Why all the short trains?

[asylumxl]

Oh, and politically, don't forget the DFT controls train orders. As far as the DFT is concerned anywhere north of Peterborough or Milton Keynes only requires short (cheap) trains!

Oh? 170s and 185s are cheap? Well that's news to me! Excuse me while I go trundle out of London in a 313, 317 or 319,...

 

[northwichcat]

Oh? 170s and 185s are cheap? Well that's news to me! Excuse me while I go trundle out of London in a 313, 317 or 319,...

Or a nice long 222 on a passenger-less Corby to London service.

 

[yorksrob]

The question should be "why are so many new trains built without corridor connections"?

I've no problem with 153s which can be lengthened easily. However, trying to add two Pacers together means one unit is without a guard, which can cause a few problems (and may put vulnerable passengers off).

I get that 100mph units need to be streamlined, but there's no excuse for slower trains to be built without the benefits of a corridor in the end.

Yes, I'd agree with that - I'd be interested to know why some 150's have inter-unit connections whilst others don't as well.

 

[asylumxl]

Or a nice long 222 on a passenger-less Corby to London service.

Get on the 1900 Corby service, standing room only, and tell me that?

Jealousy is a terrible thing. They're used because the route requires that capacity .

 

[poshbakerloo]

I'd be interested to know why some 150's have inter-unit connections whilst others don't as well.

Yeah, and the ones that do look better aswell!

 

[northwichcat]

Get on the 1900 Corby service, standing room only, and tell me that?

Jealousy is a terrible thing. They're used because the route requires that capacity .

It was someone posted on this forum that 7 car 222s can appear on some services which have a lot less than 100 passengers, which then lead to a debate about whether Corby needs a London service outside peak times. I'm sure if that's true then around 400 empty seats would probably make it the UK's emptiest train that isn't out-of-service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, I'd agree with that - I'd be interested to know why some 150's have inter-unit connections whilst others don't as well.

Possibly because the 150/1s were built first and BR decided 'what if we join them up?' after the 150/1s had been ordered.

 

[jopsuk]

Yet they were built after the 455 and 317, with which they share a bodyshell design and both of which were delivered with gangways. Some dd thinking.

Though, similarly, I've heard the Great Eastern 360s were supposed to be 350s, but there was H&S bull about sighting that led to the lack of corridor connection- yet the 350/2s were built later.

 

[royaloak]

And the 455s and 458s have gangways for staff use only, no paxs allowed through.
the 150/1s were built for quieter routes that only required 2 coach trains, the 150/2s were built for busier ones. Now as time has moved on the quieter routes get busier, remember they were delivered in 1985/86 (150/1) and 1986/87 (150/2) and things have changed a hell of a lot in that time.
Of course all the people with crystal balls should have told them about the changes that they could for-tell 30 years ago then they would have ALL been built with gangways.

 

[yorksrob]

Cheers for the answers. My question was just out of interest rather than criticism. I've got better things on the railway to criticise than the lovely 150's - it's true what poshbakerloo says, the gangwayed ones do actually look better.