Talk:British Rail Mark 1

Maroon liveries
Under Liveries, the article states

"A year later the ubiquitous British Rail blue and grey was introduced with the British Rail Mark 2 and by 1968 all the Mark I stock was blue and grey." - this is incorrect as I noted coaches still in maroon livery on a train at Llandudno Junction as late as August 1972.

Image copyright problem with Image:Glasgow-Bellgrove-crash-1989.jpg
The image Image:Glasgow-Bellgrove-crash-1989.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing section
The "Future" section could do with a cleanup by someone with the appropriate knowledge, as it's not at all clear. For example, "However, another railcar (in both cases a Class 121) has subsequently entered service on the Cardiff Bay branch" makes no sense, as only one railcar is mentioned! Also, there's little consistency in the article between "Mk 1", "Mark 1", "mark 1" and "Mark I". Loganberry (Talk) 03:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Preservation
Removal of crash worthiness (on the pretence of scaremongering): One of the reasons for removing Mark 1 stock from 'mainline' use was poor crash worthiness - in the case of Mark 1 carriages could override the next if sufficient energy was involved. Mark 1 stock has become no safer in preservation so the same risk exists. However the speed limit of almost all heritage lines of 25mph reduces this risk markedly (as energy in a moving vehicle is proportional to the square of the speed). Is there any reason not to say use on heritage railways is safer than when they were used on main lines? - presumably the opposite of scaremongering? See text in same article that says "Due to the lack of central door locking and the structural inadequacies of Mark 1 stock at high speeds" surely saying the lower speeds of heritage lines _mitigates_ the inadequacies is a good thing to say?

Agree about citation needed about passengers not being familiar with manually operated doors, I have personally witnessed this but that isn't a reference(!) There are news paper reports of cases where passengers have been foiled by automatic train doors (let alone manual ones) leading to death or injury, e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-566548/Father-killed-train-leapt-onboard-retrieve-present-son.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.101.251 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 June 2010
 * The applies to all the recently added material. See WP:V and WP:NOR.
 * Regarding crashworthiness: there was a lot of ill-informed media hype about this in the aftermath of Clapham Junction 1988. Some press accounts have used the term "bodies" when the Hidden report used "bogies", a tiny error of spelling, but a huge difference of meaning. Hidden does not mention the word "body" or "bodies" at all in relation to the accident damage; but he uses the completely different word "bogie", and its plural, several times. For example, on page 143, when discussing the recommended improvements to the Mark 1 stock, we have the text "Such improvements include greater resistance to diagonal loading, additional structural strengthening at unit ends, and the strengthening of the components which unite the bogie and the coach." (my emphasis).
 * When the Mark 1 series were designed in 1949-50, they were designed to be significantly more crashworthy than any existing designs, see Keith Parkin's book (chapter 1) for example. If we're going to criticise the crashworthiness of Mark 1 stock on heritage railways, we must point out that the preserved GWR, LMS, SR, LNER coaches are even less crashworthy. Do we seriously want to discourage people from travelling on preserved railways? Rail accidents are a rarity. They get significant press coverage precisely because they are so rare. In 30+ years of frequent rail travel I have never been in an accident (if you discount lineside hooligans hurling bricks), but if I were, I would far rather be in an all-steel Mark 1, with its 200-ton end loading, than a SR coach with wood-frame body and 80-ton end loading. I would certainly prefer a Mark 1 to a Class 142 "Pacer" (with its bus bodywork). -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Lots of words (that I agree with) but you haven't said why it is wrong to put something that will _reassure_ a reader of this page that heritage use of Mark 1 stock is perfectly safe (within the bounds of every day risks) due to mandated lower speeds. If a reader looks at the page as it stands they would conclude that heritage railways may be unsafe because they are reusing stock that was withdrawn from mainline use mainly because of safety fears outlined elsewhere on the same page. Perhaps someone else could comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.101.251 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 June 2010


 * Please sign your contributions with 4 tildes ~
 * At the risk of another edit conflict ('ec') I would suggest the real problem is the uncited claims about the Clapham Disaster earlier in the article. Without the two/three paragraphs there, no one would be prompted to be concerned about crashworthiness. I remember now the issue that was quoted regarding the Clapham crash -- the EMUs involved were based on Mk 1 stock, but the bogie mountings had not been beefed-up to cope with the additional stresses caused by heavier-duty bogies that included traction motors. It was one (+?) of these that sheared-off at Clapham, damaging the underframe. The claims about crashworthiness really need to be reviewed and supported by references. Furthermore, there is no mention of the fact that the Mark 1 coaches were 30-40 years old and must have been near life-expired. I'm sure that age was a major factor in their withdrawal.
 * Applying mainline safety standards to heritage railways would kill the industry. I want to be able to sit on the verandah of a 19th century 6-wheel coach facing the smokebox of a Terrier and get smuts in my face!! (done it before!) It's bad enough that visitors are now excluded from workshop areas...
 * EdJogg (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to Didcot! You can wander around the loco sheds and the carriage shed without being bothered by jobsworths in fluorescent vests; even go down into an inspection pit and look at the valve gear from beneath. Just look both ways before crossing any line. It's open every day in summer (at least, leaving my window open I hear the tooting of engine whistles several times a day). -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm - I didn't think this was a general chat page - better if constructive contributions were restricted to the issue raised? If another issue perhaps it would be better raised (or created) on another wikipedia page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.101.251 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Vehicle dimensions
Was the shorter version really 41' between bogie centres? This document, p. 73, seems to give it (though not explicitly) as 40'. -Keinstein (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have checked Parkin's book, and in several diagrams and one table, 40'0" is shown; I see no instances of 41'. The article's use of 41' was unrefd, so feel justified in amending unilaterally - with ref. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is well-publicised (in modelling circles at least) that the BG gangwayed brake (and related GUV family) were of the shorter form (as brutally ignored by Triang and Lima!) Were the shorter vehicles limited to just Non-Passenger Coaching Stock? If so, this should be highlighted. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Short frames (56'11", commonly known as 57') were indeed used on all BG and GUV, but also on most non-gangwayed passenger stock. There were six types (nb Second class was Third before June 1956): Composite (C); Lavatory Composite (CL); Second (S); Non-Gangwayed Open Second (SO(NG)) Lavatory Open Second (SLO); Brake Second (BS). Different regions had different preferences:
 * Eastern Region - CL, BS, S, SLO
 * London Midland Region - C, BS, S, SO(NG)
 * Scottish Region - C, BS, S
 * Western Region - C, BS, S, SO(NG)
 * Southern Region - C, BS, S
 * Those built for the Eastern, London Midland and Scottish Regions all had short frames; those of the Southern were all on long frames (63'5", commonly known as 63'6"); whereas the Western got both lengths for each of their four types. It can thus be seen that since the two Lavatory varieties went only to the ER, these were only built on short frames. This gives ten combinations, instead of the twelve that might be expected.
 * Regarding 00-scale models of these: Bachmann produce the four short-frame non-lav types, and Replica Railways produce three of the long-frame types (the SO(NG) being the exception). -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the British Rail Class 501 EMUs were on short frames - I think I'm right in saying that they were the only EMUs based on the Mark 1 design to have short frames. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected -- thank you for such a comprehensive answer. (Maybe this needs to find its way into the article?) -- EdJogg (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture relevance
In safety section of this article there is a picture of a class 303 with the caption "The Glasgow Bellgrove rail crash in 1989 involved Class 303 EMUs based on the Mark 1 carriage design" but there is no indication on how this accident related to anything to do with the Mark 1 design (primary cause was driver error). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.38.228 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Besides which, the class 303 did not use the Mark 1 bodyshell. Whilst it did have a separate underframe and body, so did almost everything else built up to about 1965, so the separate u/f does not make it Mk. 1. Have removed the image. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reword section for accuracy and clarity (to avoid short term multiple edit conflicts?)
Propose to change the following paras in the safety section. Feel free to comment or reword :-)

Why? - This section seems to need refs and citations. Rewording and referencing the HSE page seemed the best way to do that. The ref to Clapham Junction rail accident doesn't seem relevant in this section as it was not the direct cause of the withdrawing of the Mark 1 stock (as strongly suggested in the present text), there have been many rail accidents involving Mk1 stock and the knowledge of the risks using this and other designs was gradually found over many years. The Hidden report into Clapham made no suggestion that Mk1 stock was unsafe of that it should be modified or withdrawn. The detail and sequence of gradually withdrawing Mk1 stock in the present text doesn't seem to match the refs I have included here.

The main ref for this revision is: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2002/e02203.htm

NEW: During the late 1990s the Mark 1 design became outdated and less safe than other high speed passenger stock. The HSE issued instructions in 1999 to withdraw all Mark 1 coaches and multiple units based on that design by the end of 2002 "unless rebodied or modified to prevent, or reduce the potential for, overriding in the event of a collision". A proposed modification to extend mainline use beyond 2002 at the time of the 1999 HSE instruction was 'cup and cone', however trails were inconclusive and deemed expensive in comparison with the safety benefits. In October 2002 the HSE extended the permitted use of Mark 1 based rolling stock until 31/12/2004 with the proviso: "The exemptions are subject to conditions, namely that any Mark 1 rolling stock operated by the TOCs after 31 March 2003 must form part of a train fully fitted with a train protection system." The UK Train Protection & Warning System (TPWS) greatly reduces the chances of collisions.

ORIGINAL: However, after the 1988 Clapham Junction rail accident, the Mark 1 design was criticised[by whom?] as it was no longer the best design for passenger protection, the Mark 3 design having excelled over it in this respect. In accidents like Clapham, where two units collided in line with each other, the Mark 1 design was prone to having the body superstructure shear away from the underframe[citation needed], thereby crushing the passenger accommodation. The result of this criticism was pressure from the rail safety inspectorate to end the use of Mark 1 stock on the main line and, in the meantime, use special equipment to minimise the problem.[citation needed]

The equipment that was developed was called Cup and Cone, and while it was helpful, it was agreed that fitment to all stock would be too expensive in comparison with the safety benefits, when the stock was due to have only a short life and with improvements in signalling technology, notably the Train Protection and Warning System, having reduced the likelihood of accidents where it would be most effective. As a result, Cup and Cone was never put into everyday use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.244.99 (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the ref you suggest, but even if added with a 'fact' tag, your revised text is better than what's already there. There have been one or two (anon) editors with a bit of a fixation about Mk 1s, safety, and Clapham Junction and their additions seemed rather one-sided (if not downright incorrect, since they were insisting that the Clapham Junction report recommended withdrawal of the Mk 1s, which it doesn't). -- EdJogg (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, with some minor mods to the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.244.99 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's still a problem in that section. The first paragraph is fine, and the last two paragraphs are (largely) fine. The problem is that we jump straight to the Hidden report with no warning and it 'jars' when reading. It needs a paragraph saying something like:


 * I've stuck a temporary linking paragraph in place, but any more than I have written would be OR.
 * Thoughts? Ideas? -- EdJogg (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Safety sections - lack of clarity
This article contains a lot of "Safety" stuff that is really specific to Mk1-based EMUs. Plus the "Future" section contains now out of date speculation and inaccurate information. The main article appears to be about Mk1 locomotive hauled coaches, if Mk1-based EMUs are to be mentioned they should be in their own (possibly significant) subsection, or a separate article. The final withdrawal dates are incorrect as they refer to the EMUs, not the hauled coaches. Mk1s are still in use and very popular with passengers on railtour duties, and replacement with Mk2 or Mk3 coaches, especially on steam hauled tours, would be unwelcome to many people.

There's also a lot of repetition of comments about central door locking, this could probably be reduced somewhat. CDL is a recent development, Mk2s and Mk3s didn't have it either, nor did any slam-door multiple unit, until the 1990s. 83.136.121.65 (talk)


 * Agreed. This article was suffering from input by an anon editor who had a bee in their bonnet over the supposed Mk 1 withdrawal as a result of Clapham, which I think we've cleaned up now, but related issues still remain, as you have pointed out. Needs an editor with reference material who can apply corrected information. (Incidentally, if you register for an account here it will be easier for us to know we're talking to the same editor rather than just 'some anon person'...) - EdJogg (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Two Tranches?
"The Mk 1 coaches were built in two distinct tranches: the early vehicles (1951-60) and the 'Commonwealth' stock (named from the type of bogie used) from 1961 onwards."

Where does this notion come from? True the later Mark 1s were built with CW bogies but how does that justify the view that it makes them "two distinct tranches" rather than the many other distinguishing differences? I think this is misleading as, with the right adjustments, a carriage can run on any suitable bogies. Mark 1s did have bogies switched around beneath them - some later got B4s, some that went to the southern got placed back on standard bogies! Bogies should not be used to distinguish versions of a carriage, in my view.

TJ (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this: and besides the bogies, other design changes came in from time to time - such as fluorescent lighting instead of tungsten, or melamine interior panelling instead of wood. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"TO"?
Feel free to strike me if I'm talking mad but I can't say I'm familiar with a coach with the designation "TO". I know of a Tourist Standard Open [TSO] or a Standard Open [SO], the difference being the latter had 2+1 seating.

I have a feeling the author intended to write TSO but given its gone unchanged for so long I just wanted to check before I went and edited it in case I made a fool of myself!

79.70.79.122 (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume that you are referring to the phrase "a typical design of Mark 1 vehicle, the TO (Open Third class)".
 * For a long time, there were three classes of travel on British Railways: First, Second and Third, terms which went right back to the earliest days of the railways. Second class had been in decline ever since the Midland Railway, as long ago as 1875, had decided to fit cushions to third-class seats and also include Third-class coaches on all passenger trains. By the time that the Mark 1 stock was introduced in 1951, second class was confined to boat trains, mainly for the benefit of through passengers from the Continent, where three classes were still in general use. The Mark 1 build did include some true Second Class coaches - nos. S3500-14 - which were coded SO (Second Open) and used on boat trains on the Southern Region. The seating arrangement was 2+1. Most Mark 1 coaches built at this time were designated Third Class, and the open thirds were coded TO (Third Open), whether their seating was arranged 2+1 or 2+2.
 * In June 1956, true Second Class was abolished in Britain, and the former Third Class was redesignated Second Class. At the same time it was decided to distinguish those with 2+2 seating (TSO, Tourist Second Open) from those with 2+1 seating (SO, Second Open). The term "Standard Class" replaced "Second Class" in 1990.
 * So, in the context in which it is used, the term TO is correct usage. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Pre-war underframes
Regarding : there are two main candidates, the ex-LMS units and ex-SR units.

Of the ex-LMS units, the stock was built in 1939, and the last was withdrawn in November 1980 so only just scraped into the 1980s. Some of the stock was built in 1938, and most lasted until 1984-85; again, this had all gone by Clapham.

But the largest and longest lasting (and also the most complicated) group is the units of Southern Railway design: if we ignore the 4-SUB units, which didn't last beyond 1983, these formed parts of (4-EPB units 5001-53 and 5101-5260),  (2-HAP units 5601-36) and  (2-EPB units 5651-84). In all cases the bodies were post-war, some from as late as 1959; but quite a few of these were built on pre-war underframes. As an example, when the 2-NOL units (pre-grouping bodies on 1934-36 frames) were withdrawn in the 1950s, the bodies were scrapped but the underframes were given new bodies and formed into 4-EPB, 2-HAP and 2-EPB units. For instance, unit 1813 was delivered in November 1934; it was formed of cars 9861 and 9940. When withdrawn in February 1959, the underframe of 9861 was used to build 14585, formed in 2-EPB unit 5679; and the underframe of 9940 was used to build 16111, formed in 2-EPB unit 5661. Both of these cars were withdrawn in 1994, their final units being 6326 (car 14585) and 6325 (car 16111). -- Red rose64 (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Info from Cannon Street station rail crash indicates safety of the pre-war under-frames (dating from 1934 & 1928) on Class 415 and 416 were a feature of that accident. The original comment on this page, of the priority of replacing older stock before the Mk 1 coaches, seems valid.  This accident occurred in 1991.  2ghoti (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Have added back text now naming 2 classes of MU that were involved in a subsequent accident. 2ghoti (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge.
I propose that British Railways Mark 1 sleeping car should be merged with this article because they are from the same family of loco-hauled carriages and I personally believe that a seperate article isn't necessary to describe the sleepers. Slender (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes Novathetrainpotter (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

British Railways Mark 1 → British Rail Mark 1 – Name change in order to align with other British rolling stock articles, which mostly use "British Rail" instead of "British Railways" in the title. Danners430 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support: per nom. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)