Generally popular trains that you have good reason to dislike.

[ChrisCooper]

Does anyone else have a particular train type that is generally well regarded but they look down on due to personal experiance? In my case it's the 158, just because travelling on them back in Central trains days I had so many issues due to them, in fact I know for a fact I've built up more delay minutes due to problems with 158s than any other type, even when relative milage is taken into account. I also never found the original seats that nice, particularly once the padding was failing (or in some cases the bottom cusions were loose) and I found the air condioning was either ineffective or not working at all. The vast majority of my 158 milage was with Central though.

My first problem was a 2 hour delay due to dragging brakes on a 156+156+158 Nottingham to Skegness, leading to the eventual abandonment of the 158. Another time a 158 refused to release it's brakes at Oakham and then Stamford without the driver opening up and shutting down the rear cab, leading me to miss my connection at Peterborough. To make matters worse, the next GNER Newcastle (which I had to pick up at Doncaster) had the 91 blunt end first so was late and lost even more time. Another similar incident the 158 operating the "Ivanhoe" shuttle from Leicester to Loughborough failed and was cancelled, meaning I missed my connection at Leicester only to find the next Stansted was also cancelled, and the direct Birmingham - Norwich that ran at that time was also delayed and was then crush loaded on leaving. Twice a 158 has failed at Norwich, leaving me to get the next in an hour (this was before the Cambridge service). Another big one was a 158 which had a big engine failure near Manton Junction, leading to a 2 hour delay, thankfully having limped to Oakham (especially as the aircon was not working and everyone had moved into the front coach as the back coach smelt of diesel). Finally, whilst not the 158s fault I also ended up spending nearly an hour stuck on a 158 at Saltley due to a Gas Leak near New Street Station. Another thing was that once Central lost the centre cars, seeing a 158 approaching was a guarantee of a fairly cramped journey, wheras especially on Liverpool to Norwich a Turbostar had a good chance of being 3 coaches.

 

[4SRKT]

47s. Duffs. Spoons. Whatever you want to call 'em. They were definitely not well regarded back in the day, but now they seem to have mysteriously been imbued with the spirit of 'classic traction' as though they were 37s or something.

Far too many days out ruined by these machines in the past. 'Getting bowled' was almost a synonym for a duff turning up.

 

[mumrar]

Peaks of all variants.

The reason for my dislike?

Try as I might to enjoy them, at every single gala one has been present (mostly on the SVR) they have partly or totally failed before I get behind them. Is it so hard to give me a short and untaxing 25mph thrill ride somewhere?

One exception to this rule is the GCR's peak, which has performed faultlessly on about 3 occassions I have gone for it.

 

[Pumbaa]

321s - cannot sit comfortably in them at all and were not looked after internally by Silver****e or LM; they made commuting unbearable.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Agree on 321s, I've always found the ride on them to be particularly poor at speed. Worst experiance was doing Birmingham to Coventry on one which was hunting horribly. It was scary. So glad I was not going all the way to Euston on it. Expect maintenance was a part as I've never found the 319s as bad and they have identical bogies. All the AC EMU pantograph+motor coaches ride heavy, afterall they are about 50t, but the Silverlink/LM 321s just seemed worse. Had some pretty lively rides on the GEML with 321s too, although none to the same standard.

 

[asylumxl]

I use them regularly, and no enthusiast can change my opinion.

HSTs. They're not awful, and they were iconic, were being the key word. Times have moved on and I can not stand the average enthusiasts dribble about how awesome they are, really can't. Most refuse to even acknowledge the good qualities of modern rolling stock. They also have quite slow acceleration compared to modern equivalent trains.

 

[142094]

Not sure if Pendos or Voyagers are 'popular', but I hate them. If I'd wanted to travel on a plane I would have, terrible design.

 

[Pumbaa]

I use them regularly, and no enthusiast can change my opinion.

HSTs. They're not awful, and they were iconic, were being the key word. Times have moved on and I can not stand the average enthusiasts dribble about how awesome they are, really can't.

So glad someone else has said it before me. I also find IC70 horribly uncomfortable, the Mk3s draughty and bad ride, and the number of wibblers onboard at times almost embarrassing!

 

[Darandio]

I use them regularly, and no enthusiast can change my opinion.

HSTs. They're not awful, and they were iconic, were being the key word. Times have moved on and I can not stand the average enthusiasts dribble about how awesome they are, really can't. Most refuse to even acknowledge the good qualities of modern rolling stock. They also have quite slow acceleration compared to modern equivalent trains.

I am sure many will "chip in" to it but I will go first and this is in no way an "enthusiast" point of view.

It's not so much the HST itself, its the Mk3. I can acknowledge modern stock, but the routes I travel, my "rivals" are either a Mk3, Mk4 or Voyager with the odd 185 which doesn't count for the journeys I make.

In comparison, put a Mk3/4 up against a Voyager and it all becomes obvious. Make it because I am not a fan of underfloor engines and the comparison is even more obvious. The rattle is terrible, seats vibrate which in turn make the fold down tables unbearable, it just isn't a pleasant ride. However, I am not one that will book a journey to avoid them, if you need to get from a to b, they do it just as well.

Then comes Mk3/4 and the choice between. In opposition to my first line about a non enthusiast view, maybe it is blinkered but I still feel the Mk3 to be better both from a ride and build quality perspective and on a long journey, it's pretty important. The Mk3 has always had a "feel" as if it was right, you took your seat and sat back, enjoyed it if you will, the many corporate adverts wanted you to have just that. Unfortunately, any modern equivalent just doesn't have the same feel anymore and whether it's a sign of changing times, that feeling was evocative with rail travel.

 

[BrummyBoy]

Merserrail spec Class 142's - bumpy, uncomertable and no leg room at all (and they looked horrible in yellow)

 

[ainsworth74]

Actually I think even the pacer veg (our resident pacer lovers ) have issues with the Mersyrail 142s!

 

[Daimler]

321s - cannot sit comfortably in them at all and were not looked after internally by Silver****e or LM; they made commuting unbearable.

Absolutely. Low seats, appallingly aligned with windows, with an awful banging around the doors whenever another train is passed at speed. And, as you say, they were hardly pampered internally by Silverlink or London Midland.

I use them regularly, and no enthusiast can change my opinion.

HSTs. They're not awful, and they were iconic, were being the key word. Times have moved on and I can not stand the average enthusiasts dribble about how awesome they are, really can't. Most refuse to even acknowledge the good qualities of modern rolling stock. They also have quite slow acceleration compared to modern equivalent trains.

Mmm...I use them very regularly too, and I can't agree with *anything* that you say - my feelings mirror those of Darandio...

I am sure many will "chip in" to it but I will go first and this is in no way an "enthusiast" point of view.

It's not so much the HST itself, its the Mk3. I can acknowledge modern stock, but the routes I travel, my "rivals" are either a Mk3, Mk4 or Voyager with the odd 185 which doesn't count for the journeys I make.

In comparison, put a Mk3/4 up against a Voyager and it all becomes obvious. Make it because I am not a fan of underfloor engines and the comparison is even more obvious. The rattle is terrible, seats vibrate which in turn make the fold down tables unbearable, it just isn't a pleasant ride. However, I am not one that will book a journey to avoid them, if you need to get from a to b, they do it just as well.

Then comes Mk3/4 and the choice between. In opposition to my first line about a non enthusiast view, maybe it is blinkered but I still feel the Mk3 to be better both from a ride and build quality perspective and on a long journey, it's pretty important. The Mk3 has always had a "feel" as if it was right, you took your seat and sat back, enjoyed it if you will, the many corporate adverts wanted you to have just that. Unfortunately, any modern equivalent just doesn't have the same feel anymore and whether it's a sign of changing times, that feeling was evocative with rail travel.

I concur - they offer a more relaxing and pleasant ambience than any other train I know - it's something almost indefinable about the general design of the vehicle, the sense of solidity and dependability. And it's not an 'enthusiast-loco-fan' view - I enjoyed the 442s for the same reason, and am a huge fan of the 444s because they are the modern trains which, to my mind, come closest to offering the 'quality' feel of the Mk3 coach.

 

[Kneedown]

153's, 156's and 158's. Not comfortable at all and claustrophobic cabs. Nowadays they all seem to be suffering from low power too, although to be fair, 153302 is going like a rocket at the minute. I think the fitters have pimped it up with with nitrous oxide!
During my Toton days it was class 20's. Noisy, rattly uncomfortable things and i always seemed to get a pair when my mates got 58's, 56's and 60's. Strange that now i'd do (almost) anything to give a pair another thrash!

 

[Ivo]

Add me to the 321 group. Boring as hell, not the fastest to accelerate, dreary to travel in for more than about 20 minutes and a very empty/vacant feeling inside the unit (compare to Electrostars which appear the opposite). But it's already known that I do not like 321s! They just feel like a spruced up 315, another I dislike.

I will concede though, for players of OpenTTD 321s are a useful addition if you have the UK Renewal Train Set GRF file!

 

[junglejames]

I use them regularly, and no enthusiast can change my opinion.

HSTs. They're not awful, and they were iconic, were being the key word. Times have moved on and I can not stand the average enthusiasts dribble about how awesome they are, really can't. Most refuse to even acknowledge the good qualities of modern rolling stock. They also have quite slow acceleration compared to modern equivalent trains.

Ooh, now thats opening up a can of worms. Few problems though. Just because you dont like them, does that mean enthusiasts are talking dribble? Not sure about that. Actually, whilst they obviously have their faults (which have now become quirks more than anything), they really are awesome trains. The fact they are all still in very high demand (years after they were meant to slowly be replaced) shows this quite nicely. Nice and simple design has led to a reliable, versatile train still at its peak 30yrs into its life.
Yes, a modern HST could have better acceleration and power, and it could iron out the little faults that people pick up on the Mk3, but it is still a fantastic train. Reliable, versatile, comfortable (ok questioned by a few people who dont like IC70 seats), pleasant airy atmosphere onboard, fantastic ride quality (sorry, whoever it was said they havent got good ride quality, but they have. Not much rivals it.)

Also, you mention its slow acceleration compared to the modern equivalents. Interesting considering i cant find a modern equivalent in this country.
The only other diesel 125mph passenger trains in this country are 180s, and the 22?s. This isnt a fair comparison as they have engines under every coach. This is always going to lead to faster acceleration, but they are very different because of this. Unfair comparison. They may run on some similar journeys, but that doesnt make them equivalent.

To be fair though, lets now pick up on the qualities of modern rolling stock, as you claim too many people dont. Well they are usually more reliable, and in the case of most Siemens' EMUs, have a very smooth ride. Turbostars are very versatile.
Pendos and Voyagers are reliable (usually) and have quick acceleration, and some can tilt. Pendos are extremely sturdy trains, and have lovely comfy seats for the drivers!

If people dont like HSTs, thats fine, but to say other people talk dribble because they point out that they are good trains, is slightly unfair.

As for popular trains that i dont like. Are voyagers and pendos popular? If so, then thats them. They are the only trains I dont like, and its purely because of the standard class interior, the extreme rattling evident on the voyagers when accelerating, and the lightweight bogies on the 220s. Causes them to feel every single nook and cranny possible. Poor ride quality on those.

 

[At_traction]

Does anyone else have a particular train type that is generally well regarded but they look down on due to personal experiance?

Well, some the examples given above can be regarded as "popular" in terms of being "populated" due to no choice from the TOC and hardly any of them that can be said to be uniformly popular for users as in "well-liked". Even the HST, which can be regarded as iconic in the classic ECML HS services is hardly at that level of veneration for FGW commuter use - although possibly better-regarded than some choices, though.

So, any train type can have its likers and dislikers with equal fervour - for actual performance/interior experience or simply because its perceived goodness gets under the skin. Frankly, I expected the thread to be about train services/lines/parts of franchises per se rather than train types *bit of yawn* but there you go.

As for the topic, after this winter the reply could be: all of them.

 

[colpepper]

Peaks of all variants.

The reason for my dislike?

Try as I might to enjoy them, at every single gala one has been present (mostly on the SVR) they have partly or totally failed before I get behind them. Is it so hard to give me a short and untaxing 25mph thrill ride somewhere?

One exception to this rule is the GCR's peak, which has performed faultlessly on about 3 occassions I have gone for it.

I travelled on Peaks regularly before 125s came in and failure was the norm rather than the exception. They were completely knackered by the early 80s and most drifted to their destinations on half power or were relieved by other traction.

A few put in sterling performances and I suspect depots knew which could be thrashed and which had to be nursed. Riding behind one at a gala gives a good impression of their performance in their final years.

 

[stut]

Another vote for the 321s here. How a train can manage to be quite so uncomfortable for such a short journey is quite unfathomable.

They haven't improved under FCC.

Actually, I now find the comfiest place to sit on them is on the tip-up benches (on the ones that don't have them ripped out).

 

[142094]

Actually I think even the pacer veg (our resident pacer lovers ) have issues with the Mersyrail 142s!

Some of the seats are too small for someone over 6ft tall such as myself. However, pick the right seat and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Rugd1022]

As a young spotter I used to despise Spoons but once I was being paid to ride on them I grew to love them. A bit draughty even in the Summer but I loved the way they swayed from side t oside when coasting, especially downhill.

These days I try to avoid Pendolinos or Voyagers, they're way to cramped for my liking. The modern 350 units are ok but I really miss our old 304s and 310s with the big bouncy seats.

Nidge

 

[Capybara]

37s. Perhaps it's because I remember 40s with such affection.

 

[krus_aragon]

I'll let you decide whether I have good reason for this, but my random hate would be the Class 170.

I was well acquainted with the 175 (after reliability issues were sorted) and 158 up north, and found the 170s to be a poor relation when I encountered them in Cardiff. The 1/3,2/3 door layout feels silly on a regional express service, and I find the ever-scrolling PIS screens annoying.

Strangely, by comparison, I'm indifferent about the 185...

 

[321446]

From a passenger point of view, I do have to agree about the seating in 321s I'm not tall, but those seats....

As a Depot Driver, 315s. The gap between the top crew-step and the cab floor-lip is just enough to leave you with crinkled shins if you are not careful. Are they specially sharpened to keep us awake during night shunting? B****y thing!!

 

[ChrisCooper]

Interesting that many people are talking about the seats on the 321s, and one thing I mentioned was the seats on the 158s. Perhaps the early 90s were not the best time for rolling stock seats? What do people think of 319s, which are almost identical from a passenger point of view (at least in original form)?

I suppose seats and other comfort or ergonomic factors are controversial factors as people are different and therefore what suits one person will not suit another, and not simply as a matter of taste (which is what I was trying to avoid). Oviously people of average size and build (especially based on the time of design) are going to find seats or trains more comfortable than ones who are not.

 

[Eng274]

I'm not sure there's any current rolling stock that gets my goat, I tend to understand most delays, cancellations are seldom the fault of the train itself.

One particular train that repulsed me was the old class 303s used in Strathclyde. when i was through in Glesca for scottish cup games involving Hibs at Hampden (doesn't happen often) a trip on a 303 occasionally beckoned. They were truly awful between 99-01, pee-stained/smelling, drab, uncomfortable, miserable tin cans.. The journey back to Central was often a unhappy one on a 303, anyone who knows of Hibs' record in the competition will know why, but I often felt seriously despondant on one of those units..

 

[MCR247]

and I find the ever-scrolling PIS screens annoying.

Really? I'm the opposite personally because on trains like penodlinos, voyagers, 222s etc if you don't look at the PIS at the right time, you won't see the information again for ages!

 

[lm321412]

350s, 350s, 350s... Got to be my least favourite train EVER. The ride quality is poor, the breaks are far too hard, and the seats are just like cardboard. Add to that the annoying door noises, annoying announcements, annoying air-con and the lifelessness of the trains then you have my least favourite train in the whole world.

I don't know why the 321s are getting so much criticism. OK the maintainence hasn't been the best over SL (and especially LM) but I have to admit that they are my favourite EMUs, always have been and always will be. The seats are better than the ones in a 350/2, They have much quieter doors, They sound much better than a 350 (no spaceship noises), They have opening windows, Plus the interior layout is just a lot less cramped than the one you would find in a 350.

 

[Peter Sarf]

My experience of 319s leads me to dislike two featues of the seating. I have long legs and the face to face seating really does seem to leave one or other knee right up someone elses crotch. The seat I really have to avoid is the lone seat next to the doors that faces towards the centre of the coach (that is with its back to the coach side) - I just cannot find anything to get hold of to help myself get out and there is no elbow room to push down on the seat .

General point about seating comfort is that I suspect different builds/sizes of people need different shaped seats. Just occured to me, however, that in the old mark one compartments you could turn the heat up lie down and sleep through the night. Those were the days :roll:.

But the reason I prefer ECML to WCML is I dread the 390s. Noisy airconditioning is the main thing - high pitched sound of air being forced through small ducts I guess. I get used to it and ignore it but when the aircon stops (briefly) I can feel myself relax immediately. They are quite stress inducing trains unless you are deaf. I can only imagine the person who bought them thought they were quieter then the cabin of an aircraft and so OK (get it ?). The other problem with the aircon is the coach seems to be too cold in summer (My theory is that humans get used to the heat in summer and feel comfortable at a higher temperature than they would do in winter - so we notice it as too cold if the coach has a temperatore set that is as low as in winter). I really do avoid Virgin for the noise reason and dread it if I have to travel on a Pendolino.

Generally speaking I find the whine from underfloor engines tiresome. Which is why I think underfloor engines on Intercity trains a stupid idea. So thats the 220/221/222s dealt with.

As for mark 3s only the faulty floor pressure pad making the door at the end of the compartment open and close is an issue for me. Apart from that give me a Mark 3 or 4 anytime.

I dont really care about acceleration. Just want to get there in reasonable comfort. If its not a relaxing journey then why not drive ?.

 

[brel york]

mk 1 compartments ! havnt worked on one of them for a very long time ,this type of seat is comfy because it has springs in it ,in general most sprung seats are going to be comfy ,a 321/320/319 just has a block of foam on a plywood base ,ic 70s had sprung cushions too and all the mk 2s but they did start life with foam but were changed to springs

 

[Scotrail84]

I'm not sure there's any current rolling stock that gets my goat, I tend to understand most delays, cancellations are seldom the fault of the train itself.

One particular train that repulsed me was the old class 303s used in Strathclyde. when i was through in Glesca for scottish cup games involving Hibs at Hampden (doesn't happen often) a trip on a 303 occasionally beckoned. They were truly awful between 99-01, pee-stained/smelling, drab, uncomfortable, miserable tin cans.. The journey back to Central was often a unhappy one on a 303, anyone who knows of Hibs' record in the competition will know why, but I often felt seriously despondant on one of those units..

Now its crappy 320 314 or 318 even 334s which are all terrible units to travel on. Dont worry the glory days will be back for the Hibs. CC is the man.! GGTTH