Why can’t modern rolling stock be as spacious and comfortable as Mk 1 coaches?

[modernrail]

A lot of the focus of comments has been around interior layout.

One thing I have wondered for a while is why we have lost the feeling of space in the MKI's. They seemed to be profiled to eek out every drop of carriage volume available within the loading gauge. Modern trains seem to taper in towards the top and the interior ceiling is lower.

I get the tapering with tilters but why elsewhere? It leads to smaller overhead rack space as well as a feeling of the reality of a smaller volume.

On the roof/ceiling..is this because of all the equipment that needs to go somewhere in a modern carriage?

The best 2 modern trains at using the space offered by the loading gauge to its full potential seem to be the class 333, the roof profile of which almost seems a bit MKI, and the Desiros. The new Stadlers look like they might also use the full envelope well? The Azumas seem to be a bit of a fail on this front, I think they taper?

I would have thought it a basic design principle for trains in the UK, with our limited loading gauge, that you max out dimensions to use the full envelope.

 

[yorksrob]

Mk1 slam door trains were terrible.
Cramped, noisy, draughty, hot/cold, shoulder ache if you got stuck against the cold wall, soaking wet if against the window, and an awkward embarrassing stumble over feet to get in or out.
Couldn’t see empty seats through the condensation and if you got in the wrong door no easy way to move to a space.
The Sprung seats were annoyingly bouncy and gave off clouds of dust if you sat down too quick.
Oh, and a ridiculous way of opening doors

With the exception of having to open a door (heaven forfend) and the superior comfortable seats on a mk 1, your description sounds far more like a 150.

 

[yorksrob]

This thread just goes to show how comprehensively subjective train seating is! I am one of those who prefers the 'sofa' style used in Mk1 stock (particularly compartments) but then I also think back to what would then have been an 'economy' type of seating used in Phase 2 CIGs, VEPs and, I think, Classes 310/312 as well. This was harder than the traditional, squashy Mk1 style and wasn't very rateable at the time, but during the final years of the 'slammers' I thought it was a damn sight more comfortable than anything contemporary, or indeed anything since.

Very true observations. You don't know what you've got until its almost gone.