Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by Clansman, 4 Jan 2016.
No... keep guessing...
Power on the coaches left on battery instead of being switched over to loco power when leaving Euston. Batteries ran out, brakes slammed on.
No, totally wrong.
Sorry but that came from the person responsible, but keen to hear your view.
Human error?? Really back that up with actual facts?
Hmm. OK, how about this...
Some piece of equipment malfunctioned in the lounge car (maybe someone's haggis was burning). Someone pressed an emergency stop button, thinking it was for said equipment, but in fact was for the train?
Prompted by the hooha over the wheel flats, I've just spoken to a passenger who was on board the northbound Lowlander a few days into operation of the new stock. He says that the lounges had been plagued by undiagnosed alarms before and during departure from Euston and apparently noone on board had been properly trained in how to deal with them.
This train too performed a very abrupt, near emergency, stop at Harrow & Wealdstone. All systems had shut down (ie complete darkness) and then progressively restarted, and he was subsequently told that a full train reset had just been performed. They got to the end of the line intact in the morning, so no wheel flats presumably.
I'm not saying that this is what happened last Tuesday night, but it shows that at the moment there are all sorts of reasons why a CS mk5 set may screech to a standstill.
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.
Caledonian are the one's who will get all the bad publicity.
I didn't see anything like this when I travelled a couple of weeks into Mk5 operations. Lounge ran smoothly and other than the toilet in my cabin going on the blink mid flush in the morning (and the lights coming on briefly at Carstairs), train and crew performed well.
Pity they've already scrapped some of the old stock then. Plus most of the locos have been modified for Mk5, and the old stock is hardly more reliable in any case!
This may have been answered before but why is the TMS in control of the brakes? What's wrong with the standard train pipe?
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.
The switch is operated by a human.
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.
Quite. Yet another reason why ETCS is overcomplicated and so a really bad idea.
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?
Scrapping them would be rather extreme, no doubt the bodyshells are solid. However it might well be they need to go away for a substantial rework.
TBH, I would say that if it did go that far, that'll be the end of the CS.
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.
Which is a really stupid idea. Why can't we just build standard RIC independent coaches, even if we shove an autocoupler on?
If they were just going to build glorified EMUs they might as well have built *actual* EMUs and hauled them off the juice.
It's beyond ridiculous, and firms up my view that the UK should not implement ETCS at all other than possibly on HS1 and HS2.
Really? How does that work with freight trains, then.
You aren't splitting and joining on the mainline with multiple locomotives with freight.
Every 5th wagon? Is that a specific rule in the UK?
I drive almost daily with loco hauled coaching stock (in the Netherlands) on ERTMS/ETCS (European Rail Traffic Management System/European Train Control System) equipped lines, and the coaching stock is just plain old brake piped coaches, without any ETCS equipment.
The only "TCMS"-like equipment is the door interlocking system (which reports back to the locomotive) and the emergency brake equipment (the German/Swiss NBA system, NotBremsAnforderung, where passengers do not operate the emergency brake directly when pulling the emergency brake handle, but sends a message to the driver instead that an emergency brake application has been requested).
Fine for the lowland sleeper but not really faesible for the highland sleeper because:
You would need an 8 car EMU, two 4 car EMUs and and a pair of single unit EMU railcars to form each service, each with a pair of cabs eating into passenger capacity. On top of that rather than the handful of spare carriages in use at the moment, you would then need at least one spare EMU of each length.
If you were going down this route, the better solution would be to split the Highland Sleeper into two services, a 9 car unit to Inverness and a pair of 6 car units splitting to form Fort Bill and Aberdeen services.
Maybe in 40 years time
With freight a method of proving the train remains intact will need to be developed.
An EMU would also be terrible idea from a noise POV. Just listen to the traction motors on an 800! Or the VCB going *BANG* at every neutral section on some stock.
It's acronym soup in here again. ETCS, EVC, RIC...they might be obvious to the people using them but I haven't a clue what any of them mean. And I'm sure a fair proportion of others don't either.
I still don't get why it's so difficult to just define them on first use. It's a simple, basic common courtesy.
Ah, you are talking about the train integrity equipment. That's something completely different than a complete EVC (European Vital Computer) every fifth coach.