195s truly awful, not a step forward

[John C]

Wasn’t sure where best to post this or wether it has been discussed before but I’ve noticed the audio announcements on the class 195’s (and 331’s) shouts any station that begins with a ‘W’. For example the Nottingham-Leeds service it’ll go calling at “…Meadowhall, Barnsley, WAKEFIELD Kirkgate…”

I’ve noticed it does this for all ‘W’ stations such as Wakefield, Walsden, Warrington etc. it caused quite a laugh on a fairly crowded train when announcing WALSDEN at full volume compared to the rest of the announcement.

 

[RJ]

Am I the only person who likes the 195s? Nippy, bright and airy, table seats with plug sockets and a decent enough ride in my opinion.

 

[J-2739]

Am I the only person who likes the 195s? Nippy, bright and airy, table seats with plug sockets and a decent enough ride in my opinion.

That's how I'd describe them. The only thing missing from them are USB sockets, but other than that, they are capable all-rounders.

The more I use them, the more I dislike the Class 158s. Slow, cramped, and narrow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's how I'd describe them. The only thing missing from them are USB sockets, but other than that, they are capable all-rounders.

The more I use them, the more I dislike the Class 158s. Slow, cramped, and narrow.

One thing I found noticeable about the 195s when I first used one was how narrow they are.

158: 2.70m
195: 2.712m

What's 1.2cm between friends? But then I suppose 158s have a tilt profile.

 

[John C]

Am I the only person who likes the 195s? Nippy, bright and airy, table seats with plug sockets and a decent enough ride in my opinion.

I like the 195’s wouldn’t say they are my favourite unit to travel on but I find them decent enough for mainly the same reasons you’ve highlighted, my only issue I have is the 2 car units which are inadequate capacity wise in my opinion for the majority of services they are used on, it’s on these services when it’s packed to the rafters and the poor conductor has to fight his/her way through the crowds halfway down the train to do the doors.

 

[D6130]

Am I the only person who likes the 195s? Nippy, bright and airy, table seats with plug sockets and a decent enough ride in my opinion.

I like them too....although my back doesn't like the seats for journeys of more than about an hour, or the position of the plug sockets.

 

[AM9]

One thing I found noticeable about the 195s when I first used one was how narrow they are.

158: 2.70m
195: 2.712m

What's 1.2cm between friends? But then I suppose 158s have a tilt profile.

Not exactly a tilt profile, more the all line profile that Derby adopted for designs that were intended for general deployment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not exactly a tilt profile, more the all line profile that Derby adopted for designs that were intended for general deployment.

True, 170s are similar, as are indeed 195s! Though Derby built kit seems to be moving away from it now, the Aventra has a Desiro like square profile.

 

[ChrisC]

I like the 195’s wouldn’t say they are my favourite unit to travel on but I find them decent enough for mainly the same reasons you’ve highlighted, my only issue I have is the 2 car units which are inadequate capacity wise in my opinion for the majority of services they are used on, it’s on these services when it’s packed to the rafters and the poor conductor has to fight his/her way through the crowds halfway down the train to do the doors.

I have exactly the same opinion of them. They are not perfect but decent enough and a big improvement on 150s and pacers. I still prefer a 158. Completely agree that 2 car units are totally inadequate especially on routes between major cities like Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham. I fully understand the problems of capacity at Platform 17 at Leeds but wasn’t this service originally supposed to be diverted via Wakefield Wesgate and Moorthorpe and then not have to use platform 17.

 

[AM9]

I have exactly the same opinion of them. They are not perfect but decent enough and a big improvement on 150s and pacers. I still prefer a 158. Completely agree that 2 car units are totally inadequate especially on routes between major cities like Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham. I fully understand the problems of capacity at Platform 17 at Leeds but wasn’t this service originally supposed to be diverted via Wakefield Wesgate and Moorthorpe and then not have to use platform 17.

So it seems that the consensus among some posters here is that the 195s are an improvement on the Pacers and Sprinters introduced 40 years ago. That is a pretty low ambition for any TOC to deliver. I would have expected comments on a forum such as RUK to be technically more discerning than a typical passenger rail user pressure group.

 

[Neptune]

So it seems that the consensus among some posters here is that the 195s are an improvement on the Pacers and Sprinters introduced 40 years ago. That is a pretty low ambition for any TOC to deliver. I would have expected comments on a forum such as RUK to be technically more discerning than a typical passenger rail user pressure group.

So everyone should conform to your opinion rather than form their own?

 

[AM9]

So everyone should conform to your opinion rather than form their own?

Where did you get that idea from?

 

[Neptune]

Where did you get that idea from?

I would have expected comments on a forum such as RUK to be technically more discerning than a typical passenger rail user pressure group.

The arrogance of this comment sums it up. You’re saying that nobody in favour of these units has a clue. Only your opinion and those that agree with you are (in your words) discerning.

Now I can accept that you (a very irregular user of them) and others don’t like them. Why do you not accept that others might actually like them? And before you say you do accept others opinions that differ from yours please read over what you said again and tell me you accept opposing views to your own.

I would have expected comments on a forum such as RUK to be technically more discerning than a typical passenger rail user pressure group.

My way or the highway is what springs to mind.

 

[AM9]

The arrogance of this comment sums it up. You’re saying that nobody in favour of these units has a clue. Only your opinion and those that agree with you are (in your words) discerning.

Now I can accept that you (a very irregular user of them) and others don’t like them. Why do you not accept that others might actually like them? And before you say you do accept others opinions that differ from yours please read over what you said again and tell me you accept others views.

I would have expected comments on a forum such as RUK to be technically more discerning than a typical passenger rail user pressure group.

My way or the highway is what springs to mind.

Nope, it would seem that you have missed the point of my post. The 195s were brought in to replace the old rolling stock from the early '80s. Given that railway rolling stock has greatly changed, - largely for the better over that 40 year period, to say that these new trains are better than that is a pretty trite comment as they would have to be very bad not to. I'm not one of those members that romanticises about MKI coaching standards compared to modern designs, - but any design stands comparison against its contemporaries.
If you read back at what I actually said, it was along the lines of a lost opportunity that smacks of poor engineering. Something that other posters have also alluded to. I am fairly neutral about the interiors of them, that's just cosmetics, but their ride, in my opinion is below the standards set by competitor designs and whilst they have gone with the trend of inside frame bogies, and short wheelbases, it's more a case of talking the (marketing) talk, but on deliverables, not walking the (performance) walk. I have also expressed the view that it's not only the 195 DMUs (what may turn out to be an environmental embarassment), but the 331s - and even the 397s which although intended for a very different role with a different TOC, are still tainted with those same performance shortcomings, however comfy the seats might be*.

* That is a shame because I quite liked the 397s and if fixed, could see a role for them elsewhere as a regional/inter-city 'lite' candidate, as indeed TPE are deploying them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the 397 sort of is the 2022 Mk1 - but I agree it rides like a cart. No worse than the awful Mk4 though.

 

[Neptune]

Nope, it would seem that you have missed the point of my post. The 195s were brought in to replace the old rolling stock from the early '80s. Given that railway rolling stock has greatly changed, - largely for the better over that 40 year period, to say that these new trains are better than that is a pretty trite comment as they would have to be very bad not to. I'm not one of those members that romanticises about MKI coaching standards compared to modern designs, - but any design stands comparison against its contemporaries.
If you read back at what I actually said, it was along the lines of a lost opportunity that smacks of poor engineering. Something that other posters have also alluded to. I am fairly neutral about the interiors of them, that's just cosmetics, but their ride, in my opinion is below the standards set by competitor designs and whilst they have gone with the trend of inside frame bogies, and short wheelbases, it's more a case of talking the (marketing) talk, but on deliverables, not walking the (performance) walk. I have also expressed the view that it's not only the 195 DMUs (what may turn out to be an environmental embarassment), but the 331s - and even the 397s which although intended for a very different role with a different TOC, are still tainted with the same performance shortcomings, however comfy the seats might be.

Said beautifully without acknowledging once the offensive statement you made about people who don’t share your opinion on them (ie those who think they’re absolutely fine and a more than adequate replacement for what went before) are not at all discerning.

We aren’t going to agree and I don’t really care whether we do or not, everything is subjective, but to make a statement questioning the people who disagree with your view’s discernment is quite frankly embarrasing. Nobody is the authority on personal opinion but it would appear you, from that statement, believe you are.

I shall leave this conversation here.

 

[John Luxton]

Am I the only person who likes the 195s? Nippy, bright and airy, table seats with plug sockets and a decent enough ride in my opinion.

I only used them for the first time this year on a trip to Manchester and thought they were nice, bright and roomy. Later I travelled on a few including Chester to Leeds on a North West Rover and really liked them. I think when I aired my views earlier in this thread the main objection appeared to be the only one toilet per train issue which seems to tarnish them in some people's opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think a reasonable sum-up is that they're a more-than-competent replacement for Classes 142 to 156 inclusive, but given that they were ordered for "premium" express services one might more have expected something to the quality of the Class 170 or 185.

As Northern Connect got dropped, and new Northern is rapidly realising they're better at capacity and stopping services (due to acceleration) than replacing 158s*, they are, bar the WCML services, mostly just replacing classes 142-156 and so are more than adequate, give or take my view on the lazy window alignment.

* Some of which have been refurbished to be basically the same inside bar having end doors, of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2022 ==

I only used them for the first time this year on a trip to Manchester and thought they were nice, bright and roomy. Later I travelled on a few including Chester to Leeds on a North West Rover and really liked them. I think when I aired my views earlier in this thread the main objection appeared to be the only one toilet per train issue which seems to tarnish them in some people's opinion.

Faults as I see it:
1. Lousy ride
2. Poor window alignment in centre section
3. Only one toilet

1 and 2 are minor, though, and most of Northern's other stock only has one toilet.

I do still see them as a poor man's 170, but they do gain over 170s in some ways, e.g. acceleration and very large overhead racks.

 

[D6130]

I think when I aired my views earlier in this thread the main objection appeared to be the only one toilet per train issue which seems to tarnish them in some people's opinion.

That is a major problem....especially on Summer evening services out of Blackpool - and to a lesser extent Leeds, Manchester and York.

 

[AM9]

I think the 397 sort of is the 2022 Mk1 - but I agree it rides like a cart. No worse than the awful Mk4 though.

I should be able to confirm that in 3 weeks when I travel in one of the few LNER class 81/MKIV trains left. But they have the excuse of being 30 years old now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I should be able to confirm that in 3 weeks when I travel in one of the few LNER class 81/MKIV trains left. But they have the excuse of being 30 years old now.

The Mk4 is the only stock I've ever been on where an iffy bit of track caused it to start bucking and banging such that I was convinced one wheelset had come off, and I was genuinely starting to consider pulling the handle, but it stopped before I'd got up.

 

[John Luxton]

That is a major problem....especially on Summer evening services out of Blackpool - and to a lesser extent Leeds, Manchester and York.

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Blackpool on a summer evening service or any other time in the holiday season! Basically it is people who have had a but too much to drink.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2022 ==

1. Lousy ride
2. Poor window alignment in centre section
3. Only one toilet

I didn't notice anything wrong with the ride. As for windows they do seem bigger let more light in and I thought the views better. But perhaps I just chose my seat wisely - I probably subconsciously do that. Will have another look soon.

 

[D6130]

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Blackpool on a summer evening service or any other time in the holiday season! Basically it is people who have had a but too much to drink.

Very true....but some of us have no alternative to travelling home from Preston on them, when connecting from somewhere elseon or near the WCML.

 

[John Luxton]

Very true....but some of us have no alternative to travelling home from Preston on them, when connecting from somewhere elseon or near the WCML.

I feel sorry can't be much fun! I actually went to Blackpool by train for the first time in 40 years earlier this year from Liverpool when I had a NW Rover, to get a ride in on the new trams (yes I know they are not that new now) but I made sure I was clear by mid afternoon! Trip there and back was on the 195's EMU cousins the 331s which interestingly don't appear to have come into this discussion.

 

[AM9]

I feel sorry can't be much fun! I actually went to Blackpool by train for the first time in 40 years earlier this year from Liverpool when I had a NW Rover, to get a ride in on the new trams (yes I know they are not that new now) but I made sure I was clear by mid afternoon! Trip there and back was on the 195's EMU cousins the 331s which interestingly don't appear to have come into this discussion.

Although I and several others have mentioned them many times, along with 397s their 'racier' cousins. It is noticeable that those who are comparing them mainly with Pacers and Sprinters don't mention the new CAF EMUs so probably wouldn't have seen any common issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although I and several others have mentioned them many times, along with 397s their 'racier' cousins. It is noticeable that those who are comparing them mainly with Pacers and Sprinters don't mention the new CAF EMUs so probably wouldn't have seen any common issues.

While the 331 isn't a patch on the 333, sadly, the majority of people experiencing the new EMUs have had them as an upgrade from 2 or 4-car Pacer or 150-156 formations, or at best very dated 319s which are just a pair of 150s in terms of the experience. Thus they are a huge, huge step up. Yes, a bit cheap compared to 350s or AT200s, but still a big step up.

 

[Wolfie]

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Blackpool on a summer evening service or any other time in the holiday season! Basically it is people who have had a LOAD too much to drink.

Fixed that for you.... lol

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2022 ==

Very true....but some of us have no alternative to travelling home from Preston on them, when connecting from somewhere elseon or near the WCML.

Ouch - my commiserations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2022 ==

While the 331 isn't a patch on the 333, sadly, the majority of people experiencing the new EMUs have had them as an upgrade from 2 or 4-car Pacer or 150-156 formations, or at best very dated 319s which are just a pair of 150s in terms of the experience. Thus they are a huge, huge step up.

Agreed. They are decent compared to clapped out 80s trains. Compared to anything modern not so much so...

 

[jamesst]

Am I the only person who likes the 195s? Nippy, bright and airy, table seats with plug sockets and a decent enough ride in my opinion.

Not at all, it's just people on here love to whinge!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. They are decent compared to clapped out 80s trains. Compared to anything modern not so much so...

Certainly an Aventra with a 195/331 like interior would be about the best modern regional EMU imaginable. I'm looking forward to the LNR 2+2 sets. The 3+2 junk rather less so. It's a shame Bombardier don't offer a DMU based on that body, though I believe they now do offer a bi-mode, which Northern should consider for the WCML, the Southports, the Chesters (via WCML) and the Buxtons, in three car formations with gangways.

 

[Pete_uk]

Looking at internal photos, there does seem to be quite a few table bays.