Driver's favourite rolling stock

CC 72100 · 10 Jul 2020

craigybagel said:
One thing I'd love to know from a Turbo driver - how good are the engines on them? We have the same Perkins engines on all our 158s and they're awful - in most of them you have no power at all until you get to notch 5. Very hard to control at low speeds without the engine revs going up and down like mad - I always feel very self conscious dealing with the 10mph through New Street!

Yep, recognise the 'below notch 5 not a great deal happens' from driving Turbos :lol:

They do seem better at holding speed than sprinters, but a little slower from a standing start. 165s seem a bit better than 166s.

RailUK Forums

hexagon789 · 10 Jul 2020

What's the consensus on 170s? A lot of postings have previously suggested they aren't liked much due to positioning of the TBC, poor braking in the lower steps and unpredictable throttle, is that indeed the case?

O L Leigh · 10 Jul 2020

They’re OK. I don’t mind them at all, although they’re not particularly comfy on long haul trips. I find the performance between units no more or less variable than between individual units of other classes. There’s good visibility and everything falls nicely to hand, but the negatives are that the cabs can be a bit noisy and they’re not the most accommodating for the taller driver.

You drive the train according to it’s characteristics and adjust things like braking points to suit, so “poor” brakes are allowed for. If you don’t adjust your driving style to suit the traction you’re on at the time then you’re more likely to complain about things like the brakes because you’re not making the necessary allowances. Every class is different and requires a slightly different approach.

craigybagel · 11 Jul 2020

CC 72100 said:
Yep, recognise the 'below notch 5 not a great deal happens' from driving Turbos

They do seem better at holding speed than sprinters, but a little slower from a standing start. 165s seem a bit better than 166s.

Interesting. I wonder if being slower then Sprinters is similarly a Perkins issue - from what I've been told by drivers who've driven both, Cummins engined units perform better then Perkins. I suspect the holding speed thing might be because Turbos are more streamlined perhaps?

hexagon789 · 11 Jul 2020

CC 72100 said:
165s seem a bit better than 166s.

Possibly the gearing - 75 vs 90mph?

hexagon789 · 11 Jul 2020

O L Leigh said:
They’re OK. I don’t mind them at all, although they’re not particularly comfy on long haul trips. I find the performance between units no more or less variable than between individual units of other classes. There’s good visibility and everything falls nicely to hand, but the negatives are that the cabs can be a bit noisy and they’re not the most accommodating for the taller driver.

You drive the train according to it’s characteristics and adjust things like braking points to suit, so “poor” brakes are allowed for. If you don’t adjust your driving style to suit the traction you’re on at the time then you’re more likely to complain about things like the brakes because you’re not making the necessary allowances. Every class is different and requires a slightly different approach.

Thanks, there was a long running thread about driving a few years ago and 170s seemed a bit Marmite, some drivers lied them some did. The braking wasn't so much until specific it seemed to be suggested it was a class thing that Steps 1 and 2 were quite weak while 3 was very strong, which to me sounded as if it hadn't been set-up quite right as surely each step should be in direct proportion to the others on terms of braking power with a 3-step that's kind of the point of it.

O L Leigh · 11 Jul 2020

Yes that does seem to be the trend with these units, but I'm not sure its indicative of a problem. I've even joked myself that the brake steps are 1, 1 1/4 and 3. But whether the expectation that the brake steps ought to be proportional is correct is moot, but the general idea is that each brake step should give more braking effort than the one before, and in that regard they do.

hexagon789 · 11 Jul 2020

O L Leigh said:
Yes that does seem to be the trend with these units, but I'm not sure its indicative of a problem. I've even joked myself that the brake steps are 1, 1 1/4 and 3. But whether the expectation that the brake steps ought to be proportional is correct is moot, but the general idea is that each brake step should give more braking effort than the one before, and in that regard they do.

That's a good point, it is an assumption on my part (though backed up by statements on this forum and others) that each step should be based on 1/3 braking increases up to full service, whether the design is meant to match that though...

43096 · 11 Jul 2020

hexagon789 said:
Possibly the gearing - 75 vs 90mph?

The 165/1 fleet is 90mph. 166s have always been considered more sluggish that the 165/1s - more power draw from the aircon they are allegedly fitted with?

hexagon789 · 11 Jul 2020

43096 said:
The 165/1 fleet is 90mph. 166s have always been considered more sluggish that the 165/1s - more power draw from the aircon they are allegedly fitted with?

Forgot about those, but aren't Chiltern's all 75mph units anyway?

If it's like 158 aircon, it'll be lucky to draw any power given how frequently that works!

43096 · 11 Jul 2020

hexagon789 said:
Forgot about those, but aren't Chiltern's all 75mph units anyway?

If it's like 158 aircon, it'll be lucky to draw any power given how frequently that works!

Yes, Chiltern’s 165/0 fleet is 75mph.

hexagon789 · 11 Jul 2020

43096 said:
Yes, Chiltern’s 165/0 fleet is 75mph.

Actually, never mind I've just realised they can't have been talking about Chiltern units because they have no 166s, my mistake.

CC 72100 · 11 Jul 2020

43096 said:
The 165/1 fleet is 90mph. 166s have always been considered more sluggish that the 165/1s - more power draw from the aircon they are allegedly fitted with?

Yep, that's what I find, and put it down to the lack of air conditioning on the 165s. The 165s have 'air cooling', which for a supposedly inferior system seems to be far more reliable, keeps the saloon far cooler and doesn't affect engine performance. On a hot day, if you've got a choice, choose the 165 every time.

CC 72100 · 11 Jul 2020

craigybagel said:
Interesting. I wonder if being slower then Sprinters is similarly a Perkins issue - from what I've been told by drivers who've driven both, Cummins engined units perform better then Perkins. I suspect the holding speed thing might be because Turbos are more streamlined perhaps?

Agree on both accounts. Our 158s are Cummins and unless it's a ropey unit, will beat any Perkins powered unit from a standing start.

hexagon789 · 12 Jul 2020

CC 72100 said:
Agree on both accounts. Our 158s are Cummins and unless it's a ropey unit, will beat any Perkins powered unit from a standing start.

Seems to be a given that Perkins 158s are just sluggish, I've never heard anything to the contrary, one of the few instances where everyone seems to agree completely!

Kneedown · 12 Jul 2020

O L Leigh said:
Yes that does seem to be the trend with these units, but I'm not sure its indicative of a problem. I've even joked myself that the brake steps are 1, 1 1/4 and 3. But whether the expectation that the brake steps ought to be proportional is correct is moot, but the general idea is that each brake step should give more braking effort than the one before, and in that regard they do.

IIRR, the brake cylinder pressures on 170's are set up to whatever the TOC specifies. The original Central ones, /5 and 6, had decent brakes in all steps. When we inherited the MML ones though, a few Drivers had "character building experiences" before it was realised that MML had specified lower brake cylinder pressures. This was swiftly remedied to bring them in line with the rest of the fleet.

martin2345uk · 13 Jul 2020

Can I play?
During my training I drove mainly 66s, but also 70s, 86s, 90s and one 08

Favourite was the 70s, least favourite was the 86s.

hexagon789 · 13 Jul 2020

martin2345uk said:
Can I play?
During my training I drove mainly 66s, but also 70s, 86s, 90s and one 08

Favourite was the 70s, least favourite was the 86s.

May I ask what in particular about the 86s? Just they seem to be generally reasonably well thought of apart from the ride quality, being more reliable than the earlier types.

Efini92 · 13 Jul 2020

py_megapixel said:
I'm interested to know - drivers who work both 150/1 and 150/2s, do you find that the gangway worsens visibility from the cab?

I dislike /2 because they have vigilance and gangway doors that let in the equivalent of the Nile when it’s raining.
The visibility is 100 times better in a /1

irish_rail · 13 Jul 2020

martin2345uk said:
Can I play?
During my training I drove mainly 66s, but also 70s, 86s, 90s and one 08

Favourite was the 70s, least favourite was the 86s.

You preferred the 08 to 86s?! Wow, tho must admit I've never driven an 86 but they look good fun from an outsiders perspective....

dk1 · 13 Jul 2020

irish_rail said:
You preferred the 08 to 86s?! Wow, tho must admit I've never driven an 86 but they look good fun from an outsiders perspective....

I see what you are saying but day in day out the fun bit soon wears off. I am glad I once signed 86s but that's all. I do not miss them so to speak now.

martin2345uk · 13 Jul 2020

I found the 86s an unpleasant experience in general! I didn’t like the tap-changer control, and I hated the AWS bell, only loco I drove where it’s actually a bell and I found it a very annoying loud sound

bluesfromagun · 14 Jul 2020

I find 170s very comfortable for longer runs on the whole, and I'm 6'2". If you have the seat at full height, you can put your foot up on the dash. The DSD is well positioned and doesn't need too much pressure, the cab is almost silent in terms of engine noise (constant air con makes a racket though), and the view is excellent.
From an actual driving viewpoint though, they are very sluggish things at low speeds, acceleration is poor, however they do hold 90 - 100 fairly easily in notch 3 or 4. The brakes vary widely, they can be great and they can be dire. Step one is normally pretty consistent, step two good at higher speeds but sometimes shocking at under 20mph, and step three is nearly always far too sharp for me to use in normal service.
Personally, I'd rather a separate throttle and brake too, but the PBC is comfortable enough to use in them.

LowLevel · 14 Jul 2020

craigybagel said:
Interesting. I wonder if being slower then Sprinters is similarly a Perkins issue - from what I've been told by drivers who've driven both, Cummins engined units perform better then Perkins. I suspect the holding speed thing might be because Turbos are more streamlined perhaps?

Perkins 158s and by extension Turbos have a totally different throttle set up to the Cummins units. The throttle set up is designed to pull away from a stand in notch 5 and will be extremely sluggish with anything less. Lower notches are set up for fine power control at higher speeds. They are much happier than the Cummins variety at being driven hard. We have a mix of all 3 types of 158 and the Perkins and Cummins units are effectively a different train handling wise. Drivers booking Perkins units for low power on starting and fitters responding that it is the handling that is the problem is a common event where I work. The Perkins units unless poorly usually seem to be the stronger ones to me when driven as intended.

Unfortunately I don't believe the handling training TOCs use for 158s differentiates and thus if you drive a Perkins 158 like a Cummins one it will seem like a snail.

The racket Perkins engines make in general is apparently an issue the industry would like to resolve if retractioning can be achieved in an economic manner.

Seehof · 14 Jul 2020

Pacers for me! A wonderfully responsive and nifty little train. Once drove one from Leeds to Manchester Victoria and back. Great fun especially with a very large group of kids going to Halifax!

craigybagel · 14 Jul 2020

LowLevel said:
Perkins 158s and by extension Turbos have a totally different throttle set up to the Cummins units. The throttle set up is designed to pull away from a stand in notch 5 and will be extremely sluggish with anything less. Lower notches are set up for fine power control at higher speeds. They are much happier than the Cummins variety at being driven hard. We have a mix of all 3 types of 158 and the Perkins and Cummins units are effectively a different train handling wise. Drivers booking Perkins units for low power on starting and fitters responding that it is the handling that is the problem is a common event where I work. The Perkins units unless poorly usually seem to be the stronger ones to me when driven as intended.

Unfortunately I don't believe the handling training TOCs use for 158s differentiates and thus if you drive a Perkins 158 like a Cummins one it will seem like a snail.

The racket Perkins engines make in general is apparently an issue the industry would like to resolve if retractioning can be achieved in an economic manner.

Interesting. I knew the throttle was set up differently but I never knew the reason why or what they were trying to achieve! Part of my drive last night featured a good 18 minute sprint at 90mph, and it's true that it was very easy to keep the speed within 1mph of that with small adjustments to the power (our 158s have digital speedos so you know exactly how fast you're going). I'd still rather have an easier drive at low speed though, it would be more useful given we don't have all that much 90mph running.

We do have one unit with a bus type 4 speed Voith DIWA transmission - it fixes some of the issues with Perkins 158s in that it's low end acceleration is better, and you get power and movement almost immediately even in notch 1, but at a cost of giving a very jerky ride every time you either take power or shut off on the move. 158834 is known throughout TfW as "The Clunk" and pretty much universally detested by drivers.

Fincra5 · 14 Jul 2020

O L Leigh said:
They’re OK. I don’t mind them at all, although they’re not particularly comfy on long haul trips. I find the performance between units no more or less variable than between individual units of other classes. There’s good visibility and everything falls nicely to hand, but the negatives are that the cabs can be a bit noisy and they’re not the most accommodating for the taller driver.

You drive the train according to it’s characteristics and adjust things like braking points to suit, so “poor” brakes are allowed for. If you don’t adjust your driving style to suit the traction you’re on at the time then you’re more likely to complain about things like the brakes because you’re not making the necessary allowances. Every class is different and requires a slightly different approach.

It's not just different class, each subclass and even often each Unit seems to have different braking characteristics! All about wear and tear.

There's an noticable difference between Braking on 377/1s to a 377/4 and then a 377/6...Even though Fleet will tell you otherwise!

Railperf · 14 Jul 2020

Has anyone mentioned Pendolinos?

Kneedown · 14 Jul 2020

martin2345uk said:
and I hated the AWS bell, only loco I drove where it’s actually a bell and I found it a very annoying loud sound

Heaven compared to the AWS horn on a 31.

Driver's favourite rolling stock

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member