Trivia: Rolling stock which is “most” suited to the routes it operates

[PTR 444]

In contrast to the “least compatible rolling stock” thread, which services would you say are run with rolling stock which is most compatible with the route. Could be for any of the following reasons:

• Ideal speed for a long-distance intercity service
• Ideal acceleration for a short-hop commuter route
• Door widths and spacing suitable for type of operation
• Ideal train length to match passenger demand
• Ideal train length as to avoid eating up track capacity
• Seats most suited for journey type
• Appropriate power type - always electric under wires and diesel only where other power is not viable.
• Stock cannot be used elsewhere

My nomination goes to SWR’s Class 444s as they successfully combine the commuter aspects of fast acceleration and maxed out train lengths with the longer-distance aspects of spacious seating and end doors. Being long-distance third rail units, they couldn’t really be used anywhere else on the network where they aren’t already running.

 

[DanNCL]

I’ll nominate the 91+Mark 4 sets on the ECML. Very well suited to the services they’re used on (and the services they used to work to Edinburgh), but would be very little use elsewhere, at least not in the full 91+9 Mark 4s configuration.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Double decker TGV from Paris to the Riviera. Capacity without having to go too long.

 

[ld0595]

I'd nominate the 158s on the scenic routes out of Inverness. Comfortable, good luggage space, large windows to appreciate the scenery and end doors. Two coaches also gives plenty of room.

 

[Watershed]

In contrast to the “least compatible rolling stock” thread, which services would you say are run with rolling stock which is most compatible with the route. Could be for any of the following reasons:

• Ideal speed for a long-distance intercity service
• Ideal acceleration for a short-hop commuter route
• Door widths and spacing suitable for type of operation
• Ideal train length to match passenger demand
• Ideal train length as to avoid eating up track capacity
• Seats most suited for journey type
• Appropriate power type - always electric under wires and diesel only where other power is not viable.
• Stock cannot be used elsewhere

My nomination goes to SWR’s Class 444s as they successfully combine the commuter aspects of fast acceleration and maxed out train lengths with the longer-distance aspects of spacious seating and end doors. Being long-distance third rail units, they couldn’t really be used anywhere else on the network where they aren’t already running.

Generally this will be units that were ordered to suit a particular line, and which have always operated over that line since they were introduced.

On that basis I think the Pendolino has to be in with a shout. The WCML timetable simply wouldn't work without their tilting capability, and they are a very comfortable way of travelling around the country. They have their flaws, but they're still going strong 19 years in, and will probably see more than 30 years in service before they are fully replaced by HS2.

 

[Halish Railway]

I’d say that the 323s are excellent for the Cross City line; Excellent acceleration & reliability, appropriate length and seat design and can have very short dwell times even though they are guard operated. I think the only improvement would be to have gangways.

 

[BayPaul]

I'm going to nominate the S-Stock on the subsurface lines on the Underground. Hugely spacious, very fast loading, pretty comfortable for an underground train, and not bad looking.

 

[Stadtbahn]

I do think the Thameslink 700 are perfectly suited for the type of high-frequency, high-demand services they operate, particularly those through the Thameslink core. The main reasons I think this are:

- Their capacity (particularly on the 12-carriage units) is simply incredible and is ideal for the busy routes they operate.
- Despite their high capacity, they feel spacious (wide aisles) and light, making them feel much less cramped than other units operating around London, even when at full capacity and standing (cough... 365s... cough)
- Their acceleration is also ideal, particularly for the frequent stops on the metro routes.
- They seem particularly reliable (of course their young age helps), which is essential for the high-frequency services they operate (most interruptions tend to be caused by other factors it seems). Siemens really do stand out from other manufacturers in terms of reliability.
- They can operate on third rail or under wires which is a prerequisite for the routes they operate.

I'm sure there are many other reasons that I've left out.
The only downside to them is maybe the notorious ironing board seats which are not the most comfortable when travelling all the way from one of the termini (Brighton, Peterborough, etc)

 

[7ransport]

I do think the Thameslink 700 are perfectly suited for the type of high-frequency, high-demand services they operate, particularly those through the Thameslink core. The main reasons I think this are:

- Their capacity (particularly on the 12-carriage units) is simply incredible and is ideal for the busy routes they operate.
- Despite their high capacity, they feel spacious (wide aisles) and light, making them feel much less cramped than other units operating around London, even when at full capacity and standing (cough... 365s... cough)
- Their acceleration is also ideal, particularly for the frequent stops on the metro routes.
- They seem particularly reliable (of course their young age helps), which is essential for the high-frequency services they operate (most interruptions tend to be caused by other factors it seems). Siemens really do stand out from other manufacturers in terms of reliability.
- They can operate on third rail or under wires which is a prerequisite for the routes they operate.

I'm sure there are many other reasons that I've left out.
The only downside to them is maybe the notorious ironing board seats which are not the most comfortable when travelling all the way from one of the termini (Brighton, Peterborough, etc)

I disagree. The seats are not designed for long distance journeys, ie Brighton to Peterborough or Cambridge.

 

[Stadtbahn]

I disagree. The seats are not designed for long distance journeys, ie Brighton to Peterborough or Cambridge.

But realistically that is not what Thameslink routes are designed for anyway. I would be intrigued to see what proportion of all Thameslink journeys are terminus to terminus (Cambridge to Horsham, Brighton to Bedford, etc.). Similarly, most people wont use Crossrail to travel from Shenfield to Reading. For the typical Thameslink journey, i.e. from commuter towns (St. Albans, Crawley, Hatfield, Stevenage, etc.) into London or within London they are mostly suitable. But, as I said, if I had to be picky and name one disadvantage, I would agree that the seats are slightly to hard.

 

[Ken H]

HST on Great Western. They did the job year in and year out. They even did short hops (Paddington -Reading - Didcot - Swindon - Chippenham -Bath - Bristol) when they were really designed for sustained high speed running. Equally as good on ECML, but Cl91+Mk4 were a tad better IMHO.

 

[johnnychips]

Northern 170s Sheffield to Hull. Stop trying to take them off us because they are used unsuitably on the Harrogate line!

 

[7ransport]

But realistically that is not what Thameslink routes are designed for anyway. I would be intrigued to see what proportion of all Thameslink journeys are terminus to terminus (Cambridge to Horsham, Brighton to Bedford, etc.). Similarly, most people wont use Crossrail to travel from Shenfield to Reading. For the typical Thameslink journey, i.e. from commuter towns (St. Albans, Crawley, Hatfield, Stevenage, etc.) into London or within London they are mostly suitable. But, as I said, if I had to be picky and name one disadvantage, I would agree that the seats are slightly to hard.

Fair enough. However, I still believe that the 8 car 700s, that for the most part are used on suburban services, should have the iron-board seats and the 12 carr 700s, which are only used for long-distance journeys should have better seats.

 

[43066]

I’d nominate 222s for the MML, which will be a tough act for the 810s to follow. Mechanically they’re absolutely bombproof in reliability terms (consistently one of the best if not the best modern era intercity DMU in the “Golden Spanner” ratings). They’re also powerful enough to cope with the route’s steep gradients and frequent speed changes far better than HSTs ever could.

I disagree. The seats are not designed for long distance journeys, ie Brighton to Peterborough or Cambridge.

To be fair neither is Thameslink! Average journey is sub half an hour (IIRC), things like St Albans to London etc.

 

[greyman42]

But realistically that is not what Thameslink routes are designed for anyway. I would be intrigued to see what proportion of all Thameslink journeys are terminus to terminus (Cambridge to Horsham, Brighton to Bedford, etc.). Similarly, most people wont use Crossrail to travel from Shenfield to Reading. For the typical Thameslink journey, i.e. from commuter towns (St. Albans, Crawley, Hatfield, Stevenage, etc.) into London or within London they are mostly suitable. But, as I said, if I had to be picky and name one disadvantage, I would agree that the seats are slightly to hard.

I would of thought that they would sell quite a few tickets for Peterborough to Gatwick which they are not suitable for due to the awful seats.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

390 Pendolino on the WCML in tilt mode.
No other train could work the route and achieve the same journey times.
It has some interior compromises but is the best-riding 125mph train in the UK.
221 similar in journey time but poorer ambience with underfloor engines (under the wires) and jiggly ride - and seemingly a poor internal emissions record.

 

[Clansman]

ScotRail 170s on the Fife Circle and Tayside semi-fasts. Shame the same can't be said for them getting thrashed up to Inverness or kicking ablut Anniesland all day.

Sheffield to Hull is also a perfect shout for them.

 

[cactustwirly]

166s for the Portsmouth to Cardiff services. Lots of seats and wide doors for this busy service.

 

[Dhansak]

The 159s seem to have been quite a success in the Waterloo - Exeter route.

 

[gg1]

Chiltern 168s on the Brum and Oxford services. Amongst the most comfortable standard class seating of anything on the network combined with door layout and performance optimised for the medium-long distance commuter services they operate.

 

[mightyena]

I do think the Thameslink 700 are perfectly suited for the type of high-frequency, high-demand services they operate, particularly those through the Thameslink core. The main reasons I think this are:

- Their capacity (particularly on the 12-carriage units) is simply incredible and is ideal for the busy routes they operate.
- Despite their high capacity, they feel spacious (wide aisles) and light, making them feel much less cramped than other units operating around London, even when at full capacity and standing (cough... 365s... cough)
- Their acceleration is also ideal, particularly for the frequent stops on the metro routes.
- They seem particularly reliable (of course their young age helps), which is essential for the high-frequency services they operate (most interruptions tend to be caused by other factors it seems). Siemens really do stand out from other manufacturers in terms of reliability.
- They can operate on third rail or under wires which is a prerequisite for the routes they operate.

I'm sure there are many other reasons that I've left out.
The only downside to them is maybe the notorious ironing board seats which are not the most comfortable when travelling all the way from one of the termini (Brighton, Peterborough, etc)

I second the 700s. Especially the 8 car variants on the Sutton-St Albans/Luton services. And even doing London - Bedford on one isn't too bad. They were always gonna be a bit of a compromise, but I do think they do quite well. I have to say I'd rather do the journey on a 700 than a 387!

 

[Recessio]

378 Capitalstars on London Overground. Excellent wide quick doors (better than 345/710 Aventras), transverse seating, excellent placement of handrails and holders for standing passengers, open-plan gangway design. The increase in passengers from the Silverlink days speaks volumes. You need tube-style stock in the busy routes in London, and other franchisees (Southeastern particularly) could learn from this.

Really the only suitable alternative stock would be if S stock could run on OHLE.

 

[Irascible]

The 159s seem to have been quite a success in the Waterloo - Exeter route.

Absolutely ideal - very comfortable, loads of seats, flexible operationally, as much performance as the route can use. As long as the route isn't upgraded the only thing that could improve matters is the same unit in bimode with a bit more soundproofing. Keep the length, layout, seats, ride & you can't go any faster anyway.

158s are pretty well suited to most of the southwest, albeit could use a little more power. Nearly all services are the sort of semi-fast they were built to do.

 

[mightyena]

I can imagine something like a 3rd rail capable 755 working as a good 158 replacement, if it had more diesel range, but yeah SWR's 158s are pretty well suited. Exception being on the Southampton circle. Due to their tiny end doors they can get ridiculously full and have pretty poor dwell times, especially when a 2 car unit is trying to carry a 10 car 444's worth of students from Airport to Swaythling

 

[Ianno87]

Victoria Line 2009 stock. Just so we'll designed for their purpose. You can be on a packed train, and it still feels fast and "roomy" somehow.

I second the 700s. Especially the 8 car variants on the Sutton-St Albans/Luton services. And even doing London - Bedford on one isn't too bad. They were always gonna be a bit of a compromise, but I do think they do quite well. I have to say I'd rather do the journey on a 700 than a 387!

I think the hard seats are compensated for in most passengers' minds by the spaciousness of the aisles and doorways - moving around them is dead easy. Most passengers are simply using them for functional journeys of 20/30 minutes or less, and just want a seat (of which there are plenty to go around).

 

[Irascible]

I can imagine something like a 3rd rail capable 755 working as a good 158 replacement, if it had more diesel range, but yeah SWR's 158s are pretty well suited. Exception being on the Southampton circle. Due to their tiny end doors they can get ridiculously full and have pretty poor dwell times, especially when a 2 car unit is trying to carry a 10 car 444's worth of students from Airport to Swaythling

We've had a couple of threads about 159 replacements & decided the 755's power car would be an undesirable loss of seating length when you're trying to cram into Waterloo. A DEMU with swappable underfloor power rafts so you can fit diesel or battery packs should not be beyond our abilities, really. Fortunately the 159s aren't completely falling apart so there's time. 755s might work well for Bristol-Penzance & the longer Devon branches, though, although if you're speccing a 159 replacement it seems to make sense to use *that* too, then you can have a common fleet for the entire region.

Using 158s on a metro service is daft, they definitely weren't meant for that. I presume that's just because there's nothing else available.

 

[Minstral25]

But realistically that is not what Thameslink routes are designed for anyway. I would be intrigued to see what proportion of all Thameslink journeys are terminus to terminus (Cambridge to Horsham, Brighton to Bedford, etc.). Similarly, most people wont use Crossrail to travel from Shenfield to Reading. For the typical Thameslink journey, i.e. from commuter towns (St. Albans, Crawley, Hatfield, Stevenage, etc.) into London or within London they are mostly suitable. But, as I said, if I had to be picky and name one disadvantage, I would agree that the seats are slightly to hard.

I think the 700's are brilliant from East Croydon to St Albans or Stevenage due to their ability to swallow passengers but when you are travelling over 30 minutes on them they are unacceptable. I don't mind the hard seats, can live with that, the problems are that the seats are too small (can't get my knees in and spread across the person next to me - which isn't nice), no arm rest, half the fleet doesn't have tables - none of these factors make them suitable for outer suburban services.

The old chestnut no-one travels from Peterborough to Horsham is true but they are not suitable for Farringdon to Redhill either, or St Pancras to Brighton or London Bridge to Hitchin but these journeys are done day in day out by many commuters and they should not need to suffer such discomfort daily.

So it's a no from me!

 

[Ianno87]

I think the 700's are brilliant from East Croydon to St Albans or Stevenage due to their ability to swallow passengers but when you are travelling over 30 minutes on them they are unacceptable.

I accept them for Cambridge-Central London journeys on a regular basis.

 

[D6975]

I recently spent a few days knocking about London and the units that seemed to be best suited for suburban travel IMHO were the 717s. Plenty of doors that open promptly and a nice seating layout - none of this stupid benches backing against the windows nonsense.

 

[bramling]

I think the hard seats are compensated for in most passengers' minds by the spaciousness of the aisles and doorways - moving around them is dead easy. Most passengers are simply using them for functional journeys of 20/30 minutes or less, and just want a seat (of which there are plenty to go around).

I don't get this point at all. Even for shorter Thameslink journeys, half an hour sitting down versus ten seconds at each end getting on and off, and perhaps in a few cases a trip to the toilet. Why on earth would a spacious aisle compensate for an uncomfortable seat?

I accept them for Cambridge-Central London journeys on a regular basis.

In first, by any chance?