100MPH MK1 Coaches

[bronzeonion]

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 But the youngest are 50 years old - and the design has long been been superceded in terms of crash protection.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.

The MK1 coach is still a brilliant design and is better designed and better built than any modern stuff.

 

[ainsworth74]

The MK1 coach is still a brilliant design and is better designed and better built than any modern stuff.

Really? You're honestly going to tell me that a Mk1 would have performed better than say the 390 at Grayrigg or the Mk4s at Great Heck or Hatfield or the Mk3s at Southall, Ladbroke Grove or Ufton Nervet? Really?

 

[bronzeonion]

Really? You're honestly going to tell me that a Mk1 would have performed better than say the 390 at Grayrigg or the Mk4s at Great Heck or Hatfield or the Mk3s at Southall, Ladbroke Grove or Ufton Nervet? Really?

I am not talking about crash worthiness...

I am talking about the quality of the fittings, quality of how things are put together and thought given to the people using the carriages.

 

[transmanche]

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.

But being on the National Rail network, any fallout from an incident will affect me - directly or indirectly. You brought up the Hammond analogy, not me.

Instead of trying to ban everything, why not go on a railtour with the stock of your choice and mind your own business.

So I'm not allowed an opinion?

If you want to play with museum pieces... go to a museum.

 

[yorksrob]

But being on the National Rail network, any fallout from an incident will affect me - directly or indirectly. You brought up the Hammond analogy, not me.

So I'm not allowed an opinion?

If you want to play with museum pieces... go to a museum.

Exactly how will it affect you ?

Worst case scenario, there‘s a train crash involving MK1 charters.

An enquiry may establish that the type of rolling stock was a factor. Newspapers will probably mention other crashes involving Mk 1 vehicles. There may be a call to ban MK 1 charters,

How does this affect you, anymore than a light air crash affects civil aviation ?

 

[edwin_m]

pMk1 stock only has a 7%g braking rate, in common with other tread-braked vehicles such as Mk2s and 150s, whereas disc braked stock brakes at 9%g and most do 12%g in the emergency setting. This could occasionally make the difference between a near-miss and an accident, but other than this I don't see any reason why Mk1 stock makes the railway any more dangerous or indeed more likely to be disrupted from the point of view of somebody not on board that train. With less to go wrong a train of Mk1 stock probably causes less disruption than newer types, though the traction may be a different story. Passengers in Mk1 stock also benefit from TPWS and many other safety improvements that have come in since it was introduced.

Comparisons with driving are relevant because the average car journey is around five times more dangerous than doing the same journey by train, and has a much higher chance of affecting innocent bystanders. Any difference between travelling in a Mk1 or a newer train would be tiny by comparison. Motorbikes are more dangerous by a factor of several, and of course a smoker has about a 30% chance of dying from it... but most people who partake of these activities are aware of the risks and choose to take them.

 

[transmanche]

Exactly how will it affect you ?

It seems I have to keep repeating myself.

Worst case scenario, there‘s a train crash involving MK1 charters.

An enquiry may establish that the type of rolling stock was a factor. Newspapers will probably mention other crashes involving Mk 1 vehicles. There may be a call to ban MK 1 charters,

How does this affect you, anymore than a light air crash affects civil aviation ?

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.

To add to that, in simple terms any serious collision involving Mk1 coaches will take longer to clear up - less vehicle integrity means more twisted wreckage to search when looking for survivors, etc.

Then we move back to the media witch hunt - why does the modern high-speed railway allow these museum pieces on the main line in the 21st century. And mud sticks.

I've enjoyed making some trips in what were probably Mk1 carriages on the Severn Valley and Llangollen railways - at 25mph. But they do not belong on the main lines.

 

[yorksrob]

It seems I have to keep repeating myself.


To add to that, in simple terms any serious collision involving Mk1 coaches will take longer to clear up - less vehicle integrity means more twisted wreckage to search when looking for survivors, etc.

Then we move back to the media witch hunt - why does the modern high-speed railway allow these museum pieces on the main line in the 21st century. And mud sticks.

I've enjoyed making some trips in what were probably Mk1 carriages on the Severn Valley and Llangollen railways - at 25mph. But they do not belong on the main lines.

Repeat yourself as many times as you want.

If there were a media witch hunt, it would soon focus on the charter concerned and not the wider railway.

Any collision between any stock will take a long time to clear up. Modern proceedures will require it.

I don‘t care what you may or may or may not have liked on various railways. You have no jusftification for involving yourself in my hobby.

 

[transmanche]

You have no jusftification for involving yourself in my hobby.

I am entitled to my opinion as much as you. And it's not just your train set. I pay just as much in taxes to maintain the National Rail network as you do. You don't have an automatic right to play with your museum pieces on the main line.

So if you don't like my opinion - then that's just tough.

 

[yorksrob]

I am entitled to my opinion as much as you. And it's not just your train set. I pay just as much in taxes to maintain the National Rail network as you do. You don't have an automatic right to play with your museum pieces on the main line.

So if you don't like my opinion - then that's just tough.

Good for you.
@
Everyones entitled to to their opinion, but if that opinion is going to have an adverse affect on my lifestyle, I expect to have some justification for that.

You have singularly failed to come up with a coherent argument as to why you should curtail my activities and those of anyone using Mk1 stock by their own choice.

I therefore excercise my right to disagree with your unfounded opinion.


If you don‘t like it, tough to you too.

 

[Goatboy]

I am entitled to my opinion as much as you. And it's not just your train set. I pay just as much in taxes to maintain the National Rail network as you do. You don't have an automatic right to play with your museum pieces on the main line.

Neither is it your train set and neither do you have an automatic right to insist he isn't able to play with his museum pieces.

And my post has no bias in favour of Mk1 railtours - I do not go on railtours and I cannot imagine a scenario where I ever will so it makes nil practical difference to me whether they are banned or not.

 

[transmanche]

You have singularly failed to come up with a coherent argument[..]

That's your opinion - but then you are hardly a disinterested party.

And I'm not the one telling people to 'mind their own business'...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Neither is it your train set and neither do you have an automatic right to insist he isn't able to play with his museum pieces.

I have my right to my informed opinion; based on the HSE's opinion of their crashworthiness.

And I have no power to insist on anything, but I do have the opportunity to disseminate my opinion. And unlike some people I can do that without losing my rag.

 

[yorksrob]

Good for you.

 

[transmanche]

Good for you.

It is, isn't it!

 

[yorksrob]

It is, isn't it!

Depend's what everyone thinks of your argument doesn't it

 

[transmanche]

Depend's what everyone thinks of your argument doesn't it

Well you said it. And I'm happy.

 

[yorksrob]

Well you said it. And I'm happy.

You're the one arguing to restrict people going about their own business without any justification.

I'm happy as well

 

[transmanche]

You're the one arguing to restrict people going about their own business without any justification.

Zzzzzzzzzz :yawn: :roll:

 

[yorksrob]

Zzzzzzzzzz :yawn: :roll:

Nighty night -

BTW, Zzzzzzzzz :yawn: roll isn't an argument.

 

[asylumxl]

Plenty of justification for not running them, they're frigging death traps!

Just because there is less chances of a collision than say a road journey, doesn't make it any less true. Perhaps you should become a car salesman. I'm sure customers will take solace in the fact that a collision is unlikely when you inform them that their car will split in two during one.

Personally I'd rather be in something MK3 or newer.

 

[Monty]

Nothing lasts forever, and yes while the mk1 coach won't fair as well in a serious accident compared to more modern rolling stock. That will not be the deciding factor on whether or not Mk1s continue to grace the mainline. Some of the coaches I have seen in a certain operator's charter fleet look horrifyingly rough and are in dire need of some TLC. So there will come a time that either the increasing maintenance costs or condition (age, wear & tear etc) of the vehicle will dictate if we'll continue see Mk1s on the mainline or not.

 

[transmanche]

Zzzzzzzzz :yawn: roll isn't an argument.

No it's not. It's an expression of boredom with someone who hasn't actually presented any justification for keeping museum pieces on the 21st century railway.

But then "you have no justification for involving yourself in my hobby" is hardly a coherent argument - it's merely acting like a toddler with a tantrum.

But we could carry this on all week if you like?

 

[Harbon 1]

No it's not. It's an expression of boredom with someone who hasn't actually presented any justification for keeping museum pieces on the 21st century railway.

But then "you have no justification for involving yourself in my hobby" is hardly a coherent argument - it's merely acting like a toddler with a tantrum.

But we could carry this on all week if you like?

Oh give in.

In your case then, take all cars that are of a certain age off the road, and all old planes out of the sky because they're all 21st century industries and put them in garages and hangars to be used once a week on a driveway. The queen rides around in a vintage Mk3 which was in the original prototype HST (now a museum piece), so I guess we should that off the rails along with all the heritage diesels and units (museum pieces) earning their owners income off the rails because they're past their best by date?

The Mk1s are safer than flying in a spitfire or driving an old mini. They are boxes on wheels that get pulled around rather than things that can blow up and are likely to break. Look at the steam engines working charters, there's nothing unsafe with old things if they're properly maintained, like the Mk1s are mechanically at least.

 

[transmanche]

The queen rides around in a vintage Mk3 which was in the original prototype HST

A MkIII is far more crashworthy than a MkI and has better brakes. There's no comparison.

Or do you think the HSE/ORR view on a MkI (that they "have a poor safety record in collisions because while they have a robust chassis, they also have a relatively weak body shell") is flawed?

 

[Harbon 1]

A MkIII is far more crashworthy than a MkI and has better brakes. There's no comparison.

Or do you think the HSE/ORR view on a MkI (that they "have a poor safety record in collisions because while they have a robust chassis, they also have a relatively weak body shell") is flawed?

There's no doubt they're not the safest of things, I didn't imply otherwise. Pacers aren't safe and they're in front line service every day

And is a 'museum piece' now defined by how safe it is?

 

[158747]

I think Mk1 coaches are safe for 100mph running, maybe not as safe as more modern vehicles in a collision but the risk of collision has been greatly reduced in recent years with the introduction of TPWS.

 

[transmanche]

Pacers aren't safe and they're in front line service every day

And it's time they went too!

 

[Harbon 1]

And it's time they went too!

It is but then you've got services uncatered for. Just because something people enjoy doing is slightly unsafe they shouldn't be not allowed to do it. They know the risks, it's the same with everything

 

[transmanche]

Just because something people enjoy doing is slightly unsafe they shouldn't be not allowed to do it. They know the risks, it's the same with everything

Again, if they want to to it, they can do it on heritage railways. And it does affect other people if their brakes are less effective than modern rolling stock, as this increases the likelihood of a collision.

 

[Harbon 1]

Again, if they want to to it, they can do it on heritage railways. And it does affect other people if their brakes are less effective than modern rolling stock, as this increases the likelihood of a collision.

Yes, such as pacers. So we're not allowed to watch the Battle of Britain memorial flight any more? The age of those planes means they could crash onto a road or another plane affecting other people...... Heavy freight train breaking can't be very effective but they seem to get along just fine every day