Great Western Coffee Shop

I was wondering if anybody could say if:-
  (a) There are any services diagrammed to be worked by 150/1 coupled to another unit
  (b) If so, is there provision for Revenue Protection in both portions

Recently I travelled on 14 00 Cardiff to Taunton formed by 153 (leading) and 150/1 (rear), sitting in the 153 with no Revenue Protection, the Conductor in the 150/1 at the rear, of course.

The same thing happens on Northern, TPE and LM.  Sometimes there's an additional conductor in the front unit, who's just checking and selling tickets - other times it's just the conductor in the rear.  With Northern they usually throw people out of the rear unit and lock it out-of-use if the service gets quieter later on.  One conductor did that on a service I was travelling on once, which was a 2.25 hour journey being operated by a 142+156 and he threw everyone off the 156 on to the 142.  >:(

Doesn't that constitute torture!

I assume there's a rule that requires the conductor to stay in the rear unit so that there's a staff member in each portion of the train in case anything goes pear-shaped. That said, there's no such requirement in the Thames Valley where driver-only services formed from pairs of turbos often have no staff in the rear portion at all.

I can only assume that the difference is accounted for by the passcom system - it's a passenger/driver intercom on the turbo fleet and a straight brake application on the 'west' DMU stock. However as noted by the RAIB in a report dealing with a passenger being trapped in a train door (so just for the record it's out there in the public domain already), if anyone activates the emergency door release on a moving turbo that will directly elicit an full brake application.

The guard does not have to stay in the rear unit, a memo has recently been put out saying that not only are guads aloowed in the front but it infers that they must go in as part of their patrol duties.

In Exeter more RPI's and ATE's were taken on last year due to the introduction of 150/1's.

I've had a similar experience on Northern. A 142+153, with the 153 locked out of use. Fortunately not such a long journey (Lancaster to Skipton - 1:15). Not that the conductor did any of this "checking and selling tickets" of which you speak!

Vacman is correct about the recent memo, however during my training I was told by one manager that Network Rail specifically authorise us to travel in the front unit (no guard in rear) between Exeter Central and Polsloe Bridge when stopping at St. James Park (front door only), so inferring that it was not acceptable elsewhere.  However, the same authorisation was not granted for EXD-Crediton when stopping at Newton St Cyres due to the distance, hence why it has now changed to "Rear Door" at N-S-C.

Interesting posts ref guards in front sets on non gangwayed multiple unit trains.  Further west, instructions are that guards must work trains from rear unit and that 'train hopping' is specifically prohibited.  This is ostensibly to minimise risk if units become divided, enabling guards to apply brakes in the rear unit.

i think we have been here with the pacers several times on the forum, shame its such a pain to swap them around as a 4 car set made up of a 150/2 between a split 150/1 would fix that, mind you would that mean rewiring like on 153999

Almost certainly :-)  I know that 999 has a non-standard, goodness knows how many way jumper cable fitted between coaches and that is probably just the start of it.  In addition to the lack of available stock precluding such an arrangement, I wouldn't think that depots would want to give up the flexibility provided by easily coupled/uncoupled 2 car sets.

Now that the 150/1 series is being fitted with intermediate door key panels, they are as easy to work for a guard as the 150/2s.  In some ways, they are better, drop light in the vestibule and bigger cabs for example. The problem arises when these sets run in multiple. No matter how guards are instructed to work, there will always be scope for fare avoidance and/or anti social behaviour in such cases.

Unless there's a guard and an ATE.

ATEs are rarer than Argyle victories.

I understand the logic here, but given that passenger trains have all been legally required since the late 1800s to have a continuous brake which will apply automatically on both portions in the event of a train division, isn't that a little unnecessary? ;)

I agree the brake issue seems a little far fetched.  It does mean that their is a staff member in each portion though to help passengers and/or protect the line if a train is devided.  Units do detach from each other from time to time. 

True, but that argument doesn't stand much logical scrutiny. Firstly, divisions of trains in service are exceptionally rare - the last one I remember hearing about I think was somewhere on the Thameslink route a few years ago, although I can't find the report into the incident at the moment. Also, driver-only services are permitted to operate with units coupled in multiple with no staff in the rear portion.

However what really defies explanation (at least to me) is that there are no objections to guards walking through between coupled gangwayed units (say, two class 150/2s) and travelling in the front unit carrying out revenue duties. The chance of a train division is no different, and if the guard is in the front unit when it happens the separated rear portion will still have no staff in it.

It seems like a deeply illogical rule IMHO.

the other point is that a single 2 car pacer split at newton abbott didnt it the other year? (even more rare) and what about trains with doo working in multiple

No. They were split originally by the driver with the signallers permission, to try and sort out a coupling problem (I believe ). It was on the re-coupling, and the subsequent movement that the 'split' occurred.

And an open end gangway door!

Good point.

Putting my devil's advocate hat on, taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the guard should never leave the rear car of any train to ensure that they will always be in the back portion should it divide...!

One issue no-one has mentioned (or if they have I have scanned over) is the issue of PassComms. Should a PCA be activated in a multiple unit formation (where it's activation will solicit an immediate brake application) and there is a through gangway connection then the guard will be able to reach it and reset allowing a brake release. Should it happen in the rear portion of a formation with no gangway connection then the guard is potentially at risk by needing to go trackside to access the unit (and in theory should therefore take their entire kit including high visibility vest when swapping between units). Obviously if it is in the front portion then the driver will be able to reach it and reset. In more modern units then the driver has a available an over ride 'mushroom' or plunger which will allow them to override the brake application and stop the train in a more suitable place.
At XC there are specific requirements for multiple units in passenger service, as there are certain alarms which are not relayed to the driver (such as call for aid points in the accessible toilets). Minimum staffing requirements are a Train Manager and any other member of staff trained to interrogate the Train Management System to find the location and take action on the activation of any alarm (usually a member of catering staff tho RPIs have been used on occasion). If there are two such members of staff available and are located in different units then the Train Manager can 'hop' sets to carry out revenue duties as appropriate. If two Train Managers are present (which would be as rostered for a service booked a double set) then the guard would be in the rear unit and the assisting TM in the front. If there is only one TM and no other suitable member of staff then one unit (usually the rear, depending on any reversals en-route) would need to be locked OOU.

For my part I was guilty of an over-simplification in my OP. The following is a moderately technical explanation which goes part way towards explaining the rule. 


Firstly, the physical barrier presented by non-gangwayed stock means that some local authorities prefer a guard in the trailing set to cope with any unforeseen circumstances.  As such, there will be a train crew member in each portion of the train. I should however emphasise that current safety features are tried and proven and that the positioning of guards is an 'extra layer' as it were.

For example, unit doors are so wired that brake release cannot be obtained until all are shut. (TIS or Traction Interlock Switch). Similarly, should a door open in traffic, the train will be brought to a halt.  This can be bypassed when dealing with faults that would otherwise incapacitate a train.  When the TIS is isolated, brake release can be obtained without doors being closed and doors can open in traffic without the train being halted.  In such cases, the guard will need to make sure that all doors are held closed by air pressure following every stop. The driver would do this in leading unit and the guard in the trailing portion.


In another scenario:-

In normal circumstances, an electrical circuit, (Train Wire) runs around the train, passing through the various train brake circuits and the handles in each cab.  The Train Wire draws power from the rearmost battery in the trailing vehicle.  Break the circuit, (perhaps by division of the train) and brakes are activated throughout ALL portions of the train.  (Activation of the Passcomm also breaks the circuit so stopping the train). So far so good.

However, there are very rare fault-based occurrences which permit drivers to isolate this system.  Rules state that pax must be evacuated from rear unit if practicable, (difficult, dangerous and not a viable option with non gangwayed stock when not platformed).  The guard must then ride in the leading cab of the trailing unit to apply the handbrake, should the train divide, as the train wire has in effect, been 'switched off.'  Thus, all remotely controlled brake handles, (normally 'live' for emergency brake application), are rendered inoperative, excepting that in the cab from which the train is being driven. 

Obviously in above circumstances, the train would be taken out of service at the first practicable location.

I totally empathise with Inspector Blakey's viewpoint ref interconnected units though and cannot offer a better explanation. I can only surmise that a guard in the rear unit is viewed as a means of maximising the benefits of an already considerable safety system.

We seem to have gone off the original issue, but I was wondering if there were any services that were actually diagrammed for 150/1 coupled to another unit.   I appreciate it is easy to deviate from the actual thread but, all the same. the points raised have been interesting.

well its inevitable i would imagine as it was/is with the pacers

The occasional 'repetition, hesitation or deviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_a_Minute)' is not necessarily a transgression on this forum, phile!  ;) :D

I agree: this topic has developed into a very interesting debate about some wider related issues - and that's just what the Coffee Shop forum is all about!

CfN.  ;D

HelloChris E.   Comments accepted and apologise if gone too far.

the 150/1's are diagrammed as a "150" along with the 150/2's and there are plenty of 150+150 diagrams (StIves for example), plenty of 150+153 diagrams, plenty of 14x+14x diagrams, there is even a saturdays 14x+150 diagram and numerous 14x+153 diagrams so the answer is yes  ;D

Almost there, but you are using the wrong termonology and wrong operating princicapals.

The train wires, of which there are 42 on DMUs, are resonsible for through-control in a multiple-unit formation, wether there are two vehicles or ten. The train wires (TWs) are passed between vehicles via the autocoupler contact boxes as found on the driving or cab ends of DMU vehicles, or by 42-way jumpers and recepticles, as found on the intermeidiate or non-driving ends of DMU vehicles.

Each trainwire is invidually numbered and has a singal use, except the lights on/off TWs, which are also used to transmitting PA signals, and several are spare or nt=ot used. As you correctly state, the logic of the trainwires is that the rear vehcile of an electrcially joined multiple-unit formation provides the feeds through the trainwires.

Now lets adress the errors!

The TIS (traction interlock switch) is a normally sealed switch that enables the   Traction Interlock circuit on the vehicle in question to be overridden, allowing traction power to be obtained despite the loss of interlock either through a fault or a door not being able to be shut properly.

Traction Interlock is TW36 and passes through only two relays per vehicle which make/break the trainwire depending on the state of the inerlock on that individual vehicle.

Brake release is determined by TW4 'Brake Continuity', which relies on several crucial interlocks, including suffcient air pressure to control brakes (Main Resovoir Governor), correct coupling of both of the vehicles autocouplers (through a microswitchs operated by the movment of the coupling pin and a couple-proving relay), Drivers brake controller (if the brake controller in any cab in a unit formation is put into Emergancy, brake continuity is broken) and a couple of other switches and relays.

The electrcial systems interconnecting with the trainwires are often very complex and practifcally fail-safe, for example, Operating a Passcom for example does not directly break TW4, but instead breaks a circuit that deenergises a relay called PER (Passenger Emergancy Relay) that then brakes TW4 and thus removess brake continuity and gives an emergancy brake application.

Like the TIS for the traction circuit, there is also an override availiable for the brake continuity circuit, called an EBS (Emergacny Bypass Switch). This is a get out of jail switch that can be operated in the event of a fault conditon or TW4 fault that prevents brake release. Operating this flag switch in the driving cab, removes the main function of the trainwire, and renders the brake controllers in other cabs, the Passscoms and the coupling interlocks redundant, but still retains the MRG (Main Resovoir Govorner) protection so that the brakes cannot be released if there is not suffceint air pressure to re-apply them.

I must emphasis that the EBS is what its name states, an emergancy last resort and as the OP correctly stated, there are specific conditions in which the EBS and also the TIS can be operated on a mainline service train and strict procedures that must be followed by the traincrew while the EBS/TIS is operated, such as sagain the OP has given examples of.

Hope this expliand things a litte bit and i have not chucked too much technical stuff in.

There is no technical reason why a 150/1 could be split in half and a 150/2 set placed betewen the vehicles. All of the units have an 'emergency' 42-way jumper recepticle on the cab end (Drivers side), that the 42-way jumper on the non cab-end would simply plug into making an electrcially coupled formation. The only issue preventing it happening today would be that the majority of FGW 150/2s have had this front 42-way disconnected as they have been the cause of electrcial faults in the past caused by water ingress due to never being used and being exposed to harsh conditions, but these are easily replaceable & reconnectable with a day spent on depot. We had to do eaxactly the same process to the 158s when they were made 3-car units. That is the beauty of DMUs, they can just keep being banged together as long as they are all working ok.

The same applies for 153999, which is a hybrid formation of a 153 and half of 150221 that was unaffected by the fire it suffered at Plymouth. The 150/2 vehicle is simply coupled to the 153 and then the 42-way jumper plugged into the 'emergency' recepticle on the cab front. As the 153 fleet belongs to Exeter, i am not sure if the 153s have had their 42-way receptices disconnected aswell, but it may have been replaced before the vehicles were joined, or the 153 specifically choosen as the 42-way was still connected & working.

The only downside to running multiple unit formations around in this fashion is thagt there is only one 42-way jumper between semi-permaently coupled vehicles, insteasd of the usual two (one per side), so 50% redundancy is instantly lost in the event of damge to the jumper, however 158/3s carry an extra-long emergency jumper which allows the opposite recepticle to be used in the event of a fault, although this is rare. 153999 may have a similiar arrangment.

Personally i would split a few of our 150/2s and place single cars in between the 150/1s, making 3-car suburban/short distance units with extra capacity but without loosing too much flexibility. This has been done sucessfully by LM for 10 years plus.

Hello Vacman.   You say that 150/1s and 150/2s are diagrammed as just 150s.    There was a post on another Forum in May at start of Summer Timetable by a member who claimed to have seen the FGW May Diagrams and quoted the routes over which 150/1s and 150/2s separately were diagrammed to work over.    Or perhaps do you mean that the two are merely treated as just 150s when allocated to Diagrams.

Any shortcomings in my post result from my inability to adequately paraphrase the basic technical paperwork that I have access to.  I was trying to come up with a reason for the particular method of working discussed above without sending most readers to sleep.  As such, I am indebted to the above poster for his errudite and much more in depth, (than I could have hoped to provide), explanation.

I thought it was quite funny, actually ;)

I had a eventful Journey as a Teenager on the Midland Main Line way back, on a Loco Hauled Train returning to my seat from the Buffet I walked past my seat, my friend throught it funny to see me walk on by and didn't say any thing.
Even he was alarmed to see me rush back through the carriage at a very fast pace to reappear with the Guard a minute or two later.

And I'll NEVER forget the Guard saying Well **** me when at the Rear of the rear coach I slid the sliding door open to reveal Nothingness rushing past at 90 MPH.
I can tell you......... it FOCUSES the MIND when you all most walk off the back of a Train.

With the cascade of 150s to FGW and Northern, I have realised that instances of multiple units without through access are rife on Northern Rail.     Combinations of 150/1s and Pacers with wither their own or another class are running round all day.   I am unable to offer and comments on Revenue Protection.

Not surprised he was bricking it! One of the guard's many checks when prepping a loco-hauled train for service is to ensure that the gangway doors at either end are locked (assuming this was mark I stock, using both the BR1 lock and the external bolt/french pin) - he could have been for the high-jump...

It can vary with Northern Rail.  Some services have an additional person on board to check/sell tickets on the front unit, others don't. 

What happens when there isn't an additional person varies as well.  Sometimes the rear unit is only opened for part of the journey.  Other times it's open for the full journey.  The former has the disadvantage of a delay part way through the journey while the rear unit is unlocked or locked up and passengers are told to move to the front unit.  The latter has the disadvantage of less passengers being asked for tickets.

With Northern there are also some out-of-use units attached to in service units in lieu of an ECS move.  For instance, the 14:25 Buxton to Manchester is a 156+150+150.  The 156 is used for the passengers, the two 150s on the rear are just there to get units back to Manchester Piccadilly in time for the evening peak.  In the event of there being a special event on meaning the 156 is packed the guard could open the middle 150 as well.  On the other hand the 16:51 Manchester Piccadilly to Buxton is 2x150s, both of these are used for passengers and the service is full and standing with a pair of 150s.

Now that the December Timetable has bedded in and all the 150/1s arrived with FGW, is there any member who would like to comment of incidence of non-revenue protection.   I am more concerned with any 150/1s being diagrammed attached to another units.   In the past some members have stated that 150 Diagrams are just 150s and not 150/1s and 150/2s separately and others have mentioned sepatate diagrams.   Which is correct, please /    Happy Xmas and New Year to all members

On Thurs 23rd December the 3 car diagram on the Severn Beach Line consisted of a 150/1 which, as we know, has no corridor connection, and a Class 153. Revenue protection wasn't an issue however as the service had both a Conductor and Assistant Ticket Examiner.

I assume that door control can be done from either unit, if the service is manned only by a Conductor (shout out to those who can confirm or deny....). So revenue protection shouldn't be too much of an issue as long as said Conductor regularly swaps between units.

The Beach 3 Coach would be a 3 Ciach 150 when 121 and 127 so formed so no problem then.     Nice to see 3 coaches in the meantime as per your very comprehensive and useful list on the 150/1 Cascade thread.    There is some very useful information earlier in this thread re operating multiple sets so far as the Conductor is concerned.    Not being technically minded some of it was above me.