Rumour: Porterbrook to go for cheap option with 153s

[northwichcat]

I've heard a rumour that Porterbrook have decided their preferred option for class 153 use post-2019 is to remove the toilet, undertake other accessibility requirements and to sell them to TOCs as carriages which can be used in multiple with accessible 150/2s, 155s, 156s, 158s and 159s.

The rumour has come from someone who works for a company which is hoping to win work refurbishing trains.

 

[Techniquest]

It kinda makes sense, sure would be the easiest option of the lot!

 

[yorksrob]

If the plan is to work them with other units, one wonders what is the point of removing the toilets. The unit as a whole will be accessible, and shoving a turd tank on the bottom as with the 158's isn't going to cost anywhere near a completely new toilet unit.

 

[northwichcat]

If the plan is to work them with other units, one wonders what is the point of removing the toilets. The unit as a whole will be accessible, and shoving a turd tank on the bottom as with the 158's isn't going to cost anywhere near a completely new toilet unit.

There's a December 2019 deadline for all train toilets being retention toilets as well as one for all trains with toilets being having an accessible one.

 

[yorksrob]

There's a December 2019 deadline for all train toilets being retention toilets as well as one for all train toilets being accessible.

All train toilets need to be accessible ? Surely a massively counter-productive deadline. I thought it was all trains need an accessible toilet.

 

[MCR247]

I think he means all trains having an accessible toilet

 

[northwichcat]

All train toilets need to be accessible ? Surely a massively counter-productive deadline. I thought it was all trains need an accessible toilet.

No. A train doesn't have to have a toilet but if toilet facilities are available then they must be available for passengers with disabilities.

Although, you could argue not having toilets on some trains (or trams or buses) can cause problems for people with certain medical conditions even on a short journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It kinda makes sense, sure would be the easiest option of the lot!

As there are fewer and fewer services for which a single-coach DMU is suitable (and more and more where 3 coaches are required), particularly one with a load of the seats removed for accessibility modifications, I think this makes a lot of sense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No. A train doesn't have to have a toilet but if toilet facilities are available then they must be available for passengers with disabilities.

Which also doesn't mean "all train toilets have to be accessible to people with disabilities". What it means is "all trains which have toilet facilities must have at least one which is accessible to people with disabilities".

Which is quite similar to public buildings.

 

[northwichcat]

As there are fewer and fewer services for which a single-coach DMU is suitable (and more and more where 3 coaches are required), particularly one with a load of the seats removed for accessibility modifications, I think this makes a lot of sense.

There are other options for low usage routes, like the refurbished 143/4 or the D-Train if they go ahead. I can't see any new trains being ordered shorter than 40m in length and I'm doubtful of any being ordered that short.

 

[yorksrob]

No. A train doesn't have to have a toilet but if toilet facilities are available then they must be available for passengers with disabilities.

Although, you could argue not having toilets on some trains (or trams or buses) can cause problems for people with certain medical conditions even on a short journey.

Wow, they couldn't have came up with a more poorly worded piece of legislation. The passengers end up with worse facilities as per usual.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which also doesn't mean "all train toilets have to be accessible to people with disabilities". What it means is "all trains which have toilet facilities must have at least one which is accessible to people with disabilities".

Which is quite similar to public buildings.

Quite, which would be the sensible solution.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Actually, what I would do would be to put the disabled loo in the 153's and team them up permanently with the 144's. This would at least provide some relatively high capacity units for the inter urban areas.

 

[northwichcat]

Which also doesn't mean "all train toilets have to be accessible to people with disabilities". What it means is "all trains which have toilet facilities must have at least one which is accessible to people with disabilities".

Which is quite similar to public buildings.

With a poster implying that trains had to have toilets I missed the error in my post. However, the weird loophole where removing a non-accessible toilet and not replacing it with a new toilet is acceptable does exist.

I don't know the exact requirement but it's not as simple as 1 accessible toilet per train and then the rest can be non-accessible. For long formations there needs to be multiple accessible toilets but it appears 1 accessible toilet is OK for 4 car trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Logically, it would have to exist, as there are, and will continue to be, trains without toilets, including new-build e.g. Crossrail.

 

[northwichcat]

Actually, what I would do would be to put the disabled loo in the 153's and team them up permanently with the 144's. This would at least provide some relatively high capacity units for the inter urban areas.

I think you fall foul of the legislation there as the toilet is only available to some passengers not all passengers.

144+153 formations wouldn't be all the high in capacity considering there's lots of 4 car Pacer and Sprinter formations in the Manchester and Leeds areas currently. (There's even booked 5 car Pacer workings on Calder Vale.)

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think anyone was arguing that all trains have to have toilets - although some of those routes which currently don't have them could do with having them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think you fall foul of the legislation there as the toilet is only available to some passengers not all passengers.

144+153 formations wouldn't be all the high in capacity considering there's lots of 4 car Pacer and Sprinter formations in the Manchester and Leeds areas currently. (There's even booked 5 car Pacer workings on Calder Vale.)

Ah yes, that could be an issue.

But given we still have so many 2 carriage pacers running around, adding a 153 to them would still represent a considerable improvement.

 

[northwichcat]

Logically, it would have to exist, as there are, and will continue to be, trains without toilets, including new-build e.g. Crossrail.

The government could introduce legislation about when a toilet must be provided. Although that wouldn't prevent new loopholes.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Actually, what I would do would be to put the disabled loo in the 153's and team them up permanently with the 144's. This would at least provide some relatively high capacity units for the inter urban areas.

This could be a stupid question, but would it be possible to insert a 153 between the 144 cars, would the gangways be compatable amongst other things?

 

[yorksrob]

This could be a stupid question, but would it be possible to insert a 153 between the 144 cars, would the gangways be compatable amongst other things?

Such happenings were commonplace with Southern Mk 1's and 1st generation DMU's - I'm not aware of whether it's ever happened with a 2nd gen DMU though. It would solve a problem if they could.

 

[route:oxford]

I think you fall foul of the legislation there as the toilet is only available to some passengers not all passengers.

That can be resolved by locking the working toilet out of use until the other is repaired.

 

[theblackwatch]

That can be resolved by locking the working toilet out of use until the other is repaired.

And thereby catering for 0% of passengers rather than 98% of them - but fulfilling the legal requirement. It makes sense you know....

 

[Llama]

This could be a stupid question, but would it be possible to insert a 153 between the 144 cars, would the gangways be compatable amongst other things?

No, they are not in any way compatible.

 

[kjhskj75]

This could be a stupid question, but would it be possible to insert a 153 between the 144 cars, would the gangways be compatable amongst other things?

No - pacers have bar couplings internally.

You might be able to put one in the middle of a 150/155/156 though.

 

[BestWestern]

No - pacers have bar couplings internally.

You might be able to put one in the middle of a 150/155/156 though.

Far more likely. Very unlikely to end up in a permanent formation with a Pacer, and equally unlikely with a 158 due to the differing speed capabilities. But makes sense with a Sprinter, certainly. Would be interesting though to see whether they would need to be inserted as centre cars, or if perhaps they'd simply be tagged on one end. The latter would mean easy removal in the event of mechanical issue or maintenance requirements.

 

[Bantamzen]

Far more likely. Very unlikely to end up in a permanent formation with a Pacer, and equally unlikely with a 158 due to the differing speed capabilities. But makes sense with a Sprinter, certainly. Would be interesting though to see whether they would need to be inserted as centre cars, or if perhaps they'd simply be tagged on one end. The latter would mean easy removal in the event of mechanical issue or maintenance requirements.

That's pretty much how Northern use most of their 153s anyway, tagged onto a 155/158 formation.

Incidentally, on the subject of toilets and if they should all be made accessible, the refurbed 322s now have one accessible toilet in one of the driving trailers with the other standard one remaining in the centre of the units. So that should indicate that not all loos need to be upgraded.

 

[47802]

That's pretty much how Northern use most of their 153s anyway, tagged onto a 155/158 formation.

Incidentally, on the subject of toilets and if they should all be made accessible, the refurbed 322s now have one accessible toilet in one of the driving trailers with the other standard one remaining in the centre of the units. So that should indicate that not all loos need to be upgraded.

I think its been made clear that not all toilets need to be accessible but at least 1 does. If you look at the layout on IEP it has 2 accessible toilets on the driving trailers only, the driving trailers also accommodate the wheel chair space as well presumably due to the slope on the floor in the non driving trailers

 

[Failed Unit]

That will be interesting on some operators. EMT as an example will need to get some stock from somewhere. But some my consider a toiletless train as acceptable around Lincolnshire. (Considering the length of time that some journeys take in London. Saying that I am not sure what toilet provision at stations is like in London)

However a 3 car 155 / 156 (3rd car the permanetly coupled 153 at bad cab end) would probably be better than making them back into 155s.

 

[yorksrob]

No, they are not in any way compatible.

Shame. Would have been an interesting looking unit.

 

[northwichcat]

That will be interesting on some operators. EMT as an example will need to get some stock from somewhere. But some my consider a toiletless train as acceptable around Lincolnshire. (Considering the length of time that some journeys take in London. Saying that I am not sure what toilet provision at stations is like in London)

Having a toilet-less 153 tagged on to a 156 as the booked traction would mean if the 156 fails the 153 could still work the service alone without an exemption order. However, if the 153 has a non-accessible toilet then it would need an exemption order to operate in service by itself.

 

[Techniquest]

Surely banging the 153s into 155s makes the most sense, having the same bodyshell (whatever it's made of, memory fail!) it certainly wouldn't look out of place, compared to banging them into, say, a 158.

 

[northwichcat]

Surely banging the 153s into 155s makes the most sense, having the same bodyshell (whatever it's made of, memory fail!) it certainly wouldn't look out of place, compared to banging them into, say, a 158.

But there are only 7 x 155s remaining and 70 x 153s so unless you turn them in to 7 x 12 car 155s.

 

[Failed Unit]

Having a toilet-less 153 tagged on to a 156 as the booked traction would mean if the 156 fails the 153 could still work the service alone without an exemption order. However, if the 153 has a non-accessible toilet then it would need an exemption order to operate in service by itself.

I would love to see the daily fail on that. "Trains cancelled because of the wrong type of toilet". Ironically in the situation of a 153 covering a 156 the overcrowding would be so bad, a wheelchair wouldn't fit because of overcrowding. Toilet or not.