Opinions on Class 80x trains vs HSTs?

[ScotTrains]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...is-there-not-a-common-name-we-can-use.205177/

These trains are all awful compared to the iconic and comfortable HST 125s they replaced. I really don't think the general public will take to them in quite the same way.

To date I've travelled on the LNER, TPEx and Scotrail versions of them in 1st and always end up with a sore back/bum afterwards due to the nasty seats. Perhaps they should be known as the Sore Bum Trains. I fear all trains may eventually become SBTs though!

 

[Energy]

These trains are all awful compared to the iconic and comfortable HST 125s they replaced. I really don't think the general public will take to them in quite the same way.

To date I've travelled on the LNER, TPEx and Scotrail versions of them in 1st and always end up with a sore back/bum afterwards due to the nasty seats. Perhaps they should be known as the Sore Bum Trains. I fear all trains may eventually become SBTs though!

Scotrail don't have these, they have the different class 385 / at200s...

 

[Purple Orange]

These trains are all awful compared to the iconic and comfortable HST 125s they replaced. I really don't think the general public will take to them in quite the same way.

To date I've travelled on the LNER, TPEx and Scotrail versions of them in 1st and always end up with a sore back/bum afterwards due to the nasty seats. Perhaps they should be known as the Sore Bum Trains. I fear all trains may eventually become SBTs though!

Sorry, but the HSTs are awful. Always have been. And I don’t think the general public held it in quite as much esteem as railway boffins.

 

[py_megapixel]

Sorry, but the HSTs are awful. Always have been. And I don’t think the general public held it in quite as much esteem as railway boffins.

I think you'll find plenty of people who disagree with you.

My grandparents, who were alive long before the HST entered service, and are most definitely not railway enthusiasts, speak very highly of them, and they say many others they know agree with them.

I really don't like diesel traction that much at all and would much rather be on an electric train. Honestly I found HSTs quite boring. But one has to respect that they have served their routes well for almost 50 years and still have life left in them on lower tier routes such as Crosscountry and intercity services in Scotland.

 

[Energy]

Sorry, but the HSTs are awful. Always have been. And I don’t think the general public held it in quite as much esteem as railway boffins.

The public may remember the HSTs for being comfortable but in the 21st century they could also be remembered as 'didn't they dumb what went down the toilet on the tracks' and 'why does a high speed train like this have a manual door?' but probably by a large amount of the public as simply 'a train' or 'a fast train'.

I really don't like diesel traction that much at all and would much rather be on an electric train. Honestly I found HSTs quite boring. But one has to respect that they have served their routes well for almost 50 years and still have life left in them on lower tier routes such as Crosscountry and intercity services in Scotland.

They served well but really shouldn't be kept on beyond a couple more years, to be honest they should have been fully retired a couple years ago.

Anyway, this is getting offtopic to far into the HSTs...

 

[Mikey C]

There was something exciting about seeing a Class 43 pull away, but in terms of the passenger experience ultimately they're just diesel hauled Mk3 coaches as opposed to the electric hauled ones operating out of Euston (and dispersed around the network subsequently). A very good design for its day, but hardly irreplaceable.

 

[43096]

Sorry, but the HSTs are awful. Always have been. And I don’t think the general public held it in quite as much esteem as railway boffins.

What does that make every other train design, then? Because the HST was the single most important train design since 1945.

 

[InOban]

Absolutely. Compare the passenger growth on the ECML and the WCML in the years after their introduction.

 

[Purple Orange]

What does that make every other train design, then? Because the HST was the single most important train design since 1945.

Just because a design is historically important, it doesn’t mean it is a great train to travel on. In the mid 70s & 80s I may have been impressed with it compared to other trains, but in the last 20-25 years there have been far better trains on the network and the HST, in my opinion, has not kept pace (which it won’t because it is a 45 year old train). A few of the things that make it rubbish:

• Manual doors
• Toilets that empty on to the tracks
• Awful,awful interior for most of it’s years in service (those crap seats with fixed arm rests for instance).
• It’s noise (quieter these days)
• It is diesel (diesel running under wires should be a crime against the planet and the health of all those who live on it).

I, for one, am glad they are going. They have outlived their welcome, they have served their purpose and should have been retired years ago. Now for the Voyagers to go too.

 

[Purple Orange]

PS, there was a time not too long ago where I had a very different view on HSTs, but I think I was just impressed with their shape, which does not make it a good train to use. To look at, it looks great.

 

[ScotTrains]

In the last 20-25 years there have been far better trains on the network and the HST, in my opinion, has not kept pace (which it won’t because it is a 45 year old train). A few of the things that make it rubbish:

• Manual doors
• Toilets that empty on to the tracks
• Awful,awful interior for most of it’s years in service (those crap seats with fixed arm rests for instance).
• It’s noise (quieter these days)
• It is diesel (diesel running under wires should be a crime against the planet and the health of all those who live on it).

I, for one, am glad they are going.

You clearly haven't travelled to Aberdeen recently. If you did you'd have three options: a smelly, vibrating XC vomiter sorry voyager, an uncomfortable and unexciting LNER Azuma, or a fully refurbished quiet and comfortable Scotrail HST.
Also every single point your mention above does not apply anymore on the refurb stock. I would encourage you to try out the Scotrail HST in 1st class. It is far superior to the others.

 

[Purple Orange]

You clearly haven't travelled to Aberdeen recently. If you did you'd have three options: a smelly, vibrating XC vomiter sorry voyager, an uncomfortable and unexciting LNER Azuma, or a fully refurbished quiet and comfortable Scotrail HST.
Also every single point your mention above does not apply anymore on the refurb stock. I would encourage you to try out the Scotrail HST in 1st class. It is far superior to the others.

Ive never been to Aberdeen. I’d just buy a standard class ticket and aim to get an open return if I did go to Aberdeen. I’d also balance it out against the cost of a flight too. But I’d be happy to sit on the LNER Azuma. I’d attempt to avoid XC though. Depending on timings, I’d probably get a train to Edinburgh from Manchester then change on to LNER or Scotrail (whichever comes first). I wouldn’t let an LNER service pass and wait longer for a Scotrail service unless I had reason to stay longer in Edinburgh.

 

[ScotTrains]

Ive never been to Aberdeen. I’d just buy a standard class ticket and aim to get an open return if I did go to Aberdeen. I’d also balance it out against the cost of a flight too. But I’d be happy to sit on the LNER Azuma. I’d attempt to avoid XC though. Depending on timings, I’d probably get a train to Edinburgh from Manchester then change on to LNER or Scotrail (whichever comes first). I wouldn’t let an LNER service pass and wait longer for a Scotrail service unless I had reason to stay longer in Edinburgh.

To be fair the difference in standard class is less noticeable but in 1st there is a large difference. If catering isn't an issue (LNER have free dinner and alcohol) I would wait for the HST especially on such a long and twisty route. The refurb 1st class coaches now have a help yourself snack area which is a nice bonus too.

 

[rebmcr]

• It is diesel

every single point your mention above does not apply anymore on the refurb stock.

Are you 100% sure?

 

[Energy]

Also every single point your mention above does not apply anymore on the refurb stock.

But lots of these modifications have happened in recent years when they were 40+ years old.

Anyway, any further discussion on the HSTs not related to the AT300/8XX/whatever should be in another thread as this is very offtopic.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Sorry, but the HSTs are awful. Always have been. And I don’t think the general public held it in quite as much esteem as railway boffins.

I’m not a fan of HSTs and agree that they’re overrated but they’re certainly not awful.

Indeed I did not like the HSTs all originally but since having been downgraded to 800s on LNER and GWR of which I travel in first fairly often, it has made me realise just how superior the comfort was of an HST, purely because the leather seats were far more luxurious and exclusive, the carriages were quiet and free from the disturbingly loud automated PIS system and the lighting wasn’t anywhere as blinding (in first).

 

[4REP]

I can only say this in one word- "rubbish"

 

[DB]

I regard them as a major step down compared with what they replaced. On LNER, I will aim for the Mk4 sets if I can as they also are much better than the 80x.

In particular, the ride quality is crap, and the seats are awful. The latter could be addressed (but probably won't be for years, if every) - the former probably can't.

The lack of buffets in all but the LNER ones is also very poor.

 

[AM9]

I regard them as a major step down compared with what they replaced. On LNER, I will aim for the Mk4 sets if I can as they also are much better than the 80x.

In particular, the ride quality is crap, and the seats are awful. The latter could be addressed (but probably won't be for years, if every) - the former probably can't.

The lack of buffets in all but the LNER ones is also very poor.

If this thread is meant to be airing personal preferences of class 80x trains vs HSTs, then the presence of stand-alone buffets is not relevant as their removal is almost de rigeur in recent times on all trains. Similarly, seats - indeed cushions, are just furniture and not really tied to the trains type, - more the type of service that the TOC wishes to offer.
The HSTs are nearing the end of their operating life, and in some cases probably beyond being acceptable for use in an increasingly pollution sensitive environment. IOW, they will all be razor blades in the near future.

 

[DB]

If this thread is meant to be airing personal preferences of class 80x trains vs HSTs, then the presence of stand-alone buffets is not relevant as their removal is almost de rigeur in recent times on all trains. Similarly, seats - indeed cushions, are just furniture and not really tied to the trains type, - more the type of service that the TOC wishes to offer.

Buffets - no, that's really not the case where long distance trains are concerned, and it very much is relevant to the overall experience. Prior to the appearance of the IEPs, pretty much everything had one, and I can't actually think of any other long-distance trains which don't, other than XC (where they were removed to try to make some impression on the severe lack of capacity caused by trains which are too short).

As regards the seats, they are important in the passenger experience, and those in the IEPs are considerably worse than those in the trains they replaced (which mostly had either Grammer or Primarius seating). And in this case, they realy are tied to the train type as all of them have them, and given that the trains are new the chances of them being replaced in the near future is very low.

 

[SuspectUsual]

IET is better for:
- performance especially acceleration
- brakes that don’t stink

HST is better for:
- ride quality
- seat quality
- no underfloor engine noise
- seats aligned to windows (at least when built)

 

[Fuzzytop]

As regards the seats, they are important in the passenger experience, and those in the IEPs are considerably worse than those in the trains they replaced (which mostly had either Grammer or Primarius seating). And in this case, they realy are tied to the train type as all of them have them, and given that the trains are new the chances of them being replaced in the near future is very low.

I agree, and also consider the passenger environment on HST generally more agreeable to that on board 80x.
The HSTs have a more comfortable saloon, more relaxing lighting, decent room for luggage, etc.
Some banal details of 80x are bizarrely poorly designed, like the placement and functionality of plug sockets.

The 80x look the part from the outside.
Their acceleration on electric is very decent.
The bi-mode functionality and splitting/joining allow for the more efficient operation of direct services, and for new destinations to spring up as well.

The HSTs are tired and afflicted by legacy issues (doors, toilets), and keeping them on frontline LNER/GWR duties into the 2020s would not have been a sensible decision. As replacements, the 80x do get many things right. But you'll be finding me on a refurbished HST, not an Azuma, next time I head up to Inverness.

 

[CapitalStar378]

Inter-City trains don't get replaced very often and for the new version of the iconic HST to have so many negatives is disappointing.

- Reduction in facilities with no buffet on GWR
- 1st class on GWR v HST is awful, looks like standard just with bigger seats
- Diesel running is much noisier
- The much maligned seats
- Even brighter lighting than HSTs
- Nasty interior colour scheme (GWR)
- Inappropriate 5 car operation (GWR)

Positives for IET are more tables, better leg room and powered doors. That's about it for me sadly. Hopefully someone will reconfigure the interiors at some point.

 

[mmh]

seats aligned to windows (at least when built)

As built no mk3 had seats aligned to windows in 2nd/standard class, the windows were the size of the 1st class seating bays. This is still the common way of building an intercity train today, class 80x are no different. The panels between windows on mk3s were slightly less wide, slightly reducing the amount of wall to a seat, but plenty of seats had a poor view.

Grand Central had an HST (or maybe more than one?) with a carriage with the standard class IC70 seats fitted at the first class position - perfectly aligned with the windows and with masses of legroom (perhaps too much, the tables were further away, although that made getting in and out much easier, something that wasn't great on an as-built mk3)

 

[Bletchleyite]

HST is better for:
- seats aligned to windows (at least when built)

Er, wha? The only Mk3s that ever had seats aligned to the windows are the Chiltern/WSMR ones, which have a special layout of basically Standard class 2+2 seats (nasty though IC70s are) in a First Class spacing.

Edit: per the post above apparently GC also did this.

Edit edit: one other exception, I recall the short lived "business class" service on CrossCountry, which was branded "Voyager" so most probably the origin of that name, which was in the BSO which was reversed to stop people walking through it and had at-seat service, also had 2+2 all-table IC70 seating at First Class spacing so aligned to the windows.

Every other Standard class Mk3 - every single one of them - has always had the seats and the windows misaligned since construction. As built they had a layout very similar to the TPE Mk5a stock - First Class spaced windows and Standard Class spaced table bays - which resulted in progressive misalignment as you go down the vehicle.

BR briefly flirted again with properly aligned seats on the Class 158 (which as built, and in most variants since then, has full alignment or very near to it) but then post-privatisation TOCs went back off on a tangent, though most Class 170s do have seats and windows aligned, other than the cramped Midland Mainline layout, as do the middle coaches of Class 175s.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Apologies, my memory is clearly faulty. Although in my partial defence I’d have been about 10, only an infrequent user of HSTs as where I lived it was mk2s and 304/310s, and most likely I’d have been stood next to a droplight. My dad raved about HSTs though

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apologies, my memory is clearly faulty. Although in my partial defence I’d have been about 10, only an infrequent user of HSTs as where I lived it was mk2s and 304/310s, and most likely I’d have been stood next to a droplight. My dad raved about HSTs though

HSTs had and have many advantages, but the alignment of the seats in Standard to the windows isn't one of them. The Mk2 was the last BR hauled coach to do this.

I think the "airiness" of the Mk3 coach means people notice it less because you can see out of the next window by looking along the coach because the windows are quite high. This also applies to things like the various Desiros which have very tall windows and almost no taper.

As the Fainsa Sophia seat is quite low-backed, I wonder if this is the case in the low-floor end coach on the 80x? Never sat there, I prefer a window aligned seat in one of the high floor coaches so I can rest my elbow on the windowsill.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Ive never been to Aberdeen. I’d just buy a standard class ticket and aim to get an open return if I did go to Aberdeen. I’d also balance it out against the cost of a flight too. But I’d be happy to sit on the LNER Azuma. I’d attempt to avoid XC though. Depending on timings, I’d probably get a train to Edinburgh from Manchester then change on to LNER or Scotrail (whichever comes first). I wouldn’t let an LNER service pass and wait longer for a Scotrail service unless I had reason to stay longer in Edinburgh.

You give the HST being a diesel as a deficiency because of the environment yet would consider flying. Even a diesel under the wires is much better for the environment than flying.

 

[43096]

Every other Standard class Mk3 - every single one of them - has always had the seats and the windows misaligned since construction.

125 Group’s 12134 at the GCRN has 64 seats, all in bays, all perfectly aligned with the windows.

So not “every single one of them”.

 

[Bletchleyite]

125 Group’s 12134 at the GCRN has 64 seats, all in bays, all perfectly aligned with the windows.

So not “every single one of them”.

How come that one has that hybrid layout? Was it changed at some point?

The as-built layout of the "standard" Standard Mk3 was 72 seats, with 4 airline seats each backing onto the smoking-non smoking partition in the middle, between window 4 and 5. BR later changed them to 76 by taking some tables out and switching to airline seats on one side of the coach (but keeping the original layout on the other, and alternating the sides at the middle partition). Then some TOCs tweaked with it further.