Yes it would have done a lot of what the IEP is being ordered for. Probably at half the price.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
My idea for: Pendolinos for Norwich!
- Thread starter Thumper Bill
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,191
But with 100/110mph top speed vs 140mph for IEP, meaning the latter will be faster and easier to path with [other] InterCity services - if I've said that correctly. Half the price is very vague, could you be a bit more specific please, with stats preferably.
Harbon 1
Member
Nothing can run on existing lines without in cab signalling over 140mph, and that's why we have no 140mph pendos and 91s.
Off topic: that's why we don't need HS2, just remove the legislation, and run faster, existing trains.
Back on topic: as for 390s to Norwich, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The 90s are well up for the job, and I see no need to replace them.
tbtc
Veteran Member
RAGNARØKR;1295142 said:
444s instead of bi-mode on London - Swansea?
Bi-mode 444s to Inverness?
You've lost me...
RichmondCommu
Established Member
In which case you are hardly an authority on the relative merits of Pendolino's. Besides, customers would much rather seat down than stand, surely you can understand that?
Personally I think I'd rather keep the safe slower railway we have than have a more dangerous high speed railway...
There are reasons why we need in-cab signalling to go faster and it isn't just 'elf an safety gone mad' legislation. Also worth noting that we are one of the few countries to have extensive running above 100mph without in-cab signalling so we're already on something of a fringe here.
Harbon 1
Member
I understand what you mean (I suppose the only reason we have an extensive 100+ standard signalled network is because we were the first to go that fast in regular service on existing lines?), but what I'm saying is a £howevermuch billion railway isn't needed. If we desperately needed it (capacity), then that would be the quickest (pardon the pun) and easiest (in theory) way to do it
I think the class 168 is a great example of a modern comfortable train. Why couldn't they have designed the pendelinos in the same way. I travel on them enough to be able to make a qualified judgement that they are perhaps the worst designed trains for a long time. For example due to the need to tilt you cannot see out of the window if you are standing up as they are so small, and the seating does not match up to the windows so some airline seats you have no window. Overhead racks are far too small... Need I go on?
Speed doesn't equal capacity on classic routes. If anything speed equals less capacity.
Is a fault of the much vaunted Mk3 also...
tbtc
Veteran Member
If Pendolini didn't need to tilt or to run at 125mph (or even 140mph) then they'd be different beasts.
But they were built to serve a purpose - if we'd wanted the WCML to be a 100mph railway without any tilting then we'd have trains with more internal space/ bigger windows (and presumably a lot more spare seats due to the un- competitive journey times meaning we wouldn't have had the large increases in passenger numbers that Virgin have seen).
No point in specifying 125mph tilting trains for a route that doesn't need either though (like London to Norwich).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Criticising the Mk3s on this forum is like criticising the Queen Mother on the DailyExpress website
You're spoiling people's nostalgic idea that the "windows not lining up with seats" thing only happened when the Voyagers were built
Differing design requirements are the main reason, especially the need for a crash structure designed to withstand an accident at 140 mph instead of 100. However, I do agree to a certain extent about some problems. Firstly, why does the design need TASS? It's an expensive system that APT managed perfectly fine without, thank you very much. However, that would mean that the train needed to be narrower. To compensate for that, rearrange the internal equipment somewhat to lower the ceiling and use the space above the aisle for air-con ducts and such, giving a MkIV-like cross-section. Much more importantly, why have 8-car trains with four first class coaches? The optimum ratio of seats for an inter-city train appears to be 1:3, as seen in HSTs all over the place. This was closer to 1:2. Somebody evidently did not think that through.
Harbon 1
Member
Can't remember if I've ever been on one, but they seem nice enough from the pictures. Very wide....
Well for a start its designed to tilt, so it has to be narrower, and technology has moved on since the '90s
So do I, but they are far from the worst designed, not wanting to start another pacer bashing thread
I don't think that's why they're so small, but the voyagers manage pretty well with tilt and reasonable windows. If you can't see out of them when standing, stand by a door...
A problem yes, but with small windows, they'll always be problems. I find them decent units when it's quiet, but when they're busy, I find them claustrophobic. And the racks are probably to do with the tilt.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Enabling the trains to tilt improves journey times which is a big selling point over the M6 and air travel given the check in times. Customers would much rather be able to sit down than have a view. And given how much they are paying for their tickets they are quite right in expecting to have a seat. I think it's pretty clear from your posts that you don't want to see the WCML prosper and simply want to wallow in nostalgia.
To get back to the subject of this thread I don't think pendos should come to the GEML. Firstly as someone already said the 90's + mk3's are fine just need a good refurb and the line would cost far too much to upgrade to 110mph+
Regarding the design of the pendo's yes it does get very cosy on them when it is busy, also the all famed and desired "power sockets" are only available at table seats whereas on a 168 they are at every seat
Regarding the design of the pendo's yes it does get very cosy on them when it is busy, also the all famed and desired "power sockets" are only available at table seats whereas on a 168 they are at every seat
A 395 variant could be good, tuned for maybe.. 110 mph and the relative acceleration improved (to be exceedingly high). However refurbishing mk3's for the short term, be that a general refurbishment or a chilternisation. something needs to definitely be done, as they are ready for some work to be done on them, just compare them to a Chiltern/EMT/EC MK3.
IC225 rakes arent ideal for norwich, maybe with different locos, but they would be better staying as extra capacity for the ECML, or to work on an electrified MML.
I never said that!! I want hs2 to be built to free up spare capacity on the WCML to encourage more freight and stopping services to encourage more ppl from their cars. A dedicated high speed line wouldn't require tilting trains so all the problems are resolved!
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Regarding the design of the pendo's yes it does get very cosy on them when it is busy, also the all famed and desired "power sockets" are only available at table seats whereas on a 168 they are at every seat
Perhaps its just me but I don't think the Class 168's would be much good on the Manchester - Euston route.
Regarding the design of the pendo's yes it does get very cosy on them when it is busy, also the all famed and desired "power sockets" are only available at table seats whereas on a 168 they are at every seat
An explanation for which can be found in this post. But simply when 390s were built very few people needed power sockets so just having them at tables was considered sufficient. Since then they've not been refurbished and it's reasonable to assume that when they are power sockets will be fitted throughout. Whilst the 168s on the other hand went through a refurbishment back in 2007/08 by which time it was clear that having power sockets at every seat was a basic requirement of long distance (or inter-regional at least) travel.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
HS2 to Birmingham is many years from completion, let alone the extension to Manchester. So what do you expect customers to do in the mean time? Please refrain from making the assumption that all customers are rail enthusiasts obsessed with Mk3 coaches.
Manchester77
Established Member
IMO tilting trains would be better off on MML because of the curvature of parts of the route and the future intent to raise speeds from 100 - 110 mph.
Perhaps we could use Mark IV-Ts for the job
But in all seriousness I do think tilting units would be better on the midland than great eastern
Perhaps we could use Mark IV-Ts for the job
But in all seriousness I do think tilting units would be better on the midland than great eastern
I'm sorry who said anything about rail enthusiasts? Like I said 168's are modern trains that are very nice. It is just a shame the pendo's are like they are. And why replace what is on GEML when what is already there works fine?
RichmondCommu
Established Member
No need to apologise Dave, its all good. After all, its only a forum. The point is the only people who complain about Pendolino's are rail enthusiasts. I've never suggested that Pendolino's should be introduced on the GEML.
Aha! Right ow im a rail enthusiast am I? Right I need to remember that! Lol I think that some ppl are blinded by their obsession for shiny new trains and go with the view any new train will do! Whether it be will designed or not as long as it has the conveniences of wifi and power sockets who cares how comfy the seats are and how much luggage space there is. Or at least that it certainly the view I get any way.
GospelOak117
Member
I am not usually a defender of Loco-haulage by any means, being mostly interested in units. But I really don't understand this constant obsession with doing away with the 90's and Mk3's on the Norwich line. It is perfectly good rolling stock and those who use it should feel blessed to have such an over-provision, frankly. If you push too hard for replacement of this stock you will probably just end up with 360's being cascaded or something, which these days would probably be deemed appropriate........then you will be moaning a hell of a lot more.
A 317 already runs a specific few of these services :/
A 317 already runs a specific few of these services :/
Me neither. It's probably true that a new order of 344's or similar would be as good but they don't need to be as good, they need to be better otherwise why not spend the money elsewhere? There have to be more pressing needs for funding on the network than replacing 90's and Mk3's at a time when Chiltern are demonstrating that Mk3's continue to be fit for purpose for IC routes.
Spend the money somewhere else. Or use it to reduce fares..
tbtc
Veteran Member
...but that doesn't mean that a "168 vs 390" argument is comparing apples with apples...
Ah but I think the seats on the 168 are better than the 390, I mean you don't need first class on the 168.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Fair enough - you were asking why couldn't they have designed the Pendolini in the same way as the 168s - I've tried to explain that they are very different beasts
Indeed they are. The company that designed the 390 were given a job to do and they did it. The design isnt everyones idea of a great train but hey at least they can do 125mph on very twisty track!
- Status