• 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!

The Menace Of Class 150 Rail Travel

Status
Not open for further replies.

ed1971

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2009
Messages
589
Location
Wigan
The 150’s have always reminded me, to an extent, of the class 105 Cravens power cars with those wide window pillars, fumes and rattles. Of course with these you don’t have any chance to take refuge in a trailer car.
But they largely get on with their work, and, in general, ride better than a Pacer. The big problem is, of course, that all the 1980’s units are aging at the same time, and all should have been replaced a good ten or more years ago.
I will grit my teeth and endure them until any replacements can be introduced in the years to come.

I have had the odd ride on a 105 in the mid 1980s, but by then they were not common on the Southport line. Class 101s, 104s, 108s and the suburban units were more usual.

Cravens did build some DMUs for Perth, Australia which I think were based on 105s. They had small windows, so probably even more claustrophobic than a 150. Their Wilson gearboxes were replaced by Voith in the early 1970s and some of them later gained Mercedes Benz engines in place of AEC. One is shown here at 5:54:
. It sort of reminds me of an older version of the 150.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ed1971

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2009
Messages
589
Location
Wigan
I’ve never been a great fan of these units and always thought that the Cl151s would have given a better passenger environment.

Having looked at pictures of the Class 151, I feel that it is a shame the design wasn't progressed with and a big production batch was not built instead of 150s and Pacers. It was out of the running for orders, as changes were made to the cab layout at the request of the RMT. When these were completed, it was late and out of the running for production orders.
 
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
35
Give me a 142 or 156 any day rather than a Northern 150/2 with its cramped seating where anyone over 5’6” tall cannot fit into half of the seats.
 

R G NOW.

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2019
Messages
418
Location
gloucester
I have never found anything wrong with them. I remember back in 1987 when British Rail introduced them between Birmingham New Street and Cardiff Central. They were known back then, as a Sprinter Train and had the word Sprinter on the side. They lasted on this route until a class 155 took over 2 years later.

The trains today look exactly the same as the ones in the pictures, and I travel occasionally from Gloucester to Lydney. The gwr versions we've had, had I single row of seats in front of a very large toilet. They were mainly superseded by turbos.
 
Joined
16 Aug 2013
Messages
77
Location
Bempton,East Riding
After another contributor started 'The Horror of Pacers' thread, I felt that on balance it was time someone should start this one about 150s.
I will make no bones about it, I have always detested the things from new, especially the 150/1s. The excessive engine noise levels are horrendous and they are claustrophobic sweat-boxes in summer. In fact the claustrophobic nature of the units and the noisy engines causes me too much stress and anxiety.

Now that the Pacers are being withdrawn, I am going to have to give up rail travel, except when travelling to the Liverpool area, (somehow the 319s don't seem quite as bad).

It is ironic that Northern have launched a drive to create an Autism friendly railway, (https://media.northernrailway.co.uk/news/northern-helps-launch-uks-first-autism-friendly-railway) whilst at the same time the trains I feel at ease travelling on (because they are light and airy and I don't feel trapped) are being withdrawn.

In any case lets have you views on the 150s...
couldnt agree more awfull trains i would rather travel on a 142/4
 

ed1971

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2009
Messages
589
Location
Wigan
Would you be happy if GWR off loaded their class 165's

I would have been a lot happier if the Class 165s had been sent to Northern with their quieter Perkins engines and better visibility. However, I seem to recall reading that they would be out of gauge here.
 
Last edited:

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,184
Would you be happy if GWR off loaded their class 165's

I'd be happy if GWR were to get rid of their 166's and replace them with new builds, so that Northern can send their 150's straight to CF Booths and in their place the 166's can nimble around Yorkshire. The problem arises with those tunnels west of Hebden Bridge which will mean that the Calder Valley route can instead have the 156's and the 195's on the Leeds to Wigan via Mirfield circuit.
 

R G NOW.

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2019
Messages
418
Location
gloucester
I would have been a lot happier if the Class 165s had been sent to Northern with their quieter Perkins engines and better visibility. However, I see to recall reading that they would be out of gauge here.

From what I believe, ours came from the Hereford to Oxford route after they had new electric type trains, (class 337 I think) and many of our class 153 and 150's disappeared on the Great Malvern to Weymouth services. the 165's also seem to have replaced the Cheltenham spa to Swindon ones. Although from December we are supposed to be getting class 800's on this route with all now going to London Paddington.
 

R G NOW.

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2019
Messages
418
Location
gloucester
May I make a suggestion?. Maybe northern should order some class 800's for your electric services there. You would have better trains to Liverpool and Manchester.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
From what I believe, ours came from the Hereford to Oxford route after they had new electric type trains, (class 337 I think) and many of our class 153 and 150's disappeared on the Great Malvern to Weymouth services. the 165's also seem to have replaced the Cheltenham spa to Swindon ones. Although from December we are supposed to be getting class 800's on this route with all now going to London Paddington.

And 166s also. I don't quite follow your comment about 800s as they have been operating between Cheltenham and Paddington for a year or more. There will just be some additional services using them.
 

R G NOW.

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2019
Messages
418
Location
gloucester
And 166s also. I don't quite follow your comment about 800s as they have been operating between Cheltenham and Paddington for a year or more. There will just be some additional services using them.

Some were operating, but we are about to get one every hour, that's what I meant.
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
5,207
From what I believe, ours came from the Hereford to Oxford route after they had new electric type trains, (class 337 I think) and many of our class 153 and 150's disappeared on the Great Malvern to Weymouth services. the 165's also seem to have replaced the Cheltenham spa to Swindon ones. Although from December we are supposed to be getting class 800's on this route with all now going to London Paddington.

387s that would've been. I prefer a 150 on a clackety branch line like those in Devon and Cornwall (4-car in summer please; 2 can't cope!)
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Travelled on a 150 between Weymouth and Bath once which had decent 2+2 seating and tables, making it perfectly suitable for a longish service and a credit to the TOC.

Northern should be completely gutting its 150's and replicating something similar, instead of gutting all the units with perfectly good interiors.

We've had quite a few from the Western region in recent years which have the suburban layout and low back seats. I find these preferable to the ones with very high seats in suburban 3+2 airline configuration.

The OP is correct in that the 319's, whilst being of similar vintage, have a much nicer, more open layout of facing seats.
 

scosutsut

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2019
Messages
932
Location
scosutsut
Hated the 150s when they were with ScotRail. Miserable units that were noisy, cramped, slow and too hot. Was a joy the day they were waved away.
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
They don't have a noisy 1960s marine engine under the floor,
The Cummins NT855 isn't a marine engine and I'd argue it isn't a 1960s engine either, maybe the block but the heads, turbo and injectors are mid 80s.
 

ed1971

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2009
Messages
589
Location
Wigan
The Cummins NT855 isn't a marine engine and I'd argue it isn't a 1960s engine either, maybe the block but the heads, turbo and injectors are mid 80s.

The first applications for Cummins NTA855R in rail use seems to have been in Australian DMUs from the late 1960s.
Examples are the 1200 class from 1970: http://www.railmotorsociety.org.au/rm/rm_1200_frame.htm .
Victoria Railways DRC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRC_railcar
and the ADK/ADB Class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADK/ADB_class_diesel_multiple_unit

Data for NTA855 here: https://www.cummins.com/g-drive-engines/diesel-nt855-series .
http://www.engine-family.com/Product.asp?PId=270

It seems that an 'R' suffix denotes rail application and an 'M' marine use.
 
Last edited:

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,623
Location
Another planet...
Really? There is no 142/4 subclass. Only 142/0s were ever built.
I think the poster meant 142/144.

And for the record the first 50 or so 142s are /0. The rest are classified /1 (though not numbered as such). The difference is something to do with the framework of the bodyshells or something like that.

Thanks for the correction. The 337s are third rail versions, are they?.

377s are (though some of both 377 and 387 are dual voltage so have both third rail and overhead equipment).

Class 337s do not exist

I am surprised about this as someone talked about a 337 on another forum, how odd.

I assumed the first use of 337 was a typo for 387.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
They are similar but I don't mind 319s. They don't have a noisy 1960s marine engine under the floor, come in 4 fixed carriages, so plenty of room and (apart from the wheel adhesion issue) are pretty fast units. With a 150 there are the double negatives of the noisy engine and claustrophobic interior.

None of the Mk3 EMUs have that horrible 3+2 airline seat arrangement too with knee crushing legroom

Indeed have any other trains had 3+2 airline seats?
 

LMS 4F

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
293
As far as seating goes a lot of the seats on a 150 have insufficient room for my reasonable height and are no better than a Pacer in that respect. Seating on modern rail stock has gone backwards in large leaps over my lifetime and I struggle to think of a unit where I would be happy to sit in any of the seats in any coach or unit. Even the ones with enough room are often uncomfortable for anything other than the shortest of journeys. As for airline seats I don't have enough words to express my contempt for them.
 

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
3,489
There is some wibble bordering on hyperbole posted on this thread! The class 150's are good, solid, simple trains. Most of the issues could be fixed with a decent internal refurb.
The problem is they aren’t getting a decent internal refurb.

I bet pacers wouldn’t be so hated if they’d all received proper train seats 20 years ago.

People expect more than the original British Rail seats repainted and then recovered with office chair material these days.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,024
I'd be happy if GWR were to get rid of their 166's and replace them with new builds, so that Northern can send their 150's straight to CF Booths and in their place the 166's can nimble around Yorkshire. The problem arises with those tunnels west of Hebden Bridge which will mean that the Calder Valley route can instead have the 156's and the 195's on the Leeds to Wigan via Mirfield circuit.
I can't see the Cl166/165 being cascaded from HER down here because there are many higher speed regional lines which still need them for increased capacity replacing our Sprinter classes. However, you are getting the Cl195 to replace Sprinters on longer higher speed regional routes. On the shorter more local services, Chiltern could get rid of their Cl165's easily,by discontinuing Marylebone-Aylesbury (freeing up capacity at Marylebone for more mainline services,less pollution at Marylebone,more capacity for the Met line to extend to Aylesbury and run semi-fasts all the way into Central London,matching times and more convenient for commuters.)This would have to be coupled with electrification plus four-tracking of the CML, Crossrail from Old Oak Common to High Wycombe with lots of new intermediate stations on the Acton-Northolt line(to replace the Gerrards Cross/High Wycombe terminators) and upgrading of the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury branch line with passing loops to enable a 3/2tph in each direction remaining Class 172 London Marylebone to Aylesbury Vale Parkway serving all the CML stations up to Princes Risborough not served by the new Crossrail branch to High Wycombe then all stops from Princes Risborough. A few Cl168's would have to be kept for the Birmingham area operations and contingency to back up the remaining DMU operation at the London end, but the rest could be cascaded to provide faster regional services elsewhere to replace express Sprinters. There is ample off-lease cheap electric stock to be refurbished and provide new stock for the electrified CML. After the latest DMU orders, I don't think that there will be any more ordered, so GWR can't easily replace their Cl166's at the moment,they would have to pay for further electrification or wait for the more mainstream breakthrough of battery/hydrogen trains in the UK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top