UK's rolling stock introduction rules

[Camden]

Re the various rounds of tests and training that need to happen before a train is allowed to carry passengers on the UK network, I wonder how we compare to other countries in our regulatory burden?

Which countries get stock rolling faster (or slower) than we do? Where do we, or they, miss a trick?

How much is operationally necessary or true safety, versus unionised or legacy etc?

 

[zwk500]

How much is operationally necessary, versus true safety or unionised?

How does your definition of 'operationally necessary' safety differ from your definition of 'true' safety?

 

[Camden]

Edited to try and make more sense. I guess I mean how much of what we do is really essential to reasonably safely and reliably run a train.

 

[zwk500]

Ah, make a bit more sense. If I'm reading you right that you mean 'How much is for operational reasons, how much for safety reasons, and how big a say do the unions get?'

As a general rule, new rolling stock doesn't get legacy protection (Refurbished stock does to a point, depending on what was retouched).

I don't know the ins and outs, but I believe that there's a series of tests applied to a sample of a class of new units, under test conditions for things like interaction with traction current supply and signalling systems like TPWS.
Then I'm pretty sure each individual unit has to demonstrate it meets certain criteria before it's accepted into service.

The list of things that must be approved, and to what level/standard is probably on the RSSB website somewhere. Someone more knowledgeable than me will be able to say which regulations fall into your categories. This is as good a place to start as any: https://www.rssb.co.uk/en/RSSB-and-the-rail-industry/Products-and-Services/Rolling-stock

It's worth pointing out that some things will overlap - i.e. clearance to platforms is both Operational and Safety, and the unions may object to some things on safety grounds, and others on operational grounds.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You can find many examples of lengthy testing/introduction of new stock abroad, especially where cross-border services are involved.
Some never even make it - the Ansaldo Fyra trains for NL and BE for example, now confined to domestic services in Italy.
There are also many examples of stock working happily on home turf, but which cannot get past the acceptance process for neighbouring countries.
There are signs that the TSI system, designed to achieve a common specification across the EU, is making cross-certification easier, especially for high-speed stock.
But there is no sign that any of that applies in the UK yet, even though we signed up to the same TSIs.
The idea that trains can be certified EU-wide after a spell on the Wildenrath test track and then immediately put into service in the UK seems still a pipe-dream.
Compare that with airlines which fly new types of plane into new airports with passengers seemingly at the drop of a hat - eg the A380 evacuation flights from Wuhan to Brize Norton.

 

[Domh245]

The idea that trains can be certified EU-wide after a spell on the Wildenrath test track and then immediately put into service in the UK seems still a pipe-dream.

Long enough term it might work, but whilst there is still such a menagerie of infrastructure it obviously can't be done. The obvious situation is the 345s, they can quite happily accelerate, brake and open the doors, but making them work with the specific infrastructure is proving difficult.

Compare that with airlines which fly new types of plane into new airports with passengers seemingly at the drop of a hat - eg the A380 evacuation flights from Wuhan to Brize Norton.

A slightly optimistic comparison - a one off evacuation flight to an RAF airbase means that most of the usual issues around servicing the aircraft normally (jetbridges, terminal capacity etc) is going to be simpler to clear, remember the difficulty in clearing A380s for most of their usual service routes (or at the very least, the amount of investment required to accommodate them)

It also helps that air and tarmac tends to be more or less the same worldwide, so provided there's a long enough runway

 

[zwk500]

The idea that trains can be certified EU-wide after a spell on the Wildenrath test track and then immediately put into service in the UK seems still a pipe-dream.

Bear in mind the UK has a lot smaller loading gauge, and the UK uses a lot of legacy systems that don't have a ready parallel with Continental systems. A further point is there's a massive difference between a controlled test and a field test environment.

Compare that with airlines which fly new types of plane into new airports with passengers seemingly at the drop of a hat - eg the A380 evacuation flights from Wuhan to Brize Norton.

There's a huge difference between approving a type already in service for a new area, and approving a type not in service for the general public. Your A380 example would be equivalent to approving (say) a Class 390 on the GWML, not introducing a brand new unit that's never run on the network before.

 

[Bald Rick]

Compare that with airlines which fly new types of plane into new airports with passengers seemingly at the drop of a hat - eg the A380 evacuation flights from Wuhan to Brize Norton.

The A380 is a great example.

The first aircraft rolled off the production line in January 2005. It’s first test flight flight was three months later. The first A380 passenger carrying fight was in October 2007. And that was a quick process in airliner terms.

 

[James James]

Re the various rounds of tests and training that need to happen before a train is allowed to carry passengers on the UK network, I wonder how we compare to other countries in our regulatory burden?

Which countries get stock rolling faster (or slower) than we do? Where do we, or they, miss a trick?

How much is operationally necessary or true safety, versus unionised or legacy etc?

I've certainly heard of a few odd issues, including Germany changing regulations after construction of a train had started (affected some units for Meridian) - although that was at least a minor issue that could be solved with paperwork. More significantly, France really plays its own game meaning units that were already approved for DE/CH/IT were completely blocked from the French network, requiring construction of entirely new units - fortunately the units that had been blocked found another use rather quickly.

Can't compare to the UK though.

 

[Camden]

Ah, make a bit more sense. If I'm reading you right that you mean 'How much is for operational reasons, how much for safety reasons, and how big a say do the unions get?'

Yes although not just unions. They're probably more a barrier to reducing requirements, rather than the reason the requirements exist right now.

Some interesting observations so far. I wonder what if anything could be done to get our country's trains in service faster.

 

[edwin_m]

It's a lot faster now than in the 1990s when a combination of new traction electronics and new safety approvals processes could see new EMUs in the sidings for months or even years. A combination of new standards guidance and everyone getting their head round the new processes has largely eliminated that problem. I suspect some of the issues in the other countries are similar teething problems since the EU mandated similar processes on their other members. As far as I can tell the delays to the 769 and 230, and certainly to the 385, are genuine problems with the trains rather than paperwork.