5x Class 153 conversion to bike and baggage vans for Scotrail

[adamedwards]

Is one possible way to make this work that the 153 is for bikes from Glasgow to Oban only with intermediate stations using spaces in the 156s? I don't know the patterns of use, but I am guessing this might be the major demand?

 

[_toommm_]

Strap 373's to the back for some streamlined storage?

 

[AndrewE]

Is one possible way to make this work that the 153 is for bikes from Glasgow to Oban only with intermediate stations using spaces in the 156s? I don't know the patterns of use, but I am guessing this might be the major demand?

Good suggestion, & following the same principle as suggested for the HSTs. That should make it easier to manage, too.

 

[30907]

I'd have to disagree there regarding adding unpowered vehicles to the likes of Class 150/156 or similar, especially on steeply graded routes such as the West Highland Etc.

I don't think anyone so far has mentioned unpowered vehicles, only 153s.

Is one possible way to make this work that the 153 is for bikes from Glasgow to Oban only with intermediate stations using spaces in the 156s? I don't know the patterns of use, but I am guessing this might be the major demand?

A simple solution, perhaps not ideal, but at least Oban to Ft Bill is flat!

 

[delt1c]

lets get back to the real world, in todays capitalist, profit driven society this is never going to happen. in a world of re nationilsation where the opererator owns the asset and track yes would be great. but where everyone wants a slice of the cake it is a non starter.
if you want a joined up network for the benifit of the nation you have to do it through the ballot box

 

[AndrewE]

A simple solution, perhaps not ideal, but at least Oban to Ft Bill is flat!

Que? It might be by sea (if you are lucky) or along the beach, but by rail surely Rannoch Moor is in the way?

lets get back to the real world, in todays capitalist, profit driven society this is never going to happen. in a world of re nationilsation where the opererator owns the asset and track yes would be great. but where everyone wants a slice of the cake it is a non starter.
if you want a joined up network for the benifit of the nation you have to do it through the ballot box

But Scotland have a devolved government, a single rail "franchise" (but where their parliament call the tune, not the DfT) and the will to invest in transport. I would have said that it's about the only part of the UK where common sense might prevail... if we are talking about the same thing, that is.

 

[delt1c]

but the stock is still owned by investors and access charges apply

 

[AndrewE]

but the stock is still owned by investors

and about to become worthless

and access charges apply

so the people who call the tune accept it and pay the piper. I reckon it's about the only place where it could happen.

 

[delt1c]

Is this not proof for nationaliation, transport for the people and the country not the fat cats

 

[6Gman]

Is this not proof for nationaliation, transport for the people and the country not the fat cats

Still has to be paid for one way or another. Doubt bike users would fancy paying the full cost of dedicated vehicles so does it go on the fares (or taxes) of the rest of us?

 

[Ash Bridge]

I don't think anyone so far has mentioned unpowered vehicles, only 153s.

Yes, that was a response to posting #58 where it was suggested that redundant pacers or vehicles from 313 units in unpowered form could be used as an alternative to the 153s, anyway my fault as I failed to quote the post.

 

[6Gman]

This thread exemplifies what is wrong with today's railway. In the past, if more bike space was needed, you would just tag an extra BG onto the back of the train. Now, there are 1,001 reasons why redundant units can't be used as the equivalent of said BG.

That's not actually been the case for many years. If the train was 11 coaches, and running in D385 timings, you would not "just tag an extra BG on".

 

[tbtc]

lets get back to the real world, in todays capitalist, profit driven society this is never going to happen. in a world of re nationilsation where the opererator owns the asset and track yes would be great. but where everyone wants a slice of the cake it is a non starter.
if you want a joined up network for the benifit of the nation you have to do it through the ballot box

If the Scottish Government want the (already heavily subsidised) ScotRail franchise to run converted 153s to carry bikes then it'd be a drop in the ocean compared to the overall costs of the franchise.

Maybe it'll be worth it in the grand scheme of things to pay for the conversion and have these 153s tagged onto the existing trains, maybe the benefits to the tourist industry will make it all worthwhile... maybe it'll only be useful for a handful of days a year and they'll sit idle most of the time.

I don't know. But blaming privatisation for it not happening seems a bit unfair - converting stock needs to be paid for one way or another, and doing it for a couple of carriages is going to be a "rounding error"

I'm a Scot, I recognise that ScotRail is heavily subsidised - I'm not saying that it ought to be profitable - but when Scottish passengers only pay 28p for every £1 that their journey costs, you wouldn't notice the cost of converting a couple of 153s in the grand scheme of things - do it or don't do it but it's nowt to do with nasty capitalists - it's not as if ScotRail is otherwise being run entirely to make a profit.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...il-industry-financial-information-2016-17.pdf

on average, government contributed £1.53 per passenger journey in England, £6.08 in Scotland and £8.82 in Wales

Still has to be paid for one way or another. Doubt bike users would fancy paying the full cost of dedicated vehicles so does it go on the fares (or taxes) of the rest of us?

Good point - how much would you have to charge each cyclist to make it break even (for seat plus bike storage)?

 

[AndrewE]

If the Scottish Government want the (already heavily subsidised) ScotRail franchise to run converted 153s to carry bikes then it'd be a drop in the ocean compared to the overall costs of the franchise.
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...il-industry-financial-information-2016-17.pdf
Good point - how much would you have to charge each cyclist to make it break even (for seat plus bike storage)?

The point of government is that it is supposed to take an overview. It might well be that the overall national income from tourists with luggage (and those with bikes, who are likely to stop overnight at places in between tourist hot-spots) will be far more than the cost of the extra capacity. They all buy their travel tickets anyway.

 

[adamedwards]

If you want to raise revenue for tourism, the French tax du senior is a good model. Anyone staying anywhere pays a small tax to the local council per night via the owner. Helps communities with small year round populations and lots of visitors in peak seasons. Some of that could then fund the 153s. Oban to Fort William by bike is not very flat apart from the old railway bits and the cycle route includes the Clean ferry and the foot ferry back over to FW. I think a 153 to FW will also be needed. (Of course Grayling will expect a bimode version to use the wires on Clydeside.)

 

[InOban]

If the Scottish Government want the (already heavily subsidised) ScotRail franchise to run converted 153s to carry bikes then it'd be a drop in the ocean compared to the overall costs of the franchise.

Maybe it'll be worth it in the grand scheme of things to pay for the conversion and have these 153s tagged onto the existing trains, maybe the benefits to the tourist industry will make it all worthwhile... maybe it'll only be useful for a handful of days a year and they'll sit idle most of the time.

I don't know. But blaming privatisation for it not happening seems a bit unfair - converting stock needs to be paid for one way or another, and doing it for a couple of carriages is going to be a "rounding error"

I'm a Scot, I recognise that ScotRail is heavily subsidised - I'm not saying that it ought to be profitable - but when Scottish passengers only pay 28p for every £1 that their journey costs, you wouldn't notice the cost of converting a couple of 153s in the grand scheme of things - do it or don't do it but it's nowt to do with nasty capitalists - it's not as if ScotRail is otherwise being run entirely to make a profit.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...il-industry-financial-information-2016-17.pdf





Good point - how much would you have to charge each cyclist to make it break even (for seat plus bike storage)?

Whatever the extra subsidy, it would be minimal compared to the subsidy to the Sleeper!

 

[tbtc]

The point of government is that it is supposed to take an overview. It might well be that the overall national income from tourists with luggage (and those with bikes, who are likely to stop overnight at places in between tourist hot-spots) will be far more than the cost of the extra capacity. They all buy their travel tickets anyway.

Sure, holistic view and all that - though the revenue generated from people who'll spend most of the day cycling around means that it's not a demographic you'd particularly target as a revenue generator (compared to common-or-garden tourists).

I like cycling - I was on a bike earlier this week - but you'd create more jobs by opening cycle hire facilities at key stations in the Highlands (someone taking the train from Glasgow to Oban and cycling back isn't spending much money in the Highlands).

Whatever the extra subsidy, it would be minimal compared to the subsidy to the Sleeper!

True - and whilst I think the "Lowland" sleeper will probably come to an end if/when HS2 comes, the need for rich people to have easy access to something to shoot in the West Highlands probably means we'll keep throwing subsidy at the Highland sleeper for many years more!

 

[InOban]

The people who bring their bikes to Oban are not in the market for a bike hire scheme. They're bringing their own bike, loaded with panniers etc for a cycle tour. Many get ferry to Barra and then cycle the length of the Western Isles.

 

[centraltrains]

Surely a large concern would be environmental emissions for a 153 which is just adding bike capacity?? I really don't think 153s can be that fuel efficient compared with the majority of other diesel stock used today on a per coach basis?

 

[AndrewE]

Surely a large concern would be environmental emissions for a 153 which is just adding bike capacity?? I really don't think 153s can be that fuel efficient compared with the majority of other diesel stock used today on a per coach basis?

...but when compared with people driving up from somewhere south (England - or even further south) with bikes on racks on top of their cars?
As I said, government's job is to take an overview, rather than allowing each company or even govt. department to ignore the adverse consequences of their own actions on the country as a whole.
I won't go into fuel consumption per Tonne, or per passenger km. If you want to encourage rail transport (hopefully fully electrified one day) then that is a different argument. 3-car trains with about the same power per car should be more fuel efficient than 2-cars if wind resistance is significant!

 

[NotATrainspott]

If it happens, it could be a good response to the call for temporary trial stations. While building cheap use-it-or-lose-it stations might not be feasible, the idea of tacking on a 153 would be really quite easy. You satisfy both pro-cycling and pro-public transport groups.

The 153s aren't going to last forever, and it seems the proposed work would be little more than locking a toilet out of use and removing some seats. It could just be an experiment for a summer season to see if people actually use it, maybe alongside a paid bike reservation scheme. If it works, then the 153s can be kept for next year. If it doesn't, they can just end up on the scrapheap like they would be otherwise. Remember that Transport Scotland paid for Abellio to experiment with steam experience services before you say a 153 bike carriage experiment won't ever happen for financial grounds.

The next ScotRail franchise holder will most likely be asked to replace the Sprinters with something different for rural services. The results of the experiment can feed into the requirements for this new rolling stock. If it's a massive success, then the new trains could be designed around carrying lots of bikes or anything other idea successfully tested out in the 153s. If the experiment is a failure, then they know not to bother.

 

[Agent_Squash]

lets get back to the real world, in todays capitalist, profit driven society this is never going to happen. in a world of re nationilsation where the opererator owns the asset and track yes would be great. but where everyone wants a slice of the cake it is a non starter.
if you want a joined up network for the benifit of the nation you have to do it through the ballot box

If you read the thread, this is a plan under active consideration with Government working with Abellio ScotRail. Please leave your political point scoring out of it.

 

[randyrippley]

Why waste a perfectly good 153? Better to split a Pacer and attach one coach to a 156 to make a hybrid 3-car unit. Also has the advantage of easier access for the bikes through the large bus doors

 

[route:oxford]

Is this not proof for nationaliation, transport for the people and the country not the fat cats

No it isn't.

It's just highlighting the focus on a relatively small number of cyclists without explaining how they are going to get their bikes to Weegieland in the first place.

That retired 153 would be far better off shuttling between Levenmouth and Kirkcaldy. If a 165 could manage the Bicester/Calvert freight line before it was upgraded, then a 153 is more than capable of running up and down to Levenmouth at 30mph - bringing better public transport to 30,000 people rather than a dozen cyclists a day for the 6-8 weeks that the season lasts.

 

[brel york]

If they are keen on cycling why not cycle ?

 

[brel york]

Don’t imagine fat cats are really bothered about the railway lol

 

[Henry Johnson]

Is this not proof for nationaliation, transport for the people and the country not the fat cats

Just a point that I feel should be reflected - The Railways Are Nationalised. They are owned and maintained by Network Rail, Which is, or was when I last looked, an arms length public body. What they do not do is the undertaking of Railway Services. That is done by private companies.

 

[jopsuk]

If they are keen on cycling why not cycle ?

do you even believe what you're saying?

Eg one popular ride is to get the earliest train to Corrour with a Mountain Bike, and ride to Fort William to get the train back. That's do-able as a day trip from Glasgow (and from the surrounding area, by driving to a station to catch the train). That's something that can't be done by car(!) and can't be done by riding the whole way from home (not as a daytrip).

There's many, many other reasons why one might want to travel up with a bike to go riding from places along the WHL but wouldn't want to ride to get there.

 

[Raul_Duke]

Is this not proof for nationaliation, transport for the people and the country not the fat cats

I look forward to taking my mandatory state issued bicycle on a 153 during the workers holiday after glorious comrade Corbyn smashes the bourgeoisie.

 

[InOban]

The problem is that operating in the interests of the whole nation is not the same as in the interests of those who use the trains, let alone the many different groups of people who operate them.