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!
Exactly!!
At least the 80x family are attractive and look like intercity trains. With work they may be half decent one day
Stadler stuff on the other hand always looks like a tram. Does not in anyway scream style or speed.
Maybe one day (and don't laugh) the 80x family will be seen in a similar way the HSTs are seen, a genuine national intercity train.
Stasler stuff on the other hand just doesn't have the right look for me.
We are bound to disagree, happy to accept that.
My approach is based upon the railway generally being a means to an end [rather than the end to your means].
We are bound to disagree, happy to accept that.
My approach is based upon the railway generally being a means to an end [rather than the end to your means].
but if poor design makes it unattractive to customers, it isnt really a total means to an end. Trouble is, as we see on this thread, there is no agreement on what is attractive...
Exactly!!
At least the 80x family are attractive and look like intercity trains. With work they may be half decent one day
Stadler stuff on the other hand always looks like a tram. Does not in anyway scream style or speed.
Maybe one day (and don't laugh) the 80x family will be seen in a similar way the HSTs are seen, a genuine national intercity train.
Stasler stuff on the other hand just doesn't have the right look for me.
Stadler do a proper high speed variant, the EC250/Giruno/Smile/RABe 501 (250km/h).
It will run for much of its time on normal SBB/RFI tracks, but does the 250km/h of the new Swiss high speed tunnels. SBB RABe 501 - Wikipedia
"Having the right looks" doesn't work well in GB because of the obsession with corridor connections up to 110mph.
At least the Stadler 100mph variants don't have that feature.
… except for the unfaired roof, with a random scattering of boxes all over it, which makes them look like suburban commuter trains (and maybe contributes to the very high interior noise levels), … and the non-plug sliding doors! I'll give you the front end design though, that does indeed look OK.
Comparison with a TGV / ICE / Hitachi shinkansen train, or any other actual high speed (in a modern context this surely means >250km/h for new lines or >200km/h for existing lines, and most “high speed rail” constructed over the last few decades is generally 300km/h or more) train, shows that the AT300 is definitely a “mid-speed” train really
It would/will be nice if there is eventually some 140mph running for the 80x in various places (Between Paddington and Bristol Parkway would be the most obvious chunk to do on the GWML, I guess King's Cross to York on the ECML!), but I'm not holding my breath!
A German friend, also a driver asked me what i thought the best high speed train we have is in my view? I have to say i like the Azuma best. Fast, good looking, good cabins and a real leap forward from the HSTs i used to drive.
You?
From a passenger point of view, Pendolino in 1st, 80x in Standard (LNER interior is the nicest to me as it's nice warm colours). I may well not like Fainsa Sophias very much, but the large amount of legroom meaning I don't have to hope for a table or priority row is compelling. I used to cram myself into the normal seats on Pendolinos if necessary, but now I've had a second DVT* that is not on the agenda any more as it could genuinely prove seriously damaging to my health to do so.
The GA FLIRTs are lovely, but a 110mph EMU isn't high speed, it's the standard speed for commuter EMUs these days.
* Deep Vein Thrombosis - I don't have a Driving Van Trailer parked in the garden!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The 444 is in my view the most comfortable rolling stock in the UK at present bar none, though sadly they have just ruined what used to be quite decent First Class. 2+2 is not First Class in a unit where the other seating is also 2+2; it should have both one fewer seat across the train and more legroom than Standard and it has neither.
As 100mph units (though they could be converted to 110 fairly easily) they are not however high speed in my eyes. In UK terms high speed means 125mph to me.
Aren't they 100mph, or is it just the locos that slow them down?
Like Pendolinos I would say excellent in 1st and average to poor in Standard, the window alignment is awful, legroom not quite as good as 80x and the seats are Sophias to boot.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Comparison with a TGV / ICE / Hitachi shinkansen train, or any other actual high speed (in a modern context this surely means >250km/h for new lines or >200km/h for existing lines, and most “high speed rail” constructed over the last few decades is generally 300km/h or more) train, shows that the AT300 is definitely a “mid-speed” train really
I suppose you could argue that the only contenders are the "Javelin" sets (395?) and Eurostar. If we're down to that the Javelins win (having an interior very similar to 350/1s), the new Eurostar interior is quite unpleasant - stark lighting, only average seats, a really harsh colour scheme and stupidly designed tables that take away legroom. Not impressed at all.
Why they couldn't just order the lovely DB ICE interior I don't know.
Dunno how big some of you people are but I am well over 6' tall. So what may be adequate legroom for many here clearly isnt for me. Same for headroom. So peoples size will clearly affect how well we regard different designs. The journies I have made jealously seeing a petite girl curled up on a seat sleeping while I have my knees round my ears.
I would exclude any train with dump toilets, and the lack of powered external doors is an obstacle as well.
Remaining HSTs have been dealt with on both counts, but the main bulk of the HST fleet, in service until recently, would have failed.
I've never thought the HSTs as particularly fast accelerating to be honest. They were good for the 1970s but if they are the best today thats because the passenger experience on the AT300s etc. isn't what it should be.
I've never thought the HSTs as particularly fast accelerating to be honest. They were good for the 1970s but if they are the best today thats because the passenger experience on the AT300s etc. isn't what it should be.
Other than the seats (and those aren't the utterly terrible ones fitted when they were built, so if you're going to compare on seats you're comparing IC70 vs Sophia, and I'd go Sophia in that comparison) I fail to see how an HST is better than an 80x. The latter is more modern, quieter, less polluting, can run on the OHLE, has better aircon, rides better* and is otherwise just a metal tube with seats and windows in the same sort of way.
The HST might be a design classic, but anyone who's flown on a 737 and a 787 (the former being a 1960s design bodged sort of up to date so similarly a classic, the latter being a new design) is likely to choose the latter.
* Some disagree, but I am not a fan of the Mk3 "sway", I'd rather a harder ride. It's quite similar to Desiros which are good on good track. Indeed, Fainsa's "finest" aside, the passenger experience in an 80x I find to be near identical to the excellent Class 444.
I've never thought the HSTs as particularly fast accelerating to be honest. They were good for the 1970s but if they are the best today thats because the passenger experience on the AT300s etc. isn't what it should be.
HST accelerate better than an IET on diesel. Maybe not the first 30mph or so, but beyond that HST outclassed 80x.
And that first 30 mph I purposely don't wack the 80x wide open for fear of knocking passengers to the floor so not really alot of use anyway.
I was wondering about that when I wrote it, and didn't go and do the research! I stand corrected
Interesting that they've gone for that style, when TGV, ICE, Talgo AVE, China's various CRH (except the ones which are derived from Shinkansen designs!) etc., all have sliding plug, which looks substantially more aerodynamic (and generally smoother!) …
Other than the seats (and those aren't the utterly terrible ones fitted when they were built, so if you're going to compare on seats you're comparing IC70 vs Sophia, and I'd go Sophia in that comparison) I fail to see how an HST is better than an 80x. The latter is more modern, quieter, less polluting, can run on the OHLE, has better aircon, rides better* and is otherwise just a metal tube with seats and windows in the same sort of way.
The HST might be a design classic, but anyone who's flown on a 737 and a 787 (the former being a 1960s design bodged sort of up to date so similarly a classic, the latter being a new design) is likely to choose the latter.
* Some disagree, but I am not a fan of the Mk3 "sway", I'd rather a harder ride. It's quite similar to Desiros which are good on good track. Indeed, Fainsa's "finest" aside, the passenger experience in an 80x I find to be near identical to the excellent Class 444.
If you think an 80x rides in any way acceptably, you need to think again. They’re appalling. That the bogies have hunted from new on straight track makes them unfit for purpose. Add in the cost of them, the poor reliability and multiple cracking issues and you have a shockingly bad train.
The Flirt is capable of 125 but why would Greater Anglia have bought them in that configuration when they have no 125 lines? Upgrade later if East Anglia is ever blessed with upgrade money.
* Some disagree, but I am not a fan of the Mk3 "sway", I'd rather a harder ride. It's quite similar to Desiros which are good on good track. Indeed, Fainsa's "finest" aside, the passenger experience in an 80x I find to be near identical to the excellent Class 444.
Absolutely, I'm not a fan of the way Mark 3s wallow about, it actually makes me feel a bit queasy. I much prefer the firmer and more precise-feeling ride of modern stock.
Newer trains have shown up the age of the HST design badly, and however good they once were, I no longer consider them fit for purpose, and I include the modernised sliding door ones in that.
Not an easy question to answer, they all have one or another issue which makes giving a single answer difficult.
HSTs - of all the 125mph capable trains we have it is undoubtedly the most successful. 40 years in frontline 125mph service is quite an achievement, particularly for a diesel train. They lose out on power, compared to most modern trains their top end acceleration is very sluggish and having the traction concentrated at the ends really shows up in poor adhesion compared to say an Azuma.
IC225s - much better acceleration at higher speeds than an HST (80+mph), they can keep sharper point-to-poimt timings, but they never really solved the ride quality issues satisfactorily.
80x - the performance on electric is brilliant can't argue with that, certainly they look modern - shame they are let down by build quality and a ride quality that is variable (it can be worse than a 225 or slightly better but either way it's not a smooth rider, it gets unsettled very easily).
390 - again the performance is good, they've certainly revolutionised the WCML, the ride is quite good the main issue is the cramped interiors and until certain remedial actions were taken the lack of seating capacity vs demand.
I've never thought the HSTs as particularly fast accelerating to be honest. They were good for the 1970s but if they are the best today thats because the passenger experience on the AT300s etc. isn't what it should be.
Stadler do a proper high speed variant, the EC250/Giruno/Smile/RABe 501 (250km/h).
It will run for much of its time on normal SBB/RFI tracks, but does the 250km/h of the new Swiss high speed tunnels. SBB RABe 501 - Wikipedia
It *could* run 250km/h in tunnels (Gotthard, Ceneri) - as in both the tunnel and train are certified for that speed - but in normal operation they only use 200km/h. (It's a waste of paths otherwise, and it also means they can schedule a double-decker that's only 200km/h capable on busy weekends on the domestic trains.) And in Italy it's not allowed on the high-speed routes because it's not fast enough. But there is a distant hope that they'll start operating further north in Germany, at which point they might regularly start operating at 250km/h.
Class 80xs are superb all round (including the seats, contrary to popular belief - have made 5 long journeys on IETs in the last 2 weeks and comfortable throughout)
I seem to remember squared armrests that made it a pain to get in the seat, mind you at least you had a table.
Perhaps the modern interiors are better.
And 395 at a push. But yes, this. (And, from (distant) memory, the 395s, like the 80xs, are really quite noisy inside, and that takes 373 to the top of the list for me — not distributed traction so no motor noise, and Jacobs bogies too, leading to a quiet smooth ride, like a TGV (obviously).)
HSTs were amazing when first out and for a while afterwards, a good while. But in 2021 let's all be honest, they are hopelessly out paced and outdated. We may as well say the Deltics are the best as they were so good for so long. I loved driving Deltics on the main line. 8-16 vacuum coaches of all sorts, mainly overnight. Motor rail, sleepers, travelling post office, parcels, newspapers, passenger coaches, all sorts in one train and steam heat of course.
I was hoping Class 397 (TPE Nova 2) might have been a contender. While they certainly look the part, and they are capable of 125 mph, the shockingly bad ride at speed rules them out of court. And should a new train really rattle so much?
HSTs were great in their day, but that passed 20 years ago. Class 91 and Mk IV were better, but, I have to say, that Azuma 800/801s have won me over.
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.
