The shape and the fact that they feel hewn out of solid granite.What makes them so awful?
The shape and the fact that they feel hewn out of solid granite.What makes them so awful?
006 + 109Today on 5Q66 1342 Long Marston to Tyesley. Some 196s got moved back to Tyesley does anyone know which 196s they was please. Thank you.
I thought they were meant to be the most comfortable seats of all the Civity DMUs, apparently being FISA Leans or a variant of them (even if they don't have arm rests and the window seats are too close to the wall).The shape and the fact that they feel hewn out of solid granite.
Thank you for the update.006 + 109
I thought it had now been said they won't be used on East West Rail.
That was my experience too. My first journey on one today (196101) The hardness of the seat was very noticeable. No comfort whatsoever!The shape and the fact that they feel hewn out of solid granite.
The mind goggles what the others are like....I thought they were meant to be the most comfortable seats of all the Civity DMUs, apparently being FISA Leans or a variant of them (even if they don't have arm rests and the window seats are too close to the wall).
`And, as I've said before, the trains they replace have armrests, and these don't. Armrests make a big, big difference to the comfort for me personally.That was my experience too. My first journey on one today (196101) The hardness of the seat was very noticeable. No comfort whatsoever!
The unit came out of service at New Street as there were no functioning bogs on board.
`And, as I've said before, the trains they replace have armrests, and these don't. Armrests make a big, big difference to the comfort for me personally.
Yes it just seems like a shame, because even though a 172 and 195 is more comparable, the 170s are what the Shrewsbury and Hereford lines have had solidly for the past fifteen years or so. We'll disregard the recent takeover of 172s on the Hereford service because that has just been a stopgap while 170s disappear off to EMR.To be honest I would be surprised if these were more comfortable than WMT's 170s with the heavyweight metal framed, thickly padded seats. I'll be more comparing them with 172s and 195s.
(168/170s were fitted with two types of seats - a heavyweight painted metal frame and a lighter, powder coated Chapman design - the WMT units have the better of the two (the former), Chiltern have the presumably cheaper one, I can't recall about others).
Same seats as the GA 745s? So, yeah hard... and no lumber support either. Horrendous that STILL there is no proper review of passenger comfortThat was my experience too. My first journey on one today (196101) The hardness of the seat was very noticeable. No comfort whatsoever!
The unit came out of service at New Street as there were no functioning bogs on board.
Same seats as the GA 745s? So, yeah hard... and no lumber support either. Horrendous that STILL there is no proper review of passenger comfort
That's fair comment.Lumbar support is bad on train seats because different people need it at different heights.
I've regularly used Chiltern, both 168s and previously 172s, and the 196 seats are far far worse. They compare unfavourably to your average bus seat.To be honest I would be surprised if these were more comfortable than WMT's 170s with the heavyweight metal framed, thickly padded seats. I'll be more comparing them with 172s and 195s.
(168/170s were fitted with two types of seats - a heavyweight painted metal frame and a lighter, powder coated Chapman design - the WMT units have the better of the two (the former), Chiltern have the presumably cheaper one, I can't recall about others).
Agreed, Chiltern 168 seats are comfy in my opinion.I've regularly used Chiltern, both 168s and previously 172s, and the 196 seats are far far worse. They compare unfavourably to your average bus seat.
More like 20 years. Since LM came about the two services have been almost universally provided by 170s, with exceptions including the 172s as you have already listed, but also 150s and 153s for a limited number of services in the past. During the days of Central Trains (at least the latter half which I have memories of) 170s were still probably the dominant stock, but other classes such as 156s and 158s could also be found.Yes it just seems like a shame, because even though a 172 and 195 is more comparable, the 170s are what the Shrewsbury and Hereford lines have had solidly for the past fifteen years or so. We'll disregard the recent takeover of 172s on the Hereford service because that has just been a stopgap while 170s disappear off to EMR.
The seats fitted to the former WMR 170s are I believe manufactured by Lazzerini, and are also fitted to the XC fleet. I’ve only travelled on a couple of Scotrail 170s but they had chapman seating if I recall.(168/170s were fitted with two types of seats - a heavyweight painted metal frame and a lighter, powder coated Chapman design - the WMT units have the better of the two (the former), Chiltern have the presumably cheaper one, I can't recall about others).
I have searched for a little while now and I have had no luck, quite often you will find that the website (the one with the link below) will upload relevant information this evening.Just seen a 196 at Wolverhampton on the 07:39 from Shrewsbury - didn't catch the number tho so if anyone could let me know what it is that would be great
196102Just seen a 196 at Wolverhampton on the 07:39 from Shrewsbury - didn't catch the number tho so if anyone could let me know what it is that would be great
He usually does it in the mornings, and I don't think he's doing as much right now so it's best to request in TOPS threads if you need to know.I have searched for a little while now and I have had no luck, quite often you will find that the website (the one with the link below) will upload relevant information this evening.
Allocations are only posted on weekdays I believeI have searched for a little while now and I have had no luck, quite often you will find that the website (the one with the link below) will upload relevant information this evening.
196 102 ran the 12:00 out of new street, and is diagrammed to form the 15:00 BHM-SHRLooks like it picked up a lot of delay earlier but is now back on time. Does anyone know if the unit was swapped or it is still out on that diagram (e.g. 1400 off New St)? Anyone seen the other diagram?
196 102 ran the 12:00 out of new street, and is diagrammed to form the 15:00 BHM-SHR
I guess so, although I’m just going off of the unit I’ve just been on (12:00 from new st). 196 110 is also running and will form the 13:00 from BHM if all goes to plan. I don’t know if the 14:00 will still be a 196 or not.Ta. Looks like I have a reasonable chance of finding one today then! It looked like it would be the 1400 when I checked the timetable, has there been a swaparound?
I guess so, although I’m just going off of the unit I’ve just been on (12:00 from new st). 196 110 is also running and will form the 13:00 from BHM if all goes to plan. I don’t know if the 14:00 will still be a 196 or not.
Hope that the WMT allocation team are on your side.Ah, I am being thick. With a running time of just over an hour, three diagrams are needed for hourly, not two. I'd not be there for 1300, if the gates are open I might have a look to see about the 1400 and if not go for the 1500. Going up on Chiltern so won't already be inside.
Hope that the WMT allocation team are on your side.
Agree.. but these seem to have none at allLumbar support is bad on train seats because different people need it at different heights.
Agree.. but these seem to have none at all