Trivia: Rolling stock which isn’t really compatible for a route it operates

[py_megapixel]

Voyagers would be OK on long thin routes like inverness- aberdeen. Or Carlisle - Glasgow via Kilmarnock. Not on busy inter city routes that need 8-10 carriages.

These days they're usually coupled together in 8 or 9 car formations

 

[Ianno87]

IETs on London to Penzance. One word, SEATS. Yes I know its subjective but its amazing how many "normals" comment on the abysmal standard of comfort. Funnily enough i don't recall the same comments about the IC70 seats or even the HST ones we had until 2019....

So the rolling stock itself isn't the problem, just the seats?

I don't recall people waxing lyrical about the FGW-era Basketball player-profile seating, with interrogation-level lighting either...

 

[paul1609]

The 171s used by Southern on stopping services. They just accelerate too slowly for them, although they are generally comfortable inside. 395s on third rail routes is also a good mention, but isn't near the worst one.

I think that a heritage railway somewhere in the south of England can tell you that a 4 car 171 can considerably out accelerate a 37 + 4 mk1s + 33 combo to 25 mph, even if the rear engine is accidentally assisting.

 

[Mikey C]

707s are the similar inner suburban units being transferred SWR to SE. You must mean 700s?

Yes, typo thanks

Another one would be the use of Chiltern 165s on the stopping services along the Chiltern Mainline, as being only 75mph units, they get in the way of the 100mph 168s and loco stock on what is a 2 track railway

 

[Doomotron]

I think that a heritage railway somewhere in the south of England can tell you that a 4 car 171 can considerably out accelerate a 37 + 4 mk1s + 33 combo to 25 mph, even if the rear engine is accidentally assisting.

Perhaps, but compared to other DMUs, including those of its era, the Turbostars are objectively slow at accelerating. They're fine for long distance routes, but Eastbourne to Ashford stoppers and slow London-Uckfield services aren't the right place for them.

 

[Kite159]

Perhaps, but compared to other DMUs, including those of its era, the Turbostars are objectively slow at accelerating. They're fine for long distance routes, but Eastbourne to Ashford stoppers and slow London-Uckfield services aren't the right place for them.

In an ideal world (with no issues with pathing issues) the 171s would run fast from Eastbourne to Bexhill (like they do on Sundays IIRC), with the current 377 operated service from Brighton to Hastings picking up the stops [instead of running fast to Bexhill].

[Of course in that ideal world, the 3rd rail would have been laid between Ore & Ashford so there would be no need for diesels!].

-------------

In Northern, 158s running the stoppers between Sheffield & Leeds when 195s are running the fast services. Might be better to swap them over due to a 195 being more suited for stoppers. Similarly 158s working Knottingley trains & Huddersfield - Bradford.

 

[D365]

395s on third rail routes is also a good mention, but isn't near the worst one.

what makes them unsuitable?

 

[Taylorgb19]

Crossrail class 345 no toilets

 

[AlastairFraser]

This is quite a broad question. Basically which services are operated by rolling stock that isn’t really suited to at least one route it operates? Could be for one or a combination of the following reasons:

• Not long enough
• Not fast enough
• Doors in the wrong place (end rather than at thirds etc)
• Diesel running under wires/above third rail for a significant proportion of the journey
• Seating not suited for journey type
• Significant gap/step between train and platform
• Lack of gangway connection
• Intercity stock working a commuter/regional route (and vice versa)
• Poor use of track/platform capacity
• Stock could be better utilised on another service

I will start by nominating the IETs which operate the London Paddington - Bedwyn service as they are designed for intercity rather than commuter operation. While locals would appreciate the faster journey and comfier seats than a 165, having end doors rather than doors at thirds doesn’t really help with boarding and unloading on a relatively busy commuter route. Besides there are many more lines in the UK where IETs could be put to much better use.

People coped fine with the HSTs from London out to Bedwyn/Frome, I used to catch one every Tuesday evening. The stops aren't that close together on the Kennet Valley, especially if they skip stop, which they do.

 

[Starmill]

Class 385 on Glasgow suburban services.

What's wrong with the three cars on the Glasgow south suburban routes?

 

[Wolfie]

I think the 195 comment highlighted what I did - they are perfect rolling stock for urban local stopping services (very similar to Class 172) and need reallocating to those services. Examples of where they would be very suitable indeed are Harrogate, Atherton, Rose Hill/Marple (where you do get them), CLC stopping services, Clitheroe (if these currently do Moses Gate etc) and the likes. They are fine on long distance stuff too, but because they are so well-suited to stopping services they should be put on them, with 158s, 170s and ideally incoming 175s doing the long-distance services.

If you've ever used one full and standing, they almost prove that Thameslink needn't have had such narrow seats.

The loadings that Thameslink was built for are in no way comparable to even the busiest Northern service.

 

[bramling]

This is quite a broad question. Basically which services are operated by rolling stock that isn’t really suited to at least one route it operates? Could be for one or a combination of the following reasons:

• Not long enough
• Not fast enough
• Doors in the wrong place (end rather than at thirds etc)
• Diesel running under wires/above third rail for a significant proportion of the journey
• Seating not suited for journey type
• Significant gap/step between train and platform
• Lack of gangway connection
• Intercity stock working a commuter/regional route (and vice versa)
• Poor use of track/platform capacity
• Stock could be better utilised on another service

I will start by nominating the IETs which operate the London Paddington - Bedwyn service as they are designed for intercity rather than commuter operation. While locals would appreciate the faster journey and comfier seats than a 165, having end doors rather than doors at thirds doesn’t really help with boarding and unloading on a relatively busy commuter route. Besides there are many more lines in the UK where IETs could be put to much better use.

(1) 507/508 on Merseyrail, due to long-standing issues with wheel wear from the Loop.

(2) 700 on King’s Cross to Cambridge stopping service. A unit designed for the Thameslink core on a service which doesn’t go in it, and is looking increasingly unlikely to do so.

(3) the deployment of Sprinters on the Northern franchise based on seating capacity, which leads to end-door 156/158 on stopping services.

 

[AlastairFraser]

150s on the Clitheroe-Rochdale services. 75mph DMUs on a section now used by 100mph EMUs. Up until last year there were 158s but alas no more…

Exactly, then Colne will sometimes get 158s,which doesn't make sense when it stops every 5 secs.

 

[bramling]

Exactly, then Colne will sometimes get 158s,which doesn't make sense when it stops every 5 secs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Oct 2021 ==


Clitheroe services don't stop between Salford and Bolton, Moses Gate/Clifton/Farnworth/Kearsley should be EMU stops on Wigan to Alderley Edge/Southport to Staly using the Cl769s once Wigan to Bolton is electrified. All the others would make sense, except Harrogate, which needs electrifying along with the whole of York to Leeds.
Northern should take the 350s off WMR when they become available and use them to operate Harrogate and Newcastle to Berwick via Morpeth. It's stupid to operate diesel services wholly under the wires and the electricity supply should be upgraded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2021 ==


On 2 and 3, I wholly agree, but Merseyrail are replacing the stock, it's not their fault that the stock got so old.

From what I understand, there have been wheel wear issues with the 507/508 fleet for very many years. Perhaps with hindsight the loop tunnels were built with curves of slightly too tight a radius, though as ever it’s never quite that simple.

 

[AlastairFraser]

From what I understand, there have been wheel wear issues with the 507/508 fleet for very many years. Perhaps with hindsight the loop tunnels were built with curves of slightly too tight a radius, though as ever it’s never quite that simple.

Maybe, but they had to work with what was there in terms of the Mersey Railway tunnels and Liverpool Central.
Overall, I think Merseyrail is a decent system, cheap, not particularly unreliable and fast enough.
I had no issues with the ride on the train when I visited it and was able to take my bike all the way through the system, something I wasn't expecting to be able to do in the tunnelled sections.
You have to bear in mind the trains have had very little investment since it was built.

 

[Neptune]

Northern's "random unit generator".

This phrase really is getting tired now.

Each and every service is allocated a unit diagram and from experience over the last few years it is extremely rare to not get the booked traction.

It comes across as a lazy dig at Northern which I’m sure isn’t your intention.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2021 ==

There aren't enough 331/333s for any more electrification, the 350s will be up for grabs very soon and a 5 car 350 is the perfect length to run services and get out of the way on the main line into York and section of the Harrogate line east of Knaresborough. They would also work well on the Transpennine stoppers on the Hudds/Calder Valley line, whether TPE or Northern, especially for TPE as a Desiro like their Class 185.
.

Firstly. If any electrification was authorised where Northern run it would be an extra build of 331’s as they have already stated. They do not want to add ‘yet another fleet’ to their books.

Secondly. 350’s are 4 car units, not 5 (or are you going down the ‘it’s so easy to reform them as 5 cars’ route).

Thirdly. What do you do about Knaresborough with you proposed 5 car trains? Tunnel at one end, crossing at the other with 4 car max platform squeezed in between.

 

[Snow1964]

Voyagers would be OK on long thin routes like inverness- aberdeen. Or Carlisle - Glasgow via Kilmarnock. Not on busy inter city routes that need 8-10 carriages.

More like 8-12 carriages on some of the core sections, and even many of the platforms they serve are 260-300m long, so could take much longer replacement.

 

[Bigman]

170's are wasted on Leeds-Harrogate-York where the maximum line speed is 65 (I believe). Pairs of 150's would be the better option with 170's being put on faster routes.

 

[pompeyfan]

2+3 450s on the Pompey direct! A layout similar to the 350/1s would be ideal!

 

[306024]

Class 745s on Stansted Express. Impossible to cycle for maintenance at Crown Point without destroying the first class product on the Liverpool St to Norwich service, as has been proved already despite the Stansted service only being half hourly. Would be worse with the full service. Potentially not great for dwell times at Tottenham Hale in the morning peak when services get busier again either.

 

[D6975]

Class 745s on Stansted Express. Impossible to cycle for maintenance at Crown Point without destroying the first class product on the Liverpool St to Norwich service, as has been proved already despite the Stansted service only being half hourly. Would be worse with the full service. Potentially not great for dwell times at Tottenham Hale in the morning peak when services get busier again either.

Aren't these coming off anyway? I thought I read somewhere that Stansteds were going over to 720s, 745s moving over to the Ipswich/Norwich road.

One other offering that is at long last being addressed to some degree (153s) is the use of sprinters on the West Highland with their lack of luggage/bike space that the pax on this line require.

 

[Suraggu]

So the rolling stock itself isn't the problem, just the seats?

I don't recall people waxing lyrical about the FGW-era Basketball player-profile seating, with interrogation-level lighting either...

Oh they did! If it isn't IC70 seats with soft lighting many will complain.

Whilst those Grammar seats were extremely comfortable for myself and never had any trouble getting comfortable on a long journey. Also considering these are the seats used in the OBB RailJet sets they really cannot be that bad.

 

[paddy1]

These days they're usually coupled together in 8 or 9 car formations

Still quite a lot of five (or sometimes only four) car only XC services on Sunday on the South Coast/Reading - Birmingham - Manchester route, despite frequency dropped from half hourly to hourly. Makes the usual XC overcrowding even worse than when it was five car only but at least running half hourly.

 

[43096]

Oh they did! If it isn't IC70 seats with soft lighting many will complain.

Whilst those Grammar seats were extremely comfortable for myself and never had any trouble getting comfortable on a long journey. Also considering these are the seats used in the OBB RailJet sets they really cannot be that bad.

The problem with the GWR HSTs is not the seats themselves, more the internal layout of those seats and the dire over-bright lighting.

 

[James James]

My vote is for 156's on the WHL. Absolutely horrid in terms of noise and vibration for what should be a pleasant scenic route - go in expecting a nice relaxing day, come out with a headache. Mind you I'm not sure what would be better - Mk4 + 67/68 or HST wouldn't be bad but are unrealistic given the varied service sizes and splitting (lounge car on the sleeper is honestly the best way to travel the WHL).

Although I feel like 156's are horrid for anything really - driver starts the engines, you feel like you're in a plane taking off... except there's almost no acceleration whatsoever. Quite sad even when you're on a commuter route.

Whilst those Grammar seats were extremely comfortable for myself and never had any trouble getting comfortable on a long journey. Also considering these are the seats used in the OBB RailJet sets they really cannot be that bad.

Honestly the Railjet seats are quite bad - both in 1st and second. It was odd to switch from a Railjet to an IC 2000, where the latter is focused on short hops and nevertheless is much more comfortable.

 

[bramling]

So the rolling stock itself isn't the problem, just the seats?

Given the cracking issue which *may* be symptomatic of the trains being insufficiently robust to handle British track quality, it could turn out to be the case down the lines that these trains are indeed incompatible with their deployment. Time will tell on that one.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2021 ==

Oh they did! If it isn't IC70 seats with soft lighting many will complain.

Whilst those Grammar seats were extremely comfortable for myself and never had any trouble getting comfortable on a long journey. Also considering these are the seats used in the OBB RailJet sets they really cannot be that bad.

I didn't mind the FGW HST seats in terms of comfort, *however* the high backs were rather intrusive to the point I found the FGW HST refurbs quite claustrophobic. Softer lighting and the tapered seat tops would have been fine, even if (personal taste) I found the FGW colour scheme a bit sickly.

 

[Efini92]

150s on the Clitheroe-Rochdale services. 75mph DMUs on a section now used by 100mph EMUs. Up until last year there were 158s but alas no more…

150’s are perfect for the Clitheroe Rochdale services. It’s only between agecroft and burnden that’s it’s 100mph and it’s only in one direction.
The metro style door layout means passengers can load and unload quickly.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

150s are set to be the mainstay on Huddersfield to Sheffield for the foreseeable future, but of Northern's fleet, I'd rather it were 156s. Thus allowing the 150s with their wider doors to work routes where reducing dwell times are more important. The Penistone line doesn't really need this (other than maybe the Barnsley to Sheffield stretch at peak times), and the view from a 150 on this quite scenic route isn't great.

 

[Doomotron]

what makes them unsuitable?

They're lovely to travel on, but their slow acceleration on third rail is a massive downgrade over the 375s, which in some sections can reach 15mph faster than the 395s. And with the 465s, it's not worth comparing. On third rail the 395s would probably be faster if they were powered by diesel!

 

[Anonymous10]

The junk they use on the heart of wales line

what would you use then i use the tfw 153 regularly myself and find then acceptable i definitely rather them to a 150