195s truly awful, not a step forward

[driverd]

I didn't suggest Calder Valley for 170s, but they would be suitable for Leeds to Nottingham. Are they even route-cleared via Bradford Interchange anyway? I know they are cleared via Brighouse as TPE ran them that way, but the current Wigan services on that route are too stop-start for 170s much like the rest of the Calder Valley services including the Blackpools.

Not sure there are many routes besides the Nottinghams that would be ideal for 170s, mind!

The problem with the Nottinghams is platform space at Leeds. The current arrangement is for a 2 car to sit on 17, with the 2 car stopper coming in on top. The platform can only accommodate 4 23m vehicles. I'm not saying there isn't a solution with the current timetable, but as soon as TPE reintroduce more of their services, things become more difficult. Unfortunately Leeds is a massive pinch point just by the nature of where the Midland lines are (in essence, these trains can only use 13/15/16/17), and to use anything other than 16 & 17 creates a junction conflict.

Undoubtedly, the 170s would be great for Nottingham - I agree entirely, but at present, Leeds capacity is the sticking point.

And yes - 170s are cleared via Bradford as they were the traction of choice for Hull-Halifax pre-covid. Interestingly, they were never cleared over the Calder Valley until a year or two ago. I'm pretty sure TPE never ran them that way due to which depots signed the route/traction etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with seat comfort is that it’s subjective, I get that. However I found the entire passenger “experience” rather lacking to be honest, performance excepted (and I’m not sure many members of the public would notice or care about that). They really do feel I described them previously, i.e. the cheapest possible way to get new trains on the Northern network.

I would agree they have a cheap feel (I believe I was quite critical of this when I first rode one), but then I'd also say that the entire Northern interior scheme has a budget feel to it - stark, harsh colours and bright, cold white lighting - certainly, much as they are comfortable, the refurbished 158s give the same impression to me. I half wonder if it was deliberately part of the spec for the scheme to give that impression of affordability and practicality, perhaps, because changing the colours wouldn't have made it cost any more? It is I believe a Best Impressions job, and he isn't known for making things look deliberately cheap unless that's part of the spec.

Other than the seats (and you know what I think of Sophias) the TPE 397s are made from the same interior panelling (though the light fittings are slightly different) and don't have that cheap feel - they have a very premium feel to me - and that's more because of the colour scheme and use of premium-looking elements like fake-wood panelling in the vestibules instead of the stark blue. OK, the 397 has better window alignment, but while I like it we've noted here before that "normal" passengers are often not bothered by it because they prefer to fiddle with their phone or read a book than spend the whole journey window-gazing, and the end section seating is aligned. It's notable that ScotRail have seemingly succeeded in polishing turds in the form of the 153 conversions, which despite being the worst seating in the worst units seem to have managed to achieve a warm, welcoming feel "like your Scottish Nan's front room".

To be honest, I think if they were done in the 397 colour scheme (and possibly a warmer colour of LED lighting) that they would have a quite premium feel to them. And changing some minor things about the fittings, e.g. adding end vestibule doors and using the less direct lighting from the 397 would make an even bigger difference.

Yes, the ride is awful, but then so is the ride of the Mk4 coach, and people love those (and they have a lovely premium-feeling interior, which is all down to the selection of interior materials and colours and nothing to do with the coach itself, as the original BR interior looked horribly cheap).

 

[DustyBin]

I would agree they have a cheap feel (I believe I was quite critical of this when I first rode one), but then I'd also say that the entire Northern interior scheme has a budget feel to it - stark, harsh colours and bright, cold white lighting - certainly, much as they are comfortable, the refurbished 158s give the same impression to me. I half wonder if it was deliberately part of the spec for the scheme to give that impression of affordability and practicality, perhaps, because changing the colours wouldn't have made it cost any more? It is I believe a Best Impressions job, and he isn't known for making things look deliberately cheap unless that's part of the spec.

Other than the seats (and you know what I think of Sophias) the TPE 397s are made from the same interior panelling (though the light fittings are slightly different) and don't have that cheap feel - they have a very premium feel to me - and that's more because of the colour scheme and use of premium-looking elements like fake-wood panelling in the vestibules instead of the stark blue. OK, the 397 has better window alignment, but while I like it we've noted here before that "normal" passengers are often not bothered by it because they prefer to fiddle with their phone or read a book than spend the whole journey window-gazing, and the end section seating is aligned. It's notable that ScotRail have seemingly succeeded in polishing turds in the form of the 153 conversions, which despite being the worst seating in the worst units seem to have managed to achieve a warm, welcoming feel "like your Scottish Nan's front room".

To be honest, I think if they were done in the 397 colour scheme (and possibly a warmer colour of LED lighting) that they would have a quite premium feel to them. And changing some minor things about the fittings, e.g. adding end vestibule doors and using the less direct lighting from the 397 would make an even bigger difference.

Yes, the ride is awful, but then so is the ride of the Mk4 coach, and people love those (and they have a lovely premium-feeling interior, which is all down to the selection of interior materials and colours and nothing to do with the coach itself, as the original BR interior looked horribly cheap).

Some good points there. I haven’t been on a 397 yet so it will make for an interesting comparison.

 

[AM9]

Some good points there. I haven’t been on a 397 yet so it will make for an interesting comparison.

I have recently and can confirm that they are slightly less utilitarian in terms of decor (which would be expected on an inter-city/regional express type of train. I refrain from commenting on seats as there's no point in discussing what is so much a personal preference matter, - although this fad for cheap inappropriate seat cover materials really is a false economy, - moquette is the default hard wearing but smart and easily cleaned fabric for heavy duty use. Were LU not so experienced in using it in what must be the heaviest use in the UK, tube passengers would have to put up with hard moulded plastic or stainless steel seats as enjoyed by metro passengers around the world.
What is an issue is that the ride on the 397s is much the same as the 195s and 331s and the 397s are supposed to be 125mph premium express trains. Hence my assertion that CAF really are dropping the ball with their current UK spec. multiple unit suspension systems.

 

[Llama]

Having airbags the size of tea bags doesn't help. Suspect that they have been designed with the primary focus on ensuring boxes are ticked so all non-standard differential speeds can be complied with - SP/MU etc. and to assume track access charges are minimised. Short wheelbase on the bogies won't help either.

The price paid for this prioritising is passenger comfort. Faster/cheaper/better - pick two. It's a good job there's not much jointed rail around these days, try sampling a 195 on the 60' jointed rail between Farington Curve Jn and Lostock Hall - even at 30mph they crash about and it feels like the primary suspension (as in the inboard springs and dampers, not the airbags) 'packs down' on successive impacts. Interior panels rattle very heavily making it difficult to hold a conversation and this is at 30mph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having airbags the size of tea bags doesn't help. Suspect that they have been designed with the primary focus on ensuring boxes are ticked so all non-standard differential speeds can be complied with - SP/MU etc. and to assume track access charges are minimised. Short wheelbase on the bogies won't help either.

The price paid for this prioritising is passenger comfort. Faster/cheaper/better - pick two. It's a good job there's not much jointed rail around these days, try sampling a 195 on the 60' jointed rail between Farington Curve Jn and Lostock Hall - even at 30mph they crash about and it feels like the primary suspension (as in the inboard springs and dampers, not the airbags) 'packs down' on successive impacts. Interior panels rattle very heavily making it difficult to hold a conversation and this is at 30mph.

Poor ride on poor track is common to a lot of newer stock, largely because of lighter bogies but even with heavier kit. Desiros ride well on the WCML, but on SWR or TPE nowhere near as well as the track isn't as good. You can kind of understand for those, though - even the smallest branch line in Germany has track to an excellent standard with almost no movement noticeable.

 

[Llama]

Older kit like 15X units, mk3 stock etc. rode perfectly well on all kinds of p-way when it was new, the issue is with design.

 

[DustyBin]

Older kit like 15X units, mk3 stock etc. rode perfectly well on all kinds of p-way when it was new, the issue is with design.

I don't want to de-rail (no pun intended!) the thread, however as I've alluded to previously part of the issue may be the adaptation of off the shelf designs for the UK network. Genuine question; how "unique" is our network in terms of track quality, radii, points and crossings etc.? It does seem odd that not only is the ride quality on some new units poor, but it has been accompanied by structural issues. These issues aren't limited to CAF products either....

 

[RailWonderer]

I would agree they have a cheap feel (I believe I was quite critical of this when I first rode one), but then I'd also say that the entire Northern interior scheme has a budget feel to it - stark, harsh colours and bright, cold white lighting - certainly, much as they are comfortable, the refurbished 158s give the same impression to me. I half wonder if it was deliberately part of the spec for the scheme to give that impression of affordability and practicality, perhaps, because changing the colours wouldn't have made it cost any more? It is I believe a Best Impressions job, and he isn't known for making things look deliberately cheap unless that's part of the spec.

Other than the seats (and you know what I think of Sophias) the TPE 397s are made from the same interior panelling (though the light fittings are slightly different) and don't have that cheap feel - they have a very premium feel to me - and that's more because of the colour scheme and use of premium-looking elements like fake-wood panelling in the vestibules instead of the stark blue. OK, the 397 has better window alignment, but while I like it we've noted here before that "normal" passengers are often not bothered by it because they prefer to fiddle with their phone or read a book than spend the whole journey window-gazing, and the end section seating is aligned. It's notable that ScotRail have seemingly succeeded in polishing turds in the form of the 153 conversions, which despite being the worst seating in the worst units seem to have managed to achieve a warm, welcoming feel "like your Scottish Nan's front room".

To be honest, I think if they were done in the 397 colour scheme (and possibly a warmer colour of LED lighting) that they would have a quite premium feel to them. And changing some minor things about the fittings, e.g. adding end vestibule doors and using the less direct lighting from the 397 would make an even bigger difference.

Yes, the ride is awful, but then so is the ride of the Mk4 coach, and people love those (and they have a lovely premium-feeling interior, which is all down to the selection of interior materials and colours and nothing to do with the coach itself, as the original BR interior looked horribly cheap).

The ride isn't as poor throughout on the 195s as some like to say, rather specific junctions annd sections that are regular routes to some people that complain about them. The 'design fail' on the 195s would be the litter bins which are too small to fit most things into them and you have to bend down on the floor to drop things into them, because Northern didn't want to mount larger bins beside the doors in the vestibule. This train was designed by box ticking without much thought of the passegner experience - it was well known that Northern held consultations then blatently ignored the feedback i.e. when focus groups strongly disliked the seats and alternatives were available. They did everything on the cheap and the colour scheme only gives that away, so they have a Monarch/Ryanair ambience rather than a BA ambience like GA. I think it would have been more popular for Northern to, for once demonstrate 'You know what? We aren't treating you as second rate this time' following Pacers outstaying their welcome 15 years too long. Also Northern isn't meant to be the cheaper alternative on all routes, only when TPE, XC, EMR or LNER offer the fast alternative.

The seats, like most I find them uncomfortable but only for Northern's longest journeys, they are fine on most journeys and the 195 has to be a jack of all trades commuter/regional train after all.

 

[Mikey C]

Not been on the 195, but have been on the 331

I thought the seats were fine for the sorts of journeys they operate on, and the window alignment didn't bother me either

The ride quality was very poor though, it crashed about badly on the Blackpool North branch especially, and that's a recently modernised route

 

[yorksrob]

The way I look at it - I had to endure (and endure is the word) Merseyrail Pacers on the Hope Valley stoppers for years.

Those cheap, nasty, back ache inducing excuses for seats... Truly awful and horrific. Trains you couldn't wait to get off, with the same level of comfort as being strapped into an Iron Maiden in a medieval dungeon.

Now we get 195s. The step up in quality is immesurable. The 195s are a massive, massive improvement.

Agree with you there.

I notice that the 195's on the Hope Valley tend to be the carriage, which helps as well.

The problem with the Nottinghams is platform space at Leeds. The current arrangement is for a 2 car to sit on 17, with the 2 car stopper coming in on top. The platform can only accommodate 4 23m vehicles. I'm not saying there isn't a solution with the current timetable, but as soon as TPE reintroduce more of their services, things become more difficult. Unfortunately Leeds is a massive pinch point just by the nature of where the Midland lines are (in essence, these trains can only use 13/15/16/17), and to use anything other than 16 & 17 creates a junction conflict.

Undoubtedly, the 170s would be great for Nottingham - I agree entirely, but at present, Leeds capacity is the sticking point.

And yes - 170s are cleared via Bradford as they were the traction of choice for Hull-Halifax pre-covid. Interestingly, they were never cleared over the Calder Valley until a year or two ago. I'm pretty sure TPE never ran them that way due to which depots signed the route/traction etc.

Agree about Leeds 17. That said, there is definitely space to extend the platform and signal along the viaduct. Will cost capital though.

 

[YorksLad12]

The problem with the Nottinghams is platform space at Leeds. The current arrangement is for a 2 car to sit on 17, with the 2 car stopper coming in on top. The platform can only accommodate 4 23m vehicles. I'm not saying there isn't a solution with the current timetable, but as soon as TPE reintroduce more of their services, things become more difficult. Unfortunately Leeds is a massive pinch point just by the nature of where the Midland lines are (in essence, these trains can only use 13/15/16/17), and to use anything other than 16 & 17 creates a junction conflict.

Undoubtedly, the 170s would be great for Nottingham - I agree entirely, but at present, Leeds capacity is the sticking point.

And yes - 170s are cleared via Bradford as they were the traction of choice for Hull-Halifax pre-covid. Interestingly, they were never cleared over the Calder Valley until a year or two ago. I'm pretty sure TPE never ran them that way due to which depots signed the route/traction etc.

Question: would we like to see Northern pass the 170s on in favour of, say, buying more 195s? Or swapping for some 158s? It eliminates a small fleet that can't run almost everywhere. Any new 195s could be speced slightly differently (fewer tables, different seats) to provde a kind-of A/B testing of passengers who aren't us.

Re 170s to Nottingham: I seem to remember that the 170s aren't cleared north of Barnsley, but I might have read that here

 

[AM9]

The ride isn't as poor throughout on the 195s as some like to say, rather specific junctions annd sections that are regular routes to some people that complain about them. ...

Not so sure that it just on certain (poor) sections on 'regular routes'. My first experience on a Civity (actually a 331) was with @LDECRexile and @LN-GW Joint between Doncaster and Leeds and back. I didn't know the line but both of the others did and were surprised that our trains was riding so twitchy on a line that LNER runs the Kings Cross-Leeds services on. That same ride characteristic I have felt on both a 195 and a 397, (the 195 on the CLC and the 397 on the Bolton main line). I know I've said it upthread but short wheelbase bogies don't have to be poor on indifferent track, the TL Desiro Citys at 100mph past Hendon and MillHill where there a known problems with the trackbed. The 222s also do quite well on the same stretch of track with their inside frame bogies which I believe also have a short wheelbase.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Re 170s to Nottingham: I seem to remember that the 170s aren't cleared north of Barnsley, but I might have read that here

That's more than likely just a paperwork issue, I'm not aware of any structures that would be a cause for concern. 185s have run that way on diversion for TPE, not sure if 170s did. I'd have thought they might have run that way ECS to Crofton, but they would have been more likely to run via Hare Park.

 

[Neptune]

Question: would we like to see Northern pass the 170s on in favour of, say, buying more 195s? Or swapping for some 158s? It eliminates a small fleet that can't run almost everywhere. Any new 195s could be speced slightly differently (fewer tables, different seats) to provde a kind-of A/B testing of passengers who aren't us.

Re 170s to Nottingham: I seem to remember that the 170s aren't cleared north of Barnsley, but I might have read that here

Certainly don’t agree with swapping them for 158’s. Who in their right mind would swap 3 car 2005 built units for 2 car 1990 built units.

The 170’s are absolutely fine for the Sheffield - Hull - Scarborough and Hull - York routes. They only work the Harrogate line for operational convenience.

It never seems to take long to get around to ‘move Northern 170’s elsewhere’. They aren’t going anywhere, especially now that Hull BG is about to take on their maintenance from Neville Hill alongside the even smaller 155 fleet. They will be able to get much more focussed attention there.

On the point of new build 195’s, that is highly unlikely in the current climate (pun intended).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think moving Northern's 170s elsewhere on Northern does make sense - 195s are best used on local stopping services, you'd be better using 170s on the likes of Barrow/Windermere.

 

[Neptune]

Leeds - Nottingham or Hull - Halifax would be better to keep them near their maintenance hub but there just aren’t enough 3 car 195’s for the Harrogate line to replace them.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I realise that don't get me wrong, it doesn't detract from my original point however. What was the reason for replacing the 321s and 322s? Was it to run 6 car trains (2 x 3 cars)? I would have thought Northern had other priorities to be honest.

I should think the debate was about removing micro-fleets, which 321 and 322 were at Northern.
It had a horrendous maintenance problem with multiple DMU and EMU fleets.
The aim was to eliminate at least some of them, as well as Pacers.
They are still stuck with 150/153/156, but seem likely to dump most of the 319s for WMT's 323s.
At some point they will get a chance to replace the older DMU classes with (perhaps) bi-modes, but CAF hasn't got a UK-model bi-mode (Stadler has, at GA).
Then there's what happens to spare 175s and 185s as they come available from TfW and TPE in a year or so.

 

[YorksLad12]

Certainly don’t agree with swapping them for 158’s. Who in their right mind would swap 3 car 2005 built units for 2 car 1990 built units.

The 170’s are absolutely fine for the Sheffield - Hull - Scarborough and Hull - York routes. They only work the Harrogate line for operational convenience.

It never seems to take long to get around to ‘move Northern 170’s elsewhere’. They aren’t going anywhere, especially now that Hull BG is about to take on their maintenance from Neville Hill alongside the even smaller 155 fleet. They will be able to get much more focussed attention there.

On the point of new build 195’s, that is highly unlikely in the current climate (pun intended).

To be clear: I'm not advocating for the 170s to move, just raising the question (although I would take some 158s if they were 3-car units). Working the routes around/through Hull makes sense if Hull is their 'home' depot.

 

[Bikeman78]

What is confusing about the door buttons? Light up green = open, light up red = close, they also have the wording on them and are tactile.

If I recall correctly, they are red when the doors are locked. This confused me the first time I went on one because I thought the doors were defective so I moved so another set. As it turns out, the buttons go green when the doors are released.

 

[Sheridan]

They say something along the lines of ‘door not in use’, which when displayed as you approach a station makes you think that that set of doors is faulty and you need to move, only to find the next set says the same thing. Fine once you’ve become acquainted with it, but slightly worrying the first time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They say something along the lines of ‘door not in use’, which when displayed as you approach a station makes you think that that set of doors is faulty and you need to move, only to find the next set says the same thing. Fine once you’ve become acquainted with it, but slightly worrying the first time.

Yes, in essence it's because all doors are considered out of use until the SDO decides, once you've stopped, which ones can be released. But it's all a bit like programming a VCR - a system that works that way because that's what the underlying system does, rather than it being abstracted to what wouldn't mislead passengers.

 

[Agent_Squash]

I think moving Northern's 170s elsewhere on Northern does make sense - 195s are best used on local stopping services, you'd be better using 170s on the likes of Barrow/Windermere.

Surely the trains should’ve been designed for the services that are the reason they were required for in the first place… (only Barrow/Windermere ‘needed’ the new trains under the franchise ITT)

 

[Llama]

Yes, in essence it's because all doors are considered out of use until the SDO decides, once you've stopped, which ones can be released. But it's all a bit like programming a VCR - a system that works that way because that's what the underlying system does, rather than it being abstracted to what wouldn't mislead passengers.

The Asdo on 195/331s is only pre-programmed which side the doors will be armed on at basic two-track unidirectional stations and a few others such as Piccadilly 13/14 (even though there is at least one train that is booked to go 'facing direction' through 14 so the Asdo needs to be overridden there and on approach the red 'door not in use' roundels will show the wrong side til overridden). Everywhere else, where it is less certain which side the platform will be on, the guard has to override the Asdo so the roundels will show 'door not in use' on both sides of the train until the guard operates the override releasing the doors. Not logical for the average layman passenger at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the trains should’ve been designed for the services that are the reason they were required for in the first place… (only Barrow/Windermere ‘needed’ the new trains under the franchise ITT)

What they should have done was ordered new DMUs to directly replace 142s and 150s - basically the Class 172 concept. The 195s are pretty well designed for this other than maybe seating density being a bit low, though, and so "new Northern", absolved of the franchise requirement to run them on long distance services, have been using them on e.g. Marples, Rose Hills and Hope Valley stoppers, where they work pretty well.

 

[Grumpy Git]

They say something along the lines of ‘door not in use’, ............................

I've never noticed that despite using these on a semi regular basis, but it really is terrible signage/wording as people will take that literally, particularly with Northern's glacial time-scale door opening policy.


Not my image, courtesy of 'busandtrainuser.com'

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Asdo on 195/331s is only pre-programmed which side the doors will be armed on at basic two-track unidirectional stations and a few others such as Piccadilly 13/14 (even though there is at least one train that is booked to go 'facing direction' through 14 so the Asdo needs to be overridden there). Everywhere else, where it is less certain which side the platform will be on, the guard has to override the Asdo so the red 'roundels' will show 'door not in use' on both sides of the train until the guard operates the override releasing the doors. Not logical for the average layman passenger at all.

Not logical in any sense. ASDO doesn't really have value unless it works at every station - if some are manual and some not that leads to potentially dangerous confusion of what's what.

I've never noticed that despite using these on a semi regular basis, but it really is terrible signage/wording as people will take that literally, particularly with Northern's glacial time-scale door opening policy.


Not my image, courtesy of 'busandtrainuser.com'

That just needs a round black sticker putting over the top. Other units with SDO/Unit Deselect e.g. LNR 350s just don't light the open button if a door is deselected.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

If everyone hates the 195s so much, let us start a petition, Bring Back the Pacers!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If everyone hates the 195s so much, let us start a petition, Bring Back the Pacers!

I doubt anyone would say a 195 wasn't a perfectly acceptable 142/150 replacement and vastly better than either of those - it's just that it was sold as a 158/185/170 substitute for longer distance runs, and it's arguably inferior to all of those, give or take the aircon (though the 158 isn't suitable for the WCML runs as it's only 90mph).

Use it on what it's good for - local stopping services around Manchester and Leeds - and it's excellent. It'd be nice to see them on Athertons and Warrington stoppers to really gain from the superb EMU-like performance, particularly if the 175s end up coming in and so would substitute on the Barrow/Windermere as 100mph units (which is what those were originally built for). The standbacks also make it a real "people eater" - almost as good as the 700 despite the wider seats.

 

[Ribbleman]

The problem with seat comfort is that it’s subjective, I get that. However I found the entire passenger “experience” rather lacking to be honest, performance excepted (and I’m not sure many members of the public would notice or care about that). They really do feel I described them previously, i.e. the cheapest possible way to get new trains on the Northern network.



Again though this sets an incredibly low bar. I totally understand where you’re coming from but we shouldn’t be using what were the worst(?) trains in service until recently as a yardstick.

In terms of passenger comfort over anything other than perfect, plain track, the 195s lag behind 1950s designed DMUs, such as 110s and 120s. I suggest that more appropriate yardsticks than Pacers by which they may be judged are bogied stock such as 170s and 185s. It is not too much to expect at least a similar standard of ride to something that was introduced 20 years ago. The folly of ordering a fleet of units without the experience gained by constructing and testing a prototype has been exposed. Those who look forward to the arrival of Classes 196 and 197 are in for something of a disappointment.