My idea for a new Suburban train

[yorksrob]

I’ve never had a jumper that stops the draught around your legs.

That's what trousers are for.

@yorksrob just has a strange fetish for some of the absolute worst trains to have ever run in this country.

You just don't know when you've had it good. I've been on enough Merseyrail pacers and poorly laid out 150's to know what a worse train than an EPB feels like, although I can't claim to have the experience to hubristically claim them as "absolutely the worst trains ever to run in this country".

 

[yorksrob]

Duplicate post.

 

[Journeyman]

You just don't know when you've had it good.

Oh, I really do. I grew up in Southern territory, and their gruesomely conservative rolling stock design was bloody awful. The stuff running around now is infinitely better than anything we had thirty years ago.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh, I really do. I grew up in Southern territory, and their gruesomely conservative rolling stock design was bloody awful. The stuff running around now is infinitely better than anything we had thirty years ago.

I also grew up in Southern territory, and compared to being sat on a Merserail pacer, 142 generally, or even a high density 150 for any amount of time, an VEP/Thumper would be bliss. (Same for the EPB, but over shorter distances due to lack of toilet).

 

[AM9]

Oh, I really do. I grew up in Southern territory, and their gruesomely conservative rolling stock design was bloody awful. The stuff running around now is infinitely better than anything we had thirty years ago.

Similarly, I commuted in GE territory and had side by side comparisons of serious London commuting loadings on both trains that had the same seating/door configurations as the Southern Region and the Southern Railway for 25 years before that with early representatives of the normal high density designs used all over the world today. Despite the slow operating compressed air doors on the class 306 (for those not experienced in London commuting, they were virtually identical to the Manchester Glossop class 506 EMUs and functionally very similar to the Glasgow class 303s & 311s) they coped just as well as the outdated multi slam-door suburban trains. They were much safer and I'm sure, easier to dispatch.
But maybe the UK and the rest of the world made a big mistake getting rid of the old designs and they really were much better than modern 1/3 2/3 sliding door stock and some clueless posters here are just imagining that they weren't so much better.

 

[43096]

That's what trousers are for.

Do let us know when you start wearing long trousers, won’t you? Take off the rose-tinted glasses at the same time.

 

[yorksrob]

Do let us know when you start wearing long trousers, won’t you?

I'm not even going to bother trying to decipher what this comment is supposed to mean.

 

[43096]

I'm not even going to bother trying to decipher what this comment is supposed to mean.

If I had wanted you to understand, I would have explained it better.

 

[Neptune]

Another thought with the suggestion in the OP is that weight would be a huge issue. All those modern door mechinisms weigh a hell of a lot combined with what would need to be a much stronger, therefore heavier construction to make them crashworthy. This would probably render them too heavy to run on the network.

 

[Journeyman]

I also grew up in Southern territory, and compared to being sat on a Merserail pacer, 142 generally, or even a high density 150 for any amount of time, an VEP/Thumper would be bliss. (Same for the EPB, but over shorter distances due to lack of toilet).

VEPs and EPBs were cramped, draughty, often freezing cold and damp inside, and had all sorts of features that should have been long confined to history by the time they were built. In the case of the EPBs, the lack of gangways and isolated compartments made them dangerous. The Thumpers were the same, with the addition of seriously feeble acceleration and loads of noise and vibration.

I really, really don't get your admiration for these trains. They represent the absolute nadir of BR rolling stock design and were kept in service for far too long.

Look at the huge upswing in passenger numbers on the Uckfield line since the Turbostars came along. I know what I'd rather commute in every day, and I say that as someone who spent a LOT of time chasing Thumpers in their final years.

 

[yorksrob]

If I had wanted you to understand, I would have explained it better.

Carry on foaming.

VEPs and EPBs were cramped, draughty, often freezing cold and damp inside, and had all sorts of features that should have been long confined to history by the time they were built. In the case of the EPBs, the lack of gangways and isolated compartments made them dangerous. The Thumpers were the same, with the addition of seriously feeble acceleration and loads of noise and vibration.

I really, really don't get your admiration for these trains. They represent the absolute nadir of BR rolling stock design and were kept in service for far too long.

Look at the huge upswing in passenger numbers on the Uckfield line since the Turbostars came along. I know what I'd rather commute in every day, and I say that as someone who spent a LOT of time chasing Thumpers in their final years.

You used the phrase "absolute worst trains ever to have run in this country".

Taking into account the full range of stock built from the earliest days of open-topped wagons to Merseyrail pacers, I suspect that your opinions are far from objective.

 

[Journeyman]

You used the phrase "absolute worst trains ever to have run in this country".

Taking into account the full range of stock built from the earliest days of open-topped wagons to Merseyrail pacers, I suspect that your opinions are far from objective.

Well, I'm no fan of whataboutery, but yours aren't either. I have no idea why you get so offended by people not liking these trains, and why you're so desperate to defend them.

I'll qualify my statement then - the EPBs and VEPs were among the worst trains to have run in this country, based on what it was possible to do with the technology, budget and accepted standards at the time.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I'm no fan of whataboutery, but yours aren't either. I have no idea why you get so offended by people not liking these trains, and why you're so desperate to defend them.

I'll qualify my statement then - the EPBs and VEPs were among the worst trains to have run in this country, based on what it was possible to do with the technology, budget and accepted standards at the time.

Actually, I just said that from a design point of view, they hadn't been bettered, and backed up my arguments. You can counter argue that as you wish, however It's the sliding door briggade who've started throwing around phrases about 'rose tinted spectacles', 'nostalgic rants' and some peculiar diatribe about short trousers. You're the ones who throth because someone disagrees with you.

 

[Sprinter107]

Actually, I just said that from a design point of view, they hadn't been bettered, and backed up my arguments. You can counter argue that as you wish, however It's the sliding door briggade who've started throwing around phrases about 'rose tinted spectacles', 'nostalgic rants' and some peculiar diatribe about short trousers. You're the ones who throth because someone disagrees with you.

I also liked the suburban units. As someone who grew up with 116, 117, 304 and 310 units, they really were very good at what they did. And I'm not looking thro rose tinted glasses either.

 

[Journeyman]

Actually, I just said that from a design point of view, they hadn't been bettered, and backed up my arguments. You can counter argue that as you wish, however It's the sliding door briggade who've started throwing around phrases about 'rose tinted spectacles', 'nostalgic rants' and some peculiar diatribe about short trousers. You're the ones who throth because someone disagrees with you.

I haven't done any frothing - I just think the bolded statement is demonstrably false, and whatever arguments existed for building slam-door stock in the fifties and sixties certainly don't exist now. If you presented the average person who travels by train with an EPB or, say, a Desiro or an Electrostar, and asked them what they'd rather travel on, it's blindingly obvious. Dwell time issues are now not even remotely an issue on the slam-door vs. sliding-door front, and haven't been for years - sliding doors are much safer and allow a much better use of space, along with a more comfortable travelling environment.

Doors to every bay are a nightmare if you're constantly getting trampled on and exposed to wind and rain. I hated them.

"Sliding door brigade" is a nonsensical statement, like we're some sort of cult! Realistically, what other kinds of door are railways going to use?!?

 

[30907]

I worked a 333 into Leeds this morning and estimate was that there were well over 400 people on board (360 seats with not all the middle of 3 ones used of course) and every doorway full. I timed how long it took to disgorge at Leeds and it was about 50 seconds. There was a 4 minute turnaround with around 40-50 people boarding, mostly through the 4 doors in the back 2 coaches and the crew was in position to depart with all passengers boarded a good 2 minutes prior to departure. I put this down to the fact that around 2 or 3 people got off the train at once and everyone nicely filtered through the wide doors and all done safely. No tripping over legs as often happened in 308 days.

I do see why people believe it was faster when there were doors to every seating bay but it is very efficient with the current suburban layout.

I did the same check (as a passenger with luggage, so I was last off) on a peak arrival (ex Forster Square so not crush loaded) and got exactly the same result, 50 sec to empty the train.

It then took a couple of minutes to get off the platform BTW.

 

[yorksrob]

I haven't done any frothing - I just think the bolded statement is demonstrably false, and whatever arguments existed for building slam-door stock in the fifties and sixties certainly don't exist now. If you presented the average person who travels by train with an EPB or, say, a Desiro or an Electrostar, and asked them what they'd rather travel on, it's blindingly obvious. Dwell time issues are now not even remotely an issue on the slam-door vs. sliding-door front, and haven't been for years - sliding doors are much safer and allow a much better use of space, along with a more comfortable travelling environment.

Doors to every bay are a nightmare if you're constantly getting trampled on and exposed to wind and rain. I hated them.

Well, I didn't find doors to every bay "a nightmare" or anything of the sort, just as I find the oft stated "more comfortable" aspect of modern stock to be entirely illusory.

Your views might by coloured by your irrational hatred of such stock, but don't expect mine to be.

 

[Journeyman]

Well, I didn't find doors to every bay "a nightmare" or anything of the sort, just as I find the oft stated "more comfortable" aspect of modern stock to be entirely illusory.

I'm just pointing out that you're probably more or less on your own here. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I just can't understand why you feel it's necessary to extol the virtues of a design of train that was very, very unpopular with most people who used them regularly.

In any case, there are plenty of older trains notorious for being uncomfortable. First batch of 4-SUBs had very narrow compartments, and the Southern's 2-HALs had seats which were, by all accounts, the Ironing Boards of their day.

 

[yorksrob]

I also liked the suburban units. As someone who grew up with 116, 117, 304 and 310 units, they really were very good at what they did. And I'm not looking thro rose tinted glasses either.

I'm glad I'm not the only one !

I'm just pointing out that you're probably more or less on your own here. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I just can't understand why you feel it's necessary to extol the virtues of a design of train that was very, very unpopular with most people who used them regularly.

In any case, there are plenty of older trains notorious for being uncomfortable. First batch of 4-SUBs had very narrow compartments, and the Southern's 2-HALs had seats which were, by all accounts, the Ironing Boards of their day.

Whilst I'll admit I'm in the minority, there are some of us who did use those trains regularly, and found them a perfectly good travel environment. However, as this thread shows, there are some who find it impossible to accept.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm younger so grew up with the 308s on the Aire Valley, which replaced Pacers. You got off quicker, definitely, but getting on was always more interesting. Certainly at Shipley in the morning peak it was fun having to trot along the train to find a bay where you could get on, and then having to get on slowly and in single file to avoid standing on feet/clobbering people with rucksacks.

I generally sat in the declassified 1st class bit to avoid the draughts from the doors and to avoid having my toes trampled. The 308s were nicer than the Pacers with bus seats they replaced- especially the 141s which were still kicking about- but hardly a gold standard of comfort worth reminiscing over.

The 333s with their big wide vestibules and nice seats are beautiful things in comparison, why would anyone want to go back?

 

[Journeyman]

I'm younger so grew up with the 308s on the Aire Valley, which replaced Pacers. You got off quicker, definitely, but getting on was always more interesting. Certainly at Shipley in the morning peak it was fun having to trot along the train to find a bay where you could get on, and then having to get on slowly and in single file to avoid standing on feet/clobbering people with rucksacks.

I generally sat in the declassified 1st class bit to avoid the draughts from the doors and to avoid having my toes trampled. The 308s were nicer than the Pacers with bus seats they replaced- especially the 141s which were still kicking about- but hardly a gold standard of comfort worth reminiscing over.

Won't be long before a certain poster blames that on their 1980s refurbishment - before that, they were mystical palaces of luxury, made of pure gold with seats stuffed with magical unicorn hair. But in all seriousness, yes, they weren't great at all, and the layout didn't work at all for modern commuting, where most people like to have a bit of space to read, work, put bags etc.

The 333s with their big wide vestibules and nice seats are beautiful things in comparison, why would anyone want to go back?

I think BR went through a low point with the PEP family and the early Mark 3 EMUs, especially the ones with the horrible low-back seating, but things got a lot better after that. SWT's early 2000s refurb of the Class 455 was transformational, and shows how suburban trains should be done - the way the space is used internally is really good, and it's infinitely better than anything you could do with slam doors.

 

[AM9]

Nostalgia aside, I think some were attracted to the old compartment stock because they usually managed to get a seat by the door that they exited from. That meant that they were the first off and away. The only problem they had was boarders stepping across their feet. A personal view like that is not unlike that expressed by those who travel on trains from their origin to their end destination, (typically from a dormitory town to a city terminus) where the train fills gradually towards the city. They can choose their seat at leisure whilst boarders at later stops stand or in extreme cases, can't even get on. When the overcrowding is addressed by the railway, the trend is to provide trains with less seating but much more and safer room for standees, - a relief for those previously unable to board but the poor end-to-end travellers might get a less comfortable ride with all those awful standees spoiling their view.

 

[yorksrob]

Won't be long before a certain poster blames that on their 1980s refurbishment - before that, they were mystical palaces of luxury, made of pure gold with seats stuffed with magical unicorn hair. But in all seriousness, yes, they weren't great at all, and the layout didn't work at all for modern commuting, where most people like to have a bit of space to read, work, put bags etc.



I think BR went through a low point with the PEP family and the early Mark 3 EMUs, especially the ones with the horrible low-back seating, but things got a lot better after that. SWT's early 2000s refurb of the Class 455 was transformational, and shows how suburban trains should be done - the way the space is used internally is really good, and it's infinitely better than anything you could do with slam doors.

If "modern commuting' means "a bit of space to read, work or put things" then eighty percent of the commuting fleet isn't suited to modern commuting.

The 308's had facing bays of 3 seats, as do the 333's, so how this is supposed to magically translate into more space to do those things on a 333 in the rush hour, I don't know.

And just in case by "a certain poster" you are referring to me, then I don't doubt that there would have been aspects of the 308's pre-refurb that would have been more to my taste than post. Still, they were jolly good.

Perhaps when they brought in the 333's they should have electrified the Hallam line and cascaded the 308's to us. Would have been a vast improvement on the cramped and poorly laid out 150 I'm commuting on right now.

(And yes, I did commute on the 308's and did head for the downgraded 1st class saloon for the additional luxury).

 

[Neptune]

I loved the 308’s. I commuted on them from Shipley to Leeds prior to working them when I started as a guard. The seats were comfy, the declassified 1st class was a bonus and they had masses of character missing in more modern stock. Once I started working them there was the brilliant guard van space with the comfy swivel chair.

However, times move on. I fully appreciate that everyone has different preferences and mine is certainly for the 308’s from an enthusiast point of view. But the 333’s and their ilk are what the modern commuter expects. I think the previous post regarding space is more about standee room rather than the seating. Like it or not standing room is a requirement in commuting and the 308’s were overly cramped in that respect when I commuted from Shipley. Boarding was slow and a complete pain and it was a decidedly uncomfortable commute on the busy trains. Although the 333’s get crowded there is at least plenty of circulation space in the doorways which the 308’s certainly didn’t have. Just a narrow aisle trying to share a hand grab with your new close up and personal friend.

Commuter trains for me are more about space and how it is used and I personally think from both a commuter and a staff point of view the current style of train is better.

On another point it took about 90 seconds for a crush loaded 2 car 155 to unload in platform 7 at Leeds this morning! Now that is poor commuter train design.

 

[yorksrob]

If I end up standing, I'm always in a bad mood for the rest of the morning.

 

[Terry Tait]

Thanks for the interesting answers, I understand that my original idea is most likely a non runner and I don't want to cause established members here to fall out, it was just an idea to kick around.

 

[Bald Rick]

I did many journeys on VEPs and EPBs in my younger days. I remember them being emptier than today, and not much difficulty boarding and alighting, but then I almost exclusively travelled off peak.

I also remember the seats being pretty bouncy and usually dirty, draughty (particularly with windows not shutting properly), half a coach in each unit devoted to a van that was universally empty, almost impossible to board with an occupied pushchair or any luggage more than a small holdall, no passenger information (save for a very rare announcement) and regular irritating delays when someone didn’t shut a door. Most importantly I remember witnessing a ‘well refreshed’ individual alighting when waiting outside a station with predictable results, and the knowledge that if you were sitting at the end of a coach when there was any form of collision you would have the underframe of the next coach coming through your seat back.

No question that current units are better. Much better.

 

[Taunton]

and the knowledge that if you were sitting at the end of a coach when there was any form of collision you would have the underframe of the next coach coming through your seat back.

This is avoided by installing anticlimbers on the vehicle ends. Compulsory on USA vehicles for a good while.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is avoided by installing anticlimbers on the vehicle ends. Compulsory on USA vehicles for a good while.

Indeed. But wasn’t on Mk1 stock.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. But wasn’t on Mk1 stock.

Perhaps it should have been.