Class 315 and 317

[O L Leigh]

I was simply quoting what your fellow drivers tell me. They can't all be wrong, or maybe they are? Yes they are timed the same as 315s but with the number of stops on an all stations Cheshunt or Enfield service the station dwell times are critical in the peak - the narrower doors don't help.

Drivers love to moan. Sit in any messroom for any length of time and you will hear many and various complaints and theories about why certain things should be done differently. Some of these are sound but some are less so.

The point is to look at what is actually happening out there and draw some meaningful comparisons rather than simply repeating hearsay or prejudice. No, Cl317s were not designed and built with inner-suburban work in mind. However, they manage admirably well on such trips in spite of this. As I've already said, Cl317s can keep to Cl315 timings and vice versa. In addition, while much has been made of the comparative door widths, the actual difference is not that great so that it appreciably changes the loading times. Each class can allow two people side-by-side to enter or leave the train, assuming that the vestibules are clear.

In terms of real world performance, I would not lose any additional time taking a Cl317 on an inner-suburban trip compared to a Cl315. Station dwell times are broadly similar, as are the actual times spent travelling between stations.

O L Leigh

 

[ert47]

Can someone with technical knowledge tell me why 321s make these noises when standing still... ok I'll try to type this:

bong. ... bong. ... bong. ... bong. ... bong. ... burbububububububububuubububuuuuu bong. ... bong. bong...

Anyone?

Im sure I've heard 319s and 456s (and possibly 508s) make these sounds...

 

[Jala_150]

Can someone with technical knowledge tell me why 321s make these noises when standing still... ok I'll try to type this:

bong. ... bong. ... bong. ... bong. ... bong. ... burbububububububububuubububuuuuu bong. ... bong. bong...

Anyone?

I assume you were sitting in the ATS coach (where the toilets are):
The "Bong" sound is air being released from the main reservoir tank which is hitting a metal plate (its very loud considering its just air, albeit at high pressure), it does this to remove moisture that has collected at the bottom of the main reservoir tank.
The "burbububububububububuubububuuuuu" sound is the main compressor running.

 

[shaun]

I've always been confused as to how the Class 150/317/318 and 455s are similar to the 319/320/321/322/325 and 456s. I mean i would never have known by looking at them that they are all based on the Mk3 bodyshell... internally and externally they appear to be very different trains?

 

[jopsuk]

Externally: look at anything but the cab. Later 317s have the same windows as 319 onwards.
Internally? Well, 317s have at least four different interiors anyway.

 

[MK Tom]

I've always been confused as to how the Class 150/317/318 and 455s are similar to the 319/320/321/322/325 and 456s. I mean i would never have known by looking at them that they are all based on the Mk3 bodyshell... internally and externally they appear to be very different trains?

The bodyshells are exactly the same. Look at LM liveried 150s and 321s from the side. They are identical. It's just a different cab. Or look at 455s and 456s working in multiple. Again the only visible difference is the cab.

As one guy said already, 317s have a number of different interiors. Likewise 319s look totally different on the inside if they're ex-Southern express ones, and 321/3s have very different interiors to ex-WCML 321/4s.

I believe 156s are also mark 3 based. The windows are the same, just with the doors moved to a vestibule layout. Also don't forget 210s and the Northern Irish 450s.

The below pictures I took on Saturday illustrate the identical bodies of 455s and 319s. Also note the class 508 carriage in the SWT 455.

 

[edwin_m]

The cab exterior of the 455 in Tom's last photo above is almost identical to a 150/0 except for having a gangway. I haven't checked the build dates but I would expect these to be contemporary, as BREL would have taken whatever variant they were tooled up to produce at the time and made the minimum of changes to the design to meet the spec.

156 has some similarities to the Mk3 bodyshell, notably the windows which appear identical to those of the Mk3 units. However it was designed and built by Metro-Cammell whereas BREL or its successors produced all the true Mk3 units. I believe the 156 bodyshell has more in common structurally with the Mk4, although that is not at all obvious just by looking at it.

 

[Carlisle]

Im sure I've heard 319s and 456s (and possibly 508s) make these sounds...

Most ac electric locos and some diesels also

 

[MK Tom]

The cab exterior of the 455 in Tom's last photo above is almost identical to a 150/0 except for having a gangway. I haven't checked the build dates but I would expect these to be contemporary, as BREL would have taken whatever variant they were tooled up to produce at the time and made the minimum of changes to the design to meet the spec.

Identical to a 318 and 150/2 cab pretty much.

156 has some similarities to the Mk3 bodyshell, notably the windows which appear identical to those of the Mk3 units. However it was designed and built by Metro-Cammell whereas BREL or its successors produced all the true Mk3 units. I believe the 156 bodyshell has more in common structurally with the Mk4, although that is not at all obvious just by looking at it.

Aren't 158/159s based on the mark 4 body? It's my understanding that the 156 was purposefully built to resemble a 150/2.

 

[samuelmorris]

Example of 321 (& 319) compressor noise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_qzN5g6e43A#t=41

I believe at least the first 317s are different. Unsure about the second batch.

There is sometimes an odd ticking noise seemingly coming from the air reservoir on both 315s and 321s I've noticed, usually at exact intervals (e.g. exactly twice a second, for example) but the speed can vary wildly depending on when you see it, sometimes once every 10 seconds or so, sometimes more than 10 times a second such that it almost sounds like the compressor example above. Has a distinct 'hollow' quality to the noise and as far as I'm aware, is unaffected by compressor activity. That one always had me curious.

The other oddity is the strange groaning noises the 321s make at a stand. I assumed that was air suspension, but have nothing to back that assumption up. Will try and find an example if I can, you don't always hear it.

Meanwhile, here's a good demonstration of my earlier comment regarding transformer noise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc-3wLQ0blw

 

[O L Leigh]

Aren't 158/159s based on the mark 4 body? It's my understanding that the 156 was purposefully built to resemble a 150/2.

Nope and nope. Just look at any photos of a Cl150 + Cl156 combo and you will see this isn't true.

Sadly there are far too many fallacies here that show a lack of understanding about how rail vehicles are and have been designed and constructed. Not every MU is based on a coach design or vice versa. Likewise, just because one type follows the other off the production line it does not mean that one is based on the other.

To the specific details.

Cl150s, like all the other Mk3 MUs, are the only class to be based directly on a coach design. This is primarily because they were built at the same BREL workshops in York that had been building the Mk3 coaches at a time where the various business units that made up BR were desperate for new trains quickly and cheaply. Therefore it made sense to adapt the existing jigs from 23 metre coaches to 20 metre MU vehicles. Over the ten years or so that units of this type were in production the design was adapted and evolved, with new windows and different "plug-in" cab designs, but the basic design remained unchanged.

No other MU design shares the same heritage. They were all constructed at different times in different facilities using different construction jigs.

The outward similarity between Cl150s and Cl156s is incidental. The Cl156 (built by Met-Camm in Birmingham) simply happens to use a number of shared components, such as windows, gangway connections and lights. They have a totally different construction and body profile. Likewise with the Cl158 (BREL Derby) which had an aluminium bodyshell and the Mk4 coach (Met-Camm in Birmingham again), each of which was constructed in it's own specific jig to it's own design.

That there are outward similarities is hardly surprising. The loading gauge dictates the size of the vehicle and the differences in body profile between different vehicles are going to be slight. But it would be a mistake to jump to too many conclusions that this unit is based on that coach. There is only one family of units still in current usage that has been based on a coach design, and that is the Mk3 design of units that came out of BREL York during the 1980s.

O L Leigh

 

[samuelmorris]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, my understanding is that the BREL units from that period were at least derived from it - though admittedly, changed, changed again and improved (a matter of opinion about the latter i imagine!) - i.e. 150, 317-322 inclusive and 455/456, not in that order.
I always assumed simply because of the manufacturer that every other sprinter class had nothing to do with the Mk 3 multiple unit design, though admittedly they shared manufacture of the 465s with MC, even if there are very subtle visual, and very unsubtle acoustic differences.

 

[rebmcr]

Aren't 158/159s based on the mark 4 body?

Kind of the other way around, but not as much of a direct descendancy.

The Express Sprinter design was used to experiment with Mk4 innovations, so some of their design elements (notably the tilt profile) got passed forward.

 

[O L Leigh]

Kind of the other way around, but not as much of a direct descendancy.

The Express Sprinter design was used to experiment with Mk4 innovations, so some of their design elements (notably the tilt profile) got passed forward.

Source...?

The Mk4 and the Cl158 were being produced at the same time (between 1989 and 1992). Therefore it is unlikely that one was a prototype for the other. There are many many other reasons why your statement seems unlikely. The Cl158 is aluminium where the Mk4 is steel. The Mk4 was built by Met-Camm while the Cl158 was built by BREL. The Cl158 has sloping sides but not a tilt profile. In exactly what way these two programmes overlapped or influenced each other is unclear in the extreme.

O L Leigh

 

[MK Tom]

The outward similarity between Cl150s and Cl156s is incidental. The Cl156 (built by Met-Camm in Birmingham) simply happens to use a number of shared components, such as windows, gangway connections and lights. They have a totally different construction and body profile. Likewise with the Cl158 (BREL Derby) which had an aluminium bodyshell and the Mk4 coach (Met-Camm in Birmingham again), each of which was constructed in it's own specific jig to it's own design.
O L Leigh

I think it was [the oh-so reliable source of] wikipedia that told me the 156s were designed with the cabs that way to 'ease union acceptance' by making them similar to 150s. I know they're different classes from different manufacturers, and thinking about it now the 156 does have a visibly more curved lower body (as well as the obvious difference in length). The use of the same windows as mark 3 EMUs threw me a little though.

BTW that video of the 321s exhibits one of the sounds I was talking about, but I can't hear the gradual 'bong' sound of compressed air hitting metal I also referred to. I always found that sound really loud on Silverlink 321s when sitting at Northampton.

I always assumed simply because of the manufacturer that every other sprinter class had nothing to do with the Mk 3 multiple unit design.

Grouping the classes 150-159 together as 'Sprinter' strikes me as more of a BR branding exercise than anything technical really. As I understand it (corrections welcome), 150s are Mark 3 derived, 151s are Met-Cam prototypes that ultimately informed the designs of the 156s and 158s, and 155/153s are Leyland National bus derivatives. Also the 158s are so wildly different from other Sprinter classes in terms of body, interior design, speed, aircon, build material and even engine in some cases that putting them in the same family seems a bit deceptive.

To illustrate my point about 156 windows being the same as Mk 3 units, here's something to compare with my above pictures.

 

[306024]

The point is to look at what is actually happening out there and draw some meaningful comparisons rather than simply repeating hearsay or prejudice.

Couldn't agree more. So guess what, armed with cab passes and stop watches that is exactly what we did. Comments passed to me were from drivers on a 1-1 basis whose opinion I respected. Not messroom moaning, hearsay or prejudice.

315s and 317s were timed to the second and once all the details were analysed, class 315's came out marginally better on running times, and shorter dwell times were recorded. Now if that doesn't coincide with your experience so be it, I don't have a problem with that. We would have welcomed your driving, as that would have made our results closer.

 

[ert47]

BTW that video of the 321s exhibits one of the sounds I was talking about, but I can't hear the gradual 'bong' sound of compressed air hitting metal I also referred to. I always found that sound really loud on Silverlink 321s when sitting at Northampton.

By any chance, does that "Bong" sound, sound like when you open a drinks can and (once its open) you flick/pluck the tab?

 

[edwin_m]

I think it was [the oh-so reliable source of] wikipedia that told me the 156s were designed with the cabs that way to 'ease union acceptance' by making them similar to 150s. I know they're different classes from different manufacturers, and thinking about it now the 156 does have a visibly more curved lower body (as well as the obvious difference in length). The use of the same windows as mark 3 EMUs threw me a little though.

...

Grouping the classes 150-159 together as 'Sprinter' strikes me as more of a BR branding exercise than anything technical really. As I understand it (corrections welcome), 150s are Mark 3 derived, 151s are Met-Cam prototypes that ultimately informed the designs of the 156s and 158s, and 155/153s are Leyland National bus derivatives. Also the 158s are so wildly different from other Sprinter classes in terms of body, interior design, speed, aircon, build material and even engine in some cases that putting them in the same family seems a bit deceptive.

To illustrate my point about 156 windows being the same as Mk 3 units, here's something to compare with my above pictures.

Class 150, 153, 155 and 156 are mechanically very similar with the same bogies, engines and transmissions, so not too surprisingly they have similar controls and performance, and it would make sense to give them the same cab interiors. I think both BREL and Met-Cam went to the same subcontractor for windows (Beclawat IIRC), which would explain why 150 and 156 windows are either identical or very similar. When BREL was privatised the series 3 bogie design was deemed to be shared intellectual property and could be used by other suppliers when building for BR, as Met-Camm did with the 156, Leyland with the 155 and Hunslet with the 323. Later classes were not ordered by BR so suppliers other than Bombardier introduced their own bogie designs.

In fact Met-Camm appear to have consciously tried to imitate the 150 as far as they could in the design of the 156, probably because as the first private sector company to secure a major rolling stock order in a long time they didn't want to scare BR by offering anything too novel. They tried novelty with the 151, which I have a feeling owes something to the Met-Camm units for Hong Kong, but I don't think anything much from the 151 was carried over into any later UK product.

The 158 is a very different design despite coming from BREL who also produced the 150. I don't believe 158s were ever marketed as Sprinters although they are treated as such for some operating purposes. 155 and 156 were Super Sprinters.

 

[Peter Sarf]

.......When BREL was privatised the series 3 bogie design was deemed to be shared intellectual property and could be used by other suppliers when building for BR, as Met-Camm did with the 156, Leyland with the 155 and Hunslet with the 323. Later classes were not ordered by BR so suppliers other than Bombardier introduced their own bogie designs.

In fact Met-Camm appear to have consciously tried to imitate the 150 as far as they could in the design of the 156, probably because as the first private sector company to secure a major rolling stock order in a long time they didn't want to scare BR by offering anything too novel..........

Well as I understand it the 465s that Metro Camel built were an example of sharing the intellectual property of BREL.

If the 156 was intended to be similar to a 150 then how come the door spacing is completely different ?. Also the coach body is longer iirc. I *think* it makes sense that the Metro Cammel 156 and the Leyland 155 are similar in as much as they answered the same design requirement for doors at the ends of the coach INSTEAD of doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions along the coach side as required for more urban working.

Oh and as for 155s being based on a bus. No No that was the class 142 which I believe was based on a widened Leyland National bus !.

 

[DXMachina]

Cl150s, like all the other Mk3 MUs, are the only class to be based directly on a coach design.
O L Leigh

True regarding modern units still in revenue service.
Historically it was more common - there were AC EMUs based on Mark 2 coach bodies (310,312) and both AC (309) & DC (nearly everything SR after 1951) sets based on Mark 1

 

[MK Tom]

Oh and as for 155s being based on a bus. No No that was the class 142 which I believe was based on a widened Leyland National bus !.

Classes 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 153 and 155 are all bus-derived to some extent. It's most obvious with the 141.

 

[edwin_m]

Well as I understand it the 465s that Metro Camel built were an example of sharing the intellectual property of BREL.

If the 156 was intended to be similar to a 150 then how come the door spacing is completely different ?. Also the coach body is longer iirc. I *think* it makes sense that the Metro Cammel 156 and the Leyland 155 are similar in as much as they answered the same design requirement for doors at the ends of the coach INSTEAD of doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions along the coach side as required for more urban working.

Oh and as for 155s being based on a bus. No No that was the class 142 which I believe was based on a widened Leyland National bus !.

Networkers were a bit different. The basis for the design was a the Advanced Multiple Unit concept which originated within BR. Network Southeast produced a fairly detailed specification based on the look and many of the features of the AMU. As often happened within BR there was a desire to purchase from two separate companies, but the specification tried to minimise visual differences and included the ability for the two designs to work in multiple. The intellectual property in question belonged to BR not BREL, or at least BR had the right to use it (as with the series 3 bogie mentioned in my previous posting).

Provincial Sector specified 23m body length and (I believe) end vestibules for the Super Sprinters as they wanted something that was more suitable for long-distance journeys. Met-Camm supplied something that met this specification while still having a lot in common with a 150 and looking quite similar. If BREL had won that contract then their approach of using existing designs might have given us a non-aircon diesel version of the 442. The other successful bidder, Leyland, were best known for making road vehicles and the 155 bodyshell did indeed use a lot of the body parts derived from the Leyland National and also used in the 142s.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thanks edwin_m.

You mentioned the 442 - we seemed to forget that !. In my book that was the nearest any Multiple Unit got to the Mark3 coach. Anyone else got ideas ?.

 

[Manchester77]

442s are effectively all mark IIIs with the end coaches having during cabs and the centre having traction motors

 

[MK Tom]

442s are effectively all mark IIIs with the end coaches having during cabs and the centre having traction motors

And power doors. Riding in the 2nd and 4th coaches on a 442 is like loco haulage. A silent ride on a mark 3 carriage.

The other mark 3 unit to remember is the Northern Irish class 450, which is like some kind of bizarre 150/1 at one end, 150/2 at the other, but not quite, with a thumper engine taking up half a carriage and a mark 1 frame under it all. Beautifully bizarre class.

Incidentally a little more off topic than we already are, but were the 310s and 312s the only units ever built based on the mark 2 carriage body?

 

[43074]

Incidentally a little more off topic than we already are, but were the 310s and 312s the only units ever built based on the mark 2 carriage body?

Yes they were the only BR units based on the Mark 2s, but the Northern Irish 80 Class (the last of which were withdrawn last year) were also based on them.

 

[jopsuk]

Wikipedia lists the NIR Class 80 as being Mark 2-based. The Southern stuck entirely with Mark 1 based units (including their DEMUs) till the PEPs came along, then skipped to Mark 3 and then Networker designs. The various first gen DMUs weren't as far as I know at all based on coaching stock. Most of the AM AC units (other tham AM10/310) seem to have been a mix Mark 1 and bespoke MU design.

 

[zn1]

Back to the differences between the the 313-315(507/8), the 317-322(455,456,442) stock

455 power equipment was scavenged from the class 405 stock, thats why the slow chug of a DH25 compressor can be heard on the 455 units, There was a Chopper control fitted 455 cannot remeber who maintained it, im fairly sure it was WD's.

442 famously is powered by the Old Rep power systems, which still until the new kit arrived were the strongest EMU's on the Network, hence only one 442 was allowed south of Bournemouth down to weymouth -due the power they pulled out of the rail. they were the NSE Flagship Units, they were very high milers, with 2 year Bogie and motor changes, most emus had a 3 - 4 year bogie & motor change periodicity.

Legend has it that 321 could have had the same front end as the 442, it didnt happen

some other boring facts - the 3hc55b compressor fitted to 317 & 319 is the same as used in class 56

g315bz traction Motors - used in the 317,318,319 & 325 - GEC equipped

320-322 are brush power equipped

Bt13 & Bp20 bogies are derived from BT10 Mk3 bogie

BX1 & BP1 are bogie derived from PEP

the T3-7 & P3-7 bogies the next phase in bogie design for 320-322


SO the main differences - Inner suburban use - 313-315,455,6 allowed the eradication of the SUB/ EPB Fleets north and south of the river, replaced DMU out of KX,

Outer suburban 317-322 allowed the eradication DMU out of St.P, replaced outer suburban 75-90 mph fleets.

"inter City" unit class 442 - which is technically is...allowed the removal of the extremely high mileaged REP & TC units. troublesome at first, were pains in the botty, but i still think they are one of the best fleets ever built By BREL

have i missed anything?

purely my opinions

kev -

 

[MK Tom]

Why were the 456s given 321-style front ends? 455-style ones seem more logical... Also I'm guessing the fact both classes have numbers in a sequential order is just an amusing coincidence!

 

[jopsuk]

455 and 456 are actually numbered that way in accorance with the (now entirely discarded) Southern TOPS logical numbering scheme. 442 pretty much fits too. 465 and 466 were also numbered logically in this way:
4xx: Southern DC unit
x4x: 1970s design unit (442s are directly 1970s mark 3 coach design)
x5x: 1980s design unit (whilst based on the mark 3, it was very much a 1980s redesign- shorter, wider)
x6x: 1990s Networkers
xx2: Express unit with a buffet
xx5: inner suburban four car unit
xx6: inner suburban two car unit

Put that all together:
442: 1970s design express unit with a buffet
455: 1980s design four car suburban unit
456: 1980s design two car unit

it's all here
If they'd persisted with a similar sort of scheme, they'd have had to recycle older, retired ranges. I think sensibly they'd have had to go to giving manufacturers ranges and maybe a new range (6xx) for Dual Voltage- eg x0x for Bombardier, x1x for Siemens, x2x for Alsthom- that way what are now 375, 377, 450, and 458 could have been eg 403, 603 (splitting the electrostars between DV and DC-only, rather SE and Southern), 413 and 423. 444s would have been 422, 376 would be 405 (if we put five cars with four cars). In fact, that last bit reminds me that three car units would be numbered as two car units, so the three car electrostars would be 404 and 604.