why does the long distance Norwich-Liverpool route still have 158's and not 170's

[cambsy]

why does the long distance Norwich-Liverpool route have the old clapped out 158's on it and not the newer 170 turbostars?i was in Norwich the other day and noticed a 158 on Liverpool train,suppose it could be due to it being East Midland Trains Franchise,what is this journey like on a 158?imagine it pretty rough and not much fun,can remember when t was 31's and 47's,even cabbed a 31 Ely to March

 

[transportphoto]

It used to be 170s in Central Trains days, I personally think that 158's are better suited overall. Its a controversial subject.

The refirb they've been through has been very good, I like it.

The route isn't designed for people to do end to end, its for smaller regional distances, I won't do Norwich to Liverpool (V-V) on them but I am going NRW to Manchester on one in February!

Tp

 

[Eagle]

why does the long distance Norwich-Liverpool route have the old clapped out 158's on it and not the newer 170 turbostars?

Because EMT don't own any 170s.

From December a lot of the services will be four cars, though.

 

[sprinterguy]

The former Central Trains 170s got moved over to Tyseley when the franchise was split into three between London Midland, EMT and Crosscountry, primarily for operation with London Midland as part of the DfTs' programme of consolidating train fleets.

There's nothing at all wrong with the EMT 158s, and they're certainly not at all clapped out. The EMT refurbishment of the units has brought them up to an excellent standard and a four carriage 158 formation, as many of the Liverpool to Norwich trains soon will be as far as Nottingham, offers more seats than a comparable four carriage 170 formation, and certainly more than a three carriage 170.

 

[Nym]

They don't OWN any 158s either, they lease them

But 158s are better suited to this route than 170s IMO, so long as the're 4 car 158s and not making local stops on the CLC.

 

[4SRKT]

Erm, because 158s are actually more suitable for long distance trains, due to their vestibule doors, rather than the 'suburban' type doors of a 170? I'd sooner a 158 than a 170/185 on any routes the latter operate, but because there is some sort of absurd idea that newer is better we get 170s on services like Edinburgh/Glasgow > Aberdeen/Inverness where half the coach side disappears at every stop and a freezing gale howls round the carriage, whereas we get 158s on suburban services where big doors directly into the saloon would help with dwell time on frequent stop routes.

 

[sprinterguy]

Erm, because 158s are actually more suitable for long distance trains, due to their vestibule doors, rather than the 'suburban' type doors of a 170? I'd sooner a 158 than a 170/185 on any routes the latter operate, but because there is some sort of absurd idea that newer is better we get 170s on services like Edinburgh/Glasgow > Aberdeen/Inverness where half the coach side disappears at every stop and a freezing gale howls round the carriage, whereas we get 158s on suburban services where big doors directly into the saloon would help with dwell time on frequent stop routes.

The shoddy acceleration of the 170s would completely do away with any benefits gained from reduced dwell times on regular stop services though. Other than that, I'm entirely in agreement with you. Limited stop regional journeys are exactly what the 158s are best suited to doing.

 

[Aictos]

Actually the 158s that East Midlands Trains do have ain't that bad, I've enjoyed many a trip between Peterborough and Ely/Norwich on one.

Although I do have to ask the question of London Midland to why don't they take the opportunity to have one diesel fleet consisting of 172s and cascade their 170s to other operators such as Cross Country etc...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Doesn't a 2-car refurbished 158 have more seats than a 2-car (maybe even 3-car) 170 anyway? If not then, I'm sure 2x158s would!

 

[ainsworth74]

I've done Norwich to Peterborough on a refurbished 158 and I have to say it was a very pleasant journey. Anyone refurbishing their own fleets of 158s would do well to look at the EMT specification and just copy it!

 

[ChrisCooper]

The shoddy acceleration of the 170s would completely do away with any benefits gained from reduced dwell times on regular stop services though. Other than that, I'm entirely in agreement with you. Limited stop regional journeys are exactly what the 158s are best suited to doing.

That's the 170s biggest problem, they are a compromise design intended to work both suburban and intercity trains, as well as regional, and really are not greatly suited to anything. The 1/3 2/3 door layout makes them less suited to longer distance regional or intercity work, and their 100mph top speed effects the latter too, yet their acceleration is not up to keeping time on suburban work with regular stops, or local regional work. They are a jack of all trades but master of none.

Also find in comparison to the 158s that they have much poorer ride on anything but very good track, a further problem on long distance regional work which often involves high speeds on poorer, even jointed, track. You don't get it as much these days since NR has put far more effort into track maintenance, but I remember in the early days it was not uncommon for them to violantly lurch from side to side at particularly bad spots. The only thing I prefer about the 170s though is that I'm not a fan of the EMT refurbishment as I think the seats are uncomfortable, too high backed and that the lighting is far too bright. Again, a long distance train where the lights are so bright it's hard to relax is not great.

 

[Aictos]

I've done Norwich to Peterborough on a refurbished 158 and I have to say it was a very pleasant journey. Anyone refurbishing their own fleets of 158s would do well to look at the EMT specification and just copy it!

Now you know why I like what EMT did with their HSTs!

 

[sprinterguy]

Doesn't a 2-car refurbished 158 have more seats than a 2-car (maybe even 3-car) 170 anyway? If not then, I'm sure 2x158s would!

As mentioned in my post above, yep, a 2-car 158 has more seats than a 2-car 170, not nearly as many as a 3-car 170 though.

 

[tbtc]

That's the 170s biggest problem, they are a compromise design intended to work both suburban and intercity trains, as well as regional, and really are not greatly suited to anything. The 1/3 2/3 door layout makes them less suited to longer distance regional or intercity work, and their 100mph top speed effects the latter too, yet their acceleration is not up to keeping time on suburban work with regular stops, or local regional work. They are a jack of all trades but master of none.

Also find in comparison to the 158s that they have much poorer ride on anything but very good track, a further problem on long distance regional work which often involves high speeds on poorer, even jointed, track. You don't get it as much these days since NR has put far more effort into track maintenance, but I remember in the early days it was not uncommon for them to violantly lurch from side to side at particularly bad spots. The only thing I prefer about the 170s though is that I'm not a fan of the EMT refurbishment as I think the seats are uncomfortable, too high backed and that the lighting is far too bright. Again, a long distance train where the lights are so bright it's hard to relax is not great.

Agreed.

170s work okay on Edinburgh - Glasgow (few stops, but large numbers boarding at them), but elsewhere they are "neither nowt nor summat" (as they say round these parts.

I'm happy with 158s on the Norwich service. The real problem is the figures that Central Trains gave to the DFT which meant the EMT side got a poorer stock allocation than the LM side - the problem isn't the 158s is that there weren't enough 158s to do the job. Four coaches, west of Nottingham, will do okay.

 

[northwichcat]

Relating to capacity differences, Central sometimes used 5 car 170 combinations on Liverpool-Norwich.

The problem with the 170 and 185 door layout is a lack of internal doors between the external doors and the passenger seating. However, both units have a feature whereby the external doors automatically close after a couple of minutes so it prevents too much heat escape during long dwell times.

The downside of 158s on Liverpool-Norwich is a lot of people board and alight at intermediate stations with short dwell times like Manchester Piccadilly, which 158s are not well designed for.

 

[Pumbaa]

I actually disagree with the majority of posters previously. The 158s are designed for long-distance regional routes *where the passengers are all going to the same destination*. Liverpool - Norwich is anything but.

The doors are too narrow, and most people are doing section hops. Large flows of passengers on/off at each stop. 158s lose time far more often than the 185s on both Liverpool - Manchester and Manchester - Sheffield legs. There's a reason why the xx22 off Liverpool is always more jammed than the xx52 - regular passengers prefer travelling by TPE.

I would argue that if the route has to stay as is, 170s or units with better boarding/alighting setup should be used.

 

[Class172]

Actually the 158s that East Midlands Trains do have ain't that bad, I've enjoyed many a trip between Peterborough and Ely/Norwich on one.

Although I do have to ask the question of London Midland to why don't they take the opportunity to have one diesel fleet consisting of 172s and cascade their 170s to other operators such as Cross Country etc...

Although I agree that a uniform fleet would be nice and the Chase Line's suburban nature would better suit the 172s, they would not be suited to Hereford or Shrewsbury runs due to the lack of tables, many luggage racks and comfy seats.

That's the 170s biggest problem, they are a compromise design intended to work both suburban and intercity trains, as well as regional, and really are not greatly suited to anything. The 1/3 2/3 door layout makes them less suited to longer distance regional or intercity work, and their 100mph top speed effects the latter too, yet their acceleration is not up to keeping time on suburban work with regular stops, or local regional work. They are a jack of all trades but master of none.

The Hereford Line (BHM-HFD services) is well suited to 170s as it has not too many stops (every 10-15 mins or so), it is a regional service (~100mins end to end) so the interior is good but the more suburban door layouts suit the passenger numbers alighting/departing.

 

[jopsuk]

On 170s used almost exclusively for long distance (such as XCs, for example) surely it would be possible, at the loss of a little space, to fit saloon doors to every vestibule- first class sections have them.

 

[trentside]

I'm going to have to side with the majority on this one. I think the refurbished EMT 158s are well suited to the Liverpool to Norwich route, and I find the seats and legroom to be more than adequate for a reasonable length journey (e.g. Nottingham to Manchester).

My own experience of using the service was actually mainly before the refurbishment programme began in earnest. In those days I'd have happily had the 170s back as the variation in the 158s made it something of a lottery - you always hoped that an ex-TPE unit with declassified first would appear instead of an ex-Alphaline set.

 

[Aictos]

Although I agree that a uniform fleet would be nice and the Chase Line's suburban nature would better suit the 172s, they would not be suited to Hereford or Shrewsbury runs due to the lack of tables, many luggage racks and comfy seats.

Easily sorted out, order 172s but fitted out for outer suburban/regional duties with tables, first class etc... then diagram them on the Hereford/Shrewsbury workings.

To differentiate between the 172s, just have 172/0s on the Chase Line workings and have the 172/1s working the Hereford and Shrewsbury workings.

 

[Max]

I genuinely don't mind the EMT 158s, they are pretty nice after the refurbishment (although the SWT refurb. is nicer in my view). Additionally, since the DMU reshuffle, it is great to see so many of the Norwich-Liverpool services as 4 cars. I would take a 4 car 158 over a 170 anyday.

 

[4SRKT]

I actually disagree with the majority of posters previously.

Having read a lot of your stuff in the past I would say this quote could well be used as part of your signature.....

 

[Pumbaa]

Quite. Between holding other people to account (no prizes) and trying to argue that the railway is never at it's best, I do occasionally agree with what other people have said.

 

[Class172]

Easily sorted out, order 172s but fitted out for outer suburban/regional duties with tables, first class etc... then diagram them on the Hereford/Shrewsbury workings.

To differentiate between the 172s, just have 172/0s on the Chase Line workings and have the 172/1s working the Hereford and Shrewsbury workings.

That could be done, but let me just correct you on your ideas:

172/0 - 2 car units; operate on London Overground services; no gangways; surburban layout.
172/1 - 2 car units; operate on Chiltern Railways services; no gangways.
172/2 - 2 car units; operate on London Midland services; gangways; suburban layout.
172/3 - 3 car units; operate on London Midland services; gangways; suburban layout.

I would first order the add-on order of 172s for LM, to increase capacity on the Snow Hill Lines. Then I would order a few more 172s (like existing LM 172s) to displace the 170s on the Chase Line.

Then we have the Birmingham-Hereford/Shrewsbury services: I would order a new batch of 172s which would have the same interior layout as a 170 and to allow for future increase in passenger numbers and alleviate overcrowding, they would be 3 or 4 cars long (and possibly implementing a small 1st class section by one driving cab). They could be designated class 172/4.

Or, we could go a bit further and have a separate class (class 173?) that would be the same as mentioned before but the layout would have end door layouts in stead (à la class 158) due to the longer distance nature of these routes. They would still be able to work in multiple with 172s and 170s, having end gangways. This new class could also potentially be ordered for FGW, to allow them to cascade/rearrange their 158s.

This would allow LM to be rid of all their 170s which would then be cascaded to other TOCs.

 

[dk1]

172/0 - 2 car units; operate on London Overground services; no gangways; longitudinal seating.

The LOROL 172 i got the other day from Gospel Oak to Barking had standard style seating.

 

[northwichcat]

The LOROL 172 i got the other day from Gospel Oak to Barking had standard style seating.

I thought all the 172s have 2+2 seating, the only difference being the LO ones don't have a toilet so have more seats.

 

[Class172]

Whoops… yes 172/0s have 2+2 seating.

 

[shaun]

158s are better than 170s, they're even better than Voyagers. Only thing that lets them down is their top speed, they really should've been 100mph units seeing as they're designed for regional services. Personally i find them much more suitable for journeys over 90 minutes than Voyagers/Turbostars. Much more roomy than both, less rattly than the voyagers, and they don't have the commuter design of the Turbostars. The only DMUs that beat them for me are the Class 175s and 180s.

 

[LE Greys]

For once, I think it just might be a route they are suited to. The combination of main line sprints on the ECML and MML, plus long jaunts on rural lines are perfect for them. They were made as a compromise design, which is usually why I don't like them, but helps them to cope with what is essentially a compromise service. Their dodgy ride at 60 mph probably does not feature either. I haven't seen the new interiors yet, so can't judge there.

If EMT want any more, there's a load at Inverness that I'd happily swap for some 170s and 156s any day.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I think actually a lot of the problem is more down to the route than the stock. It's a very different route either side of Nottingham, and even more so either side of Stockport. West of Stockport it is pretty much a suburban route, with fairly regular stops and many short distance passengers, the sort of route 170s do best. From Stockport to Manchester it's more of a true long distance route, with fair distances between stops and more people travelling longer distances. Stockport to Sheffield is 40min none stop. Past Nottingham it's a proper long distance route, with pretty much half hour runs to Ely before nearly an hour to Norwich with just a Thetford call, and many passengers will travel through to Norwich (Peterborough is the only other significant pickup or setdown, mostly for Norwich passengers to and from Leicester or Birmingham).

To be honest I don't know why it was kept as a through route. It not only has this problem, but is also effects reliability as a problem on one side of the country can effect the other side (I remember waiting at Norwich before and hearing the train was cancelled due to problems in the Liverpool or Manchester areas). It gets very little through traffic though. Personally I'd cut it back to Manchester Picadilly. Would particularly sort the dwell time issues with the 158s as the high turnover stations (Sheffield, Nottingham, Peterborough) all have fairly long dwell times, particularly the first 2 due to the reversal and the split. It's only really a problem west of Picadilly.