British Rail Class 321 (I'm mainly talking about the ones AGA use here) - opinions?

[Tetchytyke]

Why have the Class 350s (sub Classes 1, 3 and 4) been built with 2+2 instead of 3+2 seating despite there being a case of (chronic) under provision of capacity on the routes they are used on?

Because those three sub-classes are designed for long-distance Intercity train journeys where 3+2 is wholly inappropriate.

3+2 is fine on the commuter trains south of Northampton- just about- but on a train from Birmingham to Liverpool or Crewe to London it is unacceptable.

The 3+2 seats on a Desiro are worse than a 321, though. The Desiro narrow seats are 17.5" across, which is less than the average width of a male's shoulders and only 1-2" more than the average width of a teenage female's shoulders. People are getting bigger, but even people with "normal" sized bodies will be very cramped in those seats.

 

[Dan27]

My issues with the 321 is that they are way too cold in the winter (Too drafty, what rushing air comes in nulls the heating in the winter), and too hot in the summer (no aircon, open Windows is the only way to go - and not very effective - even in the low 20s it can get very hot and sticky very easily).

Decoratively, I can see a lot of work has been done to give them new interiors, seat coverings etc - but the veneer is easy to see through given it's core issues. I am sure that mechanically it's a solid train given its been around for ages. Seating space and leg room is fine if you know where to sit.

 

[plastictaffy]

Because those three sub-classes are designed for long-distance Intercity train journeys where 3+2 is wholly inappropriate.

3+2 is fine on the commuter trains south of Northampton- just about- but on a train from Birmingham to Liverpool or Crewe to London it is unacceptable.

The 3+2 seats on a Desiro are worse than a 321, though. The Desiro narrow seats are 17.5" across, which is less than the average width of a male's shoulders and only 1-2" more than the average width of a teenage female's shoulders. People are getting bigger, but even people with "normal" sized bodies will be very cramped in those seats.

The original intention, AIUI, was to use the /2's on commuter services, Cross City, stuff like that. The /1's (and now the /3's) were supposed to be used on things like the **49 off Euston (fast Birmingham) the Crewes, and Liverpools. However, the units are diagrammed interchangeably, with everything apart from Mark 3's working on any part of the network. /2's often turn up on the Crewes and fast Birminghams.

 

[Rick1984]

Any I've been on have always been worn and dated. Not a fan. Give them a proper refurbishment though and they might be fine. And I don't 2+3 works with our small loading gauge. Maybe a mixture of 2+3 and 2+2

 

[Angliarailuser]

As a person with a very expensive season ticket from Southend to London 321s are a disgrace.

Seating is too low.

Interiors are filthy.

Toilets dont work.

Acceleration is indifferent

They aere flogged to death and poorly maintained.

 

[badassunicorn]

heeeere we go

 

[33056]

Had my first ride on a 321 (AGA) for ages today and had forgotten how awful they are; fortunately I usually manage to avoid the few remaining LM ones when on home rails.

 

[samuelmorris]

This doesn't earn me much cred with the passenger action group but I don't mind them - they're not yet fit for the scrapyard, but they do need a bit of tarting up. The seating layout has never been all that great, but then few 2+3 seating layouts are - that said, I'm not a huge fan of the seats because of how low you sit vs. the windows. Good for dozing off in if you're comfortable, bad for sitting upright with a good posture in my experience.
The biggest problem for me is the loose-hanging doors.
Of course, them being tatty, grimey and in a questionable mechanical state from AGA's maintenance regime makes them seem much worse than they otherwise need be!

I think the demonstrator showed some promising ideas - the colour scheme comments of course are irrelevant, the 2+2 seating was clearly the superior option for me as there was still ample vestibule space compared to the cramped areas you get on the rest of the fleet, generally the 'sealed' interior with air conditioning is good if the A/C works. Still those rattly doors though, there must be something they can do with them - oh, and I do wonder about the longevity of DC traction much beyond the late 2020s, an AC traction package refit might not be a bad idea!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

oh, and I do wonder about the longevity of DC traction much beyond the late 2020s, an AC traction package refit might not be a bad idea!

I wonder if this might be prohibitively expensive. And where would all the redundant DC motors and transformers go?

 

[D365]

I wonder if this might be prohibitively expensive. And where would all the redundant DC motors and transformers go?

The retrofitting of Vossloh AC traction was planned using the refurbishment demonstrator unit 321448, however a trial has not yet been pursued. With the Vossloh AC package being fitted to the SWT Class 455 fleet, and of course Bombardier kit on 317722, it clearly isn't prohibitively expensive.

 

[ainsworth74]

And where would all the redundant DC motors and transformers go?

The scrapyard?

 

[Domh245]

There would be no reason to scrap the transformers (and the rectifiers). The only things that would need scrapping would be the motors, and their control gear (which I understand to be thyristors). The transformer would still be needed, unless you can find some traction control gear that runs off of 25Kv AC!

 

[colchesterken]

Give them a break they are 30 yrs old and need a full refurb even a rebuild with new traction package,
I think we are spoiled by new trains and the standards of décor the 321 are up to the standard of the 302/7 and the southern slammers of the same generation but are worn out
Our problem is no one since privatisation has cared about anything other than profit, First ,NXEA and now Abellio..............MAKE CHRIS GREEN KING OF THE RAILWAY

 

[jon0844]

New seat coverings and a few more deep cleans should be sufficient. Structurally the 321s are sound (or appear to be) and they shift about a LOT of people every day. As do the 317s, 319s - heck, even the 313/315s etc.

We do indeed have an awful lot of new train building going on now, but I don't see that these new trains should replace (all of) the above - rather supplement them.

Many people do like to moan, and will of course do so once these bright new trains we're getting are only 10-15 years old, even though they'll be designed to stay in operation for 30-40 years or more.

 

[samuelmorris]

My understanding was that the transformers were to be replaced, back when 448 was proposed to have the full refit and the rest of the fleet to follow afterwards, a plan which I understand has subsequently been shelved. Something to do with the DC-side requirements of AC traction. It may just simply be a matter of power output, they might want to fit slightly higher rated traction motors, add them to the A/C units and the existing transformers might not be man enough. Minor benefit to passengers too as some of the transformers on 321s (and 317s/319s for that matter) can be very noisy.

Not the place for franchise discussions but I disagree that FGE were anti-investment, their franchise introduced the 360s, tarted up the 321s above and beyond what was needed to remove NSE branding and also set the first 315 refurbishment in motion. NXEA/AGA however is another story

Funny how everyone goes on about the 321s being in dire need of replacement (they do certainly need some work I'll admit) when the 317 /3/5/7/8s for example are at least 7 years older and seem to suffer more incidents of detached seats, interior corrosion etc. Since all the old PEP units are pretty much booked up for replacement, the next EMUs to look at are the Mk 3s, of which the 317s were first, the 321s basically the last. Might as well keep the electrification projects going and cascade the 317s/321s etc to follow suit with the 319s. Upgrade them to meet DDA requirements and then when they're finally fit for scrap it'll become clear whether new trains are worth investing in for the locations they were cascaded to - in the meantime delivering new units to the higher-income routes down south. All very well in principle, but trouble is who will pay for it all?