Did REPs and TCs ever work together with other Southern EMUs?

[physics34]

Just wondering if REPs or TCs were ever coupled with CIGs, CEPs or VEPs in passenger service, and indeed if they were compatable?

Obviously I know the power ratios would deem this unusual...for example a VEP and a TC together would be extremely low-powered, so if would have to be on specials or rescuing failed units etc...

 

[daikilo]

Just wondering if REPs or TCs were ever coupled with CIGs, CEPs or VEPs in passenger service, and indeed if they were compatable?

Obviously I know the power ratios would deem this unusual...for example a VEP and a TC together would be extremely low-powered, so if would have to be on specials or rescuing failed units etc...

REP+4TC+something else would be possible.

4TC, being a tailer only unit, did not work with other MUs without a REP. They did however work with Cl33/73s. Indeed, I seem to remember that a cl33/73+4TC+certain EMUs was also possible.

 

[physics34]

REP+4TC+something else would be possible.

4TC, being a tailer only unit, did not work with other MUs without a REP. They did however work with Cl33/73s. Indeed, I seem to remember that a cl33/73+4TC+certain EMUs was also possible.

hmm ta. Now wondering if there are any photos..

 

[daikilo]

hmm ta. Now wondering if there are any photos..

I probably have some 35mm slides somewhere.

What you might want to do is look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_432
which I have just done.

If you weren't there, do those of us who were a favour, don't use "Hmm" which is synonymous with "not sure you are right". I know I am not perfect, but my memory is pretty faithfull, and always ready to be corrected.

 

[physics34]

I probably have some 35mm slides somewhere.

What you might want to do is look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_432
which I have just done.

If you weren't there, do those of us who were a favour, don't use "Hmm" which is synonymous with "not sure you are right". I know I am not perfect, but my memory is pretty faithfull, and always ready to be corrected.

Hmm is also synonymous with " Hmm interesting....", just for the record.

 

[Waldgrun]

I am trying to recall the exact date, but around 1988 or 89 there was a mixed working from Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo, via the direct route (Haslemere).
It was Saturdays only, I think it was either the 10.14 or the 11.14 service. I believe that class 33 + 4TC worked a stopping service from Southampton to Portsmouth where it Joined to a 4 Vep, this service never seemed to run to time! Also I recall that the formation, differed most weeks, i.e. 33 leading one week, at the rear the next! The running of this service using this mixture of stock didn't last, more than one timetable!

 

[daikilo]

Hmm is also synonymous with " Hmm interesting....", just for the record.

"I didn't know that" would be even better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am trying to recall the exact date, but around 1988 or 89 there was a mixed working from Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo, via the direct route (Haslemere).
It was Saturdays only, I think it was either the 10.14 or the 11.14 service. I believe that class 33 + 4TC worked a stopping service from Southampton to Portsmouth where it Joined to a 4 Vep, this service never seemed to run to time! Also I recall that the formation, differed most weeks, i.e. 33 leading one week, at the rear the next! The running of this service using this mixture of stock didn't last, more than one timetable!

Well, the fact is that most anything on the old Southern region in that time-frame could work together, including the 4REPs. I also believe they did if needed. The 4TCs were just hauled/pushed coaches.

 

[Emblematic]

"I didn't know that" would be even better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Well, the fact is that most anything on the old Southern region in that time-frame could work together, including the 4REPs. I also believe they did if needed. The 4TCs were just hauled/pushed coaches.

I recall reading that the 4REPs needed to have motors cut out when working in multiple with other powered units. With the REP having around 3000hp on it's own, that would make sense - Desiros on DC are derated so that 2*444 or 3*450 produce a similar power level.

 

[daikilo]

I recall reading that the 4REPs needed to have motors cut out when working in multiple with other powered units. With the REP having around 3000hp on it's own, that would make sense - Desiros on DC are derated so that 2*444 or 3*450 produce a similar power level.

Never heard that one.

 

[cossie4i]

Good old 400s, I liked the Ceps best.

As said all 400 type stock could work in multiple.

 

[bangor-toad]

Just wondering if REPs or TCs were ever coupled with CIGs, CEPs or VEPs in passenger service, and indeed if they were compatable?

Obviously I know the power ratios would deem this unusual...for example a VEP and a TC together would be extremely low-powered, so if would have to be on specials or rescuing failed units etc...

Hi there,
In summary; yes, the 4TC, the 3TC and the 4REPs were compatible with other SR stock of the same era and yes, the TC's and 4REPs were coupled up to others.


The usual operation was 4TC+4TC+4REP with a class 33 taking the 4TC+4TC set onwards.
There was also a reasonable common use of a 33+either a 3TC or 4TC.

There was a timetabled working (sorry can't remember exactly when) whereby a 33+4TC would couple up with a 4VEP unit at Basingstoke and make it's way to Waterloo. This could end up occasionally with any possible mix of up to 2 class 33's or 73's, a couple of 3TC's or 4TC and one or two 4VEP units. Of course, you couldn't have all of that in a single formation but sometimes the trains were 13 carriages / locos long.

On odd occasions pairs of 4VEPs were used as the tractor unit to move 4TC's around. However this was normally for ECS moves as 4VEPs couldn't supply heat and light to the 4TC units.

4REP units were powerful. (3200hp!) From what I remember there's a conductor rail index for 3rd rail system - each unit has a certain power draw and you can't exceed the local supply. 4REPs were 14 and the line limit of the time was usually 16. That means you couldn't connect any more than a 2 car unit and draw power - this meant only a 2EPB could be used.
if anything more than a 2EPB needed to connected to a 4REP, then you needed to disconnect some of the 4REP traction motors to ensure they didn't draw current and so that the consist wouldn't exceed to line index.


There's lots of info out there about units of this era. For example, check out the info on http://www.semgonline.com/

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[physics34]

"I didn't know that" would be even better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Well, the fact is that most anything on the old Southern region in that time-frame could work together, including the 4REPs. I also believe they did if needed. The 4TCs were just hauled/pushed coaches.

ok, Didnt know my posts had to be approved or edited by you before I posted them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hi there,
In summary; yes, the 4TC, the 3TC and the 4REPs were compatible with other SR stock of the same era and yes, the TC's and 4REPs were coupled up to others.


The usual operation was 4TC+4TC+4REP with a class 33 taking the 4TC+4TC set onwards.
There was also a reasonable common use of a 33+either a 3TC or 4TC.

There was a timetabled working (sorry can't remember exactly when) whereby a 33+4TC would couple up with a 4VEP unit at Basingstoke and make it's way to Waterloo. This could end up occasionally with any possible mix of up to 2 class 33's or 73's, a couple of 3TC's or 4TC and one or two 4VEP units. Of course, you couldn't have all of that in a single formation but sometimes the trains were 13 carriages / locos long.

On odd occasions pairs of 4VEPs were used as the tractor unit to move 4TC's around. However this was normally for ECS moves as 4VEPs couldn't supply heat and light to the 4TC units.

4REP units were powerful. (3200hp!) From what I remember there's a conductor rail index for 3rd rail system - each unit has a certain power draw and you can't exceed the local supply. 4REPs were 14 and the line limit of the time was usually 16. That means you couldn't connect any more than a 2 car unit and draw power - this meant only a 2EPB could be used.
if anything more than a 2EPB needed to connected to a 4REP, then you needed to disconnect some of the 4REP traction motors to ensure they didn't draw current and so that the consist wouldn't exceed to line index.


There's lots of info out there about units of this era. For example, check out the info on http://www.semgonline.com/

Cheers,
Mr Toad

Nice, thanks for the info, man.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am trying to recall the exact date, but around 1988 or 89 there was a mixed working from Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo, via the direct route (Haslemere).
It was Saturdays only, I think it was either the 10.14 or the 11.14 service. I believe that class 33 + 4TC worked a stopping service from Southampton to Portsmouth where it Joined to a 4 Vep, this service never seemed to run to time! Also I recall that the formation, differed most weeks, i.e. 33 leading one week, at the rear the next! The running of this service using this mixture of stock didn't last, more than one timetable!

 

[cossie4i]

I would just cut the 10 point out if running with Reps and other stock to keep below the Current Limit Index ( keeping it as near to the max as possible)

 

[AM9]

Hi there,
....4REP units were powerful. (3200hp!) From what I remember there's a conductor rail index for 3rd rail system - each unit has a certain power draw and you can't exceed the local supply. 4REPs were 14 and the line limit of the time was usually 16. That means you couldn't connect any more than a 2 car unit and draw power - this meant only a 2EPB could be used. ....

Cheers,
Mr Toad

This just shows how inadequate 3rd rail is for modern traction. Most current 8-car configurations need to take more than 3200HP to give full performance. Instead, they are crippled through their firmware.
The system potentially fails to deliver on anything more than low density rural or metro routes.

 

[cossie4i]

This just shows how inadequate 3rd rail is for modern traction. Most current 8-car configurations need to take more than 3200HP to give full performance. Instead, they are crippled through their firmware.
The system potentially fails to deliver on anything more than low density rural or metro routes.

A 12car 395 on DC is unbelievable slow

 

[eastwestdivide]

Good old 400s, I liked the Ceps best.

As said all 400 type stock could work in multiple.

...except the 4-SUBs, which lasted long enough to get a 400 type TOPS class number (class 405). They couldn't multiple with the other class 4xx units.

Meanwhile, here's an oddity (my photo on another forum), a 73 with 3 de-motored coaches off a REP and a 4-TC behind:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/17552-bournemouth-electrification-tcs/?p=167426

And there were odd railtours including one with 73/1+4-TC+Mk1 buffet+4-TC+73/1. The SR had two Mk1 buffet cars wired for EMU multi working.
Details at http://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/70s/790120da.htm

Very early on, there was an 8-VAB formed out of 4-VEP coaches, an 8-car unit with 3 motor coaches. This was to work with a single 4-TC. See http://www.semgonline.com/proto/8vab.html for example.
Decent photos showing it with a 4-TC seem hard to come by, but there's one here:
http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Pages EMU/Recognition EMU/IllusEMU_423.html

 

[cossie4i]

Im not old enough to remember SUB Stock lol

 

[bigdelboy]

... Meanwhile, here's an oddity (my photo on another forum), a 73 with 3 de-motored coaches off a REP and a 4-TC behind:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/17552-bournemouth-electrification-tcs/?p=167426

AFAIK (and i may wrong) this would have been a REP with one motor coach replaced by the 73; the other being live. This was to cope during the transition to 442's where motors were being taken out of the REP's and into the 442's. The even more odd replacement i happened to travel on was with a 33/1 replacing the motor coach ... the poor 33/1 found itself thrashed along at 93mph or so (unverified). I think there were a few other cobbled formations at this time as well.

 

[cossie4i]

I thought 33s had a max speed of 85mph, I can't remember at what speed the over speed governor kicked in and cuts power.

 

[eastwestdivide]

... Meanwhile, here's an oddity (my photo on another forum), a 73 with 3 de-motored coaches off a REP and a 4-TC behind:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/17552-bournemouth-electrification-tcs/?p=167426

AFAIK (and i may wrong) this would have been a REP with one motor coach replaced by the 73; the other being live. This was to cope during the transition to 442's where motors were being taken out of the REP's and into the 442's. The even more odd replacement i happened to travel on was with a 33/1 replacing the motor coach ... the poor 33/1 found itself thrashed along at 93mph or so (unverified). I think there were a few other cobbled formations at this time as well.

You might well be right - it was a confusing period. I just had a look at the original of my scan, but it's hard to see if the motor coach still had pick-up shoes or not. But Ive another photo from then of a 73 pushing a complete 4-car REP+4-TC, where it's clear there are no shoes.
On the other hand, I only noted 73+7 (=8-car) formations, and never saw 73+11 format (=12-car), which you might expect with enough power from half a REP plus a 73.
Don't know, but regardless, the Southern's ingenious recycling strikes again.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I saw one of those 73+7 formations in platform 2 at Epsom once, working an evening peak from Waterloo - this was during a somewhat disrupted day in winter. Unfortunately I was on my way home from work at the time and did not have my camera with me!

 

[lewisf]

To go slightly off topic, why were the REPs even considered necessary? Couldn't the Weymouth trains run as a 12CIG/VEP formation with the front EMU going past Bournemouth with a 33?

I know CIGs and VEPs can work push-pull with a 33, I've seen it with my own eyes!

 

[swt_passenger]

The 4TC stock that operated with the REPs was second hand, converted from existing surplus Mk1 coaching stock, it was all part of the typical Southern money saving policy of the time.

 

[jopsuk]

Even the trailers in the REPs were converted Mark 1s, all that was "new build" in the 4REP-4TC formation were the driving motor cars.

 

[eastwestdivide]

To go slightly off topic, why were the REPs even considered necessary? Couldn't the Weymouth trains run as a 12CIG/VEP formation with the front EMU going past Bournemouth with a 33?

I know CIGs and VEPs can work push-pull with a 33, I've seen it with my own eyes!

I'd guess that the SR thought that towing EMUs around off the juice would be wasteful - sort of the opposite of running diesels under the wires. By concentrating the electric motors in the parts that stay on the juice, then you've less to drag around, and you're making best use of the electric motors that you do have.

 

[KiddyKid]

I know CIGs and VEPs can work push-pull with a 33, I've seen it with my own eyes.


Yes they can work with both the 33/1, 73 & 74, the problem being that they were not fitted with ETH jumpers thus once off the third rail the motor generator would stop, no lights, heat or battery charging.

 

[Smudger105e]

This just shows how inadequate 3rd rail is for modern traction. Most current 8-car configurations need to take more than 3200HP to give full performance.

They can draw more than 3200 from the third rail, but you have to remeber that there could be a number of units drawing from the section at the same time.

As was said, all EMUs (from the 1951 EPBs to the 1966 REP/TC stock) and the 33/1s and 73s could run together, all had compatable 27 way jumpers and westinghouse brakes (main res and train pipe).

The DEMU 27 way jumpers were set differently and were not compatable with the EMUs. The JAs (73/0s) had both jumpers, hence 27 ways on both sides of the cab. One (73005 I think) only had one on one end because of accident damage, and a JB arrangement was used.

The MLVs had vacuum brake so in theory you could have a VEP + MLV + rake of vac braked wagons.

The SUbs were withdrawn finally and all SR EMU stock was compatable, then they introduced the 455s which were not the same!

 

[wimbledonpete]

I'm sure there was a 33+4TC+4VEP+4VEP working in the evening peak - split at Basingstoke where the 33 and TC went on to Yeovil and the VEPs on to Eastleigh or Southampton/Bournemouth. Ah, the memories!

 

[yorksrob]

The DEMU 27 way jumpers were set differently and were not compatable with the EMUs.

Except for uniquely refurbed 205205 which used to reside on the Marshlink (currently on the Epping Ongar).

 

[eastwestdivide]

...
The SUbs were withdrawn finally and all SR EMU stock was compatable, then they introduced the 455s which were not the same!

Not quite - the Southern had the 508s first, which came in while the SUBs were still in service, so they never had everything compatible at that time.
I've a photo of 4-SUB plus 508 side-by-side in the suburban platforms at Clapham Junction, 1983 (and a 455 next to a 508 for that matter) - attached.