Tornado

You rightly highlight what people are forgetting: unless mainline-certified locos can operate with ETCS they will have no future on the main line as ETCS spreads. I understand the Deltic Preservation Society are already investigating this for their locomotives; I will be interested to know how ETCS will control the regulator and reverser on steam locomotives.

 

It has to be admitted that the new US HS lines currently under construction demonstrate something of a dearth of ambition (said he, putting it mildly). At least most seem to be electrified .... and a few even double tracked!

 

FRA rules are that 79mph is the maximum permitted speed without in-cab signalling.
Pat

 

That maybe so but the official website seems to think differently:

"The Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) T1 Steam Locomotive Trust is a non-profit organization that believes in thinking differently about preservation. Through hard work, dedicated volunteers and the financial support of many generous donors from around the globe, the T1 Trust is constructing PRR T1 5550. Slated to become the fifty-third locomotive of its class when complete, 5550 combines stunning art deco design with a unique 4-4-4-4 wheel arrangement. The goal is simple; to provide mainline steam excursions and to set the World Speed Record for a steam locomotive".

Quite a beast!

 

We won't have long to find out - given Tornado is scheduled to be doing trials on the GCR early next year.
Where I live I frequently see ETCS fitted diesels, the class 97 fleet that operates out of Shrewsbury Coleham depot on the Cambrian was fitted with it a decade ago. This is an earlier version of the technology, but shouldn't be that different to what is needed on a deltic to operate on the East Coast. Given the similarities between a 37 and a 55, it should be feasible along with other 'heritage' diesels.
Steam Railway had a good article on this issue recently, including feedback from the NR engineer who is leading on these trials - which Network Rail are funding. He is keen to find a solution for steam. I understand 44932 is also to be used as a test bed - perhaps showing a way for steam to return to the Cambrian.

 

My understanding is that the "ballistics", for want of a better phrase, of a "Deltic" are very close to those of a Class 86 electric so much work has already been done. I understand the panel of gauges in front of the driver will end up being replaced by a computer screen - and am I right in thinking the hardware will go where the steam heat boilers used to be?

Steam however, does present some interesting challenges.

Do you know which issue of SR covered this? I wouldn't mind getting hold of the back number.

 

Here's to hoping that (a) they do find a solution and (b) it works for the Cambrian Lines. It's been far too long since we had to worry about a steam loco setting light to Barmouth Bridge saw a 78xx at Pwllheli.

 

It would be nice to see the 76xxx back, although I don't suppose it will get hired in by DB to rescue a failure again, as it did on 19/8/2009 at Machynlleth.
Pat

 

The 'Pocket Rocket' was a superb fit for the CCL, as well as being a superbly proportioned class. I do hope the day dawns when 82045 is spotted emerging from the bridge at Minffordd beneath Mountaineer (I'm thinking Alco, but England wouldn't unduly upset me!).

 

I can't see 76079 making a Cambrian comeback - it's too important to the NYMR as one of their Whitby fleet for them to release it (and further increase its mainline-necessary equipment, which has been reduced to just that required to run on the Esk bValley line).

 

Think the provision of space for the system itself and the ancillaries to provide/store electricity makes small tank engines off the menu in the short term.
In ten years time it will probably be an ' App' on a phone.

 

Logic suggests that someone forbid their nerdy teenage offsprog from creating any such 'app' ..... that ought to cut a good nine and a half years off the development time!

 

The equipment is a lot smaller now than it was 10 years ago. The 158s have got it all housed in a cabinet the size of decent fridge freezer. The main part of it now is the size of a VCR. But then you still need the receivers underneath and a power supply. Easy to hide batteries and maybe an axle driven generator on a tender loco, not so easy on a tank loco.

 

On the subject of the T1: one of the considerations in designing high speed trains has been to keep axle loads down. With a steam locomotive you have the additional matter of hammer blow. That could get interesting with a 130 mph 4-4-4-4.

 

The Americans became rather good at balancing. The N & W J has 70" driving wheels and the T1 80". The J has two cylinders 27" x 32" whereas the T1 has four cylinders 19.75" x 26" and the US railroads did make use of special alloy steels in order to keep the motion weight down. It will be interesting to see what they do and what they are allowed to do.
If they do take the record then well done to them, it might encourage us to do something but there again, perhaps not.

 

Having been involved in this subject since before the Cambrian installation, permit me to correct a couple of misunderstandings. ECTS does not control anything, except to apply the brake. In simple terms, the processor gives the parameters at which the driver may proceed (including the appropriate acceleration/braking curve - 44871 provided these over 10 years ago) and if the train exceeds these parameters, the brake is automatically applied, as with other systems such as TPWS.

The equipment being fitted to the A1, 44932 and a Deltic is little different to that originally installed on the Cambrian trial, on the 158s and 97/3s (37s), although there have been a few software updates since. Network roll-out is, rather obviously, a cost matter, for all types of traction.

JS

 

AIUI, the issue, at least for steam operations on the CCL (and presumably for any other installation) is that the equipment has to be mounted on the locomotive itself, not the tender and certainly not a support carriage. Can I ask, is that much correct? If so, how is DMUs operation managed?

 

Thanks for that - I had been led to believe that it could also speed a train up if it was felt to be making poor progress.