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.
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.
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'...
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)
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.
Bombardia are brittish...
But the 333s were not built by either though, they're CAF products
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.
Siemens built rolling stock is a lot more relaible for a start, but the 185s in particular are overweight.
the 185 will comfortably cruise along, no matter what the line is like.
however the 333s and 332s are great and I only wish we had more.