TimboM
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 3,732
No... keep guessing...Dodgy connection on the 68 way jumper thingy? TCMS thinks the train has split so slams the brakes on?
No... keep guessing...Dodgy connection on the 68 way jumper thingy? TCMS thinks the train has split so slams the brakes on?
No, totally wrong.Power on the coaches left on battery instead of being switched over to loco power when leaving Euston. Batteries ran out, brakes slammed on.
Human error.
No... keep guessing...
Of course I'm stating the bleedin obvious.
The stock's too complicated in relation to the testing it's been given and crew are equally inadequately trained in the face of the complexity and lack of testing. Of course I'm stating the bleedin obvious.
Yes, pity management can't see it.
If i was Caledonian management, i would take the Mk5 sleepers out of service, put the Mk2 & Mk3s back into service, give the Mk5 sleepers back to CAF and tell them to get all problems sorted out and tested fully before again excepting the Mk5 sleepers back into passenger service.
This may have been answered before but why is the TMS in control of the brakes? What's wrong with the standard train pipe?
Human error?? Really back that up with actual facts?
Because in this day and age, some people are of the opinion that everything must be done with electronics and computer software even although there is nothing wrong with the old way.
Its being used because it exists not because its is reliable. So called Smart technology usually turns out to be the dumbest option.
So how do you haul these things without a compatible loco? Does this also apply to the TPE Mk 5s?
From what I have seen, if they need to be hauled by a 47 for example, the will be un-braked and have a load of wagons/coaches attached for brake force.
Daft I know!
I seems incredible they would over complicate something as simple as braking by introducing software into the process. Why not go with the tried and tested approach? There has to be a engineering reason/advantage for introducing this otherwise it's completely nonsensical.
Using ETCS when the time comes.
You'll need an EVC computer for every 5 vehicles max but due to the splits far more than you would at first expect hence the need for the TMCS complexity.
Interesting that this also applies to dumb coaching stock and not just the leading vehicle/loco.
Are there sufficient numbers of Mk3 sleepers and surplus Mk3 coaches available so that a level of service pre-2017 can be maintained for the next 4-5 years and the Mk5s scrapped and new stock ordered and made that works?
Because they aren't coaches, but multiple units that happen not to have power.This may have been answered before but why is the TMS in control of the brakes? What's wrong with the standard train pipe?
Presumably it must be a requirement for freight wagons as well? Or else under ETCS a train without a computer on every fifth wagon will have to be treated as potentially unbraked, and I can't see that appealing to anyone.Interesting that this also applies to dumb coaching stock and not just the leading vehicle/loco.
Because they aren't coaches, but multiple units that happen not to have power.
Presumably it must be a requirement for freight wagons as well? Or else under ETCS a train without a computer on every fifth wagon will have to be treated as potentially unbraked, and I can't see that appealing to anyone.
Really? How does that work with freight trains, then.Using ETCS when the time comes.
You'll need an EVC computer for every 5 vehicles max but due to the splits far more than you would at first expect hence the need for the TMCS complexity.
You aren't splitting and joining on the mainline with multiple locomotives with freight.Really? How does that work with freight trains, then.
If they were just going to build glorified EMUs they might as well have built *actual* EMUs and hauled them off the juice.
The split isn't necessarily 8 / 5 / 5. Inverness is 8, Fort William can then be either 4, 5 or 6 and conversely Aberdeen is either 6, 5 or 4 depending on seasonal demand. So a fair bit for the TCMS to get its head around!
Because they aren't coaches, but multiple units that happen not to have power.
Presumably it must be a requirement for freight wagons as well? Or else under ETCS a train without a computer on every fifth wagon will have to be treated as potentially unbraked, and I can't see that appealing to anyone.
Ah, you are talking about the train integrity equipment. That's something completely different than a complete EVC (European Vital Computer) every fifth coach.With freight a method of proving the train remains intact will need to be developed.