Vintage vs Mk 1

Oh, our tactic on vintage stock is to make the exact sequence of sash pull, window opening, hand out window, door handle turning and pushing so fiendishly complicated that no-one can open or shut doors without assistance - seems to work without too many safety problems!

On a serious note, it is surprising the difficulty many people have opening and closing doors, especially on vehicles such as the LCDR 4 wheelers where the door handle has to be positively turned and locked from outside - many people can turn it to open the door to get in, but then just pull the door shut and assume it locks itself. It's an area that platform staff have to be especially vigilant for.

Tom

 

The GWR, being behind the times, persisted with this kind of lock up to nationalisation. The South Devon Railway give out a handbill explaining the pitfalls regarding their Hawksworth stock; I am sure they would send you a sample.

This topic reminds me that, when travelling in the Chesham set the other day, other passengers in my compartment were two children who were well (grand)parented. Despite this fact, and the excellent explanatory notice in the compartment, the children got closer to the door handles than seemed wise to me. I wonder if it would not be desirable to remove the internal handles completely as they are all too easy to operate? There are plenty of adults around much less sensible than this particular pair.

Paul

 

[Pedant Mode]Generally they persisted with that kind of lock. There are a few examples of more typical 'slam door' locks on a few of their carriages, such as the ex-articulated diners on the SVR.[/Pedant Mode]

We have to be careful on the SVR as well. Generally, they are only used on high days when all stock is required, or occasionally when no other sets are available to cover a duty due to maintenance. High days mean there are more volunteers to keep a look out, generally. It's a shame really, as they do look marvelous on the line.

 

I've seen figures quoted that equate to about 1 ounce of coal per passenger-mile (!!) for a Terrier hauling 300 passengers on the East London line with frequent starts and stops and not a few hills. Eat your heart out Mr Bulleid!

(Actual figures as I recall were 20lb per mile hauling an 8 coach block train with a seating capacity of 300. They must have been seriously light carriages!)

But even so the point is well made even in modern times: reduce the train weight per seat, and you make as much revenue while needing smaller engines which are both cheaper to run and cheaper to maintain. Lewis Nodes gave a figure on the Bluebell that put the relative restoration costs of engines like 592, 75027 and 21C123 as 1:2:4, but the standard 4 can't do twice the work of the C, and the Bulleid certainly can't do 4 times as much. Given that commonly bandied round figures for a thorough overhaul of a Mk1 are something like £100k, which is broadly comparable with a pre-group bogie carriage, and there is clearly a sound business case for running a more vintage service. The IoWSR seem to have worked this out - light carriages, big loads, small engines - even if relatively few other railways have. I can't see figures on their website, but I doubt if their 5 coach bogie set is much above 120 - 130 tons: about the weight of 3.5 Mk 1s but with a capacity equal to about 6...

Tom

 

Some passengers find it too difficult on mark 1s!
Last weekend, on the SVR, the GWR set was used and lot of people said the doors were locked, no the handles are stiff and you have give some effort.
Additional to the problem of people thinking that they have closed when they haven't, some people after trying to close the door several times then turn the handle and then try closing it! And some of these I would count as enthusiasts.

 

Not wishing to sound big-headed about my home railway, but I have been a signalman for well over a year now and have only had to stop a train due to a loose door handle once. It was drummed into me when I was on platform duties to look out for the GW set and I think that it gets the attention it needs despite its relatively infrequent use. It is probably the most scrutinized set on the railway by signalman, train and platform staff! The issue I have noted is lack of volunteers midweek/off season weekends, so it isn't that the eyes aren't trained - the eyes aren't there!

The IoWSR, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, is a fantastic evocation of the past and most of that is down to its superb stock. The educational element in its displays around Haven Street - the info boards and suchlike, are very impressive too, with a uniformity of appearance and a consistency of style I have never seen anywhere else. However, it is in the lucky situation that it can run significantly shorter trains than the SVR - which don't overhang the platforms!

 

Yes, Scum class, I like it

 

Would it be possible to modify them at same point so they retain the external appearence, but are spring loaded like Mk1's catches ?, it even fools many older people as most now don't remember pre Mk1's either.

 

Well, firstly that would probably require quite a lot of changes to the door structure.

But in any case - isn't the fact that sometimes the door handles are awkward to operate a small price to pay for the benefit of being able to demonstrate travel from a different era? If you went down that route, you might then decide that sash door windows that open all the way might encourage someone to fall out - so you'd prevent them opening or put window bars across then. Then you might decide proper moquette gets damaged by the scrotes so it would be preferable to replace with vinyl. Before long you no longer have a vintage coach; you may as well travel in a scabby DMU. It seems better to me to accept that running vintage stock has many advantages, but comes with a penalty of unfamiliarity of some components that you need to provide written instructions for, and / or extra platform staff. It's not exactly a major problem in any case.

Tom

 

I am pleased to say that the K&ESR have done it without the need for major structual changes to the coach bodies. Not sure of exactly how, you would need to contact our C&W for details.

 

We use a lock that was designed in house by one of our staff who is a tool maker by trade, it has the same dimentions as the standard SECR budget lock but has been modified to have a return spring so that the lock will return to the closed position, we used these in the last 4 wheeler brake we did and as vehicles come into shops they will be fitted with this new design of lock, i believe that the bluebell have expressed an interest in having a batch made for their next restoration We are very lucky to have people like this who can design make and get passed modifications such as this

 

Reason I ask about mods to spring loaded MK1 style catches is I can see it being something the H&S enforce further down the lines, as Enthusiasts, we are well versed with non sprung door locks and leather straps for the windows, but they don't half baffle some members of joe public.

 

It's intresting that many here seem to think of MK1 are the only coaches with spring loaded doors locks. In this respect GWR were very backwards as both the TVR and Barry were using double action door locks long before it became common practice on GWR.

 

Double action door locks never became common practice on the GWR - even the Hawksworths built in BR days continued the Swindon practice with little modification from the Victorian days.

 

I think the point is that the GWR never did adopt 'slam' doors for regular use just as with opens being for hire use or dining. LMS and LNER certainly had slam doors, even GNR did. I can't speak on southern coaches, I have yet to travel on ex southern line (shame on me).
Quite possibly, GWR didn't use slam door (I know the exceptions) because it was done by others and they didn't like following others or as I would like to think rather than them just being awkward, they thought that slam doors might make people less alert and vigilant which has, unfortunately, a grain of truth to it.

 

The biggest change I think is the shape of the handle, the later collett and hawksworths having a flater less curved shape to it than earlier.

 

Probably the reason was "not invented here" which is one of the more infuriating forms of human vanity!

P.H.

 

I am in my 20's, and I recently dragged some "normal" friends for a round trip on the Lakeside & Haverthwaite in a Mk1 TSO. Come the other end, they couldn't get out! They required the "expert guidance" of myself to open the window and allow their escape! A sign of the times??

 

Spring loaded door locks aren't the universal blessing some people in this thread seem to think (i.e. relative to the more old fashioned locks). Watching passengers on the railway try and wrestle with doors on our Mk 1s, I see at least two common problems:

(*) They can be hard to open from the inside, particularly for children (a blessing) or the elderly (not a blessing) who do not necessarily have the strength in their fingers to push back the sliding spring-loaded lever.
(*) They can also be awkward to shut, especially if you don't give them a real slam - it is easy to get them to click past the first stop but not fully closed, so they are shut in as much as they won't swing open, but not properly shut fit for departure.

Either case means you need platform staff to help. So actually they don't seem a massive advantage, at least on heritage lines, over the old-fashioned "turn the handle to positively lock" ones we have on our LCDR coaches!

Tom