Rolling Stock past and present that were a step up from their predecessors

[Fen Enthusiast]

Instead of finding faults with rolling stock, what rolling stock past and present do you think were a step up and worthy successors to their predecessors? Here's my personal list?

All early Desiros. Well refined, very, very reliable, fast, safe, very quiet inside with good climate control and fairly comfortable seats.

The class 390 Pendaleano. Okay, I understand it's got quite a high step up from the platform and their windows have a bit to be desired but let's be honest, they're very innovative as well as very comfortable, very safe, pretty good performance and quite reliable.

All ElectroStars from the end of the 90's to the mid ish 2010's. Okay, they're not as brilliant as other modern ones on my list. But let's be honest, they give you the the standards you'd expect from a modern post privatisation multiple unit. They're quiet, air conditioned, very quick and quite reliable with fairly comfortable seats, quite advanced, packing quite a few passenger conveniences and they are essentially safer than their predecessors. Especially MK1 rolling stock. I'll be honest, I don't think they're the best around, but they're definitely from a commuter's point of view, an improvement from whatever they replaced.

All early members of the TurboStar family (I can't really judge a 172 as I've never been on one and I don't know much about them). Ultra comfortable, very well air conditioned, faster than most of their predecessors, smooth riding, quite safe, quiet on board and very reliable. Hands down better than the first generation and second generation DMU that they replaced.

Class 158's and 159's. Ignoring the air-conditioning and teething problems, very smooth riding, very comfortable, quieter, pretty nimble, reliable, quite initiative for their time and obviously quiet safe. Definitely better than all 1st generation DMU's and superior to all the 2nd generation DMU's.

Class 442's. Now obsolete sadly, but at their time, they provided the comfort and safety of a MK3 with multiple unit performance. What more could you want from a commuter train.

Class 43 HST's. I needn't explain this one.

Class 55 Deltics. Minus the fact they deafened everyone, cleaner, lower maintenance and more efficient than what they replaced as well as being very innovative in their day. I'm not making any apologies for what I just said there.

London Underground S Stock. Modern, innovative, comfortable, reliable, safe, nimble, very efficient and good climate control. Definitely a very worthy replacement for A, C and D Stock.

Stadler FLIRT's. Big teething problems aside, they're safe, reliable, ergonomic, very nimble, efficient, very, very innovative and very smooth riding. Seats could be more comfortable I guess, but other than that, they're brilliant trains and a huge step up from their predecessors.

Overall, I think a good new train is safer, reliable, smoother riding with a fair standard of seat comfort, quieter inside, better performing, more efficient and more ergonomic than it's predecessors.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

CAF 3000s were a massive step up from class 450s and 80s.

 

[DanNCL]

I would say that, with the exception of the latest generation fleet, each of the ECML’s new long distance fleets has been a step up from the last. The Mark 2s introduced air conditioning, the HSTs introduced 125 mph running, and the 91+Mk4 sets introduced power doors, were electric instead of diesel, and had the potential for a further speed increase albeit never used.

 

[Snow1964]

4COR and 4RES electric multiple units from 1937
First time had multiple units that were fully gangwayed so could reach the train catering from whole train.

The 6PAN and 6PUL units (of 1933, just few years earlier) had to have 2 catering staff when coupled otherwise not everyone had access to catering at same time (a common modern problem with 5car IETs)

 

[Irascible]

Mk2e ( the ones with actual aircon & not the mk3 seats ).
1970s sliding door commuter EMUs, did you ever experience what they replaced?
159s I'll give you with the qualifier that it took guard's vans away. They didn't replace DMUs ( and neither did most 158s ) so that's a false comparison, but "better than random clapped out Mk2s" is good enough.

Everything else has far too many "except for". There'll probably be loads of pre BR stuff someone can think up.

 

[htafc]

Class 68 + mk5a's a definite step-up from 185s for me, even though their introduction is not complete yet.

 

[Beebman]

The Class 387s on GWR are definitely a step up from the 165s/166s. The Turbos had slow acceleration and low seats with little back support. The 165s had draughty hopper windows which often didn't shut properly while the a/c on 166s rarely worked properly. I'm not suggesting the seats on 387s are luxurious but they're definitely better, plus there's reliable a/c and fast acceleration up to 110 mph.

Having said that, in the early 90s the Turbos were a step up from the DMMUs with their low-backed seats and doors at every seat row which sometimes wouldn't open or close if the train was overloaded due to the body bending. Whether the 165s/166s were better than the loco-hauled sets which they also replaced is however a rather different matter!

 

[hexagon789]

Mk2e ( the ones with actual aircon

That would be the Mk2F, the 2E copied the 2D arrangement of having a pressure ventilation system with electric heating and AC on top instead of purely a designed in from scratch AC system.

 

[JonathanH]

Whether the 165s/166s were better than the loco-hauled sets which they also replaced is however a rather different matter!

I used to catch a morning train formed of 2 166s in the autumn and winter of 1993, soon after their introduction. While 166s have two plus three seating, as modern trains they were probably better for passengers than the locomotive hauled services they replaced and that train felt clean and modern at the time.

I also recall catching the 165 on the Henley branch from Twyford in the winter months and thinking the heating was better than if I had been making the journey a year earlier on the previous rolling stock.

 

[TheBigD]

All early members of the TurboStar family (I can't really judge a 172 as I've never been on one and I don't know much about them). Ultra comfortable, very well air conditioned, faster than most of their predecessors, smooth riding, quite safe, quiet on board and very reliable. Hands down better than the first generation and second generation DMU that they replaced.

The first batches of 170 Turbostars were the 170/1s for the Midland Mainline stopping services.
Whilst the service to the smaller stations south of Leicester were transformed to half hourly, the passengers from them were previously served by 8 car HSTs were now forced on to 2 car 170s. A few services at peak time were doubled up though.
They were widely criticised by user groups and passengers alike. The cramped layout (with 2+2 seating in first class, and the serious lack of legroom in standard) of this initial batch of 2 car 170s certainly weren't considered an improvement for a lot of people.
The initial 13 x 2 car sets were quickly increased to 17 x 2 car, and then an 10 centre cars to lengthen 10 x 2 cars to 3 cars. These centre cars had decent first class, a buffet counter and more legroom in standard.


The 8 x 3 car 170s for Anglia saw use on many Norwich-Liverpool Street services, with token extensions to Lowestoft/Yarmouth/Bury St Edmunds.
Some of the services on the Norwich route were previously 10/11 x Mk2s so the 3 car 170s were certainly a downgrade with just 127 std seats, and 28 1st.

The Anglia sets were also used on the new Hull Trains services until Hull Trains replaced them with 4 x 3 car 170/3 of their own.

Further batches of 170s saw them replace 158s in Scotland, and 156/8s on the Central Trains network.

I'm not aware of 170s replacing first generation DMUs directly, but they may have done indirectly through cascades, though most of the first generation DMUs were gone by 2000 I think.

 

[randyrippley]

Bright, airy, quiet, reliable and smooth riding Pacers were an absolute revelation compared to the DMUs which they replaced.
More should have been built

 

[Cowley]

@randyrippley throwing a metaphorical hand grenade into the thread there…

 

[Mag_seven]

The class 390 Pendaleano. Okay, I understand it's got quite a high step up from the platform and their windows have a bit to be desired but let's be honest, they're very innovative as well as very comfortable, very safe, pretty good performance and quite reliable.

I'm sorry but give me a rake of Mark 3 coaches hauled by a Class 86, 87 or 90 over a class 390 anyday.

 

[Cowley]

I'm sorry but give me a rake of Mark 3 coaches hauled by a Class 86, 87 or 90 over a class 390 anyday.

Amen to that.

 

[satisnek]

Personally I don't think that there has been anything which has been a 'step up' since the BR Mark 2, and even then there were one or two minus points. The BR Mark 1 was probably the last design which was a genuine all-round improvement on everything that went before, based as it was on the last LMS and SR coach builds which were considered superior to everything else at the time. From the Mark 3 onwards the name of the game has been 'doing it cheaper'.

 

[Magdalia]

For long distance travel the early markII was the pinnacle of a long sequence of marginal developments. It has been downhill from there, starting with the later MarkIIs where the wrap round doors were a major safety hazard that was only addressed with central door locking. Since then it has been an attritional decline particularly with regard to comfort of seats and provision of legroom.

For suburban travel the PEP derived units were a transformation. The class 313s on the GN replaced non-corridor markIs and first gen dmus, class 507 then class 455 replaced SUBs and EPBs. The class 313s made the same transformation when cascaded to Euston-Watford and the North London Line.

For rural branch line travel the biggest transformation was from old pre-Nationalisation hauled stock and steam traction to first gen DMUs in the 1950s.

 

[mike57]

For me has to HST + Mk3s, Comfortable inside, ride quality is good, and 125mph running transformed ECML timetables (which is the route I use most often).

They did have a few teething troubles at introduction, brake smell under heavy braking, power car problems in hot weather, but once these were sorted they settled down to give well over 40 years front line service, all be it a bit like Triggers broom as there were numerous refurbishments over the years. Once the Selby diversion opened in 1983 the resulting running times between London and Yorkshire/NE England has not been bettered by much today. The Mk3 bodyshell is stronger than anything that preceeded it, which helps when the worst happens.

The HST helped reverse a decades long decline in rail travel.

Other stuff worthy of mention: 158s, the first decent interregional DMU, and more locally and niche, Hull trains replacement of 180s with 802s

 

[delt1c]

I'm sorry but give me a rake of Mark 3 coaches hauled by a Class 86, 87 or 90 over a class 390 anyday.

Would agree the 390 is a mixed bag. 1st class as long as you get a window is great. Standard class if you are unfortunate to get an airline seat with no window and not aisle it is like being trapped in a black hole.

 

[Ken H]

Deltics and aircon mk2s were a major step up. Esp the deltic+8 concept. As was HST. But for me the 150 was a massive step change that saved regional railways. But it smashed the cascade programme. So intercity had to use stuff for its booked life rather than for 15-20 years then pass it on to other sectors.

 

[L+Y]

Speaking purely in terms of stock transitions I've experienced myself as an adult, I think most have been improvements.

S stock on the Underground was certainly an improvement on the C and D stock, C stock moreso than D to my mind.

195s and 331s, despite the naysayers, are to me a good step up from the ragbag of Sprinters, Pacers and 319s they have replaced, with the slight exception of 158s.

Likewise, whilst it's close, 185s were a step up from 158s.

Mk5 LHCS and 802s are an advance on 185s, though again this to me is closer than it should be, mostly because of poor window alignment.

Finally and most controversially, I really do consider the 769s a huge advance on the Pacers and Sprinters of the Southport line that came before them, even the 156s. But then I've personally never experienced a fault with them!

Really the only notable downgrade I've been aware of is the movement from Mk4 LHCS to IETs, which I have found far less comfortable on my occasional journeys.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

From the Mark 3 onwards the name of the game has been 'doing it cheaper'.

Cheaper maybe but more accessible for those less fortunate in life. The primary function of a railway vehicle being usability.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Mk3 was a step down from previous designs. It was the first where Standard passengers weren't designed for specifically, but rather were accommodated as an after-irritation of the design of a coach laid out for First Class.

 

[mike57]

Likewise, whilst it's close, 185s were a step up from 158s.

Not so sure... Doors at 1/3rds are not comfortable on longer journeys, and at our end of the network they are not able to take advantage of the sprinter speed differentials, and no through gangway between sets so makes 6 car working more of a challenge. If the 158 air con issues could be sorted once and for all then they were more suitable for 2+ hour journeys.

 

[Julia]

Having said that, in the early 90s the Turbos were a step up from the DMMUs with their low-backed seats and doors at every seat row which sometimes wouldn't open or close if the train was overloaded due to the body bending. Whether the 165s/166s were better than the loco-hauled sets which they also replaced is however a rather different matter!

The 1st generation suburban DMMUs used on the other busy London commuter lines (127s to Bedford, 125s on the Lea Valley, 105s on the ECML, 115s to Wycombe...) aged much faster than their more rural siblings, and replacement - either by electrification or the Turbos - was a blessed relief in every case.

 

[Helvellyn]

Only if you regard perfect seat to window alignment as a must have. The benefit was that a universal bodyshell made conversions easier. In the original 72 seat layout managed it better than when densified to 76 seats with more airline seating. Given the number of conversions over the year on the flip side if we had seen separate body designs for first and standard we'd have complaints over converted coaches having seats not aligned (a small number if HST TS vehicles were converted to TFs in the 1980s for example).

The Mark 2D/2F FO conversions to TSOs had that same window spacing problem.

 

[bramling]

Instead of finding faults with rolling stock, what rolling stock past and present do you think were a step up and worthy successors to their predecessors? Here's my personal list?

All early Desiros. Well refined, very, very reliable, fast, safe, very quiet inside with good climate control and fairly comfortable seats.

The class 390 Pendaleano. Okay, I understand it's got quite a high step up from the platform and their windows have a bit to be desired but let's be honest, they're very innovative as well as very comfortable, very safe, pretty good performance and quite reliable.

All ElectroStars from the end of the 90's to the mid ish 2010's. Okay, they're not as brilliant as other modern ones on my list. But let's be honest, they give you the the standards you'd expect from a modern post privatisation multiple unit. They're quiet, air conditioned, very quick and quite reliable with fairly comfortable seats, quite advanced, packing quite a few passenger conveniences and they are essentially safer than their predecessors. Especially MK1 rolling stock. I'll be honest, I don't think they're the best around, but they're definitely from a commuter's point of view, an improvement from whatever they replaced.

All early members of the TurboStar family (I can't really judge a 172 as I've never been on one and I don't know much about them). Ultra comfortable, very well air conditioned, faster than most of their predecessors, smooth riding, quite safe, quiet on board and very reliable. Hands down better than the first generation and second generation DMU that they replaced.

Class 158's and 159's. Ignoring the air-conditioning and teething problems, very smooth riding, very comfortable, quieter, pretty nimble, reliable, quite initiative for their time and obviously quiet safe. Definitely better than all 1st generation DMU's and superior to all the 2nd generation DMU's.

Class 442's. Now obsolete sadly, but at their time, they provided the comfort and safety of a MK3 with multiple unit performance. What more could you want from a commuter train.

Class 43 HST's. I needn't explain this one.

Class 55 Deltics. Minus the fact they deafened everyone, cleaner, lower maintenance and more efficient than what they replaced as well as being very innovative in their day. I'm not making any apologies for what I just said there.

London Underground S Stock. Modern, innovative, comfortable, reliable, safe, nimble, very efficient and good climate control. Definitely a very worthy replacement for A, C and D Stock.

Stadler FLIRT's. Big teething problems aside, they're safe, reliable, ergonomic, very nimble, efficient, very, very innovative and very smooth riding. Seats could be more comfortable I guess, but other than that, they're brilliant trains and a huge step up from their predecessors.

Overall, I think a good new train is safer, reliable, smoother riding with a fair standard of seat comfort, quieter inside, better performing, more efficient and more ergonomic than it's predecessors.

365s were certainly a step up from 317s on GN, and probably from CEP/CIG/VEP on SE.

The early Electrostars are themselves a slight step up from the 365s on SE. Regrettably same can’t be said for GN, their 387s have uncomfortable ironing board seats, whilst the very many shortcomings of the 700s are well documented.

 

[Taunton]

For suburban travel the PEP derived units were a transformation. The class 313s on the GN replaced non-corridor markIs and first gen dmus, class 507 then class 455 replaced SUBs and EPBs. The class 313s made the same transformation when cascaded to Euston-Watford and the North London Line.

Not necessarily. OK, out of Kings Cross they were maybe better than the Cravens dmus and non-corridor stock. However, on the Wirral electrics they were a big step back compared to the 1938 (yes) units they replaced, for poor and more cramped seat layout, not lining up with the windows, standard of finish, worse seats, and above all reliability.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not necessarily. OK, out of Kings Cross they were maybe better than the Cravens dmus and non-corridor stock. However, on the Wirral electrics they were a big step back compared to the 1938 (yes) units they replaced, for poor and more cramped seat layout, not lining up with the windows, standard of finish, worse seats, and above all reliability.

I've long thought the PEP must have been designed by someone who really hated passengers, having an unnecessarily horrid layout.

 

[delt1c]

I've long thought the PEP must have been designed by someone who really hated passengers, having an unnecessarily horrid layout.

The PEP family replaced the 405's (SUBs) which a big step up, the suburban coridor stock and Cravens on the Moorgate and Kings Cross, both dramatic improvements

 

[Bletchleyite]

The PEP family replaced the 405's (SUBs) which a big step up, the suburban coridor stock and Cravens on the Moorgate and Kings Cross, both dramatic improvements

I suppose to be fair the idea of seats being directly out of sync with windows (i.e. a seat was against the middle of a window) is consistent with compartment stock. Might have come from there. It's still rubbish, though.