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

[Western Sunset]

I really liked the Mk2f (and IC70 seats too...). Window spacing spot-on, good a/c, quiet environment.

 

[Trainspotter43]

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.

As a younger rail enthusiast I cant really comment on previous traction unfortunately but I do love the smooth ride of A HST with MK3’s and I agree with you on the Desiro, Sprinters, and Electrostars. I live on the MML so I’m only used to 222’s and HSTs and I’d include the 222 as a good replacement for whatever they replaced ( I think it was 170’s)

 

[randyrippley]

In terms of the ride quality yes, but on the other hand Pacers and Sprinters didn't have the driver's eye view from the front seat that you got on first generation DMUs.

In my experience the blinds were always down anyway: it seemed that drivers don't like people looking over their shoulders

 

[AY1975]

In my experience the blinds were always down anyway: it seemed that drivers don't like people looking over their shoulders

Latterly yes, certainly by the 1990s and early 2000s, but at least in the 1980s when I was a kid I can remember travelling on DMUs with the driver's blind up at least on the opposite side to the driver's seat.

 

[Ken H]

Latterly yes, certainly by the 1990s and early 2000s, but at least in the 1980s when I was a kid I can remember travelling on DMUs with the driver's blind up at least on the opposite side to the driver's seat.

They all had them up in daylight in the North in the 60's and 70's. But they came down when it got dark. Presumably so the driver could see signals etc.

 

[Tester]

In my experience the blinds were always down anyway: it seemed that drivers don't like people looking over their shoulders

Go to Japan for a real treat!

 

[AY1975]

The Mark 3 sleepers had retention tanks from new.

They did indeed, and that meant that for the first time passengers could use them when stood in a station whether it was an intermediate calling point or the starting or terminating station (where sleeping car trains would often stand for a long period with passengers on board before departure and after arrival).

AFAIK the Mark 1s and all older sleeping cars had normal non-retention toilets but would normally be parked in a platform equipped with a trough beneath the track to catch the effluent from the toilets at the starting and terminating station, meaning that passengers could use them before departure at the start or after arrival at the end of the train's journey but not when stood at any intermediate station. I believe that some of the Eastern Region Mark 1 sleepers were latterly fitted with controlled emission toilets of sorts that only deposited liquid on the track, though.

On the other hand, the Mark 1 sleepers had a kind of pad beside each berth to put your watch on, a trinket tray above the berth in First Class, and a self-emptying chamber pot in a cupboard under the washbasin, which the Mark 3s and Mark 5s don't have. I suspect that many passengers weren't very happy about losing these facilities - especially the potty, but it was presumably considered unhygienic by the 1980s.

 

[Ken H]

There was the concept of the 'total retention toilet' where no toilet matter went on the track
Other trains had a tank but when full the idea was the liquid was dumped on the track and the solids stayed in the tank.
I also think 'grey water', ie from the sink, also went on the track but I think its retained for later disposal now. (?)
The problem this caused with vehicle dynamics were great. The vehicle started the day with a tank full of water on the roof which was used and filled up the retention tank. As the retention tank was quite a bit larger than the fresh water tank in the roof. the fresh water was filled every night, but the retention tank wasnt emptied every night (Usually when stabled where there were no tank emptying facilities). So the centre of gravity at the end of a vehicle changed over a 2-3 day period.

Apologies for anyone having lunch!

 

[Helvellyn]

On the other hand, the Mark 1 sleepers had a kind of pad beside each berth to put your watch on, a trinket tray above the berth in First Class, and a self-emptying chamber pot in a cupboard under the washbasin, which the Mark 3s and Mark 5s don't have. I suspect that many passengers weren't very happy about losing these facilities - especially the potty, but it was presumably considered unhygienic by the 1980s.

The chamber pot wouldn't have been compatible with the retention tanks on the Mark 3A Sleepers without some complex plumbing though. Loss of a handy storage area seems unfortunate though. However, I recall the Mark 3A cabins also had night lights?

 

[Tracked]

307's replacing 141/142/144's on the Doncaster-Leeds line, as well as the 321's replacing the 307's later on
Likewise, 308's in West Yorkshire, and the 333's that followed

 

[Ken H]

307's replacing 141/142/144's on the Doncaster-Leeds line, as well as the 321's replacing the 307's later on
Likewise, 308's in West Yorkshire, and the 333's that followed

I was commuting on the cross city line. The electrics were not much of a step up from the odds and ends of suburban DMUs IMHO. The step change were the 323's. I dId like it when i got a slam door electric during the phasing in of the 323's, but thats just me!

 

[nlogax]

442s for sure. Travelling London - Bournemouth in Mk1 stock was a rickety and loud affair. Once the new stock started getting mixed into the timetable I'd make a point of specifically waiting for it as opposed to jumping on the first set of knackered TCs+dual 73s that pulled in.

Smooth, fast and very, very quiet. A massive leap in quality and not before time.

 

[Tracked]

I was commuting on the cross city line. The electrics were not much of a step up from the odds and ends of suburban DMUs IMHO. The step change were the 323's. I dId like it when i got a slam door electric during the phasing in of the 323's, but thats just me!

Leeds didn't get 323's, they went from Pacers to 308's to 333's

 

[43096]

Leeds didn't get 323's, they went from Pacers to 308's to 333's

I think the reference to cross-city line is for Birmingham; although the reply was in response to one about West Yorkshire.

 

[Helvellyn]

Leeds didn't get 323's, they went from Pacers to 308's to 333's

Yes, but the poster was referring to the Cross-City line in Birmingham. That was operated with a mish-mash of first generation DMUs. When electrification happened the 323s weren't ready so a mix of 304s and 308s were used.

The delay in introducing the 323s also meant a mix of 304s/305s around Manchester. Refurbished 4-car 305s had been introduced for the new Airport service, whilst some non-gangwayed 3-car 305s were facelifted to augment the 304s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I was commuting on the cross city line. The electrics were not much of a step up from the odds and ends of suburban DMUs IMHO. The step change were the 323's. I dId like it when i got a slam door electric during the phasing in of the 323's, but thats just me!

Well no, but going from a (for example) 118 to a 304 or 308 is a less dramatic change than going from a 141 to a 307.

Not least because the 307s (and later the 308s) had a few rows of declassified first. The closest you got to comfort on a 141 were the single seats opposite the toilet!

 

[Taunton]

Latterly yes, certainly by the 1990s and early 2000s, but at least in the 1980s when I was a kid I can remember travelling on DMUs with the driver's blind up at least on the opposite side to the driver's seat.

In the 1960s-80s classic dmus always operated with the blinds open. It was a well-regarded feature which appeared quite widely in railway publicity. Some drivers pulled the one behind them down at night, others managed without doing so.

I believe there was an accident report with a significant Spad where the driver said x, but an enthusiast sat behind said y, which was what the signallers, the signal inspectors, and ultimately the inspector also went with. After that, certainly initially on the line in question, and then progressively spreading out, they were operated almost wholly closed off. And I believe it was agreed after this they would never be provided again on new stock.

 

[Graham H]

But that's not the same as it being a good idea done well. It got used as a universal bodyshell, but its claim to be one is distinctly dubious. A universal bodyshell should be one which is equally suitable for any of the uses it is put to, but the Mk3 was only properly suitable for the use which (apart from sleepers) it was probably put to least often of any - the first open trailer. A lot more of them were built as second open trailers for which they were not suitable, and then they got used as the basis for lots and lots of units on which they compelled an interior layout that was basically rotten.

Was the buffet version a separate bodyshell or just heavily modified as we had TRUB, TRUK and TRSB designations from memory As an aside, I did visit Litchurch Lane in the late 70's/early 80's (the Works Manager at the time knew my parents) and got a personal tour. One of the things the guide mentioned was that there was a plan/idea that once sufficient 1st class shells were in service they would go to a 9 window set up for second class. As these came on stream, 8 window body seating would be reconfigured as 1st...not sure how large a pinch of salt to take with that but it did seem logical if we were to keep to the tradition of actually having windows you could look out of aligned with seats. Given the massive variety of Mk1 styles with almost every conceivable combination of open, compartment, brake and class, having two types of Mk3 doesnt seem excessive in hindsight when first introduced.

Just to keep on track to the post, I used to travel from Bristol Parkway to Didcot for Uni and as the kitchen vehicle was laid out with 1st class seats but officially unclassified I used to enjoy the 1st class experience for the price of a slowly drunk cup of tea so for me that was a massive step up

 

[hexagon789]

Was the buffet version a separate bodyshell or just heavily modified as we had TRUB, TRUK and TRSB designations from memory

The prototype had TRUK and TRSB, these were initially the only catering vehicles. It was felt the WR sets had over provided for catering on such short journeys, so the TRUB (essentially a hybrid of TRUK and TRSB - with a full kitchen, buffet counter and 2+1 seating for dining) was developed.

Other WR sets had only TRSB fir a biffet service instead of a TRUB.

The ER retained the dual catering arrangement into 1984 on premier trains, mostly Anglo-Scottish or main business services, a small adjustment occurred in 1980 with the catering vehicles remarshalled together instead of the TRSB being admidships within the Second Class portion.

The second batch of ER/ScR sets had a TRUB from new, being mostly intended to allow the York semi-fasts to go HST as I understand.

After 1987, only the Tyne-Tees and Yorkshire Pullmans retained the two catering vehicle arrangement, in this case a TRFK and TRFB (the ER began upclassing such vehicles to First Class some years earlier).

The WR retained unclassified catering vehicles longer but by 1985 had begun installing First Class seats in some of its TRSB to create TRB and would then upclass its TRUBs as on the ER.

The remaining TRUKs were, along with all loco-hauled RUBs and some FOs, converted to loco-hauled RFMs.

 

[Ken H]

Was the buffet version a separate bodyshell or just heavily modified as we had TRUB, TRUK and TRSB designations from memory ...

They were all the same bodyshell, except some of the windows were not cut out.
They were heavily reliant on jigs in manufacturing. Retooling with new jigs would have been too expensive.

 

[43096]

The prototype had TRUK and TRSB, these were initially the only catering vehicles. It was felt the WR sets had over provided for catering on such short journeys, so the TRUB (essentially a hybrid of TRUK and TRSB - with a full kitchen, buffet counter and 2+1 seating for dining) was developed.

Other WR sets had only TRSB fir a biffet service instead of a TRUB.

The original plan was for all the WR sets to have two catering vehicles and there were 27 TRUKs ordered. Once the mistake was realised production was swiftly changed so the last 7 TRUKs appeared as TS vehicles.

The ER retained the dual catering arrangement into 1984 on premier trains, mostly Anglo-Scottish or main business services, a small adjustment occurred in 1980 with the catering vehicles remarshalled together instead of the TRSB being admidships within the Second Class portion.

The second batch of ER/ScR sets had a TRUB from new, being mostly intended to allow the York semi-fasts to go HST as I understand.

There were a further 32 TRUKs (on lot 30898) and 32 TRSBs (on lot 30899) ordered for the East Coast. Lot 30898 was cancelled in its entirety and 30899 was cut back to 10 vehicles. To balance things up, an additional 32 TS were constructed and the first 22 TRUBs were ordered. There was then a swap-round of vehicles to move all the TRUKs to the East Coast (for 254001-020) with 254021-032 getting TRUBs from new.

After 1987, only the Tyne-Tees and Yorkshire Pullmans retained the two catering vehicle arrangement, in this case a TRFK and TRFB (the ER began upclassing such vehicles to First Class some years earlier).

The WR retained unclassified catering vehicles longer but by 1985 had begun installing First Class seats in some of its TRSB to create TRB and would then upclass its TRUBs as on the ER.

The remaining TRUKs were, along with all loco-hauled RUBs and some FOs, converted to loco-hauled RFMs.

Only 12 of the TRUKs became LHCS RFMs. Three remained for the Pullman sets as stated (one was a spare), one became the executive saloon (later sold to Ireland) and four became Royal Train vehicles. Of the three retained for the Pullman sets, after a period in store two were converted to TF to replace vehicles written off at Southall and the other is now in the NMT.

 

[hexagon789]

The original plan was for all the WR sets to have two catering vehicles and there were 27 TRUKs ordered. Once the mistake was realised production was swiftly changed so the last 7 TRUKs appeared as TS vehicles.

Yes, I should've said the WR only had twin-catering sets for a brief period. From recollection, some entered service with two TRSBs as there weren't enough TRUKs at launch.

 

[Cambus731]

As has already been pointed out, the 365s were a huge improvement on the horrible zClass 317s between Cambridge and King's Cross.

These new trains on the GEML (Class 745s?) are a huge step up from the 321s.
I certainly won't miss the 321s at all.

 

[GS250]

442s for sure. Travelling London - Bournemouth in Mk1 stock was a rickety and loud affair. Once the new stock started getting mixed into the timetable I'd make a point of specifically waiting for it as opposed to jumping on the first set of knackered TCs+dual 73s that pulled in.

Smooth, fast and very, very quiet. A massive leap in quality and not before time.

Agreed. A big step up in overall quality.

Whilst many of us 'miss' the days of the Mk1 EMU's, the 442's gave the longer distance SW services a much classier feel. The AC on these units was usually pretty reliable too. Always nice to board at Weymouth on a baking hot summers day and step into that pleasantly cool environment. I thought the nicest touches on these units though, you probably all know where this is going, was the communal seating in the buffet car plus the side corridor first class seating. I believe this was the last time this was ever fitted into a UK train?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2022 ==

I really liked the Mk2f (and IC70 seats too...). Window spacing spot-on, good a/c, quiet environment.

With hindsight, the Mk3 tends to be viewed as the best all round carriage. However on introduction some were quite vocal that they weren't quite as good as the above. It didn't help of course, that the introduction of the HST's had the effect of a rise in passenger numbers thus overcrowding became a real problem.

 

[Helvellyn]

Whilst many of us 'miss' the days of the Mk1 EMU's, the 442's gave the longer distance SW services a much classier feel. The AC on these units was usually pretty reliable too. Always nice to board at Weymouth on a baking hot summers day and step into that pleasantly cool environment. I thought the nicest touches on these units though, you probably all know where this is going, was the communal seating in the buffet car plus the side corridor first class seating. I believe this was the last time this was ever fitted into a UK train?

And the snug wasn't even part of the original design. When it was found that there was over-provision of parcels space (there were two vans either side of the Guard's compartment) the one between the Guard's compartment and Buffet was converted to the snug. Possibly fortunate the later SWT style conversion of the other van space wasn't done instead to increase the normal seating accommodation.

 

[GS250]

A sweeping generalisation here, so obviously not true everywhere, is that previously "local" trains were uncomfortable while "Inter-City" and longer distance trains were comfortable, and that from the 90s onwards, we ended up with a more consistent level of comfort, in between these 2 extremes.

So the 465s and 165s are a major step up from the earlier EPBs and heritage DMUs, but the 166s weren't a step up from the loco hauled stock.

Similarly the Turbostars are a step up in comfort if they replaced older DMUs but a step down in comfort if they replaced HST operated services (as with MML).

The 350s were a big step up on the 321s previously used on the WCML slow services, but the 390s to me on the WCML Inter-City services are a step down in comfort on the loco hauled stock.

Yes this is well very said. I seem to recall an article in Modern Railways (Roger Ford maybe) where BR's apparent tactic of 'Sprinters for everything' was being questioned in the early 1990s.

Completely agree, the like of the Chiltern Line saw (overall) a huge upgrade when the 165's turned up to replace the 115's. If there was to be any criticism....it was that there simply wasn't enough capacity provided no matter how much more space efficient the newer trains were.

I think the majority of negative views on the newer intercity trains relate to the often uncomfortable seating that is provided. If the likes of the IET had similar seats to the new longer distance Anglia sets I think they would have been seen as a general upgrade on the HST.

 

[Pigeon]

I believe there was an accident report with a significant Spad where the driver said x, but an enthusiast sat behind said y, which was what the signallers, the signal inspectors, and ultimately the inspector also went with. After that, certainly initially on the line in question, and then progressively spreading out, they were operated almost wholly closed off. And I believe it was agreed after this they would never be provided again on new stock.

Marylebone line? That was kind of notorious for always having the blinds down for years when everywhere else used to have them up. I heard it was something to do with the use passengers made of the facility but I thought it was idiots monkeying about and distracting the driver.

 

[Taunton]

Marylebone line? That was kind of notorious for always having the blinds down for years when everywhere else used to have them up. I heard it was something to do with the use passengers made of the facility but I thought it was idiots monkeying about and distracting the driver.

Correct. I believe the accident was somewhere round Beaconsfield.

 

[Beebman]

Marylebone line? That was kind of notorious for always having the blinds down for years when everywhere else used to have them up. I heard it was something to do with the use passengers made of the facility but I thought it was idiots monkeying about and distracting the driver.

I never had a forward view on the Marylebone line but on my local route into Paddington it was rare for the blinds to be down, the worst issue being when very occasionally a Class 121 single unit was at the front with the brake end leading. The North Downs line was also good for forward views but the Class 119s of course only had 2nd class at one end. On one Sunday in the mid-80s services were being diverted via Virginia Water (reverse) and Woking to Guildford and I had an unusual forward view along the Waterloo line as far as Virginia Water, then a rearward one to Guildford.

My final forward view on the WR came after almost all services had been taken over by Turbos, I happened to find myself on a (by then) rare 117 for my very last time on a stopper to my local station Twyford. The next time I rode on 117s was a few years later in the Edinburgh area but all blinds were down then. (In the late 80s I'd had a very memorable forward view on a 107 from Waverley to Stirling with many semaphores to be seen on the latter part of the journey.)

 

[GS250]

Marylebone line? That was kind of notorious for always having the blinds down for years when everywhere else used to have them up. I heard it was something to do with the use passengers made of the facility but I thought it was idiots monkeying about and distracting the driver.

Just my recollection. The blinds were often down at weekends or during school holidays. During the peak hour workings especially, there stood a moderate chance of screens being up. There was an up working that left Harrow on the Hill at around 0830 that was usually blinds up. Quite often, if the blinds were up at Marylebone...the driver would lower them on boarding. Again, from memory so stand to be corrected.

The class 310's though on the WCML....were usually up affording a great view.