do passengers prefer traditional rolling stock

It might be an interesting comparison to make if anyone can get their hands on the figures or even a guesstimate but with the introduction of LHCS instead of DMUs in the west country and on the Fife Circle has passenger uptake increased.

I am pretty sure class 67 hauled MK 2 air cons are better than a pacer or sprinter in the West Country and even though Scotrail is running a decent fleet of dmu's I would think that the LHCS is still a better ride and more roomy for passengers.

If usage has gone up it would prove the point that if you improve service then more people will use the trains in question. Also does anybody have an idea how the new Holyhead/Cardiff premium service is doing?

I was just pondering the issues facing today's operators with overcrowding and I thought that there must be a case for running LHCS more frequently especially if the extra costs can be offset slightly by increased patronage. Examples include WSMR runs a three coach LHCS on a four hour trip and sees it as cost effective so the numbers must add up for them rather than run a DMU. DBS have a fleet of 125mph class 67's which are very underused especially for their primary purpose of running fast trains (since mail finished the only fast trains left are passenger). There are plenty of Mk2 and even some Mk3 stock left lying around as well as plenty of DVT's. Why not stick them together make XC take some and get a proper service on important inter-city routes rather than 4-car DMUs?

You cant tell me there isn't large suppressed latent demand on key XC routes via Birmingham and Bristol. Hey, you could even go wild and swap the 67's at BNS for some of those many stored class 90's DBS has and run them up the WCML.

I remember loco swaps in the 80's and it seemed to work. It seems patently obvious that when capacity is tight you use what is available.

Costs might be higher but an LHCS has to be more popular than 4 car Voyagers and I am sure demand and revenue will increase dramatically. There is also the issue that DBS will probably not charge the earth for what are basically idle locomotives some of which are in store.

The 4-car voyagers can be cascaded to other long distance routes currently suffering with overcrowded 2 car trains and again the improvements will see additional costs partly covered by increased capacity.

And when its all said and done if FGW are paid to run LHCS to help with overcrowding/shortage of units why shouldn't XC which has a chronic capacity issue?

Whoa...!! Punctuation and paragraph breaks, please.

Quite honestly, the punters don't know they're not on LHCS. They still refer to MU's as having a "locomotive".

O L Leigh

I think occasional punters are more interested in price/on time rather than the train. Besides anything that's new and flashy they think 'wow'. This opposed to South East commuters who probably have a different opinion on Electrostars/Desiros vs 1st Gen EMUs (CIGs, CEPs, VEPs etc)...

Most trains i go on these days seem to be having a thing for the "Japanese Subway Commuter in a Sardine tin experience."
even the Hst's are sardine tin experience too!

Whatever happened to the luxury of spacious seats on 13-coach expresses?

In my experience, passengers think new train=better. I know it's never strictly true, but that's the association a lot of passengers make. And I can see why. Up here, a 334 has a nicer interior than a 320, with more spacious seats and an overall better journey for passengers. However, when they entered into service, they were terribly unreliable. Despite this, Helensburgh commuters asked constantly for more of these trains to go to Helensburgh.

That said, they are now one of the most reliable fleets on the network. Helensburgh still want the 334s, and they'll get 334s when A-B opens and the 334s are retired.

I have said many a time that it is absolutely abominable that northern rail send single 142units for busy rush hour commuter/weekend services which is full to brimming - when a loco hauled service with a rake of 4 carriages would relieve passenger congestion and provide a more comfortable ride. In cases such as these then yes, your average fair paying passenger would notice the difference.

I'm not a trainspotter, but I can appreciate heritage and good design.

However, I'll be honest and say that I prefer a modern train interior to the old stuff. Now, an all new train might be built entirely from plastic and fall to bits, but it is no different to wanting a new car for that 'new car' look/feel/smell.

That said, I think a Mallard and a refurbed FGW HST each look pretty amazing. Not so keen on the Grand Central effort, but that's just an opinion. I doubt most people care that much about the outside or what is hidden away from view (like the power train etc).

I now use (FCC) 313s almost every day and think they're amazing for their age. If they were stripped out and given an all new interior, I'd happily use them for years to come - which is good, because I guess I will be!

I don't think most passengers are interested, really. What matters to them is that the train is a nice place to be, quiet and comfortable for their journey. They're unlikely to notice what the train actually is, whether it's loco hauled or an MU, they'll probably just get onto it, maybe only noticing that the doors are in a different place from usual, the interior's a little different and that it's possibly painted differently.
So, I would say, no, they dont, unless it's noticably nicer inside for them.

I think if there was a commuter looking at the departure boards at Nottingham, going home to Grantham, the first train was the 1734 to Norwich and the next the 1755 to Skegness (via Grantham). The 1734 departs from Platform 1, the 1755 from Platform 3. If the Skegness trains was a 67+Coach+Coach+Coach+67, and the 1734 with 2x 158 (4car), and is quicker they would get the 1734.

It's true, a colleague recently remarked that his 365 had been heavily delayed at Welwyn because "they had to take the engine off the front..." The mind boggles!

In general, age, punctuality and getting a seat are the most important things to people. The fact HSTs are old keeps being mentioned in news reports for example, notwithstanding the quality of refurbishment and reliability of re-engineered power cars.

I doubt the LHCS available (35+ year old Mk 2s, a few 25+ year old Mk 3s) would be very attractive to average passengers even refurbished.

Nevertheless take the Voyagers for instance, they may look new, but the seats are narrow, the underfloor engines make them noisy, they vibrate, they smell. Passengers notice and dislike these things but would still prefer them to Mk 2s withdrawn on those routes 10 years ago. Old is bad in most people's eyes.

On the other hand, given the choice of a decent length rake of brand new coaching stock, such as the CAF-built Irish "Mk 4s" which by their nature would be quieter and smoother and hopefully less internally cramped than the Voyagers, I think these would be far more popular. I'd love to see some new coaches, off the shelf or otherwise, and passengers would notice the difference once they get inside them. Stored locos, new build, or maybe another batch of Class 57s could power them - Brush are probably twiddling their thumbs now the MTUs are all in!!

There's not much wrong with an MU as such, just some of the ones we have are pretty poorly designed. DMUs will never escape the fact that the engines are under the floors and no amount of insulation will completely negate the noise and vibration from them. EMUs don't have this problem. But a diesel locomotive and some proper coaching stock would improve journey quality enormously for anything but the shortest routes. And some off-the-shelf coaches just might be a cheaper, more easily maintainable solution for routes needing additional rolling stock.

I find it just confuses punters tbh, particularly the 67's on taunton - cardiff runs , they're so used to the units that they think its not their train how hard can it be?

The girlie on the HST this morning would have preferred new stock. She couldn't find the button to open the door!

David Sinnett said:

The girlie on the HST this morning would have preferred new stock. She couldn't find the button to open the door!

Click to expand...

lol lol

David Sinnett said:

The girlie on the HST this morning would have preferred new stock. She couldn't find the button to open the door!

Click to expand...

Actually, this is one reason for ditching the HSTs or getting the doors changed up to Mk4 spec. I know this would be very expensive and/or difficult - but there's no way in this day and age that we should have doors like this (which must be very hard for disabled people to operate especially).

That's my opinion, but fix the doors and do up the insides and I'd be happy for the trains to run forever; ignoring crash worthiness and general decay to the shell!

The cost would be astronomical as the coach ends would need to be reconstructed completely.

I don't see any problem with slam doors anyway, most people are simply too moronic to read the quite obvious notices on the door.

In response to the question about how well the express service to holyhead is doing, when i saw it at cardiff central last week, there wre a lot of people waiting to board it and it does seem to be quite full when i have seen it arrive at cardiff.

personally i must admit i do prefer the old stock although i do like the class 170 turbostars and the class 158's but i still prefer mark 2 & mark 3 stock coaches, the seating on them is a lot more comfy apart from First great westerns refurbished hsts which arent very comfy.

anthony263 said:

personally i must admit i do prefer the old stock although i do like the class 170 turbostars and the class 158's

Click to expand...

Put you on an exCT 158 onLiverpool-Norwich and you might change your mind

With the modern central locking system where all doors are locked until the train has actually stopped at the platform, wouldn't it be possible to have internal handles of some type to open the doors.

Despite the comments above that "some people are too moronic to read the obvious notices on the doors", there are actually many elderly people who find it quite an ordeal to have to pull down the window and reach for the outside handle to open the door. I have heard of elderly people who are now much happier travelling by train with modern stock who used to find the whole business of opening the old style doors quite stressful.
We will all get old some day!

ashworth said:

With the modern central locking system where all doors are locked until the train has actually stopped at the platform, wouldn't it be possible to have internal handles of some type to open the doors.

Despite the comments above that "some people are too moronic to read the obvious notices on the doors", there are actually many elderly people who find it quite an ordeal to have to pull down the window and reach for the outside handle to open the door. I have heard of elderly people who are now much happier travelling by train with modern stock who used to find the whole business of opening the old style doors quite stressful.
We will all get old some day!

Click to expand...

I quite like that fact that you still have to lean out the window to open the door on some services, Gives it a nice feel (so i would say i do prefer traditional rolling stock), but i get what you mean, It is abit silly that they havnt fitted them with an internal handle yet. I think from an operational point of view, I would prefer having powered doors, as it saves time as stations, and its alot easier for the train guard/conductor and the platform staff. Theres always one mug who doesnt close the door behind them!

I personally would rather be on a loco hauled train hauled by a 66 (my least favourite loco) without heating on a cold winters day than a modern MU, i don't really know why, but i just find loco hauled services better

HSTfan!!! said:

how hard can it be?

Click to expand...

Don't say that!!

To be fair, most disabled people would have the same difficulty with Mark 4 rolling stock; they would still need the same level of assistance that they would with the slammers. And people who can't operate the door from the inside, such as some elderly people, can seek assistance.

I remember the first time I opened an HST door from inside; I was a bit smaller than I am now and I fell onto the platform with my bag falling on top of me Got a quite few stares...

That all said, I do think that the newer doors are better, but there's no point replacing slam doors until the rolling stock is replaced.

As a daily commuter using 315's and 317's I will answer the question with 2 hats on.
As an enthusiast, I would love to have the 302's, 305's and 308's back just for the enthusiast angle

As a passenger my priorities are more or less in order.
Train is punctual and reliable
Train is warm and comfortable
Train is clean

Now to compare the old and the new on my line
Punctuality and reliability has improved since the 1st generation units.
Slam door stock you could melt and freeze at the same time, every station any heat disapeared and draughts from door frames and windows had to be felt to be believed, try sitting on a 305 at speed over point work you soon discovered why the seats were so well padded, not only the unit bounced all over the place but so did the passengers, rush hour in compartment stock was worse 12 seated and 5 or 6 standing made sanrdine cans look spacious.
Clean , how often did you used to see cleaners at terminals in BR days cleaning rubbish from commuter trains with a 10 min turnaround.
Yes I loved the old stuff but take of the rose tinted specs and do a proper comparison.
And if you really still think old is best , ask anyone who regularly used Cravens units.
As for Loco hauled , again nice but look at the station loading and unloading for loco hauled compared with a lot of units, go to Tottenham Hale where in the mornings 317's and 315's stop for less than a minute and see how many get of, also look at the Northbound Stanstead Express service at Tottenham Hale, again less than 1 minute stop time and see how quick and easy it is to load all the airport travellers and their luggage.

To the OP: please use Firefox and go to Tools > Add-ons and get the British English Dictionary add-on and use it, also please use paragraphs. I've very quickly made the original post readable but if you can take these steps in future it would be very helpful, thanks

As for the question of rattling underfloor DMUs versus loco haulage - obviously the latter is far better quality, and it makes sense where you go above about 5 carriages.

The environment inside a Mk2 is vastly superior to that of the Mk3-based DMU/EMUs which get very drafty at station stops due the door configuration and not having vestibules at the end of each coach and none of the seats line up in those series of multiple units, while all do in Mk2s. Passengers clearly preferred the Mk2s on the Harrogate line compared with Pacers and Sprinters and anyone who disagrees with that has to be bonkers!

But it's only economical where there's enough demand...

I heard that passengers on the Fife Circle line went ballastic when the Mk2s rolled up instead of their shiny new 170s.

I agree, on routes where there are few passengers, it would be easier to have tiny units than miles long loco hauled services (excuse the exaggeration).

jonmorris0844 said:

I'm not a trainspotter, but I can appreciate heritage and good design.

However, I'll be honest and say that I prefer a modern train interior to the old stuff. Now, an all new train might be built entirely from plastic and fall to bits, but it is no different to wanting a new car for that 'new car' look/feel/smell.

That said, I think a Mallard and a refurbed FGW HST each look pretty amazing. Not so keen on the Grand Central effort, but that's just an opinion. I doubt most people care that much about the outside or what is hidden away from view (like the power train etc).

I now use (FCC) 313s almost every day and think they're amazing for their age. If they were stripped out and given an all new interior, I'd happily use them for years to come - which is good, because I guess I will be!

Click to expand...

I presume you travel first class if you think that! Standard class on refurbished FGW HSTs is atrocious - I've seldom been on a train I like less in terms of ambience. Row upon row of identical seats, all facing the same way. with just one misely table on each side. It looks cramped - and is. Add to that the fact that the seat cushions are much thinner and the way the seat in front of you is so high that any impression of space is lost completely - to say nothing of the way the seat in front of you juts into 'your' space. Going purely on interior style, I prefer 350s/377s (though only in front & rear coaches) - commuter trains, not intercity!

Having said that, first class is absolutely brilliant. Fantastically comfortable leather seats (they might be the same 'structure' as GNER's, but the leather seems to make them far more compliant) and a colour combination that despite itself (blue & violet????) looks good.


However, to return to the question in the first post, it's quite tricky to answer really - I'll focus on intercity trains, though. I've heard many people say that they prefer the old trains, but equally have heard people complain about anything not brand new - and even welcome new 'inferior' (in my opinion) stock - the classic example being the Pendolinos on the WCML. I think passengers who use a train on a daily basis will grow to prefer 'traditional' rolling stock, as they begin to see past the glitz, as it were, of new trains.

I think we need to define 'traditional', though. If by traditional we mean a Virgin as-withdrawn Mk2, and by modern we mean a brand new Voyager, then perhaps people prefer 'modern' stock. However, if by 'traditional' we mean traditional in terms of style - i.e. tables lining up with windows, doors at end in vestibules, 2 toilets per coach, large tables, no noisy underfloor engines, near-silent air-conditioning, soft seats, ample legroom, etc., then I think there's no doubt that passengers prefer 'traditional' stock.

Passengers, I suspect, want to feel like they're the first people ever to use that train, and the best way to do that is by making the stock feel 'new'. But 'new' can be 'traditional', and I think that's what people prefer.

Me personally? I'd rather have a guards van with a loco on the front than any MU (well, almost ), but I fully understand why normal passengers wouldn't!

Yorkie
when posting on a Nokia E71 it is dificult to punctuate and paragraph postings .

I would rather be on a 175/185 than a loco hauled train. Much more comfortable, and the underfloor engines really aren't that loud. EMUs are even better.

delt1c said:

Yorkie
when posting on a Nokia E71 it is dificult to punctuate and paragraph postings .

Click to expand...

I use my 'phone to make posts occasionally, but I wouldn't go starting new topics with large posts from a 'phone. But even if I did have the patience to do that, I could still press Enter occasionally

At the risk of going even further off-topic how do you know what phone model he has?