DMU Driving to Intermediate Trailer Conversion?

[FPH 603]

Let's get back to the original question, which nobody can really answer because no DMU driving trailers or driving motor cars ever were converted to intermediates.

This is because:

(a) too many first generation non driving trailers were built in the first place as traffic was declining at the time, so sets started being reduced from 4 to 3 cars and from 3 to 2 as early as the late 1960s. There were always spare non-driving trailers if it was necessary to lengthen sets again for some reason. (or they just coupled driving cars on the end without converting them in any way). Some of the first non-driving trailers to face the chop were the ones with buffets, as a buffet was uneconomic on a 3 or 4 coach train on the routes they used. Even when the buffet equipped trailer remained in service, almost inevitably by the 1970s the buffet counter was locked up and disused.

Buffet trailers were built new in class 101/111, 119, 120, 124, but could have been coupled into any Blue Square set, which of course is the vast majority of units built.

 

(b) Sprinter (second generation) dmus had gangways on both ends as built (though the issue with class 158s is detailed earlier) so there has never been a need to convert anything, they couple together in any formation you want, and are often re-formed differently from one month to the next. The only second generation buffet cars are class 170 units, though there are only a small number. These remain as the centre car in the three car sets they were delivered as part of, and have never been used with anything else.

 

So - there's absolutely no real-world example of what you want to do, it is your railway, your decision as to how you do it.

I've seen panelled over windows on converted CIE 2600 class push pull sets, this was what I was originally considering but I've since been reconsidering.

[Wickham Green]

(b) Sprinter (second generation) dmus had gangways on both ends as built .............. they couple together in any formation you want, ..........

 

So - there's absolutely no real-world example of what you want to do, it is your railway, your decision as to how you do it.

Don't forget the first 150s had no end gangways - but that didn't stop them getting augmented with gangwayed cars at times.

 

Now, how's this for a 'Rule 1' idea ? - replicate current practice back to the 'first generation' period by assuming the Waggon und Maschinenbau railbuses had been 'blue square' wired .......... stick a 'nodding donkey' or two onto your DMU !

Edited March 12, 2018 by Wickham Green

[Covkid]

Let's get back to the original question, which nobody can really answer because no DMU driving trailers or driving motor cars ever were converted to intermediates.

This is because:

(a) too many first generation non driving trailers were built in the first place as traffic was declining at the time, so sets started being reduced from 4 to 3 cars and from 3 to 2 as early as the late 1960s. There were always spare non-driving trailers if it was necessary to lengthen sets again for some reason. (or they just coupled driving cars on the end without converting them in any way). Some of the first non-driving trailers to face the chop were the ones with buffets, as a buffet was uneconomic on a 3 or 4 coach train on the routes they used. Even when the buffet equipped trailer remained in service, almost inevitably by the 1970s the buffet counter was locked up and disused.

Buffet trailers were built new in class 101/111, 119, 120, 124, but could have been coupled into any Blue Square set, which of course is the vast majority of units built.

 

(b) Sprinter (second generation) dmus had gangways on both ends as built (though the issue with class 158s is detailed earlier) so there has never been a need to convert anything, they couple together in any formation you want, and are often re-formed differently from one month to the next. The only second generation buffet cars are class 170 units, though there are only a small number. These remain as the centre car in the three car sets they were delivered as part of, and have never been used with anything else.

 

So - there's absolutely no real-world example of what you want to do, it is your railway, your decision as to how you do it.

 

 

With my pedant hat on, there was actually one example but it was neither passenger carrying nor was it a trailer, but for the sake of completeness .......

 

One of the Aylebury based sandite units had a driving power car cab removed and a non driving end fabricated in it's place.  

Here is the image link but not sure which of the intermediate ends was the "new end"

 

http://fewsfots.jalbum.net/THE%20CHILTERNS/IMG_1471.JPG 

 

The OP suggested his project is ficticious anyway but he also expressed his concern about cutting and shutting. 

In my view he should buy a Hornby Calder Valley (class 110) centre car and whack that between the Cravens cars. After all Calder valley units have Yorkshire heritage !!!

[cheesysmith]

I think the original question comes from the fact the original derby lightweights were built with identical ends on both ends, so if they didn`t work they could be converted into hauled stock by adding a gangway where the cab was. As a idea the original DMUs were spot on, so this was never needed. As a design, the derby lightweights were found to be underpowered and the lightweight construction was too weak and needed to be stronger, and for the production units (108) they also got rid of any of the expensive alloys used and made them from steel.

[The Johnster]

Not sure about how the look of a Calder Valley trailer augmenting a Cravens set will turn out.  Where low density units were concerned, each manufacturer had a slightly different, but highly visible, approach to window spacing, size, frames, and body profile, and a Calder Valley trailer has different window frames to even BRCW's other dmu, the 104 series.  Basically, the set will look glaringly wrong unless all the vehicles visually match.

 

This is not to say that sets didn't get broken up and mixed and matched in service, especially on the North Eastern Region, so long of course as the control codes matched.  The plethora of these was a failing of the original dmu policy and should have been standardised at the outset, as should the locomotive codes, ideally compatible with the dmu ones, but I am no expert on how easy  or otherwise this might have been.  We still haven't managed to to this with modern traction.

[Wickham Green]

Not sure about how the look of a Calder Valley trailer augmenting a Cravens set will turn out.  Where low density units were concerned, each manufacturer had a slightly different, but highly visible, approach to window spacing, size, frames, and body profile, and a Calder Valley trailer has different window frames to even BRCW's other dmu, the 104 series.  Basically, the set will look glaringly wrong unless all the vehicles visually match.

 

This is not to say that sets didn't get broken up and mixed and matched in service, especially on the North Eastern Region, so long of course as the control codes matched.  The plethora of these was a failing of the original dmu policy and should have been standardised at the outset, as should the locomotive codes, ideally compatible with the dmu ones, but I am no expert on how easy  or otherwise this might have been.  We still haven't managed to to this with modern traction.

At least the buffers an' couplings were totally standardised across the whole fleet  ...................... apart from the FEW ( electric units ) which weren't of course !