Caledonian Sleeper Mk5 Discussion

[RLBH]

With freight a method of proving the train remains intact will need to be developed.

Like a continuous brake pipe?

The more I hear about ETCS (European Train Control System), the more it sounds like the Bright Ideas Squad has been let out without adult supervision again.

 

[GrimShady]

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.

I still don't understand why they have been built as unpowered MUs. What is the advantage in this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like a continuous brake pipe?

Well, quite. That and a track circuit or axle counter.

The more I hear about ETCS (European Train Control System), the more it sounds like the Bright Ideas Squad has been let out without adult supervision again.

Indeed, it's overcomplicated and causes nothing but issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, you are talking about the train integrity equipment. That's something completely different than a complete EVC (European Vital Computer) every fifth coach.

We've had "train integrity equipment" for years, it's called a continuous brake pipe (or train wire in Westcode implementations). It works fine and there is nothing gained by pratting with it.

 

[USRailFan]

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.

So just call off the franchise and end the service immediately then, and sell the usable Mk5s (if there are any) to GWR with the rest as spares. The CS will be dead anyhow.

 

[marks87]

I suppose the problem with relying on a brake pipe is that continuity being lost doesn't necessarily indicate that the train has split.

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?

That would be like demolishing your house because it needs rewired.

There's no doubt the Mk5s have issues, but scrapping them entirely is a ridiculous idea.

 

[MisterT]

We've had "train integrity equipment" for years, it's called a continuous brake pipe (or train wire in Westcode implementations). It works fine and there is nothing gained by pratting with it.

Train Integrity equipment is not meant for the train itself, but for the trains running behind it.
It is, as far as I know, only required in ETCS Level 3 operation (which doesn't exist yet), as the line-side signals and track detection equipment like axle counters are completely removed with Level 3.
ETCS Level 1 and Level 2 still use line-side equipment, which means that the Train Integrity equipment is technically not necessary.
But the rules in the UK might be different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose the problem with relying on a brake pipe is that continuity being lost doesn't necessarily indicate that the train has split.

Could you outline examples of situations where a train with continuous air or vacuum braking has split on a line with track circuits or axle counters and an accident occurred as a result?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Train Integrity equipment is not meant for the train itself, but for the trains running behind it.
It is, as far as I know, only required in ETCS Level 3 operation (which doesn't exist yet), as the line-side signals and track detection equipment like axle counters are completely removed with Level 3.
ETCS Level 1 and Level 2 still used line-side equipment, which means that the Train Integrity equipment is not necessary.

Then it serves no useful purpose and so should not be fitted now. Got it

I don't think ETCS level 3 is ever likely to be implemented in the UK, nor am I convinced it ever should be.

 

[marks87]

Could you outline examples of situations where a train with continuous air or vacuum braking has split on a line with track circuits or axle counters and an accident occurred as a result?

No, because I've no idea of such situations. But that wasn't the point I was making.

If there is now a requirement to know categorically that a train has split then vacuum braking does not achieve that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, because I've no idea of such situations. But that wasn't the point I was making.

If there is now a requirement to know categorically that a train has split then vacuum braking does not achieve that.

As noted above there only is for ETCS level 3, which is pie in the sky. Such pie in the sky hardware and software should not be fitted to this rolling stock, as it's unlikely it will ever be needed.

 

[MisterT]

To be fair, most of the modern ETCS equipped stock has at least some provisional support for ETCS Level 3.
Seen in that light, it is not really strange that integrity equipment is already in place, but a solution with full blown EVCs seems a bit weird. I mean, the train integrity equipment can basically be a box at the end of each coach which continuously sends a signal like "I'm still there", which is automatically activated as soon as the tail lights are lit.

 

[marks87]

As noted above there only is for ETCS level 3, which is pie in the sky. Such pie in the sky hardware and software should not be fitted to this rolling stock, as it's unlikely it will ever be needed.

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be future-proofing built in to stock that should reasonably be expected to still be on the go 20-25 years from now.

The way that it's been implemented here seems overly-complex, granted, but that shouldn't preclude a compliant system being there at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be future-proofing built in to stock that should reasonably be expected to still be on the go 20-25 years from now.

For a system that has never been implemented and may never be implemented?

Passive provision at most, i.e. a rack for the device and the appropriate connections. The railway really does like to complicate things, doesn't it?

 

[Highlandspring]

Rewinding a bit...

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.

The Mk5s seem to be getting a lot of spurious fire alarm activations.

 

[GrimShady]

Rewinding a bit...

The Mk5s seem to be getting a lot of spurious fire alarm activations.

Random guess, but it maybe down to showering and leaving the bathroom door open. If the detector head has a heat sensor as well as smoke this will set them off.

 

[GrimShady]

For a system that has never been implemented and may never be implemented?

Passive provision at most, i.e. a rack for the device and the appropriate connections. The railway really does like to complicate things, doesn't it?

Agreed. I'm all for passive provision but installation of the full lot that may never be needed seems over the top and creates unnecessary maintenance.

It would be like active tilt being included in the Mk4s then subsequently never used.

 

[Highlandspring]

Random guess, but it maybe down to showering and leaving the bathroom door open. If the detector head have a heat sensor as well as smoke this will set them off.

Possibly but not on empty stock moves...

 

[GrimShady]

Possibly but not on empty stock moves...

Fair point. Don't suppose you know if the heads are dual heat and smoke?

 

[TimboM]

Possibly but not on empty stock moves...

Quite a lot of passenger reports seem to indicate the spurious alarms are/were originating from the Lounge Car.

The showers would need to work and/or produce hot water to set the alarms off presumably...!

 

[bastien]

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

If they were EMUs you could fit an extra 2 coaches in the platform Euston in place of the two locos. Hence 8/5/5 or 8/6/4 or whatever formation seems most flexible.

 

[Bald Rick]

As noted above there only is for ETCS level 3, which is pie in the sky. Such pie in the sky hardware and software should not be fitted to this rolling stock, as it's unlikely it will ever be needed.

I wouldn’t say that. I have been on a train, on the main line, in this country, operating with train integrity monitoring active and protecting the train. It wasn’t quite ETCSL3, but it wasnt far off.

Also, AIUI some of the Signalling systems on the underground are effectively similar in concept to ETCS L3 and have train integrity monitoring as a result.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn’t say that. I have been on a train, on the main line, in this country, operating with train integrity monitoring active and protecting the train.

But without ETCS L3 (i.e. moving block) what purpose does it serve? Track circuits and axle counters handle it quite well enough.

 

[trebor79]

Random guess, but it maybe down to showering and leaving the bathroom door open. If the detector head has a heat sensor as well as smoke this will set them off.

It wouldn't be possible to shower with the door open. It opens inwards and when it's open occupies the standing space in the way room.
Also, IME the water isn't hot enough to create any vapours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Random guess, but it maybe down to showering and leaving the bathroom door open. If the detector head has a heat sensor as well as smoke this will set them off.

I have a phrase for that, which I typically use when I see the sign warning of it in hotels. It's called "**** poor design", most usually the provision of utterly inadequate[1] air circulation/extractor fans to ensure steam and heat doesn't build up.

[1] I think the standards are inadequate, to be honest; I've not come across a home or hotel with an inside bathroom and extractor fans where it wasn't horribly damp for ages after shower use. Whereas I shower with the window fully open and leave it open for an hour or so after (no, you can't see in!) and my bathroom doesn't get damp at all.

 

[supervc-10]

Totally agree @Bletchleyite. The extractor fan in my bathroom does absolutely nothing except make annoying noises. Turned it off at the isolator and there's no difference, apart from the lack of noise! Thankfully I have an openable window.

But that's the sort of thing that should have cropped up in testing, if it's setting off fire alarms. Spray deodourant sets off fire alarms too, when I was in uni halls we were specifically told not to spray it for too long without the windows open for exactly that reason!

 

[marks87]

Totally agree @Bletchleyite. The extractor fan in my bathroom does absolutely nothing except make annoying noises. Turned it off at the isolator and there's no difference, apart from the lack of noise! Thankfully I have an openable window.

In the winter I can clearly see the extractor fan in my bathroom ejecting steam outside (and no, it's not just warm air because you don't see the same when the shower hasn't been on...yes, I checked).

 

[Highlandspring]

But that's the sort of thing that should have cropped up in testing, if it's setting off fire alarms.

It isn’t though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the winter I can clearly see the extractor fan in my bathroom ejecting steam outside (and no, it's not just warm air because you don't see the same when the shower hasn't been on...yes, I checked).

I'm sure it does, the question is does it eject enough steam outside to ensure the room does not get damp.

 

[marks87]

I'm sure it does, the question is does it eject enough steam outside to ensure the room does not get damp.

I was simply adding a counterpoint to someone claiming their extractor fan does "absolutely nothing".