Where next for the Class 442s?

[great central]

How common is such a recovery though (assist via another working unit)?

 

And isn't it only necessary because locomotive recovery requires translation vehicles or couplings?

 

And aren't the two or three 73's for thunderbird duty on the line in any case?

From a diesel perspective, recovery with a similar unit may be the only option, quite regularly have to cancel one train to act as a thunderbird for another. Can be a real pain sometimes, in the same way a 153 is no use whatsoever if a 1000 ton plus freight has sat down in front of it with the rescue loco and crew 100 miles away!

[Gwiwer]

A case of built-in redundancy now being built out?

[phil-b259]

But as we're talking recovery of a dead unit, that doesn't matter surely? I mentioned the 73's not because of MU compatibility (I don't know if that ever was practically used with that combo anyway) but because they were there. Any loco can recover the 442's with their current draw gear.

 

They can - but as I pointed out if your duff 442 is stuck in the middle of several 450s then its going to be a lot of faffing around to get the 73 to the stricken loco. If the two unit types were mechanically compatible then a 450 could simply push the 442 out the way.

 

You should note that the rescue strategy for a 377 on southern is to use another unit - not scramble the 73 they have lurking around Selhurst while the rescue policy on Thameslink is to get another 700 to deal with the failure. Similarly on the SWR mainline rescuing a 444 or a 450 is facilitated by the ability to couple them together.

 

You should also note that when talking of 'rescues' the coupling does NOT have to allow full MU working. A 377 cannot work with a 379 Electrostar and the internal electrics are different, but they can mechanically couple to clear the line.The lengthened 458s have had coupler modifications too and while they cannot work in multiple with the 450s, the two types can mechanically couple to clear the line. Having the same ability between the 450s and the 442s strikes me as elementally sensible if SWR are planning to retain the 442s long term.

 

If you actually look round the railway today most passenger trains DO NOT have buffers and drawgear - the 91s and the 442s being the last such types in frontline service. Given this reality the 'need' for a passenger TOC to still have in house rescue capabilities also fitted with buffers is negligible. Yes if a FOC loco is used then adapters will be needed but given this is a 'hired in' solution, if the TOC can perform its own rescue it will be much more cost effective.

[roythebus]

So much for standardisation...

 

The Southern had a good idea, why scrap it?

[Southernman46]

There is also the point to be made that SR (if I can still call them that) EMU's very very rarely fail completely ** in as much that they need dragging away - they are normally coupled to a ready made rescue unit
 
** except when your guys have left the conductor rail sitting on the insulator ears after an overnight rail stressing job and the first 4 trains of 458's have been de-shoed one side .............. the first managed it all the way to Vauxhall from Barnes before gapping completely .............. good job SWT had 73109 ...................... not my best day in the job 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Southernman46

[Zomboid]

The old style of MU connections with the knuckle coupler and high level jumpers and hoses require much more human intervention than a modern auto-coupler does. Much safer and less labour intensive to just drive the trains into each other and perform a software handshake.

 

The mistake that's been made is not picking one system and having everything interoperable (at least to the point of mechanical compatibility)

[Dunsignalling]

So much for standardisation...

 

The Southern had a good idea, why scrap it?

Not Invented Here Syndrome.

[frobisher]

The old style of MU connections with the knuckle coupler and high level jumpers and hoses require much more human intervention than a modern auto-coupler does. Much safer and less labour intensive to just drive the trains into each other and perform a software handshake.

Only if you are regularly splitting and joining trains in service. Which the 442s likely won't be.

 

The franchise also operates 455s and 456s which bizarrely were give high level MU fittings when new, presumably related to "working practices" on the then Southern Region so it's not going to be a foreign procedure in any case.

 

The mistake that's been made is not picking one system and having everything interoperable (at least to the point of mechanical compatibility)

There's plenty of blame to go all round on that front...

[Zomboid]

But if you can eliminate the human from the coupling process, then that

1. Is a job you don't need to pay anyone to do

2. Means that no one routinely has to go into those potentially hazardous places

3. Removes the possibility of human error from the process

 

Of course no system is 100% reliable, but this technology has been around in some form since the PEP stock and seems pretty good now. And the stock which will replace the 455/456s will have some kind of modern automatic coupler.

[uax6]

Passed Potters yesterday at silly am, and there was at least one 442 still there.....

 

Andy g

[Gwiwer]

No-one normally needs to go between the vehicles to couple or uncouple buckeyes.  Southern stock has release handles at solebar height operated from the platform.  You cannot remove the human from the coupling process; today's Electrostars require the same number of persons on the platform to oversee coupling and splitting of units as was the case with buckeyes.  Screw-coupled stock - now that's different.

 

The only restriction with high-level jumpers is that the hoses need to be on the platform side.  To divide a train with hoses connected on the "live" side requires special permission from the signaller first.  Diagrams were always arranged to avoid this happening but in day to day operation it arose at times due to diversions, re-platforming or swapping of diagrams.

 

There is no in-service coupling or splitting of 456 units to/from 455 unit on SWR; trains are made up as 8 or 10-cars in the depot and stay that way.  In BR days it was commonplace to cut off one or more units off-peak but that no longer happens.  This saves large numbers of empty stock moves, saves on drivers and paying for expensive pathways for those empties as well.  It is probably much cheaper overall to run long lightly loaded trains all day using more current than might be necessary than to revert to old ways.

[Southernman46]

The old style of MU connections with the knuckle coupler and high level jumpers and hoses require much more human intervention than a modern auto-coupler does. Much safer and less labour intensive to just drive the trains into each other and perform a software handshake.

 

The mistake that's been made is not picking one system and having everything interoperable (at least to the point of mechanical compatibility)

 

Yes - them offside  splits on the Dover / Ramsgate's back in the day at Gillingham were a b*stard - it realistically needed three hands to do it properly but you ended breaking the pipes across your knee and then hanging on for dear life - also no LB's in them days - you just hoped the Signalman's lever collaring was as good as his word -

[Trog]

** except when your guys have left the conductor rail sitting on the insulator ears after an overnight rail stressing job and the first 4 trains of 458's have been de-shoed one side .............. the first managed it all the way to Vauxhall from Barnes before gapping completely .............. good job SWT had 73109 ...................... not my best day in the job 

 

I once visited a track relaying job and found a length of CWR that had moved and had half a dozen hot shoes laying on the ballast around it.

 

So I threw the shoes under the nearest bush and tipped the relay supervisor off that it might be a good idea to get the rail moved, before the TOC started wondering where all their hot shoes were going.

[dale159]

One of the other useful mods that could be undertaken with the 442s is to get rid of the buffers + Buckeye and high level air pipes in favour of something that can mechanically couple to a 444 / 450. Otherwise one of the 442s developing a fault and requiring assistance will cause an awful lot of problems on the busy Portsmouth route - particularly if it is sandwiched by other Desiro formed trains!

 

Making use of the picture Peter posted over on the 3rd rail EMUs thread earlier this evening (hope thats OK Peter)

 

Quick MS paint photoshop job to put the 444s coupler and anti-climb buffers onto the 442

 

Looks alright to me!

 

Dale

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Nice one Dale. Note that 2417 has had a little "bump" just to the right of the tail-lamp.

[dale159]

Nice one Dale. Note that 2417 has had a little "bump" just to the right of the tail-lamp.

 

Was about to reply that its probably corrosion but on second thoughts I suspect forwards of the cab door is probably all fibre glass.

 

Dale

Edited December 27, 2017 by dale159

[Dunsignalling]

Making use of the picture Peter posted over on the 3rd rail EMUs thread earlier this evening (hope thats OK Peter)

 

Quick MS paint photoshop job to put the 444s coupler and anti-climb buffers onto the 442

5WES coupler.jpg

 

Looks alright to me!

 

Dale

If the replacement traction/control package is based on the system used in the 444 and 450 units, could they "lose" all the jumpers too?

 

John

[Peter Kazmierczak]

No dent in post #259.....

[JDW]

It took me a few seconds to spot what was odd in that picture, wasn't until I read the text that I saw it.  I even looked at the buffers and didn't realise!

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Not sure if this is the same unit that Frank (Ceptic) posted earlier. Couldn't see any numbers on it.

 

 

Meanwhile another 5-WES trailer looks like it's been having a rub-down.

 

 

[Ceptic]

Not sure if this is the same unit that Frank (Ceptic) posted earlier. Couldn't see any numbers on it.

 

P1110290.JPG

 

Meanwhile another 5-WES trailer looks like it's been having a rub-down.

 

P1110330.JPG

 

That looks to be a different unit, Peter, judging by the masking. The 'patch' on the near-side lower corner is, as dale 159 surmised, due to a corrosion related repair.

 

Word has it that the exterior prepared units will be forwarded on to Eastleigh for re-motoring, interior fitting out and application of SWR vinyls.

 

All the best,

Frank.

[roythebus]

Like my son said, the units are all suffering from corrosion; he was glad to get rid of them from his railway.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Do modern units have coupling codes these days, a la blue star, red circle etc, or is there some other identifier, how do you know what couples to what?

 

Mike.

[frobisher]

I think the coupling codes got dropped (for DMUs) when the 2nd generation units (14X, 15X) were introduced, which nominally all had the same couplings and multiple working connections (after they sorted out the 141s...).

 

I think the 165/166 are mechanically compatible with those, but the multiple working isn't. The 168 (I think) and the 170, 172 are compatible (with caveats) with the above units. The 171 is effectively a 170 with the BSI coupling replaced with the defacto standard Dellner type of modern units, so can't work with the older units and can hence only work within class (some were conversions from 170).

 

I'd presume that the 185s as the only Siemens built units can only work within class (though they are Dellner equipped), the Alstrom built 175 and 180 have Scharfenberg couplers (which the Dellner might be mechanically compatible with..?), and might have the same multiple working system but I'd not bet on it...

 

The "Voyager" family 220, 221, 222 from Bombardier all have the same couplers (Dellner) and similar looking multiple working connections, but the 222 is not compatible with the other two which can work together.

 

These days, just having the same coupling doesn't mean it's at a compatible height for other unit types; The 57/3 "Thunderbirds" needed modifications to their drop down Dellner's which were intended for Pendolinos (and (220, 221 I think - some one correct me on this) when they were repurposed for towing other Dellner equipped EMUs.

 

But no defined multiple working codes as such any more, but there must be a "big book of DMUs" somewhere that has the full table of what can work with what in use day-to-day.

 

EMUs are even more of a nightmare, but at least it seems there has been a standardisation on 1) the Dellner coupling, and 2) the height it is set at for more recent units (no idea where the 80X sits in that regard...).

Edited January 4, 2018 by frobisher

[John M Upton]

With modern EMU's you will find that it is not so much the coupling that is the problem but the computer software on board.  A Desiro can couple to a Electrostar for example but one or the other would have to be dead in tow (or dead being pushed, it has happened on one occasion) as the on board computers would be unable to talk to each other.

 

Even within the same family of units, Electrostars being a prime example, 377's and 387's, despite being to all intents and purposes visually identical just will not work together.