Opinions On The Class 158

[superkev]

On the basis the 158 weigh less per seat than anything since they would have my vote despite there air conditioning problems.
Now there past mid life pity no one's considered an upgrade of the ageing to mechanicals rather than just the usual redecorstion. The 485hp class 172 arrangement would really fly as well as being more fuel efficient.
K

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure I heard one TOC, maybe SWT, was testing at least the gearbox.

Yep, SWT: [youtube]lH29LwN-hgE[/youtube]

 

[Kite159]

I'm sure I heard one TOC, maybe SWT, was testing at least the gearbox.

Yep, SWT: [youtube]lH29LwN-hgE[/youtube]

158885, feels very much like a 172 when pulling away at stations.

 

[satisnek]

An excellent unit marred only by the tight seat pitch in the original layout, which was just about perfect otherwise. Worth noting that the layout as built has 100% window alignment - not a single seat is up against a wall.

Had they been built with 8 bodyside windows rather than 9, and 8 fewer seats per vehicle, they would have been near ideal. Had they been 3- or 4-car rather than 2- or 3-, even better.

Aircon is a bit poor, but that wasn't the case as-built - it's because the as-built system works badly with non-CFC propellants. In the early days I recall stepping on board being akin to stepping into a fridge on a hot day, lovely.

Some of the refurbs are very good, but generally deliver more legroom at the expense of window alignment. The ScotRail Inverness ones (all ScotRail ones are to be done the same way now) manage to mostly keep it, making them almost the ideal evolution of this unit. The ATW one isn't bad either. EMT OK, I particularly like the bright colours and high backed seats, but legroom a bit tight.

Exactly what I think. Rather cramped but otherwise nice units - probably the last example of passenger rolling stock where the bodyshell designer and the interior designer actually spoke to each other!

ZF gearbox? Please, no, stepped transmission is so 1985 (and it didn't catch on then...).

 

[387star]

They can be great see the 159

I think they. Suffer from air conditioning failures and older type toilets as well as too few coaches. So a not packed 158 detracts from their positive points

Many companies have also neglected the 158s very badly especially central trains and arriva trains wales till refurbishment from memory

 

[samuelmorris]

Positive experience on pretty much all the 158s I've been on. It would be a tragedy if they did not outlive the other sprinter units by at least a decade, they are leaps and bounds ahead of the other units. I first remember using one from Sleaford to Lincoln some time in the late 90s, having been forewarned about the mediocrity of the rail service on the route so was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the unit. Of course, the 153s that operated the route almost every time subsequently were considerably less enjoyable :P

Used the SWT 158/159s down to Hampshire a few times and always enjoy the journey, sit back, relax, doze off for an hour. Also fairly impressed with the ATW 158s on the one occasion I used one although the return journey was very draughty and quite cold as a result. I haven't used an NR, FGW or SR version so can't comment on those.

In general there are a large number of multiple units out there that I think should really see major refurbishment to justify their use well into the 2020s, but the 158s aren't one of them. They're probably the oldest units I can think of where I'd be happy for them to carry on for the foreseeable exactly as they are, at least on the TOCs I've used.

That mechanical conversion 158 is very interesting - I'm surprised to hear the distinctive whine of a 158 is still present, I had always assumed it was the gearbox that made that noise.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Sorry to go against the 158-worship.
Competent DMUs of course, but I find them cramped and noisy.
Gangways and doors are poor, PIS sketchy (often displaying just "www.arrivatrainswales.com") and scrolling too much.
I mostly use them on ATW routes which also have 175s, which I much prefer.
There are some specific seat positions which have a lot of intrusive noise/vibration - usually the ones with tables.
I've never quite worked out why, maybe directly above engines.
The refurbs have improved the interiors, but I'm not a fan of coffin seats with no forward view.

 

[coppercapped]

ZF gearbox? Please, no, stepped transmission is so 1985 (and it didn't catch on then...).

You are joking, right?

Keeping the engine speed as close to the top of its torque curve, while the road speed varies, is the best way to minimise fuel consumption. Torque converters, while simple and reliable, are inefficient when operating away from their design point. Electric transmissions permit the keeping of a constant engine speed and a gearbox with many ratios is a good compromise.

A report may be found here.

The SWT tests with the 159 and ZF boxes showed considerable fuel savings - more than 15% IIRC. And Voith now also offers the DIWArail hydromechanical transmission for powers up to 520bhp.

Gears are GO!

 

[superkev]

You are joking, right?

Keeping the engine speed as close to the top of its torque curve, while the road speed varies, is the best way to minimise fuel consumption. Torque converters, while simple and reliable, are inefficient when operating away from their design point. Electric transmissions permit the keeping of a constant engine speed and a gearbox with many ratios is a good compromise.

A report may be found here.

The SWT tests with the 159 and ZF boxes showed considerable fuel savings - more than 15% IIRC. And Voith now also offers the DIWArail hydromechanical transmission for powers up to 520bhp.

Gears are GO!

Here here. Presumably 15% lost as heat = 15% more power to the wheels.
K

 

[swt class 450]

Personally im not really a fan of 158s or 159s. The narrow doors at the ends or each coach (instead of wide doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions) make them feel very unspacious and cramped. I prefer the 150s. Thought the SWT 158s/159s are definitely the best 158s/159s.

 

[Mordac]

Only experienced the Scotrail versions, but I'm not a huge fan. As swt class 450 says, the end doors make them feel very cramped. Also find them very noisy, when compared to, say, a 175 or 185, both of which I significantly prefer to a 158.

They are the best of the Sprinters, though (possibly excepting a 159, which I've never tried, but which I understand is more or less the same).

 

[samuelmorris]

I think it's fair to say a 185 is more refined still than a 158, but has 15 years or more on its side. If anything, I probably have an unjustly low opinion of 185s vs. 158s because the 158 services I've used have been sensibly loaded whereas 185s tend to be metro-style standing/crush-load affairs due to the severe overcrowding issues on the routes they serve. 1/3-2/3 doors also make them seem less express than they are actually used for in practice. It's also a case of comparing them to their electric counterparts at the time they were built - compare a 185 to a 450 or 444 and, engine noise aside, they stand up reasonably well, but compare a 158 to a 321 or 465 and it's no contest in terms of refinement, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think they can be described as the best DMUs to date, but for their age they are well above average, and can compare if not favourably, then acceptably to contemporary DMUs - 170s especially, which I find to be noisier than 158s (mainly due to plastic panels rattling)

 

[Bletchleyite]

185s would be perfect for the role were they 5-car, not 3-car.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A lot of comments from people with only relatively recent experience of these units. When new the 158s were terrible with in service breakdowns a very regular occurrence. Indeed so poor were they that a common nickname for them was "Scud" which was a reference to the then current (First) Gulf War during which Sadam's Scud missiles were hardly ever reaching their intended targets in Israel. And I could never get comfortable in them due to their low seats not supporting my longish legs.

The ride quality is generally good but best on the network IME is the Pendolino; rather difficult to actually make a direct comparison between the two of course! And while I always sympathise with those who prefer an external view from their seat I do think the most comfortable 158 fleet is EMT's as that style of seat supports my long frame better than just about any other while still providing sufficient leg room.

As for mechanical transmission the problem there is that long-term use in a railway environment tends to eventually loosen it up too much. LM 172s are already rather clunky through the gears although Chiltern's, which spend less time overall on pure stop-start services, seem to be holding up a little better. The possibility of making fuel savings is very tempting but it needs sufficient maintenance effort to counter the higher wear and tear.

Best DMU? Maybe. If only the 175s were more reliable...

 

[darylyates17]

A lot of comments from people with only relatively recent experience of these units. When new the 158s were terrible with in service breakdowns a very regular occurrence. Indeed so poor were they that a common nickname for them was "Scud" which was a reference to the then current (First) Gulf War during which Sadam's Scud missiles were hardly ever reaching their intended targets in Israel. And I could never get comfortable in them due to their low seats not supporting my longish legs.

The ride quality is generally good but best on the network IME is the Pendolino; rather difficult to actually make a direct comparison between the two of course! And while I always sympathise with those who prefer an external view from their seat I do think the most comfortable 158 fleet is EMT's as that style of seat supports my long frame better than just about any other while still providing sufficient leg room.

As for mechanical transmission the problem there is that long-term use in a railway environment tends to eventually loosen it up too much. LM 172s are already rather clunky through the gears although Chiltern's, which spend less time overall on pure stop-start services, seem to be holding up a little better. The possibility of making fuel savings is very tempting but it needs sufficient maintenance effort to counter the higher wear and tear.

Best DMU? Maybe. If only the 175s were more reliable...

The best DMUs for me are 175s I think they are better than 158s and their reliability is a lot better now but they really need a proper referb as ATW haven't really done anything apart form the carpet and seat colors as there is still FNW pink in places

 

[Blindtraveler]

For me the 158 is the DNU of choice and wish more had been built. Anyone who thinks Northerns scruffiest ones are bad should try the truly ransid Nat X refurbed Scotrail Haymarket ones and count yourselves lucky. I always enjoy a trip to Northern Land. Incidentally, best 158 aircon Iv used has also been on Northern.

With regards the disabled bogs, r these compliant with 2020 rules or will they need changing?

 

[Bletchleyite]

For me the 158 is the DNU of choice and wish more had been built. Anyone who thinks Northerns scruffiest ones are bad should try the truly ransid Nat X refurbed Scotrail Haymarket ones and count yourselves lucky. I always enjoy a trip to Northern Land. Incidentally, best 158 aircon Iv used has also been on Northern.

The ScotRail Inverness ones are however the best!

(FWIW, all ScotRail ones are now being refurbed like that)

With regards the disabled bogs, r these compliant with 2020 rules or will they need changing?

I'd expect they are not, they seem too small. Replacement wouldn't be a bad thing, the bogs are very much a weak point of the design. I think the circular ones used in LM 319s would fit in the existing location.

 

[AlterEgo]

The SWT 158s are the best around. I regularly let a train go just to catch the 1720 from Waterloo which is a 158. I much prefer the original seats.

 

[route:oxford]

For me the 158 is the DNU of choice and wish more had been built.

Yes. I do strongly believe that BR made a fundamental error back in the 1980s when the 158 was ordered.

Even back then the Cross-Country network was failing quite badly with poor Mk2 rolling stock, intermittant timetabling and ageing 47 haulage.

Had around 40 5-Car 158s (with micro-buffet) been ordered at that time, it would have transformed the XC product and driven enough growth so that when, 12 years later there was time for incremental improvement again, the 5-Car 158s would be cascaded either as 5-car units or would be reformed to 4 or 3-car sets thus releasing 40 or 80 centre coaches to strengthen 158s around the country.

With regards the disabled bogs, r these compliant with 2020 rules or will they need changing?

As someone that is partially sighted, which style of WC do you prefer on a train...

The cavernous "Voyager" style with digital interface doors?
Or the compact, every wall is just a hand-reach away with mechanical locking doors?

 

[PHILIPE]

There has been a lot of discussion in the last few days (just keep to the last few days as it's rather a lengthy thread) on the Scottish Borders thread about possible problems with 158s on long and steep gradients.

www.railforums.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=43

ATW 158s have hardly been touched on in this thread but from what I have read opinions from various sources that, since refurbishment a few years ago, they are the most favorable that I've heard of. I'll exempt the Aircon from the praise though. GWR ones, again of which there has hardly been any mention are not too bad

 

[Bletchleyite]

Had around 40 5-Car 158s (with micro-buffet) been ordered at that time, it would have transformed the XC product and driven enough growth so that when, 12 years later there was time for incremental improvement again, the 5-Car 158s would be cascaded either as 5-car units or would be reformed to 4 or 3-car sets thus releasing 40 or 80 centre coaches to strengthen 158s around the country.

Agree strongly - they would have been excellent for the role. (And along similar lines, as BR did not do this, Virgin XC should really have ordered longer, maybe 6- or 7-car, 170s rather than shorter 22x for the same money).

As someone that is partially sighted, which style of WC do you prefer on a train...

The cavernous "Voyager" style with digital interface doors?
Or the compact, every wall is just a hand-reach away with mechanical locking doors?

A small bog would also be better for those who can walk but have limited ability to do so, as they can lean against the wall if necessary. I would suggest it best that each train has at least one of each.

It's like the paradox regarding centre poles on buses - for those who are walking but find climbing up difficult, the absence of a centre pole makes it harder to board. But its presence prevents wheelchair users boarding, so unless you go dual door with wheelchairs boarding at the centre doors it can't be offered.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A lot of comments from people with only relatively recent experience of these units. When new the 158s were terrible with in service breakdowns a very regular occurrence. Indeed so poor were they that a common nickname for them was "Scud" which was a reference to the then current (First) Gulf War during which Sadam's Scud missiles were hardly ever reaching their intended targets in Israel. And I could never get comfortable in them due to their low seats not supporting my longish legs.

The ride quality is generally good but best on the network IME is the Pendolino; rather difficult to actually make a direct comparison between the two of course! And while I always sympathise with those who prefer an external view from their seat I do think the most comfortable 158 fleet is EMT's as that style of seat supports my long frame better than just about any other while still providing sufficient leg room.

As for mechanical transmission the problem there is that long-term use in a railway environment tends to eventually loosen it up too much. LM 172s are already rather clunky through the gears although Chiltern's, which spend less time overall on pure stop-start services, seem to be holding up a little better. The possibility of making fuel savings is very tempting but it needs sufficient maintenance effort to counter the higher wear and tear.

Best DMU? Maybe. If only the 175s were more reliable...

I'd always understood the nickname "Scud" being for 153s. The low seat thing definitely sounds more like a 153/155 issue than a 158 (though it's not so much low seats as high windows in their case).

 

[47271]

They're okay, but I don't think that I would go as far as calling them the best dmu experience ever.

My main experience of them is on Scotrail, and terrible seat pitch and legroom, even on the refurbed ones, and useless aircon are the two things that kill them for me. The seat comfort difference with SWT 159s - and I've been lucky enough never to have a 159 with failed aircon - is like night and day. Give me a 159 any time.

Ride quality is fine, as is cabin noise, but I don't think is any better than a 170 or 185.

A good attempt from BR's most miserable dying days when it was thought adequate for Glasgow to Aberdeen trains to consist of sardine packed two coach units, but that's as far as I'd go.

 

[Grumpy]

185s would be perfect for the role were they 5-car, not 3-car.

185's would not be perfect for any role. Whatever the role there is a better alternative.
185's are the worst riding DMU of any built since the early 1960's. Overweight track damaging fuel guzzlers crawling along being unable to take advantage of Sprinter speed restriction relaxations. They're probably also the worst DMU ever in terms of ability to find seats enabling a reasonable view out .

 

[SWTrainspottin]

Class 158's are currently my favourite unit from the Sprinter family. Although I've only been on one ever and that was a GWR one from Warminster to Bristol Temple Meads. All I can say is that 158's are particularly comfortable and I cannot wait for the GWR one's to be transferred to the South West.

 

[Mordac]

185's would not be perfect for any role. Whatever the role there is a better alternative.
185's are the worst riding DMU of any built since the early 1960's. Overweight track damaging fuel guzzlers crawling along being unable to take advantage of Sprinter speed restriction relaxations. They're probably also the worst DMU ever in terms of ability to find seats enabling a reasonable view out .

I don't recognize the 185s in this description, other than the window view issued (not speaking to the technical issues, which I don't know enough about, other than yes, it's a shame they can't use MU differentials).

In my opinion, they're the best DMU experience available in the UK, amazingly quiet and comfortable. The fact that they get too crowded is because there's not enough of them, and could be significantly improved with a redesign of the driving motor with first class in it.

 

[najaB]

I don't recognize the 185s in this description, other than the window view issued (not speaking to the technical issues, which I don't know enough about, other than yes, it's a shame they can't use MU differentials).

The technical description is pretty apt - they are heavy, as a result the ride is harsher than needs be, their engines are thirsty (when not in eco-mode) and they are often slower than Sprinters on the level, though they do outclimb just about any other DMU out there.

 

[Mordac]

The technical description is pretty apt - they are heavy, as a result the ride is harsher than needs be, their engines are thirsty (when not in eco-mode) and they are often slower than Sprinters on the level, though they do outclimb just about any other DMU out there.

That's what I thought, although I didn't know for sure. I was mostly just trying to emphasize that my comments were about the passenger experience, which I find excellent for a DMU (indeed, I'd rate them my top DMU, although I haven't been on all classes in the UK, much less the ones elsewhere). EDIT: I appreciate that some of the things that make the passenger experience so pleasant, like the sound proofing, may contribute to the weight issues.

 

[Blindtraveler]

In reply to grumpy:

Agree totally with all you say about 185s!

In response to Routexford and Neil:

I think 1 bog of both types is probably best to suit needs of most, but for my money and personal prefference for my own disability the smaller version, with the compartments on MK4s being a good example are my favourites.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh and until very recently it was still deamed acceptable for Scotrail intercity services to be wedged DMUs but, assuming GW wiring is ready theres light at the end of that tunnel

 

[Bletchleyite]

185's would not be perfect for any role. Whatever the role there is a better alternative.

185's are the worst riding DMU of any built since the early 1960's. Overweight track damaging fuel guzzlers crawling along being unable to take advantage of Sprinter speed restriction relaxations. They're probably also the worst DMU ever in terms of ability to find seats enabling a reasonable view out .

I don't get the latter, in the centre section all seats are window aligned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk