Trivia: Rolling stock which is “most” suited to the routes it operates

[brad465]

395s are very unique in their ability to run on HS1 with in cab-signalling and at 140mph, while also having 3rd rail capability to extend services onto the classic network beyond either Ebbsfleet or Ashford.

 

[JamesC357]

C2C’s 357 units do their job pretty well, despite getting a little cramped at peak times with the 3+2 seating

 

[XAM2175]

We've had a couple of threads about 159 replacements & decided the 755's power car would be an undesirable loss of seating length when you're trying to cram into Waterloo.

Though if the unit is long enough the space used by the power pack would be offset by the space gained from not having intermediate cabs, and not needing as many PRM toilets.

Plenty of doors that open promptly

The door speed on the Desiro City units really is marvellous

395s are very unique in their ability to run on HS1 with in cab-signalling and at 140mph, while also having 3rd rail capability to extend services onto the classic network beyond either Ebbsfleet or Ashford.

Yes, but it's not like you can't fit third-rail pickup and/or TVM430 capability to other units. Indeed, in theory, with increasing ETCS readiness it should be easier than ever, by simply adding a Specific Transmission Module (STM) for TVM430 to the ETCS computer.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't get this point at all. Even for shorter Thameslink journeys, half an hour sitting down versus ten seconds at each end getting on and off, and perhaps in a few cases a trip to the toilet. Why on earth would a spacious aisle compensate for an uncomfortable seat?

Less pressed up against other passengers, having to climb over them, squeeze past them / brushing past you etc. Plus space in the doorways for luggage, prams etc.

In first, by any chance?

Not always. Sometimes I can't be bothered to walk all the way down to the last carriage to walk back again.

My point was claiming they were "unacceptable" when so many passengers quite visibly do accept them, in place of an alternative faster service (and few of whom know about the declassified rear first class, if you see the occupancy of standard class seats leaving Cambrige or the core stations)

 

[xotGD]

Class 139 on the Stourbridge shuttle.

Class 68 + Mark 5a sets on transpennine services.

Mark 5 sleepers on sleeper trains.

 

[philosopher]

My point was claiming they were "unacceptable" when so many passengers quite visibly do accept them, in place of an alternative faster service (and few of whom know about the declassified rear first class, if you see the occupancy of standard class seats leaving Cambrige or the core stations)

Thameslink trains are going to be tricky to design internally because they are serving multiple markets whom have different needs, commuters taking short trips who want to be able to get on the train and not have to spend ages off, air travellers going to Luton or Gatwick airports whom require lots of luggage space and leisure travellers or longer distance commuters taking quite long trips who want comfortable seats and facilities such as a toilet.

Therefore, their design is going to end up being a compromise between these needs. In that sense they are reasonable trains, they have reasonable space for luggage for air travellers, they have toilets and most seats have tables and they wide aisles and walk through carriages to help commuters off quickly and to ease overcrowding. The seats though could be made more comfortable.

 

[Ken H]

Thameslink trains are going to be tricky to design internally because they are serving multiple markets whom have different needs, commuters taking short trips who want to be able to get on the train and not have to spend ages off, air travellers going to Luton or Gatwick airports whom require lots of luggage space and leisure travellers or longer distance commuters taking quite long trips who want comfortable seats and facilities such as a toilet.

Therefore, their design is going to end up being a compromise between these needs. In that sense they are reasonable trains, they have reasonable space for luggage for air travellers, they have toilets and most seats have tables and they wide aisles and walk through carriages to help commuters off quickly and to ease overcrowding. The seats though could be made more comfortable.

Why do trains serving passengers making short journeys have to have rubbish seats?

 

[Alfonso]

In contrast to the “least compatible rolling stock” thread, which services would you say are run with rolling stock which is most compatible with the route. Could be for any of the following reasons:

• Ideal speed for a long-distance intercity service
• Ideal acceleration for a short-hop commuter route
• Door widths and spacing suitable for type of operation
• Ideal train length to match passenger demand
• Ideal train length as to avoid eating up track capacity
• Seats most suited for journey type
• Appropriate power type - always electric under wires and diesel only where other power is not viable.
• Stock cannot be used elsewhere

My nomination goes to SWR’s Class 444s as they successfully combine the commuter aspects of fast acceleration and maxed out train lengths with the longer-distance aspects of spacious seating and end doors. Being long-distance third rail units, they couldn’t really be used anywhere else on the network where they aren’t already running.

I'd agree, but not since first class went to 2+2 seating

 

[TXMISTA]

387s are perfect for Paddington to Didcot stoppers. Huge step up from Turbos in every single department.

 

[Southsider]

Gone now but Class 314 on Glasgow inner suburban services.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

700s are a terrible unit.

The issue is the routes they work. People say they are excellent for the Core, but the Core is NOT the Underground and people making journeys such as Huntingdon to Gatwick Airport don’t deserve something on a par with something that does a Gordon Hill to Moorgate.

There’s also 8/700s working routes that shouldn’t be Thameslink as they’re too short. North of St Pancras, I believe all Midland local stops including Hendon etc are good for 12. So, they should have been 10s or 12s and work other stuff. Caterham, Tattenham, Epsom etc. Not Catford (8) or Wall of Death (8).

Oh, and bad seats.

 

[satisnek]

Chiltern 168s on the Brum and Oxford services. Amongst the most comfortable standard class seating of anything on the network combined with door layout and performance optimised for the medium-long distance commuter services they operate.

I'll second that! The 68s and Mk3a sets are fun but something of an overkill in my view, and I've observed that a 168 on a loco-hauled diagram seems to do a lot of 'waiting time' at intermediate stations.

Class 139 on the Stourbridge shuttle.

On the basis that not many people use the line nowadays? I've only used it off-peak myself, where it seems quite adequate, but I'm not sure if it can handle peak hour loadings?

 

[mightyena]

Thameslink trains are going to be tricky to design internally because they are serving multiple markets whom have different needs, commuters taking short trips who want to be able to get on the train and not have to spend ages off, air travellers going to Luton or Gatwick airports whom require lots of luggage space and leisure travellers or longer distance commuters taking quite long trips who want comfortable seats and facilities such as a toilet.

Therefore, their design is going to end up being a compromise between these needs. In that sense they are reasonable trains, they have reasonable space for luggage for air travellers, they have toilets and most seats have tables and they wide aisles and walk through carriages to help commuters off quickly and to ease overcrowding. The seats though could be made more comfortable.

Yeah, the thing with Thameslink is that it's basically two distinct zones that have largely incompatible needs rolling stock wise, so any train is going to be a compromise. The 700s obviously lean much further towards the "metro people eater" end than the "regional commuter" end, but that was kind of required to not have the core grind to a halt.

For the inner city work, they're excellent. For the outer suburban work, they're... fine, imo. Not great, but better than a 387!

 

[Class360/1]

FLIRT’s for east anglia, 158’s for rural lines in Scotland and Wales

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

390 Pendolino on the WCML in tilt mode.
No other train could work the route and achieve the same journey times.
It has some interior compromises but is the best-riding 125mph train in the UK.

Reliability also flawless, plenty of carriages as well, decent acceleration considering good acceleration and high top speed are usually mutually exclusive with rolling stock, well padded seats for long journeys, shop very innovative and useful for long journeys - also saves putting in a silly old fashioned buffet - and motors extremely quiet as well, leaving you in peace for a long journey - compared to 80x with the whiny motors, 22x with the vibration, HSTs with the unbearable creaking and the IC225s with the constant electric hum. I actually quite like the MK4 hum, which is there to denote the loco and carriages are in sync, but I 100% appreciate why it would get on someone’s nerves after a while.

11 car Pendolinos had the perfect balance of First and Standard class too, until Avanti meddled.

 

[Clansman]

Surprised the 460s haven't been mentioned when they were kicking about in their original form. Very rarely do you see a bespoke built MU for a particular route these days. I imagine staff and passengers would have been sad to see them go when they did.

 

[Mikey C]

Surprised the 460s haven't been mentioned when they were kicking about in their original form. Very rarely do you see a bespoke built MU for a particular route these days. I imagine staff and passengers would have been sad to see them go when they did.

Or indeed the Heathrow 331s 332s, which for the time were really swish inside, and stylish outside too!

 

[LiftFan]

Class 139 for the Stourbridge Town shuttle, much better than wasting a 153 going back and forth on a slow short line!

 

[Strathclyder]

Gone now but Class 314 on Glasgow inner suburban services.

They (and going back even further, the refurbished 303s) were perfectly suited to the Cathcart Circle and it's associated branches. The longest Argyle/North Clyde Line services of the period (late 80s/early 90s; Lanark - Dalmuir & Drumgelloch - Helensburgh respectively) were possibly a bit of a stretch on either type, but it was tolerable. The seats weren't horrifically uncomfortable and there was plenty of standing space for the busier sections of each route. I dunno, perhaps I'm letting nostalgia cloud my better judgement here lol The one thing that held the 314s back was a lack of passenger-operated doors, an disadvantage especially in the winter months; the refurbed 303s had passenger operated doors fitted throughout.

Since I've mentioned Drumgelloch, the 334s are a good fit for Helensburgh/Milngavie - Edinburgh via Bathgate. Airy, not too cramped, comfortable seating (not quite in the same leauge as 318s/320s in this respect personally) and with a 90mph capability. Squeaky suspension aside, they're ideal.

 

[Dan G]

Or indeed the Heathrow 331s, which for the time were really swish inside, and stylish outside too!

Did you mean 332s?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

387s are perfect for Paddington to Didcot stoppers. Huge step up from Turbos in every single department.

A definite yes to that !

 

[Halish Railway]

I did a 68+Mk3 set today on the whole route from Birmingham Moor Street to London Marylebone for the first time and I have to say that it was absolutely outstanding and I’m looking forward to using them more often to get down to London from my new home in Birmingham!

Extremely comfortable seats for the 1 3/4 hour journey, smooth riding, extremely quite, excellent PIS system, easy to move around the carriage now that the internal doors have been moved to the gangways, non-oppressive subdued lighting and have had more seats put in by removing the luggage racks which are unnecessary on the Chiltern Mainline. I can see where TPE got the inspiration for the Nova 3s from.

The sliding plug doors make them have the same dwell time as a 158; you could make the point that a 168 has shorter dwell times and quicker acceleration, however is this necessary on a limited stop express? Besides better performance on these trains just means that they catch up with stopping services quicker on what is a busy artery.

As much as I have a soft spot for 158s, I can’t help but feel that push-pull LHCS would be so much more suited to longer distance inter-regional routes. There’s no ‘wow’ to a 158. Hopefully there can be some more electrification schemes in which electric LHCS can be introduced onto inter-regional or intercity routes, something which I don’t think is too unrealistic given that TPE & TfW are introduced more LHCS.

 

[Mikey C]

Did you mean 332s?

Yes!

 

[XAM2175]

The longest Argyle/North Clyde Line services of the period (late 80s/early 90s; Lanark - Dalmuir & Drumgelloch - Helensburgh respectively) were possibly a bit of a stretch on either type, but it was tolerable. The seats weren't horrifically uncomfortable and there was plenty of standing space for the busier sections of each route. I dunno, perhaps I'm letting nostalgia cloud my better judgement here lol

I want to be nostalgic about them as well but my first exposure to a 314 - and indeed my first-ever trip by rail in GB - was by 314 from Gilmour Street to Gourock and that was pushing the friendship a bit

Extremely comfortable seats for the 1 3/4 hour journey, smooth riding, extremely quite, excellent PIS system, easy to move around the carriage now that the internal doors have been moved to the gangways

Illustrating how subjective this all is - I made my first Chiltern Mk 3 trip a few months back and those IC70 seats ruined every single aspect of it. Too deeply reclined, too low (my head was barely above the windowsill), and the position of the fixed armrests eats a bunch of space I'd really have preferred to use for my thighs.

I will grant through that the plug doors seemed a much neater solution than the sliding approach that was used for HST conversions.

 

[greyman42]

Illustrating how subjective this all is - I made my first Chiltern Mk 3 trip a few months back and those IC70 seats ruined every single aspect of it. Too deeply reclined, too low (my head was barely above the windowsill), and the position of the fixed armrests eats a bunch of space I'd really have preferred to use for my thighs.

I liked the armrests as it stops overweight people encroaching into your own seat.

 

[Mikey C]

I want to be nostalgic about them as well but my first exposure to a 314 - and indeed my first-ever trip by rail in GB - was by 314 from Gilmour Street to Gourock and that was pushing the friendship a bit


Illustrating how subjective this all is - I made my first Chiltern Mk 3 trip a few months back and those IC70 seats ruined every single aspect of it. Too deeply reclined, too low (my head was barely above the windowsill), and the position of the fixed armrests eats a bunch of space I'd really have preferred to use for my thighs.

I will grant through that the plug doors seemed a much neater solution than the sliding approach that was used for HST conversions.

Not a fan of IC70 seats either. I MUCH prefer the seats in the Chiltern 168s

 

[D9006]

Deltic on +8 on Hull Exc

 

[chiltern trev]

IOTE="BayPaul, post: 5363771, member: 71181"]
I'm going to nominate the S-Stock on the subsurface lines on the Underground. Hugely spacious, very fast loading, pretty comfortable for an underground train, and not bad looking.
[/QUOTE]

I'll say no to 8 car S stock - not suitable for journeys to the western ends of the line. Not enough seats and too many longitudinal seats = avoid - use Chiltern.

 

[bramling]

IOTE="BayPaul, post: 5363771, member: 71181"]
I'm going to nominate the S-Stock on the subsurface lines on the Underground. Hugely spacious, very fast loading, pretty comfortable for an underground train, and not bad looking.

I'll say no to 8 car S stock - not suitable for journeys to the western ends of the line. Not enough seats and too many longitudinal seats = avoid - use Chiltern.
[/QUOTE]

I do think they could probably have got away with 2+2 on the Met Line trains, however this has to be balanced by the fact that this would only provide two extra seats per car, at the loss of quite a bit of standing / circulating space.

I do find it rather unsettling having someone sitting facing my side when sat in a transverse seat though. Really doesn’t feel right at all.

 

[Mikey C]

I think the S8 layout is a reasonable compromise

As trains they are excellent though, I love the great view out you get with the big windows and slim pillars