Should Coupling Standards Have Been In Place

[edwin_m]

Part of the problem with TMS compatibility is that the set of functions done by the TMS is not widely agreed. So even if a common interface and protocol was defined, a train with a TMS without a particular function probably wouldn't be able to support that function on a coupled train with a TMS that did provide it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Part of the problem with TMS compatibility is that the set of functions done by the TMS is not widely agreed. So even if a common interface and protocol was defined, a train with a TMS without a particular function probably wouldn't be able to support that function on a coupled train with a TMS that did provide it.

Indeed not, but it could gracefully downgrade. As I said, you couple a tilting 125mph train with a non-tilting 100mph train, it should be able to work out that it can run at 100mph without tilt.

I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro using Firefox. No doubt there are people reading and replying on PCs, Android phones/tablets, iOS phones/tablets, Linux, whatever, using all manner of browsers. Interfaces between disparate systems are hardly difficult.

 

[najaB]

I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro using Firefox. No doubt there are people reading and replying on PCs, Android phones/tablets, iOS phones/tablets, Linux, whatever, using all manner of browsers. Interfaces between disparate systems are hardly difficult.

Not really an apt analogy since they all speak a common variety of SGML (usually HTML) - there isn't a corresponding standard for train management systems. Also, not all browsers render things the same or correctly (I'm looking at you Internet Explorer on Windows Phone), which is an annoyance when viewing web pages, but kills people when dealing with safety critical systems.

 

[FordFocus]

If a train is fitted with the same type of coupler and an air supply is provided either through the assisting unit, the disabled unit is capable of providing it's own air or an emergency hose is connected between units it's not impossible to move. The trains cannot be electrically coupled. Certainly on tightlock, BSI and probably Dellner couplers you can retract both electrical boxes before coupling.

Once you've got a physical connection, the disabled train's driver can sit in their train releasing the brakes and sat in the seat with their foot on the DSD whilst the assisting driver and train moves it. A clear understanding needs to made and a facility is available on the GSM-R to speak to each other. As it's not a through brake there are severe restrictions on what speed and movement can take place. Made even worse if the failed unit needs to completely isolate it's brakes. It's a last resort and takes a lot of time, some TOCs would probably insist on a fitter been present. It's easier 99% of the time for the TOC to get another fully compatible unit out so it can be moved out of the way at line speed. The network is lacking sidings long enough to store some lengths of multiple units as part of Network Rails strategy of removing costly maintenance of points.

 

[ainsworth74]

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

Definitely on Voyagers as well.

I was once on a Voyager from Euston to Chester and the coach was roasting hot with heat being pumped out from the heaters on a sunny day. I toughed it out because the train was quite busy and I was in Coach D (the all table coach). About twenty minutes or so into the journey the TM appeared, did a double take at the sweltering conditions, strode down the coach and a minute later glorious cold air came pouring from the overhead vents.

 

[rebmcr]

Not really an apt analogy since they all speak a common variety of SGML (usually HTML) - there isn't a corresponding standard for train management systems.

Yes, this thread is basically saying 'there should be'.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In reply to the poster citing Denmark, I wouldn't say we're moving away from not providing end gangways, in fact the opposite is nearer the mark. Thameslink and crossrail will have fixed formation sets, and end gangways are disliked by drivers due to the restricted views. It's also harder to meet current crashworthiness standards with a gangway. The Scotrail 385s may well be the last fleet ordered with end gangways.

 

[talltim]

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

Or be useful for powering steam locos

 

[DenmarkRail]

In reply to the poster citing Denmark, I wouldn't say we're moving away from not providing end gangways, in fact the opposite is nearer the mark. Thameslink and crossrail will have fixed formation sets, and end gangways are disliked by drivers due to the restricted views. It's also harder to meet current crashworthiness standards with a gangway. The Scotrail 385s may well be the last fleet ordered with end gangways.

--NOT MY PHOTOS---

This image shows the outside... an IR4 and an IC3

This image shows the actaul gangway.... Just imagine how innovative it would have been if the UK had universal couplings to allow something like this....

 

[coppercapped]

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

Er, apart from BSD-UNIX, Ethernet, Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11 (aka WiFi), H264 (aka MPEG 4 Part 10), NFC, HTTP, GSM, CDMA, LTE...

(Note that USB is not a universal standard - it is an Intel proprietary protocol which has been widely licenced).

 

[cjmillsnun]

Er, apart from BSD-UNIX, Ethernet, Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11 (aka WiFi), H264 (aka MPEG 4 Part 10), NFC, HTTP, GSM, CDMA, LTE...

(Note that USB is not a universal standard - it is an Intel proprietary protocol which has been widely licenced).

No it is not. It is a protocol developed by a consortium of which Intel was a founder member.

Other founder members include Microsoft, IBM, Dell, Compaq (now HP), DEC (also now part of HP), NEC and Nortel (now defunct).

 

[ac6000cw]

Although Apple were not a founder member of the consortium, they were an early adopter of USB - it replaced their proprietary 'Apple Desktop Bus' system for connecting keyboards, mice and other 'human interface devices'.

 

[coppercapped]

No it is not. It is a protocol developed by a consortium of which Intel was a founder member.

Other founder members include Microsoft, IBM, Dell, Compaq (now HP), DEC (also now part of HP), NEC and Nortel (now defunct).

I stand corrected.