Jump to content
 

BR MK1 - Corridor vs. Open


 Share

Recommended Posts

That's only half an answer though. It prompts the question of why did the SK exist?

Operator preference was not an issue because there was just BR back then.

Were the SKs first & production later completely switched to the TSO?

Were SKs & TSOs used on different services?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, johnd said:

More seats could be fitted in an open coach basically !

 

Nope. Many of the compartment stock carriages could cram far more in, such as the famous 100 seaters on the SECR.

 

Proper answer is that Opens were used for trains that had dining facilities. Later compartment stock fell out of favour for security reasons after a few high profile murders. The same reason that ladies compartments were discontinued.

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnd said:

More bums on seats could be fitted in an open coach basically !

 

And, not strictly correct either, I suspect, in that the ordinary SO, as opposed to TSO, had 1x2 seating, I think, and many SK were arranged with a 4-seat bench on either side of each compartment.

 

I think it was related to the intended use of the coaches, compartments and low-density seating being used for long-distance "better class" services. I think there may also have been an element of giving customers a choice, because some people thoroughly disliked open coaches, which were considered too noisy.

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because "we've always done it like that'.

 

When the Mk1s were designed opens were mainly used for dining (hence the 2+1 seating) and excursions (2+2 because you didn't need quite so much elbow room if you weren't dining). 

 

Over the few years they were being constructed tastes and priorities changed for all the reasons listed above. 

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

Its difficult now to get back into the 1940/50s mindset, but even in the early-60s, which I can recall, the idea of travelling in open coaches on a long trip that you'd paid a lot of money for just wouldn't have been right - too much chance of being seated near a family with noisy small children, or a party of raucous squaddies going home on leave, or being annoyed by somebody having the window wide-open when you wanted it shut etc etc. All a bit too "American". And, don't forget the whole smoking vs non-smoking business - in an open you could get smoke-drift from on half of a car into the other, so "non-smoking" sometimes meant "less smoky".

 

TBH, especially in winter, compartments were a heck of a lot cosier, less drafty, and especially if not fully occupied, which they often weren't, they felt roomier.

 

Really premium trains, named expresses, had very low density of seating, even in 2nd Class. I was looking at the stock used on the Atlantic Coast Express recently, and some of that had only six 3rd/2nd seats, and only four 1st, in a compartment. The journey times were long, and they really gave people room to settle-in and make themselves comfy!

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 6
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The low seating density on the ACE was also a factor of the large number of brakes needed to cater for the various portions; the same applied to  WR trains with multiple slips.  The general idea was for there to be a mix of stock for long distance premium expresses, especially those with full catering in sittings.  Opens with 2 x 1 seating in second class were marshalled next to the catering, giving way to SKs further away.  TSOs (Tourist) with 2 x 2 seating, with the same bum count as  SKs, were preferred for excursions, charters, and so on. 

 

SKs came in two varieties, with or without armrests, with compartment capacity of 6 with armrests (which could be folded up out of the way) and 8 without.  The 'no armrest' coaches were allox originally to the WR and SR where distances were considered to be shorter for the bulk of the traffic (Bristol, South Wales, Birmingham, Southampton, Exeter).  The ECML and WCML, and the Midland past Nottingham, had longer runs with heavy traffic (Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool), and the 3 a side armrest seating was used on such trains.

 

There was a trend througout the 50s of generally increasing passneger preference for opens as part of a new societal concept of equality and classlessness, especially for groups of people travelling together in numbers higher than 8, but still, as has been said, demand among the traditionalists for compartments where they could escape the hoi polloi with their children and wide open ventilators.

 

Even in the earlier versions of mk2 stock, the compartments were retained in first class, and it was not until the advent of airco that these went open, which has been the standard ever since.  By the early 70s, mk2s had replaced mk1s on the premium trains and the mk1s were cascaded to cross country and secondary main line services, along with the earlier mk2s when the HSTs and mk3 stock appeared.  By that time secondary services tended to be made up of whatever was available, and likely to contain a mix of open and corridor stock in second class, with CKs or BCKs for first; fully first class coaches, especially opens, were kept back for specific use, and the Hull and Wolverhampton 'Executive' trains were made up of them. 

 

IMHO, the airconditioned tinted window mk2e and f first class opens were the most comfortable stock to ever run in in the UK. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

a factor of the large number of brakes needed to cater for the various portions

 

Yes, the ACE, and other SR trains with "branch portions" were "brake mad", with the two car detaching portions made-up of a Brake Third (very large van section), and a Brake Composite (small van section), not just for braking reasons but to accommodate the bonkers amount of luggage that people took on holiday back then.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

We used to camp, and drive, Father being too mean for hotels or train fares though he could afford them, and even this involved Mum and Johnster squished in front and back seats beneath everything including the kitchen sink.  And it took 10 hours minimum to get anywhere further down than Indian Queens in those days...

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The “Cobbler” sets of MK1’s that used to run between Euston and Northampton had a mixture of open and corridor coaches.

If the train was packed, up went the armrests in the compartments and four people would sit each side - those seats were absolute luxury!!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Nope. Many of the compartment stock carriages could cram far more in, such as the famous 100 seaters on the SECR.

 

Proper answer is that Opens were used for trains that had dining facilities. Later compartment stock fell out of favour for security reasons after a few high profile murders. The same reason that ladies compartments were discontinued.

 

 

Jason

I understood Ladies Compartments were first introduced in the Victorian era so that the fairer sex could travel without fear of being molested by lecherous men of the lower orders making lewd suggestions or maybe even suffering a "fate worse than death".  When there was always a porter on hand to intervene should a man attempt to board one of these compartments that made sense, particularly with the non-corridor stock of the time.  With open stock or even compartment stock with corridors, that sense of security was rather lost once the train was in motion.

 

I think the real reason that (corridor) compartment stock fell out of favour was more to do with more general forms of violent crime - robbery etc rather than murder.  BR long-distance trains often ran sparsely loaded and you could easily get a compartment to yourself if you wanted.  In an open, there was much more chance of there being at least a witness or two if anything untoward happened.  CCTV came later.

 

Compartment non-corridor stock was originally the norm for commuters, whose trains were always pretty full.  I think the reason for the modern design was partly to do with station dwell times - passengers running up and down trying to find any compartment with some space.  The present style allows them to board immediately and look for a seat once the train has restarted, albeit at he cost of slightly slower speed of boarding given the reduction in the number of doors.  And it also allows more room for folk to stand all the way, which lets you cram in even more people. 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Even in the earlier versions of mk2 stock, the compartments were retained in first class, and it was not until the advent of airco that these went open,

To add to the story, there was a batch of aircon Mk2d FK* and BFK, and didn’t the Mk3-derived class 442 EMU have 1st class compartments originally? 
* in one of which we were billeted for the Anglo Scottish Freighter railtour, hauled by a bunch of non-ETH locos. Smelliest and stuffiest tour I’ve been on!

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

26 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I think the real reason that (corridor) compartment stock fell out of favour was more to do with more general forms of violent crime

 

That may have been part of it from a customer perspective, but from an operator perspective it did allow a significant increase in seating density once the seat/window relationship was broken, so if some customers were wishing to see "all open", even those who weren't got it foisted upon them anyway.

 

31 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Compartment non-corridor stock was originally the norm for commuters

 

Compartment non-corridor stock was originally the norm, full stop.

 

There were a few exceptions in the form of saloons, and really bottom-rung bug-boxes that had perimeter seating, but until Pullman Cars arrived, from America note, you travelled in a compartment, and you had no corridor.

 

Corridors were later still, to give access to dining cars, and it took a very long time for corridor stock on main line trains to become the norm, c1930 maybe, and even longer for non-corridor compartment stock to finally disappear from suburban trains, the final elimination of it on the Southern at least being after a murder of a lone woman, sometime c1980 IIRC.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The great advantage of compartment stock is that it has a seat long enough to stretch out and sleep on. As a family we had priviledge 1st class. Our annual trip to the Med was always just using compartments and I cannot remember ever sharing on the Paris or Calais to wherever stretch.

And as a student the Mark 2 stock on the midnight Euston to Liverpool was very comfortable and very empty. On the otherhand the well loaded Friday afternoon or early evening Liverpool Euston service could be fun when the other 5 suited and booted looked with great interest when the ticket collector didn't even clip the long haired jean clad lad in the forward facing window seat :D

 

I know off topic, but the concept of limited doors in open suburban stock is a modern idea. The SR EMUS had a door for every 'compartment' although they were open and this also meant that standing in the centre out of the way of seated customers was easy. 

 

Paul

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

the concept of limited doors in open suburban stock is a modern idea

 

Metro-type stock has had "non-traditional" car layouts for a very long time. The C&SLR as the first tube had end-doors and longitudinal seats (the "padded cell" cars), setting the trend for the first iteration of tube stock, and the American influence on stock for the District and Met electrification and other electrified urban and suburban railways was huge (Mersey Railway, NER etc.). The Liverpool Overhead was a very early electric, and that had a non-traditional car design too, even before American influence became strong. And, the LMS had some really state-of-the-art for the Wirral electrification in the 1930s.

 

The southern was exceptionally conservative - the PEP stock car layout seemed really radical, but it wasn't!

 

So, it depends what you mean by "modern" I suppose.

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
24 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

The great advantage of compartment stock is that it has a seat long enough to stretch out and sleep on.

 

A feature I used frequently as a spotter and as a guard riding home on the cushions in the 60s and the 70s, but you are not actually supposed to do this.  At one time, the power to weight ratio of the 120 dmus on Cardiff-Crewe workings was increased by the addition of a bubble car, locked to passengers but used by traincrew, who all had carriage keys.  The arrangements of removed bench cushions to make beds, card tables, and other ad hoc furniture were, er, interesting...

 

32 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

That may have been part of it from a customer perspective, but from an operator perspective it did allow a significant increase in seating density once the seat/window relationship was broken, so if some customers were wishing to see "all open", even those who weren't got it foisted upon them anyway.

 

A major backwards step of mk3s and every coach design since, as was 'airliner' face-to-seatback seating.  Discomfort for the sake of operator profit; the second class 8 window per side shell shell should have been ths standard, first class patrons do office work and don't need windows to look out of.  One window (or set of windows and a door) per seating bay per side goes back to stagecoach days; it wasn't broke and it didn't need fixing.  I can forgive it in sliding door stock that needs room for the doors to slide into, like 152s, but don't ask me to like it or approve of it.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

after a murder of a lone woman, sometime c1980 IIRC.

I remember this, a horrible case in which her body was thrown out on to the track.  It brought about the end of non-ganwayed compartment stock.  A similar case a century before had led to the introduction of the communication cord alarm apparatus.

 

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years later than I remembered, and still unsolved in 2013, I don't know about now

 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/new-dna-tests-used-in-historic-murder-hunt-for-killer-of-woman-stabbed-in-train-carriage-8543404.html

 

On the less horrific front: my favoured method of bagging a compartment on overnight trains was to pull all the blinds down, and take the lightbulbs out and put them in the luggage rack. An ex-Civil Defence greatcoat provided a perfect duvet! Being a conscientious chap, I always restored blinds and lightbulbs before alighting.

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

55 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

At one time, the power to weight ratio of the 120 dmus on Cardiff-Crewe workings was increased by the addition of a bubble car, locked to passengers but used by traincrew, who all had carriage keys. 

 

So did quite a few of the commuters into Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street.  I gather it wasn't unknown for ECS to turn up at the platform and somebody had forgotten to unlock the doors on that side. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Compartment non-corridor stock was originally the norm, full stop.

 

Of course.  Both the terms "coach" and "carriage" come from horse-drawn transport.  The early railway carriage was really little more than a few stage coaches cobbled together on a longer underframe.  The punters were used to sitting for ages in a vehicle whose interior was essentially the same as a compartment.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eastwestdivide said:

...

didn’t the Mk3-derived class 442 EMU have 1st class compartments originally? 
...


One of the five coaches was 1st class, with a mixture of compartments and a small open saloon at the driving cab end.

 

AIUI originally the small saloon was supposed to be 2nd class but before launching the trains they decided the compartments on their own didn’t give enough 1st class seating. 
 

The Wessex Electrics were great trains, though after multiple refurbishments today they’re a pale reflection. 
 

Paul

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I understood Ladies Compartments were first introduced in the Victorian era so that the fairer sex could travel without fear of being molested by lecherous men of the lower orders making lewd suggestions or maybe even suffering a "fate worse than death".  When there was always a porter on hand to intervene should a man attempt to board one of these compartments that made sense, particularly with the non-corridor stock of the time.  With open stock or even compartment stock with corridors, that sense of security was rather lost once the train was in motion.

 

I think the real reason that (corridor) compartment stock fell out of favour was more to do with more general forms of violent crime - robbery etc rather than murder.  BR long-distance trains often ran sparsely loaded and you could easily get a compartment to yourself if you wanted.  In an open, there was much more chance of there being at least a witness or two if anything untoward happened.  CCTV came later.

 

Compartment non-corridor stock was originally the norm for commuters, whose trains were always pretty full.  I think the reason for the modern design was partly to do with station dwell times - passengers running up and down trying to find any compartment with some space.  The present style allows them to board immediately and look for a seat once the train has restarted, albeit at he cost of slightly slower speed of boarding given the reduction in the number of doors.  And it also allows more room for folk to stand all the way, which lets you cram in even more people. 

 

No. Murder. Not assault or "lewd" behaviour. Mid to late 1980s there was a spate of murders on BR, mostly around the London area. It was even on Crimewatch and the news that were were looking at railwaymen and trainspotters as being likely suspects as very few people would have known certain details about things like timings of trains.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Deborah_Linsley

 

This was just one case. There were several. They reckon this pair was a lot more prolific.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duffy_and_David_Mulcahy#:~:text=John Francis Duffy and David,and the "Railway Killers".

 

Ladies compartments had already been banned in 1977. I doubt it would even be legal nowadays to have compartments just for one gender.

 

The slam door EMUs had red lines painted on them to warn people and they stopped their use at night. Most were withdrawn almost immediately or converted to open stock. It was the end of most of the EPBs and similar, many of which were only about 25 years old at the time. No restaurant car on those trains. :prankster:

 

"From May 1985 facelifted 2-EPBs fitted with window bars were deployed to work the North London Line after it had been converted to third rail only operation. Following the murder of a young lady in an EPB compartment in March 1988 EPB units were again reformed to concentrate all compartment stock in a limited number of units. Known to the SE Division as 4 Com units this designation only appeared on documentation and not on the units, although compartment stock was denoted by a red strip at cantrail level, the first use of such colour coding for non-catering use. Such units were diagrammed not to be used after 8 pm, although they were used to maintain service if no other stock was available. Compartment EPB stock was finally withdrawn by December 1991"

 

https://sremg.org.uk/emu/class415.shtml

 

But it was virtually a banning, not a falling out of favour.

 

Normal corridor stock followed shortly afterwards. I think the last was the Transpennine trains run by Regional Railways which lingered on until the early 1990s.

 

 

Jason

Edited by Steamport Southport
  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 hours ago, The Johnster said:

major backwards step of mk3s and every coach design since, as was 'airliner' face-to-seatback

I actually much prefer the airline type seating on a train. You can make the area your own and you are not risking being seated at a table opposite someone with undesirable characteristics. And on occasions I have deliberately selected one without a window if I needed to sleep. So here is a vote for modern layouts.

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

54 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Normal corridor stock followed shortly afterwards. I think the last was the Transpennine trains run by Regional Railways which lingered on until the early 1990s.


It would be interesting to nail when the final corridor stock was withdrawn from normal service. 
 

My gut feel is that it would be the first class in one of the southern EMU fleets, but even loco hauled stock on NSE peak-time services such as Northampton and Oxford lingered a fair while - I used to commute home in Mk1 hauled stock, but commuting is like dentistry, you forget it as fast as you can, so the date when it went over to EMU I don’t recall.

  • Like 1
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...