Tornado

UPS draw on something like that would be quite large, and the support coach is the obvious place for it.

Some sort of solar panel arrangement would help, within the current Envelope, also alternator power when on the move, generator when prolonged static????

Max Depth of a cabinet at moment is 1000mm, and mainly dependant of Server hardware, increasing in depth, however I know companies doing 1 off's.

Cabling from both end of the support coach, together with the loco would be needed in case of tender first running.

Quite an undertaking in my view.

 

As @big.stu has pretty much said, I believe the ETCS has to be part of the traction unit, so fitting to the support coach wouldn't be permitted.

 

I think my suggestion, made in good faith, ignored the blindingly obvious (to everyone else it seems!) - the necessity to couple and uncouple the support coach and not be permanently coupled to count as part of the traction unit - which would have been my solution. Ho hum.

 

Clearly the solution is to hurry up and finish those GWR 7200s, which would have plenty of room in the bunker for the hardware. OK gauging them might be a small problem, but there must be a couple of stations left on Network rail they could run between...

 

Dare I say, a common sense approach and derogation might help in this situation????

 

I am sure I read years back, when it was discussed regarding fitting the kit to a steam loco for use on the Cambrian, that the kit is something like the size of a fridge (or was then at least).

 

From my very vague recollection wasn't the dispute with WCRC which led to DBC being the sole operator down to a concern regarding the fitting of liners, somewhat ironically....

 

Looking at that kit Simon linked to, it seems to be in 3U racks which to me suggests - most likely - extended 100mm Eurocards for the PCBs which are 266mm deep. Add some room for internal wiring, fans and you've got to about 400mm deep for the chassis. This is definitely "guesswork", by the way!

So you're looking at a rack at least 600mm deep to allow for comfortable rear-panel wiring, if any exists. My last experience of building up kit like this required 800mm racks - and Sod's law sure enough meant someone turned up with a server that was 850mm deep so I could never fit the rear doors!

 

Larder or American?

 

I believe that it was because the A1 Trust had used a contractor who was not approved by WCRC to do some work on 60163.

 

@S.A.C. Martin - is there a primer for ETCS to read anywhere? I'd like to learn a bit more about what's going on with it, how it works and how hardened a system it has to be?

 

I’ve been involved with early design work for fitting ECTS to “heritage” diesels.

Some manufacturers are saying that the size of equipment has reduced considerably since the Cambrian pilot scheme 158s were fitted.

But as the deadline for total fitment of ECS keeps being extended and extended, there are more timely issues for the mainline charter industry to deal with: viz:-
Door retention
Toilet tanks

 

I've got a 353 page training document about the new Siemens class 717s, and there's 12 pages in there about ETCS. When I get a chance I'll list all the equipment that's involved. It's a lot, but it's also spread about. The two computers would take up the space of a decent sized microwave, so I'm guessing they're 19" racks but I haven't had chance to check.

 

EEEEEKKKKK!!!!!!!!!

 

As regards fitting ETCS etc,whilst I can see the problems with loco fitment are going to be hard to fit onto a tank engine I dare say someone will come up with a way to do it, .I can however, see a problem with fitting the equipment on board the support coach, as that means that where an TOC has more than one support vehicle, then they could very well have to have more than one coach outfitted, at the moment in cases where the loco goes to turn, using a turn table, the support coach can find its self on the other end of the rake, so that may mean having to have two support vehicles, if its not able to shunt the support vehicle, i'm thinking more about the Dartmouth type runs, where the engine often goes and turns, gets serviced, but the support coach remains with the coaching rake.

 

It might, but I suspect you will still have an irreducible minimum problem of proving that the connection between loco & electronics is intact every time they are reattached. That must give a high risk of failure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Of course, there is always the unthinkable - that ETCS, when it finally gets adopted, will simply mean that only the big chuffers will get to play on the main line. But as others have pointed out, the kit is getting smaller all the time.

 

Anyone who has had the pleasure of working on a BR standard 2-6-4T will know that it probably has more locker space than any other loco, certainly more than I have ever come across, not to mention the voids under the bunker I'm sure that you could fit all this kit onto one and still have enough space for the drivers bag. (The fireman's may have to go in a corner, though )

 

There is an article about the ETCS in the current issue of Steam railway, don't have it in front of me but said something like it would cost over a million pounds to fit to each steam loco and that network rail would pay for say 6 steam locos to be fitted. Sounds crazy and that is would effectively bar most steam from running on lines fitted just on cost grounds. I think it involves getting rid of all lineside signals and sending any 'signal' instructions direct to the loco so it isn't that steam locos could be exempt from it.

 

There would also presumably need to be some means of automatically shutting the regulator similar to the INDUSI system used in Germany: http://steamtrainsunlimited.net/03-03-modern-signalling-and-steam-locomotives/