Whatever the Thumpers acceleration characteristics, they managed to be reliable and comfortable, which is more than enough for your average passenger.
In terms of air-con, I'm not all that fussed truth be told. It's not a deal breaker, and if it's not working in one carriage of a set of three, there are always the others.
With toilets, it's not good enough to expect people to wait several generations of equipment. They need to be dealing with the problem now. That could mean not replacing the more robust existing toilets on 158's for example, it could mean implementing a more intensive maintenance/tanking cycle for them, or even slapping a 153 on the end so that at least there's an alternative. Or it could mean using a rake of loco hauled stock which has adequate provision in the first place. Giving a shrug then not doing anything because it's easier/cheaper doesn't really cut it.
In terms of costs, loco hauled is obviously a cost effective option compared to building new multiple units, otherwise they wouldn't be there. I suspect that the public would be less sympathetic to the idea of not being allowed adequate rolling stock because of some track access charge regime concocted at privatisation.
This idea that seating quality is entirely subjective, is I suspect overdone on this forum. For a long journey the majority of people want a comfortable seat with some padding, not an ironing board. Northern need to get to grips with this before its too late.
Anyhow, enjoyable though this discussion has been, none of your points negate my argument that with reliable traction, the mk2's will be just the job for a long journey up the coast, and once we get to that stage, the locals will agree I'm sure.
In terms of air-con, I'm not all that fussed truth be told. It's not a deal breaker, and if it's not working in one carriage of a set of three, there are always the others.
With toilets, it's not good enough to expect people to wait several generations of equipment. They need to be dealing with the problem now. That could mean not replacing the more robust existing toilets on 158's for example, it could mean implementing a more intensive maintenance/tanking cycle for them, or even slapping a 153 on the end so that at least there's an alternative. Or it could mean using a rake of loco hauled stock which has adequate provision in the first place. Giving a shrug then not doing anything because it's easier/cheaper doesn't really cut it.
In terms of costs, loco hauled is obviously a cost effective option compared to building new multiple units, otherwise they wouldn't be there. I suspect that the public would be less sympathetic to the idea of not being allowed adequate rolling stock because of some track access charge regime concocted at privatisation.
This idea that seating quality is entirely subjective, is I suspect overdone on this forum. For a long journey the majority of people want a comfortable seat with some padding, not an ironing board. Northern need to get to grips with this before its too late.
Anyhow, enjoyable though this discussion has been, none of your points negate my argument that with reliable traction, the mk2's will be just the job for a long journey up the coast, and once we get to that stage, the locals will agree I'm sure.
