• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

DMU coupling to EMU

Status
Not open for further replies.

1018509

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2011
Messages
326
Location
New Milton
Is there anywhere in the UK that DMU's and EMU's can and do couple and work in multiple?

I thinking here of both units under power, driven from one cab, not a drag of one unit by the other.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
Usually the problem with coupling and operating DMUs and EMUs together is not how they can be operated when coupled, but actually how they can couple in the first place.

Virgin tested a Voyager and Pendolino, though I can't say I have heard of it happening 'in anger', Southern have 171s that could, in theory, couple with their 377s, though again I can't say I know of it happening, and I imagine the 185s and 350s in use with TPE have the same coupling type.
 

Waldgrun

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2011
Messages
306
When the class 205 3H D.E.M.U. No.1111 was refurbished in the Late 1970's or was it the early 1980's, it was trial modified to run with Southern Region Emu stock, but the equipment was soon removed! Also, if I remember rightly the two class 210 units where designed to run with class 317 units!
 

WillPS

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2008
Messages
2,421
Location
Nottingham
When the class 205 3H D.E.M.U. No.1111 was refurbished in the Late 1970's or was it the early 1980's, it was trial modified to run with Southern Region Emu stock, but the equipment was soon removed! Also, if I remember rightly the two class 210 units where designed to run with class 317 units!

I'm pretty sure one or two intermediate units are still in service as part of a Class 317 formation?
 
Last edited:

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
Southern have 171s that could, in theory, couple with their 377s, though again I can't say I know of it happening.

I believe the Southern 171s only couple with the 377s in emergencies effectively when either of them needs recovering. There is I believe a low speed limit for the coupled units which makes it impractical for passenger service.

However this is my understanding as a passenger on the Class 171s, and theres been many a time when we have been disgruntled that we haven't been sent to push the 377 stuck in front of us!
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,089
In the 1970s when the Southern was short of stock there was a working which combined at Basingstoke an electric 4-VEP which had come from Southampton with a diesel-powered Class 33/4-TC formation which had come from Salisbury, beyond the electric network. The whole lot then worked as an 8-car plus diesel composite up to Waterloo, with both the electric 4-VEP and the diesel Class 33 under power and driven from the electric unit at the front.

The Southern's own brand of MU control allowed all their diesel and electric multiple units, their diesel and electric locomotives, and their unpowered trailer coaching stock like the 4-TC, to work together.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,905
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
Denmark has DMU and EMU fleets which fully multi and plenty of trains have one (or more) set of each.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
I believe the Southern 171s only couple with the 377s in emergencies effectively when either of them needs recovering. There is I believe a low speed limit for the coupled units which makes it impractical for passenger service.



However this is my understanding as a passenger on the Class 171s, and theres been many a time when we have been disgruntled that we haven't been sent to push the 377 stuck in front of us!


When 171s&377s couple up they don't both power-they are electronically incompatible so they drag each other. They can't always get a 171 to push a 377 as it depends on the fault. If the brakes are locked on the 377 then pushing it isn't going to do any good!
 

shedman

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2011
Messages
364
The HST (DVT) power cars and class 91s worked together. Wonder if any electric loco fitted with TDM could work with them?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,065
Location
Macclesfield
The HST (DVT) power cars and class 91s worked together. Wonder if any electric loco fitted with TDM could work with them?
Yes: There's photos of them undergoing testing on the West Coast in push-pull mode with class 86s after release from works.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
I'm pretty sure one or two intermediate units are still in service as part of a Class 317 formation?

They are in Class 455 units.

TSO 67400 (60400) is in unit 455912 (replacing 71731) and DTSO 67301 (60301) was converted to a MSO for use in 455913 (after 62838 was attacked from above by a cement mixer lorry).

The HST (DVT) power cars and class 91s worked together. Wonder if any electric loco fitted with TDM could work with them?

The TDM equipment on the eight power cars has since been removed, but at the time I believe any TDM equiped loco could have worked with them.
 

Kentish Paul

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2012
Messages
454
Location
Ashford Kent
I know a 73 could couple to a VEP as this was how we went from Ashford to Chart Leacon for the open day for the 150 celebrations.

What a day. 3 Deltics, E5000, various steam, two AC electrics from WCML, 2 Bils, 4 Subs etc. Fantastic.
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
When 171s&377s couple up they don't both power-they are electronically incompatible so they drag each other. They can't always get a 171 to push a 377 as it depends on the fault. If the brakes are locked on the 377 then pushing it isn't going to do any good!

Disgruntlement is usually when the 377 is stuck due to an ice up conductor rail, although this was less of an issue last time it was cold. Maybe the rail is heated around Oxted Tunnel these days.
 

D7666

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
544
class 205 3H D.E.M.U. No.1111 was refurbished .... , it was trial modified to run with Southern Region Emu stock,

Not exactly. This was how it was widely misreported at the time and lingered on - but is incorrect.

1111's internal control wire functions within the DEMU were altered to EMU standard - but the external connectors i.e. the end of unit jumpers were never altered. It was done this way so that at some point in the future if it were ever needed it could be simply made made to multiple without having to go to works to be rewired. Was intended to be part of a full fleet refurbish that never went ahead.

he two class 210 units where designed to run with class 317 units!

Correct.

But I have never seen any evidence it was actually done.

--
Nick
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Southern's own brand of MU control allowed all their diesel and electric multiple units, their diesel and electric locomotives, and their unpowered trailer coaching stock like the 4-TC, to work together.


Not all "SR mu control" allowed this.

Only stock fitted with 1963/1966 stock control eqpt could fully multiple all combos of DL/EDL/EMU with diesel operation somewhere in the formation.

1957 control eqpt stock (e.g. Cep as built, BR EPB BR HAP) were restricted to certain combinations where diesels operation was concerned.

1951 control eqpt stock (prototype Cep as built, BRSR Hap & EPB) could not multiple with anything on diesel power including EDL.

All that is a gross over simplification - there were many detailed allowances and restrictions too many to list.

BTW the same control eqpt limits to mixing with diesel power applied to battery operation of MLV.

--
Nick
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I went looking for my cable diagram for 1111 and not found them where I thought they were.

I know it was never set up for full EMU+DEMU working despite what was said at the time and what has been said in every spotting book. It was one of those things where it was got wrong in the first instance and never corrected.

The theory for the end result was to be that a DEMU with the mixed EMU+DEMU capability spliced between an EMU and a non-modified DEMU would all work**, but as there was at the time 1111 was ex-works no traffic need for this, overtaken by other events, project was never completed.


** just as Vep+TC+73/1+33/0 would work ... you can't directly m.u. a Vep with a 33/0 but you can if there are devices in between that can 'translate'. 1111 was to have been a pilot for - say - Vep+modifiedDEMU+nonmodifiedDEMU which might have been an Oxted line solution with electric Grinstead 4EMU detaching 6DEMU for Uckfield.


--
Nick
 
Last edited:

181

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2013
Messages
801
In the 1970s when the Southern was short of stock there was a working which combined at Basingstoke an electric 4-VEP which had come from Southampton with a diesel-powered Class 33/4-TC formation which had come from Salisbury, beyond the electric network. The whole lot then worked as an 8-car plus diesel composite up to Waterloo, with both the electric 4-VEP and the diesel Class 33 under power and driven from the electric unit at the front.

In the mid-1980s there was a similar working in the evening peak in the opposite direction, with the diesel at the front. If I remember rightly from occasionally seeing it, I think it was a 12-coach formation including two 4-VEPs.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Could a 185 be coupled up to an electric Desiro and run with the emu coaches being treated as "un-powered" coaches?
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,089
The theory for the end result was to be that a DEMU with the mixed EMU+DEMU capability spliced between an EMU and a non-modified DEMU would all work
Am I correct that the same system also allowed both vacuum- and air-braked vehicles in the same train, as long as there was a translator (a locomotive) between the two parts?
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,967
Location
East Anglia
Virgin tested a Voyager and Pendolino, though I can't say I have heard of it happening 'in anger', Southern have 171s that could, in theory, couple with their 377s, though again I can't say I know of it happening, and I imagine the 185s and 350s in use with TPE have the same coupling type.

& bless that little Voyager. She huffed & puffed but dragged that Pendo reaching 102mph if my memory serves me well.
 

D7666

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
544
Am I correct that the same system also allowed both vacuum- and air-braked vehicles in the same train, as long as there was a translator (a locomotive) between the two parts?


Yes and no.

Yes because it was the original intent and some vehicles were fitted, but no because it was never introduced to fleet service.

The only vehicles fitted with the appropriate EP-(air)-vac translator gear were the first two MLVs 'phase 1' 68001 and 68002, and the six JA EDLs E6001-E6006 (later 73001-73006). The other 8 MLV although vacuum brake fitted for towing vans, did not have the translator kit, nor did the JBs. I do not know how long the translation kit remained in place, or even if it was removed.

EP+vac working was tested out, there were 4Cep+MLV+'3set' test trains, the 3set being not Mk.1 but a Bullied BSK-CK-BSK set. AIUI it all worked, in the technical sense, but the way things went there was - like EMU+DEMU - no serious operational need for such working, and mixed part-AB/part-VB on on train has to my knowledge never been approved for normal passenger operation.

The first iteration of the Bournemouth line electrification rolling stock plan - before authorisation - included a significant number of vacuum braked sets of loose loco hauled Mk.1 that with an appropriate number of translation vehicles - probably, at that time, intended to be all the designated Bomo line 73s batch. There were no 74s in the project plan then, and as the working would be 4/6/8car EMU + EDL + stock, you'd not want anything as powerful as a 74. But there was a significant amount of LH stock involved as the Bomo line project at that time included all the Southampton boat train sets. I assume as they really did pare down the project to save costs, they moved away from this idea.

--
Nick
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In the mid-1980s there was a similar working in the evening peak in the opposite direction, with the diesel at the front. If I remember rightly from occasionally seeing it, I think it was a 12-coach formation including two 4-VEPs.

There were such dual powered working on the combined Salisbury and Bournemouth line from 1966/1967 start of Bomo electric working right through to (?) May 1989 (?) I think that was the date.

None of these workings were anything to do with stock shortages. They were deliberate permanent diagrams.


The precise combination of EMU - Cig / Vep / Hap with one or 2 TC and position of diesel in the train varied over years from timetable to timetable. There was minimum of one SX train each way that had a Salisbury diesel portion attaching / detaching EMU at Basingstoke, but the exact train and where the EMU was to/from varied, as did the diesel as I think it was a Gillingham train at one time. There was also at least one timetable that had 2 SX trains both ways.

There was also a summer SO Swanage line working that had mixed diesel + EMU working. This also varied by year, and, believe it or not, was part of the same stock workings as the Salisbury line.

........

I found the Swanage working for summer 1967 :

09:55 Waterloo-Swanage train was leading from Waterloo 33+4TC+3TC+4Vep, detaching 4Vep at Bournemouth; 09:55 was formed off 07:55 Salisbury-Waterloo 33 push 8TC attach EMU at - IIRC in this timetable - Waterloo but I might be wrong on that.

from 10:47 ex-Swanage was 33 push 8TC to Bournemouth and forward 2Hap+73+8TC formed in that order to Waterloo. The 73 has to be coupled to the TC to light it.

There is some confusion in contemporary reports about these being 8TC or 7TC, anyway that does not detract from the interest.

For reference in the same timetable, 08:55/11:55 Waterloo Swanage/Weymouth and whatever the equivalent Up trains were more 'normal' Rep/TC for 33 push pull trains, 4TC to each, all attachments / detachments at Bomo; 10:55 ex-Waterloo was 2x33 hauled stock.




--
Nick
 
Last edited:

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
& bless that little Voyager. She huffed & puffed but dragged that Pendo reaching 102mph if my memory serves me well.

So...

Technically Speaking...

With the right connections...

A Voyager (or 180) could quite readily haul 4 sleeper coaches to Inverness/Aberdeen/Fort Bill
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,967
Location
East Anglia
So...

Technically Speaking...

With the right connections...

A Voyager (or 180) could quite readily haul 4 sleeper coaches to Inverness/Aberdeen/Fort Bill

Don't think it will catch on somehow mate. Wasn't it something to do with Virgin cutting back on Thunderbirds?
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
Platform lengths would be an issue & what an enormous waste of a DMU.

9 cars?

It's shorter than the Highland Chieftan.

Besides, the idea would be to use the stock day-in day-out and as a result would no longer require locomotives.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,967
Location
East Anglia
You would need to fit whole new coupling system to sleeper coaches as only buckeye. Cannot see trailing loads returning in this day & age.
 

bILLOO

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2011
Messages
311
A little off topic, but would the 450 be able to couple and run with a 350/1 back when the latter worked on the 3rd rail?
 

Lrd

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2010
Messages
3,018
A little off topic, but would the 450 be able to couple and run with a 350/1 back when the latter worked on the 3rd rail?
A 350 is just a 450 with no shoes but a pantograph instead so yes they would be able to couple, whether they would move though is another question. I don't see why not.
 

D7666

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
544
It all depends if the software and coupler pin set up is the same.


Indeed. Absolutely right.

And would a 450 cab have the ability raise / lower pans on the 350 ?

And would 350 APC work properly if you had say a 350+450+350 set up ... because thats what needs to be considered for full multiple.

etc

etc


The question about raise / lower pans has a parallel with BR SR 27 way control system. A TC/Rep/Vep for example etc could commnd remote diesel engine stop/start from the EMU cab, a Cep for example could not. There are numerous examples like this.

You can in theory multiple say a 442 with a Vep. Traction wise it works, full multiple unit control. Except how the hell do you open / close 442s doors from the Vep. Vep/Cig etc actually had door open/close control wires reserved in the 27 way set up, but as they have no switch for door control you can't do it. Door control IS a multiple unit multiple unit function - if you see what I mean.

The m.u. control system on a 455/456 uses a 42 way jumper cable. Lots of other BR rolling uses the 42 way jumper. As did 86/87s before TDM. That does not mean 455+86 will work !!! And so on.

I've said it before in other threads and say it again here, there is much MUCH more to multiple working than plugging things together.

--
Nick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top