Most Disappointing Rolling Stock.

[BogiePicker]

I agree. It’s a shame 20m isn’t standard in the UK now as it really maximises the carriage width, which in our loading gauge goes a long way.

The longer Aventras are not far off at 2.77cm and are substantially longer at 24m. 730s in fact slightly wider and much
longer Than WCML replacement

 

[43096]

Class 180s were to many a disappointment as they failed to do what they were intended to do and that is replace the HSTs at First Great Western.

I think you need to check your history! The 180s were built to augment the FGW fleet, not replace the HSTs.

 

[AM9]

They worked well with seasoned commuters on outer-suburban services. It’s hard to envisage how the traditional “London Bridge platform 6” would work today though, where it was essentially normal for trains to depart with people still trying to get on.

It only takes on door to still be open to delay the whole train.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I think you need to check your history! The 180s were built to augment the FGW fleet, not replace the HSTs.

Something like 54x 7 or 8 carriage HST sets with FGW at the time of the IETs introduction, 14x 5 carriage 180s were never going to even come close to replacing them

 

[D365]

Something like 54x 7 or 8 carriage HST sets with FGW at the time of the IETs introduction, 14x 5 carriage 180s were never going to even come close to replacing them

Indeed, and those 70 carriages were originally meant to be a 125mph variant of the Class 175, for First North Western.

 

[Transilien]

Indeed, and those 70 carriages were originally meant to be a 125mph variant of the Class 175, for First North Western.

What would they have been used for if they had gone into service for First North Western?

 

[Babybirdrobin]

For me the 720s and the original 80x take top spots.

Most new stuff I‘m generally neutral or alright with but the original 80x are very uncomfortable (which should be taken into account given this is an intercity train designed as a standard) and while the 720s feel like they’re an improvement performance wise the fact that some people physically can’t get through them because of the 3+2 really needs to be address. People shouldn’t be forced into gangways or disabled spaces or the like. Definitely prefer the 91s & HSTs when it comes to the IETs and the 321s just worked in Anglia

 

[43096]

Something like 54x 7 or 8 carriage HST sets with FGW at the time of the IETs introduction, 14x 5 carriage 180s were never going to even come close to replacing them

Your timing is off… When FGW got the 180s, they had something like 38 HST sets.

 

[Transilien]

Definitely prefer the 91s & HSTs when it comes to the IETs and the 321s just worked in Anglia

The 321s also had 2+3 seating! Their seats were really small and not appropriate at all for some of the longer journeys to places like Clacton. It’s likely the reason that Greater Anglia thought it was appropriate to put 2+3 seating on the 720s.

 

[sh24]

The 321s also had 2+3 seating! Their seats were really small and not appropriate at all for some of the longer journeys to places like Clapton. It’s likely the reason that Greater Anglia thought it was appropriate to put 2+3 seating on the 720s.

DfT specification that maximises rush hours seats to appease Tory voters from the Shires.

 

[Goldfish62]

DfT specification that maximises rush hours seats to appease Tory voters from the Shires.

The actual reason was because with the inner suburban services being taken over by TfL GA was left with the outer suburban and longer distance regional journeys for which it was thought that maximising seating rather than standing capacity was more important. With the decline of commuting since Covid I doubt if 2+3 seating would be specified now.

 

[AM9]

The actual reason was because with the inner suburban services being taken over by TfL GA was left with the outer suburban and longer distance regional journeys for which it was thought that maximising seating rather than standing capacity was more important. With the decline of commuting since Covid I doubt if 2+3 seating would be specified now.

Or less trains to reduce costs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2026 ==

The 321s also had 2+3 seating! Their seats were really small and not appropriate at all for some of the longer journeys to places like Clapton. It’s likely the reason that Greater Anglia thought it was appropriate to put 2+3 seating on the 720s.

Clapton is less than 4 miles from Liverpool St., and journeys typically take about 10 minutes. Clacton-on Sea is just under 70 miles and journeys take around 90 minutes, so I assume that is the station you are thinking of.

 

[Transilien]

Clapton is less than 4 miles from Liverpool St., and journeys typically take about 10 minutes. Clacton-on Sea is just under 70 miles and journeys take around 90 minutes, so I assume that is the station you are thinking of.

Yes

 

[Goldfish62]

Or less trains to reduce costs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2026 ==

A 10 coach 720 is the same length as a 12 coach 321. And others say the 321s, and also 360s, also had 2+3 seating.

 

[AM9]

A 10 coach 720 is the same length as a 12 coach 321. And others say the 321s, and also 360s, also had 2+3 seating.

Yes, I know that. My comment relates to your: "With the decline of commuting since Covid I doubt if 2+3 seating would be specified now." in terms of reducing seating capacity by replacing 2+3 seating with 2+2 configuration. That would decrease the overall seating capacity by 10-15%. A greater cost saving could have been to continue with the 3+2 seating and reduce the peak service to require less trains, - removing or shortening some of the peak extras.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, I know that. My comment relates to your: "With the decline of commuting since Covid I doubt if 2+3 seating would be specified now." in terms of reducing seating capacity by replacing 2+3 seating with 2+2 configuration. That would decrease the overall seating capacity by 10-15%. A greater cost saving could have been to continue with the 3+2 seating and reduce the peak service to require less trains, - removing or shortening some of the peak extras.

I don't think even in the boom times any new rolling stock would be specified that had such a reduction in capacity that it created the need to run extra services.

In any case, capacity is based on seats plus standing, not seats alone and as you can get more standing than seats in the same space if you wanted to increase the capacity of each train you'd reduce the number of seats, not increase them.

 

[Mogz]

Since recently travelling on a SWR Class 159 and remembering that train seats actually used to have cushions, all modern train seating is a disappointment.

 

[AM9]

I don't think even in the boom times any new rolling stock would be specified that had such a reduction in capacity that it created the need to run extra services.

In any case, capacity is based on seats plus standing, not seats alone and as you can get more standing than seats in the same space if you wanted to increase the capacity of each train you'd reduce the number of seats, not increase them.

But this sub-conversation concerns the decline in many peak flows since Covid, (see post ~161), which in some instances appears to be long-term. So in times of severe budget provision, less trains bought mean less capital required followed by lower fleet mileage and maintenance.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And others say the 321s, and also 360s, also had 2+3 seat

The 321s were just about ok, but the 360 (and the 350/2) were horrific. But all credit to GA, the 720s are even worse.

3+2 should have died with the 321s.

What really enrages me, though, is how they’ve done 2+2 on the various Desiro City units but done it with really narrow seats. You don’t have the middle seat squash any more, yes, but chances are the poor sod in the aisle seat will only actually have one buttock on the chair. Why? An extra couple of inches each side wouldn’t impact the aisle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2026 ==

In any case, capacity is based on seats plus standing

Unlike with buses, I’m not sure it is.

Overcrowding is defined by how much the number of passengers exceeds the number of seats. So a quick way of reducing overcrowding is to put more seats in a train. Even if those seats are fundamentally unusable, as on the 350/2 and the 360.

 

[Mogz]

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

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


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

Voyagers had the potential to be a great train.

If they were 7-9 cars with better leg room and a better mix of table to airline seats they would have been wonderful.

As it is, if you’re anything over above average height the leg-room is purgatorial and they’re often packed to the gills. Families can forget travelling together as a group unless they can grab one of the two tables per standard carriage.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Or less trains to reduce costs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Apr 2026 ==


Clapton is less than 4 miles from Liverpool St., and journeys typically take about 10 minutes. Clacton-on Sea is just under 70 miles and journeys take around 90 minutes, so I assume that is the station you are thinking of.

Clapton very much not on Sea but it is home to Clapton Pond!

 

[AM9]

Clapton very much not on Sea but it is home to Clapton Pond!

It's also much nicer than the 'sunshine coast', - except Frinton.

 

[brad465]

Southern class 377's.

Its not the rolling stock itself.

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

Likewise the 377s now at Southeastern, especially given the comparison to the 375s. The 375s have a much better ambience and comfy well-furnished interior, and with the exception of 375/9s, are 2+2 with armrests and full tables. The 377s have 2+3 in the middle carriages, minature tables and no armrests, and while the end carriages have the 375 layout, they are tatty and worn.

 

[Harpo]

Voyagers had the potential to be a great train.

As an EMU perhaps. Never in a month of Sundays with that monstrous underfloor massage machine.

 

[Transilien]

3+2 should have died with the 321s.

The 321s should have never had 3+2 in the first place!

 

[Pokelet]

Your timing is off… When FGW got the 180s, they had something like 38 HST sets.

The 180's were a welcome replacement to the Turbos on the Cotswold line. At that point there were 2 HST each way and Turbos the rest of the time. The 180's I found very comfortable and very capable units not withstanding their tendency to occasionally catch fire ( but then again at that time the HSTs were being re-engined and we're also fire risks)

 

[Djgr]

Voyagers had the potential to be a great train.

The only way that the Voyager would have been a great train is if its original design plans had been shredded into a thousand pieces, turned into an enormous bonfire with the ashes sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Mogz]

As an EMU perhaps. Never in a month of Sundays with that monstrous underfloor massage machine.

Yes. It’s a pity the plan to put in a pantograph car for working under the wires never came to fruition, nor the Mk5-style “loco at one end” push pull option that was considered.

The difference when travelling in a Voyager carriage when the under-floor engine is not working is quite astonishing.

The big windows, the reliability and the (by modern standards) reasonably comfortable seating (if it were not for the leg room) just offer a hint of what might have been.

On another note, personally I think the 444s would have made a good basis for a new standard of long-distance non-tilt hauled coach. Better than the Mk5A…

 

[Tetchytyke]

The only way that the Voyager would have been a great train is if its original design plans had been shredded into a thousand pieces, turned into an enormous bonfire with the ashes sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

A bit harsh!

The fundamental issue with the Voyagers is that they’re not big enough. Everything else follows from that.

The legroom is terrible because Arriva played around with the seating layout to cram more seats in- that’s why there are several rows of seats without the electronic reservation display. The original layout was a lot more comfortable…if you could get a seat. Which was a very big if.

Arriva really haven’t looked after them though. The difference between the Arriva Voyagers and the VWC Voyagers was night and day.

 

[mmh]

The only way that the Voyager would have been a great train is if its original design plans had been shredded into a thousand pieces, turned into an enormous bonfire with the ashes sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

Can't think of a better standard class than coach D (the "hybrid" coach) on a Virgin/Avanti Voyager. Many very enjoyable 3 hour journeys in there.