Opinions on Class 80x trains vs HSTs?

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, the doors alone are enough for me to reject completely the assertion that Mk 3s even attempted to be the "best possible intercity train of its time".

Indeed. Sliding-door EMUs were already a thing before the first Mk3s were being developed, e.g. the old Merseyrail units or the Class 303s. Thus, the Mk3 doors should basically have looked, from new, like the retained ones do now. Using non-locking slamdoors was just nuts.

 

[Irascible]

Yet at the time and for many years afterwards, staff on the LMR considered the Mk2F stock was the best particularly the Open Firsts were felt to be superior to the Mk3A stock and only surpassed with the 3B.

Don't know what the WR used before/for some time with HSTs ( e? it didn't have HST seats ) but that was a nicer place to be, definitely. Other than the noise, anyway, could have done with more noise insulation. Given the stock was developed in the 60s that's somewhat understandable, anyway.

On the other hand I've never been bothered by any "swaying" in anything - perhaps coz I'm used to literally everything I've been in wobbling around on the routes I've usually taken, or perhaps it's the amount of sailing I've done. I never found a hard-riding mk4 either, though.

 

[XAM2175]

Indeed. Sliding-door EMUs were already a thing before the first Mk3s were being developed, e.g. the old Merseyrail units or the Class 303s. Thus, the Mk3 doors should basically have looked, from new, like the retained ones do now. Using non-locking slamdoors was just nuts.

Let's not forget that BR themselves had used UIC-style folding doors on the XP64 prototypes!

From the Project XP64 brochure:
At the ends of the XP64 coaches are some of the most important improvements in design. The narrow outward-opening door has given way to a new reinforced glass-fibre design working on the jack-knife principle. This provides a three feet wide opening enabling luggage to be carried at the passenger's side when entering or leaving. When the door is fully open it projects only a few inches beyond the body side and closed it is resistant to accidental opening. It is therefore safer as well as being more convenient.

 

[hexagon789]

Don't know what the WR used before/for some time with HSTs ( e? it didn't have HST seats ) but that was a nicer place to be, definitely. Other than the noise, anyway, could have done with more noise insulation. Given the stock was developed in the 60s that's somewhat understandable, anyway.

On the Bristol/Sth Wales the LHCS sets were comprised mainly of air-con Mk2E stock which the WR received as new.

When the HSTs came in these went to the Paddington-Devon/Cornwall services, ousting sets of Mk2A/B/C which went to the West of England line from Waterloo to Exeter via Salisbury.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Let's not forget that BR themselves had used UIC-style folding doors on the XP64 prototypes!

From the Project XP64 brochure:
At the ends of the XP64 coaches are some of the most important improvements in design. The narrow outward-opening door has given way to a new reinforced glass-fibre design working on the jack-knife principle. This provides a three feet wide opening enabling luggage to be carried at the passenger's side when entering or leaving. When the door is fully open it projects only a few inches beyond the body side and closed it is resistant to accidental opening. It is therefore safer as well as being more convenient.

From the picture those don't seem quite the same design - they opened mostly inwards with the "fold" outwards (which I believe caused them to get stuck as coach bodies distorted a bit and not work well when crowded) whereas the UIC ones open outwards with the "fold" inwards, and they didn't have the door blocking (disabled inside handle above 5km/h) nor the autoclose feature. But it would have been a start, and lives would have been saved.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, the doors alone are enough for me to reject completely the assertion that Mk 3s even attempted to be the "best possible intercity train of its time".


I've never found the Mk 4's ride to be particularly bad, but I grant that that could be down to my being used to Australian track

They didn't "attempt" to make the 125 the best possible IC train of all time as they were intending for the APT to be that.

It just so happens that the 125 turned out to be the best IC train of all time.

 

[MattRat]

They didn't "attempt" to make the 125 the best possible IC train of all time as they were intending for the APT to be that.

It just so happens that the 125 turned out to be the best IC train of all time.

Maybe it's just that all other attempts were worse. I doubt we'd be talking about how great HSTs were if the 180s had been reliable, for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It just so happens that the 125 turned out to be the best IC train of all time.

I think it's fair to say the HST did a lot for InterCity and was as such historically very important. But calling it "the best IC train of all time" sets a very low bar.

I suppose it depends what you call IC, but the Wessie was a vastly improved evolution of the HST Mk3, as one example. Same body but a vastly, vastly superior interior. Better seats, nicer subdued lighting, power doors, a button on the vestibule door so it didn't slam back and forth, snug area in the buffet - that's many of the issues fixed and things added. Such a shame the Wessie wasn't the standard Mk3.

 

[py_megapixel]

180s had underfloor engines but if they'd been reliable and longer, that would have been the only major thing an HST had over them.

 

[Irascible]

On the Bristol/Sth Wales the LHCS sets were comprised mainly of air-con Mk2E stock which the WR received as new.

When the HSTs came in these went to the Paddington-Devon/Cornwall services, ousting sets of Mk2A/B/C which went to the West of England line from Waterloo to Exeter via Salisbury.

That fits. I used to try & get the aircon Mk2s from the Exeter area in preference to HSTs - up the B&H it wasn't really noticeably slower in absolute terms.

Those Mk2s on WoE didn't appear to even get a service just one coat of NSE paint which rapidly faded.

 

[Bletchleyite]

180s had underfloor engines but if they'd been reliable and longer, that would have been the only major thing an HST had over them.

There were two first generation 125mph DMUs built - 22x and 180. 22x is good below the solebar but bad above it, 180 is good above the solebar but bad below it. If only we had built a train with the good bits of both.

 

[CapitalStar378]

This is very subjective but I dislike the awful bright lighting, the interior, particularly the drab seats and the ugly lime green handles etc and the lack of buffet. Positives are legroom, more tables than the GWR high density HSTs and the loos (although there seems to be an issue with these being out of order).

I think that from a passenger perspective, having on board facilities such as a shop or buffet, adds a lot to the journey experience and is an improvement on being stuck in your seat.

 

[py_megapixel]

There were two first generation 125mph DMUs built - 22x and 180. 22x is good below the solebar but bad above it, 180 is good above the solebar but bad below it. If only we had built a train with the good bits of both.

How fitting that their manufacturers have now merged! (I do wish the Voyagers weren't quite as inefficient though)

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is very subjective but I dislike the awful bright lighting, the interior, particularly the drab seats and the ugly lime green handles etc and the lack of buffet. Positives are legroom, more tables than the GWR high density HSTs and the loos (although there seems to be an issue with these being out of order).

I think that from a passenger perspective, having on board facilities such as a shop or buffet, adds a lot to the journey experience and is an improvement on being stuck in your seat.

Have you tried an LNER one? It's amazing how much more warm and welcoming the colour scheme makes the interior feel.

 

[py_megapixel]

Thinking about the 80x, rather than having clear good and bad bits, to me they seem to simply be all-round quite mediocre - both above and below the solebar.

It's as if they've learned all the right lessons from the early 2000s long-distance stuff (don't cram the seats ridiculously far together, don't make the overhead racks tiny, an absolute minimum of one toilet for every coach, and provide some proper sound deadening) but simultaneously forgotten a lot of earlier basics (seats need to not be rock hard, ride needs to be smooth and interior decor and lighting needs to be high-quality)

I don't hate them, but I find them irritating simply because there are so many little things they could have made better.

 

[43096]

Have you tried an LNER one? It's amazing how much more warm and welcoming the colour scheme makes the interior feel.

You can’t polish a turd.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe it's just that all other attempts were worse. I doubt we'd be talking about how great HSTs were if the 180s had been reliable, for example.

They were ok enough as an interior but they have a tenancy to break down.

I think it's fair to say the HST did a lot for InterCity and was as such historically very important. But calling it "the best IC train of all time" sets a very low bar.

I suppose it depends what you call IC, but the Wessie was a vastly improved evolution of the HST Mk3, as one example. Same body but a vastly, vastly superior interior. Better seats, nicer subdued lighting, power doors, a button on the vestibule door so it didn't slam back and forth, snug area in the buffet - that's many of the issues fixed and things added. Such a shame the Wessie wasn't the standard Mk3.

Fast and comfortable. The Wessies were fine as a long distance MU, but the HST's had comfortable seating, pleasant ambiance, ability to have a good meal. Everything one could wish for really.

 

[cactustwirly]

Other than Pacers, the Mk4 is the only UK stock that can ride so badly that on one occasion I had already got to "if this movement goes on much longer I'm going to conclude we have derailed and pull the handle". Yes, that bad. Quite scary.

The 3B fixes some of the problems with the original, but only a few. Most still remain. The most notable fix is the lighting which is similar to the 442.



You can call it what you like - "wallowiness" might be it - I just call it a bad ride. I can give you a long list of trains that ride better, starting with the silky-smooth 221.



The 80x is a different type of slightly rough, more like the Desiro - a slightly harsher but less swaying joltiness which I personally prefer over the Mk3's "wallowiness" as you put it. TBH, if I closed my eyes and ignored the seat's supporting bar pushing into my underthigh, I'd think I was on a 350, it is so similar. But nothing (bar a Pacer) surpasses the piece of cheap junk that is the Mk4. Never before have I encountered a ride so bad I was genuinely starting to think a bogie had come off. At least they fixed the lighting and fitted power doors, but other than that they really are designed down to a price.

I assume you haven't been on a 345 then.
They are definitely the worst riding train in the UK.

The mark 3s have a very good ride, in some ways it is better than the 800s, which are jiggly at high speeds and the Mark 3 not so much. Although the 800s are better at absorbing harsh impacts like points.

I would definitely say that the XC HSTs feel very modern inside, especially now they have plug doors. Definitely better than a Voyager or a pendolino. Which feel very tired and dated on the inside.

Debatable whether they are better than a 80x

 

[driverd]

I don't hate them, but I find them irritating simply because there are so many little things they could have made better.

To me, this absolutely hits the nail on the head. The 80x's tend to be pretty good as a train, they just cheaped-out on all the fluffy bits. I think modern railways quite accurately reviewed them as an austere train for austere times.

It's a real shame, as some easy wins could have made the train as impressive internally as it is externally. A very simple one would be better seating, but as other members have pointed out, things like any internal colour other than the grotesque lime green on the GWR units would have been a vast improvement.

 

[antharro]

I'm sure the 80xs are competent enough trains but in my limited experience (GWR's only), the seats are damn uncomfortable, too brightly lit, have a somewhat hard ride and first class is an insult to the term. (Not quite as bad an insult as the GatEx units' first class, but...). I'll find a reason to try LNER's to see if they're any better. But for right now, give me back an HST! (An HST with a 442 interior would be even better, but that's getting off-topic!)

 

[LiftFan]

I'm sure the 80xs are competent enough trains but in my limited experience (GWR's only), the seats are damn uncomfortable, too brightly lit, have a somewhat hard ride and first class is an insult to the term. (Not quite as bad an insult as the GatEx units' first class, but...). I'll find a reason to try LNER's to see if they're any better. But for right now, give me back an HST! (An HST with a 442 interior would be even better, but that's getting off-topic!)

LNER's seats are pretty much the same on how uncomfortable, lighting is the same as well. Main difference is the colour scheme is much more aesthetically pleasing, and the first class actually feels like a premium experience. Again, seats don't feel the best however getting a full cooked meal and even free alcohol makes it feel so much more worth it.