To replicate an Mk3...

Couldn't find a topic on this on here so I've started this thread.

After a decade of the IEP programme coming finally coming to fruition, looking into the details behind it shows that the HSTs were the benchmark as to the minimum standards it sets - and the standards to which other rolling stock seems to be judged by (unsurprisingly). During the consultation period prior to the ScotRail franchise invitation to tender being published, most intercity commuters across Scotland (regardless of TOC) stated clearly that their preference was the HSTs (or Mk3s to be more specific) above any rolling stock, and as such, the majority wanted ScotRail to use rolling stock which at least benchmarked the Mk3s for comfort.

However, given we all know the age of the Mk3s render them in their current state (and their newer refurbished state, as many as argued) to be life expired. After all, the design is coming up to around 40 years old, crash worthiness regulations I presume wouldn't do it any favours now a days and what have you.

No matter how much the Mk3s are bench marked for rolling stock procurement programmes, it is abundantly clear that no rolling stock to date has matched it's standards since the Mk4s - whether that be the IEPs (which feel like an MU - obviously - because they are), or the Mk5s.

I guess the primary aspects of the Mk3s are the fact that it's untappered and thus slightly wider, has windows at a much higher base height (and each of them are closer together to each other) a length wise probably the longest on the UK rail network for any Intercity train, and a greater roof base height in general. These aspects are clearly what makes the Mk3s distinctive in their comfort and ambient offering. Further proof lies in the fact that rolling stock procurements where the Mk3s were bench marked, such as the IEPs, fails to deliver Mk3 standards. Understandable as their MUs and require more room for equipment and that, but even the Mk5s don't come close to matching these. I'm not an engineer or technician, but there must be a reason for this surely? Is it crash regs? Or simply just design?

As talk of suggestions from disgruntled members that ScotRail should replace the ever delaying HST programme increasing on these forums as of recent, I've always wondered; as ScotRail passengers wished for Mk3 standards, how could any modern rolling stock replicate this with LHCS under the current standards the railway has today? The Mk5s can't even achieve this (tappering body and window design for example), yet somehow people seem to look at them as the solution when discussing all things LHCS in the context of Mk3 replacements - unless this is just nothing more than LHCS nostalgia from the spotters and enthusiasts on here - having personally used the Mk5s, they do not seem in any way akin to the Mk3s to match the bench mark that they set. Nor do the IEPs meet such a bench mark (as MUs whether this could still be improved, it'd be interesting to know). If the industry was desperate to keep such bench marked standards alive well into new rolling stock, what's the answer in today's climate?

I totally agree that the MK 3's are a fantastic base for any train! XC have refurbed them to feel like a Voyager (for some reason) and EMT haven't refurbed them at all, but some operators impressed me with their MK3 offerings, such as GWR. My guess to their continued success and investment is probably bargain leasing costs after 40 years, but with flexibility to modernise them somewhat...

Unfortunately, I think things are going mostly multiple unit going forward. I guess it allows for better acceleration and distributed weight. Are there still cost savings to be made with loco-hauled coaches still, or are MU's a more cost effective solution going forward? I think Mk5s are the most likely for us to see out of any coaching stock going forwards, especially with the potential for DVTs, now the kinks look close to being worked out for TPE's fleet...

As someone that has travelled extensively in my youth in first class (father's staff travel pass etc) - I think the best experience I ever had was a 444.
It beats a HST in my opinion, but that might be just the spooky quietness of it.

Too bad we couldn't have a huge fleet of them, too bad we don't have an all electric railway.

HSTEd said:

As someone that has travelled extensively in my youth in first class (father's staff travel pass etc) - I think the best experience I ever had was a 444.
It beats a HST in my opinion, but that might be just the spooky quietness of it.

Too bad we couldn't have a huge fleet of them, too bad we don't have an all electric railway.

Click to expand...

The 444's are great! Very airy as well. Guess that's what you can get when you don't have to shove a diesel carriage underneath or a photograph overhead!

Jozhua said:

The 444's are great! Very airy as well. Guess that's what you can get when you don't have to shove a diesel carriage underneath or a photograph overhead!

Click to expand...

444s are fitted with pantograph wells.

The diesel is an interesting point - but at least loco hauled stock should be able to match it.

You could make a DMU very similar to a mk3 coach if you wanted to - class 175 and 180 are!

mmh said:

You could make a DMU very similar to a mk3 coach if you wanted to - class 175 and 180 are!

Click to expand...

When I was using HT Class 180s, there were some serious interior design flaws in the first class vehicle, which included table supports occluding the power sockets so they couldn't be used and an alarming tendency for the tables to vibrate in resonance with the engines at full speed (since the tables were not secured to the bodysides)

HSTEd said:

I think the best experience I ever had was a 444.
It beats a HST in my opinion, but that might be just the spooky quietness of it.

Click to expand...

Only let down in recent years by the somewhat shonky nature of SWML trackwork. Maybe just my perception though?

But yes, Mk3s are the benchmark against which we continue to measure reliable, smooth and robust stock and a lot of subsequent stock seems to have failed to live up to those standards. I'd like to see how Mk5s fare on long distance higher speed runs than with TPE or on sleepers but I wonder if that'll happen.

There is no reason the mk3 ambience cannot be matched with EMU’s: look at Siemens Velaro etc. Having had the opportunity to read comments in this forum purportedly from those in the know, the TPE Nova 2 looks like our best bet to exceed the IC125 as a pleasant means of travelling at 125mph on British metals.

Clansman said:

I guess the primary aspects of the Mk3s are the fact that it's untappered and thus slightly wider, has windows at a much higher base height (and each of them are closer together to each other) a length wise probably the longest on the UK rail network for any Intercity train,

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a Mk3 carriage is the longest Inter City vehicle. If so, that is incorrect. IETs are 3m longer (26m rather than 23m per vehicle).

pdeaves said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a Mk3 carriage is the longest Inter City vehicle. If so, that is incorrect. IETs are 3m longer (26m rather than 23m per vehicle).

Click to expand...

I meant window length. Hence the lack of comma, though my grammar can be a bit dodgy now and again!

Clansman said:

I meant window length. Hence the lack of comma, though my grammar can be a bit dodgy now and again!

Click to expand...

OK, I see what you mean now.

Jozhua said:

Unfortunately, I think things are going mostly multiple unit going forward. I guess it allows for better acceleration and distributed weight. Are there still cost savings to be made with loco-hauled coaches still, or are MU's a more cost effective solution going forward? I think Mk5s are the most likely for us to see out of any coaching stock going forwards, especially with the potential for DVTs, now the kinks look close to being worked out for TPE's fleet...

Click to expand...

Isn't it that up to 5-car multiple units are cheaper, once you start going to 6-car or more loco-hauled becomes more economical?

hexagon789 said:

Isn't it that up to 5-car multiple units are cheaper, once you start going to 6-car or more loco-hauled becomes more economical?

Click to expand...

That does seem to be a useful rule of thumb but it depends on various parameters. If the haulage is purely conventional (non push-pull) then the minimum is likely to be rather longer. Platform lengths can also play a part in the calculation as there is a balance between the length of intermediate MU cabs vs loco length as well as the ability to have part of the train beyond the platform extremities. In those terms push-pull loco operation is better with the non-powered end driving car having passenger accommodation as opposed to a full length van like a Mk3 DVT. Another issue could be axle weights where MUs will nearly always have an advantage. Ultimately it's a case of horses for courses.

As to the main thread topic my reaction, as per @HSTEd, is that Desiros are pretty good at least in electric form. Having said that I can go many hours in a Voyager whereas I find 185s a little wearing after a couple of hours. Loading gauge is a significant factor for us compared with the continent: I don't think I have ever felt at all cramped in a European carriage, even double-deckers and some narrow-gauge vehicles. Ride quality is down to the combination of track and bogies with suspension design being much better now than when the Mk3 was designed. Perhaps the issue here is the overwhelming desire to keep costs down while adhering to particularly high safety standards.

Shaw S Hunter said:

That does seem to be a useful rule of thumb but it depends on various parameters. If the haulage is purely conventional (non push-pull) then the minimum is likely to be rather longer. Platform lengths can also play a part in the calculation as there is a balance between the length of intermediate MU cabs vs loco length as well as the ability to have part of the train beyond the platform extremities. In those terms push-pull loco operation is better with the non-powered end driving car having passenger accommodation as opposed to a full length van like a Mk3 DVT. Another issue could be axle weights where MUs will nearly always have an advantage. Ultimately it's a case of horses for courses.

As to the main thread topic my reaction, as per @HSTEd, is that Desiros are pretty good at least in electric form. Having said that I can go many hours in a Voyager whereas I find 185s a little wearing after a couple of hours. Loading gauge is a significant factor for us compared with the continent: I don't think I have ever felt at all cramped in a European carriage, even double-deckers and some narrow-gauge vehicles. Ride quality is down to the combination of track and bogies with suspension design being much better now than when the Mk3 was designed. Perhaps the issue here is the overwhelming desire to keep costs down while adhering to particularly high safety standards.

Click to expand...

Any new-build loco-hauled would likely have to be very much like a Mk5 set - push-pull and with seats in a driving trailer. A modern high-power loco should be able to provide good performance as well to come close to multiple unit performance.

A 'new' Mk3 could be designed to such parameters but obviously with the necessary updating.

There are a few good riding bogies still in use, no reason why modern trains can't rude as well as a Mk3 really.

hexagon789 said:

Any new-build loco-hauled would likely have to be very much like a Mk5 set - push-pull and with seats in a driving trailer. A modern high-power loco should be able to provide good performance as well to come close to multiple unit performance.

A 'new' Mk3 could be designed to such parameters but obviously with the necessary updating.

There are a few good riding bogies still in use, no reason why modern trains can't rude as well as a Mk3 really.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that actually most modern bogies ride at least as well as, if not better than, the BT10s fitted to Mk3s. One thing that has become all too obvious in recent years is how much BT10 ride quality deteriorates if not maintained properly whereas more modern designs seem more tolerant of wear and tear.

As to performance there is another issue as the distributed power of MU operation can be provided with (much) lower axle weights than loco-haulage. It's noticeable that distributed power has become the standard configuration for modern high speed trains though the Japanese moved in this direction decades ago. As such I suspect that new build loco-hauled trains will only appear to meet particular niche needs; TPE's Mk5 sets have only appeared due to lack of production capacity for anything else within the desired timescale. If we had a coherent long-term rolling stock acquisition strategy/policy in this country I doubt we would have any loco-haulage of passenger trains in the longer term apart from sleepers and charters.

Shaw S Hunter said:

I would suggest that actually most modern bogies ride at least as well as, if not better than, the BT10s fitted to Mk3s. One thing that has become all too obvious in recent years is how much BT10 ride quality deteriorates if not maintained properly whereas more modern designs seem more tolerant of wear and tear.

Click to expand...

Not up my neck of the woods, I've yet to have anything surpass a BT10, a T4 equals it is would say.

The main issue is the original dampers are manufactured anymore and replacements are variable.

Shaw S Hunter said:

As to performance there is another issue as the distributed power of MU operation can be provided with (much) lower axle weights than loco-haulage. It's noticeable that distributed power has become the standard configuration for modern high speed trains though the Japanese moved in this direction decades ago. As such I suspect that new build loco-hauled trains will only appear to meet particular niche needs; TPE's Mk5 sets have only appeared due to lack of production capacity for anything else within the desired timescale. If we had a coherent long-term rolling stock acquisition strategy/policy in this country I doubt we would have any loco-haulage of passenger trains in the longer term apart from sleepers and charters.

Click to expand...

Admittedly as the largest markets for loco-hauled were probably InterCity services on the WCML, ECML, GWML and MML and these have all/are going over to all MUs I'd have to agree.

There may yet prove another market for LHCS though, beyond sleepers and charters.

As well as the points made above, distributed traction offers some redundancy where one engine failure doesn' t cripple a MU. If you have frequsnt stops, bad railhead conditions, or severe gradients MUs win there too because all the train weight is available for adhesion. Watching a class 91 trying to get away in the rain uphill southbound from Durham is torture. A voyager or 185 take off like scalded cats in comparison.

hexagon789 said:

There may yet prove another market for LHCS though, beyond sleepers and charters.

Click to expand...

Given the propensity for heritage supporters to promote the construction of replicas of steam loco types which didn't make it into preservation it might well be the next step is replica steam-age carriages to replace the increasingly tired BR-built Mk1s!

hexagon789 said:

Isn't it that up to 5-car multiple units are cheaper, once you start going to 6-car or more loco-hauled becomes more economical?

Click to expand...

That's been quoted by Roger Ford and others, but I think usually referring to diesels. The economics and failure modes of electrics are very different so it probably doesn't read across.

HSTEd said:

When I was using HT Class 180s, there were some serious interior design flaws in the first class vehicle, which included table supports occluding the power sockets so they couldn't be used and an alarming tendency for the tables to vibrate in resonance with the engines at full speed (since the tables were not secured to the bodysides)

Click to expand...

I've been on plenty of Mk3s that don't have sockets.

The 180 is perfect when you happen to be in a carriage that's not powered.

edwin_m said:

That's been quoted by Roger Ford and others, but I think usually referring to diesels. The economics and failure modes of electrics are very different so it probably doesn't read across.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but would a brand new InterCity 225 set be cheaper than a 9-car 801?

That's the sort of comparison I'd make, but I appreciate it's not quite the same between diesels and electrics.

The sides of a British Rail Mark 3 carriage are tapered vertically, it's just they taper a little less than eg a Mark 4 and a fair bit less than a Pendolino.

jopsuk said:

The sides of a British Rail Mark 3 carriage are tapered vertically, it's just they taper a little less than eg a Mark 4 and a fair bit less than a Pendolino.

Click to expand...

I think pretty much all BR coaching stock tapers, Mk1s - certainly and I think Mk2s as well.

I've travelled many miles on our nework over the last 45 years and for me, the mark 3 always comes out on top for comfort, ambience and style. Unfortunately, we have lost our ability and all the "old school skills" to build and design British trains when BREL went. Now we are left outsourcing all our rolling stock from abroad (although some is still constructed here, it is not British design). That saddens me as we were the nation that Pioneered Railways and such iconic trains from The Rocket, Flying Scotsman, Mallard, Deltic to the iconic HST and now we are left importing such dreadful and very expensive and tempremental trains as the IEP. The winning formula/template was there all along..the mark 3 and the HST design, it just needed a brand new fleet and an updated design to bring it into the 21st Century. I would have personally kept the power car concept too (either Electric/Diesel or both) to avoid all the underfloor engine noise, vibration, issues with overheating, issues at Dawlish etc, plus the power car offers space for bikes, surfboards, parcels etc instead of taking up valuable space in the coaches for bike space. Designs like the IEP are not practical for long Inter-City journeys as GWR are now finding out, for example, saying that surfboards can no longer be carried to Newquay. All that was needed was a 21st Century HST 2 build, broadly based on the mark 3 design, more sensible and probably more reliable and a whole lot cheaper too.

Thunderer said:

I've travelled many miles on our nework over the last 45 years and for me, the mark 3 always comes out on top for comfort, ambience and style. Unfortunately, we have lost our ability and all the "old school skills" to build and design British trains when BREL went. Now we are left outsourcing all our rolling stock from abroad (although some is still constructed here, it is not British design). That saddens me as we were the nation that Pioneered Railways and such iconic trains from The Rocket, Flying Scotsman, Mallard, Deltic to the iconic HST and now we are left importing such dreadful and very expensive and tempremental trains as the IEP. The winning formula/template was there all along..the mark 3 and the HST design, it just needed a brand new fleet and an updated design to bring it into the 21st Century. I would have personally kept the power car concept too (either Electric/Diesel or both) to avoid all the underfloor engine noise, vibration, issues with overheating, issues at Dawlish etc, plus the power car offers space for bikes, surfboards, parcels etc instead of taking up valuable space in the coaches for bike space. Designs like the IEP are not practical for long Inter-City journeys as GWR are now finding out, for example, saying that surfboards can no longer be carried to Newquay. All that was needed was a 21st Century HST 2 build, broadly based on the mark 3 design, more sensible and probably more reliable and a whole lot cheaper too.

Click to expand...

Bombrdier's Derby output is very much British design.

Mordac said:

Bombrdier's Derby output is very much British design.

Click to expand...

But the high value kit - such as the power electronics - is definitely not British.

Mordac said:

Bombrdier's Derby output is very much British design.

Click to expand...

Not a British company though is it? Its origins are Canadian. Nothing is British anymore, apart from thename itself.

To be fair European bidding laws probably prevent us from choosing purely British companies unless they put in a competitive enough bid, for better or for worse.

We could definitely benefit from incubating some more in-house rail knowledge, but I don't know if it would be more cost effective for say Network Rail or the DFT to create rolling stock internally.

At the end of the day, especially in regards to the luggage space/surfboard issue and other issues in regards to the 800's, this could equally be pinned on the DFT's specification when creating the Intercity Express Programme. I mean an all Multiple Unit, Bi-Mode, 5-car capable of 125mph can't be the easiest thing to pull off in comparison to rolling stock created around the world!

It would be interesting to see whether other countries in mainland Europe are sticking with loco hauled or are moving over to multiple units. I haven't really been to the continent for a couple of years (mostly islands), but recently took a trip to the US east cost, where things are definitely a mixture between multiple units and loco-hauled on both local and intercity.

The better loading gauge on the continent allows for wider and higher bodies on rolling stock, so UK LHCS standards can be maintained on their MUs without equipment compromising space. E320s are a prime example of this.