QUESTIONS TO POSE FOR MK 1S AS DEADLINE LOOMS
Do BR’s first carriages still have a role to play on the modern railway?
Has the time come to take a good look at Mk 1s on the main line? Almost 20 years after the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 that brought their use in regular service to an end, there are good reasons to think the answer is ‘yes’. Pressure to fit BR’s first design of coaches with Controlled Emissions Toilets (tanks), to stop them dropping sewage on the track, has been building; and current exemptions allowing Mk 1s to run only last until 2023. Most obviously right now though, Tornado’s April 14 90mph trip highlighted that while Mk 1s are allowed to run at 100mph with other motive power, steam haulage chops that by 25mph (see separate story). For years, that has basically been a moot point – a stipulation buried away in the exemption certificates allowing people to use the coaches beyond the dates in the 1999 rules. With steam itself limited to 75mph, so long as the stock could go at least as fast, where was the problem? So, what has been the reasoning for limiting Mk 1s to 75mph behind steam, but allowing them to run at their ‘plated’ speed behind all other traction? Exemption certificates are issued by the Office of Rail and Road. So I put this to the safety organisation for an official response. The answer was that the regulator “will look into this when we consider the exemption application” – by which it means an expected submission to partner future 90mph running with Tornado. That might be a reasonable way of addressing the issue for the future – but it doesn’t provide an explanation right now; and this, let’s not forget, is the organisation that writes such stipulations into certificates.
exemption certificates that allow mk 1s to continue in passenger traffic are clear: the discriminating factor is steam
So, in a search for a reason, I sought the views of senior observers from various organisations, outside the ORR. Having done that though, I still don’t have an answer. It was suggested to me that you might, perhaps, base limits on the differing performances of braking systems – but it’s not that. For you can run a train of Mk 1s at 100mph behind a ‘Deltic’ or Class 86 whether they’re using air or vacuum brakes. Yet the moment you put even an air-braked steam locomotive on, that same train is limited to 75mph. Another possible reason behind reducing a vehicle’s top speed could be if there were concerns about a design’s crashworthiness – but that would be the case irrespective of the motive power on the front. No, the exemption certificates that allow Mk 1s to continue in passenger traffic are clear: the discriminating factor is steam. The wording is unambiguous: “The rolling stock must not be operated at a speed exceeding 120kph (75mph) for steam operations or at a speed not exceeding the plated speed of the coach for electric or diesel operations.” In the light of that, you might point out that some Mk 1s did in fact run in Tornado’s April 14 train. So I should explain that all this refers only to vehicles being used by customers; the 1999 rules specifically exclude “rolling stock which at the relevant time is being exclusively operated other than for the carriage of fare-paying passengers”. Hence, while those who bought tickets for the ‘Ebor Flyer’ rode in Mk 2s, in the very same train, the support coach and others not containing paying people were Mk 1s. So, where does all this leave us? To unpick things, it’s perhaps worth looking back to where the 1999 regulations came from in the first place. In essence, the point was to drive Mk 1s from regular main line service, after concerns about coaches riding over each other following accidents with slam-door stock on the Southern Region. Those vehicles, by the way, largely differed from the ones in use on charters by having doors all along the bodysides rather than merely at the ends. The result was a so-called ‘statutory instrument’ signed by then Secretary of State John Prescott, rather than an Act of Parliament. The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 imposed deadlines for the elimination of both Mk 1 stock (2003, or 2005 if modified with non-override devices), and separately slam-door stock not fitted with central locking. In both cases though, it gave the Health and Safety Executive (and now the ORR) the power to grant
exemptions. The current ones are valid until the end of March 2023. Clearly, things have changed since 1999. Slam-door commuter trains are gone. The rollout of TPWS (already under way in 1999 but boosted by the regulations) has reduced the risk of trains colliding. At the same time, the world has moved on in other ways – such as the impending elimination from regular service of trains without Controlled Emission Toilets, or the advent of 90mph steam running. Increasingly, major reconstructions of Mk 1s are the norm. In the case of the ‘Hosking family’ at Crewe this already includes fitting CET tanks – so there’s an argument that these vehicles are the best they have ever been. What’s more, Mk 1s are – still – the classic steam coach, and a good one is a joy to ride in. Plus, to those tempted to say that Mk 2s or Mk 3s are the way forward – yes, those coaches clearly also have a place. But they also have challenges. The monocoque bodies of Mk 2s are much more complex than their ‘body on an underframe’ predecessors – and are themselves starting to need work. As for the ‘modern’ Mk 3s, even the newest of these are now 30 years old. Besides, our approach to Mk 1s should surely be independent of what we do with other vehicles. Do they deserve a secure future? Absolutely. What next? Well, if you’re planning rebuilds, modifying coaches to modern expectations, and writing big cheques to make all that happen, then 2023 is not far away. After all, years ago a seeming future threat to Mk 1s sparked a shift to Mk 2s that subsequently proved unnecessary. Yet the road to 2023 is also an opportunity – because as the ORR ponders what it wants before delivering any new round of exemption certificates, it brings a chance to take account of all those changes since the 1999 regulations were written; giving time for people to react if necessary. One potential question is this: what is the justification for that steam-only 75mph limit? Or is it now simply an anomaly?