Why can’t modern rolling stock be as spacious and comfortable as Mk 1 coaches?

HamworthyGoods · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
But mots mark 1 stock you came across, esp by the mid 1970s was not compartment stock (unless it was on some lines?) - however, obviously by then they were getting 'old fashioned'.

But I think the jist of the OP's post was why can not modern stock have some of the basics of the design advantages from that era - window alignment, comfy seats, leg room etc - which of course it could. Combine best of the past with best of the present.

Because on our congested network we can’t nevessarily run longer without huge expense (platform lengthening, stabling capacity etc) so we have to fit more people in per carriage so that’s where compromises have to be made.

In a world where money is unlimited everything is possible but we choose not to fund our railways that way and this is nothing new, remember in the late 80s/early 90s BR on the Provincial Fleet renewal had a policy of every 3 old coaches will only be replaced by 2 new ones so ways had to be found to get extra seats in each carriage.

RailUK Forums

Aictos · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
But mots mark 1 stock you came across, esp by the mid 1970s was not compartment stock (unless it was on some lines?) - however, obviously by then they were getting 'old fashioned'.

But I think the jist of the OP's post was why can not modern stock have some of the basics of the design advantages from that era - window alignment, comfy seats, leg room etc - which of course it could. Combine best of the past with best of the present.

Sure you can have plenty of legroom but you wouldn’t be getting in more seats hence my point about overcrowding.

Those interiors belong firmly in the past.

jfollows · 2 Jan 2020

In 1977 I had the choice of Mark 1 corridor stock, vacuum braked, 100mph on the 16:23 or Mark 3 brand new stock on the 17:12 departures from Manchester to Macclesfield. The latter was several orders of magnitude better, nicer, more comfortable. It's unfortunately been necessary to compromise more recently by installing more seats than were necessary back then, but I have no fond memories of the Mark 1 rolling stock really.

AM9 · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
But mots mark 1 stock you came across, esp by the mid 1970s was not compartment stock (unless it was on some lines?) - however, obviously by then they were getting 'old fashioned'.

But I think the jist of the OP's post was why can not modern stock have some of the basics of the design advantages from that era - window alignment, comfy seats, leg room etc - which of course it could. Combine best of the past with best of the present.

That one has been answered so many times here but some posters think if they ask the same question enough times it might affect things in the real world.

window alignment ceased to be a major issue with the introduction of the beloved (by some) MKIII 23m stock. The cost of designing and type approving two types of body shell (one for 1st class, the other for standard) would have been an unnecessary waste, firstly at the time and many times since as coah layouts in the 40 years of their use have changed many times to meet passenger capacity requirements.
'comfy seats' are subjective. I have been on many so-called 'comfy' seats in MKI, II & III coaches, and even thoughn in younger years when I was probably more tolerant of poor seating, they just doidn't have good posture for anything longer than 20 minute hops. So, nobody here or elsewhere has any more than their own opinion on the quality of seats.
leg room is a question of capacity vs comfort and generally only really affects those over 6ft in height (which includes me). MKI seating wast particularly generous on legroom unless there was continuous co-operation between facing passengers. That applied particularly where standing between seats was frequent as in non-corridor compartment stock. Airline seats weren't common in MKI coaches so almost everybody had shared foot space. In the 21st century, like it or not, capacity is king on trains, also on buses and in aircraft unless higher fares are paid. The alternative is more dedicated standing space. Manufacturers have already demonstrated how very high capacity can be achieved on a path and loading gauge limited railway, (classes 345 & 700) so be careful what you all wish for.

61653 HTAFC · 2 Jan 2020

coradiafan2000 said:
By the time I was born I think most if not all the mark 1s had left mainline duties, so my only experience of them is on heritage railways.

They have amazingly comfortable seats compared to modern stock, although it seems like all new trains are less comfortable than their predecessors. I do think they ride quite poorly though, no where near as smooth as a mark 3.

And that's the ride at preserved line speeds (no quicker than about 40mph). I've no clue what it's like at higher speeds. The fastest I will have done on them is about 70 when I was on a rail tour hauled by Leander, however I was only 8 and so remember very little of it.

I'd take the mark 3s and 4s over them, as unlike many others who may be reading this, it's those that I have nostalgia for, whereas I have no attachment at all to the mark 1s (or the mark 2s, which I have even less experience of).

Unless you're on the GCR on a special running day, you shouldn't be experiencing speeds anything greater than 25mph on a heritage line... though in a mk1 on jointed track 25mph can feel more like 40!

coradiafan2000 · 2 Jan 2020

61653 HTAFC said:
Unless you're on the GCR on a special running day, you shouldn't be experiencing speeds anything greater than 25mph on a heritage line... though in a mk1 on jointed track 25mph can feel more like 40!

Is it really that slow? Feels a little faster than that. As you say it's probably because of the carriages.

WesternLancer · 2 Jan 2020

Aictos said:
Sure you can have plenty of legroom but you wouldn’t be getting in more seats hence my point about overcrowding.

Those interiors belong firmly in the past.

Basic check on web indicates 12 car class 377 (modern EMU) is 798 seats, vs 4-VEP 912 seats - so not sure if this is always strictly the case - if those figs accurate.

Of course even in the peaks it seems to me many seats are used for passengers bags...

The push for 'more seats' is often a target driven design consideration in that at many times of day plenty of seats are unoccupied - but you still have to sit in discomfort as the layout is designed for so that the maximum number of seats can be fitted in for the peaks (thameslink off peak services being a case in point at times) and so the DfT can say 'we are provding x percent more seats' on this new franchise. Changing patterns of work and commuting will, I suspect, serve to reduce peak time demand as time goes on - in the way that season ticket sales are in decline it seems.

This can be a bit different on an inter city route of course, with more reservations and dynamic pricing better able to direct loading demand.

I suppose given changing lengths of carriages the true comparison would be 'seats per meter' of coach or some such.

hexagon789 · 2 Jan 2020

coradiafan2000 said:
Is it really that slow? Feels a little faster than that. As you say it's probably because of the carriages.

Yes, for normal operations though heritage lines can apply to run faster. Some operate at higher speeds for testing trains. The GCR does 60 for steam/75 diesel for such purposes.

hexagon789 · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
Basic check on web indicates 12 car class 377 (modern EMU) is 798 seats, vs 4-VEP 912 seats - so not sure if this is always strictly the case - if those figs accurate.

4-VEPs had 2+3 in standard though, aren't 377s 2+2?

WesternLancer · 2 Jan 2020

AM9 said:
That one has been answered so many times here but some posters think if they ask the same question enough times it might affect things in the real world.

window alignment ceased to be a major issue with the introduction of the beloved (by some) MKIII 23m stock. The cost of designing and type approving two types of body shell (one for 1st class, the other for standard) would have been an unnecessary waste, firstly at the time and many times since as coah layouts in the 40 years of their use have changed many times to meet passenger capacity requirements.
'comfy seats' are subjective. I have been on many so-called 'comfy' seats in MKI, II & III coaches, and even thoughn in younger years when I was probably more tolerant of poor seating, they just doidn't have good posture for anything longer than 20 minute hops. So, nobody here or elsewhere has any more than their own opinion on the quality of seats.
leg room is a question of capacity vs comfort and generally only really affects those over 6ft in height (which includes me). MKI seating wast particularly generous on legroom unless there was continuous co-operation between facing passengers. That applied particularly where standing between seats was frequent as in non-corridor compartment stock. Airline seats weren't common in MKI coaches so almost everybody had shared foot space. In the 21st century, like it or not, capacity is king on trains, also on buses and in aircraft unless higher fares are paid. The alternative is more dedicated standing space. Manufacturers have already demonstrated how very high capacity can be achieved on a path and loading gauge limited railway, (classes 345 & 700) so be careful what you all wish for.

yes, of course all points well made.

and yet my car is far more spacious and comfortable than the equivalent model I would have had in the 1970s....

WesternLancer · 2 Jan 2020

hexagon789 said:
4-VEPs had 2+3 in standard though, aren't 377s 2+2?

377s have both - some 2+3 (in the centre cars) and some 2+2 in the end vehicles - or various mixes thereof I think on various sub classes.

WesternLancer · 2 Jan 2020

AM9 said:
'comfy seats' are subjective. I have been on many so-called 'comfy' seats in MKI, II & III coaches, and even thoughn in younger years when I was probably more tolerant of poor seating, they just doidn't have good posture for anything longer than 20 minute hops. So, nobody here or elsewhere has any more than their own opinion on the quality of seats.

well yes, I think most people outside this forum will agree that the Thameslink and IET seats really are comfy (most people at the DfT that is....) :smile:

as Matthew Parris nicely writes
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08...ll-me-who-has-made-the-nations-buttocks-ache/

Western Lord · 2 Jan 2020

coradiafan2000 said:
Is it really that slow? Feels a little faster than that. As you say it's probably because of the carriages.

All "heritage" railways operate under light railway orders, which means they are legally limited to 25mph.

yorksrob · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
Yes, I recall being very impressed with the 'heavy' refurbs of the CEP and BEP Mk1 units (and I think Clacton EMUs also got this) - hopper windows, brand new formica panels, new seats etc when they appeared - pic here
http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class411_5.html
tho I think this was also driven by the complete re-build they needed to remove asbestos, but being a bit disappointed when the CIG refurb programme was more just heavy cleaning and re-upholstery - yet they benefited enormously from that. In time, when I became more interested in interior carriage design, I came to appreciate the retention of the older formica paneling etc, with it's more muted quality of design. As mentioned above though, I did find VEPs a strange design choice - one heck of a lot of doors to maintain!

As you say DMUs were kept smart too - though the vandalism problem is illustrated in one of the pics here
http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class207_4.html

It was really in Connex days that things started to get bad pretty fast - they must have decided that the way to run the franchise with reduced costs was a massive reduction in carriage cleaning and maintenance. It was depressing how bad they got and how quickly that happened. A real indictment of privatisation were one needed. I think SWT did a better job with the Mk1 stock they were responsible for.

Funnily enough, I far preferred the light 'facelifts' of the CIG's etc which retained the softer seating compared to the harsher CEP's.

The VEP's were perfectly fine in my experience, in spite of the usual protestations by the anti-mk 1 militia on here.

WesternLancer · 2 Jan 2020

yorksrob said:
Funnily enough, I far preferred the light 'facelifts' of the CIG's etc which retained the softer seating compared to the harsher CEP's.

The VEP's were perfectly fine in my experience, in spite of the usual protestations by the anti-mk 1 militia on here.

Yes, that came to be my way of thinking re the CIGs.

My issue with VEPs was how draughty they could be in the winter, really. I used to go to school on Coastway services in 70s and 80s, and certainly by the 80s the services seemed to be a mix of VEPs and CIGs, always nicer when it was a CIG (and of course doors on VEPs interrupted the Mk1 'picture window' benefit of the CIG.

43096 · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
377s have both - some 2+3 (in the centre cars) and some 2+2 in the end vehicles - or various mixes thereof I think on various sub classes.

The 377 interior is quite clever in some ways as it was intended to replace both CIGs (2+2) and VEPs (3+2) so the hybrid of both in the same unit makes for a more flexible fleet.

WesternLancer · 2 Jan 2020

43096 said:
The 377 interior is quite clever in some ways as it was intended to replace both CIGs (2+2) and VEPs (3+2) so the hybrid of both in the same unit makes for a more flexible fleet.

Yes, of course like many 5 a side seats, the middle of the 3 are often unoccupied (possibly unoccupiable depending on the size of some fellow passengers) - but that does help with use in peaks / off peaks to provide more seats as you say.

jfollows · 2 Jan 2020

yorksrob said:
Funnily enough, I far preferred the light 'facelifts' of the CIG's etc which retained the softer seating compared to the harsher CEP's.

I agree, in the 1980s I lived in and around Portsmouth and we had CIG/BEP/CIG on the Portsmouth Direct and REP/TC/TC on the Bournemouth line, all seemed well suited to the role but I tended to avoid the BEPs if I could.
Shortly before I left the region we had the 442s on the Bournemouth line and I saw these then as a good improvement to the Mark 1 units. Indeed, I remember them after I had moved on the Portsmouth Direct also.

bramling · 2 Jan 2020

yorksrob said:
Funnily enough, I far preferred the light 'facelifts' of the CIG's etc which retained the softer seating compared to the harsher CEP's.

The VEP's were perfectly fine in my experience, in spite of the usual protestations by the anti-mk 1 militia on here.

Yes the VEP was a jack of all trades master of none, but as a compromise design did its job pretty well.

yorksrob · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
Yes, that came to be my way of thinking re the CIGs.

My issue with VEPs was how draughty they could be in the winter, really. I used to go to school on Coastway services in 70s and 80s, and certainly by the 80s the services seemed to be a mix of VEPs and CIGs, always nicer when it was a CIG (and of course doors on VEPs interrupted the Mk1 'picture window' benefit of the CIG.

Very refreshing in the summer though. But yes, there's not much beats a CIG.

yorksrob · 2 Jan 2020

jfollows said:
I agree, in the 1980s I lived in and around Portsmouth and we had CIG/BEP/CIG on the Portsmouth Direct and REP/TC/TC on the Bournemouth line, all seemed well suited to the role but I tended to avoid the BEPs if I could.
Shortly before I left the region we had the 442s on the Bournemouth line and I saw these then as a good improvement to the Mark 1 units. Indeed, I remember them after I had moved on the Portsmouth Direct also.

I lived in Kent and was quite pleased when we got some cascaded CIG's in the early 90's. It had been mostly CEP's and VEP's previously.

bramling said:
Yes the VEP was a jack of all trades master of none, but as a compromise design did its job pretty well.

Indeed. Worth remembering also that in Kent they displaced the HAP's which were less user friendly in that they had no through connections and limited access to toilets. Presumably it was the same with BIL's and HAL's on other parts of the Southern.

hexagon789 · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
377s have both - some 2+3 (in the centre cars) and some 2+2 in the end vehicles - or various mixes thereof I think on various sub classes.

What is the 798 seats for though? Which variant? And the 4VEP would be higher as it's 2+3 throughout except in first class and again I believe there were different variants in later years?

WesternLancer · 2 Jan 2020

hexagon789 said:
What is the 798 seats for though? Which variant? And the 4VEP would be higher as it's 2+3 throughout except in first class and again I believe there were different variants in later years?

well I said it was preliminary check and I've not carefully checked seating plans of all such stock - simply indicating that it's not just a question of 'Mk1 don't carry as many people'

What is the 798 seats for though?

for 798 posteriors I assume

hexagon789 · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
for 798 posteriors I assume

I meant which subclass of 377s!

Deepgreen · 2 Jan 2020

Train interiors will simply continue to become more and more spartan and utilitarian - all progress is inevitably towards safety and economy. However, while this trend continues, the whole train becomes ever more complicated and prone to system failure, making them very safe, but very prone to failure in anything other than ideal conditions.

AM9 · 2 Jan 2020

Deepgreen said:
Train interiors will simply continue to become more and more spartan and utilitarian - all progress is inevitably towards safety and economy. However, while this trend continues, the whole train becomes ever more complicated and prone to system failure, making them very safe, but very prone to failure in anything other than ideal conditions.

I suppose that everybody has an idea about how safe they like trains, but the more relaxed safety attitude in MKI days (1951 to 1994) resulted in the death of nearly 500 passengers travelling in trains on either MKI or coaches of similar construction from the predecessor companies. Compare that with the number of deaths of from 2000 to 2020 that totla 24, when average speeds were much higher, and far more passengers carried on many more trains. Ask that question of ordinary passengers (not enthusiasts) as to whether it was worth the comfy 'seats'. GHive me trains with some fail-safe cancellations than deaths at those sort of levels any day.

Sad Sprinter · 2 Jan 2020

I don’t think people are asking for the MK1s back per se, but while it’s already been established why, train interiors nowadays do not make a relatively pleasant travelling environment. Travelling on a train with all seats taken, efficient as it may be, is not terribly comfortable. Being squashed into an airline seats stuffing your luggage under your legs for example. It would be nice if passgener comfort was taken more centrally when designing trains and the infrastructure and management built around the train experience. But then again, that’s probably something only a horizontally operated railways can achieve.

WesternLancer · 2 Jan 2020

AM9 said:
I suppose that everybody has an idea about how safe they like trains, but the more relaxed safety attitude in MKI days (1951 to 1994) resulted in the death of nearly 500 passengers travelling in trains on either MKI or coaches of similar construction from the predecessor companies. Compare that with the number of deaths of from 2000 to 2020 that totla 24, when average speeds were much higher, and far more passengers carried on many more trains. Ask that question of ordinary passengers (not enthusiasts) as to whether it was worth the comfy 'seats'. GHive me trains with some fail-safe cancellations than deaths at those sort of levels any day.

Sorry - but this is surely a red herring - no one is saying go back to standards of carriage construction that are less safe. This is what the OP asked:

Can anyone explain to me why a mere 60 odd years later it is not possible for our rail network to have stock that is as spacious and comfortable?

Comfort levels can alter within the exact same type of coach - with presumably no difference in safety (compare say former LNER mark 3 interior with former GWR refurbed Mk 3 interior).

As people have pointed out - it's about capacity and seats and targets, and to some extent it's also about the nature of monopoly providers and government control. Cars have not got less comfortable over the same period - but trains (and aircraft) generally have.

PG · 2 Jan 2020

WesternLancer said:
Cars have not got less comfortable over the same period - but trains (and aircraft) generally have.

Cars have largely (excuse the pun) increased in size as they've got more comfortable yet still with the same seating capacity.

Taking the Mini and comparing the dimensions of the original v the current model:
Original
Length 3821mm
Width 1270mm
Height 1346mms

Current
Length 3821mm
Width 1727mm
Height 1414mms

Trains have got bigger and have higher seating capacities but generally are less comfortable.

xotGD · 2 Jan 2020

AM9 said:
I suppose that everybody has an idea about how safe they like trains, but the more relaxed safety attitude in MKI days (1951 to 1994) resulted in the death of nearly 500 passengers travelling in trains on either MKI or coaches of similar construction from the predecessor companies. Compare that with the number of deaths of from 2000 to 2020 that totla 24, when average speeds were much higher, and far more passengers carried on many more trains. Ask that question of ordinary passengers (not enthusiasts) as to whether it was worth the comfy 'seats'. GHive me trains with some fail-safe cancellations than deaths at those sort of levels any day.

That is a totally bogus comparison as it fails to take into account the reduction in the number of serious accidents. A "fatalities per accident" figure would be much more meaningful.

Oh, and how do the numbers compare with road transport over that period?

Why can’t modern rolling stock be as spacious and comfortable as Mk 1 coaches?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member