Jump to content
 

Mark 3 Sleepers


woodenhead
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

I was under the impression that the risk came from the bogie coming into contact with the barge boards and the possibility of hitting one, more or all of these causing damage to the bogie or infrastructure. This was why there are (and remain!) no barge boards at any point between Euston throat and Camden Jcn so LSL Mk3's can safely operate on all lines including DC electrified lines B and C even with air bags defective.

 

 

The BT10s originally had metal stirrups similar to a B4 bogie which could easily bend in a derailment but these were changed to wire loops many years ago so they are similar to Short Swing Links just differently orientated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grizz said:

 

Mmmmmm I suspect it is a case of ‘because we’ve always done it like that, so it is now always going to be like that. 

 

I can see that there could be, vaguely might be, a weird and highly unlikely set of circumstances which given the added ingredient of ‘S*ds Law’ perhaps could lead to a spectacular conductor rail / bogie component electrical firework display. But it is likelihood v consequence. Millions to 1 against it occurring in the next hundred years but if it did the results would likely be catastrophic or at least monetarily catastrophic. 

 

Sadly once someone identified this a possible scenario then despite the fact that it has rarely if ever occurred no one in their right mind would now sign it off as impossible.

 

It is not helped by today’s risk averse culture, coupled with the unwillingness to try anything new, the need to discourage anything new and finally the need to rip as much money out of it as you can. Perfect! 

Perhaps steam engines should be banned from the CRE area after that one dropped its connecting rod (or one of its rods) onto the CRE the other year?

 

I agree with minimising risk but after the LSL was changed to a wire hoop the issue was basically dealt with but I would guess nobody was willing to put their signature to a bit of paper lifting the restriction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Luke Piewalker said:

Just cloud talk. But could a Mk3 sleeper be converted into a retention tank equipped toilet block for railtours?

I dont see a reason why not, just a question of finding space to fit the tanks underneath among all the other equipment under there.

I suppose you could fit a large tank in one of the former berths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The toilet block conversion suggestion actually sounds like a good idea if track discharge toilets were completely banned. A couple of toilet carriages per train with large tanks and vacuum gubbins (and probably a genset to run it) might be a more viable option than retrofitting the many and varied charter vehicles that currently exist. 

Edited by 47513
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, 47513 said:

The toilet block conversion suggestion actually sounds like a good idea if track discharge toilets were completely banned. A couple of toilet carriages per train with large tanks and vacuum gubbins (and probably a genset to run it) might be a more viable option than retrofitting the many and varied charter vehicles that currently exist. 

That's sort of what I was thinking. Had a dubious experience a couple of years ago when the train ran out of water. On a very hot day.  Not long after we started. And if you could have a single coach with all the gear in it rather than having to service a whole train, as well as removing the requirements to entankulate a whole train, that has to have potential. Although i'm sure it would somehow cost an improbable amount of money to fit one out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Luke Piewalker said:

That's sort of what I was thinking. Had a dubious experience a couple of years ago when the train ran out of water. On a very hot day.  Not long after we started. And if you could have a single coach with all the gear in it rather than having to service a whole train, as well as removing the requirements to entankulate a whole train, that has to have potential. Although i'm sure it would somehow cost an improbable amount of money to fit one out.

 

This is a similar situation to something that I proposed on another thread: purpose-built new coaches for preservation lines. Most would be a standard TSO (but with detail differences to better match the locos). One carriage in each train would be a "service" vehicle with guard's compartment, loo and disability access. Same could be built for main line use although for mainline use one needs to consider 1st class as well for the premium dining options.

 

There is going to be quite a number needed given the poor state of many Mk1s. Volume production could bring the price down to something reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

You wouldn't need 72ft of toilets and tanks,  a BSK and some underslung tanks would be better but probably not for the guard! 

I'm sure I've read somewhere about a proposed 70ft mk2 sleeper anyone know anything about it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

This is a similar situation to something that I proposed on another thread: purpose-built new coaches for preservation lines. Most would be a standard TSO (but with detail differences to better match the locos). One carriage in each train would be a "service" vehicle with guard's compartment, loo and disability access. Same could be built for main line use although for mainline use one needs to consider 1st class as well for the premium dining options.

 

There is going to be quite a number needed given the poor state of many Mk1s. Volume production could bring the price down to something reasonable.

 

Certainly an interesting idea, but would even a volume production price be affordable by most heritage railways?

 

And given the disdain that many have for the Dartmouth Steam Railway and its lack of authentic liveries / naming etc. how much of the "enthusiasts" would accept a new build coach on the heritage lines?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Most preserved railways are too short to genuinely need toilets other than perhaps a couple on dining trains .

But by using shredding toilets waste can be pumped to a convenient tank 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Luke Piewalker said:

That's sort of what I was thinking. Had a dubious experience a couple of years ago when the train ran out of water. On a very hot day.  Not long after we started. And if you could have a single coach with all the gear in it rather than having to service a whole train, as well as removing the requirements to entankulate a whole train, that has to have potential. Although i'm sure it would somehow cost an improbable amount of money to fit one out.

 

The only problem might be that by the time all the passengers have devoured and drank the entire contents of the restaurant/buffet cars and visited said coach, is it going to be still within the allowed axle loadings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, russ p said:

You wouldn't need 72ft of toilets and tanks,  a BSK and some underslung tanks would be better but probably not for the guard! 

I'm sure I've read somewhere about a proposed 70ft mk2 sleeper anyone know anything about it? 

The mk2 sleeper is mentioned in the Harris book. To paraphrase:

Around 1964, before all mk1 sleepers had entered service, BR were concerned about the Sleeper business. The need for adaptabilty according to demand led to the mk1 SLE conversions where berths could be set as 1st or 2nd class. A mock-up appeared in 1965 and the financial approval granted in 1967.

Consideration came next to Sleepers which had convertible class, air-conditioning, improved soundproofing and chemical-retention toilets.

An outline proposal was submitted in early 1968 for a 'mk2B' 66ft. vehicle with 10 convertible berths (each w/ toilet compt.). A mock-up was recommended but it was made clear that drawings for a full prototype could not be considered before early 1972.

This project eventually led to the new mk3 Sleepers (obviously without individual toilets).

 

The Sleepers suffered the same fate as the Kitchen/Restaurant/Buffet cars - relatively low-use specialist vehicles that were hardly worn-out (large numbers were not delivered until the early-mid '60s) but whose fittings and general ambience were little changed from the 1950s. 

By the time the mk2 coaches were coming on stream, BR had to fight for (and justify financially) any new coaching stock. Initially, the mk2s were intended to be available in most of the same types as mk1s but this was quickly stamped out on financial grounds. IIRC there were around 14 mk1 coach types but only 5 for the first mk2s -FK, TSO, SO, BFK, BSO ( plus FO from mk2c on, although FK and BFK ended with mk2d).

As it turned out, mk1 sleepers and catering vehicles were merely refurbished and the first new stock of these types for BR were the mk3 RUB in 1979 and the mk3 Sleepers. 

When the mk3 Sleepers came in, this meant the complete withdrawal of the mk1s - but there were only 28 mk3 RUB (exclusively for the WCML expresses) so the rest of the network relied on mk1 RKB/RBR/RMB, even after the mk2 conversions came in. Of course, a big factor in this was the general decline in full-meal catering and the desire to cut catering costs.

 

Incidentally,  some mk2 Sleepers were built for Tanzania in 1978 - 15 1st & 25 2nd class vehicles mounted on BT14 bogies (the BREL version of the B4 for metre-gauge etc.)  and 65 Sleepers for Kenya in 1983/4 (again metre-gauge). No real details are given other than they were built to general mk2 constructional standards.

Edited by keefer
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 25/01/2020 at 22:44, keefer said:

Incidentally,  some mk2 Sleepers were built for Tanzania in 1978 - 15 1st & 25 2nd class vehicles mounted on BT14 bogies (the BREL version of the B4 for metre-gauge etc.)  and 65 Sleepers for Kenya in 1983/4 (again metre-gauge). No real details are given other than they were built to general mk2 constructional standards.

 

Here are photos of a couple of the Kenyan Mk2s:

 

scan0001.jpg.5f0048f2565c4ee1a29652e6fe6701bf.jpg

 

scan0002.jpg.8f7414703fbe5514f875883bafa2782c.jpg

 

 

I travelled on them from Nairobi to Mombasa and back in 1997. A lot of the internal fittings looked familiar. ISTR that the builders plate said BREL Metro.

 

Second class had 4 berth compartments and first class were 2 berth. There was also a Mk2 style restaurant car and third class day coaches of a different manufacture.

 

Edited by giz
Photos re-attached
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be drifting from topic a little, who me?, but I'm curious about the long- and short-swing link suspension systems.

 

If the short system 'has' to be used in areas where there is DC electrification, then presumably these are a compromise in some way and that the long system is better/preferred, otherwise presumably everything would have been built as short? And how very odd that there was a single bogie type, BT10, with two different suspension systems and route availability (for want of a better term) rather than calling the 'shorts' by one name and the 'longs' by another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, dvdlcs said:

Might be drifting from topic a little, who me?, but I'm curious about the long- and short-swing link suspension systems.

 

If the short system 'has' to be used in areas where there is DC electrification, then presumably these are a compromise in some way and that the long system is better/preferred, otherwise presumably everything would have been built as short? And how very odd that there was a single bogie type, BT10, with two different suspension systems and route availability (for want of a better term) rather than calling the 'shorts' by one name and the 'longs' by another.

All BT10 bogies were built with the fixed stirrup type swing links (later termed "long"), their replacement by cable type swing links was retrospective and has no performance effect on the bogie whatsoever, still fully fit for 125mph with no adverse effect on ride or bogie wear- it was just an unnecessary expense to convert all BT10 bogies to SSL as only a small percentage of the fleet would ever need to traverse third rail fitted lines.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

This is a similar situation to something that I proposed on another thread: purpose-built new coaches for preservation lines. Most would be a standard TSO (but with detail differences to better match the locos). One carriage in each train would be a "service" vehicle with guard's compartment, loo and disability access. Same could be built for main line use although for mainline use one needs to consider 1st class as well for the premium dining options.

 

There is going to be quite a number needed given the poor state of many Mk1s. Volume production could bring the price down to something reasonable.

No offence, but are you absolutely barking mad? Replacing a Mk1 or Mk2 which was probably donated or as good as donated to the preserved line with a fleet of new build coaches which would cost millions per set is totally pie in the sky. Even for mainline use you'd need solid six or seven day a week use for 18 hours a day to justify the expense of new build. Getting another new type through type approval for mainline use alone would be prohibitively expensive for the charter market even if the coaches were given to them free of charge.

 

If retention tanks became an absolute must for mainline operation the best option would be to grab all the Anglia Mk3's and use them, that's about 14 sets worth of coaches all with retention tank toilets, all with Central Door Locking, all with a better standard of passenger comfort and crashworthyness than the stuff already out there.

 

The sleepers could play a role, if you wanted a full kitchen car you could start with a SLEP/SLE and rip everything out except the pair of toilets at one end, install a state of the art modern kitchen facility in the rest of the coach able to easily do around 200-250 meals from each kitchen- with two of those in each set and the rest of the train formed of Mk3 FO you'd have a formidable offering.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mk1s are the type of basic engineering that can probably be kept going indefinitely with the right sort of attention, but later stock has the complication of structural bodywork, air conditioning etc.  To most "normals" a Mk1 is a typical coach from the steam age (which of course they literally are) with opening windows, wood paneling and so forth, but even the early Mk2s have an interior that is of their time, late 60s or 70s.  A Mk3 set might become necessary for main line use or if they are trying to re-create the 70s and 80s, but I can't see the need on a heritage railway where steam dominates.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Mk1 cannot meet current crashworthiness standards.  Those which have been running on the main line retain grandfather rights to do so subject to stringent limitations.  Their number is slowly reducing. Mk1 sleeping cars were insulated with asbestos panelling which, had they been preserved or continued in service, would have required expensive and specialist stripping-out.  It may be thought unfortunate that none survive in operational condition - indeed very few survive at all - but asbestos stripping is beyond the means of many heritage railways both financially and technically.  

 

Ultimately the surviving Mk1 coaching stock may only be running on low speed heritage lines as the main line fleet cannot be kept fit for 75mph indefinitely and some routes require charter trains to run at 90mph to avoid major timetabling conflicts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎25‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 13:57, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

From a HST trailer point of view EVERYTHING that Cross-Country ran from 1991-2003 had SSL bogies and a good percentage of the GWR fleet got them as well. It's very hard to nail down an exact number as bogies are swapped around all the time when they come off for overhaul and are replaced meaning that vehicles labelled or on the system as SSL may very well not be and SSL bogies ended up under EMR and LNER trailers unlikely to see a juice rail. GWR was keeping a bit more on top of this and went through a campaign of physically examining their vehicles as knowing which were SSL became relevant to them ahead of pre-planned diversions of HSTs into Waterloo and summer Saturday operation to Weymouth, the latter train was once subject to a last minute set-swap before departure from Bristol when a visual check revealed LSL bogies in the planned set.

 

Getting route clearance for such jollies is super tough these days, basically if you cannot prove to NR that Mk3's have been there before then forget it; they tried rejecting Skegness as a route until EMT (as they were then) persisted and proved it, same went for Carlton Road to Harringey via Crouch Hill.

 

MK3 sleeper coach bogies up close and personal. Took flipping ages to find the photos though, I really must start labelling them better.

Photos taken at Stonebridge Park station on 8th Feb 2017, whilst I was waiting to get access to the track. I used to see these coaches usually being hauled by a 92 in a mega rake, slowly moving a coach at  a time through the raised siding next to the depot. Wish I'd taken more photos.

 

Coach 10551.

 

Can anyone identify if these are LSL or SSL and which are the offending parts??

 

IMG_3505.JPG.d87163f4712ec2996ce374255da88f36.JPG

 

 

IMG_3506.JPG.411a16ed91107a40d4af92e454962d9e.JPG

 

IMG_3507.JPG.f1e40cb6344111dcccbb7a280fe089b9.JPGIMG_3508.JPG.1f79f4da7dffc51a5fd269675b994c51.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...