Will Northerns new 195s and 331s be compatible?

[Rail Blues]

Given you've had to search around to find an isolated example of a class 153 working in multiple with post BR stock proves the point, normally that service is operated by X2 class 170s.

If there really was such a crying need for inter class compatibility, why do we not routinely see class 170s hooked up to 153s or other sprinter classes across the network all the time, not just once in a blue moon? Can you name a regular service run by a 170 + 153?

As I said before ... it's an anorak's fantasy, as is your notion that post 2020 we'll be riding around in weird and wonderful consists made up of life expired and non-prm compliant stock.

 

[AngusH]

I refer the readers to this thread:


https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/multiple-working-question.159677

 

[Harpers Tate]

Given you've had to search around to find an isolated example of a class 153 working in multiple with post BR stock proves the point, normally that service is operated by X2 class 170s.

If there really was such a crying need for inter class compatibility, why do we not routinely see class 170s hooked up to 153s or other sprinter classes across the network all the time, not just once in a blue moon? Can you name a regular service run by a 170 + 153?

As I said before ... it's an anorak's fantasy, as is your notion that post 2020 we'll be riding around in weird and wonderful consists made up of life expired and non-prm compliant stock.

Suppose that this approach had been adopted when the Pacer/Sprinter/Express/etc... stock had been specified. Then, exactly parallel to what you describe here, we would never see a Sheffield <> Scarborough 158 strengthened with a 153. Or ditto on the S&C. Or a Nottingham <> Liverpool 158 + 156 combination. All of which occur either daily or when operational reasons so require. Whether these things happen as a matter of plan or last-minute need, the fact is they can and do. In your suggested world where such compatibility doesn't matter, my suspicion is that we'd see more short forming or cancellation.

 

[Rail Blues]

Suppose that this approach had been adopted when the Pacer/Sprinter/Express/etc... stock had been specified. Then, exactly parallel to what you describe here, we would never see a Sheffield <> Scarborough 158 strengthened with a 153. Or ditto on the S&C. Or a Nottingham <> Liverpool 158 + 156 combination. All of which occur either daily or when operational reasons so require. Whether these things happen as a matter of plan or last-minute need, the fact is they can and do. In your suggested world where such compatibility doesn't matter, my suspicion is that we'd see more short forming or cancellation.

I'm fully aware 2nd Gen DMUs can be and are interworked, but that is not what's at stake here, we are talking about the alledged need to ensure backwards compatibility with stock that in many cases well into its fourth decade and if not already life expired - as is the case with 153s and 14xs within 10 years of being so. It is like getting your knickers in a twist because 158s won't run in multiple with every single 1st gen DMU


It is only in hardcore anorak territory that a situation will emerge where there is the need or desire to hook up a brand new 195 to a pacer or 150.

 

[Bevan Price]

Given you've had to search around to find an isolated example of a class 153 working in multiple with post BR stock proves the point, normally that service is operated by X2 class 170s.

If there really was such a crying need for inter class compatibility, why do we not routinely see class 170s hooked up to 153s or other sprinter classes across the network all the time, not just once in a blue moon? Can you name a regular service run by a 170 + 153?

Not sure if it still happens, but 153 + 170 used to happen almost daily on some Birmingham - Hereford services. 158 + 170 also used to occur when Central Trains ran Liverpool - Nottingham / Norwich.

 

[DanNCL]

Don't ScotRail 170s and 158s work in multiple?

 

[noddingdonkey]

The reasons Pacer don't work with Turbostars is there was no economic reason to pay for the modification to the coupler system to allow such operation, but if Turbostars and Pacers were expected to operate together it could easily be done, just as it was done for the Sprinters.

Indeed Angel Trains claim on their website that 172s are capable of multiple working with Pacers

https://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Products-Services/Regional-Passenger-Trains/10

Interoperability: Other Sprinters, Pacers and Turbostars

 

[HSTEd]

I'm fully aware 2nd Gen DMUs can be and are interworked, but that is not what's at stake here, we are talking about the alledged need to ensure backwards compatibility with stock that in many cases well into its fourth decade and if not already life expired - as is the case with 153s and 14xs within 10 years of being so. It is like getting your knickers in a twist because 158s won't run in multiple with every single 1st gen DMU

What 'generation' a diesel multiple unit is in is largely of no consequence.
The fact remains that the vast majority of the Northern diesel fleet for the forseable future will be 2nd Generation BR era DMUs, all of which can effectively interwork as required.

Thanks to this shortsightedness Northern will lose substantial amounts of operational flexibility for no reason.

Why is a 195 in formation with a 156 or 158 any more ridiculous than a 150 in formation with a 142?

The situation upon Sprinterisation was extremely different - there was no autocoupler DMU coupling standard to use, and even if one of the existing wiring patterns had been copied there were so many that there would be no interworking with the vast majority of the 1st Gen Fleet anyway.

It is only in hardcore anorak territory that a situation will emerge where there is the need or desire to hook up a brand new 195 to a pacer or 150.

The train planning office wants a three car train and only has a 2-car 195 and a 153 available for service at the correct depot?

Or it wants a five car consist and only has a 3-car 195 and a 2-car 150 available?

British railway stock is, and always will be, worked incredibly hard.
Introducing incompatibilities costs money because it reduces the flexibility with which units can be sent onto tasks.
I now need to maintain 2 pools of DMUs, which cannot be shared for any reason, rather than 1.

The current Northern Diesel fleet can be sent to virtually any of its tasks as required, in any combination.
If this was a useless capability why is it so popular in the US?

 

[Agent_Squash]

What 'generation' a diesel multiple unit is in is largely of no consequence.
The fact remains that the vast majority of the Northern diesel fleet for the forseable future will be 2nd Generation BR era DMUs, all of which can effectively interwork as required.

Thanks to this shortsightedness Northern will lose substantial amounts of operational flexibility for no reason.

Why is a 195 in formation with a 156 or 158 any more ridiculous than a 150 in formation with a 142?

The situation upon Sprinterisation was extremely different - there was no autocoupler DMU coupling standard to use, and even if one of the existing wiring patterns had been copied there were so many that there would be no interworking with the vast majority of the 1st Gen Fleet anyway.


The train planning office wants a three car train and only has a 2-car 195 and a 153 available for service at the correct depot?

Or it wants a five car consist and only has a 3-car 195 and a 2-car 150 available?

Because a Pacer still is a second generation DMU (even if it was meant to be temporary) while a 195 is 30 years younger than the oldest units in the 15x fleets?

Delmer has been becoming the standard for many years now. If an operator was that desperate for compatibility, it’s already been proven 170s can work with Dellners.

 

[HSTEd]

Because a Pacer still is a second generation DMU (even if it was meant to be temporary) while a 195 is 30 years younger than the oldest units in the 15x fleets?

The 195 is only a handful years younger than the youngest unit using the 2nd Generation MU system.
The MU system that is used on almost the entire UK <125mph DMU fleet, the exceptions being the 175 and 185, which make up a tiny portion of fleet strength.

There is no reason that any other multiple working standard should ever be permitted for diesel multiple units.

Delmer has been becoming the standard for many years now. If an operator was that desperate for compatibility, it’s already been proven 170s can work with Dellners.

So refit a huge fleet of various DMUs, most of which will still be in service for quite a while yet, rather than simply specify a well understood multiple working standard for the new small fleet of 195s?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Roger Ford wrote an article on couplings a good few years ago. IIRC it was indeed the manufacturers that pushed the introduction of newer coupling types. This was because it was recognised that older couplings had a tendency to part in accidents. Indeed the BSI couplings fitted to Sprinters occasionally part without such a heavy provocation as happened at Leeds very recently and I was once a passenger on a similarly coupled train that did likewise between units on a slow speed and tightly curved approach to a station. Dellners and Scharfenbergs are much more robust in such situations but the various different ways that they are fitted to trains seem to depend on customer preference as regards the electrical connections. It's also worth recalling that in the lead up to privatisation we had the infamous "Thousand Day Famine" (actually 1,064 days), the gap between new train orders essentially caused by privatisation, which not only led to the eventual end of train manufacturing at Birmingham, Crewe and York but also meant a loss of input into manufacturers' thinking. So it was that Dellners and Scharfenbergs became established on our trains.

As for the US and AAR standards applied to locos that is hardly surprising considering the huge number of freight wagons there, all fitted with the same type of "knuckle" coupling. The mechanical coupling standard for loco-hauled trains has indeed been set in stone over there. As explained above to have taken such an action here would have left us permanently with less-than-best couplings fitted to our passenger carrying fleet. Imagine trying to justify that to an accident inquiry. The issue for Northern was always going to be at what point to make the generational change: whenever that decision was made it would always have lead to the issues being debated here.

Of course what is now SWR has been running a fleet with no less than three different coupling types quite successfully for well over a decade. And other TOCs also have such mixed fleets as regards couplings. Perhaps the end result on Northern will be more rigourous diagramming of unit types to routes thereby reducing the "random unit generator" effect so visible currently.

And I'll bet there was a similar discussion around the time of the introduction of the HST. Nobody in this discussion has held them up as poor practice in spite of them having no autocouplers of any description at the train ends. Funny that...

 

[D365]

And I'll bet there was a similar discussion around the time of the introduction of the HST. Nobody in this discussion has held them up as poor practice in spite of them having no autocouplers of any description at the train ends. Funny that...

To be fair, HSTs don’t work in multiple, so it’s not the same issue as Northern is purported to be facing.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

To be fair, HSTs don’t work in multiple, so it’s not the same issue as Northern is purported to be facing.

True enough. But on first introduction rescuing any failures was a real headache until crews got used to using the emergency coupling bar and air pipe extension hoses. As such they were certainly incompatible in the general scheme of things as they were at the time. Given time all concerned adjusted: it will be just the same with the CAF units.

 

[172212]

Given you've had to search around to find an isolated example of a class 153 working in multiple with post BR stock proves the point, normally that service is operated by X2 class 170s.

If there really was such a crying need for inter class compatibility, why do we not routinely see class 170s hooked up to 153s or other sprinter classes across the network all the time, not just once in a blue moon? Can you name a regular service run by a 170 + 153?

As I said before ... it's an anorak's fantasy, as is your notion that post 2020 we'll be riding around in weird and wonderful consists made up of life expired and non-prm compliant stock.

I take it you’re not familiar with workings in the West Midlands? Various Chase line diagrams are worked by 170+153, there’s a 170+153 on both Hereford - Birmingham and Snow Hill lines

 

[HSTEd]

Roger Ford wrote an article on couplings a good few years ago. IIRC it was indeed the manufacturers that pushed the introduction of newer coupling types. This was because it was recognised that older couplings had a tendency to part in accidents.

No it isn't
It's because it is in the manufacturer's interest to lock in rolling stock with proprietary couplings.

Indeed the BSI couplings fitted to Sprinters occasionally part without such a heavy provocation as happened at Leeds very recently and I was once a passenger on a similarly coupled train that did likewise between units on a slow speed and tightly curved approach to a station. Dellners and Scharfenbergs are much more robust in such situations but the various different ways that they are fitted to trains seem to depend on customer preference as regards the electrical connections. It's also worth recalling that in the lead up to privatisation we had the infamous "Thousand Day Famine" (actually 1,064 days), the gap between new train orders essentially caused by privatisation, which not only led to the eventual end of train manufacturing at Birmingham, Crewe and York but also meant a loss of input into manufacturers' thinking. So it was that Dellners and Scharfenbergs became established on our trains.

A multiple unit breaking like that is not actually an unsafe condition though, especially since the train will lose traction interlock when it parts and so the driver, and thus everyone else, will be made aware.
This is just PR spin for a cynical move by the manufacturers to try and guarantee themselves future business.

And once again the DfT and the operators have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

As for the US and AAR standards applied to locos that is hardly surprising considering the huge number of freight wagons there, all fitted with the same type of "knuckle" coupling. The mechanical coupling standard for loco-hauled trains has indeed been set in stone over there.

So the large numbers of freight wagons have dictated that essentially all US locomotives use the same multiple working system? (There are only three variants in use for rolling stock and that is merely a diesel/electric variation, and only a few wires are different in each)

EDIT (You can read the standard - including related standards for communications systems on passenger stock, here)

As explained above to have taken such an action here would have left us permanently with less-than-best couplings fitted to our passenger carrying fleet. Imagine trying to justify that to an accident inquiry.

Find me a situation where a coupler braking would make an accident worse.
This is not the 19th Century, we are not using trains without continuous fail-safe braking.
These are multiple units - not four axle wagons with no proper braking.

The issue for Northern was always going to be at what point to make the generational change: whenever that decision was made it would always have lead to the issues being debated here.

If it actually cared about running a railway it would have specified Sprinter compatibility for all units.
It doesn't care because it knows it will always be able to suck more subsidy heroin out of the pockets of the taxpayer because service cutbacks are verboten.

Of course what is now SWR has been running a fleet with no less than three different coupling types quite successfully for well over a decade. And other TOCs also have such mixed fleets as regards couplings. Perhaps the end result on Northern will be more rigourous diagramming of unit types to routes thereby reducing the "random unit generator" effect so visible currently.

So trains will be more likely to be run short formed because we now have multiple microfleets that cannot be mixed as required, and this is a positive?

And I'll bet there was a similar discussion around the time of the introduction of the HST. Nobody in this discussion has held them up as poor practice in spite of them having no autocouplers of any description at the train ends. Funny that...

When the HST was developed - were autocouplers even in existance in Britain?

 

[sprinterguy]

When the HST was developed - were autocouplers even in existance in Britain?

The first main line autocouplers were just being introduced on the class 313s which were delivered concurrently with the HSTs. Given that the HSTs were intended as a "quick win" train design using proven technology, though, and not intended to work in multiple, presumably fitting with autocouplers wouldn't have been considered. Even the all singing, all dancing, APT-P trains featured a conventional draw hook and buffing gear for rescue purposes under that streamlined nosecone. It was more relevant that both train types could be assisted by a loco as required.

 

[edwin_m]

No it isn't
A multiple unit breaking like that is not actually an unsafe condition though, especially since the train will lose traction interlock when it parts and so the driver, and thus everyone else, will be made aware.

Find me a situation where a coupler braking would make an accident worse.
This is not the 19th Century, we are not using trains without continuous fail-safe braking.
These are multiple units - not four axle wagons with no proper braking.

If the units have through gangways, there is an obvious hazard to people in the vicinity of them if the unit parts. Anyone stepping from one unit to the other at that instant would probably fall onto the track and under the following unit. And anyone in the rear unit close to the gangway would be at risk of pitching forward and doing the same due to the loss of interlock applying emergency brakes.

When the HST was developed - were autocouplers even in existance in Britain?

I believe the first ones were on the PEP prototypes which were roughtly contemporary with the HST. However as the HST is fixed formation and never runs in multiple with other units I don't see how autocouplers are relevant.

 

[kje7812]

Given you've had to search around to find an isolated example of a class 153 working in multiple with post BR stock proves the point, normally that service is operated by X2 class 170s.

If there really was such a crying need for inter class compatibility, why do we not routinely see class 170s hooked up to 153s or other sprinter classes across the network all the time, not just once in a blue moon? Can you name a regular service run by a 170 + 153?

As I said before ... it's an anorak's fantasy, as is your notion that post 2020 we'll be riding around in weird and wonderful consists made up of life expired and non-prm compliant stock.

Until recently with some of the rolling stock transfers, it was very common for ScotRail to run a 170 and 158 together.

 

[swt_passenger]

Until recently with some of the rolling stock transfers, it was very common for ScotRail to run a 170 and 158 together.

As did SWT for some years before their 170s went, with the aim of standardisation on 158s and 159s.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Find me a situation where a coupler braking would make an accident worse.
This is not the 19th Century, we are not using trains without continuous fail-safe braking.
These are multiple units - not four axle wagons with no proper braking.

Good grief, how about derailments at speed?!! Couplers can't be made to be completely indestructible under all circumstances but nevertheless a high level of robustness makes a difference. Though French experience shows that wider use of articulation would be a further improvement; not likely to happen here due to axle loading considerations.

As for the rest of your post you are welcome to your cynicism. It is obviously so deep rooted that there is little point in having any discussion.

 

[HSTEd]

Good grief, how about derailments at speed?!!

How many fatalities have there been due to the failure of a BSI coupler during an at-speed derailment?
How many times has a BSI coupler failed during a derailment.

The quanta of increased safety from dropping the BSI coupler is absolutely tiny.

On the other side, the loss of standardisation amongst the bulk DMU fleet will result in real and noticeable reductions in operational efficiency and flexibility and thus reduce the ability of the railway to carry passengers economically and safely. (After all short-forming causes overcrowding which can lead to passenger illness or fatalities in certain circumstances)

The reduction in the economic ability of the railway to achieve its objectives also risks causing additional environmental damage which will outweigh the savings in terms of lives from dropping the BSI coupler for some other proprietary type (and ofcourse there will be no standard MU system at all in the brave new world, the mistakes of the first gen programme are doomed to be repeated it seems).

Couplers can't be made to be completely indestructible under all circumstances but nevertheless a high level of robustness makes a difference. Though French experience shows that wider use of articulation would be a further improvement; not likely to happen here due to axle loading considerations.

Well there are the huge numbers of FLIRTs on order that have been ordered that are partially articulated.

As for the rest of your post you are welcome to your cynicism. It is obviously so deep rooted that there is little point in having any discussion.

It is the logical conclusion of the trend towards trains being marketed as services with maintenance and the like outsourced to the manufacturer.

Train builders are businesses, and attempting to create manufacturer lock-in is a common business practice.

 

[James James]

No it isn't
It's because it is in the manufacturer's interest to lock in rolling stock with proprietary couplings.

If it actually cared about running a railway it would have specified Sprinter compatibility for all units.
It doesn't care because it knows it will always be able to suck more subsidy heroin out of the pockets of the taxpayer because service cutbacks are verboten.

If only it were about having the same couplers....

The trouble is, electrical and software compatibity is needed, and that drives up costs - which is something the customer has to come up for. There are plenty of examples of this not being easy, just look at Pendolino+Voyager, or the SBB DPZ+DTZ. It's ended up being more cost effective to just run separate fleets rather than spend more time and money on getting trains talking.

 

[73001]

If only it were about having the same couplers....

The trouble is, electrical and software compatibity is needed, and that drives up costs - which is something the customer has to come up for. There are plenty of examples of this not being easy, just look at Pendolino+Voyager, or the SBB DPZ+DTZ. It's ended up being more cost effective to just run separate fleets rather than spend more time and money on getting trains talking.

...that saves me the question I was just typing namely would it be worthwhile for a TOC or ROSCO to change the couplers and jiggle the wires about to make themselves a large fleet of different units that were able to run together. I do feel that it's a missed opportunity not making all the new stuff compatible when we are ordering so much of it.

 

[HSTEd]

If only it were about having the same couplers....

The trouble is, electrical and software compatibity is needed, and that drives up costs - which is something the customer has to come up for. There are plenty of examples of this not being easy, just look at Pendolino+Voyager, or the SBB DPZ+DTZ. It's ended up being more cost effective to just run separate fleets rather than spend more time and money on getting trains talking.

This is partially because of the insistence on network-style connections between units.
The AAR standard, and the BSI/Sprinter standard is based on a simple, well understood electrical specification that easy to emulate.

Very large fleets of standardised locomotives are maintained in the US, and is apparently the most cost effective approach there......

 

[Roast Veg]

But a simple electrical standard doesn't account for modern Passenger Information Systems with real time information, detailed on-train system modelling and fault finding, operational information logging, or climate adjustment. These are all digital systems that are, now, controlled as entities on a network and have no defined standard for their operation. Any implementation of such a standard would be obsolete before it could ever be implemented.

 

[NotATrainspott]

But a simple electrical standard doesn't account for modern Passenger Information Systems with real time information, detailed on-train system modelling and fault finding, operational information logging, or climate adjustment. These are all digital systems that are, now, controlled as entities on a network and have no defined standard for their operation. Any implementation of such a standard would be obsolete before it could ever be implemented.

The only way I can see inter-compatible digital connections happening is if they move to a standard TCP/IP stack and the coupler becomes a glorified Ethernet connector. A coupled train would become its own local area network and intermediate carriages wouldn't need to do anything about messages they don't understand. Sorting out inter-compatibility in software would presumably be much easier than electro-mechanically. When a new train coupling standard comes along, the new manufacturer could write a software package to be run on the older trains to make them able to understand one another. Aircraft are moving to Ethernet for critical systems so I can't see rail having much of an excuse.

 

[D365]

The only way I can see inter-compatible digital connections happening is if they move to a standard TCP/IP stack and the coupler becomes a glorified Ethernet connector.

Which results in new rolling stock being incompatible with older types

With the frantic competition going on in the UK rolling stock scene I can't see there being much incentive to standardise.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Which results in new rolling stock being incompatible with older types

With the frantic competition going on in the UK rolling stock scene I can't see there being much incentive to standardise.

Retrofitting such a network-based coupler would seem to be the easiest way of making existing trains compatible. If you can create a box which can turn whatever existing coupler signals into the standard network packets and vice-versa, and string the necessary cables along the carriages, then you're basically there. Of course, the bigger problem in a lot of cases is physical incompatibility (e.g. height). Still, if that can be addressed, then it might well work.

What would be the justification for a mass coupler compatibility program? I imagine it would be Network Rail realising that the best way of maintaining reliability is for trains to be able to instantly rescue one another. Track access fees could be varied depending on the rescue compatibility of trains.

 

[James James]

Retrofitting such a network-based coupler would seem to be the easiest way of making existing trains compatible. If you can create a box which can turn whatever existing coupler signals into the standard network packets and vice-versa, and string the necessary cables along the carriages, then you're basically there. Of course, the bigger problem in a lot of cases is physical incompatibility (e.g. height). Still, if that can be addressed, then it might well work.

What would be the justification for a mass coupler compatibility program? I imagine it would be Network Rail realising that the best way of maintaining reliability is for trains to be able to instantly rescue one another. Track access fees could be varied depending on the rescue compatibility of trains.

Basically you're saying, push up stock procurement and maintance costs a LOT, for very little benefit?

I repeat: making modern trains compatible isn't cheap or easy (plenty of evidence of that, as train companies have given up on it even after specifying compatibility in a new order) and those costs have to be carried by someone. In the end those costs translate into ticket prices. Incompatibility seems cheaper to deal with than paying for compatibility.

(Incidentally, as long as you standardise on one coupler - which is now the Dellner - any new train can rescue any new train. And rescue locos need only carry a dellner adapter.)

 

[HSTEd]

But a simple electrical standard doesn't account for modern Passenger Information Systems with real time information, detailed on-train system modelling and fault finding, operational information logging, or climate adjustment.

Given that every unit will have to be fitted with a GSM-R radio as a matter of course now, the question is whether on train system modelling actually needs to be passed over couplings at all.
Or climate adjustment.

These things are not safety critical systems so the dropping of signal occasionally is not an issue.

These are all digital systems that are, now, controlled as entities on a network and have no defined standard for their operation. Any implementation of such a standard would be obsolete before it could ever be implemented.

Which is why Ethernet and IP were obsolete years ago and noone uses them..... oh wait.

Basically you're saying, push up stock procurement and maintance costs a LOT, for very little benefit?

Why would requiring people to comply with a pre existing standard put up stock procurement and maintenance costs a lot?

One modern IP (if we are going to go modern and have a generational break in compatibility) based system will be entirely compatible with another.
Any datagrams not understood by a vehicle would simply be ignored but passed down the chain unaltered.

You then specify a basic control set at the beginning that all vehicles must understand, and a basic PIS standard based on similar standards for messaging that are used elsewhere.

(Incidentally, as long as you standardise on one coupler - which is now the Dellner - any new train can rescue any new train. And rescue locos need only carry a dellner adapter.)

If we are standardising on the Dellner we should fit the locos only with Dellners and abolish buffer type couplings entirely.