Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

I think you make some good and interesting points there, Tom. Whilst the point you make about doors is probably a valid one in many instances, it doesn't always work - no one is going to confuse the preserved 1938 tube stock with what is currently operating on the tube. But some of the tube lines are currently operating stock from the 1970s and 80s which doesn't differ enormously from more recent stock from an aesthetic point of view. Likewise you wouldn't confuse an LMS Mersey electric unit with a 508 or 777 (or a 150!). So if it is not simply doors that define the "old/not old" I would say that it is overall style, materials and that almost indefinable (and very subjective) feel of ambience. Most (all?) modern stock internally contains vast areas of moulded plastic (grey-ish, cream-ish, or beige-ish), seats that are unremarkable with limited legroom, window spacing that bears little relationship to seat spacing, etc, etc. This is what sets them apart from (for example) BR Mk1s - even though some have formica and fluorescent lighting - or even some of the earlier Mk2s.

To my mind, the 150s (and Pacers) mark the cross-over point as far as DMUs are concerned as being the first identifiable "modern" type of unit. This particular one is one of the ones refurbished by TFL into their corporate style comparatively recently - in my opinion an improvement on what they were built with - so the interior ambience is not hugely different to what is being produced today. Sure the 197s that are replacing them have a bit more style, aircon and less rough edges (which is more than can be said for their ride quality) but the general style, seating and materials show a similarity - they seem to belong to the same general era.

I'm glad to see one preserved, and hope a few more 15xxxx units are as well, and maybe their time will come as samples of an era that has passed as well as serving some useful purpose now. If none are saved now, they'll be quickly scrapped and forgotten. DMUs are more likely to be useful than their EMU cousins, and so may end up being the main representatives of their type. If any are to be saved it will have to be done sooner than later.

This is not a new issue - mention has been made of how old the 150 is compared to the age of for example 1st generation DMUs when they were preserved (and the resistance in some quarters to those at the time). In fact the 150 is older than many steam locos were when preserved, to say nothing of many Mk1s. Sometime in the 1980s I travelled on the NYMR in a Mk1. As I looked at the fluorescent lights and formica I was thinking "this doesn't feel very heritage" (at the time being used to the Bluebell), and indeed a couple of weeks later I was on a regular service train from Bangor to Chester in an un-refurbished Mk1 with varnished wood panels 2+1 seating in 2nd class with seats you sank into thinking "this is more like it" - but that was just normal then. Fast forward a couple of years and a similar journey yielded a 150/142 combination and the old Mk1s had gone. (The slightly weird part of that was the train divided at Chester and the 142 continued onto Hull...).

Today I can go down to Shrewsbury station and catch trains comprised of 150s or 153s to Crewe and Swansea (via the Heart of Wales), but for how much longer?

However Tom also raises the point of practicalities, Multiple units of any sort take up space, are often inflexible - a fault with one car may cause the whole set to be pulled from service, and often contain technology (both digital and analogue) that does not age well. That is before you get to the problems of dealing with corrosion and fatigue in monocoque bodies, flexible air filled "rubber" suspension, and plastic trim panels degrading. I suspect that many of the units, both 1st and 2nd generation, being saved may not survive long term.

Steve B

 

That is your perception, but others might see things differently. For instance, others might really want a steam engine (increasingly, over time, not from personal memory, of course; but from knowledge that steam was what powered the rail system in Britain at its creation and for all its early life - i.e. during the period when Britain turned into an industrialized, mobile, society).

But maybe I'm wrong. Fundamentally, heritage rail (as it is at this moment) is a business (alas - although it has other elements mixed in), and I have no direct contact with the customer base, to know what they want - or predict how that will change over time.

 

Therein lies the difference between museums like the NRM, documenting the history of rail through preservation of artefacts, and heritage railways offering railway 'experiences' that are differentiated from the mundanity of modern rail travel.

It would be interesting to do some sentiment analysis on visitors to the MHR and find themselves travelling on either a steam-hauled train, a thumper or a sprinter, and see which best met their expectations of their day out, and which would encourage them to revisit.

Simon

 

This is the bit a lot of posters here don't seem to get - the 150 isn't going to be replacing a steam loco, it's going to be allowing a 2-train service to operate on days when it's not economical to operate two steam locos.

 

I think it's a good thing personally, I don't dislike 150s, remember a good run on a railtour on one from the East Lancs to the Severn Valley on one in 1988, when they were still new. Also, they have earned a place in preservation, serving the railway for nearly 40 years, incidentally longer than the Bulleids, A4s, Duchesses and Kings!

 

I wonder if the time has come to compartmentalise heritage railways into "older" and "newer" heritage lines. There is, perhaps, a start to that in terms of lines like the Wensleydale and Mid Norfolk already being predominantly in the latter category. I'd suggest 1968 as a rough date cut off - most heritage lines are pretty firmly anchored in the end of steam era, but first generation diesels and DMUs are part of that era; 2nd generation diesels, DMUS and associated rolling stock are not. Why dilute ad infinitum what has been built up? If there truly is widespread interest in post 1968-built rolling stock then surely lines showcasing as their primary attraction it will thrive?

 

So where in the south fits into your "newer" category of lines?
But disregarding that for the moment, why would you want to limit yourself to a particular market sector if you can advertise both? The issue really comes when people expect to find something running and that is not delivered. If your timetable says which services are which I see little issue. So this is usually diesel in lieu of steam, but last Friday (when apparently there had been an error in the loco roster) some guy on the Swanage Facebook page was ranting because it was the DMU not the Class 20. Probably did not help when he was told it would be the 20 on Saturday, which failed and was replaced by steam. If he was still around I expect he was even more annoyed.

 

Not suggesting this will be the case here, but it's perfectly possible that by trying to cater for both you actually end up putting both markets off a little bit.
Certainly in the heritage diesel world, woe betide anyone who thinks it's a good idea to double head an English Electric and a Sulzer engine to try and get fans of both on board your train - you'll very quickly discover it has the opposite effect!

I think most people accept that lines the length of the MHR need a 2 train service to keep people moving, and it's often not viable for that second service to be steam. There's still a lot of potential options to fill that gap though, and leaving aside the fact it's been donated for free, which I do accept is a driving factor in current circumstances of availability, I'm unconvinced a 150 will contribute to the public's experience in the same way a 1st gen DMU or diesel hauled stock would.

 

Keighley is in the late steam era category, and they have a 144, incidentally, very well restored to Metro Train livery, because this is of local significance as they were commonly used on local services in West Yorkshire

 

I get that there will be a need for diesel haulage, especially the first off Alton, But The timetable should clearly on the dates when the DMU is expected to operate, show that this is a DMU/deisel loco , so as to not put off intending visitors, I'm assuming, that the unit will if rostered on consecutive days, finish at Alton, so a driver and guard will have to start their duty from Alton, is there a signing on point for loco at Alton? it would seem a bit pointless to drive to Ropley, then get back in your car, and drive on to Alton,

 

One thing that strikes me is that (IIRC), they don't have the forward view for passengers that the first gen units had.

 

The problem with railway preservation is that everyone has an opinion. Shall we give the railway and its customers an opportunity to form some sort of opinion? Can we also remember that some people worked hard to make this happen and we should remember THAT first. I find the “running down” of this news tiresome. Let’s celebrate a bit of good news, and leave the doubts to the future. After all as I said above, all these arguments have been used before on every new acquisition in the last 25 years.

 

A press release on the Rail advent website has a statement from Rebecca Dalley, CEO of the Watercress Line stating the plans for the use of the Sprinter:

“Since our previous multiple unit, the Class 205 ‘Hampshire Unit’ came out of service in 2004, we have been looking out for an opportunity to fill in the service for our visitors from the Alton and London end of the Watercress Line. We hope to start restoration of the 1959 ‘Hampshire Unit’ to be our mainstay for the Alton service, with this Class 150 in support.”

I think it is great that the Railway has gained the Sprinter to operate earlier services from Alton.


Sent from my XQ-BT52 using Tapatalk

 

I cautiously agree with you, and what I am about to say should not be taken as a comment on what the Mid Hants is doing with this unit. Rather it is a thought directed at the movement as a whole.

Given that there are good reasons to preserve trains, stations, other artifacts, etc from all eras of our railways history - and hopefully see them operating, then how is that to be accomplished? It's not just a matter of a loco and a handful of coaches that can be split up and run in different (if not prototypical) formations. They are specific units, which cannot interoperate happily with other types. (The 150 in that respect is of the generation of DMUs that were designed to interoperate with other classes, but the 170s were the last ones that could do so). As I have already said, they take up a lot of space - and to properly overhaul one would require decent facilities that many well established railways even today don't really have even for their unpowered carriages. To tackle this long term will require commitment and investment, and space. Without that, then what is saved will end up as very large stationary museum pieces at best, or left to rot at the end of a (long) siding, or scrapped.

Having a unit in working order can be useful until something goes wrong - there needs to plans as to what you do when that happens.

I have more to say, but my dinner is going cold - I shall be back!

Steve B

 

I showed the picture of the 150 to my wife. She has travelled thousands of miles with me on railways over many years, and enjoys train travel, but has little technical or historical knowledge about trains. I asked her what she thought of the news that the Watercress Line had acquired it. She said, "Oh good, just like the ones we sometimes get from London to Alton. Is the Watercress Line going to run through trains?"!

 

And why not dispense with steam altogether?

 

Right, having finished dinner, I'll add my final thought. Whoever takes on such projects needs to give thought as to which form they are preserved in. For instance, this 150 externally is in it's early 1980's livery, yet it seems that the interior is very much 21st century TFW - very different seating and fittings. Should there be plans at some stage to restore it to original condition? Or does it's immediate usefulness mean it should just be used "as is"? Or should it be restored to one of it's other various liveries and internal condition that it has carried over the years? It's quite likely that the Mid Hants has given thought to matters like these, and of course it is theirs to decide.

I'm not saying that in order to start some sort of livery debate aimed at telling the Mid Hants what to do. Please don't start one!

But many railways have preservation policies to their locos, carriages and stations. If they were to introduce a whole new generation of train types this could stretch many of those schemes, which may even be a block to adopting newer stock. I think that the issues I'm raising need to be addressed by the organisations involved, alongside moves to preserve such trains. I use the word "preserve" carefully. Preserving such stock should be a commitment to their long term survival. This needs to be backed up with people - workers - and money. Not all railways will be open to accepting such stock as preservation projects. Others might be, but find that they risk alienating their supporters and volunteers. There is a huge can of worms to be opened here. There are a number of pacers are already in use in preservation, and now being joined by a sprinter. For the well-being of the railways, and the future of the trains themselves, all need to tread carefully. How preserving such things sits with the general public is another matter I don't know, but others will have a better idea.

Steve B
(Sorry about the waffle - hope it makes sense.)

 

Right now how the public react is not particularly relevant. It is likely that few will be actively put off, many will be fairly indifferent. Some will be enthusiastic. How the railway communicates the relevance of the unit and how it makes use of it will help with the balances between those groups.

The condition of the interior is for now what it is. As others have mentioned it is no different to the Formica Mk1s when they first ended up on heritage railways. And like those (which were the majority of the MHR fleet) the interior can be changed. The MHR long since ceased to have Formica interiors.

This unit is in particularly good condition. It has sufficient hours left on it that it is still “legal” on the Network and will I think arrive under its own power. A package of spares is being worked upon. Anyone would think that this was the first time the Watercressline had preserved something, and hadn’t learnt from past experiences.

In some ways heritage railways are a constantly reforming “mimimum viable product” and whilst this is tough because you never have all the answers, there isn’t really another way to do what we do. Sometimes opportunities have to be accepted. They don’t repeat.

Much seems to be being made of a need for undercover storage, but let’s be clear about what needs to be undercover. It isn’t stuff that is serviceable. If we had a shed tomorrow the priority items to get under cover would be:

1. Space for diesel traction maintenance
2. Out of service steam and diesel locomotives that haven’t already deteriorated.
3. Out of service Mk1 carriages (they deteriorate fast when not being used if left outside), and by extension out of service DEMU and DMU
4. In service DEMU and DMU stock - over the winter periods
5. In service carriages during winter
6. In service diesel locomotives
7. In service steam locomotives

It is true that we do not have sufficient covered sidings. There is something you can DO about that! (Link above). However, if we had let that stop us at any point in the past, we would not have what we have today. We cannot let perfection be the enemy of good enough!!!

 

I’m not a fan of 150s but can see the operational sense. But try and align the seats with the windows! Stick as much 1980s branding over the interior for recent nostalgia and keep the blinds in the door to the drivers cab up. I fondly recall a driver letting me and a friend into the cab on a Salisbury - Eastleigh run, on diversion beforr Chandlers Ford reopened. While I appreciated the cab ride I still thought the traction was rancid, and my opinion’s not changed….,

 

There are some important points raised here. Whilst accepting that history didn’t stop in 1968 or, indeed, 2024, every time we select a new item to preserve we have to find somewhere to accommodate it. Many railways don’t have the space to accommodate more items and even less can do so under cover. Then there are the facilities to maintain and operate it. All these facilities are not infinite and more than likely will not increase to accommodate new arrivals. So, if a late 20th century item of stock is to be preserved, what already preserved item is going to be sacrificed to accommodate it, either by simply being shunted into a siding and forgotten about when there is space or even scrapped when there isn’t? In this respect, the MRM regularly revisits its collection and de-accessions items from it.
We can’t preserve everything.