Refurbished Northern 158’s - WOW!

[Llandudno]

Travelled on the Bentham line yesterday between Skipton and Carnforth and a refurbished 3 car Class 158 turned up.

The refurbishment is transformational it was like travelling on board a brand new train, even the seats were spongy and comfortable unlike the ironing board seats on the new 195 units,

How old are these 158s and how many more years service have they got left in them?

 

[43301]

Only the 3-car 158s still have the original seats. The rest of the Northern 158 fleet (i.e. the two car units) have the same seats as the 195s / 331s.

While the original seats have more padding, the legroom is awful - the new seats are overall far better for anyone who is tall.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only the 3-car 158s still have the original seats. The rest of the Northern 158 fleet (i.e. the two car units) have the same seats as the 195s / 331s.

While the original seats have more padding, the legroom is awful - the new seats are overall far better for anyone who is tall.

Agreed, the new seats are really transformational - from the worst legroom in the business to the best in one go, and on the original fully-window-aligned layout, too.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The armrests have also been moved and are now far too low. I prefer the two-carriage trains with the Fainsas.

 

[DannyMich2018]

Travelled on the Bentham line yesterday between Skipton and Carnforth and a refurbished 3 car Class 158 turned up.

The refurbishment is transformational it was like travelling on board a brand new train, even the seats were spongy and comfortable unlike the ironing board seats on the new 195 units,

How old are these 158s and how many more years service have they got left in them?

158s were built between 1989 and 1992. There's no replacement lined up yet for these and none for the older 150s and 156s too so I can see these having at least 5-10 years more service.

 

[fgwrich]

Only the 3-car 158s still have the original seats. The rest of the Northern 158 fleet (i.e. the two car units) have the same seats as the 195s / 331s.

While the original seats have more padding, the legroom is awful - the new seats are overall far better for anyone who is tall.

I wonder if they've done a GWR, and moved the seats closer together? It was certainly more noticeable after their refurbishment (and much to the delight of some on here, replacement of Richmond's with original BR seats) that the seat pitch had been reduced. Not helped by the rock hard cushions too.

 

[43301]

I wonder if they've done a GWR, and moved the seats closer together? It was certainly more noticeable after their refurbishment (and much to the delight of some on here, replacement of Richmond's with original BR seats) that the seat pitch had been reduced. Not helped by the rock hard cushions too.

Well, at least getting rid of Richmonds was something of an improvement - they are awful seats! With the demise of the 144s and withdrawal of a lot of 153s (not all of which had them anyway) there can't be much left now with those - some remaining 153s and 156s (which never all had them either) is probably about it? Don't think any 158s apart from the FGW ones ever had them.

 

[fgwrich]

Well, at least getting rid of Richmonds was something of an improvement - they are awful seats! With the demise of the 144s and withdrawal of a lot of 153s (not all of which had them anyway) there can't be much left now with those - some remaining 153s and 156s (which never all had them either) is probably about it? Don't think any 158s apart from the FGW ones ever had them.

ScotRail's Corkerhill ne Haymarket sets do have them - IIIRC, FGW used the seats freed up by the Inverness 158 refurbishment to refurbish the ex Wessex fleet which had a hotch potch of Chapman and Compin Fainsa seats (the same as used by Siemens 350/450 FC). To be honest, I really don't actually mind them at all, and were far more preferable to Wales & West's utterly bizarre idea of using 158 seats in their 153s.

 

[driverd]

Travelled on the Bentham line yesterday between Skipton and Carnforth and a refurbished 3 car Class 158 turned up.

The refurbishment is transformational it was like travelling on board a brand new train, even the seats were spongy and comfortable unlike the ironing board seats on the new 195 units.

As noted by others, I much prefer the fainsa seating in the 2 car units. I had pins and needles in the posterior, having travelled the full length of the S&C on a 3 car (no such issues in the other direction on a 2 car). I also find the lumbar support lacking on the 3 cars.

None the less, the refurb is pleasant enough for sure - the units do feel like they've been given a new lease of life and is such a step change from how they were under Serco/abellio. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the 2 car 158s.

How old are these 158s and how many more years service have they got left in them?

Theoretically, they're already life expired (traditionally wisdom was circa 30 years for a DMU). However, there's no imminent plans for replacement, so I would personally expect to see them until around 2035.

The armrests have also been moved and are now far too low. I prefer the two-carriage trains with the Fainsas.

It's not that they've moved the armrest, but that the new seat bases are substantially more chunky than those as fitted new. You're absolutely right, though, the arm rests are essentially useless!

 

[LowLevel]

I think the Northern 158s are a superb refurb job. Some of the finish is a bit tacky and poorly executed but the basic premise is very good. I find the seats in the 2 cars perfectly comfortable (did Nottingham to Carlisle and back the other week largely without issue) and the 3 cars are perfectly good too.

 

[yorksrob]

If only they'd all been refurbished like the 3 carriage ones.

The new seats on the 2 carriage sets make my bottom hurt on a long journey.

 

[Pit_buzzer]

Just goes to show how seats are subjective, I find the seats in the 3 car 158s the worst of the lot, the deep cushions alter the entire seating position and make the armrests useless and the thick backrest reduces legroom. I find the fainsa seat in the 2 cars far more comfortable

 

[greyman42]

It's not that they've moved the armrest, but that the new seat bases are substantially more chunky than those as fitted new. You're absolutely right, though, the arm rests are essentially useless!

The armrests still stop the passenger next to you encroaching onto your seat so not entirely useless.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Just goes to show how seats are subjective, I find the seats in the 3 car 158s the worst of the lot, the deep cushions alter the entire seating position and make the armrests useless and the thick backrest reduces legroom. I find the fainsa seat in the 2 cars far more comfortable

Agree entirely

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's not that they've moved the armrest, but that the new seat bases are substantially more chunky than those as fitted new. You're absolutely right, though, the arm rests are essentially useless!

The centre cars had the thicker seat bases ever since Northern Spirit refurbished them for TPE service in the early days of privatisation. It was a pleasant surprise that Northern replicated that in the driving cars, rather than doing the opposite and reverting the centre car to the original spec.

Agree on the armrests- I'm tempted to carry a set of Allen keys around with me so I can "repair" them!

 

[superkev]

I used to hated travelling on the Transpennine 158s in Nothern days as the thicker seat backs reduced the leg room so I couldn't get my knees in. Im just 5ft 10" too.
K

 

[Mike Machin]

I rarely travel by train, and on the few occasions I did last year I had to endure the dreadful Class 166/165s which I had assumed taken over most of the Portsmouth to Cardiff turns. Last week however, I made a return journey on this route and had 2 x Class 158s both ways. Having not travelled on one of these units for several years, I was amazed at just how good they are!

They have obviously I guess been refurbished at some time, very nice clean and comfortable seating and so, so much smoother and quieter than the filthy, fume-filled, noisy rattling contraptions (Class 166/165) I endured last year on this route. Hopefully, the Northern examples have been refurbished in a similar way? On last week's evidence I think there's plenty of scope for keeping 158s in front-line service for a few more years!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The GWR refurb with the original seats is really odd - they look as-was, but the cushions are very hard, resulting in sitting much higher than before. I had mixed views on them, but overall I prefer the Northern "ironing board" version due to the excellent legroom.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I rarely travel by train, and on the few occasions I did last year I had to endure the dreadful Class 166/165s which I had assumed taken over most of the Portsmouth to Cardiff turns. Last week however, I made a return journey on this route and had 2 x Class 158s both ways. Having not travelled on one of these units for several years, I was amazed at just how good they are!

They have obviously I guess been refurbished at some time, very nice clean and comfortable seating and so, so much smoother and quieter than the filthy, fume-filled, noisy rattling contraptions (Class 166/165) I endured last year on this route. Hopefully, the Northern examples have been refurbished in a similar way? On last week's evidence I think there's plenty of scope for keeping 158s in front-line service for a few more years!

On weekdays, the diagrams including 1330/1430 ex CDF are 4-158. These are to maintain crew competency and these particular diagrams are specifically chosen to avoid Bristol during rush hour.

 

[Ianigsy]

Well, at least getting rid of Richmonds was something of an improvement - they are awful seats! With the demise of the 144s and withdrawal of a lot of 153s (not all of which had them anyway) there can't be much left now with those - some remaining 153s and 156s (which never all had them either) is probably about it? Don't think any 158s apart from the FGW ones ever had them.

My personal bugbear was the Richmond seats without seat back tables as fitted to the 144s. I’m 6ft more or less exactly and I could usually reckon on banging a knee either getting in or out.

 

[JohnRegular]

The GWR refurb with the original seats is really odd - they look as-was, but the cushions are very hard, resulting in sitting much higher than before. I had mixed views on them, but overall I prefer the Northern "ironing board" version due to the excellent legroom.

The GWR refurbs (like their 3-car Northern cousins, it seems) also suffer from legroom issues, though admittedly not much worse than the airline seats in the Turbos.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My personal bugbear was the Richmond seats without seat back tables as fitted to the 144s. I’m 6ft more or less exactly and I could usually reckon on banging a knee either getting in or out.

Richmond seats in any context are a bugbear. They are utter junk, and the sprung base collapses after a year or two making them even worse. The idea of a deep sprung modern seat was a nice one, but the build quality of these is just utterly atrocious.

Of the seats of their time, the Chapman, while less fancy-looking, was hugely superior and far better-lasting. Not many left in the original form, but the frame is used with a different cushion in most 168s and 170s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2022 ==

The GWR refurbs (like their 3-car Northern cousins, it seems) also suffer from legroom issues, though admittedly not much worse than the airline seats in the Turbos.

They're a similarly stupid design with the central "niche" with supports at the sides, sharing this flaw with Pendolino/Voyager seats. Generally, men are taller than women, and generally men can't sit comfortably with their legs together for, er, anatomical reasons. Thus, a seat which uses "niches" to provide extra legroom needs them at the sides, as per the rather good seat found only on the 175 and 180.

FISA LEANs at least seem to have it most of the way across.

 

[railfan100]

Confusing why Northern used such deep cushions on the original seats. When the units were new the cushion was no where near as deep which allowed more leg room and arm rests that are fit purpose. Do not understand the people that make such decisions.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If you sit with a healthy posture (with your backside at the back of the seat base rather than halfway along, as most people seem to sit) then the legroom is fine on the original seats in their original positions. My brother (all 6'5" of him) fits fine in them. Don't grumble at the railway when it's your own poor posture that causes the problems.

(That should put a cat among the pigeons, eh? )

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you sit with a healthy posture (with your backside at the back of the seat base rather than halfway along, as most people seem to sit) then the legroom is fine on the original seats in their original positions. My brother (all 6'5" of him) fits fine in them. Don't grumble at the railway when it's your own poor posture that causes the problems.

(That should put a cat among the pigeons, eh? )

Factually incorrect. With a very raked seat back, it is more a factor of upper and lower leg length than absolute height. With the "niche" you can also add hip width too.

I believe in modern terms they like to call this sort of nonsensical statement "gaslighting".

 

[43301]

Factually incorrect. With a very raked seat back, it is more a factor of upper and lower leg length than absolute height. With the "niche" you can also add hip width too.

I believe in modern terms they like to call this sort of nonsensical statement "gaslighting".

Indeed! At 6'3", I find original 158 seats extremely cramped and uncomfortable, and I don't sit half way forward on the seat - that would be physically impossible due to the lack of legroom!