Jump to content
 

Hitachi trains grounded


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Coryton said:

 

I'd say that was a single standard that deliberately used incompatible plugs for different current ratings - round pin plugs didn't have fuses.

 

(And going even more off-topic, I think that's why they are still used for theatre lighting because you don't really want a fuse blowing during a performance somewhere you can't easily get to.)

I'd always wondered why they were used for theatre lighting.

Obvious when you see it explained. So long as there if a fuse

in the feed to the round pin plug, everything (should) be safe.

No doubt these days each light draws a fairly low current,

but in the days of the old spotlights, there must have been

some fairly hefty fuses in the feed.

(Apologies for even greater thread drift).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Incompatible couplers are nothing new ! In Scotland we sometimes we used to assist a failed 303 with a 314 (buckeye/tightlock), or vice versa.... and the 314s were introduced in 1979. No doubt similar problems occurred on the GN, where BR introduced, in 1976, two brand new fleets of EMU with the same, different, two couplers. Standardising BSI couplers on Sprinters, and Tightlocks on EMUs, was a step forward however, but why two different designs ?!!

 

 

Asres, elbows and accountants would be my guess.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

In everyday working with trains doing what they were designed to do in the area they were meant to be doing it there should be no problem in normal operation because all trains will have similar operating characteristics.  The real problem - which is not insoluble but can cause additional delays - is dealing with failed trains and moving them out of the way.

Isn't this where much of the problem lies.

The design is made to suit ideal situations and circumstances, with little or no thought

for what might happen if the operating conditions move outside of those ideals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, rab said:

Isn't this where much of the problem lies.

The design is made to suit ideal situations and circumstances, with little or no thought

for what might happen if the operating conditions move outside of those ideals.

Hi Rab,

 

I would go as far as to say that a good design of anything you may care to mention includes the ability to repair any, or at least the vast majority, of the component parts should they fail or become damaged without recourse to serious engineering consideration or expense.

 

Gibbo.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Rab,

 

I would go as far as to say that a good design of anything you may care to mention includes the ability to repair any, or at least the vast majority, of the component parts should they fail or become damaged without recourse to serious engineering consideration or expense.

 

Gibbo.

Agree, I think the important word you use is 'good'.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, jools1959 said:

Is 800109 back in service after it’s repair?  I bet LNER could do with all their Class 800’s back in revenue service.

I think everyone could do with all the class 800's back in service. :)

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Rab,

 

I would go as far as to say that a good design of anything you may care to mention includes the ability to repair any, or at least the vast majority, of the component parts should they fail or become damaged without recourse to serious engineering consideration or expense.

 

Gibbo.

 

Good for the purchaser, at any rate.

 

Built-in-obsolescence is good design from the manufacturer's point of view!

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Steel rusts - Aluminium doesn't

 

Steel is heavy thus imposing grater loadings on the track and requiring more power to move it along. Aluminium is light so kinder on the track and less energy intensive to run.

And importantly, the track access payments  (afaiu) take weight of the vehicle into account, so the lighter your vehicle the less you pay...

 

Andy g

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Or the Kadee from which the knuckle spring as gone AWOL, like the one I fixed yesterday. It's been so long since I had to fit one that it turned into a bit of a performance. :mad_mini:

 

John

I hate it when that happens, but I recently bought the genuine Kadee “spike” tool,for the springs, and blow me down it actually works, it has the smallest little “pip” on the point which holds inside the spiral of the spring and makes handling and fitting them so much easier.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

I hate it when that happens, but I recently bought the genuine Kadee “spike” tool,for the springs, and blow me down it actually works, it has the smallest little “pip” on the point which holds inside the spiral of the spring and makes handling and fitting them so much easier.

I've had one of those for so long that I actually bought it from Victors. I think the current version is plastic, but mine is metal.

 

However, I find it sometimes, inexplicably, stops working for me. The trick lies is how near the end of the spring to insert the tool. That's the bit I forget when I haven't had to do it for ages! 

 

John

 

Ultimate Thread Drift?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

As has been noted a 377 can physically couple to a 387 to clear the line, but the faulty unit will be towed with no brakes due to incompatible software. You may well find the same is true with IET units.

 

Naturally the ORR expect this to be a 'last resort measure' and only for passenger evacuation / transportation to the nearest loop / siding where the defective train can be dumped out the way as towing unbraked stock is usually done in the middle of the night to minimise the consequences should it become separated from the towing unit.

 

 

 

[Note it is now a mandatory requirement that all pieces of rolling stock working over Network Rail Infrastructure MUST be fitted with a working automatic braking system. Vehicles with inoperative brakes will only be permitted if the affected vehicles are sandwiched by sufficient fitted vehicles providing enough brake force to stop the formation if a coupling breaks.]

That's where there ought to be a standard. Software is just that-software. It ought to be configurable to operate in a fallback mode that is a common standard across other coupling types, such that dragging/pushing a unit unbraked isn't necessary.

 

Edit:- having software that isn't compatible is to some extent the equivalent of having brake pipes of different diameters, or with different connectors.

Edited by rodent279
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

That's where there ought to be a standard. Software is just that-software. It ought to be configurable to operate in a fallback mode that is a common standard across other coupling types, such that dragging/pushing a unit unbraked isn't necessary.

 

It isn't just a matter of software but hardware.  The coupling is one thing, but the MU connector is only relatively standard within a single manufacturer in shape and arrangement with regards to what might be a common coupler.  As a starting point you need the various manufacturers to conform to even the barest outlines of a standard between them.  Good luck with that...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

 

It isn't just a matter of software but hardware.  The coupling is one thing, but the MU connector is only relatively standard within a single manufacturer in shape and arrangement with regards to what might be a common coupler.  As a starting point you need the various manufacturers to conform to even the barest outlines of a standard between them.  Good luck with that...

 

 

Sounds uncomfortably like the RS232 "standard".....a standard that had many different variants, some more common than others....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

That's where there ought to be a standard. Software is just that-software. It ought to be configurable to operate in a fallback mode that is a common standard across other coupling types, such that dragging/pushing a unit unbraked isn't necessary.

 

Edit:- having software that isn't compatible is to some extent the equivalent of having brake pipes of different diameters, or with different connectors.

There ought to be, but there is no incentive for any of the European rolling stock builders to do so, pending any directive from the European Union (which isn't beyond the bounds of possibility). Britain has, of course, excluded itself from anything in that regard, and as its rolling stock fleet is essentially captive, would argue lack of interest. The RSSB could get involved, but probably will not.

The Americans faced the same problem with the advent of main line dieselisation in the 1940s and 50s, and from what I can recall, the AAR developed a standard MU system for diesel locomotives that is still in use, but then, in the US, what you can buy in terms of locomotives is determined much more by the manufacturers than the customers, and manufacturers want standardisation. Railroads simply want to be able to couple an EMD loco to a GE one.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

Personally I can't help thinking that brakes are rather too important to entrust to a computer!

Point noted and accepted-but I think you'd be surprised (and maybe alarmed) at the extent to which they already are. As with aircraft-many fly not quite autonomously, but with minimal crew interaction.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

There ought to be, but there is no incentive for any of the European rolling stock builders to do so, pending any directive from the European Union (which isn't beyond the bounds of possibility). Britain has, of course, excluded itself from anything in that regard, and as its rolling stock fleet is essentially captive, would argue lack of interest. The RSSB could get involved, but probably will not.

The Americans faced the same problem with the advent of main line dieselisation in the 1940s and 50s, and from what I can recall, the AAR developed a standard MU system for diesel locomotives that is still in use, but then, in the US, what you can buy in terms of locomotives is determined much more by the manufacturers than the customers, and manufacturers want standardisation. Railroads simply want to be able to couple an EMD loco to a GE one.

 

Agreed-but you'd think customers would also find it in their own interests to have a fleet standardised, at least in its ability to couple together.

In the short term, one operator might have one homogenous fleet, so it may not be an issue, but longer term it may be.

Franchise changes, enlargements, consolidation, and fleet cascades, it would surely work to everyone's advantage to have more ability, if not to work in multiple, then at least to be able to couple together and have a fully braked train for the purposes of clearing the line

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Point noted and accepted-but I think you'd be surprised (and maybe alarmed) at the extent to which they already are. As with aircraft-many fly not quite autonomously, but with minimal crew interaction.

 

I believe that with the exception of the 737, all airliners currently in production have a computer sitting between the pilot and everything that they are controlling.

 

Weren't we talking about Hitachi trains at some point on this thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

Personally I can't help thinking that brakes are rather too important to entrust to a computer!

 

I wouldn't get in a modern car, then, most don't have a direct connection between the pedal and the brake cylinder but use a control unit to determine the pressure applied... Also they can react quicker than a human if needed...

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Built-in-obsolescence is good design from the manufacturer's point of view!

 

Mobile phone manufacturers have been doing that for years now!

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

We are still a member of the European Standards organisations, so not completely isolated. That was a conscious decision by the UK national standards bodies, because they are aware that a large number of ISO/IEC standards start of as national, then European standards, so we need to have input at the European level. I have a feeling, but am willing to stand corrected, that the same applies in the railway world.

But what is a standard. Up thread the common European coupler standard was mentioned but I gather that it is anything but standard and there is a great deal of incompatibility between train types. In modelling terms thing NEMA couplings which rely crucially on the height being the same, without any electrical or electronic interfaces to worry about.

And an example from field I know. There is a European standard for electrical conduit. It covers everything from cardboard to marine spec galvanised steel, because it had to cater for what the various countries regarded as the norms, and were used to. Obviously you wouldn't use cardboard where you should use galvanised steel, but what if the spec just said "must conform to ENxxx?" and you knew nothing about the application of the product?

So a standard is only as standard as the writers make it.

Jonathan

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

  • RMweb Gold

Just had a look at the thread on wnxx. Fascinating, and very informative on the metallurgical aspects. I did a year of Materials Science at university, interesting subject, but never got my head around Miller indices (vertices?), I knew it wasn't for me.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 hours ago, rodent279 said:

That's where there ought to be a standard. Software is just that-software. It ought to be configurable to operate in a fallback mode that is a common standard across other coupling types, such that dragging/pushing a unit unbraked isn't necessary.

 

Edit:- having software that isn't compatible is to some extent the equivalent of having brake pipes of different diameters, or with different connectors.

The problem with software is exactly the same as we all (well most) suffer at home on our own 'puting engines - development does not stand still not is it frozen in time.  the softwarea train is delivered might not be the same it is running with as little as 5 years later because of numerous upgrades and changes (our trains in 1999, after 5 years in traffic, were on Version 17.X of the software,  and that was on trains where in operational and commercial requirement terms nothing had changed).  So even if trains were delivered with common software I suspect you'd soon find differences not only within an apparently common fleet (e.g Class 80X ) but also between fleets running for different operators.  and who is going to freeze their software when even the people who make the basic stuff can't manage it?

 

Brake problems can be overcome but you need the right kit and the right pattern hose connections in a coupling, or additional to it, in order to manage it.  I made my employers plenty of money shifting around trains belonging to other operators which happened to have Scharfenberg couplers - the software was irrelevant as long as you could couple a brake pipe and work the air side of the train's braking system.

 

20 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Asres, elbows and accountants would be my guess.

I wouldn't bother to guess, I'd prefer to stick with facts rather than uninformed supposition.  The answer is progress, developments in control systems, changes in safety requirements,  and varying operational and safety specifications.  Although I wonder to what extent TSIs might help achieve greater consistency.

 

simple example - some trains require SDO and they also require it to work when two or more units are coupled together - that is a change in safety requirements although it mihght not affect all routes and types of train.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The problem with software is exactly the same as we all (well most) suffer at home on our own 'puting engines - development does not stand still not is it frozen in time.  the softwarea train is delivered might not be the same it is running with as little as 5 years later because of numerous upgrades and changes (our trains in 1999, after 5 years in traffic, were on Version 17.X of the software,  and that was on trains where in operational and commercial requirement terms nothing had changed).  So even if trains were delivered with common software I suspect you'd soon find differences not only within an apparently common fleet (e.g Class 80X ) but also between fleets running for different operators.  and who is going to freeze their software when even the people who make the basic stuff can't manage it?

 

Brake problems can be overcome but you need the right kit and the right pattern hose connections in a coupling, or additional to it, in order to manage it.  I made my employers plenty of money shifting around trains belonging to other operators which happened to have Scharfenberg couplers - the software was irrelevant as long as you could couple a brake pipe and work the air side of the train's braking system.

 

I wouldn't bother to guess, I'd prefer to stick with facts rather than uninformed supposition.  The answer is progress, developments in control systems, changes in safety requirements,  and varying operational and safety specifications.  Although I wonder to what extent TSIs might help achieve greater consistency.

 

simple example - some trains require SDO and they also require it to work when two or more units are coupled together - that is a change in safety requirements although it mihght not affect all routes and types of train.

In the drawing office where I worked, we always tried to

keep the software on all our computers at the same level.

That way anyone could read a file created on any computer.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
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...