Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That looks strikingly like a less raked back 380.
And if you look at the cab window it looks very much like the lack of rake is an artist's error.
That looks strikingly like a less raked back 380.
I also hoped we had seen the last of gangway ends with the full-cab designs for Northern, TPE, GA, Merseyrail and SWR.
But here we are back to uglification and poor driver sighting.
I also hoped we had seen the last of gangway ends with the full-cab designs for Northern, TPE, GA, Merseyrail and SWR.
But here we are back to uglification and poor driver sighting.
Is it known yet whether the gangway will retract at all when not in use?
Chris whilst choosing to promote SLUG in my signature I speak for myself on the internet so please do not call me SLUG! It would indeed be a gross act of incompetence if the CAF stuff can not work in multiple with the 172s. As for that Rowley turnback idea it's not for this thread so it's a good job publishable words fail me!
And if you look at the cab window it looks very much like the lack of rake is an artist's error.
As SLUG says, it would be stupid not to have intercompatibility between the 172s and the CAF units
it would be illogical not to have compatibility between classes
It would indeed be a gross act of incompetence if the CAF stuff can not work in multiple with the 172s
Pin outs can be changed as per the 170s that went to Chiltern and that the 172/1s work with 16X.It depends if the last few rounds of Turbostars still conform to the same BSI pinouts as the pacers/sprinters. If so then a limited amount of interoperability could be achieved, but with no PIS/TMS control (which kind of invalidates the PRM requirement for PIS to be installed).
Bombardier aren't about to release their design to anybody else.
No, but if the tender was written in such a way to require interoperability, Bombardier would no doubt be happy to sell CAF some MITRAC TCMSs to put on the units
If the people who govern our rail network did not insist that all procurement contracts and the network acceptance procedures did not include access to compatibility information there has to be a problem. I know suppliers will try to guard this stuff but it has to be a deal breaker in contract awards.That is true, but does not factor in the absence of a PIS/TMS protocol from the old BSI coupling standard, which cannot be trivially changed. Remember that the whole information stack, from pins all the way up to the software level, MUST be totally compatible in order for these features to operate. CAF aren't about to reverse engineer a Turbostar, and Bombardier aren't about to release their design to anybody else.
Personally, I think expecting even mechanical compatibility for rescue purposes might be pushing it, the CAF units will almost certainly be Dellner and will probably have a brand new pinout designed in house.
But what if Bombardier weren't prepared to supply compatible TCMS for the obsolete/obsolescent equipment on the Turbostars?No, but if the tender was written in such a way to require interoperability, Bombardier would no doubt be happy to sell CAF some MITRAC TCMSs to put on the units
So hang on...if there's no PIS standard on the BSI coupler, how do multiple-worked 170s work? Are they set up independently?
But what if Bombardier weren't prepared to supply compatible TCMS for the obsolete/obsolescent equipment on the Turbostars?
No, but if the tender was written in such a way to require interoperability, Bombardier would no doubt be happy to sell CAF some MITRAC TCMSs to put on the units
What about maintenance contracts and upgrades? You can't maintain a stranglehold on all that easy profit if you release your software to CAF who then undercut you.Particularly as they are not in competition - Bombardier does not presently offer a UK DMU and have openly stated they are not interested in doing so.
Given LM uses 153s in multiple with Turbostars, would it be reasonable to assume they were modified in a similar way when they were refurbished and had PIS added?The Turbostars [E030/E031] use pins SP6 and SP10 for PIS/Data Comms, according to this RSSB document (if I've read it correctly), which aren't used on the earlier BSI equipped vehicles [E021] (although pins 6 and 10 are used for PIS/Data Comms on 16xs.
Presumably, SP stands for spare, for just such eventualities (as well as the provision of other unused wires within the 1-42 'block')
Note the none multiple sign, the 170 had an issue.Looking at this video and others they don't seem to compatible with the rear 170 showing Turbostar Class 170 rather than the correct destination.
Looking at this video and others they don't seem to compatible with the rear 170 showing Turbostar Class 170 rather than the correct destination.
As @Old Hill Bank points out, there is clearly an issue with that unit.Note the none multiple sign, the 170 had an issue.
What about maintenance contracts and upgrades? You can't maintain a stranglehold on all that easy profit if you release your software to CAF who then undercut you.
As @Old Hill Bank points out, there is clearly an issue with that unit.
I have seen it working many times; I regularly travel on 153+170 combinations. Below is an example I found of it working.
Moore's Law would not affect connecting to legacy systems. All Moores law states is that the number of transistors within a CPU will double every 2 years... You can see that some older trains (such as Northern 158s) have been fitted with new shiny digital PIS systems. It is obviously possible to convert older trains to take more modern equipment in certain aspects. Personally, I think its more of proprietary systems from individual manufacturers with an unwillingness to cooperate/create standards which lead to trains not being able to work together... The only problem I can think of is if the pins are used as a data bus and there trains computers have different speeds for these buses, Not sure how that would effect though.What with Moore's Law and stuff, is it even technically possible to make a new train's computers work with those on a 15 year old Turbostar? Or even a 5 year old Turbostar?