Declining quality of 'Inter City' standard class passenger accommodation

[mike57]

Note: those wanting more legroom/seat-window alignment/luggage space/cycle space are effectively calling for lower density layouts, therefore reducing the capacity of the trains.

Note: This comment only applies to 'Inter City' services with maybe 90 minute journey times, not commuter or suburban services

If you continue to cram people in an uncomfortable environment on an uncomfortable seat for a 1.5 hour + journey then people will consider other options, Flying on some routes, driving, coach, or for leisure journeys, just not travelling.

People who are old enough to remember better rolling stock will be dissapointed.

Which market segment are the railways going after? Bargain basement travel is provided by coaches, so what are the railways selling themselves on. Traditionally I would have said quicker and more comfortable than a coach and more comfortable than flying, but the comfort bit seems to be sacrificed.

How many inter city services are loaded to 90% + level (exclude XC services)? If the standard class capacity was reduced by 10% and the miserable seating improved, adequate luggage space provided, and more restful lighting environment produced, which wouldn't affect capacity, and on class 80x sort the ride problems out, better riding 125mph stock has been built, so how have we gone backwards, then the passenger experience would see a massive improvement. Maybe on the busiest services manage demand by limiting advance ticket sales, to encourage people to use less busy services. I also think the first class provision on LNER (and maybe some other operators) is too bigger proportion, reduce that by half a coach worth and you have a big chunk of your 10% back, and again if First class is getting too busy limit it by ticket cost on a service by service basis.

The current situation just seems like a race to the bottom.

 

[Tetragon213]

Note: This comment only applies to 'Inter City' services with maybe 90 minute journey times, not commuter or suburban services

If you continue to cram people in an uncomfortable environment on an uncomfortable seat for a 1.5 hour + journey then people will consider other options, Flying on some routes, driving, coach, or for leisure journeys, just not travelling.

People who are old enough to remember better rolling stock will be dissapointed.

Which market segment are the railways going after? Bargain basement travel is provided by coaches, so what are the railways selling themselves on. Traditionally I would have said quicker and more comfortable than a coach and more comfortable than flying, but the comfort bit seems to be sacrificed.

How many inter city services are loaded to 90% + level (exclude XC services)? If the standard class capacity was reduced by 10% and the miserable seating improved, adequate luggage space provided, and more restful lighting environment produced, which wouldn't affect capacity, and on class 80x sort the ride problems out, better riding 125mph stock has been built, so how have we gone backwards, then the passenger experience would see a massive improvement. Maybe on the busiest services manage demand by limiting advance ticket sales, to encourage people to use less busy services. I also think the first class provision on LNER (and maybe some other operators) is too bigger proportion, reduce that by half a coach worth and you have a big chunk of your 10% back, and again if First class is getting too busy limit it by ticket cost on a service by service basis.

The current situation just seems like a race to the bottom.

A race to the bottom while prices continues racing skyward. If they continue offering inquisition rack seats while charging £300 for a return from Cardiff-London, people will quite happily say "sod that" and drive.

 

[FrontSideBus]

Wasn't the sale of new fluorescent tubes in the UK banned in late 2023?

The import and manufacture was. You can still sell them until existing stock is depleted.

I'd imagine that they run on their own special type of control gear which is why it isn't just a straight swap like on regular mains choke & starter gear. You'd need each coach in a workshop to modify the electrics.

A race to the bottom while prices continues racing skyward. If they continue offering inquisition rack seats while charging £300 for a return from Cardiff-London, people will quite happily say "sod that" and drive.

Ironically, years ago when they had "better" Loco hauled Mk2 and Mk3 trains on the WCML, when I needed to go down to London I never used the train because there was a direct flight from Liverpool to London City Airport which was pretty cheap and took no time at all! It was awesome, you'd just hop on the DLR when you got there and you're right in the city centre! Wish I could still do that today tbh, with all of the chaos that usually happens when I need to take long distance rail!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A race to the bottom while prices continues racing skyward. If they continue offering inquisition rack seats while charging £300 for a return from Cardiff-London, people will quite happily say "sod that" and drive.

For all I dislike the Fainsa Sophia, I'd still take an 80x from Cardiff to London over an HST myself. At least I actually fit in the seats.

The love for BR era LHCS is not universal. Personally I think it was rubbish - all of it - particularly the Mk3 which was utterly awful when compared to what Europe had to offer of similar vintage. Similarly the love for the HST, which should never have existed because we should have electrified like every other country did. GWR made the Mk3 a bit less rubbish by fitting decent seats to it (but adding terrible lighting), but the harking back here seems to be mostly to the original design, which I absolutely hated.

Oh for the original Mk3 to have had the seating and the power doors (and the manual vestibule doors) of the 442, which was everything the Mk3 should have been (though still had some flaws such as the high window level and poor alignment).

 

[Ethano92]

If you continue to cram people in an uncomfortable environment on an uncomfortable seat for a 1.5 hour + journey then people will consider other options, Flying on some routes, driving, coach, or for leisure journeys, just not travelling.

Have a look at LNERs passenger numbers in the past few years. Then GWR, then TPE, then Hull Trains.

If anything, they would suggest the travelling public are nowhere near as bothered by the interior of new stock and it isn’t nearly as much of a problem as this forum makes it out to be.

It is delays and overcrowding that pushes people off trains, not increased capacity and modern interiors.

 

[stuu]

The 800s could be so much better with pretty minimal changes: softer lighting, replacing the seat bases and converting the seats with no window into luggage space. The legroom is much better than the HSTs so I don't understand the argument about cramming more people in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 800s could be so much better with pretty minimal changes: softer lighting, replacing the seat bases and converting the seats with no window into luggage space. The legroom is much better than the HSTs so I don't understand the argument about cramming more people in.

The seat bases will need replacing at some point because they're literally falling to bits. The seat is otherwise quite upright but not that bad, very similar to the Grammar E3000 Desiro seat. The TfL version appears to have a base without the metal bar.

The 80x are indeed quite pleasantly low density. The only new-generation UK intercity trains that cram people in are the Greater Anglia FLIRTs, which this Forum seems to love! Plus Lumo, but that's a different market.

You could fiddle with the 80x layout to get better window alignment - Avanti's have a different layout with very few seats misaligned. Or rather for more of a compromise - the present standard 80x layout basically gives every other row near enough a full window and every other row none, you could fiddle with it a bit so that almost every row had part of a window. Though to be honest seat selectors with the window seats clearly indicated would probably be as good at solving that, because not everyone cares.

The lighting could be better but I don't find it the worst. Would probably just be a software change to turn the brightness down very slightly, maybe by 10-20%. The key is that it's indirect. The other thing that could be done very cheaply to improve lighting ambiance is to add vinyl of a warm colour (say orange) to the bottom of the luggage racks - Lumo have done this with purple and the light shining through it does make it a bit less stark.

 

[driverd]

Despite all the criticism, nobody has even suggested what savings, (i.e. sacrifices) could be made to have what they personally think their trains should be equipped with in lighting, seating etc.. Anybody can just criticise.

What do you mean "sacrafices"?

Most of what I suggested (eg: different colour LEDs, different colour paint on panels) could all be implemented on a cost neutral/minimal cost basis when it's due anyway - eg: major exam/mid-life refurb.

You just order a different colour bulb/paint.

 

[AM9]

What do you mean "sacrafices"?

Most of what I suggested (eg: different colour LEDs, different colour paint on panels) could all be implemented on a cost neutral/minimal cost basis when it's due anyway - eg: major exam/mid-life refurb.

You just order a different colour bulb/paint.

OK, so those complaining will have to wait until mid-life refits and pray that the TOC/RoSCo's choice aligns with their's.

 

[Richard Scott]

A race to the bottom while prices continues racing skyward. If they continue offering inquisition rack seats while charging £300 for a return from Cardiff-London, people will quite happily say "sod that" and drive.

Which is what I do, or use National Express. Sorry IC train travel is far too expensive for the product on offer. I appreciate many people are happy with it and seem willing to pay the prices as trains pretty full. I'm not so now use the alternative. An 800 is not enough of an incentive for me to put my money into rail travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

OK, so those complaining will have to wait until mid-life refits and pray that the TOC/RoSCo's choice aligns with their's.

I think it's clear that the 80x will need new base cushions long before mid-life refit. They've already had the flat cloth covers replaced with moquette, after all.

 

[sh24]

If the railway actually valued its customers then they would make those changes. Sadly we know the customer isn't a priority.

 

[driverd]

OK, so those complaining will have to wait until mid-life refits and pray that the TOC/RoSCo's choice aligns with their's.

Yes, I think thats a sensible expectation. There's nothing wrong with highlighting potential areas for improvement, that's what a good 75% of these topics are all about.

 

[bramling]

OK, so those complaining will have to wait until mid-life refits and pray that the TOC/RoSCo's choice aligns with their's.

You mean, like they did on GN, where class 379s with comfortable seats are coming on stream in increasing numbers as we speak?

If the railway actually valued its customers then they would make those changes. Sadly we know the customer isn't a priority.

The problem is that it isn’t really “the railway”. We saw in the early years of privatisation some pretty luxurious interior designs, even the much-maligned Connex specified something really good with their Electrostars.

As ever, the bigger issue seems to be successive governments who seem to regard the population about on a par with brown stuff on a shoe.

And, of course, does anyone in government ever get held to account for the various mess-ups we’ve seen over recent years? Just a few local ones off the top of the head:
* EMR HSTs
* The IEP contract with Hitachi
* Cambridge to Maidstone
* 442 refurb
* Thameslink unreliability
* The whole 707/701 saga

 

[Mikey C]

If the railway actually valued its customers then they would make those changes. Sadly we know the customer isn't a priority.

I suspect the hideously complicated lease contract for the IETs makes it harder to just make simple changes like replacing the seat cushions.

 

[Tetragon213]

Which is what I do, or use National Express. Sorry IC train travel is far too expensive for the product on offer. I appreciate many people are happy with it and seem willing to pay the prices as trains pretty full. I'm not so now use the alternative. An 800 is not enough of an incentive for me to put my money into rail travel.

I've retold the story before, but when I was on a business trip on company money, I ended up going out of my way to book a route via Salisbury specifically to avoid destroying my spinal cord on the IET torture racks. The company certainly didn't mind either, as it was far cheaper to book via Salisbury than the GWML. I still find that absurd at face value; it is cheaper to use a diesel service than it is to be using the train that runs under the wires.

On my own money, unless I can find a really cheap itinerary, I will almost always drive.

 

[stevieinselby]

Note: those wanting more legroom/seat-window alignment/luggage space/cycle space are effectively calling for lower density layouts, therefore reducing the capacity of the trains.

Yes, for intercity services we want lower density layouts. That's a given, it's why we have different interior designs for intercity trains compared with suburban trains – longitudinal seating like on a lot of metro services would increase capacity, but would be incredibly uncomfortable and unpleasant on a long high-speed journey. As passengers, we don't want trains to be designed to the lowest common denominator, to be built as cheaply as possible and to cram as many people in as we can shoehorn in the door. What we want is to have enough and big-enough trains that there is sufficient capacity at a suitable level of comfort for the journey.

But why does window-alignment mean lower density? Windows don't have one standard, inviolable, unchangeable size – the window size could be set so that it matches a suitable seat pitch at the design stage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But why does window-alignment mean lower density? Windows don't have one standard, inviolable, unchangeable size – the window size could be set so that it matches a suitable seat pitch at the design stage.

Generally it gets expensive if you have different window spacings on different vehicles in a train, because that affects the entire structure (it's easy enough to blank out all or part of a window, but not to change the spacing). So you have to space the windows to either a first class or a standard class spacing. The norm since the Mk3 on stock that has first class is to use the first class spacing so Standard is misaligned (because if you're paying a small fortune you at least want a view), but the Class 397 breaks with this with the windows being spaced for Standard seating, so Standard is fully aligned and First misaligned.

To some extent seat selectors mitigate this, as some people genuinely don't care or actively don't want a window to avoid light reflecting from their device screen.

 

[stevieinselby]

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 don't generally find the electric traction package to be distracting or unpleasant, it's far less noticeable than a diesel under the floor.
I suspect most people do notice subconsciously, even if they don't realise it. The engine noise on something like a Sprinter or Pacer is impossible not to notice!

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

When journey times are measured in days rather than hours, it isn't surprising that comfort is given a higher priority!

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.

Oh god, the squeaks ... that was the thing that drove me mad on any HST journey, whether on ECML, XC or Scotrail.

It will be a sad day when the IC225's are supplanted by the 897's.... God they will be terrible!

I would agree that the IC225s were the most pleasant and most comfortable modern stock I've encountered – it will be a sad day when the Mk4s are gone for good.

Generally it gets expensive if you have different window spacings on different vehicles in a train, because that affects the entire structure (it's easy enough to blank out all or part of a window, but not to change the spacing). So you have to space the windows to either a first class or a standard class spacing. The norm since the Mk3 on stock that has first class is to use the first class spacing so Standard is misaligned (because if you're paying a small fortune you at least want a view), but the Class 397 breaks with this with the windows being spaced for Standard seating, so Standard is fully aligned and First misaligned.

With many more passengers travelling in Standard, it doesn't seem unreasonable to build the design around Standard rather than First Class ... but as someone who will only very rarely pay the premium for First Class, I would say that, wouldn't I! Also disappointing how many Standard-only trains (and buses!) are not designed with window alignment in mind.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I would agree that the IC225s were the most pleasant and most comfortable modern stock I've encountered – it will be a sad day when the Mk4s are gone for good.

You’re being generous calling them modern… but I agree they’re fantastic, much better than HST I personally think. I prefer a 390 to anything else the UK has to offer, but an IC225 doesn’t come far behind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You’re being generous calling them modern… but I agree they’re fantastic, much better than HST I personally think. I prefer a 390 to anything else the UK has to offer, but an IC225 doesn’t come far behind.

Not a fan myself. Mk4s always feel to me as being built down to a price. Bad ride, and as built absolutely awful seats (better ones were fitted later, but you can fit nice seats to anything).

On balance, I'd say the Avanti 80x are presently the best UK InterCity rolling stock. I quite like the 80x generally, but hate the seats in the originals.

The FLIRTs promised to be good, but I don't think they have squeezed into UK gauge particularly well (which is a shame as I love the European ones, particularly the PKP IC ones). Pendolinos aren't bad but for the small windows.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Not a fan myself. Mk4s always feel to me as being built down to a price. Bad ride, and as built absolutely awful seats (better ones were fitted later, but you can fit nice seats to anything).

On balance, I'd say the Avanti 80x are presently the best UK InterCity rolling stock. I quite like the 80x generally, but hate the seats in the originals.

The FLIRTs promised to be good, but I don't think they have squeezed into UK gauge particularly well (which is a shame as I love the European ones, particularly the PKP IC ones). Pendolinos aren't bad but for the small windows.

So interesting to see this opinion, as I think they represent a half-hearted, cheaper looking version of the 390s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So interesting to see this opinion, as I think they represent a half-hearted, cheaper looking version of the 390s.

In a way they do, but they just have a much more spacious feel and bigger windows, as well as bigger overhead luggage racks.

First Class is a bit of a cheap job with the FISA LEANs but I don't tend to travel First Class so I don't really care about that

 

[Richard Scott]

Not a fan myself. Mk4s always feel to me as being built down to a price. Bad ride, and as built absolutely awful seats (better ones were fitted later, but you can fit nice seats to anything).

On balance, I'd say the Avanti 80x are presently the best UK InterCity rolling stock. I quite like the 80x generally, but hate the seats in the originals.

The FLIRTs promised to be good, but I don't think they have squeezed into UK gauge particularly well (which is a shame as I love the European ones, particularly the PKP IC ones). Pendolinos aren't bad but for the small windows.

Bad ride and awful seats, thought you were going to refer to an 80x there?
Mk 4 in a totally different league to an 80x in terms of passenger comfort. Ride isn't as good as a mk3 but then these have always been difficult to beat and not really found a train that does ride better than a mk3.
Can't say I'm a fan of flirts either, ones used by SOB in Switzerland as a sort of IC unit aren't particularly good, in my opinion. Interior layout very messy.

 

[AM9]

Yes, for intercity services we want lower density layouts. That's a given, it's why we have different interior designs for intercity trains compared with suburban trains – longitudinal seating like on a lot of metro services would increase capacity, but would be incredibly uncomfortable and unpleasant on a long high-speed journey. As passengers, we don't want trains to be designed to the lowest common denominator, to be built as cheaply as possible and to cram as many people in as we can shoehorn in the door. What we want is to have enough and big-enough trains that there is sufficient capacity at a suitable level of comfort for the journey.

I am fully aware as to why services where passengers spend (on average) a lot longer longer on their journeys have an environment designed to cater for that as opposed to the need for sheer capacity on trains used for commuter services and moreso those wholly for continuous metro services. So the majority of the current main line IC stock has 2+2 seating in standard, a better legroom provision and adequate toilet provision. None of that comes free, - it either costs more to provide at build/refurb, or compromises capacity, - in many cases both. There are plenty of long distance services where the routes are running at capacity, and trains running at maximum length, so there is an actual cost of the upgraded accommodation that jus benefits the few that did get the seat of their wishes.
This is becoming a real world problem in the UK where despite the TOC using various subterfuges to gently discourage overcrowding certain services, many trains are still running with too many standee passengers. The only way that a few can get the comfort that they think they deserve is to manage demand through pricing. The railway is funded significantly by the public purse, which means to put it mildly, thre ism little opportunity to add optional costs, so complaints about the firmness of seats, colour of lighting and even legroom aren't likely to change anything, - only absolute safety issues get real attention - and even that's really a cost concious decision for failing to address it maybe far more expensive.

So back to may question, getting improvements particularly in 'passenger comforts' just becomes part of the capacity/reliability/longevity cost juggling act. For those who see these comforts as so important, which of the other cost elements would they relegate to a lower priority of even just a lower cost solution?

But why does window-alignment mean lower density? Windows don't have one standard, inviolable, unchangeable size – the window size could be set so that it matches a suitable seat pitch at the design stage.

There was the same clamour for window alignment of every seat when the MK3 design was released in the 1970s, but the world has changed, rail coaches are designed as integral bodied vehicles and as @Bletchleyite states, they must be structrallu designed for crash resistance, doing a whole new set of qualification and approval testing for each different seating layout would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bad ride and awful seats, thought you were going to refer to an 80x there?

I find the Mk4 slightly worse. The Mk4 is the only stock where I've given serious consideration to going and pulling the passcom because I genuinely thought a bogie was derailed.

Mk 4 in a totally different league to an 80x in terms of passenger comfort. Ride isn't as good as a mk3 but then these have always been difficult to beat and not really found a train that does ride better than a mk3.

I dislike the Mk3 ride. It has an irritating characteristic sway due to inadequate lateral damping.

I struggle to like very much about BR era LHCS of any kind. It was and is markedly inferior to what was being done on the European mainland at the same time. In my view the best thing BR ever built at any time during their existence, as far as passenger rolling stock goes, was the Class 158, though it did have a legroom problem and so should probably have had 8 rather than 9 bodyside windows and the seats respaced accordingly.

Can't say I'm a fan of flirts either, ones used by SOB in Switzerland as a sort of IC unit aren't particularly good, in my opinion. Interior layout very messy.

Low floor tends to lead to clumsy layouts - the PKP ones are high floor. Of course the UK doesn't need to go quite as low, but I do find the layouts of the Greater Anglia units clumsy at times as you say of the European ones. With regard to low floor on long distance services, my favoured approach is to drop one vehicle between the bogies and provide in that an accessible toilet and both first and standard class accommodation (or maybe two, one First and one Standard), but stick to high floor for the rest of the train. For regional DMUs there's a stronger case to just have the whole floor lower as per the S-stock and have smaller wheels as a lower top speed is needed and any engines can be physically smaller so fit under a lower floor. The extremely clumsy multiple floor heights of the Class 777 are totally unnecessary for a 75mph unit, one of the many faults with that utterly flawed design.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Can't say I'm a fan of flirts either, ones used by SOB in Switzerland as a sort of IC unit aren't particularly good, in my opinion. Interior layout very messy.

They don't work as a long distance train, in my opinion. I think the SBB Giruno, for example, gives the impression of little more than a glamped up local train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They don't work as a long distance train, in my opinion. I think the SBB Giruno, for example, gives the impression of little more than a glamped up local train.

Ironically, in my view at least, the local version of the AT300 (the Javelin units) is nicer than the long distance version!

 

[QSK19]

Ironically, in my view at least, the local version of the AT300 (the Javelin units) is nicer than the long distance version!

Wouldn’t argue with that! The AT300 started on a high and has declined ever since. To go from the, at least IMO, superb Javelin to the farce that is the Class 810 introduction is a real fall from grace.

Can't say I'm a fan of flirts either, ones used by SOB in Switzerland as a sort of IC unit aren't particularly good, in my opinion. Interior layout very messy.

Which is why, at least as far we know from a couple of mentions on RF, Stadler were wise to offer the SMILE, not the FLIRT, to EMR. Though, rather regrettably (based on the shambolic 810 introduction thus far), Stadler didn’t get selected, of course.

Despite the 745/0 being considered an IC unit, I’ve always felt the FLIRT is a high end regional express product, not an IC one.

 

[RailWonderer]

Despite the 745/0 being considered an IC unit, I’ve always felt the FLIRT is a high end regional express product, not an IC one.

The FLIRT is a regional design but has been adapted to an IC product which does everything an IC service needs with regards to comfort, first class, buffet etc. I'm sure anyone here would rather spend 5 hours to Cornwall on a 745 (if it had engines) than an IET.