SWR Class 444 first class refurbishment?

[Bletchleyite]

I understand what the extra space is to be used for it's just I would have rather the space be used luggage stacks instead. The case in question was circa 80L. Too large for the length of my holiday but the only other case I had was a cabin sized case which was far too small for my needs.

I've had a 120l rucksack in a Desiro overhead, but I guess the shape matters.

 

[3rd rail land]

I've had a 120l rucksack in a Desiro overhead, but I guess the shape matters.

The other consideration is weight. Even if the case/bag/rucksack fits not everyone is going to be able to lift luggage of this size and weight all the way up to the overhead.

 

[fgwrich]

The other consideration is weight. Even if the case/bag/rucksack fits not everyone is going to be able to lift luggage of this size and weight all the way up to the overhead.

I have to say (and agree with you on this one) that considering the 444 Fleet serves Clapham Junction (change for Gatwick), Woking (Change for Heathrow), Southampton Airport Parkway (The airport), Southampton Central (for the cruise ships and IOW) and Bournemouth (Lots of holidaying passengers and Bournemouth Airport) that the lack of provision of a luggage rack has been somewhat of a surprise and a bit of a disappointment. Even the cycle space now has a tip-up seat plonked into some of them, which reduces the available luggage space further. I know full well that the routes they serve were - pre-pandemic - busy, but I do feel that the DfT Really needs to break it's obsession with seating and start to take luggage into account on routes like these - It's the equivalent of a 800 with no luggage space.

 

[DB]

I have to say (and agree with you on this one) that considering the 444 Fleet serves Clapham Junction (change for Gatwick), Woking (Change for Heathrow), Southampton Airport Parkway (The airport), Southampton Central (for the cruise ships and IOW) and Bournemouth (Lots of holidaying passengers and Bournemouth Airport) that the lack of provision of a luggage rack has been somewhat of a surprise and a bit of a disappointment. Even the cycle space now has a tip-up seat plonked into some of them reducing luggage space further. I know the routes they serve are busy (pre-pandemic), but I do feel that the DfT Really needs to break it's obsession with seats and actually take luggage into account on routes like these - It's the equivalent of a 800 with no luggage space.

The 185s have the same issue - far too little luggage space for trains serving the north's main airport from most of the major northern cities. Too few seats as well, of course...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 185s have the same issue - far too little luggage space for trains serving the north's main airport from most of the major northern cities. Too few seats as well, of course...

The problem with the 185s is rather different - they are just two coaches too short - I would say the proportion of everything is about spot on, including luggage provision which unlike 444s includes floor-level stacks.

I can see the case for replacing 4 seats per vehicle (by the doors) on the 444s with luggage stacks, to be fair.

 

[Energy]

The problem with the 185s is rather different - they are just two coaches too short - I would say the proportion of everything is about spot on, including luggage provision which unlike 444s includes floor-level stacks.

I can see the case for replacing 4 seats per vehicle (by the doors) on the 444s with luggage stacks, to be fair.

Reportedly the 185s were meant to be 5 cars before the SRA decided to shorten them. Couple things could make them better, DEMU along with being lighter could allow smaller engines and a pantograph.

 

[3rd rail land]

I have to say (and agree with you on this one) that considering the 444 Fleet serves Clapham Junction (change for Gatwick), Woking (Change for Heathrow), Southampton Airport Parkway (The airport), Southampton Central (for the cruise ships and IOW) and Bournemouth (Lots of holidaying passengers and Bournemouth Airport) that the lack of provision of a luggage rack has been somewhat of a surprise and a bit of a disappointment. Even the cycle space now has a tip-up seat plonked into some of them, which reduces the available luggage space further. I know full well that the routes they serve were - pre-pandemic - busy, but I do feel that the DfT Really needs to break it's obsession with seating and start to take luggage into account on routes like these - It's the equivalent of a 800 with no luggage space.

Couldn't agree more. Back in 2017 I was headed home from Sherborne, London bound, and I was with several other people at the time. The 158/9 rolled in and once on board we had to deposit our suitcases in the space next to the toilet. I had travelled down to Sherborne in 1st so put my case on an empty table. Even 1st didn't have provision for large luggage despite there being enough space for it to the left of the door when you entered the 1st class compartment. As you say SWR serves lots of potential holiday destinations therefore people may well have a suitcase they need to stow out the way on the train. There doesn't need to be as much ;luggage provision as an inter city train, I believe the 158/9, 444 & 450 are considered to be regional trains, but there really does need to be some for people heading to their holiday destination by train.

 

[43096]

Couldn't agree more. Back in 2017 I was headed home from Sherborne, London bound, and I was with several other people at the time. The 158/9 rolled in and once on board we had to deposit our suitcases in the space next to the toilet. I had travelled down to Sherborne in 1st so put my case on an empty table. Even 1st didn't have provision for large luggage despite there being enough space for it to the left of the door when you entered the 1st class compartment. As you say SWR serves lots of potential holiday destinations therefore people may well have a suitcase they need to stow out the way on the train. There doesn't need to be as much ;luggage provision as an inter city train, I believe the 158/9, 444 & 450 are considered to be regional trains, but there really does need to be some for people heading to their holiday destination by train.

What's more important, a perhaps once-a-year person with a suitcase, or people commuting from, say, Basingstoke to Waterloo who if on an annual season ticket are paying well over £4,000? It's very simple: more seating wins.

 

[swt_passenger]

What's more important, a perhaps once-a-year person with a suitcase, or people commuting from Basingstoke to Waterloo who if on an annual season ticket are paying well over £4,000? It's very simple: more seating wins.

This suggestion of more luggage space on SWT/SWR has been coming up here on and off for years, and as you suggest DfT have also been pushing for more and more seats throughout the last 25 years. It’s a London commuter operation in DfTs eyes, as is clear from all the franchise specifications and agreements, they’re even supposed to be putting more seats, (not racks), into 158s and 159s...

 

[Bishopstone]

In a post-Covid world where commuting is significantly down, but leisure travel is marginally or substantially up, I’m going to be a contrarian and say that - in time - the First Class product offered by the ex-NSE and regional TOCs may expand and improve.

The imperative to squeeze-in a few more Standard seats to appease season ticket holders will be gone, but there will be relentless pressure to grow revenue (alongside cost cuts), and one way of doing that is to persuade more customers to trade-up to a premium product.

Meanwhile, if you aren’t paying £3k pa to commute to an office, maybe you’d reinvest a small part of the saving in treating the family to an upgrade on that day trip to London or the coast?

If the offer was attractive, surely you could make a reasonable amount of money from leisure-focused First Class on runs like London to Salisbury/Exeter; Bournemouth; Eastbourne and Bicester (for the outlet village). But 2+2 First Class - and minimal enforcement - won’t cut it.

 

[Deepgreen]

In a post-Covid world where commuting is significantly down, but leisure travel is marginally or substantially up, I’m going to be a contrarian and say that - in time - the First Class product offered by the ex-NSE and regional TOCs may expand and improve.

The imperative to squeeze-in a few more Standard seats to appease season ticket holders will be gone, but there will be relentless pressure to grow revenue (alongside cost cuts), and one way of doing that is to persuade more customers to trade-up to a premium product.

Meanwhile, if you aren’t paying £3k pa to commute to an office, maybe you’d reinvest a small part of the saving in treating the family to an upgrade on that day trip to London or the coast?

If the offer was attractive, surely you could make a reasonable amount of money from leisure-focused First Class on runs like London to Salisbury/Exeter; Bournemouth; Eastbourne and Bicester (for the outlet village). But 2+2 First Class - and minimal enforcement - won’t cut it.

You may be right, but my feeling is that not very many leisure travellers will use first class, as the fares will deter them. First class has traditionally thrived on business travel. The post-C19 financial depression will not favour luxury leisure travel - rather the increased leisure travel market will want cheap and cheerful.

 

[Journeyman]

You may be right, but my feeling is that not very many leisure travellers will use first class, as the fares will deter them. First class has traditionally thrived on business travel. The post-C19 financial depression will not favour luxury leisure travel - rather the increased leisure travel market will want cheap and cheerful.

On SWR, I suspect first class will eventually wither and die anyway, because it's now such a lousy product. It's significantly more expensive than Standard for very little gain. If less people use it, it'll be much easier to abolish completely.

 

[DelW]

I'd suggest that the only thing that kept 1st on SWT/R was the 1st class seasons sold to people who wanted a better chance of a seat as well as more space. Outside the peaks it didn't attract much business.

Now that catering has been scrapped, the new seats are little or no better than standard, and for now at least there's no crowding in the peaks, it's hard to see why anyone would pay the extra.

There's slightly more point on 450s where in standard, the cramped 3+2 seats without armrests are pretty uncomfortable for a long journey.

 

[packermac]

The purpose of reducing 1st is to increase Standard, though.

That must have been one massive suitcase. Desiro overheads are huge!

And you realise how large when you change at Southampton off one on to a Southern 377 and something that fit easily on the rack of a 444 with space to spare barely fits a 377 luggage area rack, yet alone the poor excuse for the overhead space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And you realise how large when you change at Southampton off one on to a Southern 377 and something that fit easily on the rack of a 444 with space to spare barely fits a 377 luggage area rack, yet alone the poor excuse for the overhead space.

Yep. Fortunately the terrible *star luggage provision (the main problem with them) hasn't been replicated in other stock since then - if anything the trend has been to make it larger - the CAF stock and 80x have massive overheads.

 

[Journeyman]

There's slightly more point on 450s where in standard, the cramped 3+2 seats without armrests are pretty uncomfortable for a long journey.

Even there, now they've relocated it, all first class seats are at tables of four, and I'd rather be in a standard airline seat than sharing one of those tables with up to three strangers. They really have done just about everything possible to make first class completely unattractive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even there, now they've relocated it, all first class seats are at tables of four, and I'd rather be in a standard airline seat than sharing one of those tables with up to three strangers. They really have done just about everything possible to make first class completely unattractive.

Interesting you say that, as that area is Standard class on the 350s, and because it has extra legroom it is my preferred seat - the people opposite are so far away that it isn't disruptive like other table seats.

 

[3rd rail land]

Even there, now they've relocated it, all first class seats are at tables of four, and I'd rather be in a standard airline seat than sharing one of those tables with up to three strangers. They really have done just about everything possible to make first class completely unattractive.

Got to agree there. I wouldn't want to pay for 1st and share a table of four with multiple strangers. When I use 1st, on any train, I want a single airline seat with a table and ample legroom. Oh and somewhere to stow a larger item of luggage as when I use 1st it is usually on a longer journey and I may well have larger luggage with me as a result. If I can't get this then I don't see the value in 1st class and am happier to save money and sit in standard.

 

[Journeyman]

Got to agree there. I wouldn't want to pay for 1st and share a table of four with multiple strangers. When I use 1st, on any train, I want a single airline seat with a table and ample legroom. Oh and somewhere to stow a larger item of luggage as when I use 1st it is usually on a longer journey and I may well have larger luggage with me as a result. If I can't get this then I don't see the value in 1st class and am happier to save money and sit in standard.

My sentiments exactly. It's why I prefer the Azumas to Pendolinos - there's loads of first class single seats, which is perfect for privacy. I'd rather sit in a standard class airline seat than sit opposite a stranger in first.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Superalbs Travels has a video in which you see clearly that 1st on the 444 is nothing special compared to what/how it used to be.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Correct - the then new SWR Franchise insisted that first class was reduced on the 444, 450 & 158/9 fleets and removed altogether on the 458 fleets. The 450s saw their first class relocated to the space behind each cab, while the 444s saw theirs reduced by about 2 window bays length. Both have been re-configured to 2+2 - The 450s retraining their original seats, the 444s having the standard class FISA Lean installed (with a pretty hard base / leather covering). The 159 fleet are up next, although no designs have been released for this refurbishment yet.

It’s also worth remembering that the 442 which plied the Bournemouth line for many years had 2+2 First Class seating in the saloon part and was actually quite popular amongst travellers not wishing to sit in a compartment so 2+2 in first is nothing completely new.

 

[antharro]

2+2 in first is fine as long as they're comfortable seats, as the 442s used to have. 2+1 in an HST in FGW days was pretty good too but the GWR refurb made them way too hard for my liking.

As for the 444s, first has indeed taken a serious downgrade to the point where its only selling point is that you might get a slightly quieter journey. The seats are godawful and nowhere near the quality of the previous seats. I expect this was intentional so they can ultimately justify getting rid of first class entirely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2+2 in first is fine as long as they're comfortable seats, as the 442s used to have

Disagree. The main benefit of 1st is having more space. I didn't try the refurbed 442, but in the 444s you don't get more space in 1st than Std.

Generally, my rule would be that 1st should always have one fewer seat across the vehicle than Standard.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Disagree. The main benefit of 1st is having more space. I didn't try the refurbed 442, but in the 444s you don't get more space in 1st than Std.

Generally, my rule would be that 1st should always have one fewer seat across the vehicle than Standard.

However history shows this is often far from the case - the open first class saloons in 442s from launch had 2+2 seating, the majority of compartment coaches both in the UK and abroad had 6 seats in a compartment whether first or standard (although some compartments had the armrests sewed up in standard).

 

[JonathanH]

However history shows this is often far from the case - the open first class saloons in 442s from launch had 2+2 seating, the majority of compartment coaches both in the UK and abroad had 6 seats in a compartment whether first or standard (although some compartments had the armrests sewed up in standard).

That is a bit of an anomaly though isn't it. They were designed with 6 compartments and a small standard class area. Someone thought that 36 first class seats weren't enough so the 14 standard class seats in 2+2 and at first class spacing in the coach were hastily recovered with first class moquette.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However history shows this is often far from the case - the open first class saloons in 442s from launch had 2+2 seating, the majority of compartment coaches both in the UK and abroad had 6 seats in a compartment whether first or standard (although some compartments had the armrests sewed up in standard).

I don't know about the UK, but in Europe usually the extra space in compartments was achieved by providing substantial extra legroom, typically in a standard 26.4m UIC coach there would be 11 compartments in a 2nd coach and 10 in a 1st.

 

[Jamesrob637]

I don't know about the UK, but in Europe usually the extra space in compartments was achieved by providing substantial extra legroom, typically in a standard 26.4m UIC coach there would be 11 compartments in a 2nd coach and 10 in a 1st.

No, 9 compartments in most 1st Class stock. 10 where you had a mixed 2nd/1st but these were relatively rare.