Failure rate

[YorkshireBear]

echo the comments of thats impressive.

Only had two XC services cancel on me in the last 2 years, didnt use trains too much before then, and both were HST's.

 

[asylumxl]

Does anyone have any figures for what previous years/ generations managed without "failure"? I appreciate there's an element of "lies, damned lies and statistics", but it'd be interesting to see whether modern stock (which is a lot more complicated) is much of an improvement on the simpler things they replaced.

It will have to be higher. Modern units will have a far higher level of redundancy than older units.

 

[tbtc]

It will have to be higher. Modern units will have a far higher level of redundancy than older units.

That's what I wondered, given the additional complications of modern trains and the amount of things which can go wrong.

Plus there's the "digital" element of modern trains, where you can't just "make do and mend"

 

[mumrar]

I do not believe that the outgoing trains were more reliable, as seems to be implied above. Ask anyone who travelled in the days before operation princess. How much time do you think a 37 hauled HST would lose, or a 56 hauled mk2 set. Reliability and cancellations were woeful for many years, and obviously as the problems with modern stock has been ironed out, then things have improved.

 

[jopsuk]

of course, in the old days, if a loco failed there was invariably something nearby that could haul it- and often a fully suitable replacement could be found to continue the journey, with some delay. Because the redundancy, rather than being contained on the train itself, involved having sheds everywhere with spare locomotives sat idle and spare crews.

 

[YorkshireBear]

maybe this is why they are overcrowded. dam them reliable trains