Multiple working shenanigans

[frankmoh]

I was researching stuff about various DMUs and I found out that the Sprinters, Pacers and Class 170 Turbostar can all be coupled up together under multiple working. Why does this combination of trains work together? Who even thinks of running a Class 141 and a 170/4 together?

Also funny how the 365 and 465 were incompatible despite Metro-Cammell units having the same motors and (sometimes) third rail. This might not be true (sorry), I have seen several conflicting sources on multiple working with the 465 and 365.

 

[bunnahabhain]

I'm highly doubtful any 14x and 170s were operated in multiple. Certainly the Cebtral 156s had to be modified to work with the Central 170s. When the Anglia 156s arrived there were some compatibility issues with the 170s.

 

[scotraildriver]

Class 14x cannot work with 170s. There's a sticker in the 170 cab warning against it.

 

[Harpo]

I was researching stuff about various DMUs and I found out that the Sprinters, Pacers and Class 170 Turbostar can all be coupled up together under multiple working. Why does this combination of trains work together?

Presumably the product of an era when common coupling arrangements featured high in operational considerations? Customisation of passenger information systems etc. undid much of that early thinking.

 

[frankmoh]

Class 14x cannot work with 170s. There's a sticker in the 170 cab warning against it.

A Class 143 can work with a Class 150. This Class 150 can work with a Class 170. Obviously not direct connection but that's why I am calling it "shenanigans".

 

[hexagon789]

Class 14x cannot work with 170s. There's a sticker in the 170 cab warning against it.

Can couple mechanically but something to do with the pin arrangements in the coupler head means they cannot couple electrically to 170s IIRC.

It came up in a thread here a few years ago and I believe that was given as the reason.

I understand an example of a 170 shunting a failed Pacer at Hull was given as proof of the basic coupling ability though.

But yes, definitely not multiple working in service!

 

[zwk500]

Who even thinks of running a Class 141 and a 170/4 together?

Didn't London Midland used to run Sprinter/172 combinations on the Snow Hill Lines? Here's a Flickr Link of one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30389998@N03/33427536911. I assume it was a handy way of adding carriages without using too many Turbostar units.

 

[trundlewagon]

Didn't London Midland used to run Sprinter/172 combinations on the Snow Hill Lines? Here's a Flickr Link of one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30389998@N03/33427536911. I assume it was a handy way of adding carriages without using too many Turbostar units.

There used to be a regular 170+153 on the Snow Hill lines (which is what's pictured) and that combo was regularly used on the Chase line pre-electrification. Not sure 172s ever worked in service with either 170s or any of the sprinters but they would've been compatible.

Can couple mechanically but something to do with the pin arrangements in the coupler head means they cannot couple electrically to 170s IIRC.

When the (ex-)Chiltern 172/1s moved to West Mids they had to be modified because they had a different electrical arrangement to the rest of the 172 fleet, in order for them to work with the 165s when they lived down south.

 

[edwin_m]

With the exception of the Pacers and 156 all these classes were designed by the same organisation albeit that it transitioned from BREL to ADtranz to Bombardier. The mechanical design was very similar too, so getting them all to work together would have been relatively (relatively!) straightforward. The Pacers and 156 was also mechanically similar and I assume the procurement specifications required them to multiple with other Sprinter classes. It is said that Network SouthEast specified a different coupler pinout for the 165s and 166s deliberately to ensure their fleet couldn't be pinched by Regional Railways, and Chiltern's later units had to adopt this too.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Didn't London Midland used to run Sprinter/172 combinations on the Snow Hill Lines? Here's a Flickr Link of one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30389998@N03/33427536911. I assume it was a handy way of adding carriages without using too many Turbostar units.

ScotRail still do run 158+170 pairs (mostly on Inverness services).

 

[frankmoh]

With the exception of the Pacers and 156 all these classes were designed by the same organisation albeit that it transitioned from BREL to ADtranz to Bombardier. The mechanical design was very similar too, so getting them all to work together would have been relatively (relatively!) straightforward. The Pacers and 156 was also mechanically similar and I assume the procurement specifications required them to multiple with other Sprinter classes. It is said that Network SouthEast specified a different coupler pinout for the 165s and 166s deliberately to ensure their fleet couldn't be pinched by Regional Railways, and Chiltern's later units had to adopt this too.

I wonder how it would've been seeing Networkers up North.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I've seen Pacers working in multiple with Sprinters
Sprinters with 158s
158s with 159s
159s with 170s

 

[AndrewE]

Wasn't there a Pacer which worked an early morning Preston to Barrow service coupled to a 158? I think it ran non-stop through Lancaster for some reason, and was known to produce an exciting ride in the 142...

 

[The exile]

158s with 159s

Presumably, unless 30-odd years ago, SWR 158s.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Presumably, unless 30-odd years ago, SWR 158s.

Of course

 

[stadler]

Would it technically be possible to have a Pacer + Sprinter + Turbostar formation without any issues? If they put the Sprinter in the middle and the Pacer and the Turbostar on either end?

 

[SuspectUsual]

14x and 15x lashups were a daily occurrence on the Calder Valley in the late 2010s in the halcyon days of the Newton Heath random unit generator

 

[stadler]

What i find so ridiculous is that all of the Electrostar classes are incompatible in passenger service. You can couple the 375 376 377 378 379 387 for ECS moves without issue (and this does happen a lot) but not in passenger service. They all have different software versions. It must make it so inflexible for diagramming them.

Southern now have large fleets of both 377s and 387s but can not couple then in passenger service.

Southeastern now have large fleets of both 375s and 377s but can not couple them in passenger service.

Great Northern now have large fleets of both 379s and 387s but can not couple them in passenger service.

I believe if you couple them in passenger service then the TMS (MITRAC) does not work correctly. Some other things like DOO cameras and ASDO will not work either. They really ought to modify them so they can all couple in passenger service. It seems like we have gone so downhill in terms of compatibility when even very similar trains of the same make and model can not couple in passenger service.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

14x and 15x lashups were a daily occurrence on the Calder Valley in the late 2010s in the halcyon days of the Newton Heath random unit generator

Indeed, and occasionally elsewhere. I've taken a 150/142 combo from Leeds to York via Harrogate and to Sheffield, and also a 142 and 158 to Blackpool from Leeds.
Pacers were quicker on the uptake when the driver applied power, so when coupled to a Sprinter they would try and drag it if leading or push it if trailing, until the Sprinter powered up to the same level!

When the Pacers were new and had SCG gearboxes if they worked with a Sprinter a switch had to be operated in the Sprinter cab; it was marked "hold gear". I don't know the ins and outs but I understand that it synchronised the gearboxes. The SCG boxes set off at low revs whereas the Voith units in Sprinters set off at high revs, and this switch somehow evened it out.
After the Pacers were fitted with Voith gearboxes it wasn't required, and I recall seeing where the switch had been in Sprinter cabs although the switches themselves had been removed.
IIRC up to class 156 were originally fitted with it; by the time 158s were built the Pacers had been fitted with new gearboxes so it wasn't necessary.
I never have found anyone who could tell me exactly how it worked; does anyone know?

 

[frankmoh]

Southeastern now have large fleets of both 375s and 377s but can not couple them in passenger service.

Don't forget the 376! 3 very similar looking (same livery even) trains that cannot be used together at all.

 

[hexagon789]

Indeed, and occasionally elsewhere. I've taken a 150/142 combo from Leeds to York via Harrogate and to Sheffield, and also a 142 and 158 to Blackpool from Leeds.
Pacers were quicker on the uptake when the driver applied power, so when coupled to a Sprinter they would try and drag it if leading or push it if trailing, until the Sprinter powered up to the same level!

When the Pacers were new and had SCG gearboxes if they worked with a Sprinter a switch had to be operated in the Sprinter cab; it was marked "hold gear". I don't know the ins and outs but I understand that it synchronised the gearboxes. The SCG boxes set off at low revs whereas the Voith units in Sprinters set off at high revs, and this switch somehow evened it out.
After the Pacers were fitted with Voith gearboxes it wasn't required, and I recall seeing where the switch had been in Sprinter cabs although the switches themselves had been removed.
IIRC up to class 156 were originally fitted with it; by the time 158s were built the Pacers had been fitted with new gearboxes so it wasn't necessary.
I never have found anyone who could tell me exactly how it worked; does anyone know?

"Hold Gear" meant literally that - hold the current gear, it would prevent the gearbox on the Pacer (when fitted with the 4-speed SCG mechanical transmission) from changing up to the next gear at the preset speed. Normally it would be used when climbing a steep gradient at a speed where the mechanical transmission would be hunting between gears.

 

[stadler]

Don't forget the 376! 3 very similar looking (same livery even) trains that cannot be used together at all.

Yes indeed they can not either. However the 376 do not work on the same routes as the 375 and 377 so there is not really much need for them to be compatible. It would certainly help for flexibility but it is not really a major issue when they are used on completely different work.

 

[warwickshire]

Days of First North Western and Central Trains very common

Central Trains

1. 170/156 combo on Liverpool to Norwich
2. 170/158 combo on Liverpool to Norwich
3. 170/153 combo on Liverpool to Norwich
4. 150/153 rare but also appeared on Manchester Airport to Nottinghams

Similarly on First North Western
1. 142/158 quite common on Manchester to Blackpool and Llandudnos.
2. 153/158, 153/150, 142/156 Combos on Manchester Victoria to Blackburn,
Manchester Victoria to Liverpool Lime Streets.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

"Hold Gear" meant literally that - hold the current gear, it would prevent the gearbox on the Pacer (when fitted with the 4-speed SCG mechanical transmission) from changing up to the next gear at the preset speed. Normally it would be used when climbing a steep gradient at a speed where the mechanical transmission would be hunting between gears.

Brilliant, thank you

 

[trundlewagon]

Normally it would be used when climbing a steep gradient at a speed where the mechanical transmission would be hunting between gears.

196s could do with that for the Lickey bank...

 

[frankmoh]

Yes indeed they can not either. However the 376 do not work on the same routes as the 375 and 377 so there is not really much need for them to be compatible. It would certainly help for flexibility but it is not really a major issue when they are used on completely different work.

I wonder if the 375/377's predecessors (CEP/CIG/VEP) could couple together.

Also on a complete tangent speaking of the 376, 375 and the older trains, an 8VEP train did operate on a small section of a current-day 376 route during the LILO Addiscome-Elmers End railtour as it continued onwards to New Beckenham before reversing into Beckenham Junction.

Also the 376 is classified as if it were an overhead AC train when in fact its third rail only. Was 476 not fitting with the other Electrostars?

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder how it would've been seeing Networkers up North.

Anyone know if the GWR 165s and 166s were modified to multiple with 158s etc when they transferred to the Bristol area?

 

[stadler]

I wonder if the 375/377's predecessors (CEP/CIG/VEP) could couple together.

Also on a complete tangent speaking of the 376, 375 and the older trains, an 8VEP train did operate on a small section of a current-day 376 route during the LILO Addiscome-Elmers End railtour as it continued onwards to New Beckenham before reversing into Beckenham Junction.

Also the 376 is classified as if it were an overhead AC train when in fact its third rail only. Was 476 not fitting with the other Electrostars?

Yes the CEP and CIG and VEP units could all couple together without issue. They were fully compatible. I used to work all three types when i was a guard and remember many occassions of them coupling in passenger service.

 

[frankmoh]

Yes the CEP and CIG and VEP units could all couple together without issue. They were fully compatible. I used to work all three types when i was a guard and remember many occassions of them coupling in passenger service.

I wonder where it all went wrong then for the Electrostars.

 

[driverd]

14x units couldn't multi with 170s as there was a problem with the electrical side of the coupling. I can't remember which circuits were energised but as others have pointed out, it was for emergency use only.

Essentially the commonality derives from the BSI coupler and the 100ish (I think, its been a while) pins all passing unique electrical signals. So long as all the unit utilises the same basic signals for various functions, they can work together (eg: train wire 4 for the emergency brake circuit). This is a function of the fact that, in essence, theres very little control system differences between a 142 and a 170. Each unit uses a 3 step brake, worked by train wires being energised/de-energised in various combinations. Each unit has 7 power notches etc. The signals all can be passed through irrespective of the physical drivers desk they're being input on.

More modern units do this via a computer interface, and for obvious reasons there will be issues when, for instance, Siemens software tries to talk to CAF software.

You do get some interesting anomalies, however, when units that aren't often coupled end up together. For instance, I remember once coupling a 170 (ex-Scotrail) with a 153 (ex-GWR), which resulted in continuous hustle alarms sounding on the 153.