Peter Kazmierczak Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Can anyone confirm the actual numbers carried by these two units please? My info is that they are: 5912 : 77835/62837/67400/77836 (67400 is the TSO originally from 210002) 5913: 77837/67301/71726/77838 (67301 was the DTSO originally from 21002, but extensively rebuilt to replace 62838 badly damaged at Oxshott in 2010) Both units were in service on Saturday. There is a slight physical difference on the rail-strips of 67400 compared with the rest on the other vehicles of 5912. However, in Marsden's 2016 Rail Guide, 5913 is shown to include 62838 (its original MSO which I thought had been scrapped after useable items were salvaged). Is Marsden's listing incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted July 10, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 10, 2016 You version is correct, Peter. 62838 was stripped of reusable parts after the Oxshott incident and its remains then scrapped. 67301 was modified to resemble as closely as possible the vehicle it replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 The vehicles from the class 210 units were covered in a very recent Modern Locomotives Illustrated with DEMUs as the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted July 10, 2016 Author Share Posted July 10, 2016 Thanks Guys for the confirmation. Looks like you can't always trust published lists..... This is 5912 - note the lack of rainstrip on 67400. And this is 5913. I can't spot anything that shows that vehicle 67301 was once a Cl.210 DTSO, such is the totally thorough rebuild job. It even has a Cl.455 matching cantrail rainstrip! By the time I got onto the platform the train was moving off, so I couldn't get a clearer shot of it's number - hence my enquiry. 5912 was working the Kingston roundabout service, whilst 5913 was on the Shepperton branch yesterday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Only difference I can see on the latter is the bolsters above the bogie airbags. Quite an impressive bit of rebuilding work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted July 10, 2016 Author Share Posted July 10, 2016 I think the design of those lifting points has been strengthened/amended over the years on other Cl.455 vehicles too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Cheese Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 More of interest here perhaps: http://www.railengineer.uk/2013/05/10/reshelling-a-455/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kintbury jon Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 5912 at Twickenham. 5913 at Fulwell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted July 10, 2016 Author Share Posted July 10, 2016 5912 at Twickenham. 5913 at Fulwell? Spot-on Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kintbury jon Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Fulwell was my nearest station when growing up so it was an easy guess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted July 10, 2016 Author Share Posted July 10, 2016 Fulwell was my nearest station when growing up so it was an easy guess! My son lives in Hampton Hill, so it's his nearest too; marginally over Hampton. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
31basher Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 Hi, Can anyone advise what caused 62837 in 455912 to have to be replaced by 67400 please. I believe it was in the early 2000's this happened. Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomag Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 Hi, Can anyone advise what caused 62837 in 455912 to have to be replaced by 67400 please. I believe it was in the early 2000's this happened. Keith. 67400 replaced the TSO not the MSO. AFAIK one of the TSOs (71733 in 5920) was damaged and 67400 replaced it in August 1988 until October 1990. After that two of the TSOs were use to test the doors for Networker and in the move around 67400 ended up in 5918 from April 91 to March 01. At that point it replaced 71731 in 5912. Given that 71731 has had some time OOU 4/91-1/93; 6/96-3/01 before spending less than a month in 5912 (which may not even ran with it) it is likely that 71731 was in such a poor condition that it was effectively withdrawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 You version is correct, Peter. 62838 was stripped of reusable parts after the Oxshott incident and its remains then scrapped. 67301 was modified to resemble as closely as possible the vehicle it replaced. Here's the original at Oxshott - forgive the headless guy - just protecting the identity of one of my Assistant Track Section Managers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
31basher Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 67400 replaced the TSO not the MSO. AFAIK one of the TSOs (71733 in 5920) was damaged and 67400 replaced it in August 1988 until October 1990. After that two of the TSOs were use to test the doors for Networker and in the move around 67400 ended up in 5918 from April 91 to March 01. At that point it replaced 71731 in 5912. Given that 71731 has had some time OOU 4/91-1/93; 6/96-3/01 before spending less than a month in 5912 (which may not even ran with it) it is likely that 71731 was in such a poor condition that it was effectively withdrawn. Thank you, this gets more intriguing as it goes on. 71733 was obviously repaired at some stage and is has been in service for many years. So do we know which two TSO's were Networker door trials? Obviously one was converted back to normal ok. If the door modifications were too complex to revert to standard then why weren't both vehicles withdrawn. So had 71731 been involved in an accident (where and when?) rendered beyond repair that it was simpler to convert a 210 vehicle to replace it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted August 14, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 14, 2017 This link may helphttp://extra.southernelectric.org.uk/features/rolling-stock/455/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
31basher Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Excellent article, answers my questions. Thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.JPG.dbf3c44f17895636b3e9ae1d390a60ea.JPG)
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