New fleet woes general reasons or excuses

[Peter Sarf]

We all know Covid19 is being used as an excuse for all sorts of problems in the UK. Brexit is a valid excuse as well. But I find myself looking beyond those at other reasons for the problems of new fleets of trains.

It occurs to me that the UK railways have been introducing a lot of new fleets at the moment. Perhaps there is an overload of the resources required to manage these introductions. Also, as we have moved further into privatisation, the central expertise, if any, must have waned. But are these valid thoughts ?.

We have also seem innovation at a new level with Bi-Mode locomotives class 73 (re-invented), 88 (new), 93 (new and coming soon) and 99 (new and coming soon). These have done better than the Multiple Units of classes 230 and 769. Despite the 230s or various sub types coming from a small start up "Vivarail" they seem to have more chance than the 769s !. But neither are successfull enough - yet.

I am sure that Covid19 and Brexit will have had some effect but have the railways bitten off more than they can chew ?.

Anyone any other thoughts ?.

 

[Haywain]

I am sure that Covid19 and Brexit will have had some effect but have the railways bitten off more than they can chew ?.

Regarding the class 230 and class 769 I think there is a strong argument that re-engineering a small fleet is not as easy as it may appear on paper. For other, brand new, fleets it can be seen that reliability improves over time and part of this is because teething problems get ironed out and part because drivers, guards and maintenance staff get used to the new kit and can resolve faults as they gain experience of it.

 

[Wezz]

Don't forget that new trains are full of technology, unlike older units they rely on software, software tends to have bugs in it which is what causes most of the issues with new fleets.

It takes time to update the software on invidual units, they needs to go to each unit, plug a laptop in and update the software manually.

 

[hooverboy]

Don't forget that new trains are full of technology, unlike older units they rely on software, software tends to have bugs in it which is what causes most of the issues with new fleets.

It takes time to update the software on invidual units, they needs to go to each unit, plug a laptop in and update the software manually.

That is sort of yes,and no though, isn't it?
A few of these microfleet hybrid projects have tried to incorporate additional engine management and traction systems,in what was a typically "no bells or whistles" vehicle,run on a budget,and come off much the worse.
While touted as being a super cheap option for a super limited lifespan(I think 10-15 years wass the ballpark figure for both 230 and 769),they have unfortunately not showered themselves in glory.

They are more "concept" than production runs,which is ultimately a problem if you're tying to shove something into full blown passenger service without proper testing.
Then after the initial testing come the type approval,and then after they type approval comes the dialogue with the unions re driving and maintenance, neither of the fex or vivarail got through that unscathed.Lack of cab aircon was a big deal if i remember correctly.

For the older stock,I would very much say lack of resourcing and excessive adaptations were the problem.You just won't put as much r+d time or money into a fleet that is costing a quarter the price and will last a quarter the lifespan.

 

[Adam Williams]

It takes time to update the software on invidual units, they needs to go to each unit, plug a laptop in and update the software manually.

Why don't trains support OTA updates nowadays?

 

[norbitonflyer]

We have also seem innovation at a new level with Bi-Mode locomotives class 73 (re-invented), ............have done better than the Multiple Units of classes 230 and 769.

The rebuilt 73s for the Caledonian Sleeper have not been entirely successful - hence the need for them to be helped by a 66. They are essentially being used as generator cars.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Don't forget that new trains are full of technology, unlike older units they rely on software, software tends to have bugs in it which is what causes most of the issues with new fleets.

It takes time to update the software on invidual units, they needs to go to each unit, plug a laptop in and update the software manually.

Oh yes I forgot about that. Are things getting to complicated ?. I even prefer my older simpler to work on car to its newer version.

That is sort of yes,and no though, isn't it?
A few of these microfleet hybrid projects have tried to incorporate additional engine management and traction systems,in what was a typically "no bells or whistles" vehicle,run on a budget,and come off much the worse.
While touted as being a super cheap option for a super limited lifespan(I think 10-15 years wass the ballpark figure for both 230 and 769),they have unfortunately not showered themselves in glory.

They are more "concept" than production runs,which is ultimately a problem if you're tying to shove something into full blown passenger service without proper testing.
Then after the initial testing come the type approval,and then after they type approval comes the dialogue with the unions re driving and maintenance, neither of the fex or vivarail got through that unscathed.Lack of cab aircon was a big deal if i remember correctly.

For the older stock,I would very much say lack of resourcing and excessive adaptations were the problem.You just won't put as much r+d time or money into a fleet that is costing a quarter the price and will last a quarter the lifespan.

Your comments make the APT (class 370 iirc ?) spring to mind. That was another example of innovation that perhaps did not have enough R&D and time testing lavished on it !.

Innovation does require a lot of patience and I feel the UK might not be the right environment for that.

 

[laseandre]

Why don't trains support OTA updates nowadays?

Updating a single phone as an end user is bad enough with the delay between the operating system developers (Google/Apple), the phone manufacturers (Samsung etc) and the networks, who all have their own additions to make to any update. Try ensuring that an entire fleet of trains has safety critical software updates developed and tested in a timely fashion, those updates have any UK- and operator-specific additions, then that the trains only update when they're parked somewhere with supervision overnight, the update is verified and tested as installed, and that they're ready for service, all in one night to prevent the fleet having different software installed.

 

[Adam Williams]

Updating a single phone as an end user is bad enough with the delay between the operating system developers (Google/Apple), the phone manufacturers (Samsung etc) and the networks, who all have their own additions to make to any update. Try ensuring that an entire fleet of trains has safety critical software updates developed and tested in a timely fashion, those updates have any UK- and operator-specific additions, then that the trains only update when they're parked somewhere with supervision overnight, the update is verified and tested as installed, and that they're ready for service, all in one night to prevent the fleet having different software installed.

Presumably the problem of preparing the firmware files ready for UK use with UK additions (onto a USB stick, at least) is a solved one in practice - and unless someone is going around doing that to all stock in a depot in one night - you can't guarantee that it'll be rolled out in one "big bang" anyway today.

So really, the only thing that's new is some sort of network based distribution of the updates and some way for them to able to be remotely triggered to perform updates.

 

[laseandre]

Presumably the problem of preparing the firmware files ready for UK use with UK additions (onto a USB stick, at least) is a solved one in practice - and unless someone is going around doing that to all stock in a depot in one night - you can't guarantee that it'll be rolled out in one "big bang" anyway today.

So really, the only thing that's new is some sort of network based distribution of the updates and some way for them to able to be remotely triggered to perform updates.

I mean, in that case, why introduce a new chance for updates to fail when the current system works? Surely in an industry like this, the less chance of errors, both human and technical, the better.

 

[3141]

I mean, in that case, why introduce a new chance for updates to fail when the current system works? Surely in an industry like this, the less chance of errors, both human and technical, the better.

I find this really perplexing. The increasing amount of software on new trains is supposed to make maintenance easier, e.g. you can get a warning when something is likely to go wrong soon on an individual coach but you don't have to give the whole of that class a regular exam when most of them have nothing wrong with them. But are the trains introduced during the past ten or fifteen years noticeably more reliable than those from before then? It doesn't appear so.

As to whether a software update can or should be rolled out to a whole fleet, when there was a very brief power outage a few years ago affecting many 25 kv AC classes (it caused a momentary frequency drop), the class 700 trains were in the middle of having an update installed, and as a result some were able to recover by themselves while others had to wait for a technician to come and plug in a laptop.

In the case of classes 230 and 769, I think the idea was sensible but the complexities of installing a diesel engine in an electric train that was over 30 years old turned out to be far greater than anyone had expected.

 

[jagardner1984]

The impression I get is of a real proliferation of classes and sub classes. It feels this is setting up some real issues for 20 years down the line and there are dozens of micro fleets which are in need of a home. This seems particularly true given the supply and maintain type contracts manufacturers have - so for example, if a new life is found a long way from the new built facility of CAF/Hitachi/whoever, there are obvious additional costs in moving that skill, machinery, spares to the other end of the country.

By contrast, how many depots have handled one or more of the sprinter classes or HSTs etc. Finding a working model and applying it widely seems like it will be much more efficient long term than hundreds of orders for 10/20/30 trains which have subtle but significant differences to other members of their class/family, which feels like it can only add maintenance, training and operating costs going forward.

How many variations of essentially the same AT300 design are we on now ?

 

[Adam Williams]

I mean, in that case, why introduce a new chance for updates to fail when the current system works?

The current model works, until you need to be able to quickly deploy an update across the fleet (security issue, or critical bug uncovered).

USB sticks are what I might have expected to be in use in 2005, it's not scalable

 

[Bertie the bus]

Don't forget that new trains are full of technology, unlike older units they rely on software, software tends to have bugs in it which is what causes most of the issues with new fleets.

It takes time to update the software on invidual units, they needs to go to each unit, plug a laptop in and update the software manually.

That really isn't a valid excuse. As trains evolved so should the testing.

 

[tomuk]

The biggest problem is the generational change between the older Desiros and the 700s and the Aventras and the Electrostars in both cases you have moved from an 'electromechanical' design with relays and dedicated wiring, and pneumatic systems with a TMS overlaid to a completely 'software' platform with everything computer controlled and linked by various bus style systems in including ethernet.

This similar journey has been seen in the automotive world where you have gone from say dedicated electric window switches and wiring to an intelligent switch module talking to an intelligent window regulator/door module over Canbus.

BTW some stock does allow OTA updates for some systems.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Have the freight TOCs gone back to using electric locos again, after dumping them last year for older diesels because the electricity price was too high?
New technology is useless if it is parked in sidings for economic reasons.

 

[Haywain]

some stock does allow OTA updates for some systems.

OTA??

 

[Snow1964]

There has been too much non-standard innovation going on, even if the basic train has different colour paint or different seats fitted.

The bodyshell for UK train might be different size, but if the software works on the European version, why rewrite it for UK, they basically didn't for Desiro family and they work

Contrast that with two 5car 720s coupled working, but two 5car half trains forming a 701 not working. Basically same train with detail differences, so why fit one with different software that doesn't work.

Software should not need any updates unless the train is modified, the old way of sticking a wiring loom on the floor of a test shed and plugging everything in to check it worked, you checked it and modified it, and only when it is working do you stick it on a production train, whoever invented idea of writing software after starting the physical build needs shooting.

Too much obsession with a need to change things from what is currently working fine, just keep building what works until there is step change in innovation that justifies a change.

 

[AJDesiro]

OTA??

Over The Air

 

[Haywain]

Over The Air

Thanks.

 

[CDM]

It occurs to me that the UK railways have been introducing a lot of new fleets at the moment. Perhaps there is an overload of the resources required to manage these introductions. Also, as we have moved further into privatisation, the central expertise, if any, must have waned. But are these valid thoughts ?.

Yes, very much that.

There's a lot more to it as well, but generally there's a real dearth of skills and experience and what there is, is spread about too thinly.
With no strategic rolling plan and the fragmented management, knowledge and skills just aren't retained and re-used, they just move onto something else and have no long term vested interest in really delivering for the customer (in a lot of cases it's much more of a basic contractual 'tick box' exercise).

Then you add in the frantic short-term bidding timescales against ill-informed specifications and poorly assessed responses, meaning that manufacturers over-promise and under-bid in order to win it.

It's not a disaster by any means, but it's far, far from ideal (with a few notable exceptions where a particular group company did invest retaining an in-house team throughout, since the first days of privatisation).

 

[D365]

(with a few notable exceptions where a particular group company did invest retaining an in-house team throughout, since the first days of privatisation).

very subtle

 

[Deepgreen]

We all know Covid19 is being used as an excuse for all sorts of problems in the UK. Brexit is a valid excuse as well. But I find myself looking beyond those at other reasons for the problems of new fleets of trains.

It occurs to me that the UK railways have been introducing a lot of new fleets at the moment. Perhaps there is an overload of the resources required to manage these introductions. Also, as we have moved further into privatisation, the central expertise, if any, must have waned. But are these valid thoughts ?.

We have also seem innovation at a new level with Bi-Mode locomotives class 73 (re-invented), 88 (new), 93 (new and coming soon) and 99 (new and coming soon). These have done better than the Multiple Units of classes 230 and 769. Despite the 230s or various sub types coming from a small start up "Vivarail" they seem to have more chance than the 769s !. But neither are successfull enough - yet.

I am sure that Covid19 and Brexit will have had some effect but have the railways bitten off more than they can chew ?.

Anyone any other thoughts ?.

Trains continue to have more and more delicate computer technology stuffed into them, and different types at that, so making everything work with everything else (within the train and with external systems) becomes harder and harder. There is a danger of the railway painting itsef into a corner with the disparate systems being used making it so difficult to get stock to work well enough to enter service. The lack of a cohesive rolling stock strategy under privatisation must a big factor in the over-complexity of the situation.

 

[Wezz]

That really isn't a valid excuse. As trains evolved so should the testing.

The testing has evolved massively, bugs and glitches can occure randomly and without warning.
Just like on your PC or smartphone.

 

[jon0844]

Why don't trains support OTA updates nowadays?

Some do. 700s can be done over Wi-Fi, albeit presumably only within a depot - not just hooking up to any old hotspot. I suppose they could even be done using mobile data.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The testing has evolved massively, bugs and glitches can occure randomly and without warning.
Just like on your PC or smartphone.

I work in IT and I can assure you bugs don't occur randomly.

There is also no comparison between a PC and a train. People install and download all sorts of random stuff to their PC in a totally uncontrolled manner. The software on a train is a controlled environment.

 

[Wezz]

I work in IT and I can assure you bugs don't occur randomly.

There is also no comparison between a PC and a train. People install and download all sorts of random stuff to their PC in a totally uncontrolled manner. The software on a train is a controlled environment.

If you work in IT then you'll know that each software update can introduce new bugs and glitches, bugs in the code that run some of the systems can go undetected for a while before they are found.

 

[bramling]

I work in IT and I can assure you bugs don't occur randomly.

There is also no comparison between a PC and a train. People install and download all sorts of random stuff to their PC in a totally uncontrolled manner. The software on a train is a controlled environment.

Yet in signalling, another area now heavily dominated by software, it can be very common to have issues by the dozen. Granted not generally where safety is concerned (though not unheard of - for example the Cambrian speed restrictions, or the District Line at Monument), but certainly affecting performance where things don’t work as envisaged - often because those designing the software don’t understand what the end user needs.

 

[Bertie the bus]

If you work in IT then you'll know that each software update can introduce new bugs and glitches, bugs in the code that run some of the systems can go undetected for a while before they are found.

Lots of things can happen but the conversation should be about what should happen not what can happen, hence my comment about testing and that just saying trains are full of technology is no excuse for many of the problems encountered when they are introduced.

 

[LYuen]

New models always have teething issues. For example class 80Xs, there were suspensions and recallings at first, but now they are the reliable workhorse for various operators.

Also, when the UK stopped designing our own rolling stocks and instead adopt the tendered approach in purchasing trains, it has become more difficult to pinpoint the exact specification which the train services required.

Lots of things can happen but the conversation should be about what should happen not what can happen, hence my comment about testing and that just saying trains are full of technology is no excuse for many of the problems encountered when they are introduced.

There's a huge difference between critical failures and incidental issues.
The red line is a critical failure that has gone undetected and led to (or potentially would have) a fetal accident.
And this is still very rare for the new trainsets because issues could be detected and managed before an accident occurs.
When on-train diagnostic tools discovered an issue and prevented the train from going, it is the failsafe system works as intended.