Debate about HST classification

[BestWestern]

It's a pair of locos with a set of coaches in the middle, move on! It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference what they might have been called 40 years ago, they have been correctly identified as locos and coaches for yonks! They aren't even vaguely fixed formation these days and they don't work in multiple.

It doesn't look like a duck and it doesn't walk like a duck, becuase it isn't a duck - or a DMU!

 

[jopsuk]

They're a loco and coaches that can only work together and that is regarded as such in some regards on paperwork, and on other paperwork is regarded as a DEMU. Both! Neither! Doesn't fit in a neat box.

 

[physics34]

It's a pair of locos with a set of coaches in the middle, move on! It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference what they might have been called 40 years ago, they have been correctly identified as locos and coaches for yonks! They aren't even vaguely fixed formation these days and they don't work in multiple.

It doesn't look like a duck and it doesn't walk like a duck, becuase it isn't a duck - or a DMU!

Are you Judge Judy. She says the duck thing!

 

[Rail Blues]

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

Can I suggest that you need to get a more fulfilling hobby

 

[BestWestern]

Are you Judge Judy. She says the duck thing!

I am Judge, Judy and executioner

 

[dubscottie]

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.

The prototype power cars were technically locos as they had 2 cabs and pulled loco hauled Mk3 coaches.

The production power cars were numbered in a separate series together as parts of a DEMU.

40xxx - the various kitchen/buffet cars
41xxx - TF
42xxx - TS
43xxx - DMB/DM
44xxx - TGS
This sequence has continued with the XC composite conversions being numbered 45xxx.

 

[randyrippley]

so if the HSTs are not DMUs, what were the Blue Pullman sets? Not a lot of difference really, except the power rating

 

[randyrippley]

and don't forget that while the prototype power cars were initially numbered 41001-2 in the locomotive fleet, they were rapidly renumbered 43000-1 in the coaching stock fleet. The 43 in the number doesn't come from a loco class number. If it did the prototypes and production machines would have been allocated different classes (or at least subclasses), with the numbering not carrying on with 43002/3/4 et. seq.

 

[xotGD]

Can I suggest that you need to get a more fulfilling hobby

Believe me, it is very fulfilling when people bite!

 

[43096]

so if the HSTs are not DMUs, what were the Blue Pullman sets? Not a lot of difference really, except the power rating

Other than the seating accommodation in the front and rear vehicles.....

 

[theblackwatch]

Is it a loco? No. Is it a unit? No. Is it an HST? Yes.
But it must be a loco or unit...

Ok then. If everything has to be a loco or unit, which of these two categories does a track machine come under?

 

[BestWestern]

The prototype power cars were technically locos as they had 2 cabs and pulled loco hauled Mk3 coaches.

The production power cars were numbered in a separate series together as parts of a DEMU.

40xxx - the various kitchen/buffet cars
41xxx - TF
42xxx - TS
43xxx - DMB/DM
44xxx - TGS
This sequence has continued with the XC composite conversions being numbered 45xxx.

All power cars are 'technically' locos, hence they have a TOPS classification as a class 43! I challenge anyone to point at a solo class 43, uncoupled from any coaches, and decree that it is not a locomotive but part of a DMU! It really isn't. As for the prototype, I don't understand the relevance of it having 'two cabs'? Plenty of locos that only have the one!

 

[Master29]

I`ve always considered HST`s as an anomaly in terms of DMU/loco classification though now surely more loco as they have the 43 classification. Can understand the other point though.

 

[Johncleesefan]

They are in fact big old dmus that always get priority over me and hold me up

 

[Rail Blues]

All power cars are 'technically' locos, hence they have a TOPS classification as a class 43! I challenge anyone to point at a solo class 43, uncoupled from any coaches, and decree that it is not a locomotive but part of a DMU! It really isn't. As for the prototype, I don't understand the relevance of it having 'two cabs'? Plenty of locos that only have the one!

Agree the two cabs thing is a complete red herring, by that token a class 20 isn't a locomotive.

 

[dubscottie]

All power cars are 'technically' locos, hence they have a TOPS classification as a class 43! I challenge anyone to point at a solo class 43, uncoupled from any coaches, and decree that it is not a locomotive but part of a DMU! It really isn't. As for the prototype, I don't understand the relevance of it having 'two cabs'? Plenty of locos that only have the one!

No. The 43xxx number is in the coaching series as already explained.

As late as 1987, the data panels had class 253/254 DMB/DM not class 43.

On another note, the two prototype cars were renumbered 43000 & 43001 (and why the production cars started at 42002). TOPS can't recognise a loco number ending in 000 which is further proof the 43xxx number is a coach number not a loco number.

 

[Bromley boy]

Ok then. If everything has to be a loco or unit, which of these two categories does a track machine come under?

A railcar?

 

[43096]

No. The 43xxx number is in the coaching series as already explained.

As late as 1987, the data panels had class 253/254 DMB/DM not class 43.

On another note, the two prototype cars were renumbered 43000 & 43001 (and why the production cars started at 42002). TOPS can't recognise a loco number ending in 000 which is further proof the 43xxx number is a coach number not a loco number.

Utter hogwash.

43xxx is just a 5 digit number to the computer. Had the North British Warships survived long enough they would have received 43xxx numbers.

If TOPS can't handle a number ending in 000 then how is 41001 registered as a Class 43/9 as 43000?

One other point if they were DMUs, they'd be on DMU maintenance regimes. But they are not and never have been. Right from the start Derby Loco Works was doing Light, Intermediate and General overhauls and today they get E, F and G exams (not C4, C6 etc).

I'd say they are HSTs, not anything else.

 

[theblackwatch]

Perhaps the myth regarding TOPS being unable to cope with '000' was one started by CJM? Or perhaps, initially, when it was first conceived, it wasn't expected to be able to cope. Certainly, by the 80s, when units and coaches were put onto TOPS, it was able to - my 'evidence' being bubble car 55000!

Keeping the thread on topic, it would seem that BR struggled in trying to shoehorn the HSTs into the 'loco' or 'unit' category, due to the fact the prototype was reclassified from Class 41 locos and stock to a Class 252 DEMU, then the production ones changed from Class 253/254 DEMU to Class 43 in 1987 (I think that was the year). I wonder if there's anything in the National Archives about BR discussions?

 

[D60]

Somewhat reluctant to be adding to a pretty pointless discussion, but hey here we go !

So yep, HSTs originally given class numbers/set numbers in the DEMU sequence.

Individual vehicles (power cars and trailers) numbered in the BR coaching stock series, in their own new sequence of 4xxxx (a sequence previously used by Mk1 suburban stock, all gone by the time production HSTs had arrived.. also shared with APT-P class 370 vehicles incl power cars which also shared the 4xxxx sequence).

The BR coaching stock series comprising by that time, LHCS up to 35xxx, HSTs and APT-P 4xxxx, DMMUs 5xxxx, DEMUs and EMUs 6xxxx and 7xxxx, NPCCS 8xxxx and 9xxxx.

By the early 80s, 2 changes had occurred which blurred the boundaries and distinctions that some here seem to find so reassuring.

1. The practical realities of day to day operational requirements and maintenance schedules had brought about the practical abandonment of fixed set formations and set numbers in the 253/254 sequences... to be replaced by depot-identified carriage set numbers for HST trailer sets, in the manner also adopted for principal LHCS services and carriage sets.

2. The full incorporation in the early 80s of the BR coaching stock series into TOPS, requiring the renumbering of certain sequences to avoid duplication (eg 25xxx to 17xxx, 50xxx to 53xxx, 56xxx to 54xxx, and later, a handful of remaining 60xxx vehicles)... such that 43xxx HST power cars now retrospectively found themselves nominally in the identical sequence as locomotives (as did coaching stock of all kinds, whether LHCS, HST trailers, DMU, EMU, NPCCS, whatever).

So a notional shift had occured to confuse and confound those that like separate neat categories and separate distinct boxes to put things in..

Meanwhile HSTs carried on being exactly what they always were, namely HSTs, comprising power cars and trailers... And being a way more flexible and versatile design of rolling stock than even their designers could possibly have envisaged or foreseen... as they have been re-formed, augmented, reallocated, rebuilt, re-engined, refurbished, re-configured, re-purposed, re-used... successively and continually to meet changing needs... now extending into their 5th decade... and defying the redundant futility of forcing them into some people's unimaginative fixed either/or binary notions of what rolling stock has to be...

When all is said and done, they are what they are, and what they always have been, and much more than what they were ever conceived to be... And that is HSTs, made up of power cars and trailers, ever-evolving to meet their needs...

 

[BestWestern]

No. The 43xxx number is in the coaching series as already explained.

As late as 1987, the data panels had class 253/254 DMB/DM not class 43.

On another note, the two prototype cars were renumbered 43000 & 43001 (and why the production cars started at 42002). TOPS can't recognise a loco number ending in 000 which is further proof the 43xxx number is a coach number not a loco number.

The 43xxx number hasn't implied coaching stock for decades. Once upon a time yes, BR had decided to pretend their new trains were DMUs, I would suggest at least partly because somebody back in the 70s thought it would seem more futuristic than an old fashioned loco and coaches, even though that is clearly what they are. However, class 43 has been long established as a diesel locomotive and quite rightly so! In absolutely no way whatsoever is a class 43 any form of coaching stock, it is and always has been a diesel locomotive, readily removable from the coaches it hauls and interchangeable with every other HST rake and vehicle ever built.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The 43xxx number hasn't implied coaching stock for decades. Once upon a time yes, BR had decided to pretend their new trains were DMUs, I would suggest at least partly because somebody back in the 70s thought it would seem more futuristic than an old fashioned loco and coaches, even though that is clearly what they are. However, class 43 has been long established as a diesel locomotive and quite rightly so! In absolutely no way whatsoever is a class 43 any form of coaching stock, it is and always has been a diesel locomotive, readily removable from the coaches it hauls and interchangeable with every other HST rake and vehicle ever built.

Well, you are mistaken. The HST concept, when it was first introduced was classified as loco and coaches - class 41 diesel and LHCS numbered in the 10xxx, 11xxx and 12xxx series. In 1974 they were all officially reclassified as coaching stock and give numbers in the LHCS 4xxxx series. The APT stock later used 4xxxx series as well.

The reason for the reclassification goes back to the way the fleet was going to be operated and maintained. They were to be maintained at purpose built depots and on the ER they were going to looked after at existing LHCS locations. To maintain Traction at a traction depot you had to be a time served apprentice (Cat 4) but at a coaching stock depot you could be a "dilutee" (made up to a Cat 4 by a trade test) and a lot of the jobs on LHCS could be done by semi-skilled (Cat 3) men. So, with the units now confined to operating in fixed formation sets (the sleeper haulage idea having been dropped) and being maintained at a coaching stock location, it made sense operationally as well as maintenance cost wise to classify them as coaching stock.

As a union rep in the 1970's, I saw at first hand the persistent problems that caused as the staff at the traction depots not only saw their work going to another depot but a coaching stock depot with the work potentially being downgraded in craft. There were disputes and strikes and it was after one, involving the blacking of Deltics for a number of days, that assurances were finally given as to who could work on the power cars and the transfer arrangements for staff at the affected traction depots. Apparently, the WR had suffered similar issues on who could do what on the sets.

The operational requirement to keep the sets "as is" persisted for only a few years and once TOPS for coaching stock had come in, someone decided that keeping the power cars classified as coaching stock was all too ridiculous and they were reclassified as locomotive stock. I actually saw, many moons ago, the letter than came round telling us and thinking how things on the railway tend to go round in circles!

 

[BestWestern]

Well, you are mistaken. The HST concept, when it was first introduced was classified as loco and coaches - class 41 diesel and LHCS numbered in the 10xxx, 11xxx and 12xxx series. In 1974 they were all officially reclassified as coaching stock and give numbers in the LHCS 4xxxx series. The APT stock later used 4xxxx series as well.

The reason for the reclassification goes back to the way the fleet was going to be operated and maintained. They were to be maintained at purpose built depots and on the ER they were going to looked after at existing LHCS locations. To maintain Traction at a traction depot you had to be a time served apprentice (Cat 4) but at a coaching stock depot you could be a "dilutee" (made up to a Cat 4 by a trade test) and a lot of the jobs on LHCS could be done by semi-skilled (Cat 3) men. So, with the units now confined to operating in fixed formation sets (the sleeper haulage idea having been dropped) and being maintained at a coaching stock location, it made sense operationally as well as maintenance cost wise to classify them as coaching stock.

As a union rep in the 1970's, I saw at first hand the persistent problems that caused as the staff at the traction depots not only saw their work going to another depot but a coaching stock depot with the work potentially being downgraded in craft. There were disputes and strikes and it was after one, involving the blacking of Deltics for a number of days, that assurances were finally given as to who could work on the power cars and the transfer arrangements for staff at the affected traction depots. Apparently, the WR had suffered similar issues on who could do what on the sets.

The operational requirement to keep the sets "as is" persisted for only a few years and once TOPS for coaching stock had come in, someone decided that keeping the power cars classified as coaching stock was all too ridiculous and they were reclassified as locomotive stock. I actually saw, many moons ago, the letter than came round telling us and thinking how things on the railway tend to go round in circles!

So then, in brief, it was rather quickly grasped by all concerned that the thing is quite obviously a bloody loco and coaches!

 

[rebmcr]

It's a train. Anything more detailed is nitpicking.

 

[theblackwatch]

Well, you are mistaken. The HST concept, when it was first introduced was classified as loco and coaches - class 41 diesel and LHCS numbered in the 10xxx, 11xxx and 12xxx series. In 1974 they were all officially reclassified as coaching stock and give numbers in the LHCS 4xxxx series. The APT stock later used 4xxxx series as well.

The reason for the reclassification goes back to the way the fleet was going to be operated and maintained. They were to be maintained at purpose built depots and on the ER they were going to looked after at existing LHCS locations. To maintain Traction at a traction depot you had to be a time served apprentice (Cat 4) but at a coaching stock depot you could be a "dilutee" (made up to a Cat 4 by a trade test) and a lot of the jobs on LHCS could be done by semi-skilled (Cat 3) men. So, with the units now confined to operating in fixed formation sets (the sleeper haulage idea having been dropped) and being maintained at a coaching stock location, it made sense operationally as well as maintenance cost wise to classify them as coaching stock.

As a union rep in the 1970's, I saw at first hand the persistent problems that caused as the staff at the traction depots not only saw their work going to another depot but a coaching stock depot with the work potentially being downgraded in craft. There were disputes and strikes and it was after one, involving the blacking of Deltics for a number of days, that assurances were finally given as to who could work on the power cars and the transfer arrangements for staff at the affected traction depots. Apparently, the WR had suffered similar issues on who could do what on the sets.

The operational requirement to keep the sets "as is" persisted for only a few years and once TOPS for coaching stock had come in, someone decided that keeping the power cars classified as coaching stock was all too ridiculous and they were reclassified as locomotive stock. I actually saw, many moons ago, the letter than came round telling us and thinking how things on the railway tend to go round in circles!

Great stuff there - the first time I've actually seen the reasoning behind the decisions explained properly!

 

[mushroomchow]

Thing is, you CAN hook up HSTs to other units for drags and what have you, if necessary, given the right coupling equipment is available. They don't have to operate as a straight-up, 2 power car + Mk 3 set. Case in point:

They're also perfectly capable of operating light-engine, or in multiple without coaches. Hell, in the early 2000s, I recall being on Holiday in Dawlish and regularly seeing the buffer HSTs which were at the time with Virgin operating light engine, coupled back to back in a 4-loco light move every night for a week - presumably something to do with stock and locos being maintained at separate depots, though I've never been able to verify that I wasn't actually seeing things. And there have also been rare examples of them picking up other units, though admittedly I haven't found pictures.

Just because they have a restrictive compatability with stock doesn't mean they're not standalone, powered units which exist for the sole purpose of providing power to a train (and no, the parcel door doesn't count!)

They're locomotives. It's dumb to suggest otherwise.

 

[James James]

VTECs' HST's power units are lettered as coaches:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/coach-lettering-conventions.160898/#post-3344727

Your move

 

[43096]

VTECs' HST's power units are lettered as coaches:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/coach-lettering-conventions.160898/#post-3344727

Your move

Shame you don't understand. The reference to A for bikes is the area in the van space in the TGS, not the power car.

Checkmate.

 

[James James]

Shame you don't understand. The reference to A for bikes is the area in the van space in the TGS, not the power car.

Checkmate.

Shame on me

I do get easily confused by these various UK rail terms anyhow.

 

[No Fault Found]

Thing is, you CAN hook up HSTs to other units for drags and what have you, if necessary, given the right coupling equipment is available.

I'd be interested in seeing this coupling equipment. The standard bars carried in the guards van on HST power cars ( or certainly GWR's) are for either power car to power car or a standard draw hook and they can only be used to rescue a failure.