Networker Turbo 165/166 - wider than conventional stock?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChristopherJ

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
383
Location
London, UK
I've read in several articles, forums and magazines that apparently the 165 and 166 fleet of the Networker model were built to a wider profile than conventional rolling stock to take advantage of the more generous loading gauges on the Chiltern and Great Western routes. Is there any truth in this or is it just more platform end talk that has became semi-reality?

As far as I can tell, from looking at data from the official ROSCO datasheets, both the 165 and 166 are no wider than conventional rolling stock; all variations of the Networker model are a nominal 2.81 m wide - so where does this rumour that they are wider stem from? The Networker Turbos are no more wider than the Kent Link Networker 465s/466s.

Source: http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/en/fleet-portfolio/data-sheets/category/passenger

One last note. Before anyone begins to doubt my sources of information, I'd rather believe the information provided by Angel Trains - the owners of the vehicles, rather than that of wikipedia, The Railway Centre, some little acne-faced spotters website... You have been warned.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
3,488
From your Angel trains link:

class 158
Length 22.16 m
Width 2.70 m

class 166
Length 23.50 m (DMCL) 23.36 (MS)
Width 2.81 m

class 175
Length 23.71 m (DMSL[A]/DMSL), 23.03m (MSL)
Width 2.73 m

class 172
Length 23.50 m
Width 2.81 m

Interesting, it seems the 172 is just as fat as the 166. Maybe class 166 guage clearance isn't as bad as we think. The 158 and 175 are narrower though.
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
Probably the usual crap that has become some kind of railway enthusiasts folklore. Most things have some form of route restriction on them for whatever reason. It's not just width that determines rolling stock restrictions.
 

DXMachina

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2011
Messages
652
I'd have thought the profile curve is more critical than the actual width - if the full width of the 16x is at solebar level and that of the other units is higher up, one of them will foul platform edges that the other comfortably clears
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,322
What is noticeable is that the 166/172s are not only the widest but also the longest. I presume this could implications for clearances on curves?

Without looking I imagine that the 170s are much the same dimensions as the 166/172s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Notably from the Angel site linked the 357s (also a Bombardier product) are slightly (0.01m) narrower but significantly (approx 3m) shorter.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,426
170s are ~2.7m wide- most stock is either 2.8*20 or 2.7*23 metres (ish). Not entirely sure if that Angel trains data on the 172 ios correct- every other source I can find seems to think they're ~ 2.7m wide like the 170s and 168s.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,282
As far as I can tell, from looking at data from the official ROSCO datasheets, both the 165 and 166 are no wider than conventional rolling stock; all variations of the Networker model are a nominal 2.81 m wide - so where does this rumour that they are wider stem from?
AIUI the explanation 'wider than normal' refers only to the fact that they are slightly wider than typical 23m stock. They aren't wider than normal 20m stock - eg the electric Networkers...
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,625
There was an interview with someone from either a TOC or ROSCO a few years back who mentioned that Turbo's arent really as wide as people think - a lot of it is just down to wider stepboards than normal, which could be adjusted if neccesary. Sounds plausible to me.

Chris
 

Mike C

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Messages
161
165/166's are a whopping 5mm narrower than a 373.

Not that they are similar rolling stock - just illustrating that they aren't massively different from other UK classes.
 

Roylang

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2011
Messages
302
Location
Hampshire & Cornwall
If I recall correctly, a low of work had to be done on platforms at Stations on the Reading -Guildford line for the 166s as they were wider than the first generation units that used to operate on the line. Most of stations on that line are on the straight so I would have thought it was more than just an issue on curves.

Roy
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,168
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
What is noticeable is that the 166/172s are not only the widest but also the longest. I presume this could implications for clearances on curves?
AIUI the explanation 'wider than normal' refers only to the fact that they are slightly wider than typical 23m stock. They aren't wider than normal 20m stock - eg the electric Networkers...
That's it - width is only part of the story - its the combination of width and length that is an issue for clearance.
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
5,653
Location
South Wales
Too be honest I have sometimes wondered how the class 165's managed to cope with the platforms at Bath Spa and Bristol Temple Meads when the Bristol - Oxford service was running.
 

NIMBUS

Member
Joined
13 May 2011
Messages
176
Minor gripe but they are Network Turbos - not Networkers. The Networker name was only ever applied to the 465/466s and 365s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top