Express Sprinter vs Turbostar

[Prestige15]

From my previous thread about Electrostar vs Desrio (Thanks to that member who turned into a poll) I came up with another poll, 158/159 v 170-172


I like both of them but overall i'm going to the ExS (express sprinter), My favorite of which would be SWT 159's due to the comfy seats and the livery that suits it well, Getting long in the tooth but still a great DMU, Intercity style end doors, Air con, Good view out and in my opinion looks and feels airy and spacious. The only thing they lack is 100mph and a pity that will never happen.

Which of these do you like the most?

 

[northwichcat]

I like the 170s but I've not been on a 172 but I'm aware they have Merseyrail style seating so with firmer seats and no tables and armrests I don't think a 172 is suitable for a longer journey.

 

[sprinterguy]

I like the Turbostars, but in terms of performing the function of a regional diesel unit the class 158/159s are pretty much ideal, so they get my vote: Carriage end doors, excellent ride quality, good noise insulation, good interior layout, comfortable seats (always a contentious issue) and large windows the dimensions of which allow for perfect seat to window arrangement if desired.

I know many like to criticise the ineffectual or inoperative aircon on the units but personally, in around twenty years of travelling on the trains, I cannot ever recall encountering an issue in that respect.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I like the 170s but I've not been on a 172 but I'm aware they have Merseyrail style seating so with firmer seats and no tables and armrests I don't think a 172 is suitable for a longer journey.

Though this style of layout used on the London Midland 172s is ideal for the sort of suburban services that they operate: The 170 that spends its' day on the Snow Hill lines feels very cramped in comparison at peak times. Less than ideal is the same layout on the Chiltern 172s when they see use on Marylebone - Birmingham services, though, which is where a properly specced regional unit is far more suitable.

 

[FQ]

I went for turbostar. I'm not a huge fan of the 158s although they are one of the better DMUs but 159s are completely banned for me. I'm not a fan of 170-172s for several reasons but trying to compare them is tough since what they're intended for is different than the 158s/159s. For a short distance suburban hop, a 170 is ideal but for long distance travel, a 158 is much better with vestibule end doors.

 

[sprinterguy]

I went for turbostar. I'm not a huge fan of the 158s although they are one of the better DMUs but 159s are completely banned for me. I'm not a fan of 170-172s for several reasons but trying to compare them is tough since what they're intended for is different than the 158s/159s. For a short distance suburban hop, a 170 is ideal but for long distance travel, a 158 is much better with vestibule end doors.

The 172s are a very different beast due to the nature of the services they were ordered for, but the 158/159s and 168/170s were both specified as regional express trains; the latter having taken over from the former directly in some cases (Scotrail Edinburgh/Glasgow - Aberdeen/Inverness, Central Trains Cardiff - Nottingham/Birmingham - Stansted).

 

[Prestige15]

The 172s are a very different beast due to the nature of the services they were ordered for, but the 158/159s and 168/170s were both specified as regional express trains; the latter having taken over from the former directly in some cases (Scotrail Edinburgh/Glasgow - Aberdeen/Inverness, Central Trains Cardiff - Nottingham/Birmingham - Stansted).

I believe the 172 is the weakest of the lot.

 

[sprinterguy]

I believe the 172 is the weakest of the lot.

As I've mentioned above I think that the 172s are excellent suburban/commuter trains, but make for poor regional ones: They're competing in a different field to their 170 and 171 cousins, essentially.

 

[168lover]

I went for turbostar as otherwise I wouldn't be living up to my username

 

[superkev]

At several tons lighter I would say the 158/9 is a superior design on weight alone. I believe they are also slightly wider internally. However the end doors and vestibules are really only for inter city use. The air conditioning seems to need more maintenance than some operators are prepared to do.
I can't help thinking that with the 158s in mid life a mid life upgrade of the engine transmission to give a bit more go and better fuel economy as trialled by swt would be a good investment rather than just the redecorating currently being done by northern.
K

 

[superalbs]

I think that the re-transmissioning was shown to not be of much help in terms of fuel efficiency, despite allowing faster acceleration.

 

[dgl]

Thought that the change of transmission only helped fuel economy if it was used on services that stop regularly and not the regional express service that the 159's operate, as for acceleration whilst more of it is always nice on a train (although of course there is a limit) I would have thought that the acceleration of the 158/9 is good enough already (esp. compared to other regional/commuter DMU's) that is wasn't really necessary.

 

[Kyle1]

I've only ever used the CrossCountry 170's, so i don't know if other TOC's Turbostars are like it too, but i loathe them. No leg room, too short for the services they work, noisy etc.

On the other end of the scale, I really like the refurbished ATW 158's, they're quiet, the Aircon seems a little more reliable (haven't been on one yet with broken Aircon), good legroom, power sockets at tables etc. I'm indifferent to GWR 158's and dislike Northern's.

 

[northwichcat]

too short for the services they work

The same could be said of any train if the number of passengers is too high for the service. There are plenty of services where a 2 or 3 car 170 would be suitable even if XC don't have plenty of services where they are suitable.

I really like the refurbished ATW 158's

The ATW 158s and 175s are another example of trains too small for the services they work.

 

[xc170]

I can't help but notice, every time a thread like this comes up, if units are put on unsuitable routes, that's what they are judged on, not the actual quality of the unit it's self.

Voyagers are a prime example, the Voyagers are slated constantly on here, mainly down to overcrowding but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the train, they were just ordered too small.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Went for the Sprinters, simply because I'm more familiar with them. Haven't used a Turbostar since TPE lost the first batch and they stopped running through Huddersfield. When they ran here I preferred them to 185s though. Northern seem to have finally got the air conditioning working well on their 158s, which helps on a day like today!

 

[northwichcat]

Went for the Sprinters, simply because I'm more familiar with them. Haven't used a Turbostar since TPE lost the first batch and they stopped running through Huddersfield. When they ran here I preferred them to 185s though. Northern seem to have finally got the air conditioning working well on their 158s, which helps on a day like today!

I haven't used either in a while but the Liverpool-Norwich route would be easier for me to use than any current class 170 route.

I remember my first journey on a 175 and a 170 which was on the same day! A FNW 175 in to Piccadilly and a CT 170 out of Piccadilly and I was impressed with the 175 more but still liked the 170. When making the return journey I got a grubby 158 followed by a Merseytravel 142 which made the 175 look even better.

 

[superkev]

Thought that the change of transmission only helped fuel economy if it was used on services that stop regularly and not the regional express service that the 159's operate, as for acceleration whilst more of it is always nice on a train (although of course there is a limit) I would have thought that the acceleration of the 158/9 is good enough already (esp. compared to other regional/commuter DMU's) that is wasn't really necessary.

I would of thought say a 10% improvement in fuel consumption means less losses in the hydraulic transmission so more power left for the wheels.
A. 172 type 480hp engine and zf transmission would make the 158s real flyers. Perhaps the recovered 350 go Cummings could be used to give the rather pedestrian 150s a bit more go.
K

 

[Prestige15]

I haven't used either in a while but the Liverpool-Norwich route would be easier for me to use than any current class 170 route.

I remember my first journey on a 175 and a 170 which was on the same day! A FNW 175 in to Piccadilly and a CT 170 out of Piccadilly and I was impressed with the 175 more but still liked the 170. When making the return journey I got a grubby 158 followed by a Merseytravel 142 which made the 175 look even better.

I've been on the 175 myself and the way i see it a modern version of the 158 without a gangway, The engine is neat, possibly one if not the smoothest engine DMU around (until i try out the 800)

 

[Mordac]

Turbos by a small margin, my only experience of either being the Scotrail ones. Both are inferior to 175s and 185s though.

 

[Rail Blues]

I can't help but notice, every time a thread like this comes up, if units are put on unsuitable routes, that's what they are judged on, not the actual quality of the unit it's self.

Voyagers are a prime example, the Voyagers are slated constantly on here, mainly down to overcrowding but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the train, they were just ordered too small.

I agree, up to a point, but versatility is a great feature in a unit. Hence the fact we still have 37s running around, yet people are scratching their heads thinking what to do with 10 year old 185s when TPE release them. Ditto the 91, does a decent enough job on the East Coast, but where else could they be used effectively?Few units will spend their working lives on one service and ideally they should be as flexible as possible and this is where I think the 170s have the edge.

 

[hibtastic]

I'm a regular user of the Fife Circle and always prefer it when a 170 turns up. i generally find them more spacious and airy and just prefer the interior to the 158.

The 170 with its 1/3 and 2/3 doors also suits the Fife Circle route better due to the number of stations, and passengers so a bit unfair to compare with the 158 which is better suited to longer distance routes with less stopping.

 

[cf111]

Prefer the 170s myself but that might me because familiarity breeds contempt! Posted, coincidentally, from a raggedy old 158 between Forres and Nairn.

 

[BestWestern]

I agree, up to a point, but versatility is a great feature in a unit. Hence the fact we still have 37s running around, yet people are scratching their heads thinking what to do with 10 year old 185s when TPE release them. Ditto the 91, does a decent enough job on the East Coast, but where else could they be used effectively?Few units will spend their working lives on one service and ideally they should be as flexible as possible and this is where I think the 170s have the edge.

The only thing that comes to mind which would make a Turbostar more versatile, would be the 1/3 and 2/3 doors? And all that means, of course, is that they can be used on local stuff as well as regional/long distance. And that would surely mean they are a compromise for the long distance work. I'd much rather travel on end doored stock, without the frequent delights of draught, noise and general commotion straight into the saloon at every stop. And the 158s also have the joy of a corridor connection, which is a very welcome feature for both passengers and crew!

 

[TH172341]

Has to be 170s - well 168s actually - but identical internally - favourites Chiltern's, and do like the look of Scotrail's. Interally very comfortable - good seating and cosy atmosphere. Air Con/Heating ideal. Ride quality smooth, and noise levels low.

I do like 158s, but feel most need a good quality refurbishment carrying out. 168s/170s/172s are a cut above certainly.

 

[Kite159]

The ideal Turbostar would have been based on a 172 with gangways, but with the interior from a 168. So good acceleration from the improved engine with a decent interior suitable for mid-length trips.

Just imagine if that DMU order which Great Western (and Northern) wanted to order a few years ago wasn't cancelled, 4-coach 172s with a 168 interior (good mix of tables and airline seating, plug sockets etc)

 

[bramling]

From my previous thread about Electrostar vs Desrio (Thanks to that member who turned into a poll) I came up with another poll, 158/159 v 170-172


I like both of them but overall i'm going to the ExS (express sprinter), My favorite of which would be SWT 159's due to the comfy seats and the livery that suits it well, Getting long in the tooth but still a great DMU, Intercity style end doors, Air con, Good view out and in my opinion looks and feels airy and spacious. The only thing they lack is 100mph and a pity that will never happen.

Which of these do you like the most?

Close call between them, and they both have good and bad points which can vary depending on use.

Turbostars generally have a good interior layout, with more legroom than most variants of 158, and generally the Turbostar's door configuration is better for dwell times, where the 158s can really suffer badly if on a service with frequent stops.

I'd say as trains I'd rate them pretty much equally, but if having to choose between one or other I'd just about go for Turbostar simply on door configuration and probability of getting a 3-car unit over 2-car.

 

[Rail Blues]

The only thing that comes to mind which would make a Turbostar more versatile, would be the 1/3 and 2/3 doors? And all that means, of course, is that they can be used on local stuff as well as regional/long distance. And that would surely mean they are a compromise for the long distance work. I'd much rather travel on end doored stock, without the frequent delights of draught, noise and general commotion straight into the saloon at every stop. And the 158s also have the joy of a corridor connection, which is a very welcome feature for both passengers and crew!

Yes, in the case of the 158/170 it is primarily that, but think it makes a big difference in the cascadability (is that even a word?) of the two classes. As the name suggests , as units age they cascade 'down'. Something that electrification will hasten. Regional/long distance routes are getting wired up first, DMUs will be likely to find themselves cascaded onto local work where the 13 2/3 door arrangement works better.

My point was a more general one though, it was in response to a claim that you can't damn a unit if it was used for unsuitable services. I agreed (up to a point) but argued that if a unit can only be used effectively and cost efficiently on a very small number of routes, then that could be considered a design flaw/limitation of the unit. The 185 being a case in point!

 

[J-2739]

I'm more familiar with 158s also, so another EP vote for me!

 

[dgl]

159's for me. For the service they are used on they appear to be perfect.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

 

[Johncleesefan]

Gonna have to represent for team 158 also as I drive them