Car limits on trains

[OA2011]

Hi

I'm wondering why certain trains have certain car limits, like the DMUs.
For example, a 170 Turbostar comes in 2 and 3 cars, but not 4 cars? And a 220 comes in 4 cars, with a 221 in 5 cars, but not 6 cars?

Is there any way of increasing/decreasing the cars, or are they all needed to operate the train? Would there be a possibility of having a 7 car Voyager?

Thanks
Jon

 

[swt_passenger]

Hi

I'm wondering why certain trains have certain car limits, like the DMUs.
For example, a 170 Turbostar comes in 2 and 3 cars, but not 4 cars?

Southern's Turbostars (171s) do have four car variants. They'd be 170s if the decision hadn't been taken to give them a separate class number as a result of them having different couplers.

...And a 220 comes in 4 cars, with a 221 in 5 cars, but not 6 cars?

Is there any way of increasing/decreasing the cars, or are they all needed to operate the train? Would there be a possibility of having a 7 car Voyager?

The only practical reason Voyagers were not extended is that no-one was prepared to fund the extra cars, at least up to 5 cars. A 6 or 7 car would have been a problem as it could not run paired up as the overall length would be far too long for most platforms.

Extra cars are probably no longer possible due to restrictions on diesel engine installation, but others know a lot more about that than I do...

 

[Tetchytyke]

One word: money.

There's no reason why a 185 couldn't have had four carriages, or a 220 with five or six, except the age old problem of finding someone to pay for it. The 222 originally came in a nine carriage variant, so the length of a DMU isn't an issue, except for the fact that a nine carriage 222 cost a bloomin' fortune to run.

The 170 doesn't have four carriages but both the 168 and the 171- which are both basically the same train- do have four carriage variants.

 

[OA2011]

Southern's Turbostars (171s) do have four car variants. They'd be 170s if the decision hadn't been taken to give them a separate class number as a result of them having different couplers.

Do you have any pictures of a 4 car 171? I can only find 2 cars... do you mean the 168s by any chance?

 

[swt_passenger]

Do you have any pictures of a 4 car 171? I can only find 2 cars... do you mean the 168s by any chance?

Google > Images > Class 171: http://www.flickr.com/photos/86020500@N06/8509320917/

No, I definitely don't mean 168s.

 

[OA2011]

The 170 doesn't have four carriages but both the 168 and the 171- which are both basically the same train- do have four carriage variants.

I seem to remember from the days at Birmingham Snow Hill, that Chiltern Railways has two types of 168... one appears to be a clubman, and the other just confuses me!

As for the running cost of the 222... wouldn't it be cheaper to run the 9 cars, rather than say two paired 220s?

Jon

 

[Tetchytyke]

Do you have any pictures of a 4 car 171?

Here you go:

 

[OA2011]

Thanks!

What service is that train on? I couldn't find any 4 cars, so is the 4 car 171 quite rare? Do Southern mostly operate the 377s or 2 car 171s?

Jon

 

[swt_passenger]

It's rare to the extent that SN have only about 16 DMUs in total, of which only 6 units are 4 car. But they've hundreds of EMUs.

The 171s only operate on the London Bridge to Uckfield and Brighton to Ashford (Marshlink) routes.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I seem to remember from the days at Birmingham Snow Hill, that Chiltern Railways has two types of 168... one appears to be a clubman, and the other just confuses me!


Jon

There are three types of class 168s. There are 168/0's, 168/1's and 168/2's. The zeroes have a different cab design (a flat front end not unlike a class 165) so they are obviously different to even the most untrained eye but the ones and twos have a class 170 style cab.
There will be a fourth type of 168 (168/3) when the TPE 170s are absorbed into the Chiltern fleet and rebadged. This is because they are essentially the same train as a class 170, the reason they have a different class number as far as I am aware is because they have different a different coupler, 168s are wired to be compatible with old Network South East stock and 170s are not.

About half of the 168s are in four car formation.

(Image taken from Flickr)

 

[Tetchytyke]

The 168s at Chiltern were made in three batches. The first batch has a cab that appears the same as a Networker, the second and third batches have the same cab as a 170.

 

[causton]

The 168s at Chiltern were made in three batches. The first batch has a cab that appears the same as a Networker, the second and third batches have the same cab as a 170.

Any reason why?

 

[joeykins82]

Presumably the 168s also have tripcocks and the 170s do not

 

[Cherry_Picker]

That's true, but there is no reason why you can't attach a tripcock to a class 170 and still call it a 170. There are class 66 locomotives running around with tripcocks on them.

Any reason why?

Just when they were built. The 168/0s predate the 170 cab design by a year or two.

 

[edwin_m]

When Bombardier produced the Electrostar they were talking about providing different front ends for different customers. Chiltern, being the first customer, got one that was similar to their existing fleet. Later on I think reality bit and someone worked out how much extra it would cost to have a "special", so later batches used the standard arrangement.

 

[badassunicorn]

slightly off topic but does anyone know what the seemingly wooden piece of equipment between the two wheels on the first bogie is on a 168? Looks like something used to pick up 3rd rail.... ?? Or just a yaw damper type doo dad?
See this picture------>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76437498@N03/11018557803/in/photostream/

 

[Peter Mugridge]

slightly off topic but does anyone know what the seemingly wooden piece of equipment between the two wheels on the first bogie is on a 168? Looks like something used to pick up 3rd rail.... ?? Or just a yaw damper type doo dad?
See this picture------>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76437498@N03/11018557803/in/photostream/

I would hazard a guess that it might be something to do with the tripcock for working via Harrow on the Hill?

 

[RPM]

I would hazard a guess that it might be something to do with the tripcock for working via Harrow on the Hill?

Yes, that is the beam upon which the tripcock is mounted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

slightly off topic but does anyone know what the seemingly wooden piece of equipment between the two wheels on the first bogie is on a 168?

And, yes it is indeed partly wooden. Obvious when they are new and clean but less so when covered in grime.

 

[JB25]

Yes we have 2 and 4 car 171s at Southern. Often see them in 6 car sets in the evening, but most of the time during the day the 2 cars are shuttling up and down between London Bridge and Uckfield.

So what is the difference between a 170 and 171 then?

 

[RPM]

QUOTE]

Scharfenberg couplers instead of BSI couplers. Several of the 2 car units were actually delivered as 170s before the decision was made to change the couplers and reclassify.

 

[JB25]

Those couplers don't really mean anything to me. All I know is the ones on our 171s can couple to 377s for assistance purposes but can't run in service together. I believe they are compatible for air, but not electrically.

 

[edwin_m]

Those couplers don't really mean anything to me. All I know is the ones on our 171s can couple to 377s for assistance purposes but can't run in service together. I believe they are compatible for air, but not electrically.

That I believe is the reason they were fitted. It is also the difference between a 375 and a 377, as I believe whoever was specifying the order to Bombardier chose the Dellner/Scharfenberg coupler because it was considered more reliable.

 

[455driver]

Those couplers don't really mean anything to me. All I know is the ones on our 171s can couple to 377s for assistance purposes but can't run in service together. I believe they are compatible for air, but not electrically.

Yes that is correct.

Your 377/3s were also delivered as 375/3s and fitted with Tightlock couplers from new. When they were converted to Dellner couplers they were renumbered to 377/3.

Funnily enough all the other 375s retained their original number when they were retrofitted with Dellner couplers.

 

[Crossover]

Scharfenberg couplers instead of BSI couplers. Several of the 2 car units were actually delivered as 170s before the decision was made to change the couplers and reclassify.

Dellner, not Scharfenberg
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, our 333's up here in the North were delivered as 3 car sets - with additional funding from the PTE, they were upped to 4 car

 

[user15681]

I never understood the logic behind renumbering some and not renumbering others, although that could be an oversight on my behalf. I guess if it was done to separate the two TOCs fleets, then I could understand.

The 377s and 375s were different in their couplers initially, but then the 375s had Dellners retro fitted, so became the same. Now 377s are different from the 375s currently in that they have exterior door cameras and minor other interior features, whilst the SE 375s don't.

 

[jopsuk]

I never understood the logic behind renumbering some and not renumbering others,

Logic? In the class numbering system? ha!

 

[Bushy]

IIRC Southern renumbered their 375s when Dellners were fitted but Southeastern didn't.

 

[user15681]

IIRC Southern renumbered their 375s when Dellners were fitted but Southeastern didn't.

That's correct, then the Southeastern 375s had Dellners fitted too, but didn't renumber.

Logic at its finest.

 

[gage75]

Slightly off topic but still on the same train of thought, when procured the extra units -377 /6 /7 was any consideration made of getting extras made to strengthen the 377/3 to 4 car length or are they more useful as they are???

 

[user15681]

Slightly off topic but still on the same train of thought, when procured the extra units -377 /6 /7 was any consideration made of getting extras made to strengthen the 377/3 to 4 car length or are they more useful as they are???

I'd say the 377/3s are more useful as they are at the moment. Two of them (makes a 6 car unit) can be put with a 4 car to make 10 cars, which is perfect for the metro services. Oddly, if you were to add an extra car to them, you'd end up with 4 cars in the fleet, meaning the longest you could have on metro services was 8 cars - a reduction from current.