Rolling Stock past and present that were a step up from their predecessors

[gg1]

I'm sure some will disagree but I felt the various Sprinter classes were a significant improvement over the 1st gen DMUs the replaced. Likewise 323s when they replaced 304s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure some will disagree but I felt the various Sprinter classes were a significant improvement over the 1st gen DMUs the replaced. Likewise 323s when they replaced 304s.

323s felt space age. Only annoyance is that they don't seem to have been able to solve the issue of distortion to the view out of the window.

 

[D6130]

Only annoyance is that they don't seem to have been able to solve the issue of distortion to the view out of the window.

That also applies to 333s....and the late lamented 332s.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I've long thought the PEP must have been designed by someone who really hated passengers, having an unnecessarily horrid layout.

Many first Gen DMUs used on London Suburban (115, 117, 121, 127) and Southern Region stock such as VEPs had a door in every bay meaning the seat was placed in the centre of the window!

 

[LowLevel]

Class 222s taking over from 170s on the MML were a pretty hefty upgrade. The same trains taking over from HSTs were much more debatable - but they always seemed to be marmite, regular travellers either liked their 222s or their HSTs.

 

[Irascible]

I've long thought the PEP must have been designed by someone who really hated passengers, having an unnecessarily horrid layout.

Kindof, although did anyone *really* care on inner suburban services? I used 313s for years, wasn't a factor.

Mk3s were a bit quieter than Mk2s that's all I can really come up with for improvements. One thing I am glad about is a general step away form compartments, I never really enjoyed them.

 

[Snow1964]

Kindof, although did anyone *really* care on inner suburban services? I used 313s for years, wasn't a factor.

Mk3s were a bit quieter than Mk2s that's all I can really come up with for improvements. One thing I am glad about is a general step away form compartments, I never really enjoyed them.

To be honest, I preferred the semi compartment layout, with glass partitions every 3 or 4 seating bays. The mk1 (and early mk2) with centre doors, and units like 4CIG were like this. Tended to stop someone noisy disturbing whole coach.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

To be honest, I preferred the semi compartment layout, with glass partitions every 3 or 4 seating bays. The mk1 (and early mk2) with centre doors, and units like 4CIG were like this. Tended to stop someone noisy disturbing whole coach.

Presumably the only reason this is no longer done now is to do with CCTV being easier if a coach is fully open?

 

[gg1]

Presumably the only reason this is no longer done now is to do with CCTV being easier if a coach is fully open?

The design was changed decades before CCTV started to be fitted to trains.

 

[randyrippley]

Presumably the only reason this is no longer done now is to do with CCTV being easier if a coach is fully open?

More likely the glass screens disrupted the air conditioning airflow

 

[Bletchleyite]

More likely the glass screens disrupted the air conditioning airflow

Or just changing trends. Units with doors at thirds are like that.

 

[Mikey C]

A sweeping generalisation here, so obviously not true everywhere, is that previously "local" trains were uncomfortable while "Inter-City" and longer distance trains were comfortable, and that from the 90s onwards, we ended up with a more consistent level of comfort, in between these 2 extremes.

So the 465s and 165s are a major step up from the earlier EPBs and heritage DMUs, but the 166s weren't a step up from the loco hauled stock.

Similarly the Turbostars are a step up in comfort if they replaced older DMUs but a step down in comfort if they replaced HST operated services (as with MML).

The 350s were a big step up on the 321s previously used on the WCML slow services, but the 390s to me on the WCML Inter-City services are a step down in comfort on the loco hauled stock.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Taking the route I'm most familiar with, the Standedge route, as an example:
LHCS replaced by 150s and 156s- backwards step.
The last few LHCS services replaced by 158s- an improvement but not a dramatic one IMO.
The 75mph units replaced by 158s- big improvement.
Those changes came along with a frequency boost, so I guess it's swings and roundabouts.
Then in later years:
158s replaced with 185s: a big improvement for dwells, for noise/weight/running costs less-so.
185s largely replaced by 802s and mk5 sets: another mixed bag, I like the mk5 sets but the 800-series are utterly dull from an enthusiast POV. At least TPE's interior is the least-worst of the IET-type units.

 

[nw1]

Perhaps: Thumpers to CIGs and VEPs in the Solent area (1990) and East Grinstead (1987)?

Nothing wrong with Thumpers btw, they're great units... but their replacements were EMUs and had considerably more modern interiors (even though they were 20-odd years old by then).

Similar era, similar part of the country: 155 to 158 on Portsmouth to Cardiff (I never used the line much in the 155 days but it could easily be argued that 158s were a step up in comfort and ambience).

 

[bishdunster]

The REPs and TCs were a real revolution on their introduction

 

[Pigeon]

For long distance travel the early markII was the pinnacle of a long sequence of marginal developments. It has been downhill from there, starting with the later MarkIIs where the wrap round doors were a major safety hazard that was only addressed with central door locking. Since then it has been an attritional decline particularly with regard to comfort of seats and provision of legroom.

I agree. The early Mk2s were as good as it got. Best shaped seats ever, with a reasonable amount of room in them, properly aligned windows, properly sized windows - came all the way back to your shoulder and all the way down to your elbow, opening windows and droplights, and a nice wood finish to the walls. Since then no seating has been up to the same standard, all interiors have been finished in horrible plasticky composites, and they've lost the thread regarding windows completely: too small, in the wrong place, and no way to open them, so it's like being sealed inside some kind of pressure vessel peering out through portholes.

Though I will say that one advantage of the horrible plasticky interiors and sealed windows is that they are easier to keep clean. That aluminium extrusion round the edges of the Mk2 windows was invariably full of grot, though it didn't help itself by having all those channels in it as if to accommodate some extra parts which nothing actually used.

Similarly a great deal of what was not good about older stock was that it was so long since they'd bothered about keeping it clean - I'm thinking of the upholstery in particular, and its tendency to assume a uniform grey-brown colour with only a vague hint of the original colour showing through. When in the 80s they did start occasionally replacing the seat covers with nice clean new ones, it was a minor transformation for the vehicles they did it to, even though it didn't feel any different to sit on. They then seemed to develop an ability to keep it clean as well, which was long overdue.

The Mk3 body had some significant good points to it (such as ability to stay in one piece in a crash) but it had the ineradicable problem of the design only being truly suitable for the Mk3 FO interior layout, but ending up getting used for everything. Even for a second class interior layout it suffered from the windows being in the wrong place, but even though that was what the design was most used for initially, they never took the obvious step of producing a variant that was properly matched to its most common use. Then the various multiple unit bodyshells they started to come out with bodged themselves into conformance with a design that was never intended for that layout, and ended up with terrible interior layouts as a result - pretty much maximally pessimal window alignment and cavernous amounts of wasted space around the doors, which especially where three-car DMUs were being replaced by 2-car formations made the services much more crowded at a stroke even with the same number of passengers using them.

The real trouble is that there was so much of this that at least among those with the power to do something about it it became accepted as normal, and we've had far too many subsequent designs where they simply don't give a monkey's about window alignment, so even though the lack of design resources which led to the initial situation is no longer a factor, the same faults are still being perpetuated.

 

[Bevan Price]

Mk2e ( the ones with actual aircon & not the mk3 seats ).
1970s sliding door commuter EMUs, did you ever experience what they replaced?
159s I'll give you with the qualifier that it took guard's vans away. They didn't replace DMUs ( and neither did most 158s ) so that's a false comparison, but "better than random clapped out Mk2s" is good enough.

Everything else has far too many "except for". There'll probably be loads of pre BR stuff someone can think up.

The early Air-Con Mark 2s could be awful - unreliable aircon, so they could get grossly overheated in summer, and the deadly self-closing gangway doors within some of the coaches -- some of them closed so quickly that your fingers were in danger of being crushed. As I have commented before, in my opinion, nothing has bettered the comfort of Bulleid's open seconds.
The main improvements have been related to safety, including reducing the risk of damage in accidents, but countered by a steady reduction in seat size and comfort.

 

[306024]

It would have been interesting to have been around in 1949 to see the reaction to the Shenfield electrification scheme and the new electric class 306 trains (as they became known), coming just 4 years after the end of the Second World War.

But more recently the class 755s on all the Anglia branch lines are simply no comparison to what went before (With the exception of the first class armchairs on the Anglia 3 car 170s). A pleasure to travel on.

 

[nw1]

The REPs and TCs were a real revolution on their introduction

Wasn't around in the 60s, but July 1967 and the first REP/TC timetable did seem to be the dawn of the "modern" era on the SWD. While there was still plenty of older stock (BILs, CORs) still around, the 1967 SWD CWN (available on the brcoachingstock group of groups.io) reveals that Waterloo operations and SWD timetables were really not that dissimilar in character to those still prevailing in the 80s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

On the Penistone line, Pacers felt like a step backwards from the motley assortment of Modernisation Plan era DMUs that came before. Now that it's solid 150, I'm not sure that's an improvement either. They're smoother, but the line is pretty much all CWR now anyway, so the 144s weren't too bad. They also allowed you to enjoy the views unlike the 150s. Not to mention a 3-car 144 was much better for capacity than a 2-car 150.

 

[xotGD]

Any service which has switched over from DMU/DEMU/EMU operation to loco-hauled stock is a clear step forward.

Such as when sets of Mark 1s were drafted in to replace unreliable Pacers back in the 80s.

Class 91/Mark 4 sets replacing HSTs.

More recently, the introduction of Class 68/Mark 5a sets on TPE.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't regard slidy-door trains as a step up from their predecessors.

 

[Trestrol]

It would have been interesting to have been around in 1949 to see the reaction to the Shenfield electrification scheme and the new electric class 306 trains (as they became known), coming just 4 years after the end of the Second World War.

But would there have been much reaction. Yes they were an improvement over steam hauled stock but they were still mid to late 1930's design. The first bodyshells minus traction equipment were delivered before the outbreak of war. These were even painted in LNER livery. Were the interiors upgraded after the war I think not. Although 1930's Art Deco would probably be preferable to post war austerity. BR Green or LNER Blue and Quaker Grey I know which I would prefer.

 

[AY1975]

I'm sure some will disagree but I felt the various Sprinter classes were a significant improvement over the 1st gen DMUs the replaced.

Bright, airy, quiet, reliable and smooth riding Pacers were an absolute revelation compared to the DMUs which they replaced.

In terms of the ride quality yes, but on the other hand Pacers and Sprinters didn't have the driver's eye view from the front seat that you got on first generation DMUs.

The Mk3 was a step down from previous designs. It was the first where Standard passengers weren't designed for specifically, but rather were accommodated as an after-irritation of the design of a coach laid out for First Class.

Agreed, although you could also argue that it was the first where First Class wasn't designed for specifically because Mark 3s had eight windows for both First and Standard Class whereas Mark 1s and 2s had seven windows for First Class and eight for Standard.

Maybe I shouldn't be saying this as I never travelled on the Mark 1 sleepers (I was around when they were in service, but only just) but from what I've heard from people who travelled on them the Mark 3 sleepers would seem a step up from the Mark 1s though some may disagree. The Mark 3s have aircon, a quieter and smoother ride (and therefore a better night's sleep), retention tank toilets, and a sophisticated fire alarm system to protect against any repetition of the 1978 Taunton fire.

 

[mike57]

Maybe I shouldn't be saying this as I never travelled on the Mark 1 sleepers (I was around when they were in service, but only just) but from what I've heard from people who travelled on them the Mark 3 sleepers would seem a step up from the Mark 1s though some may disagree. The Mark 3s have aircon, a quieter and smoother ride (and therefore a better night's sleep), retention tank toilets, and a sophisticated fire alarm system to protect against any repetition of the 1978 Taunton fire.

I travelled on both during the late 70s and early 80s. Mk3s were a definite improvement, the difference between a disturbed and a reasonable nights sleep. Did the Mk3s have retention tanks from new, cant remember if the toilet had the standard for those days 'Do not flush in the station' sign

 

[Magdalia]

Maybe I shouldn't be saying this as I never travelled on the Mark 1 sleepers (I was around when they were in service, but only just) but from what I've heard from people who travelled on them the Mark 3 sleepers would seem a step up from the Mark 1s though some may disagree. The Mark 3s have aircon, a quieter and smoother ride (and therefore a better night's sleep), retention tank toilets, and a sophisticated fire alarm system to protect against any repetition of the 1978 Taunton fire.

I travelled in both, and preferred the MarkIs. But then I find that air conditioning makes it difficult for me to sleep, and always try to get hotel rooms with opening windows.

 

[43096]

I travelled on both during the late 70s and early 80s. Mk3s were a definite improvement, the difference between a disturbed and a reasonable nights sleep. Did the Mk3s have retention tanks from new, cant remember if the toilet had the standard for those days 'Do not flush in the station' sign

The Mark 3 sleepers had retention tanks from new.

 

[Helvellyn]

Agreed, although you could also argue that it was the first where First Class wasn't designed for specifically because Mark 3s had eight windows for both First and Standard Class whereas Mark 1s and 2s had seven windows for First Class and eight for Standard.

Eight windows for eight bays of seating. The Mark 3 is longer than a Mark 2. If a separate bodyshell had been designed for Standard Class it would have had nine windows (original seating layout was 72 - 8 bays and 2 rows of airline seating). But as I have posted earlier, the Mark 3 was designed as a universal bodyshell. Mark 1 to Mark 2 significantly reduced the number of body designs, and Mark 2 to Mark 3 took it further.

 

[Pigeon]

But that's not the same as it being a good idea done well. It got used as a universal bodyshell, but its claim to be one is distinctly dubious. A universal bodyshell should be one which is equally suitable for any of the uses it is put to, but the Mk3 was only properly suitable for the use which (apart from sleepers) it was probably put to least often of any - the first open trailer. A lot more of them were built as second open trailers for which they were not suitable, and then they got used as the basis for lots and lots of units on which they compelled an interior layout that was basically rotten.

 

[43096]

The Mk3 was a step down from previous designs. It was the first where Standard passengers weren't designed for specifically, but rather were accommodated as an after-irritation of the design of a coach laid out for First Class.

The Mk3 body had some significant good points to it (such as ability to stay in one piece in a crash) but it had the ineradicable problem of the design only being truly suitable for the Mk3 FO interior layout, but ending up getting used for everything. Even for a second class interior layout it suffered from the windows being in the wrong place, but even though that was what the design was most used for initially, they never took the obvious step of producing a variant that was properly matched to its most common use. Then the various multiple unit bodyshells they started to come out with bodged themselves into conformance with a design that was never intended for that layout, and ended up with terrible interior layouts as a result - pretty much maximally pessimal window alignment and cavernous amounts of wasted space around the doors, which especially where three-car DMUs were being replaced by 2-car formations made the services much more crowded at a stroke even with the same number of passengers using them.

But that's not the same as it being a good idea done well. It got used as a universal bodyshell, but its claim to be one is distinctly dubious. A universal bodyshell should be one which is equally suitable for any of the uses it is put to, but the Mk3 was only properly suitable for the use which (apart from sleepers) it was probably put to least often of any - the first open trailer. A lot more of them were built as second open trailers for which they were not suitable, and then they got used as the basis for lots and lots of units on which they compelled an interior layout that was basically rotten.

I've never understood this obsession with the Mark 3 window arrangement. I've never sat in any Mark 3 where I can't see out of the window - the deadlights aren't that big; they're not Pendolino sized (which is a truly appalling bit of design).. The fact that so many have changed configuration over the years makes the common bodyshell absolutely the right decision.