Mark 3 Sleepers

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

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.

 

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?

 

£1m each was a conservative estimate.

 

A major rebuild of a Mk1 would still come way under the cost of new build.

 

Some of the LNERCA coaches have been in the open for 60 years. The NYMR wants to build a decent shed for the coaching stock though. That should increase the time between overhauls significantly. I believe 56856 (TTO) has been in service since 2002 with only normal maintenance and presumably a revarnish or two in that time.

[keefer]

Interesting stuff guys but maybe going too far off-topic now?

Good for a prototype discussion though

[royaloak]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

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.

 

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?

How much do you think it would cost to design your coach and get it through type approval?

How much would it cost to build the coach?

How many do you think you will sell?

 

£1 million per coach will be about right.

 

Most coaches on heritage lines have the toilets in the vestibule (mark 1 TSO, SK) away from the seated area, not a place I would like to be seated plus the costs of converting the area rather than leaving the toilets alone but locked would be a fair bit of money and as most pres lines struggle to afford routine maintenance on the coach fleet I really cant see a market for them.

[Joseph_Pestell]

19 minutes ago, keefer said:

Interesting stuff guys but maybe going too far off-topic now?

Good for a prototype discussion though

 

Yes, sorry about that.

2 minutes ago, royaloak said:

How much do you think it would cost to design your coach and get it through type approval?

How much would it cost to build the coach?

How many do you think you will sell?

 

£1 million per coach will be about right.

 

Most coaches on heritage lines have the toilets in the vestibule (mark 1 TSO, SK) away from the seated area, not a place I would like to be seated plus the costs of converting the area rather than leaving the toilets alone but locked would be a fair bit of money and as most pres lines struggle to afford routine maintenance on the coach fleet I really cant see a market for them.

 

You have got that twisted. I have not suggested converting the existing WC area of a Mk1 into a seating area. I am saying that new build coaches would have more seats than the Mk1 (assuming the same length) because there would not be a WC except in one vehicle.

 

£1M per coach gets you something all-singing, all-dancing with aircon etc. No need for all that in this case. Talking of aircon, you are going to need a generator car on your rake of Mk3s (or tow round a diesel to provide "hotel power".

 

Type approval is an interesting question. Albeit starting from the same underframe and bodywork, the standard needed for mainline use would be much higher than for Light Railway use. But I think that savvy engineering should make it possible without excessive cost.

 

How many? 20 6-car rakes perhaps: a couple each for the major preserved lines and a few for the mainline.

 

Back on topic to the Mk3, they are far from immune to corrosion problems. Which preserved railway set-up would have the skills/equipment to repair Mk3 bodywork on a monocoque body?

[Joseph_Pestell]

19 minutes ago, keefer said:

Interesting stuff guys but maybe going too far off-topic now?

Good for a prototype discussion though

 

Yes, sorry about that.

2 minutes ago, royaloak said:

How much do you think it would cost to design your coach and get it through type approval?

How much would it cost to build the coach?

How many do you think you will sell?

 

£1 million per coach will be about right.

 

Most coaches on heritage lines have the toilets in the vestibule (mark 1 TSO, SK) away from the seated area, not a place I would like to be seated plus the costs of converting the area rather than leaving the toilets alone but locked would be a fair bit of money and as most pres lines struggle to afford routine maintenance on the coach fleet I really cant see a market for them.

 

You have got that twisted. I have not suggested converting the existing WC area of a Mk1 into a seating area. I am saying that new build coaches would have more seats than the Mk1 (assuming the same length) because there would not be a WC except in one vehicle.

 

£1M per coach gets you something all-singing, all-dancing with aircon etc. No need for all that in this case. Talking of aircon, you are going to need a generator car on your rake of Mk3s (or tow round a diesel to provide "hotel power".

 

Type approval is an interesting question. Albeit starting from the same underframe and bodywork, the standard needed for mainline use would be much higher than for Light Railway use. But I think that savvy engineering should make it possible without excessive cost.

 

How many? 20 6-car rakes perhaps: a couple each for the major preserved lines and a few for the mainline.

 

Back on topic to the Mk3, they are far from immune to corrosion problems. Which preserved railway set-up would have the skills/equipment to repair Mk3 bodywork on a monocoque body?

[Grizz]

Paint it something like these colours and most normals think (a) it is old. (B) it is old and a genuine Pullman train.....

 

 

 

whether on the main line or preserved lines it is still the same story. Generally normals believe some thing is old when it is painted in 'heritage style liveries'. 

 

When it comes to 'the obsessive rivet counters' or 'the flat earth brigade', there ain't no pleasing them anyway, less you invented a time machine. 

 

So we are stuck with the situation we all face. Nothing gets younger it just gets older, more worn out and    fewer.......oh and with less and less money.

 

As the last mainline bulk built loco hauled coaches in the UK were and (left in any numbers) still are the air braked BR MK2 (D,E,F various) and MK3s (Various), that is what we are stuck with currently. They are air braked so probably best suited to fairly modern traction, therefore the main line for rail tours etc. And if your kettle ain't air braked, either get it air braked, or find some way to utilise a diesel loco as well or just don't use it on the mainline. 

 

Perserved lines that are steam only are going to probably mostly be vacuum braked locos. So mk2 d,e,fs are unsuitable out of the box without some form of adaption. That involves time and money most don't have or alternatively they could buy a diesel (as long as it is painted GREEN apparently), that is air braked and paint your MK2/MK3 stock heritage green, red, chocolate and cream blar blar blar....and run that. 

 

Face it we are a passenger and freight separated railway. The freight companies owning locos in large numbers but they don't generally run passenger trains. Big companies and Government want a fully unit based passenger railway. The odd weird one like the 68 push pulls seem to be a stop gap. 

 

No one is planning on building loco hauled coaches in any numbers, for the UK, probably every again. So the future pool of preserved coaches for preserved railways will either be the MK2s / MK3s or it will be none. 

 

 

 

[turbos]

One of the more positive aspects of the Mk3 Sleepers is that the underframe hasn’t suffered from 40 years of corrosive urine unlike the unrebuilt daytime Mk3 vehicles. The big negative for the Mk3 sleepers is they they’re structurally unsuitable for interior layout modification, the interior partitions are part of its structure. The ones that have gone to preserved railways I expect to last much longer than the Mk1s they’re replacing. 
For future mainline or heritage use the rebuilt Mk3s are the ones to bide they’re time for until their available, a lot less underframe corrosion issues and toilet tanks (CET), they’re the heritage future.

Just for information. The swing links on a BT10 are the two vertical bars either side of the air suspension towards the outside of the bogie on both sides. Short ones are more recessed in the underside of the bolster than long ones, to the untrained eye it can be hard to tell the difference. The safety loops on the outside are not a good guide to identify them from a distance.

 

Brian.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

15 hours ago, turbos said:

One of the more positive aspects of the Mk3 Sleepers is that the underframe hasn’t suffered from 40 years of corrosive urine unlike the unrebuilt daytime Mk3 vehicles. The big negative for the Mk3 sleepers is they they’re structurally unsuitable for interior layout modification, the interior partitions are part of its structure. The ones that have gone to preserved railways I expect to last much longer than the Mk1s they’re replacing. 
For future mainline or heritage use the rebuilt Mk3s are the ones to bide they’re time for until their available, a lot less underframe corrosion issues and toilet tanks (CET), they’re the heritage future.
 

The interior partitions on a Mk3 SLE/SLEP are not structural, you can rip the whole lot out without causing any problem to the shell. What you cannot do (as GNER found out after the event to their extensive cost/embarrassment) is change the window layout in any meaningful way, they have more evenly spaced vertical strengthening vs a "daytime" Mk3 which needed to have window sized gaps. This meant that the third-hand Mk3 sleepers they imported back from Denmark (?!) were of no use whatsoever as donor vehicles to extend their HST rakes to nine cars, although they did briefly flirt with the idea of a passenger coach with little windows.

[westie7]

4 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

they did briefly flirt with the idea of a passenger coach with little windows.

 

Aha, Mk3 FK? 

[caradoc]

5 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

they did briefly flirt with the idea of a passenger coach with little windows.

 

Wouldn't be an issue now, it would just need to be designated the phone/laptop obsessives' coach !

 

[turbos]

6 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

The interior partitions on a Mk3 SLE/SLEP are not structural, you can rip the whole lot out without causing any problem to the shell. What you cannot do (as GNER found out after the event to their extensive cost/embarrassment) is change the window layout in any meaningful way, they have more evenly spaced vertical strengthening vs a "daytime" Mk3 which needed to have window sized gaps. This meant that the third-hand Mk3 sleepers they imported back from Denmark (?!) were of no use whatsoever as donor vehicles to extend their HST rakes to nine cars, although they did briefly flirt with the idea of a passenger coach with little windows.

Thanks for the clarification.

They could’ve become private compartment coaches for families, business meetings, those that hate travelling in the company of strangers, etc. A bit of imagination and marketing and a whole new market Of travellers might’ve opened up.

 

Brian.

[keefer]

36 minutes ago, turbos said:

Thanks for the clarification.

They could’ve become private compartment coaches for families, business meetings, those that hate travelling in the company of strangers, etc. A bit of imagination and marketing and a whole new market Of travellers might’ve opened up.

 

Brian.

Already suggested that

On 05/01/2020 at 21:39, keefer said:

I suppose they could have made them into a swanky compartment coach, call them 'coupé class' and charge a supplement on top of 1st class fare. ka-ching! 

Although hadn't  thought of family or group tickets

Edited January 28, 2020 by keefer

[Grizz]

What about this as an idea for reusing the MK3 sleepers without the need to cut in new windows. Obviously as it is a train and not a plane it would have to be done on the cheap. With the added bonus that the airline seating is already rammed in and you could randomly block or half block someone’s view by adding an inside panel so that they get the realistic experience of travelling in every other modern train in the uk. 

 

The windowless plane.... 

 

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

On 27/01/2020 at 20:30, Grizz said:

 

As the last mainline bulk built loco hauled coaches in the UK were and (left in any numbers) still are the air braked BR MK2 (D,E,F various) and MK3s (Various), that is what we are stuck with currently. They are air braked so probably best suited to fairly modern traction, therefore the main line for rail tours etc. And if your kettle ain't air braked, either get it air braked, or find some way to utilise a diesel loco as well or just don't use it on the mainline. 

 

Perserved lines that are steam only are going to probably mostly be vacuum braked locos. So mk2 d,e,fs are unsuitable out of the box without some form of adaption. That involves time and money most don't have or alternatively they could buy a diesel (as long as it is painted GREEN apparently), that is air braked and paint your MK2/MK3 stock heritage green, red, chocolate and cream blar blar blar....and run that. 

 

They have air conditioning too, requiring a ETH for heating, cooling & ventilation. You can't just add this to a steam loco, so an ETH fitted loco is required in the consist. This is an extra expense which window-ventilated Mk1's & early Mk2s don't need.

[Grizz]

12 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

They have air conditioning too, requiring a ETH for heating, cooling & ventilation. You can't just add this to a steam loco, so an ETH fitted loco is required in the consist. This is an extra expense which window-ventilated Mk1's & early Mk2s don't need.

 

yep totally agree, loads more money. Generator coach?? Don't know the worse case demands for a full train of MK3s. 

 

Only issue with window ventilation is that it is most likely to be banned on the mainline in the very foreseeable future. Preserved railways have had to carry out gauge clearance surveys to demonstrate how they are going to able to acceptably risk manage and therefore continue to use stock with drop light windows. Albeit light railways are limited to 25mph, window hanging / loitering persons coming into contact with fixed objects is fairly likely to result in unpleasant consequences. 

Again it's likelihood v consequence. likelihood probably millions to one in one hundred years but consequence possiblly life changing or fatal. Can't remember anyone on a preserved railway being fatally injured from window hanging but it has happen twice on the mainline in the past few years, both incidents being well publicised, despite most trains being sealed up metal tubes these days. Preserved railways are likely to continue as long as they can satisfy assurance regulation and there are no incidents. 

 

Knew one one of the people involved in one of the mainline incidents, very sad, was a rail enthusiast and had railway experience. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Grizz
Predictive Spelling and grammar demons again

[phil-b259]

On 29/01/2020 at 08:56, Grizz said:

 

yep totally agree, loads more money. Generator coach?? Don't know the worse case demands for a full train of MK3s. 

 

Only issue with window ventilation is that it is most likely to be banned on the mainline in the very foreseeable future. Preserved railways have had to carry out gauge clearance surveys to demonstrate how they are going to able to acceptably risk manage and therefore continue to use stock with drop light windows. Albeit light railways are limited to 25mph, window hanging / loitering persons coming into contact with fixed objects is fairly likely to result in unpleasant consequences. 

Again it's likelihood v consequence. likelihood probably millions to one in one hundred years but consequence possiblly life changing or fatal. Can't remember anyone on a preserved railway being fatally injured from window hanging but it has happen twice on the mainline in the past few years, both incidents being well publicised, despite most trains being sealed up metal tubes these days. Preserved railways are likely to continue as long as they can satisfy assurance regulation and there are no incidents. 

 

Knew one one of the people involved in one of the mainline incidents, very sad, was a rail enthusiast and had railway experience. 

 

 

Opening hopper style windows (as fitted to the 3192, 317s, etc) are still perfectly acceptable to the ORR as it’s pretty difficult to stick your head out of them. What they don’t like are large opening windows in coach doors or the traditional smaller ones at the top of Mk1s as people can put body parts out of them easily

[Grizz]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

Opening hopper style windows (as fitted to the 3192, 317s, etc) are still perfectly acceptable to the ORR as it’s pretty difficult to stick your head out of them. What they don’t like are large opening windows in coach doors or the traditional smaller ones at the top of Mk1s as people can put body parts out of them easily

 

It makes sense because as you say it is pretty difficult to stick your head out of a hopper windows of second generation style EMUs / DMUs. These seem to have been designed to allow ventilation but prevent body parts sticking out.

It would only take one serious incident on a preserved railway for things to change. On 5th November 2002 bonfire night Lewes an 18 year old (adult) climbed out of a window and onto a roof of a moving train (4CIG UNIT) to ‘train surf’ on a train from Lewes to Hayward’s Heath and then was killed when he hit an over bridge at East Chiltington, between Cooksbridge and Plumpton. Despite this being an adult, pressure was brought on the train companies and rail authorities to prevent this possibility happening again and window bars were increasingly installed across the region on mk1 emus, despite not having long left in traffic (2005) due to impending withdrawal. Window bars were previously installed on the EMUs using the Oxted line following electrification but other than that few units were fitted. My point being that it only takes one incident for the generally anti railway media and anti railway normals to whip up a demand for ‘something must be done’. 

 

 

 

[Grizz]

Just found this on the web. Not my photo but I have never seen it before. Anyone got any ideas as I couldn't find any details. 

 

Taking it at face value I didn't think that HSTs and loco hauled MK3 Sleepers were compatible? Maybe just a staged shot? Not a service train? Positioning move???? Not even sure of location. 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Grizz
Spelling and grandma

[eastwestdivide]

Any other clues on the website where you found it? Any chance of a link? 

Ta.

[phil-b259]

55 minutes ago, Grizz said:

 

 

Taking it at face value I didn't think that HSTs and loco hauled MK3 Sleepers were compatible? Maybe just a staged shot? Not a service train? Positioning move???? Not even sure of location. 

 

 

 

It depends what you mean by 'compatible'

 

Mk3 sleepers had buckeye couplers (with retractable buffers) and air brakes so could have easily been hauled about by a single HST power car.

 

However, as the sleepers (like the loco hauled Mk3 day coaches) were fitted with ordinary ETS (as opposed to the 3-phase setup found on HSTs), plus lacked the control cables to link both power cars together, then any such workings would have been ECS / train testing runs with only the lead power car working.

Edited February 18, 2020 by phil-b259

[GordonC]

1 hour ago, Grizz said:

Just found this on the web. Not my photo but I have never seen it before. Anyone got any ideas as I couldn't find any details. 

 

Taking it at face value I didn't think that HSTs and loco hauled MK3 Sleepers were compatible? Maybe just a staged shot? Not a service train? Positioning move???? Not even sure of location. 

 

 

Is that Leeds?

 

[Grizz]

1 hour ago, eastwestdivide said:

Any other clues on the website where you found it? Any chance of a link? 

Ta.

Bit more digging and it is on Pinterest, one source quoting Christopher Reilly. But I can't link to it from here. My initial search was Class 50 hauling MK3 coaches, bit random but wanted some BR images for a project. Then with a bit more digging around an HST with a MK3 sleeper turned up....far more interesting.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Grizz
Grandma again

[keefer]

That'll be one of the test runs for commissioning the class 91s. As the mk4 DVT/coaches were not ready they used an HST power car acting as a DVT, 5 mk3 sleepers then the 91 on the end.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150127032829/http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_2.htm

[Grizz]

More digging found this photo. Looks like the same location with possibly the same train. But the coach details are difficult to see. 

 

Keefer looks to have got it spot on with test train!!

 

 

[keefer]

A reverse Google search of the image gives

"The first electric hauled train to arrive at Leeds 11th August 1988. A test train from London Kings Cross formed of Class 91 loco No 91004, Test Coach, Mk3 Sleeping Cars, and Class 43 No 43014 converted to a DVT and fitted with buffers and drawgear."