Should the UK rail network have universal rolling stock inter-interoperability requirements?

[Iskra]

The transition to GBR could be a fantastic opportunity to create a rail network with a higher degree of integration. We often hear on these forums that x unit can't work with z unit or y loco couldn't rescue x unit. Most of the time this doesn't cause problems, but there must be numerous examples where incidents could be resolved quicker if something closer was able to assist, or could there be a benefit from just being able to theoretically join any train on the network with another for ECS purposes, maximising paths on congested cores, or just more easily adding additional capacity?

Now, I'm not suggesting re-engineering every piece of rolling stock on the network to work with every other one, that would be problematic in many ways. However, what I would suggest is making some form of universal standards for all newly introduced rolling stock from a certain date, so that eventually we will have a railway where everything could theoretically work with all other rolling stock. I'm referring to couplings, electrical systems and computer systems here.

Do you think this is practical, or a good idea?

 

[zwk500]

Personally, for rescue purposes everything should be able to move anything else at a limited speed, being able to control brakes, doors and power from either unit (obvs subject to the fault location). It would only need to be a 'clear the line' type compatibility though.

However full interoperability for regular service is not really needed, as a one-size-fits-all won't work and having multiple layers of compatibility will add cost very quickly. There's no reason 80Xs would ever work with 377s, for instance. However, commonality between all Suburban commuter units, and between all regional express units, for example, would be good.

 

[JohnElliott]

RSSB have had projects with similar aims, for example T1137:

​	The project aims to investigate the electrical and data connectivity requirements for automatic couplers across a range of scenarios (including different train rescue situations), considering different technology enablers and business case factors to propose a standard protocol.

 

[Snow1964]

One thing that really needs to be decided is the standard, there is a trade off between making too universal (so end up with compromised vehicle design, just in case it needs to use extra routes), and amending the infrastructure.

This is going to come down to cost, and how you value standardisation. One option would be to fix tight spots during work, but on other hand some other tight spots might still be unchanged in few decades.

As an example the Midland line is getting non standard 24.5m vehicles, but would platform extensions have been better, if not should all future express stock be limited to 24.5m (rather than 26m). Similarly if that is new length what about replacement stock for somewhere like Waterloo-Exeter (should Waterloo accept 245m trains, currently has some 241m trains). I know decisions on this route are about 7 years away, but by then will either be set of standard universal specs, or will still be doing on case by case basis

My gut feeling is should have 4 basic designs : Express; longer secondary and outer suburban; high density inner suburban; branch lines and rural (more lower cost, simpler standard).

 

[RobShipway]

One thing that really needs to be decided is the standard, there is a trade off between making too universal (so end up with compromised vehicle design, just in case it needs to use extra routes), and amending the infrastructure.

This is going to come down to cost, and how you value standardisation. One option would be to fix tight spots during work, but on other hand some other tight spots might still be unchanged in few decades.

As an example the Midland line is getting non standard 24.5m vehicles, but would platform extensions have been better, if not should all future express stock be limited to 24.5m (rather than 26m). Similarly if that is new length what about replacement stock for somewhere like Waterloo-Exeter (should Waterloo accept 245m trains, currently has some 241m trains). I know decisions on this route are about 7 years away, but by then will either be set of standard universal specs, or will still be doing on case by case basis

My gut feeling is should have 4 basic designs : Express; longer secondary and outer suburban; high density inner suburban; branch lines and rural (more lower cost, simpler standard).

Depending on the routes, I think that you would still be doing things on a case by case basis. One of the reasons that the Midland mainline is getting 24.5M coach trains, is that the fact the you cannot fit 9 coaches of 26M into the platforms at St Pancras and other platforms along the route I believe. So in that respect, it is cheaper to have shorter train carriages rather than paying many millions more to extend the platforms. That having been said, when there was going to be 10 coach trains on the Waterloo - Reading route, a number of stations did have their platforms extended to fit 10 coaches of class 458 trains. At the time, I did say to the person in charge of this project at Network Rail that the platforms should have been extended to cope with 12 coach trains for future use as it would be less cost to have done it then, to then be doing again in the future 5 - 10 years time!

 

[D365]

At the time, I did say to the person in charge of this project at Network Rail that the platforms should have been extended to cope with 12 coach trains for future use as it would be less cost to have done it then, to then be doing again in the future 5 - 10 years time!

Easy for someone on the side to say... there's only so much budget for "gold plating".

If the project asks for 200m platforms, you can bet your bottom dollar that questions will be asked (r.e. use of taxpayer money) if platforms suddenly end up being 40m longer.

Back to the original question. Unfortunately not practical. The best we can hope for are "Thunderbird" locomotives to quickly haul dead units to a siding or depot.

 

[RobShipway]

Easy for someone on the side to say... there's only so much budget for "gold plating".

If the project asks for 200m platforms, you can bet your bottom dollar that questions will be asked (r.e. use of taxpayer money) if platforms suddenly end up being 40m longer.

Back to the original question. Unfortunately not practical. The best we can hope for are "Thunderbird" locomotives to quickly haul dead units to a siding or depot.

It is easy for someone on the side to say, but in many ways those doing platform extension projects need to be thinking in the same way as many of the railway greats like Brunel did in their time when it comes to the railway infrastructure. I just hope that someone at South Western Railway has measured up the class 701 trains and noted those against many of the platforms they maybe using on the line between Waterloo and Reading.

 

[zwk500]

It is easy for someone on the side to say, but in many ways those doing platform extension projects need to be thinking in the same way as many of the railway greats like Brunel did in their time when it comes to the railway infrastructure.

Why? We've got 150 years worth of experience now, and the railways are run differently, funded differently, used differently and expected to be different to those in the days of Brunel.

It's also important to remember that Brunel failed very often, as he constantly experimented with innovative techniques costing a vast amount of money. Ask the shareholders of the SS Great Eastern, South Devon Railway or the GWR when they had to convert to 4'8.5". Bullied shared this trait as well - both gifted engineers who created masterpieces of their time and truly ground-breaking advances, but at almost ruinous cost. The publicly-funded railway cannot sustain this level of expenditure on theoretical possibilities.

 

[swt_passenger]

It is easy for someone on the side to say, but in many ways those doing platform extension projects need to be thinking in the same way as many of the railway greats like Brunel did in their time when it comes to the railway infrastructure. I just hope that someone at South Western Railway has measured up the class 701 trains and noted those against many of the platforms they maybe using on the line between Waterloo and Reading.

The Waterloo to Reading and Windsor lines have been subject to some ten car lengthening, but also use ASDO at various minor stations, and that will continue with 701s. I very much doubt anything needs to be measured again.

 

[RobShipway]

Why? We've got 150 years worth of experience now, and the railways are run differently, funded differently, used differently and expected to be different to those in the days of Brunel.

It's also important to remember that Brunel failed very often, as he constantly experimented with innovative techniques costing a vast amount of money. Ask the shareholders of the SS Great Eastern, South Devon Railway or the GWR when they had to convert to 4'8.5". Bullied shared this trait as well - both gifted engineers who created masterpieces of their time and truly ground-breaking advances, but at almost ruinous cost. The publicly-funded railway cannot sustain this level of expenditure on theoretical possibilities.

Yes, I agree Brunel did fail very often. But tell me this, did the platforms at London Paddington, Reading or Bristol Temple Meads when either the HST's where introduced or more recently when the 9 car IET's where introduced?

 

[zwk500]

Yes, I agree Brunel did fail very often. But tell me this, did the platforms at London Paddington, Reading or Bristol Temple Meads when either the HST's where introduced or more recently when the 9 car IET's where introduced?

The platforms have been lengthened and reprofiled several times since Brunel designed them...

 

[Dr Hoo]

The platforms have been lengthened and reprofiled several times since Brunel designed them...

I thought that Brunel’s Reading station was famous for only having one platform (albeit ‘long’).
Or is that just an urban myth?

 

[RobShipway]

The platforms have been lengthened and reprofiled several times since Brunel designed them...

But the platforms where not needed to be lengthened when either HST trains or IEP trains where introduced. Whether it was Brunel, whether it was someone's foresight later, the comment still stands that foresight is needed today with the infrastructure of the UK's railways, that is not there and is then costing the taxpayer twice over when further platform extensions are needed.

 

[swt_passenger]

But the platforms where not needed to be lengthened when either HST trains or IEP trains where introduced. Whether it was Brunel, whether it was someone's foresight later, the comment still stands that foresight is needed today with the infrastructure of the UK's railways, that is not there and is then costing the taxpayer twice over when further platform extensions are needed.

There were numerous GW platforms extended for IEP, if they weren’t a lot of CP5 enhancements money must have gone into someone’s back pocket…

 

[RobShipway]

There were numerous GW platforms extended for IEP, if they weren’t a lot of CP5 enhancements money must have gone into someone’s back pocket…

Okay, but I believe that the three stations I mentioned which is London Paddington, Reading and Bristol did not have any work done? I am pretty sure that Didcot Parkway and Slough platforms where extended both for IEP and the possibility of running 12 car class 387's. But my point still stands about foresight.

 

[zwk500]

I thought that Brunel’s Reading station was famous for only having one platform (albeit ‘long’).
Or is that just an urban myth?

I believe it did, in the same style as Cambridge's 1 & 4, with a crossover halfway along to permit trains in opposite directions to call. No idea how long it lasted.

But the platforms where not needed to be lengthened when either HST trains or IEP trains where introduced. Whether it was Brunel, whether it was someone's foresight later, the comment still stands that foresight is needed today with the infrastructure of the UK's railways, that is not there and is then costing the taxpayer twice over when further platform extensions are needed.

Okay, but I believe that the three stations I mentioned which is London Paddington, Reading and Bristol did not have any work done? I am pretty sure that Didcot Parkway and Slough platforms where extended both for IEP and the possibility of running 12 car class 387's. But my point still stands about foresight.

I'm not sure you're achieving the point you think you're making. Reading had rather a signficant amount of work done - every single platform was rebuilt! Bristol also had a lot of work done shaving down the platforms to allow for the throw round it's severe corners. Paddington had less work done, although still saw considerable attention to the curves at the throat. Just because you didn't see a massive blockade with 100s of Orange-Clad engineers doesn't mean no work took place!
Rail projects are designed to a lifespan of 30-50 years before significant intervention. Anything that can reasonably be foreseen to need doing is done when possible. However rail projects often have horrendously long lead times which means that although it becomes evident a facility might be needed the options are either to leave it out and come back later or down tools until the designs have been redrawn.

 

[RobShipway]

I believe it did, in the same style as Cambridge's 1 & 4, with a crossover halfway along to permit trains in opposite directions to call. No idea how long it lasted.


I'm not sure you're achieving the point you think you're making. Reading had rather a significant amount of work done - every single platform was rebuilt! Bristol also had a lot of work done shaving down the platforms to allow for the throw round it's severe corners. Paddington had less work done, although still saw considerable attention to the curves at the throat. Just because you didn't see a massive blockade with 100s of Orange-Clad engineers doesn't mean no work took place!
Rail projects are designed to a lifespan of 30-50 years before significant intervention. Anything that can reasonably be foreseen to need doing is done when possible. However rail projects often have horrendously long lead times which means that although it becomes evident a facility might be needed the options are either to leave it out and come back later or down tools until the designs have been redrawn.

Fair point and thank you.

 

[Wolfie]

It is easy for someone on the side to say, but in many ways those doing platform extension projects need to be thinking in the same way as many of the railway greats like Brunel did in their time when it comes to the railway infrastructure. I just hope that someone at South Western Railway has measured up the class 701 trains and noted those against many of the platforms they maybe using on the line between Waterloo and Reading.

You have obviously never had engagement with HMT.

 

[RobShipway]

You have obviously never had engagement with HMT.

No I haven't and I can imagine it is like trying to get a bull out of a china shop with them. Which I have found is much the same as trying to get answers out of the DFT.

 

[zwk500]

No I haven't and I can imagine it is like trying to get a bull out of a china shop with them. Which I have found is much the same as trying to get answers out of the DFT.

The difference between getting money out of the Treasury and answers from the DfT is that the Treasury actually has some of the money you're after.

 

[swt_passenger]

Okay, but I believe that the three stations I mentioned which is London Paddington, Reading and Bristol did not have any work done? I am pretty sure that Didcot Parkway and Slough platforms where extended both for IEP and the possibility of running 12 car class 387's. But my point still stands about foresight.

IEP capability improvements:
Didcot Parkway - Platforms 3, 4 & 5
Bath Spa - Platform 1
Bristol Temple Meads – Platforms 13 & 15
Cheltenham Spa - Platforms 1 & 2
Neath – Platform 2
Swindon – Platform 1
Westbury – Platforms 2 & 3

Some work at Paddington was rolled up into 12 car EMU capacity work, but had a benefit for IEP as a side effect.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but it never will.

Manufacturers will wail that it is "too hard", and the politicians will cave in immediately.

There is no reason at all that all rolling stock on the railway could not have compatible multiple working or coupler arrangements.

 

[RobShipway]

IEP capability improvements:
Didcot Parkway - Platforms 3, 4 & 5
Bath Spa - Platform 1
Bristol Temple Meads – Platforms 13 & 15
Cheltenham Spa - Platforms 1 & 2
Neath – Platform 2
Swindon – Platform 1
Westbury – Platforms 2 & 3

Some work at Paddington was rolled up into 12 car EMU capacity work, but had a benefit for IEP as a side effect.

I had coincided the point when I stated fair point and thank you to a post by zwk500 earlier.

 

[D365]

Yes, but it never will.

Manufacturers will wail that it is "too hard", and the politicians will cave in immediately.

There is no reason at all that all rolling stock on the railway could not have compatible multiple working or coupler arrangements.

How much "backwards compatibility" do you bake into brand new rolling stock and where do you draw the line?

It's nothing to do with "too hard" and everything to do with managing costs, and just as importantly, managing risk.

If ROSCOs required for all rolling stock manufacturers to implement backwards compatibility with all rolling stock of the past twenty years, they'd never leave the (physical/virtual) meeting room. The hazard workshops and risk assessments would be a never-ending nightmare.

 

[HSTEd]

How much "backwards compatibility" do you bake into brand new rolling stock and where do you draw the line?

Did I mention backwards compatability?

All new rolling stock should be built to an interoperability standard.
If conversion of existing stock is practical it should obviously be done.

But claiming we need 100% backwards compatability is often just used as a bad faith argument to have no standardisation at all.

 

[RobShipway]

Did I mention backwards compatability?

All new rolling stock should be built to an interoperability standard.
If conversion of existing stock is practical it should obviously be done.

But claiming we need 100% backwards compatability is often just used as a bad faith argument to have no standardisation at all.

So do you mean like the fact that a class 197 should be compatible with a class 755 for example? But also a class 197 should also compatible to work with a class 170 or 172?

Great in theory, but as D365 has stated you would not get the required people leaving the meeting room, as you would have design team say with CAF arguing the point with the design team at Alstom (Formerly Bombardier0, with the Rosco company in the middle stating the companies requirements.

While in an ideal world, there would be interoperability between designs of train from different manufacturers, in practice all you would probably get is the fact of rescuing another train last mile with the possibility of operating the other units doors etc... But you would not be able to get the fact of the units working together on a more permanent basis doing a public service.

 

[HSTEd]

So do you mean like the fact that a class 197 should be compatible with a class 755 for example? But also a class 197 should also compatible to work with a class 170 or 172?

Ideally all new vehicles purchased or accepted for operation on the railway would have a compatible coupling and train control specification.

While in an ideal world, there would be interoperability between designs of train from different manufacturers, in practice all you would probably get is the fact of rescuing another train last mile with the possibility of operating the other units doors etc... But you would not be able to get the fact of the units working together on a more permanent basis doing a public service.

Well I'm not sure why you can't just have "doors unlock"/"doors closed" signals and other signals that are required for the train to operate safely.

Or just a standard data interface for passenger comms.

On the signals required to move the train, the US has had a standard supported by virtually everyone for decades.

The Networkers and Mark 3 EMUs had a control standard that was fundamentally similar across many different manufacturers and years. So did basically a load of DMUs from the Sprinters, Pacers through Networker Turbos and Turbostars.


Ultimately if the design teams won't agree one amongst themselves then one needs to be imposed upon them in the style of ETCS.

 

[RobShipway]

Ideally all new vehicles purchased or accepted for operation on the railway would have a compatible coupling and train control specification.



Well I'm not sure why you can't just have "doors unlock"/"doors closed" signals and other signals that are required for the train to operate safely.

Or just a standard data interface for passenger comms.

On the signals required to move the train, the US has had a standard supported by virtually everyone for decades.

The Networkers and Mark 3 EMUs had a control standard that was fundamentally similar across many different manufacturers and years. So did basically a load of DMUs from the Sprinters, Pacers through Networker Turbos and Turbostars.


Ultimately if the design teams won't agree one amongst themselves then one needs to be imposed upon them in the style of ETCS.

For many of the units the couplings systems are different than they where back in the days of BR, where they did have a standard that allowed units to be couple together despite who the manufacture of the unit was at the time.

A good example of this would be the electrostar class 377 units which unlike the class 375 and 376 electrostar units where built with Dellner couplings. The class 375 units now have Dellner Couplings, but where originally built with the Tightlock couplers or BSI Couplers which I believe is what the likes of the Sprinters, Pacers, Network turbos and Turbostars use with the exception of class 171 which those that where built from new as class 171 had the Dellner Couplings, so that they could if needed be rescuing class 377 units. But it would be for last mile only work, rather than on a public service because the wiring of systems is different between the two fleets even though they are from the same manufacturer.

 

[HSTEd]

For many of the units the couplings systems are different than they where back in the days of BR, where they did have a standard that allowed units to be couple together despite who the manufacture of the unit was at the time.

A good example of this would be the electrostar class 377 units which unlike the class 375 and 376 electrostar units where built with Dellner couplings. The class 375 units now have Dellner Couplings, but where originally built with the Tightlock couplers or BSI Couplers which I believe is what the likes of the Sprinters, Pacers, Network turbos and Turbostars use with the exception of class 171 which those that where built from new as class 171 had the Dellner Couplings, so that they could if needed be rescuing class 377 units. But it would be for last mile only work, rather than on a public service because the wiring of systems is different between the two fleets even though they are from the same manufacturer.

Well yes, but I think the goal should be to restore the level of standardisation that was lost, and if possible proceed towards universal multiple working.
Even if takes a long time to get there, we have to start somewhere.

In many ways we have an advantage that we have things like Canbus now, which is a ready made safety-grade control standard with dozens of manufacturers making components, and which can be made to carry all sorts of data if required.

 

[JonathanH]

universal multiple working

How important is universal multiple working against other things that are non standard:
* universal knowledge for traincrew of all rolling stock
* universal route clearance
* universal route knowledge
* universal part supply

I guess that what you are ultimately arguing is that from this point rolling stock should be fully specified by the railway with the manufacturers simply competing to make it at the cheapest cost.