195s truly awful, not a step forward

[Wolfie]

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.

The big problem with the TfW 150s is lack of leg room.

 

[CJ]

For me, the 195s are better trains in terms of comfort, ambience and features than a 150 or 156, and much better than what the Pacers were.

I agree, the seats could/should be made more comfortable but I feel for now they are suitable enough for the short hop-on-and-off stops they do and for 1-2 hour-ish journeys.

My only criticisms are:

- The alignment of the seats with the windows (however as @Neptune says, there are parts of the train where tables and seats do line up). The areas of the trains next to the gangways have tables and seats aligned with the windows also (and for 331s, under the pantograph part of the carriage also). I'm aware that this may have been due to the spacing/standing room area by the doors.
- They are very bumpy and rickety rides when they go over points and parts of the track, not as smooth as other trains.
- Too many tables when there should be more seats (however this may have been due to them being intended for 'Northern Connect' services, which I think is now no longer happening).
- The 2-car units should really be all 3-cars to provide adequate capacity, especially now with more people starting to travel on trains again.
- Only 1 toilet when there should be at least 2 toilets in case one is out of use (perhaps this was probably overlooked in favour of more seating capacity).

Overall, I feel they are still great trains, just wish there was more/enough of them to help cover more services that would be suitable for them.

 

[WestRiding]

If you bought a brand new car that rattled and banged like a 195 or 331 does, you'd send it back to the dealership. Why do TOCs just accept rubbish standards. Its quite unnerving going over Hare Park Jn on a 331 or 195 at high speed. The 321s and Pacers before them were smoother.

 

[DustyBin]

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).

This is an interesting point. I very much like 156s and 158s, I think they’re genuinely fantastic trains but as an enthusiast it’s difficult at times to be totally objective. I have absolutely no interest however in Electrostars, Turbostars, Desiros etc. but like you I don’t see how any progress has been made over the last 20 years or so, and indeed one could argue things have gone backwards. The FLIRTs actually seem decent but they’re the outlier IMO. Other fleets (e.g. the 700s as much I detest them) are compromised due the routes on which they operate. Others however, including the 195s, appear to have been specified simply as the cheapest way to get some new trains on the network and it shows. Being better than pacers is akin to being the best swimmer out of the non-swimmers… (No offence to anybody who can’t swim incidentally!).

 

[Grumpy Git]

This is an interesting point. I very much like 156s and 158s, I think they’re genuinely fantastic trains but as an enthusiast it’s difficult at times to be totally objective. I have absolutely no interest however in Electrostars, Turbostars, Desiros etc. but like you I don’t see how any progress has been made over the last 20 years or so, and indeed one could argue things have gone backwards. The FLIRTs actually seem decent but they’re the outlier IMO. Other fleets (e.g. the 700s as much I detest them) are compromised due the routes on which they operate. Others however, including the 195s, appear to have been specified simply as the cheapest way to get some new trains on the network and it shows. Being better than pacers is akin to being the best swimmer out of the non-swimmers… (No offence to anybody who can’t swim incidentally!).

I agree with your sentiments entirely, but in case you hadn't noticed already we (i.e. the UK) like to do stuff on the cheap.

Shareholders interests will always trump the customers

 

[Mat17]

The 195s are okay but have far too many tables, 158s are better, but the 170s are the best by a long chalk.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Too many tables when there should be more seats (however this may have been due to them being intended for 'Northern Connect' services, which I think is now no longer happening)

Whilst the Northern Connect branding has been quietly shelved, most of the services (Leeds to Chester for example) still exist

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Whilst the Northern Connect branding has been quietly shelved, most of the services (Leeds to Chester for example) still exist

Whether or not they're branded as Connect, those services aren't really the best use of 195s which are more suited to all-stations stoppers. However as a result of the Connect idea they were specified with an interior layout more suited to "regional express" type services. With hindsight the 195s should have been closer to 172s inside, with 158s and 170s on the semi-fasts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether or not they're branded as Connect, those services aren't really the best use of 195s which are more suited to all-stations stoppers. However as a result of the Connect idea they were specified with an interior layout more suited to "regional express" type services. With hindsight the 195s should have been closer to 172s inside, with 158s and 170s on the semi-fasts.

195s deal with heavy loads far better than 172s do because of the standbacks. OK, you could have narrowed the seats, but I've used both 195s and 700s full and standing, and the 195 performs surprisingly well.

The 195 is basically an excellent 150 replacement, and Northern do seem to be realising this. That was my first impression of them - as a long distance unit a bit rubbish (though acceptable, and with some excellent features e.g. very large overhead luggage racks), but as a direct 150 replacement really pretty good.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

195s deal with heavy loads far better than 172s do because of the standbacks. OK, you could have narrowed the seats, but I've used both 195s and 700s full and standing, and the 195 performs surprisingly well.

The 195 is basically an excellent 150 replacement, and Northern do seem to be realising this. That was my first impression of them - as a long distance unit a bit rubbish (though acceptable, and with some excellent features e.g. very large overhead luggage racks), but as a direct 150 replacement really pretty good.

I wouldn't do away with the standbacks, but I would lose the full-size tables in favour of more airline seats. Smaller tables at the remaining bays, like those formerly found on 365s and 421s, would suffice.
That is of course assuming they were used on appropriate services e.g. those operated by 150s and Pacers.

 

[CrickUK]

Ride quality isn‘t the greatest admittedly but I stood up on one riding home yesterday across plenty of point work and didn’t find it appalling. Just a bit livelier than other units.

The seats in the end sections of each coach align with the windows so just head there.

Seats are totally subjective as you’ll find out the more you look through the forum. I find them absolutely fine (6 foot, average build). The contoured base is an upgrade on the similar seats found on Thameslink. Upright is the best position for your back (as one who has had back problems in the past these seats are a blessing compared to the old 158 seats which encouraged you to slouch therefore causing pain). The only change I would make is changing to moquette on the seats which does have the effect of softening them up a bit.

What is confusing about the door buttons? Light up green = open, light up red = close, they also have the wording on them and are tactile.

Announcements are nothing to do with CAF.

With regards to pantograph positions what do you suggest for electric locomotives?

The issue with the door operating buttons is that the red door out of use light is illuminated when the doors are locked, this combined with the delay in releasing the doors once stationary in the station leads people to panic that they will not be able to get off and start moving up and down the train looking for a door that works.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue with the door operating buttons is that the red door out of use light is illuminated when the doors are locked, this combined with the delay in releasing the doors once stationary in the station leads people to panic that they will not be able to get off and start moving up and down the train looking for a door that works.

Yep, that's awful design. At the moment they'd do well just to stick a black label over the top of it.

 

[Grumpy Git]

The issue with the door operating buttons is that the red door out of use light is illuminated when the doors are locked, this combined with the delay in releasing the doors once stationary in the station leads people to panic that they will not be able to get off and start moving up and down the train looking for a door that works.

Any idea why the doors take so long to unlock, (it does seem like an age when you are waiting to alight)?

 

[CrickUK]

Any idea why the doors take so long to unlock, (it does seem like an age when you are waiting to alight)?

I presume the wait is while the guard undertakes their checks, gone are the days of slam door stock when passengers would open the doors before the train had stopped.

 

[Watershed]

Any idea why the doors take so long to unlock, (it does seem like an age when you are waiting to alight)?

The intention was originally for the doors to be released by the driver - as happens on TPE's CAF stock.

Unfortunately, the RMT had other ideas, and Northern ultimately caved in to their demands. Hence the farcical method of operation (which resulted from the last minute change) - whereby the guard must release their local door, step out onto the platform to check the train is correctly accommodated, then step back in and release the appropriate number of carriages' doors.

It doesn't bare thinking about the number of delay minutes that could be recouped with driver release...

 

[Neptune]

The intention was originally for the doors to be released by the driver - as happens on TPE's CAF stock.

Unfortunately, the RMT had other ideas, and Northern ultimately caved in to their demands. Hence the farcical method of operation (which resulted from the last minute change) - whereby the guard must release their local door, step out onto the platform to check the train is correctly accommodated, then step back in and release the appropriate number of carriages' doors.

It doesn't bare thinking about the number of delay minutes that could be recouped with driver release...

The same method as on all other Northern stock.

I work these units and it takes no longer time to release the doors as on the legacy stock. Unless it is a curved platform then it should be no longer than 5 seconds from stopping to full release. Hardly a life changing amount of time.

I’ve been on Azuma’s with driver release and waited longer.

 

[43308]

The only gripe I tend to have with the 195s is the fact that when I tend to get them it’s the Leeds-Nottingham fast train and a 195/0 is simply too small for peak demand.. the lack of grab handles in the vestibule area results in an almost crush area in the vestibule... highly uncomfortable and unsafe in my opinion

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only gripe I tend to have with the 195s is the fact that when I tend to get them it’s the Leeds-Nottingham fast train and a 195/0 is simply too small for peak demand.. the lack of grab handles in the vestibule area results in an almost crush area in the vestibule... highly uncomfortable and unsafe in my opinion

Literally exactly the same as the Class 700, which is why they are such effective "people eaters".

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I have two other issues with Northern 195s that have not yet been mentioned on this thread.

1. The cycle space. Yet again a TOC has made the mistake of having fold down seats in the cycle space area, which creates unnecessary conflict when you board the train with your bike and someone is already sitting there and refusing to move even when there are other free seats on the train. I've said it many times on here but if you want to maximise space on trains then vertical cycle hooks are the way forward, as Northern have had for many years on their class 333 trains between Leeds and Skipton/Ilkley.

2. The information screens. If they just showed information that passengers need to know that would be okay but on recent trips I've found they're constantly flashing in bright garish colours warnings about health and safety and sexual harrassment which are not just irrelevant but incredibly distracting.

These two things apart (and of course Northern's non-stop automated announcements) I'll grudgingly conclude that they're an improvement on the 150s but they could have been so much better.

 

[Watershed]

The same method as on all other Northern stock.

I work these units and it takes no longer time to release the doors as on the legacy stock. Unless it is a curved platform then it should be no longer than 5 seconds from stopping to full release. Hardly a life changing amount of time.

It's not the same though. The trains aren't designed for guard release, and it shows. There's a notable delay before the door release propogates along the train. And the local door sounds the hustle alarm before closing .

The only time I've ever had a 5 second release is where the guard hasn't done the checks properly. When done properly it takes at least 10-15 seconds or so.

The trains are theoretically supposed to do 30 second dwells but there's not a cat's chance in hell of that, unless nobody boards or alights. It's only the excellent acceleration that masks it.

I’ve been on Azuma’s with driver release and waited longer.

Well, of course there are going to be exceptions. But the addition of an average of 5-10 seconds per stop really doesn't help punctuality. Sadly that's the way it is, and there's no likelihood of it ever improving. It works just about well enough that it's difficult to justify causing more industrial action to fix it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have two other issues with Northern 195s that have not yet been mentioned on this thread.

1. The cycle space. Yet again a TOC has made the mistake of having fold down seats in the cycle space area, which creates unnecessary conflict when you board the train with your bike and someone is already sitting there and refusing to move even when there are other free seats on the train. I've said it many times on here but if you want to maximise space on trains then vertical cycle hooks are the way forward, as Northern have had for many years on their class 333 trains between Leeds and Skipton/Ilkley.

I agree with not putting tip-ups in the cycle space - they are only useful for a very narrow window of loading (+/- 3 people, basically). Below and you can sit elsewhere, above and it's more useful as standing space.

I don't agree with hooks, as some people find them very difficult to use. The old First North Western double-deck luggage rack (bike space with a luggage rack above it plus the usual overhead) is the best I've seen, this is what BR put in 153s too.

2. The information screens. If they just showed information that passengers need to know that would be okay but on recent trips I've found they're constantly flashing in bright garish colours warnings about health and safety and sexual harrassment which are not just irrelevant but incredibly distracting.

I quite like the PIS but I do agree the dross needs removing from it. The announcements themselves are quite a good "audio brand" with the friendly generic-Northern voice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2021 ==

Well, of course there are going to be exceptions. But the addition of an average of 5-10 seconds per stop really doesn't help punctuality. Sadly that's the way it is, and there's no likelihood of it ever improving. It works just about well enough that it's difficult to justify causing more industrial action to fix it.

When this comes up, or the similar thing about ultra-conservative bus companies persisting with ticketing arrangements that take 10-20 seconds per passenger then whining about operations being uneconomic despite this often requiring a higher number of vehicles on a route than would require if they went London-style, I will point out that two minutes needed to be added to Ormskirk-Liverpool running times on Merseyrail simply because of the addition of hustle alarms. On a stopping service that kind of thing gets quite significant.

Slow door operation has similarly caused delays on the Marston Vale, increasing typical running times by about 3-5 minutes and affecting revenue protection as guards have had to start working them from the cab instead of the saloon as the smaller cab door opens and closes much more quickly.

Seconds really matter on local services, and driver release, guard close is used all over the place - Pendolinos, Voyagers (10 bell), Southern pre-DOO, Southeastern and so on. It also means that if the guard is busy doing tickets they can complete that before then going to close up rather than having to either dart off from the transaction or keep people waiting who wish to alight.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The intention was originally for the doors to be released by the driver - as happens on TPE's CAF stock.

Unfortunately, the RMT had other ideas, and Northern ultimately caved in to their demands. Hence the farcical method of operation (which resulted from the last minute change) - whereby the guard must release their local door, step out onto the platform to check the train is correctly accommodated, then step back in and release the appropriate number of carriages' doors.

It doesn't bare thinking about the number of delay minutes that could be recouped with driver release...

It also doesn't bear thinking about how much lost revenue was caused by the DfT waging a pointless war on the guard grade. If it ain't broke...

 

[Bletchleyite]

It also doesn't bear thinking about how much lost revenue was caused by the DfT waging a pointless war on the guard grade. If it ain't broke...

That's the DOO thing. There's really no reason to object to driver release, because the guard is still required and safety-critical so can't be quietly got rid of. It is the method used across vast parts of the country, and it makes the revenue guard's life far easier.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I agree with not putting tip-ups in the cycle space - they are only useful for a very narrow window of loading (+/- 3 people, basically). Below and you can sit elsewhere, above and it's more useful as standing space.

But when you've only two cars to work with (that's another problem to be fair) having a dedicated bike space without tip-up seats for the 75% of the time that there isn't a bike on board, is rather wasteful. If cyclists want a dedicated space for their bikes on all trains, the railway needs to start charging for carrying them.

 

[Llama]

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.

195s have never been as quick as 185s. In fact 195s are generally not even as quick as they were last year - the majority of them have TCMS faults relating to the engines ('diesel engine anomaly' is the usual message) - when digging deeper you find that air filters are clogged and radiators are clogged with greenfly/pollen/dandelion seeds/dry leaves - pick one depending on season.

As for acceleration performance of 195s vs 185s, having been left for dust more than once despite the 195s I've been on being in 'super power' mode and wide open, and even without engine niggles, it's pretty plain that the bigger Cummins QSK-19 and Voith setup gives a lot more power at rail than the 195's Daimler 6H 1800 R85L and ZF Ecolife.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That's the DOO thing. There's really no reason to object to driver release, because the guard is still required and safety-critical so can't be quietly got rid of. It is the method used across vast parts of the country, and it makes the revenue guard's life far easier.

My objection is to the underhanded tactics used by Arriva under DfT instruction, specifying a fleet set up for DOO before the guard question had been settled.

DOO works on LU and in the South because almost all stations are staffed and gated. Trying to force it on Northern without the investment in station facilities was a monumental folly of the highest order.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My objection is to the underhanded tactics used by Arriva under DfT instruction, specifying a fleet set up for DOO before the guard question had been settled.

Certainly I'd agree with that regardless of the merits or otherwise of DOO itself. Merseyrail appear to have dug themselves a similar hole.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2021 ==

195s have never been as quick as 185s. In fact 195s are generally not even as quick as they were last year - the majority of them have TCMS faults relating to the engines ('diesel engine anomaly' is the usual message) - when digging deeper you find that air filters are clogged and radiators are clogged with greenfly/pollen/dandelion seeds/dry leaves - pick one depending on season.

As for acceleration performance of 195s vs 185s, having been left for dust more than once despite the 195s I've been on being in 'super power' mode and wide open, and even without engine niggles, it's pretty plain that the bigger Cummins QSK-19 and Voith setup gives a lot more power at rail than the 195's Daimler 6H 1800 R85L and ZF Ecolife.

I'm sure that's true, but vastly overpowering DMUs with inefficient transmissions to get high acceleration isn't exactly great for the environment or fuel costs.

 

[CrickUK]

The same method as on all other Northern stock.

I work these units and it takes no longer time to release the doors as on the legacy stock. Unless it is a curved platform then it should be no longer than 5 seconds from stopping to full release. Hardly a life changing amount of time.

I’ve been on Azuma’s with driver release and waited longer.

Just as everyone is getting up to get off and is blocking the aisle, the Guard has to make their way from the rear cab to the door control position to operate the doors. Why wasn't door control from the cab part of the original specification?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But when you've only two cars to work with (that's another problem to be fair) having a dedicated bike space without tip-up seats for the 75% of the time that there isn't a bike on board, is rather wasteful. If cyclists want a dedicated space for their bikes on all trains, the railway needs to start charging for carrying them.

It's not wasteful. Either the train is quietly loaded, in which case there are loads of seats elsewhere, or it's busy in which case it has more value as standing room. If you assume the 195 has a capacity of say 120 seated (random number), those seats are only really beneficial at a loading of between 117 and 120. Below that, better people sit elsewhere and keep it free in case a cyclist boards. Above that and you can stand there and get more in.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2021 ==

Just as everyone is getting up to get off and is blocking the aisle, the Guard has to make their way from the rear cab to the door control position to operate the doors. Why wasn't door control from the cab part of the original specification?

To prevent lazy guards from hiding there? (I was going to say "the minority of lazy guards", but on the south WCML it's most of them, unsurprising that many people think it's DOO already)

Would have been handy for COVID of course.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's not wasteful. Either the train is quietly loaded, in which case there are loads of seats elsewhere, or it's busy in which case it has more value as standing room. If you assume the 195 has a capacity of say 120 seated (random number), those seats are only really beneficial at a loading of between 117 and 120. Below that, better people sit elsewhere and keep it free in case a cyclist boards. Above that and you can stand there and get more in.

But if all seats are taken including the tip-ups, when Lycra Larry* boards with his Boardman and expects three people to stand (and be very careful not to brush against his precious machine!) it's a bit much. Non-folding bikes take up a lot of space, it's only fair that you pay for that space- particularly when said space is limited.

*= Yes I'm being a bit facetious, but my point stands. A vocal minority of entitled cyclists make everyone with a bike look bad.