Centre doors on Mark 1s

[Wilts Wanderer]

In recent years there’s been a tendency for owners of preserved Mark 1 TSO vehicles to seal and/or physically remove the centre passenger doors located mid-way along the saloon. This was first seen among main line registered vehicles but more recently some heritage lines have started doing it as well, notably NYMR.

What is the reason for doing this, and why have Mark 2A TSOs not been similarly modified as the arrangement is very similar? It changes the appearance of the vehicles quite noticeably and some would say actually spoils the ‘feel’ of what is an important heritage item.

 

[JonathanH]

On the mainline registered coaches, the (former) doorway is typically used as a useful storage / coach servicing area.

More generally, the centre doors are just a maintenance liability and another thing to keep working.

There is also the stewarding and bolt issue on mainline stock.

Carriage 4998 with Riviera has the centre door removed and a plain bodyside at that location.

 

[XAM2175]

Additionally, the centre doors will have an even-larger gap than the end doors when calling at curved platforms.

 

[StephenHunter]

Locking the centre doors out of use would be better aesthetically then removing them entirely, IMHO.

 

[ffm]

The reason for locking out of use is the larger gap on curved platforms and by doing this the potential issues on such platforms is removed

 

[4SubAsociation]

Remembering i saw somewhere on the internet that in BR Service there was some BR Mk1s without the centre door. Example E3712 below (source - http://eastbank.org.uk/br_coaches.htm)

 

[Taunton]

Additionally, the centre doors will have an even-larger gap than the end doors when calling at curved platforms.

Depends which way the curve is. If it's a left hand curve the centre door will be closer to the platform than the end doors.

 

[Gloster]

Remembering i saw somewhere on the internet that in BR Service there was some BR Mk1s without the centre door. Example E3712 below (source - http://eastbank.org.uk/br_coaches.htm)

A quick and not fully checked comment as many of my books are packed for moving. It looks as though TSO 3700-3720 and RSO 1000-1013 were built without centre doors. Concern about long station dwell times seems to have been the main reason for the change. (Source: Keith Parkin’s HMRS book on Mark 1 Coaches.)

 

[Spartacus]

I must admit I've seen it become increasingly common over the last 20 years, even on lines where there's no platform curves to speak of. Doesn't half cause problems with dwell times on busy days like galas when people are funnelled through 2 doors instead of 3, when the time getting people on and off is a bigger issue than potentially closing an extra set of doors, especially as people will try those middle doors only to find them locked.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I must admit I've seen it become increasingly common over the last 20 years, even on lines where there's no platform curves to speak of. Doesn't half cause problems with dwell times on busy days like galas when people are funnelled through 2 doors instead of 3, when the time getting people on and off is a bigger issue than potentially closing an extra set of doors, especially as people will try those middle doors only to find them locked.

Do dwells really matter on a preserved line where more time spent on the train is a positive?

 

[Spartacus]

Do dwells really matter on a preserved line where more time spent on the train is a positive?

On gala days it usually does as most are single line with passing loops. When they have intense gala timetables there's rarely any room for late running, and a few minutes here and there on more trains than not quickly multiplies.

 

[43096]

On gala days it usually does as most are single line with passing loops. When they have intense gala timetables there's rarely any room for late running, and a few minutes here and there on more trains than not quickly multiplies.

In which case the timetable needs looking at so that it matches the characteristics of the stock used, including loading/unloading times.

 

[30907]

On gala days it usually does as most are single line with passing loops. When they have intense gala timetables there's rarely any room for late running, and a few minutes here and there on more trains than not quickly multiplies.

I can't say that swift boarding/alighting is a feature of the line I work on - but curved platforms are! Any operator should plan a timetable that is workable with the stock they have, surely?

Re: NYMR - not been there for a while, but presumably all their stock is certified for Whitby so has to run to mainline standards?

 

[Spartacus]

In which case the timetable needs looking at so that it matches the characteristics of the stock used, including loading/unloading times.

You'd think that, but what tends to happen is lines try and work on the basis that a normal day, often clock face timetable, will work when you run the line at or near full capacity with added passengers. It probably does work on paper, but if you're running a line at or near full capacity one delay will inevitably lead to a domino effect. That's true for all lines, single, double, preserved or mainline, but on single lines it's more pronounced and harder to recover. It's caused plenty of gala timetables to turn to fiction rather quicker than one might hope, even with apparently nothing going wrong, just as it did the TPE North timetable a few years ago.

How much that's down to loading times being affected by the 3rd door being locked is open to conjecture, but I can't imagine it helping. I've been to galas where the timetable falls to pieces due to nothing more than trains taking longer at stations. It could even be worth them being locked normally but being unlocked for galas, where local situations make it appropriate.

Either way, I'd certainly make it clear when the centre doors are going to be locked. I've done it myself, and seen others, try them a few times when they've been locked simply because they average preserved Mk1 or earlier door can sometimes be reluctant to open at the best of times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On gala days it usually does as most are single line with passing loops. When they have intense gala timetables there's rarely any room for late running, and a few minutes here and there on more trains than not quickly multiplies.

So you change the timetable to deal with the expected dwells. It's not exactly unpredictable, and unlike the mainline where you have unworkable timetables that are contractually required (see Castlefield) there is no motivation for the railway to operate too much as not only does it cause delay and annoy people but it also costs more!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2021 ==

You'd think that, but what tends to happen is lines try and work on the basis that a normal day, often clock face timetable, will work when you run the line at or near full capacity with added passengers.

Well, more fool them!

Either way, I'd certainly make it clear when the centre doors are going to be locked. I've done it myself, and seen others, try them a few times when they've been locked simply because they average preserved Mk1 or earlier door can sometimes be reluctant to open at the best of times.

A red "door not in use" sign stuck to the window glass (and a strategic screw placed so the window won't open) would appear to be a very obvious fix. Yes, some people don't pay attention, but you will never fix stupid.

 

[bramling]

Do dwells really matter on a preserved line where more time spent on the train is a positive?

Absolutely it does.

Say you've planned your day to have an hour at a location, your train gets there late and now you haven't got an hour there, as there's no way of knowing if your next train is going to be on time or similarly late.

This is a major bugbear of mine, especially where the delay has simply been down to sloppy working. Some railways are very good at attempting to keep to time, others take the "it doesn't matter" view. I was particularly unhappy at one railway where we'd planned a walk at the terminus, and where there would have been ample time had the railway not chosen to wait 25 minutes for a late-running coach party -- we didn't make that mistake again, and car it was next time.

That said, I'd tend to agree with the views expressed here that railways should plan sufficient time in the schedules. I get the feeling most do, but some then mess it up by running late all day which then makes dwell times more of an issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely it does.

Say you've planned your day to have an hour at a location, your train gets there late and now you haven't got an hour there, as there's no way of knowing if your next train is going to be on time or similarly late.

Ah, sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant was that there is no reason the railway can't plan for a suitable dwell in the timetable because they have none of the pressures of the "real" railway.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Without wishing to sound like "that guy", the centre doors never seemed to be a major problem in the later years of CIGs on the South Western. ***where's the tinfoil hat smiley?***

 

[yorksrob]

Without wishing to sound like "that guy", the centre doors never seemed to be a major problem in the later years of CIGs on the South Western. ***where's the tinfoil hat smiley?***

I would imagine taking two doors out of each carriage would have produced far more aggro on a peak service into Victoria than whatever "problem" removing them would have avoided.

 

[Taunton]

On gala days it usually does as most are single line with passing loops. When they have intense gala timetables there's rarely any room for late running, and a few minutes here and there on more trains than not quickly multiplies.

Passing loop stations rarely have much traffic on heritage lines, which is typically end-to-end, where turnround is not impacted by less doors. They are not the London Underground.

 

[30907]

Passing loop stations rarely have much traffic on heritage lines, which is typically end-to-end, where turnround is not impacted by less doors. They are not the London Underground.

I agree in general but try Haworth - not a passing loop, but with large numbers joining and leaving. I imagine Corfe Castle is similar, and Goathland among others.

I'm not convinced it is a major timekeeping issue, though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree in general but try Haworth - not a passing loop, but with large numbers joining and leaving. I imagine Corfe Castle is similar, and Goathland among others.

I'm not convinced it is a major timekeeping issue, though.

Even if it was you just timetable accordingly. Preserved lines have none of the pressures the mainline has in this regard. There is no reason whatsoever to sell unrealistic timetables on preserved lines, and plenty of scope to vary the timetable for events.

 

[LowLevel]

Absolutely it does.

Say you've planned your day to have an hour at a location, your train gets there late and now you haven't got an hour there, as there's no way of knowing if your next train is going to be on time or similarly late.

This is a major bugbear of mine, especially where the delay has simply been down to sloppy working. Some railways are very good at attempting to keep to time, others take the "it doesn't matter" view. I was particularly unhappy at one railway where we'd planned a walk at the terminus, and where there would have been ample time had the railway not chosen to wait 25 minutes for a late-running coach party -- we didn't make that mistake again, and car it was next time.

That said, I'd tend to agree with the views expressed here that railways should plan sufficient time in the schedules. I get the feeling most do, but some then mess it up by running late all day which then makes dwell times more of an issue.

To be fair most people might be a bit annoyed about waiting 25 minutes for a coach party but wouldn't necessarily do more than grumble about it.

If however the coach company is providing a regular coach load or more of passengers for the railway (perhaps even several times a week) then it is in their interest to keep them on side - they will make more money out of the coach company than a few individuals or small parties here and there visiting once a year. If the railway doesn't work sustainably in the coach trip itenary it could be removed.

I volunteer as a duty manager/controller on a preserved line and I often authorise delays to services to wait for booked parties because they're prime repeat business, especially on things like dining car services. I keep it to 5-10 minutes though at most depending on if we've had contact from them to say they're late.

 

[30907]

To be fair most people might be a bit annoyed about waiting 25 minutes for a coach party but wouldn't necessarily do more than grumble about it.

If however the coach company is providing a regular coach load or more of passengers for the railway (perhaps even several times a week) then it is in their interest to keep them on side - they will make more money out of the coach company than a few individuals or small parties here and there visiting once a year. If the railway doesn't work sustainably in the coach trip itenary it could be removed.

I volunteer as a duty manager/controller on a preserved line and I often authorise delays to services to wait for booked parties because they're prime repeat business, especially on things like dining car services. I keep it to 5-10 minutes though at most depending on if we've had contact from them to say they're late.

We've had this issue before, presumably originally relating to the same incident - it comes up part way through this thread.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rs-to-preserved-railways.216578/#post-5099373

 

[xotGD]

I don't mind the door being locked out of use as long as the droplight is still functional.

 

[Bevan Price]

In my numerous visits to gala events on heritage railways, "coach doors" have never been much of a problem. The worst causes of delays seem to have been.
1. Taking too much time to raise steam for the first train(s).
2. Sticking "demonstration goods" trains into an already crowded timetable.
3. Trying to run too many trains with insufficient allowance times for reversals / running round the trains / taking water.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It’s interesting the discussion has generally explored the performance implications of having fewer doors, my main thinking was more around the aesthetics of having a blank steel panel where a door should normally be on a heritage vehicle!

 

[yorksrob]

It’s interesting the discussion has generally explored the performance implications of having fewer doors, my main thinking was more around the aesthetics of having a blank steel panel where a door should normally be on a heritage vehicle!

Could work if you wanted to recreate the ambience of a de-icing unit !

 

[peteb]

Remembering i saw somewhere on the internet that in BR Service there was some BR Mk1s without the centre door. Example E3712 below (source - http://eastbank.org.uk/br_coaches.htm)

I recall some MK 1 FO stock also had no centre doors and with only 7 windows spread out along each carriage side, same as a MK 1 FK?

Have to agree I would prefer doors to be welded closed and droplights remain rather than welded a sheet over the doorway as this does harm the aesthetics.

 

[Gloster]

I recall some MK 1 FO stock also had no centre doors and with only 7 windows spread out along each carriage side, same as a MK 1 FK?

It looks as though only 3000-3002 had no centre doors. Corridor Firsts 13000-13219, 13223-13251 and 13253-13360 had no centre doors on the compartment side, but one on the corridor side. (Source as #8.)