GWR Class 800

[Bletchleyite]

We do have long trains on the WCML - 11x23m is equivalent to 12.5 x 20m. We also have them more frequent for a higher demand.

What is stupid is running short DMUs around on things like XC and TPE.

 

[Goldfish62]

The coach company will regret installing standard USB A sockets as these will be rare in maybe 5-10 years as the new reversible USB C becomes standard.

I doubt it - coaches used by NX only have a 7-8 year life on such services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Why this fetish for the 1950s and long trains? It's not the 1950s any more. It's 2015 and instead of a small number of very long Euston-Glasgow and Kings Cross-Edinburgh trains each day, we have Anglo-Scottish services, of two-thirds or three-quarters the length of your 18 coaches at far higher frequencies. And you can say the same for long-distance services out of Paddington.



Sorry, but not all Corail stock had toilets at each end and the Intercites specification ones still in service seat 74 people at most in standard, with lots of those being airline seats - see seating plan below. I'm not sure about the current capacity of those in use on regional services but if they do seat more it presumably means yet more airline seats and nowhere for people to put their luggage.... Also, while the initial batches of Corails built had 11 bays in standard (actually windows, as there were always lots of airline seats in them from day one) and 10 in first class, the later versions used the same 10-window bodyshell for both classes.

https://uk.voyages-sncf.eu/sites/rb.recuk/files/Seat map - Intercités by Night (TNA-TNB-TNC-TRC).pdf

And who says the seats are being crammed into the IEPs? A few posters here perhaps, but the Modern Railways article has the following to say about legroom, which doesn't suggest they are crammed in or cramped:

The Royal Scot routinely ran, in the 1950s, with 13 or 14 carriages. The 18 carriages that RAGNARØKR talks about were older non bogied stock, far shorter than today's 23 metre carriages or the forthcoming 26 metre carriages. They wasted much space in corridors and vestibules, also.

The Royal Scot only carried around 150 first class passengers and 300 standard class passengers, despite having 13 or 14 carriages. IEP, in 2 x 5 car guise, will carry 90 first and 540 standard class passengers.

 

[D365]

The Royal Scot routinely ran, in the 1950s, with 13 or 14 carriages. The 18 carriages that RAGNARØKR talks about were older non bogied stock, far shorter than today's 23 metre carriages or the forthcoming 26 metre carriages. They wasted much space in corridors and vestibules, also.

That last sentence in particular sums up the hypocrisy in his postings.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

That last sentence in particular sums up the hypocrisy in his postings.

Hypocrisy? We are not flinging insults around, are we?

They were mark I vehicles. There were some very long platforms at the old Euston. 17 was normal in the summer for the Royal Scot. If I recall the train loco was off the end of the platform. There was a 2-6-2 at the buffer stops which brought the train in from Willesden.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Royal Scot routinely ran, in the 1950s, with 13 or 14 carriages. The 18 carriages that RAGNARØKR talks about were older non bogied stock, far shorter than today's 23 metre carriages or the forthcoming 26 metre carriages. They wasted much space in corridors and vestibules, also.

The Royal Scot only carried around 150 first class passengers and 300 standard class passengers, despite having 13 or 14 carriages. IEP, in 2 x 5 car guise, will carry 90 first and 540 standard class passengers.

There were two dedicated restaurant cars, a kitchen car and two half-brakes. The point is that the length of the train. Lavish catering facilities would not be expected these days as the journey time is no longer nearly 8 hours as it was in 1955.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We do have long trains on the WCML - 11x23m is equivalent to 12.5 x 20m. We also have them more frequent for a higher demand.

What is stupid is running short DMUs around on things like XC and TPE.

In which case they have shrunk by three or four coach lengths, plus another 20 metres which used to be required for a locomotive.

There is no excuse for short trains and then squeezing in passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Royal Scot routinely ran, in the 1950s, with 13 or 14 carriages. The 18 carriages that RAGNARØKR talks about were older non bogied stock, far shorter than today's 23 metre carriages or the forthcoming 26 metre carriages. They wasted much space in corridors and vestibules, also.

Non-bogied stock disappeared from long distance trains around 1910. I am referring to 20 metre mark 1 stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why this fetish for the 1950s and long trains?

Because the number of passengers keeps on increasing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And who says the seats are being crammed into the IEPs? A few posters here perhaps, but the Modern Railways article has the following to say about legroom, which doesn't suggest they are crammed in or cramped:

150 cm bays are tight. People will be kicking each other under the table if that figure is correct.

Standard Class bay dimensions are 1.95M in mark 2M, 1.93M in mark 1, 1.90M in class 180, 1.89 in Mark 4 as built, 1.80M in Electrostars. Class 158 bays are a bit less, but more than 1.5M, I think about 1.75M Less than 1.80 and people are competing for space for their feet. Class 319 had 1.5 metre bays when introduced and that means playing kneesie.

 

[RobShipway]

Hypocrisy? We are not flinging insults around, are we?

They were mark I vehicles. There were some very long platforms at the old Euston. 17 was normal in the summer for the Royal Scot. If I recall the train loco was off the end of the platform. There was a 2-6-2 at the buffer stops which brought the train in from Willesden.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There were two dedicated restaurant cars, a kitchen car and two half-brakes. The point is that the length of the train. Lavish catering facilities would not be expected these days as the journey time is no longer nearly 8 hours as it was in 1955.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In which case they have shrunk by three or four coach lengths, plus another 20 metres which used to be required for a locomotive.

There is no excuse for short trains and then squeezing in passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Non-bogied stock disappeared from long distance trains around 1910. I am referring to 20 metre mark 1 stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Because the number of passengers keeps on increasing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
150 cm bays are tight. People will be kicking each other under the table if that figure is correct.

Standard Class bay dimensions are 1.95M in mark 2M, 1.93M in mark 1, 1.90M in class 180, 1.89 in Mark 4 as built, 1.80M in Electrostars. Class 158 bays are a bit less, but more than 1.5M, I think about 1.75M Less than 1.80 and people are competing for space for their feet. Class 319 had 1.5 metre bays when introduced and that means playing kneesie.

As per the details within http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/53334-royal-scot-express-in-the-1950s/ the Royal Scot trains where no longer than 13 carriages and those 13 MK1 carriages where a lot smaller than the carriages of the IEP trains.

5 IEP carriages can take the same number and more in the number of passengers than would have been carried within the 13 Royal Scot carriages.

 

[jimm]

150 cm bays are tight. People will be kicking each other under the table if that figure is correct.

Standard Class bay dimensions are 1.95M in mark 2M, 1.93M in mark 1, 1.90M in class 180, 1.89 in Mark 4 as built, 1.80M in Electrostars. Class 158 bays are a bit less, but more than 1.5M, I think about 1.75M Less than 1.80 and people are competing for space for their feet. Class 319 had 1.5 metre bays when introduced and that means playing kneesie.

It all depends on whether you and Modern Railways are talking about the same measurement, doesn't it? The train specifications required minimum amounts of knee room, not leg room.

In any case, given that Messrs Ford and Walmsley have actually been on board the train and sat in the seats, there is a fair chance the use of the word excellent to describe the space available for people's legs to go in, however it is defined or measured, has some basis in fact.

 

[D365]

In which case they have shrunk by three or four coach lengths, plus another 20 metres which used to be required for a locomotive.

Where have your long platforms disappeared to before now? -On intermediate stations in particular.

Class 319 had 1.5 metre bays when introduced and that means playing kneesie.

Perhaps to do with the interior specification required for Thameslink? I'm a regular user of Mk3-based stock and have rarely seen issues.

 

[The Ham]

It all depends on whether you and Modern Railways are talking about the same measurement, doesn't it? The train specifications required minimum amounts of knee room, not leg room.

In any case, given that Messrs Ford and Walmsley have actually been on board the train and sat in the seats, there is a fair chance the use of the word excellent to describe the space available for people's legs to go in, however it is defined or measured, has some basis in fact.

It also depends on how thick the seats are, as I have more leg room in a Voyager than a Mark 4 as such the former is more comfortable even though it has less padding. As such there is space for the thinner seats to be located closer together and still achieve the same amount of passenger space (or in the case of the Voyagers more space).

The same is happening on planes, EasyJet have new thinner seat which give their passengers more leg room (although that is a side effect as they are doing it due to the seats being much lighter) and I am unaware of mass objection to that (although there has been some complaints, although more to do with the smaller tables sizes than the concert level).

 

[RAGNARØKR]

As per the details within http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/53334-royal-scot-express-in-the-1950s/ the Royal Scot trains where no longer than 13 carriages and those 13 MK1 carriages where a lot smaller than the carriages of the IEP trains.

5 IEP carriages can take the same number and more in the number of passengers than would have been carried within the 13 Royal Scot carriages.

"A lot smaller" is vague. To be precise, a mark 1 carriage is 20 metres long but it depends what measurement is taken. The measurement across the body ie outer corners, and headstocks was given as 63 ft 5 inches. The outer ends of the gangwayed stock were bowed, giving 64 ft 6 inches extreme length, and then there are the gangways in addition. Say 20 metres in round figures.

I travelled on the 10 am Royal Scot several times a year all the way through the 1950s. For the record, the third class (later second class) return fare London to Glasgow was just over £5 and a four course lunch cooked on the train was 8/6, ie 42.25p. Early in the 1950s, reduced price mid-week tickets were introduced for travel on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. There were open tickets ie travel any time Tue, Wed, Thu, and a simple form of yield management.

Like most trains of its time, the Royal Scot was not a fixed formation train. There was a fixed part and a variable part. The fixed part included restuarant cars in both classes, kitchen facilities, a brake first (BFK )and a brake third (BTK), and a mixture of corridor firsts (FK, 42 seats), corridor seconds (TK, 48 seats), and open seconds (TO, 64 seats). At busy periods additional coaches were added, usually mark 1 TOs but often older vehicles. I once counted 17 at Euston in the summer of 1955; it was the first complete train to be put into the then-new maroon livery. The RS tended to be fully booked during the summer high season. At other times booking was not normally necessary. There was a relief stopper which left London and Glasgow at 10.05.

The train was commonly hauled by one or other of the two diesel locomotive pairs, which would normally lead to punctual running. If a Duchess class was in charge, running could be erratic.

The point of the story is that
(1) there was spare rolling stock available, including older vehicles
(2) a policy of operating flexible formations avoided dragging empty carriages around the country,
(3) platforms were long enough to take trains 360 metres long and
(4) third class passengers could enjoy more space and comfort than standard passengers get today.

For the record, the schedule was 7 hours 15 (summer, non-stop) and 7 h 40m (winter, stopping at Crewe and Carlisle).

Taking an inflation rate of about 50 x, standard fares now seem to be higher than they were then, but today's advance fares are somewhat cheaper than the reduced price mid-week fares of the 1950s.

Conclusion: present day operators could usefully learn from some features of practices 60 years ago.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It also depends on how thick the seats are, as I have more leg room in a Voyager than a Mark 4 as such the former is more comfortable even though it has less padding. As such there is space for the thinner seats to be located closer together and still achieve the same amount of passenger space (or in the case of the Voyagers more space).

The same is happening on planes, EasyJet have new thinner seat which give their passengers more leg room (although that is a side effect as they are doing it due to the seats being much lighter) and I am unaware of mass objection to that (although there has been some complaints, although more to do with the smaller tables sizes than the concert level).

It also depends on the angle of the seat back. I agree with you that thickness of the seat back does not necessarily add to comfort. With the 1.8 metre bays on Electrostars, facing passengers have to avoid each others feet, and thinner seats would not make much difference. 1.9 metres reduces the problem. Trains like the Danish IC3 and Swedish X31 appear to have 2 metre bays (and people stlll complain about that stock!). The centre cars of IC3 trains have a stated length of 16 metres and 8 bays. I do not travel around with a tape measure.

 

[jimm]

The point of the story is that
(1) there was spare rolling stock available, including older vehicles
(2) a policy of operating flexible formations avoided dragging empty carriages around the country,
(3) platforms were long enough to take trains 360 metres long and
(4) third class passengers could enjoy more space and comfort than standard passengers get today.

Conclusion: present day operators could usefully learn from some features of practices 60 years ago.

We're not in the 1950s and the railways, like the world in general, have changed and locos and coaches are pretty much a thing of the past for express services. Even where modern 'hauled' trains have been built, such as Railjet in Austria, they are almost invariably operated as push-pull fixed formations. We're not going to go back to station pilots shunting coaches on and off trains.

Sidings full of rolling stock that hardly turned a wheel all year went out with the Beeching report. There are a lot more seats provided day in, day out between London and Glasgow now than were offered by hooking a couple of extra coaches on to half-a-dozen trains a day for a few weeks each year.

What is a mixed fleet of trains of five-car and nine-car formations, if not flexible?

Not that many places had platforms that were 360m long (e.g. at Kings Cross none is more than 300m), same as today - hence the restrictions on which platforms, even at Euston, that the Caledonian Sleepers can use. People were just a bit more relaxed back then about coaches without selective door locks hanging off the end of short platforms.

Did you miss the last part of the quote about 'excellent' legroom from Modern Railways, who do carry a tape measure?

You have to go back to the 1930s or travel to Europe to see numbers like that.

Even better than the perfection of the 1950s BR Mk1... just fancy that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Standard Class bay dimensions are 1.95M in mark 2M, 1.93M in mark 1, 1.90M in class 180, 1.89 in Mark 4 as built, 1.80M in Electrostars. Class 158 bays are a bit less, but more than 1.5M, I think about 1.75M Less than 1.80 and people are competing for space for their feet. Class 319 had 1.5 metre bays when introduced and that means playing kneesie.

I did wonder that - but as he mentioned legroom rather than pitch he might well mean the *legroom* i.e. seat face to seat back (airline) or seat face to seat face (table), in which case that would be quite generous. The tables look quite big, so I suspect so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In which case they have shrunk by three or four coach lengths, plus another 20 metres which used to be required for a locomotive.

There is no excuse for short trains and then squeezing in passengers.

But they also run much more frequently.

I think you're directing your ire in the wrong place, to be honest. 11 car Pendolinos and 10 car 800s aren't the problem. The problem is the joke of running short DMUs around on regional expresses like TPE, and that Northern's new rolling stock order, good though it is, *still* includes 2-car regional express DMUs.

The 2-car DMU is the problem - it is suited only to tiny branch lines. No new ones should have been ordered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The same is happening on planes, EasyJet have new thinner seat which give their passengers more leg room

Except it doesn't, because they have crammed in an extra row. The legroom is in fact worse, though I think not as bad if you sit in front of the exit row as there was only limited scope for adjustment there.

 

[krus_aragon]

"A lot smaller" is vague. To be precise, a mark 1 carriage is 20 metres long but it depends what measurement is taken. The measurement across the body ie outer corners, and headstocks was given as 63 ft 5 inches. The outer ends of the gangwayed stock were bowed, giving 64 ft 6 inches extreme length, and then there are the gangways in addition. Say 20 metres in round figures.

I admire your pursuit of accurate dimensions, even if you do then round your measurement to the figure of 20 metres. But given that IEP carriages are roughly 26m long (in round figures) I don't feel there's any issue in saying that a mark 1 is "a lot smaller".

I then fail to see how this paragraph relates to the rest of your post.

 

[RobShipway]

I admire your pursuit of accurate dimensions, even if you do then round your measurement to the figure of 20 metres. But given that IEP carriages are roughly 26m long (in round figures) I don't feel there's any issue in saying that a mark 1 is "a lot smaller".

I then fail to see how this paragraph relates to the rest of your post.

I suppose the difference of 6 metres is a lot..... But yes, you have undertsood my point when I have said that the Royal Scot carriages are a lot smaller so the train is taking less passengers I think in the 12 - 13 coaches then the HST does in the Mk3 coaches, but then that is 23 metres long and the Mark 1 is only 20 metres long.

Now add 3 metres to the Mark 3 coach, RAGNARØKR or 6 metres to your Royal Scots coach please?

 

[The Ham]

Except it doesn't, because they have crammed in an extra row. The legroom is in fact worse, though I think not as bad if you sit in front of the exit row as there was only limited scope for adjustment there.

Although my perception was that there was more space, which is born out by the press releases which mentions that the extra row is accompanied by reducing space from other areas (I.e. not from passenger space).

 

[Class 170101]

I was just reviewing the IEP Wikipedia article, I'm reminded that the original specification had a maximum allowed length of 312m - which is 12 carriages. This could open up some creative ideas when the lengthening starts up, where we could see some intellect with lengthening of half the five car fleet to 7 cars and half the 9 car fleet to 12 cars, creating 5, 7, 9 & 12 car options. There's a lot of platform lengthening ahead

Never mind alterations to infastructure where points are involved at both ends. For example Doncaster and York

150 cm bays are tight. People will be kicking each other under the table if that figure is correct.

Standard Class bay dimensions are 1.95M in mark 2M, 1.93M in mark 1, 1.90M in class 180, 1.89 in Mark 4 as built, 1.80M in Electrostars. Class 158 bays are a bit less, but more than 1.5M, I think about 1.75M Less than 1.80 and people are competing for space for their feet. Class 319 had 1.5 metre bays when introduced and that means playing kneesie.

How big are the tables in standard on Great Western HSTs for comparision?
If IEP goes for that size those bays of four will be uncomfortable very quickly.

 

[najaB]

USBs in my experience tend to be slower charging than plug charging. Two hours for a smartphone. Best part of six hours for a smartphone in a USB. I don't own a battery pack but can imagine how bulky / heavy they are.

Depends on the USB port. Many of them are current limited to c. 500mA as compared to 2A or more with AC power packs. There's no reason that, if provided for charging only, that USB ports on trains would have such a low limit. As to the bulkiness of power packs, I have a 5000mAH pack that weighs about 120g. No doubt lighter ones are available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although my perception was that there was more space, which is born out by the press releases which mentions that the extra row is accompanied by reducing space from other areas (I.e. not from passenger space).

There's probably a bit more than the A319s, but they are only fitted to the 320s which were quite noticeably more generous in the old layout.

 

[tbtc]

Funny how the attitude on this thread seems to be along the lines of "there's no point in worrying about such fripperies as plugs or USB slots because passengers aren't gong to base their journeys over customer convenience but at the same time HOW DARE YOU REMOVE ONCE CENTIMETRE OF LEG ROOM - PASSENGERS WILL BE IN UPROAR"...

The Royal Scot routinely ran, in the 1950s, with 13 or 14 carriages. The 18 carriages that RAGNARØKR talks about were older non bogied stock, far shorter than today's 23 metre carriages or the forthcoming 26 metre carriages. They wasted much space in corridors and vestibules, also.

The Royal Scot only carried around 150 first class passengers and 300 standard class passengers, despite having 13 or 14 carriages. IEP, in 2 x 5 car guise, will carry 90 first and 540 standard class passengers.

Very interesting.

As per the details within http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/53334-royal-scot-express-in-the-1950s/ the Royal Scot trains where no longer than 13 carriages and those 13 MK1 carriages where a lot smaller than the carriages of the IEP trains.

5 IEP carriages can take the same number and more in the number of passengers than would have been carried within the 13 Royal Scot carriages.

Wow

So a ten coach IEP will be carrying roughly twice as many passengers as the fabled (once a day, summer holiday formation of the) Royal Scot?

Like most trains of its time, the Royal Scot was not a fixed formation train. There was a fixed part and a variable part. The fixed part included restuarant cars in both classes, kitchen facilities, a brake first (BFK )and a brake third (BTK), and a mixture of corridor firsts (FK, 42 seats), corridor seconds (TK, 48 seats), and open seconds (TO, 64 seats). At busy periods additional coaches were added

(2) a policy of operating flexible formations avoided dragging empty carriages around the country

Hmm - IEP is bad because it won't always run around at maximum formation, but the Royal Scot was great because it wasn't a fixed formation?

Don't let Dave 1987 hear that BR didn't always run the maximum length of train on every journey!

I once counted 17 at Euston in the summer of 1955; it was the first complete train to be put into the then-new maroon livery

This is what it all seems to boil down to. You once saw a train at Euston in the 1950s with seventeen shorter coaches on a WCML service so cannot understand why this isn't going to be the norm on ECML and GWML service in the 2020s?

I do not travel around with a tape measure

I'm genuinely surprised - you should have asked Santa for one...

17 was normal in the summer for the Royal Scot. If I recall the train loco was off the end of the platform

...back in the days of such infrequent services that you could foul the points for longer periods?

There is no excuse for short trains and then squeezing in passengers

No sensible railway is going to run full length stock all year round based on the busiest service of the year.

(1) there was spare rolling stock available, including older vehicles

It is also the argument for retaining old stock as the capital costs have long since been written off. With new stock costing what it does, a mixed-age fleet reduces the average cost per vehicle within the fleet.

Because the number of passengers keeps on increasing

Yes - BR had spare rolling stock sat idle when not used on "summer specials" - the modern railway keeps growing so doesn't have thousands of spare coaches.

We've hardly scrapped any carriages/ units since privatisation that weren't pretty knackered (and not worth upgrading to modern standards etc - though I may annoy some people if I mention their precious 442s...).

If space for large items is provided in a van, then it does not need to be provided in racks in every vehicle

Can you imagine the delays at intermediate stations whilst people walk the length of an eighteen coach train to reach the Guard's Van at the far end? Maybe that worked in the 1950s, but not today.

I think dwell times may have to be extended at stations like Reading or Doncaster were you to have your say.

 

[southern442]

Didn't somebody once do a thread where he went around with a tape measure measuring the legroom of different trains? The idea of his was panned at the time but it could be a useful comparison resource now that lots of new trains are entering service...

 

[RAGNARØKR]

There are some general points to be made in response to the comments, which would take half the morning to respond to directly.

The first is that like-for-like comparisons need to be made. 1950s trains included comprehensive catering facilities which meant that even if a train was fully booked, there were more seats than passengers, plus a kitchen vehicle. Seating pitches have been reduced The EC and WC main lines run trains where third class was reserved for six per compartment, which also makes capacity of a complete train an unreasonable comparison, except to show that passengers now have less space and less in the way of catering facilities. Whether or not they are needed or wanted is another question.

The only like-for-like comparisons that can be made are of crude measures like lengths of trains and furnishable space. A mark 1 vehicle with 8 bays had 50 feet of furnishable space. The first class vehicles had 7 bays of 7ft ie 49 feet; call it 15 metres in round figures. If anyone wants to do comparisons, that is the starting point, but it immediately becomes necessary to start making assumptions about things like first to third class ratios, storage space, etc.

The point about the 17 coach train - this was the normal length of some WCML trains during the summer timetable period, is that there were platforms at Euston and Glasgow Central, probably Carlisle and Crewe also, that could take train of about 350 metres. I don't know about Kings Cross but there were certainly some very long sleeping car trains. The practice at the time was to bring in empty stock with a locomotive which also occupied another 15 metres of platform length.

To determine the exact lengths it would be necessary to measure from a scale drawing. Some of the London terminals lost platform length in the 1970s when there was not the need to carry so many passengers. The space was used to improve concourse facilities which was logical at the time.

The Beeching reforms got rid of stock which was used just a few times a year. There is, however a compromise to be made between the tight-fit fixed-formation regular interval service railway and one where the service is more tailored to people's travel patterns. It is a trade off. 1950s summer "jumbo trains" were made up in the depot and the vehicles would not normally be separated for the season, so this was not a task for station pilots. The stock which rarely turned a wheel consisted of 30 to 50 -year old vehicles which had long since been bought and paid for. These were also mostly fixed formations used for summer excursions. The aim was to squeeze a bit of residual value out of them. Whether it actually achieved this is another question. Beeching evidently concluded that it did not.

Five car multiple unit formations are too expensive to be able to be used to tailor to seasonal demand and are not going to be used that way.

The more general point of my comments is that there are old practices which could be worth re-examining in the light of the growth in traffic.

 

[The Ham]

...but on the GWML the 5 coach sets can be used to meet demand during the summer. In the same way as the HST's do at present. In that during the summer months there will be commuter services which could be run with shorter trains, which in turn allows the Cornish trains to be longer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The more general point of my comments is that there are old practices which could be worth re-examining in the light of the growth in traffic.

It would be lovely to have enough trains to enable people to have a seat and to share a dining seat. What we need is trains with more capacity!

The reason that 1950's rail "works" compared to 2010's rail is that there was a much larger network with less passengers using it. It doesn't take many people using a branch line with 5 stations on it to add a million passengers to the rail network each year, multiple that up by the number of branch lines which have closed since then. Then remember that all those passengers are now more likely to be travelling not one or two stops down a branch line but two or three stops along what were generally previously mainlines.

There are things that are good from the 1950's railways, such as customer service (at least from the upper classes of rail travel). However to think that people are willing to accept infrequent trains would be to make the mistake that XC made when it thought that a clockface timetable (with shorter trains) wouldn't aid in leading to an big increase in passenger numbers so didn't think that providing relivively few extra seats over the day compared to their infrequent but long trains would be a problem!

 

[jimm]

The point about the 17 coach train - this was the normal length of some WCML trains during the summer timetable period, is that there were platforms at Euston and Glasgow Central, probably Carlisle and Crewe also, that could take train of about 350 metres. I don't know about Kings Cross but there were certainly some very long sleeping car trains. The practice at the time was to bring in empty stock with a locomotive which also occupied another 15 metres of platform length.

To determine the exact lengths it would be necessary to measure from a scale drawing. Some of the London terminals lost platform length in the 1970s when there was not the need to carry so many passengers. The space was used to improve concourse facilities which was logical at the time.

Yes, there were and still are a few platforms at a few of the principal stations on the WCML that can take a very long train. These are still there, allowing the Highland sleeper to call at the likes of Crewe and Preston. So what? Most of the trains using these very long platforms, now, in the 1950s, the 1920s or whenever, have been shorter than the maximum possible length. The platforms at Kings Cross now are the same length as they were back in the 1950s - the station throat and position of the tunnels have always dictated what space the platforms could take up. And the expanded concourses at the likes of Paddington and Liverpool Street are even more logical now with the huge increase in passenger traffic.

The Beeching reforms got rid of stock which was used just a few times a year. There is, however a compromise to be made between the tight-fit fixed-formation regular interval service railway and one where the service is more tailored to people's travel patterns. It is a trade off. 1950s summer "jumbo trains" were made up in the depot and the vehicles would not normally be separated for the season, so this was not a task for station pilots. The stock which rarely turned a wheel consisted of 30 to 50 -year old vehicles which had long since been bought and paid for. These were also mostly fixed formations used for summer excursions. The aim was to squeeze a bit of residual value out of them. Whether it actually achieved this is another question. Beeching evidently concluded that it did not.

Five car multiple unit formations are too expensive to be able to be used to tailor to seasonal demand and are not going to be used that way.

Yes, it is a trade-off and that's why the IEP fleet is a mix of five-car and nine-car formations, to allow the operators to better tailor the service to people's travel patterns. Like not needing nine-car trains all day, every day on several sections of routes that will be served by the GWR fleet. Or reducing formations in the summer on some services, in order to lengthen others.

The Ham has already addressed this point but to put a bit more flesh on the bones - quite apart from the extra HSTs used on West Country services on summer Saturdays, which will simply be supplanted by nine or 10-car IEPs also borrowed for the day from other routes where Saturday frequencies are lower than on weekdays - on the Cotswold Line for the past couple of years one of the HST workings from London has been substituted by a 180 on a Friday afternoon to allow the HST to work an extra service to Exeter instead.

Were there a couple more 180s in the GWR fleet, I can think of at least one other service straight away where the HST would also get borrowed on a summer Friday - and maybe other days of the week over that period. So GWR already does tailor for seasonal demand by making use of five-car trains.

The more general point of my comments is that there are old practices which could be worth re-examining in the light of the growth in traffic.

If you mean

The point of the story is that
(1) there was spare rolling stock available, including older vehicles
(2) a policy of operating flexible formations avoided dragging empty carriages around the country,
(3) platforms were long enough to take trains 360 metres long and
(4) third class passengers could enjoy more space and comfort than standard passengers get today.

Beeching established that keeping lots of coaches hanging around doing nothing much of the time was a financial black hole. That would not be any different now. Even limited quantities of stock would not come cheap in terms of maintenance to keep it fit to run and, with the need to meet DDA requirements, using superannuated stock is not going to be an option without a lot of up-front investment to meet those requirements.

A policy of operating flexible formations is in place for use of the Class 800s and the related AT300s for GWR, so lots of empty carriages will not be running around in the Cotswolds or Cornwall outside the peaks - unlike what happens at present with HSTs on Paddington-Hereford or Cheltenham trains in the middle of the day.

See above.

Messrs Walmsley and Ford seem to be of the view that passengers on 800s and 801s will have more space than third class passengers in the 1950s. As for comfort, I can predict with absolute certainty that when they actually get to sit in them, some people will find the seats comfortable and other people will hate them. Just like just about every other type of seat used on trains in this country, based on comments in umpteen threads about seats on this forum.

 

[Haydn1971]

Here's a old train with excellent leg room !

 

[Dave1987]

Don't let Dave 1987 hear that BR didn't always run the maximum length of train on every journey!

Er the comments I and others have made is that some of you seem to believe that no one ever travels during the off peak so 5 car formations would be perfectly adequate. I have seen lots of off peak services that are very well loaded and if a 5 car set was used you would have many people standing! But as we all know commuters are the main target. As long as they are happy then sod anyone else who wants to travel on the railway.

 

[JamesRowden]

Er the comments I and others have made is that some of you seem to believe that no one ever travels during the off peak so 5 car formations would be perfectly adequate. I have seen lots of off peak services that are very well loaded and if a 5 car set was used you would have many people standing! But as we all know commuters are the main target. As long as they are happy then sod anyone else who wants to travel on the railway.

Presently the off-peak fast service frequency between Reading and Paddington is 8.5tph. The present projects should allow capacity for 16tph (plus 4tph Heathrow Express) compared to the present 11tph (plus Heathrow Express) peak service. Therefore there would seem to be plenty of spare capacity to operate shorter and more frequent off-peak services for the medium term future.

 

[southern442]

Here's a old train with excellent leg room !

But.... no.... the trains back in the old days always had such good legroom!

How would that even function as a seating bay? You couldn't have two people sitting down opposite eachother!

 

[455driver]

Presently the off-peak fast service frequency between Reading and Paddington is 8.5tph. The present projects should allow capacity for 16tph (plus 4tph Heathrow Express) compared to the present 11tph (plus Heathrow Express) peak service. Therefore there would seem to be plenty of spare capacity to operate shorter and more frequent off-peak services for the medium term future.

So you are saying that these new trains are only going to operate between Paddington and Reading, oh that clears that up then, I thought they were going to work to Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance etc! :roll:

I mean the trains to these places are never full off peak are they, of course you will already know that having travelled on them quite frequently wont you!

Luckily all the commuters travel to Paddington from Reading and nobody commutes into Swindon, Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter, Plymouth etc do they, take for example the 1406 from PAD to PNZ which is an off peak train so will be a 5 coach set (in your world), have you seen the current 8 coach HST working that service when it leaves Plymouth at 1724?
No?
Well maybe you should because there are normally 2 or 3 hundred people standing in Standard class (they are standing in every coach through the saloons and vestibules), can you please tell me how they will all fit on a 5 coach 395GTI please!
If you do the sums there are not enough 9 coach sets (or 5 coach sets to double up) to cover everything that is currently busy so I look forward to seeing the headlines!

 

[southern442]

If you do the sums there are not enough 9 coach sets (or 5 coach sets to double up) to cover everything that is currently busy so I look forward to seeing the headlines!

It is always quite funny when all the papers believe all the pretentious droning on about how much better these shiny new trains are going to make life for customers, and all the problems will go away in an instant when said new trains come into service, and then they do go into service and nothing changes, and then everyone is surprised and there is FURY AND OUTRAGE because they don't understand why just throwing new trains at a problem doesn't always work

 

[sprinterguy]

If you do the sums there are not enough 9 coach sets (or 5 coach sets to double up) to cover everything that is currently busy so I look forward to seeing the headlines!

How do you work that one out? The maths has been done on this thread previously, and there are sufficient AT-300s ordered for Great Western to allow each HST to be replaced by either a 9 or 10-car AT-300 formation, and enough 5-car units left over to replace the 180s on a one for one basis, too.