Class 312 EMUs

[Cambus731]

I did witness a 312 and a 309 coupled together on an ECS movement going through Chelmsford.
Must have been about 1990.

I found the 312s to be very comfortable trains to ride on and they were very warm in the winter. I disagree that the 317s were better trains as I always found the 317s to be cheap and nasty inside.
And I'm afraid the same goes for the 321s that I now have to use.
The 317s and 321s may well be better performers and be a lot more crashworthy than the 312s, but the 312s were much warmer and comfortable trains than 317s or 321s.

 

[physics34]

I think exactly the opposite but accept that it is a matter of personal taste. A freshly washed maroon 309 was a splendid sight in the dull surroundings of LIverpool St and certainly became a vision of fast outer suburban electric trains. I did make many journeys from Chelmsford/Colchester to Havant with the Essex end of the journey in a 309 and the Southern bit in a CIG/BIG. The seats were better in the 309s, they were much faster and quieter, and they looked more sleek even in the BR blue/grey livery.
The CIG's ends were a softened version of the CEPs which itself wasn't much of an improvement to standard MKI LHCS.
The 309 ends were similar in style to the class 125s which also had wraparound screens. The wraparounds were also originally used on the class 303 'Blue Trains' for Glasgow. I think that outside the SR, where flat ends had been the norm for everything since the pre-war 'torpedo' EMUs, BR tried to give multiple unit end designs a look that didn't resemble a LHCS with windows cut into the end.

its probably what you are used to seeing... as im used to seeing the SR EMUs as i have lived next to the BML all my life.

...and im not surprised you said that considering your username

I never got to ride on a 309 which iam gutted about though to be honest, although did ride 302s, 310s and 312s.

 

[jimm]

We have a winner. The 312s were indeed a modern version of the 310. the big difference was that they gangwayed throughout whereas the 310s were not gangwayed between coaches two and three. When they started working the King's Cross - Roystons in 1977 the performance was eye-opening. A four (2X2) car Cravens DMU running non-stop Finsbury Park - Potters Bar on dry rails could just about touch 55. The 312s would romp up at 90.

Not quite a winner, because, as has been pointed out, the 312/1s were rated to run at 90mph, not 75 as was a the case with the 310s. Hence my description of the 312 as souped-up.

Though I'd agree with the point made by notadriver about 310s being no slouches themselves. I once had a very lively run on one from Birmingham to Stockport as a stand-in for an XC service that had failed south-west of Birmingham.

 

[AndyW33]

As far as I understand all 310s were 75 mph only whereas 312s came in two sub classes. The London midland were 75 mph and Great Eastern 90 mph.

Are you sure about the 304s ability to accelerate ? They had 828 hp and i remember like a 305 4 car set that went to Bishops Stortford they were incredibly slow to accelerate. I doubt they bothered the 310/312 units.

In later years the 304s had the trailer lavatory composite removed, so the power-to-weight got a lot better as a 3 car unit.

Apologies, I do believe that the 310s were 75mph, (so maybe the 304s weren't posh enough for the WCML south ). All the 312s were 90mph though.

Even in the 1960s, using 304s on services such as Northampton-Euston when they had no internal gangways and only one car out of 4 had lavatory access wasn't considered adequate. Especially with the number of LMR HQ staff who used the route...

The 312/2s are showing as 75 mph geared units. Maybe it's to retain comparability with 310s. In any case 310s were easily able to exceed 75 even uphill. I remember speeds well above 80 on the speedo going towards Watford Jct from Euston.
.

I've always understood that all the 312s were actually identical but the LM allocated quartet were stencilled for 75mph for safety reasons as they could and did multiple with 304 and 310 units. You really didn't want to be in a 304 unit at speed on the WCML after the 86s had hammered the trackbed, so imagine what it would be like if the unit in front was driven at 90mph.
I suspect the 310s were designed for 90mph, they had B4-derived bogies, but again as long as there were 304s about the marked limit would have to be kept down to 75mph. I spent years commuting on them between the Milton Keynes area and Euston and if they got a clear run on the fast roads they certainly ran well above 75mph. At this period the linespeed on the slows was 75mph, another reason for the official top speed.

We have a winner. The 312s were indeed a modern version of the 310. the big difference was that they gangwayed throughout whereas the 310s were not gangwayed between coaches two and three.

Correct for the units as built. 310s were later rebuilt to be gangwayed throughout.

 

[notadriver]

Just a random thought that back in the day (before HSTs) speeds of 90-100 mph were considered quite exhilarating ?

 

[AM9]

Just a random thought that back in the day (before HSTs) speeds of 90-100 mph were considered quite exhilarating ?

And also the 345s to be introduced on the GEML metro services (by TfL) will be capable of running between Brentwood and Harold Wood at the same speeds that the 312s regularly did beyond Chelmsford. That's some speed for what will be a souped-up tube train!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Just a random thought that back in the day (before HSTs) speeds of 90-100 mph were considered quite exhilarating ?

Yes, especially if you were behind a Deltic!

 

[notadriver]

And also the 345s to be introduced on the GEML metro services (by TfL) will be capable of running between Brentwood and Harold Wood at the same speeds that the 312s regularly did beyond Chelmsford. That's some speed for what will be a souped-up tube train!

Hopefully they will raise the line speed from the current 70 mph maximum.

 

[Helvellyn]

It sometimes gets forgotten that the Class 310 (AM10s) and Class 432 (4-REP) EMUs were both Derby products of 1966. Indeed, both were fitted with English Electric EE546 traction motors, just that those fitted to the 432s were rated at 400hp (and there were 8 per 4-car set), whilst those fitted to to the 310s were rated at 270hp (4 per 4-car set).

Compare the two and it is stroking how the 310s were built to the Mark 2 style to match the LHCS Mark 2s for WCML electrification, whilst the 432s use dthe Mark 1 body style. I know this was in part due to Bournemouth Line electrification being done on the cheap (i.e. rebuilding Mark 1 LHCS vehicles for use as 432 trailers and the entire 438 fleet). But imagine if the REPs and TCs had been built using the Mark 2 as the basis (withe the VEPs built for the Bournemouth Line stoppers being built as a d.c. Class 310 with end corridors).

 

[AM9]

It sometimes gets forgotten that the Class 310 (AM10s) and Class 432 (4-REP) EMUs were both Derby products of 1966. Indeed, both were fitted with English Electric EE546 traction motors, just that those fitted to the 432s were rated at 400hp (and there were 8 per 4-car set), whilst those fitted to to the 310s were rated at 270hp (4 per 4-car set).

The main difference between the actual performance of EMUs was (and still is) the ability of the infrastructure to power them up to their full performance. Te DC 3rd rail supply has never been able to provide the full 750V when traffic levels are high. This means that the supply voltage drops and the maximum power that the motors can draw falls. The WCML or GEML could generally provide a full load even when a procession of 12-car trains run through the busy sections. Whereas trains then would just run with less performance, modern ac motors can be optimised to maintain performance under reduced voltage conditions, or alternatively the maximum current (therefore tractive power) limited in software, to reduce the chance of circuit overload.

 

[Taunton]

I'd be surprised if a 304 could manage much past 65.

I recall making a late evening connection at Crewe for Liverpool where the next service was a 304 stopper (when they were still 4-car). The performance, especially the initial Crewe to Winsford stage, was quite something, well over 70mph. I had a full compartment to myself so could lean from the window. That was almost more comfortable that the seats, for there were periodic vertical shocks as the suspension suddenly shot the body upwards.

 

[AM9]

I recall making a late evening connection at Crewe for Liverpool where the next service was a 304 stopper (when they were still 4-car). The performance, especially the initial Crewe to Winsford stage, was quite something, well over 70mph. I had a full compartment to myself so could lean from the window. That was almost more comfortable that the seats, for there were periodic vertical shocks as the suspension suddenly shot the body upwards.

Back in the '70s when I used to commute on the GEML, there were many stretches of jointed track and I counted speeds over 80mph. That was on all of the suburban stock, 305s, 307s &308s. I've even clocked 306s at well over 75mph. The sprung seat squabs were definitely needed on those trips as the bogies were nowhere near as good as current types. The 309s were commonwealth bogies with anti-hunting wheel profiles and the 312s BR4s so they generally performed well at 90+ provided they weren't too far from their last service.
I suspect that trains speed limits were less enforced in those BR days, - presumably without recorders there wasn't much choice.

 

[notadriver]

I recall making a late evening connection at Crewe for Liverpool where the next service was a 304 stopper (when they were still 4-car). The performance, especially the initial Crewe to Winsford stage, was quite something, well over 70mph. I had a full compartment to myself so could lean from the window. That was almost more comfortable that the seats, for there were periodic vertical shocks as the suspension suddenly shot the body upwards.

Yep don't forget I'm comparing the climb performance on the potters bar bank of 1 in 200 not level ground.

 

[tom1649]

The 312s were very comfortable trains and went well before their time. They should have had central door locking fitted rather than being scrapped when they were.

 

[chubs]

The 312s were very comfortable trains and went well before their time. They should have had central door locking fitted rather than being scrapped when they were.

Even in the 90's they looked incredibly dated and decrepit.

The 321's and 360's were a lot nicer from a commuter and leisure traveller viewpoint.

 

[notadriver]

And don't forget the cab view possible on 310s and 312s.

 

[306024]

Back in the '70s when I used to commute on the GEML, there were many stretches of jointed track and I counted speeds over 80mph. That was on all of the suburban stock, 305s, 307s &308s. I've even clocked 306s at well over 75mph. The sprung seat squabs were definitely needed on those trips as the bogies were nowhere near as good as current types. The 309s were commonwealth bogies with anti-hunting wheel profiles and the 312s BR4s so they generally performed well at 90+ provided they weren't too far from their last service.
I suspect that trains speed limits were less enforced in those BR days, - presumably without recorders there wasn't much choice.

84mph down the hill into Wickford was my record for a 306 - scary !

Back on 312s, there was an incident at Harwich Town when something electrical went bang in the guards brake. This lead to the brake vans being locked out of use until the whole GE fleet had been thoroughly checked.

They were fine to travel in if you sat where there were no doors, behind the driver gave the best ride. Alternatively sit at the very back and they were lively. The doors were draughty, which lead to some being sealed up in later years.

Replacing 309s on some workings they were never going to be popular by comparison, nothing could touch a 309.

 

[Phil.]

Back in the '70s when I used to commute on the GEML, there were many stretches of jointed track and I counted speeds over 80mph. That was on all of the suburban stock, 305s, 307s &308s. I've even clocked 306s at well over 75mph. The sprung seat squabs were definitely needed on those trips as the bogies were nowhere near as good as current types. The 309s were commonwealth bogies with anti-hunting wheel profiles and the 312s BR4s so they generally performed well at 90+ provided they weren't too far from their last service.
I suspect that trains speed limits were less enforced in those BR days, - presumably without recorders there wasn't much choice.

That's mainly because drivers were still promoted from the ranks of secondmen and, having served an "apprenticeship" were considered to be more than capable of making considered decisions about speed. Traction inspectors - having served in the line of promotion as driver - used common sense before taking any action. Nowadays your average five minute manager's world is black and white.

 

[tom1649]

Even in the 90's they looked incredibly dated and decrepit.

The 321's and 360's were a lot nicer from a commuter and leisure traveller viewpoint.

Dated maybe, but they were still much more comfortable than a lot of modern stocks, 321's included.

 

[Cambus731]

I agree with Tom1649. The 312s were very comfortable. Much more than the 321s that have always seemed cheap and nasty inside. Thankfully the 360s are an improvement on the 321s

 

[notadriver]

That's mainly because drivers were still promoted from the ranks of secondmen and, having served an "apprenticeship" were considered to be more than capable of making considered decisions about speed. Traction inspectors - having served in the line of promotion as driver - used common sense before taking any action. Nowadays your average five minute manager's world is black and white.

Do you mean to say that today's drivers have no idea what they are doing ?

 

[Marklund]

Do you mean to say that today's drivers have no idea what they are doing ?

That's not what's being implied.

 

[notadriver]

That's not what's being implied.

What is being implied then?

 

[321446]

Do you mean to say that today's drivers have no idea what they are doing ?

Oi, I resemble that remark.

I can find Liverpool St most of the time....

 

[Marklund]

What is being implied then?

It's not that difficult to work out. :roll:

Current managers, some of whom have never done the job they manage, have no discretion, ergo drivers will not be able to use the judgement they used to be able to for fear of discipline.

 

[notadriver]

It's not that difficult to work out. :roll:



Current managers, some of whom have never done the job they manage, have no discretion, ergo drivers will not be able to use the judgement they used to be able to for fear of discipline.

You're saying that there are some driver managers (who can do downloads) who've never been train drivers ? Really ?!

 

[NSEFAN]

Current managers, some of whom have never done the job they manage, have no discretion, ergo drivers will not be able to use the judgement they used to be able to for fear of discipline.

Surely drivers can still use their own judgement, provided they're within the rules and instructions of control? Driving faster than the rated speed of the traction or line isn't good practice. Regardless of management ability, any manager who finds out about that kind of behaviour is perfectly entitled to ask the driver in for a chat.

 

[Marklund]

You're saying that there are some driver managers (who can do downloads) who've never been train drivers ? Really ?!

What do you think about Phil.'s phrase five minute manager?

Does that suggest managers with lots of first hand experience to you?

 

[edwin_m]

I seem to remember the 312s on the London-Royston workings didn't allow a driver's eye view when sitting down, unlike the 101 on the Cambridge shuttle. Threre was an inward-facing bench seat the full width of the partition between the cab and the saloon (no communicating door) with a window above the seat back, and you had to either stand up or kneel on the bench to be high enough to see over.

 

[notadriver]

What do you think about Phil.'s phrase five minute manager?



Does that suggest managers with lots of first hand experience to you?

Driver managers are not 5 minute managers. They have at least 5 years experience driving trains.