Class 210 DEMU

[WesternLancer]

I know they went around the place a bit, the 4-car certainly made it up to Scotland, but I think they were fairly regular on Paddington-Reading stoppers/Oxford semi-fasts iirc at one point

Thanks - interesting.

 

[WesternLancer]

Mk3 standard class - start of the problem IIRC. For body shell when used on local trains, like 150s the issue was even more extreme. Tho it did seem like in those BR deliberately found a way to make the window / seat alignment especially poor!

I guess they thought now people had Walkman's with cassettes they would not want to look out of the window any more...

 

[Sprinter107]

They did work the Birmingham Cross City line on trial too, but not for very long. Think it was about a month.

 

[big all]

Mk3 standard class - start of the problem IIRC. For body shell when used on local trains, like 150s the issue was even more extreme. Tho it did seem like in those BR deliberately found a way to make the window / seat alignment especially poor!

I guess they thought now people had Walkman's with cassettes they would not want to look out of the window any more...

simply one body shell set up to first class spacing for both second and first class
unlike most earlier stock where window spacings tended to be according to seating requirements

 

[edwin_m]

Mk3 standard class - start of the problem IIRC. For body shell when used on local trains, like 150s the issue was even more extreme. Tho it did seem like in those BR deliberately found a way to make the window / seat alignment especially poor!

The problem with the Mk3 MU bodyshell was the door pockets. With the original 150 layout I think they did the best they could, with a face-to-face bay with one side alongside the door pocket but the facing row midway along the window with a reasonable view. I think the 317s were similar so probably the 210 too. A face-to-face bay aligning with the window would also have created a face-to-back row with no view at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with the Mk3 MU bodyshell was the door pockets. With the original 150 layout I think they did the best they could, with a face-to-face bay with one side alongside the door pocket but the facing row midway along the window with a reasonable view.

Is this the /2 layout? This is probably best (give or take the need for amputation to fit in - should have had one fewer airline row or no side facing seat). The /1 all facing layout has no good view from any seat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

simply one body shell set up to first class spacing for both second and first class
unlike most earlier stock where window spacings tended to be according to seating requirements

Who says all progress is good...

 

[edwin_m]

Is this the /2 layout? This is probably best (give or take the need for amputation to fit in - should have had one fewer airline row or no side facing seat). The /1 all facing layout has no good view from any seat.

I was thinking of the /1 layout where you get half a window from about half the seats and a more distant half a window from the others. In the /2 layout some seats have no view to speak of and the others have a bit of window then the back of the seat in front.

 

[WesternLancer]

simply one body shell set up to first class spacing for both second and first class
unlike most earlier stock where window spacing tended to be according to seating requirements

Yes, interesting with the Mk3 that a decision was taken to base it on the 1st class seating layout and not Std (or second as it would have been c1975). Given that far more of the carriages built would be 2nd than 1st.

I guess there may have been structural and engineering considerations on that matter.

Bearing in mind in the original BR HST Mk3 interior layout (and I assume the hauled Mk3s too) there was a significantly higher number of table seats in the carriage, which was then reduced in the mid / late 1980s refurbishment, with more 'airline' seats being introduced. But I can't find a seating plan to link to from the original 1976 interior Mk3 layout to compare this.

 

[big all]

could be miles out but seem to remember about 40-45% seats at tables
so something like for every table you would have a pair off airline behind back to back to give luggage space behind then the odd extra airline pair to fill the gap to partition or end wall
so something like air pair+ air pair back to back+ table +air pair back to back+ table

i seem to remember everything being in line rather than staggered
but as i say old memories

 

[Indigo Soup]

Bearing in mind in the original BR HST Mk3 interior layout (and I assume the hauled Mk3s too) there was a significantly higher number of table seats in the carriage, which was then reduced in the mid / late 1980s refurbishment, with more 'airline' seats being introduced. But I can't find a seating plan to link to from the original 1976 interior Mk3 layout to compare this.

The original 72-seat Mark 3 TS layout (GH 202) had 15 tables, one bay with no table, and eight airline seats back-to-back around a mid-carriage partition. This later changed to a 76-seat layout (GH 203) with 9 tables (plus one bay with no table as before) and 36 airline seats, retaining the previous arrangement on the left-hand side (as seen from the vestibule) of each half-coach whilst replacing all but one bay on the right-hand side with airline seats.

Obviously, the combined airline-and-bay arrangement would make full alignment of seats to windows almost impossible. To be honest, it would be less than ideal with the original layout too, given the back-to-back airlines in the middle - presumably the partition was structural so another pair of bays couldn't have gone in.

 

[WesternLancer]

The original 72-seat Mark 3 TS layout (GH 202) had 15 tables, one bay with no table, and eight airline seats back-to-back around a mid-carriage partition. This later changed to a 76-seat layout (GH 203) with 9 tables (plus one bay with no table as before) and 36 airline seats, retaining the previous arrangement on the left-hand side (as seen from the vestibule) of each half-coach whilst replacing all but one bay on the right-hand side with airline seats.

Obviously, the combined airline-and-bay arrangement would make full alignment of seats to windows almost impossible. To be honest, it would be less than ideal with the original layout too, given the back-to-back airlines in the middle - presumably the partition was structural so another pair of bays couldn't have gone in.

Thanks - just need a pic / plan now to go with that excellent description

Going back to the 210 - obv once sliding doors mid car were inserted into this then the alignment issue was always going to be tricky...

 

[43096]

One of the engines used in the 210 project was a smaller 8 cylinder version of the valenta as used in HST power cars, the HST valenta having 12 cylinders of course

No, the Valenta used in the 210 was a six cylinder “in line” version rather than the V12 of the HST.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Thanks - just need a pic / plan now to go with that excellent description

Courtesy of the excellent Barrowmore Model Railway Group's collection of diagram books. The diagrams are in Book 230 for diesel-electric multiple units, alongside those for (dragging this back to the topic) the Class 210 vehicles.

The Class 210 diagrams show how narrow the passageway alongside the engine was. It's hard to see it being suitable for passenger access, so transfer between units would probably only have been possible at one end.

 

[hexagon789]

Thanks - just need a pic / plan now to go with that excellent description

72-seat TS


76-seat TS

 

[lyndhurst25]

The 210s were built with gangways so presumably were designed to be coupled in multiple. Was there any access past the engine room to allow passengers or staff to pass through?

[Just answered by RLBH above! Thanks]

 

[WesternLancer]

Courtesy of the excellent Barrowmore Model Railway Group's collection of diagram books. The diagrams are in Book 230 for diesel-electric multiple units, alongside those for (dragging this back to the topic) the Class 210 vehicles.

The Class 210 diagrams show how narrow the passageway alongside the engine was. It's hard to see it being suitable for passenger access, so transfer between units would probably only have been possible at one end.

Thanks - that's an excellent resource!

 

[WesternLancer]

72-seat TS
View attachment 64631

76-seat TS
View attachment 64632

Cheers - just looked at RLBH's link to full document of these. Superb to have such easy access to that info.

 

[hexagon789]

I'll look it out tomorrow.

Hoping this will finally upload:

From the January issue of Railway Magazine


The text states that there was 2 mins delay due to signals into Ealing Broadway with a further 2 mins lost into Slough. The improved acceleration helped regain time past Slough with 80mph being attained accelerating away from Maidenhead in 3.8 miles.

 

[hexagon789]

Cheers - just looked at RLBH's link to full document of these. Superb to have such easy access to that info.

It is indeed, came across them a while back and they make for very interesting viewing.

 

[WesternLancer]

Some useful info on routes used here in case anyone not seen it
http://www.traintesting.com/class_210_demu.htm

 

[hexagon789]

Some useful info on routes used here in case anyone not seen it
http://www.traintesting.com/class_210_demu.htm

I've seen the site, but I missed the 210 page. Definitely went around a bit - LMR as well as ScR.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Also worked to Newbury and possibly Bedwyn too.

Definitely to Bedwyn, as per my photo over on Rmweb

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The Class 210 diagrams show how narrow the passageway alongside the engine was. It's hard to see it being suitable for passenger access, so transfer between units would probably only have been possible at one end.

I walked through one once - yes it was narrow, but not that narrow. It was no worse than the corridor on a Sleeper.

 

[hexagon789]

I walked through one once - yes it was narrow, but not that narrow. It was no worse than the corridor on a Sleeper.

I imagine it would be the same width most likely. I'm sure they were specified to be able to be walked through by passengers, so it seems fairly likely the passage would be the same dimension as that on a Mk3 sleeper or the DTFsoL of a 442.

 

[GrimShady]

Could the work in multiple with other PEP derived units or within class only?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Could the work in multiple with other PEP derived units or within class only?

The 210 was not a PEP derived unit, they were the same basic design as the 317s, 455s, 150s in terms of bodyshell. They had Tightlock couplers and so would have been restricted to similarly fitted stock.

 

[GrimShady]

The 210 was not a PEP derived unit, they were the same basic design as the 317s, 455s, 150s in terms of bodyshell. They had Tightlock couplers and so would have been restricted to similarly fitted stock.

My mistake. Can they operate in multiple with other 317s etc?

 

[Indigo Soup]

My mistake. Can they operate in multiple with other 317s etc?

I believe that was the idea - a 317/210 combination could leave St Pancras, leaving the 317 behind at Bedford to continue further up the line. Relatively high power was specified so that it could have similar performance to a 317.

 

[edwin_m]

Only with 317s I think (at the time at least - not sure about 318 onwards which came later). 455s have a different arrangement with high-level jumpers instead of an electrical coupler, and 150s have BSIs not Tightlocks.