Out of interest, why are the 158s vastly superior to the 170s? I've always thought it was the other way around. The first class provision is much nicer on the 170s. Personally, I do prefer the end door layout of the 158s though.
I think it's the obsession that some enthusiasts have with door layout - anything with doors nearer to the middle of the carriage is automatically dismissed as "suburban"
I'm quite surprised that the 158s will continue to work on the Borders and Fife Circle (and Perth and Dundee on occasions) when 170s could be retained and let the 158 fleet go down south, or replace the 156s out of Central. But no doubt someone will quote this paragraph and explain why
I'm not expert, but I guess that it'll be a combination of:
- with the "fast" services (central belt to Aberdeen/ Inverness) taken over by HSTs, there's less need for 100mph DMUs (still plenty of routes where 75mph 156s can cope though)
- higher leasing costs/ operating costs for the 170s? (both First and Abellio seemed happy to ditch the 170s ahead of the older DMUs)
Could be wrong though
Out of interest why did midland mainline need 170s and after that meridians for some of its services.... Not enoug hsts?
The initial 170s were all on "new" services, timed to connect with the existing London - Sheffield/ Nottingham services at Leicester (so that they'd sit at Leicester for ten or fifteen minutes), serving "local" stations en route so that the HSTs could be sped up.
A part of me has always thought the 170s were misconceived or misinterpreted by TOCs in terms of their design or purpose if you like. Looking at the history the decline from Intercity/Express to Suburban/Regional services is proof that TOCs mustn't have gotten what they expected out of them - but due to the fact that the majority of Intercity/Express TOCs operate from London, my statement is debatable and TOCs needed vaster capacity.(?)
It may just be that there was nothing "Intercity" being built until the Voyagers. The 170s were just marginally updated 168s which were updated 166s (in the grand scheme of things), so could be built fairly quickly.
It took longer until other "fast" stock (175, 180, 185, 220, 221, 222) was being built and TOCs could go for something more suitable (e.g. Hull Trains using 170s from Hull to London, upgraded to 222s then 180s).
I guess some TOCs preferred to go with a tried and trusted design, rather than order something bespoke and unique (unlike the hipsters at First Group!)
Both the 170s and 158s are awful in my view and I travel on them all the time. Tourists must think they have arrived in some backwards place, the have, when they see the stuff we have here relative to SNCF, SBB or OBB.
To illustrate an example, I run lots of trips for kids from the West Highlands. My staff have to supervise the travel, and to a woman, they want to avoid the train at all costs from Kyle, Inverness, Mallaig or Fort William as it takes ages, is totally out of date and much slower than the bus. I insist on the train however but it causes friction.
We are living with the legacy of decades of poor decisions and under investment.
1. When was the stock on the Kyle/ Mallaig lines brilliant? Enthusiasts would have enjoyed 37s or 26s, but not normal passengers
2. What level of stock do you realistically expect to Kyle/ Mallaig?
3. The kind of tourists heading to a metropolis like Kyle/ Mallaig etc are presumably attracted by the "backwards" charm, rather than expecting an Apple Store, a LEGO shop and a dozen Starbucks?