Experiences of TPE journeys on their new 'Nova' trains

[td97]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tpe-mark-5a-coaching-stock-progress-includes-images.143579/
(Quotes carried over from allocations thread)

1F76 17:44 SCA-LIV ran from Leeds via Wakefield Kirkgate to Huddersfield.

Which was utter chaos, full and standing after York, many passengers turned away at Leeds, and extended dwells caused by the end doors. Not helped by people getting on before everyone had alighted.
12 minute dwell at York (everyone from 9M15 piled on, plus the regulars waiting on the platform who could have filled it themselves), 7 minutes at Leeds, 4 at Huddersfield.
The ride over the diversion was good, better than the mainline once we rejoined at Mirfield. And better phone coverage since TPE still haven't set up the WiFi.

York ended up looking like a TPE depot!

9M15 (802) driver didn't sign diversionary route so it was caped at P11 after 20 minutes. Poor comms from station staff as the 1V68 XC arrived after 9M15 but was signalled out first. Even the Northern stopper would have been a better option.
Track defects at both Durham (LNER/XC only north of Darlington with single line working Durham-Chester-le-Street as part of NRs distruption plan) and Cottingley (no westbound trains) ruined any hope of a seamless Friday evening for TPE

At the risk of upsetting many on this thread, it's my opinion that Hitachi have built a superior product with their 802. Comfier standard seats, better internal ambience, amazing performance on electric and gives an impression of better build quality.

 

[samuelmorris]

Comfier standard seats, better internal ambience, amazing performance on electric and gives an impression of better build quality.

I thought the seats were identical?

 

[507 001]

I thought the seats were identical?

They are, but have slightly different coverings. They’re both awful.

I found the first class seats to be less comfortable on the Mk5s (again, theoretically identical) than on the 802, and would agree that the 802 has a much nicer interior in general.

 

[td97]

I thought the seats were identical?

The seat back was flexing on yesterday's journey. Seems to be less cushioning too.

 

[samuelmorris]

The seat back was flexing on yesterday's journey. Seems to be less cushioning too.

Fair enough, but I think it's long established that seat design is of rather dubious quality, I wonder how much of that was variation seat to seat rather than being a different unit. I've yet to sample any of the Nova fleet as I'm not local to the area but I will be curious to test that.

 

[sjpowermac]

Which was utter chaos, full and standing At the risk of upsetting many on this thread, it's my opinion that Hitachi have built a superior product with their 802. Comfier standard seats, better internal ambience, amazing performance on electric and gives an impression of better build quality.

I wouldn’t worry about upsetting people on this thread, I think most are out enjoying both riding and photographing the Nova 3 trains.

I have to say, I’ve been on the Nova 3 trains several times a week since their introduction and I’ve yet to hear a customer complain about ‘the seat back flexing’.

I actually wish TPE all the best with all their Nova trains, it’s wonderful to finally see some serious investment in trains for the North of England.

In your account of 15.11.2019 you failed to mention that 1F76 is booked to stand at York for 6 minutes anyhow. The majority of passengers were on within that time but it is quite a long trek from platform 11 (where 9M15 was stood) to platform 4 (for 1F76).

I think the frontline staff were doing a good job of trying to keep the job going...

 

[sjpowermac]

Fair enough, but I think it's long established that seat design is of rather dubious quality, I wonder how much of that was variation seat to seat rather than being a different unit. I've yet to sample any of the Nova fleet as I'm not local to the area but I will be curious to test that.

I’m sure you will enjoy both the Nova 3 and Nova 1 trains, they are both an enormous step up from the Class 185 units.

The Nova 3 is very quick off the mark and an interesting piece of kit. I think any debate about Nova 3 v Nova 1 is a bit like the old Mac v PC (or iPhone v Android) argument. Both essentially do a great job and it’s largely a matter of personal perspective as to which is ‘superior’.

There are some subtle differences though and I think the interior of the Nova 3 definitely edges it for me. I think the old adage of ‘style: if you’ve got to ask, you’ll never know’ applies here! Suffice to say I’ve always been Mac/iPhone/Nova 3

Enjoy your trips when you get the chance

 

[td97]

I’ve yet to hear a customer complain about ‘the seat back flexing’.

If I was to sit upright on the seat, the plastic seat back would flex backwards.

In your account of 15.11.2019 you failed to mention that 1F76 is booked to stand at York for 6 minutes anyhow. The majority of passengers were on within that time but it is quite a long trek from platform 11 (where 9M15 was stood) to platform 4 (for 1F76).

Yes, but there was no communication from TPE staff that those turfed off 9M15 should head immediately to P4 for 1F76. Another issue was passengers congregating around the area of the 1st 2 coaches when there are 5 to board on.
12 minutes vs. 6 is still a considerable delay, and more than enough to miss a path across the many junctions along the route. I was more disappointed that it couldn't make up time, whereas the 802 on electric frequently makes up 4-5 minutes of time on the ECML due to amazing acceleration and 125mph capability.

Try out the 802 and see what you think. I'd say make sure it stops at Northallerton to experience the 0-125mph acceleration, and take a trip across the core to compare with the Mk5a. I think performance on diesel is equal for both. I'd recommended Darlington-Leeds (or further) to experience 125mph, diesel, electric and partially the same track as the Mk5a.

 

[ash39]

I’m sure you will enjoy both the Nova 3 and Nova 1 trains, they are both an enormous step up from the Class 185 units.

The Nova 3 is very quick off the mark and an interesting piece of kit. I think any debate about Nova 3 v Nova 1 is a bit like the old Mac v PC (or iPhone v Android) argument. Both essentially do a great job and it’s largely a matter of personal perspective as to which is ‘superior’.

There are some subtle differences though and I think the interior of the Nova 3 definitely edges it for me. I think the old adage of ‘style: if you’ve got to ask, you’ll never know’ applies here! Suffice to say I’ve always been Mac/iPhone/Nova 3

Enjoy your trips when you get the chance

Apple fan! That explains a lot.

 

[sjpowermac]

If I was to sit upright on the seat, the plastic seat back would flex backwards.

Yes, but there was no communication from TPE staff that those turfed off 9M15 should head immediately to P4 for 1F76. Another issue was passengers congregating around the area of the 1st 2 coaches when there are 5 to board on.
12 minutes vs. 6 is still a considerable delay, and more than enough to miss a path across the many junctions along the route. I was more disappointed that it couldn't make up time, whereas the 802 on electric frequently makes up 4-5 minutes of time on the ECML due to amazing acceleration and 125mph capability.

Try out the 802 and see what you think. I'd say make sure it stops at Northallerton to experience the 0-125mph acceleration, and take a trip across the core to compare with the Mk5a. I think performance on diesel is equal for both. I'd recommended Darlington-Leeds (or further) to experience 125mph, diesel, electric and partially the same track as the Mk5a.

I wasn’t in the York ROC last night and nor was I in TPE control, so I don’t feel fully qualified to argue about the additional 6 minutes dwell time. If you do have more detailed access then please feel free to say.

All I can say is that watching the scene from the platform most did seem to board within the six minutes, which considering how wedged the train was isn’t actually that bad. The ‘sheep’ effect of passengers trying to board at the first available door is a common phenomenon, and certainly not unique to the Nova 3.

I was actually on the inaugural Nova 1 in service back on 28th September. As I have written in post 5718, I think both the Nova 1 and Nova 3 trains are a big step up from the Class 185, beyond that it’s simply personal preference and there’s very little to chose between the two.

 

[sjpowermac]

Apple fan! That explains a lot.

There’s a connection between the Class 68 locomotives and Apple. The ‘brains’ of the locomotive is an ABB manufactured controller, the ‘AC800 PEC’. Inside the controller sits a PowerPC 750FX processor, exactly the same chip that was used in the original ‘Bondi Blue’ iMac. Incidentally the same chip is also used in the ‘Orion’ spaceship.


Link below:
http://www04.abb.com/global/seitp/s...4e00501c63/$file/AC+800PEC+control+system.pdf

 

[samuelmorris]

There’s a connection between the Class 68 locomotives and Apple. The ‘brains’ of the locomotive is an ABB manufactured controller, the ‘AC800 PEC’. Inside the controller sits a PowerPC 750FX processor, exactly the same chip that was used in the original ‘Bondi Blue’ iMac. Incidentally the same chip is also used in the ‘Orion’ spaceship.


Link below:
http://www04.abb.com/global/seitp/s...4e00501c63/$file/AC+800PEC+control+system.pdf

If anything I'd say the Nova 3 is better for the windows analogy as it's different products from different manufacturers being made to talk to each other rather than a single integrated product.

I may or may not have a job to do in Scarborough in the new year, so if that goes ahead I'm hoping to try out a Nova 3 for that journey, we shall see. It'll make an interesting comparison to the Azuma for the rest of the journey.

 

[td97]

As I have written in post 5718, I think both the Nova 1 and Nova 3 trains are a big step up from the Class 185, beyond that it’s simply personal preference and there’s very little to chose between the two.

Completely agree that the capacity uplift is a step change compared to a 185. Just unfortunately not enough in times of distruption, as demonstrated yesterday. The guard was barking over the PA at Leeds that those unable to board would have to wait for the next train... basically tough luck.

 

[sjpowermac]

I was more disappointed that it couldn't make up time, whereas the 802 on electric frequently makes up 4-5 minutes of time on the ECML due to amazing acceleration and 125mph capability.

I’m happy to be corrected, but as far as I’m aware the trains currently operated by Nova 1 are timed for Class 185s. It would be very disappointing if a 125 mph electric train couldn’t out pace a 100 mph diesel.

Regarding the Nova 3 on Friday ‘not making up time’, I’ll take your word for it. I would, however, politely point out that the autumn isn’t really the time to go in for heroics when driving, the railhead conditions can be atrocious and the train was not running in its normal path.

Completely agree that the capacity uplift is a step change compared to a 185. Just unfortunately not enough in times of distruption, as demonstrated yesterday. The guard was barking over the PA at Leeds that those unable to board would have to wait for the next train... basically tough luck.

I think that’s a very unfair comment you’ve made against the guard.

 

[td97]

I think that’s a very unfair comment you’ve made against the guard.

I previously described the journey as "chaos" and that's how it was.
"THIS TRAIN IS READY TO DEPART. CUSTOMERS UNABLE TO BOARD WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT TRAIN BEHIND THIS ONE."
Followed (several times) by
"THIS TRAIN IS READY TO DEPART. STAND CLEAR OF THE DOORS."
It wasn't an ideal situation, but the guard on (cancelled) 9M15 offered no advice on onward connections and the guard on 1F76 had a hard job dealing with the chaos of the evening and did deal with the situation as best possible given the circumstances.

FWIW I had a lovely chat with a senior conductor and trainee conductor on a 9E09 (802) service earlier in the week about the new TPE trains.

The dwells yesterday as a % of booked were

• York: 200%
• Leeds: 350%
• Huddersfield: 325%
• Manchester: 150%

Certainly a challenging evening.

 

[sjpowermac]

I previously described the journey as "chaos" and that's how it was.
"THIS TRAIN IS READY TO DEPART. CUSTOMERS UNABLE TO BOARD WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT TRAIN BEHIND THIS ONE."
Followed (several times) by
"THIS TRAIN IS READY TO DEPART. STAND CLEAR OF THE DOORS."
It wasn't an ideal situation, but the guard on (cancelled) 9M15 offered no advice on onward connections and the guard on 1F76 had a hard job dealing with the chaos of the evening and did deal with the situation as best possible given the circumstances.

FWIW I had a lovely chat with a senior conductor and trainee conductor on a 9E09 (802) service earlier in the week about the new TPE trains.

The dwells yesterday as a % of booked were

• York: 200%
• Leeds: 350%
• Huddersfield: 325%
• Manchester: 150%

Certainly a challenging evening.

What you’ve now written is very different from your original comment about the guard on 1F76 ‘barking’, so thank you for admitting that he was dealing with a less than ideal situation as best he could.

I’ve no idea though why you now have to repeat the same mistake and be critical of the guard on 9M15. It’s entirely possible that at the time 9M15 was cancelled the guard didn’t actually know 1F76 would run forward. Have you considered that some of the ‘200%’ extended dwell time that you seem so annoyed about might have been down to control establishing with the driver of 1F76 that they signed the diversionary route? Again, I have no inside knowledge but do feel free to share with us if you do.

In my experience, all of the TPE staff are very professional, very helpful and often do a great job despite often very difficult circumstances. It’s a shame that twice now you’ve chosen to take a pop at them.

I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with your comment about your ‘lovely chat’ with the ‘conductor on 9E09 (802 service)’. Perhaps you could clarify.

In relation to the extended dwell times for 1F76 on Friday, again I’m not at all certain what point you are making. Why is it worthy of comment that a train running through severe disruption had extended station stops? I’m not sure in this situation how an 802 would have been any different, do they have magical doors? I’ve certainly no idea how a 3 car 185 would have done.

 

[J4mez]

What you’ve now written is very different from your original comment about the guard on 1F76 ‘barking’, so thank you for admitting that he was dealing with a less than ideal situation as best he could.

I’ve no idea though why you now have to repeat the same mistake and be critical of the guard on 9M15. It’s entirely possible that at the time 9M15 was cancelled the guard didn’t actually know 1F76 would run forward. Have you considered that some of the ‘200%’ extended dwell time that you seem so annoyed about might have been down to control establishing with the driver of 1F76 that they signed the diversionary route? Again, I have no inside knowledge but do feel free to share with us if you do.

In my experience, all of the TPE staff are very professional, very helpful and often do a great job despite often very difficult circumstances. It’s a shame that twice now you’ve chosen to take a pop at them.

I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with your comment about your ‘lovely chat’ with the ‘conductor on 9E09 (802 service)’. Perhaps you could clarify.

In relation to the extended dwell times for 1F76 on Friday, again I’m not at all certain what point you are making. Why is it worthy of comment that a train running through severe disruption had extended station stops? I’m not sure in this situation how an 802 would have been any different, do they have magical doors? I’ve certainly no idea how a 3 car 185 would have done.

I agree with you about all TPE staff, they are always happy to go above and beyond to help everyone, they are also very polite and patient with people.

 

[tpjm]

"THIS TRAIN IS READY TO DEPART. CUSTOMERS UNABLE TO BOARD WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT TRAIN BEHIND THIS ONE."
Followed (several times) by
"THIS TRAIN IS READY TO DEPART. STAND CLEAR OF THE DOORS."
It wasn't an ideal situation, but the guard on (cancelled) 9M15 offered no advice on onward connections and the guard on 1F76 had a hard job dealing with the chaos of the evening and did deal with the situation as best possible given the circumstances.

I’m not sure why Friday’s poor network performance is being discussed in a Nova 3 thread. All I can tell you is that I manage several teams across the TPE network responsible for new trains and dwell time, and Nova 3 is the least of our worries!

The situation at 1700 on Friday night meant that they were very much looking forward to the 6 Car 185 at 1739 and then the Nova 3 at 1806 as all services before that had been disrupted. We had two broken rails (Chester-le-Street and Cottingley), several other infrastructure faults, a couple of unit issues (involving Cl802/185) and some crew difficulties due to the infrastructure faults causing displacement. In that situation, I don’t care about dwell. The goal is to keep people moving which Nova 3 does quite amicably.

If we really need to go there - I've done time trials on Nova 1/3 vs a 3 car 185. Whilst the wider doors of a 185 are great, what you maybe haven't thought about is that once people get inside, they have this nasty habit of stopping in the door way. Add in the lack of capacity and even when you've spent 1 minute convincing everybody to move down the aisles, you then still need to convince people that the train is too full and to step back so it can go. Nova 1 and 3, whilst slightly slower to board in that scenario, are much easier to deal with because there's less people being left behind.

 

[td97]

Again, I have no inside knowledge but do feel free to share with us if you do.

I don't know who's at fault, whether it be TPE control, platform staff, the LNER station team, train staff, all of the above, none of the above; but the fact is I felt that communication could have been improved in that instance. You can view it as criticism, or view it as customer feedback which would enable a better service to be delivered in the future.
It doesn't detract from the journeys I've taken during disruption when communication has been good - just a one-off event where I felt a little more information could have been beneficial. It also doesn't detract from "normal" journeys without disruption where railway staff are always helpful and constantly deliver the service with professionalism and enthusiasm.
Dwells - the point I was trying to make was that the intercity-type end doors are not as efficient as double-leaf doors at 1/3s for large footfalls, such as York-Leeds. There had long been speculation that this would be the case and the situation provided an example by being unable to match the generous 185 booked dwell times.
I hope this helps to clear up the situation and the thread discussion can move along...

 

[sjpowermac]

I don't know who's at fault, whether it be TPE control, platform staff, the LNER station team, train staff, all of the above, none of the above; but the fact is I felt that communication could have been improved in that instance. You can view it as criticism, or view it as customer feedback which would enable a better service to be delivered in the future.
It doesn't detract from the journeys I've taken during disruption when communication has been good - just a one-off event where I felt a little more information could have been beneficial. It also doesn't detract from "normal" journeys without disruption where railway staff are always helpful and constantly deliver the service with professionalism and enthusiasm.
Dwells - the point I was trying to make was that the intercity-type end doors are not as efficient as double-leaf doors at 1/3s for large footfalls, such as York-Leeds. There had long been speculation that this would be the case and the situation provided an example by being unable to match the generous 185 booked dwell times.
I hope this helps to clear up the situation and the thread discussion can move along...

All of which fails to acknowledge the reply @tpjm has already given you on these points.

Given that you’ve been so selective in the questions you’ve answered, it’s definitely time to move on

 

[BMIFlyer]

If I was to sit upright on the seat, the plastic seat back would flex backwards.

Yes, but there was no communication from TPE staff that those turfed off 9M15 should head immediately to P4 for 1F76. Another issue was passengers congregating around the area of the 1st 2 coaches when there are 5 to board on.
12 minutes vs. 6 is still a considerable delay, and more than enough to miss a path across the many junctions along the route. I was more disappointed that it couldn't make up time, whereas the 802 on electric frequently makes up 4-5 minutes of time on the ECML due to amazing acceleration and 125mph capability.

Try out the 802 and see what you think. I'd say make sure it stops at Northallerton to experience the 0-125mph acceleration, and take a trip across the core to compare with the Mk5a. I think performance on diesel is equal for both. I'd recommended Darlington-Leeds (or further) to experience 125mph, diesel, electric and partially the same track as the Mk5a.

I wasn’t in the York ROC last night and nor was I in TPE control, so I don’t feel fully qualified to argue about the additional 6 minutes dwell time. If you do have more detailed access then please feel free to say.

All I can say is that watching the scene from the platform most did seem to board within the six minutes, which considering how wedged the train was isn’t actually that bad. The ‘sheep’ effect of passengers trying to board at the first available door is a common phenomenon, and certainly not unique to the Nova 3.

I was actually on the inaugural Nova 1 in service back on 28th September. As I have written in post 5718, I think both the Nova 1 and Nova 3 trains are a big step up from the Class 185, beyond that it’s simply personal preference and there’s very little to chose between the two.

I previously described the journey as "chaos" and that's how it was.
"THIS TRAIN IS READY TO DEPART. CUSTOMERS UNABLE TO BOARD WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT TRAIN BEHIND THIS ONE."
Followed (several times) by
"THIS TRAIN IS READY TO DEPART. STAND CLEAR OF THE DOORS."
It wasn't an ideal situation, but the guard on (cancelled) 9M15 offered no advice on onward connections and the guard on 1F76 had a hard job dealing with the chaos of the evening and did deal with the situation as best possible given the circumstances.

FWIW I had a lovely chat with a senior conductor and trainee conductor on a 9E09 (802) service earlier in the week about the new TPE trains.

The dwells yesterday as a % of booked were

• York: 200%
• Leeds: 350%
• Huddersfield: 325%
• Manchester: 150%

Certainly a challenging evening.

I have seen an email from the guard who was on that train at the time. Said guard sent in a rather detailed email of all the delays on that service after York.

The York extended dwell was indeed partly due to a lot of passengers trying to board coaches A and B only, when the doors at C and D were clear. There was also no confirmation that the train was actually leaving York until 5 minutes after it was scheduled to depart (needed to clarify traincrew route knowledge and obtain a diversion path), plus a wheelchair arrived 3 minutes before the train departed - the guard had to take over 20 people out of the vestibule of coach E to get the wheelchair on.

At Leeds, another wheelchair needed to be loaded, but couldn't be due to the amount of people on board. People ignored countless whistle blasts and PA announcements that the train was full and no more people could fit on - but still tried anyway, until the guard managed to move people away from the train with station staff assistance.

At Huddersfield, a huge amount of people left the train but it was still very full - departing York I understand that the TCMS showed over 100 people in each standard class coach, and over 60 in the 1st class coach.

Sadly the guard can only do so much and said person did try as best as they could.

As for the announcements on the PA, what more should the guard have done??

 

[td97]

Thank you for the follow up to this @BMIFlyer. I intended to put the matter to bed, but hopefully the following comments won't promote any controversy.

The York extended dwell was indeed partly due to a lot of passengers trying to board coaches A and B only, when the doors at C and D were clear.

It would appear that station announcements to instruct waiting passengers to proceed further towards the end of the platform as there would be 5 coaches would have aided boarding. Whether this is possible for a TPE service at a LNER station is another story.

There was also no confirmation that the train was actually leaving York until 5 minutes after it was scheduled to depart (needed to clarify traincrew route knowledge and obtain a diversion path)

@sjpowermac was correct here.

plus a wheelchair arrived 3 minutes before the train departed - the guard had to take over 20 people out of the vestibule of coach E to get the wheelchair on.
At Leeds, another wheelchair needed to be loaded,

This leads onto discussion about why the Mark 5A coaches were not specified with level access to enable assistance-free and seamless boarding by wheelchair users, in a similar fashion to the new GA stock; especially given that there is no underfloor traction equipment.

As for the announcements on the PA, what more should the guard have done??

There wasn't anything further on the guard's part. I'm aware a train cannot be dispatched with people in contact with the train body/doors/doorways. Those passengers are not going to give up easily when affected by disruption. I previously commented that the guard "did deal with the situation as best possible given the circumstances". It was overly-harsh of me to originally comment about the guard's handling of the situation at Leeds using the word "bark" - "to speak sharply; snap".
One suggestion could be a Piccadilly P13/14 approach with a presence of platform staff on Leeds P15/16 to help with order, boarding and efficiency; and hence reduce the guard's workload.

If we really need to go there - I've done time trials on Nova 1/3 vs a 3 car 185. Whilst the wider doors of a 185 are great, what you maybe haven't thought about is that once people get inside, they have this nasty habit of stopping in the door way. Add in the lack of capacity and even when you've spent 1 minute convincing everybody to move down the aisles, you then still need to convince people that the train is too full and to step back so it can go. Nova 1 and 3, whilst slightly slower to board in that scenario, are much easier to deal with because there's less people being left behind.

Admittedly it's not a factor I had considered. I was thinking a 185 can easily take 2-at-time disembarking/embarking at each door; so roughly a Mk5A would have half of that capacity. I trust your experience with the new fleets and that your real-world observations demonstrate an evenness between both scenarios. Thank you for your post.

All of which fails to acknowledge the reply @tpjm has already given you on these points.

I think, in your reply, you misinterpreted my response to your original query. I didn't question tpjm's reply, only stated why I originally made the comment to answer your question.
sjpowermac: "I’m not at all certain what point you are making"
td97: "Dwells - the point I was trying to make"
Sorry if there's been a misunderstanding here.

 

[Sleeperwaking]

This leads onto discussion about why the Mark 5A coaches were not specified with level access to enable assistance-free and seamless boarding by wheelchair users, in a similar fashion to the new GA stock; especially given that there is no underfloor traction equipment.

Platform heights and offsets (distance from the track) can vary massively, especially on lower speed commuter routes. Although there's only going to be two main service routes, the Mark 5A diversionary routes are extensive, some of which are planned diversions with station stops. By definition, in order for level access that is assistance free, the footstep has to be very close to the platform edge - the deployed footstep position is fixed relative to the train centre line, so then the platform edge at ALL platforms on the service / planned diversionary routes has to be within a very tight tolerance for height & offset. Therefore, level access usually requires a lot of infrastructure works (£££s) and probably also a moveable footstep (similar to those on Pendolinos) so that the step only has to be gauge cleared in a stationary condition. Potentially they could have done this on something like the 5As with only 2 service routes (but still would be very costly and require a change from the fixed footstep). The platforms on the Northern routes tend to be high and tight (close to the track), so generally any works move the platform edge down / further away. This makes the stepping distance worse on all existing fleets calling at that station - the Mark 5A isn't on a self contained route, so this would impact a lot of other fleets.

In short, it can be done but it's not as simple as ordering some low floor rolling stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This leads onto discussion about why the Mark 5A coaches were not specified with level access to enable assistance-free and seamless boarding by wheelchair users, in a similar fashion to the new GA stock; especially given that there is no underfloor traction equipment.

The answer is "because they were a follow on order of Caledonian Sleeper seated coaches, and those weren't[1]". It's the same reason for other sub-optimal features such as the 22m vehicle length and lousy window alignment.

It is however my view that we should draw a line and mandate all new stock to be low floor. It's a shame the 80x weren't.

[1] And probably didn't need to be because the CS is heavily stewarded and so doesn't need level access as assistance can always be provided.

 

[59CosG95]

The answer is "because they were a follow on order of Caledonian Sleeper seated coaches, and those weren't[1]". It's the same reason for other sub-optimal features such as the 22m vehicle length and lousy window alignment.

It is however my view that we should draw a line and mandate all new stock to be low floor. It's a shame the 80x weren't.

[1] And probably didn't need to be because the CS is heavily stewarded and so doesn't need level access as assistance can always be provided.

The same argument could of course be used for the Night Riviera - which, AIUI, is set to be the only operation of a slam-door fleet that doesn't require a derogation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The same argument could of course be used for the Night Riviera - which, AIUI, is set to be the only operation of a slam-door fleet that doesn't require a derogation.

Most probably. And if there is another incident involving the droplights, with a Sleeper it's viable to lock them and have the stewards (and guard in seated accommodation) operate the doors as they do on many US and Canadian trains, due to the rather small number of passengers.

 

[ashkeba]

By definition, in order for level access that is assistance free, the footstep has to be very close to the platform edge - the deployed footstep position is fixed relative to the train centre line, so then the platform edge at ALL platforms on the service / planned diversionary routes has to be within a very tight tolerance for height & offset.

Is that true? I thought the Flirt footsteps moved out until they sensed the platform, then moved back a little to allow for movement as the train loads/unloads. It doesn't seem like they move into a fixed position.

A far bigger reason the Mk5s don't have level boarding is that I think the doors are too close to the bogies and there's not enough height clearance between the bottoms of level doors and tops of bogies.

But the biggest is probably that the first batch didn't have them. Something to suggest again when someone suggests the Mk6?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that true? I thought the Flirt footsteps moved out until they sensed the platform, then moved back a little to allow for movement as the train loads/unloads. It doesn't seem like they move into a fixed position.

That's correct, at least as far as other FLIRTs go.

A far bigger reason the Mk5s don't have level boarding is that I think the doors are too close to the bogies and there's not enough height clearance between the bottoms of level doors and tops of bogies.

That's why low floor coaches in mainland Europe either have one single pair of wide double doors at roughly the coach centre (per the FLIRTs) or doors at thirds. You can't easily do an end-doored low floor coach. But that isn't really that important - we are over-fixated with the traditional arrangement over here. What matters is not where the doors are, but that they're isolated from the saloon with vestibule doors and that they have the right amount of capacity for passenger flow.

 

[sjpowermac]

Since there seems to be a fixation with the door arrangements on the Mk5a stock, I’ve re-posted a video below that explains the reasoning.

Basically, the decision was in response to customer feedback and wanting to create an ‘InterCity’ environment: something that I think all of the Nova trains achieve.

 

[tpjm]

This leads onto discussion about why the Mark 5A coaches were not specified with level access to enable assistance-free and seamless boarding by wheelchair users, in a similar fashion to the new GA stock; especially given that there is no underfloor traction equipment.

Firstly, FLIRT doesn't work at all stations on the GA network and they have some serious issues where the train is now lower than the platform, so they still need a ramp, just a shorter and more complicated contraption. Given that one of my jobs is to ensure compatibility between Nova and the platform for wheelchair ramps, you'll have to take my word for it when I say that the core route isn't known for its consistent approach to platforming. Nova 3 runs through some 'interesting', 'design-changing' stations... Level access won't happen on this patch until NR rebuild all the platforms. (I've even got BRAND NEW platform extensions that differ significantly from the original platform!)

It is however my view that we should draw a line and mandate all new stock to be low floor. It's a shame the 80x weren't.

My guess is that this was to enable lots of trains to be built for use all over the country and then cascaded wherever in the future. They ride at a similar height to a HST so not too different for LNER/GWR, but a bit of a step (literally) for TPE customers.

One suggestion could be a Piccadilly P13/14 approach with a presence of platform staff on Leeds P15/16 to help with order, boarding and efficiency; and hence reduce the guard's workload.

This team exist, albeit TPE run, less shouty and smaller - usually two people + dispatcher on Platform 16 until 1845. Unfortunately they had finished for the day when you arrived, as 1F76 is not 'known' as a busy service.

Admittedly it's not a factor I had considered. I was thinking a 185 can easily take 2-at-time disembarking/embarking at each door; so roughly a Mk5A would have half of that capacity. I trust your experience with the new fleets and that your real-world observations demonstrate an evenness between both scenarios. Thank you for your post.

The other thing to think about is the crowding on the platform around doors - consider a group of people trying to alight from a service with a huge crowd surrounding the door - you NEVER get more than a flow of single people alighting due to the platform swarm.