Jump to content
 

Freight services being updated


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

 

IIRC the A1 Trust's Rob Morland is confident that there are no fundamental obstacles for steam if they have sufficient power and room, their Autumn 2015 newsletter "confirmed that Interfleet Technology had approved our scheme for fitting ERTMS signalling equipment with an application date now fixed for 2019"

 

 

 

 

Be interesting to see how they can do that.  Essentially in order to be compliant the regulator has to be closed, that bit should be relatively easy with some sort of piston operated by ERTMS.  But that's hardly the whole story as it doesn't solve what might happen with the blower valve (very important, and it could vary according to what was happening at the time on the road and footplate) plus the reverser and conceivably it could affect how the injectors are being managed.  I really don't see how a system could be designed to do all of that and at the same time take account of the exact circumstances beyond the footplate.   it would be very interesting to learn how they propose to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Be interesting to see how they can do that.  Essentially in order to be compliant the regulator has to be closed, that bit should be relatively easy with some sort of piston operated by ERTMS.  But that's hardly the whole story as it doesn't solve what might happen with the blower valve (very important, and it could vary according to what was happening at the time on the road and footplate) plus the reverser and conceivably it could affect how the injectors are being managed.  I really don't see how a system could be designed to do all of that and at the same time take account of the exact circumstances beyond the footplate.   it would be very interesting to learn how they propose to do that.

I would echo Mike "The Stationmaster's" view - "Be interesting to see how they can do that". It's all very well producing a document and/or drawings that says "this piece of kit will go there, and that piece of kit will go here and a consultant to say "it looks fine". But, the DMI, EVC and TIU (to name but three) are relatively sensitive pieces of kit required by ERTMS and a steam loco is a much more hostile environment than a diesel or electric loco. And these pieces of kit are essentially interfacing to other electrical/electronic kit on modern traction, not physical levers, valves, etc. (albeit via solenoids and the like) on steam locos. Where would all this extra kit be located on a steam loco? I'm not saying it couldn't done, just how practical and economically could it be done? And no, I don't want to see steam locos eradicated from the main lines and restricted just to heritage lines, I love to steam locos doing their stuff on the main line 'at full speed', but the reality is that the march of modern technology, systems, and operating procedures may ultimately prevent them being allowed (safely) to operate on a main line.

 

Regards, Ian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AWS and GWR ATC before that applied the brakes automatically on a steam train - did it also close the regulator?  Could the problem be solved just by telling the ERTMS the braking rate of the train was much poorer than the brakes could actually deliver, to allow for the effect of power possibly still being applied?  This might result in steam trains getting very cautious braking curves but I think the ERTMS would avoid the need to restrict their speed - unless the braking distance was so long that the data about the far end of it was encoded on a balise after where braking needed to start...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

AWS and GWR ATC before that applied the brakes automatically on a steam train - did it also close the regulator?  Could the problem be solved just by telling the ERTMS the braking rate of the train was much poorer than the brakes could actually deliver, to allow for the effect of power possibly still being applied?  This might result in steam trains getting very cautious braking curves but I think the ERTMS would avoid the need to restrict their speed - unless the braking distance was so long that the data about the far end of it was encoded on a balise after where braking needed to start...

In all honesty, I think the "authorities" have their hands full trying to sort out how to correctly interface ERTMS/ETCS to modern traction first and making sure "it does what it says on the tin". Any heritage/steam traction will be way down the priority list.

 

Regards, Ian.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

AWS and GWR ATC before that applied the brakes automatically on a steam train - did it also close the regulator?  Could the problem be solved just by telling the ERTMS the braking rate of the train was much poorer than the brakes could actually deliver, to allow for the effect of power possibly still being applied?  This might result in steam trains getting very cautious braking curves but I think the ERTMS would avoid the need to restrict their speed - unless the braking distance was so long that the data about the far end of it was encoded on a balise after where braking needed to start...

 

But it would then be non-compliant and thus require a derogation.  The requirement for ERTMS is that it also cuts off the power as well as applying the brakes and with a steam engine it isn't just the simple matter of closing the regulator.  So the big question is would the relevant authorities be prepared to consider a non-compliant form of traction and I would think the answer to that, and all that is likely to go with it, is also a long way down anyone's priorities when it comes to ERTMS/ETCS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight correction Jim

 

'Obviously, with automatic air brakes on all vehicles, both parts of the train should come to a stand ... etc

 

The greatest distance I have known between the two portions - i.e. the rear portion which did stop (only one wagon) and the rest of the train, which obviously kept going, was 12 miles give or take a few chains (and 5 block sections).  although the missing tail lamp was noticed by two of the Signalmen involved we only knew where the missing wagon was because a member of the public 'phoned in and asked if we had lost one because there was one sitting on the railway line at the bottom of his garden.

 

Please excuse my ignorance but did this happen because the loco could create air almost as fast as it came out or because the pipe somehow resealed?

 

Could this be mitigated against by the signalling computer monitering the air level and requiring an explaination of a sudden drop?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Please excuse my ignorance but did this happen because the loco could create air almost as fast as it came out or because the pipe somehow resealed?

 

Could this be mitigated against by the signalling computer monitering the air level and requiring an explaination of a sudden drop?

 

It happened because the loco was a Class 56 and despite their various other design failings they were given vary impressive compressor capacity so could keep the air up and thus keep the brakes off.  I think the only possible mitigation would be probably be a flow meter although an EOT (End Of Train monitor) would also given an indication - but the idea of those seems to be very much not in UK favour unless ideas have changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this the other day and wondered how different the kit fitted to the class 97s used on the Cambrian was to what is going to be fitted to the next time round?

Obviously technically things haven’t stood still and the equipment may be smaller and easier to fit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I was thinking about this the other day and wondered how different the kit fitted to the class 97s used on the Cambrian was to what is going to be fitted to the next time round?

Obviously technically things haven’t stood still and the equipment may be smaller and easier to fit?

 

The problem will always be there of integrating something new into a traction unit - of whatever kind - which was designed and built before the new things, such as ERTMS, was invented.  The reasons are relatively straightforward the simplest being finding somewhere to put any ERTMS kit.  The difficult bit is making the changes to whatever exists on the traction unit in order to enable it to be integrated into the things ERTMS is required to do - for example just where do you insert the control over the brake system and just where do you insert the control over the power system, and how do you do these things reliably?

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem will always be there of integrating something new into a traction unit - of whatever kind - which was designed and built before the new things, such as ERTMS, was invented. The reasons are relatively straightforward the simplest being finding somewhere to put any ERTMS kit. The difficult bit is making the changes to whatever exists on the traction unit in order to enable it to be integrated into the things ERTMS is required to do - for example just where do you insert the control over the brake system and just where do you insert the control over the power system, and how do you do these things reliably?

Integration of the onboard signalling with the train control is a real pain, mainly because it is safely critical and has to be proven so.

 

Typically if the onboard system detects an overspeed it will initially demand a traction cut out. If speed continues to rise it will initially demand a service brake application failing which an emergency brake is commanded.

 

As you say, getting these interfaces correct is essential. An advantage of ETCS is that the vehicle builders know what these interfaces are whoever supplies the signalling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The link in the OP says that the most used locos will be converted first.  That almost certainly means class 66, where (unless affected by the variations between sub-classes) one design of interface will account for a big proportion of the entire freight fleet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem will always be there of integrating something new into a traction unit - of whatever kind - which was designed and built before the new things, such as ERTMS, was invented.  The reasons are relatively straightforward the simplest being finding somewhere to put any ERTMS kit.  The difficult bit is making the changes to whatever exists on the traction unit in order to enable it to be integrated into the things ERTMS is required to do - for example just where do you insert the control over the brake system and just where do you insert the control over the power system, and how do you do these things reliably?

agree but the class 37 has been fitted out for the cambrian so at least that class is a known quantity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

agree but the class 37 has been fitted out for the cambrian so at least that class is a known quantity?

You would like to think so, but in a class that old it is unlikely that there will be two locos exactly the same, though the essential interfaces will be the same in principle. However, whether the wiring routes are the same is a different question!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You would like to think so, but in a class that old it is unlikely that there will be two locos exactly the same, though the essential interfaces will be the same in principle. However, whether the wiring routes are the same is a different question!

What is probably as important is that, compared to modern traction, the class 37 is very definitely in the analogue era. If the technology required for ERTMS can cope with that, it is going to be likely that more modern traction will be easier.

 

Jim

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

agree but the class 37 has been fitted out for the cambrian so at least that class is a known quantity?

 

There were electrical differences between individual Class 37s (as we found out to our embarassment) 45 years ago - and that was before umpteen sub-class divisions to different sets of mods.  The surviving ones are probably about as 'standard' as the average swindon built steam engine was with its class mates after 40 years in service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

 

Very useful - thanks. Carney does not seem to mention the level of ETCS being attempted. I know the Swiss have successfully implemented ETCS 2 on mixed traffic routes (at 2 min headways reportedly) beginning in 2008, which suggests the technology is ready. So I wonder what this announcement means exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very useful - thanks. Carney does not seem to mention the level of ETCS being attempted. I know the Swiss have successfully implemented ETCS 2 on mixed traffic routes (at 2 min headways reportedly) beginning in 2008, which suggests the technology is ready. So I wonder what this announcement means exactly.

i was tipped off about the announcement yesterday, but,

it was rather hijacked by trees today.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44058298

 

mentioned briefly this morning on the radio but soon replaced by tree felling

 

shame, as some of it has already started

Edited by ess1uk
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

i was tipped off about the announcement yesterday, but,

it was rather hijacked by trees today.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44058298

 

mentioned briefly this morning on the radio but soon replaced by tree felling

 

shame, as some of it has already started

The BBC report is a little misleading, it infers that the whole of the Thameslink route and Crossrail route will be ATO. And as for the statement regarding "traffic lights", just shows the level of journalism these days.

 

Regards, Ian.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC report is a little misleading, it infers that the whole of the Thameslink route and Crossrail route will be ATO. And as for the statement regarding "traffic lights", just shows the level of journalism these days.

 

Regards, Ian.

Mark Carne refers to them as traffic lights

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...