Least favourite stock

[yorkie]

I can't think of a unit that I don't like, or like the least, probably the 165s, because I haven't been able to ride on them that much

That's an unusual reason. Are there any other types of train you've not been able to ride on that much?

 

[Telcontar]

It depends which ones you're talking about..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyCl5GnaRjo&feature=related

Oh, well, if you want VVVF tones you have to look to Japan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDX0AEnpNlE

Personally I'm partial to the unassuming tone of the 319/325:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOORMkpcT9Y

 

[172212]

That's an unusual reason. Are there any other types of train you've not been able to ride on that much?

But that's the only reason I can think of, the majority of trains in the birmingham area... 323s, 350s, 158s, 170s, 172s, I ride pretty regularly.
I even manage to ride 390s, 221s, 168s, 150s at least every month.
I rarely ride on the class 165s

 

[Rhydgaled]

I agree with comments about disliking trains with insuffcient legroom, but that's just poor interior layout design and could in theroy be fixed, so I tend not to judge whether I like a class of train or not on that. For example, I generally dislike 175s (due to their really boring external appearance (their livery doesn't help, but the ends are rather plain anyhow) and the lack of any soft padding on the seat-backs) although I like the shape of the seats and their arrangment (they seem to have plenty of legroom and line up with windows normaly).

Voyagers are in my bad books (they are good-looking externally, but that's about the only positive, I felt claustrophobic on them (though that could be the seat design) but the main thing is that, judging by what I've read, they have the performance of an electric train, and hence drink diesel rapidly / are bad for the climate).

I think 170s, and other multiple units with not many coaches, a top-speed of 110mph or less and slab-ends without through gangways are rather silly, since portion working (the main benifit of having short units) doesn't really work well without through gangways.

I've never been on a 170, but (as well as the lack of gangways) the outer-suburban door layout and slow (so I've been told) acceleration make them seem like a stupid design.

I've only been on a Pacer a couple of times, the longest journey being Carmarthen - Swansea, but it wasn't nearly as bad as I feared. I don't really hate them. I hate 150s being used on fairly-long-distance express services though (I assume they have decent acceleration, and if so they are a decent design for short commuter/branch line services though) and the same probably would apply to my opinion of Pacers if I had more experience of them.

220/1's - usually too crowded & anywhere near the toilet is usually too smelly

I have only been on Voyagers twice, but can't recall any toilet smellyness and managed to find a seat (no window to look out of though, at least the 2nd time, just a solid wall), just that claustrophobic feeling which I can't explain.

So, voyagers aside, I'd have to go for the 150/1

...

I find that the windows rattle everytime another train goes past

Had a ride on a Northern 150/1 the other day. Forget rattles, it was more like a bang when we passed other units at speed.

158s annoy me, since they are such a bodge of a design that is neither fish nor fowl (neither express nor local train) that is OK for some of the bits-n-pieces services in the Midlands and Northern England, but ought to be kept out of Scotland and off the former Alphaline routes. Replace them with proper express stock on expresses (100mph and better internal facilities) or proper regional stock (decent low-end acceleration with no need for more than 75, with a comfortable but basic interior).

I'd have thought a class 158 would be a perfect regional express unit. I've heard 158s described as a 'Jack of all trades, master of none' unit before, but regional express services (eg. the Fishguard Flyer, Cardiff - Portsmouth and Aberystwyth - Birmingham) seem to be composed of a mix of branch lines, express mainlines and lines that seem to fit somewhere between the two. Therefore, it would seem to me that a 'Jack of all trades, master of none' unit would not be 'master of none' at all, but would be master of regional express services given the diverse nature of the track covered.

However, I've heard mixed comments regarding acceleration of various types of unit. Is there an official source of charts showing acceleration to different speeds, eg. 0-50, 0-75 and 0-90, of units (I'm most interested in Sprinters (inc. 158) and 175/172/170).

 

[Scotrail84]

Least favourite is class 380. Terrible units.

 

[SprinterMan]

However, I've heard mixed comments regarding acceleration of various types of unit. Is there an official source of charts showing acceleration to different speeds, eg. 0-50, 0-75 and 0-90, of units (I'm most interested in Sprinters (inc. 158) and 175/172/170).

I don't have a chart, but 0-50 I'm pretty sure the list is (between the units you mentioned):

Fastest Accelerating
172 (485hp per engine 75mph*/100mph) (Mechanical Transmission)
175 (450hp per engine, 100mph)
158/159 (400hp per engine, 90mph)
158/159 (350hp per engine, 90mph)
150 (285hp per engine, 75mph) (Same engines as 153/155/156 but lighter as only 20m)
153/155/156 (285hp per engine, 75mph)
142/143/144 (230hp per engine, 70mph) (Not sure about individual types, but Pacers accelerate quicker than a 170 but slower than a SuperSprinter)
170 (422hp per engine, 100mph) (Very Slow)
Slowest Accelerating

*Not sure if LO units are geared differently or just limited

Adam

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't have a chart, but 0-50 I'm pretty sure the list is (between the units you mentioned):

Fastest Accelerating
172 (485hp per engine 75mph*/100mph) (Mechanical Transmission)
175 (450hp per engine, 100mph)
158/159 (400hp per engine, 90mph)
158/159 (350hp per engine, 90mph)
150 (285hp per engine, 75mph) (Same engines as 153/155/156 but lighter as only 20m)
153/155/156 (285hp per engine, 75mph)
142/143/144 (230hp per engine, 70mph) (Not sure about individual types, but Pacers accelerate quicker than a 170 but slower than a SuperSprinter)
170 (422hp per engine, 100mph) (Very Slow)
Slowest Accelerating

*Not sure if LO units are geared differently or just limited

Adam

Thanks. The 170 seems even more stupid now, with an outer-suburban door layout I'd expect them to be good for stopping services, but if their acceleration is that poor then they should be better for services with long distances between stops, but the door layout is wrong for that.

However, I thought different units have better acceleration at different points, eg. (and these aren't actual figures, just random figures) a class 156 might accelerate from 0 to 45 faster than a 400hp 158, but the 158 might accelerate faster from 45 to 75. Therefore, what you've posted, though useful, isn't quite what I was after.

 

[SprinterMan]

Thanks. The 170 seems even more stupid now, with an outer-suburban door layout I'd expect them to be good for stopping services, but if their acceleration is that poor then they should be better for services with long distances between stops, but the door layout is wrong for that.

However, I thought different units have better acceleration at different points, eg. (and these aren't actual figures, just random figures) a class 156 might accelerate from 0 to 45 faster than a 400hp 158, but the 158 might accelerate faster from 45 to 75. Therefore, what you've posted, though useful, isn't quite what I was after.

Sorry, they are the only figures I know, and I'm not 100% on all of them either.
I agree with you that 170s are useless, something with no acceleration and commuter doors isn't even a Jack of all trades, it just seems to be there, poorly doing it's job that many other units could do alot better. They do have nice seats though.

Adam

 

[Donny Dave]

Sorry, they are the only figures I know, and I'm not 100% on all of them either.
I agree with you that 170s are useless, something with no acceleration and commuter doors isn't even a Jack of all trades, it just seems to be there, poorly doing it's job that many other units could do alot better. They do have nice seats though.

Adam

The ones being used by TPE haven't!

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Least favourite stock?
At 6' 3" just about everything. There's no legroom on any thing except the two seats next to the luggage rack on refurbished 319s (the ones with the yellowy first class seating) and the Southern 377s with the narrow luggage racks. These are the designated seats for people with difficulties and if they're available they're a Godsend. Everything else is built for midgets. Particularly bad are the S.W.T. diesels to Salisbury, I reckon you'd have to be no taller than about 5' 3" to get your legs behind the seat in front on those. I'm off to Brizzle in the morning and am dreading the cramped initial journey from Reigate to Reading.

 

[D6975]

All 'Pacer' units especially the 141s.

Yes, they were the worst units I have ever ridden on. There was a time when a visit to Knottingley meant no choice but a ride in one of these awful units from Leeds.

For anyone who's never ridden on one, this design was 'improved' to make the 142 - 'nuff said.

 

[Telcontar]

I agree with you that 170s are useless, something with no acceleration …

Is it the case that they were hobbled to make them compatible with older units?

 

[LE Greys]

I'd have thought a class 158 would be a perfect regional express unit. I've heard 158s described as a 'Jack of all trades, master of none' unit before, but regional express services (eg. the Fishguard Flyer, Cardiff - Portsmouth and Aberystwyth - Birmingham) seem to be composed of a mix of branch lines, express mainlines and lines that seem to fit somewhere between the two. Therefore, it would seem to me that a 'Jack of all trades, master of none' unit would not be 'master of none' at all, but would be master of regional express services given the diverse nature of the track covered.

That comment may well have been by me, but I agree with you. For some services, probably including the three you highlighted (although I've never done the Fishguard Flyer, so can't really comment) the 158 is an excellent compromise. Thing is, what is a regional express? As I see it, there are several kinds. There's "should be Intercity but isn't" (TPX, Norwich-Liverpool, the Scottish expresses and actually Waterloo-Weymouth/Exeter) for which I would use a 170 - or preferably a 175 (or a 442 obviously). There's "really a local stopping service but goes a very long way" (all the Inverness routes for instance) which a 156 would suit much better because of the low speeds involved, the extra acceleration and hill-climbing required. Then there's everything else. 158s suit everything else, and I reckon they should be a bit more widespread. I'd want to see them on the Heart of Wessex and the Cornish stoppers for instance, there's real main line work for short sections. It just seems a pity to see them on routes they don't really fit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it the case that they were hobbled to make them compatible with older units?

Almost certainly not. They were probably designed to be as powerful as it was thought the transmission could cope with. Some Scotrail ones were souped-up to 485hp in the middle car for a while, and I'm not sure what came of that. I'd like to see it repeated four all three cars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry, they are the only figures I know, and I'm not 100% on all of them either.
I agree with you that 170s are useless, something with no acceleration and commuter doors isn't even a Jack of all trades, it just seems to be there, poorly doing it's job that many other units could do alot better. They do have nice seats though.

Adam

I don't know, the Scotrail express ones seem to be doing their job fairly well. Once they get up to speed, they can bowl along nicely and maintain that speed with a smooth ride. It's helpful if they don't have to stop much though. I agree with you on the seats, maybe the TPX ones are different.

 

[Telcontar]

Almost certainly not. They were probably designed to be as powerful as it was thought the transmission could cope with.

Funny, I thought I read that the 170 ended up significantly under-powered as a result of making it Sprinter compatible. Hmm.

 

[LE Greys]

Funny, I thought I read that the 170 ended up significantly under-powered as a result of making it Sprinter compatible. Hmm.

I hope that someone with more knowledge comments on this, but that may have been a track-force limit to make sure that it was compliant with SP speed restrictions. In other words, the engine had to be kept small to keep the weight down.

 

[SprinterMan]

I hope that someone with more knowledge comments on this, but that may have been a track-force limit to make sure that it was compliant with SP speed restrictions. In other words, the engine had to be kept small to keep the weight down.

This is why, to meet SP restriction they are weight limited so engines and gearboxes are not ideal. I know for a fact that a single 153 out-accelerates a 170, and 153s are the slowest accelerating sprinters. If 170s were hobbled so could work with Sprinters, the job they did was too good. A bit like to stop a horse winning a race they just cut it's legs off then shot it.
Adam

 

[Charlie2555]

I really dislike high density Class 150's which FGW uses

 

[Telcontar]

This is why, to meet SP restriction they are weight limited so engines and gearboxes are not ideal.

It might be too late at night for me to take the various factors in, but I have a better idea now. (I don't want to derail the topic; after some reading up I now at least know what speed differentials are, and what "SP" means in this context Thanks.)

 

[IanXC]

There's "should be Intercity but isn't" (TPX, Norwich-Liverpool, the Scottish expresses and actually Waterloo-Weymouth/Exeter) for which I would use a 170 - or preferably a 175 (or a 442 obviously).

So you think these routes should be intercity, but would prefer to use outer suburban DMUs on them? Other than the Scottish routes I think the 158s are perfectly suited to these kinds of services.

 

[LE Greys]

So you think these routes should be intercity, but would prefer to use outer suburban DMUs on them? Other than the Scottish routes I think the 158s are perfectly suited to these kinds of services.

I would prefer to use 100 mph DMUs on them, no matter what their acceleration capability, it's more about top speed cruising and smooth ride than acceleration. When it comes right down to it, I'd prefer to use 67s and MkIIs, but we don't have anywhere near enough. That's why I mentioned the 175s, although there are nowhere near enough of them either and I'm none too sure of their reliability. Having the doors in the wrong place surely cannot be that big a fault, especially when the same is true of the 185s.

 

[SprinterMan]

I would prefer to use 100 mph DMUs on them, no matter what their acceleration capability, it's more about top speed cruising and smooth ride than acceleration. When it comes right down to it, I'd prefer to use 67s and MkIIs, but we don't have anywhere near enough. That's why I mentioned the 175s, although there are nowhere near enough of them either and I'm none too sure of their reliability. Having the doors in the wrong place surely cannot be that big a fault, especially when the same is true of the 185s.

Class 175s are the perfect compromise between 158s and 170s. They have the door arrangement and acceleration of the 158s, and the top speed of the 170s. They are the best 100mph DMUs in service today, and it is a real shame there are not more of them.

Adam

 

[junglejames]

Class 175s are the perfect compromise between 158s and 170s. They have the door arrangement and acceleration of the 158s, and the top speed of the 170s. They are the best 100mph DMUs in service today, and it is a real shame there are not more of them.

Adam

The 158 is the best DMU which can take advantage of SP speed limits, the 175 is the best DMU which cant.
You couldnt have made the 158 much better. They obviously struggle on the worst hills, but once up to speed, on a nice flat run, they bowl along quite nicely, and have a nice ride.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Class 175s are the perfect compromise between 158s and 170s. They have the door arrangement and acceleration of the 158s, and the top speed of the 170s. They are the best 100mph DMUs in service today, and it is a real shame there are not more of them.

The big problem with 175s is the lack of inter-unit corridor connections. Portion working is a major advantage of 158s. Still, a damn sight more suitable for TransPennineExpress than a 185 with its outer-suburban doors I would have thought.

Now, a OHLE version of a 5-WES/444 would probablly be nice to see on TPE when it is electrified.

 

[Schnellzug]

Now, a OHLE version of a 5-WES/444 would probablly be nice to see on TPE when it is electrified.

They were in fact designed for that in the first place, i believe, hence why they have a pantograph well. I think they were all designed as dual voltage, so it really needn't mean any significant redesign work. Although I don't know if they might insist on those ugly front ends like on 380s on account of EU Regulations.

 

[LE Greys]

Now, a OHLE version of a 5-WES/444 would probablly be nice to see on TPE when it is electrified.

Provided it's made more comfortable inside, I agree with that. I take it you mean 5-DEX/444. A lot of people seem to thing that that's where the displaced 365s will end up. While I would like to see them go to a good home, they are outer suburban units and really ought to be on suburban services around Leeds, augmenting 333s (which can go onto the Leeds-York-Hull triangle assuming it all gets wired).

 

[Schnellzug]

5-DEX? Really? I've never heard that before. What are 450s? 4-DES?

 

[LE Greys]

5-DEX? Really? I've never heard that before. What are 450s? 4-DES?

According to Platform 5, 4-DES is definitely genuine. 5-DEX is more of an educated guess (from Desiro EXpress) since they can't really use the same designation for a different class. Although I don't think either gets used much. I'd probably also have 4-HES for the high-density version, but that's completely made up.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Provided it's made more comfortable inside, I agree with that. I take it you mean 5-DEX/444.

Nope, I meant something like either a class 444 or a 5-WES (Wessex Electric). They both seem kinda similar. I haven't been on either recently enough to say which I prefer, so I just suggest both. The 5-WES is better looking in general though.

They were in fact designed for that in the first place, i believe, hence why they have a pantograph well. I think they were all designed as dual voltage, so it really needn't mean any significant redesign work. Although I don't know if they might insist on those ugly front ends like on 380s on account of EU Regulations.

444s I think have a pantograph well, yes. I don't think 5-WESes do though.

 

[LE Greys]

Nope, I meant something like either a class 444 or a 5-WES (Wessex Electric). They both seem kinda similar. I haven't been on either recently enough to say which I prefer, so I just suggest both. The 5-WES is better looking in general though.

They're also, regrettably, lost to the South Western, which annoyed me so much that I've taken to travelling via Reading and using Voyagers (yes, really). I quite agree with you, as well as looks, they are much more comfortable inside, generally ride better and are nicely airy (as opposed to stifling).

 

[172212]

I like 170s, I think it's good that they're compatible with sprinters/super sprinters, it adds more capacity, I think they're good enough for the routes that they operate.