GWR Class 800

[The Ham]

Something to mention about the 444s is that, being long distance commuter units, their luggage space is awful. Which is a problem given they serve holiday destinations and ferry ports

In which case the number of seats would need to fall from what I had calculated to provide luggage storage.

I only used the 444's as they would provide a high number of seats compared with a 390 or some other train with tapered end coaches. Even then the numbers are only close to what the 80x's can achieve with all the facilities which people would expect of a intercity train.

As such I would suggest that the 80x's are better in terms of using platform length than an mark 3 derived trian that you could care to mention.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You do not need to calculate seat numbers to do a like-for-like comparison. In fact, it does not give a like-for-like comparison as there are so many other variables eg seat pitch.

A mark 3 vehicle has 8 x 2.1M bays ie a furnishable length of 16.8 metres. An IEP vehicle has 9 bays. If the bay dimension is 2.0 metres, the furnishable length is 18 metres, ie an additional 1.2 metres. That amounts to 4 extra seats. 10 IEP vehicles would have a furnishable length of 180 metres, whereas 11 x 23 metre vehicles give 184.8, so that would be another 4.8 metres, equivalent to 16 seats.

However the 444's have smaller bays that you have quoted as the mark 3 figures above would provide 64 seats per coach whilst the 444's have an average of 74 seats per standard coach.

Therefore based on my above calculations using "your" mark 3 that would be a loss of 80 seats over what I provided before. That means that you would need at least one extra coach to get close to the capacity of the 80x's but with the need to have an extra 16m of platform length.

There is a reason that I used the 444's in my calculations, in that they are fairly tightly crammed in meaning that they are the best that you can get using mark 3 technology and even then they only just get close to what the 80x's can do.

 

[455driver]

As each coach has 2 doors per side, a train formed of 9x26m coaches will only have 18 doors available where as a train formed of 10x23m will have 20 doors meaning station dwell times will be quicker with the shorter coaches!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

As you know full well, the space is usable - it is being used for cycle and luggage space and toilets. Things that you would still need to provide if the doors were right at the corners of the coaches.



So what is your non-idiotic plan then? We're all ears...

>This raises another question. People are asked to keep their luggage with them at all times. How do they do that if the luggage space is at the vehicle ends? How do they even keep a check to make sure that it has not been stolen? You may recall the incident when a thief stole a case and discovered it had a bomb inside.

How is this security issue for luggage and cycles going to be addressed?

The best place for luggage is on the floor between seat backs. The bast place for cycles is in one place, preferably under staff supervision. The luggage/cycle designation of the space is very much an after-the-fact decision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As each coach has 2 doors per side, a train formed of 9x26m coaches will only have 18 doors available where as a train formed of 10x23m will have 20 doors meaning station dwell times will be quicker with the shorter coaches!

In theory but as you know, a lot of other factors are involved. People are slow at getting off class 455 at some of the platforms at Clapham Junction as there is a hell of a gap.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In which case the number of seats would need to fall from what I had calculated to provide luggage storage.

I only used the 444's as they would provide a high number of seats compared with a 390 or some other train with tapered end coaches. Even then the numbers are only close to what the 80x's can achieve with all the facilities which people would expect of a intercity train.

As such I would suggest that the 80x's are better in terms of using platform length than an mark 3 derived trian that you could care to mention.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


However the 444's have smaller bays that you have quoted as the mark 3 figures above would provide 64 seats per coach whilst the 444's have an average of 74 seats per standard coach.

Therefore based on my above calculations using "your" mark 3 that would be a loss of 80 seats over what I provided before. That means that you would need at least one extra coach to get close to the capacity of the 80x's but with the need to have an extra 16m of platform length.

There is a reason that I used the 444's in my calculations, in that they are fairly tightly crammed in meaning that they are the best that you can get using mark 3 technology and even then they only just get close to what the 80x's can do.

Do you have the actual figures for the 800?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A 23m end-door coach will have a maximum 'furnishable length' with little else other than a transverse vestibule and gangway stub. The class 800 layout has doors inset from the ends nearer the bogie pivot centres to give a more consistent train-platform interface. That's fine but: on 23m MKIII coaches, amenities required for longer distance services, e.g. (non-DDA) toilets and luggage/cycle storage will come out of this furnishable length. The 800 layout gives tapered space that can be used for these ancillary uses thereby releasing space within the furnishable area.
We are now beginning to see the two extremes of passenger train design come into service. The 26m class 800 style designs will be for long journeys where passengers are expected to carry luggage, stay seated for long periods and as a consequence, longer dwell times will need to be accommodated. The other extremes are the class 700s where the design is focused on maximum passenger capacity, where mot passengers will have minimum luggage, and effective provisions for passenger ingress and egress, so that dwell times can be kept to a minimum. Toilets are provided but every coach has a maximum usable length including the wide gangways which provide additional standing room.

The figure 16.8 metres for mark 3 furnishable length does not include the half-bays used for luggage space and standard toilets.

Standard class mark 3 originally had nine seating bays ie 72 seats with additional luggage space between seat backs. The International Coach had nine window bays which could be used to provide 72 seats in matching bays, in a 23 metre vehicle. The bays were between 1.9 and 2.0 metres ie a furnishable length of 17-18 metres.

How are passengers supposed to look after their cycles and luggage if they are stored at the vehicle ends? There are numerous cases of theft. In one case a thief discovered he had stolen an IRA bomb and confessed to the police.

 

[RobShipway]

>
How are passengers supposed to look after their cycles and luggage if they are stored at the vehicle ends? There are numerous cases of theft. In one case a thief discovered he had stolen an IRA bomb and confessed to the police.

Well I hope as in the class 444's that there is going to be the ability for cyclist to paddlock their bikes as they would if they where leaving theor cycles in any cycles holders anywhere else.

 

[samuelmorris]

Just one quick point on this, the sort of luggage that goes in floor racks on inter city services does not fit behind the back of the seat in front of you!

 

[jimm]

>This raises another question. People are asked to keep their luggage with them at all times. How do they do that if the luggage space is at the vehicle ends? How do they even keep a check to make sure that it has not been stolen? You may recall the incident when a thief stole a case and discovered it had a bomb inside.

How is this security issue for luggage and cycles going to be addressed?

The best place for luggage is on the floor between seat backs. The bast place for cycles is in one place, preferably under staff supervision. The luggage/cycle designation of the space is very much an after-the-fact decision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In theory but as you know, a lot of other factors are involved. People are slow at getting off class 455 at some of the platforms at Clapham Junction as there is a hell of a gap.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do you have the actual figures for the 800?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The figure 16.8 metres for mark 3 furnishable length does not include the half-bays used for luggage space and standard toilets.

Standard class mark 3 originally had nine seating bays ie 72 seats with additional luggage space between seat backs. The International Coach had nine window bays which could be used to provide 72 seats in matching bays, in a 23 metre vehicle. The bays were between 1.9 and 2.0 metres ie a furnishable length of 17-18 metres.

How are passengers supposed to look after their cycles and luggage if they are stored at the vehicle ends? There are numerous cases of theft. In one case a thief discovered he had stolen an IRA bomb and confessed to the police.

First we shouldn't have 26m coaches because they would smash into things, now it's because of where luggage stacks and cycle racks would be... whatever next?

Thieves on trains are far more interested in nicking small, high-value items that are easy to conceal like tablet computers and mobile phones than oversized bags most likely to be full of people's clothes. Yes, bags do get taken, but it also happens on stations, at airports, etc..

And there will be CCTV all over the place. From the IEP technical specification:

5.1 Saloon Closed Circuit Television
TS604
Monitoring System.
Passenger carrying IEP Vehicles must be fitted with a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) The Saloon CCTV system must incorporate the following functionality:
• each IEP Vehicle shall contain sufficient CCTV cameras to view all public accessible areas (excepting inside toilets) and to minimise blind spots. The passenger areas to be covered shall include vehicle saloons, doorways, vestibules, gangways, publicly accessible catering areas and other public spaces;
• cameras fitted shall, so far as possible, be resistant to tampering and vandalism;
• the CCTV system shall record, without overwriting, for a minimum of 1 months
• the recorded picture shall be in colour and shall be of sufficient clarity to enable the Identification of individuals to the same standard as that defined in clause 7.6 of BS EN 50132-7:1996 ‘Alarm Systems – CCTV surveillance systems for use in security applications – Application guidelines’;
• recorded images may need to be used as evidence in a prosecution. To facilitate this the system shall be able to support a clear evidential trail so as to allow the integrity of the recording to be demonstrated;
• the system shall be able to be operated so as to comply with the legal requirements with regard to data protection;
• the CCTV picture capture frame rate shall be sufficient to allow the visible actions of persons within all public accessible areas to be identifiable. Consideration shall be given to increasing this frame rate after an 'emergency event' trigger, such as a passenger alarm handle being actuated; and
the CCTV system shall allow the following to be viewed in a secure train crew area:
o live (i.e. a delay of no more than two seconds) images from any CCTV camera; and
o recorded images from any CCTV camera.

Plus from the Hitachi press release issued last November at the unveiling of the first Class 800 in Japan

- Bicycle storage space (with security locks)

http://www.hitachi.co.uk/about/press/pdfs/20141113_IEP_release_Eng.pdf

 

[Philip Phlopp]

>This raises another question. People are asked to keep their luggage with them at all times. How do they do that if the luggage space is at the vehicle ends? How do they even keep a check to make sure that it has not been stolen? You may recall the incident when a thief stole a case and discovered it had a bomb inside.

How is this security issue for luggage and cycles going to be addressed?

The best place for luggage is on the floor between seat backs. The bast place for cycles is in one place, preferably under staff supervision. The luggage/cycle designation of the space is very much an after-the-fact decision.

Where are the luggage racks on Mk.2e/f, Mk.3 and Mk.4 rolling stock ?

 

[Dent]

The best place for luggage is on the floor between seat backs.

Think about the numbers, that space is simply not adequate to be the only luggage provision.

Even if you assume that the train consists entirely of back to back seating, there is only one such space for every four seats. Now consider that most trains also contain some airline type seats, which have no space between their backs.

 

[notadriver]

No CCTV in non public areas like driving cabs. Good

 

[455driver]

In theory but as you know, a lot of other factors are involved. People are slow at getting off class 455 at some of the platforms at Clapham Junction as there is a hell of a gap.

Thank you for choosing one particular station to disprove my point, but what about the other 200 stations? :roll:

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Thank you for choosing one particular station to disprove my point, but what about the other 200 stations? :roll:

That is just one of the factors. There are many stations with curved platforms. But other factors include the detailed design of the step and the layout inside the vehicle. However, you are right in principle- a longer vehicle with 88 seats will take longer to load and unload than one with 76 seats if there are two doorways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Think about the numbers, that space is simply not adequate to be the only luggage provision.

Even if you assume that the train consists entirely of back to back seating, there is only one such space for every four seats. Now consider that most trains also contain some airline type seats, which have no space between their backs.

It is possible to fit two items between seat backs, if the design allows for this provision in the first place. Airline seats are part of the problem as the luggage space has to be provided elsewhere, away from where people can keep an eye on it. One coaches and aircraft, luggage is placed under the floor or in a purpose-designed hold.

Not everyone has a large item with them. The mark 3 as originally designed with mostly bay seating, had about enough luggage space, with the end shelves and longitudinal racks above the windows.

Storage at vehicle ends is insecure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where are the luggage racks on Mk.2e/f, Mk.3 and Mk.4 rolling stock ?

Mark 2 and mark 3 as built - some shelving at the ends, above the windows for small items and between seat backs. The original seating on mark 2 stock was specially shaped to create space for all but the largest suitcases, with space for two between each set of four back-to-back seats.

After mark 3 stock was reconfigured with 76 seats, there was a shortage of luggage space. The same applies to mark 4.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First we shouldn't have 26m coaches because they would smash into things, now it's because of where luggage stacks and cycle racks would be... whatever next?

Thieves on trains are far more interested in nicking small, high-value items that are easy to conceal like tablet computers and mobile phones than oversized bags most likely to be full of people's clothes. Yes, bags do get taken, but it also happens on stations, at airports, etc..

And there will be CCTV all over the place. From the IEP technical specification:



Plus from the Hitachi press release issued last November at the unveiling of the first Class 800 in Japan



http://www.hitachi.co.uk/about/press/pdfs/20141113_IEP_release_Eng.pdf

I would think that people would prefer to be able to keep an eye on their stuff themselves than rely on a CCTV camera revealing who had walked off with it.

As for the longer vehicles smashing into things, it now emerges that works will be needed on curved platforms such as Bristol Temple Meads. It will be interesting to know what the effect of cutting back platforms on the stepping distances of other types of stock.

Some of the potential issues of longer vehicles will emerge as time goes on. The class 800 are very different animals from the 26 metre vehicles standard on the continent, where the bogies are close to the vehicle ends.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just one quick point on this, the sort of luggage that goes in floor racks on inter city services does not fit behind the back of the seat in front of you!

Yes, that is just one of the drawbacks of airline-style seating.

 

[jimm]

That is just one of the factors. There are many stations with curved platforms. But other factors include the detailed design of the step and the layout inside the vehicle. However, you are right in principle- a longer vehicle with 88 seats will take longer to load and unload than one with 76 seats if there are two doorways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It is possible to fit two items between seat backs, if the design allows for this provision in the first place. Airline seats are part of the problem as the luggage space has to be provided elsewhere, away from where people can keep an eye on it. One coaches and aircraft, luggage is placed under the floor or in a purpose-designed hold.

Not everyone has a large item with them. The mark 3 as originally designed with mostly bay seating, had about enough luggage space, with the end shelves and longitudinal racks above the windows.

Storage at vehicle ends is insecure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Mark 2 and mark 3 as built - some shelving at the ends, above the windows for small items and between seat backs. The original seating on mark 2 stock was specially shaped to create space for all but the largest suitcases, with space for two between each set of four back-to-back seats.

After mark 3 stock was reconfigured with 76 seats, there was a shortage of luggage space. The same applies to mark 4.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would think that people would prefer to be able to keep an eye on their stuff themselves than rely on a CCTV camera revealing who had walked off with it.

As for the longer vehicles smashing into things, it now emerges that works will be needed on curved platforms such as Bristol Temple Meads. It will be interesting to know what the effect of cutting back platforms on the stepping distances of other types of stock.

Some of the potential issues of longer vehicles will emerge as time goes on. The class 800 are very different animals from the 26 metre vehicles standard on the continent, where the bogies are close to the vehicle ends.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes, that is just one of the drawbacks of airline-style seating.

And if everyone is lugging a stupidly big bag down inside a coach to try to stick it between seat backs, the coach will be even slower to load and unload.

Not everyone has any luggage with them at all. And would like somewhere to sit, rather then the space being used for luggage racks.

Amazingly enough, there will also be overhead luggage racks inside the coaches - who'd have thought they'd come up with that idea, as used on trains for donkey's years...? There will be a number of spaces under seat backs but the size of the luggage that many people seem to find 'essential' these days won't go in either space, so it needs to go somewhere.

Luggage thefts are something like 10 per cent of all recorded thefts on trains, which hardly suggests they are running at the epidemic proportions you seem to believe. And CCTV has been used by BTP to identify and prosecute a number of persistent offenders, who were probably responsible for a disproportionate number of such thefts anyway.

Nothing has 'emerged' about the platforms at Temple Meads. Everyone accepted at the time you were blethering on about the length of the coaches that there would be a limited number of locations where some work would be needed - no different from when Mk3s were introduced - and it was pointed out to you umpteen times that there was money set aside for such work as part of the overall IEP programme. So your point is what?

 

[Haydn1971]

a longer vehicle with 88 seats will take longer to load and unload than one with 76 seats if there are two doorways.

In simplistic term yes, but the reality is that there is a constant increasing trend in passenger numbers and increasing numbers at secondary stations. Thus on the day the 88 seat carriage replaces the 76 seat carriage, there will be no difference because there will be exactly the same number of passengers from the day before to the day after introduction. As the years progress, the secondary station passenger numbers will increase at a greater rate than the primary stations, because many passengers prefer the convenience of a local station with cheaper parking. Terminals will continue to grow, but that's irrelevant in terms of dwell times due to other factors involved in reversing operation.

There's a balance to be had, best dwell times will require three or more doors per carriage side to increase throughput - but that's leaving less space for seats - personally, I'd prefer a slightly longer dwell time, faster acceleration to line speed and longer carriages because it means more seats - more seats is much more important than micro losses in the timetable, which can be recovered with better performance units.

 

[The Ham]

>This raises another question. People are asked to keep their luggage with them at all times. How do they do that if the luggage space is at the vehicle ends? How do they even keep a check to make sure that it has not been stolen? You may recall the incident when a thief stole a case and discovered it had a bomb inside.

How is this security issue for luggage and cycles going to be addressed?

The best place for luggage is on the floor between seat backs. The bast place for cycles is in one place, preferably under staff supervision. The luggage/cycle designation of the space is very much an after-the-fact decision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In theory but as you know, a lot of other factors are involved. People are slow at getting off class 455 at some of the platforms at Clapham Junction as there is a hell of a gap.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do you have the actual figures for the 800?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The figure 16.8 metres for mark 3 furnishable length does not include the half-bays used for luggage space and standard toilets.

Standard class mark 3 originally had nine seating bays ie 72 seats with additional luggage space between seat backs. The International Coach had nine window bays which could be used to provide 72 seats in matching bays, in a 23 metre vehicle. The bays were between 1.9 and 2.0 metres ie a furnishable length of 17-18 metres.

How are passengers supposed to look after their cycles and luggage if they are stored at the vehicle ends? There are numerous cases of theft. In one case a thief discovered he had stolen an IRA bomb and confessed to the police.

I am only going on the draft layout, however unless you have the exact layouts then that is all any of us can go on. However, I am not comparing it with a real train anyway so it's all theoretical anyway.

Personally I prefer airline seating as it gives me more leg room, in which case the bay length is less importance. However it could be possible to, by having airline seating to increase the bay sizes for the remaining seats while not reducing the total number of seats.

If you are reducing the number of seats from the 74 per coach I had used in my calculations then just from the 8 standard class coaches that would be a reduction of 16 seats. In doing so there is no way that the Mark 3's can get close to the draft layouts of the 80x's.

However if you assume the same rules for the 80x's as the Mark 3's then it would be only fair to reduce the end coach capacity of the Mark 3's so that they are able to run at higher speeds OR to allow full passenger use of the end coaches of the 80x's. However that was not the exercise I was undertaking, I was seeing if it was possible to achieve the same number of seats as the draft 80x layouts by using a Mark 3 train.

Basically everything you have said so far just restricts what I can do with the Mark 3's and makes it that there would be a larger gap than I had come up with.

 

[455driver]

In simplistic term yes, but the reality is that there is a constant increasing trend in passenger numbers and increasing numbers at secondary stations. Thus on the day the 88 seat carriage replaces the 76 seat carriage, there will be no difference because there will be exactly the same number of passengers from the day before to the day after introduction. As the years progress, the secondary station passenger numbers will increase at a greater rate than the primary stations, because many passengers prefer the convenience of a local station with cheaper parking. Terminals will continue to grow, but that's irrelevant in terms of dwell times due to other factors involved in reversing operation.

There's a balance to be had, best dwell times will require three or more doors per carriage side to increase throughput - but that's leaving less space for seats - personally, I'd prefer a slightly longer dwell time, faster acceleration to line speed and longer carriages because it means more seats - more seats is much more important than micro losses in the timetable, which can be recovered with better performance units.

That's all well and good if you can get the same number of bigger coaches into the stations as you can the shorter ones, in this country that isn't possible so you end up with the same length train with less coaches and less doors and a few more seats, not exactly the panacea that some people think!

 

[samuelmorris]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes, that is just one of the drawbacks of airline-style seating.

Well not really, a suitcase isn't going to fit in either location, nor safely in an overhead rack. There is always going to be need with long distance services to have a proper luggage rack. When there is no luggage rack space available, I've done the 2 hour or so journey from Kings Cross to York sitting on the floor in the vestibule so I don't have to leave the case unattended.

 

[Dave1987]

Anyone get the feeling jimm works for Hitachi?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Mark 2 and mark 3 as built - some shelving at the ends, above the windows for small items and between seat backs. The original seating on mark 2 stock was specially shaped to create space for all but the largest suitcases, with space for two between each set of four back-to-back seats.

You are presumably aware that changes to crash regulations have required different seating to be designed, with higher backs and specific deformation requirements to reduce, lessen and prevent injuries in the event of a derailment. As it stands however, the draft layouts for IEP still include provision between seat backs, where present, for suitcases to be stored and look marginally more generous than the current storage on existing stock with high back seating.

IEP also includes luggage racks about the windows for small items, again very generously sized and fairly equal to that on Mk.3 stock, bigger than Mk.4 stock and considerably better than any modern tilt profile unit.

The shelving continues to exist at the end of the coaches, the position is irrelevant, it's out of sight for most passengers in the coach, again much the same as Mk.3 and Mk.4 stock.

IEP's luggage storage arrangements, to all intents and purposes, will be the same as the current Mk.3 coaches in operation with FGW and VTEC, and the Mk.4 coaches in operation with VTEC.

I did hear that KeTech, who are running the live onboard train display trial with Hull Trains were looking to provide a CCTV camera feed for the vestibules, so people would be able to check on their luggage from their seats. That sounds like something which would alleviate almost all of your concerns.

 

[swt_passenger]

That's all well and good if you can get the same number of bigger coaches into the stations as you can the shorter ones, in this country that isn't possible so you end up with the same length train with less coaches and less doors and a few more seats, not exactly the panacea that some people think!

However, you end up with passengers sitting in the whole length previously taken up with a couple of power cars, or locos and DVTs, so you DO get more capacity from any 'same length' train. On the GW it is 9x26m vs 8x23m, (which is a better uplift than the ECML with its longer HSTs of course). Oh, and then as we know Paddington is being re-arranged to allow for a number of 260m platforms. I expect other infrastructure improvements will happen elsewhere, to help overcome your pessimism about where the new trains will fit...

 

[Stats]

The best place for luggage is on the floor between seat backs.

This will not meet the requirement that luggage must not be concealed and its presence must easily be identified by train staff, nor that the design solution must enable passengers to easily view their luggage while seated to address their concerns about the security of their luggage. I don't know about you but i don't have eyes in the back of my head nor xray vision that can see through seat backs.

 

[The Ham]

That's all well and good if you can get the same number of bigger coaches into the stations as you can the shorter ones, in this country that isn't possible so you end up with the same length train with less coaches and less doors and a few more seats, not exactly the panacea that some people think!

You don't need to get the same number of longer coaches in, as the number of standard seats per coach goes up from 72 to 88 meaning that you have (assuming all standard class seats) 8 more seats in a 5 coach 80x coach train as you would have in a 6 coach Mark 3.

Even squeezing in 74 into the Mark 3's and a 6 coach train would have just 4 extra seats. However the Mark 3 would be 138m compared with 130m.

Now 8m may not be very much, however when comparing 12 coach Mark 3's with a 10 coach 80x that would result in a diffence if 16m which could be the diffence between it fitting or not.

 

[route:oxford]

The most important part of luggage is that the overhead rack will accommodate a standard airline style cabin bag.

It's what *normal* people carry for a short break or a few days away for work.

There is, of course, a need for more considerable luggage stowage on services that predominantly carry people to and from airports.

For those who are demanding luggage space between bays - the days of the skinny suitcase of the 60s are long gone. Modern suitcases quite simply don't fit into that space as they tend to be squatter to ensure stability on wheels.

 

[ooo]

Is there any information about how many bikes spaces these trains will have?

 

[455driver]

However, you end up with passengers sitting in the whole length previously taken up with a couple of power cars, or locos and DVTs, so you DO get more capacity from any 'same length' train. On the GW it is 9x26m vs 8x23m, (which is a better uplift than the ECML with its longer HSTs of course). Oh, and then as we know Paddington is being re-arranged to allow for a number of 260m platforms. I expect other infrastructure improvements will happen elsewhere, to help overcome your pessimism about where the new trains will fit...

But only seven 9 coach sets have been ordered for down here, the bulk of the order is 5 coach sets so comparing 5x26m with 8x23m would be more appropriate on most of our trains.

 

[The Ham]

But only seven 9 coach sets have been ordered for down here, the bulk of the order is 5 coach sets so comparing 5x26m with 8x23m would be more appropriate on most of our trains.

In part that is true, however there would also be the need to look at the number of sets. IIRC there was talk of there needing to be 17 HST's in addition to the original class 80x's for the GWML.

That means that the order of 22 sets of 5 coaches could be doubled up all day and still provide a fleet of 18 full length trains.

Even if 19 HST's were needed the fact that a lot of passenger flows are tidal and that by using 5 coach sets it allows better fleet utilisation it would unlikely make much difference.

However, if it's needed there is an option for more trains.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The most important part of luggage is that the overhead rack will accommodate a standard airline style cabin bag.

It's what *normal* people carry for a short break or a few days away for work.

There is, of course, a need for more considerable luggage stowage on services that predominantly carry people to and from airports.

For those who are demanding luggage space between bays - the days of the skinny suitcase of the 60s are long gone. Modern suitcases quite simply don't fit into that space as they tend to be squatter to ensure stability on wheels.

The largest sizes of luggage will not fit between seat backs but the case shown here is the second largest size in the Samsonite range. The train is a Danish IC3. If the space is shaped to accommodate then cases will fit, as on the original mark 2 seats, and there is also the benefit that the seats will have good lumbar support, so that is win-win https://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/188018182
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You don't need to get the same number of longer coaches in, as the number of standard seats per coach goes up from 72 to 88 meaning that you have (assuming all standard class seats) 8 more seats in a 5 coach 80x coach train as you would have in a 6 coach Mark 3.

Even squeezing in 74 into the Mark 3's and a 6 coach train would have just 4 extra seats. However the Mark 3 would be 138m compared with 130m.

Now 8m may not be very much, however when comparing 12 coach Mark 3's with a 10 coach 80x that would result in a diffence if 16m which could be the diffence between it fitting or not.

Mark 3 stock has not had 72 seats for at least 20 years. It was reconfigured with 76 seats long ago. The GW high density layout has even more. The only way to compare like with like is to go on furnishable length, which is 16.8 metres on a mark 3. The half-bays at each end do not count as they are used for toilets and luggage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This will not meet the requirement that luggage must not be concealed and its presence must easily be identified by train staff, nor that the design solution must enable passengers to easily view their luggage while seated to address their concerns about the security of their luggage. I don't know about you but i don't have eyes in the back of my head nor xray vision that can see through seat backs.

You can put your luggage under a pair of seats where you can keep an eye on it. There is no rule to say you need to put in under the seat where you are actually sitting. There, problem solved by lateral thinking.

What is this about luggage must not be concealed? If the idea is to cater for possible bombs then we are all going to have to stay at home.

 

[jimm]

Is there any information about how many bikes spaces these trains will have?

Is is so hard to look it up for yourself?

Two per coach, with security locks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In part that is true, however there would also be the need to look at the number of sets. IIRC there was talk of there needing to be 17 HST's in addition to the original class 80x's for the GWML.

That means that the order of 22 sets of 5 coaches could be doubled up all day and still provide a fleet of 18 full length trains.

Even if 19 HST's were needed the fact that a lot of passenger flows are tidal and that by using 5 coach sets it allows better fleet utilisation it would unlikely make much difference.

However, if it's needed there is an option for more trains.

You're forgetting the rule so often stated here by certain parties that all express trains must be very, very long... all of the time... even if there aren't 600 people on board much of the time...

 

[The Ham]

You're forgetting the rule so often stated here by certain parties that all express trains must be very, very long... all of the time... even if there aren't 600 people on board much of the time...

I'd not forgotten about that rule, which is why I compared the number of trains running in pairs and only mentioned the benefits ofhalf length trains with regards to being able to make better use of the trains with regards to spare sets and/or undergoing maintenance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mark 3 stock has not had 72 seats for at least 20 years. It was reconfigured with 76 seats long ago. The GW high density layout has even more. The only way to compare like with like is to go on furnishable length, which is 16.8 metres on a mark 3. The half-bays at each end do not count as they are used for toilets and luggage.

You can't have it both ways, either my comparison of the 444's is reasonable (average of 74 seats per standard coach, which allows for things like the micro buffet, but has airline seating).

OR

The Mark 3's have the large amount of space you've been talking about and have the back to back seats you want, but then have less seats.

Either way my calculations show that Mark 3's can only just compare with 80x's by making compromises (such as full length end coaches which reduces capacity and only having micro buffets rather than the full kitchens which the draft layouts show for the class 80x's)

Unless you can come up with a comparable train configuration which shows that the 80x's (draft layouts, unless you have more information) can be beaten by Mark 3's, then my figures stand.

 

[Dave1987]

Is is so hard to look it up for yourself?

Two per coach, with security locks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You're forgetting the rule so often stated here by certain parties that all express trains must be very, very long... all of the time... even if there aren't 600 people on board much of the time...

Would you rather have 30 people standing than have 3 coaches empty?

 

[jopsuk]

I love that there's still this heated argument over what the IEP trains should be, when the SET's are being built and tested...