Multiple Working, progression or regresion

[delt1c]

Here we are in the high tec all singing , all dancing age of technology.
Why is it that all EMU'S from 302 to 312 could work in multiple ( many may never have, but were designed).
DMU's had several coupling codes but the main was blue star so DMU's from Inverness to Plymouth were on the whole able to work in multiple.
Here we are in this privatised era and so few unbits are capable of multiple working.
What gear has privatisation used "Top or Reverse"

 

[D365]

Many TOCs are moving towards larger standard electric fleets, however.

 

[delt1c]

Many TOCs are moving towards larger standard electric fleets, however.

There lies the problem, locolised or TOC standardised operation, no nthought of future use. But what of problems where manufactures alter software on new build making it unsuitable with older build.
Strange how under BR all 101's were compatible with 123's

 

[D365]

Aside from on Thameslink, how many cascades of post-privatisation EMUs have actually taken place?

 

[delt1c]

Aside from on Thameslink, how many cascades of post-privatisation EMUs have actually taken place?

The question here is not what has taken place , but the potential to move. Under BR 303's moved to Manchester ( and departmental to Clacton).
307's moved to Yorkshire , 305's moved to Scotland.
321's have moved to Scot Rail.
Surely construction should take into account future use.
After all 117's ended up in Scotland. 123's on Trans Penine. 122's and 121's moved all over
Privatisation has put stock in reverse where we could see scrapping of usable stock as uncompatible. This is not enviromently friendly

 

[Roast Veg]

If the DfT were to mandate a multiple working system it would significantly drive up the price of rolling stock, without offering any benefit in day to day running. The current attitude of catering to mechanical compatibility for emergency situations is a healthy compromise.

 

[delt1c]

If the DfT were to mandate a multiple working system it would significantly drive up the price of rolling stock, without offering any benefit in day to day running. The current attitude of catering to mechanical compatibility for emergency situations is a healthy compromise.

Short term gain , long term pain

 

[Bald Rick]

Here we are in the high tec all singing , all dancing age of technology.
Why is it that all EMU'S from 302 to 312 could work in multiple ( many may never have, but were designed).
DMU's had several coupling codes but the main was blue star so DMU's from Inverness to Plymouth were on the whole able to work in multiple.
Here we are in this privatised era and so few unbits are capable of multiple working.
What gear has privatisation used "Top or Reverse"

I may well be wrong, but the 302-312 range were rather unencumbered with computers.

As an aside, could the Class 312, the last of which was built in 1978 for the London end of the ECML, couple to the Class 313, the last of which was built in 1977 for the London end of the ECML?

 

[D365]

The only post-privatisation EMUs that are at all likely to be scrapped would have to be the Class 458s, if they do not find a new home.

And I don't see how intentionally hobbling a new design of EMU, or adding to the development costs based on what might happen 30 years into the future, can be at all beneficial.

 

[Crossover]

As I understand it, multi isn't possible within a class - I'm sure I have heard some of the subclasses of 377's aren't compatible with others

 

[D365]

As I understand it, multi isn't possible within a class - I'm sure I have heard some of the subclasses of 377's aren't compatible with others

The Class 377/6-7 fleets are based more on the Class 379.

 

[43096]

The Class 377/6-7 fleets are based more on the Class 379.

But can multi with the other 377 sub-classes AFAIAA.

 

[jopsuk]

Where units have been specified to work in multiple they work together.
1st gen DMUs had five different multiple working standards (hydraulic, mechanical, derby lightweight x2, class 126).

I'd be almost certain that it would be possible to (with a heck of a lot of cost) get the 375, 377 and 387 fleets to all play nice together, and even have the DV ones be able to work with the 379s.

It just isn't worth it.

 

[High Dyke]

I may well be wrong, but the 302-312 range were rather unencumbered with computers.

As an aside, could the Class 312, the last of which was built in 1978 for the London end of the ECML, couple to the Class 313, the last of which was built in 1977 for the London end of the ECML?

Class 312 were fitted built with buckeye couplers, but the 313 units were the first units in Britain to have multi-function Tightlock couplers.

 

[edwin_m]

Partly a liability issue - if train A and train B don't work in multiple when specified, there will be a dispute between supplier A and B about who is to blame. IIRC some of this happened with the Networker classes, the most recent example of units from different manufacturers working in multiple.

A common multiple working specification might also impede technical progress, as any new features could only be added if specification was extended in a "backwards compatible" way.

The AAR has specified a multiple working system fitted to practically every loco in North America as well as US-inspired designs in the UK. However it's a much simpler task than for a multiple unit where there are also many passenger-related functions to be transmitted.

 

[tbtc]

Aside from on Thameslink, how many cascades of post-privatisation EMUs have actually taken place?

The question here is not what has taken place , but the potential to move. Under BR 303's moved to Manchester ( and departmental to Clacton).
307's moved to Yorkshire , 305's moved to Scotland.
321's have moved to Scot Rail

Ideally things would be compatible. For example, it's a shame that the Bombardier built 220/221s can't work with the Bombardier built 222s. It would make stock cascades easier if some of the awkward classes (e.g. 175s, 180s) could add capacity in other fleets without so much fuss.

But in the examples above, how much multiple operation would there have been? Other than the three coach 323s on the Cross City line, there's not been a lot of multiple EMU operation in England (it happens around Glasgow, but the 321s that went north of the border did so because they are compatible with the 320s already in Scotland).

I'd like everything to be built with common standards - I grew up in the 1980s watching any BR loco doing a double header with any other BR loco (or so it seemed!) - but given the complexities of modern stock, the different computer standards and systems of something built a few years earlier/later... it'd probably be impractical.

 

[jopsuk]

But in the examples above, how much multiple operation would there have been? Other than the three coach 323s on the Cross City line, there's not been a lot of multiple EMU operation in England (it happens around Glasgow, but the 321s that went north of the border did so because they are compatible with the 320s already in Scotland).

Presumably here you're ignoring the ex-NSE area

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Presumably here you're ignoring the ex-NSE area

iirc any 14x unit can work with any 15x unit as well

 

[tbtc]

Presumably here you're ignoring the ex-NSE area

Sorry, I meant to say "outside London" - my apologies!

Plenty of eight/ twelve coach operation there - the point I meant to make was that the potential failure of EMUs in Manchester/ Leeds etc to work in multiple wasn't a huge problem since we've not had a lot of need for multiple EMUs in the area (thought that'll change with the six coach 331s)

It's a bigger problem in the world of DMUs, since there are times when it would be useful to work some in multiple (e.g. I'm sure XC would have bid for the ex-Hull Trains 222s as a welcome capacity increase if they were "plug and play" - but they don't work alongside the relatively similar Bombardier 220.221s that XC run)

 

[GW43125]

This is where we've gone backwards. If you look at, say, the 313s, they were built in 1977 and have their connections on the auto-coupler, killing any chance of interworking. However, take a look at the 442s, built in 1987 with the brake pipes and multi jumper on the outside so as to allow connections with any air braked stock. They could run in multi with just about any SR EMU and even if they couldn't run in multi they could still quite happily maintain a through brake. That was foresight.

Meanwhile with a buckeye/tightlock/dellner mix everywhere, I was in a situation where a pair of 456s failed, the option of pushing out had to be discounted for the simple matter that a 458 can't assist a 456.

I personally think it's gone backwards but as ever, this is a discussion forum so feel free to disagree.

 

[D365]

In terms of couplings, EMUs have pretty much standardised on the Dellner type. The only difference is the electric connections.

What did the 313s need to be compatible with though?

 

[dubscottie]

313s could multi with 313-323.

I have said for ages here that there should be a modern version of the RCH.

Standard couplers, standard heights (look at the first time a 57 tried to couple to a 377), standard multiple working, gangways etc.

 

[NSEFAN]

Didn't the ORR recently suggest standardising couplings to aid service recovery when trains break down? Good to see a government department realising something that the Southern railway realised decades ago. :roll:

 

[jopsuk]

442s needing to have the brake pipes and electrics connected manually was a weird throwback of a decision- having the full auto coupler means you don't need a shunter to couple

 

[GW43125]

442s needing to have the brake pipes and electrics connected manually was a weird throwback of a decision- having the full auto coupler means you don't need a shunter to couple

It does, but it also severely restricts what you can connect to.

 

[D365]

Didn't the ORR recently suggest standardising couplings to aid service recovery when trains break down? Good to see a government department realising something that the Southern railway realised decades ago. :roll:

As I said, that's the Dellner.

It does, but it also severely restricts what you can connect to.

So we shouldn't have introduced autocouplers for the sake of not being backwards compatible? :roll:

 

[GW43125]

As I said, that's the Dellner.




So we shouldn't have introduced autocouplers for the sake of not being backwards compatible? :roll:

Well yes as having things running around that can't work with each other really snarls the game up when one of them sits down.

 

[12CSVT]

The situation with second generation DMUs seems somewhat bizarre.

Class 150, 153, 155, 156, 158 and 159 can all work in multiple with each other, and also with class 142, 143, 144, 170 and 172. However class 142, 143 and 144 can't work in multiple with class 170 or 172.

In addition, class 170 and 172 (but not 150 to 159) can work in multiple with class 165 and 166.
Class 165 and 166 (but not 170 and 172) can work in multiple with class 168.

 

[bramling]

Aside from on Thameslink, how many cascades of post-privatisation EMUs have actually taken place?

16x 365 from South Eastern Trains to WAGN - although it's a matter for debate whether the 365 counts as post-privatisation.

The 350/1s were originally planned to be 450s if I remember correctly, although again this is tenuous.

 

[D365]

Well yes as having things running around that can't work with each other really snarls the game up when one of them sits down.

The 313s were unreliable at first but for the bulk of their working lives the PEPs have been solid. They ended up in larger fleets anyway and were compatible with most of the following BR EMUs.

16x 365 from South Eastern Trains to WAGN - although it's a matter for debate whether the 365 counts as post-privatisation.

The 350/1s were originally planned to be 450s if I remember correctly, although again this is tenuous.

The 16 365s were a smaller fleet that went to join the remaining 24 at Great Northern, so no issue with compatibility there. And the 30 350/1s were a whole new design so I doubt they could have been made compatible with the 321s.