The Class 333

[Eric]

What's everyones opinion of the class 333?

How would they cope out on the fast mainlines, knowing that they can do 100mph and that they possess brisk and swift acceleration needed?

I've been out to Ilkley today and find these generally speaking more comfortable than a Voyager.

 

[yorksrob]

I think they're excellent trains. From a passenger point of view I think the seating layout of 3 (facing) + 2 (airline) is probably the best compromise between comfort and seat density I've ever seen on a post slam-door unit.

 

[Daimler]

I think they're excellent trains. From a passenger point of view I think the seating layout of 3 (facing) + 2 (airline) is probably the best compromise between comfort and seat density I've ever seen on a post slam-door unit.

Indeed - I think they're excellent trains too, like most Siemens (well, -ish, in this case ) stuff, in my opinion.

 

[Eric]

I'm glad that there are more than just myself who think that these trains are bloody marvelous.

Are they just to be found the Bradford - Leeds - Skipton - Ilkley triangle?

 

[tbtc]

I think they're excellent trains. From a passenger point of view I think the seating layout of 3 (facing) + 2 (airline) is probably the best compromise between comfort and seat density I've ever seen on a post slam-door unit.

I agree with all of that.

My only criticism of the 333s is that there are so few of them.

Ideally they'd have built another four (to replace the 321s at Neville Hill) and built some for other DMU orders too. But that's not a criticism of the units, that's a criticism of a rail industry that cannot see beyond the short term.

I'd be interested in seeing how one would ride on a "main line" as the ride is good on the Shipley lines (albeit not at 100mph)

 

[Eric]

I agree with all of that.

My only criticism of the 333s is that there are so few of them.

Ideally they'd have built another four (to replace the 321s at Neville Hill) and built some for other DMU orders too. But that's not a criticism of the units, that's a criticism of a rail industry that cannot see beyond the short term.

I'd be interested in seeing how one would ride on a "main line" as the ride is good on the Shipley lines (albeit not at 100mph)

Same here mate.

 

[starrymarkb]

Wouldn't the near identical mechanically 332s on the GWML give that impression. IIRC they are a CAF product with Siemens electricals

Plus I believe NIR have the DMU version in the form of the C3K and 4Ks

 

[GospelOak117]

Great looking units just a shame they are such a small fleet. It's interesting to imagine how different things would be if new train orders around the turn of the millenium had been awarded to different manufacturers; For example, if South West Trains had taken a d.c variant of these instead of the Alsthom 458's for the Waterloo-Reading line before awarding Siemens the main order (450/444's). I wonder then if the d.c. 333's and 444/450's would have been compatible allowing them to operate as far as Portsmouth and Poole as opposed to being confined to the Reading line!!

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with all of that.

My only criticism of the 333s is that there are so few of them.

Ideally they'd have built another four (to replace the 321s at Neville Hill) and built some for other DMU orders too. But that's not a criticism of the units, that's a criticism of a rail industry that cannot see beyond the short term.

I'd be interested in seeing how one would ride on a "main line" as the ride is good on the Shipley lines (albeit not at 100mph)

Indeed, would have left a more standardised fleet for Neville Hill and some extra 321's for elsewhere. Shame Harrogate wasn't electrified with a few extra for that line as well.

 

[paulravuslante]

Hi,

I work with class 332s on each of the days I'm in work. I can't see much difference between the technical specs between the 332 and 333s. The 332s are quite zippy and certain drivers can thrash them over the point-work outside Paddington. The ride quality is a touch wobbly in these situations which can be a bit daunting when you're in part of a carriage with few grab rails - you really need your wits about you sometimes! Once you're out on the GWML, it's a smooth and fast ride.

Something I notice from the OPs picture is that the 333s still have the original 'door open button' located far to the left or right of the door sets. Has anyone witnessed passengers struggling to work out how to open the doors from the outside of the 333s? This seems common place on the 332s that still have the original door open buttons (most have been replaced with new style buttons placed in the centre of each door set). Likewise the internal door open button being placed to the immediate right of those doors has some people scratching their heads on how they should open those doors.

Finally does anyone know if the external doors on the 333s have any sensors to stop doors closing on passengers who jump on at the last minute? The 332s certainly don't and people or luggage getting stuck in the doors is a daily occurrence. Once those doors start closing they crush everything in their path! Maybe it's just air travelers who have difficulties in operating train doors...?

These are just a few thoughts I've had about the 332s sister units and I've always wondered if the 333 were improved upon from the original design. I'd appreciate if anyone familiar with the 333s could clarify on the above points?

Regards,
Paul.

 

[Helvellyn]

For example, if South West Trains had taken a d.c variant of these instead of the Alsthom 458's for the Waterloo-Reading line before awarding Siemens the main order (450/444's).

The 458s were originally intended to be SWT's slamdoor replacement stock! When introduced I believe they were largely used on Basingstoke/Alton to Waterloo services, but found themselves restricted to pretty much the Reading to Waterloo route after the introduction of the Desiro fleet.

I believe that when the fourth cars were ordered for the 333s there was consideration to ordering anothr 4/5 units to replace the 321/9s plus I believe a DMU diagram on the electrified route. It never happened, which has been said is a shame because it would have allowed Neville Hill to have one EMU fleet.

 

[Eric]

The 458s were originally intended to be SWT's slamdoor replacement stock! When introduced I believe they were largely used on Basingstoke/Alton to Waterloo services, but found themselves restricted to pretty much the Reading to Waterloo route after the introduction of the Desiro fleet.

I believe that when the fourth cars were ordered for the 333s there was consideration to ordering anothr 4/5 units to replace the 321/9s plus I believe a DMU diagram on the electrified route. It never happened, which has been said is a shame because it would have allowed Neville Hill to have one EMU fleet.

That's right but the money ran out and it was by chance that we managed to keep the new extra units.

 

[MCR247]

Great looking units just a shame they are such a small fleet. It's interesting to imagine how different things would be if new train orders around the turn of the millenium had been awarded to different manufacturers; For example, if South West Trains had taken a d.c variant of these instead of the Alsthom 458's for the Waterloo-Reading line before awarding Siemens the main order (450/444's). I wonder then if the d.c. 333's and 444/450's would have been compatible allowing them to operate as far as Portsmouth and Poole as opposed to being confined to the Reading line!!

I doubt 333s would be compatible with desiros, but I suppose you never know

 

[Oswyntail]

As a regular on these, I can say they are terrific units. The ride is superb, whether slow (Ben Rhydding to Burley!) or at speed between Leeds and Apperley Junction. The seats are well spaced and comfortable - even for me, a "big" man, in the rush hours. And the sound insulation works! No wonder Manchester is casting its greedy eyes at them. Hands off!

 

[sprinterguy]

The 333s are fantastic trains: Comfortable, quiet and quick. It's a shame the design hasn't been perpetuated in more areas. They definitley shouldn't be transferred over to the North West: After the West Yorkshire electric network initially had to put up with second hand 305 and 308 slammers, the Skipton and Ilkley lines deserve to have these excellent units.

 

[Aictos]

I doubt 333s would be compatible with desiros, but I suppose you never know

Class 333s are only able to work in multiple with other 333s, talking of Desiros ie 360s, 350s, 444s and 450s they are only able to work in multiple with other similar Desiros although mechanically only.

The 333s and 450s for example also have different couplings, this information is freely available from Angel Trains who own the traction in question.

 

[4SRKT]

I like 'em, and am a regular user. Do miss the 308s a bit though, although I reckon most people in the Aire Valley would disagree with me. I do try to structure my commuting to Leeds around one or other of the London trains to get more HST or loco hauled miles in the book (and to get a seat). Coming home it's 333s all the way though.

 

[tom1649]

Do the 333s get any use on the Leeds - Doncaster service at the moment? I know they have run in service on this route several times in the past.

 

[ainsworth74]

Do the 333s get any use on the Leeds - Doncaster service at the moment?

I don't think they're timetabled to run any of the Leeds - Doncaster runs, but they do turn up from time to time on them.

 

[Crossforth]

They are fantastic units

They can run in multiple with 333s and 332s.

I assume that the reason for the different classifications is the interior layout?

 

[tbtc]

Do the 333s get any use on the Leeds - Doncaster service at the moment? I know they have run in service on this route several times in the past.

No, not often anyway, despite the fact that South Yorkshire taxpayers allegedly pay for the "fourth" coach in the 333s.

Not sure why we are paying for sixteen coaches that spend 99.9% of their time in West Yorkshire (rather than paying for longer DMUs), but that's SYPTE for you

 

[ainsworth74]

Not sure why we are paying for sixteen coaches that spend 99.9% of their time in West Yorkshire (rather than paying for longer DMUs), but that's SYPTE for you

What I've heard is that when WYPTE were unwilling to continue paying the lease charges for the fourth vehicle, the 4 car 321/9s were going to be transferred away from the Leeds - Doncaster route to compensate. So to prevent that SYPTE stepped in and paid for the 333s to keep their fourth vehicle allowing the 321s to stay where they were.

Whether this is true or not I'm not sure but its what I've heard.

 

[GospelOak117]

Class 333s are only able to work in multiple with other 333s, talking of Desiros ie 360s, 350s, 444s and 450s they are only able to work in multiple with other similar Desiros although mechanically only.

The 333s and 450s for example also have different couplings, this information is freely available from Angel Trains who own the traction in question.

I didn't mean are 333's and 450's compatible rather that if SWT had taken a d.c variant of the 333 design with Dellner couplers, a Class 462 for example, that these may have been compatible with the 450's, given they would both have Siemens electricals.

I think Helvellyn cleared up this scenario however, if SWT had taken Siemens/CAF d.c 333 style units in the first place, instead of Alsthom's troublesome 458's then this would have probably led to a far greater order of those for the whole SWT network anyway, rather than just a small batch for the Reading line.

 

[jopsuk]

Or if Alsthom hadn't cocked up their Juniper trains so spectacularly in the first place (see also Scotrail's 334s and the diesel Coradia 180/175- even the 460s weren't right for a bit) we'd have seen a lot more of those- and perhaps a lot less Siemens trains in this country, despite the good experiences with the 332/333. We'd quite possibly still have two train maufacturers building in this country- French-owned Alsthom and Candian-owned Bombardier. There's a lot of what-ifs, really.

I'd guess an Alsthom 444-alike would have had similar carriages to the 180/175.

 

[Eric]

Do the 333s get any use on the Leeds - Doncaster service at the moment? I know they have run in service on this route several times in the past.

I've only ever seen the one 333 on the Doncaster - Leeds service.

But I have seen the 321s quite regularly on the triangle. Only the other night there was one at Forster Square going to Leeds.

 

[starrymarkb]

Or if Alsthom hadn't cocked up their Juniper trains so spectacularly in the first place (see also Scotrail's 334s and the diesel Coradia 180/175- even the 460s weren't right for a bit) we'd have seen a lot more of those- and perhaps a lot less Siemens trains in this country, despite the good experiences with the 332/333. We'd quite possibly still have two train maufacturers building in this country- French-owned Alsthom and Candian-owned Bombardier. There's a lot of what-ifs, really.

I'd guess an Alsthom 444-alike would have had similar carriages to the 180/175.

It was Alstom's aftersales that let them down, they were more interested in the prestigious 390s then sorting out problems with the bread and butter units (and indeed engines - they urinated off FGW enough with the VP185 that they went MTU!),

 

[MCR247]

Alstom made VP185s? I thought it would have been MAN then?

 

[Lampshade]

It's actually WYPTE that's the problem, they're constantly in bed with Northern so Leeds gets anything it wants while GMPTE/SYPTE/anywhere else in fact gets a raw deal.

 

[starrymarkb]

Alstom made VP185s? I thought it would have been MAN then?

This was late 1990s, shortly before the sale to MAN. The MTU program started in 2004 iirc with squadron conversions starting in 2006

 

[Crossforth]

It's actually WYPTE that's the problem, they're constantly in bed with Northern so Leeds gets anything it wants while GMPTE/SYPTE/anywhere else in fact gets a raw deal.