But better if you need neither a bike space or a USB socket which from experience is the vast majority of passengers.
What’s this supposed to mean? These features are parts of the modern passenger experience, which have come to be expected in recent years, especially since the 769s replace Sprinters with these features on the same services.
Why would Northern spend a fortune retrofitting USB ports if they aren’t wanted by the vast majority of passengers?
I disagree on the ride, - the 769s are much smothered, especially in the driving ends where the additional weight of the genset's makes for a far less bumpy experience. And the noise, - that really is an improvement.
All ex-BR bogie designs provide a smooth ride compared to something like a 195 anyway. The Sprinters aren’t identical, but I must admit I always sit in the driving cars of the 769s with the Diesel engines. It really can’t be overstated how much of an improvement the reduction in noise is.
USB ports might help those who can't be bothered to either charge their devices before they travel, or carry a portable chrager, but the majority of passengers wouldn'rate that above basic comfort needs, specially as the average journey on the 769s is probably well under an hour.
USB sockets I observe seem to be very rarely used. People who have phones which don't hold a charge usually have a power bank, but increasingly phone batteries do last a full day.
I always fully charge my device before I leave the house and carry a portable charger if I am likely to be using it a lot that day, but when USB ports (or 240V sockets) are present on the train I will always use them. I would rather have as much charge as I can get.
Bike space yes, but you could easily provide that by taking 6 seats (3 rows on one side) out.
An easy fix but not exactly a crisis as it stands. I’m sure people will always find a way to get a bike on and store it, not like they’re banned or anything.
The two ‘issues’ that make a 150 a ‘better’ unit are both niche and to the vast majority of passengers (I’d wager well over 90%) they are a total non-issue.
You could just remove the first class area which isn’t needed and only results in the loss of 12 seats to create a parcel van area similar to 150s and 156s which is always appreciated to accommodate bikes and luggage. I actually don’t understand why they didn’t do this before they entered service.
It is certainly not a non-issue and I do see a lot of people taking bikes on 769s, probably more so at the Southport end than the Manchester end.
Given the experimental nature of the 769s, I think that now Northern have learnt how to handle their foibles, they are quite acceptable as a fill-in for a few years that at least goes some way to minimise CO2 and particulate pollution.
The benefits of a 769 over a pair of 150’s are huge and far outweigh the reasons given for why they are, to quote ‘worse to travel on than sprinters’.
I also strongly agree with this. Provided they run, as well as freeing up a number of Sprinters to strengthen other services, they provide Northern with valuable proof of concept for bi-mode operation, make use the recent electrification that would otherwise see Sprinters under the wires and consequently reduce Diesel pollution both in Manchester city centre when running on electric and on Diesel with their much more modern engines.
That is a downside but not in the post I was replying to. It was the inference that a more environmentally sound train with an almost identical interior is somehow inferior to a dirty diesel unit due to 2 very niche requirements.
A 769 as a whole is not inferior to 2 dirty Diesels, but the interior simply is inferior since it lacks some of the facilities present on the Sprinters, which as you say are requirements. The 2+2 156 interior is nothing like identical.
Fortunately though, the reliability issues of 2021 are virtually behind them.