Thoughts on Compartments

[rg177]

Reminds me of the old joke about guaranteeing nobody sits next to you... as they walk down the aisle, make eye contact, smile enthusiastically, and pat the seat cushion next to you!

Last month, in Germany, when making my way through a busy carriage towards First Class on an RE from Oberstdorf to Ulm, a man did precisely this to me I proceeded to walk ever so slightly faster...

 

[Meerkat]

There is the old story of the vicar who always got a compartment to himself by leaning out at stations (with dog collar on display) and smiling and beckoning to people on the platform!

I am not sure what works better - studiously avoiding eye contact to make it more of an effort to ask if the seat is free, or smiling slightly maniacally in a “I have loads of anecdotes and trivia I would love to tell you” way.
When Interrailling we defended our couchette by hanging our socks across the doorway!

 

[route101]

I think I’ve replied to the wrong post...
I’ve fixed it now...

Yeah ,you got me that 442 had compartments ha

 

[swt_passenger]

Yeah ,you got me that 442 had compartments ha

Well back in 2007 the 442s definitely did have first class compartments...

 

[smsm1]

When travelling in Germany and neighbouring countries on the ICE trains with young children I've found the Klein kind compartment very useful as it gives space for them to crawl about our play with other children on the journey. Having a carriage specifically aimed at children also helps. This is something I'd like to see in the UK, especially on long distance trains.

 

[Graham H]

Of course, if there had been a Mark 3 SK planned, BR would probably have had to go for a 9-window bodyside rather than the 8-window bodyside that was common with the First Class coaches.

Avoiding the need to do that may well have been one of the contributing factors to the Standard coaches being open saloons. If it had been done for a hypothetical SK, the open saloons would probably also have had 9 windows and perfect alignment in 72-seat form.

I was lucky enough to have a private visit to Litchurch Lane in the late 70's and was told there was a plan that once enough coaches had been built with 1st class window spacings, the jigs were to be changed to make a second class coach with one more window to align seats. The plan was that as the new 2nd class coaches came on stream, the older ones would be converted to 1st class. Given the number of second class coaches needed it does seem odd that cheap skate BR felt one jig would do for all seated coaches especially as the catering vehicles were so specialised . Just think how many one offs the GWR made and of course how many variants of MK1 there were.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The jigs were changed in the end, weren't they, as the International coach (which is I think Mk3 derived) had a 9-bay Second Class coach.

 

[edwin_m]

I was lucky enough to have a private visit to Litchurch Lane in the late 70's and was told there was a plan that once enough coaches had been built with 1st class window spacings, the jigs were to be changed to make a second class coach with one more window to align seats. The plan was that as the new 2nd class coaches came on stream, the older ones would be converted to 1st class. Given the number of second class coaches needed it does seem odd that cheap skate BR felt one jig would do for all seated coaches especially as the catering vehicles were so specialised . Just think how many one offs the GWR made and of course how many variants of MK1 there were.

That might have worked for loco-hauled sets where the Mk3 Firsts could run with Mk2 Seconds until the Mk3 production was changed to Seconds. However only Mk3s (with the HST-specific electrics) could run in HST sets so they would have had to store all the HST Firsts until there were Seconds available to go with them, probably delaying HST introduction. Maybe this proposal was from when HSTs were planned to have standard ETH as the prototype did, although they would still have been limited to 100mph with Mk2s in the formation.

As far as I'm aware all the catering vehicles were based on the standard 8-window spacing with some windows reduced in size or omitted entirely, therefore having the same internal structure. The sleepers are apparently different, and I think were in production simultaneously with day coaches, so did they need a second jig at that point?

The other benefit of a common bodyshell was the ability to convert Firsts to Seconds. At the time the Mk3 was built many secondary routes were run with older stock cascaded from main line duties, and before the era of Sprinters that was probably assumed to continue. But the main line services using the new stock always had a higher proportion of First Class, so there were always Firsts left over when the cascade took place.

The common bodyshell also had seating bolted to channels that ran the length of the coach, so could easily be reconfigured to any seating layout of either class. This happened many times over the years, so even if there had been a nine-window Mk3 with all seats aligned it probably wouldn't have stayed that way.

The jigs were changed in the end, weren't they, as the International coach (which is I think Mk3 derived) had a 9-bay Second Class coach.

Looking at the differences in cross-section I expect they would have needed new jigs for the International, if indeed they bothered with jigs at all for the small number they actually produced.

 

[Graham H]

That might have worked for loco-hauled sets where the Mk3 Firsts could run with Mk2 Seconds until the Mk3 production was changed to Seconds. However only Mk3s (with the HST-specific electrics) could run in HST sets so they would have had to store all the HST Firsts until there were Seconds available to go with them, probably delaying HST introduction. Maybe this proposal was from when HSTs were planned to have standard ETH as the prototype did, although they would still have been limited to 100mph with Mk2s in the formation.

As far as I'm aware all the catering vehicles were based on the standard 8-window spacing with some windows reduced in size or omitted entirely, therefore having the same internal structure. The sleepers are apparently different, and I think were in production simultaneously with day coaches, so did they need a second jig at that point?

The other benefit of a common bodyshell was the ability to convert Firsts to Seconds. At the time the Mk3 was built many secondary routes were run with older stock cascaded from main line duties, and before the era of Sprinters that was probably assumed to continue. But the main line services using the new stock always had a higher proportion of First Class, so there were always Firsts left over when the cascade took place.

The common bodyshell also had seating bolted to channels that ran the length of the coach, so could easily be reconfigured to any seating layout of either class. This happened many times over the years, so even if there had been a nine-window Mk3 with all seats aligned it probably wouldn't have stayed that way.


Looking at the differences in cross-section I expect they would have needed new jigs for the International, if indeed they bothered with jigs at all for the small number they actually produced.

No, what I meant was they were going to build sufficient 1st class window format for all the proposed units. Initial HST would run with those either as 1sts or 2nds. They would then start on proper 2nd class version and at a convenient inspection would take out the 2nd class coaches with 1st class window spacing and substitute rejigged 2nds with different window spacings. The next HST off the production line would then have the old 2nds refitted out as 1sts with new build 2nds. Bloody complicated I know but that apparently was a plan !

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, they had about half a coach of 3 or 4 compartments at one end of the train. The “compartment” nearest the cab was full width and included the train doors and a door to the passageway through the first area, it was standard class.

The yellow line in this photo suggests from the number of windows it was three first and one standard.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...er.JPG#/media/File:1498_at_Lymington_Pier.JPG

It’s almost 10 years since they finished, doesn’t time fly...

When new, the CIGs had all 4 compartments fitted out for first in one driving vehicle, with one standard class and three first in the other. The standard compartment was the one adjacent to the standard saloon.

When refurbished, it was changed to one standard and three first in both driving vehicles, with the standard one behind the cab, which was sensible as it was the only compartment with external doors, and therefore somewhat less luxurious.

 

[Mikey C]

I was lucky enough to have a private visit to Litchurch Lane in the late 70's and was told there was a plan that once enough coaches had been built with 1st class window spacings, the jigs were to be changed to make a second class coach with one more window to align seats. The plan was that as the new 2nd class coaches came on stream, the older ones would be converted to 1st class. Given the number of second class coaches needed it does seem odd that cheap skate BR felt one jig would do for all seated coaches especially as the catering vehicles were so specialised . Just think how many one offs the GWR made and of course how many variants of MK1 there were.

What was REALLY cheapskate was producing the vast number of Mk 3 based EMUs (and DMUs), all with the windows in the wrong place for the seating, rather than producing a proper design for the EMUs in the first place. Thousands of carriages produced, all with this major flaw

 

[edwin_m]

No, what I meant was they were going to build sufficient 1st class window format for all the proposed units. Initial HST would run with those either as 1sts or 2nds. They would then start on proper 2nd class version and at a convenient inspection would take out the 2nd class coaches with 1st class window spacing and substitute rejigged 2nds with different window spacings. The next HST off the production line would then have the old 2nds refitted out as 1sts with new build 2nds. Bloody complicated I know but that apparently was a plan !

I'd have thought building another set of jigs was cheaper than stripping out a load of nearly new coaches. And left them in a pickle when another build of Mk3s of both classes was needed.

What was REALLY cheapskate was producing the vast number of Mk 3 based EMUs (and DMUs), all with the windows in the wrong place for the seating, rather than producing a proper design for the EMUs in the first place. Thousands of carriages produced, all with this major flaw

Wasn't that inevitable given the use of pocketed sliding doors? They could have had the door pocket within the windows in the style of older LU stock, but that just tends to get dirty

 

[Journeyman]

Yeah - it was a design problem up until the appearance of the Networkers, with doors that slide along the outside of the body. It made for a much better window layout.

 

[Mikey C]

I'd have thought building another set of jigs was cheaper than stripping out a load of nearly new coaches. And left them in a pickle when another build of Mk3s of both classes was needed.

Wasn't that inevitable given the use of pocketed sliding doors? They could have had the door pocket within the windows in the style of older LU stock, but that just tends to get dirty

Yeah - it was a design problem up until the appearance of the Networkers, with doors that slide along the outside of the body. It made for a much better window layout.

But it's not just down to the doors, it's also about the window sizes used. The Mk3s have one size of window which doesn't work well with the seating layout, whereas the Networkers have specifically sized windows with slim pillars to suit the seating layout. The later 376s have sliding doors but also feature varying window sizes to suit the interior layout (not my photos)

 

[Mogz]

When travelling in Germany and neighbouring countries on the ICE trains with young children I've found the Klein kind compartment very useful as it gives space for them to crawl about our play with other children on the journey. Having a carriage specifically aimed at children also helps. This is something I'd like to see in the UK, especially on long distance trains.

There will be somebody somewhere on these forums who will argue that it simply can’t be done here for one reason or another.

I wouldn’t mind if it was pie in the sky but all we are asking are things that:

1. We used to have here

and

2. They still have on the continent.

Seems it’s too much to ask these days, notwithstanding the fact that much of
our rolling stock is of continental build or design!

 

[43096]

I must have been thinking of the ICE3’s.

Only the ICE1 sets have compartments (in any quantity) as far as I know. They were early 1990s built.

 

[hwl]

There will be somebody somewhere on these forums who will argue that it simply can’t be done here for one reason or another.

I wouldn’t mind if it was pie in the sky but all we are asking are things that:

1. We used to have here

and

2. They still have on the continent.

Seems it’s too much to ask these days, notwithstanding the fact that much of
our rolling stock is of continental build or design!

As explained before it fails on personal safety (and perception thereof) for slightly over 50% of the population - just because it used to happen doesn't mean it still should. We also used to allow arsenic /thallium rat poisons but it ended up getting used on humans too - times change.

The UK has more restricted loading gauge and higher passenger densities than the continent so compartments would mean fewer seats, less standing space and worse dwell times.

 

[bastien]

There will be somebody somewhere on these forums who will argue that it simply can’t be done here for one reason or another.

I wouldn’t mind if it was pie in the sky but all we are asking are things that:

1. We used to have here

and

2. They still have on the continent.

Seems it’s too much to ask these days, notwithstanding the fact that much of
our rolling stock is of continental build or design!

I used to be on the newsgroups, so I remember when 25kv bus lines along the train were totally impossible, as were passengers in a leading coach at 125mph. Later we couldn't posdibly have anything but a 373 in the Channel Tunnel and a bi-mode DEMU would never work. Then the tiny Voyager overhead luggage racks were the new normal due to safety regulations.

Still if everything else fails, repeat the mantra: "We can't afford iiiiit."

 

[edwin_m]

But it's not just down to the doors, it's also about the window sizes used. The Mk3s have one size of window which doesn't work well with the seating layout, whereas the Networkers have specifically sized windows with slim pillars to suit the seating layout. The later 376s have sliding doors but also feature varying window sizes to suit the interior layout (not my photos)

Looking at those photos I'm not convinced the window size would make much difference on the Mk3-derived units. The critical decision was to make the door pockets windowless. Those door pockets, including the one for the cab, account for most of the non-window parts of the bodyside. The 319 and 321 have a plug door alongside the driver instead of the crew vestibule behind, and that allows for another smaller window behind the cab, so the design did later evolve away from one window size.

I've never used a 376 but I assume the door leaf appears in the small window like it does on older LU stock. Do they manage to keep the panes clean?

 

[jopsuk]

What's the most recent European daytime stock to have compartments in

1. Standard Class
2. "normal" First Class

Anything recent seems to have them in "super first" or "business". That there's a lot of operators using legacy stock, especially the open access lot, just shows that that stock is cheap and available.

 

[bastien]

What's the most recent European daytime stock to have compartments in

1. Standard Class
2. "normal" First Class

Anything recent seems to have them in "super first" or "business". That there's a lot of operators using legacy stock, especially the open access lot, just shows that that stock is cheap and available.

ICE4 has a family compartment in first.

 

[Mogz]

ICE 3 has them in First Class and family compartments in Standard.

Some ICE 3’s also have “ordinary” Second Class compartments.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mtfynn9ig1a69tg/ICE3-406.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7av2y0gkpyayjcv/ICE3-403.pdf?dl=0

The ICE 1 still has plenty of compartments even after the 2005 refurbs.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/67d3pvtx0mo2vw1/ICE1.pdf?dl=0

None on ICE2 save for family compartments, though.

For those who have the time, here are all the main European Intercity train seating plans:

https://www.seat61.com/Europe-train-seat-plans.htm

 

[Journeyman]

I'm a regular traveller and I value privacy and personal space, but there's several reasons I wouldn't want to go back to compartments, and I think their days have been and gone.

They're great if you're on a lightly loaded train, but being squeezed in with seven strangers in close proximity is gruesomely claustrophobic, and far less preferable to an airline seat, where at most you might sit next to one other person. It's also very difficult to provide tables.

Antisocial behaviour is likely to be a much bigger issue, both things like feet on seats and playing crappy music on phones, right up to much more serious things like mugging, assault and sexual harassment. We don't need to do anything to encourage these things! Open layouts are much more secure and provide far less scope for this sort of thing to happen. With all due respect, the vast majority of people commenting here are older males who have far less to fear from a safety perspective than young women do. For them, a compartment is just asking for trouble and it will effectively exclude them from the carriage. You can say "but provide open coaches too", but what if the only room is in a compartment that has one solitary male in it? Would you sit in it? I certainly wouldn't.

 

[bastien]

Looks like the new ECx Talgo trains are due to have kiddie compartments too, and they're so new they haven't been built yet.

 

[edwin_m]

There's some merit to family compartments but may be difficult in the UK because our fare levels effectively price families off the main business trains where capacity is most needed. So they would have to be dual purpose in some way, and I'm not sure business people would take kindly to having a seat surrounded by toys, crayons* etc.

*although some forum members would like this...

 

[Nick_C]

What's the most recent European daytime stock to have compartments in

1. Standard Class
2. "normal" First Class

Anything recent seems to have them in "super first" or "business". That there's a lot of operators using legacy stock, especially the open access lot, just shows that that stock is cheap and available.

According to vagonweb.cz, PKP had a batch of second class compartment stock delivered in 2014. MAV have a batch of brand new bistro cars with first class compartments (possibly not delivered yet, it says 2019 - ??)

 

[Bletchleyite]

According to vagonweb.cz, PKP had a batch of second class compartment stock delivered in 2014. MAV have a batch of brand new bistro cars with first class compartments (possibly not delivered yet, it says 2019 - ??)

I don't know about MAV, but PKP is an insanely conservative operation, it mostly does things because it always has done them, not for any other reason.

 

[Nick_C]

I don't know about MAV, but PKP is an insanely conservative operation, it mostly does things because it always has done them, not for any other reason.

Not always a bad thing - The trains are comfortable (no rock-hard seats like we've got), cheap, mostly reliable and have excellent restaurant cars. When lines have been closed they've been mothballed rather than being torn up and sold off, making them much easier to reopen. There's a big push of investment going on over there at the moment, with loads of lines being upgraded/reopened etc.

 

[bastien]

There's some merit to family compartments but may be difficult in the UK because our fare levels effectively price families off the main business trains where capacity is most needed. So they would have to be dual purpose in some way, and I'm not sure business people would take kindly to having a seat surrounded by toys, crayons* etc.

*although some forum members would like this...

Sounds like some of the trendier offices I've worked in, to be fair.

 

[Mogz]

So the reasons against seem to be...

1. They're not safe/secure.... but we have CCTV and guards, and the problems that did happen related mainly to non-corridor stock.

2. British TOC's are not the same as DB....even though DB is the parent company to many of them.

3. Germany has better funded railways...but poorer European countries such as Poland also have them.

4. Our train loadings are too dense... but our trains are too short and could be longer, like they are on the continent.

5. They take up too much carriage room... but not in First Class where you would still get six seats per pair of windows.

6. They cost too much... but we have the highest fares in Europe.

7. It's only available on the continent in old stock - but some operators are still using/refurbishing and even building them

8. Those operators are too conservative... so just shut up and accept that they're not coming back to the UK.