Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2005 10:08:14 GMT
95ts - btwn Archway and Highgate Motoring with Brakes Released
92ts - Mile End - Stratford Motoring Not Available Cars 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 [despite the fact I'm going UPHILL and GAINING SPEED]
95ts - Camden Town Door Fault Car 5 - yeah, its hanging off its runner
anyone care to add any more? I will post a few more when I find my old notebooks.
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Aug 27, 2005 10:22:57 GMT
Can you explain that to this old codger please T/O?
|
|
solidbond
Staff Emeritus
'Give me 118 reasons for an Audible Warning on a C Stock'
Posts: 1,215
|
Post by solidbond on Aug 27, 2005 10:31:11 GMT
A mate of mine on the 92s had 'Emergency brake applied all cars' This was showing the whole time while he was travelling at 45mph between Woodford and South Woodford
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2005 11:47:06 GMT
Can you explain that to this old codger please T/O? Bob, the TMS/DTS is the computer system on the newer stocks which displays fault messages rather than just LEDs or blasts of air! ;D It was a shock to the system coming from the Jubilee line where the TMS displayed all messages and possible solutions to training on the C stocks which has sod all except the odd squirt of air! ;D My own personal messages I had on the 96s were mainly top do with the ATO failing! Bearing in mind that the ATO isn't active on the Jubilee yet... Also had one at Dollis Hill one day which said "shunting cabinet open car 3" so I screwed the train down and went to investigate. It was open all right... It was one of the perch seats near the door and had actually came away from the wall!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2005 14:11:01 GMT
92ts: Brakes Not Released Car 5. Hmmm, wondered why that car had some flat wheels....
95ts: Brake Not Available, despite the fact I was, in fact, braking
92ts: ATO Mode Not Available. At that time, I was motoring away, in ATO between Epping and Theydon Bois...
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Aug 27, 2005 16:53:27 GMT
Oh I see. The usual "All services are running normally" then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2005 17:44:36 GMT
95ts: Brake Not Available, despite the fact I was, in fact, braking Brake Not Available! What would you do with that information if it were true?
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Aug 27, 2005 18:14:48 GMT
1973 stock, as built with an original Train Equipment Panel, travelling eastbound.
The TEP lamps showing that the service brake was working correctly was giving a different indication to the seat of my pants so I called for a fitter. The Leicester Sq man met me, I told him what was happening and asked him if I would get a "brake test" when changing ends. (On that set up the driver had to make a brake test on the panel every time the cab was opened up.)
When we stopped at Holborn he reached across and reset the Contol Key and attempted to make a brake test. He was unsuccessful and so, according to the standing instructions we had to run empty to depot, resulting in someone having to take responsibility for the failure.
As the fitter walked off down the platform I asked who was going to tell the "old man" (the line controller). I was having a hell of a struggle to keep a straight face, although I did feel sorry for him because this particular chap was one of the more competent fitters.
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Aug 29, 2005 11:34:43 GMT
Back when the C20 stock was new, and still in the trial phases, the train management system had a few quirks. One interesting fault message was "Fault code 13: Numerous undefined faults. Continued operations not possible". Which you just had to acknowledge, and then keep on driving, since it was a sort of "junk message", to which any as yet undefined fault messages where linked.
A more charming one, and one that I really think is a pity that it wasn't kept, was that when you entered the destination code for running empty/out of service, the TMS displayed the selected destination as "Klaraberg" -a station that was originally planned, located roughly between today's T-Centralen and Hötorget, but never built.
One of our modern classics is fault code 1031: Minor ATP fault. This is a "sum-fault", a message that can be generated by a number of things having to do with the ATP equipment and it's operation. You might be able to just hit the acknowledge button and continue driving, you might end up deep, deep in the brown stuff and have to shut down the whole train.
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 31, 2005 6:25:16 GMT
"Fault code 13: Numerous undefined faults. Continued operations not possible" "Fault code 13: brown stuff happened" ;D.
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Aug 31, 2005 11:02:34 GMT
"Fault code 13: Numerous undefined faults. Continued operations not possible" "Fault code 13: brown stuff happened" ;D. "Fault code 13: brown stuff happened, but with consultancy fees added" ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2005 0:25:19 GMT
O.K not quite LU stock but: 'Unzureichende Luft, pantograph zu erheben' (What happens when you confuse the computer on a 360 Desiro - something about low air pressure, but in the original German). 'MOSL Toliet Out of Use Warning' repeatedly, every 5 minutes, complete with serious fault alarm. (Class 375) misc-railway-photos.fotopic.net/p10161696.html - Got to be the worst fault ever! (360, again!) ;D
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Sept 4, 2005 8:52:43 GMT
Windows? Running a train? Please God no.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Sept 4, 2005 9:07:13 GMT
Hey, it's Windoze for Workgroups ;D. About the best version of Windoze there ever was. (not hard)
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Sept 4, 2005 9:11:15 GMT
O.K not quite LU stock but: 'Unzureichende Luft, pantograph zu erheben' (What happens when you confuse the computer on a 360 Desiro - something about low air pressure, but in the original German). The message means literally " insufficent air to raise the pantograph". Oh, and compsci: The windows screen you see is really the train management system. Both Bombardier and Siemens, and I believe Alstom, too, uses a industrial version of Windows to run the display units and train management/monitoring system interfaces. But that is only the driver/train interface, not the train itself. In their later EMU:s, AdTranz/Bombardier uses a distributed architecture (marketed under the name Mitrac) for vehicle control, communications and interfacing with subsystems. Mot of Mitrac uses Motorola architecture for control units, databuses and so on. Various subcomponents use whatever the subcontractors use, so it can be a mix of several generations of Intel and Motorola architectures in a train. The train itself does not have an operating system per se -most of the functions are more or less hardcoded. The vehicle control units, however, run on what then-ABB and Adtranz marketed as TracsOS, a real-time operating system, basically a version of pSOS+ specially adapted for rail vehicle use.
|
|
|
Post by tom2506 on Sept 4, 2005 9:14:59 GMT
I wouldnt trust windows 3.11 to run my driver/train interface, thats a very old operating system.
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Sept 4, 2005 12:36:48 GMT
I wouldnt trust windows 3.11 to run my driver/train interface, thats a very old operating system. Win 3.11 being old is actually not a bug, it is a feature. When you use software to run a safety critical application, or even just somethign that has to have very high levels of availability, and known fault modes, you go for something that has been around for quite some time, and is well known. You do absolutely not want the bleeding edge of technology, which, while it might be tested in lab conditions, does not have an extensive history of running in a production environment. Stability, and not least knowing what can go wrong and what happens then, are absolutely vital, and much more important than having the latest stuff. Besides, why would you want WinXP and a dedicated 3D-card and huge hard disks just to run an instrument panel? The display needs to show a few lines of text and some simple symbols, not some animated soft porn manga babez with big guns. Edited to add: Jumpin' Jehosephat, Tom2506, that image in your sig is breaking the forum tables! Arrrgh!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2005 15:46:51 GMT
Igelkotten is right, but I personally feel that a Linux variant would be better instead of Win 3.11 - using embedded Linux with "hard" realtime capabilities would be an excellent choice for a TMS.
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Sept 4, 2005 23:00:21 GMT
Igelkotten is right, but I personally feel that a Linux variant would be better instead of Win 3.11 - using embedded Linux with "hard" realtime capabilities would be an excellent choice for a TMS. Oh, you might very well be correct. However, when then-Adtranz froze the configuration of their TMS system sometime back in 1995 or so, there wasn't much in the way of embedded Linux. You have to remember that at lot of industries operate with quite long lead times. Today, an embedded Linux system is quite feasible, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone used something on those lines for the next generation of trains, coming out on the tracks sometime in 2010 or so. The problem as I see it is not a technical one -a "bespoke Linux" could probably be a very good solution, but rather a financial and organizational one: Who is going to spend all the money to test, verify and certify that Linux-based solution? And what will the customers say, who have to absorb the development costs spread out over what will probably be relatively few units. After all, trains aren't exactly manufactured in the same numbers as MP3 players or tablet PCs.
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Sept 5, 2005 9:26:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Sept 6, 2005 0:01:22 GMT
Or then again, it might have been a good thing that you made your little joke, since it has produced some posts with hard facts about train control systems. This seems to be a subject about which misunderstandings are an international phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Sept 6, 2005 6:44:00 GMT
I'm perhaps a little suprised that IBM OS/2 wasn't used on systems of that age, since it was (and to a lesser extent still is) the dominant OS for embedded systems. Virtually every cash machine more than about 5 years old runs it. Then cash machine manufactures swiched to embedded XP, and suprise suprise, cash machines started getting viruses (none which caused money to start gushing out unfortunately ) The main difference between a cash machine and a train in this context is that a cash machine is connected to a network (but even then a sensible bank would use a private or virtual private one), while a train should never be. With no network connection, it's pretty much safe from crackers, viruses and anything else (you tend to spot suspicious people sitting at the only means of accessing a computer ) That leaves hardware and software errors as the only way in which something could go wrong. I'd imagine that a TMS comes above a cash machine but below a nuclear power station control system on the scale of how critical a failure is. The consequences of the worst possible failure determine how much effort you put into proving your system "correct". There are ways of proving that a program will always do exactly as expected (and never crash), but they are insanely complicated for anything which isn't trivially small. A nuclear power station in Canada had to do this for it's operating software to satisfy the government it was safe (would have been far cheaper to have used a traditional hardware system.) Given how much effort is needed to do this, companies tend to prefer to avoid doing it again for as long as possible, hence many critical systems running on what is usually considered ancient hardware or software.
|
|
|
Post by trainopd78 on Sept 6, 2005 10:13:25 GMT
What is this obsession with software??!! The TMS on D stock has no software, tells us everything we need to know, doesn't take an eternity to boot up (around 1 to 2 secs while it self tests) and i've never had one go wrong on me. A perfect system which nearly never crashes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2005 10:22:03 GMT
And, of course, the 1938 TS (and the O/P/R SSL equivalents) managed perfectly well without a TMS of any kind.....
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Sept 6, 2005 11:25:04 GMT
The main reason that manufacturers prefer software rather than pure hardware is the ease with which it can be altered, so any bugs can be removed or new features relatively straightforwardly, rather than having to alter vast numbers of hardware units. You can also use one hardware system for multiple different applications with appropriate software.
This applies mainly during production, but can equally be applied to units which have already entered service. It's much cheaper and less disruptive to issue a software update to correct any problems than to recall hardware back to the factory.
The disadvantage, especially with PC games and consumer electronics such as the PSP, is the reduction in quality assurance testing that usually results, as the manufacturer knows that they can just release something that works well enough, and correct any issues discovered later. It's also much harder to prove that software is correct, so crashes are more likely (not that hardware really crashes as such, it just does weird stuff)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2005 20:08:13 GMT
Ah Mi-trac. I spoke to a good friend who has had bitter experiences with Class 375's, especially when connecting up two units. He once told me that the driver who brought in the front unit, forgot to remove his key, which when the two units were coupled, caused the computer to throw a wobbler, and shut down the job for some 2 hours. And resetting the train proved to be its undoing too. I told him that Mitrac should be called something else. Why do they have to go for something so horribly complicated? lets face it, why the hell would the driver want to know about the MOSL toilet being out of use??? Queue memories of interfacing with a ICE in Berlin... Digital Voice coming from cab "Zug fur ein rung, zug fur ein rung" [Train for one ] quite funny to see the Zug-Hauptmann scratching his head after frantically tapping the computer...
|
|