BR DMUs and EMUs proposed but never built

[Helvellyn]

The 159/1s have the 350hp Cummins engines. Only 158863-158872 have the 400hp version (along with the 159/0s).

If I recall from the time I think the 400hp 158s were all meant to be Canton based, the extra power being stated as needed for the Marches line (although they'd have covered the Portsmouth duties too). The Perkins powered units (158815-155862) were meant for RR Central (Norwich based), which would have seem 158701-158814 split between ScotRail (Haymarket) and TransPennine (Heaton/Neville Hill).

Not sure where the centre cars that went into the 159/0s would have been used - there were suggestions of ScotRail and TP services, some even as 4-car units, which suggests the engines would have been 350hp rated.

I think the 159 order did mean at least one extra 166 unit being ordered by NSE as well to allow them to take over Oxford-Worcester services from RR.

 

[davetheguard]

According to the Combined Volumes for the time, both 210s were allocated to Reading.

Well the memory sometimes plays tricks, but all I can say is the way I remember it -I was at Reading at the time and worked on both sets- was that the three car was at Southall......

Not that it really matters in the great scheme of things!

 

[pdeaves]

Well the memory sometimes plays tricks, but all I can say is the way I remember it -I was at Reading at the time and worked on both sets- was that the three car was at Southall......

Not that it really matters in the great scheme of things!

Was that the difference between 'where it's based' and 'where it spends most time'?

 

[davetheguard]

Was that the difference between 'where it's based' and 'where it spends most time'?

Well who knows after all these years? I can't prove it, it's just how I remember it.

Southall was open as a DMU depot at the time. Drivers & Guards booked on there. Perhaps all the class 117 DMUs that lived there were actually allocated to Reading, with Southall as a sort of sub shed? Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps the combined volume is wrong.

 

[Magdalia]

Well who knows after all these years? I can't prove it, it's just how I remember it.

Southall was open as a DMU depot at the time. Drivers & Guards booked on there. Perhaps all the class 117 DMUs that lived there were actually allocated to Reading, with Southall as a sort of sub shed? Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps the combined volume is wrong.

I think that the Combined Volume is correct that Paddington suburban units were officially allocated to Reading. I'm not very familiar with the Paddington suburban operation but I would not be surprised if, for practical purposes, suburban units would be based at Southall.

I am much more familiar with the Kings Cross suburban units, which were officially allocated to Finsbury Park but rarely went there, for practical purposes the units were based at Cambridge or Stratford.

A similar situation applied at Marylebone, where the suburban units were officially allocated to the shed close by the terminus, but for practical purposes the units were based at Bletchley.

 

[Clarence Yard]

“Based” is a loose term. The GN sets were allocated to Finsbury Park and were serviced there (at Western Sidings shed) but their major maintenance was done at either Stratford or Cambridge. Similarly, Marylebone sets were serviced at Marylebone but their major maintenance was done at Bletchley, the units travelling between Aylesbury and Bletchley.

Southall continued to look after WR suburban sets after it lost the official “allocation”, effectively acting as sub to Reading, but it did do the whole range of maintenance and repairs. After Southall closed the servicing work on the cl.117 and cl.121 sets stabling at the London end was done by OOC HST shed, which gained a small allocation of (single and 2 car) DMU’s itself in 1987. OOC had superb facilities for repairs and the carriage lift shop was frequently used to do repairs such as replacing sliding dogs on the final drives or wheelset changes. Sometimes a unit would be in the loco Factory for engine changes.

A word about the 166 order. It was being steadily reduced as the financial stringencies took hold and would have been down to 57 vehicles had not the NSE/RR deal taken place. That allowed it to go back up to 63 vehicles and 166220/1 were (briefly) the nominal RR sets on BR’s books.

 

[Julia]

Class 152 - mooted single-car conversions of class 156?

 

[nw1]

Following on from the thread on BR loco plans that never happened at www.railforums.co.uk/threads/br-diesel-and-electric-locomotive-plans-that-never-happened.230760/ I wondered if there were many types of DMU or EMU that were proposed but never built.

This can also include further batches of existing unit classes that were planned but never built, or classes of which only a solitary prototype or small prototype fleet was built and a production series fleet was planned but never saw the light of day.

Again I am mainly interested in the BR era (1948-93) but this can also include examples from the pre-nationalisation or post-privatisation era.

Offhand I can think of four examples (well, four classes of unit) from the early 1990s, just before privatisation:

The Class 371, 381 and 471 Networker EMUs: according to Wikipedia the 371s were planned for Thameslink 2000, the 381s for the London Tilbury and Southend lines from Fenchurch Street and the 471s for the Kent Coast routes. The 471s were planned to have 1st class compartments in a side corridor layout, and I believe that a mock-up of the 471 was put on display on the concourse at London Victoria.

Presumably the 471 was essentially a new-generation equivalent to the CIG/CEP and would have eventually made it to the Central and South Western Divisions had BR remained?

Might there also have been a 472 (version with buffet) and 473 (high-density version) in due course, to act as new generation BIG/BEP and VEP equivalents respectively? Or even a two-car version (474) to allow 6 or 10-car formations?

All, of course, compatible with each other.

They were Class 341s and the original specification of them formed the basis of the tender for the 345s.

It’s strange that WYPTE didn’t get 323s really when you consider the timing of the electrification and that the 323s were built in Leeds!

There was also meant to the Class 316, an AC PEP derivative for the Manchester Picc-Vic tunnel.

I wondered why it went straight from 315 to 317, that would explain it.

 

[507020]

I wondered why it went straight from 315 to 317, that would explain it.

All tops Classes 301-323 were allocated sequentially and it was a similar story with the Diesels, so it would make sense. 316 was skipped only because the Picc-Vic tunnel project had been cancelled after the number had been allocated.

 

[Ken H]

All tops Classes 301-323 were allocated sequentially and it was a similar story with the Diesels, so it would make sense. 316 was skipped only because the Picc-Vic tunnel project had been cancelled after the number had been allocated.

If the class was cancelled why could the number not be reused? Or were there drawings etc for 316 that meant the number was 'baggied'

 

[Helvellyn]

Presumably the 471 was essentially a new-generation equivalent to the CIG/CEP and would have eventually made it to the Central and South Western Divisions had BR remained?

Might there also have been a 472 (version with buffet) and 473 (high-density version) in due course, to act as new generation BIG/BEP and VEP equivalents respectively? Or even a two-car version (474) to allow 6 or 10-car formations?

If I recall Class 471 was all that was proposed. 20m vehicles with doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions. Four First Class compartments in the centre of one coach (presumably four windows versus five on a 465 centre section). Mix of 2+2 and 2+3 seating in Standard (like with Class 166 units) with an area for a trolley plus payphone. Essentially would have eventually replaced all 411, 421 and 423 units on the South Eastern division. Initial order was planned to be for 200 vehicles (50 units) but the ambition was 800 vehicles (200 units). Likely would have been ordered in batches and possibly like the 465 units split between suppliers.

Likely that updated variants would have replaced the slam doors on the Central and South Western divisions but NSEs plans were vague on this. Also not clear on priorities. I think the hope was that 471s would have followed 465s/466s. Possibly then 371s for Thameslink and London Tilbury Southend routes. But then you'd have also had 66 319s to cascade somewhere from Thameslink - wasn't clear where NSE saw those going.


No plans (as far as I know) for what would have replaced the Thumper units to Uckfield and on Marshlink, nor the first generation DMUs on Goblin services and Bedford-Bletchley, unless electrification and use of cascaded units.

 

[AY1975]

Presumably the 471 was essentially a new-generation equivalent to the CIG/CEP and would have eventually made it to the Central and South Western Divisions had BR remained?

Might there also have been a 472 (version with buffet) and 473 (high-density version) in due course, to act as new generation BIG/BEP and VEP equivalents respectively? Or even a two-car version (474) to allow 6 or 10-car formations?

Possibly, although I seem to recall that the mock-up 471 had 3+2 seating in Standard Class, so if that design had been followed through exactly as on the mock-up then at least for Standard Class passengers it would have been a retrograde step compared to the CIGs, CEPs and the like.

I'm not aware of any plans ever having existed for low (presumably with 2+2 seating) and high density or buffet versions, but that's not to say that was never proposed or even considered. The 471s were at least initially intended for the South Eastern Division, which had already done away with buffet cars in the early 1980s (they started having refreshment trolleys on Kent Coast services from about the late 1980s onwards, though).

 

[noddingdonkey]

Class 140, the Pacer prototype?

 

[tomuk]

Class 140, the Pacer prototype?

What are 141,142,143,144? 140 was a prototype like LEV1 etc. 141 et al were the series build.

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

This thread is about DMUs and EMUs. Until I read the InterCity 250 entry on Wikipedia I actually thought the IC250 sets were going to be high speed EMUs but in fact they were going to be Class 93 locos with Mark 5 coaches and DVTs. They are mentioned in entries #15 and #17 in the thread on locos that were planned but never built at www.railforums.co.uk/threads/br-diesel-and-electric-locomotive-plans-that-never-happened.230760/

I may be misremembering here, but I think I remember reading that one of the later iterations of the IC250 design had the end bogie of the coach nearest the loco powered, in the manner of the TGV family (or the Blue Pullmans), which would have blurred the loco-plus-coaches/EMU distinction somewhat.

 

[Man of Kent]

Adtranz proposed the Networker Classic in the late 1990s - new Networker-style bodies on re-used SR emu chassis. The tag line was something like "a half-life train for quarter-life cost".

 

[nw1]

Adtranz proposed the Networker Classic in the late 1990s - new Networker-style bodies on re-used SR emu chassis. The tag line was something like "a half-life train for quarter-life cost".

I remember that as a concept, class 424 I think.

Re-used CIG components in a train body resembling an Electrostar wasn't it?

 

[delt1c]

I remember that as a concept, class 424 I think.

Re-used CIG components in a train body resembling an Electrostar wasn't it?

One prototype was produced but the idea was not taken up. Looked quite strange seeing a Networker body sitting on na Mk1 frame

 

[Helvellyn]

I remember that as a concept, class 424 I think.

Re-used CIG components in a train body resembling an Electrostar wasn't it?

One prototype was produced but the idea was not taken up. Looked quite strange seeing a Networker body sitting on na Mk1 frame

I think the idea was that given a number of peak workings might only see a unit do two revenue trips per day that you could have a subfleet of modernised units at a lower cost than buying all new. I think it was probably discounted in the end due to good terms for buying an all new fleet, simplified maintenance/diagramming, etc.

 

[nw1]

I think the idea was that given a number of peak workings might only see a unit do two revenue trips per day that you could have a subfleet of modernised units at a lower cost than buying all new. I think it was probably discounted in the end due to good terms for buying an all new fleet, simplified maintenance/diagramming, etc.

So essentially the plan was that Networker Classics would be intended for peak-only diagrams, with brand new units covering everything else?

 

[Ken H]

So essentially the plan was that Networker Classics would be intended for peak-only diagrams, with brand new units covering everything else?

Think it was a cheap stop-gap. Remove slam door stock without a quick build. Give builders a steady state rather than feast and famine. Supposed to be cheaper

 

[Helvellyn]

So essentially the plan was that Networker Classics would be intended for peak-only diagrams, with brand new units covering everything else?

As I say, I think that was the rationale behind the proposal. But for TOCs the simplification of a single fleet probably made more sense, with diagrammed utilisation meaning mileage, etc., ultimately gets balanced out. A peak-only rebuilt fleet with low utilisation Mon-Fri would have been balanced against a smaller, newer fleet, with overall higher utilisation seven days a week - meaning mileage based exams would be clocked up much quicker.

 

[Townsend Hook]

If the class was cancelled why could the number not be reused? Or were there drawings etc for 316 that meant the number was 'baggied'

It was reused in 1990 for the class 316 Networker testbed EMU, comprised of ex-class 210 vehicles with the pantograph trailer from 313034 (which temporarily operated as a 2-car DC-only unit).

British Rail Classes 316 and 457 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Strathclyder]

Further to the Class 424 Networker Classic discussed above but across the Irish Sea, Northern Ireland Railways operated something similar in concept in the form of the 450 Class DMU aka the Castle Class. New Mk3-derived bodyshells on top of old Mk1 underframes with refurbished power units/generators/traction motors from withdrawn 70/80 class units. The end result was basically a budget 210 with a front end design similar to that of a 150 & 317 complete with the soundtrack of a Hastings Thumper. In service from 1985 to 2012 (attached video from the Rail Videos NI YT channel).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Class 152 - mooted single-car conversions of class 156?

These would have been new build, not conversions. The innermost set of doors on a 156 is far too close to the vehicle ends, there's no way you'd squeeze a cab in there.

 

[Mikey C]

Class 447 - proposed 3x 'Battersea Bullet' EMUs to run from Victoria to Battersea & serve the proposed indoor theme park when the whole power station & land was mooted for sale.

Great article here on proposed trains... https://thebeautyoftransport.com/20...etty-lies-lost-beauties-of-rail-road-and-air/

It's interesting that the Class 341 Crossrail train impression in that article has 3 doors per carriage, something which the 345s also have. If those are still 20m carriages, they would have had a low number of seats for the time

 

[tomuk]

It's interesting that the Class 341 Crossrail train impression in that article has 3 doors per carriage, something which the 345s also have. If those are still 20m carriages, they would have had a low number of seats for the time

Would the 341s not have been 23m like the Networker Turbos (165/166)

 

[Sprinter107]

These would have been new build, not conversions. The innermost set of doors on a 156 is far too close to the vehicle ends, there's no way you'd squeeze a cab in there.

I renember reading that the plan was definitely to convert a number of 156s.

 

[nw1]

I think that the Combined Volume is correct that Paddington suburban units were officially allocated to Reading. I'm not very familiar with the Paddington suburban operation but I would not be surprised if, for practical purposes, suburban units would be based at Southall.

Were there any separate "suburban units" though? Didn't the 117s (and the 210s, presumably) operate the Paddington-Slough stopper? Certainly CWNs of the 80s suggest the suburban service interworked with Reading/Oxford services.

 

[Davester50]

Further to the Class 424 Networker Classic discussed above but across the Irish Sea, Northern Ireland Railways operated something similar in concept in the form of the 450 Class DMU aka the Castle Class. New Mk3-derived bodyshells on top of old Mk1 underframes with refurbished power units/traction motors from withdrawn 70/80 class units. The end result was basically a budget 210 with a front end design similar to that of a 150/0 complete with the soundtrack of a Hastings Thumper. In service from 1985 to 2012 (attached video from the Rail Videos NI YT channel).

Wow, I've only really seen photos of the NI trains, that sounds very odd seeing a Mark 3 with old DEMU sounds.
Thanks for posting.