Thoughts on Compartments

[hwl]

That would depend on the terms of reference.

If the question is a closed one, such as 'do you prefer airline or table seating' then of course compartments will not be mentioned.

If the question is open, such as 'what sort of seating layout do you prefer on a train'? or provides the full range of options (airline, facing with table, facing without table transverse or compartment) then the responses may be different.

Can anyone point to any research that supports one side or the other in this debate? So far we have all (me included) had to rely on subjective arguments, personal preferences and bare assertions as to what we THINK the travelling public might want.

And then every "want" has to be tempered with cold hard reality. Personal safety will edit out compartments before they get to a short list to chose from. (see Public Sector Equality Duty).
Compartment would also necessitate a vast increase in CCTV camera to meet coverage levels.


As reminder the rolling stock in mainland europe is almost exactly a foot wider at the widest point and far wider at floor level than the UK hence what might make sense over there can be very space in efficient over here as you effectively lose a seat.

 

[Mogz]

And then every "want" has to be tempered with cold hard reality. Personal safety will edit out compartments before they get to a short list to chose from. (see Public Sector Equality Duty).
Compartment would also necessitate a vast increase in CCTV camera to meet coverage levels.

Are these not also considerations in mature Western European democracies such as France and Germany? The latest German ICE trains are extremely accessible.

Back to my original point - if the 'want' for compartments is edited out of the short list, then how can the travelling public express a preference for them.

It's doublethink to suggest that the travelling public don't want them but the option to prefer them in survey should/would be edited out beforehand.

It's like an election in a dictatorship - if there's only one candidate on the ballot, who therefore gets 100% of votes cast, it doesn't mean that everyone would have voted for them if another candidate was available

As reminder the rolling stock in mainland europe is almost exactly a foot wider at the widest point and far wider at floor level than the UK hence what might make sense over there can be very space in efficient over here as you effectively lose a seat.

Not an issue in First Class where 2+1 open or 3+0 compartments will take up exactly the same space.

In a Family Compartment they're 3+0 on DB not 4+0 anyway so if you were comparing 'like for like' it's still possible in the UK.

 

[hwl]

Are these not also considerations in mature Western European democracies such as France and Germany? The latest German ICE trains are extremely accessible.

Back to my original point - if the 'want' for compartments is edited out of the short list, then how can the travelling public express a preference for them.

It's doublethink to suggest that the travelling public don't want them but the option to prefer them in survey should/would be edited out beforehand.

It's like an election in a dictatorship - if there's only one candidate on the ballot, who therefore gets 100% of votes cast, it doesn't mean that everyone would have voted for them if another candidate was available



Not an issue in First Class where 2+1 open or 3+0 compartments will take up exactly the same space.

In a Family Compartment they're 3+0 on DB not 4+0 anyway so if you were comparing 'like for like' it's still possible in the UK.

People way "want" to free public transport but that never goes on poll either!

The UK trains are more crowded than on the continent (especially IC) hence space is at premium and compartments reduce total capacity as you also lose useful length e.g. it is less space efficient that open 2+1 (partition thickness and not airline which gives you and extra row of seats for every 3 bays). Hence like first class charge a significant premium for the privilege.

DfT are shifting towards ending first class on many longer commuter routes as the best way to utilise limited capacity both on trains and the network. E.g. the SE franchise (cancelled) would have seen long distance services from Charing Cross & Cannon Street to mid /outer Kent lose first class. In the forth coming highly probable direct award DfT may get Govia to implement this anyway as cheap capacity increase.

 

[Journeyman]

That would depend on the terms of reference.

If the question is a closed one, such as 'do you prefer airline or table seating' then of course compartments will not be mentioned.

If the question is open, such as 'what sort of seating layout do you prefer on a train'? or provides the full range of options (airline, facing with table, facing without table transverse or compartment) then the responses may be different.

Can anyone point to any research that supports one side or the other in this debate? So far we have all (me included) had to rely on subjective arguments, personal preferences and bare assertions as to what we THINK the travelling public might want.

I know you won't be satisfied with this, but in a long and varied career, and a lifetime of interest, and plenty of reading of reports, surveys, you name it...

The evidence that the British travelling public want compartments is a whopping, big fat zero.

Compartments were only provided when the Mark 1s were built because BR lacked the resources or imagination to provide anything other than like-for-like replacements of existing vehicles, many of which were decades old. By the time the Mark 2s appeared in bulk, it was clear that the public wanted modern, airy, spacious vehicles, and that meant open saloons. BR didn't stop building compartment vehicles because they were evil bastards, they stopped building them because it became increasingly clear that people didn't want them.

In all the research and surveys I've seen, the key issues that people consider important are price, reliability and getting a seat. Everything else is an incredibly distant second. People also want trains to be safe and secure, and as plenty of us on this thread have mentioned, compartments considerably up the risk of anti-social behaviour. They also reduce capacity, make provision of tables very difficult, and feel extremely claustrophobic when full, all things the British travelling public dislike.

The idea that there's even a tiny number of people out there aggrieved by the non-availability of compartments on the British railway is absolute nonsense.

 

[Mogz]

I know you won't be satisfied with this, but in a long and varied career, and a lifetime of interest, and plenty of reading of reports, surveys, you name it...

The evidence that the British travelling public want compartments is a whopping, big fat zero.

Compartments were only provided when the Mark 1s were built because BR lacked the resources or imagination to provide anything other than like-for-like replacements of existing vehicles, many of which were decades old. By the time the Mark 2s appeared in bulk, it was clear that the public wanted modern, airy, spacious vehicles, and that meant open saloons. BR didn't stop building compartment vehicles because they were evil bastards, they stopped building them because it became increasingly clear that people didn't want them.

In all the research and surveys I've seen, the key issues that people consider important are price, reliability and getting a seat. Everything else is an incredibly distant second. People also want trains to be safe and secure, and as plenty of us on this thread have mentioned, compartments considerably up the risk of anti-social behaviour. They also reduce capacity, make provision of tables very difficult, and feel extremely claustrophobic when full, all things the British travelling public dislike.

The idea that there's even a tiny number of people out there aggrieved by the non-availability of compartments on the British railway is absolute nonsense.

Your experience puts the matter in context.

I suppose it’s one of those things that I will have to continue to enjoy the amenity of on the continent (like proper Tzatziki in Greece- the supermarket stuff in the UK doesn’t even come close...) whilst accepting that it’s not for us Brits.

 

[Journeyman]

Your experience puts the matter in context.

I suppose it’s one of those things that I will have to continue to enjoy the amenity of on the continent (like proper Tzatziki in Greece- the supermarket stuff in the UK doesn’t even come close...) whilst accepting that it’s not for us Brits.

It's worth bearing in mind that in many ways, British culture has more similarities to American culture than it has to mainland European culture, and compartment vehicles were always a rarity in America.

 

[yorksrob]

I know you won't be satisfied with this, but in a long and varied career, and a lifetime of interest, and plenty of reading of reports, surveys, you name it...

The evidence that the British travelling public want compartments is a whopping, big fat zero.

Compartments were only provided when the Mark 1s were built because BR lacked the resources or imagination to provide anything other than like-for-like replacements of existing vehicles, many of which were decades old. By the time the Mark 2s appeared in bulk, it was clear that the public wanted modern, airy, spacious vehicles, and that meant open saloons. BR didn't stop building compartment vehicles because they were evil bastards, they stopped building them because it became increasingly clear that people didn't want them.

In all the research and surveys I've seen, the key issues that people consider important are price, reliability and getting a seat. Everything else is an incredibly distant second. People also want trains to be safe and secure, and as plenty of us on this thread have mentioned, compartments considerably up the risk of anti-social behaviour. They also reduce capacity, make provision of tables very difficult, and feel extremely claustrophobic when full, all things the British travelling public dislike.

The idea that there's even a tiny number of people out there aggrieved by the non-availability of compartments on the British railway is absolute nonsense.

I'm not sure that's entirely true, otherwise the new Wessex Electrics wouldn't have been built with them in 1989. It's also worth noting that they were retained for premium first class travel longer than standard, suggesting that higher paying business types preferred them.

 

[Journeyman]

I'm not sure that's entirely true, otherwise the new Wessex Electrics wouldn't have been built with them in 1989. It's also worth noting that they were retained for premium first class travel longer than standard, suggesting that higher paying business types preferred them.

Someone stated upthread that they were provided on the 442s because there was supposedly a demand for privacy among senior military types using the line. They were the first compartment vehicles built in over a decade, since the last aircon mark 2s, and the final batches of VEPs - again, only first class compartments were provided. So yes...demand for them was higher among first class passengers, but the demographics of first class have changed a lot since the seventies and eighties anyway. It's much more of a leisure product these days, and in any case, it's easier to work in a modern first class single seat than it would be in a compartment with up to five other people.

 

[Mikey C]

Someone stated upthread that they were provided on the 442s because there was supposedly a demand for privacy among senior military types using the line. They were the first compartment vehicles built in over a decade, since the last aircon mark 2s, and the final batches of VEPs - again, only first class compartments were provided. So yes...demand for them was higher among first class passengers, but the demographics of first class have changed a lot since the seventies and eighties anyway. It's much more of a leisure product these days, and in any case, it's easier to work in a modern first class single seat than it would be in a compartment with up to five other people.

Yes there's a difference between 80s/90s 1st class commuter from Bournemouth reading his FT or Telegraph, and the modern equivalent busy tapping away at his laptop, answering emails...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes there's a difference between 80s/90s 1st class commuter from Bournemouth reading his FT or Telegraph, and the modern equivalent busy tapping away at his laptop, answering emails...

That person wants a table and a socket, not a compartment which certainly doesn't have the former.

 

[Mogz]

That person wants a table and a socket, not a compartment which certainly doesn't have the former.

In which case, DB style, they could occupy one of the (vast majority of) saloon style first class seats, leaving the (few) compartments to the business traveller who might want to hold a meeting, make a call or undertake a Skype conference in the privacy and silence of their own pre-booked compartment.

This would also have the advantage of the option to turn down the volume of the on-board announcements for said conferences, and the ability adjust the temperature and lighting to more relaxing levels when returning home on the long journey at the end of a business trip.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In which case, DB style, they could occupy one of the (vast majority of) saloon style first class seats, leaving the (few) compartments to the business traveller who might want to hold a meeting, make a call or undertake a Skype conference in the privacy and silence of their own pre-booked compartment.

Their own pre-booked compartment? What about the other 5 passengers in it?

Actually, you have a point there - perhaps business people would actually pay good money for enclosed single seats!

 

[DelW]

No more complicated than the current arrangement of expressing a preference for a table or airline seat, surely?

The Germans (and indeed other continental European countries) seem to manage somehow. Are we British uniquely thick, or something?

It can cause problems and confusion on the continent too though.

Last autumn I did a return trip from Berlin to Dresden, travelling on services using Czech rolling stock (they ran through to and from Prague). I had reserved seats in open saloon coaches both ways.

The southbound journey was fine, though the coach was full. However, on the return, the correct-numbered coach was compartment stock, meaning only three quarters as many seats (6 seat compartments instead of 8 seat bays) and a different numbering system (11-16, 21-26, etc.). I managed to get a forward facing window seat with a roughly similar number, but leaving Dresden there were several groups of passengers walking up and down the corridor looking for "their" numbers, and quite a few ended up standing.

There was a slightly heated discussion with the conductor when he came through, not all of which I could follow, but there were certainly some unhappy passengers. I think the (DB) conductor was blaming Czech Railways for the problem.

 

[Mogz]

Their own pre-booked compartment? What about the other 5 passengers in it?

Actually, you have a point there - perhaps business people would actually pay good money for enclosed single seats!

Agreed! It works in First Class on some airlines. You could call them “pods”.

Point is you could also have pre-reservable pods with multiple seats for
groups too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed! It works in First Class on some airlines. You could call them “pods”.

Point is you could also have pre-reservable pods with multiple seats for
groups too.

That kind of thing, at a very premium price, is no bad idea for HS2 where you've got 400m of train to play with.

 

[keith1879]

I'm not seeing any independent research quoted here.... It all seems rather subjective. The current position in this country is "no compartments" coupled with very heavy usage of the trains. There is surely a burden of proof on the supporters of compartment stock to provide some evidence that it will increase ridership.

 

[Mikey C]

That person wants a table and a socket, not a compartment which certainly doesn't have the former.

Indeed that's why the "1" in a "2 + 1" is so popular, for someone by themselves wanting to do some work

 

[yorksrob]

Someone stated upthread that they were provided on the 442s because there was supposedly a demand for privacy among senior military types using the line. They were the first compartment vehicles built in over a decade, since the last aircon mark 2s, and the final batches of VEPs - again, only first class compartments were provided. So yes...demand for them was higher among first class passengers, but the demographics of first class have changed a lot since the seventies and eighties anyway. It's much more of a leisure product these days, and in any case, it's easier to work in a modern first class single seat than it would be in a compartment with up to five other people.

I'm sure I remember reading that the 'classic' networker series proposed in the late 80's (using repurposed mk1 chassis) would have included compartments as well, so not just a military thing at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed that's why the "1" in a "2 + 1" is so popular, for someone by themselves wanting to do some work

For me the 1 side in 1st is the major (and potentially only) selling point of 1st. If I was going to be with 5 others in a compartment I might as well travel Standard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure I remember reading that the 'classic' networker series proposed in the late 80's (using repurposed mk1 chassis) would have included compartments as well, so not just a military thing at the time.

I don't believe they did, they were quite basic 2+2 seated open coaches with fairly cheap seats. The concept was a budget idea to eke out another 10 years from them.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't believe they did, they were quite basic 2+2 seated open coaches with fairly cheap seats. The concept was a budget idea to eke out another 10 years from them.

Hmm. I was under the impression that they were still to be an express standard unit. If anyone's got the drawings we can settle the issue.

 

[RLBH]

Hmm. I was under the impression that they were still to be an express standard unit. If anyone's got the drawings we can settle the issue.

There was 'Networker Classic', which was to put Networker-style bodies on old underframes and running gear to save money, and 'Main Line Networker' which was to replace older EMUs on the Kent Coast express services. The latter seem to have been intended to have compartments in First Class, but not in Standard.

I can see the argument for a limited number of First Class compartments on intercity-type services. On local or commuter services, and especially in Standard, they're deader than the dodo - in this country at least.

 

[Journeyman]

For me the 1 side in 1st is the major (and potentially only) selling point of 1st. If I was going to be with 5 others in a compartment I might as well travel Standard.

Absolutely. If, as a solo traveller, I ended up occupying a corner of a four-seat table in First, there's no point in me being there. An airline seat in standard would be better. I pay the premium for an individual seat.

 

[Journeyman]

I'm sure I remember reading that the 'classic' networker series proposed in the late 80's (using repurposed mk1 chassis) would have included compartments as well, so not just a military thing at the time.

I don't believe they did, they were quite basic 2+2 seated open coaches with fairly cheap seats. The concept was a budget idea to eke out another 10 years from them.

There was only ever one Networker Classic vehicle built on a Mark 1 chassis, and it strongly resembled an Electrostar driving vehicle. It was fitted out with 2+2 standard seats, and was displayed in a few places, but attracted no interest from the ex-Southern Region TOCs who might have been interested. It was in the chaotic early days of privatisation and during the period when practically no rolling stock was ordered.

Never seen any evidence that compartments would have been on offer, and quite how you'd fit them in a bodyshell with doors at 2/3 positions, I don't know.

 

[James James]

Absolutely. If, as a solo traveller, I ended up occupying a corner of a four-seat table in First, there's no point in me being there. An airline seat in standard would be better. I pay the premium for an individual seat.

Umm really? Even if I can't get a single seat, first is still worth it for the extra table and elbow space.

 

[Journeyman]

Umm really? Even if I can't get a single seat, first is still worth it for the extra table and elbow space.

Yeah. I hate sitting opposite or next to strangers, so the attraction of First for me is single seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Umm really? Even if I can't get a single seat, first is still worth it for the extra table and elbow space.

Not worth enough to me I'm afraid. I would only do Weekend First in a seat on the 1 side unless Standard had no seats available.

 

[yorksrob]

There was 'Networker Classic', which was to put Networker-style bodies on old underframes and running gear to save money, and 'Main Line Networker' which was to replace older EMUs on the Kent Coast express services. The latter seem to have been intended to have compartments in First Class, but not in Standard.

I can see the argument for a limited number of First Class compartments on intercity-type services. On local or commuter services, and especially in Standard, they're deader than the dodo - in this country at least.

Ah thanks, I knew I'd seen it somewhere.

There was only ever one Networker Classic vehicle built on a Mark 1 chassis, and it strongly resembled an Electrostar driving vehicle. It was fitted out with 2+2 standard seats, and was displayed in a few places, but attracted no interest from the ex-Southern Region TOCs who might have been interested. It was in the chaotic early days of privatisation and during the period when practically no rolling stock was ordered.

Never seen any evidence that compartments would have been on offer, and quite how you'd fit them in a bodyshell with doors at 2/3 positions, I don't know.

I'd assumed they'd have doors at the carriage ends, as on the Wessex's, however it's difficult to tell, with only one vehicle having been built.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's possible to have compartments on a doors at thirds layout. Some DB Silberling stock did, for one example.

 

[Journeyman]

I'd assumed they'd have doors at the carriage ends, as on the Wessex's, however it's difficult to tell, with only one vehicle having been built.

Quick bit of Googling threw up a picture.

As you can see, it has a lot of family resemblance to Networker/Electrostar/Turbostar vehicles, with doors in pockets a bit like the class 376. It's 20 metres long, of course, like the chassis it was built on (a 4-CIG driving trailer).

It was built in 1997, and made a few public appearances - apparently Connex South Central were interested. The concept was a sound one - the electrical equipment and bogies of SR EMUs were bulletproof and reliable, but the bodies failed to meet modern safety and accessibility standards. They would have been quite cheap to produce, by the looks of things, but before long all three of the main ex-Southern TOCs decided on large new builds.

This vehicle survived until 2012.

I'm guessing you may be mixing this up a bit with the plans NSE had to build various other classes in the Networker family - certainly there were main-line, doors-at-the-ends vehicles planned for that, which may or may not have included compartments. Obviously those got shelved in the run-up to privatisation. Info here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Classes_371,_381_and_471