Dream train design!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drsatan

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
1,832
Location
Land of the Sprinters
For me, it would be an SBB IC2000 set, but with IC70 seats and hauled by a class 90. However, since the likelihood of a double deck train running in the UK is very small, I would be happy with an AC-powered version of the 442, but lengthened to 10 cars and fitted with streamlined cabs similar to DB's cab cars. Such a train would have a restaurant and bar car, and have interiors in first and standard similar to those found on DB's ICE3 EMUs.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
6,377
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
The Heathrow Express 332 interior in standard class would have to become a feature of the 170s surely; it looks perfect!;)

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1126727

Strangely, that unit reminds me of a cross between a 442, Juniper, and a terry's chocolate orange!

Does make you wonder though, if something similar could have been incorporated into the 378s, although of course it would probably come up against some law / restriction etc, amd when do 378s ever work in pairs?
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Theres are rules on miimum sighting from trains with and without gangways. I imagine that such a system would probably reduce field of view further and not be doable.
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,088
Theres are rules on miimum sighting from trains with and without gangways. I imagine that such a system would probably reduce field of view further and not be doable.

It was do-able in theory with 458s - why couldn't an upgraded version work?
 

150001

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
492
If there was no front gangway, the forward visibility would be much better. There'd be less drag too with the big chunky door sticking out. The 378s would still have the same view out the front from the driving ends; all the gangway is stored compactly (on the Class 259) behind the front end door.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
5,327
Bulleid SO coach, body strengthened to meet modern collision regulations. No air con, local passenger-operable controls of under-seat e.t.h., sliding windows that can be opened by passengers. Spacious comfortable seating.

(A Merchant Navy at the front would be an added advantage, but failing that, a class 92/1, designed for operation at 125 mph and fitted with e.t.h. )
 

bronzeonion

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2009
Messages
673
Location
West London
If there was no front gangway, the forward visibility would be much better. There'd be less drag too with the big chunky door sticking out. The 378s would still have the same view out the front from the driving ends; all the gangway is stored compactly (on the Class 259) behind the front end door.

The cab is located above the gangway on the E259 series, there is a route from the saloon to the gangway connection which avoids the small staircase to the cab area, like how to get from a Voyager saloon to the exit doors, you have to avoid the oversized toilet area!


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top