HST v Class 180

[Kentish Paul]

Had a trip to Reading yesterday to view the works. (amazing whats happened since I was there two years ago).

My usual fare is a 395 Ashford to Stratford which is fast, a bit of a wild ride (depending on individual unit), and hard seats. The journey out was a HST, very sedate, very comfortable, smooth acceleration, very quiet (no engine noise). However quite claustrophobic doe to the high seat backs.

Coming back I managed to get a Class 180. Faster acceleration, more comfortable seats with proper window spacing (coach B), more legroom with a view over the seat in front. The ride was just as good as the HST. OK with an engine under the floor there was greater noise, but it seemed to suit the character of the train more as a sports car than the grand tourer that the HST is. I like them both but on balance prefered the 180.

What do others think ?

 

[MK Tom]

Personally I find the 180s extremely comfortable. My only issue is the insane brake squeal when they're stopping. It's like using trains in France.

 

[LexyBoy]

I much prefer the 180s - a much more pleasant interior in every way except for the (considerable!) engine vibration.

The HSTs are claustrophobic, due to the seating as you say. This also makes it hard to tell where empty seats are. What I find worst of all is the incredibly harsh lighting - fine in daylight but horrible in the dark when you're feeling tired after a day's work. Gives me a horrible headache unless I close my eyes...

 

[sprinterguy]

In my opinion, the 180s are as an Intercity DMU, if we must have such things, should be. They're a cracking train from a passenger perspective, and it's a shame that their early lives have been marred by serious reliability issues. As far as internal ambience goes (IMO), they're just as good as an HST.

 

[Kentish Paul]

Personally I find the 180s extremely comfortable. My only issue is the insane brake squeal when they're stopping. It's like using trains in France.

Not a sound from the brakes on my trip yesterday. Maybe its a unit thing although I saw a Hull Trains 180 at Old Oak as we came back to Paddington so assume Hull's 180 servicing is done in the same place as FGW so maybe its a brake wear issue that causes the screech.

 

[HSTEd]

They have passenger power sockets in first class that are unusable because some sort of refurbishment moved the table legs so that they obstruct them.

Also they have a problem where the tables in first class are not fixed to the bodysides for some unknown reason and thus vibrate like anything if the engine is forced itno the resonance regime, which it unfortunately often is on the ECML.

 

[ryan125hst]

I've not travelled on a FGW HST, but have travelled on East Coast HST's a few times and have found them very comfortable. They feel very modern inside. It's only the narrow and squeaky vestibules and slam doors that make the train feel old. Other than that, you can't really tell they are over 30 years old!

I also like the 180's having travelled on Hull Trains a couple of times. Am I correct in thinking that they (as well as the similar class 175's) are based on the Mark 3 carriage design? The only things I would improve with them (aside from the reliability issues and the squeaky breaks) is the layout of them. Why does first class have to be the second (or fourth, depending on the direction) carriage from the front of the train? Wouldn't it have made more sense to have first class at the very front (or back) of the trains and have a larger kitchen. What do they even have catering wise in first? Isn't it just a microwave? I've heard that Hull Trains can't offer as much catering wise now as they were able to when they had 222's.

If the layout was: First Class (with kitchen), Standard class, Standard class with buffet counter, standard class, standard class with accessible toilet- they would be even better units.

In fact, if they were to have the layout I have suggested above, but with one or two intermediate first class carriages and one or two more standard class coaches, they would actually make an ideal HST replacement. I wonder why they didn't think of that when they were first built? Why were only such a small number of the class built?

 

[SeanG]

It doesn't help that FGW HSTs are absolutely shocking.
hardly any tables. all the seats are very high backed and close together,meaning its very clostrophopic and you can't see much

 

[TEW]

They have passenger power sockets in first class that are unusable because some sort of refurbishment moved the table legs so that they obstruct them.

I never realised that the FC sockets were obstructed. The FGW/HT refurbishment installed power sockets in standard for the first time.

 

[HSTEd]

I never realised that the FC sockets were obstructed. The FGW/HT refurbishment installed power sockets in standard for the first time.

Not all of them, just enough to be annoying.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It doesn't help that FGW HSTs are absolutely shocking.
hardly any tables. all the seats are very high backed and close together,meaning its very clostrophopic and you can't see much

On the other hand it means more people have a chance of getting a seat. And when you've paid a small fortune for a ticket these things are important!

 

[notadriver]

Do 180s vibrate less than Voyagers under full load ?

 

[sprinterguy]

Am I correct in thinking that they (as well as the similar class 175's) are based on the Mark 3 carriage design?

Not to my knowledge, no. This is a misconception that is often bandied about but no evidence has ever been provided as far as I know. If anything, the designs for the mark 3 carriage would have passed to Bombardier, from BREL via ABB and Adtranz.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder why they didn't think of that when they were first built? Why were only such a small number of the class built?

Because First Group were the only ones who showed any interest (They were initially ordered for the First North Western open access services to London from the North West, but passed to FGW during the design phase when these services were curtailed) in the design, and thoughts of any further prospective orders from other TOCs were rapidly quashed once they entered service and the vast array of faults became apparent, with very little support offered from Alstom.

 

[LexyBoy]

Do 180s vibrate less than Voyagers under full load ?

I would say 180s vibrate more than Voyagers. I don't travel on 180s that often though. Pretty much everything else about them is nicer though.

On the other hand it means more people have a chance of getting a seat. And when you've paid a small fortune for a ticket these things are important!

Having very high backed seats doesn't get you any more seats in. I actually don't think the seat pitch is a problem - there's more legroom than on EC - it's just the high backs which give it a claustrophobic air. (Agreed that fewer tables does give you more seats, but I am of the opinion that FGW took it a bit too far).

 

[Peter Sarf]

High backed seats on most types of train seem to make the coach inside more claustrophobic. It just ruins what was a perfectly good coach. I prefer the HSTs as they are quieter coaches. Granted the vestibules at the end are getting a bit old fashioned/tired but power operated doors and other work would make the Mark3 coach young again. I imagine that is easier than removing the engine from a class 180 coach !.

I assume the 180s are shorter than HSTs because one of their purposes was to do jobs where a full length HST was not required but still keep up the HST schedule/product.

 

[Kentish Paul]

Do 180s vibrate less than Voyagers under full load ?

Never been on a voyager, but on yesterdays trip the worst vibration was when stationary at idle. Under power up to 125 mph was fine.

 

[ryan125hst]

Not to my knowledge, no. This is a misconception that is often bandied about but no evidence has ever been provided as far as I know. If anything, the designs for the mark 3 carriage would have passed to Bombardier, from BREL via ABB and Adtranz.

Oh right. They do have a very similar layout though. If you look at the layout of a Voyager with the large accessible toilets at the end of each coach, and then look at the 180's with a small toilet in all but one coach and with the luggage racks opposite it, the 180's seem a lot more Mark 3 ish. It even looks a bit like a Mark 3 from the outside.

Because First Group were the only ones who showed any interest (They were initially ordered for the First North Western open access services to London from the North West, but passed to FGW during the design phase when these services were curtailed) in the design, and thoughts of any further prospective orders from other TOCs were rapidly quashed once they entered service and the vast array of faults became apparent, with very little support offered from Alstom.

I assume the 180s are shorter than HSTs because one of their purposes was to do jobs where a full length HST was not required but still keep up the HST schedule/product.

That's a shame. I wonder if FGW would have ordered longer 180's to replace the HST's (instead of refurbishing them) had they been more successful. Also, do you think other TOCs would have ordered them?

High backed seats on most types of train seem to make the coach inside more claustrophobic. It just ruins what was a perfectly good coach.

Sadly, the high backed seats are needed to meet modern crashworthiness standards (it's been mentioned on this forum before).

I prefer the HSTs as they are quieter coaches. Granted the vestibules at the end are getting a bit old fashioned/tired but power operated doors and other work would make the Mark3 coach young again. I imagine that is easier than removing the engine from a class 180 coach !.

I agree. They are very smooth and comfortable for long journeys. If you look at a HST as a whole, they are fantastic trains: High top speed of 125mph, plenty of standard class accommodation with (looking at East Coast's HST's) plenty of table seats, luggage racks, two toilets per coach, buffet car and large kitchen and good first class accommodation. I don't know what copyrights, patents the HST has, but in my opinion, all new long distance trains designed in the UK should be at least loosely based on it.

 

[43167]

All that lets the FGW HST's down are the poor seats.

 

[387star]

On the other hand it means more people have a chance of getting a seat. And when you've paid a small fortune for a ticket these things are important!

close together? leg room is excellent
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All that lets the FGW HST's down are the poor seats.

comfy seats in my opinion

 

[Suraggu]

They have passenger power sockets in first class that are unusable because some sort of refurbishment moved the table legs so that they obstruct them.
.

The FGW sets don't have this problem in FC. Currently sat on one and had a look and Im charging my phone as well. Never noticed the FHT sets to have this problem either. (Both fleets refurbs very very similar).

 

[387star]

Never been on a voyager, but on yesterdays trip the worst vibration was when stationary at idle. Under power up to 125 mph was fine.

keep it that way

 

[cjmillsnun]

HSTs would be my train of choice, although I dislike the high backed seats. Mainly because for my shortarsed frame I can't get comfortable in them.

EMT's HSTs with IC70s I find perfect. I appreciate they aren't for everyone, not are they as safe as the modern high backed seat, however IMO the chance of being in a serious accident is very small on the railway anyway.

 

[Techniquest]

close together? leg room is excellent

Agreed, the leg room is great for me and I'm a fairly big chap, indeed I found the airline IC70 seats on the ex-EMT set on a Doncaster to Peterborough journey last year to be much more restrictive for legroom. And I had forgotten how irritating those enormous armrests are. Much prefer the refurbished sets now, much different to my previous opinion of them years ago!

From the very first time I sat on one of the refurbished FGW sets' seats way back when, I found the seats comfortable enough for brand new seats. They're still quite acceptable. Yes the high backed seats can be a bit of an irritance but if you're busy staring out of the window, daydreaming or busy in other trains of thought, or doing some paperwork, you don't really notice.

As for the 180s, some of the most unreliable pieces of junk to ever be used on the railway! They're better than they used to be, but still not there yet. Granted, the seats are comfortable, but that noise that comes from the disc brakes is horrible!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Having very high backed seats doesn't get you any more seats in. I actually don't think the seat pitch is a problem - there's more legroom than on EC - it's just the high backs which give it a claustrophobic air.

In all fairness I wasn't suggesting for one minute that high backed seats increase the number of seats in a carriage, indeed I would have thought that this was pretty obvious. I was referring to the policy of replacing tables with seats.

 

[Techniquest]

T'is the problem of using HSTs on what are effectively commuter/stopping services, extra seats are needed over tables. Off-peak, fair enough get the sets with tables out but at the end of the day, it's impossible to cover every time of day.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My only experiences of 180s are standing on a crowded FGW set (pre-refurb) from Reading to Taunton and short hops within West Yorkshire on GC sets.

HSTs I've had much more encounters with, though I've never really been a fan of the fixed armrests on IC70 seats. For ride quality though, there's nothing that quite matches them.

The 180s did have a rather troublesome introduction, and are still not quite there in terms of reliability. I guess it doesn't help that they've had a rather nomadic existence so far, whereas the other early post-privatisation stock produced by Washwood Heath (175s, 334s, 390s and 458/460s) have stayed broadly in the same areas and with the same depots. The 458s were terribly unreliable when first introduced as were the 175s- but over time those problems were ironed out and they seem no less reliable than similar trains from other manufacturers. It's a real shame the 180s didn't work 'out of the box' and win further orders, as they're a far superior train compared to the Vomiters.

That said, the GC sets could certainly do with a thorough refurb- the seats drastically need re-padding and it'd do Grand Central's image a great deal of good if they could eradicate all traces of dated FirstGroup branding. They do at least have plug sockets in standard though!

 

[jimm]

Not to my knowledge, no. This is a misconception that is often bandied about but no evidence has ever been provided as far as I know. If anything, the designs for the mark 3 carriage would have passed to Bombardier, from BREL via ABB and Adtranz.

In terms of the bodyshell, the 180/175 design owes more to Metro-Cammell/Alstom's experiences with the Class 156 and Mk4 coaches, but in terms of the interior ambience in the passenger saloons, I clearly remember reading an article in a magazine some time ago where one of the 180 design team said they had set out to achieve something like the feel of a Mk3 - obviously this predated the appearance of the tombstone seats in FGW's refresh programme...

 

[sprinterguy]

In terms of the bodyshell, the 180/175 design owes more to Metro-Cammell/Alstom's experiences with the Class 156 and Mk4 coaches, but in terms of the interior ambience in the passenger saloons, I clearly remember reading an article in a magazine some time ago where one of the 180 design team said they had set out to achieve something like the feel of a Mk3 - obviously this predated the appearance of the tombstone seats in FGW's refresh programme...

Fair enough, I stand, at least partially, corrected. I will readily admit that there is more than a slight passing resemblance between a 180 vehicle and a mark 3.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a shame. I wonder if FGW would have ordered longer 180's to replace the HST's (instead of refurbishing them) had they been more successful. Also, do you think other TOCs would have ordered them?

If they had worked "out of the box", then I would have much preferred a fleet of 180s on Crosscountry: A squadron fleet of 5-car trains would have been an improvement over the mix of 4 and 5-car Voyagers that we have been lumbered with. However, procurement for the Voyagers and Adelantes was going on pretty much concurrently, and, critically for Virgin at the time, the 180s don't tilt, so I don't suppose it was ever a possibility.

A fleet of 9-car Adelantes on Great Western, replacing the HSTs, would have been impressive, though we might not have been looking at firm plans for electrification as we are now.

 

[willc789]

"close together? leg room is excellent"



I couldnt agree more, at 6 5' I forever struggle for legroom on trains, but the FGW HST's are one of the few types where I can stretch out a bit and not fold myself in half!

 

[Aictos]

There is nothing wrong at all with the First Great Western HSTs interiors, be it lightening or seating. Just a few one here like to moan for no reason at all :roll:

My only issue is the placement of the power sockets in First Class which should have been below the tables and not above it, other then that the interiors are absolutely fine and NO improvements need to be done.