Third rail and battery would make them candidates for Uckfield and Ashford Hastings if they had the range
I also wonder if there will be a problem with clearances ? 350s are a little over 10 cm wider than than the 171s.
I suppose its like the V1 (455,317,150, etc) and the V2 (319,321, etc) Mk3 Suburban units. The 701s, 730s are just an improved version with more passenger space.I believe the class 701 cab is shorter than the earlier Aventras. On the earlier trains the cab door is behind the driver's seat. On the class 701 and, I presume, the class 730, the door is more adjacent to the seat.
I suppose its like the V1 (455,317,150, etc) and the V2 (319,321, etc) Mk3 Suburban units. The 701s, 730s are just an improved version with more passenger space.
Didn't some old 455s have swing cab doors, or am I making that up?I suppose its like the V1 (455,317,150, etc) and the V2 (319,321, etc) Mk3 Suburban units. The 701s, 730s are just an improved version with more passenger space.
Didn't some old 455s have swing cab doors, or am I making that up?
The 701 has a shorter cab - the 730 doesn't (I think).
It would be incredibly surprising (different generation, manufacturer, etc) if they couldI would almost guarantee you they will not work in multiple with 350s.
they probably could work together but wouldn't talk to eachother ie the newer 377s and the older 377s on Southern
I would almost guarantee you they will not work in multiple with 350s.
I have been told that the 730's types are not compatible in class. That is to say the 3 cars can't couple to a 5 car. This info is 6 months old but at the time I heard it was said that if a 3 set failed at Coventry for example then they have to remember a 5 car can't rescue it. Absolutely can't get my head round it tbh and I am sure common sense will prevail although I can only assume it was an internal windup.The fact that some of the new units will be 2+2 seating and some 2+3 implies that they will not be confined to one route.
Bearing in mind the complicated joining and splitting diagrammed pre Covid (e.g., 8 or 12 cars EUS-NMP, front 4 cars forward, rear 4/8 returning to EUS) and the way that platform occupancy is reduce at Euston by, for example, an inward Tring returning as an outward long-distance service, it would seem to be a major complication if 730s can't multiple with 350s. Does anyone know if they can? It would obviously add complexities in train lengths as well.
History tells us that difficulty was encountered in keeping the (then) 100 mph 350/2s with suburban seating, and 110 mph 350/1s and /3s on their respective circuits .
I've long thought that they should really be two separate classes (730's and 731's maybe) because there are countless examples of different fleets being classed separately for a lot fewer differences than there are between these two fleets.I have been told that the 730's types are not compatible in class. That is to say the 3 cars can't couple to a 5 car. This info is 6 months old but at the time I heard it was said that if a 3 set failed at Coventry for example then they have to remember a 5 car can't rescue it. Absolutely can't get my head round it tbh and I am sure common sense will prevail although I can only assume it was an internal windup.
Pardon my ignorance but how is it that, for example, pacers can work with 150's and 153's work with 158's etc etc, but modern classes cannot do this?That's what I thought. 2 segregated and incompatible fleets on an intensive and inter-worked network, what can possibly go wrong...
That's what I thought. 2 segregated and incompatible fleets on an intensive and inter-worked network, what can possibly go wrong...
I have been told that the 730's types are not compatible in class. That is to say the 3 cars can't couple to a 5 car. This info is 6 months old but at the time I heard it was said that if a 3 set failed at Coventry for example then they have to remember a 5 car can't rescue it. Absolutely can't get my head round it tbh and I am sure common sense will prevail although I can only assume it was an internal windup.
Pardon my ignorance but how is it that, for example, pacers can work with 150's and 153's work with 158's etc etc, but modern classes cannot do this?
This is what I think. There's no need for a large uniform fleet making loads of half-life units go to waste if you can specify interoperability and if you diagram things correctly.Other busy TOCs manage to follow their planned unit diagrams (even the stalwart butt of diagramming jokes at Northern), so I don't see why LNR should be an exception, or are their network and operations significantly more complex than most?
Running everything on proprietary software rather than agnostic relays, especially when you don't specify a need for interoperability. BR era DMU interoperability was specifically requested (which is why 170s could also work with them if needed) but that's not something that TOCs are requiring (although it'd no doubt be beneficial)
The more software thats involved the harder it gets....This is what I think. There's no need for a large uniform fleet making loads of half-life units go to waste if you can specify interoperability and if you diagram things correctly.
could we see a wmr 730 ever drop on a tring-euston stopper? albeit very late but could it happen if LNWR have done something stupid...
Yes but to be fair, 350s and 323s aren’t the same class. 730/1 and 730/0 areVery, very much doubt it. 350s presently work around Brum, but Brum-based stock never goes south.
As I said though, they shouldn't be. The 465's and 466's (separate classes) have far more in common than these two subclasses. There isn't even a consensus on whether they can operate in multiple together or not. It's probably best to imagine them as separate classes for all intents and purposes.Yes but to be fair, 350s and 323s aren’t the same class. 730/1 and 730/0 are
Yes but to be fair, 350s and 323s aren’t the same class. 730/1 and 730/0 are
But then the BREL and GEC-Alsthom 465s are very different to each other, but still classed as 465s!As I said though, they shouldn't be. The 465's and 466's (separate classes) have far more in common than these two subclasses. There isn't even a consensus on whether they can operate in multiple together or not. It's probably best to imagine them as separate classes for all intents and purposes.