Bombardier EDMU

[junglejames]

The point was that Bombardier as a manufacturer are dire. And the small windows are necessary as per the design. Do some reading and you'll see why.

Bad design then, because others dont need them.
Perhaps Bombardier are bad. That surely has a lot to do with the company more than the country the trains are built in though. The companies attitude probably seeped through to the staff.
I still rate the 170s though. Comfortable, and pleasant.

If it came to a toss up between chinese built (yes i know the majority wouldnt be) and British built though, i know which id trust more.

This is the case with anything. Trains, cars, laptops. Absolutely anything.

 

[Pumbaa]

Bad design then, because others dont need them.

Like I said, do some reading and you'll understand why. It's basically a combination of a) smaller loading gauge here in UK, b) high level of tilt (8 degrees instead of the usual 6 degress), c) higher standards of crashworthiness to be met than when earlier Pendolino trains were built.

This results in a smaller more rounded body than other designs to meet all three of those, with vertical internal supports positioned equally to hold the body together and make it safe and crumple free. The windows slot perfectly in between these and a horizontal support that along the top of the windows.

It's been done to death already so thats a very sketchy outline. But there's the reason and regardless of who built them (and in which country!) the windows would be the size they are.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That'd be irrelevant.

Firstly, the precious Mark Threes couldn't match 390 times (esp when it comes to tilting), so asking "which is prettier" doesn't resolve things. Asking "would you be prepared to spend an additional twenty minutes on each journey if it meant you had a better view out of the window" would be more honest.

Secondly, you couldn't build more Mark Threes today. Simple as that. Whatever your opinion of legislation, the fact is that Mark Threes wouldn't meet 2010 standards for new-build stock, so its not like we could build more of them even if we wanted (and people were prepared to put up with longer journey times).

I appreciate that a lot of enthusiasts think the Mark Three coach is the gold standard. However, we can't build any more (because they don't meet safety regs) and the ones we have couldn't keep to existing timings, so the whole thing would be a non-starter, sorry.

You've missed the point completely I'm afraid; the excercise would be - as Kingfisher pointed out - to establish which ambience the general public would prefer and then work that into future designs.

It is totally irrelevant whether or not new Mk3s could be built; the questioning would be about how the design differences appeal to people.

Similarly, one must ignore the journey time differences in order to get unbiased answers to the questions on ambience. Market research only produces viable results if the questions that are asked are totally unbiased and do not lead in any way at all.

Example: If you parked a Pullman carriage next to a 142 and told people that the Pullman would take 9 hours to go from London to Scotland but the 142 would take 6 hours and asked them which one they would prefer, you would get far more people preferring the 142 than the Pullman because the journey time aspect will bias the answers.



And there is absolutely no technical reason why you could not build a carriage with larger windows to 140mph standards - it just costs a fair bit more; that's why they don't do it...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Bad design then, because others dont need them.
Perhaps Bombardier are bad. That surely has a lot to do with the company more than the country the trains are built in though. The companies attitude probably seeped through to the staff.
I still rate the 170s though. Comfortable, and pleasant.

If it came to a toss up between chinese built (yes i know the majority wouldnt be) and British built though, i know which id trust more.

This is the case with anything. Trains, cars, laptops. Absolutely anything.

I don't make my choice of laptop or anything on the basis of where it's built. Most electronics now are built or assembled in China/Taiwan anyway. My Macbook Pro, whilst from an American company was built in China.

 

[tbtc]

You've missed the point completely I'm afraid; the excercise would be - as Kingfisher pointed out - to establish which ambience the general public would prefer and then work that into future designs.

It is totally irrelevant whether or not new Mk3s could be built; the questioning would be about how the design differences appeal to people.

Similarly, one must ignore the journey time differences in order to get unbiased answers to the questions on ambience. Market research only produces viable results if the questions that are asked are totally unbiased and do not lead in any way at all.

Example: If you parked a Pullman carriage next to a 142 and told people that the Pullman would take 9 hours to go from London to Scotland but the 142 would take 6 hours and asked them which one they would prefer, you would get far more people preferring the 142 than the Pullman because the journey time aspect will bias the answers.



And there is absolutely no technical reason why you could not build a carriage with larger windows to 140mph standards - it just costs a fair bit more; that's why they don't do it...

...but since you can't build Mark Threes today, it'd be giving a false impression. You'd be better showing them a Pendolino vs a 125/140 capable design (including tilt) from another country with larger windows.

Of course if you give people the choice of "bigger windows or smaller windows" they are going to chose the bigger ones - I'd prefer a view myself - but it'd be more honest to show a design for what is possible for newbuild stock (rather than show passengers something which couldn't be built today for Virgin's WCML services)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

...but since you can't build Mark Threes today, it'd be giving a false impression. You'd be better showing them a Pendolino vs a 125/140 capable design (including tilt) from another country with larger windows.

OK... let's park a 395 next to the 390. That's 140mph stock with proper sized windows.

 

[tbtc]

OK... let's park a 395 next to the 390. That's 140mph stock with proper sized windows.

Yeah, that's a fair comparison (tilt aside) - a much more realistic choice for future stock, fair enough

 

[MCR247]

Are you talking about for comparison, or to see which passengers prefer for future design?

 

[starrymarkb]

Like I said, do some reading and you'll understand why. It's basically a combination of a) smaller loading gauge here in UK, b) high level of tilt (8 degrees instead of the usual 6 degress), c) higher standards of crashworthiness to be met than when earlier Pendolino trains were built.

This results in a smaller more rounded body than other designs to meet all three of those, with vertical internal supports positioned equally to hold the body together and make it safe and crumple free. The windows slot perfectly in between these and a horizontal support that along the top of the windows.

It's been done to death already so thats a very sketchy outline. But there's the reason and regardless of who built them (and in which country!) the windows would be the size they are.

Indeed, the Pendo's structure is very lightweight for its strength. I think Roger Ford Calculated that a 26m coach based on the pendo structure would be lighter per seat then a MK3!

 

[junglejames]

...but since you can't build Mark Threes today, it'd be giving a false impression. You'd be better showing them a Pendolino vs a 125/140 capable design (including tilt) from another country with larger windows.

Of course if you give people the choice of "bigger windows or smaller windows" they are going to chose the bigger ones - I'd prefer a view myself - but it'd be more honest to show a design for what is possible for newbuild stock (rather than show passengers something which couldn't be built today for Virgin's WCML services)

Of course you can build a coach in the style of a Mk3. That is very easy.
Youve agreed to forgo tilt for the 395s, so we shall have a brand new coach in the style of a Mk3, complying with modern regs. Same size windows, very similar design and layout inside. Plus they are already 125mph enabled.

As for the small windows being done to death on here. Yes, ive seen where its been done to death. A couple of people claiming its to comply with regs (without proving it) and everybody else coming up with reasons why this is unlikely the case.
I shall see what i find though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah, that's a fair comparison (tilt aside) - a much more realistic choice for future stock, fair enough

Thats only a fair comparison because you know which will win. The pendo, because the 395s are p*ss poor inside.

 

[Geezertronic]

Problem is without tilt, any stock no matter what make they were would only be allowed to do 110mph on the WCML so building extra non tilting stock for the WCML (or using 395s for example) would be pointless anyway.

 

[j0hn0]

Problem is without tilt, any stock no matter what make they were would only be allowed to do 110mph on the WCML so building extra non tilting stock for the WCML (or using 395s for example) would be pointless anyway.

well, couldn't we use mk4s then?

Designed with tilt in mind I believe, does anyone find these coaches cramped?

Also, with 395's, the windows are still small, just in length and not in height. As with all japanese trains, smaller windows means you can have airline seating where everyone gets a view

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Problem is without tilt, any stock no matter what make they were would only be allowed to do 110mph on the WCML so building extra non tilting stock for the WCML (or using 395s for example) would be pointless anyway.

I understand hat this is a myth, which is being challenged, even within Network Rail. There is no logic whatsoever for there to be a blanket ban on 125 mph running without tilt throughout all the WCML. There are only a small number of curves, where differential speed limits could easily be introduced for tilting and non-tilting stock.

If the acceleration profile of the non-tilting stock were good enough, they should be able to keep to 390 timings, even accounting for the reduction in speed through these curves.

 

[Failed Unit]

I also find it odd that places like the trent valley where some of the curves are not that severe dont allow 125mph running for all trains.

 

[tbtc]

Of course you can build a coach in the style of a Mk3. That is very easy.
Youve agreed to forgo tilt for the 395s, so we shall have a brand new coach in the style of a Mk3, complying with modern regs. Same size windows, very similar design and layout inside

The Mark Threes were 1970s technology, you need to get over this.

You could build new stock today with bigger windows (especially if it doesn't need to tilt), but you'd still get enthusiasts complaining that it wasn't a Mark Three...

 

[LouJ]

out of interest, anyone know how well the Bombardier EDMUs they designed for French regional trains are running?

These Bi-mode units had initial problems and started as very unreliable sets. However they seem fine now. Performance is fine under the wires but not so good under diesel power with acceleration slow. However because of French Railway's electrification policies the lines where diesel power is used are virtually all of a secondary nature where speed is probably of less importance.

Should St pancras electrification be completed and Bi-modes were used to Sheffield via Derby then I suspect the sectio north of DErby would see a significant increase in journey times.

 

[Daimler]

The Mark Threes were 1970s technology, you need to get over this.

You could build new stock today with bigger windows (especially if it doesn't need to tilt), but you'd still get enthusiasts complaining that it wasn't a Mark Three...

I find it somewhat tiresome, as someone who has contributed a fair few times to the 'Pendo vitriol' in these forums, that it is imagined that because I do so I am some kind of backward and antiquated 'enthusiast'. I am entirely prepared to accept that these trains have allowed the West Coast route to enjoy hitherto unimagined levels of service frequency and (albeit moderate) reductions in journey times. However, I maintain that they are unpleasant and uncomfortable to travel on, especially when - as is quite natural with any change in service - compared with what came before. That's all - just because they're faster doesn't mean that they're lovely to travel on. Sure, it might mean more people are prepared to travel (and that is unquestionably a good thing!), but it doesn't mean they'll enjoy the time spent on the train any more.

If I were offered offered another unit (there are plenty about - even in this country!) on the West Coast route that offered a more pleasant ambience, I would be entirely happy - it's got nothing to do with whether or not the trains are old.

 

[tbtc]

I find it somewhat tiresome, as someone who has contributed a fair few times to the 'Pendo vitriol' in these forums, that it is imagined that because I do so I am some kind of backward and antiquated 'enthusiast'. I am entirely prepared to accept that these trains have allowed the West Coast route to enjoy hitherto unimagined levels of service frequency and (albeit moderate) reductions in journey times. However, I maintain that they are unpleasant and uncomfortable to travel on, especially when - as is quite natural with any change in service - compared with what came before. That's all - just because they're faster doesn't mean that they're lovely to travel on. Sure, it might mean more people are prepared to travel (and that is unquestionably a good thing!), but it doesn't mean they'll enjoy the time spent on the train any more.

If I were offered offered another unit (there are plenty about - even in this country!) on the West Coast route that offered a more pleasant ambience, I would be entirely happy - it's got nothing to do with whether or not the trains are old.

To be honest, I'd prefer a Mk3 to a 390, as far as the interiors go. I'd rather have a window than no window. BUT, I'm trying to explain that we can't build more Mark Three coaches (1970s technology wouldn't meet today's standards).

If we are going to replace 390s (at some stage in the future) then we need to be honest about the choices available. There could be bigger windows on new stock, but possibly at the cost of a slower journey. Would people swap a bigger window for a slower journey? I honestly don't know, and I won't pretend I do.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Are you talking about for comparison, or to see which passengers prefer for future design?

It's to make the point to the designers that people like to be able to see out.

Designed with tilt in mind I believe, does anyone find these coaches cramped?

No - they are very spacious although I found them a lot more comfortable with the original "tombstone" seating design. Don't like the zigzag aisle in first class though. Very untidy looking feature.

Also, with 395's, the windows are still small, just in length and not in height. As with all japanese trains, smaller windows means you can have airline seating where everyone gets a view

I think the pillars are a bit narrower than on the 390s; not actually measured them though - but I would say this is the way to go; taller but shorter windows. And it would be nice to have the windows extend downwards a bit more as well, like on the Mk1 stock - it is very relaxing having the ground zoom past in your lower fied of view.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

To be honest, I'd prefer a Mk3 to a 390, as far as the interiors go. I'd rather have a window than no window. BUT, I'm trying to explain that we can't build more Mark Three coaches (1970s technology wouldn't meet today's standards).

If we are going to replace 390s (at some stage in the future) then we need to be honest about the choices available. There could be bigger windows on new stock, but possibly at the cost of a slower journey. Would people swap a bigger window for a slower journey? I honestly don't know, and I won't pretend I do.

There's no need for 1970s technology, but you can still have windows.

The Polaris (sorry to bleat on about this, but it's the only reference point that I know works, is structurally sound and will meet current UK standards) trailer car has large windows and is a viable option.

For those who haven't seen it, the vehicle layout is here. The only reason that there are three small windows at one end of the car rather than one large one is so that the same basic shell can be used for all vehicle configurations, with toilets, buffets, train manager's office and so on, with simply a different position for partitions being adopted.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That looks good - one comment about the seating layout; for passenger flow within the carriage wouldn't it be better to have the four face to face bays together in the middle of the carriage with the airline seats all facing inwards towards the centre?

Keeps the larger volume towards the doors and therefore slightly speed up the boarding / disembarking?

Or would that mess up the seat to window match?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

That looks good - one comment about the seating layout; for passenger flow within the carriage wouldn't it be better to have the four face to face bays together in the middle of the carriage with the airline seats all facing inwards towards the centre?

Keeps the larger volume towards the doors and therefore slightly speed up the boarding / disembarking?

Or would that mess up the seat to window match?

Thanks for the comment Peter, it's certainly worth considering. We decided to distribute the bay seating around the vehicle to give passengers more choice and to enable those that are not so mobile to reach a bay easily.

However, we welcome operators' comments and of course at the end of the day, the customer is always right, so if this is what is required, we will of course comply.

The seating system is designed to be easily reconfigured so if the operator decides the layout is not quite right at first fit, it can be amended easily.

 

[tbtc]

Since you are taking feedback on the Polaris, can I ask why the destination screen is so high at the middle of the coach? Where Virgin have it seems logical, as its available to check as you board at the doors (and at eye level).

Whilst it makes sense for buses to have screens high up in the centre of the vehicle (so you can see what is coming), any "destination screen" on a train would be better at the door. You may not read the screen until the train has come to a halt, then by the time you've checked whether its *your* train, you are standing on the platform in the middle of the carriage and find yourself at the back of the queue to board. Just a minor point.

 

[MCR247]

Also, the door push buttons are awfully high!

 

[Lampshade]

Since you are taking feedback on the Polaris, can I ask why the destination screen is so high at the middle of the coach? Where Virgin have it seems logical, as its available to check as you board at the doors (and at eye level).

Whilst it makes sense for buses to have screens high up in the centre of the vehicle (so you can see what is coming), any "destination screen" on a train would be better at the door. You may not read the screen until the train has come to a halt, then by the time you've checked whether its *your* train, you are standing on the platform in the middle of the carriage and find yourself at the back of the queue to board. Just a minor point.

It's like that on the Northern 323s, they're only really useful if it's actually in the platform, otherwise the one on the front/rear suffices. That is, of course, if the screens are working at all.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Since you are taking feedback on the Polaris, can I ask why the destination screen is so high at the middle of the coach? Where Virgin have it seems logical, as its available to check as you board at the doors (and at eye level).

Whilst it makes sense for buses to have screens high up in the centre of the vehicle (so you can see what is coming), any "destination screen" on a train would be better at the door. You may not read the screen until the train has come to a halt, then by the time you've checked whether its *your* train, you are standing on the platform in the middle of the carriage and find yourself at the back of the queue to board. Just a minor point.

I agree with you, again thanks for the very useful feedback. We'll review this and consider a change.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, the door push buttons are awfully high!

You may be right about this. When we do the human factors studies at the next stage of the design, this will become clearer and if they are considered to be too high, they will be adjusted.

In the next few weeks a video animation will be completed, showing passenger flows from platform, through vehicles to seat. This will prove to be a useful tool for evaluating ergonomics I think.

 

[junglejames]

The Mark Threes were 1970s technology, you need to get over this.

You could build new stock today with bigger windows (especially if it doesn't need to tilt), but you'd still get enthusiasts complaining that it wasn't a Mark Three...

I know when they were built. I have nothing to get over. What is your argument here though?
I said you could build a new coach in the style of the Mk3 (as they are so well liked), just with improved crashworthiness, and complying with current regs. You come back saying people will still complain. And? So what? You can still build it even if people do complain.

Do be honest, for comparison purposes, and just out of interest (ie it wouldnt make one bit of difference), it would be interesting to park a pendo and the loco hauled set up next to each other, and gauge peoples reactions. Purely out of interest though. We all know the Mk3s are not going to replace the pendos, so tilt and acceleration dont matter.
You could gauge everything from the style of seats, to the interior decor, to the overall layout etc. It would be interesting.
It could provide some insight as to what the general public would prefer for any new stock. Dont come back and say there is no point. Everything can provide an idea as to how things should look. Then if people prefer Mk3s, you do your best to incorporate that into a new design of coach, if we ever needed them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Changing subject a little. For the vestibule doors at the ends of the coaches, do people prefer the pressure sensor on the floor (like on the old BR stock), or the push buttons?
Also do people prefer normal paper reservations, or electronic reservations?

Me myself, i prefer floor sensors, and paper reservations, and its not because im an antiquated enthusiast! I do have reasons for it.

 

[YorkshireBear]

i prefer push buttons, dont like them opening annoyingly during overcrowding but much prefer paper reservations as they do not fail like XC's!!!!!!!!!

 

[Lampshade]

I prefer electronic reservations, the tickets can get discarded or removed by an opportunist seat thief.

 

[Crossforth]

I prefer electronic reservations, the tickets can get discarded or removed by an opportunist seat thief.

In theory though, the passenger who's seat it is has the seat numbers on their ticket and if the seat thief refuses to move, then the guard should be informed.

On the matter of my opinion though, I think both electronic and paper have their advantages.

I prefer floor sensors rather than buttons as you can continue walking if you have things such as luggage etc