Trains are also more of a systems integration problem certainly the cars, possibly also than aircraft. Other than infant self driving tech or EV chargers, there's no interface between the car and the infrastructure it drives on as that's all processed by the human driving it. With rail, the train has to be continuously communicating with all the relevant infrastructure and associated technology. Just making the train move should be very reliable these days (it's a bit of a shocker that it isn't with 755s, 230s etc) but having it correctly deal with signalling, track circuits, doors opening in the right places, all the safeguards correctly operating etc, that's where most of the challenge lies.
Agree, I don't for a minute think that it's acceptableI hear what you are saying & I agree completely but to me that increases the need for adequate testing before introduction rather than providing an excuse for failure. The problem is that this isn't a one off but nobody seems to learn from their past mistakes.
Could that be because the Managers who are in charge of a new bit of kit, move on, the newbie into the Job, is often not railway orientated, and takes the Manufacturer at their word ? Stadler, they say as a 'good name', but based on their exports to us, (and The Netherlands?) maybe not as good as their blurb!I think it's just always been like that. Never worth building your hope's up as things generally dissapoint. The train operators, NR & BR before them don't help themselves as build it up so much banging on about how many millions they've spent, only for it not to work as planned.
I hear what you are saying & I agree completely but to me that increases the need for adequate testing before introduction rather than providing an excuse for failure. The problem is that this isn't a one off but nobody seems to learn from their past mistakes.
........Stadler, they say as a 'good name', but based on their exports to us, (and The Netherlands?) maybe not as good as their blurb!
I am an engineer working in aviation. Aircraft systems very regularly need to be rebooted, including on aircraft we all fly on all the time. The important thing is that systems fail in a safe manner, and it is exactly the same for trains. Typically if a system needs a reboot it is because its monitoring function has detected an error, so it has put itself into a "failed" state, often after a certain number of "re-tries". The reboot can then be done when whichever condition caused the original fault is no longer present.Can you imagine buying a car that needs rebooting regularly or flying in an aircraft that stops working periodically? Why should a train be any different? Car & aircraft manufacturers run many many hours of testing before they would dare release a product to the public so why are railways any different?
Remember talking to a Swiss Conductor a while back just after the GA order had been placed. His personal concern was that Stadler were growing too fast, too quickly, he knew them when they were in their infancy.
Whether this proves to be true time will tell, the 755s are a nice train, but must improve their reliability.
They say the fuel pump has a fault where it will not deliver more than 25 litres in one hit. At that rate they estimated it would take 3 hrs to fill the tanks.755’s can’t be refuelled 2 days on the bounce at Colchester. Something to do with not being able to top up the Adblue.
Think there is an issue with the fuel gauges sometimes reading lower than the actual amount of fuel in the tank, had a few terminate Stowmarket or Ipswich due to low fuel, only to find they had nearly half a tank.But surely the unit had to shunt from Platform 6 where the fuelling is to the carriage sidings - surely someone would have noticed at that point it was short fuelled otherwise how did they know at Stowmarket that it was?