Guess the train!

[Tom B]

Why create a new designation of class for a train which is identical to another except for a different coupling? Come to that, why must each new train have a different type of coupling - are they purposefully trying to make recovery and dragging harder?

 

[Techniquest]

Interesting point. Why a new class type purely for a new coupler I don't know. A new sub-class, I can understand.

Still, I guess nothing makes sense these days. At least with BR you had the chance to couple, say, 153s up to 143s if one or the other broke down for whatever reason and drag it to the next station or something. No such luck with the 21st Century lot.

 

[Nick]

171 used to be a 170 based on the exact model etc. Except its 2/4 cars and has different couplings.

and I've cabbed one yay! lol (albeit at railfest lol) there are a few hard to spot differences in the cab I may add.

Nope. It's just the new Bombardier design of the cab IIRC.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Interesting point. Why a new class type purely for a new coupler I don't know. A new sub-class, I can understand.

Still, I guess nothing makes sense these days. At least with BR you had the chance to couple, say, 153s up to 143s if one or the other broke down for whatever reason and drag it to the next station or something. No such luck with the 21st Century lot.

IIRC, the reason for the new class number if different couplings are used, is a similar reason to what you say in the latter part of your post. Basically, 14x and 15x (and also I think 170's) are all compatable and can be operated in multiple with each other. If trains with different couplings kept the original classification, this could lead to confusion in the future if/when units get spread around the country, as it would have to be remembered that only only certain sub-classes could be coupled.

 

[Nick]

Interesting point. Why a new class type purely for a new coupler I don't know. A new sub-class, I can understand.

Still, I guess nothing makes sense these days. At least with BR you had the chance to couple, say, 153s up to 143s if one or the other broke down for whatever reason and drag it to the next station or something. No such luck with the 21st Century lot.

IIRC, the reason for the new class number if different couplings are used, is a similar reason to what you say in the latter part of your post. Basically, 14x and 15x (and also I think 170's) are all compatable and can be operated in multiple with each other. If trains with different couplings kept the original classification, this could lead to confusion in the future if/when units get spread around the country, as it would have to be remembered that only only certain sub-classes could be coupled.

Correct, the reason why each new train seems to have a new coupling type is becasue most are trying to make the standard fleet dellners because the dellner design is far better to the current design.

It is easier as Marv has said for example if a dellner coupling train brakes down say a 171 and a dellner train is nearby (Electrostar) then the 171 can be pulled by the 377 say. If a 170 has broken down, the driver knows that he cant rescue a 170 because they dont use Dellners. It is similar to the case of 158's/159's. Instead of new couplers it was internal modifications.

 

[evil_hippo]

When you've finished, you might get another picture.

 

[Nick]

When you've finished, you might get another picture.

Finishé

 

[evil_hippo]

out, en cette casse je suis puttling les touches finishing de l'image dans mon image enhancement program.

 

[joeholmes]

ahh, oui, pardon, ou est le exactemane le images, slile vous plait..

:P:P

 

[Gareth Hale]

out, en cette casse je suis puttling les touches finishing de l'image dans mon image enhancement program.

what language is that?

 

[Tom]

French

 

[Nick]

out, en cette casse je suis puttling les touches finishing de l'image dans mon image enhancement program.

what language is that?

Francais.

 

[Dave A]

out, en cette casse je suis puttling les touches finishing de l'image dans mon image enhancement program.

Canadian French or Bad french :P :?

 

[evil_hippo]

Bad french.

I have just been rufused permission to use someone's image, so back to saquare one. (taking one of my own? That would jsut be too simple).

 

[Dave A]

Bad french.

I have just been rufused permission to use someone's image, so back to saquare one. (taking one of my own? That would jsut be too simple).

Bad English as well by the looks of it :P

 

[TheSlash]

Who gives a toss about language
Its very well going over to the standard dellner but i can think of 2 reasons against it {the latter being modern trains in general}
The first is no freight locos have dellners or easily fittable dellner adapters. This means that only other units can rescue a failed unit.
Also, electrically operated brakes means the loco can't control the brakes of the unit and must treat it like a swinger.
But then again all that is too simple to take into account when designing these things
Bring back screw couplings and brake pipes!!!!!

 

[evil_hippo]

 

[joeholmes]

Class 87

 

[evil_hippo]

For sure it is not.

 

[Simming]

GNER Mark 4 Is what I can make out, so my guess the loco is a class 91?

 

[evil_hippo]

Nope.

 

[86242]

HST

 

[Simming]

Notworker?

 

[Tom B]

Meridian?

 

[tramboy]

153?

Cheers

Dave

 

[joeholmes]

Class 40

 

[Lewisham2221]

DLR thingy-ma-bob?

 

[evil_hippo]

No, look closer.

 

[Simming]

158?

 

[bluecont]

Class 142?