Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Every train has space unused for seating. In a FLIRT this is behind the cabs, and at the powerpacks (if present). 80x lose space at the ends of each carriage where it tapers narrower, which isn't a thing on FLIRTs.
In a FLIRT the space is not usable for anything. In an 80x it's used for toilets, luggage space, trolley dock/buffet and bicycle space, and therefore none of it is wasted. In a FLIRT all of these things have to take space that in an 80x would or could be seats.
I wouldn't go that far, the Voyagers, while hardly space efficient have a solid build quality, large windows, comfortable seating (albeit cramped for taller people) and the Avanti refurbished ones are clean if not a little dated with the tone of fake wood they use. They are far superior to an IET quality wise which was built to a cost and a spec by a dishwater dull DfT and the bolted panelling, rigid flex of the coach and hard suspension makes it a metro train in disguise.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Every train has space unused for seating. In a FLIRT this is behind the cabs, and at the powerpacks (if present). 80x lose space at the ends of each carriage where it tapers narrower, which isn't a thing on FLIRTs. 22x seem to lose space just about everywhere.
London to Norwich is a glorified regional service. Some services have first class and a buffet, others just a trolley service, and they are very popular for the services they run. We're happy it's considered intercity or it would be operated by 720s, like how 700s and 387s are used for Kings Lynn to London services.
I wouldn't go that far, the Voyagers, while hardly space efficient have a solid build quality, large windows, comfortable seating (albeit cramped for taller people) and the Avanti refurbished ones are clean if not a little dated with the tone of fake wood they use. They are far superior to an IET quality wise which was built to a cost and a spec by a dishwater dull DfT and the bolted panelling, rigid flex of the coach and hard suspension makes it a metro train in disguise.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The powerpacks store engines with a corridor down the middle.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
London to Norwich is a glorified regional service. Some services have first class and a buffet, others just a trolley service, and they are very popular for the services they run. We're happy it's considered intercity or it would be operated by 720s, like how 700s and 387s are used for Kings Lynn to London services.
Kings Lynn, with 379s and a vending machine would be perfect. The first class on a 379 is substantially better than an 80x in my opinion, though they are commuter trains for a commuter route.
What is this based on, please? If you're talking about the 397 remember it has a very low density layout with almost all seats facing at tables, and also that the vehicles are 24, not 26, metres long.
Knowing what the interior of 397s looks like I don't think they are any less space efficient than Class 810 which is the only really directly comparable 80x because of the different vehicle lengths.
If you consider that there is an extra 10m of furnishable space in the 805 (2m per vehicle, basically an extra half a coach) the number of seats in a comparable layout in the 397 looks pretty favourable to me.
Looking at an 8 car civity in a denser layout, it is definetly possible to fit slightly more seats than a 7 car 80x without unduly compromising passenger comfort. But it's not like one is substantially more space efficient than the other.
However FLIRTs are genuinely more space efficient, the number of tables is actually higher than TPE 80x, once the reduced carriage length is accounted for, and the seat pitch is similar, but the seats are thicker, leading to reduced legroom. Let's also remember 745 ride quality is night and day compared to an 80x or Civity, (some people's views of this are clouded by the fact they operate on the GEML)
810s will be substantially denser than 397s, with 47 First and 254 standard seats, even though carriage length is similar, I believe they are only putting in 4 tables per coach which isn't enough.
The voyager design is pretty terrible, being smelly, inefficient both in space and fuel, and feeling far more cramped than an 80x, Civity or FLIRT. But I would point out that they probably are better than the other 125mph DMU of the time, the class 180.
I don't know about space efficiency, but today I've ridden in both an 80x (GWR) and a Stansted spec 745 on the GEML. There's nothing about the flirt based on this experience which would make it unsuitable for longer distance IC services, IMO. Admittedly only at 100, but both are actually very decent Intercity style trains.
I don't know about space efficiency, but today I've ridden in both an 80x (GWR) and a Stansted spec 745 on the GEML. There's nothing about the flirt based on this experience which would make it unsuitable for longer distance IC services, IMO. Admittedly only at 100, but both are actually very decent Intercity style trains.
These days that's certainly not that tall. Depending on how your height is distributed you could well have three inches of clear space in a seat I don't fit at all.
People are getting taller. The 80x is the right design here, plenty of space for everyone. The UK FLIRT very much not, nor e.g. the 730/2 etc, nor it seems the 810 which looks like it promises to be a veritable sardine tin in a fairly insipid purple colour.
The 95th percentile male is really what should be used here as a minimum, the FLIRT clearly doesn't do that.
3 engines and a battery would likely work, given how short the 125mph section on XC actually is and the battery enables regenerative braking for the stop/speed restriction at Burton on Trent.
I don't think "I don't physically fit" is an interpretation, it's fact.
The 95th percentile is the bare minimum. I'd go with the 98th or even 99th myself. It has advantages for everyone - you may have seen the stereotypical shortish old lady who can put her case by her knees instead of having to try to put it overhead.
The 80x really is a fantastic design in this regard. The FLIRT UKs are pretty bad in my view, nowhere near as good as they could be.
To be fair the main problem is the FISA LEAN seat which is an awful, space-inefficient design despite being peddled as the opposite.
As a 6'4" tall person, I disagree with you on this matter, I experience the legroom as similar on the aisle seats.
And in the FLIRTs there is no metal bar I'm sitting on!
But anyway, a new train for XC would likely have different seats than either. If the reports upthread that they have the same pitch, then that means that the legroom and seat comfort between a new built FLIRT and 80x would be the same if the same seat and pitch are applied to both.
But anyway, a new train for XC would likely have different seats than either. If the reports upthread that they have the same pitch, then that means that the legroom and seat comfort between a new built FLIRT and 80x would be the same if the same seat and pitch are applied to both.
The SOB FLIRT do 4h runs down the Gotthard pass with them, and are excellent-ly comfortable, the question is get proper seating and that solves most of the problems
The SOB FLIRT do 4h runs down the Gotthard pass with them, and are excellent-ly comfortable, the question is get proper seating and that solves most of the problems
I'm a big fan of the Euro-FLIRTs. My favourite is the PKP InterCity high floor variant, though the SOB ones really do look very nice. Unfortunately it hasn't squashed well into UK loading gauge - all the UK ones in my experience have significant design compromises that seriously affect the quality and comfort of the train.
Now I'm back on the GWR 80x, it does indeed have more knee room than a 745, but the position of the support for the seat in front (airline style) means that I have less foot room - which is worse in a window seat, but an issue in the aisle seat as well.
I found the 745 seat is a better shape for me, but the 80x is fine. Neither are perfect. If the 80x seats were cantilevered then I'd probably give them the win, but as they actually are it's a tie. At least as far as I'm concerned.
And both are much, much nicer than the crossrail train I took from Stratford to Paddington, or the bus I'll be taking back to my house.
Perhaps when GBR is in operation we may head back to a more standard design, with a seat designed to suit closer to all, however tall, short or wide. I imagine the increasing girth of folk may become more of an issue than legroom.
Of course, the report itself states that that uses US military data. But it then goes on to share some info from a database taken from civilian and military data:
In this database, a 95th percentile male is 6 feet, 2 inches (188 cm) and 246 pounds (111.58 kg); a 5th percentile female is 4 feet, 11 inches (150 cm) and 113 pounds (51.26 kg)
How the Mirra 2 chair achieves a single flexible fit design that does not sacrifice comfort.
www.hermanmiller.com
Of course, the report itself states that that uses US military data. But it then goes on to share some info from a database taken from civilian and military data:
Or the Siemens Desiro Verve they're still peddling that could be assembled at Goole (which has the same likelihood of being ordered as me being stuck by lightning twice).
Or the Siemens Desiro Verve they're still peddling that could be assembled at Goole (which has the same likelihood of being ordered as me being stuck by lightning twice).
The Voyagers' short length does beg the question of why didn't Virgin just order 8 car trains in the first place? Project Thor was a missed opportunity to solve the issues with the Voyagers. I would've ordered sufficient vehicles to make 7 and 8 car fixed formations. A pair of 220s is 186m long and has 396 seats while an 807 is 182m long and has 453 seats. However, an 8 car 220 with only one first class coach could potentially have 464 seats. If it were possible I would pair up all 220s and convert the driving coaches into intermediate ones and convert a first class coach to standard. I don't think XC get many first class customers so I don't think there will be an outcry if XC reduce their first class capacity. The Voyagers probably have about 10-15 years left so may or may not be worth it. To cover the shortfall of stock I would expand the TRU order for new fast trains to replace TPE's 802s and then cascade the TPE 802s to XC.
The Voyagers' short length does beg the question of why didn't Virgin just order 8 car trains in the first place? Project Thor was a missed opportunity to solve the issues with the Voyagers. I would've ordered sufficient vehicles to make 7 and 8 car fixed formations.
Cost, I imagine. The Voyagers' A-C-D-F carriage naming system clearly shows they were planned with expansion in mind (and I believe the depot was designed around 6-car formations). But the 2002 launch ('Operation Princess') was a disaster and the franchise never recovered, with it moving to a management contract.
Cost, I imagine. The Voyagers' A-C-D-F carriage naming system clearly shows they were planned with expansion in mind (and I believe the depot was designed around 6-car formations). But the 2002 launch ('Operation Princess') was a disaster and the franchise never recovered, with it moving to a management contract.
Sending the TPE 802s to XC should do enough to alleviate the "voyagers aren't big enough" problem.
I realise they haven't had them for all that long, but I'd also consider a total replacement for TPE so they only have one fleet, and find a home for the 397s somewhere else too. Though it's not immediately obvious who else might want them, so that might have to go in the "would be nice but we're not doing it" box.
The aim for 2002 would have been to attract higher-paying business travellers between key city pairs where rail was and is fairly competitive on journey time but the previous theoretically hourly but actually rather random service wasn't particularly attractive. This dictated an even 30min interval and more first class. Unfortunately they could only afford four or five car trains with no more than half the capacity of the previous HSTs, and the original timetable ran many of them singly, so the seats per hour didn't change much but a more frequent service attracted a lot more passengers.
The Voyagers' short length does beg the question of why didn't Virgin just order 8 car trains in the first place? Project Thor was a missed opportunity to solve the issues with the Voyagers. I would've ordered sufficient vehicles to make 7 and 8 car fixed formations. A pair of 220s is 186m long and has 396 seats while an 807 is 182m long and has 453 seats. However, an 8 car 220 with only one first class coach could potentially have 464 seats. If it were possible I would pair up all 220s and convert the driving coaches into intermediate ones. To cover the shortfall of stock I would expand the TRU order for new fast trains to replace TPE's 802s and then cascade the TPE 802s to XC.
The SRA said no. Converting driving coaches to intermediate coaches on a non gangwayed unit is effectively impossible.
In my opinion, the solution is to reform the fleet into 43 6 car units and order some 8 car 897s with third rail shoes. Hitachi could be an option, but they're record with non standard microfleets is poor, and this order would be one (tri-mode dual voltage 7 car train that can generally meet Voyager timings). On the other hand CAF are building a tri-mode train for LNER and this would only be a minor variation - third rail shoes and 2 less coaches.
The other thing I would do is get rid of the Nottingham-Cardiff service and replace it with a Leeds-Cardiff service, providing 2tph between Birmingham and Leeds. This then enables Birmingham-Nottingham to run independently, while enabling the order of 9 more trains, brining the potential order to 19 8 car trains, which enables all Bournemouth-Manchester services along with other key services to be operated with 500+ seat trains, equivalent to 2x5car voyagers.
The 397s are perfectly good EMUs for TPE, they just need an extra coach or two. Trying to cascade 80x that can't meet timings around the network will cause issues.
The other thing I would do is get rid of the Nottingham-Cardiff service and replace it with a Leeds-Cardiff service, providing 2tph between Birmingham and Leeds. This then enables Birmingham-Nottingham to run independently, while enabling the order of 9 more trains, brining the potential order to 19 8 car trains, which enables all Bournemouth-Manchester services along with other key services to be operated with 500+ seat trains, equivalent to 2x5car voyagers.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
www.hermanmiller.com
