East Coast IEP Electric Option

[HSTEd]

I concur with all of what you've said but I wouldn't fancy a Class 350 on a two hour journey.

I was primarily using a 350 as an example, if the tests on the WCML go well you coudl get a 379 or even a 444.

All those options would be far better value for money.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I was primarily using a 350 as an example, if the tests on the WCML go well you coudl get a 379 or even a 444.

All those options would be far better value for money.

But none of those are capable of hitting 125 mph which doesn't fit in with the programme of linespeed increases. Not to mention the draught in winter when the central doors open. We need to think about the needs of the customer and making the best use of our infrastructure.

 

[causton]

But none of those are capable of hitting 125 mph which doesn't fit in with the programme of linespeed increases. Not to mention the draught in winter when the central doors open. We need to think about the needs of the customer and making the best use of our infrastructure.

Central doors on a 444?

...a 444 sounds quite nice for 110mph operation!

 

[Aictos]

Say the DfT went for 390 operation, there's no need for tilting on the ECML so the interiors won't be the same as the WCML ones but could be more spacious inside.

Make them 11 coaches and you've instantly made available much more seats then a 91 set has as you've got 11 coaches of seating to use vs 9 coaches.

The acceleration might well be better leading to improved journey times as well with drags over non electric sections.

Just saying its a few reasons why a newer 390 design could be viable....

 

[SkinnyDave]

I think tilt would be beneficial North of Darlington but its not be all on this line

 

[Aictos]

I think tilt would be beneficial North of Darlington but its not be all on this line

Exactly,

 

[The Ham]

On the "Midland Mainline Electrification. What trains?" thread:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=84053

What about Class 91s/Mark 4s from the ECML?

 

[DarloRich]

A lot of "comfort" comes down to the type of seat (and amount of padding) and is nothing to do with loco-hauled/ diesel/ EMU etc.

I feel sorry for those who see, to find any underfloor engine so noisy that they can't think - is it really so loud? Over the noise of everything else?

Restaurant space is going to be wasted space on the majority of journeys - twenty years ago we could afford to have space for power cars and restaurants - I doubt most people would notice they had gone.

I feel sorry for those who have only travelled by modern trains and therefore having nothing but rubbish to compare. Why is it that modernity means less comfort for the passenger? Why cant you give me a modern train that is MORE comfortable than the 30 year old one? Why? What is so hard?

So I can take it from your comments that you would be happy to site on a Voyager style train for 4-5 hours because they are so wonderfully comfortable? I do that, as little as I can but still often, from Edinburgh or Glasgow to the Midlands or South west and it is torture. But then I am sure you will tell me no one uses these trains for long distances, so that is all right.

The removal of the MKiii or iv from the East Coast will be a sad day and their replacement by an inferior, but modern and therefore wonderful, IEP/Voyager clone will be an even worse day

 

[LexyBoy]

Whilst not a fan of the IEP I think that, if you're going down the route of a complex bespoke design project then it makes sense to have as large a fleet as possible to reduce the per-unit cost. Especially with IEP already planned for HST replacement.

Why cant you give me a modern train that is MORE comfortable than the 30 year old one? Why? What is so hard?

But tbtc's point you quoted in the first line stands - how a train is furbished has more of an effect on comfort than the train itself. This is not something that would be expected to remain the same throughout the lifetime of the train. Whilst many loved IC70 seats (I did!), others hated them and prefer modern seating.

I do actually find underfloor engines unpleasant for long journeys (my lower legs go numb) but even so for 2-3 hours I would take a 180/22x over a FGW HST, all else being equal. Seating on 180s and 390s is actually quite nice IMO in terms of comfort and table/airline configuration, so it clearly can be done. Voyagers - XC's in particular - do conform to your "pack 'em in" description, but this is due to lack of capacity which should not affect IEP to the same extent. IIRC from the IEP thread the proposed seating layout will have only 4 seats more than in a FGW Mk3 coach, with 3 metres extra length, so if anything it should be an improvement on the status quo.

 

[tbtc]

I feel sorry for those who have only travelled by modern trains and therefore having nothing but rubbish to compare. Why is it that modernity means less comfort for the passenger? Why cant you give me a modern train that is MORE comfortable than the 30 year old one? Why? What is so hard?

So I can take it from your comments that you would be happy to site on a Voyager style train for 4-5 hours because they are so wonderfully comfortable? I do that, as little as I can but still often, from Edinburgh or Glasgow to the Midlands or South west and it is torture. But then I am sure you will tell me no one uses these trains for long distances, so that is all right.

The removal of the MKiii or iv from the East Coast will be a sad day and their replacement by an inferior, but modern and therefore wonderful, IEP/Voyager clone will be an even worse day

Thanks for putting words into my mouth.

Some modern stock is comfortable - I've had no problems on a 175 or a 180, both seem to have a decent enough on board feeling - its just a shame that they are so rubbish underneath - but there's no reason why a modern train can't be comfortable.

If the choice was between a five hundred seat Voyager and a five hundred seat HST, I wouldn't be too fussed either way - the problem with the Voyagers is the low number of seats, I don't find them too noisy etc.

Getting into an argument about how comfortable an (as yet) unbuilt train will be seems fairly silly.

 

[DarloRich]

I would be fussed if the choice was between a 500 seat Voyager or a 500 seat HST. I know which is more comfortable and a more enjoyable experience for the passenger. It isn’t the Voyager.

The 180 is comfortable seat wise but some of them shake like crazy and can be very noisy. You will not convince me that under floor engines are suitable for long distance Intercity travel, unless some kind of anechoic mounting can be developed to damp down the vibration and better noise insulation be fitted to reduce the sound.

Like I said Edinburgh - Exeter on a Voyager is torture and it is impossible to work because of the vibration, noise and the over crowding. Apparently I am the only person in the world who makes this journey though! Now compare that with a Mkiii or Mkiv

 

[broadgage]

It shows just how far standards have fallen in the last 30 years or so, that tables, full sized seats, full length trains and on board catering are now being regarded as unaffordable luxuries, whereas years ago they were the norm on long distance services.

If full length trains with seats at tables really are unaffordable now, perhaps some fares are too cheap ?
I do not appreiciate paying the full fare and having to stand because the seats are all booked by holders of discounted tickets.

Perhaps we should bring back three classes of travel on long distance services.
First class, similar to that offered now on a proper train, about 48 seats*
Second class, similar to that offered years ago, facing seats at tables, about 70 seats*
Third class modern DMU style seating,about 85 seats*

*approximate numbers, presuming a MK III length coach, pro rata for other designs, and exact numbers also depending on the number of toilets and amount of disabled accomadation.

 

[DarloRich]

Whilst not a fan of the IEP I think that, if you're going down the route of a complex bespoke design project then it makes sense to have as large a fleet as possible to reduce the per-unit cost. Especially with IEP already planned for HST replacement.



But tbtc's point you quoted in the first line stands - how a train is furbished has more of an effect on comfort than the train itself. This is not something that would be expected to remain the same throughout the lifetime of the train. Whilst many loved IC70 seats (I did!), others hated them and prefer modern seating.

I do actually find underfloor engines unpleasant for long journeys (my lower legs go numb) but even so for 2-3 hours I would take a 180/22x over a FGW HST, all else being equal. Seating on 180s and 390s is actually quite nice IMO in terms of comfort and table/airline configuration, so it clearly can be done. Voyagers - XC's in particular - do conform to your "pack 'em in" description, but this is due to lack of capacity which should not affect IEP to the same extent. IIRC from the IEP thread the proposed seating layout will have only 4 seats more than in a FGW Mk3 coach, with 3 metres extra length, so if anything it should be an improvement on the status quo.

NOT if you have under floor engines. The whole thing shakes, rattles and vibrates like crazy.

Anyone who thinks that modern seating is more comfortable than the older seats should be shot. Compare seats on an East Coast Mkiii or iv and the seats in the Pendo or Voyager. There is no comparison.

The voyager/pendo seat is thin, narrow, uncomfortable, cramped, uncomfortable (did I say that?), padded with one copy of yesterdays metro and fashioned from cheap nasty horrible plastic. The table, if you get one, is tiny and can hold one lap top or folds up for some unknown reason.

The environment of a pendo is dark and dingy and no amount of better seats will change this. What might help is some better decorations and lighting but it is still a dark dingy smelly horrible place to be for any length of time.

But hey, what do I know? I am just the poor sod who spends half his life travelling up and down the country. Why listen to me, I mean what do I know?

 

[LexyBoy]

NOT if you have under floor engines. The whole thing shakes, rattles and vibrates like crazy.

Yes, there's some vibration (as there is in an HST unless you're lucky enough to get a coach without a massive wheelflat) - I wasn't saying that I would choose a DMU if I had a choice, I was saying that I'd choose a 180 over a FGW HST. If you put the 180 interior into a Mk3 coach then of course that would win.

Anyway, this thread started off about 91/Mk4 replacement on the ECML so there obviously won't be underfloor engines - it'll be an EMU.

The environment of a pendo is dark and dingy and no amount of better seats will change this. What might help is some better decorations and lighting but it is still a dark dingy smelly horrible place to be for any length of time.

Funny you should say that, the lighting on Pendos is one of the (few) things I actually like about them. Not intrusive, not so dark you can't see. As I said, people have different opinions on what makes a comfortable journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyone who thinks that modern seating is more comfortable than the older seats should be shot. Compare seats on an East Coast Mkiii or iv and the seats in the Pendo or Voyager. There is no comparison.

Erm, wasn't the Mallard refurb after the Pendolini started running?

 

[DarloRich]

Erm, wasn't the Mallard refurb after the Pendolini started running?

I don’t know as I wasn’t interested in train based things then. At least they learnt from experience and chose a decent seat.

 

[NSEFAN]

If we could have 16-car double decker trains like the TGV in France, I'm sure the on-board environment would be a lot better; plenty of seats for everyone and extra standing room during the rush hours.

However, our archaic infrastructure and "everything is an accountable expense" mentality don't allow for this. Adding more carriages and upgrading the infrastructure isn't as easy as just pricing people off the trains, although this attitude might be starting to change somewhat, given all the upgrades planned for the next control periods.

 

[The Ham]

If we could have 16-car double decker trains like the TGV in France, I'm sure the on-board environment would be a lot better; plenty of seats for everyone and extra standing room during the rush hours.

However, our archaic infrastructure and "everything is an accountable expense" mentality don't allow for this. Adding more carriages and upgrading the infrastructure isn't as easy as just pricing people off the trains, although this attitude might be starting to change somewhat, given all the upgrades planned for the next control periods.

True, which is why building a new line to be able to cater for such trains should, at least in theory, be a good idea (not that such a debate into a certain project needs to happen again on yet another thread).

 

[tbtc]

I would be fussed if the choice was between a 500 seat Voyager or a 500 seat HST. I know which is more comfortable and a more enjoyable experience for the passenger. It isn’t the Voyager

Fair enough. I think that if I had the same chance of a seat on either, I wouldn't be too bothered either way. But that's just my opinion.

The 180 is comfortable seat wise but some of them shake like crazy and can be very noisy. You will not convince me that under floor engines are suitable for long distance Intercity travel, unless some kind of anechoic mounting can be developed to damp down the vibration and better noise insulation be fitted to reduce the sound

Maybe I'm going deaf, but I've never found the noise of DMU engines to be *that* intrusive. You can hear them, sure, but they're not as noisy as some suggest.

Like I said Edinburgh - Exeter on a Voyager is torture and it is impossible to work because of the vibration, noise and the over crowding

The overcrowding is always blamed at the Voyagers (which are pretty good trains, physically, just too short). Put the right number of carriages/ seats on and you eliminate most of the problems.

And IEP won't be running on diesel on the ECML (only the bi-mode ones will, and only then away from the wires) - you won't be doing long journeys wholly on diesel IEP.

It shows just how far standards have fallen in the last 30 years or so, that tables, full sized seats, full length trains and on board catering are now being regarded as unaffordable luxuries, whereas years ago they were the norm on long distance services

Just that priorities have changed. People used to eat a good solid meal because there were few opportunities to snack. Now, a big station will have an M&S Simply Food/ Starbucks/ Burger King etc, people don't need a big meal at a dedicated restaurant coach.

Just a guess, but I'd say that people would be more bothered about plugs/ wi-fi nowadays than a three course meal on board most services.

Similarly people often travel alone and prefer "airline" seats (there's a lot of anti-social people in this country!).

Is that standards falling, or just trains reflecting modern life?

NOT if you have under floor engines. The whole thing shakes, rattles and vibrates like crazy

Are they really that bad? You make it sound like a ride at Alton Towers!

Anyone who thinks that modern seating is more comfortable than the older seats should be shot

Again, you're ranting about modern seating when we don't know the type of seats that IEP will have. And (whilst 180s etc have good seats) lets not pretend that all old trains were comfortable either.

The voyager/pendo seat is thin, narrow, uncomfortable, cramped, uncomfortable (did I say that?), padded with one copy of yesterdays metro and fashioned from cheap nasty horrible plastic. The table, if you get one, is tiny and can hold one lap top or folds up for some unknown reason.

The environment of a pendo is dark and dingy and no amount of better seats will change this. What might help is some better decorations and lighting but it is still a dark dingy smelly horrible place to be for any length of time.

That's the Voyager though - this is a thread about IEP - we don't know how "dark and dingy" these trains will be - they've not been built yet. You're very keen to criticise them in advance though.

Anyway, this thread started off about 91/Mk4 replacement on the ECML so there obviously won't be underfloor engines - it'll be an EMU

Agreed!

 

[HSTEd]

Frankly you get more noise from the idiotic droplights on Mark 3s than you do from the engine noise on a Hull Trains 180.
Mark 4s have the ride problem which has never been totally eliminated.

Loco hauled carraiges are not the be all and end all, and since IEP for East Coast will be running without its engines started 90% of the time... I don't see the problem.

And as for full restaurants.... they are almost certain to be overpriced and attempting to justify that expensive by doing needlessly complicated dishes.
Journey times are dropping to the extent that they are unneccesary. (We are not in the pre HST era where journey times for London Edinburgh coudl be significantly over 5 hours).

 

[SkinnyDave]

So judging by the replies so far it seems people reckon it will be IEP option?

 

[DarloRich]

TBTC - i will disagree with you then. You clearly love the Voyager, I dont, nor will I ever be convinced they are better, from a passenger comfort than the rolling stock they replaced. As i said,if what i am told on here is true, i am the only person in the country taking long journeys on the things!

I am not some kind of Luddite who wants us all to barter iron ingots and live in a cave - i just want us to improve things. Why cant we make a better train, from a passenger comfort point of view, than a 30 year old train?

I will gladly take back all my comments IF the IEP turns out to be at least as good as a MKIII or IV. From what i know of the IEP project i doubt i will be.

Finally, Edinburgh to Aberdeen or Inverness is a canny way on an DMU.

 

[tbtc]

TBTC - i will disagree with you then. You clearly love the Voyager

I just think that they are "more sinned against than sinner".

The main two problems with Voyagers are the insufficient coaches (Virgin's fault) and the fact that they replaced the last significant loco-hauled operation* (which means that a lot of enthusiasts hate them - the kind of enthusiasts who don't complain about underfloor engines on 170s because they generally replaced other DMUs).

If Voyagers had the same capacity as HSTs, the complaint numbers would never have been so high. But then, as we're not going to have underfloor engines in operation on the London - Edinburgh service, this debate should really be on another thread.

(* - I'll avoid getting into an argument about whether HSTs are loco-hauled or DMU!)

 

[Yew]

Frankly you get more noise from the idiotic droplights on Mark 3s than you do from the engine noise on a Hull Trains 180.
Mark 4s have the ride problem which has never been totally eliminated.

Loco hauled carraiges are not the be all and end all, and since IEP for East Coast will be running without its engines started 90% of the time... I don't see the problem.

And as for full restaurants.... they are almost certain to be overpriced and attempting to justify that expensive by doing needlessly complicated dishes.
Journey times are dropping to the extent that they are unneccesary. (We are not in the pre HST era where journey times for London Edinburgh coudl be significantly over 5 hours).

Depends on the condition of the droplights and the saloon doors on that particular coach, and on meridians I find the engine noise is louder and more intrusive than a 156. The ride in a MK4, although not as smooth as if it where on BR bogies, instead of Sigg ones, is still reasonably good, although not quite as good as the Mk3.

I agree about a full restaraunt, however I also think that bringing more 'proper' food on trains would be a good call, something like EMT's first all day offer, maybe in some sort of packaging so those in standard can take it from the buffet to their seat more easily?

 

[The Ham]

TBTC - i will disagree with you then. You clearly love the Voyager, I dont, nor will I ever be convinced they are better, from a passenger comfort than the rolling stock they replaced.

OK, let's assume that XC kept their IC125's what then?

There would still have had to have been an order for new trains to supliment the XC IC125's (unless the timetable wasn't improved) and then a further new order of trains which would have been split between GW & EC. All of which is likely to have resulted in a small order and so would have been more expensive.

There would have been more problems with what trains to have used to have provided extra services along the MML during the WCML upgrade.

The only possibile advantage would have been that it may have resulted in longer IC DMU's being ordered.

 

[NSEFAN]

Is the lack of carriages on the Voyagers the fault of Virgin, or was it a case of the former SRA saying "cannot has" ?

 

[ainsworth74]

Is the lack of carriages on the Voyagers the fault of Virgin, or was it a case of the former SRA saying "cannot has" ?

Bit of both, Virgin certainly were responsible for the initial order containing trains with a low number of vehicles but my understanding is that they did want to extend their trains (once they realised their mistake) but were blocked by the SRA, who were unwilling to spend more money on a franchise that was haemorrhaging cash.

 

[DarloRich]

OK, let's assume that XC kept their IC125's what then?

There would still have had to have been an order for new trains to supliment the XC IC125's (unless the timetable wasn't improved) and then a further new order of trains which would have been split between GW & EC. All of which is likely to have resulted in a small order and so would have been more expensive.

There would have been more problems with what trains to have used to have provided extra services along the MML during the WCML upgrade.

The only possibile advantage would have been that it may have resulted in longer IC DMU's being ordered.

My point, that many of you seem to miss, is not that new trains are procured, far from it as that can only be a good thing, but that the new trains were not as good, from a passenger comfort point of view, as the trains they replaced.

My chief bugbear is the specification of the internal accommodation for the passenger. This seems to be below last place on the list of requirements, in fact it seems at times not even to have been considered as a desirable in the ITT! Why can we not create a train interior that is at least as comfortable as a 30 year old train? Give me that and I will be happy to sing the praises of the new train, until then I will keep the old ones.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why can we not create a train interior that is at least as comfortable as a 30 year old train? Give me that and I will be happy to sing the praises of the new train, until then I will keep the old ones.

If you have have travelled by air recently, you will notice that the once-standard and comfortable 32-inch seat spacing has reduced over the years to 30 and even 29-inches on most airlines.
The marketing will go on about the superb engineering of the A380 and the B777 but will not tell you how uncomfortable they are on a long trip.
It's all about economics and cost per passenger-seat-mile.
Even your favourite trains are not immune from this, viz FGW's high density HSTs.
I agree that some trains do better than others in the efficiency of their layout, but I doubt we will see the spaciousness of the original Mk3 design in the future.
The same trend will put 350/379/395-type trains on journeys up to 2 hours, or even longer.
If TP can put a 350 on Manchester-Scotland, then many other routes could go that way.

 

[The Ham]

If you have have travelled by air recently, you will notice that the once-standard and comfortable 32-inch seat spacing has reduced over the years to 30 and even 29-inches on most airlines.
The marketing will go on about the superb engineering of the A380 and the B777 but will not tell you how uncomfortable they are on a long trip.
It's all about economics and cost per passenger-seat-mile.

Having flown between London and Singapore on an A380 then on a B747 back I can tell you the newer plain has a better amount of space between the seat backs than the older.

 

[Dave1987]

May I point out something regarding the layout of modern trains. At Liverpool St when the platform is announced for the intercity trains to Norwich there is a mass rush of passengers to be first on to get a table seat. I have noticed that Chiltern, on their new "Silver sets", are all table seats. For interior layout it would seem passengers certainly prefer a table seat to an airline seat. As far as the interior of IEP is concerned (if it goes ahead which I doubt it will do as the economics simply don't add up!) it should be about passenger comfort due to the long distances and hence the large amount of time passengers will spend on them. For commuter trains it should be get as many seats in as possible but long distance should be designed for comfort.