Most surprising old stock?

[FrontSideBus]

The other threads have got me thinking about really old rolling stock that is still up to the task today.

I'm currently doing a jolly on the Cambrian line and having spent all day on one yesterday, I think the venerable 158 is still a really good train. The ride quality is superb and the seats, at least the ones TFW are using are quite good. The interiors IMO really doesn't look that dated either, compared with how ancient 150/156's look now.
Some might disagree but I even quite liked the engine and hydraulic pump noise. The Perkins engines certainly have a different character to the Cummins units I have most experience with.

Another mention has got to be 170. I recently traveled up to Scotland on an Azuma and then jumped onto a 170 to head further north. I couldn't get over just how much more comfortable the 170 was compared with the 800 which is supposed to be a long distance intercity train!

 

[TransportHub]

I found the Chiltern Mk3s looked much younger than their actual age. The sliding doors and modern looking interior probably helped there

 

[Sun Chariot]

The fact we still have Mk1 stock* from late-1950s (seated) and the very early 1960s (catering) in use for excursions, it does astonish me. It "out-ages" the well-known "up-cycling" methods of the Big Four era's Southern Railway.

Similarly, the Belmond British Pullman active fleet includes 1925-vintage carriages.

* AFAIK none of the 1951-52 early build Mk1 stock is main-line registered.

 

[stevieinselby]

Completely agree about the 158s – it's hard to believe they are only a couple of years newer than the 156s. Last year on a trip to Lakes, we had the pleasure of a 158 up the Settle & Carlisle, and then changed to a 156 onto the Cumbrian Coast and it was like stepping into something from another era.

 

[Loadhaul60059]

Agree with the comments so far about the 158/159's. I regularly travel on the SWR units, and I think ride quality is great and the seats are amongst the most comfortable on the network.

Only downside for me is that I'm tall so I don't fit in most of the seats. Some of the priority seats are fine, but even at the tables my knees will touch the seats opposite. Just means I have to avoid them if it's a peak train!

 

[FrontSideBus]

I found the Chiltern Mk3s looked much younger than their actual age. The sliding doors and modern looking interior probably helped there

I had a couple of jollies of those sets and found them to be quite nice looking inside. In fact I even thought the original IC70's looked modern in Chilterns grey trim! The colour scheme and the curtains created a very nice ambience!
I certainly wouldn't have said they were 50 years old if I never knew any better!

 

[Sun Chariot]

I am of an age which remembers the service-introductions of the 158/9, 156s (and all the Sprinter and Pacer variants), the Mk3 LHCS fleet onto WCML and (hazily) beginnings of HSTs on British Rail's Western and Eastern Regions.

So, when I see these referred to as "old", it makes me realise: so am I.

 

[satisnek]

I am of an age which remembers the service-introductions of the 158/9, 156s (and all the Sprinter and Pacer variants), the Mk3 LHCS fleet onto WCML and (hazily) beginnings of HSTs on British Rail's Western and Eastern Regions.

So, when I see these referred to as "old", it makes me realise: so am I.

Worse still, the OP mentions Class 170

 

[Sun Chariot]

Worse still, the OP mentions Class 170

The class 170 is a generation younger than my mid-1970s and 1980s examples.

 

[DelW]

Recently departed (so I'm not sure if they count) SWR's 455s were kept clean and tidy until the end of their days, and were surprisingly comfortable for inner suburban stock. Much of this was down to their comprehensive refurbishment in the early days of SWT, which meant they belied their 40-odd years.

Photo attached was taken last month in the ex-508 trailer of 5712, so that was over 45 years old.

 

[FrontSideBus]

It's interesting to see a 508 coach like that without the new ceiling panels that Merseyrail had.
The 507/508 was another one that didn't look their age inside tbh, probably due in part to the new paneling that they had at some stage.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

I found the Chiltern Mk3s looked much younger than their actual age. The sliding doors and modern looking interior probably helped there

As a regular user of these, I often encountered passengers who thought they'd accidentally stumbled into First Class, or thought it was a brand new train. That's why the Mk5s are such a letdown in comparison.

In my opinion, the Chiltern 168s are some of the best 'older' stock around, with good legroom, plentiful tables and comfortable seats. Sadly some of them are getting very 'rattly' these days, something not always cured on the refurbs.

 

[DS25]

Completely agree about the TfW 158's sad that they are being replaced by in my opinion inferior 197's but it had to happen one day or another. The ride quality on them is good and the seats as well are quite nice

 

[Tracked]

Completely agree about the 158s – it's hard to believe they are only a couple of years newer than the 156s. Last year on a trip to Lakes, we had the pleasure of a 158 up the Settle & Carlisle, and then changed to a 156 onto the Cumbrian Coast and it was like stepping into something from another era.

I went on a refurb'd Northern 156 last Christmas, first time on a 156 since EMR stopped using them, and I was quite surprised how decent it was when fairly clean ... obviously that probably won't last long.

Didn't like 158's when they started, but do now, they run them or 150/2's seemingly at random from my local station and they're a massive step up in quality.

I really liked the seats on Northern's 144's, before withdrawal, pre-Covid I used to get the LDS-STP EMR HST to work in the morning from Doncaster, and the old-style IC seats were rubbish headrest-wise, worse than the 144 (I'm was going to say the ride was much better, but have memories of at least one of the HST sets regularly being a bit lively, particularly around Dronfield).

 

[Jamesrob637]

In the UK: 158s, but 2-car is a bit ridiculous unless on quieter off-peak services

Abroad: the Eurofima derivatives. Fantastic coaches, though some appear a bit noisy at speed especially from outside (quiet inside, however)

 

[GuyGibsonVC]

The other threads have got me thinking about really old rolling stock that is still up to the task today.

I'm currently doing a jolly on the Cambrian line and having spent all day on one yesterday, I think the venerable 158 is still a really good train. The ride quality is superb and the seats, at least the ones TFW are using are quite good. The interiors IMO really doesn't look that dated either, compared with how ancient 150/156's look now.
Some might disagree but I even quite liked the engine and hydraulic pump noise. The Perkins engines certainly have a different character to the Cummins units I have most experience with.

Another mention has got to be 170. I recently traveled up to Scotland on an Azuma and then jumped onto a 170 to head further north. I couldn't get over just how much more comfortable the 170 was compared with the 800 which is supposed to be a long distance intercity train!

Agree on the 158.

I took the 'Yorkshire Flyer' from Leeds to Sheffield on a 158 last week. The engine was quite soothing, the sun was shining and I nearly fell asleep. Even better when the driver takes the power off and you're gliding along.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I must confess that I don't think 158's are "really old rolling stock". Possibly the Ffestiniog locomotives or the Volks electric railway might qualify? Even Flying Scotsman might be considered "old" but how much of it is really original? Even the 1972 Bakerloo line stock might be "old" but not "really old". In my book, any trains built after that is "new" but then I'm just another old fart

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2026 ==

Recently departed (so I'm not sure if they count) SWR's 455s were kept clean and tidy until the end of their days, and were surprisingly comfortable for inner suburban stock. Much of this was down to their comprehensive refurbishment in the early days of SWT, which meant they belied their 40-odd years.

Photo attached was taken last month in the ex-508 trailer of 5712, so that was over 45 years old.
View attachment 202267

Pedant... that ex-508 interior is not 45 years old

 

[DelW]

Pedant... that ex-508 interior is not 45 years old

Yes, true . Not quite "Trigger's broom", but SWT's new paint, new seats, then later new traction package ... they were getting that way. In my photo, the windows were probably still original.

 

[Snow1964]

Agree with the comments so far about the 158/159's. I regularly travel on the SWR units, and I think ride quality is great and the seats are amongst the most comfortable on the network.

I guess they are a 1980s design (even if some were built 1990-91). The 159s were an NSE adaptation of Regional railways wanting to cut back its order by 60 vehicles already on order due to realising it had over ordered.

Strictly it cut back 66 vehicles, but then Regional Railways got NSE to order 2 extra 166s to cover some Cotswold line services. For completeness at one time was going to be 24 class 166 (72 vehicles), but in end 7 units moved from Chiltern.

But I agree, the 158s have aged well compared to units built even 2-5 years earlier, and don't feel like they are now 35+ years old. Generally now older than most of the 1950s and early 1960s trains they replaced.

 

[Iskra]

158’s, 170 and 333’s all seem like modern trains, but are actually comfortable to ride on. An honourable mention to the Night Riviera Mk3’s too- they did a quality job updating the sleeper berths on those.

 

[Strathclyder]

The 318s & 320s still seem to be doing fairly well despite them being firmly in the 35-40 years of service bracket now. By some margin the most comfortable trains currently running on the Strathclyde network in my experience since the 156s were iron-boarded a few years back. Yes, the accursed 3+2 seating (to some; I personally don't have a problem with it) is still to be found in both classes, but given what their primary role is, the more seats for backsides, the better.

They aren't nearly as squeaky as the 334s can often be and given what's expected of them daily and how busy the routes they serve are, they can still do a decent job hoovering up the crowds (the Union St fire last month and the related disruption being a good case in point) even if their layout isn't 100% ideal, though a 3-car service turning up on a Balloch/Dalmuir service in the evening peaks isn't and has never has been enjoyable regardless of the unit type.

Their overall size is the only real negative against them I can really think of and I've no idea if fixed six-car formations are being planned for their replacements in the not-too-distant future (IE, a six-car 745 variant if Stadler ends up being chosen) and I'm not entirely convinced that the overall capacity/number of seats being increased with fixed 6-car sets is worth the trade-off in flexibilty you have with 3 cars, to say nothing of the issues of depot capacity and platform lengths.

 

[Peter Wilde]

Recently departed (so I'm not sure if they count) SWR's 455s were kept clean and tidy until the end of their days, and were surprisingly comfortable for inner suburban stock. Much of this was down to their comprehensive refurbishment in the early days of SWT, which meant they belied their 40-odd years.

Photo attached was taken last month in the ex-508 trailer of 5712, so that was over 45 years old.
View attachment 202267

I mostly agree. The SWT/SWR 455s showed what could be done by a good quality refurb. And the trains were pretty reliable. Their only real downsides were no aircon and no toilets, the latter becoming a bit of an issue on routes with 1 hour journey times.

 

[Mikey C]

They're a bit shabby now, but the Chiltern 165s, have aged well, helped by the comprehensive refurbishment 20 years ago, which brought aircon and new seating at the ends of the train. They feel way more modern than say the 150s, when they're actually only 7 years newer.

Even if the 465s now look very tired, the Networker design stands up well in general, even now, with the narrow pillars giving a really good view out, especially as they don't have the door pockets of the PEPs and Mk3 EMUs/DMUs. A rare class of train, where they actually planned window sizing alongside the seat layout, to ensure they lines up properly.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that some of the Great Western 150's are a good example of the miracles that can be done with old stock.

 

[NSEWonderer]

444 and 450 Desiros. For trains 2 decades old they're still quite modern looking(especially with cleaned fronts) and could arguably do another decade

 

[sh24]

170’s are very good trains.

I can’t join in the praise for 158/9 though. Unpleasantly cramped in their original format, dodgy AC, inefficiently located slow doors, noisy. Only the ScotRail refurbs have improved them a bit. But they are also the least worst of the terrible Sprinter and Networker era trains!

 

[Jamesrob637]

444 and 450 Desiros. For trains 2 decades old they're still quite modern looking(especially with cleaned fronts) and could arguably do another decade

Expect to still see them into the 2040s

 

[NSEWonderer]

Expect to still see them into the 2040s

Wouldn't be surprised. One thing outside of the great maintenance that's kept them ticking well is thst they've never truly(except for some) hit their full potential both in traction capability(software restriction after 15mph) and even the door speeds.

 

[Highlander1]

The other threads have got me thinking about really old rolling stock that is still up to the task today.

I'm currently doing a jolly on the Cambrian line and having spent all day on one yesterday, I think the venerable 158 is still a really good train. The ride quality is superb and the seats, at least the ones TFW are using are quite good. The interiors IMO really doesn't look that dated either, compared with how ancient 150/156's look now.
Some might disagree but I even quite liked the engine and hydraulic pump noise. The Perkins engines certainly have a different character to the Cummins units I have most experience with.

Another mention has got to be 170. I recently traveled up to Scotland on an Azuma and then jumped onto a 170 to head further north. I couldn't get over just how much more comfortable the 170 was compared with the 800 which is supposed to be a long distance intercity train!

The 170s are excellent trains for regional/suburban services. Quiet and comfortable with a good mix of airline and table seats. They don't have the capacity for true intercity services which is the issue Scotrail have, as this is often what they're used for. They're also looking very tired. Even the "refreshed" ones are not great.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Apr 2026 ==

170’s are very good trains.

I can’t join in the praise for 158/9 though. Unpleasantly cramped in their original format, dodgy AC, inefficiently located slow doors, noisy. Only the ScotRail refurbs have improved them a bit. But they are also the least worst of the terrible Sprinter and Networker era trains!

Couldn't agree more. The 158's have poor legroom and very unreliable HVAC systems

 

[NIRCLASS80]

I think on reliability figures the 159 sets have possibly the best figures of any DMU fleet.