Class 175 future speculation

[JonathanH]

That's a strange decision for a unit like the 170, with its' suburban interior layout.

That is just door prejudice in action. The 170 has a regional express interior layout with large seats, luggage racks. When new, some had interior sliding doors and some still have first class. Same as 185s.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Class 220 and maybe 221 units may have a good resale value if sold abroad. So they could be withdrawn and replaced by spare 175s & 185s. This would have the added advantage of often providing longer trains than the 4-car 220s at least.

Why would XC replace 125mph 4-car and 5-car IC units with 100mph 2-car and 3-car DMUs? I get that XC aren't able to run at 125mph on much of their network, but I'm sure there must be some 125mph running north of York on the ECML at least (is there anywhere else on XC where they can exceed 100mph?)

On the face of it the only obvious XC route for using the 175s is Cardiff-Nottingham, running as 5-car formations with a 175/0 coupled to a 175/1. However this would only use 14 of the 27 units, if you are willing to risk a 4 minute turnround at Nottingham, or 16 units if you have them sit in Nottingham for an hour before returning. I suppose if they can be pathed across the Newark flat crossing they could be extended to Lincoln which would increase the number of units in service to 18 (9 each of 3-car and 2-car) meaning two 175/0s and seven 175/1 available for maintainance and hot spares. That said, I think 5-car 222s (refurbished to reduce/remove first class in order to increase standard class capacity) would be a better and/or more-likely option for Cardiff-Nottingham to allow the use of 7-car 222s to suplement XC's Voyagers without spliting the 222s between TOCs).

no train in Australia ever runs at speed of more than 160 km/h (100mph) in passanger service

What about the XPT? Doesn't that do 125mph like its British Rail relatives?

It is probably cheaper (and more appropriate) in the short term to leave the 150s in service where they are and park up 175s, as 150s have better dwell times for many of the services they run.

Yes, but...

The 175s could replace the 195s that are doing the Northern Connect stuff, with the 195s replacing some 150s.

Putting aside from the comment from someone else that the Northern Connect brand has been dropped, those routes still exist it's just the name that may no longer be valid. So the underlying point still stands - the 175s could replace 195s on the regional express type services and the 195s could replace 150s.

Does Northern send end door stock through Castlefield?

I doubt it - I've read that anything with less than 5 coaches through Castlefield is required to have doors at thirds which was why KeolisAmey specified the 197s with doors at thirds. Not sure how true that is but the source is generally knowledgable as far as I know.

Yes, but every time it comes back to traincrew knowledge and training.

'Bald Rick' indicated in another thread that this cost easily runs into millions, at a time when a) the railway has no money and b) there are industrial relations issues.

Anything that involves moving small fleets around requiring significant driver training is not going to happen. To put it in context, driver training for a small fleet costs the same as for a large fleet, for any given number of drivers. With a lot of drivers to do, training for a new fleet can run into millions…

That is probably why no one is interested in the 175s.

If crew training is the biggest issue, then surely TfW keeping them is the best answer since (most of?) the relevant crews already sign them. There has been talk of express services linking Cardiff to Carmarthen and Pembrokeshire via the Swansea District line, that would require more stock than TfW currently have planned and the 175s would fit the bill nicely. The issue would be maintenance which would need to move from Chester to Landore or Canton.

The drivetrain of 170s is more suited to limited-stop services, as they don't get out of "first gear" (this might not be the correct terminology, I'm no mechanic) until above 60mph, which increases fuel consumption on stopping services. It isn't a deal-breaker but it also isn't ideal. 195s would be the ideal units for diesel stoppers, but again being 24m vehicles means a maximum of 2-cars on routes that can currently take a 3-car 150.

Given that the 195s have doors at thirds presumably the front and/or rear third of the unit can overhang the ends of the platform and still have all passenger doors platformed provided the position of signals allows that, or do the 150s (also doors-at-thirds of course) already take advantage of that?

That is just door prejudice in action. The 170 has a regional express interior layout with large seats, luggage racks. When new, some had interior sliding doors and some still have first class. Same as 185s.

If the TfW 170s (which have a toilet in every carriage, unlike some other 170s) had interior sliding doors around every doorway (ie. proper vestibules, which I didn't realise they ever had for standard class) then I would almost agree that they had a regional express interior layout. However, that would still leave two issues:

• toilets stuck in the corner of the passenger saloon so you can see the loo if somebody leaves the door open and if you need to use it everyone can see you are heading in there
• wider doorways / larger vestibules, meaning more standing room (which shouldn't be necessary on a regional express service) and less room for legroom and table bays (which are desirable on a regional express service)

Sort out those issues with the 170s and you are pretty damn close to the specification of the 175s, which makes the latter a virtually ideal regional express unit (lower running costs and end gangways would be nice, on which points they are beaten by the class 158).

'Door prejudice' is not without reason/justification. Yes you can put a 170 on a stopper or a regional express service but the drivetrain makes them poorly suited to the former and the bodyshell design (door layout AND door width) makes them poorly suited to the latter.

The drivetrain of 170s is more suited to limited-stop services, as they don't get out of "first gear"

That's a strange decision for a unit like the 170, with its' suburban interior layout.

This is exactly why I don't consider the 170s to be a good fit for anything (they are a bit of a wanabee Schrödinger's unit that tries to be regional express and suburban at the same time and therefore fails to be ideal for either). The 175s are different, which is why I hope a good use is found for them.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Considering the sorts of routes that the 170s operated when they were introduced (London-Salisbury, Inverness–Glasgow, St Pancras-Nottingham), it made some sense - most operators intended to use them for longer-distance services. As was said above, it doesn't make a huge difference operationally but probably would not help with fuel economy or longevity of the drivetrain. They are definitely more suited to the 156 or 158 type of operations as you said. The 175s were designed for similar sort of work (if not a bit more long-distance), but with more of a 158-style door and vestibule layout.

The top speed and short length also do not make sense for longer distance services, but I guess it was partly a factor of the franchises of the time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==

That is just door prejudice in action. The 170 has a regional express interior layout with large seats, luggage racks. When new, some had interior sliding doors and some still have first class. Same as 185s.

A regional express layout with a short max. no. of cars, a lower top speed and a less aerodynamic bodyshell than most express units.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Given that the 195s have doors at thirds presumably the front and/or rear third of the unit can overhang the ends of the platform and still have all passenger doors platformed provided the position of signals allows that, or do the 150s (also doors-at-thirds of course) already take advantage of that?

That could work at intermediate stations, but not necessarily at bays or termini. At places like Huddersfield P2 and Leeds P17, available length is at a premium. Signal sightings are also an issue in some cases, preventing overhanging at the front.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

What about the XPT? Doesn't that do 125mph like its British Rail relatives?

It's capable of doing 125 / 200, but limited to 100 / 160 as a result of terrible track conditions in Australia

 

[jackot]

The top speed and short length also do not make sense for longer distance services, but I guess it was partly a factor of the franchises of the time.

For almost of the routes I mentioned there was no need for a higher speed or more carriages - 100mph is plenty for the SWML for example and the same goes for most of the routes they were ordered for. As far as the interior goes, some of the Hull Trains and Anglia ones even had mini-buffets! They were designed for longer distance services, but not necessarily ones deserving of 5 carriages or 125mph.

This is exactly why I don't consider the 170s to be a good fit for anything (they are a bit of a wanabee Schrödinger's unit that tries to be regional express and suburban at the same time and therefore fails to be ideal for either).

The 175s are different, which is why I hope a good use is found for them.

This is really true. The 170s seem to be a bit of a jack of all trades, master of none in my books; but as the quote goes, that's often better than a master of one - that figuratively being the 175s.

I mean, I don't think fuel economy is a concern for some of these operators, given how much the Sprinters use.

Not necessarily I suppose.

A regional express layout with a short max. no. of cars, a lower top speed and a less aerodynamic bodyshell than most express units.

I can't see it being dramatically less aerodynamic than the 185s or the 175s which it competes with, and I would imagine its better than the 156s or 158s. Keep in mind that it was never designed to be on the same level as the Voyager or Adelante or be a hardcore intercity train, and thus sacrificing interior space for a streamlined front or making it capable for 125mph was never necessary.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Considering the sorts of routes that the 170s operated when they were introduced (London-Salisbury, Inverness–Glasgow, St Pancras-Nottingham), it made some sense - most operators intended to use them for longer-distance services. As was said above, it doesn't make a huge difference operationally but probably would not help with fuel economy or longevity of the drivetrain. They are definitely more suited to the 156 or 158 type of operations as you said. The 175s were designed for similar sort of work (if not a bit more long-distance), but with more of a 158-style door and vestibule layout.

I mean, I don't think fuel economy is a concern for some of these operators, given how much the Sprinters use.
But the drivetrain issue is certainly portent - which begs the question of why Northern use them on the Harrogate line?

 

[SouthEastBuses]

(is there anywhere else on XC where they can exceed 100mph?)

The GWML between Didcot Parkway and Reading, and the WCML between Birmingham New Street and Manchester Piccadilly.

And possibly sections of the Cross Country Route, maybe between Bristol and Leeds?

 

[Philip]

In terms of Northern operations, even without Castlefield work you could use 175s to replace Sprinters on routes like Clitheroe, Southport, Chester via Northwich, New Mills...obviously driver/guard training costs and the potential costs of repairing the corrosion are still major obstacles.

 

[skyhigh]

which begs the question of why Northern use them on the Harrogate line?

A mixture of reasons. Firstly that the fleet is a good size to cover those workings along with Sheffield and Hull, and it allows units to cycle through Neville Hill. Partly capacity - a lot of Harrogate line platforms are the right length for 4 car 150. 4 car 158 is too long and there aren't many 3 car 158s about. Back pre-170s 14x/158s were often full to the point they were leaving people behind. 170s make good use of the platform length available. Partly because of crew training reasons.

And, allegedly, partly because some senior management lived on the route and 170s probably have one of the best interiors of any Northern stock (particularly before the refurbs).

 

[The Planner]

The GWML between Didcot Parkway and Reading, and the WCML between Birmingham New Street and Manchester Piccadilly.

And possibly sections of the Cross Country Route, maybe between Bristol and Leeds?

Between Wolves and Stafford yes, nothing between New St and Bristol. Water Orton up to Burton.

 

[tbtc]

Putting aside from the comment from someone else that the Northern Connect brand has been dropped, those routes still exist it's just the name that may no longer be valid

Plus the routes that were never introduced (which Arriva were meant to have introduced well before now), e.g. the Nottingham - Westgate - Bradford service that would have freed up a lot of seats on the XC service from Sheffield to Leeds)

But the OLR abandoned any such ambitions because they can do what they want

This is exactly why I don't consider the 170s to be a good fit for anything (they are a bit of a wanabee Schrödinger's unit that tries to be regional express and suburban at the same time and therefore fails to be ideal for either). The 175s are different, which is why I hope a good use is found for them.

You don’t consider the 170s to be a good fit for anything

But the 170s (and their sister 168/171 units) are in regular service from the Highlands to the Sussex Coast, busy commuter services into London and trains through relatively empty Lincolnshire…

…meanwhile the supposedly perfect 175s are probably going to be scrapped in the next year or two because nobody wants them

I don’t see the point in trying to change the mind of people fixated on one layout for doors or shape of seats or colour - these are personal prejudices - good luck to you if you care so much about such matters I guess - but maybe there’ll come a day when you assess things and accept that some things matter more that “vestibules” and that maybe there aren’t that many routes/ services that fit into your incredibly binary definitions of “outer suburban” vs “long distance” etc

(Just like a class 47 seems a successful type of locomotive despite not being the “perfect” solution for any specific role)

In terms of Northern operations, even without Castlefield work you could use 175s to replace Sprinters on routes like Clitheroe, Southport, Chester via Northwich, New Mills...obviously driver/guard training costs and the potential costs of repairing the corrosion are still major obstacles.

You could

But Northern already have lots of 158/170/195s, so many that these DMUs are used on some routes better suited to 150s (e.g. we get 158s struggling to keep time on some Sheffield - Leeds stoppers because their higher to speed isn’t as much use as the fast accelerating 150s normally used in such diagrams)

175s would free up 158s but then what do you do with the 158s?

The question should be “how do we help resource routes like the CLC” (i.e. electrification, new “suburban” stock) rather than “how can i save my favourite units from being turned into cola cans”

 

[43096]

It's capable of doing 125 / 200, but limited to 100 / 160 as a result of terrible track conditions in Australia

That's not my understanding. XPT power cars have different gear ratios and are optimised for 100mph; their maximum recorded speed being 120mph, somewhat less than their HST cousins.

 

[Neptune]

Plus the routes that were never introduced (which Arriva were meant to have introduced well before now), e.g. the Nottingham - Westgate - Bradford service that would have freed up a lot of seats on the XC service from Sheffield to Leeds)

But the OLR abandoned any such ambitions because they can do what they want

More to do with 23 days after taking over the country locked down to be fair.

The world re-emerged a rather different place.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The GWML between Didcot Parkway and Reading, and the WCML between Birmingham New Street and Manchester Piccadilly.

Thanks for the reminder that XC do use a bit of the GWML, but doesn't the WCML require tilt for 125mph running (and XC removed tilt on their units that had it)?

You don’t consider the 170s to be a good fit for anything

But the 170s (and their sister 168/171 units) are in regular service from the Highlands to the Sussex Coast, busy commuter services into London and trains through relatively empty Lincolnshire…

They are (or have been) also in regular service on routes where they 'never get out of first gear' as one poster above described it - that doesn't mean they are a good fit for the service. Similarly a 175 could be put on all-stops services between Maesteg and Cardiff - they probably wouldn't be a good fit for that because of dwell time issues.

…meanwhile the supposedly perfect 175s are probably going to be scrapped in the next year or two because nobody wants them

No operator wants them, very possibly. But that doesn't mean passengers would not prefer to have 175s instead of their current trains.

I don’t see the point in trying to change the mind of people fixated on one layout for doors or shape of seats or colour - these are personal prejudices

I'm a perfectionist - there is also this (from https://www.modernrailways.com/article/train-seat-science):

we get used to harder and harder seats. Our expectations are managed downwards train by train, but that doesn’t work on someone moving from EasyJet or company car. They just see a hard, uncomfortable seat. This is an opportunity for change.

He was talking about seats specifically, but I think the point is also valid at a more 'big picture' level. We need modal shift from cars to public transport, therefore the trains don't just need to satisfy existing rail users - they need to win over motorists. Therefore, a product that is closer to perfection is highly desirable and one which is further from that ideal (as a rail network without the 175s would be - which is why I'm active on this thread) is undesirable.

My fixation on doors (and yes, fixation is probably a good word for it) is not mere prejudice, at least not by this definition from Google:

Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

My fixation is based on reason and actual experience. My primary reasoning is that wider doors means less floor space remains for anything other than standing (or sitting on the floor). Therefore wider doors is detrimental to passengers except where standing is acceptable (which in my case is almost no time at all - if I can't get a seat I'll be sitting on the floor before long).

The question should be “how do we help resource routes like the CLC” (i.e. electrification, new “suburban” stock)

Ultimately (by 2050 at the latest due to the net-zero commitment), electrification has to be the answer to that (assuming 'the CLC' is the local stopping services through Warrington Central) but that will take time. This means that new stock (unless electrification compatible ie. bi-mode) should be off the table and the only game in town is cascading existing 195s/196s/197s to the routes in question (which shouldn't really have been built anyway due to said 2050 commitment - something electrification compatible was needed). Just choose a route (or convenient group of routes) where the 175s would be suitable but is currently worked by 195s and use the 175s there to allow redeployment of 195s.

But Northern already have lots of 158/170/195s, so many that these DMUs are used on some routes better suited to 150s (e.g. we get 158s struggling to keep time on some Sheffield - Leeds stoppers because their higher to speed isn’t as much use as the fast accelerating 150s normally used in such diagrams)

175s would free up 158s but then what do you do with the 158s?

As I understand it, it's not 158s you need to free up but 195s. I may be wrong but I thought the Civity DMU drivetrain was similar to that on a 172 which in turn was designed much-more for frequent stops and rapid acceleration than a 170 or 158. Thus 195s and 172s perfom similarly to a 150 whereas the drivetrain on 170s (and 175s?) are more similar to 158s?

 

[Meerkat]

Yes, but every time it comes back to traincrew knowledge and training.

'Bald Rick' indicated in another thread that this cost easily runs into millions, at a time when a) the railway has no money and b) there are industrial relations issues.

But if some of the stock is falling apart they will have to bite that bullet.

You do know that Northern Connect does not exist.

I wasn’t sure, but I thought it would still give readers an idea what routes I meant.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

That's not my understanding. XPT power cars have different gear ratios and are optimised for 100mph; their maximum recorded speed being 120mph, somewhat less than their HST cousins.

It's still capable of 125 / 200, just like how our class 800s (and 91+MK4/IC225 and 390s) are capable of 140 / 225. Just that they are limited to 100 in passenger service

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==

Thanks for the reminder that XC do use a bit of the GWML, but doesn't the WCML require tilt for 125mph running (and XC removed tilt on their units that had it)?

Pretty sure parts of the WCML can now allow non tilting trains to run up to 125?

 

[43096]

It's still capable of 125 / 200, just like how our class 800s (and 91+MK4/IC225 and 390s) are capable of 140 / 225. Just that they are limited to 100 in passenger service

Can you give a source for that?

 

[sprinterguy]

Between Wolves and Stafford yes, nothing between New St and Bristol. Water Orton up to Burton.

Also for completeness there are sections of 110mph running between Derby and Chesterfield, Kidsgrove and Macclesfield, and in the vicinity of Highbridge & Burnham.

Thanks for the reminder that XC do use a bit of the GWML, but doesn't the WCML require tilt for 125mph running (and XC removed tilt on their units that had it)?

The alignment between Wolverhampton and Stafford does not require tilt for 125mph running. I believe its for similar reasons that there's a 115mph MU speed limit around North Rode - North of Congleton to South of Macclesfield.

 

[tbtc]

a 175 could be put on all-stops services between Maesteg and Cardiff - they probably wouldn't be a good fit for that because of dwell time issues

This is the problem - we can’t rip up timetables to suit trains unable to maintain current diagrams, which severely limits units with poor dwell times such as units with single leaf end doors, which is why there seems little use for them

No operator wants them, very possibly. But that doesn't mean passengers would not prefer to have 175s instead of their current trains

Some passengers would prefer them, sure, but passengers aren’t the ones having to deal with all of the compromises that the railway has to accommodate (e.g. lots of passengers would want windows that lined up with seats but also a train with sufficient seats to guarantee then one but also plenty of legroom… Some circles can’t be easily squared)

My fixation on doors (and yes, fixation is probably a good word for it) is not mere prejudice, at least not by this definition from Google:

Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

My fixation is based on reason and actual experience. My primary reasoning is that wider doors means less floor space remains for anything other than standing (or sitting on the floor). Therefore wider doors is detrimental to passengers except where standing is acceptable (which in my case is almost no time at all - if I can't get a seat I'll be sitting on the floor before long)

I think that you’ve illustrated your point brilliantly here

You don’t want trains where people will use floor space to stand. However, there are plenty of services were at least some of the journey will see passengers standing as it approaches a big city

A great example of that was the TPE EMU that was something like five o’clock in the morning from Glasgow to Manchester Airport. It’d leave Clydeside almost empty at that time of the day but as a rush hour arrival into Manchester it started picking up a few once in Lancashire, and by Wigan it was so jam packed that it was statistically the busiest train in the country. But not worth doubling up capacity all the way from Glasgow because those “excess” passengers were only on it for a short period

Such contrast between one end of a route and the other happens a fair bit around big cities, e.g. Leeds to Wakefield, Birmingham to Wolverhampton, Bristol to Bath

So, assuming that a short section isn’t lucrative enough to justify lengthening the train (or that platform lengths etc don’t permit it) then realistically we have to accept that some people are going to be without a seat for at least stinger of the journey

The options look like this:

1. Accept that some passengers will need to stand and design space suited to that reality

2. Design your trains with single leaf doors and vestibules so that passengers are urged to stand “out of sight, out of mind”, causing the problems familiar to any Voyager passenger, forcing people to stand directly outside the toilets and causing huge disruption at stations where passengers trying to get off/ on need to squeeze past everyone in a fairly narrow corridor

3. Stop people from standing by introducing compulsory reservations or banning anyone from boarding/ alighting at stations where “excess” passengers are an issue

Personally, i think that, when we have a problem we’d do better by trying to deal with it directly - people are going to stand on trains so we need trains designed to cope with that

Just choose a route (or convenient group of routes) where the 175s would be suitable but is currently worked by 195s and use the 175s there to allow redeployment of 195s.


As I understand it, it's not 158s you need to free up but 195s

Sure, but where?

Since the 195s were sold to Northern England as the high quality modern trains to run the flagship Northern Connect routes, it’ll be politically “brave” to remove them from places like Bradford so that they can go on routes like the Warrington Central stoppers (even though they are clearly well suited to such work)

 

[Meerkat]

You don’t want trains where people will use floor space to stand. However, there are plenty of services were at least some of the journey will see passengers standing as it approaches a big city

A great example of that was the TPE EMU that was something like five o’clock in the morning from Glasgow to Manchester Airport. It’d leave Clydeside almost empty at that time of the day but as a rush hour arrival into Manchester it started picking up a few once in Lancashire, and by Wigan it was so jam packed that it was statistically the busiest train in the country. But not worth doubling up capacity all the way from Glasgow because those “excess” passengers were only on it for a short period

Is that plenty of services relative to the number that that stock type would fulfill? Sounds like just the end bit of a few long peak hour services, and the general quality of a long distance fleet shouldn't be based around that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Since the 195s were sold to Northern England as the high quality modern trains to run the flagship Northern Connect routes, it’ll be politically “brave” to remove them from places like Bradford so that they can go on routes like the Warrington Central stoppers (even though they are clearly well suited to such work)

To be fair Northern are increasingly doing this. I don't know if it was because some were spare or if they've just dropped 158s in on expresses in their place, but they do now work stuff like Marple stoppers and Athertons, for which they, absent an EMU or a Metrolink tram, are great.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==

• toilets stuck in the corner of the passenger saloon so you can see the loo if somebody leaves the door open and if you need to use it everyone can see you are heading in there

I'd suggest speaking to someone if you have that sort of fear of toilets. (Lavarephobia, apparently).

I get that they might sometimes niff a bit if the air conditioning system is badly designed or they aren't cleaned often enough (you want to use a negative pressure system so the air always flows from the saloon into the toilet and not the other way), but who cares if someone sees that you're going to the toilet? People can see people going into the toilets at all manner of public venues. As long as they can't see you when you are actually using the toilet (which I'll admit doesn't always work with the poor door designs!) then it doesn't really matter.

This is exactly why I don't consider the 170s to be a good fit for anything (they are a bit of a wanabee Schrödinger's unit that tries to be regional express and suburban at the same time and therefore fails to be ideal for either). The 175s are different, which is why I hope a good use is found for them.

170s are actually good for regional/commuter expresses, which (in the form of 168s) is what they originally came into being for. They can offer decent comfort but also deal with crush loads when the terminus nears. They aren't good for local stopping services, but they weren't designed for local stopping services. The 172 with mechanical transmission does that.

175s might be nice on the Marches, but they're awful on the North Wales Coast in summer when you get crush loads. The 197s will definitely be better here.

 

[RailWonderer]

For almost of the routes I mentioned there was no need for a higher speed or more carriages - 100mph is plenty for the SWML for example and the same goes for most of the routes they were ordered for. As far as the interior goes, some of the Hull Trains and Anglia ones even had mini-buffets! They were designed for longer distance services, but not necessarily ones deserving of 5 carriages or 125mph.


This is really true. The 170s seem to be a bit of a jack of all trades, master of none in my books; but as the quote goes, that's often better than a master of one - that figuratively being the 175s.

Scotrail 170s also had the buffet until they were removed at some point. 170s are perfect for most of the routes they operate at the moment. Comfortable for long distance, more of them could be doubled up but mostly they are fine, especially the ones with original Lazzarini seating.

The 175 is more like a modern 158 with its layout, comfort and distance of operation, but with better legroom than the original 158 seating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Scotrail 170s also had the buffet until they were removed at some point. 170s are perfect for most of the routes they operate at the moment. Comfortable for long distance, more of them could be doubled up but mostly they are fine, especially the ones with original Lazzarini seating.

All of them have the original seating. Some had the Lazzarinis and some had Chapmans as built. The former look higher quality but to me the comfort is basically the same as the cushions are the same.

 

[RailWonderer]

All of them have the original seating. Some had the Lazzarinis and some had Chapmans as built. The former look higher quality but to me the comfort is basically the same as the cushions are the same.

My mistake, I thought some had the harder, later WMT 172 style seating but it's only those and the ex-Chiltern 172s that have them (and numerous EMUs).

 

[AlastairFraser]

This is the problem - we can’t rip up timetables to suit trains unable to maintain current diagrams, which severely limits units with poor dwell times such as units with single leaf end doors, which is why there seems little use for them



Some passengers would prefer them, sure, but passengers aren’t the ones having to deal with all of the compromises that the railway has to accommodate (e.g. lots of passengers would want windows that lined up with seats but also a train with sufficient seats to guarantee then one but also plenty of legroom… Some circles can’t be easily squared)



I think that you’ve illustrated your point brilliantly here

You don’t want trains where people will use floor space to stand. However, there are plenty of services were at least some of the journey will see passengers standing as it approaches a big city

A great example of that was the TPE EMU that was something like five o’clock in the morning from Glasgow to Manchester Airport. It’d leave Clydeside almost empty at that time of the day but as a rush hour arrival into Manchester it started picking up a few once in Lancashire, and by Wigan it was so jam packed that it was statistically the busiest train in the country. But not worth doubling up capacity all the way from Glasgow because those “excess” passengers were only on it for a short period

Such contrast between one end of a route and the other happens a fair bit around big cities, e.g. Leeds to Wakefield, Birmingham to Wolverhampton, Bristol to Bath

So, assuming that a short section isn’t lucrative enough to justify lengthening the train (or that platform lengths etc don’t permit it) then realistically we have to accept that some people are going to be without a seat for at least stinger of the journey

The options look like this:

1. Accept that some passengers will need to stand and design space suited to that reality

2. Design your trains with single leaf doors and vestibules so that passengers are urged to stand “out of sight, out of mind”, causing the problems familiar to any Voyager passenger, forcing people to stand directly outside the toilets and causing huge disruption at stations where passengers trying to get off/ on need to squeeze past everyone in a fairly narrow corridor

3. Stop people from standing by introducing compulsory reservations or banning anyone from boarding/ alighting at stations where “excess” passengers are an issue

Personally, i think that, when we have a problem we’d do better by trying to deal with it directly - people are going to stand on trains so we need trains designed to cope with that



Sure, but where?

Since the 195s were sold to Northern England as the high quality modern trains to run the flagship Northern Connect routes, it’ll be politically “brave” to remove them from places like Bradford so that they can go on routes like the Warrington Central stoppers (even though they are clearly well suited to such work)

I would argue that it wouldn’t be, since 175s are all 3 car and some passengers would get a longer train in return. That would be a headline for Northern to promote.
And Class 195s aren’t looking good for their age anyway - broken plug sockets, frequently out of order toilets, stained seats.

 

[RailWonderer]

I would argue that it wouldn’t be, since 175s are all 3 car and some passengers would get a longer train in return. That would be a headline for Northern to promote.
And Class 195s aren’t looking good for their age anyway - broken plug sockets, frequently out of order toilets, stained seats.

There are 16 3 car units and 11 2 car units. The 2 cars run doubled up sometimes, but Northern do that with 195s anyway. Northern have replaced the moquette on the 195s from cloth to a softer material that is slightly more stain resistant so there should be some improvement.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Can you give a source for that?

Here:

New South Wales XPT - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Question for moderators: When quoting Wikipedia, am I required to copy and paste the info on what the page says, like I would do with articles and journals?)

 

[Neptune]

I would argue that it wouldn’t be, since 175s are all 3 car and some passengers would get a longer train in return. That would be a headline for Northern to promote.
And Class 195s aren’t looking good for their age anyway - broken plug sockets, frequently out of order toilets, stained seats.

Evidently you haven’t been on a 195 recently. The flat cloth was replaced on them all a few months ago. I have very rarely seen a toilet oou on them and I’ve never known a none working plug socket on them (I’m not saying that it never happens but you sound like you’re saying their on their last legs which is absolute rubbish).

The last 175 I went on in November was filthy with 2 out of 3 toilets not working. Hardly a pleasant experience after the clean modern 331 I connected from.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Evidently you haven’t been on a 195 recently. The flat cloth was replaced on them all a few months ago. I have very rarely seen a toilet oou on them and I’ve never known a none working plug socket on them (I’m not saying that it never happens but you sound like you’re saying their on their last legs which is absolute rubbish).

The last 175 I went on in November was filthy with 2 out of 3 toilets not working. Hardly a pleasant experience after the clean modern 331 I connected from.

I use one every Sunday! It's quite frequent I sit in a seat with a non working plug socket.
As for the seat covering, I concede I didn't know about that.
The last 175 in November? That was a while off too!