Virgin Voyager Coach VS MK3

[MCR247]

Virgin had 7 Car HST sets and Class 47`s (unknowen amount of coaches) on the XC line and they got replaced with 4-5 car Voyagers, yes im aware that a vomiter is faster than a 47 but i see no logic on making the train shorter, wouldnt it of been better if they had the 10 car 222`s?

Which 10 car 222s? And MML needed the 9car ones. I was told they were going to maker XC train more frequent and shorter, but that timetable was dropped due to reliability

 

[delt1c]

How many on here can remember when the Mk3 was 1st introduced? This thread is almost dejavue

 

[222001]

Which 10 car 222s? And MML needed the 9car ones. I was told they were going to maker XC train more frequent and shorter, but that timetable was dropped due to reliability

Midland Mainline actually had now use for the 9 car Meridians when they arrived because the SRA did not approve a new Leeds service. They were left standing for about a year before Midland Mainline took them on so some of their HSTs could be moved elsewhere.

 

[90019]

ohhh that dispute will never end for the record all locos are classed 01-99 and units are classed 100-999+.

However the HST has been both, there end of that argument

Which is why the HSTs are classes 253 and 254, making them express DEMUs under the TOPS numbering system. And all the TOPS codes you see on them nowadays are coaching stock codes as outlined in a previous post.
My guesses to the reasoning behind this is because they are only semi-fixed formation units, and because of this having a single 25XXXX numbering on the powercars would lead to confusion when the powercars and coaches were in different sets.

If you say the 43XXX is a locomotive TOPS code, then you're saying that all the coaches within the set are also locomotives; with the TSOs being class 42s, the TFOs being class 41s, etc.



Anyways, I prefer a Voyager. I find them to be more comfortable, and In dont find the engine noise at all intrusive. I also think that the Mk3s are old and outdated, and don't really belong on long intercity services anymore.

 

[devon_metro]

This (http://www.staceys-fots.fotopic.net/p58184608.html) is a DMU then :?

 

[90019]

This (http://www.staceys-fots.fotopic.net/p58184608.html) is a DMU then :?

No, it's the DMB of a DEMU.

 

[WillPS]

This (http://www.staceys-fots.fotopic.net/p58184608.html) is a DMU then :?

I don't get your point - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gb-dmu-153302-01.jpg, a single DMU - surely?

 

[222001]

Which is why the HSTs are classes 253 and 254, making them express DEMUs under the TOPS numbering system. And all the TOPS codes you see on them nowadays are coaching stock codes as outlined in a previous post.
My guesses to the reasoning behind this is because they are only semi-fixed formation units, and because of this having a single 25XXXX numbering on the powercars would lead to confusion when the powercars and coaches were in different sets.

If you say the 43XXX is a locomotive TOPS code, then you're saying that all the coaches within the set are also locomotives; with the TSOs being class 42s, the TFOs being class 41s, etc.

This is very true and they could do the same thing with the 22x fleets if they wanted. EMT sometimes like to move/swap coaches around the 222 fleet which can sometimes be confussing!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In my opinion a multiple unit has to have an engine under each coach.

 

[90019]

In my opinion a multiple unit has to have an engine under each coach.

Ah, but that would mean that things like the 321 and 322 aren't EMUs because they only have 1 coach with a motor.
The 390s have 3 trailer coaches which don't have motors in them.

And some of the 1st gen units had trailer coaches with no engines.

 

[devon_metro]

I don't get your point - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gb-dmu-153302-01.jpg, a single DMU - surely?

Does a class 43 locomotive have any passenger accomodation? Does a Mk3 coach have an engine?

Does a 153 have either of these? Yes. Thus is a DMU. Simple i'd say. :roll:

 

[WillPS]

Does a class 43 locomotive have any passenger accomodation? Does a Mk3 coach have an engine?

Does a 153 have either of these? Yes. Thus is a DMU. Simple i'd say. :roll:

Not all coaches of Pendolinos are powered (am I right?)

The powercars don't have accomodation, first of all because legislation would not allow it - and second because the engine is so flipping loud!!

 

[90019]

Does a class 43 locomotive have any passenger accomodation?

Yes, in the form of luggage accomodation.

Does a Mk3 coach have an engine?

No, but neither do the DTSO, TSO or the DTCL of a 322, so is that not a unit either?
What about the PTFO, TSO and PTSRMB in a 390, they're don't have engines, so 390s aren't MUs now?
What about a 101, is that an MU? Because they have DTCLs, TSLs, TSLRBs, TCLs and TBSLs in various combinations from unit to unit, and none of them had engines in them.

 

[devon_metro]

An HST is no different to a pair of class 37s top and tailing a test train. Is that a DMU too?

 

[222001]

Ah, but that would mean that things like the 321 and 322 aren't EMUs because they only have 1 coach with a motor.
The 390s have 3 trailer coaches which don't have motors in them.

And some of the 1st gen units had trailer coaches with no engines.

Yes I never thought of that! I suppose the real reason I think HSTs are not multiple units is that passengers cannot use all the coaches to sit in. One is a dedicated power car.

 

[devon_metro]

Which is why the HSTs are classes 253 and 254, making them express DEMUs under the TOPS numbering system. And all the TOPS codes you see on them nowadays are coaching stock codes as outlined in a previous post.
My guesses to the reasoning behind this is because they are only semi-fixed formation units, and because of this having a single 25XXXX numbering on the powercars would lead to confusion when the powercars and coaches were in different sets.

If you say the 43XXX is a locomotive TOPS code, then you're saying that all the coaches within the set are also locomotives; with the TSOs being class 42s, the TFOs being class 41s, etc.

Going by that logic, does it make the 52xxx vehicle of a class 158 a locomotive :?

 

[90019]

An HST is no different to a pair of class 37s top and tailing a test train. Is that a DMU too?

The 37s can couple to any other stock without the need of a barrier vehicle.
HST powercars cannot, they need a barrier vehicle or they can use the towbar in an emergency.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Going by that logic, does it make the 52xxx vehicle of a class 158 a locomotive :?

If you consider an HST powercar to be a locomotive, then yes.
It was not my original logic, just that of those who think an HST powercar is a locomotive.

 

[Daimler]

I'm not quite sure why there's such massive pedantry going on here!

While, technically, a HST corresponts to the definition of a DMU, it is missing the point to label it as a DMU like a 220/185/158/whatever.

While it's technically a DMU, in spirit it's very much a locomotive & coaches - and to a passenger feels more like a locomotive & coaches than anything else.

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

If you consider an HST powercar to be a locomotive, then yes.
It was not my original logic, just that of those who think an HST powercar is a locomotive.

I wasn't disputing the fact if they are Locos or not. They are Powercars. I was saying a HST is not a DMU

 

[90019]

I wasn't disputing the fact if they are Locos or not. They are Powercars. I was saying a HST is not a DMU

Yes, and they are powercars in a semi-fixed formation DEMU, namely classes 253 and 254.

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

Yes, and they are powercars in a semi-fixed formation DEMU, namely classes 253 and 254.

But they're not and haven't been a 253/4 for ni-on 30years! BRs Original plan was to keep them in a full fixed formation but that was deemed un do able. Hence they have been reclassed. OOI, seen as CP02 runs in a semi fixed formation and the locos havent been swaped on it for Months would you class that as a DMU? Or are you going to play your ever tiring card of they can't couple to another coaches without a barrier or emergency bar? :roll:

 

[devon_metro]

Was a 91+stock+43 a DMU as it was a fixed formation. I didn't see any barrier vehicles so it can't possibly have been anything else :roll:

 

[90019]

Was a 91+stock+43 a DMU as it was a fixed formation. I didn't see any barrier vehicles so it can't possibly have been anything else :roll:

No. The powercars were modified to run as a DVT, and they were running with mk3s.
You could take the leading vehicle off a turbostar, modify the coupling and attach a loco, but the turbostar is still a DMU.

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

The 37s can couple to any other stock without the need of a barrier vehicle.
HST powercars cannot, they need a barrier vehicle or they can use the towbar

Any power car can be coupled to buckeye fitted LHCS. Just can't multi with another power car or provide trains supply.

 

[90019]

You obviously can't call the buffer fitted PCs DMUs, Surely not? It would go against your point you love that they can't run with other coaches? The Mk3s used with the HST were Loco Hauled Mark3s so the Buffer fitted PCs could run with any stock! Several electrical mods were done, like the locohauled light jumpers etc

No, because they're not!

They were modified so that they could run with loco hauled mk3s and a 91 as a temporary DVT. They were then converted back afterwards so that they could run with the HSTs again.

Look, if you think HST powercars are locomotives, show me a picture of an unmodified one pulling something other than HST Mk3s or a barrier vehicle using the couplings and not the towbar.

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

.

HAVE YOU NOT READ MY POST?! I DON'T THINK HSTs ARE LOCOS! I JUST THINK THEY'RE NOT DMUs. THEY ARE POWERCARS WITH TRAILER VEHICLES!


I would usually apologise for caps but it seems its the only way i can get my message across

 

[90019]

HAVE YOU NOT READ MY POST?! I DON'T THINK HSTs ARE LOCOS! I JUST THINK THEY'RE NOT DMUs. THEY ARE POWERCARS WITH TRAILER VEHICLES!


I would usually apologise for caps but it seems its the only way i can get my message across

They're either one or the other.

There is no middle ground between Locomotive and Multiple Unit.

A locomotive has no passenger accomodation of any sort, a multiple unit has passenger accomodation, in this case it is in the form of luggage space.

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

They're either one or the other.

There is no middle ground between Locomotive and Multiple Unit.

Oh you know what. I give up, i cannot be arsed to give you the time of day, it appears you obviously do not have a clue or are just doing this as a wind up.

Good Day.

 

[devon_metro]

Oh you know what. I give up, i cannot be arsed to give you the time of day, it appears you obviously do not have a clue or are just doing this as a wind up.

Good Day.

Agreed. As if the fact that they aren't numbered by the people that own them as DMUs isn't enough :roll:

 

[90019]

Agreed. As if the fact that they aren't numbered by the people that own them as DMUs isn't enough :roll:

This is because of the semi-permanent formation of them, afaik.
As I have stated multiple times already, the TOPS codes you see on the powercar are coaching stock ones, same as you can see on all of the coaches in the set, and same as the one's on all other MUs.

If you say they are locomotive TOPS codes, then how can we have two types of locomotives with the same class using a system that does not allow this?

 

[Jordy]

I did say a few pages back not to go into the whole is an HST a DMU or LHCS argument, but you have. Please get back on topic or the thread will have to be closed, we're going round in circles!