195s truly awful, not a step forward

[htafc]

In the absence of reading the entire thread, I have to agree I do not like the 195s and would actually rather have a 142.

Really?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2022 ==

As each year of unprecedented extreme weather demonstrates accelerating climate change, I find it disappointing that so many still dismiss it as an "opinion".

Agreed.

 

[superkev]

I remember thinking when Northern ordered the CAF trains that they would have been far better with state of the art Stradler Flirts with there level boarding and the ability to be reconfigured in the future to just about any method of propulsuon.
The CaF units with the usual large step to get on and ride that sounds to be shaking themselves apart seem to me of a previous generation.
K

 

[ffm]

For the record, that's your opinion, not a demonstrable fact.

It is absolutely a demonstrable fact

 

[skyhigh]

I remember thinking when Northern ordered the CAF trains that they would have been far better with state of the art Stradler Flirts with there level boarding and the ability to be reconfigured in the future to just about any method of propulsuon.

In which case, we'd likely still have 144s as they couldn't have afforded the same number of Stadlers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2022 ==

In the absence of reading the entire thread, I have to agree I do not like the 195s and would actually rather have a 142. Make of that what you will.

That view is completely at odds with the majority of the users of the trains. I honestly can't see any objective measure in which the 195s are worse than 142s.

Why do you have that view?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I remember thinking when Northern ordered the CAF trains that they would have been far better with state of the art Stradler Flirts with there level boarding and the ability to be reconfigured in the future to just about any method of propulsuon.

ISTM that many of the negative opinions expressed in this thread are based on this very comparison. But the comparison is unfair, perhaps even ridiculous. The Stadler fleet was ordered as a near total fleet renewal for a franchise with a very healthy baseload of commuter revenue with London being the prime destination. It had the advantage of being large enough to generate some economies of scale in manufacture enabling a degree of unit cost reduction and was for a franchise with relatively healthy finances. The CAF fleet was somewhat begrudgingly ordered to enable withdrawal of the Pacers and was clearly subject to cost constraints. There is no chance that the DfT would have approved the purchase of the higher-spec Stadlers for the Northern franchise which is seen as a financial basket case. In short the apparent cheapness of Northern's newest trains is almost entirely due to politics. And frankly I'm surprised that anyone would have expected any other outcome.

Yet at the same time the CAF trains, once the initial bugs and idiosyncrasies had been dealt with, have proved to be perfectly capable members of Northern's fleet. Those complaining about them have, I believe, unrealistic expectations. Moan all you like they won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Pete_uk]

As each year of unprecedented extreme weather demonstrates accelerating climate change, I find it disappointing that so many still dismiss it as an "opinion".

Who's going to tell China to shut down it's 3000+ coal fired power stations?

I wouldn't worry about new DMUs running on the network in 25 year's time.

 

[Mikey C]

Maybe in 25 years they'll be rebuilt to run on battery power/hydrogen/nuclear fusion anyway.

 

[AM9]

Who's going to tell China to shut down it's 3000+ coal fired power stations?

I wouldn't worry about new DMUs running on the network in 25 year's time.

Is the only argument that you can put up "'look at them, - they're worse than us". Clearly not your problem the when China says: "look at the UK, still buying diesel trains that they intend to run in 30 years time".

 

[Killingworth]

If I'm still here in 30 years time I doubt I'll be riding around on trains. However, by then I hope technology might have moved on to produce energy efficient units that don't require expensive and weather vulnerable overhead catenary systems thereby allowing any unit to go almost anywhere, at any time.

Standardising designs to allow far more units to work together would be a good step too. 15x classes will be greatly missed for that reason alone.

.

 

[L401CJF]

Long time reader of this thread but thought I'd throw my opinions out there.

I don't like the 195s myself, but that's from an enthusiast view who doesnt like the modern at all anyway!

Very rare I have to travel on one, but from my experiences so far and looking from the perspective of a day to day passenger theyre pretty decent. Quite airy and modern inside, yes they do feel cheap but most day to day passengers won't to notice that.

Big improvement on what they replaced. I can't help feeling they'd have been better with an end gangway for multiple working though.

 

[Rhydgaled]

• Thames Valley branches (DCBMU) - 4 diagrams

These should be electrified there is no need for dedicated battery stock.

With the possible exception of Marlow (because only 1 train per hour off-peak) I agree, but clearly somebody at Network Rail doesn't because the TDNS has Marlow and Henley (at least) as battery operation recommended.

• Cornish Branches (DCBMU) - 5 diagrams

Possibly but would the Cornish mainline be electrified by then? Should it not be a common pool of BeMUs not a dedicated ones for the branches?

Exeter to Penzance is down as "Ancillary Electrification" but presumably the recommendation is that it needs to be completed in order to deliver a 'net-zero railway' in the most cost-effective way. I suppose logically Exeter-Penzance locals would come from the same pool as the Cornish branch stock. Also my anaylsis of diagrams assumes Falmouth would remain as a shuttle to Truro - the 'Cornwall Metro' proposal to run those through to Newquay would rule out units that lack OLE compatibility.

• Wrexham Central - Bidston (DCBMU) - 4 diagrams

This will be part of MerseyRail by then with 3rd rail electrification to at least Upton.

• Conwy Valley line (DCBMU) - 1 or 2 diagrams

Whatever TfW are running on the coast

The North Wales Coast Line is recommended for electrification in full (core electrification, not ancillary). Merseyrail are only fitting a subset of their new fleet with batteries for their Headbolt Lane extension, so even if it was the same basic class of unit as used on the coast it would still be a dedicated subfleet for the Conwy Valley.

• Bittern Line, Wherry Lines and Ipswich-Lowestoft (HFCMU) - 15 diagrams

Same as above they have already got the Stadlers, bit of extra electrification plus battery power pack instead of diesel.

Well, Network Rail has them down as hydrogen and (unlike the Welsh routes where hydrogen is recommended) very little of those Anglian routes would be under the wires. I agree though, it seems likely the Stadlers would be used if possible given that they're already in place (just a question of whether the diesel engines can be replaced by some form of hydrogen power) which is why I had them listed under 'plus maybe'.

To summarise however, you have gone through my list of routes where a unit with no OLE capability could be used and, in most cases, identified reasons why they wouldn't/shouldn't. Therefore, you have reduced the number of Civity DMUs which could potentially be used from a maximum of just under 50 to pretty much zero.

I honestly can't see any objective measure in which the 195s are worse than 142s.

A 195 is an improvement over a 142 in terms of capacity, and possibly air conditioning. In some other respects, the 195s are just as bad as 142s, but I can't think of any where they are worse than a 142, apart perhaps from being heavier and the fact that the 195s are newer and therefore we're stuck with them for longer.

Maybe in 25 years they'll be rebuilt to run on battery power/hydrogen/nuclear fusion anyway.

My point is that, to get a full 35 year life out of them without failing to implement Network Rail's recommended decarbonisation strategy, they will need to be substantially rebuilt to facilitate the use of OHLE. They are, as the topic title states, 'not a step forward' - they are standing still at a time when massive change is needed.

Big improvement on what they replaced. I can't help feeling they'd have been better with an end gangway for multiple working though.

I think that rather depends on what they actually replaced and on what duties. Yes it is the Pacers that have been withdrawn, but are the 195s actually working the routes the Pacers were on or have they been used to cascade Sprinters around? I agree with you on the unit end gangways though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail are fitting all the 777s with batteries now.

 

[tomuk]

The Network Rail TNDS is a complete wish list. It isn't definitive in any way. NR even contradict themselves if you compare the TNDS with the Regional Traction Decarbonisation Strategies. It is also not surprising, see GWEP and the IEPs, that the infrastructure provider wants to palm off decarbonisation infrastructure costs on to train owner\operators.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It is also not surprising, see GWEP and the IEPs, that the infrastructure provider wants to palm off decarbonisation infrastructure costs on to train owner\operators.

All the more reason to limit their ability to 'plam off' decarbonisation by ensuring the train fleet would actually be capable of operating the network they recommend.

 

[Bikeman78]

Merseyrail are fitting all the 777s with batteries now.

Oh dear, Ian Walmsley will have to redo his calculations about the amount of extra CO2 produced by lugging batteries around for the lifetime of the fleet. His item in Modern Railways about the Headbolt Lane project is fascinating.

 

[NewClee153]

Long time reader of this thread but thought I'd throw my opinions out there.

I don't like the 195s myself, but that's from an enthusiast view who doesnt like the modern at all anyway!

Very rare I have to travel on one, but from my experiences so far and looking from the perspective of a day to day passenger theyre pretty decent. Quite airy and modern inside, yes they do feel cheap but most day to day passengers won't to notice that.

Big improvement on what they replaced. I can't help feeling they'd have been better with an end gangway for multiple working though.

From an enthusiast point of view, I don’t think they’re that bad at all, especially their EMU equivalents that are ridiculously quick off the mark

I just couldn’t hack these on a day-to-day basis. Claustrophobic, uncomfortable seating. Horrible ride quality, less than adequate build quality make for a very uncomfortable journey

Yesterday I rode an IET, Voyager, Super Voyager, 150, 155, 158, 185, 333 and 350 as well as a civity, and the civity as far and away the worst experience of all of them - as a passenger