Seating capacities of coaching stock available as RTR

[Wickham Green too]

Yes an' no .......... British Railways diagram 90 Open Seconds had eight seating bays like other Open Third diagrams but without the centre cross passage - hence more leg room - on abolition of Second Class they were downgraded to (new) Second, initially, then upgraded to First ........................... but they were non standard and weren't liked so disappeared  quite early.

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

in other words, one paid extra to consort with a better class of fellow passenger in second, rather than to get a softer seat or more legroom.

 

Someone ought to write a sketch about that!

 

See? The toffs do need more legroom!

 

[markw]

6 hours ago, Aire Head said:

For RTR LMS stock including Bachmann Portholes cosches it is as follows. Where two. Numbers are shown the first one indicates First class seat.

 

Corridor Stock

D1694 CK (Mainline/Bachmann) - 18/32

D1696 BTK (Mainline/Bachmann) - 40

D1811 RC (Airfix/Dapol/Hornby) 12/18

D1915 TO (Replica) - 60

D1905 BTK (Airfix/Dapol/Hornby) 24

D1925 CK (Airfix/Dapol) 18/24

D1899 TK (Hornby) 42

D1909 FK (Hornby) 22

D1902 RFO (Hornby) 42

D1981 RTO (Hornby) 42

D1961 BFK (Hornby) 18

D1912 RK (Hornby) 0

D2168 BFK (Bachmann) 30

D2162 FK (Bachmann) 36

D2159 CK (Bachmann) 18/24

D2170 TK (Bachmann) 42

D2161 BTK (Bachmann) 24

D2160 FO (Bachmann) 42

 

Non Corridor Stock

D1736 CL (Airfix/Dapol)  21/54

D1737 BTL (Airfix/Dapol) 56

D1907 BT (Hornby) 72

D1906 T Hornby 108

D1921 C Hornby 24/72

 

Let me know if I have missed any!

 

All information sourced from "Operation Midland"

There are a couple of Hornby ones missing.

D1960 FK (Hornby) 22

D1910 BFK (Hornby) 27

 

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

... See? The toffs do need more legroom!

But do they know their place ?

[phil-b259]

A massive thank you to everyone who has kindly supplied information in this thread so far it is appreciated.

 

I think it’s now just GWR RTR info that is needed - if any GWR experts out there could oblige I would appreciate your help too.

[Bucoops]

I'm curious - what's the purpose of collating the information?

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

I'm curious - what's the purpose of collating the information?

 

Clearly the OP wants to work out how many seated figures and in what style of dress to order to fill his carriages.

[Aire Head]

15 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

I'm curious - what's the purpose of collating the information?

 

Part of correct operation of passenger trains on the LMS and LMR is knowing the number of seats in each coach

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

Part of correct operation of passenger trains on the LMS and LMR is knowing the number of seats in each coach

 

Indeed, it's an interesting study. The ratio of first to third class seats tells one a lot about the nature of the service and the district served. 

[Aire Head]

27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed, it's an interesting study. The ratio of first to third class seats tells one a lot about the nature of the service and the district served. 

 

Needless to say it's all Third Class where I'm from 😂

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

A massive thank you to everyone who has kindly supplied information in this thread so far it is appreciated.

 

I think it’s now just GWR RTR info that is needed - if any GWR experts out there could oblige I would appreciate your help too.

The recent Hornby 4 coach suburban sets were D98 (BT) & E131 (Comp) in both Left Hand and Right Hand

R 4874, 5, 6 & 7

 

The composites had 4 x first class compartments and 5 x third class compartments

The brake had 6 third class compartments.

 

How many did the GWR cram in a 9' 0" wide coach compartment?🙂

Edited December 11, 2022 by melmerby

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, Bucoops said:

I'm curious - what's the purpose of collating the information?

 

Well, my long term aim would be to model a Heritage railway - and I know from being a volunteer at the Bluebell that generally speaking the number of coaches / seating capacity of the rakes is based around demand so that the railway doesn't waste fuel or add wear and tear to rolling stock unnecessarily.

 

The Bluebells SECR '100 seater' for example can technically absorb almost two Mk1s worth of passengers in a vehicle that weights an awful lot less so the train weight is less and that increases the variety of locos which can be used for example.

 

As such I have been developing a spreadsheet of the models I have been buying and been playing with potential coach formations with the aim of seeing what seating capacities various combinations result in. As I said at the beginning corridor stock is generally pretty easy to sus out, but when it comes to older vehicles its more tricky.

Edited December 11, 2022 by phil-b259

[Bucoops]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Well, my long term aim would be to model a Heritage railway - and I know from being a volunteer at the Bluebell that generally speaking the number of coaches / seating capacity of the rakes is based around demand so that the railway doesn't waste fuel or add wear and tear to rolling stock unnecessarily.

 

The Bluebells SECR '100 seater' for example can technically absorb almost two Mk1s worth of passengers in a vehicle that weights an awful lot less so the train weight is less and that increases the variety of locos which can be used for example.

 

As such I have been developing a spreadsheet of the models I have been buying and been playing with potential coach formations with the aim of seeing what seating capacities various combinations result in. As I said at the beginning corridor stock is generally pretty easy to sus out, but when it comes to older vehicles

 

Thank you - I thought it may be a little more than just simple rostering.

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

Thank you - I thought it may be a little more than just simple rostering.

 

Aye - and just to throw something else into the mix (though not strictly relevant to this thread) is the question of whether the official seating capacities need, how shall I say some adjustment in my fantasy land.

 

For example although the LMS may have officially planned for 6 aside seating in 3rd would this be realistic for such stock in Heritage Railway use where people are traveling for pleasure rather than because they have to? Would 5 aside be a better working assumption if you will (I know from experience that family groups on Heritage railways do tend to think that a compartment is 'theirs' and can be most unwilling to share the space with others) but if you do that how much extra stock is needed to compensate? 

 

First class provision is another issue - over time less and less folk have been willing to fork out for first class - hence the Met set on the Bluebell can sometimes end up with 3rd class rammed but an over provision of empty 1st class compartments. This can result in the need to 'downgrade' first class compartments to ease the 3rd class crush (which annoys those who have paid 1st) or risk of 3rd class travellers not wanting to visit again / bad mouthing the railway experience to their friends. Now obviously with the Mets, being close coupled there isn't a lot the Bluebell can do* but in the model sphere you can try and avoid such a situation - The GWR B sets by Hornby could be imagined as only one of the CKs being preserved say a  full 3rd being stuck on the outside the  now 3 car set to achieve a better 1st / 3rd ratio.

 

Agreed its something of a thought exercise at present as I don't have the room to start layout building but an interesting one nevertheless - and which does have its basis in real railway practice (both Heritage and mainline) where adjustment of train lengths to reflect expected usage is very necessary.

 

* Though given the achievements of the Heritage railway movement generally  I guess it would be totally doable for a Heritage railway to make suitable alterations to the buffering / drawgear of a close coupled vehicle such that it was no longer 'closed coupled' (at the obvious expense of authenticity) should they wish.

Edited December 12, 2022 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Clearly the OP wants to work out how many seated figures and in what style of dress to order to fill his carriages.

 

Not quite - though that is a useful side benefit.

 

Rather I'm trying to put myself in an operations / train planner mode and trying to match the available stock to what I imagine the loads might be and the maintenance requirements* Contrary to what people may think running an efficient Heritage Railway is every bit as challenging as one in the 1900s (just on a smaller scale - the fundamentals haven't changed)

 

*(a BR Mk1 generally needs less maintenance of its running gear than an 1910 era vehicle for example)

[Wickham Green too]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

... in Heritage Railway use where people are traveling for pleasure rather than because they have to? ... family groups on Heritage railways do tend to think that a compartment is 'theirs' and can be most unwilling to share the space with others) ...

If you're modelling the last couple of years that's pretty well compulsory. ☹️

[bécasse]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The Bluebells SECR '100 seater' for example can technically absorb almost two Mk1s worth of passengers in a vehicle that weights an awful lot less so the train weight is less and that increases the variety of locos which can be used for example.

The SECR built a significant fleet of these "long tens", as they were commonly called, with a view to eventually incorporating them into electric trains. Ironically, given the vast number of SR-constituent non-corridor steam carriages that were converted for use in electric trains, that never happened and instead they effectively became the Southern Railway's standard loose non-corridor third working all over the system in that role and even, sometimes, being found as a strengthener on otherwise all corridor stock trains. The carriages in the long-ten fleet were all but identical, the only obvious differences being that some had (attractive) vertical matchboarding below the waist and that some were equipped with the necessary air-pipe and electrical fittings to allow them to be included (between the loco and p-p set) as strengthening vehicles in pull and push trains.

[Tom Burnham]

I wasn't around to travel by train in the 1930s but I have the impression that apart from some suburban trains, pre-war trains were typically not full to anywhere near capacity.  I seem to recall one of the loco performance articles by C J Allen in the Railway Magazine where he commented on increasing train weights in the context of first class passengers expecting a compartment to themselves and their travelling companions (if any) and third class thinking a compartment was full if there were more than 4 or 5 people in it.

[Steamport Southport]

9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Not quite - though that is a useful side benefit.

 

Rather I'm trying to put myself in an operations / train planner mode and trying to match the available stock to what I imagine the loads might be and the maintenance requirements* Contrary to what people may think running an efficient Heritage Railway is every bit as challenging as one in the 1900s (just on a smaller scale - the fundamentals haven't changed)

 

*(a BR Mk1 generally needs less maintenance of its running gear than an 1910 era vehicle for example)

 

That's easy. BR MK1 TSOs, BSO and BSKs are what is most common on heritage railways. They were also the last BR MK1s running about on the real railways so loads survived.

 

Easy for ticket inspection, people can get to the buffet/lavatory and every set of four seats has a table.

 

Compartment stock is usually only dragged out for galas unless it's somewhere like the Isle Of Wight.

 

 

Jason

[Nick C]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Not quite - though that is a useful side benefit.

 

Rather I'm trying to put myself in an operations / train planner mode and trying to match the available stock to what I imagine the loads might be and the maintenance requirements* Contrary to what people may think running an efficient Heritage Railway is every bit as challenging as one in the 1900s (just on a smaller scale - the fundamentals haven't changed)

 

*(a BR Mk1 generally needs less maintenance of its running gear than an 1910 era vehicle for example)

Though Mk1s are getting to the point now where they often need expensive bodywork doing - particularly at the ends where water has found it's way in around the gangway and caused rot in the crash pillars...

 

Heritage railways also frequently have a greater proportion of catering stock than was common in service days, as people frequently want to be able to get a cuppa - I've seen, for example, a 3 set consisting of RMB, TSO, BSK - On the MHR, that's pretty much the minimum formation, then add additional TSOs to suit the expected load. Another difference on a modern heritage railway is the need to provide wheelchair accessible stock - either a dedicated vehicle with a lift or ramp, or an open saloon accessible from the adjacent brake (so that the double doors in the van can be used for ramp access)

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Another difference on a modern heritage railway is the need to provide wheelchair accessible stock - either a dedicated vehicle with a lift or ramp, or an open saloon accessible from the adjacent brake (so that the double doors in the van can be used for ramp access)

 

So the seating quoted for stock as built may well not be the actual capacity of a vehicle on a preserved line.

[Steamport Southport]

18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

So the seating quoted for stock as built may well not be the actual capacity of a vehicle on a preserved line.

 

Yes. Don't forget that most earlier stock probably came from Departmental service so is often altered. Many would have had the seats ripped out.

 

Even when many of the early heritage railways started there wasn't a great deal available directly from BR. ISTR the SVR just about managed to get a few of the last remaining LMS stock direct in the late 1960s.

 

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

Yes. Don't forget that most earlier stock probably came from Departmental service so is often altered. Many would have had the seats ripped out.

 

Yes, I was thinking of Mk1s modified for wheelchair access but you're spot on about earlier stock. Parts of the Knotty 4-wheelers were fished out of a pond, I believe.

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, I was thinking of Mk1s modified for wheelchair access but you're spot on about earlier stock. Parts of the Knotty 4-wheelers were fished out of a pond, I believe.

 

Quite often it's the luggage compartment in brake vehicles that has been altered and often windows added for better views.

 

 

Jason

[Wickham Green too]

10 hours ago, bécasse said:

... The carriages in the long-ten fleet were all but identical, the only obvious differences being that some had (attractive) vertical matchboarding below the waist ...

... some had a raised panel from waist to cant rail while some - including the two survivors - were completely flush sided ........................... and the flush sided ones had two, conspicuously different, types of door ventilators !