What is the best EMU in Britain?

[Peter Mugridge]

(if they gave them proper designations with letters).

There's an idea; how about designating the 390s as 9-YUK / 11-YUK?

*scarpers*

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Local: Class 378
Medium/long: Class 375/3 /6 /7 /8

An 'Electrostar Express' should have been produced to rival the 444. End doorways and 2+2 tables with the comfy 375 seats (not the /9's).

Yes. They would probably have been a bit lighter as well, as the door openings on the present trains are in the worst possible position structurally and the bodyshell needs to be strengthened across the doorways.

See here. But when new Electrostars were ordered there was no interest in these mods.

 

[starrymarkb]

Yes. They would probably have been a bit lighter as well, as the door openings on the present trains are in the worst possible position structurally and the bodyshell needs to be strengthened across the doorways.

See here. But when new Electrostars were ordered there was no interest in these mods.

I believe Electrostars are heavier then the equivalent Desiro..

Is that your blog?... they seem to make the same arguments

 

[bronzeonion]

Yes. They would probably have been a bit lighter as well, as the door openings on the present trains are in the worst possible position structurally and the bodyshell needs to be strengthened across the doorways.

See here. But when new Electrostars were ordered there was no interest in these mods.

Regarding the PTI (Platform Train Interface) the track needs to be lowered at alot of stations like Clapham Junction. Probably better in the long run than to install 'gap bridgers' to trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I modified the diagram on the Class 377 page on Wikipedia on Paint yesterday and came up with this.

 

[atomicdanny]

Could someone enlighten me as to why 365s are "so much better" than anything else? They seem pretty average to me.

When I used them they were perfect for what they were designed for and much better seating than the 375s that replaced them where I am. Although in my case it has nothing to do with the ECML or those horrible fronts that WAGN put on the 365s (I hate the smiley face!)

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Regarding the PTI (Platform Train Interface) the track needs to be lowered at alot of stations like Clapham Junction. Probably better in the long run than to install 'gap bridgers' to trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I modified the diagram on the Class 377 page on Wikipedia on Paint yesterday and came up with this.

Nice one. Tweaked it a bit so that there is standback space on either side of the doors. Not sure I like it in the Southern livery though.

Gap bridges are the only effective way of dealing with curved platforms. They could probably pay for themselves on a busy route, with shorter station dwell times and less accidents.

 

[RJM]

My favourite EMU is probably the Class 395. I love travelling at speed, haven't been on a Eurostar yet so I won't judge them.

Second favourite is probably the Class 390.

RJM

 

[43074]

For me it would have to be a 365 (favourite) or a 350/1 - they're relatively fast, have great acceleration and are spacious and comfortable.

I can't stand any EMU with high-backed 3+2 seating - like a 450 - its too claustrophobic.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Whilst, for various reasons, I'm not going to suggest what the 'best' EMU is, I will stick my neck out and declare my liking for the 323's. Nice, clean and simple units that are well suited to the work they do.

 

[TGV]

Wheels look a bit small on that sketch. By my rough scaling, the height of the unit is 3.68m (from the internet), the wheel diameter fits that height a shade over 5 times. Call it 5.1. That means the wheel diameter as drawn is ~720mm. I'm used to wheel diameters of 930 to 1050mm so that figure seems on the small side to me. Hey, it's only a representation so it's not a big deal no. They just look too small to me.

 

[bronzeonion]

Nice one. Tweaked it a bit so that there is standback space on either side of the doors. Not sure I like it in the Southern livery though.

Gap bridges are the only effective way of dealing with curved platforms. They could probably pay for themselves on a busy route, with shorter station dwell times and less accidents.

The livery looks nice on it! The passenger door closest to the cab door was set back as far as it is in my original so the cab door would open without obstructing the passenger doorway.

I thought by lowering the track the silver coloured steps on the doors would effectively bridge the majority of the gap?

 

[WL113]

Always liked the old 304 units, lovely old things they were. 310 trains used to go well!

Out of todays units the 350 takes some beating and the 323s are still so reliable even though they are knocking on a bit now.

 

[transmanche]

I believe Electrostars are heavier then the equivalent Desiro.

According to therailwaycentre.com, 450/0s are 170 tonnes and 377/1s & 377/2s are 173.6 tonnes.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The livery looks nice on it! The passenger door closest to the cab door was set back as far as it is in my original so the cab door would open without obstructing the passenger doorway.

I thought by lowering the track the silver coloured steps on the doors would effectively bridge the majority of the gap?

There are two components to step distance. The vertical difference and the horizontal distance. The former can sometimes be adjusted to give the correct standard hight which I think is 915 above rail level. Some London Overground stations have higher platforms level with the floor of the vehicles. Where platforms are curved there is a wider gap. The closer to the bogies the doorways are, the less the difference. Class 158 are better than Turbostars which can have big gaps at concave platform faces. Electrostars are better generally than classes 455/317 and similar types. There is also the effect of superelevation on curves. Some trains give rise to huge gaps on some locations in eg Clapham Junction eg platforms 13 at the London end and platform 17. There are some big gaps at certain London underground stations, hence "Mind the Gap", as these were built when vehicles were about half the length. I am surprised that the S stock was built without extending steps, at least those for the Circle and District lines. The gaps are a hazard in some places.

 

[bronzeonion]

There are two components to step distance. The vertical difference and the horizontal distance. The former can sometimes be adjusted to give the correct standard hight which I think is 915 above rail level. Some London Overground stations have higher platforms level with the floor of the vehicles. Where platforms are curved there is a wider gap. The closer to the bogies the doorways are, the less the difference. Class 158 are better than Turbostars which can have big gaps at concave platform faces. Electrostars are better generally than classes 455/317 and similar types. There is also the effect of superelevation on curves. Some trains give rise to huge gaps on some locations in eg Clapham Junction eg platforms 13 at the London end and platform 17. There are some big gaps at certain London underground stations, hence "Mind the Gap", as these were built when vehicles were about half the length. I am surprised that the S stock was built without extending steps, at least those for the Circle and District lines. The gaps are a hazard in some places.

The problem with extending steps is that its abit unpractical, it would take a ages for doors to open at stations

 

[jopsuk]

The closer to the bogies the doorways are, the less the difference.

Um, platforms curve both ways. What you say is correct for a concave platform face, but on a convex platform face the closer to the centre of the carriage the closer to the platform the doors are.

There's other factors too- carriage end doors, even if they;re wide, are ineffecient for loading/unloading compared to ¼/¾ door position

 

[HSTEd]

According to therailwaycentre.com, 450/0s are 170 tonnes and 377/1s & 377/2s are 173.6 tonnes.

Yes, now fit the 450 with the transformer the 377s carry around.

The Electrostars are almost certainly lighter once you remove the advantage the Class 450 obtains from not carrying several tonnes of transformer, switchgear and pantographs around.

 

[starrymarkb]

But not all 377s carry the pantograph...

Given how much sturdier the 450s are it does make me wonder where the extra weight is.. Possibly the extra traction pack and motors that 377s carry (Desiros have 2 motor vehicles per set 4 car set, Electrostars have 3)

 

[172212]

Class 350 - Desiro or Class 390 - Pendolino

 

[LE Greys]

Um, platforms curve both ways. What you say is correct for a concave platform face, but on a convex platform face the closer to the centre of the carriage the closer to the platform the doors are.

There's other factors too- carriage end doors, even if they;re wide, are ineffecient for loading/unloading compared to ¼/¾ door position

Yes and no. If the doors are directly above the bogie centre pivots (as seen in some DD stock where you have high platforms) then they do not swing either way. However, that's not a very convenient place for them, unless you have extra-big toilets or luggage racks in the ends of the coaches and the saloon between the doors, which might work on Voyagers, but at one end only. Otherwise, you would have to cram a small passenger compartment into there to avoid losing seats. It works on DD stock, because that can be for wheelchairs, prams and so on, but not on SD stock, because it ends up as a bit of a waste of space.

As you say, the ¼/¾ position is much more practical for suburban stock, while inter-city stock suits end doors.

 

[jopsuk]

Yes and no. If the doors are directly above the bogie centre pivots (as seen in some DD stock where you have high platforms) then they do not swing either way.

They don't swing, but the centre of the coach does- thus the track has to be further from the platform than if it was a straight platform, creating a gap.

 

[LE Greys]

They don't swing, but the centre of the coach does- thus the track has to be further from the platform than if it was a straight platform, creating a gap.

Sorry, thought he was referring to MkIV-style end-doors, which are further 'out' than the bogie pivot and have the same problems, just inverted.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Um, platforms curve both ways. What you say is correct for a concave platform face, but on a convex platform face the closer to the centre of the carriage the closer to the platform the doors are.

There's other factors too- carriage end doors, even if they;re wide, are ineffecient for loading/unloading compared to ¼/¾ door position

This keeps being said but where is the evidence? All end door vehicles have restricted vestibule space and a pinch point at the entrance to the saloon. There is no possibility of making like-for-like comparisons with UK stock.

Stock such as the class 313 in its original form was glacially slow due to the lack of standback space. Most plug door stock has an awkward step.

The optimum place for doors for minimising the effects of platform curvature in either direction is over the bogies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They don't swing, but the centre of the coach does- thus the track has to be further from the platform than if it was a straight platform, creating a gap.

Not quite like that either. Have a look at the C1 loading gauge diagram. You will see that it cuts in at platform level and below. On a convex platform the end doors will be further from the platform edge than if the platform is straight. On a concave platform the vehicle cuts off a chord between the bogie centres which follow the line of the track itself, leading to a wider gap.

At the bogie centres the gap is going to be unaffacted by curvature.

1/4:3/4 doors results in two small compartments typically about 4 metres long where the options for seat layouts are restricted normally to 4 rows of seats. In longer saloons seats can be fitted in at different pitches to achieve the desired seating density - possibly too many for comfort.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with extending steps is that its abit unpractical, it would take a ages for doors to open at stations

The step takes at most five seconds to deploy before the doors can be opened and after they are shut, more likely three seconds to open and a second to shut. Four seconds is not ages. If it means people get on and off the train faster then they would otherwise do then that is time saved.

 

[transmanche]

The step takes at most five seconds to deploy before the doors can be opened and after they are shut, more likely three seconds to open and a second to shut. Four seconds is not ages. If it means people get on and off the train faster then they would otherwise do then that is time saved.

Instead of a moving step, how about a moving platform instead - like at Union Square on New York's Subway.

 

[jopsuk]

1/4:3/4 doors results in two small compartments typically about 4 metres long where the options for seat layouts are restricted normally to 4 rows of seats. In longer saloons seats can be fitted in at different pitches to achieve the desired seating density - possibly too many for comfort.

If you shifted the doors on say a 365 from their current position (slightly inboard of the bogies) to directly over the bodies, you'd get a ridiculously small compartment at the car end. As it is, at the unit ends there's space between the doors and the windscreen for a 1st class compartment with a row of airline seating plus a table bay AND a driving cab.

I think the idea with the mid-doors, three compartment layout is that with doors wide enough, people can be filing out of both compartments at once. From the central section, if someone is being slow at getting their luggage off the overhead racks, people can file out the longer way. Even with the same width doors at the car ends, you can't get these benefits. Not important on intercity and inter regional stock, very important on commuter stock. After all, look at metro stock (such as London Underground), where the theory is taken even further with three or four sets of doors on even shorter car bodies.

As for slide out steps? It isn't a daft idea. If they're able to deploy as the doors open then it shouldn' slow things down. After all, Pendolinos and Eurostars have them!

 

[tbtc]

The optimum place for doors for minimising the effects of platform curvature in either direction is over the bogies

Like on IEP?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Like on IEP?

You then end up with 3.5 metres of vehicle length to be used up, which is not impossible but it can not be used for standard seating.

If you apply the formula for overthrows and body width reduction and enter the vehicle dimensions on a spreadsheet, you will find that at a 200 metre radius curve, the body width must be reduced by 12 cm if the bogie centres are 19 m. That is a further 4 cm loss compared to the 16 metre spacing of a 23 metre vehicle (2.74) and zero loss for a 20 metre vehicle.

Which is why the infrastructure must be changed to accommodate the longer vehicles.

 

[sprinterguy]

You then end up with 3.5 metres of vehicle length to be used up, which is not impossible but it can not be used for standard seating.

The space in the vehicle ends is being used for toilets and luggage stowage on the IEP trains. This leaves the full saloon length between the doors free to be filled entirely with seating.

 

[aspierail]

For me its a class 321 as i love the sound of the traction motors when they accelerate.

 

[F1Ken]

For me its a class 321 as i love the sound of the traction motors when they accelerate.

Me to! The wine they make. Oh I love them to bits. They became my favourites after the 312's retired. And they were lovely old things that also made a great noise. And the suspension was basically in the springy bench style seat. And the noise off the old bolted rails! Oh the nostalgia is to much to take.

IN FGE Livery


Ken:cry: