31x and 32x multiple working

[py_megapixel]

The 31X and 32X TOPs classes above 311 seem to be divided into some different ranges:

• 313-315 (+507/508) - PEP derivatives
• 317-322 (+455/456)- Mk3 derivatives
• There's also the Hunslet 323s and the 325 "Networker Mail"

What, in this range, is capable of multiple working?

I ask partially because of Wikipedia's statement that 313s can work in multiple with 323s - which I've never seen done before - and I'm interested to know if this is possible, and if any other inter-class multiple working is possible in this range?

 

[JN114]

I ask partially because of Wikipedia's statement that 313s can work in multiple with 323s

Wikipedia can and is routinely edited by anyone. Unfortunately for UK Rail bits and bobs it seems to be almost entirely written by enthusiast -types who don’t have a clue. Attempts to weed out the incorrect rubbish tend to get reverted. For the 323s it also says they can be controlled from a Class 67. Total rubbish.

323s have tightlock couplers - so can mechanically couple to other tightlock-fitted traction for rescue purposes. As such has happened with 319s rescuing 323s in the Manchester area and vice versa.

True multiple working depends greatly on a number of other things being compatible, and therefore I defer to those with expert knowledge - however as far as I understand for true multiple working the 323s are in-class only.

 

[edwin_m]

The 31X and 32X TOPs classes above 311 seem to be divided into some different ranges:

• 312-315 (+507/508) - PEP derivatives
• 317-322 (+455/456)- Mk3 derivatives
• There's also the Hunslet 323s and the 325 "Networker Mail"

What, in this range, is capable of multiple working?

I ask partially because of Wikipedia's statement that 313s can work in multiple with 323s - which I've never seen done before - and I'm interested to know if this is possible, and if any other inter-class multiple working is possible in this range?

312 wasn't a PEP derivative - it was a minor update to the 310 design from 10 year earlier and something on an anachronism when it came out at the same time as the 313.

With 313s being DC units with an transformer and pantograph to give them an AC mode, I doubt they could multiple with a 314 or 315.

 

[py_megapixel]

312 wasn't a PEP derivative - it was a minor update to the 310 design from 10 year earlier and something on an anachronism when it came out at the same time as the 313.

Sorry, typo

 

[hexagon789]

With 313s being DC units with an transformer and pantograph to give them an AC mode, I doubt they could multiple with a 314 or 315.

Going off the RSSB interoperability document, the control wires appear to be arranged identically and indeed the 313s are grouped together with the 314/315s. Within the group only the 508/509 and 321s appear to have any control wire differences and for the 321s it's quite a minor difference.

What that actually means in practice though I'm not sure, but if the connectors fit together and the wires all do the same things...

 

[dubscottie]

I believe prior to privatisation, classes 313-323 & 210 DEMU could multi.
I think things got complicated when TOCs started to mod their units and that might prevent some classes from working together now.

 

[Astro_Orbiter]

315/317/321 can all be coupled together and driven... ECS, the door systems are not compatible for in passenger service workings however. You used to occasionally see a 315/321 or 317/315 doing testing trials runs down to Witham from Ilford.

 

[Darandio]

Wikipedia can and is routinely edited by anyone. Unfortunately for UK Rail bits and bobs it seems to be almost entirely written by enthusiast -types who don’t have a clue. Attempts to weed out the incorrect rubbish tend to get reverted. For the 323s it also says they can be controlled from a Class 67. Total rubbish.

That 67 claim has been removed, a rare thing indeed.

 

[Class 170101]

315/317/321 can all be coupled together and driven... ECS, the door systems are not compatible for in passenger service workings however. You used to occasionally see a 315/321 or 317/315 doing testing trials runs down to Witham from Ilford.

Occasional Class 317/321 combo seen operating to Orient Way CS in London when West Ham played at home.

 

[py_megapixel]

Wikipedia can and is routinely edited by anyone. Unfortunately for UK Rail bits and bobs it seems to be almost entirely written by enthusiast -types who don’t have a clue. Attempts to weed out the incorrect rubbish tend to get reverted. For the 323s it also says they can be controlled from a Class 67. Total rubbish.

323s have tightlock couplers - so can mechanically couple to other tightlock-fitted traction for rescue purposes. As such has happened with 319s rescuing 323s in the Manchester area and vice versa.

True multiple working depends greatly on a number of other things being compatible, and therefore I defer to those with expert knowledge - however as far as I understand for true multiple working the 323s are in-class only.

That 67 claim has been removed, a rare thing indeed.

I have found a source for the correct multiple-working information and have updated the wikipedia page accordingly.

 

[route101]

318s and 320 work in multiple around Glasgow. They have done so since 2011 ish.

 

[iphone76]

315/317/321 can all be coupled together and driven... ECS, the door systems are not compatible for in passenger service workings however. You used to occasionally see a 315/321 or 317/315 doing testing trials runs down to Witham from Ilford.

They were doing 321/317 trial running last week from Ilford. It reminded me of the old CapitalCard adverts from days gone by.

 

[rebmcr]

The 31X and 32X TOPs classes above 311 seem to be divided into some different ranges:

• 313-315 (+507/508) - PEP derivatives
• 317-322 (+455/456)- Mk3 derivatives
• There's also the Hunslet 323s and the 325 "Networker Mail"

325, despite cab end appearance, is pretty much a 319, not a Networker.

 

[James James]

318s and 320 work in multiple around Glasgow. They have done so since 2011 ish.

314's have been seen operating with 318's, albeit only in special circumstances (ECS or emergency) - it's unclear if they were only mechanically coupled though (both units had pantographs up, but that doesn't mean much):

(I seem to remember reading that they are compatible except for the door control systems - which is of course a problem for passenger service.)

And of course the same probably applies to 314s and 320s, since 318 and 320 are compatible - I just can't find any evidence of 314+320.)

 

[scosutsut]

318s and 320 work in multiple around Glasgow. They have done so since 2011 ish.

Does anyone know if mods were needed to allow that? I assume so as both would have been on the same routes since the early 90s?

 

[James James]

Does anyone know if mods were needed to allow that? I assume so as both would have been on the same routes since the early 90s?

2010 is when the 320s were upgraded to 90mph running (by installing yaw dampers), matching the 318s which had always been 90mph capable.

In other words yes and no: the trains were likely compatible before (but don't quote me on it), however differing top speeds would have made mixing the fleets an operational nightmare - with that restriction gone, they can be mixed without issues.

 

[route101]

2010 is when the 320s were upgraded to 90mph running (by installing yaw dampers), matching the 318s which had always been 90mph capable.

In other words yes and no: the trains were likely compatible before (but don't quote me on it), however differing top speeds would have made mixing the fleets an operational nightmare - with that restriction gone, they can be mixed without issues.

Before 2011 it was very rare to see Class 320 at Glasgow Central High or low level.

 

[scosutsut]

2010 is when the 320s were upgraded to 90mph running (by installing yaw dampers), matching the 318s which had always been 90mph capable.

In other words yes and no: the trains were likely compatible before (but don't quote me on it), however differing top speeds would have made mixing the fleets an operational nightmare - with that restriction gone, they can be mixed without issues.

Thanks. Didn't realise there was any running above 75mph on any of the former SPT area.

 

[Bringback309s]

 

[Bikeman78]

2010 is when the 320s were upgraded to 90mph running (by installing yaw dampers), matching the 318s which had always been 90mph capable.

In other words yes and no: the trains were likely compatible before (but don't quote me on it), however differing top speeds would have made mixing the fleets an operational nightmare - with that restriction gone, they can be mixed without issues.

What's the problem? VEPs and EPBs used to work together. 150s and 158s still do. You just have to stick to the lowest maximum speed.

315/317/321 can all be coupled together and driven... ECS, the door systems are not compatible for in passenger service workings however. You used to occasionally see a 315/321 or 317/315 doing testing trials runs down to Witham from Ilford.

317 used to work in service with 322. Not sure about 317+321 but it was probably possible in the 1990s.

Thanks. Didn't realise there was any running above 75mph on any of the former SPT area.

For 318 and 320, it's only possible between Wishaw and Lanark. The Ayr line has plenty of 90 mph.

 

[hexagon789]

What's the problem? VEPs and EPBs used to work together. 150s and 158s still do. You just have to stick to the lowest maximum speed.

I don't ever recall 318s and 320s working in multiple until the 320s were all upgraded to 90mph though, even though they could.

 

[GLC]

314's have been seen operating with 318's, albeit only in special circumstances (ECS or emergency) - it's unclear if they were only mechanically coupled though (both units had pantographs up, but that doesn't mean much):

(I seem to remember reading that they are compatible except for the door control systems - which is of course a problem for passenger service.)

And of course the same probably applies to 314s and 320s, since 318 and 320 are compatible - I just can't find any evidence of 314+320.)

Not quite a 314+320, but this occurred a few years ago

Class 314 Withdrawals

They did occasional 9 cars but back then staff just shouted to passengers not to get out any door that wasn't in the platform. Nowadays people would just fall out the train looking at their smartphones. Then sue Scotrail. Quite a few of the Cathcart Circle platforms had 9 car stop signs...

www.railforums.co.uk

Talking about 314s and 9 cars, it’s worth recording that earlier today 314213 encountered some difficulties between Hawkhead and Crookston while working 2D20 1105 Paisley Canal - Glasgow Central and, for reasons too complicated to go into here, had to be assisted by a 9 car formation made up of 314202, 318267 and 320321. So that was a 12 car in passenger service albeit only very briefly for about half a mile before everyone was detrained at Crookston and the whole lot ran off to Shields.

 

[James James]

What's the problem? VEPs and EPBs used to work together. 150s and 158s still do. You just have to stick to the lowest maximum speed.

Like I said in my post: operational nightmare. Keep the 90mph units together so you can actually operate multiples... on services needing 90mph. Easy peasy, no complications, why bother mixing.

(Given that keeping them separate is what Scotrail did, you'll have to explain to us why they should have bothered mixing them?)

 

[Tomnick]

Like I said in my post: operational nightmare. Keep the 90mph units together so you can actually operate multiples... on services needing 90mph. Easy peasy, no complications, why bother mixing.

(Given that keeping them separate is what Scotrail did, you'll have to explain to us why they should have bothered mixing them?)

Given the choice between shortforming a busy service and running it with a 75mph unit (vice 90mph), I know what most would prefer! Even if there is a robust determination (and enough units) to keep the fastest units on the fastest services, it’s still very likely that they’d end up tied to slower units at some point during their day, positioning moves at the extremities or if their diagram drops them onto other work at some point.

 

[CBlue]

Given the choice between shortforming a busy service and running it with a 75mph unit (vice 90mph), I know what most would prefer! Even if there is a robust determination (and enough units) to keep the fastest units on the fastest services, it’s still very likely that they’d end up tied to slower units at some point during their day, positioning moves at the extremities or if their diagram drops them onto other work at some point.

Better to short-form the unit rather than slow it down. If the 75mph unit causes the train to run late, it'll start causing congestion and holding up other services - causing a far bigger knock-on effect than just short forming one train.

Said 75mph unit might well be "stuck" at that point on the 90mph diagram and cause further congestion.

 

[James James]

I don't entirely understand what the point of this discussion is: certainly, a 318 may have been operated coupled to a 320 before 2011 or 2010 - on one off occasions (although I've not actually seen evidence thereof - but that's not sufficient to prove anything), but the overarching point is that they were not mixed in regular service until the 320s had been upgraded to match the 318's capabilities. Which is a fairly clear indication that Scotrail were indeed operating them as separate fleets as far as possible prior to 2011, with schedules that kept the two separate. (Which presumably didn't stop them from joining 2 units on a given day if schedules are disrupted - but they certainly weren't planning to do so.)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

From the Platform 5 Combined Volume, the current multiple working abilities are:

313: Within class only.
314: Within class and class 315.
315: Within class and class 314, 317.
317: Within class and class 315, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323.
318: Within class and class 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323.
319: Within class and class 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 323.
320: Within class and class 317, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323.
321: Within class and class 317, 318, 319, 320, 322, 323.
322: Within class and class 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 323.
323: Within class and class 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322.
325: Within class only.

Is it a reasonable deduction from this list that the 317s received some modifications to allow them to rescue 315s?

 

[Tomnick]

Better to short-form the unit rather than slow it down. If the 75mph unit causes the train to run late, it'll start causing congestion and holding up other services - causing a far bigger knock-on effect than just short forming one train.

Said 75mph unit might well be "stuck" at that point on the 90mph diagram and cause further congestion.

But if you short-form an already busy train, it’s likely to lose even more time through overcrowding! On the other hand, a 75mph train can just about keep time on our 90mph services - there’s only a couple of minutes’ difference in it. Obviously that depends on the extent of uninterrupted 75+ running on a given route though.

 

[Bikeman78]

I don't ever recall 318s and 320s working in multiple until the 320s were all upgraded to 90mph though, even though they could.

You are right, I completely agree. I don't understand why though. Trains on the Argyle line or North Clyde routes rarely get to 75 mph let alone above it.

But if you short-form an already busy train, it’s likely to lose even more time through overcrowding! On the other hand, a 75mph train can just about keep time on our 90mph services - there’s only a couple of minutes’ difference in it. Obviously that depends on the extent of uninterrupted 75+ running on a given route though.

That's definitely true on the Lanark line. They only run at 90 for two or three mins max. Bear in mind that 303s and 314s used to run to Lanark and the schedules were actually slightly faster in 2000 than in 2010.

 

[Peter0124]

A 314 has coupled to a 320 before, seen on an episode of Inside Central Station, in attachments down below.

A 314 has also coupled to a 322: