Pacer compatability?

Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by 150222, 13 Nov 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 150222

    150222 Member

    Messages:
    1,002
    Joined:
    9 Jul 2011
    I am aware that pacers can work in multiple with sprinters. Could they, if the need ever arose work in multiple with 170's or any other class with BSI couplers?
     
  2. Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!

    Rail Forums

     
  3. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,753
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Dunno.

    I don't think its ever happened, but then the TOCs with Pacers aren't the same ones with 170s.

    But both work in multiple with 153s on a regular basis, so if they can both function with a 153 then I presume they can work with each other (?)
     
  4. WillPS

    WillPS Established Member

    Messages:
    2,323
    Joined:
    18 Nov 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Never tried, but theoretically possible - possible they might need some mods as the 156s did.
     
  5. Schnellzug

    Schnellzug Established Member

    Messages:
    2,926
    Joined:
    22 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Evercreech Junction
    They can work with anything up to 158s, and 158s can work with 170s, can't they, so i don't see any reason they shouldn't be able to.
     
  6. northernrailer

    northernrailer Member

    Messages:
    452
    Joined:
    30 Dec 2009
    14x and 17x ARE NOT allowed to couple up together, it actually states this in the cabs of class 17x units.

    Its says something along the lines of "14x and 17x operation is not permitted".
     
  7. WillPS

    WillPS Established Member

    Messages:
    2,323
    Joined:
    18 Nov 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Heh, there you go. Not sure why they'd ever have needed to mind.
     
  8. ChrisCooper

    ChrisCooper Established Member

    Messages:
    1,787
    Joined:
    7 Sep 2005
    Location:
    Loughborough
    I can't remember the reason exactly but 170s are unable to work with Pacers. 16Xs are also unable to work with anything else with BSI couplings as a number of electrical connections are switched. The exception is the 172s which have a switch that reverses the connections allowing either 15X or 16X compatability (means LM's 172s can work with 153s and 170s, and Chiltern's 172s can work with 165s and 168s).

    170s also have some other compatability issues with other types. The 156s required a modification to the buzzer circuit as this would sound constantly when coupled to a 170, and there are brake issues when 158s and 170s are in sandwich formations (i.e 170+158+170 or 158+170+158). Don't think the sandwich issue effects other types though.

    14Xs might be the same problem as the 156s, but oviously as they are not operated by the same TOCs, and with the exception of the Sheffield, Manchester and formerly Liverpool areas, they have never even operated in the same places, it would not be worth the expense of modifying them to be compatable. If they could couple and have limited capability for emergencies is another matter (if assisting a failed train, something like the buzzer going all the time is minor, you can be lucky to have continous brakes).
     
  9. driver9000

    driver9000 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Joined:
    13 Jan 2008
    Mechanically they can couple but not electrically. If a 14x was to assist a 17x then the pin blocks would be retracted and the couple button would not be pressed. Brakes would be isolated on the failure and restricted to 5mph. This would be a last resort though.
     
  10. Oswyntail

    Oswyntail Established Member

    Messages:
    4,183
    Joined:
    23 May 2009
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Wouldn't it be a revolutionary idea for the future if there were to be some standard so that disparate types could work together. Increases flexibility, and hence retained value of stock. But that would require.....planning!
     
  11. WillPS

    WillPS Established Member

    Messages:
    2,323
    Joined:
    18 Nov 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    BSI was working towards that. Even back in BR days though, NSE deliberately specified their DMUs to be incompatible with Provincial's - clear case of tribalism.

    A universal specification would be a wonderful idea.
     
  12. driver9000

    driver9000 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Joined:
    13 Jan 2008
    I believe BR wanted its DMUs to have BSI couplers and EMUs to have Tightlock couplers as standard. It is a great shame full compatibility was never realised and we now have a multitude of incompatible couplers from various manufacturers.

    I wonder how NSE got away with the decision that 165/166s were to be incompatible given that BR wanted standardisation and the ability to interwork.
     
  13. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,753
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    They both work with 153s though, so would a "Pacer +153 + 170" combination work?

    Absolutely!

    Amazing that similar classes can't work together (e.g. 221 + 222s)

    Same with the 159s IIRC
     
  14. jcollins

    jcollins Veteran Member

    Messages:
    29,762
    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Different types of Desiro EMUs aren't compatible, which is why 380s aren't being ordered for the LM/TPE order.
     
  15. Nym

    Nym Established Member

    Messages:
    8,032
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2007
    Location:
    Somewhere, not in London
    222s have completly different wiring looms to 221s though, although it is a supprise they didn't spec the same coupler configurations, but I suppose the spec never needed them to, so why bother?
     
  16. driver9000

    driver9000 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Joined:
    13 Jan 2008
    No. This is due to the way the multiple working and other circuits are wired through the train, you can't simply put something between electrically incompatible vehicles to overcome the issue. The whole train must be compatible. As far as I know the problem lies with the pin blocks themselves, the modification undertaken to enable BR era types to work with 170s involved changing the order the pins were in.


    Going back to the references to 170s working with 15x DMUs, only those required to work with 170s were modified, so for example a Scotrail 156 can work with a 170 but a Northern 156 couldn't.
     
    Last edited: 13 Nov 2011
  17. jopsuk

    jopsuk Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,656
    Joined:
    13 May 2008
    Because by then NSE was highly independent in how it ran itself.
     
  18. ChrisCooper

    ChrisCooper Established Member

    Messages:
    1,787
    Joined:
    7 Sep 2005
    Location:
    Loughborough
    220/221s and 222s are incompatable because Virgin wanted their Voyagers to be compatable with Pendolinos. Not only is the wiring different, but the Voyagers have Alstom TMS to be compatable with the 390s, wheras 222s have Bombardier.
     
  19. headshot119

    headshot119 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,616
    Joined:
    31 Dec 2010
    Location:
    Cardiff
    So what is the actual reason that a 14X can't work with a 170? If It's electrical then how can a 15X work with a 14X. And a 15X with a 170?
     
  20. driver9000

    driver9000 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Joined:
    13 Jan 2008
    Not signing 170s I don't have an answer to that but I suspect it is the Pacer where the problem lies. The reason I think this is to do with multiple working of 14x units in that you can only have 8 vehicles when a 14x is in the train as opposed to 12 with a train formed fully of 15x vehicles.
     
  21. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,753
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Cheers, i just couldn't "get" why they were "incompatible" when they could both work with Sprinters. But, from what you are saying, there are Sprinters that can work with Pacers and Sprinters that can work with 170s (but not with both)
     
  22. Nym

    Nym Established Member

    Messages:
    8,032
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2007
    Location:
    Somewhere, not in London
    Sounds like pacers have poorer quality electronics that mean they draw more current from the controller or somthing like.
     
  23. route:oxford

    route:oxford Established Member

    Messages:
    4,594
    Joined:
    1 Nov 2008
    Could it also (even if electrical compatibility be overcome) be the more fundamental reason that the 170 is capable of 100mph and is more powerful than a 15X range?

    The mechanics and "bogies" might not be keen on accidently dragged up to 100mph....
     
  24. Schnellzug

    Schnellzug Established Member

    Messages:
    2,926
    Joined:
    22 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Evercreech Junction
    didn't they deliberately specify different couplings for the 159s so that they would be less likely to be borrowed by regional railways? Another example of how the Integrated BR that everyone fondly remembers actually ceased to be a long time before privatisation.
     
  25. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    14,753
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Maybe, but then 153s can't do 100mph, and they are coupled to 170s every day.

    Similarly Voyagers can't do 140mph, but are capable of being coupled to (140mph capable) Pendolini

    That's the version I had heard, yes.

    Things were much simpler on my old Hornby set where everything coupled with everything...
     
  26. driver9000

    driver9000 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Joined:
    13 Jan 2008
    Doesn't stop 75mph stock mixing with 90mph stock.
     
  27. WillPS

    WillPS Established Member

    Messages:
    2,323
    Joined:
    18 Nov 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    I was surprised to learn a few years ago that when, for example, driving a 170 with a 153 tagged on the back, there is nothing to stop the driver taking it beyond the 153s limit - and exactly that has happened at least once under Central Train, resulting in a very knackered 153.
     
  28. driver9000

    driver9000 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Joined:
    13 Jan 2008
    There is nothing to stop the driver of a 158 with a 75mph unit on the back going up to 90mph, even running on their own there is nothing except the Driver to stop them going over their maximum posted speed.
     
  29. WillPS

    WillPS Established Member

    Messages:
    2,323
    Joined:
    18 Nov 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Really? Wow, I'd assumed there'd be a limiter around a couple of mph above their specified speed!
     
  30. ChrisCooper

    ChrisCooper Established Member

    Messages:
    1,787
    Joined:
    7 Sep 2005
    Location:
    Loughborough
    There is nothing stopping a driver of a freight doing 75, 80, 90 even 95mph depending on the top speed of the loco, yet few freight wagons can do more than 60mph, and some have even lower speeds (especially none bogie wagons). Drivers have to know the top speed of the train (i.e the top speed of the slowest vehicle in the train) aswell as the top speed of the loco or unit they are driving. Light engines and short formations also have different speed limits to other stock, again drivers have to remember that. Even with units it's not new, 90mph CEPs, CIGs and VEPs have run with 75mph units on the SR together at times going back to the 50s.
     
  31. Crossover

    Crossover Established Member

    Messages:
    7,473
    Joined:
    4 Jun 2009
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    I think I have heard about that somewhere else on here - don't think the gearbox liked it too much :P

    There probably is for the unit itself (Pendos have TASS, not sure about other units)
    However, there is a limit to how many iterations of potential variations can be reasonably programmed in so say couple a 153 to a 170 and the 170 probably doesn't know it has a 75mph only capable unit stuck to the back of it (could be another 170 for all it knows) and so probably wouldn't limit it down (assuming such systems are in place, of course)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page