Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Good Evening all,
I have a question relating to the BR Suburban units, specifically the class 455
I have recently undergone training as a Shunter which involved attaching and detaching Class 455s which as you will know have a Main Reservoir pipe and an electrical control jumper- all good fun connecting them up!
My question is though, as the 455s were built in the early 80s, how come they were built with the pipes and cables and not an automatic coupler as seen on units built earlier than the 455 such as 313 and 315 units. This also applies to 442 and 456 units which were built as late as the early 90s- 15 years after the 313s with their automatic coupler with electrical coupling block!
Was it down to cost, reliability? Im fascinated to see if anyone knows!
Good Evening all,
I have a question relating to the BR Suburban units, specifically the class 455
I have recently undergone training as a Shunter which involved attaching and detaching Class 455s which as you will know have a Main Reservoir pipe and an electrical control jumper- all good fun connecting them up!
My question is though, as the 455s were built in the early 80s, how come they were built with the pipes and cables and not an automatic coupler as seen on units built earlier than the 455 such as 313 and 315 units. This also applies to 442 and 456 units which were built as late as the early 90s- 15 years after the 313s with their automatic coupler with electrical coupling block!
Was it down to cost, reliability? Im fascinated to see if anyone knows!
My question is though, as the 455s were built in the early 80s, how come they were built with the pipes and cables and not an automatic coupler as seen on units built earlier than the 455 such as 313 and 315 units. This also applies to 442 and 456 units which were built as late as the early 90s- 15 years after the 313s with their automatic coupler with electrical coupling block!
Was it down to cost, reliability? Im fascinated to see if anyone knows!
The Southern Region received 43 508s in the late 1970s which did have auto couplers. When it came to specify the 455s, they went back to the pipes and cables. The 456s had to have likewise to be compatible.
442s were specified to be able to couple to locomotives.
From memory there was a lot more coupling and uncoupling when the 508s and 455s were introduced (between peaks and evenings tended to be 4car, peak hours 8car), not like now where 8 or 10 car sets are used off peak, or all day
The 508s had some problems coupling correctly where sidings were curved (and virtually all the platforms at Waterloo have a curve). I think it put the Southern Region back in the mode of must have jumper cables and no troublesome autocouplers.
From memory there was a lot more coupling and uncoupling when the 508s and 455s were introduced (between peaks and evenings tended to be 4car, peak hours 8car), not like now where 8 or 10 car sets are used off peak, or all day
The 508s had some problems coupling correctly where sidings were curved (and virtually all the platforms at Waterloo have a curve). I think it put the Southern Region back in the mode of must have jumper cables and no troublesome autocouplers.
From memory there was a lot more coupling and uncoupling when the 508s and 455s were introduced (between peaks and evenings tended to be 4car, peak hours 8car), not like now where 8 or 10 car sets are used off peak, or all day
The 508s had some problems coupling correctly where sidings were curved (and virtually all the platforms at Waterloo have a curve). I think it put the Southern Region back in the mode of must have jumper cables and no troublesome autocouplers.
My own view is that it was down to the Southern being very conservative and wishing to preserve existing methods of working, as clearly portion working is more of a faff with hoses and jumpers rather than full autocouplers.
The 508s had some problems coupling correctly where sidings were curved (and virtually all the platforms at Waterloo have a curve). I think it put the Southern Region back in the mode of must have jumper cables and no troublesome autocouplers.
The issue with coupling/uncoupling on curves is to do with the mechanical part of the autocoupler, which is an issue that affects all designs. In the case of the Cl445 and the Cl508, both use Tightlocks so any coupling or uncoupling issues that affect one class is highly likely to be replicated on the other.
The Southern had a timetable tradition of joining and dividing trains all day, to an extent not really practiced elsewhere, at a range of junctions around the system. All three Southern divisions had extensive services that left London full length, and then split out in the country. This worked perfectly, and fast. It was common at a division for the first part to be away after one minute, and the second to follow just a minute after that.
The 508s that came initially to Waterloo were a BR standard design, with nice new auto couplers. These just never worked reliably, not only on curves but at all. They were an absolute chaos for any service needing coupling in service, and after some considerable words at 222 Marylebone Road they were hiked off to Merseyside, and the 455s ordered as replacements. The Southern did keep the trailers, of course.
The 455s had power doors, unlike anything else on the Southern, so there was no question of them being multipled with anything else existing. The autocouplers were written off as "seemed like a good idea at the time", and to an extent that's something that's never gone away. The railway has had curved platforms since it was built 175 years ago, and it seems a bit inappropriate to come up with a new approach that can't handle them. It still always takes far longer with them to go through operations, the notable big smash that is now needed to ensure they connect correctly, various issues once electronics came along with needing to reboot after changing the formation, etc etc. Even the infamous Kentish Town self-evacuation incident some years ago was impacted by the rescue train needing to be divided, and the driver finding they were unable to do so easily.
The Southern had a timetable tradition of joining and dividing trains all day, to an extent not really practiced elsewhere, at a range of junctions around the system. All three Southern divisions had extensive services that left London full length, and then split out in the country. This worked perfectly, and fast. It was common at a division for the first part to be away after one minute, and the second to follow just a minute after that.
The 508s that came initially to Waterloo were a BR standard design, with nice new auto couplers. These just never worked reliably, not only on curves but at all. They were an absolute chaos for any service needing coupling in service, and after some considerable words at 222 Marylebone Road they were hiked off to Merseyside, and the 455s ordered as replacements. The Southern did keep the trailers, of course.
I think you're just saying the same thing as I have but in a different way. Auto-couplers were a new innovation that the Southern was not prepared to persist with.
Yes I am very aware of the extent of portion working south of the Thames. The difference in operations required between modern units and older units with manual air and electrical connections is very slight. If anything, splitting/joining a modern unit with an auto-coupler is easier because it contains one step fewer.
The 455s had power doors, unlike anything else on the Southern, so there was no question of them being multipled with anything else existing. The autocouplers were written off as "seemed like a good idea at the time", and to an extent that's something that's never gone away. The railway has had curved platforms since it was built 175 years ago, and it seems a bit inappropriate to come up with a new approach that can't handle them. It still always takes far longer with them to go through operations, the notable big smash that is now needed to ensure they connect correctly, various issues once electronics came along with needing to reboot after changing the formation, etc etc.
It bears repeating that the issue with auto-couplers is the mechanical part and not the electro-pneumatic connections. The forces exerted by the coupler's centring springs mean that it can sometimes be difficult to engage/disengage the locking pins when the trains are on a curve. This doesn't mean that it is impossible, but just sometimes you'll get a sticky one. Given that both Cl455s and Cl508s use Tightlock couplers, there is no reason to expect that one type would perform better than the other.
As for "...the notable big smash", that is generally not needed, except perhaps for Tightlocks (and even then they don't have to be "smashed" together). Most units can be joined quite gently with barely a jolt.
Even the infamous Kentish Town self-evacuation incident some years ago was impacted by the rescue train needing to be divided, and the driver finding they were unable to do so easily.
Ah, your favourite all-purpose example of the failings of the modern railway.
The RAIB report does not give specific reasons for the delay but, given that it does mention that the driver suffered a hand injury in the process (and based on my own experience with Electrostars), this would have been more likely due to unmaking the gangway connection between the units than any issue with the auto-coupler. It was not uncommon for an unwary driver to suffer a minor hand injury while doing this. The main reasons for the delay were 1) the shunter not made aware of the arrival of the empty train and the need for it to be split, and 2) the driver was new and was unfamiliar with the process of uncoupling because she'd never done it since training and the shunter was not trained and therefore (intially at least) unwilling to help.
I think you're just saying the same thing as I have but in a different way. Auto-couplers were a new innovation that the Southern was not prepared to persist with.
Yes I am very aware of the extent of portion working south of the Thames. The difference in operations required between modern units and older units with manual air and electrical connections is very slight. If anything, splitting/joining a modern unit with an auto-coupler is easier because it contains one step fewer.
It bears repeating that the issue with auto-couplers is the mechanical part and not the electro-pneumatic connections. The forces exerted by the coupler's centring springs mean that it can sometimes be difficult to engage/disengage the locking pins when the trains are on a curve. This doesn't mean that it is impossible, but just sometimes you'll get a sticky one. Given that both Cl455s and Cl508s use Tightlock couplers, there is no reason to expect that one type would perform better than the other.
As for "...the notable big smash", that is generally not needed, except perhaps for Tightlocks (and even then they don't have to be "smashed" together). Most units can be joined quite gently with barely a jolt.
Ah, your favourite all-purpose example of the failings of the modern railway.
The RAIB report does not give specific reasons for the delay but, given that it does mention that the driver suffered a hand injury in the process (and based on my own experience with Electrostars), this would have been more likely due to unmaking the gangway connection between the units than any issue with the auto-coupler. It was not uncommon for an unwary driver to suffer a minor hand injury while doing this. The main reasons for the delay were 1) the shunter not made aware of the arrival of the empty train and the need for it to be split, and 2) the driver was new and was unfamiliar with the process of uncoupling because she'd never done it since training and the shunter was not trained and therefore (intially at least) unwilling to help.
Well being a "new innovation" is not some Get Out Of Jail card. You don't come up with something new, and incompatible, unless it's better than what went before. Auto coupling wasn't something novel - the Scharfenburg has been around since 1903. The Tightlock variant on the Buckeye principally seems to avoid having to pay to use the Scharfenburg patents. We still have all the hoo-hah of a "pull test" and such like that just didn't seem necessary before, and passengers being kept inside or outside of trains until the procedure is completed.
And yes, we can come up with as many excuses for all the Kentish Town stupidities as we like, the fact is that all together they show what an amateurish, costs-minimised shower the whole operation had become.
The Southern Region received 43 508s in the late 1970s which did have auto couplers. When it came to specify the 455s, they went back to the pipes and cables. The 456s had to have likewise to be compatible.
442s were specified to be able to couple to locomotives.
No, the couplers weren't the same. 455s can't couple to slam door units. More operational convenience / reliability.
Well being a "new innovation" is not some Get Out Of Jail card. You don't come up with something new, and incompatible, unless it's better than what went before.
I don't understand precisely what you mean by "get out of jail free card" in this context.
In a lot of respect, auto-couplers are better than what went before. They speed up and simplify the process and coupling and uncoupling and remove the need for a shunter to go between the units, thereby improving safety. As for issues with compatibility, I'm unsure how else you would introduce a new standard, whether that be power operated doors, improved power and control systems or whatever, without also introducing a degree of incompatibility between fleets while it is rolled out.
Yes I know. I wasn't saying that the Cl508s were the first trains to use auto-couplers, but rather that it was an innovation for the Southern where they were first introduced.
If that had been your point then I would have accepted it. That said, wouldn't BR also have had to pay for the use of the Tightlock given that it was an American design (it's a Janney Type H, after all)?
I have no idea whether or not licencing would have been required. My own impression is that they would have just ordered the relevant number of units from whichever company was making these products at the time. Without knowing how much these contracts would have cost in the late 1970s it is hard to say whether or not the selection of Tightlocks over Scharfenburgs was a result of penny-pinching or whether there were genuine engineering reasons.
We still have all the hoo-hah of a "pull test" and such like that just didn't seem necessary before, and passengers being kept inside or outside of trains until the procedure is completed.
No better way to find out if you've got a firm grip on the other unit than doing a pull test. I've no doubt it's spared a few drivers blushes down the years. As for having to wait while the operation is completed, this is a consequence of having power doors not auto-couplers. You simply can't move a train with it's doors open.
And yes, we can come up with as many excuses for all the Kentish Town stupidities as we like, the fact is that all together they show what an amateurish, costs-minimised shower the whole operation had become.
No excuses were contained. The information came direct from the RAIB report and leavened with some practical experience to help illuminate the details it contains. I was merely trying to correct the inference that you were attempting to draw; that the delay to the assisting unit was in some way caused by it having auto-couplers. I have previously pointed out that the RAIB does not mention coupling, couplers or coupling adapters within it's findings or recommendations. Neither, for that matter, does it seem to highlight penny-pinching.
I agree that FCC's operational procedures were rightly criticised. Their incident recovery process and communication really were not up to snuff on that day, and the RAIB were right to highlight these issues. However, what this incident does not do is provide any evidence to support your hypothesis.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The 508s that came initially to Waterloo were a BR standard design, with nice new auto couplers. These just never worked reliably, not only on curves but at all. They were an absolute chaos for any service needing coupling in service, and after some considerable words at 222 Marylebone Road they were hiked off to Merseyside, and the 455s ordered as replacements. The Southern did keep the trailers, of course.
Sorry to go back to this, but have you a source for this? I've been trying to find any mention of these troubles but have drawn a blank so far. The only issues that I can find reference for was the usual PEP problem with leaf fall which afflicted other variants of this design due to the braking rates being set so high.
Incidentally, on an historical note, the Cl508s were always intended to be a temporary allocation. The 4SUBs had to be replaced with something so that their traction equipment could be recovered for use in the Cl455s meaning that there had to be something to bridge the gap while this was being done.
442s had buckeye couplers in common with slam door stock. As noted elsewhere in the thread, 455s and 456s have the coupler part of a tightlock but not the electronic 'autoconnector' element.
The Tightlock coupler fitted to the class 334 and 458 Juniper type EMU is also manufactured by WCR but differ from earlier EMU couplers in that they have a different type of Alstom autoconnector (air and electrical) with the air manifold cast above the electrical connections.
They were fitted with Dellner-type automatics made by Voith during the 2015-2017 refurbishment, for rescue compatibility with the 380s and presumably now the 385s as well. The 458s were also changed from Tightlock to Voith auto when they were rebuilt, but a few years earlier so they won't appear in that guidance note.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
