Could additional Mk.4 carriages be produced?

[poshbakerloo]

I do like the MK4s but they are getting on now. There have been trains built in 2 batches before, several years apart. Like the old Mersey Rail trains, built first in the 1930s and again in the 50s...

 

[yorkie]

Could a similar approach be used on the ECML? E.g. 8 car cl 350s (2+2 seat) running a London - York stopper? Calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, York? And stop longer distance (e.g. Leeds, Newcastle or Edinburgh services) from stopping at those intermediate stations?

Not unless they were looped at, say, Retford.

Thanks for the thoughts. Didn't the 225 sets get shortened by one car each after Hatfield and/or Great Heck?

225 sets consist of 9 coaches and a DVT and this hasn't been reduced. I'm not sure what happened as a result of these incidents, I'd guess there is one set less and a few spare coaches.

 

[Aictos]

I wouldn't agree with taking Peterborough away as a EC stop as it offers connections with the other TOCs who call there ie Cross Country, East Midland Trains, FCC....

Compare that with Stevenage where it's only really offering connections with FCC who you can connect with at London or Peterborough anyway....

However, I wouldn't say no to 8 or 12 car 350/1s being used for services to Doncaster under the EC flag but saying that why not extend the Kings Cross to Doncaster proposal to Leeds then use the 91s on the main Angle - Scottish route.

With that being said, how does Kings Cross - Stevenage - Peterborough then all stations to Leeds sound to you guys?

As EC services between Stevenage and Peterborough could be better and this 350/1 proposal could do it.

 

[dk1]

I appreciate the IEP could eventually succeed the mk. 4s, but with most of my recent journeys on NXEC / EC being very crowded for substantial parts of the journey, and seemingly lots of life left in them yet, do Alstom still own the rights to the design, and are there are any technological hurdles to producing, for instance, a small batch that could add a single standard class carriage to each IC225 set?

The chances of a further MKIV are practically non-existent but that raises the whole question that now is not the right time to replace these train sets. They are perfect for the job, IEP is a waste. The only only reason i can see is if they were to replace another inter-city style route & all i can see is Euston-West Midlands & Liverpool St-Norwich maybe a contender but only really if they ever say slam door stock must go even with CDL.

 

[Helvellyn]

Thanks for the thoughts. Didn't the 225 sets get shortened by one car each after Hatfield and/or Great Heck?Not unless they were looped at, say, Retford.

225 sets consist of 9 coaches and a DVT and this hasn't been reduced. I'm not sure what happened as a result of these incidents, I'd guess there is one set less and a few spare coaches.

When built there were 30 sets (of eight carriages), and East Coast still has 30 sets (of nine carriages). When InterCity ordered the Mk 4s it ordered 34 Restaurant Firsts, even though there were only to be 30 sets. This was because two sets were formed as Super Pullman sets with an extra FO and two RFMs (at the expense of a TSO). Formations were thus: -

DVT-FO-FO-RFM-TSOD-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSOE or
DVT-FO-RFM-FO-FO-RFM-TSOD-TSO-TSO-TSOE


When the sets were extended from 8 coaches to 9 this was done though the insertion of a TSO in the majority of sets (125xx vehicles) or a FO (1127x vehicles) in a few others. At the same time the number of Pullman sets was increased, though the Super Pullman sets were disbanded meaning there were 4 spare RFMs. The extra vehicles were ordered under the same Lot Numbers, to be built after the 30 sets had been delivered and then increase formations from eight to nine coaches. Formations of sets were now: -

DVT-FO-FO-FO-RFM-TSOD-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSOE or
DVT-FO-FO-RFM-TSOD-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSOE


When the Mallard refurbishment took place GNER had two RFMs rebuilt as FOs. As a number of TSOs were also rebuilt as FOs, GNER had enough vehicles despite those written off at Hatfield and Great Heck to keep 30 sets in service. All sets also had an identical formation, this being: -

DVT-FO-FOD-FO-RSM-TSOD-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSOE

The FO next the DVT contained a smoking compartment, whilst the FO next to the RSM was for use as a Restaurant when full meal service was available.


This at least shows the plus side of the Mk 4 (and Mk 3) design in that a common bodyshell was built to allow vehicles to be reconfigured during their lifetime if required - just look at the number of TFs and TSs in HST sets that have been reconfigured over the years! Incidentially, FGW also had two redundant Kitchen Cars rebuilt as TFs to replace vehicles written off after Ladbroke Grove and Southall.

 

[yorksrob]

Building new Mk4s will never happen due to crashworthiness standards - which is probably just as well as they hardly shone at Hatfield.

A bit harsh I think. Obviously any death is one too many, however, looking at railway crashes through history and bearing in mind this one was at a relatively high speed, I hardly think the Mk 4's can be said to have performed badly.

 

[Helvellyn]

A bit harsh I think. Obviously any death is one too many, however, looking at railway crashes through history and bearing in mind this one was at a relatively high speed, I hardly think the Mk 4's can be said to have performed badly.

Indeed, at Hatfield the four people who unfortunately died were all in the RFM (Restuarant Buffet). This vehicle was the one that had its back broken when it hit one of the stanchions for the overhead wires.

The Mk 3 and Mk 4 designs have unfortunatley had several opportunities to demonstrate the strength of their integral design in accidents.

 

[Aictos]

Indeed, at Hatfield the four people who unfortunately died were all in the RFM (Restuarant Buffet). This vehicle was the one that had its back broken when it hit one of the stanchions for the overhead wires.

The Mk 3 and Mk 4 designs have unfortunatley had several opportunities to demonstrate the strength of their integral design in accidents.

Indeed, these stanchions are quite strong - in fact when two WAGN 313s (313061 and another 313) decide to go though the buffers at Hertford North sometime between 1997 and 1999, the only thing stopping the 313s from heading down the embankment was the fact that the stanchion stopped them.

It was featured in Rail or similar as one of my colleagues pointed it out to me.

 

[Snapper]

Indeed, at Hatfield the four people who unfortunately died were all in the RFM (Restuarant Buffet). This vehicle was the one that had its back broken when it hit one of the stanchions for the overhead wires.

The Mk 3 and Mk 4 designs have unfortunatley had several opportunities to demonstrate the strength of their integral design in accidents.

Only what they have demonstrated is the failings of the designs.

Mention is made of the mast as Hatfield. If the coach had been a stronger design the mast wouldn't have done the damage that it did. One only has to look at Grayrigg where a Pendolino did the same thing - yet the coaches remained intact.

The reality is that Mk3s and 4s are not as crashworthy as more modern vehicles. Things have moved on since they were designed, so the idea of building more is hardly sensible.

 

[asylumxl]

The reality is that Mk3s and 4s are not as crashworthy as more modern vehicles. Things have moved on since they were designed, so the idea of building more is hardly sensible.

Very true. Unfortunately alot of people on this forum would rather die than have a pillar obstruct their view.

 

[delt1c]

Stevenage may not offer connections, however it offers an aopportunity to travellers from the home counties to use ECML services without having to go into London. removal of this stop would in my mind be detrimental.

 

[ashworth]

However, I wouldn't say no to 8 or 12 car 350/1s being used for services to Doncaster under the EC flag but saying that why not extend the Kings Cross to Doncaster proposal to Leeds then use the 91s on the main Angle - Scottish route.

With that being said, how does Kings Cross - Stevenage - Peterborough then all stations to Leeds sound to you guys?

I know this has already been discussed in other threads but I will make the point again seeing as it has been raised.
An hourly service is really needed stopping at Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford and Doncaster.
If this was a local line Grantham, Newark and Retford would almost certainly have a regular service with reasonable Day Return Fares for local shopping trips etc. As it is the two Nottinghamshire towns of Newark and Retford have gaps of up to 5 hours or more without trains between the two. Also there is the rediculously high price of £17 for a return between Newark and Doncaster, which in many parts of the country would be considered a locl journey costing no more than £10 or even considerably less.

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

I think the comparison of Hatfield to Grayrigg a little unfair... Remember, on the Greyrigg section of the WCML the masts will have been a LOT smaller in their section, the masts alongside all 4 track sections of the ECML are heavy section as they are supporting headspans, not individual lines. Plus the fact that Hatfield happened on quite a tight curve and Greyrigg on very gentle curve. The pendo will also have just flattened the masts as it rolled over them. The Mk4s were in effect thrown into the stanchions at a slightly higher speed and at a far greater angle, so no wonder the stanchion stayed put and the coach split.

 

[RobShipway]

I know this has already been discussed in other threads but I will make the point again seeing as it has been raised.
An hourly service is really needed stopping at Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford and Doncaster.
If this was a local line Grantham, Newark and Retford would almost certainly have a regular service with reasonable Day Return Fares for local shopping trips etc. As it is the two Nottinghamshire towns of Newark and Retford have gaps of up to 5 hours or more without trains between the two. Also there is the rediculously high price of £17 for a return between Newark and Doncaster, which in many parts of the country would be considered a locl journey costing no more than £10 or even considerably less.

Is that £17 before or after 10am Weekdays?

 

[yorksrob]

Only what they have demonstrated is the failings of the designs.

I would agree with your post in so far as new stock should be built to the most modern crash-worthy design available. Afterall, it's only natural that as engineering progresses, more modern trains should be safer than old ones.

However, I would take issue with the above line which fails to acknowledge that in all of the accidents involving Mk 3's and 4's, these vehicles have largely behaved as intended i.e. retained their integrity and resulted in vastly fewer casualties than more traditional builds of train and probably any other mode of transport travelling at similar speeds would have (and probably most slower modes as well).

They have demonstrated time and again that they were extremely well designed.

 

[ashworth]

Is that £17 before or after 10am Weekdays?

The £17 is for an Anytime Day Return. There is nothing else cheaper off peak.

That's not completely true! You can get offpeak for only £10.90 by buying an Off peak Day Return to Sheffield from stations between Newark Castle and Nottingham such as Lowdham and Burton Joyce as these are surprisingly valid via Newark and Doncaster. Well they certainly are if you book them online.

 

[RobShipway]

Going back to the subject of building more MK4's as has been stated they have done what they were designed to do whenit comes to accidents and do still comply to modern day safety rules, it is just that newer stock has been built with more safety in mind than the MK3 or Mk4 coaches.

Remember also, that the MK3 coaches whefre designed in the 1970's and I believe that the MK4's where the late 1980's?

The MK3 coaches have done about 30 years service and the MK4 coaches about 20 years service, not bad considering that Touring coaches as used by the like of National Express will only be used for 8 - 12 years before they are retired.

 

[djw1981]

Very true. Unfortunately alot of people on this forum would rather die than have a pillar obstruct their view.

Given the low probability of death on the railway this is a pointless comment.

 

[MCR247]

So by that reasoning whats the point in seatbelts in a car or helmets when you go cycling??

 

[djw1981]

I don't wear a seatbelt when cycling., The risk of being knocked of your bike is by comparison with a rail crash, very high.

 

[MCR247]

I don't wear a seatbelt when cycling., The risk of being knocked of your bike is by comparison with a rail crash, very high.

Look, I've edited my post but I thought it was quite clear.

Happy now?

 

[Snapper]

I would agree with your post in so far as new stock should be built to the most modern crash-worthy design available. Afterall, it's only natural that as engineering progresses, more modern trains should be safer than old ones.

However, I would take issue with the above line which fails to acknowledge that in all of the accidents involving Mk 3's and 4's, these vehicles have largely behaved as intended i.e. retained their integrity and resulted in vastly fewer casualties than more traditional builds of train and probably any other mode of transport travelling at similar speeds would have (and probably most slower modes as well).

They have demonstrated time and again that they were extremely well designed.

Sorry, but I would take issue with that. The Mk4 at Hatfield showed the designs weaknesses - and the buffet car certainly didn't maintain its integrity. They are not bad designs, but they're not as good as they could be. More modern trains are better and safer due to newer standards and the lessons learned from the past.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm afraid I have to disagree.

I have not at any stage said that modern trains are not safer due to newer standards and lessons learned from the past. Indeed, my original post on this thread does not suggest that more Mk 4s are built. I have merely stated that the Mark 4's represented at the time they were built, a vast improvement in safety, and as such, can only be regarded as a resounding success in terms of design. The greatly reduced casualty figures in accidents involving Mk3's and Mk 4's over all previous types of train, and in all truth over most other forms of transport, are testament to this. I feel it is somewhat unfair on the designers of the time to suggest that they have instituted "design failings" merely because they did not have the benefit of an additional 20 - 30 years of experience and technological development.

 

[djw1981]

However, is safety the be all and end all?

a) Rail crashes are few and far between
b) Passengers state that the like larger windows
c) Bigger windows reduces the structural integrity of the train shell.
d) passengers reportedly (See passenger Focus reports) prefer lower backrests which allow them to see out the window.
e) taller seats restrain passengers better in an impact scenario

At what point do we strike the balance between safety and passenger comfort?

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, just as crash worthiness isn't the be-all and end-all of safety. You could conceivably have a road vehicle built to far greater crash worthyness standards than any rail vehicle. Yet because it will travel on uncontrolled roads amongst fast moving juggernaughts whereas the less crash worthy rail vehicle will travel on a controlled network, the less crash worthy rail vehicle will be safer.

 

[WillPS]

Random vaguely related question - are 158/159s based on Mk.3 or Mk.4 bodys?

 

[Snapper]

I have merely stated that the Mark 4's represented at the time they were built, a vast improvement in safety, and as such, can only be regarded as a resounding success in terms of design. The greatly reduced casualty figures in accidents involving Mk3's and Mk 4's over all previous types of train, and in all truth over most other forms of transport, are testament to this. I feel it is somewhat unfair on the designers of the time to suggest that they have instituted "design failings" merely because they did not have the benefit of an additional 20 - 30 years of experience and technological development.

How can a vehicle design which folded so badly at Hatfield be considered ' a resounding success'?

 

[starrymarkb]

Random vaguely related question - are 158/159s based on Mk.3 or Mk.4 bodys?

Neither... They are their own bespoke design (much like the 156 is a bespoke design that happens to use some of the Mk3 parts bin)

 

[Royston Vasey]

Random vaguely related question - are 158/159s based on Mk.3 or Mk.4 bodys?

Neither.

How can a vehicle design which folded so badly at Hatfield be considered ' a resounding success'?

The Mk 4 was a great step forward from the Mk 3. If you compare how badly the Mk 3s crumpled at Southall for instance, compared with the behaviour of the Mk 4s at Hatfield and Selby, the Mk 4 stands up remarkably well. No coach folded anywhere near that badly at Hatfield, and even the worst at Selby (the buffet) generally stayed in one piece despite the huge forces exerted on it. It still worries me that Mk 3s splinter as they do in accidents and yet remain in use in large numbers in this country.

 

[yorksrob]

How can a vehicle design which folded so badly at Hatfield be considered ' a resounding success'?

Very easily, in that they represented a vast improvement in what went before and have by their very existance increased safety on the railway. You are, I am afraid, very much mistaken if you think that high speed travel can ever be achieved risk free - short of having a very heavy armour plated windowless tube (which I'm sure would carry it's own risks) and which I believe most passengers would feel was a step too far.