New Units - Compatibility?

[Masbroughlad]

Do the new diesel, electric and bi-mode units have couplings and systems which allow them to couple with older units?

Will see TPE Novas working in multiple with 185s and 350s?

Northern 195s with Sprinters, Pacers, 170s etc?

Others in other TOCs too?

 

[DanNCL]

Do the new diesel, electric and bi-mode units have couplings and systems which allow them to couple with older units?

Will see TPE Novas working in multiple with 185s and 350s?

Northern 195s with Sprinters, Pacers, 170s etc?

Others in other TOCs too?

The TPE 802s, 397s and 68 hailed sets won't work in multiple with each other, so won't work with the 185s either.

195s won't be able to work with any other class of Northern unit either.

New stock isn't compatible with older stock as a rule these days unfortunately.

 

[swt_passenger]

DMU (ie not DEMU)and EMU can very rarely work in multiple. They can sometimes mechanically couple for rescue purposes. The latter becomes easier as Dellner/Scharfenberg couplers become standard.

Existing 185 and 350 won’t work in service with each other, even though they look to have similar couplings.

Notionally similar EMU fleets from one manufacturer have electrical connection boxes on different sides of the coupler, which is enough to prevent multiple working even if control systems allowed.

 

[delt1c]

Amazing how we have progressed, 1st generation DMU's regardless of manufactures could couple to other units ( Blue star as standard) . Yes there were other coupling codes in a minority , but the earliest blue vstar units could operate with the latest 123's. if this is progress then i am amazed.

 

[James James]

I'd be surprised if GA's new Stadler's couldn't operate together, at least in electric mode. No way to be certain though.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

the last compatibility was the 170 as it can work with 14x and 15x (a 170 is essentially an updated 165, itself a 158 with a networker body) 14x were subsequently barred, likely because the 170s top speed would rip a 14x drive train apart if the driver "forgot" they were coupled as was often the case when 14s were coupled to a 158!

since privatisation the various manufacturers have followed their own proprietary standards rather than following the previously used common standards

 

[James James]

the last compatibility was the 170 as it can work with 14x and 15x (a 170 is essentially an updated 165, itself a 158 with a networker body) 14x were subsequently barred, likely because the 170s top speed would rip a 14x drive train apart if the driver "forgot" they were coupled as was often the case when 14s were coupled to a 158!

since privatisation the various manufacturers have followed their own proprietary standards rather than following the previously used common standards

The 170/140 is actually barred beause they aren't electrically compatible (unclear why exactly).

Even before privatisation, turbos were made incompatible with sprinters...

 

[BMIFlyer]

DMU (ie not DEMU)and EMU can very rarely work in multiple. They can sometimes mechanically couple for rescue purposes. The latter becomes easier as Dellner/Scharfenberg couplers become standard.

Existing 185 and 350 won’t work with each other, even though they look to have similar couplings.

Notionally similar EMU fleets from one manufacturer have electrical connection boxes on different sides of the coupler, which is enough to prevent multiple working even if control systems allowed.

A class 185 can actually couple to a TPE class 350/4 for rescue purposes as the TMS software of both can talk to each other.

They wouldn't ever be diagrammed to work in multiple but they can rescue each other if the need ever arises.

You could theoretically have a class 350 drag a 185 that has 3 dead engines for example, or the 185 dragging a 350 that has lost its pantograph.

 

[37057]

Amazing how we have progressed, 1st generation DMU's regardless of manufactures could couple to other units ( Blue star as standard) . Yes there were other coupling codes in a minority , but the earliest blue vstar units could operate with the latest 123's. if this is progress then i am amazed.

To be fair, back in a world of BR, DMU's on local stoppers and technology being limited to only few designs of driveline, a standard multiple working system would exist.

Skip ahead to today, a privatised industry where DMU's can be seen on local stoppers and long distant expresses and technology advancing by the month with a wide range of manufacturers. Is it any wonder they're not compatible?

Progression doesn't revolve around many different types of train being able to couple with full functionality. There simply isn't a need. Emergency coupler adaptors seem to suffice when the time comes.

Modern complex systems benefit from easy fault finding/reporting and reaction instructions and is a much greater benefit than compatability in everyday operations.

 

[37057]

A class 185 can actually couple to a TPE class 350/4 for rescue purposes as the TMS software of both can talk to each other.

They wouldn't ever be diagrammed to work in multiple but they can rescue each other if the need ever arises.

You could theoretically have a class 350 drag a 185 that has 3 dead engines for example, or the 185 dragging a 350 that has lost its pantograph.

They're not compatible as the electrical pins are completely different. The guide horn would need to be removed before coupling mechanically too!

To add, there's no way to distribute 400v so the unpowered unit would go into load shedding and shut down. Knowing 350s they'd go flat instantly!

 

[kje7812]

the last compatibility was the 170 as it can work with 14x and 15x (a 170 is essentially an updated 165, itself a 158 with a networker body) 14x were subsequently barred, likely because the 170s top speed would rip a 14x drive train apart if the driver "forgot" they were coupled as was often the case when 14s were coupled to a 158!

since privatisation the various manufacturers have followed their own proprietary standards rather than following the previously used common standards

I was under the impression 172s can work with 170s and 15x, or least the WMT ones could.

 

[swt_passenger]

A class 185 can actually couple to a TPE class 350/4 for rescue purposes as the TMS software of both can talk to each other.

They wouldn't ever be diagrammed to work in multiple but they can rescue each other if the need ever arises.

You could theoretically have a class 350 drag a 185 that has 3 dead engines for example, or the 185 dragging a 350 that has lost its pantograph.

That’s exactly what I was getting at really.
Dragging an unpowered unit of the ‘other type’ isn’t what most people would understand by working together. I doubt you’d ever see passengers onboard, at least once the first station was reached.

 

[themiller]

Amazing how we have progressed, 1st generation DMU's regardless of manufactures could couple to other units ( Blue star as standard) . Yes there were other coupling codes in a minority , but the earliest blue vstar units could operate with the latest 123's. if this is progress then i am amazed.

Yes, they could couple to any other unit (or any other non-electric stock for that matter) as they had conventional hook couplings. Multiple working, however, was not simple as there were several systems in use. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_United_Traction_DMUs for examples.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

it is my understanding that the 210 could work in multiple with 317 or 455 providing of course that unit had the relevant power source available to it so theoretically all 2nd gen (mk3 based) MUs can as can units of same manufacturer IN THEORY. So all desiros for example could work together. The fact this has never been specified nor tested and as the different TOC fleets have also followed their own re-engineering and upgrade programs means this will unlikely ever be looked at.

interestingly when the 350/4 and 350/3 were first commissioned the /3 worked in multi with the /4 for commonwealth games workings before the /3 went to LM. So either the couplings and TMS have been altered on the /3 and the /4 to make them no longer compatible with each other and enable compatibility between /3 /2 and /1 fleets vis /4 and 185 or 185 is now compatible with all 350 fleets!

personally I think all this tinkering around proves the wastage of privatisation. To me there is no reason why manufacturers cannot work to a common and compatible standard. Its the money and the will that is lacking. After all back in the 80's you had multiple computer systems running Intel, Motorola, Zilog etc from numerous manufacturers (commodore, Atari, Sinclair, IBM etc)where as now you have multiple manufacturers (lenovo, acer, sony, foxconn) following standard interfaces (pci-e, USB,
AGP etc) to build modern computers that operate to a common standard and run the same software, so why can't trains use the same coupler and the same pinout interface which is essentially a trains USB port. Back then the irony is BR was following a common standard, the computer manufacturers were competing

 

[themiller]

It’s all down to specification. If the customers require compatibility, the train builders will comply. This is one area where a strategic view is desirable. This is what UIC or a similar body could take on as the UK government seems to want ‘market forces’ to rule.