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

[HSTEd]

It shows the operational benefits of having the vast majority of your rolling stock all be compatible with each other.

Just like AAR standard couplers and jumper cables in America.
And yet this idea died with BR.
(Which finally came around with Sprinterisation).

 

[Train wasp]

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!

From memory did this working some times have the class 33 in the middle. 4VEP+4VEP+Class33+4TC.

 

[contrex]

...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.

They could couple with any emu with pre-1951 type traction equipment, including Southern Railway units that survived long enough to get TOPS codes - class 401 (BIL), 402 (HAL), 403 (PUL/PAN/BEL) and 404 (COR)

 

[CatfordCat]

the snag with the 'standardisation is good' argument is that firstly you end up continuing to produce stock that's technically obsolete for some time (as in SR's Mk1 derived EMUs being built into the 1970s)

and eventually there has to be a 'step change' as in the change from the pre-1951 to post-1951 generations of EMU and to the 508 / 455 generation.

and a slight tangent - I'm trying to remember if the 508s and 455s did run at the same time on the SR, and if so could they / did they work in multiple? I'm aware that the SWT 455s have an ex class 508 in the formation.

 

[nlogax]

and a slight tangent - I'm trying to remember if the 508s and 455s did run at the same time on the SR, and if so could they / did they work in multiple? I'm aware that the SWT 455s have an ex class 508 in the formation.

It's a good point. What sort of mods were required (if any) on 508 TSs before they formed part of the 455/7s ?

 

[hassaanhc]

the snag with the 'standardisation is good' argument is that firstly you end up continuing to produce stock that's technically obsolete for some time (as in SR's Mk1 derived EMUs being built into the 1970s)

and eventually there has to be a 'step change' as in the change from the pre-1951 to post-1951 generations of EMU and to the 508 / 455 generation.

and a slight tangent - I'm trying to remember if the 508s and 455s did run at the same time on the SR, and if so could they / did they work in multiple? I'm aware that the SWT 455s have an ex class 508 in the formation.

It's a good point. What sort of mods were required (if any) on 508 TSs before they formed part of the 455/7s ?

The 508s did not employ the 27 way jumper so we're completely incompatible with other stock

http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/final-workings/508/

Of similar body style and construction to contemporary class 313, 315 and 507 units, forty three class 508 four car units were introduced in 1979 and 1980 for inner suburban services from Waterloo. Excepting the experimental 2/4 Pep units used between 1971 and 1976, from which their design originates, they were the first above ground EMUs on the Southern Region to have sliding doors. They were totally incompatible with other Southern Region EMUs so they lacked the necessary operational flexibility and they were not popular. As such they were regarded as a temporary stock allocation until the more compatible class 455s entered service in 1983.

http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/final-workings/508/508finmth01.html

However I don't know what modifications the individual trailers needed.

 

[eastwestdivide]

...
and a slight tangent - I'm trying to remember if the 508s and 455s did run at the same time on the SR, and if so could they / did they work in multiple? I'm aware that the SWT 455s have an ex class 508 in the formation.

at the same time, yes - see my earlier post:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1862684&postcount=30
Pretty sure they didn't work in multiple.

 

[bigdelboy]

Accorind to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_432http:// accessed at time of this post one of two motorless 4 rep driving cars goes about sandwiched between class 101 cars ......

The was also a 6-REP at the time of mashed formations of the 442 introductions.

AFAIK (and i sometimes know wrong) the class 73 and 4-REP use the same basic motor ... but with a different variant.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It's a good point. What sort of mods were required (if any) on 508 TSs before they formed part of the 455/7s ?

Not an electrical modification, but didn't they have to be re-inforced to match the end load requirements because of them being lower and wider meaning the corners weren't aligned with the 455 vehicles?

 

[HSTEd]

the snag with the 'standardisation is good' argument is that firstly you end up continuing to produce stock that's technically obsolete for some time (as in SR's Mk1 derived EMUs being built into the 1970s)

Not necessarily now.

What you would do now is specify a simple connector and data format for train control signals, and then provide a second network layer connection throughout the train that carries everything else. Both sets of connectors would be mounted to the auto-coupler but would be electrically separate.

Trains that don't understand the extra stuff will just pass it along the formation but won't otherwise use it.
Thanks to IP based systems we can make intervening vehicles transparent to unimportant signals.

That allows you to implement all sorts of things in the future without worrying about compatibility now.
It is no longer necessary that the control signals must directly actuate controls through relays or similar. Control signals would likely be implemented with something similar to the CAN bus. This would be cheap enough to allow it to be implemented on freight vehicles with some sort of four pin connector (+ Power, CAN+, CAN-, GND).

and eventually there has to be a 'step change' as in the change from the pre-1951 to post-1951 generations of EMU and to the 508 / 455 generation.

As opposed to the current system where we have a 'step change' with virtually every single order.
Additionally AAR style control jumpers have been the same since they were standardised in the forties.

 

[theageofthetra]

Can't understand why railways can't have a worldwide (or at least EU ) standard connectors. The airline industry has had it for years. There are planes of all ages/sizes/manufacturers which can land anywhere in the world & the fuel connectors Aux power etc will all fit. This didn't happen by accident!

 

[Deepgreen]

The evening working was normally formed 33,TC,VEP,VEP. See picture attached. There were also odd mixtures during severe weather - two pictures attached from Ashtead in January 1982. A 33 assisted a 4EPB and 4CIG combination on the first down train of the day (at about noon!).

 

[nw1]

The evening working was normally formed 33,TC,VEP,VEP.

Specifically I think there were two evening workings. There was a Salisbury and Eastleigh off Waterloo at 1700, which stopped at Woking - then a Yeovil and Bournemouth which didn't stop at Woking which left London about half an hour later. Both were the 33/4TC/8VEP combination I believe.

I think they were semi-fast to Basingstoke (stopping Farnborough and Fleet, but none of the smaller stations) then all stations on both portions beyond.
I'm guessing amongst other things they provided additional commuter services to Winchester and Eastleigh - at the time the prime Weymouth express was non-stop to Southampton (though might have stopped at Winchester in the peak) and there was otherwise only one service an hour (xx45 off Waterloo) which served Winchester and Eastleigh so consequently additional fast-ish services during the peak were presumably needed.

 

[physics34]

View attachment 19250

View attachment 19251

View attachment 19252

The evening working was normally formed 33,TC,VEP,VEP. See picture attached. There were also odd mixtures during severe weather - two pictures attached from Ashtead in January 1982. A 33 assisted a 4EPB and 4CIG combination on the first down train of the day (at about noon!).

Nice photos. How rare is an epb+CIG combo!!

 

[nw1]

Nice photos. How rare is an epb+CIG combo!!

Not that rare back in the day - ISTR at least one peak working on the East Grinstead line immediately after electrification that was EPB + CIG.
I think there was also one Alton service from 1983 or so which was 2x2EPB + CIG.

VEP + EPB combinations were ubiquitous on the Cobham line in the peaks (offpeak: single VEPs with the odd CIG) immediately before the introduction of 455s.

 

[DY444]

In theory the REPs could work in multiple with a 2HAP or a 2EPB. In practice they didn't (and I have a vague recollection that the SA prohibited it but it was a long time ago now so I might be mis-remembering).

Having said that REPs did though work with 33/1s sometimes. For example I remember in the early 80s (83 possibly?) there were weekend diversions between Eastleigh and Southampton Central via Romsey due to work on Southampton tunnel. The diverted trains were formed of a TC/REP propelled by a 33/1 between Eastleigh and Romsey and hauled between Romsey and Southampton. The interesting thing about these workings was that the REP was left cut-in and provided traction power whilst on the juice sections. The acceleration away from Redbridge towards Milbrook when the REP got back on the juice was very lively.

 

[JohnElliott]

and a slight tangent - I'm trying to remember if the 508s and 455s did run at the same time on the SR, and if so could they / did they work in multiple? I'm aware that the SWT 455s have an ex class 508 in the formation.

The 508s don't use jumper cables -- all the connections are in the box under the coupler. That turned out not to work too well when coupling on a curve, so for the 455s (unlike most other units with that design of cab) they went back to jumper cables. Whether the control gear was compatible I don't know, but I don't think it would have been possible to make the electrical connection between units.

 

[Smudger105e]

In reply to Big del boy, the REPs and EDS did use the same traction motors (EE547) but where the 37s have blower motors, the REPs rely on air forced through by motor movement.