What, in rule book terms, is a "vehicle"?

Lewis5949

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2019
Messages
49
Location
London
Some parts of the rule book, such as brake defects, mention "vehicles", but the glossary of railway terminology doesn't actually clarify what a "vehicle" is and a Google isn't helpful. I'm taking a guess "vehicle" means "coach" as in you are in coach 1 of 10, but the way it is used could be read as "unit" as in two five car units coupled up.

Any clarification appreciated!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

GC class B1

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2021
Messages
55
Location
East midlands
Some parts of the rule book, such as brake defects, mention "vehicles", but the glossary of railway terminology doesn't actually clarify what a "vehicle" is and a Google isn't helpful. I'm taking a guess "vehicle" means "coach" as in you are in coach 1 of 10, but the way it is used could be read as "unit" as in two five car units coupled up.

Any clarification appreciated!
I understand a vehicle to be any discreet item of Rolling Stock. This could be a locomotive, wagon or coach that can be disconnected from the adjacent vehicles. As an example a 4-car multiple unit comprises 4 vehicles. The situation with articulated units such as the Stadler Class 755 is more complicated and whilst I still think each separate passenger body is a vehicle I stand to be corrected.
 

etr221

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2018
Messages
555
While it might be thought a circular argument, I would consider a vehicle to something which has - or might have - a vehicle number (UIC 12 digit or other) or code. Normally this is as GCclass B1 says:
I understand a vehicle to be any discreet item of Rolling Stock. This could be a locomotive, wagon or coach that can be disconnected from the adjacent vehicles.
.. and as he says for articulated combinations, it gets complicated: some are formed of multiple vehicles (most railway multipleunits), but others are far more single vehicles (locos and trams). For this whether it has one or muliple number(s), code(s) and data plate (s) are perhaps a useful guide (and for rulebook purposes, if there is doubt as to whether it is, 'yes' is probably a safe answer)
 

Efini92

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
534
We got taught a vehicle had all the necessary equipment to propel itself.
However these days vehicle/coach/carriage seem to just be interchangeable.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
2,403
Location
Up the creek
As an old-school railwayman, from an operating viewpoint I would say that a vehicle is anything that has buffers and coupling gear. If it can be uncoupled from what is to either side of it, it’s a vehicle. I realise that permanently coupled multiple-units and goods wagons may be a borderline case.
 

norbitonflyer

Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
678
Location
SW London
As an old-school railwayman, from an operating viewpoint I would say that a vehicle is anything that has buffers and coupling gear. If it can be uncoupled from what is to either side of it, it’s a vehicle. I realise that permanently coupled multiple-units and goods wagons may be a borderline case.
Class 139?
 

4F89

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
686
Surely a rail vehicle is anything designed to run on rails, in the same way a road vehicle for roads, an off road vehicle for.... you guessed it.

An individual vehicle would count as a singular item for each body. Just because a part of an MU would need another vehicle attached in order to work correctly, doesn't stop it being an independent vehicle.

OTMs are still vehicles, some designed for on and off rail applications. It's basically anything designed to run on rails.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
26,043
The rail group standard which defines the rules for “vehicle identification numbers” surely implies what a vehicle is? Anything that the rolling stock library gives a unique identity in their database.
 

sw1ller

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2013
Messages
1,470
Something with wheels, with flanges.
This. If it’s got wheels then it’s a vehicle. I think you’re over complicating it. The rule book isn’t there to catch you out, it’s MEANT to be written in simple terms so this type of stuff doesn’t happen and no confusion arises.
However, it’s littered with all sorts of cack.
It would help if you gave an example that’s made you ask the question? I’m guessing door or brake isolations?
 

WestRiding

Member
Joined
21 Mar 2012
Messages
940
Location
Yorkshire
This. If it’s got wheels then it’s a vehicle. I think you’re over complicating it. The rule book isn’t there to catch you out, it’s MEANT to be written in simple terms so this type of stuff doesn’t happen and no confusion arises.
However, it’s littered with all sorts of cack.
It would help if you gave an example that’s made you ask the question? I’m guessing door or brake isolations?
Yep, from a pway trolley to freight wagon, to a locomotive. All vehicles.

Thanks. Not often people agree :lol:
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,779
For ‘Line Clear Verification’ purposes it’s anything rail mounted with more than two wheels.
 

norbitonflyer

Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
678
Location
SW London
There is some ambiguity with articulated rolling stock - the DLR, and indeed many tram systems treats their articulated units as single vehicles (so a "two-car" train actually has four bodies), but National Rail and its predecessors gave individual numbers to the individual elements of articulated sets, from Gresley Quad-Arts to Cartics to APTs to Eurostars to FLIRTs.

Was a Class 13 one vehicle or two? A steam locomotive and its tender? Any double-bogie vehicle? Some class 40 bogies were converted into snowploughs, and presumably were then treated as two separate vehicles.

I am sure that if the distinction were important the Rule Book would define the term. .
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,271
This. If it’s got wheels then it’s a vehicle. I think you’re over complicating it. The rule book isn’t there to catch you out, it’s MEANT to be written in simple terms so this type of stuff doesn’t happen and no confusion arises.
However, it’s littered with all sorts of cack.
It would help if you gave an example that’s made you ask the question? I’m guessing door or brake isolations?
Think the main issue was it was checked over by the 'Plain English' society commited to clearer communication , and made it more confusing !
 

507020

Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
390
Location
Southport
I’m not sure specifically about vehicles because I’ve seen the terminology “bogie vehicles and class 14x vehicles” may run on such a line before now. This would indicate that while Pacers fit under the umbrella of “vehicles” they do not constitute “trains”, but that there may also be something which runs on the railway but is strictly speaking not a “vehicle”.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
1,351
Location
Glasgow
I’m not sure specifically about vehicles because I’ve seen the terminology “bogie vehicles and class 14x vehicles” may run on such a line before now. This would indicate that while Pacers fit under the umbrella of “vehicles” they do not constitute “trains”, but that there may also be something which runs on the railway but is strictly speaking not a “vehicle”.
No, it says that because Pacers don't have bogies.
 

507020

Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
390
Location
Southport
No, it says that because Pacers don't have bogies.
Pacers don’t have bogies and yet the document effectively states that everything that runs on the railway should have bogies, which is true, but due to the misguided existence of the Pacers and the insistence in the 1980s that no better quality vehicles were to be built, had to make an exception for them.

If such a thing exists that is of such poor quality to not even constitute being a “vehicle” then it would have to be considerably worse than any 4 wheeled Pacer, which while just about able to qualify as “vehicles” cannot claim to be “bogie vehicles” which all rail vehicles should be.

I put to you this. If you were to build a simple frame and attach to it plain flat blocks similar to the ones visible in the attached image, but with the addition of flanges to allow it to sit stationary on rails without detailing and then coupled it to a locomotive and dragged it to another location (presumably causing significant damage to the track in the process) would it be able to call itself a “vehicle” despite not being “wheeled” if that is one of the criteria or even having any moving parts?
 

Attachments

  • ACEBE7F4-2F68-4B7E-8ACF-9FF43AEE3B46.jpeg
    ACEBE7F4-2F68-4B7E-8ACF-9FF43AEE3B46.jpeg
    271.6 KB · Views: 25
Last edited:

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
1,351
Location
Glasgow
Pacers don’t have bogies and yet the document effectively states that everything that runs on the railway should have bogies, which is true, but due to the misguided existence of the Pacers and the insistence in the 1980s that no better quality vehicles were to be built, had to make an exception for them.
... your point being?
 

Efini92

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
534
Pacers don’t have bogies and yet the document effectively states that everything that runs on the railway should have bogies, which is true, but due to the misguided existence of the Pacers and the insistence in the 1980s that no better quality vehicles were to be built, had to make an exception for them.

If such a thing exists that is of such poor quality to not even constitute being a “vehicle” then it would have to be considerably worse than any 4 wheeled Pacer, which while just about able to qualify as “vehicles” cannot claim to be “bogie vehicles” which all rail vehicles should be.

I put to you this. If you were to build a simple frame and attach to it plain flat blocks similar to the ones visible in the attached image, but with the addition of flanges to allow it to sit stationary on rails without detailing and then coupled it to a locomotive and dragged it to another location (presumably causing significant damage to the track in the process) would it be able to call itself a “vehicle” despite not being “wheeled” if that is one of the criteria or even having any moving parts?
What document are you referring to?
there’s plenty of freight wagons that don’t have bogies.
 

norbitonflyer

Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
678
Location
SW London
I’m not sure specifically about vehicles because I’ve seen the terminology “bogie vehicles and class 14x vehicles” may run on such a line before now. This would indicate that while Pacers fit under the umbrella of “vehicles” they do not constitute “trains”, but that there may also be something which runs on the railway but is strictly speaking not a “vehicle”.
The terminology used there is presumably because the statement refers to a rule, permission, or whatever, where a distinction is made between bogie and non-bogie vehicles, but an exception is made for Pacers. (Other non-bogie vehicles that operate on NR include steam locomotive tenders, snowploughs, conventional coal hopper wagons, road/rail vehicles .....)

The question about what is a "train" is a completely different can of worms. It originally meant something which followed along behind ("enter the King and his train", or that part of a long dress that trails along the ground behind the wearer). In rail usage it was used for carriages and or wagons pulled by a horse or locomotive (most "trainspotters" are in fact locospotters) but in common usage a train also includes the motive power itself, whether pulling, or pushing the payload-carrying vehicles, or incorporated in them. Generally a single unpowered carriage or wagon would not be thought of as a "train" (even if it were running away) but for want of a better term a single-car unit like a 139 or 153 can be a "train" as, in some contexts, can a light locomotive.
 

GC class B1

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2021
Messages
55
Location
East midlands
Pacers don’t have bogies and yet the document effectively states that everything that runs on the railway should have bogies, which is true, but due to the misguided existence of the Pacers and the insistence in the 1980s that no better quality vehicles were to be built, had to make an exception for them.

If such a thing exists that is of such poor quality to not even constitute being a “vehicle” then it would have to be considerably worse than any 4 wheeled Pacer, which while just about able to qualify as “vehicles” cannot claim to be “bogie vehicles” which all rail vehicles should be.

I put to you this. If you were to build a simple frame and attach to it plain flat blocks similar to the ones visible in the attached image, but with the addition of flanges to allow it to sit stationary on rails without detailing and then coupled it to a locomotive and dragged it to another location (presumably causing significant damage to the track in the process) would it be able to call itself a “vehicle” despite not being “wheeled” if that is one of the criteria or even having any moving parts?
I do not understand why you are making this an issue. Rolling stock includes all vehicles with wheels and only those with wheels. A railway vehicle must have wheels so your point is irrelevant. You seem to to trying to make a simple practical concept into something complicated and irrelevant.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,849
Location
In the cab with the paper
The OP was not asking about what you think is a vehicle but how the rule book defines it in order to understand what certain instructions may mean. In this regard a vehicle is a single coach, wagon or locomotive, and this includes multiple unit trains irrespective of how their wheels and axles are laid out. Therefore a Cl321 is formed of four vehicles, a Cl156 of two vehicles and a 2+8 HST of ten vehicles.

The reason for this is to understand the rules when working out things like how to move a train which has some brakes isolated. Brakes are isolated on individual vehicles rather than across the entire train, so you need to know the proportion of braked to unbraked vehicles in the train as this dictates whether or not specific speed restrictions apply.

I’m sure someone who signs Stadlers will correct me on this, but my understanding is that articulated units such as these are still counted in vehicles. Precisely how these work within the rules will no doubt depend largely on how things like brake isolations are carried out and how the ratio of braked and unbraked is calculated. Given that these use Jacobs bogies shares between the vehicles it may be that brakes are isolated on individual bogies rather than individual vehicles and that this is the basis on which the calculation is based. If so, I’m sure you will find that this is stated in the traction instructions specific to those classes. In instances such as this, the rules set the principles which are then interpreted and applied to specific situations such as this.
 

Top