Surplus rolling stock after Beeching

[delt1c]

Many of them eventually went to Waterloo-Exeter.....were they reverted to standard or left as modified?

The Waterloo Exeter was 2a & b's. The ex E-G stock initialy went to ER and then I believe they were withdrawn as non standard

 

[edwin_m]

One of the incarnations of the BR Research "Lab 5" track recording coach was an ex-E&G Mk2. I think the disc brakes were the reason, possibly because the extra brake force allowed one axle to be unbraked for instrumentation reasons. When it succumbed to rust the bogies were transferred onto an aircon Mk2 which I think sometimes ran in the New Measurement Train (and may still).

 

[BestWestern]

According to Michael Harris' book British Rail Mk 2 coaches The design that launched Inter-City, Mallard Venture, 1999, there were several reasons why the early Mk 2 designs were withdrawn. The first ones used asbestos as an insulator on the internal bodysides, ends and roof. This was dropped for the Mk 2A coaches. The Mk 2B coaches suffered from body side distortion, it was found that some welds that were made in Swindon's prototype Mk 2 were not included. All later builds included gusset plates to stiffen the structure. And generally all the varieties up and including the Mk 2D suffered from a range of defects, from weak designs of ashtrays to troublesome electrics and ventilation systems. To replace a water tank if it had suffered frost damage required half the lavatory to be dismantled.

So it is not surprising the early models were removed from service as soon as possible. The later models were anyway intended to be only a stop gap until the arrival of the 75ft Mark 3 coach, work on which started in 1967.

On the subject of intercity coaching stock development, I've always been mildly intrigued at some of the prototype HST trailers still in use, including 42353/6 running with FGW/GWR as wheelchair accessible Coach C in their HSTs. These are noticeably different from the later production vehicles in lacking the usual protruding window pans/surrounds, instead having a ridged window pan flush with the bodyside (with the exception of the windows subsequently added during the accessible toilet modifications, which are to the same design as the later vehicles). They also suffer extensively with body corrosion, both around the windows and everywhere else, and are in a visibly poor condition with substantial rust rapidly overcoming the paintwork on the bodysides. They went through the same heavy rebuild mid-2000s as the rest of the GWR fleet I presume, but have fared far less well than the rest. Were the prototypes built from a lower grade steel than the production fleet I wonder?

 

[Bletchleyite]

LH Mk3s have that type of window, don’t they?

 

[Taunton]

Were the prototypes built from a lower grade steel than the production fleet I wonder?

Probably water penetration rather than the material. Rail vehicles are subject to this all round, from rain penetration, condensation, toilet plumbing leaks, catering equipment leaks, you name it. At least we are now free of steam heating and all the leaks that were associated with that inside the structure. It seems to be common that the first generation of mainstream designs never get the sealing quite right. Blown double glazing seals, with accumulated condensation between the panes that would slosh around with braking, were a feature of early double-glazed windows, which did no good for the base of the window pans. Someone wrote to BR suggesting they develop a breed of flat goldfish to go inside

It's notable that the Mk 1 design was originally specified as an underframe and running gear to last 40 years, and a body to last 20 years, to be rebodied at mid-life. Never actually happened of course. Older company stock used to have periodic works overhauls that were sufficiently comprehensive in replacing rotted components that after 20-25 years there was little original body material remaining.

 

[edwin_m]

On the subject of intercity coaching stock development, I've always been mildly intrigued at some of the prototype HST trailers still in use, including 42353/6 running with FGW/GWR as wheelchair accessible Coach C in their HSTs. These are noticeably different from the later production vehicles in lacking the usual protruding window pans/surrounds, instead having a ridged window pan flush with the bodyside (with the exception of the windows subsequently added during the accessible toilet modifications, which are to the same design as the later vehicles). They also suffer extensively with body corrosion, both around the windows and everywhere else, and are in a visibly poor condition with substantial rust rapidly overcoming the paintwork on the bodysides. They went through the same heavy rebuild mid-2000s as the rest of the GWR fleet I presume, but have fared far less well than the rest. Were the prototypes built from a lower grade steel than the production fleet I wonder?

Probably water penetration rather than the material. ... It seems to be common that the first generation of mainstream designs never get the sealing quite right.

The Mk1s seem to have gone through exactly the same stages, with the later ones getting a raised window surround. You'd think someone from the Mk1 design would still have been around for the original Mk3s, as usually the same mistake isn't made again until after the people who made it the first time have retired!

It's notable that the Mk 1 design was originally specified as an underframe and running gear to last 40 years, and a body to last 20 years, to be rebodied at mid-life. Never actually happened of course.

Excepting the one that was re-bodied using Leyland National bus panels around 1980, by the same people that brought you the LEV that subsequently evolved into the Pacer. Given how those turned out, I think we can be grateful that the Mk1 conversion didn't go into volume production.

 

[Taunton]

You'd think someone from the Mk1 design would still have been around for the original Mk3s, as usually the same mistake isn't made again until after the people who made it the first time have retired!

Little things do change. Someone said to me they would never have anticipated a generation ago that carriage washers would progressively become more violent with water pressure, just to blast the dirt off, to an extend that exceeds any rainstorm or similar.

 

[snakeeyes]

The Mk1s seem to have gone through exactly the same stages, with the later ones getting a raised window surround. You'd think someone from the Mk1 design would still have been around for the original Mk3s, as usually the same mistake isn't made again until after the people who made it the first time have retired!



Excepting the one that was re-bodied using Leyland National bus panels around 1980, by the same people that brought you the LEV that subsequently evolved into the Pacer. Given how those turned out, I think we can be grateful that the Mk1 conversion didn't go into volume production.

http://www.traintesting.com/leyland-coach.htm

 

[61653 HTAFC]

http://www.traintesting.com/leyland-coach.htm

I note from the link that it was used on long-distance intercity services for which it wasn't ideal, and the seats were said to be uncomfortable, though it had a nice ambience. From the interior photo the seats don't look bad, certainly no worse than what you'd get on National Express coaches of the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps another example of a decision made to ensure failure? On secondary loco-hauled services it might have found favour, particularly with a better ratio of table bays to airline seats.

The idea of having 2 different designs or colours of moquette within a vehicle is something that seemed popular in the 80s and 90s (this coach, mk4s) and for some reason continued post-BR (Virgin WCML sets, GNER Mallard refurbishment). Was this considered to be something which improved the passenger experience at low-cost, or just a recurring whim of designers?

P.S. Just noticed the no smoking stickers on the windows, and on the seat backs... Ashtrays!

 

[70014IronDuke]

But the whole point of the strategy then, as regularly detailed in contemporary articles, was "The Cascade", that there was continuous production and upgrading, as happened, and new stock was put on the most worthwhile services, and then progressively moved downwards, apparently determined on a revenue per coach calculation, as time went on. Which worked. ...

Well, it did, and it didn't.

My point was that, arguably, the problem was was that technological changes made stock out-dated (if not quite obsolete) far faster than in earlier times. So you could travel in a carriage (say) from 1935 in 1960, and not notice any significant difference in terms of comfort or ride. (If anything, the ride might have been worse in the 1960 stock - although the steel underframe may have made the carriage safer in the case of an accident.)

Whereas by 1965, the new MkIIs had already changed significantly, and by 1970 the air con stock had made another significan leap along the techno-modernisation chain.

 

[dubscottie]

Vast numbers of Mk1 stock of all types were scrapped in the late 60s.
Most of the early built ones were crumbling with rust, except the SR ones, who seemed to look after them.

I think the last TC set withdrawn had a coach that dated from 1951/2!

I have seen a picture of a Builled coach in B/G livery. Think it was posted to Rmweb.

It is possible that the prototype Mk3 used different steel from the production coaches.

The class 317 has the same issue. The TC were built at Derby using standard steel and the MSO & DTS at York using Cortan steel. Has caused problems when they have needed repair.

 

[edwin_m]

I note from the link that it was used on long-distance intercity services for which it wasn't ideal, and the seats were said to be uncomfortable, though it had a nice ambience. From the interior photo the seats don't look bad, certainly no worse than what you'd get on National Express coaches of the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps another example of a decision made to ensure failure? On secondary loco-hauled services it might have found favour, particularly with a better ratio of table bays to airline seats.

The idea of having 2 different designs or colours of moquette within a vehicle is something that seemed popular in the 80s and 90s (this coach, mk4s) and for some reason continued post-BR (Virgin WCML sets, GNER Mallard refurbishment). Was this considered to be something which improved the passenger experience at low-cost, or just a recurring whim of designers?

P.S. Just noticed the no smoking stickers on the windows, and on the seat backs... Ashtrays!

I have a vague memory of riding it for the short hop from New Street to International circa 1983, possibly the same occasion I sampled the Maglev. 16 years later I started working from someone who'd been involved in both, and also with the Mk3!

 

[edwin_m]

Most of the early built ones were crumbling with rust, except the SR ones, who seemed to look after them.

Perhaps because they didn't use steam heating ?

 

[Taunton]

Perhaps because they didn't use steam heating ?

Well they did until the end of steam on the Bournemouth line in 1967, and there wasn't actually a lot of ETH loco haulage.

EMUs of course are different. Look at the life of the SUBs.

 

[gg1]

I have seen a picture of a Builled coach in B/G livery. Think it was posted to Rmweb.

There was also at least one Blue and Grey Gresley buffet which lasted well into the 70s.

 

[randyrippley]

There was also at least one Blue and Grey Gresley buffet which lasted well into the 70s.

There was at least one Gresley pigeon car in all-blue on Waterloo-Exeter workings during the early 1980's

 

[dubscottie]

There was also at least one Blue and Grey Gresley buffet which lasted well into the 70s.

I understand there was a shortage of Buffet cars and that's why the Gresley and Thompson ones lasted so long.

Never understood why BR spent money on repainting into B/G and fitting ETH to LMS coaches in the late 60's only to withdraw them a year or so later.

 

[Bevan Price]

Well, it did, and it didn't.

My point was that, arguably, the problem was was that technological changes made stock out-dated (if not quite obsolete) far faster than in earlier times. So you could travel in a carriage (say) from 1935 in 1960, and not notice any significant difference in terms of comfort or ride.

Whereas by 1965, the new MkIIs had already changed significantly, and by 1970 the air con stock had made another significant leap along the techno-modernisation chain.

Not entirely correct. GWR and SR seats were generally better padded than LMSR & LNER stock - and in my opinion, certainly more comfortable than either Mark 1 or Mark 2 stock. And some Mark 2 stock (standard class) began a trend towards thinner & less comfortable seat upholstery.

Whether or not AirCon is an improvement can be a matter of personal opinion. Even before the "coolant" problems, it could be a bit unreliable, and I also found that the thermostat must havesometimes been set at too high a temperature for personal comfort.

 

[Taunton]

Not entirely correct. GWR and SR seats were generally better padded than LMSR & LNER stock - and in my opinion, certainly more comfortable than either Mark 1 or Mark 2 stock. And some Mark 2 stock (standard class) began a trend towards thinner & less comfortable seat upholstery.

Too true. For a practical example, go to Didcot museum when they have their 1935 GWR Excursion Stock open saloon out on the demo line. It's arrangement is little different to a BR Open Second, despite it's age, but as soon as you sit down in it you think "Why couldn't I have come out from Paddington in a coach with seats as pleasant and comfortable as this - and this is a museum piece which has been in unheated storage for the past half century.

 

[Helvellyn]

To look at the Mark 2 stock one thing to remember is that BR at that time had a rule of thumb that stock had a front line life (i.e. InterCity Express services) of about ten years and would then be cascaded to inter-regional and local services. Add in the technological developments happening at the time and the need to compete with the emerging motorway network (and even domestic airlines) and you can see why the Mark 2 started going through several variations.

The HSTs were seen as a stop-gap fleet (still makes me chuckle) until the all conquering APT spread across the country. Yet the fleet was built on a buisness case basis - Bristol & South Wales (M4), East Coast, South West (M4/M5 bit also standardisation and improve quality) then NE/SW route (M5, quality). Shame the proposed Trans-Pennine, ScotRail Express (E-G) and NW-South Coast sets never materialised. And the Midland Mainline gots its sets based on surplus WR sets in the early 1980s recession!

The West Coast was even odder. Largely kept their Mark 2C fleet, had Mark 2F coaches (and at one point had virtually the lot) and the loco-hauled Mark 3A fleet. The whole lot was meant to be swept away by the APT in the mid-1980s, with likely cascades of the 2F and 3A fleet. Instead we got the smal Mark 3B fleet, DVTs and the Class 90s. Then privatisation killed the IC250 (Class 93/Mark 5s) and we saw the 2F and 3A/3B fleet refurbished again.

Interestingly, one of the design guidelines for the Mark 3 stock (and Mark 4 too) was the standard bodyshell and the ability to be able to relatively easily convert between First and Standard Class. You just have to look at how BR had a glut of First Class Mark 2 vehicles in the 1980s. Masses of FKs were declassified as low capacity SKs, the Mark 2D FKs effectively went at mid-life and we had the Mark 2D FOs rebuilt as TSOs and the 2Fs declassified, then rebuilt as Buffets, Lounge Cars and high-capacity TSOs.

 

[Taunton]

Interestingly, one of the design guidelines for the Mark 3 stock (and Mark 4 too) was the standard bodyshell and the ability to be able to relatively easily convert between First and Standard Class. You just have to look at how BR had a glut of First Class Mark 2 vehicles in the 1980s. Masses of FKs were declassified as low capacity SKs, the Mark 2D FKs effectively went at mid-life and we had the Mark 2D FOs rebuilt as TSOs and the 2Fs declassified, then rebuilt as Buffets, Lounge Cars and high-capacity TSOs.

Never quite got that one. The Mk 3 seconds were already built with seats not aligning with the windows, why could they not all be initially built for front line service with sensible window alignment, then the firsts be re-seated when cascaded? I believe a few Mk 2 FOs were so reseated but I wonder why it wasn't a mainstream half-life programme for them. And for the compartment FKs, surely stripping out the compartments to an empty shell to start this was a one day works task. They weren't structural.

I reckon the Mk 3 configuration was an engineering convenience position, of having only one set of jigs rather than two, where they managed to get one over on the commercial department.

The overprovision (in the case of the WCML, absolutely gross over-provision) of First Class accommodation seemed to start with their Mk 2 stock, and progressively reached a pinnacle with the first Pendolinos.

 

[ainsworth74]

I reckon the Mk 3 configuration was an engineering convenience position, of having only one set of jigs rather than two, where they managed to get one over on the commercial department.

Could have sworn it was on record as that being the reason? It was easier and therefore cheaper to simply have, effectively, one body shell type rather than one for standard and one for first.

 

[edwin_m]

Could have sworn it was on record as that being the reason? It was easier and therefore cheaper to simply have, effectively, one body shell type rather than one for standard and one for first.

Indeed, and they made the bodyshell so that the windows matched the First bay spacing. Originally the Standard (Second) had just two rows of airline seating back to back against the centre partition so the tables towards the end of the coach aligned reasonably well but those nearer the centre didn't.

The TGS, if I recall correctly, had more airline seating and the proportion was increased several times in the other Second coaches even in BR days. This has obviously continued under the TOCs and as most have also adopted high-backed seating the view has got progressively worse. Another innovation in the Mk3 (or possibly the last series of Mk2) was the provision of aircraft style seat tracks so that the seats and tables could be re-positioned at will.

As mentioned above, when coaches were cascaded off the front-line routes the proportion of First was too great for the secondary routes they moved onto. The standardised bodyshell would have facilitated re-seating, but by the time the Mk3s were displaced from front-line routes the advent of 158s and later Voyagers meant the cascade had effectively ceased. So relatively few Mk3s were re-seated, one exception being the composite coaches for Scotland.

 

[Taunton]

Another innovation in the Mk3 (or possibly the last series of Mk2) was the provision of aircraft style seat tracks so that the seats and tables could be re-positioned at will.

I think this was indeed a major difference between Mk 2e and Mk 2f. The heaters were moved from under the seats (thus fixing where the seats were) to the lower bodysides, reducing footspace for window seat passengers but allowing the seats to be simply moved.

 

[randyrippley]

I think this was indeed a major difference between Mk 2e and Mk 2f. The heaters were moved from under the seats (thus fixing where the seats were) to the lower bodysides, reducing footspace for window seat passengers but allowing the seats to be simply moved.

Mk2f used the smaller thinner seats designed for the Mk3, presumably the heater move was related to this

 

[70014IronDuke]

Not entirely correct. GWR and SR seats were generally better padded than LMSR & LNER stock - and in my opinion, certainly more comfortable than either Mark 1 or Mark 2 stock. And some Mark 2 stock (standard class) began a trend towards thinner & less comfortable seat upholstery.

Whether or not AirCon is an improvement can be a matter of personal opinion. Even before the "coolant" problems, it could be a bit unreliable, and I also found that the thermostat must havesometimes been set at too high a temperature for personal comfort.

But it's not a matter of what you or I think. You, me and many others in here may find older stock more comfortable, and prefer Mk !s with the windows open and the sound and smells of Cl 47 whisping in etc. Gresley Buffet cars may have lasted into the 1980s (on one, non-standard, Intercity train).

But my point is railway management deemed MkIIs more suitable for modern travel, and when air-con came on, that was considered 'state of the art' carriage environment too. And it quickly pushed the quite new earlier Mk IIs well down the pecking order.
These technological changes - which could be readily noticed by the travelling public - made carriages of just 5 years build "obsolete", or almost so, in management eyes. This happened far more quickly than earlier. Whereas most passengers would probably not know the difference between a 1960 built Mk 1 and a pre-grouping carriage (unless it was on BR 1 bogies, and they they'd probably think it was the older carriage!)

 

[Taunton]

There was at least one Gresley pigeon car in all-blue on Waterloo-Exeter workings during the early 1980's

Just to add a bit here, these vans, for some reason called pigeon vans, were 6-wheel brakes, of use for all sorts of other things besides racing pigeons, and were generally used for parcels services. They also may have been designed during Gresley's era, but were actually built, at Stratford Works, in the 1950s.

http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brerbz/h3e5f4e4a#h3e5f4e4a

 

[edwin_m]

But my point is railway management deemed MkIIs more suitable for modern travel, and when air-con came on, that was considered 'state of the art' carriage environment too. And it quickly pushed the quite new earlier Mk IIs well down the pecking order.
These technological changes - which could be readily noticed by the travelling public - made carriages of just 5 years build "obsolete", or almost so, in management eyes. This happened far more quickly than earlier. Whereas most passengers would probably not know the difference between a 1960 built Mk 1 and a pre-grouping carriage (unless it was on BR 1 bogies, and they they'd probably think it was the older carriage!)

I'd query pre-grouping - the elaborate exterior panelling would have been a giveaway - but the "big 4" stock built in the 1930s was comparable to the Mk1 from the passenger point of view.

As well as the need for "modernity" and improvements in comfort on competing modes, increasing train speeds were making the traditional coaches less acceptable, particularly because of the noise and draughts with the windows open.

 

[30907]

Just to add a bit here, these vans, for some reason called pigeon vans, were 6-wheel brakes, of use for all sorts of other things besides racing pigeons, and were generally used for parcels services. They also may have been designed during Gresley's era, but were actually built, at Stratford Works, in the 1950s.

http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brerbz/h3e5f4e4a#h3e5f4e4a

Sorry, but I think the reference is to the pre-war Gresley Gangwayed Passenger Brake - which I remember seeing in Rail Blue in Clapham Yard around 1980.
I imagine it was in the Yeovil Papers set (0140 Waterloo), 3as the regular Exeter sets had back-to-back BSOs to cope with short platforms.

 

[randyrippley]

Just to add a bit here, these vans, for some reason called pigeon vans, were 6-wheel brakes, of use for all sorts of other things besides racing pigeons, and were generally used for parcels services. They also may have been designed during Gresley's era, but were actually built, at Stratford Works, in the 1950s.

http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brerbz/h3e5f4e4a#h3e5f4e4a

Those 6-wheeled vans did turn up on Waterloo-Exeter sometimes, but there was also a real bogied Gresley Pigeon van on the route as well for a while. Looked wooden bodied. Number as far as I can remember was of the type WxxxE
The 6-wheelers on the route were all numbered Sxxxxx