HST refurbs : Great Western v Cross Country

[harz99]

I have a 31.5 inch (inner) leg measurement and find many modern train seats to be uncomfortable for journeys over 30 minutes.

The principal problem being that most seats are simply set too low off the floor (and as the padding flattens they get lower still), which in turn means that unless I can stretch my legs in front of me my knees are always cramped so that there is less than a right angle between both halves of my leg - if that makes sense.

The former GNER Mallard refurbs are the worst examples of this, followed by many of the refurbs on the Sprinter families.

I have yet to find a more comfortable standard class seat than the first refurbs of the original HST seats (the first to lose the separate headrest sections which kept coming loose). Sorry can't recall the seat classification.

 

[Justin Smith]

No because most of us live in the real world

I take it you don't travel by bus, coach or plane very often? I find there to be less legroom on bus, coach and plane compared to a table seat on a 390 (which has bigger windows than a plane, why window size bothers you so much is still beyond me).

More leg room: Get less people to use trains. Suggestion; increase fares.

Larger windows: Use stronger materials to ensure train safety, pay more for train. Suggestion; increase fares or Government subsidies.

Quieter: It must be possible to engineer trains to be quieter even when an engine is under the floor, perhaps using start/stop technology so they're quiet when idle. That, I'd say, shouldn't cost loads extra and simply be part of utilising modern technology in engine design.

Most passengers just want a seat and to get to their destination on time. They probably want working toilets on the train and anything else is just a bonus.

You know, I could cope with these kind of answers if, at the same time, they admitted that, yes, most Inter City trains are less comfortable than they were, but it saves money to make them as they do.
The fact that it's implied that these more cramped, more claustrophobic and noisier trains (most of them anyway) are just as comfortable as [most] of the older Inter City stock, is just patent nonsense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have a 31.5 inch (inner) leg measurement and find many modern train seats to be uncomfortable for journeys over 30 minutes.

The principal problem being that most seats are simply set too low off the floor (and as the padding flattens they get lower still), which in turn means that unless I can stretch my legs in front of me my knees are always cramped so that there is less than a right angle between both halves of my leg - if that makes sense.

The former GNER Mallard refurbs are the worst examples of this, followed by many of the refurbs on the Sprinter families.

I have yet to find a more comfortable standard class seat than the first refurbs of the original HST seats (the first to lose the separate headrest sections which kept coming loose). Sorry can't recall the seat classification.

This man is telling like it is........
My inside leg measurement is about 33" or 34" (I`m not an expert in measuring it ! ) so it's even worse for me.

 

[455driver]

I'm talking about some of the sets (on all routes) where they put one more 1st class on and one less second, i.e. instead of there being two 1st, a buffet and six 2nd, the set consists of three 1st a buffet and five 2nd.

I am not aware of any sets that have an extra first class coach and one less standard coach now, there were some "pullman" sets a few years ago on East Coast and Midland Mainline but these were dis-banded long ago.

so why can't they do that again and put another 2nd class trailer on then ? Not the ECML sets since they're already 9 coaches and 10 may not play well with time keeping.

Can you tell us where these extra coaches will come from, because as several people have stated-

THERE ARE ONLY A FEW MARK 3 COACHES STORED, MOST ARE IN EVER-DAY USE!

 

[Geezertronic]

The fact that it's implied that these more cramped, more claustrophobic and noisier trains (most of them anyway) are just as comfortable as [most] of the older Inter City stock, is just patent nonsense.

The problem with you and any discussion you start or are involved in is that if someone disagrees with you, they are in the wrong. Stupid comments like "patent nonsense" (whatever that means) proves the point

You're just a moaner who is not happy unless there is something to moan at. You can be as passionate as you like about a subject but with you, it comes at the price of other peoples opinions.

 

[starrymarkb]

THERE ARE ONLY A FEW MARK 3 COACHES STORED, MOST ARE IN EVER-DAY USE!

Aren't some of those Sleepers, and it was found they could not be converted to day coaches

 

[Drsatan]

I'm not sure, I thought that they were UK Mk3s rather than Irish.

If they are UK Mk3s I've no idea where they're coming from. IE's Mk3s to the best of my knowledge are being scrapped.

Aren't some of those Sleepers, and it was found they could not be converted to day coaches

EWS back in 2001/2 thought about converting unwanted Mk3 sleepers into parcels vans but it was found that cutting doors in the bodyshell would ruin structural integrity.

Same goes for converting Mk3 sleepers into day coaches; it wouldn't be possible to cut larger windows

 

[krus_aragon]

This man is telling like it is........
My inside leg measurement is about 33" or 34" (I`m not an expert in measuring it ! ) so it's even worse for me.

I'll trump that with 36", but say that I haven't found FGW HST seats to be much less spacious than airline seating in a 175. The high seats make the place seem closed and uncomfortable.

That leaves me with the choice (on the SWML) of a comfy spacious 175, or a gloriously quiet HST carriage. I usually choose the one without a diesel engine under me.

 

[Greenback]

There is plenty of leg room (for me at least) in a FGW HST seat. The problem is that I hate the claustrophobic feeling I get! Having just travelled on FGW 158, the seats in those units are much better from that persepctive.

As for the underfloor engines, they have never bothered me on any DMU!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

More leg room: Get less people to use trains. Suggestion; increase fares.

Larger windows: Use stronger materials to ensure train safety, pay more for train. Suggestion; increase fares or Government subsidies.

Quieter: It must be possible to engineer trains to be quieter even when an engine is under the floor, perhaps using start/stop technology so they're quiet when idle. That, I'd say, shouldn't cost loads extra and simply be part of utilising modern technology in engine design.

Most passengers just want a seat and to get to their destination on time. They probably want working toilets on the train and anything else is just a bonus.

Result: Justin Smith complains about rises in fares.

 

[Justin Smith]

The problem with you and any discussion you start or are involved in is that if someone disagrees with you, they are in the wrong. Stupid comments like "patent nonsense" (whatever that means) proves the point

You're just a moaner who is not happy unless there is something to moan at. You can be as passionate as you like about a subject but with you, it comes at the price of other peoples opinions.

If one is talking subjective opinion, like which is the most attractive train livery then using words like "patent nonsense", is, well, patent nonsense.

However, if talking objective facts, like the size of windows or the amount of legroom, then arguing that something provably correct is nonsense, is, well, patent nonsense.......

As for a moaner, if I think something is wrong, or worse than it used to be, it annoys me. I make no apology for that. If nobody ever complained nothing would ever get done about anything, we'd all still be riding round in cattle trucks.
Implying I only ever complain ? How about :
Love Moor St, hate New St.
East Midlands Trains, their C158s are excellent, but their Meridians absolute c**p ?

Only ever moan ? Isn't that patent nonsense ?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You don't know what patent nonsense means do you Justin?
Here's a definition:

1. Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all, such as a passage of lorem ipsum text.
2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever. See word salad, derailment (thought disorder), or Wall of Text.

 

[Justin Smith]

Result: Justin Smith complains about rises in fares.

Particularly as Justin Smith can`t get a rail card, and usually can`t use APEX tickets either, so Justin Smith is usually paying more than most other passengers on the train anyway......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You don't know what patent nonsense means do you Justin?
Here's a definition:

I`m using the second meaning, an arguement that seems reasonable, but is, if you check up on it, well, patent nonsense.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

What he is saying is hardly irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can understand it is it? :roll:

 

[Geezertronic]

My English is not the best but certainly not the worst and I've never heard the phrase "patent nonsense"?

Particularly as Justin Smith can't get a rail card, and usually can't use APEX tickets either, so Justin Smith is usually paying more than most other passengers on the train anyway......

Although I do claim it back from work through expenses, I still have to pay over £100 for my ticket up front for travelling between BHI and EUS and return (and wherever my outward/inward destination is from there)

Implying I only ever complain ? How about :
Love Moor St, hate New St.
East Midlands Trains, their C158s are excellent, but their Meridians absolute c**p ?

Only ever moan ? Isn't that patent nonsense ?

I think you've answered your own questions there with the thread titles

 

[90019]

Implying I only ever complain ? How about :
Love Moor St, hate New St.
East Midlands Trains, their C158s are excellent, but their Meridians absolute c**p ?

Quite.

 

[flymo]

I have to admit that I don't think I've ever been bothered about which train or unit operates which service I've been on, I've just been glad there is actually a service to use.

To be honest you could put me on a 150 from Penzance to Inverness*, a pacer from Brighton to Holyhead* or whatever could be thought of to get me from Barrow to Whitby*, to me I'm just glad it is a train. A seat at a reasonable cost is far more important than the colour of the seat or even the legroom.

* I understand there are no services like this, I'm just using these examples to put the point across.

 

[Justin Smith]

Quite.

The quote was only ever complain.
When I last checked saying Love (Moor St) was a positive, as is the word excellent, as in EMT C158s are excellent.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have to admit that I don't think I've ever been bothered about which train or unit operates which service I've been on, I've just been glad there is actually a service to use.

To be honest you could put me on a 150 from Penzance to Inverness*, a pacer from Brighton to Holyhead* or whatever could be thought of to get me from Barrow to Whitby*, to me I'm just glad it is a train. A seat at a reasonable cost is far more important than the colour of the seat or even the legroom.

* I understand there are no services like this, I'm just using these examples to put the point across.

I suppose, to a certain extent, it depends how tall you are.......
If there are loads of people on here who are quite happy to put up with less leg room I actually think that's good thing.
Abolutely.
The train companies should have seats with less leg room for those who aren't bothered about it, and seats with more legroom for those who want them, or indeed need them, by virtue of the fact they're tall, or for any disability they may have. In fact they already do the latter so it shouldn`t be too much trouble to just extend the concept.
Sorted.
We can all be happy now.

 

[flymo]

Are you suggesting perhaps there should be a "You must be THIS [finger points to a measuring tape with a height on it] tall to sit here" type of sign beside the seats you suggest should be reserved for tall people? Good luck with that idea.

 

[Geezertronic]

The train companies should have seats with less leg room for those who aren't bothered about it, and seats with more legroom for those who want them, or indeed need them, by virtue of the fact they're tall, or for any disability they may have. In fact they already do the latter so it shouldn't be too much trouble to just extend the concept.
Sorted.

That is just comical, you couldn't make stuff like this up And I think you'll find this is already in place - it's called First Class and Standard Class

We can all be happy now.

I don't think you'd ever be happy unless there was something for you to moan at...

 

[455driver]

Aren't some of those Sleepers, and it was found they could not be converted to day coaches

A quick look through reveals the following coaches not allocated to a TOC, some of these coaches will be awaiting conversion or accident damaged, used for spares, so not all are usable.
Loco hauled mark 3A/B coaches stored-
13 Buffets (RFB)
10 sleepers
20 open firsts
28 open standard
71 total

HST trailers-
24 Buffets
0 firsts
1 standard (42324 derailment damage)
25 total

So a grand total of 96 coaches, most of the sleepers and buffets will need a serious conversion to make them usable so only 48 (at most) could possibly be used in the long term.
not exactly a huge list is it!

edit
about 24 DVTs are available as well, thanks to Geezertronic for pointing out that I had missed them off the list.

 

[LE Greys]

Assuming you convert some of the buffets to an expanded TGS/BSO (a half-brake in old terminology) and swap the rest for FGWs extra seated coaches, then you could scrape together six loco-hauled rakes formed BSO-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSO-RFB-FO-FO, using 12 RFBs (6 converted to BSOs), 24 TSOs and 12 FOs, leaving 1 RFB, 4 TSOs, 10 FOs and 10 SLEPs. Making up any more rakes would require FGWs extra TS's (swapped back for spare TFBs) to be converted to loco haulage, along with any remaining TFBs. I doubt that FGW will reverse their decision to take out the TFBs, let alone do a swap. Converting the hauled TSOs to HST-type TS's would be the other option, requiring major electrical modifications, but it's do-able. The FOs could also become TFs, but there's less demand for first class. As for the SLEPs, they're not much use to anyone unless they wanted to restart the ECML sleepers, and there could not be enough of them to do so.

 

[Geezertronic]

What about DVT's? I presume TOCs would not want to top 'n' tail locos at both ends of a set on a full time basis from a cost point of view if anything else?

 

[455driver]

What about DVT's? I presume TOCs would not want to top 'n' tail locos at both ends of a set on a full time basis from a cost point of view if anything else?

About 24 of them.

Forgot about them, sorry

Will add to original post

 

[90019]

The quote was only ever complain.
When I last checked saying Love (Moor St) was a positive, as is the word excellent, as in EMT C158s are excellent.

And my point was that there's also a complaint in both of the titles as well.

 

[LE Greys]

What about DVT's? I presume TOCs would not want to top 'n' tail locos at both ends of a set on a full time basis from a cost point of view if anything else?

About 24 of them.

Forgot about them, sorry

Will add to original post

I didn't consider the DVTs in my analysis, chiefly because they take up an extra coach length, weight 30 tons, and the idea of converting RFBs to BSOs would provide the luggage space and guard's compartment without having to cut windows in the the sides. The idea was to roster the six rakes on duties where a loco could run round at either end. However, if there was some way to squeeze revenue out of the DVT, then they should go on, it is possible to adapt them to work with 67s after all. It wouldn't be easy to add seats, but a catering point shouldn't present too many problems. However, that would make the buffets a bit superfluous.

Basically, I haven't a clue what to do with them.

 

[Justin Smith]

That is just comical, you couldn't make stuff like this up And I think you'll find this is already in place - it's called First Class and Standard Class.

This is disgraceful, well the PC brigade would think do anyway, are you saying that people who need more room, like taller people and the disabled, should stop expecting enough "room to move" in standard class, get their hands in their pockets, and travel First class ?
Your post is the sort I like though, I may not agree with it but at least it`s pretty controversial !

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

And my point was that there's also a complaint in both of the titles as well.

In my experience life's never perfect, just so long as one can see a few positives that's, well, positive.

 

[Geezertronic]

This is disgraceful, well the PC brigade would think do anyway, are you saying that people who need more room, like taller people and the disabled, should stop expecting enough "room to move" in standard class, get their hands in their pockets, and travel First class ?
Your post is the sort I like though, I may not agree with it but at least it's pretty controversial !

I half expected you to get all sizeist and PC about it and your reply doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Everyone whatever colour or size or able/disabled they are have the option of travelling Standard or First. If you find it uncomfortable to sit in Standard, either upgrade to First or take another form of transport. If you think the plane, bus/coach or car would give you anymore room than a seat in any Standard configuration, then I think you will be mistaken.

As usual, you're bringing the discussion down to a level that is not needed or wanted. To suggest what you have in the post quoted above shows you to be a bit of a scaremongerer and a trouble maker. To make a suggestion like that is naive and as usual with you it is based on rewriting the facts as posted by myself and others (like you rewrote a quotation from myself in the 390 thread).

 

[Justin Smith]

I half expected you to get all sizeist and PC about it and your reply doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Everyone whatever colour or size or able/disabled they are have the option of travelling Standard or First. If you find it uncomfortable to sit in Standard, either upgrade to First or take another form of transport. If you think the plane, bus/coach or car would give you anymore room than a seat in any Standard configuration, then I think you will be mistaken.

As usual, you're bringing the discussion down to a level that is not needed or wanted. To suggest what you have in the post quoted above shows you to be a bit of a scaremongerer and a trouble maker. To make a suggestion like that is naive and as usual with you it is based on rewriting the facts as posted by myself and others (like you rewrote a quotation from myself in the 390 thread).

Ehh ? ! ?
Your Quote was :

That is just comical, you couldn't make stuff like this up And I think you'll find this is already in place - it's called First Class and Standard Class.

In reply to my quote :

I suppose, to a certain extent, it depends how tall you are.......
If there are loads of people on here who are quite happy to put up with less leg room I actually think that's good thing.
Abolutely.
The train companies should have seats with less leg room for those who aren't bothered about it, and seats with more legroom for those who want them, or indeed need them, by virtue of the fact they're tall, or for any disability they may have. In fact they already do the latter so it shouldn't be too much trouble to just extend the concept.
Sorted.
We can all be happy now.

Unless I've got this wrong, you're saying that people who want/need more room should go First Class.
I'm simply pointing out that the PC brigade (not that I`m one of them.....) would be up in arms about it.
However there is a precedent for your position, it's called the airline industry.
You try telling them you need more space because you're tall or disabled and they'll say "Fine, fly Business Class".
Isn't that what you're saying ?

 

[MCR247]

No he is saying, if you find it so uncomfortable fly business class/travel first class. You aren't being forced to, but its like me saying.
'I don't like the fact that I don't get anything free in standard class, but I shouldn't haven't to travel first class#

 

[jon0844]

When I last went on East Coast, they had priority seats with more room. We'd got them on our return trip, even though some people had said they were unreservable. Perhaps it was because it was late at night, or an error, but either way - you get more leg room there.

So, people who need more room (not that standard seats don't have enough room, even if you'd like more) have that option without going first class. Everyone else can pay for the extra luxury, or have VERY mild inconvenience and save money. I'd save money as once you're off the train, you may well wonder why you paid more.

Given how much I travel by air for my work (less so this year mind), I'm used to sitting in seats where you really DON'T have much room. I'm yet to find a train that's like this.

Now, I'm not sure if FGW has priority seats in every coach?