Will Northerns new 195s and 331s be compatible?

[Crossover]

Do Electrostars and Turbostars work in multiple, answer no!

Some Electrostars within the the same class, but different subclass, aren't able to work in multiple even!

 

[superalbs]

Some Electrostars within the the same class, but different subclass, aren't able to work in multiple even!

Which are those?

 

[Agent_Squash]

Do Electrostars and Turbostars work in multiple, answer no! if you wanted them to work together I expect a Diesel Electric DMU would be more feasible rather than a Diesel Mechanical and then of course it probably makes sense for the DEMU to run on Electric on the Electric bits, hence a Bi-mode like an 800 and 801 coupled together.

Would Northern want to pay the cost for that kind of flexibility some how I don't think so, at the end of the day Northern just want a good Basic EMU and DMU which are improvements on current stock and allows them to Bin an Bus.

171s have Dellners specifically for when they need to couple to 377s in emergencies.

 

[Crossover]

Which are those?

377’s. Older ones vs newer ones are so different they can’t work in multiple

 

[Agent_Squash]

377’s. Older ones vs newer ones are so different they can’t work in multiple

Specifically 377/1-5 aren’t meant to couple to 377/6-7 in service - can be done in an emergency.

 

[aleggatta]

377’s. Older ones vs newer ones are so different they can’t work in multiple

Specifically 377/1-5 aren’t meant to couple to 377/6-7 in service - can be done in an emergency.

Forgive me for doubting you, but can you inform me of where you heard of these restrictions? Technically, there is nothing preventing 1-5s working with 6/7's, but might it be to prevent a train planning issue? (preventing the time say, a five car got caught the wrong side of a block on the coastway after distruption?) (Sorryslightlyofftopic(sorrynotsorry))

 

[Agent_Squash]

Forgive me for doubting you, but can you inform me of where you heard of these restrictions? Technically, there is nothing preventing 1-5s working with 6/7's, but might it be to prevent a train planning issue? (preventing the time say, a five car got caught the wrong side of a block on the coastway after distruption?) (Sorryslightlyofftopic(sorrynotsorry))

377/6-7 have various changes (as they are based off 379s) including updates to MITRAC - hence why to all intents and purposes the fleets are isolated from each other.

 

[Crossover]

Forgive me for doubting you, but can you inform me of where you heard of these restrictions? Technically, there is nothing preventing 1-5s working with 6/7's, but might it be to prevent a train planning issue? (preventing the time say, a five car got caught the wrong side of a block on the coastway after distruption?) (Sorryslightlyofftopic(sorrynotsorry))

I can't remember where I have heard or read it to be honest - it is a while ago

 

[Domh245]

377/6-7 have various changes (as they are based off 379s) including updates to MITRAC - hence why to all intents and purposes the fleets are isolated from each other.

I've definitely seen photos of old and new 377s coupled to each other - although I can't find any at the moment. In addition, this thread from 2014 suggests that interoperability between the old and new fleets is possible and had happened a few times

 

[dubscottie]

I don't think that's correct. Who makes the TMS software on the 220/221/222 is broadly inconsequential as 220/221 can't couple electrically with 390s or 222s, only mechanically. Pendo TMS is different software to Voyager/Meridian TMS in any case, and trying to get two Voyagers even with just different versions of the same TMS to talk to each other is difficult enough as it is.
Compatibility between classes would certainly be a good thing to bring in going forwards but in all honesty I can't see it being high up the agenda.

220/221/390 have the same TMS.

Virgin specified compatibility (that is why they have the same TMS) so they could rescue each other at line speed in the event of a failure as seen here -

 

[Jonfun]

220/221/390 have the same TMS.

Virgin specified compatibility (that is why they have the same TMS) so they could rescue each other at line speed in the event of a failure as seen here -

The TMS software is different; I don't know enough about the vehicle computers to be able to tell you whether the back end hardware is the same and any compatibility there.
In any case, you can couple them mechanically but not electrically. If they're electrically separate it makes no odds what version of TMS software or computer hardware they're running, they won't talk.

 

[tbtc]

All 158s will be overhauled to Connect standard so if they remain the traction used, it'll essentially be a psuedo-Connect route.

I didn't realise.

I knew that the Heaton ones would be (since some Heaton routes will be "Connect", albeit not run by 195/331s), but I didn't know that all other 158 operated services would be Connect (e.g. the Leeds - Barnsley - Sheffield semi-fast that doesn't extend to Lincoln).

I think this week's announcements are the end of straight DMUs. I can't see the Treasury shelling out on bi-modes for the regions though (Norfolk gets a pass as it's in a London franchise).

Hopefully bi-mode will become cheaper and more-standard in future - in the way that low floor buses used to cost a premium before manufacturers started making them better/ in bulk.

According to Rail, CAF 331s and 195s will have Dellner couplers.
So they should be able to connect to each other, but not to anything else Northern has

Great - another reason to dislike these units.

Whilst it's conceivable that a 195 might be good to couple to a 331 (in regular service and/or in emergency situations), there are many more times when coupling a 195 to a 158 (or 170 etc) would be useful - but, alas, no?

 

[alexl92]

220/221/390 have the same TMS.

Virgin specified compatibility (that is why they have the same TMS) so they could rescue each other at line speed in the event of a failure as seen here -

If a Voyager is capable of hauling a dead pendolino, even at low speed, they must have decent pulling power beyond simply propelling themselves? It’s one thing getting a DMU with multiple engines to run at high speed because the power-to-weight ratio is high.
A 5-car 221 weighs 282.8t. Add in in a dead 9-car 390 at 466t and now those same engines are having to haul almost 3x the weight; would many other units have the ability to do a similar job within their own compatibility? Could a 185 haul 2 other dead 185s for example?

 

[dubscottie]

If a Voyager is capable of hauling a dead pendolino, even at low speed, they must have decent pulling power beyond simply propelling themselves? It’s one thing getting a DMU with multiple engines to run at high speed because the power-to-weight ratio is high.
A 5-car 221 weighs 282.8t. Add in in a dead 9-car 390 at 466t and now those same engines are having to haul almost 3x the weight; would many other units have the ability to do a similar job within their own compatibility? Could a 185 haul 2 other dead 185s for example?

I did read that during testing, a 220 or 221 got up to 102mph hauling a dead Pendolino.

They tested every combination. (390 pushing dead Voyager, 390 pushing/hauling dead 390 etc)

 

[superalbs]

377’s. Older ones vs newer ones are so different they can’t work in multiple

Specifically 377/1-5 aren’t meant to couple to 377/6-7 in service - can be done in an emergency.

Hmm...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/connernolan/13624383774/

 

[Agent_Squash]

Hmm...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/connernolan/13624383774/

I stand corrected!

 

[dk1]

I did read that during testing, a 220 or 221 got up to 102mph hauling a dead Pendolino.

Beat me to it. Yes it was a 221 & bless it. What a very respectable achievement getting to that speed it was too.

 

[D365]

Hopefully bi-mode will become cheaper and more-standard in future - in the way that low floor buses used to cost a premium before manufacturers started making them better/ in bulk.

Perhaps that will be true.

Great - another reason to dislike these units.

Whilst it's conceivable that a 195 might be good to couple to a 331 (in regular service and/or in emergency situations), there are many more times when coupling a 195 to a 158 (or 170 etc) would be useful - but, alas, no?

Don’t see how you can blame CAF for this when only Bombardier hold the former BREL intellectual property. I can’t imagine them be willing to hand it out on a plate even if they are no longer developing the Turbostar platform...

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I did read that during testing, a 220 or 221 got up to 102mph hauling a dead Pendolino.

They tested every combination. (390 pushing dead Voyager, 390 pushing/hauling dead 390 etc)

Beat me to it. Yes it was a 221 & bless it. What a very respectable achievement getting to that speed it was too.

I wonder what sort of gradients were involved. I once left Penzance aboard a 221 with 2 engines out meaning the remaining 3 were cross-feeding basic electrical power to the affected vehicles (minimal lighting, no reservation displays, etc). The train struggled noticeably going uphill and leaving Truro actually stalled part way up the bank. Cue complete shutdown and re-boot. Eventually terminated at Par over an hour down. Could it be that a Voyager acting as Thunderbird would require switching out many on-board systems to reduce the electrical load thus allowing more grunt through the traction motors?

 

[HSTEd]

Compatibility is COmmunist.

Our glorious new world requires every train be multi within-type-only.

Don’t see how you can blame CAF for this when only Bombardier hold the former BREL intellectual property. I can’t imagine them be willing to hand it out on a plate even if they are no longer developing the Turbostar platform...

Competition law is very clear - Bombardier can be required to hand over the BREL intellectual property on demand.
Never mind that the coupling standards are defined with the RSSB

The only reason not to use the Sprinter standard for the diesel units is to try and promote manufacturer lock in.

 

[LowLevel]

I was under the impression that VT221/390 had been modified to allow them to work with one another in extremis - the combination in the video above certainly seems to be going far too fast to be mechanically coupled only.

220/1 however as far as I recall can't couple even mechanically to 222 and I'm aware of a number of NR plans to clear the line of failed trains that have been refused by EMT/XC on the grounds that the units can't be coupled together.

 

[Mordac]

Beat me to it. Yes it was a 221 & bless it. What a very respectable achievement getting to that speed it was too.

This really makes me wish we could see what an 'unmuzzled' Voyager would be capable off (i.e., not software blocked to 125mph). Anyone else reckon it could beat the HST's record?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This really makes me wish we could see what an 'unmuzzled' Voyager would be capable off (i.e., not software blocked to 125mph). Anyone else reckon it could beat the HST's record?

They certainly used to, when new, accelerate like a small aircraft.

 

[James James]

Reminds me of the time when across the channel (plus some land), the SBB ordered double-decker commuter EMUs from Siemens, which were supposed to compatible with the older double-deck commuter trains (fixed units consisting of 1 electric loco + 3 carriages, which mostly operate in multiple with each other). The sad summary is that Siemens couldn't make combined working work, so the plan was scrapped (those same EMUs also had software issues that only let them pass signals at red but not at other aspects when first delivered, which might suggest some mismanagement in the software department). That's only a 15-ish year gap between trains that they couldn't convince to work together.

 

[DanNCL]

Frankfurt U Bahn's U5 trains, which were built a few years ago by Bombardier, can work in multiple with refurbished U4 trains, which were built in the mid 1990s by Siemens. This goes to show that new build stock can be built to be compatible with older stock. Unfortunately, the likelihood of Northern's 195s or 331s being designed in this manner to work with older trains is pretty low. Almost certainly, the 195s will only work in multiple within class, and the same will probably go for the 331s.

This video shows a pair of U5 trains working in multiple with a U4 train in passenger service.

 

[JamesT]

The only reason not to use the Sprinter standard for the diesel units is to try and promote manufacturer lock in.

Or possibly to provide for features that weren't thought of when the Sprinter standard was thought up? The Dellners on Voyagers have an Ethernet connection included, how would you handle that?

Though even having the same coupler is no guarantee of inter-working. Pacers don't work with Turbostars, and some Sprinters required modification to work with the latter.

 

[Rail Blues]

Great - another reason to dislike these units.

Whilst it's conceivable that a 195 might be good to couple to a 331 (in regular service and/or in emergency situations), there are many more times when coupling a 195 to a 158 (or 170 etc) would be useful - but, alas, no?

Get a grip man. Another reason to dislike them. It really does boil my pi$$ the way people on here take against units that haven't even entered service. Look at the frothing over the 80xs before they'd even made into production. The chronically uninformed were queuing up to tell us that the great noisy diesel engines thumping away undee you would make conversation impossible and the slope between carriages would be so steep that catering trolley wouldn't be able to make it through. Guess what? In real life neither are perceptible. What happened to actually travelling on a unit before coming to a judgement?

Ditto the unrealistic demand that everything should be able to work in multiple with everything else. Most of the situations cited are pie in the sky fantasy scenarios which would never occur in everyday operation.

 

[HSTEd]

Or possibly to provide for features that weren't thought of when the Sprinter standard was thought up? The Dellners on Voyagers have an Ethernet connection included, how would you handle that?

Ethernet is not an electrical standard - it is a series of protocols that can be used for communicating over any number of sets of infrastructure.
The whole point is that it is an abstraction - the idea being that the designer of applications need have no knowledge of how data flows across it.

You can build an ethernet circuit with only two wires if you want, and a full blown 100Mbit/s ethernet connection only requires two pairs even using the normal twisted pair standard.

The 42-way connector standard specified for the RSSB (albeit the historical one, so might require modifications to the PIS in some modern units) has four spare wires already which are guaranteed to be through wired.

Two would almost certainly be available across the entire fleet with only minor modifications.
The standard also provides numerous spare locations for additional connectors which could be available but would not be guaranteed through-wired. As of privatisation the count for those stood at 12.

Though even having the same coupler is no guarantee of inter-working. Pacers don't work with Turbostars, and some Sprinters required modification to work with the latter.

The reasons Pacer don't work with Turbostars is there was no economic reason to pay for the modification to the coupler system to allow such operation, but if Turbostars and Pacers were expected to operate together it could easily be done, just as it was done for the Sprinters.

Ditto the unrealistic demand that everything should be able to work in multiple with everything else. Most of the situations cited are pie in the sky fantasy scenarios which would never occur in everyday operation.

So the AAR is totally unrealistic when it has ensured that virtually every diesel locomotive in the US Rail System can work with virtually every other diesel locomotive in the US rail system?

 

[Rail Blues]

Way to go to miss the point entirely ... what realistic requirement will there ever be for them to work with 331s or 158s? Note realistic, not some spodish fantasy where they're hooked up to redundant 153s to provide 'extra capacity'.

 

[HSTEd]

Way to go to miss the point entirely

You specifically stated that it is impractical to have very large fleets of rail vehicles from different manufacturers that share multiple working equipment and can interwork:

Ditto the unrealistic demand that everything should be able to work in multiple with everything else. Most of the situations cited are pie in the sky fantasy scenarios which would never occur in everyday operation.

So I didn't miss the point - indeed it was the first point you made.

what realistic requirement will there ever be for them to work with 331s or 158s? Note realistic, not some spodish fantasy where they're hooked up to redundant 153s to provide 'extra capacity'.

This video of a Class 153 operating in multiple with a Class 170 seems to indicate that interworking between Northern's diesel units and their other diesel units could quite easily happen.
This order is nowhere near enough to completely replace the entire Northern diesel fleet - so you are now sacrificing operational compatability that Northern already has amongst it's diesel fleet.

Having a fleet of units that can be always be sent out in multiple with each other is an obvious operational advantage that the 'modern' railway has abandoned in pursuit of private sector lock ins forced by the manufacturers and enabled by the Government and the ROSCOs.

And can you imagine the optics of overcrowding whilst serviceable units are sent to the scrapline?
People thinking that substantial number of Sprinter era units are going to be scrapped come 2019 are just being silly.
Honestly I would be surprised if substantial numbers of Pacers are scrapped, let alone Sprinters.