Rumour: Porterbrook to go for cheap option with 153s

[northwichcat]

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.

Well if the wheelchair passenger is one of the first passengers to arrive at the origin station I think they would have to be allowed on board.

 

[RobShipway]

I would think that the class 153's would be better to be inserted into the class 156's as they have the same type of doors and to me look odd working with Class 150 or Class 158's.

The only problem I see what replaces the 153's for First Great Western and London Midland if they are inserted into class 156 trains?

 

[tom1649]

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.

Or you could just lock the toilet in the 153 out of use.

 

[northwichcat]

I would think that the class 153's would be better to be inserted into the class 156's as they have the same type of doors and to me look odd working with Class 150 or Class 158's.

153s are banned from some lines which 156s are cleared for. For instance, 156s can run through Wigan Wallgate or down to Buxton but 153s cannot, so you'd probably need a new class number if you did that.

 

[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.

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

Fair point, hadn't considered that earlier when I commented during breakfast lol.

Reform the 156s as well and job's a good 'un. Of course, it's all speculation until Porterbrook announce their actual plans!

 

[Yew]

I would think that the class 153's would be better to be inserted into the class 156's as they have the same type of doors and to me look odd working with Class 150 or Class 158's.

The only problem I see what replaces the 153's for First Great Western and London Midland if they are inserted into class 156 trains?

And, with both being 23m units, the end throw would be similar, reducing corridor wear compared to working with 150's

 

[Failed Unit]

Well if the wheelchair passenger is one of the first passengers to arrive at the origin station I think they would have to be allowed on board.

True, it just places like Market Rasen. Although EMT don't discriminate, they leave able body and wheelchair passengers behind. My point was train is better than no train - but that is old ground.

 

[northwichcat]

And, with both being 23m units, the end throw would be similar, reducing corridor wear compared to working with 150's

That's probably a far better reason than the formation 'looks odd.' 153s currently run round attached to Pacers and 170s so being attached to other Sprinters would look less odd than some of the current formations.

 

[Anvil1984]

I would think that the class 153's would be better to be inserted into the class 156's as they have the same type of doors and to me look odd working with Class 150 or Class 158's.

The only problem I see what replaces the 153's for First Great Western and London Midland if they are inserted into class 156 trains?

They have the same type of doors? Which doors? the 156 doors are different to 153/155 doors

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They have the same type of doors? Which doors? the 156 doors are different to 153/155 doors

I think that poster meant "similar/same position"...

Some of the restrictions on 153s are due to the crew steps that needed to be added to the no. 2 end when they were singled. For example 153s are banned from Portsmouth, but 155s were regulars before they were split. If they were permanently coupled to other vehicles these steps could be removed.

I've heard some drivers say that the smaller cabs are actually less cramped, so if any cab is to be removed there might be pressure from unions to decommission the originals!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What might be worthwhile would be to add 7 153s into the remaining 155s, leaving 63 153s to be formed into 21 3-car 155 sets, each with one small toilet and one accessible one giving a total of 28 3-car sets.

 

[northwichcat]

What might be worthwhile would be to add 7 153s into the remaining 155s, leaving 63 153s to be formed into 21 3-car 155 sets, each with one small toilet and one accessible one.

Don't forget non-retention toilets are also banned post-2019 so that would still require 2 new toilets for each 3 car formation even if the second one can take up less space.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Don't forget non-retention toilets are also banned post-2019 so that would still require 2 new toilets for each 3 car formation even if the second one can take up less space.

Aye, I'd forgotten momentarily about the tank issue. In that case I suppose the smaller toilet could be sacrificed if costs are an issue. A fleet of 28 3-car sets would possibly be an ideal size to stay with a single TOC, whilst large enough to avoid 'micro-fleet' issues.

 

[yorksrob]

Don't forget, you don’t need a whole new toilet unit just to get a retention tank. These can be retro fitted to existing loo's.

 

[route:oxford]

We've reached 3 pages and nobody has suggested a re-engine & re-bogie and inserting them as a MS in a 442!

 

[HLE]

Why not just remove the bike rack ? And then insert a accessible toilet with the corridor by the plated over window ? Yes the door control panel and whatever electrics are contained in that 'column' where the DKS is, would have to be re-done - at what cost I have no idea, but a bike rack isn't a requirement surely?

 

[Techniquest]

We've reached 3 pages and nobody has suggested a re-engine & re-bogie and inserting them as a MS in a 442!

Argh, 442s seem to be getting mentioned in every other thread lately!

Wouldn't creating new 155s mean quite a bit of work would need to be done, so quite a lot of expense for Porterbrook? If saving money is the agenda then I don't see that being sensible!

 

[BestWestern]

Argh, 442s seem to be getting mentioned in every other thread lately!

Wouldn't creating new 155s mean quite a bit of work would need to be done, so quite a lot of expense for Porterbrook? If saving money is the agenda then I don't see that being sensible!

Not really. They'd just be a pair of permanently coupled 153s. Remove the 'small' cab bulkheads, which significantly obstruct the vestibule, either remove the cab completely and create a large vestibule where people can stand on busy services, or just refit another bulkhead further back to box it all in.

 

[Class 170101]

Not really. They'd just be a pair of permanently coupled 153s. Remove the 'small' cab bulkheads, which significantly obstruct the vestibule, either remove the cab completely and create a large vestibule where people can stand on busy services, or just refit another bulkhead further back to box it all in.

This seems more sensible to me but is still going to result in a shortfall of DMUs which currently there doesn't seem to be an answer to except more wiring schemes which seem unlikely to materialise nver mind be completed anytime soon.

I still think Porterbrook's Class 144e looks like a viable short term solution.

 

[Starmill]

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

A very very bad decision not fitting one toilet to the Crossrail unit in my view!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Shame. Would have been an interesting looking unit.

They can be, but non vacuum-flush toilets that get tanks aren't very good!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

This seems more sensible to me but is still going to result in a shortfall of DMUs which currently there doesn't seem to be an answer to except more wiring schemes which seem unlikely to materialise nver mind be completed anytime soon.

I still think Porterbrook's Class 144e looks like a viable short term solution.

There's likely to be fewer and fewer services where a single car unit is large enough, and for the handful that are, the e143/e144 is a possible solution as may be the 2-car D78 conversions.
However whilst single 153s are unlikely to have much use, They are DMU vehicles, which in the short term are in short supply. The obvious solution would be to reform them back to 155s, but that still requires each pair to have a universal toilet, which this 'rumour' suggests Porterbrook feels might not be worthwhile.
Having them all as single toiletless cars used only for strengthening services operated by a compliant unit makes sense in theory, but how long would it be before an operator faced the dilemma of sending out a pair of these in lieu of a failed unit, or cancelling the service? This also would leave the remaining 7 155s in limbo.

I propose forming 3-car 153 sets and including the West Yorkshire seven in this. Each unit could have one accessible toilet and possibly one small one. 3 car units would be perfectly adequate for routes like Derby-Crewe, Nottingham-Skegness, Hull-Scarborough, and Newcastle-Carlisle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This seems more sensible to me but is still going to result in a shortfall of DMUs which currently there doesn't seem to be an answer to except more wiring schemes which seem unlikely to materialise nver mind be completed anytime soon.

That problem will be solved by the new Northern franchise ordering at least 120 new vehicles and possibly some D-stock or Pacer conversions as well. With increasing loadings even on branch lines there really won't be a lot left for which a single coach alone suffices.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A very very bad decision not fitting one toilet to the Crossrail unit in my view!

Depends what Crossrail is. All the way from Reading is a fair trek, as is Tring, but I think it's been rather descoped from the east-west Thameslink which might have been better.

After all, LO and Merseyrail don't have bogs, nor does the S-stock on the Met, and both are very similar services to what Crossrail will be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having them all as single toiletless cars used only for strengthening services operated by a compliant unit makes sense in theory, but how long would it be before an operator faced the dilemma of sending out a pair of these in lieu of a failed unit, or cancelling the service?

No worse than sending out an existing unit with an OOU bog, which happens all the time.

This also would leave the remaining 7 155s in limbo.

Not really, though they are a microfleet.

 

[Starmill]

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.

The wording seems fine to me. What is the problem? And in what way are passengers getting a bad deal? Accessible toilets are good. Or not, in your view?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The wording seems fine to me. What is the problem? And in what way are passengers getting a bad deal? Accessible toilets are good. Or not, in your view?

I prefer them over regular ones provided the door works reliably. Easier with luggage, for a start. And useful for getting changed in if you're going to do some sort of sport straight after your journey, too.

 

[yorksrob]

A very very bad decision not fitting one toilet to the Crossrail unit in my view!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They can be, but non vacuum-flush toilets that get tanks aren't very good!

True, the ones on the 158's were a bit whiffy to start off with, although they seem to have solved this by putting in a steel toilet bowl.

Still, better a smelly toilet than no toilet!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I agree that there are potentially some quite long journeys that will be possible on Crossrail. Not fitting toilets on the trains is sheer lunacy IMO. They should consider what it will be like for people coming home after a night out over the festive period.

They should also consider that when the EPB's and SUB's were built without toilets in the 40's and 50's, a lot more stations would have been staffed and had toilet facilities.

It rather makes me suspect that the people who make these decisions don't use the train at all.

 

[Class 170101]

There's likely to be fewer and fewer services where a single car unit is large enough, and for the handful that are, the e143/e144 is a possible solution as may be the 2-car D78 conversions.
However whilst single 153s are unlikely to have much use, They are DMU vehicles, which in the short term are in short supply. The obvious solution would be to reform them back to 155s, but that still requires each pair to have a universal toilet, which this 'rumour' suggests Porterbrook feels might not be worthwhile.
Having them all as single toiletless cars used only for strengthening services operated by a compliant unit makes sense in theory, but how long would it be before an operator faced the dilemma of sending out a pair of these in lieu of a failed unit, or cancelling the service? This also would leave the remaining 7 155s in limbo.

I propose forming 3-car 153 sets and including the West Yorkshire seven in this. Each unit could have one accessible toilet and possibly one small one. 3 car units would be perfectly adequate for routes like Derby-Crewe, Nottingham-Skegness, Hull-Scarborough, and Newcastle-Carlisle.

Sorry probably should have been clearer.
153s reformed to Class 155s is a good way to go but still leaves a shortage of DMUs in the short to medium term even with electrification to solve, so in the short to medium term the Class 144e project, and indeed as you suggest the D78 project, are very likely to be needed to cover for this shortfall.

I wouldn't recommend scrapping any existing self powered vehicles when their lines are electrified until it is proven capacity is satisfying demand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That problem will be solved by the new Northern franchise ordering at least 120 new vehicles and possibly some D-stock or Pacer conversions as well. With increasing loadings even on branch lines there really won't be a lot left for which a single coach alone suffices.

Again will 120 vehicles be enough?

Formations
40 * 3 trains
60 * 2 trains
30 * 4 trains

Doesn't look so many now. I would still look at the Class 153 conversions just to keep capacity up with demand.

 

[northwichcat]

That problem will be solved by the new Northern franchise ordering at least 120 new vehicles and possibly some D-stock or Pacer conversions as well.

No. Pacer conversions are banned. Any bidder proposing use of class 14xs post-December 2019 will have their bid disqualified.

Again will 120 vehicles be enough?

Formations
40 * 3 trains
60 * 2 trains
30 * 4 trains

Doesn't look so many now. I would still look at the Class 153 conversions just to keep capacity up with demand.

It is at least 120 vehicles. I think it's presumed Northern bidders will also take on 10 x 2 car 156s, 8 x 2 car 158s and 29 x 3 car 170s which Scotrail will release when they get cascaded HSTs, given 120 vehicles won't be enough (the specification requires extra services as well as withdrawal of 14xs) and specifically states bidders can take on 15xs and 17xs which become surplus to requirements in other franchises.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. Pacer conversions are banned. Any bidder proposing use of class 14xs post-December 2019 will have their bid disqualified.

Sorry, I forgot that. D-stock *is* an option for over 120, though.

 

[yorksrob]

The wording seems fine to me. What is the problem? And in what way are passengers getting a bad deal? Accessible toilets are good. Or not, in your view?

Passengers are only getting a bad deal if they have to remove toilets. However, the consensus on this thread now seems to be that this isn't the case so long as there is an accessible loo somewhere on the train, which seems fine to me.

 

[BestWestern]

Not really, though they are a microfleet.

The 155s would be 'in limbo' as no decision would have been made on their future, as well as being a microfleet as you say.

No. Pacer conversions are banned. Any bidder proposing use of class 14xs post-December 2019 will have their bid disqualified.

Just plain silly. A Pacer is perfectly adequate for plenty of purposes, an outright ban is nothing more than pandering to misinformed wibble. How likely is it I wonder that we'll see refurbed 143/144 sets just being swapped with Sprinters from somewhere that isn't 'The North'?!

 

[northwichcat]

Just plain silly. A Pacer is perfectly adequate for plenty of purposes, an outright ban is nothing more than pandering to misinformed wibble. How likely is it I wonder that we'll see refurbed 143/144 sets just being swapped with Sprinters from somewhere that isn't 'The North'?!

A refurbed 2 car 143/4 would have similar seating capacity to what a 153 has now so really EMT would be the best place for the 143s as they'll have the most 153s after they take over Barton Humber from Northern (and they also use a number them in single car formation.)

Then it would be between FGW and Northern for the 144s (as there's 10 x 3 car 144s.)

As Northern are the first franchise to be renewed and the 143/4s (and other trains) have to be taken out of service to be renewed it doesn't sound like a bad idea for Northern to order new trains and to release their 144s.