|
|
Post by tomtom11928 on Nov 1, 2018 19:54:56 GMT
Lorry driver's insurance should be buying them a new 399, IMO, assuming it's a write-off/unrepairable. There's the question of whether Stadler would fire up that production line again just for one unit - I suspect a one off re run would cost more than the original batch would have cost each. |
 |
|
|
|
Post by swfcforever on Nov 2, 2018 23:02:13 GMT
Lorry driver's insurance should be buying them a new 399, IMO, assuming it's a write-off/unrepairable. There's the question of whether Stadler would fire up that production line again just for one unit - I suspect a one off re run would cost more than the original batch would have cost each. The structural integrity of the tram, if its repaired? |
|
|
|
|
Post by lv426 on Nov 3, 2018 9:19:17 GMT
There's the question of whether Stadler would fire up that production line again just for one unit - I suspect a one off re run would cost more than the original batch would have cost each. A big insurance claim, then. I suppose it depends on how much commonality there is with vehicles they may be making for elsewhere. I believe that our seven were themselves at least partly based on an existing line. The structural integrity of the tram, if its repaired? At the very least, if it is repairable, and repaired, and reverts to use on the TT route, Network Rail (or whoever else is involved in Rail safety) will want to be certain of its structural integrity. And no doubt SuperTram would be similarly concerned even if it were demoted to "normal" tram routes. No risk, IMO, of anything even remotely substandard finding its way into service. |
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Nov 3, 2018 12:15:51 GMT
Quick note regarding 399204 - it is currently awaiting assessment from Stadler who are sending a crew over from Spain. However, considering the ensure frame has been twisted/bent and the force of the impact that has rippled down all 3 cars of the unit, including breaking the floor - it's highly likely that the entire unit will be a write off and used to donate parts to the other 6 Stadler units. 399206 is currently been fitted with S1 wheel profiles to allow use on NR, and this must be done by end of play Thursday to meet NR rules and regulations. You may see it out on test runs over the next few nights if you're lucky! As we were given to believe that 3 of these sets were just "spares" there should be no real issues then as with any well run system with that amount of spare vehicles there should be a full service up and running within a day or so. |
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Nov 3, 2018 12:16:49 GMT
There's the question of whether Stadler would fire up that production line again just for one unit - I suspect a one off re run would cost more than the original batch would have cost each. A big insurance claim, then. I suppose it depends on how much commonality there is with vehicles they may be making for elsewhere. I believe that our seven were themselves at least partly based on an existing line. The structural integrity of the tram, if its repaired? At the very least, if it is repairable, and repaired, and reverts to use on the TT route, Network Rail (or whoever else is involved in Rail safety) will want to be certain of its structural integrity. And no doubt SuperTram would be similarly concerned even if it were demoted to "normal" tram routes. No risk, IMO, of anything even remotely substandard finding its way into service. it is written off is there any need to replace it as there are 3 spare sets? |
|
|
431
Driver
Posts: 186 
|
Post by 431 on Nov 3, 2018 17:20:28 GMT
Tram Train 399206 as had its bodies changed & is now in use on the Tram Train network.......
|
|
|
|
|
Post by lv426 on Nov 3, 2018 17:24:33 GMT
IF it is written off is there any need to replace it as there are 3 spare sets? One supposes that the order for seven in total was determined, not by the intention that one would be quickly written off, but by forecast need for a future that would extend to the time the Siemens vehicles needed to be withdrawn and replaced by something new again. In any case, IF the fault is with the truck driver - why would or should SuperTram settle for anything less than replacement or full repair to as-new? |
|
|
|
|
Post by DPL233 (33LUG) on Nov 5, 2018 6:49:51 GMT
IF it is written off is there any need to replace it as there are 3 spare sets? One supposes that the order for seven in total was determined, not by the intention that one would be quickly written off, but by forecast need for a future that would extend to the time the Siemens vehicles needed to be withdrawn and replaced by something new again. In any case, IF the fault is with the truck driver - why would or should SuperTram settle for anything less than replacement or full repair to as-new? If it is written off, and the Siemens Units are going to be replaced at some stage (as the SYPTE reports seems to think they are), then it may be better to simply tag an extra vehicle on when they order the replacements and run with just the 6 remaining TramTrain vehicles for a while. |
|
|
|
|
Post by lv426 on Nov 5, 2018 7:40:45 GMT
Yes, all very well if it were an accident of SuperTram's making. But again I ask - assuming the blame lies with the lorry driver - and I acknowledge that is yet to be confirmed - why would or should SuperTram settle for anything less than replacement or full repair to as-new? The only body to benefit from anything less would be the driver and/or his insurer.
Or, to put it another way.......
You have two cars. You can manage with one, but you have two. You are out driving in the nicer, newer car of the two. A lorry driver flattens it. And you decide that it's OK - you can manage with the other, older car, for a few years until that older car is beyond repair and needs replacing...... That's what you'd do - right?
|
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Nov 5, 2018 9:56:43 GMT
Yes, all very well if it were an accident of SuperTram's making. But again I ask - assuming the blame lies with the lorry driver - and I acknowledge that is yet to be confirmed - why would or should SuperTram settle for anything less than replacement or full repair to as-new? The only body to benefit from anything less would be the driver and/or his insurer. Or, to put it another way....... You have two cars. You can manage with one, but you have two. You are out driving in the nicer, newer car of the two. A lorry driver flattens it. And you decide that it's OK - you can manage with the other, older car, for a few years until that older car is beyond repair and needs replacing...... That's what you'd do - right? Comparisons with private motoring do not stand up. In a situation like this there are different factors involved. It is pretty certain there will be a limit on the insurance level offered by the lorry firms cover. That is normal in commercial insurance. With a private car insurance you can go out to the local dealer and pick up a car to a similar spec to the one that has been written off ( and there is a massive assumption going on that this is the case here). Commercial insurance businesses are much more likely to "do a deal" especially for a vehicle that is not required for daily operation but is merely a spare and being used to prop up an ageing fleet as yet another back door subsidy to the tram system. There is no real business case for replacing this tram as there are sufficient to perform the service they were bought for. Any other use of them is just icing on the cake. The other side to all this is that 1. we dont know if the tram is going to be written off. 2. we would all like the claim to go ahead so ALL our insurances can be jacked up to help the payout. 3. we dont know yet if it was the lorry drivers fault, S.P.A.D,s are common on the tram system. 4. The report on the future of the tram system could come up with the idea of closing it and replacing it with more flexible buses so the whole point would be moot. |
|
|
|
|
Post by DPL233 (33LUG) on Nov 6, 2018 19:43:43 GMT
Yes, all very well if it were an accident of SuperTram's making. But again I ask - assuming the blame lies with the lorry driver - and I acknowledge that is yet to be confirmed - why would or should SuperTram settle for anything less than replacement or full repair to as-new? The only body to benefit from anything less would be the driver and/or his insurer. Or, to put it another way....... You have two cars. You can manage with one, but you have two. You are out driving in the nicer, newer car of the two. A lorry driver flattens it. And you decide that it's OK - you can manage with the other, older car, for a few years until that older car is beyond repair and needs replacing...... That's what you'd do - right? The point I was trying to make, was that there are reports that re-opening the production line for 1 vehicle may make the cost excessive to replace the one vehicle - however if the production line was to be 26 vehicles, or more (even if it wasn’t for a year or two), then a replacement vehicle may be more likely. If the cost is excessive, and SuperTram can manage without it - then they may just get the cash, and still have a reduced fleet of 31 vehicles. |
|
|
darnall42
Driver
Invasion Of The Streetshites
Posts: 299
|
Post by darnall42 on Nov 30, 2018 22:49:39 GMT
|
|
|
donc
Inspector
Posts: 650
|
Post by donc on Dec 1, 2018 13:39:37 GMT
Has the first tram being repaired yet, if not they are going to have issues keeping the timetable services running surely.
They cannot afford another crash.
|
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Dec 1, 2018 16:05:47 GMT
Has the first tram being repaired yet, if not they are going to have issues keeping the timetable services running surely. They cannot afford another crash. There has already been multiple cancellations with just one missing. |
|
|
|
|
Post by simonk82701 on Dec 1, 2018 17:06:38 GMT
Has the first tram being repaired yet, if not they are going to have issues keeping the timetable services running surely. They cannot afford another crash. There has already been multiple cancellations with just one missing. Unless they have adapted all the tram trains to run on the rail network. If not they must have problems running the current timetable surly? I also don't know if they will have to do something about the area where the accident happened. Both happened in the same area didn't they? I guess the area will have to be assessed to see if there are any safety improvements that can be or need to be made, regardless of fault which in this case seems to yet to be established. once unlucky, twice very unlucky and as you say it cannot afford to be repeated |
|
|
