Door positions, "InterCity feel" etc

[Neptune]

This came up as it usually does in a thread about the WoE line. Simple matter is if you have big vestibules at 1/3ds on a long distance trip where people don't stand, you're wasting a huge amount of space. You could fit luggage racks and make intercity style vestibules at thirds I guess, but then that also puts people sitting right next to the corridor connectors or you have tiny saloon areas & a loo before the connector, so I guess it's just a matter of taste at that point.

Did you read my post of how to get around all these ‘issues’.

 

[RobShipway]

I agree 100% with the OP and all the ‘issues’ people like to come up with can be negated.

1) “Wide doors lose seats” - Do they really lose that many? If it was 2 per doorway that is 8 seats per coach. How many trains run at 100% capacity all day long? Here’s an example. There are 76 seats, 2 toilets and 2 luggage racks in a 1980’s refurb mk3 coach. Compare that to 76 seats in a class 195 centre car which includes 4 stand backs in the centre section. Replace these stand backs with 2 luggage racks and 4 seats and then add in a standard toilet and that is still 76 seats with decent legroom and mainly around tables. No loss of seats with wider disabled friendly wide doors.

2) “It’s freezing cold in winter when the external doors open” - As mentioned up thread by @Bletchleyite, add in vestibule doors as per the 745’s and it isn’t beyond a possibility to have an air curtain across the door which can activate when the doors are released blowing warm air in winter and cool in summer. In any case when passengers board an end door coach the cold air from outside can still get into the saloon once the vestibule doors are opened.

3) “The toilets are in the saloon” - Can’t honestly see the problem with this one however if it actually was a real life problem then design coaches with the toilets at the end of the saloon as now but make them opposite each other as per the as built mk3 EMU stock (317 etc). Then nobody has to sit opposite it. With a sliding door blocking it off it would be no different to current end door stock. The disabled areas seem to work just fine and they generally have the added bonus of plentiful flip down seating.

4) “They don’t feel Intercity” - Well I think this is purely a nostalgic rail enthusiast POV (and the ‘family/friends’ who always seem to agree with them even though we’ll never be able to question them on whether they really actually care, or if they even exist half the time). I’ve travelled on TPE for the last 17 years on 185’s and they were fine even when competing with other operators up the ECML to Newcastle. The only issue with them is that they‘re not long enough but then again how many people complain about Voyagers which are also shorter than what they replaced. I know which doorway I’d rather be stood in on an overcrowded train and it’s not the narrow Voyager one.

5) “You wouldn’t need ‘commuter style doors’ if the IC operators didn’t allow local journeys“ - Sadly this seems to be another way of thinking on here. It seems some people think that it’s disgusting that people are allowed commute between Sheffield and Leeds or Bristol - Bath etc.. on an IC service. I honestly think that people are self centred enough to believe that they should have a bay of 4 to themselves without being disturbed for a long distance journey and how dare they stop anywhere other than their origin and destination.

In a world on here where a few posters on here seem to think that it’s trains or nothing for transport they forget that trains are simply mass people movers. To make them work they need to work for everyone. Enabling them to move masses whilst still achieving comfort for longer distance passengers is possible, it‘s just that compromises are needed and those who seem to wish every train was an as built mk3 are the ones who don’t want to budge, yet moan that people commute by car because of the awful commuter conditions on these trains.

I would have to agree with what is said above by @Neptune 100%. Whilst I can understand that those of us of a certain age that have grown up with Inter-City trains within the UK having doors certain on MK2 & MK3 coaches, that was not the case with the Mk1 coach that as well as having doors at the end, also had doors in the middle of the carriage as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briti...ay_carriage_Tyne_Yard_12_March_2009_pic_3.jpg In the picture I believe is a corridor second MK1 carriage, the Corridor first units just had doors at the ends.

Now, I am the first to say that I am not a train design. But if I was to design train carriages I would make the Standard (2nd Class) coaches to have doors the same as you have on the class 170 units, but with windows at the sides and with automatic doors between the gangeway and seated areas to keep the warmth or cool air within the carriage. Very much like on the class 745 units. The first class coaches would have doors at each end of the carriage, but be wide enough to enable a wheelchair to enter the carriage for a disabled person that is is travelling first class. All doors as on the continent would be level with the platform edge for easy access, with the ability for the floor to be lowered or made higher depending on the height of the platform length of the station, that the train is stabled within.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One (relatively minor) issue with doors at thirds or quarters is the increased gap at curved platforms. IIRC this is one of the reasons 150s aren't suitable for the Durham Coast line. Presumably other mid-doored stock would have the same problem.

 

[Neptune]

One (relatively minor) issue with doors at thirds or quarters is the increased gap at curved platforms. IIRC this is one of the reasons 150s aren't suitable for the Durham Coast line. Presumably other mid-doored stock would have the same problem.

Equally end door stock also suffers from this on the inside of curves. Sadly physics can’t be altered for either type.

 

[mike57]

I have moaned more than once about 'doors at 1/3rds' on the 185s between home and Manchester. When its hot or cold you get temperature cycled for 2.5hrs, and for long distance services that also means loss of seating over end doors, and some seats right opposite the toilet door which can be quite smelly if the toilets are not clean.

So yes you can design a doors at 1/3rds that would be comfortable for long journeys, but it will probably cost more and have lower capacity than the equivalent doors at ends. Doors at 1/3rd with an open saloon and more standing/circulating space are best for stopping services, but for long distance services you need a better environment and maximise seating over standing space.

These issues are demonstrated daily on the north Transpennine route, 68s + Mk5s (end doors) are still being used on some services out of Scarborough, and in the morning the through service to Manchester is picking up the minor station calls between Huddersfield and Manchester. Loading and unloading are slow, its the wrong sort of stock for a stopping service, which is what it becomes west of Huddersfield. Equally when a 3 car 185 turns up on a Leeds Manchester fast service it often proves inadequate, and certainly is less comfortable for a long distance journey than an 802 or Mk 5 unit.

So my view is the doors at ends solution has been widely adopted for 'inter city' use because it offers the best compromise of seats, use of space and environment, e.g. toilets away from seats, and doors at 1/3rd is pretty standard for metro, local and stopping services because again it offers the best solution. Going back to my young days these would have been slam door stock with a door per compartment or seating bay, again to assist with loading/unloading.

The issues crop up when because of timetable or capacity contraints and you get long distance service picking up local calls, as happens on TPE north.

For a route like TPE would it be possible to mix doors at 1/3rds and end doors in the same unit, a five car 800 with 1 x 1st class, 2 doors at 1/3rds and 2 end doors. Differentiate by colour scheme so regular travellers know where to head, and when allocating seats for seat reservations put the long distance travellers in the doors at ends carriages. Publicise the differences, and show them on the displays that show train formation. Not everyone will take note, but regular travellers will soon learn. Its a compromise, but a route like TPE north is a series of compromises anyway because its a two track railway with a limited capacity.

 

[dk1]

With very modern stock you no longer have the small creaky vestibule area. On 745/755s for example they are wide and non-draughty making it almost feel like one with the next carriage. Wider doors whether they be in the middle or 1/3 2/3 assist better with boarding/alighting passengers creating more efficient dwell times.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think the OP’s problem is somewhat illusionary. It’s not end doors that are the problem, it’s Pendolinos themselves. They’re physically too small and the route too patronised for stock with end doors, but that’s a capacity problem not a rolling stock design problem.

Didn’t Portsmouth Line commuters get a bit cheesed off when they swapped 444s for 450s a number of years ago? I wonder if the door layout had anything to do with it. I must say, I have no problem travelling long distance on Southern or SouthEastern, but there was something perhaps, more relaxing in the atmosphere of the carriage in a long run on a 444.

 

[HSTEd]

Didn’t Portsmouth Line commuters get a bit cheesed off when they swapped 444s for 450s a number of years ago? I wonder if the door layout had anything to do with it. I must say, I have no problem travelling long distance on Southern or SouthEastern, but there was something perhaps, more relaxing in the atmosphere of the carriage in a long run on a 444.

Fairly sure the issue was the replacement of 2+2 with 3+2.

That was certainly my main annoyance during my (irregular) trips on the line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fairly sure the issue was the replacement of 2+2 with 3+2.

That was certainly my main annoyance during my (irregular) trips on the line.

I believe so. I can't have seen anyone objecting had they been replaced by something like a 350/1, people are quite happy with those up here. Indeed (and I know there's debate about whether they'll ever see service) the 458s have been converted to that sort of interior but doors at thirds for the Pompey Direct.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Certainly for me if I'm making a longer journey the seats themselves (and whether there's enough of them) is far more important than where the doors are. That said, in a recent-ish trip from Huddersfield to Liverpool I did make sure I caught services formed of 802s rather than 185s... though this was for variety rather than door prejudice. I catch 185s all the time but 802s are usually just whizzing past!

The "giveaway" for people complaining about door position for superficial reasons is if they use the word "commuter" or "metro" in their complaint, as if those are dirty words!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The "giveaway" for people complaining about door position for superficial reasons is if they use the word "commuter" or "metro" in their complaint, as if those are dirty words!

In some regards it doesn't help that in the UK we often* use trains with quite high quality interiors on local commuter services, e.g. Class 195 on east Manchester stoppers, when in some countries that sort of train would have plastic seats. For instance, I think few would regard that a 350/1 doesn't have a far higher quality and comfort interior than a Voyager, at least in Standard.

* No, not you, Merseyrail.

 

[Russel]

I agree with this, having end doors only also slows down unloading at terminal stations, if you're in the centre of a coach on a Pendolino at Euston, it can take a good few minutes to leave the train if it's busy.

As for the intercity feel, even Mk1 and early Mk2 coaches had a centre door and were the backbone of the intercity network!

 

[D365]

Now, I am the first to say that I am not a train design. But if I was to design train carriages I would make the Standard (2nd Class) coaches to have doors the same as you have on the class 170 units, but with windows at the sides and with automatic doors between the gangeway and seated areas to keep the warmth or cool air within the carriage. Very much like on the class 745 units. The first class coaches would have doors at each end of the carriage, but be wide enough to enable a wheelchair to enter the carriage for a disabled person that is is travelling first class. All doors as on the continent would be level with the platform edge for easy access, with the ability for the floor to be lowered or made higher depending on the height of the platform length of the station, that the train is stabled within.

Goodness, you're giving the human factors engineers a testing set of requirements for your platform-train interface!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Goodness, you're giving the human factors engineers a testing set of requirements for your platform-train interface!

Ignoring the floor height thing, the idea of having some bits with more doors and some bits with fewer, with the intention of shorter journeys being done in the bit with more, is done on the Sheffield trams.

 

[mangyiscute]

I don't understand where the argument that doors being at the end cause loading/unloading to be slower. For me, it is an entirely different reason: When you have doors in the middle of a carriage, they are usually double width, meaning that two people can exit simultaneously, whereas the end doors only allow one person to exit at a time. Add to that that on a Pendolino you're bound to get stuck behind people who are unloading luggage and taking a while to get off, the doors are also a bit higher so it takes longer to get down etc. The debate should be whether having double width doors is worth the trade off in losing a few seats, and for me, the answer is no on a train such as the class 80x which are used on mainly intercity services. I do also think end door works better in terms of queueing, if you have a single width door and people coming from both sides this could cause issues with deciding who gets to go out, but with an end door it is an orderly queue.

 

[Merle Haggard]

As for the intercity feel, even Mk1 and early Mk2 coaches had a centre door and were the backbone of the intercity network!

The earliest B.R. standard open coaches did not have centre doors, neither did the postwar L.M.S. and L.N.E.R. designs. The centre door was adopted on new builds, and cut into the earlier ones without, as a result of serious fires breaking out on expresses on two occasions, and it was to provide addition escape exits. One of the firs involved 'Thomson' stock, twin artic sets with only one side door to each coach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't understand where the argument that doors being at the end cause loading/unloading to be slower

Because on an end doored layout the furthest seat is twice as far from a door as on a quarters layout.

 

[D365]

Ignoring the floor height thing, the idea of having some bits with more doors and some bits with fewer, with the intention of shorter journeys being done in the bit with more, is done on the Sheffield trams.

The vehicles which do have doors are in symmetrical positions. Whereas @RobShipway's proposal is that the doors arrangement differs between vehicles. I'm not sure how this would be accounted for with mixed passenger fleets of varying length.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The vehicles which do have doors are in symmetrical positions. Whereas @RobShipway's proposal is that the doors arrangement differs between vehicles. I'm not sure how this would be accounted for with mixed passenger fleets of varying length.

Class 444 manages it with one vehicle:

Image is side view of Class 444

 

[RailWonderer]

Class 444 manages it with one vehicle:

Image is side view of Class 444

It needs to go around the pantograph well. Although third rail units, they were built with possible overhead conversion in mind.

They feel more traditionally IC but the 350s besides the /2s feel just the same.

End doors mean less standing room generally and 1/3 2/3 doors allow for more standing space for peak services but IC generally doesn’t have to deal with that problem (though in times of cancellations and occasional short hop use they can do). IC will normally skip commuter stations to avoid crowding out.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

The vehicles which do have doors are in symmetrical positions. Whereas @RobShipway's proposal is that the doors arrangement differs between vehicles. I'm not sure how this would be accounted for with mixed passenger fleets of varying length.

The TfW FLIRTS (2-1-1*-2) and 777s (1-2-2-1) have differing door setups along the train


* = if 4 car

 

[mangyiscute]

Because on an end doored layout the furthest seat is twice as far from a door as on a quarters layout.

But the complaint here has to do with people queueing to get out, if you have a lot of people queueing to get out then the distance each seat is from the door doesn't matter since they'll just have to wait to leave the train anyway. If the issue is with people having to stand all the way down the corridors and not being able to get past, I'd argue there's a much bigger problem than door layout, and any new trains need to be a lot bigger meaning this wouldn't be an issue, and therefore isn't worth thinking about when designing the train

 

[JamesT]

But the complaint here has to do with people queueing to get out, if you have a lot of people queueing to get out then the distance each seat is from the door doesn't matter since they'll just have to wait to leave the train anyway. If the issue is with people having to stand all the way down the corridors and not being able to get past, I'd argue there's a much bigger problem than door layout, and any new trains need to be a lot bigger meaning this wouldn't be an issue, and therefore isn't worth thinking about when designing the train

With the doors at quarters layout, the queues are half as long. So the time waiting to get off will be less.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the complaint here has to do with people queueing to get out, if you have a lot of people queueing to get out then the distance each seat is from the door doesn't matter since they'll just have to wait to leave the train anyway. If the issue is with people having to stand all the way down the corridors and not being able to get past, I'd argue there's a much bigger problem than door layout, and any new trains need to be a lot bigger meaning this wouldn't be an issue, and therefore isn't worth thinking about when designing the train

Unless we have compulsory reservations (debate on this not in scope for this thread) then trains will always carry standing loads at some point. It actually came to my mind for two reasons - one, discussion of TfW services which are regional expresses and do carry standing loads at peak times and the height of summer, and two, because I'd not long struggled past a load of people and bags in the very narrow aisle of a full and standing Pendolino to get off, and I'd far rather that was a 350 with easier access to the doors.

Even the GWR Penzance which I would call one of the few true IC services is a regional express within Cornwall and carries massive standing loads between Reading and Paddington if it happens to hit the evening peak.

 

[mangyiscute]

With the doors at quarters layout, the queues are half as long. So the time waiting to get off will be less.

But you then have 2 queues trying to get through one door leading to issues with people not knowing who should go

Unless we have compulsory reservations (debate on this not in scope for this thread) then trains will always carry standing loads at some point. It actually came to my mind for two reasons - one, discussion of TfW services which are regional expresses and do carry standing loads at peak times and the height of summer, and two, because I'd not long struggled past a load of people and bags in the very narrow aisle of a full and standing Pendolino to get off, and I'd far rather that was a 350 with easier access to the doors.

Even the GWR Penzance which I would call one of the few true IC services is a regional express within Cornwall and carries massive standing loads between Reading and Paddington if it happens to hit the evening peak.

But again, the gwr service will have lots of people getting off at reading, so there isn't the issue of it taking ages to get off cause it would anyways while you wait for others to get off the train.
I know you guys say oh it's only a couple seats, but if we lose 2 rows of seats per set of doors, that's 16 seats per coach, on a pendolino you've lost 176 seats. Even if you meant 2 rows per coach, you're still losing 88 seats on an 11 coach train. For me, this issue is so minor that it is not worth losing that much capacity - take out 88 seats and your issue of people standing in the way is gonna get worse, not better.

 

[RobShipway]

The vehicles which do have doors are in symmetrical positions. Whereas @RobShipway's proposal is that the doors arrangement differs between vehicles. I'm not sure how this would be accounted for with mixed passenger fleets of varying length.

As has been shown from the post above from @Bletchleyite and @pokemonsuper9 shows that trains exist now, where my proposal has already been done and it is actually the class 444 plus the flirt trains that gave me the ideas of what I believe is required from railway stock today and in the future. If it gives the RSSB a testing set of requirements, then good.

But again, the gwr service will have lots of people getting off at reading, so there isn't the issue of it taking ages to get off cause it would anyways while you wait for others to get off the train.
I know you guys say oh it's only a couple seats, but if we lose 2 rows of seats per set of doors, that's 16 seats per coach, on a pendolino you've lost 176 seats. Even if you meant 2 rows per coach, you're still losing 88 seats on an 11 coach train. For me, this issue is so minor that it is not worth losing that much capacity - take out 88 seats and your issue of people standing in the way is gonna get worse, not better.

Have you ever tried getting off a class 800 or 802 in a wheelchair, even with help from station staff or the train guard? If you get the chance try it and then think about your comment.

Trains should be there for all, whatever your ability is to get on/off a train. We have in this country an ageing population whether we like that fact or not.

You worry about losing seats, well the trains really should be longer anyway in many cases for the number of passengers that they have to carry. The 9 car PPendolino trains should be 12 car trains as should the 11 car Pendolino's. All the class 805 units should be 7 car, the same as the class 807 units.

If you think back to what trains where running between Liverpool Street Station to Norwich and Stansted Airport, aren't the class 745 units longer than those trains and where are the doors placed on the coaches for the class 745 units?

 

[josh-j]

With the doors at quarters layout, the queues are half as long. So the time waiting to get off will be less.

But if the doors are the same size, people will get off at the same speed. The problem physically can't be the length of the queue, surely - all that would happen with the same size doors in the middle is a two queues each side of both doors, with each queue moving half the speed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But if the doors are the same size, people will get off at the same speed. The problem physically can't be the length of the queue, surely - all that would happen with the same size doors in the middle is a two queues each side of both doors, with each queue moving half the speed.

That would be true if nobody had luggage. But as they do, often one side would be blocked while they faff with it, and so the other side can move, so even with narrow doors at thirds I think it would make a small difference. Indeed, I suspect unloading via a single central-ish door like the 777 or other FLIRTs would be quicker than a pair of end doors provided that door was wide enough for two people to pass at once.

As for the loss of 88 seats it's probably really one row per coach (so 44), because the extra door width going from single to double leaf isn't a whole row (typical pitch about 80-90cm), it's more like 20-30cm or so. You may even be able to afford to lose none by having fewer tables as airline seats take up slightly less space. And you'd remove a further 8 from that in the case of the 80x as you'd not have two sets on the end vehicles as they're only half-vehicles.

 

[D365]

As has been shown from the post above from @Bletchleyite and @pokemonsuper9 shows that trains exist now, where my proposal has already been done and it is actually the class 444 plus the flirt trains that gave me the ideas of what I believe is required from railway stock today and in the future. If it gives the RSSB a testing set of requirements, then good.

However those examples are of vehicles where the doors, mechanically, are identical throughout. Going back to your original post, I'm still not sure if you are proposing single and dual leaf doors (1st and 2nd class respectively), or two entirely different door types.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However those examples are of vehicles where the doors, mechanically, are identical throughout. Going back to your original post, I'm still not sure if you are proposing single and dual leaf doors (1st and 2nd class respectively), or two entirely different door types.

I think the proposal was single-leaf end doors in 1st, and double-leaf doors at thirds in Standard, not different mechanisms. I can see the sense in that, indeed I'm almost certain I've actually seen that somewhere outside the UK, though it might just have been a DB scratch-set where the second class coaches were Silberling vehicles and the 1st was an old ex-IC compartment coach. Having said that, I find 1st nicer in smaller, less noisy compartments*, so maybe you'd want to keep them at thirds and just make them single-leaf.

Edit: I've seen it in Japanese suburbans I believe - the "Green Car" often has end doors and transverse layout, whlie the normal coaches have mostly longitudinal seating and lots of doors. Very few photos but one can be found here of a double deck, two doored (at thirds-ish) Green Car and corresponding 3-doored single deck second class coaches in the distance:

Upgrade to the Green Car

How to Travel in Japan in Style

donnykimball.com

(article not quoted as it's lots of detail about the Green Car not really relevant here)

The idea of a "kneeling coach" was probably a bit of a distraction, really, and not that relevant to door layouts.

* The kludgy layout of Class 185 is often brought up, and I'd personally have put 1st at the end of those units, either side of the end door in two small compartments with vestibule doors, like the Class 321's as built layout, and the disabled bog and wheelchair spaces at the inner end as on most other suburban layout units.