The worst train today?

[Richard Scott]

I’ve been driving them since their introduction and never felt sick once!
I was travelling passenger on one a few years back and overheard a passenger moaning that she was feeling rough due to the tilt. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that set was non tilt that day!

Drivers cannot get travel sick (at least they can't in road vehicles so assuming true of rail mounted ones too).

 

[Grumpy Git]

there seems to be a lot of love missing for the 150's. The GWR and Welsh ones i have been on have had a nice internal refit with the 3+2 seats removed and they are perfectly fine local trains.

This 100% (GWR). I can't imagine how any rail user who lives in Devon must feel if they've ever decided to take a tour on Northern's scabby equivalents.

 

[Fen Enthusiast]

Interesting thread.

Overall, based on what I've heard about them, I'd say that the class 195 Civity is the worst train today, but I'll be honest, I also judge the "worst" trains for specific things so here's my own list of trains that are the worst for specific things:

Worst ride quality: Pretty much all new CAF trains.

Worst levels of cabin noise: Based on what I've heard the BR class 769.

Worst seats: Class 700.

Worst seating layout: Class 720 especially considering at six feet with a slim build, I am too wide for the seats and I once ended up toe to toe with a child sat opposite me because the seats are too close to each other.

Worst reliability / least reliable design: I'd say that's going to be a tussle between the class 180 Adelante and anything from the CAF Civity family.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This 100% (GWR). I can't imagine how any rail user who lives in Devon must feel if they've ever decided to take a tour on Northern's scabby equivalents.

To be fair Northern's refurbishment is extremely comprehensive, even if the stark blue and daylight lighting isn't your preference. They haven't changed the seating to 2+2, but didn't Wessex do that years ago?

Worst levels of cabin noise: Based on what I've heard the BR class 769.

Having been on one they're no noisier than a 150 (about the same) and if you sit in either of the middle coaches they're much quieter as those coaches don't have engines, just the end coaches. There's plenty wrong with them (in particular reliability or lack thereof) but they're not specifically noisy.

To most passengers they're the same as a double 150 formation.

 

[DarloRich]

To be fair Northern's refurbishment is extremely comprehensive, even if the stark blue and daylight lighting isn't your preference. They haven't changed the seating to 2+2, but didn't Wessex do that years ago

the quality of the northern overhaul is very good but did keep the 3+2 seating which is very cramped.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the quality of the northern overhaul is very good but did keep the 3+2 seating which is very cramped.

Indeed, but GWR can't be given credit for that as Wessex did it years ago (which is why it uses Chapman seating and not something more modern).

Last time the seats were replaced on Northern's units was FNW doing it at a similar time to Wessex, but they left the layouts unchanged.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Indeed, but GWR can't be given credit for that as Wessex did it years ago (which is why it uses Chapman seating and not something more modern).

Last time the seats were replaced on Northern's units was FNW doing it at a similar time to Wessex, but they left the layouts unchanged.

I thought the 2+2 conversions were done by Wales&West before the Welsh routes were separated out. Hence many of the TfW units also having the 2+2 layout?

My main issue with Northern's 150s is the airline seats on the '3' side. The 2s aren't so bad but it's a pain getting into the window seat on the 3s. As far as I'm aware the 150s are the only 20m mk3 fleet that has this awkward layout despite the internal dimensions being the same as the electric versions which are mostly arranged in bays.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the 2+2 conversions were done by Wales&West before the Welsh routes were separated out. Hence many of the TfW units also having the 2+2 layout?

My main issue with Northern's 150s is the airline seats on the '3' side. The 2s aren't so bad but it's a pain getting into the window seat on the 3s. As far as I'm aware the 150s are the only 20m mk3 fleet that has this awkward layout despite the internal dimensions being the same as the electric versions which are mostly arranged in bays.

They are.

Guess what also has that layout (albeit only on a few rows)? Yep, the junk that is the Class 720.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They are.

Guess what also has that layout (albeit only on a few rows)? Yep, the junk that is the Class 720.

If 3+2 is necessary (and it probably does have a role in some cases) it should really be done as on the 333s, which only use the airline arrangement on the 2-side. 3 seats in an airline arrangement are too cramped unless an unfeasibly large pitch is used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If 3+2 is necessary (and it probably does have a role in some cases) it should really be done as on the 333s, which only use the airline arrangement on the 2-side. 3 seats in an airline arrangement are too cramped unless an unfeasibly large pitch is used.

They could have done exactly that on the 720; the centre section has 5 windows which are the perfect size for a bay, a bit like the 350/2's 20m body has four. Unfortunately they just couldn't resist cramming an extra row in. See also the 150/2 which has a tight layout to add just four seats per vehicle (the side-facing ones).

323s are the same - the 3s are all bays. And Turbos if I recall.

However 3+2 is just too narrow in a 2.77m wide body with thick (4-5cm ish, compared to about 2-2.5cm on 350s) sidewalls. The seats are too narrow and so are the aisles. The 23m vehicles with acceptable (ish) 3+2, namely 323s and Turbos, are 2.80m (323)/2.81m (Turbo) wide and have thin sidewalls.

 

[Andyh82]

Indeed, but GWR can't be given credit for that as Wessex did it years ago (which is why it uses Chapman seating and not something more modern).

Last time the seats were replaced on Northern's units was FNW doing it at a similar time to Wessex, but they left the layouts unchanged.

I think it’s the 150s with the original BR seats as mostly found on the east side which are the cause of most complaints. The ex-FNW ones are luxury in comparison

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it’s the 150s with the original BR seats as mostly found on the east side which are the cause of most complaints. The ex-FNW ones are luxury in comparison

To be fair while it looks dated, the Chapman seat is comfortable and (other than the tray tables) robust.

 

[387star]

Turbos are the worst. Absolutely unsuited to a three hour plus route lots of hopper windows locks are broken and the air con is useless anyway. Very poor leg room and hideously loud announcements

 

[TrainTrackJack]

The 172s just aren't one of them. I can't imagine enjoying a through journey from Worcester to Birmingham or Stratford on one.

Try Hereford to New Street - of which 3 out of 4 diagrams are now worked by Class 172s in place of Class 170s heading off to pastures new, whilst awaiting the 196s to arrive. For an hour and a half journey you would at least wish for a table of some kind, and a semi - comfortable seat, and using what is predominantly metro - orientated stock isn't ideal for these journeys. The only saving grace they have over the 170s are plug sockets, very reliable WiFi and air con, and when it works, a quality PIS system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Try Hereford to New Street - of which 3 out of 4 diagrams are now worked by Class 172s in place of Class 170s heading off to pastures new, whilst awaiting the 196s to arrive. For an hour and a half journey you would at least wish for a table of some kind, and a semi - comfortable seat, and using what is predominantly metro - orientated stock isn't ideal for these journeys. The only saving grace they have over the 170s are plug sockets, very reliable WiFi and air con, and when it works, a quality PIS system.

To get you used to the suburban layout, as 196s have a suburban layout too (albeit with tables)?

 

[ExRes]

Would it be fair to say that every single class of train on the UK network is equally as bad as all the others?

 

[John Luxton]

Two class 153s appear to be the mainstay of the TfW Chester to Liverpool Lime Street service. I have travelled on them a few times this year. They seem to crank up a decent speed.

 

[DustyBin]

Would it be fair to say that every single class of train on the UK network is equally as bad as all the others?

It would appear so……

There’s nothing wrong with a lot of the older stuff though IMO.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Try Hereford to New Street - of which 3 out of 4 diagrams are now worked by Class 172s in place of Class 170s heading off to pastures new, whilst awaiting the 196s to arrive. For an hour and a half journey you would at least wish for a table of some kind, and a semi - comfortable seat, and using what is predominantly metro - orientated stock isn't ideal for these journeys. The only saving grace they have over the 170s are plug sockets, very reliable WiFi and air con, and when it works, a quality PIS system.

Next time I'm squeezed into an airline seat on a Northern 150, I'll be sure to play you a tune on the world's smallest violin...

Sure, the 172s might not be quite as nice for longer journeys as the 170s, but they aren't that bad. The seats are firm but reasonably comfortable and good for posture, you've got 2+2 seating with a decent amount of legroom. Plus as you say all the modern conveniences such as a readable PIS, reliable aircon and plug sockets. The only thing missing is seat-back tables. Northern are slowly getting around to providing charging points and WiFi, but even when it's fitted it's turned off more often than not. Dishonourable mention too to TPE, as I can't recall the last time I had functional WiFi on a 185 on the Huddersfield to Leeds stopper.

 

[Mat17]

It would appear so……

There’s nothing wrong with a lot of the older stuff though IMO.

No, I don't think we could argue that all are as bad. I personally think 170s are mint - love travelling on them. 158s are really good too. I think the 333s are the best of the non-first gen units I've travelled ever on.

 

[ExRes]

No, I don't think we could argue that all are as bad. I personally think 170s are mint - love travelling on them. 158s are really good too. I think the 333s are the best of the non-first gen units I've travelled ever on.

But they are all as bad though, you may like 170s but others absolutely detest them, you only have to read a small sample of posts on this type of thread to know that everyone has entirely different likes and dislikes, the same results are also available from drivers on the subject of 'the worst train to drive', it's all personal views

 

[150249]

I'm currently on 150249 (hehe) after 150247 (the train I was on previously and a two coach on the devon branch) had a fault. The staff did nothing but tell us to close all the windows. Not a pleasant experience.

 

[Mat17]

But they are all as bad though, you may like 170s but others absolutely detest them, you only have to read a small sample of posts on this type of thread to know that everyone has entirely different likes and dislikes, the same results are also available from drivers on the subject of 'the worst train to drive', it's all personal views

To some extent I agree that there will never be 100% agreement, and nor should they have to be - but surely we should be able to draw a broad consensus of what a majority (not all) would consider to be good or bad.

For example, I've never heard anyone ever state that they love 153s and think they are the best designed and most comfortable trains on the network. I can't image anyone ever would state that, even if they could find some positive points for them.

Much like HSTs are generally well regarded.

 

[DustyBin]

No, I don't think we could argue that all are as bad. I personally think 170s are mint - love travelling on them. 158s are really good too. I think the 333s are the best of the non-first gen units I've travelled ever on.

I said it slightly tongue in cheek in response to @ExRes (who does have a point!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Much like HSTs are generally well regarded.

HSTs (and hauled Mk3s) are a funny one. They aren't terrible, but in my view they've never been particularly good, and as built had some awful features such as the terrible InterCity 70 seat. Refurbs have improved them by removing that seat (which was uncomfortable for broader/taller people, poorly accessible due to the fixed armrests and had a tendency to break into big pointy bits in an accident), but they still ride badly with a characteristic sway due to inadequate damping, make an almighty bang when another one passes, have iffy aircon, have annoyingly high windows, had slamdoors (mostly replaced now) etc. They certainly weren't a patch on Eurofima type UIC coaches which are of similar vintage, and the BREL International Coach was everything they should have been.

Mk4s have nice seats and nice interiors (neither of which they were built with) but also have an utterly terrible ride and are a bit cramped due to an unnecessary tilt profile.

So nothing's perfect

 

[driverd]

Interesting thread.

Overall, based on what I've heard about them, I'd say that the class 195 Civity is the worst train today, but I'll be honest, I also judge the "worst" trains for specific things so here's my own list of trains that are the worst for specific things:

Have you actually been on one? They come in for flack for ride quality but that's about it. Otherwise they're pretty good units. For a modern train, they're pretty comfortable. The interior scheme is pleasant, PIS system isn't bad, engine noise is notably minimal for a DMU - there's a fair few positives going for them really when you move past ride quality (and as with most things, how much that bothers you is highly subjective).

Worst reliability / least reliable design: I'd say that's going to be a tussle between the class 180 Adelante and anything from the CAF Civity family.

On what basis do you make this comparison? The CAF Civitys are miles more reliable than 180s - for a new fleet, their introduction has been very good really. They have minor faults, sometimes more significant ones that require a unit swap at a convenient location, but it's quite rare (infact, I've only known it happen three times in close to three years) for one to sit down and need rescuing - they generally limp home . The 180s, meanwhile, block the ECML on almost a weekly basis - I'd say there's no comparison between the two.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you actually been on one? They come in for flack for ride quality but that's about it. Otherwise they're pretty good units. For a modern train, they're pretty comfortable. The interior scheme is pleasant, PIS system isn't bad, engine noise is notably minimal for a DMU - there's a fair few positives going for them really when you move past ride quality (and as with most things, how much that bothers you is highly subjective)

Lazy window alignment is my main dislike, but admittedly they're growing on me. They're certainly a more than competent Class 150/153/156 replacement, and Northern seem increasingly to be realising that that's the best place to use them due to the superb acceleration (give or take the WCML services where they're needed for the 100mph top speed).

 

[mike57]

Now that the Pacers have gone the acolade would have to go to Class 180s. Unreliable (The real biggy, after all a failed train is nothing more than a heap of scrap...), a very jiggly ride at speed, noisy, and on one memorable occasion returning to Hull in heavy rain, leaky. What I find disappointing is that they should have been 'really useful' units for less busy routes where 5 coaches is enough, but i suppose being a small fleet there was never the will or need to sort them.

Close behind would be 220/1s, poor use of space, feel cramped, totaly inadequate for the routes they serve, and as for the smell from the bogs, well lets just leave that one.

 

[19Gnasher69]

Would it be fair to say that every single class of train on the UK network is equally as bad as all the others?

Whilst I wouldn’t go quite this far, I would say that the UK suffers from the twin problems of overuse of multiple units (particularly diesel units) and trains being built to woeful specifications.
The latter point(s) have been done to death here and on other forums.
However the rush to give us multiple units has resulted in awful travel experiences the length and breadth of the country. I don’t write this as a ‘loco-hauled only’ enthusiast but as a regular rail user.
DMUs were originally conceived for branch line use but have become the train format of choice for long-distance operators. The trouble is they’re awful places to be when the engines are under load - perhaps tolerable in the flatlands of East Anglia but extremely unpleasant pretty much anywhere else in the UK, especially as they age.
I realise this is the old ‘fit for purpose’ moan but barely anything changes.
Leeds to Carlisle on a 158, Welsh lines on a 150, anywhere in Scotland on a 158 or 170, Waterloo to Exeter on 158s/159s, almost all Cross Country services, all Grand Central services; all wholly unacceptable but the list goes on. And will now/soon include new-build DMUs for use on longer routes.
So, for my money, classes 150 to 197 are jointly the third worst trains in the UK.
That’s because the Virgin legacy fleets will always take the gold and silver medals. It’s some going to make an EMU the most execrable train on this island with the exceptional level of competition noted above but Virgin did so with the 390, followed closely by 220s/221s (and derivatives).
Not all our trains are equally bad but most are diabolical and a couple are absolutely $h.te.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Close behind would be 220/1s, poor use of space, feel cramped, totaly inadequate for the routes they serve, and as for the smell from the bogs, well lets just leave that one.

22x were a decent "first go" at a 125mph InterCity DEMU but have many, many shortcomings.