The worst train today?

[D365]

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?

Not sure what you mean by ”Alstom [would have] made”. They supply trains in accordance with very strict requirements. If you’re saying that Alstom could, in a different world, have been a contender for IEP, the trains would be turned out in accordance with the DfT contracts.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

378 and 710, if I wanted a tube train, I'd have gone on the underground.

 

[mike57]

=1st 150s on Northern with 5 across seating. Uncomfortable for anything other than very short journeys, Been stuck on one once or twice from York to Preston, totally unsuitable for a 2hr+ trip
=1st Voyagers, specifically 220/221 I haven't been on 222s. I think others on here have adequately covered their short comings, but my personal gripe is providing 4/5 carriages when passenger loading frequently require 7+. Whilst they provided improved performance over the rolling stock they replaced passenger comfort took a nose dive.
2nd 319s introduced on Northern post electrification, only advantage over a lot of the stuff they replaced is no under floor engines and the right number of wheels per carriage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

They are for different purposes. 170s are regional express units. 172s are units for urban local services which directly replaced 150s and are much better than them. You don't want tables on urban stopping services as it means people have to get up to let others out. Would you have tables on Merseyrail? The Snow Hill lines are not much different from it.

 

[yorksrob]

They are for different purposes. 170s are regional express units. 172s are units for urban local services which directly replaced 150s and are much better than them. You don't want tables on urban stopping services as it means people have to get up to let others out. Would you have tables on Merseyrail? The Snow Hill lines are not much different from it.

Actually, some small window tables and seat back tables would be very handy on such services and would not impede people getting in and out. Having three across airline seating is what blocks people in.

On our local urban service we sometimes get a 158 and sometimes a 150. We don't have any great problems getting on and off of the 158.

 

[py_megapixel]

378 and 710, if I wanted a tube train, I'd have gone on the underground.

But they are effectively providing the same type of service that the Underground has, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The train having orange in place of red does not stop it operating a high-capacity, high-frequency commuter service with frequent stops (and thus similar requirements to the Underground).

Plus they are modern and electric, so win easily over sprinters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they are effectively providing the same type of service that the Underground has, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The train having orange in place of red does not stop it operating a high-capacity, high-frequency commuter service with frequent stops (and thus similar requirements to the Underground).

Plus they are modern and electric, so win easily over sprinters.

I personally think the 345 layout with bays and longitudinal are better for this sort of service. Also the 378 has a quite dingy interior - the heavily diffused lighting does make for a pleasant, relaxing long distance trip, but it has the totally opposite effect on that sort of train.

 

[DustyBin]

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.

They did have a few teething problems, I don’t think that’s why they were chosen however. There were the right number of 155s for the conversion programme; only issues around ownership prevented the full class from being converted as I understand it. Also, due to their Leyland National style modular construction they would have been relatively easy to rebuild.

Personally I don’t mind the 155s. I very rarely travel on them and when I do it’s only York-Leeds but they’re perfectly adequate for that kind of journey IMO.

 

[wobman]

153s are terrible units and unfortunately tfw are getting as many as they can, only to get rid of their best units the 175s!

 

[387star]

Class 166 Turbos are rancid

 

[yorksrob]

I think the best layout for Northen's 150's would be recreating the 333 one, with the 2's arranged as airline and the 3's as bays.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They did have a few teething problems, I don’t think that’s why they were chosen however. There were the right number of 155s for the conversion programme; only issues around ownership prevented the full class from being converted as I understand it. Also, due to their Leyland National style modular construction they would have been relatively easy to rebuild.

Personally I don’t mind the 155s. I very rarely travel on them and when I do it’s only York-Leeds but they’re perfectly adequate for that kind of journey IMO.

I believe 156s were also considered.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I believe 156s were also considered.

Have a look at the inner end of a 156 car, and you'll see this wasn't the case- there's no room to squeeze a cab in there. The alternative to 153s were new-build, 156-based single-car units (Class 152).

The reason WYPTE's 155s remained as-built was that there was no requirement for single cars in West Yorkshire. Low demand services were covered by 141s, 142s, and 144s.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I agree with most that 150s are awful but their one saving grace is that they have a number of single seats which are handy if, like me, you prefer not to have anyone sitting next to you.

For me the worst train must be Northern’s (relatively) new 195s – it’s as if Northern made a list of all the bad things about other units and combined them to make the most uncomfortable train imaginable.

Hard, uncomfortable seats, bumpy ride quality, too many tables and not enough airline seats, tiny bins so people leave their rubbish out, a bike space with pull down seats which is inevitably occupied when you get on with a bike, obtrusive TV screens flashing up constant warnings about things you don’t need to know.

Add to this the fact that many have only two coaches on routes where a minimum of three are needed and only one toilet (the 158s they replaced had two) and a 195 really is the train from hell!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with most that 150s are awful but their one saving grace is that they have a number of single seats which are handy if, like me, you prefer not to have anyone sitting next to you.

For me the worst train must be Northern’s (relatively) new 195s – it’s as if Northern made a list of all the bad things about other units and combined them to make the most uncomfortable train imaginable.

Hard, uncomfortable seats, bumpy ride quality, too many tables and not enough airline seats, tiny bins so people leave their rubbish out, a bike space with pull down seats which is inevitably occupied when you get on with a bike, obtrusive TV screens flashing up constant warnings about things you don’t need to know.

Add to this the fact that many have only two coaches on routes where a minimum of three are needed and only one toilet (the 158s they replaced had two) and a 195 really is the train from hell!

I still maintain my view that the 195s were underwhelming and "built on the cheap". However, as a direct replacement for 150s, 153s and 156s it is very hard to say they are worse. 158s probably retain an edge, but they're a completely different concept aimed more at "long, thin" routes.

They were certainly not good for the long distance express routes, but it seems DafT Northern has realised this and they've started cropping up on stuff they're quite good at such as Manchester area local stopping services. There isn't much choice but to use them on Barrow/Windermere due to the need for 100mph running so they don't clog up the WCML.

 

[py_megapixel]

I've said this sort of thing before, but I fail to see how anyone with average length legs or longer can think ironing boards are worse than the seating as built in 150s and Mk3-derived EMUs, unless they have never actually sat in them for a substantial period and are just jumping on the "British Rail good" and "ironing board bad" bandwagons.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've said this sort of thing before, but I fail to see how anyone with average length legs or longer can think ironing boards are worse than the seating as built in 150s and Mk3-derived EMUs, unless they have never actually sat in them for a substantial period and are just jumping on the "British Rail good, ironing board bad" bandwagon.

Particularly as the "ironing boards" fitted to Class 195s/331s and the Scottish Hitachis are NOT the same as the ones on the 700s. The base is totally different and vastly more comfortable.

Yes, almost anything is better than sitting on the floor, sorry, Ashbournes. I'd even take a Sophia over those.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely the class 230 is worse than a pacer? At least they managed to work some services in their life!

Reliability wise certainly - not from a passenger comfort/accessibility/facilities point of view.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reliability wise certainly - not from a passenger comfort/accessibility/facilities point of view.

From a facilities point of view they're quite nice - a bit like a FLIRT on the cheap due to the quirky layout. Like 175/180s, they're good above the solebar (bar the slow doors) and bad below it.

 

[DarloRich]

From a facilities point of view they're quite nice - a bit like a FLIRT on the cheap due to the quirky layout. Like 175/180s, they're good above the solebar and bad below it.

Still better than the 153 that smelled of wee!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still better than the 153 that smelled of wee!

I believe that classic 153 niff is due to the insulation on the inside exhaust.

 

[Deltafoxtrot87]

If you look along the length of most 153s, they do indeed sag noticeably in the middle. I don't know of any actual issues that causes though.

I read somewhere that it's because they were built out of lightweight weakish material and because of their length

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2022 ==

Still better than the 153 that smelled of wee!

I've been on one that smelled of weed going through Smethwick. Wasn't pleasant.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2022 ==

I still maintain my view that the 195s were underwhelming and "built on the cheap". However, as a direct replacement for 150s, 153s and 156s it is very hard to say they are worse. 158s probably retain an edge, but they're a completely different concept aimed more at "long, thin" routes.

They were certainly not good for the long distance express routes, but it seems DafT Northern has realised this and they've started cropping up on stuff they're quite good at such as Manchester area local stopping services. There isn't much choice but to use them on Barrow/Windermere due to the need for 100mph running so they don't clog up the WCML.

I think that they are adequate replacements for 150s and 153s, maybe 156s but yes they are no better than the 158s at least.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Voyagers, mobile toilets and very cramped

 

[Bikeman78]

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?

Once I'd got over the fact that they wiped out all the old bangers in the north west, I quite liked the 175s. They are a decent medium distance train. They have some odd quirks though, like having the floor heaters on but the air con blowing out cold air at the same time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2022 ==

Reliability wise certainly - not from a passenger comfort/accessibility/facilities point of view.

If they don't work then everything else is irrelevant. Pacers were pants but at least you knew they would actually make it to destination.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once I'd got over the fact that they wiped out all the old bangers in the north west, I quite liked the 175s. They are a decent medium distance train. They have some odd quirks though, like having the floor heaters on but the air con blowing out cold air at the same time.

That's very common. The aircon is used to dry the air and change it over, whereas the heaters warm it up if necessary. Same on (also Alstom) Pendolinos at least.

 

[MattRat]

Once I'd got over the fact that they wiped out all the old bangers in the north west, I quite liked the 175s. They are a decent medium distance train. They have some odd quirks though, like having the floor heaters on but the air con blowing out cold air at the same time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2022 ==


If they don't work then everything else is irrelevant. Pacers were pants but at least you knew they would actually make it to destination.

I'll take quirks over lack of leg room. It can't just be me that thinks the 158s lack leg room, right? I suppose that doesn't make the worst trains ever, but I think it's a important part of the mix.

Like I don't get why we have to settle for less on a lot of trains. Sure, a Pacer got us to our destination, but I don't think all of our body did.

And now I can't stop thinking how a 769 fits all the criteria for bad train design....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll take quirks over lack of leg room. It can't just be me that thinks the 158s lack leg room, right? I suppose that doesn't make the worst trains ever, but I think it's a important part of the mix.

Have you tried one of the Northern refurbs? They show what thin-backed seats can do - on the original, fully window-aligned layout (give or take a bit of tweaking to add priority seats), the legroom is excellent. As built it was awful. That's simply because as built a 158 seat is about 3" thick, whereas an ironing board is under 1".

A 769 is just a double 150 with a pantograph. Units with 20m Mk3 derived vehicles really are much of a muchness. Solid workhorses, but awful for the passenger and definitely not up to modern standards.

 

[MattRat]

Have you tried one of the Northern refurbs? They show what thin-backed seats can do - on the original, fully window-aligned layout (give or take a bit of tweaking to add priority seats), the legroom is excellent. As built it was awful. That's simply because as built a 158 seat is about 3" thick, whereas an ironing board is under 1".

A 769 is just a double 150 with a pantograph. Units with 20m Mk3 derived vehicles really are much of a muchness. Solid workhorses, but awful for the passenger and definitely not up to modern standards.

I'll have to try them, my experience is EMR. A 769 isn't a solid workhorse though. While the 319 was/is, the 769s are unreliable, that's why getting them into service has been so hard. Still same awful interior too, so what exactly is the redeeming feature compared to other trains? I mean, I guess they aren't as cramped as a 153, but that isn't saying much....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll have to try them, my experience is EMR. A 769 isn't a solid workhorse though. While the 319 was/is, the 769s are unreliable, that's why getting them into service has been so hard. Still same awful interior too, so what exactly is the redeeming feature compared to other trains? I mean, I guess they aren't as cramped as a 153, but that isn't saying much....

They're a bi-mode, so no filthy diesel under the wires.

 

[MattRat]

They're a bi-mode, so no filthy diesel under the wires.

Do you consider all diesel trains bad?