Total BR MkI coaches ever built

[18B]

Hi, 

 

Just wondering what the total number of BR MkI coaches is that were ever built? TIA

[amwells]

I have a record of 8,194 passenger carrying and 3,009 non passenger carrying, excluding any wagons built to coaching stock lots, excluding any built for multiple units etc, but including mk1 pullmans. I’d be interested if this tallies to others!

Edited November 11, 2020 by amwells
Typo

[Wickham Green too]

That's an amazingly high proportion of NPCS - erven allowing for the omission of MU stock. ( Wherein lies another question - How many diesel units would count as BR Mk1 stock ? ..... apart from the diesel electrics, of course. The situation's a LOT clearer with the electrics - but I'm not going to start counting. )

[18B]

5 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

That's an amazingly high proportion of NPCS - erven allowing for the omission of MU stock. ( Wherein lies another question - How many diesel units would count as BR Mk1 stock ? ..... apart from the diesel electrics, of course. The situation's a LOT clearer with the electrics - but I'm not going to start counting. )

 

It does seem very high, but then I guess they made far fewer journeys per day compared to passenger carrying stock. 

[Simon Lee]

31 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

That's an amazingly high proportion of NPCS - erven allowing for the omission of MU stock. ( Wherein lies another question - How many diesel units would count as BR Mk1 stock ? ..... apart from the diesel electrics, of course. The situation's a LOT clearer with the electrics - but I'm not going to start counting. )

 

I think as well, you need to think back to how life in general was, certainly in the 60s and 70s, Mail Order shopping, PO mail, Newsprint etc. 

 

Just looking back, one of my regular spotting trips late 60s early 70s was Hull to Leeds, leaving Hull maybe 20 van's stabled off the morning paper/mail trains. Then at Leeds the PCD usually one or two pilots shuffling around even on a Saturday morning, l guess thinking back, must have been over 100 vans stabled there. Multiply that all over the country, even allowing for and including the ubiquitous SR vans it would soon add up to the thousands.

 

One other curious flow I recall, usually monthly, was a single BG in one of the Hull docks trips, usually hauled by a WD 2-8-0 , containing sea mail for the Pacific Islands via a Bank Line ship and on occassion newly minted coins for one of the same islands. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that GUVs and CCTs have been included which, I think, don't qualify as Mk1.

[stovepipe]

Using the contents of Keith Parkin's Mk1 coaches book I have a total of 13,192 loco-hauled passenger-rated stock.

 

You might want to exclude :

GUV  907

CCT   823

SPV   1058

HB    115

TCV  14

 

The total includes the non-gangwayed Mk1s of which there were 768 built. Of course there were several thousand more built for EMU and DMU stock.

[Steven B]

The GUV uses the same basic Mk1 underframe as the BG (which is the same as a 63' underframe with 6' cut from the middle). The CCT uses the same panels as the GUV.

 

Likewise, the Horsebox uses the same panels as standard Mk1 stock. I'd count all three as Mk1 vehicles.

 

Agree that the SPV (fish/parcels van) and TCV (two tier car transporter) shouldn't count as Mk1 vehicles.

 

Steven B.

[The Johnster]

We all know what we mean by it, but define mk1.  Was the term even used before the introdcution of mk2 stock?  My memory fails me on that one.  If it's defined by underframe we should exclude the CCTs and horseboxes, if it's defined by body profile we can inclued the BR designed emus up to and including the Bournemouth stock and a good few dmus, but the GUV and CCT are out.  The Metro-Cammell Pullmans are regarded as mk1 and have compatible gangways but very little else in common with mk1 stock.  If it's defined by the bogie it was designed for, what about the Swindon 4 car Inter City dmus, mk1 profile and identical layouts except for the Buffer, but B4 bogies, 1962 introduced. 

 

I regard all BR designed stock built to the mk1 profile as effectively mk1 stock, which includes all pre 4-POP Southern Region emu stock, GUV/s, CCTs, Horseboxes, Hastings and high density SR demus, 1961 Metro Cammell loco hauled Pullmans, emu stock built to high density spec for the GE, LT&S, Glasgow, and Euston/Birmingham/LIverpool/Manchester electrification schemes, Manchester-Bury 3rd rail, North Tyneside EPBs, but not the AM10s which should be regarded as a mk2 design.  Also, all dmu high density stock on 64' underframes, Swindon designed cross country and inter city 3 or 4 car dmus and the Trans Pennine sets.  The Cravens dmus come into this definition as well I believe and there may be others I have forgotten  TCVs and Fish Vans are not mk1s, neither are low density dmus on 57' underframes from Metro-Cammell, Gloucester RCW, Birmingham RCW, Wickham, Park Royal, or Derby.  I am not sure about Derby 114s and 119s on 64' underframes.  No railbuses can be considered as mk1 by this definition.

 

This is my definition, what I mean if I talk or write about BR mk1 stock, but I do not claim it to be definitive or objectively correct.  There may be other opinions, and of course anyone is at liberty to disagree with mine in this regard.  You might even change my opinion!

[Caley739]

I don't think the Mark 1 description was  ever used before  introduction of the Mark 2 designs.

[Michael Hodgson]

I believe they were originally callled "Standard" or "Restriction C1" stock, although as the latter is a loading gauge it probably includes a few vehicles other than Mark I.  

 

I think Mk1 doesn't strictly include vehicles not built on the standard 63' or 57' chassis, even though things such as horse boxes, CCTs, the double deck car carriers etc are described in Parkin's book.

[TheSignalEngineer]

The standard 57' BG was numbered 80500 to 81628 which would be 1129 vehicles.

[adb968008]

newspaper, red star, general parcels, motorail, mail.. thats what made it a 24 hour railway.

 

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

OK, so how many Mk1(profile as we know them) passenger carrying coaches were built, but excluding suburbans?

 

Mike.

[Wickham Green too]

On 09/11/2020 at 18:02, The Johnster said:

We all know what we mean by it, but define mk1.  Was the term even used before the introdcution of mk2 stock?  ....... if it's defined by body profile we can include the BR designed emus up to and including the Bournemouth stock and a good few dmus, ......

No, of course there was no such thing as a Mk1 until there was a Mk2 ...... or at least the concept that there would be a distinct second generation.

I've got to disagree with you on DMUs a few if any - apart from the DEMUs - incorporated much in the way of 'standard' components ..... body construction , fittings and profiles were generally different : even on those - like the 126s for instance - which looked like a bog-standard Mk1 at first glance. The non-gangwayed Mk1s were built on identical chassis to the gangwayed vehicles with capability to take Pullman gangways ( note the headstock holes ) whereas the vast majority of the DMMUs were firmly wedded to British Standard gangway ( lack of ) technology.

[HGR]

The designation of 'Mk' appears to have come about when the second variant of 'integral design' coaches came out as Mk. IIA. Up till then, what was later termed Mk. I were generally referred to as 'Standard' stock. The first 'integral design' coaches then picked up the identifier Mk. II.

 

British Railways set up the Standard Carriages committee (SC). There were likewise committees for Standard Locomotives (SL), and Standard Wagons (SW) though the latter is a far more loose concept to get your head around. The drawing office output of each of these is reflected in the format of the drawing numbers : so for standard coaches, SC, followed by a '/' then two letter code identifying the works / drawing office, another '/' and followed by an index number usually from 1 upwards. And yes, the code for Swindon was, you guessed it, SW, so wagon drawings from there go SW/SW/1 onwards.

 

Within the SC drawings there were two lengths of underframe - commonly referred to as 57' (short frame) and 64' (long frame). The actual lengths over headstocks were 56'11" and 63'5" respectively. These seemingly obscure dimensions, when applied with standard buffing / drawgear components yielded body lengths that were round numbers. The frames could be used with fixed screw couplings, British Standard suspension gangways (even offset for TPOs) or Pullman type. The end of the body was flat if non-gangwayed, or with 6" angled side panels if gangwayed. So, short frame stock came as 57'6" or 58'0", and long frame stock came as 63'6" if flat both ends (non-gangwayed), 64'0" for vehicles such as EMUs with flat inner end and angled driving cab front, and 64'6" for vehicles gangwayed both ends or at least fitted with Pullman rubbing plates.

 

Some builders / works found ways to introduce some small variation in body length - possibly not helped because some quoted length over body framing instead of overall length. Notwithstanding the roof was a standard length, but it would take more than the casual observer to spot the difference between the 'standard' two and a half inch overhang, and ones with only two inch or one and a half inch. On some vehicles the overhang was different at the two ends ! (surprisingly common within EMUs)

 

The 'standard' design of underframe as used on hauled stock and DEMU / EMUs, was a 200 Ton strength. Many DMMUs used the standard underfame (and hence body) lengths, but on a much lighter weight underframe with correspondingly lower strength. Hence you weren't allowed to put 'lightweight' DMUs into goods train consists with a heavy load behind them. They later painted 'LW' on the ends above the buffers to warn shunters of this less-than-obvious feature. 

 

As to body profile, this was a fixed radius curve in standard stock, with the widest part at the height of the middle door hinges. There were flat sided varieties as well, for vans. Also various reduced widths for stock on lines with limited clearances. Many DMMUs did not use the standard coach body construction components, hence the variation in body profiles between particularly the contractor supplied stock. I would agree that these lightweight DMMU don't really count as true Mk.1. There are some DMMU that are Mk.1 construction proper, even if they have B.S. suspension gangways. They tended to come from places such as Swindon, such as Inter Cities Diesel Trains, Cross Country, and Trans-Pennine as they were referred to at the time. 

 

Turning to the passenger rated four-wheeled vans of the era, some such as the FRUIT D were clearly of pre-nationalisation design, as were the SPVs that were inherited freight stock diagrams formerly INSUL-FISH and very much of LNER Faverdale vintage. Wouldn't count these as Mk.1. Nor the ex. LNER bogie CCTs. The B.R. standard CCT and HB were very much Mk.1, when you consider that they used all of the structural members, panels and fittings lifted out of the SC drawings, with a bit of pilfering of SW wagon stuff for the underframes. The GUVs were simply Mk.1 short frame, flat sided vehicles. If you go the other way there are a small number of 'Mk.1' design vehicles in the freight stock - particularly Ferry Motor Car Vans and bogie Scenery Vans that are pretty much CCT and GUVs with wagon numbers.

 

When you look at stock totals, there were of course vehicles built new, but there were many conversions of existing vehicles of varying degrees, particularly when looking at the source vehicles for some of the EMUs.

 

For more technical detail, and diagrams / photographs describing the above, Parkin's book is well worth a thorough read.

 

 

 

 

 

[Steven B]

Have the Mk1 based inspection saloons been counted? Oddly they don't appear in Parkin's excellent Mk1 Coaches book.

 

Steven B.

[andyman7]

The Kitmaster Mk1s were issued in 1959/60 and use the description 'standard' coach.

[HGR]

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

Have the Mk1 based inspection saloons been counted? Oddly they don't appear in Parkin's excellent Mk1 Coaches book.

 

Steven B.

Beware that you might have come unstuck with these. B.R. perpetuated a couple of types of these ... one sort based on LMS diagram 2046, the others to GWR diag. Q 13, so neither count as Mk.1.

 

There was ISTR one of the original LMS saloons that had its body transplanted on to a Mk.1 underframe, complete with B4 bogies. Can't remember if it was the General Manager's saloon or the one that used to go around with the royal train pre-1977.

 

[Steven B]

Having done some more digging, don't the three inspection saloons built at Swindon to Diagram 1/552, numbers 999506, 999508 and 999509 count as Mk1 designs? All three were built on a standard 57' underframe, and using standard body side components as far as I'm aware.

 

The BR built Dia 1/551 (DB999501 - 5 ) were based on the LMS design, which have a very different profile & underframe to 999506/8/9.

 

Steven B.

[Michael Hodgson]

On 10/11/2020 at 22:36, adb968008 said:

newspaper, red star, general parcels, motorail, mail.. thats what made it a 24 hour railway.

 

 

Yes, they were handy those trains - if I joined the lads for a few jars after work and missed the last train there was always a Mk. 1 on one of those services at 1, 2 or even 3 o'clock in the morning.

[HGR]

1 hour ago, Steven B said:

Having done some more digging, don't the three inspection saloons built at Swindon to Diagram 1/552, numbers 999506, 999508 and 999509 count as Mk1 designs? All three were built on a standard 57' underframe, and using standard body side components as far as I'm aware.

 

The BR built Dia 1/551 (DB999501 - 5 ) were based on the LMS design, which have a very different profile & underframe to 999506/8/9.

 

Steven B.

Likewise, done a bit of digging also. You've found an interesting one there. It appears DB 999506, and DB 999508 - 9 were originally ordered from Swindon to GWR dia. Q 13 and should have appeared somewhere around the late 1950s, but by the time they were built they became rather Mk.1 style, with only two end windows (the placement of which means they didn't have the standard end framing / crash pillars). The diagram 1/552 lists them all as being built 1963 ?

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by HGR
Keyboard finger can't count !