When modern rolling stock fails, what has typically gone wrong?

[Fen Enthusiast]

Hi all,

When modern rolling stock fails, I'm thinking anything post privatisation, what sort of stuff is it that goes wrong with them and causes them to fail? Just curious, especially since I'm bored of hearing along the lines of "They don't make them like they used to" also considering there was horrendously unreliable rolling stock built for BR and other UK railways back in the day.

 

[TRAX]

Software and electronics.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Software and electronics.

You tend to get alarms in the cab which relate to TMS. Some can be accepted and allow to continue, some aren't.
Over the last few years our TOC has suffered lots of sanding equipment alarms, but these are becoming less frequent.

 

[O L Leigh]

A lot of times it's the same things that would cause an old train to fail too. The only things extra would be cab A/C on a very hot day or an upset TMS telling tales of serious woe.

 

[357]

I think possibly one difference is when faults are identified.

With rolling stock without a TMS, many times it would only be discovered when it fails. A TMS can in many cases warn of a fault before it occurred.

An overheating motor for example, as soon as the computer detects the temperature rising, once a certain degree is detected, a warning comes up on the TMS. A call to control and they will remotely monitor the situation, possibly telling the driver to go back and isolate that motor (one MCB in the body end cupboard does this).

With older stock, you'll only find out there's an issue when it fails, and it's possible that "you'll be going nowhere".

 

[Kneedown]

I think new procedures play a part as well. Back in the days before GSMR radio, with no instant communication with Control, fault finding formed a great part of traction training as a Driver was expected to identify a fault and remedy it where possible, using his/her own initiative where necessary, in order to get going again. Nowadays we're not allowed to fix anything at all without authority from, and under the guidance of Maintenance Control. The result of this is that fault identification and rectification is much more time consuming, and fault finding plays a much lesser role during traction courses.
I may be wrong, but I believe this is due to our old friend, "Delay Attribution". If a Driver identies and remedies a fault without guidance, the Operations Department is liable for the Delay. If remedied under guidance from, and with authority of Maintenance Control, then they cop for the delay.
Crazy I know.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, it isn’t delay attribution - it’s because the kit is now more complicated than it was and one wrong move, by driver or fitter, can in some cases wreck it, costing the TOC far more than paltry schedule 8 monies.

 

[yorksrob]

I blame computers.

The old slammers were much more reliable.

 

[Kneedown]

No, it isn’t delay attribution - it’s because the kit is now more complicated than it was and one wrong move, by driver or fitter, can in some cases wreck it, costing the TOC far more than paltry schedule 8 monies.

True for modern stuff, but the policy still applies to our older stock such as 15x s without computers, and indeed the HSTs when we had them.

 

[D365]

I blame computers.

The old slammers were much more reliable.

I'd have been shocked if you were of any other opinion

However, remote condition monitoring does allow depot activity to become much more efficient. However, as 357 states upthread, a properly implemented TMS can enable a greater degree of failure mitigation:

I think possibly one difference is when faults are identified.

With rolling stock without a TMS, many times it would only be discovered when it fails. A TMS can in many cases warn of a fault before it occurred.

An overheating motor for example, as soon as the computer detects the temperature rising, once a certain degree is detected, a warning comes up on the TMS. A call to control and they will remotely monitor the situation, possibly telling the driver to go back and isolate that motor (one MCB in the body end cupboard does this).

With older stock, you'll only find out there's an issue when it fails, and it's possible that "you'll be going nowhere".

 

[ComUtoR]

No, it isn’t delay attribution - it’s because the kit is now more complicated than it was and one wrong move, by driver or fitter, can in some cases wreck it, costing the TOC far more than paltry schedule 8 monies.

Our cut and run policy is entirely about delays.

On our more modern stock it may be far more complicated under eath but it's super simple on top. Instead of hunting for the issue, the TMS just tells you. The TMS will also tell you how to resolve it.

The fact we aren't allowed to fix the issue is all about the money.

 

[Alanko]

Yaw dampers and jacking points?

 

[Spartacus]

Anything any everything really, just the same as ever, it all depends on the fleet really. You usually get a lot of little niggles, often with the same stuff, when a new fleet's introduced, but that's always been the case.
As said earlier, one with with modern stock is that it'll flag faults up earlier, potentially making them look worse than they are, but overall that means that a fault that could lead to a failure, or the unit being taken out of service for some time once it's examined back at the depot, actually gets managed sooner so isn't likely to lead to serious long term damage.

 

[AM9]

The difference between modern trains and their simpler predecessors is similar to road vehicles. Gone are the days when summer road trips on hot days saw vehicles parked on the roadside with bonnets up whilst the driver maybe topped them up of just let them cool down for half an hour. Or on frosty days when the morning chorus included the churning of starters slogging before the engine (usually) just kicking into life before the battery gave up. Then there was the stench of almost neat petrol fumes coming from the exhaust with the engine on full choke for a couple of miles.
The simple fact is that levels of performance, energy efficiency, passenger safety and genuine availability for service can only be achieved with the aid of control electronics, and ignoring warning indicators is a recipie for massive disruption when 'the computer eventually says no'.