Gangwayed units (was 156)

[MG11]

Bit of a difference between “nearly” and you stating it as actually having happened. Rather a large dose of being economical with the truth, don’t you think?

The door did fly open..not nearly, it did happen.

 

[Domh245]

The door did fly open..not nearly, it did happen.

But @Kneedown was only 'nearly' sucked out of the cab, not actually sucked out of the cab.

There have been issues with gangway doors opening whilst at speed which can create a whirlpool suction, pulling the train crew out of the cab. It does make catering difficult though, as the crewe

 

[MG11]

But @Kneedown was only 'nearly' sucked out of the cab, not actually sucked out of the cab.

I was referring to pulling them outwards of the cab, meaning and trying not to make this a double entendre, the turbulence was trying to suck them out of the cab. Obviously that got misinterpreted.

 

[LOL The Irony]

This all could be fixed with locking pins, stronger locks and cover doors?

 

[Kneedown]

T

Bit of a difference between “nearly” and you stating it as actually having happened. Rather a large dose of being economical with the truth, don’t you think?

Trust me, it could easily have been a different outcome.

 

[randyrippley]

I think 110 is the maximum with gangways because of aerodynamics and wind noise above that speed.

not draught through the door?

 

[hexagon789]

not draught through the door?

Not if it's closed properly

 

[fowler9]

Glad to hear nobody got sucked off anyway. You can quite regularly walk between a 156 and a 158 on the EMT service from Liverpool to Norwich.

 

[fairysdad]

Were the gangways on the 455s ever for public use? What's the reason they're not?

 

[Failed Unit]

Were the gangways on the 455s ever for public use? What's the reason they're not?

Yes. In BR days they were used.

 

[daikilo]

I've always assumed intra-unit gangways were available for passenger use. I have no data on how often they are used nor on any passenger complaints when such were not available. As a train knowlegable person, I guess I planned my seating area and avoided the issue.

I have to admit that on my next to last trip, it was not obviuos where the second 158 was destined for as the only messages we had, other than at Birmingham International, was that the train would split at SHR and the first two would go to Llandudno. As it happens, when I got off, there were so many passengers in the second 158 that I assume it would be going to Aberystwyth.

 

[hexagon789]

I've always assumed intra-unit gangways were available for passenger use. I have no data on how often they are used nor on any passenger complaints when such were not available. As a train knowlegable person, I guess I planned my seating area and avoided the issue.

The very first gangways on trains in Britain were designed not for passengers to pass between coaches but so the guard could more easily check tickets.

 

[Failed Unit]

The very first gangways on trains in Britain were designed not for passengers to pass between coaches but so the guard could more easily check tickets.

How far back are you going? The southern region mk1 EMUs were designed for passengers. (Although maybe in refreshes) all the mk3 based trains were designed for passengers to walk through. The 317s on great northern were locked following a train splitting and the 387s are out of use because they are GTR operated but anglia do the splitting / joining at Cambridge badly.

The only train I am aware of the gangways not designed for passengers use was the 458. Walked throughout most others in service.

 

[hexagon789]

How far back are you going? The southern region mk1 EMUs were designed for passengers. (Although maybe in refreshes) all the mk3 based trains were designed for passengers to walk through. The 317s on great northern were locked following a train splitting and the 387s are out of use because they are GTR operated but anglia do the splitting / joining at Cambridge badly.

The only train I am aware of the gangways not designed for passengers use was the 458. Walked throughout most others in service.

Late 1890s I think. That's what I meant by first gangways on British trains. I'm not aware of any train built in the last 40 years where the gangways can't be used by passengers.

 

[43096]

Late 1890s I think. That's what I meant by first gangways on British trains. I'm not aware of any train built in the last 40 years where the gangways can't be used by passengers.

The Class 458s as originally built had their set end gangways not available for passengers - that wasn't the design intention, but it is what happened. There was some sort of step up (because of the size of the original Tightlock couplers) that meant they were never (at least as far as I know) used by passengers.

 

[hexagon789]

The Class 458s as originally built had their set end gangways not available for passengers - that wasn't the design intention, but it is what happened. There was some sort of step up (because of the size of the original Tightlock couplers) that meant they were never (at least as far as I know) used by passengers.

I never realised that, I always assumed the gangways could be used by everyone.

 

[GrahamD83]

I was actually just thinking about the cabs of Sprinter units a couple of days ago, as I have not had the chance to see inside a drivers cab of one, nor have I been on a train made up of more than one unit to see the gangway in action. Does the cab extend across the full width of the train, with internal doors to close when that cab gets connected to another unit? Or is the cab confined to the left side of the gangway door, in which case what is the other side used for as both sides have a windscreen?

 

[hexagon789]

I was actually just thinking about the cabs of Sprinter units a couple of days ago, as I have not had the chance to see inside a drivers cab of one, nor have I been on a train made up of more than one unit to see the gangway in action. Does the cab extend across the full width of the train, with internal doors to close when that cab gets connected to another unit? Or is the cab confined to the left side of the gangway door, in which case what is the other side used for as both sides have a windscreen?

The cabs on gangwayed Sprinters are really just about a third of the left side but there is a Second man's seat on the right. A door encloses the cab from the gangway when in use and when not with a further door sectioning the area from the door vestibike behind.

 

[GrahamD83]

The cabs on gangwayed Sprinters are really just about a third of the left side but there is a Second man's seat on the right. A door encloses the cab from the gangway when in use and when not with a further door sectioning the area from the door vestibike behind.

Thanks, thats how I imagined it would be, I just imagine it being quite cramped.

 

[hexagon789]

Thanks, thats how I imagined it would be, I just imagine it being quite cramped.

They don't look top bad, though I believe for drivers with long legs it can be a squeeze under the desk. The 153 cab which was added in when the units were split from 155s is the worst, I believe, it's even smaller than normal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've always assumed intra-unit gangways were available for passenger use. I have no data on how often they are used nor on any passenger complaints when such were not available. As a train knowlegable person, I guess I planned my seating area and avoided the issue.

I have to admit that on my next to last trip, it was not obviuos where the second 158 was destined for as the only messages we had, other than at Birmingham International, was that the train would split at SHR and the first two would go to Llandudno. As it happens, when I got off, there were so many passengers in the second 158 that I assume it would be going to Aberystwyth.

ATW are absolutely appalling at properly informing passengers of splits and joins, and their station PIS either doesn't support it or isn't set up properly. They really need to look at Southern or LNR/WMT about how to do it correctly, as it results in people ending up on the wrong train all the time.

 

[Kneedown]

They don't look top bad, though I believe for drivers with long legs it can be a squeeze under the desk. The 153 cab which was added in when the units were split from 155s is the worst, I believe, it's even smaller than normal.

Whilst the small end of a 153 is more cramped to move around, and a little more snug when sat down, there is actually more legroom than the big end, and even more (IMO) than a 156!

 

[whhistle]

End gangways also create the flexibility to re-form three two-car units as two three-car units. These probably spend most of their time not coupled to anything else so the lack of end gangways is less important than with the 2-car 150/1s that are often seen in pairs these days.

While it depends which way you see it, that's just sloppy ordering by the TOCs.
Nobody has ordered any DMUs since Midland Mainline with the 222s London Midlands' 172s, but before that, there was a long stretch of none, yet increased demand all over the place.

But then this where I don't understand.
The Government can say X coaches aren't compliant by X date and thus can't run. But in fact, we'll create some sort of paperwork that says they can.
So in this time when we're short of DMUs, there could be some paperwork that says non emission-compliant trains could be built to ease the problem.

 

[Domh245]

Nobody has ordered any DMUs since Midland Mainline with the 222s London Midlands' 172s, but before that, there was a long stretch of none, yet increased demand all over the place.

But then this where I don't understand.
The Government can say X coaches aren't compliant by X date and thus can't run. But in fact, we'll create some sort of paperwork that says they can.
So in this time when we're short of DMUs, there could be some paperwork that says non emission-compliant trains could be built to ease the problem.

I take it you've missed the orders for Civity DMUs from Northern and West Midlands Trains, and that whilst counting 222s are DMUs you aren't counting 800s or 802s?

Additionally, the big compliance issue at the moment is with PRM-TSI, so it's all about making sure that the trains have got PISs, Universally Accessible Toilets, Door Sounders, etc. There is no issue about emissions at the moment at all, as evidently it is possible to build a train around them.

 

[whhistle]

I take it you've missed the orders for Civity DMUs from Northern and West Midlands Trains, and that whilst counting 222s are DMUs you aren't counting 800s or 802s?

Those are recent though, and not even running in the case of Northern. Bi-modes don't count.
There has been a lack of DMU train ordering all throughout the "Siemens Era" of trains. Bombardier were busy with their variation of the 377 design and then London Underground stuff.

 

[Domh245]

Those are recent though, and not even running in the case of Northern. Bi-modes don't count.
There has been a lack of DMU train ordering all throughout the "Siemens Era" of trains. Bombardier were busy with their variation of the 377 design and then London Underground stuff.

I fail to understand your point then. You said

"Nobody has ordered any DMUs since Midland Mainline with the 222s London Midlands' 172s, but before that, there was a long stretch of none, yet increased demand all over the place."

which to me sounds as if you had forgotten about the recent DMU orders, perhaps you meant to say "had". Also, what is the "Siemens Era" - 2003 to 2006 when we saw 350s, 360s, 450s, 444s, and 185s introduced, or the rather more broad era of 2008 - 2017 when we saw a few more 350s, the 380s, 700s and 707s, and in what way is it relevant?

 

[hexagon789]

Whilst the small end of a 153 is more cramped to move around, and a little more snug when sat down, there is actually more legroom than the big end, and even more (IMO) than a 156!

I'm going off photos and descriptions by other people regarding the 153s it did look at bit tight to me but could easily be down to the angle the photo was taken. I have been in a 156 cab though, it's a bit of a squish for your legs under the desk.

 

[43096]

Those are recent though, and not even running in the case of Northern. Bi-modes don't count.
There has been a lack of DMU train ordering all throughout the "Siemens Era" of trains. Bombardier were busy with their variation of the 377 design and then London Underground stuff.

Why do bimodes "not count"? They can run on diesel and are replacing diesel trains. Not getting what your point is - probably because you are just randomly making stuff up to try to support it.

 

[waynemorrell]

Late 1890s I think. That's what I meant by first gangways on British trains. I'm not aware of any train built in the last 40 years where the gangways can't be used by passengers.

319s ?

 

[Domh245]

319s ?

They don't have gangways on the front, only an emergency door.