Most Disappointing Rolling Stock.

[lxfe_mxtterz]

Personally I prefer the Everos - especially the 807s.

Better seat layouts, better views and a spacious feel in Standard.

That's fair, and I can understand why. They certainly do feel more spacious, but it's just for me personally that I feel something about them is lacking.

It's subjective, but I do prefer the more "cosy" feeling of the Pendolinos so that might play a part in why I'm not so keen on the Everos.

 

[FrontSideBus]

That's fair, and I can understand why. They certainly do feel more spacious, but it's just for me personally that I feel something about them is lacking.

It's subjective, but I do prefer the more "cosy" feeling of the Pendolinos so that might play a part in why I'm not so keen on the Everos.

Pendolinos are more cosy, which I like and it almost feels like the cabin of an aeroplane!

 

[43096]

Pendolinos are more cosy, which I like and it almost feels like the cabin of an aeroplane!

Which is anything but a recommendation.

 

[david1212]

To me it has to be the first tranche of 80x sets given that were to replace HST / MK3 and 225 / MK4.
As a minimum overall they should have been a similar experience not inferior but given the timespan for development ought to have been superior. Core are the seats and second the ride on poorer track, good seats may well have made the latter much less noticeable. Third is the overall internal ambiance.

I have yet to travel on a later 80x set.

 

[Mikey C]

Pendolinos are more cosy, which I like and it almost feels like the cabin of an aeroplane!

The 390s might feel like an aeroplane inside (economy class of course), but I wouldn't consider that a positive!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The 390s might feel like an aeroplane inside (economy class of course), but I wouldn't consider that a positive!

The 390s were deliberately designed to resemble an aircraft inside - some bloke called Branson insisted upon it...


...and yes, I'm another one who finds the 390s disappointing. Mainly because of their being cramped and with ridiculously small windows.

 

[tfw756rider]

I had the joy of a XC 220 journey on Monday thanks to the AWC blockade this week (...) Plenty of luggage space and roomy (I realise this isn't the case with the tilting ones)

The 220s aren't any more roomy inside than the 221s, as even though they're the as-built non-tilting version of the Voyager, they were still designed to accomodate the tilting equipment (I guess that was the most cost-effective way of doing it). Only the 222s were redesigned to be more roomy on the inside than the 220s and 221s.

 

[Goldfish62]

The 390s were deliberately designed to resemble an aircraft inside - some bloke called Branson insisted upon it...


...and yes, I'm another one who finds the 390s disappointing. Mainly because of their being cramped and with ridiculously small windows.

I didn't used to like the Pendolinos, but I do now. A combination of the excellent refurbishment and also due to all subsequent long distance "high speed" domestic trains being worse.

The cramped interior is a result of being required to tilt within the UK's miniature loading gauge.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't mind swooshing along in a Pendolino. The only time I'd be disappointed at one turning up would be if it were overcrowded.

 

[route101]

Class 397s, the seats are awful, rock hard.

 

[Grecian 1998]

Not a fan of class 377s. Ugly colours, the sections with 2+3 seating feel cramped, whilst the vast majority of 2+2 seating being around tables means that if you're a single traveller you'll probably have to share, which is off-putting. I don't really understand how 2+3 seating is necessary for capacity and yet the 2+2 seating is so inefficient. The only airline 2+2 seats all seem to be marked as priority seats and or have an electronic board or thick hinge to allow them to be opened in case of air con failure, increasing the sense of claustrophobia.

Class 375s on SouthEastern are considerably nicer despite being almost exactly the same train. Maybe it's just my personal prejudices.

 

[yorksrob]

Not a fan of class 377s. Ugly colours, the sections with 2+3 seating feel cramped, whilst the vast majority of 2+2 seating being around tables means that if you're a single traveller you'll probably have to share, which is off-putting. I don't really understand how 2+3 seating is necessary for capacity and yet the 2+2 seating is so inefficient. The only airline 2+2 seats all seem to be marked as priority seats and or have an electronic board or thick hinge to allow them to be opened in case of air con failure, increasing the sense of claustrophobia.

Class 375s on SouthEastern are considerably nicer despite being almost exactly the same train. Maybe it's just my personal prejudices.

No, you're quite right.

For the 377's they'd be better off putting in the better 2+2 seating, but making up some capacity by having mainly airline seating.

At least on a VEP, the seats had some padding and lined up with the windows properly.

 

[BurtonM]

185s.
The original seats were dreadful pre-refurb, ride quality is poor, noisy, fairly cramped.
Supposed to be 4 car units, always been plagued with overcrowding issues as a combination of the 3 cars, and poor utilisation of the space: only really 2 coaches worth of standard class seats, nowhere near enough luggage space, no proper cycle storage (exascerbated by not being allowed to keep a bike in the area between first and the accessible toilet).
As a 158 replacement they were a downgrade, I always thought.

15x 'refurbishment' is offensively bad.

Growing up between Manchester and south London, 455s were a disappointing replacement for the slam doors (especially seeing other lines get Electrostars), and my first introduction to ironing boards.

175s, if they were reliable and all 3 car they'd be really quite nice.

CAF units, the cheapness is clear. I don't often ride them but when I do I'm always alarmed how quickly they're wearing.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Whilst it's no doubt they're the better of the bad bunch that is IETs, I just can't warm to them. It's not something I can put my finger on but they just feel a lot cheaper, blander and poorer quality than the excellent Pendolinos.

Completely agree. I think the difference in interior ambience between Pendolino and Evero is quite staggering.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2026 ==

I'd take a smooth, comfortable Voyager over an IET with their collapsed seats or any of the modern CAF rubbish that have the ride quality of Fred Flintstones car.

Agreed. I much preferred my commute from Manchester to Oxford to the one I do now from Worcester to Oxford.

 

[mmh]

The 390s were deliberately designed to resemble an aircraft inside - some bloke called Branson insisted upon it...


...and yes, I'm another one who finds the 390s disappointing. Mainly because of their being cramped and with ridiculously small windows.

I suspect this is another common myth that the forum probably inherited from the uk.railway usenet newsgroup at some point.

The 390 interior looks pretty much the same as any mainland Europe Pendolino from the same era, just smaller.

 

[Goldfish62]

I suspect this is another common myth that the forum probably inherited from the uk.railway usenet newsgroup at some point.

The 390 interior looks pretty much the same as any mainland Europe Pendolino from the same era, just smaller.

Yes, I was about to say the same.

 

[yorksrob]

185s.
The original seats were dreadful pre-refurb, ride quality is poor, noisy, fairly cramped.
Supposed to be 4 car units, always been plagued with overcrowding issues as a combination of the 3 cars, and poor utilisation of the space: only really 2 coaches worth of standard class seats, nowhere near enough luggage space, no proper cycle storage (exascerbated by not being allowed to keep a bike in the area between first and the accessible toilet).
As a 158 replacement they were a downgrade, I always thought.

15x 'refurbishment' is offensively bad.

Growing up between Manchester and south London, 455s were a disappointing replacement for the slam doors (especially seeing other lines get Electrostars), and my first introduction to ironing boards.

175s, if they were reliable and all 3 car they'd be really quite nice.

CAF units, the cheapness is clear. I don't often ride them but when I do I'm always alarmed how quickly they're wearing.

The more I use the 185's, the more I seem to like them.

 

[AM9]

At least on a VEP, the seats had some padding and lined up with the windows properly.

Difficult to avoid given the multiple slam doors.

 

[yorksrob]

Difficult to avoid given the multiple slam doors.

You say "slam doors" like they were a bad thing.

(They weren't).

 

[FinsburyPark]

Southern class 377's.

Its not the rolling stock itself.

But why are the seats in poor condition? Look worn or dirty?

 

[AM9]

You say "slam doors" like they were a bad thing.

(They weren't).

They had safety issues, were heavy for some passengers and mandated the seat layout, - whereas sliding doors are independent of seating except for the provision of vestibules where they were.

 

[Sheldonian]

Chiltern mk5s fairly disappointing.
Can't believe that nearly every table doesn't align with a window.
Surely the main plus point of any journey is the view from the window.
How / why on earth have they been designed that way? Why hasn't it been corrected.
Surely just shift everything down by 3 ft and add a 2 seat in the space created.

 

[Transilien]

Chiltern mk5s fairly disappointing.
Can't believe that nearly every table doesn't align with a window.
Surely the main plus point of any journey is the view from the window.
How / why on earth have they been designed that way? Why hasn't it been corrected.
Surely just shift everything down by 3 ft and add a 2 seat in the space created.

It was probably built by a conspiracy to erase loco-haulded trains!

 

[Tetragon213]

I don't mind swooshing along in a Pendolino. The only time I'd be disappointed at one turning up would be if it were overcrowded.

Same here. The windows being small are a definite mark against, but the rest of the train is actually quite pleasant to be in. And the tilt is always fun.

 

[bramling]

Same here. The windows being small are a definite mark against, but the rest of the train is actually quite pleasant to be in. And the tilt is always fun.

The 390 is a strange one for me, as outwardly it’s the sort of train I’d have expected to dislike. However on the contrary I’ve had many enjoyable journeys in them. Operationally they’ve proven a solid workhorse too, and this included their performance in their (thankfully) one and only major accident.

I suspect there is at least an element of truth to the aircraftisation of the interior conspiracy theory, and the small windows means the journey experience does tend to heavily depend on getting particular seats. It’s regrettable the whole fleet wasn’t lengthened to 11 cars as this would have made such a positive difference.

 

[Tetragon213]

The 390 is a strange one for me, as outwardly it’s the sort of train I’d have expected to dislike. However on the contrary I’ve had many enjoyable journeys in them. Operationally they’ve proven a solid workhorse too, and this included their performance in their (thankfully) one and only major accident.

I suspect there is at least an element of truth to the aircraftisation of the interior conspiracy theory, and the small windows means the journey experience does tend to heavily depend on getting particular seats. It’s regrettable the whole fleet wasn’t lengthened to 11 cars as this would have made such a positive difference.

I'm sort of surprised we haven't seen the rest of the world adopting the Japanese style of windows with reversible seats etc. Those are really airplane-like. Not that it's a bad thing per se.

 

[bramling]

I'm sort of surprised we haven't seen the rest of the world adopting the Japanese style of windows with reversible seats etc. Those are really airplane-like. Not that it's a bad thing per se.

It’s interesting that up until the late 90s, there was certainly a bias towards facing seating in this country, especially on suburban services. It seemed to work reasonably well. What won’t have helped it that people have tended to get larger over the years. For those who grew up in the 80s and 90s there seems to be a preference to facing seats - I always feel a bit “cheated” if I don’t have one. In those days on most off-peak suburban services you could expect the whole bay to yourself.

 

[KevinTurvey]

I recall Mr Branson wanted to make a point of his new trains were not going to be anything like British Rail trains. I think Preistman Goode did the design work for Virgin who also do a lot of aviation design, so is perhaps why they feel a 'bit aicrafty'.

 

[yorksrob]

It’s interesting that up until the late 90s, there was certainly a bias towards facing seating in this country, especially on suburban services. It seemed to work reasonably well. What won’t have helped it that people have tended to get larger over the years. For those who grew up in the 80s and 90s there seems to be a preference to facing seats - I always feel a bit “cheated” if I don’t have one. In those days on most off-peak suburban services you could expect the whole bay to yourself.

Also on mk 1's, the bay was also the width of a slam door, so far apart enough not to knock knees.

 

[Harpo]

Also on mk 1's, the bay was also the width of a slam door, so far apart enough not to knock knees.

The toastrack mk1s had space for standees in each compartment. That was usually meant 6-aside plus 4 or 5 stood, but I did have a couple of extreme commutes with 6 standing.