159220 Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 The primary offenders here are the Pendolinos (and I think Voyagers..?) which is why the Thunderbird 57's needed their Delner couplings adjusted to be able to be used for EMU stock moves. Though the MK4 carriages have their intra set Tightlock couplings at different height than that used by those on EMUs which are I believe at the normal height for Buckeye couplers on coaching stock etc. There are two coupler height standards. 'High speed' and 'commuter/regional'. (HS: 180, 220, 221, 222, 397, 390, 800, 801, 802). Note 180 has a Scharfenberg NOT Dellner coupler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TravisM Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 Sorry just not true. 1. No 'tweeking necessary, simple software change. But more importantly, 2. GWR has transferred over 12 x 387s for Heathrow Express services as they have a surplus of 387s! Not a shortage! Until Oxford is electrified, they shall not have a requirement for further 387s. At this point in the future, it is expected the surplus 387s from C2C shall become available. The 365s MUST stay with Govia Thameslink Railway until 2021, they are of oder of the DfT to remain (seeing as they were a government build order to keep York works open back in the day). When I said “tweaking”, I meant a software change or upgrade as 379’s are 100mph units, where as 387’s are 110mph. I was told about the 379’s by a friend I used to work with who is a manager at Govia as when I said about the 365’s, he said it was true about them having to remain with GN until 2021 but they have limited use and those still in service are used basically only at peak times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 I understand, but it ought to be a condition of the terms of a TOC's franchise that they make suitable provision for clearing the line for other trains in the event of a failure. (Maybe it is?). It was originally a condition in the Access Agreements - any operator's traction unit may, when needs arise, be taken and used to remove from the running line a failed train/traction unit of any other operator provided it is capable of being coupled to the failed train (or words to basically that effect). Fee (in 1994) for doing so was £1,000; the last i heard it had been increased to £2,000. It was potentially far cheaper to contract with a TOC to do such a job on your n behalf - if you could find one to do it for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 The 379s are eye-wateringly expensive to lease, ordered as they were by Macquarie, shortly after the 2008 financial markets crash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classsix T Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 I wonder if this part of the discussion is less to do with the fact it'd be as simple as you like to couple rolling stock from different manufacturers mechanically, but they'd rather OUR units didn't interface with THEIR units quite so easily lest THEIR software analysis guy plugs in his laptop and pilfers OUR traction operating system that we spent $3m perfecting? Intellectual property seems to be the big thing these days, to the point Silicone Valley firms will put in patents for ideas before they've even made the thing. C6T. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 There are two coupler height standards. 'High speed' and 'commuter/regional'. (HS: 180, 220, 221, 222, 397, 390, 800, 801, 802). Note 180 has a Scharfenberg NOT Dellner coupler. The Dellner coupler is, as I understood it when I was directly involved with rolling stock, a licence built version of the Scharfenberg, meaning that the two will couple as they share a common design. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) I can't see why they'd be worried about that. Mobile networks commonly have kit from 3 or 4 different suppliers working together over common interfaces. All they do is define a common protocol for exchanging data and instructions over the interface-there's no direct interaction with each others operating systems. I know different rolling stock will have different traction and braking characteristics, but that's not insoluble. After all, a 25 can work in multi with a 40, and they're pretty different. Edited January 16, 2019 by rodent279 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 At one point, the SR had a whole fleet virtually all of which could either operate in multi, or at least couple up and rescue each other. We really have gone backwards. No wonder the world laughs at us. And, if I'm not mistaken, classes 302/3/4/5/7/8/9/10/11/12 could work in multiple. Though I doubt a 302/303 combo ever happened! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 A lot of the BR modern EMUs can work in multi but for some reason prohibited in passenger service Think there maybe derogation for certain classes but certainty not all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted January 16, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2019 While we're on the subject of MU working, why do/did EMU's not carry coupling codes? Locos did (admittedly not AC electrics though), DMU's did, why not EMU's? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 While we're on the subject of MU working, why do/did EMU's not carry coupling codes? Locos did (admittedly not AC electrics though), DMU's did, why not EMU's? Possibly because it was fairly obvious when looking at the MU and coupling combinations what would/could work together and there weren't a multitude of different types likely to be near each other? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted January 17, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 17, 2019 I understand, but it ought to be a condition of the terms of a TOC's franchise that they make suitable provision for clearing the line for other trains in the event of a failure. (Maybe it is?). A condition which his easily satisfied simply by sending out another unit of the same class to rescue the failure! If a 700 unit packs up on the BML say there are going to be plenty of other 700 units about to rescue it. Please remember that passenger TOCs do not generally own fleets locomotives* - if one is required to clear the line then it has to be hired from a FOC at considerable expense (and will require a coupling adaptor). *Having things sat around 'just in case' is a bad business practice according to the money men and the DfT will swiftly reject any franchise bids that include such provision as not providing value for money for the taxpayer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted January 17, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 17, 2019 755406 worked some test trips from Norwich to Yarmouth and back during the night. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 A condition which his easily satisfied simply by sending out another unit of the same class to rescue the failure! If a 700 unit packs up on the BML say there are going to be plenty of other 700 units about to rescue it. Please remember that passenger TOCs do not generally own fleets locomotives* - if one is required to clear the line then it has to be hired from a FOC at considerable expense (and will require a coupling adaptor). *Having things sat around 'just in case' is a bad business practice according to the money men and the DfT will swiftly reject any franchise bids that include such provision as not providing value for money for the taxpayer. Other than on a railway with just one fleet and little or no freight traffic, the probability is that between the failed train and any other identical train that can effect a rescue lie one or more incompatible trains. It would not have been difficult for BR (and its successor Railtrack/Network Rail) to have specified a standard coupler type and height for anything intended to run on its network. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium iands Posted January 17, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 17, 2019 Other than on a railway with just one fleet and little or no freight traffic, the probability is that between the failed train and any other identical train that can effect a rescue lie one or more incompatible trains. It would not have been difficult for BR (and its successor Railtrack/Network Rail) to have specified a standard coupler type and height for anything intended to run on its network. Jim I agree with your first statement Jim, but Railtrack, and its successor Network Rail, had/have nothing to do with specifying couplers for freight/passenger Rolling Stock, or anything else on Rolling Stock for that matter, they were/are concerned with "infrastructure" only (yes I accept they had/have their own "engineering" fleet which they will have specified). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classsix T Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 But the ORR could've? C6T. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted January 17, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 17, 2019 But the ORR could've? C6T. Could have - but rolling stock matters are regarded as a matter for the TOCs / ROSCOs to handle (the ORRs role is principally supposed to be about safety - not the niceties of rescuing broken down units) - and obeying true Thatcherite principles is something that should be left to the 'power of the free market' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 I'm not familiar with the TSIs as they concern rolling stock, but it's the kind of thing that really ought to be covered by such documents. But the cat was well and truly out of the bag by the time they came along. And as has been noted, BR started the rot, so it can't be blamed on privatisation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium iands Posted January 17, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 17, 2019 But the ORR could've? C6T. I'm certain that ORR don't specify anything either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 There are two coupler height standards. 'High speed' and 'commuter/regional'. (HS: 180, 220, 221, 222, 397, 390, 800, 801, 802). Note 180 has a Scharfenberg NOT Dellner coupler. Cool - didn't realise that was the reason (I thought it was just Virgin being "special"...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Could have - but rolling stock matters are regarded as a matter for the TOCs / ROSCOs to handle (the ORRs role is principally supposed to be about safety - not the niceties of rescuing broken down units) - and obeying true Thatcherite principles is something that should be left to the 'power of the free market'The primary role of the ORR is to act as the policeman for NR, both as regards its operation and maintenance of the national railway infrastructure and access to it by the train operators. Safety is a secondary role that it inherited when HMRI was transferred out of the HSE (a good thing). Interface standards would sit wither NR or the RSSB. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted January 17, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 17, 2019 Wandering off topic a little-how did KG5, Royal Scot & Coronation couple up to American rolling stock when they went over there? I know F***** S******* had a buckeye fitted for its North American tour of the ealry 1970's, and all had Westinghouse brakes fitted, but what were the actual couplings? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johann Marsbar Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Wandering off topic a little-how did KG5, Royal Scot & Coronation couple up to American rolling stock when they went over there? I know F***** S******* had a buckeye fitted for its North American tour of the ealry 1970's, and all had Westinghouse brakes fitted, but what were the actual couplings? Looks like Royal Scot had a buckeye fitted on the front of the loco (for a local engine to assist?), but my guess is that the remainder of the stock retained the UK couplings..... http://www.webpraxis.ab.ca/vrr/_Remarks/Royal_Scot.shtml Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted January 18, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 18, 2019 Moving on from discussions about couplings. There is apparently a unit being dragged to Cambridge on Sunday - nothing in the system for it yet, but for those interested keep an eye out. I assume via Thetford as Haughley - Bury is shut. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Moving on from discussions about couplings. There is apparently a unit being dragged to Cambridge on Sunday - nothing in the system for it yet, but for those interested keep an eye out. I assume via Thetford as Haughley - Bury is shut. If you hear more then please do shout, it's walking distance to Brandon for me now and I'm actually doing nothing on Sunday! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now