RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted January 11, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2020 I think I've seen the answer to this somewhere else on here, but can't find it. Is the class 158 bodyshell related to, or derived from, the Mk4 carriage design? Also, am I right in thinking that the body profile on 158's was designed to allow tilting equipment to be fitted at some point in future? (I know Mk4's were). Cheers N Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted January 11, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 minute ago, rodent279 said: I think I've seen the answer to this somewhere else on here, but can't find it. Is the class 158 bodyshell related to, or derived from, the Mk4 carriage design? Also, am I right in thinking that the body profile on 158's was designed to allow tilting equipment to be fitted at some point in future? (I know Mk4's were). Cheers N No in a word, the connection between the mk4 and the 158 is that if BREL had been given the contract for the mk4s they would have had similar bogies to the 158. The mk3 DVT has similar bogies 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 The 158 was built in a different material (aluminium) from the Mk4 (steel) and designed and built by a different supplier (BREL vs Metro Cammell). You may be thinking of the 156, also built by MetCamm and having a similar bodyshell to the Mk4 but not to a profile suited to tilting. I think also MetCamm were considering buying in the T4 bogie from BREL for the Mk4 but ultimately went for the SIG bogie. The 158 bodyshell had no provision for tilting. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted January 11, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2020 The 156 was Super Sprinter, the 158 was Sprinter Express. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomag Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 No, acordoring to my Chainman in RCE Anglia, 158's were 'super dooper sprinters'. Thats if they did not take of platform coping stone or disapear from the signling systems in which case they were called something less nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted January 12, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2020 Thanks all. I thought the answer was no, but I wasn't aware of the bogie connection. They (158's) do look as if they have a profile to accommodate a limited degree of tilt. I guess incorporating tilt into a bodyshell already packed with engines and transmissions would have been too much! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 When the 170s first appeared Roger Ford in Modern Railways did an article on how they were narrower than 158s and mused about whether they had been designed for tilt. However I think he concluded the real reason what that they wanted to have a train that could go anywhere a 158 could go so made them that bit smaller to be sure they would be within gauge. Presumably following that logic, within a few generations trains would become so small that they disappeared entirely... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Radford Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 According to P5 1990:- 150/1 - BREL Sprinter 150/2 - York Sprinter 155 - Leyland Bus Super Sprinter 156 - Metro-Cammell Super Sprinter 158 - BREL Express Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now