Sprinter vs Turbostar

[ChrisCooper]

165s and 166s are Networker Turbos, and the 170s are really an updated version of them. Actually, the 168 is an updated Turbo, with the evolution in styling clearly visable in the earlier versions which looked much more Networker like. The 170s are basically the same, but with some changes to the electrics to make them compatable with Sprinters, which the 16X types arn't.
One thing I do like about the Turbostars, and to some extent the Electrostars is that they are very much a modern British design, unlike all the other types which have much clearer European origins. The evolution can be seen from the 15X and the Mk3 EMU (317-322, 455 and 456), to the Networker, to the Turbo and Electrostar. They are also the last mainline train built in the UK.

 

[Gizmogle]

I chose Turbostars, as I don't really travel on them as much. Whereas Sprinters I have to spend at least 40 minutes on to get anywhere at all being on a branch line. Bit of variety

 

[Ascot]

Turbostars, traveling on 150s between Brum and Kiddie is a bit thin. Be much better with the 172s or even if they used 170s for some semi fasts.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I wouldn't get your hopes up too much that the 172s will be better than 150s. They arn't going to be to 170 standards anyway, 3+2 seating is almost certain, probably narrow, upright, very high backed, airline style and hard. Air conditioning and other comforts are uncertain.

 

[support-uk-rail]

Does anybody no when the plans are to start making the Sprinters redundant?

 

[Dennis]

Can't imagine that with current capacity problems any of the Sprinter family will be made redundant for the forseeable future, except possibly for 'political' reasons; I would expect spare 150's to displace 14x's though.

Rail vehicle accessibility regulations will most likely see off the sprinter fleet (and most other pre-1998 stock, including Networkers and 31x's) by 2020 - if it is implemented; remember how the end of the slammers was put off for several years?

 

[me123]

The sprinters are very good trains in that they are versatile, comfortable and have been working successfully for a while so I would imagine they will have a long life. 2020 would be aboiut right in my opinion, but I hope they continue to operate for longer. I for one will be sad to see them go.

 

[Gizmogle]

The only thing about Turbostars is that I feel they don't have enough seats.
But I guess I shouldn't complain, or we'll end up with more 450 style seating lol

 

[16CSVT2700]

When travelling as a passenger: Turbostar
When travelling as an enthusiast: neither

 

[D306]

gotta be a sprinter for me, as i've never been on a turbostar.

 

[Ascot]

I wouldn't get your hopes up too much that the 172s will be better than 150s. They arn't going to be to 170 standards anyway, 3+2 seating is almost certain, probably narrow, upright, very high backed, airline style and hard. Air conditioning and other comforts are uncertain.

Air Conditioning on the 172s are planned, even if it's like a HD FGW coach it will be better than a 150, pop down to Snow Hill and play on em all day then tell me if it can get worse.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I wouldn't get your hopes up too much that the 172s will be better than 150s. They arn't going to be to 170 standards anyway, 3+2 seating is almost certain, probably narrow, upright, very high backed, airline style and hard. Air conditioning and other comforts are uncertain.

Given the present condition of most of CT's 150s, it's highly likely that 172s will be quite an improvement even if they are absolute ****!

 

[FusionRail]

i dont mind either, but i voted sprinters, as there are more variety of them, but to be honest they are as good as each other