Don't get rid of Mark III coaches modify them

[Y Ddraig Coch]

I love the mark III coaches, I love standing by the door with the window open and wind in my hair ( I don't have any hair, but you get the idea)

Now they have central locking on the doors couldn't they just put a handle on the inside also and limit the window gap so you can't put your head out.

The doors wouldn't be able to be opened accidentally and nobody could hang their head out but could still get some fresh air and atmosphere.....

Surely cheaper than replacing coaches with plenty of life in them still and would make them safe also.

I know it won't happen but I will be so sad when there isn't a train left with a droplight window left.

My best child hood memories includes droplight windows and sitting in compartments on corridor coaches right up until the early 90s.

 

[yorksrob]

I love the mark III coaches, I love standing by the door with the window open and wind in my hair ( I don't have any hair, but you get the idea)

Now they have central locking on the doors couldn't they just put a handle on the inside also and limit the window gap so you can't put your head out.

The doors wouldn't be able to be opened accidentally and nobody could hang their head out but could still get some fresh air and atmosphere.....

Surely cheaper than replacing coaches with plenty of life in them still and would make them safe also.

I know it won't happen but I will be so sad when there isn't a train left with a droplight window left.

My best child hood memories includes droplight windows and sitting in compartments on corridor coaches right up until the early 90s.

Sadly such pleasures soon won't be allowed in tomorrow's dystopia.

 

[30907]

Unfortunately, the modification required to keep them running into their 5th decade includes automatic doors, and that isn't proving easy....

 

[xc170]

Plenty of life left in them?

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Plenty of life left in them?

I use the Tfw with refurb, new seats with headrest , tables, sockets and smooth ride. Yes. I think they have.

 

[30907]

I use the Tfw with returned seats with headrest , tables, sockets and smooth ride. Yes. I think they have.

Isn't corrosion another major problem, affecting the rebuild jobs for GW and Scotrail (and earlier Chiltern).

 

[Nym]

Unfortunately, the modification required to keep them running into their 5th decade includes automatic doors, and that isn't proving easy....

Maybe if it was being done by someone other than Wabtec?

 

[Peter C]

I seem to remember some stuff from another thread on here, about the Mk3s (please let me know if I'm wrong, probably am):

-They were planned to be fitted with door handles on the inside but it was considered too difficult (was this due to HST time constraints, trying to get out loads of new trains to save BR from the APT failures?)
-The central door locking has been fitted to them for years, and yes, whilst this means that little Jimmy can't fall out the train at 125mph, it doesn't necessarily save them from the cutter's torch: in the world of today, people will say that someone could easily get a finger trapped in the slam-style door.
-If we're going to put door handles on the inside, people will say "why not get rid of the movable windows?" - unfortunately, in the world of today, everything has got to be so safe and easy-to-use* that even a hamster could do it all.

*I know that trains must meet the Equalities Act, etc., but having to make everything so simple, it's absurd!

The thing is - as much as we all may love the Mk3s (and I love them as well), they are eventually destined for the cutter's torch. We won't see them around in 30 years, I bet! Probably not even 15 years.
Sorry to be so cynical - I'm never normally like this - just wanted to state a few points. But if someone somewhere can find a good use for the Mk3s, such as using them for a few preserved HST sets, I'm up for donating to that!

-Peter

 

[hexagon789]

They were planned to be fitted with door handles on the inside but it was considered too difficult (was this due to HST time constraints, trying to get out loads of new trains to save BR from the APT failures?)

I'm not sure if the Mk3s were going to get internal handles. The Mk2D had then from new but after a number of incidents they were removed and I don't believe they were incorporated into Mk2E or F designs.

 

[Peter C]

I'm not sure if the Mk3s were going to get internal handles. The Mk2D had then from new but after a number of incidents they were removed and I don't believe they were incorporated into Mk2E or F designs.

Oh OK - thanks. I'll look it up later when I have some more time!

-Peter

 

[HSTEd]

Normally I would be all for embracing the legacy of the Southern and hacking them into multiple units.

However, given the realities of the train market, I don't think we will find people willing to build powered end cars to sandwich them.... except perhaps Stadler.

2 driving motor vehicles to sandwhich short rakes of Mark 3s, in finest SR tradition.

 

[hexagon789]

Normally I would be all for embracing the legacy of the Southern and hacking them into multiple units.

However, given the realities of the train market, I don't think we will find people willing to build powered end cars to sandwich them.... except perhaps Stadler.

2 driving motor vehicles to sandwhich short rakes of Mark 3s, in finest SR tradition.

The Mk3s were designed with easy conversion to multiple units in mind, presumably remove a vestibule/toilet at one end and tack on a 442-style cab.

I doubt that's viable now though, as proven Mk3s aren't the best things to go hacking up and re-building sections of.

 

[HSTEd]

The Mk3s were designed with easy conversion to multiple units in mind, presumably remove a vestibule/toilet at one end and tack on a 442-style cab.

I doubt that's viable now though, as proven Mk3s aren't the best things to go hacking up and re-building sections of.

Yeah, your only bet for doing it is to sandwich it between new driving motor vehicles.

 

[hexagon789]

Yeah, your only bet for doing it is to sandwich it between new driving motor vehicles.

Sounds suspiciously like an HST...

 

[HSTEd]

Sounds suspiciously like an HST...

Except it would have gangways and passenger accommodation.

Think of something more like a Class 210 than an actual HST

 

[hexagon789]

Except it would have gangways and passenger accommodation.

Think of something more like a Class 210 than an actual HST

So passenger driving cars with traction equipment.

 

[randyrippley]

The original cascade plan was to split the HST sets into 4+1, with a new driving cab.
They would have been used on Waterloo-Exeter, Transpennine, Bristol-Portsmouth and similar.............
the plan depended on electrification progress making them redundant on ECML, MML, CrossCountry and GW

 

[HSTEd]

So passenger driving cars with traction equipment.

Two 940hp engines from the Class 802 would be enough power for a 4 or 5 car set.

 

[hexagon789]

Two 940hp engines from the Class 802 would be enough power for a 4 or 5 car set.

Not so sure, even allowing for Mk3 trailers being lighter than an 80x intermediate, I don't think the performance would be very good.

 

[HSTEd]

Not so sure, even allowing for Mk3 trailers being lighter than an 80x intermediate, I don't think the performance would be very good.

That would be something like 1880hp for a five car set.
It's not super high performance but would probably match the Express Sprinter thanks to likely having electric traction motors.

You might want a bit more power than that but nothing too drastic.

Course you could fit far more power inside if you adopt a Stadler style diesel layout that is allowed to be above the solebar.

 

[hexagon789]

That would be something like 1880hp for a five car set.
It's not super high performance but would probably match the Express Sprinter thanks to likely having electric traction motors.

You might want a bit more power than that but nothing too drastic.

Course you could fit far more power inside if you adopt a Stadler style diesel layout that is allowed to be above the solebar.

I'm probably being way too pernickety - and apologies for that - but based on the weights of the IETs and Mk3s you'd get a power-to-weight ratio of about 5.5hp per tonne, which is 3.5 less than a 158.

My personal view is that going with the idea of sandwiching some trailers with new motor cars would only work with straight electric traction. Two motor cars of 1,000kW (1,341p) would give about 14 hp per tonne and similar performance to a Desiro.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm probably being way too pernickety - and apologies for that - but based on the weights of the IETs and Mk3s you'd get a power-to-weight ratio of about 5.5hp per tonne, which is 3.5 less than a 158.

A mark 3 trailer masses something like 33 tonnes tare, if the trailers ive seen the plates for over the years are representative.
3 Mark 3 trailers masses something around a hundred tonnes.

For 1880hp to get a 5.5hp per tonne you need the train to mass something like 340 tonnes.
Which implies the two motor cars must weigh 240 tonnes between them?

My personal view is that going with the idea of sandwiching some trailers with new motor cars would only work with straight electric traction. Two motor cars of 1,000kW (1,341p) would give about 14 hp per tonne and similar performance to a Desiro.

But we have electric traction coming out of our ears, there is no demand for yet more electric units.

 

[hexagon789]

A mark 3 trailer masses something like 30 tonnes tare, if the trailers ive seen the plates for over the years are representative.
3 Mark 3 trailers masses something less than a hundred tonnes.

I used 34 tonnes for Mk3s as an average and the motor ouputs of the IETs as the total traction power rather than 940hp × 2.

 

[HSTEd]

I used 34 tonnes for Mk3s as an average and the motor ouputs of the IETs as the total traction power rather than 940hp × 2.

If you have to use the motor outputs then you can't use the Class 158's engine power as the comparison.
Because that is engine power and not at rail power.

EDIT:
Also we wouldn't be using the same traction motors as the IEP because we only get 8 axles to work with that we can power. Also we have 940hp from the engine, not the 750hp of the regular 800.

 

[hexagon789]

If you have to use the motor outputs then you can't use the Class 158's engine power as the comparison.
Because that is engine power and not at rail power.

Good point.

In that case it's 2.5 lower than a 2+9 HST, going for something with electric transmission.

 

[HSTEd]

Good point.

In that case it's 2.5 lower than a 2+9 HST, going for something with electric transmission.

2.5bhp lower than a 2+9HST is not too bad, considering we don't really need 125mph performance.
We need something closer to 100/110mph Sprinter than anything else.