I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been nervous of
this kind of operation. I remember the Gatwick Express used to be push/
pulled. As are (were?) many Intercity trains out of Euston. Also
including many commuter trains in the USA. And on all of these trains
it seemed to me that the ride was always much rougher (e.g. swaying,
bouncing, etc.) in the 'pushed' direction. To me these operations
always seem to be like accidents waiting to happen. After all if a set
of relatively lightweight carriages are pushed from the rear, and the
leading carriage hits something then the first and rest are simply
going to buckle under the weight of the 'push-force' from the driving
unit at the rear. CJB.

CJB  wrote:

> I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
> consist being loco-pushed from the rear?

No.  The locomotive was pulling the train.

> After all if a set of relatively lightweight carriages are pushed from
> the rear, and the leading carriage hits something then the first and
> rest are simply going to buckle under the weight of the 'push-force'
> from the driving unit at the rear. 

The risk to the lead vehicle is based on the total weight of the 
locomotives plus cars behind.  If a locomotive weighs twice what a car 
weighs, then the effect would be identical to having two cars in place of 
the locomotive.  Thus, if the train were, say ten cars long, pulled by a 
locomotive, the forces on the first car of the train in a head on collision 
would be worse than if the train were only five cars long, pushed by a 
locomotive.

In short, the location of the locomotive has some, but relatively little 
effect on the risk in comparison to other factors related to train makeup.  
The advantage of having a locomotive in the lead is that it is only 
occupied by the train's operator, and gives somewhat of a buffer in a 
collision.  Of course, if the train were to be hit from the rear, then 
having the locomotive would have to be in the rear to provide that buffer.

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1da5afba-27d9-4b60-b426-fac6c28941e6@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
> I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
> consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been nervous of
> this kind of operation. I remember the Gatwick Express used to be
> push/ pulled. As are (were?) many Intercity trains out of Euston.

Very few, if any, Euston trains are push-pull these days, but most IC 
trains from Kings Cross and Liverpool St still are. However, while UK 
push-pull IC trains don't have pax sitting in the leading vehicle, 
regardless of direction of travel, that's not the case with the high 
speed EMUs and DEMUs that have replaced them -- so is it really an 
improvement?

CJB wrote:
> I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
> consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been nervous of
> this kind of operation. I remember the Gatwick Express used to be push/
> pulled. As are (were?) many Intercity trains out of Euston. Also
> including many commuter trains in the USA.

Metrolink is push-pull, but this accident occurred in pull mode, so 
that's not relevant.  In fact, it has turned out to be far more deadly 
than Metrolink's last _two_ push-mode accidents combined.

It turns out not to have mattered much in this case, since the passenger 
loco was knocked out of the way and the freight loco plowed directly 
into the first passenger coach.

> And on all of these trains it seemed to me that the ride was always
> much rougher (e.g. swaying, bouncing, etc.) in the 'pushed' direction.

I've never noticed that.

> To me these operations always seem to be like accidents waiting to
> happen. After all if a set of relatively lightweight carriages are
> pushed from the rear, and the leading carriage hits something then the
> first and rest are simply going to buckle under the weight of the
> 'push-force' from the driving unit at the rear. CJB.

US coaches are a _lot_ stronger than UK or European ones.  Also, in most 
accidents, the engineer will have cut the throttle and dumped the 
emergency brakes, which means the loco should no longer be pushing, just 
a heavy weight at the rear of the train.  That's not ideal, but not as 
bad as you're making it out to be.  And, in any event, the effect of a 
single loco pushing a train is nothing compared to the forces involved 
when a passenger train slams into a 10,000 ton freight train at a 
combined speed of ~80mph.

However, in this case, it appears that the engineer was distracted by 
his mobile phone (texting with railfans) and never hit the brakes; that 
would conceivably make things worse, but probably not by enough to have 
changed the results.

S

Stephen Sprunk  wrote:

> However, in this case, it appears that the engineer was distracted by 
> his mobile phone (texting with railfans) and never hit the brakes; that 
> would conceivably make things worse, but probably not by enough to have 
> changed the results.

You don't know any of that.  In fact, the photos of the wreck show the 
brake handle in emergency, and the throttle in idle.  I don't know if that 
happened as a result of the collision, but you can't rule out that the 
engineer did it prior to the collision.

On Sep 15, 2:58 pm, Stephen Sprunk  wrote:

> US coaches are a _lot_ stronger than UK or European ones.


Could you qualify that statement with some actual values please - and
what you mean by ''strength'' ?


Apart from pointing out that the UK is in fact part of Europe :o)
there are now European TSI standards that require all current new
designs to meet a common minimum standards, and over the past 10-20
years (which for UK means a significant proportion) rolling stock has
been built to ever increasingly stringent  standards.

--
Nick

James Robinson wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
> 
>> However, in this case, it appears that the engineer was distracted by 
>> his mobile phone (texting with railfans) and never hit the brakes; that 
>> would conceivably make things worse, but probably not by enough to have 
>> changed the results.
> 
> You don't know any of that.  In fact, the photos of the wreck show the 
> brake handle in emergency, and the throttle in idle.  I don't know if that 
> happened as a result of the collision, but you can't rule out that the 
> engineer did it prior to the collision.

Initial interviews said that the train didn't go into emergency braking 
prior to the collision.  The engineer may have done it a second or two 
before impact, but that wouldn't be enough time to matter.

S

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> CJB wrote:
> 
>> And on all of these trains it seemed to me that the ride was always
>> much rougher (e.g. swaying, bouncing, etc.) in the 'pushed' direction.
> 
> I've never noticed that.

Last week I made a several journeys on the CalTrain line between San 
Francisco and San Jose, and I used stock which appears similar to this. 
All I noticed was that ride quality was universally poor in either 
direction - no difference when the locomotive was at the back.

Back home in the UK and I've been traveling on push-pull sets on the 
ECML at speeds of 125mph for decades and I've never noticed a difference 
in ride quality when being pushed rather than pulled.

Why do they tend to use loco-hauled push-pull sets on local journeys 
like this is North America? Surely it's on this sort of route where 
multiple units are more flexible and economical.

Philip.

Recliner <nigelp@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:
>"CJB"  wrote:

>>I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
>>consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been nervous of
>>this kind of operation. I remember the Gatwick Express used to be
>>push/ pulled. As are (were?) many Intercity trains out of Euston.

>Very few, if any, Euston trains are push-pull these days, but most IC 
>trains from Kings Cross and Liverpool St still are. However, while UK 
>push-pull IC trains don't have pax sitting in the leading vehicle, 
>regardless of direction of travel, that's not the case with the high 
>speed EMUs and DEMUs that have replaced them -- so is it really an 
>improvement? 

They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?

On the diesel-electric commuter lines here in Chicago, all trains operate
push-pull. Trains retain their consist length required for rush hour at
all times of operation. When pushed, passengers are no longer allowed to
sit in the leading car. I thought we were the world's only operation to
do such a silly thing.

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> James Robinson wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>>
>>> However, in this case, it appears that the engineer was distracted
>>> by his mobile phone (texting with railfans) and never hit the
>>> brakes; that would conceivably make things worse, but probably not
>>> by enough to have changed the results.
>>
>> You don't know any of that.  In fact, the photos of the wreck show
>> the brake handle in emergency, and the throttle in idle.  I don't
>> know if that happened as a result of the collision, but you can't
>> rule out that the engineer did it prior to the collision.
>
> Initial interviews said that the train didn't go into emergency
> braking prior to the collision.  The engineer may have done it a
> second or two before impact, but that wouldn't be enough time to
> matter.
> S

Looking at the local map supplied on one of the LA news sites the commuter 
train had just left a 90 degree curve - suggests possibility of restricted 
sighting, but the freight was probably a typical US one of (by UK standards) 
extreme length and weight.  The momentum of even a low speed collision would 
probably have caused severe damage.

A current loco engineer on the railmishaps newsgroup has suggested that the 
emergency brake was applied prior to the crash (I don't know the dynamics of 
the operation of the handle to be able to verify this) but wonder if the 
application was made late due to restricted visibility on the curve.
Peter
-- 
Peter & Elizabeth Corser
Leighton Buzzard, UK 


       ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

It  appears that the driver may have been distracted by personal text 
messaging. There are reports from persons allegedly receiving text messages 
from the driver moments before the collision.

Michael Perry

"CJB"  wrote in message 
news:1da5afba-27d9-4b60-b426-fac6c28941e6@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
> consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been nervous of
> this kind of operation. I remember the Gatwick Express used to be push/
> pulled. As are (were?) many Intercity trains out of Euston. Also
> including many commuter trains in the USA. And on all of these trains
> it seemed to me that the ride was always much rougher (e.g. swaying,
> bouncing, etc.) in the 'pushed' direction. To me these operations
> always seem to be like accidents waiting to happen. After all if a set
> of relatively lightweight carriages are pushed from the rear, and the
> leading carriage hits something then the first and rest are simply
> going to buckle under the weight of the 'push-force' from the driving
> unit at the rear. CJB.

In message <NRtzk.501$yr3.330@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, at 08:58:05 on Mon, 
15 Sep 2008, Stephen Sprunk  remarked:
>the passenger loco was knocked out of the way and the freight loco 
>plowed directly into the first passenger coach.

So more "fog of war" when the damage was initially reported as the 
passenger train loco being pushed into the leading carriage?
-- 
Roland Perry

Philip Hardy wrote:

> 
> Why do they tend to use loco-hauled push-pull sets on local journeys 
> like this is North America? Surely it's on this sort of route where 
> multiple units are more flexible and economical.
> 

Ah, the usual uk.railway argument turned on its head!

Has anyone ever built a double-deck DMU?

Charlie

On Sep 15, 1:39 pm, "Recliner" <nig...@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:

> UK
> push-pull IC trains don't have pax sitting in the leading vehicle,
> regardless of direction of travel,

That is wrong.

It is wrong because EMU like 442 and 319 et al are *are* push-pull in
the sense that they all have intermediate motor coaches and end
driving trailers.

Depending on direction of travel there are always 1 or 2 trailer
vehicles leading the train. They've been doing this at 100 mph ever
since 1981 (317s), and at 90 mph since 1965 (4Cig, AM10), and 1962
(AM9 most sub-types).

In this respect a 100 mph EMU is no different to 100 mph 86 powered
push pull trains be they on WCML or GEML.

--
Nick

Philip Hardy wrote:
> Why do they tend to use loco-hauled push-pull sets on local journeys 
> like this is North America? Surely it's on this sort of route where 
> multiple units are more flexible and economical.

In the US, the FRA considers every MU car to be a "locomotive", which 
greatly increases the cost of inspections compared to a "coach".  Also, 
few commuter lines in the US are electrified, and maintenance of one 
diesel loco per train is cheaper than it would be for several DMUs.

Oh, and there's only one company that makes new DMUs that are legal for 
use in the US, and they're startup that has yet to get any large orders, 
plus their prices aren't very compelling vs. the price of a used freight 
loco plus a few coaches.  Things might be very different if we were 
allowed to use off-the-shelf trains from Europe.

On the heavily-used electrified lines in the Northeast US, you will find 
many EMUs, but there are still a lot of push-pull operations there due 
to the "locomotive" and maintenance issues.

S

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Recliner <nigelp@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:
>> "CJB"  wrote:
> 
>>> I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
>>> consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been nervous of
>>> this kind of operation. I remember the Gatwick Express used to be
>>> push/ pulled. As are (were?) many Intercity trains out of Euston.
> 
>> Very few, if any, Euston trains are push-pull these days, but most IC 
>> trains from Kings Cross and Liverpool St still are. However, while UK 
>> push-pull IC trains don't have pax sitting in the leading vehicle, 
>> regardless of direction of travel, that's not the case with the high 
>> speed EMUs and DEMUs that have replaced them -- so is it really an 
>> improvement? 
> 
> They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?

No. There are no seats and no passenger access. The vehicle at the 
opposite end of the train to the locomotive is a DVT (Driving Van 
Trailer) it houses the driver's cab, luggage van, and train manager's 
office.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_Van_Trailer

Remember that on the East Coast Mainline we are talking about Intercity 
trains, which operate at 125mph, and not commuter trains (though they do 
carry long distance commuter traffic). The local/commuter trains on 
these lines are Electric Multiple Units with a max speed of 100mph and 
these do carry people in the leading vehicle at all times.

On Sep 15, 4:31 pm, D7666  wrote:


> On Sep 15, 1:39 pm, "Recliner" <nig...@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:
>
> > UK
> > push-pull IC trains don't have pax sitting in the leading vehicle,
> > regardless of direction of travel,
>
> That is wrong.
>
> It is wrong because EMU like 442 and 319 et al are *are* push-pull in
> the sense that they all have intermediate motor coaches and end
> driving trailers.

Insert - all of which carry passengers.

--
Nick

"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message 
news:J_adndzYiqBR4VPVnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Recliner <nigelp@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:

>>Very few, if any, Euston trains are push-pull these days, but most IC
>>trains from Kings Cross and Liverpool St still are. However, while UK
>>push-pull IC trains don't have pax sitting in the leading vehicle,
>>regardless of direction of travel, that's not the case with the high
>>speed EMUs and DEMUs that have replaced them -- so is it really an
>>improvement?
>
> They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?
>
> On the diesel-electric commuter lines here in Chicago, all trains operate
> push-pull. Trains retain their consist length required for rush hour at
> all times of operation. When pushed, passengers are no longer allowed to
> sit in the leading car. I thought we were the world's only operation to
> do such a silly thing.

The UK push/pull intercity trains described above have an unpowered 'driving 
van trailer' (DVT) at the opposite end to the locomotive. It doesn't have 
passenger accomodation, if you saw one it would be visually very similar to 
a loco.

Paul

Stephen Sprunk  writes:


>It turns out not to have mattered much in this case, since the passenger 
>loco was knocked out of the way and the freight loco plowed directly 
>into the first passenger coach.

I thought the passenger locomotive was forced INTO the passenger car...

-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Philip Hardy wrote:

> Why do they tend to use loco-hauled push-pull sets on local journeys 
> like this is North America? Surely it's on this sort of route where 
> multiple units are more flexible and economical.

Saves the labor cost of taking the train apart, turning the engine 
around, putting the train back together, airtesting, etc etc etc.

I have spent many hours at 3rd (later, at 4th) and Townsend marveling at 
the monument to featherbedding that used to be there.

1.  Train arrives, head into the station.
2.  Yard engine arrives (with its own engineer and fireman.
3.  [Not sure of title--"Switchman"?} waves yard engine to couple to train.
4.  Trainman disconnects steam line (or HEP power, in later years).
5.  Switchman pulls coupling lever and signals yard engine to pull train 
out.
6.  Road engine moves out to the "roundhouse" (not really a roundhouse 
and I don't know what it was called.  It is also not clear if it is the 
road crew or another yard crew that did this--I think it was road crew.
7.  Yard engine pushes train back into the station and departs.
8.  Somebody takes the engine to a wye some miles away and turns the 
engine around and puts it back in the "roundhouse.
9.  Road crew brings engine back to the train, trainmen reconnect it, 
airtest it, etc.

And all of this time there has been somebody in the tower to do all the 
switches.  For years there was a poor soul sitting in a tiny shack at 
the entrance to the "roundhouse" area--not clear if those tracks were 
all manual or what.

And this all went on even if there were several hours between trains.

With the push-pull trains, all they have to do is carry the brake handle 
from one end to the other.

-- 
Requiescas in pace o email              Two identifying characteristics
                                              of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio        Infallibility, and the ability to
                                              learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:     http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs

On 15/09/2008 at 16:18:36 Adam H. Kerman (%mail)wrote: in
 uk.railway

> Recliner <nigelp@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:
> >"CJB"  wrote:
> 
> > > I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
> > > consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been
> > > nervous of this kind of operation. I remember the Gatwick Express
> > > used to be push/ pulled. As are (were?) many Intercity trains out
> > > of Euston.
> 
> > Very few, if any, Euston trains are push-pull these days, but most
> > IC trains from Kings Cross and Liverpool St still are. However,
> > while UK push-pull IC trains don't have pax sitting in the leading
> > vehicle, regardless of direction of travel, that's not the case
> > with the high speed EMUs and DEMUs that have replaced them -- so is
> > it really an improvement? 
> 
> They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?
> 
> On the diesel-electric commuter lines here in Chicago, all trains
> operate push-pull. Trains retain their consist length required for
> rush hour at all times of operation. When pushed, passengers are no
> longer allowed to sit in the leading car. I thought we were the
> world's only operation to do such a silly thing.

Nope. A DVT (Driving Van Trailer) has no seats or passenger access.

Richard

--

On 2008-09-15, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:
> Recliner <nigelp@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:
>>"CJB"  wrote:
>
>>>I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
>>>consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been nervous of
>>>this kind of operation. I remember the Gatwick Express used to be
>>>push/ pulled. As are (were?) many Intercity trains out of Euston.
>
>>Very few, if any, Euston trains are push-pull these days, but most IC 
>>trains from Kings Cross and Liverpool St still are. However, while UK 
>>push-pull IC trains don't have pax sitting in the leading vehicle, 
>>regardless of direction of travel, that's not the case with the high 
>>speed EMUs and DEMUs that have replaced them -- so is it really an 
>>improvement? 
>
> They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?
>
> On the diesel-electric commuter lines here in Chicago, all trains operate
> push-pull. Trains retain their consist length required for rush hour at
> all times of operation. When pushed, passengers are no longer allowed to
> sit in the leading car. I thought we were the world's only operation to
> do such a silly thing.

Wait, what?

I've ridden on MD-W into CUS in push mode, and watched the engineer walk
past my upper-level seat into the cab. Is the no-passengers-in-lead-car
rule only in effect outdiee of rush hour? It certainly wasn't in effect
on that train (last October).

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com

On Sep 15, 4:40 pm, " Richard Hunt"  wrote:


> > They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?

> Nope. A DVT (Driving Van Trailer) has no seats or passenger access.


As posted above, that only applies to those UK trains that have DVT.

There are many mnay more push-pull 100 mph trains with leading driving
trailers that are not DVT and do carry passengers, see my post.

--
Nick

Charlie Hulme wrote:
> Philip Hardy wrote:
> 
>>
>> Why do they tend to use loco-hauled push-pull sets on local journeys 
>> like this is North America? Surely it's on this sort of route where 
>> multiple units are more flexible and economical.
>>
> 
> Ah, the usual uk.railway argument turned on its head!
> 

There aren't many people round here that would argue that British Rail 
was generally wrong with Sprinterisation are there? Granted they were 
swapping mainly 1st gen DMUs and conventional LHCS (rather than 
push-pull sets) for Sprinters. But the benefits WRT savings on track 
maintenance and a flexibility of being able to split and join trains 
very quickly and easily in the platform are clear and proven are they not?

I realise Voyagerisation is different kettle of fish, but we're not 
dealing with long distance, high speed services here.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

> The UK push/pull intercity trains described above have an unpowered 'driving
> van trailer' (DVT) at the opposite end to the locomotive. It doesn't have
> passenger accomodation, if you saw one it would be visually very similar to
> a loco.

In the US, similar things IIRC exist on Amtrak at least and are called 
'Cabbage' cars - basicially old locos stripped of the engine which are 
used as a cab when in push-mode, and for baggage, hence the name.
-- 
  Chris Johns

Laurence Sheldon wrote:
[snip]
> With the push-pull trains, all they have to do is carry the brake handle 
> from one end to the other.
> 

Yes. I'm aware of the benefit of push-pull vs conventional locomotive 
haulage. I was comparing push-pull LHCS to Multiple Units, which are 
made up of self powered vehicles with a cab at either end of the train 
and don't involve 'running round' or locomotives at all.

D7666 wrote:
> On Sep 15, 4:40 pm, " Richard Hunt"  wrote:
> 
> 
>>> They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?
> 
>> Nope. A DVT (Driving Van Trailer) has no seats or passenger access.
> 
> 
> As posted above, that only applies to those UK trains that have DVT.
> 
> There are many mnay more push-pull 100 mph trains with leading driving
> trailers that are not DVT and do carry passengers, see my post.
> 

Yes, but we'd refer to those trains as EMUs rather than push-pull LHCS. 
There's a distinction to be made. In a Class 442 for instance, the 
powered vehicle is in the middle of the train and is a passenger 
carrying vehicle. It's not a big heavy lump of a locomotive at one end.

On 15 Sep, 16:31, D7666  wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:39 pm, "Recliner" <nig...@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:
>
> > UK
> > push-pull IC trains don't have pax sitting in the leading vehicle,
> > regardless of direction of travel,
>
> That is wrong.
>
> It is wrong because EMU like 442 and 319 et al are *are* push-pull in
> the sense that they all have intermediate motor coaches and end
> driving trailers.
>
> Depending on direction of travel there are always 1 or 2 trailer
> vehicles leading the train. They've been doing this at 100 mph ever
> since 1981 (317s), and at 90 mph since 1965 (4Cig, AM10), and 1962
> (AM9 most sub-types).

Did the 309s (AM9) do 100 mph from 1962, or was that a later change,
or even a misprint somewhere?  I thought they were 90 mph, as you
imply, but seemed to be 100 mph by the time they were withdrawn
according to Platform 5.


>
> In this respect a 100 mph EMU is no different to 100 mph 86 powered
> push pull trains be they on WCML or GEML.
>
> --
> Nick

Philip Hardy wrote:

> There aren't many people round here that would argue that British Rail 
> was generally wrong with Sprinterisation are there?

Might be - would you like an argument? ;-)

> Granted they were 
> swapping mainly 1st gen DMUs and conventional LHCS (rather than 
> push-pull sets) for Sprinters. But the benefits WRT savings on track 
> maintenance and a flexibility of being able to split and join trains 
> very quickly and easily in the platform are clear and proven are they not?

That's what Regional Railways thought until they 
actually tried to couple and uncouple 150s quickly and 
easily in the platform!

As for track maintenance, a modern medium-sized Diesel 
loco is probably not much worse for the track than 
something like a Class 185 vehicle.

> 
> I realise Voyagerisation is different kettle of fish, but we're not 
> dealing with long distance, high speed services here.
> 

I am thinking of peak-only commuter runs over 
considerable distances. Many US lines don't run in the 
off-peak, and in the UK we need extra units which stand 
idle during the day and night.

Charlie

"D7666"  wrote
>
> Depending on direction of travel there are always 1 or 2 trailer
> vehicles leading the train. They've been doing this at 100 mph ever
> since 1981 (317s), and at 90 mph since 1965 (4Cig, AM10), and 1962
> (AM9 most sub-types).
>
Were 4Cig run at 90 mph before 1967? AIUI the permitted speed on the
Southern Region was 75 mph for mu stock (85 mph for loco-hauled stock) until
1967.

Peter

Philip Hardy wrote:
> D7666 wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 4:40 pm, " Richard Hunt"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?
>>
>>> Nope. A DVT (Driving Van Trailer) has no seats or passenger access.
>>
>>
>> As posted above, that only applies to those UK trains that have DVT.
>>
>> There are many mnay more push-pull 100 mph trains with leading driving
>> trailers that are not DVT and do carry passengers, see my post.
>>
> 
> Yes, but we'd refer to those trains as EMUs rather than push-pull LHCS. 
> There's a distinction to be made. In a Class 442 for instance, the 
> powered vehicle is in the middle of the train and is a passenger 
> carrying vehicle. It's not a big heavy lump of a locomotive at one end.

The big heavy lump of a locomotive weighs about as much as two 
carriages.  From the point of view of the leading two vehicles, 2x442 is 
the same as 8xmk3+loco.  The dynamics and crassworthiness are all 
basically the same.

Robin

"MIG"  wrote
>
> Did the 309s (AM9) do 100 mph from 1962, or was that a later change,
> or even a misprint somewhere?  I thought they were 90 mph, as you
> imply, but seemed to be 100 mph by the time they were withdrawn
> according to Platform 5.
>
C J Allen published some logs of AM9 runs in the January 1965 MR, one of
which recorded a speed of 99 mph at Kelvedon. He stated that 'three figure
speeds are not unknown' but pointed out that the permitted linespeed,
usually but not always observed, was 90 mph.

Peter

R.C. Payne wrote:

> 
> The big heavy lump of a locomotive weighs about as much as two 
> carriages.  From the point of view of the leading two vehicles, 2x442 is 
> the same as 8xmk3+loco.  The dynamics and crassworthiness are all 
> basically the same.
> 

Not on *my* model railway ;-)

Charlie

In message <1da5afba-27d9-4b60-b426-fac6c28941e6@w7g2000hsa.googlegrou 
ps.com>
          CJB  wrote:

> I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
> consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been nervous of
> this kind of operation. I remember the Gatwick Express used to be push/
> pulled. As are (were?) many Intercity trains out of Euston. Also
> including many commuter trains in the USA. And on all of these trains
> it seemed to me that the ride was always much rougher (e.g. swaying,
> bouncing, etc.) in the 'pushed' direction. To me these operations
> always seem to be like accidents waiting to happen. After all if a set
> of relatively lightweight carriages are pushed from the rear, and the
> leading carriage hits something then the first and rest are simply
> going to buckle under the weight of the 'push-force' from the driving
> unit at the rear. CJB.

You don't seem to realise that a fleet of class 91s pull northwards 
and push southwards along the ECML, and they have no problems.

Michael Bell


--

Charlie Hulme wrote:
> Philip Hardy wrote:
> 
>> There aren't many people round here that would argue that British Rail 
>> was generally wrong with Sprinterisation are there?
> 
> Might be - would you like an argument? ;-)

Given the option I think it'd be a lot better if the world just agreed 
with me ;-p

> 
>> Granted they were swapping mainly 1st gen DMUs and conventional LHCS 
>> (rather than push-pull sets) for Sprinters. But the benefits WRT 
>> savings on track maintenance and a flexibility of being able to split 
>> and join trains very quickly and easily in the platform are clear and 
>> proven are they not?
> 
> That's what Regional Railways thought until they actually tried to 
> couple and uncouple 150s quickly and easily in the platform!
> 

I'm not sure about that - there may have been early problems with BSI 
Automatic couplers but Transpennine Express seem to manage well coupling 
and uncoupling their 170s at Hull.

 >
> As for track maintenance, a modern medium-sized Diesel loco is probably 
> not much worse for the track than something like a Class 185 vehicle.
> 

Possibly true but 185s are over powered 'lard butts' as a certain 
railway journalist might put it. They're not sprinters and the can't use 
Sprinter speed limits for instance (another apparent benefit from 
lighter trains). How about comparison to a Class 172 if we're looking at 
new kit (anyone have the vital stats)?

Philip.

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <NRtzk.501$yr3.330@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, at 08:58:05 on Mon, 
> 15 Sep 2008, Stephen Sprunk  remarked:
>> the passenger loco was knocked out of the way and the freight loco 
>> plowed directly into the first passenger coach.
> 
> So more "fog of war" when the damage was initially reported as the 
> passenger train loco being pushed into the leading carriage?

It's hard to say.  The reporters may have seen the UP loco inside the 
coach and not realized that ML doesn't use UP locos.  Or may be the ML 
loco was indeed pushed back into the coach before derailing, and the UP 
loco just filled in the gap.

It'll be a while before the NTSB figures out exactly what happened; in 
the meantime, all we have to go on are the photos of the aftermath and 
notoriously unreliable witness statements.

S

On Sep 15, 8:17 am, CJB  wrote:
> consist being loco-pushed from the rear? I have always been nervous of
> this kind of operation.

Many North American passenger railroads operate with "push pull" where
the engine may be in the rear.  It hasn't been a problem for over 50
years.

Further, many trains are MU where there is no locomotive at all, and
the front cab is part of the front passenger coach.  This has been the
configuration for 100 years on some of the busiest commuter lines.

Peter Corser wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> James Robinson wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>>>> However, in this case, it appears that the engineer was distracted
>>>> by his mobile phone (texting with railfans) and never hit the
>>>> brakes; that would conceivably make things worse, but probably not
>>>> by enough to have changed the results.
>>>
>>> You don't know any of that.  In fact, the photos of the wreck show
>>> the brake handle in emergency, and the throttle in idle.  I don't
>>> know if that happened as a result of the collision, but you can't
>>> rule out that the engineer did it prior to the collision.
>>
>> Initial interviews said that the train didn't go into emergency
>> braking prior to the collision.  The engineer may have done it a
>> second or two before impact, but that wouldn't be enough time to
>> matter.
> 
> Looking at the local map supplied on one of the LA news sites the commuter 
> train had just left a 90 degree curve - suggests possibility of restricted 
> sighting, but the freight was probably a typical US one of (by UK standards) 
> extreme length and weight.  The momentum of even a low speed collision would 
> probably have caused severe damage.
> 
> A current loco engineer on the railmishaps newsgroup has suggested that the 
> emergency brake was applied prior to the crash (I don't know the dynamics of 
> the operation of the handle to be able to verify this) but wonder if the 
> application was made late due to restricted visibility on the curve.

A passenger in one of the coaches further back, who unquestionably had a 
worse view of the tracks ahead than the engineer, saw the UP freight 
around the curve and reported there was no emergency brake application.

Now, he may have been mistaken, but with the engineer having already 
missed a Stop signal and a misaligned switch and being known to be 
texting kids on his mobile phone, I find it reasonable to accept that 
the engineer did _not_ apply the emergency brake as soon as the UP loco 
came into view.  On a curve that tight and with a closure speed of 
~80mph, though, it wouldn't have mattered much anyways.

We'll know for sure once the NTSB gets the event recorders.

S

On 15 Sep, 17:24, "Peter Masson"  wrote:
> "MIG"  wrote
>
> > Did the 309s (AM9) do 100 mph from 1962, or was that a later change,
> > or even a misprint somewhere?  I thought they were 90 mph, as you
> > imply, but seemed to be 100 mph by the time they were withdrawn
> > according to Platform 5.
>
> C J Allen published some logs of AM9 runs in the January 1965 MR, one of
> which recorded a speed of 99 mph at Kelvedon. He stated that 'three figure
> speeds are not unknown' but pointed out that the permitted linespeed,
> usually but not always observed, was 90 mph.
>
> Peter

Ah, maybe it corresponds to higher linespeeds after electrification to
Norwich?

> I'm wondering if the result of the LA train crash was due to the
> consist being loco-pushed from the rear? \

The passenger loco was on the head end.

In North America, powered M.U. cars are considered "locomotives" and thus
need to meet FRA, in the U.S. standards for locomotives and are required to
undergo inspections etc., which are more time consuming and complicated than
those for passenger cars.  In North America rule books, any combination of
individual locomotives, coupled together, operating in multiple and under
the control of a single engineer are considered a "locomotive"

Keep in mind that in North America, permanently coupled multiple units with
a driving car at each end as used in the UK are unknown.  M.U. in North
America as used in suburban commuter service are either made up of
individually powered cars each with a driving position in each vestibule or
a combination of powered and unpowered cars but still with a driving
position in each vestibule.  A train is made up by coupling together the
required number of powered and or unpowered cars for the traffic expected.

North American railways find the UK concept of m.u.s too inflexible.


--
Cheers
Roger T.
See the GER at: -
http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/

Charlie Hulme wrote:
> Philip Hardy wrote:
> 
>>
>> Why do they tend to use loco-hauled push-pull sets on local journeys 
>> like this is North America? Surely it's on this sort of route where 
>> multiple units are more flexible and economical.
>>
> 
> Ah, the usual uk.railway argument turned on its head!
> 
> Has anyone ever built a double-deck DMU?

Colorado Railcar.
http://www.coloradorailcar.com/double-deck-dmu-home.htm

Also those funny German single car things which looked rather like a bus.

For some reason the USA seems to see multiple units as a strange 
European idea - perhaps because of the high end-loading crash 
requirements they have, which allegedly make it difficult to use an off 
the shelf Bombardier/Siemens/Alstom design?

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

In article <NRtzk.501$yr3.330@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
 Stephen Sprunk  wrote:

> It turns out not to have mattered much in this case, since the passenger 
> loco was knocked out of the way and the freight loco plowed directly 
> into the first passenger coach.

Not so.  The Metrolink locomotive telescoped into the first passenger 
coach and then both fell on their sides.  The locomotive occupied over 
half of the interior of the passenger car.

Merritt

In article <Ljwzk.366$x%.329@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
 Stephen Sprunk  wrote:

> Roland Perry wrote:

> > So more "fog of war" when the damage was initially reported as the 
> > passenger train loco being pushed into the leading carriage?
> 
> It's hard to say.  The reporters may have seen the UP loco inside the 
> coach and not realized that ML doesn't use UP locos.  Or may be the ML 
> loco was indeed pushed back into the coach before derailing, and the UP 
> loco just filled in the gap.

There is no question about it.  Almost all of the Metrolink locomotive 
was inside the first passenger car.  Only a portion of the flattened 
nose was sticking out, and directly in front of that was the lead UP 
locomotive. All were on their sides.

Merritt

The message 
from Michael Bell  contains these words:


> You don't seem to realise that a fleet of class 91s pull northwards 
> and push southwards along the ECML, and they have no problems.


And the southward ride is noticably worse than northbound!

-- 
Colin

Merritt Mullen wrote:
> In article <Ljwzk.366$x%.329@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
>  Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
> 
>> Roland Perry wrote:
> 
>>> So more "fog of war" when the damage was initially reported as the 
>>> passenger train loco being pushed into the leading carriage?
>> It's hard to say.  The reporters may have seen the UP loco inside the 
>> coach and not realized that ML doesn't use UP locos.  Or may be the ML 
>> loco was indeed pushed back into the coach before derailing, and the UP 
>> loco just filled in the gap.
> 
> There is no question about it.  Almost all of the Metrolink locomotive 
> was inside the first passenger car.  Only a portion of the flattened 
> nose was sticking out, and directly in front of that was the lead UP 
> locomotive. All were on their sides.

Was the ML loco removed from the scene before the reporters got there 
and were taking pictures?  I was looking all weekend and didn't see a 
single one that showed the ML loco -- just the UP loco in contact with 
the ML coach.

S

Colin Reeves wrote:
> The message 
> from Michael Bell  contains these words:
> 
> 
>> You don't seem to realise that a fleet of class 91s pull northwards 
>> and push southwards along the ECML, and they have no problems.
> 
> 
> And the southward ride is noticably worse than northbound!

Because you end up in London....

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:18:36 -0500, "Adam H. Kerman" 
wrote:

>They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?

No, because there aren't any seats.  It's a van.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Stephen Sprunk  wrote in
news:h8yzk.529$yr3.119@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com: 

> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>> In article <Ljwzk.366$x%.329@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
>>  Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>> 
>>> Roland Perry wrote:
>> 
>>>> So more "fog of war" when the damage was initially reported as the 
>>>> passenger train loco being pushed into the leading carriage?
>>> It's hard to say.  The reporters may have seen the UP loco inside
>>> the coach and not realized that ML doesn't use UP locos.  Or may be
>>> the ML loco was indeed pushed back into the coach before derailing,
>>> and the UP loco just filled in the gap.
>> 
>> There is no question about it.  Almost all of the Metrolink
>> locomotive was inside the first passenger car.  Only a portion of the
>> flattened nose was sticking out, and directly in front of that was
>> the lead UP locomotive. All were on their sides.
> 
> Was the ML loco removed from the scene before the reporters got there 
> and were taking pictures?  I was looking all weekend and didn't see a 
> single one that showed the ML loco -- just the UP loco in contact with
> the ML coach.

No.  I was watching the initial video coverage and finally realized the
"missing" ML locomotive was in fact mostly inside the passenger car with
the cab (and presumably engineer) crushed flat.  The loco's trucks and
fuel tank appeared to have been sheared off and lay on the tracks--that's
how the fire got started.

The two were not separated until Sunday.  A study of the various photos
and video coverage will clearly show that.

--Damon

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <NRtzk.501$yr3.330@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, at 08:58:05 on
>> Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Stephen Sprunk  remarked:
>>> the passenger loco was knocked out of the way and the freight loco
>>> plowed directly into the first passenger coach.
>>
>> So more "fog of war" when the damage was initially reported as the
>> passenger train loco being pushed into the leading carriage?
> 
> It's hard to say.  The reporters may have seen the UP loco inside the
> coach and not realized that ML doesn't use UP locos.  Or may be the ML
> loco was indeed pushed back into the coach before derailing, and the UP
> loco just filled in the gap.
> 
> It'll be a while before the NTSB figures out exactly what happened; in
> the meantime, all we have to go on are the photos of the aftermath and
> notoriously unreliable witness statements.
> 
> S

According to the diagram published in LA Times which you can see here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-091308-me-traincrash-g,0,5283188.graphic

It was the passenger locomotive that got pushed into the first passenger
car. Besides if it was not inside the first passenger car, where do you
suppose it went, since there was no additional locos lying around
anywhere in the vicinity.

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <NRtzk.501$yr3.330@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, at 08:58:05 on
>> Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Stephen Sprunk  remarked:
>>> the passenger loco was knocked out of the way and the freight loco
>>> plowed directly into the first passenger coach.
>>
>> So more "fog of war" when the damage was initially reported as the
>> passenger train loco being pushed into the leading carriage?
> 
> It's hard to say.  The reporters may have seen the UP loco inside the
> coach and not realized that ML doesn't use UP locos.  Or may be the ML
> loco was indeed pushed back into the coach before derailing, and the UP
> loco just filled in the gap.
> 
> It'll be a while before the NTSB figures out exactly what happened; in
> the meantime, all we have to go on are the photos of the aftermath and
> notoriously unreliable witness statements.
> 
> S

According to the diagram published in LA Times which you can see here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-091308-me-traincrash-g,0,5283188.graphic

It was the passenger locomotive that got pushed into the first passenger
car. Besides if it was not inside the first passenger car, where do you
suppose it went, since there was no additional locos lying around
anywhere in the vicinity.

Roger T. wrote:

> Keep in mind that in North America, permanently coupled multiple units with
> a driving car at each end as used in the UK are unknown.  M.U. in North
> America as used in suburban commuter service are either made up of
> individually powered cars each with a driving position in each vestibule or
> a combination of powered and unpowered cars but still with a driving
> position in each vestibule.  A train is made up by coupling together the
> required number of powered and or unpowered cars for the traffic expected.
> 
> North American railways find the UK concept of m.u.s too inflexible.

The two car Arrow III EMUs that NJT uses do not have dirivng positions
in each vestibule. They are only at the two end vestibules. The LIRR and
MNRR EMUs also have driving positions only at the ends of two or three
car sets. They are exactly like UK EMUs.

On Sep 15, 12:53 pm, Stephen Sprunk  wrote:

> A passenger in one of the coaches further back, who unquestionably had a
> worse view of the tracks ahead than the engineer, saw the UP freight
> around the curve and reported there was no emergency brake application.

In situations like that, it is extremely easy for a person to confuse
events and timing.  Such a statement is simply not very reliable.  It
may be right, but it also may be wrong.  Not a good basis for
discussion, and certainly not to draw conclusions.

Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> It'll be a while before the NTSB figures out exactly what happened; in
>> the meantime, all we have to go on are the photos of the aftermath and
>> notoriously unreliable witness statements.
> 
> According to the diagram published in LA Times which you can see here:
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-091308-me-traincrash-g,0,5283188.graphic
> 
> It was the passenger locomotive that got pushed into the first passenger
> car.

This is the best photo I can find:
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-09/42325485.jpg

I don't see the ML loco there; it just looks like the mangled front end 
of the ML coach up against the UP loco.  Are you saying that the ML loco 
is actually _entirely inside_ the body of the ML coach so that it can't 
be seen?  (This is tough, since ML's locos and coaches are both white.)

So much for the FRA's buff strength rules.  They might have saved people 
in the following coaches, but they sure as heck didn't save the engineer 
or a couple dozen people in the first coach.

> Besides if it was not inside the first passenger car, where do you
> suppose it went, since there was no additional locos lying around
> anywhere in the vicinity.

Well, that was why I was so interested.  Where the heck did it go?  I 
found a photo of it lying a hundred feet or so away, but there was a 
crane nearby so I assume it had been moved from wherever it landed.

S

On Sep 15, 4:58 pm, Philip Hardy  wrote:

> Yes, but we'd refer to those trains as EMUs

What a pompous comment.

> There's a distinction to be made. In a Class 442 for instance, the
> powered vehicle is in the middle of the train and is a passenger
> carrying vehicle. It's not a big heavy lump of a locomotive at one end.

Just a lot of lumps of smaller individual weight but altogether add up
to more than that of a locmotive.

The mechanics are the same. Do the maths if you don't believe me.

--
Nick

On Sep 15, 4:59 pm, MIG  wrote:

> > (AM9 most sub-types).
>
> Did the 309s (AM9) do 100 mph from 1962, or was that a later change,
> or even a misprint somewhere?  I thought they were 90 mph, as you
> imply, but seemed to be 100 mph by the time they were withdrawn
> according to Platform 5.

Hmmm ... was not aware of that.

GER EMU are not my forte so I'll leave that for another expert to
answer.

--
Nick

"Jishnu Mukerji" <

>> North American railways find the UK concept of m.u.s too inflexible.
>
> The two car Arrow III EMUs that NJT uses do not have dirivng positions
> in each vestibule. They are only at the two end vestibules. The LIRR and
> MNRR EMUs also have driving positions only at the ends of two or three
> car sets. They are exactly like UK EMUs.

My error.  I was unaware of these vehicles.

However, are the cars permanently coupled together?


--
Cheers
Roger T.
See the GER at: -
http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/

> > Has anyone ever built a double-deck DMU?


Not only EMU, but high speed EMU - TGV Duplex.


--
Nick

Philip Hardy wrote:
> D7666 wrote:
>
>> There are many mnay more push-pull 100 mph trains with leading
>> driving trailers that are not DVT and do carry passengers, see my
>> post.
>
> Yes, but we'd refer to those trains as EMUs rather than push-pull
> LHCS.

The Mark IIf DBSOs were never referred to as EMUs.   ;-)

Philip Hardy wrote:
> D7666 wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 4:40 pm, " Richard Hunt"  wrote:
>>>> They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?
>>
>>> Nope. A DVT (Driving Van Trailer) has no seats or passenger access.
>>
>> As posted above, that only applies to those UK trains that have DVT.
>>
>> There are many mnay more push-pull 100 mph trains with leading driving
>> trailers that are not DVT and do carry passengers, see my post.
> 
> Yes, but we'd refer to those trains as EMUs rather than push-pull LHCS. 
> There's a distinction to be made. In a Class 442 for instance, the 
> powered vehicle is in the middle of the train and is a passenger 
> carrying vehicle. It's not a big heavy lump of a locomotive at one end.

In US usage, a MU train does not have unpowered coaches; each unit (or 
married pair) is powered and could form its own train, and they're 
simply coupled together for more capacity.

We normally only use un-powered coaches with locomotives in pull or 
push-pull service, not mixed with MUs.  MUs only have enough power to 
move themselves; they don't have any to spare to haul a few hundred tons 
of un-powered coaches too.  We need a real locomotive for that.

We also don't really have an equivalent to the DVT.  On commuter lines 
like Metrolink, when in push mode the engineer occupies a small cab at 
the end of the leading (usually occupied) coach; there is no crew 
quarters, offices, baggage compartment, etc.  A few Amtrak intercity 
trains have a cabbage car (a depowered loco used as a strength buffer), 
but most operate only in pull mode and there is a baggage and/or "crew 
dormitory" car between the loco and the passengers, and the trains are 
literally turned around at the end of each run with a wye.

S

D7666 wrote:
>>> Has anyone ever built a double-deck DMU?
> 
> 
> Not only EMU, but high speed EMU - TGV Duplex.
> 

Yes, but I was asking about DMUs in particular. I 
imagine underfloor engines would be a problem?

Charlie

Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
> Roger T. wrote:
> 
>> Keep in mind that in North America, permanently coupled multiple units with
>> a driving car at each end as used in the UK are unknown.  M.U. in North
>> America as used in suburban commuter service are either made up of
>> individually powered cars each with a driving position in each vestibule or
>> a combination of powered and unpowered cars but still with a driving
>> position in each vestibule.  A train is made up by coupling together the
>> required number of powered and or unpowered cars for the traffic expected.
>>
>> North American railways find the UK concept of m.u.s too inflexible.
> 
> The two car Arrow III EMUs that NJT uses do not have dirivng positions
> in each vestibule. They are only at the two end vestibules. The LIRR and
> MNRR EMUs also have driving positions only at the ends of two or three
> car sets. They are exactly like UK EMUs.

Well, there are "married sets" of two to five cars, but usually there 
are powered axles on all cars and equipment is spread across all the 
cars, so they cannot operate with less than a full set present.  We also 
couple multiple married sets together to make longer trains (e.g. a 
10-car train may be five married pairs or two married sets of five).

(Married means they are made and delivered together, usually with 
sequential car numbers, and can only be separated in a shop -- rare 
unless there is an accident that destroys one of the end cars, and a new 
married set is made up from the leftovers of multiple accidents.)

I'll admit to not knowing much about UK practice, but it doesn't sound 
like that's what they call "MU" operation.

S

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Philip Hardy wrote:
> 
>> D7666 wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 15, 4:40 pm, " Richard Hunt"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They NEVER sit there, not even in peak of the peak?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nope. A DVT (Driving Van Trailer) has no seats or passenger access.
>>>
>>>
>>> As posted above, that only applies to those UK trains that have DVT.
>>>
>>> There are many mnay more push-pull 100 mph trains with leading driving
>>> trailers that are not DVT and do carry passengers, see my post.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but we'd refer to those trains as EMUs rather than push-pull 
>> LHCS. There's a distinction to be made. In a Class 442 for instance, 
>> the powered vehicle is in the middle of the train and is a passenger 
>> carrying vehicle. It's not a big heavy lump of a locomotive at one end.
> 
> 
> In US usage, a MU train does not have unpowered coaches; each unit (or 
> married pair) is powered and could form its own train, and they're 
> simply coupled together for more capacity.
> 
Not necessarily, though maybe not recently.

The original Lackawanna MU's were motor and control trailer as a married 
pair.  In Canada, the Montreal 1950's(?) MU cars were 
trailer-motor-trailer triples.

The term I hate is motorized trailer, which is a misnomer for 
non-control motor car.


-- 
  -------------------------------------------------
|               Joseph D. Korman                  |
|          mailto:reply@thejoekorner.com          |
|            Visit The JoeKorNer at               |
|          http://www.thejoekorner.com            |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|    The light at the end of the tunnel ...       |
|        may be a train going the other way!      |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
|     All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV       |
  -------------------------------------------------

D7666 wrote:
> On Sep 15, 4:58 pm, Philip Hardy  wrote:
> 
>> Yes, but we'd refer to those trains as EMUs
> 
> What a pompous comment.
> 

No it's not. I mean you're quite correct in your point, I'm not trying to
have a go but I never heard anyone talk about 442s or 319s as push-pull 
sets.
They are always referred to as EMUs.

"Stephen Sprunk"

> In US usage, a MU train does not have unpowered coaches; each unit (or
> married pair) is powered and could form its own train, and they're simply
> coupled together for more capacity.

I thought the Pennsy or the NYC had both powered and unpowered "emu" cars?


--
Cheers
Roger T.
See the GER at: -
http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/

"Stephen Sprunk"  wrote in message
news:Xszzk.325$W06.317@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com
> Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>> Roger T. wrote:
>>
>>> Keep in mind that in North America, permanently coupled multiple
>>> units with a driving car at each end as used in the UK are unknown.
>>> M.U. in North America as used in suburban commuter service are
>>> either made up of individually powered cars each with a driving
>>> position in each vestibule or a combination of powered and
>>> unpowered cars but still with a driving position in each vestibule.
>>> A train is made up by coupling together the required number of
>>> powered and or unpowered cars for the traffic expected. North 
>>> American railways find the UK concept of m.u.s too inflexible.
>>
>> The two car Arrow III EMUs that NJT uses do not have dirivng
>> positions in each vestibule. They are only at the two end
>> vestibules. The LIRR and MNRR EMUs also have driving positions only
>> at the ends of two or three car sets. They are exactly like UK EMUs.
>
> Well, there are "married sets" of two to five cars, but usually there
> are powered axles on all cars and equipment is spread across all the
> cars, so they cannot operate with less than a full set present.  We
> also couple multiple married sets together to make longer trains
> (e.g. a 10-car train may be five married pairs or two married sets of
> five).
> (Married means they are made and delivered together, usually with
> sequential car numbers, and can only be separated in a shop -- rare
> unless there is an accident that destroys one of the end cars, and a
> new married set is made up from the leftovers of multiple accidents.)
>
> I'll admit to not knowing much about UK practice, but it doesn't sound
> like that's what they call "MU" operation.

Most cars in modern UK DMUs are powered, and the sets aren't normally 
divorced (certainly not in operational use, though they can be 
re-configured in the depot). However, in EMUs, it's normal for some/most 
of the cars in a set to be unpowered trailers, and these sets are even 
less likely to be reconfigured. You might see a 12-car train, consisting 
of three, 4-car EMU units, each with one pantograph per unit. Or you 
might see a 10-car DEMU, consisting of two 5-car units. In each case, 
there's a full cab at each end of a unit, but none within the unit.

Charlie Hulme wrote:
> D7666 wrote:
>>>> Has anyone ever built a double-deck DMU?
>>
>>
>> Not only EMU, but high speed EMU - TGV Duplex.
>>
> 
> Yes, but I was asking about DMUs in particular. I imagine underfloor 
> engines would be a problem?

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/diesel/dmu/670/pix.html
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBAG_Baureihe_670

But, just, why?
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:21:10 -0500, Stephen Sprunk
 wrote:

>Well, there are "married sets" of two to five cars, but usually there 
>are powered axles on all cars and equipment is spread across all the 
>cars, so they cannot operate with less than a full set present.  We also 
>couple multiple married sets together to make longer trains (e.g. a 
>10-car train may be five married pairs or two married sets of five).
>
>(Married means they are made and delivered together, usually with 
>sequential car numbers, and can only be separated in a shop -- rare 
>unless there is an accident that destroys one of the end cars, and a new 
>married set is made up from the leftovers of multiple accidents.)
>
>I'll admit to not knowing much about UK practice, but it doesn't sound 
>like that's what they call "MU" operation.

Au contraire - that sounds exactly like what we would describe as
multiple-unit operation.  The usual definition of a multiple-unit is a
vehicle or set of vehicles having no distinct locomotive[1] and being
(usually[2]) able to be coupled in combination with other such sets
and being driven from the appropriate end cab.  They aren't usually
separable within the set as easily as they are from other sets.

Some UK MUs must remain as full sets because of distributed equipment
(e.g. Voyagers).  Some, however, need not (Classes 150 to 159 are
fully-independent vehicles in terms of power, engines etc, though they
still are usually not split outside the sets).  There are also 153s,
which are (other than being awful) single vehicles with a cab at both
ends but are still classed as DMUs.

[1] I was going to say "distributed power", but some older multiple
units don't have this - 321s, for instance, have a single power car.
The significant thing, though, is that there is no separate
locomotive.  If there was, it'd be a push-pull set[3], not a MU.

[2] You can't couple two Pendolinos together in normal service, but
that's because there wouldn't be a platform long enough for it.

[3] The Germans confuse this by very often treating sets made up of
locomotive (optional), coaches and driving trailer as MUs and coupling
them together in the same sort of way.  This does not have a UK
equivalent.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:48:11 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

>But, just, why?

Not sure.  But it was interesting to ride it.  It is *very* cramped
upstairs, though.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Stephen Sprunk  writes:


>Was the ML loco removed from the scene before the reporters got there 
>and were taking pictures?  I was looking all weekend and didn't see a 
>single one that showed the ML loco -- just the UP loco in contact with 
>the ML coach.

Try:


<http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-09/42325252.jpg>

<http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-09/42324687.jpg>


-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Well, there are "married sets" of two to five cars, but usually there 
> are powered axles on all cars and equipment is spread across all the 
> cars, so they cannot operate with less than a full set present.  We also 
> couple multiple married sets together to make longer trains (e.g. a 
> 10-car train may be five married pairs or two married sets of five).
> 
> (Married means they are made and delivered together, usually with 
> sequential car numbers, and can only be separated in a shop -- rare 
> unless there is an accident that destroys one of the end cars, and a new 
> married set is made up from the leftovers of multiple accidents.)
> 
> I'll admit to not knowing much about UK practice, but it doesn't sound 
> like that's what they call "MU" operation.

That sounds pretty much the same as in the UK.

It is not impossible to mix and match carriages between "married sets", 
but it is a workshop job, rather than a simple shunting job. The driving 
cabs are (obviously) in the end cars, but the traction equipment might 
not be, and the individual cars couldn't run on their own in any 
practical sense, even if it might be theoretically possible to make them 
move in a workshop environment.

Here are a two EMUs working together in London. The green one and the 
yellow one are each self-contained trains which can (and do) run on 
their own:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/electric/emu-ac/319/NXG-319216%2B319011-01.jpg
Joining the two units probably isn't too difficult [do pairs of 319s get 
joined and split during the day?], but separating the four cars of each 
individual unit would be non-trivial.

Just to confuse things, Class 153s are single car diesels with two cabs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_153
which were built as two-car sets, then rebuilt as single car sets with 
new cabs, and now sometimes run in pairs!

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Was the ML loco removed from the scene before the reporters got there
> and were taking pictures?  I was looking all weekend and didn't see a
> single one that showed the ML loco -- just the UP loco in contact with
> the ML coach.
> 
> S

That's because the ML loco was inside the ML coach.

Recliner wrote:
> "Stephen Sprunk"  wrote in message
> news:Xszzk.325$W06.317@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com
>> Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>>> The two car Arrow III EMUs that NJT uses do not have dirivng
>>> positions in each vestibule. They are only at the two end
>>> vestibules. The LIRR and MNRR EMUs also have driving positions only
>>> at the ends of two or three car sets. They are exactly like UK EMUs.
>>
>> Well, there are "married sets" of two to five cars, but usually there
>> are powered axles on all cars and equipment is spread across all the
>> cars, so they cannot operate with less than a full set present.  We
>> also couple multiple married sets together to make longer trains
>> (e.g. a 10-car train may be five married pairs or two married sets of
>> five).
>> (Married means they are made and delivered together, usually with
>> sequential car numbers, and can only be separated in a shop -- rare
>> unless there is an accident that destroys one of the end cars, and a
>> new married set is made up from the leftovers of multiple accidents.)
>>
>> I'll admit to not knowing much about UK practice, but it doesn't sound
>> like that's what they call "MU" operation.
> 
> Most cars in modern UK DMUs are powered, and the sets aren't normally 
> divorced (certainly not in operational use, though they can be 
> re-configured in the depot).

Well, if we had DMUs, that's how they'd work :)

So far, only one company (CRC) has managed to make a DMU that meets FRA 
buff strength requirements, and nobody's buying them so far.  For diesel 
operation, it's push-pull locos or nothing.

> However, in EMUs, it's normal for some/most of the cars in a set to be
> unpowered trailers, and these sets are even less likely to be
> reconfigured. You might see a 12-car train, consisting 
> of three, 4-car EMU units, each with one pantograph per unit. Or you 
> might see a 10-car DEMU, consisting of two 5-car units.

Our EMUs will only have a single pantograph per married set, but there 
will be powered axles and other equipment under every car.  If you 
remove a car from the set, it will be unable to move.

Decades ago, there were "MU" trains in the US that included unpowered 
cars, but not today.  I was unaware of that history until someone 
correct me elsewhere in the thread.  There are several potential reasons 
for the shift to power on every car (like the effect FRA strength 
requirements have on weight), but that's where we are now.

> In each case, there's a full cab at each end of a unit, but none within
> the unit. 

That's normal for our married sets as well.  One of the purposes in 
creating married sets, versus completely independent cars, was getting 
rid of unnecessary mid-train cabs to reduce costs and increase passenger 
capacity.  Once that independence was gone, it made sense to have the 
cars "share" components rather than each car having its own copy of 
everything.

S

Neil Williams  schrieb/wrote:

> [3] The Germans confuse this by very often treating sets made up of
> locomotive (optional), coaches and driving trailer as MUs and coupling
> them together in the same sort of way.  This does not have a UK
> equivalent.

Err - more like a translation problem: In German usage there is a  
difference between a "Triebwagen" which is a MU and "Triebzug" which is a  
trainset made up of locomotives, coaches and possibly a driving trailer  
(like the first- and second generation ICE).

Most non-MU trains consist of coaches and driving trailer (and possibly  
locomotives) that are semi-permanently coupled. This is usually referred  
to by the acronym RIGA - ReisezugInstandhaltung im GAnzzug, translated  
"passenger train maintenance of complete trains"

Val