Pendolino seating vs LNER stock

[yorksrob]

The Pendolino compared to a Mk3.

I'm not saying a Pendolino feels unsafe, I just can't really get with the implication of Mk 3's being intrinsically unsafe.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm not saying a Pendolino feels unsafe, I just can't really get with the implication of Mk 3's being intrinsically unsafe.

In my opinion the Mk3 is not as safe as a Pendolino. The Pendolino gives the impression that it is far more of a protective shell. There is also rather too much lateral movement in a Mk3 for my liking. The Mk3's have been wonderful railway servants but we have to move forward.

 

[yorksrob]

In my opinion the Mk3 is not as safe as a Pendolino. The Pendolino gives the impression that it is far more of a protective shell. There is also rather too much lateral movement in a Mk3 for my liking. The Mk3's have been wonderful railway servants but we have to move forward.

Fair point. It would be nice if they could fit out a new train to be as comfortable though (preferably without rock hard seats and a plastic ridge that digs into the back of your legs, as seems to be the fashion nowadays !).

 

[306024]

In my opinion the Mk3 is not as safe as a Pendolino. The Pendolino gives the impression that it is far more of a protective shell. There is also rather too much lateral movement in a Mk3 for my liking. The Mk3's have been wonderful railway servants but we have to move forward.

Not in East Anglia we don't. Our MkIIIs are off for another refurb to keep them going for a few more years yet.

 

[AM9]

Not in East Anglia we don't. Our MkIIIs are off for another refurb to keep them going for a few more years yet.

Well I travelled between Norwich and Ipswich on the 14:30 last Thursday just to see how the MkIIIs were. Its been over 20 years since I've been on the GE fasts and quite honestly they don't seem to have changed. But I have and the low back seats are full of hazards that I wouldn't have thought about in the past. There is a metal plate set into the top that in the event of a longitudinal shock could easily cause serious neck injuries to a long bodied person. The low backs would also allow passengers to be thrown forward, taking others with them (or maybe just their heads). At 100mph, just because the structure of the coach is probably adequate, I wouldn't want to be there if there was a mishap.

 

[Geezertronic]

I had to travel to Newport on the train (from Birmingham) and ended up changing at Bristol Parkway onto a FGW HST set. It was very nice inside and I plonked myself in the first row of seats available and found I was sitting with a pillar view. Moved and I got the window view I wanted.

Comparing the XC 221 (2nd train I caught) with the FGW HST set (3rd train I caught), both were nice and I had no issues with them (the 1st train was a LM 350 btw). Comparing these to a VT 390 (which I use between Birmingham-Euston) is like chalk & cheese in my opinion. They all serve a purpose and do it very well

 

[jopsuk]

Well I travelled between Norwich and Ipswich on the 14:30 last Thursday just to see how the MkIIIs were. Its been over 20 years since I've been on the GE fasts and quite honestly they don't seem to have changed.

The mark 3s & 90s have only been on the GE for 10 years. "over 20 years ago" you'd have been on mark 2s with a DBSO, powered by class 86s... and they'd have been in British Railways Intercity livery.

 

[AM9]

The mark 3s & 90s have only been on the GE for 10 years. "over 20 years ago" you'd have been on mark 2s with a DBSO, powered by class 86s... and they'd have been in British Railways Intercity livery.

I remember travelling (more often) in the MKIIs in the '70s when they were pulled by 47s. They were better than the 309s and the slammers but not that special.I didn't realise that the MKIIIs were put on the line that recently, so my comment is even more relevant, nothing much has changed, let alone improved. ISTR that the MKIIs in the '70s had seats that had higher backs and were more supportive than the soggy MKIIIs.
Give me modern seating, it more feels supportive and gives better protection in the event of problems.

 

[ryan125hst]

It would cost a lot more. The Mark 3s have shown the benefit of the standardised shell, flexible interior- once more, there's a number of FGW 1st class HST carriages are becoming Standard Class.

The idea of having different window layouts did, indeed, used to be how it was one, as already explained in this thread. But that concept was dead by the 70s.

The original MK2s... Loads of different window layouts for different purposes and still monocoque construction, infact a pioneer for BR! That rules that argument out.

Designer incompetence. There's no other words for it.

Not so. It would NOT cost a lot more (do we really think the Mk 1/2 would have cost a lot less with a standard shell). I have challenged designers in the past on this point. One stated that compared to the Mk 2 it would avoid having two sizes of window glass - completely unaware that they use the same window glass, just the spacing is different.

On the more general point, it would be instructive to current rolling stock designers to be made to go to preserved railways and see how a number of aspects were done far better in past generations. Seat comfort with the same number across in the same width is just one of them. On trivia, toilets continue to be produced in 2014 where the seat falls down with vibration during "men's operations". Attention, the GWR had this sorted a century ago, just by placing it sufficiently far out that the seat goes way beyond the near-vertical when raised. You lot at Bombardier and Siemens apparently need to go to Didcot museum to see how to do this.

MkI, IIs and IIIs, all more comfortable than a pendo

Well the structural qualities of the carriage will be the main factors that dictate the design of the carriage. The carriage will be primarily designed for safety and to have good crash worthiness. The carriage will also need to have a resonant frequency that falls within a certain range, otherwise it will not be approved for running. While I'm sure most people in the industry would like something unusual with real wow factor, like anything involving engineering, it requires a careful compromise between form and function.

Then there's various other factors, such as the placement of equipment, meeting noise requirements, meeting accessibility requirements (accomodating a wheelchair turning circle etc.), meeting interior specification requirements. And that's just to name a few things.

The general consensus then is that, while it may cost a little more to do and they may be a few difficulties to solve, it has been done in the past and it would be possible to do it again.

You're not telling me that BR could design carriages in the 1950's (or even the Big Four earlier than this) that had a reasonable number of seats in each carriage, but also have table seats, a good view out of the window, toilets that were fit for purpose etc. using the basic technology available at the time, yet we can't achieve the same thing using 21 century technology today?

That coasts more though doesn’t it, therefore it wont happen as passenger comfort comes a long way down the list of required design outcomes.

You've hit the nail on the head there! Rolling stock manufacturers and TOCs are getting away with reducing passenger comfort for the sake of saving a bit of money. Surely a better train would encourage more people to travel by rail, therefore increasing revenue, so it would be beneficial for them to design trains with high levels of passenger comfort?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Over the last week there was a mention of future aircraft doing away with all windows in the fuselage and replacing them with a full length / height screen linked to exterior cameras.
That does away with all discussion about windows lining up with seats.
Might take a while to get used to the idea though.

Just wait until the "we apologise for the lack of a view today. This is due to a fault with the display system" announcements when this is fitted to trains! :roll:

I recently arrived at Sheffield, full and standing inbound, where we found about 100 or more passengers waiting to board on the return. All predictable, it was the afternoon student homeward rush. Now over 100 paying passengers is a good trainload - or would be if it hadn't been a single car class 153. What chance all those squashed standees with no handholds in a crash? Certainly the "big high seats" wouldn't do them any good.

How many died because you squandered all this money on early replacement of units with more crash-worthy stock which led to people being put off, or simply being unable to afford, travelling by rail, who then died in car accidents?

I have wondered this in relation to the whole Northern Rail stock shortage and Pacer issues. In addition to the safety argument, how many people drive in a car on their own instead of travelling on a train with 100 others because DMU's with engines that meet the latest emissions standards aren't being built. Surely this is creating more pollution? Trains are greener than cars, regardless of their engine (or at least, they're supposed to be!)

Yes, this narrow-mindedness does occur. The London Underground Marylebone station functioned perfectly well for a century without a PA system, without incident. One was installed, along with a procedure that it was essential equipment. It failed, and the station was closed. Arriving passengers were told to walk to Baker Street. One of these commuters was run down and killed at a road junction along the way. That was OK, not a railway accident so not counted in the figures.

Why couldn't they just have someone with a megaphone or something?

 

[AM9]

The general consensus then is that, while it may cost a little more to do and they may be a few difficulties to solve, it has been done in the past and it would be possible to do it again.

You're not telling me that BR could design carriages in the 1950's (or even the Big Four earlier than this) that had a reasonable number of seats in each carriage, but also have table seats, a good view out of the window, toilets that were fit for purpose etc. using the basic technology available at the time, yet we can't achieve the same thing using 21 century technology today?

This is just comparing apples with pears. Of course rolling stock suppliers could design and manufacture coaches with the same construction, layout and 'comfort features' today. Except that they aren't allowed to:
1) Passenger rolling stock these days must meet stringent levels of performance in terms of passenger safety and safety for the environment that it is used in. This performance is expensive to implement in terms of materials, process, and most of all test and certification. The seats themselves are part of an overall safety system that is engineered to provide a safe environment in the (hopefully) reduced probability of collision etc..
2) The railways are run as a semi-commercial entity. The commercial bits exist with one aim, profit. The non-commercial bits are hemmed in between their contracts with the commercial bits and a government that wants to remove all social responsibility from rail funding. Hence the parsimonious attitude of all involved.
That's the reality of the situation today.

You've hit the nail on the head there! Rolling stock manufacturers and TOCs are getting away with reducing passenger comfort for the sake of saving a bit of money. Surely a better train would encourage more people to travel by rail, therefore increasing revenue, so it would be beneficial for them to design trains with high levels of passenger comfort?

See the reason explained in 2) above. The increase in patronage probably wouldn't fund the increased costs. Most passengers use rail to get somewhere rather that treat trains as mobile lounges.

I have wondered this in relation to the whole Northern Rail stock shortage and Pacer issues. In addition to the safety argument, how many people drive in a car on their own instead of travelling on a train with 100 others because DMU's with engines that meet the latest emissions standards aren't being built. Surely this is creating more pollution? Trains are greener than cars, regardless of their engine (or at least, they're supposed to be!)

Passengers don't travel on trains because they comply with the latest emission standards, in fact most passengers have no interest in the train itself so they wouldn't know the difference.

 

[yorksrob]

Passengers don't travel on trains because they comply with the latest emission standards, in fact most passengers have no interest in the train itself so they wouldn't know the difference.

Yes, but they know the difference between an overcrowded bus seated tin can and one with reasonable comfort and space, hence why a emission targets poorly applied can lead to people choosing more carbon intense forms of transport.

 

[306024]

I remember travelling (more often) in the MKIIs in the '70s when they were pulled by 47s. They were better than the 309s........

Wash your mouth out with soap!!, no finer train than a 309 , well until they were refurbished, but although the seats weren't so good the ride was still as smooth as any train of that era.

 

[AM9]

Wash your mouth out with soap!!, no finer train than a 309 , well until they were refurbished, but although the seats weren't so good the ride was still as smooth as any train of that era.

Yes the AM9s were better than the 47s/MkIIs in terms of acceleration, top speed, quietness and access, but the bench seats had the classic MKI failing of pulling shirt-tails out when bouncing over the loop points at Ingatestone and through the Marks Tey crossover. The MKII seats were individual castings with single cushion units fitted and wing tops on the backs.
I still remember the rush for the 2+1 seats in the griddle car, and the horror of watching workers tucking into a bowl of cornflakes washed down with a can of beer on the Saturday morning 06:42 up Clacton-LST as it pulled out of Colchester.