Gangwayed units (was 156)

[hybrid.pigeon]

Can you walk through class 156? working in multiple?

 

[hexagon789]

Can you walk through class 156? working in multiple?

Yes, they are gangwayed throughout. You often get 4 or 6-car sets on peak services out of Glasgow Central and you can walk right from the back to front of the train. You also have the guard's needing through to check tickets and access for the catering trolleys on the services with catering.

 

[hybrid.pigeon]

Yes, they are gangwayed throughout. You often get 4 or 6-car sets on peak services out of Glasgow Central and you can walk right from the back to front of the train. You also have the guard's needing through to check tickets and access for the catering trolleys on the services with catering.

Thanks for your quick and informative reply.

I realised after posting I meant 158 but I guess the same principle applies.

I often wonder why not all stock is gangwayed, especially as you mention food trolleys.

Even stranger to me is some classes is different by sub class if I remember correctly.

152 or possibly 150 ?

And is more electric stock gangwayed ?

Or was/is it more of a southern region thing?

I was on a Voyager last week, the last five cars terminated at Chester with the front Portion continuing to Holyhead.

The announcer made me chuckle when she explained over the loud speakers that pax couldn’t simply walk through because “the train was coupled on the outside”

 

[hexagon789]

158s are gangwayed just like 156s. There are two main Class 150 subclasses. The original 150/1 are not gangwayed out with the unit so you can pass between each coach but not between units. The 150/2 were built for longer distance workings and are fully gangwayed.

Of the five Electric Multiple Unit classes currently used in Scotland only the 380s are fully gangwayed. Most do tend to be gangwayed these days. Most of the longer distance Southern Region units were fully gangwayed but many suburban units were not even gangwayed within the unit.

"Train was coupled on the outside"! That's a new one!

 

[hooverboy]

it depends on the type of working they are being designed for, but gangwayed units are sort of going out of fashion now due to crash safety concerns at higher speeds, as well as aerodynamics.

 

[whhistle]

I often wonder why not all stock is gangwayed

Because it doesn't look very attractive?
Not all services require it; the Stanstead - Birmingham Turbostars are a pretty good example (although yes, they can get busy at busy times).

Plus, there's the problem with some drivers then not being able to see the track fully.
I believe there is a problem with the new Scotrail units and drivers claiming they cannot see properly because of the gangway door.

It also means the cab environment is a little pokey, which isn't a great setting for the driver.

Seems in England there's less and less gangway units being ordered, yet in Scotland that's all they order!

Great for when services split yes, or you want to add extra coaches during peak times, but I'd like to know how much that [adding/taking away extra coaches] really happens in practice. I bet a lot of the time they keep the units coupled or run it short all the time.

 

[hexagon789]

I believe there is a problem with the new Scotrail units and drivers claiming they cannot see properly because of the gangway door.

I believe there were claims about that, though the current issues relate to the windscreens and some bolts I believe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe there were claims about that, though the current issues relate to the windscreens and some bolts I believe.

Though the problem with those items (other than bolts) is poor design rather than the presence of a gangway, though it is easier to design a non-gangwayed cab.

 

[hexagon789]

Though the problem with those items (other than bolts) is poor design rather than the presence of a gangway, though it is easier to design a non-gangwayed cab.

I think in the long run that would've been a better idea. Even regardless of the windscreen issues, the view out of the cab can't be great surely?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I often wonder why not all stock is gangwayed, especially as you mention food trolleys.

I think there are aerodynamic reasons. The new 387s on the lines out of Paddington have gangways and are restricted to 110, whilst the 800/802 units without gangways are designed to do 125. The 800s frequently run as 2*5 car units.

 

[hexagon789]

I think there are aerodynamic reasons. The new 387s on the lines out of Paddington have gangways and are restricted to 110, whilst the 800/802 units without gangways are designed to do 125. The 800s frequently run as 2*5 car units.

I think 110 is the maximum with gangways because of aerodynamics and wind noise above that speed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think in the long run that would've been a better idea. Even regardless of the windscreen issues, the view out of the cab can't be great surely?

As long as the signals and the track ahead can be seen that doesn't hugely matter. It's not like a car where you need an all round view.

Though I think I'm inclined towards fixed-formation long sets requiring no gangways these days.

 

[hexagon789]

As long as the signals and the track ahead can be seen that doesn't hugely matter. It's not like a car where you need an all round view.

Though I think I'm inclined towards fixed-formation long sets requiring no gangways these days.

I think the new Greater Anglia InterCity units have got it right being 10-car rather than 2 5-car units.

 

[MG11]

I think there are aerodynamic reasons. The new 387s on the lines out of Paddington have gangways and are restricted to 110, whilst the 800/802 units without gangways are designed to do 125. The 800s frequently run as 2*5 car units.

The DfT advised TransPennine Express not to use gangways on vehichles exceeding a certain speed, 90 MPH I think, which is why the Class 185s are not gangwayed.
There have been issues with gangway doors opening whilst at speed which can create a whirlpool suction, pulling the train crew out of the cab. It does make catering difficult though, as the crewe cannot get between the two units. TPE use two trolleys on double units, but some Arriva Trains Wales double unit Coradia services only have one Host, which can make it difficult.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The DfT advised TransPennine Express not to use gangways on vehichles exceeding a certain speed, 90 MPH I think, which is why the Class 185s are not gangwayed.

Do you have evidence of this? It does not match the fact that gangways are present on most Class 350s which can run at 110mph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There have been issues with gangway doors opening whilst at speed which can create a whirlpool suction, pulling the train crew out of the cab.

Has this *actually* happened rather than in someone's imagination?

 

[MG11]

Has this *actually* happened rather than in someone's imagination?

Yes, an EMT driver said on this forum that it happened to him/her.

 

[MG11]

Do you have evidence of this? It does not match the fact that gangways are present on most Class 350s which can run at 110mph.

I think it was on the rail modelling forum someone said it. It was definitely said. Note that they only advised and not stipulated, TPE obviously over ruled the advice with the 350s because they wanted to run them in multiple so frequently.

 

[AM9]

I think there are aerodynamic reasons. The new 387s on the lines out of Paddington have gangways and are restricted to 110, whilst the 800/802 units without gangways are designed to do 125. The 800s frequently run as 2*5 car units.

The 387s are outer-suburban EMUs derived from a 20-year old design that had a maximum of 100mph. That type of construction with a conventional gangway and a limited crumple zone is limited (I believe) by a TSI to 190 km/h (118mph). Similarly the Desiro UK feom Siemens has been upograded to 110mph by mechanical reinforcements to the traction motors. Aerodynamics and aesthetics are less relevant. The class 80x are designed for 140mph use at which speeds aerodynamics do become more significant. They, along with classes 390 and 395, comply with the TSI by having extended crumple zones in front of the passenger accommodation.

 

[Intercity Exec]

Nose doors have been known to fly open on units on occasions, I have never heard of Traincrews being sucked out of the nose door and if it happened to anyone I doubt they would be here to tell us about it! When a nose door does fly open, even at 90mph, it is quite a surprise and anything from paperwork to coats or jackets could well get carried out of the train, but not a person or even their bag! Modern nose connections have a folding panel flush with the unused end of the corridor connection which is for aerodynamic reasons although does afford some protection to the main nose door. Certainly most gangway fitted trains that can operate at 100mph and over have these folding panels fitted and all new build gangway fitted stock for a number of years (which happens to have all been 100mph capable) has had them. Class 317s are an example of 100mph units that don't.

 

[Failed Unit]

I have known the door fly open once. Bit draughty on the train and hard breaking. Driver shut the door and off we went.

I think the 170s actually are a good example of why you need a gangway. They are coupled up daily on Scotrail with everyone knowing if you want a free ride go to the unit the guard isn’t in. Interesting they didn’t have the same cab as the electrostars.

158s spend lots of time with the gangways open. Liverpool- Nottingham springs to mind.

 

[TwinTurbostar]

158s spend lots of time with the gangways open. Liverpool- Nottingham springs to mind.

The Arriva Trains Wales service from Birmingham International to North Wales is operated by two 158s in multiple on most trips, too.

 

[hexagon789]

I think the 170s actually are a good example of why you need a gangway. They are coupled up daily on Scotrail with everyone knowing if you want a free ride go to the unit the guard isn’t in.

Or which unit the trolley is in.

 

[edwin_m]

End gangways also create the flexibility to re-form three two-car units as two three-car units. This has been done at various times by different operators with 150s and 158s, including inserting half a 150/2 (with end gangways) into the middle of a 150/1. These probably spend most of their time not coupled to anything else so the lack of end gangways is less important than with the 2-car 150/1s that are often seen in pairs these days.

 

[43096]

I think it was on the rail modelling forum someone said it. It was definitely said. Note that they only advised and not stipulated, TPE obviously over ruled the advice with the 350s because they wanted to run them in multiple so frequently.

Might have been said, but it sounds like an utter load of nonsense - if it had happened you would expect the RAIB or its predecessors to have investigated and I certainly cannot recall any such inquiry. As for the "advice" from DfT on gangwayed ends is there any evidence of that?

 

[MG11]

Might have been said, but it sounds like an utter load of nonsense - if it had happened you would expect the RAIB or its predecessors to have investigated and I certainly cannot recall any such inquiry. As for the "advice" from DfT on gangwayed ends is there any evidence of that?

This was said around 4/5 years ago, by a user, Infobleep I think they were called. It was only operational advice and was not a safety specification.

 

[PHILIPE]

The Arriva Trains Wales service from Birmingham International to North Wales is operated by two 158s in multiple on most trips, too.

2 x 158s to Shrewsbury only apart from a couple of trips. The 2 x 158s go to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli

 

[Kneedown]

Has this *actually* happened rather than in someone's imagination?

It nearly happened to me once on a 158. Door flew open at 90mph going down Stoke Bank. The most frightening experience of my career!
The suction towards the gaping doorway is hugely powerful.

 

[MG11]

It nearly happened to me once on a 158. Door flew open at 90mph going down Stoke Bank. The most frightening experience of my career!
The suction towards the gaping doorway is hugely powerful.

You was the person I was referring to, Stoke Bank is on the ECML right? Thanks for proving I'm not imagining things!

 

[43096]

You was the person I was referring to, Stoke Bank is on the ECML right? Thanks for proving I'm not imagining things!

Bit of a difference between “nearly” and you stating it as actually having happened. Rather a large dose of being economical with the truth, don’t you think?