• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Pendolino testing - ECML

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
A lot of people would like to have them

I know but what they ideally want and what will eventually be provided might be different.

Honestly though two hours is nothing. They could have a trolley service or set up a mini shop selling food.
 
Last edited:

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
I'm sure lots of people would like to have lots of things, doesn't mean it makes business sense.

Too true.

Would 444s improve journey times based on 350 acceleration and 110mph running (if approved)???
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In other words a buffet?

Maybe. Not a buffet car though. Just part of a coach set up with a help yourself and pay selection. Over half of that coach could still be used for seating.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,630
Location
Redcar
Maybe. Not a buffet car though. Just part of a coach set up with a help yourself and pay selection. Over half of that coach could still be used for seating.

So rather like all buffets found in service with TOCs? On the 444 they're tiny, even on Mk4 which has a counter and full kitchen there's still around half a coach given over to standard class seating!
 

ushawk

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Messages
1,965
Location
Eastbourne
HSTs would stay, what else will run to Hull, Inverness, Aberdeen, Harrogate etc

Well, until the IEP comes anyway, which if new Pendos were ordered may be around the same time.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
So rather like all buffets found in service with TOCs? On the 444 they're tiny, even on Mk4 which has a counter and full kitchen there's still around half a coach given over to standard class seating!

Even better then just a fifth of the coach required for food.
 

D1009

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2012
Messages
3,166
Location
Stoke Gifford
12/3 5Z10

Edinburgh 22:24 Marshall Meadows 23/05 Berwick 23/07 Alnmouth 23/24 Morpeth 23/35 Newcastle 23:57 00:02 Durham 00/13 Ferryhill South Jn 00/19 Darlington 00/26 Northallerton 00/49 Thirsk 00/53 Tollerton 00/59 York 01:12 01:21 Colton Jn 01/29 Kings Cross 04:54

13/3 5Z11

Kings Cross 23:34 Colton Jn 02/02 York 02:10 02:15 Tollerton 02/25 Thirsk 02/31 Northallerton 02/42 Darlington 02/49 Ferryhill South Jn 02/56 Durham 03/02 Newcastle 03:28 03:42 Morpeth 03/55 Alnmouth 04/12 Berwick 04:49 05:20 Marshall Meadows 05/22 Edinburgh 06:09

Here are some more times :

5Z10 night of 12/3/12 Doncaster 01/57 Tue, Peterborough 03.06-03.15, Stevenage 04/17. Seems a very slow schedule.

Spends Tuesday at Ferme Park, should be visible.

5Z11 night of 13/3/12 Stevenage 23/54, Peterborough 00/46 Wed, Doncaster 01/47.

Does anyone know the reason for this move ?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,630
Location
Redcar
Even better then just a fifth of the coach required for food.

Depends what you want to do though. If it's just a space to sell effectively the same things as you would find on a trolley then it can be tiny (see 444s and 180s for example) but if it's a space to also prepare full meals then it's always going to be about half a coach length in order to fit the kitchen in.

If thats a FGW 180, looks the same as a FHT one - cant see the name on the side that clear.

They have the same livery but if you zoom in you can see that it says First Great Western on the side.
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Depends what you want to do though. If it's just a space to sell effectively the same things as you would find on a trolley then it can be tiny (see 444s and 180s for example) but if it's a space to also prepare full meals then it's always going to be about half a coach length in order to fit the kitchen in.

How small was the buffet on the FHT 170s?
 

GNER 373

Member
Joined
28 Apr 2010
Messages
510
Location
Gateshead
Anyway back to the Pendos, I've read a few posts on here about them and a lot of people don't seem to keen on them? I've only ever been on one Liverpool to London Euston run which I thoroughly enjoyed....so what is it people don't like? They are comfortable, quick and quiet...

I can understand the small window complaints so there's one out the way!
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
...so what is it people don't like? They are comfortable, quick and quiet...

They are quite narrow, but they're an eight-degree tilting train, what do you expect?

Honestly I think some people have a sense of inflated nostalgia, that a locomotive-hauled rake with twelve tables per carriage and panoramic windows is per se better than a faster, more reliable and higher-capacity MU... often there's a lack of justification for this view.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,250
Location
Fenny Stratford
180s bound for mcwabtec ran via Edinburgh

Gc 180s have run via darlo to Newcastle both with passengers in times of disruption and ecs
 

philjo

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2009
Messages
2,892
The ride on the pendos is nice and smooth but I find that the small windows make them very claustrophobic in standard class due to the seat density - especially as from many of the seats you cannot actually see out of the window.
First class is OK as at least most of the seats have a whole window to look through.

I would prefer an electric Voyager or Meridian unit - as their windows are larger.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
They are quite narrow, but they're an eight-degree tilting train, what do you expect?

Honestly I think some people have a sense of inflated nostalgia, that a locomotive-hauled rake with twelve tables per carriage and panoramic windows is per se better than a faster, more reliable and higher-capacity MU... often there's a lack of justification for this view.

APT was actually narrower, and Pendys are slightly out-of-gauge when they tilt, which was one reason why they need TASS and APT did not. Mk IVs have very similar dimensions to an APT.
 

Mike C

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Messages
161
I just took a journey from Wakefield to Peterborough today and was thinking about how I was so glad it wasn't a Pendolino that I was in.

Yes times written as HH:MM means it is stopping or departing at that time and HH/MM indicates a timed pass at that time.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
They are quite narrow, but they're an eight-degree tilting train, what do you expect?

Honestly I think some people have a sense of inflated nostalgia, that a locomotive-hauled rake with twelve tables per carriage and panoramic windows is per se better than a faster, more reliable and higher-capacity MU... often there's a lack of justification for this view.

I feel the nostalgia factor myself. Keep comparing everything to Mk3 and 4. Anyways, I like the futuristic style of the Pendolinos. Would be great if the windows and seats lined up. If they eventually refit them, they may be even better.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Problem is, to get the windows and seats to line up you'd need to reduce the number of seats...

Could new seats be of a lower height then? More light would pass around the carriage and people could see the window in front etc? Like Mk3 original seats.
 

Mike C

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Messages
161
Class 365's got the formula right - the seats don't line up with windows, but it doesn't seem to matter. Plenty of room, bright and airy. The seats in the 365's are lower-backed than the latest generations of trains and refurbs which I suspect are that way partly to do with GMRT standards as much as anything else.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Class 365's got the formula right - the seats don't line up with windows, but it doesn't seem to matter. Plenty of room, bright and airy. The seats in the 365's are lower-backed than the latest generations of trains and refurbs which I suspect are that way partly to do with GMRT standards as much as anything else.

Those seats with movable armrests would pretty much solve it!
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Class 365's got the formula right - the seats don't line up with windows, but it doesn't seem to matter. Plenty of room, bright and airy. The seats in the 365's are lower-backed than the latest generations of trains and refurbs which I suspect are that way partly to do with GMRT standards as much as anything else.

Agreed there!

I've just googled GMRT and have found no sensible answer as to what it is. What is it?
 

Mike C

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Messages
161
rgsonline have the GMRT standards. Something like GMRT/2100 which deals with crashworthiness and loading of rail vehicle structures and from memory, it also deals with interior aspects. These documents are updated as technology advances but also in response to incidents and findings by bodies such as RAIB.

It has been found, for example that ceiling panels falling are the main (most frequent) cause of head injuries in derailments and collisions. Recommendations are made by the RAIB, and in time the standards are updated.

I *think* that it has been found that these larger and higher backed seats are found to provide more support in rapid decelerations associated with collisions or derailments. Also, there is a minimum radius for edges and corners which also tends to make them larger than they were in years gone by.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Extract from GM/GN2687:

GN107 For a passenger with their back to the direction of travel, with a low seat back, the most likely injury mechanism occurs as the head rotates about the neck into or over the seat top and then rotates in the opposite direction as the body rebounds from the seat back. To avoid this type of injury and also ‘whiplash’ injuries, limits on neck rotation and neck injury criteria are specified. The most straightforward method to meet the requirements set out is to use high backed seats but alternative approaches can be adopted provided that the performance criteria are satisfied.

GN108 For a passenger projected forward in a collision with unidirectional low seat backs there is the additional risk of passing over the top of the seat in front with the possibility of more serious injuries for themselves and other passengers.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In addition:

GN109 The seat height dimensional requirement (set out in 6.2 of superseded document AV/ST9001) should be regarded as empirical as it has not been possible to trace the technical provenance. The resulting maximum seat back height is typically between 1280 mm and 1290 mm above floor level. The 25 mm dimension has been amended to 20 mm for consistency with automotive headrest standards.

GN110 Rail vehicle disability regulations (PRM TSI) specify seatback handholds at between 800 mm and 1200 mm above floor level (4.2.2.2.1 of PRM TSI) which could limit the practical height of a seat, depending on the shape of the seat back. In determining an optimum seat height, wider issues such as the requirements of CCTV systems and passenger security should also be considered.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
rgsonline have the GMRT standards. Something like GMRT/2100 which deals with crashworthiness and loading of rail vehicle structures and from memory, it also deals with interior aspects. These documents are updated as technology advances but also in response to incidents and findings by bodies such as RAIB.

It has been found, for example that ceiling panels falling are the main (most frequent) cause of head injuries in derailments and collisions. Recommendations are made by the RAIB, and in time the standards are updated.

I *think* that it has been found that these larger and higher backed seats are found to provide more support in rapid decelerations associated with collisions or derailments. Also, there is a minimum radius for edges and corners which also tends to make them larger than they were in years gone by.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Extract from GM/GN2687:

GN107 For a passenger with their back to the direction of travel, with a low seat back, the most likely injury mechanism occurs as the head rotates about the neck into or over the seat top and then rotates in the opposite direction as the body rebounds from the seat back. To avoid this type of injury and also ‘whiplash’ injuries, limits on neck rotation and neck injury criteria are specified. The most straightforward method to meet the requirements set out is to use high backed seats but alternative approaches can be adopted provided that the performance criteria are satisfied.

GN108 For a passenger projected forward in a collision with unidirectional low seat backs there is the additional risk of passing over the top of the seat in front with the possibility of more serious injuries for themselves and other passengers.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In addition:

GN109 The seat height dimensional requirement (set out in 6.2 of superseded document AV/ST9001) should be regarded as empirical as it has not been possible to trace the technical provenance. The resulting maximum seat back height is typically between 1280 mm and 1290 mm above floor level. The 25 mm dimension has been amended to 20 mm for consistency with automotive headrest standards.

GN110 Rail vehicle disability regulations (PRM TSI) specify seatback handholds at between 800 mm and 1200 mm above floor level (4.2.2.2.1 of PRM TSI) which could limit the practical height of a seat, depending on the shape of the seat back. In determining an optimum seat height, wider issues such as the requirements of CCTV systems and passenger security should also be considered.

Thanks for that, very interesting. Out of curiosity, next time I go to Didcot, I might take a tape measure.

So what would use the Pendos on the ECML? I'm betting on East Coast when they do their end of whatever thing.
But Grand Central could do with some, if they electrify and add places where the Northern trains can turn off to dodge the Pendos then it would be possible to make a King's Cross-Blackpool or even Carlisle/Windermere if they electrify and use baby Pendos.

Might be a bit tricky, GC would need some form of diesel traction for Sunderland because of the Metro, even if all their other lines are wired. At one point, they wanted to order Polaris stock from China.
 

dave59

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2010
Messages
120
I feel the nostalgia factor myself. Keep comparing everything to Mk3 and 4. Anyways, I like the futuristic style of the Pendolinos. Would be great if the windows and seats lined up. If they eventually refit them, they may be even better.

Maybe with a complete interior redesign and (much) larger windows the 390 would compare favourably with the Mk4. The obvious choice for a 225 replacement is of course the IEP which is already slated to oust the 125 - if they ever get on with it. The requirement for additional fleet of 390's is on the WCML Birmingham and Manchester to Scotland routes.
 

VTPreston_Tez

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Messages
1,159
Location
Preston
I'm sorry but what do you mean exactly?

When the franchise ends.

And when will this electrification take place? Who will pay for it? As you are no doubt aware we're pretty much booked up when it comes to electrification until around 2020. Can you also show why those routes are more deserving of precious electrification money than others that already have proven business cases? Also why on earth would anyone run a Kings Cross - Blackpool or Kings Cross - Carlisle/Windermere? Those would never ever be competitive with the WCML even with a change! Sometimes I do wonder if you just put a bunch of stations names in a hat and pull them out and suggest that it might be a good idea to have a service between them without actually stopping to think about the actual practicalities involved.

Well that's me busted! I would like to see connections with Eurostar though from the WCML (there's either via Manchester and Sheffield or add 2 hours by serving the Caldervale) but then again, there's a 10 minute walk from Euston then like a 5 minute scramble when you get into the KGX/Pancras area, so it isn't much now I decide to think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top