellations this morning. One train failure, the second due to crew shortage- return trips also cancelled - more unhappy customers, more traffic on the roads for want of a reliable alternative;

09:05 Penzance to London Paddington due 14:27
10:06 Penzance to London Paddington due 15:29

 
One of the worst "updates" today was the 17-04 from London to Penzance. Started from Reading and terminated at Westbury.

A cancellation in all but name, due a train fault.

 
Has the monitoring campaign by that instrumented unit completed? I can't see any runs at the moment. And did anyone see it on its peregrinations? Or take its picture?

Someone (malc-c) has captured the similar Azuma unit, and posted the picture on railfoirums.


I can't help thinking I could have done a neater job than that! Though I suspect that withstanding the windage at 125 mi/hr is probably more important than aesthetics. And I think that provides at least half an explantion of why it didn't run in passenger service. What that picture doesn't tell you is how many bogies were instrumented; the text says this wring was "all down the length of the train", so presumably all of them (as is only logical).

 

Just to add that the next working of that diagram, 16:04 PAD-PNZ, looks like it’s now a 10-car (802016/20).  The 18:36 and 20:04 PAD-PLY also appear to be 9-car rather than shortformed. Journeycheck not updated.

I make these posts for the sake of accuracy and to demonstrate that what you see often isn’t what you get.  Not through some desperate attempt to defend IETs, which I think I have several shortcomings as I’ve said before.

 
I cant support re-forming IETs into 6 car, 7, or 8 car units because so doing would "lock in" reduced capacity as such units would not be able to work in pairs.

 
Maybe we should do what Midland Mainline did with their useless half-length Meridians: they shuffled intermediate cars between sets to end up with a decent number of 7-car units. If my maths is right, we could reform the IETs either as:

• 69x 8-car trains
• 1x 5-car train
• 23x redundant pairs of cab cars

Or as:

• 83x 7-car trains
• 1x 6-car train
• 9x redundant pairs of cab cars

 

One of the two Penzance diagrams listed has 800302 allocated to it, a 9-car.  The other is currently a 5-car, 802018 - that’s on the 10:06 PNZ-PAD.

 

I'll take the bait ...


With classic commuter numbers so low ... I REALLY doubt this service will be crowded and even with social distancing, I don't think it will be exactly full.  But having said that, there many be a very different story when the same train leaves Paddington again and heads west.

 
On your second point let’s hope so. Always concerns me when I see London-Penzance trains 5 vice 9/10; especially at this time of year.

 
Over 20 short formed IETs today, much worse than most recent days. I doubt that IET availability has actually altered that much in only a day or two.

Much more likely IMHO, is that the lack of serviceable IETs has been largely "hidden" by lack of train crew. Few if any cancellations today for want of train crew has shown up the lack of trains.

Presumable mostly cracked trains, though perhaps some heat related failures as well.

IET advocates will no doubt argue, firstly that train length does not much matter now that social distancing is no longer required, and secondly that some trains shown as half length may actually run as full length.

 
Thanks for the info.

 
They are GTR units usually used on Gatwick Express services.

 
That should help a bit.
From where are these extra 387s being obtained ?

 
Six more Class 387s are being leased for GWR services to support the IET shortfall, along with the three c2c units already being leased.

 

And the 'social distancing' will be changed after 19 July to where possible with the onus on us as individuals to manage ourselves; I expect the mandatory wearing of face coverings  well be changed to it being an encouraged personal choice 

 

Yes, every effort should be made to inform and encourage passengers of alternatives, but it must be expected and accepted that social distancing still won’t always be possible.

 
Better get used to it.
New shorter trains are the future.
I will let others argue as to the reasons for the short forms, cracks ? other mechanical faults ? only booked to be a 5 car and therefore OK ?

I am not aware of any timetable for repairs, so the present covid mode/cracked train mode looks likely to continue for some years. By which time something else will probably go wrong.

 

Not sure it has to be accepted. Surely it's incumbent on train & platform staff to at least make an effort to prevent this type of scenario in the current environment especially at a station like Reading?

Couldn't announcements be made that the train approaching platform X will be setting down only due to overcrowding? Sure some won't listen but many will.

Elderly/vulnerable people especially will look at this with alarm.

 
I note the previous train from Reading, a 10-car from Bristol, was late due to an earlier fatality, so that would explain the heavy loadings after Reading, as there had been a twenty minute gap since the previous fast train.

It’s a train that was only booked to be a 5-car, but is one of the ones that should really be a 9/10 car.

As passenger numbers continue to rise, especially at weekends, there will be occasions when social distancing isn’t possible on every train.  I’m afraid that just has to be expected and accepted.

 
BBC Political Correspondent Chris Mason has tweeted the following this morning:

https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1411261195064156165

 

I'd guess the main reason is operational - wanting to run or not run it based on that last recorded readings, change the set-up, repeat a route or do a new one, etc. It's not as if for the primary purpose it's needed for very long.

On the other hand, I can't understand why Hitachi hadn't got a few units fully instrumented from the start (assuming they didn't). Even more obviously, before that during trials and commissioning, wouldn't you want that kind of feedback about how the design was working? After all, some of the fleet have built-in monitoring of OLE and track geometry as standard, as well as forward CCTV. There's no such thing as too much information!

 
I’m sure Hitachi are doing it this way for a reason.

 
I can see the merit of running a specially instrumented train for test purposes/data gathering, but why run such a service as ECS and not carrying passengers ?
Whilst the weight of passengers and luggage is a small part of the total gross weight, it might possibly be significant and a test train running normally loaded might give more representative data. Sand bags are only a partial substitute as they do not move around.
It is just about possible that the problems are caused by full power at low speeds, as when accelerating away from station stops.
Use on a good selection of passenger workings would be representative of normal use.

I appreciate that test equipment and perhaps staff monitoring this may need a fair bit of space, but surely a 9 car, or a 5+5 with one vehicle locked out of use could be used.
The reduction in passenger capacity would be regrettable, but much less than that caused by withdrawing a whole train from passenger use in order to use it for test purposes.

 

3Z20/21/22 are routed via Evesham but 3Z23 is via Stroud.

 
It was expected that Hitachi would instrument an IET (inertial sensors, strain gauges, etc.) and run it as part of their investigation to find out what the bogies have been subjected to. There was a report on railforums that this has been out running under 3Zxx codes, and that this is also to clarify an ongoing dispute with NR as to whether their track is more bent than Hitachi were told. Of course this relates to the issue of these trains' ride as well, though just how good or bad it is is still a matter of argument - it's notoriously subjective.

Looking back, the earliest outing I can see was in 15th (Tuesday). So far the train has been operated out of North Pole, unsurprisingly, by GWR as ECS non-stop. We have had, all booked as STP:

15/6  PAD 3Z91 PNZ 3Z92 PAD
16/6  PAD 3Z10 SWA 3Z11 PAD
17/6  PAD 3Z20 WOS 3Z21 PAD (3Z23 WOS 3Z23 PAD cancelled)
18/6  PAD 3Z91 PNZ 3Z92 PAD
19/6 (PAD 3Z40 SWA 3Z41 PAD cancelled)

and next week some more are already booked:
21/6  PAD 3Z10 SWA 3Z11 PAD
21/6  PAD 3Z20 WOS 3Z21 PAD 3Z23 WOS 3Z23 PAD (presumably both won't run!)
22/6  PAD 3Z91 PNZ 3Z92 PAD
23/6  PAD 3Z10 SWA 3Z11 PAD
24/6  PAD 3Z20 WOS 3Z21 PAD 3Z23 WOS 3Z23 PAD
25/6  PAD 3Z91 PNZ 3Z92 PAD

If you want to look at these, they are easier to spot using RTT with "non-passenger services" selected. .

 

It will be more the ORR asking Hitachi to demonstrate via evidence and if the ORR need to expertise they will buy it in.

It is better they are doing this pre accident than as part of a post accident investigation

 

After checking daily for the last couple of weeks, I can confirm I’ve finally found one IET diagram today (on a Paddington<>Oxford diagram) that is being covered by a 3-car turbo on an unplanned basis.

 
Actually, there was no customer in the normal sense (i.e. purchaser) for the IEPs. They were retained by Hitachi (or perhaps formally sold to Agility) to fulfil a kind of lease. Some trains bought by ROSCOS might also not be bought by anyone who would fit as buyer then owner in the railway procedural sense. Note that most trains have been acquired by a TOC to the certification stage, then transferred to a ROSCO in a kind of sale and leaseback.

That makes Hitachi responsible for everything, so their internal quality processes - as customer and manufacturer talking to themselves - are relevant. What requirement they have to meet, and where it is, might be worth a study in itself.

 

I find this a bit weird. The content is given as:

Parts two and three make sense: they involve looking at procedures and processes and how well they worked. But the first part? This, and the first steps in the next part, are:

So, ORR are going to contribute expertise as mutallurgists, are they? Who'd have thought! Even one step back, if it's about the engineering design and production quality processes, I'm not convinced it's expertise they can claim.

What was the next process in the chain? I think it's the customer's product design acceptance and quality assurance process. I can't work out exactly how that was done or by whom. Note that the requirement/specification probably doesn't say "shall not fall apart" (but we all know it shouldn't) so it may mall under the heading of quality.

There are several kinds of product acceptance process for rail vehicles, of which the main one is for NR, to give a certificate to run on the network. But that's mainly about systems and interfaces - will it work with our track, signals, power supply, and everything else. For those areas, and operational ones, there are safety cases to by filled in too (largely done by Ricardo for the 800s). Apart from crashworthiness, I don't think structural integrity is part of NR's acceptance process.

Now, it would make some sense to look at this area and see whether the various bits worked together well enough. There is also the question of whether this issue (of potential cracking) had safety implication at acceptance, and might that have been found at acceptance time. But none of that is on the ORR's list; instead they will be playing the at being amateur metallurgists.

 
Details of an ORR review:

https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/orr-lessons-learned-review-hitachi-train-cracks

 
That might be it. Perverse really, seeing as that particular train is probably busier on Saturdays than during the week. And no-one seems to have told whatever RTT's source of data is of that plan:
31.58
Swansea [SWA]
Pathed as Class 80x on diesel from here
Service reverses here, gains coaches here

 
Is that on Saturday’s you’re referring to?  If so, it was only booked to be a 5-car today, so I guess it wouldn’t get flagged on JC. 

As you say, it makes it hard to plan if you don’t know what the planned length is, and I agree that particular train should really be a 10.

 
There seems to be an amount of doing short-forms on the quiet going on. 1L18, the 1032 Carmarthen to Paddington seems to be not gaining its other 5 carriages at Swansea on a regular basis, with this going unreported on JourneyCheck – this is a really bad train to short-form, as it tends to be an exceptionally busy one (more so than the trains starting at Swansea an hour either side) – there's the factor of the extra riders from West Wales, and that this hits Cardiff at 1215 (i.e. lunchtime). And of course, if they don't report it, no-one can plan to avoid it.

 

I noticed this the other week and found it disappointing. We were promised for years an hourly service to London Paddington throughout the day and for many years have endured GWRs go to "problem solving" which involves everyone crams onto a Bristol/South Wales service and change at Swindon whenever there's a slight delay...

 

That’s not an IET diagram, as Graham has pointed out.  Let me know if you can see any others...I can’t.

 

That's a 3 + 2 unit (probably turbo) being replaced by a single unit.  Reading between the lines, the 2 cars which come off at Gloucester at 07:12 normally join a 2 car train that calls there at 07:46 on its way from Worcester Shrub Hill (leaves at 07:07) on its way to Weymouth (11:00).  Today, that's showing as a 3 car off Worcester, so just a single carriage down.   Not quite a direct replacement of an IET by a turbo as is happening on the Bedwyn services.  Of course, this reduction might be explained by the need to find that shuttle unit.

Plans for summer 2020 were for an hourly IET from Cheltenham Spa to London Paddington:
- http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/nrtt20summer/Table%20125.pdf
For summer 2021, one in three of those services are cut back to Cheltenham Spa to Swindon, saving (I think) one IET diagram
- http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/nrtt21summer/Table%20125.pdf
but that has nothing to do with the problems with IET availability unless the Network Rail folks have a reliable Crystal Ball.

 

The 06-06 Bristol Temple meads to Worcester is reported today as being 3 car instead of 5 car for part of the journey. Source is Journey check.