1st gen DMUs and DEMUs

[Andy R. A.]

They did - although a bit later after the original middle carriages had gone.

They had redundant CEP trailers inserted for the new Ashford - Brighton direct service in connection with the opening of the channel tunnel.

I don't remember them ever removing the CEP trailers on an annual basis though.

The three gangwayed Oxteds 207101-103 arrived in 1991, two coaches being considered sufficient for the Marshlink duties. In 1995 when the through service for Brighton began the former CEP trailers were added, and they were renumbered 207201-203. I can remember several times during the Summer of them suffering overheating problems with the engines. Then in Autumn they were prone to more than their fair share of problems during 'Leaf fall season' with adverse effects on timekeeping. This led to the decision to remove the CEP trailers from the start of leaf fall in 1998, which lasted several years, although I think it was 2001 when the trailers were left in the sets all year long on account of 'improved' Sandite application. It is perhaps ironic that the original centre gangwayed coach from 205101 was converted to a Sandite vehicle.
207017 arrived for Mashlink use as a two car, but never received gangways, and ran for a while with its 'Solent & Wessex' branding before getting its 'Marshlink' sticker.
There was also some thought of creating an 'Electro-DEMU' using the Oxted Motor Coach and half a CEP unit for running on the third rail sections, but nothing came of that. There was even talk of some surplus Pacers being brought in to replace the DEMUs, which didn't happen either.


Soon after arriving in their two car form

 

[yorksrob]

The three gangwayed Oxteds 207101-103 arrived in 1991, two coaches being considered sufficient for the Marshlink duties. In 1995 when the through service for Brighton began the former CEP trailers were added, and they were renumbered 207201-203. I can remember several times during the Summer of them suffering overheating problems with the engines. Then in Autumn they were prone to more than their fair share of problems during 'Leaf fall season' with adverse effects on timekeeping. This led to the decision to remove the CEP trailers from the start of leaf fall in 1998, which lasted several years, although I think it was 2001 when the trailers were left in the sets all year long on account of 'improved' Sandite application. It is perhaps ironic that the original centre gangwayed coach from 205101 was converted to a Sandite vehicle.
207017 arrived for Mashlink use as a two car, but never received gangways, and ran for a while with its 'Solent & Wessex' branding before getting its 'Marshlink' sticker.
There was also some thought of creating an 'Electro-DEMU' using the Oxted Motor Coach and half a CEP unit for running on the third rail sections, but nothing came of that. There was even talk of some surplus Pacers being brought in to replace the DEMUs, which didn't happen either.

View attachment 77379
Soon after arriving in their two car form
View attachment 77377

Ah thanks for the extra information.

I'd largely moved "oop North" by 1998, so that might explain the gap in my memory. I do remember an unrefurbished 207 turning up at one stage with rather worn looking trojan moquette, which I suppose might have been 207017. Wish I'd thought to look whether it still had an original centre carriage.

So the Marshlink might have become an enclave of pacer land. Dodged a curve ball there I think !

I suppose the shortened 207's made ticket collection a lot easier, however I much prefered the more varied collection of unrefurbished thumpers that served the route in the preceeding few years.

 

[JonathanH]

Touching on the Southern DEMUs....

I remember being at Victoria on a Friday in May 2004 for a trip to a fun filled night in Brighton, when (I think) the last trip of a Southern DEMU to Uckfield left. As I was walking to my train I just saw the tail lights leaving the platform.

In my mind it was a Hastings unit in Connex colours, but that can’t be right can it?

The last trip from Victoria on 21 May 2004 was formed of 205001+205033+207202 which will all have been in Connex colours.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I don't think it was particularly 'by stealth' - the sensible decision had been taken in the late 50s to concentrate the main flows onto the parallel lines (MML mostly) so they could run at the best frequency affordable, which left hopelessly uneconomic local traffic only. If money was going to be spent on improving frequency of service, better it was spent on lines with some chance of washing their face financially. (As indeed it was on the WCML after electrification). Who (in the early 1960s) would have benefited from a more frequent service anyway? Brackley was a small market town, whose population mainly wanted to go Banbury (and served by the splendid omnibus service of the friendly 'Midland Red') and the railway village of Woodford Halse, much de-populated. The number of potential customers from Aylesbury to Leicester/Nottingham or vice-versa would have been very small indeed.

I don't have strong opinions on the GC run-down, and I can see the logic of what you say, but I still wonder whether the GC would have been a better line to retain than the MML for London-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield business. On that count, while accepting that Brackley was a Northamptonshire market town with little traffic potential, did not the same apply to Wellingborough and Kettering (and indeed Bedford and Mkt Harborough) in 1962?

On the subject of the GC service level I outlined, I am reminded of a journalist's not uncommon question to a politician - something on the lines of 'are you stupid? or dishonest?. Did someone at Divisional Passenger Manager level really think that the abysmal service frequency provided would attract any custom at all? Or was the low level, despite the claims to the contrary, to ensure that closure was inevitable?

 

[RT4038]

I don't have strong opinions on the GC run-down, and I can see the logic of what you say, but I still wonder whether the GC would have been a better line to retain than the MML for London-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield business. On that count, while accepting that Brackley was a Northamptonshire market town with little traffic potential, did not the same apply to Wellingborough and Kettering (and indeed Bedford and Mkt Harborough) in 1962?

On the subject of the GC service level I outlined, I am reminded of a journalist's not uncommon question to a politician - something on the lines of 'are you stupid? or dishonest?. Did someone at Divisional Passenger Manager level really think that the abysmal service frequency provided would attract any custom at all? Or was the low level, despite the claims to the contrary, to ensure that closure was inevitable?

I am not sure that Brackley is at all comparable with the MML towns you mention - 1961 populations: Bedford 53,075 Wellingborough 28,250 Kettering 36,799 Market Harborough 10 401. Brackley 3,208. Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering were all Industrial towns ( Bedford - Engineering, Wellingborough & Kettering - Shoe/Leather trade + Iron Ore mining and smelting). Brackley just a small market town.

I think British Railways management knew exactly what they were doing in prioritising the MML over the GC. Such frequency of service to a line serving one small town of 3,208 plus the half empty village of Woodford Halse would not have been unusual in those days, and was more than adequate for the traffic on offer. The Divisional Passenger Manager knew that because the trains were empty! More frequency would result in more empty trains.

 

[edwin_m]

Also the Midland had a much more comprehensive network in the East Midlands whereas the GC had one line of their own plus a few others accessible via its connections with the Great Northern. Some of this could have been remedied by laying connections where lines were nearby, as was done "the other way round" at places like Netherfield Junction, but a journey such as Nottingham-Birmingham or Birmingham-Sheffield would have been much more convoluted if the MML and its connecting lines had closed. On a more cynical note, one of the main losers would have been Derby where many of the responsible managers had their offices...

 

[Merle Haggard]

I am not sure that Brackley is at all comparable with the MML towns you mention - 1961 populations: Bedford 53,075 Wellingborough 28,250 Kettering 36,799 Market Harborough 10 401. Brackley 3,208. Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering were all Industrial towns ( Bedford - Engineering, Wellingborough & Kettering - Shoe/Leather trade + Iron Ore mining and smelting). Brackley just a small market town.

I think British Railways management knew exactly what they were doing in prioritising the MML over the GC. Such frequency of service to a line serving one small town of 3,208 plus the half empty village of Woodford Halse would not have been unusual in those days, and was more than adequate for the traffic on offer. The Divisional Passenger Manager knew that because the trains were empty! More frequency would result in more empty trains.

I completely accept your argument regarding the sparsely-populated country through which the GC passes; the only traffic potential would have been between the cities. However, taking an interest at the time, I spotted what I thought was an inconsistency in the wider B.R. policy at the time.
The reduction in G.C. services seemed to coincide with the transfer of the line from the E.R. to the L.M.R and the latter was faced with operating two routes that were in competition with each other; concentration on one was desirable. Similarly, when the L.S.W.R. West of England main line was transferred from the S.R. to the W.R. the W.R., like the L.M., was faced with control of two routes that were, effectively, in competition. Similarly, too, the route retained was the one historically associated with the Region and its predecessor and I wonder whether this was the deciding factor.
The West of England route chosen went through similarly empty countryside pretty much from Reading to Taunton (Bruton is the Brackley of the cut-off!) but in this case, this sparse population was quoted as an advantage over the Waterloo route - fast trains not hindered by the need to stop at intermediate stations.
A cynic might think that the argument was constructed to justify the decision rather than form the basis of it. Of course, I later found out at first hand the silent control of the railways by government, and perhaps that was the real reason.

With regard to your last sentence may I gently point out that, when Chiltern Railways started operation, their long distance services were infrequent and nearly empty - I think High Wycombe only had a train once every 3 hours. More frequent trains made the service more attractive and usage took off - although I know there are logical arguments that it's completely different, but it's a good example of the effect of improving an apparently moribund service, and, throughout the network, current frequencies are far higher than in 1996ish, and many trains back then were running around pretty empty.

I should say I have no strong opinions either way and I'm always interested to hear different ideas. I try to have a muse, not an argument!

 

[Helvellyn]

I completely accept your argument regarding the sparsely-populated country through which the GC passes; the only traffic potential would have been between the cities. However, taking an interest at the time, I spotted what I thought was an inconsistency in the wider B.R. policy at the time.
The reduction in G.C. services seemed to coincide with the transfer of the line from the E.R. to the L.M.R and the latter was faced with operating two routes that were in competition with each other; concentration on one was desirable. Similarly, when the L.S.W.R. West of England main line was transferred from the S.R. to the W.R. the W.R., like the L.M., was faced with control of two routes that were, effectively, in competition. Similarly, too, the route retained was the one historically associated with the Region and its predecessor and I wonder whether this was the deciding factor.
The West of England route chosen went through similarly empty countryside pretty much from Reading to Taunton (Bruton is the Brackley of the cut-off!) but in this case, this sparse population was quoted as an advantage over the Waterloo route - fast trains not hindered by the need to stop at intermediate stations.
A cynic might think that the argument was constructed to justify the decision rather than form the basis of it. Of course, I later found out at first hand the silent control of the railways by government, and perhaps that was the real reason.

With regard to your last sentence may I gently point out that, when Chiltern Railways started operation, their long distance services were infrequent and nearly empty - I think High Wycombe only had a train once every 3 hours. More frequent trains made the service more attractive and usage took off - although I know there are logical arguments that it's completely different, but it's a good example of the effect of improving an apparently moribund service, and, throughout the network, current frequencies are far higher than in 1996ish, and many trains back then were running around pretty empty.

I should say I have no strong opinions either way and I'm always interested to hear different ideas. I try to have a muse, not an argument!

It is difficult to look back and try figure out alternative histories without factoring in what we know today. For example, it is often forgotten that even with HSTs InterCity was running a 90 minute service frequency to both Nottingham and Sheffield. It was hourly at privatisation and it was Midland Mainline who used 170s to try and speed up services by using the DMUs to link the smaller stations.

With regards the GC the location of the stations in Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield probably didn't help, being isolated from the local networks in the long distance trains had been retained on the GC route. Much more likely - and it seemingly nearly happened - was diversion of MML services into Euston using the Market Harborough to Northampton line. Then you could have had DMUs serving Wellingborough, Kettering and possibly Cor y - the orphaned ex-WR Class 123 fleet might have been suitable (I know they went to work with the Class 124s). Of course in that universe BedPan electrification would have gone further north in the early 1980s and Class 317s, 319s and today 700s would be serving those three stations, whilst Market Harborough and stations North on the MML would probably have an hourly service each from Sheffield and Nottingham into a congested Euston.



To get back on topic though I will be controversial and say that the first generation DMUs were the Pacers of their day! I am sure many people didn't like losing a loco hauled service for a new fangled DMU with bus engines and bus seats. The fact that many resembled a Mark 1 coach but were built to be as light as possible (e.g. Class 108 Derby 'Lightweight') often gets overlooked. I have wondered if Pacers might have got a better rap if they had say been bogied but with an articulated bogie in the centre and didn't quite resemble a bus. The Class 143s/144s certainly were best of the bunch.

It has been pointed out how the SR avoided DMUs and that the WR was particular about what it took new build. With the latter it also had the Class 123 which was near enough a Mark 1 coach with underfloor engines (the Class 105 was the only other first gen DMU to use the Mark 1 profile). But it was such a small fleet built at the end of the mass production runs. Possibly more of those would have been suitable for some secondary longer distance routes, e.g. S&C, West Highland and Far North Lines that remained loco-hauled until the late 1980s.

Class 123 DMU

The history of Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs / railcars) in Britain.

www.railcar.co.uk

 

[Taunton]

To get back on topic though I will be controversial and say that the first generation DMUs were the Pacers of their day! I am sure many people didn't like losing a loco hauled service for a new fangled DMU with bus engines and bus seats.

I wouldn't say that. Although loco hauled, the services they took over were pretty much steam-hauled non-corridor compartment stock, slower and lesser frequency, mostly pre-war build. Even walking through the saloon was a novelty, and the view from the front was a considerable draw. What a loss that last point has been in modern stock, DLR excepted.

I agree the bus seats (especially being 5-across) were a bad plan. Well done Swindon for refusing to have anything to do with them.

 

[RT4038]

I completely accept your argument regarding the sparsely-populated country through which the GC passes; the only traffic potential would have been between the cities. However, taking an interest at the time, I spotted what I thought was an inconsistency in the wider B.R. policy at the time.
The reduction in G.C. services seemed to coincide with the transfer of the line from the E.R. to the L.M.R and the latter was faced with operating two routes that were in competition with each other; concentration on one was desirable. Similarly, when the L.S.W.R. West of England main line was transferred from the S.R. to the W.R. the W.R., like the L.M., was faced with control of two routes that were, effectively, in competition. Similarly, too, the route retained was the one historically associated with the Region and its predecessor and I wonder whether this was the deciding factor.
The West of England route chosen went through similarly empty countryside pretty much from Reading to Taunton (Bruton is the Brackley of the cut-off!) but in this case, this sparse population was quoted as an advantage over the Waterloo route - fast trains not hindered by the need to stop at intermediate stations.
A cynic might think that the argument was constructed to justify the decision rather than form the basis of it. Of course, I later found out at first hand the silent control of the railways by government, and perhaps that was the real reason.

With regard to your last sentence may I gently point out that, when Chiltern Railways started operation, their long distance services were infrequent and nearly empty - I think High Wycombe only had a train once every 3 hours. More frequent trains made the service more attractive and usage took off - although I know there are logical arguments that it's completely different, but it's a good example of the effect of improving an apparently moribund service, and, throughout the network, current frequencies are far higher than in 1996ish, and many trains back then were running around pretty empty.

I should say I have no strong opinions either way and I'm always interested to hear different ideas. I try to have a muse, not an argument!

Do you not think that the moves of lines between regions was to facilitate the rationalisation - the decisions having been already made? I think it a little fanciful that the moves were really made purely on some geographic basis (which had a grain of truth, but masking the real reason) and that regional managements then made their Machiavellian moves.
Any plan by the Divisional Passenger Manager to improve the frequency of that service would have got short shrift from HQ - any improvements would be concentrated on lines with a better chance of showing returns. The Chiltern Railways moves were in a much later era, between places of larger populations, and not really comparable. The service at Brackley had been more frequent, but had been cut back in 1963 due to lack of use.

 

[RT4038]

I wouldn't say that. Although loco hauled, the services they took over were pretty much steam-hauled non-corridor compartment stock, slower and lesser frequency, mostly pre-war build. Even walking through the saloon was a novelty, and the view from the front was a considerable draw. What a loss that last point has been in modern stock, DLR excepted.

I agree the bus seats (especially being 5-across) were a bad plan. Well done Swindon for refusing to have anything to do with them.

Quite so. What is completely forgotten now is how filthy steam hauled stock, and the whole railway environment, was. As my mother says ' A girl didn't go by train in her best frock in those days'. Rather go by bus, which was much cleaner. Of course DMU ambience brought this bus advantage to the rails.

 

[Western Lord]

I don't have strong opinions on the GC run-down, and I can see the logic of what you say, but I still wonder whether the GC would have been a better line to retain than the MML for London-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield business. On that count, while accepting that Brackley was a Northamptonshire market town with little traffic potential, did not the same apply to Wellingborough and Kettering (and indeed Bedford and Mkt Harborough) in 1962?

On the subject of the GC service level I outlined, I am reminded of a journalist's not uncommon question to a politician - something on the lines of 'are you stupid? or dishonest?. Did someone at Divisional Passenger Manager level really think that the abysmal service frequency provided would attract any custom at all? Or was the low level, despite the claims to the contrary, to ensure that closure was inevitable?

The idea that the GC would have been a better route to retain than the MML is absurd. The GC was a longer route, was merely double track and, which people seem to conveniently forget, used the London Underground Metropolitan Line from Amersham to Harrow on the Hill (the alternative route via High Wycombe was even longer). Compared to the MML which served more and more populous places and was quadruple track to Glendon South Junction (and with alternative routes north from there) it was a no brainer.

 

[Revaulx]

It's rather funny to have seen Southern v GWR rivalries still very much alive in this thread

It's clear to this objective observer that both regions came up with stuff that was far superior to the rest. The stuff we had to endure round Manchester was generally awful; the one exception - the Trans Pennines - being a Western creation! Visits across the pennines proved things to have been even worse over there (Cravens - yuk).

 

[RT4038]

The idea that the GC would have been a better route to retain than the MML is absurd. The GC was a longer route, was merely double track and, which people seem to conveniently forget, used the London Underground Metropolitan Line from Amersham to Harrow on the Hill (the alternative route via High Wycombe was even longer). Compared to the MML which served more and more populous places and was quadruple track to Glendon South Junction (and with alternative routes north from there) it was a no brainer.

Notwithstanding the poorer connectivity with other services in Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield; the pokey terminus in London with few Underground links. It is hard to find any advantage that the GC had!

 

[RT4038]

It's rather funny to have seen Southern v GWR rivalries still very much alive in this thread

It's clear to this objective observer that both regions came up with stuff that was far superior to the rest. The stuff we had to endure round Manchester was generally awful; the one exception - the Trans Pennines - being a Western creation! Visits across the pennines proved things to have been even worse over there (Cravens - yuk).

I'm not sure that the Thames and South Wales Valley DMUs could be regarded as superior to anything other regions had? Rail enthusiasts didn't like DMUs because they deposed their favourite steam types; ordinary passengers liked their modernity, front views and cleanliness.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Notwithstanding the poorer connectivity with other services in Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield; the pokey terminus in London with few Underground links. It is hard to find any advantage that the GC had!

I accept all those points, well made (also by Western Lord). Except one; I think that, currently, Marylebone terminus is considerably pleasanter than the MML St Pancras one! - but that is a case of then and now.
There seemed to be a curious 'down-market' aspect to the GC when I used it in the early sixties, off to bunk Woodford*. The island platform with buildings above or below suggested parsimony, exaggerated by what seemed to be very poor quality bricks and generally frugal facilities. Everywhere leaked when it rained. One can still savour (?) this at Quorn - well maintained now, but! - the pitch-dark staff facilities under the road overbridge, the gents' open-air lavatory (urinals flushed by rainwater from the gutter).
*we were once evicted from the station, allowed only to return at departure time. I spent a fortnight in the village, that afternoon...

 

[70014IronDuke]

I am not sure that Brackley is at all comparable with the MML towns you mention - 1961 populations: Bedford 53,075 Wellingborough 28,250 Kettering 36,799 Market Harborough 10 401. Brackley 3,208. Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering were all Industrial towns ( Bedford - Engineering, Wellingborough & Kettering - Shoe/Leather trade + Iron Ore mining and smelting). Brackley just a small market town.

I think British Railways management knew exactly what they were doing in prioritising the MML over the GC. Such frequency of service to a line serving one small town of 3,208 plus the half empty village of Woodford Halse would not have been unusual in those days, and was more than adequate for the traffic on offer. The Divisional Passenger Manager knew that because the trains were empty! More frequency would result in more empty trains.

There was a comment on another thread about somebody's law that if a thread goes on long enough it's inevitable that someone talks about having a beer in a local pub.

Equally, it seems if a thread goes on long enough it's inevitable that someone will posit:
a) the GC shouldn't have closed
b) the LSWR route should have been chosen as the main line to Devon and Cornwall and
c) we should reopen C*rm*rth*n to *b*rystw*th

Much as I loved the GC, I would say RT4038 is correct. Frankly, I suspect Market Harborough alone generated more traffic than Brackley and Woodford Halse combined - and this was at a time when most journeys would probably have been to/from Leicester, rather than London.

And to the 28,000 odd folks in Wellingboro', one shouldn't forget the denizens of Rushden-Higham Ferrers - that would be another 8-10K at a guess.

 

[Revaulx]

I'm not sure that the Thames and South Wales Valley DMUs could be regarded as superior to anything other regions had? Rail enthusiasts didn't like DMUs because they deposed their favourite steam types; ordinary passengers liked their modernity, front views and cleanliness.

I had little experience of South Wales, but the 117s that worked out of Paddington were a lot nicer than their Mancunian equivalents, and Moor Street to Stratford on a 116 was a great deal more comfortable than I was expecting it to be.

Not all the Manchester ones were equally bad. The 4-car Derbys that worked the CLC to Liverpool felt well built and their exhausts were satisfyingly loud on departure. The Calder Valleys were OK; basically 101s on steroids! The Gloucesters were dreadful though, and the other Derbys had much cheaper interiors than the WR Birmingham ones.

 

[Helvellyn]

Not all the Manchester ones were equally bad. The 4-car Derbys that worked the CLC to Liverpool felt well built and their exhausts were satisfyingly loud on departure.

Those were Class 115 units, with six units ordered specifically for those services on top of the 35 for services out of Marylebone. Railcar.co.uk states the 115 units were designed to offer an enhanced interior experience compared to the 127s, with input from the Design Research Unit to make them feel less bus like. 2+1 in First Class looked comfortable enough but given the TCL could be walked through end to end the lack of inter-car gangways seems an oversight because all passengers could then have had access to the toilets.

 

[RT4038]

There was a comment on another thread about somebody's law that if a thread goes on long enough it's inevitable that someone talks about having a beer in a local pub.

Equally, it seems if a thread goes on long enough it's inevitable that someone will posit:
a) the GC shouldn't have closed
b) the LSWR route should have been chosen as the main line to Devon and Cornwall and
c) we should reopen C*rm*rth*n to *b*rystw*th

Much as I loved the GC, I would say RT4038 is correct. Frankly, I suspect Market Harborough alone generated more traffic than Brackley and Woodford Halse combined - and this was at a time when most journeys would probably have been to/from Leicester, rather than London.

And to the 28,000 odd folks in Wellingboro', one shouldn't forget the denizens of Rushden-Higham Ferrers - that would be another 8-10K at a guess.

The hinterland of Wellingborough is surprisingly large - Rushden / Higham Ferrers was 20,051 and Finedon/Irthlingborough 9,381, and all quite industrial in those days. Brackley or Woodford H. only has rural hinterland.

In your inevitable list, you are forgetting
d) What about passengers travelling to/from Corrour?

 

[hexagon789]

but given the TCL could be walked through end to end the lack of inter-car gangways seems an oversight because all passengers could then have had access to the toilets.

That was redressed in later years as with the WR 116s and 117s.

 

[PG]

One can still savour (?) this at Quorn - well maintained now, but! - the pitch-dark staff facilities under the road overbridge, the gents' open-air lavatory (urinals flushed by rainwater from the gutter).

Did they get a lot more rain back in the day?

 

[Helvellyn]

The hinterland of Wellingborough is surprisingly large - Rushden / Higham Ferrers was 20,051 and Finedon/Irthlingborough 9,381, and all quite industrial in those days. Brackley or Woodford H. only has rural hinterland.

Indeed and much bigger again today. Whole load of missed opportunities with electrification to potentially grow the market from this part of Northants but that is for a totally different thread!

On a related note a first generation DMU service couldn't save the Northampton-Wellingborough-Peterborough Nene Valley route (too many level crossings in part) but it is one of those that retained through ticketing to key settlements on the replacement bus route, originally United Counties and now under Stagecoach as the X4.

 

[Revaulx]

Those were Class 115 units, with six units ordered specifically for those services on top of the 35 for services out of Marylebone. Railcar.co.uk states the 115 units were designed to offer an enhanced interior experience compared to the 127s, with input from the Design Research Unit to make them feel less bus like. 2+1 in First Class looked comfortable enough but given the TCL could be walked through end to end the lack of inter-car gangways seems an oversight because all passengers could then have had access to the toilets.

Their obviously "suburban" layout (lack of gangways, a door for each seating bay) was rather at odds with their use on an express inter-city route. Still, their performance was pretty decent; I imagine the CLC is a lot less hilly than the lines out of Marylebone for which they were designed!

 

[Bevan Price]

Indeed and much bigger again today. Whole load of missed opportunities with electrification to potentially grow the market from this part of Northants but that is for a totally different thread!

On a related note a first generation DMU service couldn't save the Northampton-Wellingborough-Peterborough Nene Valley route (too many level crossings in part) but it is one of those that retained through ticketing to key settlements on the replacement bus route, originally United Counties and now under Stagecoach as the X4.

Another factor which did not help the Northampton - Peterborough service was the timetable can only be described as "unhelpful". With typical journey times of around 85-90 minutes for 43¾ miles, the 1959 timetable was:
Northampton Castle dep. 06:42(SO); 07:13(SX); 09:32; 12:28; 16:20(SX)/16:24(SO); 17:10; 18:42(SO)
Peterborough East dep. 06:43; 07:35; 09:46; 12:30(SO)/12:40(SX); 15:50(SX)/16:00(SO); 18:00; 20:49(SO)
Plus a few short workings between Northampton & Wellingborough.

 

[RT4038]

Indeed and much bigger again today. Whole load of missed opportunities with electrification to potentially grow the market from this part of Northants but that is for a totally different thread!

On a related note a first generation DMU service couldn't save the Northampton-Wellingborough-Peterborough Nene Valley route (too many level crossings in part) but it is one of those that retained through ticketing to key settlements on the replacement bus route, originally United Counties and now under Stagecoach as the X4.

I'm not sure that this line ever had DMUs running on it ? Right at the end there were Brush Type 2 diesels used, with ordinary coaching stock (the Northampton-Wellingborough Midland service was steam hauled to the end). The Rugby-Mkt Harborough-Peterborough line had some DMU working, Metro-Cammell units from the Eastern Region, and I believe the last ever westbound working was an LM unit (possibly Class 104?). Most trains were BR/Sulzer Type 2 with ordinary coaches, with the odd Brush Type 2.

Northampton and Peterborough were much smaller places then, with little reason to be travelling between them. Aside from Wellingborough, the intermediate stations were in very rural areas, and the main flows (Oundle-Peterborough and Northampton-Wellingborough-Irthlingborough) served by much more frequent and convenient motor bus services. Wellingborough stations are well out of the town. The rail replacement service (no. 409) ran two trips (roughly 6.50 am and 5.45pm from each end on Mon-Fri only), jointly operated by United Counties and Eastern Counties. The Peterborough-Thrapston section (also covered by Service no. 266/312) was withdrawn about 1971 and the remainder about 1976. The current X4 is a post de-regulation amalgam of parts of several routes, and the entirety of no. 265/313 Corby- Oundle-Peterborough. Between Wellingborough and Oundle it does not follow the line of rail, much of which now has no bus service at all. The X4 has a pretty impressive frequency though!

 

[Merle Haggard]

Indeed and much bigger again today. Whole load of missed opportunities with electrification to potentially grow the market from this part of Northants but that is for a totally different thread!

On a related note a first generation DMU service couldn't save the Northampton-Wellingborough-Peterborough Nene Valley route (too many level crossings in part) but it is one of those that retained through ticketing to key settlements on the replacement bus route, originally United Counties and now under Stagecoach as the X4.

DMU were never used on the Northampton Peterborough line, and diesel locos were used by March only in the summer due to the well-known boiler problems of Brush type 2s - otherwise, B1s or, for a short period, 76030-4, were 31B's choice; the Northampton workings were always steam, 2E having no diesels apart from D2907.
The only Northamptonshire branch to see dmu was Northampton-Bedford(-Hitchin); here, dmu briefly replaced the infamous 4 wheel railbuses but were themselves replaced by a final reversion to steam push-pull.
The Peterborough line, running on level countryside alongside the Nene did indeed have a number of level crossings but no attempt was made to replace them with AHBs - indeed, there was no attempt to achieve economies. I clearly remember travelling on the Summer SO Lowestoft train (though only as far as Peterborough) on the last day of the summer timetable (in, I think 1962) and this was the day that BR choose to carry out a passenger census. Unsurprisingly, as there was clearly no return service the next weekend, it was predictably the occasion when no-one was travelling beyond Peterborough for a holiday in the East.
The line followed the course of the river Nene, presumably to simplify construction, but the villages and towns along the route were on the high ground each side of the river valley, meaning that they were some distance from the stations. However, the line was launched by the London & Birmingham Railway not as a country branch-line but as part of a grand scheme to reach York.
I did use the replacement 409 bus service. It was certainly limited stop and I have the recollection (though I'm not certain) that it only stopped at the sites of the former stations, not in the towns and villages that the stations had claimed to serve.
On Youtube there's a DMU journey described as being 'Northampton-Peterborough' but it certainly isn't.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Those were Class 115 units, with six units ordered specifically for those services on top of the 35 for services out of Marylebone. Railcar.co.uk states the 115 units were designed to offer an enhanced interior experience compared to the 127s, with input from the Design Research Unit to make them feel less bus like. 2+1 in First Class looked comfortable enough but given the TCL could be walked through end to end the lack of inter-car gangways seems an oversight because all passengers could then have had access to the toilets.

There was the (cynical) view amongst railwaymen that the reason the Marylebone units had 1st Class was pressure from the upper echelons who worked at '222 'and breezed in from the Chilterns...

 

[delt1c]

Purely possible as the 115’s had 2+3 seating in standard yet 2+ 1 in 1st which for a suburban DMU seemed luxurious. we

 

[RT4038]

DMU were never used on the Northampton Peterborough line, and diesel locos were used by March only in the summer due to the well-known boiler problems of Brush type 2s - otherwise, B1s or, for a short period, 76030-4, were 31B's choice; the Northampton workings were always steam, 2E having no diesels apart from D2907.
The only Northamptonshire branch to see dmu was Northampton-Bedford(-Hitchin); here, dmu briefly replaced the infamous 4 wheel railbuses but were themselves replaced by a final reversion to steam push-pull.
The Peterborough line, running on level countryside alongside the Nene did indeed have a number of level crossings but no attempt was made to replace them with AHBs - indeed, there was no attempt to achieve economies. I clearly remember travelling on the Summer SO Lowestoft train (though only as far as Peterborough) on the last day of the summer timetable (in, I think 1962) and this was the day that BR choose to carry out a passenger census. Unsurprisingly, as there was clearly no return service the next weekend, it was predictably the occasion when no-one was travelling beyond Peterborough for a holiday in the East.
The line followed the course of the river Nene, presumably to simplify construction, but the villages and towns along the route were on the high ground each side of the river valley, meaning that they were some distance from the stations. However, the line was launched by the London & Birmingham Railway not as a country branch-line but as part of a grand scheme to reach York.
I did use the replacement 409 bus service. It was certainly limited stop and I have the recollection (though I'm not certain) that it only stopped at the sites of the former stations, not in the towns and villages that the stations had claimed to serve.
On Youtube there's a DMU journey described as being 'Northampton-Peterborough' but it certainly isn't.

I should think that any of the scarce capital expenditure available for AHBs would have been made on the more promising lines, rather than trying to turn a big loss into a slightly less big loss.
The only stations that the 409 bus did stop at were Barnwell and Thorpe (both tiny villages where the station was by the main road); the rest of the stops were indeed in the towns and villages the stations had claimed to serve. [Rather going against many a conspiracy theory!]
I had a look at that YouTube video, which is taken from an original 'Derby Lightweight' unit. It seems to be 'middle England' , that power station at the beginning, and the factory/chimney at the end, are quite distinctive! The closest line that these units were used on was Oxford-Bletchley-Cambridge, and the Buckingham branch.
Hopefully someone reading this might know!