Question about Class 158 and Class 170

[ge0m112]

Hi, I have some questions regarding the aforementioned class types.

Class 158s are a long-distance train - they are called the Express Sprinter - and are designed with long distance in mind. Can we class Class 170s as a long distance train too? Were they intended to augment Class 158s? Or was it they just so happened to do more longer distance services? What is the better unit for the former Citylink services or the former Alphaline services?

Further to this,
If Central Trains hadn't of split up, would a mixture of Class 158s and Class 170s be used on former Citylink services or would it be like what it is today?
If Regional Railways had continued, would they have ordered Turbostars or something more akin to a Class 158?

Sorry if this is posted in the wrong section, but I felt it mostly suited the Traction & Rolling Stock section.

Thanks

 

[jopsuk]

I'm not sure about "intent", but 170s were an evolution of the Class 168, which was designed as an express version with less of the loading gauge issues of the Networker Turbos (Class 165 and 166) for the secondary London-Birmingham Chiltern services

 

[jopsuk]

Following the success of the 168s Adtranz managed to sell the design as being suitable for everything from suburban services, through regional routes, to mainline Intercity duties. They're a bit rubbish at all of them

 

[D365]

Following the success of the 168s Adtranz managed to sell the design as being suitable for everything from suburban services, through regional routes, to mainline Intercity duties. They're a bit rubbish at all of them

Aside from the limited acceleration, I think the 170s are reasonably well suited to things like the CrossCountry and Northern regional routes. They're a step up from the Class 158 in terms of comfort.

 

[matchmaker]

The door layout of the 170s isn't really suited to long distance trains. Perth to Inverness in winter can be a cold experience!

 

[hexagon789]

Hi, I have some questions regarding the aforementioned class types.

Class 158s are a long-distance train - they are called the Express Sprinter - and are designed with long distance in mind. Can we class Class 170s as a long distance train too? Were they intended to augment Class 158s? Or was it they just so happened to do more longer distance services? What is the better unit for the former Citylink services or the former Alphaline services?

Further to this,
If Central Trains hadn't of split up, would a mixture of Class 158s and Class 170s be used on former Citylink services or would it be like what it is today?
If Regional Railways had continued, would they have ordered Turbostars or something more akin to a Class 158?

Sorry if this is posted in the wrong section, but I felt it mostly suited the Traction & Rolling Stock section.

Thanks

They were designed to be able to do the same journeys as a 158, but with a more flexible door layout that enabled more efficient dwell times needed for commuter operations.

Chiltern's 168s were basically a faster version of the Network Turbos and the design developed from there. The first 170s were for Midland Mainline, they used them to double the number of trains by running half-hourly semi-fasts with the 170s allowing the HST services to miss out the smaller stations and thus reduce journey times. The original 4-car 222s effectively were for the same services - the semi-fasts but with more capacity and the added benefit of a top speed the same as the HSTs and better acceleration than the 170s.

 

[fgwrich]

I think the 170s are reasonably well suited to things like the CrossCountry and Northern regional routes. They're a step up from the Class 158 in terms of comfort.

For some of those routes I'd agree, but not for some of the routes they've been used on across Scotland. The I7C HSTs cant come soon enough!

 

[hexagon789]

The door layout of the 170s isn't really suited to long distance trains. Perth to Inverness in winter can be a cold experience!

I agree it's not ideally suited, but I think the idea was to go for a flexible design suited to regional and longer-distance services

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The door layout of the 170s isn't really suited to long distance trains. Perth to Inverness in winter can be a cold experience!

This old chestnut again... the position of the doors on a carriage have no impact on what services a train is suitable for*. Doors can be fitted to vestibules to prevent the draught issue- though in most cases including 170s, external doors only open if someone opens them.
In fact if internal doors had been fitted to 170s I wonder what other reason we'd hear to dismiss them as "unsuitable"? We'd be back to made-up concepts like "but it's a suburban door layout!".

The interior of most 170s is much nicer to travel in than some of the 1970s relics still in use on intercity services. Yes, something could be done about draughts but the opposition to using them on longer-distance services is usually nothing more than door-position snobbery.

*= there's a case for insisting on a more efficient door layout in certain areas: Castlefield, Thameslink for example.

 

[Mollman]

Hi, I have some questions regarding the aforementioned class types.

Class 158s are a long-distance train - they are called the Express Sprinter - and are designed with long distance in mind. Can we class Class 170s as a long distance train too? Were they intended to augment Class 158s? Or was it they just so happened to do more longer distance services? What is the better unit for the former Citylink services or the former Alphaline services?

Further to this,
If Central Trains hadn't of split up, would a mixture of Class 158s and Class 170s be used on former Citylink services or would it be like what it is today?
If Regional Railways had continued, would they have ordered Turbostars or something more akin to a Class 158?

Sorry if this is posted in the wrong section, but I felt it mostly suited the Traction & Rolling Stock section.

Thanks

In regards to your question on Regional Railways they were looking at the 157 just before privatisation:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/british-rail-class-157.174326/

 

[greyman42]

Class 170 has a max speed of 100mph, class 158 has a max of 90mph.

 

[Energy]

This old chestnut again... the position of the doors on a carriage have no impact on what services a train is suitable for*. Doors can be fitted to vestibules to prevent the draught issue- though in most cases including 170s, external doors only open if someone opens them.
In fact if internal doors had been fitted to 170s I wonder what other reason we'd hear to dismiss them as "unsuitable"? We'd be back to made-up concepts like "but it's a suburban door layout!".

The interior of most 170s is much nicer to travel in than some of the 1970s relics still in use on intercity services. Yes, something could be done about draughts but the opposition to using them on longer-distance services is usually nothing more than door-position snobbery.

*= there's a case for insisting on a more efficient door layout in certain areas: Castlefield, Thameslink for example.

The 'suburban' door layout is too improve loading times at stations, the 168/170/172s are halfway between regional (close distance) and intercity in my opinion, they can still operate intercity services with their good high speed and the door configuration means less time spent at stations. Chiltern use 168s all the way to Oxford with only a couple stops.

 

[greyman42]

The 170s did a great job on the Edinburgh-Glasgow services. The only problem was is that they were diesels.

 

[Railperf]

Class 170 has a max speed of 100mph, class 158 has a max of 90mph.

Only of real benefit where the line speed is continuously 100mph. if I recall correctly, Hull Trains 170's were averaging almost 90mph on some stretches because they could maintain 100mph for long distances. However, on routes with lower and mixed speeds, the 158's performance doesn't put them at a huge disadvantage to a 170. I had a 158 substitute a 170 - on an Aberdeen to Edinburgh service - and it pretty much kept to time most of the way. I would rather sit in the 170 in terms of comfort.

 

[Railperf]

The 170s did a great job on the Edinburgh-Glasgow services. The only problem was is that they were diesels.

They were comfy but underpowered. The 385's provide the performance such a service requires.

 

[Mikey C]

170s are a compromise stock really, but were perfect for the initial post privatization railway as operators and leasing companies knew that they could easily be moved elsewhere, e.g. with the Midland Mainline ones

I never liked the Midland Mainline ones - they seemed cramped inside and the stepdown in speed and comfort from an HST significant, but I really like the Chiltern Mainline 168s which have decent legroom and really nice seats, indeed I find them more comfortable than their Mk3s

 

[JonathanH]

I never liked the Midland Mainline ones - they seemed cramped inside and the stepdown in speed and comfort from an HST significant

You didn't have to like them, the travelling public liked what they offered. They played a pivotal role in converting the Midland route from a route with High Speed Trains on a highly compromised timetable to one with much more structure which proved the market for more frequent services and the introduction of intercity rather than regional stock. Once they had done their job, they were able to be transferred to other routes. I'd say that the Hull ones did much the same thing.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I call the 158's either 'like the old Portsmouth trains' or 'the old Alphaline trains' or 'InterCity ish trains'.

 

[Mikey C]

You didn't have to like them, the travelling public liked what they offered. They played a pivotal role in converting the Midland route from a route with High Speed Trains on a highly compromised timetable to one with much more structure which proved the market for more frequent services and the introduction of intercity rather than regional stock. Once they had done their job, they were able to be transferred to other routes. I'd say that the Hull ones did much the same thing.

The extra services were of course very welcome, but the trains themselves were pretty inadequate, especially as they were only 2 or 3 carriages long. That the 222s were ordered only 4 years after they were introduced highlights this

 

[LowLevel]

170s are a compromise stock really, but were perfect for the initial post privatization railway as operators and leasing companies knew that they could easily be moved elsewhere, e.g. with the Midland Mainline ones

I never liked the Midland Mainline ones - they seemed cramped inside and the stepdown in speed and comfort from an HST significant, but I really like the Chiltern Mainline 168s which have decent legroom and really nice seats, indeed I find them more comfortable than their Mk3s

The 170/1s are cramped because they got the seat spacing wrong and none of Midland Mainline, Central Trains or Cross Country have ever got round to sorting them out. It was rectified in later subclasses.

 

[Sprinter107]

This old chestnut again... the position of the doors on a carriage have no impact on what services a train is suitable for*. Doors can be fitted to vestibules to prevent the draught issue- though in most cases including 170s, external doors only open if someone opens them.
In fact if internal doors had been fitted to 170s I wonder what other reason we'd hear to dismiss them as "unsuitable"? We'd be back to made-up concepts like "but it's a suburban door layout!".

The interior of most 170s is much nicer to travel in than some of the 1970s relics still in use on intercity services. Yes, something could be done about draughts but the opposition to using them on longer-distance services is usually nothing more than door-position snobbery.

*= there's a case for insisting on a more efficient door layout in certain areas: Castlefield, Thameslink for example.

Internal doors were fitted to the 170/5 and 170/6, to the larger middle saloon in each car. I'm not sure if they were taken out before Central Trains ceased to exist, or whether it was after. I do remember tho, that the passengers caught on how to isolate them without using a key, so they would be stuck open very often. The 2 saloons at each end of the car didnt have internal doors on the 170/5 and 170/6s, they were open.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

One thing I'm interested to know is how come the services to and from Liverpool and Norwich went from Class 170 to 158 operation?

I'm guessing before 170's took over these routes that 158's were the scheduled stock.

Sorry I know its for a different thread but thought I'd ask whilst we're on the subject of 158'a and 170's.

If I've understood it correctly, 400hp 158's and 159's accelerate faster than a 170.

One thing I like about a 170 over a 158 or 159 is less clagg at idle too - a Cummins-powered 158 (400hp especially) I wouldn't want sat at Birmingham New Street for too long unless there's no other allocation.

Obviously that's not the case today but just saying.

 

[Envoy]

The 158’s are notorious for having failed air conditioning. The 170’s have nice big windows due to the pillars being very thin. (Wish all trains were like that). I wonder how customers on routes that have lost their 170’s, find the brand new trains in comparison?

 

[JonathanH]

One thing I'm interested to know is how come the services to and from Liverpool and Norwich went from Class 170 to 158 operation?

I'm guessing before 170's took over these routes that 158's were the scheduled stock.

Effectively it is as simple as saying that on the split of the Central Trains franchise in 2007, Cross Country and London Midland got the 170s and East Midlands got the 156s and 158s.

The 170s were needed for the faster Cross Country services for speed and Birmingham area London Midland trains for dwell times leaving 158s for the long-distance Liverpool to Norwich route.

Prior to the split in 2007, 158s and 170s shared many of the routes across the Central Trains area. 158s worked Liverpool to Norwich prior to 170s.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Effectively it is as simple as saying that on the split of the Central Trains franchise in 2007, Cross Country and London Midland got the 170s and East Midlands got the 156s and 158s.

The 170s were needed for the faster Cross Country services for speed and Birmingham area London Midland trains for dwell times leaving 158s for the long-distance Liverpool to Norwich route.

Prior to the split in 2007, 158s and 170s shared many of the routes across the Central Trains area. 158s worked Liverpool to Norwich prior to 170s.

That would make sense - I kind of forgot that Central Trains had 158's !

 

[JohnMcL7]

The 158’s are notorious for having failed air conditioning. The 170’s have nice big windows due to the pillars being very thin. (Wish all trains were like that). I wonder how customers on routes that have lost their 170’s, find the brand new trains in comparison?

When I was commuting that and one less carriage were the biggest differences when taking a 158 over a 170, I didn't know until I joined this forum that 158's had air conditioning as they were always sweltering when I travelled on them.

 

[Energy]

I wonder how customers on routes that have lost their 170’s, find the brand new trains in comparison?

Guess we will see soon how WMR passengers take it...

 

[RailWonderer]

Hi, I have some questions regarding the aforementioned class types.

Class 158s are a long-distance train - they are called the Express Sprinter - and are designed with long distance in mind. Can we class Class 170s as a long distance train too? Were they intended to augment Class 158s? Or was it they just so happened to do more longer distance services?

The 170s were ordered for different operators for different services as a general-purpose unit for unelectified or part-electrified sections of the network.
They have been used for commuter, long distance, branch line and regional express services, some with buffets and first class, some without either. They were ordered when rail usage was falling every 5 years, around the millennium. As a result they did not provide not sufficient capacity for most journeys they operated over the years as usage rose and are either doubled up today, used on less busy services, or chronically overcrowded. They are mostly comfortable trains if you can get a seat, whatever the configuration. A well refurbished 158 (Scotrail, SWR) is just as good but most of them aren't. 158s were used on more long distance services when new than they are now. They were never that comfortable but were ordered when the replacement of LHCS with DMUs was of priority and rail usage was falling.

 

[hexagon789]

Only of real benefit where the line speed is continuously 100mph. if I recall correctly, Hull Trains 170's were averaging almost 90mph on some stretches because they could maintain 100mph for long distances. However, on routes with lower and mixed speeds, the 158's performance doesn't put them at a huge disadvantage to a 170. I had a 158 substitute a 170 - on an Aberdeen to Edinburgh service - and it pretty much kept to time most of the way. I would rather sit in the 170 in terms of comfort.

Midland Mainline used to set an 82mph start-to-stop average with their 170s between Luton Airport Parkway and Bedford as I recall, I believe that at the first timetable with 222s that timing was lengthened by a minute!

 

[hexagon789]

The 170s did a great job on the Edinburgh-Glasgow services. The only problem was is that they were diesels.

And not that quick. Just before the 385s took over, some services were scheduled 53 mins with 3 stops, hardly a fast schedule.