Discussion:
Present day long DMU trains
(too old to reply)
D7666
2003-12-28 21:42:17 UTC
My annual xmas period travel takes me on 159s Waterloo - Salisbury -
Exeter. One leg Waterloo to Salisbury this year was 3x159 i.e. 9 cars.

I know this is not unusual, SWT always has had such workings, there
are a few every day, including Sundays.

My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?

Comedians please note by 'long DMU' I am asking about the physical
length of the train, not the length of the service in time or
distance.

--
Nick
Nick Lawford
2003-12-28 23:26:05 UTC
Post by D7666
My annual xmas period travel takes me on 159s Waterloo - Salisbury -
Exeter. One leg Waterloo to Salisbury this year was 3x159 i.e. 9 cars.
I know this is not unusual, SWT always has had such workings, there
are a few every day, including Sundays.
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Comedians please note by 'long DMU' I am asking about the physical
length of the train, not the length of the service in time or
distance.
Someone will now surely put HSt in as an answer.

Perhaps should have written DMU for this question to me non high speed
sub 101 mph DMU.

--
Nick
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Graeme Wall
2003-12-29 20:07:18 UTC
Post by Nick Lawford
Post by D7666
My annual xmas period travel takes me on 159s Waterloo - Salisbury -
Exeter. One leg Waterloo to Salisbury this year was 3x159 i.e. 9 cars.
I know this is not unusual, SWT always has had such workings, there
are a few every day, including Sundays.
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Comedians please note by 'long DMU' I am asking about the physical
length of the train, not the length of the service in time or
distance.
Someone will now surely put HSt in as an answer.
Cue mega-thread on whether HSTs are DMUs or not!

2 five-car Voyagers possibly?
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Chris Pelling
2003-12-31 01:01:46 UTC
During the poblem with the collapsed bridge at Salisbury earlier this month,
the following ECS moves were diagrammed for a 12 car 159:
5L01 04+00 Salisbury - Yeovil Junction
5L03 04+30 Salisbury - Honiton

Regular 9 car passenger workings for the WoE line between Salisbury and
Waterloo (M-F) are as follows:
06.30 Salisbury - Waterloo (05.39 from Yeovil Junction)
08.35 Waterloo - Salisbury (to Paignton / Plymouth)
07.08 Salisbury - Waterloo (05.20 from Exeter St Davids)
08.58 Waterloo - Salisbury
16.47 Salisbury - Waterloo (xx.xx from Plymouth / Paignton)
18.35 Waterloo - Salisbury (to Exeter St Davids)

There is a turn on Sundays booked a 9 car too:
08.30 Salisbury - Waterloo (from Honiton?)
11.03 Waterloo - Salisbury (to Exeter St Davids)

This is all from memory, so E&EO.

Some services are booked for mixed traction pairings of 159+170, but are not
over 8 coaches long.

Chris...
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Nick Lawford
Post by D7666
My annual xmas period travel takes me on 159s Waterloo - Salisbury -
Exeter. One leg Waterloo to Salisbury this year was 3x159 i.e. 9 cars.
I know this is not unusual, SWT always has had such workings, there
are a few every day, including Sundays.
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Comedians please note by 'long DMU' I am asking about the physical
length of the train, not the length of the service in time or
distance.
Someone will now surely put HSt in as an answer.
Cue mega-thread on whether HSTs are DMUs or not!
2 five-car Voyagers possibly?
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Post by Graeme Wall
Cue mega-thread on whether HSTs are DMUs or not!
HST units were originally classed as DMU. IIRC , the class 41
'prototypes' became the class 252. the GWML had class 253, and the ECML
had class 254.

Interestingly, after re-definition as loco+rake+loco, all of the HST
units gained class 43 designations.

IMO, since the locos are semi-permanently coupled to their rakes, and
likewise semi-permanently linked in matched pairs, they meet the
definition of Multiple Unit, and, since they are Diesel powered, surely
they are most accurately described as DMU's.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Dave Fossett
2004-01-02 01:11:40 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
IMO, since the locos are semi-permanently coupled to their rakes, and
likewise semi-permanently linked in matched pairs, they meet the
definition of Multiple Unit, and, since they are Diesel powered, surely
they are most accurately described as DMU's.
Or more accurately still as DEMUs, surely. (Hence the original 253/254
classification)
--
Dave Fossett
Saitama, Japan
http://jtrains.fotopic.net/
Charlie Hulme
2004-01-02 09:15:30 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
IMO, since the locos are semi-permanently coupled to their rakes, and
likewise semi-permanently linked in matched pairs, they meet the
definition of Multiple Unit, and, since they are Diesel powered, surely
they are most accurately described as DMU's.
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple, therefore they
are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.

But yes, of coursem we have had all this before.

Charlie
Cast_Iron
2004-01-02 12:55:11 UTC
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple,
therefore they are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Two (or more) units refers to power units not a rake of vehicles therefore
the fact that one IC125/HST cannot couple to another (nor anything else
under normal circumstances) is irrelevant.
Post by Charlie Hulme
But yes, of coursem we have had all this before.
</pompous>
Very true, but we continue discussing this and other topics so that
newcomers (and others) have the opportunity to expand their knowledge.
</pompous>
David H Wild
2004-01-02 16:56:30 UTC
Post by Cast_Iron
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple,
therefore they are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Two (or more) units refers to power units not a rake of vehicles
therefore the fact that one IC125/HST cannot couple to another (nor
anything else under normal circumstances) is irrelevant.
"Multiple Unit" is a way of working with units which can operate
independently, or coupled together to form a train; HSTs are no more
"multiple units" than the trains formed of a loco at one end and a driving
trailer at the other.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ ***@argonet.co.uk
Paul Cummins
2004-01-02 21:22:15 UTC
Post by David H Wild
HSTs are no more
"multiple units" than the trains formed of a loco at one end and a driving
trailer at the other.
On the contrary, the 2 locos are operating in multiple.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
David H Wild
2004-01-02 22:04:16 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by David H Wild
HSTs are no more
"multiple units" than the trains formed of a loco at one end and a driving
trailer at the other.
On the contrary, the 2 locos are operating in multiple.
But they are not independent units, capable of operating independently.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ ***@argonet.co.uk
Cast_Iron
2004-01-02 22:24:30 UTC
Post by David H Wild
Post by Cast_Iron
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple,
therefore they are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Two (or more) units refers to power units not a rake of
vehicles therefore the fact that one IC125/HST cannot
couple to another (nor anything else under normal
circumstances) is irrelevant.
"Multiple Unit" is a way of working with units which can
operate independently, or coupled together to form a train;
HSTs are no more "multiple units" than the trains formed of
a loco at one end and a driving trailer at the other.
So why did BR originally classify them as such? Classes 253, on the Western
Region, and 254 on the Eastern.
Tessy
2004-01-02 22:32:23 UTC
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:24:30 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
Post by Cast_Iron
Post by David H Wild
Post by Cast_Iron
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple,
therefore they are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Two (or more) units refers to power units not a rake of
vehicles therefore the fact that one IC125/HST cannot
couple to another (nor anything else under normal
circumstances) is irrelevant.
"Multiple Unit" is a way of working with units which can
operate independently, or coupled together to form a train;
HSTs are no more "multiple units" than the trains formed of
a loco at one end and a driving trailer at the other.
So why did BR originally classify them as such? Classes 253, on the Western
Region, and 254 on the Eastern.
Because no one had explained to them that no passengers were carried in the
power cars?
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Charlie Hulme
2004-01-02 22:38:40 UTC
Cast_Iron wrote:

[HST = DMU?]
Post by Cast_Iron
So why did BR originally classify them as such? Classes 253, on the Western
Region, and 254 on the Eastern.
Their railway, they could do anything they wanted. But they should have
been classed as non-multiple-unit railcar trains.

Boring, this, innit?

Charlie
Cast_Iron
2004-01-03 08:06:11 UTC
Post by Charlie Hulme
[HST = DMU?]
Post by Cast_Iron
So why did BR originally classify them as such? Classes
253, on the Western Region, and 254 on the Eastern.
Their railway, they could do anything they wanted. But
they should have been classed as non-multiple-unit railcar
trains.
Boring, this, innit?
Is it?
Charlie Hulme
2004-01-02 21:48:05 UTC
Post by Cast_Iron
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple,
therefore they are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Two (or more) units refers to power units not a rake of vehicles therefore
the fact that one IC125/HST cannot couple to another (nor anything else
under normal circumstances) is irrelevant.
Sorry, but you are wrong, unless you are just redefining the
meaning of 'Diesel Multiple Unit Train' as first used in the 1950s.

In the sense that HSTs were once classed by BR (incorrectly) as DMUs,
you can claim to be right, but you are still wrong ;-)
Post by Cast_Iron
Post by Charlie Hulme
But yes, of course we have had all this before.
</pompous>
Very true, but we continue discussing this and other topics so that
newcomers (and others) have the opportunity to expand their knowledge.
</pompous>
Fine with me, although it's hard to discuss it when there is no more
to say. As Humpty Dumpty may have said, 'When I use a word, it
means just what I want it to mean.'

Charlie
Richard
2004-01-02 22:08:13 UTC
Post by Charlie Hulme
Sorry, but you are wrong, unless you are just redefining the
meaning of 'Diesel Multiple Unit Train' as first used in the 1950s.
Diesel - no dispute
Multiple - multiple trains couple to form a single, longer train, or motors
in multiple vehicles used simultaneously, or engines in multiple vehicles
used simultaneously?
Unit - no dispute

It appears that short of an official definition, this is always going to be
ambiguous as the word multiple has, well, multiple possibilities.

Richard
Paul Cummins
2004-01-02 22:16:17 UTC
Post by Richard
Diesel - no dispute
Multiple - multiple trains couple to form a single, longer train, or
motors in multiple vehicles used simultaneously, or engines in
multiple vehicles used simultaneously?
Unit - no dispute
Exactly. HST's meet a definition of 'Diesel Multiple Unit'
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Cast_Iron
2004-01-03 08:09:13 UTC
Post by Richard
Post by Charlie Hulme
Sorry, but you are wrong, unless you are just redefining
the
meaning of 'Diesel Multiple Unit Train' as first used in
the 1950s.
Diesel - no dispute
Multiple - multiple trains couple to form a single, longer
train, or motors in multiple vehicles used simultaneously,
or engines in multiple vehicles used simultaneously?
Unit - no dispute
It appears that short of an official definition, this is
always going to be ambiguous as the word multiple has,
well, multiple possibilities.
Think you might have missed one:-
Multiple - multiple engines in a single vehicle.

Which now covers all combinations, I think. (He says hopefully.)
Richard
2004-01-03 13:41:27 UTC
Post by Cast_Iron
Post by Richard
Diesel - no dispute
Multiple - multiple trains couple to form a single, longer
train, or motors in multiple vehicles used simultaneously,
or engines in multiple vehicles used simultaneously?
Unit - no dispute
It appears that short of an official definition, this is
always going to be ambiguous as the word multiple has,
well, multiple possibilities.
Think you might have missed one:-
Multiple - multiple engines in a single vehicle.
Which makes a deltic a DMU. Quite possible.

Richard
Dean Lane
2004-01-03 14:50:25 UTC
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:08:13 -0000, "Richard"
Post by Richard
Post by Charlie Hulme
Sorry, but you are wrong, unless you are just redefining the
meaning of 'Diesel Multiple Unit Train' as first used in the 1950s.
It appears that short of an official definition, this is always going to be
ambiguous as the word multiple has, well, multiple possibilities.
I wonder what the Rule Book says.

[time passes]

Nothing. You'd think something like this would be in the "Glossary of
Terms and Abbreviations" but no. Well, not in the recently withdrawn
Railtrack Rule Book at any rate. Anyone got the New Improved Modular
Rule Book handy?
--
Dean Lane, The Old Vitriol Works, Oldham, UK
============================================
David H Wild
2004-01-02 22:05:13 UTC
Post by Charlie Hulme
Post by Cast_Iron
Two (or more) units refers to power units not a rake of vehicles
therefore the fact that one IC125/HST cannot couple to another (nor
anything else under normal circumstances) is irrelevant.
Sorry, but you are wrong, unless you are just redefining the
meaning of 'Diesel Multiple Unit Train' as first used in the 1950s.
In the sense that HSTs were once classed by BR (incorrectly) as DMUs,
you can claim to be right, but you are still wrong ;-)
We tend to disagree most of the time, but you are spot-on with this.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ ***@argonet.co.uk
Paul Cummins
2004-01-02 13:17:40 UTC
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple, therefore they
are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Er... correct me if I am wrong, but are not all HST trains 2 HST 'locos'
working in multiple? One being driven and pulling, one in reverse
pushing?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Charlie Hulme
2004-01-02 21:49:40 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple, therefore they
are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Er... correct me if I am wrong, but are not all HST trains 2 HST 'locos'
working in multiple? One being driven and pulling, one in reverse
pushing?
Er... you are wrong. Most locos can work in multiple, but that
doesn't make their trains Multiple Unit Trains.

Charlie
Terry Harper
2004-01-02 22:49:50 UTC
Post by Charlie Hulme
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple, therefore they
are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Er... correct me if I am wrong, but are not all HST trains 2 HST 'locos'
working in multiple? One being driven and pulling, one in reverse
pushing?
Er... you are wrong. Most locos can work in multiple, but that
doesn't make their trains Multiple Unit Trains.
Now just to add to the confusion, if an HST is not a multiple unit, what is
a CEP, which has a motor car with one driven bogie at each end, and two
trailer cars between?
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
E-mail: ***@btinternet.com
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/
Tessy
2004-01-02 23:42:58 UTC
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:49:50 +0000 (UTC), "Terry Harper"
Post by Terry Harper
Post by Charlie Hulme
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple, therefore they
are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Er... correct me if I am wrong, but are not all HST trains 2 HST 'locos'
working in multiple? One being driven and pulling, one in reverse
pushing?
Er... you are wrong. Most locos can work in multiple, but that
doesn't make their trains Multiple Unit Trains.
Now just to add to the confusion, if an HST is not a multiple unit, what is
a CEP, which has a motor car with one driven bogie at each end, and two
trailer cars between?
You've not been paying attention, have you? You were obviously too busy
looking out the window or downloading porn or something. Why do I bother?
You lot have the attention span of a goldfish.

Let me restate: if the car with the traction engine has seating capacity
for passengers then it's not a loco (and, therefore, must be some form of
DMU, EMU, or whatever).

BTW, speaking of downloading porn I happened upon the January edition of
Rail Express in WH Smith today and noticed that it actually had a photo of
a WOMAN blatantly displayed on the inside front cover. Not only that, but
you could clearly see her naked legs and, you know, fur! This is only the
second time in over five years that I've seen a picture of woman in a
railway magazine and is clearly a case of dumbing down to appeal to the
mass market. I'll be writing to Phil Sutton and his team to let him know
how I feel on this subject in the New Year.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Cast_Iron
2004-01-03 08:11:49 UTC
Post by Tessy
BTW, speaking of downloading porn I happened upon the
January edition of Rail Express in WH Smith today and
noticed that it actually had a photo of
a WOMAN blatantly displayed on the inside front cover. Not
only that, but you could clearly see her naked legs and,
you know, fur! This is only the second time in over five
years that I've seen a picture of woman in a railway
magazine and is clearly a case of dumbing down to appeal to
the
mass market. I'll be writing to Phil Sutton and his team
to let him know how I feel on this subject in the New Year.
Quite right too!!! Can't have females pictured in railway magazines!!
Hrrrmmppph, Hrrrmmppph, Hrrrmmppph.
Dean Lane
2004-01-03 14:58:03 UTC
Post by Tessy
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:49:50 +0000 (UTC), "Terry Harper"
Post by Terry Harper
Now just to add to the confusion, if an HST is not a multiple unit, what is
a CEP, which has a motor car with one driven bogie at each end, and two
trailer cars between?
You've not been paying attention, have you? You were obviously too busy
looking out the window or downloading porn or something. Why do I bother?
You lot have the attention span of a goldfish.
Let me restate: if the car with the traction engine has seating capacity
for passengers then it's not a loco (and, therefore, must be some form of
DMU, EMU, or whatever).
Where /do/ you get these notions from?

GWR railcars had traction engines and passenger accommodation, all
neatly contained within a single vehicle. But they were never DMUs for
the simple reason that they could not run in multiple with anything
else.

If we took the jumper cables off a dogbox, it too would cease to be a
DMU. It would be a DU - a Diesel Unit - but it would no longer be
capable of working in Multiple.

In answer to Terry's question: a CEP is an EMU because it uses
Electric traction, it is a Unit train and it can work in Multiple with
other units of its own class and similar classes. It doesn't matter
where the traction motors are located.

Here's another example to keep the fun flying - the old Southern
Region MLVs or Motor Luggage Vans. Yes, they too were (are? are they
still around?) EMUs. Electric traction; self contained Unit trains;
more than capable of Multiple operation with other Units. And (Tessy,
are you paying attention?) no passenger accommodation whatsoever.

Right. Spleen vented. Time for a beer. <fx="disconnect">
--
Dean Lane, The Old Vitriol Works, Oldham, UK
============================================
Ross
2004-01-04 01:25:21 UTC
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 14:58:03 +0000, Dean Lane wrote in
<***@4ax.com>, seen in uk.railway:

[...]
Post by Dean Lane
If we took the jumper cables off a dogbox, it too would cease to be a
DMU. It would be a DU - a Diesel Unit - but it would no longer be
capable of working in Multiple.
Dogbox is a bad example.

Many CT dogboxes have the jumper socket isolated - but they're still
perfectly capable of operating in multiple.

That's because certain feeds which in traditional stock would be
handled via the jumper cable are on Sprinters instead handled via the
electrical box element of the coupling.
--
Ross Hamilton, in Lincoln (UK)
From address *will* bounce

| New to uk.railway? Read the Frequently Asked Questions at
| the uk.railway FAQ site: <http://www.ukrailwayfaq.co.uk>
Dean Lane
2004-01-03 14:17:27 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Charlie Hulme
Well, I*M*O, two HSTs cannot work together in multiple, therefore they
are not Diesel Multiple Unit trains.
Er... correct me if I am wrong, but are not all HST trains 2 HST 'locos'
working in multiple? One being driven and pulling, one in reverse
pushing?
Conventionally, the term "unit" refers to the train, not to the
individual vehicle. Thus an HST is a (singular) unit train. Indeed, it
is treated as a single unit for many purposes including cleaning and
maintenance - the power cars are not separated from the trailer cars
in normal service.

The same thing happens with a lot of EMUs, of course. The individual
vehicles have individual numbers but there is another number for the
whole unit. For most day to day operating and maintenance purposes,
it's the unit number that counts.

Compare and contrast with,say, a Class 159. Three vehicles, all of
them powered, form a single unit train which in this case can work in
multiple with other units of the same class (and other classes).
--
Dean Lane, The Old Vitriol Works, Oldham, UK
============================================
Jack Taylor
2004-01-02 12:45:38 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
HST units were originally classed as DMU. IIRC , the class 41
'prototypes' became the class 252. the GWML had class 253, and the ECML
had class 254.
Interestingly, after re-definition as loco+rake+loco, all of the HST
units gained class 43 designations.
Only by default. This was because they had been numbered in the 43xxx
coaching stock series (TFs in the 41xxx series, TSs in the 42xxx series,
TGSs in the 44xxx series).
Post by Paul Cummins
IMO, since the locos are semi-permanently coupled to their rakes, and
likewise semi-permanently linked in matched pairs, they meet the
definition of Multiple Unit, and, since they are Diesel powered, surely
they are most accurately described as DMU's.
They're not semi-permanently coupled to their rakes. They are swapped in and
out on an almost daily basis. They are not linked in matched pairs - to see
a pair of consecutively numbered power cars (as originally formed) is almost
a miracle these days.
Cast_Iron
2004-01-02 13:08:25 UTC
Post by Jack Taylor
Post by Paul Cummins
HST units were originally classed as DMU. IIRC , the class
41 'prototypes' became the class 252. the GWML had class
253, and the ECML had class 254.
Interestingly, after re-definition as loco+rake+loco, all
of the HST units gained class 43 designations.
Only by default. This was because they had been numbered in
the 43xxx coaching stock series (TFs in the 41xxx series,
TSs in the 42xxx series, TGSs in the 44xxx series).
Post by Paul Cummins
IMO, since the locos are semi-permanently coupled to their
rakes, and likewise semi-permanently linked in matched
pairs, they meet the definition of Multiple Unit, and,
since they are Diesel powered, surely they are most
accurately described as DMU's.
They're not semi-permanently coupled to their rakes. They
are swapped in and out on an almost daily basis. They are
not linked in matched pairs - to see a pair of
consecutively numbered power cars (as originally formed) is
almost a miracle these days.
This swapping about of vehicles for mantenance purposes is, I suspect, why
BR ceased referring to them as DMU classes 253 and 254 and instead as 2
locos and coaches.
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Post by Jack Taylor
They are not linked in matched pairs - to see
a pair of consecutively numbered power cars (as originally formed) is almost
a miracle these days.
I didn;t say numerically matched. When was the last time you saw an HST
set with only one power unit? As far as the power 'cars' are concerned,
they have 'Multiple Units'
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Jack Taylor
2004-01-02 13:53:34 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Jack Taylor
They are not linked in matched pairs - to see
a pair of consecutively numbered power cars (as originally formed) is almost
a miracle these days.
I didn;t say numerically matched. When was the last time you saw an HST
set with only one power unit? As far as the power 'cars' are concerned,
they have 'Multiple Units'
If you don't want to cause confusion then why use the term 'matched pairs'
at all, when what you mean is 'pairs'? Matched implies that there is
something other than pure existence that links the two entities.

In fact I've seen HSTs running with only one power car on several occasions.
The most impressive one was one of the earliest, back in about 1979, when an
ECML service departed from King's Cross with a BG in place of the rear power
car! It kept good time as well.
Paul Cummins
2004-01-02 15:56:00 UTC
Post by Jack Taylor
If you don't want to cause confusion then why use the term 'matched pairs'
at all, when what you mean is 'pairs'?
A pair of locos need not be matched. The two HST locos on a set are
matched - they are substantially identical in output and capabilities.
They are also the same class and subclass.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Tessy
2004-01-02 21:57:01 UTC
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 01:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Graeme Wall
Cue mega-thread on whether HSTs are DMUs or not!
HST units were originally classed as DMU. IIRC , the class 41
'prototypes' became the class 252. the GWML had class 253, and the ECML
had class 254.
Interestingly, after re-definition as loco+rake+loco, all of the HST
units gained class 43 designations.
IMO, since the locos are semi-permanently coupled to their rakes, and
likewise semi-permanently linked in matched pairs, they meet the
definition of Multiple Unit, and, since they are Diesel powered, surely
they are most accurately described as DMU's.
You've pinched my thread from above re the blue Pullmans.

All this talk over what DMU actually means is irrelevant. Everyone knows
that if you've got passengers in the same vehicle as the engine then it's a
DMU, if you haven't it's a power car (or an empty DMU!). Power cars are
locos not DMUs regardless of whether they can couple to every known piece
of rolling stock or none.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Charlie Hulme
2004-01-02 22:02:36 UTC
Post by Tessy
All this talk over what DMU actually means is irrelevant. Everyone knows
that if you've got passengers in the same vehicle as the engine then it's a
DMU,
I'd say that is the definition of a 'diesel railcar.'

Charlie
Tessy
2004-01-02 22:25:15 UTC
Post by Charlie Hulme
Post by Tessy
All this talk over what DMU actually means is irrelevant. Everyone knows
that if you've got passengers in the same vehicle as the engine then it's a
DMU,
I'd say that is the definition of a 'diesel railcar.'
For the purposes of this discussion (and in actual fact) diesel railcars
are DMUs.

If it's got passengers in it then it's a DMU whether it's one car or an
infinite number of cars.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Charlie Hulme
2004-01-02 22:43:25 UTC
Post by Tessy
For the purposes of this discussion (and in actual fact) diesel railcars
are DMUs.
For the purposes of this discussion? Not sure what you mean there,
since by saying that you are pre-empting the discussion. Were the GWR
diesel railcars able to work in multiple with just one driver?
Some of these were 2-car - could two 2-car sets be worked in
multiple?
Post by Tessy
If it's got passengers in it then it's a DMU whether it's one car or an
infinite number of cars.
Well OK, if you say so...

Charlie
Tessy
2004-01-02 22:58:24 UTC
Post by Charlie Hulme
Post by Tessy
For the purposes of this discussion (and in actual fact) diesel railcars
are DMUs.
For the purposes of this discussion? Not sure what you mean there,
since by saying that you are pre-empting the discussion. Were the GWR
diesel railcars able to work in multiple with just one driver?
Some of these were 2-car - could two 2-car sets be worked in
multiple?
No. What I really mean is that the HST power cars weren't DMUs. I was
trying to simply the argument by classifying everything as being a loco or
a DMU. This would have been more accurately stated as loco and non-loco.

HST power cars are locos because they don't seat passengers. Other things
are non-locos (DMUS etc) because they do.

My gut tells me that all the yellow thingies (they have a common or garden
name but I've used the technical name) seen during engineering possessions
are not locos either (despite not seating passengers) but I haven't worked
out why yet.

Maybe I'll have to refine my definition to: not seating passengers and
being capable of hauling rolling stock. But I'm sure I've seen yellow
thingies pulling other yellow thingies.
Post by Charlie Hulme
Post by Tessy
If it's got passengers in it then it's a DMU whether it's one car or an
infinite number of cars.
Well OK, if you say so...
Come on, put up a bit of a fight!
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Paul Cummins
2004-01-02 22:55:58 UTC
Post by Tessy
Maybe I'll have to refine my definition to: not seating passengers and
being capable of hauling rolling stock. But I'm sure I've seen yellow
thingies pulling other yellow thingies.
So in the rush hour an EMU from Croydon to Victoria is not an EMU, but
off-peak it is?

These definitions are getting more and more political as we go on.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Tessy
2004-01-02 23:28:45 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Tessy
Maybe I'll have to refine my definition to: not seating passengers and
being capable of hauling rolling stock. But I'm sure I've seen yellow
thingies pulling other yellow thingies.
So in the rush hour an EMU from Croydon to Victoria is not an EMU, but
off-peak it is?
Why? Because there's no one on them? Ha, ha! I'll have to revise the
definition again then to ensure it states "is capable of seating
passengers"!
Post by Paul Cummins
These definitions are getting more and more political as we go on.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Paul Cummins
2004-01-03 00:16:04 UTC
Post by Tessy
Why? Because there's no one on them? Ha, ha!
No, because the passengers aren't seated, they are all standing.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Tessy
2004-01-03 00:35:12 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Tessy
Why? Because there's no one on them? Ha, ha!
No, because the passengers aren't seated, they are all standing.
:-)

They still have the capacity for seating though.

Anyway, we're not here to define what makes a DMU we're here to define what
makes a loco! If you want a definition of a DMU go and do it yourself. Do
I have to do all the hard work around here?
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
David H Wild
2004-01-03 16:19:07 UTC
Post by Tessy
Anyway, we're not here to define what makes a DMU we're here to define
what makes a loco! If you want a definition of a DMU go and do it
yourself. Do I have to do all the hard work around here?
Other people do the hard work, and you just mess it up. :-))
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ ***@argonet.co.uk
Dean Lane
2004-01-03 23:11:27 UTC
Post by Tessy
Anyway, we're not here to define what makes a DMU we're here to define what
makes a loco! If you want a definition of a DMU go and do it yourself. Do
I have to do all the hard work around here?
I think you're /making/ all the hard work for everyone else! :-)

OK, now we have to define "locomotive". The dictionary defines it as,
in this instance, a "locomotive engine", "having the power of
movement". In the railway context, it's a Traction Unit - but then, so
are various other things, notably Multiple Unit trains, Self-Propelled
Rail Vehicles and Road/Rail Vehicles Operating in Rail Mode (says the
Rule Book).

A Traction Unit can be a Train in its own right, or it can haul or
push a Train consisting of Coaching Stock and/or Wagons.

So, a Locomotive is a Traction Unit, i.e. something which can turn
energy into propulsion, either for its own benefit or to move a train.
Does a Locomotive need to have a Driving Cab though? Debatable. You
can certainly have non-driving power cars within a Unit Train but then
they're not Locomotives. And you can have an ETHEL - Electric Train
Heating Ex-Locomotive - but then that's not a locomotive by
definition, it's an Ex-Locomotive (they were originally members of
Class 26 IIRC).

Just to confuse matters further, who remembers Class 13, the Master
and Slave units at Toton (or was it Tinsley?) Yard. These were pairs
of Class 08 locomotives. The driving cab had been removed from the
Slave loco which was driven directly from the Master loco, thus giving
extra welly when shunting long rakes of wagons around Tinsley (or was
it Toton?) Yard. But then these were numbered in a completely new
class and considered to be single locomotives, so we can't say that
the Slave on its own was a cabless locomotive.

So, my definition FWIW: a locomotive is a piece of equipment which can
draw energy (from coal, steam, oil, gas, electricity or whatever) and
use it to move itself along a track; it has one or more driving cabs;
it doesn't have accommodation for passengers; it may or may not be
capable of operating in multiple with other locos; it can almost
certainly operate in tandem with other locos; it can be used to push
or pull other items of rolling stock, subject to compatibility in
braking systems; er, that's it.

Did someone mention DVTs? That's an easy one, they're Driving Van
Trailers. D because they have a driving cab; V because they have space
for parcels, mail bags, day old chicks, bicycles and all the other
things that railways don't want to carry any more; T because they have
no means of traction on board, they can only be pushed or pulled by
something else. They're not Locomotives because they're not Traction
Units. They're not Units, Multiple or otherwise. They're just coaching
stock vehicles like a TSO or a BG or a bullion van or whatever.
--
Dean Lane, The Old Vitriol Works, Oldham, UK
============================================
Paul Cummins
2004-01-02 22:50:26 UTC
Post by Tessy
If it's got passengers in it then it's a DMU whether it's one car or
an infinite number of cars.
So when I am in the DVT of the GNER 'Mallard' service, talking to the
guard. It's an EMU, but when I'm not, it's not?

What a stupid method of classification you have!
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Tessy
2004-01-02 23:17:52 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Tessy
If it's got passengers in it then it's a DMU whether it's one car or
an infinite number of cars.
So when I am in the DVT of the GNER 'Mallard' service, talking to the
guard. It's an EMU, but when I'm not, it's not?
What a stupid method of classification you have!
I agree, it is a stupid definition. :-)

However, I don't think you've caught me out in your example above.

A DVT isn't a power car. Therefore it's not a loco. The thing on the
other end is. Therefore it is a loco. What you want to call the train is
not part of my definition. However, gut feel tells you it's not an EMU,
doesn't it.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Paul Cummins
2004-01-03 00:16:03 UTC
Post by Tessy
A DVT isn't a power car. Therefore it's not a loco. The thing on the
other end is. Therefore it is a loco. What you want to call the
train is not part of my definition. However, gut feel tells you it's
not an EMU, doesn't it.
No, because it is possible for a 91+rake to be connected to another
91+rake and be worked 'In Multiple'
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Dean Lane
2004-01-03 23:15:26 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Tessy
A DVT isn't a power car. Therefore it's not a loco. The thing on the
other end is. Therefore it is a loco. What you want to call the
train is not part of my definition. However, gut feel tells you it's
not an EMU, doesn't it.
No, because it is possible for a 91+rake to be connected to another
91+rake and be worked 'In Multiple'
Are you sure about this? I can't think why they would be designed to
do that, the only platforms long enough to take two IC225 sets are at
Edinburgh Waverley. I can imagine one set assisting another if it had
failed with brake problems, but I can't imagine two sets running
together in normal service. I doubt that the OLE would be up to the
job anyway.

But let's agree that two IC225 sets can operate together. That still
doesn't make them EMUs if they are not Unit trains. AFAIK, the
coaching stock and the locomotives are handled separately for
servicing and maintenance - unlike IC125 sets.
--
Dean Lane, The Old Vitriol Works, Oldham, UK
============================================
Jack Taylor
2004-01-04 00:41:02 UTC
Post by Dean Lane
But let's agree that two IC225 sets can operate together. That still
doesn't make them EMUs if they are not Unit trains. AFAIK, the
coaching stock and the locomotives are handled separately for
servicing and maintenance - unlike IC125 sets.
I would argue *not unlike* the IC125 sets. It is highly unusual to see the
same power cars operating with the same trailer set from one month to the
next. Power cars require more regular maintenance than trailer vehicles and
are swapped in and out as exams are required. Trailer sets can remain in
traffic for far longer and are usually then paired with another power car
(or even a pair) that are fresh off exam. Power cars have been regarded as
'loose' on the former Eastern Region since the very early days and the other
regions followed suit very early in the 1980s.
Stimpy
2004-01-03 00:27:05 UTC
Post by Tessy
If it's got passengers in it then it's a DMU whether it's one car or
an infinite number of cars.
...as long as it can work in multiple with other cars. A stand-alone unit
without this capability is merely a 'DU'
--
The presence of this sig indicates that I'm under the influence of
excess alcohol. Until I'm sober enough to remember to switch this sig
file off, please treat the above as merely drunken ranting.

I apologise in advance for any offence caused :-)
David H Wild
2004-01-03 16:17:50 UTC
Post by Tessy
Post by Charlie Hulme
Post by Tessy
All this talk over what DMU actually means is irrelevant. Everyone knows
that if you've got passengers in the same vehicle as the engine then it's a
DMU,
I'd say that is the definition of a 'diesel railcar.'
For the purposes of this discussion (and in actual fact) diesel railcars
are DMUs.
If it's got passengers in it then it's a DMU whether it's one car or an
infinite number of cars.
If it can't work in multiple with other similar units it **cann not** be a
multiple unit.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ ***@argonet.co.uk
Richard
2004-01-02 22:10:07 UTC
Post by Tessy
All this talk over what DMU actually means is irrelevant. Everyone knows
that if you've got passengers in the same vehicle as the engine then it's a
DMU, if you haven't it's a power car (or an empty DMU!). Power cars are
locos not DMUs regardless of whether they can couple to every known piece
of rolling stock or none.
On the same basis that inflammible means easily burnt?

Richard
Tessy
2004-01-02 22:28:10 UTC
Post by Richard
Post by Tessy
All this talk over what DMU actually means is irrelevant. Everyone knows
that if you've got passengers in the same vehicle as the engine then it's
a
Post by Tessy
DMU, if you haven't it's a power car (or an empty DMU!). Power cars are
locos not DMUs regardless of whether they can couple to every known piece
of rolling stock or none.
On the same basis that inflammible means easily burnt?
No. On the basis that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing :-)
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Richard
2004-01-02 23:17:52 UTC
Post by Tessy
Post by Richard
On the same basis that inflammible means easily burnt?
No. On the basis that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing :-)
You are quite right. I withdraw my example (though not the point).

I had for many years believed my Chemistry teacher from school (a Doctor of
Chemistry) who taught us that inflammable was wrongly used to indicate
susceptibility to ignition.

A quick look at the dictionary indicates you are quite right.

Richard
Tessy
2004-01-02 23:26:42 UTC
Post by Richard
Post by Tessy
Post by Richard
On the same basis that inflammible means easily burnt?
No. On the basis that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing :-)
You are quite right. I withdraw my example (though not the point).
I had for many years believed my Chemistry teacher from school (a Doctor of
Chemistry) who taught us that inflammable was wrongly used to indicate
susceptibility to ignition.
A quick look at the dictionary indicates you are quite right.
Not to be confused with fallible and infallible (as many a pope will tell
you!).
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Roger H. Bennett
2004-01-02 22:51:27 UTC
Post by Tessy
All this talk over what DMU actually means is irrelevant. Everyone knows
that if you've got passengers in the same vehicle as the engine then it's a
DMU, if you haven't it's a power car (or an empty DMU!).
What were the former postal units (the red ones, I can't remember the class
number) according to that definition? Or do the 325s count as EMUs?

Roger
Tessy
2004-01-02 23:09:57 UTC
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:51:27 -0000, "Roger H. Bennett"
Post by Roger H. Bennett
Post by Tessy
All this talk over what DMU actually means is irrelevant. Everyone knows
that if you've got passengers in the same vehicle as the engine then it's
a
Post by Tessy
DMU, if you haven't it's a power car (or an empty DMU!).
What were the former postal units (the red ones, I can't remember the class
number) according to that definition? Or do the 325s count as EMUs?
Now you're just being awkward. You know these are logically DMUs (or more
strictly speaking "non-locos" according to my latest definition). However,
I'll have to have a think about exactly why :-)

Hang on. How about: "do not seat passengers, are capable of hauling
rolling stock, do not carry post, oh yes, and are not a yellow thingy.

Please bear in mind that yellow thingies don't always have to be yellow.
Some of the more enterprising track maintenance companies are painting them
different colours to more easily slip through my rigourous definition of a
loco. However, I have spotted this and will be coming up with a revised
definition soon.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Roger H. Bennett
2004-01-02 23:15:39 UTC
Post by Tessy
Hang on. How about: "do not seat passengers, are capable of hauling
rolling stock, do not carry post, oh yes, and are not a yellow thingy.
Sorry to be awkward again, but weren't the first generation DMUs capable of
hauling at least the odd van?

;-)

Roger
Tessy
2004-01-02 23:24:25 UTC
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:15:39 -0000, "Roger H. Bennett"
Post by Roger H. Bennett
Post by Tessy
Hang on. How about: "do not seat passengers, are capable of hauling
rolling stock, do not carry post, oh yes, and are not a yellow thingy.
Sorry to be awkward again, but weren't the first generation DMUs capable of
hauling at least the odd van?
;-)
Yes they were, but I carefully contrived my definition to exclude things
that can seat passengers. So, even though first generation DMUs are
capable of hauling rolling stock (and indeed, as you stated, regularly did
just that) they have passenger seating capability so fall at the first
hurdle.

For the avoidance of doubt the official definition of a loco is now:

Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do not
carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.

You see? Simplicity itself. Now, if BR had only contacted me when they
tried to classify HSTs I could have saved them a fortune.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Roger H. Bennett
2004-01-02 23:47:00 UTC
Post by Tessy
Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do not
carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
OK, I can't think of an objection to that one. The trouble is that I
thought we were trying to define what constitutes a DMU, but have finished
up only with a definition of a loco.

A couple of years ago I had a trainee (heritage) guard with me, who had no
previous railway experience. When I mentioned working DMUs later in the year
he asked me "what is a DMU?". I didn't have a good answer at the time.
Would you like to attempt a definition in case I am ever asked the same
question again?

Roger
Tessy
2004-01-02 23:50:28 UTC
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:47:00 -0000, "Roger H. Bennett"
Post by Roger H. Bennett
Post by Tessy
Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do not
carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
OK, I can't think of an objection to that one. The trouble is that I
thought we were trying to define what constitutes a DMU, but have finished
up only with a definition of a loco.
A couple of years ago I had a trainee (heritage) guard with me, who had no
previous railway experience. When I mentioned working DMUs later in the year
he asked me "what is a DMU?". I didn't have a good answer at the time.
Would you like to attempt a definition in case I am ever asked the same
question again?
Sure thing:

NOT (Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do
not carry post AND are not a yellow thingy)
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Richard
2004-01-03 00:20:26 UTC
Post by Tessy
Post by Roger H. Bennett
A couple of years ago I had a trainee (heritage) guard with me, who had no
previous railway experience. When I mentioned working DMUs later in the year
he asked me "what is a DMU?". I didn't have a good answer at the time.
Would you like to attempt a definition in case I am ever asked the same
question again?
NOT (Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do
not carry post AND are not a yellow thingy)
Not being deliberately contrary, but this is dependent upon (among other
things):
1) your definition of a loco being correct
2) the premise that a loco cannot form part of a DMU

premise 2 is not, currently, established

Richard
Tessy
2004-01-03 00:49:01 UTC
Post by Richard
Post by Tessy
Post by Roger H. Bennett
A couple of years ago I had a trainee (heritage) guard with me, who had
no
Post by Tessy
Post by Roger H. Bennett
previous railway experience. When I mentioned working DMUs later in the
year
Post by Tessy
Post by Roger H. Bennett
he asked me "what is a DMU?". I didn't have a good answer at the time.
Would you like to attempt a definition in case I am ever asked the same
question again?
NOT (Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND
do
Post by Tessy
not carry post AND are not a yellow thingy)
Not being deliberately contrary, but this is dependent upon (among other
1) your definition of a loco being correct
2) the premise that a loco cannot form part of a DMU
premise 2 is not, currently, established
Of course my definition of a loco is correct. Look at it. It just oozes,
you know, rightness. I admit, it took a couple of goes to get there, but
now, ah! The beauty of it is there for all to behold!

Of course a loco can't form part of a DMU! DMUs have, you know, cattle,
no, passengers crammed in every orifice. Locos, on the other hand, are a
thing of beauty (apart from sparkies - but that's a separate discussion).
You can't stuff passengers in a loco and call it a DMU! That's your
Pendowobbli and Voyager thingies, windows not aligned with plastic seats
etc (that's another discussion - but just why can't the interior designers
talk to the body shell designers to get the windows next to the seats!).

You see, you were trying to trick me there. Because if I agreed that locos
could form part of a DMU you'd have me believing that HST power cars were
part of a DMU and, therefore, HSTs were DMUs. So, no. Locos cannot form
part of a DMU. That's an unwritten part of the definition since the
definition is quite long enough as it is it'll have to form a codicil or
whatever.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Richard
2004-01-03 01:23:58 UTC
Post by Tessy
Of course a loco can't form part of a DMU! DMUs have, you know, cattle,
no, passengers crammed in every orifice. Locos, on the other hand, are a
thing of beauty (apart from sparkies - but that's a separate discussion).
So a DMU is a damned minute unit?
Post by Tessy
You can't stuff passengers in a loco and call it a DMU! That's your
Pendowobbli and Voyager thingies, windows not aligned with plastic seats
etc (that's another discussion - but just why can't the interior designers
talk to the body shell designers to get the windows next to the seats!).
What about a Voyager being hauled by a 57? Train or DMU?

Richard
Paul Cummins
2004-01-03 00:16:02 UTC
Post by Tessy
Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND
do not carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
Aha,. but HST's Do carry post in the Loco 'luggage' space.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Tessy
2004-01-03 00:33:23 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Tessy
Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND
do not carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
Aha,. but HST's Do carry post in the Loco 'luggage' space.
Version 1.05 follows:

Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do not
PREDOMINANTLY carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Spyke
2004-01-03 00:52:52 UTC
Post by Tessy
Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do not
PREDOMINANTLY carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
Okay, what about trains in places such as India then, where bits of the
loco are regularly used to seat passengers? :-).
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.
Tessy
2004-01-03 00:57:26 UTC
Post by Spyke
Post by Tessy
Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do not
PREDOMINANTLY carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
Okay, what about trains in places such as India then, where bits of the
loco are regularly used to seat passengers? :-).
Do not LEGITIMATELY seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling
stock AND do not predominantly carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Paul Cummins
2004-01-03 01:38:36 UTC
Post by Tessy
Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do not
PREDOMINANTLY carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
But if they are to carry any cargo, then it's post. Nothing else...

Surely anything capable of carrying cargo is not a loco.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Alan Norris
2004-01-03 00:53:20 UTC
Post by Tessy
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:15:39 -0000, "Roger H. Bennett"
Post by Roger H. Bennett
Post by Tessy
Hang on. How about: "do not seat passengers, are capable of hauling
rolling stock, do not carry post, oh yes, and are not a yellow thingy.
Sorry to be awkward again, but weren't the first generation DMUs capable of
hauling at least the odd van?
;-)
Yes they were, but I carefully contrived my definition to exclude things
that can seat passengers. So, even though first generation DMUs are
capable of hauling rolling stock (and indeed, as you stated, regularly did
just that) they have passenger seating capability so fall at the first
hurdle.
Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do not
carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
You see? Simplicity itself. Now, if BR had only contacted me when they
tried to classify HSTs I could have saved them a fortune.
If an HST is claimed by some misguided souls to be a DMU, so would the
Edinburgh-Glasgow push-pull trains of the early 70's be classified as
a DMU.

And by no stretch of the imagination can I consider 2 x27's and 6 Mk
2's a DMU.

Alan


Don't reply to this e-mail address - messages will be deleted unread. To reply to me take away the news and substitute alanc
Tessy
2004-01-03 00:57:54 UTC
Post by Alan Norris
Post by Tessy
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:15:39 -0000, "Roger H. Bennett"
Post by Roger H. Bennett
Post by Tessy
Hang on. How about: "do not seat passengers, are capable of hauling
rolling stock, do not carry post, oh yes, and are not a yellow thingy.
Sorry to be awkward again, but weren't the first generation DMUs capable of
hauling at least the odd van?
;-)
Yes they were, but I carefully contrived my definition to exclude things
that can seat passengers. So, even though first generation DMUs are
capable of hauling rolling stock (and indeed, as you stated, regularly did
just that) they have passenger seating capability so fall at the first
hurdle.
Do not seat passengers AND are capable of hauling rolling stock AND do not
carry post AND are not a yellow thingy.
You see? Simplicity itself. Now, if BR had only contacted me when they
tried to classify HSTs I could have saved them a fortune.
If an HST is claimed by some misguided souls to be a DMU, so would the
Edinburgh-Glasgow push-pull trains of the early 70's be classified as
a DMU.
And by no stretch of the imagination can I consider 2 x27's and 6 Mk
2's a DMU.
And a very sensible chap you are too.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts
Richard
2004-01-03 01:25:14 UTC
Post by Alan Norris
And by no stretch of the imagination can I consider 2 x27's and 6 Mk
2's a DMU.
Why not? It's operated by multiple diesel units!

And you could operate the entire diesel unit in multiple with another!

;o)
David H Wild
2004-01-02 22:06:14 UTC
Post by Tessy
All this talk over what DMU actually means is irrelevant. Everyone
knows that if you've got passengers in the same vehicle as the engine
then it's a DMU, if you haven't it's a power car (or an empty DMU!).
Power cars are locos not DMUs regardless of whether they can couple to
every known piece of rolling stock or none.
If everyone knows this then everyone knows something which is incorrect.

This definition would mean that every electric tramcar that had operated in
the British Isles would be an EMU, despite most of them having no coupling
more sophisticated than the towing hook on the front of most motor cars.

A Voyager **is** a multiple unit because it can operate on its own as a train
and can still form a train when coupled to another similar unit. An HST **is
not** a multiple unit, because they can't be coupled together with a
similar unit to work as a train.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ ***@argonet.co.uk
Paul Cummins
2004-01-03 12:18:55 UTC
Post by David H Wild
An HST **is
not** a multiple unit, because they can't be coupled together with a
similar unit to work as a train.
Apparently they can - in fact an HST is normally coupled to another HST
to make the 'train' look aesthetically pleasing by having the same front
and back.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Matt Wheeler
2004-01-03 12:51:44 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by David H Wild
An HST **is
not** a multiple unit, because they can't be coupled together with a
similar unit to work as a train.
Apparently they can - in fact an HST is normally coupled to another HST
to make the 'train' look aesthetically pleasing by having the same front
and back.
really ?
Only HST's I've seen are typically a loco, 7 or 8 carriages, and
another loco on the back.... not seen any of these double HSTs
about...
Paul Cummins
2004-01-03 15:34:53 UTC
Post by Matt Wheeler
Only HST's I've seen are typically a loco, 7 or 8 carriages
Indeed. a First Class unit coupled to a Standard Class Unit. Both units
are capable of operating independently, and both have their own power at
the 'head.

Put the two together, and you have an 'Intercity 125' Train, with a
power car at each end, working in multiple.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Matt Wheeler
2004-01-03 17:11:03 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Matt Wheeler
Only HST's I've seen are typically a loco, 7 or 8 carriages
Indeed. a First Class unit coupled to a Standard Class Unit. Both units
are capable of operating independently, and both have their own power at
the 'head.
Put the two together, and you have an 'Intercity 125' Train, with a
power car at each end, working in multiple.
er. thats not what I said.
one HST set consists of 2 class 43 locos and 7 or 8 carriages. These
carriages can be mixed and matched to whatever formation of first and
standard they want.

How would you classify the train if it had a 43 at one end and a brake
van at the other ?
Alan Norris
2004-01-03 18:20:55 UTC
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:11:03 -0000, "Matt Wheeler"
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Matt Wheeler
Only HST's I've seen are typically a loco, 7 or 8 carriages
Indeed. a First Class unit coupled to a Standard Class Unit. Both
units
Post by Paul Cummins
are capable of operating independently, and both have their own
power at
Post by Paul Cummins
the 'head.
Put the two together, and you have an 'Intercity 125' Train, with a
power car at each end, working in multiple.
er. thats not what I said.
one HST set consists of 2 class 43 locos and 7 or 8 carriages. These
carriages can be mixed and matched to whatever formation of first and
standard they want.
How would you classify the train if it had a 43 at one end and a brake
van at the other ?
I'd classify it as an underpowered HST that would be barred from
operating over the South Devon banks or the Highland main line north
of Blair Atholl!


Alan


Don't reply to this e-mail address - messages will be deleted unread. To reply to me take away the news and substitute alanc
Paul Cummins
2004-01-03 22:13:57 UTC
Post by Matt Wheeler
How would you classify the train if it had a 43 at one end and a brake
van at the other ?
How would you classify a 101 with a brake van on the tail end?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981

begin Once upon a time there was a badly broken newsreader...
Cast_Iron
2004-01-03 13:01:22 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by David H Wild
An HST **is
not** a multiple unit, because they can't be coupled together with a
similar unit to work as a train.
Apparently they can - in fact an HST is normally coupled to another HST
to make the 'train' look aesthetically pleasing by having the same front
and back.
I stronly suspect that the use of the term "multiple" is being misunderstood
in this context.

It refers to the fact that one driver is controlling more than one set of
equipment, be that electrical control or diesel (or petrol) engine.

The basic system was developed in the US for use on electric trains, first
being used in the UK, IIRC, on the Central London Railway's 1903 stock which
had a passenger carrying motor car at each end and a rake of passenger
vehicles in between.

When the need to operate diesel powered vehicles with more than one engine
the concept was adapated to suit the different traction.
David H Wild
2004-01-03 20:41:00 UTC
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by David H Wild
An HST **is
not** a multiple unit, because they can't be coupled together with a
similar unit to work as a train.
Apparently they can - in fact an HST is normally coupled to another HST
to make the 'train' look aesthetically pleasing by having the same front
and back.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting bandwidth since 1981
You certainly were wasting bandwidth with that one. An HST is two power
cars, one at each end and pointing in opposite directions, separated by
coaches. This set is the unit, and can not, normally, be coupled to
another.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ ***@argonet.co.uk
Alan Norris
2003-12-29 00:12:09 UTC
Post by D7666
My annual xmas period travel takes me on 159s Waterloo - Salisbury -
Exeter. One leg Waterloo to Salisbury this year was 3x159 i.e. 9 cars.
I know this is not unusual, SWT always has had such workings, there
are a few every day, including Sundays.
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Comedians please note by 'long DMU' I am asking about the physical
length of the train, not the length of the service in time or
distance.
Well, up in Scotland the longest at present is I think 6 cars (2x170)

Alan


Don't reply to this e-mail address - messages will be deleted unread. To reply to me take away the news and substitute alanc
"GreenArrow"
2003-12-29 02:13:25 UTC
Post by Alan Norris
Post by D7666
My annual xmas period travel takes me on 159s Waterloo - Salisbury -
Exeter. One leg Waterloo to Salisbury this year was 3x159 i.e. 9 cars.
I know this is not unusual, SWT always has had such workings, there
are a few every day, including Sundays.
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Comedians please note by 'long DMU' I am asking about the physical
length of the train, not the length of the service in time or
distance.
Well, up in Scotland the longest at present is I think 6 cars (2x170)
Alan
Didn't Scotrail run an 8-car football special from Dundee to Glasgow earlier
this year? Something like 2x158 + 2x150?

GreenArrow
Marcus Kerr
2003-12-29 09:38:28 UTC
Post by Alan Norris
Post by D7666
My annual xmas period travel takes me on 159s Waterloo - Salisbury -
Exeter. One leg Waterloo to Salisbury this year was 3x159 i.e. 9 cars.
I know this is not unusual, SWT always has had such workings, there
are a few every day, including Sundays.
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Well, up in Scotland the longest at present is I think 6 cars (2x170)
Alan
There are two early morning ECS workings in Scotland that comprise 4 x
Class 156s from Corkerhill to Glasgow Central, Monday to Friday
The top-end unit then returns to Corkerhill, returnign with a further
3 x Class 156 units, effectively leaving 7 units in the station,
eventually forming 3 sets of 2 units, and 1 single set
All the pairs then work on East Kilbride and Kilmarnock, while the
single set works on Whifflet

In general public passenger service the maximum DMU permitted in
Scotland is currently 4 units, but the longest of the diagrams are for
2 x Class 170s

The maximum operational length permitted is up to 5 units
J Houston
2003-12-29 11:59:07 UTC
Post by Marcus Kerr
There are two early morning ECS workings in Scotland that comprise 4 x
Class 156s from Corkerhill to Glasgow Central, Monday to Friday
The top-end unit then returns to Corkerhill, returnign with a further
3 x Class 156 units, effectively leaving 7 units in the station,
eventually forming 3 sets of 2 units, and 1 single set
All the pairs then work on East Kilbride and Kilmarnock, while the
single set works on Whifflet
In general public passenger service the maximum DMU permitted in
Scotland is currently 4 units, but the longest of the diagrams are for
2 x Class 170s
Also, earlier this year I was on a Glasgow QS to Edinburgh train
which was made up of 3 x Class 158's.



James H
David Hansen
2003-12-29 12:24:53 UTC
On 29 Dec 2003 01:38:28 -0800 someone who may be
Post by Marcus Kerr
There are two early morning ECS workings in Scotland that comprise 4 x
Class 156s from Corkerhill to Glasgow Central, Monday to Friday
One can see empty trains of similar length between Waverley station
and Haymarket depot. They are formed of any variety of modern DMU in
any order.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Marcus Kerr
2003-12-29 23:14:17 UTC
Marcus Kerr wrote this:-
Post by David Hansen
Post by Marcus Kerr
There are two early morning ECS workings in Scotland that comprise 4 x
Class 156s from Corkerhill to Glasgow Central, Monday to Friday
One can see empty trains of similar length between Waverley station
and Haymarket depot. They are formed of any variety of modern DMU in
any order.
Its a few months now since I've observed overnight ECS working between
Edinburgh and HA, but a similar process applies except that there are
no return ECS workings as the staff travel between Edinburgh and HA by
taxi
There is also a restriction on operational train length entering the
depot, which used to be 4 x 2-car units, but this has been relaxed to
a total of 9-cars now to allow up 3 x Class 170 units to access the
depot
roger.marks
2003-12-29 00:26:54 UTC
Post by D7666
My annual xmas period travel takes me on 159s Waterloo - Salisbury -
Exeter. One leg Waterloo to Salisbury this year was 3x159 i.e. 9 cars.
I know this is not unusual, SWT always has had such workings, there
are a few every day, including Sundays.
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Comedians please note by 'long DMU' I am asking about the physical
length of the train, not the length of the service in time or
distance.
I don't know about passenger workings but there used to be a daily 12 car
165 empty stock working between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury in the
evenings. 12 cars by the way is the maximum train length for 165s and 168s.
Jon Porter
2003-12-29 02:52:14 UTC
Post by roger.marks
Post by D7666
My annual xmas period travel takes me on 159s Waterloo - Salisbury -
Exeter. One leg Waterloo to Salisbury this year was 3x159 i.e. 9 cars.
I know this is not unusual, SWT always has had such workings, there
are a few every day, including Sundays.
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Comedians please note by 'long DMU' I am asking about the physical
length of the train, not the length of the service in time or
distance.
I don't know about passenger workings but there used to be a daily 12 car
165 empty stock working between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury in the
evenings. 12 cars by the way is the maximum train length for 165s and 168s.
I saw a 20 vehicle working on Friday 19th December, only about 100
passengers on board. Caused quite a stir among the few hardy platform enders
who saw it. But having just seen the third paragraph it won't count!
gwr4090
2003-12-29 22:55:04 UTC
Post by Jon Porter
Post by D7666
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU
trains in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180
220 221 trains that is ?
I saw a 20 vehicle working on Friday 19th December, only about 100
passengers on board. Caused quite a stir among the few hardy platform
enders who saw it. But having just seen the third paragraph it won't
count!
4 x Class 180 or 4 x Class 221 ?

David
Jon Porter
2003-12-30 00:26:39 UTC
Post by gwr4090
Post by Jon Porter
Post by D7666
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU
trains in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180
220 221 trains that is ?
I saw a 20 vehicle working on Friday 19th December, only about 100
passengers on board. Caused quite a stir among the few hardy platform
enders who saw it. But having just seen the third paragraph it won't
count!
4 x Class 180 or 4 x Class 221 ?
David
Two HST's coupled together. Well it was the Friday before Christmas and
services were busy.....
Nathan
2003-12-29 11:14:00 UTC
Post by D7666
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
I saw many a 09:51 ?[1] train from Leicester to Lincoln formed of 7-9
coaches (most I saw was a 3 car 170, a 2 car 170, a 2 car 158 and a 156) but
the norm was 153, 156 and then 2 either 158 or 170's, although I saw 150's
occasionally, and I remeber seeing a long formation on this train everytime
I waited for the 10:07 ? to Brum... was always interesting to see.
--
Nathan

[1] Sorry for the sketchy times, I haven't travelled from Leicester for a
good few months
Tom Cumming
2003-12-29 12:51:17 UTC
I would suggest 2 5-car voyagers, but strictly speaking they're
DEMUs, and working in multiple is not particularly regular for them.
Graeme Wall
2003-12-29 20:09:22 UTC
Post by Tom Cumming
I would suggest 2 5-car voyagers, but strictly speaking they're
DEMUs, and working in multiple is not particularly regular for them.
I'm sure multiple sets work through Southampton regularly, but possibly 4 car
units
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
gwr4090
2003-12-30 20:55:34 UTC
Post by Tom Cumming
I would suggest 2 5-car voyagers, but strictly speaking they're
DEMUs, and working in multiple is not particularly regular for them.
Pairs of 5 car Adelante dmus are regularly diagrammed on peak services I
believe.

David
MIG
2003-12-29 16:19:28 UTC
I'm pretty sure Anglia Railways has regular 9-coach DMU trains made of
170s on the London to Ipswich and Norwich route (some bits then able
to break off and provide a direct service to the branch lines).
Nick Lawford
2003-12-29 21:16:10 UTC
Post by D7666
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Ty for responses.

Reading all of them so far, it seems 8 or 9 cars of 3x3 or 4x2 or
similar is a sort of 'maximum permitted' for passengers which I suppose
is pretty obviously platform length related.

--
Nick
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"GreenArrow"
2003-12-30 01:12:48 UTC
Post by Nick Lawford
Post by D7666
My question is, from are these the longest *regular* booked DMU trains
in *current* UK rail operations, apart from any FGW VXC 180 220 221
trains that is ?
Ty for responses.
Reading all of them so far, it seems 8 or 9 cars of 3x3 or 4x2 or
similar is a sort of 'maximum permitted' for passengers which I suppose
is pretty obviously platform length related.
--
Nick
ISTR an 11-car mixed set running ECS northbound on the ECML passing the
Sidings Hotel at York in the early evening when I stayed there a few years
ago. IIRC the formation was 2x142 + 3-car 158 + 2-car 158 + 2x153.

I suspect this would have been a York (or Neville Hill?) to Heaton ECS move?
Also it may only have had one 142 on the front so may only have been a
9-car. Bet the driver wasn't chuffed at the 142 being on the front!

HTH

GreenArrow