HST refurbs : Great Western v Cross Country

[thefab444]

I think he was saying that the FGW legroom was good enough to fit his hand in width ways - at least that's how I read it

Ah, I assumed it was a typo, "couldn't get my hand in sideways". What you say would make more sense though!

 

[Drsatan]

I do, however, often make a conscious choice to avoid FGW HST's from Cardiff to Swansea as I personally prefer the environment of the ATW 175's and 158's. I even opted for a 150 stopping train one day in preference to a HST!

Of course, I am probably very much in the minority on that!

Yes you are.

I've traveled on a couple of the four Arriva 150s on loan to FGW at the moment, from Exeter St Davids to Barnstaple, from Exeter Central to Exmouth and from Weymouth to Bristol Temple Meads.

They are kept relatively clean but like FGW's refurbished 150s, they're fitted with Richmond seats which I find rather uncomfortable. And despite only being 5ft 10, there's not enough space between me and the seat in front to stretch my legs. For this reason I prefer FGW's refurbished 153s since they're fitted with Navigator seats (although according to Wikipedia three retain Richmond seats) which I find more comfortable.

I've never traveled on one of XC's HSTs so can't comment. Nonetheless, on FGW's refurbished HSTs there's enough room for me to stretch my legs. Another bonus is the plug socket fitted in the seat in front, which I find useful since I sometimes use my laptop when traveling. FGW should have fitted two since the passenger sitting next to you may wish to use his/her laptop. I can imagine a few arguments arising over who wants to use the plug socket!

I accept that the high-density refurbishment provides more seats in each carriage and as several posters have suggested, reflects the fact that FGW's HSTs tend to be used as long-distance commuter trains. This is certainly true for London-Oxford and London - Swindon journeys, but what about leisure travelers who might not like the lack of tables on FGWs HSTs? I read somewhere that a few HSTs were fitted with fewer airline seats and more tables, and these tend to be used on longer-distance trains (e.g. London-Penzance), but I haven't noticed these.

 

[Greenback]

Yes you are.

I accept that the high-density refurbishment provides more seats in each carriage and as several posters have suggested, reflects the fact that FGW's HSTs tend to be used as long-distance commuter trains. This is certainly true for London-Oxford and London - Swindon journeys, but what about leisure travelers who might not like the lack of tables on FGWs HSTs? I read somewhere that a few HSTs were fitted with fewer airline seats and more tables, and these tend to be used on longer-distance trains (e.g. London-Penzance), but I haven't noticed these.

I suspected as much! It's a very subjective topic!

I believe that the intentionw as to have two types of HST in service, but I don't know how well they manage to diagram them on a day to day basis.

The lack of enough tables is a problem in the West Country. There was almost a fight at Bodmin Parkway when someone claimed their reserved table seats forcing others to move to airline seats! Clearly tables are popular with quite a few people!

 

[thefab444]

They are kept relatively clean but like FGW's refurbished 150s, they're fitted with Richmond seats which I find rather uncomfortable. And despite only being 5ft 10, there's not enough space between me and the seat in front to stretch my legs. For this reason I prefer FGW's refurbished 153s since they're fitted with Navigator seats (although according to Wikipedia three retain Richmond seats) which I find more comfortable.

FGW 150s have Chapman seats, the same as those fitted to the Class 153s except for the few with the awful Richmond seats.

 

[Justin Smith]

You must be a very odd 6ft, is your body about 3 inches tall? I'm about your height and the legroom on the FGW HSTs is fine, better than a Voyager and a number of other modern units.

No, breakdown in communication, I was saying there was more legroom on a FGW HST than on a XC one. There was probably 3 or 4" in front of my knees. That might not sound a lot, but it actually made a big difference to how comfortable I felt.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a pity that what started out as a pretty reasonable thread has degenerated into the usual hyperbole and ill infomred subjective drivel.

The simply facts are that increases in demand and changes in travel patterns have let to the reconfiguration of standard class seating. Originally, HST's were built as comfortable long distance express trains to compete with the relatively new and far less congested motorway network.

Nearly forty years later, amny of the routes that HST's are used on have a much higher proportion of shorter distance commuter traffic. This has led to serious overcrowding, and it is a good idea in such circumstances to look atw ays of increasing seating capacity in standard accommodation.

I personally find that some of the refurbishments are uncomfortable and claustrophobic. But I also recognise that far fewer people now have to stand. Comparing the environment on a HST out of Paddington in the afternoon in 1999 and 2010 reveals that there are less people standing in vestibules than used to be the case.

It's also a shame that there is less luggage storage available, but when a large number of people are not going further than Bristol Parkway and Swindon, and only have a laptop and briefcase, then it does make business sense.

So, in short, there has been no conspiracy, and no simple decision that people now need less legroom or space. It has been a pragmatic response to changing market conditions.

I agree with much of what you say, but I still think the XC HSTs have gone too far. I really couldn`t have stood being on that train for any length of time.

I still think it`s interesting that the First class coaches have still got the same number of seats as when built. Judging by the number of HST/IC225 sets with two or three First class carriages on, if they`re short of First Class seats they don`t try to cram more seats in, they just put an extra First class carriage on.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, so would I! I like to have a moan or a rant from time to time, but I can stillr ecognise the reasons why things are done, and try and reason out what it would be like if these refurbishments hadn;t taken place.

I do, however, often make a conscious choice to avoid FGW HST's from Cardiff to Swansea as I personally prefer the environment of the ATW 175's and 158's. I even opted for a 150 stopping train one day in preference to a HST!

Of course, I am probably very much in the minority on that!

I like C175s, they`re one of the best of the DMUs in my opinion, wait a minute, I can`t say that, apparently I only ever criticise....

 

[MCR247]

I still think it's interesting that the First class coaches have still got the same number of seats as when built. Judging by the number of HST/IC225 sets with two or three First class carriages on, if they're short of First Class seats they don't try to cram more seats in, they just put an extra First class carriage on.....

Please give an example for that load of crap?

 

[Greenback]

I saw several HST's in the South West where the former First Class area in the buffet car had been converted to standard. In these trains at least, first class accommodation appears to have been reduced!

I'm going to check now whenever I get the chance, to see how many HST's have been done in this way!

 

[Geezertronic]

It's known as creative writing

Or tabloid writing, you're not a journalist for a tabloid in your spare time are you?

I don't agree with your comment "it has nothing to do wiyth size", as in how much room passengers have.
Of course it does.
You still haven't answered the question how in the mid 1970s it was considered that people, apparently, needed more room than they do now ?

Already answered by other more knowledgable forum members than you and I, quoted below for your reference

The simply facts are that increases in demand and changes in travel patterns have let to the reconfiguration of standard class seating....
...I personally find that some of the refurbishments are uncomfortable and claustrophobic. But I also recognise that far fewer people now have to stand. Comparing the environment on a HST out of Paddington in the afternoon in 1999 and 2010 reveals that there are less people standing in vestibules than used to be the case.

Of course I'd like to stick additional coaches on, and everyone gets a window view and six foot of legroom and a catering trolley that serves caviar, but in the real world I'm prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of getting a seat

And as for this...

And, furthermore, if it's been decided that passengers don't need as much room these days, how come the number of First Class seat per carriage has remained exactly the same ?

One could assume that there is no need to increase the number of seats in First Class as has been done in Standard as the patronage has not increased in Standard compared to First. One could also assume that it is a perk of First Class to get the extra room, one way of justifying the extra cost maybe?

Of course that is looking at it objectively rather than having a one sided rant and calling people t*****s

 

[455driver]

I saw several HST's in the South West where the former First Class area in the buffet car had been converted to standard. In these trains at least, first class accommodation appears to have been reduced!

I'm going to check now whenever I get the chance, to see how many HST's have been done in this way!

None, all the sets with proper buffet coaches have 1st class seats in the buffets (all 8 coach sets), the only exceptions are the ones with the mini buffet which is just a standard class coach with 8 seats removed, some of these have 7 coaches, some are 8.

 

[Greenback]

I see. Of course, as I don't note numbers, it may have been the same high density set each time, perhaps it was having a little holiday!

 

[455driver]

Oh the high density sets seem to spend more time on Plymouth/ Penzance services than the Oxfords etc, even the 0553 from Plymouth has been a mini buffet set a few times and that one is supposed to have a travelling chef on board!

 

[Greenback]

Having converted the sets to high density seating for commuter type routes, it's wonderful to see them used on long distance routes filled with leisure travellers! Still, I suppose it's difficult to keep them diagrammed separately!

 

[sprinterguy]

I still think it's interesting that the First class coaches have still got the same number of seats as when built. Judging by the number of HST/IC225 sets with two or three First class carriages on, if they're short of First Class seats they don't try to cram more seats in, they just put an extra First class carriage on.....

Not really: If anything, the proportion of standard class accomodation on HSTs has increased over the last 25 years ago.

Given that all the HSTs except the ECML order (which were 2+8 ) were delivered in 2+7 formation, with two first class coaches except for the Crosscountry sets, then had the addition of TGS vehicles in the mid eighties and the lengthening of GWML HSTs to 2+8, and ECML sets to 2+9 later on with additional TSs, this means that whilst the first class accomodation has stayed largely unchanged since introduction, standard class provision has INCREASED!

The 225s are a slightly different matter, only a few sets were built with three FOs as "Pullman" rakes and now since Mallard all sets feature three FOs; but the original first catering vehilce has also been converted to an RSB, so the gain in first class seats is still less than a carriage worth!

 

[Justin Smith]

Please give an example for that load of crap?

I'm talking about some of the sets (on all routes) where they put one more 1st class on and one less second, i.e. instead of there being two 1st, a buffet and six 2nd, the set consists of three 1st a buffet and five 2nd.
What I'm doing is establishing the principle that if they're short of 1st class seats on some trains they never just cram more 1st class seats in, they put on an extra carriage. On the other hand if they're short of 2nd class seats then, all of a sudden "people aren't as big as we thought, they don't need all that room, we'll just cram more of them in".
It's disgusting how the train companies get away with saying "we've put more seats on the train" like it's a totally positive thing to do, when in reality most have just sacrificed legroom. A few seem to have got round it, like the EMT C158s which if anything seemed to have more legroom than before, I'm not sure how they did it.
Wait a minute, I can't say that can I ? Apparently I only ever criticise.
What's so annoying about this thread is even those who think that, on balance, in their opinion, that cramming more seats in is the right thing to do, very few have actually admitted that, yes, actually it is less comfortable than it was......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One could assume that there is no need to increase the number of seats in First Class as has been done in Standard as the patronage has not increased in Standard compared to First. One could also assume that it is a perk of First Class to get the extra room, one way of justifying the extra cost maybe?

Of course that is looking at it objectively rather than having a one sided rant and calling people t*****s

On the first point, pun intended, I agree with you people do want more room, so much so that many are actually prepared to pay more for it.
However, even teh origibal HSTs had 72 x 2nd class seats per coach. as opposed to 48 x 1st. The latter has increased a lot, the former hasn`t increased at all.

On the second point, I very annoyed at being uncomfortable on that XC HST, but more than that I was, am, so very frustrated at how these train companies are getting away with just packing more and more seats into the same size carriage. Moreover I`m upset that when I used to see my train approaching the platform and it was an HST, I`d think great, that`ll be more comfortable than a Voyager. Now I think the opposite, I just as soon be on a Voyager. And to me that`s really sad, particularly as I`ve always had a soft spot for HSTs, partly due to nostalgic memories of my youth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not really: If anything, the proportion of standard class accomodation on HSTs has increased over the last 25 years ago.

Given that all the HSTs except the ECML order (which were 2+8 ) were delivered in 2+7 formation, with two first class coaches except for the Crosscountry sets, then had the addition of TGS vehicles in the mid eighties and the lengthening of GWML HSTs to 2+8, and ECML sets to 2+9 later on with additional TSs, this means that whilst the first class accomodation has stayed largely unchanged since introduction, standard class provision has INCREASED!

The 225s are a slightly different matter, only a few sets were built with three FOs as "Pullman" rakes and now since Mallard all sets feature three FOs; but the original first catering vehilce has also been converted to an RSB, so the gain in first class seats is still less than a carriage worth!

Good point, so why can`t they do that again and put another 2nd class trailer on then ? Not the ECML sets since they`re already 9 coaches and 10 may not play well with time keeping.

 

[thefab444]

Where are these 2nd class trailers going to come from?

 

[Geezertronic]

As stated above, where are the extra coaches going to come from? And what infrastructure changes would be required to allow a 2+9 or 2+10 HST to stop at existing stations that may not be able to accomodate these lengths (bearing in mind that they may not operate on lines with extended platforms)? For example, I understand that 11 car 390s will not be able to stop at every station the 9 car 390s do without SDO

And also, what would the extra coaches do for the performance of the rake? Maybe someone with better knowledge could answer that from a performance and fuel point of view? I presume there may also be an additional track access cost for running extra coaches?

Also, would it be cheaper for a TOC to refurb existing std coaches to contain a higher number of seats or to get extra coaches in and refurb them and add them to existing rakes (given the possible extra costs above)?

 

[LE Greys]

As stated above, where are the extra coaches going to come from? And what infrastructure changes would be required to allow a 2+9 or 2+10 HST to stop at existing stations that may not be able to accomodate these lengths (bearing in mind that they may not operate on lines with extended platforms)? For example, I understand that 11 car 390s will not be able to stop at every station the 9 car 390s do without SDO

And also, what would the extra coaches do for the performance of the rake? Maybe someone with better knowledge could answer that from a performance and fuel point of view? I presume there may also be an additional track access cost for running extra coaches?

Also, would it be cheaper for a TOC to refurb existing std coaches to contain a higher number of seats or to get extra coaches in and refurb them and add them to existing rakes (given the possible extra costs above)?

Well it's possible on FGW. If there are any loco-hauled MkIIIs left, or even if they convert the Irish stock to standard gauge, then it might be possible.

However, it's not recommended. The South West would be where you need extra capacity, but you have to cope with the banks. Starting a wedged 2+9 from Newton Abbott in the down direction takes a lot of horsepower (and fuel). Someone'll have to check on XC's experience with hired GNER/EC sets, I'm afraid I don't have any figures. On Bristol turns, it wouldn't hurt performance much, nor Wales turns. There, the Reading section would be helped, but most of the rest would probably have a lower priority for the extra coaches than the South West.

 

[starrymarkb]

SDO is a given, most Stations west of Exeter can't take an standard HST without at least 1 coach off the platform

 

[jon0844]

I've used FGW a few times recently, albeit very short distances (Slough and Reading) and both times I've got on coach D with the entertainment. It definitely FEELS claustrophobic in there, because of the high seat backs, but there's actually a lot of leg room. The seat back tables extend (not sure why?) and I could probably just about get a laptop on there (netbook for sure).

They've also updated the entertainment system software now, with a 5 minute free trial and new colours/layout. The prices seem reasonable for a long journey, unless you're a family and have to pay for 2, 3 or 4 separate 'subscriptions'. The problem is there is so little content to choose from. For a long trip, one episode of The Simpsons is silly - why not a whole season or three? We're talking about hard drive space that is cheap as chips these days.

The last time I went, I was with a colleague who jokingly said how ancient the trains were as we got to Paddington (he lives in Kent and uses HS1 from time to time). He was most surprised when he got on and saw the TV screens and a very modern interior and quickly changed his mind. In fact, if the doors were converted to proper power operation, I'm sure an HST would make the new and shiny 395s look incredibly dull and boring indeed.

I can't comment on XC though - but thought I'd share my opinion anyway!

 

[43167]

The FGW sets are too cramped. Dont like that most the tables were removed and its nearly all airline seats. XC sets are better, although again more airline seats than table-seats, I think theres abit more legroom on them.

 

[jon0844]

How much leg room do you need? As I said, they look cramped (there are only a couple of tables per coach now) but when you sit down you can't get anywhere near the seat in front unless you really slouch down.

That, to me, is enough room (I'm 5ft 10in FWIW). If you want the feeling of space, then it's a first class ticket as I presume there's more room all round?

Compared to an airline, it's more than ample.

 

[Justin Smith]

As stated above, where are the extra coaches going to come from? And what infrastructure changes would be required to allow a 2+9 or 2+10 HST to stop at existing stations that may not be able to accomodate these lengths (bearing in mind that they may not operate on lines with extended platforms)? For example, I understand that 11 car 390s will not be able to stop at every station the 9 car 390s do without SDO

And also, what would the extra coaches do for the performance of the rake? Maybe someone with better knowledge could answer that from a performance and fuel point of view? I presume there may also be an additional track access cost for running extra coaches?

Also, would it be cheaper for a TOC to refurb existing std coaches to contain a higher number of seats or to get extra coaches in and refurb them and add them to existing rakes (given the possible extra costs above)?

I'm sure it'd be much cheaper to just cram more seats into the existing coaches rather then add extra coaches. The problem is that makes that makes them less comfortable.
The question is, are the train companies actually bothered about that ?
Personally I'd rather they just left the existing number of seats in.
I'd rather take my (slightly greater, and it is only slightly greater) chance at not getting a seat till the next station stop on the odd train, rather than be uncomfortable on every train.

As to whether there are any spare Mk3s, I don't honestly know. I know that the loco hauled Mk3s need modification for use with HSTs but it's surely possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How much leg room do you need? As I said, they look cramped (there are only a couple of tables per coach now) but when you sit down you can't get anywhere near the seat in front unless you really slouch down.

That, to me, is enough room (I'm 5ft 10in FWIW). If you want the feeling of space, then it's a first class ticket as I presume there's more room all round?

Compared to an airline, it's more than ample.

I found the FGW refurbed HSTs were OK for leg room, I had no complaint about that. They`re a bit claustrophobic though, but I`d prefer that than getting cramp in my legs like on the XC ones......

 

[ainsworth74]

As to whether there are any spare Mk3s, I don't honestly know. I know that the loco hauled Mk3s need modification for use with HSTs but it's surely possible.

There are no spare HST trailers (which is why GC had to convert LHCS for their HSTs). There are also very few spare LHCS trailers (plenty of sleepers however) after Virgin introduced the 390s some Mk3s went to GEML, others have been used by GC and Wrexham and Shropshire. Cargo-D have some as well which they are using for rail tours and Chiltern have a few as well which they are going to start using on London to Birmingham services. But pretty much all the Mk3s are in everyday revenue service already.

 

[mumrar]

I thought that the Mk3s destined for Chiltern were actually the ex-IE stock that needs new bogies (from the raft of sleepers about). I may be wrong, but that's why DB purchased them I believe.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure, I thought that they were UK Mk3s rather than Irish. Wiki suggests that Chiltern are having them refurbished with power doors which the Irish Mk3s already had (so I thought anyway) so I think they are UK Mk3s. Happy to be corrected however!

 

[WillPS]

Is it just me that sees the words "Justin Smith" and facepalms instinctively?

 

[90019]

Is it just me that sees the words "Justin Smith" and facepalms instinctively?

I see his username and expect a rose tinted rant as to why old trains are better.

 

[Justin Smith]

I see his username and expect a rose tinted rant as to why old trains are better.

Not sure about the "old trains" bit, but if you mean trains that have :
More leg room
Larger windows
Quieter (due to no engine under the floor)
Then yes, as a passenger, I do think they`re better.
Wouldn`t everybody ?

 

[jon0844]

More leg room: Get less people to use trains. Suggestion; increase fares.

Larger windows: Use stronger materials to ensure train safety, pay more for train. Suggestion; increase fares or Government subsidies.

Quieter: It must be possible to engineer trains to be quieter even when an engine is under the floor, perhaps using start/stop technology so they're quiet when idle. That, I'd say, shouldn't cost loads extra and simply be part of utilising modern technology in engine design.

Most passengers just want a seat and to get to their destination on time. They probably want working toilets on the train and anything else is just a bonus.

 

[Geezertronic]

Not sure about the "old trains" bit, but if you mean trains that have :
More leg room
Larger windows
Quieter (due to no engine under the floor)
Then yes, as a passenger, I do think they're better.
Wouldn't everybody ?

No because most of us live in the real world

I take it you don't travel by bus, coach or plane very often? I find there to be less legroom on bus, coach and plane compared to a table seat on a 390 (which has bigger windows than a plane, why window size bothers you so much is still beyond me).