mk3s could be made accessible for operation up to 2035

[Greenback]

I fail to understand this supposed difference between normal passengers and other passengers! What are they then - abnormal passnegers?!

Surely, the whole point udner discussion is whether old stock, which has already been in service for up to 35 years, should be in service for up to 60 years? Will they be structurally able to last that long, given that they have been intensively used on high speed services during their service?

If the answer to that question is yes, then we need to ask whether it is actually cost effective to do this, and this would depned on how much the refurbishment would cost. And this is dependent on the amount of work required. Given that we don't know the answer, we can't really compare the costs to a new build so it's not something we can really say at this time.

But where would these trains be deployed anyway? As has been mentioned, the HST's can run at 125mph but have poor acceleration. If they are to be used on services with frequent stops or lower speeds, then it would seem sensible to procure cheaper new stock with better acceleration profiles and lower highest speeds.

All in all, there are too many variables involved to make a balanced judgement. Which is probably why we are debating crahsworhtiness and window sizes instead!

 

[starrymarkb]

Has anything been built in the last twenty years with windows/ seats lining up perfectly?

Class 158 as built. Though refurbishments have lead to a loss in places.

159s have perfect alignment in Standard but first has poor alignment as the windows are spaced for standard.

185s aligned the windows to the seats hence all the odd sized windows

 

[Zoe]

If Voyagers were longer, everyone would get a seat. But when you don't get a seat on a train, suddenly you'll find other things to complain about. The underfloor engines, the toilets, the beeping noises, the decor... I still say that most of the things which people on here criticise the Voyagers for wouldn't be raised if they were two hundred metres long.

Indeed, having underfloor engines on a train doesn't make it any more noisy than for a example a National Express coach. At the end of the day it can't be denied that the introduction of the Voyagers was succesful at attracting new passengers. It was so succesful that the new trains couldn't cope with the sudden increase in demand.

 

[Daimler]

Nobody really knows, yet a lot of people like to claim that they do to justify the point that they are making

True enough...all we really have to go off is the Passenger Focus survey - which suits me, as 390s came last!

Class 158 as built. Though refurbishments have lead to a loss in places.

159s have perfect alignment in Standard but first has poor alignment.

185s aligned the windows to the seats hence all the odd sized windows

No wonder I almost invariably enjoy travelling on them - once more, the Desiro does things properly...

 

[tbtc]

True enough...all we really have to go off is the Passenger Focus survey - which suits me, as 390s came last!

I'm perfectly happy to use something like that, I just get frustrated with people taking the "I like travelling on Class 101s, therefore everyone does" attitude

/rant

 

[starrymarkb]

Class 101s

Bloody awful things those were

 

[northwichcat]

Bloody awful things those were

First North Western kept them in service until the Dec 2003 timetable change by which stage they were nearly 50 years old. It was also rumoured that Northern Rail looked at bringing them back in to service in around 2006 to help combat overcrowding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I fail to understand this supposed difference between normal passengers and other passengers! What are they then - abnormal passengers?!

I think the 'abnormal passengers' are the supposed to be the ones that know about when trains were built and the class number, while the 'normal passengers' just know when they first starting travelling a particular type of train and what, if anything, the operator calls it.

 

[Zoe]

First North Western kept them in service until the Dec 2003 timetable change

The single annual principal timetable change in December was only introduced in 2004.

 

[junglejames]

This is precisely my point.

If Voyagers were longer, everyone would get a seat. But when you don't get a seat on a train, suddenly you'll find other things to complain about. The underfloor engines, the toilets, the beeping noises, the decor... I still say that most of the things which people on here criticise the Voyagers for wouldn't be raised if they were two hundred metres long.

Hey? My point had nothing to do with this. This is totally seperate from what i was saying. I was sayiong that when people complain about seats/. windows not lining up, they dont just complain about that. Its one of a number of things. Thats why they dont bring Mk3s into the argument, because with them, its only that one thing they have a problem with.
My point had nothing to do with the length, or whether people can get seats or not.
Also, I think your wrong with your suggestion. I know for a fact my problem with them stays whether i could get a seat or not. In fact, if they were longer, id have even more of a problem with them, because then they end up using stupid amounts of fuel, much more than having a single, or 2, locos.
I think most peoples problem is the runs they are on. Who wants a cramped, noisy train, with very little luggage space, on a 6/7 hr crosscountry service? Then there are those, like me, that find the seats some of the most uncomfortable going.
Also, you dont see half this number of complaints regarding the 222s, not even on the short formations. Thats because most of the problems were sorted out (except for the underfloor engines of course), and because they arent on stupidly long services.
222s arent cramped. They have much better luggage space. The overhead racks can actually be used. So much better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, having underfloor engines on a train doesn't make it any more noisy than for a example a National Express coach. At the end of the day it can't be denied that the introduction of the Voyagers was succesful at attracting new passengers. It was so succesful that the new trains couldn't cope with the sudden increase in demand.

What? Now we go to coaches? We were comparing trains, and the underfloor engines make them noisier and not as pleasant as Mk3/4s.


Also, you put the increase in passenger numbers purely down to the voyagers.
Actually its a number of things, and we cant be sure voyagers had much to do with it.
What about the fact passenger numbers have always been rising anyway?
What about the increased frequencies?
What about the quicker journey times, caused mainly by the different track access agreement, whereas virgin paid higher track access costs, in return for decent paths that didnt leave them sitting around waiting in the middle of nowhere for 15mins.

 

[ainsworth74]

What about the increased frequencies?
What about the quicker journey times,

Increased frequencies possible due to the Voyagers and quicker journey times also in part due to the much higher acceleration of Voyagers compared with LHCS and HSTs. One you didn't mention is that Voyagers improved reliability and timekeeping of the service a tremendous amount compared to LHCS days a reliable service that turns up on time tends to see more custom.

I think it's a fair comment to say Voyager played a big part in the massive growth that the Cross Country route has seen over the last ten years or so.

 

[asylumxl]

True enough...all we really have to go off is the Passenger Focus survey - which suits me, as 390s came last!

In the same survey, didn't the 222s come out on top?

 

[starrymarkb]

iirc it was the 221s

 

[Daimler]

iirc it was the 221s

No, they fared quite poorly. asylumxl is right, the 222s came top, proving that Bombardier learned the lessons from the Voyagers.

 

[jones_bangor]

But wouldn't the Mk 3's be exported anyway? To New Zealand or Egypt etc? And be refurbished, and continue in service?

I say power door them, refurb and use as LHCS with 67s and DVTs on secondary inter-regional services.

 

[starrymarkb]

Which is where the 67's high axle load becomes a factor. Sprinters are light, so often get higher speed limits then locomotives. ie Yeovil to Castle Cary on an HST takes 20 mins or on a Sprinter about 10! The heavy HST is limited to a low speed trundle. 185s can't use Sprinter limits either!

 

[route:oxford]

There is no doubt a benefit in upgrading Mk3s to extend their lifespan further, and they will certainly be valuable units for charter in years to come.

But, the Mk3 was surpassed by the Mk4 unit. It in turn was surpassed by the (equivalent) Mk5 unit in the late 1990s/early 2000s with the 175 and 180.

You just need to sit in a 180 with a broken engine to feel the silky smooth glide and quiet performance - and enjoy the spacious accommodation with large windows, effective aircon and working lavatories.

Then wonder to yourself...

What would it have been like if FGW (or GNER) had ordered a couple of experimental sets of Coradia carriages as HST compatible LHCS?

Especially handy when SDO would be helpful for the Highland Chieftan or Cotswold line.

 

[yorksrob]

First North Western kept them in service until the Dec 2003 timetable change by which stage they were nearly 50 years old. It was also rumoured that Northern Rail looked at bringing them back in to service in around 2006 to help combat overcrowding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They should have done. Better a seat on an older train than standing on a newer one.

I recall going on one on the North Norfolk a few years ago so whether they'd have been able to get them back I don't know

 

[170399]

As long as they work, why bother replacing them.
It does show up badly though that we have never been able to design a better coach.

True for instance look at the Pacers we still got them and probably will do for at least another half a decade

 

[Blindtraveler]

wel the pacer replacement is going to be interesting itself. If the 172s do well in traffic, some runs would be suitable I think? theres a load a talk about tram trains which may or may not work in areas where a system already exists but I know there are many who dont like this idea and I can definately understand why.

Before someone tics me off about being off topic, the point in all this is that if mk3s wil indeed go on for a bit, shouldnt attention be paid at this stage to our regional fleat? not only are there many Pacers to replace with a design appropriate to the routes but DFT need to realise that 150s etc woant go on for ever and that areas such as Northern already have major stock problems and these wil, if allowed to, get worse.

The sprinters are great units, all of them and if a similar 21st century design were to be introduced in sufficient numbers then we wil have a modern, fit for purpose fleat which tackles the crouds and means local traffic is taken care of before another 80s headake starts and something just has to be thrown together.

My final point in this rant is that whatever comes it should be tocs, passengers, engineers and other railway experts who design them in consultation with the dft and there finance experts, not the other way round so would someone like to order those accountants a taxi? There going for a 12 hour pacer bash. That'll teach them!

 

[TDK]

wel the pacer replacement is going to be interesting itself. If the 172s do well in traffic, some runs would be suitable I think? theres a load a talk about tram trains which may or may not work in areas where a system already exists but I know there are many who dont like this idea and I can definately understand why.

Before someone tics me off about being off topic, the point in all this is that if mk3s wil indeed go on for a bit, shouldnt attention be paid at this stage to our regional fleat? not only are there many Pacers to replace with a design appropriate to the routes but DFT need to realise that 150s etc woant go on for ever and that areas such as Northern already have major stock problems and these wil, if allowed to, get worse.

The sprinters are great units, all of them and if a similar 21st century design were to be introduced in sufficient numbers then we wil have a modern, fit for purpose fleat which tackles the crouds and means local traffic is taken care of before another 80s headake starts and something just has to be thrown together.

My final point in this rant is that whatever comes it should be tocs, passengers, engineers and other railway experts who design them in consultation with the dft and there finance experts, not the other way round so would someone like to order those accountants a taxi? There going for a 12 hour pacer bash. That'll teach them!

Southern had to replace their whole fleet of slam door stock with new units (375 & 377) so there is always a way that the older generation stock can be replaced. However if the trains are still withing the emissions law and the safety laws the TOC's will keep them going for as long as they can. Mark 3 coaches are excellent coaches and some companies running Mk 3's renovated to a high standard are reaping the benefits of this stock however units are far superior when it comes practicability and running costs.

 

[northwichcat]

They should have done. Better a seat on an older train than standing on a newer one.

I recall going on one on the North Norfolk a few years ago so whether they'd have been able to get them back I don't know

Knowing Northern they would have asked a PTE to subside them and if they couldn't get them to agree then they wouldn't have taken the units on.