New build rolling stock for charters - is it feasible? What would it look like?

[Journeyman]

I'm spinning this off from the thoughts about steam thread, where it was suggested Mark 1 lookalikes could be built for charter use. Given that there are quite a few charter vehicles knocking about, and that the Mark 1 isn't going to last forever, I did wonder if it would be possible to draw up a spec for new build coaches. If there was enough agreement across the board, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for a suitably large build to go ahead. There's probably a lot of obstacles, but let's dream big, eh?!?

I think a lot of people agree that the ambience and atmosphere of a Mark 1 is perfect for steam tours especially, although an exact recreation of that would be fraught with difficulty. However, if you use getting as close as possible to that as a starting point, maybe you can start drawing up some specs. First off, let's look at the technical stuff. You would need...

• Fully integral construction to meet modern crashworthiness standards
• Power doors
• Accessibility legislation compliance to at least a certain level - it might be possible to get around some aspects of it if the stock isn't intended for scheduled service, like contrasting doors, but the rest should be included, so wheelchair spaces, accessible toilets etc.
• I'd suggest dual brakes and dual heat. Fit aircon, but provide (lockable) opening windows so they can be used on enthusiast-oriented services where this would be popular.
• I'd also suggest keeping things as simple as possible. Provide as much backwards compatibility as possible with older coaches, don't provide complex stuff like on-board computers or train management systems, and it might even be possible to recondition older bogies - BT10s, or even B4s and B5s, would provide perfectly adequate and safe ride qualities.

So...I think you'd need two basic bodyshells, a seven-bay and and eight-bay, and within each of these you could provide 2+2 or 2+1 seating, all in bays with tables, or perhaps compartments if that's what you'd like, in 6-seat or 8-seat configurations. Some sort of retro internal panelling, like wood grain or a formica-type finish, shouldn't be too difficult to come up with, given modern materials science. Seating is, of course, going to be controversial, given that you'd have to use a modern safety-approved design. This is hugely controversial and I don't want it to get into a huge mud-slinging debate about the virtues or vices of various designs, but I think you could provide something that looks the part and provides reasonable comfort.

For catering, guards accommodation etc, it would probably be possible to use existing vehicles, so I doubt you'd have to build new ones. Mark 3 catering vehicles are pretty capable, for example.

Given that CAF were willing to open a production line for 75 highly specialised sleeper vehicles, and Stadler would probably do it for even fewer, it could just about be feasible.

What do we all think? Is it a go-er, or should I put the crayons away?

 

[JonathanH]

It is simply unaffordable based on any potential lifetime unless these are going to also be used on the mainstream railway somehow during the week. Separate bodyshells would make it even more expensive.

A barrier vehicle to enable locomotives to drag units around is about the only thing I think is affordable for charters long term. If it can be done within the bodyshell of a class 37 and they can haul units directly, I don't see why it can't be done within the bodyshell of a barrier vehicle.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

What do we all think? Is it a go-er, or should I put the crayons away?

Real world? Put the crayons away. On the basis of absolutely no research whatsoever, I don't see that there's enough money in railway charters to pay for new stock.

But as we're in Speculative-land...

Would there be any way to take one of the carriages which is currently in production and 'classicize' it for an extended production run? It seems to me that the internal appearance is just a matter of what finishes you choose to use. Rather more tenuously (edit) tentatively, I agree with the OP that there must be some seats out there that look classic while still meeting current crash standards. But could windows and such like be made suitable? Could a version be built without aircon, but with electric and steam heating and opening windows like on a Mk 1?

Or is there an economic way of tarting up a Mk 3 or Mk 4 with opening windows and 'classic' seats? They might not meet new-build safety levels, but they're a good sight better in an accident than a Mk1.

 

[Brush 4]

In preservation feasible means, are they willing to do it, nothing to do with costs. This is how an A1, P2 GWR Railmotor, rebuilt bridge over the MML, digging out a huge cutting to reopen a line and many other unfeasible projects have happened. if the main line movement decides new Mk1's are needed, it will happen. Outwardly looking the same but, built to modern standards. Older coach designs could also be revived for the main line. Those that had wooden bodies or underframes built to look superficially like the originals but, to modern standards. Thus, Bulleid, Maunsell, Stanier, Hawksworth, Collett and Gresley coaches can return to the main line. The 'wooden' Gresley ones would be the biggest challenge. How metal is made to look like wood, I have no idea but I bet someone somewhere does. Make a water carrier look like a MK 1 coach? It's been done.

 

[JonathanH]

Could a version be built without aircon, but with electric and steam heating and opening windows like on a Mk 1?

Or is there an economic way of tarting up a Mk 3 or Mk 4 with opening windows and 'classic' seats? They might not meet new-build safety levels, but they're a good sight better in an accident than a Mk1.

It is the opening windows that is one of the things the Railway is wanting to be rid of. Introducing new stock with opening windows would be a complete no-no.

 

[DB]

Two main issues would be cost, and the need to meet current standards (which would probably end up making it look quite like any other new stock - there would be no grandfather rights).

Given that charter operations struggle to make money even using old stock bought fairly cheaply, there's no way this would be feasible.

 

[Journeyman]

It is the opening windows that is one of the things the Railway is wanting to be rid of. Introducing new stock with opening windows would be a complete no-no.

It's specifically droplights that are a problem. Hopper or sliding windows are fine.

Two main issues would be cost, and the need to meet current standards (which would probably end up making it look quite like any other new stock - there would be no grandfather rights).

Given that charter operations struggle to make money even using old stock bought fairly cheaply, there's no way this would be feasible.

I don't think cost would necessarily be a dealbreaker. If the sector as a whole could agree a suitable spec and order enough vehicles, there's no reason why you couldn't agree a deal with a leasing company that would spread cost over a long period.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose one question is whether there are companies knocking out the correct components to build a luxury train in enough numbers to make them cheap enough. It seems to be that most companies involved with manufacturing trains are geared up to producing low quality high density components.

Also, having been at close quarters with a couple of them, I get the impression that Mk1's are like Trigger's broom, you can continue replacing bits as they wear out.

 

[edwin_m]

It is the opening windows that is one of the things the Railway is wanting to be rid of. Introducing new stock with opening windows would be a complete no-no.

Hopper windows would probably be OK for safety, but not any window that allows any part of the body to be outside. Which is exactly what much of the enthusiast fraternity would want.

A BT10 or any other bogie with air suspension needs a source of compressed air. This is normally the air reservoir pipe, but if vacuum braking was an option the train would need a compressor, which in turn would need a power source.

All in all I agree this is pretty unrealistic. Many of the clientele for charters will be looking for a luxury experience, which can be provided by Mk2 or Mk3 stock refurbished to an appropriate design such as the Mk2s inspired by traditional Pullmans or the new Blue Pullman HST set. The people who want something different and more expensive wouldn't be prepared to pay for it.

 

[Journeyman]

Also, having been at close quarters with a couple of them, I get the impression that Mk1's are like triggers broom, you can continue replacing bits as they wear out.

You can, but continuing to do so economically and safely is getting increasingly difficult. There will come a point where it's no longer possible. Most mainline registered Mark 1s will have undergone several major rebuilds over the years, and it's getting to the point where doing those is shockingly expensive. There's a lot of flaws in the Mark 1 design, especially earlier ones, that results in them happily rusting away where you can't see it, and it's frequently a losing battle staying on top of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's specifically droplights that are a problem. Hopper or sliding windows are fine.

It's windows you can put a body part out of that are a problem. Hard to do that with hoppers, with sliding windows you probably can but they could have bars or a mesh or cage over them I suppose.

Secondarily there is the accessibility issue of manual doors. Power doors wouldn't look very heritage, but you could potentially do something like centrally locked inward opening manual doors with no opening window (inward opening is only avoided on the mainline because of standing loads which you don't get on charters) and use stewards to deal with the accessibility issue. (I'm not sure a door like that really does pose an accessibility issue provided it's wide enough, after all everybody has manual doors in their house pretty much without exception, and you need the ramp if it's a wheelchair user anyway so that will always require manual intervention).

I think the thing is, otherwise, that if it's going to be an aircon and power-door vehicle, you might as well just buy up Mk4s, paint them maroon and rearrange the seats to 64 Standard per coach aligned to the windows.

To take this a different way - does everything about charters have to be "old coaches where you can hear the loco"? I'm not sure it does, the company that was running GA-liveried Mark 3 First Opens on the S&C did OK out of it. Perhaps a new-build charter vehicle actually worth looking at would be a panoramic coach with windows curving round onto the roofline, like the Swiss ones? You might as well sell that on the S&C and WHL than a battered old Mk1. Perhaps you could even just get Stadler to build a FLIRT to that spec, as they already have done for Swiss narrow gauge lines and they're good at small production runs.

 

[yorksrob]

You can, but continuing to do so economically and safely is getting increasingly difficult. There will come a point where it's no longer possible. Most mainline registered Mark 1s will have undergone several major rebuilds over the years, and it's getting to the point where doing those is shockingly expensive.

I guess it depends whether it's more expensive to build a luxury train from scratch.

Also, all the while there's an enthisiast market, it will be more worthwhile restoring an original vehicle for authenticity than building from scratch.

 

[JonathanH]

It's windows you can put a body part out of that are a problem. Hard to do that with hoppers, with sliding windows you probably can but they could have bars or a mesh or cage over them I suppose.

For hopper windows to be useful for their primary purpose of ventilation it remains possible to put a hand and a camera out of them.

Secondarily there is the accessibility issue of manual doors. Power doors wouldn't look very heritage, but you could potentially do something like centrally locked inward opening manual doors with no opening window (inward opening is only avoided on the mainline because of standing loads which you don't get on charters) and use stewards to deal with the accessibility issue.

That sounds like an expensive approval process would be needed - power doors are not a deal breaker for most users.

I think the thing is, otherwise, that if it's going to be an aircon and power-door vehicle, you might as well just buy up Mk4s and paint them maroon.

It has been previously pointed out that they have poor route availability which is one of the things needed for charter stock.

 

[Irascible]

There are a few sobering thoughts here.

* The Mk3 design is half a century old - even the newest ones are about 40 years old at this point. In relative terms that's not amazingly newer than Mk1s. They will not be economically viable forever either ( at least for the main line - obviously chuntering up & down a private line is something else ).
* There weren't that many Mk4s, and is anyone actually buying them up? not my area of things to follow, but it doesn't seem so.
* There's no ready supply of anything newer unless someone wants to start converting Mk3 EMUs. Or even newer ones, I guess.

Interesting problem.

 

[DB]

There are a few sobering thoughts here.

* The Mk3 design is half a century old - even the newest ones are about 40 years old at this point. In relative terms that's not amazingly newer than Mk1s. They will not be economically viable forever either ( at least for the main line - obviously chuntering up & down a private line is something else ).
* There weren't that many Mk4s, and is anyone actually buying them up? not my area of things to follow, but it doesn't seem so.
* There's no ready supply of anything newer unless someone wants to start converting Mk3 EMUs. Or even newer ones, I guess.

Interesting problem.

Mk3s are less prone to corrosion than Mk1s - I understand the problem with Mk1s is around the bottom of the bodyshell, especially at the ends beside the gangways. A Mk3 was studied and measured in depth when the decisions were being made about GWR stock, with a view to seeing how long they would last, and as I recall the conclusion was several decades if maintained properly.

Mk4s - so far as I'm aware no charter operator has bought any, and a good few have been scrapped. Non-standard couplings within sets, and limited route availability, evidently makes them of little interest.

 

[Cowley]

The issue with opening windows is always going to be a sticking point in the future. I did wonder if anyone had ever thought of affixing some kind of forward facing camera set up just behind the loco(s) and live streaming it to an app so that even those at the rear of the train could watch and listen on a phone/headphones etc? It would be a fairly cheap solution and you could just dip in and out of it in between looking out of the window or eating vol-au-vents...

 

[DB]

The issue with opening windows is always going to be a sticking point in the future. I did wonder if anyone had ever thought of affixing some kind of forward facing camera set up just behind the loco(s) and live streaming it to an app so that even those at the rear of the train could watch and listen on a phone/headphones etc? It would be a fairly cheap solution and you could just dip in and out of it in between looking out of the window or eating vol-au-vents...

I believe the DB company train has that in the cabs of the loco and DVT, displaying on a screen in one of the coaches.

 

[pdeaves]

Power doors wouldn't look very heritage, but you could potentially do something like centrally locked inward opening manual doors

Power-operated hinged doors? Opened by something akin to a hydraulic jack on its side.

 

[DB]

Power-operated hinged doors? Opened by something akin to a hydraulic jack on its side.

Sound potentially dangerous.

 

[Irascible]

Sound potentially dangerous.

They do exist elsewhere, they're no more dangerous than sliding doors. Possibly more likely to jam, though.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Does anyone want these hypothetical vehicles to have the seats aligned with the windows? (Or did I miss that as I scanned the thread?) If they are to be "modern" then at least some of the seats should be like this

 

[Journeyman]

There are a few sobering thoughts here.

* The Mk3 design is half a century old - even the newest ones are about 40 years old at this point. In relative terms that's not amazingly newer than Mk1s. They will not be economically viable forever either ( at least for the main line - obviously chuntering up & down a private line is something else ).
* There weren't that many Mk4s, and is anyone actually buying them up? not my area of things to follow, but it doesn't seem so.
* There's no ready supply of anything newer unless someone wants to start converting Mk3 EMUs. Or even newer ones, I guess.

Interesting problem.

Mark 3s are already becoming problematic to operate, even with all the resources that TOCs and leasing companies have at their disposal. They're already badly corroded in a lot of cases, although you can't generally see it, and they're also crammed full of obsolete equipment that is getting hard to maintain, with lack of spares becoming a big issue. The Mark 3 fan club will never admit this, but they don't have long left in most cases, and they're much harder for heritage railways to use and maintain than Mark 1s and non-aircon Mark 2s. They need air braked and ETH fitted locos for a start, and there's not a huge number of those available in preservation. Certainly not enough to make them easy to use.

Many Mark 4s have been scrapped already.

 

[DB]

Mark 3s are already becoming problematic to operate, even with all the resources that TOCs and leasing companies have at their disposal. They're already badly corroded in a lot of cases, although you can't generally see it, and they're also crammed full of obsolete equipment that is getting hard to maintain, with lack of spares becoming a big issue. The Mark 3 fan club will never admit this, but they don't have long left in most cases, and they're much harder for heritage railways to use and maintain than Mark 1s and non-aircon Mark 2s. They need air braked and ETH fitted locos for a start, and there's not a huge number of those available in preservation. Certainly not enough to make them easy to use.

Many Mark 4s have been scrapped already.

Given the amount of money recently spent on the remaining HST fleets, they still have a fair few years - and the corrosion will have been dealt with during the power door conversion work.

As regards heritage railways, yes that's true but we are talking mainline here - and it's not hard to envisage that vacuum brakes might be banned from the mainline at some point in the future. Those operators who run charters tend to have suitable locos and / or generator vans already so can power stock requiring it.

 

[Journeyman]

Given the amount of money recently spent on the remaining HST fleets, they still have a fair few years - and the corrosion will have been dealt with during the power door conversion work.

I'll believe that when I see it, to be honest. ScotRail have been lumbered with an unreliable and extremely uneconomic fleet delivered far too late, that has been nothing but trouble. The bigwigs in Abellio that considered HSTs a good idea on paper are long gone, and in the current climate, there isn't much commitment to them. As soon as something cheaper to operate comes along, they'll be gone.

 

[DB]

I'll believe that when I see it, to be honest. ScotRail have been lumbered with an unreliable and extremely uneconomic fleet delivered far too late, that has been nothing but trouble. The bigwigs in Abellio that considered HSTs a good idea on paper are long gone, and in the current climate, there isn't much commitment to them. As soon as something cheaper to operate comes along, they'll be gone.

They seem to have performed fine once refurbished, although that was certainly very much delayed. Given the way the economy is going to be for probably a good few years, I can't see any likelihood of more large train replacement orders.

 

[yorksrob]

The mk3 1st class carriages on the staycation express seem to have been popular !

 

[Bletchleyite]

The mk3 1st class carriages on the staycation express seem to have been popular !

To be fair, the Mk5a First Class vehicles are nice (very nice). That with bigger windows would be a good brand-new equivalent. A 2+2 Standard equivalent with all tables aligned with the windows would also work.

 

[JonathanH]

To be fair, the Mk5a First Class vehicles are nice (very nice). That with bigger windows would be a good brand-new equivalent. A 2+2 Standard equivalent with all tables aligned with the windows would also work.

Indeed, the Mk5a fleet gives a useful reference point for this conversation - could a charter operator make a business plan on the operation of 'off-the shelf' brand new Mk 5a coaches once a week? The answer is most definitely no. Therefore new build "Mk 1s" which would be a new design would not be any easier to build.

To date, charters have been about using time expired coaches. We have a railway based on units, it stands to reason that the only way they can continue is to find some time expired units and drag them round with a locomotive or just forget about it. Maybe if TPE find they don't need the Mk 5a coaches and there is some sort of 'fire sale' they could be used for charter operation instead (with a suitable gangway connection made between the two sets).

The cold facts would appear to be that we
a) have a business that is viable, but
b) cannot support the costs of the safety measures necessary to continue to operate within modern standards, because
c) the amount people are prepared to pay (and is realistic) doesn't tally with the replacement costs, and
d) the traditional ways of operating (ie using the next set of available coaches coming out of service) are not open to the business (because the source has dried up).

We also have to recognise that the customer base isn't getting any younger and a lot of the people who use these charters have covered most of the routes or had the experiences they are likely to want to cover.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair, the Mk5a First Class vehicles are nice (very nice). That with bigger windows would be a good brand-new equivalent. A 2+2 Standard equivalent with all tables aligned with the windows would also work.

Not sure I'd fancy paying Mk5 fares though (going by the sleeper fares)

 

[Non Multi]

Make a few phone calls to New Zealand and buy the rebuilt MkII's when they've finished with them. Refit standard gauge bogies. Generator cars for ETH.