Debate about HST classification

[Bletchleyite]

Moderator note: split from GWR to operate short HST sets

Are GWR short sets actually being classified as Class 255 DEMUs rather than as 43+stock?

 

[irish_rail]

Are they actually being classified as Class 255 DEMUs rather than as 43+stock?

On our diagrams they are quoted as 255 whereas normal HST are quoted as 253.
Regarding crew training this must be conductors who still require training up as all HST drivers can drive a 2 + 4 HST provided it is still slam door fitted. Additional training will only be needed for the new type doors. I suspect the delay is more to do with lack of spare stock to fOrm up a set?

 

[xotGD]

Are they actually being classified as Class 255 DEMUs rather than as 43+stock?

They're not bringing Warships back! Of course they are DMUs.

 

[43096]

They're not bringing Warships back! Of course they are DMUs.

Don't recall any Warships carrying 43xxx numbers...

Show me two HST sets coupled in multiple and I might concede you have a point about DMUs.

Of course it might just be easier to call them what they are - HSTs. Maybe it's just trainspotters who can't cope with anything different.

 

[RPI]

I believe the original North British Warships were destined to be class 43 under TOPS but I'm happy to be corrected? There seems to be an unconfirmed rumour going around the depots at the moment that the 2+4's may initially be slam door and thus worked by HSS crews.

 

[Marklund]

Show me two HST sets coupled in multiple and I might concede you have a point about DMUs.

Sets don't work in multiple, but the DMB/DMs do.

Show me the diagrammed services for one DMB/DM with stock and I'll concede your point...

 

[irish_rail]

I believe the original North British Warships were destined to be class 43 under TOPS but I'm happy to be corrected? There seems to be an unconfirmed rumour going around the depots at the moment that the 2+4's may initially be slam door and thus worked by HSS crews.

Yes correct I am HSS don't think west where ever likely to get their hands on them at least not before some form of restructuring deal

 

[Goldfish62]

Sets don't work in multiple, but the DMB/DMs do.

Show me the diagrammed services for one DMB/DM with stock and I'll concede your point...

Interestingly, the HSTs were initially classified as DEMUs by BR.

 

[43096]

Sets don't work in multiple, but the DMB/DMs do.

Show me the diagrammed services for one DMB/DM with stock and I'll concede your point...

You either just don’t get it or are deliberately missing the point.

I’m talking about the complete set not the individual vehicles.

For the record, HSTs have operated in service with one power car and a set of trailers.

 

[Marklund]

I’m talking about the complete set not the individual vehicles.

You mean the complete set of vehicles that aren't interchangeable with other rolling stock?

For the record, HSTs have operated in service with one power car and a set of trailers.

Regularly diagrammed, or one off emergencies?

 

[Master29]

Wasn`t 255 originally going to be used for the Virgin Challenger units and I believe may have been considered much earlier than this for use?

 

[Rail Blues]

Of course they aren't multiple units.

No passengers are carried in the power cars and the passenger cars are all unpowered. It is LHCS stock operated by two locomotives.

 

[GusB]

Of course they aren't multiple units.

No passengers are carried in the power cars and the passenger cars are all unpowered. It is LHCS stock operated by two locomotives.

If they weren't considered to be multiple units, why would BR originally have classified them that way? The APT was designated Class 370, and all the passenger cars were unpowered.

I really don't see why a unit has to be able to couple up to, and work in multiple with another unit before it can be classed as a multiple unit - surely the whole point is that it's a single train composed of multiple, (semi) permanently coupled "units", as opposed to the traditional method of making up a train with a locomotive and individual carriages.

Referring to my Platform 5 "Motive Power Pocket Book" from 1990:

Formerly numbered as coaching stock, but now classified as locomotives. Includes luggage compartment. Built to coaching stock lot numbers as shown.

The HST power cars may well be numbered as locomotives these days, but they're hardly traditional locomotives in the sense that they really only have one purpose; to be at each end of a train composed of carriages which aren't compatible with "true" locomotive-hauled stock.

 

[Rail Blues]

If they weren't considered to be multiple units, why would BR originally have classified them that way? The APT was designated Class 370, and all the passenger cars were unpowered.

I really don't see why a unit has to be able to couple up to, and work in multiple with another unit before it can be classed as a multiple unit - surely the whole point is that it's a single train composed of multiple, (semi) permanently coupled "units", as opposed to the traditional method of making up a train with a locomotive and individual carriages.

Referring to my Platform 5 "Motive Power Pocket Book" from 1990:


The HST power cars may well be numbered as locomotives these days, but they're hardly traditional locomotives in the sense that they really only have one purpose; to be at each end of a train composed of carriages which aren't compatible with "true" locomotive-hauled stock.

Equally I could argue why did they subsequently redesignate them as class 43s and mk 3 coaches for the duration of their working lives? Because they are unpowered mk3s sandwiched by two locos.

And quoting an opinion from a nigh on 30 year old guidebook proves what exactly? It doesn't even fully endorse your argument.

The ATP is a different case, as passengers travelled in the leading vehicles and there was no locomotive to speak of. Demonstrably different to the class 43s

 

[GusB]

I was merely saying that's how HSTs were originally classified. 253 for the 7-car Western region units and 254 for the 8-car Eastern region units.

The ATP is a different case, as passengers travelled in the leading vehicles and there was no locomotive to speak of. Demonstrably different to the class 43s

There were locomotives to speak of. It's just that they were located in the centre of the train and didn't have driving cabs. They took power from the wires, transmitted it to the rails and didn't carry passengers!

 

[Rail Blues]

There were locomotives to speak of. It's just that they were located in the centre of the train and didn't have driving cabs. They took power from the wires, transmitted it to the rails and didn't carry passengers!

The ATP is a funny one granted.. but to my mind a locomotive should a) contain no passengers b) provide the motive power to propel the train and c) contain a driving cab.

ATP meets a and b, but not c
A driving trailer meets a and c and not be.
A class 43 meets all three criteria

 

[capital12]

And they’ve used the power cars to haul the sleeper a few times haven’t they, that definitely makes them locomotives in my book!

Don’t think there’s much chance of coupling up a couple of 15x and bunging then on the front is there?!

 

[Mag_seven]

I just think the HST's are unique - they are not multiple units nor are they loco and coaches either - they are just HST's!

 

[507 001]

ATP is a safety system..... APT was a train.

 

[43096]

The HST power cars may well be numbered as locomotives these days, but they're hardly traditional locomotives in the sense that they really only have one purpose; to be at each end of a train composed of carriages which aren't compatible with "true" locomotive-hauled stock.

A Class 60 only really has one purpose. So does a Class 91.

So are the CAF sleepers not true loco-hauled stock, then, as they aren’t compatible with other LHCS? You can at least couple HST stock to any air-brake, buckeye fitted stock.

 

[daikilo]

The fact is that all the power cars were given TOPS references in the locomotive section (41 for the prototypes and 43 for the 'production' versions). The fact that when assembled with a rake of coaches the complete set got a second number does not remove their status as locomotives as far as I understand.

Further, all the combinations of locomotive+coaches+DVT have the locomotive classified as such. It is true that the resulting sets are nowhere near as 'permanent' as are the 253s or 254s, either in coaching stock or locomotive.

 

[xotGD]

So why are all the tram fans so obsessed with calling the power cars locomotives, when they are not?

If your favourite type of train is a DMU, so be it.

 

[Rail Blues]

So why are all the tram fans so obsessed with calling the power cars locomotives, when they are not?

If your favourite type of train is a DMU, so be it.

A few points:

1) it isn't my favourite loco
2) I have no idea what tramspotters call power cars as I'm not a tram fan and the class 43 isn't a tram so the point is utterly irrelevant.
3) I suspect you are either a contrarian or a wind up merchant.

 

[43096]

A few points:

1) it isn't my favourite loco
2) I have no idea what tramspotters call power cars as I'm not a tram fan and the class 43 isn't a tram so the point is utterly irrelevant.
3) I suspect you are either a contrarian or a wind up merchant.

I (and everyone else I know) always call them power cars. What do ICE 1/2 fans call the Class 401 and 402 vehicles?

As for point 3, agreed.

PS I'm only posting on this thread because there are so many who get their knickers in a complete twist about it. I really couldn't give a stuff what they think. Just fun watching them foaming about it!

 

[DarloRich]

So why are all the tram fans so obsessed with calling the power cars locomotives, when they are not?.

OK I will bite - why are they not locomotives?

PS don't trams run on rails in the city centre?

 

[xotGD]

OK I will bite - why are they not locomotives?

PS don't trams run on rails in the city centre?

Just to be repetitive, they are not locomotives because they are part of fixed formation Class 253 and 254 DMUs and are numbered as coaching stock. They even contain a guard's compartment and luggage/cycle store.

As for referring them to trams, that is little different to calling Darlington Darlo.

Oh, and of course I am winding people up. But some people always seem to bite!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So are the CAF sleepers not true loco-hauled stock, then, as they aren’t compatible with other LHCS? You can at least couple HST stock to any air-brake, buckeye fitted stock.

There are similarities with 4-TC units (unpowered Southern "EMUs"), even more so the TPE sets which have a cab on one end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2) I have no idea what tramspotters call power cars as I'm not a tram fan and the class 43 isn't a tram so the point is utterly irrelevant.

"Tram" is an old nickname for them because they have a cab on both ends, that's all.

 

[43096]

There are similarities with 4-TC units (unpowered Southern "EMUs"), even more so the TPE sets which have a cab on one end.

4-TCs had drop-head buckeyes that allowed haulage by any air-brake loco though. To haul the CAF sleepers you need either a modified Class 92 or one of 73966-971. So not exactly compatible with other stock!

 

[James James]

A Class 60 only really has one purpose. So does a Class 91.

So are the CAF sleepers not true loco-hauled stock, then, as they aren’t compatible with other LHCS? You can at least couple HST stock to any air-brake, buckeye fitted stock.

Class 60 and 91 have buffers and draw-hooks and can drag things either way round, quite clearly a general purpose locomotive.

The Class 253/254/255 are a bit more limited in their haulage ability and haulability.

(Shh, I'm sure those DVT HST power cars are just a figment of someone else's imagination.)

Just proposing another way to skin the cat