Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
It's hard to justify that trains are still the greener option when they belch out black smoke moving out from a station!
I know the issues in the North are a lot more than rolling stock, but even on routes that didn't regularly see Pacers, I don't think 15X's improved people's perceptions of the railways.
The units are absolute leagues behind 195's in terms of comfort and general experience.
Surprised that it has taken until post 50 to mention the dreadful racket that a 150 / 53/ 56 makes. It hardly gives an impression of modern transport, especially if you have to sit on a 156 doing a lengthy journey in the summer with several stops after which the noise of acceleration is deafening.
158s are as bad, that horrid whine hurts my ears after a few hours.
Even the "cut and shut" of a 230 manages to keep the engine noise almost unnoticeably quiet - being on a 230 is just like being on a D78 on the Tube in terms of sound, give or take a bit of whine from the new AC motors.
I'm sorry, but 158's aren't even in the same ballpark.
The roar of a 156 hurts the ears immediately, especially in a tunnel! The interior noise going through Duffield tunnel is around 86dB when I took a measurement. That's at the point where as a employer you have to start taking precautions - including the provision of hearing protection.
That said, the 158's can be a little noisy at points and I'm sure a newer unit would provide a better experience.
The engine noise from 150s / 153s / 156s does at least drown out any invariably abysmal music fellow passengers are playing without headphones / loud and inane mobile phone conversations / insert own pet hates here. Particularly satisfying if you go through a long tunnel where the engine noise along with the air movements render all such irritants redundant for a few minutes. Although admittedly it can sound like you're on a journey to the centre of the earth.
And don't forget all the lovely diesel fumes coming in through the hopper windows when you are climbing up through the likes of Totley, Disley, Summit, Bramhope Tunnels etc.
Oh yes, lovely. I kinda do like the oily smell of the units though, I must admit. Smells like a heritage railway!
Passing another train in the tunnel is a joyous experience, especially if it is traveling at high speeds. Noise levels easily exceed 100dB at these points!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In a nut shell, this thread comes down to 15X except for 158's are:
On paper in a DFT meeting room in Whitehall have another 10 years of life.
In reality, are now so poor for customer experience that they should be replaced immediately. How many people who would travel by train look, hear and smell them and just jump in their air-conditioned, comfortable and quiet car to go to town; preperared to spend more in parking too.
156 and especially 158's are becoming quite unreliable. Commuting on them and using 158's on long distance trips, no shows were common. I experienced more than one breakdown as well.
In a nut shell, this thread comes down to 15X except for 158's are:
On paper in a DFT meeting room in Whitehall have another 10 years of life.
In reality, are now so poor for customer experience that they should be replaced immediately. How many people who would travel by train look, hear and smell them and just jump in their air-conditioned, comfortable and quiet car to go to town; preperared to spend more in parking too.
If the DfT does have them down for another 10 years, and the likely ban on all pure diesel becomes formal, RoSCos and TOCs (and maybe the DfT itself) need to get used to slightly higher acquisition costs of DEMUs/Bi-Modes. There is a payback of course in that trains where the diesel engine is a part-time prime mover are likely to have a longer service life through a) less hours of engine running or even b) more efficient yet gentler use of diesel engine torque and power output. So the current orders for 195/196/197 DMUs should be the last pure diesels acquired for british rail use. And even then, they can be converted to full EMUs eventually providing the structural provision is built in from new.
I'm clearly in the minority here but when it comes to modern rail travel I can think of little better than a 156 on a hot summers day, windows open and full power applied! It's a great sounding engine the NT855!
I'm clearly in the minority here but when it comes to modern rail travel I can think of little better than a 156 on a hot summers day, windows open and full power applied! It's a great sounding engine the NT855!
But it's a bit like a Harley or say a Ford Focus ST with an oversized exhaust which backfires on every gear change. To the vast majority of the general public I imagine trains should be seen and not heard.
A sprinter typically does one mile per litre per carriage. My car does around 11 miles per litre so a 150 only needs to carry 24 passengers to be more fuel efficient; the majority of cars only have one person in them.
It's ironic that the EMU equivalent of the 150s are being scrapped rapidly. If the government had pulled its finger out and electrified more routes then the 150s could go for scrap instead.
A sprinter typically does one mile per litre per carriage. My car does around 11 miles per litre so a 150 only needs to carry 24 passengers to be more fuel efficient; the majority of cars only have one person in them.
I'm clearly in the minority here but when it comes to modern rail travel I can think of little better than a 156 on a hot summers day, windows open and full power applied! It's a great sounding engine the NT855!
A sprinter typically does one mile per litre per carriage. My car does around 11 miles per litre so a 150 only needs to carry 24 passengers to be more fuel efficient; the majority of cars only have one person in them.
It's ironic that the EMU equivalent of the 150s are being scrapped rapidly. If the government had pulled its finger out and electrified more routes then the 150s could go for scrap instead.
Yeah, even delapidated trains are generally more efficient fuel wise. Newer models would be better though, especially if they were electric.
It's odd that 319's are being scrapped, they are definitely an improvement. However, there is generally always a surplus of EMU stock, with a shortage of DMU, due to the frequent cutbacks of electrification programmes.
I don't think anyone will really miss Sprinters. I travelled on a Greater Anglia 156 a few years ago after not having experienced one for a quite some time, 170s having replaced them on most of the longe rural runs by then.
The 170, like my car, was comfortable, reasonably quiet and had air conditioning which was welcome on a warm day.
The 156 appeared to be powered by a pair of Thwaites 3 cylinder dumper truck engines and did it's best to deafen me and shake my fillings out for the best part of 45 minutes. I used my car next time - and I imagine a lot of other people over the years have made exactly the same decision!
I don't think anyone will really miss Sprinters. I travelled on a Greater Anglia 156 a few years ago after not having experienced one for a quite some time, 170s having replaced them on most of the longe rural runs by then.
The 170, like my car, was comfortable, reasonably quiet and had air conditioning which was welcome on a warm day.
The 156 appeared to be powered by a pair of Thwaites 3 cylinder dumper truck engines and did it's best to deafen me and shake my fillings out for the best part of 45 minutes. I used my car next time - and I imagine a lot of other people over the years have made exactly the same decision!
Similarly, I travelled from Ipswich to Lowestoft on a 156, it was nostalgic in terms of riding some sections of jointed track, but that was at the great expense of being deafened by a straining old diesel engine, characteristic of an old 3rd world ferry boat running on it's speed limiter for long periods of time, (which isn't surprising as that's all the sprinters are powered by). It was an unpleasant experience that among normal passengers, only a head-banging heavy metal fan is likely to appreciate as part of their regular travelling.
I'm clearly in the minority here but when it comes to modern rail travel I can think of little better than a 156 on a hot summers day, windows open and full power applied! It's a great sounding engine the NT855!
Me too. The 156's are amongst my favourite modern trains, particularly those refurbished by old Northern which had very comfortable seating. The natural ventilation is a plus for me.
Me too. The 156's are amongst my favourite modern trains, particularly those refurbished by old Northern which had very comfortable seating. The natural ventilation is a plus for me.
We must be a strange pair! I genuinely find 156’s really pleasant to travel on, they’re comfortable and like you I prefer natural ventilation (I often lower the window in my car!). They are noisy I won’t deny that, but not to the extent that some people are claiming; they’re not really “deafening”.
Plus, they don't stink like Voyagers, and don't jolt on every track joint like 195s. Nothing better in Summer than a trip on a Sprinter with all the hoppers open....apart from the tunnels.
We must be a strange pair! I genuinely find 156’s really pleasant to travel on, they’re comfortable and like you I prefer natural ventilation (I often lower the window in my car!). They are noisy I won’t deny that, but not to the extent that some people are claiming; they’re not really “deafening”.
Similarly, I travelled from Ipswich to Lowestoft on a 156, it was nostalgic in terms of riding some sections of jointed track, but that was at the great expense of being deafened by a straining old diesel engine, characteristic of an old 3rd world ferry boat running on it's speed limiter for long periods of time, (which isn't surprising as that's all the sprinters are powered by). It was an unpleasant experience that among normal passengers, only a head-banging heavy metal fan is likely to appreciate as part of their regular travelling.
For the record, I didn't particularly like them when they were new. They might be less draughty and rattly than the old DMUs but the engine noise, especially pulling away from stations, is definitely worse. Sitting away from the engine does help. The section near the cab on a 150 isn't too bad.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A quick internet search suggests the answer is 1.6 for the UK. 11 x 1.6 x 2 carriages = 35.2 passengers to break even, if my maths is correct. It's fair to say that a 150 often has far fewer people on but, until last year at least, the average over the day is probably more than that.
Based on your assumptions of fuel consumption. For a sprinter they are a little optimistic. For other types of DMU they are very optimistic. A class 170 does about 1mpg for a 2 car unit for example,which would roughly double the number of people needed on the train to break even.
Well at least until we have self driving cars that inevitably end up driving around the roads forever after their owner dies, until the person who inherited them eventually notices the charging bill!
In a nut shell, this thread comes down to 15X except for 158's are:
On paper in a DFT meeting room in Whitehall have another 10 years of life.
In reality, are now so poor for customer experience that they should be replaced immediately. How many people who would travel by train look, hear and smell them and just jump in their air-conditioned, comfortable and quiet car to go to town; preperared to spend more in parking too.
Some of the 156s aren't too bad in my opinion (apart from the very noisy engines) but we need a plan to replace the 150s (without buying new diesel stock) ASAP - full TPE electrification between Manchester and York and a load more 397s (for the Newcastle and Edinburgh services) would release all the 185s to start a cascade that would deal with the 150/1s at least. I suppose by the time you've done that it will be high time to replace the 156s as well but that will require new DEMU/bi-mode stock.
Not a good look that, but despite the black smoke the fuel economy of a 15x isn't all that bad compared to apparently 'cleaner' units like the Turbostars which are quite a bit heavier. In fact I think 15x perform better in that regard than a Turbostar.
I'll give you that sprinters do create an incredible racket but lots of them have seats which are absolute leagues ahead of the ironing boards on the 195s in terms of comfort.
I'll give you that sprinters do create an incredible racket but lots of them have seats which are absolute leagues ahead of the ironing boards on the 195s in terms of comfort.
I'd not say "lots of them". The GWR and TfW ones with the 2+2 Chapmans are the only ones that come close to the comfort of the 195 (but the 195 wins on legroom). Under near enough no circumstances can 3+2 seating be more comfortable than 2+2 seating.
I get that you don't like CAF stock, but I'd keep the comparisons vaguely sensible.
Not a good look that, but despite the black smoke the fuel economy of a 15x isn't all that bad compared to apparently 'cleaner' units like the Turbostars which are quite a bit heavier. In fact I think 15x perform better in that regard than a Turbostar.
I think we're getting some dissonance here in a few posts regarding "green" operation.
Sprinters may be better on fuel but that doesn't make them "green" if they create a much higher level of exhaust emissions in doing so. 170s may be thirsty on diesel but at least they don't belch black smoke and leave a fog behind them as they accelerate! Not something you want to be breathing in on a regular basis....
I think we're getting some dissonance here in a few posts regarding "green" operation.
Sprinters may be better on fuel but that doesn't make them "green" if they create a much higher level of exhaust emissions in doing so. 170s may be thirsty on diesel but at least they don't belch black smoke and leave a fog behind them as they accelerate! Not something you want to be breathing in on a regular basis....
There are two pollution issues, they are basically entirely separate.
One is carbon - biofuels can resolve this by being carbon neutral. Wood is a carbon neutral biofuel if you plant a new tree of the same type for every one you cut down. However burning it emits particulates etc that are a problem at the point of use.
The other is particulates, NOx and other "at the point of use" issues. An EMU does not emit any of these, but may not be carbon neutral if the electricity is generated at a coal or gas fired power station.
It probably helps if the term "green" isn't used, and we stick to using terms for the two very distinct issues.
Yeah, even delapidated trains are generally more efficient fuel wise. Newer models would be better though, especially if they were electric.
It's odd that 319's are being scrapped, they are definitely an improvement. However, there is generally always a surplus of EMU stock, with a shortage of DMU, due to the frequent cutbacks of electrification programmes.
I'd not say "lots of them". The GWR and TfW ones with the 2+2 Chapmans are the only ones that come close to the comfort of the 195 (but the 195 wins on legroom). Under near enough no circumstances can 3+2 seating be more comfortable than 2+2 seating.
I get that you don't like CAF stock, but I'd keep the comparisons vaguely sensible.
When I said 'lots of them have better seats', I was including the SuperSprinters in that not just 150s. There are certainly lots of 156s and until ScotRail fitted theirs with ironing boards didn't all the 156s have Chapmans?
It's not that I don't like CAF stock - it's that I don't like hard seats. The units I've used which I think had Fainsa seats are a class 195, Great Northern class 387, ScotRail refurb 156 and GWR 800/802 (not sure if I've used both types or not) and I disliked the seats on all of those despite the fact that I think 387s and 156s are good designs in general (and the 800/802s have their plus points too). Returning to the comment that I 'don't like CAF stock', I've not been on one yet but (choice of seats aside) I think I would quite like the 397s.
I think we're getting some dissonance here in a few posts regarding "green" operation.
Sprinters may be better on fuel but that doesn't make them "green" if they create a much higher level of exhaust emissions in doing so. 170s may be thirsty on diesel but at least they don't belch black smoke and leave a fog behind them as they accelerate! Not something you want to be breathing in on a regular basis....
One is carbon - biofuels can resolve this by being carbon neutral. Wood is a carbon neutral biofuel if you plant a new tree of the same type for every one you cut down. However burning it emits particulates etc that are a problem at the point of use.
The other is particulates, NOx and other "at the point of use" issues. An EMU does not emit any of these, but may not be carbon neutral if the electricity is generated at a coal or gas fired power station.
It probably helps if the term "green" isn't used, and we stick to using terms for the two very distinct issues.
I'm not sure biofuels are really carbon neutral, but otherwise I agree. I was quite surprised the other evening to hear it suggested on the BBC that young trees emitt more CO2 through respiration than they absorb through photosynthesis. Only older, established, trees become a carbon sink. I am probably oversimplifying there - but it is worrying given the use of wood by Drax etc.
Based on your assumptions of fuel consumption. For a sprinter they are a little optimistic. For other types of DMU they are very optimistic. A class 170 does about 1mpg for a 2 car unit for example,which would roughly double the number of people needed on the train to break even.
When I said 'lots of them have better seats', I was including the SuperSprinters in that not just 150s. There are certainly lots of 156s and until ScotRail fitted theirs with ironing boards didn't all the 156s have Chapmans?
It's not that I don't like CAF stock - it's that I don't like hard seats. The units I've used which I think had Fainsa seats are a class 195, Great Northern class 387, ScotRail refurb 156 and GWR 800/802 (not sure if I've used both types or not) and I disliked the seats on all of those despite the fact that I think 387s and 156s are good designs in general (and the 800/802s have their plus points too). Returning to the comment that I 'don't like CAF stock', I've not been on one yet but (choice of seats aside) I think I would quite like the 397s.
One is worse for your lungs, the other is worse for the climate. As Bletchleyite has said, they are two different issues.
I'm not sure biofuels are really carbon neutral, but otherwise I agree. I was quite surprised the other evening to hear it suggested on the BBC that young trees emitt more CO2 through respiration than they absorb through photosynthesis. Only older, established, trees become a carbon sink. I am probably oversimplifying there - but it is worrying given the use of wood by Drax etc.
Also, unless the trees deliver themselves to the power station, there's all the carbon used in transporting them from their growing location to the furnace, so unless there are forests with years of supply in the grounds of Drax, it is impossible for them to be carbon neutral
As above, this is a matter of debate. I have seen good arguments that suggest biomass power stations actually produce more net CO2 per unit of output than gas, when you take into account the whole carbon chain and the efficacy (or not) of the replanting.
There are two pollution issues, they are basically entirely separate.
One is carbon - biofuels can resolve this by being carbon neutral. Wood is a carbon neutral biofuel if you plant a new tree of the same type for every one you cut down. However burning it emits particulates etc that are a problem at the point of use.
The other is particulates, NOx and other "at the point of use" issues. An EMU does not emit any of these, but may not be carbon neutral if the electricity is generated at a coal or gas fired power station.
It probably helps if the term "green" isn't used, and we stick to using terms for the two very distinct issues.
Well, Biofuels are still unsustainable.
You need a significant amount to create diesel. When you consider that climate change is set to make growing crops harder and demand for Biofuels is typically fulfilled by middle/low income countries, pushing up food prices in combination with increasing risk of flood/drought, they aren't such a great option.
The cheapest option long term is electrification, than having to literally harvest all your fuel for questionable environmental benefits.
317s make sense, but 321's still have another few years in terms of EMU's.
DMUs are typically expected to last 30 years, EMUs 40.
Unfortunately a lack of strategy on electrification leads to the scrapping of electric trains younger than diesel ones that have no active plan to be replaced.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
