304s/310s & 312s

[Merle Haggard]

I would question that the MBS of the Liverpool sets (016-035) had compartments. They had the wider windows between the doors, which are incompatible with a compartment arrangement. They also retained the original type seats, unlike sets 001-015 which had new seats (from memory, the suburban version of the IC70) installed when the compartments were removed in the early/mid-1980s.

What I referred to as the "Liverpool' sets were 001-015. which explains the confusion. The ABCs from days when AM4s were still as-built gives the MBS as 96 seats ih the first 15 sets (001-015) 8 bays so they must have been compartments (6 a side), rest 7 bays open (6 seats at 2 ends, 2+3 intermediately, 72 seats) . The diagram shows compartments for 001-015, as well.

What's curious is the Driving Trailer Open Second (i.e., the driving car without the brake) had pairs of windows between the doors - as appears on full compartment stock. All the Motor Brake Second had these individual windows, too - even though 016 & up were open. The trailer composite, which was open in the second class but compartments in the first, had the long single windows between the doors in second, but obviously pairs of windows on the compartment side in the first. The first section had a side corridor to the toilet, but I think that was twin windows between exterior doors, too, not sure - the diagram only shows the first compt side. But the Driving Trailer Open Second Brake had the long single windows, as you describe, between doors. 'Confused? ... you will be! (Soap)

This is all based on diagrams & abc as listed; I can remember the two different styles from the time but have only just analysed it for my own understanding. All this is referring to them in as built condition, my use of them declined a bit after August 1968 I had previously though that the early ones were all-compartment, the later ones all-open, not as simple as that.

Incidentally, the ABC 'details checked on LMR to Nov 2nd 1963' had the note for the AM4s 'some units temporarily running on the G.E.', which seems very late, but possibly IA just repeated previous year's comments. The asme ABC referred to them as 'Western Lines Four-Car Units; presumably AM4 code was later.

 

[43096]

What I referred to as the "Liverpool' sets were 001-015. which explains the confusion. The ABCs from days when AM4s were still as-built gives the MBS as 96 seats ih the first 15 sets (001-015) 8 bays so they must have been compartments (6 a side), rest 7 bays open (6 seats at 2 ends, 2+3 intermediately, 72 seats) . The diagram shows compartments for 001-015, as well.

The Liverpool sets were 016-035. 001-015 were ordered as "Manchester" sets (and Longsight based) for the first phase of electrification from Manchester to Crewe. No idea why you would refer to them as Liverpool sets!

 

[jfollows]

001-015 were the only units with compartment, indeed, I remember well knowing to avoid the compartments if possible and knowing they were there by unit number.
The MBS coach containing them was converted to open seating when the units were converted to three-coach units in the 1980s. 016 upwards had a MBSO instead.

 

[Helvellyn]

Always thought it odd the 304s never got a refurbishment in the way 30 of the 302s, the four-car 305s, 307s or 308s did (even if just fluorescent lighting and gangway within units).

 

[Springs Branch]

My 1974-vintage Combined Volume shows the following sub-classifications for Class 304:

• AM4/1: 001 - 015
• AM4/2: 016 - 035
• AM4/3: 036 - 045

The /2 & /3 batches were noted as having a "Non-Driving Motor Brake Open Second" (AM4/1 units omitted the Open)

I don't think these sub-classes ever carried through to TOPS numbers, but may have indicated build batches associated with three phases of the WCML electrification scheme i.e. Manchester-Crewe (/1), Liverpool-Crewe (/2) and West Midlands (/3).

What's curious is the Driving Trailer Open Second (i.e., the driving car without the brake) had pairs of windows between the doors - as appears on full compartment stock. All the Motor Brake Second had these individual windows, too - even though 016 & up were open.

I read somewhere that some of the 304s (presumably the earliest batches) had the pair of smaller windows fitted in the open saloons, even though this wasn't ideal for that configuration, simply to maintain a consistent exterior appearance of the train.

001-015 were the only units with compartment, indeed, I remember well knowing to avoid them if possible and knowing they were there by unit number.
The MBS coach containing them was converted to open seating when the units were converted to three-coach units in the 1980s. 016 upwards had a MBSO instead.

In the mid-1970s, after the conversion of the Altrincham Line to AC, I seem to recall from casual observation that 'compartment' units 001-015 tended to be used on the Altrincham-Piccadilly-Styal-Alderley Edge services, while the slightly newer 'wider window' units (016 onwards) seemed to be deployed on Alt-Picc-Stockport-Ald. Edge / Crewe trains, and on the Macclesfield / Stoke / Staffords.

The TCsoL was the second or third coach in a set of 4, first class wasn’t in the driving trailer. I think I had a ticket allowing me to use it once before the coach was removed in the mid-80s to turn the units into 3-car sets.

I used the 304's First Class a few times as part of business trips before the units were downgraded to 3-cars. Usually between Crewe & Runcorn or Crewe & Alderley Edge / Wilmslow (connecting to/from Inter-City trains). The compartments were mercilessly vandalised towards the end, and it was actually a less unpleasant experience to travel in the adjacent Second Class open saloon than in a First compartment, especially late in the evening.

 

[jfollows]

In the mid-1970s, after the conversion of the Altrincham Line to AC, I seem to recall from casual observation that 'compartment' units 001-015 tended to be used on the Altrincham-Piccadilly-Styal-Alderley Edge services, while the slightly newer 'wider window' units (016 onwards) seemed to be deployed on Alt-Picc-Stockport-Ald. Edge / Crewe trains, and on the Macclesfield / Stoke / Staffords.

Certainly possible; I used the Macclesfield line exclusively in the 1970s and didn't see 001-015 all that often for sure.

 

[Bikeman78]

Particularly noticeable when travelling on AM4s on the up slow between Piccadilly and Stockport, the vertical movement was very large and seemed to be enhanced by jointed track (which possibly had dipped joints). It seemed that there were harmonic frequencies between the various parts of the suspension - even the soft seat cushions seemed to have a re-inforcing frequency - and the timing of rail joints - I certainly remember lifting above the cushion, the vertical movement increased over time at constant-ish speed. Perhaps the others did not 'cruise' at exactly the right speed for rail joints to have this effect, the AM4s were slow (???40 - 50) along there.

The subject of suspension is interesting. I didn't do enough runs on the 304s to comment. You mentioning the harmonic frequency reminds me of 455s on jointed track. At 40 to 50 mph they would bounce up and down such that they would hit the bottom of the suspension with a loud bang at every joint. An impressive design fail. The 507s and 508s ride far better in my experience.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The subject of suspension is interesting. I didn't do enough runs on the 304s to comment. You mentioning the harmonic frequency reminds me of 455s on jointed track. At 40 to 50 mph they would bounce up and down such that they would hit the bottom of the suspension with a loud bang at every joint. An impressive design fail. The 507s and 508s ride far better in my experience.

I certainly found in the situation I mentioned that the amplitude of the vertical bounce increased with each railjoint when the speed was constant (and which must have been critical) - up to a certain limit.

Although it sounds like a design fail I thought that it was amazing that the harmonic frequency of all the individual springs between wheel rail and cushion/passenger all re-inforced each other and increased the amplitude of movement (presumably frequencies different by a factor of a whole number rather than all uniform frequency, sort of idea).

 

[D7666]

What's curious is the Driving Trailer Open Second (i.e., the driving car without the brake) had pairs of windows between the doors - as appears on full compartment stock.

Again I think that needs to be put in context of incremental general changes.

If you compare AM4 with other contemporary new EMU, up until about then almost every (I am tempted to put every but no doubt someone will find one different) EMU had small window pairs whether compos or opens - look at SR EPB and Hap for example*** and AM2 had one (or more ?) open when new but the two window layout (as did the older AM7 as built). It is not so much curious but more the batches were almost certainly not ordered on the same day, and the change made in between.

It is rather like the EMU front - AM2 got the near-SR type slab end (again as did the older AM7) but then a design change AM4/5/8 got the sloping ends ............ contemporary AM3 don't count here on cab ends just as they don't count here on windows.

SR it was only 1966 before they went to the large window layout, but there was a gap between last EPB and last Hap before first Vep.

*** and SR DEMU 3H, 3R etc (where DMMU has large windows)

 

[AM9]

Again I think that needs to be put in context of incremental general changes.

If you compare AM4 with other contemporary new EMU, up until about then almost every (I am tempted to put every but no doubt someone will find one different) EMU had small window pairs whether compos or opens - look at SR EPB and Hap for example*** and AM2 had one (or more ?) open when new but the two window layout (as did the older AM7 as built). It is not so much curious but more the batches were almost certainly not ordered on the same day, and the change made in between.

It is rather like the EMU front - AM2 got the near-SR type slab end (again as did the older AM7) but then a design change AM4/5/8 got the sloping ends ............ contemporary AM3 don't count here on cab ends just as they don't count here on windows.

SR it was only 1966 before they went to the large window layout, but there was a gap between last EPB and last Hap before first Vep.

*** and SR DEMU 3H, 3R etc (where DMMU has large windows)

The window detail was related to the provision of luggage racks,- '2 window' bodies were fitted out as semi-open cars with luggage hoppers along the length of 2+3 back to back seats. Cars with single double-width windows between doors had lower back seats with longitudonal racks fixed to the sidewalls of the shell resulting in a much more open environment inside similar to that of the sliding door classes e.g. 303, 306 & 311. Until the PEP designs, the SR had outer-suburban slam door stock with full 6 per side compartments or 2+3 semi-open saloons uniquely with string basket instead of aluminium bars in the racks.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The window detail was related to the provision of luggage racks,- '2 window' bodies were fitted out as semi-open cars with luggage hoppers along the length of 2+3 back to back seats. Cars with single double-width windows between doors had lower back seats with longitudonal racks fixed to the sidewalls of the shell resulting in a much more open environment inside similar to that of the sliding door classes e.g. 303, 306 & 311. Until the PEP designs, the SR had outer-suburban slam door stock with full 6 per side compartments or 2+3 semi-open saloons uniquely with string basket instead of aluminium bars in the racks.

You have nailed it. The AM10s reverted to two individual windows (in the bays with external doors) and I suggest that the reason was that they had high back seats. Logic applies.

Also explains why the TCs in AM4s had a mix of pairs of windows and long singles.

Another long-standing conundrum solved on the web.

 

[Sun Chariot]

The window detail was related to the provision of luggage racks,- '2 window' bodies were fitted out as semi-open cars with luggage hoppers along the length of 2+3 back to back seats. Cars with single double-width windows between doors had lower back seats with longitudonal racks fixed to the sidewalls of the shell resulting in a much more open environment inside similar to that of the sliding door classes e.g. 303, 306 & 311. Until the PEP designs, the SR had outer-suburban slam door stock with full 6 per side compartments or 2+3 semi-open saloons uniquely with string basket instead of aluminium bars in the racks.

The 423 4-VEPs I used in the 1980s and early 1990s, had the transverse aluminium luggage "hoppers" between the saloon seat-backs (3+2) and 2nd class bodysides were single larger window between passenger saloon entrance/exit.doors.

I can also attest to the strength of the old compartment-wall mounted "net" racks. 5001 was tested (well, climbed into) by 6' 6" me, on the 'Emerald Water Witch' tour.

 

[Taunton]

The upside of the "net" transverse luggage racks (which we called "knotted string") was you could readily see the smallest items in there. They must indeed have been strong, as I don't ever remember seeing a broken one. Possibly some structures engineer at Eastleigh spent a day doing stress calculations on them.

 

[nw1]

Bit tangential but returning to the "Cobblers" particularly circa 1982-86 or so (immediate pre-sectorisation period), what was their haulage?

Were they hauled by the same pool of 86/2s that did many of the WCML IC services? I take it 87s wouldn't have been diagrammed.

85s seemed to stick mostly to XC services from Coventry/Birmingham northwards, can't recall an 85 on a Euston IC at that time, so one might presume not 85s either.

 

[AM9]

The upside of the "net" transverse luggage racks (which we called "knotted string") was you could readily see the smallest items in there. They must indeed have been strong, as I don't ever remember seeing a broken one. Possibly some structures engineer at Eastleigh spent a day doing stress calculations on them.

Oh yes they were strong, - but the smallest items sometimes fell through or in the case of brollies, the (hooked) handle slipped through making fast retrieval at the destination difficult for some.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Bit tangential but returning to the "Cobblers" particularly circa 1982-86 or so (immediate pre-sectorisation period), what was their haulage?

Were they hauled by the same pool of 86/2s that did many of the WCML IC services? I take it 87s wouldn't have been diagrammed.

85s seemed to stick mostly to XC services from Coventry/Birmingham northwards, can't recall an 85 on a Euston IC at that time, so one might presume not 85s either.

My memory is mainly 86/2s with the occasional 85 thrown in. Don't think I ever saw an 87 on them

But apropos the Cobblers - were the coaching sets the same ones used for the Cambrian Coast summer Saturday trains?

 

[jfollows]

Bit tangential but returning to the "Cobblers" particularly circa 1982-86 or so (immediate pre-sectorisation period), what was their haulage?

Were they hauled by the same pool of 86/2s that did many of the WCML IC services? I take it 87s wouldn't have been diagrammed.

85s seemed to stick mostly to XC services from Coventry/Birmingham northwards, can't recall an 85 on a Euston IC at that time, so one might presume not 85s either.

At one point, for example 1B06 17:27 Euston-Northampton 1976-77, the working timetable included a column note "May convey 455 tonnes 81-85" which meant that their timing load was E455 but that would normally limit them to 315 tonnes with an 81-85 locomotive. It didn't mean that they were hauled by 81-85 locomotives, simply that they could be. They were also vacuum-braked stock which would preclude use of an 87 completely.

83-84, for example, they were 100mph VB stock, E455, but no longer with the column note. See 1B06 timetable, attached. And 1B07, for that matter. Lack of "AIR" meant vacuum-braked, meant impossible to be hauled by 87s which are air-braked only.

 

[AM9]

The 423 4-VEPs I used in the 1980s and early 1990s, had the transverse aluminium luggage "hoppers" between the saloon seat-backs (3+2) and 2nd class bodysides were single larger window between passenger saloon entrance/exit.doors.

I can also attest to the strength of the old compartment-wall mounted "net" racks. 5001 was tested (well, climbed into) by 6' 6" me, on the 'Emerald Water Witch' tour.

In the '60s and early '70s, my outer suburban experience was on GEML trains with occasional metro/suburban forays on SR, (hence the comments about string baskets instead of aluminium toast racks.). In the '70s, most of my SR runs were in BIG/CIG units on the Portsmouth direct with normal MK1 sides and longitudinal luggage stowage. Not using the '83 service, I didn't have the misfortune of VEPs

 

[Helvellyn]

You have nailed it. The AM10s reverted to two individual windows (in the bays with external doors) and I suggest that the reason was that they had high back seats. Logic applies.

Also explains why the TCs in AM4s had a mix of pairs of windows and long singles.

Another long-standing conundrum solved on the web.

It's not that the second and third batch of 304s had low backed seats, just not the luggage racks as described. You can see the high backed seats through the wide windows in the image below. The batch 1 units might have had higher back seats again to support the luggage racks.

https://directoryproductimages.blob.core.windows.net/subcategories/3145057.jpg

 

[Merle Haggard]

At one point, for example 1B06 17:27 Euston-Northampton 1976-77, the working timetable included a column note "May convey 455 tonnes 81-85" which meant that their timing load was E455 but that would normally limit them to 315 tonnes with an 81-85 locomotive. It didn't mean that they were hauled by 81-85 locomotives, simply that they could be. They were also vacuum-braked stock which would preclude use of an 87 completely.

83-84, for example, they were 100mph VB stock, E455, but no longer with the column note. See 1B06 timetable, attached. And 1B07, for that matter. Lack of "AIR" meant vacuum-braked, meant impossible to be hauled by 87s which are air-braked only.

The first 'Cobbler' train was introduced in 1974 after the Northampton Development Corporation met Peter Parker to try to improve the poor rail service to Euston , and the chairman gave the edict to the London Division to introduce a single 'fast' train each way. Perhaps because then it was the operators that decided what ran, they seemed to try to show that it was very difficult - the path was very odd, and to prove that it was stretching resources, the up and down trains were diagrammed for '82-4' - note that the other group was 81 & 85, it didn't even merit the allocation of one of them

And I can assure you that's was happened. One example evening we left Euston behind an 84 which got as far as Willesden before expiring. Another loco came off the D.E.D.; what was it? well, another 84, which was attached in front of the dead loco. This combination struggled to climb to Tring summit, but then the assistance of gravity enabled them to coast to Bletchley when they threw in the towel. I'm not sure whether it was an 84 or one of the other classes, but one dark winter evening the loco had what was described in the log as 'serious earth fault'. We were in the Willesden area and briefly, North London was lit up by an eerie blue light simultaneous with a loud 'bang' from the front. and that was that for a few hours... We got used to the early symptoms of loco failure when the 'roar' became intermittent and then ceased altogether as speed dropped

The trains did 'graduate' to 81/85 haulage later. Quite near the end, with the morning air cond. Oxley set, apparently all the power controller could find was a Freughtliner 86/5, 75 max and no eth.

It was always entertaining going home on a Cobbler provided you hadn't any life plans for the evening. The latest I've arrived at Northampton - on the 17.45 - was about 01.30.

 

[Helvellyn]

Ccontrast th

The first 'Cobbler' train was introduced in 1974 after the Northampton Development Corporation met Peter Parker to try to improve the poor rail service to Euston , and the chairman gave the edict to the London Division to introduce a single 'fast' train each way. Perhaps because then it was the operators that decided what ran, they seemed to try to show that it was very difficult - the path was very odd, and to prove that it was stretching resources, the up and down trains were diagrammed for '82-4' - note that the other group was 81 & 85, it didn't even merit the allocation of one of them

And I can assure you that's was happened. One example evening we left Euston behind an 84 which got as far as Willesden before expiring. Another loco came off the D.E.D.; what was it? well, another 84, which was attached in front of the dead loco. This combination struggled to climb to Tring summit, but then the assistance of gravity enabled them to coast to Bletchley when they threw in the towel. I'm not sure whether it was an 84 or one of the other classes, but one dark winter evening the loco had what was described in the log as 'serious earth fault'. We were in the Willesden area and briefly, North London was lit up by an eerie blue light simultaneous with a loud 'bang' from the front. and that was that for a few hours... We got used to the early symptoms of loco failure when the 'roar' became intermittent and then ceased altogether as speed dropped

The trains did 'graduate' to 81/85 haulage later. Quite near the end, with the morning air cond. Oxley set, apparently all the power controller could find was a Freughtliner 86/5, 75 max and no eth.

It was always entertaining going home on a Cobbler provided you hadn't any life plans for the evening. The latest I've arrived at Northampton - on the 17.45 - was about 01.30.

Contrast that with the late 1980s where Network SouthEast was able to provide late build Mark 1s that were facelifted and gained NSE colours. Haulage might have been a mix of types still, but I think BR was stretched before the Class 90s came on stream.

 

[nw1]

My memory is mainly 86/2s with the occasional 85 thrown in. Don't think I ever saw an 87 on them

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

At one point, for example 1B06 17:27 Euston-Northampton 1976-77, the working timetable included a column note "May convey 455 tonnes 81-85" which meant that their timing load was E455 but that would normally limit them to 315 tonnes with an 81-85 locomotive. It didn't mean that they were hauled by 81-85 locomotives, simply that they could be. They were also vacuum-braked stock which would preclude use of an 87 completely.

83-84, for example, they were 100mph VB stock, E455, but no longer with the column note. See 1B06 timetable, attached. And 1B07, for that matter. Lack of "AIR" meant vacuum-braked, meant impossible to be hauled by 87s which are air-braked only.

Ah, ok - thanks.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

In the '60s and early '70s, my outer suburban experience was on GEML trains with occasional metro/suburban forays on SR, (hence the comments about string baskets instead of aluminium toast racks.). In the '70s, most of my SR runs were in BIG/CIG units on the Portsmouth direct with normal MK1 sides and longitudinal luggage stowage. Not using the '83 service, I didn't have the misfortune of VEPs

VEPs did exist in the early and mid-70s on the Portsmouth Direct (according to info shared on here: I didn't start using the line until 1982) but only on the stopping trains with 73 headcode (all stations beyond Surbiton, looped at Guildford) and some peak faster services. Both fast/semi-fasts per hour were operated by CIG/BIG combos, as you observe.

By the 80s (in fact by 1977) one of the semi-fasts had become the headcode '82' service which called at most stations beyond Guildford, and was mixed CIG and VEP. The '82's were Woking only before Guildford, though, so were not overly-slow and thus would have presumably seen some through passengers from London to the Portsmouth area.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

The first 'Cobbler' train was introduced in 1974 after the Northampton Development Corporation met Peter Parker to try to improve the poor rail service to Euston , and the chairman gave the edict to the London Division to introduce a single 'fast' train each way. Perhaps because then it was the operators that decided what ran, they seemed to try to show that it was very difficult - the path was very odd, and to prove that it was stretching resources, the up and down trains were diagrammed for '82-4' - note that the other group was 81 & 85, it didn't even merit the allocation of one of them

And I can assure you that's was happened. One example evening we left Euston behind an 84 which got as far as Willesden before expiring. Another loco came off the D.E.D.; what was it? well, another 84, which was attached in front of the dead loco. This combination struggled to climb to Tring summit, but then the assistance of gravity enabled them to coast to Bletchley when they threw in the towel. I'm not sure whether it was an 84 or one of the other classes, but one dark winter evening the loco had what was described in the log as 'serious earth fault'. We were in the Willesden area and briefly, North London was lit up by an eerie blue light simultaneous with a loud 'bang' from the front. and that was that for a few hours... We got used to the early symptoms of loco failure when the 'roar' became intermittent and then ceased altogether as speed dropped

The trains did 'graduate' to 81/85 haulage later. Quite near the end, with the morning air cond. Oxley set, apparently all the power controller could find was a Freughtliner 86/5, 75 max and no eth.

It was always entertaining going home on a Cobbler provided you hadn't any life plans for the evening. The latest I've arrived at Northampton - on the 17.45 - was about 01.30.

Now that is some delay!

It looks like there was quite a ramp-up of Cobblers in the 1983 and 1984 timetables with four (1714, 1718, 1745, and 1815) versus just two (1716 and 1745) in 1982. 1983 was also when the 1730 up local from New St went over to loco haulage so quite an increase in Northampton hauled services that year!

 

[Merle Haggard]

It looks like there was quite a ramp-up of Cobblers in the 1983 and 1984 timetables with four (1714, 1718, 1745, and 1815) versus just two (1716 and 1745) in 1982. 1983 was also when the 1730 up local from New St went over to loco haulage so quite an increase in Northampton hauled services that year!

Note that there were 17.14 and 17.18 departures from Euston. One left from platform 2 and one from 14 or 15. If it was tight, not worth heading for the 17.14 because, if you just missed it you would never make the 17.18 either.

I think a factor in the increase was a shortage of AM10s after a number of mishaps - they seemed to be accident-prone.

They first three to be introduced called at Milton Keynes &/or Bletchley. When a fourth train was introduced the then Divisional Passenger Manager, Euston insisted that it call at Leighton Buzzard. Clue; he commuted from Leighton Buzzard. Restrictions on staff first class travel were also introduced, so only those with a Gold could travel in the morning - only those at the dizzy height of - er - DPM could travel 1st.

The delay I mentioned started when we were stopped by signals on the Down Fast just short of Wolverton station because of a points failure at Hanslope. After we had been standing about an hour, and down AM10s on the slow were running normally, I asked the guard to phone control via the signal telephone to suggest that we make a special stop at Wolverton. Creditably, he did so; and relayed the response which was 'we're control, you're the guard. We'll do our job you do yours'. So we moved off, through Wolverton without stopping, stopped at the next signal beyond. We then eventually continued to Rugby, arriving about 23.30. it was, for some reason, impossible to run round at Rugby, so after further delay, we continued to Nuneaton, loco ran round, and ran back to Northampton.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

It's not that the second and third batch of 304s had low backed seats, just not the luggage racks as described. You can see the high backed seats through the wide windows in the image below. The batch 1 units might have had higher back seats again to support the luggage racks.

View attachment 163536

https://directoryproductimages.blob.core.windows.net/subcategories/3145057.jpg

thanks, sorry I understand now.

I'm sure that somewhere in a Trains Illustrated of the time there will be interior photos of the then very imodern trains, I'll have a dig.

 

[Bikeman78]

I think a factor in the increase was a shortage of AM10s after a number of mishaps - they seemed to be accident-prone.

Most of the early 80s prangs must have been relatively minor because they were repaired. I am surprised that the October 1984 collision at Wembley did not result in any vehicles being withdrawn. Both units returned to service in their original formations and ran right up to the end on the LTS. The only ones I missed were 310056, 310065 and 310071. The latter had a serious accident at Roade on 31/12/69. Not sure what happened to the other two. 310056 swapped both driving trailers in April 1993. I suspect that it never actually ran in this formation. In September 1994, the 'new' driving trailers were formed up with the motor coach from 310065 to become 310113. The other five vehicles from the two sets went for scrap shortly after.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The window detail was related to the provision of luggage racks,- '2 window' bodies were fitted out as semi-open cars with luggage hoppers along the length of 2+3 back to back seats. Cars with single double-width windows between doors had lower back seats with longitudonal racks fixed to the sidewalls of the shell resulting in a much more open environment inside similar to that of the sliding door classes e.g. 303, 306 & 311. Until the PEP designs, the SR had outer-suburban slam door stock with full 6 per side compartments or 2+3 semi-open saloons uniquely with string basket instead of aluminium bars in the racks.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

EMU had small window pairs whether compos or opens - look at SR EPB and Hap for example***

Large windows did exist on the SR. SR-type 2HAPs did have large windows, as did the 2BILs, 2HALs, 4CORs, albeit on the corridor side only.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

Indeed, so could have been relevant. That's why Pull-Push trains composed of more than 2 coaches had the coaches distributed either side of the loco.

More to do with the mechanical control gear being too cumbersome to be operated through more than two coach lengths

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

What I referred to as the "Liverpool' sets were 001-015. which explains the confusion. The ABCs from days when AM4s were still as-built gives the MBS as 96 seats ih the first 15 sets (001-015) 8 bays so they must have been compartments (6 a side), rest 7 bays open (6 seats at 2 ends, 2+3 intermediately, 72 seats) . The diagram shows compartments for 001-015, as well.

What's curious is the Driving Trailer Open Second (i.e., the driving car without the brake) had pairs of windows between the doors - as appears on full compartment stock. All the Motor Brake Second had these individual windows, too - even though 016 & up were open. The trailer composite, which was open in the second class but compartments in the first, had the long single windows between the doors in second, but obviously pairs of windows on the compartment side in the first. The first section had a side corridor to the toilet, but I think that was twin windows between exterior doors, too, not sure - the diagram only shows the first compt side. But the Driving Trailer Open Second Brake had the long single windows, as you describe, between doors. 'Confused? ... you will be! (Soap)

This is all based on diagrams & abc as listed; I can remember the two different styles from the time but have only just analysed it for my own understanding. All this is referring to them in as built condition, my use of them declined a bit after August 1968 I had previously though that the early ones were all-compartment, the later ones all-open, not as simple as that.

Hugh Longworth's volume shows details as follows
001-015 formed BDTSOL-MBS-TCsoL-DTBSO
016-045 formed BDTSOL-MBSO-TCsoL-DTBSO
(nb "SO" is second open, "so" is semi-open (usually first class in compartments, second open
Iniutial "B" is battery, B in gtthe middle of the designation is brake)

The BDTSOLs all seated 80, and the DTBSOs 82 -
The MBS had eight compartments, seating 96 - the line drawing shows the compartment nearest the guard as being "LO" (ladies only?). The MBSOs in tghe later units had only seven bays and a larger guards van, seating 75
TCsoL all had 19 1st, 60 2nd

the line drawings show the large windows in 016-046, except obviuously in the first class (compartment) sections of the TCsoL (the line drawings shoiw one side only, so I don't know if the corridor side had the large of the small windows.

There are some oddities about the carriage numbers:the 304/1s (001-015) had matching last two digits (as did a few other classes, such as 307 and 501):
75045-61045-70045-75645
The 304/2s were numbered 75680-61628-70483-75660 etc
The 304/3s were numbered 75868-61873-70243-75858 etc

This means that the DTBSOs of class 304/2 followed straight on from those of class 304/1
It also means that the trailers of class 304/3 had lower numbers than those of class 304/2

 

[Merle Haggard]

More to do with the mechanical control gear being too cumbersome to be operated through more than two coach lengths

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

There certainly was a Board of Trade edict restricting the number of coaches behind the brake.

L.M.S. / L.M.R. push pull control was vacuum controlled regulator with an extra set of vac. pipes down the train, not mechanical. I think (not sure) that the S.R. system was air-operated. The L.N.W.R. system was by rods, but replaced by V.C.R. about 1926.

 

[nw1]

Note that there were 17.14 and 17.18 departures from Euston. One left from platform 2 and one from 14 or 15. If it was tight, not worth heading for the 17.14 because, if you just missed it you would never make the 17.18 either.

Presumably the 1718 was a stopper (see below) as for one thing there would be no point running a second fast immediately behind the first!

I think a factor in the increase was a shortage of AM10s after a number of mishaps - they seemed to be accident-prone.

Looking at the 1982 timetable on Timetable World it looks like the overall pattern was different in any case, with the only two fasts being the 1716 and 1745. The 1718 was a slow which terminated at Bletchley as was the 1815. These two must have been (presumably 2x) 310s in 1982, as noted already.

The 1716 called only at Bletchley while the 1745 called only at Leighton Buzzard, as noted below.

They first three to be introduced called at Milton Keynes &/or Bletchley. When a fourth train was introduced the then Divisional Passenger Manager, Euston insisted that it call at Leighton Buzzard. Clue; he commuted from Leighton Buzzard.

Also of note on Table 66 is just how much the overall service on the southern WCML locals ramped up in the peaks. Just 2tph off-peak but 4tph between 1500 and 1600 and 9tph between 1600 and 1700 (the peak began earlier than say Waterloo) and 14tph (!) between 1700 and 1800, including the two Cobblers. I wouldn't mind betting that the peak nowadays is considerably less than 1982's 14tph.
Another interesting type of working was the Euston to Watford Junction fast 'shorts' in the peak calling only at Harrow and Wealdstone. These must also have been 310s as they are shown as having first class.

There must have been a lot of 310s in the sidings off-peak. I guess a mix of Euston sidings and Bletchley was used; not sure if anywhere else was available?

 

[Merle Haggard]

It's not that the second and third batch of 304s had low backed seats, just not the luggage racks as described. You can see the high backed seats through the wide windows in the image below. The batch 1 units might have had higher back seats again to support the luggage racks.

View attachment 163536

https://directoryproductimages.blob.core.windows.net/subcategories/3145057.jpg

in the November 1960 issue of Trains Illustrated there's an illustrated article about new e.m.u., the G.E., L.M. and Glasgow stock.

I don't know whether it helps, though; the interior photo is of an MBS. It has two windows netween doors of course; but the interior shows high-back seats and luggage racks over the windows, not above the seats.

I am now more confused than ever!!!!

 

[jfollows]

Presumably the 1718 was a stopper (see below) as for one thing there would be no point running a second fast immediately behind the first!

The 17:18 was not a stopper and you can see its timetable in my post 137 above.

Leighton Buzzard and Milton Keynes only.

1983-84 timetable.

17:14 was Bletchley only.

 

[nw1]

The 17:18 was not a stopper and you can see its timetable in my post 137 above.

Leighton Buzzard and Milton Keynes only.

1983-84 timetable.

17:14 was Bletchley only.

Ah ok, sorry, I missed that one!