Why didn't we categorise DMUs built in the 1990s as "third generation"?

[Cricketer8for9]

I know this is a railway forum, not an English one, but any chance of not having apostrophes with plurals - Civity’s (sic) and VEP’s (sic) etc?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know this is a railway forum, not an English one, but any chance of not having apostrophes with plurals - Civity’s (sic) and VEP’s (sic) etc?

VEP's isn't technically wrong, because there are letters missing ("neumatic"). Civity's is, though, unless you're using it in the possessive.

 

[DustyBin]

I know this is a railway forum, not an English one, but any chance of not having apostrophes with plurals - Civity’s (sic) and VEP’s (sic) etc?

VEP’s is correct, or at least isn’t incorrect as it’s an acronym (technically I’m not sure if it’s an initialism like EPB, somebody from the Southern Region may know).

VEP's isn't technically wrong, because there are letters missing ("neumatic"). Civity's is, though, unless you're using it in the possessive.

There was me thinking we’d never agree on anything, ever!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Where do you put 373/4, 390, 22x and 80x (or any bi-mode)?
And various hybrids to come.
I think we are beyond "generations" now.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Though I think the convention is now for plurals of acronyms not to have apostrophes as a way of distinguishing between the VEPs were built in the 60s and 70s from the VEP’s or even VEPs’ door layout was old fashioned when they were built or as a proper elision apostrophe as in this VEP’s been preserved.

Anyway I’ve had my say and won’t get too upset.

 

[David Goddard]

We all have our own opinions, particularly as to whether "generations" are divided by age, technology or otherwise, and this is healthy debate.

Most seem to agree on "First Generation" being Mk1 and the few Mk2 derived units, all built by 1967 apart from the 312s which followed later.
"Second Generation" clearly began with the Pacers and PEPs, and would include any units of this period ordered by BR.

The well documented 1,064 day period between train orders at the time of privatisation really does mark the end of this period, and so the "Third Generation" began when the Class 168 order for Chiltern broke the famine and the next wave began in earnest, leading to the eradication of all remaining first gen types, including complete replacement of electric stock on the Southern Region. Whilst most of those classes were built within a seven year period, some types (particularly the Bombardier Turbostar and Electrostar designs) became the "gift that keeps on giving" with variants produced up to 2017.

We have now seen another step change with the designs, with new platforms from existing producers, and new builders presenting their products to the UK market. These are well and truly "Fourth Generation".

Based on this I have grouped the various classes of multiple units produced by BR and its successors as below.

 

[coppercapped]

We all have our own opinions, particularly as to whether "generations" are divided by age, technology or otherwise, and this is healthy debate.

Most seem to agree on "First Generation" being Mk1 and the few Mk2 derived units, all built by 1967 apart from the 312s which followed later.
"Second Generation" clearly began with the Pacers and PEPs, and would include any units of this period ordered by BR.

The well documented 1,064 day period between train orders at the time of privatisation really does mark the end of this period, and so the "Third Generation" began when the Class 168 order for Chiltern broke the famine and the next wave began in earnest, leading to the eradication of all remaining first gen types, including complete replacement of electric stock on the Southern Region. Whilst most of those classes were built within a seven year period, some types (particularly the Bombardier Turbostar and Electrostar designs) became the "gift that keeps on giving" with variants produced up to 2017.

We have now seen another step change with the designs, with new platforms from existing producers, and new builders presenting their products to the UK market. These are well and truly "Fourth Generation".

Based on this I have grouped the various classes of multiple units produced by BR and its successors as below.
View attachment 85037

A very nice table, thank you. One minor point as I'm not sure how I would classify them in such a table, but the Class 310 and 312 were built using a monocoque body structure based on that used in the Mark 2 coaches. At this distance of time I can't remember if the 311s also used a monocoque or whether they were built using a separate underframe and body like the BR Standard coach (the 'Mark 1'). However from the date point of view I agree with your classification.

However I do suggest that there should be an additional column to the left of '1st Generation' as the current layout suggests that history started with British Railways. Call it 'early developments' or similar.

The 'Big Four' built small series of diesel railcars and, for completeness, I think they should be included. I certainly remember travelling on one of the late model GWR railcars on several occasions between Newbury and Reading in the late 1950s, long before any of the Pressed Steel dmus appeared on the Paddington suburban services. This was one of the twin sets with, IIRC, a Hawksworth coach between the two power cars.

Details of the GWR railcar developments may be found here on the Great Western Archive website http://www.greatwestern.org.uk. More photographs may be found at http://www.pendragonpublishing.co.uk/Great_Western_Railcar.pdf which show them in British Railways' service. The last photograph in the series shows them as I remember them, as a schoolboy, in the 1950s.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Based on this I have grouped the various classes of multiple units produced by BR and its successors as below.

I agree with most of that, I'd just move the Networkers and 323s to 3rd Generation because they're borderline next-gen tech. But that's a personal preference. Also I hope I got the apostrophes correct this time.

 

[yorksrob]

We all have our own opinions, particularly as to whether "generations" are divided by age, technology or otherwise, and this is healthy debate.

Most seem to agree on "First Generation" being Mk1 and the few Mk2 derived units, all built by 1967 apart from the 312s which followed later.
"Second Generation" clearly began with the Pacers and PEPs, and would include any units of this period ordered by BR.

The well documented 1,064 day period between train orders at the time of privatisation really does mark the end of this period, and so the "Third Generation" began when the Class 168 order for Chiltern broke the famine and the next wave began in earnest, leading to the eradication of all remaining first gen types, including complete replacement of electric stock on the Southern Region. Whilst most of those classes were built within a seven year period, some types (particularly the Bombardier Turbostar and Electrostar designs) became the "gift that keeps on giving" with variants produced up to 2017.

We have now seen another step change with the designs, with new platforms from existing producers, and new builders presenting their products to the UK market. These are well and truly "Fourth Generation".

Based on this I have grouped the various classes of multiple units produced by BR and its successors as below.
View attachment 85037

I'm afraid that doesn't really work for the Southern Region as the first gen EMU's were the wooden bodied SUB's, PAN's, PUL's, COR's, BIL's etc.

 

[David Goddard]

One minor point as I'm not sure how I would classify them in such a table, but the Class 310 and 312 were built using a monocoque body structure based on that used in the Mark 2 coaches. At this distance of time I can't remember if the 311s also used a monocoque or whether they were built using a separate underframe and body like the BR Standard coach (the 'Mark 1'). However from the date point of view I agree with your classification.

Thanks for that, said in the text they were Mk2s, but forgot in the table. Duly updated.
311s were essentially a follow on of 303s (same diagrams) just built by a different supplier, so are Mk1.

However I do suggest that there should be an additional column to the left of '1st Generation' as the current layout suggests that history started with British Railways. Call it 'early developments' or similar.

I nearly did this (and had started to include the Cl401-405 Southern EMUs inherited by BR) but for fear of missing some out and to keep it simple I decided to keep it as BR only (hence included the lightweights and railcars).
I deduced from your username that you are a GW fan!

 

[coppercapped]

I deduced from your username that you are a GW fan!

As a 'War Baby' I pre-date BR by some years...!

I'm not sure that I would use the word 'fan'! I am an admirer of the way that the railway was built and developed, but equally there were some things that others did better. However the General Management of the railway from the the late 19th century onward showed a commercial and engineering nous which could see the business as a whole. It was not afraid of trying new things, shipping, bus connections, air travel, reductions in journey time (consider, for example, the money spent on the 'Badminton Route' to South Wales). The whole business was run from a small suite of offices at Paddington - an amazing concept for today!

At the time I started taking an interest in railways there were still some locomotives running around which had "Great Western" on the tenders or side-tanks. As a result I realise that history did not start with British Railways, nor indeed with the 'franchised' railway. This is not a criticism of others, but an acknowledgement that one is conditioned by the epoch in which one grew up.

The train 'generations' spoken about by many posters to this forum are a useful shorthand, but I fear the concept does tend to reinforce the point of view that BR was the 'true source' and the best way to run things. This can lead to some curious conclusions...!

 

[greyman42]

I always considered 1st generation DMU's to be the ones you could sit at the front and see out of.

 

[30907]

I'm afraid that doesn't really work for the Southern Region as the first gen EMU's were the wooden bodied SUB's, PAN's, PUL's, COR's, BIL's etc.

I'm afraid that doesn't really work for the Southern Region as the first gen EMU's were the wooden bodied SUB's, PAN's, PUL's, COR's, BIL's etc.

And of course the LNER and LMSR had their designs.
However, in terms of "first generation BR," EPBs onwards is a sensible compromise - even though it includes the "Bulleid EPB" designs which are not Mk1-based.
(Strictly it should also include the 4DDs as they were EP braked....)

 

[Bevan Price]

I don't really think the term "generations" can be sensibly applied to British EMUs. There has been a steady progression of building, development and replacement of emus since the early 1900s. And power-operated sliding doors date from the LMSR units of the late 1930s. On the Southern, many of the SUBs and some of the EPBs used bits of earlier units dating back to the 1920s or earlier, and there have been few periods longer than 4-5 years when no completely new units were built.

 

[dubscottie]

You need a strict set of criteria to put units in to generations.
For example while the 455s were built with Mk3 bodies and sliding doors, parts of them were secondhand. The traction motors on the early units were from the 405s and rumour has it that the MU jumpers were a copy (and some recovered from) the class 76 Woodhead locos! So does that make them 2nd or 3rd generation?

Are the some batches of BR built 4 or 2 EPBs 1st generation because they used underframes from the LSWR?

 

[yorksrob]

You need a strict set of criteria to put units in to generations.
For example while the 455s were built with Mk3 bodies and sliding doors, parts of them were secondhand. The traction motors on the early units were from the 405s and rumour has it that the MU jumpers were a copy (and some recovered from) the class 76 Woodhead locos! So does that make them 2nd or 3rd generation?

Are the some batches of BR built 4 or 2 EPBs 1st generation because they used underframes from the LSWR?

I'd say the generation should be defined by the build of the overall vehicle:

2EPB's - 2nd gen, in spite of having 1st gen underframes,

455's, Wessexes - 3rd gen, in spite of having 2nd gen motors etc

 

[pdeaves]

Wouldn't the 'generation' thing be determined by coupling compatibility (at least in BR days)?