Time to get new trains earning money.

[superkev]

My local airline jet2 took delivery of a a brand new Boeing 737 last Thursday and I hear it will be carrying its first passengers this Wednesday. That's less than a week of prep.
Bit of a contrast to the railway then where timescales seem to be months or even years between leaving the manufacturer and earning money.
K

 

[edwin_m]

I seem to remember Class 66s had some checks on the dockside, and were then fuelled up and ready to go into service.

 

[Blamethrower]

agreed.

"new" trains are almost second hand by the time they enter revenue service. I've asked what specific test cases are required for each type of train, why it took so long and got no answer.

Maybe a plane has fewer compatibility issues to worry about.

My issue with this though is the same with cars.

They've been building them for years, the very premise of the design has not changed in that time, so why do manufacturers still churn out wares with so many faults in them?

They say "innovations", I say "full of defects".

I can't understand why the 700's seem to be having so many teething troubles. The tech is ancient and there has been an operating model on this line for donkeys years.

I can imagine the corporate collaboration models are full of procrastinators, much like where I work

 

[CosherB]

What I think you have demonstrated is a complete lack of understanding of how both the airline and rail industries operate in terms of new product acceptance. You're not comparing 'apples with apples'.

 

[Rail Blues]

I seem to remember Class 66s had some checks on the dockside, and were then fuelled up and ready to go into service.

Yep,apparently it was just a case of removing the chocks on the brakes and then putting some fuel in and it was good to go!

 

[NSEFAN]

agreed.

"new" trains are almost second hand by the time they enter revenue service. I've asked what specific test cases are required for each type of train, why it took so long and got no answer.

Maybe a plane has fewer compatibility issues to worry about.

My issue with this though is the same with cars.

They've been building them for years, the very premise of the design has not changed in that time, so why do manufacturers still churn out wares with so many faults in them?

They say "innovations", I say "full of defects".

I can't understand why the 700's seem to be having so many teething troubles. The tech is ancient and there has been an operating model on this line for donkeys years.

I can imagine the corporate collaboration models are full of procrastinators, much like where I work

The principle of a train on metal wheels isn't new, but each new fleet will have slight differences in system architecture that can create unintended problems. Until the train is being tested in the actual environment its supposed to run in, you can't be sure you've solved all the problems. I suppose we could just build more stock using exactly the same design and parts as the previous fleets, but that approach prevents you from ever doing anything different.

 

[jopsuk]

Jet2 already had a fleet of 737s. As far as I can tell the newest one isn't even the first 737-800 they've taken delivery of. So all the pilots and crew will be trained and qualified. Every airport they operate to will be well versed in handling a 738. Boeing will have carried out extensive QA testing before delivery.

 

[Domh245]

Boeing can churn out 737s at over 40 planes per month, and by this stage, they are a very proven design. This particular 737 (G-JZHJ) will have spent some time doing test flights (as N1787B) before being registered and delivered. Jet2 don't have to do much to it at all before pressing it into service, think fitting the antimacassars and filling up the seat pockets with magazines.

Similarly, trains (especially proven designs like the electrostars) can be churned out, get the fault free running under their belt, and then be in service. However, comparing the 737s with a class 700 is apples and oranges. The 700s are still very much in their early stages (approximately where the 737NG was in 1997). I expect that by the end of the 700 introduction and for the 707s, they will have comparatively short down times between arriving in the UK and entering service.

 

[BigCj34]

Air traffic control slotting and airfields aside, plane don't have much infrastructure to worry about. Trains kind of do, and would presumably require a lot of testing to ensure compatibility with the existing tracks and signalling. That's my humble take on it.

 

[ainsworth74]

A Boeing 737 is a product dating back the 1960s so at this point it's something of a known quantity. But even then when Boeing roll out a new model there is a test program before it goes into revenue earning service.

Jet2 have taken delivery of a product which has had all of its testing and acceptance done. In the not too distant future (if not already) 700s will be arriving and going into service days after arrival as we're getting to that point in the program. And as someone else has said 66s started doing that once they were a known quantity.

It is also worth considering that aircraft have to undergo a somewhat more rigorous testing and acceptance program before they can even take off. After all the worst that can happen if a 700 decides it doesn't like something is it rolls to a halt. An aircraft on the other hand will fall out of the sky and hit who knows what...

I'm not sure the two situations are really all that comparable personally.

 

[jopsuk]

The aircraft manufacturers have to build complete planes that will never leave the ground. The initial flight test airframes may then not ever go into service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But it is true that the railway makes a meal of anything new.
The majority of airlines operate something like half a dozen well-known types of airliner worldwide, with maybe one new type or major upgrade a year.
In comparison, the GB railway has many more types of stock, and seems to introduce several completely new types every year, in relatively low volumes.
It all adds to the cost of introducing anything new, and the complexity of interworking across the network over the lifetime of the trains.
Think about the business model simplicity of EasyJet or Ryanair, with only one type of plane in each fleet (which are pumped out by the manufacturers in large numbers).
They are also go-anywhere planes, almost every airport worldwide can cope with Airbus 32x and Boeing 73x.
I suppose Merseyrail is about the only GB rail equivalent. c2c comes close.

 

[theblackwatch]

A Boeing 737 is a product dating back the 1960s so at this point it's something of a known quantity. But even then when Boeing roll out a new model there is a test program before it goes into revenue earning service.

Jet2 have taken delivery of a product which has had all of its testing and acceptance done. In the not too distant future (if not already) 700s will be arriving and going into service days after arrival as we're getting to that point in the program. And as someone else has said 66s started doing that once they were a known quantity.

It is also worth considering that aircraft have to undergo a somewhat more rigorous testing and acceptance program before they can even take off. After all the worst that can happen if a 700 decides it doesn't like something is it rolls to a halt. An aircraft on the other hand will fall out of the sky and hit who knows what...

I'm not sure the two situations are really all that comparable personally.

Perhaps a better comparison would be, how long was it between the first 737 or two rolling off the production line and them entering regular service?

 

[Darandio]

Perhaps a better comparison would be, how long was it between the first 737 or two rolling off the production line and them entering regular service?

If Wikipedia is to be believed, this is what I can gather....

First prototype - December 1966
Maiden Flight - April 1967
First Delivery - December 1967
Revenue Service - February 1968

 

[Marklund]

Although the OP is not comparing like with like, it does raise the question of why there is too little rolling stock standardisation, giving the situations where even some batches of Electrostars can't speak to each other.

 

[WatcherZero]

Aircraft introduction is a bit more complicated, you have static testing rigs to test the components through their expected lifetime individually and the first few prototypes often dont enter revenue service or do so several years later after in a garage sale because they continue to be used by the manufacturer as test and development aircraft, they are also fitted full of sensors which weaken and degrade their performance and potential life.

 

[swt_passenger]

Once a new class of trains is into series production, and train crews in the area they are being delivered to ALL now how to operate them, they do usually enter service much more quickly in the latter stages.

 

[JN114]

Although the OP is not comparing like with like, it does raise the question of why there is too little rolling stock standardisation, giving the situations where even some batches of Electrostars can't speak to each other.

I refer the hon member to XKCD #927

http://xkcd.com/927/

 

[najaB]

My local airline jet2 took delivery of a a brand new Boeing 737 last Thursday and I hear it will be carrying its first passengers this Wednesday. That's less than a week of prep.
Bit of a contrast to the railway then where timescales seem to be months or even years between leaving the manufacturer and earning money.
K

With respect, you are totally wrong here. You are comparing acceptance of a new vehicle of a type already operated to acceptance of a new type.

It takes months or even a year or more for an airline to accept a new type into their fleet - they have to get their pilots type rated and their mechanics certified to perform maintenance. This process will start months or even a year before they get their first example. Once they receive the initial example(s), there will normally be a couple of weeks of ground school, followed by several weeks of familiarisation flights (for example, Air France operated A380s on Paris-London shuttles for several weeks before starting long-haul service).

For long-haul airlines, they won't start operational service until they have at least three examples (two to operate the service, plus one 'spare').

In your example, Jet2 already operate the type, already have pilots, cabin crew, mechanics and ground staff who are familiar with the type and a fleet that can be called on in case the new plane goes 'tech'.

 

[pdeaves]

As a matter of interest, it was 39 days between the first 387 arriving with GWR and the first public operation, by all accounts phenomenally fast. During that 39 days, sufficient drivers and fitters were trained, platforms were gauge cleared, tests were completed to ensure no accidental effects on the signalling system and no doubt a host of other things, too.

 

[Dave1987]

The new 737's are 737 'max' which is the latest derivative of the 737 family incorporating newer flight deck avionics, more efficient wing design and more fuel efficient engines. BUT it has the same type rating as the NG before it. Crews just need a minimal amount of training to get up to speed with the newer flight deck and different handling characteristics. It is just not possible to compare aircraft commissioning to trains. When the Airbus A380 was introduced it took months for pilots to be trained and type rated.

 

[Marklund]

I refer the hon member to XKCD #927

http://xkcd.com/927/

Hah, true, but in this case it's the same company building the same (although slightly updated) train.

 

[AlterEgo]

What I think you have demonstrated is a complete lack of understanding of how both the airline and rail industries operate in terms of new product acceptance. You're not comparing 'apples with apples'.

Please Lord, save us from airline comparisons on RUK. Please please please.

 

[Marklund]

Crews just need a minimal amount of training to get up to speed with the newer flight deck and different handling characteristics.

Kegworth...
Where insufficient training from one type to the other failed. There wasn't even a -400 simulator in the country, so it's not quite minimal.

 

[Domh245]

The new 737's are 737 'max' which is the latest derivative of the 737 family incorporating newer flight deck avionics, more efficient wing design and more fuel efficient engines. BUT it has the same type rating as the NG before it. Crews just need a minimal amount of training to get up to speed with the newer flight deck and different handling characteristics. It is just not possible to compare aircraft commissioning to trains. When the Airbus A380 was introduced it took months for pilots to be trained and type rated.

737 Max is still undergoing testing and due to enter service next year. The aircraft in question is a 737NG (8MG).

Kegworth...
Where insufficient training from one type to the other failed. There wasn't even a -400 simulator in the country, so it's not quite minimal.

In this case however, the jump from NG to Max is much much less than the jump from -200 to -400 that was a factor at Kegworth.

 

[Dave1987]

737 Max is still undergoing testing and due to enter service next year. The aircraft in question is a 737NG (8MG).

I stand corrected! I knew that the Max was due into service soon. If it was an NG then it would be virtually straight into service. But the whole point is that the OP is comparing something that just isn't comparable.

(P.S I know this is a rail forum but aviation is my hobby and once I start talking about it other people get bored first )

 

[jon0844]

Please Lord, save us from airline comparisons on RUK. Please please please.

We need to get a supermarket comparison in somewhere too.

 

[route:oxford]

My local airline jet2 took delivery of a a brand new Boeing 737 last Thursday and I hear it will be carrying its first passengers this Wednesday. That's less than a week of prep.
Bit of a contrast to the railway then where timescales seem to be months or even years between leaving the manufacturer and earning money.
K

Indeed, and a bit of a contrast to Boeing's foray into the rail industry of the 1970s.

The Boeing Vertol LRV was a federally-backed effort to develop a new standard light-rail vehicle for U.S. cities in the 1970s. Originally, seven cities that still had streetcar service were to buy the cars, but as the development of the vehicles proceeded down a glitch-filled path, all but two, Boston and San Francisco, backed out of their commitments.

The cars that were built proved to be lemons in both cities. Doors jammed regularly, their siding rusted and they broke down as often as they ran. “Muni management hated them for their unreliability,” said Rick Laubscher, head of the city’s Market Street Railway historic preservation group.

Bit more on Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Light_Rail_Vehicle

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Kegworth...
Where insufficient training from one type to the other failed. There wasn't even a -400 simulator in the country, so it's not quite minimal.

And yet the pilots took the brunt of the blame from BMi and were sacked! Yes the pilots made a critical error, but based on their knowledge and prior experience and the information available to them at the time, i dont think BMi were entirely fair to them, especially as training wasnt sufficient for the new type.

 

[whoosh]

With Class 700s there will be an attempt to get a derogation around the rules of a lower speed with brakes isolated on a vehicle, as the computer systems on board will increase the braking on the other vehicles to compensate automatically. This means more testing!