Door positions, "InterCity feel" etc

[RobShipway]

I think the proposal was single-leaf end doors in 1st, and double-leaf doors at thirds in Standard, not different mechanisms. I can see the sense in that, indeed I'm almost certain I've actually seen that somewhere outside the UK, though it might just have been a DB scratch-set where the second class coaches were Silberling vehicles and the 1st was an old ex-IC compartment coach. Having said that, I find 1st nicer in smaller, less noisy compartments*, so maybe you'd want to keep them at thirds and just make them single-leaf.

That was my thought indeed.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Space for standees is similarly limited.

And that, to a large extent, is the point. In my view; regional, regional express and InterCity trains simply should not be designed with large amounts of standing in mind. Expecting passengers to stand is something that really should be avoided if at all possible - I can understand that if you have very 'peaky' loadings on trains which are stopping every 5 minutes then it isn't going to be practical to seat everyone at rush hour given that many of them would probably only be standing for a few minutes. But, where the busiest, peakiest, stations on a service are well over 10 minutes apart (as with most regional expresses - for example the TfW services from Birmingham should really be non-stop to Wolverhampton and presumably only call at SAD because of a lack of paths on the Birmingham-Wolverhamton line preventing all the stops being put in the WMT stoppers.

Simple matter is if you have big vestibules at 1/3ds on a long distance trip where people don't stand, you're wasting space for absolutely no good reason

Exactly my point.

Sure, you lose a few seats to wider intermediate doors (but no more than 2 rows or so per coach).

It feels like you lose a whole lot more than that. It's not just seats that are competing for that space but also toilets, legroom, table seating (a bay of 4 seats of course normally takes slightly more space than two 'airline-style' rows), luggage stacks, bicycle spaces etc. which are useful for a much larger percentage of a passenger's journey than just the station dwells.

But I think all rolling stock needs wide doors for rapid loading and unloading given the comparatively short journeys and high intensity in British rail operations.

I think what's fairly important is keeping the walk to access a door to a minimum.

I think the question here is what is more useful - reducing the walk to a door or having wider doors? Most British stock has two doors per side on each carriage, either narrow doors at vehicle ends xor wide doors at thirds/quarters, although there are exceptions. Narrow doors at quarters would reduce the distance to the nearest door, while reducing to one door per side could allow that to be a wide door without the loss of furnishable space.

3) “The toilets are in the saloon” - Can’t honestly see the problem with this one however if it actually was a real life problem then design coaches with the toilets at the end of the saloon as now but make them opposite each other as per the as built mk3 EMU stock (317 etc). Then nobody has to sit opposite it. With a sliding door blocking it off it would be no different to current end door stock. The disabled areas seem to work just fine and they generally have the added bonus of plentiful flip down seating.

It's actually (at least) two problems; I've not actually encounted the obvious one (it's not very pleasant sitting next to a toilet with smells etc.) that much (probably because most units with a suburban bodyshell have fewer than 1 toilet per carriage, so the chance of being sat near the toilet is actually quite low). The other problem I'd not actually thought of, and was raised by my grandmother, and is one of privacy. She told me she wouldn't be happy going into the toilet on something like a 170, in full view of other passengers.

I'm not familar with the class 317s so I've probably not understood your suggested 'solution' correctly, but are you suggesting two toilet cubicles per carriage, both at the same end of the coach? If so, you would potentially solve both those problems but create a new one of wasted space.

4) “They don’t feel Intercity” - Well I think this is purely a nostalgic rail enthusiast POV (and the ‘family/friends’ who always seem to agree with them even though we’ll never be able to question them on whether they really actually care, or if they even exist half the time).

I'm not sure if I would say there is such a thing as an 'InterCity' feel - it's more a question of 'do I feel comfortable sitting here for several hours' which applies just as much to a long regional journey (such as the Heart Of Wales Line, which I doubt anyone would describe as an InterCity service) as 'The Flying Scotsman' (or any other fast London-Edinburgh service). Most of that is physical comfort, the seats being a major factor - all the recent seats I've tried are too hard and just not cosy enough, which ties up with some of what Bletchleyite is saying here:

What gives InterCity feel to me is more:

• A reasonable proportion of table bays with full size tables
• 2+2 in Standard with armrests
• High quality lighting (ideally subdued indirect general lighting and LED spots down the aisle, and individual reading lights for each seat)
• Good quality seats with winged type headrests
• Not packing seats in excessively
• Good luggage provision

2) “It’s freezing cold in winter when the external doors open”

It's not just winter - depending on the weather it can be fairly cold in the early morning and late at night for most, if not all, of the year. A cold draught can also be a negative factor to physical comfort but there might also be something else, a little more subjective, going on with a 'disturbed ambiance' from comings and goings on stock with doors-at-thirds/quarters.

The 185 first class section, hidden behind vestibule doors, very much has an “intercity” feel. So doors at quarters or thirds can work and still be comfortable enough.

I don't think I've ever been in the first class section of a class 185, but I think the fact that it has internal vestibule doors while standard doesn't is telling - someone obviously thought internal vestibule doors improve the quality and/or comfort of an interior.

Certainly for me if I'm making a longer journey the seats themselves (and whether there's enough of them) is far more important than where the doors are.

Agreed. Ironically, for all the complaining I have done about other aspects of train design, it is the seats (and possibly my expectations of comfort have risen during my enforced absense from train travel during COVID restrictions) that have pushed me away from long rail journeys. However, seats can be changed with a refurbishment, bodyshells are almost always fixed for the life of a train.

But it is interesting that nowhere else in the world has high-speed intercity stock with doors at thirds or quarters. They all have end doors, even the Shinkansen with its 30-second dwell times. If it was more efficient or better one would expect it to have been done somewhere else in the world.

Similarly, if the wide-doors-at-thirds/quarters arrangement was optimal in all cases, why did the 'Super Sprinters' (class 155/156) and 'Express Sprinters' (class 158) not follow the class 150 layout? Clearly, there are pros and cons with each bodyshell layout and the best compromise for some services will differ from that for other services.

One (relatively minor) issue with doors at thirds or quarters is the increased gap at curved platforms. IIRC this is one of the reasons 150s aren't suitable for the Durham Coast line. Presumably other mid-doored stock would have the same problem.

As has already been said, end-doors also have an issue with curved platforms. Presumably, the only way for the gap to be consistent at every curved platform would be for the doors to be positioned directly above the bogies.

 

[Topological]

I always presumed the doors on first on the 185 were because it was first and needed separating from the standard seats. The door at the other end then separates first from the accessible toilet and wheelchair area (tip up seats). It makes sense and can be done with doors at 3rds and a first class section that fills the gap between doors.

There are few Intercity routes in the UK, certainly more services play the role of many local journeys joined together. Carmarthen to Manchester is not Intercity but provides many more opportunities for through travel than separate local trains around Cardiff and Manchester plus a true Intercity would offer.

Manchester to Wilmslow needs space for standing (as does the Cardiff section during peaks / peak going drinking time). Since these happen daily then aside from adding more carriages a train which can soak up those flows makes sense. For the quieter sections of the line there are enough seats on 3 carriage trains irrespective of where the doors are.

 

[Meerkat]

End doors are much better for longer distances - the 444s and 159s are much nicer than the 450s (I’m a massive 444 fan with all the space and big windows).
Doors at thirds bring in the cold/wind/heat and noise of station stops. Putting doors on them loses the big saloon ambience , restricts views, and creates more disturbance as people move along the train.