Those of you with "82" in your sigs...

[Aureol]

...I very much doubt that, unless you are older than 21, you have had haulage from a class 82, neither, unless you have been to Barrow Hill, have you cabbed one. The class 82s are AC electric locos which were all withdrawn by 1987 and subsequently scrapped, bar 82008, which was preserved by the AC Locomotive Group at Barrow Hill.
The "class 82s" you are thinking of are the Mark 3 DVTs, which, as the name suggests, are Driving Van Trailers and so do not provide power to the train, thus officially they can't be counted for "haulage" as the power is still being provided by the Class 91 at the rear of the train, neither are they under TOPS as class 82, just simply Mark 3 DVT.

Come on guys, it's not that hard to figure out what's what!

 

[Respite]

I'm 35!:grin:

DVT's as you rightly say are not 82's just coaches numbered in an 82 series.

 

[5872]

I'm 14 and I've never heard of the class, anyone want to explain?.

 

[matt]

Take a look here http://www.aclocogroup.co.uk/index.php?page=stock82008.php

 

[thefab444]

A larger number of people refer to DVTs as Class 82s. Which as you said isn't correct, but seeing as the previous Class 82 is pretty much dead, I doubt it matters.

Definately can't get haulage off one though!

 

[Meld]

To be pedantic they should not even be referred to as class 82/1 and class 82/2 or class 82s. but would should just really be referred to as DVTs as they are coaching stock. No one went around calling SKs class 24/25/26 or BGs class 80/81.

The rolling stock library responsible for issuing vehicle numbers knew what it was doing in those days. Hence the major renumbering of coaching stock in the 80's when it was added to TOPS (only took 20 years to put them on after wagons and locos )

 

[P156KWJ]

meh, I'm not bothered what it says in my sig, you know what it means

 

[Coxster]

Oh look - a Class 40/2!

 

[Meld]

Oh look - a Class 40/2!

no a class 253

 

[Julian G]

the same with class 43s, with "Warships" and HST Power Cars

 

[Meld]

The prototype HST 252001 power cars were 41000/1 and the trailers were numbered in the coaching stock 10xxx 11xxx and 12xxx series. Would have thought the production run would have carried on from 41002 but 43002 was used instead.

 

[metrocammel]

Yes, I agree with Aureol.

I was wondering how 156401 had managed to have any cl82 haulage!!! I, for a second, thought he may be related to Dr. Who!! :P

DVTs are NOT class 82s. It's like saying I've had Class 97 haulage when I was lead by a DBSO on Anglia!!

 

[heart-of-wessex]

I count it as haulage, as much as I count MKII/MKIIIs for haulage (good to know its something required if the powercars/locos are dud).

So as I have had a cab ride on a DVT from Wembley TMD - Eutson, that doesnt count either?

but anyway who cares who calls them 82s or for that matter who counts them for haulage.

There are so many people who say 'oh you cant count it for sight as you didnt see the full number' or some s*** like that, there are no you can/can't do's in my book!


James.

 

[Aureol]

James (wessex person), the definition of "haulage" is that you are pulled, or hauled, by a vehicle. You cannot count a coach or DVT for haulage as they are not providing power for the movement of the train.
Seriously, is it that hard to understand!? :roll:

 

[EE Type 3]

Yes, I agree with Aureol.

I was wondering how 156401 had managed to have any cl82 haulage!!! I, for a second, thought he may be related to Dr. Who!! :P

DVTs are NOT class 82s. It's like saying I've had Class 97 haulage when I was lead by a DBSO on Anglia!!

97s are those new Network Rail things right? So you can have haulage off 97s

 

[Techniquest]

FFS, it's not like he's racking up mileage with DVTs...

I too will mark off what DVT I've had on a move too. It is one reason I hate having DVTs leading, as it makes the move book entry look complicated, an example being:

'82201, in 12408, with 91127 powering, York to London King's Cross (via Hertford North)(2025, 20L)'

I don't do mileage on DVTs you'll be glad to know, but it's just something extra to add to the 'enjoyment' of travelling along the ECML. Otherwise it's just fields, fields, hedges, fields, station, level crossing, field, field...You get the idea. Even Bristol Parkway to Swindon (which James and I find incredibly boring) is more fun than that...

As I say, it's just something extra to do. I couldn't care less which one is on the back when it's loco-leading, but when there's a DVT on the front I'm more interested then.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

Oh sorry Aureol is the world now going to end because I decided to do DVTs for haulage otherwise theres no way of getting them in the book?? oh i didnt realise :roll:

 

[Meld]

The only DVTs that count for haulage were the buffer fitted HSTs that worked on the ECML.

Southbound they were like **** off a shovel. hock:hock:hock:

 

[BlueGrey]

The only DVTs that count for haulage were the buffer fitted HSTs that worked on the ECML.

Southbound they were like **** off a shovel. hock:hock:hock:

Did the HST PC provide power then when it was leading? That would have been quite lively 8)

 

[theblackwatch]

The prototype HST 252001 power cars were 41000/1 and the trailers were numbered in the coaching stock 10xxx 11xxx and 12xxx series. Would have thought the production run would have carried on from 41002 but 43002 was used instead.

The reason they were 43002 upwards was because when the prototype was reclassified from Class 41 locos to Class 252 DEMUs, they were renumbered from their 41xxx loco numbers and given DEMU identities in the 43xxx series (43000 & 43001), with the coaches also being renumbered out of the main Mk 3 series too into the 40xxx, 41xxx and 42xxx identities. I would guess this was because they weren't compatible with conventional stock - ie the power cars could not run with conventional Mk. 1/2/3 coaching stock, and the coaches could not be marshalled in normal trains.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

97s are those new Network Rail things right? So you can have haulage off 97s

Class 97s are departmental locos, such as the refurbished NR 37s (97301-4), the 97s metrocammel is on about are the MkII DBSO vehicles, which for all intents and purposes are passenger carrying versions of a DVT, numbered in the 97xx series.

 

[Meld]

Did the HST PC provide power then when it was leading? That would have been quite lively 8)

Indeed they were and oh yes it was

The reason they were 43002 upwards was because when the prototype was reclassified from Class 41 locos to Class 252 DEMUs, they were renumbered from their 41xxx loco numbers and given DEMU identities in the 43xxx series (43000 & 43001), with the coaches also being renumbered out of the main Mk 3 series too into the 40xxx, 41xxx and 42xxx identities. I would guess this was because they weren't compatible with conventional stock - ie the power cars could not run with conventional Mk. 1/2/3 coaching stock, and the coaches could not be marshalled in normal trains.

So they were still numbered wrongly as DEMUs, the vehicles should have been renumbered in the 60xxx series. ala class 220/221/222 although at the time the only spaces available with sufficient room would have been the 41xxx/42xxx/43xxx series with the SR DEMUs taking up most of the 60xxx series. Catering vehicles though were numbered in the 40xxx series and did conflict with the class 40s for a while, but coaching stock wasnt added on TOPS till after the 40s had been withdrawn.

I always thought that not making the HST trailers identical to LHC Mk3s was a mistake - there would have been more flexibility and there wouldn't have been the need for the long conversion process that had to take place for Grand Central

 

[theblackwatch]

So they were still numbered wrongly as DEMUs, the vehicles should have been renumbered in the 60xxx series. ala class 220/221/222 although at the time the only spaces available with sufficient room would have been the 41xxx/42xxx/43xxx series with the SR DEMUs taking up most of the 60xxx series. Catering vehicles though were numbered in the 40xxx series and did conflict with the class 40s for a while, but coaching stock wasnt added on TOPS till after the 40s had been withdrawn.

They were actually added a few years before the last 40s were takeon out of service. As a result, the TRSB vehicles (40001-37) nad to be renumbered to 40401-37 to avoid conflict.

I always thought that not making the HST trailers identical to LHC Mk3s was a mistake - there would have been more flexibility and there wouldn't have been the need for the long conversion process that had to take place for Grand Central

That's something I've always thought. There was surely some reason for this, would be interested to hear if someone knows why.

 

[Techniquest]

Definately a reason for it, although what it was exactly I am not sure. Something to do with the supply from the power cars springs to mind, but I forget exactly what the reason is.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

My thoughts would be that as the HSTs were designed as a stop-gap fixed-formation train, they could live with buckeyes and no buffers, as there was no need to think beyond the introduction of the APTs, which as we all know didn't really happen. It would have been to costly at that stage to change them just in case they were used in a traditional stock train.

The loco hauled coaches needed to have buffers though as they would not be fixed formation and as the locos of the time didn't have buckeyes, a more tradition coupling needed to be fitted, but buckeyes where a prefered system between coaches so dropheads were fitted.

I know that the HSTs used different electrical systems too, but have no idea why the roof top equipment is different.

 

[metrocammel]

Oh sorry Aureol is the world now going to end because I decided to do DVTs for haulage otherwise theres no way of getting them in the book?? oh i didnt realise :roll:

Yes, but by defintion it's NOT haulage. Yes, you can scratch it off your list that you've travelled on a train that has been propelled by DVT 82101, but unless they have suddenly been fitted with battery-powered motors, theres no way it could have hauled you!!

Of note, DVTs are found in the coaching stock platform 5 book, not the locomotives book, so by that defintion also, they should be couted as coaches- which you can't have haulage in :P

 

[P156KWJ]

Yes, but by defintion it's NOT haulage. Yes, you can scratch it off your list that you've travelled on a train that has been propelled by DVT 82101, but unless they have suddenly been fitted with battery-powered motors, theres no way it could have hauled you!!

Of note, DVTs are found in the coaching stock platform 5 book, not the locomotives book, so by that defintion also, they should be couted as coaches- which you can't have haulage in :P

technically yes, as the NXEC ones are labelled as Coach K IIRC.

 

[EE Type 3]

Did the HST PC provide power then when it was leading? That would have been quite lively 8)

A 43 and a 91 both powering, that would be quick!

 

[Techniquest]

Indeed so, some of the fastest times set on the ECML with the RPS were with a 91 and SDVT. Over 8,000hp IIRC. Would have been bloody awesome!

 

[heart-of-wessex]

well i coont coaches and DVTs as bashed or whatever so thats my way of doing it so forget about it and dont get nightmares over it, no replies to this post here please, end of this case.