The Worst Thing To Ever Run On The Network

[43096]

Your hatred of EPB's is out of all proportion to their idiosyncracies.

And your love for all things slam door (see also the 304 thread) is clouded by misty-eyed nostalgia. The Southern was way behind the other regions and was positively backwards by the time the VEPs were built - they should have been built as sliding door stock.

As for which stock is worst, and much as I think the modern generation of IC stock is largely a backward step (Pendolino, Voyager, IEP), the person who way back suggested that the stock from the 1800s was the winner is surely correct. Anyone fancy getting a time machine and travelling behind "Rocket" and coming back and telling us how uncomfortable, slow and poor riding it was?

 

[Kneedown]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the class 56s that were built in Romania. I can just about remember seeing them at Barrow Hill waiting to receive modifications in the mid 1970s.

Not mentioned because they were great loco's!
OK, so a few of the changeover cocks were in awkward positions to get to, but they could pull anything and were a lot quicker to build up power than the slightly more user friendly BREL built ones.
If you're looking for a freight loco to nominate, i'd suggest the class 58. Lovely and comfy to drive, but not very good at pulling the heavy MGR trains they were designed to pull due to a tendency to slip excessively, even on a dry rail. We used to dread being allocated one on a Bentinck or Calverton run if it was drizzling. I even know of one Driver who had to split his train at Calverton, and make two runs to Bestwood Park before recoupling and continuing to Ratcliffe. They were honestly that bad.

 

[superalbs]

Modern era - Class 180. A ghastly train, poorly built, and unloved by nearly everyone.

I love them.

 

[K.o.R]

Voyagers. Well, anything with underfloor engines to be honest.

I went to Chester via Liverpool so that I would be on electric traction throughout. Plus the Merseyrail line is quite fun to travel on.

 

[Julia]

Just to amplify the Victorian sentiment - the early days of the Metropolitan, anyone? https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2014/11/i730/firsttube.jpg

 

[Mikey C]

What have you got in mind?

The only units I can think which are noticeably younger and are being stored as opposed to withdrawn are the 365s - and they have the problem of being a fairly small class with relatively limited route clearance.

Well this an awful lot of stock about to be withdrawn, and facing an uncertain future. The 707s being the most notable, but the 458s, and some 350s, 360s and 323s all face an uncertain future

 

[Journeyman]

Well, anything with underfloor engines to be honest.

This is yet another thing that enthusiasts get all worked up about that 99.9999% of normals don't care about.

 

[Journeyman]

Your hatred of EPB's is out of all proportion to their idiosyncracies.

No, it isn't - they were bad trains. They were bad when they were new, they were bad when they were refurbished, they were absolutely bloody dreadful by the time they were withdrawn. The interiors were horrible, they rode extremely badly, and there were trains rattling about with parts so old it was ridiculous. Slam door stock lasted far longer than it should have done, and these particular units were so bad they made the Southern a joke. No-one would use them unless they absolutely had to.

 

[krus_aragon]

Just to amplify the Victorian sentiment - the early days of the Metropolitan, anyone? https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2014/11/i730/firsttube.jpg

Self-loading freight in a very literal sense.

 

[yorksrob]

And your love for all things slam door (see also the 304 thread) is clouded by misty-eyed nostalgia. The Southern was way behind the other regions and was positively backwards by the time the VEPs were built - they should have been built as sliding door stock.

Perhaps its too much time spent commuting on less pleasant/comfortable 142's and 150's.

 

[yorksrob]

No, it isn't - they were bad trains. They were bad when they were new, they were bad when they were refurbished, they were absolutely bloody dreadful by the time they were withdrawn. The interiors were horrible, they rode extremely badly, and there were trains rattling about with parts so old it was ridiculous. Slam door stock lasted far longer than it should have done, and these particular units were so bad they made the Southern a joke. No-one would use them unless they absolutely had to.

Absolute nonsense. I've been on far more rattly trains now (not that that's a particularly critical issue for me).

The EPB's did a good job perfectly well for many years, like all the 1950-70's stock on the Southern, much of which was envied for its reliability in later years.

 

[Journeyman]

Perhaps its too much time spent commuting on less pleasant/comfortable 142's and 150's.

I'd say they beat slam door stock immediately by meeting much better accessibility standards. Have you ever tried getting onto one of your beloved EPBs with a wheelchair, pushchair, pram or lots of shopping/luggage?

 

[Journeyman]

Ansolute nonsense. I've been on far more rattly trains now (not that that's a particularly critical issue for me).

The EPB's did a good job perfectly well for many years.

No, they did a job very badly for far longer than they should have done, and it was ridiculous they were built to such an outdated design in the first place.

Rattling wasn't the point I was getting at. I was talking about the age of the parts. There were EPBs with LSWR axle boxes in the nineties.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd say they beat slam door stock immediately by meeting much better accessibility standards. Have you ever tried getting onto one of your beloved EPBs with a wheelchair, pushchair, pram or lots of shopping/luggage?

Is that not the same for the vast majority of stock built up until the 50's and 60's. How about all those people who have difficulty standing, who find that modern trains have far fewer seats available to use.

 

[yorksrob]

No, they did a job very badly for far longer than they should have done, and it was ridiculous they were built to such an outdated design in the first place.

Rattling wasn't the point I was getting at. I was talking about the age of the parts. There were EPBs with LSWR axle boxes in the nineties.

And it just goes to sho what a frugal and well run organisation the Southern was. If only the modern railway was more adept at reusing and remaking what it had, rather than haemorraging money with everything, we might be able to afford to reopen some routes.

 

[Journeyman]

Is that not the same for the vast majority of stock built up until the 50's and 60's.

No. There was plenty of better stock about for suburban services, i.e. 306s, 502s, 503s, 303s, 311s, and pretty much everything London Underground ever built. The basic layout of modern sliding door stock originated in the 1930s, but the Southern at the time was inflicting sliced-up wooden steam stock onto its commuters on newly-electrified lines. The EPBs were barely an improvement on that.

How about all those people who have difficulty standing, who find that modern trains have far fewer seats available to use.

Everything is a compromise that has to suit the needs of a wide range of users. I think the balance is generally right these days. This "old slam door trains were always better" idea is nonsense. People forking out thousands a year on season tickets deserve better.

 

[Journeyman]

And it just goes to sho what a frugal and well run organisation the Southern was. If only the modern railway was more adept at reusing and remaking what it had, rather than haemorraging money with everything, we might be able to afford to reopen some routes.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

It was a spectacular lack of investment, which was pretty scandalous.

 

[nlogax]

I see the spirit of Henry Law lives on in this thread.

 

[JohnElliott]

Considering the Waterloo and City got stock with powered doors at the same time the SUBs were being made, I wonder what Bulleid might have come up with if the SR had decided to go with powered doors for their surface stock as well.

 

[A0]

Well this an awful lot of stock about to be withdrawn, and facing an uncertain future. The 707s being the most notable, but the 458s, and some 350s, 360s and 323s all face an uncertain future

Just because they don't have somewhere to go the day after their lease expires doesn't mean they are about to be withdrawn imminently.

Of those you mention the 458s are probably the only one at risk for a couple of reasons - they are 20 years old now, they are 3rd rail only and the Junipers have never been the most reliable of units and the 458s are the only Junipers in use on the Southern.

The 707s could easily be converted to 25kv units - which widens their possible use. The 350s and 360s will doubtless find a home elsewhere.

The 323s are beginning to get a bit long in the tooth now as they near their 30th birthday - but I'd expect them to find a home as their performance makes them quite flexible.

 

[duffield]

To claim a Pendolino is the worst train to appear on the network due to some seats not perfectly lining up with the window is utterly absurd.

It's not by any means 'the worst' but it's not just the window alignment (which is an issue on much modern stock) but the window height - they are very 'slit like' (and I know this is partly due to the tilt profile but I'm sure people have stated that MK4s were built to tilt and their windows are definitely of a greater height than a Pendo).

It's not too bad if you're in a window seat but in an aisle seat it does feel very gloomy and claustrophobic to me in 1st class (maybe not as bad in standard since all the aisle seats will be closer to the windows in a 2+2 setup than an 2+1 setup)?

 

[yorksrob]

You have GOT to be kidding me.

It was a spectacular lack of investment, which was pretty scandalous.

Some parts of rolling stock last longer than the lifetimes of the train. Underframes are one. Also, I believe that the 455's were built with some motor parts reconditioned from the SUB's. If you can re-use something that works, why wouldn't you ?

And don't forget that the Southern slam-door units gave forty years of reliable service.

 

[yorksrob]

No. There was plenty of better stock about for suburban services, i.e. 306s, 502s, 503s, 303s, 311s, and pretty much everything London Underground ever built. The basic layout of modern sliding door stock originated in the 1930s, but the Southern at the time was inflicting sliced-up wooden steam stock onto its commuters on newly-electrified lines. The EPBs were barely an improvement on that.



Everything is a compromise that has to suit the needs of a wide range of users. I think the balance is generally right these days. This "old slam door trains were always better" idea is nonsense. People forking out thousands a year on season tickets deserve better.

I find the sort of metro layouts adopted by LU wholly unsuited to medium and longer distances of the sort EPB stock sometimes found itself on. One cannot overestimate the importance of seating capacity where longer distances are concerned.

 

[DarloRich]

Anyone fancy getting a time machine and travelling behind "Rocket" and coming back and telling us how uncomfortable, slow and poor riding it was?

perhaps while they were there they could also test out a stagecoach, a mule and shanks pony for comparison. As for slow: They were certainly slow by 21st century standards. However that was light speed by 19th century standards!

perhaps you should reconsider your statement.

 

[DarloRich]

Is the understated response to a numbscull suggestion that brings this group into disrepute.

He said your comment was an understated response to a ridiculous one (that HSTs are the worst things to run on the network).

Quite correct. Apologies required due to tired brain

 

[A0]

I find the sort of metro layouts adopted by LU wholly unsuited to medium and longer distances of the sort EPB stock sometimes found itself on. One cannot overestimate the importance of seating capacity where longer distances are concerned.

But you're missing the point - LUL have gone for a completely different seating configuration.

The units the OP mentioned, such as the 306, 502, 503 had seating not dis-similar to the EPBs, the difference was though they had 1/3 2/3 sliding doors, plenty of standing room, far better access and no need to clamber over other people's knees when boarding or alighting.

 

[fowler9]

I'd say they beat slam door stock immediately by meeting much better accessibility standards. Have you ever tried getting onto one of your beloved EPBs with a wheelchair, pushchair, pram or lots of shopping/luggage?

Have you ever tried getting on to the bog on a 142.

 

[43096]

perhaps while they were there they could also test out a stagecoach, a mule and shanks pony for comparison. As for slow: They were certainly slow by 21st century standards. However that was light speed by 19th century standards!

perhaps you should reconsider your statement.

I don't see why it needs reconsidering.

We're not talking about what is worst for its time - just what is the worst thing ever to run on the network. I see no reason to change my view - in addition to what I said earlier, I'll add the much, much worse safety record back then with no or rudimentary signalling etc etc.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't see why it needs reconsidering.

We're not talking about what is worst for its time - just what is the worst thing ever to run on the network. I see no reason to change my view - in addition to what I said earlier, I'll add the much, much worse safety record back then with no or rudimentary signalling etc etc.

in that case can i vote for a horse drawn cauldron wagon please?

 

[43096]

in that case can i vote for a horse drawn cauldron wagon please?

Certainly!