The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.
Regards   Mike.

Class 508s surely fall into the 'contemptible' category? - Especially
those on the Sittingbourne to Sheerness branch and the Medway Valley
Line. Absolutely loathsome units.

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:

> The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
> and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
> smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
> Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.


Personally, I hate 158s, they are hot and stuffy most of the time, and
I find them incredibly dirty and noisy.
I was on a 158 to Severn Tunnel Jn the other day, and got a Wessex 143
back, I'd take the 143 any day!

The InterCity wrote:

> Class 508s surely fall into the 'contemptible' category? - Especially
> those on the Sittingbourne to Sheerness branch and the Medway Valley
> Line. Absolutely loathsome units.


But the refurbished units on Merseyrail are lovely...

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:

> The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
> and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
> smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
> Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.
> Regards   Mike.


Yesterday (Tuesday) 142056 must have a nice surprise on the 08:42 Crewe
- Manchester Piccadilly instead of the usual 323.

Michael

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:

> The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
> and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
> smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
> Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.


Depends how you define 'worst' - the 142s may be lacking in many
respects, but they're a darned sight more reliable than the 175s which,
for all their nice interiors and ride qualities, have a reliability
record that borders on the abysmal (something like 3500 miles between
failures on average).  Not that I'm a railbus fan mind (I'd happily see
the lot scrapped, with the Chester via Altrincham service given over to
150s or 156s), but at least they don't expire that often - no software
problems, coolant leaks/high engine temps or any of the other raft of
problems that have dogged the 175s since they came into service.

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:

> The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
> and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
> smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
> Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.
> Regards   Mike.


Yesterday (Tuesday) 142056 must have a nice surprise on the 08:42 Crewe
- Manchester Piccadilly instead of the usual 323.

Michael

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:

> The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
> and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
> smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
> Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.
> Regards   Mike.


I quite like the 142s, but they'd be better with a window up front,
like the old units, so you could see the route.

Most of the really bad units I can think of are not so much bad by
design, but have been allowed to get into a poor state; the 313s on the
North London, for example, are much worse than those on the Northern
City line.

The InterCity wrote:


> Absolutely loathsome units.


Absolutely nothing wrong with the units whatsoeve4r.

All that is wrong is the suitability of 508's original seating for that
type of duty.

Too many people dismiss the whole unit type on the basis of seating.

--
Nick

D7666 wrote:

> Too many people dismiss the whole unit type on the basis of seating.


Or Windows. As seems to be the moan from at least 1 person around here.

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:

> The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
> and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
> smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
> Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.


I'd suggest unrefurbished ONE 3173xx units - these must have gone the
longest without refurbishment, or seats or cleaning etc. Dreadful
things.

Unrefurbished 315/313/455 come a little behind.

regards
HN28

D7666 wrote:

> Absolutely nothing wrong with the units whatsoever.



In your opinion, but not mine.


> All that is wrong is the suitability of 508's original seating for that
> type of duty.
> Too many people dismiss the whole unit type on the basis of seating.



Who was highlighting just the seating aspect? I stand by my comments.

Darren wrote:

> D7666 wrote:
> > Too many people dismiss the whole unit type on the basis of seating.
>
> Or Windows. As seems to be the moan from at least 1 person around here.



Probly me.  I hate them, and no amount of new seating will create a
view from the minimal windows.  I used to think that the 313/507 family
were the worst trains ever, but that was before I went on a Pendolino.
They are relatively good compared with that.

I'm sure I've said before, buses on rails was a bad idea, while trains
on rails is a good idea.  But, that aside, 142s etc are quite good
buses, while 508s etc are very bad trains.

"The InterCity"  wrote in message
news:1124300672.734214.117960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Class 508s surely fall into the 'contemptible' category? - Especially
> those on the Sittingbourne to Sheerness branch and the Medway Valley
> Line. Absolutely loathsome units.
>

How right you are. These units are notable for their unreliability due to
door failures and on the Medway valley line they are scarcely likely to
attract custom to the service although I have to say that most passengers
appear not to notice the appalling conditions they are being exposed to.
However, there is some rolling stock that is worse both as regards
reliability and ambience and that is the Cl.465 now to be used on mainline
services. Oh! I forgot 34 of them are being "refresshed" including the
labelling of a few seats as first class by putting an anti macassar on the
head rest (this is what you pay a 50% hike in your fare for).Like so much
modern rolling stock these hideous units have a single lavatory per 4 car
unit which invariably stinks (or is u/s)and opens directly into the
passenger accommodation - does your lavatory at home open directly into your
living room? They have no inter unit corridor connections which in itself
makes the units unfit for mainline use. This is all part of the conspiracy
between SET and the SRA where third rate suburban rubbish is cascaded on to
mainline services. It used to be the case that when ML rolling stock had
reached the end of its useful life on the mainline that it was cascaded to
branchline use or suburban use but it seems not any more.
MJW

>This is all part of the conspiracy
>between SET and the SRA where third rate suburban rubbish is cascaded on to
>mainline services. It used to be the case that when ML rolling stock had
>reached the end of its useful life on the mainline that it was cascaded to
>branchline use or suburban use but it seems not any more.



This is a bit of an oddity, in that usually express units are cascaded
to suburban lines, where they don't perform so well with all the
stopping and starting.  This is a case of suburban units being cascaded
to express services.  (Or "fast" in Kentish anyway.*)

I'd rather have them instead of the 376s though, which are a good idea
implemented stupidly.


*I've only ever noticed it in the South Eastern bit of the railway,
going well back into BR days, but they say "this train will be fast
from x to y" as opposed to just saying where it stops.  Particularly
odd because it's the part of the railway where trains are least likely
to actually go fast.  My favourite was "fast from London Bridge to
Greenwich", ie not stopping at Deptford while crawling through.

MIG schrieb:

> Darren wrote:
> 
>>D7666 wrote:
>>
>>>Too many people dismiss the whole unit type on the basis of seating.
>>
>>Or Windows. As seems to be the moan from at least 1 person around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Probly me.  I hate them, and no amount of new seating will create a
> view from the minimal windows.  I used to think that the 313/507 family
> were the worst trains ever, but that was before I went on a Pendolino.
> They are relatively good compared with that.
> 
> I'm sure I've said before, buses on rails was a bad idea, 



well take some good specifica of busses:

- really big windows (I don't understand why this is accepted - we have 
so many fatalities when busses slip over in Europe)
- the possibility to shift the seat towards the aisle to get more space
- the may drive with minimum distance (you might argue rail cars have 
less..)
-  the ability to tell the driver to stop everywhere so you can drop out

and others

lets combine this with the specifica of trains regarding space and max. 
acceleration then we get the perfect means of transport.

But please don't recall the old days with tons of steel and lots of 
square meters per rail passengers - we simply cannot affort it anymore 
in central Europe for economic reasons and because of the demand- times 
they are a changin...

cheers

G.fried

On 17 Aug 2005 12:26:51 -0700, hn28_signal@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


>

>I'd suggest unrefurbished ONE 3173xx units - these must have gone the
>longest without refurbishment, or seats or cleaning etc. Dreadful
>things.
>

Glad you said that - I was about to. They'll be banished to the
Hertford East Line come December, we're told.

Ken wrote:

> Glad you said that - I was about to. They'll be banished to the
> Hertford East Line come December, we're told.


But for now they are filling in daily for the InterCity sets between 
London and Naarich (although very few had made it the full distance, as 
going beyond Ipswich requires a portable NRN unit.)

I bet the 1st class IC Passengers love these units.....

Back on the subject of worst trains, the 322s cant be far off, although 
now heading towards their Refurb.

On 17/8/05 9:40 pm, in article
4303a0a9$0$17507$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net, "Darren"
 wrote:


> Ken wrote:
>> Glad you said that - I was about to. They'll be banished to the
>> Hertford East Line come December, we're told.
> 
> But for now they are filling in daily for the InterCity sets between
> London and Naarich (although very few had made it the full distance, as
> going beyond Ipswich requires a portable NRN unit.)
> 
> I bet the 1st class IC Passengers love these units.....
> 
> Back on the subject of worst trains, the 322s cant be far off, although
> now heading towards their Refurb.


My worst train has to be the Class 101 DMU, so bumpy and noisy used to run
on the Bedwyn services from reading before they introduced the thames turbo,
even the 165's are getting old, they could do with refitting. Also the 166
they are nicer, but most of the time the air con did not work. However I
love the 159 and the 158 took andover to basingstoke last train journey
before christmas which was so nice. I award SWT a full ten points.

On 17 Aug 2005 10:50:04 -0700, "Joe Patrick"
 wrote:


>The InterCity wrote:
>> Class 508s surely fall into the 'contemptible' category? - Especially
>> those on the Sittingbourne to Sheerness branch and the Medway Valley
>> Line. Absolutely loathsome units.
>
>But the refurbished units on Merseyrail are lovely...


I wish they'd take their bloody merseyrail pacers back and keep them
over there.

Another contender would be those godawful 150s that Northern have got
from (IIRC) Central complete with no space for either cycles or
wheelchairs :(

"Joe Patrick"  wrote in message
news:1124301004.098802.76810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> The InterCity wrote:
> > Class 508s surely fall into the 'contemptible' category? -
Especially
> > those on the Sittingbourne to Sheerness branch and the Medway Valley
> > Line. Absolutely loathsome units.
>
> But the refurbished units on Merseyrail are lovely...
>

Yes, a few weeks ago I went from Chester to Liverpool Central by
MerseyRail and in a refurbished 508 both ways, no complaints here!
Regards   Mike.

"Joe Patrick"  wrote in message
news:1124300770.223608.99220@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Personally, I hate 158s, they are hot and stuffy most of the time, and
> I find them incredibly dirty and noisy.
> I was on a 158 to Severn Tunnel Jn the other day, and got a Wessex 143
> back, I'd take the 143 any day!
>

Went from Manchester Piccadilly to York and back on 158s, although they
are going to be replaced with new trains next year, I thought the 158
was fine for that route (Manchester Piccadilly to York via the Diggle
route i.e. through the superb Standedge Tunnel, ex- Lancashire and
Yorkshire Rly).
Regards   Mike.

"crewewwtw"  wrote in message
news:1124303542.205533.237670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:
> > The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between
Chester
> > and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
> > smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
> > Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.
> > Regards   Mike.
>
> Yesterday (Tuesday) 142056 must have a nice surprise on the 08:42
Crewe
> - Manchester Piccadilly instead of the usual 323.
>
> Michael
>

"Nice" as in a visit to the dentist is "nice" :-o)
Regards   Mike.

"Mike Cawood, HND BIT"  wrote in message
news:3mhp62F1760qpU1@individual.net...

> i.e. through the superb Standedge Tunnel, ex- Lancashire and
> Yorkshire Rly).


Ahem... ex LNWR.

Roger

Mike Cawood wrote.


> Yes, a few weeks ago I went from Chester to Liverpool Central
> by MerseyRail and in a refurbished 508 both ways, no complaints
> here!

------------------------------

Mike...

So did Mrs B & I, though we couldn't get a seat near a window
on the outward route from Liverpool for a route I hadn't been on
for several years. The refurbed 508s were very nice otherwise.

Our both ways journey between Earlestown and Liverpool was
in refurbished Pacers and the total journey times between home
and Chester were 88 minutes out and 80 minutes back, including
changing trains & walking time 'twixt underground and surface.

This compares with only 40 minutes each way between Earlestown
& Chester via an Arriva 175 or 158, but our Merseytravel Senior
Citz' passes allow N-le-W to Chester via Liverpool for free!  We
spent what would have been the direct route fares on a 2 hour
cruise up & down the River Dee, with tea and an ice cream!


Regards,

DigitisED  (Eddie Bellass)

Mythical Merseyside, in the Occupied Territories
of Old Lancashire, United Kingdom.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked
by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.

> Went from Manchester Piccadilly to York and back on 158s, although they
> are going to be replaced with new trains next year, I thought the 158
> was fine for that route (Manchester Piccadilly to York via the Diggle
> route i.e. through the superb Standedge Tunnel, ex- Lancashire and
> Yorkshire Rly).


Ah, was that a TP Express unit.
Whilst they're not exactly cool in the heat, they seem much well cared
for than the other of the regional units.

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:

> The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
> and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
> smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
> Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.
> Regards   Mike.



The worst trains i have ever been on are definitely the Silverlink
class 313's. Grubby, horrible trains that should either be refurbished
or scrapped. I have been on a Pacer in Sheffield before and they even
are better than the 313 as they have a bit more space.

The worst INTERCITY trains are undoubtebly the voyagers although if TPX
are still fooling themselved by calling their service 'Intercity' then
it's got to be the '158' hassn't it!

Britains worst passenger trains. These are personal opinions.

1. Pacers. Crap to travel on and swarm all over the north. Bouncy, poor
seats, no legroom, smelly, filthy, noisy, hot, and endless other
problems. They have good acceleration and are reliable but this does
not make up for their crap onboard comfort.
2. 150. From my (very bad) experiences with Northern Rail and the
previous First North Western. Onboard comfort is nearly as bad as
pacers, only the smoother ride, slightly better seats and toilet room
saves them from being at #1.
3. 323. Very bad. These have no legroom at all, and internally, they
make an extremely irritating whineing noise as the power up. They also
make a whining noise when they decelerate at a station. With these
things on the Crewe-Manchester Piccadilly via Manchester Airport
services, they have to make a few dozen stops, at all stations, and you
hear that irritating whining *LOADS* of times. Only one toilet per 4
carriages, and that one toilet is usually out of order.
4. Pendolinos and Voyagers. No matter how good their ride quality may
be [Or not!] you can't forgive the fact they have DESTROYED so many
loco-hauled trains and they have NO character whatsoever.
5. Class 175's. Same as #4 but for replacing 37's on passenger
loco-hauled.
6. Steam trains. Dull, vastly overrated machines which are now quickly
becoming more common than proper BR diesel traction

Traveling from Southampton Central to Salisbury a few weeks back, I was
intending to travel on the fast Wessex service which was announced as a
three car, turned up as a two car and was full/standing before any of the
200+ passengers with HUGE luggage waiting on the platform had even got on.

Now don't get me wrong, a well maintained 158 (Better still SWT's seemingly
well loved 159 and 170's) are great units but really, Wessex Trains either
need to strengthen these service to four cars minimum ASAP or bring back
proper services with a 33 and eight carriages of hauled coaching stock like
they used to be all those decades ago!

I meanwhile had to get on the semi fast Wessex service, this grotty god
awful Class 153 tin rocket.  Most of Wessex's units are in good nick but
this heap of delapidated junk had obviously only fairly recently been dumped
on them by Central Trains as their branding was still on the Regional
Railways livery.

The interior was in a terrible state with the side panelling next to my seat
falling off!  The outside, the paint it was a peeling!  It looked like it
had not seen the inside of a works overhaul since it was a 155 (and they
were bad enough!)

By contrast on the way back, I had my first experience of a 150/2, recently
overhauled, nicely presented, clean and quiet, I was pleasantly surprised.
But please, Wessex, if you are reading this, do something about unit 153369
quickly!

In my experience, most of the stock on the railways is pleasant provided it
is well maintained (Central Trains don't appear to be good at this from my
encounters with their current and former stock!) and kept clear of graffiti
and window etching morons (a good use for the Police's shoot to kill policy
if ever I saw one!  As far as I am concerned, the only good vandal is a dead
one....)

Regards
John M Upton

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:20:20 +0100, "Mike Cawood, HND BIT"
 wrote:


>The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
>and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
>smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
>Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.



From all the other replies, I take it I'm the only one old enough to
remember the Tin Hals (or the Shebas)

Not everything in the "good old days" was wonderful!

-- 
Bill Hayles
http://www.rossrail.com
md@rossrail.com

Wessex Trains either
need to strengthen these service to four cars minimum ASAP or bring
back
proper services with a 33 and eight carriages of hauled coaching stock
like
they used to be all those decades ago!

Are you sure your memory is not playing tricks?

A 33 and how many carriages?

Usually these trains had four or five Mk1s and one of those could be a
BG, another a BSK and another a CK, so that when you actually counted
up the seats available to 2nd class passengers, there were less than on
a 2-car 158. It never seemed so crowded because most people were
sitting on rucksacks in the corridors.

> But for now they are filling in daily for the InterCity sets between
> London and Naarich (although very few had made it the full distance, as
> going beyond Ipswich requires a portable NRN unit.)


Ouch! The unrefurbished ones? Do they have low back seating?

grannyjone@hotmail.com wrote (trolling perhaps, but who cares):


> Britains worst passenger trains. These are personal opinions.

> 3. 323. Very bad. 


Don't agree. My favourite trains in many ways. And I
use them daily.


> These have no legroom at all,


Not marvellous, but OK when not full. Brilliant for carrying
bikes.


> and internally, they
> make an extremely irritating whineing noise as the power up. They also
> make a whining noise when they decelerate at a station.


I rather like that noise myself!

 > Only one toilet per 4

> carriages, 


Three carriages.


> and that one toilet is usually out of order.


No it isn't.


> 4. Pendolinos and Voyagers. No matter how good their ride quality may
> be [Or not!] you can't forgive the fact they have DESTROYED so many
> loco-hauled trains and they have NO character whatsoever.
> 5. Class 175's. Same as #4 but for replacing 37's on passenger
> loco-hauled.


I don't know how you can lump 175s with the Virgin stuff. The 175s
are the best trains on the network (when they work!) It's not
their fault that they replaced 37s.


> 6. Steam trains. Dull, vastly overrated machines which are now quickly
> becoming more common than proper BR diesel traction
>


Great to watch, but the paradox is that travelling in one is not
really any different from travelling in a diesel train unless
you are hanging out of the window - and then you get covered
in ash.

Charlie

AIUI Wessex made a case for funding for 4 car (2+2) for Cardiff
Portmouth but this was rejected by the SRA (as was then) on cast and
availability of off lease units. The 3 car operation we have now was
funded as a compromise.

153369 is only on short term hire to wessex so will go back to Central
in due course.

In article <de2amu$tdc$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>,
Charlie Hulme   wrote:

>grannyjone@hotmail.com wrote (trolling perhaps, but who cares):
>
>> Britains worst passenger trains. These are personal opinions.
>
>> 3. 323. Very bad. 
>
>Don't agree. My favourite trains in many ways. And I
>use them daily.
>
>> These have no legroom at all,
>
>Not marvellous, but OK when not full. Brilliant for carrying
>bikes.


I'd agree about the legroom. It's not exactly expansive, but the
seats are thin enough for it not to bother me - and my legs take up
a suprising amount of room considering I'm only 5'9" overall..


>> and internally, they
>> make an extremely irritating whineing noise as the power up. They also
>> make a whining noise when they decelerate at a station.


Surely this should be a cause for fellow-feeling?


>I rather like that noise myself!


The Hum of the Happy Holec :)


> > Only one toilet per 4
>> carriages, 
>
>Three carriages.


Counting is in the advanced manual.

Heigh ho, it's almost the time when the month according to the
Gregorian calendar is the same as the month in USENET again..

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

"Bill Hayles"  wrote

>
> From all the other replies, I take it I'm the only one old enough to
> remember the Tin Hals (or the Shebas)
>
> Not everything in the "good old days" was wonderful!
>

The only times I travelled on a 4DD were lightly loaded off-peak services,
but it must have been intolerable when it was full and standing on a hot (or
very wet) day.

Others have mentioned 317s standing in for IC stock on the Norwich run. I
can recall occasions (particularly the Friday of a Bank Holiday weekend)
when the Oxford Pullman was replaced by a suburban dmu.

Peter

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> Heigh ho, it's almost the time when the month according to the
> Gregorian calendar is the same as the month in USENET again..


"Abigail" (who posts, inter alia, to comp.lang.perl.misc) has
a habit of quoting usenet dates in the form e.g

||   Mike wrote on MMMMCCCLXIX September MCMXCIII 

(I think we can be sure that the computation isn't being done
by hand  ;-)

Joe Patrick wrote:

> Do they have low back seating?


No, high back - As shown in the picture of the Internal on your website. ;-p

The seat design isn't too bad either (certainly more padding than modern 
designs)  but mostly in a poor state

"Darren" wrote:

(re class 317)


> The seat design isn't too bad either (certainly more padding than modern
> designs)  but mostly in a poor state


They are well padded, but:

a) Set too low

b) The squabs are too small to adequately support the thighs of long-legged
people

Faults shared with the class 319 standard seating.

Chris

Has anyone nominated the hateful class 456 yet?

If so, may I?

Seating clearly designed for a new race of Bonsai People.

Original NSE livery peeling and fading.

Window etchings allowed to accumulate unchecked.

Obviously totally unloved by their various 'owners' (BR, Connex, GoVia etc).

Should have been transferred years ago to somewhere where passengers volumes
are more appropriate for 2 car units - eg Haywards Heath - Horsted Keynes.

Chris

Joe Patrick wrote:


> 
> Ah, was that a TP Express unit.
> Whilst they're not exactly cool in the heat, they seem much well cared
> for than the other of the regional units.
> 


Might be because TP Express, according to TPTB, is actually supposed to 
be 'Intercity' rather than 'Regional' now.

Philip.

In article ,
Alan J. Flavell  wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>
>> Heigh ho, it's almost the time when the month according to the
>> Gregorian calendar is the same as the month in USENET again..
>
>"Abigail" (who posts, inter alia, to comp.lang.perl.misc) has
>a habit of quoting usenet dates in the form e.g
>
>||   Mike wrote on MMMMCCCLXIX September MCMXCIII 
>
>(I think we can be sure that the computation isn't being done
>by hand  ;-)


I think I have another perl[1] of wisdom to hand ;)

[1] Sorry. Couldn't help it. It's been a long week. Already.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		"Usenet should require licenses; 
		 licenses that can be revoked." (Abigail, in the Monastery)

>travelling in one is not
>really any different from travelling in a diesel train unless
>you are hanging out of the window - and then you get covered
>in ash.


Thats why they are overrated. At least with a diesel, you can lean out
of the front carriage, and hear it thrashing, without being covered in
too much clag

Chris Read wrote:

> Has anyone nominated the hateful class 456 yet?
>
> If so, may I?
>
> Seating clearly designed for a new race of Bonsai People.
>
> Original NSE livery peeling and fading.
>
> Window etchings allowed to accumulate unchecked.
>
> Obviously totally unloved by their various 'owners' (BR, Connex, GoVia etc).
>
> Should have been transferred years ago to somewhere where passengers volumes
> are more appropriate for 2 car units - eg Haywards Heath - Horsted Keynes.
>
> Chris


Absolutely agree with all the above (as long as you include 455's as
well).

I've had the pleasure of commuting on these in the past, and mobile
slum is too strong a word.

I have to admit I've never travelled on some of the trains mentioned in
the rest of the thread, mostly being confined to the south east.  I
also can't comment on any technical aspects, but from a user point of
view these are absolutely terrible.

* Seats designed for no known member of the human race - incredibly low
back, set so low you almost have to limbo into them.

* 3+2 seating in a narrow train means that no-one over a size 8 can
actually fit in their seat, or even avoid hitting the head of the poor
soul on the row behind as the train jolts along at 30mph.

* Run on some of the busiest commuter routes in the UK  - so 8-car
trains naturally.

* But the worst design decision - no toilet.  I cannot count how many
times I have got on a 7am train and found myself in a carriage with
urine and vomit still on the floor from the night before.  Forget
toilets opening onto the seating (a la Electrostar) - let's just have
some!

Now I know this is partly a result of overcrowding, poor cleaning
and/or neglect by the owners  - and that they are also being
refurbished - but the worst point for me is that Southern and SWT both
have guards on all these trains.

In over 4 years of commuting in the past 6 years I have NEVER seen the
guard actually leave the rear driver's cab - where they lock themselves
in! -  and either check tickets or patrol the train.  Add in plenty of
unstaffed station (especially late at night) and you have a recipe for
trains that could be mistaken for portaloo's.

Glad to have got that off my chest :-)

cheers

drew

The message 
from grannyjone@hotmail.com contains these words:


> Thats why they are overrated. At least with a diesel, you can lean out
> of the front carriage, and hear it thrashing, without being covered in
> too much clag


I think I prefer a few smuts in my eye from the steam loco to the stench
of diesel fumes from a box that's grinding away up front (I think you
said "thrashing". "Grinding" is more appropriate.).  Boxes are *most*
uninspiring - I seem to remember commenting once that a 37 working hard
was the most interesting railway sound since the 8Fs were retired.  I
have no reason to change that opinion, but the 8F wins in the interest
stakes by a very considerable margin.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On 18 Aug 2005 12:31:31 -0700, "Drew" 
wrote:


>refurbished - but the worst point for me is that Southern and SWT both
>have guards on all these trains.


Southern don't.

-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

In article ,
David Jackson   wrote:

>The message 
>from grannyjone@hotmail.com contains these words:
>
>> Thats why they are overrated. At least with a diesel, you can lean out
>> of the front carriage, and hear it thrashing, without being covered in
>> too much clag
>
>I think I prefer a few smuts in my eye from the steam loco to the stench
>of diesel fumes from a box that's grinding away up front (I think you
>said "thrashing". "Grinding" is more appropriate.).  Boxes are *most*
>uninspiring - I seem to remember commenting once that a 37 working hard
>was the most interesting railway sound since the 8Fs were retired.  I
>have no reason to change that opinion, but the 8F wins in the interest
>stakes by a very considerable margin.


:)

Never heard 8Fs, as they never really took root in my part of the
world, but I do rememeber getting terrified as a child by the noise
of T2s working hard (OK, Q6s, if you must go for these new-fangled
names). For aural impressiveness in the diesel era I'd probably
go for twin Napiers or Valentas - very much the piston-pushing
equivalent of the RR Conway or Bristol Olympus: tuneful, loud,
smoky and anti-social. Really impressive (when new) was the
big Mirrlees in the 60s: immense loads hauled, and but a
quiet slow whuffle from the exhaust. Unfortunately they seem
to have got louder since then, so that palm has probably passed
to the big GMs.

There was a 37-hauled special in Aberystwyth the other day. I
didn't bother to stick my head around the corner to take a
look at it, but that sound of someone stirring a large bucket
of rusty bolts was unmistakable :)

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:

> The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
> and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport


Guys,

unless you've sweatted you b**lcks off on a crowded class 465/2 or
class 466 Networker on a hot summers evening, You'll never know how
good you have it. Bring back 4-EPB's

The message <de47ji$8k5p$1@central.aber.ac.uk>
from azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) contains these words:


> There was a 37-hauled special in Aberystwyth the other day. I
> didn't bother to stick my head around the corner to take a
> look at it, but that sound of someone stirring a large bucket
> of rusty bolts was unmistakable :)


As a child/teenager I could, on a frosty night, hear Black 5s/8Fs
starting Shell tank trains from Helsby, having been held at the
junction, and I'd hear them most of the way to Sutton Tunnel (about 3
miles-ish), being at their loudest as they passed through Frodsham
station 100yds from my bedroom window.  In 1968 the railways closed
(from an interest POV) and it was many years and a mortgage later that I
lay awake listening for No.2 baby son to start crying, and heard through
the clear frosty air a sound that made me creep to the open window and
listen "properly".  That was a 40 on tanks, but I was once again aware
that the railways could make interesting sounds - and the 37s which took
over fom the 40s on the Stanlow run could certainly rouse the echoes off
the hills as they attacked the steady gradient up to the Weaver viaduct
with their long trains of bogie tanks. 

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

"David Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:313030303337333343061D1903@zetnet.co.uk...

> The message <de47ji$8k5p$1@central.aber.ac.uk>
> from azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) contains these words:
>
>> There was a 37-hauled special in Aberystwyth the other day. I
>> didn't bother to stick my head around the corner to take a
>> look at it, but that sound of someone stirring a large bucket
>> of rusty bolts was unmistakable :)
>
> As a child/teenager I could, on a frosty night, hear Black 5s/8Fs
> starting Shell tank trains from Helsby, having been held at the
> junction, and I'd hear them most of the way to Sutton Tunnel (about 3
> miles-ish), being at their loudest as they passed through Frodsham
> station 100yds from my bedroom window.  In 1968 the railways closed
> (from an interest POV) and it was many years and a mortgage later that I
> lay awake listening for No.2 baby son to start crying, and heard through
> the clear frosty air a sound that made me creep to the open window and
> listen "properly".  That was a 40 on tanks, but I was once again aware
> that the railways could make interesting sounds - and the 37s which took
> over fom the 40s on the Stanlow run could certainly rouse the echoes off
> the hills as they attacked the steady gradient up to the Weaver viaduct
> with their long trains of bogie tanks.
>
> -- 
> Dave,
> Frodsham


You bring back an emotive memory!

I lived beside the Grangemouth branch line, which carried oil trains from 
the BP refinery at Grangemouth to the junction with the old Stirlingshire 
Midland at Falkirk. The branch was about 2 miles ong and most of it was a 
constant, fairly steep incline.

Trains started to climb at Grangemouth shed and on frosty nights often 
"missed their footing"! The noise was spectacular. Usually Black 5s or 
Austerity 2-8-0s.

Later haulage was paired 37s, now one EWS 66. The branch also carried DRS 
services to the W H Malcolm container depot in Grangemouth. Rare to see 
anything other than 66s though.

John

On 19 Aug 2005 10:09:06 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
wrote:


>Never heard 8Fs, as they never really took root in my part of the
>world, but I do rememeber getting terrified as a child by the noise
>of T2s working hard (OK, Q6s, if you must go for these new-fangled
>names). For aural impressiveness in the diesel era I'd probably
>go for twin Napiers or Valentas - very much the piston-pushing
>equivalent of the RR Conway or Bristol Olympus: tuneful, loud,
>smoky and anti-social. Really impressive (when new) was the
>big Mirrlees in the 60s: immense loads hauled, and but a
>quiet slow whuffle from the exhaust. Unfortunately they seem
>to have got louder since then, so that palm has probably passed
>to the big GMs.


You should have lived in Great Longstone in the early 1960s. Long coal
trains heading towards Manchester with two 9Fs on the front and a
further one banking at the rear. On a wet or icy evening they could
take 20-30 minutes to get past, with lots of slipping wheels.

The Blue Pullman, on the other hand, sailed through with a pleasing
diesel exhaust sound at high speed.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:23:55 GMT, Bill Hayles 
wrote:


>From all the other replies, I take it I'm the only one old enough to
>remember the Tin Hals (or the Shebas)
>
>Not everything in the "good old days" was wonderful!


I still maintain that the VEP was really an instrument of torture
designed only to allow people to leave it quickly.

I occasionally travelled on a train made of 4-CORs (I think) from
Haywards Heath to Three Bridges in the late 1960s. Usually packed to
the gunwales, and standing in or near the corridor connection bellows
on a wet day was not desirable.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

crazy_horse_12002@yahoo.co.uk wrote: 


> Wessex Trains either
> need to strengthen these service to four cars minimum ASAP or bring
> back
> proper services with a 33 and eight carriages of hauled coaching stock
> like
> they used to be all those decades ago!
> Are you sure your memory is not playing tricks?
> A 33 and how many carriages?

                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Hi

At least with a 142 there's a good chance it will complete the journey!
 To be fair I quite like the 175s, but they always fall down on the
same points for me:

- They are desperately unreliable
- They always seem to be packed!
- The carcophony of (loud) meeps and bleeps when the doors are opened
or closed!

Merseyrail refurbs apart (those seats..........), I think the 142s are
a very good, practical unit.  They can move masses of people in
reasonable comfort without any fuss and have a superb window density,
so don't feel claustrophobic and give a good view (expecially down tho
Hope Valley).  Not the charm or character of a class 101 (yet - give it
another 10 years) but good honest workhorses.

JT

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:

> The worst trains must be the Class 142 Pacers that go between Chester
> and Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport, a huge contrast to the nice
> smooth quiet 175s that travel between Llandudno and Chester and
> Manchester Piccadilly via Warrington Bank Quay.
> Regards   Mike.

Also, the seat squabs are far too easily removable and when my regular
train from Letchworth to Kings Cross was formed of 317s (now 365s), I
often had to refit the squab myself before sitting on it as it had been
left loose. Not a good way to encourage custom. (For those unfamiliar,
the squab has to be located onto a spike on the seat base which then
locates into a spring clip in the squab structure, but if fitted
incorrectly, the spike ends up between the springs instead and works
loose.)

I'd like to digress and suggest nominations for which TOC is worst at
looking after their trains. I'd nominate WAGN, as all their trains now
look very tired inside, with the partial exception of some 317s which
have had new purple upholstery and huge "www.wagn.co.uk" stickers
fitted and not much else. The 365s, their "premier" units, regularly
have loose trim panels inside and hopper windows that don't close or if
they are closed, pop open when the train enters a tunnel.

They do shift, though - Kings Cross to Letchworth non-stop in 25
minutes (on a good day!) for 34 miles 50 chains (average 83 mph) is
pretty impressive, bearing in mind the 40mph restriction at Hitchin
curve.