Why are new trains so awful

[russ p]

As I type this I have the misfortune to be traveling from Ely to Kings cross in a god awful class 700

I know there is a stupid directive for the seats but someone should actually stand up and challenge the idiot who thought these were a good idea .Idiot is nowhere near a strong enough word.

These seats hurt! I've Been on more comfortable fairground rides

Not only the seats though the train is horrible the interior has the ambiance of a multistory car park and the ride is rock hard. First class is a joke.

Somebody needs to he made answerable for these monstrosities, they are not fit for purpose.

All right for the center Thameslink section but for Cambridge to Brighton!!! That is essentially an intercity journey.

I travelled this way for a change from the GEML but won't again if I can help it,mind that will be as bad soon.

I think its time there was some kind of backlash against railway companies inflicting the public with cr@p like this!

Sad to see Potter's full of 365s which weren't actually that bad and ironically when built were set up for Thameslink operations which were cancelled at the time

[Glorious NSE]

I think its time there was some kind of backlash against railway companies inflicting the public with cr@p like this!

Not specced by the railway company...

[russ p]

Not specced by the railway company...

Don't tell me.... DFT?

[russ p]

The railway companies should grow some balls and refuse rubbish like this but then of course grayling will make sure the don't get more franchises.....

[Dava]

The backlash has been going on for a few months.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43131060

 

Govt, DFT and Treasury [its all driven by cost, even though we pay for the trains] simply don't care about passenger comfort and it's not factored into a design standard.

[russ p]

If the longest journey was half an hour they would kind of be acceptable but they are on far longer journeys absolute disgrace

[phil-b259]

.....

All right for the center Thameslink section but for Cambridge to Brighton!!! That is essentially an intercity journey.

 

 

And therein lies the problem (though in truth the layout is in fact not suited to the Thameslink core either).

 

Ignoring seat quality (which is an issue on pretty much all new stock thanks to the way the DfT / RSSB interprets crashworthiness etc) the 700s internal layout is probably best suited to outer suburban runs (e.g. Luton / Gatwick / Sevenoaks)

 

For the Thameslink core, where dwell times (as in the moment the wheels stop turning to them getting going again) MUST be below 45 seconds, then a Crossrail type setup is needed (lots of doors, lots of standing space and lognitudnal seating.

 

For 'mainline' (or InterCity services given the Civic satus of Brighton / Cambridge etc) then a traditional train layout is best (first class, all transverse seating, carpets etc.

 

Unfortunately due to the way the Thameslnk service was introduced by BR, the way commuters create a political #hitstorm if there is any suggestion that the railways want to "do away with their direct train service" (research what happened when NR wanted to curtail the Wimbledon loop service at Blackfriars), and MOST IMPORTANTLY a distinct shortage of Terminating platforms at St Pancras since it got rebuilt for Eurostar, the rolling stock procured by Thameslink HAD to be a compromise between a 345 (Crossrail) and a 377 (Southern).

 

Pretending there was another solution, including the 365s* which haven't a hope of meeting the 45sec dwell time is a triumph of wishful thinking.

 

* Incidentally the 365s were NOT ordered for Thameslink - and that is not why they were built as dual voltage. What happened was in the run up to privatisation the Government of the day permitted BR to order a small quantity of additional rolling stock in a belated attempt to keep train builders ticking over until privatisation could supposedly release a flood of investment in new rolling stock. InterCity wanted to order 10 class 91 locos + Mk4 sets for the WCML while Network SouthEast wanted to start replacing their slam door EMUs used in Kent and put forward a proposal using a 'Networker' EMU bodyshell with tweaks to make it into a 'mainline' and dual voltage version. Both bids were in fact shrunk down versions of previous bids for Treasury funding that was rejected thanks to the economic recession of the early 1990s requiring Government cutbacks. In an attempt to carry favour with Kent Commuters, the Government pumped for the 365 fleet - even though 30 odd units wouldn't make much of a dent in the large Mk1DC EMU fleet.

 

Subsequent history of the 365s say them operate as DC only units with the 25KV ability remaining unused, until the transfer to Great Northern following the decision by Connex to go for an all Electrostar solution to the Mk1 replacement requirement. On Great Northern they naturally enough never operated on DC and it wouldn't surprise me if key bits are now missing from the DC kit.

Edited April 26, 2018 by phil-b259

[russ p]

Could different types of train have not done the distance work with only limited stops in the core?

365s would have been acceptable on that.

I'm sitting here trying to find anything good about it and I'm afraid I can't it doesn't even seem to be that fast

[APOLLO]

These are being introduced soon, pure luxury !!!!!

 

 

Brit15

[Steamport Southport]

A few million people in the rest of the country has just said "lucky sods".....

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[phil-b259]

Don't tell me.... DFT?

 

Correct -

 

They also spent so long faffing around trying to make up their minds what they wanted that (i) not only were the units delivered late (all sorts of fancy stock movements had to happen and an 'emergency batch of dual voltage Electrostar had to be built to mitigate), but (ii) movements on the foreign currency markets meant that the German built 700s are turning more expensive than what Bombardier were quoting for construction in Derby!

 

Please remember that at the time, their was serious concern about the future of the Derby plant with lots of political pressure from Labour for the trains to be built in the UK. The Government countered this by saying that the Siemens built trains would cost a lot less and anyway they incorporated a lot of UK sourced parts.....

Edited April 26, 2018 by phil-b259

[russ p]

A few million people in the rest of the country has just said "lucky sods".....

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

I don't think so Jason, I'm being serious when I say a 142 us more comfortable

[phil-b259]

Could different types of train have not done the distance work with only limited stops in the core?

365s would have been acceptable on that.

 

Nope

 

The critical bit is meeting the 45 second dwell time.

 

That requires wide and fast responding door mechanisms, wide vestibules and limited obstructions to boarding passengers allowing them to quickly spread throughout the carriage and not block those trying to get on.

 

Also the 24tph requires ATO in operation - which is much easier to implement if every single train has exactly the same performance (acceleration / braking curves, etc). While the 700s may come in two lengths, great care has been taken to ensure they both perform identically.

 

Without ATO, and relying on manual driving operation maximum throughput drops to 12tph.

 

Finally the 365s are now 25 years old and would require major rebuilding to meet the rough requirements outlined above. In cost terms its simply wasn't and isn't viable.

 

I repeat, the decisions made as regards the internal layout of the 700s are the best that can be done from an engineering perspective that comply with the requirement to offer a 24tph train service through the Thameslink core and one which that does not throw the MML, ECML, BML and various SE routes into chaos every day.

 

What could be done is to fit the 700 seats with decent levels of padding, drop down tables and provide power sockets which would improve things for travellers. All of these were rejected by the DfT as it increased costs (when there was pressure to reduce them thanks to the way the currency markets had behaved by the time the order was finally placed). Longer term a slight upgrade of the internal finishes would again provide a more attractive travelling environment - but anything involving changing the 'open' nature of the carriages is impossible without jeopardising the 24tph Thameslink scheme.

Edited April 26, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

I'm sitting here trying to find anything good about it and I'm afraid I can't it doesn't even seem to be that fast

 

Thameslink has never been - nor has ever been intended to be 'fast'

 

Lets rewind - the reasons why British Rail set up Thameslink in the first place was NOT to facilitate cross London journeys, nor to 'beat' the time taken for transfer by Underground between termini. In fact most of the things it was set up to do can broadly be described as simply 'finding ways round the been counters at HM Treasury to acquire funds for basic rolling stock replacement'' This is a significant factor in why Thameslink was, from the outset developed as a 'linking long distance services' type setup.

 

Thus Thameslink was set up to do the following:-

 

(i) Provide more efficient stock utilisation (by combining two separate services than the overall number of trains could be reduced)

(ii) To facilitate rolling stock cascades (the 319s enabled the 317s on the MML to be sent elsewhere).

(iii) To make a start on replacing the Mk1 slam door EMU fleet on the Brighton Mainline.

(iv) To improve penetration into the City of London by BML services rather than have them terminate on the South Bank (the City of London corporation has spent considerable amounts of money of Thameslink over the years).

 

Even with the latest upgrade its still the case that cross London services are a nice 'bolt on' as it were.

Edited April 26, 2018 by phil-b259

[russ p]

I agree drop down tables and decent seats would make them half bearable but I honestly think if I have to go to Brighton for any reason that route wold not be my route of choice.

I'm now on a javelin a train which has a strange air of a 1986 Nissan bluebird but for a modern train at least its half comfortable but as its so fast you aren't on it long.

Although CTRL is an awful featureless railway it does impress me on how little time it takes to get to Ashford

[Reorte]

A few million people in the rest of the country has just said "lucky sods".....

 

Never really understood why so many people are so keen on new for the sake of new, particularly when the real problems with older stuff are the ones they don't see as much of anyway, all that is seen are the tatty worn-out fittings which can be refurbished.

[Robin2]

Engineers knew how to design carriages in the 1930s. They knew how to align the seats with the windows (or the windows with the seats). Nowadays they have either forgotten how or just don't care tuppence for their customers.

 

I really detest the Pendolinos. You get a better view out of the window of a Boeing 737.

 

The class 142 Pacers are great. You get a wonderful view. The windows are big and the seat-backs are not so high that you get a pain in the neck trying to see over them.

 

...R

[Derekl]

I thought the problem with the 700 seating was that it is not properly spaced - there is insufficient gap between adjacent seats. Ian Walmsley dealt with this at some length in Modern Railways a while ago. When I rode one a while ago, I noticed that but only as a result of reading the article as the train I was in was lightly loaded - there was nobody sitting in the seat next to me, but I could see how it would be cramped if there was. I am not sure what this aspect has to do with the 24 tph specification, although I suppose the cramped seating must result in slightly increased aisle space which may encourage movement down the coach on loading.

[frobisher]

Engineers knew how to design carriages in the 1930s. They knew how to align the seats with the windows (or the windows with the seats). Nowadays they have either forgotten how or just don't care tuppence for their customers.

 

I really detest the Pendolinos. You get a better view out of the window of a Boeing 737.

It's all down to the fact you have to have vertical bracing in the body shell, and modern crashworthiness may mean that doesn't optimally align with seating density and tables. You're more likely to walk out alive of a Pendolino high speed crash than a crash at the same speed of the 1930's stock where they would most likely be sending in a dustpan and brush to collect your scattered remains - Health and Safety gone mad I tell you!!!!

[phil-b259]

I thought the problem with the 700 seating was that it is not properly spaced - there is insufficient gap between adjacent seats. Ian Walmsley dealt with this at some length in Modern Railways a while ago. When I rode one a while ago, I noticed that but only as a result of reading the article as the train I was in was lightly loaded - there was nobody sitting in the seat next to me, but I could see how it would be cramped if there was. I am not sure what this aspect has to do with the 24 tph specification, although I suppose the cramped seating must result in slightly increased aisle space which may encourage movement down the coach on loading.

 

I guess it could be the space between seats is as small as possible so as to try and fit as many in as they can - given that a 3+2 layout cannot be used and that extra space has to be made by the doors for dwell time issues.

[phil-b259]

It's all down to the fact you have to have vertical bracing in the body shell, and modern crashworthiness may mean that doesn't optimally align with seating density and tables. You're more likely to walk out alive of a Pendolino high speed crash than a crash at the same speed of the 1930's stock where they would most likely be sending in a dustpan and brush to collect your scattered remains - Health and Safety gone mad I tell you!!!!

 

Quite so

 

Anybody care to speculate how many deaths we would have had at Grayrigg had it been a 'nice and traditional' set of carriages that had carried down the bank at over 100mph.

[asmay2002]

Why are new trains so awful?  It's because they spend much of the money trying to reduce the incredibly small risk of death on a train to an even smaller risk of death at exponentially greater expense.   By doing this they put a larger burden on business and the NHS etc. because people are off sick with back pain, etc. but at least they are seen to be doing something to solve a largely non existent risk.  The fact that train safety is about not having trains crash in the first place is too much for their tiny minds to comprehend - far better to damage the national economy.

Edited April 28, 2018 by asmay2002

[Robert Shrives]

Hi 

For ten pence worth . the BART system had at an early spec time the idea that internal comfort had to match and beat the current automobile standard if it was to get modal transfer. It does seem this concept has got below the radar and modern stock does fail in many basic ways - at 1.98m tall I find many trains built since privatisation to be uncomfortable in steerage/ cattle and only sightly better in first ticket holder accommodation.  Older Mk3 based designs do still seem better.  The last and best committee built stock the 373 Eurostar was very good for me.     

 

I have yet to see dwell times improve - get worse with guards having to check that train fully platformed before opening doors - despite in west midlands many platforms having painted edges to show stop point and worse on rural lines where guards have good route knowledge - I guess folk are not trusted by management to do a decent days work or perhaps they have let standards slip so much they are scared of own shadows... 

 

It is good to read on how Thameslink was created out of the need to flummox the treasury - seems to be quite easy today clearly standards have slipped there as well...  

 

Shame to see in press new trains like 350s and 185s are already in works for rebuild/ corrosion repairs - is Britain so different these trains being based on a cheap build using modular parts of european builds does make me wonder if the railway is neither engineer or customer led who is running the industry and for how long and whose good ???

 

I get my coat..   

[Robert Shrives]

Quite so

 

Anybody care to speculate how many deaths we would have had at Grayrigg had it been a 'nice and traditional' set of carriages that had carried down the bank at over 100mph.

 

Worse of course is that this super strong train is now back in service after superfical damage ... or is it ??  Also chicken and egg situation building a crash proof train as network not maintained to the same standard as in the "N&T" era .  TBH It was at the conceptual stage of design of the Brumolinos that the German high derailment at Eschede occurred and greater  survive-ability was required - the steel tube resulting with small windows, just not good if you want to be old fashioned and look out of the window rather than faff with some electronic device!! - I like being old fashioned by the way.

 

I recall the surprise of how well the Mk1s survived when aimed at a flask wagon, speed 100mph IIRC. The corollary to that was how badly the 4REP failed at Clapham at a lower speed - chassis had mods that did not help.

 

sorry for going off topic a bit, but I do look forward to the Mk5s on TPE to see if lessons learnt. Sad to see one lesson not learnt in that 185s to be "given back" rather than be used to eradicate overcrowding, I wonder what warped minds are at work

 

Robert    

[phil-b259]

sorry for going off topic a bit, but I do look forward to the Mk5s on TPE to see if lessons learnt. Sad to see one lesson not learnt in that 185s to be "given back" rather than be used to eradicate overcrowding, I wonder what warped minds are at work

  

 

Despite the rubbish the spokespeople spout, rolling stock allocation (or to be more precise just how much of it any TOC is allowed to keep) is finely detailed in the franchise agreements. If the TOC keeps hold of 'extra' stock then either the subsidy it needs goes up or the profit it returns goes down - as more trains = more costs.

 

ANY change in the rolling stock matters therefore needs the agreement of the DfT - who will be under instruction from HM Treasury to not allow anything that might affect the carefully drafted financial side of things. Makes perfect sense to those 'warped minds' who are fascinated by 'the movements of little pieces of green paper'*. Can't have the taxpayers paying any more than necessary can we now.......

 

* Hitchhikers quote

Edited April 26, 2018 by phil-b259