Dogbox vice HST

[tbtc]

It's definitely dogbox round here. Most of our diagrams involve working at least one dogbox a day, and my favourite, 2 dogbox joined together

Does that ever end up with both of the "small" cabs being the ones driven from? Or is care taken when coupling them to try to ensure that any doubled-153 is formed with the "big" cabs at each end of the train (so essentially the same as a 155)?

 

[starrymarkb]

Does that ever end up with both of the "small" cabs being the ones driven from? Or is care taken when coupling them to try to ensure that any doubled-153 is formed with the "big" cabs at each end of the train (so essentially the same as a 155)?

A driver on another forum said that it was usually small cabs out at Central...

Experience as a passenger says that FGW was pretty random

 

[sprinterguy]

Does that ever end up with both of the "small" cabs being the ones driven from? Or is care taken when coupling them to try to ensure that any doubled-153 is formed with the "big" cabs at each end of the train (so essentially the same as a 155)?

I've seen plenty of pairs of 153s with both of the small cabs facing outwards when they're working in multiple. From my own experience, with most of the TOCs that operate 153s there is a pretty random distribution of original big cabs and little cabs facing outwards. Although London Midland appear, IMO, to make an effort to have the "big" cab outermost when 153s are working in combination with 150s (Now a thing of the past) or 170s. It could just be coincidence though.

 

[Bellwater]

As 2dogbox and myself know, 'Scud' Refers to one particular unit now with FGW. Loathed as such a pain to work in Central Days.

 

[lookingforit35]

Exactly, something cited by Branson as being one of the primary safety factors in the Grayrigg crash. He described them as being "built like tanks".

Branson's possibly correct. But he also described four engines (as adopted by Virgin Atlantic of course) for long haul flights as being way safer than twin engined jets, adorning his aircraft with the corny slogan "4 Engines 4 Longhaul". Before boldly ordering a fleet of twin engined 787s.

My point? He has a track record of saying things that suit his purpose at that time (regardless of how correct it is). Just saying, that's all.

 

[starrymarkb]

Branson's possibly correct. But he also described four engines (as adopted by Virgin Atlantic of course) for long haul flights as being way safer than twin engined jets, adorning his aircraft with the corny slogan "4 Engines 4 Longhaul". Before boldly ordering a fleet of twin engined 787s.

My point? He has a track record of saying things that suit his purpose at that time (regardless of how correct it is). Just saying, that's all.

Virgin were late comers to ETOPs (Extended Twin Engine OPerations), they only took their first twin (an A330) last year IIRC - also 4 Engines 4 Longhaul was also an Airbus marketing for the A340 (as ETOPS started to take off as the A340 was entering service) - I think they regret not going twin sooner - though the A340 is a good aircraft and established Airbus as a serious manufacturer it was eclipsed by the Boeing 777 and A330

 

[150222]

Does that ever end up with both of the "small" cabs being the ones driven from? Or is care taken when coupling them to try to ensure that any doubled-153 is formed with the "big" cabs at each end of the train (so essentially the same as a 155)?

It's pretty random. On the Calder Valley line on sundays 2x153 (or 3x153 on occasion) are very common and can be in any configuration.

 

[crosscity]

I've only ever known a 153 to be called a dogbox, although I'm not sure why!

Bubblecars are also the names given to Class 121s; I know for a fact that the Arriva 121 (121032) that works the Cardiff Bay shuttles is called Bubbles!!

Dogbox and Bubble Cars. In the seventies, after the Sunday Times published a government plan to reduce our railways to just the main lines, we used to call the Bubble Cars '1-DOOMs' (after 4-EPG, 4-SUB, 2-HAP etc) as any service operated by them was doomed.

 

[34D]

Does that ever end up with both of the "small" cabs being the ones driven from? Or is care taken when coupling them to try to ensure that any doubled-153 is formed with the "big" cabs at each end of the train (so essentially the same as a 155)?

Depends whether they're together all day, or splitting during the course. When newly converted, they had to run like a 155 until the unions accepted the safe saver cabs.

 

[150222]

It would be incredibly difficult to delibrately have the big cab outwards and management just aren't that bothered about driver comfort. Veering even more off topic has a driver ever had to refuse to work a 153 as (s)he was too fat? I'm not being mean but surely it's a mighty squeeze for larger drivers/conductors. Can't be too safe either! It's a bloody good thing that it wasn't the small end of a 153 that was involved in the Sudbury smash, Otherwise we may well be looking at a fatality.

 

[2Dogbox]

[/QUOTE]

Does that ever end up with both of the "small" cabs being the ones driven from? Or is care taken when coupling them to try to ensure that any doubled-153 is formed with the "big" cabs at each end of the train (so essentially the same as a 155)?

It is completely random. Obviously it's sods law that if you are about to cash up or have an assist or an ATE with you then it will be the small end for the guard!
Some drivers prefer the small end as there is more legroom apparently.

Bellwater: As 2dogbox and myself know, 'Scud' Refers to one particular unit now with FGW. Loathed as such a pain to work in Central Days.

Good old 001! I miss it so much!

 

[87015]

It would be incredibly difficult to delibrately have the big cab outwards and management just aren't that bothered about driver comfort. Veering even more off topic has a driver ever had to refuse to work a 153 as (s)he was too fat? I'm not being mean but surely it's a mighty squeeze for larger drivers/conductors. Can't be too safe either! It's a bloody good thing that it wasn't the small end of a 153 that was involved in the Sudbury smash, Otherwise we may well be looking at a fatality.

So is it management that are reposonsible for shunting units now? Hard to see how its the 'nasty man in the office' that gets an input into what order the units are put out into traffic as unless he has 'magic hands' power, model railway style...

 

[455driver]

So is it management that are reposonsible for shunting units now? Hard to see how its the 'nasty man in the office' that gets an input into what order the units are put out into traffic as unless he has 'magic hands' power, model railway style...

I am glad they dont "help" with any day to day running, it would be a nightmare while they have all the discussions, risk assessments, studies and meetings etc before making a decision.