Creation of class 230 DEMUs from ex-LU D78s by Vivarail

[Philip Phlopp]

No, of course not. They would have designed something perfectly appropriate for a relatively slow moving metro train in the 1970's. My hunch is that that standard would have been a lesser specification than a carriage designed for high speed running on the main line.

Yes, in much the same way the Mercedes engineers who design Lewis Hamilton's Formula 1 car need to ensure survivability in a 200mph accident whilst other engineers within the company who make the Smart car will be working to a completely different set of parameters and requirements.

It doesn't mean that the Smart car is unsafe if you took it round a racing circuit though, just that it's designed within a series of parameters. If they're still adhered to, it doesn't matter that you're on a race track instead of a normal street.

 

[sciisfun]

For the benefit of those coming late to the discussion, and for some accountable reason not wanting to read every single post from this sparkling debate, I have dug up this quote from Buttsy. It's not definitive or exhaustive but an example of what's been suggested so far.

In regards to Exeter-Exmouth, services carry onto Paignton and Barnstable.
You could run Exmouth to Barnstable, as there is only about 1-2 mins on the mainline as you leave exd. (it only shares the swt trains line from exmouth junction, and the fgw mainline as far as cowley bridge, so it wouldnt affect many other services) I'm more than happy to have them down here (thats my local line ) only issue is that some of the trains used are the xx3 pacers, and the rest being 150/1, 150/2 and 153. so you would only offset a small fleet.

The other option is you use them as shuttles in the following configurations:
Exmouth - Exeter St Davids
Exeter St Davids - Barnstaple (separate to above)
Paignton - Newton Abbot (where the Exmouth trains would leave the fgw mainline)
you could also open the Exeter St Davids - Okehampton route (operates Sundays in the summer currently)

Also weighing in on the stock themselves, I'm all for it, If the north don't want it/ aren't allowed it, then bring it down here and paint it in dynamic stripes/ new fgw green and gold. they can't be any worse than the pacers going up the climb up to Exeter central from St Davids (squeals like a pig, as it's sharp and steep)

one final thing, sorry for putting all this onto here, first post after reading everything up to this point, just gotta dump before I loose my mind

James

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Good quote

This is a new one on here, religion about old LUL stock

And the Lord said "Stretch out thy coupling rod and smite the dust of the land that the spawn of the demon Shooter shall appear in all the land of Britain". When the Minister of Transport stretched out his hand with the coupling rod and smote the dust of the ground, Shooter's Incubi came upon the railway system in profusion and there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Loosely based, with apologies, on Exodus 8:16-17.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No, of course not. They would have designed something perfectly appropriate for a relatively slow moving metro train in the 1970's. My hunch is that that standard would have been a lesser specification than a carriage designed for high speed running on the main line.

We're now 145 pages into this discussion, and as yet there has been no suggestions that it would be either sensible or practical to run the trains now known as 230s on routes they're entirely unsuitable for. Even the assumed trial on the Gunnislake line, whilst it does have a few miles in the suburbs of Plymouth shared with HSTs I doubt the linespeed (or at least the actual speed of mainline services) here is (a) high enough that the 60mph max of 230s will pose a pathing issue, or (b) the possibly lower crashworthiness of the 230s will raise the vanishingly small risks of injury or death from a collision to unacceptable levels. Looe would have less (i.e. zero) conflict with mainline services but is more remote from maintenance facilities*, and indeed whilst an entirely isolated system would be better once the concept is proven, as a test base it wouldn't establish the 230s as a possible solution on a wider basis.

*With regard to maintenance and micro-fleet etc., wasn't one of the advantages of the concept the idea that most maintenance could be carried out relatively easily at a Stourbridge style outstation? The engines themselves being an "off-the-shelf" automotive unit with only relatively minor adjustments?

 

[yorksrob]

We're now 145 pages into this discussion, and as yet there has been no suggestions that it would be either sensible or practical to run the trains now known as 230s on routes they're entirely unsuitable for. Even the assumed trial on the Gunnislake line, whilst it does have a few miles in the suburbs of Plymouth shared with HSTs I doubt the linespeed (or at least the actual speed of mainline services) here is (a) high enough that the 60mph max of 230s will pose a pathing issue, or (b) the possibly lower crashworthiness of the 230s will raise the vanishingly small risks of injury or death from a collision to unacceptable levels. Looe would have less (i.e. zero) conflict with mainline services but is more remote from maintenance facilities*, and indeed whilst an entirely isolated system would be better once the concept is proven, as a test base it wouldn't establish the 230s as a possible solution on a wider basis.

*With regard to maintenance and micro-fleet etc., wasn't one of the advantages of the concept the idea that most maintenance could be carried out relatively easily at a Stourbridge style outstation? The engines themselves being an "off-the-shelf" automotive unit with only relatively minor adjustments?

If you think that these units can,or are ever likely to be kept to "suitable" routes up here in Northern land, you're living in a dream world.

I was pilloried on here a couple of months ago for suggesting that the minute number of unsuitable Merseyrail pacers should be kept away from the minute number of Leeds - Morecambe diagrams, yet this is apparently impossible.

How on earth are we going to keep a major fleet away from unsuitable routes ?

No. If we're going to build, or rebuild a fleet for the Northern area, we might as well specify it from the start as suitable for Carlisle - Newcastle and Carlisle - Barrow, because that's where they will end up. A Mk2/3 template would be suitable for this.

 

[LateThanNever]

We're now 145 pages into this discussion, and as yet there has been no suggestions that it would be either sensible or practical to run the trains now known as 230s on routes they're entirely unsuitable for. Even the assumed trial on the Gunnislake line, whilst it does have a few miles in the suburbs of Plymouth shared with HSTs I doubt the linespeed (or at least the actual speed of mainline services) here is (a) high enough that the 60mph max of 230s will pose a pathing issue, or (b) the possibly lower crashworthiness of the 230s will raise the vanishingly small risks of injury or death from a collision to unacceptable levels. Looe would have less (i.e. zero) conflict with mainline services but is more remote from maintenance facilities*, and indeed whilst an entirely isolated system would be better once the concept is proven, as a test base it wouldn't establish the 230s as a possible solution on a wider basis.

*With regard to maintenance and micro-fleet etc., wasn't one of the advantages of the concept the idea that most maintenance could be carried out relatively easily at a Stourbridge style outstation? The engines themselves being an "off-the-shelf" automotive unit with only relatively minor adjustments?

Entirely agree.
As long as the Vivarail system works (I reckon it will) I think it will be game changing for branch lines (at least). Also think the South West is very suited for the trial - not least because there is an awful lot of all stations work and the line speeds are rarely above 60mph!

 

[yorksrob]

Entirely agree.
As long as the Vivarail system works (I reckon it will) I think it will be game changing for branch lines (at least). Also think the South West is very suited for the trial - not least because there is an awful lot of all stations work and the line speeds are rarely above 60mph!

It's hard to see.

Even in the South West, which is a much less complicated network than up here, you have a fleet of trains that alternates between branch lines, main line stoppers, suburban services around Exeter, longer distance inter-regional services.

You'd be better off specifying something that can suit the lot.

 

[LateThanNever]

It's hard to see.

Even in the South West, which is a much less complicated network than up here, you have a fleet of trains that alternates between branch lines, main line stoppers, suburban services around Exeter, longer distance inter-regional services.

You'd be better off specifying something that can suit the lot.

In the best of all possible worlds, sure.
But the speeds in Devon and Cornwall are so poor that I think cheap Vivarail extra capacity would be a gift! I'm sure they could be mostly consigned to the two counties until there is a railway that is a little more speedy in Devon and or Cornwall.. Until then their acceleration would, I think, be very welcome!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If you think that these units can,or are ever likely to be kept to "suitable" routes up here in Northern land, you're living in a dream world.

I was pilloried on here a couple of months ago for suggesting that the minute number of unsuitable Merseyrail pacers should be kept away from the minute number of Leeds - Morecambe diagrams, yet this is apparently impossible.

How on earth are we going to keep a major fleet away from unsuitable routes ?

No. If we're going to build, or rebuild a fleet for the Northern area, we might as well specify it from the start as suitable for Carlisle - Newcastle and Carlisle - Barrow, because that's where they will end up. A Mk2/3 template would be suitable for this.

It makes sense to diagram the whole Northern 142 fleet as one, as they're mechanically identical (ideally the Merseytravel ones would be kept on only the lightest-used routes, but I appreciate why that is impractical). Of course the way Northern is run and funded they need to use their fleet as efficiently as possible, and introducing 230s would be an added complication. The specification for the new franchise may or may not rule out 230s anyway, but a possible advantage of these units could be that they allow a little extra slack in the fleet, meaning things like 142s running long-distance services can be avoided. 142s can keep time on services better-suited to156s, so they do get used for them- the 230s won't be able to do so, so they won't get used. In any case though, turning Mk2/3s into DEMUs is something I can't possibly see happening.

It's hard to see.

Even in the South West, which is a much less complicated network than up here, you have a fleet of trains that alternates between branch lines, main line stoppers, suburban services around Exeter, longer distance inter-regional services.

You'd be better off specifying something that can suit the lot.

I assume the 230s will have lower lease costs than sprinters, so again this could allow a bit more movement in terms of allocations and fleet-usage. If any are allocated to West Country branches long-term, it's entirely possible that the lease arrangements could include maintenance being carried out BY Vivarail in a similar fashion to the way the 139s are maintained.

 

[47802]

It's hard to see.

Even in the South West, which is a much less complicated network than up here, you have a fleet of trains that alternates between branch lines, main line stoppers, suburban services around Exeter, longer distance inter-regional services.

You'd be better off specifying something that can suit the lot.

Don't really see why it would be such a problem, isn't the plan for Cornwall to use 158's between Plymouth and Penzance between the AT300's and then presumably all the branch/positioning services will be 150/153 so you would simply replace the 150/153 with the D trains and the fact that a man or women in a van can supposedly fix them may be a plus point.

I would have thought the most likely use for the D train would be on fairly isolated branches and fairly short metro services with frequent stops where the top speed isn't an issue. Clearly if some were introduced on Northern they have to be carefully diagrammed which may be a point against them.

I don't understand your point about MK2/Mk3 and whether you are on about turning them into a Demu or how exactly you would do that, and why would you when there will be plenty of HST's going spare anyway. In any case there is the option on the Northern ITT to propose new Loco Hauled stock although I would be surprised if any bidder has proposed it but I guess you never know.

 

[Rapidash]

I could see them being used on the Tarka line, as it only needs a bit of extra capacity in the summers. Avocet and Riviera, on the other hand are pretty consistently busier even in the winter. Can't imagine FGW want the waiting times at Newton or the Warren even longer.

Bit of a moot point really, especially if the cascade happens as planned. I genuinely cannot wait until something more than a sad and lonely 143 goes through Exeter at 1730.

 

[yorksrob]

It makes sense to diagram the whole Northern 142 fleet as one, as they're mechanically identical (ideally the Merseytravel ones would be kept on only the lightest-used routes, but I appreciate why that is impractical). Of course the way Northern is run and funded they need to use their fleet as efficiently as possible, and introducing 230s would be an added complication. The specification for the new franchise may or may not rule out 230s anyway, but a possible advantage of these units could be that they allow a little extra slack in the fleet, meaning things like 142s running long-distance services can be avoided. 142s can keep time on services better-suited to156s, so they do get used for them- the 230s won't be able to do so, so they won't get used. In any case though, turning Mk2/3s into DEMUs is something I can't possibly see happening.



I assume the 230s will have lower lease costs than sprinters, so again this could allow a bit more movement in terms of allocations and fleet-usage. If any are allocated to West Country branches long-term, it's entirely possible that the lease arrangements could include maintenance being carried out BY Vivarail in a similar fashion to the way the 139s are maintained.

All good points, and I'm not against the concept. I just find the choice of stock less than optimal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't really see why it would be such a problem, isn't the plan for Cornwall to use 158's between Plymouth and Penzance between the AT300's and then presumably all the branch/positioning services will be 150/153 so you would simply replace the 150/153 with the D trains and the fact that a man or women in a van can supposedly fix them may be a plus point.

I would have thought the most likely use for the D train would be on fairly isolated branches and fairly short metro services with frequent stops where the top speed isn't an issue. Clearly if some were introduced on Northern they have to be carefully diagrammed which may be a point against them.

I don't understand your point about MK2/Mk3 and whether you are on about turning them into a Demu or how exactly you would do that, and why would you when there will be plenty of HST's going spare anyway. In any case there is the option on the Northern ITT to propose new Loco Hauled stock although I would be surprised if any bidder has proposed it but I guess you never know.

The HST's are a bit long for most RR services, and I doubt you could justify lugging around 2 power cars for a short rake.

Of course, they could always dust down the old plans to chop some of them in half.

With regards to DEMU's/DMU's, I'm simply going on the fact that loco hauled is largely out of fashion amongst operators, although I have no objection to it in principle.

How about matching half a HST with a driving trailer from a 442?

 

[northwichcat]

All good points, and I'm not against the concept. I just find the choice of stock less than optimal.

One of the problems with Northern stock currently is they've acquired different stock from different operators and not changed any internal layouts. Hopefully the next franchise will give classes of train consistent interiors or if not then diagram different types of interiors to different types of services.

 

[47802]

All good points, and I'm not against the concept. I just find the choice of stock less than optimal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The HST's are a bit long for most RR services, and I doubt you could justify lugging around 2 power cars for a short rake.

Of course, they could always dust down the old plans to chop some of them in half.

With regards to DEMU's/DMU's, I'm simply going on the fact that loco hauled is largely out of fashion amongst operators, although I have no objection to it in principle.

How about matching half a HST with a driving trailer from a 442?

Well HST's in short rakes give the possibility of good performance and better reliability over a single power option and obviously have been justified for some Scotrail services. Clearly other options are possible with a single power although the more re engineering required the less viable its likely to be given the age of these trains. The idea of converting MK2 or MK3 stock to some form of D78 style DEMU isn't going to happen, MK2 and MK3 stock is substancially heavier for those Transit engines to drag around, then there is the issue of no motorised bogies, Air Con underneath the carriage etc.

The whole crux of the D train conversion is that its a light train helped by the fact its aluminium and short in length.

As far as Northern goes I think the reality will be as many cascaded DMU's you can get your hands on, the 120 new, and any shortfall on that will probably be a choice between more new DMU's or 230's, I think its quite possible that 230's may be ruled out for northern for the same reasons that Railbuses are being ruled out, ie Political.

 

[yorksrob]

One of the problems with Northern stock currently is they've acquired different stock from different operators and not changed any internal layouts. Hopefully the next franchise will give classes of train consistent interiors or if not then diagram different types of interiors to different types of services.

Yes possibly, although it does of course depend on what sort of interior they decide to standardise on. Be careful what you wish for....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well HST's in short rakes give the possibility of good performance and better reliability over a single power option and obviously have been justified for some Scotrail services. Clearly other options are possible with a single power although the more re engineering required the less viable its likely to be given the age of these trains. The idea of converting MK2 or MK3 stock to some form of D78 style DEMU isn't going to happen, MK2 and MK3 stock is substancially heavier for those Transit engines to drag around, then there is the issue of no motorised bogies, Air Con underneath the carriage etc.

The whole crux of the D train conversion is that its a light train helped by the fact its aluminium and short length.

As far the Northern ITT goes then I guess new carriages powered by an HST power might be an option but in reality new DMU or DEMU's are more likely.

In that case, my preference would be for a NZ style refurb of some of the Mk 3's loco hauled on some of the longer distance routes.

 

[Haydn1971]

One of the problems with Northern stock currently is they've acquired different stock from different operators and not changed any internal layouts.

Indeed, it's become a mend and make do franchise - which needs to change - I'm fine with old stock, but I'm not fine with interiors, fixtures and fittings that are older than my graduates at work ! Putting aside issues of body suitability, for many Northern routes, it doesn't really matter about mid/end door configuration - the biggest issues are the suitability of stock, running pacers on regional distance routes has become the norm, which has become the basis of fear for people up here in accepting the 230's in that whilst yes, they could be great for short branch lines, but wouldn't want to ride one all the way between major centres, like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle, Carlise, Liverpool etc...

 

[Xavi]

There's no chance of 230s operating the Exeter to Paignton stoppers. They'd cause serious pathing issues between Exeter and Newton Abbot where the line speed is 70-100mph. They could work Exeter to Exmouth but by splitting services you would create infrastructure capacity issues to get the Paigntons and Barnstaples into Exeter Central.

So it looks like Cornwall branchlines only. A summer saving of 7 x 150/2 over the 2018 fleet proposals.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes possibly, although it does of course depend on what sort of interior they decide to standardise on. Be careful what you wish for....

I don't mean one type of interior for all trains, I mean either one type of interior per class or two types of interior to create two subclasses which are then diagrammed differently.

Personally I would say trains should have 2+2 seating. I'd also say they should have armrests, not because I think armrests are a necessity but because I think too many trains without them have window seats which are too close to the windows and requiring an armrest to be fitted would prevent that happening.

 

[47802]

There's no chance of 230s operating the Exeter to Paignton stoppers. They'd cause serious pathing issues between Exeter and Newton Abbot where the line speed is 70-100mph. They could work Exeter to Exmouth but by splitting services you would create infrastructure capacity issues to get the Paigntons and Barnstaples into Exeter Central.

So it looks like Cornwall branchlines only. A summer saving of 7 x 150/2 over the 2018 fleet proposals.

I'm sure you right but that's 7 x 150's that could be used somewhere else and maybe you could have 9 x 230's instead of 7 x 150's which might offer some advantage.

People seem to talking about using these units here, there and everywhere, but in the context of the potential number of D trains available relative to the number of DMU's currently on the network clearly that isn't going to happen on many routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I would say trains should have 2+2 seating. I'd also say they should have armrests, not because I think armrests are a necessity but because I think too many trains without them have window seats which are too close to the windows and requiring an armrest to be fitted would prevent that happening.

A million times this. I'm convinced all train and bus seating layout designers are female, because they continue to fail to notice that pretty much all males have wider shoulders than their backsides and fail to provide for this, pushing seats up against the wall and thus meaning a typical male can't sit in the middle of the seat, which is fine with old-style benches but not with contoured seats which are highly uncomfortable unless you sit in the middle of the seat as designed.

That said, there is one notable exception I'm aware of, and it's Merseyrail - no armrests (presumably because of the likelihood of damage to them) but proper spacing:

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, it's become a mend and make do franchise - which needs to change - I'm fine with old stock, but I'm not fine with interiors, fixtures and fittings that are older than my graduates at work !

I don't see in a million years why old seats are a problem provided they are not broken seats. Some of them are, of course, which needs solving, but there is nothing wrong with well-maintained old stock in and of itself.

As an example, these:

are so well done that they fooled 15 year old me into thinking DB were still building coaches in the mid 1990s to the 1960s design. They weren't, it's just a high quality refurb using the original seats.

 

[northwichcat]

running pacers on regional distance routes has become the norm, which has become the basis of fear for people up here in accepting the 230's in that whilst yes, they could be great for short branch lines, but wouldn't want to ride one all the way between major centres, like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle, Carlise, Liverpool etc...

Northern seem to diagram based on train capacity alone - partly influenced by PTEs who provide funding for their local services to get extra capacity meaning it's not always the busiest services which get the bigger/longer trains.

With the TfGM funding agreements there's a major flaw and it's probably the same with other PTEs. There's Hazel Grove-Preston services which TfGM provide funding to strengthen to a minimum of 2 x 150s. If Northern use two of the ex-FNW 150/1s they are complying with their agreement with TfGM. If Northern use an ex-LM 150/2 attached to a Merseytravel 142, they are providing around the same number of seats as they would by using 2 x ex-FNW 150s but they aren't seen as fully complying with their agreement with TfGM.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Northern use an ex-LM 150/2 attached to a Merseytravel 142, they are providing around the same number of seats as they would by using 2 x ex-FNW 150s but they aren't seen as fully complying with their agreement with TfGM.

Is comfort part of that? As to sit in the "same number of seats" provided in the latter case you have to be a dwarf.

The 150/2 is a particularly bad design, because in order to fit in FOUR extra seats per vehicle, yes, that's right, 4, just the side-facing ones, the legroom is made impossibly tight.

 

[Haydn1971]

I don't see in a million years why old seats are a problem provided they are not broken seats. Some of them are, of course, which needs solving, but there is nothing wrong with well-maintained old stock in and of itself.

Same here, but they are broken, hence my comment - it's not just saggy seats and torn coverings, I'm seeing rusting door bottoms, broken light fittings, fixtures loose or flapping about, stinky toilets, deeply filthy interiors, interior doors that don't work - it's shameful

 

[northwichcat]

A million times this. I'm convinced all train and bus seating layout designers are female, because they continue to fail to notice that pretty much all males have wider shoulders than their backsides and fail to provide for this, pushing seats up against the wall and thus meaning a typical male can't sit in the middle of the seat, which is fine with old-style benches but not with contoured seats which are highly uncomfortable unless you sit in the middle of the seat as designed.

Some of the Merseyrail window seats near the doors don't get the extra space as a result of the pillars, so I wonder if the extra space for the other seats was just a consequence of not wanting to put single seats next to the doors or not having an aisle that's not straight.

Problem with doing that on old style benches is on busy services the person sat next to you doesn't then have a full seat and then they're partly out in the aisle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Problem with doing that on old style benches is on busy services the person sat next to you doesn't then have a full seat and then they're partly out in the aisle.

No different with contoured modern, narrow seats. I physically cannot only take one of them up. I don't fit. And nor do most other males.

The only way the 3 side of narrowish 3+2 works is if the window and aisle are taken by children, or if it's ordered female-male-female (allowing the male "wider shoulders, narrower backside" to alternate with the female "wider backside, narrower shoulders"). In any other situation the aisle passenger always ends up partly in the aisle.

 

[northwichcat]

Is comfort part of that? As to sit in the "same number of seats" provided in the latter case you have to be a dwarf.

Well it's average number of seats per class rather than the actual number of seats on the train being used, so a 156 is seen as better than a 150 and a 150 is seen as better than a 142 but a Merseytravel 142 is seen as just a 142 as is an ex-ATN 142.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only way the 3 side of narrowish 3+2 works is if the window and aisle are taken by children, or if it's ordered female-male-female (allowing the male "wider shoulders, narrower backside" to alternate with the female "wider backside, narrower shoulders"). In any other situation the aisle passenger always ends up partly in the aisle.

Last time I got a bench seat 142 on it's own there was only middle seats on the 3 seaters unoccupied when I got on, as I didn't fancy standing for 35 minutes I asked a small slim female passenger sat on the end of one of the 3 seaters if anyone was sat in the middle seat. She moved to let me in to that seat opposed to moving across Despite the person in the window seat also being small and slim it was still a tight squeeze to fit 3 people on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Same here, but they are broken, hence my comment - it's not just saggy seats and torn coverings, I'm seeing rusting door bottoms, broken light fittings, fixtures loose or flapping about, stinky toilets, deeply filthy interiors, interior doors that don't work - it's shameful

Seeing your description reminded me of Richard Wilson's trip on trains around the UK for Channel 4's Dispatches. When he got to Manchester Victoria for a Calder Vale service he got a 150/2 which was falling to pieces internally. To make things even worse it was one which had a big "Welcome to Yorkshire" vinyl on the exterior.

 

[LateThanNever]

There's no chance of 230s operating the Exeter to Paignton stoppers. They'd cause serious pathing issues between Exeter and Newton Abbot where the line speed is 70-100mph. They could work Exeter to Exmouth but by splitting services you would create infrastructure capacity issues to get the Paigntons and Barnstaples into Exeter Central.

So it looks like Cornwall branchlines only. A summer saving of 7 x 150/2 over the 2018 fleet proposals.

Do the existing stoppers ever reach 70mph between Exeter and Newton Abbot? If so, where? And one of the faster bits is going to have a new stop put in it at Marsh Barton!

 

[RPI]

I could see them being used on the Tarka line, as it only needs a bit of extra capacity in the summers. Avocet and Riviera, on the other hand are pretty consistently busier even in the winter. Can't imagine FGW want the waiting times at Newton or the Warren even longer.

Bit of a moot point really, especially if the cascade happens as planned. I genuinely cannot wait until something more than a sad and lonely 143 goes through Exeter at 1730.

A lot of the Barny line is 70mph and NR working on making more of it 70mph over next few years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do the existing stoppers ever reach 70mph between Exeter and Newton Abbot? If so, where? And one of the faster bits is going to have a new stop put in it at Marsh Barton!

Always between Exeter St Thomas and Starcross and between Teignmouth and Newton Abbot. Both high linespeeds for decent distance

 

[yorksrob]

I don't mean one type of interior for all trains, I mean either one type of interior per class or two types of interior to create two subclasses which are then diagrammed differently.

Personally I would say trains should have 2+2 seating. I'd also say they should have armrests, not because I think armrests are a necessity but because I think too many trains without them have window seats which are too close to the windows and requiring an armrest to be fitted would prevent that happening.

Yes indeed. The point about the window seats is a good one.

I just wish they would put some padding in them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Same here, but they are broken, hence my comment - it's not just saggy seats and torn coverings, I'm seeing rusting door bottoms, broken light fittings, fixtures loose or flapping about, stinky toilets, deeply filthy interiors, interior doors that don't work - it's shameful

Northern has definitely got a lot better at this over the past few years though. Some of the refreshes have made a big difference.

 

[Xavi]

Do the existing stoppers ever reach 70mph between Exeter and Newton Abbot? If so, where? And one of the faster bits is going to have a new stop put in it at Marsh Barton!

75 mph on all services for long distances.