Tornado

So does this mean your down to requesting food parcels from home
As regards any new technical improvements, so far solutions have been found that has ensured heritage traction can continue to operate on the network, so either an solution will be found that enables steam engines to be made compliant, or steam is only allowed on what few lines are not yet fitted but eventually steam is removed from the network.

 

Really? So the Inverness to Thurso needs to be able to interoperate with SNCF, DB et al?

 

As I see it the only lines that may require full installation, would be the ones that may possibly in the future see services that originate from beyond the UK, such as if DB wanted to introduce an Berlin to Edinburgh service that operates over non high speed lines beyond London, where the stock fitted our loading gauge , other than that much of our national network is self contained and the need for an European compliant safety system is I would argue not needed until the time comes for the next major signalling scheme. and besides, hasn't steam has run in Germany with a full in cab signalling , so its not impossible. to fit if a signal less system is introduced .

 

Please God, don't let this turn into a "Heritage Rail Enthusiasts support Brexit because of not needing to fit ETCS" thread....

 

Yes let`s go back to the thread title -,60163 Tornado

 

Dont worry E.T.C.S. will take years to fit i reckon we are safe 4 another decade and anyhow can steam on the main go up the mid main line through bedford and corby and up toton yards and on the stavley mid old road to masborough 4 now?

 

Whilst there is an associated EU Directive, I suspect this is to try and ensure compatible systems are used throughout the EU (pretty obvious in mainland Europe really), which should reduce costs by avoiding multiple 'answers' to the same 'question'.

In theory, ETCS is safer (even TPWS doesn't override all unsafe actions) but the advertised main advantage is greater capacity due to a more flexible ability to handle trains of differing speeds than fixed signalling sections. In simple terms (I think I have got this right!), fixed signals must give sufficient distance to stop the fasted train using the line following the slowest train. ETCS provides variable length 'sections' based on the relative speed of trains.

As to whether this is really worth fitting to all lines is, of course, another question........

Steven

 

I’m glad you put that last sentence in, as you were starting to read like Chris Grayling!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's about right, he did work for God's Wonderful Railway.

 

Dont really know how much a new 'train' costs these days perhaps 3 million quid is nothing compared to the cost of new 9 car 800 series
but for the class 156's and 333's round our way thats more than the things are worth... ?

 

Its interesting to read how the split has been sorted between 60163 & 34081. However, it would be interesting to see how the Darlington Railway Preservation Society feel now that 78018's visit has been cancelled and the potential loss of earnings? I guess though with the loco being based at the GCR, all will not be lost but its ironic to see how 78018 has been outdone by it's local neighbour.

 

I've no idea how far down the road negotiations for 78018 had gone - assuming she was in the frame anyway - but she did feature on some NVR Santa publicity.

 

Putting the electronics in the the train cabled to the displays and controls on the footplate and the devices to interact down with the transponders on the track should work fine and should indeed be the
first thing to investigate. It is perfectly standard to run temporary multiple working cables under carriages and the original fitment on the Cambrian has one sensor underneath at one end of each DMU set - quite equivalent to the length of a tender engine and at least one end of a coach.

The original Cambrian modules were - and are - quite improbably large and when ETCS becomes general ought to become far smaller. Also as the strategy is that there should not be a monopoly of
suppliers hopefully distinctly cheaper as well or at least certfied and sound modules with the inherent reliability of solid state circuits will become available second hand.

 

= politics!

 

Sadly, yes. A very good friend of mine once did a fireworks display at an American air base. The 2IC told him that had the TSR2 gone ahead, the USAAF would gave bought all they could get without a second thought

 

This is good to know - thank you Hirn for the additional information. So my original thoughts were not entirely off piste.

The point about solid state circuits is a good one - I have seen SSI (solid state interlocking) modules that are the size of a small cabinet remove the need for a large room full of relays. Whether this is ideal or not, in terms of safety, is a good debate possibly to be had another time in another thread.

 

It's not quite as simple as this but if you think of what you take for granted in a smart mobile phone for less than 200 pounds - which is complete overkill for this job - computing capacity
is not a problem.

The basic reliability in transistor logic circuits is quite remarkable. There has been concern, however, with very big complicated software being too big to check and prove the check.
( From the interim RAIB report currently with the Ansaldo software on the Cambrian but this is nothing to do with anything on the rolling stock)
What you would need for the special interfaces for ERTS onboard a steam locomotive is much less, far simpler, and many of them - steam chest and steam brake pressure, vacuum in
the brake pipe - already done for the black box recorder ie established and proven.

 

Tornado? http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O74265/2019/01/15/advanced

 

Yes; reported in the Loco Movements section

 

As a long standing supporter it fills my heart with a lot of happiness to see 60163 back out on the mainline. Hopefully the start of something better this year for "Big T".