Worst Rolling Stock in UK

[BestWestern]

Voyagers are a bit ropey but 222s are much improved. When travelling between Manchester and London I usually go via Chesterfield because I prefer the 222s to the 390s

The 444s have standard Desiro seats which are a bit of a love/hate thing.

I must confess I've never flown by 222, but yes the 220/221's are ropey indeed! And now tatty too, which just makes things worse still :roll:

As for the Desiro seats, what's to love??! They're just terrible, the most uncomfortable train seats I can think of (apart from certain FGW 158's with knackered springs under their new upholstery!). Are the new seats SWT have fitted in the 455's the same design too?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If I ate too much rich food at night, I'd be really scared that I might have the worst nightmare imagineable (with apologies to the poet):-

Pacers to the left of them
Pacers to the right
Pacers to the front of them.....

Did I say which type of train I dont like....?:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

wow I didn't know the pacers ever made it west of Bridgend/Maesteg. Have you ever known them to make it up the HoW?

This is beginning to sound like part of the script of "The Day of the Triffids"

 

[junglejames]

Pacers. Shocking cheapness and rubbish. Even pants after changing the engines on some and an absolute horror to travel on. I laugh that someone can say Pendo's and acknowledge their shortcomings, and not the shortcomings and plain poor design of Pacers. The only modification of note carried out to the Pacer units was the addition of a Class 87!!

I hope that wouldnt be getting at what i think its getting at. If so, that is extremely poor taste.
Laughing at a rail crash is not funny.

Also, pendys is a very good answer. It depends on how the question is meant. If its the worst full stop, then pacers are going to be near the top. However pendys may also be near the top to some people becuase of their standard class. It depends how people look at the trains in question.
However if the question is meant as the worst stock for the route it was designed for, then pacers are nowhere near the top. Voyagers are probably right at the top, with pendys not far behind thanks to the woeful standard class interior. So looking at the question from the second perspective, pendys are a very valid answer.

 

[Geezertronic]

The 390s and 220/221s were the first new breed of trains. The 220/221s were apparently improved on in the 222s and one could argue that the 395s improved on the 390s (tilt aside).

Not having travelled on XC 220/221s, is the concensus that they are wearing worse than the VT 221s?

 

[Pumbaa]

Not having travelled on XC 220/221s, is the concensus that they are wearing worse than the VT 221s?

Only because of the different spec light maintenance regime and the choices of the TOC to do the very minimum upkeep/replacement/refresh to keep costs low. A decent spruce up and a decent interior maintenance regime would sort them and make them just as nice to travel on as their VT counterparts.

 

[sprinterguy]

Voyagers and Super Voyagers, although I cannot understand the criticisms directed at the condition of the interior; I travel on the XC Voyagers regularly and the Virgin examples sporadically, and I think that the interiors have proved to be exceptionally hard wearing on the trains, with both TOCs. The original interiors of the mark 4s were in considerably worse condition after a decade in service IMO. I'd say that the interior of the newer 222s are showing much greater signs of wear and tear and looking considerably more tired.

It mostly boils down to the inadequately short length of Voyagers, which is the key reason that they are so badly suited to the routes they operate on, although there are so many other foibles that it rarely takes long to realise just how shockingly designed/incorrectly specified they are for long distance services.

 

[valenta]

It mostly boils down to the inadequately short length of Voyagers, which is the key reason that they are so badly suited to the routes they operate on, although there are so many other foibles that it rarely takes long to realise just how shockingly designed/incorrectly specified they are for long distance services.

I quite agree, voyagers and super voyagers are ridiculously short for journey's to places such as Birmingham. The four or five cars of voyagers are pathetic compared to the eleven or twelve that East Coast 91's or HST's usually operate.

 

[sprinterguy]

I quite agree, voyagers and super voyagers are ridiculously short for journey's to places such as Birmingham. The four or five cars of voyagers are pathetic compared to the eleven or twelve that East Coast 91's or HST's usually operate.

Well, nine carriages on EC (Plus 91+DVT or a pair of powercars bringing the overall train length to something similar to an eleven carriage multiple unit formation).

Many is the time I've looked at a five carriage 221 and wished that that was the minimum train length used on XC (They just about look like a "proper" length train), alongside a fleet of seven carriage units, matching the old XC HST/loco hauled train lengths.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My choice has to be the 142 Pacer, the 142 is a totally flawed idea, that should be confined to the quietest of rural lines.

.....or the loudest of scrapyards

 

[d5509]

I hated Mk3.s when they were new, my favourites then were the early Mk2.s, large windows which would open but a Mk1 SK compartment was always a good find - if you could get a window seat.

I did Euston to Edinburgh return several years back by Pendo and Voyager, none of the trains were packed out luckily, so we managed to move from the cheap cupboard seats without adjacent windows and did get a decent view.

Voyagers are very pretty trains but half an hour of that underfloor engine is enough to confirm, they're really just a sexed up DMUs - they might go fast but I wouldn't want to go far in them.

For me the Cl90 push-pulls on London-Norwich are out in front for a pleasant passenger experience.

 

[anthony263]

If a Pacer is sent down to Tenby and Pembroke Dock in holiday seasons, when there is a need for two coaches because of the numbe rof people travelling, you cna see they are very unsuitable for such a service!

There is notwhere to put the luggage that is associated with such a trip, which means that half the seats are taken up with bags. The toilet facilites are totally inadequate for the families who have often travelled long distances before getting on the Pacer in Swansea. The ride is horrendous, and I'm surprised that anyone ever uses a train again!

They aren't so bad space wise on a journey from Cardiff to Pontypridd or Caerphilly!

I had a class 142 to Tenby back at the end of april on the day i went to west wales to photograph the spitfire class 37's. I know the toilet failed on th eway back and then they had problems with one of the doors when i saw in in the evening.

 

[Yew]

It mostly boils down to the inadequately short length of Voyagers, which is the key reason that they are so badly suited to the routes they operate on, although there are so many other foibles that it rarely takes long to realise just how shockingly designed/incorrectly specified they are for long distance services.

Maybe that will be virgins next priority once the pendolinos are extended?

 

[142094]

As always! They'll never die as far as this forum is concerned! I take it you were doing GCSE?

Did those years ago. Finals at university.

A lot of the people commenting on Pacers are repeatedly using the fact that they are overcrowded as a reason to say they are unsuitable. This is not solely confined to Pacers - have a look at any train leaving Leeds station during the eveing rush. I'd dare say that 185s are unsuitable and therefore some of the worst rolling stock.

 

[HST Power]

.
A lot of the people commenting on Pacers are repeatedly using the fact that they are overcrowded as a reason to say they are unsuitable. This is not solely confined to Pacers - have a look at any train leaving Leeds station during the eveing rush. I'd dare say that 185s are unsuitable and therefore some of the worst rolling stock.

I agree, there's no way you can label a train bad for being crowded. I take a 365 Networker directly to Kings Cross and it's always packed, being a fast service, but they're actually quite comfortable trains. And in London, about 90% of the trains I take are completely full, but that doesn't make them poor.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Did those years ago. Finals at university.

A lot of the people commenting on Pacers are repeatedly using the fact that they are overcrowded as a reason to say they are unsuitable. This is not solely confined to Pacers - have a look at any train leaving Leeds station during the eveing rush. I'd dare say that 185s are unsuitable and therefore some of the worst rolling stock.

Being serious about 185? cos i actually agree

 

[Greenback]

It's not that they are crowded as such, it's more the fact that they can be cramped and have no luggage facilites. This makes them completely unsuitable for use on service that mainly carries long distance leisure travellers like Tenby!

With all due respect to Treherbert, Rhymney and Abercynon, these places do not attract tourists like Saundersfoot or Manorbier! There is better stock for the Valleys lines, Pacers are not ideal there, but they are more suited to those types of operations.

 

[d5509]

It's not that they are crowded as such, it's more the fact that they can be cramped and have no luggage facilites. This makes them completely unsuitable for use on service that mainly carries long distance leisure travellers like Tenby!

With all due respect to Treherbert, Rhymney and Abercynon, these places do not attract tourists like Saundersfoot or Manorbier! There is better stock for the Valleys lines, Pacers are not ideal there, but they are more suited to those types of operations.

Agreed, I used to spend 10 hours a week commuting on 357s, the 2+3 seating meant I could usually squeeze down the aisle and get a seat, so no probs there. The 377s with 2+2 seating are more long distance travel friendly and have viable luggage racks. Yet these are basically the same train adapted to different requirements.
I did Gatwick - Southend with two bags not long ago, 377 - no probs, 357 - no way - sorry too much hassle, I'm getting the coach!

 

[W-on-Sea]

The 357s are great commuter trains (I currently spend at least 10 hours a week on them: by far the best trains I have ever commuted on) - but, yes, they would be no good for a longer distance use. Their biggest flaw: the ridiculous place (gap at the end of the carriage) in which the ostensible luggage space is located.

WRT the 142s - it's a pity that they proved unsuitable for use on branch lines in Devon and Cornwall, as trialled for a while (when they were known as "skippers" and had a wonderful chocolate and cream livery). They definitely were never intended for some of the longer-distance, higher capacity, (Northern) services they are on now.

 

[Oswyntail]

I suppose that, if you leave aside personal taste, what makes "Worst Rolling Stock" needs to be defined before you can answer this. Firstly, I would suggest, are they fit for the purpose for which they were intended? And, actually, I would suggest that all the stock currently in operation pass that test (Pacers intended for branch and tertiary routes, Voyagers as flexible long-distance stock in Operation princess type operation, etc). Then there is the trickier question of whether, given the overall cost, they could have been made any better. Pacers are unashamedly "cheap and cheerful" and meet this criterion. On the other hand, Pendolinos (and, to a lesser extent, Voyagers, apparently having "be as claustrophobic as an average airliner" as part of the design brief, could have been improved. Even within a tilt profile it is feasible to have better windows (as the 225s show). For almost every other class I have experienced, I cannot think of any that fail this second criterion so greatly.

 

[WatcherZero]

With me the biggest fail isnt the claustrophobia (which I dont find) or small windows (which I dont notice) its the absoloute fail of plumbing the toilet pipes next to the air conditioning intake.

 

[WestCoast]

I suppose that, if you leave aside personal taste, what makes "Worst Rolling Stock" needs to be defined before you can answer this. Firstly, I would suggest, are they fit for the purpose for which they were intended? And, actually, I would suggest that all the stock currently in operation pass that test (Pacers intended for branch and tertiary routes, Voyagers as flexible long-distance stock in Operation princess type operation, etc)..

But are Pacers running on so called "tertiary routes"? Not always is the answer. Are busy commuter routes across the North of England (although particularly in areas like Greater Manchester) classed as tertiary? Devon and Cornwall branchlines bare little resemblance to this style of route. Like W-On-Sea says above: high-capacity, longer-distance routes were not their intended locations.

From Lancaster I could spend 2h30 on a Pendolino to London Euston, equally I could spend 2 hours on a Pacer to Leeds. Now, the latter is a route which really deserves something better, or arguably more suitable. The Morecable/Heysham - Leeds route connects two cities, provides an essential Port/Seaside link, and acts as a commuter service between Skipton and Leeds. The Pacer doesn't offer sufficient luggage space, doesn't offer enough comfort (rough riding/seating) and doesn't offer safe places for people to stand up when it gets busy. So, does it satisfy the needs of the route? No it doesn't. Would a sprinter be able to? Much more likely.

I don't have a huge problem when pacers are used on branch lines and "tertiary" routes, it just that they seem to be stretched far beyond that.

One that has not been mentioned is 185. Personally i think they roll too much, i often feel sick when travelling on them, especially on hope valley, and leeds york. Also the seats arnt fantastic.

Interesting. But if we are doing a crude comparison with a pacer - the 185 seats (2-2 with decent legroom and tables) are better than 3-2 cramped Merseytravel and bus bench seated pacers (which make up the bulk of the fleet on the Lancashire side of Northern). A 185 offers plenty of grab rails and wide circulation spaces to assist standing passengers. Personally, I haven't noticed much rolling on the 185s (although they do it a bit), but I think everyone notices the loudness, bouncing and shaking of a pacer - the Grindleford Tunnel is an experience!

 

[asylumxl]

On the other hand, Pendolinos (and, to a lesser extent, Voyagers, apparently having "be as claustrophobic as an average airliner" as part of the design brief, could have been improved.

I've never seen an airliner with such wide and tall windows! I'd love to see one .

 

[Oswyntail]

...
I don't have a huge problem when pacers are used on branch lines and "tertiary" routes, it just that they seem to be stretched far beyond that.

Totally agree - lines like Lancester-Leeds should be having Sprinters as standard (or possibly semi-fasts with Sprinters and Pacers on locals), as they are secondary routes. But a Mini is not a bad car because it cannot cope with F1.

 

[EWS 58038]

Pacers are great....







On a preserved railway during a Diesel gala.

 

[delt1c]

Its about time the pacer bashers woke up and researched the history, Pacers may not be ideal for a lot of services they currently run, but that is not the fault of the Pacers. they were intoduced (as others have posted) for a specific reason and to that end have been very sucsesfull in saving several lines from closure, so the reverse may be applied as they have been very sucsessfull.
Historically there have always been stock used on the wriong services, look at the 70's , 8 car cravens 105 used for suburban services , 8 driving cabs and 3 brake vans. Or suburban stock used on services of 2 or more hours, try sitting beside an ill fitting door in winter for a couple of hours.
As for unsucsessfull how about 2 car 150's and 156 replacing loco hauled in the 80's and 90's.

 

[Ivo]

Its about time the pacer bashers woke up and researched the history, Pacers may not be ideal for a lot of services they currently run, but that is not the fault of the Pacers. they were intoduced (as others have posted) for a specific reason and to that end have been very sucsesfull in saving several lines from closure, so the reverse may be applied as they have been very sucsessfull.
Historically there have always been stock used on the wriong services, look at the 70's , 8 car cravens 105 used for suburban services , 8 driving cabs and 3 brake vans. Or suburban stock used on services of 2 or more hours, try sitting beside an ill fitting door in winter for a couple of hours.
As for unsucsessfull how about 2 car 150's and 156 replacing loco hauled in the 80's and 90's.

Totally agree, but one point I'd like to make. Watch your use of PAcer bashers; although you clearly mean those who are criticising them, remember tha in crank-speak a Pacer Basher would be someone who rides them for enjoyment time after time after time...

357s are good for commuting, but they could do with more standing room in my opinion. I think the middle sections (between the doors) of the centre carriage should be 2+2 instead. Some journeys, like the 17:30 from FST, can be painfully busy!

 

[WestCoast]

To be honest, if you don't like pacers, which many passengers and enthusiasts don't, you have every right to criticise them. As with any type of train.

They are the only class of train where I've heard non-regular passengers who know virtually nothing about trains and don't care , complain loudly about.

They are fine for short and local journeys. I am not against pacers when they are used appropriately, when they are not, I get annoyed. This is quite clearly due to a lack of investment. It doesn't matter if that happened in the past with other stock, pacers are a special case, far closer in comfort to a city bus.

The argument that commuters on busy routes should be thankful for them saving rural branch lines is not a strong one in my opinion. This is because they are working on routes that they are wholly unsuitable for, and these routes would have remained open even if they hadn't been developed. The lack of corridor connection creates problems as the pacers were quite clearly not designed to be "metro" trains on suburban routes!

 

[d5509]

. . . As for unsucsessfull how about 2 car 150's and 156 replacing loco hauled in the 80's and 90's.

Absolutely. I was on a loco + 4 international train a couple of weeks back, it was behaving as a local, cross-country, long distance and eventually commuter train all rolled into one (IE a passenger train). Despite an earlier loco failure it was picking up time, passengers and their luggage, through end doors with several steps, with typical 25 second station stops.

Maybe there was a need for special designs like Pacers and Sprinters but I doubt you can beat the loco and carriage format for flexibility. The sad thing was, it was our loco-carriage trains that got replaced by the modern 172, 222, 185 classes and not the Pacers and Sprinters. :cry:

 

[starrymarkb]

I've never seen an airliner with such wide and tall windows! I'd love to see one .

Scenic's Twotters?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24526864@N03/3535524224/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ds355/1373757967/

 

[mumrar]

I hope that wouldnt be getting at what i think its getting at. If so, that is extremely poor taste.
Laughing at a rail crash is not funny.

It is a light-hearted comment hinting at an incident that involved no loss of life. I wouldn't make a joke about an incident where somebody was killed.

but I doubt you can beat the loco and carriage format for flexibility.

So, one loco and four coaches is more flexible than two 2-car units. How? The units can run as a 4-car formation or as two 2-car formations, splitting en-route. The loco can only run with the coaches as 4, that is not more flexible. It is also a lot easier for the unit(s) to reverse direction.

I love the old days of loco-haulage and as an enthusiast appreciate those trips I had. But the services are now faster, with shorter turn around times, and more joining/splitting options than before. This is as a result of the units that have replaced them being able to run faster (due to lower axle weights, better acceleration/braking) and also some infrastructure improvements too.