First generation DMU questions

[johnb]

Some info re parcels traffic and towing a parcels van which may be of interest. This comes from a BR Western Region pamphlet dated October 1957!! entitled "Multiple Unit Trains for the information of Operating Dept Staff"

 

the section reads:-

 

Tail Traffic

 

Inter-City trains must not convey tail traffic and the booked formation must not be varied.

Regular tail traffic must only be attached to other Multiple-Unit diesel trains where

authorised and shown in train-working notices.

 

Additional vehicles must not be conveyed unless specially authorised by the District

Operating Superintendent or District Traffic Superintendent, and the total trailing tonnage

must not exceed the total weight of the power cars; the instructions on pages 109 and 110 of

the General Appendix must be observed as far as they apply.

 

I find the trailing weight restriction to be interesting information.

 

Just in case this will be useful!

 

John

Edited October 12, 2015 by johnb

[muddys-blues]

As someone who works at the owning depot, the Pennines did work in mixed formations with other blue square units. There was regular instances from late 1969 were the DMCs were replaced with 101 and 104 DMCLs, and on a few occasions 101MBS and DTCLs were also used.

 

As for tail loads the sectional appendix would state what tail load could be carried over a particular route and if a unit had an engine isolated it would be highly unlikely a tail load would be conveyed.

 

Al Taylor

 

I have a picture in a book "somewhere" If I find it I will scan it on here, it is a 2 car Class 101 unit in refurbished blue stripe livery running with a 2 coach TP class 123 unit made up of a Driving coach and a TS coach, it's look rather odd.

 

Craig.

[Vin]

Hi all,

Do you mean this one?

 

https://flic.kr/p/9gUrEU

 

I know it doesn't show the front driving car, but it is a trans pennine set. There is also another somewhere with a all blue set coupled up.

 

Regards

Vin

[muddys-blues]

Hi all,

Do you mean this one?

 

https://flic.kr/p/9gUrEU

 

I know it doesn't show the front driving car, but it is a trans pennine set. There is also another somewhere with a all blue set coupled up.

 

Regards

Vin

 

Hi Vin, that maybe the same set, but the picture I have shows the set mid journey somewhere, I will find it.

 

Craig.

[SRman]

Sorry, but blue square cannot couple to anything else. That's power cars and trailers. I.e. class 101 DMCL+class 104 TSL+Derby Lightweight DTCL(Yellow Diamond). This cannot be since the DTCL is a trailer of the wrong coupling code, and being a trailer cannot be run in a 3 car unit anyway. Also means there would be no guards van!

You have to keep to the same coupling codes throughout a DMU train. Never mix them.

A bit more information about the question of the differences of class 101 and class 108 underframes is needed, for this question can be interpreted in several ways. I.e. the real units underframes and their differences, or the models and their differences.

I think that another look at the Railcar website would be of help if it is a question relating to the prototype, or refer to the Bachmann models if it is a model question.

The prototypes were really quite similar, but the 101's had a more 'robust' underframe than the 108's, which were more like a Derby Lightweight underframe.

 

With regards,

 

Rob.

 

 

Just to muddy the waters slightly, there was one exception to this: the hydraulic units of class 127 were originally coded as blue square but later changed to red triangle (re-used after the original Derby Lightweights of that code had long gone). They could work with blue square units but with special provisions for the gear changing on the blue square unit(s). That also means that class 127 trailers and blue square trailers could be used interchangeably - one of the preserved railways does indeed mix these types on occasions.

 

The change of code came about because at the time the 127s were still coded blue square there was a failure caused by the blue square unit being attached at the back of the class 127. Being diesel hydraulic, there were no gear changes or gear changing apparatus on the 127, so the poor old blue square unit at the back was being forced to run at higher speeds still in first gear. Surprisingly, this was not very good for it mechanically!!     In most respects the two types were still compatible, and the MU cabling through the centre trailers would have been identical as far as the signals they were carrying.

[kenw]

Class 108s were also referred to as Derby Lightweights, while classes 107 and 114 were referred to as Derby Heavyweights. You can sometimes find the letters 'LW' or 'HW' stencilled on the fronts above the buffers or even in white on the blue square coupling symbol.

The term 'Lightweights' referred to the construction technique rather than any particular classes, or even weigh as I don't think there was actually that much difference in actual weight.

 

'Lightweight' cars would always have the 'LW' stencilled on the ends, initially on the blue square, and after this was dropped after the non-blue square types were defunct, in place of it as illustrated  above, as the LW had operational significance - these cars were restricted as to where they could be formed when being conveyed in loco hauled ecs / parcels trains, and maybe were more restricted in conveying tail loads than 'Heavyweights'. Don't recall HW markings being applied.

[Market65]

Why were some class 101 cars and some class 105 cars marked LW whilst others in these two classes were not? It all seems so weird!

 

With confusion,

 

Rob.

[kenw]

Why were some class 101 cars and some class 105 cars marked LW whilst others in these two classes were not? It all seems so weird!

 

With confusion,

 

Rob.

Agreed, and the B Golding / Cheona book I referenced earlier doesn't make any mention of any 101 / 105 sets being classed as Lightweights, as far I as know, they weren't

[kenw]

BR General Appendix, 1972

Hauling of "dead" locomotives and multiple-unit stock

Part II - Multiple Unit Stock

1.Movement

.....

(e) "Dead" multiple-unit stock must not be conveyed in freight trains

(f) Not more than two lightweight vehicles may be conveyed "dead" in a train and they must be placed together at the rear of the train. Lightweight vehicles are distinguished by the letters "LW" painted on the vehicle ends.

[Market65]

And yet, as far as I know, classes 101 and 105 are not LW's. Did BR change ''status'' of these two classes of unit in he '70's? Or was it a 'works interpretation', with someone stencilling the LW's on the ends of these two classes of unit only? I really am very confused here! You see I thought that 101's and 105's were 'ordinary' with their construction etc., and treated in the same way as, for example, classes 104 and 107.

 

In confusion,

 

Rob.

[The Stationmaster]

Some info re parcels traffic and towing a parcels van which may be of interest. This comes from a BR Western Region pamphlet dated October 1957!! entitled "Multiple Unit Trains for the information of Operating Dept Staff"

 

the section reads:-

 

Tail Traffic

 

Inter-City trains must not convey tail traffic and the booked formation must not be varied.

Regular tail traffic must only be attached to other Multiple-Unit diesel trains where

authorised and shown in train-working notices.

 

Additional vehicles must not be conveyed unless specially authorised by the District

Operating Superintendent or District Traffic Superintendent, and the total trailing tonnage

must not exceed the total weight of the power cars; the instructions on pages 109 and 110 of

the General Appendix must be observed as far as they apply.

 

I find the trailing weight restriction to be interesting information.

 

Just in case this will be useful!

 

John

Without delving out the book (which I suspect doesn't explain it anyway) I presume the ban on Inter City units (later Class 126) was partly because of the couplings - they were buckeye fitted although at least the outer ends had drop heads - but partly also to avoid increasing the load and thus causing them to lose time in running on the fairly tight bookings they ran to.

[Swindon 123]

I have a picture in a book "somewhere" If I find it I will scan it on here, it is a 2 car Class 101 unit in refurbished blue stripe livery running with a 2 coach TP class 123 unit made up of a Driving coach and a TS coach, it's look rather odd.

 

Craig.

 

 

Hi all,

Do you mean this one?

 

https://flic.kr/p/9gUrEU

 

I know it doesn't show the front driving car, but it is a trans pennine set. There is also another somewhere with a all blue set coupled up.

 

Regards

Vin

You can also include this one at Sheffield.

https://flic.kr/p/hPvWfk

 

Paul J.

[Robert Shrives]

Hi,

To add to the fun, at TS we had 4 car blue square 115/116/117 hybrids and the gear change speeds for 115 differed to the others, this always meant racing engines and lurches as the 116/117 power cars caught up the 115!  The trailers gave us a choice of TS,TC, TCL,TSL so with 115 DMS and DMBS and 117/116  brakes and driving motors the 4 cars were a feast of varying seating totals and power weight ratios as the 115 had a bigger engine. All being blue sqaure everything worked together.

 

Sometimes a 121 got in the mix added to a 3 car. At the end the formations of 4 cars could be a 3 car plus another motor car coupled on with the unused connection locked off. - This then had a route limit = could not go Hereford due tunnel evacuation issue, but of course sometimes a DBMS not a DMS added -so lots of fun had.   

 

Robert

[cheesysmith]

Regarding the stencilling of LW on the DMU's, remember that the introduction of TOPS would have made it redundant. TOPS wouldn't allow a train formation with the LW units in the incorrect order.you would require DMU instructions pre TOPS to confirm what units would be LW or not.

[roythebus]

All this reminds me of the incident at Kings Cross back in the mid-1970's where a 4 car Cravens split into 2x2 cars in the platform as booked. The driver went to get the back 2 cars and found it wouldn't start....only to find it was 2 non-motor driving trailers!

[Clive Mortimore]

I saw LW on Gloucester, Met Cam, Cravens, and Derby short underframe units. I cannot recall seeing on Wickham or BRCW short underframe sets. I believe lightweight refers to their end loading not the vehicle weight.

 

All long underframe units were heavyweight. Derby did build a series of heavy weight short underframe units for Scotland (Class 107).

[Swindon 123]

Hi,

To add to the fun, at TS we had 4 car blue square 115/116/117 hybrids and the gear change speeds for 115 differed to the others, this always meant racing engines and lurches as the 116/117 power cars caught up the 115!  The trailers gave us a choice of TS,TC, TCL,TSL so with 115 DMS and DMBS and 117/116  brakes and driving motors the 4 cars were a feast of varying seating totals and power weight ratios as the 115 had a bigger engine. All being blue sqaure everything worked together.

 

Sometimes a 121 got in the mix added to a 3 car. At the end the formations of 4 cars could be a 3 car plus another motor car coupled on with the unused connection locked off. - This then had a route limit = could not go Hereford due tunnel evacuation issue, but of course sometimes a DBMS not a DMS added -so lots of fun had.   

 

Robert

I always wondered why you could never get a smooth gear change on one of those 4 car "Hybrids". But in the right circumstances they would go like the clappers, and would stop on a sixpence as well. I drove a lot on the "Hybrid" sets between Hereford and Birmingham New Street. Sometimes they ran better than a 3 car 116 despite the extra trailer. These was a caveat attached to the units in that you had to be careful when you had an engine not working as to which one it was. The 115 power cars had what where referred to as "big engines" whereas the 116/117 powers cars only had "little engines". If it was a "little engine" not working then you where permitted to attempt to get up the Old Hill bank between Cradley Heath and Rowley Regis. If it was a "big engine" that was not working you where not permitted to attempt Old Hill. Assistance in the form of a banker was required. I never had to call for assistance whilst working a "hybrid" unit, but did attempt Old Hill bank with one with a "small engine" out and the start away from Old Hill station was very much a "touch and go" situation, and it took an agonizing amount of time for the unit to pull away up the bank. In general though I experienced very few faults or failures on Tyseley units, a tribute to the maintenance staff considering the rubbish they where given, and had to work with. Everyone else's cast offs.

 

The restriction on units on the Hereford-Worcester line was for non-gangwayed trains on account of Ledbury tunnel being too narrow and only an inward opening door can be used for evacuation. This even applied to non gangwayed units going ECS as the drivers door wouldn't open either. This accounts for the unusual DMU diagrams for the Hereford-Oxford and Hereford-Birmingham services, which where worked by Cardiff, Bristol and London based units as they had gangways fitted. From the mid 80's Tyseley started to fit gangways to their sets, or had them transferred in so where able to start diagramming units on Hereford-Birmingham services. To this day I believe HST's still have operating issues as only the drivers doors on the power cars can be opened. The "Guard" has to be near the back of the train so that passengers can be evacuated through the rear power car cab in the case of an emergency.

 

Paul J.

 

Edited to add the name of Ledbury tunnel to the post. Otherwise no one would have a clue as the what I was on about. Dooohhh!

Edited October 15, 2015 by Swindon 123

[TheSignalEngineer]

I was once waiting at Stourbridge Junction Middle box for my train to arrive. The driver came on the phone asking for the banker to be put in the platform for him to run on to for assistance to Birmingham due to an engine having shut down. The banker was locked in between trains at Round Oak, so the driver decided to risk it. We just about managed to restart from Old Hill, then went through to Rowley Regis at walking pace.

[Robert Shrives]

Hi ,

In a backhanded way I agree about Tyesley keeping stuff going - I never failed but it was a close run thing! My only cancellation due a fault was the driver hitting the AWS cancellation button that hard the desk snapped and it dropped through ! "Driver unable to cancel AWS" Fitters attended - laughed and set went to Tyesley to be fixed - or have more defects put on depending on your point of view.

 

I showed a driver how to isolate a final drive at Four Oaks as it would not reverse and we were in the bay with a 4 car, came home on 3.

ASLEF staff did ask me on my return to depot what did a guard know about such matters - bought in my VHS copy of the DMU driver training film- did not see it for 3 months as it did the rounds! Certainly Rose tinted looking back but no heaters , jammed doors, failed underframes, poor or nonesistent lighting, panels falling off and holes in guards van floors on winter days was part of the reality - hats off to the gangs keeping them going today.

Robert        

[Market65]

Thanks for the information about the application of the LW's to DMU car ends. But if a unit not so marked - i.e. class 114 - and then one marked out with the LW's also then had one coupled at the rear, surely then the unit said to be a Light Weight unit should not have had the PMV/CCT attached as a trailing load?

 

That story about the AWS cancellation button is incredibly funny! Never laughed so much!

 

With best regards,

 

Rob.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Market65

[TheSignalEngineer]

Tyseley certainly did keep things running in those days. My train home was a fill in turn for a unit from away, and was the first cancellation as it did two trips to Shirley, returning ECS between them. It was rarely cancelled in the near 20 years I used it regularly.

 

There were odd coaches with branding of all the PTEs including Stratclyde and maps of anywhere that DMUs ran. We even got sets consisting of a Cravens driving car. MetCam trailer and a Gloucester Bubble Car.

[JDW]

Very interesting thread, I'm afraid I've nothing to add that hasn't already been said, not that I know much about 1st gen units anyway, so just a thanks to those who've contributed to it for an interesting half hour's reading

[adanapress]

In passing,  in the earlier days of the 101s in east Anglia,   in quieter corners of the area one often saw a 12 ton van as a tail load, I believe two such were the permitted maximum, but one was usual.   Norwich depot had them early, and had great success with them, except once when a very late night return trip  from Yarmouth to Norwich failed to complete the sequence of manual reversal of the final drive at Yarmouth before starting the trip.  One had to get down on the track and pull a handle, and  the power unit nearest the buffers was somehow  missed.   It started out towards Norwich  wtih one unit running the wrong way! and unsuprisingly the hydraulics of that unit blew up,  in a very remote marshland area at about midnight.   Pink stuff all over the track.

Norwich breakdown gang had it sorted in no time, and by the time the District Motive Power boss arrived (having waded across several ditches), it was ready to go with all passengers moved to  the front section, and the guard guarding the open corridor connection. And off they went tho' somewhat late.  

[Market65]

Well, I remember a driver of a class 101 at Bridlington, in about 1981, forgetting to release the brake on leaving the station. The warning horn sounded, and the unit automatically ground to a halt. The driver realised his mistake. He released the brake, and then the 101 was able to be driven away in the usual way. It did not happen again!

 

With regards,

 

Rob.

[Titan]

Hi ,

In a backhanded way I agree about Tyesley keeping stuff going

 

One story I heard was about their approach to failed gearboxes. Rather than returning them to works for overhaul, particularly when short of replacements, they were quite adept at swapping about internals and making one functioning gearbox out of two bad. Consequently the works hated getting gearboxes from Tysley to overhaul, because by then it was basically a casing with nothing but scrap inside!

Edited October 17, 2015 by Titan