MK4's Pre-Mallard Refurbishment

[urpert]

The standard class seats were pretty basic in the original InterCity form.

Photo of original seats from memorylane.co.uk

I remember quite liking the standard seats and wondering why they weren’t used in other products from that time.

 

[yorksrob]

I understand what you are saying - but I think the point is about the privatisation of BREL, not BR (which BR were doing at the time). BR privatisation was not on the cards at the time, as we know - beyond the fringes of Tory think tanks at least.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2023 ==


Thanks - I'd wondered about the 1st class interiors as I could not bring it to mind. I did feel that both Std and 1st had a 'modern inter city' look to them - even if points have been made up thread ref comfort.

Fair point, I must have misread if that was the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I remember quite liking the standard seats and wondering why they weren’t used in other products from that time.

They slightly resemble the Class 158 seat but are nowhere near as comfortable, as I recall. To be honest I consider that they make the whole thing look cheap and nasty, though they are at least better than the InterCity 70. The big chunky table hinge also has the disadvantage of reducing legroom.

I've always thought Mk4s felt built down to a price, but the original seats accentuated that.

Good to see a picture of them, it's rare to find one online.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder if any of the old mk4 seats survive anywhere.

It would be interesting to try one again as they don't seem to have made an impression on me.

 

[Devonian]

Not only were the thinner Standard Class seats deemed rather a downgrade by some people, apart from the folding armrests, but the seat pitch of the Mk4s (as little as 790mm/31.1") was noted at the time to be cramped and the Railway Gazette commented that "seat pitch is so tight in standard class that a reasonably tall person would suffer acute discomfort on a long journey in face to back seating".

One thing notable about the Mk4 Standard Class seats was the design of the seat back: higher than the older seats to prevent whiplash, but with a slightly less claustrophobic 'stepped' design that allowed line of sight past the headrests rather than the 'slab' design of more modern train seats.

In terms of accessibility, powered external doors were an obvious improvement, and there was a 'large' lavatory in almost every carriage that was intended to be more accessible (but not up to modern wheelchair-accessible standard), as well as providing baby changing facilities, and one wheelchair space in Standard Class.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing notable about the Mk4 Standard Class seats was the design of the seat back: higher than the older seats to prevent whiplash, but with a slightly less claustrophobic 'stepped' design that allowed line of sight past the headrests rather than the 'slab' design of more modern train seats.

Despite it being villified due to the hard base (though newer versions are better), the Fainsa Comrail "ironing board" is designed as it is for this very reason.

 

[91104]

I worked on the Mark 4s pre Mallard refurb at Bounds Green. They were awful things when compared to a Mk3. Horrible grey/pink colour scheme. Red vestibule carpets that looked really bad when worn (later replaced with black matting), Lino in the toilets that was all bubbled and had loads of tacks hammered into it to try to keep it flat. cheap chipboard tables with chunk’s missing out of them,armrests with chunks missing exposing sharp metal edges,seat bases that come adrift far too easily,leaking water tanks that required half the coach to be dismantled to be replaced and loads of other faults. As far as I’m concerned the Mallard refurb couldn’t come quick enough.

 

[tomuk]

How can the 225 programme not be a BR project when the trains were specified by BR and built for BR services ?

1st generation DMU's were built by Metro Cammel in the 1960's. Diesel locomotives were built by Sulzer in the 1960's. Were these a forerunner to privatisation as well ?

BR tendered for rolling stock outside of its own works throughout it's existance.

The 225 programme was specified by BR but GEC and Metro Cammell won the tenders to build the trains and they are the ones that designed them not BR. Although BR did provide technical assistance as under the previous regime BR had become the brains of the industry.

All the first gen DMUs were built before 1960 and the majority of them even those built by outside contractors were to 'BR' design or at least a similar general arrangement and standard equipment not forgetting the large number that BR produced itself at Derby and Swindon.

Sulzer never built any locomotives for BR they suppled at most two dozen diesel engines the majority of the engines supplied were built under license by Vickers the locomotives were built by BR or others.

The DMUs and most locomotives up to and including 50s were ordered under the auspices of the British Transport Commission as BR didn't exist until 1965 they took a less centralised view then BR did as the industry continued to contract.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2023 ==

I understand what you are saying - but I think the point is about the privatisation of BREL, not BR (which BR were doing at the time). BR privatisation was not on the cards at the time, as we know - beyond the fringes of Tory think tanks at least.

No BR was privatised SeaLink, Hotels, Travellers Fare and BREL were all sold off during the eighties with the rest by 1994

 

[delt1c]

Personally I always found the pre refurb Mk4's a cold enviroment due to colour scheme, when travelling to Edinburgh I always tried to get an HST as felt far sperior. After the Mallard Refub loved the Mk4

 

[WesternLancer]

No BR was privatised SeaLink, Hotels, Travellers Fare and BREL were all sold off during the eighties with the rest by 1994

Sorry - yes a better form of words - those sections of BR were sold to the private sector as you say. Of course a general form of words would call that privatisation, tho as you say not like a stock market floatation from govt to allow shareholder purchase by a variety of individuals and investors etc.

But I am reluctant to get off topic!

 

[urpert]

Not only were the thinner Standard Class seats deemed rather a downgrade by some people, apart from the folding armrests, but the seat pitch of the Mk4s (as little as 790mm/31.1") was noted at the time to be cramped and the Railway Gazette commented that "seat pitch is so tight in standard class that a reasonably tall person would suffer acute discomfort on a long journey in face to back seating".

One thing notable about the Mk4 Standard Class seats was the design of the seat back: higher than the older seats to prevent whiplash, but with a slightly less claustrophobic 'stepped' design that allowed line of sight past the headrests rather than the 'slab' design of more modern train seats.

In terms of accessibility, powered external doors were an obvious improvement, and there was a 'large' lavatory in almost every carriage that was intended to be more accessible (but not up to modern wheelchair-accessible standard), as well as providing baby changing facilities, and one wheelchair space in Standard Class.

I also remember the folding tables on the airline seats having a strange rubberised pad for a surface, similar in shape and feel to a mouse mat.

 

[Davester50]

And photo of First Class from Curbside Classic.

View attachment 136711

The original interiors were very ‘of the time late 80’s’.

First class was equally dingy with the greys and smoked partitions (no relief colour) but I recall that those seats had a much more comfortable base.

Black smoked glass in first class, indeed very much of it's Midi Hi-Fi from Dixons Era.

I liked the 225 First class, and would try for a Bargain/Weekend First upgrade, but wouldn't bother when it was a 125, as the 125 Standard of the time was better than the spartan and noisy 225, IMHO.

 

[Neptune]

I also remember the folding tables on the airline seats having a strange rubberised pad for a surface, similar in shape and feel to a mouse mat.

It was to stop drinks and the likes falling off.

 

[YourMum666]

So the Mk4s had the same issues as the 800s do now eh?

 

[hexagon789]

So the Mk4s had the same issues as the 800s do now eh?

Which issues are you thinking of?

Any specifically or just that there is a similarity and thus a direct comparison to be made?

It would not be unfair to say that in terms of teething issues, practically every new fleet has had them.

Even the much lauded HSTs were criticised of seats, seating arrangement, doors, toilets, even catering.

If ever you chance on old issues of say Modern Railways of the relevant period, you'll find plenty of letters to the editor with a variety of criticisms.

That continued with the IC 225s and most assuredly with the 80x...

 

[YourMum666]

Which issues are you thinking of?

Any specifically or just that there is a similarity and thus a direct comparison to be made?

It would not be unfair to say that in terms of teething issues, practically every new fleet has had them.

Even the much lauded HSTs were criticised of seats, seating arrangement, doors, toilets, even catering.

If ever you chance on old issues of say Modern Railways of the relevant period, you'll find plenty of letters to the editor with a variety of criticisms.

That continued with the IC 225s and most assuredly with the 80x...

Ride Quality (Suspension) and Seat Comfort

 

[hexagon789]

Ride Quality (Suspension) and Seat Comfort

Yep, those are definitely very fair and apt comparisons to make!

 

[YourMum666]

Back on Topic about the 91s, how much different was first class ?

 

[Helvellyn]

It's interesting that the Mk 4s in First Class used the IC80 seat, as introduced in the APT and used in the Mark 3B FOs/BFOs. But in Standard Class a new seat was used and not the IC80 Standard Class seat that was used in the APT (but subsequently used in the Mark 2D/2F TSOs converted from FOs and some Network SouthEast Mk 2 TSOs/BSOs refurbished for Liverpool Street - Cambridge services).

 

[urpert]

It's interesting that the Mk 4s in First Class used the IC80 seat, as introduced in the APT and used in the Mark 3B FOs/BFOs. But in Standard Class a new seat was used and not the IC80 Standard Class seat that was used in the APT (but subsequently used in the Mark 2D/2F TSOs converted from FOs and some Network SouthEast Mk 2 TSOs/BSOs refurbished for Liverpool Street - Cambridge services).

I remember those Standard seats - they had quite a complicated design with a separate headrest cushion (that often seemed to come loose). Perhaps that's why they were dropped in favour of the simpler Mk4 design.