Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by Llandudno, 14 Dec 2019.
Example of what?
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!)
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.
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.
b) deprioritise and do minimum
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!
My 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.
They are independent but just indicative that all contracts for certain manufacturers are problematic.
a vs b seem very manufacturer dependant
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.
because, of course, penalties will ensure timely delivery.
Oh and BTW it seems the answer to my question was yes.
indeed - but it will be more option b if the relationship has completely broken down and our learned friends are involved.
I'm getting a strange sense of de ja vu from about this time two years ago...
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.
2 tram service (so ~30 minute frequency) expected to resume today.
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).
That doesn't leave me much wiser.
So...can anybody explain what systems on the tram-trains are hydraulics related? Brakes? Transmission? Something else.
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).
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.
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.
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
Stadler Trams do have them and so will the new Glasgow "Clockwork Orange" replacements to save on compressor space...
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.
Maybe I should stop trusting wikipedia!
Tram train service now resumed - 2 trams per hour until further notice (they were promising the return of 3 trams per hour service from the 15th )