difference between class 165 and 166

[Anonymous10]

hi whats the difference between the class 165 and 166 as the 166 is classed as a express turbo but interior seems the same from a google search

 

[JN114]

hi whats the difference between the class 165 and 166 as the 166 is classed as a express turbo but interior seems the same from a google search

166s are carpeted throughout, have an air conditioning system, two toilets per set and a slightly different seating layout (particularly in the middle vehicle)

165s are Lino floor throughout, have an air cooling system, one toilet per set.

As built, 166s also had a payphone, a docking station for a buffet trolley and 2 first class sections (1 at each end), compared to just 1 on the 165s (in the coach with the toilet).

First Class provision is a little patchy these days - in theory it’s now declassified both ends on the 166, but in use on the 165s in the Thames Valley, where it hasn’t been removed entirely.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Possibly the most notable difference that seems to have not been mentioned is the panelling between the door area and saloon, where the PIS is, is different, allowing the 166s a sort of vestibule and saloon situation whereas on a 165 it’s all very much one thing like most doors at thirds trains.

It sounds complicated because it’s hard to describe but I would say it’s actually the most obvious difference inside, as you can see here.
Attached pictures show 166+165 interiors near to the doorways.

 

[fgwrich]

Of course there are other differences too, and differences between batches. Between 165s, you have the 165/0 family, which were built for the Chiltern lines with bogie mounted LUL Tripcocks, external yaw dampeners and had a max speed of 75MPH, while the Reading batch had no LUL tripcocks (not required on the western), external yaw dampeners and a max speed of 90MPH.

Since then, the Chiltern batch have been fully refurbished inside and out, and now feature a different lighting arrangement (sealed in BMAC lights) and no openable windows. Their Thames based cousins largely remain as built by appearance, though now have newer light clusters and many cut outs for the Air Cooling system (the same as per Chiltern units but retain the openable windows).

 

[LowLevel]

Possibly the most notable difference that seems to have not been mentioned is the panelling between the door area and saloon, where the PIS is, is different, allowing the 166s a sort of vestibule and saloon situation whereas on a 165 it’s all very much one thing like most doors at thirds trains.

It sounds complicated because it’s hard to describe but I would say it’s actually the most obvious difference inside, as you can see here.
Attached pictures show 166+165 interiors near to the doorways.

Would the 166 panelling have once housed sliding doors that were removed because they were a pain in the backside, much like their 170 descendants?

 

[JN114]

Would the 166 panelling have once housed sliding doors that were removed because they were a pain in the backside, much like their 170 descendants?

No, the only interior sliding doors were car ends and between First and Standard.

 

[fgwrich]

Possibly the most notable difference that seems to have not been mentioned is the panelling between the door area and saloon, where the PIS is, is different, allowing the 166s a sort of vestibule and saloon situation whereas on a 165 it’s all very much one thing like most doors at thirds trains.

It sounds complicated because it’s hard to describe but I would say it’s actually the most obvious difference inside, as you can see here.
Attached pictures show 166+165 interiors near to the doorways.

Only in certain sections of the 166s though - a few of the vestibule walls are the same as the 165 in the areas such as by the compliant toilet and former telephone booth.

The extra sound deadening provided by the carpet can certainly be a benefit, unfortunately somewhat ruined by the rather irritating whining of the air conditioning system (when it works).

 

[coppercapped]

When they were built the 165s were intended for the shorter distance work, as fgwrich wrote in post #4 above, the 165/0 were for Chiltern route with a maximum speed of 75mph and fitted with LT-style tripcocks. The variant for the Thames Valley was the 165/1 with yaw dampers to the bogies and a maximum speed of 90mph. Originally they all had hopper windows and no air cooling.

The 166s were intended for longer distance operation - to Newbury and Banbury for example - and had sealed windows and air conditioning. In the beginning this worked quite well but due to concerns about the ozone layer the original operating fluid was changed for one which was more acceptable to the environment but less efficient. As the power required to drive the air conditioning could not be increased (the engine power output being only 350bhp) the efficiency and reliability of the air conditioning suffered.

Over the years modifications and refurbishments by the various TOCs made at different times have meant that the visual differences in internal arrangements have to a certain extent become blurred.

 

[davetheguard]

and had sealed windows and air conditioning. In the beginning this worked quite well but due to concerns about the ozone layer the original operating fluid was changed for one which was more acceptable to the environment but less efficient. As the power required to drive the air conditioning could not be increased (the engine power output being only 350bhp) the efficiency and reliability of the air conditioning suffered.

Interesting, I hadn't known about this change to a less efficient "operating fluid".

How did Chiltern get around the power problem when they retro-fitted their 165s with pressure ventilation; and would it be a workable solution on the 166s?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Speaking of the 165s and 166s, am I right in my understanding that the control systems on those classes would be capable of multi-working with 15x, but for the couplers being deliberately oriented differently by NSE to prevent Regional Railways "borrowing" them?

If this is the case, and not one of many railway "myths", would it not be worth modifying the couplers on the Bristol-based units so they can work with the Sprinters?

 

[The exile]

Speaking of the 165s and 166s, am I right in my understanding that the control systems on those classes would be capable of multi-working with 15x, but for the couplers being deliberately oriented differently by NSE to prevent Regional Railways "borrowing" them?

If this is the case, and not one of many railway "myths", would it not be worth modifying the couplers on the Bristol-based units so they can work with the Sprinters?

That was the 159s, wasn’t it?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That was the 159s, wasn’t it?

159s had standard-orientation couplers I believe, and were always capable of coupling with other 15x.

 

[py_megapixel]

Possibly the most notable difference that seems to have not been mentioned is the panelling between the door area and saloon, where the PIS is, is different, allowing the 166s a sort of vestibule and saloon situation whereas on a 165 it’s all very much one thing like most doors at thirds trains.

The PIS itself is another difference: if I remember correctly, in the 165s the PIS is entirely a retro-fit affair, with newly fitted ceiling-mounted displays. On the other hand, the 166s had it from new, and while they have had it replaced with the same system that was fitted to the 165s, the replacement displays have been fitted into the same enclosures as the original displays so it looks like it hasn't been touched (ignoring the actual content of the displays of course)

 

[150219]

Speaking of the 165s and 166s, am I right in my understanding that the control systems on those classes would be capable of multi-working with 15x, but for the couplers being deliberately oriented differently by NSE to prevent Regional Railways "borrowing" them?

If this is the case, and not one of many railway "myths", would it not be worth modifying the couplers on the Bristol-based units so they can work with the Sprinters?

They do have different coupler pins, yes. Mechanically compatible, but not electrically. 165s, 166s and 168s can all couple together.

 

[coppercapped]

Interesting, I hadn't known about this change to a less efficient "operating fluid".

This was due to the 1987 Montreal Convention whereby the manufacture and use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was to be phased out because of the damage escaping gas caused to the ozone layer over Antartica. CFCs have a large heat capacity and were widely used in air conditioning plants as well as aerosol cans and the like. They were banned for use as refrigerants in most of Europe by the mid-1990s but by then the Class 166 air conditioning units had already been built and were in service.

CFCs were replaced by HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) because they are less harmful to the atmosphere being less stable in the lower atmosphere so breaking down before reaching the ozone layer.

The snag with these is that they are now known to be effective greenhouse gases — causing about 1,400 times more global warming than the same quantity of carbon dioxide — so in turn replacements are now being sought. (This is not surprising, they are intended to transport large quantities of heat between the warm and the cold zones of the volume being temperature controlled). At the moment it would seem that simple hydrocarbons such as propane or iso-butane may be adopted, but carbon dioxide itself may be a good alternative. Carbon dioxide is increasingly being used in car air-conditioning systems, supermarket refrigeration units and air conditioning systems, but these have to operate at high pressure.

The knock-on effect is that much existing air conditioning plant will have to be significantly modified or replaced to work effectively with these alternative refrigerants and this will cost a lot of money.

How did Chiltern get around the power problem when they retro-fitted their 165s with pressure ventilation; and would it be a workable solution on the 166s?

The Chiltern devices are simple air coolers rather than air conditioners which also control humidity. They are designed to work effectively with whichever refrigerant was selected when they were designed so they are rather more efficient than than sub-optimally re-gassed Class 166 plant.

 

[Non Multi]

The PIS itself is another difference: if I remember correctly, in the 165s the PIS is entirely a retro-fit affair, with newly fitted ceiling-mounted displays. On the other hand, the 166s had it from new, and while they have had it replaced with the same system that was fitted to the 165s, the replacement displays have been fitted into the same enclosures as the original displays so it looks like it hasn't been touched (ignoring the actual content of the displays of course)

The 165s were fitted with a basic non-scrolling PIS from the York factory.

There's a Thames News report clip about the 1990s Crossrail project that includes a 165 interior being fitted out a few seconds into the news report. The PIS units are already fitted to the ceiling.

 

[JonathanH]

The 165s were fitted with a basic non-scrolling PIS from the York factory.

It most definitely did scroll, admittedly not 'along the line' but did show successively different information. The slight flaw it had was that it didn't update over the course of the journey so it would show stations the train had already stopped at.

The system in the 165 and 166 was the same but there were more appartures in the 166s.

 

[Non Multi]

It most definitely did scroll, admittedly not 'along the line' but did show successively different information. The slight flaw it had was that it didn't update over the course of the journey so it would show stations the train had already stopped at.

The system in the 165 and 166 was the same but there were more appartures in the 166s.

Yeah, each set of words would momentarily flash up on the display for a few seconds at a time. It was simply playing out a pre progammed list of words over and over for the entire duration.

 

[Irascible]

Interesting, I hadn't known about this change to a less efficient "operating fluid".

The same trouble befell the 158/159s, which has obviously lead to exactly the same problem with their aircon. The bigger problem is noone's fixed it in the last 30 years!

 

[JonathanH]

The same trouble befell the 158/159s, which has obviously lead to exactly the same problem with their aircon. The bigger problem is noone's fixed it in the last 30 years!

The original air conditioning system has been replaced in a large number of 158s and 159s, likewise the 166s. The issue would appear to be the lack of power to enable the replacement units to cool the passenger accommodation down to the extent people desire.

 

[urpert]

When they were built the 165s were intended for the shorter distance work, as fgwrich wrote in post #4 above, the 165/0 were for Chiltern route with a maximum speed of 75mph and fitted with LT-style tripcocks. The variant for the Thames Valley was the 165/1 with yaw dampers to the bogies and a maximum speed of 90mph. Originally they all had hopper windows and no air cooling.

The 166s were intended for longer distance operation - to Newbury and Banbury for example - and had sealed windows and air conditioning. In the beginning this worked quite well but due to concerns about the ozone layer the original operating fluid was changed for one which was more acceptable to the environment but less efficient. As the power required to drive the air conditioning could not be increased (the engine power output being only 350bhp) the efficiency and reliability of the air conditioning suffered.

Over the years modifications and refurbishments by the various TOCs made at different times have meant that the visual differences in internal arrangements have to a certain extent become blurred.

It’s a shame really. I travelled on the 166s a lot when they were new, and the section with 2+2, tables and spotlights was really a very pleasant place to be.

(As new they had the same ‘Network Express’ moquette as the 159s rather than standard two-tone blue.)

 

[cjmillsnun]

Interesting, I hadn't known about this change to a less efficient "operating fluid".

How did Chiltern get around the power problem when they retro-fitted their 165s with pressure ventilation; and would it be a workable solution on the 166s?

It was a change from R12 to R134a. The same change occurred in fridges and car air conditioning systems as R12 is a CFC gas (a fluid is either a liquid or a gas). R134a isn’t great itself as it is a greenhouse gas and worse in that respect than CO2

 

[Irascible]

The original air conditioning system has been replaced in a large number of 158s and 159s, likewise the 166s. The issue would appear to be the lack of power to enable the replacement units to cool the passenger accommodation down to the extent people desire.

Mostly academic at this point unless we're looking to get another 20 years out of the units, but I'd call that patched rather than fixed - re-engining with some slightly more powerful & more environmentally friendly power units say, 10 years ago would have fixed it properly & helped the units keep up with modern stock a bit better, too.

I have a feeling I might actually be riding these things in 20 years if I don't move out of the area again, though.