Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What is the point of the limited number of 4 trailer sets. Why not have a common 5 car fleet, better for capacity and better for diagramming?
Cost?
What is the point of the limited number of 4 trailer sets. Why not have a common 5 car fleet, better for capacity and better for diagramming?
Possibly legroom and not having that annoying armrest?But compared to the low density, low backed and cushioned seats they replaced (still to be found on Greater Anglia, East Mids & GC MK3s) I fail to see how the Grammar seat is an improvement.
Possibly legroom and not having that annoying armrest?
Regarding the toilets, on Anglian sets the CET equipment can only fit in one end and the disused toilet is an equipment cuboard, so guess same here?
Cost?
Only issue I have with the IC70s is the armrests. Other than that they are perfect.I can't believe how many people hate my favourite seat design, the IC70. Everyone I travelled with used to agree on how comfortable they are/were. It's only in recent years I've heard much objection to them.
You do not get a decent view with Grammer seating, the backs are just too high.
Because a smaller fleet can't cover as many diagrams.So how about a slightly smaller fleet of all 5 coach sets instead.
Cost is likely to be the reason.
So how about a slightly smaller fleet of all 5 coach sets instead.
Either way the use of HST stock is a big improvement over 158's / 170's.
As a regular traveller from Inverness to Edinburgh/ Glasgow the increased capacity is desperately needed. Regularly leaving Queen street you will stand to Perth. An hour. Totally unacceptable. I agree they should standardise on a 5 car formation, the 170's are three coaches, and are regularly rammed.
The HST is way better than the 170 which is noisy and not that comfortable. the East Coast service to Inverness at night has a lot of passengers, I will regularly wait a half hour longer to get it. Way better.
Still a year and a bit to wait though. Slow improvement for the North.
I honestly can't remember the last time I was on a double 170 service, it must be at least a couple of years ago. I see 170 + 158 all the time though.Given that a doubled 170 is more superior in seating capacity...
Given that a doubled 170 is more superior in seating capacity (slightly) compared to a HST it would be wise for Scotrail to invest in the acquirement of more carriages to ensure some "breathing space" in instances when doubled up DMUs would've been used. Even if the whole fleet was 5-car it would still give a bit of consistency during busy periods such as holidays, peaks and large events.
I honestly can't remember the last time I was on a double 170 service, it must be at least a couple of years ago. I see 170 + 158 all the time though.
I seem to recall reading somewhere a while back that there are plans to increase at least two of the 2+4 units to 2+6 in 2021 or so.
Only issue I have with the IC70s is the armrests. Other than that they are perfect.
You are correct - 2x6-car sets were due to be formed from Dec 2022. It's in the ScotRail franchise agreement: http://www.transport.gov.scot/syste...Redacted Franchise Agreement - CU version.pdfI seem to recall reading somewhere a while back that there are plans to increase at least two of the 2+4 units to 2+6 in 2021 or so.
I can't believe how many people hate my favourite seat design, the IC70. Everyone I travelled with used to agree on how comfortable they are/were. It's only in recent years I've heard much objection to them.
You do not get a decent view with Grammer seating, the backs are just too high.
From my point of view it's because they are old and tired. They were probably fine when new, but now they are too low down, encourage you to slouch - where if your at a table with someone sitting opposite invites you to a game of footsie, low backed, that awful fixed armrest doesn't allow you to sit or move around and if you end up with one as ropey and as threadbare as the Night Riviera examples, you might find the floor more comfortable. The NR examples lost all cushioning years ago and now feels like your sitting on a set of moquette covered springs. As I said earlier, they are exactly like the Paxman Valenta engines in the Power Cars - fine when new, but not so after 30+ years of use.
The Grammers may often be sighted as too tall - that can't be helped with modern regs, but of all the newer seats in the past 10 years I find them perfectly acceptable. Much better than the XC/GNER/VTEC examples which seem to sink inwards.
Seeing as they are already used in the Inverness 158s, retaining the Grammer seats will not only help ScotRail stock up on spares but should help with familiarity - and will allow enough seats to be retained without doing an FGW "High Density" to them.
This is an amazing find and many thanks to the poster for posting it here. I bet someone at Scotrail is pretty annoyed about it appearing online and I can imagine the P&J hysteria building already.
I agree with you about the IC70s, they are done. I think they're sell by date for me personally was when GNER started replacing them. As I live in Scotland I've only had a few recent trips on IC70 (I'm not a spotter so don't go out of my way to do so) so I've only ever experienced them post GNER on one occasion on EMT and the one VTEC set on the Chieftain. Both times I found the seats very low and the armrests very annoying; especially on the leather seats on VTEC. The seats are more suited to kids in my opinion, hence why I loved the GNER ones so much
Have to disagree with you about the Grammar seating. I find them very very cramped and take up a lot of space in terms of their high back design, which often obscures the spacious feel of any train. I find them very hard and limiting in terms of space, and I'd happily take the seats of which VTEC and XC use any day of the week. I find them spacious enough, and not high which makes the travel experience feel more open and less claustrophobic. I really wish Scotrail had gone for the XC style refurb but with more tables and obviously blue seats.
This is an amazing find and many thanks to the poster for posting it here. I bet someone at Scotrail is pretty annoyed about it appearing online and I can imagine the P&J hysteria building already.
I too would like to see 2+5 as standard but beggars can't be choosers. Bike capacity seems very disappointing but hopefully the power cars will be used to supplement it.
Overall, I can't wait to see these trains instead of the 158s or 170s. I don't think I have ever travelled on a triple 158.
Admittedly I have the same feeling too however, This would then be a perfect opportunity to listen to us as passengers to harness potential feedback and listen and work with the designers to match Abellio ScotRails brief by making the HST a suitable 21st centaury train - and 170 replacement!
Despite it's refurbishment and re-covering the seats in the VTEC Red material, its still done nothing for comfort levels. I wasn't best pleased seeing that arrive as my train twice in Scotland over the summer.
The concerns over bike storage in the power cars seem to be with platform length and dwell time.
You could imagine a reasonable compromise being to keep the 2 spaces for those leaving and joining en route with the power car spaces only for Glasgow - Aberdeen or Edinburgh - Inverness journeys etc
I'd like to know what they plan to do with the space where one of the current toilets is de-commissioned. To me it would make sense to convert each of these into a bike stowage area, so there are two bike spaces per TS. It would both increase the number of bike spaces and remove a different vehicle type from the fleet.
Only issue I have with the IC70s is the armrests. Other than that they are perfect.
Fair enough, and everyone has their own opinions! Your post actually reminded me about the ex EMT set in the VTEC Fleet. Despite it's refurbishment and re-covering the seats in the VTEC Red material, its still done nothing for comfort levels. I wasn't best pleased seeing that arrive as my train twice in Scotland over the summer.
I agree. All the disused toilets should be converted to cycle/luggage multifunction space. The cost would be low and the benefit significant.