3 car 156s

[Aictos]

While looking at photos both past and present of the railway, I encountered two taken of 156458 as a three car, does anyone have any more details on why or how it was done?

Image 1
Image 2

 

[theblackwatch]

They were formed by splitting a number of units and using the vehicles to add to other sets - as well as the Far North, other 3-car sets ran on the S&C for a while. There is a more detailed history at http://members.madasafish.com/~dysgraphyk/156/class156_misformed.htm

 

[Aictos]

They were formed by splitting a number of units and using the vehicles to add to other sets - as well as the Far North, other 3-car sets ran on the S&C for a while. There is a more detailed history at http://members.madasafish.com/~dysgraphyk/156/class156_misformed.htm

Ah I see, thanks for that - it just got me thinking that when the order for the 156s got placed just maybe they should have been ordered as both 2 and 3 car sets.

 

[142094]

A 3 car 156 style train would be ideal for some routes these days. IMO 156s are better than 185s in terms of comfort and ride, although a newer design of 156s would be needed.

 

[CarterUSM]

A 3 car 156 style train would be ideal for some routes these days. IMO 156s are better than 185s in terms of comfort and ride, although a newer design of 156s would be needed.

Spot on, excellent units and great workhorses, i work them nearly all the time. Very few instances of a failure with them nowadays, from personal experience of course. Three cars would be a good idea on some routes, i'm surprised they never built any at the time.

 

[142094]

I think I've only been on two that have have either failed or had a problem, one was coming back from Carlisle and the motor in one of the carriages wouldn't work properly. Still got back to Newcastle just about on time. Plus the journey Glasgow - Mallaig on a 156 was excellent.

 

[route:oxford]

Ah I see, thanks for that - it just got me thinking that when the order for the 156s got placed just maybe they should have been ordered as both 2 and 3 car sets.

Hindsight is always a useful tool. Three car sets (with two lavatories) would have been helpful on the Oban/Fort William route.

Actually, thinking down those lines...

156s Should really have been ordered as

Standard 2 car sets. (No change to original 100+20+14 order).

Then...

Strengthened 3 car sets, DMSL-MS-DMSL. (50 sets)
Enhanced 4 car sets, DMSL-MS-MSmB-DMFL. (50 sets)

So for example on the West Highland line the 3 car set would split off at Crianlarich and go off to Oban and the remaining 4 car set would go off to Fort William/Mallaig.

Enhance these two types from 75mph to 90mph and add air-con and they could have been the "princess" of Inter-City Cross Country back in the 80s. You'd have a 3 car set starting at Aberdeen, joining the 4 car set from Inverness at Perth, making its way via Stirling*, Edinburgh, York & Birmingham then down to Reading, splitting again with a portion for Southampton and the other for Brighton.

All with the benefit of hindsight.

*Perhaps easier to join at Stirling

 

[rail-britain]

When I worked in Aberdeen the three car Class 156s between Inverness and Aberdeen were just being introduced
The disadvantage was that the two vehicles removed from the split set were slightly different; one with a parcel / storage area, the other with a toilet

156458 was one such set that had one of these additional vehicles added
From memory this is one of the sets that ended up at Aberdeen, having the additional vehicle removed which then had to run to Inverness to meet up with the other half!
The 156 then went into service the following morning displacing 47/7s on Glasgow - Aberdeen duties

 

[LE Greys]

AFAIK, the Class 210 DEMUs were intended to be 4-car and 3-car units for 90mph operation, basically the same remit that the 158 eventually fulfilled. The various Sprinters were cut-price versions of the same thing. Still, it cannot really be too difficult to couple a 153 to a 156 on a semi-permanent basis to create a 3-car Super Sprinter formation. Even sticking it in the middle must be possible.

I also remember a 3-car 150 on Wales & West for a while, possibly when one half of a unit had accident damage (not sure which one).

 

[A60K]

Most DMUs are fairly flexible in how they can be formed up into units or trains - both first and second generation stock has run with different classes of vehicle formed up into one hybrid unit. EMUs can be a bit trickier, because of the location of the electrical equipment on different coaches.

Anyone remember the tadpoles?

 

[rail-britain]

Still, it cannot really be too difficult to couple a 153 to a 156 on a semi-permanent basis to create a 3-car Super Sprinter formation

That's too logical and simple!
All too often I see Class 153 units coupled up with a Class 170 rather than a Class 156, but it really depends on what units were at the depot at the time!

I do agree though, the Class 153 makes a great strengthening unit to provide a 3 car unit, where a 4 car unit is too much
Typical though I suspect the wrong TOCs have the 153s!

 

[tbtc]

That's too logical and simple!
All too often I see Class 153 units coupled up with a Class 170 rather than a Class 156, but it really depends on what units were at the depot at the time!

I do agree though, the Class 153 makes a great strengthening unit to provide a 3 car unit, where a 4 car unit is too much
Typical though I suspect the wrong TOCs have the 153s!

True

I'm all for making three car units out of 150* / 156 / 158s. Since these units have the flexibility of corridor connections (unlike Pacers/ 170s etc). As we get cascaded units (due to 172s etc) we should be taking this opportunity to expand existing trains to three car units to provide an enhanced capacity on a number of services (rather than having some two car and some four car), since one diagram might work on the morning peak service, but not be well placed in the evening peak)

Coupling 153/158s to 170s is a waste though


(* - not all 150s do, yeah, I know)

 

[rail-britain]

As we get cascaded units we should be taking this opportunity to expand existing trains to three car units

There are issues over three car units, over running two / four car units
If a two car unit fails then it can simply be dumped at some point, the remaining unit can then remain in service for the remainder of the day
This cannot happen with a three car set, although obviously with a 153 if it fails it can be dumped, but should the two car unit of those fail then replacing the service with just the 153 is not ideal
It is for those reasons many TOCs simply use the 153 to strengthen anything they have rather than create three car sets
Hence why ScotRail has never wanted any 153s, although they would be useful

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Anyone remember the tadpoles?

Yes - I remember those; two narrow Hastings DEMU cars ( one driving and one trailer ) with a standard width 2 EPB driving trailer attached. Numbered 1201 to 1206. Disbanded when the Hastings fleet needed to be boosted a bit.

 

[Kneedown]

Spot on, excellent units and great workhorses, i work them nearly all the time. Very few instances of a failure with them nowadays, from personal experience of course.

I wish they'd put a vigilance on em though. On some units it's such a fine line between pedal depressed and not, you can drop the DSD as soft as anything!
Failed with one a few weeks back. Little kiddywink pulled passcom in the toilet and it wouldn't reset. EBS job and everybody off at next station. Someone was popular that morning!

 

[jamesontheroad]

What are the expected operational lifespans of the 156 and 158 fleets?

At what point will we need to think about a replacement, and which manufacturer or product line might be best suited to build them?

 

[jopsuk]

AFAIK, the Class 210 DEMUs were intended to be 4-car and 3-car units for 90mph operation, basically the same remit that the 158 eventually fulfilled.

Really? The 210s had the same carriage layout as 150s/317s etc- 20m Mk3 with 1/3-2/3 double leaf sliding doors. Wikipedia makes claim that they were intended for the Southern region, to replace classes 201-207- which were instead eventually replaced either by 3rd rail units when hastings was electrified, by 171s or 165s.

 

[O L Leigh]

The Cl210's were basically intended as outer suburban units with high-backed 3+2 seating. They were basically a diesel version of the Cl317 EMU and would have seen similar usage on non-electrified routes such as the GWML. I don't recall any intention to use them as cross-country units on longer routes. However there was some talk of them finding their way onto the BedPan route where they could work in multiple with the Cl317's as far as the end of the wires at Bedford and then continue on towards Kettering alone. I expect that they might have found some use away from the suburbs of London too.

O L Leigh

 

[CarterUSM]

I wish they'd put a vigilance on em though. On some units it's such a fine line between pedal depressed and not, you can drop the DSD as soft as anything!
Failed with one a few weeks back. Little kiddywink pulled passcom in the toilet and it wouldn't reset. EBS job and everybody off at next station. Someone was popular that morning!

I've heard that from a few drivers regarding vigilance! Are your units fitted with dsd isolation yet? ScotRails have for a while now. Funny how it is nearly always the passcom in the toilet that gets pulled! !

 

[rail-britain]

What are the expected operational lifespans of the 156 and 158 fleets?

A DMU has an anticipated lifespan of 35 to 40 years
Replacements would be ordered once the reliabilty falls below 75% and vehicles are having to be withdrawn for spares, faults, etc

 

[tbtc]

there was some talk of them finding their way onto the BedPan route where they could work in multiple with the Cl317's as far as the end of the wires at Bedford and then continue on towards Kettering alone

That would be a very good idea.

Is there a limit to the length of additional (diesel) coaches an EMU can haul? Obviously platform lengths would be an issue, but what about the electronics?

Why don't we do this on more lines? Stick a Lincoln - Peterborough 153 onto the FCC Peterborough - London service? Replace the Corby Meridian with a DMU tagged onto the Bedford FCC service? Tag a Pacer/ Sprinter onto the Leeds - Skipton service as a way of providing services to Settle/ Lancaster etc.

 

[MCR247]

That would be a very good idea.

Is there a limit to the length of additional (diesel) coaches an EMU can haul? Obviously platform lengths would be an issue, but what about the electronics?

Why don't we do this on more lines? Stick a Lincoln - Peterborough 153 onto the FCC Peterborough - London service? Replace the Corby Meridian with a DMU tagged onto the Bedford FCC service? Tag a Pacer/ Sprinter onto the Leeds - Skipton service as a way of providing services to Settle/ Lancaster etc.

I don't think it would work now. But it would of worked with 317s and 210s because they are basically the same, but a 153 probably couldn't couple to a 365 etc

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't think it would work now. But it would of worked with 317s and 210s because they are basically the same, but a 153 probably couldn't couple to a 365 etc

Yep, one of the main factors stopping this is that the DMUs and EMUs have different couplers. The only DMU I can think of that could potentially work with an EMU is the class 171s ability to work with a 377, as they both have Dellner couplers. Plus, once you add the deadweight of a dragged diesel unit onto an EMU service, you start to increase acceleration times and slow down journey times. If it were possible to have a compatible EMU that could provide electric power to the traction motors of the DMU, then that could be quite clever.

 

[route:oxford]

Funny how it is nearly always the passcom in the toilet that gets pulled! !

I often wonder what the need is for an emergency "pull" in the lavatory - it's not as if you're going to be in a position to view any lineside or passenger emergencies.

A "summon assistance" pull is certainly appropriate though... Automatically open the door, activate exterior CCTV within range of door and make an announcement to the local carriage "passenger emergency in lavatory, please give help!"*

*No doubt there'll be a few ashamed people caught with their knickers down, but that's a small price to pay for their carelessness.

 

[tbtc]

Yep, one of the main factors stopping this is that the DMUs and EMUs have different couplers. The only DMU I can think of that could potentially work with an EMU is the class 171s ability to work with a 377, as they both have Dellner couplers. Plus, once you add the deadweight of a dragged diesel unit onto an EMU service, you start to increase acceleration times and slow down journey times. If it were possible to have a compatible EMU that could provide electric power to the traction motors of the DMU, then that could be quite clever.

Cheers for the answers guys.

Is there any reason for why different couplers evolved? Like was so much easier in Hornby days when everything had the same couplers!

 

[sprinterguy]

Cheers for the answers guys.

Is there any reason for why different couplers evolved? Like was so much easier in Hornby days when everything had the same couplers!

Different designs of couplers have been attached to different eras of multiple unit designs, so that they are (usually) compatible with each other but not with other eras of unit. As time has gone by, multiple units have become more technologically advanced, with more complex software systems and improved electrical systems, so in order for trains to communicate with each other and for the systems to be controlled, more advanced coupler designs have had to be designed.
Also, different train manufacturers use different types of coupler and different varieties of on-train software, so designs operated by the same TOC built by different manufacturers also have different couplers.

 

[MCR247]

Cheers for the answers guys.

Is there any reason for why different couplers evolved? Like was so much easier in Hornby days when everything had the same couplers!

Well the thing is, the electrics may not work as well. One example is 220s and 222s have the same couplers, but they can't work in multiple while both service