To be fair, the ICE is very much a premium service, where there is usually a sensible alternative. while LNER has to cater for everyone.
It's DB's premier long distance fleet, as the 80x fleets are for LNER and GWR. I see no reason for having lower expectations here.
I can't believe that we are accepting a worse ride - and it is significantly worse - than a Mark 3. It's just embarrassing that a 50-year-old design is better than what there is now: my car offers a smoother ride than the equivalent in the 1970s. Or are we saying that the BT10 is perfection and will never be matched?
Those announcements are gone now. But yes.
I don't think we shouldn't have high expecations; it's just that a higher standard would drive up fares and make the train less attractive because of the shortage of public transport funding in this country.
Admittedly yes, but I just don't think it's a massive deal. There are far worse issues with IETs that need to be sorted out first.
I still maintain that the Desiros are far preferable to the 319s when it comes to ride quality. You're right however that it was not the best comparison but my point still stands; it is not that the engineering has become worse, merely that it is not being used to it's full potential
When I last travelled LNER, mid-March, the pair of seats opposite each luggage rack had covers on them saying something along the lines of "don't sit here, use these seats for luggage". I said they used as such when I first saw them; with no windows those seats would be better as luggage racks than seating at Standard Open prices. Better seat space than the Mark 4s though, almost up to Mark 3 standard I think.
The doors don't affect the passenger experience at all; surely the funds could be better spent elsewhere?
Of course, another reason why the doors are the way they are is the pressure seal; this inflates above a certain speed to stop air whistling through the doors and into the train.
Even if plug doors were to be fitted (which is a crazy idea which will probably never happen) they would presumably not cut windows through the door pockets.
In all fairness the Mk3 preferences are often distorted by ridiculous things like the nostalgia of the droplights and memorable bouncy suspensions. But there's a valid point to be had when it is in regards to how space is maximised in ways that isn't compatible with safety regs or the technical requirements of TOCs these days (ie lower floor than MUs, untappered bodies, and higher placed minimally reflective windows at wider spacings than your average MU). I've a feeling this is what people use as a benchmark.
Thanks - this comment has reminded me of the need for a redesign of the non-accessible toilets on the 80x. Currently they invariably have wet floors (most likely due to the sink/water outlet) which isn't appealing. See also this post from a different thread:
Maybe you could use the standard livery to avoid confusion. It would look like you were only doing it for GWR and not other companies if you did it like that. I'm talking about this livery:
I do not agree with the premise of your argument.
That is exactly what I am saying. It's not that modern technology is incapable of producing high ride quality, it's that the DfT gave no consideration to it.
It isn`t so much they gave no consideration but they cocked up the contract by making certain essential aspects such as ride quality "desirable" rather than essential. This meant that anything not essential got the cheapest option. See the article in June`s Modern Railways,
