Pacer compatability?

[150222]

I am aware that pacers can work in multiple with sprinters. Could they, if the need ever arose work in multiple with 170's or any other class with BSI couplers?

 

[tbtc]

I am aware that pacers can work in multiple with sprinters. Could they, if the need ever arose work in multiple with 170's or any other class with BSI couplers?

Dunno.

I don't think its ever happened, but then the TOCs with Pacers aren't the same ones with 170s.

But both work in multiple with 153s on a regular basis, so if they can both function with a 153 then I presume they can work with each other (?)

 

[WillPS]

Never tried, but theoretically possible - possible they might need some mods as the 156s did.

 

[Schnellzug]

They can work with anything up to 158s, and 158s can work with 170s, can't they, so i don't see any reason they shouldn't be able to.

 

[northernrailer]

14x and 17x ARE NOT allowed to couple up together, it actually states this in the cabs of class 17x units.

Its says something along the lines of "14x and 17x operation is not permitted".

 

[WillPS]

Heh, there you go. Not sure why they'd ever have needed to mind.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I can't remember the reason exactly but 170s are unable to work with Pacers. 16Xs are also unable to work with anything else with BSI couplings as a number of electrical connections are switched. The exception is the 172s which have a switch that reverses the connections allowing either 15X or 16X compatability (means LM's 172s can work with 153s and 170s, and Chiltern's 172s can work with 165s and 168s).

170s also have some other compatability issues with other types. The 156s required a modification to the buzzer circuit as this would sound constantly when coupled to a 170, and there are brake issues when 158s and 170s are in sandwich formations (i.e 170+158+170 or 158+170+158). Don't think the sandwich issue effects other types though.

14Xs might be the same problem as the 156s, but oviously as they are not operated by the same TOCs, and with the exception of the Sheffield, Manchester and formerly Liverpool areas, they have never even operated in the same places, it would not be worth the expense of modifying them to be compatable. If they could couple and have limited capability for emergencies is another matter (if assisting a failed train, something like the buzzer going all the time is minor, you can be lucky to have continous brakes).

 

[driver9000]

Mechanically they can couple but not electrically. If a 14x was to assist a 17x then the pin blocks would be retracted and the couple button would not be pressed. Brakes would be isolated on the failure and restricted to 5mph. This would be a last resort though.

 

[Oswyntail]

Wouldn't it be a revolutionary idea for the future if there were to be some standard so that disparate types could work together. Increases flexibility, and hence retained value of stock. But that would require.....planning!

 

[WillPS]

BSI was working towards that. Even back in BR days though, NSE deliberately specified their DMUs to be incompatible with Provincial's - clear case of tribalism.

A universal specification would be a wonderful idea.

 

[driver9000]

BSI was working towards that. Even back in BR days though, NSE deliberately specified their DMUs to be incompatible with Provincial's - clear case of tribalism.

A universal specification would be a wonderful idea.

I believe BR wanted its DMUs to have BSI couplers and EMUs to have Tightlock couplers as standard. It is a great shame full compatibility was never realised and we now have a multitude of incompatible couplers from various manufacturers.

I wonder how NSE got away with the decision that 165/166s were to be incompatible given that BR wanted standardisation and the ability to interwork.

 

[tbtc]

Mechanically they can couple but not electrically. If a 14x was to assist a 17x then the pin blocks would be retracted and the couple button would not be pressed. Brakes would be isolated on the failure and restricted to 5mph. This would be a last resort though.

They both work with 153s though, so would a "Pacer +153 + 170" combination work?

A universal specification would be a wonderful idea.

Absolutely!

Amazing that similar classes can't work together (e.g. 221 + 222s)

I wonder how NSE got away with the decision that 165/166s were to be incompatible given that BR wanted standardisation and the ability to interwork.

Same with the 159s IIRC

 

[pemma]

Amazing that similar classes can't work together (e.g. 221 + 222s)

Different types of Desiro EMUs aren't compatible, which is why 380s aren't being ordered for the LM/TPE order.

 

[Nym]

222s have completly different wiring looms to 221s though, although it is a supprise they didn't spec the same coupler configurations, but I suppose the spec never needed them to, so why bother?

 

[driver9000]

They both work with 153s though, so would a "Pacer +153 + 170" combination work?

No. This is due to the way the multiple working and other circuits are wired through the train, you can't simply put something between electrically incompatible vehicles to overcome the issue. The whole train must be compatible. As far as I know the problem lies with the pin blocks themselves, the modification undertaken to enable BR era types to work with 170s involved changing the order the pins were in.


Going back to the references to 170s working with 15x DMUs, only those required to work with 170s were modified, so for example a Scotrail 156 can work with a 170 but a Northern 156 couldn't.

 

[jopsuk]

I wonder how NSE got away with the decision that 165/166s were to be incompatible given that BR wanted standardisation and the ability to interwork.

Because by then NSE was highly independent in how it ran itself.

 

[ChrisCooper]

220/221s and 222s are incompatable because Virgin wanted their Voyagers to be compatable with Pendolinos. Not only is the wiring different, but the Voyagers have Alstom TMS to be compatable with the 390s, wheras 222s have Bombardier.

 

[headshot119]

So what is the actual reason that a 14X can't work with a 170? If It's electrical then how can a 15X work with a 14X. And a 15X with a 170?

 

[driver9000]

So what is the actual reason that a 14X can't work with a 170? If It's electrical then how can a 15X work with a 14X. And a 15X with a 170?

Not signing 170s I don't have an answer to that but I suspect it is the Pacer where the problem lies. The reason I think this is to do with multiple working of 14x units in that you can only have 8 vehicles when a 14x is in the train as opposed to 12 with a train formed fully of 15x vehicles.

 

[tbtc]

No. This is due to the way the multiple working and other circuits are wired through the train, you can't simply put something between electrically incompatible vehicles to overcome the issue. The whole train must be compatible. As far as I know the problem lies with the pin blocks themselves, the modification undertaken to enable BR era types to work with 170s involved changing the order the pins were in.


Going back to the references to 170s working with 15x DMUs, only those required to work with 170s were modified, so for example a Scotrail 156 can work with a 170 but a Northern 156 couldn't.

Cheers, i just couldn't "get" why they were "incompatible" when they could both work with Sprinters. But, from what you are saying, there are Sprinters that can work with Pacers and Sprinters that can work with 170s (but not with both)

 

[Nym]

Sounds like pacers have poorer quality electronics that mean they draw more current from the controller or somthing like.

 

[route:oxford]

Could it also (even if electrical compatibility be overcome) be the more fundamental reason that the 170 is capable of 100mph and is more powerful than a 15X range?

The mechanics and "bogies" might not be keen on accidently dragged up to 100mph....

 

[Schnellzug]

Same with the 159s IIRC

didn't they deliberately specify different couplings for the 159s so that they would be less likely to be borrowed by regional railways? Another example of how the Integrated BR that everyone fondly remembers actually ceased to be a long time before privatisation.

 

[tbtc]

Could it also (even if electrical compatibility be overcome) be the more fundamental reason that the 170 is capable of 100mph and is more powerful than a 15X range?

The mechanics and "bogies" might not be keen on accidently dragged up to 100mph....

Maybe, but then 153s can't do 100mph, and they are coupled to 170s every day.

Similarly Voyagers can't do 140mph, but are capable of being coupled to (140mph capable) Pendolini

didn't they deliberately specify different couplings for the 159s so that they would be less likely to be borrowed by regional railways? Another example of how the Integrated BR that everyone fondly remembers actually ceased to be a long time before privatisation.

That's the version I had heard, yes.

Things were much simpler on my old Hornby set where everything coupled with everything...

 

[driver9000]

Could it also (even if electrical compatibility be overcome) be the more fundamental reason that the 170 is capable of 100mph and is more powerful than a 15X range?

Doesn't stop 75mph stock mixing with 90mph stock.

 

[WillPS]

I was surprised to learn a few years ago that when, for example, driving a 170 with a 153 tagged on the back, there is nothing to stop the driver taking it beyond the 153s limit - and exactly that has happened at least once under Central Train, resulting in a very knackered 153.

 

[driver9000]

I was surprised to learn a few years ago that when, for example, driving a 170 with a 153 tagged on the back, there is nothing to stop the driver taking it beyond the 153s limit - and exactly that has happened at least once under Central Train, resulting in a very knackered 153.

There is nothing to stop the driver of a 158 with a 75mph unit on the back going up to 90mph, even running on their own there is nothing except the Driver to stop them going over their maximum posted speed.

 

[WillPS]

Really? Wow, I'd assumed there'd be a limiter around a couple of mph above their specified speed!

 

[ChrisCooper]

There is nothing stopping a driver of a freight doing 75, 80, 90 even 95mph depending on the top speed of the loco, yet few freight wagons can do more than 60mph, and some have even lower speeds (especially none bogie wagons). Drivers have to know the top speed of the train (i.e the top speed of the slowest vehicle in the train) aswell as the top speed of the loco or unit they are driving. Light engines and short formations also have different speed limits to other stock, again drivers have to remember that. Even with units it's not new, 90mph CEPs, CIGs and VEPs have run with 75mph units on the SR together at times going back to the 50s.

 

[Crossover]

I was surprised to learn a few years ago that when, for example, driving a 170 with a 153 tagged on the back, there is nothing to stop the driver taking it beyond the 153s limit - and exactly that has happened at least once under Central Train, resulting in a very knackered 153.

I think I have heard about that somewhere else on here - don't think the gearbox liked it too much :P

Really? Wow, I'd assumed there'd be a limiter around a couple of mph above their specified speed!

There probably is for the unit itself (Pendos have TASS, not sure about other units)
However, there is a limit to how many iterations of potential variations can be reasonably programmed in so say couple a 153 to a 170 and the 170 probably doesn't know it has a 75mph only capable unit stuck to the back of it (could be another 170 for all it knows) and so probably wouldn't limit it down (assuming such systems are in place, of course)