Tornado

Harsh but fair.

 

Shots fired!

On aside note ladies and gents - one of things that I am acutely aware of these days is that with ETCS (European Train Control Systems) issues on the horizon, we have to get our thinking caps on for everyone in the industry. The equipment is currently not cheap, it's not small, it will likely rule out tank engines at this stage. Tornado has an advantage in her tender setup (see space for additional control systems) but other locomotives will need to be retrofitted.

See the latest SR for a short article on this - there is within its words an indication that NWR are going to help with the costs for a select few owners for fitting.

The question I want to pose is - are we overthinking the ETCS issue? We are very hung up on fitting it in its entirety to the locomotive, when all locomotives do run with a support coach of some form. Is a compromise arrangement possible I wonder by having the majority of the electrical equipment in the coach instead of on the locomotive? This could allow multiple locomotives to be wired up to work with one specific coach as opposed paying out for multiple amounts of equipment on every locomotive.

 

What if one owner wants to run two locomotives on two different trains? Does every loco have a dedicated support coach?

As an aside, just how big is the ETCS equipment? Is it all 19" rack mount kit?

 

Absolutely. These are the questions we need to ask. But off the top of my head, almost all of the big locos do run with a specific support coach - and there is a group support coach for some of the TOCs.

The annoying answer is "it depends" - currently I reckon we are talking 19" rack mount or similar. See here for an example ETCS Siemens - to me, it looks like standardising it to a set size/setup for all of the different steam locomotives we have looks very unlikely.

But if put into a coach...

 

I thought many mainline locos already had such equipment (inside their cab)?
But I`m not en technical expert at all.

Knut

 

They do have some of the signalling equipment required, but not to ETCS standard yet - but if you wanted to fit all of the systems required to smaller locomotives (see Pannier tank on the mainline) it becomes an issue. In addition, cost of fitting it to each locomotive in future could be prohibitive.

 

They have, AIUI, TPWS - which of course fell over on Tornado just as she was due to head along the S&C on The North Briton.

 

My HP lapdog has a liquid-proof keyboard for just such occasions

 

Your dog has a keyboard?

 

Woof!

 

So whats his , or her favourite engine, The Duke Dog?

 

Deleted

 

The problem then is that the connection to the support coach presumably becomes part of the FTR, so you have introduced even more complexity and potential failure points.

(Edited to add that turning locos on turntables then becomes a logistical and paperwork nightmare!)

 

Absolutely fair point.

 

Thanks, Simon - what I see there is approximately 11U (484mm) height of equipment, of indeterminate depth (and that's some serious earth bonding going on there!). So you're looking at most likely a 2' cube to "lose" somewhere, I expect it will have some sort of UPS arrangement as well... not easy without eating into coal/water space I reckon, the footplate (or under it) would probably be a bit of a squeeze.

 

26054 Pluto, of course!

 

But would it be any worse than connections twixt engine and tender? You only need duplicate the connections at each end of the support coach using Simon's suggestion. Of course, you'd end up adding a connection so you could separate loco from tender...

 

Yes, but you now have two intermediate connections where you previously only had one (loco <-> tender <-> support coach) and connectors are always vulnerable to unreliability issues. Then consider that you have to disconnect the support coach to turn the loco on a turntable. You now have to re-test at least a significant subset of the FTR.

 

The issues seem to me to be the following:

1. Cost of the ETCS equipment

This at the moment is in the millions - NWR have offered to pay for some locomotives to be trial fitted at this stage. Which ones - who knows. Point 1 may render the rest of the points redundant.

Solution - who knows

2. Size of equipment

On larger tender engines such as Tornado, possible to retrofit in existing superstructure of tender - anywhere else, I wonder if space will be an issue - certainly a big issue for the tank engines.

Solution - for tank engines - fit on support coach, potentially.

3. FTR

Stu has rightly pointed out that by adding complexity to the setup and more connections we introduce a more complicated setup to the FTR - and more issues when it comes to the loco/support coach issue for running round, etc.

So the equipment has to become both cheaper and smaller in time. It will - in theory - but right now...hmmm.