• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TRIVIA: Trains With Non-Standard Modifications

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doomotron

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2018
Messages
1,191
Location
Kent
Are there any trains that have been modified so much from their original form, or from the rest of their class that they don't work properly with them?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,943
I suppose you could count the 156/9s. I believe it's something to do with either the PIS or call for aid system (or both)

Also can 165/0s work with 165/1s?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,719
Location
Another planet...
Wasn't it the case that the first batch of 73s (JA) couldn't multi with the second batch (JB)? Though I think that was the situation from new rather than a result of a later modification.

Another one that's a bit of a fudge, I'd assume that class 230s probably can't multi with class 484s despite both starting life as London Underground D78s.

Some of Chiltern's 168s (and I think some of Southern's 171s) started life as class 170s which could multi with all classes from 150-158. However when they moved to Chiltern/Southern they had the couplers changed meaning that the 168s could only work with 165-168 (and Chiltern 172s?) and the 171s can only work in multiple within the class (though can couple to Electrostars in an emergency).
 
Last edited:

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,860
Location
Glasgow
Wasn't it the case that the first batch of 73s (JA) couldn't multi with the second batch (JB)? Though I think that was the situation from new rather than a result of a later modification.
One batch was wired as per Thumpers, the other batch as per EMUs.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,503
Another one that's a bit of a fudge, I'd assume that class 230s probably can't multi with class 484s despite both starting life as London Underground D78s.
Eh? What's the assumption based on, and why would it be a fudge if true?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,719
Location
Another planet...
One batch was wired as per Thumpers, the other batch as per EMUs.
Ah, that makes sense I guess. Do you know if that was planned, or if it was simply a change in standards?
Eh? What's the assumption based on, and why would it be a fudge if true?
The assumption was that they may well have different specifications as they're being used by different operators with no benefit to them being able to multi, what with being on a different landmass.

It's a "fudge" on my part in terms of the topic at hand- not a fudge on the part of the railway itself!
 

Doomotron

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2018
Messages
1,191
Location
Kent
One batch was wired as per Thumpers, the other batch as per EMUs.
Wasn't it the case that in testing, they found out that the wires did the opposite to what they wanted to when in multiple? Or am I just creating false memories?
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,503
It's a "fudge" on my part in terms of the topic at hand- not a fudge on the part of the railway itself!
Oh gotcha, I thought you were implying that a lack of 230 <> 484 compatibility would have been a disaster!
 

Clansman

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2016
Messages
2,574
Location
Hong Kong
Are there any trains that have been modified so much from their original form, or from the rest of their class that they don't work properly with them?
I don't know if it counts, but the 8 x 158s brought up to ScotRail from England over 10 years ago (all now with Northern) weren't compatible with the automatic PIS when coupled to one of the core ScotRail 158s, so announcements had to be done by a guard for passengers on one of these units to hear. The ex-Wessex units still had their station departure announcements built in which would be a safety message that would be rattled out after every second station stop.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,860
Location
Glasgow
Ah, that makes sense I guess. Do you know if that was planned, or if it was simply a change in standards?
A mix of both iirc

Wasn't it the case that in testing, they found out that the wires did the opposite to what they wanted to when in multiple? Or am I just creating false memories?
You know I can't recall, but that does sound familiar. I'll go and check something later which explained about the different wiring.
 

Wyrleybart

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2020
Messages
1,656
Location
South Staffordshire
If you want to be literal about the OP's post then class 230.
i imagine 230001 as prototype won't multi to the others.
230002 is a one off BEMU.
230003-005 probably with each other.
230006-010 with each other.

Apparently 800/0s did, and maybe still have a different software version to the 802s through being owned by a different supplier, even though all work for GWR.

In a very literal sense 68008-015 have been modified to work with Chiltern Mk3s and 68019-032 have been modified to work with Mk4s, which other class 68s can't.

And really pedantically, a handful of ROG and Europhoenix locos based at Leicester have been modified to couple to Dellner or Tightlock stock. I think a couple actually have interchangeable coupler heads
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,860
Location
Glasgow
Wasn't it the case that in testing, they found out that the wires did the opposite to what they wanted to when in multiple? Or am I just creating false memories?
I've found out what it was.

So the first batch was intended to be fully compatible will all post-1951 SR MUs both EMU and DEMU which were at least nominally supposed to be able to multi with each other.

During testing it was found that the EMU and DEMU fleets had been wired slightly differently and if a DEMU was to be multied with an EMU they would try and pull off in opposite directions to each other.

Through no fault of the Class 73 design it was thus found they could only work with the DEMUs, having been wired as per them.

When they went to build the second batch, now knowing of the wiring issues with the MU fleet it was decided to specifically make sure they were wired as per the EMU fleet as it was considered they would be more likely to operate with them than the DEMUs and it would be more flexible to do so.

Therefore the two batches cannot multi with each through no fault of the Class design but rather a fault of the pre-existing fleets which should've been able to work together but couldn't.
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
class 47.

BRs standard type 4, yet there is nothing standard about the class except maybe the engine.....
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,860
Location
Glasgow
class 47.

BRs standard type 4, yet there is nothing standard about the class except maybe the engine.....
Surely that speaks to their versatility?

Freight
Parcels
Regional passenger
Express passenger
Push-pull high-frequency passenger

Vacuum/air brake/dual brake
Steam/electric heat

Etc etc

I see the number of subclasses as emphasising how flexible the 47s could be in fulfilling a variety of roles as necessary.
 

big all

On Moderation
Joined
23 Sep 2018
Messages
876
Location
redhill
I've found out what it was.

So the first batch was intended to be fully compatible will all post-1951 SR MUs both EMU and DEMU which were at least nominally supposed to be able to multi with each other.

During testing it was found that the EMU and DEMU fleets had been wired slightly differently and if a DEMU was to be multied with an EMU they would try and pull off in opposite directions to each other.

Through no fault of the Class 73 design it was thus found they could only work with the DEMUs, having been wired as per them.

When they went to build the second batch, now knowing of the wiring issues with the MU fleet it was decided to specifically make sure they were wired as per the EMU fleet as it was considered they would be more likely to operate with them than the DEMUs and it would be more flexible to do so.

Therefore the two batches cannot multi with each through no fault of the Class design but rather a fault of the pre-existing fleets which should've been able to work together but couldn't.
its 40 years ago since i trained on edls and there is many differences between ja and jbs
jas have an additional demu jumper on the front but both have 27way high level and blue star low level
can a ja and jb work together ?? you got me thinking i would have said yes but some doubt now as i simply cant remember ??
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,860
Location
Glasgow
its 40 years ago since i trained on edls and there is many differences between ja and jbs
jas have an additional demu jumper on the front but both have 27way high level and blue star low level
can a ja and jb work together ?? you got me thinking i would have said yes but some doubt now as i simply cant remember ??
No, I don't think they can. The control wiring differs.

I presume you'd end up with the same situation as with coupling a DEMU and EMU
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
2,531
Location
SW London
I've been on a train double-headed by a JA and JB, working the "Kenny Belle", on that day worked with a pair of Mark 1s. As I understand it, they could work together using the "blue star" jumpers but the JAs could not work in push-pull mode with TC stock because of the wiring issue on the 27-way connectors.
 

InTheEastMids

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2016
Messages
736
Perhaps not quite what is being asked about but I don't think the blue (ex-EMT) class 43s could work with red (ex-LNER) Mk3s because of modifications that had been made, and so it became more cost-effective to swap to the ex LNER Cl43 rather than modify the VP185 fleet.
(somebody more knowledgeable than me will know the details).

Doesn't fulfil the lack of interoperability requirement of the OP, the Cl86/1s were basically 87s in an 86 body, so were pretty different under the skin
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,860
Location
Glasgow
I've been on a train double-headed by a JA and JB, working the "Kenny Belle", on that day worked with a pair of Mark 1s. As I understand it, they could work together using the "blue star" jumpers but the JAs could not work in push-pull mode with TC stock because of the wiring issue on the 27-way connectors.
That would be okay I think because that's a seperate system which uses control air for engine speed control, it was more multi-ing on electric power that wouldn't work due to the wiring differences
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,773
87101 was built with an experimental thryistor control system
 

noddingdonkey

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2012
Messages
774
I believe 37601, 37608, 37611, 37800 and 37884 with ROG have been modified with couplers etc to be able to couple to multiple units, eg 37800 removing the incident unit at Kirby. I daresay there are other locos with non-standard couplers for Thunderbird duty, but I grant you they wouldn't meet the OP's stipulation of not being able to work with the rest of the class.

Are the NMT Power Cars significantly modified from the standard 43?
 

JohnElliott

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2014
Messages
231
I've found out what it was.

So the first batch was intended to be fully compatible will all post-1951 SR MUs both EMU and DEMU which were at least nominally supposed to be able to multi with each other.

During testing it was found that the EMU and DEMU fleets had been wired slightly differently and if a DEMU was to be multied with an EMU they would try and pull off in opposite directions to each other.

Through no fault of the Class 73 design it was thus found they could only work with the DEMUs, having been wired as per them.

When they went to build the second batch, now knowing of the wiring issues with the MU fleet it was decided to specifically make sure they were wired as per the EMU fleet as it was considered they would be more likely to operate with them than the DEMUs and it would be more flexible to do so.

Therefore the two batches cannot multi with each through no fault of the Class design but rather a fault of the pre-existing fleets which should've been able to work together but couldn't.
I've read this before (on the Wikipedia page for the class 73 IIRC) but my recollection from seeing the connector pinouts (which used to be online, though I'm not sure they are now) is that the EMU and DEMU differ by a lot more than just a couple of pins. Can anyone with access to the pinout diagrams confirm?

ETA: 205101 was a non-standard Thumper, because it had a 4-position controller rather than 7-position so that it could, if necessary, be required to multi with an EMU.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,400
I've read this before (on the Wikipedia page for the class 73 IIRC) but my recollection from seeing the connector pinouts (which used to be online, though I'm not sure they are now) is that the EMU and DEMU differ by a lot more than just a couple of pins. Can anyone with access to the pinout diagrams confirm?
They're on the RSSB website, document reference GMGN2590. But as I have a copy downloaded....

This is what it says for Classes 205/207:
1616704962480.png

And for the EMUs:
1616705037328.png
Wires 22/23/24/27 were allocated for those purposes on Classes 421-423, but never used, obviously!
 

JohnElliott

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2014
Messages
231
They're on the RSSB website, document reference GMGN2590. But as I have a copy downloaded....

This is what it says for Classes 205/207:
View attachment 93052

And for the EMUs:
View attachment 93053
Wires 22/23/24/27 were allocated for those purposes on Classes 421-423, but never used, obviously!
Thanks -- that matches my recollection. So it doesn't look as if there's any truth in the story about them being the same except for two swapped wires.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,400
So it doesn't look as if there's any truth in the story about them being the same except for two swapped wires.
Yep! looking at it, the only thing that would work would be... the starting bell!
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,860
Location
Glasgow
Can a VP185 HST power car work with an MTU fitted example?
Yes of course, any engined power cars can multi with each other.

There were plenty of Valenta/VP185 pairings on Midland Mainline in their earlier years for instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top