Exactly. Ironing boards are purely about getting more seats in. Nothing comfortable about them. Personally I'm not sure its such an issue on local trains, but certainly shouldn't be used longer distance. Very very uncomfortable.
Northern’s 158’s have the same seat pitch as before which as a result has massively increased legroom.
Because the chair in my living room isn't travelling at 100mph (so it doesn't need to be designed to keep me safe in the event of a crash) and my living room doesn't have 50+ other people in it who all want a seat (so the chair doesn't need to be designed to fit in amongst lots of other seats, the aisle, luggage space, etc.). Comfort is not (and should not) be the only consideration in designing a train seat.
I didn't suggest it was, just the probable opinion of an average "non train spotter" passenger. People like investment, especially if it's their local line, or their regular commute.
It's the number of seats with poor leg room on a 150 that puts me off. Yes I agree with people that the seats are hard on a 195, but most have decent leg room.
The issue with the erroneous short platform announcements is pretty much sorted now. I can't say I've witnessed it in ages, whereas it used to be a several time a day thing.
And engine noise that could wake the dead.
100% this.
Though the 20m version of the mk3 is not an easy vehicle to work with when it comes to interior design. The enormous door pockets mean not much can be done at the vestibule ends of each saloon section (for want of a better term). The single longitudinal seats that some 150s have there in some cases, is probably the least-worst option. Well, that or a luggage rack... but you don't really want 16 fairly small luggage racks on a 2-car unit!
I highly doubt they (and anything 158 onwards) will be short of work until such a time that diesels are comprehensively outlawed.
Having travelled in not only the 195s but also the 331s and 397s, and they all have poor rides. There are two issues:
Sure they're better than a 142 but that's not much of a recommendation. Northern Ireland Railways have an all-CAF fleet for their internal services and they have gone back for more so must be happy with them; a few years since I rode on one but I don't remember any issues with the ride, suggesting that Northern's were built down to a price.
I was gonna say, that seems to be a running theme with the Mk3 units. Almost everyone gets some view (unless you're in that weird cubby row of seats on a 317/1), but you're always sitting in front of a column.
I have to say Electrostars have been both among the best and worst riding units I've travelled on, seemingly at random depending on which particular unit you get. I've had journeys that were pretty smooth and sedate, and also journeys that were so violent people were falling over trying to walk down the aisle (both of these on a 377/1 or /4, so it's not a "modern vs OG" issue) and I had to clear the table and take my bag down from the overhead rack.
CAF were not the only ones with an empty order book at the time - Bombardier had not yet receieved any Aventra orders other than the TFL units, and did offer the Aventra for Northern's new units. The primary reason CAF were selected instead of Bombardier was their ability to build a common design of DMU and EMU, whereas Bombardier were only offering an EMU.
They'll likely still have work somewhere in the UK as DMUs up until they're life expired around the 2045-2050 mark. In the event that they weren't of any use as DMUs, it is possible to convert them to EMUs but it would be extensive work given that they have mechanical transmission, which would need replacing if they were to be converted to EMUs.
The 4000 series (but not the 3000 series) DMUs in Northern Ireland have the same engines as the 195s but that's where the similarities between the two end. The NIR units have outside framed bogies rather than the inside framed bogies used on the GB units, and are based on the 332 and 333 designs rather than the Civity design which the GB units are all based on.
