Tubostars - When are they likely be withdrawn?

[170 seeker]

Turbostar family.

 

[Towers]

They won’t be going anywhere for a long while yet; the 17x will quite possibly the last DMUs standing in a decade or two, I suspect.

 

[stadler]

Turbostars are still very nice modern trains. I see no need to withdraw them yet. They are far too new and modern to get withdrawn. Turbostars are the best DMUs we have (maybe jointly with the 185s too) and have a lot more life left in them. The only issue is that not enough were built. They probably have another twenty years left. Sprinters (150/153/155/156/158/159) are what desperately need replacing.

 

[duffield]

Turbostars are still very nice modern trains. I see no need to withdraw them yet. They are far too new and modern to get withdrawn. Turbostars are the best DMUs we have (maybe jointly with the 185s too) and have a lot more life left in them. The only issue is that not enough were built. They probably have another twenty years left. Sprinters (150/153/155/156/158/159) are what desperately need replacing.

I use the 158s on the Norwich-Nottingham-Liverpool route regularly, and they seem to be in pretty good condition, even pre-refurb, and as far as I know they're pretty reliable, so I'm not sure they desperately need replacing. Which is just as as well, since them being refurbed seems to imply they're going to be around for quite a long time!

 

[stadler]

I use the 158s on the Norwich-Nottingham-Liverpool route regularly, and they seem to be in pretty good condition, even pre-refurb, and as far as I know they're pretty reliable, so I'm not sure they desperately need replacing. Which is just as as well, since them being refurbed seems to imply they're going to be around for quite a long time!

They are indeed fairly reliable (as is most BREL stock) but the 158s are very unsuitable trains. They have narrow end doors at the ends of each carriages rather than the wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions that Turbostars have. The 158s have been designed like an intercity train despite solely working regional services. It means they have such poor dwell times and it takes ages to board and alight. Very little room for luggage and doorways get clogged up. They feel very cramped onboard. Turbostars are noticeably far more pleasant to travel on than 158s. When i use the Norwich to Liverpool route i always prefer planning it to get the services worked by 170s rather than 158s. Plus the 158s are getting very old and starting to feel more and more worn out.

 

[Iddybiddy05]

There going nowhere anytime before 2040 at least.

 

[ExRes]

No need to even think about retiring them, here's a thought though, just maintain them properly

 

[renegademaster]

It's going to be politically awkward to buy new DMUs even if they are the best option, while the government are going to drag their feet regarding funding electrification and batteries , expect them to be common at least the next 30 years.

 

[Class 170101]

They won’t be going anywhere for a long while yet; the 17x will quite possibly the last DMUs standing in a decade or two, I suspect.

No, Class 195s, 196s and 197s will be around much longer being some 20 to 25 years younger.

 

[philosopher]

Turbostars are still very nice modern trains. I see no need to withdraw them yet. They are far too new and modern to get withdrawn. Turbostars are the best DMUs we have (maybe jointly with the 185s too) and have a lot more life left in them. The only issue is that not enough were built. They probably have another twenty years left. Sprinters (150/153/155/156/158/159) are what desperately need replacing.

I definitely agree, they have massive windows and the seats are usually aligned with the windows, which seems unusual these days. They are also reasonably quiet and have good air conditioning. The two thirds doors means dwell times are good which helps punctuality. The Class 158 are noisy and have rubbish air conditioning.

The only real downside is that their acceleration is not that good.

 

[brad465]

There going nowhere anytime before 2040 at least.

This is my thinking and I think the poll has very dubious options (evident by the 100% rating on "not soon"). I'd have done a poll with date ranges (2026-2030, 2031-2035, 2036-2040, 2041+ for example).

They were only introduced in the at the turn of the century and until electrification and battery tech becomes more widespread, will become the backbone DMU fleet once the Sprinters are all gone, which will be much sooner. I can see some 170/171s being subject to further cascades between regions as well (such as Southern getting rid of their remaining 171s if a battery fleet is approved, with the 171s going somewhere like EMR or Scotrail to help get rid of their older Sprinters, or to XC to bolster their existing fleet).

 

[D365]

What does the poll option ”Just started withdrawal” mean?

 

[Zomboid]

Once all the sprinters are gone, the 165/6s will probably be next to go.

It's possible that Chiltern will replace their entire fleet when they do the turbos, but even then I would expect the 168s to get new couplers and find a home elsewhere rather than be scrapped - but that'll depend on whether the sprinter replacement leaves anywhere for them to go.

 

[tfw756rider]

Judging by the fact that Diesel Multiple Units in Britain have about a 40 year service life on British/National Rail, I'd say from about 2040 for the 168s/170s/171s and 2050 for the 172s (even if there would be some sort of diesel ban from 2040 that I've heard about and the 172s would have to do their last 10 years as battery conversions or something?)

We're barely even trying not to continue using 158s/159s into the 2030s, so, like has already been said in here, Turbostars are nowhere close to withdrawal yet.

 

[Towers]

No, Class 195s, 196s and 197s will be around much longer being some 20 to 25 years younger.

Ah. Yes, fair point!

 

[317 forever]

If they were mandated for early withdrawal, which is extremely unlikely, EMR would surely suffer the most.

 

[tfw756rider]

Once all the sprinters are gone, the 165/6s will probably be next to go.

It's possible that Chiltern will replace their entire fleet when they do the turbos, but even then I would expect the 168s to get new couplers and find a home elsewhere rather than be scrapped - but that'll depend on whether the sprinter replacement leaves anywhere for them to go.

The 168s wouldn't need new couplers (only their existing BSI couplers electrically rewiring) to turn them into 170s (for the first time in the case of the 168/0/1/2s, and of course back to 170s in the case of the 168/3s!).

It's only conversion between [168/170] and [171] that's a change of the entire coupler between BSI and Dellner.

==========

I do wonder though what would happen with the subclasses - 170/3 to 168/3 was easy enough because 168/3 wasn't already taken (and of course they'd go back to 170/3), and I don't see any reason (not even the different cab appearance) why the 168/0s wouldn't become 170/0s.

However, 168/1 and 168/2 would clash with 170/1 and 170/2, and I think the only way to get around that would be to make [168/1 and 170/1] have "exactly" the same weight (and weight distribution if that would also be required) as each other by way of making the necessary changes to fittings, and the same for [168/2 and 170/2] (and jiggle around the unit/vehicle number ranges as necessary).

 

[D365]

I do wonder though what would happen with the subclasses - 170/3 to 168/3 was easy enough because 168/3 wasn't already taken (and of course they'd go back to 170/3), and I don't see any reason (not even the different cab appearance) why the 168/0s wouldn't become 170/0s.

However, 168/1 and 168/2 would clash with 170/1 and 170/2, and I think the only way to get around that would be to make [168/1 and 170/1] have "exactly" the same weight (and weight distribution if that would also be required) as each other by way of making the necessary changes to fittings, and the same for [168/2 and 170/2] (and jiggle around the unit/vehicle number ranges as necessary).

Do bear in mind that Chiltern is nowhere near ready to be replacing their Class 165s, let alone any Class 168s.

 

[Russel]

The 168s wouldn't need new couplers (only their existing BSI couplers electrically rewiring) to turn them into 170s (for the first time in the case of the 168/0/1/2s, and of course back to 170s in the case of the 168/3s!).

It's only conversion between [168/170] and [171] that's a change of the entire coupler between BSI and Dellner.

==========

I do wonder though what would happen with the subclasses - 170/3 to 168/3 was easy enough because 168/3 wasn't already taken (and of course they'd go back to 170/3), and I don't see any reason (not even the different cab appearance) why the 168/0s wouldn't become 170/0s.

However, 168/1 and 168/2 would clash with 170/1 and 170/2, and I think the only way to get around that would be to make [168/1 and 170/1] have "exactly" the same weight (and weight distribution if that would also be required) as each other by way of making the necessary changes to fittings, and the same for [168/2 and 170/2] (and jiggle around the unit/vehicle number ranges as necessary).

Back in reality, I doubt there is any real need to renumber anything.

 

[Zomboid]

Back in reality, I doubt there is any real need to renumber anything.

Quite. If the changes are made over day, it'll just become 168s and 171s being compatible with whatever a 170 is compatible with.

 

[m0ffy]

IMO, they are among the best DMUs on the railway today. I hope they get properly refurbished, and may XCs 2-car sets never run alone.

 

[Russel]

IMO, they are among the best DMUs on the railway today. I hope they get properly refurbished, and may XCs 2-car sets never run alone.

I hadn't used an XC 170 for a couple of months until today and hadn't realised just how much of a state they are in, internally, years of ground in dirt everywhere and no padding left in the seats, the refurb is certainly needed.

I used an EMR ex LM 170 on the Matlock branch also and surprisingly that seemed to be in a better condition, despite being refurbished around the same time as it's XC cousins.

 

[tfw756rider]

Do bear in mind that Chiltern is nowhere near ready to be replacing their Class 165s, let alone any Class 168s.

I know, hence my post #14. But I was responding to what @Zomboid said in post #13.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2025 ==

Back in reality, I doubt there is any real need to renumber anything.

Quite. If the changes are made over day, it'll just become 168s and 171s being compatible with whatever a 170 is compatible with.

Ey? If it weren't for the coupler differences, Classes 168, 170 and 171 would be one class. What coupler configuration they have determines which of those three classes they are.

Yes, East Midlands Railway briefly ran their 171s as "170s" (1709xx) before they had their Dellner couplers replaced with BSI couplers which turned them back into actual 170s and they reverted back to their 1704xx unit numbers (apparently this was to avoid 171 training and must have been a special arrangement), but that's the only exception I can think of.

Every other time any of these three classes have been converted between (170/7s to 171/7s in 2004, 170/3s to 168/3s in 2015, 170/4s to 171/2s/4s in 2016), they've been reclassified as the appropriate class:

• 170s to 171s - change of couplers from BSI (electrically wired for 150/153/155/156/158/159/170 multiple working) to Dellner (171/377 rescue compatible)
• 170s to 168s - electrical rewiring of BSI couplers from [150/153/155/156/158/159/170 multiple working] to [165/166/168 multiple working]

That's why I said:

I do wonder though what would happen with the subclasses - 170/3 to 168/3 was easy enough because 168/3 wasn't already taken (and of course they'd go back to 170/3), and I don't see any reason (not even the different cab appearance) why the 168/0s wouldn't become 170/0s.

However, 168/1 and 168/2 would clash with 170/1 and 170/2, and I think the only way to get around that would be to make [168/1 and 170/1] have "exactly" the same weight (and weight distribution if that would also be required) as each other by way of making the necessary changes to fittings, and the same for [168/2 and 170/2] (and jiggle around the unit/vehicle number ranges as necessary).

Anyway, perhaps best moving on

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about classifications under TOPS. Especially with the advent of computer/GPS-controlled Passenger Information systems that mean some examples of the same class can't operate together and some members of classes that could work together previously no longer can, or at least it's strongly discouraged (170s & 158s on EMR for example).

377s were originally South Central 375s which had been fitted with Dellner couplers... then SouthEastern switched their Electrostars to Dellners too but didn't reclassify them.

 

[tfw756rider]

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about classifications under TOPS. Especially with the advent of computer/GPS-controlled Passenger Information systems that mean some examples of the same class can't operate together and some members of classes that could work together previously no longer can, or at least it's strongly discouraged (170s & 158s on EMR for example).

377s were originally South Central 375s which had been fitted with Dellner couplers... then SouthEastern switched their Electrostars to Dellners too but didn't reclassify them.

I see, thanks.