Train design: Where has it all gone wrong?

[Peter Wilde]

This is a bit of a rant, but some may like it perhaps. Let's think about ideal rail transport in the UK, at least for heavily used routes in and near cities: What are the desirable characteristics?

Future services need to be green (therefore, electric wherever affordable); and sufficiently appealing to attract people away from cars (and planes - but I put that on one side as it mostly applies to long distance services).

However, this does not mean train services need to be either super-fast or super-safe; they just need to score on these counts over the competing alternative modes. I would say the key components for commuter services are:

Frequent trains at known, well spaced intervals
Very reliable services
Affordability
Reasonable (but not necessarily plush) comfort and cleanliness
A reassuring, secure feeling when on board
Accident-prevention features that are good enough (i.e. to keep train travel significantly better than road transport), but not gold-plated.

That however is not where modern train design has gone, is it? Over recent decades trains have got heavier, less reliable and much more high-tech, with far too much dependence on complex software and electric gadgets. (Why introduce ever-balky electric actuators for simple mechanical needs like closing and opening toilet doors, or operating toilet flushes, for example? There are people, especially women, who simply refuse to use train loos for fear of being suddenly revealed in mid-flow).

With all this weight and complexity, operating the trains uses the same or more power than their predecessors; whereas it ought to be less. There are also greater problems in these power-hungry trains when the wires come down, or heavy delays happen for other reasons.

Then there is the unbelievable lack of standardisation of things like drivers' controls, inter-unit connectors and couplings. This is simply mad when one considers that trains are often cascaded on in mid-life to other TOCs, who must then run a retraining programme for drivers and other staff; and that ideally, all trains ought to be able to couple to and rescue all other trains they may encounter.

The result of all the above? Complex, unreliable trains in small diverse fleets. All this is costly, keeping fares (and subsidy levels) so high that services can't be increased to compete effectively with other modes.

All this has stemmed from the balkanisation of the UK rail scene with too much negotiating power ending up in the hands of train manufacturers. Who of course want to sell complex bespoke equipment, with individualistic design features that lock users into manufacturer-specific maintenance - and repeat orders.

There is of course the other human factor that people working in design like to innovate to make their mark, tinkering with and trying out all sorts of new features - that in the event may not work well enough to be an advantage. But that is not what we need. We ought to be facing the reality that trains are in essence old tech that ought to just work, right "out of the box". For which we (the travelling public and the taxpayers) need a boring "Riddles" type of design philosophy, predictable, fit for purpose and cheap; not the trial and error, innovatory one of lots of competing "Bulleids".

But - all the above is where we are. How to get back to where we should be? Which is - better public transport, and many fewer cars on the roads.

Why? Bear in mind that shifting road traffic over to electric cars neither completely fixes air quality (as EVs still pollute with brake and tyre dust), nor does it solve many other issues. The latter include wasted, degraded urban spaces (taken up by roads and parking); inefficient use of resources (all those shiny individually owned EVs being parked for over 90% of their lifetime); accidents, particularly to pedestrians and cyclists; and a transport mode being unavailable to children, the elderly, many of the disabled, and those who like to meet friends for a drink.

You really couldn't make it up. Surely any competent train designers and railway managers entering a time-warp from (say) the 1980s just would not believe the messes we are now in!

 

[JonathanH]

You seem to be missing the point that there is continued improvement in things like train control and coupling requirements.

Should we still be using screw couplings on all rolling stock to ensure backward compatibility? Should we ignore the computer age, and still use the old forms of controller? Things move on, and there are improvements that can't be backward compatible.

 

[Trainbike46]

you raise a lot of very important points - for example, software issues on the 701s are undeniably problematic

However, the railway has seen a large increase in passenger numbers over the 21st century, so my feeling is that your assessment is overly negative?

 

[HSTEd]

Should we still be using screw couplings on all rolling stock to ensure backward compatibility? Should we ignore the computer age, and still use the old forms of controller? Things move on, and there are improvements that can't be backward compatible.

The screw coupler should have been consigned to the dustbin a hundred years ago! The fact that it still lingers is a commentary of the state of the railway industry.

The AAR multiple unit control spec is backwards compatible with stuff from something like 90 years ago
The current railway has been sweet talked by rolling stock manufacturers into a comical level of manufacturer lock in and it will take decades to fix.

There is little legitimate reason for the non-existance of a standardised multiple-unit control spec existing, especially in the era of ECP braking.

 

[Irascible]

Computer control is a good thing - allows great increases in performance and economy. Where it's gone wrong is the lack of standards, the sort of thing the CM & EE dept managed in the past. Issues in software in general are often from trying to do things on the cheap, with insufficient rigor I've never worked on train management software though so I'm not going to make assumptions about that environment in particular.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The OP's thread title "Train design: Where has it all gone wrong?" seems to pre-suppose that nothing much in modern train design is right.

Would suggest that this somewhat negative point of view isn't necessarily always the case, and whilst there may be some design aspects that don't work, there are many others in the modern railway that clearly do work.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Lack of standardisation and over-complication of equipment.

Should we still be using screw couplings on all rolling stock to ensure backward compatibility?

Screw or buckeye couplings together with jumper cables and brake pipes tend to be reliable,the SR had it off to a tee. But on modern fleets the couplers often seem unreliable especially on uneven or curved track.

 

[JonathanH]

Screw or buckeye couplings together with jumper cables and brake pipes tend to be reliable,the SR had it off to a tee.

Yes, but it involved the coupling staff having to do a somewhat dangerous act of trying to connect those cables. We have moved on with improvements in safety.

 

[ComUtoR]

Screw or buckeye couplings together with jumper cables and brake pipes tend to be reliable,the SR had it off to a tee. But on modern fleets the couplers often seem unreliable especially on uneven or curved track.

I'm not sure there is any real evidence for that.

Anecdotally, my TOCs fleet has had ever increasing reliability with modern couplers. In my head,I can't recall any break-away's with a Delner but I know of more than a few with Tightlocks. Same with coupling issues at stations. Our Tightlocks are notoriously bad but our latest Delner Type 12 is freaking amazing !

Then there is the unbelievable lack of standardisation of things like drivers' controls,

In what way ? I'm pretty confident I could drive almost any modern EMU with just a quick glance round the cab and a 2 minute briefing. Easily 90% of my train cab I don't use. Granted old school mentality of 'Air and Amps' is very much still relevant, but everything else has made life easier as a Driver.

This is simply mad when one considers that trains are often cascaded on in mid-life to other TOCs, who must then run a retraining programme for drivers and other staff; and that ideally, all trains ought to be able to couple to and rescue all other trains they may encounter.

This isn't a train design issue. This is an Operational one. There would be all kinds of legal and safety implications to be considered. We don't live in a world where people 'just crack on with it' and are willing to bluff your way through. I reckon I could reset the Passcom on almost any modern unit. Most likely gonna be a T Key in the blindingly obvious hole but I think I'd still like to know what affect it has on the train, if it has an associated Bil, can be overridden, etc.

From a Passenger perspective, this is a good thing. Having highly trained, qualified staff who can deal with the situation in a timely fashion, is very beneficial. Not forgetting that that base training lasts pretty much forever. A quick refresher or constant competency checks means that a week on a traction course will suffice for as long as the Driver 'signs' it.

With all this weight and complexity, operating the trains uses the same or more power than their predecessors; whereas it ought to be less. There are also greater problems in these power-hungry trains when the wires come down, or heavy delays happen for other reasons.

Any stats to back this up ? I'm curious.

Accident-prevention features that are good enough (i.e. to keep train travel significantly better than road transport), but not gold-plated.

As Jules was heard to say.. "Example ?"

 

[Ashley Hill]

I'm not sure there is any real evidence for that.

I’ve seen many BSI fitted units have trouble coupling,likewise with IETs.

 

[Peter Wilde]

I'm not sure there is any real evidence for that.

Anecdotally, my TOCs fleet has had ever increasing reliability with modern couplers. In my head,I can't recall any break-away's with a Delner but I know of more than a few with Tightlocks. Same with coupling issues at stations. Our Tightlocks are notoriously bad but our latest Delner Type 12 is freaking amazing !




In what way ? I'm pretty confident I could drive almost any modern EMU with just a quick glance round the cab and a 2 minute briefing. Easily 90% of my train cab I don't use. Granted old school mentality of 'Air and Amps' is very much still relevant, but everything else has made life easier as a Driver.



This isn't a train design issue. This is an Operational one. There would be all kinds of legal and safety implications to be considered. We don't live in a world where people 'just crack on with it' and are willing to bluff your way through. I reckon I could reset the Passcom on almost any modern unit. Most likely gonna be a T Key in the blindingly obvious hole but I think I'd still like to know what affect it has on the train, if it has an associated Bil, can be overridden, etc.

From a Passenger perspective, this is a good thing. Having highly trained, qualified staff who can deal with the situation in a timely fashion, is very beneficial. Not forgetting that that base training lasts pretty much forever. A quick refresher or constant competency checks means that a week on a traction course will suffice for as long as the Driver 'signs' it.


Any stats to back this up ? I'm curious.



As Jules was heard to say.. "Example ?"

Driving any modern EMU (safely and efficiently) after a short briefing … is surely what ought to be possible, especially if there was more standardisation. (It is what happens in other forms of land transport. I was disconcerted when I bought a new car to find that all I got was a ten minute verbal briefing from the dealer; the new car’s controls were much more complex than those of my previous one; and driving on roads is a more demanding task in an unpredictable and dangerous environment!).

But is that really where things are at when new trains are introduced? If so this is a shocking indictment of the state of the industry given that - from press reports, and discussions in other threads - entry into service of new trains is so often held up because all staff need to be given time to attend long training courses.

Examples of accident prevention features that are good enough? One is the introduction of TPWS, surely. Not the most effective possible system at preventing accidents (that at the time of its introduction was the more expensive BR ATP). But TPWS was held by the authorities to produce such a significant reduction in accident risk that it was possible to withdraw their earlier restrictions on use of Mk 1s on the main line.

If what you are after is examples of the benefits of “just good enough” levels of safety, there were big increases in London Underground ridership when the old GLC brought in cuts in fares. Other examples of lower fares boosting train use are available (worldwide). Public transport needs to be made cheaper and more frequent, to tempt people out of cars. The multiple benefits of that, at least in conurbations, would outweigh any slightly increased risk on railways (compared that is to the gold-standard safety we have now). The result - an overall improvement in safety, health and arguably in quality of life

 

[AM9]

With all this weight and complexity, operating the trains uses the same or more power than their predecessors; whereas it ought to be less. There are also greater problems in these power-hungry trains when the wires come down, or heavy delays happen for other reasons.

You haven't given any basis for these calims so I'll try and give you some figuire to amplify the performance state of EMUs in the 1960s and 1970s.
On the GEML, - the busiest and most advanced ac electrified commuter mainline in those days were three EMU types that covered most services (except the pre-war designed class 306):

the MK1 non-corridor EMUs consisting classes 302, 035, 307 & 308. These each had 4 200hp 'ish DC motors and were capable of about 75-80mph with a maximum acceleration rate of 0.63m/s/s *​

the MK1 Corridor express EMUs consisting the class 309. These each had 4 282hp DC motors and were capable of 100mph with a maximum acceleration rate (that depended on the combination of 2 & 4-car units) of a rate of 0.405m/s/s *​

the MK2 intermediate service EMUs consisting the class 312/0. These each had 4 270hp DC motors and were rated at 90mph maximum with a maximum acceleration rate of 0.495m/s/s *​

If somebody here can provide the acceleration rates of current EMUs for comparison (@Railperf maybe), I think that the different power demand of modern units might be considered as a significant advance rather than your criticism of them being "power hungry". They do a lot more than just eat power and that is whilst carrying a lot more equipment.

* When the class 312s were introduced on the GEML, there was discussion about their 90mph maximum speed being below the maximum linespeed and that of the class 309s. This was clarified by their by stating the acceleration rated of the three types of EMUs used on the route, i.e those listed above. Their rates were stated in mph/s in those days (1.4, 0.9 and 1.1) from which I calculated the figures quoted in m/s/s. Please correct me if my arithmetic is wrong.

 

[CarrotPie]

If somebody here can provide the acceleration rates of current EMUs for comparison (@Railperf maybe)

720s are 0.8m/s/s, continental FLIRTs are 1-1.2m/s/s

 

[Peter Wilde]

Please note I was not comparing the present generation of EMUs with their immediate predecessors.

I was looking further back. Most of my experience (as a passenger on these trains) has been on the southern third rail routes. I well recall much comment (e.g. in Modern Railways) at the time of introduction of Desiros and similar stock that the trains were heavier and more power hungry, to the extent that it was necessary to upgrade power supplies before they could be used as intended.

It is worth recalling that Southern Railway services on some routes actually had shorter journey times in the 1930 to 1950 (or thereabouts) period than the same routes have now. Why? Revised stopping patterns, congestion and general risk-averseness and timetable padding by privatised operators have played a part. But the comparison makes the point that older trains had perfectly adequate performance for the commuter routes they were used on.

Also I was considering what ought to be theoretically possible with present technology. A train (say) 20% lighter would require significantly less power - a gain which should be used to save power consumption, not to increase performance. Why? The need for greener transport consuming less energy, plus the crying need for cheaper fares and more reliable services. We ought to be going for lighter vehicle structures (and even cutting speeds and acceleration rates, if this is calculated as essential to preserve safety levels; though one would hope not). Plus cutting out unnecessary bells and whistles and WIBN kit.

Of course I also realise that this future scenario is not so attractive to either designers and manufacturers, or to the sort of techno-enthusiast performance nerds who are typical readers of this forum …!

 

[AM9]

Please note I was not comparing the present generation of EMUs with their immediate predecessors.

But the majority of the SR EMUs in use since the '40s were of late Bulleid design and fairly close MK1 derivatives introduced by BR. They all had series wound DC traction motors based on the English Electric EE507 producing around 200HP each, the bodies were steel, 20m long with 10 bays of seating and slam doors. Their weight was around 140 tons per 4-cars worth, although some pre ww2 designs had timber construction in the bodies, and their effective power to weight ratio was between 5 and 6.5 hp/ton. In that respect, my figures for GEML MK1 EMUs are quite relevant other than their power supply being a lot more robust in periods of high demand.

I was looking further back. Most of my experience (as a passenger on these trains) has been on the southern third rail routes. I well recall much comment (e.g. in Modern Railways) at the time of introduction of Desiros and similar stock that the trains were heavier and more power hungry, to the extent that it was necessary to upgrade power supplies before they could be used as intended.

The Desiro/Electrostar EMUs introduces 20-25 years ago met the safety and durability requirement s of 20th century railways including:

structural design that contained passengers securely in the case of a collision, - many of the collisions of the steel and timber bodied cars resulted in higher deaths and injuries through disintegration of the cars​

working end protection with crumple zones, - with higher speed operation, the driver and passengers in end cars have better protection​

better braking and anti-wheelspin systems, - higher acceleration forces require better protection to protect track​

effective ventilation/air conditioning, - Opening windows is no longer acceptable on safety grounds​

sliding doors, - required on passenger safety grounds​

better lighting, - to meet current visibility requirements​

faster acceleration and top speeds, - to meet timatabling requirements​

multiple toilet provision, - to comply with current H & S requirements​

compliance with contemporary EMC regulations, - necessary to prevent undesireable interaction with electronic systems both on trains and trackside e.g. signalling and comms.​

The impact of all of those requirements was to increase the typical weight of a 4-car EMU by 25-35 tons, which ultimately added to the total power needed to meet tighter timetables

It is worth recalling that Southern Railway services on some routes actually had shorter journey times in the 1930 to 1950 (or thereabouts) period than the same routes have now. Why? Revised stopping patterns, congestion and general risk-averseness and timetable padding by privatised operators have played a part. But the comparison makes the point that older trains had perfectly adequate performance for the commuter routes they were used on.

Can you provide examples of historic journey times together with stopping patterns to compare with current services?

Also I was considering what ought to be theoretically possible with present technology. A train (say) 20% lighter would require significantly less power - a gain which should be used to save power consumption, not to increase performance. Why? The need for greener transport consuming less energy, plus the crying need for cheaper fares and more reliable services. We ought to be going for lighter vehicle structures (and even cutting speeds and acceleration rates, if this is calculated as essential to preserve safety levels; though one would hope not). Plus cutting out unnecessary bells and whistles and WIBN kit.

Of course I also realise that this future scenario is not so attractive to either designers and manufacturers, or to the sort of techno-enthusiast performance nerds who are typical readers of this forum …!

Modern monocoque construction of trains together with the increased safety and durability requirements result in heavier trains overall, (just like passenger road vehicles) but there are examples of lighter construction usually through advance aluminium alloy production techniques and the use of inside frame bogies, (e.g. the Desiro City desgns and the Electrostar successor Aventra designs) that have reduced gross weights by around 10%, but that doesn't really mean a significant saving in power requirements.
I have no idea what "WIBN kit" is.

 

[Railperf]

You haven't given any basis for these calims so I'll try and give you some figuire to amplify the performance state of EMUs in the 1960s and 1970s.
On the GEML, - the busiest and most advanced ac electrified commuter mainline in those days were three EMU types that covered most services (except the pre-war designed class 306):

the MK1 non-corridor EMUs consisting classes 302, 035, 307 & 308. These each had 4 200hp 'ish DC motors and were capable of about 75-80mph with a maximum acceleration rate of 0.63m/s/s *​

the MK1 Corridor express EMUs consisting the class 309. These each had 4 282hp DC motors and were capable of 100mph with a maximum acceleration rate (that depended on the combination of 2 & 4-car units) of a rate of 0.405m/s/s *​

the MK2 intermediate service EMUs consisting the class 312/0. These each had 4 270hp DC motors and were rated at 90mph maximum with a maximum acceleration rate of 0.495m/s/s *​

If somebody here can provide the acceleration rates of current EMUs for comparison (@Railperf maybe), I think that the different power demand of modern units might be considered as a significant advance rather than your criticism of them being "power hungry". They do a lot more than just eat power and that is whilst carrying a lot more equipment.

* When the class 312s were introduced on the GEML, there was discussion about their 90mph maximum speed being below the maximum linespeed and that of the class 309s. This was clarified by their by stating the acceleration rated of the three types of EMUs used on the route, i.e those listed above. Their rates were stated in mph/s in those days (1.4, 0.9 and 1.1) from which I calculated the figures quoted in m/s/s. Please correct me if my arithmetic is wrong.

The acceleration curve is not constant - so the maximum acceleration rates quoted for older stock may not be diectly comparable.
Today, both Class 745 and 720 can reach 100mph in under 2 minutes, compared to around 2 mins 40 secs for a Class 360 and somewhere between 4.5 to 5 minutes for a CLass 321! The Class 90's could reach 100mph in just over 3 mins on a dry rail with 8 mk 3's and a DVT, but over a distance of around 5 miles would take around the same time as a 321. The 321's had better starting acceleration but from 60 to 100mph the Class 90's were stronger (on a dry rail) and would catch up.
The difference between the more modern 360's and 745/ 720's seems to be the latter's ability to retain a much stronger acceleration all the way up to 100mph. And wet wather acceleration does not seem to suffer as badly due to better adhesion and wheelslip protection.

 

[AM9]

The acceleration curve is not constant - so the maximum acceleration rates quoted for older stock may not be diectly comparable.

Yes I know that which is why I quoted the maximum acceleration rates, which with serial would DC motors in a serial/parallel pair occurs twice, once in each mode.

Today, both Class 745 and 720 can reach 100mph in under 2 minutes, compared to around 2 mins 40 secs for a Class 360 and somewhere between 4.5 to 5 minutes for a CLass 321! The Class 90's could reach 100mph in just over 3 mins on a dry rail with 8 mk 3's and a DVT, but over a distance of around 5 miles would take around the same time as a 321. The 321's had better starting acceleration but from 60 to 100mph the Class 90's were stronger (on a dry rail) and would catch up.
The difference between the more modern 360's and 745/ 720's seems to be the latter's ability to retain a much stronger acceleration all the way up to 100mph. And wet wather acceleration does not seem to suffer as badly due to better adhesion and wheelslip protection.

The acceleration curve of variable frequency 3 phase motors can be shaped by the electronics to match the requirement which I presume is why classes such as the 700s and 720s can provide strong acceleration on metro duties yet cope with tight paths among non-stop services at 100mph or even 125mph. In both cases, running close to short-term ratings during acceleration gets more performance form the traction system at low risk as superior protection prevents overheating. With that capability, there must be some point(s) of the curves where maximum accelerartion is delivered, - I presume that the curves for there trains aren't available in the enthusiast domain.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The Rail Delivery Group actually has a best-practice document, the Key Train Requirements (KTR), which says alot of sensible things. Unfortunately alot of the time it seems to be ignored when it comes to ordering new stock.

Over recent decades trains have got heavier, less reliable and much more high-tech, with far too much dependence on complex software and electric gadgets. (Why introduce ever-balky electric actuators for simple mechanical needs like closing and opening toilet doors, or operating toilet flushes, for example? There are people, especially women, who simply refuse to use train loos for fear of being suddenly revealed in mid-flow).

Regarding toilets, I think there may be some missing factors here. One is accessibility, namely the likes of RVAR (Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations), DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) and the PRM-TSI (Persons of Reduced Mobility). Since the relatively short-distance urban services you decided to focus on for this topic generally have only one toilet per unit, that has to be a UAT (Universal Access Toilet). I'm not sure which of the above accessibility leglislation is still current, or where to find details of what is required to comply, but I have a feeling that power-operated doors are required to meet the UAT requirement. On longer-distance stock where there are multiple toilets I agree with you (and with the KTR) that powered toilet doors should not be used for the 'space-saver' toilets). On single-toilet units, there is perhaps a conflict between 'protected characteristics' - if the only toilet is a UAT then perhaps the design discriminates against women (because powered doors), but if it's not a UAT (so manual doors) then the design discriminates against disabled passengers.

Another possible missing factor concerns the toilet flush. I believe Network Rail now requires all toilets (for new build stock, at least) to be CETs (Control Emission Toilet). From the point of view of a passenger, this could perhaps be seen as needless complication; but for rail staff walking along the track this is could well be a major hygiene issue. Is a CET possible with a simple mechanical flush? I'm guessing not.

Then there is the unbelievable lack of standardisation of things like drivers' controls, inter-unit connectors and couplings. This is simply mad when one considers that trains are often cascaded on in mid-life to other TOCs, who must then run a retraining programme for drivers and other staff; and that ideally, all trains ought to be able to couple to and rescue all other trains they may encounter.

Regarding couplings and Unit-End-Gangways (UEG) I agree completely, the current mess of units that can't couple together is totally mad. I presume crew training is as much to do with the different performance/handling characteristics of a new fleet as control panels, so I don't think there's much that can be done with that, but one Delner should be able to couple to any other Delner (etc.). The entire Sprinter family from class 150 through to 158 (and possibly 159) can work in multiple with each other (and even with some Turbostars) while the UEGs on the Sprinters that have them (eg. 150/2, and 158) can be coupled and passengers can walk through them. These days I'm not sure if a 195 can even couple to a 196 or 197 and the various mark 3, mark 4 and mark 5a driving trailers apparently required a seperate load of modifications to both the locos and trailers (mark 5a excluded, since they were new build) - even though I think at least two of these supposedly used the AAR multiple working system. This is madness.

You seem to be missing the point that there is continued improvement in things like train control and coupling requirements.

Should we still be using screw couplings on all rolling stock to ensure backward compatibility? Should we ignore the computer age, and still use the old forms of controller? Things move on, and there are improvements that can't be backward compatible.

Yes, at some point it may become necessary to drop backwards compatibility to take advantage of modern technology in certain areas. However, current couplers seem to lack compatibility even within the same generation of technology. To illustrate the point, once upon a time we had VHS tapes - then a new generation of technology came along in the form of DVD. You cannot put a VHS tape in a DVD player (no backwards compatibility) but if you bought a DVD of the latest Holywood blockbuster it would play in a wide range of different DVD players, including games consoles such as the XBOX 360. Yes, there may have been a VHS vs Betamax style period when DVDs first launched (certainly the home-burn blank DVDs came in competing DVD+R and DVD-R formats which were incompatible with some DVD players, although compatibility with both was probably common by the time BluRay and HD-DVD appeared). Getting back to railways, I think we should aim to have at-most four 'compatibility groups' of stock in National Rail passenger use at any one time:

• Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock (LHCS) (outgoing generation)
• Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock (LHCS) (new generation)
• Multiple units (outgoing generation)
• Multiple units (new generation)

Admittedly there may be a few competing standards for the new generation, which should probably be addressed by building a small number of demonstrators for each to allow an informed decision to be made regarding which technology should be the new standard. Such a decision should be made quickly, and the stock carrying the equivalent of 'Betamax' converted to the chosen standard as a matter of urgency, before any large runs are ordered.

What seems to have gone wrong on GB railways is that the competing standards for the new generation were all allowed to go into series production, so we ended up with a pile of incompatible, competing, standards in use. We need somebody to pick one modern standard for UEG design, multiple working and coupler design and bin the rest.

effective ventilation/air conditioning, - Opening windows is no longer acceptable on safety grounds

While windows big enough to stick a person's head through are now frowned upon by the saftey regulators, there doesn't seem to be any rush to seal up the opening hopper windows on the class 158s, or to fit aircon and seal up the windows on 150s and 156s. Is the latter type of opening window considered unacceptable on safety grounds and, if so, by whom? I can't see it myself and, if safety is really the reason no new stock is built like that, then I think that really is 'gold-plating' safety requirements beyond any sensible limits. I think it's more likely that aircon is now far more common on private cars and that aircon on new trains is now a requirement to make them sufficiently appealing to attract people away from cars in the future.

multiple toilet provision, - to comply with current H & S requirements

I doubt Health & Safety requirements actually dictate this, otherwise alot of recent stock was in breach of the regulations since there are plenty of units out there with only one toilet, including most of TfW's new-build stock.

there are examples of lighter construction usually through advance aluminium alloy production techniques and the use of inside frame bogies

Yes, although the inside frame bogies are claimed by some to have had a serious impact on ride quality (I can't say I've noticed this myself, perhaps I don't travel by rail often enough to compare ride quality - the seats however (compared to those in people's cars and homes) are terrible).

 

[SolomonSouth]

The difference between the more modern 360's and 745/ 720's seems to be the latter's ability to retain a much stronger acceleration all the way up to 100mph. And wet wather acceleration does not seem to suffer as badly due to better adhesion and wheelslip protection.

Indeed, you are correct. I have found that 350s really struggle to accelerate above ~80mph. I have found that 387s/365s/323s/700s maintain their acceleration more consistently despite their slower start.