Class 153 updates.

[WesternLancer]

Is there much future for the 153 fleet now? are the moves to store to see if they have takers or to store them pending a planned new use?

I'm guessing Scotrail have the number of bike carriers they need for conversion already but I don't know that for sure.

 

[3973EXL]

STP 15/12
5Q94
Realtime Trains - FRGT 0916 Etches Park Sdgs to Long Marston

 

[yorksrob]

Frankly the railway has no business scraping anymore serviceable diesel rolling stock at this juncture.

 

[3973EXL]

STP 15/12
5Q94
Realtime Trains - FRGT 0916 Etches Park Sdgs to Long Marston

Dep 0911

 

[47444]

Dep 0911

STP 15/12
5Q94
Realtime Trains - FRGT 0916 Etches Park Sdgs to Long Marston

Which units are on this move - I assume it should be the four Angel 153s?

 

[Mariner16]

Which units are on this move - I assume it should be the four Angel 153s?

379 and 384

The other 4 are going to Ely Papworth next Tuesday at around 1000.

 

[3973EXL]

Which units are on this move - I assume it should be the four Angel 153s?

Which units are on this move - I assume it should be the four Angel 153s?

Long Marston is Porterbrook

 

[47444]

379 and 384

The other 4 are going to Ely Papworth next Tuesday at around 1000.

Long Marston is Porterbrook

Thanks - my mistake!

 

[warwickshire]

379 and 384

The other 4 are going to Ely Papworth next Tuesday at around 1000.

Confirmed 12 early approximately through bromsgrove. 153384 leading 153379 on rear.

 

[3973EXL]

STP 17/12

Realtime Trains - FRGT 1027 Newton Heath T.M.D. to Ely Mlf Papworth Sidings 5L47 dep 1014
Realtime Trains - FRGT 0936 Newton Heath T.M.D. to Long Marston Caped

 

[Bevan Price]

Very unusually, a trio of Class 153s worked 08:30 Manchester Airport to Holyhead today (15 December 2021).
153.323/982/926.

 

[WesternLancer]

Very unusually, a trio of Class 153s worked 08:30 Manchester Airport to Holyhead today (15 December 2021).
153.323/982/926.

Maybe someone thought airline passengers would find them spacious seating wise....

 

[Techniquest]

Very unusually, a trio of Class 153s worked 08:30 Manchester Airport to Holyhead today (15 December 2021).
153.323/982/926.

At one point yesterday morning the 1101 Swansea-Fishguard Harbour was showing on RTT as a trio of 153s. Certainly an unusual sight that would have made!

 

[craigybagel]

Very unusually, a trio of Class 153s worked 08:30 Manchester Airport to Holyhead today (15 December 2021).
153.323/982/926.

Even more unusual is that they stayed in the same diagram for most of the day - meaning they ended up on a Birmingham - Aberystwyth service, until the inevitable set swap at Shrewsbury.

 

[childwallblues]

Posted on North Wales Train News today by Jack Daw.
153910 and 153362 were on 0533 HHD-CDF (The WAG) this morning returning on 1W93 1122 CDF-HHD. At Chester 153327 was added. They were booked to return as 1V98 HHD-CDF. this is Class 67+Mk4 diagram. No breakfast today on there!

 

[Wyrleybart]

Frankly the railway has no business scrapping anymore serviceable diesel rolling stock at this juncture.

Who is "the railway" ?
There are probably at least one hundred constituent companies in the UK rail industry, many with their own vested interests. I am guessing the owners of these are Roscos who would obviously prefer to earn a profit from them for as long as possible. However thirty years old and non compliant as they stand due to PRM toilets etc. They need a lot of money spending to make them useable and TfW and Scotrail prove they can be made compliant.

Are they worth it ? I understand that the compliant toilet module has to go in the opposite end of the vehicle to the as built toilet, due to the below solebar CET tank. This means a reduction in the number of seats anyway, but also some serious internal bodywork, seating etc.

So from your "no business" statement, are you suggesting the Roscos shell out monthly siding rent to park these units up, for the sake of growing mushrooms in them ? Storing takes the form of cold storage or "warm" storage and involves regular moving of the vehicles to prevent brinelling of the axleboxes as well as maintaining pneumatic, hydraulic and electrical systems in stored order.

 

[WesternLancer]

Who is "the railway" ?
There are probably at least one hundred constituent companies in the UK rail industry, many with their own vested interests. I am guessing the owners of these are Roscos who would obviously prefer to earn a profit from them for as long as possible. However thirty years old and non compliant as they stand due to PRM toilets etc. They need a lot of money spending to make them useable and TfW and Scotrail prove they can be made compliant.

Are they worth it ? I understand that the compliant toilet module has to go in the opposite end of the vehicle to the as built toilet, due to the below solebar CET tank. This means a reduction in the number of seats anyway, but also some serious internal bodywork, seating etc.

So from your "no business" statement, are you suggesting the Roscos shell out monthly siding rent to park these units up, for the sake of growing mushrooms in them ? Storing takes the form of cold storage or "warm" storage and involves regular moving of the vehicles to prevent brinelling of the axleboxes as well as maintaining pneumatic, hydraulic and electrical systems in stored order.

well the answer to who the railway is, is the DfT - they decide what happens to everything (even tho they may pretend they don't). If they want to provide longer diesel trains they should decide it and then all the myriad companies go to work on the 153s if required. Otherwise they can go to scrap. The DfT just needs to be decisive.

 

[MML]

Does a disabled toilet actually need to be fitted?
The local buses which travel distances equivalent to most branch lines don't have any toilet fitted even though they are deemed accessible.
I'm sure no toilet is the answer. The discrimination legislation would rather there be no toilet, than a toilet which isn't accessible to a minority.
If these units were only used joined to a PRM compatible 156 or 150, then surely they would require minimal expenditure as the PRM customer would travel in the designated area in the other vehicle.
This government could reduce overcrowding by allowing 153s to only operate when joined to a PRM compliant unit. DfT need to realise the majority of customers want a seat. Only a minority require a disabled toilet.

 

[43102EMR]

Does a disabled toilet actually need to be fitted?
The local buses which travel distances equivalent to most branch lines don't have any toilet fitted even though they are deemed accessible.
I'm sure no toilet is the answer. The discrimination legislation would rather there be no toilet, than a toilet which isn't accessible to a minority.
If these units were only used joined to a PRM compatible 156 or 150, then surely they would require minimal expenditure as the PRM customer would travel in the designated area in the other vehicle.
This government could reduce overcrowding by allowing 153s to only operate when joined to a PRM compliant unit. DfT need to realise the majority of customers want a seat. Only a minority require a disabled toilet.

That’s the same situation with the 466s - for some reason or another, SE never fitted them with an accessible toilet (my guess is due to it taking up a lot of space), and they’ve been granted usage in passenger service provided they’re tagged to a 465. The same thing’s happened with the SR 153s - old toilet still present given their use as a bike storage carriage with a 156 on the WHL.

 

[Starmill]

Does a disabled toilet actually need to be fitted?
The local buses which travel distances equivalent to most branch lines don't have any toilet fitted even though they are deemed accessible.
I'm sure no toilet is the answer. The discrimination legislation would rather there be no toilet, than a toilet which isn't accessible to a minority.
If these units were only used joined to a PRM compatible 156 or 150, then surely they would require minimal expenditure as the PRM customer would travel in the designated area in the other vehicle.
This government could reduce overcrowding by allowing 153s to only operate when joined to a PRM compliant unit. DfT need to realise the majority of customers want a seat. Only a minority require a disabled toilet.

This is already permitted. Transport for Wales have toilets permanently locked out of use now on some units and they run around coupled to others with an accessible facility.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Does a disabled toilet actually need to be fitted?
The local buses which travel distances equivalent to most branch lines don't have any toilet fitted even though they are deemed accessible.
I'm sure no toilet is the answer. The discrimination legislation would rather there be no toilet, than a toilet which isn't accessible to a minority.
If these units were only used joined to a PRM compatible 156 or 150, then surely they would require minimal expenditure as the PRM customer would travel in the designated area in the other vehicle.
This government could reduce overcrowding by allowing 153s to only operate when joined to a PRM compliant unit. DfT need to realise the majority of customers want a seat. Only a minority require a disabled toilet.

Thing is, there's a vocal minority that get very upset if you suggest operating toiletless trains in places where there were toilets previously. Even if the alternative is a bus which as you say is highly unlikely to have a toilet of any sort.
For the most part I agree that provision of toilets on local trains is probably a luxury we could do without, if only such facilities were reliably provided at most or all stations.

 

[yorksrob]

Who is "the railway" ?
There are probably at least one hundred constituent companies in the UK rail industry, many with their own vested interests. I am guessing the owners of these are Roscos who would obviously prefer to earn a profit from them for as long as possible. However thirty years old and non compliant as they stand due to PRM toilets etc. They need a lot of money spending to make them useable and TfW and Scotrail prove they can be made compliant.

Are they worth it ? I understand that the compliant toilet module has to go in the opposite end of the vehicle to the as built toilet, due to the below solebar CET tank. This means a reduction in the number of seats anyway, but also some serious internal bodywork, seating etc.

So from your "no business" statement, are you suggesting the Roscos shell out monthly siding rent to park these units up, for the sake of growing mushrooms in them ? Storing takes the form of cold storage or "warm" storage and involves regular moving of the vehicles to prevent brinelling of the axleboxes as well as maintaining pneumatic, hydraulic and electrical systems in stored order.

"The railway" is the railway industry. It's not my concern that it's been fragmented into a hundred pieces.

As for the 153's, as I've said, I think Northern in particular and possibly others, have an over-reliance on 2 carriage units which will degrade the quality of service when covid is under control. The 153's should be given the basic PRM mods and integrated with some of these to provide capacity. I daresay the ROSCO's aren't keen on storing things, but it shouldn't be their choice, frankly.

 

[Neptune]

"The railway" is the railway industry. It's not my concern that it's been fragmented into a hundred pieces.

As for the 153's, as I've said, I think Northern in particular and possibly others, have an over-reliance on 2 carriage units which will degrade the quality of service when covid is under control. The 153's should be given the basic PRM mods and integrated with some of these to provide capacity. I daresay the ROSCO's aren't keen on storing things, but it shouldn't be their choice, frankly.

The problem is that it is fragmented and this is the situation we’re in.

FWIW I agree that 153’s with at least PRM lite mods would be very useful across the northern network to strengthen services where required, especially services where 2 cars is not enough and 4 cars is overkill.

Remember thought that Northern is having a net increase in coaches as 156’s are being brought in from EMR to replace the 153’s. The knock on effect is that some routes will see an increase in 4 car trains such as Leeds - Wigan.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To be fair to "the railway", I can see the argument that if a service only justifies a 153, it probably only justifies a bus rather than a train. I don't necessarily agree, but I can see the argument.

153s are horrible to travel on though. As an enthusiast I did make a point of riding in the 153 the last few times I boarded a formation that included one, but as a passenger I'm glad to (mostly) see the back of them.

 

[craigybagel]

153s are horrible to travel on though. As an enthusiast I did make a point of riding in the 153 the last few times I boarded a formation that included one, but as a passenger I'm glad to (mostly) see the back of them.

Not that these things should have any bearing on things - and traincrew are paid well enough to put up with some discomforts - but for what it's worth they're even more unpleasant to drive.

 

[WesternLancer]

Not that these things should have any bearing on things - and traincrew are paid well enough to put up with some discomforts - but for what it's worth they're even more unpleasant to drive.

are both cabs bad? I've read one was v cramped. Obv in a long term strengthening scenario you would not have that as the driving cab if the other is better. Then remove the existing lav and improve saloon seating space.

 

[175001]

The small end was better than the large end. Fact!

 

[Neptune]

Small end has more knee room.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is that it is fragmented and this is the situation we’re in.

FWIW I agree that 153’s with at least PRM lite mods would be very useful across the northern network to strengthen services where required, especially services where 2 cars is not enough and 4 cars is overkill.

Remember thought that Northern is having a net increase in coaches as 156’s are being brought in from EMR to replace the 153’s. The knock on effect is that some routes will see an increase in 4 car trains such as Leeds - Wigan.

It's a fair point that getting 156's in the near future will alleviate some issues. With that in mind, the 153's should be in place at least until these are received.

I do feel they ought to be at least stored for future growth. Afterall, lots of carriages and units have been stored in the past. Why not these, particularly given that diesel unit stock is only going to get harder to come by.

To be fair to "the railway", I can see the argument that if a service only justifies a 153, it probably only justifies a bus rather than a train. I don't necessarily agree, but I can see the argument.

153s are horrible to travel on though. As an enthusiast I did make a point of riding in the 153 the last few times I boarded a formation that included one, but as a passenger I'm glad to (mostly) see the back of them.

A 153 in a 3 carriage busy train is still preferable to a ram packed two carriage one.

On the subject of comfort, 153 airline seats are a tight squeeze, but still preferable to the middle airline seat on a 150, which have been retained.

 

[craigybagel]

are both cabs bad? I've read one was v cramped. Obv in a long term strengthening scenario you would not have that as the driving cab if the other is better. Then remove the existing lav and improve saloon seating space.

The small end was better than the large end. Fact!

Small end has more knee room.

As a taller man I too prefer the small cab for the greater knee space, though my smaller colleagues seem to prefer the larger cab as it's less cramped overall. In both cabs I find that the DSD pedal is too high up as well, meaning your feet don't rest at a natural angle.

It's not just cab comfort that's the issue though, their actual performance makes them miserable to drive. The brakes take a long time to fully release, making a smooth stop very difficult and it takes forever to get going again. And that's before you take into account all the extra weight they have over other Sprinters despite using the same engine, meaning that even when the brakes do finally release you're not going anywhere very fast.

I can just about keep to time almost anywhere with a 150 running on 158 timings. Give me 153s instead, and despite having the same basic engine and top speed, i haven't a hope of keeping time.