195s truly awful, not a step forward

[driverd]

Let’s look at the typical units in Sheffield - Manchester Picc:

TPE 185
EMR 158 / 156
NOR 195 / 150

In order of preference and based primarily on customer experience, I’d take

TPE 185 (clear winner)
NOR 195 (primarily second because of the slower journey)
EMR 158 (grudgingly)
EMR 156
NOR 150 (last because of the 2+3 seating)

The 195 runs the 185 a good second and I’d take one over an older BR unit any day

I quite like this comparison, helps to put things into perspective. My only changes would be:

195
156
158
185
150

Can't stand the tombstone seats of the 158 as they provide support in all the wrong places for me (6ft male). The 185s are uncomfortable, noisy, ride badly (in a different way to 195s) and have horrendous toilets.

Conversely, yes a 195 has a lesser ride quality (in a uniquely CAF way, as pointed out by others, probably to do with the bogie design), but otherwise, they have a great interior ambiance (infact, I fell asleep on one the other day). The seating is comfortable, the toilets clean (and well lit and not smelling vile), window/seat alignment is excellent also and they provide superb all round views.

To say they were built on the cheap, personally, I don't think is fair. They're excellent units in many ways. Yes, they aren't perfect, but what unit is? Prime example - I know my opinions on 185s are typically controversial, but proof there in that these things are always highly subjective.

 

[py_megapixel]

The 185s are uncomfortable, noisy, ride badly (in a different way to 195s) and have horrendous toilets.

You say that, but then you rank a 156 above them!
185s may be noisy from the outside, but at least they are properly sound proofed. And the TPE refurb interior is honestly the most comfortable standard class anywhere in the country for me.

It just goes to show you really can't please everyone!

 

[AM9]

There seems to be two separate discussions here on the merits of the 195s vs other multiple units. There's the usual debate about seats/window alignment etc., which are largely just personal preferences, and to a degree in the gift of the purchaser.
The other is about the fundamental technical design and the impact on its performance, mostly concerning on their atrocious ride, which when compared to their contemporaries, is really inexcusable. CAF clearly have got something wrong with their UK Civity designs, and like @driverd hints at, the bogies are suspected. The similarity of the 331s and 397s in that respect would seem to indicate that the actual suspension isn't set up correctly as the internal equipment on the 195s comprise drive shafts and gearboxes, whereas the two EMU type's bogies carry motors and their gearboxes. Then there's the non-driving bogies which despite their lower payload, still exhibit the same ride characteristics. It may be that CAF just haven't got their implementation of inside framed bogies right where other manufacturers seem to have used them well, e.g. the flexx-eco on Aventras (22x/345/710), the sf7000 on Desiro City's which in service seem to work well. I've ridden all of the above on track that other units don't seem to struggle with so I don't think that the routes that the Civitys take are exceptionally difficult. Maybe the stress fracture failures will drive CAF/Northern to stand back and take a more holistic view on the suspension setup, - otherwise they could be in for a long and bumpy ride, (pun appropriate).

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Having had a few recent rides on 195s and 331s I think they are turning into very decent trains.
Acceleration, legroom, power points, wifi that works, good aircon, informative PIS (with big front display of destination, unlike the useless gangwayed 15x types).
Not a perfect ride, but better than when they first appeared.
Seats are OK for an hour or so, are mostly aligned with windows, and the cabins are light and airy.
Brakes are a bit squealy, but they are on most new types of train.

Agreed. A fair assessment.

 

[driverd]

You say that, but then you rank a 156 above them!
185s may be noisy from the outside, but at least they are properly sound proofed. And the TPE refurb interior is honestly the most comfortable standard class anywhere in the country for me.

It just goes to show you really can't please everyone!

To me, it's the seats - I find the desiro seating really very uncomfortable. The arm rest is at the wrong height, lumbar support in the wrong place. I end up slouched in my seat constantly which leads to an achey back. The rest are just niggles because I'm spending the journey thoroughly uncomfortable. Conversely, a 156, whilst noisey, is comfortable. The seating is more "right" for me, and in fairness, if a window is open it somewhat drowns out the engine with wind noise.

Absolutely right that it's highly subjective though!

AM9:

The other is about the fundamental technical design and the impact on its performance, mostly concerning on their atrocious ride, which when compared to their contemporaries, is really inexcusable. CAF clearly have got something wrong with their UK Civity designs, and like @driverd hints at, the bogies are suspected. The similarity of the 331s and 397s in that respect would seem to indicate that the actual suspension isn't set up correctly as the internal equipment on the 195s comprise drive shafts and gearboxes, whereas the two EMU type's bogies carry motors and their gearboxes. Then there's the non-driving bogies which despite their lower payload, still exhibit the same ride characteristics. It may be that CAF just haven't got their implementation of inside framed bogies right where other manufacturers seem to have used them well, e.g. the flexx-eco on Aventras (22x/345/710), the sf7000 on Desiro City's which in service seem to work well. I've ridden all of the above on track that other units don't seem to struggle with so I don't think that the routes that the Civitys take are exceptionally difficult. Maybe the stress fracture failures will drive CAF/Northern to stand back and take a more holistic view on the suspension setup, - otherwise they could be in for a long and bumpy ride, (pun appropriate).

I think, again, this is subjective. Personally, I dont find the CAF ride too bad - yes, it's not great, but it's a unique style of bumpy that you kind of get used to. It's certainly not uncomfortable or lurchy, just firm.

I would like to hope there could be a comprehensive review of the set up on all CAF UK stock (mk5s also), but I suspect that's wishful thinking.

 

[Ianno87]

Agreed. A fair assessment.

I'd agree too. Mainly have used 331s between Lostock/Bolton and Manchester (as well as a couple of longer rides) and they are superb for the duty. Still blown away by their acceleration performance.

 

[py_megapixel]

To me, it's the seats - I find the desiro seating really very uncomfortable. The arm rest is at the wrong height, lumbar support in the wrong place. I end up slouched in my seat constantly which leads to an achey back. The rest are just niggles because I'm spending the journey thoroughly uncomfortable. Conversely, a 156, whilst noisey, is comfortable. The seating is more "right" for me, and in fairness, if a window is open it somewhat drowns out the engine with wind noise.

From what you said in your previous post I am substantially taller than you which probably explains the differences in seating preferences.

The 150s are worse than both, and possibly the least comfortable trains in service anywhere in Britain , now the Pacers are gone

 

[Wolfie]

From what you said in your previous post I am substantially taller than you which probably explains the differences in seating preferences.

The 150s are worse than both, and possibly the least comfortable trains in service anywhere in Britain , now the Pacers are gone

The biggest problem with the 150s is that too many seats are crammed in.

 

[greyman42]

True, I've not experienced one in very hot weather. If the air-con's up to it, that could be a plus point. Ok generally prefer opening Windows.

As i have pointe out in previous threads, the problem with hoppers is that the person who opens it tends to sit under it but it is the person sat two or three seats back who gets blasted in the face with cold air for the length of their journey. If the person who opened the hopper had to sit two or three seats further back they might think twice about doing so.

 

[yorksrob]

As i have pointe out in previous threads, the problem with hoppers is that the person who opens it tends to sit under it but it is the person sat two or three seats back who gets blasted in the face with cold air for the length of their journey. If the person who opened the hopper had to sit two or three seats further back they might think twice about doing so.

Oh yes, Drop lights and sliding ventilators are far superior to hoppers, but they don't put them in trains anymore unfortunately.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

About windows:

1] something I’m curious about, do non opening windows increase crashworthiness? To the layman’s eye it seems that they would as it’s clearly a stronger structure when the window is sealed shut.

(1a: hoppers are awful. people just open them and sit beneath them so everyone behind them has an unpleasant experience. If you open a hopper then you should be forced to sit at least three seats back. )

2] use all available floor space for seats. It increases the capacity of the train and won’t be ‘full and standing’ as often. It’s scant consolation to anybody standing up if you point out that at least the seats they can’t sit in are all perfectly lined up with the windows.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You say that, but then you rank a 156 above them!
185s may be noisy from the outside, but at least they are properly sound proofed. And the TPE refurb interior is honestly the most comfortable standard class anywhere in the country for me.

It just goes to show you really can't please everyone!

Are they properly sound-proofed? If so, I'd hate to ride one if they weren't!
185s are perfectly adequate units, and were the best compromise available at the time they were ordered. But they achieve their almost EMU-like acceleration by being massively over-engineered and overpowered. The 195s are just as quick if not more so, without pounding the track to bits... which shows how technology has moved on at least.

 

[yorksrob]

About windows:

1] something I’m curious about, do non opening windows increase crashworthiness? To the layman’s eye it seems that they would as it’s clearly a stronger structure when the window is sealed shut.

(1a: hoppers are awful. people just open them and sit beneath them so everyone behind them has an unpleasant experience. If you open a hopper then you should be forced to sit at least three seats back. )

2] use all available floor space for seats. It increases the capacity of the train and won’t be ‘full and standing’ as often. It’s scant consolation to anybody standing up if you point out that at least the seats they can’t sit in are all perfectly lined up with the windows.

Hoppers probably aren't good on marginally warm days, but they're extremely good on hot stuffy days when you want some some air movement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Oct 2021 ==

Are they properly sound-proofed? If so, I'd hate to ride one if they weren't!
185s are perfectly adequate units, and were the best compromise available at the time they were ordered. But they achieve their almost EMU-like acceleration by being massively over-engineered and overpowered. The 195s are just as quick if not more so, without pounding the track to bits... which shows how technology has moved on at least.

185's are really coming into their own, now that they're doubled up and one can actually get a seat on them

 

[61653 HTAFC]

185's are really coming into their own, now that they're doubled up and one can actually get a seat on them

On the fasts and semis maybe, but not the stoppers (not that those NEED six cars). For the stoppers they're just horribly inefficient, have a big chunk of practically useless first-class, and can't open all doors at Huddersfield platform six because of the ASDO system:- when this happens with the composite coach at the Leeds end, it effectively makes the service inaccessible unless crews are able to override it.
This could be solved easily by using P4a instead most hours, with Northern's Bradford service (which is rarely if ever longer than 2x23m) using P6 instead.

 

[yorksrob]

On the fasts and semis maybe, but not the stoppers (not that those NEED six cars). For the stoppers they're just horribly inefficient, have a big chunk of practically useless first-class, and can't open all doors at Huddersfield platform six because of the ASDO system:- when this happens with the composite coach at the Leeds end, it effectively makes the service inaccessible unless crews are able to override it.
This could be solved easily by using P4a instead most hours, with Northern's Bradford service (which is rarely if ever longer than 2x23m) using P6 instead.

That sounds like a technical issue that could be sorted out.

I'm not sure about a true "stopper" service, but they're fine for the Hull - Piccadilly service which acts as a semi-fast.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That sounds like a technical issue that could be sorted out.

I'm not sure about a true "stopper" service, but they're fine for the Hull - Piccadilly service which acts as a semi-fast.

The North TPE timetable is a bit of a mess really- the Hull is a semi-fast west of Huddersfield, but then runs non-stop from HUD to LDS. The distinction between what is a fast or semi-fast isn't clear either- for decades some services called at Dewsbury and/or Stalybridge, and some called at neither- but there was no need to categorise these differently, there were just expresses and locals.

The ASDO thing probably does have a number of solutions, but I'm surprised more of a stink hasn't been made of the accessibility question. There are two simple solutions I suggested: either ensure that the accessible/composite coach is at the Huddersfield end; or switch allocated platforms at Huddersfield.

Back on topic, a 195 would be far more suitable for the true stoppers- lighter, less thirsty, quicker off the mark, and no space wasted with inter-city style first-class.

 

[childwallblues]

Why only mention the 195s? The 196s and 197s are more or less the same train.

And the 331s

 

[yorksrob]

The North TPE timetable is a bit of a mess really- the Hull is a semi-fast west of Huddersfield, but then runs non-stop from HUD to LDS. The distinction between what is a fast or semi-fast isn't clear either- for decades some services called at Dewsbury and/or Stalybridge, and some called at neither- but there was no need to categorise these differently, there were just expresses and locals.

The ASDO thing probably does have a number of solutions, but I'm surprised more of a stink hasn't been made of the accessibility question. There are two simple solutions I suggested: either ensure that the accessible/composite coach is at the Huddersfield end; or switch allocated platforms at Huddersfield.

Back on topic, a 195 would be far more suitable for the true stoppers- lighter, less thirsty, quicker off the mark, and no space wasted with inter-city style first-class.

I like the semi-fast Hull to Piccadilly. If connections allow, I'll tend to use it to get to Manc.

In terms of the stopper it would need to be a long 195.

I've often thought that if they pulled their finger out and electrified the route, one of the old Thameslinky trains would suit the true stoppers.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In terms of the stopper it would need to be a long 195.

3-cars would be fine: at least there's actually three-cars worth of space on a 195, rather than the two-and-a-bit of a 185. Maybe you'd want 4 in the peaks but then you're into the platform length issues.

 

[prod_pep]

To me, it's the seats - I find the desiro seating really very uncomfortable. The arm rest is at the wrong height, lumbar support in the wrong place. I end up slouched in my seat constantly which leads to an achey back. The rest are just niggles because I'm spending the journey thoroughly uncomfortable. Conversely, a 156, whilst noisey, is comfortable. The seating is more "right" for me, and in fairness, if a window is open it somewhat drowns out the engine with wind noise.

I agree entirely with this. Desiro seating is endlessly venerated on here as the gold standard of train seating, but I've never been a fan. I find it doesn't do my back any favours at all and being rather tall, backache is constant consideration. Meanwhile, the 'ironing board' seats on 195s and 331s, whilst firm, are actually reasonably comfortable. The armrests on these are better positioned, too.

Given the choice between a 185 or 195, I'd definitely go for the latter.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Give me a 195 over a 150 - 156 any day of the week.

Travelled Liverpool to Preston last weekend and the outward service was a 319 with dreadful 3+2 seating, which does not befit a semi-fast service. The return 331 was a revelation in comparison.

 

[AM9]

To me, it's the seats - I find the desiro seating really very uncomfortable. The arm rest is at the wrong height, lumbar support in the wrong place. I end up slouched in my seat constantly which leads to an achey back. The rest are just niggles because I'm spending the journey thoroughly uncomfortable. Conversely, a 156, whilst noisey, is comfortable. The seating is more "right" for me, and in fairness, if a window is open it somewhat drowns out the engine with wind noise.

Absolutely right that it's highly subjective though!

AM9:


I think, again, this is subjective. Personally, I dont find the CAF ride too bad - yes, it's not great, but it's a unique style of bumpy that you kind of get used to. It's certainly not uncomfortable or lurchy, just firm.

I would like to hope there could be a comprehensive review of the set up on all CAF UK stock (mk5s also), but I suspect that's wishful thinking.

I'm comparing like with like, i.e. of course the Civitys are better in most respects than the MKIII units of various types (150/156/319 etc.) but that it would be a farce if nothing had improved in over 30 years of development. But overall, the less than 5 year trains do not stand up well compared with the Desiro Citys (ordered 2013), the Aventras (ordered 2014), the Desiro UKs (ordered from 2001), the Electrostars (ordered from 1997), the Turbostars (ordered from 1996). I suspect that they really are a cheap buy ordered in a hurry to get over the problems with fading Pacers, (indeed not unlike the origins of the Pacers themselves).

 

[Grumpy]

Put a 158 suspension under a 195 and you would have a very good unit.
Shame the bogies from 321's and 365's couldn't be recovered from the scrapman and re-used.
Last week travelled on Azumas, 185s and 220s all working in multiple and cant help thinking it short-sighted they weren't built with end gangways

 

[AM9]

Put a 158 suspension under a 195 and you would have a very good unit.
Shame the bogies from 321's and 365's couldn't be recovered from the scrapman and re-used.
Last week travelled on Azumas, 185s and 220s all working in multiple and cant help thinking it short-sighted they weren't built with end gangways

Gangway ends for 185s yes but any attempt to procure an 80x or 22x train with gangway ends would result in ther maximum speed being reduced to 110mph which may not be a problem on most medium distance routes in the North but would be pointless if used on long IC routes to/from London terminals.

 

[driverd]

I'm comparing like with like, i.e. of course the Civitys are better in most respects than the MKIII units of various types (150/156/319 etc.) but that it would be a farce if nothing had improved in over 30 years of development. But overall, the less than 5 year trains do not stand up well compared with the Desiro Citys (ordered 2013), the Aventras (ordered 2014), the Desiro UKs (ordered from 2001), the Electrostars (ordered from 1997), the Turbostars (ordered from 1996). I suspect that they really are a cheap buy ordered in a hurry to get over the problems with fading Pacers, (indeed not unlike the origins of the Pacers themselves).

I don't necessarily disagree that the 195s are a different type of rough, but a lot of the units mentioned (particularly desiros), have their moments. I used to commute on a route frequented by both 185s and 142s, with a notoriously rough junction. The 142s would ride the junction far better (even the rare none stop one that went at line speed) - they absorbed the lateral shock much better, where as the 185s threw you sideways.

I also find the 700s similarly rough, especially over pointwork. They really bang (rather than bounce) on the approach to London Bridge. I can't comment on aventras, but I do agree with your points around turbo/electrostars. Really superb units, but not with inside frame bogies, so perhaps not entirely comparable (I havent ridden the newer 172/377/387s enough to comment, though from limited exposure I'll admit ride quality wasn't something that I noticed so presumably was pretty smooth).

I'm not defending CAF per-se, I just think it's broadly a quirk of the new inside frame, tiny bogies. They all knock and bang in their own unique way, the CAF ones just seem to do it a bit more (most notable on the mk5s when you're in bed). It'd be lovely for the unit to have big heavy bogies that ride nicely, but track access costs would increase, the units would be heavier and the acceleration reduced due to the extra weight.

Inside frame bogies are very much here to stay I'm afraid!

 

[Phlip]

Well I commute to work usually on 195s. They’re fine. As good as a refurbished 158. Better than a 155 or 150. Not as good as a 170.

Given that they’ve allowed Pacers to fall out the bottom of Northern’s fleet, certainly altogether raising the standards.

 

[Class360/1]

The 195s are not just a small improvement upon 142s, 150s and 156s for me but a staggering one. Their ride quality isn't spectacular but nor is a 150's. However, the internal ambience and seating are leagues better in a 195.

If I never ride a 150 again it will be too soon. I don't ride the 195s often but look forward to a trip on them. The thought of enduring a 150 gives feelings of dread: they are rubbish.

I agree. The 195’s are better than the sprinters, even if the seats are rock hard

 

[Fokx]

The ASDO thing probably does have a number of solutions, but I'm surprised more of a stink hasn't been made of the accessibility question. There are two simple solutions I suggested: either ensure that the accessible/composite coach is at the Huddersfield end; or switch allocated platforms at Huddersfield.

Because it’s seriously not an issue on this particular route. You simply just override it which takes about ten seconds longer to do when opening the doors.

 

[py_megapixel]

I agree. The 195’s are better than the sprinters, even if the seats are rock hard

I don't think the seats need come into it at all, because even if you kept everything else the same, 150s would be improved to no end by fitting a 2+2 layout in the same seats as the 195s. The Ashbourne 150 seats are horrible things- too low to the ground, too thick leading to poor legroom, and they lean back too far

The other ones fitted to some Northern units (Richmond seats?) which are more rounded at the top and slightly higher off the floor are better, but not by much

 

[NoMorePacers]

I don't think the seats need come into it at all, because even if you kept everything else the same, 150s would be improved to no end by fitting a 2+2 layout in the same seats as the 195s. The Ashbourne 150 seats are horrible things- too low to the ground, too thick leading to poor legroom, and they lean back too far

The other ones fitted to some Northern units (Richmond seats?) which are more rounded at the top and slightly higher off the floor are better, but not by much

I believe those are Chapman seats - they're okay I guess but I find the window view on them to be worse than the Ashbourne-seated variants due to the seats being higher and thus obscuring more of them.

The TfW units (which have 2+2 seating, tables and operate similar services to the Northern examples) I think are much better to travel on.