starrymarkb
Established Member
The huge cost of altering tunnels and platforms 
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Preferred Intercity Rolling Stock
- Thread starter al.currie93
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Though, of course, one of the drivers of the growth that the railway has enjoyed over the last few decades is BR's decision in the 1980s to run shorter trains more frequently. I'm not sure going back on that is a great idea...
ryan125hst
Established Member
junglejames
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 2,069
Sorry for the late response to this, but even this subject gets annoying at times, so i tend to avoid it. Ive given up expecting rolling stock to get better, and i prefer to avoid the 'your an enthusiast and not a real person' sentiments that some seem to make out.
But this question is an easy one to answer, thanks to the answer coming straight from a well known ROSCO and one of the employees.
The answer- Because they are more expensive. Less padding equals a cheaper seat. Perfectly good seats with more padding are available, but TOCs tend to look away when they realise it may cost a couple of quid more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ah, of course. If you put more padding on the seat base, it obviously increases seat pitch. Nah sorry, untrue. A longer seat base increases seat pitch, but not a thicker seat base.
Anyway, your answer is wrong. Its down to cost.
The trains which are busiest are often commuter style trains. As has been shown recently, TOCs are more than happy to design these with less seating and more standing space, so they cant be too worried about peoples preference for a seat over standing. So the TOCs arent going to be worried about losing 4 seats per coach by inserting seats with a better seat base, even if your answer was true.
Ah yes, that would explain why some of the most prefered post privatisation rolling stock happens to be trains with anything but an upright seat back. ie the 175s and 180s. Oh, and why some of the most hated are the hard and upright seats found on new 377s, and the 375/9s. All this posture rubbish seems to be getting ignored.
Go for it. Wouldnt you like a bit more padding to go with that as well though? Perhaps to make that longer journey slightly more bearable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ah yes, all those 20 and 23m coaches being built nowadays are soooo much longer than the 20 and 23m coaches being built back yesteryear.
Most do have the same internal space (seat width on these will be down to cost). Those that dont have same internal space, well that can usually be put down to other reasons. Often cost cutting once again.
When the trains are already at 15 minute intervals lengthening them all to 6 car is a better use of stock than putting an extra service in which will add to congestion, pathing difficulties, need more drivers etc.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 7,343
In terms of (standard class) comfort, I have yet to sample any UK coach that matches the comfort of a Bulleid SR Open Second - good seat padding and adequate width. The 4 COR emus on the London - Portsmouth line were almost as good, but the ride could be a bit rough at times.
Since then, seats have generally got smaller & harder, with reduced legroom & luggage space. Classes 175 & 180 are probably the best current stock that I use.
Since then, seats have generally got smaller & harder, with reduced legroom & luggage space. Classes 175 & 180 are probably the best current stock that I use.
I've never had the pleasure of travelling on one, but out of interest, how would this compare with a phase 1 CIG (which is pretty much the gold standard of express stock that I've experienced) ?
Lack of insight 60 years ago when 25kv electrification started. All ac electrified lines could operate double decker trains to-day had the nettle been grasped then. Who knows, HS2 could have been avoided had these trains been introduced.
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,492
By how many feet or meters would the tracks have to be lowered (or stuff raised) to allow for double decker trains running on AC?
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,265
It's a bit unfair to blame a lack of insight 60 years ago. Rail was in massive decline then. Who could have predicted that we would see a resurgence many years later? On HS2, even with double deckers you'd still have the inherent inefficiencies of a mixed use railway. A high speed line would be inevitable once the easy upgrades to the existing lines had been done.
asylumxl
Established Member
If the subject gets annoying then why are you replying?
I can't even be bothered to reply to your points as most are utter rubbish. In passenger comfort surveys modern stock came out on top, such as the 222s. I regret to inform you that a 222 is not a 180 or 175.
Now, please go back to your pitiful existence measuring legroom with your tape, troll.
I think that just demonstrates how twisted "passenger comfort surveys" are.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
But you forget! It's much easier to put it all down to skimpy cost-cutting than actually think it through
starrymarkb
Established Member
Or that some enthusiasts think passengers have no taste.
For Example I love the Grammar seats in FGW HSTs, because as an airline seat user I appreciate the extra legroom and the taller seat means I can rest my head. Other passengers may prefer to see over the seats, or can live with less legroom if they get more tables.
Other passengers or enthusiasts may disagree with me. Thing is if you ask 20 people you'll get 20 different answers as to what they prefer in their train seat.
Last edited:
asylumxl
Established Member
But you forget! It's much easier to put it all down to skimpy cost-cutting than actually think it through
Forgive me if I am wrong but a 23m carriage with no wheelchair accessible vestibule or toilet will have more spa e for seats than one with. I would have thought that was plainly obvious.
I'm sure some would say that these features are pointless, but I'm sure their opinions would be the polar opposite if it had an impact on them.
At the end of the day, passenger numbers are increasing year on year. If we can't extend trains anymore than we have no choice but to fit more seats in the existing space we have. A fact some people seem to ignore.
starrymarkb
Established Member
Indeed, it would be nice to have 400m platforms like most major stations on the continent.
317666
Established Member
But you try getting most passengers to actually walk up the platform more than 10m away from the station entrance/footbridge!
The tallest rolling stock on British AC classic lines that I can find dimensions for is the Mark 4 at 3.79 metres.
Multi-level EMUs in Sydney Trains or NSW TrainLink service range between 4.37m (+580mm compared to a Mark 4) and 4.41m (+620mm) tall, and Australia being a high platform rail system (except in some really remote areas) means they all have mid-level doors as would also be appropriate for Britain.
The new A-Set suburban EMUs are 8x20m units, seating capacity for 896 in 3x2 rows on the upper and lower decks, plus standing/wheelchair space and tip-down seats between the doors and the end doors at middle level over the bogies.
The H-Set medium-distance Intercity EMUs are 4x20.5 units, seats for 432 in 3x2 layout, standing/wheelchair space on the middle level and the inner end of the second car has a toilet.
The slimmer loading gauge in Britain would definitely reduce the seated capacity if a Sydney-style EMU were to be introduced in Britain. 2+2 seats with a slightly wider aisle would reduce the number of seats but the wider aisle would make for a minimal impact on total (seat + stand) capacity.
I agree it will be difficult to find that 600mm in areas where the trains have already grown into a snug fit with older infrastructure is already a snug fit. Even if legislation were passed to remove all heritage listings from structures still being used for their original purpose, there's still a lot of work to be done.
However, I believe it was Napoleon who said "the best time to plant trees is twenty years ago, the second best time is now." That means future proofing any new structures by building them ready for a simple conversion in the future, and incorporating those enhancements into any infrastructure renewal projects.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
Having double deck trains would increase dwell times significantly, particularly as doors would at the ends of carriages (similar to Mark IIIs) and not give as many seats as people expect - don't forget the stairs required.
The extended dwells would consequently reduce track capacity with fewer seats thereby being offered in a given amount of time.
The extended dwells would consequently reduce track capacity with fewer seats thereby being offered in a given amount of time.
Makes you wonder how the rest of the world cope with double deck trains given how rubbish they are. If having double deckers was any good they would try and do it on bus routes as well in this country. Erm.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
Double decker buses do have longer dwell times than single ones and also not many seats downstiars these days due to wheelchair bays and obviously the stairs.
Take out the space for the stairs and a single decker now has loads less seats than a double. Take away double deck buses and replace them with more frequent single deckers and most cities in the UK would grind to a halt. Forget the dwell time nonsence.
starrymarkb
Established Member
Well the continent just goes for longer vehicles (with 3/4 pairs of doors per side)
Try one of these which run from Geneva out of a small village a few miles north of the city.
Boris would have a heart attack at the thought of one of those in London
Last edited:
Well the continent just goes for longer vehicles (with 3/4 pairs of doors per side)
Try one of these which run from Geneva out of a small village a few miles north of the city.
Boris would have a heart attack at the thought of one of those in London
Ha ha. Touche.
Completely baseless twaddle.
DD trains have higher capacity for the length of the train. Fact.
The minor increase in dwell time is far outweighed by the higher capacity of the trains to give a total increase in capacity per hour. Fact.
If the infrastructure was sorted out, the only thing stopping it from working in Britain would be if the passengers are too stupid to work it out. Are they?
asylumxl
Established Member
The main issues preventing double decker trains in the existing UK loading gauge are the limited height/restricted width of the decks and the lack of bogies/motors small enough/rated high enough for the speeds needed on most lines.
In a larger loading gauge, I agree that it doesn't increase loading times too much, as the larger gauge allows for more circulation space. The passengers don't need to be seated before the train leaves afterall.
Going by this thread, we're supposedly incapable of operating a door handle !
- Status