I think that Bombardier have remedied to this problem with the 172s which I am pleased about as I like the Turbostars as offering as standard a regional DMU as possible at present, and of course the larger engines on the 185s make them thirsty beasts as well as being overweight.While this isn't down to the builder, more the choice of engines used, but a 170 to me is a pathetic, gutless thing of a DMU, where as the 185 will comfortably cruise along, no matter what the line is like.
Seating is highly subjective and train manufacturers choose a supplier for their seats anyway, I am sure this could be changed if deemed necessary.Alstom seats! Well the 175 seats are the comfiest seats i have ever been on from a personal persepective anyway. 185s i find very uncomfortable and voyagers i find in between.
Pacer seating the 2+2 stuff i actually find to be the comfiest on the network.
What about the 334s (which are basically AC 458s, without end doors)? Those took years to make fit for actually running in service. And ditto the 180s.Its the whole package that really matters though - just look at Alsthom, whose 458's and 175's are finally revealing the good design hiding underneath all the other 'issues'...
They haven't been a disaster though. While they can't use and SP or HST differerentials, they are still quicker between Doncaster and Sheffiels (HST diff.) and the Hope Valley (SP diff.) that 170s, which can use both! In fact, I'm going to suggest that despite the weight disadvantage, they are more economical with fule than the 170s simply because the Bombardier product has to be thrashed to high heaven just to try and maintain timings, where as the Siemens product is confortably cruising. However, this isn't a slight against either design though, but as I said in my original post in this topic, the choice of engine used.Both companies have things to reccomend them.
For instance Bombardier is the only company that builds trains taht can use SP differentials at the present time, and Seimens one attempt to enter the diesel multiple unit market is a disaster.
(Cl185 being hugely overweight and thus unable to use any differentials at all)
Wrong topic! There's been a topic very recently where lot's of members have suggested the 185s would be perfect for the area where they live ....I think the cascaded 185s would be perfect for Scotrail on their central-to-north interregional services. If done right could allow a cascade of 158s to someone to (say) replace 150s, which could then knock a few Pacers off the network.
No. Just no. Bombardier Transportation is a German company (as was its predecessor Adtranz), subsidiary of a French Canadian conglomerate. Just because they own the last manufacturing plant in the UK since Alstom closed Washwood, doesn't make them British.Bombardia are brittish...
The 332s and 333s were a joint Siemens and CAF production. CAF has never produced any British* rolling stock on its own (although it's on the shortlist for Crossrail, along with the three usual suspects and Hitachi). Their first solo foray into Britain will be the Edinburgh trams.But the 333s were not built by either though, they're CAF products
That's hardly a shortcoming by the manufacturer, is it? They were specified like that by the customer for commuter work. If they're being used inappropriately, that's the fault of multi-award winning South West Trains. And aren't the Seats chosen by the customer rather than the manufacturer? Anyway, it's all subjective, and even if they did come as a fundamental part of the design would that in itself make them unfit for purpose?As to unfit for purpose comments - 3 plus 2 seating designed for commuting on long distance SWT work? Seating in 185s and lack of luggage space? i woant however blame them for the units being to short, thats DFTs problem.
Some of the lines SWT use Desiros on had to have track work done to allow heavier trains to operate.Siemens built rolling stock is a lot more relaible for a start, but the 185s in particular are overweight.
The 185 runs less smoothly than the 156 and 158.the 185 will comfortably cruise along, no matter what the line is like.
The 332s and 333s were a joint project between Siemens and CAF (Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles) built in Zaragoza at a CAF site but maintained by Siemens.however the 333s and 332s are great and I only wish we had more.