Come in Mk1, Your time is up.

Fair point but would this be any cheaper than re-building and improving the Mk1s we have already? It might be worth making a serious investment in them to extend their lives like VSOE have done with the Pullmans.

 

As others have pointed out, Bulleid's look like Mk1s until you take them apart. It's not just the timber body structure and roof, (and the post-war timber was generally a lot poorer quality than the teak on a Gresley coach), but the reason that BR rushed to replace them with Mk.1s in the late 1960s was that the design end-loading on a Mk.1 underframe was 200 tons whereas the Bulleid coach underframe (just a lengthenned Maunsell underframe, still riveted) was only 80 tons. Bulleid had pioneered welded underframes on the LNER, but on the Southern the loco-hauled coaches were not made in large enough volumes to be worth jigging up for the welding (unlike the emus, where the volumes were significantly larger).

That said, I gather NYMR are aiming to get a timber-bodied coach registered for the main line, but may be easier for the 40mph Whitby line than the higher speeds on the rest of the network.

Mk.1 coaches on the main line now have to run with a non-passenger-carrying barrier vehicle at each end of the set.

My take on this is that if the current problem is that it appears some of the charter fleets don't earn enough money to pay for the sort of heavy structural bodywork maintenance that the Mk.1s (and early Mk.2s) now need, so sure as anything there's no money for new-build! Several preserved lines are doing that sort of work on their own coaches, so it can be done at reasonable cost. But its expensive if done at commercial rates rather than with largely volunteer labour, and a main-line train is a lot of coaches.

Regards,
Richard

 

Interesting comments. This also reflects that whilst a fair number of main-line registered locos (and support coaches) are maintained by volunteers very few passenger carrying carriages are. I guess this reflects the history of the movement in that there was no shortage of Mk1s in general service, but also suitable for steam haulage hire, until relatively recently.

 

I very much like David1984's approach. Replacing the windows on Mk2's and even Mk3's could well work out cheaper and produce a, long life, low maintenance carriage that has electic door locks (later mk2's & mk3's). The interiors could even be changed to produce a 'aged' look if necessary although for some just recovering the seats with period cloth would probably be sufficient. Clearly its not as simple as that (things like heating or air suspension would be an issue) but it would be worth investigating as an alternative to modernising a not very crashworthy mk1. Personally I don't care what I sit in as long as the seats are comfortable and it has opening windows. The quieter the carriage runs the more I can hear the Loco ;-)

Is there any weight advantage with Mk2's and 3's ?

 

Well I dont know how they got them so cheap, the 450 units for SWT were 1.25 million per motor and 0.85 million per trailer or just over 4 million per 4 coach set.
its not just the actual costs of building them its the R&D costs, opening the production line (or modifying the run) that are factored in, which is why the bigger the order the cheaper the cost per unit.
Any modern unit is basically 1 million per coach.

 

I believe that there aren't many Mk3 coaches around anymore. If it were possible to get enough to replace the Mk1 vehicles, rather replace the windows wouldn't a sound system in the coaches do the trick? Just have an outside microphone near the engine and broadcast the racket!

Regards

 

Once the IEP is up and running I expect there will be a glut of Mk3's available, loco-hauled from East Anglia and HST spec ones from FGW, NExEC and EMT.

Regards,

Dan

 

Why stop there? Replace the windows with flat screen tvs and run videos of previous runs - no need to turn a wheel!

Dave

 

According to the latest Rail Express, there is an exercise currently underway to assess whether HSTs can be life expended to 2030, so don't place money on Mark 3s becoming available - why should they? Britain's railways have got to learn to use what they have and not constantly want new toys. While in France a few weeks back, I saw locos in use that are 50 years old but still perfectly capable of doing the job.

The same is true of Mark 1s - why should they be replaced. They are ideal for charter use and can be repaired to a high standard for a reasonable cost. The impression I get as quite a rare passenger on mainline charters is that some major rebuilds may be required to quite a few of those used on the mainline but such rebuilds will be much cheaper than new coaches or butchering otehr types of stock.

Steven

 

I think it all rests on whether exemptions will be granted for the RVAR legislation, or whether there is the political will to water it down. You certainly can't call the doors on a Mk3 friendly to 'persons of reduced mobility'. The HST has got many decades of life left in it, the only reason to take them out of service is if the price of oil sky-rockets.

Regards,

Dan

 

This seems the best place to ask a question on coaches. Reading this months Railway Magazine page 16 there is a paragraph where plum & spilt milk livery is mention which is not to be confused with blood & custard livery. Does anyone no why this livery was abandoned for? Also has anyone out there got any photos of this livery or knows of a web link about coach liveries



Thanks

 

In the late 40s BR conducted trials with a few coach liveries of which 'plum and spilt milk' was one. A number of coach-sets were painted in this livery including, from memory, Liverpool St - East Anglia and Liverpool - Newcastle. This is not a complete listing, although I have seen a complete listing in contemporary issues of RO which are not to hand at present.

It would seem that the livery adopted, crimson and cream, was because it seemed to be a lot brighter than its competitors, but it too was abandoned for the maroon because of spauling of the cream.

After crimson and cream was adopted in 1951 the coach-sets in 'plum and spilt milk' were broken up and it was possible to see single coaches in this livery for a few years before they were re-painted.

HTH

 

Call me stupid, but what on earth is spauling?

 

If he means 'spalling' then it is largish areas of paint peeling off. The word is usually used when chunks of brickwork flake off.

 

Sorry for the spelling mistake!

 

Why would the cream paint have fallen off any more than the maroon? I think it is more likely that showed dirt up more. The same is just as true today where it is used on heritage railways - all maroon looks more consistent, even if it is often consistently shabby!

 

Out of interest, is there any reason why it's sometimes refered to as blood and custard, while other times crimson and cream.

Which was the official livery?

 

Crimson and cream

 

Is carmine & cream the same thing?

 

Yes, but the British Standard for paint calls it crimson.

Blood and custard, carmine and cream, crimson and cream are all refering to the same thing

Regards