Hst Damage Pic Any ideas

[xfileswilly]

I cant believe that only one person was injured and no one killed with that sort of damage, still most of the damage is to areas made of fibreglass.

 

[Turbostar]

Ok, finally found my book. Entry as follows:

11 November 1995 - Paddington - Collision with Class 165, which had run signal - Nos 43018/138

 

[theblackwatch]

I gave this answer several days ago but it seems most people are/were in denial and gibbered on about other (non)possibilities. Next time I won't bother and will leave them to it.

 

[Techniquest]

I agreed with you! I just got bored with people getting confused over what went to the scrappies!

 

[Turbostar]

I gave this answer several days ago but it seems most people are/were in denial and gibbered on about other (non)possibilities. Next time I won't bother and will leave them to it.

I wasn't disagreeing with you in any way etc., merely informing what I've found out seeing that I've found my HST book, & backing your report up, that's all. :roll:

 

[theblackwatch]

I wasn't disagreeing with you in any way etc., merely informing what I've found out seeing that I've found my HST book, & backing your report up, that's all. :roll:

My comment wasn't aimed at you (it just happened to follow your post, that's why I didn't quote you) - it was aimed at all the other posters! I was getting rather hacked off at people coming up with details of every HST which had had a crash, when the answer, based on the OP's date and power car ID, was blatantly obvious.

 

[Turbostar]

No worries, understood.

 

[Guard]

almost allmodern units have some sort of buffer system underneath the smooth fronts. just in case collisions happen

 

[Turbostar]

almost allmodern units have some sort of buffer system underneath the smooth fronts. just in case collisions happen

HST's are not modern as such, nor is it a unit. :roll:

 

[BlythPower]

They're not that modern any more but they are units (Cl. 253 and 254 DEMUs).
Prepare for several pages on why they are/aren't units...

 

[Turbostar]

They're not that modern any more but they are units (Cl. 253 and 254 DEMUs).
Prepare for several pages on why they are/aren't units...

British Rail considered the HST, a fixed formation train with a locomotive at each end, as a multiple unit on introduction, and numbered them as such: 253 xxx (Western Region) and 254 xxx (Eastern and Scottish Regions). However, because two power cars carried the same 'set number', problems arose when for servicing reasons different units were used on a train, which would then display a different number at each end. For this reason, British Rail abolished the initial numbering system and all individual power cars became identified as such, using the format 43 xxx - this number was previously carried in small digits in the bodysides, prefixed by a 'W' or 'E' to identify the region, thus the power cars were reclassified as Class 43 diesel locomotives.

Thus, they are not classed as units, they are individual locomotives at each end of a fixed formation of coaches.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Ah the weekly "HST are/n't units" thread... I've changed my mind recently, I've decided they are.

To theblackwatch, I see your point but nevertheless the thread did develop into a wider discussion about HST crashes, not just the one concerned in the original photo.

 

[Lampshade]

The only time a HST can be considered a Class 253/254 DEMU is when it's formed with its original power cars e.g. 43001 and 43002 form 253001. Other than that, an 'InterCity 125' is loco-hauled stock, the end

EDIT: It could also be said that Grand Central have a '255', that is a 2+5 HST whenever 43067 and 43068 form the same diagram

 

[Royston Vasey]

The only time a HST can be considered a Class 253/254 DEMU is when it's formed with its original power cars e.g. 43001 and 43002 form 253001. Other than that, an 'InterCity 125' is loco-hauled stock, the end

So reformed Sprinters for example aren't units because they may have had replacement coaches, or been marshalled to 3 coach instead of 2 coach? Argument doesn't wash old boy!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

EDIT: It could also be said that Grand Central have a '255', that is a 2+5 HST whenever 43067 and 43068 form the same diagram

43002/3 was an exception to the rule, most of them weren't numbered sequentially, that doesn't really have anything to do with whether they're units or not!


Anyway this thread gets locked in 5, 4, 3, 2...

 

[90019]

Right, I can't be bothered with a long post, so I'll just list.

HSTs are units, always have been, always will be, and this is why;

• The powercars cannot work in multiple with any other train without prior modification (ie. when they were used as stand in DVTs)
• They are semi-fixed formation DEMUs, classes 253/254, the reason for not using this is because they're semi-fixed, and the sets do not stay the same, so if they did use these, the numbers would be different at each end of the train. Would the DMS of a sprinter become a class 57 if they were semi-fixed, the sets changed around and the 156XXX codes on the front were no longer used?
• The powercars do contain passenger space, but in the form of luggage space. If you don't think this is the case, why is the 419 an EMU and not a loco?
• The Mk3s within the HSTs are Trailers, ie. TS being Trailer Standard, as opposed to LHCS mk3s which are TSOs or Tourist Standard Open.
• The TOPS codes on the side are coaching stock TOPS codes (like the 52XXX and 57XXX on the sides of a 156), and the whole DEMU is within the 4XXXX range of codes; the TFs are 41XXX, the TSs are 42XXX and the DMBs are 43XXX, etc. and I don't see you calling the TFs class 41s.

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

Right, I can't be bothered with a long post, so I'll just list.

HSTs are units, always have been, always will be, and this is why;

• The powercars cannot work in multiple with any other train without prior modification (ie. when they were used as stand in DVTs)
• They are semi-fixed formation DEMUs, classes 253/254, the reason for not using this is because they're semi-fixed, and the sets do not stay the same, so if they did use these, the numbers would be different at each end of the train. Would the DMS of a sprinter become a class 57 if they were semi-fixed, the sets changed around and the 156XXX codes on the front were no longer used?
• The powercars do contain passenger space, but in the form of luggage space. If you don't think this is the case, why is the 419 an EMU and not a loco?
• The Mk3s within the HSTs are Trailers, ie. TS being Trailer Standard, as opposed to LHCS mk3s which are TSOs or Tourist Standard Open.
• The TOPS codes on the side are coaching stock TOPS codes (like the 52XXX and 57XXX on the sides of a 156), and the whole DEMU is within the 4XXXX range of codes; the TFs are 41XXX, the TSs are 42XXX and the DMBs are 43XXX, etc. and I don't see you calling the TFs class 41s.

Decided not to get involved in this one, again..... So not debate(Arguement really! ) from me. However, I will say I disagree with what you have said....


2+5 HSTs make a 255? Noor, I don't think so.

 

[Old Timer]

90019 is parially correct.
Turbostar is partially correct.
91107 is not correct

HSTs are classed as DEMUs, although the power cars themselves are numbered as locomotives because they do not carry passengers and are capable of moving under their own power.

The HST power cars cannot work with any other form of traction, neither can the passenger vehicles as they are wired differently. They also have additional brake pipes.

As far as Operating rules are concerned, one or two power cars marshalled together are treated as a locomotive.

The carriages are treated and numbered in the same manner as loco hauled coaching stock.

The difference between 253 and 254 was minor modifications and the fact that the 254 sets had additional vehicles.

They do not require the original vehicles in order to be classified as 253/254. The maintenance depot has details of the number of each vehicle in the formation, together with its miles run history, and maintenance history/requirements.

The reason HSTs had the guards compartment and luggage space in each end was partially due to the fact that until recently under HMRI Regulations, passengers could not be conveyed in the leading vehicle when a train was running above 100 mph. The other reason was that in those days a brake van was supposed to be formed as the last vehicle of a passenger train as a general rule, because the Guard was supposed to give the right away from the rear of the train.

Authority was given for certain services to run with a BSO/BFK either at one end or in the case of a BSO, generally marshalled towards the centre of the train. An example of this were the Blackpool North/Carlisle services out of Euston, which only ran with one brakevan.

 

[Lampshade]

Decided not to get involved in this one, again..... So not debate(Arguement really! ) from me. However, I will say I disagree with what you have said....


2+5 HSTs make a 255? Noor, I don't think so.

A 255 might have been a 'Virgin Challenger', but it's still a 2+5 HST: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_255

 

[MCR247]

But class 255s never existed, as VT didnt go ahead with it

 

[Lampshade]

Ahh, I stand corrected, I just assumed that a 2+5 would be a 255 as that's what it was intended/registered to be

 

[Old Timer]

British Rail considered the HST, a fixed formation train with a locomotive at each end, as a multiple unit on introduction, and numbered them as such: 253 xxx (Western Region) and 254 xxx (Eastern and Scottish Regions). However, because two power cars carried the same 'set number', problems arose when for servicing reasons different units were used on a train, which would then display a different number at each end. For this reason, British Rail abolished the initial numbering system and all individual power cars became identified as such, using the format 43 xxx - this number was previously carried in small digits in the bodysides, prefixed by a 'W' or 'E' to identify the region, thus the power cars were reclassified as Class 43 diesel locomotives.

Thus, they are not classed as units, they are individual locomotives at each end of a fixed formation of coaches.

Your answer comes from Wickipedia which in this case is wrong.

The whole concept was that the trains remained in fixed formations throughout their life, except when it was necessary to refurb either the power cars, or the vehicles, when in theory the whole set was taken out of traffic. To this end there never was a problem with the set nose end-numbering of the power cars, as in the unusual event that a power car had to be removed, the maintenance replacement was used. This vehicle did not have an end number.

With experience, it became recognised that BREL could not guarantee returning the whole train set from works (Carriages from Derby, and Power cars from Crewe I think) and this, together with the fact that again experience showed that the mix-matching of vehicles had resulted in a variety of different servicing periods, there became no point in identifying individual set numbers anymore and thus the practice was done away with.

 

[O L Leigh]

I have previously come down on the MU side of the fence with regard to HST's for many of the reasons outlined above.

However, the one that hasn't yet been mentioned is that the HST powercars were not numbered as locos but as coaches. Had they been allocated a TOPS loco class number it would not have been Cl43 as that number had already been issued (even if the diesel-hydraulic "Warships" that had been allocated the Cl43 classification had all since been withdrawn). It's only because the HST Driving Motor Brakes had been numbered into the 43XXX series that they picked up the Cl43 classification later when it became expedient to easily identify individual powercars.

O L Leigh

 

[schmoo_smith]

it is labrooke grove, the wikipedia article names the power cars, 43018+43011, but then again wiki could be wrong

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

it is labrooke grove, the wikipedia article names the power cars, 43018+43011, but then again wiki could be wrong

:roll: - It has already been answered with other people backing up what has been said

The Blackwatch:
It was involved in an accident at Royal Oak on November 10th 1995 when it was in collision with 165 unit.

 

[starrymarkb]

it is labrooke grove, the wikipedia article names the power cars, 43018+43011, but then again wiki could be wrong

By the time of Ladbroke Grove the fleet was in GW livery...

 

[xfileswilly]

Thanks again for your info and enjoy your Loco / multiple unit debate

 

[37401]

A HST is T+T class 43 locos with 8 Mk3`s

so when you see cl37+load 12mk1`s+cl37 its a unit is it?

the class 43 is a loco and the HST is formed of 2 locos with 8 Mk3`s

the HST is not a loco its a set, the class 43 is a loco

for the 100000 time

Locos: Class 01-99
Units: Class 100+

[*]The powercars cannot work in multiple with any other train without prior modification (ie. when they were used as stand in DVTs)

Nor can a class 60 but its still a loco.

a unit has the same number at the frount as it does the rear apart from when they are connected together whos ever seen (e.g) 222002 on the frount and 222005 on the rear.

ive seen 43`s working LE but units cant do that

 

[starrymarkb]

Um, Class 153s are light - unless attached to anything

What about the Sprinter Hybrids?

Also wern't the old DMUs only given vehicle numbers? With no set numbering as formations within sets changed regularly (until the 1990s when they became fixed formation). Much like the HST sets

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

I know I said I wouldn't get involved but my view of the argument hasn't come up!

Has anyone thought that a HST is neither? In train planning, there is: Units, Locos and HSTs.

In my view HSTs are HSTs and not Locos or Units.

I'm not fussed whether people share my views or not, but they're mine.

 

[Lampshade]

Has anyone thought that a HST is neither? In train planning, there is: Units, Locos and HSTs.

In my view HSTs are HSTs and not Locos or Units.

I'm not fussed whether people share my views or not, but they're mine.

That's a good point, for example what are the Hitachi Super Express trains going to be classfied as?

On variant has a diesel power car but has traction motors in half the coaches. Another variant has electric generators in the end coaches but traction motors in half the other coaches, which obviously makes it an EMU. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the meeting at which they classify them.