GWR West Fleet IEP Cascade Update

[43096]

They can't just chop off the end of a Mk3.. The main collision pillars are either side of the gangway.



Remove them and the coach dangerous. Just look at any accident (Polmont, Colwich etc) and you will see how important they are.



I bet the 321's that have AC fitted have had the roofline reinforced substantially.



Almost every part of a Mk3 is load bearing. You can't just cut holes in it. Look at the sleeper they tried to turn into a day coach..



So weak it could not be moved.

For the record, converting a Mark 3 sleeper to a day coach is perfectly possible from an engineering point of view. That it wasn't done (GNER were going to do it) was due to the availability of surplus day coaches that Virgin XC had off-leased.

 

[dubscottie]

I may be wrong but reading the small piece on this in Modern Railways the wording seems to suggest that rather than lopping the ends of the coach off, the door aperture will be cut into a bigger, standard size and then a standard door module slotted in place.

That sounds more realistic.

As far as I am aware, the only major problem in the Mk 3 builds is on the 317's.

The motor and driving cars were built in York and the trailer composite at Derby.

Derby used different steel and dimensions to York which has made repairing them interesting!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I assume they will have to design a structural frame, compliant with all collision standards and probably including the "crumple zone" required by the current ones. This would have to provide at least as much structural strength as what is there now, once it was welded in as a replacement. If the structure is so weak that it won't stay in shape when the ends are removed, then there could also be some sort of temporary support frame inserted before the start of conversion and removed afterwards.

It doesn't sound cheap or simple, but presumably someone has decided this sort of heavy metal-bashing is a better choice than having to insert the complex mechanics and electrics of a power door into an existing opening whose dimensions apparently vary slightly across the fleet.

The problem then is that the module could be stronger that the bulkhead between the toilet/passenger area.

In a collision, the module could remain intact and enter the seating part.. Not good!

Usually on Mk2/3 body repairs, the underframe is shackled to the ground to stop it "folding" when a bit of it is cut out.

 

[jimm]

It's what BR did (ok, so the IC125s were 2+7 when introduced, that's still still 2 coaches more than is currently planned for most GW 802s). Please pay particular attention to the word 'satisfactory' in my earlier post:I fully accept it is possible to run fewer empty coaches on the quieter parts of the network, but whichever way you do it there are problems

What BR did was standardise the express rolling stock it used on the Western Region. They knew full well running a full-length HST into Cornwall wasn't necessarily sensible but the HST didn't exactly lend itself to being split and joined... unlike the loco-hauled stock previously used, where portion working west of Plymouth applied until the HSTs took over.

Please explain what is satisfactory about running lots of empty coaches around all the time - you have never actually satisfactorily addressed this point in several years of going on and on about it...

Portion working with 125/140mph stock, as discussed, can lead to problems with pepole boarding the wrong portion, being unable to make use of the full train (possibly ending up with empty coaches again, only this time while others are packed) and in most cases will require extra staff

Some of us are slightly more relaxed because we have seen people manage for a very long time to cope with Turbos splitting at Oxford to go off to Banbury or up the Cotswold Line and similar operations elsewhere. Passengers to North Wales somehow manage with trains dividing at Chester, etc, etc. Surveys frequently show that passengers want to see more and visible staff on their trains, so is having more of them now a bad thing?

As The Ham says, there are also lots of things that can be done to improve information to passengers when booking, or on the platform before the train gets in, on the train exterior displays and on board. Amazingly, someone at the DfT thought of this sort of stuff when drawing up the IEP specification https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf

From pages 41-42

systems shall deliver the following functionality:
In addition to the legislative requirements it is an essential requirement that the PIS and PA
• it must be possible for real-time messages to be generated by either the train crew or central control;
• the PIS must display journey information and coach identification letters/numbers as follows:
inside each IEP Vehicle at all times whilst in passenger service; and
outside each IEP Vehicle close to the entrance doors whilst any part of the
IEP Train is in a station at which the train will stop;
• the PIS and PA System shall update journey information in real time throughout the journey;
• the PIS shall identify to passengers which IEP Vehicle they are in, and the PIS and PA System shall explain in the case of a service that divides en route which portion of the IEP Train each IEP Vehicle forms a part. The coach identification shall remain the same throughout the journey even after a division and the possible reversal of an IEP Train or a portion of an IEP Train;
• the PIS and the PA System shall advise passengers of any requirements to alight from specific IEP Vehicles or doors a station ahead of the affected station and this shall be fully integrated with the SDO System;
• the voice PA System shall be available to crew at all staff areas, door control points and catering areas and its function shall be retained if the visual PIS fails and vice versa;
• the PA System must accommodate coded alarms or messages which can be selected by train crew; and
• the PIS and the PA System must allow for different information to be provided in different parts of the IEP Train.

If you don't use portion working, you have to terminate the long train somewhere and provide a connecting DMU/EMU, and making passengers change trains is just as likely to attract complaints

Or you could just provide a through train by splitting two sets to better balance seating capacity to what is needed on different sectors of a journey, you know, like GWR is going to do - and if someone is in the 'wrong' bit on arrival at Plymouth, there is likely to be enough time for them to get to the 'right' bit given the time usually allowed for crew changes/unloading of catering trolleys, which are still going to be happening with AT300s...

Obsession maybe, but I would argue it is far from pointless.

Really? It's not pointless to keep going on and on about this when the trains have been ordered and are being built? Pull the other one.

 

[455driver]

At least he didn't start going on about class 67s.

67s are soooooooo last year, now the answer is 68s!
What was the question again?

I may be wrong but reading the small piece on this in Modern Railways the wording seems to suggest that rather than lopping the ends of the coach off, the door aperture will be cut into a bigger, standard size and then a standard door module slotted in place.

Thats about it, the end remains but the sides around the doors and toilet are removed for a door module to be welded in.

For the record, converting a Mark 3 sleeper to a day coach is perfectly possible from an engineering point of view. That it wasn't done (GNER were going to do it) was due to the availability of surplus day coaches that Virgin XC had off-leased.

For the record that coach was weakened so much by the windows being cut into the sides that it wasnt allowed to travel by rail and had to be road hauled where ever it went!

 

[edwin_m]

The problem then is that the module could be stronger that the bulkhead between the toilet/passenger area.

In a collision, the module could remain intact and enter the seating part.. Not good!

Usually on Mk2/3 body repairs, the underframe is shackled to the ground to stop it "folding" when a bit of it is cut out.

The design would have to take account of that, with sufficient welding to transfer collision loads into the existing structure and probably a crumple zone too. There's no reason why it shouldn't be any worse than the existing design and in fact it would have to be proven to be better. That's not to say it might not turn out to be too expensive once all these things are taken into account!

 

[cjmillsnun]

The design would have to take account of that, with sufficient welding to transfer collision loads into the existing structure and probably a crumple zone too. There's no reason why it shouldn't be any worse than the existing design and in fact it would have to be proven to be better. That's not to say it might not turn out to be too expensive once all these things are taken into account!

It being better or worse is part of the problem (look at cut and shut cars). To retain any kind of safety it would need to perform in the same way as an unmodified Mk3 coach. This would need a lot of work.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

67s are soooooooo last year, now the answer is 68s!
What was the question again?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Thats about it, the end remains but the sides around the doors and toilet are removed for a door module to be welded in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For the record that coach was weakened so much by the windows being cut into the sides that it wasnt allowed to travel by rail and had to be road hauled where ever it went!

I hate to burst both your bubbles, but it was actually weakened by the internal partitions being removed without considering to install the necessary internal structural partition half way along the coach first.

There's nothing wrong with adding and removing windows from Mark 3 stock, we've had coaches go from catering to passenger stock and backwards over the years, as long as the structural elements within the coach aren't damaged, it's fine.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It being better or worse is part of the problem (look at cut and shut cars). To retain any kind of safety it would need to perform in the same way as an unmodified Mk3 coach. This would need a lot of work.

Mark 3 coaches weren't assembled in the same way as a unibody/integral car though, they're actually much closer to a cut and shut car, which is how they've managed to be modified so successfully over the years.

The structural elements can be modified provided the company knows what they're doing, Mark 3 stoch has certainly had lots of corrosion repairs in recent years, including to the structural/crash elements. I can't remember which TOC, but there was even an issue with the bogie pivot points showing significant and well progressed corrosion issues. The toilet tank areas were rotten on a lot of stock, and the underbody skirts have been replaced on most if not all the fleet with some of those needing replaced again.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I've been googling trying to find any pictures that show a MK3 stripped down to the bare structure (closest I've found is http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb...x2~WPxx.AARx_1m435~0023m00_BREL.Mrk3_Ref0.PDF)

Are there any photos that show a Mk3 where you can clearly see the structure?

 

[Domh245]

I've been googling trying to find any pictures that show a MK3 stripped down to the bare structure (closest I've found is http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb...x2~WPxx.AARx_1m435~0023m00_BREL.Mrk3_Ref0.PDF)

Are there any photos that show a Mk3 where you can clearly see the structure?

I remember seeing some posters showing a cutaway of a mk3, but I can't find them anymore. IIRC they were on a website related to ATP-P, but has since gone down.

 

[dubscottie]

I hate to burst both your bubbles, but it was actually weakened by the internal partitions being removed without considering to install the necessary internal structural partition half way along the coach first.

If you look back at my posts I have said the same thing many times over the years.. The central partition on Mk3 HST/LCHS was made of steel and welded in for a reason.

Think of a Mk3 like a kitchen roll tube. Nice and strong under compression, but weaken it and its bends/splits.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I remember seeing some posters showing a cutaway of a mk3, but I can't find them anymore. IIRC they were on a website related to ATP-P, but has since gone down.

Can you remember the name of the site? It might be recorded on the way back machine

 

[Class 170101]

What frustrates me is that there seems to be no joined up thinking.

FGW want 4/5 car trains
XC Need more than 4/5 car trains

How about FGW taking on the Voyagers for their local services and XC giving the full HST sets a proper refurbishment including power doors etc and running the sets between Plymouth and Scotland instead of the dhort and hence crowded Voyagers.

Also as a result there would not be coaches standing idle which the FGW plan with their HSTs MUST do.

 

[Harbornite]

What frustrates me is that there seems to be no joined up thinking.

FGW want 4/5 car trains
XC Need more than 4/5 car trains

How about FGW taking on the Voyagers for their local services and XC giving the full HST sets a proper refurbishment including power doors etc and running the sets between Plymouth and Scotland instead of the dhort and hence crowded Voyagers.

Also as a result there would not be coaches standing idle which the FGW plan with their HSTs MUST do.

You'd have the expense of retraining the staff at Laira for working with Voyagers. Not really worth it?

 

[Class 170101]

You'd have the expense of retraining the staff at Laira for working with Voyagers. Not really worth it?

Why?

As the HST part for FGW is temporary how about swapping them with XC so they end up back at Birmingham?

Plymouth to Scotland is ideal for XC HSTs but there will be some diagrams starting and finishing at Birmingham / Derby (for Central Rivers) which would be better for Voyagers.

Oh How I wish the privatised railway would work together better than it does :-x

 

[sciisfun]

How about FGW taking on the Voyagers for their local services and XC giving the full HST sets a proper refurbishment including power doors etc and running the sets between Plymouth and Scotland instead

Because it doesn't include 442 in the mix! put 7/8 442's in between the HST Powercars and then you'll be on to something, wouldn't require putting new doors on either!

 

[edwin_m]

You'd have the expense of retraining the staff at Laira for working with Voyagers. Not really worth it?

Full length HSTs can't keep to Voyager timings, particularly on the services with more frequent stops which the existing XC HSTs aren't used on.

 

[colchesterken]

Is there any reason not to do the mods Chiltern did
Do they work OK or is there a problem with them

 

[Harbornite]

Why?


Plymouth to Scotland is ideal for XC HSTs but there will be some diagrams starting and finishing at Birmingham / Derby (for Central Rivers) which would be better for Voyagers.

Oh How I wish the privatised railway would work together better than it does :-x

This is a solution looking for a problem, I'm afraid. There's absolutely no point in doing this. Your post doesn't make much sense either, are you saying FGW HSTs should be working up to Scotland? What's this supposed to mean?

As the HST part for FGW is temporary how about swapping them with XC so they end up back at Birmingham?

 

[221129]

You'd have the expense of retraining the staff at Laira for working with Voyagers. Not really worth it?

Given that Laira can already do light maintenance on Voyagers not too much of an issue.

 

[The Ham]

A 5 coach HST would have something like 330 seats, making it an increase of 30% over a 5 coach Voyager or an 18% reduction compared to a pair of 4 coach Voyagers.

You wouldn't need many before XC started to see a number of services significantly increase in capacity.

You introduce a 5 coach HST to replace a 5 coach Voyager (service 1), which replaces a 4 coach Voyager (service 2) that 4 coach Voyager and another from service 3 replace a 5 coach Voyager (service 4) which is then used on service 3 in replacement of the 4 coach Voyager which was running on that service.

Therefore, by the introduction of one HST 3 other services have an improved capacity (assuming all the services are of the same journey length).

 

[Harbornite]

XC getting more HSTs is a good idea. Letting GWR/FGW use some of their voyagers in return isn't.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

XC getting more HSTs is a good idea. Letting GWR/FGW use some of their voyagers in return isn't.

It depends if it's a temporary use, until the Class 222 units are released by MML electrification, or if you're envisaging running them for another decade or two ?

 

[Harbornite]

It depends if it's a temporary use, until the Class 222 units are released by MML electrification, or if you're envisaging running them for another decade or two ?

I think either is acceptable.

 

[PHILIPE]

Voyagers have a dedicated maintenance Depot at Central Rivers, therefore they cannot operate in far flung places for days at a time. All XC & VT Voyagers work via Birmingham.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I think either is acceptable.

There's just enough life left in the HST sets to cover from electrification, provided there are no more major slippages like we've seen over the last year.

They can't go on indefinitely though - there will come a time when metal fatigue and corrosion kills them stone dead.

 

[Harbornite]

There's just enough life left in the HST sets to cover from electrification, provided there are no more major slippages like we've seen over the last year.

They can't go on indefinitely though - there will come a time when metal fatigue and corrosion kills them stone dead.

To reach 40 years of service is impressive enough. I'd say that 20 or 25 years could well be the limit to their lifespan. As you say, I think the railway can get enough life out of them until electrification allows for the relevant cascades to be made. If XC for instance, were to go for new build stock then the AT300 could be suitable because there isn't a real need for 125mph diesel running on the legs of the XC network that aren't planned to be electrified.

 

[dubscottie]

Some pics of Mk3 sleepers under construction here..


http://www.dawlishtrains.com/passenger.html

Note how weak the structure is without the bulkheads (it has to be supported inside).

Note the horizontal and longitudinal members in the sleeper. Not easy to make into a day coach without practically rebuilding the whole side.

Any module would need to be steel and welded to the remaining structure, but be weaker to a point.

Otherwise this might happen.. Rear ended at 35mph and the drawbar was stronger than the frame and dragbox.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/largeeventimages/event299_2.jpg

 

[Philip Phlopp]

To reach 40 years of service is impressive enough. I'd say that 20 or 25 years could well be the limit to their lifespan. As you say, I think the railway can get enough life out of them until electrification allows for the relevant cascades to be made. If XC for instance, were to go for new build stock then the AT300 could be suitable because there isn't a real need for 125mph diesel running on the legs of the XC network that aren't planned to be electrified.

The general consensus is around 15 years from the time they're modified with power doors and return to service. That takes you to around 2034 (end CP8) with the possibility of maybe managing through to 2039 (end CP9) depending on diagrammed mileages and ultimately their reliability.

The major problem they face (other than fatigue and rust) is that they can't currently be re-engined - the latest MTU 16V4000 model has an exhaust assembly which doesn't fit within an HST power car bodyshell, and nothing else currently manufactured by CAT, MTU etc fits either. That leaves them at some risk concerning emissions targets.

 

[dubscottie]

The major problem they face (other than fatigue and rust) is that they can't currently be re-engined - the latest MTU 16V4000 model has an exhaust assembly which doesn't fit within an HST power car bodyshell, and nothing else currently manufactured by CAT, MTU etc fits either. That leaves them at some risk concerning emissions targets.

I am sure someone will come up with a plan. Stick the electrical bits in the former guards comp and that would make room for a bigger silencer.

Not sure drivers would be happy though!

 

[Class 170101]

Voyagers have a dedicated maintenance Depot at Central Rivers, therefore they cannot operate in far flung places for days at a time. All XC & VT Voyagers work via Birmingham.

Hence why I said a shared fleet with XC. I also said the Birmingham / Derby starters and finishers should be Voyagers and not HSTs to ensure that this happens.

In any event the HSTs would need to finish at Penzance, Plymouth, Leeds, Edinburgh and perhaps Aberdeen, Bristol and Newcastle to visit HST servicing / maintenance at those locations.