47 MkIV haul

[Clarence Yard]

In ye olde days I always thought ETH was for standard BR 900V electric supply and ETS was HST-type 415V three phase AC supply.

Correct. Back in the 70's (& 80's) the 850v was ETH and the 415v was ETS. They were labelled up as such in all sub stations in the KX area and on the exterior switch panels too.

Over the decades the designations seem to have "merged".

 

[najaB]

Over the decades the designations seem to have "merged".

Hopefully the plugs haven't - that could get expensive!

 

[lincolnshire]

Correct. Back in the 70's (& 80's) the 850v was ETH and the 415v was ETS. They were labelled up as such in all sub stations in the KX area and on the exterior switch panels too.

Over the decades the designations seem to have "merged".

Well at least the plug and sockets systems for the shore supplies could not be used wrong way round so that was something they got right.

Is there any shore supplies still been used then these days?

 

[ainsworth74]

Is there any shore supplies still been used then these days?

The ones at Kings Cross still exist. Interesting I noticed today that at Platform 1 and 2 at Kings Cross one of the shore supply plugs looks like it hasn't been used since sometime in the 1990s whilst the other is very shiny and clean so perhaps has been used recently?

-----

Whilst I was loitering at Kings Cross I decided, for the sake of completeness, to get pictures of all the data panels from a Mk4 set which you can find below. I also captured the data panel for a 91 as well.

From that information I would a 9-car 225 with DVT to have an ETH requirement of 60 according to the data panels on the vehicles of the formation. Which tallies with what was mentioned earlier on in the thread but at least now has some basis.

Also, not sure I can ever return to Kings Cross again after this extremely nerdy performance

 

[GrimShady]

I forgot to say thank you for the informative posts Gents.

 

[t_star2001uk]

I am struggling to believe that a Mark 4 RFM/RSB with all the catering equipment has the same ETH rating as a normal first or standard class coach. I also struggle to believe that they are less than half the power rating of a Mark 3 RFM. Photographic evidence of a data panel required!

I believe a mk4 uses a static inverter to convert ETS voltage to a usable supply. An unmodified, hauled mk3 rfm has 2 motor.alternator sets requiring more power.

 

[43096]

I believe a mk4 uses a static inverter to convert ETS voltage to a usable supply. An unmodified, hauled mk3 rfm has 2 motor.alternator sets requiring more power.

That's correct - as I understand it the Mark 4s had their static converters changed from GTO type to IGBT type when they had the Mallard overhaul.

I still don't buy the Mark 4 catering car having the same ETH index as a bog standard Mark 4 TSO or FO. It does not make any logical sense.

 

[cjmillsnun]

That's correct - as I understand it the Mark 4s had their static converters changed from GTO type to IGBT type when they had the Mallard overhaul.

I still don't buy the Mark 4 catering car having the same ETH index as a bog standard Mark 4 TSO or FO. It does not make any logical sense.

And yet the data labels show it to be true.

 

[hexagon789]

The ETS demand of an ordinary Mk4 PO, TOD, TO or TOE is 7. The demand from a Mk4 SV is 14 and the DVT also has a rating of 7. Therefore a 9 Mk4 + DVT set has an ETS rating of 77. These figures are taken from official BR documentation.

On another note the push-pull system used by the Class 47/7 used in Scotland is totally unrelated to TDM, a much simpler system it is effectively FDM or Frequency Division Multiplex.

 

[43096]

The ETS demand of an ordinary Mk4 PO, TOD, TO or TOE is 7. The demand from a Mk4 SV is 14 and the DVT also has a rating of 7. Therefore a 9 Mk4 + DVT set has an ETS rating of 77. These figures are taken from official BR documentation.

On another note the push-pull system used by the Class 47/7 used in Scotland is totally unrelated to TDM, a much simpler system it is effectively FDM or Frequency Division Multiplex.

Thank you - a most helpful reply. I assume that the data panels are wrong then!

Also noticeable from the data panels is that they now show as "Mark 4a", rather than "Mark 4", and they have a different last character of the TOPS code (e.g. AC2K rather than AC2J as built). The question is why?

 

[hexagon789]

According to the BR document they are just Mk4, not Mk4a. Also noticeable is the totally different coach types compared to how people usually refer to them. The official "BR" designations for Mk4s were:

DVT (Driving Van Trailer) - 45 tonnes, ETS 7
PO (Pullman Open) - 46 First, 41 tonnes, ETS 7
SV (Service Vehicle) - 20 First, 43 tonnes, ETS 14
TOD (Tourist Open Disabled) - 72 Standard, 41 tonnes, ETS 7
TO (Tourist Open) - 74 Standard, 41 tonnes, 7 ETS
TOE (Tourist Open End) - 74 Standard, 41 tonnes, ETS 7

The same document lists the Class 91 as 83 tonnes, ETS rating 95.

 

[ainsworth74]

Why are we saying that the data panels are 'wrong' when the only contrary information available is presumably 20+ years old and pre-Mallard as well? They could well be wrong and the documents right but I'm not sure I'm willing to dismiss the data panels out of hand on that basis!

 

[Darandio]

Why are we saying that the data panels are 'wrong' when the only contrary information available is presumably 20+ years old and pre-Mallard as well? They could well be wrong and the documents right but I'm not sure I'm willing to dismiss the data panels out of hand on that basis!

Especially after you had to risk chastisement from overzealous platform staff, not to mention weird glances and comments from the public whilst trying to get a picture of said data panel.

I'd back the data panel, if only for your benefit!

 

[43096]

Why are we saying that the data panels are 'wrong' when the only contrary information available is presumably 20+ years old and pre-Mallard as well? They could well be wrong and the documents right but I'm not sure I'm willing to dismiss the data panels out of hand on that basis!

Because all the evidence points to the data panels being wrong:
- BR documents say Mark 4 SV ETH index was 14
- the nearest equivalent (Mark 3 RFM) is index 14
- logically a vehicle that has significant additional electrical equipment (cooking kit, fridges, additional ventilation etc etc) is not going to have the same index as a standard passenger vehicle
- it is not unknown for data panels to be wrong (e.g. the Riviera Mark 2s repainted recently have the FOs shown as TSOs (or is it the other way round?)).

 

[hexagon789]

The information on the data panels is also different compared to BR documentation on a further two points - the brakeforce of the Class 91 and the maximum speed of all the vehicles.

 

[dubscottie]

Also noticeable from the data panels is that they now show as "Mark 4a", rather than "Mark 4", and they have a different last character of the TOPS code (e.g. AC2K rather than AC2J as built). The question is why?

Probably because there was some mod done during refurbishment that would make them incompatible with the as built coaches during the period they were running both.

Could be slightly different jumpers/wiring/PA/WiFi jumpers etc

It would help control tell the two types apart if they had to swap coaches around for unplanned maintenance.

 

[Roast Veg]

Data panels should be up to date as they are needed for emergency information - my guess on the discrepancy on ETS rating is that the new inverters have a different draw on them (because they're more efficient).

 

[43096]

Data panels should be up to date as they are needed for emergency information - my guess on the discrepancy on ETS rating is that the new inverters have a different draw on them (because they're more efficient).

Again you are missing the point, though I note use of the words "should" and "guess". Are you seriously saying that the electrical kit in a catering car uses no more power than a normal coach? I don't care how efficient the new inverters are, it cannot be the case that the catering kit uses no additional power.

 

[Roast Veg]

I am saying that the current electrical equipment used in the catering car "appears" to use no more power than the maximum total draw from the plug sockets in the other vehicles.

 

[route:oxford]

It cannot be the case that the catering kit uses no additional power.

An ETH of 1 is equal to 5kW, so that mean a coach with an ETH rating of 7 will draw maximum of 35kW.

That does seem quite a lot. The greatest "standard" draw on a coach will be the air-conditioning, followed by the lighting - although lighting these days will have dropped considerably due to use of LEDs.

So I suppose the question is how many kW is used by the basic hotel facilities? And what is the margin leftover to operate catering facilities?

 

[ainsworth74]

Data panels should be up to date as they are needed for emergency information - my guess on the discrepancy on ETS rating is that the new inverters have a different draw on them (because they're more efficient).

I have asked an informed source who works for VTEC and they say that the ETS rating for a Mk4 buffet vehicle is six as it says on the data panel. So, for me at least, I'm going with the data panel and them!

I'd back the data panel, if only for your benefit!

Hahahaha many thanks!

 

[jayah]

Hello

First post long time lurker. Just be watching the Inside Story episode following the 225 crews in the early 90s https://youtu.be/H1XIrHcV6dA

During the withdrawal of the 91s for that week they used 47s, where did the power for the galley coach and rest of the train came from without the 91? Could the ETH on a 47 supply a full set of Mk IVs?

By the looks of things the Class 47 couldn't even heat itself!

For all those harking back to BR - in the halcyon days before almost limitless government borrowing was the norm, they really were well and truly skint.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

We also know how much more money government threw at the privatised railway in the first round of franchises...

 

[Taunton]

By the looks of things the Class 47 couldn't even heat itself!

For all those harking back to BR - in the halcyon days before almost limitless government borrowing was the norm, they really were well and truly skint.

This is a regular myth. From 1965, when the first Mk 2 came along, to 1983, last of the HST, there was just a continuous production line of main line stock at Derby, which advanced technically every few years. York had a comparable continuous production of commuter stock. Then followed the NSE and Regional diesel replacement fleets. The ECML was electrified, and there was a lot of electrification fill-in at NSE.

They weren't skint, but knew well how to make the best of limited resources. The money poured down the drain on the current GW electrification must appal the seniors of the time, now retired.

 

[najaB]

They weren't skint, but knew well how to make the best of limited resources. The money poured down the drain on the current GW electrification must appal the seniors of the time, now retired.

As I understand it, a lot of the cost of the GWML electrification is as a result of the penny pinching in the latter BR days - e.g. signalling cables running willy-nilly rather than being run in well marked and delineated troughs.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Out of interest BRs last Mk1s (REP DMSOs at York) were actually built 9 years later than the first mk2s went into production and 2 years later than the prototype mk3s!

 

[randyrippley]

Out of interest BRs last Mk1s (REP DMSOs at York) were actually built 9 years later than the first mk2s went into production and 2 years later than the prototype mk3s!

Surely the last Mk1 coaches built were VEP sets at Eastleigh?

 

[dubscottie]

This is a regular myth. From 1965, when the first Mk 2 came along, to 1983, last of the HST, there was just a continuous production line of main line stock at Derby, which advanced technically every few years. York had a comparable continuous production of commuter stock. Then followed the NSE and Regional diesel replacement fleets. The ECML was electrified, and there was a lot of electrification fill-in at NSE.

They weren't skint, but knew well how to make the best of limited resources. The money poured down the drain on the current GW electrification must appal the seniors of the time, now retired.

Production ended at Derby in effect once the last 158/159 shell came off the line.

There was tons of stuff made in Derby from 1983. Irish Rail Mk3, Mk3b, 317 trailer cars, underframes for the class 142/3/4, International coaches for export, Mk4 bodyshells, and the 158/9's.

York only kept going in building as the tooling for the Mk2 was sent there after Derby switched to Mk3 construction.

The 312 order and a order for Mk2 EMU's for export saved the production line until the Orders for Mk3 units came in.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A bit late too this but

In the early nineties the sets were dragged to Harrogate then ECS forwards to York Mon to Fri.

I had a trip to Harrogate on a weekday in August 1991 and made certain to observe the empties set off in the direction of York. After quite a wait for a return service to Leeds I then saw the same set again pulling into Leeds from the east before reversing to reach Neville Hill depot. The loco was 47500 somewhat adrift from its normal operating area! Then again I once had 47541 in full Highland stag regalia out of Waterloo...

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Surely the last Mk1 coaches built were VEP sets at Eastleigh?

The second batch of REPs were built in 1974, as were the last of the VEPs as you say so not much in it really. The DMSOs were new build whereas the TRB and TBFK were LHCS conversions. It was the much older trailers that led to the REPs demise from 1988, replaced by the 442s which reused the relatively new traction equipment.