975081 & 975280 detail

Your comments

• gary westgate

  2 June 2007, 01:07:34

  with ref:- to SDO853's comment in a previous picture he states that 975081 was converted from a BSK can someone then please enlighten me as to what BSK has a plated over cab side window, a cab door just behind the plated over window, handrails round the end of the coach, a recss cut in the body end for a main res pipe a brake pipe & a 27 pin jumper & if you look carefully you can see the outline of the secondman's window above the handrail & the body end recess.

• SD0853

  2 June 2007, 10:01:11

  A heavily converted BSK, that's what. If you go inside the vehical, there's even the remains of the driving desks, from when the vehical has been returned to a none driving trailer spec.

  The RTC have, over the years carried out MASSIVE amounts of convertion work to there vehicles to adapt them for purpose. Take for example "Lab1" RDB975000. This vehical was originally M1003, which was an RK. This coach even has a complete "Compartment" inside such as one fitted to a CK or BSK.

  If you can prove to me, with a Unit or Car number stating that this coach is from a 400 series EMU (or other) then i'd be very interested. But having spent along time working with this vehicle, I belive my original statement to be true, that this vehicle is converted from MK1 BSK M35313.

  Just out of interest the other vehicle in the formation ADB975280 was at one time an "Air brake only" vehicle who's oringinal number was S21263. Are you confusing the 2 vehicles.

  Also, according to the vehical records library ADB975081 was once listed as "Dual Braked"

  Lastly, if you look above the corridor connection of the driving end, you will see 2 "scars" above the corridor connection. These are from the attachments from the original corridor connection (see vehical coupled to coach). EMU's have different corridor connections than conventional MK1 stock. My question would be, "how or why were these brakets attatched if this was an EMU vehicle?"

• SD0853

  2 June 2007, 10:15:38

  Just to continue this conversation, the structure and layout of the body af this coach does not follow the arguement that this is a REP vehicle. These details are...

  1, Cab door is too close to the front of the carrage.

  2, There are 2 toilets at the rear of the vehicle.

  To carry out this convertion to a REP would mean the re-positioning of all 4 large bodyside windows, The replacement of the original passenger access door in the centre of the vehicle and the addition of the 2 toilet windows/compartments.

  You will see that the rear of this vehicle is very much in keeping with the design charictaristics of a MK1 BSK, but has very little in common with that of a 400 series REP "Tractor Unit"

• SD0853

  2 June 2007, 10:22:45

  You could also argue that the profile of the roof dome is not the same as a REP, but more that of a CIG where the roof profile is abrupt rather than smoothed over to meet the roof.

• Robert Chilton

  3 June 2007, 00:02:59

  I had read many years ago that 975081 was converted from a BSK and accepted this as a 'fact' since then. This latest discussion lead me to look it up - in Colin J Marsden's 'Rolling Stock Recognition: 3 Departmental Stock' (1984), Platform 5's 'Departmental Coaching Stock' (June 1987) and OPC's '25 Years Of Railway Research' (1989), they all state that 975081 was converted from BSK no. M35313 and that the original conversion was carried out during 1971. The brake type post-conversion was Dual / EP, meaning it would have been able to work with virtually any type of stock, including SR EMUs with fitted with EP brakes.

  It is fair to say that the cab-end resembles a SR EMU of the REP, CIG, VEP etc family - this is probably borne out of convenience since 4VEPs were still being built into the 70s and fabricating an extra cab-end for this vehicle would have been easy. Initially the few visible differences included the slightly larger headcode panel window to incorporate a class 302/307 style four character indicator in place of the normal SR two character indicator, the ETH jumper socket and vacuum pipe.

  In reference to Gary Westgate's comment, the plated over windows, handrails and body recesses are remaining evidence of it's former departmental use following it's more recent conversion back to a non-driving vehicle and were not present prior to the original 1971 conversion.

• SD0853

  3 June 2007, 19:34:07

  I've had another look whilst "in the area" today, and I still stand by my comments, also, thanks Rob for finding out the above information to back up my original statements.

  Just out of interest ADB975280 was a 4-TC Trailer car at one time. It is still fitted with EP brakes. This vehicle still carries it's original builders plates, stating "Built BR Derby 1963. Lot No 30732" and it also (quite interestingly) carries it's convertion plate, which states "Lot No 3843. Converted Swindon 1974", which would havbeen when it became part of a TC unit i'd imagine.

  ADB975081 also carries a fantastic looking plate that states that it is an "Instrumentation Vehicle, Converted 1981, British Rail Reaserch, Derby".

• Simon Bendall

  4 June 2007, 14:24:51

  Sorry, 975280 was never in a TC unit, it was converted from a conventional BCK (TC units did not use BCKs to begin with and were in the main rebuilt at York in 1966/7). The 1974 plate, which is in the wagon Lot No. series (also used for departmental conversions), doubtless refers to its original conversion as Lab 18 Mercury.

• SD0853

  4 June 2007, 19:49:14

  Well, you learn something everday. Cheers for the info on Mercury. I should have noticed that really. D'OH

• g westgate

  5 June 2007, 00:04:05

  Blimey didn't realise you lot would take it to serious after all it's only a BSK you lot are fluffing over, i knew it wasn't a CL432 DMS cos i've worked on it when on night's when i was a secondman. Back then in the 80's it used to run around with a BSK @ either end & the wagon in the middle, it could work push/pull with any BLUE STAR fitted loco or an ETH fitted loco any CL33/1 or 73/1 or any group D & E SR EMU'S..

• SD0853

  5 June 2007, 09:05:16

  In that case please don't post agressive/challenging statements and questions. Your original posting was made in a manner that I found challenging and to a degree arrogant. Since then myself and other contributors have pointed out details regarding the conversion of this vehicle. Also if you were fully aware of all of this information, why, did you challange my original statements. Also read the comments regarding relevent discussion. All you have caused here is friction, for your own pleasure. May I suggest that you go else where or on other forums if this is how you wish to comunicate with people.

• Robert Chilton

  5 June 2007, 14:36:29

  OK, getting out of hand now - Gary, what do you expect? Yes it's 'only' a BSK and you could call all this 'fluffing', but that's the whole point of a forum to a great extent; exchange of information and details, points of interest etc.

  To many it's the detail which makes things interesting and partly why the stock which has survived as departmentals in principle are so interesting, while today's railway scene in many people's eyes, is not.

  While I don't know you or SD0853 or most other contributors to this site personally, I have to say that I agree with SD0853 and wonder why if you know the vehicle so intimately did you ask the question in the first place and in such a manner which has to be said would be seen as challenging or aggressive towards someone who has made comment on it previously...

• g westgate

  10 June 2007, 16:24:59

  ha ha ha very funny wasn't it.............

• Greg Sherlock

  20 November 2007, 09:50:19

  Network Rail are looking at converting ex-'One' DBSOs for use on their test trains to dispense with top & tailing of locos. So isn't it ironic that the driving cab end of this vehicle has been plated over, now all of a sudden another carriage with a driving cab is required...?

• ian saunders

  20 November 2007, 12:50:23

  the driving cabs of the DBSOs are more up to date than the MK1 vehicles, also this may also be a part of the MK1 cull. All MK1s are slowly being withdrawn from mainline use dont forget so redundant MKIIs are now being converted for research use

• SD0853

  20 November 2007, 14:27:46

  Well, you know what they say about what goes around, comes around. Hey hoe.