Tatty EPB better than Pendolino

[Robinson]

I managed to get my first ride on an 11-coach Pendolino a couple of days ago (390 141) from Euston to Glasgow Central. Couldn't help but notice a high-pitched buzzing that I've never noticed before coming from overhead (I was in coach E)...

 

[The_Rail_WAy]

Pendos aren't my favourite trains, and they're not perfect by any stretch, but I still think they're excellent units.

Marvin, I could'nt have put it better myself!

I have been using these boards for many years now and this is a debate that has been raging on and on (and on). Unfortunateley it down to a matter of opinion whether your a commuter, enthusiast or average 'jo' membe rof the public.

I once met a pendolino driver his job akin to that of a space shutte astronaut. The only main difference being that the shuttle had better toilet and refreshment facilities!! Always mde me laugh, his name was Brian (I think.)

 

[NightStar]

If the Pendo is really that bad, Than just imagine what the original APT would have been like. I personally don't see why the Pendo gets such a bad rap? Then I do not ride them either. Unfortunately high speed trains are not common here in the states sadly.

Robert

 

[chris89]

If the Pendo is really that bad, Than just imagine what the original APT would have been like. I personally don't see why the Pendo gets such a bad rap? Then I do not ride them either. Unfortunately high speed trains are not common here in the states sadly.

Robert

I honestly don't understand it either. I find them perfectly fine and welcome such stock since allows faster times and smoother rides.

I'd rather take a Pendo' then a EPB myself. I can see how busy the 390s can be but they are perfectly fine rolling stock to myself at least.

I would have loved to have gone on a APT myself though, as they do seem to be brillant bits of Tech ashame they were rushed. Seems like a lot rather to much miss the Mark 3 coaching stock that was used.

Who knows in 20 or years, people will be complaining that the 390s and 221s are being removed for something new :P

 

[junglejames]

I honestly don't understand it either. I find them perfectly fine and welcome such stock since allows faster times and smoother rides.

I'd rather take a Pendo' then a EPB myself. I can see how busy the 390s can be but they are perfectly fine rolling stock to myself at least.

There are very good reasons for some people disliking them, and they are perfectly good reasons, which make perfect sense. A redesign of the interior could really make them so much better.

 

[tbtc]

I personally don't see why the Pendo gets such a bad rap?

The arguments have been made many times before (small windows etc, but then there are prices to pay to be able to run at over 110 on the WCML), but I think that one extra reason is because of what they replaced.

The Pendolini and Voyagers replaced the last "significant" loco hauled operations (ignoring the relatively small scale 90s on the GEML etc) , meaning it was always going to be hard for enthusiasts to "love" them.

Just my view...

 

[HSTEd]

The Pendolini and Voyagers replaced the last "significant" loco hauled operations (ignoring the relatively small scale 90s on the GEML etc) , meaning it was always going to be hard for enthusiasts to "love" them.

Surely the Cl91+Mk4+DVT4 operations on the East Coast are just as much a loco hauled service as the 87/90+Mk3+DVT3 operations on the West Coast were.... I will grant that the number of sets involved is smaller (31 versus 52 or something) but I would hardly call the East Coast operations "small scale".

But either way..... I think its just the interior is strange and like I said, the Virgin colour scheme doesn't help the apparently small windows, if they could have been done up in creme and light grey like the Mk 3s and 4s on the East Coast I think it would solve many of the issues with the interior.

 

[NightStar]

Well its like I said. I like the Pendo and would love to see more such trains in the future. I will admit that I would like to ride the original APT as well. Such a technologically advanced train that was scrapped do to the general public knocking them because of the tilting issues. If they had kept at it the problems would have been solved in short order. Now one dumb question? Is there any models of the APT electric set? Not the turbine APT.

Robert

 

[chris89]

There are very good reasons for some people disliking them, and they are perfectly good reasons, which make perfect sense. A redesign of the interior could really make them so much better.

True the interior does need a redesign on both of Virgin's trains as that is always the problems especially down to luggage space.

Most the people i see on at least the Edinburgh/Glasgow Bound ones normally get off before Carlise.

The window size is fine for me if i can get the right seat for leg room.

As said before i couldn't imagine Mark 3 stock would have faired very well after the Grayrigg derailment though.

Always will be haters of the rolling stock no matter where. I honestly haven't used 390's as much as 221's but to me they are fine apart from some small niggles one being the interior could be brightened up a bit on the Pendi's.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

Surely the Cl91+Mk4+DVT4 operations on the East Coast are just as much a loco hauled service as the 87/90+Mk3+DVT3 operations on the West Coast were.... I will grant that the number of sets involved is smaller (31 versus 52 or something) but I would hardly call the East Coast operations "small scale"

True, though the 225s lack the "slam door" appeal that older stock has (to your average enthusiast), plus they are more like "complete sets" (i.e. the 91s generally have only hauled ECML passenger services, rather than 86s/90s that worked freight too.

Just my view on why this is such a litmus test. For example, people don't complain about the lack of tables/ window seats on 170s, but then 170s generally only replaced other DMUs.

 

[ainsworth74]

Such a technologically advanced train that was scrapped do to the general public knocking them because of the tilting issues.

It's a bit more complex than a bunch of journalists getting drunk and feeling sick on one press run! You have to consider that it was the most complex train BR (and perhaps anyone) had tried to put together, all whilst doing it on a shoestring budget with limited political support (both from government and the BR senior management) and also with issues of BR engineering being given a design from BR research that they'd had no input with until then, coupled, finally with no overall leadership to actually guide the program to completion.

All in all I'm surprised in someways that it lasted as long as it did what with everything it had to overcome!

 

[NightStar]

True. I should have gone into more detail I guess for those who are not well versed in APT history.

Robert

 

[junglejames]

The arguments have been made many times before (small windows etc, but then there are prices to pay to be able to run at over 110 on the WCML), but I think that one extra reason is because of what they replaced.

The Pendolini and Voyagers replaced the last "significant" loco hauled operations (ignoring the relatively small scale 90s on the GEML etc) , meaning it was always going to be hard for enthusiasts to "love" them.

Just my view...

Oh no not this still.
I shall try one more time.
1- The windows have absolutely nowt to do with the speed or tilt. Its purely down to the material used to build the trains. A material that wasnt used to build voyagers, Mk3s, Mk4s or 180s.
2- Just because you cant stand pendy haters, why do you have to belittle their beliefs or reasons for not liking them? Its as if you yourself agree with the pendy haters, but cant bring yourself to admit it, and so try and hide the real reasons for disliking them. You know the real reasons because they are advertised quite widely, however you still insist on throwing them back. People have reasons for disliking them. Accept it, and accept the fact it has nowt to do with 86s, 87s, 90s, Mk2s or Mk3s. I love the Kent slammers, but do I hate 375s? No, not at all.
So surely its time to stop telling other people that they dont really feel the way they do. Because thats what it is. People tell you they feel the pendys are too cramped and dull, and you are as good as telling them they dont really feel like that at all. People have a right to feel how they do.

What next? Someone tells you they love their wife, and you turn round and tell them they dont?

No doubt you will now tell me im exagerating, but im not. You are throwing peoples beliefs back at them, and telling them they dont feel like that.
I could understand it if this was the first time you brought this up, but it isnt, and you do it despite being told loads of times why some people dislike pendys.

Oh, and just so everybody here can see, and doesnt listen to what you keep spouting. Pendys dont have small windows just because they tilt or go 125. Pendys are not cramped inside because they tilt or go 125. This is all down to using Aluminium as the construction material. Aluminium is weak, and light, and so needs extra supports and stiffeners. Pendys are the same width externally as Mk4s. But they are narrower internally. Why? Because of the extra supports and stiffeners to stop the aluminium bending out of shape.

You only need all this extra support to go fast, if made out of aluminium.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is all down to using Aluminium as the construction material. Aluminium is weak, and light, and so needs extra supports and stiffeners. Pendys are the same width externally as Mk4s. But they are narrower internally. Why? Because of the extra supports and stiffeners to stop the aluminium bending out of shape.

170s are also primarily made of aluminium but don't seem to be particularly narrow on the inside...

 

[junglejames]

170s are also primarily made of aluminium but don't seem to be particularly narrow on the inside...

I knew this was coming, so have edited my original post.
Put it this way. The narrow bodies are down to using aluminium bodies, as its only aluminium bodies that require such extra support for high speed.

So had steel bodies not existed, yes the narrow bodies would have been down to speed, but as it is, its down to using aluminium on trains that would be better off with steel.

Look at the 180s and voyagers. Steel bodies. Larger windows, not as narrow inside. Voyagers tilt and go 125mph. They are the same width as pendys outside, but have more space inside. So why do pendys and voyagers have such a differing amount of space between the interior and exterior bulkheads? Because voyagers are made of steel.

 

[starrymarkb]

Oh no not this still.
I shall try one more time.
1- The windows have absolutely nowt to do with the speed or tilt. Its purely down to the material used to build the trains. A material that wasnt used to build voyagers, Mk3s, Mk4s or 180s.
2- Just because you cant stand pendy haters, why do you have to belittle their beliefs or reasons for not liking them? Its as if you yourself agree with the pendy haters, but cant bring yourself to admit it, and so try and hide the real reasons for disliking them. You know the real reasons because they are advertised quite widely, however you still insist on throwing them back. People have reasons for disliking them. Accept it, and accept the fact it has nowt to do with 86s, 87s, 90s, Mk2s or Mk3s. I love the Kent slammers, but do I hate 375s? No, not at all.
So surely its time to stop telling other people that they dont really feel the way they do. Because thats what it is. People tell you they feel the pendys are too cramped and dull, and you are as good as telling them they dont really feel like that at all. People have a right to feel how they do.

What next? Someone tells you they love their wife, and you turn round and tell them they dont?

No doubt you will now tell me im exagerating, but im not. You are throwing peoples beliefs back at them, and telling them they dont feel like that.
I could understand it if this was the first time you brought this up, but it isnt, and you do it despite being told loads of times why some people dislike pendys.

Oh, and just so everybody here can see, and doesnt listen to what you keep spouting. Pendys dont have small windows just because they tilt or go 125. Pendys are not cramped inside because they tilt or go 125. This is all down to using Aluminium as the construction material. Aluminium is weak, and light, and so needs extra supports and stiffeners. Pendys are the same width externally as Mk4s. But they are narrower internally. Why? Because of the extra supports and stiffeners to stop the aluminium bending out of shape.

You only need all this extra support to go fast, if made out of aluminium.

Explain the ICE, those are made of Aluminium and have a spacious interior with large windows. Though they are also far too heavy for UK track!

Similarly the Production AGV is Aluminium and has large windows.

 

[tbtc]

I personally don't see why the Pendo gets such a bad rap?

Oh no not this still.
I shall try one more time.
1- The windows have absolutely nowt to do with the speed or tilt. Its purely down to the material used to build the trains. A material that wasnt used to build voyagers, Mk3s, Mk4s or 180s.
2- Just because you cant stand pendy haters, why do you have to belittle their beliefs or reasons for not liking them? Its as if you yourself agree with the pendy haters, but cant bring yourself to admit it, and so try and hide the real reasons for disliking them. You know the real reasons because they are advertised quite widely, however you still insist on throwing them back. People have reasons for disliking them. Accept it, and accept the fact it has nowt to do with 86s, 87s, 90s, Mk2s or Mk3s. I love the Kent slammers, but do I hate 375s? No, not at all.
So surely its time to stop telling other people that they dont really feel the way they do. Because thats what it is. People tell you they feel the pendys are too cramped and dull, and you are as good as telling them they dont really feel like that at all. People have a right to feel how they do.

What next? Someone tells you they love their wife, and you turn round and tell them they dont?

No doubt you will now tell me im exagerating, but im not. You are throwing peoples beliefs back at them, and telling them they dont feel like that.
I could understand it if this was the first time you brought this up, but it isnt, and you do it despite being told loads of times why some people dislike pendys.

Oh, and just so everybody here can see, and doesnt listen to what you keep spouting. Pendys dont have small windows just because they tilt or go 125. Pendys are not cramped inside because they tilt or go 125. This is all down to using Aluminium as the construction material. Aluminium is weak, and light, and so needs extra supports and stiffeners. Pendys are the same width externally as Mk4s. But they are narrower internally. Why? Because of the extra supports and stiffeners to stop the aluminium bending out of shape.

You only need all this extra support to go fast, if made out of aluminium.

NightStar asked why some people dislike the 390s so much, I was trying to answer his question (rather than "why does junglejames dislike them so much"), so I wouldn't take it so personally...

I don't doubt that you dislike them (trust me!), I appreciate that many enthusiasts dislike them. Part of it is to do with the way that they had to be designed (they were intended to run at 140mph and to tilt in the UK, so comparisons to non tilting stock isn't always fair - foreign stock or a 180 or 395 for example - anything designed to go that fast and to tilt on the UK loading gauge wouldn't be as generous).

What confuses me is the way that a lot of the complaints that enthusiasts make about them could equally be applied to other stock - almost all modern stock has seats with rubbish views/ pillars, but compare how many threads there are about the restricted view in 170s do you see?

 

[starrymarkb]

NightStar asked why some people dislike the 390s so much, I was trying to answer his question (rather than "why does junglejames dislike them so much"), so I wouldn't take it so personally...

I don't doubt that you dislike them (trust me!), I appreciate that many enthusiasts dislike them. Part of it is to do with the way that they had to be designed (they were intended to run at 140mph and to tilt in the UK, so comparisons to non tilting stock isn't always fair - foreign stock or a 180 or 395 for example - anything designed to go that fast and to tilt on the UK loading gauge wouldn't be as generous).

What confuses me is the way that a lot of the complaints that enthusiasts make about them could equally be applied to other stock - almost all modern stock has seats with rubbish views/ pillars, but compare how many threads there are about the restricted view in 170s do you see?

Even unrefurbished Mk3s had some seats with crap views...

Something I should probably point out is that the DfT and Network rail want new stock put on a diet, which will probably result in more aluminium designs. I believe they specified a maximum vehicle weight for the IEP

 

[LE Greys]

Well its like I said. I like the Pendo and would love to see more such trains in the future. I will admit that I would like to ride the original APT as well. Such a technologically advanced train that was scrapped do to the general public knocking them because of the tilting issues. If they had kept at it the problems would have been solved in short order. Now one dumb question? Is there any models of the APT electric set? Not the turbine APT.

Robert

Hornby used to do one (I believe it actually tilted as well) but it disappeared when the project was closed down. I'm not sure if you can find it in kit form, but a Eurostar model would be useful in providing donor bogies and motors.

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I think there was a public enquiry into what happened with APT. IIRC, it reached three conclusions.

1. The design team tried to do too much with one design - not just tilt but hydrokinetic braking, articulation, quill-drive motors in the body and aerospace contruction techniques
2. Despite being so complicated, the project was possible
3. BR's management was simply not up to handling it

There was a footnote that blamed the constant g-force version of tilt for motion sickness issues, hence Pendys still giving the feeling that you are rounding a curve by retaining one or two degrees of cant deficiency.

The best bits of APT are, of course, running up and down the ECML as I type this, incorporated in the Class 91 and MkIV coach - except for the tilt. It returned to conventional braking and separate coaches as well, and the traction motors moved down under the body instead of inside it. Just a pity that it doesn't tilt though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even unrefurbished Mk3s had some seats with crap views...

That's perfectly true, as a result of having eight windows and nine seating bays. That can never be solved except by reducing to 64 seats per coach.

 

[junglejames]

NightStar asked why some people dislike the 390s so much, I was trying to answer his question (rather than "why does junglejames dislike them so much"), so I wouldn't take it so personally...

I don't doubt that you dislike them (trust me!), I appreciate that many enthusiasts dislike them. Part of it is to do with the way that they had to be designed (they were intended to run at 140mph and to tilt in the UK, so comparisons to non tilting stock isn't always fair - foreign stock or a 180 or 395 for example - anything designed to go that fast and to tilt on the UK loading gauge wouldn't be as generous).

What confuses me is the way that a lot of the complaints that enthusiasts make about them could equally be applied to other stock - almost all modern stock has seats with rubbish views/ pillars, but compare how many threads there are about the restricted view in 170s do you see?

But it isnt just me that dislikes them. Anyway, I dont dislike them. I dislike the interior.
Reasons you dont see complaints about 170s etc, is because they havent compunded the problem with the design. They are spacious originally, and they have a nice airy interior. The seats are more comfortable, and you can sit in them without being beaten up by the niggly sticking out bits of the bulkhead. Also, the big reason. 170s are not meant to be Intercity trains, so can get away with more.
If you dont like comparisons with non tilting stock, we always have the voyagers, and to an extent the Mk4s, which are able to tilt with the correct bogies.

Of course, MUs will never be as spacious as unpowered coaching stock, its just not possible. One of the pitfalls of MUs. Plus a 140mph tilter will be less spacious to an extent, but what you dont do is compound the problems on an already disadvantaged train. Aluminium has done just that. Steel would have been better. You would have had larger windows, and a slightly roomier interior. Thus allowing slightly larger seats. It would have made an awful lot of difference to the interior.
Dont worry though, IEP will be exactly the same, and that wont even tilt!!

Regarding the pictures of AGVs and ICEs someone posted. Thankyou for such lovely pictures. Do they fit within the UK loading guage? Are they wider than the Mk4? I am guessing yes. Which goes to show why they are about as spacious inside as a Mk4. Certainly i never found the ICE any better than a Mk4.
A less restrictive loading gauge in the UK would be brilliant, but we have to play with what we have got. Its all well and good DFT saying trains must now go on a diet, but the easy one to throw back at them. IEP. Stupidly heavy for no reason. Just because they didnt want to build locos or electrify extra miles.

 

[tbtc]

But it isnt just me that dislikes them

I'm well aware, which is why I struggled to understand your desire to make this into a personal argument (rather than answering a general question about why the trains have such a bad reputation amongst many enthusiasts).

BReasons you dont see complaints about 170s etc, is because they havent compunded the problem with the design. They are spacious originally, and they have a nice airy interior. The seats are more comfortable, and you can sit in them without being beaten up by the niggly sticking out bits of the bulkhead. Also, the big reason. 170s are not meant to be Intercity trains, so can get away with more

...but the 170s have the same lack of window seats/ views, yet don't get complaints about them.

And 170s do/have run on routes like Edinburgh - Aberdeen, Sheffield - London and Nottingham - Cardiff which are fairly long distance (when compared to 390s doing Birmingham - London).

BIf you dont like comparisons with non tilting stock, we always have the voyagers, and to an extent the Mk4s, which are able to tilt with the correct bogies

...neither of which were designed to do 140mph under current regulations though. And many enthusiasts seem to dislike the Voyagers too (for some similar reasons).

Aluminium has done just that. Steel would have been better. You would have had larger windows, and a slightly roomier interior

Would steel have been allowed, or would it have made them too heavy? Does anyone know?

 

[junglejames]

I'm well aware, which is why I struggled to understand your desire to make this into a personal argument (rather than answering a general question about why the trains have such a bad reputation amongst many enthusiasts).



...but the 170s have the same lack of window seats/ views, yet don't get complaints about them.

And 170s do/have run on routes like Edinburgh - Aberdeen, Sheffield - London and Nottingham - Cardiff which are fairly long distance (when compared to 390s doing Birmingham - London).



...neither of which were designed to do 140mph under current regulations though. And many enthusiasts seem to dislike the Voyagers too (for some similar reasons).



Would steel have been allowed, or would it have made them too heavy? Does anyone know?

The reason it seemed like a personal attack is because its been mentioned numerous times why people dont like them.
170s have their faults, but dont compund them. They have a nice airy interior. Comfy seats etc.
They do long journeys, but dont purport to be Intercity trains.
Voyagers arent liked, but they arent as cramped as pendys. They show the difference between steel and aluminium quite nicely. DMUs should have more stuff pushed upstairs, due to the engines and fuel tanks taking up so much room below, but they still have more space. Pendys should have less equipment pushed upstairs, but are very cramped. The increase to 140 wouldnt have made that much difference.

A steel bodied tilting EMU should weigh less than a steel bodied tilting DEMU. So shouldnt be a problem there.

 

[Pumbaa]

Look at the 180s and voyagers. Steel bodies. Larger windows, not as narrow inside. Voyagers tilt and go 125mph. They are the same width as pendys outside, but have more space inside. So why do pendys and voyagers have such a differing amount of space between the interior and exterior bulkheads? Because voyagers are made of steel.

Clearly NOTHING to do with the fact the 390s give a further 3 degrees tilt on top of the Super Voyagers...

Nope, thought not.

 

[LE Greys]

Clearly NOTHING to do with the fact the 390s give a further 3 degrees tilt on top of the Super Voyagers...

Nope, thought not.

Odd that they look bigger on the outside, though (not that I've ever taken a tape measure to one). Platform 5 is no help here, is just says that both are 2.73m wide at their maximum width.

 

[sprinterguy]

Voyagers arent liked, but they arent as cramped as pendys. They show the difference between steel and aluminium quite nicely. DMUs should have more stuff pushed upstairs, due to the engines and fuel tanks taking up so much room below, but they still have more space. Pendys should have less equipment pushed upstairs, but are very cramped. The increase to 140 wouldnt have made that much difference.

In terms of the length of the passenger saloon, it is apparent to me that the Voyagers make much less efficient use of the space available, with the doors moved so far inboard of the vehicle ends to essentially give a useable vehicle length equivalent to that of a 20 metre carriage rather than a 23 metre one. This useful area is further used up by the large disabled toilets, and also I believe through a fault of the design that sees the exhaust pipe routed through the body of the carriage rather than being fixed to the exterior.

Pendolinos do make use of the full 23 metres of carriage available, which in fact I believe adds to the claustrophobic "airline" effect of the interior due to the long length of the passenger saloon.

In terms of carriage width however, I cannot argue.

A steel bodied tilting EMU should weigh less than a steel bodied tilting DEMU. So shouldnt be a problem there.

Should weigh less, but in reality there may be very little in it: There is already only a small difference in vehicle weights between aluminium bodied 390s and steel bodied 221s:The heavier driving vehicle of a 221 and a 390 weigh in at 59 tonnes and 55.6 tonnes respectively, and the intermediate vehicles of the two are around 55 tonnes for the Super Voyager and 51 tonnes for the Pendolino (powered vehicles, that is): Steel construction would, of course tip the balanace further and reduce this comparatively small difference.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...but the 170s have the same lack of window seats/ views, yet don't get complaints about them.

And 170s do/have run on routes like Edinburgh - Aberdeen, Sheffield - London and Nottingham - Cardiff which are fairly long distance (when compared to 390s doing Birmingham - London).

As junglejames has outlined, the problem of restricted window views on the Pendolinos is compounded by a number of factors not present on the likes of 170s: The window pillars on a 170 are much thinner than those on a Pendolino, so a passenger is unlikely to be confronted with a continuous wall of plastic when sitting in a restricted view seat on a 170, unlike on a Pendolino where even a brief observation would suggest that those window pillars are a good two feet across, perhaps slightly more.

The lower-backed seats on a 170 also mean that even if you don't have a window directly adjacent to you seat you will be able to see out of many of the other windows along the length of the carriage, whilst the high-backed seats on a Pendolino coupled with the wide window pillars mean that you can be faced by a virtually uninterrupted view of plastic interior in whichever direction you look. This is also compounded by the restricted height of the windows on a Pendolino: You only get a view directly at eye height.

 

[Kentish Paul]

Just a thought on my only class 390 trip a while back. The outward from Euston was fine, found a seat, a bit cramped but a good view, left at Penrith.
On the return train it was nearly full but managed to get a seat at Penrith but no view so looked at plastic panel until Euston.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but i expect to have a decent view of the exterior frrom the train whilst travelling.

 

[ainsworth74]

Maybe I'm old fashioned but i expect to have a decent view of the exterior frrom the train whilst travelling.

But of course this is a problem that is common amongst just about every piece of rolling stock in revenue service. About the best on the network for having seats that line up with the windows is are the 185s, if you look the windows have been made odd shapes so that they line up with the layout of the seats.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I think the main thing to bear in mind is that non enthusiast general public who use the trains day in day out love them.

So if a few enthusiasts don't it's no problem in the grand scheme of things. Used to work at Man Picc and not one person I came across complained about the pendy, lots complimented it but in all honesty most cases they complained about lateness of the train or price of tickets or at having to walk too from down the platform - things people care about, not the colour of the interior!

Sent from my HTC Hero using Tapatalk 2

 

[junglejames]

Clearly NOTHING to do with the fact the 390s give a further 3 degrees tilt on top of the Super Voyagers...

Nope, thought not.

The size of windows isnt down to the tilt no (thats down to welds and stiffeners), and neither is the extra supports and stiffeners needed for aluminium body shells either. The extra tilt will require the top of the pendy to be narrower than a voyager, but it isnt what causes the requirement for extra supports. Its the aluminium bosyshell that does that.
The pendy has a much larger gap between the outer shell and inner bulkhead than the voyager. It is caused by the extra stiffeners needed to keep the body sturdy. Steel doesnt require stiffeners anywhere near the size that aluminium does.

Aluminium is lighter and weaker than steel. How else do you expect to make aluminium as safe as steel?

 

[LE Greys]

The size of windows isnt down to the tilt no (thats down to welds and stiffeners), and neither is the extra supports and stiffeners needed for aluminium body shells either. The extra tilt will require the top of the pendy to be narrower than a voyager, but it isnt what causes the requirement for extra supports. Its the aluminium bosyshell that does that.
The pendy has a much larger gap between the outer shell and inner bulkhead than the voyager. It is caused by the extra stiffeners needed to keep the body sturdy. Steel doesnt require stiffeners anywhere near the size that aluminium does.

Aluminium is lighter and weaker than steel. How else do you expect to make aluminium as safe as steel?

Are we talking about pure aluminium or duralumin alloy, which is considerably stronger (not as strong as steel though)?