วีดีโอ

Nah the 345 is faster at accelerating

Yep

To be honest the '00s generation (357, 350) was even better than the '80s/'90s generation (455, 465) but yeah the new generation is so unreliable. Worse than the Brush 465. It's frustrating

​@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf for now we just have to see what the future holds for us.

Thanks lol

Boring is the wrong word, but it's a bad train. Everything about it screams LAZINESS - they thought that bland, uncomfortable interior and the awful ride was suitable for 2.5 hour services? Ridiculous man

@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf yeah that too, but i mean boring is also a factor. The design is dull ambiance shit. It makes the ride more intollerable. The motor sounds arent as important but ruin the vibe when their too quiet and dull. Theres nothing keeping you stimulated is what i mean. Its just ...bland to the point where your actually suffering🤣 When you have a train thats uncomfortable but also boring, it enhances the level of suffering one goes through on an already rushed train. Thats what i mean.

@@bb-3653 I see what you mean now yeah

@@bb-3653 I disagree. Having quieter trains is good. Train fans or whatever might not like it, but 99% of people don't ride trains for the experience but to get from point A to B as efficiently and as comfortably as possible. Ambiance helps but it's certainly one of the lower priorities when it comes to transit. You can look out the window to keep yourself stimulated. Don't really see why you need motor sounds to keep things not dull. Nowadays plenty of people just listen to music, or look at their phones, read etc. A louder train means people are forced to turn up volume on their earbuds which isn't good for hearing. Loud trains aren't good for hearing either. In every practical metric, quieter trains is just better.

@@neurofiedyamato8763 i further disagree. I can use all your points in the opposite direction. Firstly the idea that most passengers are on their phones and the motors will cause them to turn the volume up. This isnt the reason they have their phones on , alot of passengers want stimulation in their own way . Secondly, not all people have the same requirements for "stimulation". So telling me or anyone "theres just windows look out of it" aint always gonna cut it because sometimes background noise whether consciously or unconsciously helps to keep some people distracted, occupied or at ease. Motors arent loud enough on modern trains to cause passengers to "put their headphones up in volume" as most trains are quiet. The motors are just audiable enough to still hear. My point is, there are quirks /sounds , extra layered things in life that we can appreciate and enjoy and motor sounds feature in this. Music is quirky thing humans do. It involves sounds in rythm. It isnt nesseccery for life but it sure makes it feel good! You sort of also prove my point with your statement regarding "passengers want to travel from A to B so arent focused on motor sounds" . Good ! and to add to that they generally arent bothered by minor sounds whether its the whirring of the Air conditioning or the electronic buzzing or whirring of other on board equipment if anything that adds to tbe ambiance of the experience. Truth be told theres a phenomena surrounding humans being uncomfortable in super quiet environments. I can make the argument that all electrical components are too loud and that we should sound dampen them too. But that doesent happen, why? Because it doesent exceed enough decibles to cause major issue this includes alot of modern trains. Truth is most passengers are likely more bothered by excessive track noise or wind as opposed to motor sounds as motors arent that loud to begin with, and any article or paper refrencing train noise is usually reffering to the track and wheel vibrations that echoes across the environment. Whereas motors can still be audiable and be within a comfortable range of decibles . In summary all im saying is that not everything needs to be looked at through this lense of hyper improvement to things that never really needed them beyond a certain point. Whilst we can always improve things that are of major importance, human beings are inherently not that efficient in all areas, and often find certain things that arent practical , very very satisfying. Its the same reason people like car noise to a mild degree or even a washing machine sound..its just our nature, we are weird. So this idea of "practical in all all areas" isnt always nesseccery. And with motor noises, this isnt always related to rail fans, many normie passengers who may hear motors may find it intriguing or satisfying consciously or unconsciously. Its the same reason some people like mild noise in their electric cars. Thats where my point stands. Theres a reason thousands of people watch train or car or even plane vids. Its satisfying. Its like an ASMR on the go. My argument is not to randomly implement sound, my argument revolves around not caring too much to "fix" things that werent broken to begin with and that arent the most important part of the train, snd that leaving it in as an enjoyable quirk for alot of people. Even non rail fans.

Idk I've not been on a 730 but the 701 and 720 are pretty awful/poor. 345s very hit-and-miss. Half are OK, half ride awfully.

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf it was a cheap alternative. Electrostars could have been made lighter and still have mods implemented to make them more metro suited. I.e the open gangways. And they could have taken more time to design a sturdier inner frame bogie for the unpowered cars and invest time in an outer frame bogie that holds the more robust and powerful motors. outer frame bogies dont need to be super heavy at all, it's just the cheap quick alternative methods they used to make aventras with inner framed bogies that take less time to adapt as they are thinner by default. So again an electrostar with modernised features to reduce weight but keep them reliable . Class 387s shouldn't have been the last electrostars. They should have made an electrostar 3 keeping some older elementa but adding improved elements in other ways. They could have used the class 377 and 379 model with specialised sub classes for further experimention. Again Hypothetical example Class 377/8 Similar to class 377/6 and 7 Adapted features . Smaller igbts like on the class 378s .lower motor gear ratio to achieve 100mph faster (like on the 378s) .inner framed bogies uaed as an unpowered bogiesl to have adequate suspension and applied to it. .Motor bogies modified to be lighter but still use the same powerful electrostar motors but also still outer framed. Make more roomy interiors for standing room removing unnecessary walls and padding to enable more space for seating and passenger sganding room. .updated tech .Open gangways with less clunky modelling. Modifying body frame to make it lighter without the need to completely change the entire body shell. Again taking into consideration passenger comfort .

Never been on either

@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf Well the 507s and 508s had better ride quality and better seats than the 777s. The only good thing about the 777s is level boarding and quick acceleration

@@awesometrainsandbuses The acceleration is helpful for journey times to be fair but it's ridiculous. How are they (the 777s) nastier inside than 40 year old trains? Ridiculous.

It was via Sidcup

I don't think that's right. 0-60 for a 395 is 38/39 seconds at best. Many are around 41-44 now as they have gotten significantly worse since I timed that one. Still impressive for a unit geared to 140mph.

Either way it changes nothing - the 345 would still be faster either way.

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf the rail performance society stated this anyway. So idk .

@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf faster at low end speed for sure due to having a shit ton of motors and lower speed gearing . The 395 picks up after

@@gapthemind--mindthegap8524 Yep. 345s are much quicker at low speeds

50mph - 90 VS 140mph

@ ops thanks i kinda got confused with 125 and 140

The BRELwas actually quicker to 10mph but then immediately lost it after that. The /9s power through high speed so much better. No wonder drivers say the units feel as if they are fighting each other at speed!

Been a while since I had 2 /9s paired but when it happens they fly if all motors are firing properly

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf the units fight each other at lower speed because the met cams cant shoot off as fast from the mark. This is likely due to better motor torque from the BRELs but lack the horse power after so the met cams drag it along or push

Why? What's wrong?

@ best unit in my opinion is slowly getting awful

@@jr-jadenrailways8032 Nah the best units are 465901 and 465908

@@jr-jadenrailways8032 This unit is still very smooth though

More 465/9s are creaky than 466s tbh

@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf idk to me they're both equally as creaky, I heard 466039 creak last night

@@awesometrainsandbuses Idk about that one I haven't been on it in ages. I remember it being rough though

It is one of the smoothest 465/9s

Agreed, it's horrendously inconsistent sometimes

465919 did come back smoother though - it has very good ride quality. See my other video on it.

Idk about how much power each train has but I was surprised the 92 stock was as quick as the 95 stock off the line. DC motors are worse than AC motors and GTOs are much worse than IGBTs too. Impressive all things considered.

@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf its sort of bait with the acceleration pattern. If it falls off rapidly then theres a chance it has lower overall power output, but has multiple motors allowing it to use more power rapidly as a whole unit from the start, hence rapid low speed acceleration. And yeah DC style also contributes to poor overall acceleration im sure too. The 95 stock has more motors than a 96 but also likely less than a 92 stock. Motors cant always use max power immediately from 0mph without potentially messing it up long term, so having more motors means the system can uptake more power but distributed in smaller bits accross the various motors preventing them being overworked/overloaded i guess, whilst delivering more low speed torque. At least thats how i hypothesise

@@gapthemind--mindthegap8524 Yeah the 95 stock is defo much better at high speeds though

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf Same with the 96 stocks, 95 and 96 stocks are easily the quickest units to get to 50mph even faster than 09 stocks

@@jr-jadenrailways8032 Nah I've heard 09 stock are quicker than '96 and similar to '95

Yeah the audio quality of my phone is quite good

That's a fine opinion to be fair

The /9s are better than the BRELS for sure

Worse than 465s for sure

Fair enough - I just personally dislike them

@ yeah i get why they do smell weird and stuff but i think i like them as they dont run where i live and i love the old livery

Ugh, yes. It's not just this unit though; 465904 was truly terrible. Nearly swore out loud on that one because it lurched unexpectedly hard. Surely that's not the coupler, that's the suspension/wheels being dodgy

@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf nah the creaking is the coupler. I think the airbags are responsible for lurching

@@gapthemind--mindthegap8524 Either dodgy airbags or undermaintained wheels

@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf nah wheels can't be doing that or the darn train would be usable . What I think is because it's costs more to maintain them now. They only do bare minimum maintenance on the suspension. That's my theory. This is why I was saying subsequent overhauls would have made alot more sense overtime. Like changing parts etc over the years , if you modernised some of the parts then they'd be easier to sustain . But southeastern apparently don't want that 😂💁🏾‍♂️

@@gapthemind--mindthegap8524 465904 must have had the dodgiest airbags then. That unit nearly banged my head on the wall

Yep, but 465904 is almost equally bad! The worst riding /9 for sure

@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf I wanna know if 465927 has deteriorated at all. Last time I had it, it was one of the best 465s

@@JackHymers-cq6kt Idk, I've seen it around but haven't been on it in ages.

@@JackHymers-cq6kt The only units I know are good are 465901, 465908, and 465910. 465906 and 465927 are unknown. 465909 and 465904 are soo bad

What do you mean? It got worse?

@ last time i was on this unit, 909, it was creaking, but not that much. But watching this video, it sounds worse

@@uktransportspotter9657 Oh OK. It has also started to shake as well. Definitely the worst /9, although 465904 is 2nd worst with an awful ride (very shaky, even shakier than 465909).

This is a unit that hasnt visited doncaster anytime recently i think!

@@jr-jadenrailways8032 It has never visited Doncaster full stop

@@jr-jadenrailways8032 465904 rides worse than this unit though, just look at my video on it

@@jr-jadenrailways8032 My replies won't post 💀💀

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf i can tell

Nah, 465903 has much worse ride quality than most other /9s. If you find 465901, 465908, 465913, 465924, or 465928, go on them and you will find they do not move like this.

Nah, 365 motor sounds are loud alright... listen to the train while the text is rolling and you can hear the motors getting louder

Also - the bass is not the only issue with the 365, as to me it also sounds overly drawn out and unnaturally sluggish compared to a 465/9, despite accelerating faster. It's a bit weird lol

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf agreed, the motors are loud on 365s but that's only the GTO modulation and then they go quiet. The rest of the sounds are quiet. Motor fan isn't as loud as the 465s the gearbox isn't as loud either.

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf 365s sound sluggish because they have a 100mph gearing. The 465s are lower geared so the GTO will be faster. However it doesent help that they are also 0.65m/s² that too diminishes the 365s beginning sound to being much slower naturally tbf.

@@gapthemind--mindthegap8524 Erm, no. The 365 accelerates faster than any 465. It's 19 seconds to 30 VS 20 for a 465, 36 seconds to 50 VS 40 for a 465, 51 seconds to 60 VS 58 for a 465, and ~73 seconds to 75 VS ~97-100 for a 465. The 365 is most definitely a lot faster to accelerate. The sluggish sound must solely be due to the higher gearing. Either way I find it annoying to listen to.

Agreed on the 350/444/450 (I forgot to say the 444/450 sound exactly the same as a 350). Aventras sound too boring to be good or bad to me. They are just average. 09 stock sound like 378s' so are not bad. 333 and 332 are just average sounding to me. Not bad but not good either. 700s on DC sound the same as a 350 so I don't like them either. I agree with you on that one. The AC sound is just average too. Come to think of it, I should have put that in the video.

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf the thing is most of what your hearing on 09 stock and 350s/700s is the igbt whine (or the carrier frequency) the 09 stock is inaudiable at 50mph it's so quiet it's annoying. Like I want to hear the gearbox screams....but there aren't any😂😂 the 378s gear ratio allows them to be heard screaming for a while longer. Aventras are boring for the same reason as a 450/350 . Super quiet gearboxes and a motor that doesent make loud enough synchronous mode sounds (that "omm!!" noise we hear on electrostars ) Class 700s are just again...super quiet. And the gearboxes are the only thing you can hear but even then it's super quiet. Siemens UK is boring as a mofo. Siemens Europe...a different ball game man!! Sound way better in Germany.

@@gapthemind--mindthegap8524 The 350s sound annoying anyway

Thanks! I may do that video, but we'll see :)

Fair enough. Was close to putting the 465/9 as an honorable mention but the 395s just edge it out. Am working on a video of the worst sounds now. Let's see how much you agree with my takes in that video!

Ah, haven't been on 909 in a while - thanks for letting me know. I didn't know 902 was out and about - thanks for letting me know that too.

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf yea i rode 909 which was coupled to 465161 and 902 was on its own

I also saw 465924 on its own but didnt get s chance to ride it

@@uktransportspotter9657 I've been on 465924 recently. It is smooth but squeaky too

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf fair enough, when i saw these trains, they were on the greenwich line, doing Cannon street-Cannon street Via Eltham if you wanna catch them

I do quite like their sound.

Maybe the 323s?

@@ultimclaren I dislike the sound of the 323s' tbh

@@SolomonClarkeTrains-nw1sf someone who agrees lol, some quick sounding motor change sounds so odd

@@jr-jadenrailways8032 This^^^

Class 331s