Opinions on Class 80x trains vs HSTs?

[irish_rail]

IET is better for:
- performance especially acceleration
- brakes that don’t stink

HST is better for:
- ride quality
- seat quality
- no underfloor engine noise
- seats aligned to windows (at least when built)

HST brakes will only stink if the driver doesn't begin braking with a low brake step. So most of the time, with a decent driver, step 1 will be used for several seconds before upping to a higher amount of brake. The only time (in later times) that the brake smell tended to occur was between reading and london when driver sees a double yellow at 125mph and for obvious reasons he isn't going to faff around in brake step 1.

 

[hexagon789]

HST brakes will only stink if the driver doesn't begin braking with a low brake step. So most of the time, with a decent driver, step 1 will be used for several seconds before upping to a higher amount of brake. The only time (in later times) that the brake smell tended to occur was between reading and london when driver sees a double yellow at 125mph and for obvious reasons he isn't going to faff around in brake step 1.

Indeed and that was incorporated in the braking instructions so that the air-conditioning intake vents would close before the heavy application was made and "the stink" produced.

 

[Clansman]

Yes and no, he says this issue has been fixed on the refurb (wabtec) stock, the diesel issue has not. Also the HST mk3s have different wiring so can't easily be hauled with electric traction.

I took it as the generics of it, rather than looking into what has been done in regards to the wiring. His point to me was that Wabtec have offered a one size fits all solution to any Mk3. Regardless of whether it's wired for HST or non HST traction.

 

[Bald Rick]

In my opinion...

I grew up with HSTs, they were the first intercity train I can remember and obviously iconic. Despite having practically zero interest in trains themselves I still have a thrill when I see one. And what a train they were.

However the 80xs are better in almost every respect.

* Better performing, with better journey times
* more capacity
* far better passenger info
* far better for the environment with lower emissions up top and ‘down below’
* safer
* quieter (much)
* similar comfort

 

[Purple Orange]

You give the HST being a diesel as a deficiency because of the environment yet would consider flying. Even a diesel under the wires is much better for the environment than flying.

I agree a diesel train is better than flying, but I will still consider flying from Manchester to Aberdeen, Exeter or Southampton if price and time are more significant factors. The need for such a journey for me is increasingly unlikely, so this is all hypothetical. If travelling on business, a flight could mean there and back in one day, but the train would likely require one or two nights in a hotel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You give the HST being a diesel as a deficiency because of the environment yet would consider flying. Even a diesel under the wires is much better for the environment than flying.

Yes, but it's not better than an electric car, particularly not one which is well loaded, and air only competes with a small proportion of UK rail journeys, whereas car competes with nearly all of them (other than I suppose London commuter journeys). The railway has to have an answer for that, otherwise the answer will be determined for it - cuts and closures.

Running DMUs under wires (or indeed over third rail) has to stop. At least bi-modes allow that to happen without passenger or operational inconvenience.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but it's not better than an electric car, particularly not one which is well loaded. The railway has to have an answer for that, otherwise the answer will be determined for it - cuts and closures.

Running DMUs under wires (or indeed over third rail) has to stop. At least bi-modes allow that to happen without passenger or operational inconvenience.

Many diesel trains aren’t better than diesel cars, on a per passenger mile basis. Four people in my Golf produce rather lower CO2 emissions than any diesel unit, and for that matter most electric units given the generation mix.

 

[northernbelle]

In the transition period between HSTs and the annoying green crap that replaced them it was noticeable that many commuters stayed loyal to the HSTs. I saw many IETs leaving with seats to spare and I've left 5 mins later on a full and standing HST.

Perhaps it was an illusion created by the IET having a lot more space available than an HST?

 

[Ashley Hill]

Perhaps it was an illusion created by the IET having a lot more space available than an HST?

No,I advised passengers that the train opposite (the IET) was leaving first but many still boarded the HST. For some it was the availability of a proper buffet,others I assume recognise quality!

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes, but it's not better than an electric car, particularly not one which is well loaded, and air only competes with a small proportion of UK rail journeys, whereas car competes with nearly all of them (other than I suppose London commuter journeys). The railway has to have an answer for that, otherwise the answer will be determined for it - cuts and closures.

Running DMUs under wires (or indeed over third rail) has to stop. At least bi-modes allow that to happen without passenger or operational inconvenience.

I think this statement has a much wider impact than just a question of the green credentials of an IET vs. a HST or simply a bi-mode train vs. a diesel train.

How we work has been changing and it will continue to change, where there will be the question of commuting in the car or using public transport. In large urban areas, principally Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow & Edinburgh, this question is more acute. People living within a 5-10 mile radius of a city centre will likely have a train station nearby which only has 2 tph, will I fear continue to use the car when this is a wholly unsustainable mode of transport.

Essentially bi-mode services must be introduced, diesel under wires eliminated, long distance travel is important but, given that short car journeys are the biggest polluting mode of transport, more needs to be done to encourage people to use the train for short distances.

 

[hexagon789]

more needs to be done to encourage people to use the train for short distances.

Some form of congestion charge as per London could be introduced as further discouragement in some towns/cities

 

[Purple Orange]

Some form of congestion charge as per London could be introduced as further discouragement in some towns/cities

It could not work in conjunction without an increase in train frequency.

 

[hexagon789]

It could not work in conjunction without an increase in train frequency.

I was thinking purely about how to reduce short distance car journeys, you would of course need to improve public transport services to the up the additional demand generated.

 

[43 302]

Many diesel trains aren’t better than diesel cars, on a per passenger mile basis. Four people in my Golf produce rather lower CO2 emissions than any diesel unit, and for that matter most electric units given the generation mix.

An HGV produces less emissions than a 66 but that's not a fair comparison.

 

[Jozhua]

After travelling on an 801, I can say that those trains are fantastic apart from the seats. The passenger loading information and interior tech is done pretty nicely on the 80X and the toilets are actually pretty decent. (having two space savers next to each other is a god send!)

The HSTs are okay for cushioning, but the older style seating is terrible for head support.

Ultimately though, outside of seating, they are both fantastic trains. The HSTs are super impressive for the fact they can even keep up with modern stock in terms of performance, passenger provision and the like.

The 80X series tends to bounce around a little less, and obviously the performance is that much better. A high-speed, bi-mode, multiple unit is also a pretty impressive feat.

I guess the lesson here is not to cheap out on the seats, especially for long distance trains.

 

[hexagon789]

After travelling on an 801, I can say that those trains are fantastic apart from the seats. The passenger loading information and interior tech is done pretty nicely on the 80X and the toilets are actually pretty decent. (having two space savers next to each other is a god send!)

The HSTs are okay for cushioning, but the older style seating is terrible for head support.

Ultimately though, outside of seating, they are both fantastic trains. The HSTs are super impressive for the fact they can even keep up with modern stock in terms of performance, passenger provision and the like.

The 80X series tends to bounce around a little less, and obviously the performance is that much better. A high-speed, bi-mode, multiple unit is also a pretty impressive feat.

I guess the lesson here is not to cheap out on the seats, especially for long distance trains.

Certainly I'd say 90% of the criticism of them is seat-related which says something...

 

[squizzler]

Many diesel trains aren’t better than diesel cars, on a per passenger mile basis.

Even if you carry sufficient passengers that fuel consumption and emissions were equivalent on a per-person basis, this says nothing about the resources needed for building and maintaining the motor. Over its 40 year of intensive use the HST will have amortised the embodied materials and energy in its construction. A motorcar that sits idle 96% of the time probably will not.

 

[Bald Rick]

An HGV produces less emissions than a 66 but that's not a fair comparison.

Indeed so, which is why I specifically quoted ‘per passenger mile’ as a normalising factor.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even if you carry sufficient passengers that fuel consumption and emissions were equivalent on a per-person basis, this says nothing about the resources needed for building and maintaining the motor. Over its 40 year of intensive use the HST will have amortised the embodied materials and energy in its construction. A motorcar that sits idle 96% of the time probably will not.

Valid point; I wonder if any research has been done on this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly I'd say 90% of the criticism of them is seat-related which says something...

It says two things, really:

1. The seats are rubbish. You rarely see comments about the Grammer E3000 (a similar design but without most of the flaws), and that's what should be the case here. You don't need everyone to love them (other than in 1st, where that really should be an aim as it's a key part of the marketing - see TPE Mk5 1st or the old HST 1st for how to do that), you just need nobody to hate them.

2. The rest of the train is basically fine.

 

[DarloRich]

i am not a seat spotter so cant comment on makes of seats. The ones in the IET are ok for an hour or 2 doing say Kings Cross to Leeds. They are better imo than the Pendolino or Voyager but not as good as the ones used previously by LNER on their older trains. There are lots of plugs, wifi, the leg room is pretty good, the overhead baggage racks are decent as is the lighting which is better than the dingy Pendolino. The buffet is not that great, the toilets are a bit on the small side and I find the tables seats few in number and offer a smaller table than the HST. There is also something about the doors I don't like also.

I am talking about cattle class here. No idea what first is like.

Overall: HST better. Obvs.

Close thread.

 

[Purple Orange]

i am not a seat spotter so cant comment on makes of seats. The ones in the IET are ok for an hour or 2 doing say Kings Cross to Leeds. They are better imo than the Pendolino or Voyager but not as good as the ones used previously by LNER on their older trains. There are lots of plugs, wifi, the leg room is pretty good, the overhead baggage racks are decent as is the lighting which is better than the dingy Pendolino. The buffet is not that great, the toilets are a bit on the small side and I find the tables seats few in number and offer a smaller table than the HST. There is also something about the doors I don't like also.

I am talking about cattle class here. No idea what first is like.

Overall: HST better. Obvs.

Close thread.

Best do what the judge says...

 

[DarloRich]

Best do what the judge says...

Sensible lad.

I am sure the 800's are great trains, environmentally superb, more reliable and cheaper to run than the HST. That is all fantastic. They forgot (AGAIN ) about the people who have to sit inside them sadly. Better seats and you have a fantastic train. Shoddy seats and you have a should be better train.

I must also not forget that many posters here have no history to judge on so cant really describe how much standards of comfort have fallen.

 

[FQTV]

Valid point; I wonder if any research has been done on this?

I'm not aware of any that has been done with regard to rail vehicles, but there was a (well-reported at the time) piece of research by a company called CNW into cars which looked at the 'dust-to-dust' whole-life 'environmental cost' of various different models.

It made headlines at the time because, under its terms of reference, the Jeep Wrangler came out as the most 'environmently-friendly' car that was researched, with the Toyota Prius in 74th place, behind the Aston Martin DB9 and BMW X5. I can't find the original report online at the moment, but Googling brings up a number of the press articles that it generated.

The thing about research, of course, is that someone has to pay for it and, generally, that's someone who wants the research to conclude that their position is justifiable.

The snag with the UK rail industry is that, as you mentioned above with regard to your own car, on a pure grammes per passenger km basis, a new Volkswagen Golf Bluemotion carrying four passengers emits less CO2 in gppkm terms (32.5gppkm) than even a fully-loaded Voyager, which is calculated (from what I can see) at 37gppkm.

That is, of course, a bit of an inconvenient truth when it comes to positioning rail as 'green'.

If you're narrowly trying to promote the notion that the 'dust-to-dust' environmental cost of rail vehicles is lower than road vehicles, the other risk is that it walks fast and backwards into the extremely successful marketing position for road vehicles, which is always a combination of newer, quicker, cheaper, smoother, quieter, safer, more private, more comfortable etc.

Even if Voyagers and running under the wires were banned overnight, trying to adopt a rail marketing strategy based on actually promoting older standards would be brave, I suspect, and you'd struggle to drive modal shift from roads to rail if the marketing angle was to promote HSTs over new 800s (see, I knew I could get this back on topic).

Going OT again, though, it's one of the reasons that I think that a chunk of the Railcard strategy is misguided if you're rationally looking at decarbonising transport, but that's maybe for another place.

 

[Purple Orange]

Sensible lad.

I am sure the 800's are great trains, environmentally superb, more reliable and cheaper to run than the HST. That is all fantastic. They forgot (AGAIN ) about the people who have to sit inside them sadly. Better seats and you have a fantastic train. Shoddy seats and you have a should be better train.

I must also not forget that many posters here have no history to judge on so cant really describe how much standards of comfort have fallen.

How much history must a poster have in order to appropriately judge how comfortable a train is? The issue for some passengers are the seats, but strangely enough if you google passenger experiences and feedback about LNER, GWR or TPE, it is not the seats that stir up people’s anger, but the quality of the service from the staff either on the train or at the station, or punctuality & frequency.

Reading this forum, I believe that both railway employees and train spotters, as much as I believe have the best interests of the railways at heart, suffer from an inability to truly see things from the passenger perspective. Hence the nostalgia for an inadequate 45 year old train, loco hauled services, longer but less frequent trains.

Then there is the idea of connecting everywhere to everywhere, because some believe that an indirect service will put people off. The is issue here is that it works on metro networks where most stations have a set line, but the majority of destinations require a change.

Rant over.

X

 

[Bald Rick]

How much history must a poster have in order to appropriately judge how comfortable a train is? The issue for some passengers are the seats, but strangely enough if you google passenger experiences and feedback about LNER, GWR or TPE, it is not the seats that stir up people’s anger, but the quality of the service from the staff either on the train or at the station, or punctuality & frequency.

Reading this forum, I believe that both railway employees and train spotters, as much as I believe have the best interests of the railways at heart, suffer from an inability to truly see things from the passenger perspective. Hence the nostalgia for an inadequate 45 year old train, loco hauled services, longer but less frequent trains.

Then there is the idea of connecting everywhere to everywhere, because some believe that an indirect service will put people off. The is issue here is that it works on metro networks where most stations have a set line, but the majority of destinations require a change.

Rant over.

X

Well said.

 

[FQTV]

How much history must a poster have in order to appropriately judge how comfortable a train is? The issue for some passengers are the seats, but strangely enough if you google passenger experiences and feedback about LNER, GWR or TPE, it is not the seats that stir up people’s anger, but the quality of the service from the staff either on the train or at the station, or punctuality & frequency.

Reading this forum, I believe that both railway employees and train spotters, as much as I believe have the best interests of the railways at heart, suffer from an inability to truly see things from the passenger perspective. Hence the nostalgia for an inadequate 45 year old train, loco hauled services, longer but less frequent trains.

Then there is the idea of connecting everywhere to everywhere, because some believe that an indirect service will put people off. The is issue here is that it works on metro networks where most stations have a set line, but the majority of destinations require a change.

Rant over.

X

Yup. With you there.

 

[hexagon789]

It says two things, really:

1. The seats are rubbish. You rarely see comments about the Grammer E3000 (a similar design but without most of the flaws), and that's what should be the case here. You don't need everyone to love them (other than in 1st, where that really should be an aim as it's a key part of the marketing - see TPE Mk5 1st or the old HST 1st for how to do that), you just need nobody to hate them.

2. The rest of the train is basically fine.

Agreed fully on both points, other than perhaps some tweaks to the suspension the train design is not bad, it's the internals which are far more easy to resolve as an issue which is where the greatest complaint against the 80x lies

 

[DarloRich]

How much history must a poster have in order to appropriately judge how comfortable a train is? The issue for some passengers are the seats, but strangely enough if you google passenger experiences and feedback about LNER, GWR or TPE, it is not the seats that stir up people’s anger, but the quality of the service from the staff either on the train or at the station, or punctuality & frequency.

Reading this forum, I believe that both railway employees and train spotters, as much as I believe have the best interests of the railways at heart, suffer from an inability to truly see things from the passenger perspective. Hence the nostalgia for an inadequate 45 year old train, loco hauled services, longer but less frequent trains.

Then there is the idea of connecting everywhere to everywhere, because some believe that an indirect service will put people off. The is issue here is that it works on metro networks where most stations have a set line, but the majority of destinations require a change.

Rant over.

X

I am unclear what this has to do with Opinions on Class 80x trains vs HSTs. I offered an opinion that you clearly don't like. Why not just say that. I have no problem with new trains coming into service. I just wish they would put as much effort into specifying the interiors and providing at least an equivalent level of comfort to that provided by the old trains. I don't feel that is an outlandish request. You are free to disagree.

I mention history because many here are young and have only the last 15-20 years experience of railways to call on. Some posters have longer than that and can suggest that new is not, despite what many believe, always best. That is, in my opinion, certainly true on passenger comfort. Once again you may feel free to disagree.

Also to suggest I am some kind of train spotter or nostalgic is laughable! I am constantly trying to get people here to look at things in a practical and real world fashion to the point that I am regularly complained about!

BTW - i was trying to be humorous in part for the very reasons of nostaliga you outline above. Don't take everything so seriously.

 

[Purple Orange]

I am unclear what this has to do with Opinions on Class 80x trains vs HSTs. I offered an opinion that you clearly don't like. Why not just say that. I have no problem with new trains coming into service. I just wish they would put as much effort into specifying the interiors and providing at least an equivalent level of comfort to that provided by the old trains. I don't feel that is an outlandish request. You are free to disagree.

I mention history because many here are young and have only the last 15-20 years experience of railways to call on. Some posters have longer than that and can suggest that new is not, despite what many believe, always best. That is, in my opinion, certainly true on passenger comfort. Once again you may feel free to disagree.

Also to suggest I am some kind of train spotter or nostalgic is laughable! I am constantly trying to get people here to look at things in a practical and real world fashion to the point that I am regularly complained about!

BTW - i was trying to be humorous in part for the very reasons of nostaliga you outline above. Don't take everything so seriously.

Point taken about nothing being taken too seriously. I prescribe to that completely. Nothing is intended to come across as personal and I certainly do not intend anything in a personal perspective. Unless the other person happens to be an offensive person (I definitely do not think you are by the way!).

I pointed out the part of your comment about the level of history a poster needs to have in order to make a valued judgement as the point I was challenging, whereby I wanted to understand why you thought that to be the case.

My second and third paragraph was not specifically aimed at you, but rather my thoughts on what I read on the forum and my perception of attitudes.

Finally, although I do not consider myself a railway enthusiast or a train spotter, I am aware that many people would consider anyone that contributes on a rail forum or can identify a pendolino as a class 390, as a fully fledged train buff.