Their predecessors were ageing and in the hot south east in the summer trains with hopper windows needed to go. The 321s could have all been refurbed and lasted a few more years but the 317s were 40 years old. As they were replacing them and Interest rates were low and GA wanted to win the long term bid, their thinking was ‘we may as well replace all the slightly younger 321s as well’.
100%
The decision to replace loco-hauled, and HSTs with 4 car, some 5, was a disgrace. They're claustrophobic, dirty, tatty and noisy. At the very least they should have been 7 cars. Why anyone would pay good money to travel on them from Scotland to the South West, I have no idea.
Outside of the 3+2 seats doubt most actual passengers would agree with the "Waste of money" compared to the units they replaced.
Yes, 150s should be top of the retirement list: they're excessively noisy with uncomfortable seating and a poor ambience.
156s have that famous Washwood Heath build quality though, they're quite rotten by now. They also "fall between two stools" with a layout more suited to limited-stop routes but only a 75mph top speed. They're best suited for medium distance rural routes, which there aren't really enough of to make use of a fleet of over 100 units.
However for me it's probably the Class 387s. Poor ride quality and less than ideal seating
The good news is you'll never go to hell. The bad news is it's because you have no soul.HSTs - just to be different.
Yes they are horrible. There are 2 on lease to TfW, and I try to avoid having to use them! They still have the original cramped 3+2 layout.
theres truly no worse feeling than seeing a 150 allocated to the train youre catching, one thing ill give them though is there is always a seat available, unlike CAF's unorthodox approach of making every seat a table seat
I would've thought the 150/1s are worse
