HST coupling question

[JoshW1992]

Thats just too cool =D

Well I'm impressed that this is possible... Only because of the buffers.

Quadruple Valenta THRASH :grin:

 

[Bayum]

Well, if both sets were running, and they ran them in double - maybe!!

But seeing as how that last set had failed =(

 

[JoshW1992]

Oh good point, forgot about the failure.

 

[jv3531]

One of the main reasons EMUs wont couple to DMUs is because the brake systems are different. If the brakes can be released then if they can be coupled using the emergency adapter they could then be towed or pushed, but this would only ever be done in exceptional circumstances and under controlled and very low speeds as the other unit may not have enough power to stop the combined movement. Also, 180s had a major design fault in that you could only get the TMS to release the brake (NO over ride was fitted) if it was still functioning. If the TMS packed up, the only thing that could release it was another 180! You just hoped and prayed that when the fresh set coupled to your set that the fault didn't copy to the fresh set, otherwise you had problems! This was only found after the TMS had shut down on a service train, rescue was sent and it copied over - can't remember where it happend now but it blocked the line for hours.... Think it may have been reading area?!

 

[class 313]

I am also fairly certain that there are procedures written for 377's coupling to 171's

Its why all of the Southern fleet have the same coupler, Hence 377s are 377s, as they 'had' different couplers to 375s. I'm sure there's more reasons as to why a 171 is a 171 and not a 170.

 

[Jord]

Well I'm impressed that this is possible... Only because of the buffers.

Surely you can couple HSTs together even without buffers?

 

[EE Type 3]

Surely you can couple HSTs together even without buffers?

Not sure, you need a drawhook to attach the emergency coupler to. If you put a loco inbetween then yeah. 8)

 

[jv3531]

171s were sub-classed as they are different with the couplings etc. Yes thats why they are the same for compatability, southern are different from SEs which is why they were converted to be all the same for operational flexability within the fleets. To use the "Bar" you would need to use an adapter . The HSTs with buffers on could be connected using screwlink couplers as they have the hook on the buffer beam to attach the link to. The same would apply attaching anything to any other unit, if the couplings aren't compatible then the adaptor would have to be used.

 

[EE Type 3]

171s were sub-classed as they are different with the couplings etc. Yes thats why they are the same for compatability, southern are different from SEs which is why they were converted to be all the same for operational flexability within the fleets. To use the "Bar" you would need to use an adapter . The HSTs with buffers on could be connected using screwlink couplers as they have the hook on the buffer beam to attach the link to. The same would apply attaching anything to any other unit, if the couplings aren't compatible then the adaptor would have to be used.

I can remember a trial a while ago with Southern and VT 57/3s, Southern were looking to hire a few as thunderbirds, but the Dellners on the 377s were a fraction too low to be coupled up, although they could with an adaptor. In the end Southern just opted to use another 377 or 171 to rescue stricken units.

 

[rail-britain]

There is a special bar coupling kept in the luggage compartment on the HST PC which you can use to couple the PC to a loco (or another HST PC or even something like a voyager).

I remember working a 05:55 HST Aberdeen to Edinburgh, although this working was withdrawn in the 1990s
On arrival it was reported that the power cars wouldn't start up so arrangements had already been requested for a replacement loco
We were advised that one would have to come from Inverness, even though we knew there were two spares in Aberdeen!
After some manic phoning around it was agreed we could use the 47/3 that was in the yard, and the loco coming from Inverness would then work its duty, and then the locos would swap over at Mossend
However, the driver then appeared and reported that neither loco had a drawbar and he would have to steal one out of the set for the 07:55 !

 

[jopsuk]

Not sure, you need a drawhook to attach the emergency coupler to. If you put a loco inbetween then yeah. 8)

I'm sure I've seen fairly recent pictures of a very odd "rescue", with a pair of back-to-back FGW power cars hauling a FGW set- with none of the the four power cars involved having buffers.

 

[class 313]

I'm sure I've seen fairly recent pictures of a very odd "rescue", with a pair of back-to-back FGW power cars hauling a FGW set- with none of the the four power cars involved having buffers.

Any chance of linking these photos if on the net?

 

[jopsuk]

Any chance of linking these photos if on the net?

If I find them, then yes!
---Old post above, edit below---
here you go!
Text from the site:

Picture of the Day 10 July 2008

A picture to take a double look at! FGW Nos. 43094 and 43162 working the 07.38 Paignton to Paddington slipped to a stand on Torre bank with 43094 on the front becoming defective with a broken fuel pump. The train was cancelled and rolled back into Paignton. After a second attempt, the set made it as far as Newton Abbot Hackney Yard. Tempting fate a second time, No. 43162 then attempted to haul the train solo back to Laira but also slipped to a stand this time on Dainton bank and was rolled back into Newton Abbot Hackney Yard. Powercars Nos. 43030 and 43161 working a test run from Laira to Newton Abbot and back were commandeered upon arrival at Laira and sent to Hackney Yard to haul the stricken set back to Laira. The very rare working of a triple headed HST is seen pulling away from Totnes.

 

[class 313]

If I find them, then yes!

Cool, thanks.

 

[jopsuk]

Cool, thanks.

see above!

 

[class 313]

Phwoar! That's a beast shot. Also a odd working

 

[CraigS]

I can remember a trial a while ago with Southern and VT 57/3s, Southern were looking to hire a few as thunderbirds, but the Dellners on the 377s were a fraction too low to be coupled up, although they could with an adaptor. In the end Southern just opted to use another 377 or 171 to rescue stricken units.

Did they try it with a Southern 377? All I seem to remember is that it was trialled with a SET 375. Found a few photos taken at Grove Park Stabling sidings of VT 57311 with SET 375s.

http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158543.html
http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158544.html
http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158540.html
http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158541.html
http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158542.html

 

[EE Type 3]

Did they try it with a Southern 377? All I seem to remember is that it was trialled with a SET 375. Found a few photos taken at Grove Park Stabling sidings of VT 57311 with SET 375s.

http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158543.html
http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158544.html
http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158540.html
http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158541.html
http://mike6874.fotopic.net/p38158542.html

I'm pretty sure they took a 57 to Selhurst aswell, to try it with a 377.

 

[jopsuk]

Phwoar! That's a beast shot. Also a odd working

Certainly settles any debate as to whether they can be coupled nose-to-nose.

Not much of a beast in power terms though, what with having two (or even three?) dead power cars.

 

[class 313]

I'm pretty sure they took a 57 to Selhurst aswell, to try it with a 377.

Wouldn't make any sense if they did. If it wont work on a 375 it wont on a 377.

 

[EE Type 3]

Wouldn't make any sense if they did. If it wont work on a 375 it wont on a 377.

Don't quote me on it! I'm pretty sure I saw a photo and article in a magazine a while back. Anyway it's all gobbledegook to me, buzzzzzzzz

 

[JoshW1992]

http://rtranmer.fotopic.net/p52627100.html

Am I seeing things?

 

[jopsuk]

http://rtranmer.fotopic.net/p52627100.html

Am I seeing things?

Yes, yes you are.

 

[JoshW1992]

Darn

 

[CraigS]

Don't quote me on it! I'm pretty sure I saw a photo and article in a magazine a while back. Anyway it's all gobbledegook to me, buzzzzzzzz

I found a write up on the 57 that went South for coupling trials with Electrostars in Rail Express No. 130 March 2007 and it says nothing about the 57 visiting Selhurst. According to the write up, "a difference in coupling heights meant that the trial was inconclusive, with the loco returning to Willesden". Nothing in the write up mentions the 57 visiting Selhurst on the way down either so I can only assume it only visited Grove Park.