Limited Express Body Types

[RossDensha]

Hello All!

 

Does anyone here know what the advantages are of different limited express body types?

 

For example, what is an advantage of a raised cab limited express, like the JR East E353 or the JR West 287? This design is very popular in Hokkaido as well.

There's also body types that look similar to commuter type trains, like the JR East E257 or the Nankai 12000.

There are many other types as well.

 

Or, am I making a mountain out of molehill, and none of them really have any advantages over others?

[Kiha66]

Generally the high cab design is to allow a door to open beneath the cab to run multiple sets together.  The early 181 type trains had a sloped hood (often referred to as a "bonnet") that looked nice but limited the makeup of each train, as you couldn't have cab units in the middle of the trainset.  After the 583 series and the 485-200 type came out, JNR realized how handy it was to allow cab cars to also function as normal mid train cars.  With this they can either add extra cars onto a train for busier services without needing a lot of shunting, or can run one train from a busy station that can split up and go to two different destinations.

 

Some smaller trains also use this handy trick but instead of putting the cab above the doorway, they put it to the side.  This started with the kiha82 DMU series, and was used extensively on both other DMUs and also some EMUs, like the 115 series.  

 

A few trains also have what look like doors on the front but are not for regular use.  These sets usually run in tunnels or other lines where the sides are often obstructed in an emergency.  These doors would allow passengers to escape the train in case of a breakdown while in a tunnel or on a bridge.

[Kiha66]

You can see the covers for the connecting door (often called a "gangway" like on a ship) in this photo of the front of an e353 series.  The two rectangular panels open and a protective diaphragm or "gangway hood" will connect between the two cab cars to allow people to transit while the train is in motion.
 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/E353_series_matsumoto_station.jpg

 

Here two trains are connected.  You can see the gangway hood going between the gap for people to pass though.
 

http://photozou.jp/photo/photo_only/3187087/249423050

 

Hope this helps!  Happy to pass on what little knowledge I have

[RossDensha]

I understand, but does this slow the train down? Does it affect acceleration?

 

[bikkuri bahn]

38 minutes ago, RossDensha said:

I understand, but does this slow the train down? Does it affect acceleration?

 

No, any aerodynamic drag is negligible at the speeds these trains operate (up to 120~130km/h). 

[bikkuri bahn]

In Hokkaido, the raised cab (or turret cab) is favored as it provides protection for the driver in case of grade crossing collisions.  Due to heavy snowfall, visibility is often restricted, and the obstruction detectors often used in Honshu and further south/west are ineffective, so at times collisions are unavoidable.  In fact, even non-limited express rolling stock has a raised floor for the driver, to provide some protection against automobile strikes, if not trucks. 

[RossDensha]

Thank you both for sharing your knowledge on this!

That also explains the cab design of the E653/E657/E751.

Edited July 18, 2019 by RossDensha

[HankyuDentetsu]

Good reply bikkuri bahn; increasing the height of the drivers cab, thereby providing the driver with increased visibility, makes sense when travelling through multiple grade crossings and in inclement weather.

 

However I do wonder if the raised cab is truly necessary. Hitachi Rail's Class 385 stock - used by ScotRail which also has it's fair share of bad weather (although admittedly no grade crossings where these trains are operated), has the driver cab positioned to the side of the gangway, allowing units to be joined when required, but without having to engineer in a raised cabin:

 

https://ams3.digitaloceanspaces.com/grn/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/03/26074632/Class-385-arrives-at-Glasgow-Queen-Street-e1553586453731.jpg

 

This allows 3+4 and 4+4 car formations to be used; the gangway is sufficiently wide for catering trolleys to pass through to the rear section. So my question is: is the raised cabin truly necessary in today's day and age? I do understand the grade crossing point, but if the train is travelling at anywhere close to operating speed, surely it's too late if the driver spots an obstruction on the crossing anyway?

Edited July 21, 2019 by HankyuDentetsu
Updating picture link

[EdF]

The overhead clearance seems tight, maybe there isn't room for a turret cab.  Any spotting lead time for an impact is good, you might not avoid it, but you could be slower.  Also humans approve designs, and that means they choose one they ultimately like, inside their budget, not the most logical, or if turrets cost more, maybe a budget issue.

[bill937ca]

1 hour ago, HankyuDentetsu said:

 

 

So my question is: is the raised cabin truly necessary in today's day and age? I do understand the grade crossing point, but if the train is travelling at anywhere close to operating speed, surely it's too late if the driver spots an obstruction on the crossing anyway?

 

Many Japanese train lines are hemmed in limiting the operator's range of vision to little more than straight ahead. I also suspect the UK rolling stock is wider than Japanese stock which range from 2400-2950 mm wide.

Edited July 19, 2019 by bill937ca

[HankyuDentetsu]

Thanks both for your replies.

 

I guess it's a mixture of traditional design lineage (the UK has never used a turret design, Japan traditionally has often used it), and necessity given the grade crossing issue. I doubt it's got much to do with clearance, although I have absolutely no evidence to back this up!

 

EdF you raise a good point. I'm unsure how wide the Class 385 is, but its predecessor, the Class 170 Turbostar, was only 2690mm wide, so I would be surprised if the 385 exceeded this by much of a margin. So I don't think it's a width issue.

[railsquid]

4 hours ago, bill937ca said:

 

Many Japanese train lines are hemmed in limiting the operator's range of vision to little more than straight ahead. I also suspect the UK rolling stock is wider than Japanese stock which range from 2400-2950 mm wide.

 

Other way round, I think the maximum width of British trains is 9 feet (2743 mm), modern Japanese trains (e.g. E235) are 2950mm.

 

The difference is subjectively noticeable if you go directly from Japan to the UK and take a train there.

[bikkuri bahn]

Quote

However I do wonder if the raised cab is truly necessary.

I am only talking about conditions in Hokkaido, where average line speeds may be greater than say, in metropolitan Tokyo (due to wider station spacing), and the weather much more extreme (i.e. raging blizzards) than in the UK.  In Honshu, grade crossings are typically protected by a battery of motion detectors which provide a modicum of warning for train drivers, and while a collision is typically unavoidable, the few seconds warning provided by the motion detectors allows the drivers to start an emergency brake application.  No such luxury occurs in Hokkaido, and it is entirely in the realm of possibility that a grade crossing collision may occur at speeds upwards of 100km/h and above.  That extra protection provided by the raised floor of the cab gives drivers a bit more peace of mind.  I think it was railway union pressure in the 1970's that was partly the reason for this design feature becoming standard- certainly it was incorporated in the kiha 40 design, which was heavily influenced by union-management conflict in the JNR era.  Also, the raised cab designs still allow passage via gangways/bellows between coupled trainsets, though such operations are rare in Hokkaido, as most services used fixed formations with no coupling/uncoupling enroute.

Edited July 20, 2019 by bikkuri bahn

[railsquid]

Slightly on-topic, a recent video of a JR East E353 vs an automobile:

 

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by railsquid

[RossDensha]

I've seen that before, it definitely shows the advantage of a raised cab with (as far as I can see) no injuries to the driver, and it's only the bottom parts of the train that have been significantly damaged. The car on the other hand...

[HankyuDentetsu]

Thanks again Bikkuri bahn for your reply - really interesting and makes perfect sense!

[Sheffie]

I couldn't tell from the video whether the driver was in the car. I hope not, though, because from reading articles in Britain about this, train drivers who are in collisions with vehicles often have major issues afterwards, both post traumatic stress and simple guilt, even though there's usually nothing they could have done.

[HankyuDentetsu]

Yes that video does clearly show the advantage of the raised cab. Incredible though, the E353 barely even has a scratch considering the damage done to the car. Unreal.

 

[bill937ca]

And, of course,, the car driver's family can await a bill from JR for damage to the train.  

[RossDensha]

If you put yourself in the position of the driver of any accident, it's truly horrible to think about.

[Welshbloke]

I drove a train back in March on an experience day. 25mph (the line speed for the preserved railway) feels a lot faster when you know how long it'll take to stop. The tunnel was particularly weird, a horn blast in case anyone is in there and suddenly you're driving blind, just watching your speed and engine/axle lights as everything outside is completely dark.

 

I have wondered whether low cab KuHas tended to be shuffled to positions inside units as the high cab designs appeared? Thinking about the 153 Series particularly where both types existed and the low cab ones seem to have lasted in service until the end. Some of the diagrams I've seen show a KuHa or two being used as a conventional intermediate coach.

[serotta1972]

I have grown to like the high cab design but some of my favorite Limited Express trains have a wedge front end design such as the 383, 787, Kintetsu 21000 Urbanliner, Tobu 200 and GSE 70000.  

 

[Kiha66]

7 hours ago, Welshbloke said:

I have wondered whether low cab KuHas tended to be shuffled to positions inside units as the high cab designs appeared? Thinking about the 153 Series particularly where both types existed and the low cab ones seem to have lasted in service until the end. Some of the diagrams I've seen show a KuHa or two being used as a conventional intermediate coach.

 

From what I remember, the high cab variant came about initially to fit ATC equipment into the train.  So perhaps it was dependent on the line which could be leading.

[railsquid]

That was certainly the case for the 103s.

 

For the 153s Wikipedia states thusly:

 

Quote

 

クハ153形の1961年度以降製造車は、踏切事故対策として乗務員の安全性を高めるため、従来の運転台（低運転台）から前面窓の縦幅を短くし運転台を300mm高くする（高運転台）設計変更が実施された。

 

 

I.e. for cars produced from fiscal year 1961 onwards, the design was revised to a high-cab design to improve crew safety in the event of level crossing accidents.

[Welshbloke]

I've seen photos of both 153 Series cab designs in the later white and blue livery, so the low cabs must have lasted pretty much until the end. Interestingly my old Kato one (instructions dated 1979!) has high cabs. I'm not sure Kato offered low cabs until the 2000s when they last aired that tooling.