Why were the HAPs 2 carriages?

[Transilien]

The HAPs seem to be an outlier in the Southern region, being only formed of 2 carriages with no 4 carriage variants built. Why was this?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They were not exactly unique; there were 2-EPBs, 2-BILs, 2-NOLs, 2-SAPs... 456s... While EPBs had 4 car versions, I don't think the other three older types did. I've probably forgotten some types as well...

Likely to allow flexibility to run some six and ten car services and no need for any 4 car examples?

 

[Acathater]

The HAPs seem to be an outlier in the Southern region, being only formed of 2 carriages with no 4 carriage variants built. Why was this?

Presumably because when they got round to building 4-car 90mph sets they built 4-CEP sets instead

 

[nw1]

They were not exactly unique; there were 2-EPBs, 2-BILs, 2-NOLs, 2-SAPs... 456s... While EPBs had 4 car versions, I don't think the other three older types did. I've probably forgotten some types as well...

Likely to allow flexibility to run some six and ten car services and no need for any 4 car examples?

I would guess this. Certainly very common in the 80s to see a VEP and/or CIG consist augmented with a single HAP unit during the peaks to provide extra capacity.

 

[Helvellyn]

The 4-CAPs were a cheap four-car version made simply by permanently coupling 2x2-HAPs! I wonder if in the early 1980s when the the CEP/BEP refurbishment was under way BR ever considered a HAP refurbishment to create 4-CAPs with through corridor connections to allow better multiple working on outer suburban services.

 

[contrex]

They were not exactly unique; there were 2-EPBs, 2-BILs, 2-NOLs, 2-SAPs... 456s... While EPBs had 4 car versions, I don't think the other three older types did. I've probably forgotten some types as well...

Likely to allow flexibility to run some six and ten car services and no need for any 4 car examples?

The HALs are interesting. The post-war 'tin' (all-steel) version of these had motor coaches, with a guard's brake, very much like those of the 'Queen Mary' 4-SUBs being built at the time, and a driving trailer. In this way they were similar to the HAPs later, related to the EPBs. In fact 'tin' HAL 2700 was formed from a war replacement trailer and SUB motor coach 12664. Some BIL motors found their way into SUBs as accident damage replacements, and some HAP motors were reformed into 4-car units with ex-SUB trailers

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They were not exactly unique; there were 2-EPBs, 2-BILs, 2-NOLs, 2-SAPs... 456s... While EPBs had 4 car versions, I don't think the other three older types did. I've probably forgotten some types as well...

Likely to allow flexibility to run some six and ten car services and no need for any 4 car examples?

The 20m mk3-based units were odd in that the 456s were essentially a 2-car version of the 455, though with a 321-style cab rather than a 317-style one.

 

[JonathanH]

I wonder if in the early 1980s when the the CEP/BEP refurbishment was under way BR ever considered a HAP refurbishment to create 4-CAPs with through corridor connections to allow better multiple working on outer suburban services.

Given 1111 ended up unique as a modified 3H, it seems unlikely that consideration of any major refurbishment extended to the similar HAP units.

A quick referral to the Blood and Custard website notes that the 1981-1983 period saw asbestos removal for the older HAP units, and scrapping of the youngest units with the worst asbestos issues happened shortly after.

I can't imagine that a long life for the remainder was envisaged even in the early 1980s.

 

[30907]

The HAPs mostly replaced HALs on the SE division. The Southern's country routes were geared up to 2-car units for stopping trains (the Brighton 4-LAVs were the exception) and off-peak a single set was enough for many of these.
Interestingly, the SR standardised 3-car sets for steam stock other than branches.

 

[frankmoh]

The HAPs seem to be an outlier in the Southern region, being only formed of 2 carriages with no 4 carriage variants built. Why was this?

The role of the '4-car HAP' was taken by the CEPs.

I wonder if [...] BR ever considered a HAP refurbishment to create 4-CAPs with through corridor connections to allow better multiple working on outer suburban services.

I seem to remember reading something about how corridor stock was only for if there was a buffet onboard, although I'm not sure if this statement is accurate.

I suppose if you were simply out of luck (and food) if you had a HAP and BEP coupled together.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Likely to allow flexibility to run some six and ten car services and no need for any 4 car examples?

I would concur. It also allowed, perhaps not by design, more flexibility with platform workings at Waterloo, when (during the HAP years) p5 & 6 could not accommodate 12 cars. In fact, looking at my working documents for when I first became involved with Waterloo, only p7-13* inclusive could accommodate 12 cars.

(* 12 & 13 at that time being what are now 14 & 15).

 

[Snow1964]

The HAPs mostly replaced HALs on the SE division. The Southern's country routes were geared up to 2-car units for stopping trains (the Brighton 4-LAVs were the exception) and off-peak a single set was enough for many of these.
Interestingly, the SR standardised 3-car sets for steam stock other than branches.

Back in 1950s when they were ordered, there were a number of services that split, so 2car units allowed off peak trains to divide and continue along the less busy route (before modern fad of running long trains between the peaks because uncoupling is seen as too much effort). I need to read up and check, but I think some prewar electrification on SouthEastern eg Maidstone could only handle 6car electric units, so pairs of 4cars would have been too long.

When some moved to South Western, initially 2 car units would split at Ascot and continue to Guildford via Frimley

 

[Big Jumby 74]

before modern fad of running long trains between the peaks because uncoupling is seen as too much effort

I appreciate you are saying so tongue in cheek (I am sure!), but splitting and joining, at Staines in particular, and similar locations where there is no alternative by-pass route, if a relieving driver or guard was delayed/failed to materialise, the station could become grid locked with a unit and no one to move it, and in the early DfT days Performance was top of the agenda, so anything that would reduce risks to the same, including doing away with splitting and joining) was seen as the way to go.

It will likely go full circle again as these things do, and a return to same may be seen, although less so, given the multitude of fixed 10 car formations these days!

 

[yorksrob]

To add to what others have said, previous middle-distance units were 2 carriage (2BIL and 2HAL), so it's perhaps not surprising that the tradition continued.

Worth remembering that the 205 DEMU's also started off as 2 carriage and were basically the diesel version of a 2HAP.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

To add to what others have said, previous middle-distance units were 2 carriage (2BIL and 2HAL), so it's perhaps not surprising that the tradition continued.

You've hit the nail on the head. As we know the Reading's divided at Ascot, and the Alton/Pompey & S's divided at Woking, all portions being 2x2 BIL at one time. From a planning pov, back then without HMG interference, it was natural to implement/enhance the service as seen best at the time.
Far more variety back then me thinks!

 

[yorksrob]

You've hit the nail on the head. As we know the Reading's divided at Ascot, and the Alton/Pompey & S's divided at Woking, all portions being 2x2 BIL at one time. From a planning pov, back then without HMG interference, it was natural to implement/enhance the service as seen best at the time.
Far more variety back then me thinks!

They were great little units. There were a few knocking around on the Kent Coast services in the early 90's, although I personally rarely encountered them on my travels (much to my disappointment). It must have been great to have the option of adding one to an 8 carriage train which was likely to be busy.

 

[anothertyke]

Back in 1950s when they were ordered, there were a number of services that split, so 2car units allowed off peak trains to divide and continue along the less busy route (before modern fad of running long trains between the peaks because uncoupling is seen as too much effort). I need to read up and check, but I think some prewar electrification on SouthEastern eg Maidstone could only handle 6car electric units, so pairs of 4cars would have been too long.

When some moved to South Western, initially 2 car units would split at Ascot and continue to Guildford via Frimley

Didn't they replace the 2 HALs on the Victoria to Maidstone East/Gillingham stoppers, splitting at Swanley? Presumably out in the country the flexibility to use 2 x 2 or 4 x2 was useful.

 

[yorksrob]

Didn't they replace the 2 HALs on the Victoria to Maidstone East/Gillingham stoppers, splitting at Swanley? Presumably out in the country the flexibility to use 2 x 2 or 4 x2 was useful.

They did (although I've no knowledge of what splitting happened at Swanley).

 

[30907]

They did (although I've no knowledge of what splitting happened at Swanley).

The original stoppers split (offpeak) as already stated, the Maidstone "fast" (xx49/55 from Vic) didn't, nor did the additional Gillingham stopper introduced after 1967 - I've seen that through Shortlands as a solo 2HAP!

 

[JonathanH]

They were great little units.

I find it difficult to share that view. Basically a suburban unit with toilets that less than half of the passengers aboard could access. Units without gangways and with internal partitions can't really be described as great.

One thing that would be quite interesting to know is the relative cost of a brand new 2-EPB, 4-EPB, 2-HAP and a 4-CEP at the time they were built.

 

[yorksrob]

The original stoppers split (offpeak) as already stated, the Maidstone "fast" (xx49/55 from Vic) didn't, nor did the additional Gillingham stopper introduced after 1967 - I've seen that through Shortlands as a solo 2HAP!

Cheers - always interesting to hear how they did things before the days of the VEP's.

I find it difficult to share that view. Basically a suburban unit with toilets that less than half of the passengers aboard could access. Units without gangways and with internal partitions can't really be described as great.

As a user of the diesel version for many years, I found them perfectly comfortable (even though one would have to choose the right carriage if likely to be in need of the loo).

They were a very good combination of high density - longer distance requirements, although they should probably have followed the 2BIL example of having both carriages accessible to a toilet.

I'd have welcomed one added to some of the very busy 8 carriage services I experienced in Kent at the time.

 

[contrex]

I find it difficult to share that view. Basically a suburban unit with toilets that less than half of the passengers aboard could access.

As an 18-year old office worker in 1970, there was a Kent House stopper with a HAP from Victoria at about 16.40 and I could shut myself in the toilet and roll a joint, get out at Herne Hill, and smoke it walking home through Brockwell Park. Had to get to Vic starting from Curzon Street at 16.00. Happy days!

 

[yorksrob]

One thing that would be quite interesting to know is the relative cost of a brand new 2-EPB, 4-EPB, 2-HAP and a 4-CEP at the time they were built.

I can't imagine they would have been much different - being mk1 design (except the early EPB's).

I can see your point though. Why not just put corridor connections in all of them (as happened with the VEP's). Perhaps there was a cultural preference in the 50's and 60's to more compartmentalised carriages.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2025 ==

For those not familiar with the design, you had one carriage split in half, with a first class section leading to a corridor and a toilet, and the other half a standard class saloon with access to the other toilet (no access between the two classes).

The other carriage was all standard with no toilet.

I guess if one wanted to bring the HAP's into the modern age, the easiest thing would have been to build inter-carriage connections between the two carriages.

Funnily enough, similar was done with three of the 207 units, which enabled a CEP carriage to be marshalled between them.

 

[Taunton]

The 4-CAPs were a cheap four-car version made simply by permanently coupling 2x2-HAPs! I wonder if in the early 1980s when the the CEP/BEP refurbishment was under way BR ever considered a HAP refurbishment to create 4-CAPs with through corridor connections to allow better multiple working on outer suburban services.

As I understand it there was an issue, around mid-1970s, with a HAP stranded in the narrow Shakespeare tunnels between Dover and Folkestone, where it was found not possible to evacuate the train because the doors couldn't be opened adequately. As a result they were then banned from this section, which upset all the workings and caused the last batch of VEPs to be sent to Ramsgate depot, and the HAPs sent elsewhere. It became apparent that just within-unit corridor connections were not sufficient, end doors were required, and that was too much work on mid-life trains, along with the asbestos issue, so they rather fell from grace for early replacement.

 

[yorksrob]

As I understand it there was an issue, around mid-1970s, with a HAP stranded in the narrow Shakespeare tunnels between Dover and Folkestone, where it was found not possible to evacuate the train because the doors couldn't be opened adequately. As a result they were then banned from this section, which upset all the workings and caused the last batch of VEPs to be sent to Ramsgate depot, and the HAPs sent elsewhere. It became apparent that just within-unit corridor connections were not sufficient, end doors were required, and that was too much work on mid-life trains, along with the asbestos issue, so they rather fell from grace for early replacement.

Yes, probably wise for long stretches in single bore tunnels. I'm guessing that in the 90's they only went from Ramsgate via Canterbury West as opposed to via Dover.

Interesting that had it not been for this event, Kent might have been a CEP/HAP railway into the 90's !

 

[Snow1964]

Perhaps there was a cultural preference in the 50's and 60's to more compartmentalised carriages.

For those not familiar with the design, you had one carriage split in half, with a first class section leading to a corridor and a toilet, and the other half a standard class saloon with access to the other toilet (no access between the two classes).

The other carriage was all standard with no toilet.

The 2H and 3H (Hampshire DEMUs) were very similar, non corridor between vehicles, with just part of the train with access to toilets.

There must have been some cultural thing when they were designed (about 10 years after World war 2), was it something to do with ladies compartments or smoking /non smoking, where 2 different groups of passengers had different expectations.

I am sure many years ago, I heard from an old railwayman (presumably now long passed) that the DEMUs and HAPs were built with intention of conversion to more suburban stopping trains. They were certainly built before the last batch of EPBs, and of course in mid 1950s southern was still expecting to roll out electrification to just about everything east of Southampton, through Sussex, as further phases beyond Kent coast schemes.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The HAPs seem to be an outlier in the Southern region, being only formed of 2 carriages with no 4 carriage variants built. Why was this?

A 4-car variant did arrive eventually - the 4 VEP

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==

Presumably because when they got round to building 4-car 90mph sets they built 4-CEP sets instead

Not really - a 4CEP was an express unit. The HAPs were outer suburban. Second class accomodation was 2+3, like the inner subrban EPBs, not 2+2 like the CEPs

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==

The 4-CAPs were a cheap four-car version made simply by permanently coupling 2x2-HAPs! I wonder if in the early 1980s when the the CEP/BEP refurbishment was under way BR ever considered a HAP refurbishment to create 4-CAPs with through corridor connections to allow better multiple working on outer suburban services.

The CAPs were unusual in that the two motor coaches were in the middle, unlike all earlier 4-car units (EPBs, CEPs and BEPs). This was done so the two lugagge compartments were together. The guard's eqiopment was removed from one unit to create more lugagge space. A corridor connection would have required not only modifying the driver's cab but the guard's area as well.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==

Some BIL motors found their way into SUBs as accident damage replacements, and some HAP motors were reformed into 4-car units with ex-SUB trailers

I can't find any mention of such a formation in Longworth or Brown. It would have been remarked on, as it would have meant a 4SUB with a toilet (making it a 4LAV, although in the latter the toilet was in a trailer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==

To add to what others have said, previous middle-distance units were 2 carriage (2BIL and 2HAL), so it's perhaps not surprising that the tradition continued.

Worth remembering that the 205 DEMU's also started off as 2 carriage and were basically the diesel version of a 2HAP.

Indeed - there was a lot of commonality between SR units. The drivng trailers of 205s and HAPs, and the intermediate trailers of EPBs and 205s were almost identical, , as were the motor coaches of EPBs and HAPs. Indeed, some HAL and HAP motor coaches ended up in SUBs and EPBs

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==

I can see your point though. Why not just put corridor connections in all of them (as happened with the VEP's). Perhaps there was a cultural preference in the 50's and 60's to more compartmentalised carriages.

Gangways were only provided when there was a need for passengers to move between carriages to access catering facilities. They add cost, and make for a draughtier and more cramped cab for the driver. Even units fitted with them often have them plated over in later life - see classes 126, 318 and 455 (Southern version)

Thus the first SR units with gangways (within the unit) were the 6PUL/ 6PANs for the 1933 Brighton electrification. Each unit had a buffet or restaurant so no need for inter-unit gangways. The 4COR/4RES/4BUF units for the Portsmouth electrification, and the later CEP/BEP units did have through gangways as only one unit in a 12-car formation had catering. VEPs were designed to work with other gangwayed units, so were fitted. Elsewhere on the Southern, the only units with end gangways were the 455s, and they were never used (ironically, the 456s had toilets but no gangways, could work with the 455s which had gangways but no toilets)

Gangways within a unit are now normal, but as late as the early 60s many DMUs and EMUs did not have them.

 

[Bodiam]

In the 1960s the Charing X to Ramsgate semi-fasts via the North Kent line were typically 10-HAP. Single HAPs were found on the Strood-Maidstone W and Paddock Wood - Maidstone shuttle services, at least off-peak - stations like New Hythe and Snodland could get pretty busy at shift change times at the various factories.

 

[yorksrob]

The 2H and 3H (Hampshire DEMUs) were very similar, non corridor between vehicles, with just part of the train with access to toilets.

There must have been some cultural thing when they were designed (about 10 years after World war 2), was it something to do with ladies compartments or smoking /non smoking, where 2 different groups of passengers had different expectations.

I am sure many years ago, I heard from an old railwayman (presumably now long passed) that the DEMUs and HAPs were built with intention of conversion to more suburban stopping trains. They were certainly built before the last batch of EPBs, and of course in mid 1950s southern was still expecting to roll out electrification to just about everything east of Southampton, through Sussex, as further phases beyond Kent coast schemes.

I've definitely read somewhere that the 205's were built with the possibility of conversion into HAP's.

Indeed - there was a lot of commonality between SR units. The drivng trailers of 205s and HAPs, and the intermediate trailers of EPBs and 205s were almost identical, , as were the motor coaches of EPBs and HAPs. Indeed, some HAL and HAP motor coaches ended up in SUBs and EPBs

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==


Gangways were only provided when there was a need for passengers to move between carriages to access catering facilities. They add cost, and make for a draughtier and more cramped cab for the driver. Even units fitted with them often have them plated over in later life - see classes 126, 318 and 455 (Southern version)

Thus the first SR units with gangways (within the unit) were the 6PUL/ 6PANs for the 1933 Brighton electrification. Each unit had a buffet or restaurant so no need for inter-unit gangways. The 4COR/4RES/4BUF units for the Portsmouth electrification, and the later CEP/BEP units did have through gangways as only one unit in a 12-car formation had catering. VEPs were designed to work with other gangwayed units, so were fitted. Elsewhere on the Southern, the only units with end gangways were the 455s, and they were never used (ironically, the 456s had toilets but no gangways, could work with the 455s which had gangways but no toilets)

Gangways within a unit are now normal, but as late as the early 60s many DMUs and EMUs did not have them.

I'm a bit surprised that gangways weren't adopted earlier to enable on board revenue protection. I guess a lot more stations were staffed then.

 

[contrex]

A 4-car variant did arrive eventually - the 4 VEP

I can't find any mention of such a formation [SUB with BIL motor] in Longworth or Brown. It would have been remarked on, as it would have meant a 4SUB with a toilet (making it a 4LAV, although in the latter the toilet was in a trailer.

You're right. I should have typed 'HAL motors'. I do recall that when 4-VEPs were introduced, some SR staff called them '4-SUBs with corridors'.