-
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!
Would standardised rolling stock make any sense these days?
- Thread starter BRX
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
The Networker programme had high ambitions for sure... until the bean-counters got their way!
Which led to the ill-fated "Networker Classic" concept to rebody the old Mk1-based stock, in line with SR traditions!
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
it's very lucky then that we do have the option with the flirts at 20m/16m,although artics can pose a new set of problems.
I see the class being a very handy set of trains!
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
I agree it would be a great deal easier if we had a standardised C1/C3/C4 Rating over the entire network as far as kinematics is concerned.
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
I could certainly see such an approach working for southest/southern/southwest,where you just need to assign a basic stock type(s) for exclusive 3rd rail and bi-mode.give the numbers of units it would keep costs down too if a big order placed rather than numerous micro-fleets of 20-40 odd...especially if it's a rolling programme..ie we'll order 500 of these going into service at the rate of 70 sets per year...that will help manufacturers with planning their design and production lines.
squizzler
Established Member
The problem with standardisation is that it makes it difficult to keep pace with modern technology. When Ford, a motor manufacturer, made a product known as the Model T, it was in production so long, and the factories become so adapted to producing it, that it was almost the breaking of the business to convert to a new design (the model A). You can have continuous technical innovation or a standardised range, not both.
Couple that with the need to be able to choose from competing manufacturers to keep costs down and there is no case for only allowing one train design in each segment. Also, with the railway growing in general, there will be a bigger market for different manufacturers and designs.
Couple that with the need to be able to choose from competing manufacturers to keep costs down and there is no case for only allowing one train design in each segment. Also, with the railway growing in general, there will be a bigger market for different manufacturers and designs.
dubscottie
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 916
It is possible to make "standard" stock. The problem is technology and all the other useless software that is built in to stuff.
The SR of BR had the right idea. Make everything work with everything. There were a few exceptions but they were close.
The problem with so much software is that we have people constantly "updating" it.
Simple is better as I proved in my job when we had to revert to the old system.
The SR of BR had the right idea. Make everything work with everything. There were a few exceptions but they were close.
The problem with so much software is that we have people constantly "updating" it.
Simple is better as I proved in my job when we had to revert to the old system.
GLC
Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 298
Aside from the physical dimensions of rolling stock, I’m surprised there isn’t a part of ERTMS that dictates a common interface for trains to work in multiple together. I’m sure that approach would have all sorts of pitfalls, and there would be lots of manufacturer specific tech that could not be made use of when talking to a common train operation interface, but the basics of acceleration, braking, door opening i would have thought is common enough to abstract to a single standard
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
SR definitely had the right idea with couplings and multiple control, something with the Americans have had since the 1940s. A concept we struggle with in 2019 in which there really is no excuse.
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
Perhaps if it was specified in the train design acceptance to run on NR metals the same coupler and TMS must be used on all stoc, then you would have a more standardised compatibility across the network. There's no real reason why a 185 can't MU with a 444 or 350, or a 170 to a 377. the need of the will isn't there of course, but the theory is. Common standards need only be specified as a requirement to conform to and they will quickly sort themselves out. As @GrimShady pit it, the America s have been doing it since the 1940s, why can't we? The answer there being privatisation fragmentation.
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
BR weren't exactly good at standard MU controls either. There was a ridiculous amount of different control mechanisms on the first gen diesels.
Coupler wise for MUs the aim is that everyone should use Dellner at standard height albeit the electrical connections are different but enough to allow brake release and towing dead units.
The TMS software is often TOC / subclass / route specific too. (e.g. not all of GTR's electrostar can work in service with each other).
The TMS /software side of thing is undergoing a period of rapid change and many recent improvement and currently being rolled out / soon to come ones would be prevented by a standard TMS requirement.
The RSSB has fairly recent standards for new features ASDO etc now which should help (though some Spanish manufacturers appear to read them differently to everyone else!)
All manufacturer's TMS are effectively being completely rewritten for new stock due to ETCS.
Last edited:
Knowing what I do about 185s & 350s I can think of many reasons to say otherwise, but here's two.
#1 The 185 coupler horn would go through the gangway and the electrical head pins would bend as they're totally different. I imagine that even if you did couple them they'd try and wrestle each other off the rails on sharp curves too.
#2 They're wired totally different. 185s are very much in a world of their own. While this is stating the obvious, there are no emergency engine stops in a 350 and there are no Pan/VCB switches in a 185. That's tip of the iceberg. Under the surface you'd have to at least reconfigure (physically rewire) the drum switches so that diesel-specific and electric-specific train wires remain closed when coupled.
While it's a nice thought, it's simply not true that these are compatible in any way.
For what it's worth even the basic functionality of the doors vary. 185s door LOOU you can still pull the egress and open, 350s you can't....
Isn't it just money that's the problem?
It would be great for Northern to replace all their trains with 195s, but they can't afford it.
It'll be a problem for years with operators ordering (not particularly) small fleets when compared to the mighty 150 / 156 / 158 practically go anywhere units.
It would be great for Northern to replace all their trains with 195s, but they can't afford it.
It'll be a problem for years with operators ordering (not particularly) small fleets when compared to the mighty 150 / 156 / 158 practically go anywhere units.
krus_aragon
Established Member
That doesn't seem to be as great a problem recently, with several franchises going for a total fleet replacement. The 80x are turning out to be quite numerous, and on the regional scale the 195+196+TfW variety of CAF unit will number more than the ubiquitous 170s, the 150s, or the 156s.
It's certainly no worse than the orders placed in the post-privatisation era.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,692
Yes, but that was when it wasn't at all clear what systems would be best.
BR became much better as time went on.
The 2nd Generation DMU fleet was entirely standardised, and the second gen EMU fleet was almost entirely standardised (essentially the same MU standard was used on all the second gen EMUs, apart from the 442s for obvious reasons. 323s and 313s only require minor modifications to work together), and even loco hauled multiple working gear was trending towards standardisation at privatisation (mainly through the retrofit of TDM to everything).
All this was lost at privatisation for no real reason.
There should be a standard control interfacing using modern technology (ECP braking with piggybacked multiple working gear) using a tightlock type coupler, which could be standardised for all rolling stock. New York Air Brake even make a suitable system commercially right now.
If you want a high bit-rate bus as well, a couple of those dellner coaxial pins could be added, but they would not be through wired on all stock, like freight wagons.
It is entirely capable to make every powered piece of rolling stock work in multiple today, as America has managed since the 40s - but the manufacturers have no incentive to cooperate.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,692
Like?
What new features do we gain by abandoning any attempt at coupler standardisation?
Even the Class 378 has couplers dominated by single use pins similar to traditional MU systems. It has a handful of data pins superimposed on it but is otherwise merely an outgrowth of traditional systems.
Last edited:
The mechanical coupling is approaching standardisation. The electrical coupling is too variable right now, and since that's what tends to release the brakes you can't get a unit moving from another unit. Unless you want to fit extremely powerful compressors to everything and through-line the brakes?
It's no good for passenger service either without ETS/PIS/ADSO/Comms, and that's very much in a state of flux.
It's no good for passenger service either without ETS/PIS/ADSO/Comms, and that's very much in a state of flux.
As coppercapped has mentioned a couple of times, it's different in the aviation world but it works so much better. Modern aircraft (both military and civil) have most of their systems connected by digital interfaces. These interfaces are defined by internationally accepted standards, for instance the flight controls systems are generally interconnected by multiplexed buses derived from the MIL-STD-1553 originally developed in the US for military vehicles. Similarly, navigation equipment is generally designed to connect to the ARINC429 interface. These buses are fully developed with redundancy including auto-handover when they malfunction, indeed the 1553 bus is usually dualled so even if one takes a hit from artillery, the back-up system can still operate normally. Although the busses are relatively fast, there is also a requirement for some hard-wired real-time connections (known as 'discretes').
Standards similar to this could be adapted for rail use at lower overall cost than in-house vendor-specific interconnects if there was a unified approach when specifying equipment. Training costs, spares and repairs would be cheaper to provision making for lower overall support costs.
Standards similar to this could be adapted for rail use at lower overall cost than in-house vendor-specific interconnects if there was a unified approach when specifying equipment. Training costs, spares and repairs would be cheaper to provision making for lower overall support costs.
I think the best example would be the hundreds of "Blue square" DMUs of the late 1950s/ early 1960s. Whoever built them - BR, BRCW, Park Royal, Met Camm ... - they could operate together, and drivers from (pretty well) anywhere could drive them. Units could transfer from one end of the country to the other without a need for staff training.
Gwenllian2001
Member
The first generation d.m.u.s could also be loco hauled, if necessary, having standard buffers and couplings.
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
Where the ETH locos if the time able to power the lights on the units?
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
IMO 195 and 331 should have been designed to be both mechanical and electrical compatible WITH gangways.
Last edited:
But what about services that won't ever see units coupled?
Seems unnecessarily obstructive of the drivers view for no reason.
To be fair, there are designs of the 331 with gangways... they're being built for WMT.
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
Standardised rolling stock that's interchangeable.
If MUs were specified at procurement with a capability of relatively easy cab replacement allowing them to be redeployed to a greater number of roles, the additional cost would probably be recovered in their lifetime. If cab signalling eventuallybecomes widespread, it is likely that gangway connections might become more universal, (as was the case in the old SR).
Given that your can run a lot of data (1,000mb/s) over a standard network cable, it should be fairly easy to have it that you have a standard connection which allowed the transfer of data between units using a similar system. Yes you'd need a pin for each wire within the cable, but it shouldn't be too hard to have 8 pins.
Now you'd want to ensure that you could be sure that the connection was made every time, so you may want 16, 24 or 32 depending on how much redundancy you want to allow for or if you wish to have a set for non critical data transfer. However as it would be using multiple cables you could have the system just use the first 8 available wires.
You then just need a box in each unit to convert between the control inputs and the data transfer.
Given that such boxes are small and fairly cheap for going from VGA or HDMI to cat 5/6 and then back again, likewise most digital sound desks use cat 5/6 cables with a stage box at the other end, I'm sure you could develop a box which allowed any train to talk to any other with regards to applying power, breaking, announcements, etc. If the system was smart enough you could even have it so that a slower unit told a faster unit that it couldn't go faster if asked to do so.
You may wish to develop a protocol to ensure that emergency systems (such as full breaking) had priority over any other data being transferred.
Given that no one will be wanting lightning quick reactions (we're not playing a first person shooter game) a lag of a few m/s to convert, transfer and convert back shouldn't cause problems.
Now you'd want to ensure that you could be sure that the connection was made every time, so you may want 16, 24 or 32 depending on how much redundancy you want to allow for or if you wish to have a set for non critical data transfer. However as it would be using multiple cables you could have the system just use the first 8 available wires.
You then just need a box in each unit to convert between the control inputs and the data transfer.
Given that such boxes are small and fairly cheap for going from VGA or HDMI to cat 5/6 and then back again, likewise most digital sound desks use cat 5/6 cables with a stage box at the other end, I'm sure you could develop a box which allowed any train to talk to any other with regards to applying power, breaking, announcements, etc. If the system was smart enough you could even have it so that a slower unit told a faster unit that it couldn't go faster if asked to do so.
You may wish to develop a protocol to ensure that emergency systems (such as full breaking) had priority over any other data being transferred.
Given that no one will be wanting lightning quick reactions (we're not playing a first person shooter game) a lag of a few m/s to convert, transfer and convert back shouldn't cause problems.
- Status