Differences Between Various Sprinters Acceleration

[Kurolus Rex]

Hi there!

For some time now I've been curious as to the differences in acceleration across the Sprinter fleet. For example, how much quicker at accelerating is a Class 158/9 than say a Class 156, 150 etc?

Are there any differences in acceleration between Steel constructed Sprinters and Aluminium constructed sprinters? (e.g Class 153 vs Class 150)

Any help appreciated!

 

[Kneedown]

I'm afraid I can't give you any technical why's or wherefore's, but generally there is not a great deal of difference in acceleration between 156's and 158's. If anything 158's are slower off the mark, especially the 400hp ones. 153's are notoriously sluggish to accelerate, but even then I remember on a couple of occasions a rocket like take off. The rumour was that this particular unit had a 158 turbo temporarily fitted but I cannot confirm or deny this.
Sorry I cannot give you a more technical explanation.

 

[HLE]

Good grief, a turbo fitted to a dogbox. Very sluggish off the mark but that's unit dependant

 

[Kurolus Rex]

I'm afraid I can't give you any technical why's or wherefore's, but generally there is not a great deal of difference in acceleration between 156's and 158's. If anything 158's are slower off the mark, especially the 400hp ones. 153's are notoriously sluggish to accelerate, but even then I remember on a couple of occasions a rocket like take off. The rumour was that this particular unit had a 158 turbo temporarily fitted but I cannot confirm or deny this.
Sorry I cannot give you a more technical explanation.

I suspected this too.

Good grief, a turbo fitted to a dogbox. Very sluggish off the mark but that's unit dependant

Might not be the fastest accelerating units in the world, but a top speed of 90 is nothing to scoff at when cars at most are travelling at 70 and usually even less than this. As a kid i always assumed that we were travelling at say Eurostar speeds, when in fact we were only going 70-75mph on the line we travelled on

 

[Llama]

There is more difference between individual units of the same classes than there is between the Sprinter classes.

Class 158/159 have a more powerful engine output than 150/153/155/156 do, but they also effectively have longer gearing (torque converter is in use on 158 up to approx 55mph, rather than approx 45mph on 150 etc).

 

[Ken H]

There is more difference between individual units of the same classes than there is between the Sprinter classes.

Class 158/159 have a more powerful engine output than 150/153/155/156 do, but they also effectively have longer gearing (torque converter is in use on 158 up to approx 55mph, rather than approx 45mph on 150 etc).

158/9 also have aircon. that can be quite a load.

 

[superkev]

There is a useful table in Rail Express magazine most months giving 0 to 60 times of many units.
Theres no mention yet of the 400hp version of the 158s yet though to compare with the standard 350hp version.
I seem to remember of the dmu's the 56ton 750hp 185 was quickest at 68sec the 38ton 350hp 158 was 98sec and the 44ton 285hp 153 last at 156sec.
The 170s despite having 422hp available weigh in at over 45tons and with 100mph gearing were well down the list at 114sec. Can't remember where the slightly lighter 485hp 172s were but should be fairly quick.
Interesting to see where the new 520hp 195s fare.
K

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I'm afraid I can't give you any technical why's or wherefore's, but generally there is not a great deal of difference in acceleration between 156's and 158's. If anything 158's are slower off the mark, especially the 400hp ones. 153's are notoriously sluggish to accelerate, but even then I remember on a couple of occasions a rocket like take off. The rumour was that this particular unit had a 158 turbo temporarily fitted but I cannot confirm or deny this.
Sorry I cannot give you a more technical explanation.

Not saying you're wrong but surely the 350hp versions would be the slower ones, not the 400hp version.

 

[Llama]

158/9 also have aircon. that can be quite a load.

The load from the air conditioning is marginal. There is no appreciable difference in traction performance when the air conditioning is isolated.

Not saying you're wrong but surely the 350hp versions would be the slower ones, not the 400hp version.

The 400hp Cummins units only rev to 1900rpm at full throttle, the 350 Cummins units 2100rpm.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

No suprise a 185 is quickest, although a heavyweight, with 3 750hp engines (although there's only about 500-550 actually being put in to the track) and 3 gear ratios when compared to a 350hp 158 (250-275 into the track) that's double the power and more efficient gearing to accelerate with. It works out approx 9hp per ton which is broadly similar to 180s and 220/222. A 185 out-accelerates a 220 right up to its 100mph top speed however where a 185 (and 180) has a stepped acceleration profile, the electric traction of a voyager gives a smoother acceleration profile and of course the higher top end speed. First gear the voyager has the advantage but once second gear kicks in, bye bye! XD

 

[Royston Vasey]

I suspected this too.



Might not be the fastest accelerating units in the world, but a top speed of 90 is nothing to scoff at when cars at most are travelling at 70 and usually even less than this. As a kid i always assumed that we were travelling at say Eurostar speeds, when in fact we were only going 70-75mph on the line we travelled on

If when you were a kid Eurostar was still using the Kent suburban lines you were probably travelling faster

 

[Kneedown]

Not saying you're wrong but surely the 350hp versions would be the slower ones, not the 400hp version.

Daft as it sounds it's true. The 400hp variants don' even give you full power until you get to at least 10mph. Especially noticable when starting on an uphill gradient.

 

[Llama]

What equivalent power notch do those 158s permit until what speed exactly? The ones I have driven only inhibit power notch 7 until the low speed relay closes at nominally 3mph, always more like 5mph. That doesn't affect starting away unless the throttle is whacked open from 0-7 at 0mph, and even then the difference would be virtually nothing.

 

[hooverboy]

There is a useful table in Rail Express magazine most months giving 0 to 60 times of many units.
Theres no mention yet of the 400hp version of the 158s yet though to compare with the standard 350hp version.
I seem to remember of the dmu's the 56ton 750hp 185 was quickest at 68sec the 38ton 350hp 158 was 98sec and the 44ton 285hp 153 last at 156sec.
The 170s despite having 422hp available weigh in at over 45tons and with 100mph gearing were well down the list at 114sec. Can't remember where the slightly lighter 485hp 172s were but should be fairly quick.
Interesting to see where the new 520hp 195s fare.
K

can you provide a link?

 

[Kurolus Rex]

Thanks for the very interesting replies!

 

[superkev]

can you provide a link?

Nor seen an 0-60 times on kine. I Think yoU will have to buy the Magazine (Rail express).
K

 

[superkev]

The load from the air conditioning is marginal. There is no appreciable difference in traction performance when the air conditioning is isolated.

The 400hp Cummins units only rev to 1900rpm at full throttle, the 350 Cummins units 2100rpm.

I wonder if someone has de-rated them to match the 350hp ones.
K

 

[Llama]

No, that is the design spec.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Daft as it sounds it's true. The 400hp variants don' even give you full power until you get to at least 10mph. Especially noticable when starting on an uphill gradient.

Given that they were originally intended as 'hill-climber' units for the Marches line etc, this seems something of a design flaw!

Incidentally I heard recently that the 159/0 (3-car) units were originally ordered as 158s for a putative Cambridge-Peterborough-Leicester-Bedford-Oxford-Bristol service. BR went as far as to produce draft unit diagrams, but the project was shelved and the units delivered to NSE for the Mule. I wonder how much truth there is in that.

 

[LowLevel]

What equivalent power notch do those 158s permit until what speed exactly? The ones I have driven only inhibit power notch 7 until the low speed relay closes at nominally 3mph, always more like 5mph. That doesn't affect starting away unless the throttle is whacked open from 0-7 at 0mph, and even then the difference would be virtually nothing.

I'm sure I saw a notice from our tech team or in a fault book a little while ago saying notch 7 was locked out until 15 mph on the 400hp units.

I'll try and have a think where it was.

 

[ac6000cw]

Incidentally I heard recently that the 159/0 (3-car) units were originally ordered as 158s for a putative Cambridge-Peterborough-Leicester-Bedford-Oxford-Bristol service. BR went as far as to produce draft unit diagrams, but the project was shelved and the units delivered to NSE for the Mule. I wonder how much truth there is in that.

For sure what became the 159's were originally intended for the Regional Railways sector, but they couldn't really justify/afford to take them at the time. NSE wanted to get out of running expensive/old loco hauled trains on the Waterloo-Exeter service, so a deal was done to transfer them to NSE.

 

[ash39]

Good grief, a turbo fitted to a dogbox. Very sluggish off the mark but that's unit dependant

All 153's have turbochargers.

 

[bastien]

Given that they were originally intended as 'hill-climber' units for the Marches line etc, this seems something of a design flaw!

Incidentally I heard recently that the 159/0 (3-car) units were originally ordered as 158s for a putative Cambridge-Peterborough-Leicester-Bedford-Oxford-Bristol service. BR went as far as to produce draft unit diagrams, but the project was shelved and the units delivered to NSE for the Mule. I wonder how much truth there is in that.

I wonder, was the Oxford to Bristol direct (avoiding Didcot) a vestige of that idea?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I wonder, was the Oxford to Bristol direct (avoiding Didcot) a vestige of that idea?

I believe it was, yes, although it only appeared in Thames Trains days. Irony was some started from Bicester Town which was also on the intended route.

 

[bastien]

I believe it was, yes, although it only appeared in Thames Trains days. Irony was some started from Bicester Town which was also on the intended route.

I used to try and get that train when I was commuting, simply because a Turbo felt glamourous!

 

[hexagon789]

Noticed the latest Rail Express has 0-60 timings for 159/1s now. A rather unimpressive 119 seconds.

For comparison of Sprinter types:

158/0 - 98 seconds
156 - 124 seconds
153 - 156 seconds

 

[Noddy]

Noticed the latest Rail Express has 0-60 timings for 159/1s now. A rather unimpressive 119 seconds.

For comparison of Sprinter types:

158/8 - 98 seconds
156 - 124 seconds
153 - 156 seconds

How does this compare to a recent lightweight DMU such as a 172 (which also has a higher top speed)?

 

[londonmidland]

I've always wondered how Voyagers/Meridians compete with 185s.

How do they compare in the following scenarios:

- 0-100mph
- Hill climbing

 

[hexagon789]

How does this compare to a recent lightweight DMU such as a 172 (which also has a higher top speed)?

A 172 is in at 83 seconds 0-60.

I've always wondered how Voyagers/Meridians compete with 185s.

How do they compare in the following scenarios:

- 0-100mph
- Hill climbing

If it's any good:

Class 185 0-60: 68 seconds
220: 53 secs
221: 58 secs
222: 59 secs

 

[Kite159]

A 172 is in at 83 seconds 0-60.



If it's any good:

Class 185 0-60: 68 seconds
220: 53 secs
221: 58 secs
222: 59 secs

I'm surprised a 222 is slower than a 221. Mainly because they don't carry around the tilting bits & bobs