195s truly awful, not a step forward

[Bletchleyite]

I think they delivered a superb unit. I'd personally take one over a 185 any day.

To drive, or as a passenger? I cannot as a passenger think of a single element of the experience on a 195 that is in any way better than a 185 other than capacity if travelling Standard.

 

[skyhigh]

7. Generally more intuitive for train crew (based on dwell times)

From a driver point of view, maybe. They're pretty poor from a guard's perspective- staggered door controls, unusual DKS arrangement, ASDO that might or might not work...

 

[superkev]

I think the CAF 331/ 195s are eventually turning out to be excellent trains apart of course from the appalling ride and they are heavier than the benchmark 158.
Unfortunately the new Flirts with there level boarding have rendered all previous trains obsolete.
I fail to understand why when all buses and coaches have integral, often powered ramps and lifts, even new trains need a heavy metal drawbridge and member of staff.
K

 

[Nym]

I fail to understand why when all buses and coaches have integral, often powered ramps and lifts, even new trains need a heavy metal drawbridge and member of staff.

Paperwork.

 

[driverd]

To drive, or as a passenger? I cannot as a passenger think of a single element of the experience on a 195 that is in any way better than a 185 other than capacity if travelling Standard.

Honestly, as a passenger, although it's a controversial opinion I know (gives me an idea for a thread actually). 185s are louder, more laterally rough (eg: great for wiping things off tables when they hit a rough track joint), personally find the seats are hideously uncomfortable, toilets have a way of always being vile places to be (even when clean), to name but a few. I suppose I wasn't setting the benchmark high, with how I feel about them!

From a driver point of view, maybe. They're pretty poor from a guard's perspective- staggered door controls, unusual DKS arrangement, ASDO that might or might not work...

I wouldn't disagree on the drivers side - however, the reason I mentioned dwell times is on average we're stood at stations far longer with a 170 than a 195. I think in part the 170s are just slow to do things, eg: once a command is given, such as doors close, the units just take a while to think about it/make it happen.

 

[Killingworth]

Ramps, drawbridges, take time to deploy. I recently saw one in use on a 195 at Meadowhall. A quiet train and achieved in a textbook operation without any fuss, but the train left at least a minute later than it would have done with a Greater Anglia Flirt.

I first travelled on a 195 for a demonstration run from Victoria to Rochdale and for a section it felt as though we were on badly corrugated track. They do seem to ride poorly over any imperfections. That said the majority of less railway savvy users appear to find them an improvement on what they've replaced. I wonder what difference moquette fabric makes to the general ambience?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ramps, drawbridges, take time to deploy. I recently saw one in use on a 195 at Meadowhall. A quiet train and achieved in a textbook operation without any fuss, but the train left at least a minute later than it would have done with a Greater Anglia Flirt.

I first travelled on a 195 for a demonstration run from Victoria to Rochdale and for a section it felt as though we were on badly corrugated track. They do seem to ride poorly over any imperfections. That said the majority of less railway savvy users appear to find them an improvement on what they've replaced. I wonder what difference moquette fabric makes to the general ambience?

It is certainly true that a bit of sticky backed wood effect plastic, warmer white LEDs and rich, luxury looking seat fabric make the 185s look very comfortable regardless of how comfortable they actually are. Northern's stark, utilitarian, cold look is to me an epic fail, it is a very unfriendly look to me.

I am usually a fan of Best Impressions, but this is just about their worst effort.

 

[AM9]

... It's fair to say that this is all compromise. If you want a good ride, you'll have to gain some mass to bulk up the bogie. This in turn hits performance and track access charges. I also think they're broadly comparable with 700s in terms of ride quality (the best comparison would be 331s over mainline sections, let's not forget the vast majority of northerns network is secondary branch lines and is poorer/older track work than many other places) - I really think people overplay the ride, it's not smooth but it's not noticeably worse than most over internal frame bogied MUs. ...

I disagree as a passenger that the UK Civities give a ride anywhere near as good as the Desiro Citys and some trains running on Flexx-eco bogies. I've ridden the 331 from Doncaster to Leeds (as used by ECML services) and back, The 195 from Liverpool South Parkway to Piccadilly (CLC) and very revealingly the 397 from Piccadilly to Preston. None of those lines are by any stretch on the imagination "secondary branch lines" - the 397 even felt rough on the WCML from Euxton to Preston. There was the same jittery lateral twitch on all three examples, - what is the common denominator? answer: all three trains were CAF Civity models running on their prized inside frame bogies, presumably with anti-yaw dampers welded onto inadequate aluminium body panels, - so wait for the fireworks on the 397s.
As you've raised the point that the 700s also have problems, - presumably for the passengers' ride rather than them being setup for 'cab passengers', so far the TL services on the MML ride far better than the 319s (undestandable) and 377/387s. This is particularly true on the track between Hendon and Elstree Tunnel where the underlying trackbed has had problems since before electrification (1981). The lightweight SF7000 bogies cope with the kinks in the track far better than the heavier Electrostars (even when the 387s were brand new) and the Meridians with their 14-year old Flexx-eco inside frame bogies also make light work of the imperfections in the track. I've ridden in class 345 Aventras between Harold Hill and Brentwood (both ways) at speeds around 80mph on the GEML slows, - not exactly a 'billiard table' mainline track, and their ride seemed smooth and without incident.
My point is that the brand new 195/331/397 fleets from CAF have a pretty shoddy performance almost everywhere they run, whereas their contemporaries just deal with it. Civitys may have been cheap and the manufacturer wasn't that busy at the time, but apart from the faux par of ordering diesel-only trains in the mid-teens of the 21st century, what was delivered doesn't look like much of a bargain anyway!

 

[ScottGallagher]

Any progress on getting them passed beyond Maryport on the Cumbrian Coast?

 

[Pacco]

Would happily take them on the Buxton line. Uphill it's deafening. Also with the better windows you'll actually be able to see the Peak District.

 

[Mikey C]

I disagree as a passenger that the UK Civities give a ride anywhere near as good as the Desiro Citys and some trains running on Flexx-eco bogies. I've ridden the 331 from Doncaster to Leeds (as used by ECML services) and back, The 195 from Liverpool South Parkway to Piccadilly (CLC) and very revealingly the 397 from Piccadilly to Preston. None of those lines are by any stretch on the imagination "secondary branch lines" - the 397 even felt rough on the WCML from Euxton to Preston. There was the same jittery lateral twitch on all three examples, - what is the common denominator? answer: all three trains were CAF Civity models running on their prized inside frame bogies, presumably with anti-yaw dampers welded onto inadequate aluminium body panels, - so wait for the fireworks on the 397s.
As you've raised the point that the 700s also have problems, - presumably for the passengers' ride rather than them being setup for 'cab passengers', so far the TL services on the MML ride far better than the 319s (undestandable) and 377/387s. This is particularly true on the track between Hendon and Elstree Tunnel where the underlying trackbed has had problems since before electrification (1981). The lightweight SF7000 bogies cope with the kinks in the track far better than the heavier Electrostars (even when the 387s were brand new) and the Meridians with their 14-year old Flexx-eco inside frame bogies also make light work of the imperfections in the track. I've ridden in class 345 Aventras between Harold Hill and Brentwood (both ways) at speeds around 80mph on the GEML slows, - not exactly a 'billiard table' mainline track, and their ride seemed smooth and without incident.
My point is that the brand new 195/331/397 fleets from CAF have a pretty shoddy performance almost everywhere they run, whereas their contemporaries just deal with it. Civitys may have been cheap and the manufacturer wasn't that busy at the time, but apart from the faux par of ordering diesel-only trains in the mid-teens of the 21st century, what was delivered doesn't look like much of a bargain anyway!

I regularly use the 700s, and while I hate the interior have never had an issue with the ride quality. Ditto the 710 Overground Aventras

By contrast I was shocked by the 331 joltiness between Preston and Kirkham, newly electrified track so not exactly a long forgotten backwater

 

[AM9]

I regularly use the 700s, and while I hate the interior have never had an issue with the ride quality. Ditto the 710 Overground Aventras

By contrast I was shocked by the 331 joltiness between Preston and Kirkham, newly electrified track so not exactly a long forgotten backwater

I suppose we should let those in Northern land be satisfied with the 195s, after all they only have clapped-out Pacers and Sprinters to compare them with. We can't do much about the CO2, but at least the nox and the noise will will be confined to where they are operated.

 

[Jamesrob637]

They'd be put to the test along Dawlish with their panoramic windows but also exposed to the elements down there! I find that, apart from there being too many 2-car sets, they aren't bad at all.

 

[AM9]

They'd be put to the test along Dawlish with their panoramic windows but also exposed to the elements down there! I find that, apart from there being too many 2-car sets, they aren't bad at all.

The bogie and bodywork welding failures brought on by testing Lancashire breezes would be dissolved by lashings of Channel brine.

 

[supervc-10]

I've not tried a 195 yet, but been on a few 331s. They're.... fine. I don't like the black backs to the seats- feels very oppressive. The ride is tolerable, but not amazing, although I can't say I've compared it to any other trains over the same stretches of track in recent memory apart from a 397, which has the same sort of issues! They're a long way off a 350, but I suppose they serve a good purpose.

The 2-car 195s though should never have been built in such number.

 

[MCSHF007]

I like the 195s, but absolutely second the posts that suggest that the two car versions are hopelessly inadequate. They'd be great (for what they do) as three cars.

 

[NewClee153]

Every one of those points is not unique to 195s or even any Civity models. They are just typical of modern stock, but... They have poor riding qualities compared with their contemporaries (e.g. Desiro Citys and Aventras) and even older stock e.g. Desiro UKs, Voyagers/Meridians, and even some Turbo/Electrostars. Add to that the inadequate robustness of the bogie-Body interface, which they haven't even got right on the 331s, - it's a pretty poor show for what is a basic requirement. The performance is just what a bigger engine gives, and any train with MAN 390KW engines under every car will give better performance than the 315KW on the 170s or 360KW prime power units used on the 172s.
The bottom line is that they are poor performers from a passenger pov. Obviously passengers on the services that were previously run with Pacers or 150s will think they are a marvellous improvement, but compared with new trains deployed elsewhere from other manufacturers, they are shabby and disappointing to put it mildly.

Pretty much what you said. Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to reply

 

[Wolfie]

To drive, or as a passenger? I cannot as a passenger think of a single element of the experience on a 195 that is in any way better than a 185 other than capacity if travelling Standard.

Agreed.

 

[Killingworth]

I like the 195s, but absolutely second the posts that suggest that the two car versions are hopelessly inadequate. They'd be great (for what they do) as three cars.

Noting a well loaded 2 car on westbound Hope Valley service I couldn't agree more. A big step up from Pacers - although steps up are an issue on both. It would help if they could work in multiple with walk through connection, but that's no longer an option.

 

[507020]

I've not tried a 195 yet, but been on a few 331s. They're.... fine. I don't like the black backs to the seats- feels very oppressive. The ride is tolerable, but not amazing, although I can't say I've compared it to any other trains over the same stretches of track in recent memory apart from a 397, which has the same sort of issues! They're a long way off a 350, but I suppose they serve a good purpose.

The 2-car 195s though should never have been built in such number.

On the WCML, 350s previously ran the routes now operated by 397s and 185s previously ran the routes now operated by 195s, which would have made for a good comparison, as well as against the gold standard of a Pendolino. You still get 185s on the Hope Valley and to compare them to.

What needs to happen with the 2 car 195s is they need to be lengthened to 3 cars, perhaps with an unpowered trailer to save money.

 

[adrock1976]

My very first sample of a 195 was the 8 minutes delayed 15:39 Warrington Bank Quay - Chester (the 13:42 ex Leeds via Halifax and Man Vic), with 195005+011 on that working.

I found them to be quick off the mark from a standing start compared with the Pacers and Sprinters, sufficient table of 4 seats although not all aligned with the table being in the centre below the window.

The ride quality seemed reasonable, however, on departure from Runcorn East the train seemed to juddered slightly (unsure if a mechanical "feature" of the train or whether it was the track condition).

Albeit this is an unscientific observation, I would need to ride a few more at varying times of the day to see whether I totally like them or whether they are totally rubbish. Although mentioned upthread that there are maybe too many 2 car 195s that were built, when wires reach more routes (optimist thinking), perhaps they could start to replace the 150s over time (the 2 prototypes were built in 1984, with the rest built 1985-86)?

 

[Bigman]

I am not rightly fussed as long as they turn up, get you there, and you can get a seat. If they do order any more, they really should be built with corridor connections given that so many are working as 4-car sets.

 

[YorksLad12]

I am not rightly fussed as long as they turn up, get you there, and you can get a seat. If they do order any more, they really should be built with corridor connections given that so many are working as 4-car sets.

If they had corridor connections they wouldn't be class 195s

Much as I'm favour of good working conditions for the drivers, the class 196/197 style would have been better for passengers and guard/revenue protection.

 

[NewClee153]

I boarded my first 195 a couple of weeks ago, if their remit was “be better than pacers” then great, but they’re awful in comparison to any other northern stock, apart from the class 150s, but there’s not a lot in it.

The build quality leaves so much to be desired, as it’s been mentioned, it feels like they’ve been rushed out to replace the pacers. The ride quality is among the worst I’ve ever experienced, and I’m not even being hyperbolic.

They have absolutely no character like some of the older northern stock, it’s hard to find any redeeming features if I’m being honest

After riding some more 195s, I can concede that I may have been a little harsh, on the class 150s.

It may because I don’t ride them regularly, but I have been on 2 class 195s today and 1 class 150, and the journey on the class 150 far eclipses the 2 journies on the class 195s

Firstly, the seating has to be among the stiffest I have ever used, the ride quality doesn’t improve, no matter where you sit, the constant rattling appears to be a mainstay feature of these units, the panels look so cheap and cost effective, when they’re dirty, you can really tell

The 150(/1, I might add), was a much sturdier ride, the seats were far more comfortable, at the expense of some legroom, the engine noise - while loud, wasn’t as intrusive as the constant jolting and bumping experienced in a 195. So yeah, given the choice, I’m going on a sprinter every time, I also rode a (northern) class 158 - which I do regularly, as a Smethwick GB local, and found myself getting comfortable very quickly, despite the ironing board seating

I will caveat this by saying, this is my opinion, I understand everybody doesn’t feel this way, also, I’m autistic, so the inconsistent level of noise the suspension causes on a 195 is going to be more of an inconvenience to me than engine noise

 

[physics34]

Remembering that soft seats and sprung seats offer a kind of secondary suspension, its no surprise that people are calling out ride quality on modern units. Such poor planning.

 

[AM9]

Remembering that soft seats and sprung seats offer a kind of secondary suspension, its no surprise that people are calling out ride quality on modern units. Such poor planning.

Trains that had 'soft seats' (e.g. MKI coaches) needed them because the BR1 bogies were so dire. The soft seating acted as the secondary suspension. Modern bogies have graded primary and seconndary suspension designs that (should) ensure a better ride.

 

[sd0733]

Firstly, the seating has to be among the stiffest I have ever used

I also rode a (northern) class 158 - which I do regularly, as a Smethwick GB local, and found myself getting comfortable very quickly, despite the ironing board seating

Unless I'm mistaken aren't the seats on a Northern refurb 158 and 195 identical? Surely if they are stiff on a 195 they must be on a 158 too.

 

[Halish Railway]

Remembering that soft seats and sprung seats offer a kind of secondary suspension, its no surprise that people are calling out ride quality on modern units. Such poor planning.

Indeed, I was on a Chiltern Silver Set that gave an interesting ride, however, this was dampened by the soft and squidgy seats. Had it had the 195/331s seats I’d imagine that the ride quality would’ve been unbearable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless I'm mistaken aren't the seats on a Northern refurb 158 and 195 identical? Surely if they are stiff on a 195 they must be on a 158 too.

Yep, exactly the same.

Indeed, I was on a Chiltern Silver Set that gave an interesting ride, however, this was dampened by the soft and squidgy seats. Had it had the 195/331s seats I’d imagine that the ride quality would’ve been unbearable.

Plenty of Mk3s have/had Grammer IC3000s, which aren't a really hard seat but aren't bouncy either. Those are fine, they just feel like Mk3s, which do ride a bit oddly with side-to-side sway but not harshly.

 

[NewClee153]

Unless I'm mistaken aren't the seats on a Northern refurb 158 and 195 identical? Surely if they are stiff on a 195 they must be on a 158 too.

It most have something to do with the legroom/places to put your feet etc. I’m able to get comfortable on a 158, whereas on a 195, I never feel settled when sitting