Class 315 and 365 in multiple working?

[bluerun46]

The provided image, dated 17th March 1997, depicts 365534 and 315803 passing Stratford, presumably heading to Ilford depot for maintenance. They appear to be coupled and under their own power. Bar the shape of coupler being the same, how was this possible whilst the trains were so different?

 

[NSEWonderer]

The provided image, dated 17th March 1997, depicts 365534 and 315803 passing Stratford, presumably heading to Ilford depot for maintenance. They appear to be coupled and under their own power. Bar the shape of coupler being the same, how was this possible whilst the trains were so different?

Tightlock couplers allowed this. There's also a picture of a 465 and 455 coupled around Clapham Junction and one of a 465 and 319.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The provided image, dated 17th March 1997, depicts 365534 and 315803 passing Stratford, presumably heading to Ilford depot for maintenance. They appear to be coupled and under their own power. Bar the shape of coupler being the same, how was this possible whilst the trains were so different?

That’s like saying, Bar for sitting on, what are chairs for? The couplers being the same (tightlock) is how it’s possible, for emergency rescues only.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2025 ==

Tightlock couplers allowed this. There's also a picture of a 465 and 455 coupled around Clapham Junction and one of a 465 and 319.

View attachment 180220View attachment 180219

IIRC, either a 465 could pull a 319 or the other way round, but not both.

 

[NSEWonderer]

That’s like saying, Bar for sitting on, what are chairs for? The couplers being the same (tightlock) is how it’s possible, for emergency rescues only.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2025 ==


IIRC, either a 465 could pull a 319 or the other way round, but not both.

Hmm. I always thought they had the ability to pull either, vice versa for rescue reasons. 465s having a dedicated switch for 319 coupling at the time, not sure about now.

 

[Harpo]

365534 and 315803 passing Stratford, presumably heading to Ilford depot for maintenance. They appear to be coupled and under their own power.

Only the 315 has a pan up suggesting it’s being used as a tractor unit only rather than ‘in multiple’.

I’m guessing they were only coupled mechanically and not electrically and that it was a fairly short move as the 365 has been trusted to power up its own tail lights without the pan up.

 

[Magdalia]

The provided image, dated 17th March 1997, depicts 365534 and 315803 passing Stratford, presumably heading to Ilford depot for maintenance.

I think this is the first class 365 to visit Ilford. 365534 was the prototype for some modifications to address teething troubles when the class 365s first entered service on the GN.

During their lives class 365s visited Ilford a lot. Various rounds of C4 and C6 overhauls were done there, and Ilford did Great Northern's refurbishment that included the DDA compliant toilets.

But for most of their lives the class 365s were not allowed to run to or from Ilford under their own power. This was due to signal immunisation and clearance issues.

If you look carefully at the picture you will see that 365534's pantograph is not raised, and that the footboards have been removed.

In most of the moves between Hornsey and Ilford a class 317 was used as the tractor unit. Pantograph not raised and footboards removed was standard for such moves.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The provided image, dated 17th March 1997, depicts 365534 and 315803 passing Stratford, presumably heading to Ilford depot for maintenance. They appear to be coupled and under their own power. Bar the shape of coupler being the same, how was this possible whilst the trains were so different?

That’s like saying, Bar for sitting on, what are chairs for? The couplers being the same (tightlock) is how it’s possible, for emergency rescues only.

The simple shape of the coupling would not be enough to allow safe operation. Even if the rear unit is not under power, its brakes must work

 

[bluerun46]

Only the 315 has a pan up suggesting it’s being used as a tractor unit only rather than ‘in multiple’.

I’m guessing they were only coupled mechanically and not electrically and that it was a fairly short move as the 365 has been trusted to power up its own tail lights without the pan up.

I assumed there was just a mechanical and not a valid electrical connection, seeing as the electronics on both trains are from vastly different eras. However, the tail light being on is interesting.

Were the electrical systems standardised to the point that they were compatible enough for the 315 to deliver current that powered up, at minimum, the 365’s tail lights? I didn’t think the 365 had onboard batteries.

Also, for there to be a valid air connection across the trains in order for the brakes to work, would that not imply the 315 and 365 had the same pipe pressures? If so, I didn’t realise that was also standardised over those years.

 

[nlogax]

As an aside, these photos are great finds. One of these days I really must get started on a 'which units could couple with which' page.

 

[Efini92]

The simple shape of the coupling would not be enough to allow safe operation. Even if the rear unit is not under power, its brakes must work

If it’s not connected electronically the brakes won’t work.
I suspect the reason why the train being dragged has two tail lights on is because there’s a second driver in the rear unit with the brakes released.

 

[delt1c]

Saw a couple of 365 +317 where the 317 was tractor unit dragging a 365 to Ilford . But interestingly saw ( only once) a 365 /317 ECS leaving Kings Cross with both units Pans up.

 

[stadler]

I have been told by a friend who works at Selhurst Depot that a 319+455 happened once and a 319+456 happened once. Both of these were broken down trains being rescued so were just short distance low speed ECS moves. I imagine a lot of these rare formations have happened. Anything with the same couplers can couple in an emergency.