This has been pointed out to Geezertronic almost as many times as he has stubbornly come back on afterwards claiming that anyone who doesn't like Pendos must be a backward looking enthusiast who loves loco hauled trains. For me it's all about the windows. If Pendos had windows (and a slightly less bulbous and hangdog front end) I'd love 'em. As it is, if I wanted to ride around in something with no visibility I'd stow away in a shipping container.
-
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!
125, class 43, HST
- Thread starter YesToHS2
- Start date
- Status
This has been pointed out to Geezertronic almost as many times as he has stubbornly come back on afterwards claiming that anyone who doesn't like Pendos must be a backward looking enthusiast who loves loco hauled trains. For me it's all about the windows. If Pendos had windows (and a slightly less bulbous and hangdog front end) I'd love 'em. As it is, if I wanted to ride around in something with no visibility I'd stow away in a shipping container.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Geezertronic
Established Member
If you could quote where I have said that exact statement, I would be interested to read it, I don;t believe I have called anyone a "backward looking enthusiast".
Your other over exaggerations (highlighted) are also inaccurate but I guess you knew that. I would be interested to know what the window sizes on the 395s (and the ICE trains) are compared to the Pendos as the pics don't look much different (although I admit I have seen neither up front).
Daimler
Established Member
While I am an enthusiast, I don't follow the 'sheep mentality of slagging them off because they replaced the "beloved" loco hauled services'. I slag them off because they're cramped, uncomfortable, smelly, and rattly. It's got nothing to do with what they replaced - or even whether or not they're units. I don't see why you seem to think most enthusiasts are unable to judge whether or not a train is comfortable - a lot of us can, and can shelve the 'loco hauled or not' arguments while doing so - and even then, I hate the 390s.
They were my words, but I don't think other posters will think they are an exaggeration. Equally, the petty minded could ask you to directly quote someone using the phrase 'beloved loco-hauled services', but for the purpose of an argument on a talk forum this is probably not necessary.
As for the other exaggerations, hyperbole is a well known device used in arguments to stress a point or inject a little levity. I'm surprised you haven't come across it before.
I'm not interested in comparisons with other trains with small windows. These are as bad as Pendos and for the same reason. It can not and can never be an improvement to have smaller windows on a replacement train, unless the older train was made entirely of glass (that's hyperbole again BTW). The many improvements bestowed by pendos on the service the provide are clouded for many people by this serious failing.
As for the other exaggerations, hyperbole is a well known device used in arguments to stress a point or inject a little levity. I'm surprised you haven't come across it before.
I'm not interested in comparisons with other trains with small windows. These are as bad as Pendos and for the same reason. It can not and can never be an improvement to have smaller windows on a replacement train, unless the older train was made entirely of glass (that's hyperbole again BTW). The many improvements bestowed by pendos on the service the provide are clouded for many people by this serious failing.
Last edited:
Geezertronic
Established Member
IThe fact that you cannot argue with is I use the trains more often than most on this forum and while that doesn't qualify me more over anyone else to comment on them and although I may agree with some of the sentiments echoed by you and others, I don't agree that replacing a 125mph train with a 110mph train can be called an improvement - to partially quote you "It can not and can never be an improvement ". To replace a 390 with a HST (for example) could be classed as an improvement as long as you'd be ok with running under wires.
At_traction
Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 291
Was it really so, or just pixie dust in the sky? Was the loco service provided at 125 mph speeds for considerable sections of the route, thus reducing the overall time of the journey? Not everyone likes to sit longer on a train just because it is a train (and better still, a loco-hauled train
); the faster the rail journey, the better chance there is to persuade those on-the-fence to choose it over air or road. Even a relatively small amount of time saving may have a notable effect psychologically. And had it been at 125 mph, I might dare to claim that a majority would find going more unpleasant at these speeds, given the, at times, mightily curvaceous nature of the WCML.I respect anyone's opinions regarding railstock and their combinations, but when the speed (and motion comfort) issue alone renders a comparison like this to one about apples and oranges, then one cannot help thinking about retaining status quo just for its own sake. But that surely cannot be?
Daimler
Established Member
Was it really so, or just pixie dust in the sky? Was the loco service provided at 125 mph speeds for considerable sections of the route, thus reducing the overall time of the journey? Not everyone likes to sit longer on a train just because it is a train (and better still, a loco-hauled train
I respect anyone's opinions regarding railstock and their combinations, but when the speed (and motion comfort) issue alone renders a comparison like this to one about apples and oranges, then one cannot help thinking about retaining status quo just for its own sake. But that surely cannot be?
What precisely has the speed of a train got to do with how comfortable, spacious, or pleasant it is? I don't believe any of those who don't like Pendolinos are arguing that they're slower than what they replaced...
For Goodness' Sake! Partial quoting is ridiculous! You've borrowed a line where I said smaller windows can't be an improvement and used it on something to do with the speed of the trains! While we're doing quotes, you even quoted my quote (:-?) to the effect that if Pendos had [proper] windows, I'd love 'em.
Nothing of course. The answer would have been a 125mph train with decent windows. I believe this was called the APT.
Last edited:
tbtc
Veteran Member
To be fair, slower trains don't need to be as "crash proof" as 125+ mph trains. Pacers can have massive windows, whilst modern fast trains have smaller ones.
Similarly, since everything has to fit into the same "envelope", a 125+mph train which tilts will need to be a bit narrower than a slow unit like a Pacer (with no tilting). Narrow sleek bodies designed to tilt means narrower seating and less space above the seats for luggage (one big problem with Voyagers, which lack suitable luggage space).
I'd therefore suggest there is a correlation between speed and internal atmosphere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If the 1970s APT were built to modern safety standards, do you think it would have such big windows?
Geezertronic
Established Member
So is misinterpreting my point of view as you did above. I don't honestly understand what your beef is. Our opinions differ, so what?
So I don't suffer the same claustraphobic issues as others, I don't think the Windows are too small, I don't mind the window seat alignment, I've never been on a 390 that had a toilet smell so bad it repulsed me (bearing in mind the booking system usually puts me in the first bank of seats within Coach A which is next to a toilet), I've only noticed faulty hand dryers on a couple of occasions, any delays have been lineside issues not 390/VT issues (with one exception when the 1843 was delayed to be the 1903) etc... bearing in mind I have done over 100ish return journeys to London this year, that's not too bad.
So I don't have the extensive list of traction I have travelled on compared to you and others? I'm just happy to get from A to B as quickly and safely as possible regardless of the unit - to be honest when I caught a LM 350 home a couple of weeks ago for the first time in ages, I was less comfy in that than a 390
OK, the WCML is not my line, the ECML is. From my point of view on the occasional runs on the WCML, the novelty of tilt hasn't worn off yet. Even if it did, I don't mind sacrificing a little bit of comfort in exchange for more speed. Maybe Pendys would be better with more windows. Maybe they would be better if they were redesigned to a loco and stock arrangement. Still, I wouldn't go back to the 90s and 87s, because they were sometimes slower than the EMUs that ran the suburban services. That was nearly as daft as the days when a 313 used to race the Deltic-hauled Flying Scotsman from Hatfield to Welwyn. Sometimes the little electric won, always if there was a 47 standing in. Being stuck at 110 mph, or 100 mph with MkIIs don't forget, was a bit silly on the country's premier line. It used to be quicker to run via Edinburgh and the East Coast from Glasgow before the Pendys.
Sometimes the older designs are better, I would trade a Desiro for a Wessex any day, a CIG for that matter. However, I think that the extra 15mph and the tilt makes everything else worthwhile.
Sometimes the older designs are better, I would trade a Desiro for a Wessex any day, a CIG for that matter. However, I think that the extra 15mph and the tilt makes everything else worthwhile.
TGV
Member
Absolutely - I used to do that all the time. People would look at me oddly as I went to KGX to get a train to Glasgow. "You want Euston don't you?".
Horses for courses though - as is often the case on the railways. I prefer the 91/Mk4, but it would be a poor choice for WCML use. I used 86/87/90's on the WCML all through the 90's and they were fine - compared to what else was around, but the bar has been raised - cust... sorry - PASSENGERS, expect more these days. And for most of them that means speed, or time taken to get there.
I haven't even mentioned traction. You seem so obsessed with this being the explanation for the Pendo Hate that it's obscuring everything else. Like Pendolino windows do to the view
Geezertronic
Established Member
I haven't even mentioned traction. You seem so obsessed with this being the explanation for the Pendo Hate that it's obscuring everything else. Like Pendolino windows do to the view
At this time of year, I've been travelling to London in the dark and coming back in the dark too so whether the booking website gives me an aligned window seat with a view or not, it makes no odds anyway (although I get that was not what you meant
).
Daimler
Established Member
Hmm...I've never found the windows in TGVs especially small, and they travel an awful lot faster than Pendolinos (indeed, the top deck of a TGV duplex offers a superb 'viewing platform' from which to see France).
It's also worth pointing out that the reason Voyagers have hardly any space for luggage above the seats is that the air conditioning equipment is situated there, unlike most trains, where it can be found in the centre of the ceiling - that's just poor design, unrelated to whether or not the train needs to tilt (for instance, the Mk4 coaches have excellent overhead luggage space, despite being designed to tilt.).
At_traction
Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 291
Read my post and only then post a reply. :roll:
The less time you spend on a train, the less likely it is to lose travellers to other modes of transport. For many people that is an issue in itself and a good point going for the faster connections to the North like the HS2. The reduced time also in a sense reduces the need for the Pullman like conditions that seem to be called for...
junglejames
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 2,069
TBTC, as someone has already pointed out, your leaving yourself wide open here.
Mk3s are designed for 125mph, and are amongst the safest (if not the safest) in the country.
TGVs go a lot faster. They have bigger windows. The X2000 goes about 125, and has bigger windows.
Now for tilt. The Mk4s are designed for tilting operation. They have bigger windows, and are much more spacious inside. They are also much more pleasant overall. I believe the X2000 may even be tilt.
The Swiss tilting trains have larger windows. There is only one type of train ive come across that has windows like a pendo, and a dark dinghy interior like a pendo, and it probably comes as no surprise that its an Italian tilting train.
Now regarding loco hauled etc. I will admit i prefer loco hauleds on the West Coast, but the reason is not because im a backward looking enthusiast who only likes loco haulage. Its because the WCML is an intercity operation. Intercity standards to me mean unpowered coaches. Which invaribly means loco hauled. However I realise the 90s and 87s were too slow for a modern day WCML all the way to Glasgow (they could have managed on Birminghams though). My prefered option would have been an updated 91 and Mk4s with tilt enabled. To me it doesnt look like an Intercity train unless its loco hauled. But im not looking backwards. A 91 is just as fast as a pendo.
This is what i would have done if it were me, and id also have kept most of the Birminghams as they were. The time saved (if you discount the fact the loco hauleds had far too much slack time) has not really been worth the expense of all the extra trains.
Anyway, my main gripe, as it is with most people, is the fact that standard class on a pendo, is woeful. For me to step off a train without it even leaving is pretty bad. Ive only ever done this on a pendo.
Next year i intend to try them out, but in 1st class. I refuse to travel on them in standard. Even Voyagers are nicer, if the underfloor noise is taken out of the equation. Which i can put up with, because its not a major problem (although crosscountry is no longer an Intercity operation).
However, like em or loath em, there is no denying that the increased speeds on the WCML seem to be proving popular. Im still going via ECML to get to Glasgow though! Changing at Edinburgh if i need to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Whos calling for Pullman conditions? Not needed. A mk1 slam door EMU will do me. Oh boy do i miss them!!
37401
Established Member
Nope, can't say so. I like trains but I find women attractive
I miss them too, and the 442s going to Weymouth (thank you Southern for bringing them back). Both are intercity EMUs, which worked main line services for years, albeit over a shorter distance. So were the 309s, since Clacton was considered a main line destination when they were introduced. Apart from the motorcoach, which carried fewer passengers anyway, a 442 vehicle was virtually identical to an HST trailer. Different seats and smaller toilets, plus the convenience of swing-plug doors, but virtually identical. Ride quality was about the same, noise levels were about the same (except in the motorcoach, but I always used to sit in that because I like the noise). First class got even better, it had compartments. BR actually wanted to paint them in Swallow livery, until Chris Green insisted on NSE.
You can have an intercity EMU, provided you do it properly.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I agree that Mk3s have bigger windows, so did APTs, do do many foreign trains. However we don't know whether that kind of design would have been approved under modern day safety criteria in the UK.
I could see the complaints if another operator in the UK had built something with bigger windows capable of running as fast/ tilting, but Mk 4s are about twenty year old designs now...
Daimler
Established Member
Oh, but I did. And I'm afraid I still don't see where in your original post you address the issue of how the speed of a train affects how comfortable it is - certainly, it might make some people more likely to use it - I would never doubt that - but in what way does that make it more comfortable or pleasant to be in?
At_traction said:
So because they're faster, they needn't be as comfortable? I find that a rather depressing picture, since by that logic, once HS2 is built we'll be able to provide trains with underground-style interior configuration to take people from London-Birmingham. And as has been pointed out above, no one's asking for Pullman-style luxury - just something that isn't a regression in standards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But they did - much as I don't like the Voyagers, they have huge windows!
Last edited:
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Having been on both 390s and 395s, I can say for sure that the 395s have much bigger windows - and a much better seat to window match as well.
The Voyagers were never intended for 140mph operations like the 390s however.
Daimler
Established Member
See the post above your own for another UK example, then. :roll:
Or, if you really do think that the tilting/extra 15mph makes all the difference, the German ICE-T appears to refute that, looking far more pleasant and airy than a 390 inside, with of course much larger windows.
junglejames
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 2,069
Some of the TGVs and X2000s are brand new.
If a Mk3 or 4 doesnt comply with the latest safety standards, then that would show the regulations up for being a load of tosh.
Another train I hadnt even thought about which im pretty sure has bigger windows (in fact, yes it does), and goes 125, can tilt, and even runs about in the same livery. Yep, you guessed it. The Voyagers. So do they comply with modern safety standards? They were designed at pretty much the same time.
The answer, pretty obviously, comes from who built them. Ive already mentioned the Italian tilting trains have the small windows and dinghy interior like the pendos. Who built the bodies for the pendos? The Italians. Who built the bodies for the Voyagers? Bombardier.
So your answer, pretty simply. Its not safety standards. Its the Italians.
Last edited:
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
No it wouldn't. I bet Stephenson's Rocket doesn't comply with the latest safety regulations but that doesn't show them up for being 'tosh'.
junglejames
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 2,069
Do they have a better seat to window match? Crikey, that really does show how bad Pendos are. 395s are awful in places.
Plus yes, 395s have much bigger windows. But do they comply with modern safety standards?!!!!!! They were built after the pendos, but they still dont comply!!!!
Im actually surprised the 395s have such large windows. Has anyone seen the latest bullet trains? They have worse windows than the pendo! They are like aeroplane windows!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Eh, im not on about locomotives here, but coaches. Yes, it would showe the reglations up for being tosh if the Mk3s or 4s didnt comply. Apart from the doors on the Mk3, which is more to do with disability regulations, then their is nothing wrong with them. They are some of the safest coaches in the UK.
Yes I know the pendos are also meant to be very very good, but so are the Mk3s or 4s. If pendos comply, then so should mk3s and 4s.
Oh, and your argument is the worst I have ever ever heard. The Rocket is god knows how much older than the Mk3s, and everyone knows how brilliantly safe and sturdy the Mk3s are. Dont come out with anymore arguments like that. They dont even deserve a reply. Im showing myself up for replying here.
Anyway, whether they comply or not, the regulations are stupid. Train accidents are so rare, and trains are so safe anyway (bar a couple of exmaples), that any latest regulations really arent needed.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
So let's look at a Mk1 then. At the time they were considered some of the best coaches ever made. Now they are widely known as not the best in a collision - the design of the carriages actually contributed to the severity of collisions.
It is absolutley ridiculous to assume that just because something did comply with safety regulations, they do now. A case in point would be Roe v Minister Of Health, where the patient was injected with a anaesthetic into the spine (a lumbar puncture). The anesthetics were stored in glass ampoules in a sterile solution. Nowt wrong with that at the time. The patient suffered paralysis, as a result of the phenol solution leaking into the anaesthetic through invisible micro-cracks in the glass. This was not known about at the time, so no case could be brought.
It is absolutley ridiculous to assume that just because something did comply with safety regulations, they do now. A case in point would be Roe v Minister Of Health, where the patient was injected with a anaesthetic into the spine (a lumbar puncture). The anesthetics were stored in glass ampoules in a sterile solution. Nowt wrong with that at the time. The patient suffered paralysis, as a result of the phenol solution leaking into the anaesthetic through invisible micro-cracks in the glass. This was not known about at the time, so no case could be brought.
I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to reply to someone who wpuld say such a thing. Has it occured to you that the trains are safe as a result of safety regulations?
junglejames
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 2,069
Everything can be made better. No doubt about that. But is it necessary to say Mk3s arent good enough? No it isnt, because they most definitely are. Can be made better, but are good enough. It would have become obvious Mk1s were not good enough after a couple of crashes. The Mk3s have been in numerous, over a number of years, and still now everybody says how brilliant they are. That is why i am saying what i am. Because nothing can be said against Mk3s.
As for me saying safety regulations arent needed. I never said this. I said the latest regulations arent needed, and I was on about how safe the coaches are. Im not on about any other part of the railways. If we had a pure fleet of Mk3 coaches in the UK, then there would be no problems at all. Perfectly safe, and you can be sure will save virtually everybodies life. So are extra regulations needed? Probably not. This is what im getting at. OK, some will disagree with me on this, I have no doubt, thats fine. This is my point of view. Perhaps ive seen the stupidness of the HSE and it has effected me too much.
However I stand by my comment that Mk3s are amazingly safe, even now, and so there is no reason to say they dont comply (if at all there are any regulations that say they dont comply)
Oh, I see where your comment regarding the Rocket came from now, so apologise for the rudeness in my initial reply.
Just differing points of view between us perhaps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The original argument was safety regs for 125+
Youve just upped the anti!! Anyway. There are still plenty of examples to nullify the safety regs argument. It seems pretty obvious its an Italian thing.
TGV
Member
It needs to be mentioned that mk3 coaches don't have the structural integrity of modern rolling stock. They were great compared to mk2 and in particular mk1 stock but by modern standards they are weak. Southall and Ufton Nervet were examples where the shortfalls in integrity were mentioned in the accident reports. Lack of bogie retention, coupler strength and resistance to buckling all were noted.
- Status