RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
I don't disagree, but it is like laptops, PC's etc.... They all should have the same standard USB and HDMI connections. But my Nokia Android phone has a different USB connection for both connecting to a laptop or other device than say an Apple mobile phone. Both connections, are also used to be charging the device. But there should be the same type of USB connection across all mobile phone devices, so that it does not matter what the end connection on the USB cable is, it will connect to any device. Instead such a global fit any mobile phone USB connection cable will have about 5 different connections to it, because as devices have developed so have the USB connections being used.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.
The same principle with the USB connections, is what has gone on with the development of trains over the last 30 years or more. Developments have happened and changes have been made including in how train couplers have progressed.
I believe that is what he is saying, although like the mobile phone world in not having the same type of USB connection to both charge and connect my phone to other devices, I cannot see a standard being made unless it is something that the DFT regulate to the Rosco's when they are putting out the requests for new train orders.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.
I suspect if you are ask any TOC, they will say that the list below is more important than the ability to couple say a class 150 to a class 197:
* universal knowledge for traincrew of all rolling stock
* universal route clearance
* universal route knowledge
* universal part supply


