TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

[Bletchleyite]

The original poster has chosen to edit their post. Please read their original post that I have quoted and you will see that what I have written is a correct response to that.

Ah, I see, yes. It's indeed not true to say "every single table has a pillar", it doesn't - but very few tables are properly aligned because the window spacing is wrong for Standard.

 

[sjpowermac]

Ah, I see, yes. It's indeed not true to say "every single table has a pillar", it doesn't - but very few tables are properly aligned because the window spacing is wrong for Standard.

I think I’m correct in saying that the ‘IC100’ stock (what we now know as ‘Mk5a’) that is in the TPE franchise agreement specifies that 60% of standard class seats are configured in bays.

I could be wrong but I think the whole HST fleet and the Mk4 stock after that had exactly the same body shell in both first and standard. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect completely different structures for the two classes.

Add in the requirement for priority seating (that I don’t think anyone would argue against that) and suddenly the task of making everything line up isn’t quite as easy as some seem to think.

The full Scarborough to Liverpool run takes 2 hours 50, I suspect the majority of trips will be much less that that (York to Manchester is 75 minutes).

I think the seat alignment is a good compromise, there are handful of seats I would avoid but the majority afford a good view. During my journeys on Nova 3 I’ve not heard a single complaint about any aspect the new trains.

 

[sjpowermac]

View attachment 69794 Caught a 68 and Mk5 set at Scarborough depot for the first time this evening:

Lovely image. The loco/set is 68030 plus TP12.

 

[ainsworth74]

I could be wrong but I think the whole HST fleet and the Mk4 stock after that had exactly the same body shell in both first and standard. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect completely different structures for the two classes.

Having a standardised body shell between first and standard started with some of the later variants of the Mk2s in the 60s/70s. That being said some TOCs/manufacturers have done a considerably better job than others of dealing with that and aligning windows.

 

[sjpowermac]

Having a standardised body shell between first and standard started with some of the later variants of the Mk2s in the 60s/70s. That being said some TOCs/manufacturers have done a considerably better job than others of dealing with that and aligning windows.

Good point about the later Mk2 stock.

The franchise agreement for TPE is very specific when it comes to the Mk5a stock with 60% configured in bays (as per the attached file).

Thinking of my own journeys, I‘m happy to accept less than perfect window alignment in exchange for actually having a seat

I think the Mk5a stock definitely achieves InterCity ambiance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Add in the requirement for priority seating (that I don’t think anyone would argue against that) and suddenly the task of making everything line up isn’t quite as easy as some seem to think

One side of the centre section of some Class 350/1, /3 and /4 coaches has a fully window aligned setup which is 2 rows of airlines, 2 bays, 2 rows of airlines. The first row of airlines is a priority seat and has the extra space, which is gained by making the next row of airlines a bit tighter. This just makes one row of seats a bit rubbish without doing it to the whole coach.

The new WCML EMUs are near 100% window aligned.

Class 185s are almost fully window aligned.

So clearly it can be done, and so not doing it is just lazy, or based on cramming in as many seats as possible without regard to comfort (see the other side of Class 350 centre sections with the extra row crammed in!).

But all that said, yes I do argue against priority seats in their present form - I tend to sit in them for extra legroom (though I prefer stock where I don't have to!) and pretty much never get unseated - the reason being that those who they are for prefer either table seats or narrower pitch airline seats where they can use the seat in front to assist them to sit down. Therefore, they are flawed in concept.

During my journeys on Nova 3 I’ve not heard a single complaint about any aspect the new trains.

I suspect this is because any seat is better than standing. If the Class 185s were all 5-car sets as they should have been by now, I'm not sure views would have been the same. This is not dissimilar to my criticisms of the Class 195 - they are of course way better than 150s and 153s, but they have significant faults compared with other equivalent stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The franchise agreement for TPE is very specific when it comes to the Mk5a stock with 60% configured in bays (as per the attached file).

A MINIMUM of 60%. As per the WCML EMUs, more is also OK.

 

[sjpowermac]

One side of the centre section of some Class 350/1, /3 and /4 coaches has a fully window aligned setup which is 2 rows of airlines, 2 bays, 2 rows of airlines. The first row of airlines is a priority seat and has the extra space, which is gained by making the next row of airlines a bit tighter. This just makes one row of seats a bit rubbish without doing it to the whole coach.

The new WCML EMUs are near 100% window aligned.

Class 185s are almost fully window aligned.

So clearly it can be done, and so not doing it is just lazy, or based on cramming in as many seats as possible without regard to comfort (see the other side of Class 350 centre sections with the extra row crammed in!).

But all that said, yes I do argue against priority seats in their present form - I tend to sit in them for extra legroom (though I prefer stock where I don't have to!) and pretty much never get unseated - the reason being that those who they are for prefer either table seats or narrower pitch airline seats where they can use the seat in front to assist them to sit down. Therefore, they are flawed in concept.



I suspect this is because any seat is better than standing. If the Class 185s were all 5-car sets as they should have been by now, I'm not sure views would have been the same. This is not dissimilar to my criticisms of the Class 195 - they are of course way better than 150s and 153s, but they have significant faults compared with other equivalent stock.

If improving the Mk5a layout is as easy as you claim, within the restrictions I’ve mentioned, perhaps you could show us all your plan?

I’m not sure where you’ve got the notion from of the Mk5a stock ‘cramming in’ seats.

 

[sjpowermac]

A MINIMUM of 60%. As per the WCML EMUs, more is also OK.

Yes, a minimum of 60%, as per the file I attached.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If improving the Mk5a layout is as easy as you claim, within the restrictions I’ve mentioned, perhaps you could show us all your plan?

I’m not sure where you’ve got the notion from of the Mk5a stock ‘cramming in’ seats.

I've not yet been on one yet so it'll have to wait until I have (probably the first week of December if there are any about then, as I'll be going to Leeds and will try and time my journey for one). It's a bit hard to do off a plan because you can't properly see what exactly is where. Particularly as it seems TOCs universally can't be bothered to show window positions on their seating plans.

I'm pretty sure I read that the Mk5 legroom is rather tighter than the 802, which is a bit crammed in, but again I'll judge that when I've ridden on one. I suspect it would involve, rather than having one coach of mostly airline seats and the rest mostly tables (I'm aware of the issue of having to have mostly back facing seats in the end coach of a 125mph formation), of mixing them up a little more, and being strategic about where to put luggage racks and their size. 60% is only just more than half, so I think there is more flexibility there than you seem to think.

 

[507021]

But all that said, yes I do argue against priority seats in their present form - I tend to sit in them for extra legroom (though I prefer stock where I don't have to!) and pretty much never get unseated - the reason being that those who they are for prefer either table seats or narrower pitch airline seats where they can use the seat in front to assist them to sit down. Therefore, they are flawed in concept.

Priority seating isn't for people who want extra legroom.

This is not dissimilar to my criticisms of the Class 195 - they are of course way better than 150s and 153s, but they have significant faults compared with other equivalent stock.

Why do you have to constantly criticise the 195s?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Priority seating isn't for people who want extra legroom.

It is a valid use of them if one of the other target users does not require the seat. There is no requirement to leave them empty, simply to willingly give them up if they are needed more than you need them.

Why do you have to constantly criticise the 195s?

It was relevant to this discussion because the situation is the same - what went before is so rubbish that anything new is better, which tends to mask faults which become apparent when you compare it to other equivalent kinds of stock. In Northern's case, something with aircon, a bit of legroom and tables - and in TPE's case something that actually has enough seats in it. In both cases what went before was so much inferior that misaligned seats are less of an issue overall - but those of us who have for a long time enjoyed modern stock with adequate capacity and generally decent window alignment (the south WCML's beloved 350s) we see the faults like that more markedly.

I've made similar comments regarding a few design issues on the GA FLIRTs - they are so much better than a Class 153 you physically can't fit on that those faults will be overlooked, but against the Desiro I got back up from Euston the faults, though minor, are obvious.

 

[507021]

It is a valid use of them if one of the other target users does not require the seat. There is no requirement to leave them empty, simply to willingly give them up if they are needed more than you need them.

I didn't say it wasn't. I just think it's rather hypocritical of you to use priority seating for extra legroom when you're so critical of it.

In both cases what went before was so much inferior that misaligned seats are less of an issue overall - but those of us who have for a long time enjoyed modern stock with adequate capacity and generally decent window alignment (the south WCML's beloved 350s) we see the faults like that more markedly.

Your review of the 195s came across as you looking for faults rather than finding them easier to notice. I really don't think passengers who will use the 195s regularly will care about things like rippled protective film on the internal glazing or the noise the toilet door lock makes.

 

[sjpowermac]

Mk5a seat and window alignment plan
I’ve created a seating plan with window alignment shown for coach D, the nearest standard coach to the loco

There are two versions.

Version 1
Here I’ve shown my personal recommendations for the best seats.
Green: ‘hey, this is as good as a Mk2 coach’.
Yellow: ‘I’ve got a pretty good view here’.
Red: ‘I’m happy with this seat because I hate watching it rain’.

Version 2
As version 1 but without recommendations. I hope this will save pages of arguments over ‘I’d put that seat as yellow’, people can simply print out this version and colour as they wish

Please feel free to make any constructive comments for improvement. The plans are not millimetre perfect but I hope they give a good impression.

I wasn’t sure of the best format, so I’ve included both images and pdf format.

Finally, these are not official documents, so use with caution. All information taken from publicly available sources. Any inaccuracies are entirely mine and I’m happy to update if anyone has any better info.

 

[sjpowermac]

I've not yet been on one yet so it'll have to wait until I have (probably the first week of December if there are any about then, as I'll be going to Leeds and will try and time my journey for one). It's a bit hard to do off a plan because you can't properly see what exactly is where. Particularly as it seems TOCs universally can't be bothered to show window positions on their seating plans.

I'm pretty sure I read that the Mk5 legroom is rather tighter than the 802, which is a bit crammed in, but again I'll judge that when I've ridden on one. I suspect it would involve, rather than having one coach of mostly airline seats and the rest mostly tables (I'm aware of the issue of having to have mostly back facing seats in the end coach of a 125mph formation), of mixing them up a little more, and being strategic about where to put luggage racks and their size. 60% is only just more than half, so I think there is more flexibility there than you seem to think.

Considering that you have not actually set foot inside a Mk5a, you seem to hold pretty strong views about them!

Two diagrams operate most days, so I hope that you get to enjoy the Nova 3. I hope you find my little seating guide helpful

 

[Ben Bow]

The coaches are a little unusual in that the window arrangement is different on each side.

If you want a seat with a good view out of a window, there are plenty, in fact the view is excellent because of the low sills. Some seats have a restricted view, but there are very few, if any, with no view.

As a very regular user of TPE services I can honestly say they are nice trains, and given their troubled "birth" I was sceptical. They are so quiet without a Cummins QSK19 roaring away underneath your feet. You can't beat loco-hauled for ambience.

 

[xotGD]

Mk5a seat and window alignment plan
I’ve created a seating plan with window alignment shown for coach D, the nearest standard coach to the loco

There are two versions.

Version 1
Here I’ve shown my personal recommendations for the best seats.
Green: ‘hey, this is as good as a Mk2 coach’.
Yellow: ‘I’ve got a pretty good view here’.
Red: ‘I’m happy with this seat because I hate watching it rain’.

Version 2
As version 1 but without recommendations. I hope this will save pages of arguments over ‘I’d put that seat as yellow’, people can simply print out this version and colour as they wish

Please feel free to make any constructive comments for improvement. The plans are not millimetre perfect but I hope they give a good impression.

I wasn’t sure of the best format, so I’ve included both images and pdf format.

Finally, these are not official documents, so use with caution. All information taken from publicly available sources. Any inaccuracies are entirely mine and I’m happy to update if anyone has any better info.
View attachment 69863 View attachment 69864

Thank you. With the loco leading: Seat 57 - window, table, thrash.

 

[sjpowermac]

Thank you. With the loco leading: Seat 57 - window, table, thrash.

Pleased you like it

Yes, Morley tunnel is especially good

 

[Bletchleyite]

The coaches are a little unusual in that the window arrangement is different on each side.

I had never noticed that before - I wonder why?

Thanks for the plan, by the way - it does very much appear that it's the Mk3 issue, i.e. that the window spacing is for First Class, which makes sense given their sort of origins as CS seated coaches (which while they're Standard ticket-wise they are First Class seating-wise). That could be fixed (ish) by converting one set of tables to airline seats and splitting them up (which would I think stay within the 60%) - you'd have one row in the middle somewhere to reset the alignment, though that row would be pretty rubbish as it'd have no view.

As a very regular user of TPE services I can honestly say they are nice trains, and given their troubled "birth" I was sceptical. They are so quiet without a Cummins QSK19 roaring away underneath your feet. You can't beat loco-hauled for ambience.

I'd probably be inclined to agree, though the sound insulation on 80x is excellent (at the expense of a very high floor) and I find the engines almost unnoticeable on those.

 

[xotGD]

the sound insulation on 80x is excellent (at the expense of a very high floor) and I find the engines almost unnoticeable on those.

I thought the opposite - my first trip on a 'Cucumber' on Friday and I found the underfloor engine noise just as loud as on a 185.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the opposite - my first trip on a 'Cucumber' on Friday and I found the underfloor engine noise just as loud as on a 185.

A "cucumber"? Love it

 

[sjpowermac]

Thanks for the plan, by the way - it does very much appear that it's the Mk3 issue, i.e. that the window spacing is for First Class, which makes sense given their sort of origins as CS seated coaches (which while they're Standard ticket-wise they are First Class seating-wise). That could be fixed (ish) by converting one set of tables to airline seats and splitting them up (which would I think stay within the 60%) - you'd have one row in the middle somewhere to reset the alignment, though that row would be pretty rubbish as it'd have no view.

Which seat numbers are you referring to? I think too that you are only considering coach D, you would need to look at coaches A to D.

As mentioned previously, having the same body shell for first and standard is something that has been common since the 1970s, it’s not realistic to suggest the Mk5a should have been different.

Within the restrictions of a minimum of 60% of standard seating arranged in bays around tables, priority seating, cycle spaces in coach B and restrictions on forward facing seats (of necessity these are airline!) in the DT, then the task isn’t quite as simple as you seem convinced of.

The ‘quality of view’ from a train seat is (almost) always going to be a subjective judgement. That said, in coach D there are just two seats out of 69 with no view at all, whilst 35 of the seats have absolutely perfect alignment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As mentioned previously, having the same body shell for first and standard is something that has been common since the 1970s, it’s not realistic to suggest the Mk5a should have been different.

Within the restrictions of a minimum of 60% of standard seating arranged in bays around tables, priority seating, cycle spaces in coach B and restrictions on forward facing seats (of necessity these are airline!) in the DT, then the task isn’t quite as simple as you seem convinced of.

And yet the TPE WCML EMUs have fully aligned seats in Standard (maybe except the odd two). What gives? You're saying it can't be done, but then failing to note a fleet of rolling stock built by the same manufacturer in which it is done (not to mention other non-CAF rolling stock where it's rather better, or where much larger windows - horizontally I mean - make the effect less unpleasant).

The ‘quality of view’ from a train seat is (almost) always going to be a subjective judgement

Not really. A window perfectly centred on the bay (or pair of airline seats) is as good as it gets. Does anyone think otherwise? Why did we understand that basic principle in the 1970s and seem to have lost it?

 

[sjpowermac]

And yet the TPE WCML EMUs have fully aligned seats in Standard (maybe except the odd two). What gives? You're saying it can't be done, but then failing to note a fleet of rolling stock built by the same manufacturer in which it is done (not to mention other non-CAF rolling stock where it's rather better, or where much larger windows - horizontally I mean - make the effect less unpleasant).



Not really. A window perfectly centred on the bay (or pair of airline seats) is as good as it gets. Does anyone think otherwise? Why did we understand that basic principle in the 1970s and seem to have lost it?

At no point have I said it would be ‘impossible’ to achieve ‘perfect’ window alignment on the Mk5a stock. What I have said is that in my opinion there are plenty of window seats with perfect alignment for those who want them, the bulk of the remaining seats have a reasonable view, and only two have no view.

I notice though that you are shifting your argument from ‘it would be easy to alter the Mk5a layout’ to ‘look at other trains’.

Regarding your definition of perfect alignment, I think if you look at the plans I provided then you will see in the key that I’ve used exactly the same definition that you are now quoting back at me!

 

[Bletchleyite]

At no point have I said it would be ‘impossible’ to achieve ‘perfect’ window alignment on the Mk5a stock. What I have said is that in my opinion there are plenty of window seats with perfect alignment for those who want them, the bulk of the remaining seats have a reasonable view, and only two have no view.

I notice though that you are shifting your argument from ‘it would be easy to alter the Mk5a layout’ to ‘look at other trains’.

It's about the whole package. It's by no means a UK thing - for instance the First Class coaches on Italo Pendolinos have roughly 50% of seats with no view at all (the other seat gets the whole window) - the UK Pendolino is far better.

But in the end, there's little excuse for some stock to have it as bad as it is - it's just poor design. Mk5s appear not to be the worst (195s for instance have the entire centre section misaligned) but fundamentally the best design is having no "bad seats" - something which it appears the new TPE WCML EMUs have achieved, which means there's no real excuse for other stock to be poorer.

Regarding your definition of perfect alignment, I think if you look at the plans I provided then you will see in the key that I’ve used exactly the same definition that you are now quoting back at me!

That was only in response to your point that it's a matter of opinion - I don't think it is - I can't imagine a single person who wouldn't say a bay with the window perfectly centred on it is the optimum alignment. Opinions may vary on the acceptability of other options, but I can't see anyone not liking that arrangement, unless they happen to dislike tables in which case the other way, an airline seat with precisely half a window, seems optimal too.

 

[The Northern Star]

New Nova advert airing slots on TV...

11:25 'This Morning' ITV
13:15 'Loose Woman' ITV
14:20 'Countdown' Channel 4
17:15 'Four in a bed' Channel 4
19:15 'Emmerdale' ITV
20:45 'Travel Man' Channel 4
20:58 'Coronation Street' ITV
23:10 'Caught on camera' ITV

 

[hwl]

an airline seat with precisely half a window, seems optimal too.

And therein lies a big part of the problem as airline seats are around ~42% of a bay not 50%

 

[The Northern Star]

Mk5a seat and window alignment plan
I’ve created a seating plan with window alignment shown for coach D, the nearest standard coach to the loco

There are two versions.

Version 1
Here I’ve shown my personal recommendations for the best seats.
Green: ‘hey, this is as good as a Mk2 coach’.
Yellow: ‘I’ve got a pretty good view here’.
Red: ‘I’m happy with this seat because I hate watching it rain’.

Version 2
As version 1 but without recommendations. I hope this will save pages of arguments over ‘I’d put that seat as yellow’, people can simply print out this version and colour as they wish

Please feel free to make any constructive comments for improvement. The plans are not millimetre perfect but I hope they give a good impression.

I wasn’t sure of the best format, so I’ve included both images and pdf format.

Finally, these are not official documents, so use with caution. All information taken from publicly available sources. Any inaccuracies are entirely mine and I’m happy to update if anyone has any better info.
View attachment 69863 View attachment 69864

Can you do this for first class aswell? It's fantastic!

 

[sjpowermac]

It's about the whole package. It's by no means a UK thing - for instance the First Class coaches on Italo Pendolinos have roughly 50% of seats with no view at all (the other seat gets the whole window) - the UK Pendolino is far better.

But in the end, there's little excuse for some stock to have it as bad as it is - it's just poor design. Mk5s appear not to be the worst (195s for instance have the entire centre section misaligned) but fundamentally the best design is having no "bad seats" - something which it appears the new TPE WCML EMUs have achieved, which means there's no real excuse for other stock to be poorer.



That was only in response to your point that it's a matter of opinion - I don't think it is - I can't imagine a single person who wouldn't say a bay with the window perfectly centred on it is the optimum alignment. Opinions may vary on the acceptability of other options, but I can't see anyone not liking that arrangement, unless they happen to dislike tables in which case the other way, an airline seat with precisely half a window, seems optimal too.

I’m genuinely struggling now to see what you are basing your points on. Once again you’ve taken a point I made, about seat alignment being a matter of judgment, disagreed with it, and then changed your mind and said that ‘opinions may vary on the acceptability of other options’. That’s the reason that on my seating plan I chose to use three different colours.

Regarding ‘poor design’ I’m still awaiting your solution in terms of a detailed plan (as opposed to arm waiving!), within the constraints we have already discussed...

 

[Bletchleyite]

And therein lies a big part of the problem as airline seats are around ~42% of a bay not 50%

There are two answers to this, neither of which spoils alignment.

One of them is that you space them that way anyway, and give them excellent legroom, such as they are in the end sections of Class 350s.
The other is that you use the Class 158-style layout, giving the bay the window plus a good part of both pillars, and the airline seats just the window width.