# MISC | Photos of Rolling Stock



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I have been to many countries around the world, and use the trains in most, and seen the trains in them all...:cheers:

I ALWAYS think that they either look weird due to the unusual designs (square windows, flat or very high roofs, slip level coaches etc)

I don't know if this is just because I am used to English trains or if they are actually weird...

What do you think? Do you like the APPEARANCE of English trains and think other countries trains are strange???

*Here are my favourite trains in England that I think look good...*

Class 180 DMU...










Class 332 EMU...










Class 158 Sprinter DMU...










HST with Mk3 coaches...










Class 170 DMU...


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)

all in the eyes of the beholder. I personally really like Toronto's old streetcars.


----------



## Buddy Holly (Sep 24, 2008)

Those trains look OK at best.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Not particularly the best selection of English trains, though I do agree that our rolling stock (as it is quite new compared to other countries) is definitely not bad at all.

Some of the best rolling stock I have seen with my own eyes, however, has been the Swiss and German. The ICE series in particular is far superior to anything the UK has to offer in terms of comfort, aesthetics and functionality.


----------



## bluemeansgo (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm sorry... but in general I find UK trains bland and ugly. They're stuck in a quagmire between ugly and dated.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

poshbakerloo said:


>


uke::runaway:


----------



## Avientu (Jul 12, 2007)

They are certainly nothing to write home about. Not that they are ugly or anything, but other countries in Europe have a far more impressive rolling stock. British trains tends to be older than in other European countries on average.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Foreign trains are 'scary' looking because they are slightly bigger and platforms are lower, making them look like giants.

The designs of our trains are seriously contrained by the fact that below platform level they cant extend much beyond the track.


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

so you really think a Velaro is worse than these..


----------



## loefet (Dec 30, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> What do you think? Do you like the APPEARANCE of English trains and think other countries trains are strange???


I have to say that I'm somewhat like you, but I really like the looks of most Japanese trains, but the rest of what I have seen in the world look pretty bland.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

loefet said:


> I have to say that I'm somewhat like you, but I really like the looks of most Japanese trains, but the rest of what I have seen in the world look pretty bland.


Yeah, I always tend to find that trains in other countries always have some weird feature. If its lots of very narrow windows, for a strangely high roof, or some odd cab design at the front or something else...

I always think English trains have the best proportions and the best overall appearance...

Here are some examples of what I think look weird...





































*And just to compare those last few EMUs with this, a Class 323 English EMU, which I think looks much better...*


----------



## quashlo (Jun 14, 2008)

It's a matter of taste. I like some of the English trains I've seen, but I also think some of them look dated.

Perhaps it wasn't intentional and you were just looking for non-English trains with special cab designs, but there are high-speed intercity, suburban, and urban rolling stock in your pictures. I would at least compare rolling stock which performs the same functions since after all, form follows function.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

I agree with PoshBakerloo in principle. British trains look better. But only the newer ones. Those trainsets with a proper driver's cab and wide windscreen. Older trainsets look rather like a cut sausage. Anyway, the absence of a locomotive gives British trains a more flashy appearance.

Still, there are exceptions. No train looks better and feels better than the ICE3/ICE-T. Apart from that there is nothing worth mentioning on continental tracks. Well, they are OK at least.

Outside of Europe trains tend to look rather like cattle trains. Even those which are mean for passengers. Especially trains in north America are downright ugly.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

That subject is really a matter of taste.

My own experience that all the trains I used in and around London looked shockingly bad in their interior left me with a not too impressed memory of the British rail system. 

I hope those trains I used are rather sooner than later subject of replacement or serious updating of the interior.


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)

flierfy said:


> Outside of Europe trains tend to look rather like cattle trains. Even those which are mean for passengers. Especially trains in north America are downright ugly.


what an ethnocentric way of thinking. or might I say alittle blind?


----------



## Spam King (May 14, 2008)

How could you find british trains nicer than that?? (especially the second)


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ The second is ugly.

This one on the other hand









http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazytom/853582431/

or 









http://www.flickr.com/photos/lastarial/2379927467/

or 









http://www.flickr.com/photos/thijmen189/2752443855/

This one also looks much better then the British ones.









http://www.flickr.com/photos/lastarial/2785728307/


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Spam King said:


> How could you find british trains nicer than that?? (especially the second)



^^^^
I don't like any of those trains, I just think they look like over designed trams...

I think this looks better...

Class 333


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> ^^ The second is ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not too keen on the train...but I like the livery on the coaches!


Oh, and just for the record...This French train I think is one of the worst in terms of the way it looks...


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

first of all, stating that ONLY british trains look good is rather stupid and probably nationalistic, but okay, its aesthetics, whatever, grain of salt right?


second, IMHO (you see..) british trains are one of the ugliest, right after american and australian ones. they are bulky, a great deal are diesel to begin with, not at all aerodynamic and theres absolutely no emphasys on the color


so lets take it step by step

1. high speed trains: MY favourite is the Siemens Velaro, right after that is the new AGV then the old TGVs, starting with the double decker then the older one

2. regular trainsets: Siemens Desiro, Bomb. Talent and Stadler Flirt. There are probably others, but these are MY favs

3. locomotives: Siemens 'Taurus' and the swiss 2000whatever model i dont know the name of

these are aerodynamic, well proportioned, well painted etc.


various velaros:









flirt in hungary:


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> Those 'flirt' trains I would put in my "worst appearance ever" section...


really...

then I suppose these are way better


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> I think this looks better...
> 
> Class 333


and i think i should qoute Jeremy Clarkson: ITS A SH!T


----------



## Papacu (Oct 16, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have been to many countries around the world, and use the trains in most, and seen the trains in them all...:cheers:
> I ALWAYS think that they either look weird, or just plain ugly!
> I don't know if this is just because I am used to English trains or if they are actually weird...
> What do you think? Do you like the APPEARANCE of English trains and think other countries trains are strange???
> Here are my favourite trains in England that I think look good...


Britons aways look better: For the english people with english taste!



:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> Do you mean trains that where new in the 80s? or the 1950-1960s DMUs?


I mean engines like these:









Source: railfaneurope.net


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have been to many countries around the world, and use the trains in most, and seen the trains in them all...:cheers:
> 
> I ALWAYS think that they either look weird, or just plain ugly!


I doubt many, if anyone at all, would agree with this statement..


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

gramercy said:


> really...
> 
> then I suppose these are way better


Ok, so you did pic out some bad pics there...there first one (Class 158) yeah I think it looks better...
That Flirt train that I didn't like doesn't even look like a proper train, just some light train thing...

Here is a better pic of a Class 158














Maxx☢Power;33560674 said:


> I doubt many, if anyone at all, would agree with this statement..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They look UGLY

They look like someone is trying too make them into some form of 'modern art' or light rail train...

The TGVs I like are great trains! But I'm not all keen on the way they look, the fronts are fine but the coaches I really don't like. They look very boxy...




JoKo65 said:


> I mean engines like these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, they where just being taken out of service in the 1980s / early 1990s...


Even England's 35 year old trains look good! (for their age) much better than trains of that age from other places...


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

oops double post


----------



## joseph1951 (Aug 19, 2007)

Republica said:


> Foreign trains are 'scary' looking because they are slightly bigger and platforms are lower, making them look like giants.
> 
> The designs of our trains are seriously contrained by the fact that below platform level they cant extend much beyond the track.


I agree entirely.


----------



## joseph1951 (Aug 19, 2007)

Svartmetall said:


> Not particularly the best selection of English trains, though I do agree that our rolling stock (as it is quite new compared to other countries) is definitely not bad at all.
> 
> Some of the best rolling stock I have seen with my own eyes, however, has been the Swiss and German. The ICE series in particular is far superior to anything the UK has to offer in terms of comfort, aesthetics and functionality.


I agree


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> They look UGLY
> 
> They look like someone is trying too make them into some form of 'modern art' or light rail train...
> 
> The TGVs I like are great trains! But I'm not all keen on the way they look, the fronts are fine but the coaches I really don't like. They look very boxy.


I think it's you against the world on this one. I do like some of the "high speed" ones, but the rest look like something that should be parked in a scrapyard. Even Amtrak has better looking trains..


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Maxx☢Power;33568152 said:


> I think it's you against the world on this one. I do like some of the "high speed" ones, but the rest look like something that should be parked in a scrapyard. Even Amtrak has better looking trains..


I can see what you mean about everyone disagreeing lol...but...

I still think that pretty much all European none high speed trains look like trams...and the high speed ones are 'ok' but have weird design features e.g. very boxy coaches etc

And as for Amtrak...

hmmm well the Acela Express looks fine...I'm not too sure about those super liners though...


----------



## Grunnen (Jan 16, 2008)

How about this one then?








Has a yellow front and isn't too boxy, so it must be beautiful. :lol:

By the way, the British trains don't look the way they do because of aesthetics. The engineers just try to make optimal use of the loading gauge, that's why British trains are wider a little above the platforms.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Grunnen said:


> How about this one then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It, just like a lot of countries trains look too industrial...

The issue I have is most trains from other countries is that they either look like trams...










look too industrial 










have some strange design feature...


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Maxx☢Power;33560674 said:


> I doubt many, if anyone at all, would agree with this statement..


The TGV is technologically high end. Its appearance, however, is disappointing. One can expect better from the French.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

^^^^

THANKYOU!

I never said that it was a BAD train...but I don't like the way it LOOKS! With its short boxy coaches...


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

I find this...









...and this beautiful:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

^^^^just for the record, thanx for posting that, just to make it clear to everyone else, this is not just about new trains...

I like this as well...I think it looks good (for its age 1963)


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

It seems that the old british trains are always missing their lights.

On the newer british trains the front lights look sometimes quite funny, a bit like a comic train. A well, it is the land of Thomas, the engine.


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

British trains IMO have better proportions than others posted on this thread...

The only attractive ones from other countries, to me, are the high speed trains.

And I think some people are focusing too much on the garish colours that the TOCs paint on them over the design of the trains themselves.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

iampuking said:


> British trains IMO have better proportions than others posted on this thread...
> 
> The only attractive ones from other countries, to me, are the high speed trains.
> 
> And I think some people are focusing too much on the garish colours that the TOCs paint on them over the design of the trains themselves.


Yeah thats what I think...The windows are all a good size (not too wide or narrow etc) the coaches are all a good length (not too short or long) the roofs are a good shape (not too high or flat)

and its not just the old British trains...the new ones are just as good looking

MK1 Coach...










MK2 Coach...










MK3 Coach...










MK4 Coach...










and even the new Class 222's are well shaped...


----------



## Grunnen (Jan 16, 2008)

iampuking said:


> British trains IMO have better proportions than others posted on this thread...


Like I said, British trains have those proportions only because of a particular technical limitation. A very unpractical limitation, because it makes double-deck trains impossible.

So it's just a matter of what you are used to.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ Not even necessarily what you're used to either - I'm used to British trains yet prefer Swiss and German rolling stock to our own (despite the age difference between them).


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

flierfy said:


> I agree with PoshBakerloo in principle. British trains look better. But only the newer ones. Those trainsets with a proper driver's cab and wide windscreen. Older trainsets look rather like a cut sausage. Anyway, the absence of a locomotive gives British trains a more flashy appearance.
> 
> Still, there are exceptions. No train looks better and feels better than the ICE3/ICE-T. Apart from that there is nothing worth mentioning on continental tracks. Well, they are OK at least.
> 
> Outside of Europe trains tend to look rather like cattle trains. Even those which are mean for passengers. Especially trains in north America are downright ugly.


The biggest problem with NA trains is the mishmash of rolling stock. Different paint schemes and different cars just thrown together to make a train. It's nothing more than underfunding really. Some trains here look pretty decent. Amtrak California, for instance, seems to have it's stuff together. 










Good paint with all matching cars. None of the completely-different-style mail cars mucking it up either. Could use a bath though. 

And yes, most of our locomotives are based on freight locos. Why wouldn't they be though? 99% of our rail is freight, it only makes sense for our passenger trains to have inherited some of it. It's kind of nice too, as it sets us apart. Trains in Europe all *LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME!* Deciding which is nicer is really nothing more than a matter of choosing which paint scheme you like best. 

Though TGV wins the beauty contest. 

P.S. Don't knock the Superliners, there's no better way to travel. There's a reason why they are so popular.

EDIT: Here's a better pic; http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=9526


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

wonwiin said:


> A well, it is the land of Thomas, the engine.


Actually, Thomas lives on Sodor, the only connection to the British rail network is at Barrow-in-Furness.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

He Named Thor said:


> And yes, most of our locomotives are based on freight locos. Why wouldn't they be though? 99% of our rail is freight, it only makes sense for our passenger trains to have inherited some of it. It's kind of nice too, as it sets us apart. Trains in Europe all *LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME!* Deciding which is nicer is really nothing more than a matter of choosing which paint scheme you like best.
> 
> Though TGV wins the beauty contest.
> 
> ...


Rolling stock in Europe looks very different. Don't forget, Britain is in Europe and their rolling stock looks entirely different to any continental stock. Not to mention the fact that there are numerous units all over the continent that look nothing like each other.

PS: I find that Amtrack train hideous. The carriages look like shiny tin cans with tiny doors and windows. Nothing better than cattle cars for people. Eugh!


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

British trains are more compact, are curvier around the edges and stand proportionally higher on the wheels the most European trains. That are the main differences that have anything to do with the proportions. And there also design differences because British train designers like to do it their own way. They really haven't looked too much at the trends in Europe when it comes to the design of trains. 

And in Britain the only rail vehicles with a low floor are trams, therefor you may think the European light rail vehicles look like them. But that's still a matter of taste, because there is no real reason why it's bad that some trains look like trams.


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> I still think that pretty much all European none high speed trains look like trams...and the high speed ones are 'ok' but have weird design features e.g. very boxy coaches etc


Well, most of them _are_ glorified trams because they serve short-to-medium commuter routes.. Longer routes are served by entirely different trains like sleepers and HSTs. I agree that some trains like the "Duck" and the 700 series Shinkansen look weird, but I guess they're designed for function rather than form. Others again are much more aesthetically pleasing, so you can't just dismiss them all like that.



flierfy said:


> The TGV is technologically high end. Its appearance, however, is disappointing. One can expect better from the French.


The TGV is an aging beast, but it was probably among the "prettiest" when it was new. Although newer, more aerodynamic versions like the Duplex are quite different and more pleasing to the eye. As for the best looking of them all, I think the 500 series Shinkansen wins:










..closely followed by the Siemens Velaro:


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Svartmetall said:


> Rolling stock in Europe looks very different. Don't forget, Britain is in Europe and their rolling stock looks entirely different to any continental stock. Not to mention the fact that there are numerous units all over the continent that look nothing like each other.
> 
> […]


We have three main designs in Europe:

1) British.
2) Continental.
3) East european.


----------



## sarflonlad (May 13, 2005)

I prefer French and German trainsets for everything except perhaps maybe short distance commuting.

I find it charming to return to Britain after a continental vacation to see our 'unique' sense of style (basically the bastardisation of continental and celtic influence)... but lets not pretend our trains are anything to rate. A lot of the new sets were designed (and built in many cases) abroad.


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> Rolling stock in Europe looks very different. Don't forget, Britain is in Europe and their rolling stock looks entirely different to any continental stock. Not to mention the fact that there are numerous units all over the continent that look nothing like each other.
> 
> PS: I find that Amtrack train hideous. The carriages look like shiny tin cans with tiny doors and windows. Nothing better than cattle cars for people. Eugh!


I'm not sure how you make the connection between polished metal surfaces and cattle car but whatever.


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

I will never understand a person who doesnt appreciate the aesthetics of a TGV trainset. Never.


----------



## Micrav (Feb 19, 2008)

A big box of Pandora has been opened here. 

May I kindly remind that design follows function(s). Easthetic is a function among others and is one of the most subjective (I like, I don't like). 

There is good looking and no good looking everywhere in the world. Tastes change with time too. That is the definition of fashion! Fashion is what goes out of fashion... Timeless is hard to achieve (we can consider maybe nails or needles as timeless designs  ). We appreciate the beauty of the technology, etc. 

I would say for British design of trains, that Brits have have been compensating poor design with good graphic design (there are exceptions of course). British trains are simply functional, that is what makes their beauty. But to export a style is not that easy. See with design of cars. Mini, great in Britain and France... Elsewhere limited? Jaguar, great cars, not affordable by everybody. Rover (produced typically strange design only Britons can stand.) Yes, relation with UK is love-hate, without compromise. If UK companies and politics were making more compromises, maybe they would gain on all fronts. There are great designers in UK, it is a question of culture, the culture of railway is different in UK, that is all


----------



## Micrav (Feb 19, 2008)

By the way, Harry Potter train looks magical, because there is a story behind... Meditate on this :lol:


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

It is completely beyond me how some of you can seriously claim that German rolling stock were pretty. You have obviously never been here nor were you forced to use one of these trains.
They look shite from outside. They are hideous from inside. They don't match the platform height. These trains are in short an imposition for everyone's eyes. Stop mentioning German trains in this thread. Apart from one exemption they are simply atrocious.


----------



## Grunnen (Jan 16, 2008)

^^ Why so angry? Apart from the ICE and some TEE trains, I don't see any German trains at all in this thread.

And the type you quote isn't very representative either. Most of those trains have been replaced by modern double-deck trains, which look much nicer (from the inside at least) and do match platform height.


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

Grunnen said:


> Like I said, British trains have those proportions only because of a particular technical limitation. A very unpractical limitation, because it makes double-deck trains impossible.
> 
> So it's just a matter of what you are used to.


So? This isn't a discussion about why trains are attractive, but whether they are or not.

Anyway, if it wasn't for the history that produced the restricted loading guage then we wouldn't of had extensive lines for ages criss-crossing the country.


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

I do prefer the style of British trains, probably just because of the familiarity though.

If I'm ever in the mood to appreciate British trains, I just watch this!:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

*Videos of English trains*

All looking much better than any other trains ;-)

35 year old HST...looks MUCH better than any other 35 year old train!


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

flierfy said:


> It is completely beyond me how some of you can seriously claim that German rolling stock were pretty. You have obviously never been here nor were you forced to use one of these trains.
> They look shite from outside. They are hideous from inside. They don't match the platform height. These trains are in short an imposition for everyone's eyes. Stop mentioning German trains in this thread. Apart from one exemption they are simply atrocious.


The newer stock is nice in my opinion. I like the Class 425 as well as Class 481 and the Double Decker stock too. 

I have had the pleasure of using German trains in the past and compared to much of the stock in Britain, I seriously think you're being too hard on your country. When you consider I've had the misfortune of being stuck on Class 150 Sprinters and Class 321 EMU's, is it any surprise that I found the German and Swiss stock infinitely superior?

Oh, and I can tell you for a fact that the interior shot you've provided is most definitely nicer than the interior of the BR Class 321's. Those things are very cramped indeed.


----------



## Spam King (May 14, 2008)

flierfy said:


> It is completely beyond me how some of you can seriously claim that German rolling stock were pretty. You have obviously never been here nor were you forced to use one of these trains.
> They look shite from outside. They are hideous from inside. They don't match the platform height. These trains are in short an imposition for everyone's eyes. Stop mentioning German trains in this thread. Apart from one exemption they are simply atrocious.


Looks alright to me, at least for its age. and interior looks better than renovated trains on thameslink...


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ OK, some dutch regional DMU's to compare them with some British ones.

DM'90



Stadler GTW



Or the old streamlined DE II



Completely different then Class 158.



But the DM'90 can be compared with class 168



or class 165/166


----------



## Micrav (Feb 19, 2008)

I know what is very nice in British Railway: mostly no overhead wire! And a bit of old style switch-houses, bridges, etc.
Making a beautiful railway in the landscape.

I remember at the end of the 1980s, I took a commuter train where you could only access by sides like a bunch of old horse drawned cars sticked together. No corridor at all. Quite an amazing feeling to feel the atmosphere of almost 100 years ago


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

Some of you non-UK people put up a good fight... it may even looked like you had us at one point, but all that is now over :evil:

Time to unveil our secret weapon...





















Yeah... we've nailed you now


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

Micrav said:


> I know what is very nice in British Railway: mostly no overhead wire! And a bit of old style switch-houses, bridges, etc.
> Making a beautiful railway in the landscape.
> 
> I remember at the end of the 1980s, I took a commuter train where you could only access by sides like a bunch of old horse drawned cars sticked together. No corridor at all. Quite an amazing feeling to feel the atmosphere of almost 100 years ago


Thats a nice description of failure.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Accura4Matalan said:


> Some of you non-UK people put up a good fight... it may even looked like you had us at one point, but all that is now over :evil:
> 
> Time to unveil our secret weapon...
> 
> ...





:lol: if I had the choice between heading out on a Colne bound sprinter or a TGV the TGV stands no chance.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> ^^ OK, some dutch regional DMU's to compare them with some British ones.
> 
> DM'90
> 
> ...



DM'90, that actualy looks quite nice...but it also looks very English styled...

The Stadler GTW and old streamlined DE II looks very odd. The Stadler GTW again looks like a TRAM!!hno:


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ I already thought you would say that about the DM'90.

But why can't a train look like a tram?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

*English trains do look better...*

A fair comparison...

*English...*

Class 377










Class 168










Class 170










*And the rest of the world (In my opinion ugly trains)*

Canadian GO Transit










Sydney City Rail










don't know


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> ^^ I already thought you would say that about the DM'90.
> 
> But why can't a train look like a tram?


It was the Stadler GTW that I was talking about.

Because I don't think its a good look, and it isn't a tram...
Trams quite often look like some overly creative art student has designed them


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> It was the Stadler GTW that I was talking about.
> 
> Because I don't think its a good look, and it isn't a tram...
> Trams quite often look like some overly creative art student has designed them


as opposed to what? mediocrity? that probably describes british trains the best


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

gramercy said:


> as opposed to what? mediocrity? that probably describes british trains the best


Trains in Britain I think look far better designed. They have MUCH better proportions, no strange features, no 'floating door' effect like on some of the double deck trains where the doors appears to be in the middle of the side of the train, no odd humps and pumps, they are VERY pleasing to the eye, look like trains and in general look better because of this...they are not 'over designed'

Some may say they are boring, but trains look there best when they look like trains and not a child's toy. British trains have aways had a very good pleasing look about them, they follow a good general design that has been very successful.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

In Europe we are just more used to trains that don't look like trains, for example the German Railbus:


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

zergcerebrates said:


> I think not, Japanese commuter rail still looks more attractive and modern than the UK ones.
> 
> Nagoya Centrair
> 
> ...


They all look boxy and samey to me. The bottom of the train is too narrow compared to the top, if you compared them to a human, they'd be ones with giant foreheads.

Also, I find it amusing how UK trains are criticised as being "boring" yet all those Japanese commuter trains follow a very similar design pattern.





Momo1435 said:


> ^^ OK, some dutch regional DMU's to compare them with some British ones.
> 
> DM'90
> 
> ...


The DM'90 is all right, middle one looks like a boxy tram, last one has an ugly weird shaped front.


----------



## bluemeansgo (Oct 28, 2008)

iampuking said:


> They all look boxy and samey to me. The bottom of the train is too narrow compared to the top, if you compared them to a human, they'd be ones with giant foreheads.
> 
> Also, I find it amusing how UK trains are criticised as being "boring" yet all those Japanese commuter trains follow a very similar design pattern.
> 
> ...


Yep... So the UK has to hurry up and built some High speed trains to take the attention off their ugly commuter trains.

UK Trains remind me of the London 2012 logo. Blech


----------



## bluemeansgo (Oct 28, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> OMG!hno:
> 
> That aint cool, looks like a submarine


Just because it looks different, doesn't mean it looks ugly. We artificially bind trains to unwritten conventions that they have to look boxy and ugly.

I applaud the Japanese for having designers and architects design the aesthetics.

If half as much effort was put into trains as is put into buildings (like the Gherkin, Big Ben, Canary Wharf Station) we'd end up with some pretty fantastic looking trains.

Is there any reason that a train can't be designed by someone who knows something about aesthetics?

I guarantee that once you're used to them, the "weirdest" designs become quite lovely.










The inside is pretty cool too:


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> Canadian GO Transit


Oh come on! At least post the good one.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

bluemeansgo said:


> The inside is pretty cool too:


I think the inside looks cold, clinical and bare...

I understand about what you been with creativity...but with trains i think they only look good with my classic designs, than new 'interesting' designs...


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

iampuking said:


> The DM'90 is all right, middle one looks like a boxy tram, *last one has an ugly weird shaped front.*


That's old school streamline for you, the train was build in the 1950s and it was even a 1930's design.

Here Mat'40 and Mat'36 EMUs next to each other, it looks even better 









www.nicospilt.com


----------



## bluemeansgo (Oct 28, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> I think the inside looks cold, clinical and bare...
> 
> I understand about what you been with creativity...but with trains i think they only look good with my classic designs, than new 'interesting' designs...


I like it personally. Like a cocoon shape. Very neat use of circles, even in the general shape and lighting.

On the other end of the spectrum:


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> A fair comparison...
> 
> don't know


That is the Bayerische Oberlandbahn, a commuter train. It serves three lines going from Munich to the Alps. It is a company of Connex (or Veolia?). Three sets leave Munich coupled together and then they split along the way to their seperate end stations. It is well used line for commuters and leisure (walking, skiing).

The design is from the 90s and the trainsets from Italy. It serves the purpose and is simple and functional. In my opinion that makes good design. There is a reason why commuter trains look different from HST.

Ah, and they also have English announcements in the train. Funny thing is that the announcer has a bavarian accent .


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

gramercy said:


> so....these dont look "tram like" but other high speed trains do?
> 
> or do you consider these good looking because they are british? :hm:


You have obviously not understood what he/she meant by saying tram-like. Maybe it should rather be named low-floor-tram-like to be better understood.


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

ah, so now we're getting specific, good

sooner or later it will only be high speed trains that look like a siemens combino, but not other tram designs seen in trains


----------



## joseph1951 (Aug 19, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> There are good, much better than their diesel counter part the Voyagershno:


But they mounts the ex Fiat tilting technology (now own by Alstom) and they are not British made.....The British tilting train , the APT, was a failure.... very prone to derailment.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

joseph1951 said:


> But they mounts the ex Fiat tilting technology (now own by Alstom) and they are not British made.....The British tilting train , the APT, was a failure.... very prone to derailment.


You are talking crap!

The technology of Pendolinos is originally British. APT was a success in terms of how it worked. They did not derail. The project was abandoned because of politics.


----------



## sarflonlad (May 13, 2005)

joseph1951 said:


> But they mounts the ex Fiat tilting technology (now own by Alstom) and they are not British made.....The British tilting train , the APT, was a failure.... very prone to derailment.


Derailment? What? When?

APT was a failure because BR had problems of commitment and the British tabloids to deal with. BR sold the technology to the Italians. Who sold trains back to Britain. The fact APT ran a train at 155mph back then on conventional rail lines to me at least is a 'success'. But the British don't like success. Always dwelling on negatives and then bitching about foreign technology imports


----------



## andysimo123 (Jul 29, 2004)

joseph1951 said:


> But they mounts the ex Fiat tilting technology (now own by Alstom) and they are not British made.....The British tilting train , the APT, was a failure.... very prone to derailment.


I made it pretty clear that most British trains arn't British but you've jumped on it like a hungry chicken. :lol: If it runs on British Rails and has Class xxx on it, its British because its used, owned and designed for Britain.


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

Its a massive shame they didn't press ahead with the APT. It isn't as good looking as the Pendolino's we know today, but it certainly did the job.


----------



## Songoten2554 (Oct 19, 2006)

i say the Class 390 is the successor of the APT that i don't understand the hatered on the class 390.

also i tend to like good looking trains that functions and i got to say alot of the trains that i see in british railways today well the newer ones look so beautifully designed that they have so much diversity to them, which makes it exciting to see so much differences between a class 377 and a class 390 lets say.

granted there needs to be more electrification in British railways as well since it brings so much improvements but maybe with now with the investment of the Intercity Express Programme, Crossrail, High Speed 2 and etc there will be more Electrified Railways in British.


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

Indeed. There are some routes being seriously considered for electrification. The Glasgow-Edinburgh route and the Transpennine route for example.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Scotland is pretty much committed to rolling electrification, its just a matter of how fast they get around to it.

In England, they are deciding whether to electrify the midland main line and western main line later this year i believe. And i think the answer is going to be a big yes.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

andysimo123 said:


> I made it pretty clear that most British trains arn't British but you've jumped on it like a hungry chicken. :lol: If it runs on British Rails and has Class xxx on it, its British because its used, owned and designed for Britain.


But they a built to British designs and specifications...


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> But they a built to British designs and specifications...


yea, and the sun revolves around..


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

...Britain. Didnt you know?


----------



## bluemeansgo (Oct 28, 2008)

Republica said:


> ...Britain. Didnt you know?


^ Unfortunately, it just never actually hits it.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

bluemeansgo said:


> ^ Unfortunately, it just never actually hits it.


Ah, the great weather myth that keeps pesky tourists (bar 30 million) off our sun blessed islands


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

poshbakerloo said:


> Yeah, I always tend to find that trains in other countries always have some weird feature. If its lots of very narrow windows, for a strangely high roof, or some odd cab design at the front or something else...
> 
> I always think English trains have the best proportions and the best overall appearance...
> 
> ...


because they are designed aerodynamically to go beyond 250km/h...


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

Since when has a Japanese metro train gone beyond 250km/h?


----------



## joseph1951 (Aug 19, 2007)

sarflonlad said:


> Derailment? What? When?
> 
> APT was a failure because BR had problems of commitment and the British tabloids to deal with. BR sold the technology to the Italians. Who sold trains back to Britain. The fact APT ran a train at 155mph back then on conventional rail lines to me at least is a 'success'. But the British don't like success. Always dwelling on negatives and then bitching about foreign technology imports


Not quite so.

The first Fiat single car prototype teh ETR Y1060 (I think) run successfuly in 1970. The first 4 carriages train ran in revenue 2-3 times a week in 1973 on the Rome -Ancona Route. 10 year later the APT was still derailing. 


*Firstly,* the APT had articulated bogies on the passenger cars and two non tilting power cars in the middile of the train. 

So any carriages with articulated bogies was non-tilting correctly, and the two locomotives in the middle of the train were not tilting at all. 

It was like having a "snake with a bad spinal chord".

Furthermore the train was split into two trains. For a pasenger it was imposbile to go from cr 1 to (passeger car 12). 

*Secondly* the APT had no gyroscope which can sense the changes in the outer track prior to the beginning of the curve. 

The gyropscope sense the beginning of the supra-elevation of the external track and start tilting the train accordingly.

*Thirdly:* The ETR401 and its successor have devices that filter the track imperfections.

*Fourthly *the APT had a lot of other new innovative features , which required a long time to fix. The BR engineers put in a single train too many things with to many diverse and opposing solutions, this would have required at least 30 years to get a prototype which, eventually, could work.


Having said that , once the APT project was scrapped , Fiat bought the licence of the APT project. On never knows...among the mess there might have find some useful.


But the Italian tilting train was running on revenue service since 1973.

It was only the shortshightness of the (FS) Italian Rail Managers the reson why FS did not order an entire fleet of Pendolinos in 1973.

Only in 1985, having a half of a fast line built, the Florence- Rome, capable of 250km/h and no train capable of such speed, the FS Managers "suddenly" decided to order a fleet of maxi-pendolino (The ETR450s) composed of 6- 9 carriages per train. 

Given the short deadline to build these trains, Fiat did not have the time to upgrade the electrical parts (mootrs, etc) of the ETR450 (the maxi-pendolino). 

Still, even built with the techonogly of the '70s,used on the ETR401, the ETR450 offered superb performances. It had good accerleration, a top speed of 250km/h nd it was capable of tilting 10 degrees (10 degrees of cant deficeny. And on the old, very busy historical lines it was offering better time journeys than the ETR500 which is " a wheelbarrow renamed red-arrow" 

Last but not least.

The Virgin version of the Italian Pendolino has shorter carriages, narrover seat and seat pitch, narower cabin, due to the smaller UK loading gauge. Also Class 390 (the Virgin Tilter") has lower power, slower acceleration and lower speed than the Italian pendolinos.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in the mid -eighties/early ninenties Open University's TV programs on rail transports were still praising the APT , declaring , with a certain degree a ignorance and pompousness, "*that it was the best and most advanced train in the world*.

They were totally unaware that Italy had the ETR450, and Sweden had the X2000.

These were the rail expert!!!!!!!!

The same happend with Modern railways magazine.

I complained both with BBC and Modern Railways.

A few months later an article on the Italina ETr450 appeared on Modern Railways.

I can understand if a layman has no idea if in the rest of the world there is no tilting train in service,, but the very fact that top Biritsh rail engineers were sayng and teaching this rubbish is total nonsense.

If nothing else, utterly unfair to their students.

Sorry for the typo etc.

I will edit this post later.

Have a nice evening.


----------



## loefet (Dec 30, 2008)

^^ Japan was running their first tilting trains in 1972 (though it have passive tilting). And after having been on some of them in Japan I have to say that they are really nice to ride.

Also comparing APT with X2(000) is a bit wrong since X2 went into service in the 90's quite some time after they were testing APT.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

When did it derail?


----------



## Papacu (Oct 16, 2008)

Some american iron chunks in Brazil:


----------



## Papacu (Oct 16, 2008)

gramercy said:


> Manchester Planner said:
> 
> 
> > The Javelin trains, which are to start running later this year on the High Speed line in London and Kent, are one of the nicest looking trains at the moment:
> ...


And these are from Bombardier(Canada). There are british trains, made in England by english companies? 










British Rail Class 333 - Made by Siemens(Germany)

British Rail Class 156 Super Sprinter - built by Metro-Cammell (owned by Alstom)

British Rail Class 166 Network Express Turbo - built by Asea Brown Boveri (Switzerland)

:lol::lol:


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

I'm not fussed who makes them - they're still British trains running on the British rail network with dimensions suited to the British loading gauge, platforms, etc.


----------



## dl3000 (Aug 7, 2004)

Generally speaking, I would attribute the aesthetic qualities of a train to the manufacturer.


----------



## Papacu (Oct 16, 2008)

Manchester Planner said:


> I'm not fussed who makes them - they're still British trains running on the British rail network with dimensions suited to the British loading gauge, platforms, etc.


How old are you? Your statement sounds a bit childish to me....
And that's *your* taste, it doesn't mean that what *you* think is nice looking is the same to the most of the people.




dl3000 said:


> Generally speaking, I would attribute the aesthetic qualities of a train to the manufacturer.


Yeap. 
And I think the brits should be more concerned about the quality and conditions of their railways than talking about the appearance of their rolling stocks.

The good looking and brand new Hitachi trains are running to slow due to the horrible conditions of the railways.

Such a waste of resources keeping a fast train like that running as a turtle because the lines are too old.


----------



## kei (Oct 31, 2004)

> Generally speaking, I would attribute the aesthetic qualities of a train to the manufacturer.


The fact is that there remains a unique aesthetic to British trains, despite being produced by foreign manufacturers. The loading gauge affects the shape of the design, and the liveries are determined by whatever company is running the trains. Tube trains these days are manufactured by foreign companies, but no one would argue that the designs aren't faithful to the unique Tube aesthetic:










edit: and incidentally, it doesn't even make sense to attribute designs of a train to the manufacturer's country of origin, when really who knows the nationality of the designers, or who is determining why something looks the way it is. Silly argument!


----------



## kei (Oct 31, 2004)

Papacu said:


> The good looking and brand new Hitachi trains are running to slow due to the horrible conditions of the railways.


From where did you get that idea? The new Hitachi trains will be running on the high speed line that is currently used only for Eurostar trains.

You seem like the childish one to me.


----------



## taikoo.city (Jul 13, 2008)

kei said:


> From where did you get that idea? The new Hitachi trains will be running on the high speed line that is currently used only for Eurostar trains.
> 
> You seem like the childish one to me.


In fact the Hitachi trains are also "too slow" for the high speed line, namely "High Speed 1"

If TVM430 or ETCS is installed on ECML you can put the Javelins there running at full speed without a problem.


----------



## AAPMBerlin (Aug 16, 2008)

Papacu said:


> And these are from Bombardier(Canada). There are british trains, made in England by english companies?


Yes, Bombardier is canadian. But the headquarter of the transportation division is in Berlin (Germany). --> http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/about-transportation

So it´s a german product for GB! :lol:


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

Manchester Planner said:


> The Javelin trains, which are to start running later this year on the High Speed line in London and Kent, are one of the nicest looking trains at the moment:


This is true.


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

First of all, I like British train designs in general, especially older/vintage stuff- Mk.1 coaches, Great Western steam, anything designed by W.Stanier. Later stuff is good too- HSTs (best high speed diesel trains anywhere, IMO), Mk. 3 coaches, class 37 diesel locos (or anything built by E.E. and powered by [C]SVT engines, basically). But while I realize the appearance of some rolling stock is a function of design limitations- the former Southern slam door stock was based on the Mk.1 body shell, and the Class 153 Supersprinters on the Mk.3, some of the recent British EMU and DMU stock is well, not my taste, to say it diplomatically. 
This...








is one example- too insectoid (think caterpillar) with its maw opening, ready to snag an unsuspecting cow or hapless passenger

as well as this(though a different color scheme could improve things):









Virgin Pendos are great tho- hope to ride one next time I visit the UK


----------



## 33Hz (Jul 29, 2006)

Papacu said:


> And these are from Bombardier(Canada). There are british trains, made in England by english companies?


Actually it was designed and built by Alstom (former Metro-Cammell) in Birmingham, UK.




> British Rail Class 333 - Made by Siemens(Germany)


True.



> British Rail Class 156 Super Sprinter - built by Metro-Cammell (owned by Alstom)


But it wasn't when they were built in the 80s.



> British Rail Class 166 Network Express Turbo - built by Asea Brown Boveri (Switzerland)
> 
> :lol::lol:


In their factory in York, UK...


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Papacu said:


> How old are you? Your statement sounds a bit childish to me....
> And that's *your* taste, it doesn't mean that what *you* think is nice looking is the same to the most of the people.
> 
> 
> ...


Another uninformed and _childish_ Brit basher. We love you guys! Keep it coming.


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

Papacu said:


> How old are you? Your statement sounds a bit childish to me....
> And that's *your* taste, it doesn't mean that what *you* think is nice looking is the same to the most of the people.


Did I say that?

Dickhead.


----------



## Papacu (Oct 16, 2008)

kei said:


> From where did you get that idea? The new Hitachi trains will be running on the high speed line that is currently used only for Eurostar trains.
> 
> You seem like the childish one to me.



LONDON'S busiest rail operator is planning cuts for hundreds of thousands of commuters as it introduces its 140mph Javelin trains this year.

The Evening Standard can also reveal that some services along the £5.2 billion high-speed line from Kent to St Pancras will be slower than those on the "old" lines at the moment.
(...)

On a north Kent Javelin journey from Margate, the train will only join the high-speed line at Ebbsfleet, west of Gravesend, for its final 20 miles into London. The first three-quarters of the trip - about 60 miles - will still be on existing low-speed lines. Other Javelin services, via Ashford, will run on the high-speed line for longer and will be quicker than existing trains - Dover by 15 minutes and Canterbury by 23.

And, uh... The Eurostar faced some speed problems in the british railways too, running slower than in the french railways.


----------



## Papacu (Oct 16, 2008)

Republica said:


> Another uninformed and _childish_ Brit basher. We love you guys! Keep it coming.


First of all, your brit pal created this stupid thread bashing the trains around the world:



poshbakerloo said:


> I have been to many countries around the world, and use the trains in most, and seen the trains in them all...:cheers:
> I ALWAYS think that they either look weird, or just plain ugly!
> I don't know if this is just because I am used to English trains or if they are actually weird...
> What do you think? Do you like the APPEARANCE of English trains and think other countries trains are strange???


The fact is that the british trans are not only ugly but old, unconfortable and dirty.

You have the right to admire your country, praise your trains, the typical british grin, the typical british skin, but without bashing the others.

But i think it's just a waste of time: how can we comparate the british rail infraestructure with the rest of the europe? Or Japan? It's just ridiculous!


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

I think you have a severe case of Britophobia. Lots of people get it, so dont worry.

Your every post here have been lame digs at Britain. Most of it uninformed and ignorant. In addition you may notice that the original poster started thread on the basis of their opinion. You seem to have a secondary disease on top of the Britophobia problem. This secondary problem is your confusion of facts an opinion. You moan about a thread started as a debate instigator, an opinion. Yet you present your opinion as fact and quite ridiculously you even said this yourself - ignorant and uninformed. The confusion of fact and opinion is also a common problem, so dont be worried about that either. It's normally contracted from excessive reading of tabloid newspapers or poor quality journalism, from Britain or abroad too.

Where are you from, just out of interest?

PS. Did you not notice that TGV's run slower on non high speed lines?


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

33Hz said:


> Actually it was designed and built by Alstom (former Metro-Cammell) in Birmingham, UK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The trains were probably also designed by British designers to meet the specifications of the UK... Just manufactured elsewhere.


----------



## AAPMBerlin (Aug 16, 2008)

Oh yes! Only the British can say :" Javelin is a HST!" *HAHA*:bash:

You call 140mph HST?????????????????????????????

Sorry, but I have just to laugh....:rofl::rofl::laugh::laugh:

--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_395

....:rofl::rofl::laugh::laugh:


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

AAPMBerlin said:


> Oh yes! Only the British can say :" Javelin is a HST!" *HAHA*:bash:
> 
> You call 140mph HST?????????????????????????????
> 
> ...


Don't knock the Brit trains too much- after all, we sad Americans would be satisfied with trains that "just" go 100mph. For heavens sake, we call 79mph commuter trains "baby bullets":nuts:


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

andysimo123 said:


> Most German Train fans look like that.


fix


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Aerond said:


> Most English trains look like this;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It you do the same thing with buildings...

English trains...my favorite... 

Classic design, good shape etc 









Velaro train...

I like them actually so no comment...

Continental 'nice looking trains'...

This is how I see them :nuts:


----------



## Aerond (Jan 10, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> It you do the same thing with buildings...
> 
> English trains...my favorite...
> 
> ...


I would actually wear that!! :cheers:


----------



## andysimo123 (Jul 29, 2004)

Momo1435 said:


> fix


:lol:


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> It you do the same thing with buildings...
> 
> English trains...my favorite...
> 
> Classic design, good shape etc


More like this..










You can't simply say that continental trains all look like shit, there's a lot of variety. Some look like shit and some are gorgeous.


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

For comparison, Belgian trains look like this


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Maxx☢Power;39780426 said:


> You can't simply say that continental trains all look like shit, there's a lot of variety. Some look like shit and some are gorgeous.


I like the Velaro, it has a good shape. But in general continental trains just look odd, strange features and odd shapes. It might sounds like I'm nit picking if I say a train is ugly because it has square windows, a very high rood or very short coaches but to me the wider windows, curved sides and long sometimes 75'+ coaches is a much better height-length ratio...

Velaro









1988 BR MK4 coach...perfect shape, design and style...









CRAZY French design, very high roof and oddly shaped square windows... 











BR Class 175, perfect window shapes, perfect roof height, perfect in general!










To make it fair...Even the UKs old 'ugly' trains are well shaped and proportioned etc...
Class 150


----------



## SM247 (Dec 5, 2006)

Some more Australian rollingstock for comparison. I believe it all comes down to personal experience. European rollingstock strikes me as being rather odd-looking, while I find a certain familiarity with North American and British passenger stock. Living as I do out here, there isn't much in the way of what would be considered by most standards HSR. Our networks are all pretty well separated by the tyranny of distance, so we have some good variety in each state.

You will find a lot of Australian rollingstock makes use of ribbed stainless steel - I expect there is a good reason for this, what it is exactly I am not 100% certain. it means the bodies are virtually indestructible and stand up to all the major exigencies that 30 or more years of service can throw at them. The imported X'trapolis sets in Melbourne which do not make use of stainless steel are beginning to look very tired and shabby after only 5 years or so - paint is worn and vandalised, rust is quite obvious and the ride quality is very poor. 

*Perth*

A-sets:





































B-sets:










The Australind










*South-East Queensland / Brisbane* - my home state

1900 class railmotor (this unit has been preserved and has not been in revenue service for many years - probably the loveliest little train I have posted)










EMUs (as these were the first electric multiple units in Queensland, that is simply what they have been called since day 1). The front moulding has been refurbished and fitted with anticlimbers since the original models entered service.




























SMU 200 and 220 series (Suburban Multiple Unit)










IMU 100 and 120 series (Interurban Multiple Unit)










IMU 160 and SMU 260 series currently being delivered (common interoperable designs, only functional difference is that the IMUs are fitted with toilets). The design is fundamentally the same as the Perth B-sets - both produced by Bombardier in Queensland, Perth's have a slightly wider loading gauge. I am generally aboard these trains every day of the week.



















Electric Tilt Train










Spirit of the Outback (hauled by a 2100 class diesel - the class leader is pictured)










*Adelaide*

2000 class










3000 class




























*Melbourne*

Hitachi sets










Comeng sets (refurbished by Alstom and EDi in the early 2000s - the EDis feature the centred destination display):





































Siemens sets



















X'trapolis sets



















*Indian-Pacific* - hauled by NR class locomotives. The consist shown in the desert at Cook, South Australia, is over 660 metres long.


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

Oh I have to say I do like those Australian trains!


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Some of those trains look alright...not to keen on that last one tho...


----------



## ghost101 (Feb 15, 2009)

Im surpised that in the thread, eurostar rolling stock (300kmh) hasn't been mentioned.

British, French, Begian whatever you want to call them.










Made by Alstom in all 3 locations.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

*Class 395*

Class 395...looks totaly great!

140Mph emu


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

I have seen this thread for months on the thread list, but have never clicked. And - now i regret it (not waiting, but clicking), coz it's exactly what i expected.
1. The title itself is very impertinet, that's why i havent dropped here in. How can a person start an international thread saying "u all suck, only we are awesome" (free translation).
2. I hopped it's just a title, and the discussion would be ok, but... how can u expect ppl dont get mad, if most of british users in this thread say: "u all suck, only we are awesome" ?
We - the rest of the world - are fed up with this impertinence.
Maybe if the thread would start: "I like english trains. Aren't they cool?" the whole discussion would be on a higher level. But this here is just shame.

Every - averege intelligent person knows - that in each country there are nice trains and ugly ones. Every person knows also, that England, Britain or UK (whatever u call it) isn't the best place in the world, and has no right to call itself like that. 
Each person knows that generalizations are dangerous...
...or maybe not? /sarcastig/

I hope - at least some of the Brits here - will get the point, that not ONLY british trains are cool. In that case u never would see this post:



Aerond said:


> Most English trains look like this;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And now my opinion about trains:
I don't like most of english trains with the flat front, the same for french RER trains.



















but i like all TGV's including Eurostar and i like this:










Is it english train? so what? It doesnt matter. I like this one - surprisingly.
I like most of german and austrian trains but i dislike this:










and i think this one is maybe the ugliest lok ever:


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

Falubaz said:


> How can a person start an international thread saying "u all suck, only we are awesome" (free translation).


But that's not been the case. This thread has actually been quite a good discussion from British and non-British forumers, with some non-British forumers agreeing with the opening remarks, and with some British forumers disagreeing. :|


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Manchester Planner said:


> But that's not been the case. This thread has actually been quite a good discussion from British and non-British forumers, with some non-British forumers agreeing with the opening remarks, and with some British forumers disagreeing. :|


THANK YOU!!!

As the person who started this thread...I can say that it had nothing to do with saying England is great everywhere sucks! Did I EVER say that...NO.

I said that appearance wise, I only like English trains...and started a discussion about it...

There hasn't been any bad words said about countries...just views and thoughts on train designs...

And just to continue it...Don't you just love the Class 444...I sure do!


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Falubaz said:


> And now my opinion about trains:
> I don't like most of english trains with the flat front, the same for french RER trains.


they have flat fronts as they are commuter trains running at lower speeds (75-90mph)


----------



## Songoten2554 (Oct 19, 2006)

very nice pictures of the trains and such but i keep on wondering why the fighting about it.

the more higher speed trains don't have a flat front because they can go much faster due to being areodyamnic.


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> I like the Velaro, it has a good shape. But in general continental trains just look odd, strange features and odd shapes. It might sounds like I'm nit picking if I say a train is ugly because it has square windows, a very high rood or very short coaches but to me the wider windows, curved sides and long sometimes 75'+ coaches is a much better height-length ratio...


Wait.. Are you saying you think this:



poshbakerloo said:


> 1988 BR MK4 coach...perfect shape, design and style...


Looks better than this? :nuts:



poshbakerloo said:


> Velaro





poshbakerloo said:


> To make it fair...Even the UKs old 'ugly' trains are well shaped and proportioned etc...


That is entirely a matter of taste. If you weren't so passionate and thorough, I'd think you were trolling.


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

ghost101 said:


> Im surpised that in the thread, eurostar rolling stock (300kmh) hasn't been mentioned.
> 
> British, French, Begian whatever you want to call them.
> 
> ...


I think it has been mentioned, and I think it's the worst looking of all the HSTs. It looks like a TGV mated with a platypus and gave birth to this.



poshbakerloo said:


> Class 395...looks totaly great!
> 
> 140Mph emu


This train does look great. A bit similar to the Velaro, but the Velaro is still a lot slicker IMO.


----------



## sarflonlad (May 13, 2005)

Can we close this thread? It's embarrassing.

The majority of trains on the continent are far more sophisticated, elegant and roomier than UK trains.

The UK does well on number of trains going at 100mph+ - but that's about it. Everything else on UK rail is surpassed somewhere else.

Maybe we can get back to this when the British start designing trains and technology again.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

sarflonlad said:


> Can we close this thread? It's embarrassing.
> 
> The majority of trains on the continent are far more sophisticated, elegant and roomier than UK trains.
> 
> ...


You are embarrassing. You probably never were in continental Europe, let alone in a rail station there. I know what I'm talking about. And I'd rather have something like British railways than this hideous and unreliable scrap that is supposed to be a railway service over here In Germany. Billions of Euro have been spent and there is still no proper high speed service running. Complete series of trainsets go out of service due to technical difficulties and get replaced if at all by outdated rolling stock. You obviously have no idea how much better you are off.


----------



## sarflonlad (May 13, 2005)

flierfy said:


> You are embarrassing. You probably never were in continental Europe, let alone in a rail station there. I know what I'm talking about. And I'd rather have something like British railways than this hideous and unreliable scrap that is supposed to be a railway service over here In Germany. Billions of Euro have been spent and there is still no proper high speed service running. Complete series of trainsets go out of service due to technical difficulties and get replaced if at all by outdated rolling stock. You obviously have no idea how much better you are off.


Grass and green.

DB has by all accounts in my experience, been fantastic. Equally the UK service I feel has a lot of merit in terms of timetabling - and even in some cases good speed.

But lets not digress. We're talking about trainsets. Does the UK have an ICE equivalent? No. There's an aesthetic to be proud of. We have - oh a pendolino, a clunky intercity and a new 'javelin' train that looks like plastic. 

It's a no brainer. Continental train sets are far superior _aesthetically_ speaking. Although there is hope in the UK... Go have a look at Irish trains. Now those are ugly!


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

sarflonlad said:


> *DB has* by all accounts in my experience, *been fantastic*.


This sentence is utter mockery. The S-Bahn in Berlin is almost completely out of service right now.

photo taken by Schockwellenreiter

The ICE-T fleet suffered a similar fate. Which left large parts of the country without decent intercity services for more than a year.



sarflonlad said:


> Equally the UK service I feel has a lot of merit in terms of timetabling - and even in some cases good speed.
> 
> But lets not digress. We're talking about trainsets. Does the UK have an ICE equivalent? No. There's an aesthetic to be proud of. We have - oh a pendolino, a clunky intercity and a new 'javelin' train that looks like plastic.
> 
> It's a no brainer. Continental train sets are far superior _aesthetically_ speaking. Although there is hope in the UK... Go have a look at Irish trains. Now those are ugly!


Admittedly, the ICE3 is a rather gorgeous train. But then again, it takes more than one swallow to make a summer. There is nothing else that comes even close to decently looking.

Unlike Britain, which has its Electrostar series, Class 444 and many more eye-pleasant trains. And even the 40 years old HST still provide a respectable service and look less outdated than younger trains from the other side of the Channel.

And taking about embarrassments. The staff of British railway companies speaks properly English. Something you can't say about Deutsche Bahn and its ridiculous attempts to flatter travellers from abroad.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sarflonlad said:


> Can we close this thread? It's embarrassing.
> 
> The majority of trains on the continent are far more sophisticated, elegant and roomier than UK trains.
> 
> ...


Its not the performance of the trains that matters in this thread, only appearance...if you look at proportions, sizes, windows, doors and roofs, imo English trains look so much better...

Just to compare again...

French emu...strange










English emu...normal


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

Well, naturally the French _are_ strange..


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Manchester Planner said:


> Well, naturally the French _are_ strange..


Haha lol...well its not so much the fact its French...but it does look strange anyway...almost like a door stop, with mis-matched doors and windows...


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

This sounds like a white wine vs. red wine arguement to me....and it's rather silly.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> with mis-matched doors and windows...


In other words, England desperately need double decker trains. :lol:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> In other words, England desperately need double decker trains. :lol:


We have tried...but they don't fit in the tunnels...oops

But you can have a double decker train...why can't it just look like an ordinary UK train but with an extra row of windows above? I don't get all the odd designs...


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ Because then they would be so high that they won't even fit in the bigger European tunnels or even under the overhead lines. 

The lower floor has to be lower then normal to make it all fit. And because you also want a 2x2 seating arrangement on both levels you have to make the train as wide as possible for a big part of the body.

And because of the bogies you have to go back to one level at both ends of the cars. Unless you have very short cars with only 1 axle between the cars "Talgo style" so you can have both levels all though the train.

like this (don't look at the front):










But this is just a bit too experimental and no railway company has bought these kind of trains from Talgo yet.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


>


If the coaches where longer with a door at each end rather than one in the middle...it would be alright

the front is bad thohno:


----------



## andysimo123 (Jul 29, 2004)

I don't get why anyone would compare a Class 444 or something like that to a high speed train from Germany. What you guys mad or just stupid? High Speed to High Speed. Normal to Normal. If not its like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

andysimo123 said:


> I don't get why anyone would compare a Class 444 or something like that to a high speed train from Germany. What you guys mad or just stupid? High Speed to High Speed. Normal to Normal. If not its like comparing apples and oranges.


These part time high speed trains in Germany can very well be compared to any other train. If you haven't sussed it yet this thread is about appearance. And a train is a train. It got nothing to do with apples and oranges.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

Thermo said:


> For comparison, Belgian trains look like this
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Love it. Why can't they run those to Roosendaal? We always get that crappy red one.


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> Love it. Why can't they run those to Roosendaal? We always get that crappy red one.


I could be wrong, but I think that's the livery of the Airport Express train. Right now there's not much "Express" about it though. They have to go through Brussels first to get to Brussels Airport (basically, they pass the airport and then have to drive back).

EDIT: hadn't noticed the sign >_< Well, I always liked that livery, so I do hope they will repaint them like that, but I fear for it.



flierfy said:


> And taking about embarrassments. The staff of British railway companies speaks properly English. Something you can't say about Deutsche Bahn and its ridiculous attempts to flatter travellers from abroad.


Emm... Ever realised that's because it's GERMANY and NOT the UK? At least be glad they *try* to speak English. They could just as well speak German to you and completely ignore your language 

I don't expect people to speak Dutch when I go abroad (and that has nothing to do with "not enough people speaking it" at all), so I fail to see why you should expect people to speak English. Be glad if they do, accept it if they don't.


Appearances are deceiving.

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

Glodenox said:


> I could be wrong, but I think that's the livery of the Airport Express train. Right now there's not much "Express" about it though. They have to go through Brussels first to get to Brussels Airport (basically, they pass the airport and then have to drive back).
> 
> EDIT: hadn't noticed the sign >_< Well, I always liked that livery, so I do hope they will repaint them like that, but I fear for it.


Well anything is better than what the NMBS sends our way hno:

Whenever I go to Brussels I make sure I transfer to a regular Belgian train in Antwerp. Not just if I take the stoptrein either, since the Benelux keeps failing these days it's just the sensible thing to do. I love the double deckers you guys use.


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> I could be wrong, but I think that's the livery of the Airport Express train.


Actually, it's the livery of the CityRail, to be used on the future GEN / RER. These trains are older than the ones that go to Roosedaal btw, they've just been recently renovated. 40 of the old 'classic' EMUs are being renovated like this. 



> I love the double deckers you guys use.


They're currently lobbying NMBS in Roosendaal to let the Essen-Brussels intercity service come to Roosendaal once the Benelux stops going there. The Essen-Brussels intercity operates with the M6 double deckers, so you might get them in Roosendaal in the future. 



> And taking about embarrassments. The staff of British railway companies speaks properly English. Something you can't say about Deutsche Bahn and its ridiculous attempts to flatter travellers from abroad.


The staff of BRITISH railway companies speak ENGLISH??? MY GOD, how incredible! :nuts: Whoever would have guessed such a thing! Are you seriously suggesting that British railway companies are better because their staff speak English? 



> French emu...strange





> English emu...normal


And if you show those two pictures to someone from France, they're likely to say the exact opposite. The only reason you call one 'normal' and the other 'strange' is because you're used to one, but not the other. It's nothing to do with one actually being better looking than the other, just with what you're used to. This whole 'my trains look better than yours' thing you're pulling here is actually quite silly and childish. How old are you anyway?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Teach said:


> And if you show those two pictures to someone from France, they're likely to say the exact opposite. The only reason you call one 'normal' and the other 'strange' is because you're used to one, but not the other. It's nothing to do with one actually being better looking than the other, just with what you're used to. This whole 'my trains look better than yours' thing you're pulling here is actually quite silly and childish. How old are you anyway?


I'm 19...

Do you like trains that look like hump back whales? Or trains that look like trains...


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Teach said:


> And if you show those two pictures to someone from France, they're likely to say the exact opposite. The only reason you call one 'normal' and the other 'strange' is because you're used to one, but not the other. It's nothing to do with one actually being better looking than the other, just with what you're used to. This whole 'my trains look better than yours' thing you're pulling here is actually quite silly and childish. How old are you anyway?


I'm 19...

Do you like trains that look like hump back whales with a roof you could build an attic in?? Or trains that look like trains, well spaced and proportioned windows, doors that do not look like the entrance to a hospital building or shopping mall, a roof that doesn't stick up into the air like a church tower and a front that doesn't look like a door stop...

Do I have to post another comparison image...? I guess I do...I would say this is a fair comparison of train types...

Strange...door stop...










Strange...hump back...










Strange...square windows










Nice...










Nice...










Very nice...


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> I'm 19...


No offence meant to other 19 year-olds, but in your case that does explain a lot. Once you're a few years older (and hopefully wiser) you'll realise that different is not necessarily bad, 'strange' or ugly, it's just different. And you're not going to convince me of 'English trains looking better' with those pictures. The ONLY reason you think your trains look 'better proportioned' is because they're the proportions you've been used to all your life. To us, they do not look better proportioned, they just look odd, while the others you've posted (the 'strange' ones) are the ones that look better proportioned in many cases.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

Teach said:


> They're currently lobbying NMBS in Roosendaal to let the Essen-Brussels intercity service come to Roosendaal once the Benelux stops going there. The Essen-Brussels intercity operates with the M6 double deckers, so you might get them in Roosendaal in the future.


God I hope so!


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Teach said:


> No offence meant to other 19 year-olds, but in your case that does explain a lot. Once you're a few years older (and hopefully wiser) you'll realise that different is not necessarily bad, 'strange' or ugly, it's just different. And you're not going to convince me of 'English trains looking better' with those pictures. The ONLY reason you think your trains look 'better proportioned' is because they're the proportions you've been used to all your life. To us, they do not look better proportioned, they just look odd, while the others you've posted (the 'strange' ones) are the ones that look better proportioned in many cases.


My dad who is 57 agrees with me. But don't you see what I mean about the comparisons? Even if you just take it as English trains being boring looking, they do not have any 'strange features'. They have smooth body sides with no mis-matched doors and windows, and level floor hight through out. There some foreign trains that I think look fine (not perfect looking) like the Valero train and the TGV Duplex...


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> My dad who is 57 agrees with me. But don't you see what I mean about the comparisons? Even if you just take it as English trains being boring looking, *they do not have any 'strange features'.* They have smooth body sides with no mis-matched doors and windows, and level floor hight through out.


That's not true though, is it? I've seen lots of strange creatures traveling on the railway tracks back when I lived in England.

Funky square window, driver's cabin looks like it's been glued on last minute:











Again the dimensions of the driver's cabin are off. Its ceiling is higher, the side window is oddly placed and the coloring scheme just exaggerates the disturbed proportions:











Do I need to point out the driver's cabin again? And what are those things on the side? Cheek bones?











See, what you've done here is you figured out some trains are better looking than others. Congratulations. However it has little to do with the 'nationality' of a train.


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> My dad who is 57 agrees with me.


I'm sure he does. Most people think 'their' trains look the best. But I don't see your dad on here starting a thread where he tries incessantly to convince others that his taste in trains is better than that of others, now do I? 



> Even if you just take it as English trains being boring looking, they do not have any 'strange features'. They have smooth body sides with no mis-matched doors and windows, and level floor hight through out.


And there you go again, trying t convince me that your (or the British) taste in looks is the only correct one. It isn't.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> Again the dimensions of the driver's cabin are off. Its ceiling is higher, the side window is oddly placed and the coloring scheme just exaggerates the disturbed proportions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never liked the 220s anyway...But other than that...all the rest look fine, no strange features and you know what I mean when I say that...

There is NO formal or uniform design...just an uneven floor height, mess of windows and doors and a roof that sticks up too high...

This...









VS...

This...


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Teach said:


> The staff of BRITISH railway companies speak ENGLISH??? MY GOD, how incredible! :nuts: Whoever would have guessed such a thing! Are you seriously suggesting that British railway companies are better because their staff speak English?


They are better because they aren't ridiculous. Read before you write.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> That's not true though, is it? I've seen lots of strange creatures traveling on the railway tracks back when I lived in England.
> 
> Funky square window, driver's cabin looks like it's been glued on last minute:


I hear you on that...the 442s do have a strange cab design...but the rest couldn't be better, the window, door and roof dimensions are perfect...


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> They are better because they aren't ridiculous. Read before you write.


I think my reading abilities are just fine, thank you very much. Here's what you wrote:



> And taking about embarrassments. The staff of British railway companies speaks properly English. Something you can't say about Deutsche Bahn and its ridiculous attempts to flatter travellers from abroad.


...pretty clear to anyone that you're saying the British staff are better because they speak English. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should take a closer look at your own skills in the English language before further commenting.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Teach said:


> I think my reading abilities are just fine, thank you very much. Here's what you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...pretty clear to anyone that you're saying the British staff are better because they speak English. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should take a closer look at your own skills in the English language before further commenting.


We're talking train appearances here...

The Class 222 looks great










and so does the Class 376...


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

Stop comparing English single deck trains with French double-decker trains, that's not a fair competition because those French double-decker trains are simply not the best looking trains in Europe. 

And that makes it sometimes hard to discuss this with you because you basically compare the better looking English trains with the uglier European trains. And even some of the good looking non English trains that are presented here are just plain ugly.

Anyway, some shameless Deutsche (Bundes)Bahn Flickr picture spam. Just because when it comes to looks you can't beat a good decent looking red train. 




































by: Woodpeckar 









by: sascha_tgv-fan









by: 146 106









by: 146 106









by: 146 106









by: 146 106


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> Anyway, some shameless Deutsche (Bundes)Bahn Flickr picture spam. Just because when it comes to looks you can't beat a good decent looking red train.


Why bother? All he's going to do is come back and say they all look 'odd', 'strange' and 'out of proportion'. Then he'll post a picture of a 'good-looking' train which, surprise surprise, will be a British train, looking exactly like all the other ones he's posted, with a slightly different nose.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> by: 146 106


perfect example...look at the roofs of the coaches...dodgy dome roof or what...

You don't get it with the BR MK1,2,3 or 4 coaches...












Teach said:


> Why bother? All he's going to do is come back and say they all look 'odd', 'strange' and 'out of proportion'. Then he'll post a picture of a 'good-looking' train which, surprise surprise, will be a British train, looking exactly like all the other ones he's posted, with a slightly different nose.


The reason why I post them is because they do not have any dodgy features like have been going on about for ages...Find me an English train with a silly high roof or looking like a tram...


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Teach said:


> I think my reading abilities are just fine, thank you very much.
> 
> ...pretty clear to anyone that you're saying the British staff are better because they speak English. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should take a closer look at your own skills in the English language before further commenting.


Your reading abilities are just fine for an 8-year old. Grown-up readers, however, have evolved a much more sophisticated capability to comprehend the meaning of a written text.


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

This is ridiculous. You STILL haven't figured it out, have you? What is 'dodgy' and 'silly' to you is, in fact NOT dodgy or silly, it's simply different from what you're used to. You think it's dodgy or silly, and that's fine. Just don't go preaching to us how much better looking YOUR trains are compared to OURS. It's the silly internet variant to the childish playground game of 'my dad can beat up your dad'. Completely useless. You think these things look silly, we tend to think the strangely bended sides look a bit silly, and think the way the carriages' bodies in the U.K. start so high up they leave the entire mechancal underside exposed looks a bit 'dodgy', but you don't see me claiming ours are therefore better than yours, do you? 

Now please, don't respond with yet another set of pictures in which you try to convince me your trains look better. If you're going to respond, let it be in a way that makes me believe you've understood what I'm trying to get across.


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> Your reading abilities are just fine for an 8-year old. Grown-up readers, however, have evolved a much more sophisticated capability to comprehend the meaning of a written text.


Are you going to evolve beyond the stage of empty insults and see that what you wrote may not have been what you meant to write, or are you simply going to keep playing this game? A little warning: I wouldn't go into a linguistic debate if I were you. Many have tried it in the past, none have won. Just in case you do want to start one, I'll fire the first shot: Explain to me please, how this:


> And taking about embarrassments. The staff of British railway companies speaks properly (sic) English. Something you can't say about Deutsche Bahn and its ridiculous attempts to flatter travellers from abroad.


.. does NOT mean you think the British are better because they speak English. I eagerly await your answer. No BS, no beating about the bush or thinly veiled insult, just pretend I am an 8 year-old and explain it to me.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Teach said:


> This is ridiculous. You STILL haven't figured it out, have you? What is 'dodgy' and 'silly' to you is, in fact NOT dodgy or silly, it's simply different from what you're used to. You think it's dodgy or silly, and that's fine. Just don't go preaching to us how much better looking YOUR trains are compared to OURS. It's the silly internet variant to the childish playground game of 'my dad can beat up your dad'. Completely useless. You think these things look silly, we tend to think the strangely bended sides look a bit silly, and think the way the carriages' bodies in the U.K. start so high up they leave the entire mechancal underside exposed looks a bit 'dodgy', but you don't see me claiming ours are therefore better than yours, do you?
> 
> Now please, don't respond with yet another set of pictures in which you try to convince me your trains look better. If you're going to respond, let it be in a way that makes me believe you've understood what I'm trying to get across.


If I can say that a French train looks like it has a hump back, or a German train looks like a door wedge...

An English train looks like wot animal or house hold object?

I haven't heard any opinions from you...except just saying that my thoughts are stupid, add to the debate...post pictures, tell us your views...

Show a European, North American, South American or Asian train you like the look of...


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

I don't care if it's pointless.

"Die Kleine Rote"


















by: hansp73


















by: Effimera59 - Donadelli Daniele









by: Ambrosiana Pictures (G)










Especially the 1st picture (Ge 4/4 I), that's one of the best looking loco in the world. 

Oh and eh... coaches with domed roofs rule OK!


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> Especially the 1st picture (Ge 4/4 I), that's one of the best looking loco in the world.
> 
> Oh and eh... coaches with domed roofs rule OK!


Thankyou for a valid opinion...I don't agree of course (lol) but at least you don't just jump in and say "ooh you stupid to say that" unlike that 'teach' guy...


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

More Swiss trains









by: lazytom









by: lazytom

BLS oldschool look









by lastarial

BLS newschool look









by: rocroi1643


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> .I don't agree of course (lol) but at least you don't just jump in and say "ooh you stupid to say that" unlike that 'teach' guy...


Oh please man don't start that crap. I never said you can't think one train looks nicer than another, so don't make it seem like I did. All I have a problem with is your whole attitude where you are the one who gets to decide what looks nice and what doesn't. You want me to post pictures of what I think are nice trains? Why would I? All the others who've done so here have received a belittling 'my god that's ugly / silly / dodgy,...' comment, followed by a 'not nearly as good-looking as our True British Trains Ltd.'

I don't have a problem with you thinking British trains are the best looking, but I DO have a problem with you seemingly being unable to go a single post without calling everyone else's trains butt-ugly.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Teach said:


> Oh please man don't start that crap. I never said you can't think one train looks nicer than another, so don't make it seem like I did. All I have a problem with is your whole attitude where you are the one who gets to decide what looks nice and what doesn't. You want me to post pictures of what I think are nice trains? Why would I? All the others who've done so here have received a belittling 'my god that's ugly / silly / dodgy,...' comment, followed by a 'not nearly as good-looking as our True British Trains Ltd.'
> 
> I don't have a problem with you thinking British trains are the best looking, but I DO have a problem with you seemingly being unable to go a single post without calling everyone else's trains butt-ugly.


Its my opinion...give yours, what do you think about English train designs compared to other countries...and please don't compare a Class 142 Pacer with a TGV Duplux...


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

I'm not going to compare British trains to others one to one, because that's completely useless. All you'll see from me are some pictures of trains I think are nice looking, and some I think are ugly. 

Good-looking:
































































Ugly ones:































































There you go. Pretty balanced out I think, because unlike you I don't see this as an 'us against them' race. You have some nice looking trains, and some that are butt-ugly. And so do we.


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

Teach said:


> Actually, it's the livery of the CityRail, to be used on the future GEN / RER. These trains are older than the ones that go to Roosedaal btw, they've just been recently renovated. 40 of the old 'classic' EMUs are being renovated like this.
> 
> They're currently lobbying NMBS in Roosendaal to let the Essen-Brussels intercity service come to Roosendaal once the Benelux stops going there. The Essen-Brussels intercity operates with the M6 double deckers, so you might get them in Roosendaal in the future.


Ah yes, that's what they're called indeed  Been in one a couple of times, you can see they've been renovated, but they're certainly not as nice as our M6 double-deck coaches.

I read there was a problem with sending them through Roosendaal due to the carriages not having regular dimensions (they fit within the Belgian dimensions but not the Dutch dimensions, or so I've heard). One source that I found: HGBTF (Dutch). I'm sure I read it elsewhere as well though...

Anyway, so far the off-topic...

It's a bit sad that just someone's opinion that differs from other people's opinion is resulting in such a big thread... I don't like discussing opinions so I won't be doing that.

To add on my previous reply: a better comparison of language skills would be the amount of German that British officers can speak. I'm pretty sure that'll be around 0% (and as such much lower than the amount of German officers who can speak English).

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## nibblecat (May 31, 2009)

The thing about British trains are the standards to which every design must comply. The tight loading gauge, the yellow front and the orange warning strip, the platform height etc.

These considerations give UK rolling stock a certain conformist and therefore familiar aethestic. Not sure I'd agree that this is unique to the UK though, but I do tend to prefer foreign designs that *look* like they would fit on the UK network without modification.

The class 66s deployed in Europe, for example, that incorporate a Yellow front look better, to me, than those that don't. Its about familiarity, its not like many British trains are actually British designs any more.


----------



## andysimo123 (Jul 29, 2004)

flierfy said:


> These part time high speed trains in Germany can very well be compared to any other train. If you haven't sussed it yet this thread is about appearance. And a train is a train. It got nothing to do with apples and oranges.


No they can't. You don't compare a TGV to a fucking pacer because there is nothing to compare. Idiots.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

^^^^


Lol..is this fair...NO!

1950s Class 101











Bullet train


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> Show a European, North American, South American or Asian train you like the look of...


Three from Holland:

Mat '64












Sprinter












Koploper


----------



## andysimo123 (Jul 29, 2004)

poshbakerloo said:


> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Lol..is this fair...NO!
> ...


My point explained brilliantly.


----------



## DWNTWN (Oct 1, 2008)

Slagathor said:


> Three from Holland:
> 
> Mat '64
> 
> ...


NS trains are absolutely gorgeous. Each model has its own charm... I must say though, the V-IRMs and those new sprinters are exceptionally aesthetically pleasing!


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> I'm 19...


I don't mean to be rude (although I probably am), but this explains a lot.



poshbakerloo said:


> My dad who is 57 agrees with me. But don't you see what I mean about the comparisons? Even if you just take it as English trains being boring looking, they do not have any 'strange features'. They have smooth body sides with no mis-matched doors and windows, and level floor hight through out. There some foreign trains that I think look fine (not perfect looking) like the Valero train and the TGV Duplex...


You should ask your father to teach you about relativity. Maybe then you would realise that what you think is gorgeous looks really weird and ugly to everyone else. Most UK trains look strange seen from the continent because of the different standards that shape them. I know enough to not say that they're ugly because I know they're just _different_ and quite aesthetic in their own way. I do think though that they kind of look like toys compared to continental trains, which is what Americans must think of all European trains, continental or not, because they're used to much bigger and heavier trains.

Relativity, do you understand it?



poshbakerloo said:


>


I used to live right above this train station, and I've taken these trains a lot. They're well-built, clean, comfortable, fast-ish (it's a local train running on winding tracks along the coast) and quite good-looking, if a little "functional" in appearance. They look better in Monaco livery:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

^^^
I hear you, I never have been a fan out double deck trains tbh...Some look better than other, I guess the one I like the most is TGV duplex...

I still love a good Class 180, these 130mph (limited to a service speed of 125mph) express DMUs came in around 2000...










The 100mph Class 175 is a lower speed version of the same train, used on long distance routes with lower speed tracks...










When people say they dislike the look of English trains, can they say what the dis like? To do with their appearance...


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> When people say they dislike the look of English trains, can they say what the dis like? To do with their appearance...


To me they look small and plastic-y, but so does the Velaro which I think is one of the best looking trains in the world. Their weird "upside down v" shape looks unnatural and it's very obvious that their shape is because of limitations other than the train itself and not for esthetical reasons.

That being said, I was in Liverpool yesterday and spent some time waiting at Liverpool South Parkway where I saw several "high-speed" trains pass by, and I must say they looked really good in their native environment. The thing about UK trains vs most continental trains is that on the continent there are the super-awesome HSTs and then there's the old crappy ones from the 70s and 80s (very simplified, there are a lot of newer, very good looking non-HST trains here too), while in the UK there doesn't seem to be this wide gap between HSTs and other trains. I also think the liveries used by private companies look much better than most state-owned operators (SNCF & Trenitalia in particular look like crap).


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> The thing about UK trains vs most continental trains is that on the continent there are the super-awesome HSTs and then there's the old crappy ones from the 70s and 80s (very simplified, there are a lot of newer, very good looking non-HST trains here too), while in the UK there doesn't seem to be this wide gap between HSTs and other trains.


The reason for that is that most of the private companies in the UK, after taking over from british Rail, decided to buy new equipment, and they all decided to do so around the same time. So, instead of a 'slow but steady' renewal of the fleet like you see in most of Europe, the British fleet (or at least a big chunk of it) was renewed very quickly, resulting in the pretty young train fleet in the UK today. Flipside of this is of course that, in the coming years, you'll slowly see the average age of British trains increase again, as less new stuff will come in.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

Because of the small English loading gauge the bogies always seem to be wide for the train itself. They always stick out a bit where on European trains (wider body) or Japanese trains (narrow gauge) they are completely under the body. Basically that is what often bothers me about English trains, the dimensions are just not right. 

In other words it's exactly the same as you but then the other way around. The only difference is that I don't really dislike the English trains, they just are not on my list of good looking trains.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Teach said:


> The reason for that is that most of the private companies in the UK, after taking over from british Rail, decided to buy new equipment, and they all decided to do so around the same time. So, instead of a 'slow but steady' renewal of the fleet like you see in most of Europe, the British fleet (or at least a big chunk of it) was renewed very quickly, resulting in the pretty young train fleet in the UK today. Flipside of this is of course that, in the coming years, you'll slowly see the average age of British trains increase again, as less new stuff will come in.


They quite often replaces trains even if they are not that old...Northern Rail will be getting new trains to replace its 323s that only came in, in the 90s. And anything that is real old gets fully refurbished to a very high standard...like the 35+year old HSTs...










From this...










To this...


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Teach said:


> Are you going to evolve beyond the stage of empty insults and see that what you wrote may not have been what you meant to write, or are you simply going to keep playing this game? A little warning: I wouldn't go into a linguistic debate if I were you. Many have tried it in the past, none have won.


Of course they haven't won. They were smart enough not to get sucked into a pointless discussion and left you alone. And so will I. Look for someone else you can bore with your pernicketiness. Any efforts to reply your comments is a complete waste of time.

And no, you don't need to answers this. I won't read your posts anyway.


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

A rather cute attempt to turn an already lost discussion around in your favor and still appear to come out on top. Failed, but cute.


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

In my view, Britain's top five, best-looking diesel/electric trains/locomotives are as follows: 

1. The IC 125 power car
2. The class 47 and Kestrel prototype
3. The class 92
4. The class 180 Adelante
5. The class 60

These all stand up within the best that Europe offers. 

The worst looking train that Europe will see will be...the new class 70s. 

I'd love to know how the designers at GE gave the design the green light. Were they on Crystal Meths at the time?


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

TedStriker said:


> The worst looking train that Europe will see will be...the new class 70s.


You got that right. Dear sweet Jesus...












Although it does look better painted and from a different angle, granted it's just a rendering


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

This one would be a close second...

I think there should be some sort of law that a vehicle cannot be too ugly 










This one is also up there..


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

Is that supposed to warn track workers? Move in time or i'll suck your face off? Bizarre train, where is it?


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ Denmark, but also in Sweden, Belgium and Israel.

"When two or more units are coupled together in a single train, the entire front windscreen and driver’s seat folds away to give a wide passage, and the characteristic large rubber diaphragms at the ends form a flush aerodynamic seal."


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

Jay said:


> You got that right. Dear sweet Jesus...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The one in the rendering has a better design of light clusters, making the 'face' more appealing. 

So the nitwits at GE couldn't even see the one good aspect of their own design when looking at the 'drawing', and had to opt for some nipple-style headlights. 

Perhaps when they paint them they ought to fit a bushy black beard on, just to amuse us even further.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> I hear you on that...the 442s do have a strange cab design...but the rest couldn't be better, the window, door and roof dimensions are perfect...


Compared to this ones it looks lovely. hno:












Like everything else ... it's all in the eyes of the beholder (or something like that). :lol:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> perfect example...look at the roofs of the coaches...dodgy dome roof or what...
> 
> You don't get it with the BR MK1,2,3 or 4 coaches...
> 
> ...



MkIII are (pardon my english) b**uggggly. :lol:

Even more ... they are the single cause of ALL the english-trains-bashing in this topic ... the MkIII and the silly yellow fronts. :cheers:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

TedStriker said:


> In my view, Britain's top five, best-looking diesel/electric trains/locomotives are as follows:
> 
> 1. The IC 125 power car
> 2. The class 47 and Kestrel prototype
> ...



All are foot-ugly indeed ... 

1. The IC 125 power car ... no ... both the power cars and the Mk3 are uggly if left by themselves ... together in a consist they ar indeed pleasant to the eye ... but that is all in the worm-shape and most of all ... in the livery. :cheers:
2. The class 47 and Kestrel prototype ... mehhh ... not THAT bad looking
3. The class 92 ... hell NO ... but ugly as they come
4. The class 180 Adelante ... not that good looking ... only in the new ribbons livery it has become edible. 
5. The class 60 ... hell No times ten ... the worst looking of what Britain as ever put on rails ...

hno:

Let me get you one taste of the best looking top list edible british trains:

1- Class 390 (plus the voyagers ... theres simply no way around the FACT that going by looks they are superb(*))
2- Class 55+Mk2
3- Class 152/158/159 (aka the sprinters)
4- Class 125(the consist)
5- this one is difficult ... class 47 , 50 , 37 or even something completelly different ??? or the APT-E/P (who could even take the 4th place from under the IC125's feet's) ??? 

*) nobody can argue that the HST's/bulldog shaped trains take the crown when looks are discussed .. sharp nose and it only takes a well tought livery to make things look right. 

(in no relevan order) 
World top trains:

Deltic (UK)
Mat' EMU (netherlands)
F units (USA)
TGV (france)
Shinkansen 0/100 (japan)

... a lot more forgoten or hidden under a stone somewhere. :cheers:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> perfect example...look at the roofs of the coaches...dodgy dome roof or what...
> 
> You don't get it with the BR MK1,2,3 or 4 coaches...
> 
> ...



Silly roofs are abundant in the UK:


















And bus-like are even worse ... 



















^^^I have a handy shovel over here ... how deep do you want us to dig the hole ??? :lol:


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

You don't think the class 92s or 60s are good looking beasts?

And you only think the class 47s are just about ok?

Perhaps I have a gene within me that favours machines that have sprung from the Brush works...


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> Silly roofs are abundant in the UK:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree...but that is only a very small number...


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> MkIII are (pardon my english) b**uggggly. :lol:
> 
> Even more ... they are the single cause of ALL the english-trains-bashing in this topic ... the MkIII and the silly yellow fronts. :cheers:


Whats wrong with the MK3s? They are the most basic and well thought out design shape a train could have...


----------



## larven (Sep 12, 2002)

The Siemens Class 185 dmu's used by Trans Pennine Express are pretty good looking trains in my opinion. They sound very good too, with powerful 750hp engines in each carriage. Great for climbing those steep gradients over the Pennine Hills between the cities of Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

*I like these aswell...*

They look clean and nicely shaped...


----------



## Mostly Lurking (May 2, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> Whats wrong with the MK3s? They are the most basic and well thought out design shape a train could have...


In.

Your.

Opinion.


----------



## larven (Sep 12, 2002)

poshbakerloo said:


> They look clean and nicely shaped...


Yeah I like them as well. Trans Pennine Express run the similar 170 Class Turbostar's.











They look pretty sweet in X-Country livery too.


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

Mostly Lurking said:


> In.
> 
> Your.
> 
> Opinion.


Mine.

Too.


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

iampuking said:


> Mine.
> 
> Too.



And mine. The Mark IIIs stand up there with the best of Continental locomotive hauled carriages.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> They look clean and nicely shaped...


Weird cheek bones and cross-eyed headlights. Positioning of the driver's cabin is asymmetrical.


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

Slagathor said:


> Weird cheek bones and cross-eyed headlights. Positioning of the driver's cabin is asymmetrical.


I agree. The cheek bones reminds me of Peter Sellers in The Revenge of the Pink Panther, when Clouseau is in his Godfather disguise. 

I can forgive the cheek bone face of these trains, but the eyes are a mess. Why do so many train designers mess up when it comes to the lights?

As for the driver's cabin being asymmetical, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean, the driver's seat is not slap bang in the middle of the left side window?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Mostly Lurking said:


> In.
> 
> Your.
> 
> Opinion.


what do you think then?


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

TedStriker said:


> I agree. The cheek bones reminds me of Peter Sellers in The Revenge of the Pink Panther, when Clouseau is in his Godfather disguise.
> 
> I can forgive the cheek bone face of these trains, but the eyes are a mess. Why do so many train designers mess up when it comes to the lights?
> 
> As for the driver's cabin being asymmetical, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean, the driver's seat is not slap bang in the middle of the left side window?












If you look closely, you'll notice the outline of the cabin (the part where it connects to the rest of the train) is clearly distinguishable, it doesn't blend. There's a sharp border. It runs along that black line over the roof all the way down along the sides. It looks like the front panel of a computer case, like you could easily click it off.










The cabin itself is asymmetrical in that the destination sign doesn't run across the entire width, of course.

That makes this train, by poshbakerloo's own standards of aesthetics, an ugly train.


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

Thanks. Next time I'm at Marylebone I'll try and kick it's face off.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

Brilliant


----------



## jsiren (Feb 14, 2009)

Just for laughs, here are some Finnish trains, which I happen to like quite a bit.

The good:
Sr2 (a version of the Swiss Lok2000) with older blue stock:









Russian-built Sr1 with double deck car carrier at Oulu, destined for a southbound night train:









Look at worker for scale.

A better view of the Sr1:









Sr2 with Intercity train consisting of single and double deck coaches:









The Finnish loading gauge is humongous, so double deck coaches are large, spacious and comfortable. Ride comfort is excellent. There are Intercity2 trains consisting entirely of double deckers, and night trains consisting of double deck sleepers, single deck coaches and restaurant, and double deck car carriers.

The bad - the Finnish Pendolino, which has gotten its share of bad press:









And the ugly - my pet project, two preserved 1950s railcars, which we run on Sundays:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> The cabin itself is asymmetrical in that the destination sign doesn't run across the entire width, of course.
> 
> That makes this train, by poshbakerloo's own standards of aesthetics, an ugly train.


Each side of the coaches is perfectly symmetrical...2 windows, a door, 4 windows, a door and 2 more windows...


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

So? Doesn't change all the flaws it has.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

What ruins most british trains for me are the tacky paint jobs. Choose one or maybe two colours not all of them!


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> So? Doesn't change all the flaws it has.


It doesn´t have any flaws...except the "cheek bones" what ever that is...
Its a nice shape, curved sides, not too tall or narrow or low and fat...all the windows are the same shape and size...


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Class 172

They are to come into service in 2010...
They look great!
They are to replace the 1980s Class 150 Sprinters around London


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

The Class 172? It's got nicer headlights, but I'd still kick it's face off.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> Class 172
> 
> They are to come into service in 2010...
> They look great!
> They are to replace the 1980s Class 150 Sprinters around London


I see we've lost the four-windows-two-doors symmetry on the side there. The driver cabin is still off. Not an especially nice looking train at all. It's not butt-ugly, but it's nothing special either.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> I see we've lost the four-windows-two-doors symmetry on the side there. The driver cabin is still off. Not an especially nice looking train at all. It's not butt-ugly, but it's nothing special either.


It still has symmetry...but with an extra window in the middle...
What do you mean "The driver cabin is still off"?


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> It still has symmetry...but with an extra window in the middle...


Well how does it continue? Is it five all over? That sounds unlikely, because you're working with an odd number. Since carriages don't usually end in the middle of a window, one suspects this train has 5 windows followed by 2 doors followed by 2 windows followed by a carriage-split followed by 2 windows and 2 doors again (that boils down to: 5W - 2D - 2W | 2W - 2D - 5W. Basically the windows are arranged five-four-five-four in simpler terms). Which is no good. Either that, or it will be 5W - 2D - 5W | 5W - 2D - 5W which is also questionable where symmetry is concerned. Plus, that results in a bigger gap between doors which is impractical.



> What do you mean "The driver cabin is still off"?


We've been over this: there are several factors that make the cabin look like a loose part that was belatedly screwed on.

These are not normally things I would pay much attention to, or indeed rate very highly, but you brought them up.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Slagathor said:


> We've been over this: there are several factors that make the cabin look like a loose part that was belatedly screwed on.


Don't be silly. Every component is just screwed on. The drivers cabin still fits in and completes the smooth and tempting lines of the trainset.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

_Tempting_? What kind of an odd perversion do you suffer from?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> Well how does it continue? Is it five all over? That sounds unlikely, because you're working with an odd number. Since carriages don't usually end in the middle of a window, one suspects this train has 5 windows followed by 2 doors followed by 2 windows followed by a carriage-split followed by 2 windows and 2 doors again (that boils down to: 5W - 2D - 2W | 2W - 2D - 5W. Basically the windows are arranged five-four-five-four in simpler terms). Which is no good. Either that, or it will be 5W - 2D - 5W | 5W - 2D - 5W which is also questionable where symmetry is concerned. Plus, that results in a bigger gap between doors which is impractical.


That is still symmetrical...2W-2D-5W-2D-2W...2W-2D-5W-2D-2W...

If u held a huge mirror in the middle of the 3rd window and looked into it...you would see the same as what is on the other side...



Slagathor said:


> We've been over this: there are several factors that make the cabin look like a loose part that was belatedly screwed on.
> 
> These are not normally things I would pay much attention to, or indeed rate very highly, but you brought them up.


You said it first that it looked as if it was hanging off

Its just the way the external panels fit...nothing to do with the structure of the train its all integral. Its just the outer painted surface...


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Slagathor said:


> _Tempting_? What kind of an odd perversion do you suffer from?


Don't worry, I'm fine. I'd be more concerned about you. What you associate with an artless word like tempting is abnormal.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

This is the train that the Class 172 is replacing...1984 was when they first came in

Class 150...


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

jsiren said:


> Just for laughs, here are some Finnish trains, which I happen to like quite a bit.
> 
> Hi Jsiren, are you from Finland?
> 
> If so, do you have any photos of the VR Cargo trains that carry lorry trailers?


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> That is still symmetrical...2W-2D-5W-2D-2W...2W-2D-5W-2D-2W...
> 
> If u held a huge mirror in the middle of the 3rd window and looked into it...you would see the same as what is on the other side...


It's less symmetrical than the other train you showed us. That one had:

4W-2D-2W | 2W-2D-4W

2+2 is four so the symmetry continues right through the carriage split (4-2-4-2-4-2-4 _ad infinitum_). It doesn't with the new train. Does it?



> You said it first that it looked as if it was hanging off
> 
> Its just the way the external panels fit...nothing to do with the structure of the train its all integral. Its just the outer painted surface...


In post #11 of this thread, you mentioned as 'weird features' the following:

* Narrow windows.
* Strangely high roof
* Odd cab design at the front

The class 172 has an odd cab design at the front. By your own standards, it is therefore an ugly train.

"It's just the way the external panels fit" - yes, of course it is. Otherwise it would have fallen off already. Ugly trains look ugly because that's the way _their_ external panels fit. It's not an excuse. The class 172 is not a pretty train - it has too many flaws to qualify as such by your own definition.

Again: I'm not the one who brought up all these nonsensical categorizations. But you judge non-English trains by certain parameters without realizing those parameters also illustrate flaws in English trains. 

If you think a train looks pretty because, when it comes around the corner approaching the station, you think _"Hey, that looks nice..!"_ then that's fine. Everyone has their own taste in style and design. 
But your parameters don't hold up, that's what I have a problem with. You dismiss non-English trains based on the facts they have asymmetrical window placement or odd cabin ends when there are plenty of English trains who also suffer from the same 'malfunctions'.

What you're trying to do is provide your personal dislike with some sort of justified official foundations, but it's not working.

Why can't you just say you like a train because it appeals to you?

For what it's worth: I think the class 150 is a pretty train. I used it a lot when I lived in England to get to- and from work. But if I have to judge it using _your_ silly conditions, then I'm going to find flaws. And quite obvious ones. 
I like the class 150 because it has a history, because of the sound of the engine, because the windows still open (unlike on modern airconditioned trains) and because it has sentimental value for me; it reminds me of things. 
I'm sure if you give it some proper thought, you'll have similar reasons for liking trains. Maybe even because they remind you of everything that's good about England and you're proud of your country. That's fine. But there's no reason to invent a list of requirements that are supposed to explain why a train looks pretty. Especially when that list seems to be created to 'prove' that non-English trains DON'T look pretty rather than the other way around. 



flierfy said:


> Don't worry, I'm fine. I'd be more concerned about you. What you associate with an artless word like tempting is abnormal.


Relax. It was a joke, you stickler.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> It's less symmetrical than the other train you showed us. That one had:
> 
> 4W-2D-2W | 2W-2D-4W
> 
> 2+2 is four so the symmetry continues right through the carriage split (4-2-4-2-4-2-4 _ad infinitum_). It doesn't with the new train. Does it?


5W-2D-2W | 2W-2D-5W...its still symmetrical, the middle just runs thru a window rather than between them...



Slagathor said:


> In post #11 of this thread, you mentioned as 'weird features' the following:
> 
> * Narrow windows.
> * Strangely high roof
> ...


I don´t count a very narrow line that runs across the roof a ugly designing, if I did, I would not like it...

The roof design in a 170 and 172 is the same as any other English train, slightly curved but not too high...

"Why can't you just say you like a train because it appeals to you?" It does...but for the same reason that all English trains do...I never go to another country and think, "oooh what nice looking trains" because to me, they all look weird and in many cases just plain ugly, which was the point of this whole thread, I wanted to see what other people think...

...and...what other people think about English train designs...


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Dahlis said:


> Thats a horrible livery, its to much. They need to clean it up.
> 
> Some examples of nice clean liveries:


That is actually quite nice, a bit plain maybe, but clean looking! In england I'm used to everything being all bright hehe


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

The old blue X2000 livery was way better imo.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

Indeed, this is just too plain again.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

thun said:


> The old blue X2000 livery was way better imo.


The old livery was from the early 90s and therefor looked therafter. It was dated so is the interior of the x2000 trains, light wood etc. The new one is both modern and a step back to classic clean designs, no silly stripes.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I never liked the Central Trains livery...
I didn't like the green...


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

And Central Trains were generally crap too. :lol:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

For something bright that will stand out...

Class 507 running with Mersey rail


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

Yellow and a Orange stripe, I guess they wanted to make it very clear that Mersey rail is operated by the Dutch Railways "NS" and the British Serco. 

Oh, and the train is butt ugly btw.


----------



## Mostly Lurking (May 2, 2008)

Momo1435 said:


> Yellow and a Orange stripe, I guess they wanted to make it very clear that Mersey rail is operated by the Dutch Railways "NS" and the British Serco.
> 
> Oh, and the train is butt ugly btw.


All UK stock carries a thin orange stripe at roof level - look back through the thread  It is the height nobody should go above when under 25kv electric wires.

That livery is based on the local PTE's colours, nothing else.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

Wow, I never noticed those orange stripes, but it does fit a Nedrail train.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I like the National Express livery...

Here it is on a MK3 coach...










Southwest Trains brighten up your day!

Here is it on a Class 450...










I was also a fan of the old Midland Main Line livery...

Seen here on a nice Class 170


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> I like the National Express livery...
> 
> Here it is on a MK3 coach...


Ahh, that is a very nice livery. Very modern. kay:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> Whats wrong with the MK3s? They are the most basic and well thought out design shape a train could have...


A true high speed coach that has:

1- tiny windows in the gangway doors
2- OUTSIDE opening side doors
3- not enough luggage spaces
4- ...


... too many compromising features to name them all. :cheers:

But as I said ... attach them to a pair of vallentas (or even disguised as _"classic"_ stock on the back of a Brush/EE) and I concede that they _"pass as pleasant looking"_. :lol: 

And by the way ... all train cars should look a lot more like the UIC X/Y stock than whatever cames out of the ultra restrictive british loading gauge. hno:



TedStriker said:


> You don't think the class 92s or 60s are good looking beasts?
> 
> And you only think the class 47s are just about ok?
> 
> Perhaps I have a gene within me that favours machines that have sprung from the Brush works...


In terms of looks you just nammed possibly the two worse looking BRITISH ENGINEERED/DESIGNED/BUILD/EMPLOYED/IMPORTED locomotives (60 + 92). :bash:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> A true high speed coach that has:
> 
> 1- tiny windows in the gangway doors
> 2- OUTSIDE opening side doors
> ...


The MK3s run up to 125Mph which isnt really high speed but they do look good, they have been a very successful design aswell even more multiple units. The Mk4s can run at 140Mph tho...but they do have small windows in the doors:lol:


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

In terms of looks you just nammed possibly the two worse looking BRITISH ENGINEERED/DESIGNED/BUILD/EMPLOYED/IMPORTED locomotives (60 + 92). :bash:[/QUOTE]


They're my favourites. :nuts:

I salivate when a 92 hums past me on the WCML, and I think the 60 looks the business, hauling 3,000 tonnes of aviation fuel through South Wales. 

It must be a Brush thing. I love the 47 as well, and I think the Eurotunnel shuttle locos look pretty good.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

He Named Thor said:


> Ahh, that is a very nice livery. Very modern. kay:


I think this look good. Just a shame about the way they painted the doors. They are wrap-around doors but they only painted red on the front side of themhno:


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

British trains generally look a bit ... namby-pamby (probably not the best phrase to describe them), but that's why I like them! I'm with poshbakerloo for not liking things that look down-right industrial (pretty strange that this word is often used in a negative sense in Britain).


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

> - Sotavento:
> 
> 
> And by the way ... all train cars should look a lot more like the UIC X/Y stock than whatever cames out of the ultra restrictive british loading gauge.



I've not got the time now to do much internet research, so I though I'd clarify some points with you regarding UIC X/Y stock. 

Am I right to think that most/all of the West European (as in pre-1990) rail administrations all built passenger cars based along the same UIC guidelines, these being the UIC X/Y guidelines? 

Is this the main reason why loco-hauled rolling stock in mainland Europe has a completely different look to British stock?


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I think english trains just look utilitarian and simple. form over function. That's a good thing. It's a box on wheels to move people not supposed to be art.

The technical speak, not a train expert but I get the concept of loading gauges. So are the trains in the UK not really compatible with the ones in continental Europe? I guess this why there aren't through freight services from say, Scotland to Italy via the chunnel?


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

zaphod said:


> I think english trains just look utilitarian and simple. form over function. That's a good thing. It's a box on wheels to move people not supposed to be art.
> 
> The technical speak, not a train expert but I get the concept of loading gauges. So are the trains in the UK not really compatible with the ones in continental Europe? I guess this why there aren't through freight services from say, Scotland to Italy via the chunnel?



You're right and wrong I think. Yes trains are there to perform a the duty of carrying people, and can do so without looking good. 

However, trains have to compete with other forms of transport, notably the private car and air travel. This means that to attract some passengers, the railways have to be as succesful in marketing terms, as well as operational terms. 

An ugly train, therefore, is a nightmare for a marketing man (or woman). The only trains which can truely afford to look like shit, are those which have a captive market, like, for example, London's deep level tube trains. 

(Not that I'm saying they do look bad, but my point is, if everyone thought they did, almost all would still use them regardless, simply because for most journeys there's no better alternative). 


With regards to the loading gauge issue, the British gauge is tighter both in width and height terms than any other in Europe. 

That means that any British train can fit on any line in Europe, but clearly the reverse is not true. 

Is this why there not any/more freight trains between Scotland and Italy, for example? No. 

There is an ample stock of 'boxcars' built specifically for both British and Continental networks to enable conventional freights to run. 

The same applies to intermodal wagons - there are more than enough which have been built to run in both Britain and the Continent to enable standard European swap bodies (which are about 2.7m high) to flow to/from Scotland and Italy. 

The reason why there are not more conventional and/or intermodal freights through the Channel Tunnel relates in large part to problems of trade imbalances, and the past problems of train delays caused by customs inspections and French trade union strikes, which put off a lot of logisitics companies which did use the first Tunnel intermodal services. 

The main drawback of Britain's loading gauge for freights relates to piggyback services - those which carry lorry semi-trailers. These are common across Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Northern Italy, and would be very useful for Britain, but one would have to demolish virtually every bridge and re-carve every tunnel to enable them to run.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> Your picture just shows a standard interior, nothing exiting. Just standard plastic seats with a worn out probably vandal proof upholstery. It's probably not the worst train to ride, but this thread is still about appearance.


This thread is about appearance, and how I think all none English trains look weird, not all English train are beautiful because a lot are not, just normal, not odd looking...

Sometimes the tried and tested smart looking designs or slight variants of them imo look the best...


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

^^


These units are I think the best looking in Britain today.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> A comparable English train to that, would be the Class 377


Visibility rules vs. plain black ??? 


:dunno:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> Visibility rules vs. plain black ???
> 
> 
> :dunno:


The viability rules only apply to the yellow on the front. The rest of the train is painted nicely to make it looked better than drab grey.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> The rest of the train is painted nicely *to make it looked better than drab grey*.


ehhh


poshbakerloo said:


> Sometimes the tried and tested smart looking designs or slight variants of them imo* look the best.*..


:dunno:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> ehhh
> 
> :dunno:


its silver and blue, honey lol


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> The viability rules only apply to the yellow on the front. The rest of the train is painted nicely to make it looked better than drab grey.



Not what I meant by that comment ... nothing like that at all.


I was just commenting on HIS apraisal of the japanese BLACK front when compared to the (generalisation) about british train headers ... 


Most "recent" trains in the UK also sponsor a large black front and the yellow area is diminute. :dunno:



















































































^^ not a single "_*ugly duck*_" there !!! :dunno:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

sotavento said:


> Not what I meant by that comment ... nothing like that at all.
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on HIS apraisal of the japanese BLACK front when compared to the (generalisation) about british train headers ...
> ...


The black area around windows is more of a fashion thing to make it look as if the glass area is larger.


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)




----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Its not that the british trains are ugly, its just that it looks like they where painted by very small children. To much bright colours, stripes and spots.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Using that reasoning then we must conclude that Japanese trains were all painted by guey people ... alll pink , sky blue and pastel colours.

:dunno:

(sidenotice: just read this as lightly headed humour atempt gone wrong)



What is the difference between INDUVIDUAL train operators having recongnizable and warm colours ... and other operators in other countries having ALL THEIR FLEETs in the same dull colour ??? 


Germany = red + white
Spain = red/magenta/pantoneXXXX + white
France + Italy = grey 

and so on ... :lol:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Dahlis said:


> Its not that the british trains are ugly, its just that it looks like they where painted by very small children. To much bright colours, stripes and spots.



wot u on about? lol


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

sotavento said:


> What is the difference between INDUVIDUAL train operators having recongnizable and warm colours ... and other operators in other countries having ALL THEIR FLEETs in the same dull colour ???
> 
> 
> Germany = red + white
> ...


Its two different things to have a recognizable livery and having a tacky one. One colour does not have to be dull as long as its a nice colour. 

A nice example of SJs classy new black livery for the old trains:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I always liked the GNER livery
looks quite smart


----------



## Mostly Lurking (May 2, 2008)

So.... How often do we see these ugly diesel locos in a London train station? 

For those of you unaware, five different Eurostar trains failed inside the Channel Tunnel yesterday - this one was dragged from inside the tunnel to London. It is thought that running at 186mph in France at below freezing then plunging into the warm (around 27C) and humid tunnel played havoc with electrics. Some of the trains were stuck in the tunnel for five hours with no air conditioning.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Dahlis said:


> Its two different things to have a recognizable livery and having a tacky one. One colour does not have to be dull as long as its a nice colour.
> 
> A nice example of SJs classy new black livery for the old trains:


I was talking about these:
















































































when these kind take nationwide proportions it gets terribly _DULL_ :dunno:


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

sotavento said:


> I was talking about these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats not very nice I agree.


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

Mostly Lurking said:


> So.... How often do we see these ugly diesel locos in a London train station?
> 
> For those of you unaware, five different Eurostar trains failed inside the Channel Tunnel yesterday - this one was dragged from inside the tunnel to London. It is thought that running at 186mph in France at below freezing then plunging into the warm (around 27C) and humid tunnel played havoc with electrics. Some of the trains were stuck in the tunnel for five hours with no air conditioning.


Such a shame this has happened, usually such a reliable and quick service. It seems they didn't have very good emergency planning, according to passengers affected. The architects of St Pancras will also be disappointed, they stipulated that diesel locomotives would be banned from the new terminal so it would never smell of fumes. These may well be the only diesel engines ever to be in that station.


----------



## Mostly Lurking (May 2, 2008)

Stainless said:


> Such a shame this has happened, usually such a reliable and quick service. It seems they didn't have very good emergency planning, according to passengers affected. The architects of St Pancras will also be disappointed, they stipulated that diesel locomotives would be banned from the new terminal so it would never smell of fumes. These may well be the only diesel engines ever to be in that station.


To be fair those locomotives are allowed to work in the tunnel for rescue purposes so they are fitted with pretty unique exhaust systems to eliminate fumes


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Mostly Lurking said:


> So.... How often do we see these ugly diesel locos in a London train station?


They must be french :lol:

Ive never seen em before up until now.


----------



## anteat (Jan 28, 2010)

I personally feel that British trains have to many safety and accessability requirements to meet, for example the yellow on the front and the doors which have to be of a contrasting colour to help people with poor vision. Another problem with British rolling stock is the fact that our network has a very strict loading gauge limiting the design of the train, which is why i feel our stock occasionally looks dated.










In my opinion stock on the continent is designed to a much higher level, both aesthetically and mechanically, especially the TGV which is one of my favorites of any european rolling stock.


















However the spanish Euromed 101 surpasses even the TGV


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

anteat said:


> I personally feel that British trains have to many safety and accessability requirements to meet, for example the yellow on the front and the doors which have to be of a contrasting colour to help people with poor vision. Another problem with British rolling stock is the fact that our network has a very strict loading gauge limiting the design of the train, which is why i feel our stock occasionally looks dated.


The yellow front never has bothered me. I always liked it as it to me shows where the front is which gets more blurred on multiple units with corridor ends. The different coloured doors used to bug me at first, but now I quite like it...it looks good when they pick good colours!

British rolling stock is limited by the loading gauge, but I think it helps the appearance of the trains. A lot of larger and wider trains abroad have very flat sides and looks much more bulkier, not all curved (and nice) like UK trains...

The Class 375, below, would look 10000% worse had it got flat sides and a white front etc


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

But with so strict loading gauge requirements, the body of the train, apart from the nose, can't really be designed that much. That makes the trains look very similar to each other. I don't know about you but I like diversity.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Rebasepoiss said:


> But with so strict loading gauge requirements, the body of the train, apart from the nose, can't really be designed that much. That makes the trains look very similar to each other. I don't know about you but I like diversity.


The only effect the loading gauge has on a train is its size. But the design and layout of doors etc is not effected. And even then a train can only either have flat sides, or curved sides. And I think that 90% of people like curved sides more anyway.

The 175s have very curved sides at the bottom and more rarely at the top aswell...I think they look better for it.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

^^
What the hell is the destination on that train's dot matrix?!

Looks like: Hoerdaugieidau/i


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Tubeman said:


> ^^
> What the hell is the destination on that train's dot matrix?!
> 
> Looks like: Hoerdaugieidau/i


some strange welsh place! lol:lol:


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> And I think that 90% of people like curved sides more anyway.


90% of the people want a seat and a train that runs on time.

And the trains in Europe have flat sides because it's possible in the different lauding gauge, as a result the interior looks more spacious, also because the windows can be bigger and that is something that people often appreciate.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Momo1435 said:


> 90% of the people want a seat and a train that runs on time.
> 
> And the trains in Europe have flat sides because it's possible in the different lauding gauge, as a result the interior looks more spacious, also because *the windows can be bigger and that is something that people often appreciate*.


If they were clean which they rarely are.


----------



## DWNTWN (Oct 1, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> some strange welsh place! lol:lol:


"Aberdaugleddau" is Milford Haven in Welsh.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> 90% of the people want a seat and a train that runs on time.


This thread is just about appearance tho, not functionality...


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ In other words, 90% of the people don't care if their train has curved or flat sides.


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

I can see how you can appreciate the proportions of British trains, and I definitely like most of the fastest ones(the Pendolino, Intercity 125/225, Javelin, etc.), but I think most of the medium-range and commuter trains fall short of being impressive. My main problem is the flat front most of them have, it gives them a boring and slightly dated appearance.

I think it would be nice if they give some of them slightly more streamlined and aerodynamic appearances like the following:

















The UK itself already has a few examples:

















I think trains like these would allow the train companies to market themselves as being fast and modern(even if they aren't truly high speed), and hopefully gain more ridership. Overall though, Britain could do much worse when it comes to train design. :cheers:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Momo1435 said:


> ^^ In other words, 90% of the people don't care if their train has curved or flat sides.


But again that isn't the point. Its the fact that UK trains do have curved sides and I like it. And im pretty sure that those people that do notice it would prefer curved sides aswell, I know this because I've seen people complain about the desiros having flattened sides, tho they are still slightly curved.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

curved sides are crap. the fashion at the moment is the straight mixed with the curves.

look at the new manchester trams.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

In Netherlands there are double-deckers with curved sides


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

Are they attractive? No.


----------



## larven (Sep 12, 2002)

anteat said:


>


Just looks great even after all these years. Sleek, modern, near perfect proportions for its purpose.... a design classic.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

larven said:


> Just looks great even after all these years. Sleek, modern, near perfect proportions for its purpose.... a design classic.


Actually, they are ugly. Appearance is certainly no strength of the TGV.


----------



## loefet (Dec 30, 2008)

^^ There is only one TGV derivative that really looks great and it's the new KTX-2


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

The TGV at it's best









Flickr: by justindperkins


----------



## da_scotty (Nov 4, 2008)

I dont think it is neceserraly Succesfull, but its form is just bound to the size regulation


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

there isn't anything unsuccessful about the design. It was British trains that first had automatic sliding doors on commuter trains...
The whole concept of the passenger train was started in England, the everyone else followed. So was the 2 doors on each side 1/3 and 2/3 across on commuter trains


----------



## manrush (May 8, 2008)

Is there a reason that English commuter trains always have the two-door configuration on each side instead of going for a three-door or four-door configuration?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

manrush said:


> Is there a reason that English commuter trains always have the two-door configuration on each side instead of going for a three-door or four-door configuration?


I have no idea. The London Underground trains all have 4 doors, I guess they just thought they weren't needed. The old MK1 and MK2 based trains had loads of doors with the old compartment trains as can be seen here...


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have no idea. The London Underground trains all have 4 doors, I guess they just thought they weren't needed. The old MK1 and MK2 based trains had loads of doors with the old compartment trains as can be seen here...


I can't understand why these old EMU have all those slam doors. For me it looks very strange. Why didn't they built them with a few wide doors like old trains at the S-Bahn in Berlin?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Uppsala said:


> I can't understand why these old EMU have all those slam doors. For me it looks very strange. Why didn't they built them with a few wide doors like old trains at the S-Bahn in Berlin?


They did...

Class 303

It just depended on how crowded it got. Compartment trains have a higher capacity as they have 2 rows of 6 in each compartment (the compartments went right cross the coach with no corridor.


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

Ahh the slam doors. Those doors could be opened when the train was moving as I remember and the dwell times were so short because there were so many doors. I remember the sound of them all slamming shut... Happy days.

Speaking of doors, I love how hard the doors slam shut on the Class 465/466s and Class 444s. They make the train itself shake.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

iampuking said:


> Ahh the slam doors. Those doors could be opened when the train was moving as I remember and the dwell times were so short because there were so many doors. I remember the sound of them all slamming shut... Happy days.
> 
> Speaking of doors, I love how hard the doors slam shut on the Class 465/466s and Class 444s. They make the train itself shake.


None of them trains have slam doors, but I know that the Class 444s like all the UK desiros when the doors close they do 'slam' pretty hard, even tho they are plug doors...


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> None of them trains have slam doors, but I know that the Class 444s like all the UK desiros when the doors close they do 'slam' pretty hard, even tho they are plug doors...


My second paragraph wasn't about slam doors...

I do love the hard slamming, it certainly beats how lightly the doors close on some tube lines. And isn't it funny how everyone respects them?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

iampuking said:


> My second paragraph wasn't about slam doors...
> 
> I do love the hard slamming, it certainly beats how lightly the doors close on some tube lines. And isn't it funny how everyone respects them?


Tube trains have sliding doors, so they won't slam anyway, plug doors do slam as they close inward...


----------



## Mostly Lurking (May 2, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> Tube trains have sliding doors, so they won't slam anyway, plug doors do slam as they close inward...


On some tube stock they close hard and fast hence the use of the word 'slam'.

But you already know that and just want to keep the thread going.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> Tube trains have sliding doors, so they won't slam anyway, plug doors do slam as they close inward...


Metropolitan line. I think this looks quite similar to the typical trains at the Metro in Bucharest.


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

Mostly Lurking said:


> On some tube stock they close hard and fast hence the use of the word 'slam'.
> 
> But you already know that and just want to keep the thread going.


Took the words out of my mouth there.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Mostly Lurking said:


> On some tube stock they close hard and fast hence the use of the word 'slam'.


How can they slam if they dnt slam against anything??? they slide!


----------



## iampuking (Mar 10, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> How can they slam if they dnt slam against anything??? they slide!


They slam against each other. It's a rather simple concept, no? Or would you prefer to split hairs further in a risible attempt to reignite this pompous and self-indulgent thread?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

iampuking said:


> this pompous and self-indulgent thread?


:lol: uh oh! I never knew trains got under peoples skin so much


----------



## Mostly Lurking (May 2, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> :lol: uh oh! I never knew trains got under peoples skin so much


They don't. You do.

That is why you have stopped posting on other sites because of the backlash and warnings from mods.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Mostly Lurking said:


> They don't. You do.
> 
> That is why you have stopped posting on other sites because of the backlash and warnings from mods.


Its because some people get stressed out about my views on things rather than giving their opinions and adding to it etc...it was all going good until Rail UK users took over this thread haha (I'm guessing thats what you mean)


----------



## Mostly Lurking (May 2, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> Its because some people get stressed out about my views on things rather than giving their opinions and adding to it etc...*it was all going good until Rail UK users took over this thread* haha (I'm guessing thats what you mean)


Point proven. You don't like it when people disagree with you, or you are challenged. So you start to make daft comments. "It was all going your way until people started to disagree or correct me".

I haven't just joined this thread either, I have been on it from since near the beginning.

The whole point of you starting this thread was to serve your own self indulgence - it is clear to see for all (but some good pictures have been posted too).


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

for some reason tim nice but dim springs to mind when i look at this thread


----------



## voltrega62 (Apr 24, 2010)

*Rack railway Ribes-Nuria, Catalunya/Catalonia*


----------



## VITORIA MAN (Jan 31, 2013)

a not high speed train in spain called altaria http://www.flickr.com/groups/renfe_diurno/pool/
















a regional train


----------



## 압둘라-爱- LOVE (May 17, 2012)




----------



## Siedem Sióstr (Dec 4, 2011)

Great diesel locs from Poland.










and electric


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Hamburg, comuter trains


----------



## matarmaja (Oct 8, 2013)

Madiun Jaya Train


----------



## matarmaja (Oct 8, 2013)

GE U18C (CC 201 Series)


----------

