Mark 3 Sleepers

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

7 minutes ago, keefer said:

IIRC it's the two looped cables on the SSL, the LSL had what was like a metal bracket

(Unless I've got it wrong)

100% correct, the bogies in the shot are all SSL.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

Not my photo so sue me...

 

 

NOT 12140, the one next to it has original LSL. 12140 has the SIG rubbish or some other development bogie.

Edited January 26, 2020 by fiftyfour fiftyfour

[Grizz]

two photos of the MK3 sleeper coach ends at Bluebell, one clearly labelled with SSL and the other has nothing.....

 

At least I know where to look out for it now though.

 

 

[russ p]

Some of the Anglia ones are marked LSL which is ironic as LSL are buying some of them!

[Grizz]

2 hours ago, keefer said:

IIRC it's the two looped cables on the SSL, the LSL had what was like a metal bracket

(Unless I've got it wrong)

 

Cheers Keefer that's great, finally I know what it looks like and where it's located.  

 

At the moment I don't have any close up photos of the bogies on the two Bluebell MK3 sleepers. As per my earlier post 10690 in purple livery has the SSL sticker on the coach end but 10693 in the latest Caledonian livery doesn't have a sticker. As Bluebell is only ten minutes away I'll drop up and get some more detailed photos, if only to satisfy my own curiosity. 

 

If anyone wants any particular detail of these two coaches photo snapped, apart from the roof obviously, let me know and I'll try to get them for you.

 

 

[Grizz]

3 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Not my photo so sue me...

 

 

NOT 12140, the one next to it has original LSL. 12140 has the SIG rubbish or some other development bogie.

 

It looks a bit like a bogie from a class 156 Sprinter. Slight differences but similar shape, with doughnut cushion etc.

 

[keefer]

It'll either be a SIG (as fitted to mk4) or a BREL T4 (as fitted to mk3 DVT)

 

EDIT: It's neither, it's a BREL BT7 development bogie. It did get BT41 'SIG' bogies but not the T4

http://www.traintesting.com/M12140_Mk3_coach.htm

Edited January 26, 2020 by keefer
To correct wrong info

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

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.

 

I think that's about as offensive as should be allowed here. But others will judge.

 

Way back in my career, I worked in an engineering firm so I have a fairly sound idea of the costs involved.

 

Mk3 coaches may be out there but conversion won't come cheap. And are they really what we want to see behind a steam locomotive?

 

It was the Dart Valley floorless WC incident and seeing some equally shabby Mk1s on the West Somerset (and just recently the Great Central) that made me look into this. With batch production, the costs could be reasonable and certainly competitive with re-engineering Mk3s. Cheap, no. Value, yes. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 25/01/2020 at 20:24, mdvle said:

 

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?

 

I think that "affordability" is a major problem for most of our heritage railways. We have too many.

 

But it is no more affordable to completely rebuild a Mk1 coach (and that's what we are talking about in many cases) than to build a new one. The new one will last longer and should be more "fit for purpose" than the Mk1. The new coaches would enable more "bums on seats" while also providing the facilities that are expected these days such as disabled accessibility and retention toilets.

 

Just for a bit of fun, I am also suggesting a Triang-Hornby approach. Common underframes but bodysides with LNER, SR, GWR & LMS "look".

[newbryford]

9 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

 

 

Just for a bit of fun, I am also suggesting a Triang-Hornby approach. Common underframes but bodysides with LNER, SR, GWR & LMS "look".

 

You'll be suggesting that they build new 4-wheelers next...............

Edited January 26, 2020 by newbryford

[mdvle]

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I think that "affordability" is a major problem for most of our heritage railways. We have too many.

 

Not entirely familiar with the UK heritage scheme, but in general I suspect you are correct.

 

Particularly as costs of maintaining inherited/grabbed rolling stock increase with age, and other factors start to come into play, there will be an inevitable shakeup of the industry.

 

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

But it is no more affordable to completely rebuild a Mk1 coach (and that's what we are talking about in many cases) than to build a new one. The new one will last longer and should be more "fit for purpose" than the Mk1.

 

I'm reminded of the story/explanation of how being poor is expensive.  How being poor means making choices on immediate cost alone, even if it ends up more expensive in the long run.  Buy product A for £100 and have it last 10 years, or buy product B for £40 but it only lasts maybe 3 years, so in the the 10 year period the poor person ends up spending over £120 simply because they can't afford the upfront cost.

 

Yes, a new build coach may last longer.  For the first X years it will have much cheaper maintenance costs.  But the heritage operation can barely afford to rebuild say 1 coach over 2 years, and so certainly can't afford to buy an entire fleet of new coaches even if it is the best long term solution.

 

And that is the problem - to bring in a new build coach at a "cheap" cost it inherently likely means mass production, which the heritage railways can't afford.

 

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Just for a bit of fun, I am also suggesting a Triang-Hornby approach. Common underframes but bodysides with LNER, SR, GWR & LMS "look".

 

Interesting idea, but again the "purists" won't accept it - and the general "family day out" group don't care one way or another.  So it is an additional cost with no benefit.

 

The real question, if the heritage railways (or at least those that survive say the next 5 years) could afford to buy new coaches exactly how much business would they lose from the purists.

 

It may well be (perhaps extremely likely?) that they are a very small minority that won't be missed - at least until their donations disappear, their generosity in their wills, etc.

[Joseph_Pestell]

16 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Not entirely familiar with the UK heritage scheme, but in general I suspect you are correct.

 

Particularly as costs of maintaining inherited/grabbed rolling stock increase with age, and other factors start to come into play, there will be an inevitable shakeup of the industry.

 

 

I'm reminded of the story/explanation of how being poor is expensive.  How being poor means making choices on immediate cost alone, even if it ends up more expensive in the long run.  Buy product A for £100 and have it last 10 years, or buy product B for £40 but it only lasts maybe 3 years, so in the the 10 year period the poor person ends up spending over £120 simply because they can't afford the upfront cost.

 

Yes, a new build coach may last longer.  For the first X years it will have much cheaper maintenance costs.  But the heritage operation can barely afford to rebuild say 1 coach over 2 years, and so certainly can't afford to buy an entire fleet of new coaches even if it is the best long term solution.

 

And that is the problem - to bring in a new build coach at a "cheap" cost it inherently likely means mass production, which the heritage railways can't afford.

 

 

Interesting idea, but again the "purists" won't accept it - and the general "family day out" group don't care one way or another.  So it is an additional cost with no benefit.

 

The real question, if the heritage railways (or at least those that survive say the next 5 years) could afford to buy new coaches exactly how much business would they lose from the purists.

 

It may well be (perhaps extremely likely?) that they are a very small minority that won't be missed - at least until their donations disappear, their generosity in their wills, etc.

 

All good points here that tend to illustrate the inconsistencies about heritage railways.

 

There are two sorts of purists - the noble types who are volunteers and keeping it going and the guys who are photographing from the lineside. Most of the people riding on the trains and bringing in the cash are not purists.

 

And, in the context of locos in pre-nationalisation paint schemes, what is "pure" about a rusty Mk1.

 

My favourite line, and by a mile, is the Severn Valley for its superb pre-nationalisation rolling stock. And the Bluebell much the best of the rest. But we need to use these superbly preserved vehicles sparingly. A well-designed "replica" which gives the tourist public a good experience makes financial sense.

 

If the preservation movement as a whole could come together on this, we could probably tool up for 200+ coaches and get some serious economies of scale. There may then be a question of finding a lease finance solution, just as the "real railway" does.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I think that's about as offensive as should be allowed here. But others will judge.

 

Way back in my career, I worked in an engineering firm so I have a fairly sound idea of the costs involved.

 

Mk3 coaches may be out there but conversion won't come cheap. And are they really what we want to see behind a steam locomotive?

 

It was the Dart Valley floorless WC incident and seeing some equally shabby Mk1s on the West Somerset (and just recently the Great Central) that made me look into this. With batch production, the costs could be reasonable and certainly competitive with re-engineering Mk3s. Cheap, no. Value, yes. 

Go on then, tell us what you think the unit price of a new passenger carriage works out at and we shall see how that stacks against the actual price of a Mk5. If well maintained there is nothing wrong with a Mk1 continuing to trundle along a preserved line at 25mph, I've seen some shockers over and above the "headline" incidents but that says more about preserved railway economics than it does about the coaches per se- railway economics that would never ever stretch to new build coaches even for the heritage railways that are primarily businesses, like the NYMR.

 

Mk3 coaches- what conversion do they need. Hook and haul- the Anglia ones already have retention tanks and CDL- what more does the charter sector want/need?!

 

[mdvle]

41 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

If the preservation movement as a whole could come together on this, we could probably tool up for 200+ coaches and get some serious economies of scale. There may then be a question of finding a lease finance solution, just as the "real railway" does.

 

I agree the heritage railways need to come together as a group, but not for the economies of scale which will merely be a nice bonus.

 

They need to get together as a group, spend some money, and create a convincing report on the benefit to the economy the bring to present to the government in London.

 

Because while 10 to 20% of the operations will have healthy enough balance sheets they may be considered for the financing, the remaining 80+ will never get financing to cover that much money as they are too big a risk of failing, and thus defaulting on the financing.

 

Any new build, whether purchased outright or leased, will only happen with government funding - either directly or through guaranteeing the bank/ROSCO.

[mdvle]

4 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Go on then, tell us what you think the unit price of a new passenger carriage works out at and we shall see how that stacks against the actual price of a Mk5. If well maintained there is nothing wrong with a Mk1 continuing to trundle along a preserved line at 25mph, I've seen some shockers over and above the "headline" incidents but that says more about preserved railway economics than it does about the coaches per se- railway economics that would never ever stretch to new build coaches even for the heritage railways that are primarily businesses, like the NYMR.

 

Yes, with enough money, you can keep anything in service.

 

But at some point any man made object, regardless of how lightly it is used, reaches a point where the ongoing costs of keeping it operating become the bigger liability.  Many of the heritage lines have not only reached this point, but have probably passed it given there aren't any viable alternatives for them.

 

And that is without considering their suitability for attracting paying customers.  The lack of wide doorways is one negative for many, wide entrance hallways and disabled toilets are others, and the lack of air conditioning could soon be another.

 

90% of the paying customers on heritage lines are going for a day out break from the everyday world, and they aren't looking for that "authentic 1950s experience" but rather just an enjoyable hour or so.  Newly built stock can achieve that goal while at the same time eliminating the maintenance problems that are apparently causing so much trouble while at same time being more blind and/or hearing impaired friendly.

 

4 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Mk3 coaches- what conversion do they need. Hook and haul- the Anglia ones already have retention tanks and CDL- what more does the charter sector want/need?!

 

Something that looks more "old-fashioned" and hence appropriate behind a steam loco?

 

But there is also the likely reality that many of the Mk3 coaches will need significant work to them - they too are getting old and the TOC's running them will have been keeping an eye on the withdrawal date schedules and cutting back on maintenance and refurbishment schedules to save money.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

But new build is ruinously expensive- the majority of preserved lines are running using volunteers cobbling together a make do and mend fleet of vehicles and even if they had a spare £5M knocking about to buy a rake of new carriages there are probably 101 other things they would spend that capital on. A new carriage with power operating sliding doors, air con, electronic info displays and so forth belongs on the national system where it can earn its keep. I think that for the "day out" market there needs to be some element of "this is what trains were like 30/40/50/60 years ago" otherwise what is the point- if you live in Keighley you can go for a nice train ride from one side of the station in modern (ish) stock or you can pay a bit more and go on an "old train"- if you sink an absolute fortune into making the "old train" to Oxenhope the same in terms of travel experience as the "modern one" to Leeds or Dent you've thrown away your unique selling point as far as Jo/Joe Public are concerned.

 

A Mk3 straight out of service is perfectly serviceable- they have to be otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to run them at 100mph from London to Norwich! The refurb may be a few years old, but if you want to keep running with a viable business model on the mainline with CET toilets and other facilities dictated by shifted goalposts then I don't see what choice you have. If the choice is a Mk3 rake that meets Network Rail's criteria or not running steam at all then which do you go for?

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

6 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Go on then, tell us what you think the unit price of a new passenger carriage works out at and we shall see how that stacks against the actual price of a Mk5. If well maintained there is nothing wrong with a Mk1 continuing to trundle along a preserved line at 25mph, I've seen some shockers over and above the "headline" incidents but that says more about preserved railway economics than it does about the coaches per se- railway economics that would never ever stretch to new build coaches even for the heritage railways that are primarily businesses, like the NYMR.

 

Mk3 coaches- what conversion do they need. Hook and haul- the Anglia ones already have retention tanks and CDL- what more does the charter sector want/need?!

 

 

If there is serious interest in my proposal, I will do some serious costing and get a price. But it will certainly be a whole lot simpler and cheaper than a Mk5. It is serving a completely different function, speed, and therefore braking, being just one of them. Maintaining Mk1 coaches to an adequate standard is not going to come cheap either.

 

I don't see it as difficult to create a suitable replica coach for preserved lines running at 25mph (although I think that should be raised to 40mph). Building it to a standard for mainline running is rather more demanding.

5 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

But new build is ruinously expensive- the majority of preserved lines are running using volunteers cobbling together a make do and mend fleet of vehicles and even if they had a spare £5M knocking about to buy a rake of new carriages there are probably 101 other things they would spend that capital on. A new carriage with power operating sliding doors, air con, electronic info displays and so forth belongs on the national system where it can earn its keep. I think that for the "day out" market there needs to be some element of "this is what trains were like 30/40/50/60 years ago" otherwise what is the point- if you live in Keighley you can go for a nice train ride from one side of the station in modern (ish) stock or you can pay a bit more and go on an "old train"- if you sink an absolute fortune into making the "old train" to Oxenhope the same in terms of travel experience as the "modern one" to Leeds or Dent you've thrown away your unique selling point as far as Jo/Joe Public are concerned.

 

A Mk3 straight out of service is perfectly serviceable- they have to be otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to run them at 100mph from London to Norwich! The refurb may be a few years old, but if you want to keep running with a viable business model on the mainline with CET toilets and other facilities dictated by shifted goalposts then I don't see what choice you have. If the choice is a Mk3 rake that meets Network Rail's criteria or not running steam at all then which do you go for?

 

Like so much on the UK rail network, we seem to manage to spend so much more than others do. I agree entirely with your point that we need to appeal to the enthusiast market with a coach that resembles what was running in the past, behind steam locomotives. A Mk3 does not do that.

[Co-tr-Paul]

Any mainline "new build " would also have to conform to the safety standards of today's network so out go your comfy seats, ambient lighting etc that we are used to on tours. 

.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

As we have not been given a number for new build coaches we have to guess one, lets outlandishly base that on the vehicle coming out at half the price of a Mk5 and say that we are looking at £5M for a six coach rake. It's no good continually saying that they are cheaper in the long term than continuing to maintain Mk1's, that is pure conjecture which assumes all the preserved lines are spending a considerable sum maintaining stock whilst also failing to take account of ongoing maintenance of the garden shed engineering Mk6 replacement. More importantly it assumes that preserved railways have the means or collateral to secure the loan needed to fund this incredible largess, and that their income would be unaffected or in some bizarre parallel reality actually increased by removing the "heritage" element from their operation. Cold hard reality time- they do not make that sort of money. Even the likes of the SVR and NYMR couldn't afford that.

 

Oh, and allowing passenger operation on a preserved line above 25mph requires a substantial law change and opens up a 101 cans of worms which are best left closed...

[royaloak]

20 hours ago, russ p said:

Some of the Anglia ones are marked LSL which is ironic as LSL are buying some of them!

Somebody posted 'proof' that LSL are buying the repainted EC HST by posting a picture of the LSL on the end, he wouldnt have it that it stood for Long Swing link.

[royaloak]

21 hours ago, keefer said:

IIRC it's the two looped cables on the SSL, the LSL had what was like a metal bracket

(Unless I've got it wrong)

You were right but now you are wrong.

 

The one pictured is a short swing link because the bottom loop is in line with the coach, the LSL ones have had the metal stirrup replaced with a wire loop but the bottom loop is at 90 degrees to the coach re-using the peg which went through the stirrup.

[royaloak]

21 hours ago, Grizz said:

 

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??

 

 

 

 

The first picture is a Long (loop at 90 degrees), the second picture is a short loop in line).

[Bucoops]

I'm not sure there would be a long queue of heritage railways willing to pay ~£1m per coach when most have a decent stock of actual heritage assets. I'd MUCH rather ride at <25mph on a teak framed, teak panelled coach than 40mph on a modern pseudo thing. Heritage railways aren't just about what's at the front.

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 hours ago, Co-tr-Paul said:

Any mainline "new build " would also have to conform to the safety standards of today's network so out go your comfy seats, ambient lighting etc that we are used to on tours. 

.

 

Well perhaps we could innovate there? Create a comfortable seat that still meets current safety standards.

 

A good lighting engineer should certainly be able to deal with the second requirement.

1 hour ago, Bucoops said:

I'm not sure there would be a long queue of heritage railways willing to pay ~£1m per coach when most have a decent stock of actual heritage assets. I'd MUCH rather ride at <25mph on a teak framed, teak panelled coach than 40mph on a modern pseudo thing. Heritage railways aren't just about what's at the front.

 

Why do you think it would be £1M? I'm thinking much less than that.

 

Some, not most, preservation railways have "a decent stock of actual heritage assets" and that includes some beautiful examples of Mk1 coaches. But there are also many quite dreadful Mk1s out there which either need a lot of money spending on them or scrapping.

 

And by removing all the toilet facilities to one vehicle, one gains about 60 seats per train so the added revenue is going to help pay for them.

 

Me too. But how long can those lovely teak coaches go on without some very serious maintenance if they are in constant use?

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

If you think you can build a new carriage for "much less than £1M" then I suggest you get a prototype done and marketed for the national network rather than labouring under the misguided notion that preserved railways have pots of cash and substantial annual budgets for rolling stock. And very few, if any at all, are turning away business due to full trains, so if a new carriage increases capacity it does so against insufficient demand.