195s truly awful, not a step forward

[tomuk]

As the platform evolved, yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to hope and expect issues found in the 195 to be ironed out for the 196 and 197.

After all, that's what car manufacturers usually do when developing new models.

If that's not the case, then it's disappointing, quite frankly.

Well based on early reports the TfW 197s are no better than the 195s with similar build quality issues plus others due to an update powerpack and the gangway connection

 

[Herefordian]

Well based on early reports the TfW 197s are no better than the 195s with similar build quality issues plus others due to an update powerpack and the gangway connection

That's really disappointing, quite frankly.

I've been out of the loop for a while, but I assume the 196s, which I'll also be using fairly often, are having similar issues too?

 

[tomuk]

That's really disappointing, quite frankly.

I've been out of the loop for a while, but I assume the 196s, which I'll also be using fairly often, are having similar issues too?

The 196s have the added bonus of having to be modified for guards operating the doors as for some reason WMR ordered them for DCO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 196s have the added bonus of having to be modified for guards operating the doors as for some reason WMR ordered them for DCO.

They were ordered for DCO because they were intended to be operated DCO!

 

[tomuk]

They were ordered for DCO because they were intended to be operated DCO!

I know that ! My sarcastic 'some reason' was to indicate my incredulity they were ordered that way without first seeking approval from RMT/ASLEF for DCO. Although why that even was an issue because just because you have guards panels doesn't mean you have to use them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know that ! My sarcastic 'some reason' was to indicate my incredulity they were ordered that way without first seeking approval from RMT/ASLEF for DCO. Although why that even was an issue because just because you have guards panels doesn't mean you have to use them.

It would make sense to order all units for both types of operation as it gives for added flexibility of deployment. I thought that actually was DaFT's policy.

 

[childwallblues]

Still used, mostly in pairs, all over it. There's a TPE guard on Twitter who is forever on them.

Mainly on both the North and South Trans Pennine services.

 

[driverd]

As the platform evolved, yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to hope and expect issues found in the 195 to be ironed out for the 196 and 197.

After all, that's what car manufacturers usually do when developing new models.

If that's not the case, then it's disappointing, quite frankly.

Thats definitely not an unfair expectation - I think the problem from the perspective of the user is that the ride quality isnt seen as a major problem. I think there's an acknowledgment that it's not the softest, but not that there's anything fundamentally wrong - thus there isnt a major motive to sort it out.

 

[Bikeman78]

I don't know for certain, but the impression I have is that there's a bit much play in the various suspension components. They also bottom out on the suspension as it's too shallow, as PEP EMUs often do too.

The first time I went on a 195 was in the middle of a Merseyrail trip. I recall thinking that the 195 compared badly with a 508 although the harsh brakes were the problem rather than the suspension. Where do the 508s ride badly? They cope fine with fast jointed section of track near Hightown.

 

[prod_pep]

The first time I went on a 195 was in the middle of a Merseyrail trip. I recall thinking that the 195 compared badly with a 508 although the harsh brakes were the problem rather than the suspension. Where do the 508s ride badly? They cope fine with fast jointed section of track near Hightown.

Rarely but far from often as suggested, the 507/8 suspension on the odd unit will bottom out at times, not always on jointed sections but any bouncy section of rail. I remember this used to affect the Connex 508/2s far more than the Merseyrail units.

The PEP-derived EMUs offer a clearly superior ride quality to the 195/331s in my experience.

 

[AM9]

Rarely but far from often as suggested, the 507/8 suspension on the odd unit will bottom out at times, not always on jointed sections but any bouncy section of rail. I remember this used to affect the Connex 508/2s far more than the Merseyrail units.

The PEP-derived EMUs offer a clearly superior ride quality to the 195/331s in my experience.

Now that is an indictment if CAF's current designs if a metro EMU delivered from 1979 performs better than a DMU/EMU family delivered 40 years later.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Now that is an indictment if CAF's current designs if a metro EMU delivered from 1979 performs better than a DMU/EMU family delivered 40 years later.

Not a particularly relevant comparison. The 507/8 classes rarely if ever reach the speed commonly needed on some Class 195 routes. They also have rather poor structural integrity as was sadly demonstrated at Newton and elsewhere. Add in things like longer vehicle length, toilet water tanks and fuel tanks and the 195s have to be a lot 'chunkier'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The first time I went on a 195 was in the middle of a Merseyrail trip. I recall thinking that the 195 compared badly with a 508 although the harsh brakes were the problem rather than the suspension. Where do the 508s ride badly? They cope fine with fast jointed section of track near Hightown.

They have probably relaid it with CWR now, but the classic location was Kirkdale tunnels and between them - clickety clack bang, clickety clack bang at every rail joint.

The brakes on 195/331 are an interesting one, they often feel like they are being driven Continental style with "positive braking" rather than the more sedate British approach, possibly because the option is "hardly any braking" or "a bit too much braking".

 

[AM9]

Not a particularly relevant comparison. The 507/8 classes rarely if ever reach the speed commonly needed on some Class 195 routes. They also have rather poor structural integrity as was sadly demonstrated at Newton and elsewhere. Add in things like longer vehicle length, toilet water tanks and fuel tanks and the 195s have to be a lot 'chunkier'.

No, the 195s have the benefit of 40 additional years of railway engineering, so I expect them to be just as capable as multiple units of similar vintage, i.e. 5-10 years since introduction. Everbody seems to want to excuse them for some strange reason using ridiculous arguments about them being better than Pacers/sprinters/etc., but in some respects they are worse than some fairly mundane units (like the 508s ) made 40 years ago. Yet they don't stand up very well when compared with modernmultiple units (100 mph units, inside frame bogies, solidly built 'chunkier' bodies). They are by comparison 'clunkier' rather than chunkier.

 

[Bikeman78]

Rarely but far from often as suggested, the 507/8 suspension on the odd unit will bottom out at times, not always on jointed sections but any bouncy section of rail. I remember this used to affect the Connex 508/2s far more than the Merseyrail units.

The PEP-derived EMUs offer a clearly superior ride quality to the 195/331s in my experience.

I would discount the Connex era. I wouldn't have trusted them to maintain a broom in working order let alone a train.

 

[skyhigh]

The brakes on 195/331 are an interesting one, they often feel like they are being driven Continental style with "positive braking" rather than the more sedate British approach, possibly because the option is "hardly any braking" or "a bit too much braking".

Two main reasons for that. They are faster than older units, so you can often be going a bit faster than you would at the same position on a 15x/333 requiring a bit more brake to bring the speed down. It's also a % variable brake compared to the standard 3-step + emergency brake on the rest of the fleet so there's inherently more variation in braking style.

 

[Herefordian]

Thats definitely not an unfair expectation - I think the problem from the perspective of the user is that the ride quality isnt seen as a major problem. I think there's an acknowledgment that it's not the softest, but not that there's anything fundamentally wrong - thus there isnt a major motive to sort it out.

Good point driverd.

The ride quality isn't the best, but, it's infinitely better than the ride* the Pacers offered.

* I've left out quality because there wasn't any ride "quality", where Pacers are concerned.

 

[modernrail]

Travelled on a 195 from Kendal to Oxenholme today. I really don’t love them. They are noisy and feel flimsy but they are what we have. Better than what came before.

I really hope we get better at attention to detail in future procurements. Here’s hoping.

 

[AM9]

The ride quality isn't the best, but, it's infinitely better than the ride* the Pacers offered.

There we go again, judging a new 21st century train against a 40 year old train, that's a pretty low target to aim for. They should be judged against their contemporaries, Desiro UK EMUs, Electrostars and Turbostars, Desiro Citys and Aventras.
Would you go and buy a new car with the only requirement that it was better than one that was built 40 years ago? Or a new mobile phone being better than one sold in 2002?

 

[northernbelle]

There we go again, judging a new 21st century train against a 40 year old train, that's a pretty low target to aim for. They should be judged against their contemporaries, Desiro UK EMUs, Electrostars and Turbostars, Desiro Citys and Aventras.
Would you go and buy a new car with the only requirement that it was better than one that was built 40 years ago? Or a new mobile phone being better than one sold in 2002?

It's completely reasonable to compare a new train with the one it replaced - as the passengers on a particular route would.

Passengers travelling from Mirfield to Huddersfield couldn't give two hoots what diesel rolling stock in the West Country was like, for example.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's completely reasonable to compare a new train with the one it replaced - as the passengers on a particular route would.

Passengers travelling from Mirfield to Huddersfield couldn't give two hoots what diesel rolling stock in the West Country was like, for example.

These arguments for everything being gold-plated are a bit daft, I agree. We're constantly being told that Northern is a financial basket-case by certain members on here, yet others are whining that the new trains aren't quite up to their specific (and subjective) standards.

Although passengers travelling from Mirfield to Huddersfield will be on Trans-Pennine 185s anyway... or if they're particularly unlucky, a bus.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2022 ==

There we go again, judging a new 21st century train against a 40 year old train, that's a pretty low target to aim for. They should be judged against their contemporaries, Desiro UK EMUs, Electrostars and Turbostars, Desiro Citys and Aventras.
Would you go and buy a new car with the only requirement that it was better than one that was built 40 years ago? Or a new mobile phone being better than one sold in 2002?

They're better than what they replaced... those things they replaced were a downgrade on what came before them though, so at the very least it's a step in the right direction.

 

[AM9]

Personally, it bothers me not how bad these cheap trains are, I'm very unlikely to need to travel on them. This is a discussion on a railway forum about a new class of train that has had both safety issues and technical flaws. For those that either don't care or just can't see the issues that's fine, you have to travel on them.
The only matter that we should all be concerned about is the decision to purchase more diesel-only trains that commit everybody to 30+ years more of diesel running under wires. Whilst I don't have to stand on platforms breathing in the fumes from them, I sympathise with those that do because of this poor purchasing decision.

 

[tomuk]

The only matter that we should all be concerned about is the decision to purchase more diesel-only trains that commit everybody to 30+ years more of diesel running under wires. Whilst I don't have to stand on platforms breathing in the fumes from them, I sympathise with those that do because of this poor purchasing decision.

Electrification will proceed at its own pace buying 195s and the other CAF units will have no effect on electrification decisions. As regards standing on the platform any effect on your health is absolutely negligible, do you eat red meat, too much booze, lay in the sun too much, any of the above will have an effect on your lifespan.

 

[Neptune]

Personally, it bothers me not how bad these cheap trains are, I'm very unlikely to need to travel on them. This is a discussion on a railway forum about a new class of train that has had both safety issues and technical flaws. For those that either don't care or just can't see the issues that's fine, you have to travel on them.

Absolute Daily Mail hyperbole.

The yaw damper issue is a design flaw that is in the process of being solved. Bigging something up as if every train is about to derail due to a ‘safety issue’ is no better than someone saying that everything is perfect.

The suspension you keep telling us is dangerous and incomplete is no worse than the 185 you compare them to. Have you ever been across Heaton Lodge Junction on a 185 at line speed, with the incredible amount of lurching which I’ve seen throw standees completely off balance and spill drinks across tables. The 185’s are not perfect riders as is often made out. You make it sound like the 195’s lurch and hunt all over the place even on straight plain line. They are a bit lively on junctions like many other units.

Sure, if you were an engineer who dealt directly with these units then I’d take your concerns seriously but by your own admission you are unlikely to even travel on them. If there were the safety concerns you keep banging on about then they would all be pulled out of service immediately.

I also like the way you, as an unlikely user of them, disregard everything that the staff and customers who work them day in day out have to say on the subject unless it’s a negative.

By comparison I have never travelled on a class 700 or 385 or 755 although I have read about them on here and have seen various opinions on them however as someone who is an unlikely user of them I have zero opinion on them. Why would I when those that either work or travel on them regularly can have a more accurate opinion on the subject.

The only matter that we should all be concerned about is the decision to purchase more diesel-only trains that commit everybody to 30+ years more of diesel running under wires. Whilst I don't have to stand on platforms breathing in the fumes from them, I sympathise with those that do because of this poor purchasing decision.

Are you telling us that every single part of the Northern network is going to electrified in the next 30 years? Fantastic, why on earth did Arriva order such trains.

Now in all seriousness and I’ve mentioned this before but I would have preferred a batch of bi-mode Civities rather than all diesel units to take advantage of part electrified routes. However it would have prevented the purchase of 101 new trains of which 55 were all diesel due to cost and pacer replacement would not have been fully achievable. This would most likely have lead to the retention of the 23 144’s with the evolution refurbishment. Not politically acceptable and more importantly not acceptable to the end user.

Now as time goes by there may be more electrification and more opportunity under GBR to purchase bi-mode trains for services probably on the inter-urban routes however the likes of the Cumbrian coast, S&C etc will never have wires put in place and until alternative fuels are available and reliable over long distances then lower emission DMU’s are better than what by then could be 50 year old wrecks working these sort of routes splurting out far higher emissions.

No doubt the response to the latter paragraph will be along the lines of “they won’t last that long as they will have shaken to bits by then” but as i say, I prefer the opinion on such issues from the engineers who actually maintain them and pass them fit for service each day to tell me what they think rather than someone who is “unlikely to travel on them”.

 

[AM9]

Electrification will proceed at its own pace buying 195s and the other CAF units will have no effect on electrification decisions. As regards standing on the platform any effect on your health is absolutely negligible, do you eat red meat, too much booze, lay in the sun too much, any of the above will have an effect on your lifespan.

You should read what I have said about electrification and the type of Diesel trains being purchased in the context of this discussion.
As for my lifestyle choices and their impact on my health, I eat a limited amount of red meat in a balanced diet, I drink very little alcohol, averaging less than 2 units per week across the year and don't lay in the sun at all. I have control over all of those.
However, when I travel, be it by road or rail, my exposure to fumes from vehicles powered by ICEs and diesel trains is outside my control. Fortunately, the impact on rail in the south-east is limited by the majority of lines not only being electrified, but also there being restrictions or even outright bans on anything other than electric trains running on them. Soon there will be no class 222s running through St Albans, which will remove most of the local rail engine pollution.

 

[yoyothehobo]

So apart from the suspension which depending who you ask is a life threatening death trap/nothing to be too concerned about (and judging by how quick they would be taken off the tracks if there was a true safety issue i suspect it is the latter). What did we expect from these units?

They are not as good as a 158 on a long distance run with few stations, however getting a 158 on a busy service to Leeds in the morning is purgatory.
They can get full and standing loads up the hills at a reasonable pace and have great acceleration.
The ride is hard and knocking at times, but lateral movement on 185s on TPE to Huddersfield has thrown stuff off my table recently.
They can do 100mph.
They are a massive improvement from 142, 144 and 150 on what they replaced.
Generally better suited to the routes they operate than a 170.

Unfortunately electrification in the North is limited and if we have routes that dont go near the wires what else are we going to do. Carrying around batteries/diesel gen sets as well as electrification is a false economy when so little is electrified.

Selection of routes.
York - Blackpool (Lostock to Blackpool Electrified and not the hilly bits in the middle)
Leeds - Chester (Manchester - Warrington)

Several shorter routes that are entirely diesel routes.

Your average punter doesnt care about the window alignment, they just want a table/seat.
They want a train they can get on and gets them there on time.
It has reasonable amenities. A toilet, unoffensive decor, wifi, decent PIS.

I just dont know what more is expected of a train these days. You could have a bunch of 100% perfect trains, but half the number of them due to cost.

I get the train from York to Leeds nearly every day and i just get on the one which is most convenient for me,
TPE 802, Mk5, 185
XC 221/220
Northern 195

Apart from the TPE 802 being a cut above, the rest are just a train and they get me from point A to point B in an unspectacular and uneventful manner. I do think train fans really do overestimate how much the general public care about what train they are on.

 

[AM9]

Absolute Daily Mail hyperbole.

The yaw damper issue is a design flaw that is in the process of being solved. Bigging something up as if every train is about to derail due to a ‘safety issue’ is no better than someone saying that everything is perfect.

The suspension you keep telling us is dangerous and incomplete is no worse than the 185 you compare them to. Have you ever been across Heaton Lodge Junction on a 185 at line speed, with the incredible amount of lurching which I’ve seen throw standees completely off balance and spill drinks across tables. The 185’s are not perfect riders as is often made out. You make it sound like the 195’s lurch and hunt all over the place even on straight plain line. They are a bit lively on junctions like many other units.

Sure, if you were an engineer who dealt directly with these units then I’d take your concerns seriously but by your own admission you are unlikely to even travel on them. If there were the safety concerns you keep banging on about then they would all be pulled out of service immediately.

I also like the way you, as an unlikely user of them, disregard everything that the staff and customers who work them day in day out have to say on the subject unless it’s a negative.

I never read the Daily Mail, you obviously have better knowledge of it's hyperbole.
The yaw damper failures is a design flaw that actually manifested itself as failure in service. That constitutes a safety hazard - maybe a mild one in some people's opinion bu still a hazard.
You should read my comments about the suspension compared to other current or even older trains. I did not make any comparison with class 185s, mainly because they are trains designed and deployed on specific services, overpowered and as a consequence overweight. I specifically referred the the Siemens Desiro UK classes 350, 444 & 450, all general purpose EMUs, which I directly compared with the much newer 331s which being a CAF design have the same inside frame suspension issues as the 195s and 397s. In fairness I also compared the CAF Civity units to their modern competition, i.e. the Siemens Desiro Citys (which do have inside frames) and were introduced two years earlier than the Civitys. Those trains have had many comments here in RUK from both lay travellers and rail staff way better qualified than me and so far there doesn't seem to be any significant criticism of their ride characteristics. In fact the 700s have been praised for their ride because the MML south is in places a very poor formation.
I have however ridden all three types of Civity unit that I am commenting on and exactly the same suspension shortfall was present in each case. Maybe it was coincidence that the trains I travelled on are the only examples with that shortcoming in which case I witdraw my criticism, but there have been to many similar comments here to assume that my views are not exceptional.

By comparison I have never travelled on a class 700 or 385 or 755 although I have read about them on here and have seen various opinions on them however as someone who is an unlikely user of them I have zero opinion on them. Why would I when those that either work or travel on them regularly can have a more accurate opinion on the subject.

Well I have been on many 700s, all classes of Desiro UKs (including 185s although I am not comparing them in this discussion), and 755s so feel that as a seasoned passenger with an electromechanical background, I am in a position to compare them in similar lights to the Civity journeys.

Are you telling us that every single part of the Northern network is going to electrified in the next 30 years? Fantastic, why on earth did Arriva order such trains.

Now in all seriousness and I’ve mentioned this before but I would have preferred a batch of bi-mode Civities rather than all diesel units to take advantage of part electrified routes. However it would have prevented the purchase of 101 new trains of which 55 were all diesel due to cost and pacer replacement would not have been fully achievable. This would most likely have lead to the retention of the 23 144’s with the evolution refurbishment. Not politically acceptable and more importantly not acceptable to the end user.

I'm not sure where you think that I inferred that "every single part of the Northern network is going to be electrified in the next 30 years", because I don't even think that is realistic even if the politicians had a lobotomy. There are already however many services that do run DMUs with considerable parts of their journeys under wires and that is bad enough. The criticism of buying pure unmodifiable diesel trains now (or 6 years ago) is valid and in the real world can only make their removal from service before they are life expired more likely, so effectively increasing their through life cost. That criticism is levelled at whoever made the decision, - Northern Trains the TOC, the DfT....

Now as time goes by there may be more electrification and more opportunity under GBR to purchase bi-mode trains for services probably on the inter-urban routes however the likes of the Cumbrian coast, S&C etc will never have wires put in place and until alternative fuels are available and reliable over long distances then lower emission DMU’s are better than what by then could be 50 year old wrecks working these sort of routes splurting out far higher emissions.

I have in this thread and elsewhere, suggested the intermediate option of Diesel-Electric transmission, - a proven technology in multiple units since the 1950s and still serving well today in the form of Voyagers and Meridians. Significantly, CAF do already offer DEMUs to more enlightened European rail operators. If implemented sensibly, a cost effective in-service modification to hybrid operation would be easily accommodated. And with lightweight transformers and rectifiers, modern DEMUs are not much heavier than diesel-hydraulic units but their efficiency and acceptability in urban situations outweighs that slight weight penalty.

No doubt the response to the latter paragraph will be along the lines of “they won’t last that long as they will have shaken to bits by then” but as i say, I prefer the opinion on such issues from the engineers who actually maintain them and pass them fit for service each day to tell me what they think rather than someone who is “unlikely to travel on them”.

No, their issues might even be addressed once the prospective shake-up of the railway happens, (if it does), otherwise they will be 'endured' - probably until the group responsible for accepting them moves on. Maybe passengers in the Northern area are so used to inferior Pacer and Sprinter rides that the difference isn't noticeable. As far as me travelling on them, you have the wrong idea. I do make journeys to northern parts specifically to ride on different stock, and it is intersting to compare trains that aren't used in the south with those that are. Indeed, I see the 397 as a good candidate for intermediate IC services, but running great lengths at 125mph they might need a bit more rectification work to sort out their inside frame bogies done on them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your average punter doesnt care about the window alignment, they just want a table/seat.

There isn't an "average punter", there are multiple use-cases.

Commuter: wants an airline seat, ideally a single one, doesn't care about looking out or gimmicks like phone charging. May well appreciate a coffee shelf.
Yoof travelling alone: doesn't overly care about seat or window, wants charging facilities above all else
Family: wants a table seat where the kids can look out of the window and probably a table and charger for their tablet
etc.

The 195's middle section layout is just lazy. With a bit of thought it could have been made to align as the end sections do - the windows are spaced correctly for it.

 

[XAM2175]

I also like the way you, as an unlikely user of them, disregard everything that the staff and customers who work them day in day out have to say on the subject unless it’s a negative.

Just another day on the RailwhingeUK forums ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Energy]

Remember that the DfT called replacing pacers bad value for money, it took Patrick McLoughlin forcing new trains into the franchise (and new trains being needed to replace all the pacers) for Northern to get anything. Its good that Northern got any new trains, even if they have some cost cutting.

Be thankful that there aren't more 144e units.