SM seems to be more for shunting without lineside signals and not really suitable for moving a snow plough from somewhere to the place where it should operate.
Thanks John. Need to get my head around the CES idea. On a related note to snow ploughs, I have been wondering if the heritage loco fleet issue could be addressed by having a few 'ETCS support coaches/tenders' which have all the ETCS equipment in them except for the DMI (e.g. brake interfaces, EVC, radio, tachos, balise reader) and then just the DMI wiring to the steam loco is required (with suitable plug couplers). The EVC being set up to think it is a loco with a VERY long nose beyond the antenna. Not possible for L1 areas, but possibly workable for L2 with only some minor downsides. The idea being that these 'ETCS support coaches/tenders' could be used by whatever heritage steam/diesel loco wanted to run on the mainline that day, so you would only need to fit a few of them (maybe 1 per heritage operator). If it was an 'ETCS tender' it could also provide extra water capacity for mainline running, but would have to have LNER signage which might annoy some GWR folk!
So even if the safety case would be succesfull, it would be against the subsets (and the TSI CCS) to use a snow plough? Aren't snow ploughs in any use case that would be relevant to the development of the european specifications? Nothing from EUG (like the automatic TAF)?
Again, I think we are "yes and no"! There is nothing in the subsets which require that the front of the train used by ETCS corresponds with the front of the physical train (or at least that I could find). Whilst the definitions of FS and the system description lead one to believe that the front should be the front, again it is not explicitly stated or prohibited, again as far as I have found so far. The subsets are a tool box but they, and the TSI, are not prescriptive about which commands/messages the trackside has to send or the conditions for those messages. It all comes down to making a safety argument which says that it is okay to propel a snowplough or similar when certain operational controls are in place. And that the configuration of the trackside to enable that operation does not require one to reduce other safety features significantly. Personal opinion is that one can make a case but there will be some interesting challenges on the way.
PS: Looking forward to your 'Supervised Manoeuvre' video!
Yes, must do something on that, will have to read up on the published specs since it was changing a lot before Baseline 4 was finally agreed.
SM seems to be more for shunting without lineside signals and not really suitable for moving a snow plough from somewhere to the place where it should operate.
Thanks John. Need to get my head around the CES idea. On a related note to snow ploughs, I have been wondering if the heritage loco fleet issue could be addressed by having a few 'ETCS support coaches/tenders' which have all the ETCS equipment in them except for the DMI (e.g. brake interfaces, EVC, radio, tachos, balise reader) and then just the DMI wiring to the steam loco is required (with suitable plug couplers). The EVC being set up to think it is a loco with a VERY long nose beyond the antenna. Not possible for L1 areas, but possibly workable for L2 with only some minor downsides. The idea being that these 'ETCS support coaches/tenders' could be used by whatever heritage steam/diesel loco wanted to run on the mainline that day, so you would only need to fit a few of them (maybe 1 per heritage operator). If it was an 'ETCS tender' it could also provide extra water capacity for mainline running, but would have to have LNER signage which might annoy some GWR folk!
I'll try and do a diagram of how the CES works.
A DMI exposed to rain, snow, cold, shovels, coal, ... . Will it survive the harsh conditions? Will DMI sounds be loud enough?
So even if the safety case would be succesfull, it would be against the subsets (and the TSI CCS) to use a snow plough? Aren't snow ploughs in any use case that would be relevant to the development of the european specifications? Nothing from EUG (like the automatic TAF)?
Again, I think we are "yes and no"!
There is nothing in the subsets which require that the front of the train used by ETCS corresponds with the front of the physical train (or at least that I could find).
Whilst the definitions of FS and the system description lead one to believe that the front should be the front, again it is not explicitly stated or prohibited, again as far as I have found so far.
The subsets are a tool box but they, and the TSI, are not prescriptive about which commands/messages the trackside has to send or the conditions for those messages.
It all comes down to making a safety argument which says that it is okay to propel a snowplough or similar when certain operational controls are in place. And that the configuration of the trackside to enable that operation does not require one to reduce other safety features significantly.
Personal opinion is that one can make a case but there will be some interesting challenges on the way.