On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:49:35 -0500
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 06:13:04 -0500
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Also you might want to consider how aircraft manufacturers manage. You
think Boeing or Airbus are going to say to BA or Virgin "Sorry lads,
but we can't get the parts for the avionics or engine control system
any more, you're going to have to scrap that 20 year old $100million
747/A340". Of course not.

I can see the problem but not how they answered it. It won't be cheap,
that's for sure.

I'm pretty sure its all modular so you can unplug an old module and plug
in a new one with exactly the same I/O ports and protocols but whatever
is inside may be completely new. I find it hard to believe that something
isn't done on trains to allow them to be kept going after the original
electronics components are no longer available.

It might be done that way now but we're talking about technologies
implemented 30 years ago.

There are plenty of 30 year old planes still flying out of the UK and even
older elsewhere so clearly Boeing & Airbus have some repair plan since even
planes built in the 80s were essentially flying computers (glass cockpits
appeared around 1985 in the 757 and 767). I find the train manufacturers
excuse that they can't get the parts to be risible frankly since the parts
themselves arn't important, its the functionality that matters.

--
Spud

In message , at 08:25:10 on Tue, 25 Oct
2016, d remarked:

There are plenty of 30 year old planes still flying out of the UK

That's true. The 747 is over 45yrs old, five years more than an HST.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:29:44 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 08:25:10 on Tue, 25 Oct
2016, d remarked:

There are plenty of 30 year old planes still flying out of the UK

That's true. The 747 is over 45yrs old, five years more than an HST.

Yes, but pretty much all of the 747 Classics are long retired. The
747-400 from 1989 had significantly modernised systems, including a
two-crew glass cockpit. And many of the older 744s have now also been
retired. This is unlike the HSTs, none of which have been retired
(though a small number have been written off in accidents).

The latest, further modernised and stretched 747-8 was introduced in
2010, and remains in limited production.

But if you're going to cite classic versions of airliners, the
original 737 is even older than the 747 (dating back almost 50 years).
Unlike the 747, the current versions are being produced in record
numbers.

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2016/01/27/boeing-to-lift-737-production-to-57-monthly-by.html

But none of the first generation 737s are still flying in Europe (too
noisy). Even the second generation 737s have mostly gone. But some
trains from that era remain in service in the UK, mainly in the
charter market. And, of course, the legendary 1938 stock soldiers on;
it dates from the DC3 era!

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:05:34AM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote:

... GSM-R ...

Actually - I've just looked and they decided to use different
frequencies which introduced a level of protectionism that seems
unnecessary.

I was under the impression that that wasn't because of protectionism but
to avoid having to share crowded spectrum with the hundreds of people
sitting behind the driver.

--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

Graecum est; non legitur

On 25/10/2016 13:08, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:05:34AM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote:

... GSM-R ...

Actually - I've just looked and they decided to use different
frequencies which introduced a level of protectionism that seems
unnecessary.

I was under the impression that that wasn't because of protectionism but
to avoid having to share crowded spectrum with the hundreds of people
sitting behind the driver.

GSM has always had the concept of priority and you can still use
different sub-bands within the main GSM bands if you were so bothered.