Preferred Intercity Rolling Stock

[DarloRich]

How ever did we survive before sliding door rolling stock. The trains are so much more comfortable now as well!

But they simply aren't! i realise that my views aren't welcome as i wont simply agree that modern = best but here we go!

Despite all of the wonders of modern technology we haven't made a train with a better, more comfortable seat for passengers when compared to a nearly 40 year old train? Why is that? Why do we accept that?

Why are seats on a modern train thinner, less well padded, have less "seat" area and a steeper, straighter pitch? Why dont they line up with the windows? Why do they vibrate so badly? Why are they nosier less relaxing places to be?

But hey, we can press a button to open the door! :roll:

 

[fowler9]

But they simply aren't! i realise that my views aren't welcome as i wont simply agree that modern = best but here we go!

Despite all of the wonders of modern technology we haven't made a train with a better, more comfortable seat for passengers when compared to a nearly 40 year old train? Why is that? Why do we accept that?

Why are seats on a modern train thinner, less well padded, have less "seat" area and a steeper, straighter pitch? Why dont they line up with the windows? Why do they vibrate so badly? Why are they nosier less relaxing places to be?

But hey, we can press a button to open the door! :roll:

Sorry mate, I was being sarcastic.

 

[asylumxl]

But they simply aren't! i realise that my views aren't welcome as i wont simply agree that modern = best but here we go!

Despite all of the wonders of modern technology we haven't made a train with a better, more comfortable seat for passengers when compared to a nearly 40 year old train? Why is that? Why do we accept that?

Why are seats on a modern train thinner, less well padded, have less "seat" area and a steeper, straighter pitch? Why dont they line up with the windows? Why do they vibrate so badly? Why are they nosier less relaxing places to be?

But hey, we can press a button to open the door! :roll:

The seats are thinner, less well padded and do not line up with the windows in order to allow more seating to be installed. Most people prefer having a seat to no seat at all, regardless of the seats (subjective) comfortableness.

As for the straighter seat pitch, it's supposed to help posture and provide more lumbar support. As someone of reasonable height I prefer the higher seat backs.

 

[DarloRich]

Sorry mate, I was being sarcastic.

i know - i was just using your quote as a "introduction"

I just find it frustrating that we as users settle for less than we should do and that trains companies are allowed o pretend that progress is made by regressing on passenger comfort!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The seats are thinner, less well padded and do not line up with the windows in order to allow more seating to be installed. Most people prefer having a seat to no seat at all, regardless of the seats (subjective) comfortableness.

As for the straighter seat pitch, it's supposed to help posture and provide more lumbar support. As someone of reasonable height I prefer the higher seat backs.

ok - so you need less padding on the seat and back to allow more seats into the space? You need a thinner (width wise ) seat to allow more seats in? IN the same space as before? We seemed to mange all right with the older seats.............

 

[asylumxl]

ok - so you need less padding on the seat and back to allow more seats into the space? You need a thinner (width wise ) seat to allow more seats in? IN the same space as before? We seemed to mange all right with the older seats.............

If the seat padding was thicker it would reduce the amount of legroom available between the seat frames. Having narrower seats allows for wider aisles, making it easier for passengers with luggage and allowing for more standing room. Let's face it, most IC routes in the UK have to also accomodate commuter flows.

Same space? Err... No. Older rolling stock tended to have shorter carriage lengths and as such could have a wider profile with less taper at each end. They also didn't have space taken up by accessible toilets and wheelchair spaces. Having a slightly narrower profile and longer carriage allows for more "furnishable space", despite the reduced width and larger taper. This is why the IEP carriages have been designed in the way they have.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Imagine that: having to actually TOUCH a door handle :roll: That is before you consider the sheer horror of getting up and closing a window. MY GOD. How did we ever survive?

Well this forum is full of surprises! I never thought I'd see the day where you'd agree with me on the inconvenience of opening a train door. As you suggest thank God we've left the dark ages behind.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do the doors work in your house? Must be a real bind having to use a handle and all that old fashioned nonsense.

Now I don't know how house doors are designed in Merseyside but in our neck of the woods I don't have to open a window and lean out to open my front door.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But they simply aren't! i realise that my views aren't welcome as i wont simply agree that modern = best but here we go!

Despite all of the wonders of modern technology we haven't made a train with a better, more comfortable seat for passengers when compared to a nearly 40 year old train? Why is that? Why do we accept that?

Why are seats on a modern train thinner, less well padded, have less "seat" area and a steeper, straighter pitch? Why dont they line up with the windows? Why do they vibrate so badly? Why are they nosier less relaxing places to be?

But hey, we can press a button to open the door! :roll:

Are you suggesting that having a seat with a full view is more important than ensuring that the maximum number of people has a chance to sit down? Where do you suggest that train manufacturers put the engines given that HST's are not quick enough off the mark? On the roof?

And if you've got issues with the size of the seats why not go on a diet? Or maybe join the gym?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And what's that brown stuff on it

Seriously power doors also make it easier for dispatch. I've seen more then one HST get delayed by having platform staff run up and down the train closing doors only for another passenger to open one at the other end of the train. (BR cost cutting meant the Mk3s didn't get Autoclose mechanisms as fitted to continental stock of the time)

I always thought this was such a shame as it's really the only thing that lets them down compared to the SNCF Corail stock. Having spent all that time and money designing the HST fleet would it really have cost that much more?

 

[Emyr]

And if you've got issues with the size of the seats why not go on a diet? Or maybe join the gym?

I don't mind the width of the base, but it's my shoulder width that's the problem, not my arse.

 

[D6975]

Where does this idea that having seats line up with windows reduces the number of seats come from?

It's only if you're cramming seats into an existing design that it's an issue.

If you're designing a unit from scratch, then there's no excuse for seats not lining up with windows, you build it that way from the outset. It has no effect whatsoever on the number of seats. The use of standard shells (like Mk3s) causing second class seats to be at a different pitch to the windows seems to have passed, the 3 coaches of a 185 for example are all of different design.

 

[Taunton]

The seats are thinner, less well padded and do not line up with the windows in order to allow more seating to be installed. Most people prefer having a seat to no seat at all, regardless of the seats (subjective) comfortableness.

Actually, as we are reverting back to old days comparisons, the way this was traditionally handled was not to squish in the maximum number of little seats, but to provide the appropriate number of vehicles in the first place.

I think back to Liverpool-Newcastle services of a generation ago, which ran with 11-12 main line vehicles. Now I know the Class 46 might be down to about 40 mph on the climb to Standedge, but at least everyone was sat down, and in proper seats. Nowadays we have the TPX wonders, three cars only (and half of one being taken up by the disabled toilet). As you have to get to even the starting station a good 20 minutes beforehand to get in the queue before departure, there's no speed advantage either.

The last TPX Newcastle-Liverpool service I saw entering Darlington would have made an unfavourable comparison with peak hour on the Central Line at Bank. It was of course three cars only.

 

[yorksrob]

Where does this idea that having seats line up with windows reduces the number of seats come from?

It's only if you're cramming seats into an existing design that it's an issue.

If you're designing a unit from scratch, then there's no excuse for seats not lining up with windows, you build it that way from the outset. It has no effect whatsoever on the number of seats. The use of standard shells (like Mk3s) causing second class seats to be at a different pitch to the windows seems to have passed, the 3 coaches of a 185 for example are all of different design.

There's some progress on modern train design we can point to. The 185's to their credit, also have decent leg room in the airline seats, although like most modern trains, the seats are really too hard. With regard to lumber support, the Hastings thumpers managed to combine a very soft cushion with an upright, but curved seat back giving good lumber support. Result - a seat which remains comfortable even if sat on for hours on end.

I remember at one stage Virgin XC mk 2's were going around with some uncomfortable bucket seats which weren't even as comfortable as a VEP, let alone IC70's. Still a lot less cramped than a Voyager though.

 

[Taunton]

"Seats lining up with the windows" is putting the design points the wrong way round. You design what you want as an interior layout first, then provide windows where appropriate.

I am also dismayed by those designers who think that windows can then be half-obliterated by destination displays, as on the Southern Class 377s, where from some seats you have to be a dwarf to see out.

http://www.rail.co.uk/images/1991/original/class-377s-on-grosvenor-bank-by-phil-marsh.jpg

 

[asylumxl]

Actually, as we are reverting back to old days comparisons, the way this was traditionally handled was not to squish in the maximum number of little seats, but to provide the appropriate number of vehicles in the first place.

So please, tell me how you intend to provide more seats when platform extensions are not possible on most routes?

 

[Taunton]

So please, tell me how you intend to provide more seats when platform extensions are not possible on most routes?

So, to take my example of 11-12 coach trains on Liverpool to Newcastle trains (which always fitted every platform along the way), are we saying that all the platforms along the way have somehow shrunk in recent years?

 

[fishquinn]

I don't really like Pendolino but I will travel on it unlike the meridians or Voyagers which I avoid like the plague.
My favourites are as followed.
1. MK 3
2. MK 2
3. MK 1

 

[deltic08]

So please, tell me how you intend to provide more seats when platform extensions are not possible on most routes?

Trains used to draw up twice. Yes, time consuming but passengers came first once upon a time but now profit comes first.

The only way to cope with capacity is longer trains less frequently. 3-car trains every twelve minutes clogging up an important trans-Pennine route at the expense of local services is complete lunacy. The busiest section is between Mirfield and Ravensthorpe and on to Leeds with six intermediate stations. How can footfall from local stations on this line grow with trains every twelve minutes on a two track railway? 2x3-cars from Manchester at twenty minute intervals dividing at Leeds for York and Hull or York for Scarborough and Middlesbrough is just as attractive to passengers.

 

[SansPareil]

Trains used to draw up twice. Yes, time consuming but passengers came first once upon a time but now profit comes first.

The only way to cope with capacity is longer trains less frequently. 3-car trains every twelve minutes clogging up an important trans-Pennine route at the expense of local services is complete lunacy. 2x3-cars from Manchester at twenty minute intervals dividing at Leeds for York and Hull or York for Scarborough and Middlesbrough is just as attractive to passengers.

That's simply not true journey frequency can have a huge impact on marginal demand.

 

[fowler9]

Well this forum is full of surprises! I never thought I'd see the day where you'd agree with me on the inconvenience of opening a train door. As you suggest thank God we've left the dark ages behind.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Now I don't know how house doors are designed in Merseyside but in our neck of the woods I don't have to open a window and lean out to open my front door.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Are you suggesting that having a seat with a full view is more important than ensuring that the maximum number of people has a chance to sit down? Where do you suggest that train manufacturers put the engines given that HST's are not quick enough off the mark? On the roof?

And if you've got issues with the size of the seats why not go on a diet? Or maybe join the gym?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I always thought this was such a shame as it's really the only thing that lets them down compared to the SNCF Corail stock. Having spent all that time and money designing the HST fleet would it really have cost that much more?

Ha ha. Touche.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Ha ha. Touche.

No worries Hopefully the Toffees can do you a huge favour when they play City! And who knows you might be playing DCFC next season!

 

[fowler9]

No worries Hopefully the Toffees can do you a huge favour when they play City! And who knows you might be playing DCFC next season!

Working in social housing in Liverpool over the years that probably wouldn't be the craziest thing I've heard. "The workies have locked my mum in her house and set fire to it" would be up there ha ha. Got my fingers crossed the blues do us a favour but not holding my breath. Ha ha.

I hasten to add that the workies hadn't really quite managed that. They had put a new front door on backwards, not given her a key and then put tar on the porch roof producing steam and a burning smell. Not much better than the original report to be fair.

Sorry for straying off topic.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Working in social housing in Liverpool over the years that probably wouldn't be the craziest thing I've heard. "The workies have locked my mum in her house and set fire to it" would be up there ha ha. Got my fingers crossed the blues do us a favour but not holding my breath. Ha ha.

I hasten to add that the workies hadn't really quite managed that. They had put a new front door on backwards, not given her a key and then put tar on the porch roof producing steam and a burning smell. Not much better than the original report to be fair.

Sorry for straying off topic.

I've just laughed out loud on a packed train! Cheers!

 

[A2BbyTrain]

1st 700 series duplex TGV's
2nd 600 series dupliex TGV's
3rd Any ICE service
~~~~~~
9th Mark 3's

 

[al.currie93]

Actually, as we are reverting back to old days comparisons, the way this was traditionally handled was not to squish in the maximum number of little seats, but to provide the appropriate number of vehicles in the first place.

I think back to Liverpool-Newcastle services of a generation ago, which ran with 11-12 main line vehicles. Now I know the Class 46 might be down to about 40 mph on the climb to Standedge, but at least everyone was sat down, and in proper seats. Nowadays we have the TPX wonders, three cars only (and half of one being taken up by the disabled toilet). As you have to get to even the starting station a good 20 minutes beforehand to get in the queue before departure, there's no speed advantage either.

Very good point; I do agree with this

Trains used to draw up twice. Yes, time consuming but passengers came first once upon a time but now profit comes first.

The only way to cope with capacity is longer trains less frequently. 3-car trains every twelve minutes clogging up an important trans-Pennine route at the expense of local services is complete lunacy. The busiest section is between Mirfield and Ravensthorpe and on to Leeds with six intermediate stations. How can footfall from local stations on this line grow with trains every twelve minutes on a two track railway? 2x3-cars from Manchester at twenty minute intervals dividing at Leeds for York and Hull or York for Scarborough and Middlesbrough is just as attractive to passengers.

Again, a very good point made I truly believe that the capacity problems could at the very least be severely ameliorated by simply running what we currently have in a different way

 

[RichmondCommu]

Actually, as we are reverting back to old days comparisons, the way this was traditionally handled was not to squish in the maximum number of little seats, but to provide the appropriate number of vehicles in the first place.

I think back to Liverpool-Newcastle services of a generation ago, which ran with 11-12 main line vehicles. Now I know the Class 46 might be down to about 40 mph on the climb to Standedge, but at least everyone was sat down, and in proper seats. Nowadays we have the TPX wonders, three cars only (and half of one being taken up by the disabled toilet). As you have to get to even the starting station a good 20 minutes beforehand to get in the queue before departure, there's no speed advantage either.

The last TPX Newcastle-Liverpool service I saw entering Darlington would have made an unfavourable comparison with peak hour on the Central Line at Bank. It was of course three cars only.

But in the 1980's if you missed one trans-pennine service how long did you have to wait for the next one? And given the cascade programme who's to say that things won't improve? In which case we have the best of both worlds; improved journey times and improved capacity.

 

[D6975]

In the late 70s/early 80s the approx pattern was:
Newcastle-Liverpools used to be every 2-3 hours.
Then there was a Hull-Liverpool TP unit about every 2 hours.
Then there was the odd stopper went over the top every now and then, mostly at peak hours.
So the service across the Diggle route was approx hourly off peak.

 

[Taunton]

I can't recall the Liverpool-Newcastle full length trains having to pull up twice anywhere. Every station along the way had adequate length platforms.

We have heard so much about passenger increases over the last 20 years or so, it would be interesting to know what the change in passenger numbers is and what the change in seat numbers in the overall fleet is. I suspect the latter has actually gone down.

 

[fowler9]

But in the 1980's if you missed one trans-pennine service how long did you have to wait for the next one? And given the cascade programme who's to say that things won't improve? In which case we have the best of both worlds; improved journey times and improved capacity.

Depends where you live. Back in the 80's you had to wait another hour in Liverpool whereas now you have to wait an hour but the train is much shorter. Ha ha.

 

[yorksrob]

I think whilst increased frequency is important, once you're up to four express trains an hour on a longish distance route like TPE with limited infrastructure, there seem to be lots of problems with yet higher frequencies and few benefits. Time to lengthen instead.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Depends where you live. Back in the 80's you had to wait another hour in Liverpool whereas now you have to wait an hour but the train is much shorter. Ha ha.

How busy are the trains when they leave Lime Street? More over how busy were the trains in the 1980's with ten coaches and a class 45? Hopefully the electrification cascade programme will allow TPE services to be strengthened.

 

[deltic08]

I can't recall the Liverpool-Newcastle full length trains having to pull up twice anywhere. Every station along the way had adequate length platforms.

We have heard so much about passenger increases over the last 20 years or so, it would be interesting to know what the change in passenger numbers is and what the change in seat numbers in the overall fleet is. I suspect the latter has actually gone down.

No, I can't on this route but the 12/13/14 coach 10.05 Glasgow-Birminghams drew up twice at Dudley Port and nearly all southbound trains did the same at Cheltenham Lansdown Road. I just suggested that it is possible where trains are strengthened and platforms are short as one way of increasing capacity without the expense of platform lengthening. Look at what happens at Conan Bridge. Two coaches served on a one coach length platform. Where there's a will.............

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What would stop the use of double decker trains in the future (apart from the huge cost of altering platforms, tunnels, etc)?