Description
The design of the Class 156 was more conservative than Metro Cammell's earlier Class 151 design. The bodyshell was made of steel instead of aluminium, and the cab design was deliberately similar to the BREL Class 150 to ease union acceptance.
The units were all built as two-car sets, numbered 156401-514. Each unit was formed of two driving motors, one of which contained a toilet. Individual carriages numbered as follows:
- 52401-52514 - Driving Motor Standard Lavatory (DMSL)
- 57401-57514 - Driving Motor Standard (DMS), containing an area for storing wheelchairs, bicycles, bulky luggage etc.
The vehicles are powered by 6-cylinder Cummins NT855-R5 diesel engines through Voith T211r hydraulic automatic transmissions and Gmeinder final drive units. They have a top speed of 75 mph (121 km/h).
Unlike the Class 150 units, the 156s have a single-leaf sliding door at either end of each coach. This reflected the expected longer journeys with fewer stops that the Class 156 was supposed to operate. As with the Class 150, only the doors closest to the cabs have passenger door control panels and they require to be armed from within the cab itself, so that the guard can operate the door controls only from a vacant cab. Units operated by First ScotRail have been fitted with door-control panels in the centre sets of doors for the convenience of the guard.
The first 100 units were all ordered by the Provincial Sector of British Rail, and carried the sector's livery of blue and beige with light blue stripe. Twenty units, numbers 156401-419/422 based at Tyseley depot, were later repainted into Regional Railways Express livery after the rebranding of Provincial.
The last fourteen units, numbers 156501-514, were ordered by Strathclyde PTE, and carried an orange and black livery. This was later replaced by a carmine and cream livery, reminiscent of the 1950s livery carried by Mk.1 coaching stock.
Read more about this topic: British Rail Class 156
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)
“I was here first introduced to Joe.... He was a good-looking Indian, twenty-four years old, apparently of unmixed blood, short and stout, with a broad face and reddish complexion, and eyes, methinks, narrower and more turned up at the outer corners than ours, answering to the description of his race. Besides his underclothing, he wore a red flannel shirt, woolen pants, and a black Kossuth hat, the ordinary dress of the lumberman, and, to a considerable extent, of the Penobscot Indian.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.”
—John Locke (1632–1704)