100MPH MK1 Coaches

[BestWestern]

A quick ponder; I notice the regular 'Torbay Express' rake is rated for 100mph, according to the carriage ends anyway. Obviously they're unlikely to achieve that at any point, and certainly not with a kettle on the front, but are ancient MK1s genuinely still rated for a ton? Not entirely sure I'd fancy it myself, particularly with prehistoric commonwealth bogies under me! I would have thought legislation would have limited them down a bit by now, bearing in mind the mandatory withdrawal of all regular MK1 stock, plus the lack of central door locking. Any thoughts?

 

[Trog]

So long as they are properly maintained what is the problem?

Proven technology that has run at 100MPH without problem for decades, given proper maintenance why should it suddenly become dangerous?

Some I think full brakes on the WCML were even upgraded for use at 110MPH.

 

[BestWestern]

So long as they are properly maintained what is the problem?

Proven technology that has run at 100MPH without problem for decades, given proper maintenance why should it suddenly become dangerous?

Well that's exactly the point - why did the 'Slammers suddenly become dangerous? Because legislation said so! If a VEP or a CIG is suddenly too dangerous to run at 75 or 90, how by the same logic can a rake of charter coaches of the same design be OK for 100? Particularly bearing in mind that they will almost never run at that speed, meaning that if and when they ever did it would be somewhat 'untested' so to speak.

I'm not suggesting that I have a problem with it of course, it's just a mildly curious situation!

 

[thegrimeater]

I'd have thought they'd reach 95 fairly often behind west coasts 47s

 

[matt]

The Torbay set reached 100 behind the Deltic a few weeks ago.

 

[lewisf]

The Cumbrian Mountain Express railtour gets lots of 100mph running on the WCML too, on the 86 hauled portion. This is almost all MK1 stock.

 

[asylumxl]

So long as they are properly maintained what is the problem?



Proven technology that has run at 100MPH without problem for decades, given proper maintenance why should it suddenly become dangerous?



Some I think full brakes on the WCML were even upgraded for use at 110MPH.

MK1 coaches tend to separate and ride up during collisions, as they are made up of an underframe and body.

I believe that MK1s are allowed on NR metals providing there are MK2 or newer coaches acting as a barrier at the rear of the train and a locomotive at the front.

 

[bronzeonion]

MK1 coaches tend to separate and ride up during collisions, as they are made up of an underframe and body.

I believe that MK1s are allowed on NR metals providing there are MK2 or newer coaches acting as a barrier at the rear of the train and a locomotive at the front.

I believe common sense prevailed and that ridiculous rule has been lifted now

Did part of the Winter Cumbrian with 86259 on the front in Feb and they were fine at 100mph! I think legislation and all the H&S red tape guys havnt ruined them because they are charter trains rather than regular service trains and the operators have exemptions from the current rules.

 

[theboywho]

Well that's exactly the point - why did the 'Slammers suddenly become dangerous? Because legislation said so! If a VEP or a CIG is suddenly too dangerous to run at 75 or 90, how by the same logic can a rake of charter coaches of the same design be OK for 100? Particularly bearing in mind that they will almost never run at that speed, meaning that if and when they ever did it would be somewhat 'untested' so to speak.

I'm not suggesting that I have a problem with it of course, it's just a mildly curious situation!

I'm not too sure that the '63 stock ever became suddenly too dangerous. When cup-and-cone was originally specified, the slam-door trains were approaching their end of useful life anyway. A series of accidents in the region, over the years, had contributed to the reassessing of their safety case in an accident.

 

[D6975]

So long as they are properly maintained what is the problem?

Proven technology that has run at 100MPH without problem for decades, given proper maintenance why should it suddenly become dangerous?

Some I think full brakes on the WCML were even upgraded for use at 110MPH.

You are correct, before the DVTs were introduced, there were quite a few 110 BGs on the WCML. The number got reduced after the DVTs came in as it involved a more rigorous maintenance regime so they only kept up as many as were required for the non-DVT sets.

 

[edwin_m]

Mk1 stock with B4 bogies was generally cleared for 100mph. Some other bogie types may also have been.

Various charter companies have gained exemption from the regulations banning Mk1 operation. The safety controls can include Mk2 vehicles each end as stated, or having no passengers in the end vehicle.

 

[theblackwatch]

Various charter companies have gained exemption from the regulations banning Mk1 operation. The safety controls can include Mk2 vehicles each end as stated, or having no passengers in the end vehicle.

The Mk 2/no passengers in end vehicle ruling was abandoned last year.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Mk1 stock with B4 bogies was generally cleared for 100mph. Some other bogie types may also have been.
...

B5 and Commonwealth types also.

 

[paul1609]

B5 and Commonwealth types also.

I can remember Portsmouth FC football specials which were formed of MK 1 Portsmouth- Cardiff stock normally hauled by class 33s at around 75 mph.
On trips to the far north the double headed 33s were often replaced by an electric loco in the Birmingham area. The subsequent ride at high speed was absolutely terrible!

 

[matchmaker]

I can remember Portsmouth FC football specials which were formed of MK 1 Portsmouth- Cardiff stock normally hauled by class 33s at around 75 mph.
On trips to the far north the double headed 33s were often replaced by an electric loco in the Birmingham area. The subsequent ride at high speed was absolutely terrible!

But what bogies were they one? If a BR1 I'm not surprised the ride was bad!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well-maintained Mk1s would be perfectly safe at 100mph+, as long as:

a) You don't decide to open the doors and leap out...

b) You don't hit anything!

 

[transmanche]

Well-maintained Mk1s would be perfectly safe at 100mph+, as long as:

a) You don't decide to open the doors and leap out...

b) You don't hit anything!

And there's the rub.

Isn't it time these museum pieces were kept off the mainline and confined to heritage railways?

MkI coaches might have been the height of carriage design 65 years ago - and certainly far better than their wooden-bodied predecessors. But the youngest are 50 years old - and the design has long been been superceded in terms of crash protection. The MkI MUs have long-gone, so it's time for the carriages to go too.

 

[yorksrob]

And there's the rub.

Isn't it time these museum pieces were kept off the mainline and confined to heritage railways?

MkI coaches might have been the height of carriage design 65 years ago - and certainly far better than their wooden-bodied predecessors. But the youngest are 50 years old - and the design has long been been superceded in terms of crash protection. The MkI MUs have long-gone, so it's time for the carriages to go too.

Absolutely not.
Would you ban people from travelling in vintage cars and airplanes on the roads and in the skies just because their design isn‘t to the same standard as vehicles built today ?

No. Those of us who travel on preserved trains are there to travel in vintage rolling stock and, like those who jump out of planes in full flight, are aware of the risks associated.

Whilst there might be an argument that steam locomotives can, on occasions, lead to lineside fires which can disrupt otherservices, mk 1 stock has no such issues.

Might I enquire what non-railway related interests and passtimes you have, so that we can discuss their comparative risks and dangers and decide whether or not they should be banned ?

 

[flhh66555]

nice one.

 

[transmanche]

Those of us who travel on preserved trains are there to travel in vintage rolling stock

And there are plenty of heritage railways where you can do that.

 

[yorksrob]

And there are plenty of heritage railways where you can do that.

Apart from the obvious observation that heritage railways tend to be short and slow, might I ask how, exactly, you think that those of us who choose to travel in vintage rolling stock on the mainline, are causing a problem for the mainline railway ?

 

[transmanche]

Apart from the obvious observation that heritage railways tend to be short and slow, might I ask how, exactly, you think that those of us who choose to travel in vintage rolling stock on the mainline, are causing a problem for the mainline railway ?

Did you read my post?

The fact that when MkI vehicles are involved in a crash, it generally leads to loss of life - and the consequent poor safety image for railways that gives to the general public ("didn't they learn anything from Clapham, etc?") which puts people off train travel. The media won't distinguish between regular passengers and a bunch of enthusiasts who died doing the thing they enjoyed the most.

The HSE believe that these carriages have too high a risk for overriding in the event of a collision.

As for slow, yep that's all these vehicles should be used for. And off the mainline.

 

[yorksrob]

Did you read my post?

The fact that when MkI vehicles are involved in a crash, it generally leads to loss of life - and the consequent poor safety image for railways that gives to the general public ("didn't they learn anything from Clapham, etc?") which puts people off train travel. The media won't distinguish between regular passengers and a bunch of enthusiasts who died doing the thing they enjoyed the most.

The HSE believe that these carriages have too high a risk for overriding in the event of a collision.

As for slow, yep that's all these vehicles should be used for. And off the mainline.

Yes, sadly I have read your post

May I ask, do you drive for leisure ?

 

[transmanche]

May I ask, do you drive for leisure ?

I'm not sure what difference that would make - but go on, knock yourself out...

 

[yorksrob]

Well, if the answer was yes, I would have to ask why you are trying to ban me from a considerably safer hobby when you (if you were to partake in it) indulge imn a much more dangerous passtime.

As or your previous point, unless you really think that we should be beholden to the press for everything, don't you think that people are capable of understanding that people are travelling in vintage carriages of their own accord (just as people were capable of understanding that Richard Hammond knew what he was doing when he got into that very fast car).

 

[transmanche]

Well, if the answer was yes, I would have to ask why you are trying to ban me from a considerably safer hobby when you (if you were to partake in it) indulge imn a much more dangerous passtime.

I'm curious as to why you keep trying to drag the discussion off-topic. What I do for a hobby is immaterial - although driving for leisure is not one of them.

As or your previous point, unless you really think that we should be beholden to the press for everything, don't you think that people are capable of understanding that people are travelling in vintage carriages of their own accord (just as people were capable of understanding that Richard Hammond knew what he was doing when he got into that very fast car).

The big difference being that he did that on a private track, not the public highway.[*] Analogous to that would be riding on a MkI on a heritage railway and not on the mainline.


[*] Actually an airfield, as that would be the only place with a long enough straight section of tarmac.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm curious as to why you keep trying to drag the discussion off-topic. What I do for a hobby is immaterial - although driving for leisure is not one of them.

The big difference being that he did that on a private track, not the public highway.[*] Analogous to that would be riding on a MkI on a heritage railway and not on the mainline.


[*] Actually an airfield, as that would be the only place with a long enough straight section of tarmac.

Firstly, hammond is not a danger to other road users, only himself, in the same way that our Mk 1‘s are not a danger to other rail users - only marginally more risky to those of us who choose to travel in them.

Secondly, no one is forcing you to go on a Mk1 railtour. Instead of trying to ban everything, why not go on a railtour with the stock of your choice and mind your own business.

 

[scotsman]

In one case quite a number of years ago, a charter rake hit 110mph due to a misunderstanding by the traincrew...

 

[matchmaker]

In the same way that I covered thousands of miles in a 1964 car with no seat belts, no crush zones, no servo brakes, no abs, etc, I must have covered thousands of miles in Mk 1 (or earlier - I was born in 1957) rolling stock.

Last time I checked, I still had a pulse :roll:

 

[boing_uk]

I would suggest that the railway today is a much safer place than it was in the 1990's.

There hasn't been an in-train passenger fatality - although I stand to be corrected - due to a railway operating incident since 2007.

In the last decade of BR and the first few years of privatisation, there were only a couple of years where a passenger on a train was NOT killed.