Can Mk1 and Mk3 coaches couple to each other?

[JonathanH]

Like this, you mean...?

So that is 4-BEP 2305 that it is coupled to? What is the context?

 

[Journeyman]

So that is 4-BEP 2305 that it is coupled to? What is the context?

My memory might be failing me, but I'm sure I saw a 442/BEP combination once. Given how rarely it must have happened, it may have been that one.

Absolutely certain it never happened in passenger service.

 

[nlogax]

Like this, you mean...?

Astonishing.. it's like Christmas, been waiting to see something like that for years! Thank you Peter, really great shots

 

[Peter Mugridge]

So that is 4-BEP 2305 that it is coupled to? What is the context?

I believe one or the other of them had failed. Here's the 442 ( 442 420 to be exact ) in question a few moments earlier from the other platform.

Astonishing.. it's like Christmas, been waiting to see something like that for years! Thank you Peter, really great shots

I have a huge archive... I've been tweeting them out for the past 3 or 4 years or so...

 

[nlogax]

So this unlikely pairing happened at Surbiton?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

So this unlikely pairing happened at Surbiton?

That's correct, yes. Surbiton.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The traction controls would work throughout the train, but you'd have to operate the doors from the 442. The SR 27-way jumpers actually had provision for power door operation, but the 442s were the only trains fitted.

Oh for those days of sense.

 

[Journeyman]

Oh for those days of sense.

It wasn't always that way. 455s couldn't multiple work with anything else, and at one point the SW Division had SUBs, EPBs, 455s and 508s allocated to it. Try coupling any of those together...

 

[hexagon789]

I've got the 2001 book, and the vehicle is shown as being in IC livery and based at Inverness.

Thanks, would be interesting to know when it last actually saw use.

Oh for those days of sense.

Amen to that!

 

[CBlue]

It wasn't always that way. 455s couldn't multiple work with anything else, and at one point the SW Division had SUBs, EPBs, 455s and 508s allocated to it. Try coupling any of those together...

Ssh! Don't let facts get in the way of nostalgia!

BR were no better for interoperable stock. Intercity division class 73s had their vacuum brake equipment removed for no other reason than stopping their loan to the freight divisions...not much use if one was needed to shift vacuum braked stock out the way.

 

[43096]

BR were no better for interoperable stock. Intercity division class 73s had their vacuum brake equipment removed for no other reason than stopping their loan to the freight divisions...not much use if one was needed to shift vacuum braked stock out the way.

I suspect the real reason was to do with saving the maintenance costs on the exhausters and associated equipment, but that doesn't conveniently fit with the narrative.

 

[Journeyman]

Ssh! Don't let facts get in the way of nostalgia!

BR were no better for interoperable stock. Intercity division class 73s had their vacuum brake equipment removed for no other reason than stopping their loan to the freight divisions...not much use if one was needed to shift vacuum braked stock out the way.

Absolutely. Although certain multiple working standards were common, they were never universal, and the use of vacuum braking and steam heating persisted for a long time. Incompatible stock was always an issue, and it's certainly no worse a problem now than it was in the past.

In fact, it was occasionally a major safety issue. Hydraulic and mechanical DMUs could supposedly work in multiple, but if you were driving from the hydraulic cab and forgot you had a mechanical set attached, you were in big trouble.

I suspect the real reason was to do with saving the maintenance costs on the exhausters and associated equipment, but that doesn't conveniently fit with the narrative.

What, the narrative that everything in the past was brilliant?

 

[Colin1501]

Absolutely. Although certain multiple working standards were common, they were never universal, and the use of vacuum braking and steam heating persisted for a long time. Incompatible stock was always an issue, and it's certainly no worse a problem now than it was in the past.

In fact, it was occasionally a major safety issue. Hydraulic and mechanical DMUs could supposedly work in multiple, but if you were driving from the hydraulic cab and forgot you had a mechanical set attached, you were in big trouble.

What, the narrative that everything in the past was brilliant?

Well, no, of course it wasn't brilliant. It's just that in terms of interoperability we don't seem to have learnt anything and got any better, and you'd rather hope we would have done.

 

[VEP3417]

talking of unusual couplings, i did have a photo i saved from online of a class 455 possibly coupled to a mlv, or at least parked so close it looked like it was coupled, in bournemouth depot but its completely disappeared from my computer for some reason and i cant find it online (yet) but i will try to find it again