Debate about HST classification

[Domh245]

I had a look in RIS-2453-RST (Vehicle Registration, Marking and Numbering) - and came across the following:

A.1.2 High speed train (HST) power cars (Class 43) are covered by the multiple unit set and fixed formation rail vehicle number ranges as set out in Table 4.

Admittedly, the reference to HST vehicles comes under Table 6, but the first 2 digits of their EVN are 95, as is the case for DMUs whilst a diesel locomotive would have 92.

So there you go, definitive proof that as far as anyone important is concerned, they are officially a type of DMU, even if they don't have the usual hallmarks of a DMU with regards to formation and multiple working.

 

[Cowley]

A hst power car can not be removed from its train to assist a failed freight like a 66 can.

Not my photo and I realise that they’re coupled back to back. .

 

[dubscottie]

My bold. And it was initially 41001 as it was not classed as a DMU. The full reasoning behind all this was explained in detail by Clarence Yard.

I know. I have said this also if you read back.

The Mk3 came first, the power cars later.

 

[43096]

I had a look in RIS-2453-RST (Vehicle Registration, Marking and Numbering) - and came across the following:



Admittedly, the reference to HST vehicles comes under Table 6, but the first 2 digits of their EVN are 95, as is the case for DMUs whilst a diesel locomotive would have 92.

So there you go, definitive proof that as far as anyone important is concerned, they are officially a type of DMU, even if they don't have the usual hallmarks of a DMU with regards to formation and multiple working.

But.......

According to R2 (the rolling stock database set up by RSSB) the first two digits of their EVN are 92. That means the database set up by RSSB is in direct contravention of the document issued by RSSB. So even RSSB can’t decide, much like BR couldn’t!

 

[Domh245]

But.......

According to R2 (the rolling stock database set up by RSSB) the first two digits of their EVN are 92. That means the database set up by RSSB is in direct contravention of the document issued by RSSB. So even RSSB can’t decide, much like BR couldn’t!

Interesting. I had thought about seeing if anyone with access to the relevant systems could look it up, but had assumed that it'd match up with the standards (elementary mistake, I know).

 

[D60]

Why does all this have to be so 'either/or'..?

Thing is, conceptually they were conceived to be a distinct concept in rolling stock provision... a combination of elements of push-pull loco-haulage and multiple-unit set formation... and helpfully a distinct new nomenclature was adopted to describe the concept.. namely HSTs, comprising power cars and trailers, in their own distinct numbering series within the BR coaching stock series.

Turns out in the event the concept proved to be more flexible in practical operational terms, and it made practical operational sense to use them more flexibly than was originally conceived..

But the concept is still recognisably what it always was, even though it was flexible enough to evolve and adapt through time, as it continues to be..

And none of that undermines the nomenclature that has always been used for them, in terms both of vehicles and concept.

So it's difficult to work out why anyone would be so insistant on re-defining them at this stage, and trying to force them into narrow, prescriptive, pre-existing, limiting, 'either/or' boxes.. when a perfectly adequate, accurate and suitably flexible descriptor has existed for them for half a century..!

It all seems a bit pointlessly obsessive/trainspottery/OCD..? (Disclaimer.. no gratuitous trivialisation of mental health issues intended)

Maybe everyone could agree that what they actually are is HSTs, comprising power cars and trailers, and in everyday practical terms (wiring and control systems, drawgear, day-to-day operation), that's what they always were and what they continue to be..

 

[BestWestern]

Why does all this have to be so 'either/or'..?

Thing is, conceptually they were conceived to be a distinct concept in rolling stock provision... a combination of elements of push-pull loco-haulage and multiple-unit set formation... and helpfully a distinct new nomenclature was adopted to describe the concept.. namely HSTs, comprising power cars and trailers, in their own distinct numbering series within the BR coaching stock series.

Turns out in the event the concept proved to be more flexible in practical operational terms, and it made practical operational sense to use them more flexibly than was originally conceived..

But the concept is still recognisably what it always was, even though it was flexible enough to evolve and adapt through time, as it continues to be..

And none of that undermines the nomenclature that has always been used for them, in terms both of vehicles and concept.

So it's difficult to work out why anyone would be so insistant on re-defining them at this stage, and trying to force them into narrow, prescriptive, pre-existing, limiting, 'either/or' boxes.. when a perfectly adequate, accurate and suitably flexible descriptor has existed for them for half a century..!

It all seems a bit pointlessly obsessive/trainspottery/OCD..? (Disclaimer.. no gratuitous trivialisation of mental health issues intended)

Maybe everyone could agree that what they actually are is HSTs, comprising power cars and trailers, and in everyday practical terms (wiring and control systems, drawgear, day-to-day operation), that's what they always were and what they continue to be..

I'll buy that!

 

[rebmcr]

DML (Diesel Multiple Locomotive)

 

[Minilad]

Why does all this have to be so 'either/or'..?

Thing is, conceptually they were conceived to be a distinct concept in rolling stock provision... a combination of elements of push-pull loco-haulage and multiple-unit set formation... and helpfully a distinct new nomenclature was adopted to describe the concept.. namely HSTs, comprising power cars and trailers, in their own distinct numbering series within the BR coaching stock series.

Turns out in the event the concept proved to be more flexible in practical operational terms, and it made practical operational sense to use them more flexibly than was originally conceived..

But the concept is still recognisably what it always was, even though it was flexible enough to evolve and adapt through time, as it continues to be..

And none of that undermines the nomenclature that has always been used for them, in terms both of vehicles and concept.

So it's difficult to work out why anyone would be so insistant on re-defining them at this stage, and trying to force them into narrow, prescriptive, pre-existing, limiting, 'either/or' boxes.. when a perfectly adequate, accurate and suitably flexible descriptor has existed for them for half a century..!

It all seems a bit pointlessly obsessive/trainspottery/OCD..? (Disclaimer.. no gratuitous trivialisation of mental health issues intended)

Maybe everyone could agree that what they actually are is HSTs, comprising power cars and trailers, and in everyday practical terms (wiring and control systems, drawgear, day-to-day operation), that's what they always were and what they continue to be..

Is the correct answer

 

[JamesRowden]

I vote for DESU - Diesel Electric Singular Unit.

 

[D60]

Oops.. Correction... Not "half a century" at all..!
I managed to confuse myself in post #50 by saying "now into their 5th decade".. which is accurate, but isn't half a century..!