HST sets and originally planned formations - 2 catering vehicles for XC as well?

[43096]

The really sad thing about all this is that BR never designed a proper Trailer Second, for example with window sizes that were properly aligned with seating bays. The argument was always given that they had to use the same bodyshell as the Trailer First in order to save design costs. Then they went and produced seven designs of catering vehicle...

I’ve no idea where you get the 7 types of catering vehicle from. There were three (TRSB, TRUK, TRUB) and two of those had almost identical bodyshells (TRSB and TRUK), and in any case the catering vehicle shells are variants of the standard type.

The aligned with seating bays things is massively over-stated: the deadlights between the windows are not that big - nothing like a Pendolino for instance. Given the flexibility of having standard vehicle shells that could be re-configured easily and the number of conversions between vehicle types over the years, it was absolutely the right decision to go with the design they did.

 

[hexagon789]

The really sad thing about all this is that BR never designed a proper Trailer Second, for example with window sizes that were properly aligned with seating bays. The argument was always given that they had to use the same bodyshell as the Trailer First in order to save design costs. Then they went and produced seven designs of catering vehicle...

What would be the point of giving them (TS and TSOs) nine windows? I don't see it gives any benefit for the additional expense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would be the point of giving them (TS and TSOs) nine windows? I don't see it gives any benefit for the additional expense.

Seats aligned to the windows! As was done on e.g. the Class 158 to great effect.

To be fair on the catering vehicles they were all still based on the 8-window layout, just with different bits blanked off.

 

[hexagon789]

I’ve no idea where you get the 7 types of catering vehicle from. There were three (TRSB, TRUK, TRUB) and two of those had almost identical bodyshells (TRSB and TRUK), and in any case the catering vehicle shells are variants of the standard type.

The aligned with seating bays things is massively over-stated: the deadlights between the windows are not that big - nothing like a Pendolino for instance. Given the flexibility of having standard vehicle shells that could be re-configured easily and the number of conversions between vehicle types over the years, it was absolutely the right decision to go with the design they did.

There are three catering bodyshells (though the TRSB and TRUK are only really different in the kitchen area) so exactly as you say, everything is a variation on those basic types.

I also agree about the windows, at least you get a view out from pretty much anywhere in the coach compared to more recent designs, but even then people make more of that than I think the average passenger does.

 

[hexagon789]

Seats aligned to the windows! As was done on e.g. the Class 158 to great effect.

To be fair on the catering vehicles they were all still based on the 8-window layout, just with different bits blanked off.

The 158 is a different design though, I was talking about the merit of having two bodyshells for Mk3 seated vehicles as was done with the Mk2 design.

You could I suppose have designed the Mk3s like the BREL International coaches and given them 9 windows in the seating vehicles (54 seats in First; 72 in Standard).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 158 is a different design though, I was talking about the merit of having two bodyshells for Mk3 seated vehicles as was done with the Mk2 design.

You could I suppose have designed the Mk3s like the BREL International coaches and given them 9 windows in the seating vehicles (54 seats in First; 72 in Standard).

But then 1st wouldn't get extra legroom.

I wonder if it might have made sense to do it based on a 9 window bodyshell but be a bit more innovative in 1st, such as alternating a bay that takes up the window and both pillars, then one row of really-excellent-legroom airline seats with just a window, then another bay. Though that would give you only 42 seats in 1st rather than 48. Hmm.

Ideally, it'd have been a more modular design allowing any number of windows like CAF seem to have produced with the Civity platform or Stadler with the FLIRT. If they'd worked on the basis of the pillar width being set for 8 windows but the same width was used for 9 it would have been fairly standardised (albeit quite small windows) and the 9 window version would have been much stronger.

 

[hexagon789]

But then 1st wouldn't get extra legroom.

I wonder if it might have made sense to do it based on a 9 window bodyshell but be a bit more innovative in 1st, such as alternating a bay that takes up the window and both pillars, then one row of really-excellent-legroom airline seats with just a window, then another bay. Though that would give you only 42 seats in 1st rather than 48. Hmm.

Ideally, it'd have been a more modular design allowing any number of windows like CAF seem to have produced with the Civity platform or Stadler with the FLIRT. If they'd worked on the basis of the pillar width being set for 8 windows but the same width was used for 9 it would have been fairly standardised (albeit quite small windows) and the 9 window version would have been much stronger.

I think any number of things could have been done differently but as it was I don't think the Mk3 was such a bad design

 

[Western Sunset]

Sliding external doors (rather than manually hinged) should've been provided from the outset. BR was very late (too late?) in going down that road.

 

[hexagon789]

Sliding external doors (rather than manually hinged) should've been provided from the outset. BR was very late (too late?) in going down that road.

They ruled it out on cost grounds and in view of the fact that the loco-hauled ones would be working with Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles with manual doors, but both automatic doors and retention toilets were considered during the design process

 

[Bletchleyite]

They ruled it out on cost grounds and in view of the fact that the loco-hauled ones would be working with Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles with manual doors, but both automatic doors and retention toilets were considered during the design process

They could, and should, have fitted UIC folding doors with 5km/h door blocking. Would have saved lives and required no guard operation. Could have had the autoclosers for when they were working with other Mk3s or in HST formations etc.

"Not invented here"?

 

[hexagon789]

They could, and should, have fitted UIC folding doors with 5km/h door blocking. Would have saved lives and required no guard operation. Could have had the autoclosers for when they were working with other Mk3s or in HST formations etc.

"Not invented here"?

I think we or at least I discussed this before (?), and that was considered along with plug doors I believe but still ruled out.

It is of course worth noting the Irish Mk3s all had electric swing-plug doors from new.

 

[Western Sunset]

Also with 442s.

 

[hexagon789]

Also with 442s.

Indeed, the door design is essentially identical to the Irish Mk3 design.

 

[Helvellyn]

So no apologies for digging up this old thread, but I stumbled across an article online today showing the actual phone booth in a Mark 3B FO. I'm assuming the phone in the Western Region Mark 3 TFs was essentially installed the same way (in place of a luggage stack).

https://railwaymatters.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/mk-iiib-1st-open-coach-interior-with-telephone.jpg?w=470&h=375

 

[hexagon789]

So no apologies for digging up this old thread, but I stumbled across an article online today showing the actual phone booth in a Mark 3B FO. I'm assuming the phone in the Western Region Mark 3 TFs was essentially installed the same way (in place of a luggage stack).

https://railwaymatters.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/mk-iiib-1st-open-coach-interior-with-telephone.jpg?w=470&h=375

Nice photo. I believe the phones were indeed all fitted in place of a luggage rack hence the exterior window becoming a full whited pane instead of the split design. Not sure what they replaced in RFMs and some HST buffets, might've been luggage space in this email as well I suppose

 

[WesternLancer]

So no apologies for digging up this old thread, but I stumbled across an article online today showing the actual phone booth in a Mark 3B FO. I'm assuming the phone in the Western Region Mark 3 TFs was essentially installed the same way (in place of a luggage stack).

https://railwaymatters.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/mk-iiib-1st-open-coach-interior-with-telephone.jpg?w=470&h=375

Good to see that pic! Interesting seat design too that I don't seem to recall having seen before or at the time.

 

[JonathanH]

Good to see that pic! Interesting seat design too that I don't seem to recall having seen before or at the time.

It is a Mark IIIb, not a HST coach (as the original poster notes). These are the coaches which found their way to Anglia, complete with that seat design (although a different head rest).

 

[hexagon789]

Good to see that pic! Interesting seat design too that I don't seem to recall having seen before or at the time.

ISTR the design fitted to the 3Bs was based on that fitted in the APT-P

 

[WesternLancer]

It is a Mark IIIb, not a HST coach (as the original poster notes). These are the coaches which found their way to Anglia, complete with that seat design (although a different head rest).

Thanks, helpful to know

 

[WesternLancer]

ISTR the design fitted to the 3Bs was based on that fitted in the APT-P

Interesting - given that I went on the APT - tho not in 1st class

 

[DB]

Thanks, helpful to know

They are called IC80 seats

Think there is a standard-class variant too, as found on the APT (and I think used in some Mk2 FO-TSO conversions?)

 

[Helvellyn]

They are called IC80 seats

Think there is a standard-class variant too, as found on the APT (and I think used in some Mk2 FO-TSO conversions?)

Correct, the IC80 First Class seat was used in the Mark 3Bs (FOs/BFOs) and Mark 4s (FOs/RFMs). It was also trialled in at least two Mark 3 TFs, but in the end the Mark 3s/3As retained the IC70 seat with new squabs and headrests.

The IC80 Standard Class seat was used in the Mark 2D FO-TSO conversions (6200-6236) and Mark 2F SO-TSO conversions, that had originally been FOs (6800-6829). Network SouthEast also used the seat in a number of Mark 2 TSOs and BSOs refurbished for the loco-hauled Liverpool Street - King's Lynn services.

 

[DB]

Correct, the IC80 First Class seat was used in the Mark 3Bs (FOs/BFOs) and Mark 4s (FOs/RFMs). It was also trialled in at least two Mark 3 TFs, but in the end the Mark 3s/3As retained the IC70 seat with new squabs and headrests.

Didn't realise the Mk4s had them as well - but I never travelled first class in those days! So far as I recall the ones in standard were a design not found in any other trains.

 

[Helvellyn]

Didn't realise the Mk4s had them as well - but I never travelled first class in those days! So far as I recall the ones in standard were a design not found in any other trains.

They were. The Standard IC80 seats would have worked in the Mark 4 (similar profile as the APT) but InterCity went for that new design, which included the movable armrests.

 

[DB]

At least one of the royal train ex-HST TRUKs has first class IC80s as well - I've got a book somewhere on the royal train with a photo of it. The saloon area of this particular carriage looks to have a pretty standard Mk3b type interior (IC80 seats, luggage racks, ceiling rafts, etc).

 

[hexagon789]

They are called IC80 seats

That's it(!), forgot the name of the things!

 

[43096]

Nice photo. I believe the phones were indeed all fitted in place of a luggage rack hence the exterior window becoming a full whited pane instead of the split design. Not sure what they replaced in RFMs and some HST buffets, might've been luggage space in this email as well I suppose

In the RFMs the phone booth (at least latterly) was next to the buffet, on the end wall of the buffet in the vestibule near the doors. 10202 still had its booth (but no phone) until very recently.

 

[hexagon789]

In the RFMs the phone booth (at least latterly) was next to the buffet, on the end wall of the buffet in the vestibule near the doors. 10202 still had its booth (but no phone) until very recently.

It wasn't so much the location as what was in the space before hand given that in relevant 3B FOs it was previously luggage space.

 

[43096]

It wasn't so much the location as what was in the space before hand given that in relevant 3B FOs it was previously luggage space.

I suspect in the case of the RFMs there was nothing there before (except the buffet wall!). Indeed, when did the phones get fitted - the production batch of RFMs may have had them from conversion?

 

[hexagon789]

I suspect in the case of the RFMs there was nothing there before (except the buffet wall!). Indeed, when did the phones get fitted - the production batch of RFMs may have had them from conversion?

Just an empty space then. Good question on the phones, need to see if any Platform 5s of the time mention them, I know the 2000s ones do for Virgin and GNER