How long left for Sprinters

[Mikey C]

Are you sure about this? The engines on Pacers are slightly quieter. I've no idea about cost. The Pacers needed a lot of remedial work in their early years but I don't know how they compare over 30 years.

I don't have a major problem with Sprinters. I've done long journeys on Welsh 150s. They are okay with the nice 2+2 seats that they have now. Much better than the cramped 3+2 layout they were built with.

The Pacers were reengined, so their engines are/were possibly newer than the ones on the Perkins 150s.

However rubbish they might have been. Pacers had a very good view out whereas the 150s are a bit claustrophobic

 

[Neptune]

The Pacers were reengined, so their engines are/were possibly newer than the ones on the Perkins 150s.

However rubbish they might have been. Pacers had a very good view out whereas the 150s are a bit claustrophobic

150’s have Cummins engines.

 

[XAM2175]

If so, the plan was originally for all the 156s to be withdrawn and replaced by 158s wasn't it - meaning the 153s would have been working with 158s and not 156s?

It's been so long now, haha, I really don't remember.

 

[MattRat]

My understanding is that following the modifications the 153 vehicles won't be able to used outside the 156 formations, but now that I think about it at a more sensible time I'm not 100% sure.

I can't remember when the bike-153 project was announced - was it part of Abellio's bid for the ScotRail franchise? If so, the plan was originally for all the 156s to be withdrawn and replaced by 158s wasn't it - meaning the 153s would have been working with 158s and not 156s?

My thinking is you don't need to access the 153 from the other train, right? So why not keep the compatibility. There is no reason to limit it's use to just one type. Also the 158 theory might be the right one. It would make sense for the 170s to displace the 158s, and then the 158s displace the 156s.

 

[Energy]

If so, the plan was originally for all the 156s to be withdrawn and replaced by 158s wasn't it

Was it? Some 170s displaced would replace 156s but given how many 170s (and some 158s) were let go I doubt they had plans to replace the 156s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My thinking is you don't need to access the 153 from the other train, right? So why not keep the compatibility. There is no reason to limit it's use to just one type. Also the 158 theory might be the right one. It would make sense for the 170s to displace the 158s, and then the 158s displace the 156s.

153s can couple to any other 15x and I can't see why these would be any different. The reason it's 156s is that that is what operates the WHL.

They are just coupled on the end. Some people seem to think they are going to go in the middle but they aren't.

158s were indeed going to replace 156s on the WHL, I seem to recall it was prevented by a gauging issue of some kind.

 

[MattRat]

Was it? Some 170s displaced would replace 156s but given how many 170s (and some 158s) were let go I doubt they had plans to replace the 156s.

As far as I'm aware, there were far more 170s than 156s, so inevitably you'd have 170s left over.

 

[Energy]

As far as I'm aware, there were far more 170s than 156s, so inevitably you'd have 170s left over.

48 vs 59 (at the end of First Scotrail) plus some 170s will still be required.

 

[MattRat]

48 vs 59 (at the end of First Scotrail) plus some 170s will still be required.

And how many 158s? That could make up the deficit.

 

[Energy]

And how many 158s? That could make up the deficit.

Well so far they have lost 21 170s and 8 158s but they have 43 156s, remember tat the 170s are 3 cars though so if its a 6 car then 2 170s can be used for 3 156s.

 

[Jozhua]

Are you sure about this? The engines on Pacers are slightly quieter. I've no idea about cost. The Pacers needed a lot of remedial work in their early years but I don't know how they compare over 30 years.

I don't have a major problem with Sprinters. I've done long journeys on Welsh 150s. They are okay with the nice 2+2 seats that they have now. Much better than the cramped 3+2 layout they were built with.

The engines were better that's true, although the wheel squeel was obviously bad and going through tunnels was incredibly loud.

The capital costs of pacers vs sprinters were virtually identical. However, Pacers went on to be a nightmare operationally, leaving them with higher lifetime costs than Sprinters. Sometimes bad things are also more expensive.

Been as Sprinters will likely outlive pacers for a number of years (when accounting for construction dates), it's almost certain that 15X units were absolutely superior, including in cost.