Non Multiple sign in cab window

[BantamMenace]

This morning the train I boarded had a sign in the forward facing cab window of a black X on a white background. In the top section of the X there was an 'N' and in the lower section an 'M' and below the X it said non multiple in small text.

The sign itself was about A5 in size and the train was 333001.

Does anyone have any more info on this sign as I've not seen one before and the 333s don't operate in multiple ever in active service and probably never will.

 

[ryan125hst]

This morning the train I boarded had a sign in the forward facing cab window of a black X on a white background. In the top section of the X there was an 'N' and in the lower section an 'M' and below the X it said non multiple in small text.

The sign itself was about A5 in size and the train was 333001.

Does anyone have any more info on this sign as I've not seen one before and the 333s don't operate in multiple ever in active service and probably never will.

In terms of the sign, I don't think there's a lot more to know. This page about the 156's has a bit of information about it: http://members.madasafish.com/~dysgraphyk/156/class156_BSI_coupling.htm#non-multi

As for the 333's, do they operate in multiple during ECS moves?

 

[The_Stig]

There is an issue with the auto coupler and the unit must not couple up to another unit at the end with the non-multi sticker applied.

There can be many reasons what the problem is, it is so that an incoming driver does not couple up if his diagram has one on it.

The unit should be okay to couple at the other end.

 

[43074]

As for the 333's, do they operate in multiple during ECS moves?

Yes, there is a pair booked to work the 5P19 Skipton to Bradford; on arrival the units split to form 2P19 05:59 to Leeds and 2S00 06:04 to Skipton.

 

[Boothby97]

I noticed a similar sign (with a yellow background) on one of the CrossCountry 170s at Nuneaton last week

 

[Strathclyder]

I've seen it on almost all of Scotrail's EMUs at one point or another. Some of the ones I've seen have another unit coupled on at the back, which means that the fault is only associated with the car with the Non Multiple sign on the window.

 

[edwin_m]

The leading 158 on my train from Stockport to Nottingham had one on the front this afternoon, obviously not affecting the coupling with the other unit behind it. This is the unit that detaches at Nottingham and generally (not sure about this particular one) gets coupled at the same end onto another 158 from Norwich an hour or so later.

 

[455driver]

The sign is put on the defective end!
It doesnt make any difference to coupling at the other end.
If both ends are defective then each end will have a NM sign applied, any train with defective couplers at both ends should not be in service, not that it stops some slipping through the net.

 

[ryan125hst]

If both ends are defective then each end will have a NM sign applied, any train with defective couplers at both ends should not be in service, not that it stops some slipping through the net.

Why is this an issue if the diagram does not require the unit to be coupled to another? I'm guessing it's in case it fails?

 

[No Fault Found]

Why is this an issue if the diagram does not require the unit to be coupled to another? I'm guessing it's in case it fails?

It shouldn't really be an issue.

I'm guessing the theory is in case it fails but in most cases the fault will be in the coupler electrical head and relating to a train wire. This may affect door interlock, cross feed, brake continuity or just about anything that runs between the couplers. It shouldn't cause a problem should the unit need loco-hauling (or depending on the fault, rescuing with another unit).

 

[O L Leigh]

It makes a LOT of difference. Not having brake continuity means that the failed unit will need it's brakes isolated, meaning a 5mph maximum speed. Problems with door control circuits could potentially mean that a door comes open on the move. A cross-feed could result in almost anything happening. Should I go on...?

Also, there is an assumption that a non-multi sticker means an electrical problem. It could just as easily be a mechanical problem. It could be a stuck pin or piston that prevents the coupler from closing securely.

O L Leigh

 

[LowLevel]

You'll find the Non Multi signs are the same as they are a standard sign - it's a rulebook requirement that a unit with a non multi sign in the window must not be coupled under any circumstances at that end, unless in an emergency, in which technical advice must be sought and authority received from a competent person. I don't believe there are any circumstances that allows anyone other than a carriage and wagon examiner to circumvent the notice once applied.

They are of course a pain in the arse when it comes to road learning when you can't see out of the secondman's window but c'est la vie!

 

[No Fault Found]

It makes a LOT of difference. Not having brake continuity means that the failed unit will need it's brakes isolated, meaning a 5mph maximum speed. Problems with door control circuits could potentially mean that a door comes open on the move. A cross-feed could result in almost anything happening. Should I go on...?

Also, there is an assumption that a non-multi sticker means an electrical problem. It could just as easily be a mechanical problem. It could be a stuck pin or piston that prevents the coupler from closing securely.

O L Leigh

Cross feed is the transfer of power between vehicles. Please do go on with whatever you're talking about.

The assumption that it would be an electrical fault is fairly valid. In 11 years of servicing, repairing and overhauling DMU's, not once have I known a coupler be locked out of use for a mechanical defect (plenty of times electrically though)

I wasn't for one minute saying a set could remain in service with any of those defects, nor could it be rescued ECS with some defects.

I'm saying that rather than cancel a service, a set could easily be sent out with non-multiple both ends. Besides, what do you think happens if a unit fails in a terminal station with a non-multiple vehicle country end? Absolutely no difference to sending a unit out non-multiple both ends.

 

[O L Leigh]

Cross feed is the transfer of power between vehicles. Please do go on with whatever you're talking about.

I'm not aware of any power transfer between vehicles via the autocoupler, but fair enough. When you said cross-feeding I assumed that you meant the feeding of power between different incompatible circuits on each unit, such as might happen with a short-circuit in one of the connector blocks. As I said, in such a circumstance almost anything could happen.

The assumption that it would be an electrical fault is fairly valid. In 11 years of servicing, repairing and overhauling DMU's, not once have I known a coupler be locked out of use for a mechanical defect (plenty of times electrically though)

Again, fair enough. However, that doesn't rule out a mechanical problem. Working with DMUs I'm assuming you've never had any dealings with Tightlock autocouplers. I've known these suffer more mechanical difficulties than electrical ones, and it's just as likely that a mechanical fault would result in a "non-multi" sticker being applied as would an electrical fault.

I wasn't for one minute saying a set could remain in service with any of those defects, nor could it be rescued ECS with some defects.

I'm saying that rather than cancel a service, a set could easily be sent out with non-multiple both ends. Besides, what do you think happens if a unit fails in a terminal station with a non-multiple vehicle country end? Absolutely no difference to sending a unit out non-multiple both ends.

There is a difference. A train failed at a terminal station does not need to be rescued and would not cause a problem because it's off the running line. It has no passengers on it and can simply be either collected at the end of the day or moved ECS after attention from the fitters.

OK, so the chances of a unit with a "non-multi" restriction at both ends failing might be low, but the possibility still exists and therefore contingencies need to be taken.

O L Leigh

 

[No Fault Found]

I think Network Rail might disagree about a unit not needing rescuing if it failed in a platform at Kings X.

All I'm trying to say is that a unit being non-multiple both ends will limit the options for rescuing but there are still options available and I'd rather send a unit out non-multiple both ends than cancel a service.

 

[O L Leigh]

Give them the option of having it fail there or across the junctions at Ally Pally and I'm sure they will see the wisdom of leaving it where it sits.

The problems with the options available with rescuing a failed unit that is "non-multi" at both ends is that both the failed unit and the rescuing unit will almost certainly need to tip out at the very first opportunity leading to not one but two cancelled services. Also it is highly likely that the subsequent train will be seriously limited in terms of it's speed and operation which would delay all the services operating around it.

Whatever the case, the procedures are there which should stop units heading out that are "non-multi" at both ends. Thankfully it's a very rare occurrence.

O L Leigh