Talk:British Rail Mark 3

Mark II

Is it really relevant to describe in such detail how Mark IIs displaced by Mark IIIs have been sent to New Zealand, when the Mark II page already does so? David Arthur 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, its inclusion in the Mark III page is irrelevent.82.14.89.118 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Standard class

An anon replaced all references to "standard" with "second", citing Second was the description at time of delivery. Standard only became into use after the time being discussed. I don't think the Mk3s had yet been delivered when "second class" was abolished in 1875. Today's "standard class" was until the 1960s^[uncertain] as "third class". 85.92.190.81 15:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong. BR used the desctiption First and Second Class until the late 1980's to early 1990's. I'd suggest you repair all the references that you have incorrectly edited.86.27.129.31 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Page 3 of this link, http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRB_XP641964.pdf , describes the XP64 experimental rolling stock gives the classes used at the time of their introduction (1964). From which I quote :- The eight xp64 prototypes (the remaining four vehicles of the train are existing designs, redecorated and repainted) consist of three first class corridor coaches, two second-class corridor coaches and three open plan second-class coaches. It is clear from that official BR document that Second class was still in use in 1964, and not ended in 1875. If you look back even further, to Mark 1 rolling stock, certain Southern Region Mark 1's came in 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd class for cruise liner traffic. See here http://www.semg.org.uk/coach/brmk1_1.html

• Well, we now have the date at which use of "third class" ended: "When European second class was abolished on 3 June 1956 the former third class was redesignated second ..." [SEG]. Either way, with the exception of former references to "Third" as appropriate when discussing Mk1s, this now presents an ambiguity in the meaning of "Second". Thus, it makes sense to not refer to "Second" in any way since its removal in 1875 and its abolition from shipping in 1956, thus retaining its meaning of "between First and Third", rather that "what Third later became", and use the current term "Standard", that unambiguously means "the one that isn't First". All of which reminds me of another problem for another day ... 85.92.190.81 16:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  PS - the coaches pictured in the lead are indeed TSO, not TS. I base this statement on the assumption that the data panel on each of the Standard cars of the HST I left earlier today stated "GH2G TSO". 85.92.190.81 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Here is a picture of a data panel of a GNER TS in September 2007. http://www.rollingstock.fotopic.net/p45638018.html As you can see, its a TS, not a TSO. The website that hosts the picture has a whole section devoted to BR Rolling stock, as refers to the HST cosching stock titles. Not one has an "O" at the end. This is why the TGS is a TGS, and not a TGSO. Also, if you took the time to look at the TF vehicle, it would be labeled GH1G. The 1 deonting the class. In the case of the TS, the 2 in GH2G shows its historically Second, since renamed to Standard Class.82.3.64.105 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    
• Firstly, stop editing the pages as a concensus has not been reached. Secondly, I see that you have completely ignored the XP64 data, which, from an official BR document, refers to SECOND class. SECOND CLASS is the correct term for the AS DELIVERED state of the vehicles. Thirdly, BR(SR) had 3 classes of travel until 1956. I have provided a source which proves that your statement of "Second was removed in 1875" is incorrect. If you were to refer to any publication of the time, here's another http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRE_GNElectric1973.pdf, for the then new GN stock, it clearly refers to Second Class. Fourthly, please provide evidence that the vehicle is refered to as a TSO. As can be seen from the text, the Mark 3a is the TSO, the Mark 3 (HST) is a TS. And fifthly, here's an accident report involving a derailment in 1980 of an Inter-City 125 on the Eastern Region. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Northallerton1979.pdf See pages 2 and 3 where it defines the class of the vehicles. I don not know how much more evidence you require to prove that second class is the term used for more than 30 years on BR to define the lowest class of travel. This is the time period covered when the Mark 3 was introduced, and, is the correct designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.64.105 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry. "Second" is ambiguous - end of story. 90.203.45.147 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No, its not ambiguious. You just do not understand it clearly. You cannot just change history. Wikipedia deals with FACTS, and the fact is, in the delivered state, the class was second. NOW the class is standard, but in the context of that section, it is SECOND. Also, you have consistantly failed to back up your POV with hard facts. I have produced source, after source to back up any change I have made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.210.74 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • As has been pointed out, the class can only be correctly and unambiguously identified as "Standard". By your own admission, "Second" has seen no fewer than three different uses in the last 200 years, so it is clearly ambiguous. Making reference to the specific meaning it may or may not have had at any given time is therefore not helpful. 85.92.190.81 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, you cannot change history, just because it suits your own lack of understanding. And again you have failed to cite sources. Until you can cite any sources that say that the vehicles have never been "Second" class, I shall keep on changing your uncited edits. Have you ever looked at other class pages? The Multiple Unit pages are full of references to Second Class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.77.176 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The point has been explained to you by two different users now. "Second" is ambiguous, so we shouldn't use it when a more appropriate term exists. I personally am no longer prepared to repeat the same argument, so if you repeatedly reintroduce ambiguous language into the article I will blindly revert it as vandalism. 90.203.45.244 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I am no longer prepared to leave uncited sources from 1 person, with 2 IP adresses. Sorry, But again, facts are facts. You are disputing doccumented information, with only YOUR point of view. This is against the principles of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.77.176 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1956 British Rail changed to a two class system; and in 1987 Second became Standard. Reference is Simmons, Jack and Biddle, Gordon (1997). The Oxford Companion to British Railway History: From 1603 to the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nightstar

I have removed the section The Mark 3 in Canada, as the Nightstar stock design was based upon the Mk4 and not the Mk3 as the article incorrectly said. 92.9.157.173 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So why not add it too the mk4 article ??? 91.111.89.69 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Trailer Composite

There is no mention of the Mk 3a Trailer Composite. I have a copy of diagram AD301 dated June 1986. Presumably they were converted from something else. I don't know how many were built. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Doors

Chiltern have replaced the slam doors with push button doors. This will happen to the HST coaches planned to remain on FGW after IEP http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/chiltern-railways-puts-refurbished-mk-iii-coaches-into-service.html82.46.109.233 (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected a mistake that the central locking was speed actuated, it is actually locked and unlocked by the guard. Speed locking is used outside but not in the UK. Skinner doc (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Prototype

Why no information on the evolution of the design? Was the Class 252 HST prototype the first prototype use of Mk3 coaches or was there something earlier at Derby RTC, IIRC at least one Mk2 coach was fitted with original Mk3 style seating for evaluation purposes. 157.203.254.1 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Ian Murray 157.203.254.1 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Usage

This area is full of holes, as examples no mention of:

• Initial formation or HST or Loco hauled coaches giving the reason for the number different variants built or of why there were initially so many different types of catering vehicle.
• The need to build the TGS variant, guards were already catered for in the rear of each HST power car.
• Modification of Western Region stock such as loco hauled conversions, aircraft style seating, new mini-buffet coach conversions, disabled provision etc.
• The article has a big topic on "Entertainment carriages" why is this not either under the Usage heading or should all the paragraphs from the Usage heading be given their own bold headings?

• Modification of East Coast stock - I am no expert of this stock, but the article mentions the Cross Country & open operator modifications, and even the internal colour scheme of one Virgin set, I believe the article needs to include all modifications and preferably as a chronology.
• and while I think about it, why include one virgin set, when Virgin used to run the NorthEast SouthWest route and had a whole fleet of red interior HSTs?

157.203.254.1 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Ian Murray 157.203.254.1 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll start to write something to improve things....

• Shortened the header
• Added an introduction, pointing out that the design was older than the HST.
• Add some of the stuff from above

Ianmurray5 (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Seating capacity

Could someone add information about the seating capacity of this carriage? Personally I would suggest that that would be appropriate information to have in the infobox and probably also the lead. I ask as someone interested in knowing what the maximum capacity on different services. Many thanks. PeterEastern (talk)

The problem here is that whilst the original carriages in BR days had specific seating capacities (was it 64F and 72S) the various more recent private operators have usually replaced the seats, removed tables and squeezed more in to increase revenue at the expense of ambience or with First Great Western reduced the number of seats in first class to 48F, whilst removing all but a couple of tables in standard class, replacing the seats and packing considerably more seats in. But you are correct Peter, we should have this information here. Ianmurray5 (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a question...

With all the detail on the main page, and the discussion here, I feel something's missing.

...How heavy were these? (And indeed, the MK2s and MK1s, as there's no information for them either).

Mainly I'm after this one to win an argument with someone over the road transport of damaged carriages, but it does seem something of an oversight to not have it. Presumably they're lighter than a full laden coal wagon (120t) or a typical DMU/EMU (100t), but by how much? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering only those coaches which are primarily passenger seating, and thus ignoring the catering cars, sleeping cars and those with guard's accommodation, a typical Mark 1 coach weighed between 31 and 37 tons depending on type of bogies, heating and lighting; Mark 2/2a/2b/2c (no air conditioning) weighed 32-33 t; Mark 2d/2e/2f (air conditioned) weighed 33-35 t; Mark 3 (HST) weigh 33.6 t; and Mark 3a (loco-hauled) weigh 34.3 t. Catering and sleeping cars were up to 20% heavier. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliant Motor Company

I recently watched a documentary about Reliant who alongside the Scimitar, the Fox, Rebel and 3 wheelers, also built a lot of stuff for BR which included the aerodynamic shielding slung between bogies on the MK3 and later MK2's, they also according to that documentary built the end cabs for the Networker units and it is likely the demise of British Rail that hastened Reliant's own demise as it had lost much of its original customer base that being Leyland, British Rail, Ford had moved its fibreglass production contracts to a European provider as Reliant built cabs and fibreglass panels for Ford and Leyland in return for parts bin quid pro quo. 92.31.59.8 (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

British Rail subcontracted a large number of components. But without a reliable source, we can't use it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)