Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Thought I'd start a thread in here about the 196s, it seems to be a better place for it than clogging up the implementation thread?
OK, so my impressions of the 196, in no particular order:
Exterior
It's a CAF DMU, it looks like a 195...but somehow a bit sleeker and obviously with a gangway. Livery suits it well despite it being a "grower" for me (I disliked it when I first saw it). Can't get over it being the Sainsbury's train though!
Doors aren't quite at thirds unlike the 195, but more at quarters like the 170. The middle section is about the same length as a 170 but the end sections are both about half a metre longer as it's 24 rather than 23m.
Interior decor/impression
This is a very classy look, with grey seats with colour highlight, colour-streaked carpet and purple handrails. Quite possibly the nicest interior design of any current UK train, though it would in my view benefit from some "fake wood" on the boring, grey (graffitti-attracting?) vehicle ends. Or some art as per Network SouthEast and the new Tyne and Wear Metro units?
Lighting is different from the 195, but I think the same as the 397. The main lights are directed sideways (rather than downwards per the 195) to give indirect light by lighting the space above the luggage rack (though this does mean if there's a lot of luggage it won't be as light). There are also LED spots along the conduit which add a bit of class.
I seem to recall no reservation displays are fitted, unlike the 195.
One observation from the ceiling conduit was that the CCTV cameras looked a bit flimsy and could be damaged by luggage.
Toilet (and a quick note on panel fit)
Didn't use it, but did have a quick look. The panel with the buttons was a bit loose. I didn't notice any other loose panels.
Ride
It's a CAF unit. Ride seemed decent but I did sit in the middle of the vehicle, so I'd expect it to be the same as the 195.
Windows
These are smaller vertically and horizontally than the 195 (more like the size of those on the 80x than the very large ones on the 195). However the seats are fully aligned to them and so the view is fine. The only place where this is disrupted is the slightly smaller windows by the doors (presumably due to the structure around them) which means the priority seats are perhaps not as desirable as they might otherwise be.
Seats
Yay, it's seat time!
The seats are the FISA LEAN, the seat used on the Class 745/755 Stadler FLIRT, and the one selected as best by Northern's eventually-ignored passenger survey for the 195s. Personally I like the experience of sitting in them, and I didn't find them any harder than any other modern seat, and they were definitely softer than the Kiel seat fitted to the 720s. The shape is almost the same as the Grammer E3000 fitted to the Desiros. The headrest curves forward a bit at the top which meant I felt most comfortable slouching a bit, but that's the same as the 170s. Importantly, these seats *don't* have the metal bar issue found on the Fainsa Sophia.
However, there is a big downside of this seat, in that it's quite a thick-backed design similar to the original Class 158 seat (but not as steeply raked), with a "niche" in the middle of the seat back. Unfortunately, this means the legroom available is not wonderful unless you've got skinny legs and so can put them straight forward into this niche. Thus, I couldn't sit comfortably in an airline seat other than a priority seat. I chose a table (which have good legroom, my knees reached the halfway point but didn't go past it) but there aren't many of these. The same principle is used as per the 158 of giving the table both window pillars, by the way. Thus I can't class it as one of my favourites, and think it is actually quite a poor design, as men tend to be taller than women, and most men aren't comfortable sitting with their legs together.
Armrests are indeed not fitted, but contrary to the reports by someone else on the main thread, the seats are spaced as if they were, as they are on e.g. Merseyrail's 507/508s and the 172s. Thus I found elbow and shoulder room in the window seat to be absolutely fine (better in fact than the 170 which has a conduit in the wrong place and a high windowsill). Plus the absence of a fixed window side armrest (as some units have) meant a bit more backside space on that side. I also observed (as the train I was on got very, very busy due to a cancellation earlier) that the absence of the armrests meant people got in and out of seats that bit easier and passenger turnover was eased. Sadly the aisle isn't made wider as the handles protrude into it! I think on balance, having experienced one on a very busy train and how they are often damaged on units doing this sort of role, that this was probably the correct choice, much as it seemed an odd omission to start with.
The tables were a bit rattly but OK. The only other observation I had (which I think someone else did too) was that the cantilever supports are a bit further back than most other units I've seen with this arrangement - so are more in the way. I reckon my foot would be put up comfortably on it, but otherwise it's in the way. I'm not sure why WMT/CAF have done this, as I don't remember it being the case with the exact same seats and mounting style on the FLIRT.
General thoughts...
Overall, having gone to Shrewsbury on a pair of very tatty 170s, I think I'd take it over one of those. Which given that I first called the 195 a "poor man's 170" is perhaps notable. WMT have clearly spent a bit more on these units than Northern did and have specced some nice extras and a well designed look and feel plus the real bonus of full window alignment. However I think given the choice between this and the 195 I'd choose the 195, purely because I fit all seats - the thick backed seats on the 196 mean it's priority or table only, and the priority seats have small windows.
What would I change?
I'd fit the Grammer E3000 instead of the LEAN, or even the new Pendolino seat. These have thinner backs and would sort the legroom. I'd even find "ironing boards" with the contoured base acceptable.
I'd remove the row of seats immediately adjacent to the doors and create a Northern style standback (and give the priority rows slightly more room, as they only have a tiny amount extra over the normal rows). These units are clearly going to carry very heavy loads at times (mine did!) and from my observation these really, really help with speeding boarding and alighting and making standing less grim. This would reduce the seats per coach by 16 (8 if like Northern you use tip-ups) but would really improve the standee experience and provide somewhere at floor level for bags as there weren't, if I recall, any actual racks bar the (massive) overheads.
But other than that, bar them having a pantograph and the line to Shrewsbury being wired, I can't think of a lot I'd change. I think this is a genuinely good job overall, and shows that attention has gone into the design (unlike Northern's 195s which were clearly just the base model with some blue paint). If I was about 2" shorter so fitted all seats, I'd find them difficult to fault, and on WMT's busy regional routes they'll handle standee crowds far better than the 170s to boot. Overall a decent job, and not the massive anticlimax the 195 was when I first used it.
Sum-up? A super-172, better than the 172 on pretty much every count.
OK, so my impressions of the 196, in no particular order:
Exterior
It's a CAF DMU, it looks like a 195...but somehow a bit sleeker and obviously with a gangway. Livery suits it well despite it being a "grower" for me (I disliked it when I first saw it). Can't get over it being the Sainsbury's train though!
Doors aren't quite at thirds unlike the 195, but more at quarters like the 170. The middle section is about the same length as a 170 but the end sections are both about half a metre longer as it's 24 rather than 23m.
Interior decor/impression
This is a very classy look, with grey seats with colour highlight, colour-streaked carpet and purple handrails. Quite possibly the nicest interior design of any current UK train, though it would in my view benefit from some "fake wood" on the boring, grey (graffitti-attracting?) vehicle ends. Or some art as per Network SouthEast and the new Tyne and Wear Metro units?
Lighting is different from the 195, but I think the same as the 397. The main lights are directed sideways (rather than downwards per the 195) to give indirect light by lighting the space above the luggage rack (though this does mean if there's a lot of luggage it won't be as light). There are also LED spots along the conduit which add a bit of class.
I seem to recall no reservation displays are fitted, unlike the 195.
One observation from the ceiling conduit was that the CCTV cameras looked a bit flimsy and could be damaged by luggage.
Toilet (and a quick note on panel fit)
Didn't use it, but did have a quick look. The panel with the buttons was a bit loose. I didn't notice any other loose panels.
Ride
It's a CAF unit. Ride seemed decent but I did sit in the middle of the vehicle, so I'd expect it to be the same as the 195.
Windows
These are smaller vertically and horizontally than the 195 (more like the size of those on the 80x than the very large ones on the 195). However the seats are fully aligned to them and so the view is fine. The only place where this is disrupted is the slightly smaller windows by the doors (presumably due to the structure around them) which means the priority seats are perhaps not as desirable as they might otherwise be.
Seats
Yay, it's seat time!
The seats are the FISA LEAN, the seat used on the Class 745/755 Stadler FLIRT, and the one selected as best by Northern's eventually-ignored passenger survey for the 195s. Personally I like the experience of sitting in them, and I didn't find them any harder than any other modern seat, and they were definitely softer than the Kiel seat fitted to the 720s. The shape is almost the same as the Grammer E3000 fitted to the Desiros. The headrest curves forward a bit at the top which meant I felt most comfortable slouching a bit, but that's the same as the 170s. Importantly, these seats *don't* have the metal bar issue found on the Fainsa Sophia.
However, there is a big downside of this seat, in that it's quite a thick-backed design similar to the original Class 158 seat (but not as steeply raked), with a "niche" in the middle of the seat back. Unfortunately, this means the legroom available is not wonderful unless you've got skinny legs and so can put them straight forward into this niche. Thus, I couldn't sit comfortably in an airline seat other than a priority seat. I chose a table (which have good legroom, my knees reached the halfway point but didn't go past it) but there aren't many of these. The same principle is used as per the 158 of giving the table both window pillars, by the way. Thus I can't class it as one of my favourites, and think it is actually quite a poor design, as men tend to be taller than women, and most men aren't comfortable sitting with their legs together.
Armrests are indeed not fitted, but contrary to the reports by someone else on the main thread, the seats are spaced as if they were, as they are on e.g. Merseyrail's 507/508s and the 172s. Thus I found elbow and shoulder room in the window seat to be absolutely fine (better in fact than the 170 which has a conduit in the wrong place and a high windowsill). Plus the absence of a fixed window side armrest (as some units have) meant a bit more backside space on that side. I also observed (as the train I was on got very, very busy due to a cancellation earlier) that the absence of the armrests meant people got in and out of seats that bit easier and passenger turnover was eased. Sadly the aisle isn't made wider as the handles protrude into it! I think on balance, having experienced one on a very busy train and how they are often damaged on units doing this sort of role, that this was probably the correct choice, much as it seemed an odd omission to start with.
The tables were a bit rattly but OK. The only other observation I had (which I think someone else did too) was that the cantilever supports are a bit further back than most other units I've seen with this arrangement - so are more in the way. I reckon my foot would be put up comfortably on it, but otherwise it's in the way. I'm not sure why WMT/CAF have done this, as I don't remember it being the case with the exact same seats and mounting style on the FLIRT.
General thoughts...
Overall, having gone to Shrewsbury on a pair of very tatty 170s, I think I'd take it over one of those. Which given that I first called the 195 a "poor man's 170" is perhaps notable. WMT have clearly spent a bit more on these units than Northern did and have specced some nice extras and a well designed look and feel plus the real bonus of full window alignment. However I think given the choice between this and the 195 I'd choose the 195, purely because I fit all seats - the thick backed seats on the 196 mean it's priority or table only, and the priority seats have small windows.
What would I change?
I'd fit the Grammer E3000 instead of the LEAN, or even the new Pendolino seat. These have thinner backs and would sort the legroom. I'd even find "ironing boards" with the contoured base acceptable.
I'd remove the row of seats immediately adjacent to the doors and create a Northern style standback (and give the priority rows slightly more room, as they only have a tiny amount extra over the normal rows). These units are clearly going to carry very heavy loads at times (mine did!) and from my observation these really, really help with speeding boarding and alighting and making standing less grim. This would reduce the seats per coach by 16 (8 if like Northern you use tip-ups) but would really improve the standee experience and provide somewhere at floor level for bags as there weren't, if I recall, any actual racks bar the (massive) overheads.
But other than that, bar them having a pantograph and the line to Shrewsbury being wired, I can't think of a lot I'd change. I think this is a genuinely good job overall, and shows that attention has gone into the design (unlike Northern's 195s which were clearly just the base model with some blue paint). If I was about 2" shorter so fitted all seats, I'd find them difficult to fault, and on WMT's busy regional routes they'll handle standee crowds far better than the 170s to boot. Overall a decent job, and not the massive anticlimax the 195 was when I first used it.
Sum-up? A super-172, better than the 172 on pretty much every count.
