Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I said I'd post more details on my observations and opinions from a ride on Friday, so here they are. If you're a real fan of these units you may not wish to read on, but if you are interested in a bit of a critique here goes.
First impressions from outside good - they look properly slick, with a nice livery, the stylish M on the front and clear destination displays. However I found that overall the design was a bit lacking, and had some slightly bizarre contradictions, though also some good things. As mentioned on the 777 thread, I think overall the London Underground S8 is a much better package for this sort of service, with the Crossrail Class 345 perhaps coming second, and overall I was quite disappointed given the hype these units have had. Overall, they're not bad but they're not amazing either. They will do, basically.
So, my observations:
Seats
These are absolutely awful, worse than even the "veritable" Fainsa Sophia though you can't feel the metal bar supporting the base, fortunately. Way too hard and the back has a very odd curve which rounds your back rather than promoting good posture, particularly if tall. It appears feedback has been taken on board about the headrests sticking out, but instead of fixing this properly it's just been sorted by thickening the upper cushion, meaning if you're tall you're pushed forwards. I've not seen this seat before and wonder if it was a custom design? If it was, I hate to think who they had design it. It's not a standard Stadler seat.
Legroom acceptable but not great in airline seats, the priority seat legroom is about what the normal seat legroom should be in my book, not just for tall people but for shoppers who might like to put bags by their feet given the lack of luggage provision. Didn't try a facing bay.
Very narrow seats have been used despite the body being a custom, very wide 2.82m, the same as the 20m Mk3 based EMUs and DMUs and I think in common with those the widest of all UK mainline stock (most UK Stadlers are 2.7something). I'm a big person, but my backside is pretty much bang-on the width of a Grammer E3000, I took one and a bit seats on these. Your elbows and arms can go into the window space, though, so it's not as bad as some units with higher windows having seats right against the wall. Having seen very busy 195s and 196s I think they could have easily got away with slightly wider seats or spacers without impinging movement through the unit.
Perches seem pointless. Just remove them.
Windows and alignment
Usual Stadler big windows, and alignment reasonable with few seats not having a view. Generally good. Decent ledge you can rest your arm on and at about the right height to do so.
Passenger information
An odd combination of old style LED and modern LCD/OLED (not sure which). The LED was clear enough though the bottom line on the one I saw didn't appear to be working or was obscured. The LCD/OLED on the bodyside is an interesting idea, but hard to read from the seats and the font is way too small, I think I prefer the "TV style" ones used by other TOCs and a fixed route map above the doors.
Announcements were clear and had decent "bass" so not tinny.
Luggage provision
Woeful. Overheads are only on one side and only for part of the coach length, and there are no fixed racks. This is pretty much the norm for Merseyrail, though with the old wider seats when not busy it did work better putting bags on them without obstructing the aisle. There is the tip-up seat area mentioned on the other thread - the guard seemed to proactively tip them back up, but people still sat there, so to me this is going to be a source of arguments. These units don't need masses of luggage provision because most journeys are short, but I think I'd have gone with a dedicated pram area without tip-ups and maybe more overheads, and perhaps better legroom in airline seats so normal-sized people could put luggage by their feet, which was one of the arguments in favour of the very generous pitch used on the Class 175.
Cycles
6 spaces, which is excellent, I think only the ScotRail Highland Explorer 153s beat this? It'll be interesting to see if people use them, though, and perhaps they need more clearly signing. People generally seem to just hold their bike by the doors on Merseyrail or lean it on the offside (as almost all platforms are on the same side). An odd arrangement of hooks for the wheels is used, which may limit what kind of bikes fit, though - I'm unconvinced by this design, but it's clearly better than the hooks some trains have. Would have to take my bike to be sure.
Wheelchair space
One or two spaces, I forget, I remember seeing one but there might be a second. I can't really comment on these from experience.
General ambiance
Probably best described as utilitarian and quite drab. Seats are grey with a very slight splash of yellow, grab poles are chrome but with narrow yellow wraps which really look like they've been taped on afterwards, lino is light coloured "NHS fleck". Lighting is direct with an additional indirect row to the sides and excessively bright to the point of uncomfortable, and is a fairly harsh cool white though thankfully not blueish daylight type. Overall very poor marks here - the contrast with the Class 345 couldn't be more marked - that has a more subtle lighting setup and colour scheme which really exudes quality. The light coloured lino was already filthy - this was to me a very bad choice, I quite like the "coffee shop"/fake wood styles used on recent buses and would have preferred a bit of Ray Stenning like sparkle!
Windows appear to be tinted which makes seeing out in the dark quite hard. Upside is that they don't have the mobile phone reception "grid" that the Greater Anglia ones have which I felt was a bit "contravision" like, and presumably it'll save on aircon costs.
Heating/aircon
The aircon was working fine, it wasn't cold enough to need heat.
One thing I did observe was a very strange design of heating arrangement. Instead of just having the usual conduit, Merseyrail have fitted a thick plastic side panel above it with a grille at the top against the wall above it, a bit like having a run of cheap panel heaters all the way along the sidewall. I half wonder if it's because Merseyrail have an obsession about where people put their feet, and often those conduits are a nice footrest? The top of this panel has a gap between it and the wall, into which no doubt sweet papers, fag ends etc will be stuffed, and I don't doubt people will try to pull them off. Plus the heating will cook your arm if resting it on the windowsill. This was about the most bizarrely bad piece of design I recall seeing on a piece of rolling stock since the seating arrangement of the 720, and I can't see any way this is a sensible idea and plenty of pitfalls of it. I've never seen this on a Stadler before so I guess this is a Merseyrail specific customisation, but I hate to think what possessed them to do it.
Performance
Excellent, these units are very quick off the mark. However I think staff are still very much "getting used" - operation was incredibly slow, far slower than conventional guarded operation on the 507/508, with for instance door release taking maybe 5 seconds from stopping, whereas on most DOO routes it's near instant. Hopefully this will speed up in time as staff become accustomed to it and develop their own systems for quick but safe scanning of the cameras etc. The guard appeared to "dispatch" using a proximity card against the reader in the vestibule which also appears to have a (child height) touch-panel close button on it (though it may just be a marker for the aforementioned card). Talking of the guard, she did spend all the time in the saloon and was being quite proactive, checking tickets etc.
Doors and level boarding
This was mostly standard Stadler, but it looks to me like there's a bigger step from the protruding step up to the saloon than I recall being the case on other Stadlers, I recall it being about 2cm. The gap is bridged, but I can see that wheelchair users might in some cases have difficulty and still need a ramp, and do wonder how these designs can be done better (and if an S8-style approach of just having a fixed step going further out would have been better - there's not a gauge issue as Merseyrail used to have 8" wide door steps that stuck out right over the platforms with no gap at most stations). I'll keep an eye out for this the next time I use a Stadler other than Merseyside, as I can't seem to get many decent photos. The ramp itself tips down slightly when you stand on it which is a bit disconcerting, but is normal for these units.
They do have the green for released/red for closing LEDs around the door, but they seemed to blend into the background.
Lots of people were confused about pressing the button to open, but I guess will get used to it.
Above the door, there seems to be a double rain "eyebrow" unlike the single one on most Stadlers, I wonder if this was a post-testing afterthought as it looks like a bodged on bit of angle iron!
The single doors on the end vehicles caused significant slowdown of alighting and boarding. I wonder if this was a compromise too far, and if platform lengthening would have been better?
EDIT I've since found a photo of the doors of a GA FLIRT and it appears the step up is the same height. I wonder if it's more noticeable because Merseyrail's units are wider so the length of step deployed is narrower? I'd be interested to know the opinion of wheelchair users on these, though, e.g. @kingqueen when he eventually gets a go.
Through access - a contradiction?
The argument for the horribly narrow seats was often given as enabling access through the unit, which they would do bar for a very bizarre contradiction - in the middle of each vestibule are three vertical bars for standees to hold onto, and these significantly obstruct through passage - I had some luggage with me and they really got in the way. These are common on German metro units, but do seem to cause rather a contradiction here, as it was easier than usual to move through the seating area but much harder through the vestibule, and a wheelchair user would likely find it very tight, particularly if using a large electric chair, and it would be very much in the way for bicycles. I don't overall see that these make sense.
Signage
One thing I did randomly notice is that the emergency release sign on the driver door is wrong - it says to pull down on a lever that you can't see there as it has opaque glass over it. Oops! But that one aside, the tipup seats area doesn't indicate priority, which I think is a mistake.
I think that is it!
First impressions from outside good - they look properly slick, with a nice livery, the stylish M on the front and clear destination displays. However I found that overall the design was a bit lacking, and had some slightly bizarre contradictions, though also some good things. As mentioned on the 777 thread, I think overall the London Underground S8 is a much better package for this sort of service, with the Crossrail Class 345 perhaps coming second, and overall I was quite disappointed given the hype these units have had. Overall, they're not bad but they're not amazing either. They will do, basically.
So, my observations:
Seats
These are absolutely awful, worse than even the "veritable" Fainsa Sophia though you can't feel the metal bar supporting the base, fortunately. Way too hard and the back has a very odd curve which rounds your back rather than promoting good posture, particularly if tall. It appears feedback has been taken on board about the headrests sticking out, but instead of fixing this properly it's just been sorted by thickening the upper cushion, meaning if you're tall you're pushed forwards. I've not seen this seat before and wonder if it was a custom design? If it was, I hate to think who they had design it. It's not a standard Stadler seat.
Legroom acceptable but not great in airline seats, the priority seat legroom is about what the normal seat legroom should be in my book, not just for tall people but for shoppers who might like to put bags by their feet given the lack of luggage provision. Didn't try a facing bay.
Very narrow seats have been used despite the body being a custom, very wide 2.82m, the same as the 20m Mk3 based EMUs and DMUs and I think in common with those the widest of all UK mainline stock (most UK Stadlers are 2.7something). I'm a big person, but my backside is pretty much bang-on the width of a Grammer E3000, I took one and a bit seats on these. Your elbows and arms can go into the window space, though, so it's not as bad as some units with higher windows having seats right against the wall. Having seen very busy 195s and 196s I think they could have easily got away with slightly wider seats or spacers without impinging movement through the unit.
Perches seem pointless. Just remove them.
Windows and alignment
Usual Stadler big windows, and alignment reasonable with few seats not having a view. Generally good. Decent ledge you can rest your arm on and at about the right height to do so.
Passenger information
An odd combination of old style LED and modern LCD/OLED (not sure which). The LED was clear enough though the bottom line on the one I saw didn't appear to be working or was obscured. The LCD/OLED on the bodyside is an interesting idea, but hard to read from the seats and the font is way too small, I think I prefer the "TV style" ones used by other TOCs and a fixed route map above the doors.
Announcements were clear and had decent "bass" so not tinny.
Luggage provision
Woeful. Overheads are only on one side and only for part of the coach length, and there are no fixed racks. This is pretty much the norm for Merseyrail, though with the old wider seats when not busy it did work better putting bags on them without obstructing the aisle. There is the tip-up seat area mentioned on the other thread - the guard seemed to proactively tip them back up, but people still sat there, so to me this is going to be a source of arguments. These units don't need masses of luggage provision because most journeys are short, but I think I'd have gone with a dedicated pram area without tip-ups and maybe more overheads, and perhaps better legroom in airline seats so normal-sized people could put luggage by their feet, which was one of the arguments in favour of the very generous pitch used on the Class 175.
Cycles
6 spaces, which is excellent, I think only the ScotRail Highland Explorer 153s beat this? It'll be interesting to see if people use them, though, and perhaps they need more clearly signing. People generally seem to just hold their bike by the doors on Merseyrail or lean it on the offside (as almost all platforms are on the same side). An odd arrangement of hooks for the wheels is used, which may limit what kind of bikes fit, though - I'm unconvinced by this design, but it's clearly better than the hooks some trains have. Would have to take my bike to be sure.
Wheelchair space
One or two spaces, I forget, I remember seeing one but there might be a second. I can't really comment on these from experience.
General ambiance
Probably best described as utilitarian and quite drab. Seats are grey with a very slight splash of yellow, grab poles are chrome but with narrow yellow wraps which really look like they've been taped on afterwards, lino is light coloured "NHS fleck". Lighting is direct with an additional indirect row to the sides and excessively bright to the point of uncomfortable, and is a fairly harsh cool white though thankfully not blueish daylight type. Overall very poor marks here - the contrast with the Class 345 couldn't be more marked - that has a more subtle lighting setup and colour scheme which really exudes quality. The light coloured lino was already filthy - this was to me a very bad choice, I quite like the "coffee shop"/fake wood styles used on recent buses and would have preferred a bit of Ray Stenning like sparkle!
Windows appear to be tinted which makes seeing out in the dark quite hard. Upside is that they don't have the mobile phone reception "grid" that the Greater Anglia ones have which I felt was a bit "contravision" like, and presumably it'll save on aircon costs.
Heating/aircon
The aircon was working fine, it wasn't cold enough to need heat.
One thing I did observe was a very strange design of heating arrangement. Instead of just having the usual conduit, Merseyrail have fitted a thick plastic side panel above it with a grille at the top against the wall above it, a bit like having a run of cheap panel heaters all the way along the sidewall. I half wonder if it's because Merseyrail have an obsession about where people put their feet, and often those conduits are a nice footrest? The top of this panel has a gap between it and the wall, into which no doubt sweet papers, fag ends etc will be stuffed, and I don't doubt people will try to pull them off. Plus the heating will cook your arm if resting it on the windowsill. This was about the most bizarrely bad piece of design I recall seeing on a piece of rolling stock since the seating arrangement of the 720, and I can't see any way this is a sensible idea and plenty of pitfalls of it. I've never seen this on a Stadler before so I guess this is a Merseyrail specific customisation, but I hate to think what possessed them to do it.
Performance
Excellent, these units are very quick off the mark. However I think staff are still very much "getting used" - operation was incredibly slow, far slower than conventional guarded operation on the 507/508, with for instance door release taking maybe 5 seconds from stopping, whereas on most DOO routes it's near instant. Hopefully this will speed up in time as staff become accustomed to it and develop their own systems for quick but safe scanning of the cameras etc. The guard appeared to "dispatch" using a proximity card against the reader in the vestibule which also appears to have a (child height) touch-panel close button on it (though it may just be a marker for the aforementioned card). Talking of the guard, she did spend all the time in the saloon and was being quite proactive, checking tickets etc.
Doors and level boarding
This was mostly standard Stadler, but it looks to me like there's a bigger step from the protruding step up to the saloon than I recall being the case on other Stadlers, I recall it being about 2cm. The gap is bridged, but I can see that wheelchair users might in some cases have difficulty and still need a ramp, and do wonder how these designs can be done better (and if an S8-style approach of just having a fixed step going further out would have been better - there's not a gauge issue as Merseyrail used to have 8" wide door steps that stuck out right over the platforms with no gap at most stations). I'll keep an eye out for this the next time I use a Stadler other than Merseyside, as I can't seem to get many decent photos. The ramp itself tips down slightly when you stand on it which is a bit disconcerting, but is normal for these units.
They do have the green for released/red for closing LEDs around the door, but they seemed to blend into the background.
Lots of people were confused about pressing the button to open, but I guess will get used to it.
Above the door, there seems to be a double rain "eyebrow" unlike the single one on most Stadlers, I wonder if this was a post-testing afterthought as it looks like a bodged on bit of angle iron!
The single doors on the end vehicles caused significant slowdown of alighting and boarding. I wonder if this was a compromise too far, and if platform lengthening would have been better?
EDIT I've since found a photo of the doors of a GA FLIRT and it appears the step up is the same height. I wonder if it's more noticeable because Merseyrail's units are wider so the length of step deployed is narrower? I'd be interested to know the opinion of wheelchair users on these, though, e.g. @kingqueen when he eventually gets a go.
Through access - a contradiction?
The argument for the horribly narrow seats was often given as enabling access through the unit, which they would do bar for a very bizarre contradiction - in the middle of each vestibule are three vertical bars for standees to hold onto, and these significantly obstruct through passage - I had some luggage with me and they really got in the way. These are common on German metro units, but do seem to cause rather a contradiction here, as it was easier than usual to move through the seating area but much harder through the vestibule, and a wheelchair user would likely find it very tight, particularly if using a large electric chair, and it would be very much in the way for bicycles. I don't overall see that these make sense.
Signage
One thing I did randomly notice is that the emergency release sign on the driver door is wrong - it says to pull down on a lever that you can't see there as it has opaque glass over it. Oops! But that one aside, the tipup seats area doesn't indicate priority, which I think is a mistake.
I think that is it!
Last edited:
