Class 332 & 333/Scharfenburg & Dellner

[4SRKT]

171s have Dellners - that's the only difference between them and 170s (which have BSI couplers for Sprinter compatibility).

Does this mean that TPE cannot couple their 170s to their 185s?

 

[455driver]

171s have Dellners - that's the only difference between them and 170s (which have BSI couplers for Sprinter compatibility).

^^^Wot ee sed^^^
The (sensible) thinking being that they would not interact with other BSI coupled units but would with Dellner fitted units.

Southerns 377/3s were also delivered as 375/3s (with BSIs) and renumbered 377/3s when fitted with Dellners.

 

[sprinterguy]

Does this mean that TPE cannot couple their 170s to their 185s?

Only with an emergency coupling adapter. So in normal conditions, no they cannot.

 

[WillPS]

Only with an emergency coupling adapter. So in normal conditions, no they cannot.

Has this ever happened (in testing or otherwise)?

 

[HSTEd]

... If only we could have AAR style standardisation of couplers and multiple unit jumpers.....

Tightlocks and Blue Star?

 

[dubscottie]

Southerns 377/3s were also delivered as 375/3s (with BSIs) and renumbered 377/3s when fitted with Dellners.

They had Tightlock couplers as built not BSI's.

I remember reading about the trip a class 57 took to Ramsgate to test coupling to 377's.. They took one look at the height difference of the couplers and gave up!

Maybe the RCH should be brought back to ensure some sort of standardization?

 

[WillPS]

... If only we could have AAR style standardisation of couplers and multiple unit jumpers.....

Tightlocks and Blue Star?

Doesn't that involve the driver/someone physically joining cables (thus making it inferior to BSI, Dellner, etc?).

 

[HSTEd]

Doesn't that involve the driver/someone physically joining cables (thus making it inferior to BSI, Dellner, etc?).

Perhaps.... what I was really driving at is there needs to be a standard developed for coupling/multiple working in the UK that would be used for absolutely everything.

Ofcourse electronics have now advanced sufficiently that it could be done with a handful of wires and a single compressed air line.

 

[jopsuk]

This is exactly what i was saying further up. Do remeber that "BSI" is "British Standards Instiute", they write Standards that products, equipment and processes can be certified to. There's also a European Standards body and ISO (worldwide). Ideally, the standard would of course be an ISO one.

Getting traction equipment to fully cooperate between different makes of units and locos might be a bit much to ask, the same goes for door controls, DOO monitpors and other such TMS stuff, but it should at least be possible to mechanically couple and to operate the brakes. of course, there could be then a second ISO standard detailing TMS interoperability requirements- theoretically allowing any compliant train to couple to and work with any tother, with things such as speed restriction to the maximum speed of the slowest part of a consist, and even allowing a diesels to shove electrics (if they have enough power) off the wires/juice rails

 

[HSTEd]

I don't see why we can't standardise the TMS and similar equipment, this is the era of the crazy electronics packages, no reason BSI could not standardise the formats for video streams to DOO monitor cameras.
It would effectively be an ethernet connection after all.

2 wires for the Electronically controlled brakes, one compressed air supply line for teh same, two wires for the ETS circuit and then a couple of wires for other trainboard functions?
Or would we want a seperate pair of wires for TDM-type MU equipment?

Then you have to choose an autocoupler, there are only two choices, the AAR type knuckle coupler ot the new C-AKv type which is now finally making headway in German freight operations.

 

[swt_passenger]

This is exactly what i was saying further up. Do remeber that "BSI" is "British Standards Instiute", they write Standards that products, equipment and processes can be certified to.

This is a different BSI though. It is another coupling manufacturer, 'Bergische Stahl Industrie'.

 

[jopsuk]

This is a different BSI though. It is another coupling manufacturer, 'Bergische Stahl Industrie'.

I've made a rather big assumption!

 

[swt_passenger]

I've made a rather big assumption!

Easily done - it's exactly what I thought only a few months ago, until I read the small print in one of these RSSB documents...

 

[455driver]

They had Tightlock couplers as built not BSI's.

I remember reading about the trip a class 57 took to Ramsgate to test coupling to 377's.. They took one look at the height difference of the couplers and gave up!

Maybe the RCH should be brought back to ensure some sort of standardization?

Yes you are right its (not very Tight)lock that I was thinking of.

But all the couplings are "standard", its just that the "standards" keep changing!

 

[Nym]

I don't see why we can't standardise the TMS and similar equipment, this is the era of the crazy electronics packages, no reason BSI could not standardise the formats for video streams to DOO monitor cameras.
It would effectively be an ethernet connection after all.

Quite asside from the technical reasons why Ethernet just isn't appropriate for use on trains in its current form, although with some modification it might be. The safety case is very hard to fufill, and remember that the first train to use any kind of 'fly by wire' is made by Siemens and doesn't use Ethernet, it uses RS485 IIRC and runs as 'virtual circuits' throughout the units.

And you'd need a heck of a lot more wires than one or two anyway, even the most basic Ethernet (Token Bus) needs two shielded cables. Most modern implementations of course needing two or four twisted pair. And even using Differental Manchester at low speed, you'll not likely be able to keep a reliable TCP Interlink signal between units.

 

[O L Leigh]

Why does there even need to be any standardisation? I appreciate that it makes things nice and tidy, but does it actually matter that a Cl170 can't multi with a Pacer class? No TOC operates both types of units anyway, so what would be the purpose of carrying out the modifications?

Yes there are arguments for mixed fleets with non-standard couplers to have some degree of compatibility for emergency situations, but realistically the need for one train to assist another is not that great. Even on a basic two-line route, assisting a failed train out of the way is incredibly rare. I've never yet had to request assistance for any failure and have only provided assistance twice. But where there are non-standard coupler arrangements trains usually carry an adapter to permit emergency coupling with a train of another class. Every Cl379 has just such a device, which I believe has only needed to be deployed just the once.

As for normal working, again what's the purpose? Provided that all trains that ACTUALLY multi together work correctly it surely doesn't matter if they are incompatible with other types that they will never encounter.

I'm sorry, but all this makes for a very clumsy, expensive and inflexible working arrangement. If we insist on total interoperability then it would be impossible to make ANY software alterations as required (for example). If GA need to tweak the Cl379 TCMS to eradicate annoying faults then that is OK. But if the powers-that-be insist that these units still need to be compatible across the entire network, adjustments will have to be made to units up and down the UK. It's just a nonsense.

As for coupler heights, a lot of weight is put onto this. No two couplers are aligned exactly the same (often due to inconsistencies in vehicle ride height), and every autocoupler design has some feature that allows for alignment of the coupler heads as they are moved together. That is the purpose of the cone and pocket design on Scharfenburg/Dellner couplers and the nose and pocket either side of the coupler head on a Tightlock. Heck, I've even unhooked one pair of Cl317s where the couplers were so far out of alignment that they refused to move apart on notch 1 power because the coupler head on one unit was fouling the underside of the gangway connection on the other unit, and yet they'd obviously coupled up fine and ran without fault.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but a lot of what has been talked about or suggested is either technically wrong or operationally difficult. Some of the arrangements out there may seem like madness, but they actually work. So what if Cl171s can't multi with other modern DMU classes? Surely the most important factor is that they can be cleared out of the way using another class of unit that they actually operate alongside should one decide to "sit down".

O L Leigh

 

[WillPS]

Why does there even need to be any standardisation? I appreciate that it makes things nice and tidy, but does it actually matter that a Cl170 can't multi with a Pacer class?

Is it a fact that they can't? They both have the same coupler...

The issue is that borders get redrawn every couple of years and stock will normally cascade at least once in its life - it's impossible to perceive exactly how and when such a cascade would take place at the time the units are ordered.

Case in point - when TPE ordered their Pennines from Siemens they were not ordered with compatibility with any other units in mind, as TPE were set on a one-class strategy. In the event, they didn't get their way and the DfT instead allocated them an extra 10 Turbostars which _have_ to be run separately from their core fleet. Wouldn't have been a problem if there was an industry standard.

Going back to the Turbo/Pacer example - the cards haven't fallen that particular way but there's every possibility that in 2 years time when Northern/TPE get merged and retendered that coupling a Pacer to a Turbo will be needed.

 

[TGV]

O L Leigh: exactly the point I was making in post #17 but it is good to have your thoughts.

I will say though that I have witnessed TGVs attempting to couple when the support spring on one set has been damaged resulting in the coupler head being much lower than normal and the *******s just refused to join. We couldn't find a volunteer to stand between them and push it up enough to make the connection!

 

[boing_uk]

Now this interoperability thing is something we in the Traffic industry have been struggling with for some time and it is only now, after over 10 years work that we now have industry standards and can actually get one manufacturers outstation hardware to talk to another manufacturers instation hardware.

Why, I may ask, does a unit working in multi need to have complete compatibility with the other unit?

Surely, if the coupler heads are the same and there is a standard method of transferring control and fault messages from one TMS to another there shouldnt be a need for a TMS to have any sort of compatibility with the other.

UTMC, in the traffic industry, is essentially a method of converting a message from one system to another via a database adapter. So for instance, Messages 1,2,3,4,5 on system 1 are converted to Messages A,B,C,D,E on System 2.

Excluding the excellent practical points made by O L Leigh and others and launching off in to an enthusiasts flight of fancy for a moment; is it really beyond the wit of the manufacturers to provide a coupling converter, so that a unit essentially stands alone within the multi unit, but can transmit and receive all its data in a standard form?

 

[jopsuk]

I'm sorry to have to say it, but a lot of what has been talked about or suggested is either technically wrong or operationally difficult. Some of the arrangements out there may seem like madness, but they actually work. So what if Cl171s can't multi with other modern DMU classes? Surely the most important factor is that they can be cleared out of the way using another class of unit that they actually operate alongside should one decide to "sit down".

O L Leigh

rescue purposes is exactly why at the very least mechanical compatibility standardisation is desirable. As mentioned, units get moved around the network, and we now have many situations across the country where two or more mechanically incompatible coupler types operate on the same line.

Yes, having the ability to actually operate the different classes together may well store up more problems than it would possibly solve, but it seems as if every new class that comes along has a slightly different physical arrangement of coupler and electircal connections, when surely a standard would be no harder to design for. For instance, although there's no need for them to work together, from the outside looking in there's no obvuious reason why ytou'd deliberately design the 222s such that they have a slightly different electrical arrangement to the 220/221

 

[IanXC]

For instance, although there's no need for them to work together, from the outside looking in there's no obvuious reason why ytou'd deliberately design the 222s such that they have a slightly different electrical arrangement to the 220/221

Isn't that because the 220/221 fleets have Alstom TMS so as to be compatible with the Pendolinos, whereas the 222s have Bombardier's own TMS?

 

[WillPS]

Isn't that because the 220/221 fleets have Alstom TMS so as to be compatible with the Pendolinos, whereas the 222s have Bombardier's own TMS?

Yes. If ever there was the need for the 2 to couple it would certainly be possible to change the system though.

 

[ChristopherJ]

Why does there even need to be any standardisation? I appreciate that it makes things nice and tidy, but does it actually matter that a Cl170 can't multi with a Pacer class? No TOC operates both types of units anyway, so what would be the purpose of carrying out the modifications?

Yes there are arguments for mixed fleets with non-standard couplers to have some degree of compatibility for emergency situations, but realistically the need for one train to assist another is not that great. Even on a basic two-line route, assisting a failed train out of the way is incredibly rare. I've never yet had to request assistance for any failure and have only provided assistance twice. But where there are non-standard coupler arrangements trains usually carry an adapter to permit emergency coupling with a train of another class. Every Cl379 has just such a device, which I believe has only needed to be deployed just the once.

As for normal working, again what's the purpose? Provided that all trains that ACTUALLY multi together work correctly it surely doesn't matter if they are incompatible with other types that they will never encounter.

I'm sorry, but all this makes for a very clumsy, expensive and inflexible working arrangement. If we insist on total interoperability then it would be impossible to make ANY software alterations as required (for example). If GA need to tweak the Cl379 TCMS to eradicate annoying faults then that is OK. But if the powers-that-be insist that these units still need to be compatible across the entire network, adjustments will have to be made to units up and down the UK. It's just a nonsense.

As for coupler heights, a lot of weight is put onto this. No two couplers are aligned exactly the same (often due to inconsistencies in vehicle ride height), and every autocoupler design has some feature that allows for alignment of the coupler heads as they are moved together. That is the purpose of the cone and pocket design on Scharfenburg/Dellner couplers and the nose and pocket either side of the coupler head on a Tightlock. Heck, I've even unhooked one pair of Cl317s where the couplers were so far out of alignment that they refused to move apart on notch 1 power because the coupler head on one unit was fouling the underside of the gangway connection on the other unit, and yet they'd obviously coupled up fine and ran without fault.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but a lot of what has been talked about or suggested is either technically wrong or operationally difficult. Some of the arrangements out there may seem like madness, but they actually work. So what if Cl171s can't multi with other modern DMU classes? Surely the most important factor is that they can be cleared out of the way using another class of unit that they actually operate alongside should one decide to "sit down".

O L Leigh

That's not the point.

Standardisation is required, it doesn't matter if one version of the TMS won't talk to the other - the trains don't need to talk when being rescued. What is required is a standard coupling to enable rescues/push-outs in a fast and efficient manner.

If a train fails and the next following train has a different coupling, you have to go through the pain-in-the-arse procedure of building an emergency coupler, followed by having to push/pull the failed train at 5mph to the nearest location of refuge. I've watched an adaptor coupler be built for a Sharfenberg (360) and Tightlock (321) and it took almost 20 minutes to construct and enable it!

In an ideal word, if a train has failed, the next train should have the ability to merely bump up and couple with interoperability, having the TMS isolated between the two trains, and haul it away to the nearest place of refuge. There should be none of this build a makeshift coupler/5mph only crap.

A perfect example is I remember a story of a 375 that failed at Blackfriars and a 465 was used to rescue it. After building the Dellner/Tightlock adaptor, control said take it to Ramsgate, driver replies: sure... All the way from London to Ramsgate at 5mph is going to be fun!

 

[cj_1985]

That's not the point.

Standardisation is required, it doesn't matter if one version of the TMS won't talk to the other - the trains don't need to talk when being rescued. What is required is a standard coupling to enable rescues/push-outs in a fast and efficient manner.

If a train fails and the next following train has a different coupling, you have to go through the pain-in-the-arse procedure of building an emergency coupler, followed by having to push/pull the failed train at 5mph to the nearest location of refuge. I've watched an adaptor coupler be built for a Sharfenberg (360) and Tightlock (321) and it took almost 20 minutes to construct and enable it!

In an ideal word, if a train has failed, the next train should have the ability to merely bump up and couple with interoperability, having the TMS isolated between the two trains, and haul it away to the nearest place of refuge. There should be none of this build a makeshift coupler/5mph only crap.

A perfect example is I remember a story of a 375 that failed at Blackfriars and a 465 was used to rescue it. After building the Dellner/Tightlock adaptor, control said take it to Ramsgate, driver replies: sure... All the way from London to Ramsgate at 5mph is going to be fun!

while you make some valid points... going for a "standard" mechanical coupler design on all trains is an expensive idea, and thats before thinking about the bigger picture ... even if every DMU and EMU in use today was able to be fitted with a standard design of coupler, and was magically modified over night... what are you going to do about locos, LHCS, freight wagons, OTP and MPVs, and HSTs (im listing HSTs seperately due to the argument ie Loco or unit, plus the lack of standard coupler)...

you couldn't totally remove the issue of if one train can move another without needing an adaptor/emergency coupler.

Ok, its a great idea if you wipe the board totally clean and strat from scratch... but you can't... and as should be very obvious, this isnt the fault of Post Privitisation operators... BR started the ball rolling with regards to different couplers and different, non standard "Multi" systems

 

[The_Stig]

In an ideal word, if a train has failed, the next train should have the ability to merely bump up and couple with interoperability, having the TMS isolated between the two trains, and haul it away to the nearest place of refuge. There should be none of this build a makeshift coupler/5mph only crap.

In an ideal world there would be no failed units.......

 

[RobShipway]

In an ideal world there would be no failed units.......

But also, in an ideal world Train Operating Companies that have many different fleets should not hav eto rely on there being a thunderbird loco that call a train out the way. But should be able to haul the train out of the way by the next train coupling up to it with compatible coupling, but not neccessarily the same coupling.

 

[HSTEd]

while you make some valid points... going for a "standard" mechanical coupler design on all trains is an expensive idea, and thats before thinking about the bigger picture ... even if every DMU and EMU in use today was able to be fitted with a standard design of coupler, and was magically modified over night... what are you going to do about locos, LHCS, freight wagons, OTP and MPVs, and HSTs (im listing HSTs seperately due to the argument ie Loco or unit, plus the lack of standard coupler)...

you couldn't totally remove the issue of if one train can move another without needing an adaptor/emergency coupler.

Ok, its a great idea if you wipe the board totally clean and strat from scratch... but you can't... and as should be very obvious, this isnt the fault of Post Privitisation operators... BR started the ball rolling with regards to different couplers and different, non standard "Multi" systems

The problem is not that there are multiple systems in service as such.

But that multiple systems continue to be ordered.
One should be pursued for all new freight and passenger stock.

 

[jopsuk]

The problem is not that there are multiple systems in service as such.

But that multiple systems continue to be ordered.
One should be pursued for all new freight and passenger stock.

This. Retrofitting a standard is not so practical, and would be hideously expensive. Having a standard for all new orders on the other hand has few downsides.

 

[O L Leigh]

In an ideal world there would be no failed units.......

But in the REAL world it is rare that units need to be rescued in this way. This is the main thrust of a lot of what I said above.

But then, what is the standard? The standard in the 1960s was screw link or buckeye couplers with air and electrical jumpers. In the 1980s and early 1990s the standard became BSIs for DMUs and Tightlocks for EMUs. Another 20 years has gone by and now we have a new standard. This problem is not new and nor is it a product of privatisation. Just as new trains now have to carry coupler adapters, so did the new trains of the 1980s.

O L Leigh

 

[WillPS]

But in the REAL world it is rare that units need to be rescued in this way. This is the main thrust of a lot of what I said above.

But then, what is the standard? The standard in the 1960s was screw link or buckeye couplers with air and electrical jumpers. In the 1980s and early 1990s the standard became BSIs for DMUs and Tightlocks for EMUs. Another 20 years has gone by and now we have a new standard. This problem is not new and nor is it a product of privatisation. Just as new trains now have to carry coupler adapters, so did the new trains of the 1980s.

O L Leigh

Do we? So what is the standard for modern trains then? Because the last type of DMUs to arrive on the network have a BSI coupler, but the type before that have Dellner...