Example of what?Bombardier is an example of this
Example of what?Bombardier is an example of this
The problem is that some of the newer to the UK manufacturers have already maxed out on damages payable to operators for delays/problems so don't really give stuff about getting things sorted in a hurry (just in the cheapest (slowest) way for the manufacturer!)Do you honestly (HONESTLY) think people invovled in introducing new rolling stock just sit back and say nah mate dont worry about being 6 months late. It'll be reet? We wont bother with the penalties. You just crack on when you are ready?
I despair at this place. I really do.
There are limited amounts of damages in all these contracts, the problem is that the maxima are being reached very quickly in some cases but them manufacturer behaviour shows 2 patterns:I do think that businesses need some sort of protection like consumers get, but that will obviously mean raised costs. If companies have to insure (either via an underwriter or self-insuring) they'll increase their fees. As such I am sure contracts limit the liability, or else nobody would bid and nothing would get done. The end result is companies get away with murder and we suffer (either through loss of service or having to pay indirectly for things to be rectified).
You see it all the time where equipment fails and if it were you or me, there would be a chance to claim that something wasn't fit for purpose even outside of the warranty period. Take platform screens where there are clearly some design defects on older screens, given the consistency of the problems, but the TOC/NR or whoever simply has to buy a new one to replace - rather than get the manufacturer to issue new parts for free.
The problem is that some of the newer to the UK manufacturers have already maxed out on damages payable to operators for delays/problems so don't really give stuff about getting things sorted in a hurry (just in the cheapest (slowest) way for the manufacturer!)
There are limited amounts of damages in all these contracts, the problem is that the maxima are being reached very quickly in some cases but them manufacturer behaviour shows 2 patterns:
a) keep doing the best they can and throw plenty of resources at it.
or
b) deprioritise and do minimum
They are independent but just indicative that all contracts for certain manufacturers are problematic.Each contract should be independent rather than cumulative damages wise. We also have to acknowledge the impact of client changes to specification and the associated contractual variations involved!
a vs b seem very manufacturer dependantMy view is you are often better off acknowledging but parking the damages until a later date and focusing on recovery. Option b happens when the contractual relationship is confrontational and litigious.
Given the number of occasions when new trains are late or have quality issues one can only assume either the penalties are not enforced or they are not severe enough.Do you honestly (HONESTLY) think people invovled in introducing new rolling stock just sit back and say nah mate dont worry about being 6 months late. It'll be reet? We wont bother with the penalties. You just crack on when you are ready?
I despair at this place. I really do.
Given the number of occasions when new trains are late or have quality issues one can only assume either the penalties are not enforced or they are not severe enough.
a vs b seem very manufacturer dependant
For the sake of accuracy, seven vehicles, from which they need only three to run the normal tram-train service. In fact two of the seven (205/207) haven't yet reached Parkgate, and won't until they're re-equipped with tram-train profile wheelsets (they currently have tram system-only wheelsets).Considering the order was only six vehicles and they had to adapt the tram trains to work in the UK, I'm not surprised they have had the occasional issue, 6 units doesn't give enough money to make sure everything works.
Now revealed to be a hydraulics issue - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-50812109
So there's a definitely possibility that this was a potential serious safety issue with the brakes? This would certainly fit with abruptly withdrawing the entire fleet.Hydraulic brakes are common on trams, though I can't say whether this tram-train uses them. Transmission is electric motors driving the wheels so no hydraulics there.
The wheelsets can be interchanged between tram sets if and when necessary. I'm not claiming it's trivial to do - but it is quite possible. Indeed, when two TT vehicles were damaged in RTAs, they made up one complete unit from the "good" ends of these two - and then put railway wheels on another, so as to maintain the TT fleet of 4 total (3 in use; one spare).
Stadler Trams do have them and so will the new Glasgow "Clockwork Orange" replacements to save on compressor space...Hydraulic brakes are common on trams,
Both halves were damaged in RTAs on the original network while operating the TT (Rotherham/Parkgate) service, so yes. But, as I said, as the bent composite one was sent away, another unit had its wheelset swapped to maintain the fleet of 4 with TT wheels.I think the two havles making up one good unit has (or had) tram-train profile wheels on it, as I am fairly sure it was used on a BLS tour earlier in the year
Maybe I should stop trusting wikipedia!For the sake of accuracy, seven vehicles, from which they need only three to run the normal tram-train service. In fact two of the seven (205/207) haven't yet reached Parkgate, and won't until they're re-equipped with tram-train profile wheelsets (they currently have tram system-only wheelsets).
The tram train has been running an hourly service requiring just one unit
Morrisons, Boots, Superdrug, Holland and Barrett, Pets at Home, Vets 4 Pets are all openI'm surprised. Is there any point in going to Parkgate Retail World at the moment?