Draft IEP Train Layouts

[swt_passenger]

Yes, it's a draft, but why on earth would you think that someone would then decide to add lots of disabled toilets, when it is pretty much universally recognised that putting so many in Voyagers was a mistake? A mistake that was not made when the Meridians followed the Voyagers down the production line and was not repeated in Virgin's own Pendolinos.

Those were my thoughts as well - firstly, if they were not planning on having conventional toilets they wouldn't be included in the draft, but your other point is also very reasonable. AFAICS nearly every class of train brought into use since the Voyagers (where mutiple toilets are fitted) does have a mix of ordinary and universal compartments, and it has been fairly well reported that the Voyager design was a one off mistake. There was little need for the question really, the lack of any precedent for 'all universal' has been demonstrated since by the train builders.

I know what the DfT announcement said, I know there is some room for flexibility in the GW ITT, but why bother, a month after stating the official position to be five-car and nine-car formations, putting up a drawing for an eight-car train? It could just be a mistake by someone, but given that the drawing was revised as recently as April, it suggests the abandonment of this version was at the very last moment. And it is marked "eight car electric and bi-mode".

There's probably something in the 'very late change' explanation. The decision to have 9 cars on the GW wasn't really expected was it - and only appeared late just after the IEP contract was confirmed, the GW consultation that was doing the rounds earlier was still all about 8 car variants.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Think you'll find with a low window line that the overhead racks will actually take some pretty hefty pieces of luggage. Note the space between the racks and roof in this Class 395 interior http://www.geolocation.ws/v/W/File:Ebbsfleet International railway station MMB 01 395018.jpg/-/en

Except of course a design like that assumes someone is able to lift their piece of luggage that high.

 

[LexyBoy]

Looks alright as far as can be seen from the plans. I too would be a little worried about luggage, but it's hard to tell at this stage (I'm concerned that they'll be like Pendo luggage racks - designs plonked in seemingly as an afterthought, rather than trying to best use the space available, and cunningly designed so as to be a few cm smaller than an average sized bag). The seating looks good to me too - a nice increase in the number of standard class tables compared to FGW HSTs (of course the operator can easily change the specs).

I do hope that a buffet of some sort appears. A trolley is fine on a 158 but just no good on a longer train. If I want a cuppa, I want to be able to go and get it rather than waiting to see when or if a trolley will pass me. Plus of course a trolley doesn't have boiling water so can't make anything worthy of being called tea anyway.

I suppose the trains are still planned to have sliding doors? I know it doesn't affect the journey but looks do matter - although if it's going to have Firstgroup branding it'll look awful anyway

All exciting stuff anyway! I get to look at the new depot coming together at Reading every day and wonder how it'll look with new trains in it.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Would it not be more logical to have all the table seating in the middle of the carriages and all the airline seating between the table seats and the carriage ends, facing inwards to the middle of the carriage? Could probably get at least four and possibly eight more seats in each carriage that way?

It would have a more uniform appearance as well.

What's this about "low window line". They aren't doing a 390 on us are they? Letterboxes for windows?

 

[LexyBoy]

What's this about "low window line". They aren't doing a 390 on us are they? Letterboxes for windows?

Don't worry, they'll have really high backed seats too so you won't be able to see the windows

I wondered about this too. I can't see why they would be though, the 395s have good sized windows and the body won't be tilt-profile so there's plenty of "side" to accomodate windows (as well as overhead racks you can fit things into as noted by someone else above).

 

[bronzeonion]

I also noticed that window/seat alignment doesn't look great but otherwise looks pretty good!

 

[sprinterguy]

I was wondering if the "e" in the MeS and MeC coach designation stood for engine. If that were the case it looks like the 9 car would end up with 5 engines, 4 engines in the 8 car and 3 engines in the 5 car. The MeS car next to the DPTS looks like the car that will permenently have an engine as all the other cars with an e can be MeS/MS and MeC/MC. Does that sound right?

Yes, that is exactly right.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Don't worry, they'll have really high backed seats too so you won't be able to see the windows

I wondered about this too. I can't see why they would be though, the 395s have good sized windows and the body won't be tilt-profile so there's plenty of "side" to accomodate windows (as well as overhead racks you can fit things into as noted by someone else above).

If they're like the 395s they'll be pretty good.

If they have FGW height seats, I'm going to have to buy a six to eight inch thick cushion to carry around with me - I like seeing down the full length of a carriage; it increases the perception of speed.

 

[vtiman]

Except of course a design like that assumes someone is able to lift their piece of luggage that high.

yes not to mention the consequences of all that luggage falling on peoples heads !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't worry, they'll have really high backed seats too so you won't be able to see the windows

I wondered about this too. I can't see why they would be though, the 395s have good sized windows and the body won't be tilt-profile so there's plenty of "side" to accomodate windows (as well as overhead racks you can fit things into as noted by someone else above).

you could always leave the luggage on the seat rather then pulling your back lifting it and then you could sit on top of the luggage thereby being able to see over the seatbacks to the windows beyond. problem solved !

 

[swt_passenger]

yes not to mention the consequences of all that luggage falling on peoples heads !

Back in the day, overhead racks were generally the main option. I don't think it was ever a significant problem, and in my experience passengers certainly didn't generally use the facilites of the guards van, even on long distance intercity trains.

The problem with any luggage space on a train nowadays is that people bring totally inappropriate luggage on board with them. Roll on the day when the railway starts imposing sensible restrictions on luggage size.

 

[LexyBoy]

Roll on the day when the railway starts imposing sensible restrictions on luggage size.

I'm sure that would do wonders for airport passengers. And those going on holiday for more than a weekend. And festivalgoers.

Speaking of which, I was pleased recently when the driver of our ATW train took the pragmatic approach to large items of luggage carried by hordes of people going to a music festival - stick them in the cab!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Roll on the day when the railway starts imposing sensible restrictions on luggage size.

And deprive the railway of revenue? That really makes sense!

 

[Stats]

What do you call sensible? There are luggage restrictions in the NRCoC. Do you not think these are sensible?

 

[Furrball]

The lack of 1+1 bays seems strange - why bother travelling 1st class with a partner if you have to share the space with other people - given the lack of additional services in 1st wou may as well travel standard!

 

[Yew]

It would have too low seating capacity with 1+1. However maybe 1+1+1 could work? but would it be better? or even some sideways tables?

 

[ainsworth74]

It perhaps worth outlining what the provisions are for luggage in the NRCoC, as per condition 47:

You may take a single item of hand luggage that must be capable of being held in your lap if required, plus up to 2 items of luggage each not exceeding 30 x 70 x 90 cm in size. Unless you are disabled or have reduced mobility and have made arrangements in advance for assistance, you should be able to manage your luggage without additional help. Luggage is carried subject to sufficient space being available in the train service you wish to use.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I suppose the trains are still planned to have sliding doors? I know it doesn't affect the journey but looks do matter - although if it's going to have Firstgroup branding it'll look awful anyway

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on this point. Customers who are non rail enthusiasts really couldn't careless what the train looks like as long as it’s reliable and they can get a seat!

 

[Furrball]

The lack of 1+1 bays seems strange - why bother travelling 1st class with a partner if you have to share the space with other people - given the lack of additional services in 1st wou may as well travel standard!

Apologies, I was referring to bays on the "1" side - i.e. a table for two rather than 1+1 seating - 2+1 is fine but the "1" side needs to cater for all needs so a 50/50 split would seem more logical?

 

[Failed Unit]

I thought that the TOCs specified the train layout, look at the HSTs or the turbo / electro stars and each TOC has a slightly different configuration and amount of baggage space. East Coast Edinburgh - London route has a different requirement than FGW Bristol - London route.

 

[jimm]

I thought that the TOCs specified the train layout, look at the HSTs or the turbo / electro stars and each TOC has a slightly different configuration and amount of baggage space. East Coast Edinburgh - London route has a different requirement than FGW Bristol - London route.

as noted back up the thread, the layouts are described as drafts and the GW franchise paperwork clearly says the operator will be involved in the final designs - a higher-density version of the five-car, for routes with lots of commuting such as Oxford/Cotswolds to London, seems a near-certainty, for example.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It would have too low seating capacity with 1+1. However maybe 1+1+1 could work? but would it be better? or even some sideways tables?

Wouldn't the aisles be a bit narrow with 1+1+1 seating?

As for sideways seating.... No thank you; it is TfL who like to make their passengers travel like crabs. We don't want that spreading onto the main line as well!

 

[Failed Unit]

as noted back up the thread, the layouts are described as drafts and the GW franchise paperwork clearly says the operator will be involved in the final designs - a higher-density version of the five-car, for routes with lots of commuting such as Oxford/Cotswolds to London, seems a near-certainty, for example.

I have noticed in standard class on commutor trains it tends to be the airline seats that get taken before the table. Likewise in 1st it tends to be the individaul seats that are taken first with couples prefering to take the seats around the tables of 2. Again the tables of 4 seem to be the last to go.

I think the layout will work as long as the reservation systems do what is asked of them. The amount of time I have asked for an individaul seat and had it refuse, got dumped on a table of 4 only to find the individaul seats empty and unreserved, the solution is simple however, just move.