LHCS Connections

[route:oxford]

Something I was pondering about earlier...

I'm pretty sure that a Mark 1 coach can be coupled up to a Mark 2 coach.

Likewise, I know that Mark 2 coach can be coupled to a Mark 3 coach.

Can a Mark 3 coach be coupled to a Mark 1 coach?

And what about Mark 4?

 

[matt]

Yes a Mark 3 can be coupled to a Mark 1

http://geoff-tibble.fotopic.net/p67080360.html - 3rd coach is a mark 3, 4th coach is a mark 1 kitchen car.

 

[route:oxford]

Yes a Mark 3 can be coupled to a Mark 1

http://geoff-tibble.fotopic.net/p67080360.html - 3rd coach is a mark 3, 4th coach is a mark 1 kitchen car.

As so often happens, with an answer - comes another question...

Was there no signicant improvement in the coupling "technology" between Mark 1 & Mark 3?

Or was there a retrospective improvement of Mark 1 stock over time?

 

[Old Timer]

As so often happens, with an answer - comes another question...

Was there no signicant improvement in the coupling "technology" between Mark 1 & Mark 3?

Or was there a retrospective improvement of Mark 1 stock over time?

Mk1 stock was fitted with drop-head Buckeye couplers, as was Mk 2 and loco-hauled Mk 3, thus any buckeye fitted rolling stock vehicles can couple together.

MK 3 HST vehicles did not have conventional buffing gear. They are fitted with fixed buckeyes and thus cannot couple to non-buckeye stock or locomotives

 

[Peter Mugridge]

This is probably a good time to mention that on the WCML the Mk3 rakes used to have Mk 1 kitchen cars in them; absolutely delicious smells of sizzling bacon and other hot foodstuffs when you walked past them on the platforms.

Hmmm... showing my age a bit there aren't I?!

 

[Kingfisher200262]

They (Mk I to Mk IV) can all couple mechanically. The Alliance type buck-eye coupler on a Mk III HST trailer can interface with a drop-head Buck-eye, but I think that operationally, speed limits have to be applied, but can't remember why.

Not sure about electrical connections when a Mk IV is involved and how the TDM control is dealt with, but think it uses the RCH jumper, which all have and just wire through from end to end.

The gangway connections should all work together, but again, not sure when Mk IV is involved.

 

[Helvellyn]

On the West Coast in the 1980s you could quite often have sets of stock containing Mark 1, Mark 2 and Mark3 stock.

When the Mark 3B stock was originally introduced on the Manchester Pullman services they included a Mark 1 RKB (Kitchen Buffet) and Mark 2F BSO (Brake Standard Open) in the set.

Sleeper sets used to include Mark 2 seating coaches (including the lounge coaches) and Mark 1 full brake and Motorail vehicles.

 

[captainbigun]

Not sure about electrical connections when a Mk IV is involved and how the TDM control is dealt with, but think it uses the RCH jumper, which all have and just wire through from end to end.

Mk4s are fitted with UIC jumpers (dedicated for the job and without the interference from PA and lighting control) for the TDM/FDM thus they can't be used in a mixed rake with Mk3s for push/pull work.

 

[tbtc]

They (Mk I to Mk IV) can all couple mechanically

...just shows how backwards the railways have gone in recent years (in terms of stock design and compatibility)

 

[Hydro]

I heard somewhere Mark 4's had different "internal" couplings (tightlock?), and only the outer vehicles (i.e. the ones adjacent to the loco and DVT) had buckeyes?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

I heard somewhere Mark 4's had different "internal" couplings (tightlock?), and only the outer vehicles (i.e. the ones adjacent to the loco and DVT) had buckeyes?

Could be... anybody got a Platform 5 handy? Mine's in UK and I'm in China!

 

[MCR247]

I thought that basically, the TOE (coach B) is the only coach that can couple to the 91, and only from one end. The rest of the coaches, the other end of the TOE, and the inside side of the DVT have different couplings?

 

[Old Timer]

...just shows how backwards the railways have gone in recent years (in terms of stock design and compatibility)

Why ?

What's wrong with buckeyes ?

 

[MCR247]

He means with rolling stock nowadays not being able to couple with each other. Especially when it comes to 57s not being able to join to a 377 due to the Dellner being about 4inches too high or something!

 

[tbtc]

Why ?

What's wrong with buckeyes ?

He means with rolling stock nowadays not being able to couple with each other. Especially when it comes to 57s not being able to join to a 377 due to the Dellner being about 4inches too high or something!

MCR247 is correct - I was meaning to contrast the old days (when trains were compatible and could function together) with today when Manufacturer A's stock doesn't work with Manufacturer B - in fact not just that but Manufacturer A's stock doesn't even't work with other trains made by Manufacturer A.

Buckeyes are great - they allowed different classes of coach to couple together and function. Perfect. Now, we have a railway where the only thing that works with Unit X is another Unit X.

For example, when a couple of Northern 321s were out of action recently, the remaining 321 couldn't be used because if it failed the only thing which could "rescue" it would be another 321 (not a 333 or a Sprinter or a Pacer...). So DMUs had to be used on Leeds - Doncaster services instead (pinching DMUs from other Northern routes).

IMHO we should never have allowed new trains to be built which didn't work with existing trains.

(I appreciate the 321s were British Rail stock - I'm not claiming it's a post-privatisation unit - just using it as an example of something which doesn't work with other trains)

 

[Old Timer]

Ahhh, yes I see now !

Yep, have to agree with you, its all a total nonsense. We should have decided on a standard coupling such as a tightlock and then let the train builders build to that specification.

 

[lewisf]

Ahhh, yes I see now !

Yep, have to agree with you, its all a total nonsense. We should have decided on a standard coupling such as a tightlock and then let the train builders build to that specification.

Most DMU's are compatible with each other though. I think it's only the 171, 175, 180 and 185s which can't couple with a sprinter.

 

[90019]

Most DMU's are compatible with each other though. I think it's only the 171, 175, 180 and 185s which can't couple with a sprinter.

The 220s, 221s and 222s can't either.

 

[tbtc]

The 220s, 221s and 222s can't either.

That's one I really don't understand.

Bombardier may not want to work with Siemens (etc), but why design your own trains which are incapable of working with your last lot? Its almost like they want to make the railway too complicated/ too expensive...

 

[MCR247]

Different/Improved electrical systems and 222s have a better TMS.

The latter is the fault of Virgin though