Most hated Loco/Unit

[16CSVT2700]

Well, I dislike 47/7s (scottish rejects ) for replacing my 50s on waterloo to exeters in the 1990s

Donno bout anything else!!!!!

165102!!!!!

muwhahahahahaha

DEVILSPAWN!!!!!!!!!

taketh that away from thy sight!!!

 

[Sprog]

....taketh that away from thy sight!!!

SHANT...!

 

[16CSVT2700]

Cthulhlu commands thee to kneel!!

 

[Sprog]

Bite me!

 

[trains2]

Well we all have different tastes and i'm probably not going to be popular but i hate the Wessex Electrics 442s.
Outdated,doors open to slow and are to narrow,seats not comfortable and they seem to brake down more often then any other unit.

Dragging this up again; how can you say that?!?!

I have found that the seats are very comfortable - so much better than the new plastic. They are wide and deep and cos its all 2x2, it means you get more comfyness per person. :P I could sit in one all day.

The doors may be narrow, but I find they are normally fine. It is only a problem when Mr. & Mrs. Just Got Of The Plane From Australia turn up with umpteen amounts of luggage, and you have to bundle your way onto the train. I do agree the doors are slow to open, but you get that nice slow closing effect and sound when they do close.

I think they are the best EMU's around - dated you say, well they are but they're going in for refurb as we speak, and I'm sure you'll be one of these people being sorry to see them go in 20 years time.

 

[Techniquest]

Sorry to do it again, but I agree with ChrisM still there. 442s = DEVILSPAWN!!!

*Reaches for the giant axe, buys a SSR to SWT territory to axe the 442s*

 

[Tom]

I don't see how people like Mk3's but hate 442s...

 

[Mojo]

Because you can't open the windows unless they're unlocked :roll: :P

I've only ever been First Class on a 442, so can't really comment, but I really liked them, much better than the slams whenever I went down to Portsmouth.

 

[Techniquest]

TC, 442s and MK3s of the loco-hauled variety are not one and the same. Riding conditions for me are far superior in a MK3, the vestibule are of a decent size in a MK3, the toilets are far better in a MK3, MK3s have doors that don't take longer than Desiro doors to open and close, the doors on MK3s have a more satisfying sound than a slide-door does too. Nothing like slamming a HST door shut.

It's a wonder the coupling at Bournemouth is still possible, what with the ram raids they suffer when the drivers slam into the other unit...When they said to stay seated, they really mean it. Still, it's a bit too much.

 

[Tom]

No-one stays seated. It isn't really that much of a bump anymore!

 

[Techniquest]

Oh, they've changed it since September 2005?

EDIT: I know no-one stays seated, which renders the announcements useless, but what if someone fell and had an accident as a result of banging their head on the vestibule wall after the force from the rear unit's slam threw them across the vestibule? Don't know if it's happened, but had a similar incident (except the brake force on my HST didn't cause it) at Reading coming back from Paddington when we were held there for about 10 minutes whilst someone was carted off to hospital!

 

[Tom]

At Bournemouth station, when I last visited Poole and they coupled at Bournemouth, they literally stopped about half a metre short of the other unit, and just pushed forward slightly. It's not really a bump anymore. It's just a slight judder. Definately doesn't affect how you stand or anything anymore.

 

[Techniquest]

Well we'll see about that won't we. From experience, it was so harsh a bump I wanted to jump out of my seat and tell the driver to watch what he was doing! I know you've got to make sure the coupling is tight, but ramming? I'll have to pop down to the fair when it comes in May and get a shot of the sign saying 'No Bumping'...

 

[Met Driver]

The extent to which the driver pushes forward varies between stock. The 375 routine at Faversham is very smooth and hardly noticeable, for example, and no announcement is made. I assume it has something to do with the type of coupling fitted (ie some require more of a 'ram' than others!).

 

[Techniquest]

Suppose, but it's the 442s I noticed bumps on, nowt else (unless I'm especially looking out for it).

Even if it were a smooth join, I still hate the things with a passion!

 

[Sprog]

i hate no units

only voyagers, but i dont hate them, as they are trains, but they are uysed on wrong routes.

BNS to Norwich on a 220, yeah, ok!!!!....Cardiff - BNS on a 220, yeah, fine!!!! But PNZ - Glasgow/Edinbrugh on one. NOOOOOOOOOO :x :roll:

Virgin are in denial, they should admiitt their mistake, and take up HST2. The wen HST2 is done, pass on the voayagers, refurbish them and out them on the above mentioned routes and similar.

If i only i was in charge of the DfT.

Goes and finishes whiskey............................

 

[TheSlash]

Suppose, but it's the 442s I noticed bumps on, nowt else (unless I'm especially looking out for it).

Even if it were a smooth join, I still hate the things with a passion!

442 couplings can be a b*stard and sometimes need abit of persuading, then you also need to do a pull away test.
I know you live in sprinter land, the BSI can be just as bad
I was called down to the fuel point on nights once to a driver almost in tears that every electrical circuit was going mental after he coupled up. After we split the units {persuasion 8) } i looked at the electrical connection boxes of both units and found that the box of 1 unit had dropped slightly, only by about an inch, but it was enough difference to allow pin 1 to go into recep 10 instead of recep 1 for example. This meant mis matched electrical circuits and triggered the fire alarm etc etc. I re alinged the electrical box and held it in place with a crowbar while the units coupled, no problem 8)

 

[Techniquest]

lol, hmm, fair enough.

 

[yorkie]

Well, I dislike 47/7s (scottish rejects ) for replacing my 50s on waterloo to exeters in the 1990s

Donno bout anything else!!!!!

Don't you mean 159s?

I don't know the exact history, but 47's can't have lasted long and would just have been a stop-gap. As for coming from Scotland, that would be because the 158s that replaced 47s on the Scottish main lines were introduced before the 159s on Waterloo-Exeter. But at the end of the day 47s and 57s hauling long trains were replaced by short DMUs that now struggle to cope with passenger demand.

It was decided that it's better to squeeze people in 3-car 159s rather than provide plenty of room on a longer loco hauled train, although that's possibly because there was a ressession on at that time and passenger numbers were not so high.