Were HST Power Cars Really Class 43?

[EddieK]

In 1995 (ish), Great Western were considering running "1+4" HSTs with some sort of driving cabs in trailer cars, so that a 2+8 set could split en route and serve two destinations. Imagine the fun if one half set got turned, or the two halves arrived at the joining station in the wrong order...

[CWJ]

8 hours ago, Wheatley said:

This is one of those things where enthusiasts try to classify or define or otherwise codify something... The numbering system was simply a way of keeping track of assets, it wasn't handed down from a celestial power.

This post hits the nail on the head in my opinion, as proven by the length of this thread despite the OP's question being answered earlier on.

 

We railway enthusiasts do seem to like putting things in orderly categories, and there's nothing wrong with that. The logical structure of the railway can be a satisfying diversion from the chaos of real life.

 

But the real railway is part of real life and has its own share of chaos.  It really doesn't matter what number a vehicle is given, as long as it is unique (or unique enough for those that operate/maintain/own it to identify it by). An HST power car could be renumbered '37401' and named 'Ivor The Engine' and it wouldn't matter to anyone other than enthusiasts. (But boy, would that cause some flustered spluttering!) ...in fact some fleets have a messy mixed bag of vehicle numbers which are not from a consecutive series.

 

Similarly, some types of train are a hybrid between LHCS and multiple-units, they don't want to be pigeon-holed! Examples might include TPE's Mk5a carriages or the Southern Region 4TC sets, both of which are premantly coupled and have remote driving cabs, i.e. more in common with a MU than loco-hauled stock. Or we could blow our minds by looking to the Swiss metre gauge where railcars/EMUs haul long mixed trains, with the traction unit anywhere between the front and rear of the train!

 

Cheers,

 

Will

(former professional HST tinkerer and current DMU keeper)

 

PS. RMWebbers had inadvertently given their verdict just before I replied...

[Peter Kazmierczak]

17 minutes ago, EddieK said:

Having seen reference to the 1960s Blue Pullmans above, is it correct to regard the Midland Pullman sets as a Diesel Unit comprising six vehicles, as first built? The six vehicle unit was intended to work as six vehicles and not be split into anything smaller; it had a means of self propulsion, it could work in either direction with a driver at the front, it had space for a Guard and accommodation for a payload (i.e. passengers) . 

Upon transfer to the Western Region, the six car diesel units were fitted with jumper cables on the cab ends so that two units could couple together and be controlled by the one driver, so they then operated in multiple.

 

 

Each Blue Pullman train was in effect two half-units; the LMR ones being two identical 3 vehicles marshalled to form a 6-car unit. Likewise, the WR trains were two identical 4 vehicles marshalled to form an 8-car unit. They could (and did) swap them around due to maintenance or other requirements. 
As you say, later, when the LMR units were transferred to the WR, jumper cables allowed the two 6-car units to operate in multiple as a 12-car set.

[Pete the Elaner]

5 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Not really.

 

The APTs were always going to be electric and at the time there were no plans to electrify most of the lines the HSTs were meant to work on. BR just couldn't afford it. 

 

APT E was an experiment to see whether gas turbine was a better solution than diesels.

 

 

Jason

 

APT-E was an experiment to evaluate high speed running, for wheel/track reaction, Hydro-Kinetic braking & most visably, tilting.

Turbines were used because traditional diesel engines lacked the required power:weight ratio to meet requirements.

[kevinlms]

18 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Only the NBL ones. The Swindon built Warships were class 42. There were enough difference between them to warrant separate classes. 

But plenty of other classes got around that, by using sub classes. An example being Class 25, which had sub classes of 25/0, 25/1, 25/2 & 25/3. The exact difference depended on what equipment was fitted. Some types were banned from working in multiple with certain other sub types, as it caused significant problems, even  though officially all Class 25s.

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

They have multiple unit control, which is what the MU means. It may be that the MU control is only arranged to control two units (the unit in question being the traction power equipment in one of the vehicles) but it is still MU control. Many locos have MU control, otherwise you’d need a driver in each when double (or more) heading.

 

The business of calling a train a “multiple unit” is a strange corruption of the real meaning of the term MU, so the fact that you can’t couple HSTs together and control all of the several traction power units from one place doesn’t mean that they don’t have MU capability, they do, it’s just particularly limited in scope.

 

 

 

 

I would guess that the emergency coupling, wouldn't be good enough for one set to push or pull another.

 

Edit to add

 

Oh, I read that in an earlier post, that they in fact carry 2 emergency couplings of different lengths, so carry on!

Edited November 8, 2023 by kevinlms
More info

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, CWJ said:

This post hits the nail on the head in my opinion, as proven by the length of this thread despite the OP's question being answered earlier on.

 

We railway enthusiasts do seem to like putting things in orderly categories, and there's nothing wrong with that. The logical structure of the railway can be a satisfying diversion from the chaos of real life.

 

But the real railway is part of real life and has its own share of chaos.  It really doesn't matter what number a vehicle is given, as long as it is unique (or unique enough for those that operate/maintain/own it to identify it by). An HST power car could be renumbered '37401' and named 'Ivor The Engine' and it wouldn't matter to anyone other than enthusiasts. (But boy, would that cause some flustered spluttering!) ...in fact some fleets have a messy mixed bag of vehicle numbers which are not from a consecutive series.

 

Similarly, some types of train are a hybrid between LHCS and multiple-units, they don't want to be pigeon-holed! Examples might include TPE's Mk5a carriages or the Southern Region 4TC sets, both of which are premantly coupled and have remote driving cabs, i.e. more in common with a MU than loco-hauled stock. Or we could blow our minds by looking to the Swiss metre gauge where railcars/EMUs haul long mixed trains, with the traction unit anywhere between the front and rear of the train!

 

Cheers,

 

Will

(former professional HST tinkerer and current DMU keeper)

 

PS. RMWebbers had inadvertently given their verdict just before I replied...

Yes but has been proven many times, British Rail and their predecessors and successors can and do change their minds, so debate on the definition of how things were managed, surely must be appropriate?

[Jeremy Cumberland]

 

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I'm pretty certain that the 79xxx series did have MU control (over the power units spread down the train), but as you say it was limited in scope to within a permanently-coupled set of cars

In most respects, the Edinburgh-Glasgow Inter City DMUs were just like any other first generation DMU. You could couple any combination of vehicles together and could control all the engines and gearboxes down the train from the front cab, unless you had a non-corridor cab end in the middle of a train, for the non-corridor cab ends did not have jumper sockets, so you couldn't control any motor cars behind it from the front cab.

 

This was clearly realised to be a limitation, because the otherwise very similar class 126s had jumper sockets at the non-corridor end.

 

As far as I am aware, the Edinburgh-Glasgow DMUs were not kept in fixed formations, and in any case each "unit" was 3 cars long, with a non-corridor full cab at one end and a corridor with side cab at the other. Trains were usually 6-car made up of two units coupled corridor end to corridor end.

 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

9 hours ago, Davexoc said:

 

They could if the emergency coupling bar was attached, which was carried on board. Plenty of photos of all sorts dragging them over the SW banks.

A pair has even been used to haul the Night Riviera when the class 57 failed...

I was referring to the carriage sets without a power car. They don't have side buffers, only buckeyes, so couldn't couple to most locomotives. It might therefore seem rather perverse to call them "loco hauled stock".

 

Of course the power cars can couple nose to nose, but I don't think there are multiple control jumpers at the pointy end of the power cars.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

That probably explains the multiple unit coach duplication anomaly then..

 

The Bury class 504 units carried numbers in the 654xx series and 771xx series from 1959 to 1991.

 

But the Shenfield class 306 units had a trailer car also numbered in the 654xx series from 1949 to 1981.

 

These coach numbers duplicated until the withdrawal of the 306’s.

Today the 377/2 uses the 771xx series.

 

Didn't the 306s have E suffixes? The whole point of the suffix letters was to cope with duplicate coach numbers inherited from different railway companies. They were used even for coaches built in the 1950s, if they were in the old company's number sequence.

 

Of course, this was incompatible with TOPS, but by the 1980s when coaches got added to TOPS, there can have been very few suffixed vehicles remaining, and these would have got renumbered.

[rodent279]

10 hours ago, EddieK said:

In the emergency equipment cupboards on HST power cars, there were short tow bars intended to couple the pointy end to a locomotive draw hook, also long tow bars to couple the pointy end to the pointy end of another HST power car. In addition, there was an emergency jumper cable to connect the jumper sockets in each power car's towing hatch area together to permit two sets to work in multiple. 

The hoses to connect the brake/reservoir pipes together were already in situ behind the towing hatch. 

 

So - in theory, two HST sets could work in multiple, all they needed was a long enough station platform.

Not according to Brian Haresnape's British Rail Fleet Survey vol 5 High Speed Trains. This covers prototype & production HSTs, APT-E & APT-P, and the Blue Pullmans. P56-57 has a photo & drawing of the front end of a production power car with the cover removed. There is a socket in there, but it is described as a socket for a shore supply to power the air con etc when at a station or depot.

Edited November 8, 2023 by rodent279

[hexagon789]

53 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Trains were usually 6-car made up of two units coupled corridor end to corridor end.

Only very early on, they were soon reformed to have the two trailers in the middle with the intermediate power cars next, cabs outward and then the leading power cars outermost with gangway coupled to intermediate power car cab end.

 

When used off-route, they did tend to revert to divisible 3+3, such as when used on certain Shotts line workings in the 1960s.

 

The Ayrshire sets were commonly used as 3-car units off-peak, strengthned to 6 at peak and sometimes 9 on holidays or busy periods. I think it was always considered that they would need to be able to multi at either cab end due to the more complex usage.

[Mike_Walker]

9 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I note Hastings diesels also has 60019 numbered as 60119 to avoid clashing with 60019.. the 60 that is, not 60019 Bittern.

 

confusing should those 3 ever meet.

Off topic, I apologise, but several years ago I was chasing Southern Pacific 4449 up the Feather River Canyon on its way back to Portland.  BNSF had provided a brand new GE also numbered 4449 as helper right behind the kettle - I understand it had been rushed to California from the factory especially.  Anyway, with both crews talking to the dispatcher over the radio, the latter was getting totally confused handling messages from BNSF 4449 and SP 4449!

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Didn't the 306s have E suffixes? The whole point of the suffix letters was to cope with duplicate coach numbers inherited from different railway companies. They were used even for coaches built in the 1950s, if they were in the old company's number sequence.

 

Of course, this was incompatible with TOPS, but by the 1980s when coaches got added to TOPS, there can have been very few suffixed vehicles remaining, and these would have got renumbered.

Yes E and M prefix (not suffix), but these were EMUs not coaches.

Were Multiple Units  considered as coaches back then ?

I dont remember Bury units carrying set numbers, they never really split/mixed either.

it wasnt as if the Bury units were ever going anywhere beyond bury, except the one vehicle that went as a replacement driver trailer in a 302 unit.

 

slightly OT, but I do recall regional prefixes being dropped from MUs and Coaches mid 1980’s was this related to loading coaches into TOPS ?

Edited November 8, 2023 by adb968008

[Jeremy Cumberland]

28 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Yes E and M suffixes, but these were EMUs not coaches.

Were Multiple Units  considered as coaches back then ?

I am pretty sure individual coaches had "coach" numbers, but in their own distinct number series. Many of us will be familiar with 50xxx, 51xxx and 52xxx for DMU power cars, 55xxx for bubble cars, 56xxx for DMU driving trailers and 59xxx for DMU trailers.

 

Keeping MU vehicles in distinct number sequences appears to be the rationale behind renumbering the prototype HST set, from class 41 locomotives and 1xxxx loco-hauled coaches to 4xxxx HST "multiple unit" coaches. Subsequent production HSTs continued in the 4xxxx series while loco-hauled Mark 3A coaches were put into the 1xxxx series.

 

  Edit:

28 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Yes E and M prefix (not suffix), but these were EMUs not coaches.

If the class 306 coaches didn't have suffixes I am surprised at the duplication. The later class 506 coaches had suffixes (originally E, but later changed inexplicably to M).

Edited November 8, 2023 by Jeremy Cumberland

[Wickham Green too]

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I note Hastings diesels also has 60019 numbered as 60119 to avoid clashing with 60019.. the 60 that is, not 60019 Bittern. ...

Apologies - '19 has only recently re-entered traffic an' I was quoting numbers from the Platform 5 which happened to be at hand !

 

Ely ; 3/9/23

[EddieK]

9 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

 

Each Blue Pullman train was in effect two half-units; the LMR ones being two identical 3 vehicles marshalled to form a 6-car unit. Likewise, the WR trains were two identical 4 vehicles marshalled to form an 8-car unit. They could (and did) swap them around due to maintenance or other requirements. 
As you say, later, when the LMR units were transferred to the WR, jumper cables allowed the two 6-car units to operate in multiple as a 12-car set.

Once the six or eight car "unit" left the depot, it was not intended to be split into two halves, as each half would only be able to work in one direction. So, the six car or eight car set was the smallest length that could not be divided further.

[Wickham Green too]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But plenty of other classes got around that, by using sub classes. ... The exact difference depended on what equipment was fitted. ...

Some time before I die I hope to discover the fundamental difference between a 158 and a 159 ! 🙄

[Cruachan]

35 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Incidentally, I don't recall the Bury units having M suffixes. I thought they were in the BR coach number series.

The Bury 504 units had M suffixes on their green livery, but lost them when they went into BR blue. They seem to have retained their M prefixes until the end in 1991, though.

Martyn Hilbert's Railway Photography - Slam-Door EMUs - Class 504 M65439 in BR Green. (railpic.net)

Six Bells Junction Photo gallery

UK2239.jpg (1280×831) (eastbank.org.uk)

Edited November 8, 2023 by Cruachan

[adb968008]

42 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

 

  Edit:

If the class 306 coaches didn't have suffixes I am surprised at the duplication. The later class 506 coaches had suffixes (originally E, but later changed inexplicably to M).

The 506’s never worked beyond Glossop, Hadfield and Dinting. After Woodhead closed, their truncated network was definitely sitting as exiles in the Midland thereafter.  They were maintained “midland” side of the penines.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by adb968008

[adb968008]

20 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Some time before I die I hope to discover the fundamental difference between a 158 and a 159 ! 🙄

Engines and first class.

[rodent279]

30 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Some time before I die I hope to discover the fundamental difference between a 158 and a 159 ! 🙄

Seating & luggage arrangements, plus as @adb968008 says, engines.

[Barclay]

I do appreciate everyone's comments - basically it seems that the use of class 43 post-dates my youthful train spotting period, hence my lack of knowledge.

Don't stop on my account !

[rodent279]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But plenty of other classes got around that, by using sub classes. An example being Class 25, which had sub classes of 25/0, 25/1, 25/2 & 25/3. The exact difference depended on what equipment was fitted. Some types were banned from working in multiple with certain other sub types, as it caused significant problems, even  though officially all Class 25s.

Going even further OT, the DB V200 diesel hydraulics had 3 different engine types and 2 different transmissions, all fully interchangeable, both within class & with certain diesel unit types. So far as I am aware, they were not divided into different sub-classes.

[rodent279]

1 minute ago, Barclay said:

I do appreciate everyone's comments - basically it seems that the use of class 43 post-dates my youthful train spotting period, hence my lack of knowledge.

Don't stop on my account !

Just proves the point that there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers. Look at the many and varied responses, and wealth of info that has come out of a simple question.