Most Disappointing Rolling Stock.

[sh24]

Pretty much everything BR built in the '80s and 90's after the last Mk3 coaches. Even the Mk4 coaches were a step back from Mk3.

All of the IET series. Mk5's. Everything else CAF have built though in comparison to a 150 or Pacer they are a step on.

 

[Fisherman80]

The 195s are absolutely awful. In my opinion they should be partially rebuilt with end gangways,better seats,USBs fitted,an extra toilet on each unit and of course work done on the bogies to improve the ride quality. Although awful they do have great acceleration and are very reliable.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Never been keen on the pendos - feel very cramped in them and the tilt, for me, is disorientating.

Of the more recent stock, I find the 195/331 stock gives a very basic looking offer and the ride isn’t stunning.

 

[yorksrob]

The toastrack mk1s had space for standees in each compartment. That was usually meant 6-aside plus 4 or 5 stood, but I did have a couple of extreme commutes with 6 standing.

Not to mention seat top luggage racks to hold on to in many cases.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Apr 2026 ==

The 195s are absolutely awful. In my opinion they should be partially rebuilt with end gangways,better seats,USBs fitted,an extra toilet on each unit and of course work done on the bogies to improve the ride quality. Although awful they do have great acceleration and are very reliable.

I find the 195's decent enough - although they need an extra carriage (with toilet) to be adequate for the duties they're required for.

 

[lrbvoyager]

TPE’s Nova 1s (cl802/2). When travelling on the west coast on TPE I try to avoid them at all costs. The standard seats are horrendous and when you lean back in them they make a popping sound. The first class seats are also horrendous, especially compared to the first class seats in a Nova 2 (cl397). The speakers for the announcments are also incredibly quiete and almost inaudible. The lack of pie screens on the end of the coaches compared to the 397s is a downgrade!

 

[sh24]

The Desiro/Electrostar era was a/the highpoint for British rolling stock. It's been downhill from there IMO.

 

[Goldfish62]

The Desiro/Electrostar era was a/the highpoint for British rolling stock. It's been downhill from there IMO.

Totally agree. The early Electrostars that is, not the later rough riding ones with ironing board seats.

 

[Nammer]

I find the earlier Electrostars from Southern very uncomfortable, especially the armrests, which I have to put in the 'up' position to be able to feel comfortable in my seat. I also find the seats always look dusty and feel rough, like a unclean towel, plus the lighting makes the carriage look dull.

 

[physics34]

I find the earlier Electrostars from Southern very uncomfortable, especially the armrests, which I have to put in the 'up' position to be able to feel comfortable in my seat. I also find the seats always look dusty and feel rough, like a unclean towel, plus the lighting makes the carriage look dull.

Thats because they are not cleaned enough. I think the colour choice and material has been a mistake from the start and theyve had several opportunities to change that during overhaul. The armrests are fine for me but iam over 6ft

 

[BogiePicker]

It's a trade off. Lighter bogies mean less damage to track and lower energy costs. However they also mean a poorer ride. Generally it's the very heavy units that ride best - Classes 221 and 185 in particular - but these have those downsides. The 158 is an odd exception, riding very well despite not being very heavy.

The 220 also has inboard bearing bogies but its ride quality is great, the Aventras are similar and are not too bad as well. Perhaps CAF and the others have not quite cracked it yet.

 

[Goldfish62]

The 220 also has inboard bearing bogies but its ride quality is great, the Aventras are similar and are not too bad as well. Perhaps CAF and the others have not quite cracked it yet.

The issue I find with Aventras is that they're harsh riding over pointwork, while being fine on plain track.

 

[Transilien]

The most Disappointing rolling stoc˚ for me has to be the latter Electrostars, Class 700s and Class 800, 801 and 802. This is because they debuted many features that most still bemoan after around 10 years of service. Despite being a better quality metro train than the 319s, Thameslin˚ has always been more than the 'city' services and not just another Crossrail, so why did the DFT spec a metro train to go over 100 miles? The latter Electrostars are also awful because of their introduction of Ironing Board seating, especially in so-called 'First Class' (these trains are often used as the 'express' unit, where the 700 is the 'stopping' unit, so why spec them with the same seats). Finally, the IETs are not popular with the vast majority of people and were a complete downgrade from the HSTs and IC225 sets that they replaced. I've seen the same seats used on suburban trains in Barcelona, yet with better padding! I still don't understand why a refurbishment to replace the seats in these units hasn't been scheduled. BR sprinter units got many refurbishments, replacing the seats in the first 10-15 years of their lives, why not do it with this disastrous 2010s rolling stock?

 

[Taunton]

The disappointment of the new DLR trains is top of the list. Not only are they still sat in sidings years after intended introduction, but their lethargic testing has ruined weekend service across the system for several years now.

 

[The exile]

The 158s with the original seating of course have the legroom issue.

And their ventilation issues led to a pretty awful ambience before the smoking ban (now it’s just when it’s hot!)

 

[Tetragon213]

And their ventilation issues led to a pretty awful ambience before the smoking ban (now it’s just when it’s hot!)

I've never noticed the 158s or 159s to be particularly short on legroom.

Granted I'm not exactly the tallest man in the room, but otoh neither am I minion-sized nor endowed with a physique reminiscent of a greyhound.

Ventilation-wise, I don't remember it being particularly problematic unless the air-con was busted (which, on SWT/SWR's fleet was a rare occasion indeed when I used them to go to college a decade ago).

 

[silexa]

I took a Chiltern Mk5 set the other day, and I was so disappointed. It felt so cheap inside. The seats were rock hard and the overall vibe of the coach was that of a doctors office, albeit a modern one.
Can't fault the Cl68 powering it though!

 

[AM9]

... Despite being a better quality metro train than the 319s, Thameslin˚ has always been more than the 'city' services and not just another Crossrail, so why did the DFT spec a metro train to go over 100 miles? The latter Electrostars are also awful because of their introduction of Ironing Board seating, especially in so-called 'First Class' (these trains are often used as the 'express' unit, where the 700 is the 'stopping' unit, so why spec them with the same seats). ...

The big issue on the TL routes is the high passenger demand with no practical affordable way to increase capacity to meet it other than providing a very high peak train capacity. The £6bn+ of the Thameslink Project has given a boost in peak capacity that was predicted to accommodate demand growth for some time at a relatively low overall cost.

 

[route101]

Always found the 385s a bit spartan but they do the job well.

 

[thenorthern]

Voyagers and Pendolinos have to be up there as they were new modern trains but let's face it both in the end got a bad repuation for cramped narrow coaches, small windows, toilet smells and loud noises from motors/engines. I would say Voyagers have a worse reputation than Pendolinos.

Class 180s were to many a disappointment as they failed to do what they were intended to do and that is replace the HSTs at First Great Western.

I personally don't have a problem with them but I have seen others say that the Class 195s are a disappointment as they are to some seen as the modern day pacer. To some they aren't as nice as the Class 185s they replaced on some routes.

The Mark 5A coaches built for TPE were a bit of a failure. Sure they have now returned to service with Chiltern but they didn't really work for TPE.

Realistically though the biggest disappointment in modern times was the Advanced Passenger Train. While there is a lot debate of who is to blame, whether it was Thatcher, the unions or British Rail management. The fact regardless of blame the whole project failed and cost a lot of money with little to show for it.

Outside of the mainline the T-69 stock was a faliure for the Midland Metro as it only lasted 16 years in service and had a lot of issues. The 1983 stock on the tube was also relatively poor.

 

[BurtonM]

Class 195s are a disappointment as they are to some seen as the modern day pacer.

Is this why Northern 150s seem to get a free pass?! If anything, the 150 is the modern day Pacer.

 

[Goldfish62]

Is this why Northern 150s seem to get a free pass?! If anything, the 150 is the modern day Pacer.

150s with 3+2 seating are absolutely awful trains.

 

[sh24]

Is this why Northern 150s seem to get a free pass?! If anything, the 150 is the modern day Pacer.

195 has a decent internal ambience and seats, let down by poor ride. A 150 rides better, but in every other way is massively inferior. Horrid trains. I didn't like them when they were introduced and they have not improved with age!

 

[Goldfish62]

195 has a decent internal ambience and seats, let down by poor ride. A 150 rides better, but in every other way is massively inferior. Horrid trains. I didn't like them when they were introduced and they have not improved with age!

Yes, a 195 with 150 ride quality would be an excellent train. A 150 with 195 ride quality would be as bad as it gets!

 

[Bletchleyite]

195 has a decent internal ambience and seats, let down by poor ride. A 150 rides better, but in every other way is massively inferior. Horrid trains. I didn't like them when they were introduced and they have not improved with age!

I've long thought that whoever specified the 20m Mk3 DMUs and EMUs (and the PEP derivatives before them) hated passengers. In particular a layout in which not one single seat is properly aligned to a window is something that takes real hatred and spite to bring into being - I can understand someone putting seats in with no regard to windows in Standard (e.g. the Mk3) but not doing it so it is almost deliberately "180 degrees" off is just miserly. The lot of them are workhorses but are awful to use, and they aren't missed down here one little bit.

Plenty of spite also built into the 150/2, which does have a few window aligned seats but to squash in 4 side facing seats per coach the legroom is only fit for a 10 year old.

I preferred a Pacer over a 150 any day.

The 319s were a bit nicer once the layout was changed to a low density airline seat layout, but overall that entire "genre" of units is just rubbish. The 321s had 3 window aligned rows in Standard which I tended to go for - the very tight spaced one backing onto the cab, a medium spaced one under the pantograph or a generous one (this was the best) backing onto 1st which was VERY popular, people would almost fight over it!

 

[Mikey C]

I've long thought that whoever specified the 20m Mk3 DMUs and EMUs (and the PEP derivatives before them) hated passengers. In particular a layout in which not one single seat is properly aligned to a window is something that takes real hatred and spite to bring into being - I can understand someone putting seats in with no regard to windows in Standard (e.g. the Mk3) but not doing it so it is almost deliberately "180 degrees" off is just miserly. The lot of them are workhorses but are awful to use, and they aren't missed down here one little bit.

Plenty of spite also built into the 150/2, which does have a few window aligned seats but to squash in 4 side facing seats per coach the legroom is only fit for a 10 year old.

I preferred a Pacer over a 150 any day.

The 319s were a bit nicer once the layout was changed to a low density airline seat layout, but overall that entire "genre" of units is just rubbish. The 321s had 3 window aligned rows in Standard which I tended to go for - the very tight spaced one backing onto the cab, a medium spaced one under the pantograph or a generous one (this was the best) backing onto 1st which was VERY popular, people would almost fight over it!

Which is why I always find it amusing when people talk about how wonderful trains were back in BR days. In addition to the poor seat alignment, the seats on many of that generation, especially the PEPs and 455s were awful too. Flat, ill-fitted cushions, loosely attached on the base.


Source from https://www.flickr.com/photos/rpmarks/52728045459

 

[yorksrob]

Which is why I always find it amusing when people talk about how wonderful trains were back in BR days. In addition to the poor seat alignment, the seats on many of that generation, especially the PEPs and 455s were awful too. Flat, ill-fitted cushions, loosely attached on the base.

View attachment 202933
Source from https://www.flickr.com/photos/rpmarks/52728045459

Oh they were. Just not the slidey-door nonsense.

 

[Clansman]

Oh they were. Just not the slidey-door nonsense.

I agree. It’s a shame 20m isn’t standard in the UK now as it really maximises the carriage width, which in our loading gauge goes a long way.

 

[AM9]

Oh they were. Just not the slidey-door nonsense.

Nothing wrong with sliding doors, - I can clearly remember when the outer-suburban services on the GEML were provided by MK1 non-corridor slammers but the metro services to Shenfield were class 306s (for northeners, think class 506s on the Glossop line) which were far quicker to load/unload at busier times.*

Myth has it that slammers were quicker, which they may have been for the first to alight, usually before the train had stopped, but the last to board had to step into a nest of feet and there was always one or two doors left open, - so their dwell times were often slower than with the 306s.

 

[bramling]

Nothing wrong with sliding doors, - I can clearly remember when the outer-suburban services on the GEML were provided by MK1 non-corridor slammers but the metro services to Shenfield were class 306s (for northeners, think class 506s on the Glossop line) which were far quicker to load/unload at busier times.*

Myth has it that slammers were quicker, which they may have been for the first to alight, usually before the train had stopped, but the last to board had to step into a nest of feet and there was always one or two doors left open, - so their dwell times were often slower than with the 306s.

They worked well with seasoned commuters on outer-suburban services. It’s hard to envisage how the traditional “London Bridge platform 6” would work today though, where it was essentially normal for trains to depart with people still trying to get on.

 

[yorksrob]

They worked well with seasoned commuters on outer-suburban services. It’s hard to envisage how the traditional “London Bridge platform 6” would work today though, where it was essentially normal for trains to depart with people still trying to get on.

A bit trickier on 6, with lots of CEP's and Hastings DEMU's admittedly !