• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Finalists - Best UK 'High Speed' train

Out of these 3 finalists, which one would you crown the best UK High Speed train?

  • Class 43 HST

    Votes: 140 46.5%
  • Class 91 IC 225

    Votes: 57 18.9%
  • Class 390 Pendolino

    Votes: 104 34.6%

  • Total voters
    301
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,081
Location
Liverpool
And probably no BR Standards before that, either. That would have made two great mistakes not made.
Except they were actually needed as other locos were at the end of their life span. Before modernisation, they had a planned life cycle of at least 30 years. If modernisation didn't happen, you needed those engines. Only if modernisation had been thought of before they were built, would they not have been built.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Pigeon

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2015
Messages
802
I'm not disagreeing with the immediate need for motive power, I'm disagreeing with the deliberate novelty. Better to have met the need by perpetuating a handful of the best designs the Big Four had already built in large numbers, and restrict the novelty to those cases like the 9F which did fill a significant hole in capabilities that existing designs didn't cover.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
But part of the rational for the Standards was that they would be easier to maintain - hence feature like high running plates etc. Also that different classes shared, well, standard components and methods if construction so that they could be maintained and used across the network rather than specialist enclaves.
I don't think the standards were a mistake in a d of themselves. Arguably the mistake was to build so many new site locomotives instead of electrification or dieselisation.
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
You still misunderstand me. The proposal was for a brand new train comprising two brand new powercars capable of diesel and electric which would also have unpowered trailer vehicles.
Nothing to do with make do and mend.


Wouldnt the Mk3s be repurposed with this proposal then? If so, thats what i was getting at.


You could be referring to the Polaris which CSRE was looking at developing. It was essentially an update and rework of the HST design concept but fully compatible with the existing fleet. This enabled new PCs and coaches to work with existing PCs and mk3s. Grand Central at the time had some sort of ownership link with CSRE as did Alliance Rail and therefore was looking at procuring them before Arriva took over GC. CSRE has yet to enter the UK rolling stock market.

 
Last edited:

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
They really were quite unpleasant (and First wasn't really that good until the coming of the Mk3b with better lighting and seats), and I thought it a good day when a train of aircon Mk2s showed up instead.
The refurbished aircon Mk2s were very good, especially the first class which were quite luxurious.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
Grand Central at the time had some sort of ownership link with CSRE as did Alliance Rail and therefore was looking at procuring them before Arriva took over GC.
There was no ownership link that I'm aware of. The CSRE link was down to David Shipley who was a consultant acting as Engineering Director of GC whilst also working for CSRE in the UK. Once GC saw sense and got rid of him, the Polaris idea was quickly dropped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top