Class 150/1

[SWTrainspottin]

Being a local in Cornwall, I often see the GWR Class 150/1 units working their ways around in Cornwall on a fair few diagrams and I have to admit, I have grew to have a strong dislike to them - especially compared to the likes of a 150/2 or 158.

The Class 150/1 in my humble opinion is by far nothing like a Class 150/2 and I think that's primarily down to the 2+3 seating which is currently layed out on them. I'm not a fan of that type of seating and never will be to be honest. I've heard that WMT have more bearable seats on their /1 units rather than the GWR ones, as the seats on the GWR ones are very small with too very little legroom. The ride is by far awful overall and I just don't like the train, but for the record - I've only ever travelled on-board a GWR one.

So tell me all, what is your opinion on the Class 150/1?

 

[superalbs]

I must say, I prefer even a 143 to a 150/1, they're truly awful units.

Wouldn't be as bad if they had received a proper interior, but the harsh lighting and uncomfortable seating/seating layout really gets to you on a longer journey.

 

[sprinterguy]

The seats on the WMT 150/1s are identical to those found on the GWR units - Some of the GWR units are from the former West Midlands stable after all.

I agree, a truly awful interior layout: Cramped, too low and offering poor visibility. At least passengers on GWR won't have to bear them for much longer!

 

[rich r]

At least passengers on GWR won't have to bear them for much longer!

That's because they're coming to us in the Northern area. Northern's 'refurbished' ones are at least slightly less shabby looking, but a coat of cream paint and some new seat cushions doesn't really change the ride quality or engine noise. However - they are at least warmer in winter and the windows don't steam up compared to the 142s that make up a big chunk of Northern's fleet so could be considered some sort of improvement.

 

[superalbs]

Both times I have used them under LM, they certainly had softer cushions.

 

[sprinterguy]

Both times I have used them under LM, they certainly had softer cushions.

The three sets that remained did get a refresh under London Midland admittedly, though still retained the same seat design and layout.

 

[D2007wsm]

I travel quite regularly and most of the time one of these turns up and I won't be sad to see them go. They do the job for a 25 minute journey, but they are tatty and the seats are horrible. It's far more pleasing when you see a 150/2, 153 or a 158 till in. Or as happened this morning and extra call by a HST, now that is luxury compared to the norm.

I'm still to get on a 166 in this area, though I have travelled on them between Reading and Gatwick and found them to be fine.

 

[Rob F]

When they were first introduced in the E Midlands in the late 80s the 150/1s were not too bad. The seating was 3+2 but was mostly in facing bays, so by a careful process of limb interleaving with the people opposite a comfortable position could be found. When the 150/2s were introduced they were also 3+2 but in a majority airline configuration. I am tall, but not ridiculously so (6' 1"), and found that I just did not fit in the seats without my knees being painfully pressed into the back of the seat in front.

It just shows that what we perceive as a good or bad train is almost entirely governed by the interior fit, and as we have seen with all flavours of 150, that can change many times over the years. There may be hope yet for the 800s!!

Rob

 

[bramling]

When they were first introduced in the E Midlands in the late 80s the 150/1s were not too bad. The seating was 3+2 but was mostly in facing bays, so by a careful process of limb interleaving with the people opposite a comfortable position could be found. When the 150/2s were introduced they were also 3+2 but in a majority airline configuration. I am tall, but not ridiculously so (6' 1"), and found that I just did not fit in the seats without my knees being painfully pressed into the back of the seat in front.

It just shows that what we perceive as a good or bad train is almost entirely governed by the interior fit,

Rob

The last bit is so true.

The ex-FNW 150/1s on Northern I find quite agreeable, entirely due to the facing seating layout.

I don't entirely agree with the sentiments elsewhere on this thread that 150/2s are so much better than a 150/1. They're just as short and cramped, and tatty inside.

Augment the whole lot to three (or even four) cars with a facing seating layout, and in my view they'd be perfectly fine - effectively a diesel 317 or 321.

 

[brel york]

The 150/2 has a more modern type of interior as in the way it is constructed , the door pods and window pans are fastened differently on 150/1 and 318 in comparison to 150/2 which has same type of door pod , window pan , dado panel as later built 319 -322

 

[brel york]

The door headers and ceiling, luggage rack on 150/1 are old fashioned as in the way they are built , much more exposed screws and fasteners , just look at the chrome waist rail and seat rail trims on an unmodified 150/1 very old school , similar set up on mk 3 coaching stock but the window pans on a mk3 lock in place behind the waist rail trim while on a 150/1 , 318 they have a clip that located behind waist rail,

 

[brel york]

On 150/2 319-322 panels tend to slide behind trims

 

[MatthewRead]

When they were first introduced in the E Midlands in the late 80s the 150/1s were not too bad. The seating was 3+2 but was mostly in facing bays, so by a careful process of limb interleaving with the people opposite a comfortable position could be found. When the 150/2s were introduced they were also 3+2 but in a majority airline configuration. I am tall, but not ridiculously so (6' 1"), and found that I just did not fit in the seats without my knees being painfully pressed into the back of the seat in front.

It just shows that what we perceive as a good or bad train is almost entirely governed by the interior fit, and as we have seen with all flavours of 150, that can change many times over the years. There may be hope yet for the 800s!!

Rob

Early-Mid 80s 150/1's built between 1983-85 and 150/2's 1985-87.

 

[M1544]

The last bit is so true.

The ex-FNW 150/1s on Northern I find quite agreeable, entirely due to the facing seating layout.

I don't entirely agree with the sentiments elsewhere on this thread that 150/2s are so much better than a 150/1. They're just as short and cramped, and tatty inside.

Augment the whole lot to three (or even four) cars with a facing seating layout, and in my view they'd be perfectly fine - effectively a diesel 317 or 321.

I prefer airline seats when travelling alone so nobody is looking at me directly opposite. So I think a mix of facing and airline is preferable to cater for all tastes as not everyone likes all facing and not everyone likes all airline style seats.
The problem is existing fleets of 150 tend to be all one or all the other style.

 

[brel york]

150-1 production started late 1984 , with an average build rate of 4 vehicles a week done and dusted in around a year , I started work there in 1985 ,last few of the 455 were been done , 150-1 underway , 318 contract was done very quickly between me starting in 1985 and steel bodyshell production stopping in April 1991 we finished 150-1 , 21 Class 318, 86 Class 319 , 76 150 / 2 , 22 Class 320 , 117 Class 321 5 Class 322 , 26 class456 , that’s well over a thousand vehicles not including the castle Class body shells or the 150 track assessment unit and 165 production was ramping up as final 321/9 were been finished , a great place to work

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I also prefer a ride on a Class 143 Pacer to a Class 150/1 Sprinter. I very much dislike them. I also dislike the (I think single) Class 150/2 unit that has the 150/1 interior!

 

[Rob F]

I prefer airline seats when travelling alone so nobody is looking at me directly opposite. So I think a mix of facing and airline is preferable to cater for all tastes as not everyone likes all facing and not everyone likes all airline style seats.

I have no problem with airline seats, with the big proviso that there needs to be enough leg room to use them comfortably. As built, the 150/2 were just too tight for quite a lot of people.

Rob

 

[brel york]

I remember as an apprentice the seat cushions were awkward to fit as the room wasn’t great

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The 150s of any kind suffer from the same issues of all 20m stock of mk3 or PEP-derived design: the door pockets affecting both seat-window alignment and the width of that area. Unfortunately there isn't really a solution to this without compromising capacity. Ideally those spaces would be used for luggage or cycle space, or fitted with tip-up seats with the bulkhead walls moved to the outer edge of the door pockets (assuming that's possible structurally).

Can't say I've ever particularly noticed a huge difference between the interiors of the two types of 150s though, with the ragtag mixture of units at Northern!
It is frustrating to see /1s working in multiple when there's a /2 working singly on an adjacent platform, but Northern struggle with allocations as it is without trying to avoid ungangwayed units working in multiple.

 

[Mugby]

The first of the 150s are now well past the age at which the old first generation DMUs were scrapped - and look like being around for a while yet.

We are delivering a railway fit for the 21st century though, it's just that it's running a bit late!

 

[Bletchleyite]

They’re just a body shell. You can make them fit for the 21st century just like you can a Victorian house.

 

[SWTrainspottin]

I also prefer a ride on a Class 143 Pacer to a Class 150/1 Sprinter. I very much dislike them. I also dislike the (I think single) Class 150/2 unit that has the 150/1 interior!

150202 and 150216 are the two GWR units with 2+3 seating, however they are quite different to a 150/1. The crew door is a sliding automatic door and also they have had PRM mods done so I've been told. This also goes for the two prototypes, 150001 and 1500002. Basically 150202 and 150216 are the same as 150001 and 150002 but are a different variant.

 

[bramling]

I prefer airline seats when travelling alone so nobody is looking at me directly opposite. So I think a mix of facing and airline is preferable to cater for all tastes as not everyone likes all facing and not everyone likes all airline style seats.
The problem is existing fleets of 150 tend to be all one or all the other style.

I take the point about airline seats. Must admit, being used to things like 312s, 313s, 317s, VEPs (etc) as a child where everything was facing, for me train travel is about facing seats, and psychologically - if a irrationally - I feel a little "cheated" if I have to use an airline seat. Of course, in those days (1980s) you were unlucky to have more than two people using a bay of four seats off-peak, and more often than not would have had the whole thing to one's self. Rose-tinted spectacles maybe, but in those days rail travel was preferable to the car in most respects - sadly nowadays I'm not so sure.

 

[83G/84D]

Dates I have been given for GWR 150/1 transfers to Northern:-

3/2:- 150101/4/6/8/23/28 & 29.
17/2:- 150120.
3/3:- 150121.
17/3:- 150127.
31/3:- 150130.
14/4:- 150131.

 

[Failed Unit]

When they were built the 150/1s were criticised a lot. The noise was one of the things mentioned so not sure if the 150/2 had extra insulation but they were the same engine etc. Using both frequenctly I didn’t notice the difference in noise.

The 150/2 had the 3/2 seating that everyone stayed they don’t like. The 150/1 has it fitted on the West Midlands units in the early 1990s. The ones that went north retained the as built seating.

I would be interested if the 150/1 in Cornwall were refurbished to the same standard as the “Wessex” 150/2 would people care which one turns up? I see a lot of criticism of trains, where it is really the seat layout that is disliked.

Other examples 317s (then you see the 317/6 showing what can be done) 158s grammar versus Richmond seats. Even the IC70 versus various new designs. I could go on.

 

[superalbs]

I would be interested if the 150/1 in Cornwall were refurbished to the same standard as the “Wessex” 150/2 would people care which one turns up? I see a lot of criticism of trains, where it is really the seat layout that is disliked.

I for one wouldn't be bothered what turns up if the 150/1s had a proper interior.

When a 150/2 turns up, you have trains with comfy seating, armrests, tables, good colour scheme/lighting, but when a 150/1 turns up, you're left with crammed 2+3 seating, mostly airline, no tables, no armrests, and blinding lighting. Even 150202 and 150216 are preferrable because at least they have been refurbished and don't (to my knowledge) have the awfully blinding lighting. If it was the other way around then I'd take a 150/1 ove a 150/2 anyday, but it isn't.

The 150/1 can be good, but unfortunately nobody has made them good.

 

[bramling]

I for one wouldn't be bothered what turns up if the 150/1s had a proper interior.

When a 150/2 turns up, you have trains with comfy seating, armrests, tables, good colour scheme/lighting, but when a 150/1 turns up, you're left with crammed 2+3 seating, mostly airline, no tables, no armrests, and blinding lighting. Even 150202 and 150216 are preferrable because at least they have been refurbished and don't (to my knowledge) have the awfully blinding lighting. If it was the other way around then I'd take a 150/1 ove a 150/2 anyday, but it isn't.

The 150/1 can be good, but unfortunately nobody has made them good.

Yet on Northern it's generally the FNW 150/1s which are best.

The trouble with the 150 is it was designed to pack as many people in so as to allow the absolute minimum number of vehicles to be built replacing first-generation DMUs. Now we have things like big toilets and increased passenger numbers, a 2-car 150 is simply not fit for purpose any more. You either have a comfortable interior but few seats, or a cramped interior but maximising seating. The whole fleet needs a complete rethink to make up to 3 or 4 car formations therefore reducing the number of large toilets needed. Take the opportunity to put in a decent interior layout at the same time (e.g. 317/6). Trouble is there simply isn't the slack in the fleet to do this at present, and seemingly not the political will either.

 

[Helvellyn]

The 150s of any kind suffer from the same issues of all 20m stock of mk3 or PEP-derived design: the door pockets affecting both seat-window alignment and the width of that area. Unfortunately there isn't really a solution to this without compromising capacity. Ideally those spaces would be used for luggage or cycle space, or fitted with tip-up seats with the bulkhead walls moved to the outer edge of the door pockets (assuming that's possible structurally).

It can indeed - just look at what South West Trains did with their 455 and 456 fleets. They even modified the doors to open to their full width (I think the only 20m Mk 3 derived vehicles to do so?).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/South_West_Trains_-_Inside_of_Class_456.jpg

 

[BestWestern]

150-1 production started late 1984 , with an average build rate of 4 vehicles a week done and dusted in around a year , I started work there in 1985 ,last few of the 455 were been done , 150-1 underway , 318 contract was done very quickly between me starting in 1985 and steel bodyshell production stopping in April 1991 we finished 150-1 , 21 Class 318, 86 Class 319 , 76 150 / 2 , 22 Class 320 , 117 Class 321 5 Class 322 , 26 class456 , that’s well over a thousand vehicles not including the castle Class body shells or the 150 track assessment unit and 165 production was ramping up as final 321/9 were been finished , a great place to work

What's a "castle class"?!

 

[ATW158Xpress]

What's a "castle class"?!

2+4 GWR HST's currently being converted for service between Penzance - Bristol/Cardiff which will be in service later in the year.