I heard a story that the Gloucester car was in works for asbestos removal and the procedure cost so much that it was decided not to do any others. An alternative take was that it was sent for overhaul in error, the decision having already been made to withdraw the class. Then, after work was completed, it was paired with a spare Cravens car. I’ve no idea if either version has any bearing in reality. Perhaps someone can clarify?53355 and 53812. The set was a regular on the Stalybridge-Stockport shuttle, and I travelled on it many times.
Class 100 DMU at Manchester Victoria
The history of Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs / railcars) in Britain.www.railcar.co.uk
It's because some carriages had been through works for repaint and some hadn't. Formations weren't fixed for most loco-hauled stock back then. Whilst the HSTs were (usually) fixed formations where sets went to works all at the same time (but which didn't stop some becoming mixed livery), fixed formations for coaching stock didn't really come in until 1990/91 when InterCity made a concerted effort to make formations permanent as far as possible, as it allowed maintenance to be coordinated, cut down on shunting coaches in/out of sets and reduced the pool of spare vehicles required.On the subject of formations, back in the 70s/80s under British Rail, why did odd formations occur like the one in the example below:
37429_Machynlleth_15_08_87
37 429 'Eisteddfod Genediaethol' arrives at Machynlleth hauling 1A44, the summer SO 0800 Pwllheli - London Euston on Saturday 15th August 1987. Built by English Electric at the Vulcan Foundry, Newton-le-Willows, it entered service as D6600 on 26th August 1965 and became 37 300 under TOPS in...flic.kr
Not my photo. Credit to Chris Beardsmore on Flickr
Is there any reason why trains were formed with mis-matched liveried carriages back in the olden days? I've seen loads of photos and videos with similar trains where the carriages don't match up and often wondered the reason(s) why.
Aside from making me feel old with the "olden days" comment the reason was essentially that loco-hauled coaches were largely treated as single vehicles, with sets made up of required vehicle types rather than fixed formations. Sectorisation meant coaches started appearing in sector liveries, but whole rakes took time to appear.On the subject of formations, back in the 70s/80s under British Rail, why did odd formations occur like the one in the example below:
37429_Machynlleth_15_08_87
37 429 'Eisteddfod Genediaethol' arrives at Machynlleth hauling 1A44, the summer SO 0800 Pwllheli - London Euston on Saturday 15th August 1987. Built by English Electric at the Vulcan Foundry, Newton-le-Willows, it entered service as D6600 on 26th August 1965 and became 37 300 under TOPS in...flic.kr
Not my photo. Credit to Chris Beardsmore on Flickr
Is there any reason why trains were formed with mis-matched liveried carriages back in the olden days? I've seen loads of photos and videos with similar trains where the carriages don't match up and often wondered the reason(s) why.
Then you had in the late 1980s when the 442s were being constructed using traction equipment from the 4-REPs formations there were some reformations including this a 5-TC (a 4-TC plus 4-REP restaurant car) with 2 x 73s for the motive power.
If my memory serves me correct ( it often doesn’t) i believe it was due to terrorist bomb damage.
Unit | Formation | To Service | Withdrawn | Date recorded | Place recorded | Recorded notes | ||
150 141 | 52141 | 57141 | 02/86 | mm/88 | 27.05.1986 | Crewe | ||
150 141 | 52141 | 57253 | 57141 | mm/88 | mm/89 | All cars recorded previously | ||
150 141 | 52141 | 52205 | 57141 | mm/89 | 02/91 | 26.03.1990 | Birmingham New St | 3-Car with 52205 |
150 141 | 52141 | 57141 | 02/91 | mm/91 | 23.02.1991 | Manchester Piccadilly | 2-Car | |
150 141 | 52141 | 57220 | 57141 | mm/91 | mm/91 | 18.09.1991 | Manchester Piccadilly | 3-Car with 57220 in centre |
150 141 | 52141 | 57218 | 57141 | mm/91 | mm/92 | 16.11.1991 | Manchester Piccadilly | 3-Car with 57218 in centre |
150 141 | 52141 | 52249 | 57141 | mm/92 | mm/92 | 01.04.1992 | Manchester Piccadilly | 3-Car with 52249 in centre |
150 141 | 52141 | 57141 | mm/92 | mm/93 | 27.06.1992 | Manchester Piccadilly | 2-Car | |
150 141 | 52141 | 52225 | 57141 | mm/93 | mm/94 | All cars recorded previously | ||
150 141 | 52141 | 57141 | mm/94 | 15.04.1995 | Manchester Piccadilly | 2-Car |
I thought they were broadly replaced by 119s and later some 101s before the Turbos?Has anyone mentioned the Tadpole units on Tonbridge - Reading services? These were an EPB driving trailer and a Hastings driving motor and and trailer. The Hastings units were of a narrower profile than the EPB giving the nickname They were designated 3R or Cl 206.
Replaced with 165/166 from Thames trains.
Not 100% sure if this is what your looking for but I saw a 7 car 150/158 combo today (didn't catch the numbers sorry)
....with the exception of the Southern Region, whose Mark 1 (and pre-nationalisation) vehicles were usually made up into semi-permanent three or eight car sets - with the exception of loose vehicles (mainly BSKs), which were mainly used for the limited passenger accommodation on the early morning newspaper services from London. IIRC, the last use of three car sets (TSO-BSK-SO) was on the peak hour Reading-Redhill services into the mid/late 'seventies, whereas the eight car sets lasted into the late 'eighties on the peak hour London Bridge-East Grinstead/Uckfield services (predominantly 90mph vehicles) and Waterloo-Weymouth Quay Channel Islands boat trains, plus the Saturdays-only Brighton-Exeter train (predominantly 100mph vehicles).Aside from making me feel old with the "olden days" comment the reason was essentially that loco-hauled coaches were largely treated as single vehicles, with sets made up of required vehicle types rather than fixed formations.
Yes they did. That set was the last containing both class types in passenger service and it nearly got preserved being asbestos stripped, but was vandalised before the NRM could find some space for it.Didn't Newton Heath have a class 100/105 set?
Appears on the cover of The Power of the 31s- was mystified by that for yearsAccording to Wikipedia:
Unit 302 244 was involved in an accident in 1972 with a lorry at a level crossing at Low Street railway station in Tilbury, after which it was decided to scrap the leading carriage, BDTC 75292. This was replaced with DTSO 77164, originally belonging to a Manchester-Bury Line Class 504. It remained like this until May 1983 when it acquired a spare BDTC, 75298, from withdrawn unit 302250.
I have always wanted to see that! I have often wondered if the two pacer types could be coupled as a hybrid and whether they would be able to actually operate in service as such.Does this count?
View attachment 102284
As I said, they never worked in service like that so they were probably only mechanically coupled.I have always wanted to see that! I have often wondered if the two pacer types could be coupled as a hybrid and whether they would be able to actually operate in service as such.
In the early 1992, then new class 158s were in the leaf fall season failing to operate track circuits. Neville Hills solution for Transpennine workings was to misform six sets into hybrids with one class 158 vehicle and one class 156 vehicle. These were numbered 158601-603 & 158651-653 and lasted for about three months before being reformed back to the original formations.
Another odd misform was around the same time Network South East reformed around half a dozen class 302s by removing the motor vehicle and replacing it was a class 305 motor vehicle. Making a class 305 EMU that looked at both ends like it was a 302 as it had class 302 driving and trailer vehicles. From memory these were numbered 305594 - 305599 from memory.
I'd heard that somewhere too. If such a hybrid had been required in BR days, I'm sure someone at RTC Derby would have been able to fashion some sort of conversion plate like those used on the hybrid 3-car 158s!I read somewhere that 144s and 143s had different riding heights, not sure if this is true, or to what extent the difference would be, so perhaps they'd be less compatible?