Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino? I'm a
regular (near daily) Brum - London Chiltern passenger forced to use
Virgin whilst the Gerrard's Cross tunnel has been cleared up, and find
the Pendolino excellent. The only criticism would be the lack of bins
and the seats with no window view.

Recently, from time to time I've been unfortunate to find myself on one
of the truly ancient trains Virgin run on that service - what are these
trains? They look to my untrained eye like the sort of BR train I used
to get in the 80s - light blue seats, dreadfully tatty, falling to
bits, overflowing toilets covered with graffiti, truly dreadful. With
the doors you need to open the window and unlock from outside!

Surely anything is better than these things?

andrewrob...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

> Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino?

</snip>

I think they're quite nice.

<snip>

> Recently, from time to time I've been unfortunate to find myself on one
> of the truly ancient trains Virgin run on that service - what are these
> trains? They look to my untrained eye like the sort of BR train I used
> to get in the 80s - light blue seats, dreadfully tatty, falling to
> bits, overflowing toilets covered with graffiti, truly dreadful. With
> the doors you need to open the window and unlock from outside!
>

</snip>

There's no fooling you is there ;)

I believe that they were used back in the 1980s of course the more
experienced subscribers to this group will almost deffinately be able
to tell you what was operating when where and why during that period.

--
Nathan Whitington <><

(still looking for that downs 85 tape - anyone got a copy?)

andrewrobins@gmail.com (andrewrobins@gmail.com) said:

> Why do so many people here have a downer on the
> Pendolino?


New = bad. Just like when the 37s replaced sulzers in the West 
Highlands, and when HSTs replaced the Deltics on the East Coast. I guess 
in those cases the coaching stock wasn't replaced at the same time, and 
that general levels of comfort have subsequently been reduced through 
the desire to load more people on, but on the whole it's a hatred of 
change.

-- 
Andrew

On 20 Aug 2005 15:58:55 -0700 someone who may be
andrewrobins@gmail.com wrote this:-


>Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino?


Because they are new and commonplace.

When they are being replaced by a new wonder train in 20-30 years
people who claim to hate them now will be crying in their beer over
the loss of these trains.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Andrew Bell wrote:

> andrewrobins@gmail.com (andrewrobins@gmail.com) said:
> > Why do so many people here have a downer on the
> > Pendolino?
>
> New = bad. Just like when the 37s replaced sulzers in the West
> Highlands, and when HSTs replaced the Deltics on the East Coast. I guess
> in those cases the coaching stock wasn't replaced at the same time, and
> that general levels of comfort have subsequently been reduced through
> the desire to load more people on, but on the whole it's a hatred of
> change.




No it isn't; it's hatred of not being able to see out of the window.
Also, in the case of Pendolinos, hatred of not having room for my
shoulders.

The 313s are nearly thirty years old now, and I still hate them,
because I can't see out of the window in them.

The Desiros are new and I quite like them.

Some people claim not to care about seeing out of the window.  That's
fine, but I wish they wouldn't always grab the few window seats before
I get on ...

andrewrobins@gmail.com wrote:

> Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino? I'm a
> regular (near daily) Brum - London Chiltern passenger forced to use
> Virgin whilst the Gerrard's Cross tunnel has been cleared up, and find
> the Pendolino excellent. The only criticism would be the lack of bins
> and the seats with no window view.


I basically like them, with two caveats; one - which you mentioned - is the 
spacing of the seats in standard class, which results in a number of seats 
being located against a pillar rather than a window, and the other is the fact 
that the luggage racks are a) too small and b) inconveniently located away 
from the door vestibules, which makes negotiating a suitcase onto a crowded 
train very, very difficult.

-- 

Stephen

RORY: Oh, we have to rent Godfather 3 on DVD.
LORELAI: You're kidding.
RORY: In the audio commentary, Coppola actually defends casting Sofia.
LORELAI: Now that is fatherly love.

David Hansen  wrote in 
news:mfegg11srrapah0k9a2losvfo8j3tqjoaq@4ax.com:


>>Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino?
> 
> Because they are new and commonplace.


Possibly true. But that implies criticism of anything new is merely sour 
grapes from the conservative, and therefore can be dismissed by those who 
know what's good for us.


> When they are being replaced by a new wonder train in 20-30 years
> people who claim to hate them now will be crying in their beer over
> the loss of these trains.


Rather than the people who like them now?

Rick.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 09:38:04 GMT someone who may be Rick Hughes
 wrote this:-


>>>Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino?
>> 
>> Because they are new and commonplace.
>
>Possibly true. But that implies criticism of anything new is merely sour 
>grapes from the conservative,


That is one possibility.


>and therefore can be dismissed by those who 
>know what's good for us.


That does necessarily not follow.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:


> Because they are new and commonplace.
> 
> When they are being replaced by a new wonder train in 20-30 years
> people who claim to hate them now will be crying in their beer over
> the loss of these trains.


I'll hold you to that.

As I've said before, I like *some* of the new trains (including Desiros) 
but I do not like Pendolinos because they have 'cram them in' seating, 
less toilets than Mark 3s and very small (and infrequent) windows.

Voyagers have bigger windows but (unless the get the four seats on the 
right near the vestibule as you enter the coach!) the seating is again 
very cramped. They also have fewer toilets than the Mark 2/3s they replaced.

My favourite coaches of all time, in no particular order:

1) SNCB I11. Big windows and tables for every seat.
2) DB/DR Bim(z)/Aim(z). Opening windows, comfortable seating and those 
lovely 'open compartments' with plenty of room for bags near the aisle 
but still out of the way.
3) DB ICE3/ICT (original batch). Aargh! Plastic! But still with lovely 
decor and spacious seating. Love the first class 'offices', too :-) The 
newer builds have more cramped seating: beware.
4) BR Mark 3 series. Smooth, comfortable ride and spacious seating 
(before some of them were 'refurbished'!).

The other thing I miss in Britain is a proper restaurant car (i.e. not 
limited to particular ticket holders), plus a buffet area where people 
can stand with a drink and snack and chat... but now I'm dreaming...

-- 
Rob
http://www.uicstock.org.uk/
To reply, remove zudo

andrewrobins@gmail.com wrote:


>Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino? I'm a
>regular (near daily) Brum - London Chiltern passenger forced to use
>Virgin whilst the Gerrard's Cross tunnel has been cleared up, and find
>the Pendolino excellent. The only criticism would be the lack of bins
>and the seats with no window view.
>
>Recently, from time to time I've been unfortunate to find myself on one
>of the truly ancient trains Virgin run on that service - what are these
>trains? They look to my untrained eye like the sort of BR train I used
>to get in the 80s - light blue seats, dreadfully tatty, falling to
>bits, overflowing toilets covered with graffiti, truly dreadful. With
>the doors you need to open the window and unlock from outside!
>
>Surely anything is better than these things?



The old trains were only that bad because Virgin let them deteriorate
appallingly, presumably to make the Pendolinos look miraculously clean
and new.  Similar rolling stock performs very well with other Train
Operating Companies, who keep it clean and refurbish it before it gets
into anything like the state Virgin's did.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:09:44 GMT someone who may be The Doctor
 wrote this:-


>> When they are being replaced by a new wonder train in 20-30 years
>> people who claim to hate them now will be crying in their beer over
>> the loss of these trains.
>
>I'll hold you to that.


No problem. We have seen it before with umpteen types of train, for
example class 52 locomotives and class 101 DMUs.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Andrew Bell wrote:

> andrewrobins@gmail.com (andrewrobins@gmail.com) said:
> 
>>Why do so many people here have a downer on the
>>Pendolino?
> 
> 
> New = bad. Just like when the 37s replaced sulzers in the West 
> Highlands


I for one didn't think that was 'bad', I can assure you.

Charlie

The Doctor  wrote:

>As I've said before, I like *some* of the new trains (including Desiros) 
>but I do not like Pendolinos because they have 'cram them in' seating, 
>less toilets than Mark 3s and very small (and infrequent) windows.



Your points about the tiolets and windows may be valid, but I think
your comment about the seats is misplaced.  

One of the great strengths of the Pendolino is the superbly contoured
and well aligned seating, which is not at all cramped.

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:1124613428.710072.222430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> No it isn't; it's hatred of not being able to see out of the window.
> Also, in the case of Pendolinos, hatred of not having room for my
> shoulders.


I find that it is difficult to see INTO the windows, but no problem looking 
out.

KW

In message , at 09:24:36 on 
Sun, 21 Aug 2005, David Hansen  
remarked:

>>Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino?
>
>Because they are new and commonplace.
>
>When they are being replaced by a new wonder train in 20-30 years
>people who claim to hate them now will be crying in their beer over
>the loss of these trains.


If the new trains are even worse. Today, it's still legitimate to 
complain that the new trains are worse than the ones they are replacing.

And it's model specific. I think the 365 is better than the WAGNs it 
replaced, a 170 better than what it replaced on Central, but a none of 
the Pendo/Voyager/Meridians are better than what they replaced.

They might, just, had significantly higher speeds been attained on more 
bits of line, but as they haven't, I'd rather have the older and more 
comfortable train.
-- 
Roland Perry

> The old trains were only that bad because Virgin let them deteriorate
> appallingly, presumably to make the Pendolinos look miraculously clean
> and new.  Similar rolling stock performs very well with other Train
> Operating Companies, who keep it clean and refurbish it before it gets
> into anything like the state Virgin's did.
>



You only need to look at what First want to do with the Great Western HST
carriages to see what virgin could have done with the HST's.

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message , at 09:24:36 on 
> Sun, 21 Aug 2005, David Hansen  remarked:
> 
>>> Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino?
>>
>>
>> Because they are new and commonplace.
>>
>> When they are being replaced by a new wonder train in 20-30 years
>> people who claim to hate them now will be crying in their beer over
>> the loss of these trains.
> 
> 
> If the new trains are even worse


They'll probably have rubber-tyred wheels and run on motorways.

Charlie

Pete_uk (networkrail@mailinator.com) said:

> > The old trains were only that bad because Virgin let
> > them deteriorate appallingly, presumably to make the
> > Pendolinos look miraculously clean and new.  Similar
> > rolling stock performs very well with other Train
> > Operating Companies, who keep it clean and refurbish it
> > before it gets into anything like the state Virgin's
> > did.
> >
>
>
> You only need to look at what First want to do with the
> Great Western HST carriages to see what virgin could have
> done with the HST's.


Including retaining the fixed arm-rests? ;)

-- 
Andrew

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:


> One of the great strengths of the Pendolino is the superbly contoured


All I can say is that you must be constructed differently from me.  
Given a choice on the WCML, I take a Voyager in preference to a Pendo 
for its seat comfort (and secondarily for the view).  I find the Pendo 
seats distinctly uncomfortable after a while, no matter how I 
re-arrange myself on them.


> and well aligned seating,


Well aligned with what?

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:


>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:
>
>> One of the great strengths of the Pendolino is the superbly contoured
>
>All I can say is that you must be constructed differently from me.  
>Given a choice on the WCML, I take a Voyager in preference to a Pendo 
>for its seat comfort (and secondarily for the view).  I find the Pendo 
>seats distinctly uncomfortable after a while, no matter how I 
>re-arrange myself on them.
>
>> and well aligned seating,
>
>Well aligned with what?



I suppose I was subconsciously thinking of the disastrous alignment of
seating in the Voyagers vis-a-vis the bodysides and how much better
aligned it is in the Pendolinos.

I accept it isn't well aligned with the windows, in some cases.  But I
can sit comfortably in a Pendolino's non-aisle seats in Standard,
whereas I cannot in a Voyager's.

Of course the colour of the seats doesn't offend me. I referred to
their colour in the hope it'd help identify the carriages I was
referring to (I know nothing about trains).

What does offend me about the seats is the number of broken, or barely
usable ones there seemed to be in the carriage i was in.


Rick Hughes wrote:

> andrewrobins@gmail.com wrote in news:1124578735.652510.169330
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> > Recently, from time to time I've been unfortunate to find myself on one
> > of the truly ancient trains Virgin run on that service - what are these
> > trains? They look to my untrained eye like the sort of BR train I used
> > to get in the 80s
>
> They are.
>
> > - light blue seats, dreadfully tatty, falling to
> > bits, overflowing toilets covered with graffiti,
>
> The colour of the seats offends you? Well, OK.
>
> Tatty - yes; falling to bits - still mechanically sound, I would hope;
> overflowing toilets - sometimes; graffiti - yes. All of these are a result
> of poor maintenance, not design faults.
>
> > truly dreadful. With
> > the doors you need to open the window and unlock from outside!
>
> A design fault.
>
> If travelling on a loco-hauled set is so bad, the obvious solution would be
> to wait for the next train, which will almost certainly be a Pendolino. You
> can go back to Chiltern now, anyway. Personally, I find the 168s nice
> trains, but the dreary 165s make even the scruffiest of Virgin's stock seem
> luxurious in comparison.
> 
> Rick.

andrewrobins@gmail.com wrote in
news:1124642378.022488.80190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: 


> Of course the colour of the seats doesn't offend me. 


I didn't seriously think it did. The comment nevertheless appeared in a 
list of "faults" of the stock ...


> What does offend me about the seats is the number of broken, or barely
> usable ones there seemed to be in the carriage i was in.


Anyone would have a right to expect a train in which they travelled to be 
properly internally maintained, which Virgin's remaining LHCS apparently is 
not. But your original post seemed to suggest that Pendolinos are superior 
to hauled stock, /because/ of the scruffy state of the latter. That the 
stock is allowed to be used in such a state is a disgrace, but is not an 
inherent fault of the coaches. 

Rick.

Ken Ward wrote:

> "MIG"  wrote in message
> news:1124613428.710072.222430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > No it isn't; it's hatred of not being able to see out of the window.
> > Also, in the case of Pendolinos, hatred of not having room for my
> > shoulders.
>
> I find that it is difficult to see INTO the windows, but no problem looking
> out.




Perhaps you were next to one.  That's quite rare.

I take your point on it not being a problem of the coaches.

In fact, the actual service was good, quick and on time, so no
complaints there. What let it down wasn't the design of the carriages
in any way, just the dreadful lack of maintenance / care shown to them.

The toilet wasn't too far off the state of the famed toilet in the
(appropriately named) film Trainspotting, if you get my drift ;-)

Andrew


Rick Hughes wrote:

> andrewrobins@gmail.com wrote in
> news:1124642378.022488.80190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Of course the colour of the seats doesn't offend me.
>
> I didn't seriously think it did. The comment nevertheless appeared in a
> list of "faults" of the stock ...
>
> > What does offend me about the seats is the number of broken, or barely
> > usable ones there seemed to be in the carriage i was in.
>
> Anyone would have a right to expect a train in which they travelled to be
> properly internally maintained, which Virgin's remaining LHCS apparently is
> not. But your original post seemed to suggest that Pendolinos are superior
> to hauled stock, /because/ of the scruffy state of the latter. That the
> stock is allowed to be used in such a state is a disgrace, but is not an
> inherent fault of the coaches. 
> 
> Rick.

Tony Polson wrote:


> Your points about the tiolets and windows may be valid, but I think
> your comment about the seats is misplaced.  
> 
> One of the great strengths of the Pendolino is the superbly contoured
> and well aligned seating, which is not at all cramped.


IYHO :-)

Pendolino seating is very uncomfortable for myself (5' 11"), and a 
shorter friend of mine (5' 8"). Also the armrests (such as they are) are 
at just the wrong height to relax my arms.

 From where I sit they are very uncomfortable trains.

-- 
Rob
http://www.uicstock.org.uk/
To reply, remove zudo

In article <YhZNe.60286$576.22346@fe02.news.easynews.com>, The Doctor 
 writes

>The other thing I miss in Britain is a proper restaurant car (i.e. not 
>limited to particular ticket holders)


As found on GNER, you mean?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

andrewrobins@gmail.com wrote:

> .
>
> Recently, from time to time I've been unfortunate to find myself on one
> of the truly ancient trains Virgin run on that service - what are these
> trains? They look to my untrained eye like the sort of BR train I used
> to get in the 80s - light blue seats, dreadfully tatty, falling to
> bits, overflowing toilets covered with graffiti, truly dreadful. With
> the doors you need to open the window and unlock from outside!
>
> Surely anything is better than these things?



Take a look on First Great Western and GNER who use the same coaching
stock, you'll be pleasantly suprised at how lovely they are. Much
better than IMO all the new trains around, and if you want further
proof go on a class 442 on SWT! Remarkable coaching stock.

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:


>> The other thing I miss in Britain is a proper restaurant car (i.e. not 
>> limited to particular ticket holders)
> 
> As found on GNER, you mean?


The coaches are officially first class. Other people may dine as and 
when they are called.

-- 
Rob
http://www.uicstock.org.uk/
To reply, remove zudo

On 21 Aug 2005 15:01:36 -0700, therunawayminetrain@lycos.co.uk wrote:


>Take a look on First Great Western and GNER who use the same coaching
>stock, you'll be pleasantly suprised at how lovely they are.


In better condition, perhaps, but not "lovely".  The fGW refurb looks
horribly cheap - the clip-on luggage rack end does not help, nor does
the marble effect plastic, and (like the VT refurb) the IC70 seats
remain.

I do like the VT refurb when looked after, but the only *good* Mk3
refurb will be one that replaces the awful seats.  That's one of the
main reasons why I like the 442s - all the good bits about Mk3s and
just about none of the bad ones.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:08:49 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On 21 Aug 2005 15:01:36 -0700, therunawayminetrain@lycos.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Take a look on First Great Western and GNER who use the same coaching
>>stock, you'll be pleasantly suprised at how lovely they are.
>
>In better condition, perhaps, but not "lovely".  The fGW refurb looks
>horribly cheap - the clip-on luggage rack end does not help, nor does
>the marble effect plastic,


It is those bits which make me think these coach look far more modern
than the ex-Rio sets on FGW, guess I'm easily fooled by the plastic
trim.

Duncan

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:23:17 +0100, Duncan  wrote:


>It is those bits which make me think these coach look far more modern
>than the ex-Rio sets on FGW, guess I'm easily fooled by the plastic
>trim.


I find that the green felt luggage rack covering and fake-chrome trim
makes the WCML Mk3s look vastly more modern.  That beige fake leather
can't help but look horribly 1970s, whatever is clipped to it.

My favourite refurb is the MML HST (non-Rio) one, as it (as I recall)
replaces the godawful lighting, which is another thing that kills the
Mk3's passenger comfort.  The IC70s remain, sadly.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

andrewrobins@gmail.com wrote:

> Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino? I'm a
> regular (near daily) Brum - London Chiltern passenger forced to use
> Virgin whilst the Gerrard's Cross tunnel has been cleared up, and find
> the Pendolino excellent. The only criticism would be the lack of bins
> and the seats with no window view.
> 


Some people do like them, but if they do not, it will be due to tiny
windows. Cramped profile. Cramped and uncomfortable seats. Cheap looking
decor even in first class. Rattling panels. Too many doors to press when
walking through the train. Tight squeeze between seats and tables.
Rumble. Smelly of sewage.

No surprising a lot of passengers don't like them, especially if they
rememeber the trains running on the route fifty years ago.

Henry Law

The Doctor wrote:


> The coaches are officially first class. Other people may dine as and 
> when they are called.


People aren't "called" to the restaurant car. On most trains,
passengers in Standard are allowed to use the restaurant car whenever
there are seats available that are not required by passengers in First
Class.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

In message <IyKOe.7389$CF.51560@news-1.opaltelecom.net>, at 20:24:50 on 
Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Henry Law  remarked:


>Smelly of sewage.


Had my first experience of a sewage smell in the vestibule of a Meridian 
this week. Not sure how commonplace this is, as I usually try to avoid 
travelling on them.
-- 
Roland Perry

wrote in message 
news:1124578735.652510.169330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino? I'm a
> regular (near daily) Brum - London Chiltern passenger forced to use
> Virgin whilst the Gerrard's Cross tunnel has been cleared up, and find
> the Pendolino excellent. The only criticism would be the lack of bins
> and the seats with no window view.
>
> Recently, from time to time I've been unfortunate to find myself on one
> of the truly ancient trains Virgin run on that service - what are these
> trains? They look to my untrained eye like the sort of BR train I used
> to get in the 80s - light blue seats, dreadfully tatty, falling to
> bits, overflowing toilets covered with graffiti, truly dreadful. With
> the doors you need to open the window and unlock from outside!
>
> Surely anything is better than these things?


Some reasons why people like me prefer the older trains:
Liverpool to London: 380 seats per hour (standard class ) on a proper Mark 3 
train.
300 seats per hour on a Pendolino - hence more overcrowding on busy trains.

Seat width - about 19 inches on a Mark 3 train, about 17 inches on a 
Pendolino. If the adjoining seat on a Pendolino is occupied, then neither I 
nor my neighbour can sit in comfort. In a window seat, my shoulder and upper 
arm are crushed against the curved body profile.

Nothong to do with being against new trains,  more to do with abysmal 
design - all flashy plastic, but poor attention to comfort and passenger 
amenities.

Bevan

David Hansen wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:09:44 GMT someone who may be The Doctor
>  wrote this:-
> 
>>>When they are being replaced by a new wonder train in 20-30 years
>>>people who claim to hate them now will be crying in their beer over
>>>the loss of these trains.
>>I'll hold you to that.
> 
> No problem. We have seen it before with umpteen types of train, for
> example class 52 locomotives and class 101 DMUs.
> 
> 


That's not surprising - both were well designed, The class 52 were done
by Professor Mischa Black of Design Research Unit/Professor at the Royal
College of Art. Most of the current generation of trains seem to have
been done by aircraft designers and incorporate everything that makes
aircraft an unpleasant mode of transport. The design ethos is that of
"marketing". The design ethos of stock like class 52 and class 101 was
public service excellence - the best aspects of old-style socialism as
against the Blairite version of Thatcherism.

Henry Law

Andrew Bell wrote:


> New = bad. Just like when the 37s replaced sulzers in the West
> Highlands, and when HSTs replaced the Deltics on the East Coast. I guess
> in those cases the coaching stock wasn't replaced at the same time, and
> that general levels of comfort have subsequently been reduced through
> the desire to load more people on, but on the whole it's a hatred of
> change.



Not true for me. When I went on the prototype hst when it ran on WR
many years ago I was impressed.  Equally on the GNER when using
Eurostar sets or the excellent Mallard upgrade. Cant find one good word
to say about the crap Virgin have acquired for the wcml but I do
acknowledge it is only a personal viewpoint.

Henry Law wrote:


> That's not surprising - both were well designed, The class 52 were done
> by Professor Mischa Black of Design Research Unit/Professor at the Royal
> College of Art. 


No, they were *styled* by Prof Black - the *design* was done by
a team of BR engineers.

Charlie

"Henry Law"  wrote in message 
news:oI7Pe.7422$CF.51233@news-1.opaltelecom.net...

> David Hansen wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:09:44 GMT someone who may be The Doctor
>>  wrote this:-
>>
>>>>When they are being replaced by a new wonder train in 20-30 years
>>>>people who claim to hate them now will be crying in their beer over
>>>>the loss of these trains.
>>>I'll hold you to that.
>>
>> No problem. We have seen it before with umpteen types of train, for
>> example class 52 locomotives and class 101 DMUs.
>>
>>
>
> That's not surprising - both were well designed, The class 52 were done
> by Professor Mischa Black of Design Research Unit/Professor at the Royal
> College of Art. Most of the current generation of trains seem to have
> been done by aircraft designers and incorporate everything that makes
> aircraft an unpleasant mode of transport. The design ethos is that of
> "marketing". The design ethos of stock like class 52 and class 101 was
> public service excellence - the best aspects of old-style socialism as
> against the Blairite version of Thatcherism.
>
> Henry Law


The 101's were hardly excellence - even when new, the riding quality could 
be pretty awful on jointed track, and the 3 + 2 seating was totally 
unsuitable for some of the longer distance services they were inflicted 
upon, e.g. Manchester to North Wales. The only thing in their favour in 
recent years is that their Pacer replacements were even worse.

Bevan

Charlie Hulme wrote:

> Henry Law wrote:
> 
>> That's not surprising - both were well designed, The class 52 were done
>> by Professor Mischa Black of Design Research Unit/Professor at the Royal
>> College of Art. 
> 
> No, they were *styled* by Prof Black - the *design* was done by
> a team of BR engineers.
> 
> Charlie
> 


More than styling - it was trying to make a statement about public
service excellence, and his input was fed back into the mechanical
engineering design. Black's work on the Warships was of necessity little
more than styling as he was brought in at a late stage.

Henry Law

Bevan Price wrote:

> "Henry Law"  wrote in message 
> news:oI7Pe.7422$CF.51233@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
>>David Hansen wrote:
>>>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:09:44 GMT someone who may be The Doctor
>>> wrote this:-
>>>
>>>>>When they are being replaced by a new wonder train in 20-30 years
>>>>>people who claim to hate them now will be crying in their beer over
>>>>>the loss of these trains.
>>>>I'll hold you to that.
>>>No problem. We have seen it before with umpteen types of train, for
>>>example class 52 locomotives and class 101 DMUs.
>>>
>>>
>>That's not surprising - both were well designed, The class 52 were done
>>by Professor Mischa Black of Design Research Unit/Professor at the Royal
>>College of Art. Most of the current generation of trains seem to have
>>been done by aircraft designers and incorporate everything that makes
>>aircraft an unpleasant mode of transport. The design ethos is that of
>>"marketing". The design ethos of stock like class 52 and class 101 was
>>public service excellence - the best aspects of old-style socialism as
>>against the Blairite version of Thatcherism.
>>
>>Henry Law
> 
> The 101's were hardly excellence - even when new, the riding quality could 
> be pretty awful on jointed track, and the 3 + 2 seating was totally 
> unsuitable for some of the longer distance services they were inflicted 
> upon, e.g. Manchester to North Wales. The only thing in their favour in 
> recent years is that their Pacer replacements were even worse.
> 
> Bevan
>  
> 
> 

Come to think of it, they were not superior to the ex-GW design
push-pull vehicles which could be considered equivalent. (the carriages
named after birds).

Henry Law

Henry Law wrote:

> Charlie Hulme wrote:
> 
>>Henry Law wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's not surprising - both were well designed, The class 52 were done
>>>by Professor Mischa Black of Design Research Unit/Professor at the Royal
>>>College of Art. 
>>
>>No, they were *styled* by Prof Black - the *design* was done by
>>a team of BR engineers.
>>
>>Charlie

> More than styling - it was trying to make a statement about public
> service excellence, and his input was fed back into the mechanical
> engineering design.


How many professors from the RCA did Churchward and Collett employ?

I sort of see what you mean, but I don't think you'll convince me on 
this one, Henry. Although I'll admit that some pilot scheme diesels 
(usually the mechanically useless ones) lacked a certain something.)
I abhor the use of the term 'design' for the art of making things
look trendy.

Nor do I believe, as suggested by some, that the small windows
of a Pendolino are for crash-resistance. They are some
artist's clever styling trick to make the thing more
resemble an aircraft.


> Black's work on the Warships was of necessity little
> more than styling as he was brought in at a late stage.


The Warships are basically small versions of the DB 220.

Charlie

In article <4tBPe.2271$%h6.1484@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
Charlie Hulme   wrote:

>
>How many professors from the RCA did Churchward and Collett employ?


Hmmm. That might go some way towards explaining why most of Churchward's
early designs were regarded as repulsively ugly in their day ;)

-- 
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)

In article <demtqg$9kkg$1@central.aber.ac.uk>,
Andrew Robert Breen  wrote:

>In article <4tBPe.2271$%h6.1484@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
>Charlie Hulme   wrote:
>>
>>How many professors from the RCA did Churchward and Collett employ?
>
>Hmmm. That might go some way towards explaining why most of Churchward's
>early designs were regarded as repulsively ugly in their day ;)


Actually - and thinking on this for a moment - many of the steam-era
engineers who eventually came up with elegant-looking devices started
with some rather grisly objects. Patrick Stirling is a notable example.
Until a couple of purchases from Beyer, Peacock and Sharp, Stewart
gave him the hint that an engine could, possibly, look handsome
he'd been building some real gothick horrors. Samuel Johnson is
another. His early efforts weren't qualifiers for the Black Museum in the 
same way as Stirling's effusions had been, but handsome they weren't. 
Ditto Adams. Churchward's first few years worth  of designs had the same 
product-of-an-ironmongery look to them as early-era Adams to my eyes.

OTOH the aesthetic of an (unstreamlined) steam engine emerges - to
a degree - from the layout of components (what you do after that
is up to you and may reflect local taste, as witness the great
Hungarian engineer who described GWR engines as looking like
plucked turkeys). With a diesel (or electric) most of the interesting
stuff which makes it go is hidden away inside, so the body design -
in first instance just there to keep the rain out - is much more
of a job for the designer or stylist (or aerodynamicist[1]). This
may explain why the great steam-building enterprises generally
got the aesthetics of their attempts at diesels so horrendously
wrong (the SR diesel-electrics, anything from North British).
They often got the rest of it wrong too, of course.

[1] Maybe no accident that the most successful streamlined
steam locomotives (in terms of appearance) had considerable 
input from aerodynamicists - Gresley's A4s drew heavily on
the aerodynamic work done for the racing cars and highh-speed
railcars of his friend Ettore Bugatti, and those finest (and
fleetest) of all steam engines, the Milwalkee Road Atlantics,
had a benefitted from a lot of aerodynamic work. Ditto the
very fine Belgian Atlantics of the late 30s.

-- 
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)

> If travelling on a loco-hauled set is so bad, the obvious solution would be
> to wait for the next train, which will almost certainly be a Pendolino. You
> can go back to Chiltern now, anyway. Personally, I find the 168s nice
> trains, but the dreary 165s make even the scruffiest of Virgin's stock seem
> luxurious in comparison.


Even the refurbished ones? Whilst not as good as 168s, the air-con is
brilliant, and the old style seats are still quite comfy.

Andrew

Assuming you are in residence - don't miss the chance of the last two
days of proper coaching stock on the Cambrian this summer - behind a
nice example of fifties design still doing what it does best too!

It's just a shame they keep it waiting so long for these 158 thingies
to get out of it's way.

It was a lovely surprise to find that last Sunday it was possible to
step off a steam train and directly into a Wetherspoons or a curry
house - now that's what I call service!

In article ,
  wrote:

>Andrew
>
>Assuming you are in residence - don't miss the chance of the last two
>days of proper coaching stock on the Cambrian this summer - behind a
>nice example of fifties design still doing what it does best too!


Oh, I thought it was a large standard mogul - a design which only
looks good beside its Ivatt progenitor, a machine which had hit //every//
branch of the ugly tree on its way down ;) I did take a look at it 
last time it was down this way. Oh boy, it was not pretty.

That said, I'd probably have taken a trip on the steam service if
I'd been around. As it is, I'm in the north of Sweden at present
- at a conference, but staying in a hotel right on the station
platform with a fine view of passing Dm3s, I-ORES and various 
versions of the ubiquitous Rc4 to 6 and whatever they have hung on
behind (52x80t of iron ore, in the case of the Dm3s and I-OREs).

Came up from Stockholm by train - the sleeper (run by Connex, as
is the whole passenger service this far north - the whole furthest
north line is in various private hands) was very good in some ways
(comfy, en-suite cabin) but the ride was distinctly iffy. Decent 
Bistro car, done out with an almost turn-of-the-last-century
feel which wasn't inapt given the speed of the train. The train on
from Lulea wasn't nearly as nice: old coaches with those nasty 
semi-compartments that the germans also inflict on people and
- again - a very poor ride. Fortunately the sleeper runs direct
from Narvik on the return trip, so I miss out on the delights
of those semi-compartments on the way back :)

The airport express to Stockholm (from Arlanda) was very decent.
Spectacular stations (Stockholm Centrum, OTOH, is high on the
list of unpleasant stations - not far short of Barad Dur Hbf, though
better than Penn Central), smooth, quiet - but with seats commissioned
by someone who thought that the IC70 was a good seat. Many marks
lost there..


>It's just a shame they keep it waiting so long for these 158 thingies
>to get out of it's way.


Are you sure there wasnt one pushing it? ;)


>It was a lovely surprise to find that last Sunday it was possible to
>step off a steam train and directly into a Wetherspoons or a curry
>house - now that's what I call service!


Not bad at all as facilities go, I feel. Certainly makes meeting 
people off the train a pleasure, even if the W'spoons (AKA the
Flying Europhobe) gets rather - sticky - at times.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

andrewrobins@gmail.com wrote:

> Why do so many people here have a downer on the Pendolino? I'm a
> regular (near daily) Brum - London Chiltern passenger forced to use
> Virgin whilst the Gerrard's Cross tunnel has been cleared up, and find
> the Pendolino excellent. The only criticism would be the lack of bins
> and the seats with no window view.
> 
> Recently, from time to time I've been unfortunate to find myself on one
> of the truly ancient trains Virgin run on that service - what are these
> trains? They look to my untrained eye like the sort of BR train I used
> to get in the 80s - light blue seats, dreadfully tatty, falling to
> bits, overflowing toilets covered with graffiti, truly dreadful. With
> the doors you need to open the window and unlock from outside!
> 
> Surely anything is better than these things?



I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion about how great 
the Mark III's were, as it has been done to death. Suffice to say, like 
many people I prefer the old kit, and still think it has a lot of life 
left in it.

I'm not overly impressed by the pendolinos, but this is due to the dire
internal design rather than anything else. Acceleration and ride quality 
  is far superior to the Mark III stock, the tilt is impressive. As far as
a train goes, they are nice pieces of kit without a doubt, and a tilting 
  EMU is probably the most appropriate type of train for the West Coast 
Mainline. I do wonder if perhaps it would have been wise to install a 
small diesel engine, like the APT had at the extreme ends, to avoid 
messing around with locos for the Holyhead route, or in case of 
diversions. Perhaps it could have been sensible to have say some sort of 
'loco' at one end with all the equipment in it, which could be swapped 
for diesel or electric when need be, but still keep traction motors and 
whatnot under the carriages, so it still remains a unit, like the HST2 
plans. The thing could then be a bit a little more flexible.

What does let them down is the poor internal layout. For starters the 
trains have less seats than the stock they are replacing. This could 
have been avoided by specifying 10 car sets, with an extra 10th standard 
class car. I've never seen the first class overly busy on them, so I'd 
move the buffet area (or shop as they seem to be called these days) out 
of standard and into one of the first class coaches next to the 
standard, a bit like the Mark III buffet cars.

The 'guards' office could also be replaced with seats, with the guard 
getting a proper secure brakevan at the extreme end of the train where 
there appears to be nothing. Although some will argue that the office 
supposeadly makes the guard more accessible to passengers, if he is 
checking tickets, he could be anywhere on a 9 car train, and when 
ticketing duties are over, the guards often tend to disappear off into 
first class anyway.

The seating in standard (on both Voyagers and Pendolinos), is in my 
opinion terrible. I realise this is one of the most widely debated 
things on here, but I'd rather see seating of the style on the 442s or 
even the 350s, which I find perfectly acceptable. First class seating is 
fine.

Seats not lining up with windows is less than ideal, but some people 
aren't overly bothered by this, and to be fair, the HST's and Mark III's 
have also suffered from this, when increased seating was introduced in them.

What I do find very annoying about these trains is the continual rattle 
of fixtures and fittings, which I've also noticed on Meridians and 
Voyagers, but never any other trains (other than where they've not been 
maintained properly - notably HST's / Mark II / III where the seats are 
bolted down, seems to be a bit loose). On a brand new train, this is 
completely unacceptable. On a related note, this is probably one of the 
things that I find terrible about the Voyagers, the engine noise is 
irrelevant, but it certainly makes the fixtures and fittings rattle 
away, which is not something I've noticed in 158's / 159's or 170's.

Less toilets also than the Mark III stock, but I've never noticed any of 
the stench that has been mentioned.

So all in all, my opinion is that if Virgin could get the interior 
sorted, they'd have a good piece of kit on their hands. Unfortunately 
that looks unlikely, so I suppose I'll be spending my time mourning the 
demise of the old stock.

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

> In article ,
>   wrote:
> 
>>Andrew
>>
>>Assuming you are in residence - don't miss the chance of the last two
>>days of proper coaching stock on the Cambrian this summer - behind a
>>nice example of fifties design still doing what it does best too!
> 
> 
> Oh, I thought it was a large standard mogul - a design which only
> looks good beside its Ivatt progenitor, a machine which had hit //every//
> branch of the ugly tree on its way down ;) I did take a look at it 
> last time it was down this way. Oh boy, it was not pretty.


Still a nice example of fifties design, though ;-)

While recently working on my 1965-66 Cambrian steam page

http://www.page27.co.uk/nwales/news/nw0508c.htm

it struck me as rather curious that the filthy, unkempt
BR standards in use there in 1966, about to head
for the scrapheap, were about the same age then as the
Cambrian 158s are today. Even the antique-looking
LMS compartment coaches were probably no older
at the time than 150s and Pacers are today.

Charlie

In article <zUEPe.4018$b4.836@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
Charlie Hulme   wrote:

>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>> In article ,
>>   wrote:
>>>days of proper coaching stock on the Cambrian this summer - behind a
>>>nice example of fifties design still doing what it does best too!

>> Oh, I thought it was a large standard mogul - a design which only
>> looks good beside its Ivatt progenitor, a machine which had hit //every//
>> branch of the ugly tree on its way down ;) I did take a look at it 
>> last time it was down this way. Oh boy, it was not pretty.

>Still a nice example of fifties design, though ;-)


In its constructional details it might be. Still as ugly as an extremely
ugly thing, though.


>While recently working on my 1965-66 Cambrian steam page
>
>http://www.page27.co.uk/nwales/news/nw0508c.htm
>
>it struck me as rather curious that the filthy, unkempt
>BR standards in use there in 1966, about to head
>for the scrapheap, were about the same age then as the
>Cambrian 158s are today. 


Thinks: the 158s came in a quarter-way through the time I was
working at Southampton (and so //really// noticing what was
in use on Portsmouth-Cardiff and Cardiff-Shrewsbury trains!),
so that would be spring '91, IIRC, so the oldest ones are
about 14 now. So you're right that most of the standards 
would be younger. I guess that really points up the difference
between a good procurement decision and a really bad one[1].


>Even the antique-looking
>LMS compartment coaches were probably no older
>at the time than 150s and Pacers are today.


Scuds 1 and 2 - the two Sprinter prototypes - were on the Cambrian
in '84, IIRC. That may have been for trials, mind. That makes 'em
21 this year (coo! the 150 comes of age..). Yep. Late LMS stock
could well have been younger in 1966. Again, it points up what
a good concept the 150 was (and emphasises that stuff older than
it really is past its use-by date, by pretty well any railway 
standards).
Puts an interesting slant on the whole debate, those ages. Thanks
for pointing it out.

[1] WTF BR standards anyway? All they did was increase the number
of designs in service by 10-odd... There was a case for the Brit
and for the 9F, but the rest..?

-- 
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)

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:



> Puts an interesting slant on the whole debate, those ages. Thanks
> for pointing it out.


It's a pleasure!


> 
> [1] WTF BR standards anyway? All they did was increase the number
> of designs in service by 10-odd... There was a case for the Brit
> and for the 9F, but the rest..?
> 


Where's Ian Batten when you need him? ;-)

The whole thing was nonsense in engineering terms and
only made sense if considered as a way to avoid making design staff 
redundant. (Maybe a good reason.) Some of the Manors were actually built 
by BR and could surely have lasted a couple of years (or indeed ten 
years) longer. But the Cambrian had been moved to the LMR so GWR=bad.

Charlie

"Joe Patrick"  wrote in
news:1125058753.591679.248500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: 


>> the dreary 165s make even the
>> scruffiest of Virgin's stock seem luxurious in comparison.
> 
> Even the refurbished ones? Whilst not as good as 168s, the air-con is
> brilliant, and the old style seats are still quite comfy.
> 


No experience of refurbed ones ... are they that much better?
What's brilliant about the air-con? If it's working properly, surely it 
should be unnoticeable. I hope you don't mean it keeps the train chilly - I 
hate that. I usually find air-con temperature set too low for comfort. 
Probably my fault.

Rick.

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote in message 
news:dendij$acho$1@central.aber.ac.uk...

> In article <zUEPe.4018$b4.836@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
> Charlie Hulme   wrote:
>>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>>   wrote:

>
> [1] WTF BR standards anyway? All they did was increase the number
> of designs in service by 10-odd... There was a case for the Brit
> and for the 9F, but the rest..?
>
> -- 

The BR standards would have led to a reduction in the number of steam 
classes by replacing a lot of older pre-BR team classes such as the ex-LNER 
B16, B17 classes and many of the 0-6-0 freight locos. However, this never 
proceeded to completion because of the over-hasty decision to eliminate all 
steam working before many locos had been worn out. In addition, the 
Marples - Beeching closures eliminated the work performed by many smaller 
types of steam locos.

If they had been more sensible, there would have been a slower replacement 
of steam, finishing in perhaps about 1975 - 1980, which would (hopefully) 
have avoided the waste of money on some of the inferior prototype diesels, 
and allowed the steam locos to justify their construction costs.

Bevan

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:05:25 +0100, Henry Law
 wrote:


>Bevan Price wrote:
>> 
>> The 101's were hardly excellence - even when new, the riding quality could 
>> be pretty awful on jointed track, and the 3 + 2 seating was totally 
>> unsuitable for some of the longer distance services they were inflicted 
>> upon, e.g. Manchester to North Wales. The only thing in their favour in 
>> recent years is that their Pacer replacements were even worse.
>> 
>Come to think of it, they were not superior to the ex-GW design
>push-pull vehicles which could be considered equivalent. (the carriages
>named after birds).


You couldn't see out of the front of the GWR autocoaches, could you?
You could on a diesel railcar, of course.

I would have put the 101 in front of any GWR autocoach, a lot of which
were very rudimentary. Those used on the Lydney-Berkeley Road line
were non-corridor compartment coaches, which I assume you would
prefer.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

> In article <4tBPe.2271$%h6.1484@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
> Charlie Hulme   wrote:
>>How many professors from the RCA did Churchward and Collett employ?
> 
> Hmmm. That might go some way towards explaining why most of Churchward's
> early designs were regarded as repulsively ugly in their day ;)
> 


Holcroft tidied them up and added the curved platform ends. Churchward
was of the brutalist school of design. So was H A Ivatt. There was an
alternative drawing of the class 4 2-6-0 with lower platform and curved
ends, a bit like the K1 with an LMS boiler. The angular form of the
43XXX series was a styling decision.

Henry Law

Rick Hughes wrote:

> "Joe Patrick"  wrote in
> news:1125058753.591679.248500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: 
> 
>>>the dreary 165s make even the
>>>scruffiest of Virgin's stock seem luxurious in comparison.
>>Even the refurbished ones? Whilst not as good as 168s, the air-con is
>>brilliant, and the old style seats are still quite comfy.
>>
> 
> No experience of refurbed ones ... are they that much better?
> What's brilliant about the air-con? If it's working properly, surely it 
> should be unnoticeable. I hope you don't mean it keeps the train chilly - I 
> hate that. I usually find air-con temperature set too low for comfort. 
> Probably my fault.
> 
> Rick.


I made a return journey, out Pendolino, back 165. 165 definitely
preferable. The air con on these trains has never been known to fail -
it is 100% reliable.

Henry Law

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:18:13 +0100, Henry Law
 wrote:


>I made a return journey, out Pendolino, back 165. 165 definitely
>preferable. The air con on these trains has never been known to fail -
>it is 100% reliable.


Can anyone confirm if it is actually aircon, or evaporative cooling?
The latter is a far simpler (and cheaper) technology, though it has
the effect of making the air more, rather than less, humid.

I recall that Chiltern were selling it as "comfort cooling", which is
what makes me wonder.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:18:13 +0100, Henry Law
>  wrote:
>
> >I made a return journey, out Pendolino, back 165. 165 definitely
> >preferable. The air con on these trains has never been known to fail -
> >it is 100% reliable.
>
> Can anyone confirm if it is actually aircon, or evaporative cooling?
> The latter is a far simpler (and cheaper) technology, though it has
> the effect of making the air more, rather than less, humid.
>
> I recall that Chiltern were selling it as "comfort cooling", which is
> what makes me wonder.




I assumed he meant the windows.  168 is another matter.

On 28 Aug 2005 04:04:44 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:


>I assumed he meant the windows.  168 is another matter.


Aren't Chiltern refurbing the 165s with aircon?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:

> On 28 Aug 2005 04:04:44 -0700, "MIG" 
> wrote:
>
> >I assumed he meant the windows.  168 is another matter.
>
> Aren't Chiltern refurbing the 165s with aircon?



Ah, maybe.  But my interpretation was funnier ...

MIG wrote:

> Neil Williams wrote:
>>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:18:13 +0100, Henry Law
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I made a return journey, out Pendolino, back 165. 165 definitely
>>>preferable. The air con on these trains has never been known to fail -
>>>it is 100% reliable.
>>Can anyone confirm if it is actually aircon, or evaporative cooling?
>>The latter is a far simpler (and cheaper) technology, though it has
>>the effect of making the air more, rather than less, humid.
>>
>>I recall that Chiltern were selling it as "comfort cooling", which is
>>what makes me wonder.
> 
> 
> 
> I assumed he meant the windows.  168 is another matter.
> 


I did. But they would be better with sliding windows with an airdam.

Henry Law

On 2005-08-27, Henry Law  wrote:

> Rick Hughes wrote:
>> "Joe Patrick"  wrote in
>> news:1125058753.591679.248500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: 
>> 
>>>>the dreary 165s make even the
>>>>scruffiest of Virgin's stock seem luxurious in comparison.
>>>Even the refurbished ones? Whilst not as good as 168s, the air-con is
>>>brilliant, and the old style seats are still quite comfy.
>>>
>> 
>> No experience of refurbed ones ... are they that much better?
>> What's brilliant about the air-con? If it's working properly, surely it 
>> should be unnoticeable. I hope you don't mean it keeps the train chilly - I 
>> hate that. I usually find air-con temperature set too low for comfort. 
>> Probably my fault.
>> 
>> Rick.
>
> I made a return journey, out Pendolino, back 165. 165 definitely
> preferable. The air con on these trains has never been known to fail -
> it is 100% reliable.


Not quite 100% reliable but very very nearly so.  I've travelled on a
refurbed Chiltern 165 with failed aircon in one carriage and no openable
windows.  Rather stuffy - but it was a lightly-loaded train and
thankfully only happened the once.

On 28 Aug 2005 21:41:01 GMT, Matt Saunders  wrote:


>Not quite 100% reliable but very very nearly so.  I've travelled on a
>refurbed Chiltern 165 with failed aircon in one carriage and no openable
>windows.  Rather stuffy - but it was a lightly-loaded train and
>thankfully only happened the once.


I think it was a seriously bad move on CH's part to remove the opening
windows when aircon was fitted.  It would have been preferable to
modify them in some way to allow them to be crew-operated only.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Roland Perry wrote:


> Had my first experience of a sewage smell in the vestibule of a Meridian 
> this week. Not sure how commonplace this is, as I usually try to avoid 
> travelling on them.


A Meridian? I thought the toilet plumbing on Meridians have been moved 
to underneath the coach to prevent this. It's certainly not a problem 
the affect any of the Hull Trains Pioneers at all. Perhaps someone had 
just left a "suprise" in the toilet (this is what was causing the nasty 
smell in coach B of the 17:33 Kings Cross - Bradford HST on Wednesday)?

Philip.

In message , at 07:40:56 on Thu, 1 
Sep 2005, Philip Hardy  remarked:

>> Had my first experience of a sewage smell in the vestibule of a 
>>Meridian  this week. Not sure how commonplace this is, as I usually 
>>try to avoid  travelling on them.
>
>A Meridian? I thought the toilet plumbing on Meridians have been moved 
>to underneath the coach to prevent this. It's certainly not a problem 
>the affect any of the Hull Trains Pioneers at all. Perhaps someone had 
>just left a "suprise" in the toilet (this is what was causing the nasty 
>smell in coach B of the 17:33 Kings Cross - Bradford HST on Wednesday)?


I dunno. I just got on the train, which was starting from Nottingham and 
which had been locked (as they always do) until a few minutes before 
departure while the crew do whatever they do preparing it for the next 
trip. One hopes that might include having a quick look for "surprises" 
in the toilets.

As I said before, this was the first time I'd noticed such a smell on a 
Meridian, but it was unmistakable.
-- 
Roland Perry