Virgin locos

[AlexS]

mmkay. The 37s and Mk2s are obviously DMUs as well then, silly me. Some simple logic isn't hard to apply here!

 

[86242]

mmkay. The 37s and Mk2s are obviously DMUs as well then, silly me. Some simple logic isn't hard to apply here!

A 37 is a loco and can do other jobs ie work freight and also passenger. But I argee that if something is push pull thats half the fun of the loco hauled operation gone as it no longer runs round etc. A 37 has a cab at each end a Power Car does not...

 

[AJP]

Either do 20's are these units You can back to back HSTs if you want to do something else.

 

[86242]

Either do 20's are these units You can back to back HSTs if you want to do something else.

HSTs were built as Class 253/254 DEMUs, how can something change from a DMU to a Loco?

 

[AJP]

Either do 20's are these units You can back to back HSTs if you want to do something else.

Slightly changed the subject.

 

[AlexS]

Quite easily really, it's only a classification change!

And they did change, did they not? A HST is now considered to be anything from a Voyager to IC125 to IC225 to a Pendolino. A class 43 however is a locomotive - that's the current clasification, and the one that stands today.

As for whether a HST could haul anything else, it's merely a matter of the coupler - it someone decided to fit freight wagons with the same coupler, it would pull them happily. Same as EWS's HTA wagons not being able (apart from the few exceptions now) to be hauled by anything non shedlike. Does that make a 66 and it's train of coal wagons a diesel multiple unit, because the wagons can't be hauled by anything else, and the 66 can't haul some kinds of wagons/coaches?

 

[86242]

Quite easily really, it's only a classification change!

And they did change, did they not? A HST is now considered to be anything from a Voyager to IC125 to IC225 to a Pendolino. A class 43 however is a locomotive - that's the current clasification, and the one that stands today.

A 'Class 43' is a warship they were just all withdrawn before they were given TOPS numbers. This is why it is no different to saying a Buffet car is a 'Class 40'...

 

[Sprog]

One other thing, the prototype '41s' where equiiped with miniture cabs at the 'corridor end'. However, it was decided that these wernt nessesary and dispenced with when it came to the production batches.

The class 43 is a locomotive!!! :tongue8:

 

[86242]

One other thing, the prototype '41s' where equiiped with miniture cabs at the 'corridor end'. However, it was decided that these wernt nessesary and dispenced with when it came to the production batches.

The class 43 is a locomotive!!! :tongue8:

Yes the real class 43 is a locomotive but a Power car is NOT the 'real' class 43.

 

[Julian G]

so if a 90 hauling an MK3 set+*plus a DVT which powers up (*according to jonb ) , it's still a loco

 

[86242]

And incase no one believes be about a Class 43 being a warship I think you need to see http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/d800m_in.htm

 

[AlexS]

Yes, but are classifications not reused when they've been OOU for a certain length of time?

The DMUs, for example, the first generations had a motley bunch of TOPS classifications, some of these are now on newer DMUs.

The class 21s, formerly NBL type 2s, are now these funny Vossloh things EWS are playing with at Toton.

Class 43 is simply a reassigned TOPS classification now carried by the formerly Paxman Valenta engined, now various engined bodyshells constructed by Crewe, as opposed to the North Brit Warship class locomotives.

If you didn't know TOPS classifications could be reassigned after a certain number of years? The Warships in preservation now carry the TOPS code of somewhere in the 9xx range, not code 43, which is a class 43 BR Crewe built generally Paxman Valenta engined locomotive.

 

[AJP]

One other thing, the prototype '41s' where equiiped with miniture cabs at the 'corridor end'. However, it was decided that these wernt nessesary and dispenced with when it came to the production batches.

The class 43 is a locomotive!!! :tongue8:

Most people agree but a AC electric fan says 43's arent locos

 

[Julian G]

Most people agree but a AC electric fan says 43's arent locos

not only Ac electric
a......... cl31,37,47 fan more like it

 

[ChrisM]

HST for me,best multiple unit ever.
As for the is it a Unit then yes it is.
IMO Passenger trains made of a fixed formation and nomally run together should be considered a 'unit' or you could take the sprinter family apart and call them locos.

 

[RJ]

Ok. Answer me this. Does a 43 bear more likeness to a 57 or a 153?

 

[Sprog]

Ok. Answer me this. Does a 43 bear more likeness to a 57 or a 153?

57!! ffs

i could go through a big list as to why, but im NOT going to. BREL-built class 43s are LOCOMOTIVES and thats been proved several times, including at my morning at Temple Meads on the 1/2/06!!

I resign! Nite all!

 

[86242]

Ok. Answer me this. Does a 43 bear more likeness to a 57 or a 153?

A 57 by just a bit

 

[Techniquest]

Man this argument is getting old school!

I say those who disagree on 43s being locos, go back to the hole you crawled out from. Warships were 43s once, maybe, but that's come and gone. If they didn't have a TOPS number in the first place, it shouldn't make a difference!

AlexS, good point, VVVs, VBPs, MMMs and HTPs (ask if you want to know what the abbreviations are for) are all classed as HSTs, as are 180s. Most people still refer to the IC125 as a HST though, the others aren't worth counting as HSTs, they really can't keep up in terms of passenger satisfaction or anything.

If I were a mod, I'd have had this locked by now...We all have our own views on HSTs, let's leave it be. None of us will convince the others they're rateable, although 43025 had a show and a half today, that was just moving off from a signal check at Newport! Which was good, as I was, believe it or not, getting bored of HSTs! Bashed so many in the last three days...

End of views and thoughts from myself.

...is it.'

 

[ChrisM]

Ok. Answer me this. Does a 43 bear more likeness to a 57 or a 153?

None,both the 57 and 153 have a cab at each end and can be driven both ways.
[My opinion]I have always considered an HST as a multiple unit and a 'class 43 loco 'is next to useless unless run with one at each end of a train like most DMU/EMU.
I mean if they are so great why did FGW have to run them back to back recently?,being a 'loco' surley means it could have run in either direction on it's own.
Maybe they are a hybrid EG:loc-mu?[End of opinion]

Had my view now please 'lock' Mods/Admin before someone else is allowed to express their view.

 

[Harold]

I voted for HST's. There the best!

 

[Techniquest]

None,both the 57 and 153 have a cab at each end and can be driven both ways.
[My opinion]I have always considered an HST as a multiple unit and a 'class 43 loco 'is next to useless unless run with one at each end of a train like most DMU/EMU.
I mean if they are so great why did FGW have to run them back to back recently?,being a 'loco' surley means it could have run in either direction on it's own.
Maybe they are a hybrid EG:loc-mu?[End of opinion]

Had my view now please 'lock' Mods/Admin before someone else is allowed to express their view.

That's rather selfish...

I do believe that when a 43 is running on its own, it can run either way so long as there is someone guiding the way when its reversing, or more sensibly having a loco on the back. I've seen that done with the LE 08 and a 43 at Swansea Loop East Junction last autumn, that was quite a sighting! Took about 6 shots of the movement from different angles as a 43 drove us into platform 2.

Regarding the sleeper thing, the 43 were designed to hit 125mph whilst being fairly light on the rails, due to track conditions back then. They also had to be able to brake within the current 100mph braking distances too. To hit these requirements, apart from the excellent brakes used, the engines were not powerful enough to hit 125mph on a load 8 on their own. Using a 43 at each end was necessary to do both the speed and to allow trains to reverse in a location without run-round loops or anything. This means, of course, a HST can, and does, get turned around in 4 minutes. Impressive considering the length of the train to be walked along and the setting up of locomotives too.

As for this 'HSTs were DMUs before, and always shall be' argument, I'll just say that for this to be the case, I reckon all the carriages would need motors underneath, a la VVVs, MMMs and HTPs. This isn't the case. HSTs may have originally be classed as units, but BR changed it to better suit what they actually were, sensibly.

The 43s are power cars, yes. That's their primary function, to run HST trailer sets with one at each end. However, they're locos too. My definition, which I believe is shared by most people who aren't 37 or 47 fans, for a locomotive includes a requirement to be able to power itself and move by itself. Which the 43s can do and do fairly often. Usually back to back with another, but I usually see 43s on their own like this on the mainline in the Bristol area, so I assume they're back to back to enable run-rounds on the mainline without assistance from a shunter, as well as ensuring the 43s both work properly (you could have, say, 43040, a healthy 43, running b-t-b with 43024, which could have just come out of SPM following a major exam or repair. To ensure protection from failure, 040 could be used on it not just as a pilot locomotive but to ensure 43024 could be moved quickly and easily.

I should add that, following all the above about 43s relying on having two on a set to provide enough power, that you can have one 43 run the set on its own, but this would mean that the service would run rather late and not at full speed. It would not keep to most timetables, which are set pretty tightly on the ECML especially, unless there was some fair amount of slack in it.

That's all I can add on this subject for now, I hope this is useful to some extent.

 

[ChrisM]

That's rather selfish...

It was a joke and a reponse to your comment about locking it by now.
[Note]There are arguements for and against and i would rather not turn this into a flame war or arguing for the sake of it or personal attacks on each other.
We all have different views on the matter it might be best not to ruin this thread.[End of note]
As for Virgin,from Bournemouth we used to get HSTs and 47 hauled and they were both next to useless but Voyagers seem to have made no strides in timekeeping but that's probably due to the distances covered.
As for which is better then i prefer the HST.

 

[Techniquest]

I know it was a joke, the way I worded my reply to it wasn't well done.

I also note that there is of course many views on the subject of HSTs, but I've attempted to lay out some stuff to argue both my side and the other side almost equally, weighing in my favour slightly. Now I've made my view, I shall discontinue reading this thread on the basis no-one is changing my mind on it. Like it or not, my opinion has been stated, I've made posts arguing both sides, whether you don't like my refusing to continue reading and posting on this subject, tough. There's nothing else to add to this anyway, everyone's views have been stated and all people are doing is trying to convince the others that their view is correct. Which I confess to having tried to do myself.

And that is that. Leave us HST fans to ourselves. Leave the 37 and 47 fans to themselves. Leave the steam freaks to themselves. We've all got our own views on the subject here, which has gone widly off-topic, hence a lock really is deserved by now. Anyone wishing to consult me on this or other threads should continue to do so via PM, although I do not guarentee a reply.

Looking forward, to some extent (and sarcastically), to March's HST debate.

 

[RJ]

Does that go for double headed 66s and other locos as well?

 

[Nick]

Sorry to add to this, just wondering, were the Blue Pullman units fitted with motors under each carriage or were these units formed of two power cars at either end and carriages inbetween?

 

[AlexS]

No, they had two powered driving trailers which had passengers in, with some unpowered trailers - rather like some of the older DMMUs had (power twin with one or two unpowered trailers).

 

[heart-of-wessex]

the 43s can run light and not a fixed set, MUs are usually joined by other MUs, ever seen 4 HST sets together in service!!?

and another poitn why is the class 43 in Locomotives Plat. 5 book then? and if it was a MU why can the carridge numbers vary then

 

[Met Driver]

I think the following extract from Alan A. Jackson's The Railway Dictionary may be of interest here:

Multiple Unit/MU
An electric (EMU) or diesel-electric powered (DMU or DEMU) train in which the motive power is distributed over a number of car axles instead of being concentrated in a loco or driving car.

Does that sound like the sort of definition which can be applied to an IC125?

 

[AlexS]

Have had 2 HST sets in public before, but that was a rather large emergency situation where the first set had failed and the other came up behind and pushed it along at about 15mph.