Problems are to be expected initially as with any new train to be introduced - over time WMR will have ironed them out as more are introduced into service.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
WMR Class 196 Build and Implementation
- Thread starter Old Hill Bank
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Set up issue, not software issue.
Again, this is how the set up was decided (though I would agree it doesn't seem the most sensible choice).
This stems from the fact that there is no connect between ASDO and the PIS system. The PIS will use the planned data to show what side the booked platform will be on. At stations with multiple platforms that can be used, it will still assume it's going into the booked platform until the doors are released on the opposite side at which point it will correct itself to show the actual side that doors have been released on.
Database issue. It is a very unusual to hear that now though - the problem was some stations incorrectly had platforms set at 0m length in the database that the PIS used. This meant that it defaulted to assuming that only the very front door would open. Again, this was due to the disconnect between ASDO and PIS. The ASDO database was correct, the PIS database was not and it took a while for it to be realised they were not getting the information from the same source.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
This, to me, is an example of totally pointless information. If it is going to be wrong often enough then it just undermines the value of the rest of the (more) accurate information. It shouts IGNORE all information and trust your own judgement.
Most of you are posting from the passenger point of view -- and the irony is, is that the interior, seating etc are nice. Colleague who works them was first over the moon as he gives a damn, and also, full fitted corridor working meant that he could in theory work the train more until --- oh wait. Senior conductors are pretty much tethered to the rear cab because of the duplicity over the door panels promise.
Furthermore, the issues aren't the passenger interiors [yet]. It's all the mechanicals, and the computer and badly fitted electronics and poor build quality - seals and trims aready falling out, the big freeze, three times in three days having to stop a service to do a brake test, list goes on. I'm not looking forward to them reaching our southern waters.
Furthermore, the issues aren't the passenger interiors [yet]. It's all the mechanicals, and the computer and badly fitted electronics and poor build quality - seals and trims aready falling out, the big freeze, three times in three days having to stop a service to do a brake test, list goes on. I'm not looking forward to them reaching our southern waters.
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
What if instead of having to install many door panels could the guard just get a remote control for the doors so they don't have to install many panels up or down the train the guard just presses a number on a keypad or something and that door acts as the local door then it works just as a handheld panel? (idea that I haven't thought through, please criticise as necessary)
Last edited:
AlexNL
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,714
That's not technically impossible, but comes with its own slew of problems.
To name a few...
1- Safety. GOP panels are in physical locations and need to be operated with a key. A RC can be stolen from a guard and used by miscreant brats. While stealing keys (or just buying them second hand on eBay) is not impossible, there's a smaller chance of wreaking havoc with this as it can only be done from physical locations and it's easy to spot when an unauthorised person uses a GOP.
2- The live railway is a tough environment. How much of a guarantee is there that the remote control will work properly under all conditions, even when in a confined space (underground station) or when you're standing on an overhead electrified line? AC is known to cause interference issues, is the RC system immune enough to that?
3- A remote control will have to work with one train at a time. If there's two trains of the same design in a platform, pressing [close doors] should not close the doors on both. Thus, a pairing mechanism has to be created to couple a RC to a train.
4- However, a train can be formed of multiple units. The remote will have to work with the entire train, no matter where the guard is standing. The pairing mechanism should be smart enough to work from wherever the guard may be standing, but should stop doing so when the train is divided.
5- Since RCs are moveable objects, it's inevitable that pairing has to be redone every now and then. That means some more staff training. It also means that there'll inevitably be disruption caused by a loss of pairing and unfamiliar train crew not succeeding in re-pairing RC to train. Is that acceptable?
6- A remote control means that it'll have to have a battery. What are you going to do when the battery dies midway through the shift?
7- RCs will inevitably end up getting misplaced or lost. What if guard 1 books off and by accident takes the RC home with them? Half an hour later Guard 2 books on and has no RC for the train they're supposed to work. Can the service still run?
8- 5 to 10 years from now, many RCs are likely to be in a poor shape and need to be replaced. Does the manufacturer of the chosen system still supply parts for it? Or even worse, does the company itself still exist?
To name a few...
1- Safety. GOP panels are in physical locations and need to be operated with a key. A RC can be stolen from a guard and used by miscreant brats. While stealing keys (or just buying them second hand on eBay) is not impossible, there's a smaller chance of wreaking havoc with this as it can only be done from physical locations and it's easy to spot when an unauthorised person uses a GOP.
2- The live railway is a tough environment. How much of a guarantee is there that the remote control will work properly under all conditions, even when in a confined space (underground station) or when you're standing on an overhead electrified line? AC is known to cause interference issues, is the RC system immune enough to that?
3- A remote control will have to work with one train at a time. If there's two trains of the same design in a platform, pressing [close doors] should not close the doors on both. Thus, a pairing mechanism has to be created to couple a RC to a train.
4- However, a train can be formed of multiple units. The remote will have to work with the entire train, no matter where the guard is standing. The pairing mechanism should be smart enough to work from wherever the guard may be standing, but should stop doing so when the train is divided.
5- Since RCs are moveable objects, it's inevitable that pairing has to be redone every now and then. That means some more staff training. It also means that there'll inevitably be disruption caused by a loss of pairing and unfamiliar train crew not succeeding in re-pairing RC to train. Is that acceptable?
6- A remote control means that it'll have to have a battery. What are you going to do when the battery dies midway through the shift?
7- RCs will inevitably end up getting misplaced or lost. What if guard 1 books off and by accident takes the RC home with them? Half an hour later Guard 2 books on and has no RC for the train they're supposed to work. Can the service still run?
8- 5 to 10 years from now, many RCs are likely to be in a poor shape and need to be replaced. Does the manufacturer of the chosen system still supply parts for it? Or even worse, does the company itself still exist?
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
All completely valid criticisms
Obviously they probably have to be standard across an entire class (maybe across a whole family or company)?
I don't know much about the keys I just know they exist.
Are the keys very specific, from my perspective they just look like shapes but I wouldn't be surprised if they have normal key-like works that are just not as easily noticeable.
Obviously they probably have to be standard across an entire class (maybe across a whole family or company)?
I don't know much about the keys I just know they exist.
AlexNL
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,714
"T keys" are pretty generic and easy to come by.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,161
Adding guard control pushbuttons to the doors isn’t a difficult task, what’s been difficult is adding the electric signals to the trains.
That will improve in time. When our 195s were new it was a major issue, but now they've settled in and "BRAKE TEST REQUIRED" is written at the appropriate places on the docket it's become a non issue. We also quickly learnt that when you get the TCMS alarm for brake test required, there's no need to stop specially to do it, you'll have enough time to get to the end of your trip.
The brake test thing was just one reason apparently.
william.martin
On Moderation
Hi there, does anybody think that the 196's shall be out tomorrow?
Jamesrob637
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
Probably more likely Wednesday now.
Sprinter107
Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,093
Not according to the web site. Friday will be the next day trains operate on that line.
SuperLuke2334
Established Member
WMT have got strikes on the 28th and 29th I believe so won't have any trains until Friday.
Undiscovered
Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 545
Without wishing to be a doom monger, the 196s will, by then, have been sat still for nearly a week solid.
I will be very surprised if they all run.
While across the UK in reality there never will be a standard platform height but there an Access for All Programme having a new train design that needs either a longer ramp or the use of a bridging plate ought not to have been permitted. A lower floor so a shorter ramp rather than the current design(s) for classes 158/170/172 long term would be progress.
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
would it not be possible to set a standard height for new stations, that if any stations are going to be largely reworked they should be adjusted to that height (e.g. rural stations that are built on wood)
6Gtraincrew
Member
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2018
- Messages
- 441
There already is, GIRT7020 stipulates 915mm from the railhead
ls2270
Established Member
I have posted Today’s Class 196 allocations on the Non Urgent TOPS thread for those interested.
The_Train
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 5,247
Can anyone confirm when 196111 entered service for the first time please?
After 7 journeys on the class 196. I've noticed that the space saver toilet has always been out of order, aside from the first day of operation. Is anyone aware of any issues with them that mean they can't be used, or have I just been unlucky? There seems to always be a queue for the PRM toilet as a result.
GWVillager
Member
They’ve been in use every time I’ve checked, though it wouldn’t surprise me if there were issues.
crosscity
Member
This morning I spied this at Bournville. It's the first time I've seen one on the Crosscity line.
Anyone know which two units were involved? And why did it only go as far as Bromsgrove, then return back to Tyseley?
Mon 9 Jan 2023 at 11:12. The new DMU order. 2 x 2-car Class 196 CAF 'Civity' DMU's pass Bournville working [5T95] the 10:42 Tyseley LMD-Bromsgrove ECS. [V230109A] by Ray Honke, on Flickr
Anyone know which two units were involved? And why did it only go as far as Bromsgrove, then return back to Tyseley?
Mon 9 Jan 2023 at 11:12. The new DMU order. 2 x 2-car Class 196 CAF 'Civity' DMU's pass Bournville working [5T95] the 10:42 Tyseley LMD-Bromsgrove ECS. [V230109A] by Ray Honke, on Flickr
newtownmgr
On Moderation
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 737
Test run in connection with clearance work for University.
Liam L
Established Member
This morning I spied this at Bournville. It's the first time I've seen one on the Crosscity line.
Anyone know which two units were involved? And why did it only go as far as Bromsgrove, then return back to Tyseley?
Mon 9 Jan 2023 at 11:12. The new DMU order. 2 x 2-car Class 196 CAF 'Civity' DMU's pass Bournville working [5T95] the 10:42 Tyseley LMD-Bromsgrove ECS. [V230109A] by Ray Honke, on Flickr
Should of been 196001 and 196006
MDB1images
Member
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 682
Reported on twitter that 196001 & 196006 worked 2J32 17:26 BHM-SHR tonight.
I then make the following as operated in service thus far.....
196001/006.
196101/102/104/107/108/110.
I then make the following as operated in service thus far.....
196001/006.
196101/102/104/107/108/110.
Last edited:
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
And 006, according to what you've just put above?
MDB1images
Member
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 682
No just me with fat fingers/bad eyesight(I'll re edit it), 196001 & 196006
- Status