The worst train today?

[61653 HTAFC]

As that was how they improved the 155. So how bad was the 155 to start with?

Though it wasn't (and wasn't intended to be) an improvement as such. It was simply a way to solve a problem and fill a niche for single-car units without having to order new-build.

 

[irish_rail]

Only had one ride but the 745 was appalling, everything from the abysmal ride, to the ugliness of the train and the bizarre location of doors on a so called intercity train. Felt like I was sitting in the trains vestibule even though I wasn't.

 

[vlad]

I've criticised 153s on this forum regularly and been shot down in flames every time. It's therefore both concerning and vindicating that a lot of people now agree with me!

 

[MattRat]

I've criticised 153s on this forum regularly and been shot down in flames every time. It's therefore both concerning and vindicating that a lot of people now agree with me!

Oh they are of course terrible units regardless. I'm basically arguing semantics about the 155 vs 153, and it doesn't really matter, since you could say both are a bad as each other.

 

[xotGD]

153s are way better than Northern 150s. 2 + 2 seating, tables, doors at the ends so the place doesn't freeze.

 

[D365]

While quiet and nippy, 172s have the blandest, most rubbish interior I've ever seen. To think that First Great Western considered them for the Portsmouth Cardiff route is beyond me; at least the Express Turbos have half tables and declassified first at each end. I also think it's ridiculous that the seats in 315s and previously the 314s survived so long. They're the equivalent height of children's stools. I also think East Midlands Railway's 360s are revolting, dirty and unpleasant inside, and regardless of journey length a downgrade from a Meridian (probably my favourite diesel unit)'s interior to that is just cruel.

But the worst train overall, for me?
Northern's 150s have to be the worst in my opinion. Old, slow, noisy - but it is that ridiculous "cram 'em in" interior that does it for me, where the airline seats feel like the ones in front may decapitate your legs at any time, and the fact barely any of the facing seats have a window view. Add in the dodgy colour scheme and the irritating ">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>" on the PIS and it's just not a nice atmosphere. I much preferred the bench-seat pacers.

Disagree on both counts (172 and 150), but it's worth pointing out that the Class 172 additional order (the one that never came to light) was not a First initiative.

 

[alansheppard77]

Just for a bit of fun, I'm doing the opposite of another thread 'What is your favourite train?'

This will most likely end up revolving around bashing your most hated train, but try to keep it somewhat light hearted as at the end of the day, they're only trains.

I also only want ones that are still on the network as of writing, just so we can go out to point and laugh at anything we agree on

I'll start. Class 155. We all know the Class 153 is bad right? A single carriage that would be better as a bus than a train, and isn't PRM compliant. Bonus points if two are coupled together pointlessly when any 2 car unit would be better. Well, except the 155. The train so bad, the 153 was an improvement on it. Shockingly, some survive in revenue earning service.....

Your turn.

Easy answer to that is class 150

 

[HST274]

In what way are the 172s worse than 170s, and what makes you feel the 323s are overrated?

To develop- 170's have tables. Big plus. This gives a feel of airiness and more space, which the 172's do not have in my opinion. Seat comfort is better on the 170's too. Added to that I preferred the ride of a 170. I suppose I noticed it more because I travelled the Birmingham- Hereford line, and noticed the difference as 170's were removed.

The 323's are overrated because they do their job to the standards but not much else, whereas I think people give too much credit. They have no tables, the 3 x2/ 3 x 3 (my memory fails me seat formation is awkward, and is great for a busy commute ( the target market I know) but uncomfortable in a less busy time. They are older, and therefore less neat and smart (in other words more rough around the edges). Travelling between carriages is through a cramped door with handle, harder to do than an automatic. They do the job like I said, but aren't nice to be on overall.

Both these 'petty' complaints will hopefully be fixed by the arrival of the 196 and 730's, whenever that may be. I admit it is hard to create a train which needs to be prepared for a packed peak but is comfortable in the middle of the day when the train is empty. The 170's I feel gave that, with the tables and seat comfort.

 

[Some guy]

A northern 150 they should be long gone

 

[XAM2175]

I'm basically arguing semantics about the 155 vs 153, and it doesn't really matter, since you could say both are a bad as each other.

If the trains are identically bad but a 153 has only half the capacity, it's the loser. They exist purely because BR was being extraordinarily cheap. The fact that you say "that was how they improved the 155" makes me think that while you do have an opinion, you don't have any understanding.

 

[py_megapixel]

Disagree on both counts (172 and 150), but it's worth pointing out that the Class 172 additional order (the one that never came to light) was not a First initiative.

Please elaborate on what stock in service today a Northern 150 does a better job than...

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

In what way are the 172s worse than 170s.

Have you seen the interiors??

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Disagree on both counts (172 and 150), but it's worth pointing out that the Class 172 additional order (the one that never came to light) was not a First initiative.

I didn't know it wasn't First's idea, so that's interesting, but the point I was making is someone thought they were ideal for a 3.5 hour journey!

 

[150249]

153s are way better than Northern 150s. 2 + 2 seating, tables, doors at the ends so the place doesn't freeze.

Specifically the 150/1s

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To develop- 170's have tables. Big plus. This gives a feel of airiness and more space, which the 172's do not have in my opinion. Seat comfort is better on the 170's too. Added to that I preferred the ride of a 170. I suppose I noticed it more because I travelled the Birmingham- Hereford line, and noticed the difference as 170's were removed.

The 170s and 172s are different for a few reasons: 170s were designed for regional express work, so have an interior and drivetrain appropriate for such work. 172s were primarily a 150-replacement so were designed with this in mind. Had additional 172s been ordered for GWR there's no reason they couldn't have been fitted with a more 170-style interior.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2022 ==

Please elaborate on what stock in service today a Northern 150 does a better job than...

Depends on the job, but I'd rather a 150 through Castlefield than any end-doored 15x.

 

[HST274]

The 170s and 172s are different for a few reasons: 170s were designed for regional express work, so have an interior and drivetrain appropriate for such work. 172s were primarily a 150-replacement so were designed with this in mind. Had additional 172s been ordered for GWR there's no reason they couldn't have been fitted with a more 170-style interior.

That makes sense. The 170's were probably of better use elsewhere, but I still missed them when replaced by the 172's. Not the worst train by far, just what I would consider a worst substitute.

 

[Richard Scott]

If talking about how fit it is for the purpose it's undertaking then the Voyager without a doubt. Hideous loathsome things.

 

[bramling]

Have you seen the interiors??

The 172 is a suburban train, so one would expect the interior to be different to a 170. The latter have found their way onto some suburban services, but that isn’t really what they were built for in most cases.

 

[MattRat]

If the trains are identically bad but a 153 has only half the capacity, it's the loser. They exist purely because BR was being extraordinarily cheap. The fact that you say "that was how they improved the 155" makes me think that while you do have an opinion, you don't have any understanding.

They could have done it with any unit, but they did it to 155s. Clearly something was wrong with them and they thought they would be better than 153s.

 

[py_megapixel]

If talking about how fit it is for the purpose it's undertaking then the Voyager without a doubt. Hideous loathsome things.

But actually very fit for purpose, considering the interior layout and the high top speed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2022 ==

Have you seen the interiors??

They look fine to me. Pretty much like a suburban Electrostar but diesel; nothing wrong with that.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Please elaborate on what stock in service today a Northern 150 does a better job than...

A GWR 769 would be the answer but they can’t even achieve “in service”…

 

[py_megapixel]

A GWR 769 would be the answer but they can’t even achieve “in service”…

I had forgotten the 769s. A flawed idea, executed on the cheap, delivered several years late, and still not working properly.

I would argue that on the occasion that do work (on Northern or TfW), the passenger experience is basically the same as a 150 but with less of the awful racket from underneath... so slightly better.

 

[Richard Scott]

But actually very fit for purpose, considering the interior layout and the high top speed.

No, interior is poor, general ambiance is poor due to engine noise and vibration; too few seats per set. Afraid they are so awful train and no improvement on what they replaced. At least mark 2 rakes had sufficient coaches and interior was well laid out and big plus point for no irritating diesel engines underneath.

 

[HST274]

But actually very fit for purpose, considering the interior layout and the high top speed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2022 ==


They look fine to me. Pretty much like a suburban Electrostar but diesel; nothing wrong with that.

I would agree with you that voyagers are fit for what they do, mostly. Doubling the sets has helped enourmously.

On your other point- the 387 has tables and is 4 cars, though often 8 cars in a 2 x 2. Even when busy it is usually possible to find a seat or have a reasonable amount of space in the vestibule. Because the inside is newer (?) it also looks neater and cleaner. Not entirely about interior, but I would stand by the fact that my experience of a GWR 387, was preferable to a 172 (both busy) and on a level with the 170.

 

[brad465]

80x: Flimsy, cheap-feeling and apparently almost the only new train that is available, so becoming ubiquitous everywhere away from the former Southern... and keeps being suggested for roles entirely unsuited (such as replacing short HSTs in Scotland and the West Country).

I feel like when it comes to peak technology, the best interior comfort was from the 70s-90s (or at least it certainly isn't now), while the best acceleration, efficiency, etc. is around now.

Especially the 465/2s with the water sloshing around inside the bodies...

Considering they're all in storage now anyway, presumably with no operating future, does this count towards the question of this thread?

 

[Irascible]

I feel like when it comes to peak technology, the best interior comfort was from the 70s-90s (or at least it certainly isn't now), while the best acceleration, efficiency, etc. is around now.

I'd go back further, stuff being designed in the late 60s was definitely with passenger comfort in mind and some actual comfort. Other than the speed very small me wasn't terribly happy with HSTs arriving, didn't appreciate the interior much. Or the brake stink or the automatic doors who wanted to remind you they were automatic doors every 30s. I would put up with all of that rather than the current misery, though.

--

GWR's 150s are a different breed to the other ones, it seems. At least the stuff that's worse is gone, finally! pretty much anything that isn't looked after properly is going to be "the worst".

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They could have done it with any unit, but they did it to 155s. Clearly something was wrong with them and they thought they would be better than 153s.

The alternative option was a new-build single-car class 152 unit built by Metro-Cammell and based on the 156. Because the 155s were troublesome and needed rectifying anyway, and someone worked out they could squeeze a cab in the internal ends, the 153 conversion was chosen as it was considered better value for money.

 

[Bikeman78]

If talking about how fit it is for the purpose it's undertaking then the Voyager without a doubt. Hideous loathsome things.

Good call. They still smell of poo 20 years later.

 

[MattRat]

I feel like when it comes to peak technology, the best interior comfort was from the 70s-90s (or at least it certainly isn't now), while the best acceleration, efficiency, etc. is around now.

I'd say some 2000's trains like the 175s and 180s are up there in terms of comfort. Just a shame the weren't reliable enough in the beginning, so more weren't made.

Like imagine a world where we had 180s replace HSTs instead, and then Alstom made a bi mode that was their own version of the 80x but based on the 180....

Like why did we have to get stuck with such horrible trains instead?

 

[DM352]

I would also say 153 in the day when they did the Trent Valley line and were underpowered often being held back for the two track section, since having been quadrupled.

To add variety for today, class 455/7 exTSO carriagelow hissing doors with different button mechanism(better since refurb), many grab handes that have to use luggage racks instead of to the roof,lower ceiling, and what used to be squeaky breaks stopping. To early comments on 455/7 a few years ago, most commuters do not care as it is transport to get from A to B and would not want a fake mk3 style roof added!