Electrostar and Turbostar- Why so many differences?

[Russel]

Both 2000 170s and 2010 172s have the same PIS, which differs to the PIS in both 2000 357s and 2009 377/5s...
It's not just time frame.

They are still different products ordered by different companies and different times, some things will be the same, others different.

 

[wickham]

I have often noticed that each batch of South Eastern 375s has a slightly different interior, differences ranging from overhead luggage racks to roof panel designs and it has stuck me that a wide variety of spares must be required. OK, these types of parts may not often require replacement (if ever) but one would hope that the makers must be able to provide replacents if required !

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I have often noticed that each batch of South Eastern 375s has a slightly different interior, differences ranging from overhead luggage racks to roof panel designs and it has stuck me that a wide variety of spares must be required. OK, these types of parts may not often require replacement (if ever) but one would hope that the makers must be able to provide replacents if required !

I'm sure as time goes by, some interior parts will become obsolete and "standard" parts will be retro-fitted as needed

 

[Bornin1980s]

I suspect the general Electrostar/Turbostar differences are simply down to their intended use on very different services. The Electrostars were built for intensive commuter lines, particularly in London, carrying large numbers over relatively short distances. The Turbostars were largely intended for longer, faster services in less heavily populated areas, where it has always been harder to justify electrification.

That said, the key word is 'intended.' Both types might be called on for jobs they weren't exactly designed for.

 

[ac6000cw]

Another thing i wonder is why there is a much bigger gap between carriages within the same unit on a Turbostar unit compared to an Electrostar unit. When walking between carriages on a Turbostar you notice the gangway corridor is much longer than on an Electrostar unit. I have wondered why they need a bigger gap between carriages.

The exhausts on the turbostars.
Electrostars don't have them, so don't need the extra space/clearance

As I happened to be at a station with both types in the platforms today - a quick comparison of Turbostar (cl. 170) versus Electrostar (cl. 387) inter-carriage gaps and vehicle ends:

 

[JonathanH]

When introduced, the Connex 375/6's had virtually a whole coach devoted to First Class. I can't remember if the 375/3's were the same

That isn't quite how it was envisaged to work.

My recollection of the plan was that only peak hour trains would have first class, and, by making the train have one common type of interior, the amount of the train devoted to first class could differ depending the service. On a 12-car train, rather than having an area of first class in each unit, instead one whole coach in the train could be set up as first class.

I think this approach was quickly deemed impractical to set up, as it would have needed staff to set up the antimacassars in the relevant coach before the train could be boarded. Also, after a split it may have seemed, as you say, that one whole coach was first class in a 375/6.

Consequently, a dedicated area was later set up in each unit

 

[QSK19]

The one that always threw me before becoming more knowledgable on trains was the similarity between the 357 and 170 at the front. To me, they looked identical and I was shocked to see the 357 had a pantograph

 

[Islineclear3_1]

That isn't quite how it was envisaged to work.

My recollection of the plan was that only peak hour trains would have first class, and, by making the train have one common type of interior, the amount of the train devoted to first class could differ depending the service. On a 12-car train, rather than having an area of first class in each unit, instead one whole coach in the train could be set up as first class.

I think this approach was quickly deemed impractical to set up, as it would have needed staff to set up the antimacassars in the relevant coach before the train could be boarded. Also, after a split it may have seemed, as you say, that one whole coach was first class in a 375/6.

Consequently, a dedicated area was later set up in each unit

Although I took many photos of 375/6's inside and out in their early years, I thought (at the time) given that compartments were done away with, Connexx wanted to satisfy it's Kent clientele and confine an entire coach to First in the hope "segregation" between First and Standard would be policed

 

[JonathanH]

Although I took many photos of 375/6's inside and out in their early years, I thought (at the time) given that compartments were done away with, Connexx wanted to satisfy it's Kent clientele and confine an entire coach to First in the hope "segregation" between First and Standard would be policed

Yes, absolutely, but as part of the whole train, not each unit.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I've always wondered if the early Electrostars shared anything in common with 'Universal Networker' (Class 471, 371, 381) proposed by Network SouthEast, as the jist of them are very similar? Well, with the exception that the proposed 471 on the Kent Coast services had compartments.

I have always wondered this. I read it somewhere on a forum once the Electrostar design was an abortive BR design. As I understand it the class 168 is definitely a BR design. At least the “Clubman” variant is.

I’ve also read that the pantographs on the class 375 were fitted for use on Thameslink 2000, and I’m also sure I’ve read that the 375s were also built in mind for use on HS1.

 

[aleggatta]

I'm sure as time goes by, some interior parts will become obsolete and "standard" parts will be retro-fitted as needed

It’s worth noting, that some interior parts are simply not available anymore. I was told the missing coach from 377442 after the fire at Eastbourne was out of service for so long as the original plans for the interior components went up in a fire at derby, so parts essentially had to be remade from a good unit rather than just got in off the shelf.

 

[Russel]

It’s worth noting, that some interior parts are simply not available anymore. I was told the missing coach from 377442 after the fire at Eastbourne was out of service for so long as the original plans for the interior components went up in a fire at derby, so parts essentially had to be remade from a good unit rather than just got in off the shelf.

But what would replace the parts nicked from a good unit, if that was the case?

Ironic that the plans also went up in flames, it this is true.

 

[frankmoh]

I have always wondered this. I read it somewhere on a forum once the Electrostar design was an abortive BR design. As I understand it the class 168 is definitely a BR design. At least the “Clubman” variant is.

I’ve also read that the pantographs on the class 375 were fitted for use on Thameslink 2000, and I’m also sure I’ve read that the 375s were also built in mind for use on HS1.

Is the original 168/0 different from the other later Clubmans (or even Turbostars)? Never been on one, only the more 'normal' 168/2.

 

[pdeaves]

But what would replace the parts nicked from a good unit, if that was the case?

I think the post to which you replied intended that parts from a good unit were used as a pattern to make new parts (there being no surviving drawing), rather than nicked from the good unit.

 

[Russel]

I think the post to which you replied intended that parts from a good unit were used as a pattern to make new parts (there being no surviving drawing), rather than nicked from the good unit.

Ah yeah, that would make sense.

I read it as they used other units as Christmas trees.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Is the original 168/0 different from the other later Clubmans (or even Turbostars)? Never been on one, only the more 'normal' 168/2.

Yes, it has a flatter cab front.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2025 ==

They look like this: https://blogger.googleusercontent.c...f3n4t1/s1600/168003+Tyseley+28+April+1999.jpg

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2025 ==

You can kind of see the resemblance to the Networker design. I’m guessing something like this would have operated on Thameslink 2000 had NSE survived.

 

[Russel]

Yes, it has a flatter cab front.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2025 ==

They look like this: https://blogger.googleusercontent.c...f3n4t1/s1600/168003+Tyseley+28+April+1999.jpg

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2025 ==

You can kind of see the resemblance to the Networker design. I’m guessing something like this would have operated on Thameslink 2000 had NSE survived.

Probably the ugliest of the Turbostar variants.

 

[Mikey C]

I was going to raise that point, - does anybody here know how the additional length has affected the bogie centres? Was it:
a) the same on the 23m cars as on the 20m types > giving a greater curve outswing and greater yaw on reverse curves?
b) approximately 3m more with a slightly greater inswing and outswing?
c) some intermediate difference as a compromise with expected infrastructure?
The 23m car bodies are also 0.11m narrower to mitigate - particularly the inswing interfering with curved platforms.

Is someone had ordered a 23m Electrostar, I wonder if their bodywork would have been more like the Turbostars?

 

[AM9]

Is someone had ordered a 23m Electrostar, I wonder if their bodywork would have been more like the Turbostars?

Why not? Of course it would have full width cab or through gangway in the driving cars depending on the intended service. Similarly, it would need a pantograph, motored bogies, and probably less reinforcement where electric traction components weigh less than diesel engines, fuel tanks and transmission systems were located.

 

[syncmode]

The turbostat was a development/evolution of the class165/166 product

I've always wondered if the early Electrostars shared anything in common with 'Universal Networker' (Class 471, 371, 381) proposed by Network SouthEast, as the jist of them are very similar? Well, with the exception that the proposed 471 on the Kent Coast services had compartments.

I have always wondered this. I read it somewhere on a forum once the Electrostar design was an abortive BR design. As I understand it the class 168 is definitely a BR design. At least the “Clubman” variant is.

You can kind of see the resemblance to the Networker design. I’m guessing something like this would have operated on Thameslink 2000 had NSE survived.

"The Turbostar is based on the Network Turbo" (and "Electrostar is based on the Networker") is a pervasive idea among enthusiasts. I think it is a tempting narrative and the Turbo-style cab on the 168/0 appears to be the "missing link" that demonstrates it. But look at this post from grumpyoldman01 a few years ago, which is an account from someone who worked at Adtranz/Bombardier; it suggests that this isn't true at all and that the design of these trains was a clean sheet project (even headed up by different people?). It could maybe be considered a 'spiritual successor' considering the history of the organisation and the institutional knowledge that might have come from the previous designs, but perhaps even this is tenuous. The platforms were designed for the then-new privatised railway and the design featured things like being able to customise the front cab appearance, and it appears that this explains the 168/0 - it is a Turbostar like any other (Clubman is a marketing name like Azuma or Arterio) but Chiltern took up the option of a cab design that matched the existing fleet. Wikipedia says the cab was an 'interim solution' based on the Turbo and has said so for many years but this is unsourced and I suspect it was just someone's wild guess. I think this should put to rest any speculation about cancelled or unused BREL designs as well.

The post also has some interesting notes on the 20m/23m split suggesting that originally both types of vehicle were meant to be for either DMUs or EMUs but 20m Electrostars and 23m Turbostars was something that emerged as the two lines were developed.

 

[edwin_m]

The basic bodywork design of the Electrostars and Turbostars was different from the previous Networker units from the same manufacturer*, being made up of bolted aluminium panels instead of welded extrusions. Originally the idea was that each TOC/ROSCO could choose a custom front end as well as an interior,. But only Chiltern did so for the Turbostar to make them resemble their 165s, and only LTS Rail (as it then was) chose the non-gangwayed end for the 357.

*BREL/ABB/ADTranz/Bombardier/Alstom depending on when you ask.

 

[fbm99]

The basic bodywork design of the Electrostars and Turbostars was different from the previous Networker units from the same manufacturer*, being made up of bolted aluminium panels instead of welded extrusions. Originally the idea was that each TOC/ROSCO could choose a custom front end as well as an interior,. But only Chiltern did so for the Turbostar to make them resemble their 165s, and only LTS Rail (as it then was) chose the non-gangwayed end for the 357.

*BREL/ABB/ADTranz/Bombardier/Alstom depending on when you ask.

I'm guessing that the reason why Chiltern didn't go for the 165/166 style front end for their later 168 orders was due to the cost of having a different front end type (as the follow on orders were placed at the peak of 170 construction).

 

[Tester]

As I happened to be at a station with both types in the platforms today - a quick comparison of Turbostar (cl. 170) versus Electrostar (cl. 387) inter-carriage gaps and vehicle ends:

View attachment 194609

Thank you for that - very enlightening

A picture tells a thousand words!

 

[Russel]

I'm guessing that the reason why Chiltern didn't go for the 165/166 style front end for their later 168 orders was due to the cost of having a different front end type (as the follow on orders were placed at the peak of 170 construction).

They may also have realized it was a very dated design.