Trivia: Good Designs

[yorksrob]

A sweeping generalisation. Before privatisation commuter stock was relatively basic and uncomfortable, while "Inter City" stock was much nicer, roomier, more comfy seats, air-con etc

Since the late 90s, the categories of trains have blurred with a similar standard of trains operating both routes. As a result, trains like the Electrostars, Turbostars and Desiros are far nicer than the Mk3 based EMUs and DMUs, with much better seating, aircon etc, whereas the Pendolinos and Voyagers seems inferior inside to the Mk3 IC carriages, being cramped and in the case of the former, with tiny windows.

The 350s, for example may be slower than the Pendolinos, but are in many ways much nice to travel in.

With the desperate need for extra capacity around London, it's interesting that commuter trains are now becoming less comfortable again, so that more people can be crammed on board, hence the 700s are less comfortable than the Electrostars, but nicer than the 319s...

Although commuter stock built before the late 1970's tended to be quite luxurious in my experience, so I suppose it depends how far back you go.

 

[43096]

A sweeping generalisation. Before privatisation commuter stock was relatively basic and uncomfortable, while "Inter City" stock was much nicer, roomier, more comfy seats, air-con etc

Since the late 90s, the categories of trains have blurred with a similar standard of trains operating both routes. As a result, trains like the Electrostars, Turbostars and Desiros are far nicer than the Mk3 based EMUs and DMUs, with much better seating, aircon etc, whereas the Pendolinos and Voyagers seems inferior inside to the Mk3 IC carriages, being cramped and in the case of the former, with tiny windows.

The 350s, for example may be slower than the Pendolinos, but are in many ways much nice to travel in.

With the desperate need for extra capacity around London, it's interesting that commuter trains are now becoming less comfortable again, so that more people can be crammed on board, hence the 700s are less comfortable than the Electrostars, but nicer than the 319s...

A pretty fair summary.

My view has long been that since privatisation new stock for "Regional Railways" is roughly comparable to the previous generation, "Network SouthEast" has improved, whilst "InterCity" has got a lot, lot worse.

That is now being blurred in the case of "NSE" by the use of the horrible new ironing board seats.

 

[Mikey C]

Although commuter stock built before the late 1970's tended to be quite luxurious in my experience, so I suppose it depends how far back you go.

I wouldn't call the SUBs, EPBs, 302s, 501s, bubble cars etc luxurious!

 

[yorksrob]

I wouldn't call the SUBs, EPBs, 302s, 501s, bubble cars etc luxurious!

I don't know about the others (particularly the bubble cars) but the SUB's and EPB's were luxuriously padded.

 

[4-COR 3142]

4-CIG & 4-BIG were definitely the most comfortable service trains I've ever used.

As for good design - I think I may be going against the flow - but how about seats you can sit in for more than 30 mins in comfort, windows that line up with the seats and at least one toilet on any 'mainline' Train/Multiple Unit..

 

[Taunton]

I'll offer the Wirral class 503 units, originally built in 1938 by a combination of Metro Cammell and Birmingham RCW, then more built 20 years later under BR, which lasted until the late 1970s when they were replaced by Class 507.

What a contrast. Windows lined up with the seats (unlike the 507 where none do), not draughty with the doors open, heaters better in winter, no blown double glazing with water sloshing around inside, and to the end looked in fine condition. In fact they still looked perfectly serviceable in photos of them being broken up in Birkenhead. Proper comfortable seats as well, and I never had a single breakdown or even mechanical delay on one in years of use, 507 designers take note.

I do feel that modern-day designers should make some visits to preserved railways to see how to do it properly.

 

[AM9]

I don't know about the others (particularly the bubble cars) but the SUB's and EPB's were luxuriously padded.

They needed to be because of the dire ride of MKI and ex-Southern or LNER design bogies with cart-spring suspensions and bolsters that slapped-around when more than 3 months after a full overhaul.

 

[yorksrob]

They needed to be because of the dire ride of MKI and ex-Southern or LNER design bogies with cart-spring suspensions and bolsters that slapped-around when more than 3 months after a full overhaul.

They were still lovely and comfy though.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I seriously doubt that. While it is difficult to make direct comparisons between separate incidents, the high speed derailment of HST stock against facing points at Ufton Nervet in 2006 resulted in the death of six people on board the train, rather than one with 390033 at Grayrigg.

And yet at Colwich they stood up remarkably well.

 

[bramling]

They needed to be because of the dire ride of MKI and ex-Southern or LNER design bogies with cart-spring suspensions and bolsters that slapped-around when more than 3 months after a full overhaul.

387s don't exactly ride nicely, yet they have very hard seats.

 

[AM9]

4-CIG & 4-BIG were definitely the most comfortable service trains I've ever used.

As for good design - I think I may be going against the flow - but how about seats you can sit in for more than 30 mins in comfort, windows that line up with the seats and at least one toilet on any 'mainline' Train/Multiple Unit..

I did many miles in -BIG/CIG sets, also REP/4TCs BEP/CEPs and Class 309s. The BIG/CIGs were the worst as the seating was just foam padding over hard bases. It collapsed very quickly giving a totally unpredicatable body support. The BIG/CIGs were sometimes better as they had BR1 type bogies and needed properly sprung seat squabs. Best of all (of the above) were the 309s, they had excellent Commonwealth bogies that rode well on the GEML at 100mph, but the seats still had proper springs in the squabs. Despite the above, when all the nostalgic stuff is swept back into the comfort zone of my brain, it is anachronistic to compare them with modern seating. The bogies on Electrostars (very developed BR series 3 type) and the Desiro SG5000 are modern designs intended for modern high speed track. Their seating can now be designed for posture and support throughout their life between overhauls rather than accomodate soggy padding/springing to try and reduce the shock from jointed track. The class 700s with their new SF7000 bogies have so far proved to be good performers on indifferent track and handle good CWR excellently. I expect the developed FlexxEco bogies on the class 345s will be equally good performers.

 

[Bevan Price]

Stanier's Black 5 4-6-0s and 8F 2-8-0s, plus the "Duchess" 4-6-2s. All would do almost anything you wanted them to do, and more besides - at least until they started to let maintenance standards slip and coal quality started to decline.

 

[yorksrob]

I did many miles in -BIG/CIG sets, also REP/4TCs BEP/CEPs and Class 309s. The BIG/CIGs were the worst as the seating was just foam padding over hard bases. It collapsed very quickly giving a totally unpredicatable body support. The BIG/CIGs were sometimes better as they had BR1 type bogies and needed properly sprung seat squabs. Best of all (of the above) were the 309s, they had excellent Commonwealth bogies that rode well on the GEML at 100mph, but the seats still had proper springs in the squabs. Despite the above, when all the nostalgic stuff is swept back into the comfort zone of my brain, it is anachronistic to compare them with modern seating. The bogies on Electrostars (very developed BR series 3 type) and the Desiro SG5000 are modern designs intended for modern high speed track. Their seating can now be designed for posture and support throughout their life between overhauls rather than accomodate soggy padding/springing to try and reduce the shock from jointed track. The class 700s with their new SF7000 bogies have so far proved to be good performers on indifferent track and handle good CWR excellently. I expect the developed FlexxEco bogies on the class 345s will be equally good performers.

I think you're probably thinking of the phase 2 CIG's, built in 1970 for the Portsmouth lines. The seating was foam over a hard base, although more comfortable and springy than most modern units. The VEP's had similar.

The phase 1 CIG's built for the Brighton line in 1964 were a lot more comfortable and properly sprung. Like travelling in a comfortable armchair.

 

[Mikey C]

I don't know about the others (particularly the bubble cars) but the SUB's and EPB's were luxuriously padded.

The EPB seats I remember being just bouncy, with knackered springs.They had the headrest bit at a strange height too

The PEPs and 455s then followed with pathetic little low backed seats, which didn't line up with the windows, while the 319/321 seats were still too low and misaligned

The Networkers weren't perfect but at least they felt like trains where the interior had been designed first, instead of ones where the seats were incorporated as an afterthought! The Electrostars built on this

As an aside, the most comfortable urban trains in London are the Overground 172s. Far too small of course, but if you get a seat, they're big and comfy (proper 4 abreast seats) with well laid out windows.

 

[fredk]

The EPB seats I remember being just bouncy, with knackered springs.They had the headrest bit at a strange height too

The PEPs and 455s then followed with pathetic little low backed seats, which didn't line up with the windows, while the 319/321 seats were still too low and misaligned

The Networkers weren't perfect but at least they felt like trains where the interior had been designed first, instead of ones where the seats were incorporated as an afterthought! The Electrostars built on this

As an aside, the most comfortable urban trains in London are the Overground 172s. Far too small of course, but if you get a seat, they're big and comfy (proper 4 abreast seats) with well laid out windows.

Your picture really shows how much change has happened in rolling stock. It's quite strange to see materials like wood used and such a homely atmosphere on a train.

I completely agree about the Overground 172s, they are very comfortable and the reason I don't agree with people who say all modern trains are uncomfortable.

 

[AM9]

Your picture really shows how much change has happened in rolling stock. It's quite strange to see materials like wood used and such a homely atmosphere on a train.

I completely agree about the Overground 172s, they are very comfortable and the reason I don't agree with people who say all modern trains are uncomfortable.

It's the 'homely' look that deceives. My memories are of the GEML EMUs some of which were as new as the early '60s. They still had the sprung seat squabs that meant occupants bounced up and down on them whilst the seat back stayed put. The net result was that shirts were pulled-out from trousers, particularly on the 6-seats at the ends of saloons and in individual compartments. The 172/0s are OK, but that comfort that the few in seats get is at the expense of the many who have to stand in a narrow gangway in trains that are really more suited to a low-density rural service. Their replacement with metro-style EMUs will be welcomed by the majority of passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

The EPB seats I remember being just bouncy, with knackered springs.They had the headrest bit at a strange height too

The PEPs and 455s then followed with pathetic little low backed seats, which didn't line up with the windows, while the 319/321 seats were still too low and misaligned

The Networkers weren't perfect but at least they felt like trains where the interior had been designed first, instead of ones where the seats were incorporated as an afterthought! The Electrostars built on this

As an aside, the most comfortable urban trains in London are the Overground 172s. Far too small of course, but if you get a seat, they're big and comfy (proper 4 abreast seats) with well laid out windows.

I'm afraid the Networkers have rather hard and angular seats for my taste, although the addition of toilet facilities was a step forward.

For a suburban journey, I'd still take a bouncy EPB for comfort any day.

 

[Mikey C]

It's the 'homely' look that deceives. My memories are of the GEML EMUs some of which were as new as the early '60s. They still had the sprung seat squabs that meant occupants bounced up and down on them whilst the seat back stayed put. The net result was that shirts were pulled-out from trousers, particularly on the 6-seats at the ends of saloons and in individual compartments. The 172/0s are OK, but that comfort that the few in seats get is at the expense of the many who have to stand in a narrow gangway in trains that are really more suited to a low-density rural service. Their replacement with metro-style EMUs will be welcomed by the majority of passengers.

I'd agree, but if you do get a seat the 172s are great! They're quite unusual stock for TfL really, considering they were ordered at a time when ridership was rapidly rising.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm afraid the Networkers have rather hard and angular seats for my taste, although the addition of toilet facilities was a step forward.

For a suburban journey, I'd still take a bouncy EPB for comfort any day.

While seats are a matter of personal preference (the Networker seats aren't great either), the EPBs weren't good for standing passengers...

 

[43021HST]

I'd agree, but if you do get a seat the 172s are great! They're quite unusual stock for TfL really, considering they were ordered at a time when ridership was rapidly rising.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


While seats are a matter of personal preference (the Networker seats aren't great either), the EPBs weren't good for standing passengers...

I suppose that was in the days when providing as many passengers as possible with a seat was still considered a necessity and when less people travelled by rail, although the media seem to say that our ridership is around 1940s levels, back then all suburban stock was compartment!

I agree though that the Networker interiors aren't half bad, I most appreciate the subtle muted colours, especially when compared with the harsh shouty contrasting colours of an SWT desiro.

 

[Mikey C]

I suppose that was in the days when providing as many passengers as possible with a seat was still considered a necessity and when less people travelled by rail, although the media seem to say that our ridership is around 1940s levels, back then all suburban stock was compartment!

I agree though that the Networker interiors aren't half bad, I most appreciate the subtle muted colours, especially when compared with the harsh shouty contrasting colours of an SWT desiro.

The ridership may be at 1940s levels, but I suspect the geographical mix is different, with more people commuting into the big cities, especially London, and from further out, and fewer people using the train in more rural areas, or to get around outer suburbia

 

[Taunton]

the media seem to say that our ridership is around 1940s levels, back then all suburban stock was compartment!
.

It would be interesting to compare how many SEATS there are in the fleet nowadays compared to the 1940s.

 

[43021HST]

It would be interesting to compare how many SEATS there are in the fleet nowadays compared to the 1940s.

Well a basic bit of maths may resolve that, your average coach compartment has 12 seats, then your average coach at the time would've had around 8 compartments, 12 x 8 = 96. 96 seats in one coach as compared to around 30 - 50 seats in your average railway coach today.

 

[najaB]

96 seats in one coach as compared to around 30 - 50 seats in your average railway coach today.

That doesn't sound right. Cross Country Voyager standard coaches have seats numbered up to 70, their HSTs have seats numbered up to 82. Virgin Trains Pendolios go up to 76. gWr's HSTs have 84. Scotrail's 170s have 66 seats. And so on...

 

[urpert]

I've got to say, the Electrostar family. Sure, not everyone likes them, but they've been the basic staple of most London commuters services and have never really had technical problems with themselves (apart from power upgrades on the Southern network, not their faults). I'm sure their legacy will be felt by the time they've reached 40.

I'd narrow that to the Connex-era 375. Some of the best modern seats IMO and still a very pleasant place to be, even with the grey-and-more-grey 'refurb'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also: Eddie Pond's paintings. (Currently sitting on 319009)

 

[WelshBluebird]

A sweeping generalisation. Before privatisation commuter stock was relatively basic and uncomfortable, while "Inter City" stock was much nicer, roomier, more comfy seats, air-con etc

Since the late 90s, the categories of trains have blurred with a similar standard of trains operating both routes. As a result, trains like the Electrostars, Turbostars and Desiros are far nicer than the Mk3 based EMUs and DMUs, with much better seating, aircon etc, whereas the Pendolinos and Voyagers seems inferior inside to the Mk3 IC carriages, being cramped and in the case of the former, with tiny windows.

To be fair that started a fair bit before privatisation. I'd say the 158's are a fairly good example of the start of that trend (though far from perfect, they are much nicer than other DMU's of the same time and much closer to IC stock than them too).

 

[70014IronDuke]

I would agree with that of course, their 100mph performance was in part due to the special wheel profile (on the the 309s at least) that worked with the Commonwealth bogie ride characteristics to reduce hunting.

I dunno about any special wheel profile, but in my lexical knowledge, the words "commonwealth bogie" and "hunting" simply do not go together, except perhaps with the word 'not' between them.

As for safety at speed, I'd be happy to risk a 125 mph ride on a Mk 1 with commonwealth bogies.

As for other good designs - i've always held the Cl 33s in high regard. I have no idea why exactly, and I have no figures whatsoever to back up what is essentially an emotional impression.

Perhaps it's because the SR used to keep them in good external condition - or is this all rose-tinted spectaculaition?

 

[yorksrob]

The EPB seats I remember being just bouncy, with knackered springs.They had the headrest bit at a strange height too

The PEPs and 455s then followed with pathetic little low backed seats, which didn't line up with the windows, while the 319/321 seats were still too low and misaligned

The Networkers weren't perfect but at least they felt like trains where the interior had been designed first, instead of ones where the seats were incorporated as an afterthought! The Electrostars built on this

As an aside, the most comfortable urban trains in London are the Overground 172s. Far too small of course, but if you get a seat, they're big and comfy (proper 4 abreast seats) with well laid out windows.

I'd agree, but if you do get a seat the 172s are great! They're quite unusual stock for TfL really, considering they were ordered at a time when ridership was rapidly rising.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


While seats are a matter of personal preference (the Networker seats aren't great either), the EPBs weren't good for standing passengers...

The EPB's were designed to seat more passengers than modern suburban stock, however if you did find yourself standing in the aisle, there were at least lots of luggage racks to hold onto (unlike much modern stock).

 

[Disorientxpres]

The EPB's were designed to seat more passengers than modern suburban stock, however if you did find yourself standing in the aisle, there were at least lots of luggage racks to hold onto (unlike much modern stock).

When the compartments were ripped out of the middle carriages of the 501s they were left with no handhelds apart from one luggage rack at each end.