Question about Class 158 and Class 170

[Domh245]

And if that the case why aren't more TOCs (barring TFW) looking into them over any CAFs

Because they realised that bidding a full fleet (or sprinter) replacement and the high costs that incurs isn't sustainable.

 

[RailWonderer]

Is anyone in East Anglia missing their 170s or their 153s yet, aren't the 755s a huge improvement on any existing diesel no loco hauled rolling stock in the UK.
And if that the case why aren't more TOCs (barring TFW) looking into them over any CAFs

Merseyrail is obtaining a fleet of Stadler METRO class 777s for its services as well. I think the FLIRTs have made a good first impression in Anglia apart from some expected teething problems expected for a type of train completely new to the UK.
Good riddance to the 153s in Anglia but the 170s are surely missed, their thin pillars and comfort seats especially. I think the exterior look of the 170s with the tinted windows and the black band across makes them look much more modern than newer stock although the 755s are in a technical sense unmatched on the UK rail network.

 

[Energy]

And if that the case why aren't more TOCs (barring TFW) looking into them over any CAFs

Probably because CAF is taken up with TfW orders in Newport. Also orders only happen at the start of franchises usually, there hasn't been a new franchise start for a while.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They're definitely nicer than the Northern 158s.

Apart from the horrible "toast-rack" style seating with only a handful of table bays per carriage... give me the luxuriant padding of an ex-TPE 158 any day of the week (even a hot day) ahead of an EMT/EMR example*!

*=One exception being the ex-SWT one with the declassified first class section and original standard class seating.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

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

True, if you look carefully the cab design on the original class 168s are similar to designs of unbuilt Networker trains for Crossrail and Thameslink.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

The "missing link" between the Sprinters and the Turbostars is the Network Turbos, from which the Turbostars were developed. I'd forgotten that the 165s entered service before the 465s, at around the same time as the 158s, and while the 158s were "one of a kind", the 165/165 format of 23m vehicles with 1/3 2/3 doors would go on to be the regional standard DMU arrangement ever since

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Networker Turbos being the vehicles from which Turbostars were developed.

I worked at Adtranz/Bombardier between 1998 and 2006, and from conversations I recall with people who were actually involved in the development of the platform designs, this "link" was never mentioned and the senior engineer was ex Crewe; no doubt "problems" encountered during the design/development of the Turbos - and 158s - were taken into account, but the bolted together design was a first (I think), and ease of production using 'just in time' principles and costs were drivers of the designs of both the 'Electrostar' and 'Turbostar' platforms. From one conversation I remember, originally there were basically two designs of vehicles with 1/3-2/3 doors; one was short and wide, the other long and narrow, and at the beginning either could have been supplied as an EMU or a DMU. Over time, changes were introduced, and I think at the time of my conversation it would have been difficult to use the platform to supply 20m long DMUs, but easier to provide 23m long EMUs, as there had been more changes to the undersides of the 20m long vehicles, all of which had been produced as EMUs. Moreover, alternative cabs were shown on publicity documents when I first went there, and I'm pretty sure that, say, the MML and/or Central 170s could have been built with 168 'Clubman' cabs had the customer wanted them. Certainly, the views of ROSCOs were taken into account when developing the designs; I recall a guy who worked at Porterbrook back then telling me that they insisted that what became 'Turbostars' should be able to multiple with 14X/15X DMUs, and 357/375 'Electrostars' had Tightlock couplers of the type which had been fitted to BR's latest EMUs (I was also told that 377s had Dellners at the insistence of Southern's procurement team). I also recall being told that making the design of the 'Turbostar' suitable for operation at SP speeds was also taken into account during the platform's development.

So the fact that they are both of aluminium construction, have Series 3 bogies, 1/3-2/3 doors, and Voith transmissions, and that the initial ones had cabs similar to the Turbos, doesn't necessarily mean that they are the missing link; the layout (particularly doors) was, I believe, the result of market research, and the platforms developed included one with end doors - the 'Citystar' - for IC type services. Moreover, as I intimated earlier, methods of construction are totally different; I don't know if you saw 158s being constructed at Derby and Turbos at York, and if you have seen how vehicles are now built in Derby, but the methods are totally different. The 170s for MML followed on from the 168s for Chiltern, and I guess that with hindsight the 168s can be described as pre-production 170s; seat layouts, seat manufacturers, colour schemes (carpet/moquette), numbers of toilets, internal door positions, etc, are all specified by customers and will therefore change between builds, but they are all very, very, similar - it's wrong to say identical because changes have been introduced over time to make manufacturing easier, reduce costs, etc., and so there will be detail differences between early build 170s and later ones.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Networker Turbos being the vehicles from which Turbostars were developed.

I worked at Adtranz/Bombardier between 1998 and 2006, and from conversations I recall with people who were actually involved in the development of the platform designs, this "link" was never mentioned and the senior engineer was ex Crewe; no doubt "problems" encountered during the design/development of the Turbos - and 158s - were taken into account, but the bolted together design was a first (I think), and ease of production using 'just in time' principles and costs were drivers of the designs of both the 'Electrostar' and 'Turbostar' platforms. From one conversation I remember, originally there were basically two designs of vehicles with 1/3-2/3 doors; one was short and wide, the other long and narrow, and at the beginning either could have been supplied as an EMU or a DMU. Over time, changes were introduced, and I think at the time of my conversation it would have been difficult to use the platform to supply 20m long DMUs, but easier to provide 23m long EMUs, as there had been more changes to the undersides of the 20m long vehicles, all of which had been produced as EMUs. Moreover, alternative cabs were shown on publicity documents when I first went there, and I'm pretty sure that, say, the MML and/or Central 170s could have been built with 168 'Clubman' cabs had the customer wanted them. Certainly, the views of ROSCOs were taken into account when developing the designs; I recall a guy who worked at Porterbrook back then telling me that they insisted that what became 'Turbostars' should be able to multiple with 14X/15X DMUs, and 357/375 'Electrostars' had Tightlock couplers of the type which had been fitted to BR's latest EMUs (I was also told that 377s had Dellners at the insistence of Southern's procurement team). I also recall being told that making the design of the 'Turbostar' suitable for operation at SP speeds was also taken into account during the platform's development.

So the fact that they are both of aluminium construction, have Series 3 bogies, 1/3-2/3 doors, and Voith transmissions, and that the initial ones had cabs similar to the Turbos, doesn't necessarily mean that they are the missing link; the layout (particularly doors) was, I believe, the result of market research, and the platforms developed included one with end doors - the 'Citystar' - for IC type services. Moreover, as I intimated earlier, methods of construction are totally different; I don't know if you saw 158s being constructed at Derby and Turbos at York, and if you have seen how vehicles are now built in Derby, but the methods are totally different. The 170s for MML followed on from the 168s for Chiltern, and I guess that with hindsight the 168s can be described as pre-production 170s; seat layouts, seat manufacturers, colour schemes (carpet/moquette), numbers of toilets, internal door positions, etc, are all specified by customers and will therefore change between builds, but they are all very, very, similar - it's wrong to say identical because changes have been introduced over time to make manufacturing easier, reduce costs, etc., and so there will be detail differences between early build 170s and later ones.

Is it true that the Electrostar trains were actually based on an unbuilt train designed by BR?

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Depends what you mean by design.

The last train to have actually have been designed by BR - ie, by the M&EE Dept in Trent House in the Railway Technical Centre in Derby - was the class 150, and this was due to a fluke of timing.

As part of the privatisation of BREL, the ability to design traction and rolling stock was transferred from the M&EE Dept to BREL, and before this was completed tenders were issued for prototype DMUs (what became 150/0s and 151s); consequently, BREL engaged BR's M&EE Dept to design the 150/0s for them. Using present terminology, this was a "cut-and-paste" job, as existing designs were used wherever possible; the bodyshell was 317/455, the bogie was a series 3 which had been designed with tread brakes, the interior ceiling was 313, and the cab was a design which had recently been produced because of unflattering comments made about the existing vehicle ends on the EMUs based on Mk 3 designs. Obviously, engine rafts, fuel tanks, and a few other odds-and-ends had to be designed from new, but the end result was a design which cost "peanuts".

After that, BR issued Procurement Specifications when new trains were procured, and design was left to tenderers; however, these sometimes included drawings of what BR wanted the trains being procured to look like, and on other occasions mock-ups were produced. Of trains built, class 60s and Networkers followed the latter path, and there were also mock-ups of IC250 and a gangwayed express EMU for NSE; Wikipedia describes this as being for Kent Coast, but there was certainly talk of one NSE mock-up I saw as being for Bournemouth/Weymouth - perhaps there's someone looking in who can remember if there was just one gangwayed EMU mock-up for NSE, or if there were two.

I can't remember as to which Railtex it was, but at one exhibition during the 1990s a NSE sponsored design for a Crossrail EMU was exhibited as a full sized mock-up (YouTube has a film of it at a subsequent exhibition at Liverpool Street); this was designed "externally", and DCA comes to mind as the designers, but I can't be certain. This wasn't taken any further (the original joint BR/London Transport Crossrail proposal was scrapped), but the cab style was usually used when EMUs projected for Thameslink 2000 and Kent high speed services using what we now call HS1 were illustated.

So, in the literal sense, the last trains designed by BR were the class 150/0s, and I guess the nearest unbuilt EMU train design I can think of is the 341; class 357 'Electrostars' are similar, but they are also similar to the AC 'Networkers' planned for the LT&S line. However, most 'Electrostars' have been built with gangways, and although the proposed 471s had them, they were very different in layout as they included compartments. So I can't think of a BR specified train which wasn't built which was directly comparable with 375s/377s/379s/387s, or with the 376s/378s.

'Electrostars' were designed to be compatible with Thameslink, and I was also told that being able to run on HS1 (with suitable signalling installed) was a requirement of the original Connex South Eastern spec, but I am unable to remember who told me this and am therefore unable to confirm the validity of the information; however, if they can run on HS1, I don't know if they would be permitted to run at 110mph or if they would be limited to 100mph.

Hope this helps.

Is it true that the Electrostar trains were actually based on an unbuilt train designed by BR?

 

[Ted633]

Is it true that the Electrostar trains were actually based on an unbuilt train designed by BR?

Possibly you're thinking of the Networker Classic? Built in '97 using a 4CIG underframe & equipment with a modern (Turbostar looking) body.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_424

 

[edwin_m]

The various internal doors on XCs 170s (/1, /3, /5 & /6) were removed when they were refurbished at Clacton around 2008/9. The various internal layouts were also standardised at the same time.

Except that they forgot to add litter bins to one batch!

However, as Adtranz developed three main platforms - 'Turbostar', 'Electrostar', and 'Citystar' - it's possible that the company didn't anticipate that 'Turbostars' would be used on services such as those in Scotland where they are now being replaced by 2+4/5 HSTs in Scotland; 'Citystars' were never ordered - but the design of the 220 nose looks very similar to that on the 'Citystar' tender drawings sent to Virgin by Adtranz!

They produced a demonstrator called "Turbostar traveler" with an interior customized for short-distance work and no aircon. They never sold any and the demonstrator was subsequently turned into one car of a standard Turbostar (I think under the floor that's what it was all along) but some of the interior features may have found their way into the class 376 design.

But - back to the original question - would Regional Railways have ordered trains like 'Turbostars' or 158s if privatisation hadn't come along?

So far as I am aware, there weren't any plans to increase Regional Railways fleet size, so apart from replacing the last of the "heritage" DMUs, no more would have been bought; therefore, IF more trains had been procured, I guess the design would have been determined by what they were intended for, because as a general rule 1/3-2/3 doors were used for local/suburban services, end doors for longer distance ones. So if they'd been ordered as direct replacements for the "heritage" units operated on suburban services around Manchester or in Scotland, they might have been 'Turbostar' type trains; but it might have been that - to get new trains through the investment process - 150s would have been transferred to those areas, and something like 158s (or 175s) procured to work elsewhere.

I guess it depends on two counterfactuals: would the increase in passenger numbers have happened without privatization, and would the balance of power between DM&EE and the manufacturers have shifted further to allow the latter to offer what they felt was best without risk of being disadvantaged.

But one thing which can be said with certainty; BR would NOT have purchased 185s. There'd have been hell to play if anyone had even suggested procuring DMUs which could not operate, say, between York and Scarborough, at SP speeds.

Didn't that particular issue only become apparent after delivery or during testing?

I think there are a couple of issues with the 185 design. Including being somewhat over powered and more thirsty than was absolutely necessary. But I suppose there was at the time a gap in proven powertrains between the 450hp power train of the 170 and the 750hp voyager engine.

I dare say there is probably an interesting story behind how the 185s came to be just as they are.

It's probably the loss of engineering expertise, so the TOC and perhaps also the ROSCO wouldn't have realized the consequences for weight and operating cost of dialing up the power in the specification. A bit similar to how nobody did anything about the Southern power supply when new and power-hungrier EMUs came in, until the problem became impossible to ignore.

The turbos are sort of the father for a lot of trains, the 168s are based of them, the turbostars and electrostars are both based of the 168 and the aventra is based of the electrostar.

The 168 effectively is a Turbostar - the only significant difference is the wiring of the coupling to be compatible with 16x, and the 168-like nose fitted to early batches at a time when Adtranz was pushing the idea of each operator having a custom front end on what was otherwise a standard bodyshell. The later batches used the standard Turbostar front but were still designated 168s.

The big generic difference from the Networkers to the Turbostars and the Electrostars was the change from a welded aluminium bodyshell (as also used for the 158s) to a huckbolted structure where the top, sides and ends were made separately and partly fitted out before being combined. The Turbostars also used a MTU engine instead of Perkins and Cummins variously on earlier designs, probably because ADtranz and MTU were part of the same group. MTU didn't have an engine of the optimum power for a 100mph unit, hence the slight underpowering of the Turbostars.

 

[Neptune]

They produced a demonstrator called "Turbostar traveler" with an interior customized for short-distance work and no aircon. They never sold any and the demonstrator was subsequently turned into one car of a standard Turbostar (I think under the floor that's what it was all along) but some of the interior features may have found their way into the class 376 design.

I believe that was a vehicle from 170399.

 

[TheBigD]

Except that they forgot to add litter bins to one batch!

They didn't forget, it was a choice.

The matter was raised at a staff forum day just after the first unit was back in service (170398 from memory but may be wrong). The thinking was that people didn't use them much and left the rubbish on tables for the cleaners etc. XC did look at the matter again a few years later but didn't progress it.
Some bins remained after refurbishment on the units that had them before had, but where they didn't they weren't added.

 

[LowLevel]

They didn't forget, it was a choice.

The matter was raised at a staff forum day just after the first unit was back in service (170398 from memory but may be wrong). The thinking was that people didn't use them much and left the rubbish on tables for the cleaners etc. XC did look at the matter again a few years later but didn't progress it.
Some bins remained after refurbishment on the units that had them before had, but where they didn't they weren't added.

It was the 170/1 units. The bins were formerly located in the saloons and were removed on refurb (they were crappy little things). They were subsequently installed as on the /3, 5 and 6.

The passengers might not use the bins that often but it was enough (with crew litter picks) that the 170/1s were always in a vile state.

 

[edwin_m]

Once all these units joined XC on journeys such as Nottingham-Gloucester I'd often be wandering down the train with a handful of litter looking for a bin to put it in. It seemed pretty crazy to have bins on some units and not on others that were (after refurbishment) essentially identical. And even more crazy that it was intentional!

 

[43096]

The Turbostars also used a MTU engine instead of Perkins and Cummins variously on earlier designs, probably because ADtranz and MTU were part of the same group. MTU didn't have an engine of the optimum power for a 100mph unit, hence the slight underpowering of the Turbostars.

No probably about it, the common ownership of ADtranz and MTU was absolutely the reason.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

They produced a demonstrator called "Turbostar traveler" with an interior customized for short-distance work and no aircon. They never sold any and the demonstrator was subsequently turned into one car of a standard Turbostar (I think under the floor that's what it was all along) but some of the interior features may have found their way into the class 376 design.

The "Turbostar Traveller" mock-up was shown at Railtex 2000; it was basically a 'Turbostar' with a different interior, including more standing room, no tables, etc, and was targeted at the urban market. However, if it had been ordered, the main difference would have been that it would have had a MAN engine instead of a MTU one; HVAC would have been optional - as it was on 'Turbostars' although all were ordered with HVAC.

I guess it depends on two counterfactuals: would the increase in passenger numbers have happened without privatization, and would the balance of power between DM&EE and the manufacturers have shifted further to allow the latter to offer what they felt was best without risk of being disadvantaged.

Surely it's not really about the "balance of power" shifting, but what tender evaluation criteria is declared in the invitation to tender; if the procurement specification is "broad" - as it should be - unless there is something in the ITT which specifically states that platforms can't be offered, then there is no reason as to why something like a 'Turbostar' couldn't be offered (if it meets the requirements of the procurement spec) and the fact that it is a 'Turbostar' shouldn't disadvantage the tenderer's offer in any way.

By privatisation, the days were long gone when the M&EE Dept designed trains and a letter was sent from BR's Director of Supply to BREL saying "please build 24 x 2+8 HSTs at a total cost of £Xm, in accordance with the drawings supplied, and deliver them in accordance with the agreed programme; and by the way, the diesel engines, electrics, cooler groups and silencers will be free issued to you". By privatisation, the sector would have said what it wanted, the M&EE Dept would have converted that into a procurement specification, and the procurement would have been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Utilities Directive.

It's probably the loss of engineering expertise, so the TOC and perhaps also the ROSCO wouldn't have realized the consequences for weight and operating cost of dialing up the power in the specification. A bit similar to how nobody did anything about the Southern power supply when new and power-hungrier EMUs came in, until the problem became impossible to ignore.

Going back to my original comment, it's very unlikely that BR's procurement specification would have declared what the installed power should be; it would have declared the routes over which the train was to operate (if it was to be route specific) and show required journey times in some form. It might have been expressed generally - say something like match or better current journey times between York and Scarborough, taking due account of infrastructure constraints presently in place - or show specific point-to-point timings which had to be achieved within the constraints of the existing infrastructure; it might then have requirements which the tenderers were specifically required to address in their tender, such as how they proposed to ensure that the design being tendered was suitable for running along the sea wall at Dawlish in certain weather/tide/wind conditions.

On Southern, unless strengthening of the power supply had already been authorised, the specification for the trains would have required them to match what was already there (or would be by the time the trains were delivered); because it was a vertically integrated railway, there were enough "clever sods" on the BR Investment and Supply Committees to have picked-up the mis-match between trains and power supply if the sector had sought authorisation for something like the 444s/450s.

The 168 effectively is a Turbostar - the only significant difference is the wiring of the coupling to be compatible with 16x, and the 168-like nose fitted to early batches at a time when Adtranz was pushing the idea of each operator having a custom front end on what was otherwise a standard bodyshell. The later batches used the standard Turbostar front but were still designated 168s.

The big generic difference from the Networkers to the Turbostars and the Electrostars was the change from a welded aluminium bodyshell (as also used for the 158s) to a huckbolted structure where the top, sides and ends were made separately and partly fitted out before being combined. The Turbostars also used a MTU engine instead of Perkins and Cummins variously on earlier designs, probably because ADtranz and MTU were part of the same group. MTU didn't have an engine of the optimum power for a 100mph unit, hence the slight underpowering of the Turbostars.

The 168 IS a 'Turbostar'; I have an Adtranz publicity leaflet for the 168 from the late 1990s (copy of front attached) and as can be seen it specifically describes it as a 'Turbostar' . With regard to MTU, I think at the time the decision was made to use their engine Adtranz was still jointly owned between ABB and Daimler Benz - the latter obviously owned Mercedes Benz and the MTU engine installed in the 'Turbostar' is basically a Mercedes one tractionised in some way - but somewhere around 1999 ABB sold out and Daimler merged (or whatever!) with Chrysler, and Adtranz became Daimler Chrysler Transportation (or something!) and so by then Adtranz, MTU, and Mercedes Benz WERE all in the same group!

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Apologies if my previous posting is a mess - I tried to answer points individually, and I think they've got wrapped up in edwin_m's original post.

 

[Helvellyn]

Adtranz (later Bombardier) ended up sweeping up the DMU market after Alstom's competing products (like their EMUs) effectively flopped due to reliability issues. The Class 175s were definitely a 158 style product but other than Northern Trains nobody ordered them, whilst the Class 180s were allocated to Great Western before delivery once the two franchises were under common ownership.

On the EMU front Stagecoach (via subsidiary Porterbrook) procured the 30 448 units for SWT, with Scotrail selecting the three car 334 to replace the 303s. If Alstom had nailed Class 458 reliability it is questionable whether Siemens would have entered the UK market when they did after their win of the 444/450 order. A five-car EMU version of a Class 175 could have been Alstom's pitch for the 444 alongside additional 458s.

The DMU market was also pretty much smaller, with no mass fleet replacements required until the mid-2000s as was the case with EMUs so once the Class 170 pretty much became the only game in town its success is a little more understood.

 

[Mikey C]

The 168 IS a 'Turbostar'; I have an Adtranz publicity leaflet for the 168 from the late 1990s (copy of front attached) and as can be seen it specifically describes it as a 'Turbostar' . With regard to MTU, I think at the time the decision was made to use their engine Adtranz was still jointly owned between ABB and Daimler Benz - the latter obviously owned Mercedes Benz and the MTU engine installed in the 'Turbostar' is basically a Mercedes one tractionised in some way - but somewhere around 1999 ABB sold out and Daimler merged (or whatever!) with Chrysler, and Adtranz became Daimler Chrysler Transportation (or something!) and so by then Adtranz, MTU, and Mercedes Benz WERE all in the same group!

View attachment 77307

It's funny how that brief period of common ownership gave MTU a foothold in the UK, as 2 decades on the CAF DMUs (a modern day Turbostar style product) are powered by MTU engines, while MTU itself is now owned by Rolls-Royce!

 

[edwin_m]

Adtranz (later Bombardier) ended up sweeping up the DMU market after Alstom's competing products (like their EMUs) effectively flopped due to reliability issues. The Class 175s were definitely a 158 style product but other than Northern Trains nobody ordered them, whilst the Class 180s were allocated to Great Western before delivery once the two franchises were under common ownership.

Great Western Trains was a management buyout backed by First, and later also won the franchise for North Western. As far as I'm aware the 175s and 180s were a common procurement but the individual classes were always intended for different TOCs.

On the EMU front Stagecoach (via subsidiary Porterbrook) procured the 30 448 units for SWT, with Scotrail selecting the three car 334 to replace the 303s. If Alstom had nailed Class 458 reliability it is questionable whether Siemens would have entered the UK market when they did after their win of the 444/450 order. A five-car EMU version of a Class 175 could have been Alstom's pitch for the 444 alongside additional 458s.

The 458 (not 448) was a compensation when Stagecoach took over Porterbrook, and were eventually got to high levels of reliability by SWT, who seemed to have some of the best fleet engineering of any of the TOCs, and thus proved that the problems were with Alstom's support rather than the "Juniper" EMU concept itself. I agree Alstom could have kept Siemens out of the SWT and possibly the rest of the UK market if they had got their act together. Siemens did have a prior foothold with the 332 and 332 units (jointly with CAF) including crucially the experience of getting new EMUs through the electromagnetic compatibility approval process which Alstom struggled with. They also came through with some very solid and reliable units in the Desiro family, though also very much on the heavy side.

I'm less sure about the DMUs, as the fairly frequent underfloor fires might be a design rather than a maintenance problem, and even the 175s maintained by their manufacturer at the same depot throughout their lives haven't been particularly reliable. The 180s have been passed from operator to operator and what was a small fleet in the first place has been sub-divided, and are probably pushing the "sprinter" style of drive train to its limit where Bombardier went for an electric transmission for a similar duty.

Bombardier did enough right to remain as a major player. Their Star units are also rather heavy but also a bit "garden shed" in some design features, but have proved to be suitable for most duties.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Didn't the early 170s originally have different engines, and were retrofitted with the MTU units after a few years? Cummins rings a bell, but my only source is vague memory of an article in LIAR magazine!

 

[MCR247]

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

They did, and then towards the end they gained the exTPE ones too - including the 3 car ones before the centre cars got moved on to Northern. Those 158s really did look shabby before they got refurbished under EMT - (not my photo)

 

[LowLevel]

They did, and then towards the end they gained the exTPE ones too - including the 3 car ones before the centre cars got moved on to Northern. Those 158s really did look shabby before they got refurbished under EMT - (not my photo)

The exterior looked awful but inside they were the best of the lot, they had had a very nice refurbishment a few years previously.

 

[edwin_m]

The exterior looked awful but inside they were the best of the lot, they had had a very nice refurbishment a few years previously.

I did worry that the addition of CT logos then EMT vinyls on top of the Northern Spirit livery would take them out of gauge (joke). Perhaps offset somewhat by the way the varnish was peeling off on the unmodified parts. But yes, I agree very nice inside, perhaps nicer than the huge First seats on the 170s.

 

[MCR247]

The exterior looked awful but inside they were the best of the lot, they had had a very nice refurbishment a few years previously.

Indeed, for a start they actual had padding left on the seats - unlike a lot of the green ones by that point. I seem to remember wood effect tables

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, for a start they actual had padding left on the seats - unlike a lot of the green ones by that point. I seem to remember wood effect tables

Wood effect tables and partitions, lamps and sockets too (even in Standard?).

 

[hexagon789]

Wood effect tables and partitions, lamps and sockets too (even in Standard?).

Sounds more like First Class. Certainly that's the exact description of the first class ScotRail 158s had until removal.

 

[Neptune]

Wood effect tables and partitions, lamps and sockets too (even in Standard?).

No lamps and sockets in standard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No lamps and sockets in standard.

And I don't think any wood effect in 1st, it was I think blue?

I may have been responsible for the wood effect. I was surveyed on a TPE 158 prior to the refurb and suggested it then.

It (Standard) was probably the classiest interior of the 2nd generation DMUs, though I think the Mk5a 1st interior beats it into the proverbial cocked hat. 1st was a bit pointless, other than 158811 (I think) which was a test run it had the same seats as Standard in 1st.

 

[edwin_m]

No lamps and sockets in standard.

I was probably thinking of the Central and early EMT period when First was declassified.