Should units with doors at 1/3 & 2/3 position be fitted with vestibule doors?

[southern442]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rawn-permanently.127422/page-207#post-5072843

The point of end doors and vestibule is not to let the outside weather in at every stop. On a short journey passengers keep their coat on. On a longer journey it is more comfortable to be able to take it off.

I've never seen a good reason why these vestibule doors cannot exist in a 1/3 2/3 unit. They work quite well with the 745s.

 

[JonathanH]

I've never seen a good reason why these vestibule doors cannot exist in a 1/3 2/3 unit. They work quite well with the 745s.

Vestibule doors were fitted to some class 170s in their early days and of course the first class sections of 185s, 350s and 450s so they are feasible. Just adds to the cost of the train however and has to be weighed up against a more open interior.

 

[fgwrich]

Vestibule doors were fitted to some class 170s in their early days and of course the first class sections of 185s, 350s and 450s so they are feasible. Just adds to the cost of the train however and has to be weighed up against a more open interior.

Indeed, there were plans to fit them at every set of doors on the 170 fleet in First’s bid plan for ScotRail had they retained the franchise, as opposed to taking the HSTs. Imagine how much of a power drain that would have been for the Turbostar fleet.

 

[AM9]

The point of end doors and vestibule is not to let the outside weather in at every stop. On a short journey passengers keep their coat on. On a longer journey it is more comfortable to be able to take it off.

... and on a longer journey the doors don't open so often, so in reality little difference. That's why LNR, SE GTR and much of GA manage quite well with what has become normal modern doors in better heated/cooled trains, conveniently located with their faster alighting and boarding benefits allowing shorter dwells.

 

[Bob M]

... and on a longer journey the doors don't open so often, so in reality little difference. That's why LNR, SE GTR and much of GA manage quite well with what has become normal modern doors in better heated/cooled trains, conveniently located with their faster alighting and boarding benefits allowing shorter dwells.

Try travelling from Waterloo to Bournemouth on a semi-fast 450 in cold weather!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've never seen a good reason why these vestibule doors cannot exist in a 1/3 2/3 unit. They work quite well with the 745s.

There is no reason they can't, and indeed some 170s had them as built. The only problem is that you need twice as many of them as for an end doored vehicle.

 

[AM9]

Try travelling from Waterloo to Bournemouth on a semi-fast 450 in cold weather! ...

That would probably be easier than travelling on a 350 from Euston to Crewe in colder weather than is usually experienced in the south. Maybe some SWR commuters need to travel outside the mild southern counties.

 

[bramling]

That would probably be easier than travelling on a 350 from Euston to Crewe in colder weather than is usually experienced in the south. Maybe some SWR commuters need to travel outside the mild southern counties.

As a point of order (not that I’m necessarily disagreeing!), you travel from Euston to Crewe in a 350 because you want to save money. By contrast you travel from Portsmouth to Waterloo in a 450 because it’s the quickest service and that’s what is booked to turn up.

The 1/3 2/3 doors wouldn’t bother me, in fact personally I’d go so far as to say I prefer it. I probably wouldn’t be too enthused at the 2+3 seating though, especially for that length of journey and if the train is at or near “all seats taken” for a significant proportion of the journey. It wouldn’t bother me at off-peak times.

For me I’d say that a 350/1 style layout would be the optimum for the Portsmouth Line. Given how much fuss was made when the 450s started appearing en-masse, I’m surprised something along these lines wasn’t done sooner.

The trouble is that pleasing Petersfield seems to mean displeasing Guildford!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

TPE 802s have been timetabled with longer station dwell times than the 185s they replace. This was done purely on account of the end door configuration over the 1/4 3/4 door positions of a 185

 

[AM9]

As a point of order (not that I’m necessarily disagreeing!), you travel from Euston to Crewe in a 350 because you want to save money. By contrast you travel from Portsmouth to Waterloo in a 450 because it’s the quickest service and that’s what is booked to turn up.

The 1/3 2/3 doors wouldn’t bother me, in fact personally I’d go so far as to say I prefer it. I probably wouldn’t be too enthused at the 2+3 seating though, especially for that length of journey and if the train is at or near “all seats taken” for a significant proportion of the journey. It wouldn’t bother me at off-peak times.

For me I’d say that a 350/1 style layout would be the optimum for the Portsmouth Line. Given how much fuss was made when the 450s started appearing en-masse, I’m surprised something along these lines wasn’t done sooner.

The trouble is that pleasing Petersfield seems to mean displeasing Guildford!

I chose to compare the 450 services with the LNR offering simply because of the duration of journeys and the use of effectively identical rolling stock. Although, class 350/2 stock does sometimes get diagrammed on the longer runs, all of the journeys that I have made up the TVL have been in 2+2 units, which have been quite acceptable in terms of comfort.
I think what we're both saying here is that SWT/SWR should have deployed 2+2 configured Desiro UK units on services that are intended (by their stopping pattern) to serve through travel, leaving just the slows to SOU and PMH using the high density layout units. Replacing seating in a modern EMU is quite acceptable as a part of a refurbishment and probably more cost-effective than doggedly clinging onto unreliable equipment that is unsuitable for interworking on a high frequency mainline. Some posters here have of course displayed their nostalgic dreams of the return of bygone rail travel, that has no place on a busy functioning mainline in the 21st century.

 

[bramling]

I chose to compare the 450 services with the LNR offering simply because of the duration of journeys and the use of effectively identical rolling stock. Although, class 350/2 stock does sometimes get diagrammed on the longer runs, all of the journeys that I have made up the TVL have been in 2+2 units, which have been quite acceptable in terms of comfort.
I think what we're both saying here is that SWT/SWR should have deployed 2+2 configured Desiro UK units on services that are intended (by their stopping pattern) to serve through travel, leaving just the slows to SOU and PMH using the high density layout units. Replacing seating in a modern EMU is quite acceptable as a part of a refurbishment and probably more cost-effective than doggedly clinging onto unreliable equipment that is unsuitable for interworking on a high frequency mainline. Some posters here have of course displayed their nostalgic dreams of the return of bygone rail travel, that has no place on a busy functioning mainline in the 21st century.

Yes I agree a 2+2 450 would be the optimum solution, perhaps with somehow finding a way of sticking in a couple of peak-busting trips doing a dedicated Guildford to London run with 3+2 stock at a time which hoovers up as many Guildford commuters as possible (I realise this is probably a lot easier written than done!).

They're essentially seeming to do exactly that, just with 458s instead of 450s. I still think converting the 350/2s would have been a neater solution, though really the 350/2s shouldn't be leaving LNwR, they're only really leaving for political reasons rather than operational ones.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes I agree a 2+2 450 would be the optimum solution, perhaps with somehow finding a way of sticking in a couple of peak-busting trips doing a dedicated Guildford to London run with 3+2 stock at a time which hoovers up as many Guildford commuters as possible (I realise this is probably a lot easier written than done!).

They're essentially seeming to do exactly that, just with 458s instead of 450s. I still think converting the 350/2s would have been a neater solution, though really the 350/2s shouldn't be leaving LNwR, they're only really leaving for political reasons rather than operational ones.

Back in the days of the slammers, it wasn't unusual to see 12-car formations of VEP-CIG-CIG or VEP-VEP-CIG rattling through Surbiton. Can't recall if these services split/joined further down the line but it was very rare to see them with the VEP at the country end. It should be therefore possible to ensure that any sub-class of lower density 450s are kept in the right place. Presumably SWT usually managed to keep the High Capacity 450/5s away from longer-distance diagrams?