Mixed class compatibility for MU formations of locomotives?

[miyakoji]

Sorry, misread. You're looking for more info on that cable, not other cables.

[bikkuri bahn]

Also i would like to know what was the reason behind driving from the pusher locomotives instead of the front cab with a working MU connection?

 

I haven't found the reason, but perhaps it's related to the control stand setup on the locomotives, with their more sensitive and stepped throttle?  EMUs have very simplified throttle settings in comparison. For example,  the first three notches on the EF63 throttle/regulator corresspond to the first notch on a 189 series throttle, similarly the next three notches to the second notch etc.

Edited January 20, 2015 by bikkuri bahn

[bikkuri bahn]

Some more information about jumper connections.  The KE70 is a 55 pin connection, and seems to be a rather common standard for later JNR era rolling stock.  The 113 series EMU 1000 subclass, used for through running on the Sobu Line, with underground running in central Tokyo, were fitted with a KE70 jumper on the driving cars, presumably for connections to electric locomotives in case of equipment failure (diesel haulage not being possible in subway tunnels).  With regards to the 113 series EMU in general, the standard setup was KE9 which was 440v AC for aircon, KE1, which was the main 1500v DC line, and three (3) KE76, which were each 19 pin connections, I suppose for control of systems other than the above.

[kvp]

 

but perhaps it's related to the control stand setup on the locomotives, with their more sensitive and stepped throttle?

That sounds reasonable. It was probably easier to equip the locomotives to work with the emus than the other way around.

 

Thanks for the info! I wonder if the KE70 was used for control between two connected sets (like on the keihin tohoku 103-s) or just for emu-locomotive pairs. The KE76 could be similar to the UIC 568, but i don't know. Finding an exact pinout/protocol description for them could be hard.

[marknewton]

Except you said the locomotives didn't have an automatic power cutoff (pneumatic control governor) and relied on the drivers to do it after a warning. It turns out they are safer than that. As bikkuri bahn pointed it out, the warning is for the driver, but the brakes are applied automatically.

I was being facetious. My comments were in relation to what I observed on EF61 and EF67 locos. I cannot comment on how the EF63s were equipped, as I have never been on one.

 

I realise you're unable to accept the idea of train drivers being able to function safely without the benefit of automated systems, so I'm probably wasting my time in pointing out the following - however I'll try once again. I don't know what pressure the control governors on these locos were set to function. On our locos the brake pipe pressure has to drop below 200kpa for them to operate. I'll make an eductated guess that the locos I saw were similar.

 

By the time you lose that much brakepipe you're well into an emergency brake application. An alert crew, noting that the brake pipe pressure was dropping rapidly and the flow meter was screaming it's tits off would have shut off power long before the control governor was activated, and taken appropriate action. Particularly a JNR crew, as they are on the whole very well trained, very experienced and very well motivated.

 

Mark.

[marknewton]

Also i would like to know what was the reason behind driving from the pusher locomotives...

Because the bank engine crew are in charge of the train, not the MU driver. And as bb states, the locos have more sensitive master controllers.

 

Mark.