Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And if you look at the cab window it looks very much like the lack of rake is an artist's error.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
New CAF and Bombardier stock for West Midlands Trains
- Thread starter absolutelymilk
- Start date
- Status
And if you look at the cab window it looks very much like the lack of rake is an artist's error.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
On the EMUs at least it would be nonsensical not to have corridor connections as LM make heavy use of portion working (pretty much every train that goes past Northampton that isn't 4-car).
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,492
Is it known yet whether the gangway will retract at all when not in use?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It appears to have pivots at the bottom so possibly will be the same as the 380.
You mean like the 175s weren't ordered to be compatible with Sprinters? Or the 333s not being compatible with the 321/9s? (Plus many other examples.)
What a give-away! I suspect it is a composite of various bits of 3D which don't actually fit together. The shadow on the platform is also "conceptual". As for the coupler, at least there is one!
Philip
On Moderation
Is it known whether the CAF units will be more 195s or a different model from the Northern units?
tbtc
Veteran Member
I've not seen any suggestion that the CAF DMUs for Northern are going to be operable with anything else that Northern currently run?
It'd be nice if everything was capable of working with everything else but (as trains get more complicated and computer-dominated) these things come at a cost - I don't even know whether CAF would require Bombardier's co-operation to design a DMU that works with the existing Bombardier units?
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).
Old Hill Bank
Member
Pin outs can be changed as per the 170s that went to Chiltern and that the 172/1s work with 16X.
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.
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.
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
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
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.
Old Hill Bank
Member
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.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
So hang on...if there's no PIS standard on the BSI coupler, how do multiple-worked 170s work? Are they set up independently?
100andthirty
Member
But what if Bombardier weren't prepared to supply compatible TCMS for the obsolete/obsolescent equipment on the Turbostars?
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')
Well sir, let me tell you all about the advantages of TCMS v2.01. Upgrade your fleet today, for only $$$
When LM did a new EMU ITT that meant something - there was lots of competition and it gave Siemens an advantage. However, as CAF are the only manufacturer currently offering DMUs they could offer interoperabillity for a small fortune as an optional add-on and win the tender.
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.
Old Hill Bank
Member
It's a software licence, we are all using them on here.
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?
Old Hill Bank
Member
Note the none multiple sign, the 170 had an issue.
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.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You write the licence agreement to preclude that scenario.
Crikey, it's happened before - Voyagers have the Alstom TMS Pendolinos have, not Bombardier's own.
Bornin1980s
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2017
- Messages
- 491
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?
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,492
How does it work with the driver-guard buzzer? Are they on the same pin on the electrical connector block on both classes?
centraltrains
Member
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.
- Status