Manchester - Scotland EMU stock

[Whistler40145]

On the downside, Class 380s don't have corridor end connections whereas Class 350s do.

I presume the Health & Safety rules are different for 350s & 380s?

Also, won't extra Traincrew (Guard/Train Manager & Ticket Collectors) be required for several non-corridor units?

 

[notadriver]

380s do have corridor connections. Look closely.

 

[ainsworth74]

On the downside, Class 380s don't have corridor end connections whereas Class 350s do.

Then what's that on the front of the 380 below:

 

[notadriver]

I think you are using the word 'tightlock' here to mean the mechanical coupler, but this is misleading because a 'Tightlock' is a different pattern of coupler entirely.

The 350, 380, 185, 220/1 all use variants of the 'Scharfenberg pattern' auto-coupler for the mechanical coupling. (Before anyone complains, the Voyager coupling is manufactured by Dellner, but it is still a Scharfenberg. Likewise the latest Platform 5 book states the 380 is a Voith coupler, but this is short for Voith Scharfenberg - the company's current name.) The location of the electrical connector is optional, above or below, but is unlikely to match any other manufacturer's wiring anyway.

A Tightlock is a different pattern of knuckle coupling entirely, used on older units like 320s, 322s etc.

In an emergency a Dellner equipped unit can be assisted by any other unit or loco with a Dellner coupler.

 

[MCR247]

Even a 220/221/222/57-3/390 and a 171/375/377 considering their couplers are at different heights? (Something ridiculous like 10cm)

 

[WatcherZero]

Hmm call me a numpty but why are 125mph EMUS being mentioned for Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification? A few posters have mentioned this. Its only 45miles and the line speed is 100mph, the units would never reach this speed. Surely just ordering more 380s would make sense? 30 was a small order as it is, i would be surprised if that batch didn't have an option to order more as required.

Secondly i heard coupler wise they are not compatible with any other scotrail units. I was told that the unit stationed permanently at Haymarket is for shunting unit failures. Can anyone confirm this?

Scotland wants (or aspires to) a complete fleet replacement so im sure there are plenty of 380 options. Again the 125mph connection is a government aspiration as they imagine eventually there will be HSR connections to either/or both Glasgow and Edinburgh but not between them and there will be need of a fast connection. They do want to raise the linespeed of one of the lines but as you said they will probably barely touch it before starting to decelerate again but having more powerful engines should boost the 0-100mph acceleration and drop travel times.

 

[Whistler40145]

Oops, my mistake. I must have been thinking of another class of EMU!

Personally, I would make two internal modifications to a Class 380.

First of all, the units must be carpeted and the seating doesn't look comfortable enough for e.g. Birmingham to Glasgow!

 

[Kingfisher200262]

In an emergency a Dellner equipped unit can be assisted by any other unit or loco with a Dellner coupler.

As long as it has an adapter coupler on board, yes.

There is a large degree of uncertainly regarding whether, in practice a Voith Scharfenberg coupler, as fitted to, for example a Pendolino can couple (even mechanically) to a Dellner 12 coupler, as fitted to, for example a Class 350 Desiro.

I carried out a coupler compatibility study for a client seven or eight years ago and the conclusion that was drawn at that stage was the the UK strategy for coupling compatibility at that time was to have NO strategy. The Railway Group Standards, the TSIs and all other "Standards" avoid this issue and put it into the "too difficult" category.

In January 2011, at the behest of the DfT Technical Strategy Advisory Group (TSAG), ATOC published a document entitled "Key Requirements For Rolling Stock", which was intended to guide future rolling stock development. On couplers, this document said: -

1.3 Couplers

1.3.1 There is no agreed standard coupler configuration for UK passenger rolling stock. This creates a barrier to interworking vehicles from different manufacturers.

Potential Future V/V SIC Workstream:
Development of a common interface specification for coupler systems in the UK. This interface specification would ensure mechanical and electrical compatibility and communications protocols for multiple working and rescue.

1.3.2 The ability to interwork with subsets of existing designs of rolling stock should be specified recognising the aspirations for the long term use of the vehicles.

1.3.3 To facilitate interworking and stock cascade, specifications for rolling stock couplers should be as follows:

High Speed Trains: compatibility with coupler type “Scharfenberg”
Electrical Multiple Units: compatibility with coupler type “Dellner 12”
Diesel Multiple Units: compatibility with coupler type “BSI compact”

1.3.4 Design features to ensure that couplers continue to function reliably in difficult environmental conditions e.g. snow and ice; dead flies or other contamination; etc. should be considered taking into account the anticipated frequency of coupling operations.

1.3.5 Design features that may be appropriate include:
1.3.5.1 Protection of the coupler when not in use.
1.3.5.2 Automatic heating of the electrical head to prevent the build up of ice.
1.3.5.3 Protection of the pneumatic and electrical connections by a tight cover when not coupled.
1.3.5.4 Features to ensure that the coupler pocket remains free from the build up of snow and ice.

Note: In addition, RSSB Project T958 “Ensuring Automatic Coupler Reliability During Ice and Snow” will commence during 2011 and the output of this project will provide guidance on additional best practice.

The fact that the document differentiates between a Scharfenberg for high speed trains and a Dellner 12 (which is to a "Scharfenberg pattern") illustrates the degree of uncertainty that exists.

 

[Hydro]

Common coupling standard? Would drop head buckeye with seperate main res and brake pipes be too much to ask for?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Common coupling standard? Would drop head buckeye with seperate main res and brake pipes be too much to ask for?

Apparently so. I don't see what was wrong with control jumpers, brake pipes and buckeyes, but apparently there was a problem otherwise they wouldn't have gone.

 

[Hydro]

Likely down to time taken to couple, get the hoses and jumpers on, then brake test it. Yes it's a pain, but anything could haul anything. No buckeye? Drop the head and get the screw coupling out.

There desperately needs to be a modern standard coupling, Dellner, Scharfenberg whatever. An additional common electrical standard would be even better, as then you could couple anything to anything and run in service with all doors, bells and whistles going.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes, it takes a bit of time to join two units but the time taken is nothing compared to getting fitters on site to fix the problem. It was a huge backwards step when we got rid of buckeyes etc.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Likely down to time taken to couple, get the hoses and jumpers on, then brake test it. Yes it's a pain, but anything could haul anything. No buckeye? Drop the head and get the screw coupling out.

There desperately needs to be a modern standard coupling, Dellner, Scharfenberg whatever. An additional common electrical standard would be even better, as then you could couple anything to anything and run in service with all doors, bells and whistles going.

Even the TSIs have avoided this as a subject, as it's all too difficult. If you did introduce a common standard, either in the UK or across Europe, it would be impossible to deal with existing rolling stock, so the benefit would not be seen in full for something like 30 years. Nobody in the industry is brave enough to propose something that would incur cost without there being any real benefit until most of the present players are in retirement.

Come to think of it, much the same principle applies to ERTMS!!?!??!??

 

[Hydro]

What about retrofitting couplings, as Southern did with their 171's to ensure they could couple to the 377's in a failure situation? The 375's were initially delivered with Tightlocks so that slammers could tow them in a pinch, and then retrofitted with Dellners once the slammers had gone.

 

[swt_passenger]

The fact that the document differentiates between a Scharfenberg for high speed trains and a Dellner 12 (which is to a "Scharfenberg pattern") illustrates the degree of uncertainty that exists.

RSSB's document on these also groups them together as "M007 Automatic latched coupling system" but with a caveat:

There are two major variants which are single latch and double latch, that cannot mechanically couple together. In addition different classes of vehicle can have the same mechanical coupling but different integral electrical couplings, some of which can cause damage if attempted to couple together. To confuse matters further different classes of vehicles can have the same couplings at different height. The high-speed TSIs mandates the automatic latched type coupler set at a height of 1025 mm above rail level.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/rv_coupling_system_data/mechanical/M007.pdf

However the original aim of my posting was to explain to rail-britain that using 'tightlock' (as in post #177) to describe the mechanical part of the coupling was misleading.

I don't expect he'll acknowledge this though...

 

[Hydro]

It just shows what a mess it's become.