Similarities with 158's and Mk4 Stock

[turntablist]

Im sure i read somewhere that the express sprinters were somehow related to the MK4 coach, but i can't find anything, (Google is not my friend) is this another case of mistaken memory?

 

[43096]

Im sure i read somewhere that the express sprinters were somehow related to the MK4 coach, but i can't find anything, (Google is not my friend) is this another case of mistaken memory?

158s ordered from BREL, Mark 4s from GEC Metro-Cammell. Nothing in common, really.

 

[superalbs]

Where else were the Class 158 and Class 159 bogies used? Was it the Mk4?

 

[fgwrich]

Where else were the Class 158 and Class 159 bogies used? Was it the Mk4?

The BREL T4 bogies are used under the Mk3 DVT vans. Not used anywhere else I believe. There was one Mk3 used as a testbes by BR which was fitted with the T4 bogie too, which survived into Virgin days, but I'm not sure if it was one of the first to be scrapped.

 

[bgstrowger]

The T4 bogies were designed to be used on the Mk4s but BREL couldn't guarantee their ride quality at 140mph, so the SIG bogie was chosen instead.

 

[edwin_m]

The Mk4 is steel and the 158 is aluminium so no structural similarity either.

You may be thinking of the 156 - both were products of Metro-Cammell and I've read that the bodyshells were closely related, although obviously the 156 didn't have sides tapered in to allow for any future tilting. Although they are fitted out totally differently the size and position of the windows has some similarities.

 

[rebmcr]

I believe some design-related "lessons learned" about the Express Sprinters fed into the Mk4, but nothing beyond that.

 

[D365]

The T4 bogies were designed to be used on the Mk4s but BREL couldn't guarantee their ride quality at 140mph, so the SIG bogie was chosen instead.

Quite ironic, actually.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

158s and Mk4s started on BR in the same year (1990), with quite different design origins in BREL and Metro Cammell respectively..
156s were a little earlier (1987) and were from MetCamm like the Mk4s, so if any lessons were learned it would be from 156s.
MetCamm became part of GEC-Alsthom in 1989.
The class 158 design was largely disowned by BREL during the sale to ABB, refusing to offer any warranty on them.

Reading Wiki on the subject, Mk4 bodyshells came from BREL and Breda in Italy (as subcontractors).
I'm not sure if there are any links from this to the AnsaldoBreda plant in Pistoia which built Fyra (and now Hitachi class 802s for First Group).

 

[yorksrob]

They both used to have those flip down seats in the vestibules, which I thought was an excelled idea. Getting rid of them off the Mk4's was a mistake of the Mallard refurb.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They both used to have those flip down seats in the vestibules, which I thought was an excelled idea. Getting rid of them off the Mk4's was a mistake of the Mallard refurb.

They were a nuisance, people got in the way.

 

[Great_Western]

Given that 158's are one of the best riding DMU's around, and MK4's ride quality leaves a lot to be desired, I wonder what the MK4's would actually have been like with T4 bogies?

 

[yorksrob]

They were a nuisance, people got in the way.

Nonsense, I've never had a case where people haven't shifted out the way where necessary.

 

[TimboM]

Im sure i read somewhere that the express sprinters were somehow related to the MK4 coach, but i can't find anything, (Google is not my friend) is this another case of mistaken memory?

It's interesting you say this as per the numerous responses on this thread there doesn't appear to be a substantive link... However, I distinctly remember when the 158s were introduced in the early 90s hearing/reading at the time that they were somehow based on the Mk4 (or the other-way round). Whether that was just in terms of some key characteristics (length? tapered ends?) rather than the detailed designs/manufacturers; or whether it was some rumour that propagated throughout the railway media at the time I do not know...!?

Anyway, I don't think your memory is mistaken - there was definitely some link made at the time (even if not based on very much).

 

[Mag_seven]

They were a nuisance, people got in the way.

And when they took them out people just sat on the floor in the vestibule area so were still in the way!

 

[Bletchleyite]

And when they took them out people just sat on the floor in the vestibule area so were still in the way!

Not so much, as more people would actively choose the tip ups than would choose to sit on the floor.

 

[TimboM]

Anyway, I don't think your memory is mistaken - there was definitely some link made at the time (even if not based on very much).

...it may well have been BR propaganda, I mean publicity, as the 158s were really the first instance that "proper" loco-hauled trains with "real" coaches over long distance routes (e.g. TransPennine) were replaced on a large scale with DMUs, which until then were solely used for shorter distance work where the primary aim was capacity not comfort.

It's easy to forget now when almost everything's an EMU or DMU, but I recall a real uproar that people would have to sit on "uncomfortable, small" DMUs for several hours - so I'm guessing some of this may have been an attempt (via a somewhat tenuous link based on not much more than they look quite similar) to sell the fact to the public that really they'd be sitting in a coach that was every bit as good as the brand-new shiny ones on the flagship InterCity 225, just that they have a cab strapped on each end, rather than a loco (and DVT).

They weren't wrong as it transpired (indeed the 158s are arguably better!) - but folk were far from convinced back then.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

158s were a definite upgrade in terms of speed and journey time on many routes (eg Manchester-Cardiff/Holyhead) and in many cases replaced clapped out suburban DMUs on long-distance routes, as well as 37+moth-eaten Mk1 coaches.
But then as now, they had cramped, low-slung seats so were never "spacious".
I also think that some seats were/are noisy and have too many vibrations when they are near the engines.
The aircon has never been satisfactory either.
Predictably, 4-car LHCS were replaced by 2-car 158s, and they are still running around in that formation 25 years later with double the passenger demand.
Meanwhile the few 3-car 158s are wasting their extra capacity on Blackpool-York...

 

[3141]

I don't travel on Mark 4s often enough to be sure, but I think there are similarities between the shape of the luggage racks on them and those on 158s. But if so, it's more likely to be a matter of two different builders using the same bought-in component, rather than a co-ordinated attempt to achieve a design relationship.

 

[edwin_m]

...it may well have been BR propaganda, I mean publicity, as the 158s were really the first instance that "proper" loco-hauled trains with "real" coaches over long distance routes (e.g. TransPennine) were replaced on a large scale with DMUs, which until then were solely used for shorter distance work where the primary aim was capacity not comfort.

It's easy to forget now when almost everything's an EMU or DMU, but I recall a real uproar that people would have to sit on "uncomfortable, small" DMUs for several hours - so I'm guessing some of this may have been an attempt (via a somewhat tenuous link based on not much more than they look quite similar) to sell the fact to the public that really they'd be sitting in a coach that was every bit as good as the brand-new shiny ones on the flagship InterCity 225, just that they have a cab strapped on each end, rather than a loco (and DVT).

They weren't wrong as it transpired (indeed the 158s are arguably better!) - but folk were far from convinced back then.

Before the 158s many long-distance regional routes were worked with 155 and 156 units, and some Transpennine routes even had 150s for a year or to.

There were also plenty of long-distance workings in the heyday of the first-generation DMU, though not so many in later years as they got sufficiently clapped out that loco-hauled stock had to be found instead. Liverpool-Hull was worked by the Transpennine units (admittedly nearly equal to a Mk1 in comfort) and in 1984 I had the dubious pleasure of travelling from Birmingham to Cambridge in a Cravens 105 unit.

 

[TimboM]

Before the 158s many long-distance regional routes were worked with 155 and 156 units, and some Transpennine routes even had 150s for a year or to.

There were also plenty of long-distance workings in the heyday of the first-generation DMU, though not so many in later years as they got sufficiently clapped out that loco-hauled stock had to be found instead. Liverpool-Hull was worked by the Transpennine units (admittedly nearly equal to a Mk1 in comfort) and in 1984 I had the dubious pleasure of travelling from Birmingham to Cambridge in a Cravens 105 unit.

My experience admittedly was from growing up in York in the late 80s/early 90s. Based on childhood memories (which may be selective) but I seem to recall at the time the Transpennine trains through there (Leeds-York in particular) tended to be 47 hauled (or other "proper" loco) with a good number of coaches. So the idea of these new-fangled 2-car DMUs replacing them didn't go down well in that neck of the woods.

And back then before 24/7 (social media), interweb etc. that local view was pretty much the extent of your knowledge/railway world!

 

[Marklund]

Before the 158s many long-distance regional routes were worked with 155 and 156 units, and some Transpennine routes even had 150s for a year or to.

Yes, the 150/2s that came box fresh without the full yellow ends.
Bizarre looking things at the time. 158s were an upgrade from those.

All this brings a shiver to the spine at the thought of my first long 150 journey from Birmingham to Aberystwyth.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Little resemblance between the 158 and mk4. If anything the 91 and mk4 are more closely related to the APT-P

 

[TimboM]

Little resemblance between the 158 and mk4. If anything the 91 and mk4 are more closely related to the APT-P

I'm beginning to be more and more convinced it was a BR marketing ploy. There was definitely some comparisons made at the time - clearly unfounded ones!

 

[mark-h]

Why were the 158s tilt profiled (or not using more of the available space [eg Mark 3 or the later Turbostar])? I don’t recall any mention of tilting DMUs pre-privatisation.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't travel on Mark 4s often enough to be sure, but I think there are similarities between the shape of the luggage racks on them and those on 158s. But if so, it's more likely to be a matter of two different builders using the same bought-in component, rather than a co-ordinated attempt to achieve a design relationship.

As it happens, the 158 luggage racks are similar to the ones in the mk3's.

 

[edwin_m]

Why were the 158s tilt profiled (or not using more of the available space [eg Mark 3 or the later Turbostar])? I don’t recall any mention of tilting DMUs pre-privatisation.

They're not tilt profiled and were never intended to tilt. Possibly they decided the body size so that whatever the suspension did it would still stay within the profile of something like the Mk3 coach. However if they intended to avoid doing gauging it didn't work, as I remember some had to be done around Fareham and possibly elsewhere too.

 

[jopsuk]

Why were the 158s tilt profiled (or not using more of the available space [eg Mark 3 or the later Turbostar])? I don’t recall any mention of tilting DMUs pre-privatisation.

I'm not convinced the 158 is significantly more tapered than the 156. There's an odd visual effect that's partly due to 156s tapering a bit horizontally towards the cab end- the passenger cabin profile is pretty similar

 

[TimboM]

I'm not convinced the 158 is significantly more tapered than the 156. There's an odd visual effect that's partly due to 156s tapering a bit horizontally towards the cab end- the passenger cabin profile is pretty similar

The design of the front-end of a 158 vs a 156 probably adds to the effect too.

 

[swt_passenger]

They're not tilt profiled and were never intended to tilt. Possibly they decided the body size so that whatever the suspension did it would still stay within the profile of something like the Mk3 coach.

Just like Bombardier Electro/Turbostars I believe. Over the years many posters have wrongly described them as having a 'tilt profile' as well; AIUI they are also shaped that way to stay in gauge after major suspension failure.