Gatwick Express 1984 re-launch

[Helvellyn]

I'm curious about the 1984 re-launch of the Gatwick Express service (at the time branded Railair Link / Victoria - Gatwick even though the stock carried Executive colours).

The Southern Railway e-group has articles both about the 1984-2001 push-pull service (http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/gatex_01.html) and the Class 488 stock (http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class488_1.html). There were originally ten Class 488/2 units (TFOLH-TSOLH) and nineteen 488/3 units (TSOLH-TSOL-TSOLH) converted from 77 Mark 2F coaches made surplus by the introduction of HSTs on the Midland Mainline (Ten FOs and 67 TSOs). Plus ten redundant Class 414 DMBSOs were converted to Class 489 DMLVs, with Class 73 locos at the other end of the train.

What I am curious about is that both articles on the Southern Railway e-Group state the original intention was that the Class 488 units would have been eighteen 4-car sets (TFOLH-TSOL-TSOL-TSOLH), which would have included four spare sets. This would have only needed 72 Mark 2F coaches (Eighteen FOs and 54 TSOs). Does anyone know what changed? As well as the fact the revised plan required an extra five coaches, it in fact meant an extra thirteen TSOs. Given in the mid-1980s there were already surplus FOs it seems odd the plan changed and saw that many extra Second Class coaches added given that air-conditioned Mark 2s always seemed in short supply.

Definitions:

• FO - Open First
• TSO - [Tourist] Open Second
• TFOLH - Trailer First Open Lavatory Handbrake
• TSOL - Trailer Second Open Lavatory
• TSOLH - Trailer Second Open Lavatory Handbrake
• DMBSO - Driving Motor Brake Second Open
• DMLV - Driving Motor Luggage Van

 

[hexagon789]

I'm curious about the 1984 re-launch of the Gatwick Express service (at the time branded Railair Link / Victoria - Gatwick even though the stock carried Executive colours).

The Southern Railway e-group has articles both about the 1984-2001 push-pull service (http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/gatex_01.html) and the Class 488 stock (http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class488_1.html). There were originally ten Class 488/2 units (TFOLH-TSOLH) and nineteen 488/3 units (TSOLH-TSOL-TSOLH) converted from 77 Mark 2F coaches made surplus by the introduction of HSTs on the Midland Mainline (Ten FOs and 67 TSOs). Plus ten redundant Class 414 DMBSOs were converted to Class 489 DMLVs, with Class 73 locos at the other end of the train.

What I am curious about is that both articles on the Southern Railway e-Group state the original intention was that the Class 488 units would have been eighteen 4-car sets (TFOLH-TSOL-TSOL-TSOLH), which would have included four spare sets. This would have only needed 72 Mark 2F coaches (Eighteen FOs and 54 TSOs). Does anyone know what changed? As well as the fact the revised plan required an extra five coaches, it in fact meant an extra thirteen TSOs. Given in the mid-1980s there were already surplus FOs it seems odd the plan changed and saw that many extra Second Class coaches added given that air-conditioned Mark 2s always seemed in short supply.

Definitions:

• FO - Open First
• TSO - [Tourist] Open Second
• TFOLH - Trailer First Open Lavatory Handbrake
• TSOL - Trailer Second Open Lavatory
• TSOLH - Trailer Second Open Lavatory Handbrake
• DMBSO - Driving Motor Brake Second Open
• DMLV - Driving Motor Luggage Van

I don't know much of the GatEx operations but I seem to remember that until privitisation sets would be 5-car (a 488/3 and a 488/2) plus GLV during peak holiday season sets would be extended by an extra 488/3. Perhaps the change was due to envisaged or actual passenger figures being higher than first thought and it was decided to alter the formations?

 

[Cowley]

I remember there were problems at the beginning with the 73s on was it 8 coach sets?
A couple caught fire from what I remember and while they arranged some kind of modification they ran pairs of them on diesel power with shortened sets.
Does anyone know what year that happened?

 

[Taunton]

Given in the mid-1980s there were already surplus FOs it seems odd the plan changed and saw that many extra Second Class coaches added given that air-conditioned Mark 2s always seemed in short supply.

Surely the formation of a train should be driven by passenger demand rather than what stock is hanging around. This original suggestion seems to include two full first class vehicles rather than one as done later. Given that (in my experience) the First Class vehicle in the Gatwick express normally ran up and down pretty much as empty stock anyway, it would have been a complete overprovision. Whoever thought there would be that requirement in a 30 minute journey.

Too much First Class was a developing aspect on the railways through the Mk2-Mk3 era, and reached a pinnacle in the first Pendolinos where four out of the eight cars were designed as such.

 

[hexagon789]

I remember there were problems at the beginning with the 73s on was it 8 coach sets?
A couple caught fire from what I remember and while they arranged some kind of modification they ran pairs of them on diesel power with shortened sets.
Does anyone know what year that happened?

That was soon after they were introduced to GatEx duties. When running on the third rail there are of course gaps in the conductor rail with EMUs and spaced out collector shoes it doesn't cause to many issues but with the 73s their shoes are all quite close together so the issue of gapping is more problematic generally.

The main issue is not so much getting stuck in a gap on the third rail, if it did happen you'd just fire up the diesel, but more to do with the arcing over the gaps causing the collector shoes to wear more quickly.

The subclass of 73s dedicated to the GatEx had the last resistance bank isolated so as to improve acceleration, unfortunately this drastically increased the problems associated with arcing to the point of causing traction motor flashovers. The locos were fitted with so-called flashguards to cure the problem.

The non-GatEx 73s never received the modifications.

I've heard mixed things about them actually catching fire, some sources suggest it happened quite spectacularly in the early GatEx 73 days, other suggest it was exaggerated and little more than 'sparks' and motors burning out.

 

[Cowley]

That was soon after they were introduced to GatEx duties. When running on the third rail there are of course gaps in the conductor rail with EMUs and spaced out collector shoes it doesn't cause to many issues but with the 73s their shoes are all quite close together so the issue of gapping is more problematic generally.

The main issue is not so much getting stuck in a gap on the third rail, if it did happen you'd just fire up the diesel, but more to do with the arcing over the gaps causing the collector shoes to wear more quickly.

The subclass of 73s dedicated to the GatEx had the last resistance bank isolated so as to improve acceleration, unfortunately this drastically increased the problems associated with arcing to the point of causing traction motor flashovers. The locos were fitted with so-called flashguards to cure the problem.

The non-GatEx 73s never received the modifications.

I've heard mixed things about them actually catching fire, some sources suggest it happened quite spectacularly in the early GatEx 73 days, other suggest it was exaggerated and little more than 'sparks' and motors burning out.

Interesting stuff. I know I’ve got a bit about it in a book somewhere but everything is buried at the moment unfortunately.
73142 Broadlands is ringing a bell in my mind that it was one of the ones damaged by fire.

 

[hexagon789]

Interesting stuff. I know I’ve got a bit about it in a book somewhere but everything is buried at the moment unfortunately.
73142 Broadlands is ringing a bell in my mind that it was one of the ones damaged by fire.

Perhaps it's not the actual catching fire that's been exaggerated but the number of individual locos which did so?

 

[Cowley]

Perhaps it's not the actual catching fire that's been exaggerated but the number of individual locos which did so?

Could be. Wish I knew where that book was.

 

[hexagon789]

From the SEMG website:

Two minor fires in 73s in the Battersea Park vicinity culminated on the 5th August 1984 in a serious fire in the celebrity "Royal" EDL 73142 Broadlands. This resulted in the temporary withdrawal of the Gatwick Express formations and substitutions by EMUs until the cause could be traced and rectifications made. The cause of these fires was arcing within the locomotive due to adjacent conductor rails at gaps having differing voltages. 73s were fitted with flashguards to their bogies and modifications to how the control gear operates when traction power is lost and then restored. 73142 was rebuilt and returned to service.

 

[Whistler40145]

During the Battersea area fire problems with 73s on the Gatwick Express services, pairs of locos were common, but did any 33/1s substitute for unavailable 73s?

 

[hexagon789]

During the Battersea area fire problems with 73s on the Gatwick Express services, pairs of locos were common, but did any 33/1s substitute for unavailable 73s?

Could they work with the GLVs?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

During the Battersea area fire problems with 73s on the Gatwick Express services, pairs of locos were common, but did any 33/1s substitute for unavailable 73s?

Not to my knowledge. There were pairs of 73s on diesel power and the frequency reduced to every 20 minutes rather than 15 minutes. I could not afford at the time to take a trip down and get all the 73s on diesel in multiple mileage .

 

[Whistler40145]

A press run with a Gatwick Express set including a GUV went around the UK with a 33/1, presumably were compatible

 

[Helvellyn]

I don't know much of the GatEx operations but I seem to remember that until privitisation sets would be 5-car (a 488/3 and a 488/2) plus GLV during peak holiday season sets would be extended by an extra 488/3. Perhaps the change was due to envisaged or actual passenger figures being higher than first thought and it was decided to alter the formations?

If they had been built as planned you'd have had a 4-car or 8-car plus DMLV. Plus the change was before delivery. Prior to this modified 4-VEP units had been used (designated 4-VEG with extra luggage space) so the only thing I can think was they wanted to mimic those running in pairs originally.

Surely the formation of a train should be driven by passenger demand rather than what stock is hanging around. This original suggestion seems to include two full first class vehicles rather than one as done later. Given that (in my experience) the First Class vehicle in the Gatwick express normally ran up and down pretty much as empty stock anyway, it would have been a complete overprovision. Whoever thought there would be that requirement in a 30 minute journey.

Too much First Class was a developing aspect on the railways through the Mk2-Mk3 era, and reached a pinnacle in the first Pendolinos where four out of the eight cars were designed as such.

Well the 4-VEG units that had been used in the few years before the 488 units were converted had 48 First Class seats in a 4-car set and 96 in an 8-car set.

As to First Class provision, BR had been cutting it back but the privatised railway saw it as a growth area, hence the Pendolinos. They hadn't anticipated the overall growth in leisure travel in the last twenty years.

 

[bassmike]

Does anyone know if the the driving luggage vans which I believe had 500 H P installed ever shunted/moved the coaching rakes without a loco at the other end?

 

[dubscottie]

According to a book I have, 73104/129/142 all caught fire. It also says that a few drivers got a zap when the current arced.

One 3 car set was scrapped after one of its coaches almost bent in two!

 

[big all]

I remember there were problems at the beginning with the 73s on was it 8 coach sets?
A couple caught fire from what I remember and while they arranged some kind of modification they ran pairs of them on diesel power with shortened sets.
Does anyone know what year that happened?

look up battersea park fire
what happened was it bridged 2 substation sections at low speed
after that the edls where modified so instead off notching back over a gap to come in at reduced power they would shut off and notch up a real pain in the posterior when working a heavy freight slow speed over pointwork often easier to use deisel till clear off the pointwork' often on pointwork you will have no juice rail at the actual blades or other areas where they need to work on the points so with several points in succession you can have maybe 50m with only perhaps 15m off short lengths
some victoria drivers occasionally to relieve the boredom would run short formations on diesel that gave them 1100hp and about a 4 min late arrival

A press run with a Gatwick Express set including a GUV went around the UK with a 33/1, presumably were compatible

33/1 although compatable have no epb brake.

 

[30907]

If they had been built as planned you'd have had a 4-car or 8-car plus DMLV. Plus the change was before delivery. Prior to this modified 4-VEP units had been used (designated 4-VEG with extra luggage space) so the only thing I can think was they wanted to mimic those running in pairs originally.

Well the 4-VEG units that had been used in the few years before the 488 units were converted had 48 First Class seats in a 4-car set and 96 in an 8-car set.

The Gatwick portions were AFAIK normally only 4VEG out of 8 or 12 (daytimes when the front portion went forward to Brighton/Mid Sussex); a 4-car 488 with a full First would have been very tight on Standard seating (VEPs were 3+2). I wonder if that was behind the decision to go for 5 cars not 4 in low season? In the days before RyanJet the biggest loads could ISTR be around breakfast time into London off long distance overnight flights. However this is guesswork.

 

[Cowley]

look up battersea park fire
what happened was it bridged 2 substation sections at low speed
after that the edls where modified so instead off notching back over a gap to come in at reduced power they would shut off and notch up a real pain in the posterior when working a heavy freight slow speed over pointwork often easier to use deisel till clear off the pointwork' often on pointwork you will have no juice rail at the actual blades or other areas where they need to work on the points so with several points in succession you can have maybe 50m with only perhaps 15m off short lengths
some victoria drivers occasionally to relieve the boredom would run short formations on diesel that gave them 1100hp and about a 4 min late arrival

33/1 although compatable have no epb brake.

Very interesting, thanks @big all.

 

[Helvellyn]

One 3 car set was scrapped after one of its coaches almost bent in two!

That was the Battersea Park collision 35 years ago yesterday (31st May 1985), which wrote off set 8301. Coach 72600 was the worst damaged (see photo in link below) and was scrapped in 1987, whilst 72700 and 72601 were scrapped in 1992.

http://www.preservedthumpers.com/incident-battersea-park.html

 

[hexagon789]

If they had been built as planned you'd have had a 4-car or 8-car plus DMLV. Plus the change was before delivery. Prior to this modified 4-VEP units had been used (designated 4-VEG with extra luggage space) so the only thing I can think was they wanted to mimic those running in pairs originally.

Did the 4-VEG run singly or in pairs on the pre-GatEx services?

 

[Whistler40145]

Was it ever known for top n tail 73s to work a Gatwick Express service?

I mean with both locos connected using the high level multiple working cables

 

[WesternLancer]

Surely the formation of a train should be driven by passenger demand rather than what stock is hanging around. This original suggestion seems to include two full first class vehicles rather than one as done later. Given that (in my experience) the First Class vehicle in the Gatwick express normally ran up and down pretty much as empty stock anyway, it would have been a complete overprovision. Whoever thought there would be that requirement in a 30 minute journey.

Too much First Class was a developing aspect on the railways through the Mk2-Mk3 era, and reached a pinnacle in the first Pendolinos where four out of the eight cars were designed as such.

Ref 1st class it may have been thought that easier to sell 1st class tickets to overseas visitors who may have pre determined views of Europe and the quality difference on different types of train between classes and would be default book 1st class tickets (even I recall a big diff in eg Italy in the early 80s between 1st and say non air conditioned standard class travel). Also even some travelers from the continent used to a more 'reasonable' price differential between 1st and 2nd class than is typical in the UK (or has become typical) might have been considered happy to pay for 1st class.

Then you may also have had 1st class Britrail pass holders in the mix.

Back in 1984 although Gatwick was firmly established as a 'charter flight' airport catering for cheaper flights I suspect BR still felt there was a `1st class market' to tap into.

I often book 1st class when I go abroad when I would not in the UK - often as it's a 1 off trip so a special occasion I am prepared to splash out for - often to be able to guarantee more space and a eg potential security benefit - obv in days of the web it is easy via sites like Seat61 to see what you get for your money but back in those days I suspect they felt there was market to tap into maybe.

I recall seeing the test runs of the service (eg down to Eastbourne) and it being introduced and thinking how exciting it was to have frequent air conditioned trains on the Brighton line!

Sometimes I used to change at Gatwick to get on to one for the next leg to London just for the ride.

 

[Taunton]

Back in 1984 although Gatwick was firmly established as a 'charter flight' airport catering for cheaper flights I suspect BR still felt there was a `1st class market' to tap into.

I doubt BR had thought about it at all. The first class loadings were absolutely minimal, and I guess that the few in there were mostly "1st class Britrail", or BR staff on passes, which didn't give any extra revenue at all.

Sometimes I used to change at Gatwick to get on to one for the next leg to London just for the ride.

It is surprising what a difference having just the same fare charged made. I believe a number of peak hour commuters from Brighton did that. I had contacts with an office in East Grinstead when the service started and they commonly drove over to Gatwick, parked there and got the Express when going up to London.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One of the sets did a grand tour to publicize it , with a pair of 33's and Southern crews who were piloted. Market was to sell it to Travel Agents. It certainly got as far as York.

One of my fellow Mgt Trainees enjoyed that particular grand tour. As no doubt did the SR based traincrew.

 

[WesternLancer]

I doubt BR had thought about it at all. The first class loadings were absolutely minimal, and I guess that the few in there were mostly "1st class Britrail", or BR staff on passes, which didn't give any extra revenue at all.

It is surprising what a difference having just the same fare charged made. I believe a number of peak hour commuters from Brighton did that. I had contacts with an office in East Grinstead when the service started and they commonly drove over to Gatwick, parked there and got the Express when going up to London.

Good points Taunton.

 

[WesternLancer]

One of the sets did a grand tour to publicize it , with a pair of 33's and Southern crews who were piloted. Market was to sell it to Travel Agents. It certainly got as far as York.

One of my fellow Mgt Trainees enjoyed that particular grand tour. As no doubt did the SR based traincrew.

Interesting info - and at the time the airline travel market was very different. Can't recall Stansted really existing, Luton only seemed to feature in Lorraine Chase stand up routines and Heathrow only had a tube link. I guess other regional airports were fairly limited on Long Haul (though maybe not Birmingham)?
It did seem to me that GatEx was the only really quality rail-air link at that time - and of course a massive step change from the 4-VEG emu's that predated these sets.

 

[paul1609]

Did the 4-VEG run singly or in pairs on the pre-GatEx services?

It used to be a 4 car unit from Bognor Regis joined with a 4 Veg at Gatwick Airport. It used to be a pain in the arse because all the last minute airport passengers used to climb in to the Arun Valley portion with their suitcases as it was next to the platform enterance.

 

[Taunton]

It did seem to me that GatEx was the only really quality rail-air link at that time - and of course a massive step change from the 4-VEG emu's that predated these sets.

My principal recollection of the 4-VEG on the service was a couple boarding at Gatwick one evening, suitcases plus an enormous stuffed toy donkey. Older hands here may recall these had a heyday in Spanish resorts in the 1970s-80s, they were about 3 feet high/long and sufficiently popular that they were all specially taken out to the aircraft together on their own trailer at the Spanish airport. People laughed at them in Spain, but by the time, in a full train, we had rattled through rainy Purley and Croydon any humour had worn decidedly thin.

 

[hexagon789]

It used to be a 4 car unit from Bognor Regis joined with a 4 Veg at Gatwick Airport. It used to be a pain in the arse because all the last minute airport passengers used to climb in to the Arun Valley portion with their suitcases as it was next to the platform enterance.

So it was actually a portion worked service? Interesting, that must've been pain at times