The difference being every new train type is effectively a prototype and also has vastly more interaction with what is going on outside than an aircraft. Another 737 or A32x is not the same thing at all
It's not anyone's fault. It comes ultimately from the stupid design of the franchising system dating from privatisation.
It is Hitachi's fault!
So it sounds like it's multiple people at fault so no one takes the blame or learns for the future
It's the DfT procurement model that needs fixing. Any procurement process that ends up with just 33 trains of one single bespoke design is flawed, and only DfT can fix that.
Sure they have. But the 810 is a fundamentally different design from the 26m-bodyshell 80x.
And then the issue also was they were using parts from the previous batches that were not suitable for the 810, and continued to do so even while the staff building them were telling management it was wrong.
If we're going to start at the top then I vote for British Exceptionalism and how we are so much cleverer than other countries that have ongoing or completed rolling programmes of electrification.
I agree - not being able to have a standard solution for the MML led to a micro fleet requiring significant redesign costs and technical risk.
Commercial teams in the client will look to contractual incentives and penalties to insure against under-delivery. This can work, but with very troublesome projects, the client eventually runs out of meaningful penalties to inflict on the supplier. At that point you may have an utterly dysfunctional relationship, with the supplier prioritising more lucrative contracts and raising a compensation event every time somebody coughs.
It is worth remembering that the DfT's obsession with 26m vehicles (and hence 260m trains, due to certain mandarin wanting 5-car 'half-units') resulted in eye watering sums of money being spent to move signals at at least one London terminal to accommodate them.
And lots of the 26m vehicle length is not productively used due to the comparatively huge gaps between the vehicle ends. The 80x intermediate vehicle bodyshells are only 25.00m and could have far shorter permanent coupler and corridor connections which would decrease the nominal overall intermediate vehicle lengths from 26.00 to ~25.50 with no impact on floor space or capacity.
thanka, not a bad idea at all
Makes sense to get a day ranger or open ticket, there are no reservations on the 810s anyway so if you did have an advance ticket it would still be first come first serve
Yes, they make quite a nice journey, not sure if it was just me though or could you feel a pressure difference when setting off/stopping, it made my ears pop when I rode them...
Really, with the DfT having a monopoly over EVERYTHING, have we really had a privatised railway for the last 30 odd years? I think not.
Well. Would you have running rights for the length of time that you would expect that order for trains to run? (The franchise)....If open access, would you have rights for that length of time? So, even with a franchised system, surely it would have to be signed off by the DfT, and possibly taken on by a later franchise holder. Will it change under GBR? Will they buy or lease? Lots of questions. But is there an answer? At the moment, I'd rather have reliable trains on our London St Pancras services.
Yes I could.
Yep! Currently on it for the first time, boarding at Leicester. You'd never guess what the fault was (door fault).
On electric yes - on diesel they are slower than a good 222.
XC would have had longer Voyagers - at the least an extension of all the 4-cars to 5-car (any longer would have impeded running pairs), but even back in those days (early 2000s) it was stopped by Government.
I am sure Branson wanted 6 carriages, which with each axis having a service every 30 minutes, might have worked.
