Halish Railway
Established Member
It would be excellent for a uniformed 150 fleet with no silly differences in my opinion.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Northern Unit Refurbishments
- Thread starter darloscott
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
From the company Facebook group Halish
Looks good I think
Well thats certainly more like what we should be getting. Arriva have clearly done their sums on 3+2 for the 150's so thats unlikely to change but hopefully they will get pushed onto more appropriate workings when the new stock arrives.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That isn't new seating. It's the Chapman seats fitted in the 2000-ish First North Western refurbs.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
When the cushions have been replaced, in fact everything bar the frame, I feel arguing such technicalities to be rather pointless...
One change I'd definitely want to see with the 150s is an end to airline seats on the '3' side due to the difficulty any average-sized adult will have in accessing the window seat in that arrangement. A 333-style arrangement (airline seats on the 2-side only) would be more comfortable.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It depends, certain frame designs limit what you can do. For one example, the seat back table design on the Chapman seat is useless - a large laptop-capable table cannot be fitted, and as soon as someone sits/stands (even a kid) on one they won't stay even horizontal enough for a coffee. So on the 156s I think it's right to replace them even though they are reasonably comfortable. (The Richmond seat has a far greater issue, though - those are collapsing completely and so horribly uncomfortable to sit on).
But they are from another era, almost nobody was using anything more technological than a CD Walkman on a regional express/regional train in 2000.
This would be sensible (as would removing the two sideways facing seats and spacing the airline seats properly rather than for children and dwarves), but the problem is that there is under-seat equipment on 150s which is difficult to move. This is the reason, AIUI, for First North Western having kept the /1s and /2s in different layouts despite the refurb being very extensive for 2000ish (new seats, new bog, full repaint inside and out etc).
northernchris
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 1,509
The seat covers do look much better than those on the refurbed 158s, but given the layout suspect it won't be long before they are looking grubby once a few chavs have stuck their feet on them
321s?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Renatus ones only, which are more of a rebuild of a completely new unit re-using the old bodyshell, bogies and driveline. Now you mention it, though, Chiltern 165s. In both cases, though, that was only so they could have the openings removed to stop them being used to make the aircon not work properly.
Thinking on, they also replaced the inner window frame on the XC Mk2 refurb (but not the WC refurb, which made the latter look cheap) - but only that part, and probably because it was quite corroded in places.
But I do stand corrected on those few only!
That goes to show how much the non ex-FNW 150s need a decent refurbishment. When old Northern sent the ex-ATN 150s over to the North West they looked like they had been abandoned in railway sidings for the past 10 years in comparison to the refurbished ones we already had and the ex-LM 150s only arrived in slightly better condition.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'd go rip the lot out and put in 2+2 ironing boards, possibly without armrests to allow increased standing space (like the ex-Thameslink 319s, a layout that works quite well on commuter trains).
Ironing boards would allow the existing layout to be retained (minus the third seat) but the legroom to become acceptable, and there to be plenty of saloon standing space and the ability to pass in the aisle.
Do you mean the seats as tightly squashed against the window and each other as with 3+2 seating? If so I don't see much benefit in doing that.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The benefit is that (a) it isn't 3+2, and (b) there is a lot of standing and circulation space.
You can still get most of the benefit if you mount the seats about an inch away from the window - the priority seats on the LM 319s are so mounted (this is a modification from Thameslink days), and it makes all the difference, I actually find them acceptably comfortable for a 1 hour journey even though I am very much on the big side.
Halish Railway
Established Member
Shame that we can't have a 50/50 layout of Airline and communal seats like Class 322's on the Class 150's.
That isn't always a benefit - some train services carry more children than adults and some carry a large number of pensioners.
Thameslink is very different to Northern class 150 routes. The 150s are used on a variety of different routes and on many routes the service isn't that frequent so the passengers may have been standing for a while on the platform prior to boarding and they can't just watch a train go if there's a lot of standees on it.
Halish Railway
Established Member
Have to agree, I take the train to school and class 321's are always terrible as they have an all communal layout.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Here's what my refurb would look like;
150: Chapman 2+2 like ATW's
155: IC 3000
156: IC 3000
158: IC 3000
170: IC 3000
319: Chapman 2+2 as per the 150's
769: IC 3000 & Luggage racks in front & rear coaches (can be removed after Windermere & Barrow services change to 195 operation) and same as 319's in center coaches
150: Chapman 2+2 like ATW's
155: IC 3000
156: IC 3000
158: IC 3000
170: IC 3000
319: Chapman 2+2 as per the 150's
769: IC 3000 & Luggage racks in front & rear coaches (can be removed after Windermere & Barrow services change to 195 operation) and same as 319's in center coaches
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If Northern is leaving people behind regularly on low frequency services, and evidence on here is that it is, the 319 style layout will allow more to travel.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I guess you, like I, are a fan of the IC3000. Large-headrest version even better, I agree.
But I would go:
150: Thameslink style 2+2 Fainsa "ironing boards", no armrests, spaced 1" from the wall.
155: If you're not scrapping the terrible things, 2+2 Fainsa "ironing boards" with armrests per the ScotRail units. The pitch is so tight (and can't necessarily be changed due to underseat equipment boxes) so the thin seats will provide a real benefit.
156: as 155 for the same reasons. I really like the ScotRail refurb design, it should be copied exactly other than the seat fabric design. (I quite like the dark and light blue above, use that).
158: Grammer IC3000 in almost-original layout. To provide DDA compliance a few rows would need to be shifted around a bit, but the original layout as far as possible is by far the best use of space in a Class 158 (it loses[1] no between-seat-back space at all by alternating airline and table seats) and provides excellent window alignment.
[1] Yes I know, luggage space. Nobody *ever* seems to put it there. Better to use a layout like that and have dedicated racks as built, and maybe see if there is a way to make the overhead bigger/easier to access e.g. by redesigning the lighting conduit to be more flush with the ceiling using LEDs.
319: as 150. They are basically the same bodyshell.
769 for regional use: as 150.
769 for Windermere services (I'd send them to Barrow myself too, but I know the issues which aren't for this thread): Grammer IC3000 in a 2+2 layout with tables. Each full length two window section should contain 6 rows of seats, one side all airline with priority seats, one side 3 table bays. Or as an alternative, mix them up in a layout as below allowing the tables good window alignment:
[=[==][==]=]
[=-[=[=[=]-=]
where = and - are legroom, the ones with - are priority seats with extra space - if you do it with spaces it doesn't align properly! Though under seat equipment boxes may dictate which precise layout is possible, I don't *think* 319s have as many of these as 150s. Priority seats would omit the centre armrest for space due to the door pocket.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
FWIW the small number of ex-Thameslink units that have a generously spaced 2+2 Chapman layout from Brighton Express days are very comfortable indeed. My favourite unit on LM, indeed. Pity they only have one! 
Question should really be 'will Northern be leaving passengers behind' as the number of carriages are increasing and the frequency on some routes is increasing. My own local line is one where passengers used to be left behind on Saturdays but with more 4 car workings that is now much rarer than it was.
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,077
Turning 3+2 into 2+2 simply by ripping out the aisle seat on the 3 side is not an improvement. The seats remain too narrow and uncomfortable.
Convert 2 car 150s to 3 car sets (including the use of 153s as permanent extra cars if needed) and make them all 2+2 and that will be an improvement. If that means not enough sets, get some more bimodes.
Convert 2 car 150s to 3 car sets (including the use of 153s as permanent extra cars if needed) and make them all 2+2 and that will be an improvement. If that means not enough sets, get some more bimodes.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
More stock is needed, but refurbs like that can help short-term. Though I wouldn't use 153s for that, the sensible way to do it is to sandwich half a 150/2 inside a 150/1. 153s are better re-formed into 155s, possibly even a three-car variant. Or scrapped, because they truly are rubbish and due to poor build quality/materials are in worse condition than other 15x.
Halish Railway
Established Member
What's everyone's hate towards the 155's about? They're pretty much the same as a 156 but the engine does not vibrate as much.
Also what would we do to the 333's in a perfect world?
Also what would we do to the 333's in a perfect world?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They are a glorified bogied Pacer with high windows, an odd smell and are in a poor physical condition. Not to mention no legroom.
jonesy3001
Established Member
Good job they getting scrapped along with the pacers, although I think the Welsh government might put a bid in for them. Hahahaha
Well there not being scrapped 155's are staying 153's are getting the boot from Northern future unknown, and of course 155's and 156's are similar in the sense that a 156 is a reasonable train while 155's are utter garbage.
Halish Railway
Established Member
As users of the Harrogate line would know! I doubt that the 170's would be much better though.
It seems that I'm the only one that likes the 155's.
I don't mind them myself, although they could do with taking out a row of seats or two and moving the rest up to provide more leg room. The table thing is one of my hobby-horses.