Hi all,

I've spent much of the last week travelling about on an All-Line Rover, 
sampling a lot of stock away from my native north-east... Most of my 
comments of the new Classes I've tried so far are fairly positive, so if 
Henry Law is reading this, you might want to look away... now.

Class 170 (Central Trains):

I've only had one trip on a Turbostar before, and it was some years ago and 
fairly brief, so it was a good opportunity to give a unit a proper test run. 
Overall impressions were good, I had no problems with the seating but the 
tilt-profile bodyshell made it a little tricky to rest comfortably when 
sitting in a window seat! Ride quality was reasonable, though the underfloor 
noise seemed a little more noticeable on a Voyager. 7/10

Class 175 (ATW):

A very good passenger interior, let down by mechanical woes and in the case 
of the two units I rode in today, the mess! These units feel very spacious, 
unhindered by the narrower 170/22x tilt-profile body. The shape of the seats 
took some getting used to, 'pinching' at the small of the back which made 
sitting back a little uncomfortable. Only let down by the bumpy ride 
quality, it's a shame they've been beset by technical problems. I'll 
hopefully try it's cousin, the Adelante, at some point this week. Not a bad 
unit overall. 7.5/10

Class 222 (Midland Mainline and Hull Trains):

Why couldn't the Voyagers be more like this? IMHO the best new rolling stock 
of the last few years. The overhead luggage racks are an improvement over 
the Voyager's, in the case of both MML and HT the reservation displays 
seemed to be working okay, and I rate the seats very highly indeed. The 
paired seats (as opposed to two far-too-narrow individual ones) seem to give 
a sense of privacy without claustropobia, in part down to the high windows. 
The centre armrests of the HT units, that fold and blend into the seats, 
reminded me of Mk1 corridor coach seating! The underfloor engines seem to be 
less noticeable than those of Voyagers too. Probably my favourite of the 
'new breed', with the HT one edging out in front on account of the interior 
colour, though that's a matter of taste. 9.5/10

Class 360 (Heathrow Connect):

Not bad at all - with three more days left hopefully I'm sample the 360's 
SWT and West Coast cousins. The 2+3 didn't feel too cramped, the information 
displays worked and the general 'quality' was good - the interior seems far 
more sturdy than Bombardier's products. The air conditioning kept the 
temperature comfortable, a far cry from a lot of modern stock. If this is 
what Siemens can come up with, I look forward to the 185s. :) While the 
Heathrow Connect unit seemed a little 'basic', it more than meets the needs 
of a fast, suburban EMU. The ride quality in particular was excellent, with 
a smooth start, good acceleration and very little noticeable noise! 8/10

Class 390:

I've saved the worst until last... yuck! It was like someone took an 
airliner, made it narrow and snapped the wings off. The high seat backs 
combined with the tiny windows made the units feel incredibly 
claustrophobic, and I was glad for the Stafford-Euston journey I was on to 
end. A thick 'ledge' makes sitting by the window very uncomfortable and I 
found I had to crane my neck down to look out of the window most of the 
time - seeing anything out of the far side was virtually impossible. The 
tilt, on the other hand, seems to work well was only noticeable on a small 
handful of occasions. Unlike the Voyagers, distributed traction seems to 
work well, with noise levels from the traction motors no louder than the 
bogie noise of a Mk4, at least to my ears. Nonetheless, the small windows 
and cramped interiors really let these units down. Sorry Alstom. 5/10.

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

Rich Mackin wrote:

> Class 170 (Central Trains):
> 
> I've only had one trip on a Turbostar before, and it was some years ago and 
> fairly brief, so it was a good opportunity to give a unit a proper test run. 
> Overall impressions were good, I had no problems with the seating but the 
> tilt-profile bodyshell made it a little tricky to rest comfortably when 
> sitting in a window seat! Ride quality was reasonable, though the underfloor 
> noise seemed a little more noticeable on a Voyager. 7/10
> 


I've never had problems with (nor noticed) the wall in the Scottish 
turbostars, and have infact rather liked the window ledge so dearly 
missing in so many trains! I certainly wouldn't call it a tilt profile, 
nowhere near it.

Rich Mackin wrote:

> Class 170 (Central Trains):
> 
> I've only had one trip on a Turbostar before, and it was some years ago and 
> fairly brief, so it was a good opportunity to give a unit a proper test run. 
> Overall impressions were good, I had no problems with the seating but the 
> tilt-profile bodyshell made it a little tricky to rest comfortably when 
> sitting in a window seat! Ride quality was reasonable, though the underfloor 
> noise seemed a little more noticeable on a Voyager. 7/10


I agree with that....The body profile is just silly, and in the Anglia 
170s its nearly impossible to sit properly in the seat nearest the 
window (especially if there is a table)
The engine noise can be quite bad, especially when sitting at the 
carriage ends.

I've found the ride quality can be ok in perfect track, but as soon as 
its either a little rough, or jointed rail its worse than rattling along 
on an old Heritage DMU

Rich Mackin wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> >
> Class 170 (Central Trains):
>
> I've only had one trip on a Turbostar before, and it was some years ago and
> fairly brief, so it was a good opportunity to give a unit a proper test run.
> Overall impressions were good, I had no problems with the seating but the
> tilt-profile bodyshell made it a little tricky to rest comfortably when
> sitting in a window seat! > *** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
> Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
> MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com


Class 170 does not have a tilt body profile.

jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

> Class 170 does not have a tilt body profile.


Interesting...I always thought it had that still body profile so that it 
could potentially tilt.

If that's not the idea it makes the narrow bodyshell of the *ostar even 
more pointless then

> Class 170 (Central Trains):
>
> I've only had one trip on a Turbostar before, and it was some years ago 
> and fairly brief, so it was a good opportunity to give a unit a proper 
> test run. Overall impressions were good, I had no problems with the 
> seating but the tilt-profile bodyshell made it a little tricky to rest 
> comfortably when sitting in a window seat! Ride quality was reasonable, 
> though the underfloor noise seemed a little more noticeable on a Voyager. 
> 7/10


The SWT 170's are my fave DMU's... If only Virgin could send their Voyagers 
to the fiery bowels of hell and use 170's, I may be more tempted to use 
their XC services.

In message <vMmSe.2509$7p1.1884@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, at 19:25:15 on 
Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Rich Mackin  
remarked:

>Class 222 (Midland Mainline and Hull Trains):
>
>Why couldn't the Voyagers be more like this? IMHO the best new rolling stock
>of the last few years. The overhead luggage racks are an improvement over
>the Voyager's,


Still not big enough for my overnight case, which is small enough to 
class as carry-on under-seat luggage in an aeroplane.


>in the case of both MML and HT the reservation displays seemed to be 
>working okay,


Not on the one I used recently. I think it had the following problem: 
The seats with no Reservation said "No reservation", but the seats which 
*did* simply had the seat number, and no information. Not even the word 
"reserved". I still find that people sit anywhere they want, then claim 
they hadn't seen the signs.


>The underfloor engines seem to be
>less noticeable than those of Voyagers too.


So you didn't get a Meridian where all the ceiling panels rattle? 
Especially noticeable when standing at a station.

-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:57:18 +0100, "Thomas"  wrote:


>The SWT 170's are my fave DMU's... If only Virgin could send their Voyagers 
>to the fiery bowels of hell and use 170's, I may be more tempted to use 
>their XC services. 


I wonder[1], and did at the time Voyagers were being specced, if some
6-car 170s with buffet area and MML-style first class, in sufficient
numbers for a 100mph timetable, would have been cheaper and better for
XC?

[1] much as I like Voyagers

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.

In article <431aa6c3$0$97097$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
Darren   wrote:

>jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
>> Class 170 does not have a tilt body profile.
>
>Interesting...I always thought it had that still body profile so that it 
>could potentially tilt.
>
>If that's not the idea it makes the narrow bodyshell of the *ostar even 
>more pointless then


Never even considered. The body profile was to get the widest possible
route availability, given that the gauging information available at
the time was - ahem - less then comprehensive (see Informed Sources
IIRC last month). It didn't quite work out as they don't seem to
be allowed down the Cambrian, in spite of some of the early CT units
makng it to Aber shortly after their introduction.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
		"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
						(Peter D. Rieden)

Roland Perry wrote:


> >
> Still not big enough for my overnight case, which is small enough to
> class as carry-on under-seat luggage in an aeroplane.
>


Aircraft luggage facilities are closed affairs with doors to prevent
luggage falling on passengers. Generally able to take 50-60kg loadings.
Modern stock was designed to prevent people putting such heavy items
above passengers heads where it has been known to become hazardous to
health in the event of an accident or even heavy braking.

In message , at 
16:14:20 on Mon, 5 Sep 2005, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk remarked:

>> Still not big enough for my overnight case, which is small enough to
>> class as carry-on under-seat luggage in an aeroplane.
>
>Aircraft luggage facilities are closed affairs with doors to prevent
>luggage falling on passengers. Generally able to take 50-60kg loadings.


Maybe so, but I was referring to a carry-on small enough to put under an 
aircraft seat. You'd have to put lead bricks inside such a thing to make 
it weigh 60kg. And as I'm sure you know, airline carryons are generally 
limited (for commercial rather than design issues) these days to 
anything between 5kg and 10kg.


>Modern stock was designed to prevent people putting such heavy items
>above passengers heads where it has been known to become hazardous to
>health in the event of an accident or even heavy braking.


Perhaps that's why so much of it ends up on seats? Both of my "reserved" 
seats on a Meridian recently were occupied by people with an 
accompanying pile of bags on the adjacent seat.

Where *does* one put the bags? I don't recall these trains having much 
space between the seat backs, and I'm certainly not going to leave it 
out of eyeshot for "security reasons".
-- 
Roland Perry

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 07:46:00 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


> And as I'm sure you know, airline carryons are generally 
>limited (for commercial rather than design issues) these days to 
>anything between 5kg and 10kg.


On EasyJet they're not.  Indeed, you can take what you like within
reason so long as you can carry it and it's not so big it gets in the
way.  A very sensible policy, which is one of the few "win-win"
situations business likes to talk about, because EasyJet get to save
money on checking in luggage, while passengers are happy not to be
messed around.

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.

In message , at 07:41:52 on Tue, 6 Sep 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 07:46:00 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>> And as I'm sure you know, airline carryons are generally
>>limited (for commercial rather than design issues) these days to
>>anything between 5kg and 10kg.
>
>On EasyJet they're not.


Which is exactly why I said "generally"!!

They haven't increased the allowable *size*, though. (55x40x20cm), which 
is what we were complaining about with regard to the Meridian luggage 
racks.

As it happens, my "carryon" bag is designed to be the maximum IATA size 
in at least two dimensions (it's 55x30x20) and the Meridian racks don't 
accept the 20cm (I suspect they might just take 19cm), and are only 30cm 
deep (so wouldn't take the 40cm dimension for a carry-on).
-- 
Roland Perry

In article , Neil Williams
 wrote:


> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 07:46:00 +0100, Roland Perry 
> wrote:
> 
> > And as I'm sure you know, airline carryons are generally 
> >limited (for commercial rather than design issues) these days to 
> >anything between 5kg and 10kg.
> 
> On EasyJet they're not.  Indeed, you can take what you like within
> reason so long as you can carry it and it's not so big it gets in the
> way.  A very sensible policy, which is one of the few "win-win"
> situations business likes to talk about, because EasyJet get to save
> money on checking in luggage, while passengers are happy not to be
> messed around.


Maybe things have changed in the last couple of years, but my
experience with EJ was less than comforting.  I play bass guitar in a
ceilidh band and we were flying EDI-LGW for a gig[1].  My bass is a
headless design which is about the same size as a solid body electic
guitar.  I searched the EJ web site for whether I could take it on
board as hand luggage or whether I was going to have to borrow a flight
case[2].  Eventually I found an FAQ that said musical instruments were
OK as hand luggage so long as they fitted in to the overhead lockers. 
It didn't say what size the lockers were.  I phoned up and got someone
who said "I don't think we take guitars".  I pointed out the web site
and he agreed it didn't single out guitars and gave me the relevant
dimensions[3] into which my guitar fitted perfectly (and almost
exactly).  

At checkin the attendant at the desk said "you can't take that as hand
luggage, we don't take guitars".  I got red faced and indignant and she
relented muttering things about "I really shouldn't let you, the flight
is full today" and so on.  In the event it was no problem at all and
the volume of the guitar was much less than the hand luggage carried by
some other people.

On the return flight the checkin was fine and the attendant,
unprompted, produced an "EasyJet hand luggage" label to put on the
guitar.  At the gate one of the people checking boarding passes said
"you can't take a guitar on board".  I got red faced and indignant
again, showing the label, and again they relented with bad grace.

Consistency?  No way.

Sam


[1] The *only* time we've ever been flown to a gig.

[2] To buy a flight case to carry the guitar safely on an aircraft
would cost about the same as the tickets for the six band members.

[3] which turned out to be much smaller than the locker, but probably
too small to fit an acoustic guitar.

Roland Perry wrote:

>>
> Maybe so, but I was referring to a carry-on small enough to put under an
> aircraft seat. You'd have to put lead bricks inside such a thing to make
> it weigh 60kg. And as I'm sure you know, airline carryons are generally
> limited (for commercial rather than design issues) these days to
> anything between 5kg and 10kg.
>


Apologies I did not make myself clear, the bin doors are designed to
take 60kg loadings under slightly worse than normal G loadings. I was
not suggesting they take 60 kg bags. The luggage racks on all modern
stock, not having doors, have to remain small to prevent "most" heavy
items being put in them. This is a design requirement. I agree that a
filled laptop case flying from such a rack is also likely to mar one's
day. I cannot remember if 22x series have spaces between he seats but
175/180 do. When I travel on 180s with a bag similar to a flight bag I
generally put it under my legs on the floor using an airline style seat
if possible.

Jon Porter wrote:


>The luggage racks on all modern
>stock, not having doors, have to remain small to prevent "most" heavy
>items being put in them. This is a design requirement.


It is interesting that the Pendolino has a much more useful shape of
rack that does actually allow for larger bags compared with the Mk2
and Mk3, whether intentional or not.  It's also more accessible, being
lower down.

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 Tue, 6 Sep 2005 07:46:00 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>Where *does* one put the bags? I don't recall these trains having much 
>space between the seat backs,


ISTM that the few spaces between seat backs in modern trains are
generally filled by various boxes that prevent them being used to
store luggage. However, there is space under the seats for small
bags, at least in 22xs.


>and I'm certainly not going to leave it 
>out of eyeshot for "security reasons".


One of the reasons for the provision of luggage racks in the middle
of coaches in some trains. However, to use these it is necessary for
there to be a suitably wide aisle, which is one of the places where
22xs are better than refurbished Mark IVs.

There is also the question of "design" "consultants" and their
works. GNER have "cleverly" added wood effect panels to their
luggage racks, so one cannot keep an eye on one's bag from most
seats. This is just stupid and I'm surprised they have continued
with this. The so-called security bods could do something useful for
once by getting this "feature" removed.




-- 
 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.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:11:02 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>GNER have "cleverly" added wood effect panels to their
>luggage racks, so one cannot keep an eye on one's bag from most
>seats. This is just stupid and I'm surprised they have continued
>with this. The so-called security bods could do something useful for
>once by getting this "feature" removed.


Didn't think of that, but you're right.  fGW's proposed HST refurb
removes such a panel and puts glass in its place.

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.