The worst train today?

[D365]

Do you consider all diesel trains bad?

Given the choice, why would diesel traction ever be a preferred option to electric?

 

[Deltafoxtrot87]

Given the choice, why would diesel traction ever be a preferred option to electric?

Some lines don't make sense to electrify so you'd prefer diesel traction.

 

[D365]

Some lines don't make sense to electrify so you'd prefer diesel traction.

Being that this discussion is based around passenger experience, and that @Bletchleyite was talking about "filthy diesel under the wires", my question was based on a direct comparison of diesel vs electric on an electrified route.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Still better than the 153 that smelled of wee!

And much, much better than a Voyager that smells of poo.

 

[MattRat]

Given the choice, why would diesel traction ever be a preferred option to electric?

Depends. The best diesels will be better than the worst electrics, surely. Are you suggesting someone can't nominate an electric?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you consider all diesel trains bad?

Yes (much as the sound of a 68 is an impressive thing). They are old-fashioned. The future of the railway has to be zero-emissions, otherwise road will beat it into submission. Why have a 1980s DMU chugging up and down a branch line if you can have a clean, modern electric bus?

I'll settle for bi-modes as part of a progressive programme of electrification (then once done, take the engines off and scrap them, which gives you an EMU), but orders for "pure" DMUs must stop.

Does that mean I think a 313 is nicer than a 195? Clearly not, but the overall principle applies.

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

Depends. The best diesels will be better than the worst electrics, surely. Are you suggesting someone can't nominate an electric?

To be fair I nominated "all 20m Mk3 derived MUs" - that includes the rather larger number of EMUs (317/8/9/20/21/455 etc) than DMUs. Near enough all of them have the same problems for passengers - noisy, 3+2 seating (mostly), no aircon, poor window alignment.

 

[AM9]

Adressing a passenger's point of view, I'm considering the ambience of trains including ride, noise, and ventilation or a/c:
way ahead with a poor experience is the 150, they have a mediocre ride, make a hell of a noise and ventilation/heating is unpredictable (even when other passengers don't do the wrong thing with the windows. The 319 or 769 is nowhere as bad as a 150 in terms of noise and the ride in all cars but the MSO is far better.
From a passenger's expectation point of view, the CAF 195s, 331s and even the 397s are a great disappointment given that they are supposed to be better than their predecessors. Having more engine power but a poorly performing suspension system is like trying to get a comfortable ride in a tennager's dream VW Golf with an overtuned engine and a drop suspension with a hardened suspension setup. I can only assume that the culprit is the inside framed bogies' setup. Other manufacturers seem to make them work a lot better (e.g. Siemens, Bombardier, Alsthom).

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The absolute worst train type I've experienced personally was the 141. One set of 4-leaf folding doors to each coach, which would flap in the wind at speed (and occasionally lose interlock, bringing the unit to a grinding halt.) 2+2 unidirectional bus seating, to the same proportions as other pacers but crammed into a bodywidth so narrow that the 5th seat couldn't be accommodated. The guards door controls were crazily located in a flap-covered box above the doors, which had massive steps to board. Passenger accommodation was pathetic, about 90 IIRC. The traincrew slam-doors had no dividing partition, there was a metal bar placed across the vestibule like on an old tube train. The ride quality was UTTERLY APPALLING - worse than the later 142 & 144 units which were positively luxurious by comparison. Rough jointed track on the Harrogate line at 65mph, there was no noticeable effect from the suspension. Assuming you reached that speed, as the 4-speed epicyclic gearboxes driven from TL11 engines - taken directly from the Leyland National bus - had a tendency to seize. Stopping was also fraught as the brakes were cable-operated and known for failing unsafe. My father was on a unit in the late 80s that suffered brake failure arriving York and ran into the buffers at 15mph. Horrid ****ty design, let's hope we never see the likes again.

 

[py_megapixel]

The absolute worst train type I've experienced personally was the 141. One set of 4-leaf folding doors to each coach, which would flap in the wind at speed (and occasionally lose interlock, bringing the unit to a grinding halt.) 2+2 unidirectional bus seating, to the same proportions as other pacers but crammed into a bodywidth so narrow that the 5th seat couldn't be accommodated. The guards door controls were crazily located in a flap-covered box above the doors, which had massive steps to board. Passenger accommodation was pathetic, about 90 IIRC. The traincrew slam-doors had no dividing partition, there was a metal bar placed across the vestibule like on an old tube train. The ride quality was UTTERLY APPALLING - worse than the later 142 & 144 units which were positively luxurious by comparison. Rough jointed track on the Harrogate line at 65mph, there was no noticeable effect from the suspension. Assuming you reached that speed, as the 4-speed epicyclic gearboxes driven from TL11 engines - taken directly from the Leyland National bus - had a tendency to seize. Stopping was also fraught as the brakes were cable-operated and known for failing unsafe. My father was on a unit in the late 80s that suffered brake failure arriving York and ran into the buffers at 15mph. Horrid ****ty design, let's hope we never see the likes again.

That's not a train of today, though, as they are thankfully all gone!

 

[bramling]

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....

In the case of 158s, part of the reason for poor legroom was that BR was attempting to pack as much as possible into two carriages. Hence why such trains are quite difficult to work nowadays especially when there’s luggage, cycles or whatever on board.

Was it not the case that in the case of Sprinters BR has to make do with two vehicles for every three they replaced?

 

[Towers]

Another vote for Hitachi's recent efforts here. A woefully poor intercity train, for so many reasons. I won't list them!

In essence, a poor design & spec from the outset, built badly and obtained via a contract which is widely accepted as having been very poor value for money. The result is not befitting of a nation's long distance rail network!

 

[Andyh82]

Another vote for the 150 - particularly the Northern ones with the as built seating - 3+2 airline formation, seats so low down you are practically on the floor, no seat back tables, very noisy.

As others have said, they are used interchangeably with other more modern stock including fairly long distance which makes them even worse

 

[Ken H]

I remember 150's when they were the first sprinters. they were used on Trans-Pennine. they were thought quite modern at the time and better than what was there before (Mk1 loco hauled coaches and DMU's). But that was long long ago - different times.

 

[xotGD]

I remember 150's when they were the first sprinters. they were used on Trans-Pennine. they were thought quite modern at the time and better than what was there before (Mk1 loco hauled coaches and DMU's). But that was long long ago - different times.

Trans-Pennine services were pressure-ventilated Mark 2s. 2+2 seating, all with tables and aligned with the windows. Doors at the end so you didn't freeze at every station stop. No engine rattling away under the carriage.

By what measure is a 150 an improvement?

 

[AGH]

Went on a 507 for the first time in a while recently. Really Showing their age, hammered and need to be put out of their misery sharpish. 150s arent up to the Northern requirements any more but I'm no fan of the 195 as a replacement. Only seats I like are the single flip downs near the doors. Flirts would be ideal but went cheap again.

I would however hold my greatest contempt for the 323 from a passenger perspective. Stupid placed external door button (try reaching up to it on Deansgate) too narrow vestibules and 3+2 seats only acceptable when not rammed. Just makes it ridiculous to move around. Yet we are getting more of these. 319s marginally better but not by much Would love a 350 on Liverpool to Manchester but no chance. Shame.

 

[Ken H]

Trans-Pennine services were pressure-ventilated Mark 2s. 2+2 seating, all with tables and aligned with the windows. Doors at the end so you didn't freeze at every station stop. No engine rattling away under the carriage.

By what measure is a 150 an improvement?

2 or 3 trains an hour. The LH ones were hourly. Sprinters were quicker too.

 

[py_megapixel]

I would however hold my greatest contempt for the 323 from a passenger perspective. Stupid placed external door button (try reaching up to it on Deansgate) too narrow vestibules and 3+2 seats only acceptable when not rammed. Just makes it ridiculous to move around. Yet we are getting more of these. 319s marginally better but not by much Would love a 350 on Liverpool to Manchester but no chance. Shame.

The 323s win over the 319s in other ways though, with much better doors, infinitely more comfortable seats (albeit at the expense of a narrow aisle as you say), far better performance (323s can't really keep up with 331s, but the 319s are so sluggish they might as well be diesels), a generally fairly modern feel, and apparently slightly less of a propensity to become a greenhouse in summer.

Can't say I've ever noticed the door button being an issue, though I am tall with long arms and I can see it could be an annoyance for some. Definitely not the most ridiculous door control position on the network though: that has to be a tie between the 333 with the external buttons stuck a ridiculous distance from the door operated, and the accessible toilets on Pendolinos where the open button looks like it's for the door between the vestibule and the saloon.

Back on topic, both do the job, the 323s I would argue quite a bit better than the 319s. I would be happy to see 323s for a few more years yet, while I really feel the 319s are ready for the scrap heap.

I agree that 350s would be nice, not that it will ever happen...

 

[FuzzyDuck]

Given the choice, why would diesel traction ever be a preferred option to electric?

My normal route is BSK-WAT, if I have a choice of a 158/159 or an EMU, diesel wins every time.

 

[MattRat]

Went on a 507 for the first time in a while recently. Really Showing their age, hammered and need to be put out of their misery sharpish. 150s arent up to the Northern requirements any more but I'm no fan of the 195 as a replacement. Only seats I like are the single flip downs near the doors. Flirts would be ideal but went cheap again.

I would however hold my greatest contempt for the 323 from a passenger perspective. Stupid placed external door button (try reaching up to it on Deansgate) too narrow vestibules and 3+2 seats only acceptable when not rammed. Just makes it ridiculous to move around. Yet we are getting more of these. 319s marginally better but not by much Would love a 350 on Liverpool to Manchester but no chance. Shame.

They aren't being looked after anymore since the 777s are arriving 'soon'. I agree that I'd rather see them die than be tortured though. If you want a good example of what the class should actually look like though, look at the 313, although many still hate it.

Also two things you got wrong. 319s and 323s don't do Liverpool to Manchester so 350s on that route wouldn't get rid of them anyway, and they wouldn't even be able to do that route as it isn't fully electrified (yes, really). Now a 350 on the actual routes of 319s and 323s, well, that would be overkill, but very nice. They (319 and 323) really do have an air of 'we don't care about the North, so they can have these units while we have all the good stuff'.

 

[AGH]

They aren't being looked after anymore since the 777s are arriving 'soon'. I agree that I'd rather see them die than be tortured though. If you want a good example of what the class should actually look like though, look at the 313, although many still hate it.

Also two things you got wrong. 319s and 323s don't do Liverpool to Manchester so 350s on that route wouldn't get rid of them anyway, and they wouldn't even be able to do that route as it isn't fully electrified (yes, really). Now a 350 on the actual routes of 319s and 323s, well, that would be overkill, but very nice. They (319 and 323) really do have an air of 'we don't care about the North, so they can have these units while we have all the good stuff'.

I commute on Chat Moss which last I checked is the original Liverpool to Manchester and fully electrified. 323 / 319 are regularly used on the Crewe service via Chat Moss. Don't like either but 323s pinch the worst title from a commuter perspective. Agree as you say about up North being the poor relation.

 

[Bikeman78]

(323s can't really keep up with 331s, but the 319s are so sluggish they might as well be diesels)

It is interesting to note that the similar class 317s are scheduled to cover the 3.9 miles from Tottenham Hale to Ponders End in four minutes, very close to even time, on a line that includes a neutral section. A good driver will achieve it reaching 85 mph in the process. Hands up if you think a 150 or 156 would manage it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

They aren't being looked after anymore since the 777s are arriving 'soon'.

Merseyrail never really look after anything, the whole network has a habit of looking quite tatty in places.

 

[david1212]

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 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.

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.

The Snow Hill lines are urban certainly to Kidderminster but on to Worcester is pushing urban to the limit.

While not e.g. Stanstead - Birmingham or Nottingham - Cardiff the 172's have or do work to Shrewsbury, Great Malvern & Hereford.

The real issue is perhaps rostering 172's for longer routes rather than them actually being poor ?

Regardless given intended for long distance routes I say 800/1/2 are the worst. Later builds with revisions may be better but I have yet to travel in one.

 

[MattRat]

Merseyrail never really look after anything, the whole network has a habit of looking quite tatty in places.

We probably should consider TOCs when talking about worst trains. For example, I've heard GWR 150s are much better than Northern 150s, so would that mean the 150s arent actually that bad? Same with 80xs, as the Lumo ones have been quite popular.

 

[Class465pacer]

HSTs. Sorry. I cant speak for other people but they have always come across as dull to me. Don’t forget the annoying slam door handle design that some had/still have. And the fact they’re diesel.

Honourable mention goes to the 769. Should have ordered new trains.

 

[AM9]

We probably should consider TOCs when talking about worst trains. For example, I've heard GWR 150s are much better than Northern 150s, so would that mean the 150s arent actually that bad? Same with 80xs, as the Lumo ones have been quite popular.

I disagree with that approach. The GWR150s might have better seats but they still have the failings of the class, poor ride, atrocious noise and poor ventilation, which in my experience, show themselves up when on the long stretches up and down the main line in Cornwall. They were introduced for suburban services where there was no immediate chance of electrification. Claiming that some are better because they have nicer seats, (a very subjective measure as always), is like praising a polished t*rd, they are still inadequate trains for many of the duties that they are deployed on.

 

[mike57]

2 or 3 trains an hour. The LH ones were hourly. Sprinters were quicker too.

I agree they were quicker, but we went from 1 x 6/7 coach LH per hour to 3 x 2 coach sprinters per hour, less of a wait but no real capacity improvement on a busy route and a definite comfort downgrade. Lets be honest 1st gen Sprinters and Pacers were about operating costs not comfort, speed etc.

HSTs. Sorry. I cant speak for other people but they have always come across as dull to me.

You have to put them in context of the time they were designed and introduced, late 70s early 80s. They made a big step change in journey times, certainly on the ECML, and they were more comfortable than the stock they replaced. They had teething troubles, I can remember a couple of runs from London to York on one engine, but they settled down to give over 40 years service. To put it in context if an HST were turn up on a London - York service non rail enthusiast passengers would probably not notice the difference apart from the manually operated doors, and you would probably arrive on time. Not much else from that period would pass that test.

In the days before speed limiters and speed data logging they also had the capability for quite a bit more than 125mph. I can remember a late running service out of Newcastle making up most of the lost time by York. The fastest I had experienced on any land vehicle upto that point (No GPS back then, early 80s, but from timing 130+ mph had to have been acheived and maintained between (not stopping) Darlington and York), and that personal record remained until I went on a French TGV in the late 90's

 

[yorksrob]

I disagree with that approach. The GWR150s might have better seats but they still have the failings of the class, poor ride, atrocious noise and poor ventilation, which in my experience, show themselves up when on the long stretches up and down the main line in Cornwall. They were introduced for suburban services where there was no immediate chance of electrification. Claiming that some are better because they have nicer seats, (a very subjective measure as always), is like praising a polished t*rd, they are still inadequate trains for many of the duties that they are deployed on.

I think that's unduly harsh on them. They do tend to be reasonably reliable, and you can achieve a lot in terms of passenger experience with attention to detail in the interiors, such as with the Wessex examples.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Snow Hill lines are urban certainly to Kidderminster but on to Worcester is pushing urban to the limit.

While not e.g. Stanstead - Birmingham or Nottingham - Cardiff the 172's have or do work to Shrewsbury, Great Malvern & Hereford.

The real issue is perhaps rostering 172's for longer routes rather than them actually being poor ?

It is vaguely comparable to Liverpool-Chester, so I think they are fine.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Surely the very worst train is a rail replacement bus?