Class 390 rollout

[CW2]

If I recall correctly, the Mk 3 FO and SO vehicles had to have a common bodyshell (for cost reasons). Hence the design was that the seats aligned with the windows in first class, but not in STandard, where there were a couple of rows of "airline" seats tucked in either side of the centre, as well as being 2+2 seating.

 

[Taunton]

If I recall correctly, the Mk 3 FO and SO vehicles had to have a common bodyshell (for cost reasons).

You can't have "had to have" and "for cost reasons" in the same sentence .

Engineering-led rather than customer-led. Bet it wouldn't have happened if the likes of Chris Green was in charge.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 390s had to put the tilt equipment somewhere.
That will have constrained the layout of the rest of the vehicle.
UK Pendolinos started with the original Fiat tilting coach design including its shallow windows, adapted for UK gauge, tilt profile and safety regime.

 

[The Planner]

Yes this is why madness - some of our biggest cities, and particularly the connection between London and Birmingham (no1 and no2 city), has poor infra, full of compromises that holds back growth and opportunity, that should have been fixed long ago. At least HS2 starts to remedy that. I think double tracking Birmingham - Coventry is on the wish list of various schemes too, eg Midlands Connect.

Do you mean 4 tracking? Unlikely and the plans have never ever been all of it anyway.

 

[hexagon789]

Especially bad as the Mk2s are 20m, rather than 23m...

And you can fit more seats into the Mk2 as well - the high capacity 74 seaters Anglia had for example

I haven't quite got this. The Mk2 vehicles were designed the proper way, do the vehicle layout, which was as efficient as they come, 8x8 bays in the SO, entrances and loos at the end. Then, having done that, you determine the window positions. Not the other way round.

Just imagine what it would be like if housebuilders put the windows on the plan first, to suit the convenience of the bricklayers, and then did the interior rooms and floors afterwards, ending up with some rooms with two windows and others with none - oh, I seem to have just described seating on much current rolling stock.

But the difference was the Mk2 had different bodyshells for First and Second Class, the Mk3 had one bodyshell with both which gave lower production costs and simplified the build.

 

[92002]

And you can fit more seats into the Mk2 as well - the high capacity 74 seaters Anglia had for example


But the difference was the Mk2 had different bodyshells for First and Second Class, the Mk3 had one bodyshell with both which gave lower production costs and simplified the build.

Whilst the Pendolinos have more space between seats and a longer bodyshell. With a mixture of bays and airline style seats.

 

[hexagon789]

If I recall correctly, the Mk 3 FO and SO vehicles had to have a common bodyshell (for cost reasons). Hence the design was that the seats aligned with the windows in first class, but not in STandard, where there were a couple of rows of "airline" seats tucked in either side of the centre, as well as being 2+2 seating.

Yes, originally two airline rows back-to-back against the mid-carriage divider. Later on they switched to 76 seats with fewer tables and more airline seating.

You can't have "had to have" and "for cost reasons" in the same sentence .

Engineering-led rather than customer-led. Bet it wouldn't have happened if the likes of Chris Green was in charge.

I don't see why? It's barely an issue, more seats gives more capacity and is more efficient, airliners do it all the time and to be honest in a Mk3 it's not very noticeable.

I will concede the Pendolinos don't do it very well, but that's the price you pay for greater crashworthiness by having larger window pillars. Lots of people don't seem too fussed though to be fair, same applies to the 80x series - many people don't care about the view, they want a seat and will spend much of the journey on electronic devices rather than looking out the window.

If we briefly go back to the Mk3 at one point there was concern the 23m length would be too long to accommodate on much of the network, plans were drawn up for a 20m Mk3 with unidirectional seating to give more capacity over a Mk2 of the same length. Arguably that would have been much worse than the compromise between not lining up the seats exactly with the windows on second class but still giving reasonable views or something more akin to the arrangement of the later high-density Mk2 conversions which had very poor views throughout.

Whilst the Pendolinos have more space between seats and a longer bodyshell. With a mixture of bays and airline style seats.

Which many travellers prefer

 

[43096]

You can't have "had to have" and "for cost reasons" in the same sentence .

Engineering-led rather than customer-led. Bet it wouldn't have happened if the likes of Chris Green was in charge.

Given the number of conversions from first to standard and vice versa over the years, the standard Mark 3 shell design was unquestionably the right decision. In any case, the "lack of view" seats in Mark 3s are over criticised - it's not like there are huge areas of plastic wall that you get next to a seat on, say a Pendolino, whilst your luggage in the luggage stack has a wonderful view out of the window.

 

[Bald Rick]

I haven't quite got this. The Mk2 vehicles were designed the proper way, do the vehicle layout, which was as efficient as they come, 8x8 bays in the SO, entrances and loos at the end. Then, having done that, you determine the window positions. Not the other way round.

Just imagine what it would be like if housebuilders put the windows on the plan first, to suit the convenience of the bricklayers, and then did the interior rooms and floors afterwards, ending up with some rooms with two windows and others with none - oh, I seem to have just described seating on much current rolling stock.

Indeed, almost all rolling stock since 1974.

 

[Taunton]

Given the number of conversions from first to standard and vice versa over the years, the standard Mark 3 shell design was unquestionably the right decision. In any case, the "lack of view" seats in Mark 3s are over criticised - it's not like there are huge areas of plastic wall that you get next to a seat on, say a Pendolino, whilst your luggage in the luggage stack has a wonderful view out of the window.

But what the Mk 3 stock did do for the designers is let them understand that they don't need to care about window spacing any longer, hence the stupidities in the Pendolino and similar.

Regarding first to standard conversion, I think that is overplayed. Not a lot was actually done over time, and it did almost seem it was an excuse for the progressively worse and worse overprovision of first class seating we developed, that "maybe" it could be converted. And I think that if only a small proportion was actually converted, and didn't line up, for only a proportion of their lifetime, that is far better than it all not lining up for the entire life. As was actually done with some of the surplus Mk2 FOs towards the end of their time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To add to the answers above, the Mk2 sets all had seats aligned to windows, which although good for seeing out, wasn’t great for capacity. A standard Mk 2 TSO had 64 seats, FO had 42.

Remember though that a Mk2 coach is 4m shorter than a Pendolino coach.

Indeed, almost all rolling stock since 1974.

Class 158s have, as built, 100% window alignment. Some (but not all) of the later refurbishments mucked it up, though.

The 390s had to put the tilt equipment somewhere.

It's under the floor. The passenger saloon has very little, if any, equipment above the floor.

You can do an all-bays layout of the Pendolino - that's how First Class is, bar one unidirectional seat against the service point and the infamous Coach K (which on the single seat side is misaligned as they just *couldn't resist* squeezing in one (1) extra seat, if I recall).

UK Pendolinos started with the original Fiat tilting coach design including its shallow windows, adapted for UK gauge, tilt profile and safety regime.

Yes, it's a vertically squashed Euro-Pendolino, and those have small windows too (the New Pendolinos used by SBB and FS, for example, have windows about the same size as 80x), so when you did that "squashing" the structure meant they had to get smaller still.

 

[hexagon789]

But what the Mk 3 stock did do for the designers is let them understand that they don't need to care about window spacing any longer, hence the stupidities in the Pendolino and similar.

Regarding first to standard conversion, I think that is overplayed. Not a lot was actually done over time, and it did almost seem it was an excuse for the progressively worse and worse overprovision of first class seating we developed, that "maybe" it could be converted. And I think that if only a small proportion was actually converted, and didn't line up, for only a proportion of their lifetime, that is far better than it all not lining up for the entire life. As was actually done with some of the surplus Mk2 FOs towards the end of their time.

Not here, but in Ireland several Mk3s were converted to different layouts during their life. Some Standards to Firsts, Standards to CityGolds, Firsts to Standards, Firsts to Composites, Composites converted to have a greater number of First Class seats and so on.

In that case there was plenty of conversion!

 

[43096]

Regarding first to standard conversion, I think that is overplayed. Not a lot was actually done over time, and it did almost seem it was an excuse for the progressively worse and worse overprovision of first class seating we developed, that "maybe" it could be converted. And I think that if only a small proportion was actually converted, and didn't line up, for only a proportion of their lifetime, that is far better than it all not lining up for the entire life. As was actually done with some of the surplus Mk2 FOs towards the end of their time.

I make it well over 80 vehicles converted from FO/TF to TSO/CO/TS/TC and that's before you get to conversions of buffets with first class seats to TS vehicles.

I just think the whole "seats and window alignment" thing is massively over-played with the Mark 3s.

 

[hexagon789]

I just think the whole "seats and window alignment" thing is massively over-played with the Mark 3s.

With the Mk3s definitely, tbh I don't think it's that big a deal to most travellers anyway

 

[Mikey C]

You can't have "had to have" and "for cost reasons" in the same sentence .

Engineering-led rather than customer-led. Bet it wouldn't have happened if the likes of Chris Green was in charge.

The Chris Green led Networkers and Turbos had perfect window and seat alignment when built. But then as the wall sections between the windows are so narrow, and there's no sliding door pocket, you get a great view out anyway!

 

[Wapps]

Do you mean 4 tracking? Unlikely and the plans have never ever been all of it anyway.

Indeed. It may be unlikely, but it’s still a sorry state of affairs for the mainline between our two main cities. Why do we have to accept such substandard infra?

 

[92002]

Indeed. It may be unlikely, but it’s still a sorry state of affairs for the mainline between our two main cities. Why do we have to accept such substandard infra?

Quite simply we can't afford the cash to do it.

 

[Taunton]

The Chris Green led Networkers and Turbos had perfect window and seat alignment when built. But then as the wall sections between the windows are so narrow, and there's no sliding door pocket, you get a great view out anyway!

I read Chris Green actually sent the first set of Networker window alignment proposals back. Oh for management who can read a drawing nowadays (or read two together, the plan view of the seats and the elevation for the windows).

 

[Davester50]

With the Mk3s definitely, tbh I don't think it's that big a deal to most travellers anyway

Maybe now? Pre mass Personal Electronic devices? Not so much.

 

[hexagon789]

Maybe now? Pre mass Personal Electronic devices? Not so much.

Even then, plenty of things to pass the time with beyond looking out the window even in the pre-digital age

 

[Ianno87]

I read Chris Green actually sent the first set of Networker window alignment proposals back. Oh for management who can read a drawing nowadays (or read two together, the plan view of the seats and the elevation for the windows).

Strikes me as horrendous micromanagement.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed. It may be unlikely, but it’s still a sorry state of affairs for the mainline between our two main cities. Why do we have to accept such substandard infra?

The solution is called HS2, which will remove the current fast-line traffic from the Rugby route at least as far as Crewe, leaving more local capacity.
Most of the WCML was 4-tracked up the Trent Valley (and beyond as far as Winsford) by the LNWR in the 1890s, mostly through rural areas.
But the Birmingham loop has had heavy encroachment of property and industry making it hugely expensive and disruptive to widen.

There was an extra 2-track route built through the area in 1899 (the Great Central), though it managed to avoid Birmingham and is now closed.
You can argue this capacity investment should have gone into widening the WCML and Midland routes instead, but that's what was built (with private money).
BR was told to downgrade the GW route from Paddington to Birmingham in the 1950s, to allow the Euston route to be electrified.
Some of that capacity has recently been reinstated, but not to the same level, and not from Paddington.

 

[92002]

The solution is called HS2, which will remove the current fast-line traffic from the Rugby route at least as far as Crewe, leaving more local capacity.
Most of the WCML was 4-tracked up the Trent Valley (and beyond as far as Winsford) by the LNWR in the 1890s, mostly through rural areas.
But the Birmingham loop has had heavy encroachment of property and industry making it hugely expensive and disruptive to widen.

There was an extra 2-track route built through the area in 1899 (the Great Central), though it managed to avoid Birmingham and is now closed.
You can argue this capacity investment should have gone into widening the WCML and Midland routes instead, but that's what was built (with private money).
BR was told to downgrade the GW route from Paddington to Birmingham in the 1950s, to allow the Euston route to be electrified.
Some of that capacity has recently been reinstated, but not to the same level, and not from Paddington.

Perhaps it would be cheaper to fill the gaps on the Great Central line for freight with the current connections to existing lines, with the new East/West . Even electrify it, although much long distance freight is still not electric.

At one time there was a project called Freight spine which has quietly been put into a sliding. Seem to remember it was considerably cheaper than HS2.

 

[Davester50]

Even then, plenty of things to pass the time with beyond looking out the window even in the pre-digital age

Yes, but even then, only so much for children.
However, without substantiated data, it's only an opinion.

 

[Bald Rick]

At one time there was a project called Freight spine which has quietly been put into a sliding. Seem to remember it was considerably cheaper than HS2.

That was the ‘electric spine’, which was electrification of existing routes (and EWR). It also wasn’t costed correctly.

 

[hexagon789]

Yes, but even then, only so much for children.
However, without substantiated data, it's only an opinion.

I don't think it's really any different to be honest, but that's just my opinion and my recollections of being one!

 

[32475]

Does anyone recall how the 390s were rolled out - in particular, at what point did they switch on the tilt and start 125mph ops? I am aware that they ran for a period without tilt and at 110mph.

Back to the original question, I remember the 390s first being rolled out to the general public in 2002. The service ran between Birmingham NS and Manchester Piccadilly to coincide with the Manchester Commonwealth Games

 

[JN114]

I too would be interested to hear about early Pendolino operations, particularly in the latter part of 2003.

It would appear by this stage the Mk2 loco hauled formations (predominantly for Birmingham/Wolverhamptom work?) had been largely withdrawn - were they just outright replaced by Pendolinos? Or was it more of a cascade?