Was the Pendolino worth it?

[43096]

Getting back to the OP question - yes Pendolino as a project is a great success - in every measure.

That is hugely debatable. There is a lot wrong with them: toilets, seats, window size, internal layout and dingy ambience. They may be great technically, but the passenger accommodation has so many flaws.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is hugely debatable. There is a lot wrong with them: toilets, seats, window size, internal layout and dingy ambience. They may be great technically, but the passenger accommodation has so many flaws.

Agreed. I don't mind them, but they are more of a technical success than a comfort one - and that's all Pendolinos, even European ones, which also have really small windows.

 

[edwin_m]

Agreed. I don't mind them, but they are more of a technical success than a comfort one - and that's all Pendolinos, even European ones, which also have really small windows.

Indeed, a bit more attention to design, both functional and aesthetic, would have changed the Pendolino from a good train to a great one. See for example how the Class 222 achieves a far better interior with the same basic design as the 220/221, which like the Pendolinos were saddled with interiors that ended up being both cramped and wasteful of space.

 

[Railperf]

That is hugely debatable. There is a lot wrong with them: toilets, seats, window size, internal layout and dingy ambience. They may be great technically, but the passenger accommodation has so many flaws.

Probably from a structural point of view these were based on earlier variants of the pendolino.
The new Italian ETR600s and 610s have much larger windows. But this is now a 20 year old design. Still respectable and comfy though. But yes it isn't perfect

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably from a structural point of view these were based on earlier variants of the pendolino.
The new Italian ETR600s and 610s have much larger windows. But this is now a 20 year old design. Still respectable and comfy though. But yes it isn't perfect

I suppose you could ask "is anything"? They have certainly been successful, as the Mk3 coaches (which also had their flaws) were. Bigger windows and a rearranged, more comfortable interior are the key things I'd change (indeed the 80x is a very similarly shaped tube but the slightly bigger windows do make a big difference to feel). Clearly the former can't be retrofitted, but the latter is coming.

 

[43096]

Probably from a structural point of view these were based on earlier variants of the pendolino.
The new Italian ETR600s and 610s have much larger windows. But this is now a 20 year old design. Still respectable and comfy though. But yes it isn't perfect

A train that leaves me with backache is not comfy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A train that leaves me with backache is not comfy.

That's a fault with the seat, not a fault with the train. Fortunately they are about to be replaced, so I hope the new seat is better for your back.

Similarly, that the Fainsa Sophia is a rubbish seat doesn't make the 80x a rubbish train.

 

[Merle Haggard]

When the Pendos were extended from 9 to 11 cars the coaches added (one motor and one trailer) slightly reduced the proportion of motors/trailers and thereby the power/weight ratio. Is there any noticeable change to performance?
When the 11 cars were introduced, the first time I travelled on one (MK-Manchester) it did seem to very slightly lose time, but only by half minutes.

 

[43096]

That's a fault with the seat, not a fault with the train. Fortunately they are about to be replaced, so I hope the new seat is better for your back.

Similarly, that the Fainsa Sophia is a rubbish seat doesn't make the 80x a rubbish train.

I take the point, but from a “customer experience” point of view it’s irrelevant. It means I associate West Coast services with pain. Literally.

 

[ivanhoe]

Given the state of the previous rolling stock, they were a blessing. Yep, the seats and internal layout, could have been better but the introduction of the Pendolinos reinvigorated WCML services.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I love the trains but for goodness’ sake, Britain’s flagship Intercity train and how ridiculous not to have armrests by the window seats in standard.

 

[hexagon789]

People are forgetting that Pendolinos are being driven round in eco mode at much less than full power and still keeping to time. The acceleration on full power is not far behind a Class 80x.

Are the quoted ratings of 425kW per motor full or derated power do you know?

 

[hexagon789]

I love the trains but for goodness’ sake, Britain’s flagship Intercity train and how ridiculous not to have armrests by the window seats in standard.

The downsides of British loading gauge...not enough room

 

[Bletchleyite]

I love the trains but for goodness’ sake, Britain’s flagship Intercity train and how ridiculous not to have armrests by the window seats in standard.

It was said that the irritating piece of conduit below the window would substitute, but in reality it's the wrong shape to rest your arm on, and they'd have been better putting whatever is inside that somewhere else and fitting an armrest.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It was said that the irritating piece of conduit below the window would substitute, but in reality it's the wrong shape to rest your arm on, and they'd have been better putting whatever is inside that somewhere else and fitting an armrest.

It definitely doesn’t substitute and I completely agree with you

 

[mmh]

It definitely doesn’t substitute and I completely agree with you

If a Pendolino window seat isn't positioned so I can use the window ledge as an arm rest (it needs to be a long stretch of window) I avoid it.

 

[cle]

People grumbling about window placements (we are enthusiasts here) - are not seeing this through the eyes of the Great British public.

The whole thing has an undercurrent of “My Lords!” to it, and the ever-present ECML/GWML wist.

Pendos are just the stock. They are intrinsically linked to the WCML modernisation - there is no one without the other. Yet. I’d add Voyagers to Chester here too. But we know the sentiment on here on those. But ask someone from Chester, or folks who have to go there vs 20 years ago. No brainier. Forget your windows.

The fact is that all journey times improved, so did frequency (and they are the same thing if you have an open ticket - 19 mins wait for next train vs 59 at Manchester for instance!)

This was the equivalent of the 125/Swallow initiative for the next generation. That is a real potential debate here; which was better? Well, they did similar things to different mainlines and cities.

But Pendos added incredible frequencies and exploded travel between London and the WM/NW major cities. They killed off flights to Manchester. They upped services to hourly to Glasgow (and took an hour off the journey) - and to the highest city pair frequencies in Europe for Brum/Mcr.

Windows don’t even feature as a concern on the macro benefits to it all.

 

[Master29]

Would have to say yes; enthusiast aesthetics aside. That's a bloomin' mouthful. Positive in just about every other aspect.

 

[Ianno87]

.

Windows don’t even feature as a concern on the macro benefits to it all.

The majority of passengers spend very little time looking out of them! The train could be speeding past a Martian volcano for all most passengers notuce...

 

[mmh]

The majority of passengers spend very little time looking out of them! The train could be speeding past a Martian volcano for all most passengers notuce...

I hope people didn't assume I was overly concerned about windows. The Pendolinos and, as the passenger a poster described who remembers Chester services 30 years ago well, the Voyagers are the only trains that have been genuinely "transformational" in my lifetime.

 

[The Chimaera]

When the Pendos were extended from 9 to 11 cars the coaches added (one motor and one trailer) slightly reduced the proportion of motors/trailers and thereby the power/weight ratio. Is there any noticeable change to performance?
When the 11 cars were introduced, the first time I travelled on one (MK-Manchester) it did seem to very slightly lose time, but only by half minutes.

Eleven car Pendo's are indeed a tad slower than the nine car version but not really by much. What is not so well known though is around the time the eleven cars arrived a default 'eco mode' setting was programmed into all the units reducing power available unless a driver deliberately selected 'boost mode'. This would enable the old full power settings, I have a sneaking suspicion that was done as not to overwhelm the available overhead supply available at the time. I could be wrong there though. This might explain any differences in performance recorded by avid train timers. The total power available to the unit is limited by what the software allows, whilst Pendolino's were doing acceptance testing I believe the wick was turned up on some units this allowed testing up to 138mph (10% overspeed) in the available distance on the Trent Valley, this was during braking trials.

 

[Ianno87]

Eleven car Pendo's are indeed a tad slower than the nine car version but not really by much. What is not so well known though is around the time the eleven cars arrived a default 'eco mode' setting was programmed into all the units reducing power available unless a driver deliberately selected 'boost mode'. This would enable the old full power settings, I have a sneaking suspicion that was done as not to overwhelm the available overhead supply available at the time. I could be wrong there though. This might explain any differences in performance recorded by avid train timers. The total power available to the unit is limited by what the software allows, whilst Pendolino's were doing acceptance testing I believe the wick was turned up on some units this allowed testing up to 138mph (10% overspeed) in the available distance on the Trent Valley, this was during braking trials.

11 cars are also longer and thus slower to clear speed restrictions.

 

[Railperf]

When the Pendos were extended from 9 to 11 cars the coaches added (one motor and one trailer) slightly reduced the proportion of motors/trailers and thereby the power/weight ratio. Is there any noticeable change to performance?
When the 11 cars were introduced, the first time I travelled on one (MK-Manchester) it did seem to very slightly lose time, but only by half minutes.

Eleven car Pendo's are indeed a tad slower than the nine car version but not really by much. What is not so well known though is around the time the eleven cars arrived a default 'eco mode' setting was programmed into all the units reducing power available unless a driver deliberately selected 'boost mode'. This would enable the old full power settings, I have a sneaking suspicion that was done as not to overwhelm the available overhead supply available at the time. I could be wrong there though. This might explain any differences in performance recorded by avid train timers. The total power available to the unit is limited by what the software allows, whilst Pendolino's were doing acceptance testing I believe the wick was turned up on some units this allowed testing up to 138mph (10% overspeed) in the available distance on the Trent Valley, this was during braking trials.

My driver this morning had most definitely selected boost mode! But this evenings driver had not. And yet despite that, we recouped 10 mins of a 12 minute deficit from Crewe, arriving Euston 2.5 late - having caught up what looks to have been some sleeper stock that may have been running late ahead of us. Recovery time and pathing allowances accounted for pretty much all of the regained time - showing that the point to point timings are pretty spot on!

 

[Railperf]

11 cars are also longer and thus slower to clear speed restrictions.

A 9-car is pretty long - so the extra two coaches don't make as much difference as say a 10-car vs 5-car, or a 12-car vs 4-car
- unless you are traversing a 15mph speed limit such as Carstairs S Jn!!

 

[alangla]

Is 138 definitely the Pendolino speed record? I could be wrong here but I thought in the very early days, when 140mph hadn’t been totally abandoned, that they’d been tested for over speed at that top speed, so 150+. For some reason 161mph comes into my head. Could be completely wrong obviously.

 

[Railperf]

That's a fault with the seat, not a fault with the train. Fortunately they are about to be replaced, so I hope the new seat is better for your back.

Similarly, that the Fainsa Sophia is a rubbish seat doesn't make the 80x a rubbish train.

I've done 800 miles today on Pendolino and don't have a sore bum or bad back...so it's a thumbs up from me - but no seat fits every frame perfectly - so i accept not everyone will find it comfy.
Sneaking away from 'seats' i would add that the whole project lifted the WCMl from the doldrums. I would rather have driven to Manchester or Liverpool than took the train. Arguably some trains had Mk3 stock, but the majority were Mk2's and absolutely awful.
What a shame Pendolino's were not brought onto the ECML, where they could have speeded up journeys north of Darlington . Was;t the time saving in the region of 10 mins with tilt and 125mph?
I've sat aboard a pendolino, 397 and Class 802 today, and despite its well documented flaws, the Pendolino is faster, more comfy and quieter than the two newer trains!

 

[Railperf]

Is 138 definitely the Pendolino speed record? I could be wrong here but I thought in the very early days, when 140mph hadn’t been totally abandoned, that they’d been tested for over speed at that top speed, so 150+. For some reason 161mph comes into my head. Could be completely wrong obviously.

You might be thinking of APT or Class 91 which both hit 160mph+ in testing.

 

[alangla]

You might be thinking of APT or Class 91 which both hit 160mph+ in testing.

Probably the APT.

 

[Bald Rick]

Arguably some trains had Mk3 stock, but the majority were Mk2's and absolutely awful.

The majority were Mark IIIs, most of the Mark 2 sets were on the West Midlands services. From memory it was around 11 Mark II sets in service, and 23 Mark III, plus the HSTs.

Re tilt on the ECML, a Pendolino probably would have saved about 10 mins north of Darlo, but some of that would have been better acceleration.

 

[Merle Haggard]

My driver this morning had most definitely selected boost mode! But this evenings driver had not. And yet despite that, we recouped 10 mins of a 12 minute deficit from Crewe, arriving Euston 2.5 late - having caught up what looks to have been some sleeper stock that may have been running late ahead of us. Recovery time and pathing allowances accounted for pretty much all of the regained time - showing that the point to point timings are pretty spot on!

Now here's a puzzle (for me, anyway).
Sometimes, I've been on a Pendo that has met with delay, and the TM has made announcements about revised arrival times, with lateness recovered incrementally at each forward calling point. On a quiet train, I asked the TM for a revised eta (a connection at Rugby would be nice) and she looked at a schedule on her 'phone which showed this situation (of steady recovery of lateness to a -5 at Euston). In reality, the trains always lost time, as you'd expect, being knocked by on-time trains at junctions and stopping services being given preference. But it begs the question; on what basis is this revised schedule calculated? Does it assume use of 'boost'?
Even without checks, a late running Pendo seems unable to recover lost time normally - as you point out the p - p times seem to be optimal.