First Group class 222?

[Dave]

Death to loco hauled carriage stock and indeed loco hauled everything...

There's far too much froth about it.

DMU, EMU, DEMU and FMUs for the massive win.

[Brianetta]

Death to loco hauled carriage stock and indeed loco hauled everything...

There's far too much froth about it.

DMU, EMU, DEMU and FMUs for the massive win.

EMU, sure, but not so much DMU. I was on a Pacer last week, which is card that loses to anything in the Top Trumps Trains deck. Those things look like buses, feel like buses, sound like buses... and are made with organ donor parts from dead buses.

I have to say that Voyager 220s aren't aging well. They're noisy, the bogs still smell a bit and the seats look a little bit school-bus. The refurbed 125s are nicer inside, assuming the air-con works, and they don't rumble, which improves the ride. The 185 is nice, but I haven't seen one with a buffet car yet.

Loco hauled trains have better ride quality than DMUs simply because there's no engine under the floor. That's not subjective, either - they have tools to measure it.

[Ameecher]

Well given a choice I will take the loco hauled option every time, and that is not from a nostalgic view point. Locos do give a smoother ride. When returning to Norwich from Stratford (London) I have the choice of getting an EMU to Ipswich and changing there to go to Norwich or catching a loco hauled train direct. Even if the train didn't go direct I'd probably still catch the loco hauled train (within reason) because the ride quality is somewhat superior. I have had the misfortune before now to have to have to return to Norwich from London on an EMU the whole way (journey time about 2 hours) something that is quite frankly horrible. The EMUs are bumpy and old (although all of the EMUs are newer than the coaches used on the Loco hauled services).

When it comes to DMU services, I don't mind DMUs that much, On my line it is the track that gives the bad ride (being largely jointed rail) not the train, infact class 170 DMUs give an even worse ride than 150/3/6 DMUs. The 158/170 trains that operate from Norwich to the Midlands and the North are not bad, again the track lets them down between Norwich and Ely but then the journey gets smoother when on the ECML and properly maintained track. As for my experience of 222s (I've not been on a 220/1) It is generally good, they are quiet and very smooth.

185s: I've not been on one but they are a damn site more noisy the 158s that they replace, perhaps due to extremely thirsty and over-powerful engines that they have.

I would add more but Dinner is smelling good.

[Dave]

EMU, sure, but not so much DMU. I was on a Pacer last week, which is card that loses to anything in the Top Trumps Trains deck. Those things look like buses, feel like buses, sound like buses... and are made with organ donor parts from dead buses.

Well... They don't even have bogie wheels... They're literally two axled. Someone once tried to claim that a 2-car Pacer was a set of bogies.

I have to say that Voyager 220s aren't aging well. They're noisy, the bogs still smell a bit and the seats look a little bit school-bus.

It's always been like that.

The refurbed 125s are nicer inside, assuming the air-con works, and they don't rumble, which improves the ride.

This being GNER, whereas FGW's are broken every day.

The 185 is nice, but I haven't seen one with a buffet car yet.

Nor shall you. The railway is about profiteering these days. Wasting one car of three on a buffet car is like using a third of a plane's passenger capacity for luggage - it makes no sense.

Loco hauled trains have better ride quality than DMUs simply because there's no engine under the floor. That's not subjective, either - they have tools to measure it.

Of course, but how many lines would have closed due to the lack of DMUs? And I'd rather have a low-emission DMU hauling my train than a 37 leaving a carbon footprint wider than King Kong.

And I've had enough of arguments over 37 v 47 and 56 v 66 and so on.

It doesn't happen here really but on another forum I'm on it's beyond a joke.

[Parkey]

This being GNER, whereas FGW's are broken every day.

That's not true. I've only seen one on fire once in a whole year! FGW's main problem is when their Trains pull over for 10-15 minutes about 200m short of the platform at Paddington, presumably so the driver can play a game of tetris on his gameboy.

Saying we should get rid of DMUs is silly though. It's like saying we shouldn't use propellers on aircraft because jets are "better". DMUs are obviously best suited for some roles. I just think that sticking the engine in one carriage is better than a whole train of vibrating carriages. The 220s, 221s, 222s, and 180s seem to bridge the gap between long express trains and short DMUs.

Then there's the 8-coach 222, the B-52 bomber of trains. 8 engines!

For me the Class 91 with DVT is still my favourite concept.

[Ameecher]

The trouble with DVTs is their crash worthiness, because it is just a coach with driving controls. This means that in an accident they are far more like to ride up over the other train (in a head long collison in anycase) and cause a lot more damage, injuries and ultimately fatalities. Sticking an engine weighs the whole thing down more making it far less likely that it will ride up over the frame of the other train.

It doesn't even have to be a train. In the Polmont Accident (1984) 13 people were killed when a DVT hit a cow. Think what would have happened if that was a train.

As for crash worthiness of Pacers... http://mark5812.fotopic.net/p10570275.html

That is what happens when a class 87 travelling at 50mph it's the back of a stationary pacer. Wipe Out.

[Dave]

Wasn't that 87 successfully restored?

[Ameecher]

It was indeed. The Pacer, not suprisingly was a write-off.

[Dave]

The driver of the Pacer was the luckiest of the lot... But hey... He shouldn't have SPAD'd.