Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The other train is a "black box" with a defined interface through the coupler. All you have to do is replicate that, it makes no odds what is inside.
So yes, it can be done, quite easily.
-
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
The other train is a "black box" with a defined interface through the coupler. All you have to do is replicate that, it makes no odds what is inside.
So yes, it can be done, quite easily.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Which has very strict conditions about how it can be used. The result being any forum using the same licence looks and works the same way, apart from some customisable features like colours, images etc.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,459
Do you have any kind of engineering insight to back this up?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I work in IT which often deals in interfaces between different equipment, and the principles are similar. You have to build to match the interface. You don't need to know anything about what's inside.
Bornin1980s
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2017
- Messages
- 491
What is the biggest age gap you know of between hardware that you have interfaced? And what is the oldest operating computer hardware you have seen?
coppercapped
Established Member
I have to confirm Bletchleyite's position. One of my previous jobs was in the aerospace sector and there they are very hot on Configuration Management (CM) to ensure that the 'Form, Fit and Function' of any device is defined. These features make up the interface - what happens, and how it happens, inside the box is irrelevant.
Other examples are the GSM mobile and later mobile communications standards. The interfaces between the equipments are defined, not how the individual item (phone, base station, mobile switching centre or whatever) will work. So the interface between the SIM card and the phone is defined and the radio interface between the phone and the base station. This means that any manufacturer's SIM will work with any handset and any handset will work with any base station regardless of the manufacturer. It's nothing more than good engineering.
Other examples are the GSM mobile and later mobile communications standards. The interfaces between the equipments are defined, not how the individual item (phone, base station, mobile switching centre or whatever) will work. So the interface between the SIM card and the phone is defined and the radio interface between the phone and the base station. This means that any manufacturer's SIM will work with any handset and any handset will work with any base station regardless of the manufacturer. It's nothing more than good engineering.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I primarily work in software but the principle is the same - interfacing modern software onto still running 1960s mainframe systems is not at all uncommon. Many of the banks will still have this kind of thing going on.
All you have to do is essentially make the new software/hardware look like the old at the point of the interface.
(To use an IT example, some such interfaces will use the RS232 serial interface standard to connect the old and new hardware. Provided both implement that standard, it doesn't matter what's inside. As one example it doesn't matter that the new hardware might have the RS232 connection via a USB dongle, because it's still an RS232 connection).
It really isn't hard.
Darkinsider
Member
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2017
- Messages
- 69
deleted
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Or if that wasn't (economically[1]) possible the guard could configure the PIS on each unit separately.
[1] Anything's possible, near enough, it's whether the price is acceptable.
Darkinsider
Member
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2017
- Messages
- 69
deleted
Last edited:
MisterT
Member
Today's trains are a bit more complicated. An internal network is set up (for example, the modern Dellner coupler allows an internal LAN network of 100 Mbit/s) and communication takes place via this network. It's not only the traction and brakes communication, but also faults, the complete system status and other things.
The Flirt units do the same thing via a wireless network and therefor it takes a few seconds longer to recognize the other unit after coupling the units.
BSI is just a way to couple units (and it's able to withstand more force than Scharfenberg/Dellner couplers). The electrical part can be customized for the customer/train.
It takes a bit more force to couple a BSI than a Dellner, which means that for a slow and a bit more comfortable coupling in service, the Dellner is the better choice.
Last edited:
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,459
However... trains are very much safety critical. Completely different to most commercial IT systems. Any kind of complexity can introduce a risk.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,298
Using a railway example, the AAR multiple working standard in the US allows you to take a brand new ET44AC straight off the production line at GE and plug it into a 1950s built EMD loco and they will work in multi. Standard protocol that the builders accept - and they have confidence in their products such that they don't use a closed protocol system. For the railroads the benefits are that they can buy from different manufacturers: so for example long-time EMD customer Canadian Pacific went for GE AC4400CWs when it started buying AC-motored locos, knowing that the new GEs would work fine with the existing fleet. For the builder they know they can gain orders from any railroad, regardless of who built the existing fleet.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There isn't a huge amount of complexity on the bits that are actually safety-critical - primarily the brakes. The Westcode standard is well known and well documented, and other stock still uses classic two-pipe air brakes e.g. Pendolinos and Voyagers.
Chris172
Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2018
- Messages
- 120
With the orders for the new trains being placed any ideas what the class numbers will be
At a guess
Class 194 for the dmu?
Class 7** for the emu?
At a guess
Class 194 for the dmu?
Class 7** for the emu?
59CosG95
Established Member
Since the Civity diesels on order for Northern are Class 195s, I wouldn't be surprised if the WMR order takes up another number range in the 195 series.
I think that's a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they're given a different class number. If they are, then I'd guess at 190 or 197.
Definitely a possibility, as that would be applying common sense, but given the (lack of) logic in the numbering of recent classes, it's anyone's guess it seems.
XCTurbostar
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 1,882
It’ll probably end up being Class 173 or something haha
Don't like gangways.
They just ruin the front end of a train. The Class 385 is a classic example of hashing a train frontage to fit in a gangway that will probably be rarely used as a gangway.
Just buy as 6/8 coach units and run as a fixed train.
Don't need that many coaches in the off-peak? Grab some 3/4 sets and run those, thus allowing the longer sets off for maintenance during the day. More sets = more flexibility = marginal cost, compared with future growth and finding out in 10 years time, all sets have to be run doubled up, meaning a lack of physical trains.
Aventra. A lovely modern looking unit, until the gangway was put in.
They just ruin the front end of a train. The Class 385 is a classic example of hashing a train frontage to fit in a gangway that will probably be rarely used as a gangway.
Just buy as 6/8 coach units and run as a fixed train.
Don't need that many coaches in the off-peak? Grab some 3/4 sets and run those, thus allowing the longer sets off for maintenance during the day. More sets = more flexibility = marginal cost, compared with future growth and finding out in 10 years time, all sets have to be run doubled up, meaning a lack of physical trains.
Aventra. A lovely modern looking unit, until the gangway was put in.
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 9,596
This makes no sense. A TOC should buy more trains than needed (full lengths sets only for peak times and half sets only for offpeak) just to avoid having gangways? And I'm not sure if you're aware but trying to get the Government to authorise an extra x units for each order just in case there is growth in 10 years won't be that easy.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I am actually surprised they didn't go fixed-formation for the Cross City. Same with Merseyrail - I'd have gone fixed-formation 80-100 metre formations rather than ones intended for doubling up at times.
Northern are mostly a bit different, though I think I'd have gone for 3 and 4-car sets rather than 2 and 3-car, allowing most of them to run singly as they are not gangwayed. Very few services that these will be used on will have adequate capacity with a 2-car set. There is the issue of later cascades to branch lines, but really I wouldn't have made them less suitable for their current use just to deal with what they might (or might not) be used for in their sunset years in 20-30 years' time.
Northern are mostly a bit different, though I think I'd have gone for 3 and 4-car sets rather than 2 and 3-car, allowing most of them to run singly as they are not gangwayed. Very few services that these will be used on will have adequate capacity with a 2-car set. There is the issue of later cascades to branch lines, but really I wouldn't have made them less suitable for their current use just to deal with what they might (or might not) be used for in their sunset years in 20-30 years' time.
centraltrains
Member
Can the existing depots accommodate 6 car though?
I thought Soho could only take 3 cars at a time?
If they are used regularly then having a useful practical feature is far more important then whether you think the train looks nice.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Fair point, though you could have 6-car sets that were made of two half sets without cabs, i.e. with a Scharfenberg between two of the coaches.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,459
Would be a Dellner presumably? Scharfenbergs haven’t been used since the 180s IIRC.
Would there be the risk of two half-units being needed but inadvertently facing the same way?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They're basically the same thing by two different companies.
I suppose there would, but proper prior planning...
Nothing that I can find online is particularly clear, but as I understand it, Scharfenberg* is the type of coupler, Dellner is a company that makes them (or a variant of). Similar to how Janney, Tightlock and AAR couplers are all Knuckle couplers.
*Anything with the cone and cup style is strictly speaking a Scharfenbergs
- Status