Silly 158/159 question

Status
Not open for further replies.

156441

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2011
Messages
501
Location
Manchester
What are the differences between a 158 and a 159? :oops:

Silly question to those who know but I don't and therefore would like the answer!! :roll:
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,877
Were the 159s not taken on by Network South East when they were looking for DMU stock, after Regional Railways had ordered too many 158s? Then so that they weren't 'using the same stock as RR', numbered differently?
 

Crossover

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Messages
8,701
Location
Yorkshire
As IanXC has said, I think 159's were just renumbered 158's - naturally since the refurbes they may look a little different now, but they are essentially the same unit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
OK, from a little more reading, it would appear the 159's gained First Class accommodation (or in the case of the ex TPE 158's, it was enlarged) and they were also fitted with retention toilets
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
158 - Regional Railways Spec
159 - NSE Spec

When built it was reported in Rail (ie Pinch of salt needed) that NSE had specified a different braking system with an extra wire in the coupler - making them incompatible with Regional Railways 158s. I'm not sure this made it into the final build or if mods were later made when sense overruled BR Politics

SWT renumbered the ex TPE 158's for fleet planning. 158 = 2 car and 159 = 3 car.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
9,083
Location
Redcar
Haven't the 159's also got more powerful engines as well?

I believe there is a lot more to them just being renumbered 158's.
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
The original batch do - 400hp compared with the 350hp lump under most 158s - but the last batch of 158s also had the 400hp engine.

159/1s have their original 350hp engines
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,123
Location
Redcar
Haven't the 159's also got more powerful engines as well?

Depends on the units being discussed. Some 158s have 350hp engines (either Perkins or Cummins) or 400hp engines (Cummins), whilst 159/0s have 400hp engines (Cummins) and 159/1s have 350hp engines (Cummins).
 

156441

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2011
Messages
501
Location
Manchester
So obviously not as easy of an answer as first thought.

My initial thoughts were that 159's are 3 car and 158's are 2 car but obviously that's not quite right!
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
Another thought. There isn't such a thing as a /10 subclass. Because of the vehicle numbering convention when numbering Sprinters the 158s were allocated /7 (170 units) and /9 (10 WYPTE spec), if there had been a bigger range available could they have been 158/10s?
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
158 - Regional Railways Spec
159 - NSE Spec

When built it was reported in Rail (ie Pinch of salt needed) that NSE had specified a different braking system with an extra wire in the coupler - making them incompatible with Regional Railways 158s. I'm not sure this made it into the final build or if mods were later made when sense overruled BR Politics

SWT renumbered the ex TPE 158's for fleet planning. 158 = 2 car and 159 = 3 car.

This is true of 165s/166s/168s, but luckily not true of 159s. Common sense prevailed as they were basically the same as RR's 158s.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,989
I have a silly question slightly related to the Cl159 question.

Why did the Cl159 replace simple loco hauled trains? Why was there no attempt to either build DEMUs (as happened for the Hasting Line) for the service or introduce some sort of 4REP/4TC/Cl33 working arrangement (as happened for the Weymouth Services)?

This seems very unusual in light of Southern Region's love of multiple unit working.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
5,199
Location
Nottingham
I have a silly question slightly related to the Cl159 question.

Why did the Cl159 replace simple loco hauled trains? Why was there no attempt to either build DEMUs (as happened for the Hasting Line) for the service or introduce some sort of 4REP/4TC/Cl33 working arrangement (as happened for the Weymouth Services)?

This seems very unusual in light of Southern Region's love of multiple unit working.

I think that originally there where some bodyshells spare from RR's 1598 production run, that where then used for the start of an order of 3 -car 158's for the south. Dont forget that also the 158 is a good design for the most part that was proven.

Even after 20 years I dont think we have came up with anything that does the medium distance routes significantly better than a 158, maybe if you moved the doors around on a 170 you would come close but I think they dont have a 158 bested in their current form
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
I believe the commonly understood events were that NSE wanted new class 171s for the line. Although Regional Railways had ordered too many 158s, there weren't enough spare 158s without NSE taking over RRs share of the Paddington-Worcester route, so NSE added some vehicles to it's 166 order to cover that, which released enough 158s to become 159s.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
6,629
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
I have a silly question slightly related to the Cl159 question.

Why did the Cl159 replace simple loco hauled trains? Why was there no attempt to either build DEMUs (as happened for the Hasting Line) for the service or introduce some sort of 4REP/4TC/Cl33 working arrangement (as happened for the Weymouth Services)?

This seems very unusual in light of Southern Region's love of multiple unit working.

There was a proposal at the time to extend the Networker Turbo family of units, with a more Intercity type DMU based around the 166, but with dire reliability of the Class 50s on the Loco Hauled services - Not helped by the fact that the 50s were maintained at Plymouth Laira and were notorious for chucking out the least best 50s for NSEs Waterloo to Exeter services - leaving the better few for its Paddington operations, whilst the stock was maintained at Old Oak Common. So, as British Rails Regional Railways had over-ordered on Class 158s, and the UKs economic situation wasn’t the best at the time, the decision taken by Chris Green at the time was to take on the 22 class 158s as a temporary measure until something more Intercity like could eventually be built - albeit this has never happened and is now why we have a fleet of 22 3 car 159/0s, combined with the thurther 8 class 159/1s.

One of Network South East's successes however has to be Salisbury depot - By simply basing all of the units at a single depot on the 159s core route has resulted in almost consistently good reliability figures for the fleet - although it's own limitation is that as it was built on sidings of the former GWR Station - it only has one access road into the depot - this resulting in several moves around the station with the access road from the former Platform One.

Hope this will help you - it's about as much as i can remember for now!
 

DXMachina

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2011
Messages
652
I believe the commonly understood events were that NSE wanted new class 171s for the line. .....

Was the Class 171 that NSE wanted a hypothetical unit that didn't exist yet, rather than the currently-known Class 171?

I ask as the 159 order was placed 14 years before the first Class 171 entered service
 

themiller

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
789
Location
Cumbria, UK
I may be wrong but I seem to remember that the 159s were built as standard 158s which were modified to NSE requirements before being put into service. I think that the mods included an extra notch for acceleration (or braking) as well as interior adjustments.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,610
Location
Macclesfield

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
3,727
Going from wikipedia, I think the following 158s were built:
  • 17x 3-car with Cummins 350hp engines
  • 107x 2-car with Cummins 350hp engines
  • 48x 2-car with Perkins 350hp engines
  • 10x 2-car with Cummins 400hp engines
  • 22x 3-car with Cummins 400hp engines

Assuming that's correct, wiki says the 10 400hp 2-car units were originally intended to work the steeply graded Welsh Marches Line. Is this true?

The 22 3-car 400hp units of course became 159s when regional railways decided they didn't need them. Which route(s) did regional railways order these 3-car 400hp 158s for originally?
 

Matt Taylor

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2008
Messages
2,314
Location
Portsmouth
When built it was reported in Rail (ie Pinch of salt needed) that NSE had specified a different braking system with an extra wire in the coupler - making them incompatible with Regional Railways 158s. I'm not sure this made it into the final build or if mods were later made when sense overruled BR Politics

Not true I'm afraid, I recorded 158872 in multiple with 159008/159013 between Basingstoke and Salisbury while working the 0900 Brighton-Milford Haven on 21st October 1995. This was a common move when the Salisbury-Romsey line was closed for engineering works.
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
2,074
Location
East Sussex
From reading different Rail magazines at the time, I believe the modifications to the 22 Class 158's that become 159/0's was done up in Rosyth if my memory serves me correct?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,610
Location
Macclesfield
From reading different Rail magazines at the time, I believe the modifications to the 22 Class 158's that become 159/0's was done up in Rosyth if my memory serves me correct?
Yes that's the case. Some of the units that became 159s performed some driver training runs along the route to Exeter as 158s prior to their conversion as well.
 

driver9000

Established Member
Joined
13 Jan 2008
Messages
3,955
I may be wrong but I seem to remember that the 159s were built as standard 158s which were modified to NSE requirements before being put into service. I think that the mods included an extra notch for acceleration (or braking) as well as interior adjustments.

The additional brake step and/or additional power notch are both myths. The cab is virtually identical to that of the 158.
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
525
One of Network South East's successes however has to be Salisbury depot - By simply basing all of the units at a single depot on the 159s core route has resulted in almost consistently good reliability figures for the fleet - although it's own limitation is that as it was built on sidings of the former GWR Station - it only has one access road into the depot - this resulting in several moves around the station with the access road from the former Platform One.

Lived in Salisbury for a while, and I can't remember one of SWT's 159s going tech. The 158s on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route however... not fantastic. Much better now though.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
12,989
What I meant was.

Why did the Cl50 hauled services last till the Cl159s replaced them?
Why was there no attempt by the Southern Region to run a 4REP/4TC/Cl33.1 service along the line as they did for weymouth or to build some more DEMUs?
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,568
Another thought. There isn't such a thing as a /10 subclass. Because of the vehicle numbering convention when numbering Sprinters the 158s were allocated /7 (170 units) and /9 (10 WYPTE spec), if there had been a bigger range available could they have been 158/10s?

TOPS can only handle sublcasses from /0 to /9. How would you number a a /10 subclass? You can't add extra digits.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
What I meant was.

Why did the Cl50 hauled services last till the Cl159s replaced them?
Why was there no attempt by the Southern Region to run a 4REP/4TC/Cl33.1 service along the line as they did for weymouth or to build some more DEMUs?

The 50s didn't last that long, they were replaced by 47s before the 159s entered service. What would have been the point of replacing the coaching stock on a short term basis?
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
TOPS can only handle sublcasses from /0 to /9. How would you number a a /10 subclass? You can't add extra digits.

That's pretty much what I was saying! Wasn't there also a proposal to use Cl48 if any more subclasses of Cl47 appeared?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top