Declining quality of 'Inter City' standard class passenger accommodation

[Richard Scott]

Sadly our country really does not do rail travel justice that I always lower my expectations as I know not to expect Swiss or Japanese standards. However things might perhaps improve in the future when things look bleak at the moment.

You don't have to travel far to find countries where standards of comfort are far worse. The problem is, in the mk3, we had some of the best standards for years but we rested on our laurels, public wanted cheaper travel so more seats were shoehorned in and our loading gauge prevents double deck coaches, which may alleviate these issues. Swiss double deck intercity coaches are very good, indeed.
The geography of our country doesn't help, with a massive centre of population in London with a few others, admittedly of smaller population, within 2/3 hours by train. This can lead to a large number of people wanting to move between these and so have to squeeze in capacity where we can. Any other country have this issue?
To be honest trains like 220/1s should never have been allowed for routes they operate. Diesel only and too few coaches.

 

[FrontSideBus]

I recently travelled from Birmingham Moor St to London Marylebone, and I couldn't get over how nice the seats and interior was on the Chiltern Mk3's! They had the original IC70 seats, re trimmed of course, but it was as good as first class on other operators in my opinion! These coaches are like up to 50 years old and are better than any modern intercity train!

 

[William3000]

My opinion is that whereas 50 years ago there was a yawning quality gap between "Inter-city" trains and local/commuter trains, the gap closed significantly in the early 2000s, so that the commuter stock was much better while the Intercity trains have got less comfortable.

Indeed - this is brought into focus in East Anglia where so called inter city Norwich to London Liv St are ostensibly the same 745s as Stansted Express services and the shorter 755s are still the same comfort and experience.

 

[Tetragon213]

I recently travelled from Birmingham Moor St to London Marylebone, and I couldn't get over how nice the seats and interior was on the Chiltern Mk3's! They had the original IC70 seats, re trimmed of course, but it was as good as first class on other operators in my opinion! These coaches are like up to 50 years old and are better than any modern intercity train!

Chiltern's trains are definitely some of the best for comfort. It seems a pity that there are only ever 4 loco-hauled services per day in each direction on the line.

However, even on their Turbostars, I find the seats to be perfectly reasonable there. The only issue is that, depending on where you choose to sit, the engine note can get annoying after a while.

 

[Richard Scott]

However, even on their Turbostars, I find the seats to be perfectly reasonable there. The only issue is that, depending on where you choose to sit, the engine note can get annoying after a while.

This is the problem with units, diesel or electric, the noises generated by the traction package take away from general ambience. I expect most people don't notice but then have they ever travelled on a loco hauled train?
I know not all coaches are powered and so some are quieter but this doesn't apply to modern diesel units.

 

[renegademaster]

In all the international comparisons of this thread, a thought came to my head, one thing Britain does do better than most countries is metro and bus seating. Largely moquette rather than plastic crap you get elsewhere. Some regional trains have them to. I can't remember the operator but it was a non-DB tendered service in Bavaria that was part of my journey to Passau.

 

[Taunton]

You hear all the stuff about poor Amtrak service and punctuality, etc, but one thing they have splendidly is the seats are supremely comfortable.

Furthermore, despite a lot of their stock being from the 1970s-80s they have never squeezed up the seat pitch, nor replaced the cushioning with hard unyielding material.

I don't get the excuse of fireproofing, it is just as straightforward to specify comfortable materials which are fireproof as hard, unyielding ones, it's just an excuse for having specified the cheapest.

I do suspect that for mechanical engineering companies all the professional interest is in vehicle dynamics or the latest whizzy vacuum toilet system, with the seats left to the intern.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I recently traveled down to London Marylebone from Birmingham Moore St and I couldn't get over how nice the seats and interior was on the Chiltern Mk3's! They had the original IC70 seats, re trimmed of course, but it was as good as first class on other operators IMO! These coaches are like up to 50 years old and are better than any modern intercity train!

It’s interesting how different the opinions of two people can be. I find the Chiltern MK3s very dull inside with irritating seats with fixed armrests and annoying squeaks. By contrast, I think the refurbished Avanti Pendolinos offer a simply stunning ambience and these would always be my first choice for a London Birmingham journey.

 

[Mikey C]

It’s interesting how different the opinions of two people can be. I find the Chiltern MK3s very dull inside with irritating seats with fixed armrests and annoying squeaks. By contrast, I think the refurbished Avanti Pendolinos offer a simply stunning ambience and these would always be my first choice for a London Birmingham journey.

I prefer the interiors on the Chiltern specced 168s (i.e. the ones they ordered themselves) to the Mk3s, or indeed the 390s, though the refurb has definitely improved the 390s.

Unless I'm in the downgraded ex Business Zone on the Chiltern Mk3s which is lovely

 

[Blindtraveler]

I face any long distance rail journey in this country now with a deal of resignation and pretty much no expectation other than the fact that I've paid a ferocious sum of money for very little. As far as I'm concerned for anything over a couple of hundred miles such as England or Wales to Scotland and aircraft is now preferable despite the hassle and inconvenience

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s interesting how different the opinions of two people can be. I find the Chiltern MK3s very dull inside with irritating seats with fixed armrests and annoying squeaks. By contrast, I think the refurbished Avanti Pendolinos offer a simply stunning ambience and these would always be my first choice for a London Birmingham journey.

I dislike IC70s too. They squash your backside, it's hard to get into window table seats due to the fixed armrests and the back is not at all supportive. There's also poor legroom due to the back of the seat being very thick and the pointy table support right where my knees go. The only place to sit on those Chiltern sets is the declassified first class coach.

The 168s by contrast are great.

Similarly on ScotRail long distance I'd say first choice 170, second choice 158 (better seats but they rattle your ears), third choice HST (great seats but horrid lighting and quite crude, rough and dated* overall). Only thing that'd put me really in favour of the HST is if the units were too short and so overcrowded.

* I have never really liked any BR LHCS and think the Mk3 is particularly bad for its age - it's such a shame the much superior International Coach didn't roll out further or that there wasn't a UK version of the ubiquitous European "Eurofima" coach.

 

[bramling]

This is the problem with units, diesel or electric, the noises generated by the traction package take away from general ambience. I expect most people don't notice but then have they ever travelled on a loco hauled train?
I know not all coaches are powered and so some are quieter but this doesn't apply to modern diesel units.

I’m not convinced the average passenger really cares about traction noise, unless it’s something extreme like the motor car of a 317 powering through a tunnel with all windows open. I’ve never noticed any evidence of people choosing where to sit based on which parts of the train are quieter. Personally I prefer traction noise, as it drowns out annoying noises made by passengers.

What is more annoying is rattles emanating from interior fixtures. Chiltern’s 168s seem to really suffer from this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not convinced the average passenger really cares about traction noise, unless it’s something extreme like the motor car of a 317 powering through a tunnel with all windows open. I’ve never noticed any evidence of people choosing where to sit based on which parts of the train are quieter. Personally I prefer traction noise, as it drowns out annoying noises made by passengers.

What is more annoying is rattles emanating from interior fixtures. Chiltern’s 168s seem to really suffer from this.

I find certain frequencies annoying but don't mind noise generally for the reason you say. The 158, otherwise a great unit, has an absolutely awful whine which hurts my ears after a couple of hours. 170s and the likes while they do rattle a bit (but try the CAF kit if you really want rattles - one of those on the Conwy Valley is like a 101 at times) don't have that whine. Even something really crude like a 150 or 156 doesn't have it despite being otherwise very noisy.

That'll be very much horses for courses though. And I'd agree, the public will just see stuff that moves having engines and thus a bit of engine noise as normal, as cars, buses and planes do. And on more modern DMUs you can barely hear it anyway.

 

[mike57]

Well this thread is alive and well... We made another of our Peterborough trips Saturday, and the experience was a repeat of the one that started this thread, cl170 Home - Doncaster, reasonably comfortable seats and ride quality OK. Noise levels OK.

Doncaster to Peterborough, another 50 minutes of Azuma misery. Rock hard uncomfortable seats, claustrophobic in the airline seats which we were in, shocking ride. If we are going to London we tend to use Hull trains and go 1st class.

Bring back HSTs... sorry I know, they are probably life expired. To repeat what I said earlier how have we managed to go from something that was comfortable to something that is horrible in every way in 40 years???

 

[cactustwirly]

I dislike IC70s too. They squash your backside, it's hard to get into window table seats due to the fixed armrests and the back is not at all supportive. There's also poor legroom due to the back of the seat being very thick and the pointy table support right where my knees go. The only place to sit on those Chiltern sets is the declassified first class coach.

The 168s by contrast are great.

Similarly on ScotRail long distance I'd say first choice 170, second choice 158 (better seats but they rattle your ears), third choice HST (great seats but horrid lighting and quite crude, rough and dated* overall). Only thing that'd put me really in favour of the HST is if the units were too short and so overcrowded.

* I have never really liked any BR LHCS and think the Mk3 is particularly bad for its age - it's such a shame the much superior International Coach didn't roll out further or that there wasn't a UK version of the ubiquitous European "Eurofima" coach.

They are not great as a tall person I did prefer the GWR HSTs over the EMT/R HSTs I have done a lot of miles on both.
However I would say I prefer the IC70 seats over the current IET seats.
I preferred to travel on HSTs over the 222s as they have deep overhead bins so could fit my laptop bag overhead when traveling from uni (did not fit on the 222s) smoother ride and brighter ambience

I don't think the 800s are that bad, the ride seems a lot better than many modern units like 387s, latest Aventras, latest CAF stuff. The seating layout is perfect with a nice balance of airline and table seats. Just need more comfortable seats, would be interested to try a Lumo or Avanti one with the newer seats.
Definitely a huge amount better than a Voyager, in practically every way

 

[Brent Goose]

It was probably down to the different seating fitted to the 442s when in Gatwick Express service before returning to SWR. Those seats weren't as good as the original 442 and the Desiro ones.

I do remember the original NSE 442 seats as very comfortable then SWT retained these only changing the fabric from blue to red. I also agree that the then new Desiro seats weren't as superior when the 444s/450s debuted but are still a lot better than some stock running in other parts of the country.

This shows the perils of privatisation when rolling stock are specified differently across TOCs also varying levels of service, some having buffet cars or only trolley service etc.

When GBR comes into being, hopefully there would be more standardisation and improved service level across long distance services as it will be publicly owned than private. But... it was the DfT that pushed new uncomfortable seats, Sophias and ironing boards by claiming fire regulation which really down to cost cutting also allowing the absurdity of basic commuter trains running long distance from Sussex to Norfolk, the removal of first class etc.

Sadly our country really does not do rail travel justice that I always lower my expectations as I know not to expect Swiss or Japanese standards. However things might perhaps improve in the future when things look bleak at the moment.

The whole ambiance reminded me of the train journey scene in the film Children of Men where the protagonist travels back from his office job in London.

It’s Class 450s now on the main morning commuter service now so maybe they weren’t so bad after all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think the 800s are that bad, the ride seems a lot better than many modern units like 387s, latest Aventras, latest CAF stuff. The seating layout is perfect with a nice balance of airline and table seats. Just need more comfortable seats, would be interested to try a Lumo or Avanti one with the newer seats.

The Avanti ones are the best of the breed in my view. A very low density, mostly window aligned layout, far better seats (same as the refurb Pendolino) and a slightly warmer tone of lighting.

The Lumo ones are the same seats and warmer lighting colour, but have all the ambiance of a cattle wagon and some are in a poor state of repair. It's certainly Ryanair on rails!

 

[800001]

Just seen a tweet from Richard Salkeld, Lumo/Hull Trains media manager, he states new seats coming soon to Lumo!
Can’t tell from picture if it’s a new seat or just new seat covering.
Attached picture below of said seat from the tweet.

https://x.com/richardsalkeld/status/1906757165508943957?s=46&t=JLp3J2Up_Gl_m9cQz-au6w

Great gatherings in #Newcastle and #Edinburgh today for the @LumoTravel stakeholder events complete with a preview of new look seats coming soon.

 

[BRX]

I was on some German ICEs recently and even if the German network is in a bit of a mess in other ways... the passenger environment on those trains is so much better than what is now passed off as "intercity" in the UK. Completely in a different league.
One of the things they really take care with is the lighting. In fact I noticed that the brightness and temperature of the lighting changed throughout the day according to what was going on outside.
Not just the design of the lighting but the staff on board actually notice and care. On one train, there was a lighting defect in one carriage (it had got stuck on bright) and one of the attendants was not only trying to fix it but making announcements apologising for the harsh lighting.
The lighting he was apologising for was rather bright but still not nearly as bad as what we are tortured with on many UK trains at the moment.

 

[rg177]

Just seen a tweet from Richard Salkeld, Lumo/Hull Trains media manager, he states new seats coming soon to Lumo!
Can’t tell from picture if it’s a new seat or just new seat covering.
Attached picture below of said seat from the tweet.

Looks like they're eventually realising flat cloth ages badly and shows up every stain and spillage imaginable. That appears to be the same seat but with a smarter and harder-wearing moquette.

Northern did similar a couple of years ago - a lot of almost-new seats had their flat cloth replaced with moquette.

 

[satisnek]

It has only just dawned on me that even the most 'basic' train seats (in the Midlands that's probably Class 172) are more comfortable than a lot of the bench seating found in pubs.

 

[superalbs]

Did the following trip on Thursday:
Tube/EL to Paddington
Paddington to Newport(Wales) on an 802
Newport to Cardiff on a 166
Cardiff to Paddington on an 800
Back home on EL/tube

The 802 was a pleasant surprise. I was expecting an awful ironing board, but instead got something that I would describe as just about acceptable for a 1.5 hours journey. However, the armrest was far too low (and I am an average sized individual).

The 166, apart from the noise and diesel fumes, was by far the most comfortable of the trains taken.

Stepping on the 800, and the first impression was that the lighting was far too bright and harsh (this was the only journey at night). The seats were comparable (if not worse) to the S stock train I took afterwards in comfort. A class 345 was leaps and bounds better comfort wise. ~80% of seats suffered from metal bar syndrome, and the only ones which didn’t were rock hard. Every armrest required a different amount of force to lower (myself and my friend joked that these trains were so expensive because the DfT specified a different force for each armrest in the specification). I even thought that an armrest was broken because it went down so low (it wasn’t broken, the seats were that poorly designed). The one consolation prize was that the harsh lighting helped keep me awake, as I opted to stand all the way from Bristol Parkway to Paddington (the seats were that bad, and I tried over a dozen and they were all crap). The only upside it that unlike a 387, it doesn’t feel like a bomb went off every time it passed a train in the opposite direction, or pop your ears every time a tunnel was entered. Although the ride was poor, it was certainly better than a 387 or 700 at the same speed. Despite that, the overall experience was a complete joke of a product.

Quite curious how you have managed to describe the exact same seat as both "a pleasant surprise" and "I opted to stand, the seats were that bad"?

 

[antharro]

I really did not find the experience of travelling the on class 442s particularly appealing when they were reintroduced on the Portsmouth Direct line.

@dorsetdesiro is spot on. By the time you got to use them on the Portsmouth Direct, they had been "refurbished" (aka downgraded) once for GatEx, maybe twice (again for SWR) depending on the unit you were on. Traveling on them back in South West Trains and NSE days was a very different experience.

 

[sh24]

Travelling on a ScotRail HST currently, a good illustration that nothing is perfect. The ex GWR First seats are comfy, though the leather annoyingly slidey. The ride and noise levels are excellent. Well apart from the perennially squeaky carriage connections and perennially defective vestibule sliding door that keeps sticking and allowing all those squeaks in.

Great carriages apart from the 45+ year old problems that have never gone away.

Yesterdays XC Voyager. The engine noise is not pleasant but huge windows, comfy seats, well lit. They aren’t bad trains (in First).

 

[irish_rail]

Travelling on a ScotRail HST currently, a good illustration that nothing is perfect. The ex GWR First seats are comfy, though the leather annoyingly slidey. The ride and noise levels are excellent. Well apart from the perennially squeaky carriage connections and perennially defective vestibule sliding door that keeps sticking and allowing all those squeaks in.

Great carriages apart from the 45+ year old problems that have never gone away.

Yesterdays XC Voyager. The engine noise is not pleasant but huge windows, comfy seats, well lit. They aren’t bad trains (in First).

The carriage connections where rarely squeaky in GWR days, though the (at the time Craigentinny maintained) XC sets used to be noticeably squeaky compared with their GWR cousins. Interestingly, when the XC HSTs where reallocated to Laira, it was noticeable that the squeakiness subsided, so it would suggest it's something in the way the Scots maintain them?

 

[43096]

Looks like they're eventually realising flat cloth ages badly and shows up every stain and spillage imaginable. That appears to be the same seat but with a smarter and harder-wearing moquette.

Northern did similar a couple of years ago - a lot of almost-new seats had their flat cloth replaced with moquette.

You do have to wonder at the competence of railway management that the TOCs keep having to re-learn this lesson. Indeed Southern have never learned, continuing to use the horrible astroturf that needs replacing far more often - must have cost a lot more over the years.

 

[Tetragon213]

This is the problem with units, diesel or electric, the noises generated by the traction package take away from general ambience. I expect most people don't notice but then have they ever travelled on a loco hauled train?
I know not all coaches are powered and so some are quieter but this doesn't apply to modern diesel units.

Indeed, although some units are notably better than others on that front. Class 158/159 units aren't so bad, and I can often fall asleep just fine on those, but 80x series are more torturous than being sat next to the props on a Dash-8. Electric trains like Pendolinos will obviously be less noisy, as well. It's for that reason that I like the Pendos quite a lot, actually. The seats aren't bad, either.

You hear all the stuff about poor Amtrak service and punctuality, etc, but one thing they have splendidly is the seats are supremely comfortable.

Furthermore, despite a lot of their stock being from the 1970s-80s they have never squeezed up the seat pitch, nor replaced the cushioning with hard unyielding material.

I don't get the excuse of fireproofing, it is just as straightforward to specify comfortable materials which are fireproof as hard, unyielding ones, it's just an excuse for having specified the cheapest.

I do suspect that for mechanical engineering companies all the professional interest is in vehicle dynamics or the latest whizzy vacuum toilet system, with the seats left to the intern.

The fireproofing excuse is absolutely a load of utter nonsense. If Cathay Pacific and British Airways can offer perfectly reasonable seats while dealing with aviation fireproofing standards (which I would wager a not-inconsiderable lump of change on being far stricter than rail standards), I see little reason beyond cheaping out as to why modern intercity stock can't have something even remotely acceptable.

Hell, even among modern refurbishments, there are plenty of trains with perfectly workable seats. Pendolinos, refurbed Castles, even the Class 159s and Networkers have better seat than a lot of the 80x spec torture racks! I've avoided GWR and LNER's 80x services for the precise reason that I actually value having a functional spine on arrival...

 

[Topological]

It has only just dawned on me that even the most 'basic' train seats (in the Midlands that's probably Class 172) are more comfortable than a lot of the bench seating found in pubs.

But then how long do you spend sat in a pub?

(I would have answered that question with longer than I spend on a train, but...)

 

[FrontSideBus]

It says it all about declining quality when EMR Regional 158's have better seats than modern "Intercity" trains. I'd rather spend several hours on one of those than for example TPE's 397 which have rock hard seats and bone shaking ride quality!

 

[Taunton]

It has only just dawned on me that even the most 'basic' train seats (in the Midlands that's probably Class 172) are more comfortable than a lot of the bench seating found in pubs.

I'm surprised you say the 172 diesel units are the "most basic" seats, for I believe these are the same trains that ran initially on the Goblin line in London, where they were (quite correctly) regarded as the most comfortable of anything running within London, they were really pleasant. Their overlong-awaited and hugely hyped electric successors came as something of a shock for how the seating standard was far worse.