East Midlands Trains, their C158s are excellent, but their Meridians absolute c**p ?

[Pumbaa]

The APT was 150mph capable and had nearly twice the window area of a Pendolino. A Eurostar is 188mph cpable and a TGV (Sud) 200mph capable, none of them have minute windows.....

You obviously don't like reading. TGVs don't tilt, don't have a ridiculously spherical bodyshell and ergo do not require small windows from having considered maximum stresses on the window or from having a complex support structure built into the bodyshell to support the shape required for the job. Face the facts!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh has anyone pointed out that Meridians have come top of a Passenger Focus survey, in response to the original point of this thread? They may have done, but I don't think it was picked up on.

Well anyway they did - so the general public doesn't have quite the same viewpoint as the OP!

 

[HITMAN]

To an extent you've got a general point, but in the same post you've quoted from I also admit that first generation DMUs weren't up to a EMT C158, as long as the latter's air con is working......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I never said the Pendolinos "in toto" were absolute crap, however the windows are, in my opinion, and many others, absolute crap.

The APT was 150mph capable and had nearly twice the window area of a Pendolino. A Eurostar is 188mph cpable and a TGV (Sud) 200mph capable, none of them have minute windows.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'd rank the Mk4 up with the Mk3, more or less anyway.
In terms of comfort (and quietness for the diesel trains) either are far superior to any multiple unit, esp an EMT Meridian or a Pendolino, IN SECOND CLASS IN PARTICULAR !

I can't honestly see what you have against the Meridians, I have only traveled on one, and it was busy, but it was also nice. The seats were comfortable and properly sized as well. The only think which could have been better was the speed it traveled at.

 

[generalvegitable]

No I am not. I have never used them in the high peak but off peak the are rarely full on the routes I seem them on. Lots of room on leaving new street toward London mid afternoon. Lots of room out of Manchester as well. Never full from Glasgow. Yes I travel first on pendo but I normally have a look in standard. The 1630 London to Glasgow has a lot of fresh air carried away. I am not saying that they are not full high peak just in my experience the loadings on the voyagers are higher. If virgin were doing so well of peak then they wouldn't offer such low fares to birmingham and Manchester off peak. Niether route needs the 20 minute frequency off peak with current loadings.

it is always very bus when I use them, but then again I am on the southern part of the west coast, (often the first stop from London) and it is always packed when I get on

 

[WillPS]

But when it comes to Inter City stock they haven't improved, which was the original point I was making.
The EMT C158 is a nicer travelling environmant than a first generation 1950s/1960s DMU, assuming the air con is working, obviously......
On the other hand I think most people would agree that a 1970s Mk3 coach is a better travelling environment than a Meridian, a Voyager or a Pendolino.

The memory cheats in fandom. The Meridian is objectively proven to be a popular train with passengers; I've seen more than one survey to that effect.

Your opinion ≠ the general opinion, no matter how sure you are of your own conviction.

 

[NLC1072]

is there anybody else that just likes all DEMU trains because they actually feel like they're working to get somewhere? like the 222's underfloor engines, I actually like it... strange?

 

[WillPS]

It certainly doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother other members. The only MU where noise has been an issue for me is the 185s.

 

[HITMAN]

From the outside the noise from a MU is certainly preferable to the deafening roar from a HST

 

[ainsworth74]

From the outside the noise from a MU is certainly preferable to the deafening roar from a HST

Not sure I agree with that. I was stood next to a Hull Trains 180 and whilst trying to ask a member of staff a question we had to shout at each other to be heard! Not a problem I normally have when an HST or 225 are on the platform (unless you're next to the locomotive itself of course!).

 

[HITMAN]

Not sure I agree with that. I was stood next to a Hull Trains 180 and whilst trying to ask a member of staff a question we had to shout at each other to be heard! Not a problem I normally have when an HST or 225 are on the platform (unless you're next to the locomotive itself of course!).

Its just when they are moving off, they aren't a problem when stopped.

 

[Justin Smith]

You obviously don't like reading. TGVs don't tilt, don't have a ridiculously spherical bodyshell and ergo do not require small windows from having considered maximum stresses on the window or from having a complex support structure built into the bodyshell to support the shape required for the job. Face the facts!

I think we`re going round in circles here.
An APT did used to tilt, i.e. you don`t need to have ridiculously small windows on a train just because it tilts

 

[ainsworth74]

Its just when they are moving off, they aren't a problem when stopped.

It was stopped.

 

[Justin Smith]

Right, I think we're getting to the crux of the matter here.
If I've got this right, Virgin and/or the designers of the Pendolinos, are saying that the miniscule windows on the Pendolino are a safety feature (remember they can't be strictly neccessary for the operation of the train because the APT had reasonable size windows).
So if they're a "safety feature" I assume that some research was done into the extra safety they gave.
So my questions are these :
1 How many extra deaths per year (on average) would be caused if the Pendolinos had reasonable sized windows ?
2 How many additional deaths per year (on average) would be saved of the windows on the Pendolino were even smaller ?
3 How many deaths per year (on average) would be saved if all passengers were required to wear 3 point safety belts ?

NOTE I am NOT advocating the use of seat belts on trains, I am simply asking this question to get some balance into this whole debate......

The relevant earlier quote, which, as far as I`ve been able to ascertain, nobody has answered, other than to hint that nobody, including the trains designers, actually know the answer........

 

[Pumbaa]

I think we`re going round in circles here.
An APT did used to tilt, i.e. you don`t need to have ridiculously small windows on a train just because it tilts

I never said the APT didn't tilt - I was referring to TGVs quite clearly. I'd already provided information on the seemingly sore point as to why APT have bigger windows than the 390. It is quite clearly there for you to read - concrete and absolute. I've provided the brief summary I gave on Pg7 again to help you;

In conclusion, the smaller windows are the direct result of enhanced bodyshells offering maximum support and integrity during worst possible situations (as dictated by safety standards) coupled with the necessity to make the windows the maximum size before compression stress shatters them during times of shear stress acting on the body of the train (such as in a high-speed crash).

 

[Justin Smith]

The memory cheats in fandom.

I can remember as a kid when I first travelled on a train and one of the things I thought was fantastic, literally, was that there was hardly any noise, I'm talking hauled stock obviously. When the train started moving there wasn't much noise either, and on welded track there still wasn't much noise to speak of, not till it got up to relatively high speed.
Now, on Voyagers/Meridians etc etc, there is more noise whilst they're actually stood still, than there is from hauled stock, even back in the 1970s, at 60mph.
Progress, I think not.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I never said the APT didn't tilt - I was referring to TGVs quite clearly. I'd already provided information on the seemingly sore point as to why APT have bigger windows than the 390. It is quite clearly there for you to read - concrete and absolute. I've provided the brief summary I gave on Pg7 again to help you;

I think you're missing the point of what I'm asking.
What exactly is the benefit of all that in terms of increased safety, I'm talking statistics here.
For example, "a Pendolino having such small windows fitted would save 1 life per year, on average, over the same train fitted with conventional sized windows."
Are you saying that nobody has ever actually quantified how much safer, if at all, it actually is ?

 

[tbtc]

The relevant earlier quote, which, as far as I've been able to ascertain, nobody has answered, other than to hint that nobody, including the trains designers, actually know the answer........

Do you honestly expect rail enthusiasts to be able to scientifically answer your hypothetical questions?

Or are you just on a fishing trip because you don't like one particular type of stock?

 

[Geezertronic]

The relevant earlier quote, which, as far as I've been able to ascertain, nobody has answered, other than to hint that nobody, including the trains designers, actually know the answer........

That's because it's such a ridiculous question that no one could probably be bothered to entertain you on this matter...

 

[tbtc]

It certainly doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother other members. The only MU where noise has been an issue for me is the 185s.

+1.

The rants about underfloor engines confuse me, as I don't think such trains are *that* noisy. Some enthusiasts complain about everything and anything though - "progress" is not a word you commonly hear

 

[Pumbaa]

I think you're missing the point of what I'm asking.
What exactly is the benefit of all that in terms of increased safety, I'm talking statistics here.
Are you saying that nobody has ever actually quantified how much safer, if at all, it actually is ?

I don't think I am - I have answered both parts of your question before. Of course it has been quantified; both by a) Government or regulatory body who decree the minimum standards of safety, such as bodyshell integrity, buffer zones, desirable aspects of safety, absolutely critical aspects of safety, and b) Alstom, the designers, who have created the product to meet the current, ie not 1970s when APT was done, safety standards as well as fulfilling standards that they feel is desirable.

Increased pillar and bodyshell integrity standards were implemented as a result of one crash 90s, it may have been Southall, I'm not sure.

The statistics are not in public domain specifically for the 390s - the maths will all still be in Alstoms vault. It should be possible to obtain a specific set of standards that must be met, and then to be able to compare them to previous standards.

 

[asylumxl]

Niether route needs the 20 minute frequency off peak with current loadings.

It's just the same age old obsession of trying to make these cities the new London...

 

[tbtc]

The statistics are not in public domain specifically for the 390s - the maths will all still be in Alstoms vault

Precisely, which is why there's no point in half of this conversation.

Everything has a cost/ benefit ration for risk these days. The powers that be put a cost on all life, whether its the cost of a drug that keeps you living a year longer or a speed camera that (supposedly) saves one car crash a year or... whatever.

However, expecting it all to be in the public domain? Nah...

 

[Justin Smith]

That's because it's such a ridiculous question that no one could probably be bothered to entertain you on this matter...

It`s not a ridiculous question at all, not to an engineer, have you never heard of cost benefit analysis ?
Quite apart from anything else, if the designers decided that smaller windows made the train safer, what made them decide on that particular size of window ?
Why not fit windows even smaller, and therefore make the train even safer ?
If they really did make the window so small as a safety feature they must have done an analysis of what benefit they were getting for the cost of smaller windows than conventionally fitted.


There is one point that hasn`t been made about windows and seats not aligning.
Generally they don`t align because the window spacing was chosen to line up with first class seating.
Question, why it beyond the wit of man to have different window spacing on second class coaches ? Since all modern stock is monoque surely it wouldn`t cost that much more ?

 

[Pumbaa]

For example, "a Pendolino having such small windows fitted would save 1 life per year, on average, over the same train fitted with conventional sized windows."

You obviously haven't understood this problem with the 390s - it cannot possibly have any larger windows at all. Maybe a list of the conditions will help you:

1) Train tilts at 8 degrees. Thus circular bodyshell must be used to avoid hitting passing trains.
2) Spherical bodyshell needs greater levels of support and internal structure to avoid collapsing in on itself. Thus frequent and strong pillars must be used to support the structure.
3) These frequent and strong pillars need to be cross-braced at an optimum point up the bodyshell, where stress is likely to be optimally spread over the body.

- Thus point 3) means that the windows cannot be a) any higher or b) any taller than they currently are.
- Point 2) preludes much wider windows, as the pillars for supporting the bodyshell are in the way.

4) The windows could be slightly wider, but not by much, but the designers have calculated, as they're supposed to that if they were, the stress levels would result in window shatter on impact, a big safety no-no after recent high speed crashes.

 

[WillPS]

I can remember as a kid when I first travelled on a train and one of the things I thought was fantastic, literally, was that there was hardly any noise, I'm talking hauled stock obviously. When the train started moving there wasn't much noise either, and on welded track there still wasn't much noise to speak of, not till it got up to relatively high speed.
Now, on Voyagers/Meridians etc etc, there is more noise whilst they're actually stood still, than there is from hauled stock, even back in the 1970s, at 60mph.
Progress, I think not.....

You've simultaneously taken my post out of context and validated my point (even in the *******ised version you chose to quote).

 

[Justin Smith]

I don't think I am - I have answered both parts of your question before. Of course it has been quantified; both by a) Government or regulatory body who decree the minimum standards of safety, such as bodyshell integrity, buffer zones, desirable aspects of safety, absolutely critical aspects of safety, and b) Alstom, the designers, who have created the product to meet the current, ie not 1970s when APT was done, safety standards as well as fulfilling standards that they feel is desirable.

Increased pillar and bodyshell integrity standards were implemented as a result of one crash 90s, it may have been Southall, I'm not sure.

The statistics are not in public domain specifically for the 390s - the maths will all still be in Alstoms vault. It should be possible to obtain a specific set of standards that must be met, and then to be able to compare them to previous standards.

I'm not a betting man but I'd put £1000 on the fact that having miniscule windows would only decrease ones risk of death, whilst on any particular train journey, by 1 in a billion or some equally minute amount.
Some people would think that a price worth paying because they're risk averse, or, more likely, they don't understand statistics.
If those same people were being consistent they should live in a bungalow, never travel by car and try to limit crossing the road as much as possible.......
If I'm understanding Frank Duckworth's Risk Table correctly, you're actually 5 times more likely to die due to an asteroid impact than from taking a 100mile train journey (calculated pre minute Pendolino windows).

PS I'm not taking the p**s, I'm just trying to put risk into context.

 

[Geezertronic]

PS I'm not taking the p**s, I'm just trying to put risk into context.

You should work for the H&S Executive if you want to put that sort of risk in context.

The 390 Pendolino and the APT were designed to a vastly different safety specifications. I couldn't comment on what the exact differences were (apart from travelling in the leading vehicle etc...) but one was 1970's and one was 2000's so the difference I assume will be vast in comparison.

 

[HITMAN]

I think we're going round in circles here.
An APT did used to tilt, i.e. you don't need to have ridiculously small windows on a train just because it tilts

We thankfully never crashed an APT so we never knew what it would do in a crash, but any kind of pendo is more prone to a severe accident because it takes corners much faster, and therefore its wheels must generate a greater centri-petal force to stay on the track. Moreover you can see this Italian pendo has the massive window pillars as well http://www.transport.alstom.com/pr_transp/2005/_files/file_18579_81215.jpg

It was stopped.

Yeah, they are loud even when stopped but MU's don't have the same boom as locos

It's just the same age old obsession of trying to make these cities the new London...

Its because improving a service to London is likely to have the most benefit of improving any service.

I'm not a betting man but I'd put £1000 on the fact that having miniscule windows would only decrease ones risk of death, whilst on any particular train journey, by 1 in a billion or some equally minute amount.
Some people would think that a price worth paying because they're risk averse, or, more likely, they don't understand statistics.
If those same people were being consistent they should live in a bungalow, never travel by car and try to limit crossing the road as much as possible.......
If I'm understanding Frank Duckworth's Risk Table correctly, you're actually 5 times more likely to die due to an asteroid impact than from taking a 100mile train journey (calculated pre minute Pendolino windows).

PS I'm not taking the p**s, I'm just trying to put risk into context.

Yes, but as already explained the Pendolinos are a type of train which is particularly prone to a serious crash because of the nature of what they do. The government and manufacturers have decided what level of crash protection trains are to have and therefore to make Pendo's meet the standards of say Mrk 4 coaches they need to have enhanced window pillars. The strength of the coach bodies at Grayrigg undoubtably saved lives there and I'm sure when it is next put to the test it will do again.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yeah, they are loud even when stopped but MU's don't have the same boom as locos

Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree

 

[455driver]

Question, why it beyond the wit of man to have different window spacing on second class coaches ? Since all modern stock is monoque surely it wouldn't cost that much more ?

The last coaches built with different window spacing were the mark2Fs, after that it was a standard body-shell.
It wouldnt cost much more but it would cost more, so the need for "value for money" IE cheapest possible means it aint gonna happen.

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes, but as already explained the Pendolinos are a type of train which is particularly prone to a serious crash because of the nature of what they do. The government and manufacturers have decided what level of crash protection trains are to have and therefore to make Pendo's meet the standards of say Mrk 4 coaches they need to have enhanced window pillars. The strength of the coach bodies at Grayrigg undoubtably saved lives there and I'm sure when it is next put to the test it will do again.

Did that Pendolino at Grayrigg actually hit anything solid, like another train ?
If not then comparing it to the HST accidents is not a fair comparison.

Whatever the finer details of said accidents the fact of the matter is that if people really are reassured that the Pendolinos minute winows are going to make any significant difference to the statistical possibility they'll die on any particular rail journey, then peoples perception of risk is all to cock.

I feel perfectly safe in a Mk3, or even (statistically speaking) in a Pacer, so trying to persuade me that I need to put up with a restricted view out of the window in order to make my journey "safer" is just not going to work at all.

I do think it highly amusing that some people are prepared to accept severely restricted views out of train windows "because it'll make me safer", and, probably, quite a few of those same people object to speed cameras on the roads, which really will make a far more significant difference (relatively speaking) to whether they'll get to the end of their journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The last coaches built with different window spacing were the mark2Fs, after that it was a standard body-shell.
It wouldnt cost much more but it would cost more, so the need for "value for money" IE cheapest possible means it aint gonna happen.

Well remembered, so it is possible, and I bet it doesn`t cost that much more, why should it ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, but as already explained the Pendolinos are a type of train which is particularly prone to a serious crash because of the nature of what they do. The government and manufacturers have decided what level of crash protection trains are to have and therefore to make Pendo's meet the standards of say Mrk 4 coaches they need to have enhanced window pillars. The strength of the coach bodies at Grayrigg undoubtably saved lives there and I'm sure when it is next put to the test it will do again.

You`re right, they`re falling off the rails and getting smashed up every other week.
What is it, one serious smash in 7 or 8 years ?

 

[Geezertronic]

Did that Pendolino at Grayrigg actually hit anything solid, like another train ?

Er... the ground as most of the train ended up down the bottom of an enbankment and Coach A even did a 180 and ended up facing in the other direction?

I do think it highly amusing that some people are prepared to accept severely restricted views out of train windows "because it'll make me safer", and, probably, quite a few of those same people object to speed cameras on the roads, which really will make a far more significant difference (relatively speaking) to whether they'll get to the end of their journey.

Now that really is twisting it around isn't it. I could say that speed cameras cause more accidents than they stop because drivers slow down and speed up between them resulting in more rear end shunts as a result

You're right, they're falling off the rails and getting smashed up every other week.
What is it, one serious smash in 7 or 8 years ?

Just because they don't, that doesn't mean that they can't. Considering the average 390 journey runs at speeds around 40mph in excess of the national speed limit for motorways, they don't do too bad at all. But that doesn't mean that safety should be mitigated just to give a rail enthusiast a decent window seat. Only time will tell what the next generation of high speed train design will bring, but the design will again be vastly different to the 390s due to the non tilting nature of any new design.