Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Greater Anglia
755 - amazing acceleration + great design
745 - better acceleration + great designs. both flirts are major steps forward with accessibility
360 - best travelling environment apart from the flirts. considerably higher acceleration from the 321 makes it great whenever there's disruption
321 - I do quite like the renatus units because apart from the eyesore lighting the interior has been improved a lot. sounds quite nice
317 - as the 321 but prm upgrades weren't as good in my opinion
379 - never ridden on these. seem like a bit of a failure with all the coupler issues. great overall reliability however
and the absolute trash heap failures, the 720
the software is a failure, every single day on my commute back I hear drivers constantly complaining about these. interiors are cheap rubbish, overall design is rubbish, a step backward is reliability and basically no improvement with acceleration over the 360s
I like the 156s, they're an icon of provincial railways in the UK, but 323s/333s are probably the best EMUs for me, and 170s have proved a fantastic addition to Northern's fleet, too bad they're only really used on local-ish services. They'd be perfect for the Leeds to Sheffield stoppers, as well as backup for the Calderdales.
I like the 156s, they're an icon of provincial railways in the UK, but 323s/333s are probably the best EMUs for me, and 170s have proved a fantastic addition to Northern's fleet, too bad they're only really used on local-ish services. They'd be perfect for the Leeds to Sheffield stoppers, as well as backup for the Calderdales.
I put the 195s/331s low down because they're pretty bland looking and the interior is poor and uncomfortable.
In the summer I got a train from Kirkgate to Leeds. It had come from Sheffield in the form of a Class 150. Meanwhile, at the same time a 158 had pulled into the station, operating the Bradford to Castleford stopper. Thought it was odd how a fresh, clean and refurbished flagship unit of the company was operating a local stopper, while a service between two major cities was using this old, dirty and rusty tin can.
In the summer I got a train from Kirkgate to Leeds. It had come from Sheffield in the form of a Class 150. Meanwhile, at the same time a 158 had pulled into the station, operating the Bradford to Castleford stopper. Thought it was odd how a fresh, clean and refurbished flagship unit of the company was operating a local stopper, while a service between two major cities was using this old, dirty and rusty tin can.
(221s above 220s because the heavier bogies make them ride slightly better, and most of them are 5-car so slightly less overcrowding under normal circumstances).
This type of ranking always ends up biased towards traditional long distance stock, which would be totally unsuitable for shorter distance routes
On South Western for example I'd much rather travel on a 444 than on a 450, never mind high density stock like the 455 or 707, but the 444 would be a disaster on the stopping services out of Waterloo.
Ditto the Chiltern Mk3s, where the tiny end doors would increase dwell time enormously when compared to the 168s and Turbos
The end doors aren't 'tiny' - they are actually pretty wide for single-leaf doors. I agree that they won't load as fast as a train with double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 position, but the design was clearly intended to do the best they could in this regard, by making the doors fairly wide, and removing the doors inside between the vestibule and saloon.
This type of ranking always ends up biased towards traditional long distance stock, which would be totally unsuitable for shorter distance routes
On South Western for example I'd much rather travel on a 444 than on a 450, never mind high density stock like the 455 or 707, but the 444 would be a disaster on the stopping services out of Waterloo.
Ditto the Chiltern Mk3s, where the tiny end doors would increase dwell time enormously when compared to the 168s and Turbos
I largely agree except for the 334. Some of which I’ve found to be in an awful state (not so much ScotRails fault but the traditional Alstom build quality haunts them again). I’d have to put it:
Irritating panel rattles, ride quality from the skateboard bogies and Hitachi’s choice of materials (the same easily stainable carpet as the IETs) knows the 385s down.
The former Haymarket now Corkerhill 158s could have been so much better inside if they hadn’t either; cheapened the spec of the refurbishment, moved the seats closer together or used someone better than Railcare / Gemini Springburn.
I don't understand why you guys rate the 385 so low. It's my favourite train that isn't the 318/320 stock because of how quiet, fast and the big tables. The 318/320 are my favourite seeing as I grew up with them and going 90mph in the middle coach of one with the windows open has an amazing sound
In terms of the 170s, I think it depends on whether you're judging how suited for their routes they are. The 156s are too short, they're falling apart, and they are, by modern standards, unacceptably noisy inside. 170s are a much nicer environment for passengers, but they accelerate poorly, so they're badly suited to what Northern use them for.
I disagree that the 323 deserves to be anywhere other than on top, however. Despite being almost 30 years old now, a basic interior refurb has made it so that they still look, feel and sound modern, are reliable, and well-liked by passengers and staff. I once got chatting to a conductor on Northern who told me she'd rather work a 323 than either a 319 or a brand new 331! The only thing that lets them down is that the seats could do with more padding (and possibly reducing to 2+2 rather than 3+2) but I'm willing to give them a pass on that as the nature of their routes is such that most journeys are short.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
WMR
Class 172 (Modern, quick acceleration)
Class 323 (The noise, refurbished, good acceleration)
Class 170 (Slow acceleration, getting a bit tatty)
Class 139 (Not a proper train)
In terms of the 170s, I think it depends on whether you're judging how suited for their routes they are. The 156s are too short, they're falling apart, and they are, by modern standards, unacceptably noisy inside. 170s are a much nicer environment for passengers, but they accelerate poorly, so they're badly suited to what Northern use them for.
I disagree that the 323 deserves to be anywhere other than on top, however. Despite being almost 30 years old now, a basic interior refurb has made it so that they still look, feel and sound modern, are reliable, and well-liked by passengers and staff. I once got chatting to a conductor on Northern who told me she'd rather work a 323 than either a 319 or a brand new 331! The only thing that lets them down is that the seats could do with more padding (and possibly reducing to 2+2 rather than 3+2) but I'm willing to give them a pass on that as the nature of their routes is such that most journeys are short.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think I'd agree with that, except that given their reliability issues I would probably rank the 442 below the 158, 159 and 450.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
