New coaches at preserved lines

[Bucoops]

11 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I hope that newer coaches like Mk2s, Mk3s & Mk4s don't get overlooked.

Their seats may not be as bouncy but Mk3s gave a vastly superior ride to Mk1s as well as being much stronger in an accident. In 50 years time, these will also be just as much an important part of history & it would be a shame if enthusiasts' desire for older stock lets these go to waste.

 

The Mid-Norfolk Railway has just bought a mightily impressive 18 ex-Greater Anglia Mk3s and two DVTs. Fantastic achievement especially in the current climate.

 

Give me a varnished Teak coach any day, but Mk3s are a massive part of our railway heritage too.

[009 micro modeller]

11 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Agreed. They would look a bit silly to anyone knowing that they are from different eras & air con coaches also require air brakes & ETH.

 

Leaving aside the inappropriate combination of loco and coaches (which is a problem also for locos in pre-nationalisation liveries hauling Mk1s) could some sort of generator van handle the ETH requirements? Incidentally I visited the East Somerset Railway a few years ago and there seemed to be a diesel (from the sound of it) generator running in the van coupled behind the loco there. I’m not sure what it was being used for though.

 

Going back on topic, would Mk3 shells as the basis for ‘new’ steam railway stock be possible?

[Pete the Elaner]

9 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Leaving aside the inappropriate combination of loco and coaches (which is a problem also for locos in pre-nationalisation liveries hauling Mk1s) could some sort of generator van handle the ETH requirements? Incidentally I visited the East Somerset Railway a few years ago and there seemed to be a diesel (from the sound of it) generator running in the van coupled behind the loco there. I’m not sure what it was being used for though.

 

Going back on topic, would Mk3 shells as the basis for ‘new’ steam railway stock be possible?

 

RE: generator vehicles - yes, with the associated costs of running it. Would that be much less than a diesel loco which also provides the power? But many are attracted to preserved lines because of steam power.

 

Unlike Mk1s & earlier coaches which were built upwards from a chassis, a Mk3's body is an integral part of its design & is what provides its superior strength. They are also 10' longer than anything which preceded them. I could understand why heritage railways would want to avoid them but I just feel that would be a shame because they are a significant design in railway history.

[Pete the Elaner]

15 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Leaving aside the inappropriate combination of loco and coaches (which is a problem also for locos in pre-nationalisation liveries hauling Mk1s) could some sort of generator van handle the ETH requirements? Incidentally I visited the East Somerset Railway a few years ago and there seemed to be a diesel (from the sound of it) generator running in the van coupled behind the loco there. I’m not sure what it was being used for though.

 

Going back on topic, would Mk3 shells as the basis for ‘new’ steam railway stock be possible?

 

RE: generator vehicles - yes, with the associated costs of running it. Would that be much less than a diesel loco which also provides the power? But many are attracted to preserved lines because of steam power & heritage lines are not exactly overflowing with surplus cash, especially right now.

 

Unlike Mk1s & earlier coaches which were built upwards from a chassis, a Mk3's body is an integral part of its design & is what provides its superior strength. They are also 10' longer than anything which preceded them. I can understand entirely why heritage railways would want to avoid them but I just feel that if they did, it would be a shame because they are a significant design in railway history.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Unlike Mk1s & earlier coaches which were built upwards from a chassis, a Mk3's body is an integral part of its design & is what provides its superior strength. They are also 10' longer than anything which preceded them. I can understand entirely why heritage railways would want to avoid them but I just feel that if they did, it would be a shame because they are a significant design in railway history.

 

Assuming they fit the railway I don't imagine Mk3s will be avoided forever, there's just a lag between something being in use and there being much of an incentive to preserve (with the difficult bit in between in hoping they manage to survive it). As you say a significant design historically, so it would be a great shame if a reasonable number didn't survive (mind you you could say the same about HAA hoppers and there's very few of them left, to the point where they're significantly outnumbered by 16t mineral wagons).

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Unlike Mk1s & earlier coaches which were built upwards from a chassis, a Mk3's body is an integral part of its design & is what provides its superior strength. They are also 10' longer than anything which preceded them. I can understand entirely why heritage railways would want to avoid them but I just feel that if they did, it would be a shame because they are a significant design in railway history.

 

I know, I was thinking of things like conversion to steam heat (and possibly a different voltage for electrical systems - I know the Brighton Belle coaches that were converted for loco haulage had to have this done) and possible modifications to interiors rather than major changes to the structure. Although this would still be very complex and wouldn’t really be preservation.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

I do believe the Bluebell now has a couple of mk3 sleepers to be used as staff accommodation. Ex Caledonian Sleeper. They seemed to fit down the line but they'd have had to use one of the diesels to get them. That would have looked a bit odd...

[Boris]

To be honest I reckon mk1s will be gone from the mainline in 10 years because the ORR are wanting plug doors/CDL and retention tanks and are becoming less keen on issuing derogations, I reckon mk2s & mk3s will be the standard on railtours before long.  I think we will be seeing mk1s on preserved railways for many years to come though.

[Tim Hall]

Why would anyone visiting a preserved railway to savour the sounds (and smells) of steam (or older diesels) wish to be sealed in a metal tube with no opening windows (except the droplights at the end)? Especially when the reliability of the air conditioning, even in frontline service was always somewhat hit or miss.

[dibber25]

Given the huge amount of unrestored equipment scattered around preserved railways, that can't be restored because of lack of money and manpower I would have thought that the last thing preservation needs is a rash of new-builds. It's already happening with locomotives, and few of those more recent projects are likely to see completion. New-build coaches would most probably end up looking simply like 'modern' coaches because of the need to comply with modern regulations (somewhat easier with flat-sided wooden narrow gauge stock than with anything resembling a Bulleid or a Mk1). There is already a tendency to 'sameness' among preserved railways as they grab up cheap Mk2 and Mk3 coaches and Pacers. Once the public start saying, "seen one, you've seen them all" about preserved railways, they'll be less willing to keep splashing out on fares, and the whole delicate business case starts to unravel. (CJL)

[Tim Hall]

27 minutes ago, Lantavian said:

 

A fair point.

 

But how many visitors to preserved railways want to do that?

 

 

Virtually all enthusiasts (who are in the minority except at special events), and a lot of the average family groups who want to show kids a steam loco. If you're hermetically sealed in a tin tube, there really is no point in having specific locos on the front, as you can't hear anything!

[Tim Hall]

3 minutes ago, Lantavian said:

 

Again, fair points.

 

But how much is "a lot"? 10%? 50% 70%?

 

Seriously, I wonder what market research has been done on this. What do visitors to preserved railways really want?

 

 

I doubt very much that they want to be cooped up in tin tubes with unreliable air conditioning which are like saunas if not working properly (as they often aren't). Surely openable windows to let fresh air etc in are far preferable at speeds of less than 25mph? You won't get everything blown around too much at those speeds, just gentle cooling air.

Bearing in mind the work needed to provide a means of Electric Train Supply (either by using a suitably fitted diesel, converting a coach or doing extensive work to a steam loco), would it be worth it on a short heritage line dribbling along at say 15-20mph? Maintenance costs would be higher, and there's availability of workers (volunteer or otherwise) to do it. there's also legislation involved with AC in public buildings, would that apply to trains (legionella testing etc, could be an issue if coaches are only used infrequently as is often the case on heritage lines).

 

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Tim Hall said:

I doubt very much that they want to be cooped up in tin tubes with unreliable air conditioning which are like saunas if not working properly (as they often aren't). Surely openable windows to let fresh air etc in are far preferable at speeds of less than 25mph? You won't get everything blown around too much at those speeds, just gentle cooling air.

Bearing in mind the work needed to provide a means of Electric Train Supply (either by using a suitably fitted diesel, converting a coach or doing extensive work to a steam loco), would it be worth it on a short heritage line dribbling along at say 15-20mph? Maintenance costs would be higher, and there's availability of workers (volunteer or otherwise) to do it. there's also legislation involved with AC in public buildings, would that apply to trains (legionella testing etc, could be an issue if coaches are only used infrequently as is often the case on heritage lines).

 

If we think of some preserved railways as tourist railways instead of heritage railways, then why be constrained by using Mk2D/E/Fs in the form they were built?  Strip off the maintenance hungry air-con and fit drop-light windows like those used on older main-line stock on the continent.  For the majority of passengers (NOT enthusiasts), if a coach feels old inside, then it is old.  The fact it was built in 1970 and not 1920 is irrelevant to most people.

I want to see representative examples of Mk2/3/4 coaches preserved as much as anyone, but I also want to see railways actually carrying the people who want to use them.

[Tim Hall]

2 minutes ago, Lantavian said:

 

Well, if that's all that preserved railways can offer, then they're not going to succeed long-term, are they?

 

They need to up their game, and stop making excuses.

Utter nonsense!

[Tim Hall]

1 minute ago, Northmoor said:

If we think of some preserved railways as tourist railways instead of heritage railways, then why be constrained by using Mk2D/E/Fs in the form they were built?  Strip off the maintenance hungry air-con and fit drop-light windows like those used on older main-line stock on the continent.  For the majority of passengers (NOT enthusiasts), if a coach feels old inside, then it is old.  The fact it was built in 1970 and not 1920 is irrelevant to most people.

I want to see representative examples of Mk2/3/4 coaches preserved as much as anyone, but I also want to see railways actually carrying the people who want to use them.

Possibly

[Wheatley]

3 hours ago, Lantavian said:

Seriously, I wonder what market research has been done on this. What do visitors to preserved railways really want ?

Probably none given that none of them have actually suggested replacing all their heritage stock with Mk3s or building a lot of new stock. They've always used Mk3 sleepers as staff accommodation but that's because BR were almost giving them away at one point, not because they were considered worthy of preservation. 

 

As to whether they carry out market research on what their customers (which largely isnt us) want, yes they do. 

[Boris]

If you look at what Nemesis are doing to mk3s for Smithy they look amazing and look sufficiently oldy worldy to pass muster with most of the public.  Most of the passengers on preserved railways want a nice train journey on something that looks old, most don't really care as long as its clean and comfortable and has somewhere they can fill one end and empty the other. 

 

I reckon mk1s and well looked after pre nationalisation stock are still the future realistically.

[009 micro modeller]

42 minutes ago, Boris said:

If you look at what Nemesis are doing to mk3s for Smithy they look amazing.

 

I haven’t actually seen anything about this but it sounds interesting. Do you have any more information?

[Tanllan]

The Welshpool & Llanfair Light Railway originally had three carriages. When the GWR stopped the passenger service they were scrapped. In the early 2000s we set about raising funds for a replica coach and this was delivered in 2004. Then thanks to a very generous benefactor two more were obtained. There are very few differences between the originals and the replicas.
Total cost was in the region of three quarters of a million pound (£750,000).

[Reorte]

On 03/07/2020 at 11:45, Boris said:

To be honest I reckon mk1s will be gone from the mainline in 10 years because the ORR are wanting plug doors/CDL and retention tanks and are becoming less keen on issuing derogations, I reckon mk2s & mk3s will be the standard on railtours before long.  I think we will be seeing mk1s on preserved railways for many years to come though.

Not a lot that can be done about plug doors but CDL could probably be fitted if necessary. Could retention tanks? Of course whether it's worth the effort is a different question, and they'll doubtless get ever less happy about crashworthiness too.

[Compound2632]

This topic seems to be conflating two separate discussions:

1. the OP's question about new carriages for use on heritage railways;
2. carriages for use in heritage traction-hauled excursions on Network Rail. 

These have very different sets of requirements, as far as I can see, both in terms of operating conditions and passenger expectations. One hopes the ORR (or whatever are the appropriate bodies) will continue to be alive to the distinction.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Compound2632

[Boris]

22 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

This topic seems to be conflating two separate discussions:

1. the OP's question about new carriages for use on heritage railways;
2. carriages for use in heritage traction-hauled excursions on Network Rail. 

These have very different sets of requirements, as far as I can see, both in terms of operating conditions and passenger expectations. One hopes the ORR (or whatever are the appropriate bodies) will continue to be alive to the distinction.

And a third, Marmite is the work of Satan

[Johann Marsbar]

The Tyseley based "Bloomer" project are supposedly going to build some 4-wheel carriages of appropriate vintage to be used with it on Main Line workings, which should be interesting..

Edited July 7, 2020 by Johann Marsbar

[Ramblin Rich]

7 minutes ago, Johann Marsbar said:

The Tyseley based "Bloomer" project are supposedly going to build some 4-wheel carriages of appropriate vintage to be used with it on Main Line workings, which should be interesting..

Get some Hattons Genesis coaches & reproduce at 76:1 scale

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Get some Hattons Genesis coaches & reproduce at 76:1 scale

 

No go. The Hattons Genesis models represent carriages of the 1880s/90s; for the Bloomer one wants carriages of the late 50s/early 60s.