Northern Class 195: Construction/Introduction Updates

Bletchleyite · 28 Jul 2019

modernrail said:
As with the 5A stock for TP, has this been done on purpose to squeeze a few more seats in or is or genuinely lazy? I can't believe there is a fully window aligned format with the same number of seats that has not been thought of/rejected?

Even the new eurostar trains have this misalignment in standard. It is very annoying but there must be an underlying reason?

Priority seats sometimes make a mess of it, but this is avoided on Class 350s[1] by putting these in the end sections with another row that has good legroom and a table bay. Eurostar I think just don't care - seats are misaligned on most TGVs, it seems it's something the French just aren't bothered about. It isn't even a Mk3-like case that the bays are spaced for First Class - that is misaligned too.

It doesn't appear to have been done to squeeze more seats in, the layout is quite low-density (that's certainly an upside of it). To me it's the door standbacks that mess it up a bit - they are slightly smaller than half a table bay. But I reckon it could have been fixed by judicious use of slightly more airline seats, as the window bays are the same width as a table bay (roughly) so it's not that it isn't possible to properly align them as on units where the window spacing is for First Class.

Does anyone have a seating diagram for 195s?

[1] Window alignment isn't 100% on 350s because an extra row is crammed in on the airline seat side. On the side with more bays it's 100%.

RailUK Forums

Bertie the bus · 28 Jul 2019

scrapy said:
The automatic closing apparently due to driver taking key out early before the train management system realises the doors are released when swapping crew at stations where SDO rather than ASDO was required to release doors by the guard. The sensors work fine in normal operation, but are disabled when driver takes key out.

That doesn't sound right to me. I've experienced the door issues at Preston and Manchester Airport. SDO wouldn't be a requirement at either of those stations. The main problem isn't the sensors but the fact the doors close immediately after being opened.

hwl · 28 Jul 2019

MML said:
Is it too late to change the seating layout on future deliveries ? It's a pity new rolling stock which will hopefully be in service for many years to come is arriving with such basic mistakes with seat and window misalignment.

Why is it a mistake?

Bletchleyite · 28 Jul 2019

hwl said:
Why is it a mistake?

Well, it's hardly good, is it?

hwl · 28 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
... window alignment isn't 100% on 350s because an extra row is crammed in on the airline seat side. On the side with more bays it's 100%.

With sensible leg room you get 7 rows of airline seating for every 6 rows of facing hence it is realistically impossible to have good window alignment everywhere since seating formats are so variable and also likely to change during the life of the stock

ed1971 · 28 Jul 2019

Yesterday, I travelled for the first time on one of these units between Manchester Piccadilly and Wigan NW. I am very disappointed with them; the doors closed themselves when people were trying to board, a lot of people had luggage and the gangways were not wide enough, the toilet was broken. Due to the narrow gangways, it was very stressful trying to get past people to get off. All recent rolling stock seems to be built narrower than the full rail width of 2.83m and narrow gangways are a problem. This applies to 185s and 350s as well.
You can still have 23m length carriages with a width of 2.8m.

Agent_Squash · 28 Jul 2019

ed1971 said:
Yesterday, I travelled for the first time on one of these units between Manchester Piccadilly and Wigan NW. I am very disappointed with them; the doors closed themselves when people were trying to board, a lot of people had luggage and the gangways were not wide enough, the toilet was broken. Due to the narrow gangways, it was very stressful trying to get past people to get off. All recent rolling stock seems to be built narrower than the full rail width of 2.83m and narrow gangways are a problem. This applies to 185s and 350s as well.
You can still have 23m length carriages with a width of 2.8m.

The door issue is being worked on. I have to disagree with the luggage issue - I was on from the Airport to Ulverston and there seems to be room for luggage as long as you used a bit of common sense! The gangways shouldn't be used for luggage storage regardless - but the vestibules had quite a bit of room. Do agree on the carriage width issue.

Bletchleyite · 28 Jul 2019

hwl said:
With sensible leg room you get 7 rows of airline seating for every 6 rows of facing hence it is realistically impossible to have good window alignment everywhere since seating formats are so variable and also likely to change during the life of the stock

The best approach in my book is that you space the windows slightly too tight for a bay, but then have a layout alternating table bays and airline seats, with the bay having slightly more space than the two rows of airline seats. This was done on the original Class 158 and works really well - indeed, I can't think of a more sensible layout on any stock. For priority seats, replace the table on one side near a door with 4 rows of well-spaced airline seats still close to window-aligned.

The Class 158 with the original layout was a bit tight, but that was mostly down to the seats themselves. The Northern Connect refurbed 158 has this layout but with ironing boards and the legroom is excellent in both bays and airline seats.

But back to the 195, the issue with that isn't that some bays are misaligned, it's that most of them are. It just seems really sloppy.

Bletchleyite · 28 Jul 2019

Agent_Squash said:
The door issue is being worked on. I have to disagree with the luggage issue - I was on from the Airport to Ulverston and there seems to be room for luggage as long as you used a bit of common sense! The gangways shouldn't be used for luggage storage regardless - but the vestibules had quite a bit of room. Do agree on the carriage width issue.

Regarding luggage, what I would do is to follow the Thameslink Class 700 layout and put a luggage rack in alternating "standbacks". Coupled with the good overheads that should be plenty.

Here's what I mean:

Interior of Class 700 showing luggage rack by doors

ed1971 · 28 Jul 2019

Agent_Squash said:
The door issue is being worked on. I have to disagree with the luggage issue - I was on from the Airport to Ulverston and there seems to be room for luggage as long as you used a bit of common sense! The gangways shouldn't be used for luggage storage regardless - but the vestibules had quite a bit of room. Do agree on the carriage width issue.

On the 195 I caught, there were lots of people with luggage cases on wheels and a lot were standing, despite it being a 3 carriage unit. It was the 16:47 departure from Piccadilly to Barrow.

The Northern Star · 28 Jul 2019

Plan for the 12th of August: All Barrow/Liverpool - Airport should be 195s

Please note: Everything is changing at the moment so this is subject to change!

ed1971 · 28 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Regarding luggage, what I would do is to follow the Thameslink Class 700 layout and put a luggage rack in alternating "standbacks". Coupled with the good overheads that should be plenty.

Here's what I mean:

Interior of Class 700 showing luggage rack by doors

Thanks for the picture of the Class 700 interior Bletchleyite. More common sense seems to have been used with the design of the 700s and the gangways are wide as the units are 2.8 metres wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700

ohgoditsjames · 28 Jul 2019

Since the 144’s are to remain working in the Sheffield region through 2020 does this mean that we won’t see any 195’s introduced until next year?

hwl · 28 Jul 2019

ohgoditsjames said:
Since the 144’s are to remain working in the Sheffield region through 2020 does this mean that we won’t see any 195’s introduced until next year?

If you read further up the thread the roll out plan is to introduce 9 units a month but everyone including Northern seem to expect that to slip as nothing has gone smoothly so far.

Bertie the bus · 28 Jul 2019

ohgoditsjames said:
Since the 144’s are to remain working in the Sheffield region through 2020 does this mean that we won’t see any 195’s introduced until next year?

I can’t see how the two things are linked as 195s won’t be directly replacing 144s. 144s will continue on some local service, e.g. to Huddersfield, Gainsborough and Leeds via Barnsley stoppers and via Moorthorpe. 195s, when they appear in South Yorkshire, will be on Leeds – Nottingham and Lincoln services.

modernrail · 28 Jul 2019

ed1971 said:
Thanks for the picture of the Class 700 interior Bletchleyite. More common sense seems to have been used with the design of the 700s and the gangways are wide as the units are 2.8 metres wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700

What is the width of the 195? (Apologies if I have missed this further up the thread. It doesn't seem to be on the Wiki page).

I use the 700's almost every day. I jumped on a 195 at Lime Street the other day for a look but then jumped off as I was actually catching the Pendo on the opposite platform.

The 700's feel roomy but the sin on those units is the fact that the seating, although 2+2, is spaced more like 3+2, so a but cosy to say the least. However, I do see that this provides more gangway space for crush loading at the peak.

From a quick jump on the 195 is did feel a lot more cramped than I was expecting. They may have gone too dark with the colour scheme (arguably the 700's are too far the other way and too sterile), but I would be interested to know the difference in carriage width.

Bertie the bus · 28 Jul 2019

Virtually no services operated by 195s will be routinely crush loaded. Even where they will be, e.g. peak York – Blackpool services from Leeds it will only be for a small part of the journey. Most services operated by 195s won’t go anywhere near Manchester Airport.

So all this talk about wider aisles, and therefore narrower seats, or more luggage space, and therefore either fewer seats or less leg room, is mostly moaning for the sake of moaning. There need to be compromises on public transport. Not everybody can have exactly what they want for the journey they make.

fowler9 · 28 Jul 2019

ed1971 said:
Yesterday, I travelled for the first time on one of these units between Manchester Piccadilly and Wigan NW. I am very disappointed with them; the doors closed themselves when people were trying to board, a lot of people had luggage and the gangways were not wide enough, the toilet was broken. Due to the narrow gangways, it was very stressful trying to get past people to get off. All recent rolling stock seems to be built narrower than the full rail width of 2.83m and narrow gangways are a problem. This applies to 185s and 350s as well.
You can still have 23m length carriages with a width of 2.8m.

Imagine getting on a service now operated by a 195 when it was operated by a single 142 and try saying a 195 is a disappointment. I struggle to understand what some people expected .

ed1971 · 28 Jul 2019

modernrail said:
What is the width of the 195? (Apologies if I have missed this further up the thread. It doesn't seem to be on the Wiki page).

I use the 700's almost every day. I jumped on a 195 at Lime Street the other day for a look but then jumped off as I was actually catching the Pendo on the opposite platform.

The 700's feel roomy but the sin on those units is the fact that the seating, although 2+2, is spaced more like 3+2, so a but cosy to say the least. However, I do see that this provides more gangway space for crush loading at the peak.

From a quick jump on the 195 is did feel a lot more cramped than I was expecting. They may have gone too dark with the colour scheme (arguably the 700's are too far the other way and too sterile), but I would be interested to know the difference in carriage width.

Good question. After a bit of web searching. I found out that the width of the Class 195 is 2.712m. Full spec for these units here: https://www.railwaygazette.com/uploads/media/railwaygazette-201807-caf-northern-units.pdf

ed1971 · 28 Jul 2019

fowler9 said:
Imagine getting on a service now operated by a 195 when it was operated by a single 142 and try saying a 195 is a disappointment. I struggle to understand what some people expected .

I find that the most comfortable units to travel on in hot weather are the Pacers, sat on the bench seats near the doors. They have opening windows and there is no worry about AC not working and don't feel too closed in unlike a lot of the recent rolling stock.

My mum was travelling with me yesterday. She felt panicky being on the 195 and wanted to get off before we even left Piccadilly. She doesn't want to travel on them again.

The 195s are more suited for longer distance semi express work. For the majority of Northern stopping services I would have been happier with a more basic DMU probably based around the Tyne And Wear Metro cars but longer, or the CIE 8100 class; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIÉ_8100_Class

Whilst I appreciate that new rolling stock has to be made to higher crashworthiness standards, the chance of train collisions is now lower than ever due to protection systems in place. However the risk of panic attacks caused by claustrophobic trains is a lot more real.

LOL The Irony · 28 Jul 2019

ed1971 said:
Whilst I appreciate that new rolling stock has to be made to higher crashworthiness standards, the chance of train collisions is now lower than ever due to protection systems in place. However the risk of panic attacks caused by claustrophobic trains is a lot more real.

We shouldn't skimp out on crashworthiness just because some people could have a panic attack. A few trains delayed or cancelled is better than a few bodies in a morgue.

Bovverboy · 28 Jul 2019

fowler9 said:
Imagine getting on a service now operated by a 195 when it was operated by a single 142 and try saying a 195 is a disappointment. I struggle to understand what some people expected .

I think I can say with confidence that there are no services now operated by 195s which have ever been operated by a single 142, let alone recently.
195s used on the Manchester Airport to Liverpool Lime Street semi-fast service have, for the most part, replaced double 156s. Some would consider that to be a retrograde step, myself included.

Bletchleyite · 28 Jul 2019

ed1971 said:
Good question. After a bit of web searching. I found out that the width of the Class 195 is 2.712m. Full spec for these units here: https://www.railwaygazette.com/uploads/media/railwaygazette-201807-caf-northern-units.pdf

The Class 444 is 2.68, as is the 185. They aren't however claustrophobic due to the large, high-set windows - the 195 windows aren't that much smaller but are set quite low which (like on something like a Pendolino) couples with the dark blue and black scheme to make them feel *really* small.

ed1971 · 28 Jul 2019

Bovverboy said:
I think I can say with confidence that there are no services now operated by 195s which have ever been operated by a single 142, let alone recently.
195s used on the Manchester airport to Liverpool Lime Street semi-fast service have, for the most part, replaced double 156s. Some would consider that to be a retrograde step, myself included.

I am inclined to agree with you.

Bletchleyite · 28 Jul 2019

LOL The Irony said:
We shouldn't skimp out on crashworthiness just because some people could have a panic attack. A few trains delayed or cancelled is better than a few bodies in a morgue.

You can build a less claustrophobic unit which passes safety regulations.

Bovverboy · 28 Jul 2019

ed1971 said:
Yesterday, I travelled for the first time on one of these units between Manchester Piccadilly and Wigan NW. I am very disappointed with them; the doors closed themselves when people were trying to board, a lot of people had luggage and the gangways were not wide enough, the toilet was broken. Due to the narrow gangways, it was very stressful trying to get past people to get off. All recent rolling stock seems to be built narrower than the full rail width of 2.83m and narrow gangways are a problem. This applies to 185s and 350s as well.
You can still have 23m length carriages with a width of 2.8m.

ed1971 said:
On the 195 I caught, there were lots of people with luggage cases on wheels and a lot were standing, despite it being a 3 carriage unit. It was the 16:47 departure from Piccadilly to Barrow.

Going by your original description I rather presumed it was the 1647 ex-Picc you travelled on. I was also on it and reported my experience on the '195: Initial Diagrams' thread. It finished up on that thread as it was a follow-on from my earlier report of seeing 195115 in service for the first time, and that in itself was a follow-on from information about diagrams. I can see that I am going to have to ruthlessly separate news which is concerned with diagrams, and that which isn't.

Bovverboy said:
Talking of 195115 I actually travelled on it myself today, from Piccadilly to Wigan North Western, on the 1629 ex-Airport. Apart from being my first experience of 195115 it was also my first of the phantom doors - no, I wasn't the one being crushed, but a few other passengers were. I'm amazed that this problem hasn't been sorted out - and equally amazed that the crews are continuing to work the units with the fault, since the impression given is that the crews are closing the doors deliberately.
Oh, and the toilet was out of order, so, following representations made to the conductor by passengers who needed to 'go', he announced that he would see if he could arrange a toilet stop at Wigan North Western. This resulted in counter-representations from passengers who had advance tickets for the Virgin Preston to Edinburgh train, so the decision was that he would try and arrange a toilet stop at Preston. In the event, I don't know what happened, I wasn't on the train by then.*

The loading situation was fully seated, plus standing in the vestibules to the point of discomfort, even leaving Piccadilly. I don't think there's a lot of point in buying posh-looking new trains if people can't be carried in reasonable conditions. Manchester to Barrow is hardly a local service.

* EDIT: RTT says there was a 15-minute dwell at Preston.

ed1971 said:
I find that the most comfortable units to travel on in hot weather are the Pacers, sat on the bench seats near the doors. They have opening windows and there is no worry about AC not working and don't feel too closed in unlike a lot of the recent rolling stock.

Pacers have an image which may have been justified at one time, but probably isn't now. For a lot of what they do, I actually find them quite suitable, and I'm sorry that they're having to go for moralistic, rather than economic, reasons.

My mum was travelling with me yesterday. She felt panicky being on the 195 and wanted to get off before we even left Piccadilly. She doesn't want to travel on them again.

Yourself and your mum may have been in the same carriage as myself, you certainly seem to fit the description. I suspect your mum was in a window seat, and you were in a gangway seat, on the next row.

Bletchleyite · 28 Jul 2019

Bovverboy said:
Pacers have an image which may have been justified at one time, but probably isn't now. For a lot of what they do, I actually find them quite suitable, and I'm sorry that they're having to go for moralistic, rather than economic, reasons.

Pacers are probably suitable for two things - rural branch lines (now welded rail is more widely laid) and diesel city S-Bahnen (they are really not that dissimilar to a tram). The latter of course should all be electrified, so that reduces the call somewhat.

195s are, ironically, probably also suitable for direct Pacer replacement in the manner that 172s replaced 150s on a "diesel S-Bahn" i.e. the Snow Hill lines.

Bovverboy · 28 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
195s are, ironically, probably also suitable for direct Pacer replacement in the manner that 172s replaced 150s on a "diesel S-Bahn" i.e. the Snow Hill lines.

I'm already rapidly coming to the conclusion that 195s are going to go on routes they're not necessarily the most suited to, but the ones which offer the most propaganda value.

Xenophon PCDGS · 28 Jul 2019

Harking back to the seat to window alignment that has been much discussed, surely the TOC would have been aware of these points in their many discussions with CAF, so the fact that the units are delivered as they are, one can only assume the TOC do not assign the same reservations on this matter as certain posters on this thread.

On Merseyrail, what are the Class 508 units like in terms of seat to window alignment?

js1000 · 28 Jul 2019

fowler9 said:
Imagine getting on a service now operated by a 195 when it was operated by a single 142 and try saying a 195 is a disappointment. I struggle to understand what some people expected .

I can relate. A dirty, noisy, hot Pacer/150/156 over an air-conditioned, spacious and clean train that Joe public want to travel on? Truly bizarre. Really does boggle the mind the people on here sometimes....

I travel on the 195 everyday from Mauldeth Road to Piccadilly. Teething problems aside - they are 10x the trains than the 150s and 156s they replaced. That is the opinion shared by a couple of my relatives and friends who also use services operated by the 195.

ed1971 said:
Yesterday, I travelled for the first time on one of these units between Manchester Piccadilly and Wigan NW. I am very disappointed with them; the doors closed themselves when people were trying to board, a lot of people had luggage and the gangways were not wide enough, the toilet was broken. Due to the narrow gangways, it was very stressful trying to get past people to get off. All recent rolling stock seems to be built narrower than the full rail width of 2.83m and narrow gangways are a problem. This applies to 185s and 350s as well.
You can still have 23m length carriages with a width of 2.8m.

That problem is not confined to the 195s. Luggage and bikes blocking single doors on the 156 is a big problem at Oxford Road & Piccadilly. I've lost count how many times this has happened thank to Manchester Airport passengers who are unfamiliar with the train/route.

Bovverboy said:
I'm already rapidly coming to the conclusion that 195s are going to go on routes they're not necessarily the most suited to, but the ones which offer the most propaganda value.

It's already been decided where the bulk of the 195s will operate has it not? Most of the Northern Connect routes + potential cover/odd diagram elsewhere.

Northern Class 195: Construction/Introduction Updates

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member