Class 387

[Kite159]

On whatever is on the southbound Brighton from St pancras ATM, seats are firm but compared to the 313s very nice.

If you want hard seats, I suggest 376s

Power sockets as well which is a Brucie bonus
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just had 107/108

Seats are wonderful compared to the 376s

 

[Class377/5]

I saw a few S stocks going around out of service with loads of people wearing orange hi-vis throughout. And didn't a whole load end up being sent back to Derby?

All 57 S8 nedded to return to Derby for mods.

Todays failure didn't require a laptop nor a steel toe capped boot but rather a good eye.

 

[tsr]

All 57 S8 nedded to return to Derby for mods.

Todays failure didn't require a laptop nor a steel toe capped boot but rather a good eye.

I'd argue that there were many steel toe capped boots trudging a fair distance before infrastructure causes were eliminated!

 

[Aictos]

What was the problem with the latest failure?

 

[jon0844]

Todays failure didn't require a laptop nor a steel toe capped boot but rather a good eye.

As in spotting the Bombardier logo and immediately knowing why it's broken.

 

[21C101]

All 57 S8 nedded to return to Derby for mods.

Todays failure didn't require a laptop nor a steel toe capped boot but rather a good eye.

Thats not unknown with any product. I just don't recall service suspensions on the Met/H&C/Circle because S8/S7s had had a tantrum and couldn't be moved, blocking the line for the thick end of an hour, which seems to be a regular occurence with 387s.

I recall that they were "bedded in" with special services that only went along the outer reaches of the met line and not allowed anywhere near the inner circle until they were happy with them.

The equivalent would be bedding in the 387s as "special" in service shuttles on Redhill - Tonbridge, where if it did a passable impression of Delaney's Donkey it wouldn't cause chaos. Alternatively send them up to Old Dalby and not let them near Thameslink until they had ironed out all the bugs.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thats not unknown with any product. I just don't recall service suspensions on the Met/H&C/Circle because S8/S7s had had a tantrum and couldn't be moved, blocking the line for the thick end of an hour, which seems to be a regular occurence with 387s.

I do, indeed I was stuck behind one at Farringdon. Same with the new Vic line stock (although not at Farringdon, obv). And the 172s. And - to share out the manufacturers' pain - the 360s.

 

[Class377/5]

Thats not unknown with any product. I just don't recall service suspensions on the Met/H&C/Circle because S8/S7s had had a tantrum and couldn't be moved, blocking the line for the thick end of an hour, which seems to be a regular occurence with 387s.

I recall that they were "bedded in" with special services that only went along the outer reaches of the met line and not allowed anywhere near the inner circle until they were happy with them.

The equivalent would be bedding in the 387s as "special" in service shuttles on Redhill - Tonbridge, where if it did a passable impression of Delaney's Donkey it wouldn't cause chaos. Alternatively send them up to Old Dalby and not let them near Thameslink until they had ironed out all the bugs.

Care to tell me an mass product that doesn't have bugs please?

Your assumption is further testing would have changed things, your wrong.

 

[Aictos]

If the Class 387 fleet or any new fleet to a point didn't have teething troubles in the first few weeks of being introduced in passenger service then I be very surprised and that applies for CAF, Siemens, Bombardier etc

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I'm guessing that testing them whilst out in regular service is more representative as it takes into account their acceleration/deceleration, stop/start, stopping patterns, driving style, braking, door operation etc.

 

[Class377/5]

I'm guessing that testing them whilst out in regular service is more representative as it takes into account their acceleration/deceleration, stop/start, stopping patterns, driving style, braking, door operation etc.

Not to mention staff getting used to the quirks and being more confident with dealing with faults as they crop up. Something over looked by many.

 

[jon0844]

not let them near Thameslink until they had ironed out all the bugs.

But then the 700s would have probably been introduced!

 

[samuelmorris]

Thats not unknown with any product. I just don't recall service suspensions on the Met/H&C/Circle because S8/S7s had had a tantrum and couldn't be moved, blocking the line for the thick end of an hour, which seems to be a regular occurence with 387s

I do, but it was back in 2010-2011 when the S8s were first introduced. By the time the S7s came in, they were so similar to S8s, most of the bugs had been ironed out I think - the S7s even came 'factory fit' with some modifications, e.g. slower door action, quicker brake release, extra handles etc.
Seemingly the 387s do have some differences from all the 377 batches (other than the 110mph running speed) so expecting them to be perfect from day one seems rather optimistic...

 

[47802]

I do, but it was back in 2010-2011 when the S8s were first introduced. By the time the S7s came in, they were so similar to S8s, most of the bugs had been ironed out I think - the S7s even came 'factory fit' with some modifications, e.g. slower door action, quicker brake release, extra handles etc.
Seemingly the 387s do have some differences from all the 377 batches (other than the 110mph running speed) so expecting them to be perfect from day one seems rather optimistic...

Indeed and hasn't the introduction of the 350/4 been not that great from the supposedly can do no wrong Siemens

You would imagine though that Bombardier will be keen to fix any problems ASAP with the new 'British!' manufacturer now to compete with.

 

[southern442]

If the Class 387 fleet or any new fleet to a point didn't have teething troubles in the first few weeks of being introduced in passenger service then I be very surprised and that applies for CAF, Siemens, Bombardier etc

I'm guessing you missed out Alstom because rather than a few weeks of teething troubles, they are plagued with many months of trouble!

 

[21C101]

I do, but it was back in 2010-2011 when the S8s were first introduced. By the time the S7s came in, they were so similar to S8s, most of the bugs had been ironed out I think - the S7s even came 'factory fit' with some modifications, e.g. slower door action, quicker brake release, extra handles etc.
Seemingly the 387s do have some differences from all the 377 batches (other than the 110mph running speed) so expecting them to be perfect from day one seems rather optimistic...

Thats why you put them in service on somewhere like Redhill - Tonbridge on special trains for a couple of months, then in normal service on the coastways for a couple of months, then on the South - Croydon - Milton Keynes service for while to prove a.c. and only after you are happy with all that, let them loose on the Thameslink core (or, better still, put them on the Brighton main line services, with 377s diverted to Thameslink until the class 700s are ready to avoid to many unit variants on Thameslink).

What you don't do is bed in new units (that will be going elsewhere) on your most critical route operationally.

While others have stated cases of problems with the S8s, the fact remains that they were, wisely, only allowed on the outer reaches of the Met line on special services at first, where most bugs would have been captured.

 

[Class377/5]

Thats why you put them in service on somewhere like Redhill - Tonbridge on special trains for a couple of months, then in normal service on the coastways for a couple of months, then on the South - Croydon - Milton Keynes service for while to prove a.c. and only after you are happy with all that, let them loose on the Thameslink core (or, better still, put them on the Brighton main line services, with 377s diverted to Thameslink until the class 700s are ready to avoid to many unit variants on Thameslink).

What you don't do is bed in new units (that will be going elsewhere) on your most critical route operationally.

While others have stated cases of problems with the S8s, the fact remains that they were, wisely, only allowed on the outer reaches of the Met line on special services at first, where most bugs would have been captured.

What your failing to understand is the cost of your proposal with taking off extra drivers to train on the 387s or extra route knowledge in conditions (at a time when drivers are rare anyway due to learning London Bridge changes) that don't replicate true operating conditions anyway.

Your idea that 6x 377 (Southern only has dual voltage 377201-206 these days and the 377/7 aren't suitable for Thameslink for various reasons) could sit in for the 387 is silly as your looking at around about 12 units introduced in two - three month period, requiring a lowering of capacity when its most critically needed.

Let alone your idea of 29x 387 being covered by 377s until the 700s arrive, do you not understand there isn't actually enough units to achieve this?

Not to mention there's been no problems with AC power like your post suggest they require extra testing for. Nor any problem with DC power.

As for not putting new units on the most critical part of the network, do you not understand that every single Thameslink service goes through the Core currently? There is no none Core routes to put the 387s on that GTR run! Forcing them onto Southern, a seperate company at present, ignores the reality of the situation.

What your suggestions fail to do is actually deal with any of the issues surrounding the introduction of the 387s on the Thameslink route, but rather reduce capacity on multiple TOCs. Knowing what has actually gone on with the 387 fleet (ie facts not opinion), they haven't done too badly actually, nor would a single idea changed that.

 

[21C101]

What your failing to understand is the cost of your proposal with taking off extra drivers to train on the 387s or extra route knowledge in conditions (at a time when drivers are rare anyway due to learning London Bridge changes) that don't replicate true operating conditions anyway.

Your idea that 6x 377 (Southern only has dual voltage 377201-206 these days and the 377/7 aren't suitable for Thameslink for various reasons) could sit in for the 387 is silly as your looking at around about 12 units introduced in two - three month period, requiring a lowering of capacity when its most critically needed.

Let alone your idea of 29x 387 being covered by 377s until the 700s arrive, do you not understand there isn't actually enough units to achieve this?

Not to mention there's been no problems with AC power like your post suggest they require extra testing for. Nor any problem with DC power.

As for not putting new units on the most critical part of the network, do you not understand that every single Thameslink service goes through the Core currently? There is no none Core routes to put the 387s on that GTR run! Forcing them onto Southern, a seperate company at present, ignores the reality of the situation.

What your suggestions fail to do is actually deal with any of the issues surrounding the introduction of the 387s on the Thameslink route, but rather reduce capacity on multiple TOCs. Knowing what has actually gone on with the 387 fleet (ie facts not opinion), they haven't done too badly actually, nor would a single idea changed that.

The whole 377 fleet is designed to be dual voltage? Wouldn't it be better to fit some pantos to some existing 377s and use a common fleet on Thameslink?

Re the power, the issue seems to be the changeover not ac or dc power - hence the failures at city?

Agree though that money is at the root of it. Too much premium being extracted with a competitive tendering process which means the company stripping most out of costs and able to pay most premium winning = quality down the toilet.

Running it as extra Tonbridge - Redhill Shuttles to bed it in wouldn't upset any TOCs but it would cost. Similarly fitting the test track at Asfordby with both third rail and overhead with a changeover and thoroughly testing some units there including high speed running and the a.c. d.c. changeover would get most of the bugs out before it went into service would be quite possible but cost a lot of money.

Putting pantos on some more 377s (as designed for) would be quite possible but cost money.

At the bottom of this is money, everything else is froth.

Cut costs and quality goes down the pan. However the Thameslink route is a underground type service with underground type frequency, underground type passenger numbers and underground type chaos when it goes wrong. It needs the same level of resources put into it as the Underground has.

I'm beginning to think that all Thameslink services should be removed from the GTR franchise and handed over to TfL to let a "london Overground" type concession (as will be the case with Crossrail), as TfL seem to know how to run a railway. What they have achieved on the North London Line since they took it over is quite astonishing.

 

[Class377/5]

The whole 377 fleet is designed to be dual voltage? Wouldn't it be better to fit some pantos to some existing 377s and use a common fleet on Thameslink?

Not really as there a risk factor of putting new pans onto the older stock. Who bares that risk along with increased costs you proposed?

Re the power, the issue seems to be the changeover not ac or dc power - hence the failures at city?

What 387 failed on AC/DC change over? I'm not aware of any.

Agree though that money is at the root of it. Too much premium being extracted with a competitive tendering process which means the company stripping most out of costs and able to pay most premium winning = quality down the toilet.

What premium? there is no such thing for the TSGN franchise. They are paid for what they provide, end of. Seems you need to brush up on what's actually going on.

Running it as extra Tonbridge - Redhill Shuttles to bed it in wouldn't upset any TOCs but it would cost. Similarly fitting the test track at Asfordby with both third rail and overhead with a changeover and thoroughly testing some units there including high speed running and the a.c. d.c. changeover would get most of the bugs out before it went into service would be quite possible but cost a lot of money.

You've failed to address whom picks up these extra costs. Using Old Dalby to simulate City - Farringdon would have limited benefits. Not least because none of the 387 failure have occurred there of course.

Putting pantos on some more 377s (as designed for) would be quite possible but cost money.

And ups the risk which always costs extra money.

At the bottom of this is money, everything else is froth.

The froth is your claims of issues at the AC/DC point.

Cut costs and quality goes down the pan. However the Thameslink route is a underground type service with underground type frequency, underground type passenger numbers and underground type chaos when it goes wrong. It needs the same level of resources put into it as the Underground has.

Care to show where costs have been cut please? Thameslink isn't a Underground type service unless there is an unknown Tube line with 2tph frequencies. The only place its like the Tube is in the Core section for now. Of course St Pancras to East Croydon will Tube like frequencies come 2018.

I'm beginning to think that all Thameslink services should be removed from the GTR franchise and handed over to TfL to let a "london Overground" type concession (as will be the case with Crossrail), as TfL seem to know how to run a railway. What they have achieved on the North London Line since they took it over is quite astonishing.

Why should TfL be running services to Peterborough, Cambridge, Bedford, Littlehampton and Brighton? TfL don't know how to run a mainline railway, that's why they employ others to do so. TfL set standards not operate railways. f course comparing the Overground today with Thameslink today is unfair as the full investment hasn't yet been seen as all Thameslink has seen is 2 and a half stations built and lots of ground work done. As someone who used the Overground at the same stage as Thameslink is now, its wasn't all roses and still isn't now.

I think you need to actually read up on the situation because you seem to bring up the 387 issues on AC/DC changeover yet their issues aren't in this section at all. In fact the 377 and 319 fleets still have occasional issues suggests your idea of ironing out all the bugs is misplaced at best. Ultimately you seem to be attacking Thameslink as a whole and confusing the discussions on the 387s and their faults with how you mistakenly seen the TSGN franchise.

 

[MCR247]

If 387s are having (quite mild I must admit, considering who they're made by ) teething problems, why is it assumed that modifying 10 year old 377s would be trouble-free?

 

[Saint66]

If 387s are having (quite mild I must admit, considering who they're made by ) teething problems, why is it assumed that modifying 10 year old 377s would be trouble-free?

Because common sense doesn't apply to this argument?

 

[21C101]

Not really as there a risk factor of putting new pans onto the older stock. Who bares that risk along with increased costs you proposed?



What 387 failed on AC/DC change over? I'm not aware of any.



What premium? there is no such thing for the TSGN franchise. They are paid for what they provide, end of. Seems you need to brush up on what's actually going on.



You've failed to address whom picks up these extra costs. Using Old Dalby to simulate City - Farringdon would have limited benefits. Not least because none of the 387 failure have occurred there of course.



And ups the risk which always costs extra money.



The froth is your claims of issues at the AC/DC point.



Care to show where costs have been cut please? Thameslink isn't a Underground type service unless there is an unknown Tube line with 2tph frequencies. The only place its like the Tube is in the Core section for now. Of course St Pancras to East Croydon will Tube like frequencies come 2018.



Why should TfL be running services to Peterborough, Cambridge, Bedford, Littlehampton and Brighton? TfL don't know how to run a mainline railway, that's why they employ others to do so. TfL set standards not operate railways. f course comparing the Overground today with Thameslink today is unfair as the full investment hasn't yet been seen as all Thameslink has seen is 2 and a half stations built and lots of ground work done. As someone who used the Overground at the same stage as Thameslink is now, its wasn't all roses and still isn't now.

I think you need to actually read up on the situation because you seem to bring up the 387 issues on AC/DC changeover yet their issues aren't in this section at all. In fact the 377 and 319 fleets still have occasional issues suggests your idea of ironing out all the bugs is misplaced at best. Ultimately you seem to be attacking Thameslink as a whole and confusing the discussions on the 387s and their faults with how you mistakenly seen the TSGN franchise.

I'm not going to line by line the above process because I have not got time however a couple of points.

1) I'm not attacking Thameslink specifically, I'm attacking the whole franchising process which encourages short termism and minimising costs to win the franchise on a competitive basis (by having lower costs than your competitor and therefore can undercut them), all of which are detrimental to quality.The weakness of the franchise system particularly manifests itself on something like Thameslink, due to the high service frequency and huge number of pax with two way flows and multiple conflict with other networks on much of the route.

TFL type management contracts where the company keeps none of the revenue and are paid to provide a service, and heavily penalised or chucked off if they don't, and the management company invisible to the public with trains and publicity in the owners livery not the management companies livery, are far better. However I simply don't trust the DfT not to *** it up, and think it might be better if TfL were in charge and set the management contract.

2) I'm not suggesting using Old Dalby for just the a.c. d.c. changeover, I'm suggesting it is used for all aspects of running, high speed and low speed a.c. and d.c. and changeovers. Only when it has completed a certain amount of mileage trouble free should it be allowed in service. Yes it would cost, but I'm fed up with suffering the cost of non quality when I try and go home.

If the liquidated damages imposed on the franchisee for such failures were high enough, then they would have the incentive/business to pay for testing which replicates all aspects of service for several months at the 20 mile long, electrified, Old Dalby test track before letting new types of train loose, so ultimately imho this is down to the DfT not making the franchise contracts robust enough - probably because the franchisees would put in higher bids if they did.

With concessions the DfT would be hit in the pocket by non quality because crap service lowers revenue, which with a managment service would go to DfT so DfT would have more incentive to put robust conditions of the type I outline above in place with a management contract.

3) The difficulties of fitting pantos to 377s seem to me to be being exaggerated. They are designed to have them so it is a routine low risk operation to fit them using standard parts. (but obviously test them first before letting them loose).

 

[Bald Rick]

Only when it has completed a certain amount of mileage trouble free should it be allowed in service.

The difficulties of fitting pantos to 377s seem to me to be being exaggerated. They are designed to have them so it is a routine low risk operation to fit them using standard parts. (but obviously test them first before letting them loose).

They do have to do a certain amount of mileage trouble free before entering service. I'm not sure easing them into service on the WCML is a sensible thing to do either, as Southern found out when a 377 sat down there not long back, and the only thing compatible with it was the next 377 an hour away (with several trains stuck in between)

It's not just a pantograph that needs fitting either. There's a few tonnes of expensive transformer to fit plus several racks of power electronics. Not to mention software changes. And a button.

 

[jon0844]

And Bombardier aren't good with buttons.

 

[47802]

I'm not going to line by line the above process because I have not got time however a couple of points.

1) I'm not attacking Thameslink specifically, I'm attacking the whole franchising process which encourages short termism and minimising costs to win the franchise on a competitive basis (by having lower costs than your competitor and therefore can undercut them), all of which are detrimental to quality.The weakness of the franchise system particularly manifests itself on something like Thameslink, due to the high service frequency and huge number of pax with two way flows and multiple conflict with other networks on much of the route.

TFL type management contracts where the company keeps none of the revenue and are paid to provide a service, and heavily penalised or chucked off if they don't, and the management company invisible to the public with trains and publicity in the owners livery not the management companies livery, are far better. However I simply don't trust the DfT not to *** it up, and think it might be better if TfL were in charge and set the management contract.

2) I'm not suggesting using Old Dalby for just the a.c. d.c. changeover, I'm suggesting it is used for all aspects of running, high speed and low speed a.c. and d.c. and changeovers. Only when it has completed a certain amount of mileage trouble free should it be allowed in service. Yes it would cost, but I'm fed up with suffering the cost of non quality when I try and go home.

If the liquidated damages imposed on the franchisee for such failures were high enough, then they would have the incentive/business to pay for testing which replicates all aspects of service for several months at the 20 mile long, electrified, Old Dalby test track before letting new types of train loose, so ultimately imho this is down to the DfT not making the franchise contracts robust enough - probably because the franchisees would put in higher bids if they did.

With concessions the DfT would be hit in the pocket by non quality because crap service lowers revenue, which with a managment service would go to DfT so DfT would have more incentive to put robust conditions of the type I outline above in place with a management contract.

3) The difficulties of fitting pantos to 377s seem to me to be being exaggerated. They are designed to have them so it is a routine low risk operation to fit them using standard parts. (but obviously test them first before letting them loose).

Good Grief a few issue's with the 387's and your throwing the toys out of the pram, as for making some additional 377's AC that would be a significant additional cost, DFT could have course opted for some 4 car 377/7 instead which would have made them more compatible with existing 377's but clearly decided that the 387's would be more useful in their post Thameslink role at the expense of some compatibility. Clearly the next few years at Thameslink are going to be difficult to manage with up to four types of train running the service and two sets of new trains introduced to run the service.

Thameslink after all is making the best of a bodge, who in their right mind would propose an AC/DC changeover in the middle of a core route, but of course the cost to fix that would be massive so your stuck with it.

 

[Bald Rick]

And Bombardier aren't good with buttons.

That hook was baited especially for you!

 

[Class377/5]

I'm not going to line by line the above process because I have not got time however a couple of points.

You've got time to rant tho.....

1) I'm not attacking Thameslink specifically, I'm attacking the whole franchising process which encourages short termism and minimising costs to win the franchise on a competitive basis (by having lower costs than your competitor and therefore can undercut them), all of which are detrimental to quality.The weakness of the franchise system particularly manifests itself on something like Thameslink, due to the high service frequency and huge number of pax with two way flows and multiple conflict with other networks on much of the route.

Perhaps start your own thread then for your rants as this thread is for the Class 387 which are being introduced under a management contract so your issues with the franchise set up are null and void in this discussion.

TFL type management contracts where the company keeps none of the revenue and are paid to provide a service, and heavily penalised or chucked off if they don't, and the management company invisible to the public with trains and publicity in the owners livery not the management companies livery, are far better. However I simply don't trust the DfT not to *** it up, and think it might be better if TfL were in charge and set the management contract.

Again, please go and read up what TSGN, because it seems you do not grasp the rather basic concept that TSGN is a management contract.

2) I'm not suggesting using Old Dalby for just the a.c. d.c. changeover, I'm suggesting it is used for all aspects of running, high speed and low speed a.c. and d.c. and changeovers. Only when it has completed a certain amount of mileage trouble free should it be allowed in service. Yes it would cost, but I'm fed up with suffering the cost of non quality when I try and go home.

If you really think 50 miles of track replicates the Thameslink network then you don't know the network well.

If the liquidated damages imposed on the franchisee for such failures were high enough, then they would have the incentive/business to pay for testing which replicates all aspects of service for several months at the 20 mile long, electrified, Old Dalby test track before letting new types of train loose, so ultimately imho this is down to the DfT not making the franchise contracts robust enough - probably because the franchisees would put in higher bids if they did.

Not that you've listened to a single word I've put that these additional testing you keep banging on about, which actually wouldn't have fixed anything.

With concessions the DfT would be hit in the pocket by non quality because crap service lowers revenue, which with a managment service would go to DfT so DfT would have more incentive to put robust conditions of the type I outline above in place with a management contract.

TSGN, the operator of the Class 387 is a management contract. Who said robust conditions aren't in place? Not that the 387s have behaved worse than expected. Look at others posts to see this.

3) The difficulties of fitting pantos to 377s seem to me to be being exaggerated. They are designed to have them so it is a routine low risk operation to fit them using standard parts. (but obviously test them first before letting them loose).

If you think introducing pans, associated equipment and the software rewrite is a low risk operation than you really don't understand what your commenting on. You do realise such alterations would affect the risk for the life of the unit. Its not a small undertaking to make such a fundamental change to the units and someone needs to underwrite that.

Even TfL have stated getting the 378s to 6 cars isn't easy due to the way they were designed.

 

[Techniquest]

So we're descending into a thread of arguments now, rather than sensible discussion and news on the 387s...

 

[jon0844]

That hook was baited especially for you!

I suspected that, so didn't want to disappoint!

 

[21C101]

this thread is for the Class 387 which are being introduced under a management contract so your issues with the franchise set up are null and void in this discussion.

While I accept that you are correct that the franchise has revenue going direct to the government - I got that wrong and apologise - it is still a franchise, even the DfT says that. It has elements of a management contract (principally revenue going direct to government). However it still retains a lot of classic franchise elements such as the franchisee specifying the timetable (within government train service requirement guidelines), levels of staffing at stations, the franchisee responsible for publicity and branding and responsible for things like the web app. This is only temporary and it will revert to a classic "franchise" next time it is franchised.

With a proper, TfL style management contract, the public wouldn't even know who the operator is and the operator would have no say over the timetable, publicity, branding or anything else except running the trains that they are told to run when they are told to run them, to the places they are told to run them to, using the trains they are told to operate and of the length they are told to operate them with and staff the stations with the number of people they are told to and charging the fares they are told to charge, and they would pay liquidated damages every time that they failed to do so (within set Service Level terms)

We can argue until the cows come home but I'm sorry, I simply don't accept your argument about testing, I'm pretty sure I remember a 378 conking out at city. Again if I'm wrong I apologise, but conked out they have at various places. A 20 mile test track can be made to replicate any operating condition that you want it to (even trains wedged with pax if you pay people to get on it) and I think that, especially now that new trains are infested with all sorts of software, this should be done before any new type of train is let loose on any significant route. I'm sorry but I think we will simply have to agree to disagree on this.

It also seems that someone needs to design the railway equivalent of a Universal towbar which would be carried in the drivers cab. All E/DMUs & locos would have a socket front and rear where it could be attached, allowing a failed train to be towed out of the way by anything else with tractive power.

Merry Christmas