• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Sprinters in Multiple

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexl92

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2014
Messages
2,368
I remember reading somewhere in the past that Sprinters can only work in multiples of up to 3 units.

Where Class 158s are concerned, if they operated 3 x 2 car units, that's 6 cars, but if they operated 3 x 3-car units together, that'd be 9, which is equivalent in terms of cars to 4.5 2car units.

So what's the defining factor in how many can work together, and does the number of coaches in a unit make a difference?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,346
Location
Yorkshire
I remember reading somewhere in the past that Sprinters can only work in multiples of up to 3 units.

Where Class 158s are concerned, if they operated 3 x 2 car units, that's 6 cars, but if they operated 3 x 3-car units together, that'd be 9, which is equivalent in terms of cars to 4.5 2car units.

So what's the defining factor in how many can work together, and does the number of coaches in a unit make a difference?

It's been mentioned on here before that the limitation is the number of cabs rather than the number of cars. I can't remember what the reason was but it may have been something to do with the TPWS systems. Certainly it was mentioned that 153s are treated as 2-car units for this purpose, with having cabs at either end.
 
Last edited:

driver9000

Established Member
Joined
13 Jan 2008
Messages
4,558
Sprinters can work in formations up to 12 cars in length. For the purposes of multiple working a 153 counts as two vehicles. Pacers can work in formations up to 8 vehicles.

From memory when I trained on them the limitation was voltage for the control circuits which are taken from the rearmost starting battery. Without digging my notes out I wouldn't want to point a finger at a definitive reason and I no longer sign them.
 
Last edited:

WillPS

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2008
Messages
2,431
Location
Nottingham
ISTR something along the lines of, you can have 12 cabs - I think 158 centre cars don't count but 170 centre cars count as 2?
 

185143

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2013
Messages
5,340
alexl92:2328084 said:
I remember reading somewhere in the past that Sprinters can only work in multiples of up to 3 units.

Where Class 158s are concerned, if they operated 3 x 2 car units, that's 6 cars, but if they operated 3 x 3-car units together, that'd be 9, which is equivalent in terms of cars to 4.5 2car units.

So what's the defining factor in how many can work together, and does the number of coaches in a unit make a difference?
I've had an 8 car EMT 158 before:D:D
 

driver9000

Established Member
Joined
13 Jan 2008
Messages
4,558
ISTR something along the lines of, you can have 12 cabs - I think 158 centre cars don't count but 170 centre cars count as 2?

I remember being taught the centre cars did count as although they didn't have driving controls they do have control equipment for the engine etc.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,491
Any 15x unit can work with any 14x unit. There was a thread about the longest pacer train, can't remember the thread title
 

driver9000

Established Member
Joined
13 Jan 2008
Messages
4,558
Any 15x unit can work with any 14x unit. There was a thread about the longest pacer train, can't remember the thread title

Indeed it can but you are then limited to the maximum of 8 applicable to Pacer units.
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
Not sure if it would be allowed to run in normal service, but BR ScotRail tried a 12 car 156 as a test:

 

Strathclyder

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
3,822
Location
Clydebank
Not sure if it would be allowed to run in normal service, but BR ScotRail tried a 12 car 156 as a test:


For anyone unable to access the link, the above image's description:
This view was taken with all the "south of bridge" Inverness sets coupled together on Culloden Viaduct in March 1989 during Voltage Drop type testing."South of bridge" refers to the fact that the Inverness to Dingwall line was closed because the main bridge had been washed away in January 1989.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Any 15x unit can work with any 14x unit. There was a thread about the longest pacer train, can't remember the thread title

Theres also the limitation you cant sandwhich a pacer in a multiple sprinter formula, you can have Pacer-Sprinter-Sprinter but not Sprinter-Pacer-Sprinter, something to do with engine control commands not passing through a pacer couplers.
 

OpsWeb

Member
Joined
14 Oct 2014
Messages
150
Suspect any limitation in train length will be due to DC voltage drop over long distance (of wire). All the control and protection circuits (door interlock, traction interlock etc...) will come from the rearmost cab relays.

The characteristics of direct current mean you get greater losses as the distance increases. A drop on voltage, might mean relays that should energise/throw do not etc...
 
Last edited:

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,491
Would the main air res cause any sort of restriction (drop in pressure the longer the train gets) or would each unit's compressor maintain the correct pressure for the main res?
 

driver9000

Established Member
Joined
13 Jan 2008
Messages
4,558
Theres also the limitation you cant sandwhich a pacer in a multiple sprinter formula, you can have Pacer-Sprinter-Sprinter but not Sprinter-Pacer-Sprinter, something to do with engine control commands not passing through a pacer couplers.

Really? It was never a problem when I drove trains formed with a Pacer between Sprinters and there are trains running like that still.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Would the main air res cause any sort of restriction (drop in pressure the longer the train gets) or would each unit's compressor maintain the correct pressure for the main res?


Each vehicle has its own compressor so that's not really an issue.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Suspect any limitation in train length will be due to DC voltage drop over long distance (of wire). All the control and protection circuits (door interlock, traction interlock etc...) will come from the rearmost cab relays.

The characteristics of direct current mean you get greater losses as the distance increases. A drop on voltage, might mean relays that should energise/throw do not etc...

There is also only a finite amount of control supply available at the leading end.

As you can imagine, you have a multiple wire control circuit that runs down the length of the train and through autocouplers, this controls train line relays either on each car, or in each non-active cab, or some other method of taking the digital control information from the train lines, usually throwing relays to do so, this passes the control supply demands on to the local car wiring and battery.

You can only control so many of these car (or coding) relays before it's too much for the leading end to handle, as you'd expect, there is a circuit breaker there...

Even in the modern days of PWM control used on Siemens units, you're still limited as to (a) distance that signal can travel and maintain it's fidelity and (b) the power requirements of the remaining coding relays.

Theoretically you could have a train of infinite length if you used something in the uncoupler circuits to 'repeat' the signal in the dead cabs before fidelity is lost, and distribute the train line load along each of the leading cabs, but this is rather complex and introduces significantly more relays, and therefore significantly more issues for people like Newton Heath's finest to work their way around.
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
Theoretically you could have a train of infinite length if you used something in the uncoupler circuits to 'repeat' the signal in the dead cabs before fidelity is lost, and distribute the train line load along each of the leading cabs, but this is rather complex and introduces significantly more relays, and therefore significantly more issues for people like Newton Heath's finest to work their way around.

The smart way to remove length issues in today's world would be to use some form of industrial Ethernet implementation. While Ethernet is certainly not suitable for safety critical solutions as standard, it's entirely possible to engineer fully fault tolerant/redundant systems from it that have no single point of failure, will always fail safe, and allow a management system to positively detect faults (including loss of redundancy or other forms of degraded performance).

Combined with modern solid state digital power control systems, you could end up with something close to 100% solid state. Even if you retained relays for the high power side of things, there would not be any more of them required than in the traditional system.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Ethernet isn't the right way to abstract non critical controls. MVB (Bombardier) CANBUS or other hardened systems work better.

And instead of power, with Ethernet or any packet based comms you introduce latancy and / or signal degregation instead.

And with sufficiently fault tolerant solid state, you gain very little over positively driven caged contact relays.

If you can't tell by the way I have a real bug bear with those who think that Ethernet is the solution to everything on Rolling Stock. It can be, but people tend to ignore much better solutions because 'ethernet is modern'. There is plenty of hardened ethernet that is compliant, and plenty of jumpers and cables that support it. Two companies have now proven 10Gb/s over a jumper and a fair few others get up to 1Gb/s transmission rates. Can you tell what Ethernet IS appropriate for?
 
Last edited:

Tim R-T-C

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2011
Messages
2,143
The longest regular formations up north that I know of are the Northern ECS runs from Leeds into Neville Hill at the end of rush hour. Routinely get three units combining:



This is a two car 142, three car 144 and two car 158.
 

WCMLaddict

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2012
Messages
417
Could you have Pacer-Sprinter-Pacer?

Yes you can. To be honest I have also never heard of the limitation brought up by WZ.

Regarding long formations. There is a booked ECS job at Vic after 10pm that takes 142+156 from Southport and 153+158 (2 car set) coming from Leeds coupled together to Newton Heath.
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
When driven from a 158 drivers have been known to forget there was a 142 coupled onto the rear and run at the 158's top speed of 90mph on ecs workings. Guards in the rear set have reported very lively if a little smoky running from the 142 being dragged by its heels at full bore!

SWT often ran a 159 coupled to two 170's on mule workings.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,165
When driven from a 158 drivers have been known to forget there was a 142 coupled onto the rear and run at the 158's top speed of 90mph on ecs workings. Guards in the rear set have reported very lively if a little smoky running from the 142 being dragged by its heels at full bore!

Just imagine what will happen if/when the new Northern franchise takes on a few 100mph 170s... :lol:
 

Dieseldriver

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2012
Messages
1,019
South West Trains run a daily ten car train formed of 2 car 158, 2 car 158, 3 car 159, 3 car 159.
 

glbotu

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2012
Messages
644
Location
Oxford
When driven from a 158 drivers have been known to forget there was a 142 coupled onto the rear and run at the 158's top speed of 90mph on ecs workings. Guards in the rear set have reported very lively if a little smoky running from the 142 being dragged by its heels at full bore!

So, did those Pacers survive it? Would this suggest that Pacers could be faster if not limited by their engines, or is it just a question of engineering tolerances on the Pacers allowing them to go above design speed of 75mph?
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
So, did those Pacers survive it? Would this suggest that Pacers could be faster if not limited by their engines, or is it just a question of engineering tolerances on the Pacers allowing them to go above design speed of 75mph?

It will likely be the entire drive train, from axle bearings, through final drive, gearbox, to engines that limits them. Once the decision was made to slap a max 75mph label on the project, any good engineer might take advantage of that to limit the spec of all those related components and tolerances to deliver a cost effective solution.

Apparently the underlying research platform was tested up to 140mph in the lab, and sounds like the upper goal was probably 90mph in service:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_Freight_Vehicle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top