Could the British Rail Class 210 not have been got to run economically if (re)made for long distance services with 150s for local etc?

[AHBD]

Could the British Rail Class 210 not have been made to run economically if they had been redesigned/simplified to only suit long distance services?

i.e. 210s would have been used in place of the narrow body underfloor engined 156/158/159s etc that we got instead for longer distances?

 

[yorkie]

In case anyone reading this isn't aware, there is some information about these units at the following history & nostalgia thread:

Class 210 DEMU

Can anyone shed any light on why the Class 210 DEMUs failed to secure production orders? What was the performance like with regard to Sprinters?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could the British Rail Class 210 not have been made to run economically if they had been redesigned/simplified to only suit long distance services?

i.e. 210s would have been used in place of the narrow body underfloor engined 156/158/159s etc that we got instead for longer distances?

As it was the Mk3 era would a diesel Wessie not have been more likely?

(442s traditionally had to be brought into any thread...)

 

[Sun Chariot]

Could the British Rail Class 210 not have been made to run economically if they had been redesigned/simplified to only suit long distance services?

i.e. 210s would have been used in place of the narrow body underfloor engined 156/158/159s etc that we got instead for longer distances?

Class 153 / 155 / 156 / 158 family are 8'10" or 8'11" wide (versus 150 and 210 width of 9' 3") due to the envelope of their longer body.

Just like the 150, the 210 in 2nd class had 2+3 seating; and (DMBS excepted) it had three saloons with vestibules amid. In my view, the 210 proposition was more a 150 equivalent; but with a "single point of failure" (only one engine per set).

Two-thirds of the DMBS was "lost" to power-plant, luggage area and guard's compartment. That's a big loss.

I too travelled the 210, albeit only twice: in TS once and in the DMBS the other time. I recall its DMBS as noisy & vibrating.

So I'm not making a connection as to why it had any potential merit for long-distances; what was your reasoning @AHBD ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I note above a more intercity style DEMU would have had merit, something like the same thing in a Mk3 23m body (a bit like the Irish Mk2 based DEMUs?)

I can't help but wonder if 15x were actually better though. More passenger space above the solebar and more resilient due to multiple engines. Perhaps the 210 was genuinely just the wrong solution, but a diesel using the Mk3 EMU body wasn't in and of itself, hence the 150? And then a long distance end doored version, hence the 156, and adding aircon hence the 158?

 

[Sun Chariot]

NIR's class 450 "Castle class" diesel multiple unit fleet were, I believe, closely related to the 210. NIR mileage is hardly long-distance but the product suited NIR's need.

 

[Bletchleyite]

NIR's class 450 "Castle class" diesel multiple unit fleet were, I believe, closely related to the 210. NIR mileage is hardly long-distance but the product suited NIR's need.

Built on Mk1 underframes apparently! A precursor to the failed Networker Classic project?

NIR 450 Class - MidlandDeltic

Ordered when need was great and money was tight, these units were a real mix. Modern looking bodywork, based very clsoely on the BREL 150/1 sets, was built on underframes of scrapped BR mark 1 coaches, with traction equipment recovered from 70 class DEMUs. The result was not to everyone's...

midlanddeltic.smugmug.com

Ordered when need was great and money was tight, these units were a real mix. Modern looking bodywork, based very clsoely on the BREL 150/1 sets, was built on underframes of scrapped BR mark 1 coaches, with traction equipment recovered from 70 class DEMUs. The result was not to everyone's taste - but they ran for many years, latterly concentratd on the Larne line. All now withdrawn, one set is at Downpatrick, in uses primarily as a buffet facility.[/quote[

 

[AHBD]

Class 153 / 155 / 156 / 158 family are 8'10" or 8'11" wide (versus 150 and 210 width of 9' 3") due to the envelope of their longer body.

Just like the 150, the 210 in 2nd class had 2+3 seating; and (DMBS excepted) it had three saloons with vestibules amid. In my view, the 210 proposition was more a 150 equivalent; but with a "single point of failure" (only one engine per set).

1 Two-thirds of the DMBS was "lost" to power-plant, luggage area and guard's compartment. That's a big loss.

2 I too travelled the 210, albeit only twice: in TS once and in the DMBS the other time. I recall its DMBS as noisy & vibrating.

3 So I'm not making a connecting as to why it had any potential merit for long-distances; what was your reasoning @AHBD ?

1) Well on a sprinter every carriage has a noisy vibrating engine under it....which I didn't like...

2) I did wonder if not having a passenger saloon at all in the DBMS would be simpler ie instead use for luggage and cycle storage etc , especially on 4 carriage sets. It would thus be like a modern walkthrough stadler diesel power pack but with luggage etc space and driver cab).

Northern Ireland had thumper style dmus (but 70/75mph only) in 3 (or 2.5?) flavours but the Castle Nir class 450s' DBMS was shakier and less comfy than NIR class 80s* but then its powerplant workings came from the NIR class 70s (predessors of the 80s).

EDIT I note some people noticed the Castle class while I was typing: I always found nir class 80s much nicer to travel on, so better view them or BR thumpers as the reason for preferribg a 210ish solution.

3) A good chance of a carriage with no engine noise vibration (or 100% if DBMS is just used for luggage etc).
90mph D(e)mu capability would arrive earlier than the 158/9, which might then never exist in their narrow bodird form... So locomotive hauled services could be replaced but with less compromise for passenger experience..

I never liked the narrower bodies of 156-159s, ordinary UK trains are narrow as it is..

* equals BR class 207s?

 

[Acathater]

Just looking at the specs for the two prototypes and I suspect someone took one look at the fitted diesels and said "no chance".

One had a straight -6 Paxman 1100 BHP engine - and if you remember your history BR had a record of failure with these, both in DMUs and locomotives.
The other had a V12 MTU engine (i.e. Maybach) also generating just 1100 BHP. In other words an excessively complex high speed engine which BR's only experience with was in the hydraulic locos..

And either option seems underpowered for the kind of stop/start runs a DMU would typically be used on - less than half the power:weight ratio of an HST

Would have been a brave man who specified a purchase order for a fleet of either

 

[AHBD]

Just looking at the specs for the two prototypes ... - and if you remember your history BR had a record of failure with these, both in DMUs and locomotives.....
The other had a V12 MTU engine (i.e. Maybach) a

But this link describes the paxman engine in the prototype as descended from ('half of') the HST Valenta, and never fitted to production trains, so no history* other than the HST which was both a longer and faster train (125 needing twice the power of an 100mph train and the HST is longer...).


*was used in naval vessels

6RP200CL engine link

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2026 ==



new post:
I suppose my conclusion is yes and no:

NO to as an all things to all route types d(e)mu
But
YES to a civilised 90mph intercity d(e)mu long before 158/9s but avoiding their arrow carriages but needing combined with the 15x style 75mph dmus for local services etc (Hopefully 14xs would have never have got beyond the first 141 class (if at all) but succeed by 15x units (with bogies....).

 

[Acathater]

But if all you wanted was a 90mph intercity DMU then a build of HST half sets would be all you need. A diesel version of the Wessex Electrics maybe

 

[AHBD]

But if all you wanted was a 90mph intercity DMU then a build of HST half sets would be all you need. A diesel version of the Wessex Electrics maybe

But an an hst power car has no walkthrough for running in multiple, the 210 prototypes did did.

 

[43096]

One had a straight -6 Paxman 1100 BHP engine - and if you remember your history BR had a record of failure with these, both in DMUs and locomotives.

That straight 6 Paxman was a Valenta, which was an unquestionable success in the HST in V12 form.