MK4's Pre-Mallard Refurbishment

[YourMum666]

How was the seat comfort, ride quality and accessibility on the Intercity 225s pre refurbishment. Was it as good as the mk3 trains? Were there any significant downgrades or upgrades from the original train bar refurbishment?

 

[Spartacus]

The original seats were far from Mk3 level, and maybe only a bit above the Mallard interior ones, and that's if you got a decent one, a funny combination of soft material but hard underneath if I remember right, with colours designed not to show dirt or stains. In the earliest days ride quality was poor, only marginally improved later. Big improvements came with the Mallard work though, ultimately by rotating the bogies to face the opposite way. The DVTs still retain the original layout.

Other changes came in the form of individual sockets in standard, removal of the smoke doors and other screens part way along carriages, wider interior doors but the replacement of the tip up vestibule seats with those horrid perches only useful if you're a certain height. I think they also lost the low level luggage racks half way down the carriages at the same time, and the 2 + 1 First Class seating was all moved to one side, instead of switching part way down.

 

[43096]

the 2 + 1 First Class seating was all moved to one side, instead of switching part way down.

That’s not correct, the Mark 4s still have the first class seating layout changing from 2+1 to 1+2 part way down the vehicle.

 

[Spartacus]

That’s not correct, the Mark 4s still have the first class seating layout changing from 2+1 to 1+2 part way down the vehicle.

I must be getting mixed up with something else, it's a while since I've been on one. Am I thinking of the bit in the centre for people to get around the trolley instead of having to stick your groin or arse in someone's face while squeezing past?

One thing I forgot was that the buffet was reversed, the seating switching from First to Standard at the same time.

 

[43096]

I must be getting mixed up with something else, it's a while since I've been on one. Am I thinking of the bit in the centre for people to get around the trolley instead of having to stick your groin or arse in someone's face while squeezing past?

The “ballroom” in first class is still there as it is needed for where the seating swaps over (and also allows trolleys to pass each other). So the seating goes 2+1 > 1+1 > 1+2 down the vehicle.

 

[Snow1964]

I am sure the original spec for mk4 coaches specified ride quality at 140mph better than Mk3 / HST at 125mph. It did this, but turned out wasn't quite as good at 125mph.

I vaguely remember it was fixed by turning something around, might have been whole bogie, because of asymmetric dampers, or possibly was a shock absorber turned around. Didn't really matter as during subsequent 40 years never instigated the allowed for regular 140mph running in train design, and never fitted the tilt which the mk4 design had slanted sides for.

 

[Spartacus]

I am sure the original spec for mk4 coaches specified ride quality at 140mph better than Mk3 / HST at 125mph. It did this, but turned out wasn't quite as good at 125mph.

I vaguely remember it was fixed by turning something around, might have been whole bogie, because of asymmetric dampers, or possibly was a shock absorber turned around. Didn't really matter as during subsequent 40 years never instigated the allowed for regular 140mph running in train design, and never fitted the tilt which the mk4 design had slanted sides for.

That's right. It was the whole bogie, you can see by comparing photos of them in Intercity service with later ones. For some season photos where you can see the detail in GNER pre-mallard are a bit scarce. Cured a lot of the juddering at the same time, but that could have been other modifications too.

 

[WesternLancer]

How was the seat comfort, ride quality and accessibility on the Intercity 225s pre refurbishment. Was it as good as the mk3 trains? Were there any significant downgrades or upgrades from the original train bar refurbishment?

I seem to recall at the time when new the mk 4 'felt more modern' to me than a Mk3. I think that may have been due to the tapered in body style a la APT (which to me felt ultra modern!)

The Mallard refurbs made the seating much nicer - but the larger / higher backs seemed more to make it feel a bit more 'cramped' though I suspect this was largely visual impression. I certainly thought the turning round of the buffet/kitchen car made sense both to increase std class seat numbers and make it easier to serve meals to a larger saloon area in 1st, as GNER at that time were pushing their restaurant services admirably and winning plaudits for culinary quality too.

 

[ainsworth74]

The “ballroom” in first class is still there as it is needed for where the seating swaps over (and also allows trolleys to pass each other). So the seating goes 2+1 > 1+1 > 1+2 down the vehicle.

Always surprised me that that layout never caught on, it seemed to work very well on the Mk4s and the more conventional layouts of keeping the 2s and the 1s on the same side throughout the carriage a little less easy to walk through than on a Mk4.

 

[hexagon789]

Big improvements came with the Mallard work though, ultimately by rotating the bogies to face the opposite way.

The bogie mods were done under BR, not that long after the Mk4s entered traffic and long before the Mallard refurbishment.

 

[YorksLad12]

The “ballroom” in first class is still there as it is needed for where the seating swaps over (and also allows trolleys to pass each other). So the seating goes 2+1 > 1+1 > 1+2 down the vehicle.

It's the best part of travelling in First; I always try and book one of them (should be in one on Sunday, all being well and if some herbert hasn't parked themselves in it before I board). I'd imagine that staff like them as well as they can cross there, or the trolley can move out of the way. Everywhere else is 2+1 all the way down... in the 80x series those singles are like cells or cubicles, and there's only the one pair in the middle.

 

[Davester50]

The standard class seats were pretty basic in the original InterCity form.

Photo of original seats from memorylane.co.uk

 

[tomuk]

The Intercity 225s (incoporating Mk4s) were competitively tendered as part of early steps in the privatisation of British Rail. The outcome being the Mk4s were built by Metro Cammell rather than BREL (although BREL did build some of the bodyshells at Derby) and the Swiss SIG bogies were chosen rather than the Series 4 bogies used on the 158s (again this was supposedly down to machinations around BR standing behind warranties having to be given to itself pending the sale of BREL)

 

[43096]

The Intercity 225s (incoporating Mk4s) were competitively tendered as part of early steps in the privatisation of British Rail. The outcome being the Mk4s were built by Metro Cammell rather than BREL (although BREL did build some of the bodyshells at Derby)

At least some of the DVT shells were built at Crewe Works.

and the Swiss SIG bogies were chosen rather than the Series 4 bogies used on the 158s (again this was supposedly down to machinations around BR standing behind warranties having to be given to itself pending the sale of BREL)

One of the biggest misses: how much better would the Mark 4s have been with T4 bogies?

 

[yorksrob]

The Intercity 225s (incoporating Mk4s) were competitively tendered as part of early steps in the privatisation of British Rail. The outcome being the Mk4s were built by Metro Cammell rather than BREL (although BREL did build some of the bodyshells at Derby) and the Swiss SIG bogies were chosen rather than the Series 4 bogies used on the 158s (again this was supposedly down to machinations around BR standing behind warranties having to be given to itself pending the sale of BREL)

Construction commenced in 1989, some time before the privatisation fiasco. Maggie hadn't even gone, let alone Johnny.

 

[Mag_seven]

How was the seat comfort, ride quality and accessibility on the Intercity 225s pre refurbishment. Was it as good as the mk3 trains? Were there any significant downgrades or upgrades from the original train bar refurbishment?

I felt they had a slightly poorer ride quality compared to a Mark 3. Internally they were also noticeably noisier as well.

 

[hexagon789]

One of the biggest misses: how much better would the Mark 4s have been with T4 bogies?

158s must be the closest approximate

 

[D6130]

One of the biggest misses: how much better would the Mark 4s have been with T4 bogies?

Would the T4 bogies have been suitable for 140 mph running?

 

[hexagon789]

Would the T4 bogies have been suitable for 140 mph running?

BREL would only provide the commercial guarantees BR demanded for lateral ride comfort at 125mph nit 140mph. I understood from that that the T4 could be run safely at 140 but not necessarily providing the high level of ride comfort required. (The spec demanded better ride at 140 than the Mk3 BT10 at 125.)

Ironically, the SIG bogies failed to meet the level required in service at only 125mph... but I've seen some anecdotal reports that the ride was actually better at 140 than 125?

 

[WesternLancer]

Construction commenced in 1989, some time before the privatisation fiasco. Maggie hadn't even gone, let alone Johnny.

Indeed, but BR was under insruction to sell off bits of what were regarded as non core activity. Of course Sealink went very early on - after the '83 election, (Transport Hotels before then) but other bits were sold off after 1987 General Election - BREL being in that term as well as Travellers Fare (station catering) IIRC, and of course not to forget the Vale of Rheidol. Had to wait until post 1992 for the main bit of the fiasco to get underway.

But no doubt the BREL sell off in 1989 (and the preparation for it) would have had an impact on the Mk4

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, but BR was under insruction to sell off bits of what were regarded as non core activity. Of course Sealink went very early on - after the '83 election, (Transport Hotels before then) but other bits were sold off after 1987 General Election - BREL being in that term as well as Travellers Fare (station catering) IIRC, and of course not to forget the Vale of Rheidol. Had to wait until post 1992 for the main bit of the fiasco to get underway.

But no doubt the BREL sell off in 1989 (and the preparation for it) would have had an impact on the Mk4

But IC225 was specified and procured as an InterCity BR product.

For people to claim it as some sort of early privatisation token is desperation.

 

[WesternLancer]

But IC225 was specified and procured as an InterCity BR product.

For people to claim it as some sort of early privatisation token is desperation.

I don't think any one is trying to claim that - they are saying that because BR Board was prepping BREL for sale they would have been risk averse to potential liability claims that might have been lodged at BREL by BR if there were fault with the Mk4 product after delivery. Liability claims that any potential buyer for BREL doing due diligence would either not want to inherit or might cause them to walk away from the idea of buying BREL or depress the price they might want to offer BR for BREL.
Result - phone calls from an angry Minister charged with selling BREL to managers and BR Board members / invitations to the Minstry for discussion without coffee etc etc.

I think that is the point being made.

Plus I suspect BR would have been under pressure to direct some of the taxpayer funded investment in the ECML modernisation to the private sector since ideologically minded Ministers would no doubt take that view that any nationalised provider (in this case BREL) could not possibly be capable of creating a decent product. And even if the Minister was open minded I am sure they would have a firm view on what Mrs T would have thought on the matter.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think any one is trying to claim that - they are saying that because BR Board was prepping BREL for sale they would have been risk averse to potential liability claims that might have been lodged at BREL by BR if there were fault with the Mk4 product after delivery. Liability claims that any potential buyer for BREL doing due diligence would either not want to inherit or might cause them to walk away from the idea of buying BREL or depress the price they might want to offer BR for BREL.
Result - phone calls from an angry Minister charged with selling BREL to managers and BR Board members / invitations to the Minstry for discussion without coffee etc etc.

I think that is the point being made.

Plus I suspect BR would have been under pressure to direct some of the taxpayer funded investment in the ECML modernisation to the private sector since ideologically minded Ministers would no doubt take that view that any nationalised provider (in this case BREL) could not possibly be capable of creating a decent product. And even if the Minister was open minded I am sure they would have a firm view on what Mrs T would have thought on the matter.

It's an incorrect point to suggest that because BR was going out to tender for rolling stock, that it was some sort of proto-privatisation exercise. BR had gone out to tender on many occasions and manufacturers such as Metro Camel had gained contracts many times.

I suspect that such suggestions are made to impart a pro-privatisation agenda, whereas the IC225 programme is clearly BR project.

 

[LowLevel]

158s must be the closest approximate

When the wheels aren't being run down to minimum size with the suspension packed out, they're about the best riding trains in the country. They make the likes of 170s feel like a bouncing banging twitchy mess and of course the CAF stuff is even worse than that.

 

[Helvellyn]

The standard class seats were pretty basic in the original InterCity form.

Photo of original seats from memorylane.co.uk

And photo of First Class from Curbside Classic.

 

[YourMum666]

I must say the original 91 interiors looked very apt-esque

 

[tomuk]

It's an incorrect point to suggest that because BR was going out to tender for rolling stock, that it was some sort of proto-privatisation exercise. BR had gone out to tender on many occasions and manufacturers such as Metro Camel had gained contracts many times.

I suspect that such suggestions are made to impart a pro-privatisation agenda, whereas the IC225 programme is clearly BR project.

You have no clue what you are talking about BR were told by the Government to privatise non core activities. Sealink ferries and British Transport Hotels by 1984, Travellers Fare catering by 1988 and British Rail Engineering Limited (train building) by 1989. As part of this privatisation and liberalisation process BR had to competitively tender for all rolling stock from 1983 onwards.

Those are the facts they aren't trying to impart any sort of agenda.

At least some of the DVT shells were built at Crewe Works.

Whoops wrong works. I actually saw the Mk4 DVTs at the 1990 Crewe Works Open Day. Derby were bust with Mk3 DVTs and latterly 158s.

 

[yorksrob]

You have no clue what you are talking about BR were told by the Government to privatise non core activities. Sealink ferries and British Transport Hotels by 1984, Travellers Fare catering by 1988 and British Rail Engineering Limited (train building) by 1989. As part of this privatisation and liberalisation process BR had to competitively tender for all rolling stock from 1983 onwards.

Those are the facts they aren't trying to impart any sort of agenda.


Whoops wrong works. I actually saw the Mk4 DVTs at the 1990 Crewe Works Open Day. Derby were bust with Mk3 DVTs and latterly 158s.

How can the 225 programme not be a BR project when the trains were specified by BR and built for BR services ?

1st generation DMU's were built by Metro Cammel in the 1960's. Diesel locomotives were built by Sulzer in the 1960's. Were these a forerunner to privatisation as well ?

BR tendered for rolling stock outside of its own works throughout it's existance.

 

[Neptune]

The original interiors were very ‘of the time late 80’s’. Quite dark with dusky pinks and greys with smoked partitions. The seats were very hard and never really softened up through time (and people complain that this is a modern phenomenon). The internal doors were red which threw a hint of accent colour in.

First class was equally dingy with the greys and smoked partitions (no relief colour) but I recall that those seats had a much more comfortable base.

The buffet coach was originally first class and had a larger counter than now. Some sets were laid out for Pullman services (3 full FC coaches plus the half coach in the buffet) and others for normal services (2 full plus the buffet half). Again this was standardised at Mallard refurb with 3 full FC coaches and the buffet turned around and SC seating fitted. This required some SC coaches to be converted to FC.

The ride quality was awful and BR resolved this with bogie mods turning them around being part of it. This happened much earlier than the Mallard project as suggested above. They never seemed to ride overly brilliantly and still feel lively at times today.

The Mallard refurb was excellent with better seats and a standard layout. Just a shame the excellent GNER never got more time with them.

Refurbishing the HST’s to the same standard (shame power doors weren’t fitted though) gave the ECML a consistent product. The IC70 seats in them were always a bugbear with their terrible fixed arm rests and laid back feel which never helped my glass back whenever I had to endure one. I was always in pain arriving at Kings Cross after 2 hours and the Mallard seats never caused these issues.

 

[WesternLancer]

It's an incorrect point to suggest that because BR was going out to tender for rolling stock, that it was some sort of proto-privatisation exercise. BR had gone out to tender on many occasions and manufacturers such as Metro Camel had gained contracts many times.

I suspect that such suggestions are made to impart a pro-privatisation agenda, whereas the IC225 programme is clearly BR project.

I understand what you are saying - but I think the point is about the privatisation of BREL, not BR (which BR were doing at the time). BR privatisation was not on the cards at the time, as we know - beyond the fringes of Tory think tanks at least.

And photo of First Class from Curbside Classic.

View attachment 136711

Thanks - I'd wondered about the 1st class interiors as I could not bring it to mind. I did feel that both Std and 1st had a 'modern inter city' look to them - even if points have been made up thread ref comfort.