Modern trains and modern lighting

[Bikeman78]

Bright lighting reassures people. This may not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of people.

The majority of my female friends - pretty much all of them, in fact - have had to deal with harassment and aggression from men while travelling. I'm glad your granny was alright and all, but I'm not sure one anecdote gives you the right to belittle what is a serious societal problem.

The bright lights don't appear to be solving the problem! There are two sides to every story. Most of the women I talk too seem happy enough to use public transport. Nearly all of them are way more confident people than me. I travelled on EPBs and many other trains on my own from the age of 11. I don't recall it being a bad experience. Most of them had strip lights by then anyway.

 

[Journeyman]

And it also makes travelling long distances an unpleasant experience for a lot of people, including women.

You're massively overstating the "problem" here. This is one of those things like underfloor engines, Voyagers etc. that enthusiasts get a massive bee in their bonnet over, that 99.9% of normals don't notice.

I don't doubt that women have suffered harrassment while travelling, however I'm not convinced that creating an unpleasant, un-relaxing travelling environment achieves much.

So whether you feel relaxed is more important than other people feeling safe?

 

[AM9]

And it also makes travelling long distances an unpleasant experience for a lot of people, including women. I don't doubt that women have suffered harrassment while travelling, however I'm not convinced that creating an unpleasant, un-relaxing travelling environment achieves much.

There's no practical way that somebody who needs brighter lighting can provide their own illumination so better to provide that anyway and allow those who don't like it to suppress the light if it is too much for their eyes. For those that crave a dimmer lit environment there's the option of using sunglasses - or if not reading/looking at anything specific just use an eye mask, available from under £2.00.

 

[Journeyman]

There's no practical way that somebody who needs brighter lighting can provide their own illumination so better to provide that anyway and allow those who don't like it to suppress the light if it is too much for their eyes. For those that crave a dimmer lit environment there's the option of using sunglasses - or if not reading/looking at anything specific just use an eye mask, available from under £2.00.

Absolutely. Given that there are many sight problems that can be alleviated to some degree by good lighting, it feels exceptionally petty to be whining about something that has far more advantages for far more people, than the alternative - which might be more "relaxing", but make it too difficult or too scary for some people to travel at all.

I very much doubt a single person has ever been put off travelling by train because the lights are too bright, but I bet plenty would be put off if it was the other way around.

 

[yorksrob]

You're massively overstating the "problem" here. This is one of those things like underfloor engines, Voyagers etc. that enthusiasts get a massive bee in their bonnet over, that 99.9% of normals don't notice.

So whether you feel relaxed is more important than other people feeling safe?

I suppose it is more important that people feel safe.

But I'd need to see some actual compelling evidence that a decent proportion of people don't feel safe on something like a pendolino or a pre-refurb 158 before trashing the travelling environment and degrading what ought to be one of rail's selling points.

 

[Mogz]

I agree with OP.

If ambient lighting could be achieved on the Pendolinos and the Voyagers (not my favourite trains, but credit where it’s due…) then why not more generally?

I’m going to go off on one of my “they have it on the continent so why can’t we have it here?” rants now.

Travelling from Berlin to Warsaw shortly before lockdown, the train had the following facilities:

Choice of compartment or open seating in Second Class.

The second class compartment stock was air conditioned and each seat had a plug socket. The train was WiFi enabled. Above the compartment door was a selection of controls that included a light switch that enabled you you to turn the light down or even off. There was also a volume control for the on train announcements (which could be turned right down but not off completely).

There was also a no-nonsense restaurant car serving decent meals at a reasonable price.

Answers on a carrier pigeon as to why we can’t do these things here…

 

[yorksrob]

Absolutely. Given that there are many sight problems that can be alleviated to some degree by good lighting, it feels exceptionally petty to be whining about something that has far more advantages for far more people, than the alternative - which might be more "relaxing", but make it too difficult or too scary for some people to travel at all.

I very much doubt a single person has ever been put off travelling by train because the lights are too bright, but I bet plenty would be put off if it was the other way around.

Again, show me the evidence that people are put off of travelling with Pendolino type lighting conditions.

 

[Journeyman]

I suppose it is more important that people feel safe.

But I'd need to see some actual compelling evidence that a decent proportion of people don't feel safe on something like a pendolino or a pre-refurb 158 before trashing the travelling environment and degrading what ought to be one of rail's selling points.

The Pendolino design is now about twenty years old. Standards and technology have moved on a lot in that time. I guarantee you that when they're refurbished, the interior lighting will be brighter.

 

[Mogz]

Again, show me the evidence that people are put off of travelling with Pendolino type lighting conditions.

It’ll be the same “evidence” that people don’t like compartments when they’re always the first to be occupied on tourist lines…

 

[Journeyman]

I agree with OP.

If ambient lighting could be achieved on the Pendolinos and the Voyagers (not my favourite trains, but credit where it’s due…) then why not more generally?

I’m going to go off on one of my “they have it on the continent so why can’t we have it here?” rants now.

Travelling from Berlin to Warsaw shortly before lockdown, the train had the following facilities:

Choice of compartment or open seating in Second Class.

The second class compartment stock was air conditioned and each seat had a plug socket. The train was WiFi enabled. Above the compartment door was a selection of controls that included a light switch that enabled you you to turn the light down or even off. There was also a volume control for the on train announcements (which could be turned right down but not off completely).

There was also a no-nonsense restaurant car serving decent meals at a reasonable price.

Answers on a carrier pigeon as to why we can’t do these things here…

Compartment stock has been discussed at great length. It's actually very unpopular in the UK, and BR discontinued it early as a result.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Aug 2021 ==

It’ll be the same “evidence” that people don’t like compartments when they’re always the first to be occupied on tourist lines…

In what way is travelling on a heritage railway at 25mph for half an hour the same as travelling 400 miles on the ECML for a meeting? There's been loads of research done on this. BR dropped compartments in the seventies because it was clear they weren't meeting the needs or desires of passengers. There's been several threads about it.

 

[Mogz]

Compartment stock has been discussed at great length. It's actually very unpopular in the UK, and BR discontinued it early as a result.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Aug 2021 ==


In what way is travelling on a heritage railway at 25mph for half an hour the same as travelling 400 miles on the ECML for a meeting? There's been loads of research done on this. BR dropped compartments in the seventies because it was clear they weren't meeting the needs or desires of passengers. There's been several threads about it.

Don’t worry, I don’t intend to hijack the thread with a debate about compartments.

 

[yorksrob]

The Pendolino design is now about twenty years old. Standards and technology have moved on a lot in that time. I guarantee you that when they're refurbished, the interior lighting will be brighter.

If by "standards and technology" you mean the propensity for everything to become less comfortable for the travelling public, then yes, things have moved on a lot. One only has to look at the seating.

It’ll be the same “evidence” that people don’t like compartments when they’re always the first to be occupied on tourist lines…

Or indeed amongst commuters on the Bournemouth line when BR designed the 442's.

 

[Mogz]

There's no practical way that somebody who needs brighter lighting can provide their own illumination…

Ever heard of a torch?

 

[Bikeman78]

Ever heard of a torch?

Most mobiles have them! Though holding your phone whilst trying to read a book would be rather tedious.

 

[py_megapixel]

The solution, as ever, already exists. Put reading lamps on the underside of the luggage racks.

 

[Journeyman]

Ever heard of a torch?

Why should people have to take torches with them on trains?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Aug 2021 ==

If by "standards and technology" you mean the propensity for everything to become less comfortable for the travelling public, then yes, things have moved on a lot. One only has to look at the seating.

Once again, enthusiasts are the about only people moaning about this. There's been plenty of badly designed and uncomfortable trains in the past, and I find pretty much all modern rolling stock to be fit for purpose and pleasant to travel on, in many cases much more so than what it replaced.

 

[Davester50]

I like the brighter lighting, much less dingy than old.

 

[Journeyman]

I like the brighter lighting, much less dingy than old.

Absolutely. Tungsten lit stock from the 50s and 60s was often extremely gloomy and depressing to travel in, especially when combined with dark wooden panelling and Trojan moquette seats. I found that environment pretty claustrophobic.

 

[Davester50]

when combined with dark wooden panelling and Trojan moquette seats. I found that environment pretty claustrophobic.

It's dated and had it's place. The modern glass and light wood on the German InterCity trains work really well.

Old screw in bulbs in tatty compartments are fine for ye-olde-railway days out, as a novelty only.
Yellowing fluorescent tubes are naff too.

 

[Journeyman]

It's dated and had it's place. The modern glass and light wood on the German InterCity trains work really well.

Yeah. TransPennine have used some (fake?) wood finishes on new and refurbished stock, and it gives a nice quality feel to things. It's possible to be bright and contemporary with such things.

Old screw in bulbs in tatty compartments are fine for ye-olde-railway days out, as a novelty only.
Yellowing fluorescent tubes are naff too.

Oh, yeah. Modern concealed lighting is much better.

 

[yorksrob]

Once again, enthusiasts are the about only people moaning about this. There's been plenty of badly designed and uncomfortable trains in the past, and I find pretty much all modern rolling stock to be fit for purpose and pleasant to travel on, in many cases much more so than what it replaced.

The "ironing board" seat phenomenum has made it into the national press.

 

[Skie]

The Pendolino design is now about twenty years old. Standards and technology have moved on a lot in that time. I guarantee you that when they're refurbished, the interior lighting will be brighter.

Yep. The Avanti press release even includes a bullet: Improved lighting and new interior carpets
Improved probably measured in pure lumens output being greater than current, with no regard for eyeballs. They might get it right, but it's a First refurb so I can't imagine they care too much about passenger comfort.

It'll be interesting to see the reaction to the 777's from railway neighbours. I've noticed those things throw out a lot of light from the saloons and anyone living trackside may find that whilst they are much quieter trains, they'll be getting a bit of a lightshow when they zip past.

 

[Journeyman]

It'll be interesting to see the reaction to the 777's from railway neighbours. I've noticed those things throw out a lot of light from the saloons and anyone living trackside may find that whilst they are much quieter trains, they'll be getting a bit of a lightshow when they zip past.

Well, there's a lot more window area on them - they're replacing trains with huge gaps between windows, and not particularly brilliant lighting as well.

For metro-style operation, I'd argue you do need pretty bright interiors, more so than an intercity train.

 

[AM9]

Ever heard of a torch?

So you expect nervous passengers to sit for 30 minutes or more using their phone (or a torch) lighting up a poorly lit coach. Even if their torch or phone battery lasted that long, it would hardly cast light into the dark corners enough to see that they are safe.
I can just imagine some of the posters here objecting to having a bright hand-held lamp upset their dingy world.

 

[satisnek]

The life of bulbs is massively shorter, so they fail in service far more frequently. I remember some carriages having loads of failed tungsten bulbs in them when I was a kid, and it could create unsafe conditions. The SUB units had a very flawed design to them which resulted in half the lights in a carriage going out when one bulb broke, so potentially that was a serious safety issue - these things ran until 1983.

I don't have an in-depth knowledge of 4 SUB electrical systems, but I would guess that they had 110V lamps in series groups of 6 run directly from the traction supply. So if one failed it would cut out 5 others, hardly half the lights in a carriage but maybe a quarter And I don't think it can be called a 'flawed design', it was just a logical way of doing things back in the day. But you raise an interesting question - did the higher third rail voltage in the units' later life cause more bulbs to pop?

 

[Pigeon]

I like to be able to have some view out of the window even at night and such conditions make that impossible.

That is exactly my gripe with the lighting in... well, pretty much everything from the fluorescent-lit Mk 2s onwards. I don't want to be shut away in a coffin trundling endlessly onwards through a black void with no clue what's happening outside or where we are, I want to maintain my connection with the world outside and watch it go past. And you can still see really quite a lot if the interior lighting is dim enough not to limit your view to the unappealing sight of your own hideous physog reflected in the glass, and the person in the next seat bay staring at you all the time in reflection thinking you can't see them doing it because they haven't realised light goes both ways.

The old Mk 1 compartments with the "bright/dim" switches on the lights all set to "dim" were lovely cosy and relaxing places to travel at night. (And the unreliability of tungsten bulbs would often let you choose a compartment where some of the lights weren't working at all, or you could even take the bulbs out yourself and put them back when you got off.) Doing the same route with bright lights glaring YOU WILL STAY AWAKE, YOU WILL STAY AWAKE at you all the way in Guantanamoesque sleep-deprivation style is not relaxing, and means getting off the train feeling even more strung out than when you got on.

 

[tom1649]

The EMR class 222 services out of St Pancras on a night sit at the platform in “energy saving mode” which turns off the plug sockets and dims the lights to a very low level before turning the lights back up as they depart.

I've had at least one journey where the lights have stayed dim throughout.

 

[py_megapixel]

it's a First refurb so I can't imagine they care too much about passenger comfort.

Ever been on a refurbished 185?

 

[yorksrob]

That is exactly my gripe with the lighting in... well, pretty much everything from the fluorescent-lit Mk 2s onwards. I don't want to be shut away in a coffin trundling endlessly onwards through a black void with no clue what's happening outside or where we are, I want to maintain my connection with the world outside and watch it go past. And you can still see really quite a lot if the interior lighting is dim enough not to limit your view to the unappealing sight of your own hideous physog reflected in the glass, and the person in the next seat bay staring at you all the time in reflection thinking you can't see them doing it because they haven't realised light goes both ways.

The old Mk 1 compartments with the "bright/dim" switches on the lights all set to "dim" were lovely cosy and relaxing places to travel at night. (And the unreliability of tungsten bulbs would often let you choose a compartment where some of the lights weren't working at all, or you could even take the bulbs out yourself and put them back when you got off.) Doing the same route with bright lights glaring YOU WILL STAY AWAKE, YOU WILL STAY AWAKE at you all the way in Guantanamoesque sleep-deprivation style is not relaxing, and means getting off the train feeling even more strung out than when you got on.

Exactly. The whole point of taking the trains is to maintain some sort of visual connection with the outside world.

 

[Domh245]

Exactly. The whole point of taking the trains is to maintain some sort of visual connection with the outside world.

And there I was thinking the point of taking a train was to get from location A to location B..