TRIVIA: Trains With Non-Standard Modifications

[Spartacus]

Could count the Class 25 ETHELs.

 

[Journeyman]

They're on the RSSB website, document reference GMGN2590. But as I have a copy downloaded....

This is what it says for Classes 205/207:
View attachment 93052

And for the EMUs:
View attachment 93053
Wires 22/23/24/27 were allocated for those purposes on Classes 421-423, but never used, obviously!

Wow, that's fascinating, and I had no idea it was so radically different. The DEMUs also had 7-notch controllers instead of 4-notch ones, which was another compatibility issue.

When unit 1111 (later 205 101 and then 205 205, now resident at the Epping - Ongar Railway) was refurbished, it was fitted with 4-notch controllers and a switch to allow EMU multiple working, but I doubt it was ever used.

 

[hexagon789]

Wow, that's fascinating, and I had no idea it was so radically different. The DEMUs also had 7-notch controllers instead of 4-notch ones, which was another compatibility issue.

When unit 1111 (later 205 101 and then 205 205, now resident at the Epping - Ongar Railway) was refurbished, it was fitted with 4-notch controllers and a switch to allow EMU multiple working, but I doubt it was ever used.

The Tadpoles used ex-Hastings unit DEMU power cars with ex-EPB driving trailers. The latter retained the original 4-notch EMU power controllers.

 

[Journeyman]

The Tadpoles used ex-Hastings unit DEMU power cars with ex-EPB driving trailers. The latter retained the original 4-notch EMU power controllers.

Yup, notches 2, 4 and 6 were skipped when driven from the driving trailer, which must have made driving them a different business.

 

[hexagon789]

Yup, notches 2, 4 and 6 were skipped when driven from the driving trailer, which must have made driving them a different business.

I've read it that it made power application more jerky but I'd imagine that rather like the DBSOs with 47/7s it wouldn't be so much an issue driving from the driving trailer cab per se but just by having less fine control of power it would've made controlling speed a bit more awkward

 

[Journeyman]

I've read it that it made power application more jerky but I'd imagine that rather like the DBSOs with 47/7s it wouldn't be so much an issue driving from the driving trailer cab per se but just by having less fine control of power it would've made controlling speed a bit more awkward

Presumably a bit harder on slippery rails as well.

 

[JohnElliott]

They're on the RSSB website, document reference GMGN2590.

Aha. I've now managed to turn up a copy, and there's an interesting note on the diagrams -- pins 14 and 15 (Forward and Reverse) are swapped over between the class 205 and 207. Maybe that's the origin of the original anecdote -- the 207s had to have the pins swapped to run in multiple with other Thumpers?

 

[hexagon789]

Presumably a bit harder on slippery rails as well.

I'd imagine so, particularly the jump between Notch 3 and 5 might be enough to cause a slip with the Thumper's mere two driven axles given the right (or perhaps that should be 'wrong') conditions.

 

[D6975]

One class 40 (055 IIRC) was experimentally fitted with ETH but didn’t stay that way for long. Class 45s were deemed more suited and so 45/1 came into existence rather than ETH 40s. Four class 47s received significant mods in early days, 2 fitted with multiple working way before lots received it (Pinky and Perky, 370 and 379 ) and 2 were fitted with radio control (277 and 373). The RC ones had flashing orange lights mounted on the cab roof. The RC was used at power stations on MGR workings. A 56 later received the same treatment (074)

FC004024. 47277 (fitted for remote control) Cudworth station site. 02-04-1979.

Explore roger5450's 33271 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

47379 Botanic Gardens

47379 "Perky" displays it's cable jumpers on it's nose-end which enabled multiple working with 47370 "Pinky". 47224 is on the left. Hull Botanic Gardens 22nd March 1979.

www.flickr.com