Should Coupling Standards Have Been In Place

[SpacePhoenix]

It was mentioned in another thread about the various combinations of coupling standards caused by variations in:

• Rail to coupler height
• Electrical block location (above or below)
• Physical coupler types
• Different TMSs
• Possibly differences in electrical and pipe connections

Before any of the Electrostars, Desiros and Voyagers were ordered in the late 90s, should standards have been set to allow a lot more stock to be able to work with each other in service?

 

[D365]

To be honest. No.

The additional complexity would have made rolling stock orders so much more expensive and subject to risk.

Physical couplers are now pretty much standardised with the Dellner type being all but ubiquitous on post-privatisation stock.

And the Desiros were definitely not on order in the 90s.

 

[Via Bank]

I refer the hon. OP to xkcd 927

 

[FordFocus]

To be honest. No.

The additional complexity would have made rolling stock orders so much more expensive and subject to risk.

Physical couplers are now pretty much standardised with the Dellner type being all but ubiquitous on post-privatisation stock.

And the Desiros were definitely not on order in the 90s.

I believe that some Dellner stock is fitted at different coupling heights so isn't quite standardised?

I don't think we will ever have a universal standard unless all TMS systems are standardised. The manufacturers haven't shown much interest in doing this and I doubt a 20 year old Electrostar TMS would like talking to a brand new Siemens TMS.

 

[Domh245]

I believe that some Dellner stock is fitted at different coupling heights so isn't quite standardised?

I don't think we will ever have a universal standard unless all TMS systems are standardised. The manufacturers haven't shown much interest in doing this and I doubt a 20 year old Electrostar TMS would like talking to a brand new Siemens TMS.

I think it is only the pendolino which has a non-standard height of coupler (or at least, that is the impression I get from this RSSB document. As you note, it is the TMS and the electrical connections that are the pain.

 

[najaB]

As you note, it is the TMS and the electrical connections that are the pain.

Indeed, just like in biology - you might be able to physically couple, but it doesn't mean you'll get a viable result unless you're of the same (or very closely related) species.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it is only the pendolino which has a non-standard height of coupler (or at least, that is the impression I get from this RSSB document. As you note, it is the TMS and the electrical connections that are the pain.

Pendolinos can couple to Voyagers and can haul one another in emergency. So at least those two are the same.

Isn't it the case that the Voyager has an Alstom TMS so they can actually talk to one another rather than just mechanically couple and connect up the brake pipes? (Both have traditional twin-pipe air brakes rather than Westcode, AIUI).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

To be honest. No.

The additional complexity would have made rolling stock orders so much more expensive and subject to risk.

Physical couplers are now pretty much standardised with the Dellner type being all but ubiquitous on post-privatisation stock.

And the Desiros were definitely not on order in the 90s.

Just because the physical coupler is a Dellner, doesn't mean necessarily that two units can couple. Not all Desiros have the electrical block the same side of the coupler

I believe that some Dellner stock is fitted at different coupling heights so isn't quite standardised?

I don't think we will ever have a universal standard unless all TMS systems are standardised. The manufacturers haven't shown much interest in doing this and I doubt a 20 year old Electrostar TMS would like talking to a brand new Siemens TMS.

The only bit that would need to be standardised would be data communications between the TMSs on different units. Things like passcomm activation info can probably be easily standardised, it'll probably be things like fault logging that would be harder to do

 

[D365]

Just because the physical coupler is a Dellner, doesn't mean necessarily that two units can couple. Not all Desiros have the electrical block the same side of the coupler

I am aware of that, my point is that for recovery purposes a standard coupler means that any unit should (in theory) be able to haul another out of the way at low speed. In such a case the electrical connection block will be physically isolated.

The only bit that would need to be standardised would be database communications between the TMSs on different units. Things like passcom activation info can probably be easily standardised, it'll probably be things like fault logging that would be harder to do

There's also DOO CCTV, climate control, TASS and pretty much all other train functions that rely on a physical data bus.

Thing is, if a new design of unit requires an enhanced version of the TMS to be developed then naturally it won't be compatible with older versions. And it's expensive to re-certify older software.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I am aware of that, my point is that for recovery purposes a standard coupler means that any unit should (in theory) be able to haul another out of the way at low speed. In such a case the electrical connection block will be physically isolated.



There's also DOO CCTV, climate control, TASS and pretty much all other train functions that rely on a physical data bus.

Thing is, if a new design of unit requires an enhanced version of the TMS to be developed then naturally it won't be compatible with older versions. And it's expensive to re-certify older software.

I thought that climate control was something that could generally only be altered by fitters in a depot. DOO CCTV probably won't be too hard to do as it's basically just video streaming. By TASS I assume you mean something to do with the PIS, it seems to be hit and miss as to whether **** work anyway

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought that climate control was something that could generally only be altered by fitters in a depot.

Pendolinos allow staff to alter it. Voyagers too I think.

TASS is the tilting authorisation and supervisory service, or something along those lines. I don't see why that would go down the data bus, surely it would act only within a unit.

 

[D365]

Pendolinos allow staff to alter it. Voyagers too I think.

Units with full-width gangways have some kind of dynamic climate control.

TASS is the tilting authorisation and supervisory service, or something along those lines. I don't see why that would go down the data bus, surely it would act only within a unit.

For Class 221s in multiple. I'm just giving examples of situations where certain units have additional software/control features that may not be present in older designs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Units with full-width gangways have some kind of dynamic climate control.

Not between units, though, or at least it is not essential.

For Class 221s in multiple. I'm just giving examples of situations where certain units have additional software/control features that may not be present in older designs.

True. It wouldn't be out of the realms of possibility for two units to negotiate the standards they supported and downgrade gracefully, though. For instance, if you coupled a Pacer (with a TMS, I know they don't have one) to a 158 (with a TMS, same) it logically should stop the driver exceeding 75mph.

So a unit says "do you support TASS" and the other unit says "what's TASS", then tilt is disabled throughout.

 

[notlob.divad]

True. It wouldn't be out of the realms of possibility for two units to negotiate the standards they supported and downgrade gracefully, though. For instance, if you coupled a Pacer (with a TMS, I know they don't have one) to a 158 (with a TMS, same) it logically should stop the driver exceeding 75mph.

So a unit says "do you support TASS" and the other unit says "what's TASS", then tilt is disabled throughout.

I'm not an expert at this in the rail industry, but my job does involve dealing with multiple communication protocols. At a blind guess, trying to do that between two different manufacturers software would be much more akin to:

So a unit says "do you support TASS" and the other unit says "Que", then.... who knows.

You could then try to connect to the next unit:

So a unit says "do you support TASS" and the other unit says "
Beth", then.... who knows.

Yes everything is doable, however as has been pointed out, at every level it is an increased cost to enforce a standard. With private manufacturers trying to outbid each other to come up with the best design, new features, lowest cost etc etc, their own internal standards will always diverge.

As pointed out in the cartoon up thread. Standardisation is the whole grail of all types of industry across the world. But the harder you push for it the further out of reach it appears to become.

take a look at the European Union. It has tried to get all mobile phone manufacturers to standardize their charging ports so they wouldn't have to keep selling bespoke chargers every time you upgrade. How did that work out with apple and the iPhone6 after the Micro USB was chosen as the standard? Oh yeah they immediately released their propriety reversible "lightning" connector which despite using an identical comms protocol required an adapter to allow micro USB connectivity and immediately made all products produced for the iPhone incompatible with any other manufacturers device.

Roll on 2016 and the industry is standardizing on the USB-C connector which has the same reversible ability as "Lightning" and has even been incorporated on some Mac devices. Apple release the iPhone 7 and.... No still the lightning connector. The truth is, once you have captured a market why would you want to seed any inch of ground to your competitors? What makes you think the train manufacturers are any different? Why would Siemens want to make their trains compatible with Bombardier? Incompatibilities mean that if you currently have a Siemens train and want something to connect to it you have to contact Siemens and vice versa.

Should it have been done? it possibly would have been a good idea at the time, however it might have stunted some development of the on board systems over the years. The standard could never move as fast as the diverging R&D and the last thing a business would want to do is to divulge where their R&D is taking them in order for an industry body to update the standard and make their unique selling point compatible with their competitors.

 

[dgl]

Apple got out of having to use the micro USB connector because all their chargers have a removable USB cable and so were able to convince the EU that out would be ok. But then again about the only universal standards that Apple have adopted are for hard drives and USB and with USB only concerning non mobile usb connectors.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apple got out of having to use the micro USB connector because all their chargers have a removable USB cable and so were able to convince the EU that out would be ok. But then again about the only universal standards that Apple have adopted are for hard drives and USB and with USB only concerning non mobile usb connectors.

To be honest, given how terrible a connector micro-USB actually is, I have no particular problem with this. The key was meaning you could share chargers between devices (by the other end being USB A, which doesn't suffer the same issues), less so cables which take up less space anyway.

The equivalent with trains would I guess be a coupling adapter, but that's not something weighing a few grams in your shirt pocket, so isn't a practical comparison.

 

[D365]

How did that work out with apple and the iPhone6 after the Micro USB was chosen as the standard? Oh yeah they immediately released their propriety reversible "lightning" connector which despite using an identical comms protocol required an adapter to allow micro USB connectivity and immediately made all products produced for the iPhone incompatible with any other manufacturers device.

That was the iPhone 5 of 2012. Apple do offer a micro USB to lighting adaptor for sale online. If their propitiatory standard causes any problem with future legislation then I imagine they'll just bundle the adaptor with their European models. Rather wasteful but there you go.

 

[AM9]

That was the iPhone 5 of 2012. Apple do offer a micro USB to lighting adaptor for sale online. If their propitiatory standard causes any problem with future legislation then I imagine they'll just bundle the adaptor with their European models. Rather wasteful but there you go.

I doubt the adaptor costs them more than 50p so why would that be wasteful?

 

[cjmillsnun]

I doubt the adaptor costs them more than 50p so why would that be wasteful?

Because it would almost never be used and in most cases would get lost.

 

[DPWH]

So we're all agreed then:

Due to compatibility issues, a Pendolino can't be hauled by an iPhone. :roll:

 

[D365]

Due to compatibility issues, a Pendolino can't be hauled by an iPhone. :roll:

Nor can it be powered by a Galaxy Note.

Because it would almost never be used and in most cases would get lost.

Exactly, now add up the plastic and copper needed to produce all these adaptors (if they were required to be bundled) and you end up with a c**p-tonne of waste.

 

[notlob.divad]

Sorry, the point wasn't to start a big iPhone debate. The point was simply an indication of how difficult it can be to implement and enforce standards, when you dont have full control over the manufacturing process and have different suppliers competing.

Even when companies are willing to implement your standard, they will charge you through the nose if it is different from the standard they are using, or the standard that they feel gives them a competitive advantage.

 

[driver_m]

Pendolinos can couple to Voyagers and can haul one another in emergency. So at least those two are the same.

Isn't it the case that the Voyager has an Alstom TMS so they can actually talk to one another rather than just mechanically couple and connect up the brake pipes? (Both have traditional twin-pipe air brakes rather than Westcode, AIUI).

The TMS systems are completely different. Pendo is a bespoke button only TMS similar to that in a 175 and presumably other Alsthom stock too, a voyager has a monochrome touchscreen using Windows CE. They can't electrically connect.

IIRC when the 57s were sent down south initially for NR to couple upto units down there. They were at a differing height and thus couldn't do rescue work.

As for Climate control. The Train Manager does that now. They used to have to ask us to alter it on Pendos, before a TMS mod allowed them to do it instead.

 

[D365]

The TMS systems are completely different. Pendo is a bespoke button only TMS similar to that in a 175 and presumably other Alsthom stock too, a voyager has a monochrome touchscreen using Windows CE. They can't electrically connect.

I thought that Classes 220/221 were specified with the same electrical setup as the Class 390, for recovery purposes, hence why the Class 222 is not compatible with the Voyagers as it is a fully Bombardier product.

 

[edwin_m]

Nor can it be powered by a Galaxy Note.

But a Galaxy Note might make quite a good substitute for the emergency detonators.

 

[asylumxl]

Apple got out of having to use the micro USB connector because all their chargers have a removable USB cable and so were able to convince the EU that out would be ok. But then again about the only universal standards that Apple have adopted are for hard drives and USB and with USB only concerning non mobile usb connectors.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

Slightly off topic, but they have adopted USB-C for their Macbooks as opposed to proprietary connectors, which hopefully shows a shift away from such things for Apple.

 

[J-2739]

(please don't stab me but...)
I've only just recently found out about this lost thread:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=134495
Off topic posts can continue in this thread!

 

[DenmarkRail]

I haven't read the thread, I am to busy playing with my new McK model trains...

I am gonna go straight in and answer my opinion on the question... I am going to use Denmark as an example...

In my opinion, Denmark's trains are pretty inovative (except the IC4... That is a not good train) I guess some of you have heard of the IC3, go look it up. It has rubber ends, cab folds away etc...

So Denmark says 'Hey! We can couple 3 IC3 sets together, and use this full body gangway to make it much easier to get between the 3 trains... They are not like the gangways between sets on Class 350s, they are pretty much full body gangways.

A couple of years later, DSB say "We have more electrical power now, lets build some 4 car sets of the same train, and stick a pantograph on it..." Denmark are not stupid like England, they use the same couplings, so the IC3 trains can join the IR4 trains, and run together.... So we end up with sets like 'IC3 IC3 IR4'

Then a few years later DSB hire a new company to build trains that never worked, and will probably leave soon... But they have the same couplings.

Also Denmark still uses a lot of loco hauled double decker stock around Kobenhavn, so it tends to be, if it is over crowded we stick an extra cariage on the next run...

You will find Europe is far more intergrated because they have mainly 1 operator, so when they order trains, they order with intentions that the set could be working Kobenhavn to Aarhus, with the Odense train leaving at Odense on one day, but the next day that set might work Aarhus to Hamburg etc.... While in England, say the 390 trains will only ever run on WCML.

So yes, there should be... it works well in Denmark, we have been able to solve a lot of over crowding problems, by being able to get another train at short notice and put it on at the next station without problems.

Unfortunatly, Britains dependancy on units without gangways between units (which is slowly disappearing) was short sighted, and always some loco hauled stock should be retained/renewed, for suburban services... Adding an extra coach from the yard at short notice would really help in UK.

-G

 

[gsnedders]

The TMS systems are completely different. Pendo is a bespoke button only TMS similar to that in a 175 and presumably other Alsthom stock too, a voyager has a monochrome touchscreen using Windows CE. They can't electrically connect.

The user interface and even the OS don't actually matter at all. What actually matters is the internal representation of the various TMS; though even then, it should be possible to convert to other representations.

At least on the face of it, it shouldn't be too hard to standardise with certain extension points. One would expect it only to be particularly expensive in the short-term, given the cost will be in getting the connections standardised.

Essentially it's important to point out that all you actually need is some hardware (in reality, mostly the software on said hardware!) that converts from the proprietary train-specific representation to the standard one just before it reaches the coupler. That would be the way to, in the short-term, make trains compliant with such a standard. (Longer term it's entirely possible we'd end up with trains using the standard representation internally and therefore having nothing to convert anywhere.)

It's also important to remember, unlike USB, we essentially have trains made by a very small number of companies. We aren't asking hundreds (or thousands) to comply.

 

[driver_m]

The user interface and even the OS don't actually matter at all. What actually matters is the internal representation of the various TMS; though even then, it should be possible to convert to other representations.

At least on the face of it, it shouldn't be too hard to standardise with certain extension points. One would expect it only to be particularly expensive in the short-term, given the cost will be in getting the connections standardised.

Essentially it's important to point out that all you actually need is some hardware (in reality, mostly the software on said hardware!) that converts from the proprietary train-specific representation to the standard one just before it reaches the coupler. That would be the way to, in the short-term, make trains compliant with such a standard. (Longer term it's entirely possible we'd end up with trains using the standard representation internally and therefore having nothing to convert anywhere.)

It's also important to remember, unlike USB, we essentially have trains made by a very small number of companies. We aren't asking hundreds (or thousands) to comply.

I'm not a computer expert, but when our lot tell me they're incompatible with each other and can't communicate with one another, I'll go along with it. I wouldn't be surprised if our voyagers are TMS incompatible now with a XC Voyager.