On 6 Jan, 16:38, MIG wrote:

On Jan 6, 2:34*pm, Mizter T wrote:

(snip)

One thing that never seems to get a lot of focus in such situations is
the failed train - what failed, why, and can better maintenance
prevent it or rather more realistically lessen the frequency of such a
failure occurring. It seems to be taken as a given, on both LU and the
mainline railway, that trains fail - of course some will, but I'm not
so sure this should be taken as a given as much as it seems to be.

Connected to this - will the new 09TS for the Vic line and the new S
stock have some fancy but useful self-diagnostic systems on board, for
example? Maybe such things aren't that helpful but depot based systems
are - and in this context I mean system not just as in a computer but
a whole process. TBH I don't very little about the railway rolling
stock maintenance regimes that are in use and I'm sure that they have
advanced significantly over recent years (or at least I would hope
they have!) but I suspect more can be done.

This rings a bell digs around piles of dusty stuff.

"[The trains] incorporate 'tell-tale' train equipment panels ..."

From the Piccadilly Line progress report, dated 1976.

Ah, and from Brian Hardy in 1976 "Improvements incorporated in this
stock are ... a train equipment fault-finding panel for the driver's
use ...".

Funny how things stick in one's mind. *No great relevance really.


Well, yes, if only to treat with a (un)healthy dose of salty
scepticism any claims that a new train is a self-diagnosing healing
machine.

I do like the optimism of a Piccadilly line progress report from 1976,
given that it opened in 1906! Not saying that that fact invalidates
the notion that progress is possible on such a line of course, as it
obviously is. Do LU still do yearly progress reports and call them
that, or was the report not part of an annual series and instead more
of a one-off?