'PEP' derived stock: unloved workhorses, missed when withdrawn

[WesternLancer]

Personally I'd like to have seen one of the original prototype PEPs preserved. There was one hanging around besides the shed at Clapham Junction for some time into the late 80s and I had no idea what it was at the time. They were fascinating units, a real insight into BR's direction of thought in the late 60s / early 70s and a complete departure from what was running at the time.

Yes, that was very much a missed opportunity. Point very well made. Off topic but I recall feeling the same about the prototype Met camm Class 151 which remained at Derby for many years and presumably could have been given a life at preserved site (with an interest in DMUs)

 

[yorksrob]

The biggest problem there is that most of the classic ones - SUB, BIL, class 306 etc - didn't comply with modern safety regulations and couldn't be made to comply without major alterations that are (a) too expensive and (b) would trash authenticity. The BIL had wooden body framing, for example, and would not have been able to operate unless totally structurally rebuilt.

Although in theory a PEP unit could be kept as a depot pet, I can't see the likes of that happening again due to the rather massive question mark hanging over the future of the railway's finances and organisation. Remember it was privatisation that did it for the SUB - in uncertain times, the railway can't afford luxuries.

It's a shame, but I can't really see any way around it unless a PEP were to be privately preserved and maintained to NR standards. It's probably not impossible, but it certainly presents a LOT of challenges.

Yes, I also hold privatisation responsible for the disposal of the 4SUB, not to mention EPB 5001 which I feel could have given the apprentices something a bit different to work on at Slade Green or somewhere.

 

[nlogax]

Yes, that was very much a missed opportunity. Point very well made. Off topic but I recall feeling the same about the prototype Met camm Class 151 which remained at Derby for many years and presumably could have been given a life at preserved site (with an interest in DMUs)

Yep, the 151 was another great example and what appeared to be a decently designed one too, certainly from the outside.

 

[hexagon789]

In years to come we will lament the demise of the PEP derived stock. Never really loved by enthusiasts when in service but good reliable workhorses, that did the job they were designed for magnificently. Very much like the SUBs and EPBs.

Taken for granted in service by enthusiasts, then much missed when they were gone.

I know what you mean - basic and getting a bit shabby but I still miss our 314s

 

[hexagon789]

We need to bring back the depot pets.

Nice idea, could do with some dolled-up 380s and the like at Shields!

 

[hexagon789]

Yes, I'd say a better layout would be to have two bays aligned with the pair of windows, then a side-facing seat against each door pocket (this could be two seats on the middle coach, where the middle section has a longer "door pocket" on one side). OK, that's 4 fewer seats per section, but these units have good standee provision. There's also an argument that you could have improved standee provision further by not having any seats against the door pockets and instead having standbacks, but I think that's a much more recent realisation.

The way the seats were laid out in relation to the windows and doors was always their biggest downside, the seats right behind the cab were the worst and I often thought they should've perhaps shifted the next bay up and made a proper pram/wheelchair space one end and bike space the other.

 

[Taunton]

I have memories associated with them as I grew up with Merseyrail - but seriously, what possessed someone to design a piece of rolling stock in which not a single seat has a decent view out of the window? Not even one.

I may have been a little before you because the family were living on the Wirral electrics before and after the changeover from the old 1938 stock, which I found so much better in every respect. New trains? Draughtier, noisier, less comfortable, squitty seats, no view, blown and waterlogged double glazing, you name it. I NEVER in my experience a breakdown, or even was late, on the 40-year old stock, which looked in perfect condition to the end, even when it was being broken up by the scrap merchant in Birkenhead docks.

I really think the way the windows bore no relationship whatever to the seats inside has to go down as one of the stupidities of all time. There's been much stock since where a proportion of the seats have zero view, but the PEP design managed it for every single one, as if the designers had gone out of their way to achieve it.

They were fascinating units, a real insight into BR's direction of thought in the late 60s / early 70s and a complete departure from what was running at the time.

Maybe in comparison to SR stock, but not to these Wirral (and some other, eg Glasgow Blue Train) units. The Wirral trains were notably not designed by the LMS, but by a Metro-Cammell/Birmingham RCW consortium. The drew a lot of inspiration from the O/P Underground stock by the same builders.

The biggest problem there is that most of the classic ones - SUB, BIL, class 306 etc - didn't comply with modern safety regulations and couldn't be made to comply without major alterations that are (a) too expensive and (b) would trash authenticity. The BIL had wooden body framing, for example, and would not have been able to operate unless totally structurally rebuilt.

It's strange that I can fly in a wooden-framed 1930s heritage airliner from Duxford aeroplane museum near Cambridge, but am not allowed to set foot in a comparable train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The way the seats were laid out in relation to the windows and doors was always their biggest downside, the seats right behind the cab were the worst and I often thought they should've perhaps shifted the next bay up and made a proper pram/wheelchair space one end and bike space the other.

Which is actually what Merseyrail did in the end, if I recall.

 

[Helvellyn]

Yep, the 151 was another great example and what appeared to be a decently designed one too, certainly from the outside.

Mechanically not great though, including non-standard bogies. So very much an oddball fleet that went nowhere.

 

[pdeaves]

Personally I'd like to have seen one of the original prototype PEPs preserved. There was one hanging around besides the shed at Clapham Junction for some time into the late 80s and I had no idea what it was at the time. They were fascinating units, a real insight into BR's direction of thought in the late 60s / early 70s and a complete departure from what was running at the time.

Yes, that was very much a missed opportunity. Point very well made.

They were probably seen in the 80s like diesels were in the 60s 'Barry scrap yard' era. Many of the early diesels 'should' have been saved but were not seen as worthwhile at the time. Similarly the prototype PEPs were not seen as important at the time they were available.

 

[Journeyman]

They were probably seen in the 80s like diesels were in the 60s 'Barry scrap yard' era. Many of the early diesels 'should' have been saved but were not seen as worthwhile at the time. Similarly the prototype PEPs were not seen as important at the time they were available.

I'm pretty sure a couple of PEP vehicles survived into the nineties. Very significant for what they spawned, although the design quality of the production fleets was decidedly worse. It seems that the decision to go for two doorways per car rather than three really messed everything up. I wonder if that redesign was done in a hurry.

Of course, the first vehicle to resemble the production PEP vehicle was the centre trailer with 25kV equipment that got formed into the 2-PEP, and acted as a prototype for the Class 313. Not sure what it was like internally, but it finalised the bodyshell design.

 

[superjohn]

It's strange that I can fly in a wooden-framed 1930s heritage airliner from Duxford aeroplane museum near Cambridge, but am not allowed to set foot in a comparable train.

You can ride rolling stock of that age and older at numerous heritage railways across the country, ie. exactly the same thing. I suspect flying old aircraft is not a walk up activity either.

 

[Journeyman]

You can ride rolling stock of that age and older at numerous heritage railways across the country, ie. exactly the same thing. I suspect flying old aircraft is not a walk up activity either.

Absolutely. You can't travel in a wooden-bodied 1930s train on the main line, but you can't fly in a 1930s wooden-bodied plane on a scheduled flight out of Heathrow either.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I always feel a great affinity with the PEP design as I remember a Great Northern Electrification Project exhibition at King's Cross as i passed through on my way to my first BR job interview. It had a re-touched photo of the Southern PEP unit (that I had been on when it was running experimentally on the Hampton Court service) with a pantograph added in what looked like 'correction fluid'.

Living in Enfield during the electrification scheme I was well aware of how awful the last non-corridor suburban hauled sets and the crummy DMUs were before the 313s (as they emerged) arrived. So they did indeed seem very futuristic although their subterranean introduction shuttling between Drayton Park and Old Street in 1976 hardly showed them to best advantage.

As soon as they came into service their limitations were extremely obvious. The hopeless 'sideways handle' door activation (soon dropped); the unreliable couplers that loved to cause an emergency brake application as you went over the brow of a flyover; the new hopper ventilators that blew everyone in the carriage to pieces apart from the person who opened the window; the fact that the hoppers opened so wide that it was possible for vandals on the hourly overnight service to shovel every single seat squab overboard between two successive stations; the fact that they wouldn't couple to anything else (even their Class 312 'cousins'); and the absence of door screen stand-backs even though these had been proved on the nearby Victoria Line a decade earlier.

Later on, in Scotland, I got to know their Class 314 brethren. An unofficial cab ride through the new Argyle Line with the lead instructor driver proved that they were a delight to drive - an early application of thyristor control ISTR - and rode beautifully on good track (unlike the awful Gresley bogied Class 303 Blue Trains). But again they couldn't couple to anything else locally for many years. Amazingly BR had decided to 'dual source' components even for a tiny fleet of 16 units. E.g. roughly half had Westinghouse brakes and the rest Davies & Metcalf. So availability was often rubbish because of spares shortage. Fitter training and driver fault-finding processes were also more complex than they needed to be.

Structural integrity was very poor. The destruction of the leading third of a vehicle at Newton was perhaps the most obvious example but another set was seriously damaged in a low speed shunting mishap at Bridgeton depot in Glasgow and took over a year to repair. Argument with a conventional underframe vehicle definitely wasn't their forte. The very low seat backs would have caused serious problems in any well-loaded train in an accident but rolling stock design didn't have to be 'permissioned' by the safety regulator of their day.

Overall the PEP+derivative case study tells one a huge amount about BR's engineering and operational development, design, procurement and project management of the 1970s. It isn't always a glorious tale. They won't be missed in my opinion.

(There is no need to add anything on the two RailUK Forums specialities of seat comfort and window spacing, discussed exhaustively above.)

 

[Taunton]

The very low seat backs would have caused serious problems in any well-loaded train in an accident but rolling stock design didn't have to be 'permissioned' by the safety regulator of their day.

I agree with you, it would. So where does that leave us with the New World attitude of only unrestrained sideways seating (378s), ripping out a proportion of current seats so more have to stand (455s etc). How did these even less secured arrangements get "permissioned" by the safety regulators of today?

 

[nlogax]

Talking of PEP nostalgia,

 

[WesternLancer]

I always feel a great affinity with the PEP design as I remember a Great Northern Electrification Project exhibition at King's Cross as i passed through on my way to my first BR job interview. It had a re-touched photo of the Southern PEP unit (that I had been on when it was running experimentally on the Hampton Court service) with a pantograph added in what looked like 'correction fluid'.

Living in Enfield during the electrification scheme I was well aware of how awful the last non-corridor suburban hauled sets and the crummy DMUs were before the 313s (as they emerged) arrived. So they did indeed seem very futuristic although their subterranean introduction shuttling between Drayton Park and Old Street in 1976 hardly showed them to best advantage.

As soon as they came into service their limitations were extremely obvious. The hopeless 'sideways handle' door activation (soon dropped); the unreliable couplers that loved to cause an emergency brake application as you went over the brow of a flyover; the new hopper ventilators that blew everyone in the carriage to pieces apart from the person who opened the window; the fact that the hoppers opened so wide that it was possible for vandals on the hourly overnight service to shovel every single seat squab overboard between two successive stations; the fact that they wouldn't couple to anything else (even their Class 312 'cousins'); and the absence of door screen stand-backs even though these had been proved on the nearby Victoria Line a decade earlier.

Later on, in Scotland, I got to know their Class 314 brethren. An unofficial cab ride through the new Argyle Line with the lead instructor driver proved that they were a delight to drive - an early application of thyristor control ISTR - and rode beautifully on good track (unlike the awful Gresley bogied Class 303 Blue Trains). But again they couldn't couple to anything else locally for many years. Amazingly BR had decided to 'dual source' components even for a tiny fleet of 16 units. E.g. roughly half had Westinghouse brakes and the rest Davies & Metcalf. So availability was often rubbish because of spares shortage. Fitter training and driver fault-finding processes were also more complex than they needed to be.

Structural integrity was very poor. The destruction of the leading third of a vehicle at Newton was perhaps the most obvious example but another set was seriously damaged in a low speed shunting mishap at Bridgeton depot in Glasgow and took over a year to repair. Argument with a conventional underframe vehicle definitely wasn't their forte. The very low seat backs would have caused serious problems in any well-loaded train in an accident but rolling stock design didn't have to be 'permissioned' by the safety regulator of their day.

Overall the PEP+derivative case study tells one a huge amount about BR's engineering and operational development, design, procurement and project management of the 1970s. It isn't always a glorious tale. They won't be missed in my opinion.

(There is no need to add anything on the two RailUK Forums specialities of seat comfort and window spacing, discussed exhaustively above.)

Thanks for posting Dr Hoo - enjoyed reading your insights!

 

[L401CJF]

I've ways loved the PEP family, I grew up with the 507/8s and will miss them hugely when they're finally gone. The window /seat alignment has never really been an issue for me especially with the original low back seats as you can at least see out of a window (unlike the likes of the 390 where you are boxed in behind High back seats and slim windows). Although quite boxy at first glance when you study one up close they're a pretty nice design, did the job well and with Merseyrails current design (despite the lack of original features) the general day to day traveller would never guess their age.

I asked the Mrs how old she thought they were when we last went on one, she thought 20 years old, extremely surprised when I told her their true age!

Good reliable workhorses, not too exciting compared to other trains out therebut it depends what you're after. I love the clunking of the camshaft notching up, the jolting, the pop when they shut off and the motor sounds just do it for me! simple and do the job well.

 

[Journeyman]

Am I right in thinking that some PEP classes had camshaft controllers and other ones had more advanced control systems? Which ones had which?

 

[leytongabriel]

I always see them as the pioneers of poor seat to window alignment which seems to have infected most rolling stock designs since.

Yes drove me mad when they came in.

 

[L401CJF]

Am I right in thinking that some PEP classes had camshaft controllers and other ones had more advanced control systems? Which ones had which?

313/507/508 camshaft, 314/315 Thyristor (?)

 

[Journeyman]

313/507/508 camshaft, 314/315 Thyristor (?)

Ah, that makes sense - especially given that the 313 was essentially a DC unit with an added transformer for 25kV operation.

 

[hexagon789]

Which is actually what Merseyrail did in the end, if I recall.

Something like that, yes. Arguably ScotRail should've done the same about 15 years ago with the 314s when they were cascaded off the low-level suburban lines to Cathcart and Inverclyde.

 

[RichJF]

Used to commute to school in Croydon from Redhill in the early 2000s & one of the frequent trains back home was a Southeastern London Bridge - Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells 508 unit.
Horrific trains compared to the 3-Ceps that occasionally turned up & the 377/Veps/Cigs that South Central used.

My memory of the 508s were slow, noisy, grubby, smelly & uncomfortable seating.

 

[WesternLancer]

Used to commute to school in Croydon from Redhill in the early 2000s & one of the frequent trains back home was a Southeastern London Bridge - Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells 508 unit.
Horrific trains compared to the 3-Ceps that occasionally turned up & the 377/Veps/Cigs that South Central used.

My memory of the 508s were slow, noisy, grubby, smelly & uncomfortable seating.

I forgot they plied that route. Also Medway valley line IIRC for a while.

 

[py_megapixel]

In my opinion PEP derivatives have a lovely old-timey feel about them (highlights include the nice old motor sound and the proper bell for the ready-to-start signal!), and the new seats fitted by Merseyrail are pretty nice.

However, in the modern world, they accelerate slowly, aren't the most reliable, and are noisy at speed. Plus, I'm not old enough to remember them when they were brand new

I'll miss them for their heritage, but at the same time I wouldn't advocate not replacing them.

 

[Revaulx]

I rode on one of the prototypes out of Waterloo not long before they were taken out of service. They certainly didn't seem popular with either passengers or staff; there seemed to be a belief that PEP stood for Pack 'Em Perpendicular

I thought they looked great, and would have been absolutely fine for the metro-type journeys they were designed for. The seats were weirdly low-backed, but perfectly comfortable and there weren't that few. My next experience was on a Southport 507, and it was very disappointing compared not only to the prototype but also the elderly 502s they displaced. They felt cheap and nasty in a way that the PEPs didn't. Amazing that they're still doing sterling service 40 years on.

 

[D365]

Personally, I wouldn't feel too surprised (or disappointed) if 313201 is the only BR second generation EMU that actually ends up being preserved.

In a passenger perspective, from the Class 313 onwards, there just weren't any significant advances in EMU design until privatisation. Arguably there's the Networkers, from a technological perspective, but how many people actually care about AC motors!

 

[py_megapixel]

Personally, I wouldn't feel too surprised (or disappointed) if 313201 is the only BR second generation EMU that actually ends up being preserved.

In a passenger perspective, from the Class 313 onwards, there just weren't any significant advances in EMU design until privatisation. Arguably there's the Networkers, from a technological perspective, but how many people actually care about AC motors!

Well... I care, because the early controllers for them produce an interesting noise !

But, in all seriousness, the main advancement was acceleration. Compare a 319 to a 323 on the same line, and one feels like (as another poster aptly described it) a "limp snail" compared to the other.

 

[Journeyman]

Personally, I wouldn't feel too surprised (or disappointed) if 313201 is the only BR second generation EMU that actually ends up being preserved.

In a passenger perspective, from the Class 313 onwards, there just weren't any significant advances in EMU design until privatisation. Arguably there's the Networkers, from a technological perspective, but how many people actually care about AC motors!

313201 is an obvious choice too. First production PEP unit, BR's first dual-voltage EMU, and a good representative of the whole family.

It would be quite nice to see a Mk 3 bodied EMU preserved, but we'll probably have to settle for a 150 as representative of that design family, because they can operate on heritage railways without locos attached.