BBC news story about new train performance

[tpjm]

You'd need to ask Northern or CAF. As far as I am concerned which bit doesn't matter they either work or (as here) don't. Asking which bit simply obfuscates and seems to onlookers part of the expectation that new stuff doesn't always work properly.

The point I’m making is that you can test a door mechanism 10,000 times but it only works the last time you did it, I.e. there’s nothing to say it won’t fail next time.

I know that the majority of “door faults” have not been faults with the doors, more ‘issues’ with the software controlling the system. I say ‘issues’ not ‘faults’ because as @Llama explained, a lot of the issues are user error. For a lot of Northern crew, these units are very different from their previous norm, and I’ve heard several comments that the training materials are slightly lacking. The way the system is also being used by Northern (i.e. Guard release) may also be causing additional confusion.

The new TPE stock uses the same door control technologies as the Northern units do. I can only think of one true door fault and that was, as is often the case, solved by locking it OOU.

These trains are complex bits of kit. They won’t be 100% perfect and reliable every time at first and anybody who expects them to be is in for a shock. It’s not just Northern’s new fleet that are performing at this level, it’s across the board. Even the new TPE Hitachi trains are performing at a significantly lower level than those on GWR, and they’re apparently a tried and tested product with all the necessary software mods!

 

[Edders23]

It sounds to me as if a lot of the problem is that maybe the systems weren't tested under enough different conditions

As I understand it in industries such as aviation you think of every possible circumstance and test to see if components still work correctly. Maybe they were tested 10000 times to see if they opened and closed but perhaps not in lots of differing scenarios to see if passenger or staff doing things the wrong way such as holding opening button in before the circuit activates etc

The thing is though a train is a multi million pound item for that money you should expect thorough testing to have been gone through

That said maybe in service is the only way to truly test the equipment and recurring faults should be traceable and correctable by the engineers resulting in much better reliability a few months down the line

 

[a_c_skinner]

We must agree to differ. I take all your points but still don't think the final outcome - reliability or not - is good enough and the reason is that the industry expects things to not be good enough so it is both expected and tolerated.

 

[Haydn1971]

I’m struggling with comparing these fairly bespoke items to cars, phones or to that matter even 737s, the 195 units that Northern run are bespoke bits of equipment, that will be using bits from dozens of different suppliers, unlike with cars, phones and 737s, parts which aren’t specifically designed for the 195, so yes, faults will be rampant on these things, but will improve with service

 

[43096]

What part of the doors? The physical hardware? The door control software? The ASDO? What?

Testing at night is not easy, given the network rail maintenance schedule. It’s often very difficult to do your entire service route without some form of diversion.

I don’t know what Northern’s fault free running requirements are, but for my TOC, we required that the train stopped MANY times during the mileage accumulation and that doors were released and operated, even in passing loops (obviously on a side with no other track).

One thing that can never be replicated is how the travelling public treat them. You know, the ones who block the doors, misuse the toilets and generally treat the trains like they're mobile dustbins. If you wonder why Northern's train are such a state - it's largely down to the passengers.

As for the frankly bizarre Pacer love-in going on amongst some enthusiasts, might be an idea to think back to when they were introduced. Think of the 142s banished from Devon and Cornwall as they couldn't cope with the branches (apparently Pacers saved the branch lines ), the loco-hauled substitutes in the North east due to chronic unreliability, the brake failures that meant they needed re-work (don't mention 142059), the chronic issues with the SCG transmissions that saw them all replaced within a few years, the rubbish and unreliable doors that had to be replaced. I think you get the picture.

 

[tpjm]

One thing that can never be replicated is how the travelling public treat them. You know, the ones who block the doors, misuse the toilets and generally treat the trains like they're mobile dustbins. If you wonder why Northern's train are such a state - it's largely down to the passengers.

As for the frankly bizarre Pacer love-in going on amongst some enthusiasts, might be an idea to think back to when they were introduced. Think of the 142s banished from Devon and Cornwall as they couldn't cope with the branches (apparently Pacers saved the branch lines ), the loco-hauled substitutes in the North east due to chronic unreliability, the brake failures that meant they needed re-work (don't mention 142059), the chronic issues with the SCG transmissions that saw them all replaced within a few years, the rubbish and unreliable doors that had to be replaced. I think you get the picture.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I've personally seen Fault-Free Running where the engineers do everything nicely and mark it as a success... Let's just say that a particular TOC were not happy with that approach and wrote some very elaborate paperwork to properly 'exercise' the train which happily uncovered some niggles. Maybe Northern didn't have that opportunity.

 

[jfowkes]

If the issues are down to training and user error... Well, that's also an expected part of the introduction of new stock, surely? It's the responsibility of the TOC to ensure their staff are trained before new stock is introduced, not learning as they go?

How much standardisation is there across trains, in terms of procedures, interfaces for staff? To use the car analogy, if I buy a new car, I don't have to learn how to drive it all over again. The pedals, gearstick, handbrake, displays, symbology are all mostly standardised across makes and models. Is this the same for trains?

 

[squizzler]

It’s really too late now, but look at Airlines, at courier companies, at almost anyone else in Transport. The strategy seems to be find one product that works (such as the 737), have slight variants on the same product line, but massively simplify introduction, maintenance, testing, training and operation.

It is worth mentioning that the 737 is a late 1960s product. If the railways had done what you suggest we would still be building (admittedly updated) Mk2s for intercity duties.

 

[Haydn1971]

It is worth mentioning that the 737 is a late 1960s product. If the railways had done what you suggest we would still be building (admittedly updated) Mk2s for intercity duties.

The original 737 was from the 60s, the second generation, known as the 737 Classic is from the early 80s, the third generation 737 Next Generation from the late 90s and the current from the mid 10s - the 737 we have now is quite different in perhaps the same way that a Ford Focus is quite different to the original Ford Escort