Driver's favourite rolling stock

[traingeek97]

Drivers who are signed to multiple traction - which is your favourite (and least favourite) rolling stock to drive?

Is it mostly down to cab design or would the main factor be acceleration and braking?

For example, as someone who regularly travels on Southeastern I wonder whether drivers prefer Networkers, 375s or 376s.

As a passenger I'm not a fan of Networkers, but having a large cab window must be nice for drivers. Likewise, I'd prefer to sit on a 375 to a 376 but the cab on the latter seems much nicer.

 

[Eccles1983]

I'd sit on a wooden bench as long as the brakes were good. I'm not fussed by how quick it goes.

My order is brakes, Aircon, seat. The rest is irrelevant as the view out of window is mandated by standards.

 

[SteelWeelApeal]

I’m not a driver, but I was listening to a conversation between a driver manager and driver during a cab ride a few weeks before lockdown. He said his favourite is by far 16x (this was GWR), due to being simple to operate, without loads of complicated gimmicks, and having a nice windscreen with good visibility. I’m presuming this was in comparison to all other GWR stock, but he definitely mentioned 150s, IETs, HSTs and 387s.

 

[irish_rail]

HST best hands down in my view.

 

[66Yorks]

Class 66 all the time.

(I'm not a driver btw!)

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't work on the railways but I've talked to several staff, who seem to like working 323s over the other stock which works on the same routes.

Maybe some drivers on here can either agree or disagree with that.

 

[Richard Scott]

Remember someone asking a driver from one depot what their favourite class was to drive and they said 45, then 50 then 47.

 

[mandub]

I don't work on the railways but I've talked to several staff, who seem to like working 323s over the other stock which works on the same routes.

Maybe some drivers on here can either agree or disagree with that.

323 my favourite. Predictable, reliable, wide open viewing, no TCMS nagging with pop ups about every little thing on the train.

Also sign & drive 319, 331 EMU
And 195, 15x, 142 DMU

 

[py_megapixel]

323 my favourite. Predictable, reliable, wide open viewing, no TCMS nagging with pop ups about every little thing on the train.

That's sort of what I was expecting to hear. A few people I've talked to about the Civities say that they don't like them because they're "always trying to be too clever" and one very friendly conductor I had on a particularly stroppy 195 (ASDO faults at pretty much every station!) told me at great length how much she missed the simplicity of a 158.

 

[craigybagel]

Class 66 all the time.

(I'm not a driver btw!)

So this opinion is based on?

Anyway, getting back on topic: as far as I can tell, it's impossible to get comfortable in a 158 cab if you're 6 feet tall or more - you just have to live with only having feeling in one leg at a time. 153s are surprisingly comfortable (especially, even more surprisingly, in the small end!) but pretty horrible to drive in terms of performance (or lack thereof).
On my traction card 150s are probably the best all round for comfort, ease and performance, but on a long journey the extra speed and cab air-con on a 175 wins out.

 

[SPADTrap]

HST! Happy to be on them all day. Drives a dream.

 

[scotraildriver]

HSTs for me too. Followed by 170s. Our class 385s are horrible from a drivers viewpoint. The cab ergonomics are appalling and the visibility due to the tiny windscreen and huge gangway is dreadful. For a new train this design should never have been passed fit.

 

[mmh]

A friend who is a GWR driver told me years ago his favourites were Pacers, and that he didn't particularly like HSTs. I don't know his opinion of IETs.

I think this is one of those things where the customer and staff experience of something can be wildly different.

 

[py_megapixel]

class 385s are horrible from a drivers viewpoint. The cab ergonomics are appalling and the visibility due to the tiny windscreen and huge gangway is dreadful. For a new train this design should never have been passed fit.

Weren't they the ones where the windscreens had to be replaced before they even entered service because they obscured signals?
You'd think they would do a better job the second time round, but maybe not

 

[py_megapixel]

I'm interested to know - drivers who work both 150/1 and 150/2s, do you find that the gangway worsens visibility from the cab?

 

[skyhigh]

Weren't they the ones where the windscreens had to be replaced before they even entered service because they obscured signals?
You'd think they would do a better job the second time round, but maybe not

As I remember the curved glass was replaced with flat glass - no changes to how the visibility was affected by the size of the windows and gangway. It wasn't a redesign of the cab or a "second time round" really.

 

[driver9000]

I'm interested to know - drivers who work both 150/1 and 150/2s, do you find that the gangway worsens visibility from the cab?

Yes it does but you can still see what you need to see. Same goes for all corridor fitted cab ends really. The 150/1 is one my favourite units to work although I no longer sign them, decent sitting position, great little heater below the seat, separated from the saloon so no intrusion of noise from there, big windscreens to see through and relatively draught free.

 

[221129]

I'm not a driver, but from my operational perspective and from speaking to a lot of my driver colleagues Voyagers win hands down over HSTs.

 

[driver9000]

HSTs for me too. Followed by 170s. Our class 385s are horrible from a drivers viewpoint. The cab ergonomics are appalling and the visibility due to the tiny windscreen and huge gangway is dreadful. For a new train this design should never have been passed fit.

The original design didn't have the corridor and it was grafted on later. It's a shame because the cab environment has been squashed into the left hand corner when it should have been a centre driving position. I feel for those who have to endure that cab.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm a guard but I know the least favourite traction we have amongst the drivers is usually the 156 as they were never fitted with a vigilance device. Consequently they have to keep the dead man's pedal depressed constantly and there is no indication you're subconsciously letting up pressure on a long journey until an emergency brake application occurs.

 

[irish_rail]

I'm not a driver, but from my operational perspective and from speaking to a lot of my driver colleagues Voyagers win hands down over HSTs.

Crikey, I occasionally drive voyagers when down at the depot, and blooming hate them. Awful cab, and not particularly user friendly controller.
I suspect the drivers who prefer them to HSTs is due to some XC men not getting on HSTs often enough and therefore not getting used to the brakes.

 

[43066]

I'm not a driver, but from my operational perspective and from speaking to a lot of my driver colleagues Voyagers win hands down over HSTs.

Voyager family cabs are certainly more comfortable than an HST with air spung seat etc. (at least on the variant I sign), and also a lot less noisy. Most drivers who sign both say the HST is more challenging and satisfying to drive (especially shorter sets, which perform a lot better), but it’s easy to cock up by stopping short, because the brakes take forever to release - it’s quite an eye opener compared to modern multiple units.

I suspect the drivers who prefer them to HSTs is due to some XC men not getting on HSTs often enough and therefore not getting used to the brakes.

I’m sure there’s some truth in that. Some drivers fear them!

For example, as someone who regularly travels on Southeastern I wonder whether drivers prefer Networkers, 375s or 376s.

As a passenger I'm not a fan of Networkers, but having a large cab window must be nice for drivers. Likewise, I'd prefer to sit on a 375 to a 376 but the cab on the latter seems much nicer.

BREL networkers have nicer cabs than the Metcam equivalents, albeit BREL units tend to be slower. All Networker variants are horrible compared to Electrostar family cabs.

376 wins over the 375 because the lack of gangway doors make the cab a lot more airy. A 375 is very claustrophobic in comparison.

 

[221129]

Crikey, I occasionally drive voyagers when down at the depot, and blooming hate them. Awful cab, and not particularly user friendly controller.
I suspect the drivers who prefer them to HSTs is due to some XC men not getting on HSTs often enough and therefore not getting used to the brakes.

It's more to do with the comfort of the cab, the fact you can get a brew or use the loo a lot easier and the fact you are more likely to get home on time.

 

[cossie4i]

I only drive 59s and 66s now.
Both have + points but overall a 59 wins.
Previous traction I preferred 4 CEPs of the 400 class
395s are a nice unit to drive but so slow as a 12 car on DC, totally different unit on 25k
The traction I miss most would be a 60. Great engine’s to drive.

 

[37057]

From a depot driving perspective the 350s were a pain because of the gangway vision dilemma and I suppose that goes for anything that has gangways, a nose or just generally high up. It's also quite important to stop units precisely for gated platforms, jacks or bogie drops and the automatic holding brake on 350s (and probably 360/444/450) are very awkward to counter against. Much more control on a 185 in the very low speed realm of driving control.

In my limited experience of old locos they are not very consistent in handling. Even two ends of the same loco can feel different.

 

[dctraindriver]

From a depot driving perspective the 350s were a pain because of the gangway vision dilemma and I suppose that goes for anything that has gangways, a nose or just generally high up. It's also quite important to stop units precisely for gated platforms, jacks or bogie drops and the automatic holding brake on 350s (and probably 360/444/450) are very awkward to counter against. Much more control on a 185 in the very low speed realm of driving control.

In my limited experience of old locos they are not very consistent in handling. Even two ends of the same loco can feel different.

I concur about the holding brake on the 350 but in my neck of the woods it’s the 450. The 707 holding brake is much better and the view and layout means it’s good to drive.

However, many will disagree with me but a 458 even with the gangway and occasionally temperamental behaviour are my favourite to drive because the brake is so good and precise, even in low adhesion. I’ll miss them when they’ve gone, I expect I’ll be one of not many...

 

[HeelBurton]

I concur about the holding brake on the 350 but in my neck of the woods it’s the 450. The 707 holding brake is much better and the view and layout means it’s good to drive.

However, many will disagree with me but a 458 even with the gangway and occasionally temperamental behaviour are my favourite to drive because the brake is so good and precise, even in low adhesion. I’ll miss them when they’ve gone, I expect I’ll be one of not many...

458’s the best I’ve driven, the brake on them, even the slightest touch, is very good. I’m starting to like 168’s aswell.

 

[irish_rail]

It's more to do with the comfort of the cab, the fact you can get a brew or use the loo a lot easier and the fact you are more likely to get home on time.

Hmmm in all the years I've driven HSTs never had to be rescued or completely failed. Having 2 power cars is a bit of a get out of jail free card.

 

[Richard Scott]

From a depot driving perspective the 350s were a pain because of the gangway vision dilemma and I suppose that goes for anything that has gangways, a nose or just generally high up. It's also quite important to stop units precisely for gated platforms, jacks or bogie drops and the automatic holding brake on 350s (and probably 360/444/450) are very awkward to counter against. Much more control on a 185 in the very low speed realm of driving control.

In my limited experience of old locos they are not very consistent in handling. Even two ends of the same loco can feel different.

Different experience from each ends definitely true of a 47 (certainly on vacuum) assume due to one cab being right next to brake frame and other a long way from it?

 

[37057]

Different experience from each ends definitely true of a 47 (certainly on vacuum) assume due to one cab being right next to brake frame and other a long way from it?

It's possibly down to the condition of the brake valve itself - a recently overhauled one will function better than a worn one. Also the gauges might be out slightly too! Similarly with the power controller, if there's a kink down the pipework to the governor somewhere, you can have a slow loading engine when driven from the affected end!