To replicate an Mk3...

Shaw S Hunter · 8 Aug 2019

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.

The decline of our manufacturing arguably goes back to the immediate post-WW2 period when we decided to concentrate funding on various "nationalisations" and debt reduction while our continental neighbours concentrated on modernising their infrastructure. Then as economies improved they re-invested in their manufacturers while we pocketed the profits in pay rises and dividend payments.

In railway terms that meant we continued building steam traction, then hurriedly abandoned it for diesels when everyone else was busy electrifying. Fast forward to now and we find ourselves still having to build trains that rely on diesel power because the overhead wires still don't cover enough of the network.

It's the need for diesel that is forcing railway vehicle interiors to be compromised on space and comfort. The suggestion that "HST2" would meet our needs ignores the benefits of distributed traction which can be achieved by electric traction without having to infringe on the customer experience. And the lack of van space is purely down to the DfT's obsession with seat counts over usability: the type of traction is not a factor in van provision. A similar argument can be made about the actual quality of train seats too: insufficient priority is given to the concept of comfort when specifying new trains.

Top and bottom is we need more electrification and less meddling by the DfT!

RailUK Forums

edwin_m · 8 Aug 2019

hexagon789 said:
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 80x is a bi-mode train so it has some of the costs of both. Admittedly some of them are straight electrics, but you're still paying for most of the design and equipment needed to make it a bi-mode with a bit of saving if the diesel and the alternator isn't actually fitted. Other complicating factors are that the 225 was a straightforward purchase and the IEP procurement pays a fee for providing trains on the day so the payment is spread over the lifetime and also covers financing and maintenance. There have also been many more 80x produced, basically to the same design, so the design costs are spread over more units.

Shaw S Hunter said:
The decline of our manufacturing arguably goes back to the immediate post-WW2 period when we decided to concentrate funding on various "nationalisations" and debt reduction while our continental neighbours concentrated on modernising their infrastructure. Then as economies improved they re-invested in their manufacturers while we pocketed the profits in pay rises and dividend payments.

I don't think you can talk about the decline of manufacturing without an "honourable" mention for the Thatcher era, when industry was told to stand on its own two feet but didn't get the sort of support from government policy that most competing countries provided. The benefits of North Sea Oil were largely squandered and everything was geared to the rising star of financial services, which swallowed most of the talent and investment, and ultimately led to the 2008 crisis and today's highly unbalanced economy.

Rhydgaled · 8 Aug 2019

Thunderer said:
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.

That seems a bit suspect to me. The IEP design actually seems to have a huge amount of potential for things such as surfboards. With the exterior doors being not quite at the vehicle ends, with the tapering section beyond, each of the 7 intermediate vehicles in a 9-car set have four spaces for toilets/bikes/bulky items. In my opinion one of those on each coach should have a toilet (two if there's room for two sewage tanks under the coach, to spread demand and thus reduce the risk of toilets being locked out of use due to full tanks). That leaves 21 or 14 spaces, depending on whether each coach has one toilet or two. I believe two of these spaces are currently allocated for bikes on GWR, you could double that to four (meaning the train could take 8 bikes, given that each bicycle space takes two bikes) and still have at least 10 spaces for surfboards and the like. So why aren't they available for that?

Similarly a 3-car 158 has four spaces (one being a toilet) in the centre car. The other three could be used for bikes and other bulky items. The same concept could presumably be applied to a mark 6 coach and new MUs as well, although when designing new you have to consider the loss of seating space that would result at one end of the vehicle (the other end will have the toilet and bike space anyway, so isn't a loss of seating space).

edwin_m said:
The 80x is a bi-mode train so it has some of the costs of both. Admittedly some of them are straight electrics, but you're still paying for most of the design and equipment needed to make it a bi-mode with a bit of saving if the diesel and the alternator isn't actually fitted.

Actually, there isn't a straight-electric 80x yet. I think I read that the First Group Edinburgh open access fleet will be straight-electric, but the class 801s are (from an engineering point of view, rather than an operational one) still bi-mode as they (will) have a diesel engine fitted for low-speed moves in case of OHLE failure.

hexagon789 · 8 Aug 2019

edwin_m said:
The 80x is a bi-mode train so it has some of the costs of both. Admittedly some of them are straight electrics, but you're still paying for most of the design and equipment needed to make it a bi-mode with a bit of saving if the diesel and the alternator isn't actually fitted. Other complicating factors are that the 225 was a straightforward purchase and the IEP procurement pays a fee for providing trains on the day so the payment is spread over the lifetime and also covers financing and maintenance. There have also been many more 80x produced, basically to the same design, so the design costs are spread over more units.

When you explain it like that, I can see why it's a difficult and indeed complicated comparison to try and make.

Jozhua · 8 Aug 2019

I know a lot of users say the MK 3's are the height of comfort, but I'm not so sure about that. The EMT HST fleet bounces and squeaks around a hell of a lot and there seems to be no provision of backrests. To their defense though, they are spacious and airy, have plenty of toilets, seat softness and legroom is good.

The 222's definitely seem to have a more refined ride and better seats, although the toilets are a bit gross these days and they are certainly less spacious feeling.

I feel one of the MK 3's biggest benefits in general is that the trains run by them are just straight up longer, compared to many of the newer multiple units. With rail in the UK now actually carrying more people than ever, it would be nice to see lengths to reflect that instead of the 3/4 car trains that seem all too common on intercity services.

HSTEd · 8 Aug 2019

If the DFT specified a van on the IEP, a van could have been provided.

I think the existance of an MLV probably demonstrates that quite well.

As I said, the 444 is the absolute pinnacle of the modern intercity customer experience

Shaw S Hunter · 8 Aug 2019

edwin_m said:
I don't think you can talk about the decline of manufacturing without an "honourable" mention for the Thatcher era, when industry was told to stand on its own two feet but didn't get the sort of support from government policy that most competing countries provided. The benefits of North Sea Oil were largely squandered and everything was geared to the rising star of financial services, which swallowed most of the talent and investment, and ultimately led to the 2008 crisis and today's highly unbalanced economy.

Very true. But in the context of the impact of industrial policy on the railways Thatcher didn't make that much difference to the on-going trend. Indeed when she came to understand the complexity of the railways she realised that her favoured policy of "privatise everything" wasn't worth applying to BR; for that we have to blame/thank (depending on your view) John Major and his allies.

edwin_m · 8 Aug 2019

Shaw S Hunter said:
Very true. But in the context of the impact of industrial policy on the railways Thatcher didn't make that much difference to the on-going trend. Indeed when she came to understand the complexity of the railways she realised that her favoured policy of "privatise everything" wasn't worth applying to BR; for that we have to blame/thank (depending on your view) John Major and his allies.

However BREL was sold off during the Thatcher era and BR made to procure trains competitively, so the groundwork was laid for the current model of rolling stock procurement, which is where we came in.

matacaster · 8 Aug 2019

edwin_m said:
The 80x is a bi-mode train so it has some of the costs of both. Admittedly some of them are straight electrics, but you're still paying for most of the design and equipment needed to make it a bi-mode with a bit of saving if the diesel and the alternator isn't actually fitted. Other complicating factors are that the 225 was a straightforward purchase and the IEP procurement pays a fee for providing trains on the day so the payment is spread over the lifetime and also covers financing and maintenance. There have also been many more 80x produced, basically to the same design, so the design costs are spread over more units.

I don't think you can talk about the decline of manufacturing without an "honourable" mention for the Thatcher era, when industry was told to stand on its own two feet but didn't get the sort of support from government policy that most competing countries provided. The benefits of North Sea Oil were largely squandered and everything was geared to the rising star of financial services, which swallowed most of the talent and investment, and ultimately led to the 2008 crisis and today's highly unbalanced economy.

The trouble was not thatchers doing. The problem was that much of Europe was decimated by war. They got help from USA to rebuild with new machinery and factories. UK manufacturing didn't invest and unions required increases regardless of company profitability. UK manufacturers sold out (wool / cotton), to India even selling machinery to compete with next to zero wages. British Leyland - crap products, poor design, desperate finish - this is what confronted thatcher, not what she wanted!

Miners - yes she closed mines Labour closed more. They have now all gone and would have whoever was in charge.
Railways - barbra Castle closed more railways than tories. Yes, we all likely agree that beeching and maples was a disaster, but no one stopped it happening, not tories nor labout or tried to reverse it. The railways did need reform, but beeching didn't understand the network concept, not always wrong, but his legacy not good. Politicians work to short 5 year or less timescales. Think of trams and trolleybuses - who would not like them back now?

Shaw S Hunter · 9 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
The trouble was not thatchers doing. The problem was that much of Europe was decimated by war. They got help from USA to rebuild with new machinery and factories. UK manufacturing didn't invest and unions required increases regardless of company profitability. UK manufacturers sold out (wool / cotton), to India even selling machinery to compete with next to zero wages. British Leyland - crap products, poor design, desperate finish - this is what confronted thatcher, not what she wanted!

Just for historical accuracy, as I suspect some are not aware, this country received more post-war Marshall aid finance than any other. But we chose to spend it rather differently to our European neighbours.

matacaster said:
Miners - yes she closed mines Labour closed more. They have now all gone and would have whoever was in charge.
Railways - barbra Castle closed more railways than tories. Yes, we all likely agree that beeching and maples was a disaster, but no one stopped it happening, not tories nor labout or tried to reverse it. The railways did need reform, but beeching didn't understand the network concept, not always wrong, but his legacy not good. Politicians work to short 5 year or less timescales. Think of trams and trolleybuses - who would not like them back now?

It's rather depressing to think that both main parties have such poor records in this regard. And no sign that they will ever change. When will we, as an electorate, learn to change our voting patterns and get something better?

edwin_m said:
However BREL was sold off during the Thatcher era and BR made to procure trains competitively, so the groundwork was laid for the current model of rolling stock procurement, which is where we came in.

What really did for the former BREL sites was the near 3-year long absence of any new train orders due to the uncertainties caused by impending privatisation (does that remind you of anything?!) And the one site that remains (Derby Litchurch Lane) is not exactly renowned for the quality of manufacture in its products. It's no wonder we have become so accepting of new trains being built abroad.

Though it should also be said that the trend in more recent years has been for significant consolidation in rolling stock manufacture worldwide and even a much healthier UK based industry would inevitably have been affected. Just look what is happening in the automotive sector. It is all a crying shame but the rot set in an awful long time ago.

kevjs · 9 Aug 2019

Jozhua said:
I know a lot of users say the MK 3's are the height of comfort, but I'm not so sure about that. The EMT HST fleet ... legroom is good.

Assuming you can get in them, those fixed armrests are an absolute pain and serve no useful purpose, being too low to rest your arms on. The Meridian's are certainly much easier trains to get in and out of the seats on, the seats on the latter also offer far more support than the ones on their HSTs, can get out at the London end fine after travelling on the Meridians, but with a bad back after travelling on the HSTs.

RichJF · 9 Aug 2019

In my time going to school/commuting on Southern metals, I plainly admit that when a 442 turned up I was really happy. The mk3 interior & quality was much better than anything else on the routes I used.
Felt much more like a proper train than a MU with more commuter-orientated layouts.

xotGD · 9 Aug 2019

A rake of Mark 3s retrofitted with seating from Mark 1s would be an interesting concept. Comfort and air con hand-in-hand.

Mikey C · 9 Aug 2019

Jozhua said:
I know a lot of users say the MK 3's are the height of comfort, but I'm not so sure about that. The EMT HST fleet bounces and squeaks around a hell of a lot and there seems to be no provision of backrests. To their defense though, they are spacious and airy, have plenty of toilets, seat softness and legroom is good.

The 222's definitely seem to have a more refined ride and better seats, although the toilets are a bit gross these days and they are certainly less spacious feeling.

I feel one of the MK 3's biggest benefits in general is that the trains run by them are just straight up longer, compared to many of the newer multiple units. With rail in the UK now actually carrying more people than ever, it would be nice to see lengths to reflect that instead of the 3/4 car trains that seem all too common on intercity services.

But then that's nothing to do with the stock itself. Indeed Mk3 services would have been shorter if Virgin hadn't replaced with Mk2s and Mk3s with Pendolinos, thus freeing all these Mk3s to strengthen services elsewhere. What was the original length of the Great Western IC125s for example?

To an extent the railways are a victim of their own success (and the property price bubble), with the rise in long distance commuting stretching capacity and driving higher density stock without guards vans, locos, buffet cars etc

43096 · 9 Aug 2019

xotGD said:
A rake of Mark 3s retrofitted with seating from Mark 1s would be an interesting concept. Comfort and air con hand-in-hand.

It wouldn’t. Mark 1 seats are not comfortable.

Mills444 · 9 Aug 2019

43096 said:
It wouldn’t. Mark 1 seats are not comfortable.

How dare you MK1s are old so they must be comfortable

I also concur that bench seats are not comfortable.

Jozhua · 9 Aug 2019

Mikey C said:
What was the original length of the Great Western IC125s for example?

To an extent the railways are a victim of their own success (and the property price bubble), with the rise in long distance commuting stretching capacity and driving higher density stock without guards vans, locos, buffet cars etc

Unfortunately the initial introduction of HSTs is a bit before my time!

I get what you mean about Virgins Pandelino replacements, just I get the feeling a lot of the MU's we use today were ordered was when passenger numbers were still somewhat on the decline so they were much shorter than the loco hauled they replaced. (XC for example.) It's not the fault of the Multiple Unit Concept itself, but it does effect passenger comfort. At least we seem to be getting round to solving the capacity issues, finally...

edwin_m · 9 Aug 2019

Jozhua said:
I get what you mean about Virgins Pandelino replacements, just I get the feeling a lot of the MU's we use today were ordered was when passenger numbers were still somewhat on the decline so they were much shorter than the loco hauled they replaced. (XC for example.) It's not the fault of the Multiple Unit Concept itself, but it does effect passenger comfort. At least we seem to be getting round to solving the capacity issues, finally...

To simplify somewhat, the business model for XC was to move from a service that mainly catered for low-value leisure passengers to one that was attractive to business users. As well as getting more revenue, enabling business travel between non-London cities this is actually beneficial to the local economies.

To do this they changed the service in the core area (bounded by Bristol-Reading-Leeds-Manchester) from roughly hourly to regularly every 30min, but shortened the trains so the number of seats between these places was about the same. This was presumably to make the franchise economics stack up - even with business passengers the revenue per train would be less than on the main lines into London. However this was successful in attracting passengers as intended, possibly more so, leading to the current overcrowding.

xotGD · 9 Aug 2019

43096 said:
It wouldn’t. Mark 1 seats are not comfortable.

Mark 1 seats are the most comfortable of any seat currently available for standard class passengers to sit on.

Proper sprung seats you can luxuriate in.

route:oxford · 10 Aug 2019

Shaw S Hunter said:
What really did for the former BREL sites was the near 3-year long absence of any new train orders due to the uncertainties caused by impending privatisation (does that remind you of anything?!) And the one site that remains (Derby Litchurch Lane) is not exactly renowned for the quality of manufacture in its products. It's no wonder we have become so accepting of new trains being built abroad.

Even then the former BREL sites made a business decision *not* to create their own ROSCO and build units for spot lease. They knew that the heritage DMUS (shouldn't) have lasted into the late 1990s.

All they needed was:-

A financier or pension fund with a 25 year view to provide the capital for the ROSCO.
To start building units that were compatible with 165/166s and Sprinter/Pacer series. They could have started building the Class 168/170 3 years earlier.

But they didn't, and that's why they are history.

61653 HTAFC · 10 Aug 2019

xotGD said:
Mark 1 seats are the most comfortable of any seat currently available for standard class passengers to sit on.

Proper sprung seats you can luxuriate in.

Is there a specific type of seat which was used in all Mk1s, and thus could be known as a Mk1 seat?

Or (as I suspect is more likely) was there quite a variety of different designs used over the years?

xotGD · 10 Aug 2019

61653 HTAFC said:
Is there a specific type of seat which was used in all Mk1s, and thus could be known as a Mk1 seat?

Or (as I suspect is more likely) was there quite a variety of different designs used over the years?

Springs and horsehair. And comfort.

I'm definitely not advocating the red plastic bucket seats that ended up in some Mark 1 buffet cars!

randyrippley · 10 Aug 2019

xotGD said:
A rake of Mark 3s retrofitted with seating from Mark 1s would be an interesting concept. Comfort and air con hand-in-hand.

Mk3 coaches with seats from the Mk2d would be better. The smaller mk3 seats were a step backward (they were also in the mk2e)

randyrippley · 10 Aug 2019

61653 HTAFC said:
Is there a specific type of seat which was used in all Mk1s, and thus could be known as a Mk1 seat?

Or (as I suspect is more likely) was there quite a variety of different designs used over the years?

as far as I can remember they were all wooden box frames with heating elements underneath, with wire and horsehair seat squabs and backs. Would have been knocked up on site as part of the coach fitting

randyrippley · 10 Aug 2019

Mikey C said:
............................... What was the original length of the Great Western IC125s for example................

as far as I can remember they were 8+2 including two catering cars, one of which was dropped after a couple of years

A0wen · 10 Aug 2019

RichJF said:
In my time going to school/commuting on Southern metals, I plainly admit that when a 442 turned up I was really happy. The mk3 interior & quality was much better than anything else on the routes I used.
Felt much more like a proper train than a MU with more commuter-orientated layouts.

But a 442 was designed as a long distance EMU for one route - as a "commuter" EMU it's far from ideal with two doors and low density seating.

ac6000cw · 10 Aug 2019

Mikey C said:
What was the original length of the Great Western IC125s for example?

The original Western Region HSTs (class 253) were 2+7, including two catering vehicles. The original Eastern Region ones (class 254) were 2+8, including two catering vehicles. As randyrippley said, most/all of the WR 'TRUK' (kitchen) cars were replaced with 'TS' vehicles quite quickly, as were many of the ER ones later on.

randyrippley · 10 Aug 2019

ac6000cw said:
The original Western Region HSTs (class 253) were 2+7, including two catering vehicles. The original Eastern Region ones (class 254) were 2+8, including two catering vehicles. As randyrippley said, most/all of the WR 'TRUK' (kitchen) cars were replaced with 'TS' vehicles quite quickly, as were many of the ER ones later on.

Crazy really, two out of the seven dedicated to catering. Too few seats from the start

AM9 · 10 Aug 2019

randyrippley said:
as far as I can remember they were all wooden box frames with heating elements underneath, with wire and horsehair seat squabs and backs. Would have been knocked up on site as part of the coach fitting

MK I seats were a mixed bag. True the original fittings were slightly updated versions of some big four styles, as has been said, brocade or moquette fabric containing spring units with horsehair stuffing. OK for a while until the spring units started to flatten or fall apart, then the wire/rods might push through the batting and covers to stab unsuspecting passengers in the leg. That would be followed by horsehair leaking. When labour was cheap, they might get maintained. These days, they would be considered a waste of resource.
Of course, those seats were fitted to the original coaches. Later built units and all of those that they bothered to refit had foam padding which like the earlier seating deteriorated when the foam flattened, (there was limited science in the early foam materials' manufacture), and because the available foams didn't sit well on a sprung wire frame, the much cheaper option of a plywood base became common. Posture on MK I seats just wasn't an issue, just something that limited the rubbish ride of B1 bogies.
Yup, when experienced without the dewy eyed nostalgia so common on this board, and felt through older posterior and spines, they were generally rubbish. Maybe OK on a 20 minute trip down memory lane on a preserved line at 25mph, but on a fully loaded commuter or long-distance train, not very enjoyable.

trebor79 · 10 Aug 2019

randyrippley said:
as far as I can remember they were all wooden box frames with heating elements underneath, with wire and horsehair seat squabs and backs. Would have been knocked up on site as part of the coach fitting

I remember being cooked on a railtour years ago as the people in the next bay insisted on having the heating cranked right up because they were cold. I kept turning it down. Eventually I invited them to swap and they decided the heating was better turned off! Their seats were a mite chilly mind.

To replicate an Mk3...

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member