Worth re-engining the 150s or 156s?

[hexagon789]

Not sure about other operators but I know the ScotRail 156s aren't particularly great, some of which have been stopped recently for months due to corrosion issues. This is even after a relatively recent overhaul.

There was a thread about this and indeed they aren't in great condition.

I think someone said they were built 'to a price' so the build material isn't top notch

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Except 769s. OK, they're not new, but they are 20m vehicles with modern diesel engines underneath.

And 230s, which are 18m vehicles with modern diesel engines underneath.

Neither of which have been easy or quick as it turns out. If I recall correctly, around the time that the 230 and 319flex projects were in their infancy there were rival proposals for both the same units which proposed fitting diesel engines inside the bodyshell behind the cabs. Not sure if the 230s would have been able to accommodate the weight but if the 210s are anything to go by the 319/769s presumably would. Whether this would have been better is open to discussion but one of the big criticisms of 769s was whether an engine that would fit under the floor would be able to produce enough grunt to match the (admittedly sluggish by modern standards) performance on electric. A bigger power plant behind the cabs may have minimised the performance difference between modes as per the 210s which apparently were quite quick off the mark by early 1980s standards. The bi-mode 210-equivalents that GMPTE wanted would presumably have had similar performance on both diesel and electric.

The reason is that almost all EMUs built in the last 25 years have been for London and the south-east use where 20m long stock has been the norm since nationalisation. Most DMUs have been for use elsewhere where 23m has become the norm. So the few diesel units that are needed in the south-east (e.g. class 158s and 171s) are 23m designs for the areas where they are normally allocated.

That is definitely a factor. I recall a while back hearing the theory that 20m vehicles wouldn't have space for all the exhaust treatment gubbins, but that may well have been superseded by technology... or may have been incorrect all along.

 

[DB]

Neither of which have been easy or quick as it turns out. If I recall correctly, around the time that the 230 and 319flex projects were in their infancy there were rival proposals for both the same units which proposed fitting diesel engines inside the bodyshell behind the cabs. Not sure if the 230s would have been able to accommodate the weight but if the 210s are anything to go by the 319/769s presumably would.

The 210s may well have had extra strengthening in the bottom of the bodyshell - anyone know?

The HST power car is based on the Mk3 bodyshell, beefed up of course.

 

[43096]

The 210s may well have had extra strengthening in the bottom of the bodyshell - anyone know?

The Class 442 motor coaches reportedly used the structure design from the Irish Rail generator vans to support the additional weight. The Class 210 motor coaches would have needed a similar design change given the weight of the Paxman or MTU engine above.

The HST power car is based on the Mk3 bodyshell, beefed up of course.

That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it.

 

[DB]

That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it.

Maybe, but the Mk3 body is clearly the starting point, made much more substantial structurally while retaining the same profile.

 

[43096]

Maybe, but the Mk3 body is clearly the starting point, made much more substantial structurally while retaining the same profile.

So the same profile but completely different otherwise.