Well being a "new innovation" is not some Get Out Of Jail card. You don't come up with something new, and incompatible, unless it's better than what went before.
I don't understand precisely what you mean by
"get out of jail free card" in this context.
In a lot of respect, auto-couplers are better than what went before. They speed up and simplify the process and coupling and uncoupling and remove the need for a shunter to go between the units, thereby improving safety. As for issues with compatibility, I'm unsure how else you would introduce a new standard, whether that be power operated doors, improved power and control systems or whatever, without also introducing a degree of incompatibility between fleets while it is rolled out.
Auto coupling wasn't something novel - the Scharfenburg has been around since 1903.
Yes I know. I wasn't saying that the Cl508s were the first trains to use auto-couplers, but rather that it was an innovation for the Southern where they were first introduced.
The Tightlock variant on the Buckeye principally seems to avoid having to pay to use the Scharfenburg patents.
If that had been your point then I would have accepted it. That said, wouldn't BR also have had to pay for the use of the Tightlock given that it was an American design (it's a Janney Type H, after all)?
I have no idea whether or not licencing would have been required. My own impression is that they would have just ordered the relevant number of units from whichever company was making these products at the time. Without knowing how much these contracts would have cost in the late 1970s it is hard to say whether or not the selection of Tightlocks over Scharfenburgs was a result of penny-pinching or whether there were genuine engineering reasons.
We still have all the hoo-hah of a "pull test" and such like that just didn't seem necessary before, and passengers being kept inside or outside of trains until the procedure is completed.
No better way to find out if you've got a firm grip on the other unit than doing a pull test. I've no doubt it's spared a few drivers blushes down the years. As for having to wait while the operation is completed, this is a consequence of having power doors not auto-couplers. You simply can't move a train with it's doors open.
And yes, we can come up with as many excuses for all the Kentish Town stupidities as we like, the fact is that all together they show what an amateurish, costs-minimised shower the whole operation had become.
No excuses were contained. The information came direct from the RAIB report and leavened with some practical experience to help illuminate the details it contains. I was merely trying to correct the inference that you were attempting to draw; that the delay to the assisting unit was in some way caused by it having auto-couplers. I have previously pointed out that the RAIB does not mention coupling, couplers or coupling adapters within it's findings or recommendations. Neither, for that matter, does it seem to highlight penny-pinching.
I agree that FCC's operational procedures were rightly criticised. Their incident recovery process and communication really were not up to snuff on that day, and the RAIB were right to highlight these issues. However, what this incident does not do is provide any evidence to support your hypothesis.
The 508s that came initially to Waterloo were a BR standard design, with nice new auto couplers. These just never worked reliably, not only on curves but at all. They were an absolute chaos for any service needing coupling in service, and after some considerable words at 222 Marylebone Road they were hiked off to Merseyside, and the 455s ordered as replacements. The Southern did keep the trailers, of course.
Sorry to go back to this, but have you a source for this? I've been trying to find any mention of these troubles but have drawn a blank so far. The only issues that I can find reference for was the usual PEP problem with leaf fall which afflicted other variants of this design due to the braking rates being set so high.
Incidentally, on an historical note, the Cl508s were always intended to be a temporary allocation. The 4SUBs had to be replaced with something so that their traction equipment could be recovered for use in the Cl455s meaning that there had to be something to bridge the gap while this was being done.
